You know the type

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

You know the type.  You go to visit them.  You have to let yourself in or you get a brief "Hello" as you are let in.  You are invited to sit down.  And the formalities of the conversation begin.

"Hi.  How have you been doing?"
"Fine, thank you.  How about you?"
"Is anything new happening?"
"No, not much. Just the routine. Anything new for you?"
"Not really.  Different day, same stuff."

Somewhere about this point you get to actually start the conversation.  You talk about a particular incident or two that your children have been involved in, what your spouse is doing, maybe a project you're working on.  Usually someone else comes in the room about this time and the conversation base turns to them.  A little later the activity you came for begins.  Then everyone is off and flying.

Not too long ago some friends visited our house.  My wife and I greeted them at the door with friendly hellos.  It had been about a year since we had last seen them.  We all hugged each other.  We brought out tea for them to drink.  They had driven an hour and a half to see us.  The conversation was animated.  We had to know what had been going on in their lives since we saw them last.  The conversation bounced back and forth between them and us energetically.  After a spirited 30 minutes of talking, we began a meal.

What a contrast between the two conversations.  Both are true events.  Both left me with totally different feelings.  They also allow me to understand fully the episode in Jesus' life where he experienced the exact same conversations.  Luke 7.36-50 records the incident.

What happens in verse 39 is unconscionable in retrospect.  Especially two thousand years of retrospect.  How can one criticize the Son of God?  All I have to do is remember a few of the conversations like conversation #1 above.  People are so judgmental.  It happens all the time.  In some of these conversations people use diminuitives in their conversations like, "I like your little house here," or  "How's _____ (your son or daughter) doing?  You know that job (s)he has doesn't pay very much."  Sometimes it's the superlative judgment like "Did you get over your sickness.  It seems you are sick all the time lately," or "Have you lightened up on your workload.  You're gone from your kids so very much." There are a thousand other ways to show people they don't measure up.  So, it's no surprise at all that Jesus would experience the same kind of conversation.

I can picture it,  Jesus comes in, gets the formal greeting, "Hi, how are you doing.  It's been awhile... blah, blah.  Here have a seat.  In a minute we'll eat."  Then, someone of a higher station comes in to eat with Simon as well.  "Hi, how are you.  It's so good to see you.  Let _____ (the servant) wash your feet.  You've been in those awful streets.  I'll put some good smelling oil on your head so you feel (and smell) refreshed.  Have a seat."

I don't know how the woman that kneels behind Jesus' feet got into the house.  If it was Mary, Lazarus' sister, she was a woman of means.  That would account for the invitation and the expensive oil.  But, if it was not that Mary, then perhaps she whisked in unnoticed with her flask of good smelling oil.  Nothing is really said when Mary begins pouring the oil from the flask onto Jesus' feet.  But what Simon thought in this instance is so typical of what people say and think today.

Verse 39

ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Φαρισαῖος ὁ καλέσας αὐτὸν εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγων· οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν

(The Pharisee that invited Jesus saw what happened and thought to himself, "If he were a prophet, he would have known who she was, what kind of background she has, and where she is from because the woman touching him has such a questionable character.)

It's clear that Jesus was invited by Simon to his house.  So, when Luke uses "the Pharisee" in this verse, it is a deliberate use to show the kind of person Simon was.  He was one of those judgmental types who prided himself in knowing the Talmud, which included all the oral traditions, and doing all the right things at all the right times.  He's a rule-keeper and polices others' actions to make sure that they are good rule keepers as well.  Who would want to be touched by someone of questionable reputation like Mary.  Jesus shouldn't allow her to touch him.

Jesus saw his transparent mind, maybe by reading his face, eyes, or posture.  Jesus knew what Simon was thinking.  He gave him a parable to think about as a result.  And very directly Jesus tells Simon that he was not treated well when he arrived - no foot wash, no embrace, no oil for refreshment.  In contrast "this woman"  (a very impersonal reference to Mary to sarcastically point out that he knew Simon's condescending thoughts about her) used tears to wash his feet, continually kissed his feet, and poured refreshing, sweet-smelling, expensive oil on them.  "This woman" had treated him as royalty, like an emperor, like the Son of God.

That is lesson enough for most people, but a tasty morsel comes in verse 47.  Jesus' words highlight the great difference between serving God from Simon's standpoint of deserving notice because of  his good behavior and Mary's picture of showing total gratitude for Jesus noticing her despite her background and regional origin.  She responded with a great show of love for who Jesus was and the change he allowed her with a second chance. 

Verse 47

οὗ χάριν λέγω σοι, ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ· ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγον ἀγαπᾷ

(So, I am telling you her many failures are acquitted because she has shown so much love.  A person who has been acquitted of little, loves little.)

Can you see the arched eyebrows of the Pharisees present?  In fact, verse 48 says as much.  Jesus sees and knows this response too.  So, he addresses Mary directly and forgives failures and gives her one more insight.

 Verse 50

εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα· ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην

(Jesus also told the woman, "Your faith has saved you.  Move on in peace.")

I know the conviction but stubborn resistance and possible resentment Simon felt after this incident.  I have been in Simon's shoes on a great number of occasions.   I was raised in an environment just like Simon's and understand his arrogance and desire to be noticed for his piety.  I also have poured out my tears at Jesus' feet because of how grateful I am to have the Son of God look at me saying, "Your failures are acquitted because you have shown great love."  I have shared that same station in life that Mary was in and comprehend the great relief of being acquitted.

Without any doubt, Mary and all of us who have experienced an acquittal for wrongdoings, failures on our part to live up to a standard of decent living, know the great freedom that comes when the Son of God looks at us and says, "Your faith has saved you, move on in peace."  And we do.  We move on with a calm about us that only those who have been there understand.

This is how I am approaching 2016 - being acquitted, loving like crazy, moving ahead in peace!

Showing true attitude

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

This week either is the actual week or represents the actual week 2019 years ago that the most famous and important Mary ever born traveled to Jerusalem for a census.  This is the week that began a change in direction for everything that had ever happened in history.  As such, I find inspiration in the opening chapter of the gospel I can trust - Luke because it tells me what happened with Mary and her cousin to bring to the world two really important people.

After addressing Theophilos, Luke narrates two stories.  The stories are exactly parallel in their structure.  More than likely that was done for ease of memorizing.  But, it could be that the events took place in the exact same manners.  The structure is as follows.

Verses for         Verses for
Zechariah          Mary               Portion of story

5-10                  26-27               Set up the character the story is about
11                     28                    Gabriel the angel appears
12                     29                    Character's reaction to Gabriel
13                    30-31                Gabriel explains his mission
14-17               32-33               Gabriel tells the significance of the child
18                    34                     Character's reaction to this announcement
19-20               35-37               Gabriel's parting statement
21-25               38-35               Aftermath of Gabriel's visit

These two stories set the stage for a big change that was about to happen in the world.  It is fitting that the set-up is told from the perspective of the mother of the Son of God most High.  Great debates rage from one generation to the next about Mary's exact role in the religion that sprung from Jesus' Earthly presence, but before the debate began, Luke gave a tribute to Mary by recording the beginning events of Christianity from her point of view.

The portion of the story giving the significance of each child in a private audience is worth recounting.  These children's significance was profound.  The first child was significant to the Jews because some were expecting "Elijah" to come before the messiah or because some thought the messiah to be the next Elijah.  The message to Zechariah set the record straight on that matter.  For non-Jews, it showed that there was a forerunner to announce the Son of God to the world.  Romans in particular understood this routine.  All the emperors had entourages of people to precede them anywhere they went to announce them with messages and trumpets.  The Son of God was no less prestigious than they were.

The Announcer (John)

Verse 15

εσται γαρ μεγας ενωπιον του κυριου και οινον και σικερα ου μη πιη και πνευματος αγιου πλησθησεται ετι εκ κοιλιας μητρος αυτου

He will be important as he goes before the Lord.  He will never drink wine and beer. He will be filled instead with the Holy Spirit from the time he is in his mother's womb.

Verse 16

και πολλους των υιων ισραηλ επιστρεψει επι κυριον τον θεον αυτων

And he will help many of Israel's children restore their God to an important position in their lives.

Verse 17

και αυτος προελευσεται ενωπιον αυτου εν πνευματι και δυναμει ηλιου επιστρεψαι καρδιας πατερων επι τεκνα και απειθεις εν προνησει δικαιων ετοιμασαι κυριω λαον κατεσκευασμενον

And he will go ahead of him in the spirit and power of Elijah to soften parents' hearts to childrens' hearts and their defiant rebellion to decent living and to make the people more pliant for the Lord.

Verse 15 is the key to why Zechariah is seeing Gabriel at the altar as he offered sacrifice.  There needed to be an announcement because John was important.  The people of Israel had hearts of stone.  They had to be changed into something more pliable, something that could handle Jesus' message that he represented the true and living God and that his teachings would lead the people to change their lives.  John's message would soften the people's hearts to make them more accepting like children.

The other child needed an announcement as well.  How often does the Son of God come to Earth?  One would think that if that ever happened, it would be no less of an event than the emperor visiting a town outside of Rome.  Right, messengers would be sent in advance.  Proper preparations would be made so that the governors, officials, soldiers, and people would know the event was magnanimous.  God did that, but he wanted his private audience first.  He prepared Zechariah for John's part in this visitation.  And, he prepared Mary as well, telling her of the importance of the child she would carry for him, the Most High.

The Announced (Jesus)

Verse 31

και ιδου συλληψη εν γαστρι και τεξη υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου ιησουν

Know this.  You will conceive and deliver a son. You will name him Jesus.

Verse 32

ουτος εσται μεγας και υιος υψιστου κληθησεταικ και δωσει αυτω κυριος ο θεος τον θρονον δαυιδ του πατρος αυτου

He will be important and will be called Son of the Most High.  The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.

Verse 33

και βασιλευσει επι τον οικον ιακωβ εις τους αιωνας και της βασιλειας αυτου ουκ εσται τελος

And he will rule the house of Jacob forever and his realm will never end.


Yeah, news like this needed to be announced in private.  Gabriel represents the Most High.  Mary had worshiped him all of her life.  The message was brief and direct. The Most High wanted her to carry his baby for him.  Gabriel didn't have to say that the baby would be important, but he did go on to say that.  Astonishingly, Mary took the news rather well, considering.  And Gabriel's last word about the house of Jacob and the throne of David was to remove any doubt about whether this Son of God was also the Messiah.  Gabriel used the exact words needed to dispel any rumor to the contrary.  All Jews were looking for the messiah to be on the throne of David and to have an Earthly realm for the Jews.  God just one-upped them on that last part.  This messiah would have a realm that would never end.

The reactions to Gabriel's announcement are the tasty morsel in the story.  Zechariah was incredulous without a doubt, given his reaction.  I'm thinking that if you are in the temple alone offering sacrifices for people to God, that when you see his messenger, you might believe his words without question.  Perhaps, Zechariah doubted that Gabriel was from God. Or perhaps Zechariah couldn't wrap his mind around a God that could really break the limitations of the world he had created.  Whatever!  It cost him.  For saying, κατα τι γνωσομαι τουτο (And exactly how am I going to know this?) [verse 18], he was struck silent for 10 months until John was born.  And Gabriel showed a little attitude by retorting, "I am Gabriel who stands in God's presence... in return for your disbelief you won't speak."

Mary, on the other hand, responded not with a question of sarcasm, but with a question about logistics.  She was a virgin, so Gabriel received her query as one of "Tell me more" because the only known way of becoming pregnant was with another human being.  Gabriel explained it to her.  No, not this time.  God is dealing directly with you.  He's not using another human this time.  It's his son!
Mary's response is not disbelief, but one of total acceptance. ιδου η δουλη κυριου γενοιτο μοι κατα το ρημα σου (Then you are looking at the Lord's servant.  Let it happen to me according to what you have spoken) [verse 20].

As I enter this very important week of God beginning his visitation to this Earth, I review this story to remind me of two responses that I could give to this magnanimous event.  As one who has received a fair share of formal schooling and exposure to a scientific method that requires observation of existing facts to form a hypothesis, I can recount times and places where I have given Zechariah's response.  I say things like, "Show me something I can know by" or more sarcastically, "And just how can I know that this is true?" before I begin to look believingly at what I should have seen and believed.

Fortunately, Zechariah lived to have a chance to give a more credible reaction.  It's not recorded, but you know after John's birth, he didn't really question God's ability to do anything ever again.  And this is a good time of year for me to start again. It's the time of year to have Mary's response, something like, "I am the Lord's servant.  Let it happen according to your plans for me this day."

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

I can trust it

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

Since the time of Jesus, the rise of the university has spawned the rise of scientific investigation.  Modern people have looked back over the span of 2000 years and many times have wrongly assumed that what was written in days of Jesus lacked the methods of scientific inquiry.  What gets glossed in that way of thinking is that scientific advancement was well and alive in the Roman Empire and is illustrated everywhere one wants to look.

Engineers for the Roman military were able to invent rapid fire weapons that humiliated the enemy.  Engineers for the government designed aquaducts that could bring water hundreds of miles using the force of gravity but some even go uphill when the terrain requires it.  They learned to drill for oil, mix concrete feet for piers underwater and move dirt by the ton to create mile-long ramps and bridges and extensions to a shoreline.  Their medicine was second to none.  Doctors had a whole array of hand tools in their bags and knew about the human body from years of investigation and observance of how the body acts and reacts.  Doctors had the training to show them how to validate their observations and findings.  Astronomical records were kept containing tremendous accuracy.  And in the navigation of seas, Rome had no equal in getting troops, supplies, and commercial products to their destinations with efficiency and without mishap for the great amount of water travel they used.

So, to think of the people of Jesus' day and time as simple and primitive, given to notional thinking about how things work, and experiencing life on the most basic terms would be the polar opposite of the truth.  And, if a person of wealth, or government official wanted to investigate something to ensure its accuracy and truth, he could do so with methods commensurate to other scientific pursuits in this advanced, ancient world.

The way the gospel of Luke opens is a true reminder of this second-to-none world of the Romans.  It has something to say to the person inclined to think that Jesus' time and place had little to offer a modern person.  To be sure, the Romans didn't consider the world outside of Greece and Italy as civilized, and in the realm of religion, the religions found in the provinces were merely superstitions for the locals.  So, it is very noticeable that in the middle of Rome's arrogance from all their advances in technology and their belief that no one else had anything to offer them, a medical doctor with a Roman name would take the time to address a Greek magistrate working for the Roman provincial government about a matter that really shouldn't have mattered - one of those outlying superstitious religions.

Verse 3 -

εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

(I thought it wise to write you, Most Excellent Theophilos, since I have followed the succession of everything closely and carefully from its inception.)

Like modern scientists, Luke described his method of recording the Jesus movement.  A scientist has to follow things closely when observing, and he or she has to record the order of successive stages carefully.  People in Luke's day were as curious as people now, and had just as much need to trust their experts when they drew conclusions from their observations.  Luke says this was the case as he examined Christianity ανωθεν (from its inception).

But it gets better.  Luke wanted Theophilos' trust.  He wanted him to trust him.  He was a doctor and knew how extremely important proper documentation was in gaining people's trust.  So, besides telling Theophilos that he followed everything closely and carefully from day one, he told him how he knew.

Verse 1 -

επειδηπερ πολλοι επεχειρησαν αναταξασθαι διηγησιν περι των πεπληροφορημενων εν ημιν πραγματων

(Seeing that many people have sat down to write a narrative from memory of the things that have happened among us.)

Evidently, records existed from a number of different writers who had circulated stories of the deeds of Jesus from the first third of the 1st century.  Luke had come along after these writers, but had their writings to refer to.  These works could have included  gospel of.  Mark in particular is thought to have been an early rendering of Jesus' events since it is so episodic in nature and contained no genealogy.  Luke records having a number manuscripts at his disposal or that he had collected for himself over the years.

Verse 2 -

καθως παρεδοσαν ημιν οι απ αρχης αυτοπται και υπηρεται γενομενοι του λογου

(and from what was imparted to us by eyewitnesses who were there from the start and from followers who became so as a result of their message.)

To the records he referred to in verse 1 that he had read, Luke adds two other pieces of evidence - eyewitnesses and subsequent followers.  Any serious inquiry would have to include primary evidence.  That's why he includes the eyewitnesses.  But, a movement is not a serious movement unless people have been affected by the message left by the originator and those who were actually there.  Thus, followers of Jesus' message who became Christians without the benefit of actually seeing Jesus in action became the secondary evidence that attested to Christianity's authenticity.

There is a tasty morsel contained in verse 4 of Luke 1.

ινα επιγνως περι ων κατηχηθης λογων την ασφαλειαν

(so that you can ascertain the accuracy of what you were briefed on.)

Theophilos was evidently a magistrate in some official capacity for Rome.  He had had his briefing on what to expect from the religions  in the province.  He would have definitely been advised of the Jews' beliefs and what to allow and disallow with them.  But the Christian movement was new.  How should he treat them?  Were they a threat in any way to Rome's security and dominance in the province?  Pliny the Younger in around 113 A.C.E. wrote Emperor Trajan concerning both of these matters 50 to 70 years later than Luke.  Pliny's letter serves as both verification and instruction about the concern provincial governors had in how to treat provincial Christians and illustrates how someone like Theophilos would need someone like Luke to help him understand this growing religion.

Luke had one other credential to support Theophilos' choice as the voice he wanted to hear about the Christian movement.  An official asks a person with scientific standing to expertly assess something, for sure, but Luke also was a part of this Christian movement. That's good news because Luke didn't just give Theophilos a favorable report from an outsider, Luke started at the beginning of the movement, cited primary evidence (eyewitnesses), showed the secondary effect Christianity had on people beyond the first generation, and admitted to being one of Jesus' followers.  Twice he refers to "us" as he told Theophilos that he could trust that the Christian movement was benign in its intents to usurp Roman authority.

των πεπληροφορημενων εν ημιν (the things that have happened among us)

παρεδοσαν ημιν (what was imparted to us)

That's comforting to me.  I don't have to depend on evidence merely from the early church fathers, from apocryphal literature, or from orthodox documents from the established church 2 1/2 centuries removed from Jesus.  I have a document written by a scientist, addressed to a government official containing sound scientific evidence that Jesus lived, died, rose, and influenced the next generation with his teachings.  What else could a modern person want!?  That the scientist had also been touched by Jesus' message?  With Luke, I have that too!

The plan in the wings

Morsels of food are delicious because of the little things, the subtle seasonings, the dash of salt, the sprinkle of garlic, the garnish of parsley, the touch of glaze, or the hint of lemon.  Ahhhh - so delicious!

The book of Revelation is supposed to be a revealing, an unveiling, a disclosure.  That's what the word apocalypse means in Greek.  When modern readers hear the word apocalypse, they receive a somewhat different idea because of the changes made to the word over the last two thousand years.  Now the word apocalypse seems to refer to a mega-catastrophe, an annihilation of some sort, or an end of time scenario.  While many people see this modern meaning of the word apocalypse in some of the reported visions of the book of Revelation, it is important to remember the meaning of the word apocalypse to the people the book was originally written to.

As the book opens, apocalypse appears as the first word.

αποκαλυψιϛ ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεοϛ δειξαι τοιϛ δουλοιϛ αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλαϛ δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

(A disclosure from Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his servants of what needs to happen quickly and that was given for delivery through a dispatched messenger to his servant John.)

The rest of the chapter sets forth what the book will illustrate.  Understanding the first chapter then reveals the organization and purpose for the rest of the book.

The first order of business in knowing how to view the book is noticing what the book's first word alludes to.  It means disclosure without question, but there is more to the word.  Apocalypse was a category, a genre of literature.  This genre was distinctive and recognizable.  It had certain identifiable characteristics that were evident in all the works of the genre.  Someone who represented God's people received visions and mysteries.  These visions and mysteries were delivered by a heavenly being whose responsibility was to also disclose their meanings. The visions were usually fanciful, having symbols created to convey ideas.  In some cases, miniature allegories rested inside the visions. The intent of the storyline and the impact of the symbols were meant to comfort and asssure God's people that He saw their needs and would act on them.  Oppression against his people would be crushed.  Apocalypses were popular in Judaism and in Christianity for about 400 years, 200 BCE to 200 ACE.  Representative books can be found in the Old Testament, the Old Testament apocrypha, the pseudipigrapha, the New Testament, and the New Testament apocrypha.

The natural question is, How do I know that Revelation belongs to this genre of literature?  The characteristics above are very pronounced in Revelation, and the image of Jesus in verses 12-17 is drawn from several of the apocalyptic books, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Enoch, and 2 Esdras.

A another question then arises.  Is Revelation, like the other apocalyptic books, symbolic in nature rather than literal in nature?  Given the characteristics of all of the other books, and the symbolic interpretation used in understanding them, it seems rather logical to say that John's Revelation is not different from them.  The understanding from its first word on is that the images are symbolic and are to be interpreted by the heavenly beings that appear to John or are interpretable from their use in prior apocalypses.

One other verse of great importance in chapter one is verse 19.  It stands as the purpose of every vision and mystery to follow.

γραψον ουν α ειδεϛ και α εισιν και α μελλει γενεσθαι μετα ταυτα

(So write what you have known about, what is happening now, and what could happen as a result.)

The purpose had three parts to it.  The first part pertained to John's position or role as the last and only living apostle, possibly the last and only living eyewitness of Jesus.  If anyone knew about the things of Jesus, it was John.  He had been there.  Also, he had been an integral part of nurturing and guiding the followers of Jesus in Asia around the area of Ephesus.  He knew about what the Christians had faced in Asia as they followed Jesus.  The second part was about the current state of affairs in Asia.  John knew not only about the churches's development, but their current state of affairs.  The third part was about drawing a trajectory line and following logic.  If John knew the past and present, he could connect the dots and draw a dotted line for what would happen if nothing changed.  It was an a + b = c statement.  It wasn't a trajectory line of what was certain to happen.  It was a trajectory line of probability if things didn't change.

The third part, α μελλει γενεσθαι (what could happen) matches what was said in verse 1, α δει γενεσθαι (what needs to happen).  The Christians of Asia were suffering various forms of persecution.  These are mentioned in the letters that followed in chapters 2 and 3.  Such things were death at the hands of the Romans (Antipas was mentioned by name), slander from the mouths of the Jews, and misleading teaching on the part of church leaders who also called themselves apostles.  There were other things to too.  The Christians needed assurance that loyalty to Jesus was worth the persecution.  If they died, was there an better afterlife with Jesus?  If they were slandered by Jews, was there any truth to Jesus not being the son of God?  If apostle leaders were saying it was OK to eat meat offered to idols, was it wrong to do so?

So, John had to write his fellow believers to assure them that Christianity was worth its calling.  One of the best ways to do that would be to write in a style that Christians would understand and that Romans wouldn't.  Persecution was picking up.  He himself had survived an attempt on his own life.  So he needed definitely to write some words of assurance without jeopardizing the people who would read his words because his remarks were to stand against the persecution.  An apocalypse would be such a form that Romans wouldn't recognize.  He would use that literary style to convey his ideas.  The very first word from his pen would alert his readers to the genre.

A tasty morsel is found in the last two words of verse 19, μετα ταυτα (as a result).  Although after this is a possibility for a translation if the words before it were about time, as a result is a better translation since the words before can be seen as events rather than time.  As a result was more assuring for those finding it hard to follow Jesus.  Knowing that things from the ensuing letters and visions were tentative, that they were possible coming events if nothing in the environment changed would give hope that either things would change or that God would act if nothing changed.  Verse 1 contained the words, α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει (what needs to happen quickly) because Christians faced immediate challenges to their faith.  If nothing was going to change, God's actions in favor of his people needed to happen quickly.

As it turned out, not long after John died, the emperors Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius eased the persecution against Christians for the next half-century.  The saints's prayers were answered and the disclosure of events in Revelation were delayed or canceled because of the faithfulness of John's generation of Christians.  The images were very meaningful over the next two hundred year period because of several other emperors's attempts at ridding the empire of Christians.  Early church leaders for the next two centuries referenced parts of Revelation.  And, in the end, by 325 BCE the Roman emperors fully embraced or fully allowed for the Christian faith.

If I look to Revelation for a message for my personal life, I see that I, too, go through periods of challenges to my faith.  I plead for God to intervene or give understanding for what is happening.  I ask for his quick relief.  During these periods of my life, I identify with the Christians in John's time and find comfort in his visions, especially in scenes like the one in Revelation 7 where God asks the four angels holding the winds at the corners of the Earth to stop everything until his people have been given their white robes.  At that point, all is well that ends.