REVELATION 1:2, PART 2
"This John the Divine, then, was John the Evangelist whatever Dennis of Alexandria disputes to the contrary." Dennis?
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 diving right into Peter of John Olivi:
“7) Next, he adds the middle cause and then the proximate cause, saying: And he, namely, Christ, showed, that is, revealed or indicated through figurative signs, namely, the ones mentioned before, by sending, that is, by declaring them, through his angel to his servant John [Rev 1:1]. Something contrary seems to be the case because in the first vision not an angel but Christ himself appears to John, revealing to him the things that follow. It must be said that neither did Christ then appear to John except under the image formed by an angel. Put another way, according to Richard, ‘An angel that looked like Christ appeared to John, and because the angel projected the person of Christ, therefore Christ is said to have appeared then to John.’”
I don’t buy that last bit. I don’t know who “Richard” is, but angels do not appear “as Christ.” That would be deceitful. Christ does appear to John at the beginning and shows him how things “are.” Once John is invited up to heaven, the angels are his source of information. My view, so far, is that John knew Christ on this earth, so it was important for him to see the risen Christ at the beginning of this experience as a validation of what was to come.
“8) Third, it can be said that just as the principal light, which is God, stands behind every ministering illumination of an angel, since the one does not exclude the other, so also Christ, according to his humanity, could appear as present to John, assisted by the illumination of the angel, the latter, in fact, subject to the glory of the humanity of Christ and in service to the superior illumination of Christ…”
Peter mentions the “superior illumination of Christ,” and yet he also says that Christ’s appearance is “assisted by the illumination of the angel.” I think that’s wrong: Christ does not need the assistance of angels to appear to men.
“9) Note also that he significantly posits the order of the causes from the supreme through the middle to the lowest, maintaining and teaching the hierarchical order, by which, according to Dionysius, the gifts of God descend from the highest through the ones in the middle to the lowest.”
Peter seems to miss the point in acknowledging the “hierarchical order.” It’s not that Jesus understands less than God or is somehow ‘below’ God in hierarchy. The Trinity is not hierarchical. The angels may understand less, they certainly only know what God tells them, but they are messengers (which is the meaning of the word angel), so they are often delegated to communicate with men. We are certainly the ‘low men’ on the totem pole. We need things put simply. Angels seem to have been equipped with that ability. Jesus, and even God, occasionally speak to people directly, as Jesus does to John about the seven churches, but the angels are perfectly capable of, and indeed made for, delivering messages, so why shouldn’t they be put to that use?
I suspect that the Catholic church and most of the Protestant churches (mainline) have used ideas, such as this one of Peter’s, to form a strict hierarchy within their corporate structure. I’m not sure that was intended. The idea seems to be that this corporate hierarchy is a mirror of a heavenly hierarchy. Certainly the Trinitarian God is in charge, both here and there; and certainly there are ‘lower,’ created creatures, both here and there; but not so much in a hierarchical construct. For example, Private Angel Joe doesn’t report to Sargent Angel Robert, who then reports to General Angel Michael. They all seem to be under God, as we are, and God is One. We’ve been given the term ‘Archangel,’ but it’s not clear (at least to me) what exactly that means. It could imply some type of hierarchy in the ranks of angels, but the Bible doesn’t really say that there is any ‘reporting’ going on. It could also imply a difference in type, and perhaps strength, and this is what I generally think about this term.
“10) Note further that the revelation was given to the human Christ not only in his conception but also it was given to him according to his deity by way of eternal generation and also it was given to him in his resurrection according to something that was made public and manifest. The latter is according to what Christ, who is now resurrected, says in the last chapter of Matthew, ‘All power is given to me in Heaven and on earth.’”
I’ve seen this parsing out of Christ’s parts before and I’m not happy with it. Yes, He was God and Man, and yes, He was resurrected from the dead. But, those are not the reasons that He brought the Revelation: He is our Mediator with God. We could even say He is the part of God that is our Mediator. Yes, He is our Mediator because He was God and Man, and because He was resurrected from the dead, but naming His qualifications is not the same as naming His roles.
“11) Note also from this that because it says the revelation is given to him to make public [Rev 1:1], it teaches two things: The first is that many things are given and revealed neither for the purpose of revealing to others nor with the authority of making them public, but, rather, with the command or obligation of keeping them secret. The second is that things revealed here are so arcane and such incomprehensible matters that they are given and conceded through a special grace by God to Christ so that he may divulge them to his own.”
I agree that many things are revealed to benefit individuals, and that, beyond including some of that information in witnessing to others, it’s not meant for public consumption. I suspect that most is also not meant to be kept strictly secret.
I understand Peter’s thoughts that the information in Revelation is “arcane” and “incomprehensible.” Perhaps we will eventually know the reason that Jesus made this Revelation so early, but, my opinion is that we were meant to puzzle Revelation out through the ages until the time came that we could understand it and profit from it.
“12) Note also that it says to his servants [Rev 1:1], as though to say, ‘These things are given to be revealed neither to proud philosophers not to unbelieving Jews nor to twisted Christians, because holy things ought not to be given to dogs or pigs.’”
I have no idea who Peter is quoting here, but I find that it bothers me. First of all, Peter basically just admitted to not understanding most of the Revelation, yet he has the temerity to say who it should not be revealed to. Is he calling himself a “proud philosopher” or a “twisted Christian”? I doubt it. Secondly, the people he is referring to are certainly not going to understand what he’s not understanding as one of the “servants,” so why bother making this statement? And thirdly, I really don’t like calling people names like “dogs” and “pigs.” I know that there are numerous New Testament references using “dogs” and “pigs” as metaphors for Gentiles and non-believers, but they usually sound more like a metaphor and less like name calling…which the quote Peter uses does sound like, despite it’s obvious nod to Matthew 7:6.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6; NASB)
27And He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs.” (Mark 7:27,28; NASB)
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision (Philippians 3:2; NASB)
It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:22; NASB)
Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolators, and everyone who loves and practices lying. (Revelation 22:15; NASB)
“13) Then the credibility of the person of John is addressed, so that he may be more easily and more confidently believed; so he says: Who bore witness to the Word of God, that is, to the deity and eternal generation of the Son of God, and to the witness of Jesus Christ, namely, in that he is testifying to his humanity, namely, and to whatever he saw, namely, concerning Christ, and that whether by a physical or a spiritual seeing [Rev 1:2].
“14) Now, with his physical eyes he saw the bodily works and miracles of Christ, whereas the eye of mental contemplation saw, that is, understood, his deity, as if he said: ‘These things are revealed to and through this man who, proved as Christ’s apostle by what was done among the churches to which he writes, preached faithfully the well known and well tried truth of both natures of Christ, namely, the divine and the human, as well of the accounts of Christ’s life and teaching.’
“15) But how does he say that John ‘bore witness to that which he saw,’ since John himself in the next-to-last and final chapters of his own Gospel said that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples which John did not write down, neither were the world capable of containing every single thing were it to be written down. To this it can be replied that everything that he saw, he spoke — partly explicitly, partly summarily or implicitly — in a way similar to what Christ says in John 15: ‘All things whatsoever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you,’ notwithstanding what he says in the very next chapter: ‘I still have many things to tell you, but you are unable to bear them,’ that is, grasp them, ‘now.’
“16) It is customary to inquire at this point whether John saw this revelation with bodily vision or with the vision of imagination or with an intellectual vision. To this, Richard of St. Victor replies, ‘It was not with a bodily vision because John himself says that he saw these things “in spirit.” The things he saw in spirit he saw not with physical eyes but with the eyes of the heart. And he saw not merely with an intellectual vision because the things he saw were wrought through no intermediary physical forms.’ From this Richard infers that John saw and understood these matters in the shapes of bodily things because, ‘this book is full of such likenesses, namely, of the sky, sun, moon, clouds, rain, hail, lightnings, thunders, winds, birds, fish, beasts, serpents, reptiles, trees, mountains, hills, air, sea, land, and a lot of other things.’ The use of such likenesses as these was, in fact, useful and necessary on account of our frailty. Further, it was right through the use of such things to hide the truth from the unworthy.”
Now we know who “Richard” is, and who Peter has been quoting from. Richard of Saint Victor first appears in the Augustinian Abbey of St Victor in Paris as a student sometime before 1141. He came from Scotland originally; he became one of the most influential religious thinkers of his time. He was made Prior of the Abbey in 1162, a position he held until his death in 1173. He wrote quite a bit and did actually write on Revelation. Most of his works are in Latin and have not been translated into English. I was able to find a book that includes excerpts from Richard’s book on Revelation (in English), so I will be delving into that before long.
Notice that Peter still has us hiding “the truth from the unworthy.” In my experience, the unworthy are also the uninterested.
“17) It has to be understood, moreover, that one kind of imaginary vision is not accompanied by an understanding of the meaning of the things imagined. This is how it was for the Pharaoh when he saw the seven ears of grain, and for Nebuchadnezzar when he saw the statue. The kind of vision accompanied by understanding is different, one that is not hindered by imaginary figures but, to the contrary, is rather helped, at least by expanding the understanding, and this is the way in which John was seeing here.”
I don’t think that the use of the word “imaginary” here is the same as we think of it. This is not John ‘using his imagination’ to picture some place or event. This was a vision of the mind. We don’t think of that as “imagination” any more.
“18) It needs also to be understood that in this life, there is generally no way of intellectual seeing that, with reference to bodily things, does not make use of physical likenesses. This is why Isaiah, when he saw and foretold that a virgin would conceive and bear ‘Immanuel,’ that is, the God-man, it was necessary for him to have in view the notion of gender, both female and virginal, as well as a notion of the human body of her baby, and the notions of bodily conception and birth. John’s vision is to be distinguished from Isaiah’s, however, in that John’s occurred not through proper images but through figurative ones, that is, of a different kind or appearance, such as when Christ is seen under the appearance of a lion or a lamb or a calf. [Rev 4:7, 14:1].”
I have to disagree here. John’s visions occurred through “proper images” and not “figurative ones.” John did not have the words to describe some of what he saw, but they were “proper images.” He did see some figurative images, such as Christ as a lamb, but those images were explained to us.
“19) It is further to be understood that some have said that John saw these things apart from such images, but that later on he adapted various figures to the truth that he had seen without figures. But against this is that he does not suggest that he himself composed such figures after his vision, but rather that they appeared to him in the vision and were shown to him by another. Beyond this, it contributes to the greater awesomeness, value, and credibility of the visions of the Apocalypse and its figures in that these figures, formed by God, came into being through an angel, rather than if they had been invented by John alone and added on after the fact. What is more, that such figures were joined with, and were subservient to, John’s intellectual vision, does not detract either from the loftiness of his vision or from John’s understanding. Not even the blessed, after the resumption of their bodies, will understand bodily things less well with the bodily sight then supplied to them than they might understand now when not using bodily sight.”
Again, most of what John saw was literal and not figurative. The few figurative or symbolic figures in the vision were provided for him. Peter is correct, there is nothing to indicate that John provided symbology when writing Revelation.
“20) One may ask whether John apprehended the statements or words that he says in this book that he heard with any sort of comprehension different from what he reports he had seen. It has to be said that the same power of imagination grasps the species of all objects of the five external senses. Therefore, as far as that power is concerned, they do not differ in genus. To the extent, however, that one means of comprehension expresses the object of one genus (for example, visible forms), whereas another means of comprehension expresses an object of a different genus (for example, voices or audible sounds or odors or flavors), so that extent they differ in genus or species and it is the same with species that are in the intellect.”
I believe that John knew what he was seeing in terms of action. In other words, he could discern the story-line fairly well. However, there were objects that he describes that he clearly does not understand. There were a number of other things/events that he did not comprehend the full extent of. He described them the best way he could; I believe that they will be recognizable as the time draws near: indeed, some are already.
“21) One also needs to know that in certain cases only the proper object is apprehended in an imaginary or intellectual species. In other cases, however, the proper object is received through the apprehended species as a sign of another reality, and if it is a sign that naturally signifies that thing, then this second type of apprehension effected through the sign is some kind of rational reflection or logical proof. If, however, it is naturally apt for signification, it is not, nevertheless, either applied or appropriated of itself to the thing to be signified, since in that case it is necessary that the appropriation be supplied, whether by an individual making that appropriation or from a common signification. According to this, we know what is signified through baptism through the common signification of the sacraments, although the water of baptism may not of itself signify that, but only that it may be apt for that signification. When, however, a sign if merely arbitrary, for example, the word ‘human’ signifies a human being, then that apprehension is the kind by which we apprehend the signification of the statements and intention of the speaker. This comes about commonly through the knowledge of a common signification or an imposition of words on such things that are usually signified in that way.”
This passage gives you an idea of how deeply those in the Middle Ages thought. If you can focus enough to figure out what he is saying (and it takes some work!) then you can see that he makes perfect sense. We will see an example of someone trying (unsuccessfully) to imitate this type of passage about 600 years later in the next post, and it really comes across as gobbledygook. I think our problem today is truly focus. We’re used to scanning things and watching videos.
“22) It has to be different for apprehension to take place by way of a special revelation of someone speaking or of someone else knowing the intention of the speaker. If, therefore, the angel had spoken to John through words the common meaning of which John were ignorant, then it would have been necessary for the intention and signification of the angel who was speaking to be revealed to John, which had not been necessary had the angel made use of a signification of words previously known to John. What, then, the figurative things might mean, concerning which the angel spoke to him or which the angel presented to him as visible, John could not infallibly and indubitably know except through revelation, even though these things might have been apt by themselves to signify these things.” [from COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, by Peter of John Olivi, mid to late 13th century; translated by Warren Lewis, 2017]
This passage may help you understand the last one better. So, if John was spoken to in words whose meaning he did not know or couldn’t fully comprehend, then he would need more information to understand what was being conveyed. For instance, if we were speaking to someone from the 13th century, and we said “Boy, we feasted on those blueberries!”, it would be confusing to that person because “feasting” was a whole different experience back then. It involved huge amounts of food, wine, and entertainment. The exclamation “Boy!” would be confusing as well. If this 13th century person was shown a tableaux of someone stuffing his face with blueberries, then that 13th century person would probably figure out what was meant. So, yes, John’s experience could have been somewhat like that.
“2. Of the Canonical authority of the Revelation.” [from A COMMENTARY UPON THE DIVINE REVELATION OF THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST JOHN, by David Pareus, 1644]
This looks like a rather wimpy quote, but, it's true. The authority of the Revelation is from God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
“Verse 2. Who bore record of the Word] This John the Divine, then, was John the Evangelist whatever Dennis of Alexandria disputes to the contrary. It was Moses’s honor (saith one), who was God’s peculiar favorite, to be penman of the first book of the Old Testament; and it was John’s honor, Christ’s peculiar favorite, to be the penman of the last book of the New Testament.” [from A COMMENTARY ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, VOL 5, by John Trapp, 1647]
I really fretted over “Dennis of Alexandria.” Of course I couldn’t find anything about him. Dennis seemed an odd name for someone who lived in Alexandria, so I looked up just the name Dennis as kind of a last ditch effort. Amazingly, I found that Dennis was a nickname that some have given to Dionysius…and there is definitely a Dionysius of Alexandria (died 264). He was Pope of Alexandria and wrote letters (in Greek), that commented on a number of things, including something on Revelation. So, of course, I found a copy of the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria on Internet Archive that was in English and perused it. The only real reference to Revelation is a fairly long diatribe about how the writer of Revelation can’t be John the Apostle because Revelation starts differently than John started his Gospel and letters. He had some other minor points, but that was the main one.
I’m with Trapp: John the Apostle wrote Revelation, despite what Dennis thinks! I like the comparison with Moses as well.
We’ll finish the 17th century and probably the 18th century next time.