I Was in the Spirit

John uses the expression, "I was in the Spirit" twice in the Apocalypse. Once at 1:10, and once at 4:2. That he was referring to the same state of experience both times could hardly be argued against. What that state was we are about to explore, though it is not explicitly developed in the text. The sort of thing it results in, on the other hand, was explicitly demonstrated throughout the Revelation.

In both instances, the phrases are exactly the same in Koine. On their face, they refer to a locus in or among the Spirit. In the way that one can be "in the wind" or even "in the sun", the Apostle John was in the Spirit. What he is communicating by this was that he was experiencing a pointed (and I would say virtually tangible) consciousness of the divine presence.

This was not John's common or moment-to-moment experience of the Spirit. There are clear enough references to the inception of the experience in both occurrences. In the first usage, this something special happened to occur one Sunday on Patmos. In the second usage, the condition was initiated immediately upon hearing the voice beckoning him to heaven. In both cases, it seems clear that the experience as recorded represented a change from what was going on before.

The word used [ginomai] to describe the existence of John's state packs within it the idea of "becoming" rather than simply being. In other words, John emerged into this state (really, was born into it) at the moment in reference. It is not described in trance-like terms, though the word "ecstasy" is often bandied about while commenting on it. It is ridiculous to do so in my mind, for John betrays no rapture, no enthusiasm, no exhilaration nor any euphoria in conjunction with this experience. Really, there is nothing but matter-of-fact reportage associated with it.

More than anything else the state of being in the Spirit, at least from the accounts of John's being so, is about awareness of the very presence of God--not theoretically, not by faith, but in actuality. If we can generalize from John's experience to any of our's (and I think we can), being in the Spirit is like having a light go on in the dark which suddenly reveals things one would otherwise be unaware of. Those things could be revelations regarding heaven or earth or about the activity of God in a moment past, present or future.

If there is anything precedential or paradigmatic about John's experience, I think it can be said in regard to its application to us, that coming to be in the Spirit (really, acting on charismatic distinctives) is about coming to an acute awareness of God's immediate presence and what he is up to. As a result of that awareness prophecy, or healings, or works of power, or miracles are then manifested in this world. Those manifestations do not break into existence because someone exercised enough faith to produce them, but because someone had come to be in the Holy Spirit.

The Keys of Death, Hades and David

The Keys of Death and Hades

He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."   Revelation 1:17b-18

We use the word key in various ways. It can signify the crucial piece to understanding something or solving a problem. It can merely signify the importance of a thing. It can serve as a figure of affection; for instance, "the key to my heart." It can reference authority, or it can simply be a key, a device that opens a lock.

When it is said that a person holds the key to something the meaning is relatively straight forward. They have the means and therefore the power to unlock what is locked, they exercise control over it. To say that Jesus has the keys to death and Hades is to say that he has the ability to open the door to death and Hades and the power to release those who were locked in behind it. Jesus has authority to release people from death and Hades.

Death is the common fate of all the living. When anything living crosses that threshold, whatever animated its life is lost to its physicality. If that life isn't reinstated quickly it never can be, it's locked up behind death's door. For humans, that impelling, animating something is called a soul, an incorporeal, spiritual essence which carries not only the life force, but the personhood of the human.

Before Christ's ascension, humans souls were locked in Hades (Sheol in Hebrew) upon death. The body turned to dust and the soul was locked in Sheol. There is some thought that Sheol really just meant the grave, but I think Jesus' teaching concerning the rich man and Lazarus completely undermines such thoughts. Jesus envisioned Sheol as a place where dead people were kept self-aware, conscious. Whereas it may have been "restful" for the faithful, Jesus revealed that it was anything but for the unfaithful.

Once in either condition, there was no way out. Death and confinement thereafter in Hades was a one way trip. Jesus, however, overturned the order of all that had gone before and did what no one had done before or since. He entered into death and Hades, and then, of his own accord, he came back. His authority and power over death and Hades was thus neither theoretical nor derivative--it was demonstrative. He went there and came back with captives in tow, that is why he is said to have the keys of death and Hades.

There are not literal keys in Jesus hand, of course, as if he required a tool to open that figurative door. His power is intrinsic to who he is. The keys are merely a figurative way to put the concept into graphical terms. Jesus, the Son of God, has power over life and death, what was irreversible to everyone else is reversible to him. The most impenetrable, intractable wall humanity faces, death and Hades, Jesus had the power to walk right through, and most importantly for us, he has the power to bring others with him.


The Key of David

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.'"   Revelation 3:7

The phrase, "the key of David," elicits similar thoughts as did the phrase, "the keys of death and Hades." In both phrases, the word key relies upon the same basic symbolism which refers to the possession of authority. Whereas the first expression has an inherent Jewishness to it, the second is markedly Greek (Gentile). Regardless, what is in focus is an eschatological, teleological authority--the possessor of the keys has authority to affect and effect the end of things.

David, God's choice to rule over Israel, conquered and then established Jerusalem as the capital of all of Israel shortly after he had consolidated his power over all twelve tribes. Thereafter, the city was often referred to as "the City of God" or the equivalent. Why not? The God-appointed king was there and the only tabernacle of God on earth (the Temple) would be. So, to have the Key of David meant having authority over Jerusalem, and by extension, to have authority over God's kingdom (see Isaiah 22:20-22).

The symbolic connection to the New Jerusalem is obvious. The Messianic heir to David (Jesus) is the one in authority over the New Jerusalem. He has the power to let folk in or to keep them out (see Matthew 16:18-19 for an interesting connection and extension). If entry into eternity with God is something one desires, one will have to come to Jesus and get his approval in order to enter. Thankfully, to be coming to him is all that it takes to get it!

Though there is nothing particularly Jewish about Philadelphia, it was in the message to that church that this Jewish nomenclature was used. In the Kingdom of God, neither Jewishness nor Gentileness matter a whit, despite the fact that there is distinctive historical tracks for Israel's redemption and for that of the Gentiles. I don't think much can be read into that, for the new Jerusalem is of infinitely greater import than the original, and it is to that the symbol actually points.

The Seven Stars of the Apocalypse

Who or what are the Seven Stars of the Apocalypse? The question has nothing to do with fame, but only with the meaning words. As used in the Apocalypse, the word star (aster) has a range of meaning that can literally refer to those astronomical bodies that shine in the sky at night, or to meteoric bodies that fall to the earth; or figuratively, it can refer to Christ himself (when combined with the descriptor, morning) or to angels. The antecedent of the figure of the Seven Stars, however, is plainly stated in the text as being seven angels; therefore, the seven stars are seven angels.


That of course leads us to the question: what or who are the Seven Angels? The meaning of a word, once again, becomes paramount in finding an answer. The word translated in English bibles as angel can have varying meanings. In the OT, the Hebrew word translated angel (malak) can mean, rather innocuously, "messenger" or it can mean "angel" in the spiritual, heavenly sense. It is used about equally one way or the other, the context determining which meaning is used in translation.

In the NT, the Koine word translated angel (aggelo) has the same quality and specification in meaning as does "malak" in the Old. In the NT, however, context demands just about every occurrence of the word to be translated in the spiritual, heavenly sense. Perhaps that it why the English word, angel, which is borrowed, ultimately, from Greek, has as its primary meaning, "a heavenly, spirit being that serves God."

The use of the word angel in the Apocalypse is abundantly clear--over and over again it refers to spirit beings, the servants and messengers of God. Therefore, the Seven Stars are merely those angels tasked by Christ with attending to the Seven Churches to which he sends messages in chapters 2 and 3. Since the sevens here are representative of "the whole", one could justifiably infer that any locality with a body of believers would be likely to have such an angel attending them.


Though I really should be stating the obvious here, two widespread interpretive errors make that not the case at all. One of those errors interprets the angels as the human bishops of churches (or some permutation of the same). The other interprets them as human prophetic spokesmen of their age (or some permutation of the same). Either error misses the mark by ignoring the consistent and therefore obvious use the word angel  in the Revelation. So even though the angels in Anaheim are nothing but human, in the Apocalypse they're anything but.

22 

The Alpha and Omega

Was Jesus a mere man? His self-description, particularly as found throughout the Apocalypse, says absolutely not! Whether describing himself as the Alpha and Omega (basically, the A and Z) or the first and last, or the beginning and the end the effect is the same--Jesus possesses the all-encompassing nature of God. Human history, really all of creation, is encapsulated by him. He was there before there was a here; he has been there throughout time when there was a here; and when time is done and here is no more, he will still be there.

Practically, I think Jesus was also trying to get across the idea that he is the source of life and living, that there is no life but in him, he is the life. The additional descriptor in the letter to the church at Smyrna, "who was dead and came back to life," which was appended to the first and the last  brings this particular into focus. In demonstrating his mastery over life and death his claim to be the all-encompassing God acquired significant validation. Clearly, he was claiming something more than just being a man, even an extremely holy one.

Believers can take heart and be bolstered knowing that this Jesus, to whom we cede fealty, is no mere man, but is demonstrably very God of very God. To know Jesus is to know God. To be his, to be given life by him is blessing beyond the measure of this present world. In Christ is a wealth that crosses the threshold of death and is unaffected by time. In this world we may have tribulation, and poverty, but in Christ we are actually rich beyond the endpoint of measuring whether alpha or omega.

The Sword of His Mouth

Believe it or not, the image of a sword coming from the mouth is well used in the Bible. It is used in the Apocalypse itself four times (our subject here), but is also used in Isaiah, as well as in Job. Generally, it refers to the power of words, namely to damage, although in Isaiah the image is used in reference to a benefit produced. A similar image in Hebrews (which doesn't involve the mouth) seems to point to the destructiveness (judgment) rather than the constructiveness (salvation) of the Word.

As for the specific use of the figure in the Revelation, there can be no doubt that there is nothing constructive about it. It comes out of Jesus' mouth, is sharp and double-edged (although only in the first occurrence are edges mentioned) and wipes out enemies. The obvious intention in that identification is to highlight the power of Christ's word to destroy: as that sword slashes, it cuts both ways, deeply, and mortally. The word Christ speaks is a force capable of completely obliterating his enemies--can you say Muad'Dib!

When Isaiah uses the image, the double-edged aspect is not specified and the effect highlighted is constructive rather than destructive. The image is wrapped in a prophecy meant to convey something positive. As far as the Jews are concerned (that is the focus of the Isaian usage), the penetrating conviction of God's word, particularly in the mouth of Messiah, is a means of drawing the Jews back to God. If you think about it, that makes sense given that during those last seven years of history (i.e. the Tribulation) God's agenda for the Jews is not judgment, but redemption.

When we use an expression like "it cuts both ways," we are actually calling upon the imagery of the double-edged blade. We mean by it that some stratagem or argument has a reciprocating effect. We may cut by using it but will also be cut in doing so. Our argument makes a point, but subjects us to the same charge we were making against our opponent. Nothing this correlated can be associated with the image of the double-edged sword in Revelation. The sword in Jesus mouth one-sidedly blasts away all his enemies, and there is no blowback!

The pointiness of that sword is not the issue either. Other weapons could have been used more fittingly as a metaphor if penetration would have been what was being gotten at. The forte of the double-edged sword is maximal lethality for every movement of the arm. The use of this image in Revelation is not trying to say that Jesus' word can penetrate to the heart, but that his word of judgment is unrebuffable and fatal. This is not about conviction, it is about wrath, and the image is used consistently to convey such throughout the Apocalypse.

Every Eye Will See Him

Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be.  Revelation 1:7 NASB

What a summary statement for all that will follow! If one wants to know what the Apocalypse is about, he need look no further than this verse. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not about Roman persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, or even the first century in particular, any more than it is just about the last seven years of time just prior to his return. It is about the return of Christ in all it's particulars: what leads up to it, what will happen when it occurs, and what will occur afterwards. So much for the apparent scholarship of Gordon Fee!

For some, a passage like the one above cast doubts upon the dispensational notion of a "Secret Rapture" of the Church. Nothing in the text seems to present anything secretive about the return of Christ or makes its experience exclusive to the Church. One must remember, however, that the catching away of the church (Rapture) is not precisely synonymous with the visible return of Christ to earth.

It is possible to have somewhat coherent schemas of interpretation that equate the two, but I don't see them as biblically accurate. That the two are not the same seems to me well enough evidenced by Matthew 24:36-42, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:9, and Revelation 7:9-17. From any of these accounts, I think it can be clearly seen that the beginning of the end (i.e. the catching away) is not the same thing as the end of the end (i.e. the completion of destruction).

There is process to it. The Return of Christ is never presented as an instantaneous event in the Word. There is a beginning, a middle and an end to it. The Apocalypse took twenty-two chapters to unpack what it unpacked about it! It's nature in time requires a story, not a headline to communicate.

At the beginning of his return, Jesus is in the air and the righteous are evacuated or sealed in protection before the outpouring of wrath is uncorked. At the end, Jesus stands victorious on earth, large and in charge. In between, obviously I would think, there is a process that unfolds. How long does that process take? If a day is like 1000 years, and 1000 years like a day to the Lord, how long would 7 years be perceived to be?

At some point during his return, it will be evident that he is passing through clouds and coming to the earth. That aspect of the event will be obvious to all its beholders on the earth--even (or maybe, especially) the Jews whose ancestors missed him in the days of Pontius Pilate. All those witnesses will mourn, the Jews to very good effect. At that point in the unfolding of things there is certainly nothing secretive about it at all.

But given that, what kind of secret is millions upon millions of folk disappearing in the first place?

Jesus Walks Among the Churches

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
Revelation 1:12-16 NIV

When the Apostle John, lost in the Spirit one Sunday on Patmos, was blasted from behind by the trumpet like voice of Christ, he wasn't sure at first what was going on. He turned to behold a heavenly vision replete with symbolism and type. His heavenly vision has been the source of conjecture and confusion for the rest of us ever since, but it was not the author's intent that it to be so apprehended (or misapprehended). John's (and Jesus', the ultimate author) intent was clarity and applicability, but the church's interpretation has been mostly ethereal and cloudy.

The encouraging purpose and the revelation of watchful care conveyed in the opening lines of the prophecy are reiterated in the first vignette of the vision. Jesus, risen in glory, ruling in majesty from the heavenlies walks among the lampstands (or churches). Often, we think of him as far off, separated from the world we live in, in heaven out of direct touch. We have our job to do here, he has his to do there, at the end of time our paths will cross again. The vision says, "not so, that's not the way it works!"

Christ is intimately and actively engaged with the church in the here and now. In his hand, I would say as a symbol of doing his bidding, are the angels of the churches. They express his action and execute his command. They serve the heirs of salvation, and (I would add) fight for them. Each people may have its own prince, but each church definitely has its own star (see this).

Christ walks among us, his word sharp, dividing asunder soul and spirit. A word of power and life, strong not just in the heavenlies, but out here in Lampstand Land too. A word we have been given to proclaim, which even as we do, is uttered fresh from heaven--not an old, stale word, but one uttered in the always present. It may have been reduced to writing 2000 years ago, but it's being spoken with effect from heaven now.

His description is filled out in chapter three where we're told that in addition to the seven stars, the sevenfold Spirit before God's throne is also in his hand. Can you say filioque? Certainly, the Holy Spirit is the greatest gift we receive from the hand of Christ, but I think the image also speaks to our active means of connecting to, or fellowshipping with Christ, the risen Lord. After all, it's not bread and wine in his hand, nor a vial of holy water, but the sevenfold Spirit. 

The church is a place where Jesus walks and his presence is communicated through the Holy Spirit.

How God Sees the Church

That God should have a different perspective on church than we do should not be all that surprising--that we should have a different one than him after he's spelled out his is another thing all together. We get more than a glimpse of how God sees the church in the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches in the Revelation. We can gain insight from other passages of scripture as well. Together they show us that God views the church as the body of Christ and the family of God; that he sees the church locally and collectively, in the micro and in the macrocosm.

Consistently, God sees and deals with the church as one entity in a locality, hence the title of most of the Pauline epistles and the nature of the letters in the Revelation. God sees the church seamless, like Christ's garment, made of individual threads, but bound into a whole without the use of artificial connections. No matter how much we'd like to apply the lessons from the Seven Letters to individual, denominational congregations, it is hard to get past the facts that each locality has but one candlestick, one superintending angel, and was addressed by one letter.

Doubtless, in each of those towns there were many churches meeting in many different houses, but Christ addressed them collectively. It is therefore not truly accurate to see any denominational or individual local church as the proper addressee of any of the biblical letters. It would be better to see each as addressing a city-wide church, a conglomeration of local houses of worship, at least that is how it would have been understood by the original audience. No house of worship is really "the church" anywhere.

If the church actually saw itself the same way Christ does, our identity would not be so pinpointed as to exist without reference to other bodies (and cross-denominationally) in our immediate area. We would not act as if we were islands in the storm, but see that Christ-life, real life, our life together did not end at the walls of our own congregation, as if we were the church in where ever we are. Would there even be enough angels to go around if that was the case for the seven (the entirety) of the church?

Rolling for Lucky Seven

The series of sevens in the first three chapters of the Revelation, however cryptic they may seem, are relatively clearly identified by John. When it comes to symbols, I think the tendency of creative minds is to dig for some deeper meaning despite any simple identification, even if given by the author! Perhaps that seems too superficial for inquiring minds. Anyone remember Paul being dead?

I think that tendency leads to error in interpreting the Apocalypse, and produces anything but an understanding of what John and Jesus clearly wanted people to understand. A simple, straightforward reading which takes the text for what it says and doesn't feel the need to go beyond is what actually produces sense. Though there are unidentified symbols and surreal narrative sections, I think, on the whole, the Apocalypse is more forthright than many let on. KISS.

Case in point: the interpretation of the seven lampstands and the seven stars. In both cases, the antecedents for the symbols are clearly identified (see also the Seven Churches). Yet, there are those who look for further mysterious meanings, which tends to so subjectivize the text as to make it incapable of dependably meaning anything to anyone. How can we read the prophecy and take it to heart if we're speculatively rolling the dice looking for lucky seven?

The Seven Spirits of God

When John tells us there are seven spirits before the throne of God, our first reaction might be a monotheistic gasp. The concept of a trinity in the Godhead is hard enough to understand and defend, a nonet is beyond the pale. Since John was certainly no pagan polytheist, what does the reference mean?

Isaiah 11:2 may yield some clues about the reference. To say that the prophet delineates seven spirits of God is way more than a stretch, but it certainly suggests something. It seems the one Spirit can be properly referred to by his various attributes. The apocalyptic designation would perhaps be better understood, in that light, as the sevenfold Spirit of God, understanding the seven as an idealized expression of perfection in every aspect of God, the Spirit's being. There are other spirits about beside God, but by this reckoning, none of them could be called sevenfold.

That is generally verified by John's introduction of the the sevenfold Spirit in conjunction with the unnamed God on the throne (the Father) and Jesus Christ, the firstborn from the dead. The sevenfold Spirit is therefore part of a trinitarian formulation identifying the God who is controlling all that is about to be unfolded prophetically. As the Father and Son are perfect and united in purpose, so too with them is the oft forgotten member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit, united in purpose and perfect as well.

Between John's introduction and latter apocalyptic references to the seven Spirits of God, the attributes that seem most in focus for the Apostle (as opposed to those Isaiah highlighted) are omniscience and omnipresence. God on the throne is timeless (he was, and is, and is to come) and his sevenfold Spirit before him is likewise always present in the always present. The light of his perfection (lamps) always emanates from the throne room of God to the farthest places, illuminating the deepest darkness of space, time and spirit, bringing all within clear sight (eyes) of the God who sees all.

The Seven Churches of the Apocalypse

In the first verse of the Apocalypse, John identifies the intended audience of the prophecy as the servants of Jesus Christ. That is a broad and universal designation which refers to the Church, the entire corpus of the body of Christ, everywhere at any time. In fact, all those who are servants of Jesus Christ, living and the dead, are the Church of the Firstborn

In the formal epistolary salutation starting in v. 4, John specifies his audience as the seven churches in the province of Asia. In doing so, he was not suddenly shifting his perspective from the broad to the specific (i.e from everywhere to the province of Asia), but was introducing symbolism to refer to the same audience he mentioned in v.1. The seven churches in Asia represent the entire church of Jesus Christ.

When a numeric like seven is repeated descriptively, as it is in v.4 , there is no way to miss its obvious symbolic implications. Throughout the scriptures, not just in the Apocalypse, this number is used to indicate completeness, or entirety (e.g. this). Seven days completed creation, seven has stood for completion in regard to God's work ever since. The only question to answer in regard to the symbolism of v.4, is to what entirety or completion does it refer?

I would say the force of both references (v. 1 and 4) is meant to convey that the address is to all the church throughout all time. That discounts the preterists viewpoint, for the scope was not limited to the Roman persecution of the ancient church, but addressed to the church throughout the ages covered by the prophecy. When the final judgment and the resurrection are mentioned as a piece in the continuum, how can can such a narrow time frame be justified?

Furthermore, it discounts interpreting the letters to follow as successive ages of the Church, for the churches are addressed corporately as a whole in chapter one. True, they will be dealt with in isolation from each other in the body of the letters to follow, but contemporaneously--distinct but at the same point in time. Whereas the seals, trumpets and vials have a time progression built into them (one is broken, blown, poured after another) the letters do not. They were sent out at once, together, to be read by all simultaneously.

The seven churches are both real and representative. Real in that there were seven such churches in John's day that faced issues such as written about in the letters. Representative as demonstrated by the symbology: not of periods of time, but of differences in the character of typical local churches which make up the one church universal. The seven churches, then, is merely a synecdoche which refers to the entire church through all time. 

Rightly Interpreting the Apocalypse

The key to understanding the Apocalypse is to read it, as much as possible, with the assumption that it simply means what it says. Don't get caught up in trying to unravel a knot of hidden symbols as if the work was a mere allegory-- it's not, it's a prophecy. Some things have symbolic meaning, some things are just scenery (so much for Idealism). If everything in the book means something other than what is written, what is written ends up meaning nothing at all.

As the very first sentence of the work clearly states in rather straightforward language and grammar, the work is meant to reveal what is about to occur. It's not written to confound, nor to encrypt, and even when symbolizing, not to leave the reader clueless as to what those symbols represent. The Revelation is not the biblical equivalent of a Rubik's cube. It's written to the general audience of God's people, and it should be understandable to that audience.

The work is generally dated to around 95 AD, although there is a body of people who believe it was written before 70 AD. The usual reason given for the earlier date is because the work does not mention the Temple's destruction in 70 AD. That argument is a vapor, however, because it assumes Herod's Temple had any significance to the temple(s) envisioned within the work. Just as the First Temple's destruction was not treated by Ezekiel, neither did John mention Herod's.

Really, the earlier date only serves one purpose: to give cover to erroneous interpretations arising from the unsound doctrine called Preterism. Historical, textual, and archeological evidence for the earlier date, when examined, proves non-existent. Beside, to cram the last four chapters of the Apocalypse into to any temporal framework that has the events mentioned as already occurring is to take a wrecking ball to the text.

And since that first sentence declares that it is about things which must (Koine: dei, necessarily) soon (Koine: tachos, quickly, without delay) take place, the reasonably justified assumption is that the work would be referencing things beginning to take place around 95 AD. Therefore, any approach attempting to jam virtually all the events foretold in this book into the distant future during the last seven years of history is a fool's errand. 

So it appears that the opening statement of the prophecy precludes every preterist (by dating) and every futurist (by definition) interpretation of the work. Only an historicist interpretation can clear the very first sentence of the work intact!

Some historicists have interpreted the letters to the seven churches as describing, symbolically, seven epochs of the Church Age, starting from the Apostles and ending with the Return of Christ. Whereas that approach at least understands the historical implications of the prophecy, there's nothing in the text or context that demands interpreting it that way. These were churches extant at the time of writing, all at once in real time and were addressed for more transparent reasons, it seems to me, than as symbols for epochs unhinted at in the text.

A simpler (and thereby, generally bound to be better) approach is to take them as representing the totality of the church at any given time. The number seven is associated scripturally with completeness, or entirety, and today one will find churches existing in the same space and time, which would fit rather neatly into the general categories limned out by those seven churches. I think that has always been true, and so take the overall effect of their mention to be symbolic of the church universal throughout time, and representing the diversity in the character of individual congregations.

Whereas the letters to the churches should not be interpreted epochally, the seven seals on the scroll should be. The imagery comes right out of Roman testate law-- under that regimen, wills were sealed with seven wax seals only broken in the presence of the heir. The Lamb, being the first-born from among the dead, had earned the inheritance of creation and mankind: breaking the seals only he could open was the formality that had to occur to bring the will into ultimate enactment. Since each broken seal is related in a process over time, the action represents not only a witness to the authority of the Son of Man, but also reveals epochs proceeding in history leading up to the coronation of the coming King.

In an upcoming post, each seal will be identified by its antecedent historical event. I hope you stay with me!