,

What John Prophesied

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…

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).

43 responses to “What John Prophesied”

  1. Words, words, words! Anyone who is able to speak at all will speak words. Words really have no meaning without substance, and you haven’t offered any substance. **You** “have identified more parts of the Apocalypse than any one else” in history? Joe Blow from windy city could say as much with equal authority. Unless you prove that claim with substance, why should I believe you? Moreover, if your “substance” is similar to the “substance” you offer to substantiate the identities of the three mentions of the name “John” in Revelation chapter one, you needn’t bother replying, because you haven’t proved your case there either.

  2. I have identified historical events that fit what has been prophesied and my interpretation is primarily based on numbers and a literal meaning with words. An example of this is the one thousand year reign of the Byzantine Empire which fits with the seven heads, ten horns, two beasts, and the four beasts of Daniel. I rely on history and not on any theoretical interpretation. The fulfillment of prophecy can only be verified with history and a reasonable literal interpretation.

  3. Apocalypse-2, greetings. Perhaps I’ve made an error in judgment with you. Maybe you are sincere, so I apologize for my brusque replies of late. You take a futuristic interpretation of the Apocalypse, but I do not (not beyond the first century AD). There is no evidence for a Holy Roman Empire interpretation, no evidence for the seven churches being seven eras, no evidence for Jesus returning beyond the “this generation” in which he declared he would return. You may believe as most Christians do–that he is about to return in the next few years or even in this century, if you wish. However, there have been at least 156 failed prediction of Jesus Second Coming. This is an evil tree that cannot bear good fruit.

    I don’t mean to be unkind (I was in previous replies, but I don’t mean to be unkind here), but at what point would you agree that future predictions of Jesus’ return would be not only wrong, but that the whole “tree” is not of God? The writers of the New Covenant Scriptures are in agreement that Jesus was soon to return in their expected lifetimes. They would be martyred, but had they lived he would have returned in their generation. Jesus said as much in the Gospels. Why would you find that in error?

  4. The Apocalypse was about the first coming not the second. Hence the time was near. John the Baptist prepared the way. Most of the Apocalypse is history and I have historical events that fit. Why do you call me a futurist?

  5. Greetings Apocalypse-2. I disagree. The Apocalypse is all about the second coming of Jesus. You cannot have Jesus among the churches of Asia (Revelation 1, 2 & 3 and have it about the first coming of Jesus in Revelation 22:7, 12, 20. Neither is Jesus speaking of his fist coming in Revelation 2:5, 16 and 3:11. Indeed, the time was “at hand” both in the beginning of the prophecy and the end (Revelation 1:3; 22:10). So, again, if the churches already existed (Revelation 1, 2, & 3), the Apocalypse is all about Jesus’ return, not his birth (first coming).

    If you believe Jesus will come again in our future, you are a futurist. Revelation has been completely fulfilled. There isn’t a verse or a phrase that must still be fulfilled. If you still look for its fulfillment, you are a futurist. I’m not trying to put you down. I’m just stating the facts. So, once more I will ask you, if Jesus promised to return to the generation he spoke with (Matthew 16:27-28), why would you believe he has yet to return, nearly 2000 years later?