REVELATION 1:2, PART 7
The blessed Apostle, the beloved Disciple, who was admitted to see the heavenly visions which he is about to describe
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 finally in the last part of the 19th century, but there are a lot of commentaries from this time period.
“In the divine nature of Christ was treasured the omniscience of God (Col. ii. 3). His human nature, in youth, ‘grew in wisdom;’ (Luke ii. 52) and was, in all that constitutes humanity, a perfect man without sin. Here His humanity receives the knowledge of the future, which He proceeds to present in visions and explanatory oracles to John.
2That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:2,3; KJV)
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52; KJV)
“This indication by pictorial visions is significantly expressed by the verb ‘to show:’ deixai, to exhibit… [deixai in GoogleTranslate is “look”]
“He indicated these things by His messenger. This indication marks the nature of visional instruction, viz. by symbols or pictures. These are different from the images seen in dreams, because a prophet in a state of vision was fully awake; only, so intent on and absorbed in what was presented to his view, that for the time he was unconscious of external things. But we may draw an illustration of a vision from an ordinary dream, in one respect: the dreamer sees fancied objects where others see nothing. The man in vision had the images exhibited to his view by Christ; and he had both a commissioned interpreter to explain the meaning, and the inspiration of the Spirit of God to instruct him in recording it in writing.”
I’ve written about this before, but it needs to be said again: visions are not like dreams. My understanding of visions is that they are outside of the person, while dreams and hallucinations are from inside the human brain. If you have a true vision from God, it is not your brain concocting things. Of course, it can be difficult to determine if something seen is from God vs. from the human mind. The decision is usually made based on what is seen and what the message is. Something heavily symbolic, without explanation, is more likely to be from the human mind: the symbology is used to present information that can get past the ego. The symbology in that case is usually pretty personal.
Revelation does have some symbology, but the symbols are explained within the vision, and thus are not personal.
“Ch. i. 2 : ‘Who attested the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ —By ‘the word’ must primarily be meant Christ, else the word and the testimony of Jesus are tautological [repetitious]. Here the word ‘who’ cannot refer to John as antecedent, but to ‘messenger’ as is plain from ch. xxii. 16: 'I Jesus have sent my messenger to testify unto you these things in the churches.’“
“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you of these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” (Revelation 22:16; NASB)
“Otherwise we might be much puzzled to discover what testimony John had previously given. But as the testimony here expressed is that of the messenger who bore that testimony before John was prepared to write, the difficulty which would otherwise exist is removed. The Apocalypse is John's first written document, to which he refers as a previous writing in the end of His Gospel : ‘He who wrote (grapses) these things.’”
24This is the disciple who is testifying about these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24,25; NASB)
Of course “the (W)ord” is Christ; and no, it is not tautological to add “the testimony of Jesus.” Also, “who” refers to John and not “the messenger,” because it is John who is testifying to what he saw. More than that, the quote from the end of John’s Gospel clearly does not refer to Revelation, but to the Gospel itself. It’s not puzzling at all when you realize that John wrote the Gospel before he wrote Revelation.
“'Whatever he saw.’ —He described his visions, and the whole of them. This implies also the explanations which Jesus Himself, or His interpreting messengers, gave of them. John wrote as an eye-witness; and he uses much of the vision style of the prophets.” [from THE APOCALYPSE TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED, by James Glasgow, 1872]
John definitely used the “vision style of the prophets.” But I contend that the “vision style” was the same because the source was the same, not because John was imitating the Old Testament prophets.
“kai esimanen aposteilas dia tou angelou aftou to doulo aftou Ioanni, 2os emartyrise ton logon tou Theou kai tin martyrian Iisou Christou, osa eide.”
Google Translate: “and he was sent by this angel to his servant John, 2who testified to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ what he saw.”
“The Divinity of Christ is declared by what follows; ‘He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.’ Compare xxii. 16 [see above]. The Angels are Christ’s Angels, because He is God. See Matt. xxiv. 31.
And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET BLAST, and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Matthew 24:31; NASB)
“to doulo aftou Ioanni. to His servant John. The blessed Apostle, the beloved Disciple, who was admitted to see the heavenly visions which he is about to describe, is not ‘exalted by the abundance of his revelation’ (2 Cor. xii. 7), but describes himself by this title, ‘the servant of Christ.’ ‘Mysteries are revealed unto the meek.” Ecclus. iii. 19.
Because of the extraordinary greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me — to keep me from exalting myself! (2 Corninthians 12:7; NASB)
For the fate of the sons of mankind and the fate of animals is the same. As one dies, so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath, and there is no advantage for mankind over animals, for all is futulity. (Ecclesiastes 3:19; NASB)
“os emartyrise k.t.l.] who bare witness of the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as he saw. St. John thus intimates, that what he writes in the Apocalypse, is not from himself, but from God; that it is not from any private imagination, but that it is the testimony of Christ; and that he writes whatever he saw in the visions of God.” [from THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, VOL 2, by Charles Wordsworth, 1872]
Pretty good quote. Google Translate says that “k.t.l.” means “etc.” in Greek. Et cetera, or etc., is Latin and means “and the rest.” In Greek, k.t.l stands for kai ta loipa, which translates as “and the rest.”
“John writes with authority, being conscious that he is recording God's truth, and that the various scenes and actions he was about to relate were the testimony of Jesus Christ—things which he had heard and seen in vision. (Ver. 3.)” [from NOTES ON THE REVELATION, by H. H. Snell, 1873]
Short and to the point.
“With esimanen [Google translates to: “meant”] is to be connected to doulo [translates: “the slave”] k.l. [alternate form for k.t.l.]; but the participle aposteilas [translated as “send”] should be taken, together with dia tou angelou aftou [translates as “through this angel”] according to the Hebrew usage; to send by the hand of a messenger = to send a messenger; compare Matt. xi. 4; therefore, and who has = and what the same, sending by means of his angel = by sending his angel, signified it to his servant John. Zullig unites the dia tou angelou with esimanen; but in this case the aposteilas would be too bald and also superfluous. The angel here is he who, particularly in the last part, from ch. xvii. onwards, shows to John the chief objects in the revelation…”
Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see (Matthew 11:4; NASB)
Usually when a commentator brings the Greek to our attention, it’s to show us something interesting using a fuller meaning of those words. In this case, I don’t feel like there was anything deeper about these words at all; or that the author even provided commentary.
“Verse 2. Who bare record to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, what he has seen. The received text has osa te, but the te is decidedly spurious and is wanting in A.B.C. over forty cursives…It is wrongly defended by Ewald… From external testimony, there can be no doubt of its spuriousness.”
Google Translate translates osa te eide and osa eide the same: “what he saw.” And, the author is correct when he says that “the received text” includes the te, it’s also part of the sentence in Green’s Interlinear Bible. Looking up the word te (#5037), The Complete Word Study Dictionary says it’s a conjunctive meaning “and,” like “kai.” It says further: “In general, kai is used to couple ideas which follow directly and necessarily from what precedes, while te is employed generally when something is subjoined which does not thus directly and necessarily follow. Kai connects and te annexes. Hence, te is the most general of all the copulatives (serving merely to show that the word or words preceding it has some connection with the one or ones following it). The place of te is usually after the first word of a clause…” Apparently te can be used with kai in a “not only/but also” type of meaning, but that doesn’t apply here. In the phrase osa te eide, osa means “as many as,” and eide means “he saw.” I’m no expert, but I suspect the te is there to imply a translation more like: “everything he saw;” to emphasize the meaning of osa eide. I’m not sure I would call it “spurious.”
“Then the osa eide forms an apposition to ton logon t. o. k. tin martyrian ‘I. Xp. [the author is using shorthand for: ton logon tou Theou kai tin martyrian Iisou Christou, the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ]. But the interpretation and reference are doubtful. Most interpreters take it as referring to a testimony which John had given in favor of the Gospel at an earlier period. So also Ewald…says, he had been a former eye-witness of Christ and also of the gospel, announcing it from Christ himself; osa eide would then restrict and limit as it were emartyrise; an eye-witness, but not an apostle. On the contrary, he refers it…to the fact that John testifies to the Gospel in this work. So also Lucke (2nd ed. Einl. pp. 239 sql., 241 Anm.); Ebrard (Krit. d. Evang. Gesch. pp. 1034 sqq. 1046 Commentar., cf. Stud. u. Krit. 55, p 181). The expressions logon tou Theou [Word of God] and martyrian Iisou [testimony of Jesus] are applied to the Gospel with reference to the testimony which confessors of the Lord gave to it (xx. 4,6,9).”
4Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years…6Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years…9And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. (Revelation 20:4,6,9; NASB)
The author’s logic is a little weird here, and I suspect it’s because he trying gallantly to maintain the idea that John wrote the Gospel after Revelation. He’s saying that if John had just “announced” the Gospel, then this John couldn’t be the Apostle. He is obviously unhappy with that solution (as he should be), so he goes on to say that the testimony referred to is Revelation itself. This is a fine interpretation in my view, to me, the passage could be read as referring to the Gospel or the Revelation, or both. But, if the author would stop trying to make the Scripture fit his preconceived ideas, he would see that the Gospel was written before Revelation and that is probably what is being referred to. But no, he needs to dig the hole deeper:
“But even if this idea were the correct one here, a more definite designation of the apostle John would not be contained in it, neither with regard to the Gospel written by him (as Ebrard l. c.) nor also a martyrdom suffered for the gospel’s sake; it would only be the designation of a disciple of the Lord who spread the evangelical doctrine and history by his attesting announcement of them; which would apply to the presbyter John, if the latter (according to Papias) had likewise seen and heard the Lord. If we consider the connection more narrowly, it is much more probably that the emartyrisen k. l. refers only to the testimony which John the seer gives in the book itself of the divine revelations communicated and of the visions presented to him. ”
So, he’s decided that both are true (each idea bolstering the other): John is not the Apostle, and, the testimony referred to is Revelation rather than the Gospel. He’s left with Papias because most of the other Early Church Fathers identify John as the Apostle. And then there his statement about John’s non-existent martyrdom.
“Logos tou Theou [Word of God] is used, as logos is often in the LXX [Septuagint], for the Hebrew דּבֲריֶי [Google translates as: “my words”] i.e. a divine revelation, the prophetic words of revelation; and in martyria ‘I. Xp. [the author is abbreviating martyrian Iisou Christou, “the testimony of Jesus Christ”] the genitive is that of subject, standing for the testimony which Jesus makes known to John in this revelation; comp. xxii. 20, where Jesus in the same connection is described as o martyron tafta [per Google: “of these witnesses”]; xxii. 16, i. 5, where he is called o martys o pistons [per Google: “the witness the believer”].
16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify [martyrisai] to you of these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star”…20He who testifies to these things [o martyron tafta] says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:16,20; NASB)
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness [o martys o pistos], the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood — (Revelation 1: 5; NASB)
“The osa eide [“what he saw” or “everything he saw”] refers to the phenomena which presented themselves to John in vision; and this is much better, especially after a comparison of i. 19 (grapson oun a eides), than to refer it to the actions and events of the life of Jesus as witnessed by the author, where one would rather expect eorake [Google: “it was time”] or eorakei [Google: “it’s coming,” clearly the translators don’t know this word], as in 1 John i. 2,3. “
Therefore write the things which you have seen [grapson a eides], and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. (Revelation 1:19; NASB)
2and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify [eorakamen kai martyroumen] and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us — 3what we have seen [o eorakamen] and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:2,3; NASB)
When I plug eorakamen kai martyroumen into Google Translate I get “we see and we testify,” so it does recognize eorakamen, I just can’t get it to translate the word by itself very well (it tells me that eorakamen means “we were dreaming”).
The author could have made his point a bit clearer. Eide, according to The Complete Word Study Dictionary, is an outdated word, but a word full of meaning. It basically means “to see,” but it has taken on all the meanings of “to see.” It implies “seeing” the deeper meanings, even “to know” or to understand. The other word, I would spell the root orao, but the Dictionary spells it horao, it means to physically see, to meet and converse with someone face to face; usually involves a person or thing that is seen; to observe; to learn and come to know about things; can also mean to take care or take heed in some situations; as horama or horasis it can mean visions. This last meaning could be why the author thought this would be the expected word for Revelation 1:2. But I appreciate the use of eide, with it’s implied depth of “seeing” and “knowing.”
“It is very unnatural when Vitringa and Ewald apply this member (with the reading te) to the prophetic intuitions; and on the contrary, the logon t. o. k. mart. ‘I. Xp. to the testimony already given in the Gospel. Even with the reading te the two-fold designation would be quite inadmissible; much more with the reading without te. In the interpretation here followed, we have manifested an appropriate connection of ideas as well as progression. Verse 1 describes him that is the first principle of the revelation — God the Father — him that is the first mediator, Christ, whom the former made use of as his instrument — the angel — and the person to whom he communicated it through the latter, i.e. John. Verse 2 then states that John made known to the other servants of God the revelation he received, through the testimony given in this book…” [from LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE, by Friedrich Bleek, 1875]
The abbreviations used by Bleek are very annoying. The abbreviation t. o. k. is nowhere to be found, but, there is an abbreviation k. t. o.: kai ta omoia, meaning “and the same.” By using t. o. k. it seems that Bleek wants us to read it as “the same and,” which kind of fits. And of course, the whole thing is an abbreviation for ton logon tou Theou kai tin martyrian Iisou Christou, or, “the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
I don’t really agree with all of his interpretations as I’ve noted. The Greek was interesting, but it really got in the way of the commentary (what there was of it). I prefer when the use of the Greek is to punctuate the commentary.
That’s it for today. Back into the 19th century next time.