REVELATION 1:2, PART 6
...we are left from those representations to gather the meaning of God, and the character of the events about to come to pass.
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)
Here we are, back in the mid-19th century:
“…Because one and another of the angels are declared, at different passages, to have instructed the apostle, it need not be supposed that one particular angel is here intended, but the mode of communication is signified, that is, by angelic ministration.
“2 Who hath given testimony to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what things soever he hath seen. As an apostle and evangelist, St. John was a teacher of the word of God: and, as a martyr, he had borne witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ.” [from EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE OF ST JOHN THE APOSTLE, by Edward Putnam, 1858]
I’m in total agreement about the angels: it is not clear that there is one particular angel “instructing” John.
I’m not happy that we are back to “John the martyr.” This suggests that Putnam was reading his contemporaries who were spreading this idea; but not reading the Church Fathers, who certainly knew that John was not martyred.
“…the difference of the relationships is immense; and the Revelation clearly is addressed to the lower of these relations. The reason, I presume, is, partly because God is therein making known a certain course of earthly events with which the lower position is most in harmony; (the higher one of sons being more suitable to communion with the Father and with His Son;) and partly because God seems to be here preparing the way for dealing with His people in the latter day, when their position as His servants will be more or less manifested, but not the enjoyment of nearness as sons: I allude to the interval after the removal of the Church.”
I don’t quite agree with this. There is definitely a difference in how the church-age believers are seen versus the Tribulation Saints, but I don’t agree that the difference is between “sons” and “servants.” Paul, John, and Peter do not refer to themselves as “sons of Christ,” rather as “servants;” and if anyone was going to feel like “sons,” it would be them. What I’ve come to understand is that the church-age believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and the Tribulation Saints are not. Those who come to Christ in the Tribulation are not part of the Church, and they are not part of the Bride; they will have an experience similar to those who loved God before the coming of Christ. The Spirit will be with them, but not in them. I believe that the removal of the in-dwelt is the removal of the Restrainer, as mentioned by Paul.
“The next words greatly confirm this; for the Lord ‘sent and signified [it] by His angel unto His servant John.’ That is, the prophetic communication is made, not directly, but through the intervention of an angel; and John is no longer spoken of as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved, which also leaned upon his breast at supper,’ but as ‘his servant,’ ‘who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [and] of all things that he saw.’ It has to be remarked here, that the last ‘and’ ought to disappear, which makes no small difference in the sense. For ‘all things that he saw’ must not be regarded as a third and additional division, but rather as explaining and limiting the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ. The visions of John constituted the word and testimony spoken of here. The true rendering is, ‘Who bare record of (or testified) the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ— whatsoever things he saw.’”
The author is absolutely right about leaving off the last “and.” When I go to Green’s Interlinear Bible, the literal translation of the Greek reads: “John, who testified of the word of God and the witness of Jesus Christ, as many as even he saw.” If you also look at the NASB translation at the top of this post, you can see that there is no final “and,” as the NASB is a fairly literal translation.
“Very different, again, is the revelation of God here and the testimony which Jesus bears in this book, from what we find in John's gospel. The Word of God there is the Lord Jesus Himself, who, in the beginning was with God and was God: the full and personal expression of God, and that not merely as the Creator of all things, but in perfect grace. ‘In him was life, and the life was the light of men.’ ‘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.’ In the Revelation, on the contrary, even when He is spoken of as the Word of God, it is as the expression of divine judgment, because the whole book is eminently judicial. ‘He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called the Word of God.’ (Rev. xix. 13.) So too, in the gospel, the testimony that Jesus renders is to the Father, as it is throughout the Father's joy to bear witness of the Son. Indeed, the Son Himself towards the close of His ministry, sums up the pith and character of the testimony there in these few words, ‘He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.’ (John xiv. 9.)”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:9; NASB)
“All this makes the distinctive features of the Revelation to stand out in broader contrast. For throughout the book, the very name of the Father occurs but rarely, and even where it does, the object is in no way the revelation of His love as Father to His family. In Rev. i. iii. and xiv. He is spoken of as such in relation to Jesus only. The grand subject is, God manifested in His judgments here below, with a view to the manifestation of the Lord Jesus, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords.’” [from LECTURES ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by William Kelly, 1861]
It’s very clear that Revelation puts the lie to those who think of Christ’s message as being only that of love. Fortunately for us, love is a big part of His message, but we ignore the rest at our own peril.
“A point of deep importance lies couched in the next words. ‘Unto His servants.’ First, this warns us that we are not on the ground taken by the Epistles of Paul, where the writer addresses the saints as the sons of God: and the Most High is discovered to them as their Father.
“The angel was sent to ‘show’ unto the servants of God the future. The word employed denotes generally the manifesting a thing to the senses. And hence, after the admonitory addresses to the churches are finished, and the future begins to be treated of, the style changes. Events are seen to transpire.”
Yes! Events are going to transpire, not just symbology.
“I have chosen the word ‘represented,’ in preference to ‘signified.’ The Greek expression intends that the Revelation is peculiar in its mode of making known the future to us. It was not given in words at first, as in the case of prophecies in general. It was presented before John as a series of moving visions, which he described, pen in hand, as they appeared before him. And we are left from those representations to gather the meaning of God, and the character of the events about to come to pass. The problem of the Revelation then is: Given certain persons, things, and actions, to penetrate from thence into the meaning and plans of men and of God.”
I certainly can’t provide any evidence (and neither can this author) that John did or did not write the book as he was having the visions. Personally, I don’t think he did. Visions are hard to forget; I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have written them after they were concluded, especially considering that the Holy Spirit was there to help him.
“From this word many have come to the conclusion that the Apocalypse is a ‘book of symbols.’ But this is a hasty inference. Its prophetic part is a series of representations. But representations are of two kinds, direct and indirect.
“In the Apocalypse both styles of representation occur: and it is from supposing that it contains only symbols, that much of the obscurity of the book is owing. Symbols there are in it; but not a few of them are explained; and they are far far fewer than the direct representations of the future. There are twice seven symbols which are explained; and perhaps as many more that are not explained. The explained are as follows :—
[I have provided the Scripture that includes the explanation in each case]
“1. Lamp-stands = Churches.
2. Stars = Angels of Churches.
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lamp stands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lamp stands are the seven churches. (Revelation 1: 20; NASB)
“3. Torches = Spirits of God.
Out from the throne came flashes of lightening and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God (Revelation 4:5; NASB)
“4. Horns and Eyes = Spirits of God.
And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Revelation 5:6; NASB)
“5. Odors = Prayers of Saints.
When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. (Revelation 5:8; NASB)
“6. Dragon = Satan.
And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9; NASB)
“7. Frogs = Spirits.
13And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; 14for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the entire world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. (Revelation 16:13,14; NASB)
“8. Wild Beast = a King, xvii.
“9. Heads of Wild Beast = Mountains.
9Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sits, 10and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11The beast which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. (Revelation 17:9-11; NASB)
[The wording of this last bit of Revelation is a little tricky. It really doesn’t seem to be “Heads of Wild Beast = Mountains” as much as it is “Heads of Wild Beast = Mountains = Kings.” And then, of course, “The beast which was, and is not” would equal a King. There is so much more to get into in this passage that I can hardly wait!]
“10. Horns = Subordinate Kings.
The ten horns which your saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. (Revelation 17:12; NASB)
“11.Waters = Peoples.
And he said to me, “The waters which you saw where the prostitute sits are peoples and multitudes, and nations and languages. (Revelation 17:15; NASB)
“12. Woman = A City.
The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Revelation 17:18; NASB)
“13. Fine Linen = Righteousness.
It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. (Revelation 19:8; NASB)
“14. The Bride Wife of the Lamb = City of God, xxi. 9, 10.
9The one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, full of the seven last plagues, came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God…27and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Revelation 21:9,10,27; NASB)
“The past tense is used,—he ’testified,’—because the first ten verses of this chapter are a preface, added after the writing of the rest.”
Yeah, ok, whatever. [Seriously, I doubt it.]
“‘The Word of God’ in the division of the book stands first; because that is by pre-eminence ‘the Revelation,’ or the part which God gave to Christ, and which was chiefly a series of visible signs.
“‘The testimony of Jesus‘ relates to things then present, and is His decision as to the state of the Churches.” [from THE APOCALYPSE EXPOUNDED BY SCRIPTURE, by Robert Govett, 1864]
Govett is someone J. Vernon McGee quoted frequently, and I can see why. He has a few of the little annoying things that most of the 19th century commentators have, but he totally understands that Revelation is describing the future and not just an incomprehensible jumble of symbols.
“These things Christ sent ‘his angel,’ one of his more illustrious servants in the world above, to signify and explain, in order, to John, who was his principal servant on earth at that time; as it is probable, that he was then the only surviving apostle…Thus, future events were made known to him; as they had been to several of the ancient prophets, especially Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. Accordingly he faithfully testified, and exactly recorded ‘the word of God, even the testimony of Jesus Christ,’ and all things which he saw in these visions of the Almighty…Jesus Christ signified, or intimated by his angel, to John his purpose of revealing future things to him in whatever way the angel was employed, doubtless the immediate revelation was made by the Holy Spirit, and not by any creature. The angel Gabriel indeed brought a verbal message to Daniel, containing an extraordinary prophecy… but the visions and revelations of this book were not verbal messages.” [from THE HOLY BIBLE: CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, VOL 6, by Thomas Scott, 1866]
I’m not sure what Scott meant by: “doubtless the immediate revelation was made by the Holy Spirit.” Certainly the Holy Spirit was at work helping John to get the visions down on paper…but how is that “the immediate revelation”? As for Daniel, he also received some visions, not just verbal messages.
“JESUS, THOUGH NOT IN HIS HUMANITY UBIQUITOUS, IS PRESENT WITH HIS CHURCH BY VIRTUE OF HIS EXALTATION ON THE THRONE OF GRACE.
“Many who stumble at this proposition, strenuously though inconsistently contend for it from another standpoint. Thus post-millenarians say, as I do, that the body of Jesus is not everywhere, but somewhere; and no sober thinkers allege that the locality is revealed, or that the Lord Jesus never passes from one place to another. Some may dream of it in the sun, and some in a great star in the constellation of Pleiades. Were I to indulge in like conjectures, I should rather select that side of the moon which is always toward the earth, and say that all His saints are thus in His immediate presence. But I prefer, with Chalmers, to regard heaven as consisting in state rather than locality ; and I see no difficulty in thinking of Christ seated in glorified humanity on the mediatorial throne of grace in some place, and thence giving the blessing of His presence to His whole church in this and the spiritual world.”
Personally, I think this is just so much magical thinking. In His Glory Body, Jesus walked through walls and appeared in locked rooms. We don’t truly know what-all a Glory Body can do. More than that, Christ is God, and God is omnipresent. Wouldn’t one assume that Christ is also omnipresent? As for His human body, it was changed “in the twinkling of an eye” to His Glory Body upon His Resurrection, therefore, His human body no longer exists.
Jesus stays closer to us than a star, the sun, or even the moon.
“And the pre-millenarians are pleased to assert that Jesus will at some future time be present visibly in Jerusalem (speaking of Old Jerusalem as if it still existed). But would He not then be absent from the saints in distant parts of the earth, with the earth's convexity between them and Jerusalem? If not, then may He not be present to all His people, though seated on the throne of grace in some other locality, as in the New Jerusalem? Would He not be as much present with us, as the preacher in the pulpit is present to the hearers in the most distant pew, if that instructor's voice and meaning are conveyed,—if instant reciprocity is maintained; or as the sun in his radiance is present to all the earth; or as the mind in the brain is conscious of, and therefore present with, the extremities of the body ?” [from THE APOCALYPSE TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED, by James Glasgow, 1872]
I can trust that Jesus is there, near me, as He is with all believers. If He is with me, it doesn’t mean He is not with someone else. When He rules from Jerusalem, it won’t mean that He won’t be present in California or Chile or China. Christ is omnipresent.
That’s it for today; we’ll still be in the 19th century next time.