Chapter 3 Revelation 1:9-20
CHAPTER III
JOHN'S FIRST VISION AND THE COMMISSION TO THE CONGREGATIONS (1.9 20)
1.9: I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus.
So Paul's exhortation that we should continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14.22) is realized in practice by John in his sufferings on Patmos. The outward manifestations were those of suffering — exile and perhaps hard labour in the stone-quarries. The sufferings were met in patient endurance, and the endurance was sustained by the confidence of the reality and promise of the kingdom of God, of which John already (1.6) reckoned himself and his brethren to be participants. The patience is hupomorie, not the longsuffering which bears with the infirmities or ill-behaviour of others, but the standing firm in adversity which those in tribulation or temptation require. The other word is makrothumia, the bearing with our common sins which we should show to others in consideration of God showing the same to us (2 Peter 3.9; Romans 9.22; 1 Peter 3.20). John is here illustrating by his own example the need to hold on in face of persecution and hardship, a part of the "overcoming" which he is shortly to urge on the seven congregations of Asia.
was in the isle which is called Patmos.
"The island is about 6 miles long, with a breadth of up to 4 miles, and it has been suggested that the scenery of its rugged volcanic hills and surrounding seas find their reflection in the imagery of the Apocalypse" (NBD, 1st edition, 1962). It is hard to think of a less likely suggestion: was it the "rugged scenery" of Babylon's endless alluvial wastes which inspired the very similar imagery of the Book of Daniel? Were the non-existent seas of that inland country responsible for his pictures of the great deeps? The imagery of the Apocalypse comes from the rest of Scripture, and first and last from the inspiration of God. Has that otherwise very conservative Commentary overlooked the fact that this is "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him"?
The island lies at the latitutde of Miletus (on the mainland, Acts 20.15), about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Ephesus, the port which would be the natural landing place for a messenger carrying this
Book to the Seven Congregations.
For the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
John is a willing witness to the word and testimony. He now reveals how he is a sufferer in the same cause. He will shortly revert to the phrase so as to speak of those who will have died in the same loyalty (6.9). And as his revelation draws to its close he will picture to us the ultimate blessing of those who are willing to be faithful unto death (20.4). See 1.2, and for significant and related uses of the word marturia, testimony, see also 11.7; 12.11, 17; 19.10, 10.
1.10: was in Spirit.
So also in 4.2; 17.3; 21.10. In each of these John receives a supernatural revelation taking the form of a visionary experience. Here he sees One like the Son of Man (1.13); then he saw visions of a heavenly throne; then one of the harlot of apostacy mounted on the beast of rebellion; and finally one of the descent of the New Jerusalem. The expression and the experience are alike paralleled in the life of Ezekiel (3.12; 8.3; 11.1; 37.1; 43.5). In both cases God uses His own power to reveal to the eyes of men events, in signs and symbols it may well be, which man would be incapable of seeing on his own account. It was in such a way, no doubt, that Paul was "caught up into Paradisex( even to the third heaven", to see things too holy, or too great, or too surpassing the normal wit of man to understand, to be communicated to others (1 Corinthians 12.2-3).
A careful examination of the uses of the word Spirit in relation to God will show that, when God's personal intervention is in issue, it is usually used with the definite article, to pneuma, to hagion pneuma, to pneuma to hagion; but when the power of God bringing revelation, or strength, to His saints is intended, then the word is usually used without the article: pneuma, pneuma hagion. The evidence for this is adduced in an Excursus in my "Acts & Epistles".
On the Lord's day.
Two explanations of this are current. One is that it refers to Jesus' day of return to the earth, which is often enough referred to as "the day of the Lord" in Scripture (Isaiah 2.12, Joel 3.14,18; Zechariah 14.1; 1 Thessalonians 5.2; 2 Peter 3.10; Revelation 16.14, etc.). The other is that it refers to the first day of the week, our Sunday, when the disciples discovered the emptiness of the Lord's tomb, when He appeared to the first witnesses of His resurrection, and when He broke bread with them, and they were accustomed to do in their turn (Luke 24.1-35; Acts 20.7; 1 Corinthians 16.2). A third is possible: that John is telling us that
to witness the things which belong to God's own eternal day, as he saw the vision of God's glory in the heavens.
Though the coincidence of the words is tempting in favour of the first suggestion, its Tightness or wrongness depends on whether or not the vision which John now sees really is one of events taking place at the time of the Lord's return and the establishment of His kingdom. We shall find that this view does not pass that test. On absolutely unmistakeable evidence, the verses and chapters which immediately follow are not concerned with the time of the Lord's second coming. The first possibility is therefore not adequate.
The second is equivalent to saying, "I was in Spirit on a Sunday". In the first edition of APOCALYPSE FOR EVERYMAN I rejected this view summarily with the words,
The second (view), though it is supported by the information that Sunday began to be so called (as "The Lord's Day") at least as early as the second century, seems to this writer about as unlikely as any explanation could be. What possible purpose could be served by John informing us that it happened to be a Sunday when this particular vision was granted to him? Would the interpretation be any different if it were a Tuesday, or if we were not told which day of the week it was?
This roused a critic whose most helpful views on other matters will play a considerable part later in this exposition to write:
My first serious criticism: "The Lord's day". Your approach is Aristotelian. You can see no point in the Revelation being given on the first day of the week. I can see every point, but truths like these are spiritually discerned. The commentators put the matter better than I.
l.SWETE: The exile of Patmos, shut out from the weekly Breaking of Bread in the Christian assembly at Ephesus, finds the Lord's presence in his solitude. [He adds that Hort's view (yours too) seems to introduce a thought foreign to the context; it is not Christ at His coming Who is revealed, but Christ present with the church on earth.]
2. KIDDLE: He (John) wishes to establish a bond of sympathy with his readers ... in mentioning the time of his vision, the Lord's Day. John is once again quietly emphasizing a common participation in the Christian life.
3. AUSTIN FARRER: The alternative translation (yours) is false to the Greek and false to the context.
In addition to the evidence of Ignatius that the first day of the < week was called the Lord's Day at least from the end of the first century (compare the Lord's Supper and the Lord's Passover, , there is the evidence of the Didache (date uncertain but somewhere between 60 and 110), "On the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks".
I do not find these most interesting quotations at all convincing. That John would deeply miss the communion of the saints in the Breaking of Bread is not to be doubted. That the words concern "Christ at His coming" I have repudiated rather than supported. That John wishes to establish a bond of sympathy with his readers is far more evident in 1.4-9 than it is in 1. 10. It is far from plain in what respect the Greek impairs the interpretation I offered then, and offer again now. And it is in no way clear what differences in the translation of the Greek have to do with the matter. The relevant Greek phrase is: egenomen en pneumati en te kuriake he mem. Both AC and SC support the view of my critic above that Sunday is referred to, yet neither suggests that there is anything decisive about the Greek, and for my part I had not supposed that there was. The latter points out (what has been recognized above in the Excursus on the word 'church' (page 6), that the word "the Lord's" or "of the Lord" only occurs elsewhere in the New Testament of "the Lord's Supper", in 1 Corinthians 11.20 (which is consistent with, but does not require, that the day on which the Lord's Supper was eaten is referred to here), but that is all. However, the comment does provoke the question: could John be saying, "Because of being under the influence of the Spirit I was transported into the Lord's day"? If he were, then the Lord's day would be a part of his vision, and not the day of the week on which the vision was received. But even if John is not affirming this, at least the words allow of "the Lord's Day" to which he refers being a day which he experienced as a result of his vision, and since everything which follows in the chapters which follow suggests that John is actually witnessing in vision the things which belong to the risen Lord, now exalted in the heavens, that it is the Lord's heavenly day which he experiences is at least possible. It might be adjudged appropriate that such a vision should have been given him on the day of the week corresponding to the Lord's resurrection, in which case he would have experienced his transport on a Sunday. So both these views may be true in fact. Yet it still seems to me that John is stressing, not the day of the week on which he was blessed with the revelation, but the dav of the Lord into which it introduced him.
So we return to the view which was expressed in the First Edition in the words:
"We shall here adopt the view that John means, "I was in Spirit, and was taken out of human time into the time which belongs to God, where things present, sometimes things past, and most often things future, are to be displayed to him as God sees them, and as
He wishes them to be seen."
1.11: The seven congregations.
Reference has already been made to the convenient geographical distribution of these churches, such that a messenger from Patmos would, landing at Ephesus, proceed on a clockwise route through Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, before returning to Ephesus and to Patmos. Having regard to the considerable (though far from flawless) zeal of the first congregation addressed, Ephesus, and the total decay of the last of them (Laodicea), it has been suggested that these communities are typical of seven ages of our era, culminating in the time of the Lord Jesus' return. But there is absolutely nothing in the Book itself, beyond the general statement that it is designed to teach Jesus' servants about things to come, which would support this suggestion. Nor is there any such orderly regression from purity to apostacy as would make the suggestion probable. Consider the brief summary which follows:
Ecclesia Revelation
1 Ephesus 2.1-7
Good qualities
Works, toil, patience, discerning of false apostles, persistence, hatred of Nicolai-tans.
Bad qualities
Forsaking of its first love.
2 Smyrna 2.6-11
Tribulation, acceptance of poverty, endurance of Jewish persecution.
NONE.
3 Pergamon 2.12-17
Stedfastness in persecution.
Toleration of the teaching of Balaam and Nicolaitans.
4 Thyatira 2.18-29
Works, love, faith, ministry.
Toleration of the teaching of Jezebel.
5 Sardis 3.1-6
A few only undefil-ed.
A living death for the rest.
6 Philadelphia 3.7-13
Faithfulness in weakness.
NONE. "
7 Laodicea 3.14-22
NONE.
Lukewarmness and complacency.
It is arguable that Laodicea was the worst of the seven, though Sardis runs it very close. It is not arguable that Smyrna (the econd) and Philadelphia (the sixth) are the only ones against
which no charges are levelled. This is not a history, if it is history at all, of progressive decline, and it could only be by arbitrary selection of the history of Christianity from that time to this that it could be divided into seven ages which at all correspond to the fluctuations of faithfulness, apostacy, complacency and sloth which we find displayed here.
Of course these messages do promise things to come to pass (1.1), though largely in conditional terms. If they are faithful they will be blessed (2.7 ); if they are unfaithful they will be punished (2.5 ). But the wording of the letters which are given in chapters 2 and 3 gives no ground at all for supposing that they are intended to be regarded as a panorama of history yet to be unfolded.
heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet.
It has been suggested that this means that John was symbolically looking at the "things which are behind" (Philippians 3.13) until he heard the trumpet sound, and then turned round to behold the things of the future. But as to that it seems plain that the 'behind' and 'before' of Philippians refer to position and not to time. The message all the same suggests the sobering thought: man left to himself does not know which way he should be looking, and needs the guidance of God before he knows what is good for him. "We know not (even) how to pray as we ought" (Romans 8.26). So John in Patmos is looking around for what shall be revealed, and is taught that he is looking in entirely the wrong direction. He must turn away from the way a man would look, and look the other way, listening to the great voice which he hears, and turning to the direction from which the voice comes.
1.12: turned to see the voice which spoke with me.
The natural mind of man puts the Lord behind him. When he turns again and repents of his human ways he sees the Lord before him; and if then the Lord beckons him to follow, he is behind His Lord, and goes the way in which he has been directed. It cannot be without some significance that the word used for 'behind' here, and in a good number of other places, is oridzo, which is elsewhere used of disciples "coming after" Jesus (Matthew 4.19; 10.38; 16.24 ;John 12.19; Acts 5.37). Jesus is behind us until we consciously put Him in front. This John did for all of us when he looked the other way from that he had been looking, and saw the vision of the glorified Lord. But the actual experience is, as so many, many times in this Book, one which re-enacts those of the prophets of the Old Testament, for in Ezekiel we have:
Go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the LORD from His place (Ezekiel 3.11-12).
The "voice as of a trumpet" (1.10) is an expression which heralds a vital pronouncement from God. It is often associated with the last day, with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 24.31 ; 1 Corinthians 15.52; 1 Thessalonians 4.16), but in this Book it is concerned with calling attention to the immediate announcement of God's plans for His saints and for the world (4.1; 8.2; 8.6, 13; 9.14; and in verbal form, instead of the noun, in 1 Corinthians 15.52; Revelation 8.6-13; 9.1, 13; 10.7; 11.15). The trumpet is sounded to command John's attention — and our own.
1.11: What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven congreations.
So John is not merely to send to each of the congregations here mentioned its own particular message, as outlined in the two chapters which follow, but the entire Book. Each congregation would receive its own special few verses (and perhaps be allowed a sight of the counsel to the others too, as we have?), but all of them would receive the Revelation as a whole. The same applies to ourselves: we have received the entire "revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him", but in addition, though there is no message avowedly addressed to our own congregations individually, we have been told what the Lord said to our fellows of the first century, these messages themselves being among the things written aforetime for our learning.
1.12: Having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands.
The comparison of this with the seven-branched candlestick in the Tabernacle (Exodus 25.37), and its replicas in Solomon's temple (2 Chronicles 4.20; 1 Kings 7.49) is evident. But what is less obvious, but quite fundamental, is the difference between the two. In the Tabernacle and the Temple the seven branches were visibly and organically joined to the one stem. Israel was one visible community, centred on the Tabernacle, while it wandered in the wilderness under Moses, and until the destruction of Shi-loh when they were come into the promised land. The same was true in Jerusalem after David had removed the Ark there, and when Solomon established the temple on mount Moriah. But in this Book we have ceased to be concerned with the Law, or yet to be concerned with literal Jerusalem as a centre of worship, or with a visible centre at all. "The hour cometh when neither in this mountain (Gerizim) nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father . . . God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4.21-23). When the temple in Jerusalem ceased to be the acceptable centre of gravity, the new Congregations which should spring up would outwardly be unlinked one with another; but they would nevertheless be combined in a common purpose and teaching by the fact that the same Son of man would walk in the midst of them (1.13). There is a superficial autonomy about the true churches of the Christian era, which only allegiance to the Son of God can convert into a true organic unity.
1.13-16: One like to a Son of man.
The same title is used in Daniel 7.13 of the One who should take over the kingdom of men and make it into the kingdom of God. "Son of man" is used repeatedly in addressing the prophet Ezekiel (2.1 , around 100 times in all). The Lord Jesus so speaks of Himself on numerous occasions, some 60 times or so spread through all the Gospels: though no writer takes the initiative of so describing Him. The glorious vision was human in shape, as distinct from many other of the beings described in the Apocalypse, but nonetheless symbolic in all its characteristics. But it was distinct from all else in the Book in that it reminded John of One whom John had known and loved before: it was "like a Son of man". Just as the hearts of two disciples had burned in them when they walked with the risen Christ (Luke 24.32), so would John's heart burn within him now. "In Spirit" he was, but what he saw in Spirit was real to him: his beloved Lord and Saviour stood before the man "in a trance but having his eyes open" (Numbers 24.4).
The Lord Jesus Christ Who, "knowing that He came from God and went to God" (John 13.3), nevertheless "took upon Him the form of a slave" (Philippians 2.7), chose to emphasize before His brethren that He was also one with them. It is thus as Son of man that He now reveals Himself to John, so that even in His glory He may be seen and approached in His real though perfected humanity. The Father committed all judgement unto Jesus "because He is Son of man", partaking of a nature in all points like that of His brethren (John 5.27; Hebrews 2.14, 17). The name of humility is a name of honour too: the Lord is like any other son of man in His nature, that He may be the merciful and faithful High Priest for all who come to Him.
But we might seem to have begged a question. Is this indeed the Lord Jesus personally, though in symbolic guise, who stands
before John? Or is it, as has been thought, a composite symbol including within itself all the "many sons" whom the Lord will bring unto glory? Is this Christ uniquely, or Christ and His glorified saints of the future? The following points seem to he quite decisive in favour of the former:
1 1.13 The Being walks among the seven lampstands
which are the seven congregations (1.20), and ; exercises authority and judgement over them (2-1 );
2 1.16 He has in His hand seven stars (1.16), the angels of the congregations (1.20), to whom He instructs John to write in terms of their present needs and behaviour, and their future prospects;
3 1.18 He is the One raised from the dead (1.18), having keys over death and the grave, which are yet to be put to use (2.7, 8);
4 2.1 All the Letters which follow are written by One who can say, "I know thy works" (2.2, 19; 3.1, 8, 15), and who, evidently writing with the authoritative approach which becomes the risen Lord alone (2.5, 10, 16 ), describes His powers in terms of the image now before us, with its stars and lampstands, (2.1), its claim to be the Living One who was dead (2.8); to possess the sharp two-edged sword (2.12, 16); to have eyes like a flame and feet like polished brass (2.18); to have the seven spirits of God and the seven stars (3.1); to have the key with which He alone can open and shut (3.7); and to be the true Witness (3.14) and the beginning of the creation of God. ..'•-• They could in their very nature only have been written by Jesus the Lord, and since He appropriates in them the composite picture set out in the image of 1.12-20, there is absolutely no doubt that that image is one of the glorified Son of God with the powers and attributes which He already possessed when He gave His revelations to John.
5 19.11 We meet the same Person again when He conquers the Beast of human dominion towards the end of the Book. Here also He has the eyes of flame (19.12) and the sharp sword in His mouth , (19.15), and here He is called King of kings and Lordoflords, and The Word of God (19.13, 16).
And if it is urged that at that glorious time the Lord will actually be revealed in a multitude, the answer is that, if so, they are separately provided for as "the armies which are in heaven" (19.14), which are plainly distinct from the central Figure Himself.
Against this powerful evidence what can be set?
6 1.10 That John was in "the Lord's day". This has already been answered.
7 1.15 The fact that the One referred to has "a voice as of many waters" (1.15), which is associated in other passages with the "voice of a multitude (Ezekiel 1.24). But the multitude always present with the Almighty God consists of His angels (Psalm 103.20; 104.4; 148.2: Luke 2.14; Matthew 26.33). Since Jesus' ascension these angels have been put in the power of the Lord (Matthew 13.4; 2 Thessalonians 1.7; Hebrews 12.22), as we have already shown on 1.1 (pages 3-4). The Lord has His multitude answering to this description, entirely independently of the postulated presence of the saints.
1.14 His "hair white like wool" has also been taken to mean a multitude. Even were we sure it did, the explanation given under (7) would cover this case also. But the expression is taken from the description of'the Ancient of Days'in Daniel 7.9, and is there so far from denoting a multitude that this is separately defined in the following verse, where "thousand thousands ministered to Him, and then thousand times ten thousand stood before Him". The purity of the hair's whiteness, and the ageless wisdom associated with this quintescence of hoary heads (which now by the gift of the Father reposes also on the Son of God), are a much more probable significance of the symbolism of the white hair than the numbers of followers.
It is, therefore, a symbolic representation of the Lord Jesus in power that we meet here. But the entire picture depends on the visions of prophets of the Old Testament, as the following list, no doubt far from complete, will show:
1
1.13
CLOTHED WITH A GARMENT TO THE FOOT. Daniel 7.9; 10.5.
2
1.13
GIRT ROUND THE BREAST WITH A GOLDEN GIRDLE (see also 15.6). Daniel 10.5.
3
1.14
HEAD AND HAIR WHITE LIKE WOOL AND SNOW. Daniel 7.9.
4
1.14
EYES AS A FLAME OF FIRE. Daniel 10.6.
5
1.15
FEET LIKE BURNISHED BRASS. Ezekiel 1.7; Daniel 10.6.
6
1.15
VOICE AS OF MANY WATERS. Ezekiel 1.14; Daniel 10.6.
7
1.16
THE SHARP TWO-EDGED WORD. Isaiah 49.2; 11.4.
8
1.16
COUNTENANCE AS THE SUN. Daniel 10.6. Compare Matthew 17.2.
Thus the risen Lord Jesus has the qualities of total purity (the garment to the foot), of unassailable righteousness (the golden girdle, for "righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins", Isaiah 11.5), of infinite wisdom (hair like wool), of penetrating and irresistible judgement (eyes as a flame), of a steadfast walk towards victory over sin (feet as brass: compare Numbers 21.9; John 3.14), of command over the angelic hosts of God (voice like many waters), and of inheritance of the surpassing glory of God (countenance as the sun. See also 10.1, and compare with the foretaste of glory in the Transfiguration, Matthew 17.1).
It is not suggested that the detail of this interpretation is either infallible or exhaustive. The overall picture of the Lord Jesus blessed with the powers given Him by God in consequence of His victory over sin, though, is not open to doubt. The details, though of interest, can but ornament this firm result.
Excursus III: The Government of the Congregations of God
Israel was subject to hierarchical government. Its priests were the ministers appointed by God, and to them alone was granted the authority to conduct sacrifice, and to pronounce on such matters as cleanness and uncleanness. Its first rulers were directly appointed by God too, Moses and Joshua being selected for the work of leading out of Egypt, and into Canaan, the hitherto enslaved people. While it is not said that all the Judges were appointed by Him, and while some usurpers are specifically named, those who delivered the people in time of adversity were certainly "raised up" by Him (Judges 3.9, 15; 6.8 ). The last of the Judges, Samuel, was certainly chosen by God (1 Samuel 2.28; 3.4,20). Their kings, too, sat on "the throne of the Lord" (1 Chronicles 29.23), and were under duty to administer the kingdom in accordance with laws laid down by God beforehand (Deuteronomy 17.14-20), and the "manner of the Kingdom" laid down by Samuel (1 Samuel 8.9; 10.25).
As to worship, when once Jerusalem had been taken by David's men, and the Temple set up there, this became the only authorized centre for sacrifice and formal worship, and was revealed to be "the place which God has chosen to set His name there" (Deuteronomy 12.14, 18, 21, 26 ; 1 Kings 8.44, 48 ; Psalm 78.67-68-132.13).
In other words, Israel's administration and their worship were alike centralized in men and in a place of God's choosing. Their system was in no way democratic, nor was it devolved into tribal states going their own ways. These things might have occurred in fact, as they did when the tribes of the north revolted against the house of David, but in the ideal state they would not have happened at all, and their occurrence was a mark and a consequence of the declension of the people from the true faith.
This is the united "seven-branched candlestick" situation of which we have written already. It could never persist in that form when the gospel became spread among all nations, and the faithful could not have hoped for it after the destruction of Jerusalem. As the Lord had prophesied to the Samaritan woman, the hour was coming when the worshippers in spirit and in truth would have as little opportunity of looking to a destroyed Jerusalem as the Samaritans then had to their decimated shrine in Gerizim (John 4.20-24).
The old organization was not compatible with the new order, and it was not possible to restore it even if it were. What government of the church, then, would take its place?
The earliest congregations were not left to their own devices. In the first place, divine instructions were conveyed by direct revelation during the lives of the apostles, as revealed in the instruction not to preach until the Holy Spirit was poured out on them (Acts 1.4), and the fulfillment of this waiting at Pentecost (2.4); in the command to Philip to preach to the Ethiopian (8.28), and to Peter to make the gospel known to Gentiles (10.19-20); in the appointment of Barnabas and Saul (later Paul and Barnabas) to preach in Gentile lands (13.2). The same guidance would sometimes redirect the initiative of the preacher by barring him from fields of his own choice (16.6-7), and opening up to him others (16.9-10). In the second place, inspired apostles and elders would adjudicate on acts and policies, as when the apostles appointed Stephen and the other six grecian Jews to settle the issue of injustice to widows (Acts 6.1-6); or when they deemed it necessary to satisfy themselves that Peter had acted rightly in preaching to Cornelius (11.1 -18), or that the fugitives from Judea had acted faithfully in preaching to Gentiles in Antioch (11.22). The apostles and elders in Jerusalem made an authoritative pronouncement on the conditions under which Gentiles might be admitted to the church (15.22-29), claiming the support of the Holy Spirit for their decision, and implicitly claiming the right under this guidance to make commandments binding on the church, when they denied that they had given "any such commandment" as the Judaizers had claimed (15.24).
Moreover, though Paul denied that his authority had been gained by any decree of the remaining apostles, and claimed that it had come direct from God (Galatians 1.1, 15-16), yet he claimed for himself the full right to determine what should be done and to pronounce what should be held as sound doctrine, in the churches which he and his colleagues had founded. By such authority Paul imposed the decision of the council in Jerusalem on the churches of Asia (Acts 16.4), as by the same authority he and Barnabas had ordained elders in such churches earlier (14.23). By the same authority he delegated the duty to appoint elders to men whom he set in positions of regional authority such as Titus (Titus 1.5). On matters of teaching and practice he laid down the law in the strict sense of that expression, pronouncing a curse on those who perverted his teaching (Galatians 1.8, 9), and requiring believers to acknowledge that his definitive writings were "the commandments of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14.37). He even appears to claim to be able to inflict severe judgement and punishment on those who wilfully teach otherwise than according to his own word (2 Corin-thians13.1-2).
If the situation of the First Century had persisted, there would be no doubt where the true authority in the Christian community lay, and, as there truly were in those days, there would be the signs and wonders to prove it, the "signs of an apostle" as Paul calls them (2 Corinthians 12.12). It is sometimes claimed that the local churches themselves had a kind of local guidance to lead them in the right way, in the person of the "Christian prophets" who resided in their midst. But this is patently not the case, for otherwise there could not have occurred that near-apostacy of the Galatian churches which occasioned Paul's writing his letter to them, and the writing of such a letter would not have been necessary. There would have been no abuse of Spirit — gifts in Corinth, nor any need to write to Paul for advice as to how they should conduct their affairs (such as is referred to in 1 Corinthians 7.1). Whatever else the prophets were, who resided in the cities having churches, they were not able to act as infallible guides leading their respective ecclesias into all truth. For that the guidance of the inspired apostle was needed: and even so it was not always heeded.
What then was the organization of the Christian church and churches in post-apostolic days? In fact, it seems, it often degenerated into the chaotic; and non-inspired writers in the period of "the apostolic fathers" are to be found urging the churches to "do nothing without the bishop", and to regard those holding this office as divinely appointed rulers of the churches they directed. Thus:
Clement of Rome in his First Letter to the Corinthians, written about 95, expressed the view that bishops are the successors of the apostles (the apostolic succession). The most complete picture of the position and work of any early bishop is given in the Letters of Ignatius (died about 110), bishop of Antioch. He (the bishop) was the chief pastor, priest, administrator, and ruler of the Christian community (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, volume II in loc).
The position taken up by these quite early writers was developed into the authoritative structure of the Roman church, in which even today, in spite of the rumblings of a democratic attitude, the authority of the church, even its infallibility, are vested in increasing degree in its priests, its bishops, its archbishops, its cardinals, its councils, and its popes. If the authority is less strongly asserted in the other episcopal churches, the residues of it are there in principle, and the "ordination" of the successive ranks of the clergy does, in the eyes of high churchmen at least, give them some kind of divine title to pronounce and to govern. Similarly far-reaching claims to authority are no doubt made also in the Eastern Orthodox churches.
All these developments would be claimed by their supporters to be proper adaptations of the government of'the church' to post-apostolic times, even adumbrated in apostolic teaching and practice, in which bishops, elders, and deacons all played their part. They certainly arose out of the attempts of men, articulately or inarticulately, to fill the vacuum left by the apostles' demise. But Scripture scarcely affords even the slenderest foundation for this development. Its "bishops" are 'overseers' or 'supervisors', and are plainly the same as the elders spoken of in other places. For this it is only necessary to compare Acts 20.17, in which Paul summons the elders, rendered from the Greek presbuteros, with 20.27, where he calls the identical persons bishops or overseers, episkopos. The term 'elder' appears to have been borrowed from Jewish practice in the synagogues (Matthew 15.2 ; Acts 4.5; 6.12 ); while the term 'bishop' is of very limited usage, being found only in Acts 20.28; Philippians 1.1; 1 Timothy 3.2; Titus 1.7; and 1 Peter 2.25, in the last case of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Related words include the verb 'to oversee', found relevantly only in 1 Peter 5.2, and the noun 'overseer', relevantly only in Acts 1.20 (of Judas), and in a Christian context 1 Timothy 3.1. In all these there is no trace of the idea of an 'ordained' leader of a group of churches; and since the office of a 'deacon', diakonos, even less conveys the idea of a quasi-inspired official of the church, we have to conclude that the New Testament provides absolutely no basis for such an authoritative system of government of the church of God.
But if not this, then what?
It has been argued that the New Testament deals only with individual churches, and that each of these is therefore subject as a unit to the Lord direct, Who alone provides their bond of unity. Thus it is that Jesus walks among the seven lampstands and Himself pronounces on them. No doubt this is true, but it provides little if any guidance as to how those lightstands are to- govern their relationships with each other. Are they to go on their own way regardless of the others, claiming that since the Lord Jesus alone walks in their midst they have no accountability to each other and are, under Him, masters in their own individual houses? Or are they to attempt to cement the theoretical unity of faith and practice which their Lord has bequeathed to them, by establishing the imachinery which will ensure that it is achieved in practice?
There are those who say simply, "No instruments of united action are possible or permissible. The New Testament operates simply on the principle of 'ecclesial autonomy'. And there are those who say the opposite: systems of united action and doctrinal integrity are inescapable. We must have some system of co-operation and mutual action which will ensure our unity of faith and practice, and will demonstrate to ourselves and to others that we are a body of believers upholding the same corpus of faith.
It is entirely commendable to seek to ensure that the faith shall not be compromised by merely human councils. To that extent each congregation must act as its own conscience dictates. But it is unbelievably ridiculous to suppose that, if each congregation acts according to its own rights, regardless of the others, overall unity will be attained.
What this means is that here, as in so many other departments of life, the Scriptures give no precise guidance as to how the affairs of congregations of believers are to be regulated. Since we no longer have apostles to appoint our elders for us, the individual communities must certainly appoint their own, and though the manner of their doing so is not laid down in Scripture, the qualifications which should be looked for in such leaders are very clearly given (1 Timothy 3.1-13; 4.6-16; 5.1.7; Titus 2.1-15). Though they are appointed by the will of their congregations, once the appointment has been made they are to be treated with respect (Hebrews 13.7, 17, 24). Yet if anyone finds himself in a position of authority or responsibility, he is to recognize that in discharging this he is a servant among equals (1 Peter 5.1-5). And the overriding need to live in unity and harmony forbids anyone to covet office for its own sake, and any congregation to divide itself into parties, either for the sake of securing particular appointments or for pursuing party policies when the appointments have been made. If it is decided that appointments must be made by what are called democratic procedures, then the aim should be to agree about such appointments with a consensus of all concerned. Propaganda, under-cover negotiations, and pressure-methods, are utterly contrary to the spirit of Christ.
When it comes to interrelations between communities, a choice has to be made between deliberate formation of organs of cooperation, and simply allowing relations to develop arbitrarily by active and public-spirited individuals and groups coming together to provide the services the) see to be needed. If the former is judged to run the danger of'councils' usurping the authority of Scripture (a perfectly real danger), then the latter runs the equal!)' real peril of playing into the hands of ambitious and unscrupulous persons playing on fears of the former, and "speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20.30) in a way which would be less possible if some machinery existed to control their aspirations. Man) a heresy and man) a schism has resulted from such ambitions being allowed to run loose, cloaking themselves under claims of high morality or concern for doctrinal purity.
Some measure of public control of affairs within and among congregations will at least preserve these from de facto domination by popular or ambitious individuals who have persuaded themselves that they are God's gift to the community. It is right that the body of believers should benefit from the unfettered freedom of all under Christ to serve it with their best dedicated abilities, and repressive and quasi-military discipline which would stifle such initiatives must be avoided. But such repression can arise as much from individual as from conciliar tyranny, as John had to acknowledge with sorrow (3 John 9-10). Individual ecclesias, arbitrary controlling groups, and elected councils are all subject to invasion by "grievous wolves not sparing the flock" (Acts 20.29), and there is no remedy in human terms other than constant and prayerful vigilance. Any such government is, too, subject to sloth and inde-cisiveness, and there is no safeguard against this save the determination of all to walk worthily of the high calling wherewith they are called. If popes and councils can stabilize and perpetuate teachings and practices utterly contrary to the doctrine and pal-tern of Christ, the absence of the latter can leave, in Paul's delightful mixed metaphor, disorganized believers as "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men in craftiness, after the wiles of error" (Ephesians 4.14).
Perhaps the surest way of averting the perils and contributing to the edification of a community is to apply diligently and worship-fully the prescriptions laid down by Paul:
I say through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according to God has dealt to each man a measure of faith. For eivn as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another. And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us. . . let us give ourselves to our ministry, or teaching, or exhorting, giving with simplicity, ruling with diligence, showing mercy with cheerfulness . . . in honour preferring one another. (Romans 12.3-10, the latter part abbreviated and paraphrased).
1.16,20: He had in His right hand seven stars. The seven stars are the angels of the seven congregations.
It is plain that the Lord Jesus claims complete authority over all His congregations, and it is impossible to limit that sovereignty to the seven here addressed. It was true of congregations throughout the world at that time who escape notice here, and it is true of all such churches ever since. The Lord walked in the midst of the
lampstands then, and He walks in the midst of them now: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 19.20) — and since those words were spoken in the context of disciples making decisions for the good of the community over which they were appointed leaders, they are of particular relevance to the topic of the foregoing Excursus III.
What is less clear is what the stars, or the 'angels' they depict, may signify. The fact that John is to address the Lord's messages to these 'angels', though (2.1 ), seems to place beyond doubt that thev are human beings. The Lord Jesus would hardly send an immortal angel to tell John to write letters to other angels of the same kind, nor would such angels require the exhortations and admonitions which the Letters contain: "To the angel write, T know thy works"! The angels, whoever the) were, were resident in the ecclesias addressed.
The word, aMgeZoj, is of course applied most often to the supernatural and immortal servants of God, but there are adequate examples of other applications. |ohn the Baptist was the "messenger of Jesus, whose work was predicted by a prophet whose name in Hebrew also means "My angel or "My messenger". John in his turn sent "messengers" to Jesus (Mark 1.2 ; Luke 7.24), who Himself sent "messengers' to prepare lodgings for Him on His way to Jerusalem (Luke 9.52). It was probably a "messenger" from Peter who the disciples mistakenly supposed to be standing at the gate when Peter knocked after his deliverance from prison (Acts 12.15). The "angels" which the saints of the Lord will judge in the age to come (1 Corinthians 6.3) may be rulers of this world, but are certainly not the mighty emissaries from heaven of Almighty God. From these varied uses of the term the idea of messenger or emissary, even representative, emerges, and so we can see the Lord saying to John, in effect, "Write to the representative of the congregation at Ephesus and say: To you as acting on behalf of (his community I have the following message . . ." And if this provokes the thought that those charged with the leadership of the Lord's flock have special accountability before Him for the behaviour of their charges, that is a salutory reflection. Leaders cannot dissociate themselves from the conduct of those they lead.
It may be impossible fully to enter into the emotions of the One who spoke these words, but it is well to be awake to them. The words to us may represent merely a doctrinal fact, but for the Lord the) sum up the experience and the fruits of His bitter travail, the fulfillment of the hope, "Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, neither will Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption" (Psalm 10.10; Acts 2.25-33). His Father has always been the Living One, (/won), and now the Son is, AoZow, the One possessed of life for evermore with His Father. It is not so much "I was dead , either, as though it merely denoted the state of unconsciousness; rather is it "I died" (RSV) or "I became dead" (KVm). The Lord had gone through the process of willingly laying down His life, as a result of which it was possible for Him to be given life for evermore. This is a condensed version of Peter's words, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden of it" (Acts 2.24). Now we have Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Hebrews 13.8). He has become in reality what He always was in promise, "Him whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5.2-4).
The significance of "for ever more has already been discussed on pages 24-26.
I have the keys of death and of Hades
This is the fulfillment of the promise to Peter: "Upon this Rock I will build My church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16.18). It is the assurance of the ultimate triumph of the message of the gospel, "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through His name" John 20.31). It sums up in the Lord's own words the message of Paul, "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so also them which are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with Him" (1 Thessalonians4.14). In a Book which because of its overriding theme cannot give detailed attention to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the colours are nailed to the mast from the outset. It is the risen Lord who reveals the message, Who stands by to aid His servants in the sufferings which this Book promises them, and Who will ultimately triumph when He returns. It is He Who will bring from their graves to blessed life after His own pattern those who are faithful to the end.
The "hell" of AV is rightly transliterated as Hades in KV. The same word is employed in the other references cited. In Biblical usage it is equivalent to the Sheowl of the Hebrew, which is so rendered in I.XX. It is quite distinct in meaning from the other word rendered hell in AV, which is Gehenna, a transliteration of a Hebrew expression meaning "Valley of Hinnom", and referring to the endless destruction of all that is cast into it. Only in one place is Hades even apparently associated with the punishment of the dead. This is in Luke 16.23, in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, for which see my THE GOSPEL OF MARK, Digression 26, page 88.
1.19: Write, therefore, the things which thou sawest, and the things which are, and the things which shall come to pass hereafter.
John's message is thus not wholly confined to the future. The things he has so far seen belong to the past and the present, as it then was to John. The evidence already given that this vision of chapter 1 concerns the actual glory of the risen Lord is convincingly confirmed here: the Lord had died and risen, and now was able to reveal the future to His servant. These are the things past which John has seen. They are also the things which are, and which are to be disclosed for the immediate guidance of the churches to which John will now write. The things which are to be hereafter are not yet before us. The Book will disclose those in its own time.
1.20: The seven lampstands are the seven congregations.
The separate existence of the congregations, without the need ifor organic connection with a visible upright stem, has already been touched on. But the use of "lampstand" to designate these congregations is full of significance. A lampstand holds a lamp, and it is the only sensible place to put a lamp. So says the Lord in Matthew 5.15; Mark. 4.41; Luke 8.16; 11.33. Then it gives light to the whole house. Outside this Book of Revelation the only occurrence of the word besides these in the Gospels is in reference to the Tabernacle in Hebrews 9.2. Inside this Book it is found six times in the first two chapters, and only again in 11.4, where the "Two Witnesses" are lampstands in bearing their witness to the gospel before the end comes. So throughout it is the thought of making known the glad tidings they have received which is expressed in the term. The saints have received their light from the Light of the World (John 8.12; 12.46), and are now to be lights in the world in their turn (Matthew 5.14, 16; Philippians 2.15). They have been "called out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Peter 2.9), and for them "the darkness has passed away: the True Light already shineth" (1 John 2.8). It is for them to bear witness of the light they have received. The seven congregations will be judged according to their response to that calling: and so will all others, then and now.
Back
