2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
2. _Who bare record of the word of God._ Who bore witness to, or testified of (ἐμαρτύρησε) the word of God. He regarded himself merely as a _witness_ of what he had seen, and claimed only to make a fair and faithful _record_ of it. “This is the disciple which _testifieth_ (ὁ μαρτυρῶν) of these things, and wrote these things,” Jn. xxi. 24. “And he that saw it _bare record_”――μεμαρτύρηκε, Jn. xix. 35. Compare also the following places, where the apostle uses the same word of himself: 1 Jn. i. 2; iv. 14. The expression here, “_the word of God_,” is one the meaning of which has been much controverted, and is important in its bearing on the question who was the author of the book of Revelation. The main inquiry is, whether the writer refers to the “testimony” which he bears in this book respecting the “word of God;” or whether he refers to some testimony on that subject in some other book with which those to whom he wrote were so familiar that they would at once recognize him as the author; or whether he refers to the fact that he had borne his testimony to the great truths of religion, and especially respecting Jesus Christ, as a preacher who was well known, and who would be characterized by this expression. The phrase “the word of God”――τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ――occurs frequently in the New Testament (comp. Jn. x. 35; { 37} Ac. iv. 31; vi. 2, 7; xi. 1; xii. 24); and may either mean the word or doctrine _respecting_ God――that which teaches what God is――or that which he speaks or teaches. It is more commonly used in the latter sense (comp. the passages referred to above), and especially refers to what God speaks or commands in the gospel. The fair meaning of this expression would be, that John had borne faithful witness to, or testimony of, the truth which God had spoken to man in the gospel of Christ. So far as the _language_ here used is concerned, this might apply either to a written or an oral testimony; either to a treatise like that of his gospel, to his preaching, or to the record which he was then making. Vitringa and others suppose that the reference here is to the gospel which he had published, and which now bears his name; Lücke and others, to the revelation made to him in Patmos, the record of which he now makes in this book; Professor Stuart and others, to the fact that he was a teacher or preacher of the gospel, and that (comp. ver. 9) the allusion is to the testimony which he had borne to the gospel, and for which he was an exile in Patmos. Is it not possible that these conflicting opinions may be to some extent harmonized, by supposing that in the use of the aorist tense――ἐμαρτύρησε――the writer meant to refer to a characteristic of himself, to wit, that he was a faithful _witness_ of the word of God and of Jesus Christ, whenever and however made known to him? With an eye, perhaps, to the record which he was about to make in this book, and intending to include that, may he not also refer to what had been and was his well-known character as a _witness_ of what God communicated to him? He had always borne this testimony. He always regarded himself as such a witness. He had been an eyewitness of what had occurred in the life and at the death of the Saviour (see Notes on 2 Pe. i. 17, 18), and had, in all his writings and public administrations, borne witness to what he had seen and heard; for that (ver. 9) he had been banished to Patmos: and he was now about to carry out the same characteristic of himself by bearing witness to what he saw in these new revelations. This would be much in the manner of John, who often refers to this characteristic of himself (comp. Jn. xix. 35; xxi. 24; 1 Jn. i. 2), as well as harmonize the different opinions. The meaning, then, of the expression, “who bare record of the word of God,” as I understand it, is, that it was a characteristic of the writer to bear simple but faithful testimony to the truth which God communicated to men in the gospel. If this be the correct interpretation, it may be remarked, (a) that this is such language as John the apostle would be _likely_ to use, and yet (b) that it is not such language as an author would be likely to adopt if there was an attempt to forge a book in his name. The artifice would be too refined to occur probably to anyone, for although perfectly natural for John, it would not be so natural for a forger of a book to select this circumstance and weave it thus unostentatiously into his narrative. ¶ _And of the testimony of Jesus Christ._ That is, in accordance with the interpretation above, of the testimony _which Jesus Christ bore for the truth_; not of a testimony _respecting_ Jesus Christ.