The Revelation Of St  John The Divine

A Verse by Verse Commentary on Revelation of John

Apocalypse - Revelation - Apokalupsis

Introductory Commentary on Revelation

The Revelation of St John The Divine is the Final Exam of the Bible. Obviously there's a test if foretold many shall come to deceive and seduce you; Perhaps to test our "holiness with sobriety": grace without another drink of law. So navigating Revelation of John is like navigating the best of spam, to see if you can be deceived or seduced by Johnny Law, as foretold many shall be. Hence the need for verse by verse commentary on Revelation by the Spirit, that's also fully open to scrutiny. We welcome scrutiny of our verse by verse commentary on Revelation.  Email Us (putting Revelation as the Subject).

Sadly I find many religious and political "ministers" don't even make it past the Title of Revelation or first verse of Apokalupsis Iohnnou without failing the exam; Pass mark to shoot at being 100% (perfection). As Paul The Apostle: "his witness unto all men" notes, without charity never faileth an exam they're nothing more than sounding brass: 1Cor 13. And as Translators of the Bible note: "it's preposterous order to teach first and learn after". Selah ministers.

Paul tested Corinthians, who didn't pass his CJ vs JC test, so he warns them and the Ephesians to be not children in understanding, especially when "spiritual" of natural/spiritual, "man" of child/man. God said: let us make man. Paul says God holds an adult accountable to be grace us, in saying to churches of Galatia "that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident"(Gal 3), and "Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law: ye are fallen from grace"(Gal 5)... fallen from higher God in heaven: "higher than the heavens", to lower God on high in the heavens; Which is to allegory say ye(do err) are fallen from (Grace)God above cannot lie nor die, to (Law)God on high can lie(law) and die(law). It is both a "fall" and "fearful" to fall for and into (plural law law)"hands" of God on high, which is also said to be high-minded, is among un-holy things in 2Tim 3.

Revelation is about Prophecy vs Prophesy (dis-comfort vs comfort). Revelation defines itself as "prophecy" seven times; And as "this prophecy" (of this/that sort of twain things) the first and last time. Prophesying is neither this nor that sort of prophecy, and especially not this sort of this/that. So the test is: do you know the difference between this vs that prophecy, or the difference between prophecy vs prophesy? The end we are told to endure unto, and to be saved(only), is perhaps also a test of endurance in Revelation, to wade through Revelation of John prophecy; Which is this sort first and last, of seven spirits, unto the end thereof. But "peace with God" is assured us at the end thereof, since it's not only Pauline clarified as being through Jesus Christ, but such eternal salvation through JC is via the grace of "our" Lord Jesus Christ in the end; Whereas peace is from "the" Lord JC at the beginning of Pauline epistles. So it is Pauline said: we ought to "give more earnest heed" to what's been said.

Revelation (Apocalypse) has "seven spirits":  Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6.
Thereby it's about worse-end state of man: Matthew 12:45; Luke 11:26. Revelation (Apokalupsis) being about and from "seven spirits" clearly suggests the Revelation of John is about Uncovering the worse-end state of John, his latter end being a worse case scenario to a-void, not hope it will happen. For JC healed a man of a l-o-n-g dis-ease (with seven words rather than troubled water), then later found him in the temple praising law for his healing; And said man is told: "sin(law) no more, lest a worse thing come upon you": John 5:1-14. Unity of the Spirit(God) is about "one Spirit(God)": the Spirit of grace, the truth thereof. "Seven spirits" clearly suggests "seven other spirits more wicked".

Canonization of Revelation last makes all other Bible books prerequisite.
No doubt the final exam of the Bible is a test, even a test of endurance; And to pass the test requires having read and understood all other books of the Bible canonized prior to it as prerequisites.

Revelation got validated in 397 & 419AD, but not without much dispute. The Revelation of St John The Divine, The Apokalupsis, The Apocalypse, The uncovering of a saint named John whom many thought to be "the divine", which is to say many thought Johnny Law to be the Divine; Such allegoric uncovering of John, by Paul the sign-ified author of Revelation, was not accepted nor canonized into the Bible without much contention first. Several heated disputes in several canonical councils (noted below) took place more than a millennium prior to translation, canonization, and publication of an Authorized King James Version in English called the Holy Bible (the seventh), as a complete and perfect work. Many seem unaware the New Testament was written before the KJV english translation of 1611, and the NT book most disputed of all was Revelation:
1. Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.) - accepted all books of the New Testament except Revelation.
2. Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) - chaired by Augustine. It accepted all 27 New Testament books.
3. Council of Hippo (419 A.D.) - this council reaffirmed the Council of Carthage... therefore when the 
    authorized HOLY BIBLE in english printed (commonly called Authorized KJV), it included Revelation.

Even then, only after the input and scrutiny of all learned men in the kingdom  (England, Scotland, Wales, France, Ireland) was Revelation once again canonized by Translators of the Bible as the last of 66 books in a Holy Bible containing Old & New Testaments. Thereby Revelation has the last word: "Amen"; And such last Amen of first and last biblical Amens goes to the token(ticket to heaven) in every Pauline epistle written by Paul's own hand as the conclusion of the Holy Bible containing Old and New Testaments, as the last trump it which makes both it and you all One thing: Holy; Not Holy Holy, nor the sort of Holy Law "was", but rather the sort of Holy Grace "is".

This book of prophecy: Of 27 New Testament books, Revelation is the only book entirely devoted to "prophecy", as is mentioned seven times therein.


Brief Summation of Revelation: Canonized as the last of 66 biblical books it is thereby as an open book final exam of the allegoric Holy Bible; With the 65 preceding books being as prerequisite for the allegory clues required to solve the cleverly written symbolic satire containing two Revelations, one a Pauline satirical revelation of John which rivals Shakespearean satire, the other notably being the God given revelation of the twain: The Revelation of Jesus Christ; Which is not found in Revelation but in the other epistles of Paul. Such an open book final examination of law vs grace in the form of a Sabbath shewdown of the day of the Lord vs the day of God takes the reader on a seek and find hunt from Genesis to Jude. Such is as a grace walk until Hebrews 12, from mountain to mountain through a Ghost-ly valley of the shadow of death to the us-ward end, a perfect ending where his angel plays the last trump it. However at Hebrews 12 it becomes an end "run" along "with patience" unto

Date of Revelation

Commentary on Revelation
The Date of Revelation

The Date of Revelation is the first of early/late dates

  (First "finished" in John 17 & John 19 is winner of Human Race)

As for the date of Revelation, there's still ongoing debates over an early date (aprox 65-68AD) and a late date (aprox 90-96AD). Yet many of these debaters, in fact most of them, still perceive John as author of the book of Revelation. I find ample and satisfactory evidence the author of Revelation is Paul. Therefore I would favor the early date of such debate, since the generally accepted time of death for Paul is 67AD (according to UNRV History), which is aproximately 30 years prior to the late date.

A second reason I favor the early date of Revelation is Peter makes reference to Revelation twice in his second general epistle generally thought to be written aprox 66AD. Therein Peter makes reference to all Paul's epistles (2Pet 3:15,16), which would include Revelation if it's sign-ified by Paul's own hand. Peter also makes allegoric reference to Revelation 20's "thousand years" (2Pet 3:8); Noting therein "and 1000 yrs as 1 day", which denotes the 1000 yrs of Rev 20 are as the 1 day (Easter) Peter (called Satan) was chained in prison (Acts 12). And Peter's reign as the first pope (Cephas being his underground popish name) is generally recorded as being from 32AD to 67AD; Which puts the death of both Peter (a witness to early date) and Paul (author of Revelation) around 67AD.

A third reason I very strongly favor the early date is it also reasons, from much study (I studied the 15 pages of Revelation full time for seven years); Reasons that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

In conclusion, I find ample and satisfactory evidence for the date of Revelation to be the early date of 65-68 AD for the Pauline writing of "The Revelation of St John The Divine" which also mentions therein the first verse a second revelation: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", which is found in Pauline epistles. And only Paul: "his witness unto all men" qualifies to be the revelator of both, not to mention only Paul The Apostle qualifies to be "his angel" therein, and only Paul uses the "token in every epistle" (the ticket to heaven) which concludes Revelation and all other Pauline epistles including HEBREWS:

Title of Revelation

 Title of Revelation in the Greek is Apokalupsis Ioahnnou
The Title of Revelation in a Holy Bible (the seventh Bible) is
THE REVELATION
OF
ST. JOHN THE DIVINE

I find it miss-leading to use anything other than the official canonized title of Revelation: The Revelation of St John The Divine; Especially since "revelation" means to 'uncover and reveal'. For using common names such as Revelation, Apocalypse, Apokalupsis instead of the full Greek title: Apokalupsis Ioahnnou (Revelation of John) does not give true meaning to what "this book of prophecy" is actually about: the 'uncovering' of sainted John; Who was not only thought by many (deceived by many) to be a divine, but "The Divine". And if St John be as a dog turned to his vomit (law), then he is not The Divine (Grace); Which is to allegory say Johnny Law is not The Divine, nor is Law even a God on high anymore, thanks to Christ: "the end of the law" (Rom 10:4), our peace who hath abolished the law: the enmity (Eph 2:14,15). No, John is not the divine, not when John is named as the subverter of churches, surnamed Mark, called a son of thunder (loud noise), and writes a "verily verily" gospel account which portrays him more beloved than others, "according to John" noted in the title.

The Title of Revelation: The Revelation of St John The Divine, is not about The Revelation by John, but rather The Revelation of John; Which is to say The Uncovering of John, and as if uncovering what's been covered up, hidden, until it's made known by uncovering such and revealing what such is. Perhaps simply calling it Revelation or Apocalypse is the reason so many people still erroneously perceive John as author of Revelation, and thereby miss the context of what an uncovering(revelation) of John is all about; And that there's two revelations noted in the title of Revelation and first verse of Revelation: "The Revelation of St John The Divine" and "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", two uncoverings intended for comparing uncovered John(Law) and JC(Grace), and in accordance with "comparing spiritual things(laws) with spiritual(grace)". But The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not contained in Revelation of John, rather in all other epistles of Paul, also the author of Revelation. And such is to also allegorically say there is no grace in law: all vanity and vexation of spirit; Which is to say grace that is not pure is no more grace, but grace + law(added); Which is add destroyed afterward to saved, or to add death afterward to life.

And when we give more earnest heed to things we've heard concerning "revelation", such as "there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid that shall not be known" (Lk 12:2); it becomes plainly evident in the greater light rules the day we may expect a Full Monty of a Saint named John; Perhaps for all to see whether, or not, sainted John (allegorically: johnny law) has got what it takes to be "the divine" one of two uncovered for compare-i-son.

I find many use made up titles such as 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ', and 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John'. Many also mistakenly ass u me the priestly figure in Chp 1 is Christ. What would Jesus Christ say about such? He'd say: "ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power(gospel) of God". Indeed The Revelation of Jesus Christ is (also) mentioned in the first verse, and as the God given one of two Revelations (two uncoverings); But as we'll learn from our study of "this book", the Revelation of Jesus Christ is found from Genesis to Revelation (rather than in Revelation), yet even more revealed in the Pauline epistles since Paul The Apostle is "his witness unto all men".

I hope many will keep an open mind, not get off ended about things I speak of nor the way I share; For although I have an abundance of Bible revelations, even Revelations of Revelation on the internet, they're not intended to accuse (Jn 5:45), nor condemn (Jn 3:17) anyone. Rather such allegory things are freely shared for the sole purpose of awareness and understanding in keeping with Solomon's exhortation: "with all thy getting, get understanding"; Which when it's embraced, the result is thy head is crowned with "grace glory" (Prov 4).

Author of Revelation

Commentary on Revelation: The Author of Revelation
Evidence makes it evident Paul is the author of Revelation.

I find biblical evidence Paul (not John) is the author of Revelation, of such an allegorical satire on John turning back to law. For as the title clearly states, it's the revelation (uncovering and revealing) "of John"; And as the first verse states it's "sent unto John" by his angel. Yet many are the Bible scholars who mistakenly perceive John as author of Revelation. For example the Scofield Bible uses the proper title: The Revelation of St John The Divine; But then goes on to state John is author of Revelation in the preface commentary. It does not compute. If John were the author of Revelation of John, he'd be uncovering himself and sending it to himself. It does compute when Paul is author of Revelation.

I'm not the only one who noticed The Revelation of St John The Divine is written as an epistle, and the end thereof a token used by Paul in every epistle. John Gill's 1999 expostion on the Bible: Revelation: Chapter 22: verse 21 says he noticed. But what he didn't notice is such Pauline token (ticket to heaven) used by none other than Paul is also written by Paul's own hand, to sign-ify it's his epistle, as told us thrice by Paul in 1Cor 16, Col 4, 2Thess 3.

I like to "let" things be "evident" from the "evidence". Biblical evidence makes it evident to me the word "revelation" is used only 9 times prior to the book of Revelation, and it's used 8 times by Paul, once by Peter, never by John. For John (Johnny Law) is not the revelation (uncovering) sort, rather the cover up sort which gets uncovered and is thereby found to be a dis-grace, even an anti-christ (anti-the end of the law). Yet that is not to say we should throw out the writings of John for they are aptly canonized in the allegoric mystery. Rather we should look closer at and put in perspective alongside (for comparison) other NT writers, especially Paul who notably writes more NT writings than all 6 other NT writers combined. In the manner the Holy Bible is the 7th, as a good one made better than yet also from 6 others, so also Paul is as the 7th writer of the NT, as if a good one made better than yet from 6 others.

Yes, I'll admit "John" is named  in the book of Revelation, 6 times when counting the title of Revelation; But such is clever Pauline allegoric satire, as a gotcha on John for having been a thorn in Paul's flesh sent from Satan (Peter is called Satan) to buffet him. John indeed buffeted him, by subverting churches Paul established, and stirring up the Hebrews against Paul. Paul satirically names John as one of three top "dogs" (Gal 2:9) and says "beware of dogs" as "evil workers" of the concision (Phil 3:2). Converted Peter reveals dogs return to their vomit: law (2Pet 2:22), as fools to their folly (Prov 26:11). Modern satire about such, in the form of a song says: 'who let the dogs out'.

Yes, I'll admit "John" wrote a letter ("the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life": 2Cor 3) to seven angels (stars, ministers) of seven churches of Asia; For such is how all seven churches of Asia got subverted, via "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump", beginning with subverting Timothy, who got sorely depressed over it, but is later "set at liberty" (Heb 13). And we know John wrote unto Gauis (one of the seven angels named who accompanied Paul into Asia to establish churches), as it's recorded for us in 3John. However what many don't notice is John first flatters Gaius, then calls him childish, and later speaks well of Demetrius who spoke against Paul in the assembly of law (Acts 19). The churches of Galatia also got "bewitched"; And three subverters of these churches are also flat out named by Paul: James, Cephas(Peter), and John. Paul notes they "seemed" to be pillars, and also calls them the "somewhat(?), I know not what", as if to say they were not in favor of all being saved, nor by grace.

Yes, "John" was the (popish/jewish) bishop of said churches from Ephesus, but so was Timothy whom Paul sent to Ephesus to guard against subversion by such fishers of men who baited with flattery and hooked them with lies, subverting with hypocrisy and partiality. John is not a revelator (one who uncovers things to reveal what's evident from the evidence); Paul is. Paul both knows the scriptures and also clarifies much from the scriptures, to make known unto all men what's "evident" from the evidence: "that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident" (Gal 3:11), and those adults who try to be justified by the law are fallen from grace (Gal 5:4).

It's Paul who reveals (uncovers) both John (as bewitcher) and JC (as saviour) for comparison of law and grace. For only Paul is qualified to do both such, as firstly being chief sinner and later being the apostle of grace and peace. Paul skillfully makes it an allegorical shewdown: Johnny Law vs His Grace, and a revelatory Sabbath shewdown. Albeit John shares many truths; But Paul reveals "a little leaven leveaneth the whole lump", and there's a little leaven in the "verily verily" gospel according to John, surnamed Mark, and also called one of the "sons of thunder" who moved the other ten to "indignation". Not to mention all twelve of the hung jury were upbraided for their "unbelief".

When looking at the writings of John, I find there are a number of questionable things. For example The Gospel According To SAINT JOHN doesn't jive with other gospel writers, especially when it comes to John using a double "verily, verily" while all other gospel writers use a singular "verily". This triggers caution with me, and reminds me of mention of double minded, and the doublemindead "Amen, amen" of the "woman" (allegory for church) at being both blessed + cursed (allegory for graced + lawed) by her priest in Numbers (also found in Nehemiah). John and James wanted to be left and right in plural divided heavens on high, which is about as law law as it gets. John was also the jealous type, even jealous of the manner in which Peter would die.

John's gospel account seems to imply John, although not named, is more beloved (more favored), but such is only 'according to John'; For both Paul and converted Peter affirm that God hath "no respect of persons" (no favorites). Jesus Christ is "the same"(Heb 13), which even Herodians perceived (Mt 22:16). James 3 affirms pure wisdom from above (Grace unto you ... from God our Father) is "without partiality". So the flattering suggestion, of many ministers of many churches, imp lying you too can have partiality with impartial God & Son,  is obviously both a spirit of error and an oxymoron (only for morons). For even awful lawful Law God on high is not partial, law being a ministration of death to all by the curse of the law: if any try and fail to keep all the law all the time, to a thousand generations of Adam, then all are accursed thereby.

John is perhaps not as divine as many suppose when looking at all the evidence; Especially the slangs for 'john': victim, victimizer, toilet, pimp, and 'johnny law'. Jack is also the nickname for John, and to 'jack around' is to waste time; Not to mention Jack van Impe (says what deceivers would in Lk 21:8) is really John van Impe: John of the 'Impe' family. 'Mark' is also the biblical surname of John (Acts 12:12)., which should ring a bell. The James and John twins are also surnamed Boanerges: meaning sons of thunder (Mk 3:17), which should also ring a bell when reading Revelation.

When looking at the twelve, James and John are those who "know not what they ask" in asking to be on the right & left hands. The Bible also mentions they caused much trouble to the point  it caused the other ten much "indignation" and "displeasure" (Mt 20:24; Mk 10:41). Both are named, along with Peter (Cephas), as bewtichers of churches of Galatia (Asia in Revelation). But Peter got converted in accordance with "when (not if) thou are converted, then strengthen thy brethren"; And Peter was called Satan; And John was the bishop of Peter.

Albeit there are revelations and truths in the writings of John. Eg: the comparison of law/grace of Moses/Jesus Christ as lie/truth in Jn 1:17. Eg: law is a thief which cometh not but for to steal, kill, destroy in Jn 10:10. Eg: God is love, the perfect sort which hath no fear in 1Jn 4. Eg: of false/true spirits in 1Jn 4 "that Jesus Christ is come" is the true-th. Eg: that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all in 1Jn 1:5, and such is the message from the beginning, as if the end declared from the beginning mentioned in Isaiah 46:10. Yet let us also perceive there is also err in John's writings, such as flattery, partiality, and vengeance. Unlike Peter, who gets converted as prophesied, John draws back to the law, as revealed in Revelation of John Chapter 1.

Due to the evidence making it evident, I conclude Paul is author of Revelation. It seems Dionysius of Alexandria came to the same conclusion: that Revelation does not have the same author as the Gospel of John. So as not to restate what I've already written elsewhere about it, I refer any interested readers to Revelations #6 for more details. I will also discuss the matter of Paul being author of Revelation in my verse by verse commentary on Revelation.

Next page: The Revelation of St John The Divine  -  Chapter 1

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.