In an ontological sense, holiness belongs only to God himself. Hence, once again, the Lord establishes the claim for his own deity. Furthermore, he also describes himself as the One who is true. This contrasts with the generally unreliable character of the human family. The Lord, however, is true both in terms of that which may be known but also in terms of his own witness.

The phrase “who holds the key of David” is somewhat more enigmatic. However, the expression evidently had definite connection to Isa 22:20–23, where Eliakim as the steward of Hezekiah is said to possess the key of David, which seems to be in the Isaianic passage a reference to the accessibility to the king and to the king’s presence available in and through Eliakim. Of course, other approaches could be made to Hezekiah, but Hezekiah’s steward, possessing the key of David, was unquestionably the most favorable venue if one wished to curry the favor of the sovereign

This allusion is almost certainly what was in the mind of John when he identified the risen Lord as the One who holds the key of David. Access to God is ultimately through Jesus alone

Rather, the One who has the ability to open so that no man can shut and shut so that no man can open looks with favor on them and has placed before the church an open door that no man can shut. The understanding of most commentators has been that the phrase should be interpreted as an open door for missionary expansion

This open door has been set before the church at Philadelphia because of a specific problem apparently associated with the pressures arising from a particular group. Though the church at Philadelphia had little strength, which is an allusion either to the small number of believers or to the church’s limited influence or both, they nevertheless had kept the word of the Lord and had not denied his name

Once again, that particular phrase, coupled with a second mention of those who are a part of the “synagogue of Satan,” not real Jews but liars, underscores the probable accuracy of Colin Hemer’s thesis regarding the pincer pressures of Judaism and imperial religious fervor existing in Asia Minor. Compromise among many believers during the reign of Domitian had been caused by a combination of increased pressure from the state regarding the cult of the emperor, worsening relationships between Jews and Christians (particularly Jewish Christians as found in the curse of the Minim), and burgeoning pressure on the Christians of the late first century (particularly in Asia Minor) to compromise either by denouncing Christ and returning to the synagogue as bona fide Jews or by embracing, at least publicly, the cult of the emperor

Concerning these persecutors of believers in Philadelphia, John cites the Lord: “I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” The question here lies in the time of fulfillment. Should this promise be viewed eschatologically or as a reference to something that was to transpire in the immediate future, which would humble the Jews of the city of Philadelphia before the Christian minority and show God’s particular love for them

One may conclude then that a reprieve is being promised to the church at Philadelphia concerning a worldwide judgment of God that will be an “hour of trial,” throughout the earth. Explanations that have sought to localize the extent of this trial and make it applicable only to the Christians in the region of Philadelphia are not attractive in light of the rather clear language of the text. The text speaks of an hour of trial coming on “the whole world,” and the cohesiveness that the text has with the other literature of tribulation throughout Scripture makes a strong case for universal upheaval

with the intensity of persecution facing the Philadelphians, the possibility for following the pattern of the Sardian Christians, succumbing to those pressures and hence forfeiting rewards, was real. The purpose of the admonition here is not to lose the reward