Where in Revelation is a Rapture Mentioned?

[Major1]

Nothin personal Trib Signs.....I've got enough people debating with me.

That is true............but YOU asked for it!

 

[Archmike]

You speak of John the Revelator , but you have no idea who he is ?
A simple study is easy to prove that Apostle John , close friend of Jesus while Jesus was on earth during his earthly ministry is the same John who wrote the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ ! Apostle John was exiled to the island of Patmos in 95 AD , if you take some time to research this matter you will find an abundance of evidence that Apostle John was exiled on the island and while there Jesus called him up to heaven in spirit - there is no other biblical writer named John that wrote the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ -as the book is all about revealing Jesus at Jesus return in the 2nd advent

you are mistakenly believing things are false

According to my study, John the Revelator was released from Patmos, and returned to live with the early church fathers of Asia Minor. These are the same churches he sent his book, The Revelation to. But, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IN THOSE CONGREGATIONS QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT WHAT HE SAW, OR WHAT HE WROTE. NOBODY ! Nor did they record any inquiries. None. Whatsoever.....

You find that odd ? I do. So, it leads me to believe, the Revelator John was someone other than John the Apostle. And I don't really care what everyone else says...

I USE BASIC REASONING SKILLS TO ASSESS THIS CASE.

 

[Major1]

I don't know. You know ?
Hey, that's what it says....or are you like the "scholars" and use this excuse, and that excuse, and this translation, and that translation, and this "expert opinion" , and that "expert opinion", and this commentary, and that commentary?

....thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Mt 11:25

No sir......I do not know.

However.......you said that John the author of Revelation was one of the two witness. Now then, DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Are YOU being a scholar and giving an expert translation?????

You see, I ask that because there is absolutely NO Bible Scriptures that say that. NONE!

 

[seventysevens]

According to my study, John the Revelator was released from Patmos, and returned to live with the early church fathers of Asia Minor. These are the same churches he sent his book, The Revelation to. But, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IN THOSE CONGREGATIONS QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT WHAT HE SAW, OR WHAT HE WROTE. NOBODY ! Nor did they record any inquiries. None. Whatsoever.....

You find that odd ? I do. So, it leads me to believe, the Revelator John was someone other than John the Apostle. And I don't really care what everyone else says...

I USE BASIC REASONING SKILLS TO ASSESS THIS CASE.

Why not share this study with us , why would you not want to provide evidence of what you say is true ?
there are only theories and legends about apostle Johns death
Nothing of evidence

 

[Major1]

According to my study, John the Revelator was released from Patmos, and returned to live with the early church fathers of Asia Minor. These are the same churches he sent his book, The Revelation to. But, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IN THOSE CONGREGATIONS QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT WHAT HE SAW, OR WHAT HE WROTE. NOBODY ! Nor did they record any inquiries. None. Whatsoever.....

You find that odd ? I do. So, it leads me to believe, the Revelator John was someone other than John the Apostle. And I don't really care what everyone else says...

I USE BASIC REASONING SKILLS TO ASSESS THIS CASE.

SOURCES Mike.....Sources????

Actually, There is no sure answer to this question because the Bible does not reveal to us the details concerning the John's death. Information regarding his last days comes to us primarily from tradition.

 

[Archmike]

No sir......I do not know.

However.......you said that John the author of Revelation was one of the two witness. Now then, DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Are YOU being a scholar and giving an expert translation?????

You see, I ask that because there is absolutely NO Bible Scriptures that say that. NONE!

Rev 10:11 says it quite plainly, Major. "You must prophecy again". Furthermore, this same John was instructed to take the little book and ingest it, which is to suggest he digests the book the angel holds, and knows its content VERY WELL. Frankly, the whole chapter is PROOF John prophesies at the time of the end. Combined with the very next chapter discussing the two witnesses, I don't have to be "too swift" to realize John is one of the two witnesses.

Hello !

 

[Archmike]

SOURCES Mike.....Sources????

Actually, There is no sure answer to this question because the Bible does not reveal to us the details concerning the John's death. Information regarding his last days comes to us primarily from tradition.

I agree...to a certain extent. So, the question remains: is John the Revelator one and the same as Apostle John ? And I say "no" through the logical reasoning I have already mentioned.....

 

[Major1]

According to my study, John the Revelator was released from Patmos, and returned to live with the early church fathers of Asia Minor. These are the same churches he sent his book, The Revelation to. But, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IN THOSE CONGREGATIONS QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT WHAT HE SAW, OR WHAT HE WROTE. NOBODY ! Nor did they record any inquiries. None. Whatsoever.....

You find that odd ? I do. So, it leads me to believe, the Revelator John was someone other than John the Apostle. And I don't really care what everyone else says...

I USE BASIC REASONING SKILLS TO ASSESS THIS CASE.

Mike, you said when asking me................
"Hey, that's what it says....or are you like the "scholars" and use this excuse, and that excuse, and this translation, and that translation, and this "expert opinion" , and that "expert opinion", and this commentary, and that commentary?"

....thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Mt 11:25

Now you turn right around and say...........
*****"I USE BASIC REASONING SKILLS TO ASSESS THIS CASE".***

 

[Major1]

I agree...to a certain extent. So, the question remains: is John the Revelator one and the same as Apostle John ? And I say "no" through the logical reasoning I have already mentioned.....

You then are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe my brother.

There is no need for me to debate it with you any further.

 

[Major1]

Rev 10:11 says it quite plainly, Major. "You must prophecy again"

CONTEXT Mike. We can not just pick our a verse and use it for our own purposes. That is totally unacceptable in exegesis.

Of course, Revelation, in a certain sense, is "concerning" many peoples, etc.; but far more is involved here than this single prophecy. All of God's word is to be proclaimed "unto all nations" (Luke 24:47); and we are certain that that mandate is the commission to John which is reiterated in this verse.

 

[Major1]

Let examine these verses carefully:

Romans 11:1
[1] I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.​

Paul says, 'I say then' [oun], meaning accordingly or consequently. This because in chapters nine and ten, Paul had many things to say which are disturbing about the nation of Israel, their disobedience, the Jews obstinacy, and their standing with God. The phrase, I say then, or I say subsequently, is in reference to these preceding chapters where Paul was explaining how God called not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles.

Romans 9:24
[24] Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?​

Selah!

He is explaining how those who were not His people, are now called His people, and how Isaiah also cried concerning Israel, that though their number be as the sand of the sea, yet only a 'remnant' should be Saved:

Romans 9:27​

[27] Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

He spoke of how the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained righteousness, but how that Israel, which followed after the law, have not attained to righteousness:

Romans 9:30-31
[30] What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
[31] But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

And in chapter 10 he continued in the same vein explaining how his prayer was that Israel might be saved, but how they are ignorant of the righteousness of Christ (10:1-4):

Romans 10:1-4
[1] Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
[2] For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
[3] For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
[4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
And how there is 'no difference' between the Jew and the Greek:

Romans 10:12
[12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Paul writes how whosoever should call upon the name of God will be Saved, regardless. Chapter ten concludes with Isaiah's prophesy which spoke of this:

Isaiah 10:20-21​

[20] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
[21] The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

So the truth is that God is a light found of the Gentiles, while the nation Israel, having been judged of God, lies in darkness.

After addressing Israel's fall in chapters nine and ten, Paul turns to the subject of what this means with regards to the promises made. It is in this context that the rhetorical question is asked, 'so consequently, has God cast off His people?' And Paul answers clearly, No, God hasn't cast off Israel, because he himself is an Israelite and God has not cast him off. By saying this he proves by his own example how unreasonable it would be to conclude the nation Israel was cast off. For he himself is an Israelite, thus the conclusion is proven false! Selah!

Not only an Israelite, but Paul gets right down to his very tribe declaring that he is of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. The Hebrew word Benjamin [binyamiyn] means, "son of the right hand." And the families of God, through Christ, are sons of the right hand, even as Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father.

Deuteronomy 33:12
[12] And of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; and the LORD shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.​

The beloved of the Lord dwells in safety by Him because Christ dwells at the right hand of the father, and they in Christ. It is in the true Son of the right hand, that the promises to the Children of God are fulfilled. The right hand is the favored one. Just as today, most people are right-handed, or favor their right hand. We are the sons of favor, through Christ. By Paul mentioning He is of the tribe of Benjamin, He is proving that he is one of the children of Israel, the chosen of God, and yet he has not been cast off. Therefore, this proves that the promise was not abrogated. This is an important declaration because it is declaring that the promise is sure and Israel is being saved in the prophesied remnant, of which he himself is one. His words here cannot in any way be construed as saying that later, more than a remnant will be saved. On the contrary, he has used himself as "an example that the promise is being kept" right then and there in Jews like himself. If we ascribe anything more than this to the text, we are reading it "into the passage," rather than reading "from the passage." As He declares himself an Israelite after the promises, it is proved that God's favor indeed rested on Israel.

Has God cast off His people? His reply is [me ginomai], literally 'forbidden come to be.' God forbid this is true! The Romans, and indeed all of us, are not to misunderstand election but realize that the elect or chosen people of God to which the promises were made, have always been a remnant! Just as in Romans chapter 9, where corporate Israel, God says is "not Israel," and the election Israel, which God says is!

The message here is that indeed Israel has come under judgment (branches broken off), but it is the reason why THIS Israel in blindness is NOT the Israel to which the everlasting Promises were made (as Paul says he is living proof of that, being an Israelite, and not being blinded). God is not saving Israel through 'favored nation status' like you believe but rather through 'favored people status' or "particular redemption." Paul declares he is an Israelite, which means the promise was not abrogated by part of Israel being blinded. One Israel was blinded, but the election is in the favored son. A remnant Israel, showing that there is an election of Grace, not of Race nor nation, and that this has always been God's plan for Israel's future.

The overview of verse one is that God is illustrating that the part of Israel that is spoken of in this chapter as having been cut off, are those of Israel who have rejected Christ. And the part of Israel which has not rejected Christ (of which Paul declares he is one) are the elect of Israel who is not cast off, and to whom the promises pertain, and that does not lie in unbelief. Paul says God forbid that the Lord has cast away his people, for he also is an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. And this truth of election is also reiterated clearly in the verses that follow.

Now let check with verse two:

Romans 11:2
[2] God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,​

Mant theologians love to quote Romans 11:1 of God not casting away His people, but seem to completely ignore the fact that verse two is the context that defines verse one. God has not cast away his people that He foreknew. Note that his statement is accompanied by a qualifying clause. The stipulation of those he has not cast off is, 'His people which He foreknew.' These are the remnant of Israel whom He foreknew, not the "whole nation of Israel." These are the election Chosen by Grace, and predestinated unto salvation. These phrases like "He foreknew," and "His People," are not used carelessly, they are divinely inspired to illustrate that God's people are those whom He elected before the foundation of the world. Clearly not an elect nation Israel, but an elect people of Israel.

Matthew 1:21

• "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall Save His people from their sins".

Romans 8:29

• "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

These are those who Romans 11:2 says are 'His people' which He 'foreknew.' And them that He foreknew he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. By any man's definition that excludes the whole nation of Israel, as many were unsaved and came under the wrath of God. And so as Paul writes, 'No, God has not cast away his people He foreknew.' On the contrary, His people were saved by Christ's work on the cross, and they are the election of Israel. More specifically Covenant Israel. Not national Israel. Theologians today make the mistake of treating all the nation of Israel as 'His People' eternally, when they were actually His people corporately or covenantally, but not saved eternally. This can easily be proven as we read that many Jews died in the wilderness because of unbelief, or as Jesus Himself told the members of the congregation of Israel that they would not escape the damnation of hell. If they were all eternally His people as a nation, they would not have died in unbelief, they would have been saved. Selah! For example, they were "covenantally" His people, and that is how/why they could be branches broken off from that covenant with Israel. When God went to the cross, He went there to save the people whom He foreknew, those who were eternally His people, elect from the foundation of the world (Matthew 1:21). And unless Christ died in vain for some of them, then the people He came to save cannot biblically or logically mean the whole nation of Israel. No outward calling or covenant is of itself effectual without the faith of Christ in the inward everlasting covenant.
If Israel's rejection of the gospel was both consistent with God's eternal plan, and Israel's own choosing (Romans 9), then of necessity this means that God never intended for all the nation of Israel to be saved. For they lie in unbelief. His plan all along was for a remnant according to the election of Grace. Israel was restored in the New Covenant body of Christ. It is not, and indeed can never be restored in Old Covenant "types and shadows" represented by Temple buildings, which is passed away. There is no possibility of a restoration of an Old Covenant style the Kingdom of Israel. Christ has confirmed a New Covenant with Israel, and thus the Old has passed away (Hebrews 8:13). And if this is the New Covenant Church, then the New Covenant has come, not "will come." And the promise of the New Covenant to replace the Old has been kept.

The overview of verse two is that we are being instructed that God has not cast away his people that he foreknew. And to illustrate this, we are pointed to the scriptures where Paul under the inspiration of God makes the analogy between what has occurred in Israel, and what happened in the days of Elijah. God is saying, remember what the Holy scriptures declared of Elijah, and how he made intercession to God and pleaded with the Lord about the children of Israel. And what he said is declared in the next verse which you youself can read and figure it out!



What is this one week (seven) that follows the cutting off of Messiah (after the 62 weeks or sevens)? God was not talking about 7 literal years here. Rather the number seven in Scripture signifies complete of whatever is in view. This week is not literally 7 years that the New Covenant is confirmed by Christ, but the whole New Covenant period from the cross to the consummation! It is the church whom God has confirmed with and for the purpose of the building of his kingdom while Satan was bound. That period celebrates the week of the Feast of Tabernacles which is something you need to study first.

I am aware of a lot of speculation and guessing of what the week means. We've heard everything from 7 years to 70 years. The reason that we have all these different ideas about this final week, is because people are not letting the scripture interpret this week. They are doing a lot of assuming, and their studies dripping with speculation of when and who this Covenant is confirmed.




Christ has already established His Kingdom on earth, Spiritually, through the Church for a thousand years. The number 10 (and its multiples 100, 1,000, etc.) signifies fullness of whatever is in view. God was not talking about 1,000 literal years.

Wrong! Not just a little but completely.

 

[seventysevens]

Rev 10:11 says it quite plainly, Major. "You must prophecy again"

And he did! , He did write about it within the same book of Revelation

 

[Archmike]

CONTEXT Mike. We can not just pick our a verse and use it for our own purposes. That is totally unacceptable in exegesis.

Of course, Revelation, in a certain sense, is "concerning" many peoples, etc.; but far more is involved here than this single prophecy. All of God's word is to be proclaimed "unto all nations" (Luke 24:47); and we are certain that that mandate is the commission to John which is reiterated in this verse.

I don't use, and have never used, the normal exegesis in my prophecy study which I started 42 years ago according to my calling. You will find me a most unconventional revelator / interpreter . Just letting you know.....

 

[Archmike]

And he did! , He did write about it within the same book of Revelation

Cop out, Major....You know it, and I know it....

What did he "ingest" the little book for ? And what was the little book ? And be careful here ! The angel holds the little book OPEN with ONE HAND ( so described twice in Rev 10 ). That, sir, is a modern day book. Scrolls could not be opened and held with one hand in a free-standing position. It would be imposible.

 

[seventysevens]

Cop out, Major....You know it, and I know it....

What did he "ingest" the little book for ? And what was the little book ? And be careful here ! The angel holds the little book OPEN with ONE HAND ( so described twice in Rev 10 ). That, sir, is a modern day book. Scrolls could not be opened and held with one hand in a free-standing position. It would be imposible.

9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’” 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”

Do you really think that John put the scroll in his mouth and chewed the scroll until he could swallow it?

The prophecy that John was told to do , is in the remainder of the text of the Revelation , as it speaks directly to many peoples, nations, languages and kings.

There are no other books of prophecy after Revelation because John did so in the book of Revelation ,
actually scrolls can be held in one hand as found in the dead sea scrolls were found and can be held in one hand even though they are much bigger than the hand , have you ever seen blueprints that area 3ft wide , it can still be held in one hand when rolled up.

or perhaps you think John disobeyed Jesus if he did not prophecy again

 

[Archmike]

9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’” 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”

Do you really think that John put the scroll in his mouth and chewed the scroll until he could swallow it?

The prophecy that John was told to do , is in the remainder of the text of the Revelation , as it speaks directly to many peoples, nations, languages and kings.

There are no other books of prophecy after Revelation because John did so in the book of Revelation ,
actually scrolls can be held in one hand as found in the dead sea scrolls were found and can be held in one hand even though they are much bigger than the hand , have you ever seen blueprints that area 3ft wide , it can still be held in one hand when rolled up.

or perhaps you think John disobeyed Jesus if he did not prophecy again

He held the book O P E N With ONE HAND. Can't do that with scrolls. It's a modern-day book. And when the angel says to him, "you must prophecy again", the angel is basically telling John is going to be one of the two witnesses, which statement ( you must prophecy again ...Rev 10:11 ) is IMMEDIATELY followed by chapter 11.

I have studied this chapter without end over the course of my 42 years of ET's study. The angel of Rev 10 is a man, alive on earth, who ministers to large gatherings. The earthly angel repeats each of 7 statements, which are repeated, in unison, by the large gathering, one x one....hence....John heard 7 thunders ( large gatherings repeating a single word, in unison, would sound similar to a "thunder". Indeed, ALL OF THE THUNDERS in The Revelation, are large gatherings, singing or repeating something in unison....check it out ! ) .

The angel is the First Horseman.

John finds the book, "sweet on his lips". That is because he will preach what he has learned from the book......you know....like a "witness". John digests the book, and it is "sour" in his belly, because of the terrible carnage of innocent Christians that is revealed in the book.

And the angel hands his book to John, and the book reveals 7 end events whose CHRONOLOGY have been hidden since the writing of The Revelation.

Trust me, this interpretation is true.....

 

[Major1]

I don't use, and have never used, the normal exegesis in my prophecy study which I started 42 years ago according to my calling. You will find me a most unconventional revelator / interpreter . Just letting you know.....

LOL!...........You certainly did not need to tell us that Mike!

I must tell you that I am a Bible exegesis person. If comments and opinion are not validate with Bible Scriptures they are meaningless to me.

I do have you beat though by a few years.

 

[Major1]

He held the book O P E N With ONE HAND. Can't do that with scrolls. It's a modern-day book. And when the angel says to him, "you must prophecy again", the angel is basically telling John is going to be one of the two witnesses, which statement ( you must prophecy again ...Rev 10:11 ) is IMMEDIATELY followed by chapter 11.

I have studied this chapter without end over the course of my 42 years of ET's study. The angel of Rev 10 is a man, alive on earth, who ministers to large gatherings. The earthly angel repeats each of 7 statements, which are repeated, in unison, by the large gathering, one x one....hence....John heard 7 thunders ( large gatherings repeating a single word, in unison, would sound similar to a "thunder". Indeed, ALL OF THE THUNDERS in The Revelation, are large gatherings, singing or repeating something in unison....check it out ! ) .

The angel is the First Horseman.

John finds the book, "sweet on his lips". That is because he will preach what he has learned from the book......you know....like a "witness". John digests the book, and it is "sour" in his belly, because of the terrible carnage of innocent Christians that is revealed in the book.

And the angel hands his book to John, and the book reveals 7 end events whose CHRONOLOGY have been hidden since the writing of The Revelation.

Trust me, this interpretation is true.....

I am sorry to say this to you, but I for one can not trust you my friend.

I must once say to you that I do not understand these prophecies, and when I read your opinions I can see that yoou do not either.

I see with regret how many learned men have mistaken their way here. Commentators, and even some of the most modern, have strangely trifled in these solemn things; all trumpets, vials, woes, etc., are perfectly easy to them; yet from their descriptions, none get wise either to common sense or to the things that make for their peace.

What I do know however is that The message of Revelation is about a multinational, multiethnic population. It is global in nature and cannot be restricted to the events of the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome as preterists contend.
“It is no one Empire or Emperor that is concerned in the prophecies of the second half of the Apocalypse; not merely Rome or Nero or Domitian, but a multitude of races, kingdoms, and crowned heads.”

And I know that the "angle" is an angel. There is no Greek grammar I know of that would change ANGLE to a man alive on the earth.

 

[Archmike]

LOL!...........You certainly did not need to tell us that Mike!

I must tell you that I am a Bible exegesis person. If comments and opinion are not validate with Bible Scriptures they are meaningless to me.

I do have you beat though by a few years.

"Beat" by a few years in study, or in life ? I am 62. I received my calling to study the ETProphecies in 1976, while a new recruit in basic training at Ft. Dix, NJ, of all places !.....in a auditorium stuffed-full by our training battalion to watch a magic show. Little did we know the "magic show" morphed into a presentation of the signs of the end of the age. I was moved beyond myself in awe ! I determined that I must come to a better understanding of this subject, to which I have faithfully-executed that determination....to this day.

 

[Major1]

Cop out, Major....You know it, and I know it....

What did he "ingest" the little book for ? And what was the little book ? And be careful here ! The angel holds the little book OPEN with ONE HAND ( so described twice in Rev 10 ). That, sir, is a modern day book. Scrolls could not be opened and held with one hand in a free-standing position. It would be imposible.

Mike, I told you I am a Bible person. IF the Bible says SCROLL then it is a SCROLL no matter what we want it to be.

It was first called simply "a scroll" (Greek biblion, 5:1), while this one is a little scroll (using a diminutive form, biblaridion, vv. 1, 9, 10).

Moreover, John mentions it as if seeing it for the first time (v. 2). Yet later (v. 8) he is told to take the scroll (Greek to biblion) from the angel's hand, indicating that the terms "scroll" and "little scroll" are used interchangeably.

The simplest conclusion is that the scroll John will take from the angel's hand in this chapter is none other than the scroll taken by the Lamb in chapter 5 (see Mazzaferri 1989:271-74; Bauckham 1993:80-81). John has witnessed the breaking of its seals (6:1--8:5), so there is no reason why the scroll should not be open. Just as in chapter 5 the Lamb took the scroll in the presence of a "mighty angel" in order to open it, John must now take the open scroll from a mighty angel's hand in order for the plan of God to run its course (vv. 8-11).
Revelation 10 Commentary - The Angel with the Open Scroll - BibleGateway.com