Taken Too Literally?

The subject matter of the book depends on a few assumptions.

• (1) In the current time, the seven letters are meant primarily for the addressee: "the angel of the church" (Rev 2:1 - 3:22).
• (2) That angel is "fallen" (Rev 2:5) but finds favour with Christ (Rev 3:7 - 3:13) finding himself similarly justified by the gospel as are the elect body of Christ.
• (3) The angel is sinless: I.e. a "morning star" (Rev 2:28), just like the seven Holy Spirits of God, and also Christ, the "bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16).
• (4) The angel is the "least in the kingdom of God" (The right hand of God).

Most would argue that (1)-(3) are "conjecture" and that the text would then be taken "too literally". I hold to the contrary, as they are biblical (and therefore scriptural fact), not being part of the otherwise apocalyptic prose of the main text. Only (4) remains conjecture in that case, and that is not a heresy as I could argue from the book. I state (1) is obvious from the text, (2) is also obvious in that sense, and only (3) bears any problems: I simply note of the Genesis creation account that God, on each of the six "days" (times) tested whether the creation would be a fitting container for His own Spirit, in that it was found to be "very good" and each work completed is described as maintaining His sevenfold Spirit, a fitting container; each completed with His Spirit become a "morning star" as in the phrase the "evening and the morning were the sixth day" (i.e. the sixth time). Then God did not fall as the creator but created something in this world good enough even for Him to enter, of whom it is said, "nothing else is good". Then, for God to be consistent, creation has to then be just as good as He is, if He is also able to exist within it and remain perfect!

Then the six days of creation are instead "six times" and all are worked concurrent, for once the creation is completely worked, God may then exist in it.

So, to be a "morning star" is to appear to fall, and to rise again, perfectly justified, shining (and in the case of the least, sinless). Or, for the world to come (a new heaven and a new earth) to be a fitting container for the new name of God, with the least its principal element. And that foundation is not then to be built upon sin.

And the least is the first footfall of God's new name in the current creation. He, as a "morning star" appears to fall but the Fathers's work through him is completely justified and the work is found sinless overall, despite any evidence to the contrary - a result to be argued later on as well as expanded upon that which is in the book.

Then I note Satan is never found as a morning star. He will be imprisoned as tormented in the scarlet beast systems image, to provide the missing "noumena", slaved to be tormented under the process of witchcraft he set up over the five refining churches of the letters; were he ever to leave it, the system would again fall. MYSTERY BABYLON, is "twice fallen".

And (4) is simply resolved with the least become a principal element in the ultrafilter that is the kingdom of God. (The only heresy?) The conclusion of (4) (which would entail (3)) is, in the book, argued from the Revelation text itself but this fact appears early on, i.e. in Rev 1:20).

So I note, if the "least" of whom Christ spoke (as literally or only rhetorically?) upon whose coming in the end-times the book is based, is found an actual heresy, then is Christ a heretic? Surely not! (Does that leave only rhetoric?) If it is not heresy for him, the least, to be the "right hand of God" (Rev 1:20) then is conjecturing him to be no sinner at all a heresy? What if he were conjectured a sinner instead - is that not instead an equal heresy? Which is it?

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. (KJV)

So, only (3) poses a problem, yet God will not abstain from judgement and He is certainly coming for that.

Finally, as to (2), from the text and book I state that the angel has fallen from a great height; but only has to be justified a little further: simply to the state of a redeemed human being, not needing any justification further. He (the least) may have truly fallen a thousand thousand miles but only needs to take one step into Jesus Christ, as if any other sinner being also found saved. What would Satan then say? That his own diabolical "kingdom" is so easily invalidated? Sounds good to me!

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page