Revelation 22:8

And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things.

And I John ... Who is this John who writes with such assurance and authority? It is foolish to raise such a question, because there is but one John. Instinctively the Christian heart turns to the blessed apostle, that disciple whom the Lord loved.[40] As Hilgenfield remarked:

An unknown John whose name has disappeared from history, leaving hardly any trace behind it, can scarcely have given commands in the name of Christ and of the Spirit to the seven churches.[41]

I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel ... Notice the startling difference between this passage and that of Revelation 19:10. There, John fell down to worship the angel; here he fell down to "worship God" in the presence of the angel. One may only be astounded at the scholarly blindness to this astounding difference in the two incidents. It is not recorded here that John fell down to "worship the angel"; therefore, it must be concluded that John intended to "worship God" before the feet of the angel. Otherwise, we would have to suppose that John deliberately disobeyed the prohibition mentioned on the first occasion. John did not merely forget what he had been commanded. No! this was something different. In this event, he was directing the worship to God, but doing so "before the feet of the angel." We deplore the fact that all of the writers whose works we have examined missed this completely. Note:

John repeats the curious incident of Revelation 19:10.[42] This is the same incident which is here related again.[43] John failed to learn his lesson from the heavenly messenger in Revelation 19:10.[44] This is a duplication.[45] John twice mistook an angel for the Lord Jesus Christ.[46] Either John would have removed this passage as a needless repetition, if he had had opportunity fully to revise his book, or he thought it necessary to give the same warning twice.[47]

All such views do not even see the corral, much less the mule! The overwhelming importance of these two different episodes is that they show the utter sinfulness of bowing down in the presence of even the highest angel in order to worship God.

The derivative teaching from this is that it is likewise sinful to bow down before a man, or before an image in order to worship God. The specious reasoning by which it is pretended that people bow down before images and religious prelates "to worship God" in so doing is dramatically refuted by this.

The prompt action of God's angel in forbidding John to bow down before an angel while in the act of "worshipping God" also forbids the notion that one may bow down before men or images (both of which are far less than an angel) while in the act of worshipping God. "A Christian should assume no prostrating position"[48] before any being, or any thing, in such a manner as to suggest worship. People should worship God only through Christ; but more, they must not assume any kind of position that could suggest worship of any other being, or object. The failure to discern this truth was the basis for the justification of idol worship by the ancient pagans themselves.

Robert H. Charles, Archdeacon of Westminster, said: "The golden calves in Dan, Bethel, and Samaria were treated as outward symbols of deity, and not as deity itself."[49] Most significantly, this is exactly the line of reasoning followed by those who seek to justify the consecration and use of sacred images in the worship of Jesus Christ today. These marvelous passages (both of them) show that it is not merely the worship of an angel (or a man, or an image) that is proscribed and forbidden to Christians, it is the bowing down before them that is also sinful, even though the purpose might be alleged as being to worship God in such a position. What a tragedy that so much of current scholarship seems totally blind to this truth. In the light of this blindness, one may wonder if a move to consecrate sacred images in many Protestant churches today would be resisted.

[40] Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), p. 444.

[41] Hilgenfield as quoted by Walter Scott, op. cit., p. 444.

[42] G. B. Caird, op. cit., p. 283.

[43] John Wesley, op. cit., in loco.

[44] James D. Strauss, op. cit., p. 289.

[45] Martin Rist, op. cit., p. 545.

[46] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 661.

[47] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 224.

[48] Watchman Nee, "Come, Lord Jesus" (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1976), p. 252.

[49] Robert H. Charles, The Decalogue (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1923). p. 54.