Verse 4 of chapter 1 brings about the original opening of the letter as John introduces himself as the writer and the 7 churches as the recipients. He then moves into a formula that also can be seen in many of Paul's letters as he offers grace and peace to those who are reading/hearing the letter.
This though is not just an opening gambit, it also sets up the theme of the whole letter. John in these opening words uses well worn Roman phrases and ideas for YHWH to show his authority over that of the Empire. The grace and peace that John offers in God's name is set against the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) that the churches this letter is written to would have been well aware of.
The next phrase which is seen in a number of forms throughout the letter is also a play on a formula used of Roman deity's. Who is, and who was, and who is to come, sets out the eternal nature of God and is similar to phrases used of Zeus and other Roman god's.
The seven spirits or sevenfold spirit before his throne speaks of the fullness and completeness of the Holy spirit at work in the world. Finally we have the mention of Jesus along with a number of titles which again give him authority over all others. He is the faithful witness to who God is, the first born of the dead opening the way to eternal life for all people having defeated sin and death and finally he is the ruler of the kings of the earth including the Roman emperor.
We can see in this introduction two things, one is that of John setting up the God of these 7 churches over and against the power of Rome. John wants these churches to know from the beginning that although it may look like Rome is in power actually God the Father, Spirit and Son are.
The second point is something that didn't become Christian doctrine till hundreds of years after Jesus died and that is that of the trinity. Although I don't want to go into great detail here about the ins and outs of this belief I want to flag up that here John is very clear in his recognition of the Father, Spirit and Son.
Showing posts with label rev 1:4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rev 1:4. Show all posts
Monday, 11 October 2010
Monday, 20 September 2010
John
Verse 4 of chapter 1 leads us to the discussion on the authorship of the book of revelation. The author in 1:1 and 1:4 names himself as John. This to many would be the obvious choice then for the name of the books author. Well yes, but it is important to note that in apocalyptic literature the common practice was to write in the name of an important prophetic figure of the past to give the writing authority. This practice was deemed necessary by the writers of the other apocalyptic books because the time when the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets was only a memory and not a present reality.
We can probably dismiss this practice having taken place in revelation due to two reasons. One, is that for John and his churches the Holy Spirit was not a memory but an active force within the life of Christians (Rev 1:10, 2:7, 22:17) and so prophets and prophesy was alive again. Second, John is obviously a well respected member of the 7 churches and writing under a pseudonym would lessen the authority rather than heighten it.
So we can say with some certainty that the author of revelation was a man called John, but is this the same John that we read of elsewhere. In the NT there is mention of a number of Johns and the early church fathers mentioned sever others;
John the Baptist - Matthew 3:1
John son of Zeebedee and apostle- Matthew 4:21
John Mark - Acts 12:12
John the Elder - author of the epistles 1,2 and 3 John
John the beloved disciple and author of the fourth gospel - if different from John son of Zeebedee
Each of these four have been put forward as revelation's writer but the one most ordinary people will claim as the author is John son of Zeebedee, the apostle of Jesus. As this is the most popular we will deal with this one in full and mention the others where needed.
The prologue of revelation is the real title for this book but on the earliest manuscripts we have the added title of the Apocalypse of John. Later manuscripts have the title Apocalypse of John the Evangelist and later still John the Theologian. This process of the addition of titles to the book has a fairly reasonable answer to it. As the NT books were brought together into the cannon we have today one of the major factors that allowed a book in was that it had apostolic credentials, so if it was written by an apostle it had a greater chance of getting in. This then explains why revelation finds itself with an apostolic title as time goes on.
Some of the early church farther's also pointed towards this John being the author of revelation (Justin Martyr) but for those who stumped for John the apostle others went for someone else (Eusebius quoting Papias). A closer look at revelation itself actually points away from John son of Zeebedee and apostle from being the writer. When ever the author of revelation mentions his name he never adds mention of his apostleship or of him ever having met Jesus in the flesh, both of which would add wait to his credentials and authority of the vision.
So if John son of Zeebedee isn't the writer which other John is. Well it probably isn't John the baptist as he lost his head fairly early on in the gospels so that rules him out. The elusive John Mark never travels with Paul and Barnabas to Asia and there is no mention of him within the church farther's (and he was known as Mark not John). That leaves us with the writer/s of the gospel and the epistle, this leads us back to Eusebius who again quoting an early church farther seems to give us the answer to our question (Eusebius quoting Dionysius).
Dionysius the bishop of Alexandria carried out an analysis of the texts of the gospel, the epistles and revelation and came to the conclusion that the latter's author was not the same as the formers. More recent research has found the same thing. Where as the gospel and epistles are written in fairly fluent Greek, revelation is much more forced and clumsy as if a non-fluent Greek speaker was writing it. Words used by the gospel writer are not used by the writer of revelation and the differences go on and on.
So where does this leave us. Well back at the beginning of this blog, the author of revelation is John a prophet in exile from the churches in Asia minor. Probably a Palestinian Jew who had converted to Christianity (hence the poor Greek but exceptional OT imagery) other than that we know nothing.
We can probably dismiss this practice having taken place in revelation due to two reasons. One, is that for John and his churches the Holy Spirit was not a memory but an active force within the life of Christians (Rev 1:10, 2:7, 22:17) and so prophets and prophesy was alive again. Second, John is obviously a well respected member of the 7 churches and writing under a pseudonym would lessen the authority rather than heighten it.
So we can say with some certainty that the author of revelation was a man called John, but is this the same John that we read of elsewhere. In the NT there is mention of a number of Johns and the early church fathers mentioned sever others;
John the Baptist - Matthew 3:1
John son of Zeebedee and apostle- Matthew 4:21
John Mark - Acts 12:12
John the Elder - author of the epistles 1,2 and 3 John
John the beloved disciple and author of the fourth gospel - if different from John son of Zeebedee
Each of these four have been put forward as revelation's writer but the one most ordinary people will claim as the author is John son of Zeebedee, the apostle of Jesus. As this is the most popular we will deal with this one in full and mention the others where needed.
The prologue of revelation is the real title for this book but on the earliest manuscripts we have the added title of the Apocalypse of John. Later manuscripts have the title Apocalypse of John the Evangelist and later still John the Theologian. This process of the addition of titles to the book has a fairly reasonable answer to it. As the NT books were brought together into the cannon we have today one of the major factors that allowed a book in was that it had apostolic credentials, so if it was written by an apostle it had a greater chance of getting in. This then explains why revelation finds itself with an apostolic title as time goes on.
Some of the early church farther's also pointed towards this John being the author of revelation (Justin Martyr) but for those who stumped for John the apostle others went for someone else (Eusebius quoting Papias). A closer look at revelation itself actually points away from John son of Zeebedee and apostle from being the writer. When ever the author of revelation mentions his name he never adds mention of his apostleship or of him ever having met Jesus in the flesh, both of which would add wait to his credentials and authority of the vision.
So if John son of Zeebedee isn't the writer which other John is. Well it probably isn't John the baptist as he lost his head fairly early on in the gospels so that rules him out. The elusive John Mark never travels with Paul and Barnabas to Asia and there is no mention of him within the church farther's (and he was known as Mark not John). That leaves us with the writer/s of the gospel and the epistle, this leads us back to Eusebius who again quoting an early church farther seems to give us the answer to our question (Eusebius quoting Dionysius).
Dionysius the bishop of Alexandria carried out an analysis of the texts of the gospel, the epistles and revelation and came to the conclusion that the latter's author was not the same as the formers. More recent research has found the same thing. Where as the gospel and epistles are written in fairly fluent Greek, revelation is much more forced and clumsy as if a non-fluent Greek speaker was writing it. Words used by the gospel writer are not used by the writer of revelation and the differences go on and on.
So where does this leave us. Well back at the beginning of this blog, the author of revelation is John a prophet in exile from the churches in Asia minor. Probably a Palestinian Jew who had converted to Christianity (hence the poor Greek but exceptional OT imagery) other than that we know nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)