Note: woman. ⁴ Cf. Gebhardt, Doctrine of the Apocalypse, pp. 78-9: “De Wette and Hengstenberg find in the expression the superhuman glory of Christ; for, as De Wette remarks, to affirm of a man that he is like a man is to say nothing; or as Hengstenberg expresses it, if Christ only resembles a Son of Man, there must be another side of His nature which surpasses the human.” ⁵ Cf. Holtzmann, op. cit, pp. 467-8: “The Danielic Son of Man, 1⁷,¹³ 14¹⁴4 and even the Danielic Ancient of Days,’ 1¹⁴, shine through.” ⁶ The vision is the vision of the spiritual conquest of the world, and in such a vision the designation of our Lord as the Word of God is peculiarly appropriate.

The more elaborate descriptive titles which are applied to our Lord embody the same circle of ideas as are more briefly suggested by the sim- pler designations; and only more viv- idly and richly express their contents. Some of these have for their burden the saving activities of our Lord and may therefore fitly be called soteriological. A good example of these is provided by the direct description of Him as “Him that loved us and loosed us from our sins by His blood” (1⁵). But the most striking and at the same time the most frequently employed descriptive designation of this class is that which calls Him the Lamb that hath been slain (5¹² 13⁸, cf. 5⁶,⁹ 7¹⁴), or more commenly simply the Lamb” without express but always with implied reference to the actual sacrifice (5¹³ 6¹,¹⁶ i 12 br ig 6 edi 19⁷,⁹ np 1 <2 fail Indeed, we understate the matter when we say this is the most frequently employed descriptive designation of Christ of its class. It is in fact the most frequently employed designation of Jesus of any kind, and must be looked upon as embodying the seer’s favorite mode of conceiving of Jesus and His work. He even uses it in such a manner as to suggest that it had acquired for him much the status of a proper name, and suggested itself as a designation of Jesus even when the mind of the writer was dwelling on other aspects of His work than that most closely symbolized by this title.³ There could be no more striking indication of the high significance the writer attached to the sacrificial death of Christ, and to the dominance of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah in the framing of his Messianic conceptions; matters which are otherwise copiously illustrated by his language.⁹ Other prevailingly soteriological designations advert especially to our Lord’s resurrectionsuch as that by which He is spoken of as the Firstborn of the Dead (1⁵); and others still to His trustworthiness, such as when He is called the Faithful and True (19¹¹), or the Faithful Witness’ (1⁵), and more elaborately the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God (3¹⁴); or again, He that is holy, He that is true,

Note: The word is ἀρνίον, which is used 26 times of Christ in Revelation (in 13¹¹ it is otherwise used). It is found elsewhere in the N. T. only at Jno 21¹ (plural), where it represents Christ’s followers. Jesus is called Lamb (duvég)in Jno 1²⁹36, Acts 8³2, 1 P 1¹⁹9 and nowhere else except in Rev. (ἀρνίον). In the whole N. T. lamb (whether ἀμνός or ἀρνίον) occurs only of Christ except at Jno 21¹⁵ (ἀρνία) [cf. Lk 10³ (ἀρήν)]. On the use of the diminutive ἀρνίον of Jesus see A. B. Grosart in the Expos. Times, 11. p. 57, and cf. Gebhardt, p. 112; Swete, p. 77.

He that hath the keys of David, He that openeth and none shall shut and that shutteth and none shall open (3⁷)

The transition from these soteriological designations to those which are more purely honorific, or perhaps we might better say, ontological, is very he¹ mradual, or indeed insensible: land nothing is more characteristic of the book than the sharp contrast into which designations of the two classes are brought by their immediate conjunction. Thus, for example, we read: “And I wept much, because no one was found to open the book,… and one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not, behold the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah… hath overcome to open the book… And I saw in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as though it had been slain,… and he came and taketh ihe book… (5⁴), There is no question of mixed metaphors here: there is only question of bringing together in Jesus by the most varied of symbols all the aspects of the Messianic prediction, and the exhibition of these all as finding their fulfillment in Him. All these designations are distinctly Messianic in their ground tone, and the Messianic ground tone is taken from all forms of the Messianic expectation, but perhaps prevailingly from that associated in the Gospels with the title of Son of Man,’ to which there is manifest allusion even in passages in which there is not only no adduction of that title, but no direct designation of our Lord from that point of view (1⁷). The great opening description of our Lord as Jesus

Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth (1⁵) unites already nearly all forms of designating Him employed in the book. Here is the simple name, the recognition of His dependableness, and the ascription to Him of the inauguration of life and of universal sovereignty. The Messianic ground tone is especially prominent in such designations as those which call Him the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David (5⁵), or the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright, the morning Star (22¹⁶), but passes more into the background in such as those which speak of Him as ‘ the Son of God who hath eyes like a flame of fire and His feet are like unto burnished brass’ (2¹⁸), or He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand, He that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks’ (2¹), or ‘ He that hath the seven spirits of God and the seven stars’ (3¹). It is His Messianic function of judgment which is thrown forward in the description of Him as ‘ He that hath the sharp two-edged sword (2¹²); He that is the ruler of the kings of the earth (1⁵), whose eyes are like a flame of fire (2¹⁸), and who, since His dominion is universal, is ‘ the Lord of Lords and King of Kings’ (17¹⁴ 19¹⁶)—although a greater than a Messiah is obviously here. The climax is attained in the description of Him as ‘ the First and the Last, which was dead and lived again (2⁸), ‘ the First and the Last, and the Living One (1¹⁸), the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (22¹³), in whose hands are the destinies of men (1¹⁸ 3⁷).¹

Note: Cf. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O. T., p. 165, on the high meaning of these phrases here applied to Jesus: The first and last (Is 44⁶) is a surprising generalization for a comparatively early time. It is not a mere statement that Jehovah was from the beginning and will be at the end. It is a name indicating His relation to history and the life of men. He initiates it, and He winds it up. And He is present in all its movements. Since it was, there am I’ (48¹⁶). Even the last book in the N. T. has nothing loftier to say of Jehovah than that He is ‘ the first and the last’: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, saith the Lord, the Almighty (Rev 1⁸).” It is by these lofty designations that Jesus is spoken of in the Apocalypse. Cf. Swete on the passage. ¹¹ Cf. the brief but instructive sketch of the christology of the Apocalypse in Swete, pp. clv. seq., especially the summary of the relations of Christ to God on p. clvii.: “(1) He has the prerogatives of God. He searches men’s hearts (2²³); He can kill or restore life (1¹⁸ 2²3); He receives a worship which is rendered without distinction to God (5¹³); His priests are also priests of God (20⁶); He occupies one throne with God (22¹,³), and shares one sovereignty (11¹⁵). (2) Christ receives the titles of God. He is the Living One (1¹⁸), the Holy and True (3⁷), the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (22¹³). (3) Passages which in the O. T. relate to God are without hesitation applied to Christ, e.g. Deut 10¹⁷ (17¹⁴), Prov 3¹² (3¹⁹), Dan 7⁹ (1¹⁴), Zech 4¹⁰ (5⁶). Thus the writer seems either to coordinate or to identify Christ with God. Yet he is certainly not conscious of any tendency to ditheism, for his book is rigidly monotheistic; nor, on the other hand, is he guilty of confusing the two Persons.”

It seems scarcely necessary to draw out in detail the wealth of implication of deity which these designations contain. The Apocalypse does not apply to our Lord directly the simple designation God. But everything short of that is done to emphasize the seer’s estimate of Him as a divine Being clothed with all the divine attributes.¹¹ This is generally allowed; and those who are set upon having the Apocalypse witness to a lower christology commonly content themselves with the remark that its language must not be taken at its face value. Baur, for example, contends that although the highest predicates are ascribed to Jesus, they are “only names borne outwardly by Him, and are not associated with His person in any inner unity of nature”; that

“ inner connection between the divine predicates and the historical individual who bears them “is lacking.⁴ In point of fact these divine predicates are there; and whether the seer means anything by them may be safely left to the reader to decide. Jesus is represented as emphatically as God Himself, as the living one (1¹⁸, eternal (( 1¹⁸), omniscient (1¹⁴ 2¹⁸ 10¹²), the searcher of the reins and hearts (2²³), in whose hands are the keys of death and hell: (1¹⁸). If in reminiscence of Is 44⁶ where the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, declares of Himself: “I am the first and the last: and beside me there is no God,”—God is represented as announcing: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” (21⁶ cf. 1⁸), Jesus equally (despite the strong monotheistic assertion of the original passage) is represented as announcing: “I am the first and the last, and the living one (1¹⁷,¹⁸, cf.’ 2⁸), “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (22¹³).⁵ Indeed, in mo dhe opening address we have one of B k gq those Trinitarian arrangements which betray the real underlying conception of deity in others, too, of the New Testament writers: “Grace to you and peace from Him which is and which was and which is to come”’—that is Jehovah, of which this is an analysis,—“ and from the seven Spirits ”— that is the Holy Spirit set forth in His divine completeness,—“ and from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1⁴). In the presence of such pervasive and universally recognized ascriptions of deity to our Lord we need not stop to expound the significance of such designations as that by which He is called not merely the Amen and the faithful and true witness,” but the principle of the creation of God (3¹⁴)⁶—that is to say, the active agent in creating all that God creates. It is abundantly clear that the Christ of the Apocalypse is a divine person. ¹⁶

Note: Cf. T. C. Porter in Hastings’ B. D., iv., 263 a: “While angels are classed with men, Christ is classed with God; and various titles and expressions carry us beyond not only the Messianic but also the angelogical speculations of Judaism. He is once called the Son of God (2¹⁸, but see also 2²⁷ 3⁵,²¹1 cf. 1⁶ 14¹); once the beginning of the creation of God (3¹⁴), as only the Divine Wisdom is called in O. T. (Prov 8²²), and as Christ is called only by St. Paul in the N. T. (Col 1¹⁵). He is called once also the Word of God (19¹³), and even this Johannine (Hellenistic) title is surpassed by the title of eternity, the First and the Last (1¹⁷ 2⁸ 22¹³)” Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 163.

---

← The Witness of the Epistle to the Hebrews · Contents · The Issue of the Investigation →

Footnotes

1. Cf. Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, 1., 467: “The Old Testament and Jewish conceptions of the Messiah form no doubt the fundamental basis of the christology, though they are on every side outvied and surmounted; so that such a conglomeration of all Biblical and even Jewish strata of doctrine results as is wholly without example elsewhere in the N. T., and has become one of the chief occasions for the current hypotheses which attack the unity of the composition.” He quotes Bousset as speaking of the christology of the Apocalypse as a “confused conglomeration of the most diverse conceptions’ (Meyer’s Com. on Rew., 161). Cf. R. Palmer, The Drama of the Apocalypse, p. 105 who complains that “the peint of view of the seer is continually changing,” so that it is impossible to obtain a unitary doctrine from him. ² Cf. Holtzmann’s enumeration, Theologie des N. T., 1, 467, and Gebhardt. Doctrine of the Apocalypse, p. 77. ↩

2. Such a phrase as ἡ xvptaxy ἡμέρα could not have been framed unless Jesus had been to His followers the Lord by way of eminence. Cf. 1 Cor 11²⁰, the Lord’s Supper. ↩

3. So Hoekstra, De Christologie der Apocalypse, in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, nL, 1869, p. 4; and even Gebhardt, Doctrine of the Apocalypse, 1873, pp. 113, 114: “The seer in the course of his representation unquestionably often uses the expression the lamb without any special signification, but only as a standing designation of Christ {cf (17¹⁴). ⁹ Cf. Holtzmann, op. cit., 1, 472: “This 29-[27-] times occurring Lamb, the most individual christological conception of the author (see Vol. 11, 478) refers back most probably to Is 53⁷.” Perhaps we ought to say it refers back proximately to Jno 1²⁹, and forms one of those subtle indications that this book is the composition of John—who was one of the two disciples (Jno 1³⁵) to whom the Baptist pointed out Jesus as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” It has been too little observed to what an extent John (both in Gospel and Epistles and in the Apocalypse) was influenced in his conceptions by the Baptist. The thesis might be defended that the Baptist was his first and most impressive teacher in theology. In any event it is important to observe such hints of an underlying unity between Gospel and Apocalypse. ↩

4. So also substantially Kostlin and Hoekstra. See the refutation in Gebhardt, pp. 86 seg. Bousset (Meyer’s Com. on Apoc.), while representing the christology of the book as “a confused conglomeration of the most diverse conceptions” (280), has yet to recognize that it is (in some of its elements at least) apparently the most advanced in the whole N. T.” (280). He says: “We have in it the faith of a layman unaffected by any theological reflection, which with heedless naiveté simply identifies Christ in His predicates and attributes with God, while on the other side it calmly incorporates also wholly archaic elements.” ↩

5. Dr. B. W. Bacon, Hastings’ D. C. G., 1, 43 seq., endeavors to expound the application of these phrases to Christ as an eschatologicosoteriological adaptation, in which the metaphysical implication is lost: in them Christ would say “I am the primary object and ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise” (4³). What is in its application to God, therefore, “a solemn designation of Divinity” becomes when transferred to Christ only an assertion that in Him the promised redemption is accomplished: “It is only in the eschatological sense that Christ becomes the original object and ultimate fulfillment of the Divine purposes and promises, the Yea and Amen,’ the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end’” (p. 45). The artificiality and inadequacy of this construction is manifest. Cf. on the other hand A. E. Ross, art. “First and Last,” Hastings’ D. C. G,, 1, 595 seq., who frankly allows “that the title the First and the Last as applied to Christ in Rev. recalls and attributes to Him all that the O. T. writers had realized of the nature of God” (596 a). Cf. Dr. Davidson, as above, p. 318, note, on the essential significance of the phrases. ¹⁴ On the Amen as a designation of our Lord, cf. J. S. Clemens, Hastings’ D. C. G., 1, st a.,, and J. Massie, Hastings’ D. B., 1, 81 a. ↩

6. Cf. Gebhardt, p. 93, and Disterdieck, iz loc. ↩