Hidden In Plain Sight: A Study of the Revelation to John

review.

PREFACE

The Revelation to John has been with us for about 2000 years and has been the subject of diverse attempts at interpretation – in spite of the admonition by the author to avoid adding or subtracting from the work. Needless to say, most of the attempts either added or subtracted, and today we have an overwhelming end time scenarios, apparently, based on the revelation.

The reasons are not difficult to identify. The Revelation as given is a vision of the end time work of the Son of Man and the sole purpose is to prepare humanity for that mission and offer them the chance to recognize the Son of Man when He does come. It was easy to recognize in the book the terrible disasters that will follow for the majority of humanity; but, it has remained difficult to identify ourselves as part of the erring humanity. It was more convenient to assume that because we believe in Jesus, we will be miraculously taken out of the world before the tribulations or that we will be protected from the worst of it. It was convenient to forget that God relates to all human beings in the same way irrespective of whether they are Christians or Jews, Moslems or Hindus or even atheists and that the revelation, although sent through the Son of God, Jesus, was sent to all human spirits who are striving to serve God and not just to Christians.

Another difficulty was to link The Revelation in a non-discriminating manner with previous prophecies in the Old Testament, even to the extent of assuming that The Revelation was copying imagery from old apocalyptic literature. Of course, Messages sent from God in the past because they are based on Truth must dovetail and correspond in details with any subsequent messages. The Revelation to John, therefore, will have a lot of similarities to messages sent to humanity in the past. Those messages were given in context with human maturity at the time and when it relates to events beyond their time, was explained to them and/or the prophets were asked to seal the message until the end.

In The Revelation, the tempo is different. The Son of God, Jesus, had brought the Truth and expanded human consciousness sufficiently to understand and had in addition, promised that at the appropriate time before the end, the Spirit of Truth will bring the final Message from God; that indeed, the end will not come until that Truth, which Christ called the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’ is given to the whole world.

The Revelation to John was given to us against this background. It starts by warning humanity in the various communities within the World of Matter, of the judgment tour of the Son of Man; describing Him as walking amongst the golden lampstand that represents the world communities (Rev. 2:1). It then quickly brings the reader up to present day, by showing a summary of the path of the human spirit in Subsequent Creation, before describing the advent and work of the Son of Man and the attempts of the darkness to undermine this work. John was shown the granting of the Message or gospel of the kingdom to the whole world by the Son of Man and His helpers, the two witnesses, as promised. Immediately after this the end-time judgment commenced, first with the binding of Lucifer, then the judgment of Babylon the great and finally, of individual human spirits and Satan.

The key to the revelation is therefore the recognition of the last Message from God and it is not surprising that it was only with the coming of the Son of Man, the Spirit of Truth, an event sometimes also regarded as a second coming of Christ, that the revelation opened itself to a fuller comprehension. This study of The Revelation assumes such a background and although the recognitions are limited by my personal understanding, I can safely say that the understanding goes well beyond previous such efforts. I will wish, however, to remind the reader that The Revelation itself admonished against interpreting the work for others and thus that people should not depend on guidance from other human spirits. We are meant to make the necessary individual effort to recognize this great gift and accordingly prepare ourselves to meet the Envoy of God. This study is therefore, not a substitute for The Revelation, but may be regarded as a call for a deeper study and hopefully an awakening to the need to experience the times in a more alert manner.

I acknowledge the help of many individuals, all of whom I cannot name. I also acknowledge recognitions from the sacred books of the three revealed religions – the Torah, the Bible and the Qur’an and from the last Message of God to humanity, ‘In the Light of Truth, the Grail Message’. Above all however, I owe this work to the Grace of the Almighty God out of whose Omniscience the inspiration flowed.

Uchenna Mezue

OVERVIEW

The Revelation is one of the most important books of the Bible and the only one that admonishes against misrepresentation. In this sense, any attempt to interpret its meaning for others can only be regarded as a limitation. It is therefore justifiable to ask, even from the outset, what this book is about if we are not meant to interpret The Revelation for others.

This is purely a personal study and does not claim to have the only true meaning of The Revelation. A lot of interpretations of The Revelation are available in Christian literature and in some cases, these interpretations are used as a basis for faith and doctrine in the various sects. Unfortunately, most of these interpretations base their study on fragments of John’s vision often taken in isolation. However, the revelation in my view is a single unified revelation of the time and work of the Son of Man, the end time or the second coming of Jesus as many regard it.

Over the past two millennia, highly gifted individuals have attempted to study and understand The Revelation and have largely only succeeded in keeping it relevant for the different generations of Christians. This is not surprising because The Revelation is written for the end-times and can only be fully accessible at the end-time. Most striving Christians will agree that we are today living in the so-called end-time and that the events of The Revelation are imminent.

All the promised messages for the end-time are now available to us and I believe we are in a better position to understand the message of The Revelation. Indeed, I believe that we urgently need to understand its message and I can empathize with the urge and pressure amongst all striving human spirits to unravel the mysteries of The Revelation. It does not, however, necessarily follow that we must limit ourselves to past understanding. We must be prepared to review the Revelation in the light of any new knowledge or Message from the Light.

This work is intended for those who are interested in detailed study of the subject from a new perspective, different from the currently held views and to give a new insight based on my understanding of the new knowledge in Creation. It, in no way, claims to be the only correct reading, but I believe that the insight provided may be a basis on which others can take the work further. Hopefully also, it will open the readers to the urgent need to objectively examine the new knowledge in Creation, contained in the work In the Light of Truth by Abd-ru-shin. It is my hope and prayer that the earnest reader will be stimulated to reflection and awakened to an urge to study The Revelation for himself or herself, prayerfully and humbly.

In evaluating this book, it is also important to recognize the limitations imposed by translations. I have based my study exclusively on the English translations of the Greek manuscripts using the New International Version (NIV), unless otherwise indicated.

This work is offered in the recognition that the Revelation is being fulfilled in this epoch. The Revelation is one of the most extensively studied but least applied of the books of the Bible. The style of writing, the often-profound reactions evoked and the uncertainty of the genre lends itself to scholarly license. While it had remained difficult in practical application, it had nevertheless inspired great artists and musicians. It is easy to conclude that in spite of its name, the Revelation often conceals more than it reveals (Mitchell).

In our study of The Revelation, it is important first to establish that it is a spiritual and not a scholarly work. Spiritual events cannot be confined within the bounds of intellectual analysis. Attempts to do so immediately narrow the perceptive capabilities of the individual and produces rigid interpretations and definitions of timelines. Attempts to date or give form to the end-time must remain futile and grossly limiting.

Scholars have also sought to classify The Revelation in accordance with accepted literary styles, resulting in highly erudite works that further distance the reader from the experiencing of the impact of The Revelation. Interesting theses have appeared on whether The Revelation is apocalyptic, prophetic or episcopal. Yet, while the literary genre of the apocalyptic owes its derivation from the revelation (Greek - apocalypsis), the work cannot be brought to fit with other apocalyptic writings (Ladd, 1957). Similarly, although John refers to his revelation as a prophecy, it lacks the scope of changeability inherent in prophecies, except for the letters to the seven churches (Rev. 2-3). Prophecies are predicated on human reactions to them and often change in details of manifestation (scope and time) if the target audiences repent. The Revelation on the other hand emphasizes the inevitability of its message from the beginning (Rev. 1:1) and this is intrinsic in the difference between the revelation and the prophecy genre.

The approach to The Revelation in this study will de-emphasize theological scholarship, avoid eschatology (end time motifs) and focus on the need to keep the human spirit alert to the coming of the Son of Man. The main purpose of The Revelation To John is not, as often supposed, to give comfort and hope to the Church, but to keep the focus of the servants of our God and His Christ on the defining event for Creation, as advised by the Son of God – the need to remain spiritually alert for the coming of the Son of Man. Once we understand this, attempts at interpretation of The Revelation become meaningless and unnecessary. Indeed, the Revelation itself warns against adding or removing from the work, an injunction that is persistently overlooked in many efforts to interpret the Revelation. The Revelation is to be read, either individually or to others, rather than interpreted (Rev. 1:3), a requirement that was more understandable to John’s contemporaries than to us.

In spite of this however, it remains necessary to indicate in passing, the effort many dedicated Christians have made to keep the message of The Revelation alive and relevant over the millennia. This introduction will therefore, briefly examine the approaches to interpretation, the controversies about authorship, date and style, some of which have a bearing on the unfolding of the revelation and may serve to awaken the reader to the message of the Spirit to the Churches.

Interpretation

The Book of Revelation has remained the most misunderstood document in the Bible, in spite of being extensively studied. This is only partly due to the heavily symbolic and apocalyptic nature of the writing. All through the church era and even long before it was reluctantly accepted as canon in the 4th century AD, The Revelation had been a controversial work. Arguments and discussions have ranged from its authorship and authenticity to its meaning and relevance. In spite of this, each epoch of the Christian church had found it relevant and supportive for their time while in most cases also providing for them a window into the future of the church.

The earliest commentary may be ascribed to Melitus, Bishop of Sardis about 175AD (Eusebius), but this work is no longer extant. The earliest extant work is that of Victorinus of Pettau (d.c. 304) and the plethora of commentaries and scholarly literature on the Revelation since then attests to its importance.

Interpretations, not surprisingly, have clustered around the timeline and meaning of The Revelation and various schools of thought have evolved overtime. These views have been extensively studied and categorized (Morris, 1987) and will not be discussed in detail here. Four main views stand out, Preterist, Historicist, Futurist and Idealist. From the earliest period of the church, the futuristic and idealist interpretations have been the major positions. It is however likely, as many scholars have pointed out, that the correct perception contains something of all of the above views.

Whatever view one adopts, the book itself refuses to be left in the past. Indeed, with each epoch of human development, new depths of interpretation emerged that suggested that the revelation is for all ages of the church until the end. It is in this context that this work intends to show that the revelation has never been as relevant as it is for our time. There is enough evidence within the text of revelations to believe that it was written for the end time, a concept that is in itself as abused as the revelation. Although, the phrase ‘end times’ has been adopted in this work, the revelation did not mention the end time. Caird emphasizes this point and according to him "Much debate ‘has turned on the nature of the eschaton, the final event...but the word eschaton (neut.) does not occur in the New Testament. John knows only of the eschatos (masc.), a person who is both the beginning and the end’ (Caird, 1966).

As the prophecies, indicating the end times unfold with alarming rapidity and as we gain more insight into them with almost every event, the revelation becomes more clarified, understandable and relevant. Rapid globalization, the explosion of knowledge and the fulfillment of the promise of the Spirit of Truth on earth, place the revelation in the centre of our time.

Authorship of The Revelation

The controversy about authorship may be regarded as almost incidental, for the work itself stands above the author. The author himself tells us from the beginning that the book is a revelation from above and that we must seek its relevance and authority from studying it for ourselves. However, as if to emphasize the authenticity of its documentation, the author also goes into the trouble of identifying himself, his location and his state of being. In spite of these, the authorship remains more controversial than that of the gospels where the authors sometimes deliberately obscured their identity.

It has remained an open question whether the author is John the Apostle or another John and the dominant arguments are based almost exclusively on an early reference by Justin Martyr in favor and a rather more reasoned argument against, from Dionysius (Eusebius). Since then, many esteemed scholars have extended the argument for and against (Morris, 1987). The arguments regarding authorship and date are closely linked and most commentators argue from their individual biases.

Dionysius (200-265AD) who first raised the argument against John the apostle as the author was the Bishop of Alexandria, and represented the predominant view of the Eastern Churches. Before his time, i.e. prior to the 3rd century AD, the early church largely attributed authorship of the Revelation to John the apostle [Irenaeus (120-200AD) and Tertullian (155-220AD)]. This position is summarized in Justin Martyr’s (100-165AD) commentary in his dialogue with Trypho:

‘There was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believe in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place’ (Martyr).

Even prominent leaders of the Alexandrian school before the time of Dionysius attributed the authorship to John the Apostle [Clement of Alexandria (150-211AD), Origen (185-254AD)]. There is also early confirmation that indeed John the Apostle was banished to Patmos. Ignatius (30-108AD) wrote regarding the early church leaders – ‘…Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos…’ Thus external evidence bordering the apostolic age indicates overwhelmingly that the author is John the apostle. Apart from Jerome (340-420 AD), this tradition of apostolic authorship was generally held in the Western Churches.

The arguments against apostolic authorship, although arising late are also convincing. As indicated earlier, Dionysius best articulated the arguments against apostolic authorship and his well reasoned thesis has been elaborated since then. These arguments are based on stylistic differences in writing and the absence of mention of the apocalypse in the fourth gospel and 1John or vice versa, which would have been expected if the author was John the apostle. Dionysius also pointed out the fact that whereas other writings attributed to John did not emphasize the author’s name; this was not the case with revelation.

Eusebius documenting the Church history up to his time in the fourth century also argued against apostolic authorship. Quoting a statement attributed to Papias, Eusebius argued that Papias distinctly mentioned two Johns prominent around Papias’ time and that it is the second John, whom he called the presbyter, who wrote the Revelation and not John the apostle (Eusebius).

While external evidence from church tradition may overwhelmingly identify John the apostle as the author, internal evidence from the book itself suggest that this is unlikely. John never identified himself as an apostle in the Revelation (in contrast to other books attributed to him), but as a brother in Jesus, sharing with others the persecution and the kingdom (Rev. 1:9). In the description of the new Jerusalem, John talks about the twelve disciples as the pillar in a nonpersonal manner, suggesting that either he is not one of these exalted disciples or that the event being far in the future does not lend itself to direct personalization. This latter view is supported by John’s own description of the Revelation as a prophecy (Rev. 1:3).

In spite of the fact that these arguments have been elaborated by more recent commentators (Morris, 1987), it seems likely that the identity of the earthly author of the Revelation may never be resolved from scholarly analysis. This work does not therefore intend to join the debate about the apostolic identity of the author.

The issues are complex but we must start by accepting the author’s identity at his own valuation. The author declares his name unequivocally as John. However, a close study indicates that the name is that of the one who experiences the visions, and not necessarily the name of the one documenting it. In this regard, the legend of Prochorus is relevant. The ‘Acts of John by Prochorus’, is a legendary fifth century writing which claims that John was accompanied to Asia Minor by Prochorus, one of the seven people chosen by the Jerusalem church to assist in the daily distribution of food (Acts 6:5). It claims that Prochorus served as John’s scribe, recording the visions dictated to him by John that became the book of Revelation. Although, the story of Prochorus is regarded as probably non-historical, the traditions are strongly followed in some churches, particularly on the island of Patmos.

John tells us that he was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day at the beginning of the visions (Rev. 1:10), and this has logically, but not necessarily correctly, been assumed to represent a state of mind. He was in the spirit may equally indicate that he was in higher spiritual realm, the heaven he frequently alludes to, during most of the revelation (Rev. 4:2, 17:3, 21:10). If the latter is accepted, i.e. that he was in the spiritual realm, as I believe is the case, the challenge becomes to explain how he wrote down the script in the midst of his often intense experiences, especially, in those moving visions where he was specifically asked to write or sometimes not to do so.

These facts can be explained by exploring the possibility that John's work may have been transmitted to another on the earth plane who then wrote it down. This may indeed be the origin of the legend of Prochorus and becomes more attractive when we note that in many cases the intensity of John’s experiencing was at such depth that precludes his being able to write his experiences down and yet he was enjoined to write (Rev. 1:19, 14:13, 19:9). Indeed, as the last visions are still occurring, ‘the book’ is already considered completed (Rev. 22:6-19).

Lenski (1943) had concluded that this presents John as writing in excitement and suggested that his faculties were stimulated and exalted. It is however difficult for anyone to write coherently under circumstances of such excitement and it is more logical to suggest that his visions are simultaneously transmitted to another on earth who did the recording in a more leisurely fashion. The alternative position is that John assimilated and encoded the message for later documentation, but this is obviated by the fact that the writing was almost simultaneous. The fact that in at least one vision, he was actually forbidden to write what the seven thunders said (Rev. 10:4), also support the view that this was not a subsequent documentation of a stale vision.

The intensity of the experiencing suggests that the one receiving the vision directly cannot at the same time write it, but if he is connected with another in spirit, the documentation can go on a step removed.

The possibility of two collaborating human spirits being involved may explain the difficulties with resolving the authorship. The second and final transcriber may or may not be John the apostle, but clearly must be a strongly practicing Christian. Even if he is the apostle, the style of writing will not be entirely his and it is very likely in such a situation that he will not wish to put himself forward. Thus, in keeping with the gospel and epistle, he probably deliberately left his identity obscure. Nevertheless, whoever the transcriber may be, he must have felt it incumbent to identify his source with sufficient clarity while leaving his own identity in relative obscurity. This will account for the repeated use of the name John in the opening verses.

Of course, this interpretation raises the question of where the authors were. Were they both in Patmos on the Aegean? Were they even in the same geographical location, in view of the fact that the entire communication was in spirit? It has been suggested that the real author, who received the revelation was not on the earth plane at all, but in the Spiritual planes (Abd-ru-shin). The transcriber however must be on the earth plane to be able to achieve a physical record. The conclusion therefore, is that the one who receives the vision and thus the real author is John who resides in a spiritual plane and that the transcriber may or may not be another John (the apostle, the presbyter, the legendary Prochorus etc.)

The work, ‘In the Light of Truth’ informs us that the John that received the vision is the same spirit that incarnated on earth as John the Baptist at that time and that having left the earth, he actually received the visions in his spiritual home on the island of Patmos in the spiritual spheres. In the usual thorough preparation of all activities from the Light, the one that transcribes the vision on earth, who was also prepared for this work, received the transmission on the earthly island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea. That this author on earth chose to remain obscure must be deliberate on his part, as he may not wish to shift the focus away from the real author. It is of course possible that he is also named John. Interestingly, other commentators have identified a link between John the Baptist and the revelation (Ford, 1975).

John the Baptist is the forerunner who brings knowledge of the activity of the Light to all humanity and has been involved in Light happenings on earth that go beyond the coming of Jesus, the Son of God. John the Baptist was of course no longer on the earth plane at the time the revelation was given, but it is suggested that he received the visions in high spiritual realms from where he transmits it to the earthly author. While he sees the activity of the Light more comprehensively, the earthly scribe’s perception of the activities of the Light is more limited. Since the individual’s ability cannot be overridden in spite of spiritual connection and inspiration, this may account for the fact that throughout the Revelation, the earthly author sometimes identified Jesus Christ, the Son of God interchangeably with the seven fold Spirit, the Son of the Light and the Son of Man.

Because of this limitation, the earthly author may have confined the Light personalities involved to Jesus, and Creation wide events to earth. A careful study based on a deeper understanding of the structure of Creation now available in the work, ‘In the Light of Truth,’ indicates that the term earth in the revelation almost always refers to The whole of Material or Subsequent Creation and that our earth when referred to as such was called Jerusalem or the Holy city (where the Lord had worked). In addition, the earthly author did not distinguish between the Son of Man and the Son of God, a distinction that is necessary for any reasonable understanding of events of the second coming of the Lord.

On the other hand as discussed in sections of this study, John on the spiritual heights also sees the activity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as One since they are both One in God, but always goes a little further to characterize them distinctly by the nature of their activity. Careful and intuitive study is therefore essential to allow us discern that indeed; although Christ featured prominently, the revelation is about the work of the Son of Man, the Holy Spirit in Material Creation. The use of ‘earth’ to refer to the entire Material Creation, the sea to the ethereal non-physical part of Material Creation and land for the dense gross materially visible part is consistent, and similar motifs have been used in other parts of the scripture. In this context, heaven is often used in the revelation to suggest higher planes, including the spiritual and substantiate spheres.

Date

The date of The Revelation has also been a matter for debate fueled again by the biases of the different schools of thought. Futurists and historicists favor a late date after 70 AD while preterists argue for an earlier date.

The date of The Revelation is probably another debate that will never be resolved and which really is incidental to the message of revelation. Once the study of The Revelation moves away from the scholarly to the spiritual, the date becomes less important and the author more recognizable. The Revelation will then become one of the most important books of the New Testament for the end times.

The limited discussion below on the date of The Revelation is only for those who are interested in a scholarly survey.

External evidence from the early traditions of the church popularly put the date at about 95AD in the reign of Emperor Domitian (81-96AD) and this is the position of most historicists and futurists. This is largely based on statements from early church Fathers, particularly Irenaeus (120-200 AD). In his discussion on the number of the Antichrist, Irenaeus makes reference to the date of the revelation:

if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign (Irenaeus 120-200).

Other documents from early Church tradition also tell us that John was banished to the Island of Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Ignatius). Some commentators believe that Babylon as used in the revelation is symbolic of Rome and that therefore the revelation must have been written after 70 AD since Rome had destroyed Jerusalem at this time. They regard this as internal evidence for a late date after 70 AD.

Preterists however argue for an earlier date, about 64 AD (Gentry, 1989), which will fit more with their contention that the events of the revelation represent occurrences in the very beginning of Christianity. The external evidence for an early date held by the Preterist is based on a quote attributed to Papias that John the Apostle was martyred before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and on Cerinthus, a first century AD author who wrote The Pseudo-Apocalypse. Cerinthus was believed to have died before 95AD, but his Pseudo-Apocalypse contains references to John's Apocalypse.

The internal evidence often cited for the date of the revelation refers to Rev.11, where John is told to measure the Temple (which was destroyed in 70AD). This assumes a literal interpretation, but the context may not be referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem as will be discussed later.

Both the preterists and the futurists buttress their arguments with a quote from Clement of Alexandria.

… Hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit (Clement of Alexandria).

This states that John left the island of Patmos for Ephesus after the death of the tyrant. The Preterist regard the tyrant mentioned as Nero (54-68AD), while the Futurists insist that the tyrant named is Domitian (81-96AD). The futurists further support their position from Eusebius (300-340AD) reference to Irenaeus’ work against heresies (referred to above) and his position that Clement was indeed referring to Domitian’s reign (Eusebius).

Style

The difficulty with this great work lies mainly in its style and content. It must be understood from the beginning, as the work itself declares (Rev. 1 v.1), that this is a spiritual work, which as such should never be analyzed intellectually. This is the failing of the various schools, which have attempted to limit its scope to time and place. It is a spiritual work and must be understood spiritually.

The Revelation is not written in a chronological sequence and without taking this into consideration, it will be impossible to understand it. Within the experiences of John in the spiritual, time is measured differently. There are sections in the book where John looks far back to indicate the origin of the current problems of Creation and of humanity and sections where he looks into the future to explore the consequences of the current trend in human and world activities. Yet, he sees both the past and the future almost simultaneously. The revelation embraces the past, the present and the future (Rev. 1:19).

Some scholars believe that the style of the revelation can best be described as ‘recapitulation’. Reddish argues that the structure of revelation is spiral in progression instead of linear and likens it to looking through a kaleidoscope or to listening to musical compositions where certain themes of the piece are repeated.

The Revelation understandably has many parallels from the Old Testament. This is expected since spiritual understanding builds on previous knowledge. However, given that the Son of God had manifested in the interval, the Revelation deviates significantly from the writings of the Old Testament in a number of ways. First, it recognizes the unity in the Trinity and describes the activity of the Creative Will, the Holy Spirit as One with the Love of God, Jesus. Consequently, it did not bother in many instances to distinguish between the two. Where John has to get his audience to relate more intimately with the work of the Light, he does indicate the activity of Jesus on earth at that time more clearly, since the primary audience being adherents of the Truth personified in Jesus, will identify more easily with such detail.

Throughout the work however, the activity of the Will of God is paramount and it may be said that the emphasis in the Revelation is on the activity of the Will of God in Creation unlike the rest of the New Testament that focused on the activity of the Love of God embodied in Jesus.

Secondly, John is here writing from the basis that the events are not only imminent, but are already beginning to happen and so unlike the earlier visions of the prophets documented in the Old Testament, John’s apocalypse represents a higher revelation; more intense and with greater immediacy. Since prophecies are predicated on human responses to the message given, we may conclude that given the timeline, the Revelation also deviates from the pattern of prophetic writings of the Old Testament. The sense of inevitability indicated from the beginning suggests that the primary event, the approach of the judgment is no longer subject to human will. This is different from prophetic pronouncements which are predicated on human will and which tend to change in detail depending on how the target audience receive and adapt to it (see Jonah to Nineveh).

In The Revelation, which came after the incarnation of the Son of God and humanity’s rejection of Him, the pattern became more firmly set and the prophecies of end time events could now be set as certainties, i.e. as a revelation of the inevitable. There are however some prophetic parts to the book and the author indicates as such (Rev. 1:3; 22:7,10,18,19). The messages to the seven churches are clearly prophetic and as indicated, if the peoples change, their final circumstance will change, which satisfies the criteria for prophecy. In addition, although the judgment is set and inevitable, its effect on the individuals remains subject to their adaptation to the message that precedes the onset of the judgment. Thus, the book is largely prophetic until the Son of Man manifests.

Thirdly, although the book is apocalyptic in its symbolism and imagery; it lacks many characteristics of the genre. This fact is well argued in the scholarly study of the revelation by Leon Morris (1989).

Thus, in spite of its cryptic certainty, The Revelation contains a series of apocalyptic and prophetic visions of the future and does not belong strictly to either genre. This has posed considerable difficulties for those who attempt to analyze the work intellectually. It must be viewed as a spiritual experience simply and faithfully documented.

In content, the Revelation is also unique amongst the other apocalyptic writings. It is wrong to suggest that it derives or copies some of its content from older literature. There is little doubt that the imageries may be similar. Since all derive from the same Truth, some similarity is inevitable, but the visions of John are clearer, richer, more detailed and more relevant to the end time. This level of clarity suggests a higher origin for John’s visions, and the work itself is particularly illuminated by the fact that the Son of God had not only incarnated, but also had promised the Spirit of Truth.

The events of Christ’s coming great as it was, is recognized in the revelation as an accomplished fact that impacts greatly on the new future. The church, implying those who live according to the Truth that Jesus represented, is assumed in the setting of the whole Creation (Spiritual and Material), and the mission of the comforter and the judgment of not just our earth, but of the whole Material Creation is indicated as imminent.

The visions indicate comprehensive views of events in Creation from the highest heights to the lowest depths, from the glory of the Divine through the perfidy of human spiritual to the deepest fallen beings in the Abyss. It also details humanity’s original estate, the path of our fall into sin, the work of salvation past, present and future and the inevitable judgment that must follow the unrepentant and unregenerate humanity; all explained in great details with apocalyptic clarity. It mourns with us but concurrently offers comfort. It prophesies judgment and destruction, but also offers hope of a renewal. No other section of the Bible contains the same depth and breadth as the Revelation and this has relevant implications for its origin.

Throughout the Revelation, we encounter visions where John was specifically asked to write down or not to write and sometimes even to seal what had been revealed (Rev. 10:4). As already indicated John was not carrying a book around during these spiritual journeys and the events occurred over a short specific interval. Therefore the writing must represent either an encoding of the visions in his spiritual being for later transcribing or there is another in a position to write the visions of the spiritual John in a book on earth, simultaneous with the visions. The latter is more likely. In the book collections of the Grail Foundation, a copy of the revelation in German and other works exist, which suggest that the author is John the Baptist and that his experiences were on the Isle of Patmos in the Spiritual spheres.

The Revelation is also unique in that for a long time it represented the highest level of revealed knowledge to humanity. The second section of the Revelation begins with the highest documented revelation of events in the Divine Spheres available at the time, suggesting the highest possible origin for the author. It is only with the subsequent incarnation of the Spirit of Truth that we received knowledge about the structure of Creation surpassing the revelation in depth. As indicated earlier, the revelation should be valued more for its content and the recognition of the author should follow. Indeed, he himself admonishes that we must take the message to heart if we are to benefit from it.

It is often assumed that the Revelation was directed at churches in the first century AD, because it started with, and is perceived as being directed at the seven churches in Asia Minor – Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. There is little doubt that all these cities existed in Asia Minor and that perhaps they contained flourishing churches at that time. However, available evidence suggests that contrary to the portrayal in the revelation, the Christians in these communities lived peacefully with their pagan neighbors (Ladd, 1972). Thus, in view of the heavily symbolic nature of the Revelation, we must ask ourselves the relevant questions – are these the major church communities in the first century when Revelation was