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)

“Sent and signified (εσημανεναποστειλας) [esimanen aposteilas]. ‘Having sent (first aorist active participle of αποστελλω[apostello] , Mt 10:16 and again in Re 22:6 of God sending his angel) signified’ (first aorist active indicative of σημαινω [semaino], from σημα[sema], sign or token, for which see Joh 12:33; Ac 11:28 ). See 12:1 for σημειον [semeion], though σημαινω[semaino] (only here in the Apocalypse) suits admirably the symbolic character of the book.”

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wary as serpents, and as innocent as doves.  (Matthew 10:16; NASB)
And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.  
(Revelation 22:6; NASB)

Now He was saying this to indicate what kind of death He was going to die.  (John 12:33; NASB)

One of them, named Agabus, stood up and indicated by the Spirit that there would definitely be a severe famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.  
(Acts 11:28; NASB)

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars  
(Revelation 12:1; NASB)

This author is Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863-1934), a well known commentator and Greek translator of the late 19th and early 20th century. The book I have was published in 1960, which is why it’s here in my order of things (in the future I will move it to 1927, the year it was actually written). What I’m especially happy about is that I could cut and paste the quote from the pdf, and the Greek came along intact for a change. I added the transliterations to make it easier for you to compare to other posts where I can only use transliterations.

Let’s look at some of the words Robertson’s used here. First, let’s look at “esimanen aposteilas“:Google Translate says it means: “I sent you.” These are the actual words used in Green’s Interlinear Bible in Revelation verse 2, and that book translates it literally as: “He signified [by] sending,” which I trust far more than Google.  I’m tending to believe it over Robertson as well. We’ll look at the individual words in the order in which Robertson discussed them.

First, we have “apostello,” Strong’s 649, which Google translates as: “send.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says: “to send off, send away; to order (one) to go to a place appointed: either persons sent with commissions, or things intended for some one. So, very frequently, Jesus teaches that God sent him…he, too, is said to have sent his apostles, i.e. to have appointed them…messengers are sent; Things are said to be sent, which are ordered to be led away or conveyed to any one; to say through a messenger, when one accomplishes anything through a messenger; to allow one to depart that he may be in a state of liberty; to order one to depart, send off; to drive away.” THE COMPLETE WORD STUDY DICTIONARY says: “from apo (575), from, and stello (4724), to withdraw from, avoid. To send off, forth, out. Distinguished from pempo (3992), to send, in that apostello is to send forth on a certain mission such as to preach, bless, rule, redeem, propitiate, save. The expression that Jesus was sent by God (John 3:34) denotes the mission which He had to fulfill and the authority which backed Him…In the NT, to send forth from one place to another, so send upon some business or employment; to send away, dismiss; to send or thrust forth as a sickle among corn.”

“Semaino” is translated by Google as “mean,” which I take to be in the sense of “meaning,” rather than describing a behavior. billmounce.com  defines it as: “to indicate by a sign, to signal, to indicate, to intimate, to make known, communicate, to specify.” Strongs, #4591, translates the word to mean: “to give a sign, signify, indicate, make known.” NASB translates it as: “communicate (1), indicate (3), signifying (2).” The Word study dictionary says it means: “To give a public sign or signal; to signify, make known, declare.” And Thayer’s lexicon says: “to give a sign, to signify, indicate, to make known.”

Sema is the noun that semaino is related to, and Google says it means “signal.” In English, we see it in words like semaphore and semantics. The word study dictionary doesn’t have a listing or number for sema, but does for asemos (767): a, meaning without, and sema, meaning a mark, a sign. Thayer’s, likewise has no listing for sema, but under Strongs #767 it lists asemos, noting that sema means “a mark.”

Then there is semeion,  which Google says means:  “note.”  billmounce.com says it’s “a sign, a mark, a token, by which anything is known or distinguished, a remarkable event, a wonderful work, a miracle.” Strongs #4592 reports that it is a “neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of #4591; an indication, especially ceremonially or supernaturally: miracle, sign, token, wonder.” Thayer’s Lexicon says “that by which a person or a thing is distinguished from others and known.”

I’m not sure that helped a whole lot; but I still think that these words are not indicating “the symbolic character of the book.”

“By his angel (διατουαγγελουαυτου[dia tou angelou aftou). Christ’s angel as Christ is the subject of the verb εσημανεν[esimanan], as in 22:16 Christ sends his angel, though in 22:6 God sends.” 

⁶And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show His bond-servants the things which must soon take place… ¹⁶“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 22:6,16; NASB)

Google translates dia tou angelou aftou as “through this angel;” while Green’s Interlinear Bible literal translation says “through the angel of His.” 

Esimanan is translated by Google as: “it’s important,” which is very whacky. Bing translated it “signified,” which is more in line with what we were looking at earlier.

“Unto his servant John (τωδουλωαυτουΙωανε [to doulo aftou ioane). Dative case. John gives his name here, though not in Gospel or Epistles, because ‘prophecy requires the guarantee of the individual who is inspired to utter it’ (Milligan). ‘The genesis of the Apocalypse has now been traced from its origin in the Mind of God to the moment when it reached its human interpreter’ (Swete). ‘Jesus is the medium of all revelation’ (Moffatt).”

The Milligan quote is interesting…I don’t think I’ve heard that said before.

To doulo aftou ioane is translated by Google as: “to his servant Ioane.” John in Greek is usually Ioannes, so I guess Google can be forgiven for messing up the name. But I tried DeepL and they can’t be forgiven for translating it to this: “to his work they sang.” Pretty bad.

“Rev 1:2 Bare witness (εμαρτυρησεν [emartyrisen). First aorist active indicative of μαρτυρεω[martyreo], which, along with μαρτυς[martys] and μαρτυρια[martyria], is common in all the Johannine books (cf. 22:18,20 ), usually with περ[per] or οτ[ot], but with cognate accusative as here in 22:16,20; 1Jo 5:10 . Epistolary aorist here, referring to this book.”

¹⁶“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”… ¹⁸I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book…²⁰He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.  
(Revelation 22:16,18,20; NASB)

The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.  
(1 John 5:10; NASB)

Google’s in the doghouse here, translating emartyrisen as “protested.”  DeepL did better this time with: “witness.” Green Interlinear has the word as: emartyrise, Strong’s #3140, which is translated as “(he) testified.” Thayer’s Lexicon says it means: “to be a witness, to bear witness, testify, i.e. to affirm that one has seen or heard or experienced something, or that he knows it because taught by divine revelation or inspiration.”  The Word study dictionary says: “To be a witness, to be able or ready to testify; to bear witness, to testify to the truth of what one has seen, heard, or knows.

Then we have martyreo, which is how the word is listed in Strong (#3140), so the definitions in the paragraph above relate here. Google translates it as “I testify.” DeepL cops out by repeating: “witness.” And Bing has it as: “testimonial,”close, but no cigar, because “testimonial” is a noun, not a verb.  

The next one in the batch is martys (#3144), translated by Google as “witness.” Thayer’s Lexicon says: “a witness (one who avers, or can aver, what he himself has seen or heard or knows by any other means).” The Word study dictionary says: “A witness. One who has information or knowledge of something, and hence, one who can give information, bring to light, or confirm something.”

Then there is martyria (#3141), translated by Google as testimony (with Bing sticking with “testimonial,” which is good because it is a noun this time). The Word study dictionary says: “to witness. Testimony, that which someone witnesses or states concerning a person or thing. Use of the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus; of the declarations of Jesus concerning Himself. It is a declaration by a witness who speaks with the authority of one who knows.” And Thayer’s Lexicon says: “a testifying; what one testifies, testimony.”

The additional words: per and ot I was unable to find much about. Google translates per as “approx,” not “approximate,” but just “approx”. DeepL helpfully says it means “per.” Google and DeepL are equally helpful with ot, saying it means “ot,” like that’s an English word.

“The word of God (τονλογοντουθεου [ton logon tou theou]). Subjective genitive, given by God. The prophetic word as in 1:9; 6:9; 20:4 , not the personal Word as in 19:14.”

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)

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been killed because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained  
(Revelation 6:9; NASB)

Then 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.  
(Revelation 20:4; NASB)

And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.  
(Revelation 19:14; NASB)

So, what does Revelation 19:14 have to do with “the personal Word”? Nothing as far as I can tell.

Google translates ton logon tou theou as: “the word of god,”which is pretty good except for the small g.

“The testimony of Jesus Christ (την μαρτυριανΙησουΧριστου [tin martyrian iisou christou]). Subjective genitive again, borne witness to by Jesus Christ.”

Google has tin martyrian iisou christou translated as: “the testimony of Jesus Christ,” and at least they had the smarts to capitalize the name.

“Even of all the things that he saw (οσαειδεν [osa  eiden]). Relative clause in apposition with λογον [logon] and μαρτυριαν[martyrian].”      [from THE REVELATION OF JOHN: WORD PICTURES #6, by A. T. Robertson, 1960]

Google again: osa  eiden is “what he saw,” which is appropriate. Next, it gives logon the translation: “reason,” after translating it correctly as “word” in the phrase “the word of God.” The last one, martyrian, we’ve seen forms of before; Google says it’s “testimony.”

“He sent and signified it. We are seldom, if ever, justified in developing the meaning of a word by its English etymology. Surely not here! although this book contains many signs, the word ‘signified’ does not mean ‘sign-i-fied.’ Rather it means ‘to verify,’ ‘to authenticate,’ ‘to leave no room for reasonable doubt.’”

I totally agree with this author about not “developing the meaning of a word by its English etymology” when we are looking at, most likely, a translation of a translation. And I definitely agree that “the word ‘signified’ does not mean ‘sign-i-fied.’” 

But,I have to say that the meaning he gives for the Greek word esimanen is a bit different from what I’ve seen as the definition. bibletools.org quotes the meanings from Strong’s (#4592) as: “an indication, especially ceremonially or supernaturally: —miracle, sign, token, wonder.” bibletools.org goes on to quote the meanings from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon as: “a sign, mark, token; that by which a person or a thing is distinguished from others and is known; a sign, prodigy, portent, i.e. an unusual occurrence, transcending the common course of nature; of signs portending remarkable events soon to happen; of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s.” The last definition here comes the closest to what the author says, but still seems to be a bit different.   

“By his angel. Gabriel is the one angel named as the message-bearer in Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19,26-33. While the angel here is not named, we believe him to be Gabriel.”

And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.”      
(Daniel 8:16; NASB)

while I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering.       
(Daniel 9:21; NASB)

¹⁹The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news…²⁶Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth   
(Luke 1:19,26; NASB)

I’m not sure who “we” is. I know that it doesn’t include “me.” I don’t deny that it’s possibly Gabriel, but there is nothing to prove that, and I think it’s presumptuous to make that leap.

“Unto his servant John. No doubt this refers to John the apostle, the only one of the Twelve to die a natural death. He names himself five times…

“Early church fathers recognized this John to be the apostle: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Victorinus….

“Much of the book reveals future events, which critics, by faulty presupposition, claim John could not have written since, for them, no one can predict the future. The plain language of verse 1 clearly states that the revelation came from God by Jesus Christ, which should answer all the arguments of the critics.

“Verse 2. Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

“Who bare record. The antecedent of ‘who’ obviously is John. His role was simply to ‘bare record…of all things which he saw.’

“The word of God. The meaning is the word from God, emphasizing the source.

“The testimony of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus said He is the truth in John 14:6, we can affirm that His testimony is true.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.  
(John 14:6; NASB)

“And of all things that he saw. Reference is made to the forty-four visions John saw.”   [from A REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, by J. B. Smith, 1961]

Dr. Jacob Brubacher Smith (1870-1951) was a Mennonite pastor who earned a doctorate in theology, wrote a few books, and served as first president of Eastern Mennonite College (1917-1922). He is noted to be a “futurist and premillenarian” by the WIPF and STOCK PUBLISHERS, who are currently publishing his book on Revelation. The book was originally published posthumously in 1961 under the editorial guidance of J. Otis Yoder. It was a life-work for Smith that was in the process of publication when he died.
So far, his writing is pretty solid.

“This, which is a faithful account of what I saw, is not so much a disclosure of future events as a revelation of their inner meaning. It is God’s WORD — a declaration of God’s mind as He wills and works in His universe, and the truth as Jesus witnessed it unto me.

“The message which I send to you is PROPHECY. It is an announcement concerning God.”      [from AS SEEING THE INVISIBLE: A STUDY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Daniel T. Niles, 1961]   

This book is a paraphrase and is set up like a play. It’s really quite odd.

“…This Apocalypse, this unveiling is something that God has given to Jesus Christ by way of an infinitely precious and marvelous reward. A part of that reward, an earnest of that glory, we can see when God raised our Savior from among the dead, when He received Him up into glory. But that is just a part, it is just an earnest. The fulness and the glory of that reward are to be seen in the pages of Revelation..”

I’ve seen this type of idea before: that Christ was “rewarded” for His obedience. When I knew little of the Bible, it sounded good. But now, it seems like a trickery of Satan. If Jesus were fully human only, then a “reward” for His perfect life could make sense. But, He was also fully God, and He returned to the Godhead from whence He came, so a “reward” is not even in the picture. 

Or, think of it this way: a “reward” is given to a being further down the totem pole…I reward my dog, I reward my child, I reward my employees, I don’t reward my boss, I don’t reward God. Jesus Christ is not a lesser being to God, He is part of the Trinity. He does not perform for rewards.

“And now, let us look at this word ‘signified.’ Let us pronounce it as it is spelled, sign-i-fied. The angel referred to in the passage in a way we cannot understand was the intermediary between the senses of John and those great Apocalypses of the future.  The angel was able to pass before the eyes and in the presence and hearing of John the apostle these things that are yet to come. John saw them; they were signified; they were sign-i-fied. John saw them by signs and symbols. How that was done, I say, we cannot understand. It is the same kind of thing that Satan did for Jesus when he took our Lord up on a high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. How Satan could do that, I cannot understand, but it is the same kind of thing that the angel did for John here. He caused to pass before John’s eyes, where the apostle could see it, all of these things that are to come in the future years and generations and ages that are to follow…”

After the “reward” issue, it isn’t surprising that the author goes for the cutesy “sign-i-fy” trick. I’m hoping this fades out as we move through the 20th century commentaries, but I’m not holding my breath.

I do find the author’s reference to what “Satan did for Jesus” interesting. I’m not totally convinced that what Satan did was equivalent to what John experienced, but it’s an interesting thought.

“The symbols in that ‘sign-i-fied’ Apocalypse represent many different things. For example, the book symbolizes and portrays things seen and unseen, things corporeal and incorporeal, things of this world and things of the world that is yet to come. It portrays angels and demons and powers and principalities in the heavenliness. It also portrays agents and nations and potentates here below. Sometimes these symbols are of persons. In the first chapter of the book of Revelation we see Jesus as a Judge. In the description John says that out of His mouth went a sharp, two-edged sword. No man ever wielded a two-edged sword out of his mouth. It is a symbol of something. The antichrist is symbolized as a beast. Sometimes the symbols are of things, as the meaning of the city of Babylon….All of these symbols have a great meaning…”      [from EXPOSITORY SERMONS ON REVELATION, Vol 1, by Wallie A. Criswell, 1962]

I want to draw attention to the statement: “No man ever wielded a two-edged sword out of his mouth.” Here is another statement that seems  indicates Criswell’s disbelief in Christ as God as well as Man, because he says “No man,” not God. I don’t know if Criswell was a proponent of that heresy, but he has now made two statements that strongly hint at it.

“Bore witness is in the Greek an epistolary aorist. John places himself with the readers who consider the writing as taking place in the past.

“Word of God refers both to Christ and to the contents of this book.

“Testimony is witness. This word occurs 90 times in the writings of John (50 times in his Gospel).

“He saw — John was an eyewitness of the visions.”         [from REVELING IN REVELATION, by J. Vernon McGee, 1962]

It’s nice to end on the stalwart J. Vernon McGee. This is one of his more superficial quotes, but very straightforward. No nonsense commentary, no flowery words that trip us up.

Hopefully we’ll get through the 60’s next time.