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)

Moving through the end of the 20th century:

“John is himself an indispensable link in the revelatory chain which mediates God’s word to the world. Every word of the prophecy is the prophet’s own word, bearing the impress of his own personal history, written in his language and through patterns for his situation. This is not an alternative to seeing the whole book as the ‘word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ’ (v. 2). The way the revelatory event is thought of here is analogous to (but not identical with) what happens in the act of preaching, in which word of the preacher repeatedly becomes word of God without ceasing to be the human word of the preacher; this is analogous to the incarnation itself, in which once for all Jesus became the presence and definitive revelation of God without ceasing to be truly human Jesus.”     [from REVELATION: INTERPRETATION: A BIBLE COMMENTARY FOR TEACHING AND PREACHING, by M. Eugene Boring, 1989]

I think that Boring has taken the normalizing of writing this book a bit too far. When I sit down to write, I lean on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I have to think that it’s similar to a pastor sitting down to write. I’m pretty sure John went beyond that. He was writing about what he had seen and heard from Jesus Christ.  Recall from John:

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you.     (John 14:26; NASB)

The Spirit would be going beyond “guidance” in this case. John has been told that the Spirit will not only teach him, He will remind him of what Jesus has said to him. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this is written in John’s Gospel. I suspect John relied heavily on the Holy Spirit to remember all the details of his experience. When I write I sometimes receive the teaching of the Spirit, and I think that a pastor could receive that teaching more than I do, but John’s need for the Spirit would have been even greater and his reliance on Him more total, especially in writing Revelation.

“The Revelation makes explicit what is true of all scripture: it originates as God’s word spoken and heard, or presented and seen. The Christian believes that God speaks and that, as a result of that speaking, all things are brought into being: nature and super nature, the stuff of creation and the relationships of the covenant, and, eventually, scripture. God’s word brings the cosmos into existence. God’s word accomplishes forgiveness. ‘For he spoke, and it came to be’ (Ps. 33:9). God has the first word, he has the last word, and all the words in between are spoken in a vocabulary and by means of grammar that are his gifts to us.”

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood firm.   (Psalm 33:9; NASB)

“Jesus Christ is designated in St. John’s Gospel as the ‘word made flesh.’ The gospel narrative insists and demonstrates that ‘word’ in the first place is neither a philosophical abstraction nor ink on parchment, but an historical occurrence. St. John’s letter also emphasizes the physical, sensory, and historical word of God: ‘which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life.’ (1 John: 1:1). The word of God was spoken before it was written. Jesus was seen and touched and heard, before he has written about. It is this spokenness, the living, dynamic creativity that characterizes ‘word of God’ above everything else.”     [from REVERSED THUNDER: THE REVELATION OF JOHN & THE PRAYING IMAGINATION, by Eugene H. Peterson, 1991]

When I first analyzed this passage, I really had trouble with it’s poetic nature. I was used to reading such phraseology in 19th century books, but not in late 20th century ones. I find that the poetic nature is not super conducive to commentary. While the passage presents some beautiful thoughts, it actually can lead one a bit astray when read as commentary. For instance, when Peterson speaks of the creation of “nature and super nature, the stuff of creation,” one can be led to a very different story of creation than is presented in the Bible. 

Let’s take another example: the author says “God’s word brings the cosmos into existence. God’s word accomplishes forgiveness.” Intentionally or unintentionally, the author, with the second phrase, leaves us with the double meaning of “God has a plan for forgiveness,” and, “Jesus accomplishes forgiveness.” Both are true, but, unlike “God’s word brings the cosmos into existence,” God did not speak and immediately (in our time/perception) provide forgiveness for Adam and Eve right after they left the garden. He also didn’t come up with the idea thousands of years later. His plan was in His mind from before the creation because He is outside of time, and all is within Him.  But, His plan required, for us, a specific time and the existence of Christ within that time. The simple phrase “God’s word accomplishes forgiveness” does not lead one to a clearer understanding of the Scripture before us, it only muddies the water. And when you put it in apposition with the phrase “God’s word brings the cosmos into existence,” it implies a closer correlation between the two phrases than is warranted: they are both accomplishments of God, but they were achieved in two very different ways. Putting them together can lead one to gloss over those “different ways.” Fine for poetry, not so good for commentary.

“Note that John, who is a vital link in the chain of revelation, testifies to everything he saw. The many visions from chapter 4 on to the end of the book were actually seen by John. They are not his attempts to put some of his ideas into a contemporary literary genre that we now call apocalyptic.”   [from WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?: A COMMENTARY ON REVELATION, by Robert H. Mounce, 1992]

I absolutely agree!

“These opening verses also signal the main theme of the book — witness. John is a witness who bears testimony to what he has seen and heard, and he received it via an angel (whom we do not meet until chapter 10) from Christ, who in turn bears witness to the truth of God. Indeed, in verse 5 Christ is described as the ‘faithful witness.’

¹I saw another angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud; and the rainbow was on his head, and his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire; ²and he had in his hand a little scroll, which was open. He placed his right foot on the sea and his left on the land           
(Revelation 10:1,2; NASB)

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, 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)

Hmmm. John runs into other angels before chapter ten. And this angel in chapter ten doesn’t really tell John anything; he just gives John the scroll to swallow. 

“The great calling of the Church is to be a witness, to proclaim in word and deed the message of the gospels; to tell out to the world what God has done. In being witnesses, Christians both tell of their own experience and also pass on a message that comes from God himself, is borne by Jesus to the world, and lives on in his Church.

“The great calling of the Church is to be a witness, to proclaim in word and deed the message of the gospels; to tell out to the world what God has done. In being witnesses, Christians both tell of their own experience and also pass on a message that comes from God himself, is borne by Jesus to the world, and lives on in his Church.

“This idea is suggested by the repeated use of the word ‘servant.’ The readers of the book are God’s servants, as is John, through whom the message comes. The word translated ‘servant’ literally means slave, and some object to it as giving too servile a view of Christian discipleship. But that is to miss the point. In the Greek Bible with which many of John’s readers would be familiar, ‘slave of God’ translates a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘servant of the Lord’ which is frequently used of the prophets. It is a term of honor, denoting those servants of the king who have been brought into his confidence and share a knowledge of his plans (see, for instance, Amos 3:7: ‘Surely the Lord does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets’). so the servants of God are those who know God’s plans and proclaim them to the world.”     [from REVELATION: A BIBLE COMMENTARY FOR EVERY DAY, by Marcus Maxwell, 1998]

I’m going to be a bit picky here. First of all, the Greek word for ‘servant,’ doulos, has no relation to the word for ‘witness,’ martyras, and thus the one does not “suggest” the other.

Secondly, anyone who thinks that the term ‘slave’ is “too servile a view of Christian discipleship” probably is not a disciple. We are called upon to be ‘mastered by Christ,’ and that phrase certainly does suggest that we are ‘slaves.’ A slave, whether voluntary or not, is considered to be owned in totality by his/her master, and to have no free will beyond that of the master. And that does describe the relationship the disciple has with Christ. We do it freely and voluntarily because Christ is the Son of God, and thus a perfect being who knows what we need better than we do. Once you start getting to know Christ, you find you would be happy to be a mouse in a hole of the floorboard of Heaven just to be near Him. Instead, you are offered a discipleship that involves His personal attention, and a place with Him in eternal life. Being His slave is thus the furthest thing from “servile,” as we think of the meaning of that word, that there is; yet, we would absolutely accept servile. 

Lastly, I have addressed this idea when it has come up before: the term “slave” or “servant” as a term of honor. I agree that to an Old Testament Saint, or to a disciple of Jesus Christ, the term “servant of God” or “slave of God” could be considered an honorific. But, it’s not taken on as an honorific. It’s used as a title to avoid pride, and to point all the glory to the Godhead.

“Our Lord Jesus sent and communicated His Revelation through an angel to John who recorded all that he saw in his visions. John was the beloved of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jhn. 13:23; 20:2). 

Lying back on Jesus’ chest was one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.     (John 13:23; NASB)

So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple who Jesus loved, and said to them “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we do not know where they have put Him.”   
(John 20:2; NASB)

“He is a type of the Beloved (Bride) of Christ. Whatever things that were shown to John would have to be revealed to His Bride. Because we are living at the final stretch of the closing period of the whole dispensation of the Seven Church Ages, we are privileged to see a clearer picture than those members of the Bride in each of the past six Church Ages could see. Yes, this is the very hour of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the Bride. This is the hour, not only for the Word but also for ‘the oil and the wine’ — the anointing and the stimulation of revelation — of the Holy Spirit upon the Word. And this is the LIFE that cannot be hurt (cf. Rev. 6:6).”          [from THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, by Richard L. S. Gan, 1999]   (Gan is from Singapore)

And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine.”       
[Revelation 6:6; NASB)

We haven’t gotten to “the oil and the wine” yet, but I have to say that Gan’s explanation of it is the most interesting I’ve heard so far, especially as regards the oil. Oil has been used for anointing in both the Old and New Testaments.  That wine is “stimulating” is certainly true, but when I think of wine in the church, I think of the blood of Christ. Both oil and wine are used in the worship services of the church: could this be what sets them apart? Honestly, Gan’s last paragraph is both powerful and moving. I just recently found this source, and now I’m looking forward to reading more of it.

“The two issues so crucial to grasping John’s meaning are: (1) his stated expectation regarding when his prophecies will transpire, and (2) his declared method regarding how his prophecies should be interpreted…Surprisingly, both of these matters are found in John’s opening chapter. They are not hidden away later behind all of the fantastic, front-stage drama, lost in the glare of the startling imagery. Unfortunately though, the modern Revelation enthusiast tends to run right pas them in his desire to ‘get to the good stuff’ in later chapters. But once these two issues are carefully considered, they both will simplify and revolutionize your understanding of this book, which will truly then become for you a ‘revelation’…”

This is the writing of Kenneth Gentry, rivaling David Chilton for the biggest preterist of the modern age. Both of them have trouble talking about opposing points of view without the use of sarcasm and even insult at times. I think I have put the lie to the idea that I’m rushing to “get to the good stuff.” It’s taken me 2+ years to get to where we are now at Revelation 1:2. I am thinking about speeding it up a bit, but even if I do, it will still be a slow and thorough process.

I recognized exactly what he is referring to in this passage, and perhaps you do too. We have already dealt with both of these topics. (1) relates to the use of the word “soon” in translation, which he will choose to use literally in the English; and (2) is the “sign-i-fy,” the only question being, will he use this silly way of spelling it.

”Revelation, like most of the New Testament epistles, is ‘occasional.’ An occasional writing deals directly with the historical occasion and circumstances of the original audience. For instance, in 1 Corinthians, Paul directs the Corinthian church in how to handle the various problems that have so buffeted their community. When he writes that someone there has his own father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:1), he is not declaring a universal principle prevailing in all churches. Indeed, it is a rather rare occurrence, peculiar to the Corinthians. Understanding the historical situation of John’s original audience is fundamentally important to comprehending his meaning…”

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father’s wife.   (1 Corinthians 5:1; NASB)

Hmmmm. So the prohibition against sexual sin of this sort is “not declaring a universal principle prevailing in all churches”? I’m sorry, but that’s the reason Paul brought it up: to be useful to all the other churches. But, let’s back up to the “occasional” concept. None of the New Testament epistles is purely “occasional,” they all relate to higher, universal concepts. But, Revelation is not “occasional” at all. More than that, saying that we must understand the historical context to understand John’s meaning is wrong: it’s Christ’s meaning that needs to be understood. It’s Christ’s message in Revelation. Does it help to understand the original language and the historic setting? Of course. But we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that it’s not John’s message, and that Christ would not depend on the vagaries of the first century for understanding in later centuries: He knew His audience stretched into the recesses of time.

“John is not only writing to actual first century churches, but to churches undergoing great suffering…In fact, all the way through Revelation we discern a martyr theme quite in keeping with their ‘tribulation’ and their need of ‘perseverance.’”

Christ had messages for seven of the churches of John’s day…there were far more churches at that time than seven. These messages were obviously meant for all the churches, in all the days, until His Second Coming. Not all the messages relate to churches that are “undergoing great suffering,” most sound fairly prosperous. We’ll look at this in more detail as we get into it.

As for the “martyr theme”: while there are martyrs in the book, I disagree that they create a “theme.” Most of the book is about the pouring out of God’s wrath; God’s wrath does not produce martyrs. The English word “martyrs” refers to people who die for a cause; in the Bible it refers to people who die for their witness of Christ. The people who die from the wrath of God are not dying for any cause or witness that they are standing up for, much less for faith in Christ. They are dying because they hated God and refused to follow Christ; they are not martyrs, they are, unfortunately for them, reaping their reward.

“…So then, John not only writes to particular first century churches, but churches in dire circumstances. What does John expect from these suffering churches as he writes his Revelation?

“…He expressly states that he intends to ‘reveal,’ ‘to show,’ to ‘communicate’ something to them — not to hide information from them…They are to ‘hear’ and to ‘heed,’ which obviously require that they understand.

“Thus, John writes to original first century churches who are suffering in order to give them directives they must understand and act upon…”

Again, it’s Christ dictating the letters to John, not John writing them. And, again, it’s to all churches, not just those “in dire circumstances.” Understanding the messages to the churches is not that difficult despite the time difference; earlier writers often focused entirely on the messages to the churches because it is the easiest to understand in any time period. The later material of Revelation was not easy to understand in the early days or the early commentators would have described that understanding beyond question; it was meant to become easier to understand as time went by: and that’s what we’re seeing in these commentaries.

“…I believe that to understand this book you must start in its first three verses. John expressly informs his readers that he expects the prophesied events to occur soon. Let us note three angels emphasizinghis contemporary concern.”

Blessed is the one who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near.      (Revelation 1:3; NASB)

To sum it up: the first of his “angels” is the word “shortly.” The next is the word “near,” from Revelation 1:3. Then, that “shortly” and “near” are both in the closing verses of Revelation is the third “angel.” I have already dealt with “shortly,” and we will deal with “near” in a near future post. As a reminder, “shortly” is better translated as “quickly,” and is not “temporal,” as Gentry calls it, but rather describing the “how” of the coming events. And, as a side note, it appears that Gentry doesn’t believe in literal angels.

“This becomes all the more relevant when we realize that these temporal indicators appear before and after the difficult visions. They are not in the symbolic sections where we might wonder if they require special interpretive rules. Rather, they are in the clear, straightforward, didactic portions of Revelation…”

Ahhhh. There are “clear, straightforward, didactic portions of Revelation”? I’m amazed Gentry admits that.

“…The preterist approach to Revelation teaches that John was prophesying events future to his own day, but which are now in our past. Futurism teaches that all the events of Revelation (from ch. 4 on) are still in our future…”

Yup.

“I would point out that despite the popular claim of literalism, no one takes Revelation literally. We take it as God’s truth, to be sure. It certainly deals with factual historical events. But we cannot take it as God’s truth in literal form…John wastes no time in alerting his readers to his symbolic approach…he informs us that Revelation is given ‘to show’ (Gk., deixai) the message being ‘signified’ (Gk., esemanen) by His angel…John encourages his readers to expect figurative symbols rather than literal events.”       [from HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION: A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, by Kenneth L. Gentry, 1992]

Do I need to argue what it means to read Revelation “literally”? When the book tells us we are looking at symbols, and then tells us what they mean, then it means we are reading it “literally” even though we see the symbols. The “literal” meaning is that there is a symbol, and we are told what it means.

Despite Gentry’s repeated statements that the first few verses of Revelation are terribly important, it took him 9 pages to finally talk about 2 phrases of the first 3 verses. The only importance those verses have for him is that he can use 2 of the phrases to make his point.

One point in Gentry’s favor…he avoided the “sign-i-fy” silliness. But, he is still sure that esemanen only means “signified,” and, that in English, signified means “symbols.”

“John; who bare witness of the word of God — The writer is the apostle John. He bore His testimony concerning what he knew. He preached the word of God, testified of his faith concerning a risen Jesus and faithfully reported what he had seen in this book we are now studying.”    [from INSIDE DANIEL AND REVELATION, by Vance Ferrell, 2003]

This last quote doesn’t say a lot, but at least it’s true.

That’s enough for today. We’ve only got a few more posts to go for this verse.