REVELATION 1:2, PART 4
Therefore in the threatenings, promises, and exhortations of the book we are not to look at the person of the writer, but constantly to remember, that it is the Most High God who speaks here...
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 the 19th century today:
“lb. Unto his servant John.] John the Evangelist, one of the twelve Apostles…
“Ver.2. Who bare record of the word of God, &c.] This may be understood to allude to the former testimony of St. John, which he had delivered in his Gospel, or to the testimony which he had just now recorded of the visions seen by him in Patmos; or to both.” [from THE APOCALYPSE, or, REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN, TRANSLATED WITH NOTES, CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY DISSERTATION on the DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE LATE PROFESSOR J. D. MICHAELIS, by John Chappel Woodhouse, 1805]
I vote for “both.”
“The writer introduces himself to the churches in the character of a witness, declaring that the things which he was about to communicate were from above — they were ‘the word of God,’ and therefore might be depended upon; ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ on the fulfillment of which he rested the truth of the gospel, and which he himself in vision plainly ‘saw.’" [from THE WORKS OF THE REV. ANDREW FULLER IN 8 VOLUMES, VOL. 6: EXPOSITORY DISCOURSES ON THE APOCALYPSE, by Andrew Fuller, discourses given 1809-1811, published 1825]
Fuller doesn’t seem to be as sure as Woodhouse about who wrote Revelation, but he’s right when he characterizes the author as a “witness.”
‘The word of God’ didn’t need to be parenthetical. Revelation comes at the end of the Bible: it was the last book written. We do not look for further revelation from God, but we do accept clarifying revelation. How do we know that something is from God? We compare what’s said to the Bible: does it agree or does it conflict? Does it clarify? Or does it muddle?
When we’ve looked at Revelation, some commentators feel that it just muddles things, which is why there have been detractors who have lobbied for it’s removal from the Bible. But, as we go through with our microscope, we will notice how connected to the Old Testament it is. It doesn’t conflict at all: it decidedly adds to and enhances the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments. So, we will see that it is, indeed, the Word of God, unparenthetically.
“Emartyrise has oftentimes, in the New Testament, its usual sense of testifying, i.e. of bearing witness, of giving testimony respecting anything. This is plainly the natural and usual import of the word. But the corresponding Hebrew verb with its correlative noun, and martyreo with its correlative noun, not unfrequently convey a meaning specifically diverse from this…The word martyreo is a favorite one in the writings of John; e.g. John 3:11, ‘o oidamen laloumen, kai oeorakamen martyroumen’ i.e. what we know we speak of, and what we have seen we declare;’ for so the parallelism obliges us to interpret martyroumen…’What he has seen and heard…this he declares or publishes to the world.’
11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness…32And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. (John 3:11, 32; KJV)
“So in 1 John 1:2. 1 Cor. 15:15. Acts 23:11. John 21:24, where o martyron designates the evangelist as a [sic] historian, declaring to the world the words and deeds of Jesus…
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 John 1:2; KJV)
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. (1 Corinthians 15:15; KJV)
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. (Acts 23:11; KJV)
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24; KJV)
”So also in the verse before us martyrian is plainly a parallelism of logon, which means declaration, or what is spoken or declared…If any one chooses still, in conformity to the Greek mode of expression here, to translate the world by testify as sometimes meaning to declare or publish freely. Usage sanctions such an explanation of the English word.
“But what is it which John published or declared?…That is, does the author speak of the word which has respect to God, and the testimony which has respect to Christ? Or does he mean the word of which God is the author and communicator, and the testimony which Christ discloses? Beyond all reasonable doubt the latter; for so a comparison with the former part of v. 1 would plainly imply, and so the nature of the case seems plainly to demand. John testified whatever God and Christ had communicated to him for this purpose.” [from COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, VOL. 2, by Moses Stuart, 1845]
Let’s talk briefly about the grammar first; we got into this in depth earlier, but we’ll recap here: Is the revelation about Christ, or is it from Christ, or is it both? The grammar is often understood to say it is from Christ. The context seems to indicate that it is about Christ and His mission. So, the best interpretation seems to be that both are intended.
Now, for the Greek. The sentence from John 3:11: ‘o oidamen laloumen, kai oeorakamen martyroumen’ is translated by Google as: “what we see we speak, and what we hear we testify.” A bit different from Stuart’s version.
In Green’s Interlinear Bible: John 21:24, o martyron is translated as (#3140) “witnessing”; and the sentence from John 3:11 is translated as: “what we know we speak, and what we have seen we witness (or testify).” #3140 in the NKJV Key Bible is: “to bear witness” “to testify to the truth” concerning a person or thing; martyrion is a declaration of facts, proof, a testimony.
The word logon is translated by Google as “reason,” and DeepL as “Lobby”; lego is the verb and my NKJV Key Bible says it means: “declaration” “a saying.” I think I would choose to believe the Key Bible here rather than Google and DeepL.
“And he sent and signified it by his angel.] Elsewhere, in the communications of the Lord Jesus to his Church of this dispensation, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, is the direct inspirer of the chosen instrument employed on the occasion. Here we have the intervention of an ‘angel;’ in keeping, perhaps, with the title just used, ‘servants,’ i. e. — as already hinted on a former clause, betokening Jewish witnesses to Christ, who shall yet be raised up. And thus an analogy is presented at the outset, between this book and that of the prophet Daniel, who was also communicated with, through an angel.”
This is a bit odd…”Jewish witnesses to Christ”? So the Apostles referred to themselves as “servants of Christ” because they were Jewish? So, because I am a Gentile, I am not a “servant of Christ”? I don’t buy that. More importantly: is it just Jewish witnesses to Christ that “shall yet be raised up”? Does this mean that Gentile witnesses are already “raised up,” or do they not get “raised up” at all?
“Unto his servant John. ] This title is frequently assumed by Paul in the inscription of his Epistles, and so there may be nothing peculiar in the appropriation of it by John. But still, it may be designed to comport with the other minute points already remarked on, touching the probably Jewish character of those disciples, to whom the book more immediately belongs. According to the mind of God, John may here be assuming their place, in receiving this Revelation.”
More on the “Jewish character” of the servants of Christ. I totally agree that John and Paul were Jewish; but it’s Paul who said:
10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created it — 11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and free, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:10,11; NASB)
“Ver. 2. Who bare record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.] Literally, ‘who hath testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ This is just a periphrasis for the contents of this book, as summarily described in the next clause, ‘all things which he saw.’”
I’ve never seen the word periphrasis before so I looked it up. It means using more words than needed, or using a less straightforward way of saying something. I totally disagree with the use of this word here. There are more astute commentators who will be breaking this down so that we can see why both phrases (who hath testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ) are used.
“For it is observable, the copulative ‘and’ is not in the original; so that it is not an additional proposition which meets us, but a concise explanation of the one foregoing. The insertion of the word — even, putting the two propositions in apposition with each other, would be more consistent with the structure of the original. The expression, ‘testimony of Jesus Christ,’ occurs further on, in chap. xii. 17, with obvious reference to a remnant of believing Jews in the latter day, who shall possess this book.”
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:17; KJV)
The word “copulative” also threw me a bit. I’ve never seen it used as an adjective like this. I looked it up and found the following definition: “involving or consisting of connected words or clauses”. I have not observed that the “‘and’ is not in the original”…I don’t think anyone, even a century ago, has actually seen the original. But I agree that it’s not an added “proposition.”
While I was looking up words, I checked out “apposition.” The definition of “apposition” is that it’s “a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side so one element identifies the other in a different way”; i.e. My sister, Alice Smith; “next to, instead of opposing.”
“And in chap. xix. 10, it seems generally defined to be ‘the Spirit of Prophecy.’”
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)
“The ninth verse explains where John was, when he received this testimony, even in the Isle of Patmos. There is no authority in Scripture, for the belief that he was banished to Patmos. Tradition alone, and not a very satisfactory one, supports this view. The truth seems to be, that he went to Patmos, to receive this series of visions, as Paul went to Arabia, for a similar purpose.” [THE APOCALYPSE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF “THE DAY OF THE LORD,” Vol. 1, by James Kelly, 1849]
The Biblical source about John on Patmos is:
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)
This could be read to say that “he had been sent there because he was teaching the word of God…” or, it it could be read “ he went there to hear the word of God…” The early Church Fathers say that John was exiled to the island; that’s a pretty powerful witness. They also say that when Domitian died, the people on Patmos were released, including John. This becomes a pretty complicated “tradition,” that is totally believable in my opinion. Domitian was well-known for exiling people, and not just to Patmos.
“The revelation is one belonging to Jesus Christ, which God gave Him, and He signifies it to John. Though God over all blessed for ever, He is here seen as Son of man, the rejected Messiah or Lamb, and so Head over all things. This fact, that the revelation is one confided to Him, is important, because it at once makes it the testimony of Jesus and the word of God, being communicated by Jesus, and given to Him by God. This testimony of Jesus and word of God comes as a vision to John, who bare record of all he saw. All of it is prophetic in character, not the Spirit of God the messenger of the Father and of the Son’s grace to the assembly in its own place—a direct inspired communication to the assembly itself for itself as in its own right place—but a prophetic revelation to John about it as in the world, and about the world itself.” [from SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, VOL 5, COLOSSIANS — THE REVELATION, by John Nelson Darby, mid-19th century]
Darby is another interesting character. Wikipedia has a very interesting line about him: he had a “conviction that the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it limited the recognition that the Holy Spirit could speak through any member of the Church.” I’ve been thinking a lot about this idea for a while now, so it was interesting to run into it today. I haven’t been thinking about it as a “sin” so much as thinking that the idea of a hierarchical “clergy” is not really Biblical. Christ is not recorded as saying: “Ok Peter, you will be the Pope, and John, you can be the first Bishop. Andrew and Philip, you can be priests…” What was presented was the Apostles in teaching and healing roles (like Jesus), and Jesus saying “Take care of my sheep” (John 21:16). And, while teaching and healing were important, it’s the “caring for the flock” that stands out: mainly because the Old Testament refers to the lack of a good shepherd.
5Those who buy them slaughter them and go unpunished, and each of those who sell them says, ‘Blessed be the LORD, for I have become rich! And their own shepherds have no compassion for them…17Woe to the worthless shepherd who abandons the flock! (Zechariah 11:5,17; NASB)
“Woe to the shepherds who are causing the sheep of My pasture to perish and are scattering them!” declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:1; NASB)
1The the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2”Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘This is what the Lord GOD says: “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should the shepherds not feed the flock? 3You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. 4Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you searched for the lost; but with force and with violence you have dominated them… (Ezekiel 34:1-4; NASB)
Jesus is the Good Shepherd sent to care for the flock. Men are told to be “like Christ” for their families…to be good shepherds. We call our ministers “pastors” because of their expected role as a shepherd. In my opinion, these pastors should be thinking of their roles as being like the Apostles…who were following Christ. I’m not done thinking about this, so I’ll probably come back to this in the future.
“In ver. 2, ‘Who has testified of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what he saw,’ there is the same tendency apparent as in ver. 1, to render manifest the high importance of the book, and signalize it as deriving its matter through Christ from the Supreme God. Hence everything of an independent nature in the author is thrown into the shade, and he presents himself throughout as merely occupying the place of a servant, who faithfully announces his master’s charges. John does not speak from himself; he merely testifies of the word of God, as it had been certified to him through the testimony of Jesus Christ. Therefore in the threatenings, promises, and exhortations of the book we are not to look at the person of the writer, but constantly to remember, that it is the Most High God who speaks here…The expression: who has testified, not: who testifies, which has given rise to much misunderstanding, was first placed by Bengel in its true light: ‘It is the manner of the ancients in their books and writings, that they often frame their words not in respect to the time when they wrote, but to that when their writings should be read’…when John wrote in Patmos, it might have been said, he testifies; but in respect to the book being read in Asia, he preferred saying, he has testified…
“The words: what…he saw, determine more precisely the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. They show that the subject here is of those higher communications which were received in vision by the internal eye.…By the expression: what he saw, the feeling of his own mind, the intermingling play of a luxuriant fancy, is quite excluded.” [from CLARK’S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, VOL 22: HENGSTENBERG ON THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN, VOL 1, by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, 1849-1851]
We again see the issue of tense come up. I have trouble believing that the convention of using the past tense when describing something that happened to you was such a new idea in the 18th century. I read Robinson Crusoe when I was young, and even though it was written in the early 18th century, it was not written in the present tense. It kind of feels like Hengstenberg brought this up just to have more to say.
“‘And He sent and signified.’ From the Incarnation it passes to Apostleship, that on which the Gospel so much dwells: ‘As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.’ ‘And signified,’ i.e. showed by symbol and type, as the word occurs in St. John's Gospel (chap. xii. 33); ‘this He said, signifying’ — expressing by figure and allegory — ‘what death He should die;’ spake not in the language of men, but set forth in Divine hieroglyphic.”
Words are technically symbols. Merriam-Webster defines ‘signify’ as: “to be a sign of: MEAN; imply; to show especially by a conventional token (such as word, signal, or gesture).” “Figure and allegory” are not the most common means of “signifying.” And the “Divine” is not trying to produce unintelligible “hieroglyphs.”
“And "by His Angel" — that we suppose not these to be manifestations of Christ Himself as we behold Him ‘face to face’ in the Gospels; but rather as in the Old Testament, ‘by angels in the hand of a Mediator.” All is of the beautiful order and harmony which is in Heaven; which God gave unto Christ, and Christ to His Angel; His Angel to John, and John to the Churches. It is Apostolic, and not that only, but also Angelic and Evangelic.
“‘To His servant John’ — on account of his chaste life, says Bede. To Daniel and to John, to the pure in heart, are the visions of God. Again, our Lord says, ‘I have called you friends, for all things I have made known unto you.’ Thus to Abraham, ‘the friend of God;’ thus to Daniel, the greatly beloved; to John, the beloved disciple, were revealed what God was about to do.”
The ‘chaste’ life that is alluded to here is difficult to assess. Certainly Abraham was married, so one has to conclude that the ‘chaste’ life did not mean ‘virginal.’ I also have to wonder because Abraham had relations with his wife’s maid, without taking her as a wife, so I’m confused how the author figures him into this list of the ‘chaste.’ He leaves David off of this list: he who was a man after God’s own heart, though David was, at times, decidedly not ‘chaste.’ And what about all the Old Testament Prophets? My suspicions are that God chooses who He will, and while ‘chasteness’ may play into His choices, it does not appear to be the only thing that does.
“‘Who bare record’ — the characteristic of St. John, the bearing witness, which so often occurs in his Gospel and Epistle — ‘of the word of God,’ the more general expression, and ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ;’ as combining the Old and New Testaments, and that under the new form of Prophetic vision, according to "whatever things he saw." Aretas compares this with the termination of his Gospel; ‘This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.’”
“The Apostle does not commence, observes Aretas, as in his Gospel and Epistle, by dwelling on Christ's Divine attributes, but on His humble estate, as showing the Divine and Human in one and the same Christ. While by the ministering Angel and His ‘servants’ that are instructed, he shows His greatness and Godhead.” [from THE APOCALYPSE WITH NOTES AND REFLECTIONS, by Isaac Williams, 1851]
I don’t know who “Aretas” is, the only reference I can find to someone of that name is Aretas IV who was a Nabataean king from about 9 BC to 40 AD. I doubt he was discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I agree with the views of “Aretas” until the reference to John “dwelling…on His humble estate.” In other words, Revelation starts by talking about Jesus in His human form rather than His Divine form. I don’t see it that way at all. I see Jesus as the Christ, in all His Power and Divinity, from the beginning of the book.
That’s enough for today. We’ll be back in the 19th century next time.