Who's in charge? This is the ultimate question John answers in Chapter 4. It is not enough to simply note in passing Jehovah is Creator and Lord. We have a dire need of taking upon ourselves the full impact of what that means, and we need it often.
Only a fool would see in this description by John anything to be taken literally. Indeed, I would suggest it requires a particular form of intellectual dishonesty, a rejection of truth. Far too often in Scripture we are warned no man can see God and live. To face the Creator of all things would require the fallen flesh to flee away in death. We are warned quite pointedly in other places things in Heaven, the place of Ultimate Reality, can only be modeled here on earth. Further, they can only be modeled conceptually, within a human context, not precisely as with a scale model. Thus, John describes his vision of God Almighty in terms of his own context, a context which is not so hard to understand if we but choose to grasp it.
We find John providing a certain amount of context by telling us we are about to see something of Ultimate Reality -- he is going to describe the way things are in Heaven. A symbolic door is opened, and he is commanded to come up and see, and as readers we follow him. To prevent dying, he is entered into a different mode of experience, he is "in the Spirit." We know immediately what follows cannot be a vision of human eyes, but a statement of impact on the soul from perception with spiritual eyes. The central basic assumption of the whole book -- indeed, of Christian faith -- is Jehovah is God, there is no other, and He is most certainly actively involved in His Creation. That we see here a very standard presentation of authority, and the implications of that claim, are often lost on those who profess to serve Him.
As surely as God is the Governor of all the universe, we know all other claims to authority depend on His. Any presumed authority must acknowledge His claim, or forfeit any respect from His servants. Indeed, all earthly allegiance by Christians is conditional. We seem to understand the concept of individual accountability, but generally miss the fuller context of why this element exists in the Kingdom. Today we speak of "human rights" in the context of discussing human government. The terminology itself is dangerous, because it leaves open a whole raft of false understanding. We assume "the consent of the governed" is somehow a reflection of biblical teaching, or at least biblical assumptions, but this is patently false. The whole of Scripture assumes no such thing; rather, the Bible assumes all living things are under the absolute authority of God, and to varying degrees under the authority of human rulers. The central issues is not a matter of human rights before human rulers, but of the limited sphere of authority God allows human rulers.
There are two primary schools of thought regarding human rights. The first is they are not static, not eternal, but derived from the broader context of human rational thought. They can thus only be granted by governments, not a possession inherent in the human condition. They call for a higher, global level of government to back such a grant of rights. The other school of thought declares they are given by God, and governments are required to honor them, or risk various forms of justified revolt from those subject to the power of those governments. Both are completely missing the point. God does not grant rights. God makes demands on all classes and types, as He originates the proper sphere of authority for each. You have no right to any demand on any human government, but you do have a command from God to put His Law above those of any human government. That such allegiance will inevitably lead to conflict with human governments is taken for granted. Your property, safety and life will most certainly remain subject to human governments, which are in substance nothing more than a monopoly on force. As such, we know the proper place of human government in God's plan. John knew it, as did all the Apostles. They would have considered our modern talk of "human rights" as arrogance.
Yet, we can most certainly point at the failures of human government as sin. Much of what follows this chapter in John's Revelation is pointing the finger at sin. John and his flock most assuredly suffered at the hand of oppressive human government. By no means would John countenance a "just revolt," as there was in his world no such thing. Perhaps in the Old Testament world a revolt against a godless ruler could be commanded by God (1 Kings 11:29-39). This ended at the Cross, where the context of the Law of Moses was ended, and God's dealings with humanity took a wholly different track. Rather, John takes the eternal viewpoint typical of regenerate Jews who truly understood the teachings of Christ. The ancient Semitic assumptions, clarified against the clear revelation of God in Christ, are the biblical viewpoint. The substance of the Apocalypse is revealing to Christians what we can from such a viewpoint see in the nature of tribulation. Specifically, the bulk of John's Revelation is an explanation of what we should expect from human government, and hints at how we should react, explained in the form of a symbolic narrative -- the quintessential biblical teaching method.
We speak today of "jurisdiction" when we want to know what conduct is required of us at any place and time. However, our basic assumption is such things are objective in nature, that law rules over men. This carries too far something inherent in the biblical view of justice, and results in standing things on their head. In the scriptural worldview, one of the first things you must ask is, "Who's in charge here?" In ancient times, that would be primarily a religious question, a query about territorial gods. A secondary question assumed there would also be tribal-national gods to which the locals adhered. While there was often some overlap between the two, the assumption was one needed to know what these people held sacred, what were their practices, what one could expect of them. Thus, the God of Abraham came to the patriarch as "your God," the same as He did for Israel in the Exodus. We can see from the biblical narrative they struggled with the rather revolutionary concept there were no other gods, despite blunt statements by Moses this was so. It took quite some time before scriptural narrative shifted the assumption from "Jehovah is superior" to "Jehovah is alone." That's not to say those who truly served God from the heart didn't get it. They did, but most of the people did not, as we can see from constant rejection of God's commands. Seeing an overlapping and/or competing "jurisdiction" between gods was the standard assumption of those days until rather late in Hebrew history, and remained universal to pagans.
In a parallel to that, the question of human authority was often one of who serves whom, rather than who rules what. Everyone was accountable to someone else, and few could claim imperial status. Those who did showed their status by not condescending to get involved in internal affairs of those who ruled on their behalf. Higher powers simply demanded the lesser powers carry out their wishes, assuming they would have what it took. This is reflected in rulers seeking to maintain a distance from their subjects. On the one hand, a king like David built loyalty by reaching out to people in need, showing he was aware of their plight and regarded such things worthy of his attention. Yet only a fool would assume thereby David was his buddy. Thus, David had a regal court built, a throne placed at the focal point, all of which followed more or less an ancient protocol depending on the rank of the person. Such was the customary behavior of ancient Eastern potentates. Yet, surely David knew Who ruled over him (2 Samuel 7:18ff). Status was everything, and thus we see John revealing God Almighty by pointing out not who, but what stands in His court, and how they act.
Ancient rulers sought to awe the visitor to their courts. Typically this would mean decorations of precious materials, and other symbolic means. God need not decorate His throne and Himself; He is inherently rare and precious. Thus, He appears as jewels Himself. That the rainbow, symbol of the Covenant of Noah, appears here gives it a central prominence as the context. We do not have room here to examine in detail the meaning and importance of that; see "Christians and Government" for a fuller explanation. Enough for now to note John portrays God as the Lord of that covenant, as if the whole book is mostly about that.
There are other prominent symbols. The "24 elders" clearly represent humans, as angels are never described this way elsewhere. However, the obvious meaning is they represent the faithful (judged already: white robes and victors' crowns) from the Old Testament (12 Tribes) and the New Testament (12 Apostles). Ancient rulers typically kept seven advisers in their presence at all times. Unlike the stormy seas of human sin and tumult, before God's throne all is decided eternally, making that sea into glass. The Four Creatures represent nature, all that is noblest, strongest, wisest and swiftest. When these virtues see clearly, they see God's holiness and celebrate it accordingly.
Countless songs in every language have already taken up the two hymns of praise John records here. Justly so. Music is first and foremost inherently a form of worship. Anything worthy of our best efforts of artistic expression is dear to us. Whether the tune be simple and easy to hum, or complex beyond the ability of even some better orchestras, regardless of what instruments are included, we could hardly produce anything worthy of The One on the Throne. By extension, there is nothing we produce with our lives, even by His power, worthy of Him. Any price we might pay in devotion to Him is too little. This is the ultimate message of John: All you experience in this Vale of Sorrow is really insignificant before the Throne of God. More to the point, all the human suffering, both the ordinary and extraordinary, in the daily life of His Servants is just background noise, mere circumstance. The loss of life itself is just a circumstance, much less the loss of any other thing we might hold in stewardship for Him.
From this basis, John proceeds to reveal how the Church must face, must understand, the tribulation which must surely follow.
Return to Index
[<-- Previous Lesson]
[Next Lesson -->]
Ed Hurst
16 August 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)