REVELATION 4:1

It is always interesting for me to compare a number of commentaries and see what they have to say regarding a particular passage in Scripture. I chose this verse at random and found, not surprisingly, that there were a different views concerning just about every phrase in it – and that was just from a cursory search on the internet.

“After this” This phrase appears both in the start and conclusion of verse 1. The first mention is not very controversial except for the fact that some commentators (such as John Wesley) felt it implied that a time interval must have taken place between 3:22 and 4:1 in order for John time to write down all he had been told beforehand. Other scholars (such as Meyer) are quite insistent that no such time elapsed and that John saw one continuous vision. I am not quite sure what the import is no matter which of these two views is taken.

“I looked” Those holding to the opinion that John was still “in the Spirit (or spirit)” (Revelation 1:10), explain that John in his curiosity now looked around and saw the heavenly vision at this point. For example, the Cambridge Bible felt that the phrase implied that he continued to look.

“a door was open” Commentaries, especially those older ones of a devotional nature, tended to make a lot out of this simple statement. Ellicott: “The way into the presence of God lies open (Hebrews 10:19-20); all who have faith may enter.” Sermon Bible: “Sometimes the door is opened that our faith may not fail.” Chuck Smith and John Brown claim that the open door relates to John 10:9 concerning Christ as the door. Brown deduces that therefore John was only granted access to heaven since he was born again. These are nice thoughts but hardly what the author had in mind.

Some writers point to similar times in biblical history when the heavens were opened, such as in Ezekiel 1:1; Matthew 3:16; and Acts 7:56; 10:11. Others, such as Fausset, point out a contrast in that those other passages all describe the actual opening of the heavens while the door is already opened when John looks. Another difference is that Revelation 4:1 is the only one of those occasions when someone actually enters through the door. In the remaining cases, the viewers remain on earth, both physically and spiritually.

Benson follows John Wesley in noting that each time a door is opened in Revelation, John gets a new and more extended perspective.” (see 11:19; 15:5; and 19:11) Interestingly, not one commentator I read noted the correspondence between the open door in Revelation 4:1 and similar language in the previous chapter (Revelation 3:7-8,20).

“And the first voice I had heard speaking like a trumpet” obviously refers back to Revelation 1:20. Concerning that verse, there is also a division of opinion. Some, such as Meyer, feel that the source of the voice is not identified but probably belongs to one of the talking angels that John encounters later in the book. Others such as Ellicott couple John's hearing the voice with his subsequent turning to see Christ to confidently state that the voice in 1:20 must have belonged to Christ also. But that case cannot be clearly proved. One interesting point brought out by some is that in 1:20 hearing precedes seeing whereas the reverse is the case in 4:1. Again, I am not at all sure that it matters either way. Perhaps it is just a literary technique used to bracket the letters in between. If so, it would be a direct parallel to Paul's utilization of the same method to bracket his letters:

    hear...see     letters      see...hear

    grace..peace      letter      peace..grace

There are many other references to trumpets in the Bible, so each commentator picks his favorite passage among them to connect it with Rev. 1:20. Vincent's Word Study, for example, says that the word primarily referred to a war-trumpet, such as in Matthew 24:31 – a reference to the Second Coming of Christ in judgment in which the angels are blowing the trumpets. Benson and Gill, however, both point to the fact that trumpets were blown by the priests as the doors to the temple were opened. This makes sense since opened doors occurred in both and the temple was an earthly type of what existed in heaven. John Brown, on the other hand, points to the trumpet in I Corinthians 15:51-52 signalling the rapture of the saints as the closest parallel. But this is a clear case of circular reasoning since most non-dispensationalist agree that the I Corinthians reference is to the final judgment with the separation of the sheep and goats, not a call for some sort of interim kingdom to begin.

“Come up and I will show you what must happen afterward.” Now we get to the real point of departure between commentators. And the differences are almost exclusively due to the prior commitments these scholars have to various theological views of the end times based mainly on other passages in Scripture besides the Book of Revelation.

First, let's review the major divisions of history that some feel are reflected in Revelation 1:19 and serve as a general outline for that book (By the way, in my post “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” I present three valid schemes to explain the arrangement of the material in the book, and not one of them is based Rev. 1:19). The older view, still held by some dispensationalists such as Chuck Smith, is that three separate time periods are described here: what was, what is, and what will be. These refer, respectively, to what is in Revelation 1, 2-3, and 4-22.

And, if you happen to see any of the old illustrated dispensationalist charts from the 1800's, you can also notice that this view almost always tries to explain that the seven churches in chs. 2-3 actually outline the whole of Christian church history from the 1^st century to the present time. This is a view that gives rise to ludicrous identifications of both historical church movements and their leaders (who are identified as the “angels” of the churches) with the respective churches in Rev. 2-3. However, some still cling to that basic understanding of Rev. 1:19.

The basic problem with a three-fold division is that the Greek of 1:19 is better understood to say that John is to afterward write everything that he has seen, both present events and future ones. So that leaves us with a two-fold division, if one makes the big, and probably unwarranted, assumption that it is impossible for Revelation to contain a mixture of both throughout (even though the letters to the churches in chs. 2-3 obviously contain a similar mixture). But let us assume that 1:19 does present us with an overall outline of the book, then 4:1 obviously would introduce future events (“things after this”). But even this understanding does not remove all ambiguities.

Thus, both Barnes and Bengel state that 4:1 represents the start of events after the specific churches in chapters 2-3 are no longer (as largely happened during the Ottoman Empire). Fausset and Matthew Poole, on the other hand, take “things after this” to refer to all events subsequent to John's time of writing the Revelation. The Expositor's Bible Commentary similarly notes that Rev. 4-5 still describes the introductory struggles of the church on earth.

Then we come to the dispensational commentators, who are definitely over-represented on the internet and in the popular media. They are all unanimous in stating, going back all the way to Darby and Scoville, that by the time the events introduced by Rev. 41 begin, the true church has been raptured into heaven to leave the rest of humanity, including the “apostate church,” to suffer on the earth. This belief in a pre-tribulation rapture is probably the main doctrine that separates dispensationalists from the much older understanding of the historical pre-millennialists and amillennialists. And it also probably accounts for much of the appeal of the view since the other major schools of thought warn believers that they may not be immune from tribulation.

So what is the evidence for a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture signaled by Rev. 4:1? Most commentators from this school of thought just present it as a self-evident fact without giving any justification for it. However, those who do usually point to the absence of the word “church” after ch. 3, except for one final mention in 22:16 which merely refers back to ch. 1. As even some dispensationalists admit, this is not that powerful an argument since, for one thing, an argument from silence is always a weak one.

Fortunately, even on the internet I located at least one dispensationalist who is intellectually honest enough to actually quote from some of its critics who try to point out some of the deficiencies of their belief concerning Rev. 4:1. His name is Tony Garland and he admits first of all, along with Chuck Smith, that their view connecting the “rapture” with that verse cannot be proved. However, he offers some additional indications for consideration. All together, they indicate, what Gaebelein calls a “symbolic” fulfillment of predictions of future rapture of the church, especially in I Thessalonians 4:15-17. I will take each argument in turn.

1. In both cases, saints will hear a verbal command. (I Thessalonians 4:16)  

I would reply that the parallels between the two events are really not that close. Although the Thessalonian passage does have a loud cry of command, in Revelation it reads more like a mild request. Also, whereas Rev. 4:1 has someone ascending to heaven, in I Thess. 4:16 the movement is in the exact opposite direction.

2. In both cases, the destination of the raptured is heaven (John 14:1-3; I Thessalonians 4:17)

In fact, the destination of the “raptured” in 4:17 is actually the “air,” a word referring to the atmosphere, not heaven. This uncomfortable fact for dispensationalists has caused more academically trained scholars in that camp to evade the point of final destination entirely. For example, Stanley Toussaint stops his comments at the point where the descending Christ meets the saints in the air, and Thomas Constable just states, “ The place where the Christians will be was not as important to Paul as the Person with whom they will be.” (more in my post “I Thessalonians 4:16-17 The Rapture?”) Actually, my comments elsewhere on this passage in Thessalonians make it clear that the final destination of these saints is back on earth (in accordance with an amillennial viewpoint) in the same way that John ends up there after his visions are through.

Appealing to John 14 is a new wrinkle I had not encountered before. But, of course, it only refers to the final destination of the believers, not their intermediate location.

3. The raptured are “in Christ.”

That fact is a rather obvious given, but has no bearing whatsoever on whether John is somehow symbolically enacting a later rapture of believers. And the phrase “in Christ” doesn't even appear in either Rev. 4:1 or I Thess. 4 although John is said to be “in the Spirit.” And what about Paul's comments regarding his own “rapture” into heaven? Wouldn't that mean that he too was predicting a future rapture of the church? But if so, why then did he have to return to earth only to suffer persecution and death unlike the future saints who will supposedly completely escape those hardships?

4. A voice as a trumpet is heard in Revelation just as a voice and a trumpet are heard in Thessalonians.

However, one does not need to go as far as I Thessalonians to find much closer parallels right within Revelation. As mentioned above, there is an exact match in wording and concept in 1:10, and that is the intended reference. But even if one refuses to accept that fact, there are seven trumpets in “heaven” in Rev. 8-10 accompanied by voices that John hears, and in one of these cases (8:13) “a loud voice” is accompanied by the blast from the trumpets. Note that these much closer parallels all happen in the context of judgment, not salvation. Again, this is much more in line with both historical premillennialism and amillennialism, which teach that believers will continue to be around earth during the Tribulation, or at least much of it.

“Come up here” also accompanies the two witnesses rising to heaven. (Revelation 11:12)

At least in this case, Garland appeals to another passage within Revelation. And one must admit that it is an extremely strong parallel to 4:1 with the similar elements “heard,” “voice,” “in/from heaven” and "saying/speaking 'Come up.'” But to invoke this bizarre passage to try and explain a somewhat less opaque one is to turn a basic principle of biblical interpretation on its head. In other words, clear passages should always be used to explain more obscure ones. 

 And whatever Revelation 11 may describe, one thing is obvious; it involves major suffering and persecution of devout believers. I believe that dispensationalist explain that uncomfortable fact away by saying that these are previous unbelievers or those born during the millennial period who were converted to faith by Jewish evangelists. Maybe one will chose to accept that rather convoluted scenario (and it is much much more complicated than that if you read anything by John Walvoord (The Millennial Kingdom) or his many followers rather than accept the more straightforward belief of historical premillennialists and amillennialists which says that the church is obviously still on earth during these tribulations since it never left earth. But even if you chose to agree with Garland, keep in mind that he is trying to draw a dubious parallel between (a) the two devout witnesses (whoever or whatever they may be) being persecuted and killed before going to heaven and (b) the rapture of the church into heaven in order to escape such a fate entirely. At this point, his reasoning escapes me entirely.