Chapter 2 Revelation 1:4-8
CHAPTER II
If we apply ourselves to the Book in the right way it will yield up some at least of its mysteries. Like the rest of Scripture, it is given for our learning, and as we shall shortly find, it is so bound up with the earlier Scriptures (of both Testaments) that at least part of the blessing arises from the broader acquaintance with the Bible as a whole which we must attain.
We beg no questions as to how the interpretation will turn out. It will be enough to say at this stage that the present writer and his friends, when this study first commenced, sought that interpretation by looking at all times to let the Book speak for itself, and the rest of the Scriptures illuminate its meaning. Whatever the deficiencies in the result, we have seen reason to be very happy that such an approach was chosen.
JOHN'S PREFACE TO THE BOOK (14-8)
I A: John to the seven churches which are in Asia.
The Book is made up of 7s: churches (1.4), spirits (1.4), lamp-stands (1.12), lamps of fire (4.5), seals (5.1), horns and eyes (5.6), angels with trumpets (8.2), thunders (10.3), bowls (15.1), heads and kings (17.10) and mountains (17.9), and perhaps others more cryptic. There is no reason to doubt that the completeness usually associated with the number 7 is intended here, too: once the seven days of the week are over the cycle is completed, and one starts again. "God did rest the seventh day from all His labours (Genesis 2.2; Exodus 20.11; Hebrews 4.4). Certainly the choice of seven churches in Asia is artificial, for there were more than seven in all in that Roman province of Asia which lies in the SW of the present Asia Minor (thus Paul had written a letter to Colossae, which lay quite close to Laodicea): and Asia was far from being the only place which could profit from the messages to the churches.
There is a certain practicality about the choice, though. A messenger carrying the Book from the Isle of Patmos via nearby Ephesus could travel in a clockwise cycle over the great Roman trade and military roads and visit all these important places, from which the message could be spread to the surrounding regions: but all the same it cannot have been this only which dictated the number chosen. If we had not had seven churches we should not have had seven lampstands or seven stars, and the parallel with the seven-branched lampstand of the Tabernacle and Temple would have been lost (Exodus 25.31-35; 1 Kings 7.49).
Churches. The familiar English word is from the same route as the Scottish kerk, the Scandinavian kirke, the German Kirche, the Icelandic kirkja, and doubtless others. It seems to be derived from the Greek adjective (kuriakos), meaning 'pertaining to the lord', and so 'belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ'. The word does occur twice in the New Testament, once of "the Lord's Supper" in 1 Corinthians 11.20, and in the present chapter of "the Lord's Day" (1.10). It is a fitting description of the relationship in which bodies of disciples stand to their Master, and not to be despised because it is not transliterated directly from the actual Greek word for which it does duty. How many words in translations ever are?
Those who derive their word by another route from the Greek use a different family of terms, including the French eglise, the Welsh eglwys, the Spanish iglesia and others, and of course the Latin ecclesia. So thoroughly is the word in some of the Romance languages tied up with the dominant church in their lands, that in Spanish the word applies particularly to the Roman Catholic Church, and a different word (templo) is used for a Protestant church. Finally, of course, the ancient Greek word is preserved intact in Modern Greek where, as in New Testament times, the community is called ekklesia.
Thus the words are used absolutely synonymously, and it is purely historical circumstance which determines which is preferred. There was never a more absurd controversy than that which began by postulating (absolutely wrongly) that the word 'church' is the title preferred by apostate bodies, while the word 'ecclesia' still represents New Testament purity, and then went on to object further to the use of'church' on the ground that people confuse it with the building in which worship is conducted, rather than the community engaged in the worship. No doubt the latter confusion does sometimes arise, but the plain fact is that either word can be and is used in either sense. Religious and theological writers, moreover, often interchange the words innocently to bring out the lessons they seek.
The noun is derived from the verb ekkaleo, literally 'call out', and so it has been understood as though it meant 'the community of those called out'. This is a true description of the position of the believer, who has been "called by God out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Peter 2.9), but that this is not the real intent of the noun is indicated by the following facts:
1 The verb ekkaleo is never found in the New Testament (though it is found in the Old Testament, on two occasions: in Genesis 19.5 where the wicked men of Sodom 'call out' (to) Lot in his home, and in Deuteronomy 20.20, where Israel is to 'proclaim' peace to a city which they intend to conquer — neither a promising foundation on which to build a meaning for 'ekklesia'!).
2 The verb used for the Christian calling is the simple word kaleo, meaning 'call', with its related noun klesis, or 'calling'. It is not that compounds of the simple verb are unknown in the New Testament, for in Vine are listed epi-, eis-, meta-, pros-, and sun-kaleo, at least. Since the simple verb occurs more than 140 times, and the simple noun 1 1 of 'calling' or 'vocation', it seems amply plain that the New Testament usage simply does not contemplate the significance 'called out' for ekkie'sia.
3 The word ekklesia is used of heathen assemblies in Acts 19.32, 39, 41, where the idea is much more that of a 'gathering together' than a calling out.
4 The word is used some 80 times in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the people of Israel, as a result of which Stephen speaks of "the ekklesia in the wilderness" in Acts 7.38. Similarly the word is used in Hebrews 2.12 when Psalm 22.22 is quoted from the Greek text, and where the meaning is not primarily the Christian community, any more than it is later in the Epistle in the words "the general assembly and ekklesia of the firstborn" (12.23).
5 There were two common words used in the Greek to render the 'congregation' of the Old Testament chosen people. Ekklesia was one, and the other was sunagoge, nearly always simply transliterated in the New Testament as 'synagogue', except in Acts 13.43 AV (when the 'congregation' — which had just been meeting in the synagogue — had dispersed), and in James 2.2, the only time when the Christian 'assembly' is described in this manner. This word occurs more than 200 times in the Greek Old Testament, and is clearly the preferred way of describing formal Jewish assemblies in the New Testament.
6 That fact provides a very satisfying reason for the choice of this word in the New Testament to describe the Christian community or communities. It was well known to the Jews, and provided continuity between the congregation of the natural people of God and the new spiritual Israel which had supplanted it; and it was used by them sufficiently rarely to become characteristic and unambiguous for the new people of God.
7 In other words, with the single exception of James 2.2 as regards the Christian assemblies (readily explained in terms of the early date and probable Jewish background of this letter), and the references in Stephen's speech and in Hebrews (readily explained by the fact that they are based on actual quotations from the Old Testament), we can write the following practically universal equations for New Testament usage:
Synagogue (sunagoge) = Jewish assembly or congregation Ecclesia (ekklesia) = Christian assembly or congregation
Regardless of which word we use, then, the church or the ekklesia means the congregation of God, whether each single one
(the church in Ephesus, and so on), or the entire body ot believers through Jesus Christ regardless of where and when.
The latter usage is founded on the first use of the term by the Lord Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 16.18 and 18.17, 17, and though it is relatively uncommon elsewhere it is found in 1 Corinthians 10.32 (in all probability); 15.9; Galatians 1.13; Ephesians 1.22; 3.10. 21; 5.23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; Philippians 3.6; Colossians 1.18, 24; and 1 Timothy 3.15. Much more frequently, when the whole body of the faithful is in issue, the word is used in the plural, ekklesiai or churches.
All the above was written without consulting any commentary, but it might be well to discover how it harmonizes with the view of'linguistic authorities. First of all, then, Vine under "CHURCH" simply writes, "See ASSEMBLY and CONGREGATION", a sufficiently promising start.
Under ASSEMBLY he gives "1. EKKLESIA, from ek, out of, and klesis, a calling (kaleo, to call), was used among the Greeks for a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of state (Acts 19.39). In the Septuagint it is used to designate the assembly of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a gathering regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Acts 7.38 it is used of Israel; in 19.32, 41 of a riotous mob. It has two applications to companies of Christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, "I will build My church" (Matthew-16.18), . . . (b) in the singular number to a company consisting of professed believers . . ., and in the plural with reference to churches in a district."
While, therefore, there is no objection whatever to the use of the original word ekklesia to designate the congregation or congregations of the Christian people of God, and while it may be useful in drawing a distinction between the New Testament believer and those who to-day share his faith (on the one hand) and those called churches to-day, with their heritage of views, sometimes seriously at variance with the Scriptures' teaching, we ought to avoid any Pharisaic pride in the use of the term, as though it were either virtuous to do so, or demanded of us by Scripture.
Grace and peace.
This is as much a personal greeting from John as an individual apostle as corresponding words are from Paul, Peter, Jude, and John at the introductions to their Letters. Of the Letters in the New Testament, Hebrews, James, and 1 and 3 John alone do not employ this or a closely similar formula. The greeting is at once an acknowledgement of utter dependence on God, and an assurance of His blessing on those who trust in Him. The writer prays to God to grant to his fellow-believers the undeserved gift of His presence with them and mercy to them (the grace), and to offer them that harmony with Him, and therefore with one another
(the peace), such as no one not reconciled to God can achieve. It is the Lord's promise, "Peace I leave with you, My peace give I unto you" (John 14.27). It is a peace which has nothing to do with the world's temporary interruption of its perpetual wars, and which is able to survive even the world's hostility to the believer: "In the world ye shall have tribulation, but in Me ye shall have peace. Be of good cheer: I have overcome the world" (John 16.33) _ a message of singular relevance to this Book, with its waxing atmosphere of trial and affliction in the lives of the saints to whom it is addressed.
From Him which is, and Which was, and Which is to come.
At this point the description applies to the Father specifically and exclusively, since the Lord Jesus is to be referred to separately in the next phrase. This remains true in 1.8 and 4.8, though we shall find the titles of God repeatedly and increasingly bestowed on the Son also as the Book proceeds. There is no possible doubt that "He Which is", in Greek (ho On), "the Being One" is taken from the Greek translation of Exodus 3.14, rendered in most of our versions as "I am that I am", in Greek ego eimi ho on, and taken from the Hebrew 'ehyeh 'a:sher 'ehyeh. This raises an enormous problem about the interpretation of the passage from Exodus. Should we render it "I AM THAT I AM", as the text of nearly all our versions does, or should we read "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE", or one of numerous other variants given in marginal notes? It seems to the present writer that the huge consensus of translators is not to be ignored, that the rendering of the Septuagint Greek was probably well-founded, and that the near-quotation in Revelation 1.4 is just about decisive. God is "HE WHO IS".
This is not to deny that the Hebrew verb in Exodus 3.14 means literally "I will be". Nor does it ignore the fact that the same word is so rendered in 3.12, where God says to Moses, "Certainly I WILL BE with thee." But with regard to this last we have to ask what Moses would have understood by the promise. God was "with him" at the burning bush at the time the promise was made, and now He says that He will be with him when he has his perilous interviews with Pharaoh. In other words God will not leave Moses in his time of need: He will continue to support him during the emergency. God will go on being with him. This is an entirely acceptable translation of the Hebrew verb-form used, and it fits in with commonsense. Our own present tense, if construed rigidly, refers to an infinitesimal moment only. An instant before that flicker of time was in the future; in an instant more it will have receded into the past. Our present speaks of that which is ephemeral, and what we need for an understanding of God is a
form of words which speaks ot His permanence. A continuous future supplies that need: here we have someone Who will never change; what God is He will remain, and for God to affirm "I am and will be the One Who is and will be always" is to affirm His constancy, His faithfulness, and His permanence.
To describe Himself thus, moreover, was just the right way in which to meet the needs of His enslaved people in the time of their travail in Egypt. They were in bondage in a land of idolatry, where all the heathen gods had names: it was natural enough that they should enquire about the name of Him whom Moses would claim to represent; for their ancient faith must have been greatly dimmed by the ages of neglect, and the apparently interminable years of persecution. What use would it have been to them to have some proper name, however awesome, for their God, true God though He was? What they needed was some affirmation of His real relevance to their needs, and "I AM AND ALWAYS WILL BE" did affirm indeed that He was the only true God, and by implication cast all false gods into the shadows, as the merely transitory creations or men who were themselves creatures.
But (returning to Revelation) if God is and always will be, then He must also always have been, so that the claim could at all times have been made. In this passage we have this fact made explicit. God is indeed from everlasting to everlasting. He is the One "which is, and which was, and which is to come" — past, present, and future.
An old-fashioned interpretation would have found this truth in the Exodus passage. The whole section reads in the Revised Version:
God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say to the
children of Israel: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me to
you: this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial to all
generations. (Exodus 3.14-15).
Before it became fashionable to pronounce the name rendered in our common versions as The LORD as Yah-weh (with an aspirated 'h' in the middle), its common transliteration into English was JEHOVAH. This, if the anglicized consonants are changed back, would have read something like Y:howah. corresponding to its most common vocalization in the received Hebrew text. When it was thought that the Masoretic rendering truly represented the way the Name should be written, it was also thought that it represented a condensation of three Hebrew tenses of the verb to be, so that past, present, and future were enshrined within it, thus:
Some older commentaries are still around which interpret the Name in this way, and though it does not lie within this writer's competence to pronounce a final judgement, it does seem to him that the alternatives which are now offered add nothing to the dignity of the Person Whom the word describes, and are a great deal more difficult — and always would have been a great deal more difficult — for ordinary people to understand. To receive the Name as conveying the truth which God pronounced to Moses that "this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial to all generations", is to form a picture of the changeless majesty of God which can hardly be improved upon.
One of the main attractions of the view that the Name which God gave Himself before Moses means "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE", and that the Tetragrammaton means "HE WHO WILL BE(COME)", is that the Name then seems to enshrine the constant intention of God one day to realize His purpose in full, and (in conjunction with a certain understanding of the word 'e:lohiym, usually rendered 'God') will then be manifested in a host of glorified saints. But this truth is quite unaltered even if we do not suppose that it is contained in the Name itself. It is firmly based on the plain words of Scripture, and it was no doubt from the plain words of Scripture that it was found, before ever it came to be thought that the Name, too, contained it.
Indeed, it is to that future that the verse under discussion now turns, in the expression that follows. This is not a simple future of the verb 'to be', completing a series of "was" and "is" with "will be". It is ho erkhomenos, or "the One who is coming," so that the description as a whole reads "from Him the Being One, the One Who was being, and the One Who is coming".
From Him Which is to come.
The verb is of very frequent occurrence in Scripture (over 600 times), and is certainly normally used of the advent or arrival of a person or an event. The identical form of the verb is used of the
hrst coming ot the Lord Jesus in Matthew 11.3, and also of His Second Coming in Matthew 16.28 (as prefigured in the Transfiguration). We go beyond the mere idea that God will continue to exist in the future also, therefore, into the clear intention to be manifest again. It is significant that as the Book reaches its climax, when it pictures the Kingdom established on the earth, God is then referred to as "Lord God, the Almighty, Which art and Which was (11.17 RV), as He is also at the time when His final judgements are poured out on the earth (16.5). By that time no longer will God be "the Coming One" — for in the person of His Son He will be the One Who has arrived.
From the seven spirits which are before His throne. These Seven Spirits are found again, in 3.1; 4.5; 5.6. In 4.5 they are identified with the "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne of God", and in 5.6 with the "seven eyes" of the slain and revived Lamb, which are "sent forth into all the earth". The expression has been taken to mean either (1) the Holy Spirit symbolically described, or (2) the angels, or some of the angels, over whom the Lord Jesus now has authority.
In favour of its identification with the Holy Spirit are:
a The linking together of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — though never with the extreme connotations associated with the Doctrine of the Trinity — an association found more or less distinctly also in Matthew 28.19, 2 Corinthians 13.14, and even Luke 1.34-35 with the Holy Spirit as the agent of the Father's paternity of the Son.
b The second of these, 2 Corinthians 13.14, is particularly relevant, since Paul there prays for help from above for the saints in Corinth, involving "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowhip of the Holy Spirit" in a manner quite parallel with the present passage, in which John invokes grace and peace from the Eternal One, the Seven Spirits, and Jesus Christ.
c If the angels are indeed thought of here as the agents of grace and peace, such an idea would be unique in Scripture, and quite out of harmony with the use of such a prayer at the opening of the majority of Paul's Epistles, where it is the occupants of the heavenly throne, the Father and the Son, from Whom grace and peace are sought. It is very hard to imagine John invoking the angels in such a cause or any other, which is what he would be doing if it is indeed the angels who are signified here.
However, in favour of the angels being in fact the subject of John's prayer we have:
d That angels are indeed called 'spirits' (Hebrews 1.7 = Psalm 104.4; Hebrews 1.14; compare Acts 23.9).
e The symbol of "lamps of fire" harmonizes well with the words, "He maketh His ministers a flame of fire" in Psalm 104.4 But the Holy Spirit, too, is associated with fire in Matthew 3.11 and Acts 2.3. It is in any case hard to see the angels described as though they are actually part of the Lamb of God, as the "seven spirits" are in 5.6, whereas the Son of God was anointed with the Spirit without measure, and evidently operates by its means since His Ascension (see, for example, Acts 16.6, 7).
It has to be concluded that the balance of evidence is strongly in favour of the identification of the Seven Spirits with the Holy Spirit, so that John is following in the pattern of Paul and calling down grace and peace upon his fellow-saints from the Father and the Son, mediated by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Of course the angels of God play their part in ministering to them that shall be the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1.14), and this Book itself bears abundant testimony to the fact. But then it calls them by their proper name, the angels. (See Excursus Ix)
1.5: From Jesus Christ, Who is the faithful Witness.
This office the Lord Jesus claimed for Himself more than once in the Gospel of John, with the support of His miracles and the testimony of John the Baptist (John 4.44; 5.31-39; 8.14, 18; 18.37). The 'faithfulness' of the Lord was many times questioned during His earthly pilgrimage ("Thou bearest witness of Thyself: Thy witness is not true", John 5.31; 8.13), but was established once and for all by His resurrection, as the Lord goes on here to say. During His mortal lifetime they condemned Jesus, unjustly, because "He made Himself equal with God" (John 5.18); but now, though the question of equality with God never arises, He is "declared to be the Son of God with power, by His resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1.4).
The word 'witness' is martus or martur when it refers to the person bearing the witness, and marturia or martunon when it refers to the testimony he bears. The act of bearing testimony is described by the associated verb marture'o. Our common use of the word 'martyr' associates it with one who seals his testimony by his death, and in the bitter experience of the early church, and later belivers too, the association is grimly appropriate. The word itself, though, conveys no such idea: but the thought of witnessing and dying as a result is plainly therein Acts 22.20 of Stephen, and! in Revelation 2.13 of Antipas, 11.3 of "the Two Witnesses", and 17.6 of many who have died for their faith. The Lord is then, surely, using the term here to remind us that He, supremely, sealed His testimony with His life, a fact which will be celebrated by John in words which closely follow.
This is parallel with Colossians 1.18, and under the guidance of God's Spirit inter-quotation, in one direction or the other, has evidently taken place. As everywhere else in the New Testament, the fact of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is crucial to the truth and significance of the gospel. He is the only-begotten Son of God, the purpose of Whose coming was to bring many sons unto glory (John 1.14; 3.16; Hebrews 2.10). But He is also the first-begotten from the dead, showing the way whereby those many sons themselves will become children of the resurrection (Luke 20.36). The resurrection of Jesus so surely establishes the fact that He is Son of God that the New Testament sometimes seems to speak of it as though it was the resurrection which made Him so:
The promise made to the fathers, God hath fulfilled unto our children, in that He raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the Second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. He raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption (Acts 13.32-34).
But the fact is rather that the Sonship, brought about by the 'Virgin-Birth', was brought to its fulfillment by the resurrection, and was established by this for all receptive minds. It was "by His resurrection from the dead" that Jesus was declared with power to be the Son of God (Romans 1.4; Hebrews 1.3-6; Psalm 2.7).
Such a statement seems almost premature when one sees how little regard the kings of the earth were paying to Jesus then, and how little regard they are paying to Him now. But the rulers and people of the earth pay little regard to God His Father, too, without thereby weakening His claim and right to be the One who rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will (Daniel 4.17, 25, 32; 5.21). God is God by right, whether He be honoured as God or not; and Jesus is King by right, whether or not the nations bow the knee to Him. He was King of the Jews by birth (Matthew 2.1), and was so recognized by Nathaniel (John 1.49) and by Peter (Matthew 16.16): these even before He died. He made the same claim for Himself in reply to Pilate (John 18.33-37). The fact that He never reigned at that time leaves quite unaffected the fact that He was the Heir-apparent to a vacant throne, the 'One Whose right it is'of Ezekiel 21.27. And now that "all power hath been given unto Him in heaven and in earth
(Matthew 2H.1U), it is already the duty ot men and nations to render to Him their allegiance. Already God has "given Him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus everv knee should bow" (Philippians 2.9-11). In heaven no doubt this already occurs. On earth, save for the small company of the saints, it must await the day of His return and victory and, as regards "those under the earth", the day of resurrection and judgement.
The expression, "the Ruler of the kings of the earth", seems almost to be written to emphasize the evil that those same "kings" will do when they conspire to "give their power to the Beast", and to resist Him at the time of His second coming (17.13-14), though He is already by right "King of kings and Lord of lords", — when "the kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers thereof take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed" (Psalm 2.1-2). The Book from the start sets the tone: the world is in rebellion against God; it will show this by the treatment it metes out to His saints; and it will only be brought to heel when the Lord quells its rebellion on His return.
The remainder of this verse, and the verse which follows it, make up a doxology. As happens so many times in Scripture, the writer turns aside from his development, overcome as it were by the majesty of his subject or the depth of his gratitude for the saving work of God and His Son, to render thanks or to bow in awe. Just so does Paul write in his Letter to the Romans. After a long exposition he has reached the point of concluding that "God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all"; and the contemplation of that mercy leads him to exclaim, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of Him, and through Him, and unto Him, are all things, to Him be the glory for ever. Amen" (Romans 11.32-36): and this is but one example of its kind.
So it is here. And it opens up an interesting enquiry as to the manner in which the inspiration of God leaves scope for the initiative of the writer. This Book is plainly declared to be the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him (1.1), and yet the ink is scarcely dry on those words before John is sharing with us his own personal praises and thanksgivings, which must surely
have come from his own heart without the need for compulsion such as that which led all "Holy men of God" to speak as they were impelled by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1.20-21). The topic warrants a digression from the study, and a consideration of:
Excursus I: The Prophet and His Prophecy
There is a considerable number of autobiographical touches in this Book, the more surprisingly since, more than most parts of Scripture, it pictures the prophet under the irresistible control of God being given visions and caused to write messages, the one of which was shown him with the command, "What thou seest, write!" (2.11,19), and the other of which consisted of messages which were quite obviously, to some extent at least, dictated to him verbatim.
We have already instanced the doxology of 1.5b-7. For the rest, some of the more vivid examples are:
1.17 I fell at His feet as one dead, and He laid His right hand on me.
5.4 I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open the Book . . . and one of the elders said to me, Weep not.
7.4 I heard the number of them that were sealed, 144,000 . . . After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number.
7.13 One of the elders answered, saying to me, These that are arrayed in white robes, who are they, and whence came they? And I said to him, My Lord, thou knowest.
10.8 I heard the voice again speaking with me, saying, Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel . . . And I went to the angel, saying that he should give me the little book . . . And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and when I had eaten it my belly was made bitter.
22.8 When I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things.
22.20 Amen: come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints.
These are in addition to the very numerous passages throughout the Book where John says, "I saw", or "He showed me", or "He took me". He is personally involved in all that the Book treats of, and he describes, sometimes vividly, even poignantly, how he felt about his experiences.
He is not alone in this, of course. Indeed, the parallels with Ezekiel's experiences as he is taken in the visions of God to Jerusalem (Ezekiel 8.1-11.25), and later when he witnessed the plan of the future Jerusalem, with its temple and the divisions of the land (40.1 ff) is close. The same is true of some of the experiences of the prophet Daniel (Daniel 7.1, 15; 8.15, 27; 10.1-19; 12.8). The prophets were very far from being mere automata, impersonally
acting as scribes to record dispassionately what was imposed upon them. They were human beings with all the emotions and anxieties and fears of other human beings, and they were allowed to record how they were affected by what they experienced. Other prophets, too, are more or less autobiographical, and none more so than Jeremiah who, for all the fact that he, more than most, stresses that he spoke only when "the word of the LORD came unto" him (as in
I.2, 4, 9, 11; 2.2, 3, 4, 9, 12 and many other places), nevertheless is allowed to disclose the inmost feelings of his heart in face of the tragic sufferings which his ministry brought upon him. But Jeremiah goes further than the other prophets: he not only describes his experiences: he actually gives vent to his feelings, and calls down curses on his misfortunes, and deplores what God is about to do to His people:
4.10 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely Thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.
II.18 The LORD gave me knowledge of it, and I knew it; then Thou showedst me their doings. But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter: and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saving, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be no more remembered. But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see Thy vengeance on them: for unto Thee have I revealed my cause.
15.1 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have not lent on usury, neither have men lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me . . .
20.7 O LORD, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed. I am become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocketh me. For as often as I speak I cry out; I crv, Violence and spoil: because the word of the LORD is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the dav. And if I sav, I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name, then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with forbearing and I cannot contain . . . Cursed be the dav wherein I was born: let not the dav wherein my mother bare me be blessed. Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saving, A man child is born to thee, making him verv glad. And let that man be as the cities which the LORD overthrew, and repented not: and let him hear a cry in the morning, and shouting at noontide, because he slew me not from the womb, and so my mother should have been my grave, and her womb always great. Wherefore came I from the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my davs should be consumed with shame?
Clearly these are the spontaneous and bitter effusions of the prophet's own heart, provoked by his own suffering and not by the compulsion of the Spirit of God. Equal) clearly they are the Spirit's divinely sanctioned expression of how hard it is to be a prophet of the LORD among a rebellious people, and as such a real and precious part of the inspired Scripture. But this and the other examples show to us plainly that the inspiration of God has not usually chosen robots for its agents. These are men of flesh and blood, and from their reactions \ve have much to learn. Jeremiah suffered the unexplained afflictions of Job, and expressed himself in the face of them in language which is like Job's, and which might indeed reflect his acquaintance with that Book (see lob 3.3, 10/1 1, 20 ).
The prophets record God's revelation indeed: but under His guidance they also record for our instruction that thev were men like ourselves. We shall find reason to be glad, as we return to our present study, that John the man filters through the message of John the revelator, and we discover for our learning how he reacted to the revelations granted to him.
He washed us from our sins in His own blood.
This expression occurs again in this Book in modified form in 5.9; 7.14; 12.11. The thought of being washed in the blood of the Lord Jesus, or at least that of being redeemed through His blood, is found elsewhere in the records of the Last Supper (Matthew 26.28 ; 1 Corinthians 10.10; 11.25, 27), and in such passages as John 6.53-56; Acts 20.28; Romans 5.9; Ephesians 1.7; 2.13; Colossians 1.14, 20; Hebrews 9.7, 12; 12.24; 13.12, 20; 1 Peter 1.2, 19; 1 John 1.7; 5.6, 8. The figure is drawn from the sprinklings of blood associated with the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and presents us anew with the problem of how to relate the actual sacrifices offered under the Law with the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross. Clearly the topic is too large to be dealt with more than cursorily here, but perhaps the best brief comment is that the Letter to the Hebrews gives the answer complete. It was not possible for the sacrifices under the Law to take away sins (Hebrews 10.4). Even the solemn sacrifice which preceded the entry of the high priest into the Most Holy Place once a year (10.7) only served to emphasize that for others, and for the High Priest also on all other days save this, access into God's presence was not possible (10.8), while the fact that the ordinance had to be repeated year after year showed that it achieved nothing permanent (10.9, 10). In fact, the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament consisted of shadows of the better thing to come (10.1), and if there were no better thing to come the whole elaborate ritual would have been and remained "weak and unprofitable" (7.18).
While it is true that without the shedding of blood there is no
remission of sins (9.22), the blood of animals is merely an anticipation of the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, which is alone sufficient to achieve its object, and is so utterly complete in itself that it will never need to be repeated (9.23-28). The priests who offered the sacrifices were as limited in their powers as the sacrifices they offered, for they were sinners and mortal (5.2; 7.28), and must always be succeeded by other priests who would continue the interminable repetitions. The only way in which what the Law anticipated could be brought about was by the coming of One made in all points like to His brethren (2.10-17), Who would live a spotless life, and then die a death which would bring His temptations to an end and cause Him to be made perfect (2.10; 5.7-9; 7.26-28). When such an One had been raised from the dead, He would be able to enter closely into God's heavenly presence and take up His residence in this true Most-Holy Place (10.12), and there, with His constant recollection of the hard travail through which He had repelled and then conquered sin (2.18; 4.14-15; 5.7-8). He is able to serve the interests of all who come through Him in prayer into the presence of the Father (10.19-25). All the ritual of the Law has, then, to be summed up in the human nature, the flawless life, and the culminating death of the Lord Jesus Christ. The participation of the faithful Jew in such ritual was his anticipation of the coming offering which alone could give meaning to what he did. The disciple who comes to God since Jesus Christ was offered pays his tribute to the sinless-ness of the Lord and His destruction of the power of sin in His death (9.26), and, having symbolically died in his obedient mind to sin by being "crucified with Christ" (Romans 6.3-7). He can claim all the benefits which the Lord's death and priesthood have secured and can yet secure (Romans 8.31-34).
It is this which is expressed in the words, "washed us from our sins in His own blood"; and in a Book which is deeply concerned with the transition from the Law to salvation in Christ, and with repelling the objections to the Christian way raised by unbelieving Jews (as we shall see both in the Letters to the Churches of chapters 2 and 3 and in some later evidence), this verse amounts to an affirmation of faith in the full efficacy of what Christ has wrought by His death.
1.6: He made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto His God and Father.
This verse carries the same thought further. Israel had been delivered from Egypt, symbolically by the blood of God's Passover-lamb, and then in the wilderness had been sworn in to God as a "kingdom of priests and an holy nation" (Exodus 19.18). Now "Christ our Passover hath been sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians
5.7) and, by their deliverance so brought about, the believers from all races have become "a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people" (1 Peter 2.9), replacing in the present dispensation the rejecters of the Lord Jesus Christ as He had warned them (Matthew 21.42-44). Both Peter and John would have been present when the Lord offered this warning to His people, and in both their writings there appear words which plainly echo what they then heard. John lays down from the start the true position of the Lord Jesus Christ and His saints: He is the Redeemer, and they are the chosen people. Thus, however tactily, are the pretensions of the disobedient Jews put in their proper place. Those to whom John is writing are the elect of God; those others who rejected the counsel of God against themselves are for the present rejected in their turn.
To Him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever.
Thus John comes to the end of his doxology. Grammatically, the glory and the dominion might here be ascribed either to the Father or to the Son, but there is no doubt, from the constant usage of Scripture, that it is the Father who is intended. Indeed, the words are very like those in the commonly accepted termination of the "Lord's Prayer": "For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever. Amen" (Matthew 6.13, AV and RVm). It seems likely enough that the spoken version of this Prayer, ending "for ever and ever. Amen", might have been borrowed from the verse before us.
For ever and ever.
The Greek expression here is in the form preferred in AV and RV, though with the omission of the last two words in RVm: eis tons aionas (ton aidnon), "literally "unto the ages (of the ages)." The same expression, in full, occurs also in 1.18; 4.9, 10; 5.13, (14); 7.12; 10.6; 11.15; 14.11 (here without the definite articles); 15.7; 19.3; 20.10; 22.5. It is very much a speciality of this Book, and is only found outside it in Galatians 1.5; Ephesians 3.21 (without the preposition); Philippians 4.20; 1 Timothy 1.17; Hebrews 1.8 (in the singular); 13.21; 1 Peter 4.11; 5.11. It corresponds to two principal expressions in the Old Testament, /: 'dwlam wd 'edh and min ha 'owla ha 'dwlam. The former of these is literally "to the age and onward" and is found with this translation principally in the Psalms (9:5; 10.16; 21.4; 45.6, 17; 48.14; 52.8; 104.5; 111.8; 119.44; 145.1,2,21), and also Exodus 15.18; Isaiah 30.8; Daniel 12.3; Micah 4.5. The latter is literally "from eternity even to eternity", and is found in 1 Chronicles 16.36; 29.10; Nehemiah 9.5; and in its Aramaic variant in Daniel 2.20; 7.18
Now on the face of it, it would be difficult to think of expressions which convey so clearly the idea of endless eternity, whether in the Hebrew or in the Greek. The first Hebrew expression looks as though it means "for ever and then more"; the second "from one eternity to another eternity"; and the Greek "ages, each part of which is itself an age". It is true that neither aion nor 'owlam taken by itself necessarily conveys the idea of eternity, and may correspond simply to some particular age, particularly the age which is to end at the Lord's return (Matthew 13.39, 40, 49) and the age which will follow that (Mark 10.30 ; Luke 20.35). There are other usages also, in which the word becomes practically synonymous with kosmos, as meaning the world dominated by sinful men in which we now live. But nevertheless, the redoubled combination of age with age in the phrases under discussion seems to convey the idea of limitless eternity very emphatically.
Perhaps because of the unwelcome implications of supposing that some of the matters associated with this expression really could be endless, however, it has sometimes been suggested that some finite period of time might be intended, even by these emphatic terms, and it might be a step in the direction of elucidation if we first of all examine the passages themselves.
Here then are the ones in the Apocalypse:
1.5
Glory and dominion to God.
1.18
The risen Jesus is alive.
4.9
The one on the throne lives.
4.10
The same.
5.13
Blessing and honour and glory and dominion to the One on the throne and to the Lamb.
5.14
The elders worship (Him that liveth, A.V. only).
7.12
Glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, honour, and power to our God.
10.6
The angel swore by the Creator, who lives.
11.15
The kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign.
14.11
The smoke of their torment goes up (here the articles are missing, as noted above).
15.7
THHE WRATH OF God, Who lives.
19.3
The smoke (of burning the great harlot) goes up.
20.10
The devil, beast, and false prophet are tormented in the lake of fire.
22.5
The saints shall reign.
The ones in the remainder of the New Testament are:
Galatians
1.5
Glory and praise be to our God and Father.
Ephesians
3.21
Glory to God in the church and in Christ Jesus (here without the prepositions).
Philippians
4.20
Praise to our God and Father.
1 Timothy
1.17
Honour and glory to God.
Hebrews
1.8
Thy throne, O God (of Jesus, in the singular).
13.21
May God make you perfect through Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory.
1 Peter
4.11
May God be glorified through Jesus Christ,
Whose are glory and dominion. 5.11 To God be the dominion.
Turning to the ones in the Old Testament:
Psalm
9.5
God has blotted out the name of the wicked.
10.16
The LORD is King.
21.4
God gave to the King (Messiah) life and length of days.
45.6
Thy throne, O God (cited in Hebrews 1.8, 9, above).
45.17
The people will give Thee thanks.
48.14
This God is our God.
52.8
I trust in the mercy of God.
104.5
God laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be moved ("for ever" in A.V., but the Hebrew is the same).
111.8
The works of God's hands are established.
119.44
I will observe Thy law continually.
145.1
I will extol Thee my God and bless Thy name.
145.2
I will praise Thy name.
145.21
Let all flesh bless His holy name.
Exodus
15.18
The LORD shall reign.
Isaiah
30.8
Write the message in a book that it may be.
Daniel
12.3
They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars.
Micah
4.5
We will walk in the name of our God.
1 Chronicles
s 16.36
Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel.
29.10
Blessed be Thou, O LORD, the God of Israel, our Father.
Nehemiah
9.5
Stand up and bless the LORD your God.
Daniel
2.20
Blessed be the name of God.
7.18
The saints of the Most High shall possess the kingdom.
Now it emerges very clearly from this analysis that the overall sense of all the terms is that of endless time. There is no limit to the period during which God should be praised, nor that to which He, His Son, and His saints will live (the two latter from the time of their resurrection and immortalization); or is there any limit to the endurance of the earth. If a few of the expressions are hyperbolic (since no mortal person can praise God in the temple for all eternity) this is the result of poetic expression, and not of any inherent limitation in the meaning of the terms. It there is any reason for limiting the terms at all, it is a subjective one, arising partly from our knowledge that there is a time-period set to one phase of the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, about Whose reign the same words are used; but particularly from a conviction that there can be no such thing as absolutely endless conscious torment. This is no doubt a serious problem, which will have to be faced, but it seems to this writer that it has to
be faced by some other means that weakening the meaning of "for ever and ever". Without pausing for that discussion now, it might at least be pointed out that the solution is hinted at in Isaiah 34.9-16. There, in predicting the desolation of a certain land which is to be so complete that "the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever", we are turned aside from a picture of a land totally uninhabitable by any living thing, when the prophet goes on to add: "The pelican and the porcupine shall possess it; the owl and the raven shall dwell therein. . . Thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and thistles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be for an habitation of jackals, a court for ostriches. And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the satyr shall cry out to his fellow, yea the night-monster shall settle there. . . There shall the arrowsnake make her nest. . . Seek ye out of the book of the Lord: no one of these shall be missing, none shall want her mate. . . They shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.
It hardly needs saying that a land which is laid waste by perpetual fire and brimstone would be no fit dwellingplace for any of these creatures for an instant, and how much less "from generation to generation". In one way or another, it must be possible to understand the prophet's words in some way which allows both things to be true: and if these words, then perhaps also the corresponding ones in Revelation which speak of eternal torment? To this we shall hope to return more comprehensively later.
Amen.
This little word is too often neglected, in part because of its insignificance, and in part because of our unthinking familiarity with it. Yet it is full of significance. In its Hebrew original form, 'amen, it is so rendered 27 times, and 'so be it' once, 'truth' twice. In Greek transliteration, amen, it is found a full 150 times in the
The readers will not fail to have noticed that the quotation from Isaiah also contains the expression "for ever and ever", in spite of not being contained in the list on page 17. The Hebrew expression here is i:netsach n:tsachiym, and is listed in YAC as occuring with this translation only here. The word netsach occurs around 33 times, of which 24 are rendered "ever", and the remainder alwav(s), constantly, evermore, perpetual, (un)to the end. This is the only case where the word is used twice together, in singular and plural, meaning something like "for an eternity of evers".
New Testament, of which 50 are so rendered in translation, and the remaining 100 'verily', all of these last in the Gospels, from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ. The following comments on it are taken from Vine, (EDNTW):
Its meanings may be seen n such passages as Deuteronomy 7.9, "the faithful (Amen) God; Isaiah 49.7, "Jehovah that is faithful"; 65.16, "The God of truth", margin "The God of Amen". And if God is faithful, His testimonies and precepts are sure (amen): Psalms 19.7; 111.7; as are also His warnings, Hosea 5.9; and promises, Isaiah 33.16; 55.3. 'Amen' is used of men also, e.g. Proverbs 25.13. !
There are cases where the people used it to express their assent to a law, and their willingness to submit to the penalty attached to the breach of it, Deuteronomy 27.15; cf Nehemiah5.13. Itisalso used to express acquiescence in another's prayer, 1 Kings 1.36, ' where it is defined as "let God say so too"; or in another's thanksgiving, 1 Chronicles 16.36, whether by an individual, Jeremiah 11.5, or by the congregation, Psalm 106.48.
Thus, 'Amen' said by God = 'it is and shall be so', and by men, 'so let it be'.
Once in the New Testament 'Amen' is a title of Christ (Revelation 3.14), because through Him the purposes of God are established (2 Corinthians 1.20).
The early Christian churches followed the example of Israel in associating themselves audibly with the prayers and thanksgivings offered on their behalf (1 Corinthians 14.16, where the article'the' points to the common practice). Moreover this practice corresponds to the pattern of things in the heavens (see Revelation 5.14, etc.)
The individual also said 'Amen' to express his 'Let it be so' in response to the divine 'Thus it shall be' (Revelation 22.20). Frequently the speaker — but he means the writer (A.D.N.) — adds 'Amen' to his own prayers and doxologies, as is the case in Ephe-sians 3.21, for example.
This leaves little to be said. It is sad and to be regretted that a reaction to the frequently meaningless Amens at the end of hymns and some prayers offered in a ritualistic environment should have caused many congregations of believers to remain silent at the and of prayers on their behalves. The one who offers his prayer says his own Amen, but those for whom it is offered maintain an unresponsive silence. Can we urge on such congregations that "Amen" is not the praying person's way of saying, "The prayer is at an end, and you may now resume your seats"? It is the opportunity for each one present to say: "So be it. May the Lord do His part, and I mine, in what has been prayed for!" Certainly mechanically enthusiastic "Amens" at revival-type meetings can have a deterrent effect, but there are more dignified and thoughtful ways of "saying the Amen at thy giving of thanks" which are a proper and divinely authorized way of associating the congregation with the one offering their petitions. 1.6:
He made us priests.
The Old Testament had its priests who were, since the time of Moses, from the house of Aaron within the tribe of Levi exclusively. All others were false priests, though there had been at least one "priest of the Most High God" about whose antecedents we know nothing (Genesis 14.18-20; Psalm 110.4; Hebrews 5.6ft). This is not the place in which to develop the way in which the mortal priesthood of the descendants of Aaron was supplanted by the unchangeable priesthood after the order of Melchizedek of the Lord Jesus Christ: this the Letter ot the Hebrews does supremely well. But this is the place it point out that, from the time when the Lord Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, there are but two ways of looking at the office of priest. The one concerns the Lord Himself, who is uniquely the Priest of our confession and brooks no rival, successor, or partner (Hebrews 5-6; 7.11, 15, 17, 21; 10.21); and the other concerns every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ without distinction (1 Peter 2.5, 9; Revelation 1.6; 5.10; 20.6). The idea that believers in our era can be divided into those who are priests and those who are laity is utterly without any foundation in Scripture, and the assumption of the office of sacrificing priests which those ordained to the Roman persuasion, at least, make, is an affront to the teaching of Scripture. Indeed, it is absurd that the celibate priesthood of the Roman church should arrogate to itself the hereditary office of the married priesthood of Aaron, and the assumption of such office is utterly devoid of any foundation in Scripture.
Linguistically, the words concerning priesthood in the New Testament are all linked with the adjective hieros, sacred. Thus, the sacred place is the hieron, the temple (71 times in N.T.). The priest's office is hierateia (Luke 1.9; Hebrews 7.5); the priesthood is hierateuma (1 Peter 2.5, 9); the exercise of such office is expressed in the verb hierateuo; and the one who exercises this office, the priest, is the hiereus. The only passages which might in any way be made to suggest that there is a class of priests, as distinct from ordinary believers, within the Christian community, are those which refer to believers who minister about holy things (1 Corinthians 9.13), and to Paul "ministering the grace of God" (Romans 15.16), and in neither case do these verses really suggest the existence of such a distinction.
The Lord Jesus Christ, then, is the only Priest between His people and His Father, a truth which tacitly not only excludes any caste of professing priests on the earth from such a special office
in relation to their fellow-believers, but also eliminates the army of supposed mediators, and especially the Queen of them all, Mary the mother of Jesus, from any such function in heaven. And insofar as the name priest is appropriate to any believer at all, it is appropriate to every believer without exception.
But while this fact should humble any who would seek, or who profess to hold, any special status on their own account (and should also warn any who would seek without official hierarchial status to be regarded as divinely appointed leaders because they themselves feel qualified for the task), it does invite every believer to ask, "In what sense are my brethren and I priests at all, and how do we exercise that priestly office?" Israel should have asked itself the same question when it received God's promise that it should be a "kingdom of priests and an holy nation". It is true that the promise in both cases provides for ministering and mediatory duties in the age to come when "they shall reign on the earth" (Revelation 5.10). But it is also true that in both cases the chosen people have a duty to do in witnessing to their faith and offering it to others, which means that they must not take lightly their need to "let their light so shine before men that these may see their good works, and glorify their Father Who is in heaven" (Philippians 2.15; Matthew 5.16) Thus: in every way, the hope for high office in the age to come cannot be fulfilled unless it is linked with high service in this present time.
1.7: Behold, He cometh with the clouds.
There is a sense in which this is quite literally true, for when the Lord Jesus went up to heaven "a cloud received Him out of sight" of His disciples, and they were told that He would return "in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven" (Acts 1.10-11; see also Matthew 24.30; 26.64 ). But there is no doubt another sense in which the angels who will accompany Him on His return are spoken of as 'clouds' also (Marie 8.38; 2 Thessalonians 1.7). And in yet a further application of the figure, the saints whom at some point the Lord will raise from the dead, and who make up "them that sleep in Jesus" whom "God will bring with Him" (1 Thessalonians 4.14; Colossians 3.4), may be so considered. But there is no occasion in the New Testament where the present word for cloud, nephele, is positively identified with large companies of people, for Hebrews 12.1, though it speaks of men of faith as a "great cloud of witnesses", uses an alternative word nephos, which is found nowhere else in the New Testament (though it occurs in LXX some 26 times compared with some 120 for the more common word). The present passage, of course alludes clearly to Daniel 7.13, in which "there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man" to receive a king-
dom; and since Daniel 7.18 says that "the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom", this gives good ground for associating together the clouds and the saints.
Every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him, and all the tribes the earth shall mourn over Him.
This is a direct allusion to Zechariah 12.10, whose expressions "look on Me", "pierced", and "mourn for Him" all find their echo here. But while Zechariah 12 is purely concerned to deal with the natural nation of Israel, the present passage broadens the picture considerably. We shall find this repeatedly throughout the Apocalypse. Matters-which in the Old Testament are concerned with the natural seed of Abraham, are given a wider application in Revelation to other nations on the one hand, and to believers from the whole world on the other. If this fact is kept in memory it may help to restrain over-literal application of parts of this Book to natural Israel only. "They which pierced Him", in the sense of those who conspired to bring about the Lord's death, are indeed natural Israel (though even in this other nations had their complicity, as Peter brings out in Acts 4.24-28); but' "every eye" and "all kindreds of the earth" here evidently range over a wider field. It is true that in Hebrew the same word, 'erets, is used both for 'earth' and for 'land', and that context must decide the sometimes difficult question as to which is intended. But the problem is less acute in the New Testament than in the Old, and the plain fact is that, in the New Testament, the Greek word far more often means 'earth' than 'land', the former in the sense either of 'ground' or our planet as a whole, while in the Apocalypse in particular the idea of the whole world seems to predominate. In fact, of the 80 or so occurrences of the word, there is not one which with any probability means the land of Israel in particular, and there are many which plainly have the wider significance (1.5; 3.10; 5.3; 6.15; 7.1; 12.4; 13.13; 16.14; 17.2; 20.11, and others).
What we are clearly told, therefore, is that when the Lord Jesus returns, not only will natural Israel lament the evil done in crucifying Him (endorsed through the ages by their continuance in unbelief), but that the other nations of the world, who conspired with Israel then (and since that time have also in the main failed to yield themselves to the Lord's allegiance), will repent in dust and ashes when they see Him in His glory. Indeed, the rebellion of the nations against Him of which this Book is to speak so eloquently later (17.12-14 and elsewhere), will give excellent ground for repentance when the Lord discomfits them and demands their submission. Once again, John the prophet reveals himself to us as John the man, when he adds his own prayer to what the Lord has
revealed, and expresses his desire for its fulfillment with his "Even so, Amen!"
1.8: I am the Alpha and the Omega, (the beginning and the ending), saith the Lord God . . . The Almighty.
The remaining titles in this verse, "Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come", have already been considered. Here "the Alpha and the Omega", the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, is plainly drawn from Isaiah 41.4 ("the First and with the last", and 44.6 ("the First and the Last"). God is the Author and Finisher of the work of creation and salvation, and in accomplishing the last the Lord Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12.2). The question we have already raised, as to whether these titles are related to the one or the other, raises itself again here, and requires special treatment.
Excursus II: The Lord Jesus Christ and the Divine Titles
We take such titles in order as they occur in the Book:
"name of the city of My God", associates it plainly with the name of the Messianic Branch of David in Jeremiah 23.6, where "this is the name whereby He shall be called, Y:howah Tsidkenuw, the LORD our righteousness", and with the name of the liberated Jerusalem in 33.16, also "The LORD our righteousness". Though the word which in its pointing in the Masoretic text reads Y:howah certainly refers to the Almighty Father Himself, it is in Jeremiah applied both to Messiah the Branch, and to Jerusalem the city of God. Since the Lord Jesus evidently uses these passages, it is plain that He is laying claim to the use of the title The LORD our righteousness for Himself.
4. 8 THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS, AND WHICH IS COMING. This is similar in form and usage to 1.8, and clearly refers to the Father specifically.
4. 9, 10 HE THAT LIVETH FOR EVER AND EVER. This expression, which is also found in 10.6, clearly refers to the Father again, as the exposition of chapter 4 will show conclusively. See also 15.7. The same expression in Aramaic is found in the lips of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4.34, and in those of the angel in 1 2.7, this time in Hebrew. The parallels with Revelation 10.6 are here very close, and must be given further consideration.
11. 17 LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHICH ART AND WHICH WAS. The Father again, though the manner in which He takes "His great power" and reigns is through the return of His Son. Here A. V. adds "and art to come", as in 1.4, 8 but other versions omit this phrase. Since we have here reached the point where God's rule over the earth has been established, it is fitting that "art coming" should now be omitted, for its prophecy has been fulfilled.
15. 3 LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, KING OF THE AGES (or possibly "of the nations", as in AVm, RVm, and NASB; but definitely, it seems, not "of the saints"). Once more the Father.
16.5,6 THOU WHICH ART AND WHICH WAST, THOU HOLY ONE, LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY. The Father again, once more omitting "art coming", because now we are in the midst of the last judgements leading up to God's control of the earth through Jesus Christ.
16. 14 GOD THE ALMIGHTY. The Father again, since the "great day" referred to here links us directly with 6.17, where "He that sits on the throne" (6.16) is the Father, clearly distinguished from the Lamb, the Lord Jesus, by His side.
17. 14 LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS.
1. 4 HE WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME. Plainly at this stage it is the Father only, as we have shown, to Whom reference is made.
1. 8 THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHICH IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME. Again the Father only, both from its close proximity to (1), and because we have not yet reached the point where such words might be used about Jesus.
1. 11 I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE FIRST AND THE LAST. If these words are part of the genuine text, they would certainly have to be applied to the Lord Jesus Himself, as we shall see from a further consideration of "the One like to the Son of Man" (1.13). But the words are omitted in R.V., R.S.V., and others, and without a backward glance in Aland and Black's Greek Testament, and should therefore be left out of consideration.
1. 17 I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST. Here we can no longer escape the issue. The Lord Jesus is certainly the One who says He is "the living One and I was dead", and Who now lays claim to part, at the least, of the title of God in 1.8. Names which originally belonged to the Father only are now seen to become applicable to His Son also.
2. 8 THESE THINGS SAITH THE FIRST AND THE LAST. Again, beyond any possibility of doubt, these words apply to the Son, for again He describes Himself as the One who "was dead, and lived again".
3. 12 MINE OWN NEW NAME. Whereas the name is not specified, its link with "the name of My God, and the
definitely here a title of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb. Yet "Lord of lords" certainly refers to the God of Israel in Deuteronomy 10.17 and Psalm 136.3, while Nebuchadnezzar in effect applies both titles to Him in Daniel 2.47. But the most striking comparison is with 1 Timothy 6.15, in which God, "Whom no man hath seen nor can see" is called "the King of kings and Lord of lords". Most plainly here, therefore, a title which hitherto belonged to the Father only is being bestowed on His Son. See also 19.16.
19. 13 THE WORD OF GOD. As in John 1 . 1 4 and 1 John 1.1. When "the Word became flesh" the expression came to denote Jesus as the only-begotten Son, manifesting the glory of the Father, by Whom He had been begotten through the power of the Holy Spirit.
21.6 ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END. The Father again, for it is "He that sitteth on the throne" (21.5) Who is here speaking of the marriage of the Lamb and His Bride.
21. 22 THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY. Plainly the Father again, since He appears side by side with the Lamb.
22. 6 THE LORD, THE GOD OF THE SPIRITS OF THE PROPHETS. Though this is presumably the Father also, it is paralleled by statements that the Lord Jesus, like the One referred to here, "sent His angel" (as in 1.1; 22.16). The passage certainly, therefore, testifies to the identity of purpose and of will that move the Father and the Son, in much the same way as the statements of the Lord that the Father would send the Comforter to the disciples (John 14.16), or that He Himself would do so (16.7) come to the same thing. God's angels are Jesus' angels, since "angels and authorities and powers" have been made subject to Him (1 Peter 3.22).
22. 13 ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THE BEGINNING AND THE END. Here at last these titles refer unquestionably to the Lord Jesus, even though they are identical with names hitherto used of the Father (1.11, 17). For the promise, "Behold, I come quickly" (22.12) refers to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus, and is repeated in 22.20, and answered with the unanswerable, "Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!"
In brief, in this remarkably extensive list of titles attributed to the Father and His Son, which is surely unique in Scripture, though the supremacy of the Father and the dependence of the Son are never in doubt, there are sufficient occasions on which the exalted titles of God are also ascribed to His Son to make it plain that the Lord is regarded in this Book as having inherited the right to use the power and office which such titles convey. As Isaiah prophesied, it is now true in fact that "His name" is "called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9.6); and in the words of the Letter to the Hebrews, "He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than" the angels (Hebrews 1.4). The whole is summed up in Paul's words:
"God hath highly exalted Him, and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ Lord, to the glory of God, the Father" (Philippians 2.9-10). But the glory is an acquired glory. It is His by attainment because of the spotlessness of His life and the perfection gained by His death. And it is cherished by the Lord Jesus as a means whereby He can yet, as He has always, render to His Father the praise and the honour now placed safely in His hands.
Back
