Introduction
Revelation 1:4-8 is no ordinary salutation:[1] with it, John offers a stirring paean to God and his Messiah, capturing their common majesty as he extends their grace to his beleaguered addressees. Drawing on a rich storehouse of OT texts and images, he implicitly assures them that amidst their travails and temptations, the eternal One – whom they worship and obey – exercises complete mastery over all things. Such encouragement encompasses John’s depiction of Jesus, the faithful witness-cum-universal potentate, and his audience’s chief model and pioneer. I will explore such themes as I exegete 1:4-8 in the following essay. I will suggest that the pericope, though a distinct textual unit, provides an essential frame of reference for John’s work – telegraphing his fundamental emphasis on God’s triumphant sovereignty as he girds and consoles congregations facing a welter of internal and external pressures. I will further suggest that John’s theologically freighted presentation of Jesus dovetails with this emphasis, reminding his audience of the vast program of redemption – including all its benefits and obligations – that God has enacted eschatologically through Christ.
Contextualizing Revelation 1:4-8
1:4-8 is best viewed as part of Revelation’s prologue, which begins with an outline of the book’s fundamental purpose (vv.1-3).[2] Although textual links between vv.1-8 and vv.9-20 are also evident – v.9 clearly recalls the addressees of v.4 – vv.9-10 mark a clear geographic and temporal transition, as John becomes a protagonist within the narrative.[3] Moreover, 2:1-3:22 seem to form an organic whole, with the Seer’s visionary encounter flowing naturally into the subsequent letters. The opening elements of 1:4-8 constitute a common epistolary greeting, whose lineaments are similar to ancient Hellenistic correspondence.[4] It also helps frame Revelation’s body of apocalyptic-prophetic material, identifying John’s work as a letter (cf. vv.4-6 with 22:21).[5] While the pericope exhibits textual integration – v.8 echoes the language of v.4 – it remains susceptible to structural division, signaled by several transitional markers (e.g., “Amen” – v.6b). The passage begins with epistle and doxology (vv.4-6), the latter an outpouring of praise triggered by the former. Apocalyptic vision, filtered through OT texts enlarges the doxology’s exalted contents (v.7),[6] while prophetic oracle concludes the entire passage (v.8).
Exegeting Revelation 1:4-8
John introduces himself to the seven selected churches of Asia (v.4; cf. v.11). Given the numerological significance of the number seven, the congregations are probably emblematic of the universal church. Used frequently in Revelation’s grand apocalyptic visions (1:12; 4:5; 5:6), and reflecting a wider penchant within Judaism and early Christianity for investing numbers with cosmic significance, seven likely represents completeness or totality (e.g., the creation week in Genesis 1; seven-fold expressions of God’s wrath, denoting the fullness of his judicial anger [Gen 4:15; Ps 79:12]).[7] Pressed too far, however, and the notion reduces the churches to mere ciphers, ignoring hints of situational specificity (2:1-3:22).[8] One must therefore account for both historical particularity and the figurative force of seven. As such, John likely wrote to identifiable congregations, even as he construed their concrete experiences to represent all congregations in Asia, and perhaps even the empire (cf. “churches” – 2:7, 11, 17).[9]
Verses 4b-5 include the blessing and its three-fold source. The section brims with theological import, designed to buttress Christian disciples being assailed from within and without. Indeed, the entire passage is probably tailored by the rest of Revelation and the particular historical situation(s) John’s readers faced.[10] Those circumstances included internal turmoil, connected with spiritual and moral compromise (2:14, 20; 3:1, 15-18); and external pressure, spurred by wider pagan or Jewish hostility (2:9, 13; 13:1-18). Some commentators doubt the presence of imperial oppression, arguing that John’s addressees primarily grappled with ethical laxity.[11] But while evidence for systematic, empire-wide persecution may be sparse, textual and historical evidence indicate the reality of intense (if sporadic) eruptions of maltreatment, conditioned by the demands of the imperial cult.[12] χάρις…καὶ εἰρήνη, an otherwise-customary Christian peace wish, reflects that environment:[13] John’s audience requires divine grace to persevere amidst the many temptations and tribulations associated with pagan society; peace, meanwhile, trades on the Hebrew blessing of shalom, and is necessary for the experience of inner equanimity, despite the opprobrium of an unbelieving culture.[14] The two qualities are also causally connected – i.e., divine largesse makes such inward tranquillity possible.[15]
The triadic source for these gifts renders their conferral a certainty (vv.4b-5). Although calling this section Trinitarian may exceed its import, the association of the three figures suggests a heavenly triumvirate.[16] First, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (“…the One who is, who was, and who is coming”)[17] is a tri-fold temporal title for the eternal God. It captures his transcendent, unconstrained nature, connoting his mastery over all history. No mere abstract description, however, it ultimately derives from the tetragrammaton of Exodus 3:14.[18] OT and later Jewish tradition are replete with temporal designations for God, whether in tri-fold or bi-fold form. “I am [he]” (Isa 41:4; 43:10) are re-applications of Exodus 3:14 to a new salvation-historical era, while Tg. Ps.-J Deuteronomy 32:29 expands upon it with a title similar to 1:4.[19] Where John differs from them is in privileging God’s present existence. He likely sought to re-assure addressees that their Lord is resolutely with them now, especially as, say, pagan animus may have induced some doubt.[20] Similarly, a polemical edge is probably embedded in the designation, consistent with Revelation’s broader rationale. Underscoring God’s absolute lordship reminded John’s often-beleaguered audience that he, not the self-styled or confected “deities” of imperial religion, remains sovereign.
Some argue that the nominative use of ὁ ὢν… (normally declining in the genitive if following ἀπο) reflects belief in God’s indeclinable name, consistent with his absolute and unqualified being. However, the argument founders upon realization that John also uses the nominative form of ὁ Σατανᾶς, despite it being the object of ἐκράτησεν (20:2).[21] A more cogent explanation is that as a derivation of Exodus 3:14, ὁ ὢν… remains a fixed title. Consequently, John is subtly signalling “solidarity” with OT salvation history;[22] filtering current conditions through the prism of Israel’s emancipation from Egypt, he offers his addressees a view of God’s salvific work that recapitulates – indeed exceeds – that epochal act. It is here that ἐρχόμενος becomes truly significant, not merely as predictive claim, but as eschatological expectation.[23] The term likely implies God’s decisive consummation of history, where those presently enduring travails will enjoy permanent succour (7:14-17; 21:4).[24] Indeed, it reflects his unyielding commitment to his people, “coming” in redemptive power (11:17).[25]
Second, the benediction stems from the “seven spirits before” God’s throne (v.4c). “Throne” is a commonly-used image in Revelation for God’s reign (3:21; 4:2-6; 5:6; 22:3). “Before” (ἐνώπιον) suggests a position of confidence, akin to the status borne by a king’s royal emissaries.[26] The key phrase, “seven spirits”, remains enigmatic. Some argue they are seven chief angels. But although πνευμά(τών) is sometimes used in Christian and Jewish literature to denote angelic entities,[27] occurrences in the NT are both exceedingly rare and plainly signalled (Heb 1:14). Moreover, Revelation 8:2 refers explicitly to seven angels, in apparent distinction from the being(s) of v.4.[28] Arguments of this kind, sometimes appealing to the seven archangels named in non-canonical Jewish tradition (Tobit 12:15; 2 Esdras 4:1),[29] depend on the intrusion of beliefs quite foreign to early Christian faith and theology.[30] Others have equated “angels” with “spirits” by fusing the contents of 1:20 with 3:1, which repeats the relevant phrase. On this view, the “seven stars” – clearly identified with angels in the former verse – are also the “seven spirits”, with which they are paired in the latter verse. But this requires καὶ in 3:1 to be translated epexegetically, not copulatively – a rather unlikely grammatical position.[31]
The traditional interpretation is ultimately more persuasive – i.e., a symbolic reference to God’s Spirit, where seven denotes, not a plurality of entities, but the fullness of his gifts and activities. John has probably grounded the reference in his reading of Zechariah 4:2-10,[32] wherein the prophet experiences a vision of a golden lampstand and seven lamps (vv.2-3). Responding to Zechariah’s confessed ignorance, God (obliquely) identifies the seven lamps with his Spirit (v.6). Drawing in Revelation 4:5 – which identifies the seven spirits with seven lamps, subtly echoing Zechariah 4:6 – seems to reinforce this view.[33] Similarly, Revelation 5:6, where the spirits are imagined as seven eyes inhering in the Lamb, may reflect Zechariah 4:10: there, the seven eyes symbolise God’s Spirit ranging across the earth.[34] Of course, the relationships between these images may not be as unambiguous in Zechariah as they are in John’s work.[35] But given his wider literary dependence on the prophet,[36] as well as textual links that become retrospectively clearer with the compilation of key verses, equating spirits with God’s Spirit seems plausible. Combined with the Zechariah texts and later references in Revelation, the golden lamps could therefore be a metaphor for the fullness (“seven”) of God’s Spirit empowering his churches (1:20; 4:5), while the equation of eyes and spirits in 5:6 could denote divine omniscience, consistent with John’s earlier depiction of God’s sovereignty.[37]
Third, blessings come from Jesus Christ, described in tripartite fashion (v.5a-b). John strategically places Jesus after the Spirit, as this naturally flows into his doxology. ὁ μαρτὺς ὁ πιστός (“faithful witness”) suggests reliable testimony to God’s character and redemptive purposes (1:2, 9). It might also allude to the climax of that witness – i.e., Jesus’ crucifixion. Within Revelation, “faithful witness” is repeated in connection with martyrdom (2:13), and while μάρτυς is not yet a technical term for such an act, the idea seems to be present embryonically (11:7).[38] This functions as both challenge and encouragement for John’s audiences: challenge, because they were being enjoined to pursue the same path of suffering obedience; and encouragement, for Jesus, their exemplar and prototype, had successfully endured it.[39] Aune claims that because John is referring to the exalted Christ – not the historical Jesus – he does not have the crucifixion in view.[40] However, the frequent association of witness and death in Revelation suggests some parallel between the experiences of John’s addressees and Jesus’ own fate. There seems to be no reason why Christ’s earthly history should be amputated from the Seer’s present work, even if dependable transmission of divine truth extends into his exalted, post-resurrection state (3:14).
Jesus is also the ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν (“firstborn from/of the dead”). With his resurrection, he has become the initial member of new creation. Moreover, if the OT idea of primogeniture – where the king’s firstborn possessed the right of succession – is present, then the title also alludes to Jesus’ privileged position as the exalted inaugurator of that new age.[41] Like his status as faithful witness, πρωτότοκος implies a pioneering role, providing a victorious model for John’s audience. This blends smoothly with the Seer’s third title, “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (…βασιλέων τῆς γῆς). Partly as a result of his resurrection, Jesus has been installed as supreme potentate above all earthly rulers. “Kings of the earth” is typically used in Revelation to denote “antagonists to God’s kingdom” (6:15; 17:2; 18:3; 19:9).[42] Even now, he reigns over them – including Rome’s succession of emperors – even if that presages some kind of subsequent conversion (21:24).[43]
Two points, common to all three of John’s descriptors, stand out. First, while᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ declines in the genitive (consistent with its position after ἀπὸ), the Seer’s identifying phrases are in the nominative, suggesting that they, like ὁ ὢν…, are proper titles. Second, those titles likely echo Psalm 89, reflecting John’s conviction that Jesus fulfils messianic yearnings, expressed by the psalmist, in a kind of eschatological escalation.[44] “Faithful witness” picks up references to an anointed Davidic king, whose royal line will be eternally established (v.37). Jesus’ status as “firstborn”, exalted over the “kings of the earth”, recalls v.27 of the same psalm, which sees the royal Davidide appointed as God’s favoured “son”. It is also possible that John’s tri-fold identification corresponds to the three key stages of Jesus’ messianic career: death, resurrection, and exaltation. Emphasised too heavily, however, and this attractive notion risks artificially segmenting John’s portrayal of Christ’s work – a position incongruent with his inaugurated eschatology, where present and future often overlap.[45]
John moves from Jesus’ identity to his work by way of doxology (vv.5c-6). ἀγαπῶντι, a present participle, denotes Christ’s continuous love for believers.[46] Its chief expression was in the cross – that supreme act of liberation, as Jesus “freed” Christians from bondage to sin. λύσαντι, an aorist verb suggesting a completed act, is an image taken from the slave market. This raises the possibility that John’s subsequent reference to “blood” (ἐν…αἵματι, an instrumental dative: “by means of”)[47] originates with the Passover lamb – a claim that is only strengthened by the presence of other allusions to the Exodus narrative in 1:4-8.[48] Simultaneously, blood is probably an abbreviated reference to Jesus’ priestly work, itself grounded theologically in the cultic observances of Yom Kippur (e.g., Lev 16). While John does not explain the causal mechanism underlying Jesus’ blood and the release of Christians, his composite description is not dissimilar to Hebrews – i.e., Christ as both eschatological priest and perfect sacrifice (Heb 9:11-15).[49]
John crisply summarises the goal of this work for believers (v.6): appointment as a “kingdom and priests” before God, clearly alluding to Exodus 19:6 (cf. the parallel in 5:10). That verse is nestled within a mission statement Yahweh gives to Moses, outlining the purposes for which he redeemed Israel. For John, the formation of the church is the eschatological reality to which Exodus 19:6 pointed.[50] The emancipation of believers was not merely for their own sakes, but was a prelude to their present vocation as royal priests under God’s mandate. And, unlike the Israel-centric text from which he draws inspiration, John probably sees this priestly mission as universal. Consequently, the role of believers is not just Godward – set apart though they were – but radiates outward, towards the nations (21:26).[51] Remarkably given the challenges confronting some of his addressees, John subtly reminds them of their call to mimic their exemplar, representing God before all peoples.[52] How this will be achieved is not elucidated, although clues may be drawn from elsewhere in Revelation (e.g., 2:13).
One lingering question concerns the nature of βασιλείαν – and in particular, the timing of the believers’ reign envisaged here. Although certain verses in Revelation imply a future expectation (5:10b), βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς probably refers to two, distinct offices, kings and priests, both of which are presently true for Christians (at least proleptically).[53] Of course, the phrase could be read as saying that Christians function as priests within God’s royal house without participating in that reign now. This reflects the original OT text’s ambiguity, where “royal priesthood” or “priestly kingdom” seem equally plausible.[54] However, translating βασιλεία as “kingship” is not unreasonable, while later Jewish renderings of Exodus 19:6 seem to posit distinct functions. Moreover, ἐποίησεν and its cognates can suggest installation to a particular office; the fact that it is past tense could suggest a development that has already occurred in some sense. And since the verb governs both βασιλείαν and ἱερεῖς in v.6, it may be best to see them as two, present roles (rather than one present priestly function within God’s royal domain).[55] In any case, John’s doxology concludes appropriately, according eternal glory and power to God’s eschatological Messiah. Veneration of this kind was normally reserved for God alone, which suggests that John may have been signalling his belief in Christ’s divine status. Carrying further polemical overtones, the verse elevates Jesus to the uttermost, far above any earthly rivals or challengers.
John enlarges on his Christocentric reflections through an apocalyptic-prophetic declaration composed of two OT citations, linked thematically via God’s eschatological defeat of evil (v.7; ἰδου = “indeed”, denoting certification).[56] The first line alludes to Daniel 7:13 and the prophet’s vision of an exalted individual enthroned before a great throng of people (“clouds” imply heavenly origins; cf. 1:13). The remainder of v.7 cites Zechariah 12:10, a text that also imagines history’s conclusion: God punishes Israel’s antagonists while redeeming his people after their contrition for having rejected him and his messenger (“the one they have pierced”).[57] For John, Jesus decisively fulfills these prophetic expectations as the one through whom God is re-ordering his world; with verbal links to v.4 (“coming”), v.7 implies that Christ is the means by which God will arrive eschatologically, having inaugurated that process. True, a final reckoning, to which this line points, still awaits (22:12). But for the Seer, it concludes an ongoing series of such “comings”, whether in blessing or in judgment (e.g., 2:5).[58] Fusing the two OT texts also reveals the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ work, appearing as the conqueror who triumphs through death (5:5-6).[59] This would be of immense comfort to those of John’s audience who struggled to resolve the apparent dissonance between membership in God’s kingdom and ongoing tribulation.
John has evidently altered the Zechariah text with the additions of “every eye…” and “…on earth” (γῆς, combined with “all peoples”, suggests the entire sphere of God’s earthly creation).[60] Doing so universalizes the scope of God’s redemptive activity through his anointed one, fitting the larger context of Daniel 7 (v.14), and dovetailing with the cosmic canvas on which the Seer paints.[61] Whether he also intends v.7b to connote grief over impending judgment or mournful repentance is debatable. While some ambiguity may be resident in the verse, certain factors marginally favour the latter interpretation:[62] reading it as a prediction of condemnation conflicts with the natural meaning of Zechariah 12:10; the people appear to be mourning, not for themselves, but for Jesus (“because of him”), fitting with the idea of repentance;[63] and this construal better anticipates the mass conversion of the nations (21:24-22:3).[64]
John concludes with a divine self-declaration, thrice affirming God’s supremacy (v.8). “Alpha and Omega”, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, is a merism, stating polar opposites as a way of encompassing every intervening element. In the present context, it suggests the entire course of history, especially as John unfurls it in the rest of Revelation. Complementing that designation is the repeated title, “[the One] who is…”, first used in v.4; by repeating this designation, John deploys an inclusio,drawing the constituents of the passage together within the logic of the Lord’s eternal sovereignty and eschatological coming. Similarly, παντοκρατωρ (“Almighty”) reflects God’s universal mastery: he alone exercises untrammelled control over creation, which has its being in him (4:11).[65] Here, John may be drawing on the theological framework of Isaiah 41-48, in which Yahweh frequently contrasts his own unalloyed power with the panoply of lifeless idols confronting Judah-Israel (43:13; 44:24).
Conclusion: Revelation 1:4-8 and John’s Apocalypse
Although Revelation 1:4-8 permits self-contained examination, its true significance cannot be properly discerned without reference to the rest of John’s work. The Seer’s construction and placement of 1:4-8 is quite strategic: it functions as both theological ante-room and launching-pad for his audience as they embark on the sometimes-harrowing visions of his work. That the passage is preparatory for the rest of Revelation is evident from the many verbal links binding it to what follows: God’s temporal title (vv.4a, 8; 4:8; 16:5), “throne” (v.4b; 4:5-6; 5:6), “faithful witness” (v.5a; 2:13), “kingdom and priests” (v.6; 5:10), Danielic allusions (v.7a; 1:13-6; 5:9ff), and “Alpha and Omega” (v.8; 21:6; 22:13) are all telegraphed here, awaiting further treatment.
Underlying this mosaic of images and descriptors is a coherent theological vision that John has encapsulated in 1:4-8, previewing the primary themes of his apocalypse for his audience.[66] As commentators have long noted, John’s Apocalypse exposes dimensions of reality that remained obscure amidst his audience’s tribulations; the text presently under discussion anticipates many of its key elements. In particular, his emphasis upon God’s transcendent power anchors the rest of the book: it anticipates history’s consummation under the aegis of the world’s true Lord (21:1-4; 22:1-5), reminds Christians that evil will be expunged, and assures them of final vindication. This is buttressed by John’s opening portrayal of God’s victory as an inaugurated reality (11:17) – a heavenly fact that cannot be revoked (Rev 4-5), despite the persistence of unjust or oppressive structures (e.g., 13:1-18). In so doing, the passage also underscores the polemical contrast between God, whose unmatched sovereignty marks him out as true Deity, and the would-be “gods” that have tried to displace him. Finally, 1:4-8 prepares addressees for the various tensions – both internal and external – that the rest of the Apocalypse unfurls. John’s presentation of the Messiah establishes believers’ obligation to commit themselves as elected members of a new, redemptive era. He exhorts his audience to eschew moral compromise (2:14-16; 3:14-20) and follow their pioneer in the paradoxical way of suffering triumph (3:21) – resisting the forces arrayed against them, while faithfully witnessing to God’s truth.
[1] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2002), 60-61.
[2] Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2012), 26.Mounce’s advice is salutary: “[The]…lack of consensus about the structure of Revelation should caution the reader about accepting any one approach as definitive”. See Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Revised Edition (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 32.
[3] Tavo argues for what he calls the “consensus” view – i.e., that vv.1-3 stands alone as the prologue of the book, with vv.4-8 connected to what follows. See Felise Tavo, “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Re-examining a Perennial Problem”, NT 47 (2005): 49 (esp. n.9). However, vv.9-10 do seem to mark a fundamental shift in the tenor and narrative focus of the book, while Tavo’s dismissal of alternative views conflates plausibility and popularity.
[4] David Aune, Revelation (WBC 52A; Waco: Word, 1997), 26.
[5] Aune, Revelation, lxxii.See Ernst R. Wendland, “The Hermeneutical Significance of Literary Structure in Revelation”, Neotestamentica 48 (2014): 448, who notes the dual manner in which Revelation begins and ends – i.e., as both prophecy and epistle. Such mirroring suggests 1:1-3 and 1:4-8 be joined together. Cf. Smalley, Revelation, 26.
[6] See Ian Paul, Revelation (TNTC; Downers Grove: IVP, 2018), 61, for details on the mix of genres in 1:4-8.
[7] See G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NICGT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 58-59, for biblical and pagan examples. Aune (Revelation, 29) argues the number seven doesn’t represent fullness, but denotes the divine origin and authority of John’s message. This is possible, but evidence adduced from various historical sources (incl. Babylonian traditions) suggests that seven did indeed connote fullness or completeness. See Thomas Edward McComiskey, “The Seventy ‘Weeks’ of Daniel against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Literature”, WJT 47 (1985): 38 (incl. n.55), for details.
[8] Steve Moysie (The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation [JSNTSS 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995], 25-26), argues that the letters evince knowledge of local conditions.
[9] Beale, Revelation, 58; Osborne, Revelation, 60-61; Smalley, The Revelation, 32.
[10] Beale, Revelation, 187.
[11] E.g., Moysie, The Old Testament, 49-50.
[12] See the impressive array of evidence on this point (as well as able rebuttals of sceptical positions) in Thomas B. Slater, “On the Social Setting of the Revelation to John”, NTS 44 (1998): 232-254.
[13] Aune, Revelation, 29.
[14] Mounce, Revelation, 45. In reality, harassment/persecution and compromise were probably not always separate phenomena – i.e., the former might well have induced the latter at times.
[15] Mounce, Revelation, 45; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: UBS, 1994), 23.
[16] Of course, this depends on the “seven spirits” being an image of God’s Spirit – something for which I argue below.
[17] ὁ ἐρχόμενος, a present participle, is sometimes translated as “the one who is to come” (so NIV). However, “coming” is better suited to Revelation’s depiction of the dynamic nature of God’s relationship with his world, readily conveying the certainty and urgency associated with his (eschatological) arrival. See Osborne, Revelation, 61.
[18] The consensus on this point is near-absolute: Aune, Revelation, 30; Beale, Revelation, 187; Richard Bauckham, New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: CUP, 1993), 28-29; Osborne, Revelation, 61; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB38; New York: Doubleday, 1975), 376-77. Ford has argued the title could echo Psalm 118:26 (“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”). However, this seems obscure, while the psalmic reference (unlike Rev 1:4) merely refers to God’s representative. See Ford, “‘He that Cometh’ and the Divine Name (Apocalypse 1:4-8)”, JSJPHRP 1 (1970): 145.
[19] Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation”, in Beale and D.A. Carson (eds.), CNTOT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1089. Cf. Greco-Roman examples in Bauckham, New Testament Theology, 28-29; Ford, Revelation, 377.
[20] Osborne, Revelation, 61.
[21] Beale, Revelation, 188-189.
[22] Beale, Revelation, 189; Paul, Revelation, 62.
[23] Bauckham, New Testament Theology, 29.
[24] Michael Gilbertson, God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann (SNTSMS 124; Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 117-118.
[25] Bauckham, New Testament Theology, 30.
[26] Beale, Revelation, 189.
[27] See Aune, Revelation, 34-35 for a list of such references, esp. from the Qumran literature; Ford, Revelation, 377. Aune is a proponent of the idea that the seven spirits are seven angels.
[28] Cf. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in Revelation (London: Bloomsbury, 2000), 162.
[29] Mounce, Revelation, 47. Other NT writers use non-canonical Jewish tradition (e.g., Jude 14). But these seem to be mere object lessons, whereas Revelation 1:4-5 makes core claims about heavenly realities. Cf. Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation (WUNT 199; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 86.
[30] Mounce, Revelation, 47.
[31] Mounce (Revelation, 47-48) argues that the spirits are members of God’s heavenly entourage. However, this fails for a complete lack of supporting evidence. Cf. Ford, Revelation, 377; Peter R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (SNTSMS 95; Cambridge: CUP, 1997), 21 (incl. n.113), who argues against the equation of angels and spirits.
[32] Ford, Revelation, 377. Garrick V. Allen, “Textual Pluriformity and Allusion in the Book of Revelation: The Text of Zechariah 4 in the Apocalypse”, ZNWKAK 106 (2015): 137.
[33] Bauckham, The Climax, 163.
[34] Bauckham, The Climax, 163.
[35] So Jauhiainen, The Use of, 88-89, who nevertheless sees elements of Zechariah 4 lying in the background.
[36] Jauhiainen, The Use of, 2-3.
[37] Some argue John was also inspired by the LXX version of Isaiah 11:2, which could be read to list seven gifts of the Spirit (Beale, Revelation, 190). While certainly attractive, the view arguably requires the assumption that John has interpreted Isaiah in highly unique, unprecedented fashion. See Jauhiainen, The Use of, 87. Jurgen Roloff (Revelation: A Continental Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 24) claims the interpretation favoured here is driven primarily by dogmatic concerns, but offers no evidence for this assertion (and fails to grapple with the purported links to Zechariah 4).
[38] Beale, Revelation, 190. Cf. Aune, Revelation, 37: “The term [μάρτυς] occurs…always in connection with those who die for the faith”; Osborne, Revelation, 62, n.20.
[39] Richard B. Hays, “Faithful Witness, Alpha and Omega: The Identity of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John”, in Hays and Stefan Alkier (eds.), Revelation and the Politics of Apocalyptic Interpretation (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012), 78-79.
[40] Aune, Revelation, 37.
[41] Beale, Revelation, 190.
[42] Beale, Revelation, 190.
[43] Smalley, The Revelation, 35.
[44] Beale, Revelation, 191.
[45] Smalley, The Revelation, 35.
[46] Paul B. Decock, “The Work of God, of Christ, and of the Faithful in the Apocalypse of John”, Neotestamentica 41 (2007): 51.
[47] Beale, Revelation, 192.
[48] Smalley, The Revelation, 35.
[49] Decock, “The Symbol of Blood in the Apocalypse of John”, Neotestamentica 38 (2004): 166, who notes that John has probably merged the image of sacrifice with the idea of Christ as redeemer.
[50] Alexander E. Stewart, “The Future of Israel, Early Christian Hermeneutics, and the Apocalypse of John”, JETS 61 (2018): 566.
[51] G.B. Caird, The Revelation of St John the Divine, Second Edition (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1984), 17.
[52] David Peterson, “Worship in the Revelation to John”, RTR 47 (1988): 72; Stewart, “The Future of Israel”, 566.
[53] Beale, Revelation, 194.
[54] Beale and McDonough, “Revelation”, 1090; Aune, Revelation, 47.
[55] Beale, Revelation, 194-195. Caird (The Revelation, 17) justly notes that whether or not 5:10b is interpreted as a present or future reality, the eventual act of reigning is “immediately consequent on the act of ransom and appointment as kings and priests” (italics mine). Beale’s argument probably isn’t helped with his citation of 20:6b, since this appears to envisage a future state.
[56] Aune, Revelation, 53; Cf. the poetic qualities of v.7 in David R. Seal, “Hearing the Lector’s Voice: The Reception and Delivery of the Oracles in Revelation 1:7-8”, ABR (2020): 94, underscoring its central importance within the passage.
[57] Maarten J.J. Menken, “John’s Use of Scripture in Revelation 1:7”, In Die Skirflig 40 (2007): 288.
[58] Cf. Bauckham, New Testament Theology, 29. ἒρχεται can be seen as a futuristic present, consistent with Revelation’s fluid temporal framework.
[59] Menken, “John’s Use of”, 291.
[60] Osborne, Revelation, 69-70.
[61] Beale, Revelation, 197.
[62] Contra (e.g.) Mounce, Revelation, 50-51.
[63] Beale and McDonough, “Revelation”, 1091.
[64] Beale, Revelation, 197-98. Osborne (Revelation, 69-70) suggests some ambiguity, based on Revelation 18:9.
[65] Ford (Revelation, 379) convincingly argues παντοκρατωρ is a deliberate contrast to the Roman emperor’s use of αὐτοκρατωρ.
[66] Smalley, The Revelation, 39; Gilbertson, God and History, 92.
A Bagful of insights 