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 current century, and this is definitely the next to the last post on the topic:

“‘and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John’ (Re. 1:1) 

“The revelation shows literal things under symbolic language. The word ‘signified’ is from the Greek word ‘semaino,’ which means a sign or token.” 

And again, “semaino” is often translated as “to indicate,” and not necessarily referring to “signs” or “tokens.”The word “signify” actually leans more to “indicate” than it does to “signs.”

I agree that it is “literal things,” but it’s not all “under symbolic language,” just some of it is. Some of it was seen by John, but was beyond the experience and ability of John’s time to fully comprehend, indeed, it was beyond the time of most of the last 2000 years to comprehend. For these things, figurative language was needed to convey any meaning. What is figurative language? It’s any statement not intended literally (though usually conveying a literal situation), and it includes the use of similes, metaphors, symbols, and a few other tools. I think it would be good for us to watch for, and try to dissect these tools as we find them. 

“The revelation was given through Jesus by his angel (Re. 1:1). 

“- This refers to an angel that was assigned to reveal these things to John. Compare Revelation 22:6, 8. We aren’t told which angel this is, though we know that angels have names.”

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…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.     (Revelation 22:6,8; NASB)

Yet again, we not only are not told the name of this angel, we aren’t even given a description of the role he plays. If you look at the above passage from Revelation, you will notice that John is being spoken to by a “he.” In Revelation 21:5, John says:

And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”

This is obviously from the Godhead: from God or Jesus. When we get to Revelation 21:9 we get a different description:

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, full of the seven last plagues, came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

The rest of Chapter 21, and into 22, the “he” referred to is this “one of the seven angels.” So, why couldn’t these authors identify this angel as “one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls”? Being one of seven angels doesn’t make this particular angel sound particularly special, like one who has a definite name. It makes me think that the reference to “His angel” is not a reference to a one particular angel. They are all “His angels.”

“- Angels are ‘ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation’ (Heb. 1:14). These are the angels that did not follow Satan in the rebellion. They are called ‘the elect angels’ (1 Ti. 5:21). They accept their created position and serve God with all their might. They are instant in obedience. They are on call, ready and eager for His commands. They are a good example to redeemed sinners.”

Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to provide service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?    
(Hebrews 1:14; NASB)

I solemnly exhort you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.    
(1 Timothy 5:21; NASB)

I disagree that angels are a “good example to redeemed sinners.” Angels have no experience with the human condition. Jesus is not just “a good example”, but actually the example par excellence; He has been human and knows what we face, yet overcame the world.

Having said that, I understand that the author is saying that we should also be accepting our “created position and serve God with all [our] might” as well as ”on call, ready and eager for His commands,” just like the angels.  But, we need to remember that they are doing this from the Throne Room, in His presence; while we are in this foreign land being bombarded by our senses. We need to lean on Jesus to guide us through this, not angels.

“- Angels were also employed in giving the law of Moses (Ac. 7:53; Heb. 2:2).

you who received the Law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.”    
(Acts 7:53; NASB)
For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every violation and act of disobedience received a just punishment     (Hebrews 2:2; NASB) 

“We do not know exactly how the angels performed this task, but we know that they were an important part of the process of divine inspiration. The revelation was given by Christ’s angel unto John…

“‘who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw’ (Re. 1:2) 

“The Bible is authenticated by reputable eyewitness testimony. John’s testimony was not bought or coerced. He did not make any earthly gain by believing in Jesus Christ. He was ridiculed, impoverished, persecuted, and imprisoned for the things that he testified. 

“The book of Revelation is described as ‘the word of God.’ Though its canonicity has been questioned by some, John tells us that it is the Word of God and we believe his testimony. Revelation bears the stamp of divinity throughout. There is not another book like it on earth.”

I’m in total agreement! 

“The book of Revelation is called ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ The Word of God, in a nutshell, is the testimony of Jesus Christ. This is the Bible’s chief theme and purpose. The Bible is not a book about religion; it is a book about a Person. It is not a book about what man should do for God; it is a book about what God has done for man. To study the Bible and miss seeing Jesus is to miss the main thing. To preach the Bible without preaching Jesus is to preach in vain.”

I agree with all of this, but I wish to apply a caveat to the statement “The Word of God, in a nutshell, is the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Yes, the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ, and, the whole Bible is the Word of God; but I just can’t go along with the whole Bible being “the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation was brought to John by Jesus, therefore, the whole of Revelation is “the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation is unique for that in the whole Bible. No other book claims to be from Jesus Christ. The Bible is all about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit directed it’s writing, but, except for Revelation, it’s not directly from Jesus Christ.

“John recorded all things that he saw. 

“- He is a faithful prophet. He did not withhold anything that Christ gave him. He did not subtract from it or add to it. 

“- John accomplished this by the enablement of the Holy Spirit. ‘For the prophecy came not in old times by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost’ (2 Pe. 1:21). It would not have been possible, naturally speaking, for John to have recorded everything he saw and heard with any degree of perfection.”     [from WAY OF LIFE COMMENTARY SERIES: REVELATION, by David Cloud, 2019]

for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.     (2 Peter 1:21; NASB)

I like the point: “It would not have been possible, naturally speaking, for John to have recorded everything he saw and heard with any degree of perfection.” It’s why many non-Christians (and perhaps non-Jews) can’t understand why we think the Bible is such hot stuff; they don’t understand how the Bible was written.

“In Revelation 1:2, John identified himself as the one ‘who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.’ John used the phrase ‘I saw’ forty-four times in the book. John saw these things about Jesus Christ, and he testified that the things he saw were ‘the word of God.’”     [from FINAL CONQUEST: A VERSE BY VERSE STUDY OF REVELATION, by Robert Jeffress, 2020]

John certainly “saw” a lot during that time; but he also heard a lot. 

“…Angels, literally messengers, appear throughout the Bible and play a major role throughout revelation. John testifies to the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, two witnesses were needed to confirm the truth (Deuteronomy 19:15).

A single witness shall not rise up against a person regarding any wrongdoing or any sin that he commits; on the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.     (Deuteronomy 19:15; NASB)

“These first Christians were Jewish and knew their scriptures, the word of God (the Old Testament). They read and reread the scriptures after Jesus’s death and resurrection and found that the word of God bore witness to Jesus (Acts 2). The two witnesses are the Old Testament scriptures and the apostles’ oral testimony to Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1-4). The apostles and others bore witness at a great cost. Some became martyrs, dying for the truth of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

¹What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life…³what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.     (1 John 1:1,3; NASB)

“The apostles’ oral testimony predates the written testimony later recorded in the New Testament. When John wrote Revelation, besides the Old Testament scriptures, the church already had many letters of Paul and perhaps the gospel of Mark, likely the only gospel written before AD 70. John is more likely the last gospel written, probably about AD 85. Both John and Revelation rely on two witnesses to confirm the truth.”

I can’t agree with the author’s conclusions about the dating of the Gospels. Conservative estimates seem to be that Mark was written about 60-65 (and some say the 50’s), that Matthew and Luke were 60-70, and John was 70-90. Taking a less conservative view, Matthew could have been written as early as the 40’s; Mark was the head of the church in North Africa, and their tradition says he wrote his Gospel in 62; and many Lukan scholars  suggest dates from 60 to 65 for his Gospel (written as one document with Acts), based on Acts ending before the death of Paul. Some think that John’s mention of the Sheep Gate in John 5:2 in the present tense means that the Sheep Gate was still there when he wrote, which would put his Gospel before the gate’s destruction in the late 60’s; most others think it was written in the 80’s or 90’s. 

I have written before about Matthew possibly being the Q document that many think influenced the other Gospels; this would put Matthew early and first; also, that there is strong proof now that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, which also suggests an earlier date (i.e., before the Greek versions were written for the Gentiles). 

I believe that John wrote his Gospel (and probably his epistles) before he wrote Revelation around 95. I agree with the commentators who say that the reference to John’s testimony in Revelation 1:2 refers to at least his Gospel. There is also at least one Hebrew manuscript of John housed in the Vatican, that shows literary and language-use evidence of being written originally written in Hebrew, suggesting an earlier date.

Mark, also, has a Hebrew version housed in the Vatican, that also has literary and language-use proof of being written originally in Hebrew. Did the North Africans speak Hebrew? If not, then we may conclude that Mark also wrote early, while still in Jerusalem, for the Jews.

“The Father testifies to the Son, the Son testifies to himself, and their testimony is true (John 8:17-18). Jesus says two witnesses testify about him: The Holy Spirit and the testimony of the apostles who were with him from the beginning of his ministry (John 15:26-27). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17, 15:26). Revelation portrays a battle between good and evil, God and Satan, and truth and falsehood. Witness and truth are vital to revelation’s message.”     [from WORTHY IS THE LAMB, by Roland England, 2020]

¹⁷Even in your Law it has been written that the testimony of two people is true. ¹⁸I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”    
(John 8:17,18; NASB)

²⁶“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, namely, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify about Me, ²⁷and you are testifying as well, because you have been with Me from the beginning.    
(John 15:26,27; NASB)

the Helper is the Spirit of truth, whom the wold cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him; but you know Him because He remains with you and will be in you.    
(John 14:17; NASB)

I’m uncomfortable with “The Father testifies to the Son, the Son testifies to himself.” The Scripture says that the Father testifies about the Son, and the Son testifies about Himself. The author means what the Scripture says, but his choice of “to” rather than “about” is confusing…I totally misunderstood his meaning on the first read, and multiple later reads: I read it that the Father was talking (as testifying is talking) to the Son, and the Son was talking to Himself. It was queer, so I kept coming back to it until I understood. Thus, I’m uncomfortable with the word usage.

Regarding the last of the quote: the battle between good and evil is ongoing. I agree that “witness and truth are vital to Revelation’s message.”

“John is testifying to ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ’ (v.2), phrases that will arise again during the narrative to distinguish the focus of faithful Christians (starting with John at 1:9). This phrase acts almost as an alternative title describing what the author saw or what the book is about and is loaded with Christological significance to those familiar with the Gospel of John (see John 1:1 and 18:37). The emphasis on what John saw (v.2) might also remind listeners of the opening words of 1 John, ‘That…which we have see with our eyes’ (1 John 1:1), though the kind of seeing referred to there was different from what Revelation is about to describe. As Ian Paul points out, ‘John breaks down the distinction between seeing and hearing, since he “sees” a “word”’”     [from A PENTECOSTAL COMMENTARY ON REVELATION, by Jon K. Newton, 2021]

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…⁹This was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person.    
(John 1:1,9; NASB)

Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You have said correctly that I am a king. For this purpose I have been born, and for this I have come into the world: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.”    
(John 18:37; NASB)

Ian Paul, referred to at the end of the quote, is a conservative freelance theologian, writer and speaker, who is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, and an associate pastor of a church in England. I’m not sure what he means by John seeing a “word.” The only “word” that I know of that John saw was Christ, as the Word of God.

We’ll close here, but the next, and last, post for this topic is almost completed as well because I had hoped to finish with this post, but it just got too long. We had several issues regarding the dating of the Gospels in this post, and I dealt with it only superficially. I would like to look at that in more depth, so, instead of the last post, the next post will be a deep-dive rabbit hole into dating the Gospels, then we will do the last post.