Revelation 4:2

Revelation 4:2. As the closing expression of Revelation 4:1 in the Authorised Version, after these things, is not necessary to complete the meaning of the clause to which it is at present added, it seems better to connect it with what follows at the beginning of the second verse. It thus constitutes a resumption of the same expression in Revelation 4:1, and introduces the true beginning of the visions to be described. St. John is prepared for them by passing into the spiritual or ecstatic state. Even in Revelation 4:1, indeed, he was in that state; but here, where the visions begin, there is a propriety in making special mention of the fact, and the word was , which is properly ‘became,' may be designed to call our attention to the renewal of the first vividness or fervour of his spiritual condition. Two things are seen: (1) A throne set in heaven (comp. Ezekiel 1:26-28). The verb ‘set' seems to express not merely that the throne was there, but that it was so by the Divine appointment and arrangement (comp. Jeremiah 24:1; Luke 2:34; John 2:6; John 20:5-7; Revelation 21:16). For the particular shape and aspect of the throne see on Revelation 4:6. (2) One sitting on the throne. It is not easy to determine who is meant. That the Sitter on the throne is neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is indeed obvious from the fact that in later verses He is distinguished from them both (chaps. Revelation 5:5; Revelation 5:13; Revelation 6:16). But is He the Father or the Triune God? Commentators generally adopt the former view, but there is much that may seem rather to determine in favour of the latter. The whole scene is founded upon Isaiah 6, where we have not only the throne high and lifted up, the seraphim, and the train filling the temple, but also the Trisagion, ‘Holy, holy, holy,' etc. The vision of Isaiah, however, is always justly regarded as one of the greatest adumbrations of the Trinity contained in the Old Testament (comp. especially Revelation 4:8, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us? '), so that we are thus naturally led to think now also of the Trinity. In addition, it has to be observed that one great distinction between the visions of chap. 4 and chap. 5 seems to lie in this, that in the former we have the Almighty presented to us as He is in Himself absolutely, that in the latter only are we directly introduced to the Covenant of grace in which we learn to know God as Father. Nor does it seem that there ought to be any peculiar difficulty in accepting this interpretation on the ground that the Son and the Holy Spirit are afterwards spoken of as if distinct from Him who occupied the throne. All that is contended for is, that God is here introduced to us as He is in Himself, and not according to that separation of hypostases or personalities revealed to us in other passages of Scripture. We deal as yet with the Divine Being as He exists in Himself, and with Him viewed in that light the conception of Trinity in Unity is fundamentally connected.