REVELATION 1:2, PART 5
…the aorist is much more than ‘past time'...You are in a helicopter over the parade, looking at the parade as a whole...seeing the action from the outside as a whole rather than from inside the action
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 picking it up in the mid-19th century commentaries:
“…He has condescended to give his people ‘a more sure word of prophecy: whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts,’ 2 Pet. 1:19.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Peter 1:19; KJV)
“There it was said to John, ‘I will show thee things which must be hereafter,’ Rev. 4:1; which things were shortly to begin to come to pass, — they being a series of successive events, commencing near the time in which John wrote, and extending to the end of the world and the establishment of the everlasting kingdom.
“These were shown to John by symbolic representations, in a series of visions, the import of which was signified to him by an angelic interpreter. Said the Savior, ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches,’ 22:16.
I 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 22:16; KJV)
“And these things were not to be sealed up, like the words of Daniel…He recorded the words which God thus gave him, —‘the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.’ He has given us, in graphic language, such descriptions of the visions shown, that we can easily imagine the symbols which he saw; and we have the inspired explanations of those which were ‘signified’ to him. Therefore we may read, and receive the blessings promised to those who keep this testimony of Jesus.” [from A BRIEF COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, by Sylvester Bliss, 1853]
I’m not sure what Bliss means by “commencing near the time in which John wrote, and extending to the end of the world and the establishment of the everlasting kingdom.” It’s like he is trying to walk a line between preterism and futurism: the preterists thinking that pretty much all of it happened around John’s time, and the futurist thinking that pretty much none of it happened around John’s time; so it’s just confusing.
I also noticed the line: “we can easily imagine the symbols which he saw.” As I’ve said before, I don’t think that most of what he saw was “symbolic.”
“…Jesus Christ signified, i.e. made known by symbol and figure, the things which must come to pass. ‘Signify’ (simaineo) is characteristic of St. John, to whom wonders are ‘signs’ (simeia) of Divine truths. ‘This he said, signifying [by means of an allegory] by what manner of death he should die’ (John xii.33; comp. xviii.32; xxi.19).”
This he said, signifying what death he should die. (John 12:33; KJV)
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. (John 18:32; KJV)
This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. (John 21:19; KJV)
Google translates simaineo as ‘I mean;’ and simeia as ‘points.’ Simeia is also found to mean: point, sign, spot, place, mark, token. Green’s Interlinear Bible has ‘signs’ as simian in John 2:11; it also has ‘signified’ as mane in Revelation 1:1.
“By his angel; literally, by means of his angel (dia tou angelou) . ‘Angel’ here probably has its common meaning of a spiritual messenger from the unseen world; but it is the fact of his being Christ's messenger, rather than his heavenly character, that is specially indicated. Whether one and the same angel is employed throughout the Revelation is not clear. He does not come into the foreground of the narrative until ch. xvii. 1, 7, 15 (comp. ch. xix. 9; xxi. 9; xxii. 1, 6, 9).”
1And 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…7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seen heads and ten horns…15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. (Revelation 17:1,7,15; KJV)
And he saith unto me, Write, blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. (Revelation 19:9; 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)
1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb…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… 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 22:1,6,9; KJV
Google translates dia tou angelou as ‘through the angel,’ which is essentially the same thing.
“The Revelation is begun (vers. 17—20) and ended (ch. xxii. 16) by Christ himself; but the main portion is conducted ‘by means of his angel.’ Thus St. Paul says of the Law that it was ‘administered by means of angels in the hand of a mediator,’ i.e. Moses (Gal. iii. 19).
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19; KJV)
“In this case the mediator is John, a ‘servant’ specially selected for this work (Isa. xlix. 5; Amos iii. 7).”
And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. (Isaiah 49:5; KJV)
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7; KJV)
I suppose that John could be called a “mediator” in the strict sense of the word. But, the true Mediator, in this case and all others, is Jesus Christ. John was more of a conduit.
“Thus we have four gradations — the primary Agent, the Father; the secondary Agent, Jesus Christ; the instrument, his angel; the recipient, John.
“Ver. 2 — Who bare record. ‘To bear witness’ (martyrein) and ‘witness,’ or ‘testimony’ (martyria), are characteristic of St. John’s writings, and serve to connect together his Gospel, the First Epistle, and the Apocalypse. Such words should be carefully noted, and, so far as possible, uniformly translated, in order to mark their frequency in the English Version. The Authorized Version rings the changes on ‘bear witness,’ ‘hear record,’ ‘give record,’ and ‘testify,’ for martyrein. The Revised Version has here made great improvements. To bear witness to the truth and the Word of God was St. John’s special function throughout his long life, and to this fact he calls attention in all his chief writings. The testimony of Jesus Christ, like ‘the Revelation of Jesus Christ’ (ver. 1), means that which he gave, not that which tells about him. And of all things that he saw; better, as in the Revised Version, even of all things that he saw, taking osa eiden in apposition with what precedes. The seer is here speaking of the vision of the Apocalypse, not of the events in Christ's life. The aorists, emartyrisen and eiden, are rightly compared to the synegrapse of Thucydides (i 1 ; vi. 7, 93).” [from THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE, THE PULPIT COMMENTARY, by Spence and Exell, 1858]
Let’s discuss the meat and then the language. First, I don’t agree that words should be always translated the same into English just so we can have an easy “word count.” Translation is never a simple word for word substitution, especially with the more ancient languages. I’m not an expert, but just think about how differently people lived their lives back then…and yet how similar at the same time. You can imagine that a lot of word usage is based on everyday life. The similarities are what make it possible to get to an understanding of them; the differences present the challenges. One word can have multiple meanings, even today. I recently heard a pastor use the word apple to illustrate this point. Apple can mean: a fruit, the tree that bears the fruit, the apple of your eye, the apple of you cheek, Adam’s apple, bad apple, and, of course, a piece of technology. If you were looking back to this time from about 2000 years in the future, and you applied the idea of ‘fruit’ to the word ‘apple’ in all those applications, you could get very confused.
Next, the authors say: “The testimony of Jesus Christ, like ‘the Revelation of Jesus Christ’ (ver. 1), means that which he gave, not that which tells about him.” They go further by saying that the events of the life of Jesus are not part of Revelation: as if reading the events of Jesus’ life are the only way to ‘reveal,’ or get to know Him better. Revelation showcases the actions of Christ, which help us to see Him much more clearly.
Thirdly, the authors mention the phrase “even of all things that he saw” as being in ‘apposition’ to the other phrases of the line. We discussed this last time about James Kelly’s 1849 book. It’s interesting that Spence and Excell used a very similar phraseology.
Lastly, the last line: “The aorists, emarturisen and eiden, are rightly compared to the synegrapse of Thucydides” is a very technical line.
Aorist is a grammatical tense that we’re going to get into in some detail later in this post.
I just think it’s odd to throw in this line after a pretty run of the mill commentary. I think the author’s point here was that John was not writing in the present tense, just as Thucydides was not; but this was a very odd place to throw that information, and it could have been done with a better explanation for the lay reader.
So now let’s look briefly at the Greek. Osa te eide is translated by Google as ‘what he saw’. Green’s Interlinear Bible has ‘as many as even he saw.’ Osa alone is translated as ‘as many as;’ eide as ‘saw.’
Eiden is translated by Google as ‘they saw;’ and osa te eiden (and osa eiden) as ‘what they saw.’
Martyrein is translated as ‘witness’ on Google; martyria as ‘testimony;’ and emartyrisen as ‘they testified.’
Synegrapse is translated ‘he wrote’ on Google.
Being curious about the reference to Thucydides, I looked up the parts referred to:
“Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war, and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he could see the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation.
“Indeed this was the greatest movement yet known in history, not only of the Hellenes, but of a large part of the barbarian world — I had almost said of mankind.
“For though the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained, yet the evidences which an inquiry carried as far back as was practicable leads me to trust, all point to the conclusion that there was nothing on a great scale, either in war or in other matters.” [Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War) Book i, Chapter 1]
“The envoys of the Athenians were accordingly despatched to Sicily. The same winter the Lacedaemonians and their allies, as the Corinthians expected, marched into the Argive territory, and ravaged a small part of the land, and took some yokes of oxen and carried off some corn. They also settled the Argive exiles at Orneae, and left them a few soldiers taken from the rest of the army; and after making a truce for a certain while, according to which neither Orneatae nor Argives were to injure each other’s territory, returned home with the army.
“Not long afterwards the Athenians came with thirty ships and six hundred heavy infantry, and the Argives joining them with all their forces, marched out and besieged the men in Orneae for one day; but the garrison escaped by night, the besiegers having bivouacked some way off. The next day the Argives, discovering it, razed Orneae to the ground, and went back again; after which the Athenians went home in their ships.
“Meanwhile the Athenians took by sea to Methone on the Macedonian border some cavalry of their own and the Macedonian exiles that were at Athens, and plundered the country of Perdiccas.
“Upon this the Lacedaemonians sent to the Thracian Chalcidians, who had a truce with Athens from one ten days to another, urging them to join Perdiccas in the war, which they refused to do. And the winter ended, and with it ended the sixteenth year of this war of which Thucydides is the historian [if the actual Greek word is “writer,” then this could be another example of the word synegrapse].” [Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War) Book vi, Chapter 7]
“Such were the words of Alcibiades [this is possibly another use of synegrapse]. The Lacedaemonians, who had themselves before intended to march against Athens, but were still waiting and looking about them, at once became much more in earnest when they received this particular information from Alcibiades, and considered that they had heard it from the man who best knew the truth of the matter.
“Accordingly they now turned their attention to the fortifying of Decelea and sending immediate aid to the Sicilians; and naming Gylippus, son of Cleandridas, to the command of the Syracusans, bade him consult with that people and with the Corinthians and arrange for succors reaching the island, in the best and speediest way possible under the circumstances.
“Gylippus desired the Corinthians to send him at once two ships to Asine, and to prepare the rest that they intended to send, and to have them ready to sail at the proper time. Having settled this, the envoys departed from Lacedaemon.
“In the meantime arrived the Athenian galley from Sicily sent by the generals for money and cavalry; and the Athenians, after hearing what they wanted, voted to send the supplies for the armament and the cavalry. And the winter ended, and with it ended the seventeenth year of the present war of which Thucydides is the historian [and again, this could be a use of the word synegrapse].” [Thucydides (The Peloponnesian War) Book vi, Chapter 93] Thucydides quotes taken from www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0200%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D7%3Asection%3D3
While this was historically interesting, I could only find the one translated word that definitely matched what Spence and Excell were trying to illustrate, and then 3 other possibilities. It would have been more helpful to look at the Greek I guess, but anyone who knows anything about other languages can understand that words can have different endings and/or forms depending on gender, tense, and other parameters. So, I’m still not clear why looking at the use of a totally different word in a non-biblical text is helpful. Especially when that non-biblical text is not easily available and would mean nothing to a non-Greek scholar…and would most likely be superfluous to an actual Greek scholar.
“Sending, aposteilas; absolute. — By His angel (compare ch. xxii.6) — in respect to the various hypotheses concerning these words — the angel of the Lord — Gabriel — the angel who accompanied the Apocalyptist, or who did but throw him into his rapt state, etc.…From this Angel of Christ, in His universal form, particular angelic appearances are to be distinguished. Dusterdieck regards the term as generic, signifying that particular angel of whom Christ made use in each particular case. If we assume the angelic visible appearance of Christ to be the angel of the Apocalypse (comp. Acts xii. 11,15), we do indeed encounter a difficulty in the fact that the angel designates Himself in ch. xxii. 9, as syndoulos; doubtless, however, it suffices to remark that He appears to the apostle in the quality of an angel.”
Looking at the Greek, aposteilas is translated by Google as “you send.” And, syndoulos is translated as “coworker” by Google, and as “fellow slave” by Bing.
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… 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 22:6,9; KJV)
7And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. 8and the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. 9And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. 10When they were past the first and second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leaders unto the city 11And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the LORD hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. 12And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. 13And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, name Rhoda. 14And when she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. 15And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, it is his angel. (Acts 12:7-15; KJV)
“To His servant John. — Is it conceivable that a presbyter John could have applied this emphatic term to himself, so long as the memory of the the great Apostle John endured?”
I certainly don’t think so.
“The Word of God (comp. ch. xix. 13). — Why should not the Logos be intended, as Ebrard and others maintain?”
Of course the Logos was intended.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13; KJV)
“Ver. 2. Who testified. — According to Dusterdieck and many others…the whole of verse 2d refers to nothing but the present scripture. This supposition they hold to be in nowise inconsistent with emartyrise. Not only, however, is the Aorist thus rendered of no distinctive value, but the martyrein and martyria are likewise deprived of their full weight. Neither to a vision nor to the report of a vision could these expressions be applied. We, therefore, with many others…refer this passage to what was known as the earlier ministry of John; not simply to his Gospel, but, with Ebrard, to his whole evangelical and apostolic witness, corroborated by his martyrhood, and familiar to his readers.”
John was not martyred; he was persecuted, but not martyred.
Dusterdieck is someone we’ve seen quotes from already. Johannes Heinrich August Ebrard (1818-1888) is a new name. He was a German protestant theologian who edited and completed Hermann Olshausen’s commentary, actually writing the commentary on Hebrews, John’s epistles, and Revelation. Olshausen died in 1839. I’ve looked up Olshausen’s mult-volume Bible commentary and was able to download a bunch of them, but I haven’t found the volume on Revelation yet. I’ll keep looking.
Emartyrise is translated as “testified” by Google…past tense. I don’t understand why, if John is writing in past tense, that that would negate the witness he was then recording. I seriously doubt that John was writing while he was having the visions; it’s more likely that he wrote it down after the event. And, many think that he wrote out the whole experience and only later wrote the introduction…so at the writing of “who testified,” his testimony was probably already committed to paper.
But, even if “who testified” referred to John’s Gospel (or epistles), I don’t understand why “the Aorist [was] thus rendered of no distinctive value.” Wanting to understand, I looked up information on the aorist tense, because the definition: “a verb form that usually expresses perfective aspect and refers to past events” just doesn’t cut it. Bill Mounce, who is a Greek scholar among other things, has a great blog on the aorist tense (billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/the-aorist-so-much-more-past-tense). Here are some bits of it:
“…the aorist is so much more than ‘past time,’ and in fact time is significantly secondary to the real gist of the tense…I like Con Campbell’s word picture of the aorist. You are in a helicopter over the parade, looking at the parade as a whole. Buist Fanning talks about seeing the action from the outside as a whole rather than from inside the action (i.e., being part of the parade).
“Because this is the basic genius of the aorist, it can have a phenomenally wide range of usage. You can be looking at the action as a whole but paying special attention to the beginning (ingressive) or to the end (consummative). It can describe something that simply is regardless of any time reference (gnomic).
“But my favorite is the proleptic (futuristic) use of the aorist. Because time is secondary, the aorist can describe a future event and emphasize the certainty of the action. It is not a common usage, but it does show how we need to keep the idea of ‘time’ in its proper place.”
I love that: keeping time in its proper place. He uses the example of Revelation 10:7. Here are several translations that handle the English translation of the aorist tense differently, because there is no aorist tense in English. I’ve highlighted the words that are used to translate the Greek word in aorist tense:
but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the the mystery of God is finished, as He announced to His servants the prophets. (NASB - present tense used)
But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets. (NIV - future tense used)
but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets. (NKJV - past tense, passive voice used)
Mounce also says:
“But my all-time favorite is the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism. ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well please (evdokisa)’ (Matt 3:17. NRSV). The aorist is not saying that God ‘was’ pleased with Jesus (perhaps implying he was no longer pleased — that would be heresy), but that the sum total of life, perhaps culminating in his humble submission to a sinner’s baptist, was pleasing to the Father.”
In other words, the Father “was pleased” with the total life of Jesus, not just the moment in which the words were spoken.
Back to our quote:
“The testimony of Jesus Christ. — Not testimonial de Christo…and still less the angelic message of Christ. How natural it was for the Apostle, in his martyrhood, to think of Christ as the great Martyr — Osa eide. Dusterdieck: The visions here described. Comp. against this view 1 John i.1; Gosp. of John i. 14, xix. 35. — The expression embraces the whole witness of John concerning his whole view of the glory of Christ, in the grandeur of His deeds and demonstrations.“ [from THE REVELATION OF JOHN, by John Peter Lange, 1857]
Again, John was not martyred. I agree very much with Lange’s idea that osa eide (that Google translates as “what he saw”) refers to the whole witness of John.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (1 John 1:1; KJV)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14; KJV)
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. (John 19:35; KJV)
We’ve gone quite far enough for today. Next time we’ll pick it up back in the mid-19th century.
You are really an amazingly good writer. Please keep up your good work.