Sárospataki Füzetek 15. (2011)

2011 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK

HOUWF.LINGEN, P. H. R. VAN

1.1 The alleged chain of revelation

A popular approach to understanding the tide of the book of Reveladon, one which is followed in many commentaries, is that of a chain of reveladon. This approach takes the view that the knowledge of divine revelation has been passed on successively as follows: God > Jesus Christ > his angel > his servant John > his servants. Smalley comments: “The writer himself is a decisive link in the chain of reveladon, mediating God’s word through Christ and his angel to the Church”.2 In the Greek, however, the two main verbs in the first sentence are grammatically in apposition: both of them have God as their subject (eScoxsv ... Ó 0eo<; ... xoc'l £af]pavsv). There is no sign of an implicit change of subject within the sentence, as the usual approach is forced to assume.

This grammatical point is consistent with the theocentric perspective of the whole book. The commonly accepted interpretation requires that halfway through the sentence, the subject changes; the angel, then, is understood to be a servant of Jesus Christ.3 In the parallel text at the end of Revelation, however, we read that God has “sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place” (22: 6)4. The phrases ‘his servant John’ and ‘his servants’, also, must be understood with reference to God, for throughout Revelation we read about the ‘servants of God’ (7: 3; 19: 2,5; 22: 3,6; compare aúvSoukot, 6: 11). It is clear enough that ‘his servants’ are not servants of John. God is the one who is served in faith and obedience by John as well as his readers. ‘He’ (1: lb) must refer to God himself. God, through his angel, has made this revelation known to John.

Lietaert Peerbolte, correctly beginning with God as the subject, identifies ‘the angel’ in this presumed chain with Jesus Christ. It is God who, by way of his divine messenger Jesus Christ, allows John to see something of the secret of how things really are.5 The chain of revelation is understood, then, to have one chain less.

In this construction, however, the word ‘angel’ is simply understood as ‘messenger’, while in no other book of Scripture there are so many angels as in Revelation. It seems most likely simply to think of a real angel of God, distinct from Jesus Christ. After all, elsewhere in this book, angels are only fellow-servants of John (19: 10; 22: 9), while the exalted Christ, the Lamb of God, is in every way superior. Here, the angel is probably a so-called interpreting angel (angelus interpres) such as those who play a mediating role in the visions of Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah, an

2 Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse

(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 30.

3 David Aune, Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, 1997), 15: “The subject of

the verb... is ambiguous; it could be either God or Jesus Christ, though the latter is logically more probable since the revelation was transmitted by God to Jesus Christ, and it must be Jesus Christ who then further communicates the revelation”.

4 This does not exclude, of course, that Jesus could send an angel (Rev. 22: 16). Still, Jesus himself

usually spoke of ‘angels of God’ or ‘angels from heaven’. Zahn argues that without some kind of prior clarification, not one reader would be able to understand what ‘an angel of Jesus’ might mean (Theodor Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Erste Hälfte Kap. 1-5 mit ausführlicher Einleitung [Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlangsbuchhandlung, 1924], 146).

5 Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, “Het boek Openbaring als visionaire brief,” Schrift 201 (2002): 96-98. He

bases his presumption on 22: 8-9, where John says that he fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing all things to him. The angel, however, refuses divine worship, arguing that he is only a fellow-servant, operating on the same level as John.

12 Sárospataki füzetek2011/1