Revelations on Revelation Commentary Collection

Table of Contents

Click to jump to chapter.

• Overview to Revelation
• Specific Introduction to Chapter 1 
• Chapter 1:1-2
• Chapter 1:3
• Chapter 1:4-6
• Chapter 1:7
• Chapter 1:8
• Chapter 1:9
• Chapter 1:10-12
• Chapter 1:13-16
• Chapter 1:17
• Chapter 1:18
• Chapter 1:19-20

Overview to Revelation

Generally speaking, there are four main views or ways people read or interpret the Book of Revelation.  Perhaps the easiest way to summarize these four main views would be:

• The Idealist View means the contents of the revelation will never to be fulfilled.
• The Preterist View means that the contents of the revelation has been fulfilled.
• The Historicist View means that the contents of the revelation is being fulfilled, and
• The Futurist View means that the contents of the revelation will someday be fulfilled.

To make matter more confusing, within each of these views lies an innumerable number of sub-stances people take which further divides the body on perspective and interpretation of this quixotic work.

The Idealist view of Revelation essentially teaches that the book is allegorical and must be read through spiritualized eyes and not assigning actuality of the contents to the events described.

The Preterist view – both partial and full – which say that the contents of Revelation was written to the Seven Churches of that day and that most (partial) or all (full) of its contents described occurred prior to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army. The main differences between the partial and full Preterist positions might be that partial Preterists believe the contents of Revelation have been fulfilled up to chapters 20, 21 and 22 and full preterists believe the entire book is complete.

The Historicist view suggests that themes and events of the Revelation are being played out over the course of Christian history, and even repeated in some cases.  Elements of the Historicist view can be quite compelling as it teaches that Revelation is a symbolic representation of the course of Christian history (beginning with the age of the apostles and working its way through to the end of the Christian age - or what historicists believe would be the end of the world). 

As an example, when we get to the actual seven churches mentioned in the book, a historicist would see them as representing a period of time (or age) in church history.  So instead of Jesus having John speak to an actual Church at Ephesus, a Historicist would see . . .

• The age of Ephesus is representing the apostolic age.
• The age of Smyrna is the persecution of the Church through AD 313.
• The age of Pergamus is the compromised Church lasting until AD 500.
• The age of Thyatira is the rise of the papacy to the Reformation.
• The age of Sardis is the age of the Reformation.
• The age of Philadelphia is the age of evangelism.
• The age of Laodicea represents liberal churches in a "present day" context.

Admittedly, this interpretation can reasonably fit and it goes without saying that most historicist interpreters place the events of our day as being described in the later chapters of Revelation.  Were we to examine the actual chapters of Revelation a historicist might say that . . .

• Chapters 1-3 present the seven periods in church history. 
• The breaking of the seals in chapters 4-7 symbolizes the fall of the Roman Empire. 
• The Trumpet judgments in chapters 8-10 represent the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Vandals, Huns, Saracens, and Turks. 
• Then among Protestant historicists of the Reformation, the antichrist in Revelation was believed to be the Catholic papacy. 
• Chapters 11-13 in Revelation represent the true church in its struggle against Roman Catholicism. 
• The bowl judgments of Revelation 14-16 represent God’s judgment on the Catholic Church, culminating in the future overthrow of Catholicism depicted in chapters 17-19.
• And of course, like the partial preterist suggest, chapters 20-22 describe the end of all things. 

John Walvoord, scholar and one-time President of Dallas Theological Seminary points out the severe lack of agreement among historicists saying,

“As many as fifty different interpretations of the book of Revelation therefore evolve, depending on the time and circumstances of the expositor.”

Over a hundred years ago Moses Stuart made the same complaint, saying:

“Hithertho, scarcely any two original and independent expositors have agreed, in respect to some points very important in their bearing upon the interpretation of the book.” 

Another problem with the historicist view is it focuses mostly on the events of the church in Western Europe and says very little about the church in the East.  Thus, its narrow scope fails to account for God’s activity throughout Asia and the rest of the world. Also, this view would have little significance for the church of the first century whom John was addressing meaning it is highly unlikely that believers in that day would have been able to interpret Revelation as the historical approach suggests.

Prominent scholars who held this view include John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther (though he questioned the validity of the book all together), John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry.  It was a view that obviously came into prominence during the Protestant Reformation because of its identification of the pope and the papacy with the beasts of Revelation 13. 

However, it seems that since the beginning of the twentieth century, the historicist view has declined in popularity and influence as futurism has become a more widely accepted perspective in the last 100 years or so.  Before speaking to the futurist view, an observation about it:

The futurist seems to attract people who have a need to project their fears and desires right into the text making the text immediately “applicable” to whomever is reading it at whatever point in history. This is supported by the fact that thousands of modern events have been assigned to the book and have proven to have no application at all. Nevertheless, the Futurist view appears to have more legs than any other view on earth today.

It has been said that a futurist reads the Bible “with a newspaper in their hands.”  It takes and teaches that the events of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation (chapters 4-22) will occur (obviously) in the future.  Futurist divide the book of Revelation into three general sections which John lays out in verse 19 of chapter one, saying: 

“what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” 

To the futurist, Chapter 1 describes the past (“what you have seen”), chapters 2-3 describe the present (“what is now”), and the rest of the book describes future events (“what will take place later”).  

Futurists apply what is called a literal approach to interpreting Revelation.  Admittedly, this approach can make some sense – especially with “a newspaper in the other hand.”

So, as said, chapter 1 describes “what was seen,” chapters 2-3 are “what is now” but then chapters 4-19 refer to a period known as the seven-year tribulation and are related to the Book of Daniel 9:27.  Some futurists believe that the righteous will escape the contents of verses 4-19 (are known as “Pre-tribbers”) meaning that they will be raptured before the tribulation described in chapters 4-19.  Others who see believers being saved after the tribulation are called “post-tribbers.” During the tribulation they say that God’s judgments are actually poured out upon mankind which are described in the book as “seals, trumpets, and bowls.” 

To a futurist chapter 13 describes a literal future world empire headed by a political leader and a religious leader that are represented by two beasts.  Chapter 17 pictures a harlot (who represents the church in apostasy) and chapter 19 refers to Christ’s second coming and the battle of Armageddon followed by a literal thousand-year rule of Christ upon the earth (which is seen in chapter 20).  Finally, chapters 21-22 are events that follow the millennium which the Futurist sees as the creation of a literally “new heaven and a new earth” with the arrival of the heavenly city upon the earth.

Again, futurists argue that a consistently literal or “plain interpretation” is to be applied in understanding the book of Revelation.  Literal interpretation of the Bible means to explain the original sense, or meaning, of the Bible according to the normal customary usage of its language.  This means applying the rules of grammar, staying consistent with the historical framework and the context of the writing.  Literal interpretation does not necessarily discount figurative or symbolic language but we already have seen that even the futurists attempts at remaining literal are impossible with this book as they believe “this and such” represents “thus and this.” That being said, Futurists teach that prophecies using “symbolic language” are also to be normally interpreted according to the laws of language.   J. P. Lange, a Calvinist Theologian of old stated,

“The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted – that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded.”

Charles Ryrie, a proponent of premillinialist dispensationalism and Professor at Dallas said:

“Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader." 

While futurists will acknowledge the use of figures and symbols in the Revelation, they say that when figurative language is used a person must look at the context to find the meaning. At the same time, they maintain that figurative language does not justify allegorical interpretation. The key to knowing how to literally interpret figurative symbolism for the Futurist often comes from an understanding of the ancient church fathers. 

For example, the idea of a future millennial kingdom is found in the writings of Clement of Rome (AD 96), Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Irenaeus (AD 115-202), Tertullian (AD 150-225) and others. 

Futurists maintain that the “church fathers” taught a literal interpretation of Revelation until Origen (AD 185-254) who was the one who introduced allegorical (Idealist) interpretation. This then became the popular form of interpretation and was taught by Augustine (AD 354-430).  The Futurist maintains that the literal interpretation of Revelation was a constant throughout the history of the church but rose again to prominence in this the modern era.  

One of the most popular versions on futurist teaching is called dispensational theology, promoted by schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute.  Theologians such as Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost are noted scholars of this position.  Again, one of the drawbacks to the Futurist position occur when people apply the futurist approach to current events to the symbols in Revelation.  This habit has become a constant embarrassment to the body.  Additionally, many – for over a thousand years - have actually been involved in setting dates of Christ’s return!  

Additionally, one of the major problems with the Futurist view is that in most ways it renders the contents of the book irrelevant to the original readers from the first century.  In other words, why would the Revelation begin by saying it was to the actual, literal “seven churches” but 80% of its contents have nothing to do with them/then, their lives or their age?

Another criticism of the Futuristic views is that Revelation is obviously apocalyptic literature and was thus meant to be interpreted allegorically or symbolically rather than literally.  Bible enthusiast Hank Hanegraaff makes an interesting point, saying, 

“When a Biblical writer uses a symbol or an allegory, we do violence to his intentions if we interpret it in a strictly literal manner.”

So, these are the four views of Revelation – the Idealist, the Preterist, the Historicist and the Futurist.  Perhaps there is another view that has never really found a real home in the hearts of Christians today and it’s time to consider it?  We might call it the, “we-ought-to-question-the books-place-in-the-word-in-the-first-place” view.

Because we live in a time where Bible worship is almost as fervent as Jesus worship, this view is unlikely to ever get legs, but let’s include it in our scope for the following reasons:

• Eusbius’s words and Luther’s words.  And, 
• What may be seen as a general fail in terms of overall application, consistence and value to the modern reader.

First, to Luther’s views of the book.  A simple online search will provide the specifics but to summarize, the following was printed in his preface to the Revelation of St. John 1522:

“Christ is neither taught nor known in it.”

Of course, this is hyperbole, and the intent must have been to say that the Christ of the Apostolic Record, the Jesus believers have come to know and love, is missing.  Admittedly, one of the things about the Word of God that is beautiful is the utter consistency of its central message of God’s grace to Man.  We discover (through studies) a consistency to the New Testament books but presently this consistency is lacking in the Book of Revelation. Additionally, where there is consistency between the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John I again fail to see a consistency in the book ascribed as coming from his hand in the Book of Revelation – both through linguistic comparison (of the Greek) or in the tenor or tone of the message given.

In some beneficial ways the Book of Revelation fully addresses the completion of a very Jewish Age – which is why it’s message is so consistent with books of the Old Testament like Daniel and Ezekiel.  However, is the book consistent with the teachings of God made flesh (Jesus of Nazareth)?  Is it consistent with the Message of Paul to the Gentile world? This is one reason why its authorship may be in question;  it appears, in many ways, to be the workmanship of a Jew and not a Jew converted to Christ (especially a Jew converted to Christ who was one of His main apostles known as the Beloved).  We might begin our examination of Revelation through this view by asking these questions as we read through its contents:

1. Would Jesus demand little children to die because their parents sinned?

2. Would Jesus and or Paul change salvation by faith back to salvation by works/righteousness?

3. Would Jesus direct his disciples to rule with an "iron rod" instead of with love and forgiveness like He taught them?

4. Would Jesus vomit you (and me) out of the Kingdom of God for being a little warm and not red hot in our faith-walk? 

5. Would Jesus send us to hell for not believing every word of the Book of Revelation, revoking his promise to “never leave us and to be with us forever?” (This was one of Luther’s complaints of the Book – that the author made this book more important than any other book in scripture.)  And  . . . 

6. Would Jesus tell you he is coming soon . . . and then not come?

Really think about this – believers are thoroughly commanded to believe and love and trust in God’s GRACE – but are told here that if (in a time of trial and utter desperation) they accept a mark in our flesh as a means to materially survive (to buy and sell goods) they will lose their salvation and there is no way out?

When we compare Revelation to the message of the Gospels and Epistles we might again wonder about its consistency.  The peace that is present  in the messages of the gospels and the epistles is almost lost when we consider the words of Jesus to the seven Churches. He is not the Jesus we normally recognize.  Perhaps something is being lost in translation – we’ll find out.  Nevertheless a simple reading of Revelation shows its contents directly disputes all twenty-six books preceding it.  Putting it another way (a much more troubling way, frankly) Revelation teaches opinions and attitudes contrary to those of Jesus and his Apostles – especially Paul.  

That the Book of Revelation was always accepted in early Christianity is only partially true.  One of the most well studied and well-read apologists of Christianity, Nathaniel Lardner, who lived from 1684 to 1768, took a serious look at early church support for the book.  This is a summary of what he discovered:

"We are now come to the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation; about which there have been different sentiments among Christians; many receiving it as the writing of John the apostle and evangelist, others ascribing it to John a presbyter, others to Cerinthus, and some rejecting it, without knowing to whom it should be ascribed. I shall therefore here rehearse the testimony of ancient Christians, as it arises in several ages. 

"It is probable that Hermas read the book of the Revelation, and imitated it; he has many things resembling it.  It is referred to by the martyrs at Lyons. There is reason to think it was received by Papias. Justin Martyr, about the year 140, was acquainted with this book, and received it as written by the Apostle John; for, in his dialogue with Trypho, he expressly says: 

'A man from among us, by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the revelation made to him, has prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all together.  To this passage we suppose Eusebius to refer in his ecclesiastical history, when giving an account of Justin's works, he observes to this purpose.  He also mentions the Revelation of John, expressly calling it the apostle's.  Among the works of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven Churches of Asia, about the year 177, Eusebius mentions one entitled, 'Of the Revelation of John.' 

It is very probable that Melito ascribed this book to the apostle of that name, and esteemed it of canonical authority.  Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about A.D. 178, who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, often quotes this book as the Revelation of John, the apostle of the Lord.  And in one place he says: 'It was seen not long ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' 

"Theophilus was bishop of Antioch about 181. Eusebius, speaking of a work of his against the heresy of Hermogenes, says: 

'He therein made use of testimonies, or quoted passages, from John's Apocalypse.

The book of the Revelation is several times quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about 194; and once in this manner (saying): 

'Such a one, though here on earth he is not honored with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.' 

Tertullian, about the year 200, often quotes the Revelation, and supposes it to have been written by St. John, the same who wrote the First Epistle of John, universally received: 

'Again, the Apostle John describes, in the Apocalypse, a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.' He also says: 'We have Churches that are the disciples of John. For though Marcion rejects the Revelation, the succession of bishops, traced to the original, will assure us that John is the author: “by John undoubtedly meaning the apostle.” 

Lardner continues . . .

"From Eusebius we learn that Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanists about 211, quoted the Revelation. By Caius, about 212, it was ascribed to Cerinthus: it was received by Hippolytus about 220, and by Origen about 230. It is often quoted by him.  He seems not to have had any doubt about its genuineness. In his Commentary upon St. John's gospel, he speaks of it in this manner: 

'Therefore John, the son of Zebedee, says in the Revelation.' 

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about 247, or somewhat later, wrote a book against “the Millenarians,” in which he allows the Revelation to be written by John, a holy and divinely inspired man. But he says, 'He cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, whose is the gospel according to John, and the catholic epistle.' 

He rather thinks it may be the work of “John an elder,” who also lived at Ephesus in Asia, as well as the apostle.  It also appears, from a conference which Dionysius had with some Millenarians, that the Revelation was, about 240 and before, received by Nepus, an Egyptian bishop, and by many others in that country; and that it was in great reputation. 

It was received by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about 248, and by the Church of Rome in his time, and by many Latin authors.  The Revelation was received by Novatus and his followers, and by various other authors.  It is also probable that it was received by the Manichees. It was received by Lactantius, and by the Donatists; by the latter Arnobius about 460, and by the Arians. 

So, there is the “early support” mentioned.  But let’s read on as Lardner adds:

"In the time of Eusebius, in the former part of the fourth century, it was by some not received at all; and therefore it is reckoned by him among contradicted books.  Nevertheless, it was generally received. Eusebius himself seems to have hesitated about it, for he says: 

'It is likely the Revelation was seen by John the elder, if not by John the apostle.' 

It may be reckoned probable that the critical argument of Dionysius of Alexandria was of great weight with him and others of that time. The Revelation was received by Athanasius, and by Epiphanius; but we also learn from him that it was not received by all in his time.  It is not in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, and seems not to have been received by him. It is also wanting in the catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, about 363. 

"The Revelation is not in Gregory Nazianzen's catalogue; however, it seems to have been received by him.  It is in the catalogue of Amphilochius; but he says it was not received by all. It is also omitted in Ebedjesus' catalogue of the books of Scripture received by the Syrians; nor is it in the ancient Syriac version.  "It was received by Jerome; but he says it was rejected by the Greek Christians. It was received by Rufin, by the third Council of Carthage, and by Augustine, but it was not received by all in his time.  It is never quoted by Chrysostom, and probably was not received by him. It is in the catalogue of Dionysius, (called the Areopagite) about 490. 

It is in the Alexandrian MS. It was received by Sulpicius Severus about 401; and by J. Damascenus, and by OEcumenius, and by many other authors. Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, at the end of the fifth century, and Arethas, bishop of the same place, in the sixth century, wrote commentaries upon it. But it was not received by Severian, bishop of Gabala; nor, as it seems, by Theodoret. Upon the whole, it appears that this book has been generally received in all ages, though some have doubted of it, and rejected it; particularly the Syrians, and some other Christians in the east. 

In the end, Revelation wasn’t generally accepted as canon or beneficial until the year 508 AD.  Some ancient Christian branches still do not include it in their Bibles.  So, from both Luther’s comments about the Book, this information on the Eastern Church and the fact that it was not fully embraced, we can see that criticism of “Revelation” is not new and is not necessarily a disrespectful or heretical stance. 

Its acceptance by the Roman Church does nothing to change the uncertainty about it expressed both in the early Eastern church and then later in the Protestant reformation. So again, sixty-five years before Jerome included it into the Vulgate, Eusebius had rejected it.

In modern times, computer analysis of "Revelation's" style and content strongly report that compared to all of John’s other writings it has a different author.  But even without knowledge of this history or the presently available computer analysis, simple observation of content shows that "Revelation" differs from the Gospel accounts. In fact, most everything in this book opposes the Gospel of Jesus in terms of personality, tone, words, ways, and teachings.  Some of the most glaring distinctions found in the book include the following: 

• At the beginning of the Revelation we are told about seven spirits before Jesus’ throne. Spirit is almost always singular (and good) in terms of the Holy Spirit and the only place in scripture were spirit is plural is when they are described as unholy. 
• Jesus in Revelation tells John that he is “the Alpha and Omega.”   This is a new phrase to the Bible and something Jesus never said before. But John the Apostle, in his Gospel, already taught that, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made flesh.”  John the Apostle didn’t really need any more information or explanation about Jesus’ nature, did he?
• We might wonder why John the Apostle would faint (1:17-19) upon seeing Jesus.   This is a man who had been with Him throughout his ministry, crucifixion and after the Resurrection.  He ate with Jesus and was show His wounds.  Why would John the Apostle be frightened by seeing Jesus again? (perhaps because here he was truly being revealed?) And then why does Jesus tell John what he has done (1:18) when John the Apostle has already written this in his Gospel? Does the strange description of Jesus (Rev. 1: 12-16) match up with the Jesus of the Gospels?
• Also, John’s predictions are addressed only to the seven churches in Asia, and not to the whole church, the Church Universal – the whole body of Christ.  So, why are these verses universalized and assumed to apply to the whole church and why do individual Christians assume they apply to themselves? 
• Additionally, if the predicted event of Jesus' bodily return did not happen to those seven churches in or near that time (five times the revelation tells the believers then that Jesus was going to come quickly) this is a false prophecy.
• Then there is the idea of group judgement (a very Hebrew ideal) when Jesus speaks to the Seven Churches.  Here believers are judged collectively, by association, and not as individuals.  That is a very different message from Romans 14 description of every man standing before the judge.
• Then, consider Jesus actual words to the Seven Churches: 

Smyrna (2:9) must remain “faithful to the death to deserve salvation” but Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, thus he shall die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” (John 11: 25,26). 

To the church at Pergamum Satan has that territory and though they “held fast and did not deny Jesus during persecutions,” Jesus rebukes them “for eating food sacrificed to idols.” 

Does that sound Jesus like?  Worst yet, Paul says in 1^st Corinthians 8 that eating what was sacrifices to idols was permitted and Jesus Himself made it perfectly clear that “it is not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles a man.”  Which is it?

Going on to Thyatira, this church has love, patience, faith, service and patient endurance. But Jesus says that this is not enough.  They have a bad woman in their midst who causing immoral acts and the eating of food that has been sacrificed to Idols. Here Jesus promised to kill any children born from adultery with her. 

Again, Revelation Jesus will reward those who avoid this Jezebel and who will turn into hard and mean rulers (2:24-28) ruling with “rods of Iron!" 

At Sardis the church is judged for being dead because it lacks for works. If their works do not improve, Jesus will come undetected and save only those in Sardis who have good works.  Of course, this is a contradiction of the Good News that says salvation is by works and not by faith.  This is also a revocation of Jesus promise to never leave us, and to be with us until the end of time. (Matthew 28:20)  

The Church at Philadelphia has done everything right according to Jesus. They have endured patiently. If they will just keep on enduring, they will receive their reward.  Reward here is based on continuous enduring rather than faith. Again it is only these who continue to endure that Patmos’ Jesus will save.  How do they fail to endure?  Those who cannot handle persecutions are condemned and outside the blessing of salvation.  Laodicea is a church neither hot nor cold so Jesus will vomit the lukewarm Christians out of his mouth – expelling them from the body of Christ  - apparently sending them to hell.  But in the Gospel of John Jesus says that He will “draw all men unto him,” whih I interpret to mean even “lukewarm” Christians.

Quite the contrary, “Revelation Jesus” qualifies whom he will bless by their works with their endurance being the measurement by which they are deemed worthy to be saved and to remain saved.  

Unquestionably, and throughout the Book of Revelation salvation and safety are the product of works not grace by faith. Quite frankly the result of “Revelation’s” doctrines is that no one can know their status with God until they are raised from the dead and judged.  Then there is the “extravagant threat” that says in effect that unless every word is believed and accepted unsalvation awaits. This threat has absolutely no New Testament precedence.  

Next, why did God allow the Revelation into the New Testament canon? We will take a guess on the answer to this – once the study is done.  Believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God, many do not dare analyze its contents as has been done in this introduction and will be done throughout the verse by verse study. Few read it critically. But it seems necessary that all Bible believing people must ask themselves:

“How can any believer seeking to live by faith and love take the contents of "Revelation" seriously in this modern age?  It has never made complete sense to anyone on earth and its content does not bring in a spirit of unity and love to the reader!   How can it be useful if it is not understood and only brings disputing and division? Is it possible that the presence of "Revelation" is included in the Apostolic Record to serve as a literal history lesson which shows us the type of person that was contesting and contending with Paul about the nature of the Gospel?  After all the book does smack of coming from the party “of the Circumcised,” who sought to have the Jewish traditions to be continued in the Body of Christ, and who harassed Paul to have their way accepted.  Do we hear the Masters voice in the book?   Are we a more loving and patient follower of Christ after reading its contents? Are we encouraged and filled with faith or discouraged and filled with fear as a result of reading it?   Could it be that all Christians ought to know enough about Jesus and Christianity that by the time they reach "Revelation," they ought to realize it contradicts the rest of the New Testament, and perhaps even the Jesus they have come to know and love?  Could it be that "Revelation" is given to us as a written example of “a false prophet and a false Christ” for our own protection?   That it presents to us a being to reject while retaining a heart for our loving King?

These questions are not opinions – they are questions which will ultimately serve to help ever seeker to better know the validity of this book – or its obsolescence.

                                                                     _________

One of the key elements in the thriving debates around Revelation, particularly between preterists and futurists, is the date of writing for Revelation.  Simply put Preterists argue for a pre-AD 70 date while futurists hold to a date of AD 95.  There are several reasons for the later date. First, Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, states that John wrote Revelation at the end of Emperor Domitian’s reign, which ended in AD 96.  Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He thus had a connection with a contemporary of the Apostle John.

Second, the conditions of the seven churches in Revelation appear to describe a second-generation church setting rather than that of a first-generation. For example, the Church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) is charged with abandoning their first love and warned of the Nicolaitan heresy.  If John had written Revelation in AD 65, it would have overlapped with Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and Timothy.  However, Paul makes no mention of either “the loss of first love or the threat of the Nicolaitans in his epistles.  Ephesus was Paul’s headquarters for three years.  Also, the church of Smyrna did not exist during Paul’s ministry (AD 60-64) as recorded by Polycarp, the first bishop of the city.  Then, Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) is rebuked for being wealthy and lukewarm. However, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul commends the church at Laodicea three times (2:2, 4:13, 16). The thought is that it would likely take more than three years for the church at Laodicea to decline to the point that chapter 3 would say that there was be no commendable aspect about it.  Also, an earthquake in AD 61 left the city in ruins for many years. Thus, it is unlikely that in a ruined condition John would describe them as rich.

We will discuss some of the reasons why many people believe that Revelation was written well after the destruction of Jerusalem. If the book is to be seen in the light of either the historicist or the idealist, these facts about the conditions of the churches are irrelevant since the actual churches themselves in both of these views is not important.

Preterists (again, who favor the AD 70 date) pose some objections to the date of 90-95 AD for the writing of the book. They ask, “Why doesn’t John mention the fall of the Temple which occurred in AD 70?” Futurists respond that John wrote about future events, and the destruction of the temple was twenty-five years in the past.  John also wrote to a Gentile audience in Asia Minor which was far removed from Jerusalem. Preterists also point to the fact that the Temple is mentioned in chapter eleven.  Futurists respond that although John mentions a temple in Revelation 11:1-2, this does not mean it exists at the time of his writing.  In Daniel 9:26-27 and Ezekiel 40-48, both prophets describe the temple, but it was not in existence when they described a future temple in their writings.

What did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:34 when He said, “[T]his generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”?   The common futurist response is that Jesus was stating that the future generation about which he was speaking would not pass away once “these things” had begun.  In other words, the generation living amid the time of the events He predicted will not pass away until all is fulfilled.  With regard to the Preterist view the thinking goes something like this:

If the books of the Bible were truly and primarily written to the believers of that day then all of them (included in the New Testament) had to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.   Why?   Because if they were written after the 70 AD destruction then they were obviously written to believers who were around AFTER God poured judgment upon the Nation of Israel and therefore the Bible is materially applicable to believers post 70 AD.

We might suggest that the Bible was not primarily written to anyone but the believers of that day and age, and that since that age has been wiped out the contents of the Book do not apply to us materially but as spiritual directives to learn and live by today. I would also add that in light of the very Jewish language which the Book is written that it seems to have been dedicated to the people of that time – many of whom converted from Judaism – and that it depicts the wrapping up of that age.

While not a hill to die on – after all, what we believe relative to this does NOT alter the fact that we are still here justified by faith through God’s grace through the life and death of His Son Jesus Christ – but if the Preterist view is correct it goes a long way in helping prove to Christians today that our approach to the faith is spiritual and in a new and living way, rather than through what has been attempted in the past through shakeable brick and mortar and ecclesiastical power-plays of Man.

Admittedly – and this is important - if the book of Revelation was composed after the destruction of Jerusalem it proves that John was writing instructions to the church that existed after Jerusalem was destroyed.   And if this was the case, then Preterism is a complete fail and so is the spiritual, subjective approach to the faith.  Then if Preterism is errant we must see ourselves as part – still part - of a material, objective church and the approach many churches take to its content (and the rest of scripture) ought to be taken very seriously. In other words, Jesus IS still coming back to get His bride and the contents of this book are still in play! We should have elders board.  There should be church discipline.  The Word needs to be taken seriously and I mean women should shut their mouths in church, cover their heads, and widows ought to start serving and divorce is NOT permissible etc. etc.  This is really quite serious because I would personally be guilty of perpetuating “a terrible horrible, no-good, very bad way” to the faith when teaching people to relax in Him because everything is complete.

But the other side of the coin is this: if the Preterist view is correct, then the majority of the Christian approaches are non-sense, abusive and a misapplication of the written word and millions upon millions have lived their lives and died overwhelmed with futile fears.

So, let’s take this chapter and look at that dating of Revelation - admittingy, the dating of all the New Testament books is a debatable issue.  And it is doubtful we will ever agree on the subject completely.  Because of this I would suggest that  “dating debates” – meaning debates based on opinion - have little purpose.  Instead, I suggest that 

• the content of the New Testament books (what is said in them),
• the context (to whom and where the things were said),
• and the secular history surrounding what was said, 

are far more imposing and important to the dating of Revelation than the traditional dating of the books themselves. 

So, to 95 AD. This was a year when a man called Domitian Caesar reigned.  This dating was determined by the following statement made by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), which was quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, (in AD 325).  

The Futurist argument for their 95 AD dating rarely admits that this single quote used to establish the late date came from two men – one (Eusebius) in 325 AD who was quoting another (Irenaeus) who lived one hundred and twenty three years earlier (and was speaking of an event that supposedly took place nearly two generations before that)!

Here is Eusebius’ quote that was apparently from Irenaeus:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." 

To add fuel to the disputable nature of this quote we also have to note that Irenaeus did not witness what he actually wrote about or quoted.  He was referring to Polycarp (who, according to tradition, knew the Apostle John).   Additionally, we are not sure if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of Anti-Christ, or the book itself.  Also we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not.  This single statement, which comes to us by three separate people separated by three centuries, is at best hearsay and is certainly obfuscated by time and tone.  But it is this statement alone, amidst all of this uncertainty, that serves as the evidence to support the "late date" theory of the dating of the book of Revelation.

How about we let the internal contents of the Revelation tell us when the book was written.  I will make ten points that suggest that the date was before 70 AD. 

POINT #1   

In Revelation 10:11 we read that John "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."

Of course to an Idealist or Historicist this passage would not matter but to the futurist and Preterist division this passage is significant. 

If Revelation was written in AD 95-96, John would have been over ninety years old and would have to still have had “to prophesy again.”  In that day and age ninety was ancient and traveling was brutal.  Not that God couldn’t have supported him in such labors but it typically would have been very difficult for him to travel to the various "nations and…many kings" and to then preach.   However, with Revelation written earlier, John would have been in his mid-60's and at that age, his traveling would have been more reasonable. 

POINT #2  

Chapter one verse four proves that John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia. The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked (even though it has been by many scholars).   There is only one small window of time in which there were only seven churches in Asia. The early AD 60's. 

The apostle Paul established nine churches in that area, but only seven were addressed in Revelation.  The reason for this is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea were all destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, but the other two cities were not.  This left seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war. 

Of particular importance is the message to the church of Philadelphia found in Revelation 3:7-13.   In verses 10 and 11, Christ told John to inform them that an "hour of temptation" was "about to come upon all the world," (i.e., the Roman Empire "GE," not the "KOSMOS"). 

Christ then told them that He was “coming quickly” and that they should “hold fast.” 

The reason this is important (besides the fact that this was directed to an actual church in the first century) is that the first persecution of Christians took place under Nero Caesar in AD 64. Another reason Revelation could not have been written after 70 AD. 

POINT #3  

As mentioned one of the most compelling proofs that Revelation was written before Jerusalem was destroyed is the fact that the Jewish temple was still standing!

Revelation 11:1-2 says,

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.”

How do we know that this was the temple of the first century and not some future one? 

First, there is not one verse in the entire Bible that speaks of a "rebuilt" Jewish Temple. Not one. That alone should be proof enough.   Nevertheless this passage is very similar in construction to Luke 21:20-24. 

^"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.  Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.  or these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Notice that Jesus told the disciples that they would see this event. The apostles had asked Him about their temple (Luke 21:5), and Jesus told them it would be destroyed before their (or this) generation passed away (Luke 21:32). 

Notice again what Jesus said in verse 24 of Luke, that "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles."   This is the same thing Christ told John in Revelation 11:2!

Since the disciples' generation has long since passed away, Revelation must have been written before the nations trampled Jerusalem under foot in AD 70. 

POINT #4  

Most writers consider the theme of the book to be Revelation 1:7.  What does it say?

Revelation 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

This verse is very similar in context to Matthew 24:30, 

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes (same Greek word as Revelation 1:7) of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." 

Standing alone this is not conclusive by any means but from it we can see that just based on the language a case can be made; since Matthew 24:30 is a verse that speaks of “the fall of Jerusalem” and the Revelation verse is very similar – even using the same Greek term for the nations (we’ll talk about that more in a minute) we can suggest that they are speaking of the same thing – and therefore had to be written prior to the date of its fall.

Also notice the language of Revelation 1:7-  it refers to those who "piercedhim." 

Although we know that the Romans crucified him and pierced him, the apostles accused the Jews of the act in Acts 2:23 and 36.  In fact Peter says that "they" crucified Jesus. 

Acts 3:15; 4:10; and 5:30 say the same thing.

Stephen, in Acts 7:51-52, calls the Jews murderers. 

Paul, in 1st Corinthians 2:8, speaks of the “Jews killing the Lord.”  And again, in I Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul speaks of the Jews that killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets.  From this we might further suggest that the Book concerns itself with the Jews, who were utterly dispersed or killed in 70 AD. 

When Revelation 1:7 refers to all the "kindreds of the earth" ("kindreds" is from the Greek word "phule," which means "tribe").  This is a direct allusion to the Jewish tribal system. 

So let’s identify, from Scripture, who those "tribes" were.  To do that, we must keep in mind this simple rule of interpreting the Bible: let Scripture interpret Scripture. 

This we can easily do by looking at Zechariah 12:10-14.  There we read,

"And I will pour upon the...inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son...In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem...And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart." 

Obviously, this is the foundation for John's statement in Revelation 1:7,

"every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth (or land) shall wail because of him." 

Zechariah was saying that the "tribes of the land" would mourn for “Him whom they had pierced.”   Who were those tribes?  "The inhabitants of Jerusalem” – not the world or kosmos at some future date.  

From these things (and more) we can see that one of the main purposes of the Revelation to the seven churches was to reveal Jesus to the Nation of Israel before the end.  The place of this final revealing would be Jerusalem and it would be to those who pierced Him. 

This is not a general reference to the Jewish nation, who today are not one bit different in the eyes of God than every Gentile, but was a reference to Christ's contemporary generation - a generation that was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Legions. 

POINT #5  

The next thing that we need to look at is "the woman" found in Revelation chapters 17 and 18.  John wrote that he saw a "woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (17:6).   The "woman" had this name written on her forehead: "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (17:5). The angel said that "the woman" was a poetic symbol of "that great city" (17:18); in whom "was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (18:24). 

Then John wrote, "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her… Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." (18:20-21).  So who was this "woman?" This "great city?"  John gives us a clue in Revelation 11:8, where he wrote, 

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." 

This shows us, as we saw above, that John was referring to the Jerusalem of his day.  To prove this assertion, we need to look at the term "Sodom" that John used to describe it.  This was a "figurative" name describing her spiritual condition rather than an actual location. Letting the Bible interpret itself, we find this is a reference to Jerusalem. 

In Isaiah, chapter 1, after declaring that he had a "vision…concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (verse 1), Isaiah wrote, "Hear the words of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom." 

In Jeremiah 23:14, because of the adulterous prophets, God said that Jerusalem and her inhabitants were "all of them unto me as Sodom." 

And then what about the reference to "Egypt?"  Nowhere in the Bible is Jerusalem called "Egypt."  

However, the first century generation of Jews were also in an exodus. While Old Testament Israel's exodus was from the bondage of Egypt, the New Testament Israel's exodus was from the bondage of the Old Covenant Law – housed at Jerusalem.   In this I think we have a fairly clear reference to Jerusalem, that "Sodom," that "Egypt" being areferred to in Revelation.

POINT #6 (which is perhaps one of the best supports for the dating of Revelation).

Thus far we have suggested that Revelation deals with the revealing of Jesus to first century Israel. As we’ve also seen, "the woman" John saw was first century Jerusalem.  

Then in Revelation 17:10 we read,

“And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.”

The "kings" spoken of were the rulers of the known world of John's day (the Roman Empire), since the Jews had “no king but Caesar.”   These "kings" were not ruling at the same time, for as the text says "five fell," meaning that five of those kings had come and gone.  Then "one is," referring to the "king" who was ruling at the time Revelation was written.  This is where we have one of the clearest proofs for the dating of this book. If we simply examine the list of Roman Emperors, we will be able to determine who the sixth king was, and the time Revelation was written. 

These are the Roman Emperors (in order): 

• Julius Caesar; 
• Augustus; 
• Tiberius; 
• Gaius (Caligula); 
• Claudius; 

and the sixth emperor, the one who "NOW IS" was…

that’s right, Nero.  And when did Nero reign?

From 54AD to June of 68AD.  So, again . . .

Revelation 17:10 says,

“And there are seven kings: five are fallen (we named them), and one is (Nero), and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.”

So, who was this seventh King “who was not yet come, but who when he cometh he must continue a short space?” That would be a man named Galba who would reign only six months after the horrid Nero.

Nero did terrible things to Christians, had Peter and Paul put to death, and whom God used to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem.  It was Nero who was in power and gave the command to Vespasian to destroy Jerusalem.  Historically, Nero is the one that persecuted Christians beyond all comparison.  If John was banished to Patmos, it was the result of the great persecution of Nero.  He is undoubtedly the "sixth king" mentioned in Revelation, proving beyond any doubt that Revelation was written before the Roman/Jewish war. 

POINT # 7 

To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Revelation 15:2,3 will have meaning.  It says that those martyrs "who had come off victorious from the Beast" were singing "the Song of Moses."   

The first thing we have to ask ourselves is if these martyrs spoken of here are to be Christians living today, why are they singing "the Song of Moses?"  How does the song go?  Where are the words found? Why aren’t we practicing it in the faith today?

"The Song of Moses" is found in Deuteronomy  32:1-43.  The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would befall them "in the latter days" (Deuteronomy 31:29).  The song specifically talks about "their end" - the end of the Jews (Deuteronomy 31:20), and details their destruction by a consuming "fire" (verse 22), "famine" (verse 24), "plague" (verse 24) and "bitter destruction" (verse 24).    In it God calls them a "perverse generation" (verses 5 and 20), and says He will "render vengeance" upon them and "vindicate His (faithful) people" (verse 41 and 36 respectively).  Why would Christian martyrs of the 21st century be singing this song?  I’m not sure they will.

POINT #8  

As we pointed out, this is a Revelation of Jesus Christ who tells John that the fulfillment of the prophecies of this book was “soon.”   Right off the bat in Revelation 1:1 and 3,  John informed his readers, the seven churches of Asia (verse 4), that the contents of this volume "must shortly come to pass." 

“The content of this book . . . must shortly come to pass.” 

Take note! John did not write that some of the events, or even most of the events must “shortly” take place. He wrote that all of the events contained in Revelation "must shortly come to pass."  Why? Why must those things "shortly come to pass?" 

Because the Revelation says "the time (was) at hand." 

“At hand” for whom? 

The seven churches of Asia, specifically, and to the church of the first century in general. 

The time “for what” was “at hand?”  The time for . . . 

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ." 

Then, as I’ve mentioned many times in the past, the last chapter in Revelation (22) begins at verse 6 saysing that the “Lord sent an angel to John "to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done."  Here, at the end of the book of Revelation, John recorded the exact same message that he did in chapter 1.  Have you ever noticed this?  Again, this emphasizes that all of the events contained in Revelation were about to take place in the first century — not stretched throughout time, and certainly not for any future generation.  Then in Revelation 22:10, the angel of the Lord said to John, 

"Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." 

Another proof that the events of Revelation were about to take place in the first century.  However, another element was added to this warning. Do you recognize it?  The angel told John not to seal the Scroll. Why is this important? 

To get our answer we have to let scripture explain, so let's look at the book of Daniel.   

After Daniel had received visions concerning his people (the Nation of Israel), he was told, "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (12:1).  Daniel is then told how they would be rescued — by resurrection - and some would be rewarded with "everlasting life" and others with "everlasting contempt" (verse 2).   But then, Daniel is told something very peculiar. In Daniel 12:4, Daniel was told, "shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end."  

We have to refuse the temptation to believe that when Daniel says “the time of the end" it is the same as "the end of time."  There is a huge difference between "the end of time" and "the time of the end."   The time of the end speaks to the time of the End of the Nation of Israel.  No Jew, no Greek – remember?  Daniels vision was not about the end of time.  but the end concerning the Nation of Israel, not mankind in general.  

Next, Daniel saw two angels talking about the fulfillment of all that he had seen (verse 6).  And one asked the other, "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" The answer was, "when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." (Daniel 12:7).  But Daniel could not understand what they meant, so he asked again, "When?"

This is what the angel said in reply:

"Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." 

Did you know that there is only one other place in the Bible where “a sealed book” is referred to? That’s right. Revelation, chapter 5 which says,

Revelation 5:1 "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals."

The reason this has direct bearing on Revelation 21-22 is that Daniel was told to “seal his book” concerning the end "for it pertains to many days in the future" (Daniel 8:26), but John was told not to seal his book "because the time is at hand" (Revelation 22:10). The end of Old Covenant Israel was at hand. The end of that world or age.  All things written had to be fulfilled by the time Jerusalem – that age, that world, that temple, that priesthood, that genealogy, even that people, fell.  Then, speaking of timing again Jesus says to John in verse 12:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."  Notice that Jesus did not say that "when I come, I will come quickly," He emphatically said that He was coming "quickly."   But He also said something else. He said “that His reward was with Him to give every man according to his works.”

Now some state that this has not happened yet.   However, we AGAIN must let Scripture interpret Scripture and so we turn to Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 8:38-9:1 and Luke 9:26-27.  Did you know that Jesus said the exact same thing in these three verses that He did in Revelation 21:12!   Again, in Revelation 21, He said He was coming and "he shall reward every man according to his works." And Jesus used these words in the Gospels, but do you know what else He said in these three verses? He said: 

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Notice that Jesus tied His coming to the lives of His disciples (to “some of them standing there”). Some of his listeners would not die until He came.  So. to whom was He coming?  Those alive within that generation.  And what will be their reward?  Daniel told us the "rewards" would be that (ready) some would be resurrected to "everlasting life" and others to "everlasting contempt."

I am beyond convinced that if we learn anything from this we learn that the same thing awaits all human beings today – a resurrection to everlasting life or a resurrection to everlasting contempt.

POINT #9 

We mentioned this earlier, but to believe that Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem – a destruction spoken of anciently all the way back to Deuteronomy that was so utterly devastating to the House of Israel - but Jesus never refers to it in this book is not empirical evidence but it is really, really odd.  Perhaps, had the Book of Revelation been written after 70 AD, there would be mention of the temple destruction somewhere within its pages.  Again, the futurist’s say that no mention is here because there was a 25 year span between it being written and the fall of the temple but being the Revelation speaks to the Jews so heavily it’s just odd.

Last point - POINT #10 

If a person doesn't believe the first three verses of Revelation I don’t think they will correctly read the rest of the book.   For if a person is unwilling to accept the time constraints of the text, the rest of the document can mean anything that the reader wants it to mean.  If the Apostle John was banished to Patmos under the reign of Nero, as the internal evidence indicates, he wrote the book of Revelation about AD 68 or 69, which was after the death of that emperor. If all the books of the New Testament were written after 70 AD why do they speak as if Jerusalem is still standing – with its temple and a remaining vibrant community intact?

It is of interest that in the Syrian version of the book of Revelation, first published in 1627 (and, afterwards in the London Polyglot), that we find the following inscription:

"The Revelation which God made to John the evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero Caesar."   This places John’s hand to paper well before 69AD. 

Introduction to Chapter One 

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.”

And then verse 2

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

We have eight points to consider in this first passage:

• “the Revelation of Jesus Christ”
• Which God gave unto Him
• To show his servants
• Things
• Which must shortly come to pass
• And He sent and signified it (the revelation)
• By his angel
• Unto his servant John

 So . . . to line number one.

• The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is evidently a title or caption of the whole book, and is designed to comprise the substance of the whole; for all that the book contains would be embraced in the general declaration that it is a Revelation of Jesus Christ. 

Because of this I do not feel we have the right to break the revelation up into segments or time periods that are distinct from each other.  It is singular – the revelation – and so it all comes as a package.

The word translated Revelation (of Jesus Christ) is “apocalupto” and from it we get the term, “apocalypse.” I always thought when I was younger that apocalypse meant a final war or violent sort of end time but it means something entirely different – it means an uncovering or nakedness.  

To uncover or reveal, hence the English translation to Revelation.

So, we might call this book “an uncovering or unveiling of Jesus Christ.”    

The implication is that something has been hidden or in the dark which is now about to be revealed or uncovered.  From the Idealist view what is about to be revealed is an allegory for the ages, to the Historicist what is about to be revealed is the history of the Christian faith unfolding, to the preterist it is what was about to happen then and to the futurist what was being revealed to John was the hidden covered unveiled future of the end of the world. 

Whatever the application, where the angel told Daniel to “seal up the book until the time of the end,” Jesus said in Matthew 10:26 

“for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.”

I believe that we are seeing Jesus words come to fruition here and right now we wind up with a book that is called “the revealing, the unsealing, the uncovering,” that He was talking about. So, the act of this uncovering might include: 

What we read in Luke 2:32 which says that “Christ would be a light to lighten the Gentiles"  I say this because the word, “to lighten” is “ APOCALUPSIS.  It might include Romans 8:19 which says:

“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.”

As earnest expectation of “the manifestation” here is also Apocalupsis.  It certainly seems to include

1^st Corinthians 1:7 that says:

“So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as the coming in that line is the apocalupsis. It certainly would include 2^nd Thessalonians 1:7 which directly states:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.”

Also, the Revelation seems to also include the manifestation of the wrath of God at the day of judgment which will reveal the true nature of his wrath, as Paul says in

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation (apocalupsis) of the righteous judgment of God; 

It could be speaking of the revelation that will uncover who the real children of God are as Paul says in Romans 8:19

“that is, till it shall be manifest by the event what they who are the children of God are to be.” 

And of course it may be speaking of the second advent “or the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ,” disclosing him in his glory coming out of the Holy of Holies and showing what he truly is as 2^nd Thessalonians 1:7 says, 

"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed"-- 

Or as 1^st Corinthians 1:7 says, "Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Or as 1^st Peter 1:7 says, "At the appearing of Jesus Christ." 

Or also 1^st Peter 4:13, as it says, "When his glory shall be revealed." 

 It also seems to be used in the sense of making known what is to come--whether by words, signs, or symbols--as if a veil were lifted from that which is hidden from human vision.

Now, in the Greek the article is lacking and therefore the better reading is this is  “a Revelation,” and not “the Revelation,” of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps this has been omitted because the use of the article might imply that this was the only revelation (which is not true since all of the Bible has been revealed). The phrase, "the Revelation of Jesus Christ," might, so far as the construction of the language is concerned, refer either to Christ as the subject or the object.  So it might either mean that Christ is the object that is revealed in the book or it may mean that this is a revelation which Christ makes to mankind.

While I have intimated that this was Christ BEING revealed to Mankind, I think we have to admit that while this might be true, the real meaning of this is this is the Revelation Christ makes – to John, to the Seven Churches, to mankind. 

I think that this is the clearest meaning because, 

(1) it expressly says that it was a revelation which God gave to him (therefore it couldn’t be Him being revealed to others); 

(2) because the revelation given him was a disclosure of events  which were to happen – many of which do not speak of Him at all.

Okay – the next line: 

• “Which God gave unto him.”

Which means, “Which God imparted or communicated to Jesus Christ.” 

I find this so intriguing on a number of levels. First of all, when did God given Jesus this revelation?  Secondly, I can’t help but note that God – God – gave the Revelation to Jesus the Messiah.

Now this second point is in accordance with other scriptural representations as God is the original fountain of truth and knowledge, and that, whatever was the original dignity of Jesus there was always – and apparently continues to be in the heavens prior to this Revelation, a mediatorial dependence/relationship on the Father.  When Jesus was on earth we remember Him saying in John 5:19-20: 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth." 

or in

John 7:16 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."  And in John 8:28: "As my Father hath taught me, (edidaxe me) I speak these things." And in John 12:49: "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." 

From these words and this first verse of Revelation one it seems that the same mediatorial dependence was still present in heaven prior to His coming to earth and would continue UNTIL  . . . (as 1^st Corinthians 15:24-28 says) he has subdued all things and will at that time hand the Kingdom over to God so that God will then be all in all.

To the Futurist this has yet to happen and Jesus is still mediating from the right hand of the Father and receiving instructions.  To the Idealist and the Historicist this seems to be the case but to the Preterist, if this Revelation from God to Christ to John to the Seven Churches occurred as stated, then 1^st Corinthians 15 is complete and the mediatorial relationship is finished – God is all in all – and everything has been complete.

Next line

• To show unto his servants. 

The word rendered to show--deixai--commonly denotes to point out; to cause to see; to present to the sight.  This is important because so far we can see that this information being revealed was or is to show, was or is to point out, and therefore it was to be understood clearly. The fact that it has not been understood clearly by believers today says something to me. If God gave a Revelation to show or to point something out God would make it understandable to the intended recipients, in this case His servants.

Now, the term servant or servants is used twice here – both times taken from the Greek DOULOS which literally means, slave. In scripture the term doulos is often applied primarily to prophets and apostles (in relationship to God) and we see this is the case here where John is plainly called a doulos of Christ.  But because it is directed to the Seven Churches I think we have to admit that they, at least, would be included in who was supposed to receive this revelation.  Verse three seems to open this up to anyone who reads the Revelation as it says, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand,” but specifically the revelation was directed at the servants of Christ “to show unto his servants things.” 

Number Four)

4. “Things” 

This term is a pronoun and might better be translated “What”

“to show unto his servants what . . .”

 5.  “which must shortly come to pass.”

(Events which must shortly come to pass.)

In terms of the four main views of Revelation this phrase or line is sort-of justifiable in the two of the four views, (the Idealist and the historicist view) impossible in the futurist view, and in compliance with the preterist view.

The word rendered "must” come to pass"—deh-on – and it means “that it is necessary” (must) “shortly come to pass.”  They were not the result of chance; they were not fortuitous. They necessarily had to “shortly come to pass.” We get that phrase from the Greek phrase en-tachos, which means

“a brief space (of time)and with the prefix “en” it means with haste, quickly, shortly, and “speedily,” or “with great swiftness.”

The word or phrase is used in 1^st Corinthian 4:19 where we read,  "But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will;" and in Luke 14:21, where it says, "Go out quickly into the streets." And in Luke 16:6, "Sit down quickly, and write fifty." Or in John 11:31, “She rose up hastily and went out."  Or in Galatians 1:6, where Paul asks, "That ye are so soon removed (tacewv) from him that called you." 

And many others (like):

When the Angel appears to Peter in jail in Acts 12:7 and says:

"arise up quickly;" the same word is used.

The essential idea is that the thing or “what” which is spoken of or revealed here was to occur soon and could not in any way a remote and distant event.  There is the notion of rapidity, of haste, and of complete suddenness.  The same idea is expressed in a phrase we will come across a few times in the Revelation that says, "the time is at hand." 

Some suggest that this phrase refers to the time of these things beginning was at hand but their actual fulfillment is still unfolding.  This is the view, of course of all the views except the Preterist.  These say it’s not necessary to suppose that all that there is in the book was soon to happen. So again it is believed that a series of events were to quickly commence while the sequel would be remote – sort of like the engine of a long train was at hand to move forward but it wouldn’t be for thousands of years until the caboose passes the initial starting point.  I do not believe that this view concurs with the intent of the whole revelation as the last chapter also promises that all that was written was about to come to pass or was at hand.

6. “And he sent and signified it by his angel.”  

From the Greek, “He, sending it by his angel, signified it to his servant John."  Apparently the idea is not precisely that he sent his angel to communicate the message, but that he sent the message by the angel.  And signified it. “Say-man-ee-oh.”  The angel indicated the Revelation by signs and symbols – with which the whole book is filled.  The term “Say mah-nee-oh” is used by John in John 12 when Jesus said at verse 31

“Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

Then John adds:

“This he said, signifying (say-mah-nee- oh) what death he should die.”

In other words the sign or symbol Jesus gave was that He would be lifted up from the earth,” and John tells us that He said this to “signify” (say-mah-nee-oo) illustrate, describe the type of death that He would die. We might wonder what it was exactly that was signified to John.  The answer would be . . .

No idea -  but the general sense is that Jesus had the angel illustrate to John through expressive symbols the things He had been given by God. Perhaps it was a moving picture, or still photographs, or abstract symbols that John was able to interpret and put into words.  We could really come up with some wild hypothecations as to what these symbols were – but it would be total conjecture on my part and therefore a waste of time.  When John writes, “By his angel,” it seems to be an angel was employed to cause these scenic possibly moving representations to pass before the mind of the apostle.  It appears that the communication was not made directly to him but was through the medium of a heavenly messenger.  For this reason we read in Revelation 22:6  

"And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done." 

 There are frequent allusions in Scripture to angels being employed as agents in making the Divine will known through Revelations to humankind. In Acts 7:53, it says, "Who have received the law by the disposition of angels."  And in Hebrews 2:2 we read, "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast."  In Galatians 3:19 it says, "And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."  However nowhere in the Revelation are we given any insight into how or why this specific angel was called to do this work or how the angel went about making the symbols known to John.

Additionally, John is pretty much everywhere represented as seeing the symbols himself so it appears that the angels job was to either cause the symbols to pass his eyes or to possibly convey their meaning to his mind so he could understand them. Remember, the Revelation was given from God (who is Spirit) to Christ, who was a resurrected being, to an angel in heaven to John through symbols – and so it was to certainly be spiritually understood. 

How far John himself understood the meaning of these symbols we have not the means of knowing with certainty.  And the final line of verse 1

7. Unto his servant John.  

We have always assumed it was to John the Beloved but this is not certain from this utterance alone.  The interesting thing about the authorship of Revelation is that with the other books of the Bible apostolic authorship is very important because they had walked and talked and been taught of Jesus themselves and so their written witness could and should have been vetted by their first-hand experience with Him. But if this book is dedicated to revealing things (that up to this point had been hidden) it’s almost as if it could have been produced by almost any . . . John, or Peter or Paul.

However, verse 2 seems to say that this John was a witness of more than just this Revelation.

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:

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

In the Gospel of John 21:24 John wrote of himself:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things." 

In John 19:35 we read of him again: 

"And he that saw it bare record" so it seems we have some biblical back-up suggesting that this the same John. 

“and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John . . .”

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

Three things that John either did because of receiving this revelation or had done before – He . . .

• bore record of the word of God,
• and (he bare record) of the testimony of Jesus Christ,
• and of all things that he saw.”

Let’s talk about this first line because though it seems rather matter of fact or uneventful it is a VERY important line in identifying the author (or recorder) of Revelation.

Bore record of the Word of God.

It is the subject of not a little debate, this line.  The main question 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 “other book” with which those to whom he wrote were so familiar that they would  recognize him as the author OR whether he refers to the fact that he had borne witness respecting Jesus Christ, also known as “the Word. The phrase "the word of God" (ton logon tow teou) occurs all through the New Testament and may either mean “the word or doctrine respecting God meaning that which teaches what God is OR “that which he speaks or teaches.”  It is more commonly used in the latter sense and especially refers to what God speaks or commands.  So a fair meaning of this expression would be that John had borne faithful witness to, or testimony of, the truth which God had spoken to him.  But not all scholars agree on this and some see this as referring to the gospel which John published while others believe this speaks to the revelation made to him in Patmos or to this book itself.

Could we harmonize all these views and suggest that because the phrase is in the  aorist tense that 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 they were made known to him ?  I take the meaning, then, of the expression "who bare record of the word of God," as a general description of John the Beloved who was

• a verbal eye witness of the Word
• a literary witness of the Word given Him
• and the future witness of the Revelation he was about to reveal.

This is language that the apostle would be likely use (because he used it in his other  writings) but it is not the language a forger would likely use to write a Revelation in his name. In other words, such artifice would unlikely for a forger but perfectly natural for John.  The issue with this is this phrase points purposefully to the Beloved as the author.  If he was then we must believe that it was meant to be read.  If it was not written by Him then it must be rejected, NOT because He is not the author and someone else is but because the writer attempted to make it LOOK like John the Beloved was the author – therefore it is a forgery.

Finally, if it is from John and we admit that it ought to be read we have to ask, should it be read by us? We know it was addressed to the seven churches – but the other epistles were addressed to specific churches too – so that’s not a justification to remove it. The wonderment I have is due to the fruit of the book.  But we will discuss this later. 

“his servant John . . .”

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

In other words, in accordance with the interpretation about him bearing record of the Word of God, h bare record of the Words regarding Christ and bore testimony which Jesus Christ Himself bore for the truth.  In other words, this line does not mean he gave a testimony respecting Jesus Christ.  The idea is, that Jesus Christ was himself a witness to the truth, and that the writer of this book was a witness merely of the testimony which Christ had borne. 

“And of all things that he saw.”

The Greek better reads, "and whatsoever he saw,” meaning in addition to all he has bore witness of include all the things he also saw.  Many believe that this last line was included to give validation to what he saw in this particular revelation. This is a debated view due to some manuscript variance – so it really depends on which manuscripts you hold up as valid over the others but it seems like verse 2 is there to present John as a vetted witness, recorder and apostle perfectly fit to reveal this revelation of Jesus Christ to the world.  And so to what seems like another brief introduction from John, who under the spirit says:

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Other translations put it this way:

Revelation 1:3 (RSV) Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Revelation 1:3 (WNT) Blessed is he who reads and blessed are those who listen to the words of this prophecy and lay to heart what is written in it; for the time for its fulfillment is now close at hand.

Revelation 1:3 (YLT) Happy is he who is reading, and those hearing, the words of the prophecy, and keeping the things written in it--for the time is nigh!

Revelation 1:3 (MNT) Blessed is he who reads, and they who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep what is written in it. FOR THE CRISIS IS AT HAND.

Revelation 1:1-2

“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.”

And then verse 2

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

We have eight points to consider in this first passage:

1.“the Revelation of Jesus Christ”

2. which God gave unto Him

3. to show his servants

4. things

5. which must shortly come to pass

6. and He sent and signified it (the revelation)

7. by his angel

8. Unto his servant John

 So . . . to line number one.

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is evidently a title or caption of the whole book, and is designed to comprise the substance of the whole; for all that the book contains would be embraced in the general declaration that it is a Revelation of Jesus Christ. 

Because of this I do not feel we have the right to break the revelation up into segments or time periods that are distinct from each other.  It is singular – the revelation – and so it all comes as a package.

The word translated Revelation (of Jesus Christ) is “apocalupto” and from it we get the term, “apocalypse.” I always thought when I was younger that apocalypse meant a final war or violent sort of end time but it means something entirely different – it means an uncovering or nakedness.  

To uncover or reveal, hence the English translation to Revelation.

So, we might call this book “an uncovering or unveiling of Jesus Christ.”    

The implication is that something has been hidden or in the dark which is now about to be revealed or uncovered.  From the Idealist view what is about to be revealed is an allegory for the ages, to the Historicist what is about to be revealed is the history of the Christian faith unfolding, to the preterist it is what was about to happen then and to the futurist what was being revealed to John was the hidden covered unveiled future of the end of the world. 

Whatever the application, where the angel told Daniel to “seal up the book until the time of the end,” Jesus said in Matthew 10:26 

“for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.”

I believe that we are seeing Jesus words come to fruition here and right now we wind up with a book that is called “the revealing, the unsealing, the uncovering,” that He was talking about. So, the act of this uncovering might include: 

What we read in Luke 2:32 which says that “Christ would be a light to lighten the Gentiles"  I say this because the word, “to lighten” is “ APOCALUPSIS.  It might include Romans 8:19 which says:

“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.”

As earnest expectation of “the manifestation” here is also Apocalupsis.  It certainly seems to include

1^st Corinthians 1:7 that says:

“So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as the coming in that line is the apocalupsis. It certainly would include 2^nd Thessalonians 1:7 which directly states:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.”

Also, the Revelation seems to also include the manifestation of the wrath of God at the day of judgment which will reveal the true nature of his wrath, as Paul says in

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation (apocalupsis) of the righteous judgment of God; 

It could be speaking of the revelation that will uncover who the real children of God are as Paul says in Romans 8:19

“that is, till it shall be manifest by the event what they who are the children of God are to be.” 

And of course it may be speaking of the second advent “or the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ,” disclosing him in his glory coming out of the Holy of Holies and showing what he truly is as 2^nd Thessalonians 1:7 says, 

"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed"-- 

Or as 1^st Corinthians 1:7 says, "Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Or as 1^st Peter 1:7 says, "At the appearing of Jesus Christ." 

Or also 1^st Peter 4:13, as it says, "When his glory shall be revealed." 

 It also seems to be used in the sense of making known what is to come--whether by words, signs, or symbols--as if a veil were lifted from that which is hidden from human vision.

Now, in the Greek the article is lacking and therefore the better reading is this is “a Revelation,” and not “the Revelation,” of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps this has been omitted because the use of the article might imply that this was the only revelation (which is not true since all of the Bible has been revealed). The phrase, "the Revelation of Jesus Christ," might, so far as the construction of the language is concerned, refer either to Christ as the subject or the object.  So, it might either mean that Christ is the object that is revealed in the book or it may mean that this is a revelation which Christ makes to mankind.

While I have intimated that this was Christ BEING revealed to Mankind, I think we have to admit that while this might be true, the real meaning of this is this is the Revelation Christ makes – to John, to the Seven Churches, to mankind. 

I think that this is the clearest meaning because, 

(1) it expressly says that it was a revelation which God gave to him (therefore it couldn’t be Him being revealed to others); 

(2) because the revelation given him was a disclosure of events  which were to happen – many of which do not speak of Him at all.

Okay – the next line: 

2 “Which God gave unto him.”

Which means, “Which God imparted or communicated to Jesus Christ.” 

I find this so intriguing on a number of levels. First of all, when did God given Jesus this revelation?  Secondly, I can’t help but note that God – God – gave the Revelation to Jesus the Messiah.

Now this second point is in accordance with other scriptural representations as God is the original fountain of truth and knowledge, and that, whatever was the original dignity of Jesus there was always – and apparently continues to be in the heavens prior to this Revelation, a mediatorial dependence/relationship on the Father.  When Jesus was on earth we remember Him saying in John 5:19-20: 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth." 

or in

John 7:16 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."  And in John 8:28: "As my Father hath taught me, (edidaxe me) I speak these things." And in John 12:49: "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." 

From these words and this first verse of Revelation one it seems that the same mediatorial dependence was still present in heaven prior to His coming to earth and would continue UNTIL  . . . (as 1^st Corinthians 15:24-28 says) he has subdued all things and will at that time hand the Kingdom over to God so that God will then be all in all.

To the Futurist this has yet to happen and Jesus is still mediating from the right hand of the Father and receiving instructions.  To the Idealist and the Historicist this seems to be the case but to the Preterist, if this Revelation from God to Christ to John to the Seven Churches occurred as stated, then 1^st Corinthians 15 is complete and the mediatorial relationship is finished – God is all in all – and everything has been complete.

Next line

3  To show unto his servants. 

The word rendered to show--deixai--commonly denotes to point out; to cause to see; to present to the sight.  This is important because so far we can see that this information being revealed was or is to show, was or is to point out, and therefore it was to be understood clearly. The fact that it has not been understood clearly by believers today says something important. If God gave a Revelation to show or to point something out God would make it understandable to the intended recipients, in this case His servants.

Now, the term servant or servants is used twice here – both times taken from the Greek DOULOS which literally means, slave. In scripture the term doulos is often applied primarily to prophets and apostles (in relationship to God) and we see this is the case here where John is plainly called a doulos of Christ.  But because it is directed to the Seven Churches, I think we have to admit that they, at least, would be included in who was supposed to receive this revelation.  Verse three seems to open this up to anyone who reads the Revelation as it says, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand,” but specifically the revelation was directed at the servants of Christ “to show unto his servants things.” 

     4  “Things” 

This term is a pronoun and might better be translated “What”

“to show unto his servants what . . .”

     5  “which must shortly come to pass.”

(Events which must shortly come to pass.)

In terms of the four main views of Revelation this phrase or line is sort-of justifiable in the two of the four views, (the Idealist and the historicist view) impossible in the futurist view, and in compliance with the preterist view.

The word rendered "must” come to pass (deh-on) means “that it is necessary” (must) “shortly come to pass.”  They were not the result of chance; they were not fortuitous. They necessarily had to “shortly come to pass.” We get that phrase from the Greek phrase en-tachos, which means

“a brief space (of time)and with the prefix “en” it means with haste, quickly, shortly, and “speedily,” or “with great swiftness.”

The word or phrase is used in 1^st Corinthian 4:19 where we read,  "But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will;" and in Luke 14:21, where it says, "Go out quickly into the streets." And in Luke 16:6, "Sit down quickly, and write fifty." Or in John 11:31, “She rose up hastily and went out."  Or in Galatians 1:6, where Paul asks, "That ye are so soon removed (tacewv) from him that called you." 

And many others (like):

When the Angel appears to Peter in jail in Acts 12:7 and says:

"arise up quickly;" the same word is used.

The essential idea is that the thing or “what” which is spoken of or revealed here was to occur soon and could not in any way a remote and distant event.  There is the notion of rapidity, of haste, and of complete suddenness.  The same idea is expressed in a phrase we will come across a few times in the Revelation that says, "the time is at hand." 

Some suggest that this phrase refers to the time of these things beginning was at hand but their actual fulfillment is still unfolding.  This is the view, of course of all the views except the Preterist.  These say it’s not necessary to suppose that all that there is in the book was soon to happen. So again it is believed that a series of events were to quickly commence while the sequel would be remote – sort of like the engine of a long train was at hand to move forward but it wouldn’t be for thousands of years until the caboose passes the initial starting point.  I do not believe that this view concurs with the intent of the whole revelation as the last chapter also promises that all that was written was about to come to pass or was at hand.

       6 “And he sent and signified (7) it by his angel.”  

From the Greek, “He, sending it by his angel, signified it to his servant John."  Apparently, the idea is not precisely that he sent his angel to communicate the message, but that he sent the message by the angel.  And signified it. “Say-man-ee-oh.”  The angel indicated the Revelation by signs and symbols – with which the whole book is filled.  The term “Say mah-nee-oh” is used by John in John 12 when Jesus said at verse 31

“Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

Then John adds:

“This he said, signifying (say-mah-nee- oh) what death he should die.”

In other words, the sign or symbol Jesus gave was that He would be lifted up from the earth,” and John tells us that He said this to “signify” (say-mah-nee-oo) “illustrate/ describe” the type of death that He would die. We might wonder what it was exactly that was signified to John.  The answer would be . . .

No idea -  but the general sense is that Jesus had the angel illustrate to John through expressive symbols the things He had been given by God. Perhaps it was a moving picture, or still photographs, or abstract symbols that John was able to interpret and put into words.  We could really come up with some wild hypothecations as to what these symbols were – but it would be total conjecture on my part and therefore a waste of time.  When John writes, “By his angel,” it seems to be an angel was employed to cause these scenes, possibly though moving representations to pass before the mind of the apostle.  It appears that the communication was not made directly to him but was through the medium of a heavenly messenger.  For this reason, we read in Revelation 22:6  

"And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done." 

There are frequent allusions in Scripture to angels being employed as agents in making the Divine will known through Revelations to humankind. In Acts 7:53, it says, "Who have received the law by the disposition of angels."  And in Hebrews 2:2 we read, "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast."  In Galatians 3:19 it says, "And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."  However nowhere in the Revelation are we given any insight into how or why this specific angel was called to do this work or how the angel went about making the symbols known to John.

Additionally, John is pretty much everywhere represented as seeing the symbols himself so it appears that the angels job was to either cause the symbols to pass his eyes or to possibly convey their meaning to his mind so he could understand them. Remember, the Revelation was given from God (who is Spirit) to Christ, who was a resurrected being, to an angel in heaven and then to John through symbols – and so it was to certainly be spiritually understood. 

How far John himself understood the meaning of these symbols we have not the means of knowing with certainty.  And the final line of verse 1

         8 Unto his servant John.  

We have always assumed it was to John the Beloved but this is not certain from this utterance alone.  The interesting thing about the authorship of Revelation is that with the other books of the Bible apostolic authorship is very important because they had walked and talked and been taught of Jesus themselves and so their written witness could and should have been vetted by their first-hand experience with Him. But if this book is dedicated to revealing things (that up to this point had been hidden) it’s almost as if it could have been produced by almost any . . . John, or Peter or Paul.

However, verse 2 seems to say that this John was a witness of more than just this Revelation.

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:

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

In the Gospel of John 21:24 John wrote of himself:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things." 

In John 19:35 we read of him again: 

"And he that saw it bare record" so it seems we have some biblical back-up suggesting that this the same John. 

“and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John . . .”

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

Three things that John either did because of receiving this revelation or had done before – He . . .

• bore record of the word of God,
• and (he bare record) of the testimony of Jesus Christ,
• and of all things that he saw.”

Let’s talk about this first line because though it seems rather matter of fact or uneventful it is a VERY important line in identifying the author (or recorder) of Revelation.

Bore record of the Word of God.

It is the subject of not a little debate, this line.  The main question 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 “other book” with which those to whom he wrote were so familiar that they would  recognize him as the author OR whether he refers to the fact that he had borne witness respecting Jesus Christ, also known as “the Word.”  The phrase "the word of God" (ton logon tow teou) occurs all through the New Testament and may either mean “the word or doctrine respecting God meaning that which teaches what God is OR “that which he speaks or teaches.”  It is more commonly used in the latter sense and especially refers to what God speaks or commands.  So, a fair meaning of this expression would be that John had borne faithful witness to, or testimony of, the truth which God had spoken to him.  But not all scholars agree on this and some see this as referring to the gospel which John published while others believe this speaks to the revelation made to him in Patmos or to this book itself.

Could we harmonize all these views and suggest that because the phrase is in the  aorist tense that 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 they were made known to him?  I take the meaning, then, of the expression "who bare record of the word of God," as a general description of John the Beloved who was

• a verbal eyewitness of the Word
• a literary witness of the Word given Him
• and the future witness of the Revelation he was about to reveal.

This is language that the apostle would be likely use (because he used it in his other  writings) but it is not the language a forger would likely use to write a Revelation in his name. In other words, such artifice would be unlikely for a forger but perfectly natural for John.  The issue with this is this phrase points purposefully to the Beloved as the author.  If he was then we must believe that it was meant to be read.  If it was not written by Him then it must be rejected, NOT because He is not the author and someone else is but because the writer attempted to make it LOOK like John the Beloved was the author – therefore it is a forgery.

Finally, if it is from John and we admit that it ought to be read we have to ask, should it be read by us? We know it was addressed to the seven churches – but the other epistles were addressed to specific churches too – so that’s not a justification to remove it. The wonderment I have is due to the fruit of the book.  Which we continually discuss. 

“his servant John . . .”

“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

In other words, in accordance with the interpretation about him bearing record of the Word of God, he bare record of the Words regarding Christ and bore testimony which Jesus Christ Himself bore for the truth. This line does not mean he gave a testimony respecting Jesus Christ.  The idea is, that Jesus Christ was himself a witness to the truth, and that the writer of this book was a witness merely of the testimony which Christ had borne. 

“And of all things that he saw.”

The Greek better reads, "and whatsoever he saw,” meaning, in addition to all he has born witness of, include all the things he also saw.  Many believe that this last line was included to give validation to what he saw in this particular revelation. This is a debated view due to manuscript variance so it really depends on which manuscripts you hold up as most valid.  However, it seems like verse 2 is there to present John as a vetted witness, recorder and apostle perfectly fit to reveal this revelation of Jesus Christ to the world.  

REVELATION 1:3

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

We have automatic insight into the meaning of this passage as we see a singular reference “to HE that readeth” and a plural reference, “and THEY that hear.”

It seems to me that the natural interpretation of this is speaking to a preacher or reader of the Revelation reading or teaching it before an audience of hearers.

A singular reader and a plural hearer.  This makes sense since we know that this was being written to seven churches (hearers) and each of them would in all probability have a reader in them to read aloud what John is writing. Whether reader or hearer, both are considered blessed – fortunate, well-off, happier – to have read and heard the contents of this revelation.  That’s an important point for us to consider today.  If this Revelation is legitimate and applicable to us today, then the result should be we are all blessed by reading and hearing its contents.  It’s also important to note that John does not say blessed are they who understand or know the contents of the book but merely says blessed are they who read and hear its contents.  That is interesting.  Perhaps the reading or hearing, by the Spirit, blesses us in some manner or way that we cannot comprehend in our flesh?  Something to consider.

Having said this though, the next line certainly lends to the idea that to some extent or another the person reading and the people hearing had to comprehend some of what is being communicated here because in addition to the reader and the hearer being blessed John adds: “and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”

Right here we are reminded of an important fact about reading and hearing Holy Writ – the keeping of what is read and heard is of great importance.  It’s almost like reading a great recipe, creating the recipe described, but then refusing to eat it.

The message is here to certainly be understood so that it can then be applied.  Not just intellectually comprehended.  I can’t help but think of some great theologians of the past who understand the finer points of scripture but who have not let the contents flow into their hearts and/or hands.

“Blessed are they who keep those things which are written therein.”

This line presents all Bible readers something to wonder about – are we supposed to read and hear and keep the things which are written herein?  Because the Book is in our Bibles, this passage is greatly emphasized and has been emphasized to believers for nearly two millennia, but does the final line of the verse qualify keeping the contents of the book  when John adds:

“For the time is at hand.”

The signification of the Greek word used here is the same as the term used in verse 1 – the time for all that is contained herein, of all that is read and heard and that “is to be kept” . . . is about to shortly occur!

The fact that John adds this addendum to his directive to “keep all that is written here”  . . . “for the time is at hand,” suggests to me that it was vital that all who read and heard should also keep all that was written herein BECAUSE “the time was at hand!”

But I’m not so convinced about it having the same application to us today – unless all that is written herein still applies in some way or another.  And it may – if not literally, then spiritually or allegorically (as the Idealists maintain) or historically (as the Historicists maintain) or as a code to show what is coming in the future (as the Futurists maintain).  For the full preterist, however, the value of the book seems to lie in its historicity rather than in its prophetic nature.

One notion we have not considered when it comes to viewing the contents of the Book is to suggest that all views (excepting the Omitest) are all and equally valid.  We might refer to this as a Collectivist View which might take the Idealist, Historicist, Preterist and Futurist views and maintain that they are all equally viable, worthwhile and applicable. However, to them/then, the import of the Revelation cannot be overstated.

Additionally, it is worth noting that the Revelation is the only book in the Bible of which carries a “special blessing” for those who read, hear and keep its contents.  Because of this we have to confidently assume that its contents were understandable to the audience to which it was intended.

REVELATION 1:4-6

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Let’s go back to verse 4:

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

The word Asia is used in quite different senses, by different writers, so we have to consider how to try and see what John means here. First, it is used 

To refer to the whole eastern continent now known by that name; or, to part of Asia which Attlus III., king of Pergamos, gave to the Romans.  This Asia would include the lands of Mysia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Carla, Pisidia, and the southern coast—in other words, all in the western, south-western, and southern parts of Asia Minor; and/or, the south-western part of Asia Minor that is usually referred to with Ephesus as the capital.  Asia is not found in the Old Testament but is used in the books of Maccabees. 

We do know, however that in the New Testament, Asia is not used in the large sense that we use it today (meaning the whole continent) but in its largest application is only referred to what is called, “Asia Minor.”  Luke uses Asia to describe a country called, Ionia, but it seems that John meant to describe a region where Ephesus was the principal city, and it was in this region that the "seven churches" were situated.

Therefore, we read, “John to the Seven Churches in Asia.”

Were there more than seven churches?  Could have been.  It could have been that the Seven were the primary churches of that day.  We know from the New Testament that two other churches are mentioned (Colosse and Hierapolis) but they were probably destroyed by an earthquake prior to John receiving and recording this revelation.  The Roman historian Tacitus, (Annal. xiv. 27; compare also Pliny, N.H. v. 29,) reports that in the time of Nero (61 AD) that the city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake, in which earthquake, according to Eusebius, the adjacent cities of Colosse and Hierapolis were also involved.  However, Laodicea was immediately rebuilt, but there is no evidence of the re-establishment of the church there before the time when John wrote this book. 

This makes the Preterist argument weaker as the earliest mention we have of a church in Laodicea after the earthquake in 61 was in the time of Trajan, when Papias was bishop there and which was sometime between A.D. 98 and 117. 

However, it is possible that when Laodicea was immediately rebuilt after the 61AD destruction and that they gave special attention to making it materially superior to its former self and this contributed to the rich and self-satisfied description Jesus gives to it in the chapters to come, and that a pre-70 AD dating of the Revelation is still entirely possible.

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; 

Grace be unto you and peace was a common form of greeting a church as we can see from the writings of Paul. 

“From him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” 

Bottom line – from Him who is eternal.

From one embracing all duration, past, present, and what is to come.  We recall that God (Elohyim) said to Moses in Exodus 3:14 when asked His name:

“I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

This is the self existent one.  I see no need to “divide in order to describe” or identify this as the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.  It is God – all are God. 

The phraseology “From him which is, and which was, and which is to come,” is purely Jewish, and probably taken from the Tetragrammaton, (HWHY) pronounced by us as YEHOVAH, a name that apparently includes in itself “all time” - past, present, and future, or, as John reports, this is a Revelation from him:

“which is, and which was, and which is to come.” 

In response to the question to one Rabbi Samuel ben David of: 

"Why are you commanded to use three hours of prayer?  His answer was: 

“These hours point out the holy blessed God who WAS, who IS, and who SHALL BE. The MORNING prayer points out him who WAS before the foundation of the world; the NOONDAY prayer points out him who IS; and the EVENING prayer points out him who IS TO COME." 

Here John is pointing out that this revelation is coming from a being who is from all eternity.  So we have “that which WAS” (being the eternity before time) “that which IS,” (which is within time itself); and “that which IS TO COME,” (which is the eternity which shall be when time is no more.)  Could it be that a message or revelation who cannot be pinpointed to any time or place as beginning but merely always just being providing us a Revelation that must be read in a similar fashion?  That perhaps all of our limited human attempts to capture the real meaning of the book are failures because we keep trying to box God and His revelation into our extremely limited views?  

Just as an FYI, there have been some remarkable discoveries where human beings and peoples of ancient societies have also assigned eternality to themselves or their gods. For instance Greek biographer Plutarch, (De Is. et Osir. p. 354,) speaking of a temple of Isis, in Egypt, says, 

"It bore this inscription: 'I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my vail no mortal can remove'

Orpheus, the Greek legend, is said to have said: "Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all things are made by Jupiter."  Pausanias, a 2^nd Century Greek geographer wrote: 

"Jupiter was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be." 

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;”

What makes this line wild is that John tells us that the Revelation is from the eternal one (God) “and from the seven spirits which are before his throne.”  The phrase “seven Spirits” is only used in Revelation.  In Revelation 3:1 we will read:

1  “And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”

In Revelation 4:5 we will read

5 “And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.”

And in Revelation 5:6 we read

“And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.”

Taking each of these verses we can say from scripture (not from any ideas or opinions from Man, but from scripture) that:

• The Revelation is from God AND the Seven Spirits.
• That the person speaking to the church at Sardis has the Seven Spirits.
• That the seven lamps burning before the throne of God “are the seven Spirits of God,” and
• That the Lambs seven eyes and horns “are the Seven Spirits God sent forth into all the earth.”

Before we discuss some of Man’s ideas of who or what the Seven Spirits are, I do find it intriguing that Jesus mentions seven Spirits in His teachings which are reported in Matthew and in Luke.  In Matthew 12:43-45 Jesus teaches an important spiritual principle, saying:

43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Is the number seven representative here or are we to take this literally?  Do the seven wicked spirits have any relation to the fact that seven spirits are mentioned as being before the throne of God in Revelation?  Can’t say – yet.  But Luke uses seven spirits one more time in his Gospel narrative, which is the only other place seven spirits are spoken of in scripture.  It’s in Luke 8:2 where we are introduced to Mary Magdalene and read:

“And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,”

So twice in the New Testament (sans the Book of Revelation) the term seven spirits is used and in both they speak of evil spirits.   Of course the seven in Revelation are closely linked to God and His throne – but I think we need to keep it in the back of our mind that every other time (there are only two) where seven spirits are alluded to they are evil.

A lot – I mean a lot – has been written of the Seven Spirits.  And after all that has been written it is still impossible to determine with certainty who or what they are or mean. 

But let’s hit on the main theories.

First, they refer to God.  Johan Godfried Eichorn taught this (as did George Ewald) the German exegete.   But if the Seven Spirits refer to God it seems it would have to be seen as pure tautology, which means saying the same thing in a different way but in succession, like “she had acne all over her pimply face” . . . saying the same thing in a different way in succession – a tautology.  If it is a tautology, then some believe that “seven spirits” is just another way to say God.  How the Seven Spirits could be describes as “before the throne of God” is an ontological mystery but no more mysterious than the Holy Spirit being God and standing apart from God on his throne. 

Bible scholar Grotius believes that it refers to "the multiform providence of God," meaning God operating in seven or many different ways.   Because the spirits are said to be “before the throne, few salutes this flag when it is raised.

A third opinion, perhaps the most popular, is that the reference is to seven attending and ministering angels; angels represented as standing before the throne of God, or in his presence.  This opinion was adopted among many of the ancients (through the opinion of  Clemens of Alexandria) and includes some more modern thinkers (though not modern to us) such as Beza, Drusius, Hammond, Wetstein, Rosenmuller, Clarke, and Stuart (among others).   But even among them this opinion is understood in several different ways with some maintaining that the seven angels are referred to because of the Hebrew tradition that there were seven angels standing in the presence of God (just as seven princes stood in the Persian court before the king).  Others believe that the angels of the seven churches are particularly referred to here, represented at this point in the Revelation as “standing in the presence of God.” Still some otherssuggest that that seven angels represent seven principal angels that are employed in the governance of the world like seven archangels.  Those who think the seven spirits are  angels of some type (without the specifics) sustain their views in the following ways:

• Beings that stand before the throne of God are angels – typically.  So that makes sense.
• There are other passages in the Book of Revelation that describe seven angels.  For instance,

Revelation 8:2: "And I saw the seven angels which stood before God." 

         3.) As mentioned, the Hebrews held this view and in the Book of Tobit, an apocraphal book, Raphael introduces himself saying, 

"I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One." 

Also, in the apocryphal book of Enoch (chapter 20) the names of the seven angels “who watch” (meaning that they are watchers,  like it says in Daniel) stand in the presence of God waiting for the Divine commands and/or who watch over the affairs of men. 

Even in the “Zendavesta of Zoroaster,” seven archangels, are also mentioned.  However, there are great rejections toward this view as well.

The first rejection is it sounds like equal rank is given to these angels as to God himself.  This would be a no-no.  Also, if these seven spirits refer to angels there is the thought that it will lead to angel worship which is another no-no too. 

Finally, there is a theory that states that these seven spirits refer to the Holy Spirit.  This is supported by the idea that Jesus has been mentioned thus far in the first three verses, so has YHWH twice, so it only makes sense that the third person of the Trinity also gets a nod.   The example of 2^nd Corinthians 13:14 is used to support this idea where Paul  says:

 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." 

It is also pointed out that the word used here is not angels (angellos) but spirits (pneumatikos) - very different Greek terms, and though angels are spirits (and that the word spirit is applied to them in Hebrews 1:7) it seems that angels would have been used if that is what they were.  

Taking this into account it is thought that since these Spirits are called the Spirits of God, and God is deity, then these spirits are expressions of deity, seven in form, possibly seven characteristics of God, which He sends into the world by and through His Holy Spirit or breath. Because the number seven is often representative of a full or complete number it is thought that this refers to the complete spirit of God represented by seven, which would mean the Holy Spirit. Also, as we will soon realize, the number seven is evidently a favorite number in the book of Revelation, and it might be used by the author in places, and in a sense, such as it would not be likely to be used by another writer.  Therefore there are seven epistles to the seven churches; there are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials of the wrath of God, seven last plagues; there are seven lamps, and seven Spirits of God; the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes.   We also see (in Revelation 1:16) “seven stars” are mentioned; in Revelation 5:12, seven attributes of God; in Revelation 12:3, the dragon has seven heads; and in Revelation 13:1, the beast has seven heads too.  Therefore, and again, the number seven may have been given to the Holy Spirit with reference to the diversity or the fulness of his operations on the souls of men and to its full agency on the affairs of the world.

Finally, and this is a stretch, but because this is a book that describes judgment, and because the book of Job has God calling the Sons of God with Satan being among them, and along with the references of seven spirits being evil in some of the Gospel accounts, maybe we ought to also wonder if the seven spirits are in fact wicked and wild and are bringing forth the message of judgement to the world.

Have to consider it before we can reject it, right?

So, in verse four we read:

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come (God); and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne,” and then verse five;

5 And . . . from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

This inclusion of Jesus makes one wonder that if the Seven Spirits are NOT speaking of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Holy Trinity, that maybe we have yet another reason to wonder about the supposed third person.

“And . . .

We note that Grace and peace is first from the one who was, and is, and is to come, AND from the Seven Spirits AND from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.”

Jesus is called the faithful witness in a number of senses.  First, as the Word made flesh, He was faithful in His witness of the Father. Secondly, on passing this specific revelation on He is again a faithful witness.

“And the first-begotten of the dead.”

The is the exact same expression in the Greek that occurs in Colossians 1:18.  It is significant that Paul explains that it was at His resurrection that God says, “Today I have begotten thee.” This says that as a man who died, Jesus was shown to be the true Son of God after He rose from the grave and that this would be the case of all who were about to shortly be raised from the same, showing that God had also begat them by and through the Spirit.  Jesus was the first-fruits from the grave of many brethren.

And then Jesus is described as, “And the prince of the kings of the earth.”

King of Kings, Lord of Lords.  He has rule over all the kings of the earth the pre-eminence which kings have over their subjects.  The word translated Prince here is taken from Ar-kone, from the root, archae meaning the primary, the first, the principle King or Ruler over all kings of the earth.  It is His.  It is Him.  He reigns – not Hilary not Trump.

Him.

All through scripture we are given passages that point to Him as the exalted Redeemer.  Paul writes in Ephesians 1:20-22

20 Which he (God) wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, The exaltation of the Redeemer is elsewhere expressed in different language, but the idea is one that everywhere prevails in regard to him in the Scriptures. 

OR

Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

OR 

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

All these things we just read are also found in scripture as pertaining to the rights and authority of God (mostly in the Old Testament) so we can see that He, the Man who overcame all is now the prince and King of Kings raised to right hand of His side – all to the glory and honor of the Father.

“Unto him that loved us.”

This line troubles me greatly.  Maybe I’m just dense.  But this is why.

In verses 4-6 we have read (emphasis mine)

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto (or to) him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

How is the Revelation from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness (verse 5) but is also to Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood?  The standard answer is that this is a brand new beginning or passage and therefore it should not hearken back to verses 4 and the first half of verse 5. I suppose that’s possible.  But it still doesn’t answer how it could both be from Jesus Christ and then to Jesus Christ. 

Another answer is that it was grace and peace that was from God, the Seven Spirits and Jesus but John himself dedicates the Revelation to Jesus Christ . . . 

 . . . who “loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

“and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (and six)

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

We have covered how Jesus is called “the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth” and now John adds 

“And washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

I have often read over this phraseology “washed from sin in blood” or phrases like it (which are only found in here and in Revelation 7) but when we think about it the line is really very paradoxical. 

On this earth, blood is one of the most difficult common stains around.  I mean its paradoxical to think of blood washing anything clean, right?  Because we are using terms like washing we tend to think of our sins as being material and the blood flowing from the cross and down over the sins we have committed and washing them down a drain. But blood and its cleansing power must be seen figuratively or better put, spiritually if we are to best understand its application because if we are talking about actual staining sin leaves none materially and materially that’s all that blood does!  Right?

So in the “opposite world of God” we find ourselves confronted by the line that sin is washed away by blood – and accepting this we have to admit that the stain of sin is spiritual along with the washing away of it.   Not that Jesus shed blood wasn’t real.  It was.  It was His life pouring out for the sin of the world.  But what is actually being washed away and how is (whatever is being washed away) being washed away by Jesus blood?   Perhaps we might begin by asking, “what stain is created by sin?”

I am sitting in my house and a neighbor comes by and we engage in some gossip about another.  While we understand the harm the gossip could cause for others is there any other by-product of the gossip that needs to be washed away?  I steal a pack of donuts off a delivery truck?  What is the harm?  Where is it located?  Where is the actual stain?

I break the law  - any law – where is the stain?  Is it in my soul?  Is it a mark on the books?  Does my driving 90 in a 70 mph zone create a stain that only Jesus blood can wash away?

In Revelation 7 (which we will get to we read the allegorical language):

Revelation 7:14  . . . “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Again, how on earth could the Lamb’s blood make a robe white and it that what the blood of Jesus does?  Makes things white (or cleansed)?   We have to admit here that blood, while being represented as having a cleansing power to make things clean or white only as it makes it in an expiation for sin because literally considered its effect would be the reverse, as in, “their blood is on your hands,” or “the blood of your brother cries from the ground.”

Blood stains – unless it’s the blood of Jesus, which seems to cleanse (unless, perhaps, it stains those who reject Him).  His blood is unlike any other for what good would my or your or Ghandi or Mohammed’s shed blood do but make a mess and stain everything it touched?  But somehow we trust that in the shedding of Jesus blood the blight of sin, the residue of failure, selfishness, pain and suffering we cause – is washed away.

Clearly then we are able to see then that atonement is a purely spiritual event.  There is really no other way to see it since His blood washes away sins committed 1500 years before His crucifixion and now, almost 2000 years since.   Certainly, at that time, and from  His literal body, the actual blood was shed but the efficacy of that substance was so overwhelmingly powerful that in the spirit realms it has the power of a trillion brilliant suns removing all shadow and all stain from the human soul.  John the beloved put it this way in 1^st John 1:7 

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

It’s along this line that the writer of Hebrews said (in chapter 9:13-14)

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

So it seems that on some sort of reverse spectrum, where shed blood normally stains and turns things dark and soiled, the blood of Christ takes the soiled spots on the human soul and not only cleanses them removing the stain but brings them to actual life allowing us to serve the living God here and to abide in His presence there.

Verse six (which seems to follow in as if to say as a result of Jesus being) . . .

“the faithful witness,” and 

“the first begotten of the dead,” and 

“the prince of the kings of the earth,” who

 “loved us,” and “washed us from our sins in his own blood,”

That he (verse 6)

6 . . . hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Let me knock out the first thing that pops up in some people’s minds when they read this verse.  John has been writing about Jesus and all that He has done, including making those who accept Him by faith kings and priests.  Who did this?  Jesus.  What did He do?  Made them (us) Kings and Priests unto God, (who is His) father.  So to God and his Father. Got that?  Not unto “God and His father (meaning God and his father) but he (Jesus) has made us Kings and Priests unto God who is His father.

“And hath made us (those who believe on Him) kings and priests unto God.”

Kings and priests – I dread entering into this line for so many reasons but it’s a must.  First of all, we have to ask is this passage referring to us as Kings and priests here on earth during the coming millennium (futurism) or now spiritually here on earth (full preterism) or in the future here on earth (partial preterism) or in heaven (idealism). Then we have to wonder if this is a reference to our being Kings and priests or in a Kingdom of Priests.

Huh?  What?

Here’s the deal.  My King James reads the passage this way:

“And hath made us (those who believe on Him) kings and priests unto God.”

Other translations agree with this one from the Textus Receptus.  However, Bible versions which come from other manuscript like the Nestle or the Westcott and Hort all say this:

Revelation 1:6 (RSV) and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I’m sorry folks but these are VERY different things, folks!  And the Greek is no help here because – get this – both the King James and the other versions are true to what their specific Greek manuscripts say!  In other words, the Greek in the Revised manuscript is a word for kingdom and the Greek for the Authorized is king.  Commentator responses have been really remarkable as all that I have consulted either stand firm on the idea that nowhere in scripture is man promised to become a King (only Jesus after the order of Melchizedek) but other commentators suggest that the presence of Revelation 5:10 (which says):

“And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

The interpretation is clear.

When we get to chapter five we’ll discuss the implications of that verse but for now, are believers “made kings and priests” or, as the MNT translation puts it, are we 

“made to be a kingdom of priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever, Amen.”

It is believed that this latter interpretation is based on a passage in Exodus 19:6 where God says to the Nation of Israel:

“And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” 

Now, in the New Testament we find two important words that have, over the course of time, evolved into conceptual ideas that are often far afield from their Biblical and historic meaning.  These two words are Church and Kingdom.  Often, in the modern evangelical mind, both of these words create notions much different than their original Greek meanings.  The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia, whereas, the Greek word translated as “kingdom” is basileia. 

Ekklesia and basileia.

Both of these words were in common usage, long before the time of Christ and the writing of the New Testament and both of them have their roots in a non-religious context.  Instead they were political terms in the ancient Greek world.  It is important that we understand how these words fit into Greek political theory. 

The New Testament was not written in a vacuum. Jesus came in “the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4), when a Greek-based political culture had spread across the Mediterranean world and the Near East.   The language of this culture serves a “back drop” to understanding the New Testament. 

The word ekklesia was used by Jesus to ascribe the status of His followers and it meant those who were called out of the common citizenry or polis.  These were an elected assembly and their purpose was to rule. It was the “ekklesia” who made fundamental political and judicial decisions in that Greek influenced world.  When the disciples heard Jesus use this word for what He was building, they undoubtedly were aware of its implications relating to public authority. 

Jesus could have used the word synagogue (Greek sunagogee) instead of ekklasea, which is a nondescript term for “gathering” that says nothing in particular about the significance of the gathering at all.  The term best means herd.  But Jesus instead chose a word rich in political connotations. 

Then “basileia” was a word that meant “a supreme sovereign’s (a monarchical) reign.”   From it we get kingdom.  The significance of basileia and Jesus’ choice of the word ekklesia is really interesting in light of Greek political theory.  Quite frankly, Aristotle’s use of the words were mutually exclusive.  In other words, basileia meant exclusion from political decision-making (remember, it was a Kingdom of monarchal rule) so therefore it would have been viewed as an undesirable reign for free people who made their own decisions. But it was considered a desirable form of government for slaves, who were unable to make responsible decisions themselves and had to be ruled.  The form of government for a free people, Aristotle termed a politeia, and central to a politeia, was an ekklesia. 

Ekklesia was thus symbolic of the status of a free people, a people set free from the yoke of the basileia. 

What was the form of government for the Nation of Israel under the Old Covenant? With only a few exceptions (Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets), the Old Testament saints were of the status of slaves.  They were left out of the counsel of God and were fearful of Him. Take note the status Paul attributes to Old Testament Israel in Galatians 4:22-5:1. 

The book of Hebrews makes the same point (12:18-24), saying:

18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church (ekklasia) of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Mount Sinai evoked fear in the hearts of the Israelites; but the New Testament believer, by contrast, is brought to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the ekklesia of the firstborn.  

All of this is political language, describing the New Testament saint’s relationship to the King and his spiritual Kingdom.  The King’s relationship with the ekklesia is one of trust based upon true reconciliation, an intimate relationship, one in which the subject is not a slave but a citizen, a fellow decision–maker.  This is made evident by the words of Jesus at the Last Supper (John 15:13-16).  There He calls His disciples friends, not slaves, remember. 

“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what the master does.” 

A slave is the object of decisions by the master, over which the slave has no control.  On the other hand, a friend participates in the counsels of the master. Jesus said, “But I have called you friends, for all things I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.”  Jesus’ “friends” (His faithful disciples)  are granted the privilege of participation in the heavenly counsels of the Father and the Son, through the Holy Spirit.  (We note that the distinction between friend vs. slave is found in the writings of Aristotle too.) 

In Ephesians 2:6, we are told that as believers, “we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” We are invited to sit down in the place where heavenly decisions are made.  Through Christ, the Gentile saints are now “fellow polites” (Ephesians 2:19), participants in the life of the politeia of God, along with the Jewish saints.  They are citizens of the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city which reigns spiritually over the kings of the earth who have no jurisdictional authority here at all.   So while Jesus Christ is now King of kings and Lord of lords, the ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev.1:5) and his ekklesia reigns with Him, (Revelation 1:6) our kingdom, like His, is not of this world but is spiritual, and headquartered in the kingdom above, the New Jerusalem. 

It only stands to reason that in light of this, and in light of the fact that we are to be joint heirs with Him, that being Kings and Priests is the best way to read this disputable passage in verse 6.

In terms of priests the proof is easy.  Where Kings reign and rule (and I would suggest that the freedom to rule oneself under the tutelage of Christ may be one of the rewards of life eternal) priests are those who offer up sacrifice – in our case on earth, living sacrifices.  The Apostle Peter validates the fact that believers are priest saying in 1 Peter 2:9

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

And Titus 2:14 which adds, speaking of Jesus . . .

“Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

Finally, in this little introduction to the Revelation, John adds:

“To him be glory.”  I read this, based off verse 5, to refer to Jesus and the word means “praise or honor,” implying a wish that all honor should be shown him.   And then he adds, “And dominion,” which in the Greek really means strength – “kraton” -  so it probably refers to Jesus having the strength to exercise all authority over all.

At this point we appear to enter into more of the Revelation, but once again, this also appears to be perhaps just another brief introduction.  Frankly, verses 1-2 appear to be the first introduction, verse 3 seems to be the second, and verses 4-6 seem to be a third.  Now we receive what could be a fourth mini introduction where John writes (either because it was shown to him or he was inspired to write it, we don’t know): 

REVELATION 1:7

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

This first line, when we consider context, is yet another warning of the eminent nature of this prophecy. God, according to Jesus when He was on earth, was the only one who knew the day or the hour.  God has now given Jesus a Revelation and Jesus has given it to John and John is giving it to the seven churches.  He has said that he comes quickly.  Now, God the Father, to Jesus His Son, to his angel and then to John, who was writing  to the seven churches, says:

“Behold, he cometh with clouds.” 

From the beginning we can see that this Revelation is all about Jesus return to earth, coming out of the Holy of Holies on high with reward and judgement, which would be the culmination or the complete wrap up of that age.  The question for believers is which view are we to read and to continue to read, this revelation through?  Thus far, in these few short passages it seems that the idealist, the historicist and the Preterist views are winning and the futurist view seems myopic as we have no reason thus far to believe that Jesus was coming back at any other time than to them/then as it is clear that Jesus wanted the Seven Churches to know that the “time is short,” and “at hand,” and now “behold (meaning Look, pay attention to this) He cometh in the clouds.”  The interesting thing about this is that futurists claim that they read the text as it is, without imputing any mystical meaning to the revelation itself and if this is truly the case how do they explain away the first seven verses of the first chapter?   It is clear that as we dig into the body of the book that all manner of debatable issues are going to pop up that require interpretation and it is here where the futurists might regain some ground but so far it seems like in the four  introductions of this book, where things are most clear as to audience, intent, and purpose of the book, there is a preponderance of evidence that clearly says that all of the Revelation about to come forth describes something that is about to shortly happen (or in the least about to begin to shortly happen) and this seems to include Him coming in the clouds, the focal point of everything because Him coming in the clouds is the summation of all things!

The word behold here is also important.  John has said that those who read and hear and kept the revelation would be blessed.  Now he begins this passage with “behold he cometh . . .”

The Greek behold (idoo) is in the imperative and it means “See, look, you of the Seven Churches . . . He cometh in the clouds!”  His coming in the clouds is in accordance with most of the representations respecting His return.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus reiterates this message and says:

“I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Mark repeats the message of Matthew and of course in the first chapter of Acts we read of Jesus getting together with His apostles and at verse 6 it says:

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And he said unto them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.  8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.  9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.  10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. 

Biblically clouds are symbols of heavenly majesty and God is often represented as appearing in that manner.

Psalsm 18:11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

Isaiah says in chapter 19:1 that the Lord “rideth in on swift clouds.” 

So, that is how the Lord is coming back – with the clouds. 

“And every eye shall see him,” which might be the first truly debatable phrase thus far in the book.  I remember as a kid when the subject of the second coming would pop up we would wonder how every eye would see Him – especially if He returned to the Mount of Olives?   Mormon folk used to say that Jesus would probably come back and appear on the televised broadcast of their semi-annual general conference which would fulfill this prophesy. Futurist’s maintains that this description has not happened (or course) because we have no record of every eye at any time in history seeing Jesus return – therefore this was obviously describing a future date.

And here is where we have to take the content of the whole of scripture to help us understand and interpret lines like this in the book.  In Hebrews we have another way of understanding that “every eye will see Him” when He returns as it says:

Hebrews 9:28 “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Speaking to this same time, when all things will be completed and there will be new things like heaven and earth Peter said to his audience:

2^nd Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 

This is the same Peter who wrote to his audience in the same letter:

1^st Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

The futurist reads verse seven of Revelation chapter one and says,

“Every eye must see Him coming in the clouds,” but the Preterist, taking in the whole of scripture says, “every eye that is looking for Him when He comes will see Him.”

At this point John the Revelator adds another group who will see Him then, saying:

“And they also which pierced him.” 

This seems to be in accordance or a fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10 which says:

“They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn."

This could not be referring to when He was crucified and those who looked upon His person with sorrow as the event is clearly tied to His coming in the clouds.  Based on the four general views this can be taken literally, meaning those who actually crucified him (the Romans) and/or those who were responsible for Him “being pierced” literally (the Jews in that day) or those for whom He was crucified (every human being on earth – which is more the futurist view of the line) while the Idealist would say that this applies to all of us who “at the time we come to Jesus” we “see” Him in the clouds.  Historically and contextually, the meaning is clear:  He left in the clouds and those who pierced him and those who were looking for him, would see him returning in the clouds. John adds that not only will those who crucified Him would see Him but . . . 

“all kindreds of the earth.”

This line adds fuel to the futurist fires for to them what John describes has not happened because certainly:

“Not every eye has seen him” return, neither has “everyone who caused Him to be pierced,” neither have “all the kindreds of the earth!”  Young’s Literal Translation of the passage present us with another view as it says:

“Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!”

Automatically by appealing to the Greek we (shall we say) shrink the vastness of the passage and bring it in to more geographical confines.   In other words, “shall all the tribes of the land” is a very different line than, “shall all the kindreds of the earth.” This translational misdirection is the product of the King James team and has done great damage to the actual meaning of the Greek.  

It’s not to say that this was purposeful but more due to the time and language.  For instance the term translated “all the kindreds” in the King James is from the word, foo-lai, which means tribes and in all probability speaks to the twelve Tribes of Israel (or whatever tribes that were around Judea at that time) rather than all the families of the earth or world.  Similarly, the line “of the earth” comes from the Greek, ghay and better means all that were of the tribes in that region or land rather than the whole earth (or kosmos).

When the apostles ask Jesus to describe His return and the end of the age in Matthew 24, Jesus uses these same terms – tribes/land, rather than kindreds/world (as the King James has him say).

Even futurist bible commentators admit that the word tribes here is what is commonly applied to the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus used, would describe the inhabitants of the holy land.  John adds that in witnessing His return in the clouds all (who see Him)

 “Shall wail because of him.”

The word shall wail means to beat or to cut - to beat or cut one's self in the chest as an expression of sorrow, to lament, to cry aloud in intense grief.   Interestingly enough, John adds to all of this:  

“Even so, Amen”

According to scholars this is "A double expression of ‘so be it, assuredly, certainly’ . . . .” 

It is a strong affirmation that what he has just written will be, and the fact that there is an affirmation in both Hebrew and Greek suggests that all who were part of His church, who were His bride, at the time, whether Jew or Greek, could expect what John has written to come to pass – and quickly.  It is not by mistake, in my opinion that in the last verse of the Revelation John writes in Revelation 22:20 

“He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus,” which stands as another affirmation of all he has said being a certainty rather than a hope or wish.

REVELATION 1:8

So let’s move on to what may just be the first real words of the actual Revelation at verse 8 (which we might give ourselves the liberty to see as a fifth introductory section) and here we have an introduction from heaven which says:

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Note the term, the beginning and the end is only used twice in scripture and both in Revelation and both used with the term, Alpha and Omega.  So, let’s start off with this first line, “I am Alpha and Omega.”

I’m sure you realize them as thefirst and the last letters of the Greek alphabet.

Among the Jewish Rabbins, it was common to use the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of anything in other words, “from beginning to end.”  Therefore, in their writings, we can actually read that, "Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Taw” or "Abraham kept the whole law from Aleph to Tav." 

Properly this means from the beginning of eternity (if there is such a thing) to the end of time (if again, there is such a thing);  taking these concepts there could only be one being who was and is from these extremes – YHWH – always existing. So, we read in 

Isaiah 41:4, "I Jehovah, the first, and with the last;'

Isaiah 44:6, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12, "I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." 

Because of this scriptural history there is no doubt that the language here implies absolute divinity and could not ever be applied to any other being than the only true and living God.  There is, due to a difference of reading in the Greek, an inability to know absolutely if in this first use – Revelation 1:8 – that it refers to Jesus Christ.  Many manuscripts read, God instead of "Lord." (kurios)  Because the Revelation is coming from God to Jesus, and because it is God the Father who is designated earlier (in verse 4) as the One . . .

“which is, and which was, and which is to come,” 

I tend to think that in this particular verse we are reading about God the Father or simply YHWH.   The phrase Alpha and Omega is used five times in scripture, all in the Book of Revelation.  It is used twice in this first chapter (here at verse 8 and then again in 11), then once in chapter 21 and then once again in chapter 22.

If we add the phrase, “first and the last” (used alone and without Alpha and Omega) we can throw two more verses into the mix (Revelation 1:17 and 2:8) where the phrase is used by the speaker to introduce himself.

Interestingly enough, it does appear that God is sometimes referred to as the speaker who uses the term but more emphatically we cannot escape the fact that Jesus is also called the Alpha and the Omega here in Revelation. 

So let’s read the passages in chronological order that contain the term, “alpha and omega” and/or the first and the last, and/and/or the beginning and the end” as they are presented in the Book of Revelation and attempt to identify who (these phrases) are speaking about.

Again, nowhere else in scripture are any of the phrases, “Alpha and Omega,” or “the first and the last” or “the beginning and the end” used.  To me this is really interesting and peculiar and just might bodes to the nature of the book itself being an uncovering of all things and therefore (at least) serving as the being “the end” and if read from an idealist perspective, an uncovering or revelation of both “the beginning and the end of all things.”

Even so, the we are reminded that even if the book is a revelation of the opening and closing of things God is still the true beginning and end, the true first and last and the true Alpha and Omega.

So first we read it here in what we might call the fifth introduction in the book, (Revelation chapter 1 verse 8)

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

As I said, I believe this speaks of God the Father because of the contents of verse four where we did identify that verse speaking of Him.

I also make this claim because theos is used here in the older manuscripts over kurios or Lord.

Finally, the addition of the Almighty seems to seal the deal as this term (as we will see) is always used to describe Him in scripture.

Then in verse 11 of this same chapter we read:

Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

To me, as all things have been placed in Jesus hands – especially His church – I believe that verse 11 of chapter 1 speaks of Him.

Then at verse 17 of chapter one we read:

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

Verse 17, based on context tells us that this “first and last” was certainly Christ.

Then in chapter two we read at verse 8 we read an obvious allusion to Jesus once again, when it says: 

“And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;”

Then we jump out to the end of the Revelation where we read in the second to the Last chapter another allusion to the name but because of context this one is a little more difficult to parse and therefore identify who the Alpha and Omega really is – the Father or the Son.  Listen as it says:

Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.  6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Then in the last chapter we read:

Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.  13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

This seems to obviously be speaking of Christ Jesus, who would be the one who would be coming quickly but in reference to Him we can’t help but note the trifecta of eternality assigned to Him:

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Go back with me quickly to the Old Testament where we have read:

Isaiah 41:4 "I Jehovah, the first, and with the last;'

And Isaiah 44:6, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

The terms are obviously assigned to Jehovah God.  The terms are now assigned, here in Revelation to Jesus, God’s Only Begotten Son.

Additionally, we read here that the term Almighty, is added to the description.

“Which is, and which was, (etc_ . . . the Almighty.” 

An appellation often applied to God, meaning that he has all power, and used here to denote that he is able to accomplish what is disclosed in this book.

This term is used 58 times in scripture and in the Old Testament is always refers to God Almighty.  In Exodus 6:3 we read:

“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”

Job uses the term extensively and in the Old Testament it is never NOT capitalized.  Therefore, it is exclusively used to describe God and God alone.  In the New Testament Almighty is used nine times – all in Revelation –  except for 2^nd Corinthians 6:18 where Paul is citing an amalgam of Old Testament passages to describe God and says:

“And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

The Greek for Almighty is PAN-TOK-RAT-ORE and it means “the all-ruling, the sovereign of the Universe, Omnipotent or all powerful one.”  The Revelation passages that speak to the Almighty are

Revelation 1:8 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”

Again, this could speak to God the Father or Jesus the Son.

Then in Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

This verse seems to be echoing Isaiah 6 and is speaking there of the LORD GOD almighty. 

In Revelation 11:17 we read, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

Again, this appears to be unquestionably speaking of God throughout all eternity.

And Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.”

And this passage seems to referring to Jehovah, the God of hosts, the one who has always been.

Revelation 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

Speaking of God.

Revelation 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Speaking of God.

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Speaking of God

And finally, Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

This passage seems to differentiate between the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.   So having read through all of this we can say the following:

First, the term the Lord God Almighty is ONLY assigned to God and never to Jesus or the Lamb.

Secondly, the phrase “that which was, which is, and which is to come” is used to describe both Father and Son (typically to God in the OT and to Jesus in the Book of Revelation – with the exception of verse 8).

The term, Alpha and Omega seems to be primarily (with the exception of verse 8) assigned to Jesus almost all of the time.  And in light of all these exceptions to verse eight, we might need to concede that verse eight is also speaking of Christ.

And the term, “the beginning and the end” is assigned primarily to Jesus except (again) for verse 8 and some Old Testament passages. As an important aside, none of these terms are ever assigned to the person of the Holy Spirit – especially in the Book of Revelation.  So to me, it seems that the Holy Spirit is completely ignored in the Book of Revelation in terms of ontological description but is only spoken of in terms of speaking.

What is intriguing is the phrases that were once used exclusively for God in the Old Testament are now, in the Book of Revelation, being extended to Jesus as they were not given to Him before.  For me – as I can only speak for myself – these descriptions now which are also given to Jesus evidence that the Man Jesus, born of a woman and born under the Law, having received all that the Father (His Father) has, and as the mediator between God and Man, obtained the titles of Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the Last, whereas these terms were not assigned to Him during His walk through mortality.

In other words, He now (here in Revelation) is shown to reign as the One “who was, and is, and is to come, the Alpha and Omega of all things, and our mediatorial access to the Almighty Himself.   This view also forces us to understand Isaiah 44:6 better which says:

“Thus saith the LORD (YAHWAY) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Trinitarians read this as God the Father and Jesus (called his redeemer the Lord of hosts) in his pre-existent state.  But it could be read as God Himself calling Himself YAHWAY the King of Israel and the redeemer the Lord of Host, (and then saying)  “I and the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God.”

Because of these passages and more I am more and more beginning to see God as becoming flesh and existing in the Man Jesus; and the Man Jesus revealing Him in the flesh, doing what His Father would do, overcoming this world, and then the Man Jesus being given all that his Father has, and reigning over all things until the end where He would submit Himself to God, step from his right hand, allowing God to become all in all.

Some things to gnaw on. 

REVELATION 1:9

This brings us to verse 9, where John seems to introduce to us his person and how he came to play this role in putting this Revelation together.  And he writes:

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John begins by associating himself with his reader as their “brother” in the family of God, “a companion in tribulation and in the Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.”  The reference is in all probability to those who were members of the Body in the seven churches in Asia minor and we can’t help but notice that John includes himself in the same situation they seem to be facing.  So he calls himself their brother and “companion” (in the Greek it is best understood as co-partner) in the tribulation that was happening . . . then. At that time.  Remember this.  John could never be a co-partner with us today in tribulation – John is dead.  So, we know from this phrasing that he is pin-pointing out that specific time of tribulation.  Today we talk all about pre-trib and post trib eschatology but John, speaks of himself as a partner with those who were in the Seven Churches.  Then.  If we stand on the pure full-preterist view which says that all of this is complete and finished then we would have to believe that all who were suffering with and for Him (then) have become joint heirs with Christ and are reigning with Him today from on high in the New Jerusalem.

Contextually, the scripture was encouraging believers in that day to endure suffering until Jesus returned with their reward, which is described as a crown of glory.  This is why we read passages from Peter that says things like:

1^st Peter 5:4 “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”

And its why we read Paul say things like 2^nd Timothy 4:8 

“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”

What was expected of those people in that day who awaited His coming, His appearing or awaited that day?

“Patience through suffering.“  This is what caused other New Testament writers to say:

Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

And 2^nd Timothy 2:10 “Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.  11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.

And Romans 8:17 where Paul said: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

And 1^st Peter 4:13-14 which reads: “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.”

So again, from the full preterist view, the book is a “complete completed history” of God working through the Nation of Israel to bring about His full victorious plan of salvation into the world.  And all who patiently waited for Him through insufferable conditions did, in fact, “receive a crown of life and presently do reign with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as joint heirs.”

Patmos and the dating of Revelation

So, John has written:

“I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, 

We first note that John says nothing about being banished or exiled.  Admittedly, we could read into what is written here and suggest that when John says that he was “in the isle that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ,” that he is telling us that these were the “charges against him” that got him banished or exiled to the Island and that it was for “the word and testifying of Christ.”  But perhaps we ought to examine this banishment claim more closely since we are here.

Patmos is one island of a cluster of islands in the Aegean Sea, anciently called the Sporades.  It lies between the island of Icaria and Miletus and it gets a mention or two by ancient geographers like Pliny and Strabo (a Greek geographer).  It is six to eight miles in length, and not more than a mile in breadth and is about fifteen miles in circumference. Not a big place.  

There are no rivers on Patmos and the coast line of the island is scared by nooks and crannies (to borrow from the advertising of Thomas’s English muffins) with marred high slides of rocks which reached into the sea.  That being said, there is an abundance of flowers and shrubs all over the island.  Unlike tradition suggests, Patmos did apparently have a harbor, and other places of commerce upon it and was not entirely desolate like other Islands the Romans used to banish evil-doers.

Approaching the island (and as stated) the coast line is high but there are a number of capes that make up some solid ports but apparently only one was used as it had a deep bay that is surrounded by mountains on all sides but one. Though Patmos is lacking in trees it is known for producing some of the best wine in the Greek Islands.  About half-way up a mountain there is a natural grotto carved out of a rock and tradition says this is where John saw his visions and where he wrote Revelation.  At one time there was a small church nearby that was connected to a school and apparently there was a monastery at the center of the Island too.  

As we know, the Futurist position dates Revelation at about 96 AD.  We also know that it is absolutely critical to the Preterist that the book was written before 70 AD destruction. Dispensationalists [also known as  futurists] have very little to support the late date position so they lean heavily on what we call external evidence to make their case (evidence that comes from outside of the Bible and evidence that contradicts what the interior evidence of the Bible plainly states).

The futurist position relies on the "integrity”of the early church fathers, such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodus, Apollinaris, and others who lived within some three hundred years of the time of John. 

Hal Lindsey, a huge proponent of dispensationalism stated, 

"The correctness of the date [A.D. 96] is also confirmed by all those traditions which refer the exile of John upon Patmos to his extreme old age, or which describe Revelation as the latest, or one of the latest, writings in the N.T.”

According to "tradition," John was exiled to Patmos when he was in his extreme old age.  But as we’ve pointed out while he was there he was told (in Revelation 10:11) that he “must travel and prophesy to many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings,” and we have to wonder about this being possible if John was so old at the time of writing the book.

Now there is no question that John was on the Isle of Patmos when he wrote (at least part) of the Revelation – he says so here in verse 9.  But was he exiled or banished?  Several Bible commentaries justify the banishment theory by using verse 9 itself to prove banishment!  They say: “Read what it says!”  So let’s read what it says:

“I John   . . . . was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

And they say, “See, John right there says he was in the isle called Patmos for (or as a result) of preaching the word of God and for (or as a result) of His testimony of Jesus Christ!”

Now hang with me.  In the book of Acts chapter 2 Peter is preaching and he says something to the Jews gathered at Pentecost.  He says (at verse 38):

“Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

And groups like the Mormon missionaries and other baptismal regenerists say, “See, Peter told the Jews to repent and be baptized FOR FOR FOR the remission of sins!” In order to receive a remission of sins.”  Therefore, they say, water baptism is required in order to be forgiven and saved.  But the key to understanding this is in the Greek term translated “for.” In the case in Act we have a couple of choices – 

For is causal (“dia”) or For is resultant (“eis”). 

“Eis” means “be baptized because you have received (as a result of having received) a remission of sins,” and “dia” means “be baptized in order to receive a remission of sin.”  (causal).

In our example from Acts we discover that for is taken from eis (resultant) which would mean that Peter was saying, “be baptized because you HAVE received a remission of sin” and not “dia” (so that you can receive a remission of sin).  So, taking this let’s go out to our verse here in Revelation 1.  

Dispensationalists read this as “eis” (resultant) that John was in Patmos BECAUSE he was preaching the Word and testifying of Christ (therefore it was a punishment) and not “Dee-ah” (or in order to teach the Word and share the testimony of Christ). So, which is it?  Dia!  Its causal!  For “the cause of preaching” and not eis, “as a result of preaching!”  This better supports the idea that his being in Patmos was “to share” rather than “because he had shared.”  

Then we have the history that during the time of Domitian (the Roman Emperor who reigned from 81 AD to 96) that Christians had to “either admit loyalty to Christ or to Caesar” and if they chose the former they would be punished and it was this punishment that John was sent to Patmos.  The convenient thing about this theory is that Domitian reigned after the destruction of Jerusalem and so the tradition has thrived among futurists. 
But think about this.  While John is on Patmos in apparent exile Jesus sends a message by His angel, commanding John to write “to seven churches in Asia.”  In this (which we will read in chapters 2 and 3) Jesus commends some of the churches and reprimands others for various things.  And while the churches are not perfect by any means Jesus says nothing about them denying Him while accepting Caesar. 

If this was what Domitian was doing to Christians and this was occurring at the time that John was writing in the late date of 90 AD, we would think that something would be said by Jesus – commending them for admitting Him and denying Caesar or condemning them for denying Him and embracing Caesar. 
Under such widespread persecution as futurists describe, all these churches would have had to renounce Christ to even survive under Domitian’s reign. 

The Scripture does speak of persecution but it gives no clear sense that any of those pastors (or believers) fell in with Rome nor that any were imprisoned or banished as John was supposed to have been banished for admitting Christ.   So why would John be singled out for exile to Patmos by Domitian while the pastors of all these other seven churches were permitted to carry on "business as usual," doing the same things John had been doing; worshiping God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ? 

In the end, instead of debating over external evidences (which again is all the futurists got to give the late date) I ask, what is more reliable:  one single source of external evidence (which we covered above) or two strong internal examples (from the Word of God itself) to help us understand how John got to Patmos.

Also remember that Paul warned: 

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock"(Acts 20:29)

In light of this we might conclude that shortly after Paul left that false teachers came in, preaching lies and deceit wherever they could find careless and gullible Christians to listen.  This situation was endemic to the church of the ancient world and all we have to do is read the early church fathers to see that while they did possess much truth they were also all guilty of errant views.  We can trust that God was able to keep His Word in tact but to extend this out to the thoughts and opinions of men who lived 100 to 300 years after Christ is proven untrue.  The internal biblical evidences is much weightier in my mind than post apostolic traditions.

A few more things.

It may be possible to prove from the New Testament that John received some of the Revelation, at least part of it, much earlier than 68 AD. Let’s look at it this way.  What was John doing between 36 and 46 AD?  He was probably going out preaching the “gospel of the kingdom,” as Jesus had instructed him to do.  The question remains, could he have received the Revelation (or some of it) during these years?

We might suppose that John could have received at least the first two portions of it, about 46 AD.   Stay with me.  According to internal information in Revelation, John received the first portion (chapters 1-3) of the vision when Jesus Christ "sent and signified" it by his messenger to John (Revelation 1:1).

(By the way, and just as an aside, in light of creedal trinitarianism, which states that Jesus is God and that He is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, the very first verse of the Revelation says that God gave this revelation to Jesus?)  Anyway . . .  

The second portion (chapters 4-16) tells us it was received when he was commanded to "come up (anabino – go up) “hither” (the word hither means “to come to where I am”) and to a Jew speaking with a heavenly being this would be “to the third heaven”) “and I will show you things which must soon come to pass." 

Then the third portion (chapters 17-21 verse 8) was received when the messenger invited him to 

"come here; I will show unto you the judgment of the great whore that sits upon many waters.”

And then finally, the fourth and final portion (21:9-22:21) of the vision was received when the messenger came to John and took him to “a great and high mountain.” 

Nothing is said about how long there was between each of these, but it is pretty clear that John could not go three different places at once so there was an order or chronology to the events (Revelations) and therefore they could have occurred over spans of time between them.    Could it be that John received the Revelation in parts, giving him enough time to share the contents with the actual servants of the Lord (the other apostles?) since we have read in the first chapter that 

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants (all of the apostles) things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant (just one of the apostles) John.”

Now, the Bible does not record Peter or Andre or James "receiving Revelation" (we do read that Paul did) but did they make reference to this Revelation from John in any of their pre-65 AD writings?  For example: Who was Paul writing about in 2^nd Corinthians 12:1-5 when he said? 

"...I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (or write). Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities.”

Is this an internal evidence that Paul had been told of at least some of John’s revelation when he was asked to come up (into the third heaven)?  Who else could Paul possibly be referring to? I used to teach that he was humbly speaking of himself when he was stoned and left for dead.  Perhaps I was wrong.  The context makes it clear that he was not referring to himself. Therefore, it seems clear to us from this comparison that John had this experience (the third heaven vision) 14 years before Paul wrote 2^nd Corinthians! 

Many Bible scholars date the writing of 2Corinthians at about 60 AD. If we count fourteen years backwards from 60 AD, what do we have?  We have 46 AD.  Scholars also date the events of Acts 15 to about 46 AD!  And what happened in Acts 15 around 46AD?  The Jerusalem counsel which describes Paul and Barnabas going to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles and there they were "received by the apostles." 

It is a certainty that John and the other apostleswere there (including Paul) and this could have been the place and time where John shared his revelation with Paul.  The fact that Paul does NOT use John’s name but instead says, “I knew a man,” perfectly fits with the persecutions abounding that would prevent Paul from using John’s name.  Of course, the late dater futurists will deny this, but this is extremely supportive of the early date position. 

Finally, some mention that it is a historical fact that Patmos was used as a penal colony by the Romans.  True.  But being that Jesus described that those who were his were those who “clothed and fed the naked and hungry and visited those imprisoned,” could it be that John was doing that very thing on the penal colony – visiting the banished with the Good News?  We might consider therefore the possibility that  by the time of the Jerusalem council (recorded in Acts 15 and occuring around 46 AD) that John had already been to Patmos; possibly several times on preaching missions, even to prisoners, and it was during the time (beginning in ca. 36 AD) of the Jewish persecutions upon Christians. 

In summary, these are the internal biblical evidences that John was NOT banished to Patmos by Domitian and that therefore the Revelation was penned – perhaps decades and decades – before even 70 AD.  These include:

• The Greek intimates that John was there for the purpose of the Word and his witness of Christ and NOT as a result of the Word and His witness of Christ.
• That under Domitian Christians were forced to profess Christ or Caesar – and to suffer for the former.  But in his critique of the Seven Churches Jesus does not mention this at all suggesting that it was not happening then.
• The Revelation was given to Jesus by God to his Servants (which the apostles were often referred as being) and to John His servant (to give to the Seven Churches).  We have to wonder if Jesus servants (the apostles) ever got a chance to hear the contents of the Revelation?
• Paul, in 2^nd Corinthians, written sometime around 60AD, mentions knowing a man 14 years ago who was caught up into the third heaven.  Revelation has John being asked to come up to where the messenger speaks from (which the Jews would consider the third heaven) and then fourteen years before was when the Jerusalem council was held in which the apostles were present – linking Paul and John to the same location where John could have shared his heavenly visit and revelation.

All of this internal evidence outweighs the external claims and makes it quite possible for John to not only not have been banished to Patmos but to have received the Revelation well before 95 AD.

Whew!  

REVELATION 1:10-12

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks. 

I included these three passages to get some content under our belt before going forward. 

But let’s go back to verse 10 where John says:

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,”

The Greek has no capitalization for Spirit so all it says is pneuma but logic tells us that this almost certainly means that on the Lord’s day (a Sunday) John was either influenced by the Holy Spirit or overwhelmed or overtaken by it.  We don’t know.   But while in the spirit he heard “a great voice behind him.”  A “megas phone-ay” (where we get megaphone) that was like a trumpet.  A “big loud (possibly vibrating voice (like the sound of a trumpet)  that was behind him.  The trumpet remark seems to be included as a means of comparison meaning the voice was loud, clear and distinct and it had something very important to announce or to call the people toward.  It’s interesting because trumpets are frequently used in battle and they were used anciently to call or summon people to arms.

As a contradistinction, God’s voice is also described as still and small and seems to speak to personal revelation but this revelation, just by virtue of the way it came to John, appears to have been announced, sort of like, “Something is coming!  It’s not just for you, John!  Listen!  Wake up!”

All the way back in Genesis we read of “the trumpet sounding long” as a means to call people to attention, as a means to announce burnt offerings to God (Numbers 10:10) it was also (in Judges 7:18) blown when all who were God’s would hear, and in 1^st Samuel 13:3 we read that when Saul had the trumpets blown it was under the command of “Letting all the Hebrews hear.”  

We also know that when trumpets were sounded in 2^nd Samual 15:10 that it was to announce that “Absolom reigned in Hebron” and from all of this we might see application as to why John associates the loud big voice he heard behind Him to the blowing of a trumpet. This was important information.

11 Saying, (this is what the loud voice, like a trumpet said; actually in the Greek it is better understood as “this is the Trumpet saying.”

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

So to the phrase,

“I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last.”  

This is the second time this phrase or title is used by the speaker to introduce himself.  We note that instead of adding, “the beginning and the end,” as He did in verse 8 this time he adds, “the first and the last,” which again is a redundancy in many ways of “Alpha and Omega.” (see comments on verse 8 above).  However, the Majority and Critical texts omit this line altogether but instead start with:

“And, what thou seest write in a book . . .”

It appears from the direction of the voice that John heard that he should record all that he was about to be shown.  This brings us to perhaps another evidence that John was not banished to Patmos but was freely there preaching because as a prisoner on this island of desolation he would in all likelihood be void of many or even any conveniences like ink and papyrus and pens to follow this instruction.  Of course its possible that as a prisoner John could have had paper and ink (and that God could have provided such to him) but the instructions from the voice to John make it appear that this was something to which he obviously had ready access.  Of course, banishment may have not meant imprisonment so John could have freely roamed the island and obtained all the writing products he desired – but it is an interesting side note to consider.  

The word for book here is “biblion,” and in that day would have more properly meant a roll or scroll which anciently was how books were composed and known.  Whatever the materials or availability to them, John was commanded to write what he was (or what he was about to see) in a book and to send it to the Seven Churches “which are in Asia.”  Whether John wrote the Revelation once, then had others copy it at least seven times or whether the seven churches shared one copy remains a mystery. 

We note that the seven churches are specifically designated but this does not mean there weren’t more in that area. Of course from the historicist view these seven churches represent seven periods of time spread out over the history of all of Christianity so it matters not if there were actually seven real churches there or not in this view.  To the idealist the actuality of any of the seven churches is also irrelevant.

We’ve already talked about the period of time when seven churches actually could have existed and that it was during a time-period before the 70 AD destruction, but we also noted that because of an earthquake that destroyed Laodicea (in 61 AD) that it is a bit of a stretch, but not impossible, to believe that it was rebuilt to the point that Jesus could or would call it “rich” prior to 70 AD.  This is often seen as a key point for supporting the futurist position and therefore the later dating of the Revelation (and therefore, the denouncement of any full-preterist views). But having instructed John to send this Revelation to the seven church we can’t help but note that chapters 2-3 specifically address them as if they were real, actual churches that existed in the named areas.

If the historicist or idealist view is correct this is not significant point.  But if they’re not, it is incumbent on the futurist (and even the Preterists) to explain why the Alpha and Omega took the time to tell John to write and send this (entire) Revelation to these specific churches in Asia at that time?

Also (and I might as well mention this again here) many futurists suggest that the reason the writings were to go to the Seven churches is because they are addressed herein (chapters 2-3) but that chapters four through twenty-two have no more relation to them than to anyone else then or now.  In other words, the futurist has Jesus say, “send the Revelation to the Seven Churches in Asia because I speak to their issues in part of it . . . but the rest of the revelation is addendum information that will eventually go out to the world.” The only way we are going to even come close to knowing if this is true is to continue our verse by verse through its contents and see if this is proven.

So, after Jesus tells John to take the Revelation to the Seven ekkleisa (assemblies or gatherings) which ARE IN Asia, he gets specific.  But first, two points.  We could take the line the Seven Assemblies as saying that they were the only ones in Asia or we could take the fact that Jesus then specifies which seven of the assemblies were to, out of the all, receive the Revelation.  A second point is we know that there were, at least at the time of this writing, seven actual church assemblies in Asia minor.  So whether the historicist or idealist views are correct or not, we know that because these assemblies did in fact exist at the time the Revelation was given that the greatest probability was that it was for them, in the least the chapters that speak to them directly.  This fact is a serious mark against the historicist and idealist views.

Unto Ephesus

It is thought that Ephesus is mentioned first because it was the capital city of that portion of Asia Minor and therefore the most “important” or significant city of the seven.  We will cover each of these places in more depth when they are addressed in chapters two and three.  In any case, "Ephesus" is mentioned in  Revelation 2:1-7, "Smyrna" in Revelation 2:8-11, "Pergamos" in 2:12-17, "Thyatira" in 2:18 through the end, “Sardis” in Revelation 3:1-6, "Philadelphia" in 3:7-13 and "Laodicea" in 3:14.”

Historicists and futurists alike see these churches as representing periods of time throughout the Christian age.  Some break these periods up in the following way:

Ephesus 33AD-100AD The Loveless Church

Smyrna 100AD- 313AD The Persecuted Church

Pergamos 313AD-538AD The Catholic Church

Thyatira 538AD-1514AD The Pagan Church

Sardis 1514AD-1798AD The Dead Church

Philadelphia 1798AD-1866AD The Church of Brotherly Love

Laodicea 1866AD-present The Lukewarm Church

Futurists (and some historicists) maintain that the spiritual nature of the body of Christ during these periods is described in chapters 2 and 3 of the Revelation and they are able to pull from historical narratives to support this claim.   And while it is entirely possible that the church/body of believers will cycle through periods of time similar to these descriptions it does not erase the fact that Jesus came back to His own as He said he would and that all seven of these churches were real, material gatherings of believers who were to receive the written Revelation from John.

As a case in point – the writing of this book is taking place in the year 2020.  This happens to be a year of tremendous unrest in the world as its citizens have faced plagues (Covid-19) riots (in the United States at least) earthquakes in divers places, terrible storms (tempests) and economic upheaval – all within the first six months of the year!

This has caused many Christians to believe that we are in the last days, that Jesus is preparing to come back and rapture his bride from the earth and that tribulation is about to fall upon the world’s inhabitants.  Why?  They believe this because signs are being fulfilled (in their minds) and the church has cycled through the seven phases, and now the only thing remaining is for Jesus to return.

Here’s the key: The Revelation could certainly depict cycles of history that will and can repeat themselves, describing events that the world is experiencing in 2020, these cycles are not tied to the ending of this world nor the second coming of Christ.  They may be indicators that the human race is wiping itself off the face of this world, or that calamity is falling upon us because of our rebellious willful ways, but Jesus came back (as promised) in 70AD and this world, meaning the kosmos, will never end!  Scripture tells us this plainly and directly.  Ages and epochs of time will certainly end, but there is not a passage in the Bible that says the world will end (when considering the Greek).  Ironically, we do have passages however (in the English and Greek) that promise that this world (kosmos) will NEVER end.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

He was not instructed to remain where he was, with his back turned to whatever what speaking, so he turned and it seems that the first thing he saw or the first thing he describes for us as seeing, was seven golden candlesticks.

The Greek is “lucenia” (translated candlesticks) which better means to us, “light stands” and could be applied to anything that meets this function.  Because this was a vision we don’t know if the lamps described the lamps of John’s day or if these were chandeliers.  All we know is they are described as lampstands and there were seven of them and they were presumably set far enough apart for Jesus to stand in the middle of them.

It seems, at first glance, that what John saw was a reiteration of what He heard.  In other words, before seeing anything he was told to take and write what he saw in a book and to give it to the seven churches in Asia.  Turning we have Jesus – who was speaking – standing among seven light stands, representing the seven churches. Some suggest that this was a scene representing the temple but nothing else resembles the temple in this description and John does not suggest that he has been transported away from Patmos to the temple at Jerusalem either.  Additionally, Revelation 1:20 plainly tells us that the seven lamp-bearers represents the seven churches. 

Because light is almost always used in the Scriptures as an emblem of truth, God, goodness, holiness, and Jesus, it seems that the picture we are presented with here is Jesus, (who will be described shortly) standing among Christian churches who might be described in Matthew 5:14 as "the light of the world.” Being that at this time they were surrounded by oppositional forces, the picture John sees seems to be these cities of light burning in the dark with Jesus standing in the middle of them.

REVELATION 1:13-16

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 

Now standing in the midst of the seven, separate candle-stands was “one like the Son Man.” Going back to Daniel chapter seven we discover similar verbiage used hundreds and hundreds of years before John received this revelation.  It says,

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

We notice here that the same phraseology is used here – one like (unto) the Son of Man.

Now, here this is evidently the Lord Jesus Christ himself who is called "the Son of man," all through the New Testament.  But the Greek here is important because it is missing the article so it really should read,

“like unto A son of man," rather than, “like unto THE son of man.

In other words, this being had the form that was like a human being but He was more than that . . . He was different.  Here’s the thing, what John saw was not the Son of Man that John was used seeing when Jesus walked the earth with him.  Instead, this being was like unto “a son of man” (all lover case – like a man) but as we will see He was so much more. This clarification is really important.  First of all, since there is no article in the Greek, we know that this should not read, “like THE Son of Man,” but, “like a son of man.” This little detail suggests that while we know that what John was seeing was Jesus exalted (due to how He describes Himself especially in verse 18) but that John was not saying that He was the Son of Man (the Jesus of Nazareth) in an exalted form.  In other words, it seems like His exaltation removed him far enough away from who He was in the flesh when John lived with him that all John was saying was that he beheld a being that was in the shape of a person – arms legs head and beard.  We must also admit, however, that John’s use of the term might directly tie to the Daniel 7:13 description.  I would suggest that both the glory and light in which He now appeared (along with the dress and costume) was so unlike the lowly human Jesus who John knew, that it’s quite possible at this stage of the game John wasn’t even aware that it was Him.  Listen to what John writes:

“And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Borrowing from the Old Testament we have a couple of allusions made here to the dress of the Lord.  For starters, a garment that hung down to the feet describes two types of people in the OT.  Isaiah 6:1 could indicate that this was the apparel of a King but Exodus uses very similar language to describe the dress of a high priest.  King and Priest.  Because, apparently, Jesus would have ostensibly just come out of the Holy of Holies to share this revelation with John that God has given him, his manner of dress would be appropriate. Remember, Aaron's robe and girdle (described in Exodus) were "for glory and beauty," and this appears to fit the description we are reading here.  And as Aaron wore similar vestments when he came forth out of the temple to bless the people, this seems to be a direct reflection of the same; except in this case it was Jesus as our high priest after the Order of Melchizedek, coming out of the heavenly Holy of Holies to bring reward (and judgment) upon His own – prefaced by this Revelation.

It is also interesting that while tradition suggests that the temple priest wore the girding around their loins Josephus [in his Antiquities 3.7.2] expressly says that the Levitical priests were girt “higher up,” meaning “about the breasts or paps.” 

Additionally, the high priest's girdle was interwoven with gold, but here Christ's appears to be all gold, making this a case where the antitype exceeds the type, something we would expect.  So there He was, in the midst of the seven torch lights, dressed in the robes of a King and the great high priest.  John continues (verse 14)

14  His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

In Daniel 7:9 we read a similar description about the Ancient of Days, which says:

“I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

In chapter 10 of Daniel we again find similar descriptions that we will read here, saying:

“His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.”

What John was witnessing here was Jesus as God.  Meaning the Man Jesus, having overcome sin and death as a man, was now King of Kings and Lord of Lords and is experiencing all that God intended for Him once He passed through mortality - which was complete glorification.  So now his presence was very similar to His father, the Ancient of Days, who is described in similar terms in Daniel.  Again, Revelation 1:14:

14 “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

We have four things mentioned here and all for described through comparisons. We have . . .

His head AND his hairs

“were white (like wool), as white as snow.” 

His eyes

“were as a flame of fire.”

(vs 15)

“And his feet

“likeunto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;” 

and his voice 

“as the sound of many waters.”

We know from context that this description is of Jesus Christ glorified.  There is no doubt that it is Him and there is no doubt that He has been consummately glorified, fitted as a man for heavenly reign (since he appears as a son of man, but not as the Son of Man, meaning not as Jesus of Nazareth with brown hair and regular olive skin). We also know that these very same descriptions of the eyes, and feet, and robes and hair glowing are all found in the books of Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel.  In all of these places in the Old Testament they are describing YHWH God.

Therefore, we have a choice to make.  Some say that these Old Testament descriptions are describing a pre-incarnate Jesus – that this was what he looked like prior to taking on a body of flesh and becoming The Son of Man. The title “Ancient of Days” first appears in Daniel 7:9, where Daniel is describing his vision of heaven.   Here a being sits on a flaming throne with wheels of fire, His hair and clothing white as snow. The flaming throne is symbolic of judgment, while the white hair and title “Ancient” indicate that God existed before time began. 

In Isaiah 43:13, we find that YHWH God refers to Himself existing from ancient of days (literally, “before days were”).  This means God existed before days were even created (and which is supported by the creation account in Genesis along with a number of other places).  We also read that God in the Old Testament is described as being from  “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2) but that this is assigned to Jesus too (as the Alpha and Omega) and that in the Old Testament of Isaiah 44:6 God is also called “the first and the last” just as Jesus refers to Himself here in Revelation.

In terms of physical descriptions all that we read in the Old Testament are assigned to God but now here in Revelation 1 we find them assigned to Jesus (as a man or a son of man) with whited hair, blazing eyes, glowing feet, etc.  Where glorious God judged and reigned over Israel in the Old Testament it seems that now we see a similar description occurring here in Revelation 1:14-15 is given to Christ who appears to possess the same power of judgment over His church as the Ancient of Days had over Israel.  We see this “all knowing reign and power” given to Jesus as He is described as possessing perfect clarity and knowing all there is to know about the seven churches.

Now, the title "Ancient of Days" is found only three times in Scripture and all of them are in Daniel and all are couched in prophetic passages of Daniel 7:9, 13, and 22. 

Daniel 7:9 says

“I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.”

Then in verse 13 we read:

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And then in verse 22 we read:

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

It seems like the first two references speak of God the Father but the third time (in verse 22) that the title Ancient of Days refers specifically to Jesus whose judgment will be part of the end-times events.   Some suggest that the term in the Old Testament only speaks of God the Father and then to the Son Jesus, in the New (as in here).  This view is hard to refute and because of this many people use these passages as supporting the particulars of creedal Trinitarianism.

The fact that Jesus comes to pronounce judgment on the world as the Ancient of Days and is described in all the ways that YHWH is says nothing more than Jesus of Nazareth, God’s only human Son, having overcome all things, has now inheriting all that His Father has, including the title, Ancient of Days.  A few more points about this description here of the “post-ascension, about to return to earth” Jesus.

John writes that the tone and hue of his feet were like golden melted brass (perhaps a better description of them via the Greek) that his His voice as the sound of many waters, which might be better understood as the roar of the ocean or moving stream.  This is truly sublime material:  Jesus, who was born of a woman, laid in a manger, walked the earth, ate, drank, laughed, and wept, now over all as He comes to John in a glorious vision. His voice is described almost in terms of vibrations.  Once again, we find a comparison to the Old Testament descriptions of YHWH God where it says in Ezekiel 43:2, 

"And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the east: and his voice was like the sound of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory." 

Daniel 10:6 says:

“His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.”

Again, as a resurrected man, Jesus, born of a woman, born under the law, had to obtain these characteristics from His heavenly Father having ultimately overcome all things while in flesh; that it was YHWH God in Him that empowered Him to fully die to His will and ways and learn obedience through suffering and it was YHWH God who exalted him above all things and placed all things in His hands. 

Here, John appears to be witnessing who Jesus of Nazareth actually is, having overcome the flesh, and that possessing all power and authority (and all the keys to the kingdom given Him by the Father) He now, as someone who once was all man, has fully embraced the title, “Alpha and Omega,” the “first and the Last,” “the beginning and the end,” and even “the Ancient of Days.”

Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord!

In my estimation He came, and then became, our template.  Not that we could ever do what He has done.  But we are called to pursue the path He blazed, to trod it outside the city gates, to pick up our cross fully expecting to become joint heirs with Him by and through faith and love.   This is truly a Revelation to John as he knew a Jesus who bore dirty feet, and worn clothing, and even a miserable death.  But now He is revealed in the form which became a culmination of all of His earthly decisions and suffering. Now He is truly the Alpha and Omega not only for the House of Israel  but for the Human race once the work for Israel is about to end.

John continues.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

We note a consistency of the right and the left here even as the hand He held the seven stars in were in the right.  We also note (from verse 20) that what John calls the seven stars represented “the seven angels of the seven churches.”

Seven candlestands = seven churches

Seven stars = seven angels of the seven churches

Whether they were actual star-shaped things or actual angels referred to as stars we don’t know.  We are also not sure if they danced on the palm of His hand or sat there stationary or if they had a relation to the seven candlestands (churches).  None of these details are shared with us.  Why each of the seven churches have an angel assigned to them is another mystery and why only seven too as there were far more churches in existence at that time.  This question bodes well with the historicist view which takes the seven churches as representative of all church periods throughout history and in the face of this question the historicist view tends to make the most sense.

So again, why would John and the revelation of Revelation only be to those seven Churches?  Why isn’t the church at Antioch or Jerusalem mentioned?  The historicist view goes a long way to answer these questions, but we will talk more about the seven spirits and the seven churches in the future. In addition to the Seven stars John says,

“And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword.”

Now, if you are like me, I imagine a long two-edged actual steel sword sort of abruptly plunging out of his mouth – like an enormous steel tongue – which is a very freakish sight when you think about it.  So it’s important that we step back and try and understand other ways to understand this imagery rather than literally as futurists insist the interpretation should be.

Firstly, John does NOT say he sees a sharp two-edged sword stick out of the Lord’s mouth.  All we read is that “out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword.”  So right there we might believe that all John is really describing is the Word of God coming out of Jesus mouth, which is in scripture and which is likened to a double-edged sword. (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12).  Since the setting of the Book of Revelation is one of coming judgment, and we know by the words of His mouth (by the sharp edge of this two-edged sword) all will be judged, this symbolism makes sense.  Of course the writer of Hebrews provided us with a great description of the power of the Word of God to cut (to divide) and open up matters as a means to judge.  Hence we read that:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This is the context of what John is saying, that this figure (Jesus) was able to split and divide asunder all things BY HIS WORD (e.g., the sheep and the goats) even the soul and the Spirit, and that He, the living Word, was capable of discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart of all people.  John was attesting to this by saying that there went forth from His mouth went “a sharp two-edged sword.”

We might also see this as a picture of the Revelation itself, that Jesus, standing in the midst of the seven churches, glorified and powerful, with all things in his hands, speaking (the Word of Revelation like a sharp two-edged sword) to John.  Again, this description is not unique to John’s revelation.  We read a number of parallel verses that reflect the two (or double) edged-sword with the Word of God.  Later in Revelation 19:15 we will read:

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Ephesians 6:17 says this:

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Then in Revelation 2:16 we will read:

“Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”

In a Messianic prophecy Isaiah 49:1-2 says

“Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. 2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me.”

Hosea 6:5 says,

“Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.”

An ancient two-edged sword was designed to cut both ways and is therefore a tremendous emblem for getting to the truth of a matter.  Here in the historical setting there were two groups that were going to be cut to the core just as a sword will cut both ways – through the guilty House of Israel and through the believers revealing the true in heart.  His word will accomplish this.  The word of His mouth.  John has told us here in the first chapter that the Lord is equipped with such a weapon and is prepared to wield it.  Then he adds:

“and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.”

This is the third reference to fire or flame in this description of the ascended Christ.  In verse 14 John said:

“and his eyes were as a flame of fire,”

And in verse 15 he said:

“And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace”

And now we read:

“and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.”

Once again, a comparison presents itself to us – the Son of Man whom John knew that walked the earth and then “the Alpha and Omega who is now reigning in the Holy of Holies where God, the consuming fire, dwells.”  To dwell in the presence of God it appears one must consist of the make-up of God.  In describing God, the Psalmist wrote:

Psalm 97:3 A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about.

We read in 1^st Timothy 6:13-16 Paul writes:

I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

John is witnessing the ultimate fact about our Lord and Savior, yes, our King: that He is the only (hu)man who dwells in the light (as no other can approach unto) that He has seen that light (which no man could or can) and here He stands before John, his own body having adopted the capacity to dwell in the light.  John says that His countenance (His face) was full of splendor and light – similar to Moses when He came down from the mount with the Law.  How bright was His countenance?  John says it:

“Was as the sun shineth in his strength.”

Again, a description that in part is all over the scripture as Judges 5:31 says

"But let them that love him [the Lord] be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might." 

And 2^nd Samuel 23:4 says, "And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds." 

And Psalm 19:5, 

"Which [the sun] is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race." 

In all this we have some remarkable comparisons to nature and the things within it that have been created by God and His Word.  John has likened aspects of his person to

“snow”

“Flames of fire”

“The Sound of many waters.”

“And a countenance as the sun in his strength””

We note that all of these elements can be a blessing or a curse with the “snow and water” having the capacity to refresh and cool or freeze and/or to inundate or drown while “fire and the sun” have the blessed capacity to warm and comfort and heal or to burn and destroy.

In this He truly does possess a two-edged sword and an unfettered ability to give life or take it – and that He would – in His eminent coming or arrive on the scene to them/then.

We are talking about John seeing the full living embodiment of God in the person of Jesus Christ, a man born of flesh.  He retained the image or shape of “a son of man” but appears to be the complete and living God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End, the first and the Last, the Ancient of Days – but someone who John did in fact have the capacity to actually see!   God said to Moses in Exodus 33:20 “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”

Of course, we read in John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

And as Jesus said (in John 6:46) when he was on earth:

“Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God (meaning Himself as none of the rest of us are of God), he (Jesus) hath seen the Father.”

Here we see this played out in and through Jesus who is the full complete embodiment of God – proving that He has not only seen Him, He is Him - all that He is, Jesus has and is, and coming from the Bosom of the Father,  He continues to declare Him fully to John.

This is obviously not a representation of Jesus risen from the grave – still in His grave clothes and marred beyond recognition.  His bloody countenance here is bathed in light as piercing as the unobstructed sun. 

REVELATION 1:17

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. 

And we have yet another comparison before us – in a number of ways.  First of all, when Jesus walked the earth people fell at His feet, but it was rarely (if ever) as if dead.  But all through the key books of the Old Testament (relative to the book of Revelation – Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel) we find similar responses between God and those who come upon Him in some fairly direct manner.  For instance, in Isaiah 6:1-5 Isaiah says:

1 “In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.  2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.  5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

In Ezekiel 1:26-28 we read:

26 “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27 And I saw as the color of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. 28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

And then in Daniel we read almost all that we have talked about or that has been used for imagery present.  This story we will come back to in the future but for now try and just hear the similarities in the language that Daniel uses and what John describes here. Ready?  We’re in Daniel 10 beginning at verse 7

7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. 8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.  9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground. 10 And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands.  11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.  12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. 13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.  14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days. 15 And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb. 16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. 17 For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me. 18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, 19 And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

It is not by mistake that after John “fell as dead” before the image of the glorified Christ.  However as it also says in Daniel 7:10 “an hand touched me,” and to “fear not” (verse 12) we read John say here:

“And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

So, in Daniel we see the being touching Daniel to strengthen him. In Isaiah we see the angel of the Lord touching his lips.  In Ezekiel the Spirit moves him to stand on his feet.  When Jesus walked the earth He touched many, healing them, raising them, and helping them overcome their fears and disease. And then here, John, who has fallen as dead on the ground before Jesus, writes that He:

“laid his right hand upon me, (the same hand that bore the seven stars) and said unto him Fear not; I am the first and the last,” which again, is an attribute given only to YHWH God.

The reassurance of, “fear not,” by YHWH to human beings is all through the Old and New Testaments (see, Genesis 15:1; 21:17; 26:24; Deuteronomy 1:21; 20:3; 31:6; Joshua 10:25;  Judges 6:23; 1st Samuel 12:20; 1st Kings 17:13; 1st Chronicles 28:20; 2nd Chronicles 20:17; Isaiah 35:4; 1:13-14; 43:1,5; 44:2; 54:4; Jeremiah 46:27; Lamentations 3:57; Daniel 10:12,19; Joel 2:21; Zecharaiah 8:13; Matthew 1:20; 10:28; 28:5; Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10; 5:10; 12:7; 12:32; Acts 27:24).  This is both surprising but strangely understandable that John the Beloved, who witnessed the ministry, transfiguration, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord, was afraid when he saw him here.

And again, the line, “I am the first and the last,” added to this verse and in context with the rest of the Bible, makes it clear that John was seeing God in the form of Jesus.

Revelation 1:18 

The Glorified Lord Jesus then continues to speak and says to John:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.  

This passage is pregnant with meaning and therefore various implications, some of which tend to rock the status quo of orthodoxy so we need to be sure we don’t allow its contents to push us off the mark but instead make sure we understand their implication on the faith.

First of all let’s admit who was speaking and what He says – it is Jesus speaking – Jesus of Nazareth, the Man born of a woman.  How can I say this?  Because He says “I am he who liveth and was dead.”  God does not die and neither did the Word of God that was in Him die when He walked the earth.  It’s not possible to slay the spirit of God by the sword or the cross.   However, it does appear that Jesus died a spiritual death for sin while on the cross therefore suffering all manner of death on our behalf.  It also appears that his spiritual self was restored to Him in relative short order.

Nevertheless, humans die, so we know that here Jesus is clearly identifying Himself as the human Man “who was dead but now liveth forevermore.”  The Lord and Savior, having overcome his own will, sin and death, will never die again.  He, like the Father, is now eternal.  He, unlike the Father, when walking in His flesh, was not eternal.  How can we say that?  Because He died.

But now He is saying that “He liveth forevermore.”

Before His passion, He – Jesus of Nazareth – was not going to live forever.  He was going to die.  But here, Jesus of Nazareth, glorified by His Father, will never die again.  Here, the man Jesus of Nazareth presents himself as eternal and through faith in Him we are also eternal.  This is key.  Through Him we mortals will also never die.  Now stay with me: Don’t we all die?  Even those who have faith on Him?  We do.  We all die physically, as Paul said – “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”  However, in John 11:26, Jesus says something that seems contrary to this.  He said:

“And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

Paul says “in Adam all die” but Jesus says that those who believe in Him shall never die. Whose right?  They both are.  Obviously, they are talking about different kinds or types of death.  And right off the bat we have to admit that for both to be right, then we have to admit that belief in Jesus does nothing to keep us from dying physically. We all die physically – thanks to Adam. But as all universally die physically (due to Adam) all will universally live again in resurrected bodies due to Christ.

So here Jesus has had the victory over the grave and will universally make all alive, though all will certainly experience physical death – whether they believed in Jesus or not.  Got that?  So now we have to take the term “death” and “dying” and “die” and try and understand them as a means to understand what Jesus means here when He says to John in his gospel:

“And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.  Believest thou this?”

And also when he says here in Revelation 1:18:

“I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

There are two ways we need to look at Jesus proclamations here: one is in the context of what the Bible says relative to the COI and their age.  The other must be according to the period of time after Jesus has returned because how this looks is very different from the time prior to His return.  The first period deals with Him as Savior to the nation of Israel and His Church – whether that will be in the future or occurred in the past we will not debate today. But the second application is to a period of time after His dealing with this initial period.  We could break it down like this:

Traditional Views suggests that everything we are reading is taking place now  - with death, hell and the lake of fire a thing to happen in our future at the final judgement.  But if the full preterist view is correct then we need to see how things played out prior and up to His coming in the clouds (to them/then) and then how things would have been playing out ever since.  

This is what we are going to try and describe here – how to take the contents of the last line of verse 18 and explain them relative to Jesus work with the Church and Nation of Israel then, and then how they apply now. To begin, the literal Greek translation of the passage translates this passage this way:

First, the last part of verse 17 . . . fear not, I am the first and the last . . . then (verse 18)

(YLT) “and he who is living, and I did become dead, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages. Amen! and I have the keys of the hades and of the death.”

 "And I became dead" (aorist middle participle of ginomai which is a definite reference to the cross).  And “lo I am living to the ages” (zôn eimi – which is a periphrastic present active indicative that is saying, "I am living.")  For how long is this living indicated? “unto the ages of the ages," which is the strongest expression of eternity there is in scripture.

We can’t help but note that the use of I-mee (translated here to I Am) is used two distinct times in these two verses: 

 “. . . fear not, I am the first and the last . . . 

then 

(YLT) “and he who is living, and I did become dead, and, lo, I am living to the ages of the ages.”  

Again, Jesus of Nazareth, who when he was alive and walked the earth as “God with us”  unapologetically said, “before Abraham was, I am,” has here fully received all that this title includes as a human now exalted over sin, flesh, the law and death.  In other words, while alive He claimed to be the I Am; now He proves He is!

After saying this He says: Amen! Meaning, “this assuredly is.”  

Okay.  All good so far.  But then He adds an intriguing phrase to John in that day before the destruction of Jerusalem:

“and . . . I have the keys of the hades and of the death.”  (Literal Greek translation)

But the King James puts it this way:

“and  . . . (or also) I have the keys of hell and of death.”  

So, again, we want to know what this means to them (and to us) - is it the same or is it different?  First, let’s talk about “keys” as Jesus says He has . . . “the keys to the hades and to the death.”

Keys are emblematic of both having total run of things and having the power over something or a place where people can either enter or exit by the keys possessed. In chapter three of Revelation Jesus will have John write the following written to the angel of the Church at Philadelphia:

Revelation 3:7  “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, (meaning Jesus, who) hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Then the Revelation there goes on to directly speak to the church at Philadelphia from there.  This was an introduction of Jesus and in it says, among other things, that He has “the key of David,” (and as such) he is the one “who opens” (and no man can shut it) and “he shuts” (and no man openeth).”  

In order to better understand keys lets first ask, “What is this key of David,” that Jesus is described as having? Going back to Isaiah 22 we read about Isaiah telling a man named Shebna, the palace secretary, that God is going to replace him with a man named Eliakim, and in verse 22 (of chapter 22) we read (in reference to Eliakim)

Isaiah 22:22 “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Here in Revelation chapter three this passage is fulfilled in Christ and again, the key of the House of David is emblematically described as being laid on his shoulder, meaning that both Eliakim before Him (and then Him here) would have total control over all that David was over – Jerusalem (or the City of David) Israel, the twelve tribes, even the very Kingdom of Israel. So Revelation 3 reveals to us that Jesus has that key - the Key of David – and we must remember this in relation to another set of keys Jesus says he has – the keys (plural) to “the hades,” and “the death.”

So there are two ways we need to look at Jesus’ proclamation here – the first way is what does Jesus having “the keys to the hades and the death” mean to the primary audience of the Old and New Testament at this time of John when he was receiving this Revelation and then is there a different meaning or application to us – especially if He came as quickly to them as He has abundantly promised with His coming bringing an end to all things.  Perhaps this format will help us flesh this out.  

“Jesus having the keys to the hades and the death”

	How this fact applies to the pre-second coming of Christ  (To those of that age) Which is how the . . . Futurists Historists Idealists Partial preterists  still interpret this.	How this fact applies to the post Second Coming of Christ (To those after that age) Which is how the  Full Preterists interpret this.
Keys to the Hades
Keys to the Death

In order to get our minds around this diagram and before we fill in the content for it, we need to talk about these two words – hades and death – or in the Greek, “the hades and the death” to see if they have the same meaning to us today as they did back in the day to the Children of Israel and Jesus work among them. This is not a difficult concept but like all good things it is going to take some work to figure it out.

We note that the King James translates the Greek hades into hell but that the literal translations leave it as “hades” which simply means “the unseen place or the covered place,” which is far different connotation than what the word hell produces in the minds of people today.

However, the word “Hell” (which is derived from the Saxon word “helan,” which means “to cover;” or to be “covered in an invisible place,”) has undergone a definitional transformation (in part because of Augustine) which incorporates all manner of elements that have nothing to do with a simple covered place.  So right off the bat there shouldn’t be an automatic badness to the term when we read about it in the Old Testament sense – it’s just a factual description of . . . a covered place.    And while far from perfect (because it is a place separated from God) it was a place all people went after their physical death before Christ’s salvivic work on the cross.

Now we know that in Scripture there are a few words so that describe “this covered place:” sheol, hades, and gehenna (there are others but we will stick to these).  The Hebrew word sheol, occurs 65 times in the Old Testament and 31 times it is simply rendered “the grave.”  Nothing about burning.  Generally speaking, sheol was the covered place the dead went after this life and it was composed of two distinct compartments – the prison portion (what is traditionally called hell even today) but also a paradise part (known as Abraham’s Bosom). 

The prison part of sheol was apparently associated with a phrase among the Jews that speaks of a type of “insatiability,” where “enough is never enough.”  When Jesus told the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, both of the men went to “sheol” – the rich man to the prison part and Lazarus to Abraham’s Bosom (paradise). 

Listen to the tone of Proverbs 30:15 which describes the prison side of “sheol”: 

“The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, “It is enough”: The grave (sheol); and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire saith not, “It is enough.” 

 In many ways this passage affirms the concept that prison or the hellish part of sheol is never satisfied, especially as it directly unifies its existence with the grave, an earth without water, and fire that is constantly seeking for fuel, together.  “None of these things are ever satisfied.” 

Also, in thirty-one places in scripture the word “sheol” is translated as “the place of disembodied spirits.” 

 Proverbs 21:16 calls the inhabitants of sheol "the congregation of the dead" (And remember, this was the congregation of both the good dead and the bad dead because all went to sheol).  

Numbers calls the prison part of it, “the abode of the wicked” (Numbers 16:33; Job 24:19; Psalms 9:17; 31:17) 

But Psalms (16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13) refers to it as “a place for good.”  

Job describes the prison part of sheol as “deep, dark, and with bars,” and in Numbers 16 , we read that “the dead go down" to it. 

From all of this we can say from the Old Testament sense that sheol was a place for all dead to go, and that it held both the wicked and the good, that it was down, that it contained a restful place and a place where satisfaction is never achieved.  So, there’s the Old Testament explanation of sheol which is translated to hell in some translations.  Now, the Greek word hades (found in the New Testament and the place that Jesus says He has the Keys to) has the exact same scope of signification as “sheol” of the Old Testament.  

It is a “prison” (1^st Peter 3:19) with “gates and bars and locks” (Matthew 16:18 and here in this passage in Revelation 1:18), and it is located “downward” (Matthew 11:23; Luke 10:15).  Again, same signification as the Old Testament.  Prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus, the righteous and the wicked continued to be separated in “the hades” with some going to prison some going to paradise - all hades.  Jesus Himself calls the prison part of hades a place of “torments.”  While part of hades is a place where people are said by Jesus to be in torments, it is almost always associated with burning and flames.

But let’s make some observations: the world, perhaps the universe, can be broken up into two realms -one that illuminates and is illuminated by light and another that is in the dark.   It has long been admitted that darkness is really no entity in and of itself – it’s merely the absence of light.   In other word, there is no such thing as dark.  Light, however, actually exists and can be studied and measured and refracted.  It is said to make matters clear, brighten paths, lessen the dangers that lurk in the distance by revelation, and even kill disease.  Where light is, darkness is not. In the absence of light there is confusion, disease, corruption, despair, depression, and death – at least in the human world and perhaps in the prison part of hades too.

In the 1^st Epistle of John we read, “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

God is light.

Fully God is fully light.

A lesser “amount” of God is lesser light.

No God is no light.

Or a point that shadow, obscurity, obfuscation, and ultimately shades of grey, darkness and black exist.  But not of their own accord, that dark is a result of the absence of Him (just like cold is the absence of heat and is not a thing unto itself).  God so loved the world that He gave or sent us His only begotten Son, who describes Himself as “light that is come into the world.” (John 3:19)  This wonderful illumination invites all to come to Him. Earlier in the same Gospel, John the Beloved writes of Jesus:

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  John 1:4-5

While there is no thing in darkness (its not personified) there is a power in it, as Colossians 1:13 says, speaking of God, says that He “has delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.”  So it seems that darkness derives power from the absence of Light, which produces vacuity, emptiness, dearth and depredation.  It might be said that such darkness is “life taking.”  

As mentioned above, cold does not exist; things are cold because they are not warm or they are lacking heat.  Heat can be measured and studied but cold is merely the absence of heat and so what we are really measuring relative to cold is how much heat is missing. And again, similarly, misery, woe and depression do not exist.  They are simply the absence of joy, hope, love and light (in other words, they are an absence of God).  

Those who are said to “love the darkness more than the light” are really just people who “love the absence of God more than His presence.”   Again, dark and darkness has no essence – any more than cold has essence -  so in the face of dark and cold we are only observing the absence of Light (or God).    Remove God from an area or person and the result is a hollow, dark, empty cold void.  On earth such voids need to be filled by humans and so attempts are made to fill it with all sorts of things that do not last, do not warm, and will not exist beyond the immediate.  Such things include every manner of substitute, idols, substances, false gods, excitements –all are substitutes for the real living God of Light and wind up being what we call, false light.

All of this is to say that in the end we cannot assume that “hades” is a burning place.  Instead it seems to be a place that is dark, dismal and covered - meaning God is completely absent from it.

Later in the Book of Revelation we will come to a place called the Lake of Fire.  Scripture tells us that this place is located in the presence of Jesus and his angels.  Unlike sheol, it is a fiery place.   This fire is light and the source of this light is God.  The burning is in the presence of God.  The burning appears to be from the presence of God.

So, sheol/hades, the covered place, was the after-life destination of all people prior to Christ’s death and resurrection.  And though Jesus said the Rich Man requested a drop of water (which could be wholly symbolic) it is illogical that this was ever a place of “fire” or “light.”

The third word translated to hell in the King James is from the word Gehenna (or “Ge-ena”).  Gehenna [which is a Greek contraction of the Hebrew place/word hinnom].  It was always used in the time of Christ as a means to describe “a place of future sorrows and woe” (as in “how WILL you escape the judgment of Gehenna?” Matthew 23:33)  (Future tense with Gehenna translated, hell in the King James).  

Gehenna got its name from a place the Jews called the “valley of Hinnom,” which is first mentioned in Joshua 18.  This valley is a deep narrow ravine which separates Mount Zion from a place called the “Hill of Evil Council.”  There, the idolatrous Jews burned their children (alive) as a sacrifice to Molech and Baal in a part of the valley which was known as Tophet, which means "fire-stove."   When the Jews returned from being exiled they showed their abhorrence of this locale (and what they once did there as an apostate idolatrous people) by making it the location where all the unpleasant activities of society were to take place including the disposal of  human waste, of dead animals, and of the dead bodies of criminals.  It was a filthy place to a faithful Jew.  It was also a place where fires apparently burned constantly as it fed on the rubbish that fueled its flames.   

In most of its occurrences in the Greek New Testament, Gehenna is used to designate a “place of the lost” and the state and fearful conditions of Gehenna are described in various figurative expressions throughout the Word of God.   The Jews saw the valley in two ways:  as a place of great filth and as a place of suffering. Because of all of this, Gehenna became a symbol for the destination of the wicked and was used by Jesus many times to illustrate the fate of those who rejected Him as Messiah.  Eleven times, in fact, Jesus used the word “Gehenna” in His discourses to describe a future place of punishment (Matthew 23:33; Luke 12:5; Matthew 5:22,) for the people of His day and age who would not receive Him.

This was prophetically appropriate as tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of Jews wound up being tossed into the Valley of Hinnom when Rome ravaged Jerusalem in her destruction.  Because of the fires that burned in Gehenna and its application by Jesus of the actual destination for the rebellious (along with the fact that the flames of Gehenna never went out) many people have merged Gehenna in with their descriptions of the prison part of hades;  even in innocent references like, “it’s hot as hades in here.”  While the imagery appears consistent is actually oxymoronic to congruent biblical facts.  So there is a brief look at the term hades to which Jesus says here in the first chapter of Revelation that “He has a key.”  Being that hades has two parts – a prison and a paradise – it seems that the key Jesus has would have the ability to put people into hades and to allow them out.

Now, we are going to jump way out in Revelation to chapter 20:11-15.  It is a description of what was going to happen “at the end.”  Listen carefully as John writes:

“And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”  

Then it says –

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades(remember, these are the two things Jesus has the keys to here in the first chapter) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.  And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

And then we read:

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

We learn a few things here.  First we realized that the keys (which Jesus has) for the Hades and the Death are only for a period of time.  Why?  Because death and hades will be cast into the lake of fire – after hades has been emptied out of her dead!  Let’s read it, again.

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead (spiritually dead)which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.  And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

Note that either dead or death is mentioned five times in this verse!  Now, if they are already spiritually dead (because they have not been spiritual reborn or made alive), and they are already physically dead (which we know because hades is a place that contained the dead), what kind or type of death are these dead going to experience in what is called the second death?

Some say that this is annihilation of the soul all together – the second death.  This is a common view among the Seventh Day Adventists.  Most evangelical Christians suggest that this second death is where these spiritually dead souls suffer forever in the flames of hell (wrong) or the Lake of Fire.

Let’s stop for a minute and look and how scripture describes the second death – it’s a line only used in Revelation.  Try and hear the tenor of the messages of all of these verses here as I read them. 

To the Church at Smyrna Jesus says:

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

We will discuss this passage when we get to it but to me this sounds like a place where loss occurs – which may be painful, but is not ultimate.  Here the Second Death is spoken of as an agent, as a thing that does a job.  And the job will be painful.  It will cause injury, and loss.  There will be an end of something there.  It will be a place where people there will be hurt.

Then in Revelation 20:6 we read:

“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Again, we’ll talk about this passage in depth down the road but the point I want to show is the Second Death has no power over those not part of the first resurrection.  No effect.  No loss suffered, no hurt inflicted.  Then, as we’ve already read in Revelation 20:14 

“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

From this we can say that the second death’s location, so to speak, is in the Lake of Fire!  That death and hell are cast into the lake of fire and this is the second death.  Finally we are given a very interesting passage about the second death . . . ready?

 Revelation 21:8 

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part (that’s a limited amount)in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

We have already read that those who take part in the first resurrection the second death will have no power or effect over them.  But here we read a description of those who will be hurt in its hands, by the light, by the presence of the fire (so to speak) as:

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Now, the question I have is when Jesus tells John, in all of His amazing glory and power, that He has the keys to the hades and the death – what death do you think Jesus is talking about?

Physical?

Spiritual?

Second Death?

Any of them?

All of them?

Remember, that John the Beloved is still on earth receiving this Revelation.  And so Jesus had the keys to hades and death then.  And when Jesus says that he has the keys to hades and death, I think he was in full control over who experienced what from that day forward.

So, Jesus has said to John

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Since Jesus has the keys to both “the hades and the death” then we ought to know what this would mean (or how it would apply) to the Idealist, the Historicist, the Futurist and the partial Preterist views which all maintain that Jesus has yet to come back, and so therefore hades is still in operation and the second death is the fate awaiting many people.

Eschatologically speaking, since Jesus has not returned (according to the views of all but full preterists) then we have to suggest that all who have died since Jesus ascended have either gone to heaven or they have gone to hades – and they are waiting for Jesus to return.  In the hades these are not experiencing fires but instead cold, desperate, never satisfied existences.  Why are all who have ever gone to the hades still there (according to these eschatological views)?  Because Jesus needs to return to initiate “the end of everything” which will include, as we read above in Revelation 20, hades giving up her dead and all the inhabitants then being judged at the Great White Throne Judgment to see if their names are written in the Lambs Book of Life.

So, let’s now return to the boxed illustration above:

Jesus having the keys to the hades and the death

	How this fact applies to the pre-second coming of Christ  Which is how the . . . Futurists Historists Idealists Partial preterists  still interpret this.	How this fact applies to the post Second Coming of Christ (To those after that age) Which is how the . . .   Full Preterists interpret this.
Keys to the Hades	All who have died since Christ have gone to heaven or the hades.  If the hades they are waiting the final judgment at which time hades gives up its dead and they are judged.
Keys to the Death	Then in the area of death the orthodox view suggests the following in relation to it: First, Jesus overcame physical death for all as all will be resurrected – some to eternal life others to damnation. Second, spiritual death is overcome by faith in Christ in this life.  Unless a man is born again he cannot even see the Kingdom of Heaven. Third, once someone dies physically their future is set.  If they are in hades they will (in all probability and depending on who you ask) go into the Lake of Fire at the Great White Throne judgment, which is the Second death, and over this Jesus has no keys. Fourth, these views believe the second death is eternal – some saying it includes annihilation and others say that it includes suffering eternally in flames with Satan and his angels.

Relative to the term “second death” we know that it is only used in the Book of Revelation and we also discovered the following:

• It is called “the Lake of Fire” so we know that it is the burning consuming place after this life, not hades.
• Those who are part of the first resurrection will “not be hurt” by the Second Death.
• Those who are cast into the Lake of Fire will have “their part” in it.
• That the Lake of Fire is in “the presence of the Lamb and His angels.”
• That it is a place of fire and brimstone and all who are guilty of a list of numerated sins will go there (which I take to mean as all who have not been covered by Christ’s shed blood by faith).

So relative to the views in the first box, many evangelicals get hades (the dark place) mixed up with the Lake of Fire (or the Second death) all the while forgetting that scripture says plainly that hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

So there is a quick thumbnail on some coverage of hades, death, the second death, and how most Christians today view them as still being effective and in play today – mostly because they do not believe Jesus has returned and therefore the descriptions of Revelation chapters 19-22 have yet to occur, which again, include hades giving up its dead, kick-starting the Great White Throne Judgement and people being cast into the Lake of Fire forever more as a result.

The full Preterist view says that all of was applicable to the Nation of Israel, this it is all complete and everything described as going to happen in scripture has occurred.  As you continue to read through our volumes on the Book of Revelation you will discover that this, in part, represents my personal view as well.

Allow a brief divergence and clarification.

The scripture is clear that God has reconciled the world to himself in and through the finished work of His Son.

2^nd Corinthians 5:18-19 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

1^st John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Reconciliation does NOT mean saved, glorified, honored or even a Son of God – it just means reconciled – in God’s mind.  He is reconciled with the sins of the world.  He is no longer angry with the world but reaching out like a loving father to his prodigal creations, inviting them to receive him by His Spirit, and to choose to be reconciled to Him.  This is where we all, for the past 2000 years stand relative to our God!  Jesus has reconciled the world back to the father, in a spiritual state similar to the Garden of Eden before the Fall.   Since that time all people are like Adam and Eve, choosing how to live, choosing whether to freely love God or freely reject him.

I try to avoid the term universalism because Universalism is often defined as all roads leading to God with all being saved.  All being reconciled to the Father by Christ’s finished work is much more in line with a proper biblical exegesis, for Jesus did pay for the sins of the world (contrary to the Calvinist (non-biblical) view of limited atonement.  And looking back through early church history the idea of a total reconciliation is not a new kid on the block.  Similarly, we note from the writings of the early church leaders eternal torment wasn’t commonly accepted until around the year 500.  There is a vast amount of research and information on this subject online and in books, of which I’ve read very little, but I did gather the following facts from these very reliable sources.

First, the doctrine of Eternal Torment is not found anywhere in ancient Judaism.  Sometime after the close of the Old Testament and in and around Jesus' time, this error began creeping in from the surrounding  . . . paganism.  Jesus and the apostles were more about sharing the Good News, apologetics, and warning about the eminent coming end of the age (the destruction of Jerusalem) than focusing on the eternality of afterlife punishment.  By the time we get to those referred to as the “early church fathers,” (a title I don’t really appreciate) total reconciliationism through Christ was the predominant view – and it was a view that came from scripture – prior to the influences of Paganism.

Turning to the earliest church leaders who were well versed in Greek (the language of the New Testament) very very few believed in endless torment for the sake of retribution. They believed in a limited corrective punishment.  Why?  It was based on their understanding of several key Greek words that had been mistranslated. 

Augustine, the first church father to really promote eternal torments (to the exclusion of other beliefs) hated Greek and did most of his studies in Latin. When the power of the church shifted from the Greek fathers (Alexandrian) to the Latin, the teachings became largely corrupted including the teachings on free will. By 200 AD there were three schools of thought within Christianity concerning the after-life destiny of the wicked:

• Endless punishment
• Annihilation (the wicked would simply be wiped out no longer to exist) and 
• Total Reconciliation. 

However, prior to this there was not much, if any, controversy over the view of God having been totally reconciled to the world by and through the death of His Son.  Origen, who was the first to really systematize Christianity, and admittedly was thought errant in a number of ways to the point that he was ultimately condemned, was a reconciliationist.  The interesting thing about Origen is that his Reconciliationism was never a subject he was condemned over.  In fact, Reconciliationism wasn't really attacked until around 540 AD when the notion of eternal torments took hold on the minds and hearts of men. Up until this time some of the most revered early church leaders were staunch universalists and they all supported their views from scripture.  So let’s rattle off some bullet points on the subject as a back drop to completing our discussion of Jesus having the keys to the hades and the death.

First of all, Clement of Alexandria was a Total Reconciliationalist.  And where he and Origen represent the doctrine of scholars and the educated, the Catacombs give us the views of the unlearned and not one syllable is found among them hinting at the horrors of Augustinianism and Eternal Punishment, but the inscription on every monument therein harmonizes with the Reconciliationism of the early leaders.

Clement declares that all punishment, however severe, is purificatory; that even the "torments of the damned" are curative.   Origen also describes Gehenna as signifying limited and curative punishment and both he and Clement (along with others) say that "everlasting" (aionion) punishment, is consonant with a semblance of universal salvation. 

The early Christians taught that Christ preached the Gospel to the dead, and for that purpose descended into Hades. This is described in 1^st Peter.  Within this view many held that He “released” all who were in ward at that time which supports the notion that repentance beyond the grave was accepted which, of course, conflicts with today’s dogmatism that once a person died the punishment is fiery and forever.  Additionally, prayers for the dead were universal in the early church, which would be an absurd practice if their condition is unalterably fixed at the grave.

The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and Universal Reconciliationism was one of the tenets.  Then the first complete presentation of Christianity as a system was by Origen (A.D. 220) and Universal Reconciliationism was explicitly contained in it.  Truly, Universal Reconciliationism was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of the faith.  Conversely, Total Reconciliationism was lesser and lesser known (or taught) when Greek was least known.  Frankly, when Latin was the language of the Church the faith was in its darkest, most ignorant and corrupt age.

Not a single writer (among those who describe the heresies of the first three hundred years of the faith) ever suggests that Total Reconciliationism was a living heresy, though it was believed by many, if not by a majority, and certainly by the greatest of the early church leaders.  Additionally, not a single creed for five hundred years expresses any idea contrary to Universal Reconciliation or one that favors endless punishment.  With the exception of the arguments of Augustine (A.D. 420), there is not an argument known to have been framed against Universal Reconciliationism for at least four hundred years after Christ by any of the ancient leaders.  Additionally, while the councils that assembled in various parts of Christendom and anathematized every kind of doctrine thought to be heretical, no ecumenical council, for more than five hundred years, condemned Universalism, though it had been advocated in every century by the principal scholars and most revered saints.

Jerome says, as late as 400AD, that "most people" (plerique) and Augustine says "very many" people (quam plurimi), believed in Universal Reconciliation.  In reality, the most celebrated and earliest advocates “of endless punishment” were all heathen born rather than those born in the faith, showing that eternal punishment could have come directly over from pagan influences.  Tertullian one of the first to promote eternal torture followed by Augustine, the greatest proponent.  And the first true advocate of endless punishment were Minucius Felix, followed in by Tertullian and Augustine, all Latin, all ignorant of Greek, and less competent to interpret the meaning of Greek Scriptures than were the Greek scholars before them.

The first advocates of Reconciliationism, after the Apostles, were Greeks, in whose mother-tongue the New Testament was written.  To them Total Reconciliation was present in the Greek versions of the Bible.  And it is here that we find one of the best clues to the notion of a fully appeased God – the Latin-language leaders were supportive of eternal torments but the Greek endorsed reconciliation.  The beautiful thing about the Greek inspired views is that there was nothing in their non-biblical literature to support Total Reconciliation of the very wicked world around them.  This fact suggests that it was their view of the Good News to the World, read and taught by the Greek, that led them to their conclusions.  All ecclesiastical historians and the best Biblical critics and scholars agree to the prevalence of Total Reconciliation in the earlier centuries.

The first theological school in Christendom, that in Alexandria, taught Total Reconciliationism for more than two hundred years.  In all of recorded Christendom, from A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian schools. Of these four, the strictest of the schools theologically, taught Total Reconciliation with one teaching endless punishment.

The three earliest Gnostic sects, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians and the Valentinians (A.D. 117-132) were all condemned by early Christian writers for their heretical views but all of them taught Total Reconciliation but this doctrine was not once condemned by those who opposed them.  The first defense of Christianity against Infidelity (Origen against Celsus) puts the defense on Total Reconciliational grounds.  Celsus charged the Christians' God with cruelty because he was said to punish with fire. Origen replied that God's fire is curative; that he is a "consuming fire," because he consumes sin and not the sinner. Interestingly, lists of Origen’s errors are given by Methodius, Pamphilus and Eusebius, Marcellus, Eustathius and Jerome, but his Total Reconciliationism is not ever named by one of his opponents. 

Looking at heretic hunters of the earlier church, Total Reconciliationism is not EVER mentioned by any of them:

Hippolytus (A.D. 320) names thirty-two known heresies, but Universalism or Total Reconciliation is not mentioned as among them. 

Epiphanius, "the hammer of heretics," describes eighty heresies, but he does not mention universal salvation.

Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, who attempted to have Universalism officially condemned, lived in the most corrupt epoch of the Christian centuries. He closed the theological schools, and demanded the condemnation of Universalism by law; but the doctrine was so prevalent in the church that the council refused to obey his edict to suppress it.   Historian Lecky says the age of Justinian was "the worst form civilization has assumed."

So, to the views of the early church, the first clear and definite statement of human afterlife destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration or reconciliation and that doctrine was advocated by most of the greatest and best of the Christian leaders for the first four to five hundred years of the Christian Era.

The order of the following things seems to have been lost to believers today, including the biblical fact that

• Jesus suffered for the sins of the world, dying, going to hades, preaching the Good News to them and taking those in paradise with Him into heaven.
• The apostles shared the Good News with living earthly Israel (and then the Gentile world) and warning them of impending judgment coming within a generation ( forty years or so).
• Jesus completing all His work by returning (as the High Priest coming out of the Holiest of Holies) with judgment and reward in 70 AD.  The events leading up to this end time destruction are depicted in this Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ given to the Seven actual churches of that day.
• At the time of his coming and prior to the Great White throne Judgement, Jesus, who holds the keys to death and hades would empty hades out, the great and the dead from that age would be judged before the Great White Throne and those whose names not written in the Lambs book of life were cast into the Lake of Fire, created for Satan and his angels (and not human beings) to be curated by the fire which is God.

At that point hades, the covered place, was empty forever more and also tossed into the fire that is God.  It is done, emptied and plays no more of a role in afterlife human affairs. 

Since Jesus introduced the Resurrection of the Dead at the advent of His coming, and since 1^st Corinthians teaches that the resurrection is entirely spiritual with eternal spiritual bodies being bestowed by God to all people, at death all people, since the end of the former age in 70 AD, are raptured, judged, and receive their eternal bodies from God.

Those who are His by faith enter into His kingdom (the New Jerusalem on high) and those who are not enter into a realm outside the gates of the city, gates that are open day and night.  But more on this as we get deeper into the Revelation. 

Death and hades were once in control of the evil one.  Here in the Revelation Jesus makes it clear that this is no longer the case, saying: “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

REVELATION 1:19-20

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

At verse 4 and verse 8 of this first chapter we read something similar to this passage, but they speak of Jesus Himself and arrive in a different order:

Revelation 1:4 “. . . Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come . . .”

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Verses 4 and 8 Order and Content	Verse 19 Order and Content
Which is . . .	The things which you have seen
Which was . . .	The things which are
Which is to come . . .	The things which shall be hereafter

From this we see that in describing Himself, Jesus re-orders the chronology to what John is to write.  Instead of what Is, was, and is to come, he was to write, what he has seen, the things that are, and the things that will come later. The most apparent explanation is John was to write what he had already seen (in verses 1-18) what he was seeing then (verse 19) and what he would see later (in the rest of the Revelation) as the literal Greek translates this line as, “the things that are about to come after these things.”

Write them! Jesus tells him.

One of critic of the faith Bart Erhman’s questions is:

“If God inspired the writers of the original mss (meaning) “if it was that important that what they wrote was word perfect, why, oh why didn’t he inspire to the exact same intent from those who copied them over the course of Christian history?”

Erhman’s question is valid.  If the book has the same importance to us as it did to the recipients of it why are there so many variant factors in our present-day manuscripts?
The only viable answer I think we have left is that the originals were literal, physical vitally-important specific instructions to the people of that day and what we have today, though extremely well contained (all things considered) are more for our spiritual enlightenment rather than a literal physical application.  Something to consider.  

So anyway, the Lord tells John to write 

“the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.”

Many people find this passage to be an index to the Revelation itself; that it is a written record of what John had seen, what he was seeing, and the things that he would see later.

“The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”

What Jesus speaks to here are some of the things which John has seen and some of the things which are.” In other words, write the “mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks.”  And then he gives John the meaning of what he saw (perhaps so John could write them?) and says:

The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

So John, tell the Seven Churches, to whom this Revelation is given, tell them what the meaning is of the Seven Stars you saw in my hand and also the meaning of the seven candlesticks from which I stood in the midst.

“The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”

From this we can say that what John saw was Jesus standing in the midst of the Seven Churches and He held in His hands the angels of the Seven Churches.  Jesus first calls them “the mystery of” probably because John has no idea what they mean or symbolize. John was to relay what they meant to the seven Churches (to whom he wrote) so that they would understand.  Why would Jesus want these Seven churches to understand what He had shown John thus far – why would He want them to understand the mystery thus far?  Also, why was it even a mystery?

We are plainly told that the Seven candlestands are the Seven Churches.  This is clear.  We might believe that the churches were supposed to be lights to the world, cities set on a hill that could not be hid so for John to see them as lampstands accomplishes this meaning.  The fact that John is shown all things through symbols makes us wonder if the content, and the application of the content, was not supposed to be understood across the board of all time.  In other words, if Revelation was just and only to the actual Seven Churches in the Seven Cities why would we be able to apprehend and interpret the meaning of this book?  Because the Revelation has application to both that day and age, and then to a historical picture of the Church, it appears that John was given representational figures that illustrated things rather than an ability to display them literally to his primary audience.

I am the first to glom on to the reality that Revelation was written to them in that day and at that time.  But if this was its only application I think Jesus would have provided the vision in a more exacting form.  This being said, I am currently open to see the Revelation as having a full preterist application but also possibilities through the Idealist and Historicist views as well.  Of course we omit the futurist view from this because the futurist and the full preterist are mutually exclusive – can’t have the one and the other – and since I am convinced of fulfillment we have to personally toss the other aside.

So the Seven Lampstands are the seven actual Churches then and then potentially seven figurative idealist representations and/or seven epochs or periods of time that could possibly represent Christian history.

But what about the Seven Stars?

The churches are represented by Seven candlestands, shining out for all to see, and the Seven stars are described by Jesus as “the angels of the seven churches” (in the Greek its ("Angels of the seven churches" as the article is lacking).   We will note when we start reading Jesus words to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3 that all seven churches are addressed in the following manner:

“Unto the angel of the church of (fill in the church name here) write . . .”

It seems pretty apparent that what John wrote was not intended to mean that it was to be exclusively given to a specific angel but, as presiding over each respective church, the record and its contents was to be shared with all involved. In other words, the Revelation was for the churches, but was committed to the "angel" as representing the church, and to be communicated to the church under his care.  There have been quite a bit of diversity of opinion on who, exactly, these angels of the Seven Churches were (and/or are).  Part of the problem arises when we consider a verse we’ve already read where John says in verse 4:

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.”

Because the term pneuma was used there (and not angellos) I do not think that there is a relation other than the fact that Seven (the complete number of God) is used all through this Revelation.  In other words, angels are angels and spirits are spirits and let’s allow ourselves to see them differently here just for sanities (and clarities) sake.  The early Catholic church argues that these Seven angels are seven Bishops. Their thinking is that in a city as large as Ephesus there is no way that only one church was there so what the star represented was the ecclesiastical leader of each area.  Of course, that is a very institutional view – but just know that it is out there.  Is there any justification to assume that these seven angels could have simply been men on earth?  There is.  John the Baptist is referred to as an angellos in scripture and we know from the Old Testament that many people (and even things) were called by this term angel. So, while the word angel is generally used to describe heavenly beings, it properly means “a messenger,”– heavenly and otherwise.  As a means to try and ascertain the meaning of the word used here we have to ask ourselves:  Is it more likely that there were heavenly messengers over the seven church’s or earthly?  There could have been either or both but to believe that John was to write on paper instructions for angels in heaven is really odd.  

Then there is the view that the local churches sent messengers to John to make sure he was okay and that this speaks to them.  Again, no record of it so it’s doubted. Possible but doubted.  It’s also doubted that John sent this Revelation through others as the passage reads that the message was not sent by them, but that it was sent to them. What is understood is the singular church is used to describe each place so whether a specific single location or a specific ideal or period in church history, it was to them specifically – not to many – which throws the “Bishop of Ephesus, Smyrna, Laodicea” theory out the window.

If the word does not mean literally a heavenly angel and if it does not refer to messengers sent to John in Patmos by the churches; and if it does not refer to a Bishop over the churches then what about the star those who wind up being someone who presided over the church as its pastor and through whom the Revelation given might properly be sent and then delivered to his respective church? 

This approach makes the most sense from a full preterist view, at least and from the Idealist and Historicist.   In other words, the contents of this Revelation is being given to specific actual pastors of the seven Churches.  To an Idealist this represents the general delivery of the Revelation to all pastor/teachers ever and to the Historicist it represents the Revelation being given to the Churches that existed and continue to exist over the course of Christian history.  Because the word anggelos is used in the Old Testament to describe a prophet (meaning a minister of religion as sent by God to communicate his will) we read in Haggai, “Then spoke Haggai, the Lord's messenger,“ we can see that the term in the New Testament can surely be assigned to the Lord’s messengers over the local churches who, like the prophets of the Old Testament, explained the Word to the congregations as prophets gave the word of God before.

In other words, there is no reason why the word might not be employed to designate a pastor of a Christian church, as it designated a prophet (or even a priest) under the Old Testament dispensation.   Additionally, it really makes no sense at all for us to take the term angellos to literally mean a heavenly angel.   Finally, John (being the last living apostle) could very well have had a working knowledge of each of the leaders of the seven churches and therefore what Jesus has said to him could have made perfect sense in his mind.