REVELATION 1:2, PART 8
The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.” (John 14:21; NASB)
Let me start today by apologizing for the long gap from my last post. I’ve been working on a rabbit hole that has totally taken over my time: It’s on the dating of the Gospels. I’m having to read whole books to gather all the arguments that have been put forth…and I seriously doubt that I will manage to amass all the arguments!
In the meantime, I have many post ahead on Revelation so I need to get back to posting them! As a reminder, here is the passage we are looking at:
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 continue with the seemingly endless 19th century:
“The revelation did not come from Jesus Christ to the apostle directly: He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John. The heavenly messenger to the prophets of the Old Testament was called the angel of Jehovah; but he who came to the prophet of the New is called the angel of Jesus. Jesus and Jehovah are the same, with this only difference, that Jesus is Jehovah in His Divine Humanity; and the angel of Jesus and the angel of Jehovah are the same, with this difference, that the Church in heaven being, since the Incarnation, an image of the Lord's glorious Body—His Divine Humanity, is in greater power than before the Lord was manifested in the flesh; for in Christ are gathered into one all things, both which are in heaven and which are on earth (Eph. i. 10).
regarding His plan of the fullness of the times, to bring all things together in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. (Ephesians 1:10; NASB)
“As the angel who came to John represents the Church in heaven, John here represents the Church on earth.”
In reading the first paragraph, I did not understand it to mean that “the angel who came to John represents the Church in heaven, John here represents the Church on earth.” In rereading it I still don’t come to that conclusion. I also don’t agree that “the angel of Jehovah” and “the angel of Jesus are the same angel.” This is all fanciful thinking. It sounds really nice, but the meaning is not at all correct. When we get further into Revelation we will see that there are several apparently different angels that step forward to speak to John.
“And this, the Divine message, came from the Lord through the Church in heaven to the Church on earth.”
The author referred earlier to “the Church in heaven,” and here it is again. What “Church in heaven?” This author seems to have the misguided idea that as Christians die, we join a big Church in heaven. There is nothing about this in the Bible. We are told:
but we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8; NASB)
From this passage, Christians have deduced that upon leaving the physical body we go immediately into the presence of the Lord. I’m not convinced of that, at least from this passage. We are promised a “Resurrection Body”:
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44; NASB)
20For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21who will transform the body of our lowly condition into conformity with His glorious body, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. (Philippians 3:20,21; NASB)
I do read that promise in these (and more) passages. But, when do we get these glorious bodies?
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 15For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; NASB)
This does not sound like “we all go straight to heaven when we die,” does it? This describes the rapture of the Church. The dead are raised in their glory bodies, and then those that remain alive receive their glory bodies and all are caught up into the clouds to be with Jesus. At that time, Heaven becomes filled with the Church, and, as we understand that John entered Heaven during that time, he saw the multitudes there.
So, what’s going on with the dead before the rapture? No one is really sure. The Bible does not address it clearly, so theories have risen up over the centuries.
Personally, I think the answer hinges on the fact that there is no time in Heaven, or even in the presence of Jesus. I know someone who died and found himself in the presence of Jesus. In all he felt like he spent, maybe, 20 minutes with Him. Meanwhile, the ambulance crew got his heart going again, and he was hospitalized; he woke up just as he left Jesus’ presence, 9 days later, thinking that he had been “out” about 20 minutes. With this example (and there are others as well), I can picture the dead in Christ spending “a little while” with Him before “waking up” at the resurrection. But, I could be all wet, so, back to the point, the Bible definitely does not say that the dead are sitting around in Heaven waiting for the rest of us.
“Followed from its Source, through all the degrees of its descent, the revelation came from God to Jesus, from Jesus to the angel, from the angel to John, and from John to the servants of the Lord. It came from the Lord's Divinity through His Humanity, from His Divine Love through His Divine Wisdom, and thence through Heaven and the Church; and thus it is the infinite Wisdom of infinite Love adapted to the apprehension both of angels and men. As John represents the Church on earth, he represents, abstractly, that which constitutes the Church. There are three principles which constitute the Church—love, faith, and words. These were represented by the three disciples who were nearest to Jesus, and often accompanied Him, without the others, on important occasions, as at His transfiguration. Of these, Peter was the type of faith, James of love, and John of works—and as good works are love and faith in act, and therefore include both these graces, John represents religion as existing in its fullness and perfection in a life of love and faith. Practical religion is vital religion. Love is the fulfilling of the law, and the fulfilling of the law is love; for all true love terminates in action, and thus becomes actual love. He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me (John xiv. 21). Practical love is the last link in the chain which connects man savingly with his Maker.”
The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.” (John 14:21; NASB)
I really don’t buy this. Oh, it sounds nice, but it’s so made up. John did not represent the Church on earth; he was the last Apostle. Who decided what the “three principles” of the Church were? Love of what? Faith in what? And “words” is a principle? Peter may have typified “faith,” but I would of thought John was “love” and James was “works,” based on their writings. But see, that would have messed up his whole spiel about “practical religion” and connecting that with John.
Then, what about “all true love terminates in action, and thus becomes actual love?” True love isn’t actual love? True love isn’t real? Then what makes it “true”? Then he slips in “practical love.” Boy, that makes religion sound pretty boring: we’re going to give up “true love” for “practical love.” This is all just word play.
“2. John, to whom this revelation came, says of himself that he bare record of the Word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. This may be better understood from what John has said in his Gospel. He there bears record, or witness, of the Word, which in the beginning was with God and was God, and which became manifest in the flesh. The Eternal Word, and that Word made flesh in Jesus Christ, is thus the Eternal Wisdom or Divine Truth, in its relation to Creation and Redemption. As John represented all whose inner life of love and faith is manifested in an outer life of holiness, his words are to be understood of those who bear witness to the Truth by the testimony of a holy life. These having the witness in themselves, they have set to their seal that God is true. They also have the testimony of Jesus Christ; for those who acknowledge the truth of the Lord's Word, whether it be the whole of Revelation or this particular portion of it, have the testimony of Jesus Christ, since the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy—of this as of all prophecy, this testimony, which the true Church has, consists in this, that Jesus is the one only living and true God, the one Object of faith and worship.”
This seems suspiciously like stream of consciousness to me. It includes: “They…have the testimony of Jesus Christ, since the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” This line, “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” is from Revelation19:10. The author doesn’t bother to identify it, he just folds it into his stream of words. Not that he said anything bad here, it’s just that he stole most of it from Scripture without really commenting on anything.
“John also bears record of all things which he saw. These were the visions presented before him, which he has recorded. It is not necessary here to inquire into the nature of these visions. They were all symbolical, and describe states of the Church and of the human mind.”
Ack! John took all that trouble receiving the visions and writing them down, and this author concludes “it is not necessary here to inquire into the nature of these visions.” Never mind that God thought it was important for us to know. But, no, it’s “all symbolical,” and even if we could understand it, it just tells us more about ourselves![?]
The author redeems himself a small bit here:
“John saw them, but those whom John represents understand them; for to see is to understand. They were written that they might be understood. It does not indeed follow that every one, or even every age, should fully understand them. Like other prophetic signs, they could not be understood till the time of their fulfillment, till the events themselves, of which they were the symbols, should give the means of interpretation. It is only because they are now fulfilled that they can now be explained and understood. Those whom John represents see spiritually what he saw in vision, or they see inwardly in themselves what he saw outwardly in the spiritual world.” [from COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN, by William Bruce, 1877]
First of all, I must complain that John does not “represent” anyone. He was the last Apostle and he received Jesus’ last teaching. He doesn’t need to “represent” other people, just like the events in Revelation do not need to be “symbolic” for other things.
Bruce is partially redeemed because at least he understands that the events of Revelation are prophetic, so that those closer to the time of it’s fulfillment will have a better chance of understanding it. But, he ruins it by saying: “…they could not be understood till the time of their fulfillment… It is only because they are now fulfilled that they can now be explained and understood.” No wonder he has to resort to symbology. Bruce is obviously a preterist who thinks that all of this has happened already; and if it’s happened, then it should be obvious what Revelation means. He should not have to resort to symbology.
“This Revelation of Jesus Christ was given by the ministry of an angel. “ He sent and signified it by his angel.” What particular angel was employed on this occasion, we have not been informed. All we know of him is summed up in his own words, “ I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them who keep the sayings of this book.’’ [from Revelation 22:9] From this, it has been thought that this angel was one of the old prophets, or some one who on earth had been a faithful member of the church, and that he was now honored by being permitted to reveal to his fellow servants on the earth the things of the future.”
While I can’t possibly find all the commentaries ever written on Revelation, I have found a good deal of them. And none of them that I have seen so far have suggested this origin for the angels mentioned. It’s a child’s story that we become angels when we die and go to heaven; no serious commentator would suggest this. As for the “old prophets” idea, several of them have appeared to men before according to the Bible, but the receiver always seems to know exactly which “old prophet” he is seeing. The only exception that I’m aware of are the two witnesses in Revelation: people guess who they are, but we are not told. They may not even be “old prophets.”
“And it is to be noticed, that this angelic messenger did not reveal these things so much by words as by signs. The word translated “signified ” indicates that this revelation was to be made by symbols. The office of the angel was to make one magnificent picture after another pass before the eyes of the apostle. We must bear this in mind or we will not be able to understand the things which are written in this book.”
Here we go again. The word translated into English as “signified” is semaino, it can mean: a mark, a sign, to give a public sign or signal, to signify, to make known, to declare [from The Complete Word Study Dictionary].
dictionary.com says “signify” means “to make known by signs, speech, or action.” It can also mean “specify”(Key Bible). While the use of symbology could come under the term “signify,” it is not a given. And, as previously stated, “signify” is not the only possible word to use when translating semaino: to make known or to declare would be just as valid.
“The whole book is a series of visions which were made to pass before the apostle like a great panorama. It was the province of the angel to unroll the panorama. How this was done I am not able to say; but that it was within the power of the angel, commissioned of God for this purpose, no one will deny. Nor am I able to say how far John understood the wonderful visions which he saw. Probably he understood them no better than we understand them, when we read the descriptions which he was inspired to write and which, preserved through all the centuries, are as full of comfort for us as they were for him.” [from LECTURES ON THE REVELATION, by William J. Reid, 1878]
Reid makes John’s visions sound like a movie put on by the angel. I think that’s misleading. Of course, in 1878 when this was written, there weren’t movies as we know them, so it was probably an intriguing idea for people of that time. My objection here is that Reid is avoiding the thought that John was taken places in spirit, not shown “pictures.”
We’ll stop here for today. The next quote is long with a lot of Bible references so we’ll start on that fresh next time.
The Scofield Reference Bible, 1909 (copyright renewed 1917, 1937, 1945) Is page dated on each page except Psalms. Also, the Ryrie Study Bible has dates throughout its pages. I love chronology too.