Once More

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

9 καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.

As I noted in my previous post, we see cycles happening in the book of Revelation. Here we see the great dragon  ἐβλήθη. This is an aorist to show that at some indefinite time he saw the dragon thrown down. It's not necessarily puncticular as some older theologians may say, but it did happen sometime. It's certainly not a continuous action.


My reason for bringing this up is to emphasize that Revelation probably should not be read as one continuous story. That is how I'm learning to read it in seminary, but I don't think that is right. One way I've heard it described is cameras at a football game. Think about when there is a close play on the sideline where you're not sure if the receiver got both feet in with control of the ball. You first see the play at full speed with one angle. Then you might see a reverse angle. Then you might see a view from across the sideline at 90 degrees from the play. Then you might see another view from straight above. Then there is the view down the sideline. 


I think that's a good metaphor for how the story unfolds in the book of Revelation. Try reading it in that light and see what you find.

Round and Round

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.

1 Καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου

My point today is not so much exegetical as it is hermeneutical. The question is how we should read the book of Revelation. If we take the simplest approach, we just read it like a sequential letter. We take the first three chapters to be like a straight epistle and then we take the rest to be a description of what will happen at the end of time.


However, there is another way that I think is perhaps more plausible. Instead of reading it like a sequence of events, perhaps we should read it as sort of a commentary on itself. It looks like concentric circles that get larger and larger in scope. I'm not going to detail every example, but this is one of them. It seems like this is retelling what we just saw in chapter 8 with Wormwood falling to earth. In other words, I don't think it is a separate event.


I don't really have time to develop this more deeply right now, but I just wanted to point out that there are different ways to read Revelation. Obviously they are not all legitimate since God did not write it with multiple meanings in mind. However, I would submit that perhaps the literalistic method is not the best. I realize that is a heretical idea to a dispensationalist and I also realize that this opens the door a crack for liberalism to barge its way in. However, I also think that a plain reading of Revelation makes a lot more sense if we see it a continually retelling a story and elaborating on it each time rather than a straight sequence of events.

The Wrath of the Lamb

Revelation 6:16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,

16 καὶ λέγουσιν τοῖς ὄρεσιν καὶ ταῖς πέτραις· πέσετε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου,

If you were to take this verse completely out of context it would look absolutely ridiculous. The phrase  τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου looks completely absurd. It's certainly  not something that seems to warrant the preposition ἀπὸ which means "from," but it has the sense not so much of place like εκ does, but it has the idea of being kept apart from something. Their prayer is to be protected from the wrath of the lamb.


You will notice that in this verse the word "Lamb" is spelled with a big "L." It has to be or else it would not make any sense. A fully-grown sheep is hardly threatening. Who is afraid of a lamb? Lambs are for petting zoos. They are certainly not an animal to be feared. You should worry about an angry ram, but not an angry lamb. I keep thinking of the puppet Lambchop.


The point is that Jesus came to be the sacrificial lamb for the world. He was the perfect Passover lamb. He died a humble death on a Roman cross. Just like how the Passover lamb saved the Jews from God's wrath, Jesus' blood saves us from God's wrath and will save us from the judgment to come. 


The problem for those who do not know the Lamb is that He will come back in wrath. He will no longer be like a cute and fuzzy animal to be cuddled. He will return as a conquering king. We can argue about rapture and millenial systems all day. We can talk about the proper way to interpret Revelation for another 2000 years, assuming that the Lord tarries. However, what we cannot do is expect His return to be like His departure. He is going to come back in glory to judge the world. You want to be on His side when He does.

Eternal Praise

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"

8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες· ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

When I read this I immediately think of Isaiah 6:3. I am fairly certain that this describes the same thing. Apparently God created beings whose sole purpose is to spend eternity worshiping Him. Not that here they are seen in worship of Christ. How can we be sure that it is Christ? Verse 11 tells us:  for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. This should remind you of Colossians 1:16 where we see that everything was created by Christ and for Christ.


So what do we make of this? There are some who consider this to be a very boring picture of heaven. Basically, these are the folks who want for heaven to be like a really ideal version of earth. Imagine your best day ever. Now multiply that for eternity. For some that may be an eternity of eating chicken wings while watching your favorite team win the Super Bowl. For others that may be an eternity of hiking in perfect weather and finding an idyllic scene with a waterfall. These sound great, don't they?


The problem is that they all fall short. I maintain that the greatest days we have here on earth are made greater because they are not eternal. It's no fun to see your team win the big game every year unless they lose periodically. Being trapped in a cubicle farm under artificial light during the week makes that hike in the woods that much nicer. There needs to be tension before there can be release. Read any good story and you will see that. 


Why are we like that? Everything goes back to Genesis 3. Thanks to the Fall we live under tension all the time. Our nature is now such that we need the bad to enjoy the good. But heaven won't be like that. Heaven will be ideal all the time. 


What does that look like? Unceasing worship of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We will be in the presence of God. And as we come into the presence of God the pressing cares of this world will fade away. As humans we read this passage and think that these seraphim got a bad deal. They remind us of the animatronic show at Chuck E Cheese that can do nothing but sound like a broken record. But what we don't realize in our fallen state is that they have the best job imaginable. They get to exist in the presence of the Lord and worship Him as He deserves.


If that still sounds boring to you, please let me know. We need to talk about who God is.

Keep the Love

Revelation 2:4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

4 ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες.

This is one of those verses where different translations communicate very different meanings. That phrase at the end is sometimes difficult. Should  τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες be "the love you had at first," or should it be "your first love?" I can see a pretty compelling argument for the latter, as do the translators of the KJV and the NIV. The word σου is in the genitive, so there is definitely a sense of possession here. It links two accusatives together: τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην, so they should probably be taken together as the object of what was abandoned. It probably goes with τὴν ἀγάπην, which gives more credence to the KJV. However, that leaves the other accusative just hanging there. 


I can see the reason behind this translation.  John accuses the church in Ephesus of abandoning your love, the first one. This is because both of the accusatives are tied together with the genitive. The KJV translation is perfectly valid too, but this also seems to make more sense theologically, which is important as well.


Basically, John accuses the church in Ephesus of starting out great, but then losing some of the fire while keeping up the motions. This verse hits me upside the head every time I read it now that I understand it properly. This is a microcosm of my spiritual walk. It's not that I ever abandoned my first love, which is Jesus. But it's that I lost the love that I had at first. 


Of course, the cure is the gospel. That's always the cure. We need to remain steeped in it so as to keep the fires going. If we remember who we are and from what we've been saved how can we help but be in love with the Savior? To do less is to severely cheapen grace.