There is also an interesting juxtaposition between the devil’s wrath and that of God. When the devil, who is the accuser, is cast down from heaven, he comes upon the earth in “great wrath,” because he knows that his time is short (Rev 12.12). In contrast, Rev 15.7 speaks of the seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever. The devil’s wrath is temporary; his time is short. But the eternal God  has authority over the lake of fire, which will have torment “day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20.10).

Satan is a pitiful parody of the Most High God.

In preparing a sermon on Lord’s Day 12 for this Sunday (by way of Revelation 1 – which, by the way, focuses upon God’s people as servants in 1.1 and as a priesthood in 1.7), this got me reflecting on the question of how the high priest relates to this. If a priest is a palace servant, what is a “high” palace servant?

This in turn led me to think about the predominant Servant theme in Isaiah, a rabbit trail that turned out to be helpful, although I’m not entirely sure yet where to go with it.

In Isaiah 22.15ff, Shebna is the steward “over the household” of the king. He would therefore be the “high” palace servant, the equivalent of the high priest.

(The “steward” idea incidentally opens up all sorts of interesting tracks, such as Paul’s use of the stewardship theme and how that has possible priestly undertones.)

But what I’m more directly interested is how the high priest theme delineates the role of Christ. As Messiah, He is King, but the high priestly element of His anointing also makes Him the Chief Servant. Which is an apparent paradox that certainly bears reflection.

The whole Shebna – Eliakim relationship would also be interesting to examine.

In Is 22, Isaiah prophecies that the stewardship will be taken from Shebna and given to Eliakim; assuming chronological order (which I’m not entirely certain about) the encounter with the Rabshakeh occurs later (Is 37), at which time Eliakim is indeed “over the household” (2 Kg 18.18) – but Shebna is serving as scribe. It appears that although the prophecy is that Shebna will be hurled away violently (Is 22.17), in the meantime, he has become servant to his replacement.

Moreover, Eliakim is the son of the high priest, Hilkiah (2 Kg 22.4). Does this mean the heir apparent to the high priest in YHWH’s house also becomes the high priest in the king’s house? Apparently so, assuming Eliakim is Hilkiah’s eldest son.

As far as insight into how the office of royal steward helps us gain insight into the high priesthood, note that in 2 Kings, the steward/head of the royal household is delegated the task of conversing with the Rabshakeh – he serves as an emissary. Which I suppose brings us back to Isaiah again; the commission of the Servant frequently seems to carry “emissarial” responsibilities. Israel as Yahweh’s servant serves as “my witnesses” (Is 43.10). Yahweh in turn “confirms the word of His servant and fulfills the counsel of His messengers” (44.26).

Indeed, the role of high priest/palace servant/steward/emissary and the role of king seem to merge together into virtually indistinguishability in the case of the Servant. He is the One who “will bring forth justice to the nations” (Is 42.1). The Servant is the instrument of the regathering of Israel (49.5), but more, is “a light for the nations, that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49.6), and ultimately kings and princes themselves shall arise and prostrate themselves before this “servant of rulers” (49.7); Yahweh’s Servant “shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted” (52.13).

And of course, perhaps more familiar to us, the Servant will make many to be accounted righteous, and will bear their iniquities (53.11).

Additional notes:

Not specific to the “high” servant, but I think there is an implication of adoption for Yahweh’s servants in 65.15.

The steward, the scribe and the senior priests (37.2) are described as “the servants of King Hezekiah” in Isaiah 37.5. Not sure if that demonstrates equivalence, as it is frequent to describe a king’s subjects as his servants, but interesting.

In support of the notion that each church (or perhaps city?) is to be led by one single pastor or bishop, rather than by a plurality of elders, some of whom may preach, the angels of the seven churches in Revelation are often put forward. Each church/city was represented by one “angel” who was addressed, rather than a leadership group. Since “angel” (Greek aggelos) means “messenger,” it is suggested that these are the pastors or bishops of the churches.

Quite aside from the fact that I don’t think that aggelos in Scripture usually refers to human beings, I’ve long maintained that if “angels” in Revelation 2-3 refer to pastors/bishops, the same must be the case throughout the book, and I don’t believe that will hold.

In my recent reading of Revelation 12, I was struck by just how forceful this argument becomes when considering the evidence of that chapter.

Remember that when first introduced in Revelation, the churches are identified as lampstands, and the angels are identified as stars (Rev 1.12-20; the explicit identification is in v 20). I’ve long thought it strange that since the lampstands are “interpreted” with a common term (ekklesiai, churches) that the stars would be “interpreted” with an unusual, and arguably, a metaphorical one – if the pastor/bishop interpretation were the working assumption.

But Revelation 12 makes matters even more problematic for the interpretation in question. For here is the same identification of stars and angels, and unquestionably, not pastors or bishops are in view, but the angelic host which fell to Satan. In 12.4, we are told that the dragon swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. The chronology of the chapter indicates that this occurs before the advent of Christ, which takes place in verse 5. And then verses 7-9 refer to the casting down of the dragon and his angels after fighting Michael and his angels. (The double fall should not trouble us; Satan clearly fell in Genesis 3, but during the ministry of Jesus, He notes that He saw Satan fall like lightning in connection with His own work. It is probable that we should correlate Job 1 and Rev 12.10 – the former shows the accuser able somehow to address God in His heavenly dwelling, but the latter shows him cast down as a result of the war with Michael and his angels.)

I suggest that only the most obstinate could force the stars/angels of Revelation 12 to be speaking concerning pastors or bishops. Revelation’s terminology regarding angels is what it is in the majority of biblical instances: it refers to heavenly messengers, not human officebearers.

Of course, this does not help us specifically understand the role of such heavenly messengers in Rev 2-3. But I suspect that one of our big problems with those chapters has to do with a general reluctance to be serious about biblical angelology, which is much more robust than many of us care to admit.