Dear Bro.,
Not only is it a violation of the "rule of logic"; most definitely it is so, but also three other reading errors if not more: (1) twisted translation --when a text is retranslated, but not in accordance with sound Hebrew/Greek scholarship, to fit the preconceived teaching of a cult or even a particular teacher for that matter. (2) ignoring the immediate context --a text is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning. (3) collapsing contexts --two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other.
The commentator is retranslating the verse after having looked at other books of the Bible authored by John. His opinion is that if John uses the term in other of his writings then he must be using the same term here in Revelation with reference to these churches. So change the translation and you will get that effect.
However, once that is done then it leads to collapsing contexts. What John discusses in the context of his other epistle does not necessarily mean that he is doing the same in Revelation 2-3. After all the genre of Revelation is different than that of the gospel of John, and the Johnannine epistles (I, II, & III John). The genre of Revelation is apocalyptic literature or writing (prophecy). I, II, & III John are epistles. The Gospel of John is narrative concerning the life of Christ.
It is true that sometimes you can look at the other writings of an author and notice that he uses the same terms sometimes in other of his writings but again that would be in relation to discussing the same issue or similar issues. Such as in I John 2:28 and I John 3:7 he uses the term "teknion" which comes from "teknon" used in II John 1:1 & III John 1:4 both terms meaning little children or darlings; particularly infants. The term "teknion" comes from "teknon", which comes from "tikto" which means to produce, to bear, or to be delivered as in children or a child (teknon). The whole idea is that these terms are used discussing that the Christians to whom John is writing these three epistles are immature Christians that he was responsible for as a spiritual father to them. Better yet they are his spiritual children and his is concerned with their spiritual care. Also, all three of these epistles contain the same terms in there particular contexts and describes the term with the same connotation.
I John uses the terms refering to spiritual children as infants, but the contexts where the terms (teknon, & teknion) are used discusses being faithful in abiding in Christ as righteous until Christ returns (I John 2:28, 29) and in I John 2:20, 27 he states that the Holy Spirit on the inside will cause you to accept all teaching concerning Christ.
II John uses the same terms (teknon and teknion) as I John 2:28 does, but he is writing to a congregation symbolically called, "the elect (chosen) lady and her children" (II John 1:1, 4). It is concening Gnosticism and it's false teaching concerning the incarnation.
III John uses the same terms (teknon & teknion) as does I and II John, but he is writing to Gaius his friend concerning walking in the truth with his children and his lack of appreciation toward Diotrephes (III John 9-11) who was not walking inthe truth, but dismissing anyone who did not agree with his policies.
Now, where these word have shown the same connotations in their contexts, they however have collapsing contexts as to what they are each discussing. In other words in word usage the people John is refering to in each of the above letters by their verses are the same contextually, but when discussing what each context is detailing about, the contexts collapse because they are each discussing about these children a different topic.
Finally, the reason these contexts collapse is there immediate contexts as just stated, discuss different issues. However, sometimes a book by and author can use a translated word that is the same word in translation but not in meaning. That is why some understanding of the original language's use of a word or the grammar needs to be understood to help us understand the context where and English translation uses a word that is not the same in meaning as the original translation.
Such is the case with John's first letter in which he uses the term "paidia" in I John 2:13, 18; which means instruction, chastening, teaching or learning. However, the English translations use the term(s), "children" or "dear children". When the term is actually better translated by its meaning, "instruction" or "instructing". Because John opens the second chapter calling them children (teknion) and addresses them as spiritual children. Then throughout the second chapter the translation idea is accepted that he is talking to them as children (this of course is to me an example of all of the translations including KJV showing dynamic equivalence--thought for thought, and not formal equivalence--word for word [which is far better] ). Although the term can and usually refers to the instruction given to someone as a child especially with relationship to the context.
This also shows that I John 2 which uses the terms "teknion" or "teknia" (2:1, 12, 28) as well as the term "paidia" (2:13, 18) can have different contexts or terms used in different ways in a context or contexts, and not mean the same thing. So it is not good for the author of the article to try and say that the terms of a passage can always be acurately interpreted using a authors previous writings. This is not always true. Especially as we see here in I John 2, let alone I John 2:13, 18. The term should be translated word for word as "instructing", "teaching", or "learning", even though John is talking to his spiritual children.
*{The reason the term "paidia" is translated "children" or "little children" is because the word comes from the Greek term "pais" which means "child" (the genitive case); "a boy" (often beaten with impunity); "a girl" (by analogy). Then the terms' inflections or forms led to the meaning being "child instruction" or "instruction of a child". Terms such as (A) "paidion" (neuter)--a childling (boy or girl); and immature Christian (by analogy). (B) "paideuo"--to instruct, chasten, teach, or learn (as with children or a child). (C) "paidarion" --a little boy, a lad, a child. (D) "paidagogs" --a tutor, shoolmaster, instructor.}
{Wilson's (My)} word for word translation of I John 2:18 using the original text:
"["Instructing", "Teaching"; "Learing"], it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour." [Wilson's translation]
The same can be shown in the later part of I John 2:13d.
For the Glory of God in all Things,
Pastor N. Wilson
P.S. Also remember these individuals refered to in Revelation 2-3 as "angel" can't give the idea of evangelist that was stated in your response:
"The term can hardly apply to an elder, for there seems to have been a plurality of elders in all the churches, and it is not likely that one would be singled out. It is my judgment that the angels were the preachers or evangelists of the churches. As these evangelists not only labored at home, but were often sent out, and were messengers to carry the good tidings, there is a fitness in applying the term to them. We know from the epistles of Paul and from church tradition, that Timothy was long the evangelist at Ephesus, and it is possible that he may have lived and labored until the time of John's banishment." [Your response.]
The passages in the 2-3 chapters of Revelation is quite clear that these individuals were "of the seven churches" or "of the church in..." (Rev. 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). These guys were stationed in these churches, there is no evidence of them having laboured anywhere else or being sent out anywhere else. So that idea would not fit well with the texts. Also, although Timothy was told to do the work of and evangelist (II Tim. 4:5), that does not change the fact that he was the pastor to the Ephesian church (63-66 AD) during Paul's time, by the way, not during the time John wrote the book of Revelation (81-96 AD). The book of Revelation was writen years later (at least 15-30yrs later). Remember, John was the last of the Apostles to die and the longest of them known to have lived.
It is possible that Timothy could still have been alive but not likely, due to the reign of the particular emporer of the time being Nero (who burned Rome and blamed the Christian--then had many of them executed), who usually found the leaders of the churches and had them terminated, and then the church would scatter until another leader was placed. (1) An old tradition states that Timothy continued on as bishop of Ephesus and was later suffered martydom by Domitian or Nerva (D.E. Hiebert, Personalities around Paul (1973); pp. 98-113). (2) Nicephorus said that he was clubbed to death for having in the temple of Diana at her statute's feet for having denounced its licentiousness (Ecclesiastical History iii. 11). (3) The historian Calmet says that, "possibly Timothy was "the angel to the church at Ephesus" (Rev 2:1). The praise and the censure agree with Timothy's character, as it appears in Acts and the epistles. The temptation of such an ardent yet soft temperament would be to "leave his first love." Christ's promise of the tree of life to him that overcometh (Rev 2:5, 7) accords with 2 Tim 2:4-6. Paul, influenced by his own inclination (Acts 16:3) and the prophets' intimations respecting him (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6: compare Paul's own ease, Acts 13:1), with his own hands, accompanied with the presbytery's laying on of hands, ordained him "evangelist" (2 Tim 4:5)."( Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1998)
Finally, Paul's statement to Timothy in II Timothy 4:5 about "doing the work of and evangelist" could also have the idea of doing evangelism in the area of Ephesus where he pastored.
