|
Revelation
Chapter 2: 1 - 7
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus
Revelation 2:1 "Unto the
angel
of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the
seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven
golden candlesticks;"
the angel of the church of
Ephesus: the <end note>
of 2Timothy reveals this: <[The second [epistle] unto
Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians,
was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second
time.]>. Timotheus is also listed among the seven who accompanied
Paul into Asia. However mention of first bishop suggests a second to
find.
the church of Ephesus:
Notably the church of Ephesus.
Perhaps a small detail, to differentiate between of and in; but such (twoedged sword crap
that bites angels and smites nations) is written unto the seven
angels of the seven churches as follows:
1 - church of
Ephesus
2 - church in
Smyrna
3 - church in
Pergamos
4 - church in
Thyatira
5 - church in
Sardis
6 - church in
Philedelphia
7 - church of
the Laodecians
Cleverly written by Paul! Very subtle and allegoric. First and last are
"of", whilst the
five in the midst are "in"...Perhaps allegorically denoting what's in
the midst are as five Mosaic books of law, but what Paul The Apostle (his angel) as author of
Revelation notably always does in his Pauline Epistles
format is
bring forth firstly
pure grace unto
you from God
our Father and he also plays the last trump
of pure grace as being "with" you all (you and all the kingdom of God
within you), which is against none of you as law was. For what was (but is not)
"against us" is the Law, both OT Law of Moses on high (left)
and NT Law of
Jesus on high (right); Not the Grace of our Lord Jesus-->Christ, which
neither accuses (John 5:45) nor condemns (John 3:17; John 8:3-11)
anyone, not ever...
The allegoric POINT
being His "Grace" is neither of two "law"s in Mt
22:36-40 and Rom 8:2. Grace neither tempts (laws) nor can be tempted
(lawed). Grace cannot lie (law) nor die (law).
Remembering it's one book of death (one letter which killeth) to all
seven
angels of the seven churches of Asia, we might ask why is the Church
"of" Ephesus first mentioned? The geographic
answer in Revelation
1:11
(see map) is not only was Ephesus closest of seven churches to
the isle of Patmos, but also the gateway to the province of Asia by
land (central
highway) and 'the' sea port (port of 'first landing' by imperial law
when entering
into Asia).
But it goes beyond this to other reasons. In Paul's canonized writings
the church of Ephesus (Ephesians) is notably in the midst of seven, as if the central
lamp in the midst of a Menorah seven: Ner
Elohim (lamp of God), a seventh in the midst, as two things considered as
one light:
Romans - Corinthians -
Galatians - Ephesians -
Philippians - Colossians - Thessalonians,
as if an eternal
light to light the six others (three to the left and three
to the right). Yet even Pauline clarified further, is Ephesians is
notably written unto two sorts of people at the church of Ephesus: (i)
the saints at Ephesus and (ii) the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 1:1. Timothy was also Pauline directed to abide at
Ephesus, not only as the first bishop of the church of Ephesus (see end
of
2Timothy), but also bishop over the region, to guard against
subversion. John was also head quartered at Ephesus (where John's
buried) as popish Peter's bishop over the region. So it was kinda like
a chess game with two
opposing bishops. And by taking down Timothy first, John
could essentially take down all seven of the churches of Asia. Perhaps
he did, for Timothy got so depressed he had to
be "set at
liberty" (Hebrews 13), and there are no churches in the area (now
Turkey)
even today, even with global evangelism. Go figure.
We know John also wrote separately to Gaius (3John), who's also in the midst of seven
mentioned who accompanied Paul into Asia. Using flattery and claiming
the children are his, John's complaint was what he wrote to the church
was not received, nor was he received. But John does note that
Demetrius, who spoke against Paul in Acts, had a good report.
These things saith he(?).
We've already discussed the figure like unto
the Son of man
(should repent: Numbers 23:19) speaking to John with a great
(law) voice as of a trumpet is
allegorically the law speaking. And having the seven stars (seven
angels) in his right
hand speaks of such being sheep of goats/sheep in Mt 25's Son of Man
left/right division.
And such law,
such legalist divisional judgmentalism claims to walk in the midst of seven churches which are allegorized as seven golden candlesticks,
as in the tabernacle in the wilderness: law.
Revelation 2:2 "I
know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst
not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they
are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:"
Here begins flattery which corrupts, along with
twisted subtle wisdom. Them which are evil is a subtle reference to
Paul and others who established the churches of Asia, whom Demetrius
spoke against for saying statues such craftsmen made were no gods,
thereby threatening their livelihood. And according to Paul it was
James, Cephas(Peter), and John who "seemed to be pillars" and were not;
exposing such as subverters of the churches. So we have Johnny's law
playing the childish
accusational blame
game, Paul's grace the awareness game; Paul having put away such
childish things: 1Cor 13:11. We have ample evidence Paul's grace should
be believed, Johnny's law
flushed as dung. For we'll see what a Mt. of pew law actually
"was".
Revelation 2:3
"And
hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured,
and hast not fainted."
Just more flattery, with "name's sake" thrown in to make
it more believable. Name's sake begins in 1Samuel 12:22 and is found
throughout both testaments, but is associated with sin imputation and
cover up forgiveness, which when uncovered is blessed + cursed =
accursed. That
God who was in Christ (the end of the law)
reconciling
the world unto himself, did
not impute any sin, no, not even unto them who did sin: law (Rom
14:23 -> Gal 3:11): 2Cor 5:19.
Revelation 2:4
"Nevertheless
I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."
Here comes the "against" thee part, denoting it's surely
law, for Colossians 2:14 speaks of such ordinances being "against" us.
As for
their first love, it was law; And the second (law) love
is said to be "like unto" the first law (love) in Mt 22 (Rom 8), in
such things are an allegory,
and a mystery to solve "in
time" with "help" from His grace, lest all perish by law <-- law instead of
none perish by grace void of such law law. For
even though law was never given to
Gentiles, they feared it, thereby giving it place to the point of it
being globally feared. His grace is not accusational: John 5:45, nor
condemning: John 3:17, nor sin imputing: 2Corinthians 5:19.
Revelation 2:5
"Remember
therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first
works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."
How subtle, to suggest converting to grace is "fallen". It would be if
law were your God and law thought to be what reigns in heaven. But
we
know better, since the throne therein is called a "throne of grace" where only mercy is
obtainable. And "do the first works" speaks of things like sin
imputation, wrath, vengeance, killing, pre-emptive wars, slavery, judgmentalism,
etc. And the "or else" is certainly not grace us nor
merciful nor peaceful; but legalistic threatening.
Revelation 2:6
"But
this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I
also hate."
The deeds of the Nicolaitans (Nicolaitanes):
Nicolaitans? Nicolaitans is also spelled Nicolaitanes in older Bibles?
Deeds of
the Nicolaitans (Nicolaitanes)? Strong's
concordance defines Nicolaitanes as
'destruction of people'; so we could safely interpret the allegoric
meaning as
law being the doctrine of Nicolaitanes, law
abiding "the deeds of the
Nicolaitans".
Nicolaitans is a Greek word derived from Nicolas (victory of the
people). We find Nicolas, a
proselyte of Antioch, among seven deacons, the seventh,
chosen in Acts 6 to serve tables. Such a proselyte is defined as one
who has come over from Gentile religion to Judaism; so it's
LAWED-Grace. Indeed law hates the mixture of law and grace as much as
grace also finds the mixture of grace and law to be "all vanity and
vexation of spirit", frustrating (Gal 2:21); For it makes a
polluted perversion rather than either law or grace. So, again it's
subtle subversion.
Revelation 2:7
"He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;
To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is
in the midst of the paradise of God."
"He than hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches": is the first of seven such word for word
exhortations in Revelation, an exhortation which I believe to be from
Paul, not John. For what
the Spirit saith unto the churches is found in Galatians. For
although the word churches is used oft in the NT, the phrase "unto the
churches" is only used in Galatians. And we can safely discern the
Spirit (God [is] a Spirit; one Spirit) would not be tempting the
churches of Asia to strive for something they've already been "freely
given". For in James it states God can neither be tempted nor tempts
anyone. So what "the Spirit" saith is not here.
"He that hath an ear let him hear". The sevenfold
exhortation mentions only one ear, which allegorically speaks of grace
of law/grace and truth of lie/truth which came by Jesus Christ.
"To him that overcometh will
I give to eat of the tree of
life": Notably we find a
questionable "will I" in
the presumed promise to overcomers. Such is mirrorly the reverse of "I
will", denoting we are dealing with the reverse of God (Dog), the
opposite of grace, which is law. Law promises in the Bible are oft
worded as questionable: "shall I", "will I", "have I", etc. Another
example is: "To day shalt thou
be with me in paradise."
(Luke 23:43). Grace promises are worded I shall, I will, I have, thou
shalt; And such things are an allegory.
The midst of the paradise
of God? The "tree
of life, which is
in the midst of the paradise of God"? Paradise is mentioned twice
elsewhere in
the Bible besides this Revelation Chp 2 verse. First mention is noted
in the paragraph
above. Yet such is spoken by Jesus, of Jesus Christ, who firstly ascended
to plural Fathers and plural Gods: to my Father and your Father, my God
and
your God; which allegorically speaks of law and grace, albeit to the
right side of such God on high in the midst of plural heavens (is not
higher God in "heaven": "higher than the
heavens").
Paradise? In 2Corinthians
12 "paradise" is directionally up, and also called the third
heaven, a place where someone Paul knew (in Christ above) got caught up
unto, and there heard unspeakable things which were not lawful for a
man (of child/man) to utter.. perhaps things like "I will have mercy and not sacrifice", which
allegorically meaneth I will have grace and not law. Paul alludes to
such a one (as John) caught up to third heaven (right of plural heavens
on high) as being a "messenger of Satan"(allegory: messenger[servant]
of Peter); For since Peter is the only
man called Satan in the Bible: Matthew 16:23, the messenger of Satan
would be John, popish
Peter's bishop
over the churches of Asia from Ephesus. For we do have some evidence
John was like unto a "thorn" to
Paul, by constantly subverting the churches Paul and others established
in grace, by suckering them into another law of their top dogs law law... which
in Revelation becomes two beast LAW
<-- Law where the second gives power to the first: Revelation
13, and
"the second is like unto the first": Matthew 22:36-40, and the first is
notably "sin
and death" = law and death = a dead end: Romans 8:2.
|
