Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah and welcome back to our series on the Book of Revelation which we took a break from to deal with other topics though last week we did take an excursion back into the heart of the book in order to answer the pressing question, 'Is the Vax the Mark of the Beast?' We covered some material from later on in the course in addressing that question.

Today we need to begin a systematic study of the book having spent four weeks taking a grand overview. I had planned to cover the whole of Chapter 1 today but I'm afraid I was not well enough to prepare that for you. So we shall be looking at the first 8 verses only although you will discover these are jam-packed with revelation! As always, we must be conscious of the historical setting of what we read and find out, as soon as possible, to whom this book is being written and why so that we don't get off on a wrong footing and assume things that aren't true. Once we have established who the book is for and the situation of those people, we can determine what we can learn from it for ourselves in the 21st century. We'll be using a messianised New King James Version (NKJV) throughout with some input from the earlier Aramaic Peshitta.

So let's begin with the first 8 verses:

"The Revelation of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), which Elohim (God) gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified (sent) it by His malak (angel) to His servant John, who bore witness to the Davar Elohim (Word of God), and to the testimony of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

"John, to the seven assemblies (churches) which are in Asia:

"Grace to you and shalom (peace) from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Ruachot (Spirits) who are before His throne, and from Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), the faithful witness, the bikkur (firstborn) from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and cohenim (priests) to His Elohim (God) and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. I am the Alef (Alpha) and the Taw (Omega), the Beginning and the End,' says the Master Yahweh (Lord), 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (Rev.1:1-8, NKJV).

What a powerful introduction! It's so dense that I could base an entire series of sermons on the first few verses alone. And it answers our question as to who this document was written for: "the seven assemblies (churches) which are in Asia" (1:4a) who are a type of the whole Body of Messiah past, present and future, 7 being the number of completion. And though chapters 2 & 3 will contain individual messages for each of these congregations, what follows - all the prophecies and revelations - is for them specifically too. The Book of Revelation was written for the assemblies (churches) at:

• 1. Ephesus (where John was lived and was based together with Mary, the mother of Yah'shua/Jesus, whom he took care of for the rest of her life; see also Paul's letter to the Ephesians & Ac.18:19,21,24; 19:1,7,26,35; 20:16-17; 1 Cor.15:32; 16:8; 2 Tim.1:18; 4:12 showing Ephesus was a hub of missionary activity);
• 2. Smyrna, today known as Izmir in western Turkey ;
• 3. Pergamum (Pergamos);
• 4. Thyatira (see Ac.16:14);
• 5. Sardis;
• 6. Philadelphia; and
• 7. Laodicea (see Col.2:1; 4:13,15-16 for missionary activity there).

This means that what is written in this book, from beginning to end, would most likely have been understandable to them, just as many of the revelations in the Olive Branch were directed to Norway in the late 1980's and 1990's and specifically to congregations in Oslo, Bergen and Moss, and to individuals within those congregations. And though there is much of value to us today still from these two or three decades later that is of a general nature, no matter where we are living in the world - much that we can learn from and apply in our own lives - these revelations nevertheless first and foremost concerned them. And so, if we don't properly understand what's written in this Book of Revelation which is considerably older...if we don't understand them (the people of these seven congregations and their time - their language, their situation, their appreciation of the Scriptures (which, remember, was the Tanak/Old Testament and their own experience), we could well make a number of false assumptions and so misuse the text before us. And this is, sadly, a very misused text.

To be clear, we are most likely in the early to mid 90's AD, in the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96), 50-60 years following the life of Yah'shua (Jesus), the crucifixion, and the resurrection, though there are some who believe it was written earlier, a question we'll eventually come around to discussing. I recently wrote a new leader article in the website on the Book of Revelation that tackles this. So there's a a whole generation's history behind the opening remarks of this book. The older among these believers are not newbies. They're not like the first talmidim (disciples) in the days of the resurrection and ascension who didn't understand very much about what was going on at all. They've had plenty of time to think about the events surrounding Yah'shua's (Jesus') ministry and the Cross, they've experienced Acts for themselves, they have seen half a dozen Roman emperors come and go. Those who were young adults in the 30's or 40's, now have their own children and grandchildren who are much better grounded than their parents were.

These are seasoned believers. And even if they didn't convert until as late as the 50's, when Paul was in his heyday, there are still 40 years of solid experience behind them, and the essential doctrines of the faith are already well crystalised and established. Christianity has what it needs. Bear that in mind. What is written of has already been through a maturation process, a bit like our own experience in the period between the 1980's and the 2020's today. And I think those of you who are veterans of this work will agree, there have been enormous changes and tremendous growth spiritually and existentially. A lot can, and does, happen in the space of a generation. We don't need to wait another two or three centuries for the early believers to 'get things right'. Indeed, more likely is the possibility of corruption entering in.

I'm going to select two prime examples today from the verses we have read so you can see what I mean by early doctrinal maturation that contradicts later speculation born out of corrupting alien (laregely Greek) teaching. Remember the pointed addage: the Gospel started in Asia, the Greeks turned it into a philosophy, the Romans into an institution and the Americans into a business. For instance, these assembly members from Asia Minor understood who the "seven Ruachot (Spirits)" were, something hardly any contemporary Christian or Messianic knows anything about except what theologians of the last few centuries have vaguely tried to figure out and told them. So much has been forgotten, so much has been lost, and so much has needed restoring in our own day! Implied in simply mentioning these Ruachot or Spirits is a familiar theology that's found no where else in the Messianic Sciptures (New Testament) and was lost, to be replaced by Greek Platonic-influenced Catholic creeds that set about trying to define Elohim (God) generations later.

Up until the Messianic era, little was known about the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit). They knew for certain the gender of the Ruach (Spirit). They had already made a direct association between the Ruach (Spirit) and the personified figure of Wisdom known as Hochmah (in Hebrew) and Sophia (in Greek) and knew they were in some way connected. They had begun to suspect that the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) was more than an impersonal force but a divine Person. This is made clear in the later Wisdom literature in such works as the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Apocryphal books which are well worth reading so that you can see how Yahweh reshaped the few truths revealed in these works in the writings of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament). And though the plurality of the Ruach (Spirit) was hinted at in the Tanakh (Old Testament) in an allusion to the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom (Hochmah/Sophia)" (Prov.9:1) (used as the title for the autobiography of Lawrence of Arabia, incidentally), we're not told until the Book of Revelation that the Ruach isn't just One but also Seven. There are also clear connections between these Ruachot (Spirit) and the Seven Annual Festivals of Israel that reveal a fascinating divine tavnith or pattern.

Here we are told, categorically, that these seven Ruachot (Spirit) are uniplural, meaning they are both one and many, something the Western rationalist mind finds it hard to wrap its head around. Think of the atom as both One and Three - one atom consisting of three fundamental particles - the Proton, Neutron and Electron. One of each of these constituted the Helium atom. From a certain persepctive they are a single particle; from another persepctive they are three particles. And from yet another, they are numerous other sub-atomic particles arranged in a complex array. Nearly all commentators are agreed that the seven Ruachot (Spirits) are somehow the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) but they are baffled as to why they are represented as seven distinct entities or individuals - ruachot is, after all, the plural of ruach...spirits as opposed to spirit. We will return to this topic when we look at the other three passages that speak of them. But for now at least be aware that the Trinitarian representation of the Ruach is wholly inadequate.

The second interesting theological feature of this passage is hidden in practically all our translations and that is the reference to "Lord" (NKJV, KJV, Barclay) or "Adonai" (JNT/CJB) in verse 8 which accurately translates the Greek kurios. Let me remind you once again, from the KJV this time:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord (Kurios), which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1:8, KJV).

Since this is Christ telling us something about Himself - who He is - I think you'll agree it's pretty important. And yet you'll find most modern English versions tweek this verse around, adding yet another word to the Greek kurios (Lord, Master), namely, the Greek word theos meaning 'God' which isn't there in the Greek text, so that in numerous English Bible versions this verse reads "Lord God" (ASV, NEB, JPB, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NLT, KNT, ESV, etc.). Whence the disagreement? And does it matter? At first glance, it appears as if the translators are reinterpreting Scripture to fit into a preconceived doctrinal notion as to Who this member of the Elohimhead (Godhead) is because there is a difference between 'Master'/'Lord' and 'LORD God', the all upper-case 'LORD' being a device pointing to YAHWEH, our Heavenly Father, and 'Lord' with lower case letters pointing to an angelic (at best) or (at worst) to a human authority. At face value, translations like the KJV, NKJV and William Barclay seem to have been more faithful in following the 'original' Greek text even though that, as it turns out, has been corrupted, dropping an original word and changing the meaning of the surviving one. What happened?

Where the Greek text says Kurios (the Hebrew equivalent of which is Adonai ('Lord', 'Master') and is so rendered by the messianic Jewish New Testament/JNT) this is not what the original Aramaic says. Rather, the Hebraic receptor tongue - the language Christ and the apostles all spoke in their daily conversation - Aramaic as opposed to Greek - reads MarYa [1] YaHWeH, which literally means 'Master (Lord) Yah Yahweh'. The unusual combination, "Yah Yahweh" only occurs in one place in the Tanakh (Old Testament):

"Behold, Elohim (God) is my salvation (yeshua),
I will trust and not be afraid;
'For YAH, YAHWEH ('Yah, the LORD'), is my strength and song;
He also has become my salvation (yeshua)'" (Isa.12:2, NKJV).

Since 'Yah' is an acknowledged shorthand form of 'Yahweh', you will find most translations putting a comma between the two as though the one word is emphasising the other, 'the LORD, the LORD' (NIV) with some (like the NEB) arbitrarily dropping one of the LORD's altogether and others (like the NASB, ESV and NRSV) arbitrarily changing one of the LORD's into 'God' which is an erroneous translation (since the Hebrew would have to have been 'Yahweh-Elohim' and not 'Yah Yahweh') even though most (like the NRSV) will add a footnote saying 'or Yah, the LORD)...this is why I hate transliterations and why the most honest form of translation is leaving the words as they are in the original language. The KJV is even more confusing, translating this as 'LORD JEHOVAH' since LORD is the convention for translating 'Yahweh', which means the KJV is saying 'JEHOVAH JEHOVAH'.

Irrespective of what 'Yah, Yahweh' actually means (and it may well be no more than an emphatic) indicating that this is the Father, the Supreme Creator of everything, we still need to understand why the English translators of Revelation 1:8 get so confused. So please patiently bear with me as we get technical for a few more minutes - it will be worth the time getting this securely under our belts, so-to-speak. So here goes. Where the Greek reads 'Kurios' (Lord, Master), the earlier Aramaic has MarYa YHWH [2]. The Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament) uses this phrase as an equivalent of two phrases. In Genesis 2:4 is is used for "Yahweh-Elohim" ('LORD God' in English versions). However, in Genesis 15:2 and Jeremiah 16 it is used for "Adonai YHWH" ('Lord/Master Yahweh'). Elsewhere the Peshitta Tanakh renders ADONAI YHWH with MarYa MERUTA (Ezek.2:4; Amos 1:8) [3]. Confused? Well, you have good reason to be because the Peshitta evolved over time as the Greek version became more popular and with that more ecclesiatically or institutionally 'authoritative' with usage, a reason the Greek version has evolved to become the primary version in the West. Later editors of the Peshitta, recognising this institutional changeover from Aramaic to Greek primacy, occasionally altered the Aramaic to agree with the Greek, thus adding to the confusion! This is a perfect example of the detrimental influence of the Church on the biblical texts. There are Aramaic scholars who are deciphering all of this mutilation and putting things to rights.

Fortunately we can sort all this mess out by focusing on one Aramaic word, MarYa because this is a contraction of two words fused into one. The Aramaic mar-ya is a contraction of Aramaic mar (meaning a human 'master' or 'lord') and the Hebrew Yah, which, as we've seen, is a shortened form of 'Yahweh' used in Psalm 68:4 and other places [4]. So why do all modern English translations render Revelation 1:8 as 'Lord God', which in Hebrew translates 'Yahweh-Elohim' ('Jehovah-God')? Is it to emphasise that Yah'shua (Jesus) is Elohim (God) based on a faulty understanding of the Aramaic? I think so. There's no doubt, of course. that Yah'shua (Jesus) is Elohim (God), but equally there is no need to falsify a text to confirm that doctrine. Though I have not been able to find any modern translator's notes explaining the 'Lord God' rendering here, I'm sure the translators must have been aware of the difference between the Aramaic and the Greek, and have simply tried to 'harmonise' the Greek with the Aramaic within the context of Trinitarian presuppositions. It's an old trick. I get that, I don't think they were necessarily being dishonest, but undoubtedly they did make an assumption (an erroneous one, as it turns out) along the way, and I'll tell you why now.

Clearly this ia Yah'shua (Jesus) speaking in this verse, because that's who the subject introduces Himself as in verse 1, and whilst it is absolutely true that He is part of Yahweh-Elohim as the Son, being fully Elohim (God), that is not what John writes here. Instead of calling Him 'Lord God' - 'Yahweh-Elohim', He calls Him the "Lord/Master (Adonai) Yahweh" which is not the same as 'Yahweh-Elohim' which, when it appears in the Tanakh (Old Testament), English Bibles translate as LORD (Yahweh) God (Elohim) which always refers to the Father and not the Son which is why I strongly object to all the 'Lord God' stuff because it makes scriptures ambiguous and confusing. And yet MarYa Yahweh is most definitely the Son. It means, in a nutsehll, that those seasoned first century believers understood that the Son was also 'Yahweh' like the Father but in a lesser, submissive sense. And since such a truth upsets the Trinitarian idea of the Father and the Son being 'co-equal' in authority you can understand why modern Trinitarians have tried to obscure or obfuscate, even if only subconsciously, the truth in this translation of Revelation 1:8. We cannot allow ourselves to massage any inspired text to make it mean what we want it to in order to defend a preconceived idea.

Now you may think I am making a song-and-dance out of nothing but so much emet (truth) is lost as the result of a failure to be accurate. The truth is, the Greek translator dropped a word, 'Yahweh', perhaps because he was afraid an accidental duplication had occurred with two Yahweh's finding themselves side by side, not understanding that 'Yah, Yahweh' was a Hebrew convention emphasising who Yahweh is. Translators, who are fallible human beings after all (including the translators of the King James Version whom certain cultists venerate above all other translators, declaring them to be infallible) do have the tendency to 'improve' a text because they think it should be something different. That is why we need careful scholars who arent't pushing a denominationaloccasional non-religious secularist for balance. It's why I use lots of Bible versions and not just one.

So what is the conclusion of this matter? What does 'MarYa Yahweh' mean? Quite simply, that the Son is both 'Mar' (a human Lord) and the divine Yahweh, but to preclude the error of folks like the Jehovah's Witnesses who have demoted Him to a secondary 'god', they use the emphatic 'Ya[h], Yahweh' to make sure we clearly understand that he is FULLY DIVINE in the primary sense but in some sense lesserm and therefore subject to, the Father. He is the LESSER YAHWEH, fully Elohim (God), fully Divine, uncreated, omnipotent (all-powerful), omnscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere) and uncreated, but still the 'Number #2' in the Elohimhead/Godhead, and not absolutely co-equal in authority.

So already, in this one passage, we have encountered two theological concepts that challenge and upset orthodox teachings about Elohim (God). Not only is the Son the 'Lesser Yahweh' (yet still fully Elohim or God), with the Father the 'Greater Yahweh' (as you would expect in a proper Father-Son relationship) but here, and three more times later, we're told that the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) is but a simplified way of saying that there are in actual fact seven Ruachot (Spirits) or seven Persons. And such simplifications are not uncommon. We do it all the time. When we refer to 'God' or 'Elohim' we refer to One Power but Three Persons, remembering that 'Elohim' is the plural form of 'El'. In the earliest times God was referred to as El Elyon or 'God Almighty'.

It is typical of John to drop what for us are 'deepies' into his writings but not for his parishoners in the seven congregations of the Roman Province of Asia. This is a reason why I am greatly attracted to this apostle who was the last surviving apostle, all the others having been martyred, with the great apostle and theologian Paul himself having been executed about 40 years before John wrote this book. And when John spoke of Seven Ruachot or Spirit, I guarantee those to whom this book was addressed in the seven congregations he had oversight for, knew exactly what he meant because this would not have been the first time they heard this teaching. They were well grounded in what to us might seem disjunctive with our own inherited traditions. A lot had happened between the 40's and 90's AD.

We tend view Paul as the first and greatest theologian of the New Testament writers, and in some respects he was, but John, oh, he is so much deeper! Protestantism largely revolves around Pauline teaching. That is why this Book of Revelation is so precious because by the time the last apostle (John) has passed on, the theology is fully developped, and like it or not, believers are required to integrate his teachings into their belief system. Paul's insights have been greatly expanded upon. And I promise you that as you integrate these two sublime truths into your belief structure, your horizons will broaden, and your depths deepen, in ways you could never have dreamed. This knowledge will, moreover, threaten a number of ecclesiastical golden calves that have inserted themselves into the theological Temple of the living Elohim (God). One of my tasks is to kick them out. Indeed, you'll find dozens of teachings on these two truths in my writings. And in case you had forgotten, the Hebrew word for 'Spirit' - Ruach - is feminine, and not masculine (as it is in the Latin 'spiritus') or neuter (as it is in the Greek 'pneuma') which are a source of no small amount of theological gender confusion. It's thanks to the Romans, who spoke Latin, and the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible by Jerome, that the Holy Spirit mutated into a 'he' who found 'his' way into the Trinitarian creeds and our English Bible translations. Yet the Ruach haQodesh - the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost - was never masculine. That's a doctrine of man, not of original Scripture. The Holy Spirit is not a male being. That's a Roman construct.

That is why we insist on the Hebraic primacy of Scripture because Hebrew and Aramaic were the languages of the nevi'im (prophets), shlichim (apostles) and Messiah Himself, irrespective of whether they spoke other languages like Greek or not. (Many would have as this was the Lingua Franca of the eastern portion of the Roman Empire and is why the New Testament books were quickly translated into Greek for evangelism). That is why in the Aramaic, Romans 8:16 reads, "And She, the Ruach, gives testimony ..." (HRV). You see, John's talmidim (disciples), the congregations in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea all knew that the Son was eternally subject to the Father as the Lesser Yahweh. And, yes, Paul knew that too. He knew that the Son's authority as Yahweh's Plenipotentiary or Representative in all matters was by appointment for a fixed period of time or æon (age), not some right or imaginary absolute, immutable Trinitarian reality that had existed from Eternity 'past' and would continue into Eternity 'future'. And though Yah'shua (Jesus) accurately stated that "all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt.28:18, NKJV), He also said:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent Him" (John 5:19-23, NKJV).

The apostle Paul knew this as well as the apostle John did and neither of them taught the eternal coheadship doctrine of the Roman Trinitarians. Rather, Paul acknowledged the Lesser Yahweh teaching when he said:

"Then comes the end, when He (Yah'shua/Jesus, the Son - the Lesser Yahweh) delivers the kingdom to Elohim (God) the Father (the Greater Yahweh), when He puts an end to all [human and demonic] rule and all [human and demonic] authority and power. For He (the Son) must reign till He (the Son) has put all enemies under His (the Son's) feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For 'He has put all things under His feet' (Ps.8:7). But when He says 'all things are put under Him,' it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that Elohim (God) may be all in all!" (1 Cor.15:24-28, NKJV).

"After that the end will come, when He (Christ, the Son) will turn the Kingdom over to Elohim (God, the Father), having put down all enemies of every kind. For Christ must reign until He (Christ) humbles all His enemies beneath His (Christ's) feet. And the last enemy to be destroyed is death. For the Scriptures say, 'Elohim (God) has given Him authority over all things' (Psalm 8:7). (Of course, when it says 'authority over all things' it does not include Elohim (God, the Father) Himself, who gave Christ His authority). Then, when He (Christ) has conquered all things, the Son will present Himself to Elohim (God, the Father), so that Elohim (God, the Father, Yahweh) who gave His Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere" (1 Cor.15:24-28, NLT).

Clearly they cannot be, and aren't, co-equal, and yet both are Divine, both are Elohim (God), both are Yahweh, but with different authority, the Father being "supreme over everything everywhere" (1 Cor.15:28, NLT), unlike human rulers and angelic powers. This being so is not to say, as some Messianic heretics teach, that either Yah'shua (Jesus) was a lesser god (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) or, worse, that He wasn't even divine at all, just an ordinary human being, and not the God-Man that Scripture unquestionably teaches He was. This is a critically important doctrine. There are those who say these distinctions aren't important but they absolutely are for there are those (like the Gnostics) who teach that the Elohim (God) of the Tanakh (Old Testament) was some sort of ogre or 'Demiurge' and that Yah'shua (Jesus) was far superior. Such a false idea has led the one thus deceived to believe the Tanakh (Old Testament) is unreliable or even plain wrong and to be rejected which Yah'shua (Jesus) absolutely did not (Mt.5:17-20). Thus you will find many charismatic Christians who believe that their 'Jesus' has 'taken over' or 'replaced' the Father and is alone to be worshipped. Oneness Pentecostals elevate the Son above the Father by blasphemously claiming that Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost! Who Yah'shua (Jesus) is will shape the way you view both the atonement and salvation. We need to know Who it is we are trusting in and both John and Paul tell us clearly. So we have here a clear exposition of who the Father and the Son are relative to each other.

Likewise, those first century believers who belonged to the seven congregations of Asia Minor all knew (because John was a diligent teacher) that the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) was their Heavenly Mother...all Seven Persons of Her - not to be worshipped (like the false 'Queen of Heaven', Ishtar/Astarte - Jer.7:18; 44:17-19,25), for all worship is due to the Father through the Son (Mt.6:9-13), but honoured and never denied. Now if any of our Trinitarian listeners or readers feel like having an apoplexic fit, now would be a good time to have one before we get any deeper! It's tough because they have been taught that to deny this extra-biblical Catholic doctrine, which breaks Protestantism's Sola Scriptura ('Scripture Alone') rule, is to be a heretic. This fear keeps them in the thraldom of Rome for who likes to be called a 'heretic'?.

I would like to suggest also that much of the Book of Revelation is sealed to those who do not know who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, and they are not at all the distortions that have come to us through the Roman Catholic colossus and her off-shoots whom the Book of Revelation, as we shall see later, identifies as the Whore who rides the Beast (Rev.17:16). As we have already seen in the first four parts of this series, 'Rome' is 'writ large' across the whole of this book as Babylon herself. And that is why the institution that is headquartered in Rome is today supporting all the mandates of the Beast Power of the globalist élites. That is also why this Book of Revelation tells its readers to come out of her and all her denominational children (Rev.18:4).

So these doctrines about who the Father, Son and Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) are immediately presented at the very beginning of this extraordinary book. Otherwise John reiterates the basic Christology - the teaching about Messiah - that evangelical Christianity understands and witnesses of so well - the cross, atonement and the physical resurrection, which is why we include the term 'evangelical' in our self-designated name of Messianic Evangelical:

"To Him Yah'shua/Jesus) who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and cohenim (priests) [5] to His Elohim (God) and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen" (Rev.1:6, NKJV)

As we go through this course we will, I hope, learn a great deal about the way John writes and thinks, and the way he means his readers to understand what he says. Today we're already seeing, I hope, that he is not thinking the same way as Trinitarian Christians do when it comes to who the Divine Heavenly Family are. He speaks of these things in the most poorly understood genre (to modern Westerners), namely, apocalyptic, which at once sends the purely scientifically- and rational-minded into a tail-spin. Like anyone describing a dream or a vision, he must know that what he says is impressionistic. It appeals not to logic or the intellect but to the imagination. You have to picture what he describes in your mind and process it rather differently to, say, Paul's theological, intellectual discourses which is not visual at all. The two apostles are one (in agreement) but they teach the same emet (truth) in radically different ways. Those accustomed only to 'logic' and 'textual analysis' will never understand the Book of Revelation which is the text par excellence for visionaries and seers. They're better suited to Paul. The Book of Revelation is better suited to those of a more 'artistic' disposition, for whom the imagination is vitally important. This is not, however, a licence to go in two separate directions, the extremes of the deistic 'enlightenment' and marxist 'postmodernism' ways, if you like, which is why both Paul and John are in our New Testaments and both are to be studied and understood. They represent the two aspects of the middle ground, the left and right brains, if you like (though that's an over-simplifcation). To be a Messianic Evangelical you have to be both the scientist and the artist even if your particular gifting happens to me more on one side than the other!

So let me reiterate, the Apocalpyse of John, at least when we start getting into the visionary and prophetic stuff, appeals not to logic, but to the imgination, which has, according to N.T.Wright, "been starved rotten in some parts of our culture, and over-stimulated in others." Either way, modern Western perception is completely out of balance. We'll be talking more of this next week, Yah willing.

Be blessed, walk in shalom (peace) and in simcha (joy) in our Master Yahweh, the Lesser Yahweh, the Son, Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), and may the sevenfold Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit), our Heavenly Mother, fill your hearts and minds with Hochmah (Wisdom) and ahavah (love), to the glory of the Father, the Greater Yahweh, is my prayer in Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name, Amen.

Endnotes

[1] Which Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley, author of the falsified New Age gospel, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, seems to have mistakenly thought refers to 'Maria' or 'Mary', the mother of Yah'shua (Jesus)
[2] One Aramaic translation, the AENT (or Aramaic English New Testament by Gabriel Roth) renders this "Master YHWH, Elohim" though I am unable to find any MS that has this 3 word combination (or indeed anywhere else in the Bible) so I am assuming this is a bit of creative paraphrasing and must therefore be treated with suspicion
[3] James Scott Trimm, The Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) Scriptures (SANJ, Hurst, Texas: 2004), p.1573, footnote to Revelation 1:8
[4] We find similar contractions used in the Hebrew names of people. Elijah in Hebrew (meaning 'Yah is my God') is Eliyahu but in Aramaic is Eliya. The same is true of Jeremiah ('Yah exalts') (Heb. Yirmeyahu or Yirmeyah, Aram. Eramiya and Isaiah ('Yah is Saviour') (Heb. Yeshayahu or Yeshayahu, Aram. Eshaya. Yah is also used at the end of the Hebrew word HalleluYah ('Praise Yah') and in Aramaic is HelleluYa. 'Yahu' is only used at the end of words where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is used whereas at the beginning of a name Ye is usually used.
[5] Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 61:6

Further Reading

[1] Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and His Place in the Elohimhead (Godhead)
[2] Trinity: NCAY Prototrinitarianism
[3] Will Yah'shua (Jesus) Always Reign Over Us?
[4] What is the Minimum Godhead Docrine?
[5] The Word Made Flesh series
[7] 'Father', 'Lord' and 'God': What is the Difference?
[8] Patriarchinity: The Full Messianic Evangelical Doctrine of the Godhead
[9] The Council of Nicea: Was It Guided by the Holy Spirit?