REVELATION 1:2, PART 3

And of the Testimony of Jesus Christ] the doctrine of Christ, the death and martyrdom of Christ; for John stood by and saw him crucified

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 today in the middle of the 17th century:

“And signified it by his Angel] God gave him the Revelation, not to keep for himself, but to shew it to his servants; now is expressed the faithfulness of Christ in executing his charge committed to him of God. 

“And he sent] This proves Christ’s Divinity in that he commands the Angels, and they obey him. This is Paul’s argument of the Deity of the Son, Heb. 1.6.

And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.     (Hebrews 1:6; KJV)

“His servant John] Christ takes notice of, nay does register the name of his servants. Poor Lazarus is mentioned, when the rich mans name is buried in Oblivion; only there was a certain rich man. Happy are his servants whom he hath graven (unto their comfort be it spoken) on the palms of hands, not on iron but flesh, not on his back parts, but his hands, not the back of them, but the palms of his hands.

“Verse 2. Who bare record of the Word of God] That is, of Christ the Word; note three things 1.That the Penman was one that writ of Christ, 2.That ’twas John, who in the entrance of his Gospel, says: In the beginning was the Word, to wit, Christ.  3.That John wrote his Gospel before he wrote the Revelation: who bare Record of the Word.

“And of the Testimony of Jesus Christ] the doctrine of Christ, the death and martyrdom of Christ; for John stood by and saw him crucified.

“And of all things that he saw] to wit, now in visions; also he alludes to a place in his Gospel, where he says, he that saw it bare record, and his record is true.”                     [from EPITOME OF THE MOST CHOICE COMMENTARIES UPON THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN,  by Hezekiah Holland, 1650]

Not bad for this time period. This was the guy who I thought was an over-the-top huckster from his book introduction, but he is clearly a man of God. Perhaps his publisher wrote (or “punched up”) the introduction.

“…He sent and signified it by his Angel, that is, Jesus Christ made use of the ministration of His Angel to signify this, both to set out His dignity and grandeur, and to conciliate the greater credit to it…The person it is revealed to, is, His Servant John; his Servant by special Delegation and Office, in a special employment, as a Steward in his House.

“Verse 2. The second thing in the Preface, is, a description of John, who bare record of the Word of God: which may relate to the Gospel of John, which holds out Jesus Christ, who was, and is the substantial Word of God, as he begins his Gospel. 2. And of the Testimony of Jesus Christ: which may look to his Epistles. 3. And of all things that he saw: this looks to the particular Visions God gave him in this Book. John’s baring record, points to his faithfulness according to the Charge and Commission given him: what is given him to deliver, he keeps not up: what he receives in charge, he discharges.”              [from A COMMENTARIE UPON THE BOOK OF THE REVELATION, by James M. Durham, 1658]

Not quite as gripping as the previous quote, but still good for its time. 

“…whatever things he saw, John bare record of, since in this very book he bare record of all things which he saw, and nothing but what he saw. He does not, however, say that he bears record, but that he bare record: because at that time, when the book was read in Asia, he had now completed the writing of it. Lampe [Friedrich Adolph Lampe] ought not, on account of the tense of the verb emartyrise, bare record, to have doubted whether John was the writer of ver. 1, 2, 3…

The Greek word emartyrise is translated by Google Translate as: “testified.” “Bare record” is certainly a synonym for “testified,” though not a phrase used much today. The point being made is that it’s in the past tense. It’s kind of an obvious point…when John wrote, the visions had already taken place. I agree with the author that the tense was no reason to doubt the authorship.

Friedrich Adolph Lampe (1683-1729) was a German pastor and professor at Utrecht University. Despite being German, he was apparently a Calvinist rather than a Lutheran, but also a Pietist.

”The particle te, which does not belong to this place, has influenced him and other interpreters, who refer the verb bare record to the Gospel and Epistles of John. Moreover, as in the Apocalypse seeing and record (testimony) are commensurate, so are the measure of faith and prophecy (Rom. xii 3,6), or, in other words, knowledge and interpretation, in the case of those who rightly handle this book. D. Antonius [I can’t find this person], in the same college, wisely discusses the Last things, especially from the Apocalypse, in such a manner as at once to check the antiprophectical disease, and the icing for one’s own interpretation of prophecy.”              [from GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, by Johann Albrecht Bengel, 1742]

³For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith…⁶Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith   (Romans 12:3,6; KJV)

Bengel is an interesting person; he dug deeper into the Bible that pretty much anyone else had up to his time. He focused on the language, both in terms of translation and grammar; but he didn’t neglect the connections to other Bible passages as so many do who love the language. I don’t always agree with him, but I deeply respect what he was trying to do.

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

“Some suppose the writer herein to refer to the written gospel of St. John, and to say that he had already ‘borne testimony concerning the word of God, and Jesus Christ’ But, as formerly observed, these words may be understood of this very book, the Revelation, and the things contained in it. The writer says here very properly, at the beginning, and by way of preface, that he had performed his office in this book, having therein faithfully recorded the word of God, which he had received from Jesus Christ.

“For certain, if these words did clearly refer to a written gospel, they would be decisive. But they are allowed to be ambiguous, and other senses have been given of them. By some they have been understood to contain a declaration, that the writer had already borne witness to Jesus Christ before magistrates. Moreover, I think, that if St. John had intended to manifest himself in this introduction, he would have more plainly characterized himself in several parts of this book than he has done. 

“This observation therefore appears to me to be of small moment for determining who the writer is.”            [from THE WORKS OF NATHANIEL LARDNER, by Nathaniel Lardner, mid-18th century]

This must be what Bengel was alluding to…that some people think that because it was in past tense, the reference was to John’s Gospel. I agree with Bengel and Lardner that it more likely refers to the Revelation, and that the “observation” has little to do with determining authorship. I don’t agree with Lardner that John would have been more clear about it if he were the Apostle. In my opinion, the age and experience of John argue against his making a big deal of his being an Apostle.

“…’and signified, sending by His angel, unto His servant John,’ signifies which are revealed out of heaven to those who are in the good of love. — This is evident from the the signification of ‘signified,’ as meaning the things in the sense of the letter that contain and thus signify those that are in the internal sense; for it is said, ‘the revelation which God gave…to show,…and signified;’ and by the things that He signified are meant those that are in the sense of the letter, because these all signify, while the things that are signified are those that are contained in the internal sense. All things in the Word, in fact, are significant of spiritual things, which are in the internal sense. This is also evident from the signification of ‘sending by His angel,’ as meaning, which are revealed out of heaven; for ‘to send’ is to reveal, and ‘by an angel’ is out of heaven. ‘To send’ is to reveal, because everything that is sent out of heaven is revelation; for that which is therein is what is revealed; and this is the spiritual which relates to the church and its state; but with man this is changed into the natural, such as is expressed in the sense of the letter in the Apocalypse and elsewhere in the Word. That which comes out of heaven can be presented to man in no other way; for the spiritual falls into its corresponding natural when it descends out of the spiritual world into the natural…

“2. ‘Who bare witness to the Word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ signifies to those who in heart acknowledge Divine truth, and the Divine of the Lord in His Human; ‘whatsoever things he saw’ signifies having their understanding enlightened. — This is evident from the signification of ‘bearing witness,’ as meaning to acknowledge in heart, (of which hereafter,) and from the signification of ‘the Word,’ or speech of God, as meaning Divine truth…and from the signification of ‘(the testimony of) Jesus Christ,’ as meaning acknowledgment of the Lord’s Divine in His Human…              [from THE APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED ACCORDING TO THE SPIRITUAL SENSE, VOL 1,  by Emanuel Swedenborg, 1756]

This is the guy I was referring to in the last post, who seemed to be copying Peter of John Olivi but it just came out as gobbledegook. He really got hung up on the word “signification.” Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a Christian mystic who claimed to “freely visit” heaven and hell where he conversed with angels and demons, etc. He also claimed to do “scientific studies,” which he was somewhat successful in as regards metallurgy (he actually worked as assessor of mines). But, of course, he tried to “conjoin” metallurgy with philosophy. He went totally off the deep end at age 57 when he started having visions and dreams…i.e., visiting heaven and hell. His claims and ideas are very bizarre and non-Biblical.

“'And he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his servant John,’ signifies,    the things which are revealed from the Lord through heaven, to those e who are in the good of life from charity and its faith: v. 2, ‘Who bore witness of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ signifies, who from the heart, and so in the light, receive divine truth from the Word, and acknowledge the Lord's Humanity to be divine: ‘Whatsoever things he saw,’ signifies, their illustration in all the things which are in this revelation”       [from THE APOCALYPSE REVEALED, VOL 1, by Emanuel Swedenborg, 1766]

This is from another book of Swedenborg that he wrote about 10 years after the book of the last quote. He’s still hung up on “signified,” but at least is making more sense. 

This quote, being more simple than the last, really shows the craftiness of evil. He’s using many of the right words, but not quite all of them, and not quite in the right order. Let’s look at the first line: “‘And he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his servant John,’ signifies,    the things which are revealed from the Lord through heaven, to those e who are in the good of life from charity and its faith.” When he says “signifies, the things which are revealed from the Lord through heaven,” he is only rephrasing the line from Scripture: avoiding the idea of transmission from God to an angel to John. He goes on to say that the revelation is “to those e who are in the good of life from charity and its faith.” What does it mean to be “in the good of life”? This sounds like a side step, an avoidance of saying “to those in faith.” But neither faith, nor “the good of life,” come from charity. True Christian charity is a result of faith. And lastly, but certainly not least, faith does not belong to charity. “Its” is a possessive pronoun; “charity and its faith” is very backwards and misleading, i.e., evil. This one sentence alone leads the reader to the idea that charity is required to find faith and “the good of life.” So again, what is “the good of life”? Think about it. If it comes from “charity,” then it must mean the “material good of life.” I will have good things in life if I perform charitable acts. This is a deception.

Well, maybe that’s a one-off mistake, or, I’m just looking at it wrong. Let’s look at the next line: “‘Who bore witness of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ signifies, who from the heart, and so in the light, receive divine truth from the Word, and acknowledge the Lord's Humanity to be divine:”  He is, again, restating the line of Scripture in his own twisted way. He has already dropped John from this equation, so he is now saying that the person who receives this revelation, and thus is bearing witness, is someone “from the heart.” This phrase is usually used like this: that gift was ‘from the heart’. In this usage it means it was given ‘with love’. When Swedenborg says “who from the heart,” what does he mean? He must be saying, ‘someone who is acting with love.’  He is again replacing the thought of someone “in faith,” with another descriptor that sounds nice, but doesn’t quite say the same thing. He then goes on to say “and so in the light.” So, the whole thought is: “someone who is acting with love, and because of that, is walking in the light.” What does it mean to “walk in the light”? It usually means either “to walk in understanding,” or, “to walk with Jesus.” Someone who is “acting with love” could be “walking with Jesus,” but not necessarily: if I am with Jesus, I am walking in the love of Jesus; if I am not with Jesus, I could still walk with love…my own love, not the love of Jesus, and not in His light. Swedenborg goes on to say that this person who is “acting in love” and “walking in the light” will “receive divine truth from the Word.” I have no quarrel with this phrase, except, of course, that it’s John receiving it, not some random “someone.” He finishes the line with: “and acknowledge the Lord's Humanity to be divine:”  This is a side step of the Trinity. Notice that ‘humanity’ is capitalized, and ‘divine’ is not. Humanity cannot be Divine by definition. The implication of Swedenborg’s line could be that we, as part of humanity, could also achieve divinity: Another deception.

As I said earlier, Swedenborg claimed to be visiting heaven and hell, and talking with spiritual beings, including the dead. I have not seen any reference in his writings so far to being escorted in his travels by Jesus or an angel, or any other higher being. Even Paul needed an escort to visit heaven. All of this leads me to believe that Swedenborg was being misled by demons. We’ll continue to follow him to see if that’s the case.

“Jesus Christ. Sent and signified them - Showed them by signs or emblems; so the Greek word properly means. By his angel - Peculiarly called, in the sequel, ‘the angel of God,’ and particularly mentioned, chap. xvii, 1; xxi, 9; xxii, 6, 16. To his servant John - A title given to no other single person throughout the book. 

And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitters upon many waters.    (Revelation 17:1; KJV)

And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.   (Revelation 21:9; KJV)

⁶And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done…¹⁶I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.    (Revelation 22:6,16; KJV

“2. Who hath testified - In the following book. The word of God - Given directly by God. And the testimony of Jesus - Which he hath left us, as the faithful and true witness. Whatsoever things he saw - In such a manner as was a full confirmation of the divine original of this book.”                  [from NOTES ON THE REVELATION, by John Wesley, 1765]

Just nice to get back to a ‘normal’ commentary. Nothing really stands out, but then Wesley said earlier that he was worried about commenting on Revelation, so he was probably being conservative.

“This revelation Jesus Christ communicates by the channel of his angel, whom he sends to deliver it to his servant John. The character here given to this servant John shows him to be the Apostle St. John; for he is here said to have given testimony to the word of God, by his preaching and suffering for the cause of God, and to have also given testimony of Jesus Christ, by bearing witness to what things soever he had seen of his divine Master. And this account of him coincides with what St John says of himself at the beginning of his first epistle: That which we have heard, says he, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life — we declare unto you.”

The last comparison with 1 John is a really good catch. I think we will see others notice this, but this is pretty bold.

“We have said that it was Christ who signified or notified this his Revelation, sending it by his angel; which is confirmed by what he himself speaks in the conclusion of the Apocalypse: I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches, Apoc. xxii. 16 [see above]. But it might be equally said, that God himself communicated this prophecy by his angel; for we likewise read: The Lord God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to shew his servants the things which must be done shortly, Apoc. xxii. 6 [see above], which words are quite similar to those above of verse the first. However, it is not material whether to God, or to Jesus Christ, the communication of the prophecy be ascribed, when we consider the divinity of Christ. 

“Another observation we must here make, is concerning the angel of God or Christ, who is sent to communicate the Apocalypse to St. John. He is generally supposed to be a real angel; but upon close examination we think he will appear to be St. John the Baptist. This personage is peculiarly vested with the character of angel or messenger of God and Christ, and is denominated such in the ancient prophecies, and by Christ himself: Behold. I send my angel, said the Lord by his prophet Malachy, and he shall prepare the way before my face, Mal. iii. 1, which Christ applies to his precursor St. John Baptist. 

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.    (Malachi 3:1; KJV)

“This is he, says Christ, of whom it in written: Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee, Matt, xi. 10. 

For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.   (Matthew 11:10; KJV)

“The same is also confirmed by the Baptist's own declaration: I am, says he, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, John i. 28. which plainly speaks his function of angel or messenger of Christ. 

He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.  (John 1:23; KJV)

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.  (Isaiah 40:3; KJV)

“A further proof is derived from the words of the angel himself, who thus speaks to St. John the Apostle: I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren who have the testimony of Jesus, Apoc. xix. 10. And again, I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book, Apoc. xxii. 9. 

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.    (Revelation 19:10; KJV)

⁸And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. ⁹Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.  (Revelation 22:8,9; KJV)

“This language, it is clear, cannot be that of a real angel, but corresponds very justly with the character of the Baptist, who had been a fellow-servant of the Apostle and his brethren in giving testimony to Jesus, etc. A function suitable to the character of St. John the Baptist; who, as he announced Christ, and showed him present to the people; so here, he announceth and showeth to St. John the Apostle the History of Christ, or of his Church. However, as the Apostle gives to St. John Baptist the name of angel, perhaps his form and appearance were such on this occasion.”            [from THE GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FROM HER BIRTH TO HER FINAL TRIUMPHANT STATE IN HEAVEN: CHIEFLY DEDUCED FROM THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST, by Charles Warmesley, 1771]

I let this run on without interruption, but that doesn’t mean I agree. Angels are not dead people. The Bible indicates that they are created beings…created as angels…and their existence has nothing to do with humans. Of course, Warmesley could be saying that John the Baptist was actually an angel who came to the earth in the guise of a human — that’s possible I guess, but difficult to prove. I think that we will see as we go on that this is not a viable theory.

That’s enough for today. We will pick it up in the 19th century next time.