REVELATION 1:2, PART 10
Had God designed to reveal His mind to all men alike, He would have written in the common language of men, but the design is, not to speak to all men alike, but to such as are ‘servants of Christ'
and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. (New American Standard Bible - NASB)
We’re starting back in the 19th century again, but we will get to the 20th century today before we’re done:
“His Angel. Christ sent and made known the Revelation to John by ‘His angel.’ A particular angel seems to be brought to view here. What angel could appropriately be called Christ's angel? We found an answer to this question in our study, as will be seen in the comments on Daniel 10: 21.
However, I will tell you what is recorded in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince. (Daniel 10:21; NASB)
And in his place a despicable person will arise, on whom the majesty of the kingship has not been conferred; but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue. (Daniel 11:21; NASB)
“From that study we concluded that the truths to be revealed to Daniel were committed exclusively to Christ, and to an angel whose name was Gabriel. Similar to the work of communicating important truth to the ‘beloved prophet’ is the work of Christ in the book of the Revelation transmitting important truth to the ‘beloved disciple.’ Who in this work can be His angel but the one who was engaged with Daniel in the former work of prophecy, that is, the angel Gabriel? It would also seem most appropriate that the same angel who was employed to carry messages to the ‘beloved’ prophet of ancient times, should perform the same office for the prophet John in the gospel age.” [from DANIEL AND THE REVELATION, by Uriah Smith, ~1882]
This is an interesting idea, but I don’t really buy it. First of all, I think it’s too big a leap to assume that “the truths to be revealed to Daniel were committed exclusively to Christ, and to an angel…Gabriel.” We really have no way of knowing if this was “exclusive” knowledge or not; and would that really matter?
Next, an angel is a messenger; a messenger is given a message to bring to the receiver. I’m pretty sure that Gabriel is not meant to be seen as the only messenger of God. Gabriel is not omnipresent, which could severely limit God’s message output. But more than that, there are numerous mentions of unnamed angels in the Bible; we are told their names when God wants us to know their names. I tend to think that if God doesn’t tell us something it’s either A) because He doesn’t want us to know, or B) because it’s not necessary for us to know.
Lastly, Smith asks which other angel would be more appropriate for this assignment. I’m sorry, but we don’t get to determine assignments in heaven, and we certainly don’t have access to the work roster to know who would be appropriate for any given task. God rarely seems to do things in the “most appropriate” ways by our standards, which may explain why we don’t get to have a lot to do with it.
“—The words through his angel are to be connected with sent (comp. chap. xxii. 6); and the word signified must be allowed to stand in all its own absolute solemnity and force.”
And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. (Revelation 22:6; NASB)
This is really stating the obvious.
“It is by no means improbable that in this latter word there is special reference to ‘signs,’ to the figures which need to be interpreted. The word may indicate not only prophetic intimation (John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; Acts xi. 28), but the manner in which such intimation was usual among the prophets (see especially Ezekiel and Zechariah), that is, by ‘signs,’ significant acts, and parabolic words.”
32And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself. 33Now He was saying this to indicate what kind of death He was going to die. (John 12:32,33; NASB)
This happened so that the word of Jesus which He said, indicating what kind of death He was going to die, would be fulfilled. (John 18:32; NASB)
Now He said this, indicating by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had said this, He said to him, “Follow Me!” (John 21:19; NASB)
One of them, named Agabus, stood up and indicated by the Spirit that there would definitely be a severe famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. (Acts 11:28; NASB)
Again, pretty obvious.
“Thus our Lord, by speaking of ‘being lifted on high’ as the brazen serpent was lifted on high, ‘signified’ by what manner of death He should die (John xii. 33). On the only occasion in which the word is found in the N.T. in a more ordinary sense, it is employed by a heathen (Acts xxv. 27).
For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him as well.” (Acts 25:27; NASB)
Is the author implying that a heathen would use the word “signify” differently than a Christian? I would think not. If you look back at the passage we are investigating you will see that the very literal NASB translated the word as “communicated,” which is closer to “indicate” than to “signify.” And yet, these can all mean the same thing.
“—That St. John names himself here, while in his Gospel he only discovers himself to those who can read his name through the symbols in which he speaks, is easily explained. We are dealing with prophecy, and prophecy requires the guarantee of the individual who is inspired to utter it.”
This I can agree with. Yes, the person who reports receiving a prophecy has to be reliable if he expects others to believe him.
“The source of the revelation has been declared, and is now followed by a description of the spirit in which the revelation itself was received and communicated to the Church.”
I don’t agree that “a description of the spirit in which the revelation itself was received…” is what follows. What “follows” is a description of what John will be reporting on: “to His bond-servant John, 2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw.” Is the Holy Spirit involved? Of course. But this short list of what will be reported on does not “describe” the Holy Spirit at all.
“Individually St. John is nothing: he is only a witness to the Divine, to the word of God, and to the testimony given by Jesus Christ ‘the Faithful Witness’.”
I do agree with this: John is only a witness.
“For ‘and’ in the last clause of the verse, as it is read in the Authorized Version, we must substitute ‘even;’ the clause all things that he saw being only a description from another point of view of the things contained in ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ “
Many of these commentators have made a big deal of this “and.” I really don’t see the big problem here. To me, by adding the “and all things that he saw” just indicates that the testimony he will be reporting on was received as visions rather than in an audio format.
“The verse as a whole is thus to be understood of the revelation of this book. It has indeed been urged that the writer could not in the preamble speak of the contents of the book as past. But he does so in ver. 3, in which the whole prophecy is supposed to have been already uttered. Here, in like manner, he places himself at the end of this visions, and speaks of them as things that he has already ‘seen.’ Nor is the verse, when looked at in this light, only a repetition of ver. 1, for the emphasis lies upon ‘bare witness,’ upon the attitude of the Seer rather than upon the things see. Add to all this that the verb ‘saw’ is constantly used throughout the book in the technical sense of beholding visions.” [from THE INTERNATIONAL ILLUSTRATED COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT IN FOUR VOLUMES, VOL 4, by Philip Schaff, 1883]
Again, arguing about the semantics of tense. Not really what’s important here. People rarely write in the present tense. Think about it…most of what is written is read well after the event described…so the reader is always looking at it in the past tense.
“he sent] ‘He’ may be either ‘God’ as in xxii.6, or ‘Jesus Christ,’ as ibid. 16. It seems best to take it of the latter: the sense will be, ‘He, having received the Revelation from the Father, sent by His angel, and indicated it to His servant John.’ The angel is the same who is mentioned in xvii. 1, etc., xix.9, xxi. 9, xxii. 6,8,16.
6And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show His bond-servants the things which must soon take place…8I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things…16I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you of these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” (Revelation 22:6,16; NASB)
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying “Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters (Revelation 17:1; NASB)
Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9; NASB)
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, full of the seven last plagues, came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:9; NASB)
“2. who bare record] i.e. who bears witness in the present work. The past tense is used, as constantly in Greek — e.g. in St John’s own Epistle, I. ii. 14 — of the act of a writer which will be past when his work comes to be read. The ‘witness’ John is said to bear is that contained in this Book — not, as some have imagined, in his Gospel.”
I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God remains in you, and you have overcome the evil one. (1 John 2:14; NASB)
It’s so nice to find a commentator who agrees with me.
“There is, however, some evidence to the identity of authorship of the two, in the resemblance between the attestations to the authority of this Book in these three verses, and to that of the Gospel in xxi. 24. The two may be presumed to proceed from the same persons, probably the elders of the Church of Ephesus.”
23Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” 24This is the disciple who is testifying about these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:23,24; NASB)
Oops. Spoke too soon. The author agrees that the Gospel and the Revelation have some similarities indicating the same author…but he concludes that they weren’t written by John the Apostle. John 21:24 sounds like it was added by someone later perhaps; but it could easily have been the Apostle writing about himself in the third person.
“the word of God] His word made known to man, especially as revealed to St. John himself; not the personal Word of God of St John’s Gospel i.1 and Rev. xix. 13, as He is immediately mentioned under another name.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1; NASB)
He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13; NASB)
I don’t really see the distinction between the Word of God and the personal Word of God. And, I have no idea what the author is referring to when he says: “as He is immediately mentioned under another name.” What other name? Where?
“the testimony of Jesus Christ] See xxii.16 [see above] for a similar description of the special Revelation of this book. Both ‘the word’ and ‘the testimony’ are repeated in v. 9 where they refer to the general Revelation of Christian truth for which the Seer was in exile.” [from THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES: THE REVELATION OF S. JOHN THE DIVINE WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION, by William Henry Simcox, 1883]
9I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 1:9; NASB)
It took some figuring to come up with this Bible verse. The author just referred to “v.9,” no chapter. At first I went with convention and looked at Chapter 22, that being the last chapter referred to before this reference. But, that was definitely not right. Finally it hit me that he was probably still talking about the first chapter…and that one looked right.
“And he sent and signified it by his angel. An angelus interpres, "interpreting angel," is supposed by some to be meant. Of this we have more to say further on. —Unto his servant John. He here indicates himself by the phrase so often used by his fellow-apostles, ‘the servant of Jesus Christ’ (to doulo Iisou Xristou).
2. Who bare record of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that [lit. as many things as] he saw. The rendering in the revised version gives a true sense, although less literal than the one in brackets, above. Stuart labors quite unnecessarily to so connect the clauses as to make it appear that the reference throughout this second verse is to former writings of this apostle, and thus to find in the words additional proof that the writer of the Apocalypse was the same as the writer of the Fourth Gospel. Alford very justly argues that the words ‘as many things as he saw,’ cannot be understood of the contents of the Gospel; for John there expressly says that he wrote only a small part of the things of which he had knowledge, as connected with the life and teachings of the Lord.” [from COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION, by Justin A. Smith, 1884]
A simple and well-balanced commentary, at least for this phrase.
“The angel mentioned probably did no more than cause these visions to pass before the Seer. It is remarkable, however, that he does not appear to do this until chap xvii. Compare Dan. viii. 16, and x. 10.
And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.” (Daniel 8:16; NASB)
Then behold, a hand touched me and shook me on my hands and knees. (Daniel 10:10; NASB)
As an aside, I mentioned earlier a friend whose son had cardiac arrest and met Jesus. This second verse from Daniel could have been written by this man. He reports falling to his hands and knees before Jesus, who then asked him if he were forgiven, the man said “yes,” and then Jesus put his hand on him and said “Then feel it!” The man describes a shock that went through his entire body…and totally changed his life. His mother and I can attest to the total change in him.
“The proof that the John who saw and records the visions was the Evangelist of that name is conclusive. And the instrument was “worthy”; none of all the twelve so near to Christ as John, and they who live nearest to Christ learn most about Him. St. John’s gospel and epistle are emphatically the ‘record of the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ;’ he now concludes the two, which are one.” [from THE GREAT DAY: NOTES AND COMMENTS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by T. Graham, 1884]
Graham is a fairly unknown commentator from the 19th century, yet I think he is on the money. At least so far. He’s somewhat poetic, yet clear and informative.
“Such is the general character of that revelation which Jesus Christ sent and signified through His angel unto His servant John. And that Apostle faithfully recorded it for the instruction and comfort of the Church. Like his Divine Master, with whom throughout all this book believers are so closely identified, and who is Himself the Amen, the faithful and true witness [Rev. 3:14], the disciple whom He loved stands forth to bear witness of the word of God thus given him, of the testimony of Jesus thus signified to him, even of all things that he saw. He places himself in thought at the end of the visions he had witnessed, and re-traces for others the elevating pictures which had filled, as he beheld them, his own soul with rapture.” [from THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN, by William Milligan, 1886]
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Origin of the creation of God, says this: (Revelation 3:14; NASB)
Milligan, somewhat better known than Graham, is very poetic. He doesn’t say anything terribly wrong, but then, he doesn’t really say a lot.
“‘Signified,' that is, made known by signs or symbols. Under the Mosaic economy instruction was given by means of TYPES, the prophets largely employed figurative language, and the Lord Jesus taught by PARABLE. The language of this book is a language of symbols, and the objects shown are symbolic; but when the symbols are interpreted, it is in plain literal language.
“Verse2. ‘Who bare record of [testified] the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.’ The threefold testimony—from God, through Christ, and by the visions shown by the angel.” [from NOTES ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Thomas Newbury, 1892]
Hmmm. The main thrust of this quote seems to be: “it’s hard to understand all this symbology.” At least Newbury notes that “when the symbols are interpreted, it is in plain literal language.,” though it’s a very small consolation.
Now we arrive in the 20th century:
“That this revelation, which God gave to Jesus Christ, was in order to the showing of it unto His servants, is expressly affirmed. It is revealed, therefore, in language which only His servants can read. If the book be put aside on the ground of its obscurity and depth, the straitness, we may be assured, is not with God. For anyone to say it is written in language beyond the possibility of interpretation, is to bear witness against himself, as not being true to the character of those to whom the revelation is made.”
This is interesting. At first read, it sounds like the author is saying that those from the first century understood the language while the more modern people have difficulty. But that’s not exactly what he says. He says “only His servants can read” it. Perhaps he should have added: “only His servants who are in need of this information can read it.” There are parts of Revelation that any Christian from any time period can understand quite easily…the information is widely needed and useable. There are other parts that are perplexing, and especially so for those of the past, including the first century, and are commonly seen as “symbolic.” Some of these parts are starting to come through more clearly and more literally in our day and age…when they will be of much more use.
“Nor can responsibility be evaded on the ground of any apparent difficulty. ‘If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his’ (Rom. 8:9).
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:9; NASB)
“Having the Spirit of Christ implies having the key to the meaning of all Scripture. ‘As it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God’ (1 Cor. 2:9-10) Without this help of the Holy Spirit, any attempt to search out the deep things of God must end in total failure.
9but just as it is written: “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the human heart, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.” 10For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (Romans 2:9,10; NASB)
“There is need, first of all, that our own hearts be searched in order to determine whether we are really ‘men of God,’ and ‘servants of Christ.’ If we are, then this book comes as a revelation to us, and we must not charge God with the folly of giving a revelation in language and terms impossible to unravel.
“These things are sent and signified by an angel to John. It is a book of visions, but not merely of dreams.
“The important thing to be considered is not the signs, but the things signified. That the visions come thus in signs and symbols is an indication in itself that they are intended for a special class. Had God designed to reveal His mind to all men alike, He would have written in the common language of men, but the design is, not to speak to all men alike, but to such as are ‘servants of Christ,’ and for the blessed purpose of furnishing the man of God ‘unto all good works.’
“If these things seem to us mysterious, with heavy veils before them, we are yet encouraged to look into them with all confidence and discover what we can of the will of God. The least discovery of this must, of necessity, be glory.” [from THE UNFOLDING OF THE AGES IN THE REVELATION OF JOHN, by Ford C. Ottman, 1905]
I really like this quote. The Bible was not meant to be obscure, yet it was also not meant to be totally understood and taken in with the first, second, or 150th read. We keep going back to it because our understanding grows and deepens with each read…partly because each time we come back we are that much more experienced, but mostly, I think, because our needs are different each time we open the book. God finds us there in the Word and gives us the understanding that we need for the issues that we are facing.
That’s enough for today, and a great and uplifting place to stop. We’ve gotten our toes into the 20th century, next time we will dive in all the way.