Welcome
Prayer
Music
Silence
Revelation 1.19-end
December 11th 2016
Meat
Alright, after introducing Himself in terms that cannot be disputed in terms of an identity of deity, Jesus says to John (at verse 19)
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.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Now at verse 4 and verse 8 of chapter one we read something similar to this passage but they speak of Jesus Himself who says in a self-description at 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.
Verses 4 and 8
Verse 19
Which is
Which thou has seen
Which was
The things which are
Which is to come
Which shall be hereafter
From this we see that in describing Himself Jesus re-orders the chronology citing first that He is, then the fact that He was, and then the that fact that His is which is to come.
But in 19 we find a chronological ordering. I don’t know why this is nor am I saying that there is any relation between the verses. I’m merely pointing out that there is a common theme in the them –
In four and eight Jesus describes Himself in these terms and in nineteen He instructs John to write about things in similar terms – what He has seen (things past), what is being seen (present) and what he will see thereafter (future) – the same way Jesus describes Himself – but in terms present, past, and then future.
Taking this Revelation as a thing in itself and omitting what John has seen as an Apostle, I think it is safe to say that in terms of what John has seen he was to write all that we have read up to this point in the book.
Then in terms of what things are, it seems to me that the things that are (at the time of his writing) were the Seven Churches – they were at the time Jesus said this to him (which gives us a very limited time line for the dating)
And finally, the things which “shall be” hereafter refers to whatever John is told is on the way, which is traditionally believed to be chapters 4-22. Now referring to the things that shall be the Literal Greek translates this line as,
“the things that are about to come after these things.”
This needs to be considered in terms of the five views as the Greek plainly states that “the things that shall be were about to come after the things that are.”
Write them! Jesus tells him.
Now, because I have been reading up on Bart Erhman’s postulations of late, and the fact that one of his main questions is:
“If God inspired the writers of the original mss – if it was that important that what they wrote was word perfect Why, oh why didn’t he inspire to the exact same extent those who copied them over the course of Christian history?”
We have to ask why Jesus had John write. 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 mss?
After everything is said and done the only viable answer I think we have lefts is that the originals were literal, physical vitally important 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 than a literal physical application.
Something to consider. So the Lord tells John to write and adds to this instruction:
(verse 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.”
Again, and in my estimation these are “the things which are.” 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 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, understanding – tell them what the meaning is of the Seven Stars you saw in my hand and the Seven candlesticks which I stood in the midst.
In terms of what was, John had not only seen the Savior, but he had seen seven lamp-stands, and seven stars in His hand.
So let’s talk about Jesus description of the symbols John saw in his vision of Him.
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
ON BOARD
Seven Stars and Seven Candlesticks
(draw them) (draw them)
are
the angels of the are the seven
seven churches churches
So 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 lamps stands are the Seven Churches. This is plain. 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.
The fact that John is show all things through symbols makes me wonder if the content, and the application of the content, was not intended to be understood across the board of time.
What I mean by this is if Revelation was just and only to the actual Seven Churches in the Seven Cities why wouldn’t he SEE this – with Christ standing in their midst?
That would make the most sense. But because the Revelation has application to both THAT day and age, and then to a historical picture of the Church John was given representational figures that illustrated things rather than displayed them literally.
Do you get this?
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 it having a full preterist application as well as an Idealist and Historicist.
I omit the futurist because the futurist and the full preterist are mutually exclusive – can’t have one and the other – and since I am convinced of the one I have to personally toss the other aside.
Zec 4:2; Mal 2:7; Mt 5:15; Php 2:15; Phm 1:25; Re 1:12,16; 2:1
So that is the Seven Lampstands – Seven actual Churches then and potentially seven figurative idealist representations and/or seven epochs or periods of time that match Christian history.
But what about the Seven Stars.
If the churches are represented by Seven lampstands, 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).
In other words the angels would describe a collective but “angels” makes them individuals or “writings being directed to “the angel” of each particular church.
We will note when we start reading 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 such an angel but, as presiding over each respective church, the record and its contents was to be shared with all involved.
In other words it was for the churches, but was committed to the “angel” as representing the church, and to be communicated to the church under his care.
Now, 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.
So, angels are angels and spirits are spirits and let’s allow ourselves to see them as different 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.
That is a very institutional view – 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, which is typically assigned to heavenly beings.
So while the word angel is generally used this way 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 churchs or earthly?
I realize that there could be either or both but to believe that John was to write on paper instructions for angels in heaven is really odd.
So there is the institutional view that these were ecclesiastical leaders over the churches (plural). This is disputed by many because there is nothing to suggest that this was ever the case.
Then there is the view that the local churches sent messengers to John to make sure he was okay and it speaks to them. Again, no record so it’s doubted.
Possible but doubted.
Its 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 representing angels of the Seven churches who wind up being some one 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.
In my estimation this makes the most sense – from a full preterist view to the Idealist and the Historicist.
The contents of this Revelation is being given to first, the specific, actual pastors of the seven Churches. And then from the Idealist (it represents the general delivery of the Revelation to all pastor/teachers ever) and then in 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 and in the example of Haggai where we read:
“Then spoke Haggai, the Lord’s messenger, [Heb. angel, Septuagint aggelos kuriou] “ 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 OT, 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 well as to designate 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.
Also, 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 makes great sense.
So guess what?
CHAPTER TWO!!!!
This chapter contains four of the seven messeges addressed to the seven churches, including:
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and Thyatira.
We’ll speak about each of them particularly as we get to them but let’s cover some of the commonalities.
(1st) And as noted, they all open with the same address with the only difference being the name of the Church involved.
(2nd) They all begin with a reference to some attribute of the Lord or another – several of which were mentioned in chapter one.
Therefore, to Ephesus Jesus is described as “he who speaks to them holds the seven stars in his right hand, and walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks.”
Then to the church at Smyrna, (Re 2:8,) it is he who “is the first and the last, who was dead and is alive”
To the church at Pergamos we read that he “which hath the sharp sword with the two edges”
To Thyatira, (Re 2:18,) we read he is “the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass;”
To Sardis, (Re 3:1,) we read that He is who “hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars;”
To the church at Philadelphia, (Re 3:7,) we “He that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth.”
And in the epistle to the church at Laodicea, (Re 3:14,) it is he who is the “Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.”
At this point I haven’t discerned that these introductions have any bearing on either the content of the message given or to the specific church receiving it – but this might open up to us later.
Also, we note that after each introduction Jesus says to each church, “I know thy works.”
This is then followed by some sentiment or another by the Lord about their conduct – whether it is approving or disapproving we will see when we get to each specific church but generally speaking we see that:
Two of the churches – Smyrna, (Revelation 2:9,) and Philadelphia, (Revelation 3:10,) He gives great praise but to the churches of Sardis, (Revelation 3:3,) and Laodicea, (Revelation 3:15-18,) he gives a stern rebuke then finally to the churches of Ephesus, (Revelation 2:3-6,) Pergamos, (Revelation 2:13-16,) and Thyatira, (Revelation 2:19,20,24,25,) he intermingles both praise and rebuke.
In all cases, however, His praise proceeded His critique, showing that the Lord has an order or disciplining – the old stroke and stab.
After we work through all Seven churches we’ll layout on the board a chart that details all the commonalities and all the dissimilarities in His words to each of them.
I do want to say something about the phrase used toward each church by the Lord that we cannot let pass without discussion.
That phrase is, “I know thy works.”
Over the course of teaching the Word verse by verse I have shifted in my thinking about the purpose and meaning of salvation by grace through faith.
When I entered the Kingdom I was infused with sharing and promoting the joys of His grace.
Quite frankly most of my outreach to the people of my former faith was to promote and emphasize the fact that God saved me a sinner, as I was, and of nothing that I could do.
It’s an important and principled message because it is the Good News and its recipients are all blessed with its benefits freely.
What I didn’t understand (as a babe in Christ) was the overwhelming amount of information, direction and counsel toward good works in the New Testament.
I would go so far to say that it’s a ten to one ratio in the text but in many Evangelical churches it is either ignored OR it is emphasized in a manner disconnected from the principles of faith and spirit-lead life.
In other words on the one hand we have a reiterated message of grace grace grace – even hyper-grace (what has been deemed cheap grace by some) but on the other extreme we have burdens of religious labors heaped upon the souls of those claiming to believe.
We cannot help but notice that to the seven churches Jesus repeats the same line – I Know thy works.
Ergon – thy labors, efforts, toil, deeds, works.
This cannot be ignored and it takes all that we have talked about in terms of the faith and being Christian and lays it bare in a fashion that is almost a discomfiture.
I know this is meat and most of you realize the order of things in the faith but I need to reiterate this order in no uncertain terms.
We are all, in our sin, saved by God’s grace through our faith. I’m not gonna mince words here – it is a synergist exchange rather than a monergist appointing, meaning God offers and we accept rather than God demands and we are forced to receive.
I mention this not only because free will was present with Adam and it is present with us but because once we have received His gift by faith we are also free to follow Him in labors of love.
The revolving implication is those who have truly received the gift of salvation will produce fruit.
NOT, “produce fruit and you will be saved.” NOT “produce fruit to prove to people that you are saved,” BUT those who have been truly saved will (will) to some extent or another, bear fruit (which Jesus is categorizing as “their works” to the Seven Churches).
I think we are able to see this order played out in the life of Paul who said:
1st Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
The question then becomes NOT how or what our labors really amount to but how much did we allow, in the synergist fashion, allow God’s grace to operate through us.
Paul here says, “more abundantly than they all.”
In Philippians Paul wrote first the directive:
“work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” But then explained how this happens, adding: “for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
So again, the works and labors, while expected are the result of how “much” a person was willing to let God operate through them.
This was the same for the Churches here in Revelation as Jesus addresses them corporately, and expresses his approbation for some, his disappointment with others, and both with the remaining.
The inescapable fact remains however, that those who are Christ’s will – will – bear fruit, labors of love – because they choose to abide in Him – and He will access the works of us at the end of the day, or age, or life of every soul.
If the book of Revelation makes anything plain it is this uncomfortable fact. I must admit, as I frequently do, that there is a direct correlation to faith and labors of love. Because of this I also see a direct correlation between the presence of the Word of God in people to their faith and therefore to their labors of love wrought by God in them through Christ.
Its almost an irrefutable cycle – those who hear, read and love the Word are filled with good faith, and operating by such, and ripe with selfless love.
A simple formula really – but infrequently observed.
So let’s go to the first church mentioned – which in all probability was also the largest – Ephesus.
Let’s read:
Revelation 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
A general summary of the contents of the epistle to the church at Ephesus are as follows:
First, the attribute assigned to the Lord of Lords is that He “holds the stars in his right hand, and walks in the midst of the golden candlesticks.”
Then He commends them for their patience, and for their opposition to those who are evil, and for carefully examining the character of some who claimed to be apostles (but who were in fact impostors) and for their perseverance in bearing up under trial, and for not fainting in his cause, and for their opposition to the Nicolaitanes, whom he says he hates.
He reproves them for having left their first love to him, Re 2:4.
Then He admonishes them to remember that when they had fallen, to repent, and to do their first works, Re 2:5.
Then He threatens them that if they do not repent he will come and remove the candlestick out of its place,
and then He
assures them and all others that whosoever overcomes, he will “give him to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God,”
Alright, back to verse 1 chapter 2
Revelation 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I believe this could read,
Unto the leader, elder, presbyter or episkopas of the church of Ephesus,
Not of the churches of Ephesus, but of the one church of that city. Again, no evidence that the word is used in a collective sense to denote a group of churches, like a diocese nor is there any evidence that there was such a group of churches in Ephesus, or that there was more than one church in that city.
It is probable that all who were Christians there were regarded as members of one church–though for convenience they may have met for worship in different places.
Thus there was one church in Corinth, (1Co 1:1) one church in Thessalonica, (1Th 1:1,) etc., etc.
Now about EPHESUS . . .
(next week)
Q and A
PRAYER
