REVELATION 1:2, PART 16

...the angel no more stands between man and God than a telescope stands between the eye and the star.

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 start mild-mannered:

“That His servants might know, He (Christ, Rev. 1:1; cf. Rev. 22:16) sent and signified these things by His angel to John. ‘The thing sent was rather the message than the angel.’ [footnote: Albert Barnes, NOTES EXPLANATORY AND PRACTICAL (New York, 1854), on Rev. 1:1] The angel was chosen from among many for this mission. (Cf. Ps. 103:20,21).

“I, 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 22:16; NASB)

²⁰Bless the LORD, you His angels, mighty in strength, who perform His word, obeying the voice of His word! ²¹Bless the LORD, all you His angels, you who serve Him, doing His will. (Psalm 103:20,21; NASB)

“Writer. John accepted and carried out the commission to write the Book of Revelation. Like Paul, he did not handle the Word of God deceitfully, but was a faithful witness to it (2 Cor. 4:2; Rev. 1:9). Rev. 1:2 refers specifically to the Word of God in the Book of Revelation, which contains the ‘things that he saw.’” [from REVELATION: THE LAST BOOK IN THE BIBLE, by Luther Poellot, 1962]

but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in trickery nor distorting the word of God, but by the open proclamation of the truth commending ourselves to every person’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2; NASB)

I, 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)

Nothing really controversial in this quote: the information given was more important than which angel assisted its delivery, and John gave an honest accounting, just as Paul had done.

“…The source of the revelation was God; He revealed it to Christ, and now we note that Christ signified (aor. tense), or gave a sign and sent (aposteilas - aor. participle) it through his messenger (tou aggelon) to his servant John. We now have a picture before us, tracing the genesis of the revelation from the living God to the mortal messenger — John.

“Verse 2 ‘Who (John) bare witness (aor. tense — emartyresen) of the Word of God.’ This probably refers to the content of the book of Revelation as well as proclamation of the gospel of Christ, which caused him to be banned to the island of Patmos.

“The second factor to which John ‘bare witness’ was the testimony (marturian) of Jesus Christ. The concept of witness plays a vital place in both the Gospel of John and The Revelation — (for other N.T. passages containing the term witness see Acts 1:22; 1 Pet. 5:1).”

beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us — one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:22; NASB)

Therefore, I urge elders among you, as your fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and one who is also a fellow partaker of the glory that is to be revealed (1 Peter 5:1; NASB)

We have reviewed these Greek words in depth, and this author is indicating their meaning pretty well. The only argument I have is that the word for “signify” (esimanen) is not best translated as “gave a sign,” “made known” would be better.

“The term witness and its various forms appears about 50 times, and about 40 times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The American Standard translators added the word even (italicized) which is not in the Greek text.”

who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw. (Revelation 1:2; ASV)

It’s a standard thing that when you read a Bible verse in any standard translation, and you see italicized text, it means that the italicized word has been added to improve understanding: it does not appear in the original text. Of course, this doesn’t apply to paraphrase-style translations. Acting subtly outraged that this word was “added” is rather outrageous in itself.

“The text literally reads ‘as many things as he saw.’ This clause is in opposition with ‘the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ this clause marks these two features out as seen by John. The addition of and (not in the text either) in the K.J. version presents us with three separate aspects of John’s work — ‘bare witness of the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all the things that he saw.’ This is wrong, if we take the last clause to be in opposition to the two preceding clauses. The verb saw (eiden) is used of the seeing of vision in the same sense that the Hebrew O.T. uses the noun seer, and the verb see or saw.

“Note: The root meaning of the Hebrew verb is to see, but in the Prophetic literature it means to see supernaturally revealed visions.

“As the book of Revelation is in the lineage of O.T. Apocalyptic literature, e.g. Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, we can better understand its imagery and message.” [from THE SEER, THE SAVIOR, AND THE SAVED, by James D. Strauss, 1963]

Hmmm. Strauss makes a big deal of the last clause (of all things that he saw) being “in opposition” to the first two clauses (the Word of God, and, the testimony of Jesus Christ), and he even ends the thought by calling out the “and” in the KJV as not having the last clause in opposition…though certainly the “and” does put it in opposition. The author seems to confuse the word “opposition” with the word “apposition.”

But then he switches to talking about the verb eiden, rather than explaining why he thinks that the clause is in opposition, or what that would mean to the translation.

Personally, I think he’s confused. I agree with those who say that the clause is in apposition to the other 2 clauses, which means that the last clause is added in support of the first two clauses, making the KJV “and” a wrong translation, and the ASV “even” a much better translation. To set the last clause up as being in opposition to the first two clauses suggests that the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ were separate things that John saw, and then he saw other things not related to the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. This in turn would suggest that some of the visions of Revelation were extraneous or unimportant to the full meaning of the book. Seeing the last clause as being in apposition would suggest that everything John saw was part of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ; it also suggests that the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ are, essentially, the same thing. And, as God and Jesus are both part of the One Godhead, this should, essentially, be true.

“…Christ sent and signified by his servant John or, he sent and sign-i-fied, uncovered the future in signs and symbols. He also signified by his angel. Throughout the apocalypse an angel appears to be employed in the task of unveiling the scenes that follow in successive order.

“vs.2 John bore record of all he saw and heard. A special emphasis is given here of his record because such world shattering events were revealed to him under such startling symbolism.” [from THE WONDER BOOK OF THE BIBLE: A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Lee G. Tomlinson, 1963]

I hope this is the last “sign-i-fy,” but I won’t hold my breath. The statement:“He also signified by his angel,” though appearing to be an afterthought, is pretty much what the verse says, so it would have been better to have left out the “sign-i-fy.”

It’s going to be interesting to see what the “startling symbolism,” as seen by Tomlinson, refers to in the “world.”

“…The whole revelation is the Father’s gift to Christ, and the angel is active throughout in bringing it to John. For the most part the angel effaces himself; he ‘preaches not himself, but Christ Jesus the Lord.’ In xix. 9 ff. and xxii. 8 ff. his voice is heard as that of God or of Christ.”

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)

The “he” in this passage is a voice from heaven, we are not sure that the speaker is an angel. I don’t think angels speak as if they are God or Christ.

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. ⁹And he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!” (Revelation 22:8,9; NASB)

“St. John may hold that, in the absence of Christ’s actual person, all revelation is mediated by angels. But the angel no more stands between man and God than a telescope stands between the eye and the star.”

I disagree, revelation is sometimes direct, with no angels involved. Remember, “This is My Son, of Whom I Am most proud!”? No angels involved.

I like the analogy of the telescope, it sounds cool, but I question how exact an analogy it is. A telescope brings an image of the star closer to the eye; an angel brings a message from God: not exactly the same, though they do both bridge a chasm.

“In telling all that he saw, John ‘bore witness’ (verse 2)…these tenses are ambiguous. They refer to the time of writing, not to some previous time. The truth to which John witnesses is what God says and what Christ has witnessed to, by steadfast defense and by suffering; in witnessing, St. John is at one with Jesus; Jesus is THE witness.” [from THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE, by Austin Farrer, 1964]

I’m not sure why so many commentators get hung up on the tense. I really don’t picture John having visions and writing them down as they are happening. I think that’s a crazy idea. I think he saw them, then he wrote them down. He may have had breaks between some of the visions, or he may have seen them all in one episode, it doesn’t matter. These visions would have been so intense that he would have no problem remembering them…and probably remembered more details as he wrote. And, the Holy Spirit would have been there reminding him as well.

“‘Which God gave unto him’--1 :1.

“God, the Father, was himself the source of the vision. This reverence for God was always manifested by Jesus, as he affirmed in all of the gospel records while he was on the earth, that he did not speak of, or from, himself, but from his Father who sent him. (Jno. 12:49)

For I did not speak on My own, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49; NASB)

“This vision was first a revelation that God sent to his Son, Jesus Christ, who, in the second place, sent it by an angel, in the third place, to John, in the fourth place of the numerical declension. The angel signified the vision to John, that is, communicated it to him in the signs directed by Jesus Christ.”

There is no time in heaven. God didn’t send it to Jesus like in a timeline. The only timeline in all this was here on earth, with John on Patmos.

Let’s look at the New King James Version to see how “signified” is used:

And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John (Revelation 1:1; NKJV)

The angel wasn’t “communicating…in signs”. Look at it this way instead: Jesus sent and made it understood by His angel. The angel(s) didn’t do a lot of speechifying, and the angels weren’t giving “signs”. There were different angels who pointed things out to John (hand signals?), and those who answered his questions.

“The method of the delivery and communication. 1. “And he sent and signified it by an angel”--1:1.

“The revelation was sent by an angel--that is, it was delivered by a special messenger. And it was signified, indicating how it was communicated; that it was not merely made known, but was transmitted in code by signs and symbols. It was a special message, delivered by special messengers, in the special medium of code language. It was thus dispatched unto his servant John.”

It isn’t in code!! The word translated as “signified” means “made known”! It’s not a word that indicated how the message was communicated.

“2. ‘Unto his servant John’--1:1.

“There is a difference in the meanings of the words show and signify. Jesus Christ signified the vision unto John to show unto his servants. That is, it was revealed to John in code for explanation to the churches, which could, of course, have been accomplished by the spiritually gifted teachers of that period in each church. The meaning is that as a message, it was special and not general; it was for the churches, and not for the public. As an example, the Comforter (Jno. 14:16 and 13:13) was a special promise to the apostles alone, and not to all of the disciples, nor for the world in general--only the apostles.”

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever (John 14:16; KJV)

You call Me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’; and you are correct, for so I am. (John 13:13; NASB)

WHAT? The “Comforter,” also known as the Holy Spirit, was not meant for anyone but the Apostles??!! I couldn’t disagree more strongly!!!

And John did NOT get the revelations in code! It seems that this author doesn’t understand Revelation and is thus convinced it’s in some code.

The “message” of Revelation was NOT for the churches only, but ALSO for all the Christians!

This author seems to think that parts of Christianity are “special” and only for certain “special” people. This is not Christianity as I know it.

“So it was with the apocalypse; it was a message for the early churches, not for the Jewish world nor the Roman public--and that is why it was written in code instead of the use of literal language, as in all of the other epistles.”

Revelation was written for the Church (not just the early Church) AND for all Christians…both gentile and Jewish in origin. It was not for the Jews or the Romans, and it was NOT written in code. Some people of our time seem to think that the Romans were trying to discern what the Christians were up to by reading their writings, so they had to write in code…nothing could be further from the truth. The Romans were not punishing people for their beliefs (unlike today), they were punishing them for their actions. If people followed their rules and didn’t stand out, they weren’t noticed, no matter what they believed or what they wrote. The Romans could care less what people were writing…as long as it wasn’t publicly posted on buildings, etc.

“‘Who bare record of the word of God’--1 :2.

“The word of God, to which John was to be the witness, was the message of the revelation itself, the word which God gave unto Jesus Christ (verse 1) at this time and in this apocalypse, not the word of God which had already been preached by the other apostles or that which was in the general epistles. This was the word of God in the special sense, belonging to the special message, for the special time. These were the special things which Jesus Christ signified to John, which did not belong to the revelation of the gospel contained in the other epistles. It was an apocalyptic revelation to the churches that were on the threshold of their peril--in that period called the hour of trial.”

Again, there is no “special sense,” “special message,” “special time,” or “special things.” Revelation fits in perfectly with the rest of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Even the prophecies, while they appear to be fulfilled by a specific event, are still pertinent to all times…not just a “special time.”

Revelation also did not speak to a specific “hour of trial” from the past. This suggests a preteristic point of view. There have been times in the past when parts of Revelation appear to be fulfilled…yet there will be a future time when all of Revelation will be fulfilled beyond question. This future fulfillment does not negate the meaning of Revelation to the generations before the final one.

“And of the testimony of Jesus Christ"--1:2.

“As previously intimated, this is a specific reference to the testimony of Christ to John, not John’s testimony of or concerning Christ. It was the testimony of this apocalypse, as stated in the first line of the first verse, the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

I can agree with this. It’s not John’s testimony: it’s the testimony of Jesus Christ; but, I think it’s also testifying about Jesus Christ.

“Even of all things that he saw"--1:2.

“Thus it is that both the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ refer to the things that John saw, of which John bare record, not the past witness of the word which all the other apostles had made, nor the testimony of Christ in the sense of the gospel which they had preached. It was the word of God and the testimony of this apocalypse only of the things to which John was bearing witness and of which he was making a record.” [from THE BOOK OF REVELATION: CONSISTING OF A COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, by Foy E. Wallace, 1966]

Wallace is still trying to separate Revelation from the rest of the Bible, which I cannot agree with.

“The channel through which the revelation comes from Christ is ‘by his angel unto his servant John.’ The communication spoken of as ‘signified,’ while often meaning revelation through symbols, as in this book, includes also revelation through words which communicate the meaning. The name of the angel is not given, though Gabriel has been suggested (cf. Dan. 8:16; 9:2, 21-22; Luke 1:26-31).”

Yes, Revelation has some symbols; symbols that are explained. There are also, mostly, words that “communicate the meaning.”

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)

²in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years….²¹while I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. ²²And he instructed me and talked with me and said, “Daniel, I have come now to give you insight with understanding. (Daniel 9:2,21,22; NASB)

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth (Luke 1:26; NASB)

“John is declared to be the recipient of the revelation, his name occurring four other times in this book (1:4,9; 21:2; 22:8).

⁴John to the seven churches….⁹I, John, your brother…(Revelation 1:4,9; NASB)

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:2; KJV)

(NASB leaves the name “John” out; just says “And I saw the holy city…”)

I, John, am the one who heard and say these things…(Revelation 22:8; NASB)

“The best explanation is that the writer is the Apostle John. That John should be called a servant (Gr. doulos) rather than an apostle is not strange in view of common usage of the term in reference to the apostles in the New Testament…The opening verse of this chapter therefore sets forth the basic scheme of the entire book, its subject matter, purpose, angelic channel, as well as its human writer.

“1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

“The expression ‘bare record’ in verse 2 (Gr. emartyresen), occurring three times in this chapter, means ‘to bear witness’ or ‘to testify.’ The book of Revelation is not only ‘the Word of God,’ that is, originating in God, but John bears witness of his reception of it. It has the added weight of being ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ (Gr. martyria), and the record of John is a complete recital ‘of all things that he saw.’ John is an eyewitness.” [from THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST: A COMMENTARY, by John F. Walvoord, 1966]

Walvoord is a good author to end on. He’s clear and makes sense.

We’ll continue on in the next post.