Albert Barnes Commentary Revelation 1:4

"John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne;" — Revelation 1:4 (ASV)

John to the seven churches which are in Asia. The word Asia is used in quite different senses by different writers. It is used:

1. As referring to the whole eastern continent now known by that name;
2. As either Asia or Asia Minor;
3. As that part of Asia which Attalus III, king of Pergamos, gave to the Romans, namely, Mysia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Caria, Pisidia, and the southern coast—that is, all in the western, southwestern, and southern parts of Asia Minor; and
4. In the New Testament, usually, as the southwestern part of Asia Minor, of which Ephesus was the capital. (See Barnes' Notes on Acts 2:9).

The word Asia is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but it occurs often in the books of Maccabees and in the New Testament. In the New Testament, it is not used in the large sense in which it is now, as applied to the whole continent, but in its largest meaning, it would include only Asia Minor.

It is also used, especially by Luke, as denoting the country that was called Ionia, or that which embraced the provinces of Caria and Lydia. Of this region Ephesus was the principal city, and it was in this region that the “seven churches” were situated. Whether there were more than seven churches in this region is not intimated by the writer of this book, and on that point, we have no certain knowledge.

It is evident that these seven were the principal churches, even if there were more, and that there was some reason why they should be particularly addressed. There is mention of some other churches in the neighborhood of these. Colosse was near to Laodicea; and from Colossians 4:13, it would seem not improbable that there was a church also at Hierapolis.

But there may have been nothing in their circumstances that demanded particular instruction or admonition, and they may have been on that account omitted. There is also some reason to suppose that though there had been other churches in that vicinity besides the seven mentioned by John, they had become extinct at the time when he wrote the book of Revelation.

It appears from Tacitus (Annals 14.27; compare also Pliny, Natural History 5.29) that in the time of Nero, A.D. 61, the city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake, in which earthquake, according to Eusebius, the adjacent cities of Colosse and Hierapolis were involved. Laodicea was, indeed, immediately rebuilt, but there is no evidence of the re-establishment of the church there before the time when John wrote this book.

The earliest mention we have of a church there, after the one referred to in the New Testament by Paul (Colossians 2:1; 4:13, 15-16), is in the time of Trajan, when Papias was bishop there, sometime between A.D. 98 and 117. It would appear, then, to be not improbable that at the time when the Apocalypse was written, there were in fact but seven churches in the vicinity.

Professor Stuart (i. 219) supposes that “seven, and only so many, may have been named, because the sevenfold divisions and groups of various objects constitute a conspicuous feature in the Apocalypse throughout.” But this reason seems too artificial; and it can hardly be supposed that it would influence the mind of John, in the specification by name of the churches to which the book was sent. If no names had been mentioned, and if the statement had occurred in glowing poetic description, it is not inconceivable that the number seven might have been selected for some such purpose.

Grace be to you and peace. This is the usual form of salutation in addressing a church. (See Barnes' Notes on Romans 1:7).

From him which is, and which was, and which is to come. This refers to Him who is everlasting—embracing all duration, past, present, and to come. No expression could more strikingly denote eternity than this. He now exists; He has existed in the past; He will exist in the future. There is an evident allusion here to the name JEHOVAH, the name by which the true God is appropriately designated in the Scriptures.

That name—from a Hebrew root meaning to be, to exist—seems to have been adopted because it denotes existence, or being, and because it denotes simply one who exists, referring merely to the fact of existence. The word has no variation of form and has no reference to time; it would embrace all time. That is, it is as true at one time as another that He exists.

Such a word would not be inappropriately paraphrased by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” or “who is to be”; and there can be no doubt that John referred to Him here as being Himself the eternal and uncreated existence, and as the great and original fountain of all being.

Those who desire to find a full discussion regarding the origin of the name JEHOVAH may consult an article by Professor Tholuck in the Biblical Repository, vol. iv, pp. 89–108. It is remarkable that there are some passages in heathen inscriptions and writings which bear a very strong resemblance to the language here used by John respecting God.

Thus Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, p. 354), speaking of a temple of Isis at Sais in Egypt, says, “It bore this inscription: ‘I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my veil no mortal can remove.’”—egw eimi pan to gegonov, kai on, kai esomenon kai ton emon peplon oudeiv tw ynhtov anekaluqen.

So Orpheus (in De Mundo) says, “Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all things are made by Jupiter.” So in Pausanias (Phocica, 12), “Jupiter was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be.” The reference in the phrase before us is to God as such, or to God considered as the Father. (Compare “Him” in Revelation 1:8).

And from the seven spirits which are before his throne. After all that has been written on this very difficult expression, it is still impossible to determine its meaning with certainty. The principal opinions which have been held regarding it are the following:

1. That it refers to God as such. This opinion is held by Eichhorn and is favoured by Ewald. No arguments derived from any parallel passages are urged for this opinion, nor can any such be found where God himself is spoken of as a sevenfold Spirit. But the objections to this view are so obvious as to be insuperable:

   1. If it refers to God as such, then it would be mere tautology, for the writer had just referred to Him in the phrase “from him who was,” etc.
   2. It is difficult to perceive in what sense “seven spirits” could be ascribed to God, or how He could be described as a being of “Seven Spirits.” At least, if He could be spoken of as such, there would be no objection to applying the phrase to the Holy Spirit.
   3. How could it be said of God himself that He was “before the throne”? He is everywhere represented as sitting on the throne, not as before it. It is easy to conceive of angels as standing before the throne; and of the Holy Spirit, it is more easy to conceive as being represented thus as ready to go forth and convey a heavenly influence from that throne, but it is impossible to conceive in what sense this could be applied to God as such.

2. The opinion held by Grotius and by John Henry Heinrichs that it refers to “the multiform providence of God,” or to God considered as operating in seven or many different ways. In support of this, Grotius appeals to Revelation 5:12; 7:12. But this opinion is so far-fetched, and it is so destitute of support, that it has found, it is believed, no other advocates and needs no further notice.

   It cannot be supposed that John meant to personify the attributes of the Deity, and then to unite them with God himself, and with the Lord Jesus Christ, and to represent them as real subsistences from which important blessings descend to men. It is clear that as by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” and by “Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness,” he refers to real subsistences, so he must here. Besides, if the attributes of God, or the modes of Divine operation, are denoted, why is the number seven chosen? And why are they represented as standing before the throne?

3. A third opinion is that the reference is to seven attending and ministering presence-angels—angels represented as standing before the throne of God, or in His presence. This opinion was adopted among the ancients by Clement of Alexandria, Andreas of Caesarea, and others; among the moderns by Beza, Drusius, Hammond, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Clarke, Professor Stuart, and others.

   This opinion, however, has been held in somewhat different forms: some maintaining that the seven angels are referred to because it was a received opinion among the Hebrews that there were seven angels standing in the presence of God, as seven princes stood in the Persian court before the king; others, that the angels of the seven churches are particularly referred to, represented now as standing in the presence of God; others, that seven angels, represented as the principal angels employed in the government of the world, are referred to; and others, that seven archangels are particularly designated. (Compare Poole's Synopsis, in loco). The arguments which are relied on by those who suppose that seven angels are here referred to are briefly these:

   1. The nature of the expression here used. The expression, it is said, is such as would naturally denote beings who were before His throne—beings who were different from Him who was on the throne—and beings more than one in number. That it could not refer to one on the throne, but must mean those distinct and separate from one on the throne, is argued from the use of the phrases “before the throne” and “before God” in Revelation 4:5; 7:9, 15; 8:2; 11:4, 16; 12:10; 14:3; 20:12; in all these places, the representation denotes those who were in the presence of God and standing before Him.
   2. It is argued from other passages in the book of Revelation which, it is said (Professor Stuart), go directly to confirm this opinion. Thus in Revelation 8:2: “And I saw the seven angels which stood before God.” So in Revelation 4:5, the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne are said to be “the seven Spirits of God.” In these passages, it is alleged that the article “the” designates the well-known angels, or those which had been before specified, and that this is the first mention of any such angels after the designation in the passage before us.
   3. It is said that this is in accordance with what was usual among the Hebrews, who were accustomed to speak of seven presence-angels, or angels standing in the presence of Jehovah. Thus in the book of Tobit (12:15), Raphael is introduced as using this language: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” The apocryphal book of Enoch (chapter 20) gives the names of the seven angels who watch; that is, of the watchers (compare Barnes' Notes on Daniel 4:13, 17) who stand in the presence of God waiting for the Divine commands, or who watch over the affairs of men. So in the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster, seven amshaspends, or archangels, are mentioned. (See Professor Stuart, in loco).

   To these views, however, there are objections of great weight, if they are not in fact quite insuperable. They are such as the following:

   1. That the same rank should be given to them as to God, as the source of blessings. According to the view which represents this expression as referring to angels, they are placed on the same level, so far as the matter before us is concerned, with “Him who was, and is, and is to come,” and with the Lord Jesus Christ—a doctrine which does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures, and which we cannot suppose the writer designed to teach.
   2. That blessings should be invoked from angels—as if they could impart “grace and peace.” It is evident that, whoever is referred to here by the phrase “the seven spirits,” he is placed on the same level with the others mentioned as the source of “grace and peace.” But it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would invoke that grace and peace from any but a Divine being.
   3. That as two persons of the Trinity are here mentioned, it is to be presumed that the third would not be omitted; or to put this argument in a stronger form, it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would mention two of the persons of the Trinity in this connection, and then not only not mention the third, but refer to angels—to creatures—as bestowing that which would be appropriately sought from the Holy Spirit. The incongruity would be not merely in omitting all reference to the Spirit—which might indeed occur, as it often does in the Scriptures—but in putting in the place which that Spirit would naturally occupy an allusion to angels as conferring blessings.
   4. If this refers to angels, it is impossible to avoid the inference that angel-worship, or invocation of angels, is proper. To all intents and purposes, this is an act of worship, for it is an act of solemn invocation. It is an acknowledgment of the “seven spirits” as the source of “grace and peace.” It would be impossible to resist this impression on the popular mind; it would not be possible to meet it if urged as an argument in favor of the propriety of angel-invocation or angel-worship. And yet, if there is anything clear in the Scriptures, it is that God alone is to be worshipped. For these reasons, it seems to me that this interpretation cannot be well founded.

4. There remains a fourth opinion, that it refers to the Holy Spirit, and in favor of that opinion it may be urged:

   1. That it is most natural to suppose that the Holy Spirit would be invoked on such an occasion, in connection with Him “who was, and is, and is to come,” and with “Jesus Christ.” If two of the persons of the Trinity were addressed on such an occasion, it would be properly supposed that the Holy Spirit would not be omitted as one of the persons from whom the blessing was to descend. (Compare 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.”)
   2. It would be unnatural and improper, in such an invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to men. An invocation to God to send His angels, or to impart grace and favor through angelic help, would be in entire accordance with the usage in Scripture, but it is not in accordance with such usage to invoke such blessings from angels.

   3. It cannot be denied that an invocation of grace from “Him who is, and was, and is to come,” is of the nature of worship. The address to Him is as God, and the attitude of the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act of devotion.

      The effect of uniting any other being with Him in such a case would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with Him. Regarding the Lord Jesus, “the faithful and true witness,” it is from such expressions as these that we are led to the belief that He is Divine and that it is proper to worship Him as such.

      The same effect must be produced in reference to what is here called “the seven spirits before the throne.” We cannot well resist the impression that someone with Divine attributes is intended; or, if it refers to angels, we cannot easily show that it is not proper to render Divine worship to them. If they were thus invoked by an apostle, can it be improper to worship them now?

   4. The word used here is not angels, but spirits; and though it is true that angels are spirits, and that the word spirit is applied to them (Hebrews 1:7), yet it is also true that it is not a word which would be understood to refer to them without designating that angels were meant. If angels had been intended here, that word would naturally have been used, as is the case elsewhere in this book.

   5. In Revelation 4:5, where there is a reference to “the seven lamps before the throne,” it is said of them that they “are,” that is, they represent, “the seven spirits of God.” This passage may be understood as referring to the same thing as that before us, but it cannot be well understood of angels, for:

      1. If it did, it would have been natural to use that language for the reason above mentioned.
      2. The angels are nowhere called “the spirits of God,” nor would such language be proper. The phrase “Spirit of God” naturally implies divinity and could not be applied to a creature.

      For these reasons, it seems to me that the interpretation which applies the phrase to the Holy Spirit is to be preferred; and though that interpretation is not free from difficulties, yet there are fewer difficulties in that than in either of the others proposed. Though it may not be possible wholly to remove the difficulties involved in that interpretation, yet perhaps something may be done to diminish their force.

   1. First, as to the reason why the number seven should be applied to the Holy Spirit:

      1. There would be certainly as much propriety in applying it to the Holy Spirit as to God as such. And yet Grotius, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others saw no difficulty in such an application considered as representing a sevenfold mode of operation of God, or a manifold Divine agency.
      2. The word seven often denotes a full or complete number and may be used to denote that which is full, complete, or manifold; and might thus be used in reference to an all-perfect Spirit, or to a spirit which was manifold in its operations.
      3. The number seven is evidently a favorite number in the book of Revelation, and it might be used by the author in places, and in a sense, such as it would not be likely to be used by another writer. Thus there are seven epistles to the seven churches; there are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials of the wrath of God, seven last plagues; there are seven lamps, and seven Spirits of God; the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes. In Revelation 1:16, seven stars are mentioned; in Revelation 5:12, seven attributes of God; in Revelation 12:3, the dragon has seven heads; in Revelation 13:1, the beast has seven heads.
      4. The number seven, therefore, may have been given to the Holy Spirit with reference to the diversity or the fulness of His operations on the souls of men, and to His manifold agency on the affairs of the world, as further developed in this book.
   2. As to His being represented as “before the throne,” this may be intended to designate the fact that the Divine Spirit was, as it were, prepared to go forth, or to be sent forth, in accordance with a common representation in the Scriptures, to accomplish important purposes on human affairs. The posture does not necessarily imply inferiority of nature, any more than the language does respecting the Son of God, when He is represented as being sent into the world to execute an important commission from the Father. (Regarding “seven Spirits,” see also Revelation 3:1; Revelation 4:5).