The Lamb alone is Jesus in Revelation 4:1-22:5

The vision starts in Revelation 4:1 and then in Revelation 22:5 the text returns to the original framing device.

I have come to view in the vision only The Lamb as specifically Jesus and only Jesus.  Everything else that seems at first like a symbol for Jesus does so because it's referencing titles of Jesus from elsewhere that were never actually unique to Jesus, The Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a title of all Human Beings at The Resurrection not just Jesus.

This is especially true of The Rider on The White Horse in chapter 19, the language used of him mostly comes from the Promises to The Overcomer from chapter 2-3.  Ruling the Nations with a Rod of Iron connects him to the Man Child of chapter 21 which Isaiah 66 confirms is the reborn nation of Israel. 

The Rider on The White Horse in chapter 19 and perhaps also of chapter 6 is believers on Earth who are "conquering" the world but not in a military sense.  The word translated "Conquering" and "to conquer" in Revelation 6 is actually the word everywhere else translated Overcoming or Overcome.

The Rod of Iron concept comes from Psalm 2 which elsewhere in The New Testament is applied to Jesus but it was never only about Jesus but how every Believer is an Anointed Son of God.  Same is probably true with other Davidic Psalms quoted in The New Testament like 110 and 118, and also Psalm 45.

Heaven being opened can be idiom for Rain as we see in Genesis 7:11, in contrast to Revelation 11 refers to Heaven being Shut Up as an idiom for Draught.

This has become vital to my new Post-Millennial reading of Revelation.

Ezekiel's Temple is actually a Tabernacle

This argument is important to my understanding of how Ezekiel's Prophecies and Revelation relate.  Something I laid out the gist of in my post about New Jerusalem passages being misapplied to The Millennium.

There are two different Hebrew words translated "Temple" in the King James Authorized Version of The Hebrew Bible.  Both are also used of the pre-Solomonic Tabernacles.  "Beth" is used more commonly but it's translated "House" on those occasions. 

Heykal is the Hebrew term that some want to treat as very technically applicable to Solomon's Temple but not any prior Tent based Tabernacles.  And yet 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3 do use that word of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.  In 2 Samuel 7 YHWH says through Nathan that He hadn't dwelt in any House like what David was wanting to build since He brought Israel out of Egypt.  So whatever Heykal technically etymologically means, it must have also been applicable to the Mosaic Tabernacle even if it is was used more rarely then.  It actually never became super common even while Solomon's Temple was standing with words like Beth and Mikadesh (Sanctuary in the KJV) being more common ways to refer to the main place of worship.  Again both of those were also applicable to The Tabernacle.  Psalm 78:60 also confirms that the Tabernacle at Shiloh was still a Tent(Ohel).

Heykal is also used in 2 Samuel 22:7 and Psalm 18:6 which are just different recordings of the same Davidic Psalm.  You could interpret that as referring to The Temple is Heaven but according to Paul in Hebrews it was the Tabernacle of Moses modeled after The Temple in Heaven, not Solomon's Temple.

In The Hebrew Bible no single word seems to be used for what Solomon's Temple was that the Tabernacles of Moses and David were not.  2 Samuel 7 helps define that for us but makes no single word an easy signifier for it.  However there is a word that is the opposite, that applies to The Tabernacles but not Solomon, Zerubbabel or Herod's Temples.

There are three Hebrew words that get translated Tabernacle.  Sukkot isn't a synonym for the Holy Place at all but refers to the Tabernacles of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Mishkan is most literally translated Habitation and is also applicable to Solomon's Temple even if The Hebrew does so rarely.  However Ohel is the literal word for Tent.  1 Kings 8:4 and 2 Chronicles 5:5 and what follows them basically describe the retiring of the Ohel as The Ark is removed from it and and then placed in Solomon's non Ohel Temple.  

Ezekiel 40:1 clearly defined the Heykal this very long Prophecy is about as an Ohel, a term consistently not applicable to Solomon's Temple.  If we take that detail as literally as most Futurists (and some Preterists) do everything else in these chapters, then we shouldn't be picturing Walls made of Stone or Wood but a Tent.  I don't think you can find anything in these chapters to contradict that.

Other Prophecies that use Ohel of the Place of Worship in the Eschatological Messianic Kingdom include Isaiah 16:6 and 33:20.  The former specifically says the Tabernacle of David which was set up in Zion the City of David which is in Ephratah not Jerusalem according to Psalm 132.  Amos 9:11 also refers to the Tabernacle of David but using Sukkot oddly, James in Acts 15 quotes that verse with Luke using the Greek equivalent of Ohel.  The Greek Equivalent for Ohel is also used when Revelation 21 calls New Jerusalem The Tabernacle of God.

More then one Greek word is translated Temple just like in the Hebrew, one is based on a word for Holy, one is also a word for House.  Naos, is the word that many may wish to treat as equivalent to Heykal, but I have some issues with that.  And I don't care how the Septuagint used Naos because I inherently distrust the Septuagint.

Stephen in Acts 7:48 and Paul in Acts 17:24 says God doesn't dwell in Naos made of human hands.  Literally that would exclude a Tent as much as a building made of Stone or Wood, and ultimately I believe it does, but Stephen's context in Acts 7:44-50 is tying that idea to his distinguishing Solomon's Naos from the Tabernacles of Moses and David.

What Naos meant in it's Pagan Greek context was also rather technical and precise in a way that I feel makes it not very applicable to how Heykal was used, at least not always.  The Naos referred specifically to a building that housed the Idol or representation of the god being worshiped and not the outdoor courtyards where sacrifices were made.  It's known usage in Egypt was the same, and as a Weeb I'd also equate it to the Honden of a Shinto Shrine.  Meaning if we translate that to how Herod's Temple worked it referred to the building that contained the Holy Place and Holy of Holies but not the outdoor area where The Brazen Altar was. 

Perhaps if any Hebrew term is equivalent to Naos it's Dbiyr a word used only of the Inner Sanctuary of Solomon's Temple (the KJV translates it Oracle but not every Oracle in the KJV is this word)  in 1 Kings 6:5-31, 7:49, 8:6-8 and 2 Chronicles 3:16, 4:20, 5:7-9 but was never part of The Torah's description of The Tabernacle.

So when Revelation 21:22 says New Jerusalem has no Naos for the Lamb is The Temple like He is The Light, it is chiefly a Temple like Solomon's or Herod I feel is meant.  A literal Tent based place of worship is perhaps equally as unnecessary, but not as definitely said to not be present.  And whether literal Tents are physically involved or not the text of Revelation 21 enthusiastically associates that Greek word with this future Worship.

The significance of the Naos being gone would then be the same as the significance of the Veil being torn.

New Jerusalem prophecies that are mistaken for the Millennium by many Premillenials.

Let's start with how Jesus promised The Twelve Disciples they would sit on Twelve Thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the Last Supper.  I've seen that applied to The Millennium multiple times, but The Twelve don't come up in Revelation 20.

Revelation 21:12-16 refers to Twelve Gates for the Tribes of Israel on which are named the Twelve Tribes and by them are Twelve "angels" and also Twelve Foundations in the Walls with the names of The Twelve Apostles.  I've already explained how "Angels" can refer to human believers but even without that detail I'd still conclude that this is where the promise of the Twelves' Thrones is fulfilled.  In the ancient Near East leaders of a city were often seated by the gate, this custom is alluded to in Ruth 4.

Outside Revelation allusions to The Millennium are much more rare.  But I maybe see it in Daniel 7:12.  When it comes to things like where Zechariah 14 ends or Isaiah 19 I'm far from decided.  But at least one other possible TNAK reference to the Millennium will come up later.

However the big passage I want to discus is Isaiah 65-66, chapter 65 verses 17 and 22 are what Revelation 21 verse 1 is practically directly quoting.  And verses 18-19 refer to New Jerusalem though without using the word "new" as explicitly, and Isaiah 66:1(as interpreted by Stephen in Acts 7:44-50) is possibly the reason New Jerusalem is said not to have a Temple.

But verse 20 is thrown around as proof this can't be The New Creation because people still die.  Isaiah is very poetic in style, and considering what I explained on my other blog about how to interpret Scripture Impressionistically rather then Lexically,  It feels to me like it should be blindingly obvious Isaiah 65:20 is actually saying the opposite, that this is his poetic way of saying people will not die and there will be no sin.

People abuse what Jesus said about people neither "Marrying or giving in marriage" in The Resurrection "Like the Angels in Heaven", to prove that there is no Biological Reproduction going on in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Jesus said that in the context of refuting the Sadducees trying to discredit The Resurrection by implying the Levirate Marriages will create Polyandrous situations.  It's marriage as redefined in Genesis 3:16 that will end, marriage as a hierarchy, not the Marriage of Genesis 2:23-24.  In New Jerusalem we will ALL be Married to Jesus and each other.  So to me this was Jesus way of saying Yes some people will be living Polyandrously and that's not a problem.

But on the other hand the verse in Isaiah 65 taken to imply new people being born is the very same poetic passage taken to imply some people will die.  Still I believe The Resurrection is the restoration of The Pre-Fall conditions, and so I lean towards suspecting painless childbirth will be an option.

The Patristics often didn't distinguish between The Millennium and New Jerusalem at all.  And while today they are distinguished by all Pre-Millennialists, there is still a desire to make The Millennium far more Utopic then it actually is.  The New Heaven and New Earth will be a Communist Utopia, The Millennium is more complicated and I felt that way even when I was still Pre-Mill liking to compare it to Marx's conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

For one thing The Saints are NOT ruling the entire world, we have a Camp which is also called the Beloved City.  And based on Revelation 20 alone there is no proof that Camp is Jerusalem. The Thousand years strictly speaking refers to the time Satan is bound not the Kingdom itself which will have no end.  

The involvement of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48 is under Christian Theology a problem for seeing it being literally fulfilled as described in a still yet future time period at all.  The Epistle to The Hebrews is clear that Jesus Himself was the last legitimate Sacrifice period, no room for a temporary return.  Meanwhile Ezekiel 40-48 even specifically refers to Sin offerings and Trespass Offerings.  

But I'm amused when I see people use the Sacrifices here agaisnt it being the New Creation and for it being the Millennium while at the same time thinking Isaiah 65-66 is the Millennium when that prophecy explicitly says there will be no Sacrifices. Revelation 20 doesn't refer to Sacrifices one way or the other any more then 21-22 does.

And yet the nature of this passage by my own Impressionist standards does not permit it all being symbolic, it's simply too detailed, and Ezekiel is really not as poetic in style as Isaiah.  

Which is why the view that it was a Constitution that Israel was meant to implement at the return from the Babylonian Captivity but rejected is the most sensible one to me as regards to it's original intent.  I recommend this article on that subject.

https://www.equip.org/articles/making-sense-ezekiels-temple-vision/

However to the extent that Ezekiel is used as source material by The Revelation it is clearly chapters 21 and 22 that are drawing on this section, not chapter 20 which is instead connecting itself to Ezekiel 38 and perhaps also 37.

I already mentioned some Revelation 21 imagery that comes from Ezekiel, New Jerusalem like YHWH-Shammah has Twelve Gates for the Twelve Tribes.

The size is seemingly different, yet the shape is the same (usually interpreted as squared but I view it as a circle or dome), meaning the size difference could be a mater of perception.  Remember John and Ezekiel were trying to express their 3 dimensional senses' experience of a condition when we will no longer be limited to only 3 dimensions.

Revelation 21 says there is no Temple and yet also calls New Jerusalem the Tabernacle of God, every Hebrew word for "Temple" used in Ezekiel 40-48 is also used of the Pre-Solomon Tabernacle elsewhere, and Ezekiel 41:1 uses the word "Ohel" which literally refers to a Tent more then Mishkan does.  The fact is chapter 20 doesn't mention an earthly Temple or Tabernacle at all, that subject is only relevant to New Jerusalem.  And back in chapter 3 the message to Philadelphia established New Jerusalem and God's Temple as synonymous concepts.

Ezekiel 44:25 and 31 are the two verses that seem to refer to death.  Only 25 uses the Hebrew word Adam making it seemingly a clear reference to human death, verse 31 seems to be implying pure Vegetarianism is the new dietary law but that seems incompatible with having Sin offerings and Trespass offerings which were supposed to be eaten.  Verse 25 is simply echoing back to the Torah's own laws about unclean things not being allowed in The Tabernacle, and in that context does have parallels in Revelation 21-22.  Actually both verses are drawing on commands from the Torah.

These verses are about things that aren't happening, the priests aren't polluting themselves by touching dead bodies or eating dead things.  They are being brought up this way not so much because it's still theoretically possible but because it's being stressed that this is a true realization of The Torah.

I have considered in the past that these offerings are just the Blood of Jesus, ceremonial reenactments that won't actually kill anything.

There is also the sense in which maybe this part of Ezekiel isn't even claiming to be a Prophecy, maybe it's another vision of the Heavenly realm he's being shown, that this Temple is the same Heavenly Temple mentioned at the beginning and end of Revelation 11.  Hebrews also talks about how The Tabernacle was based on a Heavenly original.  These ideas are sometimes abused by those who want to make the Platonic Theory of Forms Biblical.  1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 foretell how the Heavenly/Spiritual will be united with the Bodily/Carnal, and that is fully fulfilled when New Jerusalem descends in Revelation 21.

So there are layers to how we could apply this.  

Some historians now think The Golden Gate on Jerusalem's eastern wall was first sealed off during the Byzantine period (as opposed to the more popular mythology that Muslims did it), which suggests the possibility that they saw Ezekiel 46 as already fulfilled.

The Seven Churches are the historical context of Revelation.

If you are going to downgrade the scale of what the book is describing to being not the entire world or even the entire Roman Empire but primarily one Province of that Empire, it has to be Asia.

But 70 AD Preterists are actually a lot like Pre-Trib Dispensationalists in that they can't accept Revelation as being geographically about anywhere other then exactly where the Old Testament is about.  And so in a Preterist Facebook Group I saw someone talking about how "Symbolic" Revelation is and that includes the identities of the Seven Churches.  That is completely backwards.

The Structure of Revelation is that the Symbolic Vision starts in Revelation 4:1 and ends about 22:5.  The more direct messages to the Seven Churches do use symbolic language sometimes but that's different, a lot of it is making references to Old Testament stories as analogues to current scenarios the same way one might reference a movie today.  Those references in chapter 2 and 3 do help contextualize how similar references will be used later.  

It is the things that seem like geographical references to the Old Testament Holy Land that are meant to be filtered thorough New Testament Doctrines. 

Every reference to The Temple or Tabernacle is meant to be understood in the context of Stephen, Paul and Peter's teachings about all Believers being The Temple of God.

The name of Jerusalem is used in Revelation only in reference to New Jerusalem which is clearly Paul's "Jerusalem of Above which is the mother of us all" from Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22, likewise the Sion of Revelation 14 is the Heavenly Sion of that same passage.  (As someone who holds the view that the NT authors were also a little Stoic I suspect Stoic Cosmopolitanism is also an influence on how Paul and Revelation talk about Jerusalem and Zion and the Beloved City of Revelation 20:9 and Romans 9:25.  But that's secondary to the Scriptural Points.)

Babylon in the Hebrew Bible is the mother city of the great Pagan Gentile Empires, so it's symbolic usage is likewise of the New Testament era's great Pagan Gentile Empire.

I don't claim to know exactly how to decode everything yet, but all of that needs to be the starting premise. 

There is no logic to using cities in Asia as symbols for cities of Judea.  If some stuff can't be interpreted in any other way then as references to a region outside of the Roman Province of Asia, then it proves that the scope of what the Book is foretelling isn't merely local.

Revelation is Paulian

Both people who want to reject Paul as a false Apostle and those who want to remove Revelation from the Canon base a lot of their arguments on a perceived inherent conflict between the two, almost no one is trying to throw out both, rejecting one tends to be tied to an attachment to the other.

This perception has a lot to do with misunderstanding both of them.  Revelation has in my opinion the least to say directly about Soteriology or Justification of any New Testament book, you're supposed to have already gotten the message on that if you've even made it this far.  But if we define what it means to Overcome the same way 1 John 5:5 does, then Revelation can easily be understood as agreeing with Paul's emphasis on Faith.  And Paul does still anticipate a Judgment based on works in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.

The crux of the debate is the issue of eating food sacrificed to Idols, which Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 8 and is relevant to Revelation 2 in the messages to Pergamos and Thyatira.  The argument being that Paul's position on this issue is what Revelation is calling the Doctrine of Balaam and teaching of Jezebel.

Paul is actually taking a sort of middle ground on this issue, he's arguing that when buying food at the market Christians need not concern themselves with if it was or not, because we don't believe in it actually doing anything magical to the food.  But he is still clear to not do it publicly in a public ritual to appease the world.  In Revelation this issue first comes up talking to the church in Pergamos a center of the Imperial Cult, such Public engagements with Idolatry being demanded of Christians to prove their Loyalty to the Emperor is the context.  

People will then cite Paul's statement to Timothy in II Timothy that "all of Asia" had left him to insist none of the Churches in Revelation deemed good can be Paulian.  Paul was using hyperbole, clearly there was a Remnant in Ephesus in the community Timothy himself is a leader of.  So the False Apostles the Church of Ephesus is praised for rejecting could be the very Ravenous Wolves Paul warned them about in Acts 20.  

Also the limits of what Asia meant were a bit amorphous and flexible, all Seven Churches of Revelation were in the Roman Province of Asia, but Acts 16:6 in context is arguably using Asia in a more limited sense where Ephesus might be the only city of Revelation 2-3 to qualify.

I've also seen the accusation that Revelation is contradicting Paul on Jesus being the only Mediator by having this Angel guide John through much of this vision.  Jesus speaks to John directly at the beginning and end of Revelation, but more importantly to say this Angel's role contradicts Paul in Galatians 3:19-20, Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24 and 1 Timothy 2:5 is to miss the point of what Paul means by Mediator in those passages, Paul is talking about Salvation and Atonement and who we Pray to, it's not a contradiction that Angels will still sometimes be used as messengers, messengers are literally exactly what Angels are, so Paul's acknowledging they still function at all proves they can still be used for exactly what Revelation depicts.

But I want to go further and argue that Revelation is not just compatible with Paul but dependent on Paulian innovations, that it may well be the most Paulian NT book that no one thinks Paul wrote.

It is largely Paul who built the doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, it has some roots before in Stephen's Acts 7 Sermon, but it's Paul who fully develops it.  And it's a doctrine vital to understanding Revelation, being explicitly in both the message to Philadelphia and chapter 21, but I would argue every reference to The Temple and/or Tabernacle in the book needs to be interpreted through the lens of this doctrine, (same with chapter 14's heavenly Zion which also comes from Paul).  And it does so using specific language from Paul like The Apostles being Foundations in Ephesians 2:20., and Revelation's Pillar imagery could have it roots in things Paul said in Galatians 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:15.

There is also a particular form of the Greek word for Beloved that appears only three times in two verses, twice in Romans 9:25 and then in Revelation 20:9.

The concept of being Sealed with The Holy Spirit is another of Paul's ideas Revelation brings up, also the way chapter 14 uses the term Firstfurits I think is tied to how Paul used that term.  And Paul's idea of representing the Word of God as a Sword in Ephesian 6 also seems influential on at least some of the Sword imagery in Revelation.

There is also my old theory that the Fifth Trumpet account in Revelation 9 explains the Removal of Restraint referred to II Thessalonians 2.  But I may be rethinking that now that I'm not a Futurist anymore.

Luke, the most Paulian Gospel, may well be the most relevant of the Four Gospels to understanding Revelation.  Luke 21:24 specifically is I think being quoted by at least two verses in Revelation, 11:2 and 13:10 though the latter may also have in mind Matthew 26:52.  The end of the message to Laodicea in Revelation 3:20 is possibly drawing on Luke 12:36.  Luke 11:22 uses a specific form of the word Nikao (Overcome) that elsewhere appears only in Revelation 6:2 (To Conquer).  Luke is also the only other NT Text to use the word translated "Lake" in Revelation, Limne.

I added a section on one particular Anti-Revelation Hyper Paulian to my Thyatira post.  I have also written an Amazon Review of that Author's book.

I have increasingly come to hold the view that the John of Revelation is John Mark not the Son of Zebedee.  While Mark is first introduced as an associate of Peter he becomes close to Paul and Barnabas for a time in Acts 13-15 and Mark is mentioned by Paul in a few of his later Epistles.  In fact 2 Timothy 4:11 implies he was in Ephesus with Timothy for a time.

And historically the contexts of the Seven Churches supports them being Paulian Communities.  Only three are mentioned by explicitly those names elsewhere in the New Testament but all of them imply Paulian contexts. 

Ephesus is tied to Paul all over Acts 18-20 and receives a Paulina Epistle and appears to be where Paul was when he wrote 1st Corinthians, meanwhile Timothy was in Ephesus when Paul wrote his Epistles to him.  Thyatira explicitly comes up in the person of Lydia converted by Paul in Philippi.  And the Laodiceans are mentioned in Colossians.  

Later traditions sought to make Polycarp of Smyrna a student of John but his own Epistle makes no such claim and rarely quotes books attributed to John, it's content is mostly Paulian.  What I said above makes it possible John Mark was the John the Elder who Polycarp and Papias knew.  Another figure tradition credits with starting the church in Smyrna was said to be Timothy's brother, Strataes.  Sometimes the Apelles of Romans 16:10 is identified as the first Bishop of Athens.

It is now my theory that when Polycarp and others are called "Hearers of John" the John of Revelation is who that designation originally referred to via being in one of the Seven Churches when it was first published.  And as I said already that the John of Revelation was John Mark.