Verse 1
SECTION I
At this point in Revelation there begin the visions, in which are shown, under figures, the forces by which the life of the church is affected. "She is shown God and the Lamb, the devil, the beast, the false prophet, and the apostate city. Then she is shown the victory of Christ, and the eternal defeat of the powers of evil."[1] However, Revelation 4 and Revelation 5 are introductory, forming a composite vision of the throne of God and of the Lamb (one throne, not two). "Actual predictions of future events do not begin until Revelation 6."[2]
The student is quickly aware that some of the terminology of Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, as well as of passages in Daniel, is used in this chapter, and throughout Revelation. But despite many of the striking symbols being employed, the vision here is distinctly different. This chapter, however, "is as much adapted to impress the mind as any of the others."[3] The terminology John used here in describing what God revealed to him, although found in the Old Testament, is used in an independent manner. "We do not find even a single Old Testament quotation, but only adaptations and nothing more."[4]
The sense of impending persecution which dominates the letters to the churches might well have tended to unnerve them; what better way to comfort them, therefore, than to point out the eternal glory of the throne of God and Christ. The throne of imperial Roman authority had become their enemy, but there was a higher authority. After all, the universe itself is under the control of God.
The most important thing that anyone can know about the universe is that there is a control center. It does not exist like some robot machine that has been wound up and left to run itself out. The throne of God and of Christ is the final and conclusive denial of the "chance theory," regarding either creation or the continuity of the material universe.
Even more significantly, the enthroned authority is personal. The most important single fact that can be known about God lies right here. God is a person; and associated with him, indeed identified with him, is the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, also personal, and identified both with the Father and with mankind. It is lack of belief in a personal God that has devastated and destroyed religious faith to a great extent in the current era. William Buckley, many years editor of the National Review, and a personal friend of this writer, once published an article in his paper regarding the "Three `R's of Religion," identifying these as Revelation, Regeneration, and Responsibility, and relating all of these absolutely to belief in a personal God.
If one does not believe that God is personal, there can be no valid conception of regeneration. One cannot be born of some cosmic law; a person cannot be born of that which is impersonal; and, if God is not a person, there is no such thing as the new birth. No wonder it has dropped out of a lot of modernistic preaching by those who no longer believe in a personal God.
If one does not believe in a personal God, it is folly to speak of revelation. That is why so many do not believe the Bible to be God's word. If there is no one, no person beyond our present life, then no one has spoken to anybody! Belief in a personal God underlies the basic conception of divine revelation.
If one does not believe in a personal God, there is, logically, no such thing as responsibility. If God is personal, one who knows the deeds of men, and who will require of every man ever born an account of his stewardship, then man is responsible for his actions and will inevitably suffer the penalty of disobeying divine law; but, if there is no personal God, then there is not anything in this universe any higher than a man. Once such a conception as that is received, it makes every man his own god. Whatever social pressures or governmental sanctions may be exercised in an attempt to restrain his unbridled impulses, he will have no regard for them whatever, except in the degree of intimidation they may have; but he will have no respect for them. He will proceed to do his own thing without regard either for God, whom he does not believe exists, or for man, who, as equal in every way to himself, he is not inclined to fear. If social scientists want to know what is happening to "the good life" in our times, the trouble lies right here. People no longer believe (at least in a great many cases) in a personal God.
The result of this exceedingly important break-down of faith in its most vital aspect will inevitably be the total destruction of any society stupid enough to encourage it. If people will not heed the lessons of Inspiration, at least they should pay some attention to the lessons of history:
The natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization, and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.[5]
This observation was made by the greatest historian of this century; and while Durant himself professed not to believe in a personal and intelligent supreme Being, the admission cited in the above quotation is without meaning apart from the conception of a personal God. In fact, no real religion is possible without it.
And after these things I saw, and behold, a door opened in heaven, and the first voice that I heard, a voice as of a trumpet speaking with me, one saying, Come up hither, and I will show unto thee things which must come to pass hereafter.
After these things ... This means, "after the visions of the preceding chapters." John is not here speaking of "after the fulfillment of previous visions," but of "after his having seen them." The ancient myth of the whole world balanced on Atlas' shoulder is no more preposterous than the proposition that everything in Revelation from this point to the end will not even commence to be fulfilled until after the so-called "rapture" at the coming of Christ - all of which is allegedly derived from this little adverbial phrase! "There is no justification for assigning what follows to a time after this world."[6]
I saw, and behold a door opened in heaven ... As Earle stated it, "He saw the door standing open; he did not see it opened."[7] John's use of the same figure for different purposes is apparent in this. The "open door" stands for opportunity, or the sinner's entrance into heaven (Revelation 3:8), the door of the human heart (Revelation 3:20), and the gateway of heaven of itself, here.
And the first voice that I heard ... This is usually understood as a reference to the voice of Christ himself (Revelation 1:10ff). "This does not refer to the first of a successive series, but is a plain reference to the voice of the Lord already heard."[8] There the voice was heard on earth, but here it is heard from heaven. Some of the implications in these remarkable visions are difficult to conceive. For example, "Can Christ be conceived of as inviting the prophet to ascend and see him in heaven? Why not? Revelation will suggest that such questions should not be asked."[9] We have just noted the multiple employment of "open door" as an expression of diverse realities, and there are countless other examples of the same thing throughout. Does the Lamb of God have seven horns (Revelation 5:6)? The great scarlet-colored beast has ten horns (Revelation 17:3)! As Beasley-Murray observed:
One who adapts Biblical images as freely as he has in this chapter should not be expected to preserve an undeviating consistency in his pictures. They are for kindling the imagination, not for transference to the drawing board.[10]
Consistency has been described as the vice of small minds, and there was certainly nothing small about the mind which lies behind Revelation. One very important key to understanding Revelation is in this. The interpretation of a figure in one passage does not necessarily bind the interpretation in another. "He makes no attempt at sustained metaphor or allegory."[11] Revelation is simply not that kind of book.
Scholars have often complained about the grammar of Revelation. For example, "The word for voice in this passage is used first as feminine, and then as masculine."[12] The inspired writer rose above the ordinary rules of grammar, because there was no other way of conveying the exact sense. His proper observance of grammatical rules elsewhere shows clearly that he knew them and understood them, thus his deviation here was meaningful and purposeful. This example is cited here as one of many in the book; and what is said here applies to the others. "The change to the masculine is simply because this befits the Person, one saying. To speak of grammatical irregularity is rather pedantic."[13]
The things which must come to pass hereafter ... Among the things to be "shown" in the following chapters are the Second Coming of Christ and the final judgment of the living and the dead. It is a critical mistake, therefore, to understand this prophecy as already having been fulfilled in its entirety. Moreover, there is an overwhelming impression that a certain progression of events in the direction of that final assize, and culminating it, was surely intended to be revealed by the prophet. Thus it is wrong to understand Revelation as merely an abstraction of principles operative in history. "The close connection of the judgments (seals, trumpets, and bowls) with the earth and what goes on in it compels a more concrete explanation of them than an abstract idealism will afford."[14]
[1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 1077.
[2] Wilbur M. Smith, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 1064.
[3] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 107.
[4] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Revelation (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943), p. 181.
[5] Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 51.
[6] A. Plummer, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22, Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 143.
[7] Ralph Earle, Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol. 10 (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), p. 530.
[8] Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), p. 119.
[9] G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (Greenwood, South Carolina: The Attic Press, 1974), p. 112.
[10] Ibid.
[11] G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 61.
[12] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 143.
[13] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 168.
[14] Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), p. 72.
Be the first to react on this!
