The book of Revelation is not an easy book to interpret because of its symbolism.

Although, it can be
assumed that it should be easy to understand because it is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Yet the book of
the revelation of Jesus Christ is so difficult to understand that even those who think they have the literal
meaning stuff-up their own commentary by contradicting themselves.

Many commentators of Revelation will claim they follow the literal method, which means anybody
can understand what is stated. The book of Revelation starts off with "The Revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place". This is easy to
understand. It states that things "will shortly take place".

The book of Revelation was supposedly written around 90AD. But it appears the words "shortly take
place" somehow do not exactly mean "shortly" as in the next few week, but within the next nineteen
hundred years. Well, this is what some of the commentators say. The very same commentators who
also say that you must take the book literally.

After the narrative about what Jesus thinks about the seven churches, the Apostle John is offered an
invitation; chapter four, verse one: 'After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in
heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here,
and I will show you things which must take place after this.”'

The one thing that is absolutely plain is that this Revelation of Jesus Christ is a futuristic revelation that
is to take place later on, and not to have occurred beforehand. Yet you will find commentators talk
about how the ancient dragon dragging down the stars of heaven, which is to take place after some time
at the end of the first century, actually occurred some time prior to the time Adam sinned against God.
These same commentators say that the woman that gives birth to the man child is the nation of Israel
giving birth to Jesus Christ, who is immediately taken to heaven.

While the interpretations might seem to make sense in the minds of those making the commentary, as a
person who expects words to mean what they say, I fail to see how something that is to be a later event,
has happened beforehand, like the birth of Jesus Christ.

There is an argument that if you were to look at the book of Revelation from outside of time then the
issue of sequence would not be an issue. The trouble with this interpretation is the revelation of Jesus
Christ is not something that is given to people who live outside of time. We are all governed by time
and everything is understood to take place sequentially, one event taking place after the other.
Although, there is the possibility that some events are to happen concurrently, and in this instance, it is
possible for seven churches to exist at the same time and be involved in different activities.
Nevertheless, these activities were to happen at a later date and did not occur prior to the giving of the
revelation.

Tony Garland, in his work The Testimony of Jesus Christ, takes great pains to point out his
interpretation of the book of Revelation is a literal interpretation, but then, as so many have done before
him, subscribes to the view that certain events that, according to the author of the Revelation of Jesus
Christ, are to take place at a later date have actually already occurred.

Why would Tony Garland say this? He could be deceived and not really know Jesus Christ, so he only
has a belief system. He might not want to rock the boat and take the point of view of his friends, since
he does say he subscribes to what is known as the dispensational, premillennium, pretribulationist view.
It is therefore possible that Tony Garland does not really know Jesus Christ is only intent on impressing
his friends. He also holds appears to hold anti-pentecostal view, and has a disregard for woman
ministry.

It is always easier to align oneself with one faction or another. It is more difficult to stand up for what
you actually believe, especially if you have not really got the truth. To know the truth about the book of
Revelation means that you would have to have had a Revelation of the truth about Jesus Christ; a belief
would be insufficient. Jesus said that he was the truth and not a belief.

Knowing the truth is what being a Christian is about. But when you bend the truth to fit your own
theories then you are not being true to yourself. The truth about the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ
is that it was written for people who would presumably be able to understand what was meant. Some of
the symbolism might not be so readily understood among those who are educated in such things even
today. What is clear is there are seven churches where certain activities were occurring and the apostle
was told that these events were to take place shortly. If the angel giving the message to the apostle was
outside of time, then shortly to him might be centuries, and the seven churches could be a historical
representation of what would happen in the church over time. This would mean that certain periods of
church history would be identifiable as fitting the various churches.

There might be a historical period that fits the description of each church. In fact, if anything, the
church of Laodicea would seem to fit what is known as the Western Church today. If this is the case
then it is possible that when the apostle was invited to "Come up here, and I will show you things
which must take place after this”, these events are all to occur sometime in the near future. Of course, if
this is the case, the woman giving birth to the male child cannot be the nation of Israel giving birth to
Jesus of Nazareth back in the time of King Herod, as Tony Garland and his ilk claim. There is no
possibility of even the Israel nation today giving birth to Jesus Christ because, according to the
Gospels, Jesus said that he was going to return on the clouds at his second coming. The question of
who the male child is going to be, and who the woman of Revelation clothed with the sun represents
still remains to be answered.

In respect to the seven churches, it is also possible that there is a concurrent representation of the seven
churches in every age, because not every church in every country today can say they are living in an
abundance of wealth as the Laodiceans. Yet, to say that no churches today have an abundance of wealth
would be an understatement. The yearly income of the mega-churches is in the millions.

www.tencommandmentstoday.com