The voice that John heard in Revelation 10:8 was the same voice he heard from heaven, telling him to seal up what the seven thunders said in reply to the mighty Angel, who swore there would be no delay (Revelation 10:4). It was probably the same voice that he heard in Revelation 4:1, when he was invited into the Throne Room of the Lamb, which, as we have seen, was the Most Holy Place of the Temple.
John was told to go to the mighty Angel who stood upon the sea and the earth and take the little book (Revelation 10:2, 8-4; cf. 5:1), which he had in his left hand. It is interesting that John was not permitted to write down what the seven thunders said in Revelation 10:4, as though John may have been ready to write down his interpretation of what they said (cf. 2Corinthians 12:4). Rather, he was to permit what was said to remain sealed, trusting the word of God from heaven. This reminds one of the case of Agur (Proverbs 30:1-5) who wouldn’t trust in his own wisdom. Understanding divine mysteries is not something we naturally own. Rather, it comes through divine leading and experiencing the hand of God during times of trouble. John obeyed the voice in verse-4 and was then told to take the book, which he would eat and the words in the little book would come out in the form of a prophecy (Revelation 10:9-11).
John went to the mighty Angel and told him to give him the book (Revelation 10:9). The Angel told John to eat the little book,[1] saying it would be as sweet as honey to the taste, but bitter in the belly (cf. Ezekiel 2:8-10; 3:1-11, 14). So, John ate the little book that was open, and in his mouth it was like honey, but in his stomach it was bitter (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:18; Isaiah 28:9).
At this time the Angel told John that he “must prophesy again…” (Revelation 10:11). The word prophesy (G4395 – propheteuo) is used 28 times in the New Covenant Scriptures, but it is used only here and in Revelation 11:3 in the Apocalypse. In chapter 11 the mighty Angel says he will give (authority) to his two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1260 days.
In prophesying John was put “over many peoples, nations, and tongues and kings,” but this doesn’t mean he was placed in political authority over anyone. Rather, it indicates that his words have power over them before God (cf. Jeremiah1:10; Revelation 5:9). Consider how the word “before” (G1909 – epi) is used here, in Revelation 10:11 and for the Great Harlot of Revelation 17:18. There, the harlot ruled or had authority over (G1909 – epi) the kings of the earth. This authority or power has to do with the Lord’s covenantal relationship with mankind, not political authority. In this sense, Jerusalem ‘reigned’ over the nations in that she represented God on earth, having his words and having the responsibility to teach the nations.
The Angel’s command for John to prophesy represented a new covenantal relationship between God and mankind. No longer was God represented by a political nation, but rather a spiritual nation, the church. John was set “over” (G1909 – epi) the nations in the sense that the knowledge of God, as understood by peoples, nations and kings, would come through the church, not a political authority. So, the spread of God’s word and authority would be accomplished not through war or political enterprise, but by beating our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks, and thereby make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20), not by conquering nations, but by destroying every stronghold in the minds of men that exalts itself above the authority of God (2Corinthians 10:4-5).
One wonders, then, if John’s prophecy is found in Revelation 11:1-14, where he is commanded to measure the Temple of God, and where he records the ministry of the two witnesses. Instead of John’s prophecy, what we find there seems to be the Angel’s words. So, how are we to understand these things? In the context of John’s eating the little book instead of merely writing down what the Seven Thunders said (Revelation 10:3), we would expect John act out or otherwise reveal those words that were spoken from heaven in some fashion. This would be so, even if John’s prophecy were not recorded in chapter 11.
In other words, whatever the Seven Thunders uttered couldn’t really be sealed in the sense that its meaning was yet for another generation in the future. Rather, John would eventually record the words in such a manner, as to give meaning to something that probably was too difficult to convey with a literal rendering of what he heard the Seven Thunders say (cf. 2Corinthains 12:4). Therefore, whatever John does eventually prophesy would be in response to what the mighty Angel told him to do in Revelation 10:3. Moreover, if all this is true, then, it is also logically so that the Angel’s declaration that “there would be delay no longer” (Revelation 10:6) would be in response to whatever we find later in John’s prophecy.
______________________________________________
[1] Take it and eat it up is a Hebraism for “to receive knowledge” according to The Scriptures Bible notes and The Companion Bible margin notes by E.W. Bullinger (cf. John 6:50-53, 58, 63).
Smoodock's Blog 
43 responses to “What John Prophesied”
John the Apostle ate the book that John the Baptist wrote about the first coming not the second. The time was near. The Apostle was told to prophecy again, he added Jesus and the churches. A careful reading of the commentary by Victorinus shows he was not aware of the churches. He only had the first version written by the Baptist.
John the Baptist isn’t mentioned once in the Apocalypse. Saying he is one of the names of “John” in the first chapter of the Apocalypse doesn’t make it so. In fact, no one would ever understand such a thing by merely reading the Apocalypse. Someone would have to say: “Hey, one of those three mentions of the name of “John” in Revelation, chapter one, refers to John the Baptist!” That’s picking things out of the air. Who told you that? Who told him and how do you know?
Your claims don’t point to an ounce of Biblical truth that would support your understanding. Everything you put forth is a guess that has no Biblical reference. You could make the claim that a resurrected Nebuchadnezzar helped write the Apocalypse, and you would have the same authority that supports your claim that John the Baptist was one of its writers. Victorinus also makes similar claims–pulling things out of a hat (or the air), having absolutely no Biblical authority for his interpretations. I run across many so-called Biblical authorities in my studies that cannot support their claims. They simply write what they think and quote one another in hope that fools might think they are authorities in the word of God. What proof do you have that the Apocalypse was written by more than one person?
No one has proof but I do have a reasonable explanation for John being mentioned three times in the first chapter. John who ‘bare record’ was looking for the Lamb of God and was preparing the way but didn’t know it was Jesus. John to the seven churches wanted to address the followers of the Baptist who had not heard about Jesus.
Of course we have proof. We have eyewitness testimony, but you want to chuck all that in favor of having John Chrysostom as one of the authors of the Apocalypse. Next you want to dismantle the clear testimony of John on Patmos in favor of making John the Baptist one of its authors. **You** don’t have proof, because you throw away the proof, thinking it has no value. Why? Is it because of how you interpret the commentary of Victorinus? You know, a lot of the church fathers were really wired people. Some of their beliefs are laughable. Their value is that they preserved the New Covenant Scriptures intact. We might also value what sort of beliefs were embraced during their lifetimes and what all that meant, but with the Scriptures intact, we are able to judge the witness of the writers on our own without the so-called “help” of the church fathers from the second to the fourth centuries AD. If we have the Scriptures we don’t **need** them. We can appreciate them, but **they** don’t control what we believe today. Victorinus was a martyr and that has value. I respect that, but, in my book, if you are speaking about the meaning of Scripture, you must earn your wings every day. I don’t accept a lot of what he says, nor would I base my faith on the basis of what he left out.
Bottom line, John to the seven churches wrote, as the Apocalypse shows, to the seven churches in Asia. You have no proof, nor even a reasonable explanation, for your argument. To accept your argument one must throw away eyewitness testimony, and I, for one, will never do that.
My faith is not based on anyone’s interpretation of scripture but I do want to make sense of what I read. History is the only way to verify prophecy and I have identified more parts of the Apocalypse than anyone else has.