C. The Marriage Of The Lamb (19:6—10)
C. THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB (19:6—10)
The triumph of the servants of God is now brought out with the imagery of a heavenly marriage. The church is seen as the bride of Christ.
6. Once more John speaks of an unidentified voice. This time, however, he describes it in some detail, though with his usual reserve in speaking of heavenly realities. His thrice-repeated like shows that the voice is not exactly ‘the voice of a great multitude’, etc. but a voice resembling these things. It is likened to the sound of a great multitude, to that of ‘many waters’ (cf. 1:15 and the note there), and to mighty thunder (cf. 18:2 for ischyros used of a voice). The voice then is both powerful and musical (cf. 14:2). As with others in this chapter, the voice begins with Hallelujah. The note of praise is strong and sustained. The reason given is not the overthrow of Babylon, though that cannot be out of mind. It is rather that our Lord God Almighty reigns (or, taking the aorist as inceptive, ’has entered on his reign’, NEB). The positive note is struck. For Almighty see the note on 1:8.
7. The voice calls on those who hear to rejoice and be exultant (for this combination, cf. Mt. 5:12). After what has gone we naturally think that glory is to be ascribed to God because his power has been so strikingly displayed in the destruction of the city. But not so. The voice concerns itself not with the past, but with the future. It calls to praise because the marriage of the Lamb is about to take place. The bride has made herself ready. This imagery is fairly widespread in the Bible. Israel is often thought of as Yahweh’s bride (Is. 54:6; Ezk. 16:8ff.; Ho. 2:14ff.; etc.), and marriage symbolism is not uncommon in the Gospels (Mt. 22:2ff.; 25:1ff.; Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29). In this book marriage imagery is employed in 19:9; 21:2,9; 22:17 (some think the supper in 3:20 may also be understood in the same way). We would have expected here the word ‘bride’ (nymph
, as in 18:23; 21:2,9; 22:17, and as NIV translates here) instead of ’ife’ (gyn). Nothing seems to turn on the choice of word, however.
, as in 18:23; 21:2,9; 22:17, and as NIV translates here) instead of ’ife’ (gyn). Nothing seems to turn on the choice of word, however.8. The song concludes with the affirmation that the bride was given fine linen, bright and clean to wear (contrast the clothing of the harlot, 17:4; 18:16). John adds the explanation that this linen is ‘the righteousness of the saints’. This is usually understood as NIV, the righteous acts.... But the word dikaioma never seems elsewhere to have the meaning ‘righteous acts’ (perhaps Baruch 2:19?). It always means ’ordinance‘, or something of the kind. ’Sentence of justification’ would be much more in accordance with New Testament usage (see note on 15:4.). The plural indicates that many individuals are involved. Such a meaning seems demanded in this context by the verb was given. The dikai
mata were given to the saints, not provided by them. The white robes of the multitude in 7:9,14 were not provided by any righteous act on the part of the wearers, but were the result of washing in ‘the blood of the Lamb’. So is it here.
mata were given to the saints, not provided by them. The white robes of the multitude in 7:9,14 were not provided by any righteous act on the part of the wearers, but were the result of washing in ‘the blood of the Lamb’. So is it here.9. Now comes a command to John to write, which emphasizes the importance of what follows. Earlier he was commanded to write the whole book (1:11,19), and to write to each of the seven churches (chs.2—3). He was forbidden to write what the seven thunders said (10:4), but was instructed to write down the little saying about the dead who die in the Lord (14:13). He will be commanded to write down yet another saying (21:5). For blessed ... see note on 1:3. Those bidden to the wedding supper of the Lamb are described in terms of their call (there may be a hint of permanence in the perfect participle keklemenoi). The divine initiative is important.
The speaker adds that these are the true words of God, thus adding solemn emphasis. Some have wondered that these words should be thus singled out, for they do not appear to be more than usually noteworthy (some extend it to include all or part of chs.17—18). But they had great point for the church in the conditions in which she found herself. In the troubled days of persecution it did need emphasis that it was the persecuted saints who were blessed, not their persecutors.
10. John prostrated himself to worship the speaker. This means that he thought him divine (there are one or two places in the Old Testament where men prostrate themselves before angels, as Nu. 22:31, 1 Ch. 21:16; but these refer to homage, not worship).
There is no place in Christianity for the worship of any but God. John is immediately checked with ‘See not’ (hora me), where the abruptness lends emphasis to the prohibition. It is clear that some early Christians were tempted to worship angels (Col. 2:18). This passage rebukes and discourages the practice.
The angel links himself with John by calling himself a fellow-servant with you. There are not unimportant differences between angels and men, but the really significant thing is that they are both ‘servants’ (douloi) of their common Lord. The angel further belongs to those who hold to the testimony of Jesus, explained as the spirit of prophecy. There are ambiguities here. The testimony of Jesus might mean ’the testimony which Jesus bore’ (and is now committed to his servants), or it might mean ‘the testimony borne to Jesus’. If we take the former meaning, the meaning is that the message Jesus gave is the spirit, the heart of all prophecy. ‘Jesus and his revelation of God, which Paul calls “the mind of Christ”, is the content of the prophet’s message as it is of what John had been told to write in his book’ (Preston and Hanson). Or perhaps that message is the burden of the Spirit who inspired the prophets. If we accept the latter meaning, the significance is that the true spirit of prophecy always manifests itself in bearing witness to Jesus. The Old Testament prophets, New Testament prophets like John, angels: they all alike bear witness to the Son of God.
It is not easy to decide between these, and it is quite possible that the ambiguity is intentional. At any rate, both meanings are true, and we may profitably see both here. The angel makes one other point when he commands John to worship God. Worship is to be offered to him alone.