Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryRevelation 1

THE REVELATION of St. John the Divine INTRODUCTION 1. Title. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts, as well as the writings of several Church Fathers beginning with Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130–c. 202), entitle this book simply “Apocalypse of John.” Later, medieval manuscripts elaborated the title to “Apocalypse of John the Theologian and Evangelist” and “Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian.” The name as it stands in the KJV is a variant English rendering of this last title. The Greek word apokalupsis, “apocalypse,” “revelation,” means literally, “an unveiling,” and in religious literature, especially, an unveiling of the future. The apocalyptic was a characteristic literary form among the Jews of the intertestamental and early Christian periods (see Vol. V, pp. 87–90), and also among certain writers of the primitive church (see below on “theme”). 2. Authorship. The author of the Revelation repeatedly identifies himself as “John” (chs. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8). The Greek form of this name, Iōannēs (see on Luke 1:13), represents the common Hebrew name Yochanan, “Johanan,” which appears numerous times in the later books of the OT, the Apocrypha, and Josephus. This identifies the author as a Jew. Various evidences clearly indicate that the name John was that of the author, and not a pseudonym, such as many Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic works bore. First is the fact that, in identifying himself as John, the author of the Revelation makes no attempt to establish himself as holding any position in the church. Various Jewish and Christian apocalypses are attributed to Hebrew patriarchs and prophets and to Christian apostles. If the Revelation were also pseudonymous, it would be expected that its author would attempt to identify himself specifically as an apostle. But the simple statement of the author that his name is John, “your brother” (Rev. 1:9; cf. Peter’s reference to Paul, 2 Peter 3:15), is testimony that he is giving his true name. Obviously the writer was so well known to the churches that his name alone was sufficient to identify him and to lend credence to his record of the visions he had seen. Furthermore, it appears that the practice of pseudonymity did not flourish when the exercise of the gift of prophecy was vigorous. On the other hand, during the intertestamental period, when, so far as we know, there was no recognized prophet among the Jews, religious writers often felt it necessary to attach the name of some ancient personage of high repute to their work in order to gain for it general acceptance. There was apparently no true prophet speaking for God, as the OT prophets had done. But with the coming of Christianity the gift of prophecy once more flourished. In the Christian church of the 1st century the supposed need for pseudonymity did not exist; Christians were convinced that their apostles and prophets spoke directly for God. But when the prophetic office among Christians fell into disrepute and finally disappeared in the 2d century, pseudonymous works bearing names of various apostles began to appear (see Vol. VI, pp. 41, 42). In the light of these facts it is reasonable to conclude that the Revelation, coming from the 1st century, is not pseudonymous, but is the work of a man whose real name was John. Who was this John? The NT mentions several men by this name, the Baptist, the son of Zebedee, who was one of the Twelve, John, who was surnamed Mark, and a certain relative of the high priest Annas (see on Acts 4:6). Obviously the author of the Revelation

could not be John the Baptist, for that John died before the crucifixion of Jesus; nor is there any reasonable probability that it was the relative of Annas, of whom there is no indication that he ever became a Christian. Similarly, there is little evidence that John Mark was the author of the Revelation. The style, wording, and approach of the second Gospel are quite different from those of the Revelation, and there is no evidence that anyone in the early church ever seriously connected the Revelation with Mark. By a process of elimination, John the son of Zebedee and the brother of James is left for consideration. He was not only one of the Twelve but also a member of Jesus’ inner circle. Almost unanimously early Christian tradition recognizes him as the author of the Revelation. In fact, every Christian writer until the middle of the 3d century, whose works are extant today and who mentions the matter at all, attributes the Revelation to John the apostle. These writers are Justin Martyr at Rome (c. A.D. 100–c. 165; Dialogue With Trypho 81), Irenaeus at Lyons (c. A.D. 130–c. 202; Against Heresies iv. 20. 11), Tertullian at Carthage (c. A.D. 160–c. 240; On Prescription Against Heretics 36), Hippolytus at Rome (died c. A.D. 220; Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? xlii). These testimonies demonstrate the strong and widespread belief in the early church that the author of the Revelation was the apostle John. Furthermore, several early Christian traditions associate the later years of John with the city of Ephesus. Thus Irenaeus (op. cit. iii. 3. 4; ANF vol. 1, p. 416) declares that in his youth he had seen the aged Polycarp of Smyrna, who “conversed with many who had seen Christ,” among them John, who had remained permanently at Ephesus until the days of Trajan (A.D. 98–117). Polycrates (A.D. 130–c. 200), bishop of Ephesus, the eighth of his family to be a Christian bishop, testifies that the John “who reclined on the Lord’s bosom, … he rests at Ephesus” (Epistle to Victor and the Roman Church Concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover; ANF, vol. 8, p. 773). These statements coincide with the fact that John addresses himself to Ephesus and the other churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4, 11). The only testimony during this period that would seem to discount the view that the author of the Revelation was the apostle John comes from the early Christian Father Papias (died c. A.D. 163). The works of Papias are lost, and all that is extant from his works is contained in highly fragmentary form in quotations preserved by later writers. Two of these relate to John’s death. One, a manuscript from the 7th or 8th century A.D., which appears to be an epitome of the Chronicle by Philip of Side (5th century), declares: “‘Papias in his second book says that John the Divine and James his brother were slain by the Jews’” (in R. H. Charles, Revelation [International Critical Commentary], Vol. 1, p. xlvi). Similarly, a manuscript of the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus (c. A.D. 860) says, “‘For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, being an eyewitness of this, in the second book of the Lord’s sayings, says that he [John] was destroyed by the Jews, plainly fulfilling, with his brother, Christ’s prediction concerning them’” (Greek text in H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, p. clxxv). At first sight these quotations would seem to indicate that a Christian official living in the late 1st and early 2d centuries and in the vicinity of Ephesus testified that the apostle John was, like his brother, killed by the Jews too early to have written the Revelation in the time of either Nero or Domitian, the periods in which scholars usually place it (see below on “historical setting”). On closer scrutiny, however, several questions must be raised in regard to these quotations. The fact that the passage from the Oxford manuscript refers to John as “the theologian” indicates that the quotation has undergone some

modification by a medieval scribe, for this title is not applied to John in any extant Bible manuscript before the 8th century, and it is virtually inconceivable that Papias could have used it. The second quotation, from Georgius Hamartolus, is found in only one manuscript of that writer. Other manuscripts of his work say simply that John died in peace, but apparently they do not quote Papias at all. Consequently it is difficult to know just what Papias said regarding the death of John. If he did write that John, like James, was killed by the Jews, by no means does it follow that their deaths occurred at, or even near, the same time. The Revelation itself reveals that at the time of its writing the Jews still were causing difficulty for Christians, and if John did finally suffer a martyr’s death, it may well have been the result of Jewish machinations. A third quotation from Papias is recorded by the church historian Eusebius (d. A.D. 340): “And I shall not hesitate to append to the interpretations all that I ever learnt well from the presbyters and remember well, for of their truth I am confident. … But if ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, had said [Gr. eipen], and what Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying [Gr. legousin]. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving voice” (Ecclesiastical History iii. 39, 3, 4; Loeb ed., vol. 1, pp. 291, 293). This passage has been the subject of much conjecture. Eusebius interpreted it to mean that there were two men by the name of John who had lived in Asia in the late 1st century—the apostle, and another man who was a presbyter, or elder. Eusebius’ opinion was that this latter man was the one whom Papias had known personally and that it was he who had written the Revelation, whereas the apostle had been the author of the Gospel. It is possible, however, to interpret Papias’ words in another way. As the German New Testament scholar Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed., vol. 2 pp. 451– 453) has pointed out, in Papias’ statement there is no real distinction made between presbyters and apostles. Papias says that he “inquired into the words of the presbyters,” and immediately goes on to list apostles; then when he mentions “the presbyter John” he identifies him at once as one of “the Lord’s disciples.” The real distinction between the two groups he mentions lies in the words eipen, “said,” and legousin, “were saying,” which suggests that those in the first group mentioned were disciples of Jesus who had lived and borne their testimony before Papias’ time, whereas those in the second group were still living, and available for information in his day. If Irenaeus’ testimony (see p. 716) is accepted, the apostle John would be included in both groups, and so might conceivably be mentioned twice. Eusebius’ effort to derive two Johns from Papias’ statement is made more understandable by the fact that his conclusions were influenced by the work of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (d. A.D. 265; see Eusebius op. cit. vii. 24, 25). In reaction against some Christians who were stressing a literal millennium, Dionysius wrote a work entitled A Treatise on the Promises, in which he sought to show by scholarly arguments that the Revelation was not written by the apostle John, but by another man of the same name. Dionysius is the first Church Father to question the apostolic authorship of the Revelation, and his arguments have remained the classic ones for those scholars who share his point of view.

Dionysius centered his criticisms chiefly about the fact that there are obvious differences between the language of the Gospel and that of the Revelation. The vocabularies of the two books portray marked differences; a number of words that occur with particular frequency in one are found but infrequently in the other. The following examples are particularly striking: kosmos, “world,” appears in John 79 times, but in the Revelation only 3 times; alētheia, “truth,” in John 25 times, in the Revelation not at all; phōs, “light,” in John 22 times, in the Revelation 3 times; agapaō, “to love,” in John 37 times, in the Revelation 4 times; pisteuō, “to believe,” in John 100 times, in the Revelation not at all; alla, “but,” in John more than 100 times, in the Revelation 13 times; enōpion, “before,” in John once, in the Revelation 36 times; emos, “mine,” in John 42 times, in the Revelation once. In referring to Christ as “the Lamb,” the Gospel always uses the word amnos, whereas the Revelation always uses arnion, both of which mean “lamb.” In the Gospel, Jerusalem is always Hierosoluma, whereas in the Revelation it is consistently Hierousalem̄ . Dionysius also pointed out the fact that the Greek of the Gospel of John is correct and idiomatic, whereas that of the Revelation contains a number of passages that are unusual and cannot be explained in terms of correct Greek grammar and syntax. In view of these marked differences between the Gospel and the Revelation, Dionysius concluded that they were not by the same author. These criticisms appear to have had a wide influence upon the thinking of the Eastern Church in regard to the apostolicity, and therefore the canonicity, of the Revelation. Not only did Eusebius record the details of Dionysius’ arguments, but he sought to establish them further by the passage from Papias quoted above. Similarly, in regard to the canonicity of Revelation, he reported: Of the writings of John in addition to the gospel the first of his epistles has been accepted without controversy by ancients and moderns alike but the other two are disputed, and as to the Revelation there have been many advocates of either opinion up to the present (op. cit. iii. 24. 17, 18; Loeb ed., vol. 1, pp. 255, 257). Although the evidence adduced by Dionysius to indicate two Johns is weighty, several other facts must be considered before a judgment is made. The view of Dionysius and Eusebius rests chiefly on two points—the ambiguous quotation from Papias, and Dionysius’ arguments from linguistic differences between the Gospel and the Revelation. Although it cannot be proved that Papias did not refer to two different men by the name of John, if he did, his testimony—in so far as it may be used as evidence for the nonapostolic authorship of the Revelation—is contradicted by a half dozen other Church Fathers (see p. 716). Particularly important in this regard are the statements of Irenaeus, who himself had personal contact with Polycarp, a contemporary of both John and Papias. He seems to have known of only one John, the apostle, and states clearly that this one wrote the Revelation. In view of this, it seems reasonable to conclude that Papias’ ambiguous statement must not be pressed strongly as proof of the existence of two Johns. The linguistic differences between the Gospel and the Revelation are significant. Although differences in subject matter and style, which obviously exist between the two books, may account to some extent for the divergent vocabularies, one writer does not

ordinarily vary so widely in his use of such words as alla, enōpion, and emos (see p. 718). Regardless of subject matter or literary form, the same writer commonly uses or omits such words quite unconsciously. When two works vary as widely as do the Gospel and the Revelation in the employment of these words, it may seem difficult at first to think that they represent the work of the same writer. However, this fact in itself does not necessarily mean that John was not the author of both works. The circumstances under which the two books seem to have been written may reasonably account for such differences as exist. In the Revelation, John declares that he received its visions while he “was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus” (ch. 1:9). That John was an exile there would imply that he was forced to rely upon his own linguistic abilities in the composition of the Revelation. Therefore it is not surprising that the language of this book is not always idiomatic, that Semiticisms sometimes shine through the Greek, and that its author was not at all times sure of his grammar. Such a situation is quite in keeping with the circumstances under which John is known to have written the Revelation. Furthermore, the visions were apparently written down as the scenes passed vividly before the prophet’s eyes (see ch. 10:4). John may have purposely avoided revision lest the sense of drama be lost. On the other hand, early Christian tradition indicates that the Gospel was written under entirely different conditions. The Muratorian Fragment, composed at Rome probably about A.D. 170—only a few decades after John’s disciple Polycarp had visited there—declares: The fourth of the Gospels is of John, one of the disciples. When encouraged by his fellow-disciples and bishops, he said to them: “Fast together with me the next three days, and whatever shall be revealed to each of us we shall recount to one another.” That night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that while they all revised, John should narrate it all in his own name (Latin text in S. P. Tregelles, ed., Canon Muratorianus, pp. 17, 18). Although this story obviously has fanciful features, such as the presence of Andrew and other apostles with John at the time he wrote the Gospel, it still may retain a kernel of truth, suggesting that in the composition of the Gospel, John may have had assistance. That this may have been so is indicated also by a statement attributed to Papias, preserved in a 10th-century manuscript: This Gospel, then, it is clear, was written after the Apocalypse, and was given to the churches in Asia by John, being still in the body, as the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias by name, a beloved disciple of John, who wrote this Gospel with John by dictation, recounts in his Exoterica, that is, in the last five books (Latin text in Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum … Latine, vol. 1, pp. 490, 491). Although the details of this account cannot be taken as proved, these two statements strongly suggest that in the 2d century the idea was abroad that John had composed his Gospel with the assistance of others. In the light of this very early tradition, the statement at the end of his Gospel, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (ch. 21:24), would seem to be the affidavit of John’s helpers to the truth of his account. If this reconstruction of the evidence is correct, it is not difficult to account for the linguistic and literary differences

that exist between the Revelation, written probably when John was alone on Patmos, and the Gospel, written with the help of one or more fellow believers at Ephesus. To the foregoing evidence may be added the fact that there are certain striking literary parallels between the Revelation and the Gospel of John that suggest identity of authorship. Thus the Revelation speaks of “water of life” (chs. 21:6; 22:17), and the Gospel of “living water” (chs. 4:10; 7:38). The Revelation invites, “Let him that is athirst come” (ch. 22:17), and the Gospel declares, “If any man thirst, let him come” (ch. 7:37). The word opsis, “appearance,” or “face,” is used in the NT only in the Johannine writings (John 7:24; 11:44; Rev. 1:16). The same is true of the expression tērein ton logon, “keep my saying [or, “word”]” (John 8:51, 52, 55; 14:23, 24; 15:20; 17:6; 1 John 2:5; Rev. 3:8, 10; 22:7, 9), and onoma autō, “his name,” literally, “a name to him” (John 1:6; 3:1; Rev. 6:8). Except where direct reference is made to OT symbolism, Christ is characterized as the Lamb only in the Gospel of John and in the Revelation (John 1:29, 36; Rev. 5:6; and 28 other times). Therefore, although evidence may be presented against the Johannine authorship of the Revelation, it must be recognized that the arguments for the traditional view, that the author of the Revelation was the apostle John, are reasonable and sound. This commentary accepts the traditional view. Compare AA 578–585. 3. Historical Setting. Modern scholars are divided as to whether the writing of the Revelation should be assigned to a comparatively early date during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54–68; see Vol. VI, p. 81) or to that of Vespasian (A.D. 69–79; see Vol. VI, p. 86), or to a later date toward the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96; see Vol. VI, p. 86). Generally, those scholars who prefer an early date for the Revelation identify the persecution referred to in the letters to the seven churches as that suffered by Christians under Nero (A.D. 64), or possibly subsequently under Vespasian, although it is not clear to what extent the latter emperor persecuted the church. They believe that the disordered world portrayed by the Revelation reflects the troubles that disturbed the city of Rome from the last years of Nero to the early years of Vespasian. They see in the beast that suffers a deadly wound and is healed (ch. 13:3) and in the beast that “was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit” (ch. 17:8) a representation of Nero, of whom, after his death, a popular legend declared that he would one day reappear. Similarly they see the mystic number 666 (ch. 13:18) as symbolic of Nero Caesar, when spelled in Hebrew consonantal letters (Nrwn Qsr). These evidences have led a number of outstanding scholars to date the Revelation in the late 60’s or 70’s of the 1st century. This reasoning, though apparently based on historical incidents, depends for its plausibility on the interpretation given to certain of the statements in the Revelation. But such an interpretation is, of course, subjective, and has not been accepted by many able scholars in the past. Nor is it accepted by this commentary, which believes that the prophecies of the Revelation have an application also to what is beyond the immediate and local situation (cf. on ch. 1:11). Any evidence for the date of the writing of the Revelation must be based primarily, at least, on other kinds of evidence and reasoning. The testimony of early Christian writers is almost unanimous that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus, who claims to have had a personal connection with John through Polycarp, declares of the Revelation, “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s

reign” (op. cit. v. 30. 3; ANF, vol. 1, pp. 559, 560). Victorinus (died c. A.D. 303) says, “When John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, on ch. 10:11; ANF, vol. 7, p. 353; see on Rev. 1:9). Eusebius (op. cit. iii. 20. 8, 9) records that John was sent to Patmos by Domitian, and that when those who had been unjustly banished by Domitian were released by his successor, Nerva (A.D. 96– 98; see Vol. VI, p. 87), the apostle returned to Ephesus. Such early Christian testimony leads the authors of this commentary to place the writing of the Revelation during the time of Domitian’s reign, which ended in A.D. 96. It is interesting, therefore, to mention briefly something of the conditions existing in the empire particularly as they affect Christians during the time of Domitian. It was under this emperor that the question of emperor worship became, for the first time, a crucial issue for Christians. Nowhere was this more true than in the Roman province of Asia, the area to which the letters to the seven churches were first directed. See on ch. 1:1, 11. Emperor worship existed in some Mediterranean lands before Alexander the Great. He had been deified, as had his successors. When the Romans conquered the East, their generals and proconsuls were often hailed as deities. This was especially true in the province of Asia, where the Romans had always been popular. It was common to build temples to the goddess Roma, a personification of the spirit of empire, and with her worship was associated that of the emperors. In 195 B.C. a temple was erected to her at Smyrna. In 29 B.C. Augustus granted permission for the building of a temple at Ephesus for the joint worship of Roma and Julius Caesar, and of one at Pergamum for the worship of Roma and himself. This was the first instance of a cult for a living emperor. Augustus did not urge the worship of himself, but in view of the desires of the local people he doubtless considered such worship a wise measure from a political point of view. Gradually, in these cults, the worship of Roma became less important and that of the emperor became the salient feature. Worship of the emperor by no means replaced that of the local gods, but was added, and served as a means of uniting the empire. Rituals in worship of the emperor were not always easily distinguishable from patriotic ceremonies. At the same time the worship of a living emperor was discouraged at Rome, although the Senate did officially deify certain dead emperors. Gaius Caligula (A.D. 37–41) was the first emperor to urge the worship of himself. He persecuted the Jews for refusing to worship him, and doubtless would also have directed his wrath at Christians had they been significant enough at the time for his notice. His successors were more lenient on the question and did not persecute for nonconformity. The next emperor to make an issue over the worship of himself was Domitian (A.D. 81–96). Christianity was as yet without legal recognition by the Roman government (see p. 573), but even such a religion as that was not likely to be persecuted by the Romans unless it ran afoul of the law. Now Christianity did just that. Domitian zealously sought to establish his claim to deity in the minds of the populace, and to force his subjects to worship him. Suetonius records that he issued a circular letter in the name of his procurators, beginning with the words, “‘Our Master and our God bids that this be done’” (Domitian xiii. 2; Loeb ed., Suetonius vol. 2, p. 367). An intriguing passage from the Roman historian Dio (Roman History lxvii. 14. 1–3; Loeb ed., vol. 8, p. 349) seems to throw some light on this persecution:

And the same year [A.D. 95] Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. Although on first sight this passage seems to record a persecution of Jews (and according to the Jewish historian H. Graetz, Domitian’s cousin was a Jewish proselyte [History of the Jews, vol. 2, pp. 387–389]), scholars have suggested that it is really Christianity for which Flavius Clemens and his wife were punished. From the standpoint of a pagan historian not intimately acquainted with Christianity, “Jewish ways” would be a logical description for Christianity, and “atheism” might well represent the refusal of Christians to worship the emperor. Eusebius (op. cit. iii. 18. 4), apparently confusing the relationship between Domitilla and Clemens, says that Domitian exiled a niece of Clemens, named Flavia Domitilla, because she was a Christian. Probably the two references are to the same person, and they suggest that the persecution involved even the imperial family. Such conditions of persecution for refusal to worship at the emperor’s shrine doubtless constitute the immediate background of John’s exile to Patmos, and thus of the writing of the book of Revelation. Apparently all the twelve apostles but John were dead, and he was an exile on the isle of Patmos. Christianity had entered its second generation. Most of those who had known the Master were now in their graves. The church was faced with the fiercest external threat it had yet known, and it needed a new revelation of Jesus Christ. Thus, the visions given to John met a specific need in their own time. Through them heaven was opened to the suffering church, and Christians, who refused to bow to the pomp and circumstance of the emperor, were given reassurance that their Lord, now ascended and standing at the throne of God, infinitely transcended in majesty and power any earthy monarch who might demand their worship. See AA 581–583. For the significance of emperor worship in relation to John’s statement regarding the “Lord’s day” see on ch. 1:10. 4. Theme. At the very beginning (ch. 1:1) this book announces itself as an apocalypse, an unveiling of the mysteries of the future culminating in the triumph of Jesus Christ. Apocalyptic writings had been a prominent type of Jewish religious literature for more than two centuries. Indeed, the first-known apocalypse, the book of Daniel, appeared at the time of the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century B.C. When the Maccabean wars once more brought political independence to the Jews 400 years later, Messianic expectations looking toward the expected new Jewish kingdom ran high, and gave rise to a body of apocalyptic literature that drew to a greater or less degree on the literary form and symbols of Daniel. When, in the following century, Roman conquest dashed the hopes of the Jews for the realization of a Messianic kingdom through the Hasmonaeans (see Vol. V, p. 34), Messianic expectations became, if anything, more intense as the Jews anticipated a messiah who would overthrow the Romans. During the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. such hopes continued to provide the incentive for more apocalyptic works. For a survey of Jewish apocalyptic literature see Vol. V, pp. 87– 90.

It is not surprising, then, that in the NT, written largely, if not entirely, by Jews for a church that was chiefly Jewish in its religious background, God would place an apocalypse setting forth the lead up to and usher in the Messianic kingdom. In His messages to men through the prophets God expresses His will in human languages and in literary forms with which the people to whom His messages were originally addressed were familiar. Although apocalypse is, indeed, prophecy, it differs from other Biblical prophecy (such as that in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets) in several important aspects, and these distinctive features are the earmarks of apocalyptic literature. Particularly significant among these distinguishing characteristics are the following: 1. The Cosmic Sweep of Apocalyptic. Whereas most prophecy is concerned largely with national and international problems centering chiefly in the history of Israel and the glorious future that might have been hers (see Vol. IV, pp. 25–38), apocalyptic plays upon the grander stage of the universe, and takes as its central theme the great controversy between God and Christ on the one hand, and Satan on the other. 2. The Basis of Apocalyptic in Visions and Dreams. The apocalyptic writer records the dreams and visions granted him while “in the Spirit” (see on ch. 1:10). He is often snatched away and carried to distant places, where he beholds scenes of majesty and grandeur that defy adequate description in human language, and where he converses with angels. Although such experiences are found repeatedly in the other prophets also, they are particularly characteristic of apocalyptic writings; so much so, in fact, that they form virtually the whole content of the apocalyptic sections of Daniel and of the Revelation. 3. the Use of Allegory in Apocalyptic. In prophecy, generally speaking, the symbols are concrete object lessons from everyday life; for instance, the potter and the clay (Jer. 18:1–10), the yoke (Jer. 27:2), and the tile (Eze. 4:1, 2). In apocalyptic prophecy, on the other hand, the symbols employed are almost always creatures never seen as such in actual life, such as multiheaded beasts, angels flying in heaven, and animals that speak and act with intelligence. Similarly, time periods, though rare in conventional prophecy, are generally given there in literal years (see Jer. 29:10), whereas in Daniel and in the Revelation, time periods repeatedly are used, and usually are to be understood on the basis of the year-day principle. 4. The Literary Form of Apocalyptic. Much prophecy is in poetic form, whereas apocalyptic prophecy (and similarly noncanonical literature) is almost entirely in prose, with only an occasional insertion of poetry, particularly in the case of hymns (see Rev. 4:11; 5:9, 10; 11:17, 18; 15:3, 4; 18:2–24; 19:1, 2, 6–8). These considerations give point to the rule that to be rightly interpreted apocalyptic writing must be understood in terms of its characteristic literary structure and theological emphasis. Central to its message is the theme of the great controversy, with particular focus upon the cataclysmic end of this world and the establishment of the new. All this is portrayed in highly symbolic language, which may not always admit of exact interpretation (see on Eze. 1:10). In speaking of supernal things, literal language is sometimes utterly inadequate to convey the subtler realities of heaven. In some respects the figurative language of apocalyptic is similar to that of parables, and the same precautions are to be taken in interpreting both (see Vol. V, p. 204; cf. Vol. III, p. 1111). The book is a revelation of Jesus Christ at work perfecting a people on earth so that they may reflect His flawless character, and guiding His church through the vicissitudes

of history toward the accomplishment of His eternal purpose. Here more completely than elsewhere in Holy Writ the curtain that separates the invisible from the visible is drawn aside in order to reveal, “behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will” (Ed 173). Revelation consists of four major divisions, or lines of prophecy: (1) the seven churches, chs. 1–3; (2) the seven seals, chs. 4 to 8:1; (3) the seven trumpets, chs. 8:2 to 11; and (4) closing events of the great controversy, chs. 12–22. Particularly in view of the fact that the language of the book is often highly figurative, it is essential to discover the intent and purpose of the inspired writer, and the meaning the book conveyed to the readers to whom it was originally addressed. Otherwise, the interpretation of its figures, and thus its message, may reflect mere personal opinion. Those first intended readers were Greek-speaking Christians who, whether Jew or Gentile, considered the writings of the OT canon to be the inspired Word of God (see on John 5:39; Acts 24:14; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17), and who would be disposed to interpret the new revelation in terms of the old. Accordingly, the following observations and principles will be found useful in an interpretation of the book. “In the Revelation all the books of the Bible meet and end,” and in a special sense, it “is the complement of the book of Daniel” (AA 585). Much of what was sealed in the book of Daniel (see on Dan. 12:4) is unsealed in the book of Revelation, and the two must be studied together. The Revelation contains citations from, or allusions to, 28 of the 39 books of the OT. According to one authority there are 505 such citations and allusions, some 325 of which are to the prophetic books of the OT—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel in particular. Of the Minor Prophets, references to Zechariah, Joel, Amos, and Hosea are most common. Of the books of the Pentateuch, greatest use is made of Exodus, and of the poetic sections, Psalms (see on Luke 24:44). Some also find reflections from the NT books of Matthew, Luke, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. For illustrations of the way in which John borrows the language and figures of the OT see Additional Note on Rev. 18; see on Isa. 47:1; Jer. 25:12; 50:1; Eze. 26:13. An examination of the citations and allusions makes evident that he translated directly from the Hebrew OT, though at times under the influence of the LXX or a later Greek version. A clear understanding of these citations and allusions in their historical setting in the OT is the first step toward understanding the passages where they occur in the Revelation. Study may then be given to the context in which John uses them, to ascertain their adapted meaning. In particular this applies to the names of persons and places, and to things, incidents, and events. Since many of the symbols of the book of Revelation were already known in extant Jewish apocalyptic literature, this literature is sometimes helpful by way of clarifying these symbols. Those familiar with contemporary Roman history will also observe that John’s language is often descriptive of the Roman Empire and of the experiences of the church under its sway. Accordingly, a study of Roman history of the period clarifies some otherwise cryptic passages. Finally, attention should be given to contemporary modes of thought and expression, in the light of the cultural background of the time. In determining the import of the successive scenes that passed before John in vision, it is well to remember that the Revelation was given to guide, comfort, and strengthen the

church, not only in his day, but throughout the Christian Era, to the very close of time (see AA 581, 585). Herein the history of the church was foretold for the benefit of, and vital counsel was addressed to, believers of apostolic times, to Christians of future ages, and to those living in the last days of earth’s history, in order that all might have an intelligent understanding of the perils and conflicts before them (see AA 583, 584). For instance, the names of the seven churches are symbolic of the church in different periods of history. The local church at Ephesus accordingly became a symbol of the entire Christian fellowship in apostolic times, but the message addressed to it was placed on record for the encouragement of believers in every age (see AA 578, 585). It is reasonable to conclude that the characterization of, and admonition to, the church at Ephesus was particularly appropriate to the needs of that church at the time the message was written. It was similarly appropriate to the needs of the entire Christian church in the apostolic age, and thus, in brief, represents the experience of that period of the history of the church. It was recorded for the inspiration and encouragement of believers in every age, for under similar circumstances the same principles apply. By analogy, the same is true of the messages to the other churches. In view of the fact that the focus of each of the four major lines of prophecy is on the closing scenes of earth’s history, the messages of the book of Revelation have particular import for the church today. That a single prophetic passage may embrace more than one fulfillment is evident (see on Deut. 18:15). Some such prophecies have both an immediate and a more remote fulfillment, and in addition contain principles that are generally applicable at all times. Furthermore, “it should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional” (EGW MS 4, 1883). Thus certain predictions that might have met their complete fulfillment at an earlier stage of earth’s history have been deferred because of the failure of the church to measure up to its privileges and opportunities (see Vol. IV, pp. 30–34). 5. Outline. I. Prologue, 1:1–3. II. The Letters to the Seven Churches, 1:4 to 3:22. A. Salutation, 1:4–8. B. Introduction: the vision of Christ, 1:9–20. C. To Ephesus, 2:1–7. D. To Smyrna, 2:8–11. E. To Pergamum (Pergamos), 2:12–17. F. To Thyatira, 2:18–29. G. To Sardis, 3:1–6. H. To Philadelphia, 3:7–13. I. To Laodicea, 3:14–22. III. The Throne of God and the Book With Seven Seals, 4:1 to 8:1. A. The heavenly throne, 4:1–11. B. The triumph of the Lamb, 5:1–14. C. The first six seals, 6:1–17. 1. The first seal: the white horse, 6:1, 2. 2. The second seal: the red horse, 6:3, 4. 3. The third seal: the black horse, 6:5, 6.

4. The fourth seal: the pale horse, 6:7, 8. 5. The fifth seal: the plea of the martyrs, 6:9–11. 6. The sixth seal: the day of God’s wrath, 6:12–17. D. The sealing of the 144,000, 7:1–8. E. The great multitude, 7:9–17. F. The seventh seal: the controversy ended, 8:1. IV. The Judgments of God: The Seven Trumpets, 8:2 to 11:19. A. Introduction, 8:2–6. B. The first six trumpets, 8:7 to 9:21. 1. The first trumpet: fire, hail, blood, 8:7. 2. The second trumpet: the burning mountain, 8:8, 9. 3. The third trumpet: the falling star, 8:10, 11. 4. The fourth trumpet: sun, moon, stars smitten, 8:12, 13. 5. The fifth trumpet: locusts, 9:1–12. 6. The sixth trumpet: the angels in the Euphrates, 9:13–21. C. The angel with the little book, 10:1–11. D. Measuring the temple, 11:1, 2. E. The two witnesses, 11:3–14. F. The seventh trumpet: the triumph of God, 11:15–19. V. The Final Conflict of the Great Controversy, 12:1 to 20:15. A. Satan makes war upon the remnant people, 12:1 to 13:14. 1. Background of the conflict, 12:1–16. 2. Satan’s declaration of war, 12:17. 3. The role of the leopard beast, 13:1–10. 4. The role of the two-horned beast, 13:11–14. B. Issues involved in the last conflict, 13:15 to 14:20. 1. Satan’s ultimatum to the people of God: the image and mark of the beast, 13:15–18. 2. Triumph of the 144,000 over the beast, its image, and mark, 14:1–5. 3. God’s ultimatum to the people of earth: the three angels’ messages, 14:6–12. 4. Defeat for those who reject God’s final appeal, 14:13–20. C. The seven last plagues: divine judgments upon the wicked, 15:1 to 17:18. 1. An affirmation of divine justice, 15:1–4. 2. Preparation for the wrath of God, 15:5 to 16:1. 3. The seven last plagues, 16:2–21. 4. The arraignment of Babylon the great, 17:1–18. D. The extermination of evil, 18:1 to 20:15. 1. An affirmation of divine mercy; a final call to leave Babylon, 18:1–4. 2. The end of organized religious opposition: the desolation of Babylon, 18:5–24. 3. The coronation of Christ as King of kings, 19:1–10. 4. Christ’s second advent and conquest of this earth, 19:11–21. 5. The millennium: the extermination of sin and sinners, 20:1–15. VI. The New Earth and Its Inhabitants, 21:1 to 22:5. A. The New Jerusalem, 21:1–27. B. The river and tree of life, 22:1, 2. C. The eternal dominion of the saints, 22:3–5. VII. Epilogue: Admonition and Invitation, 22:6–21.

A. Reception of the book and its message, 22:6–10. B. An appeal to be ready for the coming of Christ, 22:11–21.

Revelation. Gr. apokalupsis, “an unveiling” (see p. 715). “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” may be thought of as John’s own title to the book. This title categorically denies the charge that the Revelation is a sealed book and thus cannot be understood. It contains a message God purposed that His “servants” on earth should “hear” and “keep” (v. 3). This they could not do unless they first understood it. Of Jesus Christ. In Greek, as in English, this phrase may be understood as declaring the Apocalypse to be either a revelation from Jesus or one that reveals Him. The context seems to imply that the former interpretation is the primary one here, for it is the revelation “which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants.” At the same time the truth of the second meaning must not be overlooked, for this book is pre-eminently one that reveals Jesus in His heavenly work after the ascension. In this sense the Revelation is, in fact, complementary to the Gospels. They record Jesus’ ministry on earth; the Revelation reveals His work in the plan of redemption since that time. Compare on ch. 19:10. Concerning the names Jesus and Christ see on Matt. 1:1. Gave unto him. Since the entrance of sin all communication between heaven and earth has been through Christ (see PP 366). Servants. Gr. douloi, “slaves” (see on Rom. 1:1). Early Christians commonly referred to themselves thus. Shortly come to pass. In one way or another the thought that the various events foretold in the book of Revelation were to take place in the not distant future is specifically stated seven times—“things which must shortly come to pass [or, “be done”]” (chs. 1:1; 22:6), “the time is at hand” (ch. 1:3), and “Behold [or, “surely”], I come quickly” (chs. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20). Indirect references to the same idea appear in chs. 6:11; 12:12; 17:10. John’s personal response to these declarations of the soon accomplishment of the divine purpose was, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (ch. 22:20). The concept of the imminence of the return of Jesus is thus both explicit and implicit throughout the book. The second coming of Christ is the great climactic event of the age-long conflict between good and evil that began when Lucifer challenged the character and government of God. Statements in the Revelation and elsewhere concerning the imminence of Christ’s return must be understood against the background of this great conflict. God might justly have annihilated Lucifer when, in obdurate impenitence, he persisted in rebellion. But divine wisdom deferred the extermination of evil until the nature and results of sin became fully apparent to the inhabitants of the universe (see PP 41–43). At any one of various critical points in the history of this world, divine justice could have proclaimed, “It is done” and Christ might have come to inaugurate His righteous reign. Long ago He might have brought to fruition His plans for the redemption of this world. As God offered Israel the opportunity to prepare the way for His eternal kingdom upon the earth, when they settled the Promised Land and again when they returned from their exile in Babylon, so He gave the church of apostolic times the privilege of completing the

gospel commission. Another such opportunity came with the great second advent awakening of the 19th century. But in each instance God’s chosen people failed to take advantage of the opportunity thus graciously accorded them. Encouraged by inspired counsel, the Advent Movement, after 1844, expected Christ to come very soon. When, toward the end of the century, Jesus had not appeared, the Advent believers were repeatedly reminded that the Lord might have come “ere this” (see 6T 450; 8T 115, 116; 9T 29; DA 633, 634; GC 458). When challenged as to why time had continued longer than her earlier testimonies seemed to indicate, Ellen G. White replied, “How is it with the testimonies of Christ and His disciples? Were they deceived? … The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. … It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional” (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 67). Thus it seems clear that although the fact of Christ’s second coming is not based on any conditions, the repeated statements of Scripture that the coming was imminent were conditional on the response of the church to the challenge of finishing the work of the gospel in their generation. The Word of God, which centuries ago declared that the day of Christ was “at hand” (Rom. 13:12), has not failed. Jesus would have come very quickly if the church had done its appointed work. The church had no right to expect her Lord when she had not complied with the conditions. See Ev 694–697. Thus the statements of the angel of Revelation to John concerning the imminence of Christ’s return to end the reign of sin are to be understood as an expression of divine will and purpose. God has never purposed to delay the consummation of the plan of salvation, but has ever expressed His will that the return of our Lord be not long delayed. These statements are not to be understood in terms of the foreknowledge of God that there would be so long a delay, nor yet in the light of the historical perspective of what has actually taken place in the history of the world since that time. To be sure, God foreknew that the coming of Christ would be delayed some two thousand years, but when He sent messages to the church by the apostles He couched those messages in terms of His will and purpose with regard to that event, in order to make His people conscious of the fact that, in the divine providence, no delay was necessary. Consequently, the seven statements of the Revelation concerning the nearness of Christ’s coming are to be understood in terms of God’s will and purpose, as promises conditionally set forth, and not as utterances based on divine foreknowledge. In this fact, doubtless, is to be found the harmony between those passages that exhort to readiness for the soon coming of Christ and those time prophecies that reveal how far ahead lay the actual day of the Lord. Signified. Gr. sēmainō, “to indicate [or, “attest”] by a sign,” “to announce,” “to reveal,” “to make known,” “to explain.” Angel. Gr. aggelos, “messenger.” Angels frequently function as bearers of divine revelations (see Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26; etc.). The present angel has been identified as Gabriel (see on Luke 1:19). John. That is, John the apostle (see pp. 715–720; cf. on Mark 3:17). The Revelation is the only book by John in which he identifies himself by name (see Vol. V, p. 891; cf. 2 John 1; 3 John 1).

Ellen G. White

Bare record. Gr. martureō, “to testify,” “to witness.” The past tense shows that the author here refers to what he is about to write from the viewpoint of his readers, for

whom his act of writing will be in the past. The epistles of Paul (see on Gal. 6:11; Phil. 2:25) provide numerous examples of such usages of the past tense, as do the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The use of such a form was considered a courtesy to the reader. John declares himself a witness, bearing testimony of all that God had revealed to him. Word. Gr. logos “word,” “utterance,” “message,” “oracle” (see on John 1:1). Of God. That is, from God, or spoken by God. John here refers back to “the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him” (v. 1). “The word of God,” “the testimony of Jesus,” and “all things that he saw” all refer to the same thing—“the Revelation” of v. 1. Testimony of Jesus. This may refer to the book of Revelation being a message either from Jesus or about Jesus (see on v. 1). The context favors the former. The book is, of course, both. Verses 1 and 2 illustrate a typical Biblical parallelism, in which the first and fourth lines and the second and third are parallel: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” “which God gave” “the word of God” “the testimony of Jesus Christ” Saw. Words denoting visual communication and perception occur 73 times in the Revelation, and words denoting audio communication and perception, 38 times. The Revelation is a factual, eye- and ear-witness report of what John saw and heard while in vision.

Blessed. Gr. makarios, “happy” (see on Matt. 5:3). Some suggest that there may be an allusion here to Luke 11:28. He that readeth. Doubtless a reference primarily to the one appointed by the ancient church to read the sacred scrolls in public. John anticipates the public reading of the epistle he now addresses to “the seven churches which are in Asia” (v. 4), in the presence of the assembled members of each congregation (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). This Christian practice reflects the ancient Jewish custom of reading “the law and the prophets” in the synagogue each Sabbath (Acts 13:15, 27; Acts 15:21; etc.; see Vol. V, pp. 57, 58). The implied command that the Revelation be read in the churches of Asia suggests that its messages began to be applicable to the church right in John’s day (see on Rev. 1:11). They that hear. That is, the members of each church. Note that there is but one reader—in each church—while there are many who “hear” what is read. The blessing that attended the reading of the Revelation in the “seven churches” of the Roman province of Asia belongs to all Christians who read the book of Revelation desiring a more perfect understanding of the truths therein recorded. The words. Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for reading simply “the word.” This would refer to the message of the book as a whole rather than to the individual “words” in which the message was to find expression. This prophecy. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “the prophecy.” Some suggest that John here specifically claims equality for the Revelation with the prophetic books of the OT, which were read in the synagogue each Sabbath. Though the word “prophecy,” as used in the Bible, refers to any message from God, whatever its nature

(see on Rom. 12:6), the book of Revelation may properly be called a “prophecy” also in the stricter sense of a forecast of future events. Keep. The form of the verb in Greek implies the habitual keeping, or observance, of the admonitions of this book as a norm of life. See on Matt. 7:21–24. Are written. Literally, “have been written,” in the sense of “stand written.” Time. Gr. kairos, “time,” in the sense of a particular moment of time, an auspicious season, a time designated in advance for some particular event (see on Mark 1:15). The “time” here referred to as being “at hand” is the time for the fulfillment of “those things which are written,” the “things which must shortly come to pass,” of Rev. 1:1 (see comment there). It is the imminence of these events that provides motivation for observing closely “the words of this prophecy.” Accordingly, the Revelation is of particular moment for those who believe that “the time” of Christ’s coming “is at hand.” Compare Additional Note on Rom. 13. At hand. Since we are living in the last moments of time, the prophecies of the Revelation are of particular import to us. “Especially should Daniel and the Revelation have attention as never before in the history of our work” (TM 112). “The solemn messages that have been given in their order in the Revelation are to occupy the first place in the minds of God’s people” (8T 302). “The book of Daniel is unsealed in the revelation to John” (TM 115). Whereas the book of Daniel speaks in broad outline of last-day events, the book of Revelation gives vivid details concerning these events, which are now declared to be “at hand.”

John. See on v. 1. The fact that the writer feels no need of further identifying himself is evidence that he was well known to the church “in Asia.” It testifies also to the authenticity of the letter, for any other writer than the one whom the believers “in Asia” would recognize as “John” might be expected to lay claim to authority and position. The simplicity with which the writer refers to himself comports with the self-effacing procedure followed by the writer of the Gospel of John (see Vol. V, p. 891). To the seven churches. From this point to the close of ch. 3 the Revelation is framed somewhat in the form of an ancient letter, or rather, a series of letters. This epistolatory section is introductory to the remainder of the book, which is characterized by a succession of dramatic visions. For comment on the use of the number “seven” in the Revelation, and on the seven churches, see on ch. 1:11. Asia. That is, the Roman province of Asia, a region some 300 mi. from east to west and 260 mi. from north to south, in the western part of what is now known as Asia Minor, in the present republic of Turkey (see The Journeys of Paul). In Hellenistic times this area had developed into the important kingdom of Pergamum, a leading center of Hellenistic culture. Concerning the circumstances under which Pergamum became the Roman province of Asia see Vol. V, p. 35. In NT times Asia remained an important center of Graeco-Roman culture. Paul spent many months there (see Acts 18:19–21; 19:1, 10), and the success of his labors in the area is attested by three of his epistles to Christians living there (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon). His first epistle to Timothy, who was then in charge of the church at Ephesus, and perhaps of the churches throughout the province, testifies to a well-established Christian community there. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and it is probable that the members of these churches in the Roman province of Asia were mostly Gentiles.

After the removal of the parent Christian congregation from Jerusalem, shortly before A.D. 70, Asia seems to have taken on increased significance as a Christian center. This was doubtless due to the presence and leadership of the apostle John. According to tradition he resided at Ephesus and traveled about in the surrounding area, “here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit” (Clement of Alexandria Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? xlii; ANF, vol. 2, p. 603). Such an intimate connection between the apostle and the churches of Asia seems to be reflected here. Grace … peace. See on Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:2. It has been suggested that this greeting came about from a combination of the ordinary Greek salutation chairein, “greeting!” (as in James 1:1), and the Hebrew greeting shalom, in its Greek equivalent, eirēnē, “peace.” Chairein is probably related to the more religious term here used, charis, “grace.” The two words “grace” and “peace” appear commonly in the salutations of the early Christian epistles, and together apparently constituted a characteristic form of greeting in the apostolic church (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 3; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:2; 2 John 3). Him which is. Gr. ho ōn, “the being [One],” an expression apparently taken from the LXX of Ex. 3:14, where it is used to translate the divine name I AM. Like the Hebrew, this expression implies the eternal, timeless self-existence of God. The Greek reads literally, “from He who is,” a phrase no more grammatical in Greek than in English. This, however, is not evidence of John’s ignorance of grammar; his refusal to inflect the words representing the Divine Being was probably a subtle means of emphasizing the utter unchangeableness of God. From the context of vs. 4, 5 it is clear that this phrase refers to the Father. Which was. God has existed from all eternity (Ps. 90:2). Which is to come. Or, “the coming [One].” The series—“which is,” “which was,” “which is to come”—indicates that the last clause is a substitute for the future tense of the verb, and is equivalent to saying, “which will be.” It has been proposed that the clause also refers to the second coming of Christ. This interpretation, while verbally possible, does not accord with the context, which shows that this was hardly in the mind of the writer. The reference here to the Father sets forth His eternity and states that the same One who now continually exists has always existed and will always exist. God’s personal existence transcends time, but a timeless eternity can be expressed in human words only by finite, temporal terms such as John employs here. Seven Spirits. Concerning the significance of the number “seven” in the Revelation see on v. 11. Elsewhere in the book these seven Spirits are portrayed as seven lamps of fire (ch. 4:5) and the seven eyes of the Lamb (ch. 5:6). The association here of the “seven Spirits” with the Father and with Christ, as equally the source of the Christian’s grace and peace, implies that they represent the Holy Spirit. The designation “seven” is probably a symbolic expression of His perfection, and may also imply the variety of the gifts by which He works through man (see 1 Cor. 12:4–11; cf. Rev. 3:1).

Before his throne. That is, before the throne of “him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” The position perhaps implies readiness for instant service. See on ch. 4:2–5.

Jesus Christ. See on v. 1. The other members of the Godhead have already been mentioned in v. 4. Faithful witness. In the Greek this title stands in apposition with “Jesus Christ,” which is in the ablative case (according to some, a genitive of source), and the phrase “faithful witness” would normally be in the same case. Nevertheless, like the divine title for the Father (see on v. 4), it stands here unchanged in the nominative case. Some suggest that John thereby implies the deity of Christ and His equality with the Father (see Additional Note on John 1). Christ is the “faithful witness” in that He is the perfect representative of God’s character, mind, and will to mankind (see on John 1:1, 14). His sinless life among men and His sacrificial death testify of the Father’s holiness and love (see John 14:10; see on ch. 3:16). First begotten. Gr. prōtotokos, “firstborn” (see on Matt. 1:25; Rom. 8:29; cf. on John 1:14). Though Jesus was not the first to rise from the dead in point of time, He may be regarded as first in the sense that all others resurrected before and after Him gained their freedom from the bonds of death only by virtue of His triumph over the grave. His power to lay down His life and to take it again (John 10:18) sets Him apart from all other men ever to come forth from the grave, and characterizes Him as the source of all life (see Rom. 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:12–23; see on John 1:4, 7–9). This title, with the one that follows, reflects the thought of Ps. 89:27. Prince. Or, “ruler.” This world is Christ’s legitimate domain. Christ triumphed over sin and won back the lost heritage of Adam, and is the rightful ruler of mankind (Col. 2:15; cf. Col. 1:20; see Rev. 11:15). At the last day all men will recognize Him as such (see Rev. 5:13). But, recognized or not, Christ has overruled the affairs of earth for the completion of His eternal purpose (see on Dan. 4:17). The plan of redemption, made a historical fact by His life, death, and resurrection, has unfolded step by step toward that great day of triumph. See Rev. 19:15, 16. That loved us. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “that loves us.” True, the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ is now a historical fact, but He “love us” now fully as much as when He made the supreme gift of His Son. Washed. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “loosed.” This difference doubtless arose from the similarity between the Greek words louō, “to wash,” and luō, “to loose.” To be “loosed” from sins is to be set free from the penalty and power of sin (see on John 3:16; Rom. 6:16–18, 21, 22). In his own blood. Or, “by His blood,” that is, by Christ’s death on the cross. It was a vicarious sacrifice (see on Isa. 53:4–6; cf. DA 25).

Kings and priests. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “a kingdom, priests,” probably an allusion to Ex. 19:6 (cf. Rev. 5:10). Christ had constituted His church a “kingdom” and its individual members “priests.” To be a member of the kingdom is to be a “priest.” Compare the “royal priesthood” of 1 Peter 2:9. Those who have accepted salvation in Christ make up a kingdom whose king is Christ. Reference here is to the kingdom of divine grace in the hearts of men (see on Matt. 4:17). A priest may be regarded as one who presents offerings to God (cf. Heb. 5:1; 8:3), and in this sense every Christian has the privilege of presenting “spiritual sacrifices”—prayer,

intercession, thanksgiving, glory—to God (see 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Because every Christian is a priest, he may approach God on his own behalf, without the mediation of another human being, and on behalf of others. Christ is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), our great “high priest,” and through Him it is our privilege to “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:15, 16). God and his Father. That is, God, even His Father. To him be glory. Literally, “to Him the glory,” that is, to Christ (see v. 5). The definite article “the” implies all glory. For comment on doxa, the word translated “glory,” see on Rom. 3:23. Dominion. To ascribe “dominion” to Christ is to acknowledge Him as the rightful ruler of the universe. After the resurrection He received “all power … in heaven and in earth” (see on Matt. 28:18). Christ merits the unending praise of mankind in return for His triumph over sin and death (see Col. 2:15). Satan had challenged Christ’s right to “glory and dominion,” but these are rightfully Christ’s. With this doxology, or ascription of praise, John concludes the salutation to his letter (Rev. 1:4–6). For ever and ever. Gr. eis aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, literally, “into the ages of the ages,” and thus “forever.” For a discussion of the word aiōn see on Matt. 13:39. John foresees no time limit to Christ’s right to “glory and dominion.” Amen. See on Matt. 5:18.

Behold, he cometh. The salutation having been concluded with v. 6, John announces the theme of the Revelation. The second coming of Christ is the goal toward which all else moves forward. Significantly, he uses the present tense, “he cometh,” thereby stressing the certainty of the event, perhaps also with a sense of its imminence (see on v. 1). With clouds. See on Acts 1:9–11. Pierced. Gr. ekkenteō, the same word John uses in his Gospel (ch. 19:37) when quoting from Zech. 12:10. Translators of the LXX apparently misread the Hebrew word daqaru, “they … pierced,” in Zech. 12:10, as raqadu, “they danced in triumph,” and so rendered it in Greek. The Fourth Gospel alone records the incident of the piercing of the side of Jesus (John 19:31–37). This point of similarity between the two books is indirect evidence that the Revelation came from the same hand as the Gospel of John. Though writing in Greek, he apparently ignores the LXX in both instances, and gives a correct translation of the Hebrew. The statement of Rev. 1:7 clearly implies that those responsible for the death of Christ will from the dead to witness His coming (see on Dan. 12:2). During the course of His trial Jesus had warned the Jewish leaders of this dread event (Matt. 26:64). Wail. Literally, “cut themselves,” in reference to the ancient custom of gashing or smiting one’s own body as a sign of grief. In a figurative sense, as here, the word comes to a focus on the grief rather than on the physical act of striking the body. Here it reflects the remorse of the ungodly (see on Jer. 8:20). I am. Gr. egō eimi (see on John 6:20). Alpha and Omega. The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, loosely comparable with the expression “A to Z.” The phrase indicates completeness, comprehensiveness, and is the same in meaning as “the beginning and the end, the first

and the last” (ch. 22:13). In this instance the speaker is “the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,” identified in ch. 1:4 as God the Father (see comment there). However, in vs. 11–18 the expression “Alpha and Omega” is clearly identified with Christ, who also declares Himself to be “the first and the last.” In ch. 22:13 the phrase “Alpha and Omega” refers to Christ, as is evident from v. 16. The Father and the Son share these timeless attributes (see Additional Note on John 1). The beginning and the ending. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words here and in v. 11, but they stand fully attested in ch. 22:13. The Lord. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “Lord God.” Which is. See on v. 4. Almighty. Gr. pantokratōr, “ruler of all.” The title recurs frequently in Revelation (chs. 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, translated “omnipotent,” 15; 21:22). In the LXX of Hosea 12:5 pantokratōr translates the Heb. ṣeba’oth, “hosts,” commonly used with Yahweh as an OT designation for God (see Vol. I, p. 173). This title stresses the omnipotence of God. Compare 1 Sam. 1:11; Isa. 1:9; Jer. 2:19; Amos 9:5).

Ellen G. White

I John. See pp. 715–720. Companion in tribulation. Apparently John was not alone in suffering persecution at this time. Kingdom. That is, the kingdom of divine grace (see on Matt. 4:17. “We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” Acts 14:22). Patience. Literally, “remaining under.” The word here implies the exercise of self- control to endure a difficult situation when, by a surrender of faith, release might be obtained from the pressure of persecution. In Christ, Christians have the strength to “remain under” “in Jesus.” See on Rom. 2:7; Rev. 14:12. Of Jesus. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “in Jesus.” Patience results from a vital connection with Him. Was. Or, “came to be,” implying that Patmos was not his permanent home, but that circumstances home, but that circumstances found John there. Patmos. A small island in the Aegean Sea about 55 mi. (c. 90 km.) southwest of Ephesus. It measures under 10 mi. north and south by about 6 mi. east and west (c. 16 km. by 10 km.), at its widest point. Patmos is rocky and barren. Its unusually broken coast line contains many inlets. Writing in A.D. 77, Pliny (Natural History iv. 12. 23) reports that the island was used as a penal colony, which fact explains John’s statement about being a “companion in tribulation.” The apostle was on Patmos as a Roman prisoner (see pp. 80–85). Some two centuries later, Victorinus of Petau (died c. A.D. 303) declared of the Revelation: “When John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines [Latin metallum] by Caesar Domitian” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, on ch. 10:11; ANF, vol. 7, p. 353). The Latin word metallum may refer also to a quarry. Inasmuch as Patmos may have had quarries but gives no evidence of having had mines, the former is probably here intended. Pliny’s statement about Patmos being a penal colony is that of an informed contemporary of John, whereas that of Victorinus, though probable, must be classed as a tradition. For the word. That is, on account of the word. The Greek is against the view that this means John was on Patmos in order to receive and record the visions there accorded him

(see on v. 2). In the present passage the phrases “word of God” and “testimony of [concerning] Jesus” refer to his inspired witness to the gospel for more than half a century. This had been the sole motivating purpose of John’s life. In the bitter days of persecution under Domitian his fearless testimony became the occasion for banishment to Patmos (see p. 721).

Ellen G. White

In the Spirit. Literally, “in spirit,” here meaning “in an ecstatic state.” He became oblivious to the things of earth and aware only of the impressions conveyed to him by the Holy Spirit. Natural sense perception gave way completely to spiritual perception. Lord’s day. Gr. kuriakē hēmera. Various attempts have been made to explain this expression, which appears only here in Scripture. Some interpreters equate this term with “the day of the Lord” of the OT prophets (see Joel 2:11, 31; Zeph. 1:14; Mal. 4:5; cf. Acts 2:20). It may be granted that, taken by themselves, the words might be so interpreted. Those who thus explain the expression point to the fact that the Revelation focuses attention on the great final day of the Lord and events leading up to it (see on Rev. 1:1). To be “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” could possibly be understood as meaning to be carried in vision down the stream of time to witness events connected with the day of the Lord. There are, however, reasons for rejecting this interpretation. In the first place, when the phrase “day of the Lord” clearly designates the great day of God the Greek is always hēmera tou kuriou or hēmera kuriou (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10). Second, the context (Rev. 1:9, 10) implies that the term “Lord’s day” refers to the time when John saw the vision, rather than the subject of the vision. Thus, John gives his location, “the isle that is called Patmos” (v. 9); his reason for being there, “for the word of God” (v. 9); and his condition in vision, “in the Spirit.” These phrases all have to do with the circumstances under which the vision was given, and it is logical to conclude that the fourth does also, giving the specific time of the revelation. Most expositors so conclude. Although unique in Scripture, the term kuriakē hēmera has a long history in post- Biblical Greek. Like its abbreviated form, kuriakē, it is a familiar term in the Church Fathers for the first day of the week, and in modern Greek kuriakē is the usual term for Sunday. Its Latin equivalent, dominica dies, is a common designation for the same day, and has passed into several modern languages, such as Spanish, domingo, and French, dimanche, both terms for Sunday. For this reason many scholars hold the opinion that kuriakē hēmera in the present passage also refers to Sunday, and that John not only received his vision on that day but also recognized it as “the Lord’s day,” presumably because on that day Christ had risen from the dead. There are both negative and positive reasons for rejecting this interpretation. First is the recognized principle of historical method, that an allusion is to be interpreted only in terms of evidence that is previous to it in point of time or contemporary with it, and not by historical data from a later period. This principle has an important bearing on the problem of the meaning of the expression “Lord’s day” as it appears in the present passage. Although this term occurs frequently in the Church Fathers with the meaning of Sunday, the first conclusive evidence of such use does not appear until the latter part of

the 2d century in the Apocryphal Gospel According to Peter (9, 12; ANF, vol. 9, p. 8), where the day of Christ’s resurrection is termed the “Lord’s day.” Since this document was written at least three quarters of a century after John wrote the Revelation, it cannot be presented as a proof that the phrase “Lord’s day” in John’s time refers to Sunday. Numerous examples might be cited to show the rapidity with which words can change their meanings. Therefore the meaning of “Lord’s day” here is better determined by reference to Scripture rather than to subsequent literature. On the positive side of the question is the fact that although the Scripture nowhere identifies Sunday as having any religious connection with the Lord, repeatedly it recognizes that the seventh day, the Sabbath, is the Lord’s special day. God is said to have blessed and sanctified the seventh day (see Gen. 2:3); He declared it to be the memorial of His act of creation (see Ex. 20:11); He called it specifically “my holy day” (see Isa. 58:13); and Jesus declared Himself to be “Lord also of the sabbath” (see Mark 2:28) in the sense that as Lord of men, He was also Lord over that which was made for man, the Sabbath. Thus, when the phrase “Lord’s day” is interpreted in accordance with evidence prior to and contemporary with John’s time, it appears that there is only one day to which it can refer, and that is the seventh-day Sabbath. See 6T 128; AA 581. Archeological discoveries have thrown added light on the expression kuriakē hēmera. Papyri and inscriptions from the imperial period in Roman history found in Egypt and Asia Minor employ the word kuriakos (the masculine form of kuriakē) to the imperial treasury and the imperial service. This is understandable inasmuch as the Roman emperor was often called in Greek the kurios, “lord,” and consequently his treasury and service were the “lord’s treasury” and the “lord’s service.” Thus kuriakos was a familiar word in Roman official language for things pertaining to the emperor. One such inscription comes from as early as A.D. 68, so it is clear that this usage of kuriakos was current in John’s time (see Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, pp. 357–361). On this same inscription there appears a reference to a day named for the Empress Julia, or Livia, as she is better known. On other inscriptions both from Egypt and Asia Minor, the term sebastē, the Greek equivalent of Augustus, frequently appears as the name of a day. Apparently these are references to special days honoring the emperor (see Deissmann, loc. cit.). Some have suggested that kuriakē hēmera, as used by John, also refers to an imperial day. This seems doubtful, however, for two reasons. First, although there were imperial days, and although the term keriakos was used for other things pertaining to the emperor, no instance of the word kuriakē as applied to an imperial day has yet been found. This is not a final proof, of course, for it is an argument from silence. However, the second point that may be raised against the identification of John’s kuriakē hēmera as an imperial day appears to be virtually conclusive. This is the fact that both the Jews in the 1st century (see Josephus War vii. 10. 1 [418, 419]) and the Christians, at least in the 2d (see Martyrdom of Polycarp 8), are known to have refused to call Caesar kurios, “lord.” It becomes extremely difficult to think, therefore, that John would have referred to an

imperial day as the “Lord’s day,” especially at a time when he and his fellow Christians were being bitterly persecuted for refusing to worship the emperor (see pp. 721–723). It seems more likely that John chose the expression kuriakē hēmera for the Sabbath as a subtle means of proclaiming the fact that, as the emperor had special days devoted to his honor, so John’s Lord, for whose sake he now suffered, also had His day. For a discussion of the origin of Sunday observance and of the designation of Sunday as “the Lord’s day” see on Dan. 7:25. See AA 581, 582. As of a trumpet. Comparison with a trumpet indicates the intensity of the voice.

Ellen G. White

I am Alpha. See on v. 8. In view of vs. 17, 18 it is clear that in the present instance these titles apply specifically to Christ. However, textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of the words “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and.” In vs. 4–10 John addresses to the seven churches his own introductory statement of the circumstances under which he received the Revelation. Beginning with v. 11, he gives Christ’s own authorization of the Revelation. It is appropriate that He should do so, for this is “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” (v. 1). The revelation itself begins with v. 11. What thou seest. Visual communication and perception dominate the Revelation (see on v. 2). John saw visions, panoramic scenes in symbol, which he portrays as fully and accurately as finite human language can. Many of these symbols represent infinite truths that transcend the words and experience of men. At times the apostle finds himself at a loss for words to describe fully what he sees, as for instance, when he beholds the throne of God (see ch. 4:3, 6). Nevertheless, throughout the Revelation the grandeur of God’s way with His universe, the intensity of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, and the glory of the final triumph are portrayed more vividly and magnificently than elsewhere in Scripture. Book. Gr. biblion, “a scroll,” the most common type of book in John’s day. See Vol. V, p. 113. The seven churches. The order in which the churches are listed both here and in chs. 2; 3 represents the geographical sequence in which a messenger carrying a letter from Patmos would reach these seven cities in the province of Asia. For a further discussion of the geographical setting of the seven churches see pp. 86–102; The Journeys of Paul. For further information on each church named see the individual messages to the churches in chs. 2; 3. The seven churches are the first in a series of sevens in the Revelation. Thus there are also seven Spirits (v. 4), seven candlesticks (v. 12), seven stars (v. 16), seven lamps of fire (ch. 4:5), a book with seven seals (ch. 5:1), the seven horns and seven eyes of the Lamb (ch. 5:6), seven angels with seven trumpets (ch. 8:2), seven thunders (ch. 10:4), a dragon with seven heads and seven crowns (ch. 12:3), a beast with seven heads (ch. 13:1), seven angels having seven vials containing the seven last plagues (ch. 15:1, 7), and the beast with seven heads, which are also said to be seven mountains and seven kings (ch. 17:3, 9, 10). This repeated use of the number seven with so many different symbols implies that it, too, is to be understood in a symbolic sense. Throughout Scripture the number seven, when used symbolically, is generally understood to indicate completeness, perfection. As applied to the seven churches, then, this number may be expected to have a specific purpose. That there were more than seven churches in the province of Asia is clear from the fact that two other churches in that region, those at Colossae and at

Hierapolis, are also mentioned in the NT (see Col. 1:2; 4:13). Consequently it is reasonable to conclude that the Lord chose the seven churches here named because they were typical of the condition of the church as a whole—both in apostolic times and throughout the Christian Era (see p. 725; cf. AA 583, 585). The messages to the seven churches applied to conditions in the church of John’s day. Had this not been so, these messages would have mystified and discouraged the Christians in the churches of Asia who were to read them (see on Rev. 1:3). John would have proved to be a false prophet if the messages he addressed to his churches had not revealed the true situation in those congregations and had not been appropriate to their spiritual needs. These messages were sent at a time when the Christians of Asia were suffering great tribulation (see pp. 720–723), and their firm reproof, reassuring comfort, and glorious promises must have been designed to fill those needs (see AA 578–588). Accepting and heeding these messages, the Christian churches of Asia would be prepared spiritually to understand the drama of the great controversy portrayed in the remainder of the Revelation, and to maintain a steadfast hope in the ultimate triumph of Christ and His church. Although the various messages to the seven churches must have applied in the first instance to the churches of Asia in John’s own time, they were also relevant to the future history of the church (see p. 725). A study of history reveals that these messages are, indeed, applicable in a special way to seven periods that cover the entire history of the church. Inasmuch as the number seven implies completeness, as noted above, it appears reasonable, also, to understand these messages as, in a sense, descriptive of the whole church at any time during its history, for doubtless every individual congregation throughout Christian history could find its characteristics and needs described in one or more of these messages. Accordingly, they may be said to have universal application, in addition to the local application in John’s day and the historical application in successive periods. A Christian writer about A.D. 200 wrote that “John writes to the seven churches, yet he speaks to all” (Latin text in S. P. Tregelles, ed., Canon Muratorianus, p. 19). Although, for instance, the message to the Laodicean church is particularly appropriate to the church today, the messages to the other churches also contain words of admonition by which it may profit (see 5T 368, 481, 538, 612; 8T 98, 99).

See the voice. That is, see who was speaking. Candlesticks. Gr. luchnia, “lampstands.” The candle, in its familiar modern form, was not in general use in ancient times. Lamps were usually shaped in the form of a shallow bowl, into which oil was poured and a wick inserted. Accordingly, the “candlesticks” John saw were, apparently, stands surmounted by such lamps. In v. 20 these lampstands are declared to represent the seven churches, and thus the whole church (see on v. 11). The fact that they are of gold would seem to imply the preciousness of the church in the sight of God. John sees Christ walking about in their midst (vs. 13–18), thus indicating His continuing presence with His church (see Matt. 28:20; cf. Col. 1:18). The reference here to seven golden candlesticks is reminiscent of the seven golden candlesticks in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary (see Ex. 25:31–37). Obviously, however, these differ materially from the seven-branched candlestick of OT times, for John saw Christ walking about among them (see Rev. 1:13; 2:1). These “seven …

candlesticks” are specifically said to represent churches on earth, and are therefore not to be thought of as the heavenly counterpart of the seven-branched candlestick of the ancient earthly sanctuary.

The Son of man. Gr. huios anthrōpou. The Greek here is without a definite article. It is an exact translation of the Aramaic kebar ’enash (see on Dan. 7:13), and seems to have much the same meaning here as kebar ’enash in Daniel. What is said in comment on kebar ’enash (Dan. 7:13) would therefore apply also to huios anthrōpou. It is certain from Rev. 1:11, 18 that the One thus referred to—as in Dan. 7:13—is in Christ. While the title “the Son of man,” with the definite article, is used of Christ more than 80 times in the NT, the expression “Son of man,” without the definite article, is used of Him in the Greek NT in only two other instances (Rev. 14:14, which is clearly an allusion to Dan. 7:13; and John 5:27, where Jesus’ humanity is emphasized). Applying the same principle as with kebar ’enash (see on Dan. 7:13), we find that here John beholds Christ in vision for the first time. Who is this glorious being? He has the form, not of an angel or of some other celestial being, but of a man. He is human in form, albeit of dazzling brightness. Although John wrote the Revelation in Greek, his mode of expression is often that of his native Aramaic (the Jewish language of NT times) rather than Greek. This is true of certain of his idiomatic expressions, and it is possible that huios anthrōpou, literally, “[a] son of man,” is one of these. If so, “a son of man” would mean simply “a human being,” “a man” (see on Dan 7:13). In the same way, “children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36) are simply resurrected persons, and “children of the kingdom” (Matt. 8:12) are people eligible for the kingdom. Similarly, “children of the bridechamber” (Mark 2:19) are wedding guests, “children of this world” (Luke 16:8) are those who live for this world, “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) are those eligible for punishment because of their evil deeds, and “sons of Belial” (1 Kings 21:10) are worthless fellows. When the glorified Christ manifested Himself to John in celestial splendor He still appeared to him in the likeness of a human being. Although Christ was eternally pre- existent as the second person of the Godhead, and ever remains so, His assumption of humanity is for all eternity to come (see Vol. V, pp. 917–919). What a comfort to know that our ascended, glorified Lord is still our brother in humanity, yet at the same time also God! For a further discussion of this passage see Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 241– 243. Down to the foot. A long garment is a symbol of dignity. Paps. That is, the breast.

White like wool. John grasps in vain for words with which to give an accurate description of what he sees in vision. At first sight of the whiteness of the hair of the One appearing to him in vision the whiteness of wool comes to his mind. But no sooner has he written this than he thinks of an even whiter substance, snow, and he adds it for a yet more accurate description. Perhaps also, the description of Dan. 7:9 comes to his mind. Flame of fire. That is, a “fiery flame,” emphasizing the brightness of His countenance and the intensity of His gaze.

Fine brass. Gr. chalkolibanos, a substance of uncertain identification. It was probably some metal like gold, burnished and radiant. The “brass” of Bible times was actually bronze (see on Ex. 25:3). Burned. Rather, “having been burned,” that is, fired in a furnace. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) a reading that refers this phrase to the “brass” rather than to the feet themselves. That is, the brass appeared as if fired in a furnace. The feet looked like brass that had been subjected to intense heat. Many waters. In John’s day the roar of the ocean and the crash of thunder were among the loudest and deepest sounds known to man. In their depth and majesty these are still unsurpassed as symbols for the voice of the Creator.

Right hand. Here, the hand of God represents His power to sustain. Seven stars. This symbol represents the “angels,” or messengers, sent to the seven churches (see on v. 20). Went. The form of the verb in the Greek implies continuous action—the power of Christ is constantly at work. Twoedged sword. Gr. rhomphaia distomos, literally, “two-mouthed sword.” The rhomphaia was a large, heavy, two-handed sword. It is the word used in the LXX for the “sword” God placed at the entrance to Eden (see on Gen. 3:24) and for the sword of Goliath (1 Sam. 17:51). The expression “two-mouthed sword” is apparently derived from Semitic usage, although it appears in Greek as early as the 5th century B.C. in the plays of Euripides. It is found much earlier than this, however, in the OT, where the equivalent phrase in Hebrew is pi chereb, “mouth of the sword” (see Gen. 34:26; 2 Sam. 15:14). Thus, in telling the story of Ehud, the writer of Judges says literally, “And Ehud made for himself a sword, and for it two mouths” (see Judges 3:16). Similarly, Prov. 5:4 speaks of a chereb pioth, “a sword of mouths,” which the KJV correctly translates as “twoedged sword.” This interesting figure of speech may be derived either from the thought of a man’s sword as devouring his foes (see 2 Sam. 11:25; Isa. 1:20; Jer. 2:30)—its edge being its mouth—or from the shape of certain ancient swords whose handles were made in the form of an animal’s head, with the blade protruding from the mouth. John repeats the symbol in chs. 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21, where, in the sense that it comes forth from the mouth of Christ, it is an instrument of divine punishment. It appears best to understand it here in the same sense, as symbolic of Christ’s authority to judge, and especially of His power to execute judgment. That the sword has two edges, together with the fact that it is said to be sharp, would seem to imply the incisiveness of His decisions and the effectiveness of His acts of judgment. As the sun. The sun is the most brilliant light commonly known to man.

Ellen G. White

As dead. The first effect upon those accorded a vision of a divine being panoplied with the glory of heaven, was to deprive them of their usual physical strength (see Eze. 1:28; Eze. 3:23; Dan. 8:17; Dan. 10:7–10; Acts 9:4; cf. Isa. 1:5). Compare the experience of Daniel (see on ch. 10:7–10). The person so honored was completely overcome by a sense of his own weakness and unworthiness. For a discussion of the physical state of a prophet in vision see F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 51–61. For

instances of John’s emotional responses to what he saw in vision see Rev. 5:4; Rev. 17:6. For two instances when John fell at the feet of an angel in worship see chs. 19:10; 22:8. Fear not. Following the loss of natural strength, a prophet was supernaturally strengthened, usually by a touch of the hand (see Eze. 2:1, 2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18; 10:8–12, 19; cf. Isa. 6:6, 7). Often a celestial visitant uttered the command, “Fear not,” to allay the fears that naturally well in the human heart when confronted by such a being (see Judges 6:22, 23; Judges 13:20–22; Matt. 28:5; Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10). The first and the last. See on v. 8. The expression here used is apparently quoted from Isa. 44:6, and is a direct translation of the Hebrew text and not a quotation from the LXX as in v. 8.

He that liveth. Gr. ho zōn, “the living [One],” apparently from the familiar OT term ’El chai, “living God” (Joshua 3:10; etc.). The form of the verb here used implies continuous, living, abiding life. This declaration is particularly meaningful in view of the fact that He “was dead.” “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (DA 530; see 785). “In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (see on John 1:4). Was dead. Literally, “became dead,” a reference to the crucifixion. Here is a clear indication that the One who appeared to John in vision was Christ. I am alive. Gr. zōn eimi, “I am living,” that is, I have continuing life, life that does not end, life that is self-perpetuating (see Vol. V, pp. 917–919; see on John 5:26). In spite of the death He suffered for the human race, Christ continues to be “the living [One],” for He is God. “The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life” (DA 530). See on Rev. 1:5. The word eimi, “I am,” implies continuous existence and stands in striking contrast with egenomēn, “I was [literally, “became”]” dead. For evermore. See on v. 6. Amen. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of this word. Keys. Keys are a symbol of power and jurisdiction. Compare on Matt. 16:19; cf. Luke 11:52. Hell. Gr. hadēs, “the abode of the dead,” “the grave” (see on Matt. 11:23). Christ’s resurrection is the assurance that the righteous will rise “in the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:24) to life everlasting (see on John 11:25; Rev. 1:5).

Ellen G. White

Write. A repetition of the command of v. 11. Hast seen. That is, in the vision thus far (vs. 10–18). The things which are. Some hold that this phrase describes the present historical situation, particularly things concerning the church. They believe that in contrast with “the things which thou hast seen”—the vision of Christ (vs. 10–18)—“the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter,” refer to actual historical events, presented symbolically. Others hold that the clauses “the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter” simply refer to the things John had seen in vision, what he was seeing, and what he was still to see in the future (cf. v. 11).

Mystery. Gr. mustērion, “a secret,” “a mystery,” from a word meaning “one who has been initiated” (see on Rom. 11:25). In early Christian usage the term “mystery” did not mean something that could not be understood, as it does today, but something that could be understood only by those who were initiated, that is, those who had the right to

know. Thus Christ told His disciples that it was “given” unto them “to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” but not to the multitudes (see on Matt. 13:11). Paul speaks of the resurrection as a “mystery” (1 Cor. 15:51), and often so refers to the plan of salvation itself (see on Rom. 16:25, 26). The Jewish background of this expression appears in a passage in the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (see Vol. V, pp. 91, 92) that speaks of salvation: “The light of my heart penetrates the mystery that is to be” (1QS xi. 3; in Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 387). The term “mystery” appears repeatedly in the same document. The expression was also common in pagan mystery religions. Here the term “mystery” is used of the seven “stars,” a symbol thus far not explained. But now this symbol is termed a “mystery,” in view of the fact that its interpretation is about to be made known. Thus, in the book of Revelation, a “mystery” is a cryptic symbol about to be explained to those who consent to “keep” (see on v. 3) the things revealed in this book (cf. ch. 17:7, 9), or one which God wills to make known to them. The symbols of the Revelation are also referred to as wonders (see on ch. 12:1) and signs (ch. 15:1). Seven stars. See on vs. 11, 16. The present verse is a bridge between vs. 12–19 and the messages of chs. 2 and 3. It explains the symbols of vs. 12, 16 and prepares the way for the messages to the individual churches. Angels. Gr. aggeloi, literally, “messengers,” whether celestial or human. Aggeloi is applied to human beings in Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; cf. 2 Cor. 12:7. It has been suggested that the “angels” of the seven churches are their respective elders, or overseers, in John’s time, and that the Lord was addressing the messages to them for transmission to their respective congregations. However, except for possibly the “angels” of the seven churches, the word aggeloi never refers to human beings in some 75 instances where John uses it in the Revelation. Whether it does so here is not clear from the context. However, it seems unlikely that God would send messages to literal angels through John, and the identification of these “angels” with the leaders of the churches is therefore to be preferred (cf. GW 13, 14; AA 586). Seven candlesticks. See on v. 12. Seven churches. See on vs. 4, 11.