A Type Pictured In Revelation Four

[Jerry]

Some of my thoughts the last couple of days as I have been digging deeper and meditating on the book of Revelation.

Yes, Scott, you are considering some of the possible meanings of the various colours now, but originally you questioned if or why they necessarily signified anything, and this verse comes to mind in that regard:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Several dictionaries, including Webster's 1828, state that to signify means to declare by signs (expressing in my own words). That in itself doesn't mean a particular person has the right meaning, just that to believe they DO symbolize something is in accordance with the phrase the above verse uses.

Second yes, I do agree 100% that it is the Father on the throne in chapters 4-5. Don't know how I missed that or did not specifically focus on it 17 years ago when I actually wrote out this explanation of that type. However, these verses come to mind:

Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

There is ONE throne the Father and the Son share throughout eternity (it does not say throneS, but throne). I agree that it is the Father on the throne in chapters four and five, and that according to various commentators the Old Testament shows these colours and stones represent various things about the Lord God (in Exodus and Ezekiel especially). But because this is also the throne that the Son will share after that point in the book of Revelation, I think that it is possible and even likely that those colours and stones also represent various things about the Son, as various commentators have pointed out by looking at the stones and colours on the breastplate of the high priest in the book of Exodus and the birth order of the children of Israel.

And for the sake of clarification, that also makes more sense as a type - as a type is looking at something in the Bible and bringing out a further picture or meaning, usually about the Messiah who would appear on the scene later (consider Abraham killing the ram in the place of his son and all the furniture and material of the tabernacle picturing the coming Messiah). A type is not the original person or event, it is something pictured by that person, place or thing. There are things about David and other Bible characters that picture the Messiah, but they are not the Messiah. To me, there are things about chapter four that picture the Son of God who would shortly after that point sit on that throne with God the Father.

(This last paragraph above were my thoughts now as I am typing this post out. If I have expressed myself in an unclear way or you think my attempted possible explanation is bad here, I won't be offended. It makes sense to me as I am typing it out - but maybe I am out to lunch or need to ponder it a little bit more. This is overall a small study/idea I have passed on to a few people years ago and was just reminded of recently. If others don't agree, so be it. I have come to realize it is God the Father on the throne here - regardless of what I might have thought years ago by perhaps not fully considering the context of the next chapter too. Maybe I won't use this "study" in the future after our interaction here, or at least not without editing or clarifying what I wrote. I appreciate the interaction in this thread - and yes, I did create this thread because I personally realized something was off about at least one part of my conclusion when I was reading a commentary recently. If I cannot use these ideas without confusion or major clarification, then maybe I won't use these ideas - not sure yet. I will ask Jesus when I get to heaven if I was off on the general idea or picture presented or not.)

Edited February 18, 2022 by Jerry

[Pastor Scott Markle]

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

Yes, Scott, you are considering some of the possible meanings of the various colours now, but originally you questioned if or why they necessarily signified anything, and this verse comes to mind in that regard:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Several dictionaries, including Webster's 1828, state that to signify means to declare by signs (expressing in my own words). That in itself doesn't mean a particular person has the right meaning, just that to believe they DO symbolize something is in accordance with the phrase the above verse uses.

Brother Jerry,

I pray that you understand that while I have expressed some disagreement, questions, and arguments against your originally position, I have NOT done so with any desire to "attack" you.  

Concerning the word "signified" in Revelation 1:1, I am aware of its usage therein and of its meaning; however, I do not necessarily believe that the inclusion of the word "signified" in Revelation 1:1 is intended to mean that everything throughout the Book of the Revelation is symbolic.  I believe that some of that which is presented in the book means directly what it says without any intended symbolism.

Concerning the idea of symbolism in the colors of Revelation 4:3, I became convinced that some symbolism was intended through a comparison with Revelation 21:11.  Your interactions with me did indeed "push" me to greater study and consideration of this matter.  For that I express my appreciation.

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

Second yes, I do agree 100% that it is the Father on the throne in chapters 4-5. Don't know how I missed that or did not specifically focus on it 17 years ago when I actually wrote out this explanation of that type.

I appreciate your recognition of this contextual point and your acknowledgement of "growth" in this regard.

3 hours ago, Jerry said:

However, these verses come to mind:

Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

There is ONE throne the Father and the Son share throughout eternity (it does not say throneS, but throne). I agree that it is the Father on the throne in chapters four and five, and that according to various commentators the Old Testament shows these colours and stones represent various things about the Lord God (in Exodus and Ezekiel especially). But because this is also the throne that the Son will share after that point in the book of Revelation, I think that it is possible and even likely that those colours and stones also represent various things about the Son, as various commentators have pointed out by looking at the stones and colours on the breastplate of the high priest in the book of Exodus and the birth order of the children of Israel.

In my recent studies I did indeed take note of those verses in Revelation 22.  In fact, I did a word study of the word "throne(s)" throughout the Book of the Revelation.  Through that study it appears to me that the One sitting upon the throne continues to be God the Father throughout the entire book, until the coming of the new heaven, new earth, and New Jerusalem.  Then it appears that the throne (singular) is "possessed" by BOTH the Father and the Son.  I DID find that a bit instructive.  (On the other hand, I am not aware of any passage anywhere throughout Scripture which placed God the Holy Spirit UPON a throne.)

[Jerry]

No, I did not feel attacked at all. I also agree that there are many literal events and things described in the book of Revelation - often something literal going on with perhaps some symbolism to describe certain aspects of it. Like chapter 1, John literally saw the Lord Jesus Christ walking in the midst of the churches, but the description of Him contains many symbols that are traced throughout the Bible. Chapter four and five are literal about the person on the throne being worshipped by the elders and the living beasts, and then giving the scroll to the Lamb that was worthy to take it, and the Holy Spirit being before the throne - some of the descriptions are symbolic (example, seven Spirits being symbolic of the sevenfold Holy Spirit that we see referred to in Isaiah 11).

Yes, I didn't agree with McGee's comment about the three members of the Trinity being on the throne - the Bible only ever referred to the Father and the Son on the throne.

In regards to the Son being on the throne in Revelation 22, is He not reigning on the throne during the events of the Tribulation (which had not yet unfolded in chapters 4-5) and the Millennium to come? I found another reference to the throne in chapter 3:

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Though I admit, here it sounds like different thrones - one He reigns with His Father (which it already sounds like He is currently reigning on, going by the wording, as this is written to the churches/occuring during the church age), and the throne we will share will Christ. This verse I need to study out more.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Jerry

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 hours ago, Jerry said:

I found another reference to the throne in chapter 3:

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Though I admit, here it sounds like different thrones - one He reigns with His Father (which it already sounds like He is currently reigning on, going by the wording, as this is written to the churches/occuring during the church age), and the throne we will share will Christ. This verse I need to study out more.

In my word study throughout the Book of the Revelation for the word "throne(s)," I also took notice of Revelation 3:21.  My present understanding for Revelation 3:21 is that our Lord Jesus was not talking herein about the same throne "seat," but was talking about the same throne "authority."  Frist, I would see this as a correlation with other New Testament passages wherein we learn that at His exaltation our Lord Jesus Christ "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (See Hebrews 1:3, etc.)  Second, our Lord's statement in Revelation 3:21 indicates that we believers might be granted to sit with Him in His throne in the same manner that He is (presently) set down with God the Father in God the Father's throne.  If we take the second part as meaning that the central throne of heavenly is singular with both God the Son and God the Father sitting upon that one same throne, then we would also have the possibility that we believers could also sit with God the Son (and thus also God the Father) upon that same singular, central heavenly throne.  To me this does NOT seem to fit with the rest of Scripture.  On the other hand, if we take the statement of Revelation 3:21 as meaning, not the same throne "seat," but the same throne "authority," then we can correlate the second half of the verse with God the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father; and we can correlate the first half of the verse with passages such as 2 Timothy 2:12 & Revelation 20:4.

13 hours ago, Jerry said:

In regards to the Son being on the throne in Revelation 22, is He not reigning on the throne during the events of the Tribulation (which had not yet unfolded in chapters 4-5) and the Millennium to come?

From my understanding the Tribulation Period is presented throughout Revelation 6-19.  Within those chapters the One sitting upon the throne appears to be still God the Father, with God the Son still standing in the midst of the throne. (See Revelation 6:16; 7:9-17; 12:5; 14:1-5; 16:17; 19:4-5.

On the other hand, Scripture does teach us that God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, WILL reign from His throne in Jerusalem throughout the Millenium.  In the Book of the Revelation this would correlate with Revelation 20:4.  Yet I would contend that this is not presented as God the Father's throne in heaven, but as God the Son's throne on earth. 

[Jerry]

In the midst of the throne is a phrase that without looking it up seems to indicate Jesus is in the middle of the throne (which is how I basically took some of those passages in the past) - but looking up a couple of dictionary definitions (in the middle, surrounded by), and seeing what else was in the midst of the throne (the beasts), I can see it also indicating the idea of being around or by something.

Revelation 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

The point about sharing the authority of the throne, rather than physically sharing the throne makes a lot of sense.

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

On the other hand, Scripture does teach us that God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, WILL reign from His throne in Jerusalem throughout the Millenium.  In the Book of the Revelation this would correlate with Revelation 20:4.  Yet I would contend that this is not presented as God the Father's throne in heaven, but as God the Son's throne on earth. 

Yes, I can see that.

[Jerry]

How about this - would you agree that this is a possibility of how the symbolism can fit the Lord Jesus Christ without Him being the one on the throne, BUT the one that is on the heart of God as He gets ready to judge this world? He looks at us through His Son, sees true believers in the righteousness of His Son, loves us as He loves His Son, so I think that this is a good possible interpretation/conclusion as to what those stone colours could symbolize. This quote comes from John Phillips commentary on Revelation (Exploring Revelation):

Put the jasper and the sardius stones together, and they suggest the humanity connected to the government of God. The high priest of Israel was commanded to wear a breastplate studded with twelve precious stones engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel (Ex. 28:17, 20). Thus, symbolically the people were ever to be upon his heart, the place of affection and love. The first and last of these stones was the jasper and the sardius. The mention of the jasper and the sardius in connection with the throne of God is a beautiful reminder that although there is an element of hardness and holiness inevitable in the judgment of God, those qualities, fearful in themselves, are not divorced from humanity. The One to whom all judgment will be given is Himself both God and man (John 5:22, 27).

Back to my comments. After this, is the mention of the rainbow encircling the throne in colour like an emerald. Yes, it certainly brings us back to Genesis 9 - and in wrath, God is remembering His mercy. If the other stone colours point to Christ, then the emerald here also points to the Messiah from the tribe of Judah, who already paid the price of our sins and bore God's wrath in the believer's place. This indicating even in the midst of all the judgements being poured out on the earth, the Father remembers His Son who died for our sins and He will have mercy on all those who repent and turn to the Saviour even in the darkest time in earth's history.

Seems a possible/reasonable conclusion to me that fits the symbolism without trying to make it indicate in any way that it is the Son on the throne in chapters 4-5, yet it is still symbolic of Him being He is on His Father's heart as God prepares to pour His judgements on this world. What do you think?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

32 minutes ago, Jerry said:

What do you think?

I have read this and will consider it more.  At present there are some elements that do not "feel" quite right, but I believe it does move the thought process closer to accurate.  (Note: I am not providing more at this point because I am not sure that I can clearly communicate what does not quite "feel" right, or clearly communicate what would be better.)

[Jerry]

That's ok if you are unsure about this. I am resolved to not use or pass on this type anymore unless I am on solid ground with it. If there are aspects of it that are grasping at straws or seemingly appear as guesswork, I won't use it. While types in the Bible involve studying them out, they are not made up fancies, but pictures the Lord God put in there to teach something (usually about the Messiah, though not always). If I or others have to arrive at a picture/type by stretching things or applying things in an unjustified manner, then perhaps that type is actually not in God's Word, but in our imaginations (kind of like what I see that youtube pastor Mike Hoggard presenting!!).

Again, I truly do thank you for all your input.

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

That's ok if you are unsure about this. I am resolved to not use or pass on this type anymore unless I am on solid ground with it. If there are aspects of it that are grasping at straws or seemingly appear as guesswork, I won't use it. While types in the Bible involve studying them out, they are not made up fancies, but pictures the Lord God put in there to teach something (usually about the Messiah, though not always). If I or others have to arrive at a picture/type by stretching things or applying things in an unjustified manner, then perhaps that type is actually not in God's Word, but in our imaginations (kind of like what I see that youtube pastor Mike Hoggard presenting!!).

Again, I truly do thank you for all your input.

There's nothing wrong with what you or Mike Hoggard (his candlestick typology) have come up with. None of it contradicts existing doctrine. They are types or spiritual applications. Now, if you came up with some wild similitude which was not "similar" at all to anything in scripture then erected a new doctrine upon it then you would be wresting scripture. Don't toss out your fine typology here because you don't want to admit you are wrong about Hoggard.

[Jerry]

A type is something pictured by something in a passage. To make something randomly mean or picture something else is not a type. The lampstands or candlesticks in Revelation and in the construction of the tabernacle do not randomly picture the Bible because someone counted 66 parts. Nothing in the passage is even referring to written revelation or a Book. That is hogwash!

Edited February 25, 2022 by Jerry

[Jerry]

For those interested in this theme, here is an interesting message that deals with a little of what we were discussing in this thread. I do not know enough about this preacher to recommend him or not yet, but this message was good: https://youtu.be/DnS8mTN24XA

[BrotherTony]

27 minutes ago, Jerry said:

For those interested in this theme, here is an interesting message that deals with a little of what we were discussing in this thread. I do not know enough about this preacher to recommend him or not yet, but this message was good: https://youtu.be/DnS8mTN24XA

I've listened to him several times over the last year or so, and I've never found anything questionable.

[Napsterdad]

53 minutes ago, Jerry said:

For those interested in this theme, here is an interesting message that deals with a little of what we were discussing in this thread. I do not know enough about this preacher to recommend him or not yet, but this message was good: https://youtu.be/DnS8mTN24XA

James Knox is excellent. My family and I are currently going through this series (we're just finished video 8). We have listened to quite a few of his audio series' and have a number of his books. My last church would have Pastor Knox up every year for our Bible conference. I believe they still do. The man knows the Bible and is a very active evangelist. He is the pastor of Bible Baptist Church in Deland, FL.