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 in the mid-1970’s:

“Characteristically in a book of visions, the content of what is unveiled by God to Jesus Christ is conveyed to John by an angel. In the visions of prophets and apocalyptists angel-guides are frequent. It it to be observed however that in his work the revealer is Christ (cf. 1:12ff). The angel has a strictly subordinate place as a recipient and interpreter of what is made known. He takes his place along with the prophets and faithful recipients of the revelation (see 22:6-9).

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And after turning I saw seven golden lamp stands  
(Revelation 1:12; NASB)

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. ⁷”And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.” ⁸I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. ⁹And he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”          
(Revelation 22:6-9; NASB)

“Naturally the mention of the angel at this juncture bespeaks his dignity, not his lowliness. The conjunction of God, Christ, and the angel, as the source of the revelation has the effect of according an unheard-of authority to the content of John’s prophecy.”

An angel in the equation speaks to John’s dignity and “not his lowliness”? So, an angel giving information is less on the totem pole of importance, than if, say, Christ spoke to him in person? I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around that. And then there is the “unheard-of authority” to John’s “content.” “Unheard of”? The authority in John’s Revelation is equivalent to the authority in Daniel, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel, etc. Christ had not become part of the mix yet for the Old Testament prophets…and yet, some of them seem to have interacted with Him nonetheless (Christophanies, i.e., the fourth man in the furnace in the book of Daniel). 

As for “content,” all prophets declare “the Word of God;” meaning that they are saying what they heard spoken to them. This is the “content” of Revelation as well. These are not John’s “prophecies;” they come from the Godhead.

“There is, however, a feature of the title which calls for modesty in assessing John’s claims for his book. He states that the risen Christ made known the revelation to him by the hand of the angel. The verb so rendered in the RSV (semaino) undoubtedly can have that meaning, as in Acts 25:27.” 

Ack! “Modesty”? Whose “modesty”? He can’t be referring to John, who calls himself a servant or slave of Jesus Christ. John seems to have no claim for “his book.” He was writing what he was told to write, and it wasn’t his revelation. 

And, semaino is often translated “to indicate,” or a few other similar words. The word “signify” truly leans more to “indicate” than it does to “signs.”

For it seems to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him.”         (Acts 25:27; RSV)

“But as it comes from the root semeion, a sign, it was used of less direct ways of prophesying the future, and so to give vague indications of coming events. In reference to the Delphic oracle Heraclitus said, ‘it neither states nor hides but merely indicates.’  Accordingly we find this term used in the Fourth Gospel in parabolic sayings of Jesus regarding his coming death (Jn 12:33, 18:32), as also in the obscure prophecy about Peter’s martyrdom (Jn 21:19).” 

I understand what he’s trying to say about the root meaning, but I think he’s missing the mark here. Semeion is Strong’s #4592. THE COMPLETE WORD STUDY DICTIONARY (NT) lists the meanings, in part, as: “sign, mark, token, miracle with a spiritual end and purpose; particularly a sign by which something is designated, distinguished, known, i.e., circumcision as a sign; of signs, wonders, miracles wrought by Jesus and His Apostles and the prophets in proof and furtherance of their divine mission…” Does it mean “sign”? Yes of course, it’s one of its meanings. Does it mean “vague indications”? No, not exactly.

I’ve included more of the passages below than the author referenced (and two different translations in one case), so we can see the full context, and then continue this discussion.

³¹Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out; ³²and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” ³³This he said, signifying what death he should die.     
(John 12:33; KJV)

³¹Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. ³²And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.” ³³Now He was saying this to indicate what kind of death He was going to die.       (John 12:33; NASB)

³⁰They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not a criminal, we would not have handed Him over to you.” ³¹So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.” ³²This happened so that the word of Jesus which He said, indicating what kind of death He was going to die, would be fulfilled.      
(John 18:32; NASB)

¹⁸Truly, truly I tell you, when you were younger, you used to put on your belt and walk wherever you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will put your belt on you, and bring you where you do not want to go. ¹⁹Now He said this, indicating by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He said this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”      (John 21:19; NASB) 

First of all, I don’t think I’ve read that John’s Gospel was all “symbols,” like is said of Revelation. But, Jesus rarely said anything really directly; He used metaphors, parables, and allusions. Reading literally does not mean that the reader cannot see what is meant in metaphors, parables and allusions. Let’s look at John 12:33; while Jesus was not saying “I’M GOING TO BE CRUCIFIED” (the direct way of saying it), He was still speaking pretty directly in this passage. I think I’ve discussed this passage previously, because I remember writing that there were not many ways that someone could be “lifted up from the earth” in the first century. Crucifixion was one of the few. So, while one could say it was a bit of an allusion, it was still pretty direct and literal.

John 18:32 is not in any way a “sign” or symbol, at least in my opinion. John is describing a series of events, that, looking back upon, he recognized as how God arranged things for Jesus’ words to be true. This was not a symbolic story about Pilot and the priests, it was perfectly literal!

In John 21:19, we have Jesus speaking again; and again, He is indirect. There is no symbolism or “signs” in this passage; just like in 12:33, He is describing a crucifixion. Again, one could say it’s an allusion, because the definition of allusion is “to refer indirectly to,” but in Jesus’ almost constant indirect style, it’s pretty direct.

“In all these passages the Authorized Version uses the term ‘signify’, which is an excellent rendering, especially if its connection with ‘signs’ be observed. The occurrence of the term in the title of John’s prophecy is almost certainly deliberate. The prophet wishes to make clear that he does not provide photographs of heaven, nor do his descriptions of coming events constitute history written in advance. He uses ‘sign language’ to portray the invisible realities of the present and the future of man and his history. Even when speaking of the past John prefers picture-language to plain description…By employing this terminology in the title of his book, John in his own way expresses a reserve about the nature of prophetic language similar to that of Paul, who applied a like reserve not only to prophecy but to all speech about God (1 C. 13:8-12). In the Revelation of John we are given ‘intimations’ of that which God unveiled in fullness to the Son.”

Hmmm. The Greek word semaino is “in the title of John’s prophecy”? The book, in Greek, is called Apokalupsis. I don’t see semaino in that title. Is there another title I’m unaware of?

The “Authorized Version” is the King James Version. It was commissioned and authorized by the British Monarchy, and they still own the copyright (at least in England). I know I find the British Monarchy to be godlike and perfect spokesmen for God…not. This author must have tried hard not to use “sign-i-fy.”

I doubt that John was trying “to make clear that he does not provide photographs of heaven.” He was describing what he saw, as he was instructed to do. “Photographs” were not part of his vocabulary or his thinking. He was also not using “sign language.” That wasn’t a “thing” in the first century either.

As for “history written in advance,” that is not a great way to look at any prophecy. There is a person who writes messages to my blog periodically from Israel. I find him very difficult to understand because much of the most meaningful things he says is in Hebrew, and he’s constantly insulting Christianity. But, I find his rants interesting just the same (I’ve approved a few to stay in the comments section if you want to see them). One of the things he’s talked about is that “prophecy” isn’t really about prophesying the future. He has all these hidden meanings that he finds in the prophecies, that I just don’t have the time to look into closely, though someday I probably will. He sees Christianity (X-tianity as he calls it) as over-simplified and even deceitful. So, we Christians look at “prophecy” as predicting future events, or, if we are a little more sophisticated, as perhaps predicting patterns of future events. He sees it as “prophetic mussar.” Mussar is “a Jewish spiritual practice that gives concrete instructions on how to live a meaningful and ethical life” (per myjewishlearning.com) The website further says that “a number” of people, who are not following traditional Jewish rules and rituals, practice mussar today because it “offers opportunities for personal transformation through a Jewish lens.” Mussar itself has been around as a field of study within Judaism for a long time; it seems more recently that it’s being used to actually replace traditional Judaism. It reminds me a bit of Buddhism coming out of Brahmanism; it has a similar esoteric feeling. Here’s a longer quote from safari.org: 

“Everyone of us is assigned to master something in our lives. You have already been given your assignment and you have already encountered it, though you may not be aware that what faces you is a curriculum, nor that this is the central task of your life…What I am calling your curriculum shows up most clearly in issues that repeatedly challenge you…The Mussar teachers speak of different aspects of soul but they insist that in reality, the soul is an undivided whole. Their template is holistic and sees no divide between heart and mind, emotions and intellect. All are faculties of the soul…Mussar’s goal is to help us transform so that the light of holiness shines more brightly into our lives and through us into the world. Making that journey of change is how we fulfill the promise and also the charge of the Torah, ‘kiddoshim tihiyu’ — you shall be holy. All the holiness we could ever hope for already exists within us, at the core of the soul, called neshama. This deep inner kernel is inherently holy and pure and is the seat of the ‘image and likeness of God’ in which we are created…While neshama is always stainless, the nefesh is the dimension of the inner life that houses all of our recognizable characteristics, named the middot ha’nefesh, the traits of the soul. The neshama is unchanging but in the nefesh we find traits that can be in or out of alignment in ways that can be helpful or obstructive…Mussar students practice one trait for one or two weeks, often in a series of 13, moving through 4 cycles of 13 traits in a year…In the morning, students focus on one selected soul trait [for the day]…In the evening, the practice is to keep a journal…Between the morning and the evening, the Mussar student gives himself or herself or is assigned an exercise, a kaballah. For example, you might do three generous acts today…”

This is decidedly a path of works. How much sweeter to let Christ be the light of the world, as He was proclaimed, and to follow Him. 

My admittedly not-very-deep dive into Mussar does not talk about what a Mussar student would find useful in the prophets, but obviously there is something. And, back to my original point, even Christians would be best to not look at prophecy as “history written in advance.”      

⁸Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. ⁹For we know in part and prophesy in part; ¹⁰but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with. ¹¹When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. ¹²For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known.        
(1 Corinthians 13:8-12; NASB)

So, the quote we’ve been looking at says: “John in his own way expresses a reserve about the nature of prophetic language similar to that of Paul, who applied a like reserve not only to prophecy but to all speech about God,” and used the 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 as the exemplar of how Paul thought about prophetic language. I’m really not clear about how John, “in his own way” is expressing “a reserve about the nature of prophetic language”….and in the “terminology” used in the title?  As for Paul, he is saying that the gifts of prophecy and tongues will stop and knowledge will be destroyed, but love will never fail. Then he says that we can never know or prophesy everything that God knows (we can only know a part), and that when we go home to God, it will all make perfect sense to us, just as many of the questions we had as children became answered when we became adult. I’m not sure that Paul is expressing a “reserve” about prophecy per se, but about all of our attempts to share with others what God has shared, and our attempts to accumulate knowledge. John does not address this, as far as I can tell, anywhere. John saw what he saw, it seems to me that he was reasonably satisfied with how he described it.

“2. The revelation of John is further characterized as the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. That is, it conveys a message from God and witness borne by Jesus Christ. As with the term ‘revelation’ these phrases can describe the content of the Bible as a whole (in 1:9 and 6:9 they together denote the Christian gospel in its fullness). In this passage they relate to the content of this book.”        [from THE NEW CENTURY BIBLE COMMENTARY: THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by G. R. Beasley-Murray, 1974]

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)

I have no argument with this last paragraph, but, I had a thought as I was reading it.  Maybe you’ve already thought of this, but in saying “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ,” we could be meaning: “Jesus Christ and His testimony.” “The Word of God” is another name for Jesus Christ after all. Just a thought.

“Of the book, John says that God ‘sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.’ The word ‘signified’ literally means ‘to give a sign or signal.’ The book has been ‘sign-i-fied,’ it is a book of signs and symbols. about half of the symbols are explained in the book itself. Lamps, for example, represent assemblies of God’s people; stars represent angels; incense odors represent the prayers of saints. Where the symbols are not explained, other parts of the Bible must be searched for clues. It is an axiom of hermeneutics that God is His own interpreter.”

Another author who couldn’t resist the “sign-i-fied” silliness. I’m pretty sure most of the actual symbols are explained within the book, not “half.” And, while searching the rest of the Bible seems like a good idea, it’s not always effective. For instance, bibleuniverse.com lists “wings” as being symbolic in the Bible for: speed, protection, or deliverance. And then there is “leaven.” Paul speaks of leaven this way:

Therefore let’s celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.  
(1 Corinthians 5:8; NASB)

⁷You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? ⁸This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. ⁹A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. ¹⁰I have confidence in you in the Lord, that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear the punishment, whoever he is. 
(Galatians 5:7-10; NASB)

Jesus spoke of leaven in this way:

⁶And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees…¹¹How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees ad Sadducees.” ¹²Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.     (Matthew 16:6,11,12; NASB)

He spoke another parable to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three data of flour until it was all leavened.”  (Matthew 13:33; NASB)

You can see that the meaning of leaven varied from being “malice and wickedness” in 1 Corinthians, to false teachings in Galatians 5 and Matthew 16, and then in Matthew 13 Jesus is using leaven to represent the  Kingdom of Heaven.

One last symbolic representation to look at: the symbols for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is symbolized by: a dove, a cloud, the wind, fire, anointing oil, and water. We can see that the symbology of the Bible isn’t always very straightforward, and can vary a lot based on the context. And each symbol doesn’t necessarily carry through all the books. Does that mean that we can’t look to the Bible for the meanings of some symbols? No, of course not. But should we rigidly interpret all references to fire as the Holy Spirit, or leaven as wickedness? Probably not.

“A sign or symbol can be far more accurate than any other type of language. Words tend to change in meaning with the passing of time. The word ‘prevent,’ for example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 means, in modern English, ‘to hinder’ or ‘to stand in the way.’ When the King James Version was published in 1611, it meant ‘to come before’ or ‘to get in first.’ What a difference this change in meaning makes to an understanding of the text!”

For 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.     (1 Thessalonians 4:15; NASB)

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.    (1 Thessalonians 4:15; KJV) 

I was curious about this idea about the word “prevent,” so I looked it up. From etymonline.com:

“early 15c., preventin, ‘act in anticipation of, act sooner or more quickly than (another),’ from Latin praeventus, past participle of praevenire ‘come before, anticipate, hinder,’ in Late Latin also ‘to prevent,’ from prae, ‘before’ + venire ‘to come’…Originally in the literal classical meaning. The meaning ‘keep from existing or occurring’ is by 1540’s; the sense of ‘anticipate to hinder, hinder from action by opposition of obstacles’ was in Latin but is not recorded in English until 1660s.” 

Hmmm. So what the author says is partially true at least. But, it seems that while it meant “to come before,” it sounds like the more full meaning was “to come before or to anticipate to prevent something else.” In other words, the idea is like someone cutting ahead in line…they are preventing you from getting there first. The meaning didn’t so much change as that it shifted to focus more on the hinderance part of the definition.

But, the author is completely correct that word meanings shift over time. Unfortunately, the meanings of “signs and symbols” also change, not just with time, but with cultures too. Let’s look at a few from symbolsage.com: 

1. The swastika symbol. This symbol is prehistoric and was used by multiple early cultures, like the ancient Greeks, the Celts, and in Eastern religions. In Sanskrit it translated to mean “wellbeing.” It was even used as a fertility symbol. Then the Nazis started using it, and it’s no longer considered a positive symbol.
2. The skull and crossbones. As a modern symbol we see it as a warning of danger, used to label something as poisonous or deadly. Apparently it’s gaining favor as a symbol of “eternal life and revival,” truly a sign of our current death culture. The symbol was originally introduced by the Knights Templar to honor a leader who was burned alive.  In the 14th century it was being used to mark the entrances of cemeteries in Spain. And then the pirates picked it up as the “Jolly Roger” flag, which became a symbol of terror. A bit later it was used on military uniforms as a symbol of sacrifice, and then by the mid-18th century as symbol of “death or glory.”
3. The suit marks on playing cards. Originally, these were from France and represented: diamonds = coins, hearts = cups, spades = batons, and clubs = swords. A lot of historians think that the suits represented four classes of medieval society: diamonds = merchants, hearts = clergy, spades = peasants, and clubs = nobility or military.  Today, the suits are mostly seen as decorations without meaning. The website says that there are some modern meanings that include: spades = the discrimination between error and judgment, clubs = power and command,  hearts = source of life, and diamond = eternity. I’ve never heard of these meanings, but who knows.

“Symbols, however, are fixed. Ideas connected with such things as rainbows, clouds, mountains, seas, stars, the sun and moon never change. In a book dealing primarily with events which were in the remote future at the time of writing, it was necessary to make use of numerous symbols.”

I think I’ve shown that this is not necessarily true.

“John tells us that he ‘bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.’ The expression ‘the word of God’ underlines how unique this communication was. The expression is often used in Scripture in a special sense to define a prophetic message. Samuel said to Saul, ‘Stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God’ (1 Sa 9:27; see also 2 Sa 7:4; 1 Ki 12:22). The expression occurs five times in Revelation. It stands for a prophetic message, and as such it is unique.”

And as they were going down to the edge of the city, Samuel said to Saul, “Speak to the servant and have him go on ahead of us and pass by; but you stand here now, so that I may proclaim the word of God to you.”       
(1 Samuel 9:27; NASB)

But in the same night, the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying,   
(2 Samuel 7:4; NASB)

But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,   
(1 Kings 12:22; NASB)

“The expression ‘the testimony of Jesus’ underlines how uniform this communication was, for while the revelation of prophecy is often progressive, it is always uniform. God never contradicts Himself. The book of Revelation builds on the testimony of Jesus Christ. It expands and explains many of the things He taught in the Olivet Discourse, which in turn were based on statements in the book of Daniel and elsewhere in the Old Testament.”

I’m not sure I understand how Revelation explains the Olivet Discourse. I look forward to seeing more about this.

“John wrote down only what he saw and heard. He was meticulous in recording the revelations which were made to him. We must be just as careful in reading this book as John was in writing it.”           [from EXPLORING REVELATION, by John Phillips, 1974]

I agree that we need to be careful in reading Revelation. Remember, there is a curse for adding or subtracting from its contents…

That’s enough for today, the rabbit holes were pretty thick. Back into the 70’s next time.