REVELATION 1:2, PART 14

...even in the superscription we can see that the book itself is very far from being a work of empty and fantastic eschatological speculation.

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)

Here we are in the mid-twentieth century:

“…here are the three witnesses by whom ‘every word shall be established’: the Word of God; the testimony of Jesus; all things that John saw. With some 500 allusions and quotations this book rests its claims upon the Word of God; it is filled with the personal testimony of Jesus our Lord; it is from start to finish the recordings of what was seen and heard by the most trustworthy eye-witness.” [from THE END: RE-THINKING THE REVELATION, by Norman B. Harrison, 1941]

An interesting way of stating it, and quite true…though I’m not sure about the “500 allusions and quotations.” Did Harrison count them?

“It was only to be expected that John, using the method of a long apocalyptic tradition, familiar alike to Jew and Christian of his time, should also use traditional language and images. But though John speaks the same tongue as his predecessors, he sees with new eyes: he is an original spirit, vividly conscious of prophetic insight, aflame with desire to bring his interpretation of things to his fellow-Christians: he testified to what he saw.”

First of all, I don’t agree that John is using an apocalyptic “form.” The Jewish and early Christian “apocalypses” were clearly distinct from Revelation as we’ve discussed in past posts. And, while John was indeed testifying “to what he saw,” it was not his “original spirit,” “prophetic insight,” his “desire,” or his “interpretation” that produced the message: it was Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

“For it is Jesus Christ’s testimony about God’s word which John claims to be reporting in his book.”

“Claims to be reporting”? The author is not coming across as a believer with this statement.

“To John, as to all writers in the apocalyptic tradition, God dwelt far removed from men in unapproachable majesty. The angels who warned in previous revelation, and the prophets to whom they spoke precious words of reassurance and illumination, were the only intermediaries between the ordinary man and his remote God.”

God had just come down to earth and been born as a man; and then had died and brought Himself back to life, as He said He would do; and John had witnessed all this, including seeing Him rise into Heaven. How does that make God “removed from men,” “unapproachable,” and “remote” to John, or to anyone else ever again?

“The angelic ambassadors and interpreters in John’s book still bear witness to this feeling of need for intermediaries; when they speak, however, it is always the voice of Christ which is being echoed.”

Jesus is our Intermediary!! The angels are messengers only. An Intermediary is someone who acts as a go-between for us with God, and that’s Jesus Christ: We have no need of any other.

“Accordingly, though John says that this revelation has been sent from God through his angel, he soon has direct vision of heaven’s secrets, and Christ, the first-born from the dead, takes the place of the angel.”

The very first heavenly being that John encounters is Jesus Christ, not an angel. Angels provide some interpretation, but mostly just point things out to John.

“John assumes that Christ’s revelation of God’s purposes by no means ceased with the Death and Resurrection. These were, it is true, the supreme events, upon which the whole structure of his faith was founded; it is hardly too much to say that for John those events were the gospel.”

“John assumes”? Christ stands in front of John and speaks to him, yet “John assumes”? And what is meant by: “it is hardly too much to say that for John those events were the gospel”? Christ’s birth, death for our sins, and Resurrection (overcoming of death) basically are the Gospel, and not some small “g(ospel)” belief. It’s hard to know yet what this author believes, but it doesn’t seem to be Christianity as I know it.

“But it was equally true that the risen Christ still spoke to His servants, and that His words had the validity of the Gospel itself. This conviction makes John refer to the content of his own book, to which he now testifies, as God’s word and Jesus Christ’s testimony. He uses this identical term to denote the original gospel tradition, for adhering to which he was banished to Patmos.” [from THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN, by Martin Kiddle, 1946]

Again, it wasn’t John’s belief or “conviction” that makes Revelation “God’s word and Jesus Christ’s testimony.” It just is; and a Christian knows that.

“It is odd that John hears Christ’s messages through the help of an angel, and not direct. Angels in this sense of the word developed in later Jewish thought, especially apocalyptic, when God was thought to be unapproachable in his majesty and therefore intermediary spirits were necessary.”

Didn’t we just read these words: “God…unapproachable in his majesty…intermediary spirits were necessary” a few minutes ago?

But where did this author get the idea that “angels…developed in later Jewish thought”? To what “sense of the word” is the author referring? The “Angel of the Lord” appears to Hagar in Genesis 16:7, and while this may be a Christophany, the message delivered certainly seems to come from God. Is that a different “sense of the word”? In Job 38:7 God says “When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy”; the “sons of God” is another name for angels…in this case, the angels that were around when God created the earth. Do Genesis and Job translate as “later Jewish thought”? Or is the author referring to some difference in behavior by the angels? And what about the angels in Daniel? Is that “later Jewish thought”?

The author seems to be saying that the angels in that “sense of the word” were especially developed in apocalyptic literature. While it may be true that the concept of angels was explored more fully in apocalyptic literature, 1) most apocalyptic literature is not considered scriptural, and 2) the angels in Revelation seem to me to fit in just fine with all the other angels spoken of in both the Old and New Testament.

At least the author speaks of the “unapproachableness” of God as something in the past…i.e. before Christ.

“The Christian faith is that he himself approached man in Jesus Christ. Or it may be, as Loenertz suggests, that this is another instance of John applying to Christ attributes of Yahweh. Jesus sent his angel as Yahweh in many O.T. narratives sent his, e.g. Gen. 16.7. However, John soon makes clear that the risen Christ himself appears to his servants, and there is no doubt throughout that it is Christ’s revelation of God’s purposes which John sees.” [from THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN THE DIVINE, by Ronald H. Preston, 1949]

I am very unclear if the “he himself” refers to John or God. Preston is not using capital h’s in referring to deity, so it’s very difficult to tell.

Perhaps it was a mid-century thing to distance oneself from the faith when writing about it, but Preston does seems to be writing about it from the outside looking in, like Kiddle.

The mention of Loenertz is confusing…the only person of that name I can find is Raymond-Joseph Loenertz (1900-1976), who, according to Wikipedia, was a medievalist from Luxembourg. He was a Dominican monk who wrote about the history of the Dominican Order and the “relations between the Byzantine empire and the Latin West,” as well as publishing some letters of some earlier theologians. Hardly seems like someone who would comment “that this is another instance of John applying to Christ attributes of Yahweh.” Why would someone like Loenertz want to go out of his way to write such an unChristian, churlish thing?

“The revelation was ‘signified’ by Christ through his angel to his servant John. The word translated ‘signified’ means to show by signs. Thus we are introduced to the nature of the the book. It is a revelation (unveiling) of God’s message through signs (symbols). This must be kept in mind and followed if the truth of the book is to be known. Its message comes not through literal understanding of its words but through the interpretation of the symbols. It is a divine picture book.” [from WORTHY IS THE LAMB, by Ray Summers, 1951]

Sorry, can’t go along with this one either.

“The mention of John is so brief that it is striking. This brevity makes it difficult to believe that the author is using some great name of the past as his nom de plume, as writers of apocalypses were wont to do. As a rule these writers are more verbose and artificial…”

Finally, someone with some common sense.

“The second fundamental idea in the superscription [the first is that God is the author of the book] is that of the ‘testimony of Jesus Christ.’ The Apocalypse is that part of the Holy Scripture in which the original meaning of the word ‘witness’ or ‘testimony’ begins to expand before our very eyes, and to express the idea of martyrdom. The ‘witness’ in word becomes the ‘witness’ in blood, just as Jesus Christ is himself the ‘faithful witness’ par excellence sealed with his own blood. The great biblical line which began with the proclamation of the ‘Servant of the Lord’ by Second Isaiah, is here carried to its conclusion. The Second Isaiah created the martyr-theology of the Bible (cf. Isa. 43:9,12), just as the Johannine writings have created the ecclesiastical conception of the ‘martyr’…

⁹All the nations have gathered together so that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this and proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses so that they may be justified, or let them hear and say, “It is true.” ¹⁰”You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me. ¹¹I, only I, am the LORD, and there is no savior besides Me. ¹²It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; so you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And I am God. (Isaiah 43:9-12; NASB)

The idea of “witness” including “martyrdom” is inherent in the Greek word for “witness” as we saw in an earlier post. This author does not pull the Greek into the argument though. The author tries to prove his point through “Second Isaiah,” without explaining what that means. A quick look at “Book of Isaiah” in Wikipedia explains that “few scholars today attribute the entire book, or even most of it, to one person,” and that while the idea of 2 different writers was brought up in the 18th century, the 20th century brought the concept that Isaiah is made up of 3 separate “oracles,” which greatly diminishes the prophetic aspect of the book. So “Proto-Isaiah” is chapters 1-39, written in the 8th century BC by Isaiah; “Deutero-Isaiah,” or “Second Isaiah,” is chapters 40-55, and was written by an anonymous 6th century BC author during the Exile; and “Trito-Isaiah” is chapters 56-66, and was written by another anonymous writer from after the return from Exile. Wikipedia, after making anyone who thinks the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah sound out of date, makes a quiet statement: “the book’s essential unity has become a focus in more recent research.” In other words, people are starting to push back on the “3 oracles” theory.

Back to our quote: maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see how Isaiah 43 has anything to do with martyrdom. The NASB subheadings for Isaiah 43 are: “Israel Redeemed” (“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!” with no hint of martyrdom), “Israel Is God’s Witness,” “Babylon to Be Destroyed,” and “The Shortcomings of Israel.” Sure doesn’t sound like an establishment of “martyr theology” to me.

“Now the fact that the ‘testimony of Jesus Christ’ is mentioned here at the very beginning of the book suggests the two-fold significance of the phrase in this book as a whole: on the one hand it gathers up the historical result of the work of the incarnate Lord; on the other hand, it makes it clear that to ‘follow’ Christ involves ‘bearing witness’ to the point of martyrdom. Through this twofold conception that the divine revelation concerning the end is understood only as the fulfillment of the ‘testimony of Jesus Christ,’ and that, at the same time, the personal challenge to Christian martyrdom is always emphasized, shows that even in the superscription we can see that the book itself is very far from being a work of empty and fantastic eschatological speculation.”

While I can agree with the author’s conclusions, he still is not coming to those conclusions in a logical manner. Even Revelation yields to a certain amount of logic. So, to just say that the “testimony of Jesus Christ…involves ‘bearing witness’ to the point of martyrdom” without first taking us through the meaning of the Greek word for “witness” or “testimony”divorces the author’s conclusions from the only possible argument.

“This emphasis on ‘witness bearing’ in the whole book is closely connected with the fact that in these first two verses the word ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ is used twice. This has a two-fold significance. First of all, it signifies the prophet; John stands in the succession of the Old Testament witnesses to God. We shall meet this high sense of his vocation frequently in this book. But behind this prophetic meaning of the word ‘servant’ or ‘slave,’ there is also the original meaning of the word which we must not forget. The slave obeys. Christian ‘witness bearing’ involves obedience to Christ. Only the obedient ‘servant’ who is prepared to follow Christ, will be able to understand this ‘revelation.’” [from THE LAST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, by Hanns Lilje, 1957]

This is a bit off. I agree very much with Lilje’s take on obedience. But, in looking at Old Testament references to “servants” of God, it appears that all of the people of Israel were considered God’s servants, for example:

Nevertheless, turn Your attention to the prayer of Your servant and to his plea, LORD, my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You today (1 Kings 8:28; NASB) [This was Solomon’s prayer; he was not a prophet…]

¹²⁴Deal with Your servant according to Your graciousness, and teach me Your statutes. ¹²⁵I am Your servant; give me understanding, so that I may know Your testimonies. (Psalm 119:124,125; NASB) [Many of the Psalms have statements like these; a lot of David’s psalms do, though this is not a psalm of David. While David did prophesy, he was not considered “a prophet.”]

For the LORD will judge His people and will have compassion on His servants. (Psalm 135:14; NASB) [Another non-Davidic psalm]

“The method of imparting this knowledge is stated in two words, ‘sent,’ and ‘signified.’ A better translation is provided by the RSV: ‘…he made it known by sending…’ ‘Made known,’ or ‘signified,’ is the more important term. It is used three times in the Gospel of John concerning Jesus’ death, ‘signifying by what manner of death he should die’ (12:33, 18:32, 21:19). In each of these instances the word is somewhat obscure and figurative. The verb means ‘to indicate,’ or ‘to signify.’ It was used as a technical term for the response of an oracle, which usually gave its answer to an inquirer in symbolic or enigmatic language. In acts 11:28 ‘signify’ is connected with the predictive prophecy of Agabus. It can be interpreted as ‘sign-i-fy,” or to convey truth by signs and symbols. Such an interpretation fits Revelation aptly since it is largely written in ‘signs.’”

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)

As we can see, “indicated” works fully as well as “signify” and doesn’t have sign in it. And again, Revelation isn’t “largely written in ‘signs.’”

“These ‘signs’ were mediated through the seer, John, described by the phrase ‘who bare witness’ (Rev. 1:2). The language is reminiscent of the Fourth Gospel, where the word ‘witness’ is used of seven different attestations of the person of Christ. The last of these, mentioned in John 15:27, says: ‘…and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.’ It was Jesus’ acknowledgment of the testimony of His own disciples as valid accreditation of His person and work. The seer of Revelation belongs to the succession of the witness, and the use of the past tense of the verb here intimates that he was selected for this function because he had already borne witness. Perhaps by this time the word had begun to gain the significance of ‘suffer for,’ since witness for Christ frequently involved suffering. The Greek word ‘witness’ has become our English word, ‘martyr.’”

The past tense is used as a convention in English. The Greek is probably in the aorist tense which refers to actions of the present, past, and future…which is rather how we use the past tense when writing in English.

I’m glad that this author is referring to the Greek, though actually using the word martyrian would have more impact in my opinion.

“The objects of the witness are stated as ‘the word of God,’ ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ and ‘all things that he saw.’ If, as seems likely, the third phrase is appositive with and includes the first two, it means that the new witness which this revelation contains came to him through the succession of visions which it records, and that those visions were ‘the word of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ.’

“The two phrases have connotations that go back both to the Old Testament and to the life of Christ. ‘Word of God’ appears frequently in the prophets describing the way in which the revelation of God came to them. ‘The word of Jehovah’ came to Hosea (Hos. 1:1 [The word of the LORD which came to Hosea]), to Joel (Joel 1:1 [the word of the LORD that came to Joel]), to Micah (Mic. 1:1 [The word of the LORD which came to Micah]), to Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:2,3 [the word of the LORD came expressly to Ezekiel]), and to others. The term is used also in the first chapter of John’s Gospel and in the first chapter of his Epistle to describe Christ as the final revelation of God: ‘The Word was with God…the Word was God…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:1,14).”

What the author quotes as “the first chapter of John’s Gospel and in the first chapter of his Epistle” is truly just the first line of John’s Gospel with verse 14 thrown in. The first line of the “epistle” (1 John) reads:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life. (1 John 1:1; NASB)

“Later in Revelation He is definitely given the name, ‘The Word of God’ (19:13). The seer shows that he belongs to the prophetic succession because he is the agent through whom the thought of God is transmitted to men, and by whom the final picture of Christ, who is God’s fullest and last revelation, is to be made plain.

“‘The testimony of Jesus Christ’ (1:2) may mean either the witness which Christ Himself imparts, or the witness of life which John gave to Him. Probably the former is the better interpretation because it makes the grammatical construction similar to that of the phrase preceding. It is the message which includes all the work of Christ: His preincarnate purpose, His earthly ministry of teaching, death, and resurrection, His present work of intercession, and His future reign and judgments. Christ is God’s witness to the world of His holiness, His grace, and His power. This witness is the substance of the things that John saw.

“Revelation is therefore a graphic representation of God’s redemptive purpose and prophetic message. The truth is not diminished because it is expressed in the form of visions; it is rather heightened. It is a visual aid to the Christian who ponders the future and who wonders how the reverses and contradictions of this present life can possibly eventuate in anything but disappointment and disaster. Revelation is God’s panoramic answer to the believer’s doubts and fears, and is the pictorial promise of victory.” [from INTERPRETING REVELATION, by Merrill C. Tenney, 1957]

I agree with Tenney on what the testimony of Jesus Christ means, and I agree that “the truth is not diminished because it is expressed in the form of visions.” While I agree also that “Revelation is God’s panoramic answer to the believer’s doubts and fears,” I take it further: it is the believer’s view into the plans of God.

“Twice the word servant appears in this passage. God’s revelation was sent to his servants and it was sent through his servant John. In Greek the word is doulos and in Hebrew ebedh. Both are difficult fully to translate. The normal translation of doulos is slave. The real servant of God is, in fact, his slave. A servant can leave his service when he likes; he has stated hours of work and stated hours of freedom; he works for a wage; he has a mind of his own and can bargain as to when and for what he will give his labor. A slave can do none of these things; he is the absolute possession of his owner, with neither time nor will of his own. Doulos and ebedh bring out how absolutely we must surrender to God.” [from THE REVELATION OF JOHN, VOL1, by William Barclay, 1959]

This is a very good point, and one that we’ve looked at before. “Slave” is certainly a better description than “servant,” and it’s also an apt depiction of how we should surrender to God. The part that doesn’t fit in this analogy is the fact that a servant chooses his employment, while a slave usually becomes a slave against his will, or, at least, by the volition of someone else. Our total obedience to God is something we achieve, not something we are forced into.

That’s it for today. We start into the 1960’s next time.