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 go:

“…Whatever earthly realities correspond to John’s symbols, he expected them to be accomplished quickly in their entirety. We must choose between two answers to our questions. The one answer, which would have the support of a majority of modern scholars, is that John expected the End, the final crisis of world history, the return of Christ in victory and judgment; and that everything else in his vision, the last plagues, the emergence of the Antichrist, the great martyrdom of the church, and the fall of Babylon, are only premonitory signs heralding the great day of God. The other answer, which I believe to be the true one, is that John’s coming crisis was simply the persecution of the church, and that all the varied imagery of his book has no other purpose than this, to disclose to the prospective martyrs the real nature of their suffering and its place in the eternal purposes of God, or, in Bunyan’s language, to take them about to the backside of the wall.”

Quickly, yes, soon…no. And I don’t agree with either of his two “answers.” The first one he says has “the support of a majority of modern scholars,” yet he misrepresents it. The events of Revelation are not “premonitory signs heralding the great day of God,” they are actually describing the Day of the Lord. And the other answer is that of a preterist.

“John’s instructions are to write to the churches all that he saw. An older generation of commentators doubted whether John’s claim to be a visionary could really be taken seriously. They believed that, while prophecy was the product of spontaneity and inspiration, apocalyptic was an artificial and purely literary affair, and that John was no exception to the general rule. Visions would not spontaneously arrange themselves in elaborately balanced groups of seven, nor would angelic choirs quote extensively from the Old Testament.” 

It’s funny, but I haven’t run into commentators who said this type of thing. There have definitely been some 20th century types who can’t believe in miracles or visions at all, but the specific things that this author complains of I haven’t seen…at least not yet.

“In any case, many of the things John claims to have seen, e.g. living creatures full of eyes inside and out (iv. 8), and a city 1,500 miles high, are incapable of being visualized, and therefore cannot have been communicated to John in vision. These objections will appear less impressive to a generation which has accepted surrealist art and has become familiar with the kaleidoscopic quality of dream imagery. For the rest, we must remember that John never supposed that vision could be communicated without the intervening medium of art. What he offers us may be regarded as vision recollected in tranquillity; but, as Farrar has pointed out, it reads much more like a continuous meditation on the Old Testament, and John was told to write before he began to see. He was a man who thought with his pen, and whose meditations bodied forth into fresh vision as he wrote, so that vision and art were not two processes but one. It is some indication of his consummate artistry and of the validity of his claim to inspiration that he never fails to make a profound impression even on those who imperfectly apprehend his meaning. Much of the New Testament is written for those who have ears to hear, but this book is written for those who have eyes to see; and for a generation whose mental eye has been starved of imagery it is in some ways the most important book of the New Testament.”      [from A COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN THE DIVINE, by George B. Caird, 1966]

By saying that the things described in Revelation “are incapable of being visualized,” Caird basically says that these things cannot come to pass because we would not be able to see them. And because we can’t see them, they must be symbolic.

But Caird goes further: he not only compares the visions to “surrealistic art,” but also to “dream imagery.” And then he says that John “thought with his pen,” that “vision and art were not two processes but one,” and refers to John’s “inspiration” and “consummate artistry.” In other words…John made it all up.

“John bore witness to the word of God. This may be a reference to some past occasion (the aorist indicates a specific occasion and not the general practice), but it is more likely to be something akin to an epistolary aorist and refer to this book. John is saying then that this book is his testimony to the word of God. With this he links the testimony of Jesus Christ (testimony, marturia, is cognate with bear record, emarturesen). This could mean, ‘the testimony about Jesus Christ’, or, ‘the testimony borne by Jesus Christ’. It is likely to be the latter, Revelation is the record of what God has said to John through His angel and of what Jesus Christ has said to him. We should omit, the and after Jesus Christ. The things that he saw are the word and the testimony previously mentioned, not an addition to them. Saw is peculiarly appropriate in a book like this where there are so many visions.”             [from THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN: AN INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY, by Leon Morris, 1969]

While what Morris says is true, he says it with such hesitancy that I keep looking for the falsehood. The sentence that gives me the most trouble is: “Revelation is the record of what God has said to John through His angel and of what Jesus Christ has said to him.” To me, Revelation 1:1,2 says basically that God imparted the revelation to Jesus, who sent His angel to communicate with John. Morris is saying that God sent the angel, and then he tacks on that Jesus Christ had something more to say, like an after-thought. It’s like Morris sees this as a big conundrum that he has to feel his way through. What is he going to do when we get into the real conundrums further into the book?

“The method employed in Revelation is seen in the word ‘signified’ (sign-i-fied). This translates the Greek verb semaino, meaning to show in signs or symbols. It is imperative to keep this fact in mind as one seeks to understand Revelation. It is the key to its message. As we have noted, the style of the book is apocalyptic. It employs symbols to declare truth to those who read with understanding. But it also conceals the message from those outside the Christian fellowship.”

This author is bringing us back to the same old canards. 1) “sign-i-fy,” 2) semaino means using signs and symbols, 3) Revelation is all about the symbols, 4) Revelation is in an apocalyptic form, and 5) Revelation is hard to understand so that non-Christians won’t understand it. As a review, regarding canards 1,2 and 3, that focus on the symbology of Revelation: there is some symbology Revelation, but it’s not all symbols, and the ones there are explained in the text. Canard 4: Revelation has some superficial similarities to the so-called apocalyptic form, but the differences are too many and too big to include it as an apocalyptic form. And regarding Canard 5, which we discussed recently, there was no need to hide the meaning of Revelation from non-Christians…especially to the point of even keeping it from the believers. Most of the Bible is pretty opaque to the non-Christian without even trying to be. Christians were not being persecuted for their beliefs/written words during the 1st century, they were being persecuted for: stirring up trouble (think Paul), not following Roman rules (think burning incense to the emperor upon request), and standing out among the people (i.e. teaching in public, or speaking out against the local popular gods, etc) so that the people made up lies to get the Romans to arrest them (again, think of Paul).

“In interpreting these symbols one should not attempt to press every detail. In some cases the author does this to drive home his message. But where he does not, one should be content to catch the one primary truth taught in a given symbol. For instance, the red dragon in 12:3-4 is intended to show the evil and vicious nature of the adversary. To try to press every detail only results in confusion.”

³Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven crowns. ⁴And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and hurled them to earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her Child.    
(Revelation 12:3,4; NASB)

So….when Joseph had the dream about the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars that were bowing down to him…that was symbolic, right? And it was pretty exact in its details. This part of Revelation (12:3,4) is definitely symbolic, but we should be able to do more than “catch the one primary truth” about it. Did we need a whole story like this just to know that the adversary is “evil and vicious”? I think not.  We will get into further meanings of this verse when we get there.

“This symbolic approach does not mean that the Bible is not literally true  in what it means. One does not say that the Lamb of God actually has four feet and a tail, a body covered with wool, and goes about saying “Baa!” The literal truth lies in what is symbolized. To take every symbol in Revelation absolutely literally as some define that word is absurd. The literal truth lies in the meaning of the symbol.”

Of course that would be absurd. Taking the Bible literally is not believing that Jesus is an actual, physical lamb. This is a hyperbolic point that is being made here.

“Likewise, the symbolic nature of Revelation runs throughout the whole book. The aorist form of ‘signified’ sums up in one word the method of revelation in the book. We cannot say that some things are symbols and others are literal. If one part is literal, all parts are literal. The verb form says that all parts are symbolic.”

Truly, the verb does not mean that all parts are symbolic, I’ve already shown that repeatedly. It’s childish to suggest that if we want to read the Bible literally, that we must ignore any of the symbols that are obviously present. It’s also childish to say that to accept any symbols, we must allegorize the whole book. We are not children.

“It should be kept in mind that Revelation is definitely oriental in flavor. Orientals think in poetic terms. When we try to apply prosaic methods to poetic symbolism, we lose the message which is depicted.”

Even poetry is a mix of symbology and literalness. To say that “Orientals” think a certain way is a problem, because even if it’s true, God did not have his Words written down so that only “Orientals” could read it. We in the West do think more like Greeks, and less like Hebrews, but that does not mean that God does not want us to understand what was written, or that we must allegorize everything to “understand” it.

“These symbols were given to ‘John’ (v.1 ). True to his literary form he didn’t not name himself in his Gospel or in his Epistles. He did so in this prophecy-apocalypse, that his readers might know that the writing was genuine. 

“The author is identified as the John ‘who bare record of (witnessed) the word of God, and of the testimony (witness) of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw’ (v.2). He witnessed to God’’s word as Christ witnessed it to him. The primary reference is to the content of Revelation. But one cannot fail to see in this a reference to John 1:1-18. Note the use of ‘word’ (logos). So in this text it might well read ‘Word.’ This term for Christ is peculiar to the writings of John (cf. John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1). 

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.    
(John 1:1,14; NASB)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.  
(1 John 1:1; NASB)

“As John had previously borne witness to the Word of God in flesh, now he bore witness to him in his heavenly glory and power.”          [from THE COSMIC DRAMA: AN EXPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Herschel. H. Hobbs, 1971]   

I think that the “symbolic” message will start to fall apart as we get further into this book. We may find them skipping over verses to avoid the controversy. Not that the literal interpretation won’t have it’s issues to get around…but I, for one, won’t be skipping verses, and will say “I don’t know” when appropriate.

“Verse 2. The revelation is imparted by the Son through the further mediation of his angel.  Angels play a prominent role in this book, but it is rather remarkable that the angel does not appear as the importer of visions until chapter 17 (17:15; cf. 19:9; 21:9; 22:16). the revelation is not human speculation; it is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.  

Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.   
(Revelation17:15; NASB)

Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”      
(Revelation 19:9; NASB)
[In context, this “he” is a voice from heaven.]

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”     
(Revelation 21:9; NASB)

“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) 

“In the New Testament the ‘word of God’ is almost always the spoken word rather than the written word. Elsewhere in the Revelation ‘the word of God’ is the gospel (1:9; 6:9; 20:4); here, it designates the contents of the revelation given to John.”

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)

I’m not sure I agree with parsing out “the Word of God,” and deciding whether it means the Gospel or something else. The whole Bible is the Word of God.

“The word of God is thought of in the Bible not merely as a means of communicating truth, but as an active, dynamic entity. In the beginning God spoke and it was done (Ps 33:9). 

For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.   
(Psalm 33:9; NASB)

“God’s word goes out into the world to accomplish what he purposes (Isa. 55:11). 

 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.      (Isaiah 55:11; NASB)  

“At the end God’s word will go forth, and his redemptive purposes be brought to consummation. It is significant that the only weapon of the conquering Christ is the sword that issues out of his mouth — his word. (Rev. 19:15).”

Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.    
(Revelation 19:15; NASB)

I like what the author is saying about the Word of God here. The Word is an “active, dynamic entity,” the Holy Spirit brings it to life. It accomplishes His purpose out in the world. And I think often of that double-edged sword that comes from the lips of Jesus…how amazing that will be.

“‘The testimony of Jesus Christ’ is a subjective genitive, i.e., the testimony borne by Jesus Christ. The revelation is a word from God which is witnessed to by Christ (cf. 22:16,18,20). 

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)

“This witness may include not only the immediate witness of Christ to the revelation granted to John but also the witness of his life on earth and his redeeming mission when the word became flesh (John 1:14).”        [from A COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF JOHN, by George Eldon Ladd, 1972]

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.     (John 1:14; NASB)

I have said before, I agree that the testimony of Jesus Christ is both borne by Him, and about Him. 

“‘…and signified it by his angel.’ The word ‘signify’ has been abused by many godly scholars in their study of this book. Some suggest that it means ‘sign-i-fy,’ that is, to write in signs. True, there are some symbols in the book and God calls them symbols, for example, Revelation 12:1,3, and 15:1. However, it is wrong to classify the entire book as a book of signs and symbols, suggesting that they cannot be taken literally. On the contrary, the figurative language of Revelation is figurative of fact. There is far more in the book of Revelation that should be accepted literally than should be spiritualized.”

¹A 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…³Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven crowns.   (Revelation 12:1,3; NASB)

I agree completely with this author so far.

“‘…his servant, John.’  There has never been any serious question that the human writer of the book of Revelation was the Apostle John. This book is generally accepted as the last New Testament book, written when John was an elderly man banished to the Isle of Patmos, either by force or choice, bearing ‘record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ The only serious consideration for questioning his authorship is that this book does not have the same style of writing as found in his gospel and epistles. This is quickly understood, however, by anyone who comprehends the unique nature of the transmission of this book, for John was definitely just the scribe, recording the things that were audibly spoke to him during his heavenly visions; thus less of the writer’s personality and style would naturally be reflected in the book. From earliest days, this book was received as divine writ from the pen of the revered apostle, who even at that point in his Christian experience referred to himself as ‘the servant of Jesus Christ.’”         [from REVELATION: ILLUSTRATED AND MADE PLAIN, by Tim LaHaye, 1973]

Ahhh, Tim LaHaye. I really enjoyed the Left Behind series, but I have felt very badly about how it tarnished LaHaye’s reputation. It shouldn’t have, it’s a very interesting series of books, well written and certainly a possibly true story of how the last days might play out. My only complaint was that LaHaye was writing early enough that many of the more difficult passages had not been figured out: technology didn’t yet hint at how the visions might play out in reality. There are still, even now, passages that are not clear; but there is more clarity than when LaHaye was writing. 

The problem was that LaHaye actually put into words, that the general public could understand, the events described in the book of Revelation as they were understood at that time. A lot of people couldn’t tolerate, never mind believe, what Revelation says, so they thought he made it up. He didn’t, he just read it literally, and then fictionalized it. 

For me, I think LaHaye is among the more clear-headed commentators on Revelation. I think he’s a good place to end for today. Next time we’ll go deeper into the end of the last century.