Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

as was given, on similar occasions, by other ambassadors of God, human, and even angelic.

Mr. Yates's second observation in reply, is, that, in his opinion," the angel whose conduct Mr. Wardlaw contrasts "with that of Jesus, was Jesus himself:" and in three full pages he assigns his reasons for this opinion.

No considerate reader will feel any surprise at Mr. Yates's anxiety to establish this opinion; because, were it well founded, the passages in question would contain an express refusal, on the part of Jesus, of the worship due to God.But, to show the falsehood of the opinion, it is not at all necessary to travel through the whole book of Revelation. The refutation of it is nearer at hand. I submit to the reader the following remarks; which, I trust, will convince him, not only of the futility of the opinion advanced by Mr. Yates, but of his want of prudent generalship, in bringing these passages into such prominent notice.

At two distinct times, it appears, John offered worship to an angel; and the angel, on both occasions, declined the honour, in terms nearly the same. In both of these instances, the context affords the most distinct information that the angel was not Jesus Christ.

"There

1. In the beginging of chap. xviith, John tells us, "came one of the seven angels who had the seven vials, and talk❝ed with me.”—It requires only to read forward thence to chap. xix. 10. to satisfy any person, that this was the angel before whom John fell down to worship. It surely will not be said that the Lord Jesus was "one of the seven an"gels who had the seven vials.”

2. This angel, when John falls down at his feet to worship him, says, "See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and "(the fellow-servant) of thy brethren that have the testimony

❝ of Jesus;" or, "I am a fellow-servant with thee, and with "thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus."-Now, although Jesus, in his state of humiliation on earth, is called the servant of God, he is nowhere else in Scripture, even in referrence to that period, called a fellow-servant with the apostles and prophets:-far less is he so called when exalted to glory in heaven. There his language is, "I am the first and the last, "and the living One; and I was dead; and behold I am alive ❝for evermore, and have the keys of hell and of death.” Is this the same person who is supposed to say "I am a fel"low-servant with thee and with thy brethren?"-On the contrary, the apostles are frequently styled the servants of Jesus Christ. And the mode of expression used by the angel, “I "am a fellow servant with thee, and with thy brethren who "have the testimony of Jesus," seems, with sufficient clearness, to show, that he means to describe himself as an associate with John and his brethren, in the service of Jesus himself.

3. Immediately on John's offering worship to the angel, and his refusing it,-heaven is seen opened, and the sublime vision is exhibited to the view of the entranced prophet, of Him who was called "Faithful and True," "the Word " of God," "the King of kings and Lord of lords.”—Here is JESUS in all the majesty of dominion and power. Is this still the angel, that was John's fellow-servant, and that had just been showing him the preceding visions? Is this one of the seven angels that had the seven vials?

4. The same thing is not less clear respecting the second instance. In chap. xxi. 9. the same expression occurs as at the beginning of chap. xviith, " And there came unto me "one of the seven angels who had the seven vials, full of the "seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying"-&c. And

here also, reading forward, marking particularly verses 10, 15, 17, of chap. xxi. and verse 1. of chap. xxii, will be sufficient to convince the reader that this is the angel (whether the same, or another of the seven, is not clear) before whom John prostrated himself to worship, and who refused the homage, as before.

5. The difficulty, arising from the subsequent context, is simply the difficulty which is so often to be found in the prophetic writings, produced by the suddenness of the transition from one person to another, as the speaker, without any premonition of the change. If this difficulty is far from being peculiar to this passage, it cannot surely be allowed to overcome the plain and decisive proofs that the angel before mentioned was, in both instances, another than Jesus Christ. -The note of Grotius, (whom Mr. Yates will admit to be an impartial authority) as quoted by Mr. Brown, expresses the general opinion, and, as I think, the just one. "Sequitur hic dialogus "inter Dominum Jesum et Johannem, non appositis perso"narum nominibus, sed quæ facile ex verbis subintelliguntur. "Hic loqui incipit Jesus. Simile habes Esa. vii. xxxvii. xlviii. "Jer. v. viii. ix. xv. xxii."-" Here" (that is at the tenth verse)" there follows a conversation between the Lord "Jesus and John, in which the names of the parties are not " mentioned, but may easily be understood from their words. "Here Jesus begins to speak. Parallel cases may be found "in Isa. vii. xxxvii. xlviii. Jer. v. viii. ix. xv. xxii."-If the reader will peruse the chapters thus referred to, he will be at no loss to discover in them the parallel instances of sudden change of speaker.

6. In chapter i. 1, 2. the Book is intitled-" The Reve"lation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show "unto his servants the things which must shortly come to

pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his ser"vant John."

66

Mr. Yates thinks that he who "sent and signified it" is God, and "his angel" Jesus. "In the original," he says, if not in the translation, "the words he sent and signified it, appear to refer to God rather than Jesus." I can see nothing in the original to prevent the words referring to Jesus as their antecedent, with equal propriety as to God. I would not be positive, as it is a matter about which commentators differ; but it seems to me more natural to connect them with Jesus. The meaning seems to be, that "God gave this re"velation to Jesus, to show unto his servants;" and that HE, as the great medium of Divine communications to men, fulfilled the commission," sending and signifying it by his angel "to his servant John." This view appears to receive strong confirmation from the language of chap. xxii. 16. "I Jesus "have sent mine angel, to show unto you these things in the "churches."-Mr. Yates thinks the angel, or messenger, here is John, and so, I observe, does Doddridge. I would be far from denying the possibility of this being right, especially as John is said to have " borne witness of the word of God, and "of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of those things which ❝he saw:"--but it appears to me greatly more probable that it is otherwise, and that John should be included in the pronoun you;" to testify unto you these things in the "churches." As this, however, does not seem a certain case, I am disposed rather to decline the argument for the Divinity of Jesus Christ drawn by some from a comparison of chap. xxii. 6. with ver. 16. the more especially, as it is very conceivable, that the same person may be the messenger both of Him who bears the supreme authority, and of an inferior invested with his commission. If a royal ambassador

.

were vested with power to appoint, in particular cases, a de-puty to act for him, that deputy might, without improprie ty, be considered, and denominated, at once the messenger of the king, and the messenger of the ambassador acting by the king's authority.-But,

7. Error is never consistent. If Mr. Yates were right in thinking the angel who refused worship from the apostle, to be Jesus himself, alas! for the principle on which Socinians are accustomed to explain other instances of worship of fered to Jesus;-a principle which Mr. Yates himself has adopted and reasoned upon. The address of Stephen to Jesus, Unitarians tell us, when he actually saw him, does not autho rize us to offer prayers to him, now that he is invisible: and they offer the same objection to our inferences from such passages as 2 Cor. xii. 7-9; which they try to reconcile with their system, by alleging the probability that Jesus was at the time, actually, or at least in vision, present with the apostle. To this principle Mr. Yates has given his sanction, in his remarks on both these cases of prayer to Jesus. (Page 233.)—But could either of these cases be a case of more distinct visible presence, than the case in the Revelation, on the supposition of Jesus being the angel? The principle itself furnishes but a poor and pitiful refuge;-as if "the mere "circumstance of being visible could impart to a mere crea"ture a transient divinity, and a momentary title to divine ❝honours-a divinity and a title lasting only while the “vision lasts.”—But, poor and pitiful as it is, this notion of Mr. Yates, about Jesus being the angel who so peremptorily refused the worship of his fellow-servant, sweeps it clean away. So that, after all, by what he labours so hard to establish, he would lose at least as much as he could gain.

Lastly. The notion that Jesus was the angel who refused

« PreviousContinue »