Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical
Author: Barnes, Albert
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical" ***

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation, including Greek accents, have been standardized. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ transliteration: │
│ Italicized text: --> _text_ │
│ Non-italicized word. │
│ in italic phrase: --> |text| │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The page numbers from the original book are shown in braces │
│ {} for reference purposes. Book numbering is from i‒lxii and │
│ then starts Decimal numbering from 31. 1‒30 are not used. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a number in │
│ brackets [2] and have been accumulated in a single section │
│ at the end of the text. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have │
│ been accumulated in a single section at the end of the book. │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Illustration:
Drawn by S. Bough Engraved by T. Flemming

PATMOS.

THE PORT OF SCALA & TOWN OF PATINO

{i} NOTES
ON THE
NEW TESTAMENT

EXPLANATORY AND PRACTICAL

BY
ALBERT BARNES

ENLARGED TYPE EDITION

EDITED BY
ROBERT FREW, D.D.

WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL NOTES AND
A SERIES OF ENGRAVINGS

REVELATION

BAKER BOOK HOUSE
GRAND RAPIDS 6, MICHIGAN
1951

{ii} Photo-Lithoprint Reproduction
EDWARDS BROTHERS, INC.
_Lithoprinters_
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, U.S.A.
1951

{iii} CONTENTS.

PAGE
AUTHOR’S PREFACE v‒x

EDITOR’S PREFACE:――

INTRODUCTION.

Author’s qualifications for Apocalyptic
exposition――Author’s plan in preparing his Commentary,
affords assurance of his sobriety as an interpreter,
and rebukes the scorn of hostile critics――Peculiarities
of this edition, xi‒xiii

YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE.

Importance of the question regarding――Protestant theory
of Apocalyptic interpretation stands or falls with
it――Rival schemes, nature and origin of――Advocates on
both sides――Views of Dr. Davidson and Professor Stuart, xiii‒xiv

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF YEAR-DAY THEORY.

1. _Concurrent Testimony of Protestant
Interpreters_――Objection of Dr. Davidson――Reply――Use
which the Reformers made of the Apocalypse――Views of
Walter Brute――Views of Luther, xiv‒xvi

2. _Symbolical Character of the Predictions in Daniel
and the Apocalypse_――Laws of symbolic propriety――Dr.
Maitland’s famous objection, that a day is no symbol
for a year――General principles on which Year-day view
rests――Ground occupied by Mede――Principle of Bush and
Faber――True basis――View of Birks and Elliott, xvi‒xx

3. _Indications of the Year-day Principle in
Scripture_――The case of the spies in the book of
Numbers――Ezekiel’s typical siege――Objection of Professor
Stuart――Professor Bush’s reply――Objection of Bishop
Horsley――Objections from Isaiah, ch. xx. 2, 3――Daniel’s
seventy weeks――Diverse views of opponents――Outlines of
Discussion, xx‒xxiv

4. _Exigency of Passages in which Prophetic Times
occur_――Saracenic woe in Rev. ix. 5‒10――Turkish woe
in Rev. ix. 15――The forty-two months of the Gentiles
in ch. xi. 2――The times of the two witnesses in ch.
xi. 3‒11――The times of the woman in the wilderness,
in ch. xii. 6‒14――Forty-two months of the Beast, in
ch. xiii. 5――Danielic periods――Objections alleged,
novelty of the Year-day principle, xxiv‒xxviii

AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION:――SECT. I. The Writer of the
Book of Revelation.――SECT. II. The Time of Writing
the Apocalypse.――SECT. III. The Place where the Book
was written.――SECT. IV. The Nature and Design of the
Book.――SECT. V. The Plan of the Apocalypse, xxix‒lv

ANALYSIS, lvi‒lxii

THE BOOK OF REVELATION, 31‒464

{iv} LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.

PAGE
PATMOS――THE PORT OF SCALA, AND TOWN OF PATINO, _Frontispiece._

The Site of Ephesus, from the Theatre, 60

The Castle and Port of Smyrna, 70

Ruins of the Church of St. John, Pergamos, 74

Thyatira――General View, 81

Sardis――Remains of Ancient Temple, &c., 88

Philadelphia――General View, 92

Petrified Cascades at Hierapolis, Colos. 285

The Ruins of Laodicea, 97

Map of N. Italy, 4to――Scene of the Third Trumpet and
Third Vial, 203, 361

_Engravings Printed in the Text._

Egyptian Calf-idol, Rev. 115

Human-headed Winged Lion; from the Nineveh Sculptures, Rev. 116

Eagle-headed Winged Lion; from the Nineveh Sculptures, Rev. 117

Medal of the Emperor Nerva wearing Crown, Rev. 145

Medal of the Emperor Valentinian wearing Diadem, Rev. 145

Symbolic Bas-reliefs from a Roman Triumphal Arch, Rev. 146

Emblem of a Roman Procurator, Rev. 154

Symbolical Locust, according to Elliott, Rev. 218

Standard-bearer of a Turkish Pasha, Rev. 237

Roman Standard, from Montfauçon, Rev. 305

Medal of Pope Leo XII., Rev. 384

{v} PREFACE.

When I began the preparation of these “Notes” on the New Testament,
now more than twenty years ago, I did not design to extend the work
beyond the Gospels, and contemplated only simple and brief explanations
of that portion of the New Testament, for the use of Sunday-school
teachers and Bible classes. The work originated in the belief that
Notes of that character were greatly needed, and that the older
commentaries, having been written for a different purpose, and being,
on account of their size and expense, beyond the reach of most
teachers of Sunday-schools, did not meet the demand which had grown
up from the establishment of such schools. These Notes, contrary to my
original plan and expectation, have been extended to eleven volumes,
and embrace the whole of the New Testament.

Having, at the time when these Notes were commenced, as I have ever
had since, the charge of a large congregation, I had no leisure that
I could properly devote to these studies, except the early hours of
the morning; and I adopted the resolution――a resolution which has since
been invariably adhered to――to cease writing precisely at nine o’clock
in the morning. The habit of writing in this manner, once formed, was
easily continued; and having been thus continued, I find myself at
the end of the New Testament. Perhaps this personal allusion would not
be proper, except to show that I have not intended, in these literary
labours, to infringe on the proper duties of the pastoral office, or
to take time for these pursuits on which there was a claim for other
purposes. This allusion may perhaps also be of use to my younger
brethren in the ministry, by showing them that much may be accomplished
by the habit of early rising, and by a diligent use of the early
morning hours. In my own case, these Notes on the New Testament, and
also the Notes on the books of Isaiah, Job, and Daniel, extending in
all to sixteen volumes, have all been written before nine o’clock in
the morning, and are the fruit of the habit of rising between four
and five o’clock. I do not know that by this practice I have neglected
any duty which I should otherwise have performed; and on the score of
health, and, I may add, of profit in the contemplation of a portion
of divine truth at the beginning of each day, the habit has been of
inestimable advantage to me.

It was not my original intention to prepare Notes on the book of
Revelation, nor did I entertain the design of doing it until I _came
up_ to it in the regular course of my studies. Having written on all
the other portions of the New Testament, there remained only this book
to {vi} complete an entire commentary on this part of the Bible. That
I have endeavoured to explain the book at all is to be traced to the
habit which I had formed of spending the early hours of the day in the
study of the sacred Scriptures. That habit, continued, has carried me
forward until I have reached the end of the New Testament.

It may be of some use to those who peruse this volume, and it is proper
in itself, that I should make a brief statement of the manner in which
I have prepared these Notes, and of the method of interpretation on
which I have proceeded; for the result which has been reached has not
been the effect of any preconceived theory or plan, and if in the
result I coincide in any degree with the common method of interpreting
the volume, the fact may be regarded as the testimony of another
witness――however unimportant the testimony may be in itself――to the
correctness of that method of interpretation.

Up to the time of commencing the exposition of this book, I had no
theory in my own mind as to its meaning. I may add, that I had a
prevailing belief that it could _not_ be explained, and that all
attempts to explain it must be visionary and futile. With the exception
of the work of the Rev. George Croly,[1] which I read more than twenty
years ago, and which I had never desired to read again, I had perused
no commentary on this book until that of Professor Stuart was published,
in 1845. In my regular reading of the Bible in the family and in
private, I had perused the book often. I read it, as I suppose most
others do, from a sense of duty, yet admiring the beauty of its imagery,
the sublimity of its descriptions, and its high poetic character;
and though to me wholly unintelligible in the main, finding so many
striking detached passages that were intelligible and practical in
their nature, as to make it on the whole attractive and profitable,
but with no definitely formed idea as to its meaning as a whole, and
with a vague general feeling that all the interpretations which had
been proposed were wild, fanciful, and visionary.

In this state of things, the utmost that I contemplated when I began
to write on it, was to explain, as well as I could, the meaning of the
language and the symbols, without attempting to apply the explanation
to the events of past history, or to inquire what is to occur hereafter.
I supposed that I might venture to do this without encountering the
danger of adding another vain attempt to explain a book so full of
mysteries, or of propounding a theory of interpretation to be set aside,
perhaps, by the next person that should prepare a commentary on the
book.

{vii} Beginning with this aim, I found myself soon insensibly inquiring
whether, in the events which succeeded the time when the book was
written, there were not historical facts of which the emblems employed
would be natural and proper symbols, on the supposition that it was the
divine intention, in disclosing these visions, to refer to them; and
whether, therefore, there might not be a natural and proper application
of the symbols to these events. In this way I examined the language
used in reference to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and
sixth seals, with no anticipation or plan in examining one as to what
would be disclosed under the next seal, and in this way also I examined
ultimately the whole book: proceeding step by step in ascertaining the
meaning of each word and symbol as it occurred, but with no theoretic
anticipation as to what was to follow. To my own surprise I found,
chiefly in Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, a series
of events recorded, such as seemed to me to correspond, to a great
extent, with the series of symbols found in the Apocalypse. The symbols
were such as it might be supposed _would be used_, on the supposition
that they were intended to refer to these events; and the language of
Mr. Gibbon was often such as _he would have used_, on the supposition
that he had designed to prepare a commentary on the symbols employed
by John. It was such, in fact, that if it had been found in a Christian
writer, professedly writing a commentary on the book of Revelation,
it would have been regarded by infidels as a designed attempt to force
history to utter a language that should conform to a predetermined
theory in expounding a book full of symbols. So remarkable have these
coincidences appeared to me in the course of this exposition, that it
has almost seemed as if he had designed to write a commentary on some
portions of this book; and I have found it difficult to doubt that that
distinguished historian was raised up by an overruling Providence to
make a record of those events which would ever afterwards be regarded
as an impartial and unprejudiced statement of the evidences of the
fulfilment of prophecy. The historian of the _Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire_ had no belief in the divine origin of Christianity,
but he brought to the performance of his work learning and talent
such as few Christian scholars have possessed. He is always patient
in his investigations; learned and scholar-like in his references;
comprehensive in his groupings, and sufficiently minute in his details;
unbiassed in his statements of facts, and usually cool and candid
in his estimates of the causes of the events which he records; and,
excepting his philosophical speculations, and his sneers at everything,
he has probably written the most candid and impartial history of the
times that succeeded the introduction of Christianity that the world
possesses; and even after all that has been written since his time,
his work contains the best ecclesiastical history that is to be found.
Whatever use of it can be made in {viii} explaining and confirming the
prophecies, will be regarded by the world as impartial and fair; for it
was a result which he least of all contemplated, that he would ever be
regarded as an expounder of the prophecies in the Bible, or be referred
to as vindicating their truth.

It was in this manner that these Notes on the Book of Revelation
assumed the form in which they are now given to the world; and it
surprises me――and, under this view of the matter, may occasion some
surprise to my readers――to find how nearly the views coincide with
those taken by the great body of Protestant interpreters. And perhaps
this fact may be regarded as furnishing some evidence that, after
all the obscurity attending it, there is a natural and obvious
interpretation of which the book is susceptible. Whatever may be the
value or the correctness of the views expressed in this volume, the
work is the result of no previously-formed theory. That it will be
satisfactory to all, I have no reason to expect; that it may be useful
to some, I would hope; that it may be regarded by many as only adding
another vain and futile effort to explain a book which defies all
attempts to elucidate its meaning, I have too much reason, judging from
the labours of those who have gone before me, to fear. But as it is,
I commit it to the judgment of a candid Christian public, and to the
blessing of Him who alone can make any attempt to explain his Word a
means of diffusing the knowledge of truth.

I cannot conceal the fact that I dismiss it, and send it forth to
the world, as the last volume on the New Testament, with deep emotion.
After more than twenty years of study on the New Testament, I am
reminded that I am no longer a young man; and that, as I close this
work, so all my work on earth must at no distant period be ended. I
am sensible that he incurs no slight responsibility who publishes a
commentary on the Bible; and I especially feel this now in view of the
fact――so unexpected to me when I began these labours――that I have been
permitted in our own country to send forth more than two hundred and
fifty thousand volumes of commentary on the New Testament, and that
probably a greater number has been published abroad. That there are
many imperfections in these Notes no one can feel more sensibly than I
do; but the views which I have expressed are those which seem to me to
be in accordance with the Bible, and I send the last volume forth with
the deep conviction that these volumes contain the truth as God has
revealed it, and as he will bless it to the extension of his church
in the world. I have no apprehension that the sentiments which I have
expressed will corrupt the morals, or destroy the peace, or ruin the
souls of those who may read these volumes; and I trust that they may do
something to diffuse abroad a correct knowledge of that blessed gospel
on which the interests of the church, the welfare of our country,
and the happiness of the world {ix} depend. In language which I
substantially used in publishing the revised edition of the volumes of
the Gospels (Preface to the Seventeenth Edition, 1840), I can now say,
“I cannot be insensible to the fact that, in the form in which these
volumes now go forth to the public, I may continue, though dead, to
speak to the living; and that the work may be exerting an influence
on immortal minds when I am in the eternal world. I need not say that,
while I am sensitive to this consideration, I earnestly desire it.
There are no sentiments in these volumes which I wish to alter; none
that I do not believe to be truths that will abide the investigations
of the great day; none of which I am ashamed. That I may be in error,
I know; that a better work than this might be prepared by a more gifted
mind, and a purer heart, I know. But the truths here set forth are, I
am persuaded, those which are destined to abide, and to be the means of
saving millions of souls, and ultimately of converting this whole world
to God. That these volumes may have a part in this great work is my
earnest prayer; and with many thanks to the public for their favours,
and to God, the great source of all blessing, I send them forth,
committing them to His care, and leaving them to live or die, to be
remembered or forgotten, to be used by the present generation and the
next, or to be superseded by other works, as shall be in accordance
with his will, and as he shall see to be for his glory.”

ALBERT BARNES.

WASHINGTON SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA,
_March 26, 1851_.

* * * * *

The works which I have had most constantly before me, and from which
I have derived most aid in the preparation of these Notes, are the
following. They are enumerated here, as some of them are frequently
quoted, to save the necessity of a frequent reference to the _Editions_
in the Notes:――

A Commentary on the Apocalypse. By Moses Stuart, Professor of
Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover, Mass.
Andover, 1845.

Horæ Apocalypticæ; or, a Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical
and Historical. By the Rev. E. B. Elliott, A.M., late Vicar of
Tuxford, and Fellow of Trinity College. Third Edition. London,
1847.

The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, D.D. In ten volumes. London, 1829.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By
Edward Gibbon, Esq. Fifth American, from the last London edition.
Complete in four volumes. New York, J. and J. Harper, 1829.

History of Europe. By Archibald Alison, F.R.S.E. New York, Harper
Brothers, 1843.

An Exposition of the Apocalypse. By David N. Lord. Harpers, 1847.

{x} Hyponoia; or, Thoughts on a Spiritual Understanding of the
Apocalypse, a Book of Revelation. New York, Leavitt, Trow, and
Co., 1844.

The Family Expositor. By Philip Doddridge, D.D. London, 1831.

Ἀνάκρισις Apocalypsios Joannis Apostoli, etc. Auctore Campegio
Vitringa, Theol. et Hist. Professore. Amsterdam, 1629.

Kurtzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Von
Dr. W. M. L. De Wette. Leipzig, 1847.

Rosenmüller, Scholia in Novum Testamentum.

Dissertations on the Opening of the Sealed Book. Montreal, 1848.

Two New Arguments in Vindication of the Genuineness and
Authenticity of the Revelation of St. John. By John Collyer
Knight. London, 1842.

The Seventh Vial: being an Exposition of the Apocalypse, and in
particular of the pouring out of the Seventh Vial, with special
reference to the present Revolution in Europe. London, 1848.

Die Offenbarung des Heiligen Joannes. Von G. W. Hengstenberg.
Berlin, 1850.

The Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Newhaven, 1825.

Novum Testamentum. Editio Koppiana, 1821.

Dissertation on the Prophecies. By Thomas Newton, D.D.
London, 1832.

The Apocalypse of St. John. By the Rev. George Croly, A.M.
Philadelphia, 1827.

The Signs of the Times, as denoted by the fulfilment of Historical
Predictions, from the Babylonian Captivity to the present time. By
Alexander Keith, D.D. Eighth Edition. Edinburgh, 1847.

Christ’s Second Coming: will it be Pre-millennial? By the
Rev. David Brown, A.M., St. James’s Free Church, Glasgow. New
York, 1851.

Apocalyptical Key. An extraordinary Discourse on the Rise and
Fall of the Papacy. By Robert Fleming, V.D.M. New York, American
Protestant Society.

A Treatise on the Millennium. By George Bush, A.M. New York, 1832.

A Key to the Book of Revelation. By James M’Donald, minister
of the Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, L. I. Second Edition. New
London, 1848.

Das Alte und Neue Morgenland. Rosenmüller. Leipzig, 1820.

The Season and Time; or, an Exposition of the Prophecies which
relate to the two periods subsequent to the 1200 years now
recently expired, being the time of the Seventh Trumpet, &c. By
W. Ettrick, A.M. London, 1816.

Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Von Johann Gottfried Eichhorn.
Leipzig, 1811.

For a very full view of the history of the interpretation of
the Apocalypse, and of the works that have been written on it,
the reader is referred to Elliott’s Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. iv.
pp. 307‒487, and Prof. Stuart, vol. i. pp. 450‒475. See, for a
condensed view, Editor’s Preface.

{xi} EDITOR’S PREFACE.

YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE.

Professor Bush, in the _Hierophant_ for January, 1845, at the close
of a review of Barnes on the Hebrews, thus wrote:――“We sincerely hope
Mr. Barnes may be enabled to accomplish his plan to its very ultimatum,
and furnish a commentary of equal merit on the remaining books of
the New Testament; with the exception, however, of the Apocalypse, to
which, we think, his rigid Calvinian austerity of reason is not so well
adapted; and which, we presume to think, would fare better under our
own reputed fanciful and allegorical pen.”[2] The indefatigable author
_has_ lived to accomplish his plan, and has ventured to include within
it the mysterious prophecy, for the elucidation of which the reviewer
imagined the severe character of his mind disqualified him. Many
will think the supposed disqualification a foremost requisite in an
Apocalyptic commentator, inasmuch as the Apocalypse has been too long
interpreted on fanciful and allegorical principles; and it is now “high
time for principle to take the place of fancy, for exegetical proof
to thrust out assumption.”[3] The advocates of what has been called
the Protestant Historic Scheme of Interpretation, have been supposed
peculiarly liable to delusions of this nature. It is, therefore,
gratifying to find that this new defender of that scheme has been
distinguished by a “Calvinian austerity of reason,” which may help to
preserve both him and his readers from being in like manner led astray,
and at the same time secure a more respectful tone from critics who
have espoused opposite views. Bush, who has himself so ably defended
the Protestant scheme on the other side of the Atlantic, now that he
finds Barnes on the same ground, will think that the spirit of severe
logic and searching inquiry which he has brought with him to the
contest, render him all the more valuable an associate. In examining
the former volumes of Mr. Barnes, we found it was no part of his
system of interpretation to admit typical and mystical senses where
the literal one could at all be adopted. We had to complain that his
tendency was too strong in the opposite direction.[4]

The plan which the author tells us he adopted in preparing his
commentary, is a singular illustration of his judgment and caution; and
therefore affords another assurance of his sobriety as an interpreter
of the symbols of John. Up to the time of commencing the exposition
of this book, he tells us he had no theory in his mind as to its
meaning. The utmost he contemplated, when he began, was to explain the
meaning of its language and symbols, without attempting to apply that
explanation to historical events. But, to his own surprise, he found
a series of events, recorded chiefly in Gibbon, such as seemed to
correspond, to a great extent, with the series of symbols found in the
Apocalypse. Farther examination exhibited this correspondence still
{xii} more strikingly; and the result was, that his views ultimately
took the shape of those given by the great body of Protestant
interpreters. He therefore justly claims to be another and independent
witness in favour of the common interpretation.[5] These statements,
while they cannot but increase the reader’s confidence in the guide who
now offers to lead him through the mazes of the Apocalypse, ought also
to mitigate the scorn with which some have affected to regard _all_
expositions of this school――speaking of them as “hariolations” and
“surmises,” which set the reader “afloat upon a boundless ocean of
conjecture and fancy, without rudder or compass.”[6] It is easy to say
such things, and they are therefore too often said by the followers
of Eichhorn and Stuart; but accurate inquiry into the non-Protestant
scheme will speedily convince anyone that the hariolations do by no
means all belong to one side. We venture to say, that nothing so much
deserving the name occurs in the whole series of Protestant expositions,
as the absurd and unfounded guesses of the last-named writer regarding
the witnesses in chap. xi., and the explanation of chap. xvii. 8, by an
unfounded heathen rumour regarding the reappearance of Nero after he
had been slain.[7]

With this edition of the Notes on the Book of Revelation we have not
found it expedient to present any accompanying or supplementary notes.
The author’s text has been carefully revised, and many errors which had
crept both into the American and English editions have been corrected.
On certain points we could have wished a little more fulness. The
important question of the date of the book; the history of apocalyptic
interpretation; and the principles of prophetic interpretation,
particularly as regards designations of time, are matters lying at the
very foundation of just views of the Apocalypse. The first of these
points has, indeed, a page or two allotted to it in the “Introduction,”
and is also incidentally noticed in the commentary; the second is
less or more touched on in the exposition of difficult passages; but
the last is almost entirely overlooked, on the ground that the author
intends a full discussion of the subject in his forthcoming volume
on Daniel. We somewhat regret this, because of the importance of the
Year-day principle itself, and because every reader of the Notes on the
Book of Revelation may not possess, or have immediately at hand, those
on Daniel. We have no doubt that the author’s defence of this part of
the Protestant citadel will prove one of the most able that has yet
been given. It will, beyond a doubt, avoid the errors of those who
have weakened the argument by insisting on points which, at best, are
uncertain; and place the theory on a basis sufficiently broad to admit
of rational and hopeful maintaining of it, in spite of numerous learned
and able assaults. In the meantime, that our edition may not be without
something, however brief and imperfect, on a point which on {xiii} all
hands is allowed to be fundamental, we purpose to devote the following
pages to an examination of the Year-day principle.

The importance of the question on which we now enter can scarcely be
overestimated. If the prophetic periods of Daniel and John; if the
famous 1260 days, the time, times, and the dividing of time, are to be
understood literally, and explained of the limited term of three and
a half years, during the days of Nero and Antiochus Epiphanes, or days
yet to come, towards the consummation and era of the second advent,[8]
then clearly the ideas that have been long current among Protestants
are untenable. There is no figuration of Papal Rome, in the Apocalypse
or in Daniel, existing through long and dreary ages, wearing out the
saints of the Most High. There are no witnesses during that period
of gloom ever and anon lifting up their testimony against the grand
apostasy. There is no cheering assurance, derived from an infallible
oracle, that the Papal system is doomed, that its days are numbered,
and must now be drawing to a close. All the arguments against this
“mystery of iniquity,” derived from Daniel and John, must be abandoned;
and Protestants must, with shame, retire from a field so long and so
successfully occupied by them, whilst the Romanists triumph in their
overthrow. “If,” says Bush in his animadversions on Stuart, “your
hypothesis be correct, not only has nearly the whole Christian world
been led astray for ages by a mere _ignis fatuus_ of false hermeneutics,
but the church is at once cut loose from every chronological mooring,
and set adrift in the open sea, without the vestige of a beacon,
lighthouse, or star, by which to determine her bearings or distances
from the desired millennial haven to which she was tending. She is
deprived of the means of taking a single celestial observation, and
has no possible data for ascertaining, in the remotest degree, how
far she is yet floating from the Ararat of promise. Upon your theory
the Christian world has no distinct intimation given it as to the date
of the downfall of the Roman despotism, civil or ecclesiastical, of
Mahometanism, or of Paganism; no clue to the time of the conversion of
the Jews or of the introduction of the millennium. On all these points
the church is shut up to a blank and dreary uncertainty, which, though
it may not extinguish, will tend greatly to diminish the ardour of her
present zeal in the conversion of the world.”[9] Strange, indeed, it
must be regarded, that while the Old Testament church was cheered by
her chronological promises or predictions, marking her progress as
she floated down the stream of time, and indicating, at any stage of
it, how far she was yet distant from the happy times of deliverance
that awaited her, everything of this kind should be systematically
excluded from the sublime predictions of the New Dispensation. Strange,
too, that the grand symbols of Daniel and John――that their glorious
predictions, confessedly allowed to reach onwards to the consummation
of all things, should embrace a brief chapter in the lives of such men
as Nero or Antiochus, and give no notice of that gigantic apostasy
which for ages has cast its dark {xiv} shadow over Christendom, and
no comfort to a sorrowing church walking amid the gloom. Yet if the
Protestant exposition of Daniel and the Apocalypse has proceeded on
false principles, the sooner a return is made to the right path the
better, however humbling may be the confession of error, and grieving
the loss of imagined advantage in our controversy with Rome. Truth is
great, and must prevail. None of her friends would assail even the
worst cause with weapons she did not approve.

On both sides of this question, the importance of which has been set
forth in the preceding paragraph, we find men of the very highest
character for learning and skill in biblical science. “On one side
Maitland and Burgh are the most able; on the other Faber, Elliott, and
Birks. In America the indefatigable Stuart has taken up the same ground
as the former, and has met with a formidable antagonist in Bush.” To
the first class――the literal day class, namely――must now be added the
name of the author who has thus specified the chief combatants――Dr.
Davidson of the Lancashire Independent College. He has taken up the
subject in the third volume of his _Introduction to the New Testament_,
and discussed it with all the learning and ability which his high
position among English critics might have led us to anticipate. “_Si
Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hoc defensa fuissent._” We think
we can discern in his able defence some symptoms of progress in the
controversy. The line which Dr. Davidson pursues is essentially
different in many respects from that of Professor Stuart. The American
professor insists on many points which the English divine seems to have
abandoned.[10]

Everything like dogmatism in the discussion of a question so
circumstanced is of course to be carefully avoided. There are
difficulties on both sides, of which no satisfactory solution has
as yet been given. Our aim shall be to ascertain, if possible, on
which side the greater amount of truth lies. While avowing a decided
leaning to the Year-day theory, we shall endeavour to do justice to
the arguments of its opponents, and shall frankly allow it whenever
the arguments of its supporters seem to us weak or dubious.

First, then, it must be allowed that the concurrent testimony of the
great mass of Protestant interpreters, the nearly unanimous voice of
the Protestant church, furnishes a _prestige_ in favour of the Year-day
principle. If it do not supply an argument it creates a favourable
feeling, which is worthy of a better name than “prejudice.” It is a
prepossession, but a prepossession founded on perfectly just ground,
namely, that wherever men of learning and research, as well as
Christian people at large, have long and tenaciously held any
particular view, there must be something in that view that has a better
foundation than its assailants are willing to allow. This is certainly
very different from “calling up the names of illustrious dead, as the
infallible expounders of the Bible;” and from “giving our language the
semblance of {xv} assuming that, to differ from current opinions, is to
disown Protestantism and favour Romanism.” That there is something in
this presumptive argument, which we seek to build on Protestant opinion,
is obvious from the anxiety that is manifested to make out that the
principle or theory in question has, in reality, no connection with
the reformers and the Protestant cause. “The statement,” it is said,
“that certain applications of the Apocalypse caused or promoted the
Reformation is wholly incorrect. It is absolutely false. _A spiritual
apprehension of the simple gospel_, accompanied with the power of the
Spirit, led these illustrious men to separate from the Romish church.
And then it should be remembered, by those who write like Bush of
the reformers and the ‘Protestant’ interpretation, that not one of
the reformers understood a _day_ in prophecy to mean a _year_. To
talk of the reformers, therefore, in connection with this so-called
‘Protestant’ notion, is worse than trifling. It conveys a false
impression.”[11] Two questions are involved here:――How far the
reformers made use of the Apocalypse in their controversy with Papists?
and whether the Year-day principle may be regarded as a “Protestant”
notion? The fact is, in regard to the first question, that the
Waldenses and Wickliffites, previous to the Reformation, drew their
weapons from the Apocalypse; and if we do not present references or
quotations to prove it, it is just because the matter seems too plain
to admit of any doubt. One testimony shall suffice, namely, that of
Walter Brute, A.D. 1391. According to Foxe, the martyrologist, he was
“a layman, and learned and brought up in the University of Oxford,
being there a graduate.” He was accused of saying, among sundry
other things, that the _Pope_ is Antichrist, and a seducer of the
people. Being called to answer, he put in, first, certain more brief
“exhibits;” then another declaration, more ample, explaining and
setting forth the grounds of his opinion. _His defence was grounded
very mainly on the Apocalyptic prophecy._ For he at once bases his
justification on the fact, as demonstrable, of the _pope_ answering
alike to _the chief of the false Christs_, prophesied of by Christ as
to come in his name; to the _man of sin_, prophesied of by St. Paul;
and to both the _first beast_ and _beast with the two lamb-like horns_,
in the Apocalypse; _the city of Papal Rome_, also answering similarly
to the Apocalyptic _Babylon_.[12] Indeed, we may learn much as to how
far the Apocalypse had, even in these times, come to be used against
the Church of Rome, from the fears of the Papists themselves, which
prompted the fifth council of Lateran authoritatively to prohibit all
writing or preaching on the subject of Antichrist, and all speculation
regarding the time of the expected evils――“_Tempus quoque prefixum
futurorum malorum vel Antichristi adventum, aut certum diem judicii
predicare vel asserere nequaquan presumant._”[13] As to the reformers,
properly so called, they appear in the field next, using the same
weapons with increasing skill and energy, as the two great prophecies
whence they were drawn came to be better understood. The pages of
Milner, D’Aubigné, or other historians of the period, abound with
evidence; and Mr. Barnes has collected part of it under chap. x. 6,
to which the reader is referred. Luther and his German associates seem
to have drawn more upon Daniel, while in Switzerland and England the
Apocalypse, for the most part, was appealed to. We might multiply
proofs, were it necessary, from the writings of _Leo Juda_, {xvi}
_Bullinger_, _Latimer_, _Bale_, _Foxe_, &c. It is enough to refer
to the very copious extracts given in the last volume of the
_Horæ Apocalypticæ_.[14] As to the other question, namely, whether
the Year-day principle can be regarded as a “Protestant” notion,
opportunity will be found for the consideration of it when we come to
consider the objection against that principle, drawn from its alleged
novelty. Meantime we shall only remark, that while Luther certainly
had arrived at no definite conclusions regarding the Apocalyptic
designations of time, his mind nevertheless was in search of some
principle by which he should be enabled to extend the times beyond the
literal sense. Nor need it in any way surprise us, that definite ideas
on this subject should only have been obtained when the notion became
settled and prevalent that the Popedom was the Apocalyptic Antichrist,
and the interpretation of the times on a scale suited to the duration
of that system became, in consequence, imperative.

2. The next consideration we advance is, the _symbolical character_
of most of the predictions in which the disputed designations of time
occur. In Daniel and the Apocalypse, things pictured to the eye are the
signs or representations of a hidden sense intended to be conveyed by
them. Now, it seems reasonable to conclude, that in this symbolic or
picture writing the times should be hidden under some veil, as well as
the associated events. Nay, one would imagine that these were just the
very things that specially required concealment, in accordance with
the design of the predictions, especially such as relate to the future
deliverance and glory of the church; which is, that the saints should
understand as much as may sustain their hope, yet in a way of diligence,
watchfulness, and prayer. It is said, indeed, that symbolical times are
not essential to this partial concealment. It may be so, yet they are
doubtless fitted to serve this purpose; and there cannot but appear
a manifest impropriety in associating symbolical events with literal
or natural times. Why the veil in the one case and not in the other?
Is not this system of mixing the symbolic and the literal fitted to
mislead? and, according to the theory of Maitland and others, has it
not, in point of fact, led astray the greater part of the Protestant
world? Is it wonderful, that when times are found “imbedded in symbols,”
a symbolical character should have been attached to them too. Let it
be observed also, that in cases of what has been called _miniature
symbolization_, as where an empire is represented by a man or a beast,
long periods, such as might very well be attributed to an empire, or to
any great political or ecclesiastical system, could not, in consistency
with symbolical propriety, have been expressed otherwise than we
find them. On the supposition that long periods were designed to be
expressed, they must necessarily have been symbolized by shorter ones.
“Nothing is more obvious than that the prophets have frequently, under
divine prompting, adopted the system of hieroglyphic representation, in
which a single man represents a community, or a wild beast an extended
empire. Consequently, since the mystic exhibition of the community
or empire is in miniature, symbolical propriety requires that the
associated chronological periods should be exhibited in miniature also.
The intrinsic fitness of such a mode of presentation is self-evident.
In predicating of a nation a long term of 400 or even 4000 years, there
is nothing revolting to verisimilitude or decorum; but to assign such
a period to the actings of a {xvii} symbolical man or animal would be
a grievous outrage on all the proprieties of the prophetic style. The
character of the adjuncts should evidently correspond with those of the
principal, or the whole picture is at once marred by the most palpable
incongruity.”[15] It appears, then, in regard to dates occurring in
passages where this principle of _miniature symbolization_ is adopted,
there is a strong presumption in favour of the Year-day theory, or some
theory suitably extending the times.

Dr. Maitland has attempted to dislodge his antagonists from this
intrenchment. His argument is subtle, and must have been deemed
triumphant, for it is repeated and praised as a master-stroke by almost
every subsequent writer on the same side. Allowing even that symbols of
time might be expected in symbolic predictions, along with symbols of
events, he denies that a day can in any way be regarded as the symbol
of a year. It is not, he argues, a symbol at all. We give the argument
in his own words, premising only that the advocates of the Year-day
principle, as we shall by and by see, appeal to Ezek. iv. 4‒9 in proof
of it:――“When you speak of the beasts I know what you mean, for you
admit that Daniel saw certain beasts; but when you speak of ‘the days,’
I know not what days you refer to, for your system admits of _no days_:
you take, if I may so speak, the _word_ ‘goat’ to mean the _thing_
‘goat,’ and the _thing_ goat to represent the _thing_ ‘king;’ but you
take the _word_ ‘day’ not to represent the _thing_ ‘day,’ but at once
to represent the _thing_ year. And this is precisely the point which
distinguishes this case from that of Ezekiel’s, which has been so
often brought forward as parallel to it. The whole matter lies in this,
that the one is a case of _representing_, the other of _interpreting_.
A _goat_, not the _word_ goat, _represented_ a king; a day, that is
the _word_ day, is _interpreted_ to mean a year.”[16] The pith of the
argument seems to lie in this, that while, in Daniel, kingdoms are
represented by certain _visible_ symbols――beasts, namely――there is no
_visible_ symbol of a year. We may _interpret_ a day of a year, but we
cannot say a day _symbolizes_ a year. The objector appears to have been
met, in the first instance, by the alleged difficulty of symbolizing
times in a visible way; but the case of Pharaoh and his officers was at
once appealed to, in whose dreams three years are represented by three
branches and three baskets; and seven years by seven kine, and seven
ears of corn.[17] A writer in the _Investigator_ rejoined, that _large_
numbers, such as the 1260 or 2300, could not easily be represented
in the same way; a statement which seems so very simple and obvious,
that we cannot but wonder it should have elicited such a burst of
indignation as this: “What! shall it be affirmed that he who called up
a vision in which seven kine symbolized seven years, could not employ
visible and equally intelligible representations of 1260 years? This
were to limit the power of the Almighty, by arrogantly assuming, that
though he presented a _few years_ by outward pictures to the eye, He
could not, with equal facility, and like intelligibleness to men, have
painted _a much larger number_ by external emblems. We refer the writer
in the _Investigator_ to Rev. xiv. 1, and ask him how the apostle John
knew there were exactly 144,000. On his principle that large number
could not have been presented to the eye. How then did he know that
there were 144,000?”[18] Does the critic mean that John must have come
to the knowledge of it by picture representation? {xviii} Is he sure of
this? The number is the same, and the company is the same as in chap.
vii. 4, and there we read, “And I _heard_ the number of them which were
sealed, and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of
all the tribes of the children of Israel.” The question is by no means
one regarding what God _could_ do, but one regarding merely the powers
and capabilities of symbolic language; and we do not feel ourselves
at all guilty of any unwarrantable “daring,” when we aver that large
numbers could not be visibly represented like small ones. The real
solution of the difficulty which the objection presents, seems to us
to have been given by Birks, in his _First Elements of Prophecy_. “The
beasts were conceptions visually suggested to the eye of the prophet,
and nothing more; and the days, in like manner, were conceptions
suggested by the words of the vision to his ear. _The only difference
is in the sense by which the mental image is conveyed_; for it is plain
that a day, when used as a symbol, must be mentioned, and could not
appear visibly to the eye.”[19] But whatever may be thought of this,
and of the preceding observations, we have still our appeal to the
matter of fact. If it be the fact, that in Scripture a day _does_
represent a year, we have no concern about speculations regarding
_modes_ of representing. The only question is, What is the Bible mode?
and to that question we shall very shortly apply ourselves.

Meanwhile, we would remark, ere leaving this part of the subject, that
although we affirm that wherever we find the principle of miniature
symbolization of events, there we have a strong presumption in favour
of the times, if such there be, being also expressed on a miniature
scale, yet we do not exalt this into a principle embracing the entire
case. We shall endeavour to ascertain here, what such general principle
is. It need not be disguised that the ground of it has been shifted
more than once during the progress of discussion. Mede himself seems
to have occupied ground by far too wide; and few or none now choose
to defend the Year-day principle on the platform chosen by him who has
been erroneously regarded as its originator. He maintained that, “alike
in Daniel, and, for aught he knew, in all the other prophets, times of
things prophesied, expressed by days, are to be understood of years.”
But prophecies can be quoted almost without number in which the
predicted times must be understood literally; and against this position,
somewhat doubtingly and casually assumed by an illustrious interpreter,
the artillery of Stuart and Maitland would be most successful, if any
were found so foolish as to intrench themselves within it. Professor
Stuart, however, chooses to write as if it were an essential part of
the Year-day theory. He fights with a man of straw, and expends his
logic and his ridicule alike in vain. He asks in triumph, If the 120
years, predicted as the period that should elapse before the flood,
must be extended into a respite for the ante-diluvians of 43,200 years?
and if the predicted bondage of Abraham’s posterity in Egypt, for
400 years, must be extended into 144,000 years? if the seven years of
plenty, and seven of famine to Egypt, must mean 2520 years of each?
if Israel’s forty years’ wilderness-wanderings are to last 14,400
years?[20] No, truly! and yet the times in Daniel and John may
be symbolical {xix} times notwithstanding. By Bush and Faber, the
principle is much narrowed. The ground assumed is that of miniature
symbolization. This covers a large part of the field within which the
Year-day theory is applied; still, it must be allowed, that both in
Daniel and the Apocalypse, there are passages where the times are
construed symbolically, or according to the longer reckoning, without
being associated with symbols of events. Of this kind is Daniel’s
famous prophecy of the seventy weeks. What, then, is the true principle
or basis of the Year-day theory? We are disposed to reply, as we
find Mr. Barnes in one place has done, that it is the manner of the
symbolical books of Daniel and John, to express times on the scale of
a day for a year; and that in regard to those places, if such there be,
where the times are literal, the circumstances of the case, or some
expressions in the text, prevent the possibility of mistake, and leave
the principle untouched. The _circumstances of the case_, for example,
forbid us to explain Dan. iv. 32 in accordance with the principle of a
day for a year. “According to this, Nebuchadnezzar must have been mad
and eat grass 2520 years.”[21] The limited life of man renders any such
extension of times here positively absurd. So also with the other case,
so much insisted on by the Day-day theorists, of Daniel fasting three
weeks.[22] “Surely no one will contend that Daniel fasted twenty-one
years.” No, but not to mention that this is not a prophecy at all,
the circumstances of the case forbid it; and besides, in this place,
we have the addition of יָמִים (weeks of _days_), “inserted expressly to
bar any such interpretation as would assign to it, as its first sense,
the meaning of years.”[23] It would, therefore, be most unwise[24] to
argue from these exceptive passages, where there can be no danger of
mistakes, against the application of the Year-day principle to the
great leading prophecies in Daniel and John, regarding the glorious
epochs of the church, and the times especially of the consummation.
Nor can anyone rationally contend, that because these prophets have
adopted this style of a day for a year, in predictions of the character
above specified――predictions which form the chief part of their
writings――that they are in no single instance to depart from that
style――that they are never to lay aside {xx} the symbolic and assume
the natural. Birks and Elliott, it may be noticed finally, find, in
those passages where the Year-day theory is applicable, a purpose of
_temporary concealment_; it being “the express design of God, that the
church should be kept in the constant expectation of Christ’s advent,”
and that, “yet as the time of the consummation drew near, there should
be evidence of it sufficiently clear to each faithful inquirer.”
“This,” adds the latter writer, “sets aside, from its very nature, the
objections that have been drawn from sundry prophetic periods, known
to be literally expressed, in prophecies where no such temporary
concealment was intended.”[25]

3. Having seen that the symbolical character of the predictions in
which the disputed times for the most part occur, affords a strong
presumption, amounting as nearly as possible to proof, in favour of
some such principle as that involved in the Year-day theory, we inquire
next _whether there be any indications of such principle in Scripture_?

The case of the spies in the book of Numbers[26] has been appealed to
by nearly all writers on the Year-day side, and by some of them with no
little confidence. “They returned from searching the land after forty
days.... After the number of the days in which ye searched the land,
even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities,
even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.” We confess,
however, that if this passage were the only one of its kind, we should
not be disposed to build much on it. It has been too much pressed;
and many will find it difficult to see anything typical or mystical in
it. It cannot be proved that the spies were types of the whole nation,
or that the days were meant to represent years. Dr. Davidson seems
to give the true account of the passage when he says, “It is a simple
historical prophecy, in which God ordained that _as_ the spies had
wandered forty days, _so_ the Israelites should wander forty years in
the wilderness because of their sins.”[27] Taken in connection with
other passages, however, it may serve to show that the “Year-day scale”
readily occurs in Scripture, when another might as easily have been
adopted. The very fact of the punishment of Israel in this case being
on the precise scale of a year for a day, seems to indicate something
of this kind.

Ezekiel’s typical siege presents a much stronger case. We give
the passage at length. Ezekiel having been commanded to portray the
city of Jerusalem on a tile, and conduct a symbolic siege against it,
is further enjoined――“Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the
iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the
days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For
I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the
number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear
the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished
them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of
the house of Judah forty days: _I have appointed thee each day for a
year_.”[28] Ezekiel was ordered to assume this painful position that
he might be a sign or symbol of the sufferings of the Jewish nation;
and the number of days during which he lay prostrate was declared to
symbolize the years of their punishment. Here, then, we have a plain
precedent showing that in symbolical representations days stand for
years. The argument is equally valid whether we suppose the symbolical
{xxi} actions represented things past or things future. The principle
is the same. The probability is, that at the time of the representation
a few years of the 390 had yet to run; and the design was to show that
Jerusalem should be destroyed, and the inhabitants led away captive
into Babylon. It is not our province, however, to enter into any
exposition of the prophecy. The grand objection made to the argument
from this passage is, that in it the symbolic significancy of the days
“is expressly stated at the outset.”[29] “It is expressly stated that
God had appointed a day for a year, whereas in Daniel and John no
such information is given.”[30] But what if there had _not_ been an
“express statement” of the principle? That omission, we imagine, would
have been eagerly laid hold on as an evidence that no such principle
was contained in it. The “express statement,” then, so far from
being an argument against using this passage as a precedent, is in
reality a strong argument in favour of so doing. Can anything be more
unreasonable than to object to the passages furnishing a clue or key
for certain difficulties elsewhere, that they are plain and express?
Nothing, we apprehend, unless to object next that the passages _for_
which a key is sought are _not_ plain and express. We had thought that
it belonged to the very nature of key-passages that they should be
plain, and to the very nature of the passages for which the key was
needed, that they should not be plain. The demand that there shall
be the express statement in these latter which belongs to the former,
is just to demand that there shall be no mystery about the times at
all,――that they shall be revealed with perfect clearness, and that no
wisdom and diligence be called for in evolving a principle and applying
it to special cases. Bush’s reply to Stuart on this point is, we
think, triumphant. “The obvious reply to all this (the want of express
statement in Daniel and the Apocalypse) is, that the instances now
adduced are to be considered as merely giving us a clue to a general
principle of interpretation. Here are two or three striking examples
of predictions constructed on the plan of _miniature symbolic
representation_ in which the involved periods of time are reduced to a
scale proportioned to that of the events themselves. What, then, more
natural or legitimate, than that, when we meet with other prophecies
constructed on precisely the same principle, we should interpret their
chronological periods by the same rule? Instead of yielding to a demand
to adduce authority for this mode of interpretation, I feel at liberty
to demand the authority for departing from it. _Manente ratione manet
lex_ is an apothegm which is surely applicable here if anywhere. You
repeatedly, in the course of your pages, appeal to the oracles of
_common sense_, as the grand arbiter in deciding upon the principles
of hermeneutics. I make my appeal to the same authority in the
present case. I demand, in the name of common sense, a reason why the
symbolical prophecies of Daniel and John should not be interpreted on
the same principle with other prophecies of the same class. But however
loud and urgent my demand on this head, I expect nothing else than that
hill and dale will re-echo it, even to the ‘crack of doom,’ before a
satisfactory response from your pages falls on my ear. All the answer
I obtain is the following:――‘Instead of being aided by an appeal to
Ezekiel iv. 5, 6, we find that a principle is recognized there which
makes directly against the interpretation we are calling in question.
The _express exception_ as to the usual modes of reckoning goes
directly to show, that the {xxii} _general rule_ would necessitate
a different interpretation.’ I may possibly be over sanguine, but
I cannot well resist the belief, that the reader will perceive that
that which you regard as _the exception_, is in fact _the rule_.”[31]

Dr. Maitland’s famous objection, that in Ezekiel the case is one of
_representing_, whereas in Daniel and the Apocalypse it is one of
_interpreting_, has already been met in a previous part of this Preface.
The objection of Bishop Horsley is not very grave――namely, that because
the _day_ of temptation in the wilderness was _forty years_, and one
_day_ is with the Lord as a _thousand years_, and a thousand years
as one day, we might as well conclude that a day is forty years or
a thousand years, as that it represents but one year. So might we,
indeed, _if_ a number of passages could be produced in which a day
has such significancy, and another set of passages could be produced
to which the first set furnish a key that seems exactly to answer. In
the meantime, we must recognize the difference between what is merely
figurative language, and therefore loose and shifting, and the language
of symbol.

But the case of Isaiah[32] has been supposed to neutralize any argument
built upon that of Ezekiel: “The Lord spake by Isaiah, go and loose the
sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And
he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my
servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot _three years_, for a sign
and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria
lead away the Egyptians prisoners.” Now, it is argued that here “three
_years_ correspond to three _years_, not three _days_ to three years.
It is arbitrary to suppose with Lowth that the original reading was
_three days_, or to supply _three days_, with Vitringa. The text must
stand as it is.”[33] But the interpretation of Lowth and Vitringa
is not the only mode in which we may escape from the difficulty, as
this learned writer seems to hint. We are not shut up to conjectural
emendations. The “three years” in the third verse may be connected
with what follows, as well as with what goes before; then the verse
will run, “Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot;
_a three years’ sign and wonder_,” which relieves us entirely from
the supposition that Isaiah walked three years barefoot, and, by
consequence, from the objection that is founded on it. All that is
intimated is, that in some way or other (the passage does not say how)
the prophet was a three years’ sign――a sign, that is, of a calamity
that would last during that time, or commence from that time. In
proof of the justice of this arrangement, it may be noticed that
the Masoretic interpunction throws the _three years_ into the second
clause; that the Septuagint gives both solutions, by repeating τρία
ἔτη;[34] and that in a period of such alarm, when Ashdod was taken
and the Assyrian pressing on them, it is not likely the symbolical
representation would be continued so long. Indeed, this opinion
seems to meet with little or no countenance.[35] The opinion that
seems generally to prevail is, that Isaiah indicated the three years’
captivity either by exhibiting himself in the manner described in the
text for three days, which would intimate three years, or by appearing
in this manner once only, and at the same time verbally _declaring_ his
design in so doing.

We come next to what is confessedly a main pillar of the Year-day
theory, _the prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel_.[36] “Seventy
weeks are determined {xxiii} upon thy people, and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the
prince, &c.” Now, the all but universal agreement that this prophecy
was fulfilled in a period of 490 years, usually reckoned from the 7th
of Artaxerxes, and extending to A.D. 33, the year in which Christ died,
seems at once to settle the question regarding the mode of computation.
There are, indeed, those[37] who maintain that this prediction has yet
to be fulfilled, and they profess to look for its fulfilment in seventy
weeks of days; but the number holding this opinion is exceedingly
small. The great mass of writers, even of those who contend for literal
times, reject it as quite untenable. This mode of cutting the knot,
however, indicates the difficulty that is felt by some “Day-dayists”
in reconciling the passage with their theory, and their dissatisfaction
with the more usual method of reconciliation. That method adopts a
new rendering. The words, it is said, ought to be translated seventy
_sevens_; and these are assumed to be sevens of _years_, because in
the early part of the chapter Daniel had been meditating on Jeremiah’s
prophecy regarding the seventy years’ captivity. By thus understanding
the sevens at once of years, without the intervention of symbolic days
or weeks, the argument for the Year-day principle, it will be seen, is
entirely destroyed.

It would be difficult and tedious to trace the course of discussion
fully to which the passage has given rise. A very general outline
must suffice. It had been maintained by some who contended for “sevens
of years,” that the word translated weeks (שָׁבֻעִים _shabuim_) was the
regular masculine plural of שֶׁבַע (_sheba_), seven, and ought, therefore,
to be translated sevens.[38] But שָׁבֻעִים (_shabuim_), as was alleged in
reply, “is not the normal plural of the Hebrew term for seven.” The
normal plural is שִׁבְעִים (_shibim_); but that is the term for _seventy_,
and cannot mean sevens.[39] It seems now admitted on all hands, that
both שָׁבֻעִים (_shabuim_) and the feminine form שָׁבֻעוֹת (_shabpuoth_) are
plural forms of שָׁבוּעַ (_shabua_), which, according to the etymology
of the word, signifies a hebdomad or septemized period.[40] The only
question that remains, therefore, regards the use of the word. _What is
its use?_ So that after much controversy, the matter stands very much
as Mede left it. “The question,” says he, “lies not in the etymology,
but in the use, wherein שָׁבוּעַ (_shabua_) always signifies _sevens of
days_, and never _sevens of years_. Wheresoever it is _absolutely_ put,
it means of days; it is nowhere thus used of years.”[41] Besides the
places in Daniel, the word occurs absolutely elsewhere, in some one or
other of its forms, _eleven_ times, and _in every one of these cases
with the sense of weeks of days_.[42] It is true that if we except the
places in Daniel, there is no instance in Scripture where the masculine
plural שָׁבֻעִים (_shabuim_) is used to denote weeks. The word elsewhere
used for that purpose is uniformly שָׁבֻעוֹת (_shabpuoth_) in the feminine.
But we confess ourselves at a loss to understand {xxiv} why so much
should be made of this. The word which Daniel uses is confessedly
the masculine plural[43] of the same word, which in the singular is
translated “week,” and in the feminine plural “weeks;” and although
there are instances in various languages of the masculine and feminine
plurals having different significations, yet, in the absence of
anything like proof that such is the case here, we must be guided by
the use of the word in its other forms throughout the Scripture, when
we come to interpret the peculiar form that occurs in Daniel. What good
reason can be given for departing from the analogy of the other forms?
This, it must be confessed, is entirely on the side of the Year-day
principle; and the objection resolves itself into nothing more than
this, that it is a peculiar form of the word which Daniel uses.

As to what is said of the qualifying word יָמִים, _yamim_ (days), twice
occurring in chap. x. 2, 3,[44] in connection with שָׁבֻעִים (_shabuim_),
giving the literal sense _three weeks_, _days_, or _three weeks as
to days_, we cannot see that it furnishes any grave objection to our
argument. It seems rather to strengthen it. For here we have two places
in which the word in question, and the form of it in question, are
declared to mean weeks of days. Does not this intimate that such is the
ordinary and primary sense? Are we not as much entitled to draw this
conclusion, as other parties to conclude that the qualifying word is
added because the usual sense is sevens of years? Let us only suppose
that the qualifying word had been years instead of days (sevens as to
years), would it not very readily have been said in that case, Here
is a plain declaration that sevens of _years_ are to be understood;
and certainly the places where no qualifying word occurs must be
ruled by this? Gesenius supposes the addition of יָמִים (days) is merely
_pleonastic_; but if any other reason must be found for it, that of
Bush seems as satisfactory as any, which regards it as an intimation
that the primary sense is the only admissible one in the circumstances.

4. We entitle our next head of evidence, _Exigency of the passages in
which the prophetic times occur_. The very best plan of arriving at the
truth in the question, whether the shorter or longer reckoning be the
right one, is to test both by application to the disputed passages.
Try the two keys, and see which best suits the lock. One section
of the literal dayists have here, however, a great advantage over
their opponents, inasmuch as their plan of placing the Apocalyptic
fulfilments entirely in the future (with the exception, on the part
of some of them, of the epistles to the seven churches), relieves them
from every embarrassment that might arise from any specific historical
application. Of course it is impossible to argue with men of this
school, that their literal times do not answer to their historical
events, for historical events they have none, and we cannot prove that
their ideal fulfilments may not be realized.

To discuss fully this part of our subject, however, would require
a volume embracing an exposition of nearly all the more important
passages in Daniel and the Apocalypse. We intend only to offer a few
passing remarks on one or two of these, referring such as wish to
prosecute the subject, to the “Notes” in this volume.

Let us take first the _Saracenic woe_.[45] We say not, in the
meantime, that the interpretation which has given rise to this name
is necessarily the right one. We merely wish to institute a comparison
between it and another interpretation, {xxv} which proceeds on the
principle of the shorter dates. If the reader will turn to our author’s
exposition, and attentively study it, he will, we think, be disposed
to acquiesce in the justice of his closing remark, that, on the
supposition that it was the design of John to symbolize these events
(the Arabian conquests), the symbol has been chosen which of all others
is best adapted to the end. Moreover, it will be seen that the Arabian
history, according to the requirements of the passage, on the Year-day
principle, furnishes a period of five months, or 150 years of intense
stinging oppression, and immediately thereafter exhibits a gradual
decline in power, along with a disinclination to persecute. Now what
have we to oppose to this view on the part of those who advocate
literal times? We turn to Professor Stuart. He tells us he can find
no event in history that, with any good degree of probability, will
correspond to a period of 150 years. “And,” adds he, “if we count five
literal months, we are still involved in the same difficulty. Hence the
tropical use of the expression five months, seems to be most probable
and facile.” His conclusion is that “the meaning must be a short
period.” We cannot think that this “tropical use” is very “probable;”
it is however abundantly “facile;” and we know not how to argue with
those who, when events will not correspond with their literal times,
immediately take refuge in tropes. When Professor Stuart can find
events that suit, his times are literal, as we shall immediately
see; when he cannot find such events, his times are tropical. But a
principle so “facile,” however it may suit his convenience, is not
fitted to guide us in an inquiry into the prophetic periods. “The
proper laws of interpretation,” our author has justly observed in his
exposition of the place, “demand that one or the other of these periods
should be found, either that of five months literally, or that of a
hundred and fifty years.”

Take next the _Turkish woe_.[46] We refer the reader again to the
author’s exposition, that he may see how “the hour, day, month, and
year” of this prediction――that is, the 391 years, and a 12th or 24th
of a year――find their fulfilment in the history of the Turkish empire.
But on the supposition that the times are literal, what events can be
fixed on as occupying this period of little more than a year? or how,
in transactions so great, should a single hour be mentioned? These
questions are evaded by assigning a new sense to the clause εἰς τὴν
ὥραν καὶ ἡμέραν, &c. It is said to mean only, “that at the destined
hour, and destined day, and destined month, and destined year,” the
calamity should happen; that is to say, it should occur simply _at the
appointed time_. We venture to say that such a periphrasis for an idea
so simple has no parallel elsewhere. For the criticism of the passage,
we refer to Barnes and Elliott, who have successfully contended that
the words completely reject this sense. The latter appeals also to the
parallel passage in Dan. xii. 7, where “for a time, times, and half a
time” is universally understood of the _aggregate_ period of three
years and a half.[47]

_The forty-two months of the Gentiles_ is another and remarkable
Apocalyptic period.[48] If we do not, with our author, apply the
passage in which this notation of time occurs, to the trampling down
of the church by the Papacy during her long and oppressive reign of
1260 years, but seek an explanation from those who deny the Year-day
principle, shall we find events that will better answer on the
principle of literal times? Let us try. Professor Stuart, in this place,
abandons the idea he sometimes resorts to, of supposing the periods
{xxvi} “figurative modes of expressing a short time.” He thinks a
“literal and definite period” is here meant; and he even condescends,
in spite of all his hatred of historical comments, on historical events
answering to this definite period. “It is certain,” says he, “that the
invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named
until Jerusalem was taken.” And again, in his _Excursus on Designations
of Time_, he says that in the spring of A.D. 67, Vespasian was sent
by Nero to subdue Palestine; and that on the 10th of August, A.D. 70,
Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by Titus. Thus he makes out the
literal period of forty-two months or three and a half years. He is,
however, compelled to admit that the war actually began some time
before Vespasian’s mission. But allowing all this to be correct, there
was, as Mr. Barnes remarks, “no precise period of three years and a
half, in respect to which the language here used would be applicable
to the literal Jerusalem. Judea was held in subjection, and trodden
down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, gained its
independence.” It is trodden down still. And yet we are told, in a
laboured article written on purpose to set aside the Year-day principle,
that _there can scarcely be a doubt_ that the period in question
(the forty-two months) is designed to mark the time during which
the conquest of Palestine and of the Holy City was going on.

In close connection with this prediction, we have _the times of the
two witnesses_.[49] They were to “prophesy a thousand two hundred and
threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Again, we think the longer
reckoning meets the requirements of the passage, and is consistent
with the historical events offered in explanation. During all the dark
period of Papal rule, there has been a competent number of witnesses
testifying in favour of the truth. The reader will find ample details
in the exposition within. Let us turn now to the exposition offered by
the great chief of the Literal-day theorists. His theory requires him
to find the witnesses in Jerusalem immediately previous to its fall.
But where the witnesses in Jerusalem prophesying during three and a
half literal years? History is quite silent in regard to any such
parties; nay more, the accounts which we have of the period render
it exceedingly improbable that any such parties could have existed
in Jerusalem at that time. The Christians, warned by their Master,
had fled to Pella, and thereby escaped the calamity in which their
unbelieving countrymen were overwhelmed. Yet, in the absence of
history, and in spite of history, suppositions are made to stand in its
place. We are told that some of the faithful and zealous teachers of
Christianity would certainly remain in spite of their Lord’s warning.
These, it is supposed next, would be slain by the Zealots, who would,
notwithstanding, be unable to destroy Christianity. The truth should
ever have a resurrection. We offer no further remark on this, than that
if pure imaginations are to be alleged, where history fails, there can
be no difficulty in meeting the requirements of any theory, inasmuch
as inventions are much more “facile” than facts. But the exposure of
the dead bodies of the witnesses is supposed to be perfectly fatal to
the Year-day principle in this passage. “What now,” it is asked, “if
we should insist on interpreting this (the three days and a half of
exposure) as meaning three and a half years? It would bring out an
absurdity; for a single month in the climate of Palestine would in
one way or another destroy any dead body, not to speak of its being
devoured.” Doubtless this is an absurdity; but it is an absurdity
obtained {xxvii} by subjecting a symbolical passage to a very singular
process, in which one part of the symbol is explained, and then read
along with the _unexplained_ part. But explain both parts of the
passage, the _lying exposed_, as well as the _days_, and then we have
no incongruous sense, but an intimation, that for three and a half
years the witnesses should be silenced, and be treated with great
indignity, as if unworthy of Christian burial. Or if the question
be regarding symbolical propriety, let the symbolical representation
stand as it is――both parts unexplained; and what inconsistency is there
in supposing dead bodies exposed for three and a half _days_ in the
climate of Palestine? If we choose to proceed on a principle like this,
we may make as many absurdities as there are passages in the Apocalypse.

Next in order, we have the _times of the woman in the wilderness_,[50]
the thousand two hundred and threescore days, or time, times, and half
a time, during which she was protected and nourished by God. Once more
we refer to the author’s exposition of this passage for a defence of
the Protestant interpretation, which explains it of the preservation of
the church in a state of comparative obscurity during the long period
of Papal oppression. But on the principle of literal days, that is, “if
the period of the woman’s sojourn be only three years and six months,
the preparation must be either quite disproportionate to the event,
or the steps of the preparation will be crowded into the narrowest
compass. The spiritual deliverance, the dejection of Satan, the
renewed persecution, the protection, the flood, its absorption by the
friendly earth, and the persevering rage of the dragon, will all be
crushed into the space of two or three years. Surely nothing but the
most distinct revelation could make us receive such an exposition of
the true reference of so glorious a prophecy.”[51] It is difficult,
indeed, to conceive that a prophecy of this nature should find its
fulfilment in any three and a half years of the church’s history; and
our difficulties certainly are not diminished, when we come to consider
the special interpretations that are constructed on this principle.
We are told that the woman is the Jewish Theocratic church. But that
church never dwelt 1260 days in the wilderness, nor can any historical
event be alleged in illustration of such a view that does not bear its
refutation on the face of it. The Christians who fled to Pella, will
the reader believe it, are, for the sake of a theory, made to stand
for the church, symbolized by the woman; and their protection, during
the continuance of the Jewish war, is the woman’s wilderness sojourn.
The flight is the flight of the woman, or Jewish Theocratic church, in
the first instance. But the Jewish church, to answer the necessities
of the case, is at once transformed into the Christian; and finally,
a comparatively small body of Christians in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem is elevated into the dignity of _the church_, to the
exclusion of the numerous societies of Christians existing elsewhere.
These are the assumptions set forth in antagonism to the Protestant
view; set forth, too, not as modest guesses, but as certain verities,
to reject which, brings down on us the charge of ignorance of history,
and of exegetical science.

Our limits forbid us to speak of the forty-two months of the beast,[52]
or of the periods in Daniel. Of the beast, it is manifest, that it is
a power of no brief duration; but one which, existing through a long
previous period, appears again at the great final battle immediately
previous to the millennium, and is then destroyed. Great care is taken,
in the chapter which describes {xxviii} the closing struggle, to
identify the beast which was then slain with that which had previously
appeared on the stage.[53] As to the view which explains the beast of
Nero, and the times of the three and a half years of his persecution,
it is certainly enough to observe, that it requires the aid of a
heathen hariolation to make it out, and may, therefore, be dismissed
without argument. Of the periods in Daniel, particularly those in
the seventh and twelfth chapters,[54] we can only say that the mode
of authoritatively asserting that the reference is to Antiochus
Epiphanes, and then ridiculing the idea of any one man living through
1260 years,[55] is a mode which must be abandoned by such as would
secure a favourable reception for their views. We believe the
sublime predictions of Daniel and John are occupied with far higher
subjects――subjects of infinitely more concern to the church and the
world than the history of the two tyrants, Antiochus and Nero.

[We had intended to consider some of the current objections
against the Year-day theory, particularly that founded on its
alleged novelty――“The spiritual common sense of the church,”
according to Dr. Maitland, “being set in array against it,
from the days of Daniel to those of Wickliffe.” Mr. Elliott has
thoroughly examined this position; and the conclusion to which
he comes, after a most painstaking inquiry, is――“That from the
time of Cyprian, near the middle of the 3d century, even to the
time of Joachim and the Waldenses, in the 12th century, there
was kept up, by a succession of expositors, a recognition of the
precise _Year-day_ principle.” We have carefully examined the
grounds of this opinion, and compared them with certain recent
and able adverse criticisms, without having had our conviction
shaken that, _in the main_, it is correct.]

Illustration: THE SITE OF EPHESUS,
From the Theatre.

Illustration: THE CASTLE AND PORT OF SMYRNA.

Illustration: RUINS OF THE CHURCH OF ST. JOHN, PERGAMOS.

Illustration: THYATIRA.

Illustration: PHILADELPHIA.

Illustration: SARDIS.

Illustration: PETRIFIED CASCADES AT HEIRAPOLIS.

Illustration: THE RUINS OF LAODICEA.

{xxix} INTRODUCTION

TO THE

BOOK OF REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.

§ I.――_The Writer of the Book of Revelation._

Much has been written on the question who was the author of this book.
To enter into an extended investigation of this would greatly exceed
the limits which I have, and would not comport with my design in these
Notes. For a full examination of the question I must refer to others,
and would mention particularly, Prof. Stuart, _Com._ i. 283‒427;
Lardner, _Works_, vi. 318‒327; Hug, _Intro. to the New Testament_,
pp. 650‒673, Andover, 1836; Michaelis, _Intro. to the New Testament_,
iv. 457‒544; and the article “Revelation,” in Kitto’s _Cyclopædia of
Biblical Literature_. I propose to exhibit, briefly, the evidence that
the apostle John was the author, according to the opinion which has
been commonly entertained in the church; the proof of which seems to me
to be satisfactory. This may be considered under these divisions: the
direct historical evidence, and the insufficiency of the reason for
doubting it.

I. The direct historical evidence. The sum of all that is to be
said on this point is, that to the latter half of the third century it
was not doubted that the apostle John was the author. Why it was ever
afterwards doubted, and what is the force and value of the doubt, will
be considered in another part of this Introduction.

There may be some convenience in dividing the early historical
testimony into three periods of half a century each, extending from
the death of John, about A.D. 98, to the middle of the third century.

1. From the death of John, about A.D. 98 to A.D. 150. This period
embraces the last of those men who conversed, or who might have
conversed, with the apostles; that is, who were, for a part of their
lives, the contemporaries of John. The testimony of the writers who
lived then would, of course, be very important. Those embraced in this
period are Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. The evidence of
this period is not indeed very _direct_, but it is such as it would
be on the supposition that John was the author, and there is nothing
contradictory to that supposition.

HERMAS, about A.D. 100.――In the _Shepherd_ or _Pastor_, ascribed to
this writer, there are several allusions which are supposed to refer
to this book, and which resemble it so much as to make it probable
that the author was acquainted with it. Dr. Lardner thus expresses the
result of his examination of this point: “_It is probable_ that Hermas
had read the book of Revelation, and imitated it. He has many things
resembling it” (vol. ii. pp. 69‒72). There is no _direct_ testimony,
however, in this writer that is of importance.

IGNATIUS.――He was bishop of Antioch, and flourished A.D. 70‒107. In
the latter year he suffered martyrdom, in the time of Trajan. Little,
however, can {xxx} be derived from him in regard to the Apocalypse.
He was a contemporary of John, and it is not a little remarkable that
he has not more directly alluded to him. In the course of a forced
and hurried journey to Rome, the scene of his martyrdom, he wrote
several epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans,
Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp. There has been much
controversy respecting the authenticity of these epistles, and it is
generally admitted that those which we now possess have been greatly
corrupted. There is no direct mention of the Apocalypse in these
epistles, and Michaelis makes this one of the strong grounds of his
disbelief of its genuineness. His argument is, that the silence of
Ignatius shows, either that he did not know of the existence of this
book, or did not recognize it as a part of the sacred Scriptures.
Little, however, can be ever inferred from the mere _silence_ of an
author; for there may have been many reasons why, though the book may
have been in existence, and recognized as the writing of John, Ignatius
did not refer to it. The whole matter of the residence of John at
Ephesus, of his banishment to Patmos, and of his death, is unnoticed
by him. There are, however, two or three _allusions_ in the epistles
of Ignatius which have been supposed to refer to the Apocalypse, or to
prove that he was familiar with that work――though it must be admitted
that the language is so general, that it furnishes no certain proof
that he designed to quote it. They are these: Epis. to the Romans――“In
the patience of Jesus Christ,” comp. Rev. i. 9; and Epis. to the
Ephesians――“Stones of the temple of the Father prepared for the
building of God,” comp. Rev. xxi. 2‒19. To these Mr. John Collyer
Knight, of the British Museum, in a recent publication (_Two New
Arguments in Vindication of the Genuineness and Authenticity of the
Revelation of St. John_, London, 1842), has added a third: Epis. to
the Philadelphians――“If they do not speak concerning Jesus Christ,
they are but _sepulchral pillars_, and _upon them are written only the
names of men_.” Comp. Rev. iii. 12, “Him that overcometh will I make
a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go no more out: and I
will write upon him the name of my God.” It must be admitted, however,
that this coincidence of language does not furnish any certain proof
that Ignatius had seen the Apocalypse, though this is such language as
he _might_ have used if he had seen it. There was no known necessity,
however, for his referring to this book if he was acquainted with it,
and nothing can be inferred from his silence.

POLYCARP.――He was bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom, though
at what time is not certain. The _Chronicon Paschale_ names A.D. 163;
Eusebius, 167; Usher, 169; and Pearson, 148. He died at the age of
eighty-six, and consequently was contemporary with John, who died about
A.D. 98. There is but one relic of his writings extant――his epistle
to the Philippians. There is in Eusebius (iv. 15), an epistle from the
church in Smyrna to the churches in Pontus, giving an account of the
martyrdom of Polycarp. It is admitted that in neither of these is there
any express mention, or any certain allusion, to the book of Revelation.
But from this circumstance nothing can be inferred respecting the
Apocalypse, either for or against it, since there may have been no
occasion for Polycarp or his friends, in the writings now extant,
to speak of this book; and from their silence nothing more should be
inferred against this book than against the epistles of Paul, or the
Gospel by John. There is, however, what may, without impropriety, be
regarded as an important testimony of Polycarp in regard to this book.
Polycarp was, as there is every reason to {xxxi} suppose, the personal
friend of John, and Irenæus was the personal friend of Polycarp
(Lardner, ii. 94‒96). Now Irenæus, as we shall see, on all occasions,
and in the most positive manner, gives his clear testimony that the
Apocalypse was written by the apostle John. It is impossible to suppose
that he would do this if Polycarp had not believed it to be true; and
certainly he would not have been likely to hold this opinion if one who
was his own friend, and the friend of John, had doubted or denied it.
This is not indeed absolute proof, but it furnishes strong presumptive
evidence in favour of the opinion that the book of Revelation was
written by the apostle John. The whole history of Polycarp, and his
testimony to the books of the New Testament, may be seen in Lardner,
ii. 94‒114.

PAPIAS.――Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, near Colosse, and flourished,
according to Cave, about A.D. 110; according to others, about the year
115 or 116. How long he lived is uncertain. Irenæus asserts that he was
the intimate friend――ἑταῖρος――of Polycarp, and this is also admitted by
Eusebius (_Ecc. Hist._ iii. 39). He was the contemporary of John, and
was probably acquainted with him. Eusebius expressly says that he was
“a hearer of John” (Lardner, ii. 117). Of his writings there remain
only a few fragments preserved by Eusebius, by Jerome, and in the
_Commentary_ of Andrew, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia. He was a
warm defender of the Millennarian doctrines. In his writings preserved
to us (see Lardner, ii. 120‒125), there is no express mention of the
Apocalypse, or direct reference to it; but the commentator Andrew of
Cæsarea reckons him among the explicit witnesses in its favour. In
the Preface to his _Commentary on the Apocalypse_, Andrew says, “In
regard now to the inspiration of the book, we think it superfluous to
extend our discourse, inasmuch as the blessed Gregory, and Cyril, and
moreover the ancient [writers] _Papias_, _Irenæus_, _Methodius_, and
_Hippolytus_ bear testimony to its credibility.” See the passage in
Hug, _Intro._ p. 652; and Prof. Stuart, i. 305. And in nearly the same
words does Arethas, the successor of Andrew, bear the like testimony.
The evidence, therefore, in this case is the same as in the case of
Polycarp, and it cannot be supposed that Papias would have been thus
referred to unless it was uniformly understood that he regarded the
book as the production of the apostle John.

These are all the testimonies that properly belong to the first half
century after the death of John, and though not absolutely _positive_
and _conclusive_ in themselves, yet the following points may be
regarded as established:――(a) The book was known; (b) so far as the
testimony goes, it is in favour of its having been composed by John;
(c) the fact that he was the author is not called in question or
doubted; (d) it was generally ascribed to him; (e) it was _probably_
the foundation of the Millennarian views entertained by Papias――that
is, it is easier to account for his holding these views by supposing
that the book was known, and that he founded them on this book, than
in any other way. See Prof. Stuart, i. 304.

2. The second half century after the death of John, from A.D. 150 to
A.D. 200. This will include the names of Justin Martyr, the Narrator of
the Martyrs of Lyons, Irenæus, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, Clement
of Alexandria and Tertullian.

JUSTIN MARTYR.――He was a Christian philosopher, born at Flavia
Neapolis, anciently called Sichem, a city of Samaria, it is supposed
about A.D. 103; was converted to Christianity about A.D. 133, and
suffered martyrdom about {xxxii} A.D. 165 (Lardner, ii. 125‒140). He
was partly contemporary with Polycarp and Papias. He travelled in Egypt,
Italy, and Asia Minor, and resided some time at Ephesus. He was endowed
with a bold and inquiring mind, and was a man eminent for integrity
and virtue. Tatian calls him an “admirable man.” Methodius says,
that he was a man “not far removed from the apostles in time or in
virtue.” Photius says, that he was “well acquainted with the Christian
philosophy, and especially with the heathen; rich in the knowledge of
history, and all other parts of learning” (Lardner). He was, therefore,
well qualified to ascertain the truth about the origin of the book
of Revelation, and his testimony must be of great value. He was an
advocate of the doctrine of _Chiliasm_――or, the doctrine that Christ
would reign a thousand years on the earth――and in defence of this
he uses the following language: “And a man from among us, by name
John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a Revelation made to him――ἐν
Ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτᾷ――has prophesied that the believers in one
Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall
be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment
of all men together.” There can be no doubt whatever that there
is an allusion here to the book of Revelation――for the very name
_Revelation_――Ἀποκάλυψις――is used; that Justin believed that it was
written by the apostle John; and that there is express reference
to what is now chap. xx. of that book. The book was, therefore, in
existence in the time of Justin――that is, in about fifty years after
the death of John; was believed to be the work of the apostle John; was
quoted as such, and by one who had lived in the very region where John
lived, and by a man whose character is unimpeached, and who, in a point
like this, could not have been mistaken. The testimony of Justin Martyr,
therefore, is very important. It is positive; it is given where there
was every opportunity for knowing the truth, and where there was no
motive for a false testimony; and it is the testimony of one whose
character for truthfulness is unimpeached.

THE NARRATIVE OF THE MARTYRS OF VIENNE AND LYONS.――Lardner,
ii. 160‒165. In the reign of Marcus Antoninus, Christians suffered much
from persecution. This persecution was particularly violent at Lyons,
and the country round about. The churches of Lyons and Vienne sent an
account of their sufferings, in an epistle, to the churches of Asia and
Phrygia. This, according to Lardner, was about A.D. 177. The epistle
has been preserved by Eusebius. In this epistle, among other undoubted
allusions to the New Testament, the following occurs. Speaking of
Vettius Epigathus, they say――“For he was indeed a genuine disciple of
Christ, _following the Lamb whithersoever he goes_.” Comp. Rev. xiv. 2:
“These are they which _follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth_.” There
can be no doubt that this passage in Revelation was referred to; and
it proves that the book was then known, and that the writers were
accustomed to regard it as on a level with the other sacred writings.

IRENÆUS.――The testimony of this father has already been referred to
when speaking of Polycarp. He was bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. His country
is not certainly known, but Lardner supposes that he was a Greek, and,
from his early acquaintance with Polycarp, that he was from Asia. When
a youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp, and also a disciple of Papias. He
was born about the beginning of the second century, and it is commonly
supposed that he suffered martyrdom in extreme old age. He became
bishop of Lyons after {xxxiii} he was seventy years of age, and wrote
his principal work, _Contra Hæreses_, after this. His testimony is
particularly valuable, as he was in early life acquainted with Polycarp,
who was a contemporary and friend of the apostle John (Lardner,
ii. 165‒192). Of his reference to the book of Revelation, Lardner
says: “The Apocalypse, or Revelation, is often quoted by him as the
Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” In one place he says:
“It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the
reign of Domitian.” And again, he spoke of the exact and ancient copies
of the book, as if it was important to ascertain the true reading, and
as if it were then possible to do this. Thus Eusebius (Lardner, ii. 167)
says of him: “In his fifth book he thus discourses of the Revelation
of John, and the computation of the name of Antichrist: ‘These things
being thus, _and this number being in all the exact and ancient
copies, and they who saw John attesting to the same things_, and reason
teaching us that the number of the name of the beast, according to
the acceptation of the Greeks, is expressed by the letters contained
in it.’” Here is an undoubted reference to Revelation xiii. 18. This
evidence is clear and positive. Its value consists in these things:
(a) That he was familiar with one who was the friend of John; (b) that
he must have known his views on the subject; (c) that he must have been
intimately acquainted with the common opinion on the subject of the
authorship of the book; (d) that a spurious work could not have been
palmed upon the world as the production of John; (e) that he bears
unequivocal testimony to the fact that it was written by John; (f) and
that he speaks of the “most exact” copies being then in existence, and
testified to by those who had seen John himself.

MELITO.――Lardner, ii. 157‒160. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the
churches to which the book of Revelation was directed. He is supposed
to have flourished about A.D. 170. He was a man greatly distinguished
for learning and piety, and Jerome says that Christians were accustomed
to name him a _prophet_. He was, moreover, remarkably inquisitive
respecting the sacred books; and, at the request of Onesimus, he made
extracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic prophecies, and
also a complete list of the books of the Old Testament, which is still
extant in Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._ iv. 26. He wrote a _Treatise_ or
_Commentary on the Book of Revelation_. Dr. Lardner says of this, “What
it contained we are not informed. I will say it was a commentary on
that book. It is plain he ascribed that book to John, and very likely
to John the apostle. I think it very probable he esteemed it a book of
canonical authority.” Hug says (p. 653), “Melito himself calls it the
Apocalypse of John.” Even Michaelis (_Intro. to the New Testament_,
iv. 466) reckons Melito among the witnesses in favour of the book.
The _value_ of this testimony is this: (a) Melito was bishop of one of
the churches to which the Apocalypse was directed; (b) he lived near
the time of John; (c) he was a diligent student on this very subject;
(d) he had every opportunity of ascertaining the truth on the subject;
(e) he regarded it as the work of the apostle John; (f) and he wrote
a treatise or commentary on it as an inspired book. It is not easy to
conceive of stronger testimony in favour of the book.

THEOPHILUS.――Lardner, ii. 203‒215. He was bishop of Antioch, and
flourished about A.D. 169‒180. He wrote a work against the “heresy” of
Hermogenes, referred to by Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._ iv. 24. In that work
he expressly speaks of the Apocalypse as the production of John; and
Lardner {xxxiv} says of his testimony, “That the book of Revelation was
owned by him is undoubted from Eusebius. Eusebius has assured us that
Theophilus, in his book against Hermogenes, brought testimonies from
the Apocalypse of John,” pp. 214, 215. The value of this testimony is,
that Theophilus doubtless expressed the current opinion of his time,
and that he had ample opportunity for ascertaining the truth. There
is also a passage in the writings of Theophilus which _seems_ to be a
direct allusion to the book of Revelation: “This Eve, because she was
deceived by the serpent――the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who
thus spoke to her by the serpent――does not cease to accuse; this demon
is also called the dragon.” Comp. Rev. xii. 9.

APOLLONIUS.――Lardner, ii. 391‒393. He flourished about A.D. 192.
Eusebius says of him, “He makes use of testimonies out of the
Revelation of John.” The value of this testimony is, (a) that he
quotes the book as of authority; and (b) that he ascribes it to John,
evidently meaning the apostle John.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.――Lardner, ii. 222‒259. He flourished about
A.D. 192‒220. Many of his writings are extant. Lardner (p. 245) says of
him, “The book of Revelation is several times quoted by him, and once
in this manner: ‘Such an one, though here on earth he be not honoured
with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging
the people, as John says in the Revelation.’” Comp. Rev. iv. 4; xi. 16.
Lardner adds, “And that he supposed this writer to be John the apostle
appears from another place, where he refers to Rev. xxi. 21, as the
words of the apostle.” Professor Stuart says (i. 317), “There is no
good ground for doubt, from anything which is found in the work, that
he received and admitted the Apocalypse as a work of John the apostle.”
The known character of Clement makes this testimony of great value.

TERTULLIAN.――He was the contemporary of Clement, and was the most
ancient, and one of the most learned, of the Latin fathers (Lardner,
ii. 267‒306). He was born at Carthage about the middle of the second
century, and died about A.D. 220. He was reared in the study of
the Greek and Latin languages, of philosophy and the Roman law, and
possessed extensive information. “His testimony to the Apocalypse is
most full and ample. He quotes, or refers to it in more than seventy
passages in his writings, appealing to it expressly as the work of the
apostle John” (Elliott, i. 27). “The declarations of Tertullian are so
frequent and plain, that no doubt can possibly remain as to his belief”
(Prof. Stuart, i. 318). “The Revelation of John is often quoted. I put
together two or three passages, which show his full persuasion that
it was written by the apostle and evangelist of that name” (Lardner,
ii. 295). One of the passages referred to by Lardner is the following:
“The apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-edged sword
coming out of the mouth of God.” Another is, “Though Marcion rejects
his revelation, the succession of bishops traced to the original will
assure us that John is the author.” There can be no doubt, therefore,
that Tertullian regarded the apostle John as the author of the book of
Revelation; and his confident assertion may be considered as expressive
of the prevailing opinion of his time.

Thus far, to the end of the second century, the testimony of the
fathers of the church, as far as we now have it, was uniform and
unbroken; and so far as historical testimony is concerned, this should
be permitted to decide the {xxxv} question. Marcion, indeed, who lived
in the time of Polycarp, and whom Polycarp called “the first-born of
Satan” (Lardner, ii. 95), rejected the book of Revelation (see the
declaration of Tertullian in Lardner, ii. 275); but it is also to be
remembered that he rejected the whole of the Old Testament, the account
of the genealogy and baptism of the Saviour, the Acts of the Apostles,
the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, the Hebrews, and the Catholic Epistles
(Lardner, vi. 142‒151, 347‒350; viii. 489‒513). Besides the opinion of
Marcion, the testimony was uniform, with the exception of the heretical
sect of the _Alogi_, if there was any such sect, which is generally
supposed to have arisen in the latter half of this century, who derived
their name from their antipathy to the name of _Logos_, and who on this
account denied both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. See
Lardner, iv. 190, 191; viii. 627, 628. Lardner, however, maintains that
there never was any such sect (viii. 628).

3. The third half century after the death of John, A.D. 200‒250.
Among the names embraced in this period are those of Hippolytus, who
flourished about A.D. 220; Nepos, an Egyptian bishop; the well-known
Origen, the most acute critic of all the early fathers, and who devoted
his life to the study of the Scriptures; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,
who flourished about A.D. 246; and Methodius, bishop of Olympia in
Lycia. All these, without exception, have left a clear and decided
expression of their belief that the apostle John was the author of the
Apocalypse. See that testimony at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 321‒326.

It is unnecessary to pursue the historical evidence further. If the
testimony in favour of the work is unbroken and clear for an hundred
and fifty years, the testimony of those who lived subsequent to that
period would add little to its strength. To the names already mentioned,
however, there might be added those of Epiphanius, Basil, Cyril of
Alexandria, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary of
Poictiers, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and many others.

Such is the external positive testimony in favour of the opinion that
the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John.

To this might be added certain internal marks, or certain facts in the
life of John which accord with this supposition, and seem to confirm
it. They are such that if they did _not_ exist there might be some room
for plausible doubt, though it must be admitted that, in themselves,
they do not amount to positive proof of any considerable strength that
he _was_ the author. There is not room to dwell upon them, and they
can only be briefly referred to. They are such as these:――(1) That the
author calls himself _John_, evidently with the design of representing
himself as the _apostle_ of that name; for (a) his supposed relation to
the churches of Asia Minor is such as the relation of the apostle John
was, and (b) the name _John_, unless there was something to qualify it,
would be naturally understood as referring to the apostle of that name.
(2) The fact that John lived at Ephesus, and was well known to the
seven churches of Asia Minor. (3) The fact that he lived to extreme old
age――to the time when the book was supposed to have been written. See
§ II. (4) The fact that there was a persecution in the time of Domitian,
when this book is supposed to have been written; and (5) what might be
derived from a comparison of this book with the acknowledged writings
of John.

II. To confirm the argument, it is necessary to show the insufficiency
of the reasons for doubting that John was the author. This point may be
considered {xxxvi} under two heads――the alleged grounds for doubting
that it was written by John by the ancients; and the reasons alleged by
the moderns.

(1) The ancients.

(a) It has been maintained that it was rejected by Caius, a presbyter
at Rome. He flourished, according to Cave, about A.D. 210. See Lardner,
ii. 394‒410. There is a single passage in his writings, from which it
has been inferred that he designed to reject the Apocalypse. This is
in the following words――“And Cerinthus also, who by his revelations, as
if written by some great apostle, imposes upon us monstrous relations
of things of his own invention, as shown him by an angel, says, ‘that
after the resurrection there shall be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ,
and that men shall live again in Jerusalem, subject to sensual desires
and pleasures. And being an enemy to the divine Scriptures, and
desirous to seduce mankind, he says there will be a term of a thousand
years spent in nuptial entertainments’” (Lardner, ii. 400, 401).

The whole force of this depends on the supposition that Caius meant to
refer to Rev. xx. 4‒6.

But in regard to this the following remarks may be made:――(a) Caius was
strongly opposed to Cerinthus, and to his views; (b) he was opposed to
the prevailing doctrine of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the millennium,
as then extensively held――that Christ would reign personally on the
earth with his saints for a thousand years; (c) it may be _possible_
that Cerinthus may have forged a work pretending to be of apostolic
origin, in which these doctrines were affirmed; (d) it is possible that
the book of Revelation, as left by John, may have been interpolated
and corrupted by Caius thus. Some one of these suppositions is more
probable than the supposition that Caius meant to reject the book of
Revelation; for,

1. The views referred to by Caius, as held by Cerinthus, are _not_
the views which are found in Rev. xx. He spoke of a “terrestrial
kingdom of Christ;” says that “men would again live in Jerusalem;” that
they “would be subject to sensual pleasures;” and that the “term of a
thousand years would be spent in nuptial entertainments.” None of these
opinions are found in the book of Revelation as we now have it.

2. The _title_ given by Caius to the book――_Revelations_ instead of
_Revelation_――Ἀποκάλυψις――as we find it in the book itself, chap. i. 1,
would seem to indicate a different work from that of John. Eusebius
always refers to the Apocalypse by the noun singular (Prof. Stuart,
i. 341), and this is the general manner in which the work has been
designated. If Caius had designed to refer to this, it is probable that
he would have used the common term to designate it.

3. These views receive some confirmation from a passage in Theodoret,
“who spoke of Cerinthus in such a way as seems to imply that he had
forged an Apocalypse for the promotion of his designs.” That passage
is, “Cerinthus forged certain revelations _as if he himself had seen
them_, and added descriptions of certain terrible things, and declares
that the kingdom of the Lord will be established on the earth,” &c. See
Prof. Stuart, i. 342. On the whole, nothing of material importance can
be derived from the testimony of Caius in proof that the Apocalypse was
not believed to have been written by John.

(b) Dionysius of Alexandria doubted the genuineness of the Apocalypse
as {xxxvii} being the production of John, though he did not deny its
inspiration. He was made bishop of the see of Alexandria A.D. 247 or
248, and died about A.D. 264 or 265. See Lardner, ii. 643‒722. He was
a pupil of Origen, and enjoyed a high reputation. The full testimony of
Dionysius in regard to this book may be seen in Lardner, ii. 693‒697.
I will copy all that is material to show his opinion. He says, “Some
who were before us have utterly rejected and confuted this book,
criticising every chapter; showing it throughout unintelligible
and inconsistent; adding, moreover, that the inspiration is false,
forasmuch as it is not John’s; nor is a revelation which is hidden
under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorance.” [Prof. Stuart (i. 346)
translates this, “It contains, moreover, no revelation; for it is
covered with a strong and thick veil of ignorance.”] “And this not
only no apostle, but not so much as any holy or ecclesiastical man was
the author of this writing, but that Cerinthus, founder of the heresy
called after him the Cerinthian, the better to recommend his own
forgery, prefixed to it an honourable name. For this, they say, was one
of his particular notions, that the kingdom of Christ should be earthly;
consisting of those things which he himself, a carnal and sensual man,
most admired, the pleasures of the belly and its concupiscence; that is,
eating, and drinking, and marriage; and for the more decent procurement
of these, feastings, and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims. But,
for my part, I dare not reject the book, since many of the brethren
have it in high esteem; but allowing it to be above my understanding, I
suppose it to contain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning; for
though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some profound
sense in the words; not measuring and judging these things by my own
reason, but ascribing more to faith, I esteem them too sublime to be
comprehended by me.” Then, having quoted some passages from the book,
he adds, speaking of the author, “I do not deny, then, that his name is
John, and that this is John’s book; for I believe it to be the work of
some holy and inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him
to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, brother of James, whose is the
Gospel ascribed to John, and the Catholic Epistle; for I conclude from
the manner of each, and the term of expression, and the conduct of the
book, as we call it, that he is not the same person; for the Evangelist
nowhere puts down his name, nor does he speak of himself either in
the Gospel or the Epistle. I think, therefore, that he [the author] is
another, one of them that dwelleth in Asia; forasmuch as it is said,
that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of them called John’s tomb.
And from the sentiment, and words, and disposition of them, it is
likely that he differed from him [who wrote the Gospel and Epistle].”

This is the sum of all that Dionysius says in regard to the genuineness
of the book.

Respecting this the following remarks may be made:――

1. Dionysius, though he did not regard the work as the work of John
the apostle, yet received it as an inspired book, though far above his
comprehension.

2. He does not agree with those who altogether rejected it, as if it
were no revelation, and contained no inspired truth.

3. He did not ascribe it, as it has been supposed by some that Caius
did, to Cerinthus.

4. _All_ the objections that he urges to its being the work of the
apostle {xxxviii} John are derived from the book itself, and from the
difficulty of supposing that the Gospel of John, and the First Epistle
of John, should have been written by the same author. He refers to
no _historical_ proof on that point; and does not even intimate that
its genuineness had been called in question by the early writers. It
is clear, therefore, that the objections of Dionysius should not be
allowed to set aside the strong and clear proofs of a historical nature
already adduced from the early Christian writers. See the opinion of
Dionysius examined more at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 344‒354. Comp.
Hug, _Intro._ pp. 654‒656.

(c) It may be added, in regard to the historical testimony from the
ancients, that the book is not found in many of the early catalogues
of the books of the New Testament, and that this has been made an
objection to its authenticity. Thus Gregory of Nazianzen, in a piece
composed in verse, containing a catalogue of the canonical Scriptures,
omits the book of Revelation; in the catalogue of sacred writings
annexed to the canons of the council of Laodicea, A.D. 363, it is also
omitted; in the so-called Canons of the Apostles, a supposititious
work of the latter part of the fourth century, it is also omitted;
it is also omitted in a catalogue of sacred books published by Cyril
of Jerusalem, A.D. 360; and it is mentioned by Amphilocus, bishop
of Iconium, A.D. 380, as among the books that were doubtful. “Some,”
says he, “admit the Apocalypse of John, but most persons say it is
spurious.” See Michaelis, _Intro. New Test._ iv. 489; Prof. Stuart,
i. 357, seq.

In regard to these omissions, and the doubts entertained by later
writers on the subject, it may be remarked in general, (1) That it is
well known that in the latter part of the fourth century and onward
many doubts were entertained as to the canonical authority of the
Apocalypse, and that, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John,
it was reckoned among the books called _Antilegomena_; that is, _books
spoken against_, or books whose canonical authority was not admitted
by all. (2) This fact shows, as has been often remarked, the great
vigilance of the church in the early ages, in settling the canon of
Scripture, and in determining what books were to be admitted, and what
were to be rejected. (3) These doubts, entertained in a later age,
cannot affect the clear historical testimony of the early writers, as
we now have it; for the question of the origin of the Apocalypse, so
far as the historical testimony is concerned, must be determined by the
testimony of the writers who lived near the time when it is alleged to
have been written. (4) The objections alleged against the Apocalypse
in later times were wholly on _internal_ grounds, and were mainly
derived from the fact that it was supposed to countenance the doctrine
of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ and the
saints, for a thousand years, in Jerusalem; and from the fact that
the followers of Cerinthus appealed to this book in support of their
pernicious errors. The book _seemed_ (see chap. xx.) to countenance
the views early entertained by many on the subject of the millennium,
and, in accordance with a common method of controversy, its canonical
authority was therefore called in question. Thus Hug (_Intro._ p. 654)
says, “It was amidst the disputes concerning the millennium that
the first explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apocalypse
occurred.” Nepos, bishop of the Arsinoitic præfecture in Egypt, had
maintained that the doctrine of the millennium could be defended from
the book of Revelation by a literal exposition. {xxxix} Dionysius
opposed this view, and, in the violence of the dispute on the subject,
the authority of the Apocalypse itself was called in question by
Dionysius, on the grounds referred to above. “He did this, however,”
says Hug, “with such moderation, that he might not offend those who had
so readily agreed to a compromise;” that is, a compromise by which, as
bishop, he had endeavoured to reconcile the contending parties. Hug has
shown conclusively (pp. 654‒656) that this constitutes no objection to
the genuineness of the book. It was on such internal grounds entirely
that the authenticity of the book was called in question, and that
it was ever placed among the disputed books. That objection is, of
course, of no importance now. (5) It is well known that, mainly by the
influence of Jerome and Augustine (see Prof. Stuart, i. 334), all these
doubts were removed, and that the Apocalypse after their time was all
but universally received, until Luther, for reasons derived from the
book itself, in the early part of his life, again called it in question.

Such is a summary of the historical argument in favour of the
genuineness of the book of Revelation; and such is the nature of the
evidence which has satisfied the Christian world at large that it is
the work of the apostle John, and is, therefore, entitled to a place as
an inspired book in the canon of Scripture. In ancient times there were
no objections to it on historical grounds, and it is unnecessary to say
that there can be none on these grounds now.

(2) The objections to its genuineness and authenticity in modern
times are wholly derived from the contents of the book itself. These
objections, as stated by De Wette, and as expressing the substance
of all that is urged by Ewald, Lücke, Credner, and others, are the
following:――

1. That the Apocalyptical writer calls himself John, which the
evangelist never does. It is added, also, by Ewald, Credner, and Hitzig,
that in chap. xviii. 20 and xxi. 14 the writer expressly excludes
himself from the number of the apostles.

2. That the language of the book is entirely different from that of
the fourth Gospel, and the three Epistles of John the apostle. It is
said to be characterized by strong Hebraisms, and by ruggedness; by
negligence of expression, and by grammatical inaccuracies; and that
it exhibits the absence of pure Greek words, and of the apostle’s
favourite expressions.

3. That the style is unlike that which appears in the Gospel and the
Epistles. In the latter it is said there is calm, deep feeling; in the
Apocalypse a lively creative power of fancy.

4. That the doctrinal aspect of the book is different from that of
the apostle’s acknowledged writings. It is said that we find in the
latter nothing of the “sensuous expectations of the Messiah and of
his kingdom,” which are prominent in the Apocalypse; that the views
inculcated respecting spirits, demons, and angels are foreign to John;
and that there is a certain spirit of revenge flowing throughout the
Apocalypse quite inconsistent with the mild and amiable disposition of
the beloved disciple.

For a full consideration of these points, and a complete answer
to these objections, the reader is referred to the _Commentary_ of
Prof. Stuart, vol. i. pp. 371‒422. A more condensed reply is found
in Kitto’s _Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature_, in an article by the
Rev. S. Davidson, LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Oriental
Languages in the Lancashire Independent College, vol. ii. pp. 614‒618.

{xl} The objections do not seem to me to have the importance which
has been attached to them by many persons, but it may be satisfactory
to see the manner in which they are disposed of by Dr. Davidson; I
therefore copy his answer to them.

“Let us now consider the internal evidence in favour of John the
Apostle, beginning with an examination of the arguments adduced on the
other side by De Wette. These do not possess all the weight that many
assign to them. We shall follow the order in which they have been
already stated.

“1. We attach no importance to this circumstance. Why should not
a writer be at liberty to name himself or not as he pleases? above
all, why should not a writer, under the immediate inspiration of the
Almighty, omit the particulars which he was not prompted to record? How
could he refrain from doing so? The Holy Spirit must have had some good
reason for leading the writer to set forth his name, although curiosity
is not gratified by assigning the reason. The Old Testament prophets
usually prefixed their names to the visions and predictions which they
were prompted to record; and John does the same. But instead of styling
himself an apostle, which carries with it an idea of dignity and
official authority, he modestly takes to himself the appellation of
_a servant of Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in
tribulation_. This corresponds with the relation which he sustained to
Christ in the receiving of such visions, as also with the condition of
the Redeemer himself. In the Gospel John is mentioned as _the disciple
whom Jesus loved_, for then he stood in an intimate relation to Christ,
as the _Son of man_ appearing in the form of a servant; but in the
book before us Christ is announced as the glorified Redeemer who should
quickly come to judgment, and John is _his servant_, intrusted with the
secrets of his house. Well did it become the apostle to forget all the
honour of his apostolic office, and to be abased before the Lord of
glory. The resplendent vision of the Saviour had such an effect upon
the seer that he fell at his feet as dead; and therefore it was quite
natural for him to be clothed with profound humility, to designate
himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion of
the faithful in tribulation. Again, in chap. xviii. 20 the prophets
are said to be represented as already in heaven in their glorified
condition, and therefore the writer could not have belonged to their
number. But this passage neither affirms, nor necessarily implies,
that the saints and apostles and prophets were at that time in heaven.
Neither is it stated that _all_ the apostles had then been glorified.
Chap. xxi. 14 is alleged to be inconsistent with the modesty and
humility of John. This is a questionable assumption. The official
honour inseparable from the person of an apostle was surely compatible
with profound humility. It was so with Paul; and we may safely draw the
same conclusion in regard to John. In describing the heavenly Jerusalem
it was necessary to introduce the twelve apostles. The writer could not
exclude himself (see Lücke, p. 389; and Guerike’s _Beiträge_, p. 37,
seq.).

“2. To enter fully into this argument would require a lengthened
treatise. Let us briefly notice the particular words, phrases, and
expressions to which Ewald, Lücke, De Wette, and Credner specially
allude. Much has been written by Ewald concerning the Hebraistic
character of the language. The writer, it is alleged, strongly imbued
with Hebrew modes of thought, frequently inserts Hebrew words, as in
chap. iii. 14; ix. 11; xii. 9, 10; xix. 1, 3, 4, 6; xx. 2; xxii. 20;
while the influence of _cabbalistic artificiality_ is obvious {xli}
throughout the entire book, and particularly in chap. i. 4, 5; iv. 2;
xiii. 18; xvi. 14. The mode of employing the tenses is foreign to the
Greek language, and moulded after the Hebrew (chap. i. 7; ii. 5, 16,
22, 23, 27; iii. 9; iv. 9‒11; xii. 2‒4; xvi. 15, 21; xvii. 13, 14;
xviii. 11, 15; xxii. 7, 12). So also the use of the participle (chap.
i. 16; iv. 1, 5, 8; v. 6, 13; vi. 2, 5; vii. 9, 10; ix. 11; x. 2;
xiv. 1, 14; xix. 12, 13; xxi. 14); and of the infinitive (chap. xii. 7).
The awkward disposition of words is also said to be Hebraistic; such
as a genitive appended like the construct state; the stringing together
of several genitives (chap. xiv. 8, 10, 19; xvi. 19; xviii. 3, 14;
xix. 15; xxi. 6; xxii. 18, 19); and the use of the Greek cases, which
are frequently changed for prepositions (chap. ii. 10; iii. 9;
vi. 1, 8; viii. 7; ix. 19; xi. 6, 9; xii. 5; xiv. 2, 7); incorrectness
in appositions (chap. i. 5; ii. 20; iii. 12; iv. 2‒4; vi. 1; vii. 9;
viii. 9; ix. 14; xiii. 1‒3; xiv. 2, 12, 14, 20, &c.); a construction
formed of an αὐτός put after the relative pronoun (chap. iii. 8;
vii. 2, 9; xiii. 12; xx. 8); frequent anomalies in regard to number and
gender (chap. ii. 27; iii. 4, 5; iv. 8; vi. 9, 10; ix. 13, 14; xi. 15;
xiv. 1, 3; xvii. 16; xix. 14; and viii. 11; xi. 18; xv. 4; xvii. 12, 15;
xviii. 14; xix. 21; xx. 12; xxi. 4, 24; also chap. xvi. 10; xix. 1,
8, 9). In addition to this, it is alleged by Credner, that the use made
of the Old Testament betrays an acquaintance on the part of the writer
with the Hebrew text (comp. chap. vi. 13, 14, with Isa. xxxiv. 4;
chap. xviii. 2, with Isa. xiii. 21, xxi. 9, xxxiv. 14, Jer. l. 39;
chap. xviii. 4, 5, with Jer. li. 6, 9, 45; chap. xviii. 7, with Isa.
xlvii. 7, 8; chap. xviii. 21‒23, with Jer. xxv. 10, li. 63, 64). In
contrast with all this, we are reminded of the fact that, according to
Acts iv. 13, John was an unlearned and ignorant man.

“The book is deficient in words and turns of expression purely Greek,
such as πάντοτε, πώποτε, οὐδέποτε; compound verbs, as ἀναγγέλλειν,
παραλαμβάνειν, ἐπιβάλλειν; the double negation; the genitive absolute;
the attraction of the relative pronoun; the regular construction of
the neuter plural with the verb singular (except chap. viii. 3; ix. 20;
xiv. 13; xviii. 24; xix. 14; xxi. 12); ἀκούειν with the genitive.
Favourite expressions, such as occur in the Gospel and Epistles, are
seldom found, as θεάομαι, θεωρέω, ἐργάζομαι, ῥήματα, πάλιν, φωνεῖν,
μένειν, καθώς, ὡς (an adverb of time), οὖν, μέν, μέντοι, κόσμος, φῶς,
σκοτία, δοξάζεσθαι, ὑψοῦσθαι, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ἀπόλλυσθαι, οὗτος (τοῦτο)
ἵνα; the historic present. There are also favourite expressions of the
writer of the book, such as do not occur in John’s authentic writings:
οἰκουμένη, ὑπομονή, κρατεῖν τὸ ὄνομα, τὴν διδαχήν, παντοκράτωρ, θεὸς
καὶ πατήρ, δύναμις, κράτος, ἰσχύς, τιμή, πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, ἡ ἀρχή
τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς, ὧδε in the beginning
of a sentence. The conjunction εἰ, so common in the Gospel, does not
occur in the Apocalypse; but only εἰ μή, εἰ δὲ μή, and εἴ τις. The
frequent joining of a substantive with μέγας, as φωνὴ μεγάλη, θλίψις
μεγάλη, φόβος μέγας, σεισμὸς μέγας, rather reminds one of Luke than
John; μείζων, so frequent in the Gospel, is not found in the Revelation;
and, on the contrary, ἰσχυρός, which occurs seven times in the
Apocalypse, is foreign to the Gospel.

“The following discrepancies between the language of the Gospel and
that of the Epistles have been noticed: ἀληθινός is used of God both
in the Gospel and the Apocalypse, but in different senses; so also
κύριος, and ἐργάζομαι; instead of ἴδε the Apocalypse has only ἰδού;
instead of Ἱεροσόλυμα only Ἱερουσαλήμ; instead of ἐάν τις, as in the
Gospel, εἴ τις; περί, so often used by John, occurs only once in the
Apocalypse, and that too in relation to place; ὄχλος is {xlii} used in
the plural. Words denoting _seeing_ are differently used in the Gospel
and Apocalypse; thus, for the present we find in the latter βλέπειν,
θεωρεῖν, ὁρᾶν; for the aorist of the active εἶδον, βλέπειν, and
θεωρεῖν; for the future ὄπτεσθαι, and for the aorist of the passive
also ὄπτεσθαι; μένειν has a different meaning from that which it bears
in the Gospel; instead of ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, and ὁ πονηρός, we find
ὁ σατανᾶς, ὁ διάβολος, ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας.

“Such is a summary statement of an argument drawn out at great length
by Lücke, De Wette, Ewald, and Credner.

“Some have attempted to turn aside its force by resorting to the
hypothesis that the book was originally written in Hebrew and then
translated into Greek. This, however, is contradicted by the most
decisive internal evidence, and is in itself highly improbable. The
Apocalypse was written in the Greek language, as all antiquity attests.
How, then, are we to account for its Hebraistic idioms and solecisms of
language, its negligences of diction, and ungrammatical constructions?
One circumstance to be taken into account is, that the nature of the
Gospel is widely different from that of the Apocalypse. The latter is
a prophetic book――a poetical composition; while the former is a simple
record in prose, of the discourses of Jesus in the days of his flesh.
It is apparent, too, that John in the Apocalypse imitates the manner of
Ezekiel and Daniel. The New Testament prophet conforms to the diction
and symbolic features of the former seers. ‘If the question should
be urged why John chose these models, the obvious answer is, that he
conformed to the taste of the times in which he lived. The numerous
apocryphal works of an Apocalyptical nature, which were composed nearly
at the same time with the Apocalypse――such as the book of Enoch, the
Ascension of Isaiah, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, many of
the Sibylline Oracles, the fourth book of Ezra, the Pastor of Hermas,
and many others which are lost――all testify to the taste and feelings
of the times when, or near which, the Apocalypse was written. If this
method of writing was more grateful to the time in which John lived,
it is a good reason for his preferring it.’[56] In consequence of such
imitation, the diction has an Oriental character; and the figures are
in the highest style of imagery peculiar to the East. But it is said
that John was an illiterate man. Illiterate, doubtless, he was as
compared with Paul, who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel; yet he
may have been capable of reading the Old Testament books; and he was
certainly inspired. Wrapt in ecstasy, he saw wondrous visions. He was
_in the Spirit_. And when writing the things he beheld, his language
was to be conformed to the nature of such marvellous revelations. It
was to be adapted to the mysterious disclosures, the vivid pictures,
the moving scenes, the celestial beings and scenery of which he Was
privileged to tell. Hence it was to be lifted up far above the level
of simple prose or biographic history, so as to correspond with the
sublime visions of the seer. Nor should it be forgotten that he was
not in the circumstances of an ordinary writer. He was _inspired_.
How often is this fact lost sight of by the German critics! It is,
therefore, needless to inquire into his education in the Hebrew
language, or his mental culture while residing in Asia Minor, or the
smoothness of the Greek language as current in the place where he lived,
before and after he wrote the Apocalypse. The Holy Spirit qualified
him beyond and irrespective of ordinary means for the work of writing.
However elevated the theme he undertook, he was assisted in {xliii}
employing diction as elevated as the nature of the subject demanded. We
place, therefore, little reliance upon the argument derived from _the
time of life_ at which the Apocalypse was composed, though Olshausen
and Guerike insist upon it. Written, as they think, twenty years before
the Gospel or Epistles, the Apocalypse exhibits marks of inexperience
in writing, of youthful fire, and of an ardent temperament. It exhibits
the first essays of one expressing his ideas in a language to which he
was unaccustomed. This may be true; but we lay far less stress upon it
than these authors seem inclined to do. The strong Hebraized diction of
the book we account for on the ground that the writer was a Jew; and,
as such, expressed his Jewish conceptions in Greek; that he imitated
the later Old Testament prophets, especially the manner of Daniel;
and that the only prophetic writing in the New Testament naturally
approaches nearer the Old Testament, if not in subject, at least in
colouring and linguistic features.

“These considerations may serve to throw light upon the language
of the book, after all the extravagancies of assertion in regard to
anomalies, solecisms, and ruggednesses, have been fairly estimated. For
it cannot be denied that many rash and unwarrantable assumptions have
been made by De Wette and others relative to the impure Greek said
to be contained in the Apocalypse. Winer has done much to check such
bold assertions, but with little success in the case of those who are
resolved to abide by a strong and prevalent current of opinion. We
venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that there are
books in the New Testament almost as Hebraizing as the Apocalypse;
and that the anomalies charged to the account of the Hebrew language
may be paralleled in other parts of the New Testament, or in classical
Greek. What shall be said, for instance, to the attempt of Hitzig to
demonstrate from the language of Mark’s Gospel, as compared with that
of the Apocalypse, that both proceeded from one author, viz. John Mark?
This author has conducted a lengthened investigation with the view of
showing that all the peculiarities of language found in the Apocalypse
are equally presented in the second Gospel, particularly that the
Hebraisms of the one correspond with those of the other. Surely
this must lead to new investigations of the Apocalyptic diction, and
possibly to a renunciation of those extravagant assertions so often
made in regard to the harsh, rugged, Hebraized Greek of the Apocalypse.
Who ever dreamed before of the numerous solecisms of Mark’s language?
and yet Hitzig has demonstrated its similarity to the Apocalyptic
as plausibly as Ewald, Lücke, and others have proved the total
dissimilarity between the diction of the Apocalypse and that of John’s
Gospel.

“The length allotted to this article will not allow the writer to
notice every term and phrase supposed to be peculiar. This can only be
done with success by him who takes a concordance to the Greek Testament
in his hand, with the determination to test each example; along with
a good syntax of classical Greek, such as Bernhardy’s. In this way
he may see whether the alleged Hebraisms and anomalies have not their
parallels in classical Greek. Some of the allegations already quoted
are manifestly incorrect, _e.g._, that ἀκούω with the genitive is not
found in the Apocalypse. On the contrary, it occurs eight times with
the genitive. Other words are adduced on the principle of their not
occurring so frequently in the book before us as in the Gospel and
Epistles. But by this mode of reasoning it might be shown, that the
other acknowledged writings of the apostle John, for instance his
First Epistle, are not {xliv} authentic. Thus ῥήματα, one of the words
quoted, though frequently found in the Gospel, is not in any of the
three Epistles; therefore, these Epistles were not written by John.
It is found _once_ in the Apocalypse. Again, ἐργάζομαι, which is found
seven times in the Gospel, and once in the Apocalypse, as also once
in each of the Second and Third Epistles, is not in the First Epistle;
therefore the First Epistle proceeded from another writer than the
author of the Second and Third. The same reasoning may be applied to
θεωρέω. Again, it is alleged that the regular construction of neuters
plural with singular verbs is not found, with the exception of six
instances. To say nothing of the large list of exceptions, let it be
considered, that the plural verb is joined with plural nouns where
animate beings, especially persons, are designated. Apply now this
principle, which regularly holds good in classical Greek, to the
Apocalypse, and nothing peculiar will appear in the latter. Should
there still remain examples of neuters plural designating things
without life, we shall find similar ones in the Greek writers. Another
mode in which the reasoning founded upon the use of peculiar terms
and expressions may be tested is the following. It is admitted that
there are words which occur in the Gospel and Epistles, but not in the
Apocalypse. The adverb πάντοτε is an example. On the same principle,
and by virtue of the same reasoning, it may be denied, _as far as
language is concerned_, that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, because
πάντοτε, which is found in his other epistles, does not occur in
it. In this manner we might individually take up each word and every
syntactical peculiarity on which the charge of harshness, or solecism,
or Hebraizing has been fastened. It is sufficient to state, that there
are very few _real_ solecisms in the Apocalypse. _Almost all_ that
have been adduced may be paralleled in Greek writers, or in those of
the New Testament. The words of Winer, a master in this department,
are worthy of attention: ‘The solecisms that appear in the Apocalypse
give the diction the impress of great harshness, but they are _capable
of explanation_, partly from anacoluthon and the mingling of two
constructions, partly in another manner. Such explanation should have
been always adopted, instead of ascribing these irregularities to the
ignorance of the author, who, in other constructions of a much more
difficult nature in this very book, shows that he was exceedingly well
acquainted with the rules of grammar. For most of these anomalies,
too, analogous examples in the Greek writers may be found, with this
difference alone, that they do hot follow one another so frequently as
in the Apocalypse,’ (_Grammatik, fünfte Auflage_, pp. 273, 274). Should
the reader not be satisfied with this brief statement of Winer, he is
referred to his _Exeget. Studien_, i. 154, seq., where the professor
enters into details with great ability.

“The following linguistic similarities between John’s Gospel and
the Apocalypse deserve to be cited: μετὰ ταῦτα, Apoc. i. 19; iv. 1;
vii. 1, 9; ix. 12; xv. 5; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xx. 3;――Gosp. iii. 22;
v. 1, 14; vi. 1; vii. 1; xix. 38; xxi. 1. μαρτυρία, Apoc. i. 2, 9;
vi. 9; xi. 7; xii. 11, 17; xix. 10; xx. 4;――Gosp. (μαρτυρέω or
μαρτυρία) i. 7, 8, 15, 19, 32, 34; ii. 25; iii. 11, 26, 28, 32, 33;
iv. 3, 9, 44; v. 31‒34, 36, 37, 39;――1 Epist. i. 2; iv. 14; v. 6‒11.
ἵνα, Apoc. ii. 10, 21; iii. 9, 11, 18; vi. 2, 4, 11; vii. 1, &c.;――Gosp.
vi. 5, 7, 12, 15, 28‒30, 38‒40, 50; xi. 4, 11, 15, 16, 19, 31, 37, 42,
50, 52, 53, 55, 57; xii. 9, 10, 20, 23, 35, &c.;――1 Epist. of John
i. 3, 4, 9; ii. 1, 19, 27, 28. ὄψις, Gosp. vii. 24; xi. 44;――Apoc.
i. 16. πιάζειν, Apoc. xix. 20;――Gosp. vii. 30, 32, 44; viii. 20; x. 39;
xi. 57; xxi. 3, 10. τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον, τὰς ἐντολάς, or some similar
expression, Apoc. iii. 8, 10; xii. 17; xiv. 12; xxii. 7, 9;――Gosp.
viii. 51, 55; {xlv} xiv. 15; xxiii. 24, &c. ὁ νικῶν, Apoc. ii. 7, 11,
17, 26; iii. 5, 12, 21; xv. 2; xxi. 7. This verb is quite common in
the First Epistle, chap. ii. 13, 14; iv. 4; v. 4, 5;――Gosp. xvi. 33.
ὕδωρ ζωῆς, Apoc. xxi. 6; xxii. 17; comp. Gosp. vii. 38. Compare also
the joining together of the present and the future in Apoc. ii. 5, and
Gosp. xiv. 3. The assertion of the same thing positively and negatively,
Apoc. ii. 2, 6, 8, 13; iii. 8, 17, 21; Gosp. i. 3, 6, 7, 20, 48;
iii. 15, 17, 20; iv. 42; v. 19, 24; viii. 35, 45; x. 28; xv. 5‒7;
1 Epist. ii. 27, &c. In several places in the Apocalypse Christ is
called the Lamb; so also in the Gospel, chap. i. 29, 36. Christ is
called ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Apoc. xix. 13, and in the Gospel of John only
has he the same epithet. τηρεῖν ἔκ τινος, Apoc. iii. 10; Gosp. xvii. 15.
σφάττειν, Apoc. v. 6, 9, 12; vi. 4, 9; xiii. 3, 8; xviii. 24; only in
the 1st Epistle of John, chap. iii. 12. ἔχειν μέρος, Apoc. xx. 6; Gosp.
xiii. 8. περιπατεῖν μετά τινος, Apoc. iii. 4; Gosp. vi. 66. σκηνόω,
Apoc. vii. 15; xii. 12; xiii. 6; xxi. 3; Gosp. i. 14. The expulsion
of Satan from heaven is expressed thus in the Apoc. xii. 9: ἐβλήθη
εἰς τὴν γῆν; in the Gosp. it is said, νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου
ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, chap. xii. 31. (See Scholz, _Die Apokalypse
des heilig. Johannes übersetzt, erklärt_, u. s. w. Frankfurt
am Main, 1828, 8vo; Schulz, _Ueber den Schriftsteller, Character und
Werth des Johannes_, Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; Donker Curtius, _Specimen
hermeneuticotheologicum de Apocalypsi ab indole, doctrina, et scribendi
genere Johannis Apostoli non abhorrente_, Trajecti Batav. 1799, 8vo;
Kolthoff, _Apocalypsis Joanni Apostolo vindicata_, Hafniæ, 1834, 8vo;
Stein, in Winer and Engelhardt’s _Kritisch. Journal_, v. i.; and the
_Jena Literatur-Zeitung_ for April, 1833, No. 61.) It is true that
some of these expressions are said, by Lücke, De Wette, and Credner,
to be used in a different sense in the Apocalypse; others not to
be _characteristic_, but rather accidental and casual; others not
_original_, but borrowed. Such assertions, however, proceed more from
_à priori_ assumption than from any inherent truth they possess. In
regard to the charge of _cabbalism_, especially in the use of numbers,
it is easily disposed of. The cabbala of the Jews was widely different
from the instances in the Apocalypse that have been quoted. Perhaps
John’s use of the number 666 comes the nearest to one kind of the
cabbala; but still it is so unlike as to warrant the conclusion
that the apostle did not employ the cabbalistic art. His mysterious
indications of certain facts, and the reasons of their being in some
measure involved in darkness, are explicable on other than Jewish
grounds. There is no real cause for believing that the apostle had
recourse to the artificial and trifling conceits of the Rabbins. In
short, this argument is by no means conclusive. As far as the language
is concerned, nothing militates against the opinion that the Apocalypse
proceeded from John, who wrote the Gospel. The contrary evidence is not
of such a nature as to demand assent. When rigidly scrutinized, it does
not sustain the conclusion so confidently built upon it.

“But it is also affirmed, that the doctrinal views and sentiments
inculcated in the Apocalypse are quite different from those found in
the Gospel. This may be freely allowed without any detriment to their
identity of authorship. How slow the Germans are in learning that a
difference in the exhibition of truths substantially the same is far
from being a contradiction! A difference of subject in connection with
a different plan, demands correspondent dissimilarity of treatment.
Besides, there must be a gradual development of the things pertaining
to the kingdom of God on earth. Sensuous expectations of the Messiah,
such as are alleged to abound in the Apocalypse, may be perfectly
{xlvi} consistent with the spirituality of his reign, though it appears
to us that the representations so designated are figurative, shadowing
forth spiritual realities by means of outward objects.

“But what is to be said of the pneumatological, demonological, and
angelogical doctrines of the book? The object for which John’s Gospel
was primarily written did not lead the apostle to introduce so many
particulars regarding angels and evil spirits. The intervention of good
and the malignant influence of evil spirits are clearly implied in the
Old Testament prophets, particularly in Zechariah and Daniel. It is
therefore quite accordant with the prophetic Hebraistic character of
the Apocalypse, to make angelic agency a prominent feature in the book.
And that such agency is recognized in the Gospels, is apparent to the
most cursory reader. The special object with which the fourth Gospel
was written was different from that which prompted the composition of
the Apocalypse, and therefore the subject-matter of both is exceedingly
diverse. But still there is no opposition in doctrine. The same
doctrinal views lie at the foundation of all the representations
contained in them. In the one, the Redeemer is depicted in his humble
career on earth; in the other, in his triumphs as a king――or rather,
in the victorious progress of his truth in the world, notwithstanding
all the efforts of Satan and wicked men to suppress it. As to a spirit
of revenge in the Apocalyptic writer, it is not found. The inspired
prophet was commissioned to pronounce woes and judgments as soon to
befall the enemies of Christ, in consequence of their persevering,
malignant efforts. As well might an evil disposition be attributed to
the blessed Saviour himself, in consequence of his denunciation of the
Scribes and Pharisees. The same John who wrote the Apocalypse says, in
the Second Epistle, ver. 10, ‘If there come any unto you and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God
speed.’ It must ever strike the simple reader of the Apocalypse as a
positive ground for attributing the authorship to John the apostle,
that he styles himself THE _servant_ of God by way of eminence, which
none other at that time would have ventured to do; and that he employs
the expression, _I John_, after the manner of Daniel, as if he were the
only prophet and person of the name. Nor can it be well believed that a
disciple of the apostle, or any other individual, should have presumed
to introduce John as the speaker, thus deceiving the readers. The
apostle was well known to the Christians of his time, and especially
to the Asiatic churches. He did not therefore think it necessary to say
John the Apostle for the sake of distinguishing himself from any other.
See Züllig’s _Die Offenbarung Johannis_, Stuttgart, 1834, 8vo, p. 136.”

§ II.――_The Time of Writing the Apocalypse._

The evidence as to the date of the Apocalypse may be considered as
external or historical, and internal.

1. External or historical. On this point the testimony of the early
Christian fathers is almost or quite uniform, that it was in the latter
part of the life of the apostle John, and towards the end of the reign
of Domitian; that is, about A.D. 95 or 96.

The principal testimony to this fact is that of Irenæus. It will be
recollected that he was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who
was himself the disciple of the apostle John. See § I. (b). He had,
therefore, every opportunity of obtaining correct information, and
doubtless expresses the common {xlvii} sentiment of his age on the
subject. His character is unexceptionable, and he had no inducement
to bear any false or perverted testimony in the case. His testimony
is plain and positive that the book was written near the close of the
reign of Domitian, and the testimony should be regarded as decisive
unless it can be set aside. His language in regard to the book of
Revelation is: “It was seen _no long time ago, but almost in our age,
at the end of the reign of Domitian_” (Lardner, ii. 181). Or, as the
passage is translated by Prof. Stuart: “The Apocalypse was seen not
long ago, but almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s
reign.” There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the meaning of the
passage, or as to the time when Irenæus believed the book to have been
written. Domitian was put to death A.D. 96, and consequently, according
to Irenæus, the Apocalypse must have been written not far from this
time.

This testimony of Irenæus is confirmed by that of Clement of Alexandria.
Relating the well-known story of John and the robber, he speaks of the
event as having occurred on his return from exile in Patmos “_after the
death of the tyrant_,” and represents him as _then an infirm old man_.
The testimony in the book itself (chap. i. 9) is clear, that John was
on the island of Patmos when these visions were seen. The “_tyrant_”
whose death is here referred to must necessarily be either _Nero_ or
_Domitian_, as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only
imperial persecutors of the Christians. It cannot be supposed to be
Nero, since at the time of his persecution (A.D. 64) John could not
be supposed to be an “infirm old man;” being probably not much above,
if indeed so much as sixty years of age. See Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._,
b. iii. chap. 23. Of this testimony Prof. Stuart, who himself supposes
that the Apocalypse was written before the death of Nero, says (i. 264),
“The tyrant here meant is probably Domitian; at least, although he is
not named by Clement, it is clear that Eusebius so understands the
matter.”

Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw and martyr in Diocletian’s persecution,
in his _Commentary on the Apocalypse_, written towards the close of the
third century, says twice expressly that the Apocalypse was seen by the
apostle John in the isle of Patmos, when banished thither by the Roman
emperor Domitian. See the passages quoted in Elliott, i. 39, and in
Prof. Stuart, i. 264. The testimony is unequivocal.

To these testimonies from the early fathers may be added that of Jerome,
who says that “John saw the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, to
which he was sent by Domitian,” and in another place he says that this
occurred in the fourteenth year of the reign of Domitian (Adv. Jovin.
lib. i., Lardner, iv. 446, 447).

And to these plain testimonies may be added those of Sulpicius
Severus and Orosius, contemporaries of Augustine; Gregory Turonensis
(cent. vi.), Isidorus Hispalensis (cent. vii.), Marianus Scotus,
Primasius, and others. See Prof. Stuart, i. 264, 265, and Elliott,
i. 38, 39.

Such is the _positive_ testimony that the book was written near
the end of the reign of Domitian and about A.D. 96. It is true, that
notwithstanding this positive testimony, there were some writers who
assigned it to an earlier date. Thus Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in
Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century, speaks of John as
having prophesied in the isle of Patmos in the days of the emperor
_Claudius_ (A.D. 41‒54); a time when, as Michaelis observes, it does
not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of
Christians {xlviii} whatever, and when, moreover, the probability is
that, of the seven Apocalyptic churches, scarcely one was in existence,
and the apostle John was in no way associated with them. Lardner
(iv. 190) seems to suspect that, in the passage referred to, the
name _Claudius_ was a fault of the transcriber. Epiphanius, however,
received the Apocalypse as the work of John and as an inspired book
(Lardner, iv. 190). Others have ascribed the date of the book of
Revelation to the time of Nero. Thus, in the later Syriac version, the
title-page declares that it was written in Patmos, _whither John was
sent by Nero Cæsar_. This version, however, was made in the beginning
of the sixth century, and can have little authority in determining
the question. It is not known by whom the version was made, or on what
authority the author relied, when he said that John was banished to
Patmos in the time of Nero. So also Andreas and Arethas, commentators
on the book of Revelation, one of them in the beginning of the
sixth century and the other in the middle of the sixth century, make
quotations from the book in such a manner as to show that they supposed
that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. They, however,
made no express declaration on that point, and their testimony at
anyrate, at that late period, is of little value. A few other later
writers also supposed that the book was written at an earlier period
than the reign of Domitian. See Prof. Stuart, i. 268, 269.

Such is the sum of the historical testimony as to the time when the
Apocalypse was written; and that testimony, it seems to me, is so clear
as to settle the point so far as the historical evidence is concerned,
that the book was written near the end of the reign of Domitian, that
is, about A.D. 95 or 96. My exposition of the book proceeds on the
supposition that it was written at that time.

2. There is another inquiry, however, as to the _internal_ evidence,
for on this ground it has been maintained that it must have been
written before the destruction of Jerusalem and in the time of Nero.
See the argument in Prof. Stuart, i. 270‒282.

Now, in regard to this it may be remarked in general, that on the
supposition that it was written near the close of the life of John,
and in the time of Domitian, it can be shown that there is no internal
improbability or inconsistency; that is, in other words, all the known
circumstances in regard to John, and to the condition of the church at
that time, would accord with that supposition. For,

(a) It is known that John spent many of the later years of his life
at Ephesus, in the midst of the seven churches to which the book was
addressed, and the epistles in the book are such as they would be on
that supposition.

(b) It is admitted that there was a persecution of Christians in
the time of Domitian; and of the persecution which he excited against
Christians, Mosheim remarks that “he was an emperor little inferior to
Nero in baseness of character and conduct. This persecution undoubtedly
was severe; but it was of short continuance, as the emperor was soon
murdered” (Mosheim, i. 69). It commenced about A.D. 93 or 94. It is
not certainly known how far it extended, but as the _ground_ of the
persecution was a fear of Domitian that he would lose his empire
from some person among the relatives of _Christ_ who would attempt
a revolution (Mosheim, i. 69; Milman, _Hist. of Christianity_, 193),
ere is every probability that it would be directed particularly to the
East and the countries near where the Saviour lived and died.

{xlix} (c) It is not improbable that John would be _banished_ in
this persecution. He was a man of great influence among Christians,
and it is to be presumed that he would not escape the notice of those
who were actively engaged in carrying on the persecution. Moreover, it
is _as_ probable that he would be _banished_ as that he would be put to
death; for, though we have few facts respecting this persecution, and
few names are mentioned, yet we have one recorded instance in which
banishment on account of professing the Christian religion took place.
Thus Milman (_Hist. of Christianity_, p. 193), speaking of two of the
cousin-germans of Domitian, says, “The one fell an early victim to his
jealous apprehensions. The other, Flavius Clemens, is described as
a man of the most contemptible indolence of character. His powerful
kinsman, instead of exciting the fears, enjoyed for some time the
favour of Domitian. He received in marriage Domitilla, the niece of
the emperor; his children were adopted as heirs to his throne; Clemens
himself obtained the consulship. On a sudden these harmless kinsmen
became dangerous conspirators; they were arraigned on the unprecedented
charge of Atheism and Jewish manners; the husband Clemens was put to
death; _the wife Domitilla banished to the desert island of either
Pontia or Pandataria_.” Nothing is more probable, therefore, than that
John the apostle should be also _banished to a desert island_――and
Patmos was admirably adapted to such a purpose. See Notes on chap.
i. 9. There is, therefore, everything in the circumstances to make
it _probable_ that the book was written at the time in which it is so
uniformly said by the early historians to have been. Those things seem
to me to make it proper to acquiesce in the general opinion so long
entertained in regard to the date of the Apocalypse, for there is,
perhaps, no book of the New Testament whose date is better determined
on historical grounds than this. These considerations also make it
unnecessary to examine the alleged internal evidence from the book
that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, especially
as it will be shown in the Notes that the passages usually relied on
(chap. vi. 9, 10; vii.; xi. 3, 8; xvii. 8, 11; and chap. i. 1, 3;
xxii. 7, 20) are susceptible of an easy and satisfactory explanation
on the supposition that the book was written in the time of Domitian,
or _after_ the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Editor’s Preface.

§ III.――_The Place where the Book was Written._

The book itself purports (chap. i. 9) to have been written in the
island of Patmos, where the writer says he was “for the word of God,
and for the testimony of Jesus Christ;” that is, clearly, where he had
been banished for his attachment to the Saviour. For an account of this
island, see Notes on chap. i. 9. The only question that has ever been
raised on this point is, whether this was a _reality_, or a _poetical
fiction_――that is, whether the writer in his visions merely _seemed_
to have been transferred to the place, and this was made the imaginary
scene of the vision. The latter supposition has been entertained by
Eichhorn in his _Introduction to the New Testament_ (1810), and by some
other writers.

In favour, however, of understanding this as a literal fact, the
following considerations may be suggested:――

1. The clear statement of the writer himself (chap. i. 9)――a statement
that should be received as literally true, unless there is something
in the character of the composition, or some intrinsic improbability
in the case, to set it aside. {l} If the composition were avowedly
fictitious or poetical, then it would be understood that such a
statement was not to be received literally. And thus, in a prophetic
record, it _might_ be clear that it was a mere visionary representation,
in which the prophet _seemed_ to be transported to some place where
there would be no danger of misunderstanding it. Undoubtedly, on this
principle, some of the visions of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are to be
regarded as located at some place remote from that where the prophet
was; and thus many of the visions in this book are located in heaven or
elsewhere. But these cases are wholly different from the statement in
chap. i. 9. Patmos is not represented as the mere scene of a vision.
The statement occurs in a plain prose narrative, and there is no
intrinsic improbability that it is true.

2. This accords with the representation of history, and with the
probabilities of the case, that John was actually banished to Patmos in
a time of persecution. See § II. On this point the representations of
history are uniform, and they are such, that if a writer had _designed_
to forge a book in the name of John, he would, in all probability, have
fixed on Patmos as the scene of the vision, from the fact that he was
actually banished there.

3. If Patmos was merely a fictitious place, why should John select it?
What was there in _that_ island that would have occurred to him as a
proper place to be the scene of such visions? It was little known; it
had no sacred associations; it had never been represented as a place
visited by the Most High, and it had no particular relation to the
scenes which are referred to. One born in Judea, and trained under the
influence of the Hebrew religion; one who was a disciple of Christ, and
who had witnessed the scene of the transfiguration or the ascension,
would have been much more likely to select Sinai, Carmel, Hermon, Tabor,
or Olivet, as the scene where the visions were to be laid. These were
consecrated spots. On these God had manifested himself in a peculiar
manner; had conversed with men, and had given glorious exhibitions of
his character and plans. Why should not one of these spots――any one
of them in itself is as well adapted to be the scene of such visions
as the lonely isle of Patmos――have been selected? Why was a _Grecian_
island chosen――a place not once named in all the sacred writings, and
so small and so desolate as to have been almost entirely, before this,
unknown even in the heathen world?

4. All the circumstances have the aspect of _reality_. It was a _real_
persecution to which the writer refers, and it was a _real_ affliction
which he was experiencing, and the concinnity of the passage requires
us to understand this as a _real_ transfer to a lonely island. If that
were a mere vision, then we should be required also to understand the
statement that he was “a companion of others in _tribulation_” as a
vision also, and his affliction as an account of an _ideal_ transfer to
that island. But this is contrary to the spirit of the passage in chap.
i. 9; and the whole, therefore, should be understood as the statement
of a literal fact.

These considerations are sufficient to show, that the common
opinion, that the visions were seen in the island of Patmos, has every
probability in its favour, and should be received as correct. Whether
the _record_ was actually made on that island, or was made afterwards,
is a point on which no light can be observed, and which is of no
importance. From such passages, however, as those in chap. x. 4;
xiv. 13; xix. 9; and xxi. 5, it would seem probable {li} that the
record was made as soon as the visions were seen, and that the book was
actually _written_ in Patmos.

§ IV.――_The Nature and Design of the Book._

This must be learned from an examination of the book itself, and
the views entertained on this point will be determined, in a great
measure, by the principles which are adopted in interpreting it. From
the examination which I have given of the book, and the methods of
interpretation which I have adopted, it seems to me that the matter and
design of the book may be expressed in the following specifications:――

1. It was composed in a time of persecution, and in view of the
persecutions and hostilities, external and internal, to which the
church was then, and would be exposed. Christianity was then in its
infancy. It was comparatively feeble. It encountered the opposition of
the world. The arm of the civil power was raised to crush it. It was
also exposed to the attacks of internal foes, and persecutions would
arise from its own bosom, and formidable enemies in future times would
seem to endanger its very existence. Heresies, and divisions, and
corruptions of doctrine and of practice, might be expected to exist
in its own bosom; times of conflict and darkness would come; changes
would occur in governments that would deeply affect the welfare of the
church; and there might be periods when it would seem to be doubtful
whether the true church would not become wholly extinct. The faith
of Christians was, doubtless, sorely tried in the persecution which
existed when the book was written, and would be in like manner often
sorely tried in the corruptions and persecutions of future ages.

2. The Apocalypse is designed to meet this state of feeling by
furnishing the assurance that the gospel would ultimately prevail;
that all its enemies would be subdued, and the kingdom of the Messiah
set up over all the world. It was intended to impart consolation to the
people of God in all ages, and in all forms of persecution and trial,
by the assurance that the true religion would be at last triumphant,
thus furnishing an illustration of the truth of the declarations of
the Saviour respecting the church, that the “gates of hell should not
prevail against it,” Mat. xvi. 18. Hence everything in the book tends
to the final triumph of the gospel; and hence at the close (chap. xx.),
we have the assurance of its far-spread diffusion over the earth, for
a period of a thousand years, and (chap. xxi., xxii.) a graphic view of
the state of the redeemed when they shall be delivered from sin and woe,
and when all tears shall be wiped away from their eyes.

3. The method of doing this is by giving a rapid glance at the great
events of history, bearing on the church in all coming times, till it
should be triumphant; or by sketching a bold _outline_ of the principal
things that would serve to endanger the church, and the principal
divine interpositions in behalf of the church, until its triumph
should be secured upon the earth. This _might_ have been done by direct
statement, or by plain and positive assertion, as it was by many of
the prophets; but the end, in this case, would be better secured by a
glance at future history, in such a way, that while the great fact of
the final triumph of the gospel would be kept before the church, there
might be furnished a clear demonstration, in the end, of the divine
origin and inspiration of the book itself. This latter object, indeed,
would have been _in fact_ accomplished by a plain declaration, but it
would be _best_ {lii} accomplished by such _details_ as would show that
the whole course of events was comprehended by the Holy Spirit――the
real author of the whole. A general view of these details may be seen,
according to the principles which I have adopted in the interpretation
of the work, in the Analysis at the close of the Introduction, § V.

4. The method in which this is mainly done in this book is by
_pictures_ or _symbols_; for, above all the other books in the Bible,
the Apocalypse is characterized by this method of representation, and
it may eminently be called a book of symbols. It is this which has
made it appear to be so obscure; and this particularly which has given
occasion for so great a variety in the methods of interpreting it――for
there is no kind of representation that furnishes occasion for so
much fanciful interpretation as that of symbolical writing. The true
principle of interpreting symbolical language has been hitherto little
understood, and consequently every writer has indulged his own fancy in
affixing such a meaning to the symbol as he chose. The result has been,
that there has been no generally admitted principle of interpretation
respecting this book, and that the variety of conjectures indulged, and
the wild and vain theories advanced, have produced the impression that
the book is not susceptible of a plain and sensible exposition. A very
common belief is, that symbolical language must, from the nature of the
case, be obscure and unintelligible, and that a book, written in the
manner of the Apocalypse, must always be liable to the wild vagaries
of imagination which have been so commonly exhibited in the attempts
to explain this book. These considerations make it proper to offer
a few remarks here about the nature of symbolical language, and on
the question whether a book written in that language is necessarily
unintelligible, or incapable of a plausible interpretation.

A symbol is properly a representation of any moral thing by the images
or properties of natural things. Thus a circle is a symbol of eternity,
as having neither beginning nor end; an eye is a symbol of wisdom; a
lion, of courage; a lamb, of meekness and gentleness. This general idea
of symbols is found in types, enigmas, parables, fables, allegories,
emblems, hieroglyphics, &c. The symbols mostly used in the book of
Revelation are _pictures_, and could be painted――and, indeed, a great
part of the book could be represented in a _panorama_, and would
constitute a series of the most splendid drawings that the world can
conceive. The following remarks may throw some light on the reason why
this mode of representation was adopted, and on the question whether a
book written in this manner is necessarily unintelligible.

(a) This method of representation is not uncommon in the ancient
prophecies. A considerable portion of Daniel and Ezekiel is written in
this way; and it is often resorted to by Isaiah and the other prophets.
It was a method of representation which accorded well with the warm
and glowing imagination of the Orientals, and with the character
of mind in the early periods of the world. It was _supposed_ to
be capable of conveying ideas of important events, although it was
doubtless understood that there might be some degree of obscurity in
the representation, and that study and ingenuity might be requisite
in understanding it――as is always the case with parables and enigmas.
We have frequent instances in the Bible of a certain kind of trial
of skill in expounding dark sayings and riddles, when the sense was
intentionally so conveyed as to demand acuteness of thought in the
explanation. The {liii} utterance of truths in symbolic language
accorded much with this prevailing bent of mind in the ancient and the
oriental world――as we see in the symbolical representations in Egypt.
If the use of symbols, therefore, in the Apocalypse be urged as an
objection to the book, the objection would lie with equal force against
no small part of the writings of the ancient Hebrew prophets, and
against a method of writing which was actually in extensive use in the
early ages of the world. To object to it, must be to object that our
own methods and views were not the views and methods of all past ages;
that the improved modes of communication in existence now were not in
existence always.

(b) Such a method of representation may be, however, clear and
intelligible. The purpose of prophecy does not require that there
should be in all cases an explicit statement of what will occur, or
a particular detail of names, dates, and circumstances――for if such
a statement were made, it is plain that it would be possible, on the
one hand, for an impostor so to shape his conduct as to seem to fulfil
the prophecy, and, on the other, for wicked men, knowing exactly what
was predicted, to prevent its fulfilment. All that is demanded in
such predictions is, (1) such a statement as undoubtedly _refers_ to
the future event; (2) such a statement as, when fairly interpreted,
_describes_ such an event; and (3) such a statement as that, when
the event occurs, it shall be clear that this was the event referred
to, or that the prediction cannot properly be referred to any other
event; that is, so that they shall compare with each other as the
two parts of a tally do. Now, that symbolical language may have these
characteristics, and may be in these respects sufficiently clear and
plain, is evident from the following considerations:――

1. A picture may be a correct representation of an event. It was thus
among the Mexicans, who, by means of pictures, were enabled to give a
correct representation of the landing of the Spaniards, and to convey
to their monarch a correct idea of the number and character of the
Spanish forces.

The following extract from Dr. Robertson’s _History of America_,
book v., § xii., referring to the landing of the Spaniards in Mexico,
will illustrate this:――“During this interview [an interview between
Cortes and the ambassadors of Montezuma], some painters in the train
of the Mexican chiefs had been diligently employed in delineating, upon
white cotton cloths, figures of the ships, the horses, the artillery,
the soldiers, and whatever else attracted their eyes as singular. When
Cortes observed this, and was informed that these _pictures_ were to
be sent to Montezuma, in order to convey to him a more lively idea of
the strange and wonderful objects now presented to their view _than
any words could communicate_, he resolved to render the representation
still more animated and interesting, by exhibiting such a spectacle
as might give both them and their monarch an awful impression of the
extraordinary prowess of his followers, and the irresistible force of
their arms.”

2. A symbol may be as definite in its signification as the arbitrary
character which constitutes a letter with us, or the arbitrary
character which denotes a syllable or a word with the Chinese. There
is some reason to believe that the letters in most languages were at
first pictures or symbols; but whether this is true or not, it is easy
to conceive that such _might_ have been the case, and that as definite
ideas might have been attached to the symbols employed as to the
arbitrary marks or signs. Thus, it is easy to suppose that a circle, a
lion, an eagle, a horse, a banner, an axe, a lamb, might have been so
employed {liv} as always to denote the same thing, in the same way as
the letters of the alphabet do, and thus, consequently, the number of
symbols employed might have been very numerous, though still retaining
their definite character.

3. The truth of these remarks has been illustrated by the recent
investigations of the symbolical language or hieroglyphical signs in
Egypt. On the celebrated Rosetta stone, an inscription was found in
three compartments of the stone, in three different languages――the
first in hieroglyphical or symbolical language, the language used by
the priests; the second in _enchorical_ or _demotic_ language――the
language in common use among the Egyptian people; and the third in
Greek. It was conjectured that the inscription in each language was
the same, and that consequently there might be a key for explaining
the symbols or the hieroglyphics so common in Egypt. Acting on this
suggestion, Champollion was enabled to read the inscription in the
Egyptian language, and to determine the meaning of the symbols in so
common use in the ancient inscriptions, and the symbolical language of
Egypt became as intelligible as other ancient forms of record――as it
was undoubtedly when it was at first employed. Each of the symbols had
a well-known signification, and was adapted to convey a definite idea.
An account of this stone, and of the symbols of Egypt generally, may be
seen in Gliddon’s _Ancient Egypt_, chap. i. The symbols employed by the
Hebrew prophets may have had, as used by them, as definite a meaning,
and may be as susceptible of as clear an interpretation now, as the
symbols employed in Egypt, or as any other language. The only real
difficulty in interpreting them may have arisen from the fact that they
referred to future events (see Notes on Rev. xvi. 12); the employment
of such methods of writing was in accordance with the genius of the
Orientals, and gave great poetic beauty to their compositions.

4. It should be added, however, that peculiar care is necessary in
the interpretation of writings of this character. There is much room
for the indulgence of the imagination, and facts have shown that in
almost nothing has so much indulgence been given to the fancy as in the
interpretation of such books as Daniel and the Apocalypse. Indeed, the
explanations of these books have been so loose and wild, as, with many,
to bring the whole science of interpretation of the prophecies into
contempt, and to produce the very common impression that a rational
and consistent exposition of such books as Daniel and the Apocalypse is
impossible. A better mode of interpretation, it is hoped, however, is
to prevail――a mode in which there will be more careful attention to the
true meaning of symbols and to the proper laws of symbolic language.
The true method may not have been reached, and many errors may occur
before it shall be reached. For many ages the meaning of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics was entirely unknown. Thousands of conjectures had been
made as to the method of reading those symbols; vast ingenuity had been
exhausted; the hope was sometimes entertained that the clue had been
discovered, but it was at last felt that all those proposed methods
were fanciful, and the world had settled down in despair as to the
possibility of deciphering their meaning. The accidental discovery of
the Rosetta stone, and the patient labours of De Sacy, Akerblad,
Tychsen, and especially of Champollion, have changed the views of the
world on that subject, and the hieroglyphics of Egypt have become as
intelligible as any other language. It is possible that the same may
be true in regard to the meaning of the symbols of the sacred prophets;
and that although those of Daniel and John may {lv} have seemed
to be as obscure as those of Egypt, and although the most wild and
extravagant opinions may have been entertained in regard to their
meaning, yet the time may come when those books shall take their
place among the well-understood portions of the Bible, and when the
correspondence of the predictions couched under these symbols with the
events shall be so clear, that there shall be no lingering doubt on
any mind that they are a part of the divine communications to mankind.
Whether this attempt to explain one of those books will contribute
anything to a better understanding of the true meaning of the
symbolical language employed by the prophets, must be submitted to the
judgment of the reader.

§ V.――_The Plan of the Apocalypse._

The book of Revelation may be regarded as divided into seven portions,
embracing the following general points:――The introduction, chap. i.;
the epistles to the seven churches, chap. ii., iii.; the preparatory
vision, chap. iv.; the relation of the church to the external world,
embracing the outward or secular aspect of things as bearing on the
church, chap. v.‒xi. 1‒18; the internal state of the church, embracing
the rise and destiny of Antichrist――or, the internal history of the
church until the overthrow of that formidable power and the permanent
and triumphant establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the last
temporary apostasy, and the general judgment, chap. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.;
the final condition of the righteous in their state of triumph and
glory, chap. xxi., xxii. 1‒5; and the epilogue or conclusion, chap.
xxii. 6‒21. This plan, as pursued in this attempt to explain the book,
may be seen more in detail in the ANALYSIS on the following pages.

{lvi} ANALYSIS
OF THE
BOOK OF REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
SHOWING THE DESIGN AND ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK

SHOWING THE DESIGN AND ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK

┌
I. GENERAL │ I. The title and design of the book, chap. i. 1‒3.
INTRODUCTION, │
CHAP. I. │ II. Dedication to the seven churches of Asia,
│ chap. i. 4‒8.
│
│ III. Vision of the Redeemer, chap. i. 9‒18.
│
│ IV. Commission to write to the seven churches,
│ chap. i. 19, 20.
└
┌
II. EPISTLES TO │ I. Epistle to the church at Ephesus, chap.
THE SEVEN │ ii. 1‒7.
CHURCHES OF │
ASIA, CHAP. │ II. Epistle to the church at Smyrna, chap.
ASIA, CHAP. │ ii. 8‒11.
II. III. │
│ III. Epistle to the church at Pergamos, chap.
│ ii. 12‒17.
│
│ IV. Epistle to the church at Thyatira, chap.
│ ii. 18‒29.
│
│ V. Epistle to the church at Sardis, chap.
│ iii. 1‒6.
│
│ VI. Epistle to the church at Philadelphia,
│ chap. iii. 7‒13.
│
│ VII. Epistle to the church at Laodicea, chap.
│ iii. 14‒22.
└
┌
III. PREPARATORY│ I. The scene laid in heaven, chap. iv. 1, 2.
VISION, │
CHAP. IV. │ II. The vision of God, of the elders, and of the
│ living creatures, ch. iv. 3‒8.
│
│ III. The worship rendered to God, chap. iv. 9‒11.
└
┌
IV. THE EXTERNAL│ I. The Sealed book, containing the record of
RELATIONS OF │ these events, in the hand of him that sat on
THE CHURCH―― │ the throne. The Lamb of God only could open
THE RELATION │ it. The joy in heaven that one was found who
TO SECULAR │ could open the seals, chap. v.
AFFAIRS―― │ ┌
POLITICAL │ II. The opening │ 1. The opening of the first seal,
CHANGES AND │ of the seals │ chap. vi. 1, 2.
REVOLUTIONS, │ │ _The white horse._――Peace,
AS BEARING │ │ prosperity, and triumph,
ON THE │ │ fulfilled in the state of
CHURCH, CHAP. │ │ the Roman empire from the
V.‒XI. 1‒18. │ │ death of Domitian, A.D. 96,
│ │ to the accession of Commodus,
│ │ A.D. 180.
│ │
│ │ 2. The opening of the second seal,
│ │ chap. vi. 3, 4.
│ │ _The red horse._――Bloodshed,
│ │ discord, civil strife;
│ │ fulfilled in the state of the
│ │ Roman empire from the death
│ │ of Commodus, A.D. 193, and
│ │ onward.
│ │
│ │ 3. The opening of the third seal,
│ │ chap. vi. 5, 6.
│ │ _The black horse._――Calamity,
│ │ distress, want, trouble;
│ │ fulfilled in the Roman empire,
│ │ in the scarcity of food that
│ │ prevailed; the excessive
│ │ taxation; the special order
│ │ not to destroy the olive-yards
│ │ and vineyards; the sources
│ │ of revenue, in the time of
│ │ Caracalla, A.D. 211, and
│ │ onward.
│ │
│ │ 4. The opening of the fourth seal,
│ │ chap. vi. 7, 8.
│ │ _The pale horse._――The reign
│ │ of death, in the form of
│ │ famine, pestilence, disease;
│ │ fulfilled in the Roman empire
│ │ in the bloodshed, famine, and
│ │ pestilence that prevailed in
│ │ the time of Decius, Gallus,
│ │ Æmilianus, Valerian, and
│ │ Gallianus, A.D. 243‒268.
│ │
│ │ 5. The opening of the fifth seal,
│ │ chap. vi. 9‒11.
│ │ _The martyrs._――Fulfilled in
│ │ the Roman empire in the
│ │ persecutions, particularly
│ │ in the time of Diocletian,
│ │ A.D. 284‒304; the last of the
│ │ efforts in the Pagan world to
│ │ extinguish the Christian name.
│ │
│ │ 6. The opening of the sixth seal,
│ │ chap. vi. 12‒17.
│ │ _Consternation and alarm as if
│ │ the world was coming to an
│ │ end_; fulfilled in the Roman
│ │ empire in the threatening
│ │ invasions of the Goths in the
│ │ neighbourhood of the Danube,
│ │ pressed on by the Huns, and
│ │ producing universal alarm and
│ │ consternation, A.D. 365, and
│ │ onwards.
│ │
{lvii} │ │ Intermediate vision between
│ │ the opening of the sixth and
│ │ seventh seals. A view of the
│ │ persecution of the church,
│ │ and the glory of the saints
│ │ in heaven, designed to sustain
│ │ the mind in the midst of so
│ │ much gloom, and to furnish
│ │ the assurance that innumerable
│ │ multitudes of men would be
│ │ brought to glory, chap. vii.
│ │
│ │ (a) The impending storm of
│ │ wrath that seemed to threaten
│ │ universal destruction is
│ │ suspended in order that the
│ │ servants of God might be
│ │ sealed, chap. vii. 1‒3.
│ │
│ │ (b) The sealing process,
│ │ indicating the preservation
│ │ of the church in these times
│ │ of danger, and the influences
│ │ that would designate and save
│ │ the true people of God in all
│ │ time to come, chap. vii. 4‒8.
│ │
│ │ (c) A vision of an immense
│ │ host before the throne,
│ │ gathered out of all people and
│ │ all lands, chap. vii. 9‒12.
│ │
│ │ (d) A view of the martyrs who
│ │ would be saved; a view
│ │ designed to give comfort in
│ │ the trials that would come
│ │ upon the people of God in this
│ │ world, chap. vii. 13, 14.
│ │
│ │ (e) A view of the happiness of
│ │ heaven, where all suffering
│ │ will cease, and all tears be
│ │ wiped away, chap. vii. 15‒17.
│ │
│ │ 7. The opening of the seventh
│ │ seal, chap, viii.‒xi. 1‒18.
│ │ Seven trumpets given to seven
│ │ angels to sound, and the
│ │ preparatory arrangements for
│ │ sounding, chap. viii. 1‒6.
│ │ Two series of events
│ │ referring to the West and
│ │ the East in the downfall of
│ │ the Roman empire:――
│ │
│ │ A. THE WEST――to the fall of the
│ │ Western empire――four trumpets.
│ │
│ │ (1) The first trumpet sounded,
│ │ chap. viii. 7.
│ │ The invasion of the Roman
│ │ empire by Alaric, king of
│ │ the Goths, A.D. 395‒410.
│ │
│ │ (2) The second trumpet sounded,
│ │ chap. viii. 8, 9.
│ │ The invasion of the Roman
│ │ empire by Genseric, king of
│ │ the Vandals, A.D. 428‒468.
│ │
│ │ (3) The third trumpet sounded,
│ │ chap. viii. 10, 11.
│ │ The invasion of the Roman
│ │ empire by Attila, king of
│ │ the Huns, the “Scourge of
│ │ God,” A.D. 433‒453.
│ │
│ │ (4) The fourth trumpet sounded,
│ │ chap. viii. 12, 13.
│ │ The final conquest of Rome
│ │ and the Western empire by
│ │ Odoacer, king of the Heruli,
│ │ A.D. 476‒490.
│ │
│ │ B. THE EAST――to the fall of the
│ │ Eastern empire――two trumpets,
│ │ chap. ix.
│ │
│ │ (5) The fifth trumpet sounded,
│ │ chap. ix. 1‒12.
│ │ The Mahometans, or Saracens.
│ │
│ │ (6) The sixth trumpet sounded,
│ │ chap. ix. 13‒19.
│ │ The Turkish power.
│ │ The interval between the
│ │ fall of the Eastern empire
│ │ and the sounding of the
│ │ seventh trumpet, chap.
│ │ ix. 20; xi. 13:――
│ │
│ │ (a) The result of these
│ │ judgments, chap. ix. 20, 21.
│ │ They produce no change in
│ │ the moral condition of the
│ │ world; fulfilled in the
│ │ state of the Papal world
│ │ after the conquest of
│ │ Constantinople, and before
│ │ the Reformation.
│ │
│ │ (b) An angel is seen descending
│ │ from heaven with emblems
│ │ of majesty, joy, and peace,
│ │ chap. x.; fulfilled in the
│ │ Reformation:――
│ │
│ │ (α) The angel with the rainbow
│ │ on his head, and his face
│ │ like the sun, a proper
│ │ symbol of the Reformation
│ │ as a work of peace, and
│ │ accompanied with light and
│ │ knowledge, chap. x. 1.
│ │
{lviii} │ │ (β) The little book in his
│ │ hand, a symbol of the
│ │ principal agent in the
│ │ Reformation――_a book_――the
│ │ Bible, chap. x. 2.
│ │
│ │ (γ) His crying with a loud
│ │ voice, symbolical of the
│ │ Reformation as arresting
│ │ the attention of the
│ │ nations, chap. x. 3.
│ │
│ │ (δ) The seven thunders――the
│ │ anathemas of Papal Rome――the
│ │ thunder of the seven-hilled
│ │ city, chap. x. 3.
│ │
│ │ (ε) The purpose of John
│ │ to record what the seven
│ │ thunders had uttered, and
│ │ the command not to write;
│ │ the mistake which the
│ │ Reformers were in danger
│ │ of making, by regarding
│ │ the doctrine of the Papacy
│ │ as the truth of God, chap.
│ │ x. 4.
│ │
│ │ (ζ) The solemn oath of the
│ │ angel that the time
│ │ predicted would not then
│ │ occur, but would occur in
│ │ the time when the seventh
│ │ angel should sound, chap.
│ │ x. 5‒7; fulfilled in the
│ │ anticipations of the
│ │ Reformers that the world
│ │ was about to come to an
│ │ end, and the reign of Christ
│ │ about to commence, and
│ │ the assurance of the angel
│ │ that this would not _then_
│ │ occur, but that a long and
│ │ important interval must take
│ │ place.
│ │
│ │ (η) The command given to John
│ │ to go and take the little
│ │ book from the hand of the
│ │ angel, chap. x. 8; fulfilled
│ │ in the delivery of the Bible
│ │ again to the church.
│ │
│ │ (θ) The command to eat it, and
│ │ the consequences――sweet in
│ │ the mouth, and bitter to the
│ │ belly, chap. x. 9, 10; the
│ │ effect of the pure word of
│ │ God on the soul indicated
│ │ by the one; the bitter
│ │ consequences, in persecution
│ │ and opposition, that would
│ │ result from the attempt
│ │ to make the truth known to
│ │ the world, indicated by the
│ │ other.
│ │
│ │ (ι) The assurance that he
│ │ would yet prophesy before
│ │ many people, and nations,
│ │ and tongues, and kings,
│ │ chap. x. 10; fulfilled
│ │ in the restoration of
│ │ _preaching_ in the church,
│ │ founded on the Bible, and in
│ │ the immediate and ultimate
│ │ influence of the Bible in
│ │ making the gospel known to
│ │ the world.
│ │
│ │ (c) The measuring of the holy
│ │ city, chap. xi. 1, 2;
│ │ the determining of what
│ │ constituted the true
│ │ church at the time of the
│ │ Reformation.
│ │
│ │ (d) The two witnesses, chap.
│ │ xi. 3‒13. Those who bore
│ │ faithful testimony to the
│ │ truth in all the corruptions
│ │ of the church; their trials
│ │ and their triumph; fulfilled
│ │ in the succession of true
│ │ and sincere Christians
│ │ whom God raised up from
│ │ time to time to testify to
│ │ the truth. They would be
│ │ persecuted, and many of
│ │ them would be put to death;
│ │ they would seem to be
│ │ finally silenced, and
│ │ would be treated with great
│ │ indignity, as if their
│ │ dead bodies should remain
│ │ unburied; they would,
│ │ however, come to life again,
│ │ that is, at the time of the
│ │ Reformation they would rise
│ │ and testify against the
│ │ corruptions of the Papacy,
│ │ and would triumph _as if_
│ │ they ascended visibly and
│ │ gloriously to heaven.
│ │
│ │ (7) The sounding of the seventh
│ │ trumpet. The final triumph
│ │ of the church, and the
│ │ establishment of the kingdom
│ │ of God in the overthrow
│ │ of all its enemies, chap.
│ │ xi. 14‒18. This ends the
│ │ first series of visions; and
│ │ this expresses in general
│ │ terms what is drawn out
│ │ more in detail in the next
│ │ series of visions, Part V.,
│ │ embracing more particularly
│ │ the rise and progress of
│ │ Antichrist.
│ └
└
{lix} ┌
V. THE CHURCH │ ┌
INTERNALLY―― │ I. General │ 1. A new vision of the temple
THE RISE OF │ Introduction │ of God opened in heaven, chap.
ANTICHRIST, │ to this │ xi. 19.
AND THE │ series of │
EFFECT │ visions, │ 2. A representation of the church,
OF THAT │ Chap. │ under the image of a beautiful
FORMIDABLE │ xi. 19; │ woman, chap. xii. 1.
POWER ON │ xii. │
THE INTERNAL │ │ 3. The particular thing designed
HISTORY OF │ │ to be represented――the church
THE CHURCH, │ │ about to increase and to fill
TO THE │ │ the world, chap. xii. 2.
TIME OF THE │ │
OVERTHROW │ │ 4. The deadly hostility of Satan
OF THAT │ │ to the church, and his purpose
GREAT POWER, │ │ to destroy it, represented by
AND THE │ │ a great red dragon waiting to
TRIUMPHANT │ │ destroy the man-child, chap.
ESTABLISHMENT │ │ xii. 3, 4.
OF THE │ │
KINGDOM OF │ │ 5. The ultimate safety of the
GOD, CHAP. │ │ church, represented by the
XI. 19; │ │ child caught up to heaven,
XII.‒XX. │ │ chap. xii. 5.
│ │
│ │ 6. The fact that the church would
│ │ be a long time obscure and
│ │ hidden――represented by the woman
│ │ fleeing into the wilderness,
│ │ chap. xii. 6.
│ │
│ │ 7. A scenic representation of
│ │ the great contest going on
│ │ in the universe about the
│ │ church――represented by a
│ │ conflict in heaven between
│ │ Michael, the protector of the
│ │ church, with his angels, and
│ │ Satan, the great enemy of the
│ │ church, with his angels, chap.
│ │ xii. 7.
│ │
│ │ 8. The ultimate discomfiture of
│ │ Satan, represented by his being
│ │ overcome and cast out of heaven,
│ │ chap. xii. 8, 9.
│ │
│ │ 9. A song of victory in view of
│ │ this triumph, chap. xii. 10, 11.
│ │
│ │ 10. The fact that Satan would be
│ │ allowed, for a limited time,
│ │ to persecute the church, chap.
│ │ xii. 12, 13.
│ │
│ │ 11. The church in the wilderness,
│ │ chap. xii. 14‒17.
│ │ (a) The church would be
│ │ driven into obscurity,
│ │ like a woman fleeing into
│ │ a desert――representing the
│ │ condition of the church while
│ │ the Papacy should have the
│ │ ascendency, ver. 14.
│ │
│ │ (b) The church would still
│ │ be preserved, though in
│ │ obscurity――represented by the
│ │ woman nourished by some unseen
│ │ power, ver. 14.
│ │
│ │ (c) Satan would still rage
│ │ against the church――represented
│ │ by the dragon pouring forth a
│ │ flood of waters to overwhelm
│ │ the woman, ver. 15.
│ │
│ │ (d) The church would be
│ │ protected, as if the
│ │ earth should open its
│ │ mouth to swallow up the
│ │ water――representing the
│ │ interpositions from an
│ │ unexpected quarter in
│ │ delivering the church from
│ │ its perils, ver. 16.
│ │
│ │ (e) The wrath of Satan against
│ │ the remnant――representing
│ │ the attempts of the Papacy
│ │ to cut off individuals when
│ │ open and general persecution
│ │ no longer raged, ver. 17.
│ └
│ ┌
│ II. The two │ 1. The first beast, representing
│ beasts, │ the Roman _civil_ or _secular_
│ representing │ power that sustained the Papacy
│ the great │ in its career of persecution,
│ persecuting │ chap. xiii. 1‒10.
│ power in │
│ the church, │ 2. The second beast, representing
│ Chap. xiii. │ the Papal _ecclesiastical_
│ │ power, giving life to the
│ │ former, and perpetuating its
│ │ influence on the earth, chap.
│ │ xiii. 11‒18.
│ └
│ ┌
│ III. A │ 1. A vision of the redeemed in
│ representation│ heaven, triumphant and
│ designed, │ rejoicing, ver. 1‒5.
│ under a │
│ gospel │ 2. The ultimate spread of
│ succession │ the through all the world,
│ of symbols, │ ver. 6, 7.
│ to cheer │
│ and sustain │ 3. The fall of Babylon, the great
│ the church │ Antichristian power, ver. 8.
│ in its │
│ present and │ 4. The final overthrow of
│ prospective │ all the _upholders_ of
│ trials, with │ that Antichristian power,
│ the assurance │ ver. 9‒12.
│ of its final │
│ triumph, and │ 5. The blessed state of those who
│ the ultimate │ should die in the Lord in any
│ destruction │ time, whether of persecution
│ of all its │ or peace, ver. 13.
│ foes, Chap. │
│ xiv. │ 6. The consummation of all
{lx} │ │ things――the final triumph of
│ │ the church, and the overthrow
│ │ of the wicked, ver. 14‒20:――
│ │
│ │ (a) The great harvest of the
│ │ world by the Son of God――the
│ │ gathering in of the righteous,
│ │ ver. 14‒16.
│ │
│ │ (b) The final overthrow and
│ │ destruction of the wicked,
│ │ ver. 17‒20.
│ └
│ ┌
│ IV. Preparation │ 1. A new wonder is seen in heaven;
│ for the final │ seven angels appear, having the
│ judgment on │ seven last plagues, to fill up
│ the beast and │ or complete the wrath of God,
│ his image, │ ver. 1.
│ Chap. xv. │
│ │ 2. Those who in former times had
│ │ suffered from persecution by the
│ │ power represented by the beast,
│ │ but who, in the midst of trial
│ │ and temptation, had maintained
│ │ their faith steadfast, now
│ │ appear to celebrate with a
│ │ song of victory the prospective
│ │ downfall of the great foe,
│ │ ver. 2‒4.
│ │
│ │ 3. Arrangements made for executing
│ │ the wrath of God. The temple
│ │ is open in heaven; seven angels
│ │ come out having the seven last
│ │ plagues; one of the four living
│ │ creatures gives command to them
│ │ to go and execute the divine
│ │ purpose, presenting seven golden
│ │ bowls full of the wrath of God;
│ │ the temple is forthwith filled
│ │ with smoke, preventing all
│ │ access to the mercy-seat, and
│ │ indicating that the divine
│ │ purpose was inexorable,
│ │ ver. 5‒8.
│ └
│ ┌
│ V. The │ 1. The first vial, ver. 1, 2. The
│ execution of │ first blow struck on the Papacy
│ the purpose, │ in the French Revolution.
│ Chap. xvi. │
│ │ 2. The second vial, ver. 3. The
│ │ scenes of blood and carnage in
│ │ that Revolution.
│ │
│ │ 3. The third vial, ver. 4‒7.
│ │ The calamities brought by
│ │ the French invasions upon the
│ │ countries where the most bloody
│ │ persecutions had been waged――the
│ │ north of Italy.
│ │
│ │ 4. The fourth vial, ver. 8, 9. The
│ │ overturning of the governments
│ │ that sustained the Papal power,
│ │ in the wars consequent on the
│ │ French Revolution.
│ │
│ │ 5. The fifth vial, ver. 10, 11.
│ │ The direct assault on the Papal
│ │ power; the capture of the pope
│ │ himself, and the temporary
│ │ entire subjugation of Rome by
│ │ the French arms.
│ │
│ │ 6. The sixth vial, ver. 12‒16.
│ │ The decline of the Turkish
│ │ power; the rapid extension of
│ │ the gospel in the East; the
│ │ rallying of the strength of
│ │ Paganism, Mahometanism, and
│ │ Romanism――represented by the
│ │ three frogs that came out of the
│ │ mouth of the dragon, the beast,
│ │ and the false prophet: the
│ │ preparation of those powers as
│ │ if for some great conflict, and
│ │ the decisive struggle between
│ │ the church and its foes, _as
│ │ if_ the issue were staked on a
│ │ single battle――in Armageddon.
│ │
│ │ 7. The seventh vial, ver. 17‒21.
│ │ The complete and final overthrow
│ │ of the Papal power, _as if_ in
│ │ a tremendous storm of hail,
│ │ lightning, and thunder,
│ │ accompanied with an earthquake.
│ └
│ ┌
│ VI. A │ 1. Introduction to the Episode;
│ particular │ the vision of the woman sitting
│ description │ on many waters, ver. 1‒3.
│ of the │
│ judgment │ 2. A particular description of the
│ on this │ Antichristian power referred to,
│ formidable │ under the image of an abandoned
│ Antichristian │ and gaily-attired woman,
│ power, under │ ver. 3‒6.
│ a new image │
│ of a harlot │ 3. A particular explanation
│ (Chap. xvii.) │ of what is designed to be
│ in the form │ represented by the image of
│ of an │ the scarlet-coloured woman,
│ _explanatory │ ver. 7‒18:――
│ Episode_. │
│ │ (a) The angel promises to
│ │ explain it, ver. 7.
│ │
│ │ (b) A symbolical representation
│ │ of the design of the vision,
│ │ ver. 8‒14.
│ │
│ │ (c) A more literal statement of
│ │ what is meant, ver. 15‒18. The
│ │ whole designed to characterize
│ │ Papal Rome, and to describe
│ │ the manner of its rise and
│ │ the means of its ultimate
│ │ destruction.
│ └
│ ┌
{lxi} │ VII. A │ 1. A vision of an angel coming
│ description │ from heaven, ver. 1‒3.
│ of the │
│ _effect_ of │ 2. A warning voice calling on
│ that judgment │ the people of God to come out
│ in pouring │ of the mystical Babylon, and
│ out the │ not to partake of her sin and
│ seventh vial │ her doom, ver. 4‒8.
│ on that │
│ formidable │ 3. Lamentation over her fate:――
│ Antichristian │
│ power, under │ (a) By kings, that had
│ the image of │ lived delicately with her,
│ a rich and │ ver. 9, 10.
│ luxurious │
│ city; a │ (b) By merchants that had been
│ further │ enriched by her, ver. 11‒17.
│ _explanatory │
│ Episode_, │ (c) By mariners that had
│ Ch. xviii. │ trafficked with her,
│ │ ver. 17‒19.
│ │
│ │ 4. Rejoicing over her fate,
│ │ ver. 20.
│ │
│ │ 5. The final destruction of
│ │ the mystical Babylon――the
│ │ Papal power――represented by a
│ │ millstone cast by an angel into
│ │ the sea, ver. 21‒24.
│ └
│ ┌
│ VIII. A further │ 1. A hymn of the heavenly hosts
│ _episodical │ in view of the destruction of
│representatation_│ the mystical Babylon,
│ of the │ ver. 1‒7:――
│ effects that │
│ would result │ (a) A voice of many people in
│ from the fall │ heaven, shouting Hallelujah,
│ of the powers │ ver. 1, 2.
│ that opposed │
│ the reign of │ (b) The sound echoed and
│ the Son of │ repeated as the smoke of her
│ God and the │ torment ascends, ver. 3.
│ introduction │
│ of the │ (c) The four and twenty elders,
│ Millennium, │ and the four living creatures
│ with an │ unite in the song, ver. 4.
│ account of │
│ the final │ (d) A voice heard commanding
│ destruction │ them to praise God, ver. 5.
│ of these │
│ powers, │ (e) The mighty shout of
│ Chap. xix. │ Hallelujah echoed and
│ │ repeated from unnumbered
│ │ hosts, ver. 6, 7.
│ │
│ │ 2. The marriage of the Lamb as
│ │ the reason of this increased
│ │ joy, ver. 8, 9.
│ │
│ │ 3. John, overcome with this scene,
│ │ and filled with rapturous joy
│ │ in view of the final triumphs of
│ │ the church, prostrates himself
│ │ before the angel to worship him,
│ │ ver. 10.
│ │
│ │ 4. The final conquest over the
│ │ beast and the false prophet,
│ │ ver. 11‒21:――
│ │
│ │ (a) A description of the
│ │ conqueror――the Son of God――as
│ │ he goes forth to victory,
│ │ attended by the armies of
│ │ heaven, ver. 11‒16.
│ │
│ │ (b) An angel is seen standing
│ │ in the sun, calling on all the
│ │ fowls of heaven to come to the
│ │ great feast prepared for them
│ │ in the destruction of the
│ │ enemies of God, ver. 17, 18.
│ │
│ │ (c) The final war, ver. 19‒21.
│ │ The beast and the kings of the
│ │ earth and their armies gather
│ │ together for the battle; the
│ │ beast and the false prophet
│ │ taken, and cast into the
│ │ lake that burns with fire
│ │ and brimstone; the remainder
│ │ of the enemies of the church
│ │ slain. The last enemy of the
│ │ church on earth is destroyed,
│ │ and the way is prepared for
│ │ its universal triumph.
│ └
│ ┌
│ IX. The │ 1. The binding of Satan, ver. 1‒3.
│ Millennial │
│ period and │ 2. The Millennium, ver. 4‒6.
│ the final │ Thrones are placed _as if_
│ judgment, │ there were to be a judgment;
│ Ch. xx. │ the spirit of the martyrs and
│ │ saints is revived again _as if_
│ │ they were raised from the dead,
│ │ and _lived_ again on the earth;
│ │ Satan is confined, and the
│ │ church enjoys a state of repose
│ │ and prosperity, for the period
│ │ of a thousand years.
│ │
│ │ 3. The release of Satan for a
│ │ little time. ver. 7, 8. After
│ │ the thousand years are expired,
│ │ he is permitted to go forth
│ │ again among the nations, and to
│ │ awaken a new form of hostility
│ │ to Christ and the church.
│ │
│ │ 4. The final overthrow,
│ │ subjugation, and punishment
│ │ of Satan and those opposing
│ │ hosts, and the final triumph,
│ │ therefore, of the church,
│ │ ver. 9, 10.
│ │
│ │ 5. The final judgment on all
│ │ mankind, ver. 11‒15. All the
│ │ dead are raised; the sea gives
│ │ up its dead; Death and Hades
│ │ give up their dead, and a solemn
│ │ and just judgment is pronounced
│ │ on all mankind, and the wicked
│ │ are consigned to the lake of
│ │ fire.
│ └
└
{lxii} ┌
VI. THE FINAL │ I. A vision of the new heavens and new earth, as the
CONDITION │ final abode of the righteous, chap. xxi. 1.
OF THE │
RIGHTEOUS――THE │ II. That blessed future abode represented under the
STATE OF │ image of a beautiful city descending from heaven,
FUTURE │ chap. xxi. 2‒4.
BLESSEDNESS, │
CHAP. XXI.; │ III. A particular description of the city, as
XXII. 1‒5. │ the final abode of the righteous; its general
│ appearance, its walls, its gates, its foundations,
│ its size, its light, its inmates, &c., chap.
│ xxi. 9‒27; xxii. 1‒5
└
┌
VII. THE │ I. A solemn declaration that the things revealed in
EPILOGUE, OR │ this book are true, ver. 6, 7.
CONCLUSION, │
CHAP. │ II. The effect of those revelations on John,
XXII. 6‒20. │ ver. 8, 9.
│
│ III. A command not to seal up what had been
│ revealed, ver. 10.
│
│ IV. The unchangeable condition of the righteous and
│ the wicked in the future state, ver. 14, 15.
│
│ V. The blessedness of those who have a right to
│ enter into the Holy City, ver. 15.
│
│ VI. Jesus declares himself to be the author of all
│ these revelations, ver. 16.
│
│ VII. The free invitations of the gospel to all men,
│ ver. 17.
│
│ VIII. A solemn injunction not to change anything
│ that had been written in this book, ver. 18, 19.
│
│ IX. The assurance of the Saviour that he would come
│ quickly, and the joyous assent of John to this,
│ and prayer that it might occur, ver. 20.
│
│ X. The benediction, ver. 21.
└

{31} THE
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.

CHAPTER I.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter contains a general introduction to the whole book, and
comprises the following parts:――

I. The announcement that the object of the book is to record a
revelation which the Lord Jesus Christ had made of important events
which were shortly to occur, and which were signified by an angel to
the author, John, ver. 1‒3. A blessing is pronounced on him who should
read and understand the book, and special attention is directed to it
because the time was at hand when the predicted events would occur.

II. Salutation to the seven churches of Asia, ver. 4‒8. To those
churches, it would seem from this, the book was originally dedicated
or addressed, and two of the chapters (ii. and iii.) refer exclusively
to them. Among them evidently the author had resided (ver. 9), and the
whole book was doubtless sent to them, and committed to their keeping.
In this salutation, the author wishes for them grace, mercy, and peace
from “him which is, and which was, and which is to come”――the original
fountain of all light and truth――referring to the Father; “from the
seven Spirits which are before the throne”――referring to the Holy
Spirit (see Note on ver. 4), by whom all grace is communicated to men;
and from the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the revelation is imparted.
As it is _his_ revelation, as it is designed peculiarly to glorify
him, and as it predicts the final triumph of his religion, the author
appends to this reference to him a special ascription of praise,
ver. 5‒8. He refers to the great work which he had done for his
people in redeeming them, and making them kings and priests to God; he
assures those to whom he wrote that he would come in glory to the world
again, and that all eyes would see him; and he represents the Redeemer
himself as applying to his own person a title――“Alpha and Omega,” “the
beginning and the ending”――which indicates his exalted nature, and his
supreme authority.

III. The commission of the writer, or his authority for thus addressing
the churches of Asia, ver. 9‒20. His authority to do this is derived
from the fact that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him personally in
his exile, and had directed him to reveal what he saw in vision, and to
send it to those churches. The statement of this commission is made as
impressive as it well could be. (a) The writer was an exile――banished to
a lonely island on account of the common faith, ver. 9. (b) On the day
of Christian rest――the day set apart to the memory of the Saviour, and
which he sacredly observed in his solitude as holy time――when in the
spirit of calm contemplation on the truths appropriate to this day, he
suddenly heard the voice of his Redeemer, like a trumpet, commanding
him to record what he saw, and to send it to the seven churches of Asia,
ver. 10, 11. (c) Then follows (ver. 12‒18) a magnificent description of
the appearance of the Saviour, as he appeared in his glory. He is seen
standing in the midst of seven golden candlesticks, clothed in a long
white robe, girded with a girdle of gold, his hair white, his eyes like
a flame of fire, his feet like brass, and his voice like the roaring
of mighty waters. In his hand are seven stars, and from his mouth
goes a sharp sword, and his countenance is like the sun in the full
splendour of its shining. John falls at his feet as if he were dead;
and the Saviour lays his right hand upon him, and animates him with
the assurance that though he had himself been dead he is now alive,
and would for ever live, and that he has the keys of hell and death.
(d) Then follows the commission itself, ver. 19, 20. He was to make
a record of the things which he saw. He was especially to unfold
the meaning of the seven stars which he saw in the right hand of the
Saviour, and of the seven golden candlesticks, as referring to the
seven churches of Asia Minor; and was then to describe {32} the series
of visions which pertained to the future history and destiny of the
church at large.

In the scene represented in this chapter, there is some imagery which
would be suggested by the arrangements in the temple at Jerusalem,
and it has been supposed (Elliott, i. 72, 73) that the vision was laid
there, and that Christ is represented as walking among the seven lamps
“habited as the ancient high-priest.” But the vision is not such an one
as would have been presented in the holy place in the temple. In that
place there was but one lamp-stand, with seven sconces; here, there
were seven separate lamp-stands; there were there no “stars,” and the
vestments of the Jewish high-priest were not those in which the Saviour
is represented as appearing. He had no mitre, no ephod, no breastplate,
and no censer. The object was not to represent Christ as a priest,
or as superseding the Jewish high-priest, but to represent him with
costume appropriate to the Son of God――as having been raised from the
dead, and received to the glory of heaven. His vestments are neither
those of a prophet, a king, nor a priest; not with such garments as
the ancient prophets wore, nor with crown and sceptre such as monarchs
bear, nor yet with the usual habiliments of a priest. He appears as
the Son of God, irrespective of the offices that he bears, and comes as
the glorified Head of the Church to declare his will in regard to the
seven churches of Asia, and to disclose the future for the guidance and
comfort of his church at large. The scene appears to be laid at Patmos,
and the apostle in the vision of the Saviour does not appear to have
regarded himself as transferred to any other place. The view which
is to be kept before the mind in the description of “the things that
are” (ch. ii., iii.), is that of seven burning lamps, and the Son
of God standing among them. Thus, amidst these lamps, representing
the churches, he dictates to the apostle what he shall write to
the churches; thus, with seven stars in his hand, representing the
angels of the churches, he dictates what shall be said to them. Is it
unnatural to suppose that the position of those lamps might have been
arranged in the vision in a manner resembling the geographical position
of the churches themselves? If so, the scene would be more significant,
and more sublime.

CHAPTER I.

THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to
show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;
and he sent and signified _it_ by his angel unto his servant
John:

1. _The Revelation of Jesus Christ._ This is evidently a title or
caption of the whole book, and is designed to comprise the substance
of the whole; for all that the book contains would be embraced in the
general declaration that it is a revelation of Jesus Christ. The word
rendered _Revelation_――Ἀποκάλυψις, whence we have derived our word
_Apocalypse_――means properly _an uncovering_; that is, _nakedness_;
from ἀποκαλύπτω, to uncover. It would apply to anything which had been
covered up so as to be hidden from the view, as by a veil, a darkness,
in an ark or chest, and then made manifest by removing the covering.
It comes then to be used in the sense of disclosing or revealing, by
removing the veil of darkness or ignorance. “There is nothing covered
that shall not be revealed.” It may be applied to the disclosing or
manifesting of anything which was before obscure or unknown. This may
be done――(a) By instruction in regard to that which was before obscure;
that is, by statements of what was unknown before the statements were
made; as in Lu. ii. 32, where it is said that Christ would be “a light
to lighten the Gentiles”――φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψις ἐθνῶν; or when it is
applied to the divine mysteries, purposes, or doctrines, before obscure
or unknown, but made clear by light revealed in the gospel, Ro. xvi. 25;
1 Co. ii. 10; xiv. 6; Ep. iii. 5. (b) By the event itself; as the
manifestation of the wrath of God at the day of judgment will disclose
the true nature of his wrath. “After thy hardness and impenitent
heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and
_revelation_ of the righteous judgment of God,” Ro. ii. 5. “For the
earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the _manifestation_ (Gr.
_revelation_) of the sons of God,” Ro. viii. 19; that is, till it shall
be manifest by the event what they who are the children of God are to
be. In this sense the word is frequently applied to the second advent
or appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, as disclosing him in his {33}
glory, or showing what he truly is; “When the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed,” 2 Th. i. 7――ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει――_in the revelation_ of Jesus
Christ; “Waiting for the coming (the revelation――τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν) of our
Lord Jesus Christ,” 1 Co. i. 7; “At the _appearing_ (Gr. _revelation_)
of Jesus Christ,” 1 Pe. i. 7; “When his glory shall be _revealed_,”
1 Pe. iv. 13. (c) It is used in the sense of making known _what is to
come_, whether by words, signs, or symbols, as if a veil were lifted
from that which is hidden from human vision, or which is covered by the
darkness of the unknown future. This is called a revelation, because
the knowledge of the event is in fact made known to the world by Him
who alone can see it, and in such a manner as he pleases to employ;
though many of the terms or the symbols may be, from the necessity of
the case, obscure, and though their full meaning may be disclosed only
by the event. It is in this sense, evidently, that the word is used
here; and in this sense that it is more commonly employed when we
speak of a revelation. Thus the word גָּלָה (_gâlâ_) is used in Am. iii. 7,
“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto
his servants.” So Job xxxiii. 16, “Then he openeth (marg. _revealeth_
or _uncovereth_; Heb. יִגְלֶה) the ears of men;” that is, in a dream, he
discloses to their ears his truth before concealed or unknown. Comp. Da.
ii. 22, 28, 29; x. 1; De. xxix. 29. These ideas enter into the word as
used in the passage before us. The idea is that of a disclosure of an
extraordinary character, beyond the mere ability of man, by a special
communication from heaven. This is manifest, not only from the usual
meaning of this word, but by the word _prophecy_, in ver. 3, and by all
the arrangements by which these things were made known. The ideas which
would be naturally conveyed by the use of this word in this connection
are two: (1), that there was something which was before hidden,
obscure, or unknown; and, (2), that this was so disclosed by these
communications as to be seen or known. The things hidden or unknown
were those which pertained to the future; the method of disclosing them
was mainly by symbols. In the Greek, in this passage, the article is
wanting――ἀποκάλυψις――_a_ Revelation, not ἡ, _the_ Revelation. This is
omitted because it is the title of a book, and because the use of the
article might imply that this was the only revelation, excluding other
books claiming to be a revelation; or it might imply some previous
mention of the book, or knowledge of it in the reader. The simple
meaning is, that this was “_a_ Revelation;” it was only a part of
_the_ revelation which God has given to mankind.

The phrase, “the Revelation of Jesus Christ,” might, so far as the
construction of the language is concerned, refer either to Christ as
the _subject_ or _object_. It might either mean that Christ is the
_object_ revealed in this book, and that its great purpose is to make
him known, and so the phrase is understood in the commentary called
_Hyponoia_ (New York, 1844); or it may mean that this is a revelation
which Christ _makes_ to mankind, that is, it is his in the sense that
he communicates it to the world. That this latter is the meaning here
is clear, (1), because it is expressly said in this verse that it was
a revelation which God gave to him; (2), because it is said that it
pertains to things which must shortly come to pass; and, (3), because,
in fact, the revelation is a disclosure of _events_ which were to
happen, and not of the person or work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
¶ _Which God gave unto him._ Which God imparted or communicated to
Jesus Christ. This is in accordance with the representations everywhere
made in the Scriptures, that God is the original fountain of truth
and knowledge, and that, whatever was the original dignity of the
Son of God, there was a mediatorial dependence on the Father. See Jn.
v. 19, 20, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of
himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and
_showeth him_ (δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ) all things that himself doeth.” “My
doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” Jn. vii. 16. “As my Father
hath _taught me_ (ἐδίδαξε με), I speak these things,” Jn. viii. 28.
“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave
me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak,” Jn.
xii. 49. See also Jn. xiv. 10; xvii. 7, 8; Mat. xi. 27; Mar. xiii. 32.
The same mediatorial dependence the apostle teaches us still subsists
in heaven in his glorified state, and will continue until he has
subdued all things (1 Co. xv. 24‒28); and hence, even in that state,
he is represented {34} as receiving the Revelation from the Father to
communicate it to men. ¶ _To show unto his servants._ That is, to his
people, to Christians, often represented as the servants of God or of
Christ, 1 Pe. ii. 16; Re. ii. 20; vii. 3; xix. 2; xxii. 3. It is true
that the word is sometimes applied, by way of eminence, to the prophets
(1 Ch. vi. 49; Da. vi. 20), and to the apostles (Ro. i. 1; Ga. i. 10;
Phi. i. 1; Tit. i. 1; Ja. i. 1); but it is also applied to the mass of
Christians, and there is no reason why it should not be so understood
here. The book was sent to the churches of Asia, and was clearly
designed for general use; and the contents of the book were evidently
intended for the churches of the Redeemer in all ages and lands. Comp.
ver. 3. The word rendered _to show_ (δεῖξαι) commonly denotes to point
out, to cause to see, to present to the sight, and is a word eminently
appropriate here, as what was to be revealed was, in general, to be
presented to the _sight_ by sensible tokens or symbols. ¶ _Things
which must shortly come to pass._ Not _all_ the things that will occur,
but such as it was deemed of importance for his people to be made
acquainted with. Nor is it certainly implied that all the things that
_are_ communicated would shortly come to pass, or would soon occur.
Some of them might perhaps lie in the distant future, and still it
might be true that there were those which were revealed in connection
with them, which soon would occur. The word rendered “_things_” (ἅ)
is a pronoun, and might be rendered _what_; “he showed to his servants
_what things_ were about to occur,” not implying that he showed _all_
the things that would happen, but such as he judged to be needful that
his people should know. The word would naturally embrace those things
which, in the circumstances, were most desirable to be known. The
phrase rendered “must come to pass” (δεῖ γενέσθαι), would imply more
than mere futurity. The word used (δεῖ) means _it needs_, _there is
need of_, and implies that there is some kind of _necessity_ that
the event should occur. That necessity may either arise from the felt
_want_ of anything, as where it is absent or wanting, Xen. _Cyr._
iv. 10; ib. vii. 5, 9; or from the nature of the case, or from a sense
of duty, as Mat. xvi. 21, “Jesus began to show to his disciples that
he _must go_ (δεῖ ἀπελθεῖν) to Jerusalem” (comp. Mat. xxvi. 35; Mar.
xiv. 31; Lu. ii. 49); or the necessity may exist, because a thing is
right and just, meaning that it _ought_ to be done, as Lu. xiii. 14,
“There are six days in which men _ought_ to work” (δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι).
“And _ought not_ this woman (οὐκ ἴδει), whom Satan hath bound, &c., be
loosed from this bond,” Lu. xiii. 16 (comp. Mar. xiii. 14; Jn. iv. 20;
Ac. v. 11, 29; 2 Ti. ii. 6; Mat. xviii. 33; xxv. 27); or the necessity
may be that it is conformable to the divine arrangement, or is made
necessary by divine appointment, as in Jn. iii. 14, “As Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, even so _must_ (δεῖ) the Son of man be
lifted up.” “For as yet they knew not the Scriptures, that he _must_
(δεῖ) rise again from the dead,” Jn. xx. 9; comp. Ac. iv. 12; xiv. 22,
_et al._ In the passage before us, it is implied that there was some
_necessity_ that the things referred to should occur. They were not the
result of chance, they were not fortuitous. It is not, however, stated
what was the ground of the necessity; whether because there was a want
of something to complete a great arrangement, or because it was right
and proper in existing circumstances, or because such was the divine
appointment. They were events which, on some account, _must_ certainly
occur, and which, therefore, it was important should be made known.
The real ground of the necessity, probably, was founded in the design
of God in redemption. He intended to carry out his great plans in
reference to his church, and the things revealed here must necessarily
occur in the completion of that design. The phrase rendered _shortly_
(ἐν τάχει) is one whose meaning has been much controverted, and on
which much has been made to depend in the interpretation of the whole
book. The question has been whether the phrase necessarily implies that
the events referred to were _soon_ to occur, or whether it may have
such an extent of meaning as to admit the supposition that the events
referred to, though beginning soon, would embrace in their development
far distant years, and would reach the end of all things. Those
who maintain, as Professor Stuart, that the book was written before
the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the portion in ch. iv.‒xi.
has special reference to Jerusalem and Judea, and the portion in
ch. xii.‒xix. to persecuting and heathen Rome, maintain the former
opinion; {35} those who suppose that ch. iv.‒xi. refers to the
irruption of Northern barbarians in the Roman empire, and ch. xii.,
seq., to the rise and the persecutions of the Papal power, embrace
the latter opinion. All that is proper in this place is, without
reference to any theory of interpretation, to inquire into the proper
meaning of the language, or to ascertain what idea it would naturally
convey. (a) The phrase properly and literally means, _with quickness_,
_swiftness_, _speed_; that is, _speedily_, _quickly_, _shortly_ (Rob.
_Lex._; Stuart, _in loco_). It is the same in meaning as ταχέως. Comp.
1 Co. iv. 19, “But I will come to you _shortly_, if the Lord will.”
“Go out _quickly_ into the streets,” Lu. xiv. 21. “Sit down _quickly_,
and write fifty,” Lu. xvi. 6. “She rose up hastily (ταχέως) and went
out,” Jn. xi. 31. “That ye are so _soon_ removed (ταχέως) from him
that called you,” Ga. i. 6. “Lay hands _suddenly_ on no man,” 1 Ti.
v. 22. See also Phi. ii. 19, 24; 2 Th. ii. 2; 2 Ti. iv. 9. The phrase
used here (ἐν τάχει) occurs in Lu. xviii. 8, “He will avenge them
_speedily_” (lit. _with speed_). “Arise up _quickly_,” Ac. xii. 7.
“Get thee _quickly_ out of Jerusalem,” Ac. xxii. 18. “Would depart
_shortly_,” Ac. xxv. 4. “Bruise Satan under your feet _shortly_,” Ro.
xvi. 20; and Re. i. 1; xxii. 6. The essential idea is, that the thing
which is spoken of was _soon_ to occur, or it was not a remote and
distant event. There is the notion of rapidity, of haste, of suddenness.
It is such a phrase as is used when the thing is on the point of
happening, and could not be applied to an event which was in the remote
future, considered as an independent event standing by itself. The same
idea is expressed, in regard to the same thing, in ver. 3, “The time
is _at hand_”――ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς; that is, it is near, it is soon to
occur. Yet (b) it is not necessary to suppose that the meaning is that
_all_ that there is in the book was soon to happen. It may mean that
the _series_ of events which were to follow on in their proper order
was soon to commence, though it might be that the sequel would be
remote. The first in the series of events was soon to begin, and the
others would follow on in their train, though a portion of them, in
the regular order, might be in a remote futurity. If we _suppose_ that
there was such an order, that a series of transactions was about to
commence, involving a long train of momentous developments, and that
the beginning of this was to occur soon, the language used by John
would be that which would be naturally employed to express it. Thus,
in case of a revolution in a government, when a reigning prince should
be driven from his kingdom, to be succeeded by a new dynasty, which
would long occupy the throne, and involving, as the consequence of the
revolution, important events extending far into the future, we would
naturally say that these things were shortly to occur, or that the time
was near. It is customary to speak of a succession of events or periods
as near, however vast or interminable the series may be, when the
commencement is at hand. Thus, we say that the great events of the
eternal world are near; that is, the beginning of them is soon to occur.
So Christians now speak often of the millennium as near, or as about
to occur, though it is the belief of many that it will be protracted
for many ages. (c) That this is the true idea here is clear, whatever
general view of interpretation in regard to the book is adopted. Even
Professor Stuart, who contends that the greater portion of the book
refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the persecutions of heathen
Rome, admits that “the closing part of the Revelation relates beyond
all doubt to a distant period, and some of it to a future eternity”
(ii. p. 5); and, if this be so, then there is no impropriety in
supposing that a part of the series of predictions preceding this may
lie also in a somewhat remote futurity. The true idea seems to be that
the writer contemplated a _series_ of events that were to occur, and
that this series was about to commence. How far into the future it
was to extend, is to be learned by the proper interpretation of all
the parts of the series. ¶ _And he sent._ Gr., “Sending by his angel,
signified it to his servant John.” The idea is not precisely that he
sent his angel to communicate the message, but that he sent _by_ him,
or employed him as an agent in doing it. The thing sent was rather the
message than the angel. ¶ _And signified _ it. Ἐσήμανεν He indicated it
by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in Jn.
xii. 33; xviii. 32; xxi. 19; Ac. xi. 28; xxv. 27, and in the passage
before us, in all which places it is rendered _signify_, _signifying_,
or _signified_. It properly refers to some sign, signal, or token by
which anything is made known {36} (comp. Mat. xxvi. 28; Ro. iv. 11;
Ge. ix. 12, 13; xvii. 11; Lu. ii. 12; 2 Co. xii. 12; 1 Co. xiv. 22),
and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the
events referred to were to be communicated to John, for nearly the
whole book is made up of signs and symbols. If it be asked _what_ was
signified to John, it may be replied that either the word “_it_” may
be understood, as in our translation, to refer to the Apocalypse or
Revelation, or what he saw (ὅσα εἶδε), as Professor Stuart supposes;
or it may be absolute, without any object following, as Professor
Robinson (_Lex._ supposes. The general sense is, that, sending by his
angel, he made to John a communication by expressive signs or symbols.
¶ _By his angel._ That is, an angel was employed to cause these
scenic representations to pass before the mind of the apostle. The
communication was not made directly to him, but was through the medium
of a heavenly messenger employed for this purpose. Thus, in Re. xxii. 6,
it is said, “And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to
show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.” Comp.
ver. 8, 9 of that chapter. There is frequent allusion in the Scriptures
to the fact that _angels_ have been employed as agents in making
known the divine will, or in the revelations which have been made
to men. Thus, in Ac. vii. 53, it is said, “Who have received the law
by the disposition of angels.” “For if the word spoken by angels was
stedfast,” &c., He. ii. 2; “And it was ordained by angels in the hand
of a mediator,” Ga. iii. 19. Comp. Notes on Ac. vii. 38, 53. There is
almost no further reference to the agency of the angel employed for
this service in the book, and there is no distinct specification of
what he did, or of his great agency in the case. John is everywhere
represented as seeing the symbols himself, and it would seem that the
agency of the angel was, either to cause those symbols to pass before
the apostle, or to convey their meaning to his mind. How far John
himself understood the meaning of these symbols, we have not the means
of knowing with certainty. The most probable supposition is, that the
angel was employed to cause these visions or symbols to pass before
his mind, rather than to interpret them. If an interpretation had
been given, it is inconceivable that it should not have been recorded,
and there is no more probability that their meaning should have been
disclosed to John himself, for his private use, than that it should
have been disclosed and recorded for the use of others. It would seem
probable, therefore, that John had only that view of the meaning of
what he saw which anyone else might obtain from the record of the
visions. Comp. Notes on 1 Pe. i. 10‒12. ¶ _Unto his servant John. _
Nothing could be learned from this expression as to _what_ John was
the author of the book, whether the apostle of that name or some
other. Comp. Intro. § 1. It cannot be inferred from the use of the
word _servant_, rather than _apostle_, that the apostle John was _not_
the author, for it was not uncommon for the apostles to designate
themselves merely by the words _servants_, or _servants of God_. Comp.
Notes on Ro. i. 1.

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of
Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

2. _Who bare record of the word of God._ Who bore witness to, or
testified of (ἐμαρτύρησε) the word of God. He regarded himself merely
as a _witness_ of what he had seen, and claimed only to make a fair
and faithful _record_ of it. “This is the disciple which _testifieth_
(ὁ μαρτυρῶν) of these things, and wrote these things,” Jn. xxi. 24.
“And he that saw it _bare record_”――μεμαρτύρηκε, Jn. xix. 35. Compare
also the following places, where the apostle uses the same word
of himself: 1 Jn. i. 2; iv. 14. The expression here, “_the word of
God_,” is one the meaning of which has been much controverted, and is
important in its bearing on the question who was the author of the book
of Revelation. The main inquiry is, whether the writer refers to the
“testimony” which he bears in this book respecting the “word of God;”
or whether he refers to some testimony on that subject in some other
book with which those to whom he wrote were so familiar that they would
at once recognize him as the author; or whether he refers to the fact
that he had borne his testimony to the great truths of religion, and
especially respecting Jesus Christ, as a preacher who was well known,
and who would be characterized by this expression. The phrase “the word
of God”――τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ――occurs frequently in the New Testament
(comp. Jn. x. 35; {37} Ac. iv. 31; vi. 2, 7; xi. 1; xii. 24); and may
either mean the word or doctrine _respecting_ God――that which teaches
what God is――or that which he speaks or teaches. It is more commonly
used in the latter sense (comp. the passages referred to above), and
especially refers to what God speaks or commands in the gospel. The
fair meaning of this expression would be, that John had borne faithful
witness to, or testimony of, the truth which God had spoken to man in
the gospel of Christ. So far as the _language_ here used is concerned,
this might apply either to a written or an oral testimony; either
to a treatise like that of his gospel, to his preaching, or to the
record which he was then making. Vitringa and others suppose that the
reference here is to the gospel which he had published, and which now
bears his name; Lücke and others, to the revelation made to him in
Patmos, the record of which he now makes in this book; Professor
Stuart and others, to the fact that he was a teacher or preacher of
the gospel, and that (comp. ver. 9) the allusion is to the testimony
which he had borne to the gospel, and for which he was an exile in
Patmos. Is it not possible that these conflicting opinions may be to
some extent harmonized, by supposing that in the use of the aorist
tense――ἐμαρτύρησε――the writer meant to refer to a characteristic of
himself, to wit, that he was a faithful _witness_ of the word of God
and of Jesus Christ, whenever and however made known to him? With an
eye, perhaps, to the record which he was about to make in this book,
and intending to include that, may he not also refer to what had
been and was his well-known character as a _witness_ of what God
communicated to him? He had always borne this testimony. He always
regarded himself as such a witness. He had been an eyewitness of
what had occurred in the life and at the death of the Saviour (see
Notes on 2 Pe. i. 17, 18), and had, in all his writings and public
administrations, borne witness to what he had seen and heard; for that
(ver. 9) he had been banished to Patmos: and he was now about to carry
out the same characteristic of himself by bearing witness to what he
saw in these new revelations. This would be much in the manner of John,
who often refers to this characteristic of himself (comp. Jn. xix. 35;
xxi. 24; 1 Jn. i. 2), as well as harmonize the different opinions. The
meaning, then, of the expression, “who bare record of the word of God,”
as I understand it, is, that it was a characteristic of the writer to
bear simple but faithful testimony to the truth which God communicated
to men in the gospel. If this be the correct interpretation, it may be
remarked, (a) that this is such language as John the apostle would be
_likely_ to use, and yet (b) that it is not such language as an author
would be likely to adopt if there was an attempt to forge a book in his
name. The artifice would be too refined to occur probably to anyone,
for although perfectly natural for John, it would not be so natural
for a forger of a book to select this circumstance and weave it thus
unostentatiously into his narrative. ¶ _And of the testimony of Jesus
Christ._ That is, in accordance with the interpretation above, of the
testimony _which Jesus Christ bore for the truth_; not of a testimony
_respecting_ Jesus Christ. The idea is, that Jesus Christ was himself
_a witness_ to the truth, and that the writer of this book was a
witness merely of the testimony which Christ had borne. Whether the
testimony of Jesus Christ was borne in his preaching when in the flesh,
or whether made known to the writer by him at any subsequent period,
it was _his_ office to make a faithful record of that testimony. As
he had always before done that, so he was about to do it now in the
new revelation made to him in Patmos, which he regarded as a new
testimony of Jesus Christ to the truth, ver. 1. It is remarkable that,
in confirmation of this view, John so often describes the Lord Jesus
as _a witness_, or represents him as having come to bear his faithful
_testimony_ to the truth. Thus in ver. 5: “And from Jesus Christ,
who is the faithful and true witness.” “I am one that bear witness――ὁ
μαρτυρήσω――of myself,” Jn. viii. 18. “To this end was I born, and
for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness――ἵνα
μαρτυρήσω――to the truth,” Jn. xviii. 37. “These things saith the Amen,
the faithful and true witness”――ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς, κ.τ.λ., Re. iii. 14.
Of this testimony which the Lord Jesus came to bring to man respecting
eternal realities, the writer of this book says that he regarded
_himself_ as a witness. To the office of bearing such testimony he had
been dedicated; that testimony he was now to bear, as he had always
done. ¶ _And of all things that he saw._ Ὅσα τε εἶδε. This {38} is the
common reading in the Greek, and according to this reading it would
properly mean, “_and_ whatsoever he saw;” that is, it would imply that
he bore witness to “the word of God,” _and_ to “the testimony of Jesus
Christ,” _and_ to “whatever he saw”――meaning that the things which he
saw, and to which he refers, were things _additional_ to those to which
he had referred by “the word of God,” and the “testimony of Christ.”
From this it has been supposed that in the former part of the verse he
refers to some testimony which he had formerly borne, as in his gospel
or in his preaching, and that here he refers to what he “saw” in the
visions of the Revelation as something _additional_ to the former. But
it should be remembered that the word rendered _and_――τε――is wanting
in a large number of manuscripts (see Wetstein), and that it is now
omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament――as by Griesbach,
Tittmann and Hahn. The evidence is clear that it should be omitted; and
if so omitted, the reference is to whatever he had at any time borne
his testimony to, and not particularly to what passed before him in the
visions of this book. It is a general affirmation that he had always
borne a faithful testimony to whatever he had seen respecting the word
of God and the testimony of Christ. The correct rendering of the whole
passage then would be, “And sending by his angel, he signifies it
to his servant John, who bare record of” [_i.e._ whose character and
office it was to bear his testimony to] “the word of God” [the message
which God has sent to me], “and the testimony of Jesus Christ” [the
testimony which Christ bore to the truth], “whatsoever he saw.” He
concealed nothing; he held nothing back; he made it known precisely as
it was seen by him. Thus interpreted, the passage refers to what was
a general characteristic of the writer, and is designed to embrace
_all_ that was made known to him, and to affirm that he was a faithful
witness to it. There were doubtless special _reasons_ why John was
employed as the medium through which this communication was to be made
to the church and the world. Among these reasons may have been the
following: (a) That he was the “beloved disciple.” (b) That he was
the only surviving apostle. (c) That his character was such that his
statements would be readily received. Comp. Jn. xix. 35; xxi. 24; 3 Jn.
12. (d) It _may be_ that his mind was better fitted to be the medium
of these communications than that of any other of the apostles――even
if they had been then alive. There is almost no one whose mental
characteristics are less correctly understood than those of the apostle
John. Among the most gentle and amiable of men; with a heart so fitted
for _love_ as to be known as “the beloved disciple”――he yet had mental
characteristics which made it proper that he should be called “a son
of thunder” (Mar. iii. 17); a mind fitted to preserve and record the
profound thoughts in his gospel; a mind of high poetic order, fitted
for the magnificent conceptions in this book.

3 Blessed[57] _is_ he that readeth, and they that hear the
words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are
written therein: [58]for the time _is_ at hand.

3. _Blessed |is| he that readeth._ That is, it is to be regarded
as a privilege attended with many blessings, to be permitted to mark
the disclosures to be made in this book; the important revelations
respecting future times. Professor Stuart supposes that this refers to
a public reading, and that the phrase “those who hear the words of this
prophecy,” refers to those who listened to the public reader, and that
both the reader and hearer should regard themselves as highly favoured.
It is, however, more in accordance with the usual meaning of the word
rendered “read,” to suppose that it refers to the act of one’s reading
for himself; to learn by reading. So Robinson (_Lex._) understands it.
The Greek word, indeed, would bear the other interpretation (see Lu.
iv. 16; Ac. xiii. 27; xv. 21; 2 Co. iii. 15); but as this book was
sent abroad to be read by Christians, and not merely to be in the hands
of the ministers of religion to be read by them to others, it is more
natural to interpret the word in the usual sense. ¶ _And hear the words
of this prophecy._ As they shall be declared or repeated by others;
or perhaps the word _hear_ is used in a sense that is not uncommon,
that of giving attention to; taking heed to. The general sense is,
that they were to be regarded as highly favoured who became {39}
acquainted in any way with what is here communicated. The writer does
not _say_ that they were blessed who _understood_ it, or that they
who read or heard it _would_ fully understand it; but it is clearly
implied, that there would be so far an understanding of its meaning
as to make it a felicitous condition to have been made acquainted with
it. An author could not be supposed to say that one should regard his
condition as a favoured one who merely heard words that he could not
understand, or who had placed before him magnificent symbols that had
to him no meaning. The word _prophecy_ is used here in its more strict
sense as denoting the disclosure of future events――a large portion of
the book being of this nature. It is here synonymous with _Revelation_
in ver. 1. ¶ _And keep those things which are written therein._ Keep
in mind those things which relate to the future; and obey those things
which are required as truth and duty. The blessing which results from
having in possession the revealed truth of God is not merely in reading
it, or in hearing it: it results from the fact that the truth is
properly regarded, and exerts a suitable influence over our lives. Comp.
Ps. xix. 11: “And in keeping of them there is great reward.” ¶ _For the
time is at hand._ See ver. 1. The word here used――ἐγγύς――has the same
signification substantially as the word “_shortly_” in ver. 1. It would
apply to any event whose beginning was soon to occur, though the end
might be remote, for the series of events might stretch far into the
future. It cannot be doubted, however, that the writer meant to press
upon them the importance of attending to these things, from the fact
that either entirely or in part these things were soon to happen. It
may be inferred from this verse, that it is possible so to _understand_
this book, as that it may convey useful instruction. This is the only
book in the Bible of which a special blessing is pronounced on him
who reads it; but assuredly a blessing would not be pronounced on the
perusal of a book which is entirely unintelligible. While, therefore,
there may be many obscurities in this book, it is also to be assumed
that it may be so far understood as to be useful to Christians, in
supporting their faith, and giving them elevated views of the final
triumph of religion, and of the glory of the world to come. Anything
is a blessing which enables us with well-founded hope and joy to look
forward to the heavenly world.

4 JOHN to the [59]seven churches which are in Asia: Grace _be_
unto you, and peace, [60]from him which is, and which was, and
which is to come; and from the [61]seven Spirits which are
before his throne;

4. _John to the seven churches which are in Asia._ The word _Asia_
is used in quite different senses by different writers. It is used
(1) as referring to the whole eastern continent now known by that name;
(2) either Asia or Asia Minor; (3) that part of Asia which Attalus III.,
king of Pergamos, gave to the Romans, viz. Mysia, Phrygia, Lycaonia,
Lydia, Caria, Pisidia, and the southern coast――that is, all in the
western, south-western, and southern parts of Asia Minor; and (4), in
the New Testament, usually the south-western part of Asia Minor, of
which Ephesus was the capital. See Notes, Ac. ii. 9. The word _Asia_
is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but it occurs often in the books
of Maccabees, and in the New Testament. In the New Testament it is not
used in the large sense in which it is now, as applied to the whole
continent, but in its largest signification it would include only Asia
Minor. It is also used, especially by Luke, as denoting the country
that was called _Ionia_, or that which embraced the provinces of Caria
and Lydia. Of this region Ephesus was the principal city, and it was
in this region that the “seven churches” were situated. Whether there
were more than seven churches in this region is not intimated by the
writer of this book, and on that point we have no certain knowledge.
It is evident that these seven were the principal churches, even if
there were more, and that there was some reason why they should be
particularly addressed. There is mention of some other churches in
the neighbourhood of these. Colosse was near to Laodicea; and from Col.
iv. 13, it would seem not improbable that there was a church also at
Hierapolis. But there may have been nothing in their circumstances that
demanded particular instruction or admonition, and they may have been
on that account omitted. There is also some reason to suppose {40} that,
though there had been other churches in that vicinity besides the seven
mentioned by John, they had become extinct at the time when he wrote
the book of Revelation. It appears from Tacitus (_Annal._ xiv. 27; comp.
also Pliny, _N. H._ v. 29), that in the time of Nero, A.D. 61, the
city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake, in which earthquake,
according to Eusebius, the adjacent cities of Colosse and Hierapolis
were involved. Laodicea was, indeed, immediately rebuilt, but there is
no evidence of the re-establishment of the church there before the time
when John wrote this book. The earliest mention we have of a church
there, after the one referred to in the New Testament by Paul (Col.
ii. 1; iv. 13, 15, 16), is in the time of Trajan, when Papias was
bishop there, sometime between A.D. 98 and 117. It would appear, then,
to be not improbable that at the time when the Apocalypse was written,
there were in fact but seven churches in the vicinity. Professor
Stuart (i. 219) supposes that “seven, and only so many, may have been
named, because the sevenfold divisions and groups of various objects
constitute a conspicuous feature in the Apocalypse throughout.” But
this reason seems too artificial; and it can hardly be supposed that it
would influence the mind of John, in the specification _by name_ of the
churches to which the book was sent. If no _names_ had been mentioned,
and if the statement had occurred in glowing poetic description, it
is not inconceivable that the number _seven_ might have been selected
for some such purpose. ¶ _Grace be unto you and peace._ The usual form
of salutation in addressing a church. See Notes on Rom. i. 7. ¶ _From
him which is, and which was, and which is to come._ From him who is
everlasting――embracing all duration, past, present, and to come. No
expression could more strikingly denote eternity than this. He now
exists; he has existed in the past; he will exist in the future. There
is an evident allusion here to the name JEHOVAH, the name by which
the true God is appropriately designated in the Scriptures. That name
יְהֹוָה, from הָיָה, _to be_, _to exist_, seems to have been adopted because
it denotes _existence_, or _being_, and as denoting simply one who
_exists_; and has reference merely to the _fact_ of existence. The
word has no variation of form, and has no reference to time, and would
embrace all time: that is, it is as true at one time as another that
he exists. Such a word would not be inappropriately paraphrased by the
phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” or who is to be; and
there can be no doubt that John referred to him here as being himself
the eternal and uncreated _existence_, and as the great and original
fountain of all being. They who desire to find a full discussion in
regard to the origin of the name JEHOVAH, may consult an article by
Prof. Tholuck, in the _Biblical Repository_, vol. iv. pp. 89‒108. It
is remarkable that there are some passages in heathen inscriptions
and writings which bear a very strong resemblance to the language here
used by John respecting God. Thus Plutarch (_De Is. et Osir._, p. 354),
speaking of a temple of Isis, at Sais, in Egypt, says, “It bore this
inscription――‘I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my vail no
mortal can remove.’”――Ἐγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονός, καὶ ὄν, καὶ ἐσόμενον·
καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν πέπλον οὐδείς πω θνητὸς ἀνεκάλυψεν. So Orpheus (in _Auctor.
Lib. de Mundo_), “Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all
things are made by Jupiter.” So in Pausanias (_Phocic._ 12), “Jupiter
was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be.” The reference in the phrase before
us is to God as such, or to God considered as the Father. ¶ _And from
the seven Spirits which are before his throne._ After all that has been
written on this very difficult expression, it is still impossible to
determine with certainty its meaning. The principal opinions which have
been held in regard to it are the following:――I. That it refers to God,
as such. This opinion is held by Eichhorn, and is favoured by Ewald. No
arguments derived from any parallel passages are urged for this opinion,
nor can any such be found, where God is himself spoken of under the
representation of a sevenfold Spirit. But the objections to this view
are so obvious as to be insuperable. (1) If it refers to God as such,
then it would be mere tautology, for the writer had just referred
to him in the phrase “from him who was,” &c. (2) It is difficult to
perceive in what sense “seven spirits” could be ascribed to God, or how
he could be described _as_ a being of “Seven Spirits.” At least, if he
could be spoken of as such, there would be no objection to applying the
phrase to the Holy {41} Spirit. (3) How could it be said of God himself
that he was “before the throne?” He is everywhere represented as
sitting _on_ the throne, not as _before_ it. It is easy to conceive
of angels as standing before the throne; and of the Holy Spirit it is
_more_ easy to conceive as being represented thus as ready to go forth
and convey a heavenly influence from that throne, but it is impossible
to conceive in what sense this could be applied to God as such. II. The
opinion held by Grotius, and by John Henry Heinrichs, that it refers
to “the multiform providence of God,” or to God considered as operating
in seven or many different ways. In support of this Grotius appeals
to ch. v. 12; vii. 12. But this opinion is so far-fetched, and it is
so destitute of support, as to have found, it is believed, no other
advocates, and to need no further notice. It cannot be supposed that
John meant to personify the attributes of the Deity, and then to unite
them with God himself, and with the Lord Jesus Christ, and to represent
them as real subsistences from which important blessings descend to men.
It is clear that as by the phrase, “who is, and who was, and who is to
come,” and by “Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness,” he refers
to real subsistences, so he must here. Besides, if the attributes
of God, or the modes of divine operation, are denoted, why is the
number _seven_ chosen? And why are they represented as standing before
the throne? III. A third opinion is, that the reference is to seven
attending and ministering presence-angels――angels represented as
standing before the throne of God, or in his presence. This opinion was
adopted among the ancients by Clemens of Alexandria; Andreas of Cesarea,
and others; among the moderns by Beza, Drusius, Hammond, Wetstein,
Rosenmüller, Clarke, Professor Stuart, and others. This opinion,
however, has been held in somewhat different forms; some maintaining
that the seven angels are referred to because it was a received opinion
among the Hebrews that there were seven angels standing in the presence
of God, as seven princes stood in the Persian court before the king;
others, that the angels of the seven churches are particularly referred
to, represented now as standing in the presence of God; others, that
seven angels, represented as the principal angels employed in the
government of the world, are referred to; and others, that seven
archangels are particularly designated. Compare Poole, _Synop. in
loco_. The _arguments_ which are relied on by those who suppose that
seven angels are here referred to are briefly these: (1) The nature of
the expression here used. The expression, it is said, is such as would
naturally denote beings who were before his throne――beings who were
different from him who was _on_ the throne――and beings more than one in
number. That it could not refer to one _on_ the throne, but must mean
those distinct and separate from one on the throne, is argued from the
use of the phrases “before the throne,” and “before God,” in Re. iv. 5;
vii. 9, 15; viii. 2; xi. 4, 16; xii. 10; xiv. 3; xx. 12; in all which
places the representation denotes those who were in the presence of God,
and standing before him. (2) It is argued from other passages in the
book of Revelation which, it is said (Professor Stuart), go directly to
confirm this opinion. Thus in Re. viii. 2: “And I saw the seven angels
which stood before God.” So Re. iv. 5: the seven lamps of fire burning
before the throne, are said to be “the seven Spirits of God.” In
these passages, it is alleged that the article “_the_” designates the
_well-known_ angels; or those which had been before specified, and that
this is the first mention of any such angels after the designation in
the passage before us. (3) It is said that this is in accordance with
what was usual among the Hebrews, who were accustomed to speak of seven
presence-angels, or angels standing in the presence of Jehovah. Thus
in the book of Tobit (xii. 15), Raphael is introduced as using this
language: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present
the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory
of the Holy One.” The apocryphal book of Enoch (chap. xx.) gives the
names of the seven angels who _watch_; that is, of the watchers (comp.
Notes on Da. iv. 13, 17) who stand in the presence of God waiting
for the divine commands, or who watch over the affairs of men. So in
the Zendavesta of Zoroaster, seven amshaspends, or archangels, are
mentioned. See Professor Stuart, _in loco_.

To these views, however, there are objections of great weight, if
they are not in fact quite insuperable. They are such as the following:
(1) That the same rank should be given to them {42} as to God, as
the source of blessings. According to the view which represents this
expression as referring to angels, they are placed on the same level,
so far as the matter before us is concerned, with “him who was, and is,
and is to come,” and with the Lord Jesus Christ――a doctrine which does
not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures, and which we cannot suppose the
writer designed to teach. (2) That blessings should be _invoked_ from
angels――as if they could impart “grace and peace.” It is evident that,
whoever is referred to here by the phrase “the seven Spirits,” he is
placed on the same level with the others mentioned as the source of
“grace and peace.” But it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer
would invoke that grace and peace from any but a divine being. (3) That
as two persons of the Trinity are here mentioned, it is to be presumed
that the third would not be omitted; or to put this argument in a
stronger form, it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would
mention two of the persons of the Trinity in this connection, and
then not only _not_ mention the third, but refer to _angels_――to
creatures――as bestowing that which would be appropriately sought from
the Holy Spirit. The incongruity would be not merely in omitting all
reference to the Spirit――which might indeed occur, as it often does
in the Scriptures――but in putting in the place which that Spirit
would naturally occupy an allusion to _angels_ as conferring blessings.
(4) If this refer to angels, it is impossible to avoid the inference
that angel-worship, or invocation of angels, is proper. To all intents
and purposes, this is an act of worship; for it is an act of solemn
invocation. It is an acknowledgment of the “seven Spirits,” as the
source of “grace and peace.” It would be impossible to resist this
impression on the popular mind; it would not be possible to meet it if
urged as an argument in favour of the propriety of angel-invocation, or
angel-worship. And yet, if there is anything clear in the Scriptures,
it is that God alone is to be worshipped. For these reasons, it seems
to me that this interpretation cannot be well founded.

IV. There remains a fourth opinion, that it refers to the Holy Spirit,
and in favour of that opinion it may be urged, (1) That it is most
natural to suppose that the Holy Spirit _would_ be invoked on such an
occasion, in connection with him “who was, and is, and is to come,”
and with “Jesus Christ.” If two of the persons of the Trinity were
addressed on such an occasion, it would be properly supposed that the
Holy Spirit would not be omitted, as one of the persons from whom the
blessing was to descend. Comp. 2 Co. xiii. 14: “The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
be with you all.” (2) It would be unnatural and improper, in such an
invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as
participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to
man. An invocation to God to _send_ his angels, or to impart grace and
favour _through_ angelic help, would be in entire accordance with the
usage in Scripture, but it is not in accordance with such usage to
invoke such blessings _from_ angels. (3) It cannot be denied that an
invocation of grace from “him who is, and was, and is to come,” is of
the nature of worship. The address to him is _as God_, and the attitude
of the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act
of devotion. The effect of uniting any other being with him in such a
case, would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with him.
In regard to the Lord Jesus, “the faithful and true witness,” it is
from such expressions as these that we are led to the belief that he is
divine, and that it is proper to worship him as such. The same effect
must be produced in reference to what is here called “the seven Spirits
before the throne.” We cannot well resist the impression that someone
with divine attributes is intended; or, if it refer to angels, we
cannot easily show that it is not proper to render divine worship to
them. If they were thus invoked by an apostle, can it be improper to
worship them now? (4) The word used here is not _angels_, but _spirits_;
and though it is true that angels are spirits, and that the word spirit
is applied to them (He. i. 7), yet it is also true that that is not
a word which would be understood to refer to them without designating
that angels were meant. If angels had been intended here, that word
would naturally have been used, as is the case elsewhere in this
book. (5) In Re. iv. 5, where there is a reference to “the seven lamps
before the throne,” it is said of them that they “are,” that is, they
represent “the seven Spirits of God.” This passage may be understood
as referring to {43} the same thing as that before us, but it cannot
be well understood of angels; for, (a) if it did, it would have been
natural to use that language for the reason above mentioned; (b) the
angels are nowhere called “the spirits _of God_,” nor would such
language be proper. The phrase, “Spirit of God” naturally implies
divinity, and could not be applied to a creature. For these reasons
it seems to me that the interpretation which applies the phrase to the
Holy Spirit is to be preferred; and though that interpretation is not
free from difficulties, yet there are _fewer_ difficulties in that than
in either of the others proposed. Though it may not be possible wholly
to remove the difficulties involved in that interpretation, yet perhaps
something may be done to diminish their force. (1) First, as to the
reason why the number _seven_ should be applied to the Holy Spirit.
(a) There would be as much propriety certainly in applying it to
the Holy Spirit as to God as such. And yet Grotius, Eichhorn, Ewald,
and others saw no difficulty in such an application considered as
representing a sevenfold mode of operation of God, or a manifold divine
agency. (b) The word _seven_ often denotes a full or complete number,
and may be used to denote that which is full, complete, or manifold;
and might thus be used in reference to an all-perfect Spirit, or to a
spirit which was manifold in its operations. (c) The number seven is
evidently a favourite number in the book of Revelation, and it might be
used by the author in places, and in a sense, such as it would not be
likely to be used by another writer. Thus there are seven epistles to
the seven churches; there are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials
of the wrath of God, seven last plagues; there are seven lamps, and
seven Spirits of God; the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes. In ch.
i. 16, seven stars are mentioned; in ch. v. 12, seven attributes of
God; ch. xii. 3, the dragon has seven heads; ch. xiii. 1, the beast has
seven heads. (d) The number seven, therefore, _may_ have been given to
the Holy Spirit with reference to the _diversity_ or the _fulness_ of
his operations on the souls of men, and to his _manifold_ agency on the
affairs of the world, as further developed in this book. (2) As to his
being represented as “_before_ the throne,” this may be intended to
designate the fact that the Divine Spirit was, as it were, prepared
to go forth, or to be _sent_ forth, in accordance with a common
representation in the Scriptures, to accomplish important purposes on
human affairs. The posture does not necessarily imply inferiority of
nature, any more than the language does respecting the Son of God,
when he is represented as being _sent_ into the world to execute an
important commission from the Father.

5 And from Jesus Christ, _who is_ the [62]faithful witness,
_and_ the [63]first-begotten of the dead, and the prince
of the kings of the earth. Unto [64]him that loved us, and
[65]washed us from our sins in his own blood,

5. _And from Jesus Christ, |who is| the faithful witness._ See Notes on
ver. 2. He is faithful in the sense that he is one on whose testimony
there may be entire reliance, or who is entirely worthy to be believed.
From him “grace and peace” are appropriately sought, as one who bears
such a testimony, and as the first-begotten from the dead, and as
reigning over the kings of the earth. Thus grace and peace are invoked
from the infinite God in all his relations and operations:――as the
Father, the Source of all existence; as the Sacred Spirit, going forth
in manifold operations upon the hearts of men; and as the Son of God,
the one appointed to bear faithful testimony to the truth respecting
God and future events. ¶ _|And| the first-begotten of the dead._
The same Greek expression――πρωτότοκος――occurs in Col. i. 18. See it
explained in the Notes on that passage. Comp. Notes, 1 Co. xv. 20.
¶ _And the prince of the kings of the earth._ Who has over all the
kings of the earth the pre-eminence which kings have over their
subjects. He is the Ruler _of_ rulers; King _of_ kings. In ch. xvii. 14,
xix. 16, the same thought is expressed by saying that he is the
“King of kings.” No language could more sublimely denote his exalted
character, or his supremacy. Kings and princes sway a sceptre over
the millions of the earth, and the exaltation of the Saviour is here
expressed by supposing that all those kings and princes constitute a
community over which he is the head. The exaltation of the Redeemer is
elsewhere expressed in different language, but the idea is one that
everywhere prevails in regard to him in the Scriptures. Comp. Mat. {44}
xxviii. 18; xi. 27; Jn. xvii. 2; Ep. i. 20‒22; Phi. ii. 9‒11; Col.
i. 15‒18. The word _prince_――ὁ ἄρχων――means properly, _ruler_, _leader_,
_the first in rank_. We often apply the word _prince_ to an heir to a
throne who is not invested with absolute sovereignty. The word here,
however, denotes that he actually exercises dominion over the rulers of
the earth. As this is an authority which is claimed by God (comp. Is.
x. 5, seq.; xlv. 1, seq.; Ps. xlvii. 2; xcix. 1; ciii. 19; Da. iv. 34),
and which can only appertain to God, it is clear that in ascribing
this to the Lord Jesus it is implied that he is possessed of divine
attributes. As much of the revelations of this book pertained to the
assertion of power over the princes and rulers of this world, there
was a propriety that, in the commencement, it should be asserted
that he who was to exert that power was invested with the prerogative
of a ruler of the nations, and that he had this right of control.
¶ _Unto him that loved us._ This refers undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus,
whose _love_ for men was so strong that nothing more was necessary to
characterize him than to speak of him as the one “who loved us.” It
is manifest that the division in the verses should have been made here,
for this commences a new subject, not having any special connection
with that which precedes. In ver. 4, and the first part of this
verse, the writer had invoked grace from the Father, the Spirit, and
the Saviour. In the latter clause of the verse there commences an
ascription of praise to the Redeemer; an ascription to him particularly,
because the whole book is regarded as a revelation from him (ver. 1);
because he was the one who especially appeared to John in the visions
of Patmos; and because he was to be the great agent in carrying into
execution the purposes revealed in this book. ¶ _And washed us from our
sins in his own blood._ He has removed the pollution of sin from our
souls by his blood; that is, his blood has been applied to cleanse us
from sin. Blood can be represented as having a cleansing power _only_
as it makes an expiation for sin, for considered literally its effect
would be the reverse. The language is such as would be used only on the
supposition that he had made an atonement, and that it was _by_ the
atonement that we are cleansed; for in what sense could it be said of
a martyr that he “had washed us from our sins in his blood?” How could
this language be used of Paul or Polycarp; of Ridley or Cranmer? The
doctrine that the blood of Christ _cleanses_ us from sin, or _purifies_
us, is one that is common in the Scriptures. Comp. 1 Jn. i. 7; He.
ix. 14. The specific idea of _washing_, however――representing that
blood as _washing_ sin away――is one which does not elsewhere occur. It
is evidently used in the sense of _cleansing_ or _purifying_, as we do
this by _washing_, and as the blood of Christ accomplishes in respect
to our souls, what washing with water does in respect to the body.

6 And hath made us [66]kings and priests unto God and his
Father; [67]to him _be_ glory and dominion for ever and ever.
Amen.

6. _And hath made us kings and priests unto God._ In 1 Pe. ii. 9 the
same idea is expressed by saying of Christians that they are “_a royal
priesthood_.” See Notes on that verse. The quotation in both places is
from Ex. xix. 6: “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.” This
idea is expressed here by saying that Christ had made us in fact kings
_and_ priests; that is, Christians are exalted to the dignity and are
invested with the office, implied in these words. The word _kings_, as
applied to them, refers to the exalted rank and dignity which they will
have; to the fact that they, in common with their Saviour, will reign
triumphant over all enemies; and that, having gained a victory over sin
and death and hell, they may be represented as reigning together. The
word _priests_ refers to the fact that they are engaged in the holy
service of God, or that they offer to him acceptable worship. See
Notes on 1 Pe. ii. 5. ¶ _And his Father._ Even his Father; that is,
the Saviour has redeemed them, and elevated them to this exalted rank,
in order that they may thus be engaged in the service of his Father.
¶ _To him |be| glory._ To the Redeemer; for so the construction (ver. 5)
demands. The word {45} “glory” here means praise, or honour, implying
a wish that all honour should be shown him. ¶ _And dominion._ This word
means literally _strength_――κράτος; but it here means the strength,
power, or authority which is exercised over others, and the expression
is equivalent to a wish that he may _reign_.

7 Behold, he [68]cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see
him, and [69]they _also_ which pierced him: and all kindreds
of the earth [70]shall wail because of him. [71]Even so, Amen.

7. _Behold he cometh with clouds._ That is, the Lord Jesus, when he
returns, will come accompanied with clouds. This is in accordance with
the uniform representation respecting the return of the Saviour. See
Notes on Mat. xxiv. 30. Comp. Mat. xxvi. 64; Mar. xiii. 26; xiv. 62;
Ac. i. 9, 11. Clouds are appropriate symbols of majesty, and God is
often represented as appearing in that manner. See Ex. xix. 18; Ps.
xviii. 11, seq.; Is. xix. 1. So, among the heathen, it was common to
represent their divinities as appearing clothed with a cloud:

“tandem venias, precamur,
Nube candentes humeros amictus
Augur Apollo.”

The _design_ of introducing this representation of the Saviour, and of
the manner in which he would appear, seems to be to impress the mind
with a sense of the majesty and glory of that being from whom John
received his revelations. His rank, his character, his glory were such
as to demand respect; all should reverence him, and all should feel
that his communications about the future were important to them, for
they must soon appear before him. ¶ _And every eye shall see him._ He
will be made visible in his glory to all that dwell upon the earth; to
all the children of men. Everyone, therefore, has an interest in what
he says; everyone has this in certain prospect, that he shall see the
Son of God coming as a Judge. ¶ _And they |also| which pierced him._
When he died; that is, they who pierced his hands, his feet, and
his side. There is probably an allusion here to Zec. xii. 10: “They
shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn.” The
language here is so general that it may refer to _any_ act of looking
upon the pierced Saviour, and might be applied to those who would see
him on the cross and to their compunctious visitings then; or to their
subsequent reflections, as they might look by faith on him whom they
had crucified; or to the feeling of any sinners who should reflect
that their sins had been the cause of the death of the Lord Jesus; or
it might be applied, as it is here, more specifically to the feelings
which his murderers will have when they shall see him coming in his
glory. All sinners who have pierced his heart by their crimes will
then behold him and will mourn over their treatment of him; they, in a
special manner, who imbrued their hands in his blood will then remember
their crime and be overwhelmed with alarm. The _design_ of what is here
said seems to be, to show that the coming of the Saviour will be an
event of great interest to all mankind. None can be indifferent to it,
for all will see him. His friends will hail his advent (comp. ch. xxii.
20), but all who were engaged in putting him to death, and all who in
any manner have pierced his heart by sin and ingratitude, unless they
shall have repented, will have occasion of bitter lamentation when he
shall come. There are none who have a more fearful doom to anticipate
than the murderers of the Son of God, including those who actually put
him to death, and those who would have engaged in such an act had they
been present, and those who, by their conduct, have done all they could
to pierce and wound him by their ingratitude. ¶ _And all kindreds of
the earth._ Gr., “All the tribes――φυλαὶ――of the earth.” This language
is the same which the Saviour uses in Mat. xxiv. 30. See Notes on
that passage. The word _tribes_ is that which is commonly applied
to the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus used, it would describe the
inhabitants of the Holy Land; but it may be used to denote nations
and people in general, as descended from a common ancestor, and the
connection requires that it should be understood in this sense here,
since it is said that “every eye shall see him;” that is, all that
dwell on the face of the earth. ¶ _Shall wail because of him._ On
account of him; on account of their treatment of him. The word rendered
_wail_――κόπτω――means properly to beat, to cut; then {46} to beat or cut
one’s self in the breast as an expression of sorrow; and then to lament,
to cry aloud in intense grief. The coming of the Saviour will be an
occasion of this, (a) because it will be an event which will call the
sins of men to remembrance, and (b) because they will be overwhelmed
with the apprehension of the wrath to come. Nothing would fill the
earth with greater consternation than the coming of the Son of God in
the clouds of heaven; nothing could produce so deep and universal alarm.
This fact, which no one can doubt, is proof that men _feel_ that they
are guilty, since, if they were innocent, they would have nothing to
dread by his appearing. It is also a proof that they believe in the
doctrine of future punishment, since, if they do not, there is no
reason why they should be alarmed at his coming. Surely men would not
dread his appearing if they really believed that all will be saved. Who
dreads the coming of a benefactor to bestow favours on him? Who dreads
the appearing of a jailer to deliver him from prison; of a physician
to raise him up from a bed of pain; of a deliverer to knock off the
fetters of slavery? And how _can_ it be that men should be alarmed at
the coming of the Saviour, unless their consciences tell them that they
have much to fear in the future? The presence of the Redeemer in the
clouds of heaven would destroy all the hopes of those who believe in
the doctrine of universal salvation――as the approach of death now often
does. Men _believe_ that there is much to be dreaded in the future
world, or they would not fear the coming of Him who shall wind up
the affairs of the human race. ¶ _Even so, Amen_――ναὶ, ἁμήν. “A double
expression of _so be it_, _assuredly_, _certainly_, one in Greek and
the other in Hebrew” (Professor Stuart). Comp. Ro. viii. 16, “Abba,
Father”――ἀββᾶ, ὁ πατήρ. The idea which John seems to intend to convey
is, that the coming of the Lord Jesus, and the consequences which
he says will follow, are events which are altogether _certain_. This
is not the expression of a wish that it _may_ be so, as our common
translation would seem to imply, but a strong affirmation that it
_will_ be so. In some passages, however, the word (ναὶ) expresses
_assent_ to what is said, implying approbation of it as true, or as
desirable. “_Even so_, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight,”
Mat. xi. 26; Lu. x. 21. So in Re. xvi. 7, “_Even so_ (ναὶ), Lord God
Almighty.” So in Re. xxii. 20, “_Even so_ (ναὶ), come, Lord Jesus.” The
word _Amen_ here seems to determine the meaning of the phrase, and to
make it the affirmation of a _certainty_, rather than the expression of
a _wish_.

8 I [72]am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,
[73]the Almighty.

8. _I am Alpha and Omega._ These are the first and the last letters
of the Greek alphabet, and denote properly the first and the last. So
in Re. xxii. 13, where the two expressions are united, “I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” So in ch. i.
17, the speaker says of himself, “I am the first and the last.” Among
the Jewish Rabbins it was common to use the first and the last letters
of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of anything, from beginning
to end. Thus it is said, “Adam transgressed the whole law, from א to
תּ”――from Aleph to Tâv. “Abraham kept the whole law, from א to תּ.” The
language here is that which would properly denote _eternity_ in the
being to whom it is applied, and could be used in reference to no one
but the true God. It means that he is the beginning and the end of all
things; that he was at the commencement, and will be at the close; and
it is thus equivalent to saying that he has always existed, and that he
will always exist. Comp. Is. xli. 4, “I the Lord, the first, and with
the last;”――xliv. 6, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me
there is no God;”――xlviii. 12, “I am he; I am the first, I also am the
last.” There can be no doubt that the language here would be naturally
understood as implying divinity, and it could be properly applied to
no one but the true God. The obvious interpretation here would be to
apply this to the Lord Jesus; for (a) it is he who is spoken of in the
verses preceding, and (b) there can be no doubt that the same language
is applied to him in ver. 11. As there is, however, a difference of
reading in this place in the Greek text, and as it cannot be absolutely
certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically
{47} here, this cannot be adduced with propriety as a proof-text to
demonstrate his divinity. Many MSS., instead of “_Lord_,” κύριος, read
“_God_,” θεὸς; and this reading is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, and
Hahn, and is now regarded as the correct reading. There is no real
incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer
to God as such, since the introduction of a reference to him would
not be inappropriate to his manifest design. Besides, a portion of the
language here used, “which is, and was, and is to come,” is that which
would more naturally suggest a reference to God as such, than to the
Lord Jesus Christ. See ver. 4. The _object_ for which this passage
referring to the “first and the last――to him who was, and is, and is to
come,” is introduced here evidently is, to show that as he was clothed
with omnipotence, and would continue to exist through all ages to come
as he had existed in all ages past, there could be no doubt about his
ability to execute all which it is said he would execute. ¶ _Saith the
Lord._ Or, saith God, according to what is now regarded as the correct
reading. ¶ _Which is, and which was_, &c. See Notes on ver. 4. ¶ _The
Almighty._ An appellation often applied to God, meaning that he has all
power, and used here to denote that he is able to accomplish what is
disclosed in this book.

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in
tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,
was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God,
and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

9. _I John, who also am your brother._ Your Christian brother; who
am a fellow-Christian with you. The reference here is doubtless to
the members of the seven churches in Asia, to whom the epistles in the
following chapters were addressed, and to whom the whole book seems
to have been sent. In the previous verse, the writer had closed the
salutation, and he here commences a description of the circumstances
under which the vision appeared to him. He was in a lonely island, to
which he had been banished on account of his attachment to religion;
he was in a state of high spiritual enjoyment on the day devoted to the
sacred remembrance of the Redeemer; he suddenly heard a voice behind
him, and turning saw the Son of man himself, in glorious form, in
the midst of seven golden lamps, and fell at his feet as dead. ¶ _And
companion in tribulation._ Your partner in affliction. That is, he and
they were suffering substantially the same kind of trials on account of
their religion. It is evident from this that some form of persecution
was then raging, in which they were also sufferers, though in their
case it did not lead to banishment. The leader, the apostle, the aged
and influential preacher, was banished; but there were many other
forms of trial which they might be called to endure who remained at
home. What they were we have not the means of knowing with certainty.
¶ _And in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ._ The meaning of
this passage is, that he, and those whom he addressed, were not only
companions in affliction, but were fellow-partners in the kingdom of
the Redeemer; that is, they shared the honour and the privileges
pertaining to that kingdom; and that they were fellow-partners in the
_patience_ of Jesus Christ, that is, in enduring with patience whatever
might follow from their being his friends and followers. The general
idea is, that alike in privileges and sufferings they were united.
They shared alike in the results of their attachment to the Saviour.
¶ _Was in the isle that is called Patmos._ Patmos is one of the cluster
of islands in the Ægean Sea anciently called the _Sporades_. It lies
between the island of Icaria and the promontory of Miletus. It is
merely mentioned by the ancient geographers (Plin. _Hist. Nat._ iv. 23;
Strabo, x. 488). It is now called Patino or Patmoso. It is some six
or eight miles in length, and not more than a mile in breadth, being
about fifteen miles in circumference. It has neither trees nor rivers,
nor has it any land for cultivation, except some little nooks among
the ledges of rocks. On approaching the island, the coast is high,
and consists of a succession of capes, which form so many ports,
some of which are excellent. The only one in use, however, is a deep
bay, sheltered by high mountains on every side but one, where it is
protected by a projecting cape. The town attached to this port is
situated upon a high rocky mountain, rising immediately from the sea,
and this, with the Scala below upon the shore, consisting of some ships
and houses, forms the only inhabited site of the island. Though Patmos
is deficient in trees, it abounds in flowery plants {48} and shrubs.
Walnuts and other fruit trees are raised in the orchards, and the wine
of Patmos is the strongest and the best flavoured in the Greek islands.
Maize and barley are cultivated, but not in a quantity sufficient
for the use of the inhabitants and for a supply of their own vessels,
and others which often put into their good harbour for provisions.
The inhabitants now do not exceed four or five thousand; many of whom
are emigrants from the neighbouring continent. About half-way up the
mountain there is shown a natural grotto in a rock, where John is
_said_ to have seen his visions and to have written this book. Near
this is a small church, connected with which is a school or college,
where the Greek language is taught; and on the top of the hill, and in
the centre of the island, is a monastery, which, from its situation,
has a very majestic appearance (Kitto’s _Cyclopædia of Bib. Lit._).
The annexed engraving is supposed to give a good representation of
the appearance of the island. It is commonly supposed that John was
banished to this island by Domitian, about A.D. 94. No place could
have been selected for banishment which would accord better with
such a design than this. Lonely, desolate, barren, uninhabited, seldom
visited, it had all the requisites which could be desired for a place
of punishment; and banishment to that place would accomplish all that
a persecutor could wish in silencing an apostle, without putting him to
death. It was no uncommon thing, in ancient times, to banish men from
their country; either sending them forth at large, or specifying some
particular place to which they were to go. The whole narrative leads us
to suppose that this place was _designated_ as that to which John was
to be sent. Banishment to an island was a common mode of punishment;
and there was a distinction made by this act in favour of those
who were thus banished. The more base, low, and vile of criminals
were commonly condemned to work in the mines; the more decent and
respectable were _banished_ to some lonely island. See the authorities
quoted in Wetstein, _in loco_. ¶ _For the word of God._ On account of
the word of God; that is, for holding and preaching the gospel. See
Notes on ver. 2. It cannot mean that he was sent there with a view
to his _preaching_ the word of God; for it is inconceivable that he
should have been sent from Ephesus to preach in such a little, lonely,
desolate place, where indeed there is no evidence that there were any
inhabitants; nor can it mean that he was sent there by the Spirit of
God to receive and record this revelation, for it is clear that the
revelation could have been made elsewhere, and such a place afforded no
peculiar advantages for this. The fair interpretation is, in accordance
with all the testimony of antiquity, that he was sent there in a time
of persecution, as a punishment for preaching the gospel. ¶ _And for
the testimony of Jesus Christ._ See Notes on ver. 2. He did not go
there to bear testimony to Jesus Christ on that island, either by
preaching or recording the visions in this book, but he went because
he _had_ preached the doctrines which testified of Christ.

10 I was [74]in the Spirit on the [75]Lord’s day, and heard
behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

10. _I was in the Spirit._ This cannot refer to his own spirit, for
such an expression would be unintelligible. The language then must
refer to some unusual state, or to some influence that had been brought
to bear upon him from without, that was appropriate to such a day. The
word _Spirit_ may refer either to the Holy Spirit, or to some state of
mind such as the Holy Spirit produces――a spirit of elevated devotion,
a state of high and uncommon religious enjoyment. It is clear that John
does not mean here to say that he was under the influence of the Holy
Spirit in such a sense as that he was _inspired_, for the command to
make a record, as well as the visions, came subsequently to the time
referred to. The fair meaning of the passage is, that he was at that
time favoured, in a large measure, with the influences of the Holy
Spirit――the spirit of true devotion; that he had a high state of
religious enjoyment, and was in a condition not inappropriate to the
remarkable communications which were made to him on that day. The
state of mind in which he was at the time here referred to, is not such
as the prophets are often represented to have been in when under the
prophetic inspiration (comp. Eze. i. 1; viii. 3; xl. 2; Je. xxiv. 1),
and which was often accompanied {49} with an entire prostration of
bodily strength (comp. Nu. xxiv. 4; 1 Sa. xix. 24; Eze. i. 28; Da.
x. 8‒10; Re. i. 17), but such as any Christian may experience when in a
high state of religious enjoyment. He was not _yet_ under the prophetic
ecstasy (comp. Ac. x. 10; xi. 5; xxii. 17), but was, though in a lonely
and barren island, and far away from the privileges of the sanctuary,
permitted to enjoy, in a high degree, the consolations of religion――an
illustration of the great truth that God can meet his people anywhere;
that, when in solitude and in circumstances of outward affliction, when
persecuted and cast out, when deprived of the public means of grace and
the society of religious friends, He can meet them with the abundant
consolations of His grace, and pour joy and peace into their souls.
This state was not inappropriate to the revelations which were about
to be made to John, but this itself was not that state. It was a state
which seems to have resulted from the fact, that on that desert island
he devoted the day to the worship of God, and, by honouring the day
dedicated to the memory of the risen Saviour, found, what all will find,
that it was attended with rich spiritual influences on his soul. ¶ _On
the Lord’s day._ The word here rendered _Lord’s_ (κυριακῇ), occurs only
in this place and in 1 Co. xi. 20, where it is applied to the Lord’s
supper. It properly means _pertaining to the Lord_; and, so far as this
_word_ is concerned, it might mean a day pertaining to the Lord, in
any sense, or for any reason; either because he claimed it as his own,
and had set it apart for his own service, or because it was designed to
commemorate some important event pertaining to him, or because it was
observed in honour of him. It is clear, (1) That this refers to some
day which was distinguished from all other days of the week, and which
would be sufficiently designated by the use of this term. (2) That it
was a day which was for some reason regarded as peculiarly a day of the
Lord, or peculiarly devoted to him. (3) It would further appear that
this was a day particularly devoted to the Lord Jesus; for, (a) that
is the natural meaning of the word _Lord_ as used in the New Testament
(comp. Notes on Ac. i. 24); and (b) if the Jewish Sabbath were intended
to be designated, the word _Sabbath_ would have been used. The term
was used generally by the early Christians to denote the first day of
the week. It occurs twice in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
(about A.D. 101), who calls the Lord’s day “the queen and prince of all
days.” Chrysostom (on Ps. cxix.) says, “It was called the Lord’s day
because the Lord rose from the dead on that day.” Later fathers make a
marked distinction between the _Sabbath_ and the _Lord’s day_; meaning
by the former the Jewish Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week,
and by the latter the first day of the week, kept holy by Christians.
So Theodoret (_Fab. Haeret._ ii. 1), speaking of the Ebionites, says,
“They keep the _Sabbath_ according to the Jewish law, and sanctify the
_Lord’s day_ in like manner as we do” (Professor Stuart). The strong
probability is, that the name was given to this day in honour of the
Lord Jesus, and because he rose on that day from the dead. No one can
doubt that it was an appellation given to the first day of the week;
and the passage, therefore, proves (1) that that day was thus early
distinguished in some peculiar manner, so that the mere mention of it
would be sufficient to identify it in the minds of those to whom the
apostle wrote; (2) that it was in some sense regarded as devoted to
the Lord Jesus, or was designed in some way to commemorate what he had
done; and (3) that if this book were written by the apostle John, the
observance of that day has the apostolic sanction. He had manifestly,
in accordance with a prevailing custom, set apart this day in honour
of the Lord Jesus. Though alone, he was engaged on that day in acts
of devotion. Though far away from the sanctuary, he enjoyed what all
Christians _hope_ to enjoy on such a day of rest, and what not a few
_do_ in fact enjoy in its observance. We may remark, in view of this
statement, (a) that when away from the sanctuary, and deprived of its
privileges, we should nevertheless not fail to observe the Christian
Sabbath. If on a bed of sickness, if in a land of strangers, if on the
deep, if in a foreign clime, if on a lonely island, as John was, where
we have none of the advantages of public worship, we should yet honour
the Sabbath. We should worship God alone, if we have none to unite
with us; we should show to those around us, if we are with strangers,
by our dress and our conversation, by a serious and devout manner, by
abstinence from labour, {50} and by a resting from travel, that we
devoutly regard this day as set apart for God. (b) We may expect, in
such circumstances, and with such a devout observance of the day, that
God will meet with us and bless us. It was on a lonely island, far away
from the sanctuary and from the society of Christian friends, that the
Saviour met “the beloved disciple,” and we may trust it will be so with
us. For on such a desert island, in a lonely forest, on the deep, or
amid strangers in a foreign land, he can as easily meet us as in the
sanctuary where we have been accustomed to worship, and when surrounded
by all the privileges of a Christian land. No man, at home or abroad,
among friends or strangers, enjoying the privileges of the sanctuary,
or deprived of those privileges, ever kept the Christian Sabbath in
a devout manner without profit to his own soul; and, when deprived of
the privileges of public worship, the visitations of the Saviour to
the soul may be more than a compensation for all our privations. Who
would not be willing to be banished to a lonely island like Patmos,
if he might enjoy such a glorious vision of the Redeemer as John was
favoured with there? ¶ _And heard behind me a great voice._ A loud
voice. This was of course sudden, and took him by surprise. ¶ _As of
a trumpet._ Loud as a trumpet. This is evidently the only point in the
comparison. It does not mean that the tones of the voice resembled a
trumpet, but only that it was clear, loud, and distinct like a trumpet.
A trumpet is a well-known wind-instrument, distinguished for the
clearness of its sounds, and was used for calling assemblies together,
for marshalling hosts for battle, &c. The Hebrew word employed commonly
to denote a trumpet (שׁוֹפָר――_shophar_) means _bright_ and _clear_, and
is supposed to have been given to the instrument on account of its
clear and shrill sound, as we now give the name “clarion” to a certain
wind-instrument. The Hebrew trumpet is often referred to as employed,
on account of its clearness, to summon people together, Ex. xix. 13;
Nu. x. 10; Ju. vii. 18, &c.; 1 Sa. xiii. 3; 2 Sa. xv. 10.

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send _it_ unto the
seven churches which are in Asia; unto [76]Ephesus, and unto
[77]Smyrna, and unto [78]Pergamos, and unto [79]Thyatira,
and unto [80]Sardis, and unto [81]Philadelphia, and unto
[82]Laodicea.

11. _Saying._ That is, literally, “the trumpet saying.” It was,
however, manifestly the _voice_ that addressed these words to John,
though they _seemed_ to come through a trumpet, and hence the trumpet
is represented as uttering them. ¶ _I am Alpha and Omega._ Ver. 8.
¶ _The first and the last._ An explanation of the terms Alpha and Omega.
See Notes on ver. 8. ¶ _And, What thou seest._ The voice, in addition
to the declaration, “I am Alpha and Omega,” gave this direction that
he should record what he saw. The phrase, “what thou seest,” refers to
what would pass before him in vision, what he there saw, and what he
would see in the extraordinary manifestations which were to be made
to him. ¶ _Write in a book._ Make a fair record of it all; evidently
meaning that he should describe things as they occurred, and implying
that the vision would be held so long before the eye of his mind that
he would be able to transfer it to the “book.” The fair and obvious
interpretation of this is, that he was to make the record in the island
of Patmos, and then send it to the churches. Though Patmos was a lonely
and barren place, and though probably there were few or no inhabitants
there, yet there is no improbability in supposing that John could have
found writing materials there, nor even that he may have been permitted
to take such materials with him. He seems to have been banished for
_preaching_, not for _writing_; and there is no evidence that the
materials for writing would be withheld from him. John Bunyan, in
Bedford jail, found materials for writing the _Pilgrim’s Progress_,
and there is no evidence that the apostle John was denied the means
of recording his thoughts when in the island of Patmos. The word _book_
here (βιβλίον), would more properly mean _a roll_ or _scroll_, that
being the form in which books were anciently made. See Notes on Lu.
iv. 17. ¶ _And send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia._ {51}
The churches which are immediately designated, not implying that there
were no other churches in Asia, but that there were particular reasons
for sending it to these. He was to send _all_ that he should “see;”
to wit, all that is recorded in this volume or book of “Revelation.”
Part of this (ch. ii., iii.) would appertain particularly to them;
the remainder (ch. iv.‒xxii.) would appertain to them no more than to
others, but still they would have the common interest in it which all
the church would have, and, in their circumstances of trial, there
might be important reasons why _they_ should see the assurance that
the church would ultimately triumph over all its enemies. They were to
derive from it themselves the consolation which it was fitted to impart
in time of trial, and to transmit it to future times, for the welfare
of the church at large. ¶ _Unto Ephesus._ Perhaps mentioned first as
being the capital of that portion of Asia Minor; the most important
city of the seven; the place where John had preached, and whence he had
been banished. For a particular description of these seven churches,
see the Notes on the epistles addressed to them in ch. ii., iii.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being
turned, I saw [83]seven golden candlesticks;

12. _And I turned to see the voice that spake with me._ He naturally
turned round to see who it was that spake to him in this solitary and
desolate place, where he thought himself to be alone. To see _the
voice_ here means to see _the person_ who spake. ¶ _And being turned, I
saw seven golden candlesticks._ These were the _first_ things that met
his eye. This must have been in _vision_, of course, and the meaning
is, that there _seemed_ to be there seven such lamps or candelabras.
The word rendered _candlesticks_ (λυχνία) means properly a light-stand,
lamp-stand――something to bear up a light. It would be applied to
anything that was used for this purpose; and nothing is intimated,
in the use of the word, in regard to the form or dimensions of
the light-bearers. Lamps were more commonly used at that time than
candles, and it is rather to be supposed that these were designed to
be lamp-bearers, or lamp-sustainers, than _candlesticks_. They were
seven in number; not one branching into seven, but seven standing apart,
and so far from each other that he who appeared to John could stand
among them. The lamp-bearers evidently sustained each a light, and
these gave a peculiar brilliancy to the scene. It is not improbable
that, as they were designed to represent the seven churches of Asia,
they were arranged in an order resembling these churches. The scene
is not laid in the temple, as many suppose, for there is nothing that
resembles the arrangements in the temple except the mere fact of the
_lights_. The scene as yet is in Patmos, and there is no evidence that
John did not regard himself as there, or that he fancied for a moment
that he was translated to the temple in Jerusalem. There can be no
doubt as to the _design_ of this representation, for it is expressly
declared (ver. 20) that the seven lamp-bearers were intended to
represent the seven churches. Light is often used in the Scriptures as
an emblem of true religion; Christians are represented as “the light
of the world” (Mat. v. 14; comp. Phi. ii. 15; Jn. viii. 12), and a
Christian church may be represented as a light standing in the midst
of surrounding darkness.

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [84]_one_ like
unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot,
and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

13. _And in the midst of the seven candlesticks._ Standing among them,
so as to be encircled with them. This shows that the representation
could not have been like that of the vision of Zechariah (Zec. iv. 2),
where the prophet sees “a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon
the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon.” In the vision as it
appeared to John, there was not _one_ lamp-bearer, with seven lamps
or branches, but there were _seven_ lamp-bearers, so arranged that one
in the likeness of the Son of man could stand in the midst of them.
¶ _|One| like unto the Son of man._ This was evidently the Lord Jesus
Christ himself, elsewhere so often called “the Son of man.” That it was
the Saviour himself is apparent from ver. 18. The expression rendered
“like unto _the_ Son of man,” should have been “like unto {52} _a_ son
of man;” that is, like a man, a human being, or in a human form. The
reasons for so interpreting it are, (a) that the Greek is without the
article, and (b) that, as it is rendered in our version, it seems to
make the writer say that he was _like himself_, since the expression
“_the_ Son of man” is in the New Testament but another name for the
Lord Jesus. The phrase is often applied to him in the New Testament,
and always, except in three instances (Ac. vii. 56; Re. i. 13; xiv. 14),
by the Saviour himself, evidently to denote his warm interest _in_ man,
or his relationship to man; to signify that he was a man, and wished
to designate himself eminently as such. See Notes on Mat. viii. 20.
In the use of this phrase in the New Testament, there is probably an
allusion to Da. vii. 13. The idea would seem to be, that he whom he saw
resembled “the Son of man”――the Lord Jesus, as he had seen him in the
days of his flesh――though it would appear that he did not _know_ that
it was he until he was informed of it, ver. 18. Indeed, the costume in
which he appeared was so unlike that in which John had been accustomed
to see the Lord Jesus in the days of his flesh, that it cannot be well
supposed that he would at once recognize him as the same. ¶ _Clothed
with a garment down to the foot._ A robe reaching down to the feet,
or to the ankles, yet so as to leave the feet themselves visible. The
allusion here, doubtless, is to a long, loose, flowing robe, such as
was worn by kings. Comp. Notes on Is. vi. 1. ¶ _And girt about the
paps._ About the breast. It was common, and is still, in the East,
to wear a girdle to confine the robe, as well as to form a beautiful
ornament. This was commonly worn about the middle of the person, or
“the loins,” but it would seem also that it was sometimes worn around
the breast. See Notes on Mat. v. 38‒41. ¶ _With a golden girdle._
Either wholly made of gold, or, more probably, richly ornamented with
gold. This would naturally suggest the idea of one of rank, probably
one of princely rank. The raiment here assumed was not that of a
_priest_, but that of a _king_. It was very far from being that in
which the Redeemer appeared when he dwelt upon the earth, and was
rather designed to denote his royal state as he is exalted in heaven.
He is not indeed represented with a crown and sceptre here, and perhaps
the leading idea is that of one of exalted rank, of unusual dignity, of
one fitted to inspire awe and respect. In other circumstances, in this
book, this same Redeemer is represented as wearing a crown, and going
forth to conquest. See ch. xix. 12‒16. Here the representation seems to
have been designed to impress the mind with a sense of the greatness
and glory of the personage who thus suddenly made his appearance.

14 His head and _his_ hairs _were_ white like wool, as white
as snow; and [85]his eyes _were_ as a flame of fire;

14. _His head and |his| hairs |were| white like wool, as white as snow._
Exceedingly or perfectly white――the first suggestion to the mind of
the apostle being that of wool, and then the thought occurring of its
_extreme_ whiteness resembling snow――the purest white of which the
mind conceives. The comparison with wool and snow to denote anything
peculiarly _white_ is not uncommon. See Is. i. 18. Professor Stuart
supposes that this means, not that his hairs were literally white,
as if with age, which he says would be incongruous to one just risen
from the dead, clothed with immortal youth and vigour, but that it
means radiant, bright, resplendent――similar to what occurred on the
transfiguration of the Saviour, Mat. xvii. 2. But to this it may be
replied, (a) That this would not accord well with that with which
his hair is compared――_snow_ and _wool_, particularly the latter.
(b) The usual meaning of the word is more obvious here, and not at all
inappropriate. The representation was fitted to signify majesty and
authority; and this would be best accomplished by the image of one who
was venerable in years. Thus, in the vision that appeared to Daniel (ch.
vii. 9), it is said of him who is there called the “Ancient of Days,”
that “his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like
the pure wool.” It is not improbable that John had that representation
in his eye, and that therefore he would be impressed with the
conviction that this was a manifestation of a divine person. We are
not necessarily to suppose that this is the form in which the Saviour
always appears now in heaven, any more than we are to suppose that God
appears always in the form in which he was manifested {53} to Isaiah
(ch. vi. 1), to Daniel (ch. vii. 9), or to Moses and Aaron, Nadab and
Abihu in the mount, Ex. xxiv. 10, 11. The representation is, that this
form was assumed for the purpose of impressing the mind of the apostle
with a sense of his majesty and glory. ¶ _And his eyes |were| as a
flame of fire._ Bright, sharp, penetrating; as if everything was light
before them, or they would penetrate into the thoughts of men. Such
a representation is not uncommon. We speak of a lightning glance, a
fiery look, &c. In Da. x. 6, it is said of the man who appeared to
the prophet on the banks of the river Hiddekel, that his eyes were “as
lamps of fire.” Numerous instances of this comparison from the Greek
and Latin classics may be seen in Wetstein, _in loco_.

15 And [86]his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in
a furnace; and [87]his voice as the sound of many waters.

15. _And his feet like unto fine brass._ Comp. Da. x. 6, “And his
arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass.” See also Eze.
i. 7, “and they” [the feet of the living creatures] “sparkled like the
colour of burnished brass.” The word here used――χαλκολιβάνῳ――occurs in
the New Testament only here and in ch. ii. 18. It is not found in the
Septuagint. The word properly means _white brass_ (probably compounded
of χαλκός, _brass_, and λιβανός, _whiteness_, from the Hebrew לָבָן,
_white_). Others regard it as from χαλκός, _brass_, and λιπαρόν,
_clear_. The _metal_ referred to was undoubtedly a species of brass
distinguished for its clearness or whiteness. Brass is a compound metal,
composed of copper and zinc. The colour varies much according to the
different proportions of the various ingredients. The Vulgate here
renders the word _aurichalcum_, a mixture of gold and of brass――perhaps
the same as the ἤλεκτρον――the _electrum_ of the ancients, composed of
gold and of silver, usually in the proportion of four parts gold and
one part silver, and distinguished for its brilliancy. See Robinson,
_Lex._, and Wetstein, _in loco_. The kind of metal here referred to,
however, would seem to be some compound of brass――of a whitish and
brilliant colour. The exact proportion of the ingredients in the metal
here referred to cannot now be determined. ¶ _As if they burned in a
furnace._ That is, his feet were so bright that they seemed to be like
a beautiful metal glowing intensely in the midst of a furnace. Anyone
who has looked upon the dazzling and almost insupportable brilliancy
of metal in a furnace, can form an idea of the image here presented.
¶ _And his voice as the sound of many waters._ As the roar of the
ocean, or of a cataract. Nothing could be a more sublime description of
majesty and authority than to compare the voice of a speaker with the
roar of the ocean. This comparison often occurs in the Scriptures. See
Eze. xliii. 2, “And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from
the east: and his voice was like the sound of many waters: and the
earth shined with his glory.” So Re. xiv. 2; xix. 6. Comp. Eze. i. 24;
Da. x. 6.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his
mouth went [88]a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance
_was_ as [89]the sun shineth in his strength.

16. _And he had in his right hand seven stars._ Emblematic of the
angels of the seven churches. _How_ he held them is not said. It may be
that they seemed to rest on his open palm; or it may be that he seemed
to hold them as if they were arranged in a certain order, and with some
sort of attachment, so that they could be grasped. It is not improbable
that, as in the case of the seven lamp-bearers (Notes, ver. 13), they
were so arranged as to represent the relative position of the seven
churches. ¶ _And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword._ On
the form of the ancient two-edged sword, see Notes on Ep. vi. 17.
The two edges were designed to cut both ways; and such a sword is a
striking emblem of the penetrating power of _truth_, or of words that
proceed from the mouth; and this is designed undoubtedly to be the
representation here――that there was some symbol which showed that his
words, or his truth, had the power of cutting deep, or penetrating the
soul. So in Is. xlix. 2, it is said of the same personage, “And he hath
made my mouth like a sharp sword.” {54} See Notes on that verse. So in
He. iv. 12, “The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any
two-edged sword,” &c. So it is said of Pericles by Aristophanes:

“His powerful speech
Pierced the hearer’s soul, and left behind
Deep in his bosom its keen point infixt.”

A similar figure often occurs in Arabic poetry. “As arrows his
words enter into the heart.” See Gesenius, _Comm. zu_, Is. xlix. 2.
The only difficulty here is in regard to the apparently incongruous
representation of a _sword_ seeming to proceed from the mouth; but
it is not perhaps necessary to suppose that John means to say that he
_saw_ such an image. He heard him speak; he felt the penetrating power
of his words; and they were _as if_ a sharp sword proceeded from his
mouth. They penetrated deep into the soul, and as he looked on him it
seemed as if a sword came from his mouth. Perhaps it is not necessary
to suppose that there was even _any_ visible representation of
this――either of a sword or of the breath proceeding from his mouth
appearing to take this form, as Professor Stuart supposes. It may be
wholly a figurative representation, as Heinrichs and Ewald suppose.
Though there were visible and impressive symbols of his majesty and
glory presented to the eyes, it is not necessary to suppose that there
were visible symbols of his _words_. ¶ _And his countenance._ His face.
There had been before particular descriptions of some parts of his
face――as of his eyes――but this is a representation of his whole aspect;
of the general splendour and brightness of his countenance. ¶ _|Was| as
the sun shineth in his strength._ In his full splendour when unobscured
by clouds; where his rays are in no way intercepted. Comp. Ju. v. 31:
“But let them that love him [the Lord] be as the sun when he goeth
forth in his might;” 2 Sa. xxiii. 4, “And he shall be as the light of
the morning, when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds;” Ps.
xix. 5, “Which [the sun] is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.” There could be no more
striking description of the majesty and glory of the countenance than
to compare it with the over-powering splendour of the sun.――This closes
the description of the personage that appeared to John. The design was
evidently to impress him with a sense of his majesty and glory, and
to prepare the way for the authoritative nature of the communications
which he was to make. It is obvious that this appearance must have been
_assumed_. The representation is not that of the Redeemer as he rose
from the dead――a middle-aged man; nor is it clear that it was the same
as on the mount of transfiguration――where, for anything that appears,
he retained his usual aspect and form though temporarily invested with
extraordinary brilliancy; nor is it the form in which we may suppose
he ascended to heaven――for there is no evidence that he was thus
transformed when he ascended; nor is it that of a priest――for all the
peculiar habiliments of a Jewish priest are wanting in this description.
The appearance assumed is, evidently, in accordance with various
representations of God as he appeared to Ezekiel, to Isaiah, and to
Daniel――that which was a _suitable_ manifestation of a divine being――of
one clothed in the majesty and power of God. We are not to infer from
this, that this is in fact the appearance of the Redeemer now in heaven,
or that this is the form in which he will appear when he comes to
judge the world. Of his appearance in heaven we have no knowledge;
of the aspect which he will assume when he comes to judge men we have
no certain information. We are necessarily quite as ignorant of this
as we are of what will be _our own_ form and appearance after the
resurrection from the dead.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he
laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am
the first and the last:

17. _And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead._ As if I were
dead; deprived of sense and consciousness. He was overwhelmed with the
suddenness of the vision; he saw that this was a divine being; but he
did not as yet know that it was the Saviour. It is not probable that in
this vision he would immediately recognize any of the familiar features
of the Lord Jesus as he had been accustomed to see him some sixty
years before; and if he _did_, the effect would have been quite as
over-powering as is here described. But the subsequent revelations of
this divine {55} personage would rather seem to imply that John did
not at once recognize him as the Lord Jesus. The effect here described
is one that often occurred to those who had a vision of God. See Da.
viii. 18, “Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my
face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright;” ver. 27,
“And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterwards I rose up,
and did the king’s business.” Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 20; Is. vi. 5; Eze. i.
28; xliii. 3; Da. x. 7‒9, 17. ¶ _And he laid his right hand upon me._
For the purpose of raising him up. Comp. Da. viii. 18, “He touched me
and set me upright.” We usually stretch out the _right_ hand to raise
up one who has fallen. ¶ _Saying unto me, Fear not._ Comp. Mat. xiv. 27,
“It is I; be not afraid.” The fact that it was the Saviour, though
he appeared in this form of overpowering majesty, was a reason why
John should not be afraid. _Why_ that was a reason, he immediately
adds――that he was the first and the last; that though he had been dead
he was now alive, and would continue ever to live, and that he had
the keys of hell and of death. It is evident that John was overpowered
with that awful emotion which the human mind must feel at the evidence
of the presence of God. Thus men feel when God seems to come near
them by the impressive symbols of his majesty――as in the thunder,
the earthquake, and the tempest. Comp. Hab. iii. 16; Lu. ix. 34.
Yet, amidst the most awful manifestations of divine power, the simple
assurance that our Redeemer is near us is enough to allay our fears,
and diffuse calmness through the soul. ¶ _I am the first and the last._
Notes, ver. 8. This is stated to be one of the reasons why he should
not fear――that he was _eternal_: “I always live――have lived through
all the past, and will live through all which is to come――and therefore
I can accomplish all my promises, and execute all my purposes.”

18 _I am_ [90]he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am
alive for evermore, Amen; and have [91]the keys of hell and of
death.

18. _|I am| he that liveth, and was dead._ I was indeed once dead, but
now I live, and shall continue to live for ever. This would at once
identify him who thus appeared as the Lord Jesus Christ, for to no one
else could this apply. He had been put to death; but he had risen from
the grave. This also is given as a reason why John should not fear;
and nothing would allay his fears more than this. He now saw that
he was in the presence of that Saviour whom more than half a century
before he had so tenderly loved when in the flesh, and whom, though
now long absent, he had faithfully served, and for whose cause he was
now in this lonely island. His faith in his resurrection had not been a
delusion; he saw the very Redeemer before him who had once been laid in
the tomb. ¶ _Behold, I am alive for evermore._ I am to live for ever.
Death is no more to cut me down, and I am never again to slumber in the
grave. As he was always to live, he could accomplish all his promises,
and fulfil all his purposes. The Saviour is never to die again. He
can, therefore, always sustain us in our troubles; he can be with us
in our death. Whoever of our friends die, he will not die; when we
die, he will still be on the throne. ¶ _Amen._ A word here of strong
affirmation――as if he had said, it is _truly_, or _certainly so_. See
Notes on ver. 7. This expression is one that the Saviour often used
when he wished to give emphasis, or to express anything strongly. Comp.
Jn. iii. 3; v. 25. ¶ _And have the keys of hell and of death._ The word
rendered _hell_――ᾅδης, _hades_――refers properly to the underworld; the
abode of departed spirits; the region of the dead. This was represented
as dull and gloomy; as inclosed with walls; as entered through gates
which were fastened with bolts and bars. For a description of the views
which prevailed among the ancients on the subject, see Notes on Lu. xvi.
23, and Job x. 21, 22. To hold the _key_ of this, was to hold the power
over the invisible world. It was the more appropriate that the Saviour
should represent himself as having this authority, as he had himself
been raised from the dead by his own power (comp. Jn. x. 18), thus
showing that the dominion over this dark world was intrusted to him.
¶ _And of death._ A personification. Death reigns in that world. But to
his wide-extended realms the Saviour holds the key, and can have access
to his empire when he pleases, releasing all whom he chooses, and
confining there still {56} such as he shall please. It is probably in
part from such hints as these that Milton drew his sublime description
of the gates of hell in the _Paradise Lost_. As Christ always lives;
as he always retains this power over the regions of the dead, and
the whole world of spirits, it may be further remarked that _we_ have
nothing to dread if we put our trust in him. We need not fear to enter
a world which he has entered, and from which he has emerged, achieving
a glorious triumph; we need not fear what the dread king that reigns
there can do to us, for his power extends not beyond the permission of
the Saviour, and in his own time that Saviour will call us forth to
life, to die no more.

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which
are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

19. _Write the things which thou hast seen._ An account of the vision
which thou hast had, ver. 10‒18. ¶ _And the things which are._ Give an
account of those things which thou hast seen as designed to represent
the condition of the seven churches. He had seen not only the Saviour,
but he had seen seven lamp-stands, and seven stars in the hand of the
Saviour, and he is now commanded to record the meaning of these symbols
as referring to things then actually existing in the seven churches.
This interpretation is demanded by ver. 20. ¶ _And the things which
shall be hereafter._ The Greek phrase rendered _hereafter_――μετὰ
ταῦτα――means “_after these things_;” that is, he was to make a correct
representation of the things which then were, and then to record what
would occur “_after_ these things:” to wit, of the images, symbols, and
truths, which would be disclosed to him after what he had already seen.
The expression refers to future times. He does not say for _how long_
a time; but the revelations which were to be made referred to events
which were to occur beyond those which were then taking place. Nothing
can be argued from the use of this language in regard to the length
of time embraced in the revelation――whether it extended only for a
few years or whether it embraced all coming time. The more natural
interpretation, however, would seem to be, that it would stretch
far into future years, and that it was designed to give at least _an
outline_ of what would be the character of the future in general.

20 The mystery of [92]the seven stars which thou sawest in
my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven
stars are the angels of the seven churches: and [93]the seven
candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches.

20. _The mystery of the seven stars._ On the word _mystery_, see Notes
on Ep. i. 9. The word means, properly, that which is hidden, obscure,
unknown――until it is disclosed by one having the ability to do it,
or by the course of events. _When_ disclosed, it may be as clear, and
as capable of comprehension, as any other truth. The meaning here, as
applied to the seven stars, is, that they were symbols, and that their
meaning as symbols, without a suitable explanation, would remain hidden
or unknown. They were designed to represent important truths, and John
was directed to write down what they were intended in the circumstances
to signify, and to send the explanation to the churches. It is
evidently implied that the meaning of these symbols would be beyond
the ordinary powers of the human mind to arrive at with certainty, and
hence John was directed to explain the symbol. The general and obvious
truths which they would serve to convey would be that the ministers of
the churches, and the churches themselves, were designed to be lights
in the world, and should burn clearly and steadily. Much important
truth would be couched under these symbols, indeed, if nothing had been
added in regard to their signification as employed here by the Saviour;
but there were particular truths of great importance in reference to
each of these “stars” and “lamp-bearers,” which John was more fully to
explain. ¶ _Which thou sawest in my right hand._ Gr., “_upon_ my right
hand”――ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς μου: giving some support to the opinion that the
stars, as they were seen, appeared to be placed _on_ his hand――that is,
on the _palm_ of his hand as he stretched it out. The expression in
ver. 16 is, that they were “_in_ (ἐν) his right hand;” but the language
here used is not decisive as to the position of the stars. They _may_
have been held in some way _by_ the hand, or {57} represented as
scattered on the open hand. ¶ _The seven golden candlesticks._ The
truth which these emblematic representations are designed to convey.
¶ _The seven stars are._ That is, they represent, or they denote――in
accordance with a common usage in the Scriptures. See Notes on Mat.
xxvi. 26. ¶ _The angels of the seven churches._ Gr., “Angels of the
seven churches:” the article being wanting. This does not refer to
them as a collective or associated body, for the addresses are made to
them as individuals――an epistle being directed to “the angel” of each
particular church, ch. ii. 1, 12, &c. The evident meaning, however, is,
that what was recorded should be directed to them, not as pertaining to
them exclusively as individuals, but as presiding over or representing
the churches, for what is recorded pertains _to_ the churches, and was
evidently designed to be laid before them. It was _for_ the churches,
but was committed to the “angel” as representing the church, and to
be communicated to the church under his care. There has been much
diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of the word _angels_ here.
By the advocates of Episcopacy, it has been argued that the use of this
term proves that there was a presiding bishop over a circle or group
of churches in Ephesus, in Smyrna, &c., since it is said that it cannot
be supposed that there was but a single church in a city so large as
Ephesus, or in the other cities mentioned. A full examination of this
argument may be seen in my work on the _Apostolic Church_ [pp. 191‒199,
London ed.]. The word _angel_ properly means a messenger, and is thus
applied to celestial beings _as_ messengers sent forth from God to
convey or to do his will. This being the common meaning of the word,
it may be employed to denote anyone who is a messenger, and hence, with
propriety, anyone who is employed to communicate the will of another;
to transact his business, or, more remotely, to act in his place――to be
a representative. In order to ascertain the meaning of the word as used
in this place, and in reference to these churches, it may be remarked,
(1) That it cannot mean literally an _angel_, as referring to a
heavenly being, for no one can suppose that such a being presided over
these churches. (2) It cannot be shown to mean, as Lord (_in loco_)
supposes, messengers that the churches had sent to John, and that these
letters were given to them to be returned by them to the churches;
for, (a) there is no evidence that any such messenger had been sent to
John; (b) there is no probability that while he was a banished exile
in Patmos such a thing would be permitted; (c) the message was not
sent _by_ them, it was sent _to_ them――“_Unto_ the angel of the church
in Ephesus _write_,” &c. (3) It cannot be proved that the reference is
to a prelatical bishop presiding over a group or circle of churches,
called a _diocese_; for, (a) There is nothing in the word _angel_, as
used in this connection, which would be peculiarly applicable to such
a personage――it being _as_ applicable to a pastor of a single church,
as to a bishop of many churches. (b) There is no evidence that there
_were_ any such groups of churches then as constitute an episcopal
diocese. (c) The use of the word “_church_” in the singular, as applied
to Ephesus, Smyrna, &c., rather implies that there was but a single
church in each of those cities. Comp. ch. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; see also
similar language in regard to the _church_ in Corinth, 1 Co. i. 2; in
Antioch, Ac. xiii. 1; at Laodicea, Col. iv. 16; and at Ephesus, Ac.
xx. 28. (d) There is no evidence, as Episcopalians must suppose, that
a successor to John had been appointed at Ephesus, if, as they suppose,
he was “bishop” of Ephesus; and there is no probability that they would
_so soon_ after his banishment show him such a want of respect as to
regard the see as vacant, and appoint a successor. (e) There is no
improbability in supposing that there was a _single_ church in each
of these cities――as at Antioch, Corinth, Rome. (f) If John was a
prelatical “bishop,” it is probable that he was “bishop” of the whole
group of churches embracing the seven: yet here, if the word “angel”
means “bishop,” we have no less than seven such bishops immediately
appointed to succeed him. And (g) the supposition that this refers to
prelatical bishops is so forced and unnatural that many Episcopalians
are compelled to abandon it. Thus Stillingfleet――than whom an abler man,
or one whose praise is higher in Episcopal churches, as an advocate
of prelacy, is not to be found――says of these angels: “If many things
in the epistles be directed to the angels, but yet so as to concern
the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel must be taken as a
_representative_ of the whole body; and then {58} why may not the angel
be taken by way of representation of the body itself, either of the
whole church, or, _which is far more probable_, of the _concessors_,
or order of _presbyters_ in this church?” (4) If the word does not mean
literally an angel; if it does not refer to messengers sent to John in
Patmos by the churches; and if it does not refer to a prelatical bishop,
then it follows that it must refer to some one who presided over the
church as its pastor, and through whom a message might be properly
sent to the church. Thus understood, the pastor or “angel” would be
regarded as the representative of the church; that is, as delegated by
the church to manage its affairs, and as the authorized person to whom
communications should be made in matters pertaining to it――as pastors
are now. A few considerations will further confirm this interpretation,
and throw additional light on the meaning of the word. (a) The word
_angel_ is employed in the Old Testament to denote a _prophet_; that is,
a minister of religion as sent by God to communicate his will. Thus in
Haggai (i. 13) it is said, “Then spake Haggai, the Lord’s _messenger_
[Heb. _angel_, מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה――Sept. ἄγγελος κυρίου], in the Lord’s message
unto the people,” &c. (b) It is applied to a _priest_, as one sent by
God to execute the functions of that office, or to act in the name of
the Lord. Mal. ii. 7, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge,
for he is the _messenger of the Lord of hosts_”――מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת――that is,
“_angel_ of the Lord of hosts.” (c) The name _prophet_ is often given
in the New Testament to the ministers of religion, as being appointed
by God to proclaim or communicate his will to his people, and as
occupying a place resembling, in some respects, that of the prophets
in the Old Testament. (d) There was no reason why the word might not be
thus employed to designate a pastor of a Christian church, as well as
to designate a prophet or a priest under the Old Testament dispensation.
(e) The supposition that a pastor of a church is intended will meet
all the circumstances of the case: for, (1) it is an appropriate
appellation; (2) there is no reason to suppose that there was more than
one church in each of the cities referred to; (3) it is a term which
would designate the respect in which the office was held; (4) it would
impress upon those to whom it was applied a solemn sense of their
responsibility. Further, it would be more _appropriately_ applied to
a pastor of a single church than to a prelatical bishop; to the tender,
intimate, and endearing relation sustained by a pastor to his people,
to the blending of sympathy, interest, and affection, where he is with
them continually, meets them frequently in the sanctuary, administers
to them the bread of life, goes into their abodes when they are
afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave, than to the
union subsisting between the people of an extended _diocese_ and a
_prelate_――the formal, unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately
and pompous visitations of a diocesan bishop――to the unsympathizing
relation between him and a people scattered in many churches, who
are visited at distant intervals by one claiming a “superiority in
ministerial rights and powers,” and who must be a stranger to the
ten thousand ties of endearment which bind the hearts of a pastor and
people together. The conclusion, then, to which we have come is, that
the “angel of the church” was the pastor, or the presiding presbyter
in the church; the minister who had the pastoral charge of it, and who
was therefore a proper representative of it. He was a man who, in some
respects, performed the functions which the angels of God do; that is,
who was appointed to execute his will, to communicate his message, and
to convey important intimations of his purposes to his people. To no
one could the communications in this book, intended for the churches,
be more properly intrusted than to such an one; for to no one now would
a communication be more properly intrusted than to a pastor.

Such is the sublime vision under which this book opens; such the solemn
commission which the penman of the book received. No more appropriate
introduction to what is contained in the book could be imagined; no
more appropriate circumstances for making such a sublime revelation
could have existed. To the most beloved of the apostles, now the only
surviving one of the number; to him who had been a faithful labourer
for a period not far from sixty years after the death of the Lord Jesus,
who had been the bosom friend of the Saviour when in the flesh, who had
seen him in the mount of transfiguration, who had seen him die, and who
had seen him ascend into heaven; to him {59} who had lived while the
church was founded, and while it had spread into all lands; and to him
who was now suffering persecution on account of the Saviour and his
cause, it was appropriate that such communications should be made.
In a lonely island; far away from the abodes of men; surrounded by the
ocean, and amid barren rocks; on the day consecrated to the purposes
of sacred repose and the holy duties of religion――the day observed in
commemoration of the resurrection of his Lord, it was most fit that the
Redeemer should appear to the “beloved disciple” in the last Revelation
which he was ever to make to mankind. No more appropriate time or
circumstance could be conceived for disclosing, by a series of sublime
visions, what would occur in future times; for sketching out the
history of the church or the consummation of all things.

CHAPTER II.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter comprises four of the seven epistles addressed to the
seven churches; those addressed to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and
Thyatira. A particular view of the contents of the epistles will be
more appropriate as they come separately to be considered, than in this
place. There are some general remarks in regard to their structure,
however, which may be properly made here.

(1) They all begin with a reference to some of the attributes of the
Saviour, in general some attribute that had been noted in the first
chapter; and while they are all adapted to make a deep impression on
the mind, perhaps each one was selected in such a way as to have a
special propriety in reference to each particular church. Thus in the
address to the church at Ephesus (ch. ii. 1), the allusion is to the
fact that he who speaks to them “holds the seven stars in his right
hand, and walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;” in the
epistle to the church at Smyrna (ch. ii. 8), it is he who “is the first
and the last, who was dead and is alive;” in the epistle to the church
at Pergamos (ch. ii. 12), it is he “which hath the sharp sword with the
two edges;” in the epistle to the church at Thyatira (ch. ii. 18), it
is “the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and
his feet like fine brass;” in the epistle to the church at Sardis (ch.
iii. 1), it is he who “hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven
stars;” in the epistle to the church at Philadelphia (ch. iii. 7), it
is “he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David,
he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth;”
in the epistle to the church at Laodicea (ch. iii. 14), it is he who is
the “Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation
of God.”

(2) These introductions are followed with the formula, “I know
thy works.” The peculiar characteristics, then, of each church
are referred to, with a sentiment of approbation or disapprobation
expressed in regard to their conduct. Of two of the churches, that at
Smyrna (ii. 9), and that at Philadelphia (iii. 10), he expresses his
entire approbation; to the churches of Sardis (iii. 3), and Laodicea
(iii. 15‒18), he administers a decided rebuke; to the churches of
Ephesus (ii. 3‒6), Pergamos (ii. 13‒16), and Thyatira (iii. 19, 20,
24, 25), he intermingles praise and rebuke, for he saw much to commend,
but, at the same time, not a little that was reprehensible. In all
cases, however, the approbation precedes the blame; showing that he was
more disposed to find that which was good than that which was evil.

(3) After the statement of their characteristics, there follows in
each case counsel, advice, admonition, or promises, such as their
circumstances demanded――encouragement in trial, and injunctions to put
away their sins. The admonitions are addressed to the churches as if
Christ were at hand, and would ere long come and sit in judgment on
them and their deeds.

(4) There is a solemn admonition to hear what the Spirit has to say to
the churches. This is in each case expressed in the same manner, “He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”
(ch. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6, 13, 22). These admonitions were
designed to call the attention of the churches to these things, and,
at the same time, they seemed designed to show that they were not
intended for them alone. They are addressed to anyone who “has an ear,”
and therefore had some principles of general application to others,
and to which all should attend who were disposed to learn the will of
the Redeemer. What was addressed to one church, at any time, would be
equally applicable to all {60} churches in the same circumstances; what
was adapted to rebuke, elevate, or comfort Christians in any one age or
land, would be adapted to be useful to Christians of all ages and lands.

(5) There then is, either following or preceding that call on all the
churches to hear, some promise or assurance designed to encourage the
church, and urge it forward in the discharge of duty, or in enduring
trial. This is found in each one of the epistles, though not always in
the same relative position.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT EPHESUS.

The contents of the epistle to the church at Ephesus――the first
addressed――are these: (1) The attribute of the Saviour referred to is,
that he “holds the stars in his right hand, and walks in the midst of
the golden candlesticks,” ch. ii. 1. (2) He commends them for their
patience, and for their opposition to those who are evil, and for their
zeal and fidelity in carefully examining into the character of some
who claimed to be apostles, but who were, in fact, impostors; for their
perseverance in bearing up under trial, and not fainting in his cause,
and for their opposition to the Nicolaitanes, whom, he says, he hates,
ver. 2, 3, 6. (3) He reproves them for having left their first love to
him, ver. 4. (4) He admonishes them to remember whence they had fallen,
to repent, and to do their first works, ver. 5. (5) He threatens them
that, if they do not repent, he will come and remove the candlestick
out of its place, ver. 5; and (6) he assures them, and all others,
that whosoever overcomes, he will “give him to eat of the tree of life,
which is in the midst of the paradise of God,” ver. 7.

CHAPTER II.

UNTO the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things
saith [94]he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand,
who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

1. _Unto the angel._ The minister; the presiding presbyter; the
bishop――in the primitive sense of the word bishop――denoting one who
had the spiritual charge of a congregation. See Notes on ch. i. 20.
¶ _Of the church._ Not of the _churches_ of Ephesus, but of the _one
church_ of that city. There is no evidence that the word is used in
a collective sense to denote a group of churches, like a diocese; nor
is there any evidence that there _was_ such a group of churches in
Ephesus, or that there was more than one church in that city. It is
probable that all who were Christians there were regarded as members
of one church――though for convenience they may have met for worship
in different places. Thus there was one church in Corinth (1 Co. i. 1);
one church in Thessalonica (1 Th. i. 1), &c. ¶ _Of Ephesus._ On the
situation of Ephesus, see Notes on Ac. xviii. 19, and the Intro. to the
Notes on the Epistle to the Ephesians, § 1, and the engraving there. It
was the capital of Ionia; was one of the twelve Ionian cities of Asia
Minor in the Mythic times, and was _said_ to have been founded by the
Amazons. It was situated on the river Cayster, not far from the Icarian
Sea, between Smyrna and Miletus. It was one of the most considerable
cities of Asia Minor, and while, about the epoch when Christianity was
introduced, other cities declined, Ephesus rose more and more. It owed
its prosperity, in part, to the favour of its governors; for Lysimachus
named the city Arsinöe, in honour of his second wife, and Attalus
Philadelphus furnished it with splendid wharves and docks. Under the
Romans it was the capital not only of Ionia, but of the entire province
of Asia, and bore the honourable title of _the first and greatest
metropolis of Asia_. John is supposed to have resided in this city, and
to have preached the gospel there for many years; and on this account,
perhaps, it was, as well as on account of the relative importance of
the city, that the first epistle of the seven was addressed to that
church. On the present condition of the ruins of Ephesus, see Notes
on ver. 5. We have no means whatever of ascertaining the size of the
church when John wrote the book of Revelation. From the fact, however,
that Paul, as is supposed (see Intro. to the Epistle to the Ephesians,
§ 2), laboured there for about three years; that there was a body of
“elders” who presided over the church there (Ac. xx. 17); and that the
apostle John seems to have spent a considerable part of his life there
in preaching the gospel, it may be presumed that there was a large and
flourishing church in that city. The epistle before us shows also that
it was characterized {61} by distinguished piety. ¶ _These things saith
he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand._ See Notes on ch. i.
16. The object here seems to be to turn the attention of the church in
Ephesus to some attribute of the Saviour which deserved their special
regard, or which constituted a special reason for attending to what
he said. To do this, the attention is directed, in this case, to the
fact that he held the seven stars――emblematic of the ministers of
the churches――in his hand, and that he walked in the midst of the
lamp-bearers――representing the churches themselves; intimating that
they were dependent on him, that he had power to continue or remove the
ministry, and that it was by his presence only that those lamp-bearers
would continue to give light. The absolute control over the ministry,
and the fact that he walked amidst the churches, and that his presence
was necessary to their perpetuity and their welfare, seem to be the
principal ideas implied in this representation. These truths he would
impress on their minds, in order that they might feel how easy it would
be for him to punish any disobedience, and in order that they might
do what was necessary to secure his continual presence among them.
These views seem to be sanctioned by the character of the punishment
threatened (ver. 5), “that he would remove the candlestick representing
_their_ church out of its place.” See Notes on ver. 5. ¶ _Who walketh
in the midst_, &c. In ch. i. 13 he is represented simply as _being
seen_ amidst the golden candlesticks. See Notes on that place. Here
there is the additional idea of his “_walking_” in the midst of them,
implying perhaps constant and vigilant supervision. He went from one
to another, as one who inspects and surveys what is under his care;
perhaps also with the idea that he went among them as a friend to bless
them.

2 I[95] know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and
how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and [96]thou hast
tried them which say they are apostles, [97]and are not, and
hast found them liars:

2. _I know thy works._ The common formula with which all the epistles
to the seven churches are introduced. It is designed to impress upon
them deeply the conviction that he was intimately acquainted with
all that they did, good and bad, and that therefore he was abundantly
qualified to dispense rewards or administer punishments according
to truth and justice. It may be observed that, as many of the things
referred to in these epistles were things pertaining to the heart――the
feelings, the state of the mind――it is implied that he who speaks here
has an intimate acquaintance with the heart of man, a prerogative which
is always attributed to the Saviour. See Jn. ii. 25. But no one can
do this who is not divine; and this declaration, therefore, furnishes
a strong proof of the divinity of Christ. See Ps. vii. 9; Je. xi. 20;
xvii. 10; 1 Sa. xvi. 7; 1 Ki. viii. 39. ¶ _And thy labour._ The word
here used (κόπος) means properly a _beating_, hence wailing, grief,
with beating the breast; and then it means excessive labour or toil
adapted to produce grief or sadness, and is commonly employed in the
New Testament in the latter sense. It is used in the sense of _trouble_
in Mat. xxvi. 10, “Why _trouble_ ye [literally, why give ye _trouble_
to] the woman?” (comp. also Mar. xiv. 6; Lu. xi. 7; xviii. 5; Ga. vi.
17); and in the sense of _labour_, or wearisome toil, in Jn. iv. 38;
1 Co. iii. 8; xv. 58; 2 Co. vi. 5; x. 15; xi. 23, 27, _et al._ The
connection here would admit of either sense. It is commonly understood,
as in our translation, in the sense of _labour_, though it would
seem that the other signification, that of _trouble_, would not be
inappropriate. If it means _labour_, it refers to their faithful
service in his cause, and especially in opposing error. It seems to
me, however, that the word _trouble_ would better suit the connection.
¶ _And thy patience._ Under these trials; to wit, in relation to the
efforts which had been made by the advocates of error to corrupt them,
and to turn them away from the truth. They had patiently borne the
opposition made to the truth, they had manifested a spirit of firm
endurance amidst many arts of those opposed to them to draw them
off from simple faith in Christ. ¶ _And how thou canst not bear them
which are evil._ Canst not _endure_ or _tolerate_ them. Comp. Notes
on 2 Jn. 10, 11. That is, they had no sympathy with their doctrines
or their practices, they were utterly opposed to them. They had lent
them no countenance, but had in every way shown that they {62} had no
fellowship with them. The evil persons here referred to were, doubtless,
those mentioned in this verse as claiming that “they were apostles,”
and those mentioned in ver. 6 as the Nicolaitanes. ¶ _And thou hast
tried them which say they are apostles._ Thou hast thoroughly examined
their claims. It is not said in what way they had done this, but it was
probably by considering attentively and candidly the evidence on which
they relied, whatever that may have been. Nor is it certainly known who
these persons were, or on what grounds they advanced their pretensions
to the apostolic office. It cannot be supposed that they claimed to
have been of the number of apostles selected by the Saviour, for that
would have been too absurd; and the only solution would seem to be
that they claimed either (1) that they had been called to that office
after the Saviour ascended, as Paul was; or (2) that they claimed the
honour due to this name or office, in virtue of some election to it;
or (3) that they claimed to be the _successors_ of the apostles, and to
possess and transmit their authority. If the first of these, it would
seem that the only ground of claim would be that they had been called
in some miraculous way to the rank of apostles, and, of course, an
examination of their claims would be an examination of the alleged
miraculous call, and of the evidence on which they would rely that
they had such a call. If the second, then the claim must have been
founded on some such plea as that the apostolic office was designed to
be elective, as in the case of Matthias (Ac. i. 23‒26), and that they
maintained that this arrangement was to be continued in the church; and
then an examination of their claims would involve an investigation of
the question, whether it was contemplated that the apostolic office
was designed to be perpetuated in that manner, or whether the election
of Matthias was only a temporary arrangement, designed to answer a
particular purpose. If the third, then the claim must have been founded
on the plea that the apostolic office was designed to be perpetuated
by a regular succession, and that they, by ordination, were in a line
of that succession; and then the examination and refutation of the
claim must have consisted in showing, from the nature of the office,
and the necessary qualifications for the office of apostle, that it
was designed to be temporary, and that there could be properly no
successors of the apostles, as such. On either of these suppositions,
such a line of argument would be fatal to all claims to any succession
in the apostolic office now. If each of these points should fail, of
course their claims to the rank of apostles would cease; just as all
claims to the dignity and rank of the apostles must fail now. The
passage becomes thus a strong argument against the claims of _any_
persons to be “apostles,” or to be the “successors” of the apostles,
in the peculiarity of their office. ¶ _And are not._ There were never
any _apostles_ of Jesus Christ but the original twelve whom he chose,
Matthias, who was chosen in the place of Judas (Ac. i. 26), and Paul,
who was specially called to the office by the Saviour after his
resurrection. On this point, see my work on the _Apostolic Church_
[pp. 49‒57, London ed.]. ¶ _And hast found them liars._ Hast discovered
their pretensions to be unfounded and false. In 2 Co. xi. 13, “false
apostles” are mentioned; and, in an office of so much honour as this,
it is probable that there would be not a few claimants to it in the
world. To set up a claim to what they _knew_ they were not entitled to
would be a falsehood, and as this seems to have been the character of
these men, the Saviour, in the passage before us, does not hesitate to
designate them by an appropriate term, and to call them _liars_. The
point here commended in the Ephesian church is, that they had sought to
have a _pure ministry_, a ministry whose claims were well founded. They
had felt the importance of this, had carefully examined the claims of
pretenders, and had refused to recognize those who could not show, in a
proper manner, that they had been designated to their work by the Lord
Jesus. The same zeal, in the same cause, would be commended by the
Saviour now.

3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake
hast laboured, and [98]hast not fainted.

3. _And hast borne._ Hast borne up under trials; or hast borne with
the evils with which you have been assailed. That is, you have not
given way to murmuring or complaints in trial, you have not abandoned
the principles of truth and yielded to the prevalence of error. ¶ _And
hast patience._ That is, {63} in this connection, hast shown that thou
canst bear up under these things with patience. This is a repetition of
what is said in ver. 2, but in a somewhat different connection. There
it rather refers to the trouble which they had experienced on account
of the pretensions of false apostles, and the patient, persevering,
and enduring spirit which they had shown in that form of trial; here
the expression is more general, denoting a patient spirit in regard
to _all_ forms of trial. ¶ _And for my name’s sake hast laboured._ On
account of me, and in my cause. That is, the _labour_ here referred to,
whatever it was, was to advance the cause of the Redeemer. In the word
rendered “_hast laboured_” (κεκοπίακας) there is a reference to the
word used in the previous verse――“thy labour” (κόπον σου); and the
design is to show that the “labour,” or trouble there referred to, was
on account of him. ¶ _And hast not fainted._ Hast not become exhausted,
or wearied out, so as to give over. The word here used (κάμνω) occurs
in only three places in the New Testament: “Lest ye be _wearied_, and
faint,” He. xii. 3; “The prayer of faith shall save the _sick_,” Ja. v.
15; and in the passage before us. It means properly to become weary and
faint from toil, &c.; and the idea here is, that they had not become
so wearied out as to give over from exhaustion. The sense of the whole
passage is thus rendered by Professor Stuart:――“Thou canst not bear
with false teachers, but thou canst bear with troubles and perplexities
on account of me; thou hast undergone wearisome toil, but thou art not
wearied out thereby.” The state of mind, considered as the state of
mind appropriate to a Christian, here represented, is, that we should
not tolerate error and sin, but that we should bear up under the trials
which they may incidentally occasion us; that we should have such
a repugnance to evil that we cannot endure it, as evil, but that we
should have such love to the Saviour and his cause as to be willing to
bear anything, even in relation to that, or springing from that, that
we may be called to suffer _in_ that cause; that while we may be weary
_in_ his work, for our bodily strength may become exhausted (comp. Mat.
xxvi. 41), we should not be weary _of_ it; and that though we may have
many perplexities, and may meet with much opposition, yet we should not
relax our zeal, but should persevere with an ardour that never faints,
until our Saviour calls us to our reward.

4 Nevertheless I have _somewhat_ against thee, because thou
hast left thy first love.

4. _Nevertheless I have |somewhat| against thee._ Notwithstanding
this general commendation, there are things which I cannot approve.
¶ _Because thou hast left thy first love._ Thou hast _remitted_
(ἀφῆκας) or let down thy early love; that is, it is less glowing and
ardent than it was at first. The love here referred to is evidently
love to the Saviour; and the idea is, that, as a church, they had less
of this than formerly characterized them. In this respect they were in
a state of declension; and, though they still maintained the doctrines
of his religion, and opposed the advocates of error, they showed less
ardour of affection towards him directly than they had formerly done.
In regard to this we may remark, (1) That what is here stated of the
church at Ephesus is not uncommon, (a) Individual Christians often lose
much of their first love. It is true, indeed, that there is often an
_appearance_ of this which does not exist in reality. Not a little of
the ardour of young converts is often nothing more than the excitement
of animal feeling, which will soon die away of course, though their
_real_ love may not be diminished, or may be constantly growing
stronger. When a son returns home after a long absence, and meets his
parents and brothers and sisters, there is a glow, a warmth of feeling,
a joyousness of emotion, which cannot be expected to continue always,
and which he may never be able to recall again, though he may be
ever growing in _real_ attachment to his friends and to his home.
(b) Churches remit the ardour of their first love. They are often
formed under the reviving influences of the Holy Spirit when many are
converted, and are warm-hearted and zealous young converts. Or they are
formed from other churches that have become cold and dead, from which
the new organization, embodying the life of the church, was constrained
to separate. Or they are formed under the influence of some strong and
mighty truth that has taken possession of the mind, and that gives a
peculiar character to the church {64} at first. Or they are formed with
a distinct reference to promoting some one great object in the cause
of the Redeemer. So the early Christian churches were formed. So the
church in Germany, France, Switzerland, and England came out from the
Roman communion under the influence of the doctrine of justification
by faith. So the Nestorians in former ages, and the Moravians in modern
times, were characterized by warm zeal in the cause of missions. So
the Puritans came out from the established church of England at one
time, and the Methodists at another, warmed with a holier love to the
cause of evangelical religion than existed in the body from which they
separated. So many a church is formed now amidst the exciting scenes
of a revival of religion, and in the early days of its history puts to
shame the older and the slumbering churches around them. But it need
scarcely be said that this early zeal may die away, and that the church,
once so full of life and love, may become as cold as those that went
before it, or as those from which it separated, and that there may be
a necessity for the formation of new organizations that shall be fired
with ardour and zeal. One has only to look at Germany, at Switzerland,
at various portions of the reformed churches elsewhere; at the
Nestorians, whose zeal for missions long since departed; or even at
the Moravians, among whom it has so much declined; at various portions
of the Puritan churches, and at many an individual church formed under
the warm and exciting feelings of a revival of religion, to see that
what occurred at Ephesus may occur elsewhere. (2) The same thing that
occurred there may be expected to follow in all similar cases. The
Saviour governs the church always on essentially the same principles;
and it is no uncommon thing that, when a church has lost the ardour
of its first love, it is suffered more and more to decline, until
“the candlestick is removed”――until either the church becomes wholly
extinct, or until vital piety is wholly gone, and all that remains is
the religion of forms.

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen; and repent,
and [99]do the first works; or else I will come unto thee
quickly, and will [100]remove thy candlestick out of his place,
except thou repent.

5. _Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen._ The eminence which
you once occupied. Call to remembrance the state in which you once were.
The duty here enjoined is, when religion has declined in our hearts, or
in the church, to call to distinct recollection the former state――the
ardour, the zeal, the warmth of love which once characterized us. The
_reason_ for this is, that such a recalling of the former state will
be likely to produce a happy influence on the heart. Nothing is better
adapted to affect a backsliding Christian, or a backsliding church,
than to call to distinct recollection the former condition――the happier
days of piety. The joy then experienced, the good done, the honour
reflected on the cause of religion, the peace of mind of that period,
will contrast strongly with the present, and nothing will be better
fitted to recall an erring church, or an erring individual, from their
wanderings than such a reminiscence of the past. The _advantages_ of
thus “remembering” their former condition would be many; for some of
the most valuable impressions which are made on the mind, and some of
the most important lessons learned, are from the recollections of a
former state. Among those advantages, in this case, would be such as
the following:――(a) It would show how much they might have _enjoyed_
if they had continued as they began, how much more real happiness they
would have had than they actually have enjoyed. (b) How much _good_
they might have done, if they had only persevered in the zeal with
which they commenced the Christian life. How much more good might most
Christians do than they actually accomplish, if they would barely, even
without increasing it, _continue_ with the degree of zeal with which
they begin their course. (c) How much greater _attainments_ they might
have made in the divine life, and in the knowledge of religion, than
they have made; that is, how much more elevated and enlarged might have
been their views of religion, and their knowledge of the Word of God.
And (d) such a recollection of their past state as, contrasted with
what they now are, would exert a powerful influence in producing true
repentance; for there is nothing better adapted to do this than a just
view of what we might have been, as compared with what we now are. If
a man has become cold towards his wife, nothing is better fitted to
reclaim him {65} than to recall to his recollection the time when he
led her to the altar, the solemn vow then made, and the rapture of his
heart when he pressed her to his bosom and called her his own. ¶ _And
repent._ The word here used means to change one’s mind and purposes,
and, along with that, the conduct or demeanour. The _duty_ of
repentance here urged would extend to all the points in which they had
erred. ¶ _And do the first works._ The works which were done when the
church was first established. That is, manifest the zeal and love which
were formerly evinced in opposing error, and in doing good. This is the
true counsel to be given to those who have backslidden, and have “left
their first love,” now. Often such persons, sensible that they have
erred, and that they have not the enjoyment in religion which they
once had, profess to be willing and desirous to return, but they know
not how to do it――how to revive their ardour, how to rekindle in their
bosom the flame of extinguished love. They suppose it must be by silent
meditation, or by some supernatural influence, and they wait for some
visitation from above to call them back, and to restore to them their
former joy. The counsel of the Saviour to all such, however, is to
_do their first works_. It is to engage at once in _doing_ what they
did in the first and best days of their piety, the days of their
“espousals” (Je. ii. 2) to God. Let them read the Bible as they did
then; let them pray as they did then; let them go forth in the duties
of active benevolence as they did then; let them engage in teaching
a Sabbath-school as they did then; let them relieve the distressed,
instruct the ignorant, raise up the fallen, as they did then; let them
open their heart, their purse, and their hand, to bless a dying world.
As it was in this way that they manifested their love then, so this
would be better fitted than all other things to rekindle the flame
of love when it is almost extinguished. The weapon that is used keeps
bright; that which has become rusty will become bright again if it is
used. ¶ _Or else I will come unto thee quickly._ On the word rendered
_quickly_ (τάχει), see Notes on ch. i. 1. The meaning is, that he would
come as a Judge, at no distant period, to inflict punishment in the
manner specified――by removing the candlestick out of its place. He does
not say in what way it would be done; whether by some sudden judgment,
by a direct act of power, or by a gradual process that would certainly
lead to that result. ¶ _And will remove thy candlestick out of his
place, except thou repent._ On the meaning of the word _candlestick_
see Notes on ch. i. 12. The meaning is, that the church gave light in
Ephesus; and that what he would do in regard to that place would be
like removing a lamp, and leaving a place in darkness. The expression
is equivalent to saying that the church there would cease to exist. The
proper idea of the passage is, that the church would be wholly extinct;
and it is observable that this is a judgment more distinctly disclosed
in reference to this church than to any other of the seven churches.
There is not the least evidence that the church at Ephesus did repent,
and the threatening has been most signally fulfilled. Long since the
church has become utterly extinct, and for ages there was not a single
professing Christian there. Every memorial of there having been a
church there has departed, and there are nowhere, not even in Nineveh,
Babylon, or Tyre, more affecting demonstrations of the fulfilment of
ancient prophecy than in the present state of the ruins of Ephesus. A
remark of Mr. Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, iv. 260) will show with what
exactness the prediction in regard to this church has been accomplished.
He is speaking of the conquests of the Turks. “In the loss of Ephesus
the Christians deplored the fall of the first angel, the extinction of
the first candlestick of the Revelations; the desolation is complete;
and the temple of Diana, or the Church of Mary will equally elude the
search of the curious traveller.” Thus the city, with the splendid
temple of Diana, and the church that existed there in the time of John,
has disappeared, and nothing remains but unsightly ruins. These ruins
lie about ten days’ journey from Smyrna, and consist of shattered walls,
and remains of columns and temples. The soil on which a large part of
the city is supposed to have stood, naturally rich, is covered with
a rank, burnt-up vegetation, and is everywhere deserted and solitary,
though bordered by picturesque mountains. A few cornfields are
scattered along the site of the ancient city. Towards the sea extends
the ancient port, a pestilential marsh. Along the slope of the mountain,
and over the plain, are scattered fragments of masonry and detached
ruins, but nothing {66} can now be fixed on as the great temple of
Diana. There are ruins of a theatre; there is a circus, or stadium,
nearly entire; there are fragments of temples and palaces scattered
around; but there is nothing that marks the site of a church in the
time of John; there is nothing to indicate even that such a church
then existed there. About a mile and a half from the principal ruins of
Ephesus there is indeed now a small village called _Asalook_, a Turkish
word, which is associated with the same idea as Ephesus, meaning, The
City of the Moon. A church, dedicated to John, is supposed to have
stood near, if not on the site of the present mosque. Dr. Chandler
(p. 150, 4to) gives us a striking description of Ephesus as he found
it in 1764:――“Its population consisted of a few Greek peasants,
living in extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility, the
representatives of an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck
of their greatness. Some reside in the substructure of the glorious
edifices which they raised; some beneath the vaults of the stadium,
and the crowded scenes of these diversions; and some in the abrupt
precipice, in the sepulchres which received their ashes. Its streets
are obscured and overgrown. A herd of goats was driven to it for
shelter from the sun at noon, and a noisy flight of crows from the
quarries seemed to insult its silence. We heard the partridge call
in the area of the theatre and of the stadium.... Its fate is that
of the entire country; a garden has become a desert. Busy centres
of civilization, spots where the refinements and delights of the age
were collected, are now a prey to silence, destruction, and death.
Consecrated first of all to the purposes of idolatry, Ephesus next
had Christian temples almost rivalling the Pagan in splendour, wherein
the image of the great Diana lay prostrate before the cross; after the
lapse of some centuries Jesus gives way to Mahomet, and the crescent
glittered on the dome of the recently Christian church. A few more
scores of years, and Ephesus has neither temple, cross, crescent, nor
city, but is desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness.” See the article
“Ephesus” in Kitto’s _Cyclopedia_, and the authorities there referred
to. What is affirmed here of Ephesus has often been illustrated in the
history of the world, that when a church has declined in piety and love,
and has been called by faithful ministers to repent, and has not done
it, it has been abandoned more and more, until the last appearance of
truth and piety has departed, and it has been given up to error and to
ruin. And the same principle is as applicable to individuals, for they
have as much reason to dread the frowns of the Saviour as churches have.
If they who have “left their first love” will not repent at the call of
the Saviour, they have every reason to apprehend some fearful judgment,
some awful visitation of his Providence that shall overwhelm them in
sorrow, as a proof of his displeasure. Even though they should finally
be saved, their days may be without comfort, and perhaps their last
moments without a ray of conscious hope. The accompanying engraving,
representing the present situation of Ephesus, will bring before the
eye a striking illustration of the fulfilment of this prophecy, that
the candlestick of Ephesus would be removed from its place. See also
the engravings prefixed to the Notes on the Epistle to the Ephesians.

6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
[101]Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

6. _But this thou hast._ This thou hast that I approve of, or that
I can commend. ¶ _That thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes._
Gr., _works_ (τὰ ἔργα). The word _Nicolaitanes_ occurs only in this
place, and in the 15th verse of this chapter. From the reference in the
latter place it is clear that the doctrines which they held prevailed
at Pergamos as well as at Ephesus; but from neither place can anything
now be inferred in regard to the nature of their doctrines or their
practices, unless it be supposed that they held the same doctrine
that was taught by Balaam. See Notes on ver. 15. From the two passages,
compared with each other, it would seem that they were alike corrupt
in doctrine and in practice, for in the passage before us their _deeds_
are mentioned, and in ver. 15 their _doctrine_. Various conjectures,
however, have been formed respecting this class of people, and the
reasons why the name was given to them. I. In regard to the origin
of the _name_, there have been three opinions. (1) That mentioned by
Irenæus, and by some of the other fathers, that the name was derived
from Nicolas, one {67} of the deacons ordained at Antioch, Ac.
vi. 5. Of those who have held this opinion, some have supposed that
it was given to them because he became apostate and was the founder of
the sect, and others because they _assumed_ his name, in order to give
the greater credit to their doctrine. But neither of these suppositions
rests on any certain evidence, and both are destitute of probability.
There is no proof whatever that Nicolas the deacon ever apostatized
from the faith, and became the founder of a sect; and if a name had
been _assumed_, in order to give credit to a sect and extend its
influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would
have been chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an
obscure deacon of Antioch. (2) Vitringa, and most commentators since
his time, have supposed that the name Nicolaitanes was intended to be
symbolical, and was not designed to designate any sect of people, but
to denote those who resembled Balaam, and that this word is used in the
same manner as the word _Jezebel_ in ch. ii. 20, which is supposed to
be symbolical there. Vitringa supposes that the word is derived from
νῖκος, _victory_, and λαός, _people_, and that thus it corresponds
with the name Balaam, as meaning either בַּעַל עָם, _lord of the people_,
or בִּלַע עָם, _he destroyed the people_; and that, as the same effect was
produced by their doctrines as by those of Balaam, that the people were
led to commit fornication and to join in idolatrous worship, they might
be called _Balaamites_ or _Nicolaitanes_, that is, corrupters of the
people. But to this it may be replied, (a) that it is far-fetched, and
is adopted only to remove a difficulty; (b) that there is every reason
to suppose that the word here used refers to a class of people who
bore that name, and who were well known in the two churches specified;
(c) that in ch. ii. 15 they are expressly distinguished from those who
held the doctrine of Balaam, ver. 14, “So hast thou _also_ (καὶ) those
that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” (3) It has been supposed
that some person now unknown, probably of the name _Nicolas_, or
_Nicolaus_, was their leader, and laid the foundation of the sect.
This is by far the most probable opinion, and to this there can be no
objection. It is in accordance with what usually occurs in regard to
sects, orthodox or heretical, that they derive their origin from some
person whose name they continue to bear; and as there is no evidence
that this sect prevailed extensively, or was indeed known beyond the
limits of these churches, and as it soon disappeared, it is easily
accounted for that the character and history of the founder were so
soon forgotten. II. In regard to the _opinions_ which they held, there
is as little certainty. Irenæus (_Adv. Hæres._ i. 26) says that their
characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of promiscuous intercourse
with women, and of eating things offered to idols. Eusebius (_Hist.
Eccl._ iii. 29) states substantially the same thing, and refers
to a tradition respecting Nicolaus, that he had a beautiful wife,
and was jealous of her, and being reproached with this, renounced
all intercourse with her, and made use of an expression which was
misunderstood, as implying that illicit pleasure was proper. Tertullian
speaks of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family, and as,
in his time, extinct. Mosheim (_De Rebus Christian Ante. Con._ § 69)
says that “the questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which
cannot be solved.” Neander (_History of the Christian Religion_, as
translated by Torrey, i. pp. 452, 453) numbers them with Antinomians;
though he expresses some doubt whether the actual existence of such
a sect can be proved, and rather inclines to an opinion noticed above,
that the name is symbolical, and that it is used in a mystical sense,
according to the usual style of the book of Revelation, to denote
corrupters or seducers of the people, like Balaam. He supposes that the
passage relates simply to a class of persons who were in the practice
of seducing Christians to participate in the sacrificial feasts of the
heathens, and in the excesses which attended them――just as the Jews
were led astray of old by the Moabites, Nu. xxv. What was the origin
of the name, however, Neander does not profess to be able to determine,
but suggests that it was the custom of such sects to attach themselves
to some celebrated name of antiquity, in the choice of which they were
often determined by circumstances quite accidental. He supposes also
that the sect may have possessed a life of Nicolas of Antioch, drawn up
by themselves or others from fabulous accounts and traditions, in which
what had been imputed to Nicolas was embodied. Everything, {68} however,
in regard to the origin of this sect, and the reason of the name given
to it, and the opinions which they held, is involved in great obscurity,
and there is no hope of throwing light on the subject. It is generally
agreed, among the writers of antiquity who have mentioned them, that
they were distinguished for holding opinions which countenanced gross
social indulgences. This is all that is really necessary to be known
in regard to the passage before us, for this will explain the strong
language of aversion and condemnation used by the Saviour respecting
the sect in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and Pergamos.
¶ _Which I also hate._ If the view above taken of the opinions and
practices of this people is correct, the reasons why he hated them are
obvious. Nothing can be more opposed to the personal character of the
Saviour, or to his religion, than such doctrines and deeds.

7 He[102] that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give
to eat of the [103]tree of life, which is in the midst of the
paradise of God.

7. _He that hath an ear, let him hear_, &c. This expression occurs at
the close of each of the epistles addressed to the seven churches, and
is substantially a mode of address often employed by the Saviour in his
personal ministry, and quite characteristic of him. See Mat. xi. 15;
Mar. iv. 23; vii. 16. It is a form of expression designed to arrest the
attention, and to denote that what was said was of special importance.
¶ _What the Spirit saith unto the churches._ Evidently what the Holy
Spirit says――for he is regarded in the Scriptures as the Source of
inspiration, and as appointed to disclose truth to man. The “Spirit”
may be regarded either as speaking through the Saviour (comp. Jn. iii.
34), or as imparted to John, through whom he addressed the churches.
In either case it is the same Spirit of inspiration, and in either case
there would be a claim that his voice should be heard. The language
here used is of a general character――“He that hath an ear;” that is,
what was spoken was worthy of the attention not only of the members
of these churches, but of all others. The truths were of so general
a character as to deserve the attention of mankind at large. ¶ _To
him that overcometh._ Gr., “To him that gains the victory, or is
a conqueror”――τῷ νικῶντι. This may refer to _any_ victory of a
moral character, and the expression used would be applicable to
one who should triumph in any of these respects:――(a) over his own
easily-besetting sins; (b) over the world and its temptations; (c) over
prevalent error; (d) over the ills and trials of life, so as, in all
these respects, to show that his Christian principles are firm and
unshaken. Life, and the Christian life especially, may be regarded
as a warfare. Thousands fall in the conflict with evil; but they who
maintain a steady warfare, and who achieve a victory, shall be received
as conquerors in the end. ¶ _Will I give to eat of the tree of life._
As the reward of his victory. The meaning is, that he would admit
him to heaven, represented as paradise, and permit him to enjoy its
pleasures――represented by being permitted to partake of its fruits.
The phrase “the tree of life” refers undoubtedly to the language used
respecting the Garden of Eden, Ge. ii. 9; iii. 22――where the “tree of
life” is spoken of as that which was adapted to make the life of man
perpetual. Of the nature of that tree nothing is known, though it would
seem probable that, like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
it was a mere emblem of life――or a tree that was set before man in
connection with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that
his destiny turned on the question whether he partook of the one or
the other. That God should make the question of life or death depend
on that, is no more absurd or improbable than that he should make it
depend on what man does now――it being a matter of fact that life and
death, happiness and misery, joy and sorrow, _are_ often made to depend
on things quite as arbitrary apparently, and quite as unimportant as
an act of obedience or disobedience in partaking of the fruit of a
designated tree. Does it not appear probable that in Eden there were
two trees designated to be of an emblematic character, of life and
death, and that as man partook of the one or the other he would live or
die? Of all the others he might freely partake without their affecting
his condition; of one of these――the tree of life――he might have
partaken before the fall, and lived for ever. One was forbidden on pain
of death. When the {69} law forbidding that was violated, it was still
_possible_ that he might partake of the other; but, since the sentence
of death had been passed upon him, that would not now be proper, and
he was driven from the garden, and the way was guarded by the flaming
sword of the cherubim. The reference in the passage before us is to the
_celestial_ paradise――to heaven――spoken of under the beautiful image
of a garden; meaning that the condition of man, in regard to life, will
still be the same _as if_ he had partaken of the tree of life in Eden.
Comp. Notes on ch. xxii. 2. ¶ _Which is in the midst of the paradise of
God._ Heaven, represented as paradise. To be permitted to eat of that
tree, that is, of the fruit of that tree, is but another expression
implying the promise of eternal life, and of being happy for ever.
The word _paradise_ is of Oriental derivation, and is found in several
of the Eastern languages. In the Sanskrit the word _paradésha_ and
_paradisha_ is used to denote a land elevated and cultivated; in the
Armenian the word _pardes_ denotes a garden around the house planted
with grass, herbs, trees for use and ornament; and in the Hebrew form
פַּרְדֵּס, and Greek παράδεισος, it is applied to the pleasure gardens and
parks, with wild animals, around the country residences of the Persian
monarchs and princes, Ne. ii. 8. Comp. Ec. ii. 5; Ca. iv. 13; Xen.
_Cyro._ i. 3, 14 (Rob. _Lex._). Here it is used to denote heaven――a
world compared in beauty with a richly cultivated park or garden. Comp.
2 Co. xii. 4. The meaning of the Saviour is, that he would receive
him that overcame to a world of happiness; that he would permit him to
taste of the fruit that grows there, imparting immortal life, and to
rest in an abode fitted up in a manner that would contribute in every
way to enjoyment. Man, when he fell, was not permitted to reach forth
his hand and pluck of the fruit of the tree of life in the first Eden,
as he might have done if he had not fallen; but he is now permitted to
reach forth his hand and partake of the tree of life in the paradise
above. He is thus restored to what he might have been if he had not
transgressed by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil; and in the Paradise Regained, the blessings of the
Paradise Lost will be more than recovered――for man may now live for
ever in a far higher and more blessed state than his would have been
in Eden.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA.

The contents of the epistle to the church at Smyrna are these: (1) A
statement, as in the address to the church at Ephesus, of some of the
attributes of the Saviour, ver. 8. The attributes here referred to are,
that he was “the first and the last,” that “he had been dead, but was
alive”――attributes fitted to impress the mind deeply with reverence for
him who addressed them, and to comfort them in the trials which they
endured. (2) A statement (ver. 9), as in the former epistle, that he
well knew their works and all that pertained to them――their tribulation,
their poverty, and the opposition which they met with from wicked men.
(3) An exhortation not to be afraid of any of those things that were
to come upon them, for, although they were to be persecuted, and some
of them were to be imprisoned, yet, if they were faithful, they should
have a crown of life, ver. 10. (4) A command to hear what the Spirit
said to the churches, as containing matter of interest to all persons,
with an assurance that any who would “overcome” in these trials would
not be hurt by the second death, ver. 11. The language addressed to the
church of Smyrna is throughout that of commiseration and comfort. There
is no intimation that the Saviour disapproved of what they had done;
there is no threat that he would remove the candlestick out of its
place. _Smyrna_ was a celebrated commercial town of Ionia (Ptolem.
v. 2), situated near the bottom of that gulf of the Ægean Sea which
received its name from it (Mela, i. 17, 3), at the mouth of the small
river Meles, 320 stadia, or about forty miles north of Ephesus (Strabo,
xv. p. 632). It was a very ancient city; but having been destroyed by
the Lydians, it lay waste four hundred years to the time of Alexander
the Great, or, according to Strabo, to that of Antigonus. It was
rebuilt at the distance of twenty stadia from the ancient city, and in
the time of the first Roman emperor it was one of the most flourishing
cities of Asia. It was destroyed by an earthquake, A.D. 177, but
the emperor Marcus Aurelius caused it to be rebuilt with more than
its former splendour. It afterwards, however, suffered greatly from
earthquakes and conflagrations, and has {70} declined from these causes,
though, from its commercial advantages, it has always been a city of
importance as the central emporium of the Levantine trade, and its
relative rank among the cities of Asia Minor is probably greater than
it formerly bore. The engraving in this vol. will give a representation
of Smyrna. The Turks now call it Izmir. It is better built than
Constantinople, and its population is computed at about 130,000, of
which the Franks compose a greater proportion than in any other town
in Turkey, and they are generally in good circumstances. Next to the
Turks, the Greeks form the most numerous portion of the inhabitants,
and they have a bishop and two churches. The unusually large portion
of Christians in the city renders it peculiarly unclean in the eyes of
strict Moslems, and they call it Giaour Izmir, or the Infidel Smyrna.
There are in it about 20, 000 Greeks, 8000 Armenians, 1000 Europeans,
and 9000 Jews. It is now the seat of important missionary operations in
the East, and much has been done there to spread the gospel in modern
times. Its history during the long tract of time since John wrote is
not indeed minutely known, but there is no reason to suppose that the
light of Christianity there has ever been wholly extinct. Polycarp
suffered martyrdom there, and the place where he is supposed to have
died is still shown. The Christians of Smyrna hold his memory in great
veneration, and go annually on a visit to his supposed tomb, which is
at a short distance from the place of his martyrdom. See the article
“Smyrna” in Kitto’s _Cyclopedia_, and the authorities referred to there.

8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These
things saith [104]the first and the last, which was dead, and
is alive;

8. _And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write._ On the meaning
of the word _angel_, see Notes on ch. i. 20. ¶ _These things saith the
first and the last._ See Notes on ch. i. 8, 17. ¶ _Which was dead, and
is alive._ See Notes on ch. i. 18. The idea is, that he is a _living_
Saviour; and there was a propriety in referring to that fact here from
the nature of the promise which he was about to make to the church at
Smyrna: “He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death,”
ver. 11. As he had himself triumphed over death in all its forms, and
was now alive for ever, it was appropriate that he should promise to
his true friends the same protection from the second death. He who was
wholly beyond the reach of death could give the assurance that they who
put their trust in him should come off victorious.

9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but
[105]thou art rich,) and _I know_ the blasphemy of [106]them
which say they are Jews, and are not, but _are_ the
[107]synagogue of Satan.

9. _I know thy works._ The uniform method of introducing these epistles,
implying a most intimate acquaintance with all that pertained to the
church. See Notes on ver. 2. ¶ _And tribulation._ This word is of a
general signification, and probably includes all that they suffered
in any form, whether from persecution, poverty, or the blasphemy of
opposers. ¶ _And poverty._ It would seem that this church, at that time,
was eminently poor, for this is not specified in regard to any one of
the others. No reason is suggested why _they_ were particularly poor.
It was not, indeed, an uncommon characteristic of early Christians
(comp. 1 Cor. i. 26‒28), but there might have been some special reasons
why that church was eminently so. It is, however, the only church of
the seven which has survived, and perhaps in the end its poverty was no
disadvantage. ¶ _But thou art rich._ Not in this world’s goods, but in
a more important respect――in the grace and favour of God. These things
are not unfrequently united. Poverty is no hindrance to the favour of
God, and there are some things in it favourable to the promotion of a
right spirit towards God which are not found where there is abundant
wealth. The Saviour was eminently poor, and not a few of his most
devoted and useful followers have had as little of this world’s goods
as he had. The poor should always be cheerful and happy, if they
can hear their Saviour saying unto them, “I know thy poverty――but
thou art rich.” However keen the feeling arising from the reflection
“I am a poor man,” the edge of the sorrow is taken off if the mind
can be turned to a brighter image――“_but_ thou art rich.” {71} ¶ _And
|I know| the blasphemy._ The reproaches; the harsh and bitter revilings.
On the word _blasphemy_, see Notes on Mat. ix. 3; xxvi. 65. The word
here does not seem to refer to blasphemy _against God_, but to bitter
reproaches against themselves. The reason of these reproaches is not
stated, but it was doubtless on account of their religion. ¶ _Of them
which say they are Jews._ Who profess to be Jews. The idea seems to be
that though they were of Jewish extraction, and professed to be Jews,
they were not _true Jews_; they indulged in a bitterness of reproach,
and a severity of language, which showed that they had not the spirit
of the Jewish religion; they had nothing which became those who were
under the guidance of the spirit of their own Scriptures. That would
have inculcated and fostered a milder temper; and the meaning here is,
that although they were of Jewish origin, they were not worthy of the
name. That spirit of bitter opposition was indeed often manifested in
their treatment of Christians, as it had been of the Saviour, but still
it was foreign to the true nature of their religion. There were Jews
in all parts of Asia Minor, and the apostles often encountered them in
their journeyings, but it would seem that there was something which had
particularly embittered those of Smyrna against Christianity. What this
was is now unknown. It may throw some light on the passage, however, to
remark that at a somewhat later period――in the time of the martyrdom of
Polycarp――the Jews of Smyrna were among the most bitter of the enemies
of Christians, and among the most violent in demanding the death of
Polycarp. Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ iv. 15) says, that when Polycarp
was apprehended, and brought before the proconsul at Smyrna, the Jews
were the most furious of all in demanding his condemnation. When the
mob, after his condemnation to death, set about gathering fuel to
burn him, “the Jews,” says he, “being especially zealous, as was their
custom――μάλιστα προθύμως, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς――ran to procure fuel.” And
when, as the burning failed, the martyr was transfixed with weapons,
the Jews urged and besought the magistrate that his body might not
be given up to Christians. Possibly at the time when this epistle was
directed to be sent to Smyrna, there were Jews there who manifested the
same spirit which those of their countrymen did afterwards, who urged
on the death of Polycarp. ¶ _But are the synagogue of Satan._ Deserve
rather to be called the synagogue of Satan. The _synagogue_ was a
Jewish place of worship (comp. Notes on Mat. iv. 23), but the word
originally denoted the _assembly_ or _congregation_. The meaning here
is plain, that though they worshipped in a synagogue, and professed to
be the worshippers of God, yet they were not worthy of the name, and
deserved rather to be regarded as in the service of Satan. _Satan_ is
the word that is properly applied to the great evil spirit, elsewhere
called the devil. See Notes on Lu. xxii. 3, and Job i.

10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold,
the devil shall cast _some_ of you into prison, that ye may
be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou
[108]faithful unto death, and I will give thee a [109]crown of
life.

10. _Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer._ He did not
promise them exemption from suffering. He saw that they were about
to suffer, and he specifies the manner in which their affliction
would occur. But he entreats and commands them not to be afraid. They
were to look to the “crown of life,” and to be comforted with the
assurance that if they were faithful unto death, that would be theirs.
We need not dread suffering if we can hear the voice of the Redeemer
encouraging us, and if he assures us that in a little while we shall
have the crown of life. ¶ _Behold, the devil shall cast |some| of
you into prison._ Or, shall cause some of you to be cast into prison.
He had just said that their persecutors were of the “synagogue of
Satan.” He here represents Satan, or the devil――another name of the
same being――as about to throw them into prison. This would be done
undoubtedly by the hands of men, but still Satan was the prime mover,
or the instigator in doing it. It was common to cast those who were
persecuted into prison. See Ac. xii. 3, 4; xvi. 23. It is not said on
what pretence, or by what authority, this would be done; but, as John
had been banished to Patmos from Ephesus, it is probable {72} that
this persecution was raging in the adjacent places, and there is no
improbability in supposing that many might be thrown into prison.
¶ _That ye may be tried._ That the reality of your faith may be
subjected to a test to show whether it is genuine. The _design_ in
the case is that of the Saviour, though Satan is allowed to do it. It
was common in the early periods of the church to suffer religion to be
subjected to trial amidst persecutions, in order to show that it was
of heavenly origin, and to demonstrate its value in view of the world.
This is, indeed, one of the designs of trial at all times, but this
seemed eminently desirable when a new system of religion was about to
be given to mankind. Comp. Notes on 1 Pe. i. 6, 7. ¶ _And ye shall have
tribulation ten days._ A short time; a brief period; a few days. It is
_possible_, indeed, that this might have been literally ten days, but
it is much more in accordance with the general character of this book,
in regard to numbers, to suppose that the word _ten_ here is used
to denote _a few_. Comp. Ge. xxiv. 55; 1 Sa. xxv. 38; Da. i. 12, 14.
We are wholly ignorant how long the trial actually lasted; but the
assurance was that it would not be long, and they were to allow this
thought to cheer and sustain them in their sorrows. Why should not the
same thought encourage us now? Affliction in this life, however severe,
can be but brief; and in the hope that it will soon end, why should
we not bear it without murmuring or repining? ¶ _Be thou faithful unto
death._ Implying, perhaps, that though, in regard to the church, the
affliction would be brief, yet that it might be fatal to some of them,
and they who were thus about to die should remain faithful to their
Saviour until the hour of death. In relation to all, whether they were
to suffer a violent death or not, the same injunction and the same
promise was applicable. It is true of everyone who is a Christian,
in whatever manner he is to die, that if he is faithful unto death,
a crown of life awaits him. Comp. Notes on 2 Ti. iv. 8. ¶ _And I will
give thee a crown of life._ See Notes on Ja. i. 12. Comp. 1 Pe. v. 4;
1 Co. ix. 24‒27. The promise here is somewhat different from that
which was made to the faithful in Ephesus (ver. 7), but the same thing
substantially is promised them――happiness hereafter, or an admission
into heaven. In the former case it is the peaceful image of those
admitted into the scenes of paradise; here it is the triumph of the
crowned martyr.

11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the
[110]second death.

11. _He that hath an ear_, &c. See Notes on ver. 7. ¶ _He that
overcometh._ See Notes on ver. 7. The particular promise here is made
to him that should “overcome;” that is, that would gain the victory in
the persecutions which were to come upon them. The reference is to him
who would show the sustaining power of religion in times of persecution;
who would not yield his principles when opposed and persecuted; who
would be triumphant when so many efforts were made to induce him to
apostatize and abandon the cause. ¶ _Shall not be hurt of the second
death._ _By_ a second death. That is, he will have nothing to fear
in the future world. The punishment of hell is often called _death_,
not in the sense that the soul will cease to exist, but (a) because
death is the most fearful thing of which we have any knowledge, and
(b) because there is a striking similarity, in many respects, between
death and future punishment. Death cuts off from life――and so the
second death cuts off from eternal life; death puts an end to all our
hopes here, and the second death to all our hopes for ever; death is
attended with terrors and alarms――the faint and feeble emblem of the
terrors and alarms in the world of woe. The phrase, “the second death,”
is three times used elsewhere by John in this book (ch. xx. 6, 14;
xxi. 8), but does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The words
_death_ and _to die_, however, are not unfrequently used to denote the
future punishment of the wicked.

The promise here made would be all that was necessary to sustain them
in their trials. Nothing more is requisite to make the burdens of life
tolerable than an assurance that, when we reach the end of our earthly
journey, we have arrived at the close of suffering, and that beyond the
grave there is no power that can harm us. Religion, indeed, does not
promise to its friends exemption from death in one form. To none of
the race has such a promise ever been made, and to but two has the {73}
favour been granted to pass to heaven without tasting death. It could
have been granted to all the redeemed, but there were good reasons why
it should not be; that is, why it would be better that even they who
are to dwell in heaven should return to the dust, and sleep in the tomb,
than that they should be removed by perpetual miracle, translating them
to heaven. Religion, therefore, does not come to us with any promise
that we shall not die. But it comes with the assurance that we shall
be sustained in the dying hour; that the Redeemer will accompany us
through the dark valley; that death to us will be a calm and quiet
slumber, in the hope of awakening in the morning of the resurrection;
that we shall be raised up again with bodies incorruptible and
undecaying; and that beyond the grave we shall never fear death in
any form. What more is needful to enable us to bear with patience the
trials of this life, and to look upon death when it does come, disarmed
as it is of its sting (1 Co. xv. 55‒57), with calmness and peace?

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT PERGAMOS.

The contents of this epistle (ver. 12‒17) are as follows: (1) A
reference, as is usual in these epistles, to some attribute of Him
who addressed them, fitted to inspire respect, and adapted to a state
of things existing in the church, ver. 12. That to which the Saviour
here directs their attention is, that he has “the sharp sword with two
edges”――implying (ver. 16) that he had the power of punishing. (2) A
statement, in the usual form, that he was thoroughly acquainted with
the state of the church; that he saw all their difficulties; all that
there was to commend, and all that there was to reprove, ver. 13.
(3) A commendation to the church for its fidelity, especially in a
time of severe persecution, when one of her faithful friends was slain,
ver. 13. (4) A reproof of the church for tolerating some who held false
and pernicious doctrines――doctrines such as were taught by Balaam, and
the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes, ver. 14, 15. (5) A solemn threat
that, unless they repented, he would come against them, and inflict
summary punishment on them, ver. 16. (6) The usual call upon all to
hear what the Spirit says to the churches, and a promise to those who
should overcome, ver. 17.

Pergamos was a city in the southern part of Mysia, the capital of a
kingdom of that name, and afterwards of the Roman province of Asia
Propria. It was on the bank of the river Caicus, which is formed by the
union of two branches meeting thirty or forty miles above its mouth,
and watering a valley not exceeded in beauty and fertility by any
in the world. The city of Pergamos stood about twenty miles from the
sea. It was on the northern bank of the river, at the base and on the
declivity of two high and steep mountains. About two centuries before
the Christian era, Pergamos became the residence of the celebrated
kings of the family of Attalus, and a seat of literature and the arts.
King Eumenes, the second of the name, greatly beautified the town, and
so increased the number of volumes in the library that they amounted
to 200,000. This library remained at Pergamos after the kingdom of the
Attali had lost its independence, until Antony removed it to Egypt, and
presented it to Queen Cleopatra (Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ iii. 2). It is an
old tradition, that, as the papyrus plant had not begun to be exported
from Egypt (Kitto), or as Ptolemy refused to sell it to Eumenes
(Professor Stuart), sheep and goat skins, prepared for the purpose,
were used for manuscripts; and as the art of preparing them was brought
to perfection at Pergamos, they, from that circumstance, obtained
the name of _pergamena_ (περγαμηνή) or _parchment_. The last king of
Pergamos bequeathed his treasures to the Romans, who took possession
of the kingdom also, and created it into a province by the name of
Asia Propria. Under the Romans, it retained that authority over the
cities of Asia which it had acquired under the successors of Attalus.
The present name of the place is Bergamos, and it is of considerable
importance, containing a population of about 14,000, of whom about 3000
are Greeks, 300 Armenians, and the rest Turks. Macfarlane describes the
approach to the town as very beautiful: “The approach to this ancient
and decayed city was as impressive as well might be. After crossing the
Caicus, I saw, looking over three vast tumuli, or sepulchral barrows,
similar to those on the plains of Troy, the Turkish city of Pergamos,
with its tall minarets, and its taller cypresses, situated on the lower
declivities and at the foot of the Acropolis, whose bold gray brow was
crowned by the rugged {74} walls of a barbarous castle, the usurper
of the site of a magnificent Greek temple. The town consists, for the
most part, of small and mean wooden houses, among which appear the
remains of early Christian churches. None of these churches have any
scriptural or apocalyptic interest connected with them, having been
erected several centuries after the ministry of the apostles, and when
Christianity was not an humble and despised creed, but the adopted
religion of a vast empire. The Pagan temples have fared worse than
these Christian churches. The fanes of Jupiter and Diana, of Æsculapius
and Venus, are prostrate in the dust; and where they have not been
carried away by the Turks, to be cut up into tombstones or to pound
into mortar, the Corinthian and Ionic columns, the splendid capitals,
the cornices and the pediments, all in the highest ornament, are thrown
into unsightly heaps” (_Visit to the Seven Apocalyptic Churches_, 1832.
Comp. _Missionary Herald_ for 1839, pp. 228‒230). The engraving
represents the ruins of one of the ancient churches in Pergamos.

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These
things saith he which hath the [111]sharp sword with two edges;

12. _And to the angel of the church in Pergamos._ See Notes on
ch. i. 20. ¶ _These things saith he which hath the sharp sword_, &c.
See Notes on ch. i. 16. Comp. He. iv. 12; Ec. xii. 11; Is. xlix. 2.
Professor Stuart suggests that when the Saviour, as represented in the
vision, “uttered words, as they proceeded from his mouth, the halitus
which accompanied them assumed, in the view of John, the form of an
igneous two-edged sword.” It is more probable, however, that the words
which proceeded from his mouth did not assume anything like a form or
substance, but John means to represent them _as if_ they were a sharp
sword. His words cut and penetrate deep, and it was easy to picture him
as having a sword proceeding from his mouth; that is, his words were
as piercing as a sharp sword. As he was about to reprove the church
at Pergamos, there was a propriety in referring to this power of the
Saviour. Reproof cuts deep; and this is the idea represented here.

13 I[112] know thy works, and where thou dwellest, _even_
where Satan’s seat _is_: and thou holdest fast my name, and
[113]hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein
Antipas _was_ my faithful martyr, who was slain among you,
where Satan dwelleth.

13. _I know thy works._ The uniform mode of addressing the seven
churches in these epistles. See Notes on ch. ii. 2. ¶ _And where
thou dwellest._ That is, I know all the temptations to which you are
exposed; all the allurements to sin by which you are surrounded; all
the apologies which might be made for what has occurred arising from
those circumstances; and all that could be said in commendation of you
for having been as faithful as you have been. The sense of the passage
is, that it does much to enable us to judge of character to know
where men live. It is much more easy to be virtuous and pious in some
circumstances than in others; and in order to determine how much credit
is due to a man for his virtues, it is necessary to understand how much
he has been called to resist, how many temptations he has encountered,
what easily-besetting sins he may have, or what allurements may have
been presented to his mind to draw him from the path of virtue and
religion. In like manner, in order to judge correctly of those who
have embraced error, or have been led into sin, it is necessary to
understand what there may have been in their circumstances that gave
to error what was plausible, and to sin what was attractive; what there
was in their situation in life that exposed them to these influences,
and what arguments may have been employed by the learned, the talented,
and the plausible advocates of error, to lead them astray. We often
judge harshly where the Saviour would be far less severe in his
judgments; we often commend much where in fact there has been little
to commend. It is possible to conceive that in the strugglings against
evil of those who have ultimately fallen, there may be more to commend
than in cases where the path of virtue has been pursued as the mere
result of circumstances, and where there never has been a conflict
with temptation. The adjudications of the great day will do much to
reverse {75} the judgments of mankind. ¶ _|Even| where Satan’s seat
|is|._ A place of peculiar wickedness, as if Satan dwelt there. Satan
is, as it were, enthroned there. The influence of Satan in producing
persecution is that which is _particularly_ alluded to, as is apparent
from the reference which is immediately made to the case of Antipas,
the “faithful martyr.” ¶ _And thou holdest fast my name._ They had
professed the name of Christ; that is, they had professed to be his
followers, and they had steadfastly adhered to him and his cause in
all the opposition made to him. The name _Christian_, given in honour
of Christ, and indicating that they were his disciples, they had not
been ashamed of or denied. It was this _name_ that subjected the early
Christians to reproach. See 1 Pe. iv. 14. ¶ _And hast not denied my
faith._ That is, hast not denied my religion. The great essential
element in the Christian religion is _faith_, and this, since it
is so important, is often put for the whole of religion. ¶ _Even in
those days wherein Antipas |was| my faithful martyr._ Of Antipas we
know nothing more than is here stated. “In the _Acta Sanctorum_ (ii.
pp. 3, 4) is a martyrology of Antipas from a Greek MS.; but it is
full of fable and fiction, which a later age had added to the original
story” (Professor Stuart, _in loco_). ¶ _Who was slain among you._ It
would seem from this, that, though the persecution had raged there,
but one person had been put to death. It would appear also that the
persecution was of a local character, since Pergamos is described as
“Satan’s seat; ” and the death of Antipas is mentioned in immediate
connection with that fact. All the circumstances referred to would lead
us to suppose that this was a popular outbreak, and not a persecution
carried on under the authority of government, and that Antipas was
put to death in a popular excitement. So Stephen (Ac. vii.) was put to
death, and so Paul at Lystra was stoned until it was supposed he was
dead, Ac. xiv. 19. ¶ _Where Satan dwelleth._ The repetition of this
idea――very much in the manner of John――showed how intensely the mind
was fixed on the thought, and how much alive the feelings were to the
malice of Satan as exhibited at Pergamos.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast
there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, [114]who taught
Balac to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel,
to [115]eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to [116]commit
fornication.

14. _But I have a few things against thee._ As against the church
at Ephesus, ch. ii. 4. The charge against this church, however, is
somewhat different from that against the church at Ephesus. The charge
there was, that they had “left their first love;” but it is spoken in
commendation of them that they “hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes,”
ch. ii. 6. Here the charge is, that they tolerated that sect among
them, and that they had among them also those who held the doctrine
of Balaam. Their general course had been such that the Saviour could
approve it; he did not approve, however, of their tolerating those
who held to pernicious practical error――error that tended to sap the
very foundation of morals. ¶ _Because thou hast there them that hold
the doctrine of Balaam._ It is not necessary to suppose that they
professedly held to the same opinion as Balaam, or openly taught the
same doctrines. The meaning is, that they taught substantially the same
doctrine which Balaam did, and deserved to be classed with him. What
that doctrine was is stated in the subsequent part of the verse. ¶ _Who
taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel._
The word _stumbling-block_ properly means anything over which one falls
or stumbles, and then anything over which anyone may fall into sin, or
which becomes the occasion of one’s falling into sin. The meaning here
is, that it was through the instructions of Balaam that Balak learned
the way by which the Israelites might be led into sin, and might thus
bring upon themselves the Divine malediction. The main circumstances
in the case were these: (1) Balak, king of Moab, when the children
of Israel approached his borders, felt that he could not contend
successfully against so great a host, for his people were dispirited
and disheartened at their numbers, Nu. xxii. 3, 4. (2) In these
circumstances he resolved to send for one who had a {76} distinguished
reputation as a prophet, that he might “curse” that people, or might
utter a malediction over them, in order, at the same time, to ensure
their destruction, and to inspirit his own people in making war on them:
in accordance with a prevalent opinion of ancient times, that prophets
had the power of blighting anything by their curse. Comp. Notes on Job
iii. 8. For this purpose he sent messengers to Balaam to invite him to
come and perform this service, Nu. xxii. 5, 6. (3) Balaam professed to
be a prophet of the Lord, and it was obviously proper that he should
inquire of the Lord whether he should comply with this request. He
did so, and was positively forbidden to go, Nu. xxii. 12. (4) When
the answer of Balaam was reported to Balak, he supposed that he
might be prevailed to come by the offer of rewards, and he sent more
distinguished messengers with an offer of ample honour if he would come,
Nu. xxii. 15‒17. (5) Balaam was evidently strongly inclined to go, but,
in accordance with his character as a prophet, he said that if Balak
would give him his house full of silver and gold he could do no more,
and say no more, than the Lord permitted, and he proposed again to
consult the Lord, to see if he could obtain permission to go with
the messengers of Balak. He obtained permission, but with the express
injunction that he was only to utter what God should say; and when he
came to Balak, notwithstanding his own manifest desire to comply with
the wish of Balak, and notwithstanding all the offers which Balak made
to him to induce him to do the contrary, he only continued to bless the
Hebrew people, until, in disgust and indignation, Balak sent him away
again to his own land, Nu. xxii., xxiii., xxiv. 10, seq. (6) Balaam
returned to his own house, but evidently with a desire still to gratify
Balak. Being forbidden to curse the people of Israel; having been
overruled in all his purposes to do it; having been, contrary to his
own desires, constrained to bless them when he was himself more than
willing to curse them; and having still a desire to comply with the
wishes of the King of Moab, he cast about for some way in which the
object might yet be accomplished――that is, in which the curse of God
might _in fact_ rest upon the Hebrew people, and they might become
exposed to the divine displeasure. To do this, no way occurred so
plausible, and that had such probability of success, as to lead them
into idolatry, and into the sinful and corrupt practices connected
with idolatry. It was, therefore, resolved to make use of the charms of
the females of Moab, that through their influence the Hebrews might be
drawn into licentiousness. This was done. The abominations of idolatry
spread through the camp of Israel; licentiousness everywhere prevailed,
and God sent a plague upon them to punish them, Nu. xxv. 1, seq. That
also this was planned and instigated by Balaam is apparent from Nu.
xxxi. 16: “Behold these [women] caused the children of Israel, through
the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord, in the
matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of
the Lord.” The _attitude_ of Balaam’s mind in the matter was this:
I. He had a strong desire to do that which he knew was wrong, and
which was forbidden expressly by God. II. He was restrained by
internal checks and remonstrances, and prevented from doing what he
wished to do. III. He cast about for some way in which he might do it,
notwithstanding these internal checks and remonstrances, and finally
accomplished the same thing in fact, though in form different from that
which he had first prepared. This is not an unfair description of what
often occurs in the plans and purposes of a wicked man. The meaning
in the passage before us is, that in the church at Pergamos there
were those who taught, substantially, the same thing that Balaam did;
that is, the tendency of whose teaching was to lead men into idolatry,
and the ordinary accompaniment of idolatry――licentiousness. ¶ _To
eat things sacrificed unto idols._ Balaam taught the Hebrews to do
this――perhaps in some way securing their attendance on the riotous and
gluttonous feasts of idolatry celebrated among the people among whom
they sojourned. Such feasts were commonly held in idol temples, and
they usually led to scenes of dissipation and corruption. By plausibly
teaching that there could be no harm in eating what had been offered in
sacrifice――since an idol was nothing, and the flesh of animals offered
in sacrifice was the same as if slaughtered for some other purpose,
it would seem that these teachers at Pergamos had induced professing
Christians {77} to attend on those feasts――thus lending their
countenance to idolatry, and exposing themselves to all the corruption
and licentiousness that commonly attended such celebrations. See the
banefulness of thus eating the meat offered in sacrifice to idols
considered in the Notes on 1 Co. viii. ¶ _And to commit fornication._
Balaam taught this; and that was the tendency of the doctrines
inculcated at Pergamos. On what pretence this was done is not said;
but it is clear that the church had regarded this in a lenient manner.
So accustomed had the heathen world been to this vice, that many who
had been converted from idolatry might be disposed to look on it with
less severity than we do now, and there was a necessity of incessant
watchfulness lest the members of the church should fall into it. Comp.
Notes on Ac. xv. 20.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

15. _So hast thou also them_, &c. That is, there are those among
you who hold those doctrines. The meaning here may be, either that,
in addition to those who held the doctrine of Balaam, they had also
another class who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes; or that
the Nicolaitanes held the same doctrine, and taught the same thing
as Balaam. If but one class is referred to, and it is meant that
the Nicolaitanes held the doctrines of Balaam, then we know what
constituted their teaching; if two classes of false teachers are
referred to, then we have no means of knowing what was the peculiarity
of the teaching of the Nicolaitanes. The more natural and obvious
construction, it seems to me, is to suppose that the speaker means to
say that the Nicolaitanes taught the same things which Balaam did――to
wit, that they led the people into corrupt and licentious practices.
This interpretation seems to be demanded by the proper use of the
word “so”――οὕτως――meaning, _in this manner_, _on this wise_, _thus_;
and usually referring to what precedes. If this be the correct
interpretation, then we have, in fact, a description of what the
Nicolaitanes held, agreeing with all the accounts given of them by the
ancient fathers. See Notes on ver. 6. If this is so, also, then it is
clear that the same kind of doctrines was held at Smyrna, at Pergamos,
and at Thyatira (ver. 20), though mentioned in somewhat different
forms. It is not quite certain, however, that this is the correct
interpretation, or that the writer does not mean to say that, _in
addition_ to those who held the doctrine of Balaam, they had also
another class of errorists who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
¶ _Which thing I hate._ So the common Greek text――ὃ μισῶ. But the
best-supported reading, and the one adopted by Griesbach, Tittmann,
and Hahn, is ὁμοίως――_in like manner_; that is, “as Balak retained a
false prophet who misled the Hebrews, so thou retainest those who teach
things like to those which Balaam taught.”

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and
[117]will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

16. _Repent._ See ver. 5. ¶ _Or else I will come unto thee quickly._
On the word _quickly_, see Notes on ch. i. 1. The meaning here is, that
he would come against them in judgment, or to punish them. ¶ _And will
fight against them._ Against the Nicolaitanes. He would come against
the church for tolerating them, but his opposition would be principally
directed against the Nicolaitanes themselves. The church would excite
his displeasure by retaining them in its bosom, but it was in its power
to save them from destruction. If the church would repent, or if it
would separate itself from the evil, then the Saviour would not come
against them. If this were _not_ done, they would feel the vengeance
of his sword, and be subjected to punishment. The church always suffers
when it has offenders in its bosom; it has the power of saving them
if it will repent of its own unfaithfulness, and will strive for their
conversion. ¶ _With the sword of my mouth._ Notes on ch. i. 16; ii. 12.
That is, he would give the order, and they would be cut as if by a
sword. Precisely in what way it would be done he does not say; but
it might be by persecution, or by heavy judgments. To see the force
of this, we are to remember the power which Christ has to punish the
wicked by a word of his mouth. By a word in the last day he will turn
all the wicked into hell.

17 He[118] that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to
eat of the [119]hidden manna, and will give him a white stone,
and in the stone a [120]new name written,[121]which no man
knoweth saving he that receiveth _it_.

17. _He that hath an ear_, &c. Notes on ver. 7. ¶ _To him that
overcometh._ {78} Notes on ver. 7. ¶ _Will I give to eat of the hidden
manna._ The true spiritual food; the food that nourishes the soul.
The idea is, that the souls of those who “overcame,” or who gained
the victory in their conflict with sin, and in the persecutions and
trials of the world, would be permitted to partake of that spiritual
food which is laid up for the people of God, and by which they will be
nourished for ever. The Hebrews were supported by manna in the desert
(Ex. xvi. 16‒35); a pot of that manna was laid up in the most holy
place, to be preserved as a memorial (Ex. xvi. 32‒34); it is called
“angels’ food” (Ps. lxxviii. 25), and “corn of heaven” (Ps. lxxviii.
24); and it would seem to have been emblematical of that spiritual food
by which the people of God are to be fed from heaven, in their journey
through this world. By the word “_hidden_,” there would seem to be
an allusion to that which was laid up in the pot before the ark of
the testimony, and the blessing which is promised here is that they
would be nourished _as if_ they were sustained by that manna thus laid
up before the ark: by food from the immediate presence of God. The
language thus explained would mean that they who overcome will be
nourished through this life _as if_ by that “hidden manna;” that is,
that they will be supplied all along through the “wilderness of this
world” by that food from the immediate presence of God which their
souls require. As the parallel places in the epistles to the churches,
however, refer rather to the heavenly world, and to the rewards which
they who are victors shall have there, it seems probable that this has
immediate reference to that world also, and that the meaning is, that,
as the most holy place was a type of heaven, they will be admitted into
the immediate presence of God, and nourished for ever by the food of
heaven――that which the angels have; that which the soul will need to
sustain it there. Even in this world their souls may be nourished with
this “hidden manna;” in heaven it will be their constant food for ever.
¶ _And will give him a white stone._ There has been a great variety of
opinion in regard to the meaning of this expression, and almost no two
expositors agree. Illustrations of its meaning have been sought from
Grecian, Hebrew, and Roman customs, but none of these have removed all
difficulty from the expression. The general sense of the language seems
plain, even though the allusion on which it is founded is obscure, or
even unknown. It is, that the Saviour would give him who overcame a
token of his favour which would have some word or name inscribed on it,
and which would be of use to him alone, or intelligible to him only:
that is, some secret token which would make him sure of the favour of
his Redeemer, and which would be unknown to other men. The idea here
would find a correspondence in the evidences of his favour granted
to the soul of the Christian himself; in the pledge of heaven thus
made to him, and which he would understand, but which no one else
would understand. The _things_, then, which we are to look for in the
explanation of the emblem are two――that which would thus be a token
of his favour, and that which would explain the fact that it would
be intelligible to no one else. The question is, whether there is any
known thing pertaining to ancient customs which would convey these
ideas. The word rendered _stone_――ψῆφον――means, properly, a small stone,
as worn smooth by water――a gravel-stone, a pebble; then any polished
stone, the stone of a gem, or ring (Rob. _Lex._). Such a stone was
used among the Greeks for various purposes, and the word came to have
a signification corresponding to these uses. The following uses are
enumerated by Dr. Robinson, _Lex._:――the _stones_ or _counters_ for
reckoning; _dice_, _lots_, used in a kind of magic; a _vote_, spoken
of the black and white stones or pebbles anciently used in voting――that
is, the white for approval, and the black for condemning. In regard to
the use of the word here, some have supposed that the reference is to
a custom of the Roman emperors, who, in the games {79} and spectacles
which they gave to the people in imitation of the Greeks, are said to
have thrown among the populace _dice_ or _tokens_ inscribed with the
words, “Frumentum, vestes,” &c.; that is, “Corn, clothing,” &c.; and
whosoever obtained one of these received from the emperor whatever was
marked upon it. Others suppose that allusion is made to the mode of
casting lots, in which sometimes dice or tokens were used with names
inscribed on them, and the lot fell to him whose name first came out.
The “_white_ stone” was a symbol of good fortune and prosperity; and
it is a remarkable circumstance that, among the Greeks, persons of
distinguished virtue were said to receive a ψῆφον, _stone_, from
the gods, _i.e._, as an approving testimonial of their virtue. See
Robinson’s _Lex._, and the authorities there referred to; Wetstein,
N. T., _in loco_, and Stuart, _in loco_. Professor Stuart supposes
that the allusion is to the fact that Christians are said to be kings
and priests to God, and that as the Jewish high-priest had a mitre or
turban, on the front of which was a plate of gold inscribed “Holiness
to the Lord,” so they who were kings and priests under the Christian
dispensation would have that by which they would be known, but that,
instead of a plate of gold, they would have a pellucid stone, on which
the _name_ of the Saviour would be engraved as a token of his favour.
It is _possible_, in regard to the explanation of this phrase, that
there has been too much effort to find _all_ the circumstances alluded
to in some ancient custom. Some well-understood fact or custom may have
suggested the general thought, and then the filling up may have been
applicable to this case alone. It is quite clear, I think, that none of
the customs to which it has been supposed there is reference correspond
fully with what is stated here, and that though there may have been
a general allusion of that kind, yet something of the particularity
in the circumstances may be regarded as peculiar to this alone. In
accordance with this view, perhaps the following points will embody all
that need be said: (1) A white stone was regarded as a token of favour,
prosperity, or success everywhere――whether considered as a vote, or as
given to a victor, &c. As such, it would denote that the Christian to
whom it is said to be given would meet with the favour of the Redeemer,
and would have a token of his approval. (2) The name written on this
stone would be designed also as a token or pledge of his favour――as a
name engraved on a signet or seal would be a pledge to him who received
it of friendship. It would be not merely a _white_ stone――emblematic
of favour and approval――but it would be so _marked_ as to indicate
its origin, with the name of the giver on it. This would appropriately
denote, when explained, that the victor Christian would receive a token
of the Redeemer’s favour, as if his name were engraven on a stone,
and given to him as a pledge of his friendship; that is, that he would
be as _certain_ of his favour _as if_ he had such a stone. In other
words, the victor would be assured from the Redeemer, who distributes
rewards, that his welfare would be secure. (3) This would be to him
_as if_ he should receive a stone so marked that its letters were
invisible to all others, but apparent to him who received it. It is
not needful to suppose that in the Olympic games, or in the prizes
distributed by Roman emperors, or in any other custom, such a case
had actually occurred, but it is conceivable that a name _might_ be
so engraved――with characters so small, or in letters so unknown to all
others, or with marks so unintelligible to others――that no other one
into whose hands it might fall would understand it. The meaning then
probably is, that to the true Christian――the victor over sin――there
is given some pledge of the divine favour which has to him all the
effect of assurance, and which others do not perceive or understand.
This consists of favours shown directly to the soul――the evidence of
pardoned sin; joy in the Holy Ghost; peace with God; clear views of
the Saviour; the possession of a spirit which is properly that of
Christ, and which is the gift of God to the soul. The true Christian
understands this; the world perceives it not. The Christian receives
it as a pledge of the divine favour, and as an evidence that he will
be saved; to the world, that on which he relies seems to be enthusiasm,
fanaticism, or delusion. The Christian bears it about with him as he
would a precious stone given to him by his Redeemer, and on which the
name of his Redeemer is engraved, as a pledge that he is accepted of
God, and that the rewards of heaven shall be his; the world does not
understand it, or {80} attaches no value to it. ¶ _And in the stone
a new name written._ A name indicating a _new_ relation, new hopes
and triumphs. Probably the _name_ here referred to is the name of the
Redeemer, or the name Christian, or some such appellation. It would be
some name which he would understand and appreciate, and which would be
a pledge of acceptance. ¶ _Which no man knoweth_, &c. That is, no one
would understand its import, as no one but the Christian estimates the
value of that on which he relies as the pledge of his Redeemer’s love.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT THYATIRA.

The contents of this epistle (ver. 18‒29) are as follows: (1) A
reference, as is usual in these epistles, to some attribute of the
Saviour which demanded their particular attention, or which was
especially appropriate to the nature of the message which he was about
to send to them, ver. 18. The attributes which he fixes on here are,
that his eyes are like a flame of fire――as if they would pierce and
penetrate to the recesses of the heart; and that his feet are like fine
brass――perhaps indicative of majesty as he moved among the churches.
(2) A statement, in the usual form, that he was entirely acquainted
with the church, and that therefore the judgment which he was about
to pronounce was founded on a thorough knowledge of what the church
was; and a general commendation of them for their charity, service,
faith, and patience, ver. 19. (3) A sever reproof of the church,
notwithstanding, for their tolerating a teacher of dangerous doctrine,
whom he calls Jezebel, with the assurance that she and her children
should not go unpunished, ver. 20‒23. (4) An assurance to all the rest
in Thyatira that no other calamity or burden would come upon the church
than what was inevitable in delivering it from the dangerous influence
of these doctrines, and a solemn charge to them to hold fast all the
truth which they had until he should come, ver. 24, 25. (5) A promise,
as usual, to those who should overcome, or who should be victorious,
ver. 26‒29. They would have power over the nations; they would be
associated with the Redeemer in ruling them; they would have the
morning star. (6) A call, as usual, on all who had ears to hear, to
attend to what the Spirit said to the churches.

Thyatira was a city of Asia Minor, on the northern border of Lydia,
and commonly reckoned as belonging to Lydia. It was about twenty-seven
miles from Sardis; about a day’s journey from Pergamos, and about the
same distance from the sea-coast. Its modern name is Ak-hissar, or _the
white castle_. According to Pliny, it was known in earlier times by the
name of Pelopia (_Hist. Nat._ v. 29). Strabo (xiii. p. 928) says that
it was a Macedonian colony. The Roman road from Pergamos to Sardis
passed through it. It was noted for the art of dyeing (Ac. xvi. 14),
and Luke’s account in the Acts has been confirmed by the discovery of
an inscription in honour of Antonius Claudius Alphenus, which concludes
with the words οἱ βαφεῖς――_the dyers_.

The Rev. Pliny Fisk, the American missionary, who visited the city,
thus describes it: “Thyatira is situated near a small river, a branch
of the Caicus, in the centre of an extensive plain. At the distance of
three or four miles it is almost completely surrounded by mountains.
The houses are low; many of them of mud or earth. Excepting the
motsellim’s palace, there is scarcely a decent house in the place.
The streets are narrow and dirty, and everything indicates poverty and
degradation. We had a letter of introduction to Economo, the bishop’s
procurator, and a principal man among the Greeks of this town.... He
says the Turks have destroyed all remnants of the ancient church; and
even the place where it stood is now unknown. At present there are
in the town one thousand houses, for which taxes are paid to the
government” (_Memoir of the Rev. P. Fisk_; Boston, Mass., 1828).

The following description, by the Rev. Mr. Schneider, missionary of the
American Board, will give a correct view of Thyatira, as it existed in
1848: “From Magnesia we proceeded to Thyatira, the site of one of the
Apocalyptic churches, now called Ak-hissar. The population consists of
about seven hundred Mussulman houses, two hundred and fifty Greek, and
fifty Armenian. The town is located in a plain of considerable size,
and is hardly visible on being approached, by reason of the profusion
of foliage. The plain itself is bounded on all sides by mountains,
and {81} cotton and a kind of reddish root [madder], used for dyeing
red, are raised abundantly. I observed that this root is extensively
cultivated in all that region, and forms an important article of export
to England, where it is used for dyeing purposes. In Ac. xvi. 14 we
read of Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira. May not
this root be the very article with which her purple was coloured, which
she was selling at Philippi, when the Lord opened her heart to attend
to the things spoken by Paul? It seems to me probable. But, if it was
so, this art of colouring appears to have been lost, for I could not
find that it is now at all practised in that place or that region.

“The Christian traveller and missionary naturally looks for something
interesting in a place where once existed a true church of Christ. But,
alas! how sadly is he disappointed! The place presents an appearance
in nothing different from other Turkish towns. Everything wears a
Mussulman aspect. The houses, streets, dress, occupation, and language
of the inhabitants all indicate a predominating Turkish influence.
Christianity exists there in name, but it is the bare name. Its spirit
has long since fled. The Greeks, especially, seem to be peculiarly
superstitious. I visited their church, and found it full of pictures
and other marks of degenerate Christianity. A long string of these
images, extending from one side of the church to the other, was
suspended so low as to permit the worshipper to approach and kiss
them; and so frequently had this adoration been bestowed on them,
that all appeared soiled from the frequent contact of the lips. Over
the entrance of the church I observed a representation of a grave old
man, with a silvery beard, surrounded by angels. Suspecting the object
designed to be shadowed forth, I inquired of a lad standing by what
that figure meant. He instantly replied, ‘It is God.’ I observed two
similar representations of the Deity in the interior of the church.
The churchyard is used as a burying-place; but only those whose friends
are able to pay for the privilege of entombing their dead can enjoy
it. Candles are lighted at the heads of the graves in the night, and
incense is often burned. When the process of decay has proceeded so
far as to leave nothing but the bones, these are taken up and thrown
into a sealed vault, over which a chapel is fitted up, in which mass
is said over these relics of the dead for the benefit of their souls!
A feeling of abhorrence came over me as I stood in the place where such
abominations are committed.

“The Armenians are far less superstitious. Comparatively only a few
pictures are to be seen in their church, and three or four individuals
are more or less enlightened, and in an inquiring state of mind. We
had a long interview with one of them, the teacher, and left some books
with him. I am not without hopes that a little gospel leaven has been
deposited here, the effects of which will appear at some future day”
(_Miss. Herald_, Feb. 1848). The engraving in this volume will give a
representation of this city as it now exists.

18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These
things saith the Son of God, who hath [122]his eyes like unto
a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

18. _And unto the angel of the church._ See Notes on ch. i. 20.
¶ _These things saith the Son of God._ This is the first time, in these
epistles, that the _name_ of the speaker is referred to. In each other
instance there is merely some _attribute_ of the Saviour mentioned.
Perhaps the severity of the rebuke contemplated here made it proper
that there should be a more impressive reference to the authority of
the speaker; and hence he is introduced as the “Son of God.” It is not
a reference to him as the “Son of man”――the common appellation which
he gave to himself when on earth――for that might have suggested his
humanity only, and would not have conveyed the same impression in
regard to his authority; but it is to himself as sustaining the rank,
and having the authority, of the Son of God――one who, therefore, has a
right to speak, and a right to demand that what he says shall be heard.
¶ _Who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire._ Comp. Notes on ch.
i. 14. Before the glance of his eye all is light, and nothing can be
concealed from his view. Nothing would be better fitted to inspire awe
then, as nothing should be now, than such a reference to the Son of
God as being able to penetrate the secret recesses {82} of the heart.
¶ _And his feet are like fine brass._ See Notes on ch. i. 15. Perhaps
indicative of majesty and glory as he walked in the midst of the
churches.

19 I[123] know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith,
and thy patience, and thy works; and the last _to be_ more
than the first.

19. _I know thy works._ See Notes on ch. ii. 2. He knew all they had
done, good and bad. ¶ _And charity._ Love; love to God, and love to man.
There is no reason for restricting this word here to the comparatively
narrow sense which it now bears. Comp. Notes on 1 Co. xiii. 1. ¶ _And
service._ Gr., _ministry_――διακονίαν. The word would seem to include
all the service which the church had rendered in the cause of religion;
all which was the proper fruit of love, or which would be a carrying
out of the principles of love to God and man. ¶ _And faith._ Or,
fidelity in the cause of the Redeemer. The word here would include not
only trust in Christ for salvation, but that which is the proper result
of such trust――fidelity in his service. ¶ _And thy patience._ Patient
endurance of the sorrows of life――of all that God brought upon them
in any way, to test the reality of their religion. ¶ _And thy works._
Thy works as the fruit of the virtues just mentioned. The word is
repeated here, from the first part of the verse, perhaps to specify
more particularly that their works had been recently more numerous and
praiseworthy even than they had formerly been. In the beginning of the
verse, as in the commencement of each of the epistles, the word is used,
in the most general sense, to denote _all_ that they had done; meaning
that he had so thorough an acquaintance with them in all respects that
he could judge of their character. In the latter part of the verse the
word seems to be used in a more specific sense, as referring to _good_
works, and with a view to say that they had latterly abounded in these
more than they had formerly. ¶ _And the last |to be| more than the
first._ Those which had been recently performed were more numerous,
and more commendable, than those which had been rendered formerly. That
is, they were making progress; they had been acting more and more in
accordance with the nature and claims of the Christian profession. This
is a most honourable commendation, and one which every Christian, and
every church, should seek. Religion in the soul, and in a community,
is designed to be progressive; and while we should seek to live in
such a manner always that we may have the commendation of the Saviour,
we should regard it as a thing to be greatly desired that we may be
approved as making _advances_ in knowledge and holiness; that as we
grow in years we may grow alike in the disposition to do good, and in
the ability to do it; that as we gain in experience, we may also gain
in a readiness to apply the results of our experience in promoting the
cause of religion. He would deserve little commendation in religion who
should be merely stationary; he alone properly develops the nature of
true piety, and shows that it has set up its reign in the soul, who is
constantly making advances.

20 Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because
thou sufferest that woman [124]Jezebel, which calleth herself
a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit
fornication, and to [125]eat things sacrificed unto idols.

20. _Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee._ Comp.
Notes on ver. 4. ¶ _Because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel._ Thou
dost tolerate, or countenance her. Comp. Notes on ver. 14. Who the
individual here referred to by the name _Jezebel_ was, is not known. It
is by no means probable that this was her real name, but seems to have
been given to her as expressive of her character and influence. Jezebel
was the wife of Ahab; a woman of vast influence over her husband――an
influence which was uniformly exerted for evil. She was a daughter
of Ethbaal, king of Tyre and Sidon, and lived about 918 years before
Christ. She was an idolater, and induced her weak husband not only
to connive at her introducing the worship of her native idols, but
to become an idolater himself, and to use all the means in his power
to establish the worship of idols instead of the worship of the true
God. She was highly gifted, persuasive, and artful; was resolute
in the accomplishment of {83} her purposes; ambitious of extending
and perpetuating her power, and unscrupulous in the means which she
employed to execute her designs. See 1 Ki. xvi. 31, seq. The kind of
_character_, therefore, which would be designated by the term as used
here, would be that of a woman who was artful and persuasive in her
manner; who was capable of exerting a wide influence over others; who
had talents of a high order; who was a thorough advocate of error; who
was unscrupulous in the means which she employed for accomplishing her
ends; and the tendency of whose influence was to lead the people into
the abominable practices of idolatry. The opinions which she held,
and the practices into which she led others, appear to have been the
same which are referred to in ver. 6 and ver. 14, 15 of this chapter.
The difference was, that the teacher in this case was a _woman_――a
circumstance which by no means lessened the enormity of the offence;
for, besides the fact that it was contrary to the whole genius of
Christianity that a woman should be a public teacher, there was a
special incongruity that she should be an advocate of such abominable
opinions and practices. Every sentiment of our nature makes us feel
that it is right to expect that if a woman teaches at all in a public
manner, she should inculcate only that which is true and holy――she
should be an advocate of a pure life. We are shocked; we feel that
there is a violation of every principle of our nature, and an insult
done to our common humanity, if it is otherwise. We have in a manner
become accustomed to the fact that _man_ should be a teacher of
pollution and error, so that we do not shrink from it with horror; we
never can be reconciled to the fact that a _woman_ should. ¶ _Which
calleth herself a prophetess._ Many persons set up the claim to be
prophets in the times when the gospel was first preached, and it is
not improbable that many females would lay claim to such a character,
after the example of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, &c. ¶ _To teach and to
seduce my servants to commit fornication._ Comp. ver. 14. Whether she
herself practised what she taught is not expressly affirmed, but seems
to be implied in ver. 22. It is not often that persons _teach_ these
doctrines without practising what they teach; and the fact that they
_desire_ and _design_ to live in this manner will commonly account
for the fact that they inculcate such views. ¶ _And to eat things
sacrificed unto idols._ See Notes on ver. 14. The custom of attending
on the festivals of idols led commonly to licentiousness, and they
who were gross and sensual in their lives were fit subjects to be
persuaded to attend on idol feasts――for nowhere else would they find
more unlimited toleration for the indulgence of their passions.

21 And I gave her [126]space to repent of her fornication; and
[127]she repented not.

21. _And I gave her space to repent of her fornication._ Probably after
some direct and solemn warning of the evil of her course. The error and
sin had been of long standing, but he now resolved to bear with it no
longer. It is true of almost every great sinner, that sufficient time
is given for repentance, and that vengeance is delayed after crime is
committed. But it cannot always be deferred, for the period must arrive
when no reason shall exist for longer delay, and when punishment must
come upon the offender. ¶ _And she repented not._ As she did not do
it; as she showed no disposition to abandon her course; as all plea
of having had no time to repent would now be taken away, it was proper
that he should rise in his anger and cut her down.

22 Behold, [128]I will cast her into a bed, and them that
commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they
repent of their deeds.

22. _Behold, I will cast her into a bed._ Not into a bed of ease,
but a bed of pain. There is evidently a purpose to contrast this
with her former condition. The harlot’s bed and a sick-bed are thus
brought together, as they are often, in fact, in the dispensations of
Providence and the righteous judgments of God. One cannot be indulged
without leading on, sooner or later, to the horrid sufferings of the
other: and how soon no one knows. ¶ _And them that commit adultery
with her._ Those who are seduced by her doctrines into this sin; either
they who commit it with her literally, or who are led into the same
kind of life. ¶ _Into great tribulation._ Great suffering; disease of
body or tortures of the soul. How often――how {84} almost uniformly is
this the case with those who thus live! Sooner or later, sorrow always
comes upon the licentious; and God has evinced by some of his severest
judgments, in forms of frightful disease, his displeasure at the
violation of the laws of purity. There is no sin that produces a more
withering and desolating effect upon the soul than that which is here
referred to; none which is more certain to be followed with sorrow.
¶ _Except they repent of their deeds._ It is only by repentance that
we can avoid the consequences of sin. The word _repent_ here evidently
includes both sorrow for the past, and abandonment of the evil course
of life.

23 And I will [129]kill her children with death; and [130]all
the churches shall know that [131]I am he which searcheth the
reins and hearts; and [132]I will give unto every one of you
according to your works.

23. _And I will kill her children with death._ A strong Hebraistic
mode of expression, meaning that he would certainly destroy them. It
has been made a question whether the word _children_ here is to be
taken literally or figuratively. The word itself would admit of either
interpretation; and there is nothing in the connection by which its
meaning here can be determined. If it is to be taken literally, it is
in accordance with what is often threatened in the Scriptures, that
children shall be visited with calamity for the sins of parents, and
with what often occurs in fact, that they _do_ thus suffer. For it
is no uncommon thing that whole families are made desolate on account
of the sin and folly of the parent. See Notes on Ro. v. 19. If it is
to be taken figuratively, then it refers to those who had imbibed her
doctrines, and who, of course, would suffer in the punishment which
would follow from the propagation of such doctrines. The reference
in the word _death_ here would seem to be to some heavy judgment, by
plague, famine, or sword, by which they would be cut off. ¶ _And all
the churches shall know_, &c. That is, the design of this judgment will
be so apparent that it will convince all that I know what is in the
hearts of men, even the secret acts of wickedness that are concealed
from human view. ¶ _I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts._
This is clearly a claim to omniscience; and as it is the Lord Jesus who
speaks in all these epistles, it is a full proof that he claims this
for himself. There is nothing which more clearly appertains to God than
the power of searching the heart, and nothing that is more constantly
claimed by him as his peculiar prerogative, 1 Ch. xxviii. 9; Ps. vii. 9;
xi. 4; xliv. 21; cxxxix. 2; Pr. xv. 3; Je. xi. 20; xvii. 10; xx. 12;
xxxii. 19; He. iv. 13. The word _reins_――νεφροὺς――means, literally,
_the kidney_, and is commonly used in the plural to denote the kidneys,
or the loins. In the Scriptures it is used to denote the inmost mind,
the secrets of the soul; probably because the parts referred to by the
word are as _hidden_ as any other part of the frame, and would seem
to be the repository of the more secret affections of the mind. It is
not to be supposed that it is taught in the Scriptures that the reins
are the real seat of any of the affections or passions; but there
is no more impropriety in using the term in a popular signification
than there is in using the word _heart_, which all continue to use,
to denote the seat of love. ¶ _And I will give unto every one of
you according to your works._ To every one of you; not only to those
who have embraced these opinions, but to all the church. This is the
uniform rule laid down in the Bible by which God will judge men.

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as
many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the
[133]depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none
other burden.

24. _But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira._ The
word――“_and_”――καὶ――is omitted in many MSS. and versions, and in the
critical editions of Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn, and the connection
demands that it should be omitted. As it stands in the received text,
it would seem that what he here says was addressed to those who _had_
received that doctrine, and to all others as well as to them; whereas
the declaration here made pertains manifestly to those who had _not_
received the doctrine. With that particle omitted the passage will
read, as {85} rendered by Professor Stuart, “But I say unto you, the
remainder in Thyatira, so many as hold not this doctrine,” &c. That is,
he addresses now all the members of the church who were not involved
in the charges already made. He does not say how large a portion of
the church had escaped the contaminating influence of those opinions,
but to that portion, whether great or small, he addresses only words
of exhortation and comfort. ¶ _As many as have not this doctrine._ To
all who have not embraced it, or been contaminated with it. It may be
presumed that there was a considerable portion of the church which had
not. ¶ _And which have not known the depths of Satan._ The deep art and
designs of Satan. Deep things are those which are hidden from view――as
of things which are far underground; and hence the word is used to
denote mysteries, or profound designs and purposes. The allusion here
is not to any _trials_ or _sufferings_ that Satan might bring upon
anyone, or to any temptations of which he might be the author, but to
his profound art in inculcating error and leading men astray. There
_are_ doctrines of error, and arguments for sin, to originate which
seems to lie beyond the power of men, and which would appear almost to
have exhausted the talent of Satan himself. They evince such a profound
knowledge of man; of the divine government; of the course of events on
earth; and of what our race needs; and they are defended with so much
eloquence, skill, learning, and subtlety of argumentation, that they
appear to lie beyond the compass of the human powers. ¶ _As they speak._
This cannot mean that the defenders of these errors themselves called
their doctrines “the depths of Satan,” for no teachers would choose
so to designate their opinions; but it must mean, either that they
who were opposed to those errors characterized them as “the depths of
Satan,” or that they who opposed them said that _they_ had not known
“the depths of Satan.” Professor Stuart understands it in the latter
sense. A somewhat more natural interpretation, it seems to me, however,
is to refer it to what the opposers of these heretics said of these
errors. They called them “the depths of Satan,” and they professed
not to have known anything of them. The meaning, perhaps, would be
expressed by the familiar words, “as they say,” or “as they call them,”
in the following manner: “As many as have not known the depths of Satan,
as they say,” or, “to use their own language.” Doddridge paraphrases
it, “as they proverbially speak.” Tyndale incloses it in a parenthesis.
¶ _I will put upon you none other burden._ That is, no other than that
which you now experience from having these persons with you, and that
which must attend the effort to purify the church. He had not approved
their conduct for suffering these persons to remain in the church,
and he threatens to punish all those who had become contaminated with
these pernicious doctrines. He evidently designed to say that there
was _some_ token of his displeasure proper in the case, but he was not
disposed to bring upon them any _other_ expression of his displeasure
than that which grew naturally and necessarily out of the fact that
they had been tolerated among them, and those troubles and toils which
must attend the effort to deliver the church from these errors. Under
any circumstances the church must suffer. It would suffer in reputation.
It would suffer in respect to its internal tranquillity. Perhaps, also,
there were those who were implicated in these errors, and who would be
implicated in the punishment, who had friends and kindred in the church;
and the judgments which were to come upon the advocates of these errors
must, therefore, come in a measure upon the church. A kind Saviour says,
that he would bring upon them no other and no weightier burden, than
_must_ arise from his purpose to inflict appropriate vengeance on the
guilty themselves. The trouble which would grow out of that would be a
sufficient expression of his displeasure. This is, in fact, often now
all that is necessary as a punishment on a church for harbouring the
advocates of error and of sin. The church has trouble enough ultimately
in getting rid of them; and the injury which such persons do to its
piety, peace, and reputation, and the disorders of which they are the
cause, constitute a sufficient punishment for having tolerated them
in its bosom. Often the most severe punishment that God can bring
upon men is to “lay upon them no other burden” than to leave them to
the inevitable consequences of their own folly, or to the trouble and
vexation incident to the effort to free themselves {86} from what they
had for a long time tolerated or practised.

25 But [134]that which ye have _already_ hold fast till I come.

25. _But that which ye have_, &c. All that there is of truth and
purity remaining among you, retain faithfully. Comp. ch. iii. 11.
¶ _Till I come._ To receive you to myself, Jn. xiv. 3.

26 And [135]he that overcometh, and keepeth[136] my works unto
the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

26. _And he that overcometh._ Notes on ch. ii. 7. ¶ _And keepeth my
works unto the end._ The works that I command and that I require, to
the end of his life. Comp. Jn. xiii. 1. ¶ _To him will I give power
over the nations._ The evident meaning of what is said here, and in the
next verse, is, that in accordance with the uniform promise made to the
redeemed in the New Testament, they would partake of the final triumph
and glory of the Saviour, and be associated with him. It is not said
that they would have exclusive power over the nations, or that they
would hold offices of trust under him during a personal reign on the
earth; but the meaning is, that they would be associated with him in
his future glory. Comp. Notes on Ro. viii. 17; 1 Co. vi. 2, 3.

27 And[137] he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the
vessels of a potter shall they be [138]broken to shivers: even
as I received of my Father.

27. _And he shall rule them with a rod of iron._ There is an
allusion here to Ps. ii. 9: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of
iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” There
is a slight change in the passage, “he shall _rule_,” instead of “thou
shalt _break_,” in order to adapt the language to the purpose of the
speaker here. The allusion in the Psalm is to the Messiah as reigning
triumphant over the nations, or subduing them under him; and the idea
here, as in the previous verse, is, that his redeemed people will be
associated with him in this dominion. To rule with a sceptre of iron,
is not to rule with a harsh and tyrannical sway, but with power that
is firm and invincible. It denotes a government of strength, or one
that cannot be successfully opposed; one in which the subjects are
effectually subdued. ¶ _As the vessels of a potter shall they be
broken to shivers._ The image here is that of the vessel of a potter――a
fragile vessel of clay――struck with a rod of iron and broken into
fragments. That is, as applied to the nations, there would be no power
to oppose his rule; the enemies of his government would be destroyed.
Instead of remaining firm and compacted together, they would be broken
like the clay vessel of a potter when struck with a rod of iron. The
speaker does not intimate _when_ this would be; but all that is said
here would be applicable to that time when the Son of God will come
to judge the world, and when his saints will be associated with him in
his triumphs. As, in respect to all the others of the seven epistles
to the churches, the rewards promised refer to heaven, and to the happy
state of that blessed world, it would seem also that this should have a
similar reference, for there is no reason why “to him that overcame” in
Thyatira a temporal reward and triumph should be promised more than in
the cases of the others. If so, then this passage should not be adduced
as having any reference to an imaginary personal reign of the Saviour
and of the saints on the earth. ¶ _Even as I received of my Father._
As he has appointed me, Ps. ii. 6‒9.

28 And I will give him [139]the morning star.

28. _And I will give him the morning star._ The “morning star” is
that bright planet――Venus――which at some seasons of the year appears
so beautifully in the east, leading on the morning――the harbinger of
the day. It is one of the most beautiful objects in nature, and is
susceptible of a great variety of uses for illustration. It appears as
the darkness passes away; it is an indication that the morning comes;
it is intermingled with the first rays of the light of the sun; it
seems to be a herald to announce the coming of that glorious luminary;
it is a pledge of the faithfulness of God. In which of these senses,
if any, it is referred to here, is not stated; nor is it said what is
implied by its being _given_ to him that {87} overcomes. It would seem
to be used here to denote a bright and brilliant ornament; something
with which he who “overcame” would be adorned, resembling the bright
star of the morning. It is observable that it is not said that he would
_make_ him _like_ the morning star, as in Da. xii. 3; nor that he would
be compared with the morning star, like the king of Babylon, Is. xiv.
12; nor that he would resemble a star which Balaam says he saw in the
distant future, Nu. xxiv. 17. The idea seems to be, that the Saviour
would give him something that would resemble that morning planet in
beauty and splendour――perhaps meaning that it would be placed as a
gem in his diadem, and would sparkle on his brow――bearing some such
relation to him who is called “the Sun of Righteousness,” as the
morning star does to the glorious sun on his rising. If so, the meaning
would be that he would receive a beautiful ornament, bearing a near
relation to the Redeemer himself as a bright sun――a pledge that the
darkness was past――but one whose beams would melt away into the
superior light of the Redeemer himself, as the beams of the morning
star are lost in the superior glory of the sun.

29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches.

29. _He that hath an ear_, &c. See Notes on ver. 7.

CHAPTER III.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT SARDIS.

The contents of the epistle to the church at Sardis (ver. 1‒6) are:
(1) The usual salutation to the angel of the church, ver. 1. (2) The
usual reference to the attributes of the Saviour――those referred to
here being that he had the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars,
ver. 1. (3) The assurance that he knew their works, ver. 1. (4) The
statement of the peculiarity of the church, or what he saw in it――that
it had a name to live and was dead, ver. 1. (5) A solemn direction
to the members of the church, arising from their character and
circumstances, to be watchful, and to strengthen the things which
remained, but which were ready to die; to remember what they had
received, and to hold fast that which had been communicated to them,
and to repent of all their sins, ver. 2, 3. (6) A threat that if they
did not do this, he would come suddenly upon them, at an hour which
they could not anticipate, ver. 3. (7) A commendation of the church as
far as it could be done, for there were still a few among them who had
not defiled their garments, and a promise that they should walk before
him in white, ver. 4. (8) A promise, as usual, to him that should be
victorious. The promise here is, that he should walk before him in
white; that his name should not be blotted out of the book of life;
that he should be acknowledged before the Father, and before the angels,
ver. 5. (9) The usual call on all persons to hear what the Spirit said
to the churches.

Sardis was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia, one of the
provinces of Asia Minor, and was situated at the foot of Mount Tmolus,
in a fine plain watered by the river Pactolus, famous for its golden
sands. It was the capital where the celebrated Crœsus, proverbial for
his wealth, reigned. It was taken by Cyrus (B.C. 548), when Crœsus was
king, and was at that time one of the most splendid and opulent cities
of the East. It subsequently passed into the hands of the Romans,
and under them sank rapidly in wealth and importance. In the time of
Tiberius it was destroyed by an earthquake, but was rebuilt by order
of the emperor. The inhabitants of Sardis bore an ill repute among the
ancients for their voluptuous modes of life. _Perhaps_ there may be an
allusion to this fact in the words which are used in the address to the
church there: “Thou hast a few names _even in Sardis_ which have not
defiled their garments.” Successive earthquakes, and the ravages of
the Saracens and the Turks, have reduced this once-celebrated city to a
heap of ruins, though exhibiting still many remains of former splendour.
The name of the village which now occupies the place of this ancient
capital is Sart. It is a miserable village, comprising only a few
wretched cottages, occupied by Turks and Greeks. There are ruins of the
theatre, the stadium, and of some ancient churches. The most remarkable
of the ruins are two pillars supposed to have belonged to the temple
of Cybele; and if so, they are among the most ancient in the world,
the temple of Cybele having been built only three hundred years after
that of Solomon. The Acropolis serves well to define the site of the
city. Several travellers have recently visited the remains of Sardis,
and its appearance will be indicated by a few extracts from their
writings. Arundell, in his _Discoveries in Asia Minor_, {88} says:
“If I were asked what impresses the mind most strongly in beholding
Sardis, I should say its indescribable _solitude_, like the darkness
of Egypt――darkness that could be _felt_. So the deep solitude of the
spot, once the ‘lady of kingdoms,’ produces a corresponding feeling of
_desolate abandonment_ in the mind, which can never be forgotten.”

The Rev. J. Hartley, in regard to these ruins, remarks: “The ruins are,
with one exception, more entirely gone to decay than those of most of
the ancient cities which we have visited. No Christians reside on the
spot: two Greeks only work in a mill here, and a few wretched Turkish
huts are scattered among the ruins. We saw the churches of St. John and
the Virgin, the theatre, and the building styled the Palace of Crœsus;
but the most striking object at Sardis is the temple of Cybele. I was
filled with wonder and awe at beholding the two stupendous columns of
this edifice, which are still remaining: they are silent but impressive
witnesses of the power and splendour of antiquity.”

The impression produced on the mind is vividly described in the
following language of a recent traveller, who lodged there for a
night: “Every object was as distinct as in a northern twilight; the
snowy summit of the mountain [Tmolus], the long sweep of the valley,
and the flashing current of the river [Pactolus]. I strolled along
towards the banks of the Pactolus, and seated myself by the side of
the half-exhausted stream.

“There are few individuals who cannot trace on the map of their memory
some moments of overpowering emotion, and some scene, which, once dwelt
upon, has become its own painter, and left behind it a memorial that
time could not efface. I can readily sympathize with the feelings of
him who wept at the base of the pyramids; nor were my own less powerful,
on that night when I sat beneath the sky of Asia to gaze upon _the
ruins of Sardis_, from the banks of the golden-sanded Pactolus. Beside
me were the cliffs of the Acropolis, which, centuries before, the hardy
Median scaled, while leading on the conquering Persians, whose tents
had covered the very spot on which I was reclining. Before me were the
vestiges of what had been the palace of the gorgeous Crœsus; within its
walls were once congregated the wisest of mankind, Thales, Cleobulus,
and Solon. It was here that the wretched father mourned alone the
mangled corse of his beloved Atys; it was here that the same humiliated
monarch wept at the feet of the Persian boy who wrung from him his
kingdom. Far in the distance were the gigantic _tumuli_ of the Lydian
monarchs, Candaules, Halyattys, and Gyges; and around them were spread
those very plains once trodden by the countless hosts of Xerxes, when
hurrying on to find a sepulchre at Marathon.

“There were more varied and more vivid remembrances associated
with the sight of Sardis than could possibly be attached to any other
spot of earth; but all were mingled with a feeling of disgust at the
littleness of human glory. All――all had passed away! There were before
me the fanes of a dead religion, the tombs of forgotten monarchs,
and the palm-tree that waved in the banquet-hall of kings; while the
feeling of desolation was doubly heightened by the calm sweet sky above
me, which, in its unfading brightness, shone as purely now as when it
beamed upon the golden dreams of Crœsus” (Emerson’s _Letters from the
Ægean_, p. 113, seq.). The present appearance of the ruins is shown by
the engraving in this volume.

CHAPTER III.

AND unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These
things saith he that hath the [140]seven Spirits of God, and
the seven stars; [141]I know thy works, that thou hast [142]a
name that thou livest, and art dead.

1. _And unto the angel of the church in Sardis._ Notes on ch. i. 20.
¶ _These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God._ See
Notes on ch. i. 4. If the phrase, “the seven Spirits of God,” as there
supposed, refers to the Holy Spirit, there is great propriety in saying
of the Saviour, that he has that Spirit, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is
represented as sent forth by him into the world, Jn. xv. 26, 27; xvi. 7,
13, 14. It was one of the highest characteristics that could be given
of the Saviour to say, that the Holy Ghost was his to send forth into
the world, and that that great Agent, on whose gracious influences all
were dependent for the possession of true religion, could {89} be given
or withheld by him at his pleasure. ¶ _And the seven stars._ See Notes
on ch. i. 16. These represented the angels of the seven churches (Notes
on ch. i. 20); and the idea which the Saviour would seem to intend to
convey here is, that he had entire control over the ministers of the
churches, and could keep or remove them at pleasure. ¶ _I know thy
works._ See Notes on ch. ii. 2. ¶ _That thou hast a name that thou
livest._ Thou dost profess attachment to me and my cause. The word
_life_ is a word that is commonly employed, in the New Testament, to
denote religion, in contradistinction from the natural state of man,
which is described as _death_ in sin. By the profession of religion
they expressed the purpose to live unto God, and for another world;
they professed to have true, spiritual life. ¶ _And art dead._ That
is, spiritually. This is equivalent to saying that their profession was
merely _in name_; and yet this must be understood comparatively, for
there were some even in Sardis who truly lived unto God, ver. 4. The
meaning is, that in general, the profession of religion among them was
a mere name. The Saviour does not, as in the case of the churches of
Ephesus and Thyatira, specify any prevailing form of error or false
doctrine; but it would seem that here it was a simple _want_ of
religion.

2 Be watchful and [143]strengthen the things which remain,
that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works
[144]perfect before God.

2. _Be watchful._ Be wakeful; be attentive and earnest――in
contradistinction from the drowsy condition of the church.
¶ _Strengthen the things which remain._ The true piety that still lives
and lingers among you. Whatever there was of religion among them, it
was of importance to strengthen it, that the love of the Saviour might
not become wholly extinct. An important duty in a low and languishing
state of religion is, to “strengthen the things that still survive.”
It is to cultivate all the graces which do exist; to nourish all the
love of truth which may linger in the church; and to confirm, by warm
exhortation, and by a reference to the gracious promises of God’s
word, the few who may be endeavouring to do their duty, and who, amidst
many discouragements, are aiming to be faithful to the Saviour. In the
lowest state of religion in a church there may be a few, perhaps quite
obscure and of humble rank, who are mourning over the desolations of
Zion, and who are sighing for better times. All such it is the duty
of the ministers of religion to comfort and encourage; for it is in
their hearts that piety may be kept alive in the church――it is through
them that it may be hoped religion may yet be revived. In the apparent
hopelessness of doing much good to others, good may always be done to
the cause itself by preserving and strengthening what there may be of
life among those few, amidst the general desolation and death. It is
much to preserve life in grain sown in a field through the long and
dreary winter, when all seems to be dead――for it will burst forth, with
new life and beauty, in the spring. When the body is prostrate with
disease, and life just lingers, and death seems to be coming on, it
is much to preserve the little strength that remains; much to keep
the healthful parts from being invaded, that there may be strength yet
to recover. ¶ _That are ready to die._ That seem just ready to become
extinct. So, sometimes, in a plant, there seems to be but the least
conceivable life remaining, and it appears that it must die. So, when
we are sick, there seems to be but the feeblest glimmering of life, and
it is apparently just ready to go out. So, when a fire dies away, there
seems but a spark remaining, and it is just ready to become extinct.
And thus, in religion in the soul――religion in a church――religion in a
community――it often seems as if it were just about to go out for ever.
¶ _For I have not found thy works perfect before God._ I have not found
them _complete_ or _full_. They come short of that which is required.
Of what church, of what individual Christian, is not this true? Whom
might not the Saviour approach with the same language? It was true,
however, in a marked and eminent sense, of the church at Sardis.

3 Remember[145] therefore how thou hast received and heard;
and hold fast, and [146]repent. If therefore thou shalt not
watch, I will come on thee [147]as a thief, and thou shalt not
know what hour I will come upon thee.

3. _Remember therefore how thou hast received._ This may refer either
to some peculiarity in the manner in which the gospel was conveyed to
them――as, by the labours of the apostles, and by {90} the remarkable
effusions of the Holy Spirit; or to the ardour and love with which
they embraced it; or to the greatness of the favours and privileges
conferred on them; or to their own understanding of what the gospel
required, when they were converted. It is not possible to determine in
which sense the language is used; but the general idea is plain, that
there was something marked and unusual in the way in which they had
been led to embrace the gospel, and that it was highly proper in these
circumstances to look back to the days when they gave themselves to
Christ. It is always well for Christians to call to remembrance the
“day of their espousals,” and their views and feelings when they gave
their hearts to the Saviour, and to compare those views with their
present condition, especially if their conversion was marked by
anything unusual. ¶ _And heard._ How thou didst hear the gospel in
former times; that is, with what earnestness and attention thou didst
embrace it. This would rather seem to imply that the reference in the
whole passage is to the fact that they embraced the gospel with great
ardour and zeal. ¶ _And hold fast._ (1) Hold fast the truths which thou
didst then receive; (2) hold fast what remains of true religion among
you. ¶ _And repent._ Repent in regard to all that in which you have
departed from your views and feelings when you embraced the gospel.
¶ _If therefore thou shalt not watch._ The speaker evidently supposed
that it was possible that they would not regard the warning; that they
would presume that they would be safe if they refused to give heed to
it, or that by mere inattention and indifference they might suffer the
warning to pass by unheeded. Similar results have been so common in
the world as to make such a supposition not improbable, and to make
proper, in other cases as well as that, the solemn threatening that
he would come suddenly upon them. ¶ _I will come on thee as a thief._
In a sudden and unexpected manner. See Notes on 1 Th. v. 2. ¶ _And ye
shall not know what hour I will come upon thee._ You shall not know
beforehand; you shall have no warning of my immediate approach. This
is often the way in which God comes to men in his heavy judgments. Long
beforehand, he admonishes us, indeed, of what must be the consequences
of a course of sin, and warns us to turn from it; but when sinners
refuse to attend to his warning, and still walk in the way of evil, he
comes suddenly, and cuts them down. Every man who is warned of the evil
of his course, and who refuses or neglects to repent, has reason to
believe that God will come suddenly in his wrath, and call him to his
bar, Pr. xxix. 1. No such man can presume on impunity; no one who is
warned of his guilt and danger can feel that he is for one moment safe.
No one can have any basis of calculation that he will be spared; no one
can flatter himself with any probable anticipation that he will have
time to repent when God comes to take him away. Benevolence has done
its appropriate work in warning him――how can the Great Judge of all be
to blame, if he comes then, and suddenly cuts the sinner off?

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled
their garments; and they shall walk with me [148]in white: for
they are worthy.

4. _Thou hast a few names even in Sardis._ See the analysis of the
chapter. The word _names_ here is equivalent to _persons_; and the idea
is, that even in a place so depraved, and where religion had so much
declined, there were a few persons who had kept themselves free from
the general contamination. In most cases, when error and sin prevail,
there may be found a few who are worthy of the divine commendation; a
few who show that true religion may exist even when the mass are evil.
Comp. Notes on Ro. xi. 4. ¶ _Which have not defiled their garments._
Comp. Notes on Jude 23. The meaning is, that they had not defiled
themselves by coming in contact with the profane and the polluted;
or, in other words, they had kept themselves free from the prevailing
corruption. They were like persons clothed in white walking in the
midst of the defiled, yet keeping their raiment from being soiled.
¶ _And they shall walk with me in white._ White is the emblem of
innocence, and is hence {91} appropriately represented as the colour
of the raiment of the heavenly inhabitants. The persons here referred
to had kept their garments uncontaminated on the earth, and as an
appropriate reward it is said that they would appear in white raiment
in heaven. Comp. ch. vii. 9; xix. 8. ¶ _For they are worthy._ They have
shown themselves worthy to be regarded as followers of the Lamb; or,
they have a character that is fitted for heaven. The declaration is
not that they have any _claim_ to heaven on the ground of their own
merit, or that it will be in virtue of their own works that they will
be received there; but that there is a _fitness_ or _propriety_ that
they should thus appear in heaven. We are all personally unworthy to be
admitted to heaven, but we may evince such a character as to show that,
according to the arrangements of grace, it is _fit_ and _proper_ that
we should be received there. We have the character to which God has
promised eternal life.

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white
raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the [149]book
of life, but I will [150]confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.

5. _He that overcometh._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. ¶ _The same shall be
clothed in white raiment._ Whosoever he may be that shall overcome sin
and the temptations of this world, shall be admitted to this glorious
reward. The promise is made not only to those in Sardis who should be
victorious, but to all in every age and every land. The hope that is
thus held out before us, is that of appearing with the Redeemer in his
kingdom, clad in robes expressive of holiness and joy. ¶ _And I will
not blot out his name out of the book of life._ The book which contains
the names of those who are to live with him for ever. The names of his
people are thus represented as enrolled in a book which he keeps――a
register of those who are to live for ever. The phrase “book of life”
frequently occurs in the Bible, representing this idea. See Notes
on Phi. iv. 3. Comp. Re. xv. 3; xx. 12, 15; xxi. 27; xxii. 19. The
expression “I will not blot out” means, that the names would be found
there on the great day of final account, and would be found there for
ever. It may be remarked, that as no one can have access to that book
but he who keeps it, there is the most positive assurance that it will
never be done, and the salvation of the redeemed will be, therefore,
secure. And let it be remembered that the period is coming when it
will be felt to be a higher honour to have the name enrolled in that
book than in the books of heraldry――in the most splendid catalogue
of princes, poets, warriors, nobles, or statesmen that the world has
produced. ¶ _But I will confess his name_, &c. I will acknowledge him
to be my follower. See Notes on Mat. x. 32.

6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto
the churches.

6. _He that hath an ear_, &c. See Notes on ch. ii. 7.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA.

This epistle (ver. 7‒13) comprises the following subjects: (1) The
usual address to the angel of the church, ver. 7. (2) The reference
to some attribute or characteristic of the speaker, ver. 7. He here
addresses the church as one who is holy and true; as he who has the key
of David, and who can shut and no one can open, and open and no one can
shut. The representation is that of one who occupies a royal palace,
and who can admit or exclude anyone whom he pleases. The reference
to such a palace is continued through the epistle. (3) The usual
declaration that he knows their works, and that he has found that
they had strength, though but a little, and had kept his word, ver. 8.
(4) A declaration that he would constrain some who professed that they
were Jews, but who were of the synagogue of Satan, to come and humble
themselves before them, ver. 9. (5) The particular promise to that
church. He would keep them in the hour of temptation that was coming to
try all that dwelt upon the earth, ver. 10. (6) The command addressed
to them as to the other churches. He solemnly enjoins it on them to
see that no one should take their crown, or deprive them of the reward
which he would give to his faithful followers, {92} ver. 11. (7) A
general promise, in view of the circumstances in Philadelphia, to _all_
who should overcome, ver. 12. They would be made a pillar in the temple
of God, and go no more out. They would have written on themselves the
name of his God, and the name of the holy city――showing that they were
inhabitants of the heavenly world. (8) The usual call on all to attend
to what was said to the churches, ver. 13.

Philadelphia stood about twenty-five miles south-east from Sardis, in
the plain of Hermus, and about midway between the river of that name
and the termination of Mount Tmolus. It was the second city in Lydia,
and was built by King Attalus Philadelphus, from whom it received its
name. In the year 133 B.C. the place passed, with the country in the
vicinity, under the dominion of the Romans. The site is reported by
Strabo to be liable to earthquakes, but it continued to be a place of
importance down to the Byzantine age; and, of all the towns in Asia
Minor, it withstood the Turks the longest. It was taken by Bajazat,
A.D. 1392. “It still exists as a Turkish town, under the name of Allah
Shehr, ‘City of God,’ _i.e._ the ‘High Town.’ It covers a considerable
extent of ground, running up the slopes of four hills, or rather of
one hill with four flat summits. The country, as viewed from these
hills, is extremely magnificent――gardens and vineyards lying at the
back and sides of the town, and before it one of the most beautiful
and extensive plains of Asia. The missionaries Fisk and Parsons were
informed by the Greek bishop that the town contained 3000 houses, of
which he assigned 250 to the Greeks, and the rest to the Turks. On the
same authority it is stated that there are five churches in the town,
besides twenty others which were too old or too small for use. Six
minarets, indicating as many mosques, are seen in the town, and one
of these mosques is believed by the native Christians to have been
the church in which assembled the primitive Christians addressed in
the Apocalypse. There are few ruins; but in one part are four pillars,
which are supposed to have been columns of a church. One solitary
pillar has been often noticed, as reminding beholders of the remarkable
words in the Apocalypse――‘Him that overcometh I will make _a pillar_
in the temple of my God’” (Kitto’s _Encyclo._ See also the _Missionary
Herald_ for 1821, p. 253; 1839, pp. 210‒212). The town is the seat of
a Greek archbishop, with about twenty inferior clergy. The streets are
narrow, and are described as remarkably filthy. The engraving in this
volume will give a representation of the town as it now appears.

7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write;
These things saith [151]he that is holy, [152]he that is true,
[153]he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no
man shutteth; and [154]shutteth, and no man openeth;

7. _And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia._ See Notes
on ch. i. 20. ¶ _These things saith he that is holy._ This refers
undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus. The appellation _holy_, or _the holy
one_, is one that befits him, and is not unfrequently given to him in
the New Testament, Lu. i. 35; Ac. ii. 27; iii. 14. It is not only an
appellation appropriate to the Saviour, but well adapted to be employed
when he is addressing the churches. Our impression of what is said
to us will often depend much on our idea of the character of him who
addresses us, and solemnity and thoughtfulness always become us when
we are addressed by a holy Redeemer. ¶ _He that is true._ Another
characteristic of the Saviour well fitted to be referred to when he
addresses men. It is a characteristic often ascribed to him in the New
Testament (Jn. i. 9, 14, 17; viii. 40, 45; xiv. 6; xviii. 37; 1 Jn.
v. 20), and one which is eminently adapted to impress the mind with
solemn thought in view of the fact that he is to pronounce on our
character, and to determine our destiny. ¶ _He that hath the key of
David._ This expression is manifestly taken from Is. xxii. 22, “And
the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder.” See the
passage explained in the Notes on that place. As used by Isaiah, the
phrase is applied to Eliakim; and it is not to be inferred, because
the language here is applied to the Lord Jesus, that originally it had
any such reference. “The application of the same terms,” says Professor
Alexander on Is. xxii. 22, “to Peter (Mat. xvi. 19), and to Christ
himself (Re. iii. 7), does not {93} prove that they here refer to
either, or that Eliakim was a type of Christ, but merely that the same
words admit of different applications.” The language is that which
properly denotes authority or control――as when one has the key of a
house, and has unlimited access to it; and the meaning here is, that
as David is represented as the king of Israel residing in a palace,
so he who had the key to that palace had _regal authority_. ¶ _He that
openeth, and no man shutteth_, &c. He has free and unrestrained access
to the house; the power of admitting anyone, or of excluding anyone.
Applied here to the Saviour, as king in Zion, this means that in his
kingdom he has the absolute control in regard to the admission or
exclusion of anyone. He can prescribe the terms; he can invite whom
he chooses; he can exclude those whom he judges should not be admitted.
A reference to this absolute control was every way proper when he was
addressing a church, and is every way proper for us to reflect on when
we think of the subject of our personal salvation.

8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an
[155]open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little
strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

8. _I know thy works._ See Notes on ch. ii. 2. ¶ _Behold, I have set
before thee an open door._ Referring to his authority as stated in
ver. 7. The “open door” here evidently refers to the enjoyment of some
privilege or honour; and, so far as the _language_ is concerned, it may
refer to any one of the following things: either, (1) the ability to
do good――represented as the “opening of the door.” Comp. Ac. xiv. 27;
1 Co. xvi. 9; 2 Co. ii. 12; Col. iv. 3. (2) The privilege of access to
the heavenly palace; that is, that they had an abundant opportunity of
securing their salvation, the door being never closed against them by
day or by night. Comp. Re. xxi. 25. Or (3) it may mean that they had
before them an open way of egress from danger and persecution. This
latter Professor Stuart supposes to be the true meaning; and argues
this because it is immediately specified that those Jewish persecutors
would be made to humble themselves, and that the church would but
lightly experience the troubles which were coming upon the world
around them. But the more natural interpretation of the phrase “an
open door” is that it refers to access _to_ a thing rather than egress
_from_ a thing; that we may come to that which we desire to approach,
rather than escape from that which we dread. There is no objection,
it seems to me, to the supposition that the language may be used
here in the largest sense――as denoting that, in regard to the church
at Philadelphia, there was no restraint. He had given them the most
unlimited privileges. The temple of salvation was thrown open to them;
the celestial city was accessible; the whole world was before them as a
field of usefulness, and anywhere, and everywhere, they might do good,
and at all times they might have access to the kingdom of God. ¶ _And
no man can shut it._ No one has the power of preventing this, for he
who has control over all things concedes these privileges to you.
¶ _For thou hast a little strength._ This would imply that they had
not _great_ vigour, but still that, notwithstanding there were so many
obstacles to their doing good, and so many temptations to evil, there
still remained with them some degree of energy. They were not wholly
dead; and as long as that was the case, the door was still open for
them to do good. The words “little strength” may refer either to the
smallness of the _number_――meaning that they were few; or it may refer
to the spiritual life and energy of the church――meaning that, though
feeble, their vital energy was not wholly gone. The more natural
interpretation seems to be to refer it to the latter; and the sense is,
that although they had not the highest degree of energy, or had not all
that the Saviour desired they should have, they were not _wholly_ dead.
The Saviour saw among them the evidences of spiritual life; and in
view of that he says he had set before them an open door, and there
was abundant opportunity to employ all the energy and zeal which
they had. It may be remarked that the same thing is true now; that
wherever there is _any_ vitality in a church, the Saviour will furnish
ample opportunity that it maybe employed in his service. ¶ _And hast
not denied my name._ When Christians were brought before heathen
magistrates in times of persecution, they were required to renounce
{94} the name of Christ, and to disown him in a public manner. It is
possible that, amidst the persecutions that raged in the early times,
the members of the church at Philadelphia had been summoned to such
a trial, and they had stood the trial firmly. It would seem from the
following verse, that the efforts which had been made to induce them to
renounce the name of Christ had been made by those who professed to be
Jews, though they evinced the spirit of Satan. If so, then the attempt
was probably to convince them that Jesus was not the Christ. This
attempt would be made in all places where there were Jews.

9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which
[156]say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I
will make them to [157]come and worship before thy feet, and
to know that I have loved thee.

9. _Behold, I will make._ Greek, “I give”――δίδωμι; that is, I will
arrange matters so that this shall occur. The word implies that he had
power to do this, and consequently proves that he has power over the
heart of man, and can secure such a result as he chooses. ¶ _Them of
the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews._ Who profess to be
Jews, but are really of the synagogue of Satan. See Notes on ch. ii. 9.
The meaning is, that, though they were of Jewish extraction, and
boasted much of being Jews, yet they were really under the influence
of Satan, and their assemblages deserved to be called his “synagogue.”
¶ _And are not, but do lie._ It is a false profession altogether. Comp.
Notes on 1 Jn. i. 6. ¶ _Behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet._ The word rendered _worship_ here, means, properly,
_to fall prostrate_; and then to do homage, or to worship in the proper
sense, as this was commonly done by falling prostrate. See Notes on
Mat. ii. 2. So far as the _word_ is concerned, it may refer either to
spiritual homage, that is, the worship of God; or it may mean respect
as shown to superiors. If it is used here in the sense of divine
worship properly so called, it means that they would be constrained to
come and worship “_before_ them,” or in their very presence; if it is
used in the more general signification, it means that they would be
constrained to show them honour and respect. The latter is the probable
meaning; that is, that they would be constrained to acknowledge that
they were the children of God, or that God regarded them with his
favour. It does not mean necessarily that they would themselves be
converted to Christ, but that, as they had been accustomed to revile
and oppose those who were true Christians, they would be constrained
to come and render them the respect due to those who were sincerely
endeavouring to serve their Maker. The _truth_ taught here is, that
it is in the power of the Lord Jesus so to turn the hearts of all the
enemies of religion that they shall be brought to show respect to it;
so to incline the minds of all people that they shall honour the church,
or be at least outwardly its friends. Such homage the world shall yet
be constrained to pay to it. ¶ _And to know that I have loved thee._
This explains what he had just said, and shows that he means that the
enemies of his church will yet be constrained to acknowledge that it
enjoys the smiles of God, and that instead of being persecuted and
reviled, it should be respected and loved.

10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, [158]I also
will keep thee from the hour of tempta tion, which shall come
upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

10. _Because thou hast kept the word of my patience._ My word
commanding or enjoining patience; that is, thou hast manifested the
patience which I require. They had shown this in the trials which they
had experienced; he promises now, that in return he will keep them in
the future trials that shall come upon the world. One of the highest
rewards of patience in one trial is the grace that God gives us to bear
another. The fact that we _have been_ patient and submissive may be
regarded as proof that he will give us grace that we _may be_ patient
and submissive in the trials that are to come. God does not leave those
who have shown that they will not leave him. ¶ _I also will keep thee._
That is, I will so keep you that you shall not sink under the trials
which will prove a severe temptation to many. This does not mean that
they would be actually kept from calamity of all kinds, but that they
would be kept from the _temptation of apostasy_ in calamity. He {95}
would give them grace to bear up under trials with a Christian spirit,
and in such a manner that their salvation should not be endangered.
¶ _From the hour of temptation._ The season; the time; the period
of temptation. You shall be so kept that that which will prove to be
a time of temptation to so many, shall not endanger your salvation.
Though others fall, you shall not; though you may be afflicted with
others, yet you shall have grace to sustain you. ¶ _Which shall come
upon all the world._ The phrase here used――“_all the world_”――may
either denote the whole world; or the whole Roman empire; or a large
district of country; or the land of Judæa. See Notes on Lu. ii. 1.
Here, perhaps, all that is implied is, that the trial would be very
_extensive_ or _general_――so much so as to embrace the _world_, as the
word was understood by those to whom the epistle was addressed. It need
not be supposed that the whole world literally was included in it, or
even all the Roman empire, but what was the world to them――the region
which they would embrace in that term. If there were some far-spreading
calamity in the country where they resided, it would probably be all
that would be fairly embraced in the meaning of the word. It is not
known to what trial the speaker refers. It may have been some form of
persecution, or it may have been some calamity by disease, earthquake,
or famine that was to occur. Tacitus (see Wetstein, _in loco_) mentions
an earthquake that sank twelve cities in Asia Minor, in one night,
by which, among others, Philadelphia was deeply affected; and it is
_possible_ that there may have been reference here to that overwhelming
calamity. But nothing can be determined with certainty in regard
to this. ¶ _To try them that dwell upon the earth._ To test their
character. It would rather seem from this that the affliction was some
form of persecution as adapted to test the fidelity of those who were
affected by it. The persecutions in the Roman empire would furnish
abundant occasions for such a trial.

11 Behold, [159]I come [160]quickly: hold that fast which thou
hast, that no man take thy crown.

11. _Behold, I come quickly._ That is, in the trials referred to.
Comp. Notes on ch. i. 1, 11, 16. ¶ _Hold that fast which thou hast._
That is, whatever of truth and piety you now possess. See Notes on
ver. 3. ¶ _That no man take thy crown._ The crown of life appointed for
all who are true believers. See Notes on 2 Ti. iv. 8. The truth which
is taught here is, that by negligence or unfaithfulness in duty we may
be deprived of the glory which we might have obtained if we had been
faithful to our God and Saviour. We need to be on our constant guard,
that, in a world of temptation, where the enemies of truth abound, we
may not be robbed of the crown that we might have worn for ever. Comp.
Notes on 2 Jn. 8.

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of
my God; and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him
the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, _which
is_ [161]New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from
my God: and _I will write upon him_ my new name.

12. _Him that overcometh._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. ¶ _Will I make a
pillar in the temple of my God._ See the introductory remarks to this
epistle. The promised reward of faithfulness here is, that he who was
victorious would be honoured as if he were a pillar or column in the
temple of God. Such a pillar or column was partly for ornament, and
partly for support; and the idea here is, that in that temple he would
contribute to its beauty and the justness of its proportions, and would
at the same time be honoured as if he were a pillar which was necessary
for the support of the temple. It is not uncommon in the New Testament
to represent the church as a temple, and Christians as parts of it. See
1 Co. iii. 16, 17; vi. 19; 2 Co. vi. 16; 1 Pe. ii. 5. ¶ _And he shall
go no more out._ He shall be permanent as a part of that spiritual
temple. The idea of “going out” does not properly belong to a _pillar_;
but the speaker here has in his mind the _man_, though represented as a
column. The description of some parts would be applicable more directly
to a pillar; in others more properly to a man. Comp. Jn. vi. 37; x. 28,
29; 1 Jn. ii. 19, for an illustration of the sentiment here. The main
truth here is, that if we reach {96} heaven, our happiness will be
secure for ever. We shall have the most absolute certainty that the
welfare of the soul will no more be perilled; that we shall never be in
danger of falling into temptation; that no artful foe shall ever have
power to alienate our affections from God; that we shall never die.
Though we may change our place, and may roam from world to world till
we shall have surveyed all the wonders of creation, yet we shall never
“go out of the temple of God.” Comp. Notes on Jn. xiv. 2. When we reach
the heavenly world our conflicts will be over, our doubts at an end. As
soon as we cross the threshold we shall be greeted with the assurance,
“he shall go no more out for ever.” That is to be our eternal abode,
and whatever of joy, or felicity, or glory, that bright world can
furnish, is to be ours. Happy moment when, emerging from a world of
danger and of doubt, the soul shall settle down into the calmness and
peace of that state where there is the assurance of God himself that
that world of bliss is to be its eternal abode! ¶ _And I will write
upon him the name of my God._ Considered as a pillar or column in the
temple. The name of God would be conspicuously recorded on it to show
that he belonged to God. The allusion is to a public edifice, on the
columns of which the names of distinguished and honoured persons were
recorded; that is, where there is a public testimonial of the respect
in which one whose name was thus recorded was held. The honour thus
conferred on him “who should overcome” would be as great _as if_
the name of that God whom he served, and whose favour and friendship
he enjoyed, were inscribed on him in some conspicuous manner. The
_meaning_ is, that he would be known and recognized as belonging to God;
the God of the Redeemer himself――indicated by the phrase, “the name of
_my_ God.” ¶ _And the name of the city of my God._ That is, indicating
that he belongs to that city, or that the New Jerusalem is the city
of his habitation. The idea would seem to be, that in this world,
and in all worlds wherever he goes and wherever he abides, he will be
recognized as belonging to that holy city; as enjoying the rights and
immunities of such a citizen. ¶ Which is _New Jerusalem._ Jerusalem
was the place where the temple was reared, and where the worship of
God was celebrated. It thus came to be synonymous with the church――the
dwelling-place of God on earth. ¶ _Which cometh down out of heaven from
my God._ See this explained in the Notes on ch. xxi. 2, seq. Of course
this must be a figurative representation, but the idea is plain. It is,
(1) that the church is, in accordance with settled Scripture language,
represented as a city――the abode of God on earth. (2) That is, instead
of being built here, or having an earthly origin, it has its origin
in heaven. It is _as if_ it had been constructed there, and then sent
down to earth ready formed. The type, the form, the whole structure is
heavenly. It is a departure from all proper laws of interpretation to
explain this _literally_, as if a city should be actually let down from
heaven; and equally so to infer from this passage, and the others of
similar import in this book, that a city will be literally _reared_ for
the residence of the saints. If the passage proves anything on either
of these points, it is, that a great and splendid city, such as that
described in ch. xxi., will _literally come down from heaven_. But
who can believe that? Such an interpretation, however, is by no means
necessary. The comparison of the church with a beautiful city, and the
fact that it has its origin in heaven, is all that is fairly implied
in the passage. ¶ _And_ I will write upon him _my new name_. See Notes
on ch. ii. 17. The _reward_, therefore, promised here is, that he
who, by persevering fidelity, showed that he was a real friend of the
Saviour, would be honoured with a permanent abode in the holy city of
his habitation. In the church redeemed and triumphant he would have a
perpetual dwelling; and wherever he should be, there would be given him
sure pledges that he belonged to him, and was recognized as a citizen
of the heavenly world. To no higher honour could any man aspire; and
yet that is an honour to which the most humble and lowly may attain by
faith in the Son of God.

13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH AT LAODICEA.

The contents of the epistle to the church at Laodicea (ver. 14‒22)
are as follows: (1) The usual salutation to the angel of the church,
ver. 14. (2) The reference to the attributes of the speaker――the
one here referred to being that he was the “Amen,” “the faithful
{97} and true witness,” and “the beginning of the creation of God,”
ver. 14. (3) The claim that he knew all their works, ver. 15. (4) The
characteristic of the church: it was “lukewarm”――neither “cold nor hot,”
ver. 15. (5) The punishment threatened, that he would “spue them out
of his mouth,” ver. 16. (6) A solemn reproof of their self-confidence,
of their ignorance of themselves, and of their pride, when they were in
fact poor, and blind, and naked; and a solemn counsel to them to apply
to him for those things which would make them truly rich――which would
cover up the shame of their nakedness, and which would give them clear
spiritual vision, ver. 17, 18. (7) A command to repent, in view of the
fact that he rebukes and chastens those whom he loves. (8) An assurance
that an opportunity is still offered for repentance, represented by his
standing at the door and praying for admittance, ver. 20. (9) A promise
to him that should be victorious――in this case, that he should sit down
with him on his throne, ver. 21; and (10) the usual call on those who
had ears to hear, to attend to what the Spirit said to the churches.

Laodicea was situated in the southern part of Phrygia, near the
junction of the small rivers Asopus and Carpus, on a plain washed
at its edges by each. It was about forty miles from Ephesus, and not
far from Colosse and Hierapolis. In the time of Strabo it was a large
city; but the frequency of earthquakes, to which this district has
been always liable, demolished, long since, a large part of the city,
and destroyed many of the inhabitants, and the place was abandoned,
and now lies in ruins. It is now a deserted place, called by the
Turks Eski-hissar, or Old Castle. From its ruins, which are numerous,
consisting of the remains of temples, theatres, &c., it seems to have
been situated on six or seven hills, taking up a large space of ground.
The whole rising ground on which the city stood is one vast tumulus
of ruins, abandoned entirely to the owl and the fox. Col. Leake says,
“There are few ancient sites more likely than Laodicea to preserve
many curious remains of antiquity beneath the surface of the soil;
its opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was subject, rendering
it probable that valuable works of art were there buried beneath the
ruins of the public and private edifices.” The neighbouring village
contains some fifty or sixty people, among whom, on a visit of a recent
traveller there, there were but two nominal Christians. “The name
of Christianity,” says Emerson (p. 101), “is forgotten, and the only
sounds that disturb the silence of its desertion are the tones of the
Muezzin, whose voice from the distant village (Eski-hissar) proclaims
the ascendency of Mahomet. Laodicea is even more solitary than Ephesus;
for the latter has the prospect of the rolling sea or of a whitening
sail to enliven its decay; while the former sits in widowed loneliness,
its walls are grass-grown, its temples desolate, its very name has
perished.” A thunderstorm gathered on the mountains at a distance while
this traveller was examining the ruins of Laodicea. He returned to
Eski-hissar, and waited until the fury of the storm had abated, but set
off on his journey again before it had entirely ceased to blow and to
rain. “We preferred,” says he, “hastening on, to a farther delay in
that melancholy spot, where everything whispered desolation, and where
the very wind that swept impetuously through the valley sounded like
the fiendish laugh of time exulting over the destruction of man and his
proudest monuments.” See Professor Stuart, vol. ii. pp. 44, 45; Kitto’s
_Encyclo._; Smith’s _Journey to the Seven Churches_, 1671; Leake,
Arundell, Hartley, MacFarlane, Pococke, &c. The engraving in this vol.
will furnish a representation of the ruins of Laodicea.

14 And unto the angel of the church [162]of the Laodiceans
write; These things saith the [163]Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

14. _And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write._ See
Notes on ch. i. 20. ¶ _These things saith the Amen._ Referring, as is
the case in every epistle, to some attribute of the speaker adapted
to impress their minds, or to give peculiar force to what he was
about to say to that particular church. Laodicea was characterized by
lukewarmness, and the reference to the fact that he who was about to
address them was the {98} “Amen”――that is, was characterized by the
simple earnestness and sincerity denoted by that word――was eminently
fitted to make an impression on the minds of such a people. The word
_Amen_ means _true_, _certain_, _faithful_; and, as used here, it means
that he to whom it is applied is eminently true and faithful. What
he affirms is true; what he promises or threatens is certain. Himself
characterized by sincerity and truth (Notes on 2 Co. i. 20), he can
look with approbation only on the same thing in others: and hence he
looks with displeasure on the lukewarmness which, from its very nature,
always approximates insincerity. This was an attribute, therefore,
every way appropriate to be referred to in addressing a lukewarm church.
¶ _The faithful and true witness._ This is presenting the idea implied
in the word _Amen_ in a more complete form, but substantially the same
thing is referred to. He is a witness for God and his truth, and he
can approve of nothing which the God of truth would not approve. See
Notes on ch. i. 5. ¶ _The beginning of the creation of God._ This
expression is a very important one in regard to the rank and dignity
of the Saviour, and, like all similar expressions respecting him,
its meaning has been much controverted. Comp. Notes on Col. i. 15.
The phrase here used is susceptible, properly, of only one of the
following significations, viz.: either (a) that he was the beginning
of the creation in the sense that he caused the universe to begin to
exist――that is, that he was the author of all things; or (b) that he
was the first created being; or (c) that he holds the primacy over all,
and is at the head of the universe. It is not necessary to examine any
other proposed interpretations, for the only other senses supposed to
be conveyed by the words, that he is the beginning of the creation in
the sense that he rose from the dead as the first-fruits of them that
sleep, or that he is the head of the _spiritual_ creation of God, are
so foreign to the natural meaning of the words as to need no special
refutation. As to the three significations suggested above, it may be
observed, that the _first_ one――that he is the _author_ of the creation,
and in that sense the _beginning_――though expressing a scriptural
doctrine (Jn. i. 3; Ep. iii. 9; Col. i. 16), is not in accordance
with the proper meaning of the word here used――ἀρχὴ. The word properly
refers to the _commencement_ of a thing, not its _authorship_, and
denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy
in the sense of causing anything to exist. The two ideas which run
through the word as it is used in the New Testament are those just
suggested. For the former――primacy in regard to time――that is properly
the commencement of a thing, see the following passages where the word
occurs: Mat. xix. 4, 8; xxiv. 8, 21; Mar. i. 1; x. 6; xiii. 8, 19; Lu.
i. 2; Jn. i. 1, 2; ii. 11; vi. 64; viii. 25, 44; xv. 27; xvi. 4; Ac.
xi. 15; 1 Jn. i. 1; ii. 7, 13, 14, 24; iii. 8, 11; 2 Jn. 5, 6. For the
latter signification, primacy of rank or authority, see the following
places: Lu. xii. 11; xx. 20; Ro. viii. 38; 1 Co. xv. 24; Ep. i. 21;
iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16, 18; ii. 10, 15; Tit. iii. 1. The word is
not, therefore, found in the sense of _authorship_, as denoting that
one is the _beginning_ of anything in the sense that he caused it to
have an existence. As to the _second_ of the significations suggested,
that it means that he was the _first created being_, it may be observed
(a) that this is not a _necessary_ signification of the phrase, since
no one can show that this is the _only_ proper meaning which could
be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to
prove that he is himself a created being. If it _were_ demonstrated
from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the
first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would
appropriately _express_ that fact. But it cannot be made out from the
mere use of the language here; and as the language is susceptible of
other interpretations, it cannot be employed to prove that Christ is
a created being. (b) Such an interpretation would be at variance with
all those passages which speak of him as uncreated and eternal; which
ascribe Divine attributes to him; which speak of him as himself the
Creator of all things. Comp. Jn. i. 1‒3; Col. i. 16; He. i. 2, 6, 8,
10‒12. The _third_ signification, therefore, remains, that he is “the
beginning of the creation of God,” in the sense that he is the head
or prince of the creation; that is, that he presides over it so far
as the purposes of redemption are to be accomplished, and so far as
is necessary for those purposes. This is (1) in accordance with the
meaning of the word, Lu. xii. 11; xx. 20, _et al. ut supra_; and (2) in
accordance with the uniform {99} statements respecting the Redeemer,
that “all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth” (Mat. xxviii.
18); that God has “given him power over all flesh” (Jn. xvii. 2); that
all things are “put under his feet” (He. ii. 8; 1 Co. xv. 27); that he
is exalted over all things, Ep. i. 20‒22. Having this rank, it was
proper that he should speak with authority to the church at Laodicea.

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot:
[164]I would thou wert cold or hot.

15. _I know thy works._ Notes on ch. ii. 2. ¶ _That thou art neither
cold nor hot._ The word _cold_ here would seem to denote the state
where there was no pretension to religion; where everything was utterly
lifeless and dead. The language is obviously figurative, but it is
such as is often employed, when we speak of one as being _cold_ towards
another, as having a cold or icy heart, &c. The word _hot_ would denote,
of course, the opposite――warm and zealous in their love and service.
The very words that we are constrained to use when speaking on this
subject――such words as _ardent_ (i.e. _hot_ or _burning_); _fervid_
(i.e. _very hot_, _burning_, _boiling_)――show how necessary it is
to use such words, and how common it is. The state indicated here,
therefore, would be that in which there was a profession of religion,
but no warm-hearted piety; in which there was not, on the one hand,
open and honest opposition to him, and, on the other, such warm-hearted
and honest love as he had a right to look for among his professed
friends; in which there was a profession of that religion which _ought_
to warm the heart with love, and fill the soul with zeal in the cause
of the Redeemer; but where the only result, in fact, was deadness and
indifference to him and his cause. Among those who made no profession
he had reason to expect nothing but coldness; among those who made a
profession he had a right to expect the glow of a warm affection; but
he found nothing but indifference. ¶ _I would thou wert cold or hot._
That is, I would prefer _either_ of those states to that which now
exists. Anything better than this condition, where love is professed,
but where it does not exist; where vows have been assumed which are
not fulfilled. _Why_ he would prefer that they should be “hot” is
clear enough; but why would he prefer a state of utter coldness――a
state where there was no profession of real love? To this question the
following answers may be given: (1) Such a state of open and professed
coldness or indifference is more _honest_. There is no disguise; no
concealment; no pretence. We know where one in this state “may be
found;” we know with whom we are dealing; we know what to expect. Sad
as the state is, it is at least honest; and we are so made that we all
prefer such a character to one where professions are made which are
never to be realized――to a state of insincerity and hypocrisy. (2) Such
a state is more _honourable_. It is a more elevated condition of mind,
and marks a higher character. Of a man who is false to his engagements,
who makes professions and promises never to be realized, we can make
nothing. There is essential meanness in such a character, and there is
nothing in it which we can respect. But in the character of the man who
is openly and avowedly opposed to anything; who takes his stand, and is
earnest and zealous in his course, though it be wrong, there are traits
which may be, under a better direction, elements of true greatness and
magnanimity. In the character of Saul of Tarsus there were always the
elements of true greatness; in that of Judas Iscariot there were never.
The one was capable of becoming one of the noblest men that has ever
lived on the earth; the other, even under the personal teaching of
the Redeemer for years, was nothing but a traitor――a man of essential
meanness. (3) There is more hope of conversion and salvation in such
a case. There could always have been a ground of hope that Saul would
be converted and saved, even when “breathing out threatening and
slaughter;” of Judas, when numbered among the professed disciples of
the Saviour, there was no hope. The most hopeless of all persons, in
regard to salvation, are those who are members of the church without
any true religion; who have made a profession without any evidence
of personal piety; who are content with a name to live. This is so,
because (a) the essential character of {100} anyone who will allow
himself to _do this_ is eminently unfavourable to true religion. There
is a lack of that thorough honesty and sincerity which is so necessary
for true conversion to God. He who is content to profess to be what
he really is not, is not a man on whom the truths of Christianity are
likely to make an impression. (b) Such a man never applies the truth
to himself. Truth that is addressed to impenitent sinners he does
not apply to himself, of course; for he does not rank himself in that
class of persons. Truth addressed to hypocrites he _will_ not apply to
himself; for no one, however insincere and hollow he may be, chooses
to act on the presumption that he is himself a hypocrite, or so as
to leave others to suppose that he regards himself as such. The means
of grace adapted to save a _sinner_, as such, he will not use; for
he is in the church, and chooses to regard himself as safe. Efforts
made to reclaim him he will resist; for he will regard it as proof of
a meddlesome spirit, and an uncharitable judging in others, if they
consider him to be anything different from what he professes to be.
What right have they to go _back_ of his profession, and assume that he
is insincere? As a consequence, there are probably fewer persons by far
converted of those who come into the church without any religion, than
of any other class of persons of similar number; and the most hopeless
of all conditions, in respect to conversion and salvation, is when
one enters the church deceived. (c) It may be presumed that, for these
reasons, God himself will make less direct effort to convert and save
such persons. As there are fewer appeals that can be brought to bear
on them; as there is less in their character that is noble, and that
can be depended on in promoting the salvation of a soul; and as there
is special guilt in hypocrisy, it may be presumed that God will more
frequently leave such persons to their chosen course, than he will
those who make no professions of religion. Comp. Ps. cix. 17, 18;
Je. vii. 16; xi. 14; xiv. 11; Is. i. 15; Ho. iv. 17.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will spue thee out of my mouth.

16. _So then because thou art lukewarm――I will spue thee out of my
mouth._ Referring, perhaps, to the well-known fact that tepid water
tends to produce sickness at the stomach, and an inclination to
vomit. The image is intensely strong, and denotes deep disgust and
loathing at the indifference which prevailed in the church at Laodicea.
The idea is, that they would be utterly rejected and cast off as a
church――a threatening of which there has been an abundant fulfilment
in subsequent times. It may be remarked, also, that what was threatened
to that church may be expected to occur to all churches, if they are in
the same condition; and that all professing Christians, and Christian
churches, that are lukewarm, have special reason to dread the
indignation of the Saviour.

17 Because thou sayest, [165]I am rich, and increased with
goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art
wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

17. _Because thou sayest, I am rich._ So far as the _language_ here is
concerned, this may refer either to riches literally, or to spiritual
riches; that is, to a boast of having religion enough. Professor Stuart
supposes that it refers to the former, and so do Wetstein, Vitringa,
and others. Doddridge, Rosenmüller, and others, understand it in the
latter sense. There is no doubt that there was much wealth in Laodicea,
and that, as a people, they prided themselves on their riches. See the
authorities in Wetstein on Col. ii. 1, and Vitringa, p. 160. It is not
easy to determine _which_ is the true sense; but may it not have been
that there was an allusion to _both_, and that, _in every respect_,
they boasted that they had enough? May it not have been so much the
characteristic of that people to boast of their wealth, that they
carried the spirit into everything, and manifested it even in regard to
religion? Is it not true that they who have much of this world’s goods,
when they make a profession of religion, are very apt to suppose that
they are well off in everything, and to feel self-complacent and happy?
And is not the possession of much wealth by an individual Christian, or
a Christian church, likely to produce just the lukewarmness which it is
said existed in the church at Laodicea? If we thus understand it, {101}
there will be an accordance with the well-known fact that Laodicea
was distinguished for its riches, and, at the same time, with another
fact, so common as to be almost universal, that the possession of
great wealth tends to make a professed Christian self-complacent and
satisfied in every respect; to make him feel that, although he may not
have much _religion_, yet he is on the whole well off; and to produce,
in religion, a state of just such lukewarmness as the Saviour here says
was loathsome and odious. ¶ _And increased with goods._ πεπλούτηκα――“I
am enriched.” This is only a more emphatic and intensive way of saying
the same thing. It has no reference to the _kind_ of riches referred
to, but merely denotes the confident manner in which they affirmed
that they were rich. ¶ _And have need of nothing._ Still an emphatic
and intensive way of saying that they were rich. In all respects
their wants were satisfied; they had enough of everything. They
felt, therefore, no stimulus to effort; they sat down in contentment,
self-complacency, and indifference. It is almost unavoidable that those
who are rich in this world’s goods should feel that they have need of
_nothing_. There is no more common illusion among men than the feeling
that if one has wealth he has everything; that there is no want of his
nature which cannot be satisfied with that; and that he may now sit
down in contentment and ease. Hence the almost universal desire _to be_
rich; hence the common feeling among those who _are_ rich that there is
no occasion for solicitude or care for anything else. Comp. Lu. xii. 19.
¶ _And knowest not._ There is no just impression in regard to the real
poverty and wretchedness of your condition. ¶ _That thou art wretched._
The word _wretched_ we now use to denote the actual consciousness of
being miserable, as applicable to one who is sunk into deep distress
or affliction. The word here, however, refers rather to the condition
itself than to the consciousness of that condition, for it is said
that they did not _know_ it. Their state was, in fact, a miserable
state, and was fitted to produce actual distress if they had had any
just sense of it, though they thought that it was otherwise. ¶ _And
miserable._ This word has, with us now, a similar signification; but
the term here used――ἐλεεινὸς――rather means a _pitiable_ state than
one actually _felt_ to be so. The meaning is, that their condition was
one that was fitted to excite _pity_ or _compassion_; not that they
were actually miserable. Comp. Notes on 1 Co. xv. 19. ¶ _And poor._
Notwithstanding all their boast of having enough. They really had not
that which was necessary to meet the actual wants of their nature, and,
therefore, they were poor. Their worldly property could not meet the
wants of their souls; and, with all their pretensions to piety, they
had not religion enough to meet the necessities of their nature when
calamities should come, or when death should approach; and they were,
therefore, in the strictest sense of the term, _poor_. ¶ _And blind._
That is, in a spiritual respect. They did not see the reality of their
condition; they had no just views of themselves, of the character
of God, of the way of salvation. This seems to be said in connection
with the boast which they made in their own minds――that they had
_everything_; that they wanted nothing. One of the great blessings of
life is clearness of vision, and their boast that they had everything
must have included that; but the speaker here says that they lacked
that indispensable thing to completeness of character and to full
enjoyment. With all their boasting, they were actually _blind_,――and
how could one who was in that state say that he “had need of nothing?”
¶ _And naked._ Of course, _spiritually_. Salvation is often represented
as a garment (Mat. xxii. 11, 12; Re. vi. 11; vii. 9, 13, 14); and the
declaration here is equivalent to saying that they had no religion.
They had nothing to cover the nakedness of the soul, and in respect to
the real wants of their nature they were like one who had no clothing
in reference to cold, and heat, and storms, and to the shame of
nakedness. How could such an one be regarded as rich? We may learn from
this instructive verse, (1) That men may think themselves to be rich,
and yet, in fact, be miserably poor. They may have the wealth of this
world in abundance, and yet have nothing that really will meet their
wants in disappointment, bereavement, sickness, death; the wants of
their never-dying soul; their wants in eternity. What had the “rich
fool,” as he is commonly termed, in the parable, when he came to die?
Lu. xii. 16, {102} seq. What had “Dives,” as he is commonly termed, to
meet the wants of his nature when he went down to hell? Lu. xvi. 19,
seq. (2) Men may have much property, and think that they have all they
want, and yet be _wretched_. In the sense that their _condition_ is a
wretched condition, this is always true; and in the sense that they are
consciously wretched, this may be, and often is, true also. (3) Men may
have great property, and yet be _miserable_. This is true in the sense
that their condition is a _pitiable_ one, and in the sense that they
are actually _unhappy_. There is no more pitiable _condition_ than that
where one has great property, and is self-complacent and proud, and who
has nevertheless no God, no Saviour, no hope of heaven, and who perhaps
that very day may “lift up his eyes in hell, being in torments;” and
it need not be added that there is no greater actual _misery_ in this
world than that which sometimes finds its way into the palaces of
the rich. He greatly errs who thinks that misery is confined to the
cottages of the poor. (4) Men may be rich, and think they have all
that they want, and yet be _blind_ to their condition. They really
have no distinct vision of anything. They have no just views of God,
of themselves, of their duty, of this world, or of the next. In most
important respects they are in a worse condition than the inmates
of an asylum for the blind, for they may have clear views of God and
of heaven. Mental darkness is a greater calamity than the loss of
natural vision; and there is many an one who is surrounded by all
that affluence can give, who never yet had one correct view of his own
character, of his God, or of the reality of his condition, and whose
condition might have been far better if he had actually been born blind.
(5) There may be gorgeous robes of adorning, and yet real nakedness.
With all the decorations that wealth can impart, there may be a
nakedness of the soul as real as that of the body would be if, without
a rag to cover it, it were exposed to cold, and storm, and shame. The
soul destitute of the robes of salvation, is in a worse condition than
the body without raiment; for how can it bear the storms of wrath that
shall beat upon it for ever, and the shame of its exposure in the last
dread day?

18 I counsel thee to [166]buy of me gold tried in the fire,
that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest
be clothed, and _that_ [167]the shame of thy nakedness do not
appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest
see.

18. _I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire._ Pure gold;
such as has been subjected to the action of heat to purify it from
dross. See Notes on 1 Pe. i. 7. Gold here is emblematic of religion――as
being the most precious of the metals, and the most valued by men.
They professed to be rich, but were not; and he counsels them to obtain
from him that which would make them truly rich. ¶ _That thou mayest be
rich._ In the true and proper sense of the word. With true religion;
with the favour and friendship of the Redeemer, they would have all
that they really needed, and would never be in want. ¶ _And white
raiment._ The emblem of purity and salvation. See Notes on ver. 4. This
is said in reference to the fact (ver. 17) that they were then _naked_.
¶ _That thou mayest be clothed._ With the garments of salvation. This
refers, also, to true religion, meaning that that which the Redeemer
furnishes will answer the same purpose in respect to the soul which
clothing does in reference to the body. Of course it cannot be
understood literally, nor should the language be pressed too closely,
as if there was too strict a resemblance. ¶ _And that the shame of thy
nakedness do not appear._ We clothe the body as well for decency as for
protection against cold, and storm, and heat. The soul is to be clothed
that the “shame” of its sinfulness may not be exhibited, and that it
may not be offensive and repellant in the sight. ¶ _And anoint thine
eyes with eye- salve._ In allusion to the fact that they were _blind_,
ver. 17. The word _eye-salve_――κολλούριον――occurs nowhere else in
the New Testament. It is a diminutive from κολλύρα――_collyra_――a
coarse bread or cake, and means properly a small cake or cracknel.
It is applied to eye-salve as resembling such a cake, and refers to a
medicament prepared for sore or weak eyes. It was compounded of various
substances supposed to have a healing {103} quality. See Wetstein, _in
loco_. The reference here is to a spiritual healing――meaning that, in
respect to their spiritual vision, what he would furnish would produce
the same effect as the collyrium or eye-salve would in diseased eyes.
The idea is, that the grace of the gospel enables men who were before
blind to see clearly the character of God, the beauty of the way of
salvation, the loveliness of the person and work of Christ, &c. See
Notes on Ep. i. 18.

19 As[168] many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous
therefore, and repent.

19. _As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten._ Of course, only on the
supposition that they deserve it. The meaning is, that it is a proof
of love on his part, if his professed friends go astray, to recall them
by admonitions and by trials. So a father calls back his children who
are disobedient; and there is no higher proof of his love than when,
with great pain to himself, he administers such chastisement as shall
save his child. See the sentiment here expressed fully explained in
the Notes on He. xii. 6, seq. The language is taken from Pr. iii. 12.
¶ _Be zealous, therefore, and repent._ Be earnest, strenuous, ardent
in your purpose to exercise true repentance, and to turn from the error
of your ways. Lose no time; spare no labour, that you may obtain such
a state of mind that it shall not be necessary to bring upon you the
severe discipline which always comes on those who continue lukewarm in
religion. The _truth_ taught here is, that when the professed followers
of Christ have become lukewarm in his service, they should lose no time
in returning to him, and seeking his favour again. As sure as he has
any true love for them, if this is not done he will bring upon them
some heavy calamity, alike to rebuke them for their errors, and to
recover them to himself.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and [169]knock: [170]if any
man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him,
and will sup with him, and he with me.

20. _Behold, I stand at the door, and knock._ Intimating that, though
they had erred, the way of repentance and hope was not closed against
them. He was still willing to be gracious, though their conduct had
been such as to be loathsome, ver. 16. To see the real force of this
language, we must remember how disgusting and offensive their conduct
had been to him. And yet he was willing, notwithstanding this, to
receive them to his favour; nay more, he stood and pled with them
that he might be received with the hospitality that would be shown to
a friend or stranger. The _language_ here is so plain that it scarcely
needs explanation. It is taken from an act when we approach a dwelling,
and, by a well-understood sign――_knocking_――announce our presence, and
ask for admission. The act of _knocking_ implies two things: (a) that
we desire admittance; and (b) that we recognize the right of him who
dwells in the house to open the door to us or not, as he shall please.
We would not obtrude upon him; we would not force his door; and if,
after we are sure that we are heard, we are not admitted, we turn
quietly away. Both of these things are implied here by the language
used by the Saviour when he approaches man as represented under the
image of knocking at the door: that he _desires_ to be admitted to our
friendship; and that he recognizes our _freedom_ in the matter. He does
not obtrude himself upon us, nor does he employ force to find admission
to the heart. If admitted, he comes and dwells with us; if rejected,
he turns quietly away――perhaps to return and knock again, perhaps
never to come back. The language here used, also, may be understood as
applicable to all persons, and to all the methods by which the Saviour
seeks to come into the heart of a sinner. It would properly refer to
anything which would announce his presence:――his word; his Spirit;
the solemn events of his providence; the invitations of his gospel.
In these and in other methods he comes to man; and the manner in which
these invitations ought to be estimated would be seen by supposing that
he came to us personally and solicited our friendship, and proposed
to be our Redeemer. It may be added here, that this expression proves
that the attempt at reconciliation begins with the Saviour. It is not
that the sinner goes out to meet him, or to seek for him; it is that
the Saviour _presents himself_ at the door of the heart, as if he were
desirous {104} to enjoy the friendship of man. This is in accordance
with the uniform language of the New Testament, that “God so loved the
world as to _give_ his only-begotten Son;” that “Christ came to _seek_
and to save the lost;” that the Saviour says, “Come unto me, all ye
that labour and are heavy laden,” &c. Salvation, in the Scriptures, is
never represented as originated by man. ¶ _If any man hear my voice._
Perhaps referring to a custom then prevailing, that he who knocked
spake, in order to let it be known who it was. This might be demanded
in the night (Lu. xi. 5), or when there was apprehension of danger,
and it may have been the custom when John wrote. The language here,
in accordance with the uniform usage in the Scriptures (comp. Is.
lv. 1; Jn. vii. 37; Re. xxii. 17), is universal, and proves that the
invitations of the gospel are made, and are _to be_ made, not to a part
only, but fully and freely to all men; for, although this originally
had reference to the members of the church in Laodicea, yet the
language chosen seems to have been of design so universal (ἐάν τις) as
to be applicable to every human being; and anyone, of any age and in
any land, would be authorized to apply this to himself, and, under the
protection of this invitation, to come to the Saviour, and to plead
this promise as one that fairly included himself. It may be observed
farther, that this also recognizes the freedom of man. It is submitted
to him whether he will hear the voice of the Redeemer or not; and
whether he will open the door and admit him or not. He speaks loud
enough, and distinctly enough, to be heard, but he does not force the
door if it is not voluntarily opened. ¶ _And open the door._ As one
would when a stranger or friend stood and knocked. The meaning here is
simply, if anyone will _admit_ me; that is, receive me as a friend. The
act of receiving him is as voluntary on our part as it is when we rise
and open the door to one who knocks. It may be added, (1) that this is
an _easy_ thing. Nothing is more easy than to open the door when one
knocks; and so everywhere in the Scriptures it is represented as an
easy thing, if the heart is willing, to secure the salvation of the
soul. (2) This is a _reasonable_ thing. We invite him who knocks at the
door to come in. We always assume, unless there is reason to suspect
the contrary, that he applies for peaceful and friendly purposes. We
deem it the height of rudeness to let one stand and knock long; or
to let him go away with no friendly invitation to enter our dwelling.
Yet how different does the sinner treat the Saviour! How long does he
suffer him to knock at the door of his heart, with no invitation to
enter――no act of common civility such as that with which he would greet
even a stranger! And with how much coolness and indifference does he
see him turn away――perhaps to come back no more, and with no desire
that he ever should return! ¶ _I will come in to him, and will sup with
him, and he with me._ This is an image denoting intimacy and friendship.
Supper, with the ancients, was the principal social meal; and the idea
here is, that between the Saviour and those who would receive him there
would be the intimacy which subsists between those who sit down to a
friendly meal together. In all countries and times, to eat together,
to break bread together, has been the symbol of friendship, and this
the Saviour promises here. The _truths_, then, which are taught in this
verse, are, (1) that the invitation of the gospel is made to all――“if
_any_ man hear my voice;” (2) that the movement towards reconciliation
and friendship is originated by the Saviour――“behold, I stand at
the door and knock;” (3) that there is a recognition of our own free
agency in religion――“if any man will hear my voice, and open the door;”
(4) the _ease_ of the terms of salvation, represented by “hearing
his voice,” and “opening the door;” and (5) the blessedness of thus
admitting him, arising from his friendship――“I will sup with him, and
he with me.” What friend can man have who would confer so many benefits
on him as the Lord Jesus Christ? Who is there that he should so gladly
welcome to his bosom?

21 To him that [171]overcometh will I grant to [172]sit with
me in my throne, even as [173]I also overcame, and am set down
with my Father in his throne.

21. _To him that overcometh._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. ¶ _Will I grant
to sit with me in my throne._ That is, {105} they will share his
honours and his triumphs. See Notes on ch. ii. 26, 27; comp. Notes on
Ro. viii. 17. ¶ _Even as I also overcame._ As I gained a victory over
the world, and over the power of the tempter. As the reward of this, he
is exalted to the throne of the universe (Phi. ii. 6‒11), and in these
honours, achieved by their great and glorious Head, all the redeemed
will share. ¶ _And am set down with my Father in his throne._ Comp.
Notes on Phi. ii. 6‒11. That is, he has dominion over the universe.
All things are put under his feet, and in the strictest unison and
with perfect harmony he is united with the Father in administering
the affairs of all worlds. The dominion of the Father is that of the
Son――that of the Son is that of the Father; for they are one. See Notes
on Jn. v. 19; comp. Notes on Ep. i. 20‒22; 1 Co. xv. 24‒28.

22 He[174] that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches.

22. _He that hath an ear_, &c. See Notes on ch. ii. 7.

This closes the epistolary part of this book, and the “visions”
properly commence with the next chapter. Two remarks may be made
in the conclusion of this exposition. (1) The first relates to the
truthfulness of the predictions in these epistles. As an illustration
of that truthfulness, and of the present correspondence of the
condition of those churches with what the Saviour said to John they
would be, the following striking passage may be introduced from
Mr. Gibbon. It occurs in his description of the conquests of the Turks
(_Decline and Fall_, iv. 260, 261). “Two Turkish chieftains, Sarukhan
and Aidin left their names to their conquests, and their conquests
to their posterity. The captivity or ruin of the _seven_ churches
of Asia was consummated; and the barbarous lords of Ionia and Lydia
still trample on the monuments of classic and Christian antiquity.
In the loss of Ephesus, the Christians deplored the fall of the first
angel, the extinction of the first candlestick of the Revelations: the
desolation is complete; and the temple of Diana, or the church of Mary,
will equally elude the search of the curious traveller. The circus
and three stately theatres of Laodicea are now peopled with wolves and
foxes; Sardis is reduced to a miserable village; the God of Mahomet,
without a rival or a son, is invoked in the mosques of Thyatira and
Pergamos; and the populousness of Smyrna is supported by the foreign
trade of Franks and Armenians. Philadelphia alone has been saved by
prophecy or courage. At a distance from the sea, forgotten by the
emperors, encompassed on all sides by the Turks, her valiant citizens
defended their religion and freedom above fourscore years, and at
length capitulated with the proudest of the Ottomans. Among the Greek
colonies and churches of Asia, Philadelphia is still erect, a column
in a scene of ruins; a pleasing example that the paths of honour and
safety may sometimes be the same.”

(2) The second remark relates to the applicability of these important
truths to us. There is perhaps no part of the New Testament more
searching than these brief epistles to the seven churches; and though
those to whom they were addressed have long since passed away, and the
churches have long since become extinct; though darkness, error, and
desolation have come over the places where these churches once stood,
yet the principles laid down in these epistles still live, and they
are full of admonition to Christians in all ages and all lands. It is
a consideration of as much importance to us as it was to these churches,
that the Saviour now knows our works; that he sees in the church, and
in any individual, all that there is to commend and all that there is
to reprove; that he has power to reward or punish now as he had then;
that the same rules in apportioning rewards and punishments will still
be acted on; that he who overcomes the temptations of the world will
find an appropriate reward; that those who live in sin must meet with
the proper recompense, and that those who are lukewarm in his service
will be spurned with unutterable loathing. His rebukes are awful;
but his promises are full of tenderness and kindness. While they who
have embraced error, and they who are living in sin, have occasion to
tremble before him, they who are endeavouring to perform their duty
may find in these epistles enough to cheer their hearts, and to animate
them with the hope of final victory, and of the most ample and glorious
reward.

{106} CHAPTER IV.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter properly commences the series of visions respecting
future events, and introduces those remarkable symbolical descriptions
which were designed to cheer the hearts of those to whom the book was
first sent, in their trials, and the hearts of all believers in all
ages, with the assurance of the final triumph of the gospel. See the
Introduction.

In regard to the _nature_ of these visions, or the state of mind of
the writer, there have been different opinions. Some have supposed that
all that is described was made only to pass before the mind, with no
visible representation; others, that there were visible representations
so made to him that he could copy them; others, that all that is said
or seen was only the production of the author’s imagination. The latter
is the view principally entertained by German writers on the book.
All that would seem to be apparent on the face of the book――and that
is all that we can judge by――is, that the following things occurred:
(1) The writer was in a devout frame of mind――a state of holy
contemplation――when the scenes were represented to him, ch. i. 10.

(2) The representations were supernatural; that is, they were something
which was disclosed to him, in that state of mind, beyond any natural
reach of his faculties. (3) These things were so made to pass before
him that they had the aspect of reality, and he could copy and describe
them as real. It is not necessary to suppose that there was any
representation to the bodily eye; but they had, to his mind, such a
reality that he could describe them as pictures or symbols――and his
office was limited to that. He does not attempt to _explain_ them, nor
does he intimate that he understood them; but his office pertains to
an accurate _record_――a fair transcript――of what passed before his
mind. For anything that appears, he may have been as ignorant of their
signification as any of his readers, and may have subsequently studied
them with the same kind of attention which we now give to them (comp.
Notes on 1 Pe. i. 11, 12), and may have, perhaps, remained ignorant of
their signification to the day of his death. It is no more necessary to
suppose that he understood all that was implied in these symbols, than
it is that one who can describe a beautiful landscape understands all
the laws of the plants and flowers in the landscape; or, that one who
copies all the designs and devices of armorial bearings in heraldry,
should understand all that is meant by the symbols that are used; or,
that one who should copy the cuneiform inscriptions of Persepolis,
or the hieroglyphics of Thebes, should understand the meaning of the
symbols. All that is demanded or expected, in such a case, is, that the
_copy_ should be accurately made; and, _when_ made, this copy may be as
much an object of study to him who made it as to anyone else. (4) Yet
there was a sense in which these symbols were _real_; that is, they
were a real and proper delineation of future events. They were not
the mere workings of the imagination. He who saw them in vision though
there may have been no representation to the eye, had before him what
was a real and appropriate representation of coming events. If not, the
visions are as worthless as dreams are.

The visions open (ch. iv.) with a _Theophany_, or a representation of
God. John is permitted to look into heaven, and to have a view of the
throne of God, and of the worship celebrated there. A _door_ (θύρα) or
opening is made into heaven, so that he, as it were, looks _through_
the concave above, and sees what is beyond. He sees the throne of God,
and him who sits on the throne, and the worshippers there; he sees the
lightnings play around the throne, and hears the thunder’s roar; he
sees the rainbow that encompasses the throne, and hears the songs of
the worshippers. In reference to this vision, at the commencement of
the series of symbols which he was about to describe, and the _reason_
why this was vouchsafed to him, the following remarks may be suggested:
(1) There is, in some respects, a striking resemblance between this and
the visions of Isaiah (ch. vi.) and Ezekiel (ch. i.). As those prophets,
when about to enter on their office, were solemnly inaugurated by being
permitted to have a vision of the Almighty, so John was inaugurated
to the office of making known future things――the last prophet of
the world――by a similar vision. We shall see, indeed, that the
representation made to John was not precisely the same as that which
was made to Isaiah or that which was {107} made to Ezekiel; but the
most striking symbols are retained, and that of John is as much adapted
to impress the mind as either of the others. Each of them describes the
throne, and the attending circumstances of sublimity and majesty; each
of them speaks of one on the throne, but neither of them has attempted
any description of the Almighty. There is no delineation of an image,
or a figure representing God, but everything respecting him is veiled
in such obscurity as to fill the mind with awe. (2) The representation
is such as to produce deep solemnity on the mind of the writer and
the reader. Nothing could have been better adapted to prepare the mind
of John for the important communications which he was about to make
than to be permitted to look, as it were, directly into heaven, and
to see the throne of God. And nothing is better fitted to impress the
mind of the reader than the view which is furnished, in the opening
vision, of the majesty and glory of God. Brought, as it were, into his
very presence; permitted to look upon his burning throne; seeing the
reverent and profound worship of the inhabitants of heaven, we feel
our minds awed, and our souls subdued, as we hear the God of heaven
speak, and as we see seal after seal opened, and hear trumpet after
trumpet utter its voice. (3) The form of the manifestation――the opening
vision――is eminently fitted to show us that the communications in this
book proceed from heaven. Looking into heaven, and seeing the vision
of the Almighty, we are prepared to feel that what follows has a higher
than any human origin; that it has come direct from the throne of
God. And (4) there was a propriety that the visions should open with
a manifestation of the throne of God in heaven, or with a vision of
heaven, because that, also, is the _termination_ of the whole; it is
that to which all the visions in the book tend. It begins in heaven, as
seen by the exile in Patmos; it terminates in heaven, when all enemies
of the church are subdued, and the redeemed reign triumphant in glory.

The substance of the introductory vision in this chapter can be stated
in few words: (a) A door is opened, and John is permitted to look into
heaven, and to see what is passing there, ver. 1, 2. (b) The first
thing that strikes him is a throne, with one sitting on the throne,
ver. 2. (c) The appearance of him who sits upon the throne is described,
ver. 3. He is “like a jasper and a sardine stone.” There is no attempt
to portray his form; there is no description from which an image could
be formed that could become an object of idolatrous worship――for who
would undertake to chisel anything so indefinite as that which is
merely “_like_ a jasper or a sardine stone?” And yet the description
is distinct enough to fill the mind with emotions of awe and sublimity,
and to leave the impression that he who sat on the throne was a pure
and holy God. (d) Round about the throne there was a bright rainbow: a
symbol of peace, ver. 3. (e) Around the throne are gathered the elders
of the church, having on their heads crowns of gold: symbols of the
ultimate triumph of the church, ver. 4. (f) Thunder and lightning, as
at Sinai, announce the presence of God, and seven burning lamps before
the throne represent the Spirit of God, in his diversified operations,
as going forth through the world to enlighten, sanctify, and save,
ver. 5. (g) Before the throne there is a pellucid pavement, as of
crystal, spread out like a sea: emblem of calmness, majesty, peace,
and wide dominion, ver. 6. (h) The throne is supported by four living
creatures, full of eyes: emblems of the all-seeing power of him that
sits upon the throne, and of his ever-watchful providence, ver. 6.
(i) To each one of these living creatures there is a peculiar symbolic
face: respectively emblematic of the authority, the power, the wisdom
of God, and of the rapidity with which the purposes of Providence are
executed, ver. 7. All are furnished with wings: emblematic of their
readiness to do the will of God (ver. 8), but each one individually
with a peculiar form. (j) All these creatures pay ceaseless homage
to God, whose throne they are represented as supporting: emblematic
of the fact that all the operations of the divine government do, in
fact, promote his glory, and, as it were, render him praise, ver. 8, 9.
(k) To this the elders, the representatives of the church, respond:
representing the fact that the church acquiesces in all the
arrangements of Providence, and in the execution of all the divine
purposes, and finds in them all ground for adoration and thanksgiving,
ver. 10, 11.

CHAPTER IV.

AFTER this I looked, and, behold, a door _was_ opened in
heaven; and the first [175]voice which I heard _was_ as it
were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, [176]Come up
hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

1. _After this._ Gr., “After these things;” that is, after what he
had seen, {108} and after what he had been directed to record in the
preceding chapters. How long after these things this occurred, he
does not say――whether on the same day, or at some subsequent time;
and conjecture would be useless. The _scene_, however, is changed.
Instead of seeing the Saviour standing before him (ch. i.), the scene
is transferred to heaven, and he is permitted to look in upon the
throne of God, and upon the worshippers there. ¶ _I looked._ Gr.,
_I saw_――εἶδον. Our word _look_ would rather indicate _purpose_ or
_intention_, as if he had _designedly_ directed his attention to
heaven, to see what could be discovered there. The meaning, however,
is simply that he saw a new vision, without intimating whether there
was any _design_ on his part, and without saying how his thoughts came
to be directed to heaven. ¶ _A door |was| opened._ That is, there was
apparently an opening in the sky like a door, so that he could look
into heaven. ¶ _In heaven._ Or, rather, in the expanse above――in the
visible heavens as they appear to spread out over the earth. So Eze.
i. 1, “The heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.” The Hebrews
spoke of the sky above as a solid expanse; or as a curtain stretched
out; or as an extended arch above the earth――describing it as it
_appears_ to the eye. In that expanse, or arch, the stars are set as
gems (comp. Notes on Is. xxxiv. 4); through apertures or windows in
that expanse the rain comes down, Ge. vii. 11; and that is opened when
a heavenly messenger comes down to the earth, Mat. iii. 16. Comp. Lu.
iii. 21; Ac. vii. 56; x. 11. Of course, all this is figurative, but it
is such language as all men naturally use. The simple meaning here is,
that John had a vision of what is in heaven _as if_ there had been such
an opening made through the sky, and he had been permitted to look into
the world above. ¶ _And the first voice which I heard._ That is, the
first sound which he heard was a command to come up and see the glories
of that world. He afterwards heard other sounds――the sounds of praise;
but the first notes that fell on his ear were a direction to come up
there and receive a revelation respecting future things. This does not
seem to me to mean, as Professor Stuart, Lord, and others suppose, that
he now recognized the voice which had _first_, or formerly spoken to
him (ch. i. 10), but that this was the _first_ in contradistinction
from other voices which he afterwards heard. It resembled the former
“voice” in this, that it was “like the sound of a trumpet,” but besides
that there does not seem to have been anything that would suggest to
him that it came from the same source. It is certainly possible that
the Greek would admit of that interpretation, but it is not the most
obvious or probable. ¶ _|Was| as it were of a trumpet._ It resembled
the sound of a trumpet, ch. i. 10. ¶ _Talking with me._ As of a trumpet
that seemed to speak directly to me. ¶ _Which said._ That is, the
voice said. ¶ _Come up hither._ To the place whence the voice seemed
to proceed――heaven. ¶ _And I will show thee things which must be
hereafter._ Gr., “after these things.” The reference is to future
events; and the meaning is, that there would be disclosed to him
events that were to occur at some future period. There is no intimation
here _when_ they would occur, or what would be embraced in the period
referred to. All that the words would properly convey would be, that
there would be a disclosure of things that were to occur in some future
time.

2 And immediately I was [177]in the Spirit: and, behold, a
[178]throne was set in heaven, and [179]_one_ sat on the
throne.

2. _And immediately I was in the Spirit._ See Notes on ch. i. 10.
He does not affirm that he was caught up into heaven, nor does he say
what impression was on his own mind, if any, as to the place where he
was; but he was at once absorbed in the contemplation of the visions
before him. He was doubtless still in Patmos, and these things were
made to pass before his mind as a reality; that is, they appeared as
real to him as if he saw them, and they were in fact a real symbolical
representation {109} of things occurring in heaven. ¶ _And, behold,
a throne was set in heaven._ That is, a throne was _placed_ there.
The first thing that arrested his attention was a throne. This was
“in heaven”――an expression which proves that the scene of the vision
was not the temple in Jerusalem, as some have supposed. There is no
allusion to the temple, and no imagery drawn from the temple. Isaiah
had his vision (Is. vi.) in the holy of holies of the temple; Ezekiel
(ch. i. 1), by the river Chebar; but John looked directly into heaven,
and saw the throne of God, and the encircling worshippers there.
¶ _And |one| sat on the throne._ It is remarkable that John gives
no description of him who sat on the throne, nor does he indicate
who he was by name. Neither do Isaiah or Ezekiel attempt to describe
the appearance of the Deity, nor are there any intimations of that
appearance given from which a picture or an image could be formed. So
much do their representations accord with what is demanded by correct
taste; and so sedulously have they guarded against any encouragement of
idolatry.

3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine
stone: and _there was_ a rainbow round about the throne, in
sight like unto an emerald.

3. _And he that sat was to look upon._ Was in appearance; or, as I
looked upon him, this seemed to be his appearance. He does not describe
his form, but his splendour. ¶ _Like a jasper_――ἰάσπιδι. The jasper,
properly, is “an opaque, impure variety of quartz, of red, yellow, and
also of some dull colours, breaking with a smooth surface. It admits
of a high polish, and is used for vases, seals, snuff-boxes, &c. When
the colours are in stripes or bands, it is called _striped jasper_”
(Dana, in Webster’s _Dictionary_). The _colour_ here is not designated,
whether red or yellow. As the red was, however, the common colour worn
by princes, it is probable that that was the colour that appeared,
and that John means to say that he appeared like a prince in his royal
robes. Comp. Is. vi. 1. ¶ _And a sardine stone_――σαρδίῳ. This denotes
a precious stone of a blood-red, or sometimes of a flesh-colour,
more commonly known by the name of _carnelian_ (Rob. _Lex._). Thus
it corresponds with the jasper, and this is only an additional
circumstance to convey the exact idea in the mind of John, that the
appearance of him who sat on the throne was that of a prince in his
scarlet robes. This is all the description which he gives of his
appearance; and this is (a) entirely appropriate, as it suggests the
idea of a prince or a monarch; and (b) it is well adapted to impress
the mind with a sense of the majesty of Him who cannot be described,
and of whom no image should be attempted. Comp. De. iv. 12: “Ye heard
the voice of the words, but saw no similitude.” ¶ _And |there was| a
rainbow round about the throne._ This is a beautiful image, and was
probably designed to be emblematical as well as beautiful. The previous
representation is that of majesty and splendour; this is adapted to
temper the majesty of the representation. The rainbow has always, from
its own nature, and from its associations, been an emblem of peace. It
appears on the cloud as the storm passes away. It contrasts beautifully
with the tempest that has just been raging. It is seen as the rays
of the sun again appear clothing all things with beauty――the more
beautiful from the fact that the storm has come, and that the rain has
fallen. If the rain has been gentle, nature smiles serenely, and the
leaves and flowers refreshed appear clothed with new beauty: if the
storm has raged violently, the appearance of the rainbow is a pledge
that the war of the elements has ceased, and that God smiles again upon
the earth. It reminds us, too, of the “covenant” when God did “set his
bow in the cloud,” and solemnly promised that the earth should no more
be destroyed by a flood, Ge. ix. 9‒16. The appearance of the rainbow,
therefore, around the throne, was a beautiful emblem of the mercy of
God, and of the peace that was to pervade the world as the result of
the events that were to be disclosed to the vision of John. True, there
were lightnings and thunderings and voices, but there the bow abode
calmly above them all, assuring him that there was to be mercy and
peace. ¶ _In sight like unto an emerald._ The emerald is green, and
this colour so predominated in the bow that it seemed to be made of
this species of precious stone. The modified and mild colour of green
appears to everyone to predominate in the rainbow. Ezekiel (i. 28) has
introduced the image of the rainbow, also, in his description of the
vision that appeared to {110} him, though not as calmly encircling the
throne, but as descriptive of the general appearance of the scene. “As
is the appearance of the bow that is on the cloud in the day of rain,
so was the appearance of the brightness round about.” Milton, also,
has introduced it, but it is also as a part of the colouring of the
throne:――

“Over their heads a crystal firmament,
Whereon a sapphire throne, inlaid with pure
Amber, and colours of the showery arch.”
_Par. Lost_, b. vii.

4 And round about the throne _were_ [180]four and twenty
seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting,
[181]clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads
[182]crowns of gold.

4. _And round about the throne |were| four and twenty seats._ Or rather
_thrones_――θρόνοι――the same word being used as that which is rendered
_throne_――θρόνος. The word, indeed, properly denotes _a seat_, but it
came to be employed to denote particularly the seat on which a monarch
sat, and is properly translated thus in ver. 2, 3. So it is rendered
in Mat. v. 34; xix. 28; xxiii. 22; xxv. 31; Lu. i. 32; and uniformly
elsewhere in the New Testament (fifty-three places in all), except in
Lu. i. 52; Re. ii. 13; iv. 4; xi. 16; xvi. 10, where it is rendered
_seat_ and _seats_. It should have been rendered _thrones_ here, and
is so translated by Professor Stuart. Coverdale and Tyndale render the
word _seat_ in each place in ver. 2‒5. It was undoubtedly the design of
the writer to represent those who sat on those seats as, in some sense,
_kings_――for they have on their heads crowns of gold――and that idea
should have been retained in the translation of this word. ¶ _And upon
the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting._ Very various opinions
have been entertained in respect to those who thus appeared sitting
around the throne, and to the question why the number twenty-four is
mentioned. Instead of examining those opinions at length, it will be
better to present, in a summary manner, what seems to be probable in
regard to the intended reference. The following points, then, would
appear to embrace all that can be known on this subject. (1) These
elders have a regal character, or are of a kingly order. This is
apparent, (a) because they are represented as sitting on “thrones,”
and (b) because they have on their heads “crowns of gold.” (2) They are
emblematic. They are designed to symbolize or represent some class of
persons. This is clear, (a) because it cannot be supposed that so small
a number would compose the whole of those who are in fact around the
throne of God, and (b) because there are _other_ symbols there designed
to represent something pertaining to the homage rendered to God, as the
four living creatures and the angels, and this supposition is necessary
in order to complete the symmetry and harmony of the representation.
(3) They are human beings, and are designed to have some relation to
the race of man, and somehow to connect the human race with the worship
of heaven. The four living creatures have another design; the angels
(ch. v.) have another; but these are manifestly of our race――persons
from this world before the throne. (4) They are designed in some way
to be symbolic of the church as redeemed. Thus they say (ch. v. 9),
“Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” (5) They are designed to
represent the _whole_ church in every land and every age of the world.
Thus they say (ch. v. 9), “Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood,
_out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation_.” This shows,
further, that the whole representation is emblematic; for otherwise in
so small a number――twenty-four――there could not be a representation out
of every nation. (6) They represent the church triumphant――the church
victorious. Thus they have crowns on their heads; they have harps in
their hands (ch. v. 8); they say that they are “kings and priests,”
and that they will “reign on the earth,” ch. v. 10. (7) The design,
therefore, is to represent the church triumphant――redeemed――saved――as
rendering praise and honour to God; as uniting with the hosts of heaven
in adoring him for his perfections and for the wonders of his grace.
As representatives of the church, they are admitted near to him; they
encircle his throne; they appear victorious over every foe; and they
come, in unison with the living creatures, and the angels, and the
whole universe (ch. v. 13), to ascribe power and dominion to God.
(8) As to the reason why the {111} number “twenty-four” is mentioned,
perhaps nothing certain can be determined. Ezekiel, in his vision
(Eze. viii. 16; xi. 1), saw twenty-five men between the porch and the
altar, with their backs toward the temple, and their faces toward the
earth――supposed to be representations of the twenty-four “courses”
into which the body of priests was divided (1 Ch. xxiv. 3‒19), with
the high-priest among them, making up the number twenty-five. It is
_possible_ that John in this vision may have designed to refer to
the church considered _as_ a priesthood (comp. Notes on 1 Pe. ii. 9),
and to have alluded to the fact that the priesthood under the Jewish
economy was divided into twenty-four courses, each with a presiding
officer, and who was a representative of that portion of the priesthood
over which he presided. If so, then the ideas which enter into the
representation are these: (a) That the whole church may be represented
as a priesthood, or a community of priests――an idea which frequently
occurs in the New Testament. (b) That the church, as such a community
of priests, is employed in the praise and worship of God――an idea, also,
which finds abundant countenance in the New Testament. (c) That, in
a series of visions having a designed reference to the church, it was
natural to introduce some symbol or emblem representing the church,
and representing the fact that this is its office and employment. And
(d) that this would be well expressed by an allusion derived from the
ancient dispensation――the division of the priesthood into classes, over
each one of which there presided an individual who might be considered
as the representative of his class. It is to be observed, indeed, that
in _one_ respect they are represented as “kings,” but still this does
not forbid the supposition that there might have been intermingled also
_another_ idea, that they were also “priests.” Thus the two ideas are
blended by these same elders in ch. v. 10: “And hath made us unto our
God _kings_ and _priests_.” Thus understood, the vision is designed to
denote the fact that the representatives of the church, ultimately to
be triumphant, are properly engaged in ascribing praise to God. The
word _elders_ here seems to be used in the sense of aged and venerable
men, rather than as denoting office. They were such as by their _age_
were qualified to preside over the different divisions of the
priesthood. ¶ _Clothed in white raiment._ Emblem of purity, and
appropriate, therefore, to the representatives of the sanctified church.
Comp. ch. iii. 4; vi. 11; vii. 9. ¶ _And they had on their heads crowns
of gold._ Emblematic of the fact that they sustained a kingly office.
There was blended in the representation the idea that they were both
“kings and priests.” Thus the idea is expressed by Peter (1 Pe. ii. 9),
“_a royal priesthood_”――βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα.

5 And out of the throne proceeded [183]lightnings and
thunderings and voices: and _there were_ seven [184]lamps of
fire burning before the throne, which are the [185]seven
Spirits of God.

5. _And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and
voices._ Expressive of the majesty and glory of Him that sat upon it.
We are at once reminded by this representation of the sublime scene
that occurred at Sinai (Ex. xix. 16), where “there were thunders and
lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the
trumpet exceeding loud.” Comp. Eze. i. 13, 24. So Milton:

“Forth rushed with whirlwind sound
The chariot of Paternal Deity,
Flashing thick flames.”

“And from about him fierce effusion rolled
Of smoke, and lightning flame, and sparkles dire.”
_Par. Lost_, b. vi.

The word “_voices_” here connected with “_thunders_” perhaps means
“voices even thunders”――referring to the sound made by the thunder.
The meaning is, that these were echoing and re-echoing sounds, as it
were a multitude of voices that seemed to speak on every side. ¶ _And
|there were| seven lamps of fire burning before the throne._ Seven
burning lamps that constantly shone there, illuminating the whole
scene. These steadily burning lamps would add much to the beauty of
the vision. ¶ _Which are the seven Spirits of God._ Which represent,
or are emblematic of, the seven Spirits of God. On the meaning of the
phrase, “the seven Spirits of God,” see Notes on chap. i. 4. If these
lamps are designed to be symbols of the Holy Spirit, according to the
interpretation proposed in chap. i. 4, it may {112} be perhaps in the
following respects: (1) They may represent the manifold influences
of that Spirit in the world――as imparting light; giving consolation;
creating the heart anew; sanctifying the soul, &c. (2) They may
denote that all the operations of that Spirit are of the nature
of _light_, dissipating darkness, and vivifying and animating all
things. (3) _Perhaps_ their being placed here before the throne, in
the midst of thunder and lightning, may be designed to represent the
idea that――amidst all the scenes of magnificence and grandeur; all
the storms, agitations, and tempests on the earth; all the political
changes; all the convulsions of empire under the providence of God; and
all the commotions in the soul of man, produced by the thunders of the
law――the Spirit of God beams calmly and serenely, shedding a steady
influence over all, like lamps burning in the very midst of lightnings,
and thunderings, and voices. In all the scenes of majesty and commotion
that occur on the earth, the Spirit of God is present, shedding a
constant light, and undisturbed in his influence by all the agitations
that are abroad.

6 And before the throne _there was_ a [186]sea of glass like
unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about
the throne, _were_ [187]four beasts, full of eyes before and
behind.

6. _And before the throne |there was| a sea of glass._ An expanse
spread out like a sea composed of glass: that is, that was pellucid
and transparent like glass. It is not uncommon to compare the sea
with glass. See numerous examples in Wetstein, _in loco_. The point
of the comparison here seems to be its transparent appearance. It was
perfectly clear――apparently stretching out in a wide expanse, as if it
were a _sea_. ¶ _Like unto crystal._ The word _crystal_ means properly
anything congealed and pellucid, as ice; then anything resembling
that, particularly a certain species of stone distinguished for its
clearness――as the transparent crystals of quartz; limpid and colourless
quartz; rock or mountain quartz. The word _crystal_ now, in mineralogy,
means an inorganic body which, by the operation of affinity, has
assumed the form of a regular solid, by a certain number of plane and
smooth faces. It is here used manifestly in its popular sense to denote
anything that is perfectly clear like ice. The comparison, in the
representation of the expanse spread around the throne, turns on these
points: (1) It appeared like a sea――stretching afar. (2) It resembled,
in its general appearance, glass; and this idea is strengthened by the
addition of another image of the same character――that it was like an
expanse of crystal, perfectly clear and pellucid. This would seem to be
designed to represent the floor or pavement on which the throne stood.
If _this_ is intended to be emblematical, it _may_ denote (a) that the
empire of God is vast――as if it were spread out like the sea; or (b) it
may be emblematic of the _calmness_, the _placidity_ of the divine
administration――like an undisturbed and unruffled ocean of glass.
Perhaps, however, we should not press such circumstances too far to
find a symbolical meaning. ¶ _And in the midst of the throne._ ἐν μέσῳ
τοῦ θρόνου. Not occupying the throne, but so as to appear to be
intermingled with the throne, or “in the midst” of it, in the sense
that it was beneath the centre of it. The meaning would seem to be,
that the four living creatures referred to occupied such a position
collectively that they at the same time appeared to be _under_ the
throne, so that it rested on them, and _around_ it, so that they
could be seen from any quarter. This would occur if their bodies were
under the throne, and if they stood so that they faced outward. To
one approaching the throne they would seem to be _around_ it, though
their bodies were _under_, or “in the midst” of it as a support. The
form of their bodies is not specified, but it is not improbable that
though their _heads_ were different, their _bodies_, that were under
the throne, and that sustained it, were of the same form. ¶ _And
round about the throne._ In the sense above explained――that, as they
stood, they would be seen on every side of the throne. ¶ _|Were|
four beasts._ This is a very unhappy translation, as the word _beasts_
by no means conveys a correct idea of the original word. The Greek
word――ζῶον――means properly _a living thing_; and it is thus indeed
applied to animals, or to the living creation, but the notion of their
being _living things_, or _living creatures_, should be retained in the
translation. Professor Stuart renders it, “living creatures.” Isaiah
(vi.), in his vision of Jehovah, {113} saw two seraphim; Ezekiel,
whom John more nearly resembles in his description, saw four “living
creatures”――חַיּוֹת (ch. i. 5)――that is, living, animated, moving beings.
The words “living beings” would better convey the idea than any other
which could be employed. They are evidently, like those which Ezekiel
saw, symbolical beings; but the nature and purpose of the symbol is not
perfectly apparent. The “four and twenty elders” are evidently human
beings, and are representatives, as above explained, of the church. In
ch. v. 11, _angels_ are themselves introduced as taking an important
part in the worship of heaven: and these living beings, therefore,
cannot be designed to represent either angels or men. In Ezekiel they
are either designed as poetic representations of the majesty of God,
or of his providential government, showing what _sustains_ his throne;
symbols denoting intelligence, vigilance, the rapidity and directness
with which the divine commands are executed, and the energy and
firmness with which the government of God is administered. The nature
of the case, and the similarity to the representation in Ezekiel, would
lead us to suppose that the same idea is to be found substantially
in John; and there would be no difficulty in such an interpretation
were it not that these “living creatures” are apparently represented
in ch. v. 8, 9, as uniting with the redeemed from the earth in such
a manner as to imply that they were themselves redeemed. But perhaps
the language in ch. v. 9, “And _they_ sung a new song,” &c., though
apparently connected with the “four beasts” in ver. 8, is not designed
to be so connected. John may intend there merely to advert to the fact
that a new song was sung, without meaning to say that the “four living
beings” _united_ in that song. For, if he designed merely to say that
the “four living beings” and the “four and twenty elders” fell down to
worship, and then that a song was heard, though in fact sung only by
the four and twenty elders, he might have employed the language which
he actually has done. If this interpretation be admitted, then the
most natural explanation to be given of the “four living beings” is
to suppose that they are symbolical beings designed to furnish some
representation of the government of God――to illustrate, as it were,
that on which the divine government _rests_, or which constitutes its
support――to wit, power, intelligence, vigilance, energy. This is
apparent, (a) because it was not unusual for the thrones of monarchs
to be supported by carved animals of various forms, which were designed
undoubtedly to be somehow emblematic of government――either of its
stability, vigilance, boldness, or firmness. Thus Solomon had twelve
lions carved on each side of his throne――no improper emblems of
government――1 Ki. x. 10, 20. (b) These living beings are described as
the _supports_ of the throne of God, or as that on which it rests, and
would be, therefore, no improper symbols of the great principles or
truths which give support or stability to the divine administration.
(c) They are, in themselves, well adapted to be representatives
of the great principles of the divine government, or of the divine
providential dealings, as we shall see in the more particular
explanation of the symbol, (d) Perhaps it might be added, that, so
understood, there would be _completeness_ in the vision. The “elders”
appear there as representatives of the church redeemed; the angels
in their own proper persons render praise to God. To this it was not
improper to add, and the completeness of the representation seems to
make it necessary to add, that all the doings of the Almighty unite
in his praise; his various acts in the government of the universe
harmonize with redeemed and unfallen intelligences in proclaiming
his glory. The vision of the “living beings,” therefore, is not, as
I suppose, a representation of the _attributes_ of God as such, but
an emblematic representation of the divine government――of the throne
of Deity resting upon, or sustained by, those things of which these
living beings are emblems――intelligence, firmness, energy, &c. This
supposition seems to combine more probabilities than any other which
has been proposed; for, according to this supposition, all the acts,
and ways, and creatures of God unite in his praise. It is proper to
add, however, that expositors are by no means agreed as to the design
of this representation. Professor Stuart supposes that the attributes
of God are referred to; Mr. Elliott (i. 93), that the “twenty-four
elders and the four living creatures symbolize the church, or the
collective body of the saints of God; and that as there are two grand
{114} divisions of the church, the larger one that _of the departed
in Paradise_, and the other that _militant on earth_, the former
is depicted by the twenty-four elders, and the latter by the living
creatures;” Mr. Lord (pp. 53, 54), that the living creatures and the
elders are both of one race; the former perhaps denoting those like
Enoch and Elijah, who were translated, and those who were raised by
the Saviour after his resurrection, or those who have been raised to
special eminence――the latter the mass of the redeemed; Mr. Mede, that
the living creatures are symbols of the church worshipping on earth;
Mr. Daubuz, that they are symbols of the ministers of the church
on earth; Vitringa, that they are symbols of eminent ministers and
teachers in every age; Dr. Hammond regards him who sits on the throne
as the metropolitan bishop of Judea, the representative of God, the
elders as diocesan bishops of Judea, and the living creatures as four
apostles, symbols of the saints who are to attend the Almighty as
assessors in judgment! See Lord on the Apocalypse, pp. 58, 59. ¶ _Full
of eyes._ Denoting omniscience. The ancients fabled Argus as having one
hundred eyes, or as having the power of seeing in any direction. The
emblem here would denote an ever-watchful and observing Providence; and,
in accordance with the explanation proposed above, it means that, in
the administration of the divine government, everything is distinctly
contemplated; nothing escapes observation; nothing can be concealed. It
is obvious that the divine government could not be administered unless
this were so; and it is the perfection of the government of God that
all things are seen just as they are. In the vision seen by Ezekiel
(ch. i. 18), the “rings” of the wheels on which the living creatures
moved are represented as “full of eyes round about them,” emblematic of
the same thing. So Milton――

“As with stars their bodies all,
And wings were set with eyes; with eyes the wheels
Of beryl, and careening fires between.”

¶ _Before._ In front. As one looked on their faces, from whatever
quarter the throne was approached, he could see a multitude of
eyes looking upon him. ¶ _And behind._ On the parts of their bodies
which were under the throne. The meaning is, that there is universal
vigilance in the government of God. Whatever is the form of the
divine administration; whatever part is contemplated; however it is
manifested――whether as activity, energy, power, or intelligence――it
is based on the fact that _all things are seen from every direction_.
There is nothing that is the result of blind fate or of chance.

7 And the first beast _was_ like a lion, and the second beast
like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the
fourth beast _was_ like a flying eagle.

7. _And the first beast |was| like a lion._ A _general_ description
has been given, applicable to all, denoting that in whatever form the
divine government is administered, _these things_ will be found; a
particular description now follows, contemplating that government under
particular aspects, as symbolized by the living beings on which the
throne rests. The first is that of a lion. The lion is the monarch
of the woods, the king of beasts, and he becomes thus the emblem of
dominion, of authority, of government in general. Comp. Ge. xlix. 9;
Am. iii. 8; Joel iii. 16; Da. vii. 4. As emblematic of the divine
administration, this would signify that He who sits on the throne is
the ruler over all, and that his dominion is absolute and entire. It
has been made a question whether the _whole_ body had the form of a
lion, or whether it had the appearance of a lion only as to its face
or front part. It would seem probable that the latter only is intended,
for it is expressly said of the “third beast” that it had “the _face_
of a man,” implying that it did not resemble a man in other respects,
and it is probable that, as these living creatures were the supports of
the throne, they had the same form in all other particulars except the
front part. The writer has not informed us what was the appearance of
these living creatures in other respects, but it is most natural to
suppose that it was in the form of an ox, as being adapted to sustain
a burden. It is hardly necessary to say that the _thing_ supposed to be
symbolical here in the government of God――his absolute rule――actually
exists, or that it is important that this should be fairly exhibited to
men. ¶ _And the second beast like a calf._ Or, more properly, a young
bullock, {115} for so the word――μόσχος――means. The term is given by
Herodotus (ii. 41; iii. 28) to the Egyptian god Apis, that is, a young
bullock. Such an emblem, standing under a throne as one of its supports,
would symbolize firmness, endurance, strength (comp. Pr. xiv. 4); and,
as used to represent qualities pertaining to him who sat on the throne,
would denote stability, firmness, perseverance: qualities that are
found abundantly in the divine administration. There was clearly, in
the apprehension of the ancients, some natural fitness or propriety
in such an emblem. A young bullock was worshipped in Egypt as a god.
Jeroboam set up two idols in the form of a calf, the one in Dan and
the other in Bethel, 1 Ki. xii. 28, 29. A similar object of worship was
found in the Indian, Greek, and Scandinavian mythologies, and the image
appears to have been adopted early and extensively to represent the
divinity.

Illustration: Egyptian Calf-idol.

The above figure is a representation of a calf-idol, copied from the
collection made by the artists of the French Institute at Cairo. It
is recumbent, with human eyes, the skin flesh-coloured, and the whole
after-parts covered with a white and sky-blue drapery: the horns not on
the head, but above it, and containing within them the symbolical globe
surmounted by two feathers. The meaning of the emblems on the back
is not known. It is copied here merely to show that, for some cause,
the calf was regarded as an emblem of the Divinity. It may illustrate
this, also, to remark that among the sculptures found by Mr. Layard,
in the ruins of Nineveh, were not a few winged bulls, some of them of
large structure, and probably all of them emblematic. One of these was
removed with great difficulty, to be deposited in the British Museum.
See Mr. Layard’s _Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. ii. pp. 64‒75. Such
emblems were common in the East; and, being thus common, they would be
readily understood in the time of John. ¶ _And the third beast had a
face as a man._ There is no intimation as to what was the form of the
remaining portion of this living creature; but as the beasts were “in
the midst of the throne,” that is, under it as a support, it may be
presumed that they had such a form as was adapted to that purpose――as
supposed above, perhaps the form of an ox. To this living creature
there was attached the head of a man, and _that_ would be what would
be particularly visible to one looking on the throne. The aspect
of a _man_ here would denote intelligence――for it is this which
distinguishes man from the creation beneath him; and if the explanation
of the symbol above given be correct, then the meaning of this emblem
is, that the operations of the government of God are conducted with
intelligence and wisdom. That is, the divine administration is not the
result of blind fate or chance; it is founded on a clear knowledge of
things, on what is best to be done, on what will most conduce to the
common good. Of the _truth_ of this there can be no doubt; and there
was a propriety that, in a vision designed to give to man a view of the
government of the Almighty, this should be appropriately symbolized.
It may illustrate this to observe, that in ancient sculptures it was
common to unite the head of a man with the figure of an animal, as
_combining_ symbols. Among the most remarkable figures discovered by
Mr. Layard, in the ruins of Nineveh, were winged, human-headed lions.
These lions are thus described by Mr. Layard:――“They were about twelve
feet in height, and the same number in length. The body and limbs were
admirably portrayed; the muscles and bones, although strongly developed,
to display the strength of the animal, showed, at the same time, a
correct knowledge of its anatomy and form. Expanded wings sprung from
the shoulder and spread over the back; a knotted girdle, ending in
tassels, encircled the loins. These sculptures, forming an entrance,
were partly in full, and partly in relief. The head and forepart,
facing the chambers, were in full; but only one {116} side of the rest
of the slab was sculptured, the back being placed against the wall
of sun-dried bricks” (_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i. p. 75). The
following engraving will give an idea of one of these human-headed
animals, and will serve to illustrate the passage before us――alike
in reference to the _head_, indicating intelligence, and the _wings_,
denoting rapidity.

Illustration: Human-headed Winged Lion.

On the use of these figures, found in the ruins of Nineveh, Mr. Layard
makes the following sensible remarks――remarks admirably illustrating
the view which I take of the symbols before us:――“I used to contemplate
for hours these mysterious emblems, and muse over their intent and
history. What more noble forms could have ushered the people into
the temple of their gods? What more subblime images could have been
borrowed from nature by men who sought, unaided by the light of
revealed religion, to embody their conceptions of the wisdom, power,
and ubiquity of a Supreme Being? They could find no better type of
intellect and knowledge than the head of a man; of strength, than the
body of the lion; of rapidity of motion, than the wings of a bird.
These winged, human-headed lions were not idle creations, the offspring
of mere fancy; their meaning was written upon them. They had awed and
instructed races which flourished 3000 years ago. Through the portals
which they guarded, kings, priests, and warriors had borne sacrifices
to their altars, long before the wisdom of the East had penetrated into
Greece, and had furnished its mythology with symbols long recognized by
the Assyrian votaries” (_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. i. p. 75, 76).
¶ _And the fourth beast |was| like a flying eagle._ All birds, indeed,
fly; but the epithet _flying_ is here employed to add intensity to
the description. The eagle is distinguished, among the feathered race,
for the rapidity, the power, and the elevation of its flight. No other
bird is supposed to fly so high; none ascends with so much power;
none is so majestic and grand in his ascent towards the sun. That
which would be properly symbolized by this would be the rapidity with
which the commands of God are executed; or this characteristic of the
divine government, that the purposes of God are carried into prompt
execution. There is, as it were, a vigorous, powerful, and rapid flight
towards the accomplishment of the designs of God――as the eagle ascends
unmolested towards the sun. Or, it _may_ be that this symbolizes
protecting care, or is an emblem of that protection which God, by his
providence, extends over those who put their trust in him. Thus in Ex.
xix. 4, “Ye have seen how I bare you on eagles’ wings.” “Hide me under
the shadow of thy wings,” Ps. xvii. 8. “In the shadow of thy wings will
I rejoice,” Ps. lxiii. 7. “As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth
over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them
on her wings: so the Lord alone did lead him,” De. xxxii. 11, 12, &c.
As in the case of the other living beings, so it is to be remarked of
the fourth living creature also, that the form of the _body_ is unknown.
There is no impropriety in supposing that it is only its front aspect
that John here speaks of, for that was sufficient for the symbol. The
remaining portion “in the midst of the throne” may have corresponded
with that of the other living beings, as being adapted to a support. In
further illustration of this it may be remarked, that symbols of this
description were common in the Oriental world. Figures in the human
form, or in the form of animals, with the head of an eagle or a vulture,
are found in the ruins of Nineveh, and were undoubtedly designed to
be symbolic. “On the earliest Assyrian monuments,” says Mr. Layard
(_Nineveh and its Remains_, vol. ii. p. 348, 349), “one of the most
prominent sacred types is the eagle-headed, or the vulture-headed,
human figure. Not only is it found in colossal proportions on the walls,
or guarding the portals of the chambers, but it is also constantly
represented in the groups on the embroidered {117} robes. When
thus introduced, it is generally seen contending with other mythic
animals――such as the human-headed lion or bull; and in these contests
it is always the conqueror. It may hence be inferred that it was a type
of the Supreme Deity, or of one of his principal attributes. A fragment
of the Zoroastrian oracles, preserved by Eusebius, declares that ‘God
is he that has _the head of a hawk_. He is the first, indestructible,
eternal, unbegotten, indivisible, dissimilar; the dispenser of all good;
incorruptible; the best of the good, the wisest of the wise; he is the
father of equity and justice, self-taught, physical and perfect, and
wise, and the only inventor of the sacred philosophy.’ Sometimes the
head of this bird is added to the body of a lion. Under this form of
the Egyptian hieraco-sphinx it is the conqueror in combats with other
symbolical figures, and is frequently represented as striking down
a gazelle or wild goat. It also clearly resembles the gryphon of the
Greek mythology, avowedly an Eastern symbol, and connected with Apollo,
or with the sun, of which the Assyrian form was probably an emblem.”
The following figure found in Nimroud, or ancient Nineveh, may furnish
an illustration of one of the usual forms.

Illustration: Eagle-headed Winged Lion.

If these views of the meaning of these symbols are correct, then
the idea which would be conveyed to the mind of John, and the idea,
therefore, which should be conveyed to our minds, is, that the
government of God is energetic, firm, intelligent, and that in
the execution of its purposes it is _rapid_ like the unobstructed
flight of an eagle, or _protective_ like the care of the eagle for
its young. When, in the subsequent parts of the vision, these living
creatures are represented as offering praise and adoration to Him
that sits on the throne (ver. 8; ch. v. 8, 14), the meaning would be,
in accordance with this representation, that all the acts of divine
government do, as if they were personified, unite in the praise which
the redeemed and the angels ascribe to God. All living things, and all
acts of the Almighty, conspire to proclaim his glory. The church, by
her representatives, the “four and twenty elders,” honours God; the
angels, without number, unite in the praise; all creatures in heaven,
in earth, under the earth, and in the sea (ch. v. 13), join in the song;
and all the acts and ways of God declare also his majesty and glory:
for around his throne, and beneath his throne, are expressive symbols
of the firmness, energy, intelligence, and power with which his
government is administered.

8 And the four beasts had each of them [188]six wings about
_him_; and _they were_ full of eyes within: and they [189]rest
not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty,
which was, and is, and is to come.

8. _And the four beasts had each of them six wings about |him|_. An
emblem common to them all, denoting that, in reference to each and all
the things here symbolized, there was one common characteristic――that
in heaven there is the utmost promptness in executing the divine
commands. Comp. Is. vi. 2; Ps. xviii. 10; civ. 3; Je. xlviii. 40.
No mention is made of the manner in which these wings were arranged,
and conjecture in regard to that is vain. The seraphim, as seen by
Isaiah, had each one six wings, with two of which the face was
covered, to denote profound reverence; with two the feet, or lower
parts――emblematic of modesty; and with two they flew――emblematic of
their celerity in executing the commands of God, Is. vi. 2. Perhaps
without impropriety we may suppose that, in regard to these living
beings seen by John, two of the wings of each were employed, as in
Isaiah, to cover the face――token of profound reverence; and that the
remainder were employed in flight――denoting the rapidity with which
the divine commands are executed. Mercury, the messenger of Jupiter
among the heathen, was represented with wings, and nothing is {118}
more common in the paintings and _bas-reliefs_ of antiquity than such
representations. ¶ _And |they were| full of eyes within._ Professor
Stuart more correctly renders this, “around and within are full of
eyes;” connecting the word “around” [“about”], not with the _wings_, as
in our version, but with the _eyes_. The meaning is, that the portions
of the beasts that were visible from the outside of the throne, and
the portions under or within the throne, were covered with eyes. The
obvious design of this is to mark the universal vigilance of divine
providence. ¶ _And they rest not._ Marg., _have no rest_. That is,
they are constantly employed; there is no intermission. The meaning,
as above explained, is, that the works and ways of God are constantly
bringing praise to him. ¶ _Day and night._ Continually. They who
are employed day and night fill up the whole time――for this is all.
¶ _Saying, Holy, holy, holy._ For the meaning of this, see Notes on
Is. vi. 3. ¶ _Lord God Almighty._ Isaiah (vi. 3) expresses it, “Jehovah
of hosts.” The reference is to the true God, and the epithet _Almighty_
is one that is often given him. It is peculiarly appropriate here,
as there were to be, as the sequel shows, remarkable exhibitions of
_power_ in executing the purposes described in this book. ¶ _Which was,
and is, and is to come._ Who is eternal――existing in all past time;
existing now; and to continue to exist for ever. See Notes on ch. i. 4.

9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to
him that sat on the throne, [190]who liveth for ever and ever,

9. _And when those beasts give glory_, &c. As often as those living
beings ascribe glory to God. They did this continually (ver. 8); and,
if the above explanation be correct, then the idea is that the ways and
acts of God in his providential government are continually of such a
nature as to honour him.

10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on
the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and
cast their [191]crowns before the throne, saying,

10. _The four and twenty elders fall down before him_, &c. The
representatives of the redeemed church in heaven (Notes, ver. 4) also
unite in the praise. The meaning, if the explanation of the symbol
be correct, is, that the church universal unites in praise to God for
all that characterizes his administration. In the connection in which
this stands here, the sense would be, that as often as there is any
_new_ manifestation of the principles of the divine government, the
church ascribes _new_ praise to God. Whatever may be thought of this
explanation of the meaning of the symbols, of the _fact_ here stated
there can be no doubt. The church of God always rejoices when there is
any new manifestation of the principles of the divine administration.
As all these acts, in reality, bring glory and honour to God, the
church, _as often_ as there is any new manifestation of the divine
character and purposes, renders praise anew. Nor can it be doubted that
the view here taken is one that is every way appropriate to the general
character of this book. The great design was to disclose what God was
to do in future times, in the various revolutions that were to take
place on the earth, until his government should be firmly established,
and the principles of his administration should everywhere prevail;
and there was a propriety, therefore, in describing the representatives
of the church as taking part in this universal praise, and as casting
every crown at the feet of Him who sits upon the throne. ¶ _And cast
their crowns before the throne._ They are described as “crowned”
(ver. 4), that is, as triumphant, and as kings (comp. ch. v. 10), and
they are here represented as casting their crowns at his feet, in token
that they owe their triumph to Him. To his providential dealings, to
his wise and merciful government, they owe it that they are crowned at
all; and there is, therefore, a propriety that they should acknowledge
this in a proper manner by placing their crowns at his feet.

11 Thou art [192]worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour
and power; [193]for thou hast created all things, and for thy
pleasure they are and were created.

11. _Thou art worthy, O Lord._ In thy character, perfections, and
government, there is that which makes it {119} proper that universal
praise should be rendered. The feeling of all true worshippers is, that
God is _worthy_ of the praise that is ascribed to him. No man worships
him aright who does not feel that there is that in his nature and
his doings which makes it _proper_ that he should receive universal
adoration. ¶ _To receive glory._ To have praise or glory ascribed to
thee. ¶ _And honour._ To be honoured; that is, to be approached and
adored as worthy of honour. ¶ _And power._ To have power ascribed to
thee, or to be regarded as having infinite power. Man can _confer_ no
power on God, but he may acknowledge that which he has, and adore him
for its exertion in his behalf and in the government of the world.
¶ _For thou hast created all things._ Thus laying the foundation for
praise. No one can contemplate this vast and wonderful universe without
seeing that He who has made it is _worthy_ to “receive glory, and
honour, and power.” Comp. Notes on Job xxxviii. 7. ¶ _And for thy
pleasure they are._ They exist by thy will――διὰ τὸ θέλημά. The meaning
is, that they owe their existence to the _will_ of God, and therefore
their creation lays the foundation for praise. He “spake, and it was
done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” He said, “Let there be light;
and there was light.” There is no other reason why the universe exists
at all than that such was the will of God; there is nothing else
that is to be adduced as explaining the fact that anything has now a
being. The putting forth of that will explains all; and, consequently,
whatever wisdom, power, goodness, is manifested in the universe, is
to be traced to God, and is the expression of what was in him from
eternity. It is proper, then, to “look up through nature to nature’s
God,” and wherever we see greatness or goodness in the works of
creation, to regard them as the faint expression of what exists
essentially in the Creator. ¶ _And were created._ Bringing more
distinctly into notice the fact that they owe their existence to his
will. They are not eternal; they are not self-existent; they were
formed from nothing.

This concludes the magnificent introduction to the principal visions
in this book. It is beautifully appropriate to the solemn disclosures
which are to be made in the following portions of the book, and, as
in the case of Isaiah and Ezekiel, was eminently adapted to impress
the mind of the holy seer with awe. Heaven is opened to his view;
the throne of God is seen; there is a vision of Him who sits upon
that throne; thunders and voices are heard around the throne; the
lightnings play; and a rainbow, symbol of peace, encircles all; the
representatives of the redeemed church, occupying subordinate thrones,
and in robes of victory, and with crowns on their heads, are there; a
vast smooth expanse like the sea is spread out before the throne; and
the emblems of the wisdom, the power, the vigilance, the energy, the
strength of the divine administration are there, represented as in the
act of bringing honour to God, and proclaiming his praise. The mind of
John was doubtless prepared by these august visions for the disclosures
which follow; and the mind of the reader should in like manner be
deeply and solemnly impressed when he contemplates them, as if _he_
looked into heaven, and saw the impressive grandeur of the worship
there. Let us fancy ourselves, therefore, with the holy seer looking
into heaven, and listen with reverence to what the great God discloses
respecting the various changes that are to occur until every foe of the
church shall be subdued, and the earth shall acknowledge his sway, and
the whole scene shall close in the triumphs and joys of heaven.

CHAPTER V.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter introduces the disclosure of future events. It is done
in a manner eminently fitted to impress the mind with a sense of the
importance of the revelations about to be made. The proper state of
mind for appreciating this chapter is that when we look on the future,
and are sensible that important events are about to occur; when we feel
that that future is wholly impenetrable to us; and when the efforts of
the highest created minds fail to lift the mysterious veil which hides
those events from our view; it is in accordance with our nature that
the mind should be impressed with solemn awe under such circumstances;
it is not a violation of the laws of our nature that one who had
an earnest desire to penetrate that future, and who saw the volume
before him which contained the mysterious revelation, and who yet felt
that there was no one in heaven or earth who could break the seals,
and disclose what was to come, should weep. Comp. {120} ver. 4. The
_design_ of the whole chapter is evidently to honour the Lamb of God,
by showing that the power was intrusted to him which was confided to
no one else in heaven or earth, of disclosing what is to come. Nothing
else would better illustrate this than the fact that he alone could
break the mysterious seals which barred out the knowledge of the
future from all created eyes; and nothing would be better adapted to
impress this on the mind than the representation in this chapter――the
exhibition of a mysterious book in the hand of God; the proclamation
of the angel, calling on any who could do it to open the book; the
fact that no one in heaven or earth could do it; the tears shed by John
when it was found that no one could do it; the assurance of one of the
elders that the Lion of the tribe of Judah had power to do it; and the
profound adoration of all in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth
in view of the power intrusted to him of breaking these mysterious
seals.

The main points in the chapter are these: (1) Having in ch. iv.
described God as sitting on a throne, John here (ver. 1) represents
himself as seeing in his right hand a mysterious volume; written all
over on the inside and the outside, yet sealed with seven seals; a
volume manifestly referring to the future, and containing important
disclosures respecting coming events. (2) A mighty angel is introduced
making a proclamation, and asking who is worthy to open that book, and
to break those seals; evidently implying that none unless of exalted
rank could do it, ver. 2. (3) There is a pause: no one in heaven, or
in earth, or under the earth, approaches to do it, or claims the right
to do it, ver. 3. (4) John, giving way to the expressions of natural
emotion――indicative of the longing and intense desire in the human soul
to be made acquainted with the secrets of the future――pours forth a
flood of tears because no one is found who is worthy to open the seals
of this mysterious book, or to read what was recorded there, ver. 4.
(5) In his state of suspense and of grief, one of the elders――the
representatives of that church for whose benefit these revelations of
the future were to be made (Note on ch. iv. 4)――approaches him and says
that there _is_ one who is able to open the book; one who has the power
to loose its seals, ver. 5. This is the Messiah――the Lion of the tribe
of Judah, the Root of David――coming now to make the disclosure for
which the whole book was given, ch. i. 1. (6) Immediately the attention
of John is attracted by the Messiah, appearing as a Lamb in the midst
of the throne; with horns, the symbols of strength; and eyes, the
symbols of all-pervading intelligence. He approaches and takes the book
from the hand of Him that sits on the throne; symbolical of the fact
that it is the province of the Messiah to make known to the church and
the world the events which are to occur, ver. 6, 7. He appears here in
a different form from that in which he manifested himself in ch. i.,
for the purpose is different. There he appears clothed in majesty, to
impress the mind with a sense of his essential glory. Here he appears
in a form that recalls the memory of his sacrifice; to denote, perhaps,
that it is in virtue of his atonement that the future is to be
disclosed; and that therefore there is a special propriety that _he_
should appear and do what no other one in heaven or earth could do.
(7) The approach of the Messiah to unfold the mysteries in the book,
the fact that he had “prevailed” to accomplish what there was so strong
a desire should be accomplished, furnishes an occasion for exalted
thanksgiving and praise, ver. 8‒10. (8) This ascription of praise in
heaven is instantly responded to, and echoed back, from all parts of
the universe――all joining in acknowledging the Lamb as worthy of the
exalted office to which he was raised, ver. 11‒13. The angels around
the throne――amounting to thousands of myriads――unite with the living
creatures and the elders; and to these are joined the voices of every
creature in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, and in the sea,
ascribing to Him that sits upon the throne and the Lamb universal
praise. (9) To this loud ascription of praise from far-distant worlds
the living creatures respond a hearty _Amen_, and the elders fall down
and worship him that lives for ever and ever, ver. 14. The universe is
held in wondering expectation of the disclosures which are to be made,
and from all parts of the universe there is an acknowledgment that the
Lamb of God alone has the right to break the mysterious seals. The
_importance_ of the developments justifies the magnificence of {121}
this representation; and it would not be possible to imagine a more
sublime introduction to these great events.

CHAPTER V.

AND I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a
[194]book written within and on the back side, [195]sealed
with seven seals.

1. _And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne._ Of
God, ch. iv. 3, 4. His _form_ is not described there, nor is there
any intimation of it here except the mention of his “right hand.” The
book or roll seems to have been so held in his hand that John could
see its shape, and see distinctly how it was written and sealed. ¶ _A
book_――βιβλίον. This word is properly a diminutive of the word commonly
rendered book (βίβλος), and would strictly mean a small book, or a book
of diminutive size――a tablet, or a letter (Liddell and Scott, _Lex._).
It is used, however, to denote a book of any size――a roll, scroll, or
volume; and is thus used (a) to denote the Pentateuch, or the Mosaic
law, He. ix. 19; x. 7; (b) the book of life, Re. xvii. 8; xx. 12; xxi.
27; (c) epistles which were also rolled up, Re. i. 11; (d) documents,
as a bill of divorce, Mat. xix. 7; Mar. x. 4. When it is the express
design to speak of a small book, another word is used (βιβλαρίδιον),
Re. x. 2, 8, 9, 10. The book or roll referred to here was that which
contained the revelation in the subsequent chapters, to the end of the
description of the opening of the seventh seal――for the communication
that was to be made was all included in the seven seals; and to
conceive of the _size_ of the book, therefore, we are only to reflect
on the amount of parchment that would naturally be written over by the
communications here made. The _form_ of the book was undoubtedly that
of a scroll or roll; for that was the usual form of books among the
ancients, and such a volume could be more easily sealed with a number
of seals, in the manner here described, than a volume in the form in
which books are made now. On the ancient form of books, see Notes on
Lu. iv. 17. The engraving in Job, ch. xix., will furnish an additional
illustration of their form. ¶ _Written within and on the back side._
Gr., “within and behind.” It was customary to write only on one side of
the paper or vellum, for the sake of convenience in reading the volume
as it was unrolled. If, as sometimes was the case, the book was in the
same form as books are now――of _leaves_ bound together――then it was
usual to write on both sides of the leaf, as both sides of a page are
printed now. But in the other form it was a very uncommon thing to
write on both sides of the parchment, and was never done unless there
was a scarcity of writing material; or unless there was an amount
of matter beyond what was anticipated; or unless something had been
omitted. It is not necessary to suppose that John saw both sides of
the parchment as it was held in the hand of him that sat on the throne.
That it was written on the _back_ side he would naturally see, and, as
the book was sealed, he would infer that it was written in the usual
manner on the inside. ¶ _Sealed with seven seals._ On the ancient
manner of sealing, see Notes on Mat. xxvii. 66; comp. Notes on Job
xxxviii. 14. The fact that there were _seven_ seals――an unusual number
in fastening a volume――would naturally attract the attention of John,
though it might not occur to him at once that there was anything
significant in the number. It is not stated in what manner the seals
were attached to the volume, but it is clear that they were so attached
that each seal closed one part of the volume, and that when one was
broken and the portion which that was designed to fasten was unrolled,
a second would be come to, which it would be necessary to break in
order to read the next portion. The outer seal would indeed bind
the whole; but when that was broken it would not give access to the
whole volume unless each successive seal were broken. May it not have
been intended by this arrangement to suggest the idea that the whole
future is unknown to us, and that the disclosure of any one portion,
though necessary if the whole would be known, does not disclose all,
but leaves seal after seal still unbroken, and that they are all to
be broken one after another if we would know all? _How_ these were
arranged, John does not say. All that is necessary to be supposed is,
that the seven seals were put successively upon the _margin_ of the
volume as it was rolled up, so that each opening would extend only as
far as the next seal, when the unrolling would be arrested. Anyone,
by rolling up a sheet of paper, could {122} so fasten it with pins,
or with a succession of seals, as to represent this with sufficient
accuracy.

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who
is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

2. _And I saw a strong angel._ An angel endowed with great strength, as
if such strength was necessary to enable him to give utterance to the
loud voice of the inquiry. “Homer represents his heralds as powerful,
robust men, in order consistently to attribute to them deep-toned and
powerful voices” (Prof. Stuart). The inquiry to be made was one of vast
importance; it was to be made of all in heaven, all on the earth, and
all under the earth, and hence an angel is introduced so mighty that
his voice could be heard in all those distant worlds. ¶ _Proclaiming
with a loud voice._ That is, as a herald or crier. He is rather
introduced here as _appointed_ to this office than as _self-moved_.
The _design_ undoubtedly is to impress the mind with a sense of the
importance of the disclosures about to be made, and at the same time
with a sense of the impossibility of penetrating the future by any
created power. That one of the highest angels should make such a
proclamation would sufficiently show its importance; that such an
one, by the mere act of making such a proclamation, should practically
confess his own inability, and consequently the inability of all of
similar rank, to make the disclosures, would show that the revelations
of the future were beyond mere created power. ¶ _Who is worthy to open
the book_, &c. That is, who is “worthy” in the sense of having a rank
so exalted, and attributes so comprehensive, as to authorize and enable
him to do it. In other words, who has the requisite endowments of all
kinds to enable him to do it? It would require moral qualities of an
exalted character to justify him in approaching the seat of the holy
God, to take the book from his hands; it would require an ability
beyond that of any created being to penetrate the future, and disclose
the meaning of the symbols which were employed. The fact that the book
was held in the hand of him that was on the throne, and sealed in this
manner, was in itself a sufficient proof that it was not his purpose
to make the disclosure directly, and the natural inquiry arose whether
there was anyone in the wide universe who, by rank, or character, or
office, would be empowered to open the mysterious volume.

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth,
was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

3. _And no man in heaven._ No one――οὐδεὶς. There is no limitation
in the original to _man_. The idea is, that there was no one in
heaven――evidently alluding to the created beings there――who could
open the volume. Is it not taught here that _angels_ cannot penetrate
the future, and disclose what is to come? Are not their faculties
limited in this respect like those of man? ¶ _Nor in earth._ Among all
classes of men――sages, divines, prophets, philosophers――who among those
have ever been able to penetrate the future, and disclose what is to
come? ¶ _Neither under the earth._ These divisions compose, in common
language, the universe: what is in heaven above; what is on the earth;
and whatever there is under the earth――the abodes of the dead. May
there not be an allusion here to the supposed science of _necromancy_,
and an assertion that even the dead cannot penetrate the future, and
disclose what is to come? Comp. Notes on Is. viii. 19. In all these
great realms no one advanced who was qualified to undertake the office
of making a disclosure of what the mysterious scroll might contain.
¶ _Was able to open the book._ Had ability――ἠδύνατο――to do it. It was
a task beyond their power. Even if anyone had been found who had a rank
and a moral character which might have seemed to justify the effort,
there was no one who had the power of reading what was recorded
respecting coming events. ¶ _Neither to look thereon._ That is, so to
open the seals as to have a _view_ of what was written therein. That
it was not beyond their power merely to _see_ the book is apparent from
the fact that John himself saw it in the hand of him that sat on the
throne; and it is evident also (ver. 5) that in that sense the elders
saw it. But no one could prevail to inspect the contents, or so have
access to the interior of the volume as to be able to see what was
written there. It could be seen, indeed (ver. 1), that it was written
on {123} both sides of the parchment, but _what_ the writing was no one
could know.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and
to read the book, neither to look thereon.

4. _And I wept much, because no man was found worthy_, &c. Gr., as in
ver. 3, _no one_. It would seem as if there was a pause to see if there
were any response to the proclamation of the angel. There being none,
John gave way to his deep emotions in a flood of tears. The tears of
the apostle here may be regarded as an illustration of two things which
are occurring constantly in the minds of men: (1) The strong desire to
penetrate the future; to lift the mysterious veil which shrouds that
which is to come; to find some way to pierce the dark wall which seems
to stand up before us, and which shuts from our view that which is to
be hereafter. There have been no more earnest efforts made by men than
those which have been made to read the sealed volume which contains
the record of what is yet to come. By dreams, and omens, and auguries,
and astrology, and the flight of birds, and necromancy, men have
sought anxiously to ascertain what is to be hereafter. Compare, for an
expression of that intense desire, Foster’s _Life and Correspondence_,
vol. i. p. 111, and vol. ii. pp. 237, 238. (2) The weeping of the
apostle may be regarded as an instance of the deep grief which men
often experience when all efforts to penetrate the future fail, and
they feel that after all they are left completely in the dark. Often
is the soul overpowered with grief, and often are the eyes filled with
sadness at the reflection that there is an absolute limit to the human
powers; that all that man can arrive at by his own efforts is uncertain
conjecture, and that there is no way possible by which he can make
nature speak out and disclose what is to come. Nowhere does man find
himself more fettered and limited in his powers than here; nowhere
does he feel that there is such an intense disproportion between his
desires and his attainments. In nothing do _we_ feel that we are more
absolutely in need of divine help than in our attempts to unveil the
future; and were it not for revelation man might weep in despair.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the
[196]Lion of the tribe of Judah, the [197]Root of David, hath
prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals
thereof.

5. _And one of the elders saith unto me._ See Notes on ch. iv. 4. No
particular reason is assigned why this message was delivered by one
of the _elders_ rather than by an angel. If the elders were, however
(see Notes on ch. iv. 4), the representatives of the church, there was
a propriety that they should address John in his trouble. Though they
were in heaven, they were deeply interested in all that pertained to
the welfare of the church, and they had been permitted to understand
what as yet was unknown to him, that the power of opening the
mysterious volume which contained the revelation of the future was
intrusted particularly to the Messiah. Having this knowledge, they were
prepared to comfort him with the hope that what was so mysterious would
be made known. ¶ _Weep not._ That is, there is no occasion for tears.
The object which you so much desire can be obtained. There is one who
can break those seals, and who can unroll that volume and read what
is recorded there. ¶ _Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah._ This
undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus; and the points needful to be
explained are, why he is called a _Lion_, and why he is spoken of as
the Lion _of the tribe of Judah_. (a) As to the first: This appellation
is not elsewhere given to the Messiah, but it is not difficult to see
its propriety as used in this place. The lion is the king of beasts,
the monarch of the forest, and thus becomes an emblem of one of kingly
authority and of power (see Notes on ch. iv. 7), and as such the
appellation is used in this place. It is because Christ has _power_ to
open the seals――as if he ruled over the universe, and all events were
under his control, as the lion rules in the forest――that the name is
here given to him. (b) As to the other point: He is called the “Lion
_of the tribe of Judah_,” doubtless, with reference to the prophecy in
Ge. xlix. 9――“Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art
gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion;”
and from the fact that the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah. Comp.
Ge. xlix. 10. This use of the term would connect {124} him in the
apprehension of John with the prophecy, and would suggest to him the
idea of his being a ruler, or having dominion. As such, therefore, it
would be appropriate that the power of breaking these seals should be
committed to him. ¶ _The Root of David._ Not the Root of David in the
sense that David sprung from him as a tree does from a root, but in the
sense that _he himself_ was a “root-shoot” or sprout _from_ David, and
had sprung from him as a shoot or sprout springs up from a decayed and
fallen tree. See Notes on Is. xi. 1. This expression would connect him
directly with David, the great and glorious monarch of Israel, and as
having a right to occupy his throne. As one thus ruling over the people
of God, there was a propriety that to him should be intrusted the task
of opening these seals. ¶ _Hath prevailed._ That is, he has acquired
this power as the result of a conflict or struggle. The word used
here――ἐνίκησεν――refers to such a conflict or struggle, properly meaning
to come off victor, to overcome, to conquer, to subdue; and the idea
here is, that his power to do this, or the reason why he does this,
is the result of a conflict in which he was a victor. As the series
of events to be disclosed, resulting in the final triumph of religion,
was the effect of his conflicts with the powers of evil, there was
a special propriety that the disclosure should be made by him. The
_truths_ taught in this verse are, (1) that the power of making
disclosures, in regard to the future, is intrusted to the Messiah; and
(2) that this, so far as he is concerned, is the result of a conflict
or struggle on his part.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the
four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a [198]Lamb,
as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven[199]eyes,
which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the
earth.

6. _And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne._ We are not
to suppose that he was in the centre of the throne itself, but he was
a conspicuous object when the throne and the elders and the living
beings were seen. He was so placed as to seem to be in the midst of
the _group_ made up of the throne, the living beings, and the elders.
¶ _And of the four beasts._ See Notes, ch. iv. 6. ¶ _Stood a Lamb._ An
appellation often given to the Messiah, for two reasons: (1) because
the lamb was an emblem of innocence; and (2) because a lamb was offered
commonly in sacrifice. Comp. Notes on Jn. i. 29. ¶ _As it had been
slain._ That is, in some way having the appearance of having been
slain; having some marks or indications about it that it had been
slain. What those were the writer does not specify. If it were covered
with blood, or there were marks of mortal wounds, it would be all
that the representation demands. The great work which the Redeemer
performed――that of making an atonement for sin――was thus represented to
John in such a way that he at once recognized him, and saw the reason
why the office of breaking the seals was intrusted to him. It should
be remarked that this representation is merely _symbolic_, and we are
not to suppose that the Redeemer really _assumed_ this form, or that
he appears in this form in heaven. We should no more suppose that the
Redeemer appears literally as a lamb in heaven with numerous eyes and
horns, than that there is a literal throne and a sea of glass there;
that there are “seats” there, and “elders,” and “crowns of gold.”
¶ _Having seven horns._ Emblems of authority and power――for the _horn_
is a symbol of power and dominion. Comp. De. xxxiii. 17; 1 Ki. xxii. 11;
Je. xlviii. 25; Zec. i. 18; Da. vii. 24. The propriety of this symbol
is laid in the fact that the strength of an animal is in the horn,
and that it is by this that he obtains a victory over other animals.
The number _seven_ here seems to be designed, as in other places, to
denote _completeness_. See Notes on ch. i. 4. The meaning is, that
he had so large a number as to denote complete dominion. ¶ _And seven
eyes._ Symbols of intelligence. The number _seven_ here also denotes
_completeness_; and the idea is, that he is able to survey all things.
John does not say anything as to the relative arrangement of the horns
and eyes on the “Lamb,” and it is vain to attempt to conjecture how it
was. The whole representation is symbolical, and we may understand the
meaning of the symbol without being able to form an exact conception
of the figure as it appeared to him, ¶ _Which are the seven Spirits
of God sent forth into all the earth._ See Notes on ch. i. 4. That
is, which _represent_ the seven Spirits of God; or the manifold
operations of the one Divine Spirit. As the eye is {125} the symbol of
intelligence――outward objects being made visible to us by that――so it
may well represent an all-pervading spirit that surveys and sees all
things. The eye, in this view, among the Egyptians was an emblem of the
Deity. By the “seven Spirits” here the same thing is doubtless intended
as in ch. i. 4; and if, as there supposed, the reference is to the Holy
Spirit considered with respect to his manifold operations, the meaning
here is, that the operations of that Spirit are to be regarded as
connected with the work of the Redeemer. Thus, all the operations
of the Spirit are connected with, and are a part of, the work of
redemption. The expression “sent forth into all the earth,” refers to
the fact that that Spirit prevades all things. The Spirit of God is
often represented as sent or poured out; and the meaning here is, that
his operations are _as if_ he was sent out to survey all things and to
operate everywhere. Comp. 1 Co. xii. 6‒11.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him
that sat upon the throne.

7. _And he came and took the book out of the right hand_, &c. As if
it pertained to him by virtue of rank or office. There is a difficulty
here, arising from the incongruity of what is said of a _lamb_, which
it is not easy to solve. The difficulty is in conceiving how a _lamb_
could take the book from the hand of Him who held it. To meet this
several solutions have been proposed. (1) Vitringa supposes that the
Messiah appeared as a lamb only in some such sense as the four living
beings (ch. iv. 7) resembled a lion, a calf, and an eagle; that is,
that they bore this resemblance only in respect to the head, while the
body was that of a man. He thus supposes, that though in respect to the
upper part the Saviour resembled a lamb, yet that to the front part of
the body hands were attached by which he could take the book. But there
are great difficulties in this supposition. Besides that nothing of
this kind is intimated by John, it is contrary to every appearance of
probability that the Redeemer would be represented as a monster. In his
being represented as a lamb there is nothing that strikes the mind as
inappropriate or unpleasant, for he is often spoken of in this manner,
and the image is one that is agreeable to the mind. But all this beauty
and fitness of representation is destroyed, if we think of him as
having human hands proceeding from his breast or sides, or as blending
the form of a man and an animal together. The representation of having
an unusual number of horns and eyes does not strike us as being
incongruous in the same sense; for though the _number_ is increased,
they are such as pertain properly to the animal to which they are
attached. (2) Another supposition is that suggested by Professor Stuart,
that the form was changed, and a human form resumed when the Saviour
advanced to take the book and open it. This would relieve the whole
difficulty, and the only objection to it is, that John has not given
any express notice of such a change in the form; and the only question
can be whether it is right to _suppose_ it in order to meet the
difficulty in the case. In support of this it is said that all is
symbol; that the Saviour is represented in the book in various forms;
that as his appearing as a lamb was designed to represent in a striking
manner the fact that he was slain, and that all that he did was based
on the atonement, so there would be no impropriety in supposing that
when an action was attributed to him he assumed the form in which that
act would be naturally or is usually done. And as in taking a book from
the hand of another it is wholly incongruous to think of its being done
by a _lamb_, is it not most natural to suppose that the usual form in
which the Saviour is represented as appearing would be resumed, and
that he would appear again as a man?――But is it absolutely certain that
he appeared in the form of a lamb at all? May not all that is meant
be, that John saw him near the throne, and among the elders, and was
struck at once with his appearance of meekness and innocence, and with
the marks of his having been slain as a sacrifice, and spoke of him
in strong figurative language as a lamb? And where his “seven horns”
and “seven eyes” are spoken of, is it necessary to suppose that there
was any real assumption of such horns and eyes? {126} May not all
that is meant be that John was struck with that in the appearance of
the Redeemer of which these _would be_ the appropriate symbols, and
described him _as if_ these had been visible? When John the Baptist saw
the Lord Jesus on the banks of the Jordan, and said, “Behold the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. i. 29), is it
necessary to suppose that he actually appeared in the form of a
lamb? Do not all at once understand him as referring to traits in
his character, and to the work which he was to accomplish, which made
it proper to speak of him as a lamb? And why, therefore, may we not
suppose that John in the Apocalypse designed to use language in the
same way, and that he did not intend to present so incongruous a
description as that of a _lamb_ approaching a throne and taking a book
from the hand of Him that sat on it, and a lamb, too, with many horns
and eyes? If this supposition is correct, then all that is meant in
this passage would be expressed in some such language as the following:
“And I looked, and lo there was one in the midst of the space occupied
by the throne, by the living creatures, and by the elders, who, in
aspect, and in the emblems that represented his work on the earth, was
spotless, meek, and innocent as a lamb; one with marks on his person
which brought to remembrance the fact that he had been slain for the
sins of the world, and yet one who had most striking symbols of power
and intelligence, and who was therefore worthy to approach and take the
book from the hand of Him that sat on the throne.” It may do something
to confirm this view to recollect that when we use the term “Lamb
of God” now, as is often done in preaching and in prayer, it never
suggests to the mind the idea of a _lamb_. We think of the Redeemer
as resembling a lamb in his moral attributes and in his sacrifice, but
never as to form. This supposition relieves the passage of all that is
incongruous and unpleasant, and may be all that John meant.

8 And when he had taken the book, the [200]four beasts and
four _and_ twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having
every one of them [201]harps, and golden vials full of
[202]odours, which are the [203]prayers of saints.

8. _And when he had taken the book, the four beasts_, &c. The acts
of adoration here described as rendered by the four living creatures
and the elders are, according to the explanation given in ch. iv. 4‒7,
emblematic of the honour done to the Redeemer by the church, and by the
course of providential events in the government of the world. ¶ _Fell
down before the Lamb._ The usual posture of profound worship. Usually
in such worship there was entire prostration on the earth. See Notes on
Mat. ii. 2; 1 Co. xiv. 25. ¶ _Having every one of them harps._ That is,
as the construction, and the propriety of the case would seem to demand,
the _elders_ had each of them harps. The whole prostrated themselves
with profound reverence; the elders had harps and censers, and broke
out into a song of praise for redemption. This construction is demanded,
because (a) the Greek word――ἔχοντες――more properly agrees with the word
_elders_――πρεσβύτεροι――and not with the word _beasts_――ζῶα; (b) there
is an incongruity in the representation that the living creatures, in
the form of a lion, a calf, an eagle, should have harps and censers;
and (c) the song of praise that is sung (ver. 9) is one that properly
applies to the elders as the representatives of the church, and not to
the living creatures――“Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” The
_harp_ was a well-known instrument used in the service of God. Josephus
describes it as having ten strings, and as struck with a key (_Ant._
vii. 12, 3). See Notes on Is. v. 12. ¶ _And golden vials._ The word
_vial_ with us, denoting a small slender bottle with a narrow neck,
evidently does not express the idea here. The article here referred to
was used for offering incense, and must have been a vessel with a large
open mouth. The word _bowl_ or _goblet_ would better express the idea,
and it is so explained by Professor Robinson, _Lex._, and by Professor
Stuart, _in loco_. The Greek word――φιάλη――occurs in the New Testament
only in Revelation (v. 8; xv. 7; xvi. 1‒4, 8, 10, 12, 17; xvii. 1;
xxi. 9), and is uniformly rendered _vial_ and _vials_, though the idea
is always that of a bowl or goblet. ¶ _Full of odours._ Or rather, as
in the margin, full of _incense_――θυμιαμάτων. See Notes on Lu. i. 9.
¶ _Which are the prayers of saints._ {127} Which represent or denote
the prayers of saints. Comp. Ps. cxli. 2, “Let my prayer be set forth
before thee as incense.” The meaning is, that incense was a proper
emblem of prayer. This seems to have been in two respects: (a) as being
acceptable to God――as incense produced an agreeable fragrance; and
(b) in its being wafted towards heaven――ascending towards the eternal
throne. In ch. viii. 3, an angel is represented as having a golden
censer: “And there was given unto him much incense, that he should
offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was
before the throne.” The representation there undoubtedly is, that the
angel is employed in _presenting_ the prayers of the saints which were
offered on earth before the throne. See Notes on that passage. It is
most natural to interpret the passage before us in the same way. The
allusion is clearly to the temple service, and to the fact that incense
was offered by the priest in the temple itself at the time that prayer
was offered by the people in the courts of the temple. See Lu. i. 9, 10.
The idea here is, therefore, that the representatives of the church in
heaven――the elders――spoken of as “priests” (ver. 10), are described as
officiating in the temple above in behalf of the church still below,
and as offering incense while the church is engaged in prayer. It is
not said that _they_ offer the prayers themselves, but that they offer
_incense_ as representing the prayers of the saints. If this be the
correct interpretation, as it seems to be the obvious one, then the
passage lays no foundation for the opinion expressed by Professor
Stuart, as derived from this passage (_in loco_), that prayer is
offered by the redeemed in heaven. Whatever may be the truth on that
point――on which the Bible seems to be silent――it will find no support
from the passage before us. Adoration, praise, thanksgiving, are
represented as the employment of the saints in heaven: the only
representation respecting _prayer_ as pertaining to that world is, that
there are emblems there which symbolize its ascent before the throne,
and which show that it is acceptable to God. It is an interesting and
beautiful representation that there _are_ in heaven appropriate symbols
of ascending prayer, and that while in the outer courts here below _we_
offer prayer, incense, emblematic of it, ascends in the holy of holies
above. The _impression_ which this should leave on our minds ought to
be, that our prayers are wafted before the throne, and are acceptable
to God.

9 And they sung a [204]new song, saying, Thou art worthy to
take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast
slain, and hast redeemed us to God [205]by thy blood, out of
[206]every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

9. _And they sung a new song._ Comp. ch. xiv. 3. _New_ in the sense
that it is a song consequent on redemption, and distinguished therefore
from the songs sung in heaven before the work of redemption was
consummated. We may suppose that songs of adoration have always been
sung in heaven; we know that the praises of God were celebrated by the
angelic choirs when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job xxxviii.
7); but the song of redemption was a different song, and is one that
would never have been sung there if man had not fallen, and if the
Redeemer had not died. This song strikes notes which the other songs
do not strike, and refers to glories of the divine character which, but
for the work of redemption, would not have been brought into view. In
this sense the song was new; it will continue to be new in the sense
that it will be sung afresh as redeemed millions continue to ascend to
heaven. Comp. Ps. xl. 3; xcvi. 1; cxliv. 9; Is. xlii. 10. ¶ _Thou art
worthy to take the book_, &c. This was the occasion or ground of the
“new song,” that by his coming and death he had acquired a right to
approach where no other one could approach, and to do what no other one
could do. ¶ _For thou wast slain._ The _language_ here is such as would
be appropriate to a lamb slain as a sacrifice. The idea is, that the
fact that he was thus slain constituted the ground of his worthiness to
open the book. It could not be meant that there was in him no _other_
ground of worthiness, but that this was that which was most conspicuous.
It is just the outburst of the grateful feeling resulting from
redemption, that he who has died to save the soul is worthy {128} of
_all_ honour, and is fitted to accomplish what no other being in the
universe _can_ do. However this may appear to the inhabitants of other
worlds, or however it may appear to the dwellers on the earth who have
no interest in the work of redemption, yet all who are redeemed will
agree in the sentiment that He who has ransomed them with his blood
has performed a work to do which every other being was incompetent,
and that now all honour in heaven and on earth may appropriately
be conferred on him. ¶ _And hast redeemed us._ The word here
used――ἀγοράζω――means properly to purchase, to buy; and is thus
employed to denote redemption, because redemption was accomplished by
the payment of a price. On the meaning of the word, see Notes on 2 Pe.
ii. 1. ¶ _To God._ That is, so that we become _his_, and are to be
henceforward regarded as such; or so that he might possess us as his
own. See Notes on 2 Co. v. 15. This is the true nature of redemption,
that by the price paid we are rescued from the servitude of Satan, and
are henceforth to regard ourselves as belonging unto God. ¶ _By thy
blood._ See Notes on Ac. xx. 28. This is such language as they use
who believe in the doctrine of the atonement, and is such as would be
used by them alone. It would not be employed by those who believe that
Christ was a mere martyr, or that he lived and died merely as a teacher
of morality. If he was truly an atoning sacrifice, the language is full
of meaning; if not, it has no significance, and could not be understood.
¶ _Out of every kindred._ Literally, “of every tribe”――φυλῆς. The
word _tribe_ means properly a comparatively small division or class of
people associated together (Professor Stuart). It refers to a family,
or race, having a common ancestor, and usually associated or banded
together――as one of the tribes of Israel; a tribe of Indians; a tribe
of plants; a tribe of animals, &c. This is such language as a Jew
would use, denoting one of the smaller divisions that made up a nation
of people; and the meaning would seem to be, that it will be found
ultimately to be true that the redeemed will have been taken from all
such minor divisions of the human family――not only from the different
_nations_, but from the smaller _divisions_ of those nations. This can
only be true from the fact that the knowledge of the true religion will
yet be diffused among all those smaller portions of the human race;
that is, that its diffusion will be universal. ¶ _And tongue._ People
speaking all languages. The word here used would seem to denote a
division of the human family larger than a tribe, but smaller than a
nation. It was formerly a fact that a nation might be made up of those
who spoke many different languages――as, for example, the Assyrian,
the Babylonian, or the Roman nations. Comp. Da. iii. 29; iv. 1. The
meaning here is, that no matter what language the component parts of
the nations speak, the gospel will be conveyed to them, and in their
own tongue they will learn the wonderful works of God. Comp. Ac.
ii. 8‒11. ¶ _And people._ The word here used――λαός――properly denotes
a people considered as _a mass_, made up of smaller divisions――as an
association of smaller bodies――or as a multitude of such bodies united
together. It is distinguished from another word commonly applied to
a people――δῆμος――for that is applied to a community of free citizens,
considered as on a level, or without reference to any minor divisions
or distinctions. The words here used would apply to an army, considered
as made up of regiments, battalions, or tribes; to a mass-meeting, made
up of societies of different trades or professions; to a nation, made
up of different associated communities, &c. It denotes a _larger_ body
of people than the previous words; and the idea is, that no matter
of what _people_ or _nation_, considered as made up of such separate
portions, one may be, he will not be excluded from the blessings of
redemption. The sense would be well expressed, by saying, for instance,
that there will be found there those of the Gaelic race, the Celtic,
the Anglo-Saxon, the Mongolian, the African, &c. ¶ _And nation._ ἔθνους.
A word of still larger signification; the people in a still wider sense;
a people or nation considered as distinct from all others. The word
would embrace all who come under one sovereignty or rule; as, for
example, the British nation, however many minor _tribes_ there may
be; however many different _languages_ may be spoken; and however many
separate _people_ there may be――as the Anglo-Saxon, the Scottish, the
Irish, the people of Hindoostan, of Labrador, of New South Wales, &c.
The words here used by John would together denote nations of every kind,
great and {129} small; and the sense is, that the blessings of
redemption will be extended to all parts of the earth.

10 And hast made us unto our God [207]kings and priests: and
we shall [208]reign on the earth.

10. _And hast made us unto our God kings and priests._ See Notes on ch.
i. 6. ¶ _And we shall reign on the earth._ The redeemed, of whom we are
the representatives. The idea clearly is, in accordance with what is so
frequently said in the Scriptures, that the dominion on the earth will
be given to the saints; that is, that there will be such a prevalence
of true religion, and the redeemed will be so much in the ascendency,
that the affairs of the nations will be in their hands. Righteous men
will hold the offices; will fill places of trust and responsibility;
will have a controlling voice in all that pertains to human affairs.
See Notes on Da. vii. 27, and Re. xx. 1‒6. To such a prevalence of
religion all things are tending; and to this, in all the disorder and
sin which now exist, are we permitted to look forward. It is not said
that this will be a reign under the Saviour in a literal kingdom on
the earth; nor is it said that the saints will descend from heaven,
and occupy thrones of power under Christ as a visible king. The simple
affirmation is, that they will _reign_ on the earth; and as this seems
to be spoken in the name of the redeemed, all that is necessary to be
understood is, that there will be such a prevalence of true religion
on the earth that it will become a vast kingdom of holiness, and that,
instead of being in the minority, the saints will everywhere have the
ascendency.

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round
about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the
[209]number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and
thousands of thousands;

11. _And I beheld._ And I looked again. ¶ _And I heard the
voice of many angels._ The inhabitants of heaven uniting with the
representatives of the redeemed church in ascribing honour to the Lamb
of God. The design is to show that there is universal sympathy and
harmony in heaven, and that all worlds will unite in ascribing honour
to the Lamb of God. ¶ _Round about the throne and the beasts and
the elders._ In a circle or area _beyond_ that which was occupied
by the throne, the living creatures, and the elders. They occupied
the centre, as it appeared to John, and this innumerable company of
angels surrounded them. The angels are represented here, as they are
everywhere in the Scriptures, as taking a deep interest in all that
pertains to the redemption of men, and it is not surprising that they
are here described as uniting with the representatives of the church in
rendering honour to the Lamb of God. Comp. Notes on 1 Pe. i. 12. ¶ _And
the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand._ One hundred
millions――a general term to denote either a countless number, or an
exceedingly great number. We are not to suppose that it is to be taken
literally. ¶ _And thousands of thousands._ Implying that the number
before specified was not large enough to comprehend all. Besides the
“ten thousand times ten thousand,” there was a vast uncounted host
which one could not attempt to enumerate. The language here would
seem to be taken from Da. vii. 10: “Thousand thousands ministered unto
him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” Comp. Ps.
lxviii. 17: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands
of angels. ” See also De. xxxiii. 2; 1 Ki. xxii. 19.

12 Saying with a loud voice, [210]Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing.

12. _Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain._ See
Notes on ver. 2, 9. The idea here is, that the fact that he was slain,
or was made a sacrifice for sin, was the ground or reason for what
is here ascribed to him. Comp. Notes on ver. 5. ¶ _To receive power._
Power or authority to rule over all things. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxviii.
18. The meaning here is, that he was worthy that these things should
be ascribed to him, or to be addressed and acknowledged as possessing
them. A part of these things were his in virtue of his very nature――as
wisdom, glory, riches; a part were conferred on him as the result of
his work――as the mediatorial dominion over the universe, the honour
resulting from his work, &c. In view of all that he was, and of all
that he has done, he is here spoken {130} of as “_worthy_” of all these
things. ¶ _And riches._ Abundance. That is, he is worthy that whatever
contributes to honour, and glory, and happiness, should be conferred on
him _in abundance_. Himself the original proprietor of all things, it
is fit that he should be recognized as such; and having performed the
work which he has, it is proper that whatever may be made to contribute
to his honour should be regarded as his. ¶ _And wisdom._ That he should
be esteemed as eminently wise; that is, that as the result of the work
which he has accomplished, he should be regarded as having ability to
choose the best ends and the best means to accomplish them. The feeling
here referred to is that which arises from the contemplation of the
work of salvation by the Redeemer, as a work eminently characterized
by _wisdom_――wisdom manifested in meeting the evils of the fall; in
honouring the law; in showing that mercy is consistent with justice;
and in adapting the whole plan to the character and wants of man. If
wisdom was anywhere demanded, it was in reconciling a lost world to
God; if it has been anywhere displayed, it has been in the arrangements
for that work, and in its execution by the Redeemer. See Notes on 1 Co.
i. 24; comp. Mat. xiii. 54; Lu. ii. 40, 52; 1 Co. i. 20, 21, 30; Ep.
i. 8; iii. 10. ¶ _And strength._ Ability to accomplish his purposes.
That is, it is meet that he should be regarded as having such ability.
This _strength_ or _power_ was manifested in overcoming the great enemy
of man; in his control of winds, and storms, and diseases, and devils;
in triumphing over death; in saving his people. ¶ _And honour._ He
should be esteemed and treated with honour for what he has done. ¶ _And
glory. _ This word refers to a _higher_ ascription of praise than the
word _honour_. Perhaps that might refer to the honour which we feel in
our hearts; this to the expression of that by the language of praise.
¶ _And blessing._ Everything which would express the desire that he
might be happy, honoured, and adored. To bless one is to desire that he
may have happiness and prosperity; that he may be successful, respected,
and honoured. To bless God, or to ascribe blessing to him, is that
state where the heart is full of love and gratitude, and where it
desires that he may be everywhere honoured, loved, and obeyed as he
should be. The words here express the wish that the universe would
ascribe to the Redeemer all honour, and that he might be everywhere
loved and adored.

13 And [211]every creature which is in heaven, and on the
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and
all that are in them, heard I saying, [212]Blessing, and
honour, and glory, and power, _be_ unto him that sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

13. _And every creature which is in heaven._ The meaning of this verse
is, that all created things seemed to unite in rendering honour to Him
who sat on the throne, and to the Lamb. In the previous verse a certain
number――a vast host――of angels are designated as rendering praise as
they stood round the area occupied by the throne, the elders, and the
living creatures; here it is added that _all_ who were in heaven united
in this ascription of praise. ¶ _And on the earth._ All the universe
was heard by John ascribing praise to God. A voice was heard from
the heavens, from all parts of the earth, from under the earth, and
from the depths of the sea, _as if_ the entire universe joined in
the adoration. It is not necessary to press the language literally,
and still less is it necessary to understand by it, as Professor
Stuart does, that _the angels_ who presided over the earth, over the
under-world, and over the sea, are intended. It is evidently _popular_
language; and the sense is, that John heard a universal ascription of
praise. All worlds seemed to join in it; all the dwellers on the earth,
and under the earth, and in the sea, partook of the spirit of heaven in
rendering honour to the Redeemer. ¶ _Under the earth._ Supposed to be
inhabited by the shades of the dead. See Notes on Job x. 21, 22; Is.
xiv. 9. ¶ _And such as are in the sea._ All that dwell in the ocean.
In Ps. cxlviii. 7‒10, “dragons, and all deeps; beasts, and all cattle;
creeping things, and flying fowl,” are called on to praise the
{131} Lord; and there is no more incongruity or impropriety in one
description than in the other. In the Psalm, the universe is called on
to render praise; in the passage before us it is described as actually
doing it. The hills, the streams, the floods; the fowls of the air,
the dwellers in the deep, and the beasts that roam over the earth;
the songsters in the grove, and the insects that play in the sunbeam,
in fact, declare the glory of their Creator; and it requires no very
strong effort of the fancy to imagine the universe as sending up a
constant voice of thanksgiving. ¶ _Blessing, and honour_, &c. There
is a slight change here from ver. 12, but it is the same thing
substantially. It is an ascription of all glory to God and to the Lamb.

14 And the [213]four beasts said, Amen. And the four _and_
twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for
ever and ever.

14. _And the four beasts said, Amen._ The voice of universal praise
came to them from abroad, and they accorded with it, and ascribed
honour to God. ¶ _And the four and twenty elders fell down_, &c. The
living creatures and the elders _began_ the work of praise (ver. 8),
and it was proper that it should conclude with them; that is, they give
the last and final response (Professor Stuart). The whole universe,
therefore, is sublimely represented as in a state of profound adoration,
waiting for the developments to follow on the opening of the mysterious
volume. All feel an interest in it; all feel that the secret is with
God; all feel that there is but One who _can_ open this volume; and all
gather around, in the most reverential posture, awaiting the disclosure
of the great mystery.

The truths taught in this chapter are the following: (1) The knowledge
of the future is with God, ver. 1. It is as in a book held in his hand,
fully written over, yet sealed with seven seals. (2) It is impossible
for man or angel to penetrate the future, ver. 2, 3. It seems to be a
law of created being, that the ability to penetrate the future is
placed beyond the reach of any of the faculties by which a creature is
endowed. Of the past we have a record, and we can remember it; but no
created being seems to have been formed with a power in reference to
the future corresponding with that in reference to the past――with no
faculty of _foresight_ corresponding to _memory_. (3) It is natural
that the mind should be deeply affected by the fact that we _cannot_
penetrate the future, ver. 4. John _wept_ in view of this; and how
often is the mind borne down with heaviness in view of that fact! What
things there are, there must be, in that future of interest to us! What
changes there may be for us to experience; what trials to pass through;
what happiness to enjoy; what scenes of glory to witness! What progress
may we make in knowledge; what new friendships may we form; what
new displays of the divine perfections may we witness! All our great
interests are in the future――in that which is to us now unknown. There
is to be all the happiness which we are to enjoy, all the pain that
we are to suffer; all that we hope, all that we fear. All the friends
that we are to have are to be there; all the sorrows that we are to
experience are to be there. Yet an impenetrable veil is set up to hide
all that from our view. We cannot remove it; we cannot penetrate it.
There it stands to mock all our efforts, and in all our attempts to
look into the future we soon come to the barrier, and are repelled and
driven back. Who has not felt his heart sad that he cannot look into
that which is to come? (4) The power of laying open the future to
mortals has been intrusted to the Redeemer, ver. 5‒7. It is a part of
the work which was committed to him to make known to men _as much_ as
it was proper to be known. Hence he is at once a prophet, and is the
inspirer of the prophets. Hence he came to teach men what is to be in
the future pertaining to them, and hence he has caused to be recorded
by the sacred writers all that _is_ to be known of what is to come
until it is slowly unfolded as events develop themselves. The Saviour
alone takes the mysterious book and opens the seals; he only unrolls
the volume and discloses to man what is to come. (5) The fact that
he does this is the foundation of joy and gratitude for the church,
ver. 8‒10. It is impossible that the church should contemplate what
the Saviour has revealed of the future without gratitude and joy; and
how often, in times of persecution and trouble, has the church joyfully
turned to the developments made by the {132} Saviour of what is to
be when the gospel shall spread over the world, and when truth and
righteousness shall be triumphant. (6) This fact is of interest to
the angelic beings, and for them also it lays the foundation of praise,
ver. 11, 12. This may arise from these causes: (a) from the interest
which they take in the church, and the happiness which they have from
anything that increases its numbers or augments its joy; (b) from
the fact that in the disclosures of the future made by the Redeemer,
there may be much that is new and of interest to them (comp. Notes
on 1 Pe. i. 12); and (c) from the fact that they cannot but rejoice
in the revelations which are made of the final triumphs of truth
in the universe. (7) The universe at large has an interest in these
disclosures, and the fact that they are to be made by the Redeemer lays
the foundation for universal joy, ver. 13, 14. These events pertain to
all worlds, and it is proper that all the inhabitants of the universe
should join in the expressions of adoration and thanksgiving. The
universe is one; and what affects one portion of it really pertains to
every part of it. Angels and men have one and the same God and Father,
and may unite in the same expressions of praise.

CHAPTER VI.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter contains an account of the opening of six of the seven
seals. It need hardly be said to anyone who is at all familiar with the
numerous――not to say numberless――expositions of the Apocalypse, that
it is at this point that interpreters begin to differ, and that here
commences the divergence towards those various, discordant, and many
of them wild and fantastic theories, which have been proposed in the
exposition of this wonderful book. Up to this point, though there may
be unimportant diversities in the exposition of words and phrases,
there is no material difference of opinion as to the general meaning
of the writer. In the epistles to the seven churches, and in the
introductory scenes to the main visions, there can be no doubt, in the
main, as to what the writer had in view, and what he meant to describe.
He addressed churches then existing (ch. i.‒iii.), and set before them
their sins and their duties; and he described scenes passing before
his eyes as then present (ch. iv. v.), which were merely designed to
impress his own mind with the importance of what was to be disclosed,
and to bring the great actors on the stage, and in reference to which
there could be little ground for diversity in the interpretation. Here,
however, the scene opens into the future, comprehending all the unknown
period until there shall be a final triumph of Christianity, and all
its foes shall be prostrate. The actors are the Son of God, angels,
men, Satan, storms, tempests, earthquakes, the pestilence and fire;
the scene is heaven, earth, hell. There is no certain designation of
places; there is no mention of names――as there is in Isaiah (xlv. 1)
of Cyrus, or as there is in Daniel (viii. 21; x. 20; xi. 2) of the
“king of Grecia;” there is no designation of time that is necessarily
unambiguous; and there are no characteristics of the symbols used that
make it antecedently certain that they could be applied only to one
class of events. In the boundless future that was to succeed the times
of John, there would be, of necessity, many events to which these
symbols might be applied, and the result has shown that it has required
but a moderate share of pious ingenuity to apply them, by different
expositors, to events differing widely from each other in their
character, and in the times when they would occur. It would be too long
to glance even at the various theories which have been proposed and
maintained in regard to the interpretation of the subsequent portions
of the Apocalypse, and wholly impossible to attempt to examine those
theories. Time, in its developments, has already exploded many of them;
and time, in its future developments, will doubtless explode many more,
and each one must stand or fall as, in the disclosures of the future,
it shall be found to be true or false. It would be folly to add another
to those numerous theories, even if I had any such theory (see the
Preface), and perhaps equal folly to pronounce with certainty on
any one of those which have been advanced. Yet this seems to be
an appropriate place to state, in few words, what principles it is
designed to pursue in the interpretation of the remainder of the book.

(1) It may be assumed that large portions of the book relate to _the
future_; that is, to that which was future when John wrote. In this
all expositors are agreed, and this is manifest indeed on the very
face of the representation. It would be impossible to attempt an
interpretation {133} on any other supposition, and somewhere _in_ that
vast future the events are to be found to which the symbols here used
had reference. This is assumed, indeed, on the supposition that the book
is _inspired_――a fact which is assumed all along in this exposition,
and which should be allowed to control our interpretation. But assuming
that the book relates to the future, though that supposition will do
something to determine the true method of interpretation, yet it leaves
many questions still unsolved. Whether it refers to the destruction of
Jerusalem, on the supposition that the work was written before that
event, or to the history of the church subsequent to that; whether it
is designed to describe events minutely, or only in the most general
manner; whether it is intended to furnish a _syllabus_ of civil and
ecclesiastical history, or only a very general outline of future events;
whether the _times_ are so designated that we can fix them with entire
certainty; or whether it was intended to furnish any certain indication
of the periods of the world when these things should occur;――all these
are still open questions, and it need not be said that on these the
opinions of expositors have been greatly divided.

(2) It may be assumed that there _is_ meaning in these symbols, and
that they were not used without an intention to convey some important
ideas to the mind of John and to the minds of his readers――to the
church then, and to the church in future times. Comp. Notes on ch.
i. 3. The book is indeed surpassingly sublime. It abounds with the
highest flights of poetic language. It is Oriental in its character,
and exhibits everywhere the proofs of a most glowing imagination in
the writer. But it is also to be borne in mind that it is an _inspired_
book, and this fact is to determine the character of the exposition.
_If_ inspired, it is to be assumed that there is a _meaning_ in
these symbols; an idea in each one of them, and in all combined, of
importance to the church and the world. Whether we can ascertain the
meaning is another question; but it is never to be doubted by an
expositor of the Bible that there _is_ a meaning in the words and
images employed, and that to find out that meaning is worthy of earnest
study and prayer.

(3) Predictions respecting the future are often necessarily obscure
to man. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that God _could_ have foretold
future events in the most clear and unambiguous language. He who knows
all that is to come as intimately as he does all the past, could have
caused a record to have been made, disclosing names, and dates, and
places, so that the most minute statements of what is to occur might
have been in the possession of man as clearly as the records of the
past now are. But there were obvious reasons why this should not occur,
and in the prophecies it is rare that there is any such specification.
To have done this might have been to defeat the very end in view; for
it would have given to man, a free agent, the power of embarrassing or
frustrating the divine plans. But if this course is _not_ adopted, then
prophecy must, from the nature of the case, be obscure. The knowledge
of any one particular fact in the future is so connected with many
other facts, and often implies so much knowledge of other things, that
without that other knowledge it could not be understood. Suppose that
it had been predicted, in the time of John, that at some future period
some contrivance should be found out by which what was doing in one
part of the world could be instantaneously known in another remote part
of the world, and spread abroad by thousands of copies in an hour, to
be read by a nation. Suppose, for instance, that there had been some
symbol or emblem representing what actually occurs now, when in a
morning newspaper we read what occurred last evening at St. Louis,
Dubuque, Galena, Chicago, Cincinnati, Charleston, New Orleans; it is
clear that at a time when the magnetic telegraph and the printing-press
were unknown, any symbol or language describing it that could be
employed must be obscure, and the impression must have been that this
could be accomplished only by miracle――and it would not be difficult
for one who was disposed to scepticism to make out an argument to prove
that this could _not_ occur. It would be impossible to explain any
symbol that could be employed to represent this until these wonderful
descriptions should become reality, and in the meantime the book in
which the symbols were found might be regarded as made up of mere
riddles and enigmas; but when these inventions should be actually found
out, however much ridicule or contempt had been poured on the book
before, it {134} might be perfectly evident that the symbol was the
most appropriate that could be used, and no one could doubt that it was
a divine communication of what was to be in the future. Something of
the same kind _may_ have occurred in the symbols used by the writer of
the book before us.

(4) It is not necessary to suppose that a prophecy will be understood
in all its details until the prediction is accomplished. In the case
just referred to, though the _fact_ of the rapid spread of intelligence
might be clear, yet nothing would convey any idea of the _mode_, or of
the actual meaning of the _symbols_ used, unless the inventions were
themselves anticipated by a direct revelation. The trial of _faith_
in the case would be the belief that _the fact would occur_, but would
not relate to the _mode_ in which it was to be accomplished, or the
_language_ employed to describe it. There might be great obscurity in
regard to the symbols and language, and yet the knowledge of the fact
be perfectly plain. When, however, the fact should occur as predicted,
all would be clear. So it is in respect to prophecy. Many recorded
predictions that are now clear as noon-day, were once as ambiguous and
uncertain in respect to their meaning as in the supposed case of the
press and the telegraph. Time has made them plain; for the event to
which they referred has so entirely corresponded with the symbol as to
leave no doubt in regard to the meaning. Thus many of the prophecies
relating to the Messiah were obscure at the time when they were uttered;
were apparently so contradictory that they could not be reconciled;
were so unlike anything that then existed, that the fulfilment seemed
to be impossible; and were so enigmatical in the symbols employed, that
it seemed in vain to attempt to disclose their meaning. The advent of
the long-promised Messiah, however, removed the obscurity; and now they
are read with no uncertainty as to their meaning, and with no doubt
that those predictions, once so obscure, had a divine origin.

The view just suggested may lead us to some just conceptions of
what is necessary to be done in attempting to explain the prophecies.
Suppose, then, _first_, that there had been, say in the dark ages, some
predictions that claimed to be of divine origin, of the invention of
the art of printing and of the magnetic telegraph. The proper business
of an interpreter, if he regarded this as a divine communication, would
have consisted in four things: (a) to explain, as well as he could,
the fair meaning of the symbols employed, and the language used; (b) to
admit the _fact_ referred to, and implied in the fair interpretation
of the language employed, of the rapid spread of intelligence in that
future period, though he could not explain _how_ it was to be done;
(c) in the meantime it would be a perfectly legitimate object for him
to inquire whether there were any events occurring in the world, or
whether there had been any, to which these symbols were applicable, or
which would meet all the circumstances involved in them; (d) if there
were, then his duty would be ended; if there were not, then the symbols,
with such explanation as could be furnished of their meaning, should
be handed on to future times, _to be_ applied when the predicted events
should actually occur. Suppose, then, _secondly_, the case of the
predictions respecting the Messiah, scattered along through many books,
and given in various forms, and by various symbols. The proper business
of an interpreter would have been, as in the other case, (a) to explain
the fair meaning of the language used, and to bring together all
the circumstances in one connected whole, that a distinct conception
of the predicted Messiah might be before the mind; (b) to admit the
_facts_ referred to, and thus predicted, however incomprehensible
and apparently contradictory they might appear to be; (c) to inquire
whether anyone had appeared who combined within himself all the
characteristics of the description; and (d) if no one had thus appeared,
to send on the prophecies, with such explanations of words and symbols
as could be ascertained to be correct, to future times, to have their
full meaning developed when the object of all the predictions should
be accomplished, and the Messiah should appear. Then the meaning of all
would be plain; and then the argument from prophecy would be complete.
This is obviously now the proper state of the mind in regard to the
predictions in the Bible, and these are the principles which should be
applied in examining the book of Revelation.

(5) It may be assumed that new light _will_ be thrown upon the
prophecies by time, and by the progress of events. It cannot be
supposed that {135} the investigations of the meaning of the prophetic
symbols will all be in vain. Difficulties, it is reasonable to hope,
may be cleared up; errors may be detected in regard to the application
of the prophecies to particular events; and juster views on the
prophecies, as on all other subjects, will prevail as the world grows
older. We become wiser by seeing the errors of those who have gone
before us, and an examination of the causes which led them astray may
enable us to avoid such errors in the future. Especially may it be
supposed that light will be thrown on the prophecies as they shall be
in part or wholly fulfilled. The prophecies respecting the destruction
of Babylon, of Petra, of Tyre, of Jerusalem, are now fully understood;
the prophecies respecting the advent of the Messiah, and his character
and work, once so obscure, are now perfectly clear. So, we have reason
to suppose, it will be with _all_ prophecy in the progress of events,
and sooner or later the world will settle down into some uniform belief
in regard to the design and meaning of these portions of the sacred
writings. Whether the time has yet come for this, or whether numerous
other failures are to be added to the melancholy catalogue of past
failures on this subject, is another question; but ultimately all the
now unfulfilled prophecies will be as clear as to their meaning as are
those which have been already fulfilled.

(6) The plan, therefore, which I propose in the examination of
the remaining portion of the Apocalypse is the following: (a) To
explain the meaning of the symbols; that is, to show, as clearly as
possible, what those symbols properly express, independently of any
attempt to apply them. This opens, of itself, an interesting field of
investigation, and one where essential service may be done, even if
nothing further is intended. Without any reference to the _application_
of those symbols, this, of itself, is an important work of criticism,
and, if successfully done, would be rendering a valuable service to
the readers of the sacred volume. (b) To state, as briefly as possible,
what others who have written on this book, and who have brought eminent
learning and talent to bear on its interpretation, have supposed to be
the true interpretation of the symbols employed by John, and in regard
to the times in which the events referred to would occur. It is in this
way only that we can be made acquainted with the real progress made
in interpreting this book, and it will be useful at least to know how
the subject has struck other minds, and how and why they have failed
to perceive the truth. I propose, therefore, to state, as I go along,
some of the theories which have been held as to the meaning of the
Apocalypse, and as to the events which have been supposed by others to
be referred to. My limits require, however, that this should be briefly
done, and forbid my attempting to examine those opinions at length.
(c) To state, in as brief and clear a manner as possible, the view
which I have been led to entertain as to the proper application of the
symbols employed in the book, with such historical references as shall
seem to me to confirm the interpretation proposed. (d) Where I cannot
form an opinion as to the meaning, to confess my ignorance. He does no
service in a professed interpretation of the Bible who passes over a
difficulty without _attempting_ to remove it, or who, to save his own
reputation, conceals the fact that there is a real difficulty; and he
does as little service who is unwilling to confess his ignorance on
many points, or who attempts an explanation where he has no clear and
settled views. As his opinion can be of no value to anyone else unless
it is based on reasons in his own mind that will bear examination, so
it can usually be of little value unless those reasons are stated. It
is as important for his readers to have those reasons before their own
minds as it is for him; and unless he has it in his power to _state_
reasons for what he advances, his opinions can be worth nothing to the
world. He who lays down this rule of interpretation may expect to have
ample opportunity, in interpreting such a book as the Apocalypse, to
confess his ignorance; but he who interprets a book which he believes
to be inspired, may console himself with the thought that what is now
obscure will be clear hereafter, and that he performs the best service
which he can if he endeavours to explain the book _up to_ the time in
which he lives. There will be developments hereafter which will make
that clear which is now obscure; developments which will make this
book, in all past ages apparently so enigmatical, as clear as any other
portion of the inspired volume, as it is now, even with {136} imperfect
view which we may have of its meaning, beyond all question one of the
most sublime books that has ever been written.

This chapter describes the opening of the first six seals. (1) The
first discloses a white horse, with a rider armed with a bow. A crown
is given to him, symbolical of triumph and prosperity, and he goes
forth to conquer, ver. 1, 2. (2) The second discloses a red-coloured
horse, with a rider. The emblem is that of blood――of sanguinary war.
Power is given him to take peace from the earth, and a sword is given
him――emblem of war, but not of certain victory. Triumph and prosperity
are denoted by the former symbol; war, discord, bloodshed, by this,
ver. 3, 4. (3) The third discloses a black horse, with a rider. He
has a pair of balances in his hand, as if there were _scarcity_ in
the earth, and he announces the price of grain in the times of this
calamity, and a command is given not to hurt the oil and the wine,
ver. 5, 6. The emblem is that of scarcity――as if there were oppression,
or as a consequence of war or discord, while at the same time there is
care bestowed to preserve certain portions of the produce of the earth
from injury. (4) The fourth discloses a pale horse, with a rider. The
name of this rider is Death, and Hell (or Hades) follows him――as if the
hosts of the dead came again on the earth. Power is given to the rider
over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger,
with death, and with wild beasts. This emblem would seem to denote war,
wide-wasting pestilence, famine, and desolation――as if wild beasts were
suffered to roam over lands that had been inhabited; something of which
_paleness_ would be an emblem. Here ends the array of _horses_; and
it is evidently intended by these four symbols to refer to a series of
events that have a general resemblance――something that could be made to
stand by themselves, and that could be grouped together. (5) The fifth
seal opens a new scene. The horse and the rider no longer appear. It
is not a scene of war, and of the consequences of war, but a scene of
persecution. The souls of those who were slain for the word of God and
the testimony which they held are seen under the altar, praying to God
that he would avenge their blood. White robes are given them――tokens of
the divine favour, and emblems of their ultimate triumph; and they are
commanded to “rest for a little season, till their fellow-servants and
their brethren that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled;”
that is, that they should be _patient_ until the number of the martyrs
was filled up. In other words, there was (a) the assurance of the
divine favour towards them; (b) vengeance, or the punishment of those
who had persecuted them, would not be _immediate_; but (c) there was
the implied assurance that just punishment would be inflicted on their
persecutors, and that the cause for which they had suffered would
ultimately triumph, ver. 9‒11. (6) The opening of the sixth seal, ver.
12‒17. There was an earthquake, and the sun became dark, and the moon
was turned to blood, and the stars fell, and all kings and people were
filled with consternation. This symbol properly denotes the time of
public commotion, of revolution, of calamity; and it was evidently to
be fulfilled by some great changes on the earth, or by the overturning
of the seats of power, and by such sudden revolutions as would fill the
nations with alarm.

CHAPTER VI.

AND I saw when [214]the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I
heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts
saying, Come and see.

1. _And I saw._ Or, I looked. He fixed his eye attentively on what was
passing, as promising important disclosures. No one had been found in
the universe who could open the seals but the Lamb of God (ch. v. 2‒4);
and it was natural for John, therefore, to look upon the transaction
with profound interest. ¶ _When the Lamb opened one of the seals._
See Notes on ch. v. 1, 5. This was the first or outermost of the seals,
and its being broken would permit a certain portion of the volume to
be unrolled and read. See Notes on ch. v. 1. The representation in this
place is, therefore, that of a volume with a small portion unrolled,
and written on both sides of the parchment. ¶ _And I heard, as it
were the noise of thunder._ One of the four living creatures speaking
as with a voice of thunder, or with a loud voice. ¶ _One of the
four beasts._ Notes on ch. iv. 6, 7. {137} The particular one is not
mentioned, though what is said in the subsequent verses leaves no doubt
that it was the first in order as seen by John――the one like a lion,
ch. iv. 7. In the opening of the three following seals, it is expressly
said that it was the second, the third, and the fourth of the living
creatures that drew near, and hence the conclusion is certain that the
one here referred to was the first. If the four living creatures be
understood to be emblematic of the divine providential administration,
then there was a propriety that they should be represented as summoning
John to witness what was to be disclosed. These events pertained to
the developments of the divine purposes, and these emblematic beings
would therefore be interested in what was occurring. ¶ _Come and see._
Addressed evidently to John. He was requested to approach and _see_
with his own eyes what was disclosed in the portion of the volume now
unrolled. He had wept much (ch. v. 4) that no one was found who was
worthy to open that book, but he was now called on to approach and see
for himself. Some have supposed (Lord, _in loco_) that the address here
was not to John, but to the horse and his rider, and that the command
to them was not to “come and see,” but to _come forth_, and appear on
the stage, and that the act of the Redeemer in breaking the seal, and
unrolling the scroll, was nothing more than an emblem signifying that
it was by his act that the divine purposes were to be unfolded. But,
in order to this interpretation, it would be necessary to omit from the
received text the words καὶ βλέπε――“_and see_.” This is done, indeed,
by Hahn and Tittmann, and this reading is followed by Professor Stuart,
though he says that the received text has “probability” in its favour,
and is followed by some of the critical editions. The most natural
interpretation, however, is that the words were addressed to John.
John saw the Lamb open the seal; he heard the loud voice; he looked and
beheld a white horse――that is, evidently, he looked on the unfolding
volume, and saw the representation of a horse and his rider. That the
voice was addressed to John is the common interpretation, is the most
natural, and is liable to no real objection.

2 And I saw, and behold [215]a white horse: and he that sat on
him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went
forth [216]conquering, and to conquer.

2. _And I saw, and behold._ A question has arisen as to the mode of
representation here: whether what John saw in these visions was a
series of _pictures_, drawn on successive portions of the volume as one
seal was broken after another; or whether the description of the horses
and of the events was _written_ on the volume, so that John read it
himself, or heard it read by another; or whether the opening of the
seal was merely the _occasion_ of a scenic representation, in which a
succession of horses was introduced, with a written statement of the
events which are referred to. Nothing is indeed said by which this
can be determined with certainty; but the most probable supposition
would seem to be that there was some pictorial representation in
form and appearance, such as he describes in the opening of the six
seals. In favour of this it may be observed, (1) that, according
to the interpretation of ver. 1, it was something _in_ or _on_ the
volume――since he was invited to draw nearer, in order that he might
contemplate it. (2) Each one of the things under the first five seals,
where John uses the word “saw,” is capable of being represented by a
picture or painting. (3) The language used is not such as would have
been employed if he had merely _read_ the description, or had _heard_
it read. (4) The supposition that the pictorial representation was
not _in_ the volume, but that the opening of the seal was the occasion
merely of causing a scenic representation to pass before his mind, is
unnatural and forced. What would be the use of a sealed _volume_ in
that case? What the use of the _writing_ within and without? On this
supposition the representation would be that, as the successive seals
were broken, nothing was disclosed in the volume but a succession
of blank portions, and that the mystery or the difficulty was not
in anything in the volume, but in the want of ability to summon
forth these successive scenic representations. The most obvious
interpretation is, undoubtedly, that what John proceeds to describe
was in some way represented in the volume; and {138} the idea of
a succession of pictures or drawings better accords with the whole
representation, than the idea that it was a mere written description.
In fact, these successive scenes could be well represented now in a
pictorial form on a scroll. ¶ _And behold a white horse._ In order to
any definite understanding of what was denoted by these symbols, it
is proper to form in our minds, in the first place, a clear conception
of what the symbol properly represents, or an idea of what it would
naturally convey. It may be assumed that the symbol was significant,
and that there was some reason why that was used rather than another;
why, for instance, a _horse_ was employed rather than an eagle or
a lion; why a _white_ horse was employed in one case, and a red one,
a black one, a pale one in the others; why in this case a bow was in
the hand of the rider, and a crown was placed on his head. Each one
of these particulars enters into the constitution of the symbol; and
we must find something in the event which _fairly_ corresponds with
each――for the symbol is made up of all these things grouped together.
It may be farther observed, that where the general symbol is the
same――as in the opening of the first four seals――it may be assumed
that the same object or class of objects is referred to; and the
_particular_ things denoted, or the diversity in the general
application, is to be found in the _variety_ in the representation――the
colour, &c., of the horse, and the arms, apparel, &c., of the rider.
The specifications under the first seal are four: (1) the general
symbol of the horse――common to the first four seals; (2) the colour
of the horse; (3) the fact that he that sat on him had a bow; and
(4) that a crown was given him by some one, as indicative of victory.
The question now is, what these symbols would naturally denote.

(1) The horse. The meaning of this symbol must be drawn from the
natural use to which the symbol is applied, or the characteristics
which it is known to have; and it may be added, that there might have
been something for which that was best known in the time of the writer
who uses it, which would not be so prominent at another period of
the world, or in another country, and that it is necessary to have
that before the mind in order to obtain a correct understanding of
the symbol. The use of the horse, for instance, may have varied at
different times to some degree; at one time the prevailing use of the
horse may have been for battle; at another for rapid marches――as of
cavalry; at another for draught; at another for races; at another for
conveying messages by the establishment of posts or the appointment of
couriers. To an ancient Roman the horse might suggest prominently one
idea; to a modern Arab another; to a teamster in Holland another. The
things which would be most naturally suggested by the horse as a symbol,
as distinguished, for instance, from an eagle, a lion, a serpent, &c.,
would be the following: (a) War, as this was probably one of the first
uses to which the horse was applied. So, in the magnificent description
of the horse in Job xxxix. 19‒25, no notice is taken of any of his
qualities but those which pertain to war. See, for a full illustration
of this passage, and of the frequent reference in the classic writers
to the horse as connected with war, Bochart, _Hieroz._ lib. ii.
c. viii., particularly p. 149. Comp. Virg. _Geor._ iii. 83, 84:

“Si qua sonum procul arma dedêre,
Stare loco nescit, micat auribus, et tremit artus.”

Ovid, _Metam._ iii.:

“Ut fremit acer equus, cam bellicus, aere canoro
Signa dedit tubicen, pugnæque assumit amorem.”

_Silius_, lib. xiii.:

“Is trepido alituum tinnitu, et stare neganti,
Imperitans violenter equo.”

So Solomon says (Pr. xxi. 31), “The horse is prepared against the day
of battle.” So in Zec. x. 3, the prophet says, God had made the house
of Judah “as his goodly horse in the battle;” that is, he had made
them like the victorious war-horse. (b) As a consequence of this, and
of the conquests achieved by the horse in war, he became the symbol
of conquest――of a people that could not be overcome. Comp. the above
reference in Zec. Thus in Carthage the horse was an image of victorious
war, in contradistinction to the _ox_, which was an emblem of the arts
of peaceful agriculture. This was based on a tradition respecting the
foundation of the city, referred to by Virgil, _Æn._ i. 442‒445:

“Quo primum jactati undis et turbine Poeni
Effodêre loco signum, quod regia Juno
Monstrârat, _caput acris equi_: sic nam fore bello
Egregiam, et facilem victu per Secula gentem.”

{139} In reference to this circumstance Justin (lib. xviii. 5)
remarks, that “in laying the foundations of the city the head of an ox
was found, which was regarded as an emblem of a fruitful land, but of
the necessity of labour and of dependence; on which account the city
was transferred to another place. Then the head of a horse was found,
and this was regarded as a happy omen that the city would be warlike
and prosperous.” Comp. Creuzer, _Symbolik_, vol. ii. p. 456. (c) The
horse was an emblem of _fleetness_, and, consequently, of the rapidity
of conquest. Comp. Joel ii. 4: “The appearance of them is as the
appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.” Je. iv. 13:
“Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as the
whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles.” Compare Job xxxix. 18.
(d) The horse is an emblem of strength, and consequently of safety.
Ps. cxlvii. 10: “He delighteth not in the strength of the horse.” In
general, then, the horse would properly symbolize war, conquest, or
the rapidity with which a message is conveyed. The particular character
or complexion of the event――as peaceful or warlike, prosperous or
adverse――is denoted by the colour of the horse, and by the character
of the rider.

(2) The colour of the horse: _a white horse_. It is evident that this
is designed to be significant, because it is distinguished from the red,
the black, and the pale horse, referred to in the following verses. In
general, it may be observed that _white_ is the emblem of innocence,
purity, prosperity――as the opposite is of sickness, sin, calamity. If
the significance of the emblem turned alone on the _colour_, we should
look to something cheerful, prosperous, happy as the thing that was
symbolized. But the significance in the case is to be found not only in
the colour――_white_――but in the horse that was white; and the inquiry
is, what would _a horse of that colour_ properly denote; that is,
on what occasions, and with reference to what ends, was such a horse
used? Now, the general notion attached to the mention of a white horse,
according to ancient usage, would be that of state and triumph, derived
from the fact that white horses were rode by conquerors on the days of
their triumph; that they were used in the marriage cavalcade; that they
were employed on coronation occasions, &c. In the triumphs granted by
the Romans to their victorious generals, after a procession composed of
musicians, captured princes, spoils of battle, &c., came the conqueror
himself, seated on a high chariot drawn by four white horses, robed
in purple, and wearing a wreath of laurel (Eschenburg, _Man. of Class.
Literature_, p. 283. Comp. Ovid _de Arte Amandi_, lib. v. 214). The
name of λεύκιππος――_leucippos_――was given to Proserpine, because she
was borne from Hades to Olympus in a chariot drawn by white horses
(_Scol. Pind. Ol._ vi. 161. See Creuzer’s _Symbol._ iv. 253). White
horses are supposed, also, to excel others in fleetness. So Horace,
_Sat._ lib. i. vii. 8:

“Sisennas, Barrosque ut equis præcurreret albis.”

So Plaut. _Asin._ ii. 2, 12. So Homer, _Il._ K. 437:

Λευκότεροι χιόνος, θείειν δʹ ἀνέμοισιν ὁμοῖοι.

――“Whiter than the snow, and swifter than the winds.” And in the
_Æneid_, where Turnus was about to contend with Æneas, he demanded
horses:

“Qui candore nives anteirent cursibus auras.”

――“Which would surpass the snow in whiteness, and the wind in
fleetness” (_Æn._ xii. 84). So the poets everywhere describe the
chariot of the sun as drawn by white horses (Bochart, _ut supra_).
So conquerors and princes are everywhere represented as borne on white
horses. Thus Propertius, lib. iv. eleg. i.:

“Quatuor huic albos Romulus egit equos.”

So Claudian, lib. ii., _de Laudibus Stilichonis_:

“Deposito mitis clypeo, candentibus urbem
Ingreditur trabeatus equis.”

And thus Ovid (lib. i. _de Arte_) addresses Augustus, auguring that he
would return a victor:

“Ergo erit illa dies, quâ tu, Pulcherrime rerum,
Quatuor in niveis aureus ibis equis.”

The preference of _white_ to denote triumph or victory was early
referred to among the Hebrews. Thus, Ju. v. 10, in the Song of Deborah:

“Speak, ye that ride on white asses,
Ye that sit in judgment,
And walk by the way.”

The expression, then, in the passage before us, would properly refer
to some kind of _triumph_; to some joyous occasion; {140} to something
where there was success or victory; and, so far as _this_ expression is
concerned, would refer to _any kind_ of triumph, whether of the gospel
or of victory in war.

(3) The bow: and _he that sat on him had a bow_. The bow would be
a natural emblem of war――as it was used in war; or of hunting――as it
was used for that purpose. It was a common instrument of attack or
defence, and seems to have been early invented, for it is found in all
rude nations. Comp. Ge. xxvii. 3; xlviii. 22; xlix. 24; Jos. xxiv. 12;
1 Sa. xviii. 4; Ps. xxxvii. 15; Is. vii. 24. The bow would be naturally
emblematic of the following things: (a) _War._ See the passages above.
(b) _Hunting._ Thus it was one of the emblems of Apollo as the god of
hunting. (c) _The effect of truth_――as that which secured conquest, or
overcame opposition in the heart. So far as _this_ emblem is concerned,
it might denote a warrior, a hunter, a preacher, a ruler――anyone who
exerted power over others, or who achieved any kind of conquest over
them.

(4) The crown: _and a crown was given unto him_. The word here
used――στέφανος――means a circlet, chaplet, or crown――usually such as
was given to a victor, 1 Co. ix. 25. It would properly be emblematic
of victory or conquest――as it was given to victors in war, or to the
victors at the Grecian games, and as it is given to the saints in
heaven regarded as victors, Re. iv. 4, 10; 2 Ti. iv. 8. The crown or
chaplet here was “given” to the rider as significant that he _would
be_ victorious, not that he _had been_; and the proper reference of
the emblem was to some conquest yet to be made, not to any which had
been made. It is not said _by whom_ this was given to the rider; the
material fact being only that such a diadem _was_ conferred on him.

(5) The going forth to conquest: _and he went forth, conquering and
to conquer_. He went forth _as a conqueror, and that he might conquer_.
That is, he went forth with the spirit, life, energy, determined
purpose of one who was confident that he would conquer, and who had the
port and bearing of a conqueror. John saw in him two things: one, that
he had the aspect or port of a conqueror――that is, of one who had been
accustomed to conquest, and who was confident that he could conquer;
the other was, that this was clearly the design for which he went
forth, and this would be the result of his going forth.

Having thus inquired into the natural meaning of the emblems used,
perhaps the proper work of an expositor is done, and the subject might
be left here. But the mind naturally asks what was this designed to
signify, and to what events are these things to be applied? On this
point it is scarcely necessary to say, that the opinions of expositors
have been almost as numerous as the expositors themselves, and that
it would be a hopeless task, and as useless as hopeless, to attempt
to enumerate all the opinions entertained. They who are desirous
of examining those opinions must be referred to the various books
on the Apocalypse where they may be found. Perhaps all the opinions
entertained, though presented by their authors under a great variety
of forms, might be referred to three: (1) That the whole passage in
ch. vi.‒xi. refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the wasting
of Judæa, principally by the Romans――and particularly the humiliation
and prostration of the Jewish persecuting enemies of the church: on
the supposition that the book was written before the destruction of
Jerusalem. This is the opinion of Professor Stuart, and of those
generally who hold that the book was written at that time. (2) The
opinion of those who suppose that the book was written in the time of
Domitian, about A.D. 95 or 96, and that the symbols refer to the Roman
affairs subsequent to that time. This is the opinion of Mede, Elliott,
and others. (3) The opinions of those who suppose that the different
horses and horsemen refer to the Saviour, to ministers of the gospel,
and to the various results of the ministry. This is the opinion
of Mr. David C. Lord and others. My purpose does not require me to
examine these opinions in detail. Justice could not be done to them
in the limited compass which I have; and it is better to institute
a direct inquiry whether any events are known which can be regarded as
corresponding with the symbols here employed. In regard to this, then,
the following things may be referred to:――

(a) It will be assumed here, as elsewhere in these Notes, that the
Apocalypse was written in the time of Domitian, about A.D. 95 or 96.
For the reasons for this opinion, see Intro. § 2. Comp. an article by
Dr. Geo. Duffield in the _Biblical Repository_, July, 1847, pp. 385‒411.
It will also be assumed that the book is inspired, and {141} that
it is not to be regarded and treated as a work of mere human origin.
These suppositions will preclude the necessity of any reference in the
opening of the seals to the time of Nero, or to the events pertaining
to the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish
persecuting enemies of the church――for the opinion that those events
are referred to can be held only on one of two suppositions: either
that the work was written in the time of Nero, and before the Jewish
wars, as held by Professor Stuart and others; or that it was penned
_after_ the events referred to had occurred, and is such a description
of the past as could have been made by one who was uninspired.

(b) It is to be presumed that the events referred to, in the opening
of the first seal, would occur _soon_ after the time when the vision
appeared to John in Patmos. This is clear, not only because that would
be the most natural supposition, but because it is fairly implied in ch.
i. 1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show
unto his servants things which must _shortly_ come to pass.” See Notes
on that verse. Whatever may be said of _some_ of those events――those
lying most remotely in the series――it would not accord with the fair
interpretation of the language to suppose that the _beginning_ of the
series would be far distant, and we therefore naturally look for that
beginning in the age succeeding the time of the apostle, or the reign
of Domitian.

(c) The inquiry then occurs whether there _were_ any such events in
that age as would properly be symbolized by the circumstances before
us――the horse; the colour of the horse; the bow in the hand of the
rider; the crown given him; the state and bearing of the conqueror.

(d) Before proceeding to notice what seems to me to be the
interpretation which best accords with all the circumstances of the
symbol, it may be proper to refer to the only other one which has
any plausibility, and which is adopted by Grotius, by the author of
_Hyponoia_, by Dr. Keith (_Signs of the Times_, i. 181, seq.), by
Mr. Lord, and others, that this refers to Christ and his church――to
Christ and his ministers in spreading the gospel. The objections to
this class of interpretations seem to me to be insuperable: (1) The
whole description, so far as it is a representation of triumph, is a
representation of the triumph of war, not of the gospel of peace. All
the symbols in the opening of the first four seals are warlike; all
the consequences in the opening of each of the seals where the horseman
appears, are such as are usually connected with war. It is the march
of empire, the movement of military power. (2) A horseman thus armed
is not the usual representation of Christ, much less of his ministers
or of his church. Once indeed (ch. xix. 14‒16) Christ himself is thus
represented; but the ordinary representation of the Saviour in this
book is either that of a man――majestic and glorious, holding the stars
in his right hand――or of a lamb. Besides, if it _were_ the design of
the emblem to refer to Christ, it must be a representation of him
_personally_ and _literally_ going forth in this manner; for it would
be incongruous to suppose that this relates to him, and then to give
it a metaphorical application, referring it not to himself, but to his
truth, his gospel, his ministers. (3) If there is little probability
that this refers to Christ, there is still less that it refers to
ministers of the gospel――as held by Lord and others――for such a symbol
is employed nowhere else to represent an order of ministers, nor do
the circumstances find a fulfilment in them. The minister of the gospel
is a herald of peace, and is employed in the service of the Prince of
Peace. He cannot well be represented by a warrior, nor is he in the
Scriptures. In itself considered, there is nothing more unlike or
incongruous than a warrior going forth to conquest with hostile arms,
and a minister of Christ. (4) Besides, this representation of a horse
and his rider, when applied in the following verses, on this principle
becomes most forced and unnatural. If the warrior on the white horse
denotes the ministry, then the warrior on the red horse, the black
horse, the pale horse, must denote the ministry also, and nothing is
more fanciful and arbitrary than to attempt to apply these to teachers
of various kinds of error――error denoted by the red, black, and pale
colour――as must be done on that supposition. It seems plain, therefore,
to me, that the representation was not designed to symbolize the
ministry, or the state of the church considered with reference to its
extension, or the various forms of belief which prevailed. But if so,
it only remains to inquire whether a state of things existed in the
Roman world of which these would be appropriate {142} symbols. We have,
then, the following facts, which are of such a nature as would properly
be symbolized by the horse of the first seal; that is, they are such
facts that if one were to undertake to devise an appropriate symbol of
them _since_ they occurred, they would be well represented by the image
here employed.

(1) It was in general a period of prosperity, of triumph, of
conquest――well represented by the horseman on the white horse going
forth to conquest. I refer now to the period immediately succeeding the
time of John’s banishment, embracing some ninety years, and extending
through the successive reigns of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two
Antonines, from the death of Domitian, A.D. 96, to the accession of
Commodus, and the peace made by him with the Germans, A.D. 180. As an
_illustration_ of this period, and of the pertinency of the symbol,
I will first copy from an historical chart drawn up with no reference
to the symbol here, and in the mind of whose author the application to
this symbol never occurred. The chart, distinguished for accuracy, is
that of A. S. Lyman, published A.D. 1845. The following is the account
of this period, beginning at the death of Domitian:――“Domitian, a cruel
tyrant, the last of the twelve Cæsars.” (His death, therefore, was an
important epoch.) “A.D. 96: Nerva, noted for his virtues, but enfeebled
by age.” “A.D. 98: Trajan, _a great general, and popular emperor; under
him the empire attains its greatest extent_.” “A.D. 117: Adrian, an
able sovereign; spends thirteen years travelling through the empire,
reforming abuses and rebuilding cities.” “A.D. 138: Antoninus Pius,
celebrated for his wisdom, virtue, and humanity.” “A.D. 161: Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus, the Stoic Philosopher, noted for his virtues.” Then
begins a new era――a series of wicked princes and of great calamities.
The _next_ entry in the series is, “A.D. 180: Commodus, profligate
and cruel.” Then follows a succession of princes of the same general
description. Their character will be appropriately considered under
the succeeding seals. But in regard to the period now supposed to
be represented by the opening of the first seal, and the general
applicability of the description here to that period, we have the
fullest testimony in Mr. Gibbon, in his _Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire_; a writer who, sceptic as he was, seems to have been raised
up by Divine Providence to search deeply into historic records, and
to furnish an inexhaustible supply of materials in confirmation of
the fulfilment of the prophecies, and of the truth of revelation. For
(1) he was eminently endowed by talent, and learning, and patience, and
general candour, and accuracy, to prepare a history of that period of
the world, and to place his name in the very first rank of historians.
(2) His history commences at about the period supposed in this
interpretation to be referred to by these symbols, and extends over
a very considerable portion of the time embraced in the book of
Revelation. (3) It cannot be alleged that he was biassed in his
statements of facts by a desire to favour revelation; nor can it be
charged on him that he perverted _facts_ with a view to overthrow the
authority of the volume of inspired truth. He was, indeed, thoroughly
sceptical as to the truth of Christianity, and he lost no opportunity
to express his feelings towards it by a sneer――for it seems to
have been an unfortunate characteristic of his mind to sneer at
everything――but there is no evidence that he ever designedly perverted
a _fact_ in history to press it into the service of infidelity, or that
he designedly falsified a statement for the purpose of making it bear
against Christianity. It cannot be suspected that he had any _design_,
by the statements which he makes, to confirm the truth of Scripture
prophecies. Infidels, at least, are bound to admit his testimony as
impartial. (4) Not a few of the most clear and decisive proofs of
the fulfilment of prophecies are to be found in his history. They
are frequently such statements as would be expected to occur in the
writings of a partial friend of Christianity who was endeavouring to
make the records of history speak out in favour of his religion; and
if they had been found in such a writer, they would be suspected of
having been shaped with a view to the confirmation of the prophecies,
and it may be added also with an intention to defend some favourite
interpretation of the Apocalypse. In regard to the passage before
us――the opening of the first seal and the general explanation of the
meaning of that seal, above given, there is a striking resemblance
between that representation and the state of the Roman empire as given
by Mr. Gibbon at the period {143} under consideration――from the end
of the reign of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. By a singular
coincidence Mr. Gibbon _begins_ his history at about the period
supposed to be referred to by the opening of the seal――the period
following the death of Domitian, A.D. 96. Thus in the opening sentences
of his work he says: “In the second century of the Christian era the
empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the
most civilized portion of mankind. During a happy period of more than
fourscore years the public administration was conducted by the virtue
and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two Antonines. It is
the design of this and the two succeeding chapters to describe the
prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death
of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its
decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is
still felt by the nations of the earth,” vol. i. 1. Before Mr. Gibbon
proceeds to give the history of the fall of the empire, he pauses to
describe the happy condition of the Roman world during the period now
referred to――for this is substantially his object in the first three
chapters of his history. The _titles_ of these chapters will show their
object. They are respectively the following:――Ch. i., “The Extent and
Military Force of the Empire, _in the Age of the Antonines_;” ch. ii.,
“Of the Union and Internal Prosperity of the Roman Empire, _in the Age
of the Antonines_;” ch. iii., “Of the Constitution of the Roman Empire,
_in the Age of the Antonines_.” In the language of another, this is
“the bright ground of his historic picture, from which afterwards more
effectively to throw out in deep colouring the successive traits of the
empire’s corruption and decline” (Elliott). The introductory remarks
of Mr. Gibbon, indeed, professedly refer to “the age of the Antonines”
(A.D. 138‒180); but that he designed to describe, under this general
title, the actual condition of the Roman world during the period which
I suppose to be embraced under the first seal, as a time of prosperity,
triumph, and happiness――from Domitian to Commodus――is apparent (a) from
a remarkable statement which there will be occasion again to quote,
in which he expressly designates this period in these words: “If a man
were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which
the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would,
without hesitation, name that which elapsed _from the death of Domitian
to the accession of Commodus_,” i. 47. The same thing is apparent also
from a remark of Mr. Gibbon in the general summary which he makes of
the Roman affairs, showing that this period constituted, in his view,
properly an _era_ in the condition of the world. Thus he says (i. 4):
“Such was the state of the Roman frontiers, and such the maxims of
imperial policy, from the death of Augustus _to the accession of
Trajan_.” This was A.D. 98. The question now is, whether, during
this period, the events in the Roman empire were such as accord with
the representation in the first seal. There was nothing in the first
century that could accord with this; and if John wrote the Apocalypse
at the time supposed (A.D. 95 or 96), of course it does not refer to
that. Respecting that century Mr. Gibbon remarks: “The only accession
which the Roman empire received, during the first century of the
Christian era, was the province of Britain. In this single instance the
successors of Cæsar and Augustus were persuaded to follow the example
of the former rather than the precept of the latter. After a war of
about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the
most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors,
the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke,”
i. 2, 3. Of course the representation in the first seal _could not_
be applied to such a period as this. In the second century, however,
and especially in the early part of it――the beginning of the period
supposed to be embraced in the opening of the first seal――a different
policy began to prevail, and though the main characteristic of the
period, as a whole, was comparatively peaceful, yet it began with a
career of conquests, and its general state might be characterized as
triumph and prosperity. Thus Mr. Gibbon speaks of Trajan on his
accession after the death of Nerva: “That virtuous and active prince
had received the education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of
a general. The peaceful system of his predecessors _was interrupted by
scenes of war and conquest_; and the legions, after a long interval,
beheld a military emperor at their head. The first exploits of Trajan
were against the {144} Dacians, the most warlike of men, who dwelt
beyond the Danube, and who, during the reign of Domitian, had insulted
the majesty of Rome. This memorable war, with a very short suspension
of hostilities, lasted live years; and as the emperor could exert,
without control, the whole force of the state, it was terminated by
an absolute submission of the barbarians. The new province of Dacia,
which formed a second exception to the precept of Augustus, was about
thirteen hundred miles in circumference,” i. 4. Speaking of Trajan
(p. 4), he says farther: “The praises of Alexander, transmitted by a
succession of poets and historians, had kindled a dangerous emulation
in the mind of Trajan. Like him, the Roman emperor undertook an
expedition against the nations of the East; but he lamented with a
sigh that his advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equalling
the renown of the son of Philip. Yet the success of Trajan, however
transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by
intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the river Tigris,
_in triumph_, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf. He
enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the
Roman generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets ravaged
the coasts of Arabia; and Trajan vainly flattered himself that he was
approaching towards the confines of India. Every day the astonished
senate received the intelligence _of new names and new nations_ that
acknowledged his sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus,
Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch
himself, had accepted their diadems from the hand of the emperor; that
the independent tribes of the Median and Carduchian hills had implored
his protection; and that the rich countries of Armenia, Mesopotamia,
and Assyria were reduced into the state of provinces.” Of such a reign
what more appropriate symbol could there be than the horse and the
rider of the first seal? If Mr. Gibbon had been writing a designed
commentary on this, what more appropriate language could he have used
in illustration of it? The reign of Hadrian, the successor of Trajan
(A.D. 117‒138), was comparatively a reign of peace――though one of
his first acts was to lead an expedition into Britain: but though
comparatively a time of peace, it was a reign of prosperity and triumph.
Mr. Gibbon, in the following language, gives a general characteristic
of that reign:――“The life of [Hadrian] was almost a perpetual journey;
and as he possessed the various talents of the soldier, the statesman,
and the scholar, he gratified his curiosity in the discharge of his
duty. Careless of the difference of seasons and of climates, he marched
on foot, and bareheaded, over the snows of Caledonia and the sultry
plains of Upper Egypt; nor was there a province of the empire which,
in the course of his reign, was not honoured with the presence of the
monarch,” p. 5. On p. 6 Mr. Gibbon remarks of this period: “The Roman
name was revered amongst the remote nations of the earth. The fiercest
barbarians frequently submitted their differences to the arbitration
of the emperor; and we are informed by a contemporary historian that
he had seen ambassadors who were refused the honour which they came
to solicit, of being admitted into the rank of subjects.” And again,
speaking of the reign of Hadrian, Mr. Gibbon remarks (i. 45): “Under
his reign, as has been already mentioned, the empire flourished in
peace and prosperity. He encouraged the arts, reformed the laws,
asserted military discipline, and visited all the provinces in person.”
Hadrian was succeeded by the Antonines, Antoninus Pius and Marcus
Aurelius (the former from A.D. 138 to 161; the latter from A.D. 161
to the accession of Commodus, A.D. 180). The general character of
their reigns is well known. It is thus stated by Mr. Gibbon: “The two
Antonines governed the world forty-two years with the same invariable
spirit of wisdom and virtue. Their united reigns are possibly the only
period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole
object of government,” i. 46. And after describing the state of the
empire in respect to its military and naval character, its roads, and
architecture, and constitution, and laws, Mr. Gibbon sums up the whole
description of this period in the following remarkable words (vol. i.
p. 47):――“_If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and
prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from
the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent
of the Roman empire was governed by absolute {145} power, under the
guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the
firm but gentle hands of four successive emperors, whose characters
and authority commanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil
administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and
the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased
with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws.
Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic, had the
Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom._” If
it be supposed now that John _designed_ to represent this period of the
world, could he have chosen a more expressive and significant emblem
of it than occurs in the horseman of the first seal? If Mr. Gibbon had
intended to prepare a commentary on it, could he have shaped the facts
of history so as better to furnish an illustration?

(2) The particular things represented in the symbol. (a) The bow――a
symbol of war. Mr. Elliott has endeavoured to show that the _bow_
at that period was _peculiarly_ the badge of the Cretians, and that
Nerva, who succeeded Domitian, was a Cretian by birth. The argument
is too long to be abridged here, but, if well founded, the fulfilment
is remarkable; for although the sword or the javelin was usually the
badge of the Roman emperor, if this were so there would be a peculiar
propriety in making the _bow_ the badge during this period. See Elliott,
vol. i. pp. 133‒140. But whatever may be said of this, the _bow_ was
so generally the badge of a warrior, that there would be no impropriety
in using it as a symbol of Roman victory. (b) The crown――στέφανος――was,
up to the time of Aurelian, A.D. 270 (see Spanheim, p. 60), the
distinguishing badge of the Roman emperor; after that, the _diadem_,
set with pearls and other jewels, was adopted and worn. The crown,
composed usually of laurel, was properly the badge of the emperor
considered as a military leader or commander. See Elliott, i. 130.
At the period now under consideration the proper badge of the Roman
emperor would be the _crown_; after the time of Aurelian, it would have
been the _diadem_. In illustration of this, two engravings have been
introduced, the first representing the emperor Nerva with the _crown_,
or στέφανος, the second the emperor Valentinian, with the _diadem_.

Illustration: Medal of the Emperor Nerva wearing Crown.

Illustration: Medal of the Emperor Valentinian wearing Diadem.

(c) The fact that the crown was _given_ to the rider. It was common
among the Romans to represent an emperor in this manner; either on
medals, bas-reliefs, or triumphal arches. The emperor appears going
forth on horseback, and with Victory represented as either crowning him,
or as preceding him with a crown in her hand to present to him. The
engraving on p. 146, copied from one of the bas-reliefs on a triumphal
arch erected to Claudius Drusus on occasion of his victories over the
Germans, will furnish a good illustration of this, and, indeed, is so
similar to the symbol described by John, that the one seems almost a
copy of the other.

Illustration: Symbolic Bas-reliefs from a Roman Triumphal Arch.

Except that the bow is wanting, nothing could have a closer
resemblance; and the fact that such symbols were employed, and were
well understood by the Romans, may be admitted to be a confirmation of
the view above taken of the meaning of the first seal. Indeed, so many
things combine to confirm this, that it seems impossible {146} to be
mistaken in regard to it: for if it should be supposed that John lived
_after_ this time, and that he _meant_ to furnish a striking emblem
of this period of Roman history, he could not have employed a more
significant and appropriate symbol than he has done.

3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second
beast say, Come and see.

3. _And when he had opened the second seal._ So as to disclose another
portion of the volume. Notes, ch. v. 1. ¶ _I heard the second beast
say._ The second beast was like a calf or an ox. Notes, ch. iv. 7.
It cannot be supposed that there is any special significancy in the
fact that the _second_ beast addressed the seer on the opening of the
_second_ seal, or that, so far as the symbol was concerned, there was
any reason why this living creature should approach on the opening of
this seal rather than on either of the others. All that seems to be
designed is, that as the living creatures are intended to be emblems
of the providential government of God, it was proper to represent that
government as concerned in the opening of each of these four seals,
indicating important events among the nations. ¶ _Come and see._ See
Notes on ver. 1.

4 And there went out another horse _that was_ red: and _power_
was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth,
and that they should kill one another: and there was given
unto him a great sword.

4. _And there went out another horse._ In this symbol there were, as
in the others, several particulars which it is proper to explain in
order that we may be able to understand its application. The particular
things in the symbol are the following: (a) The horse. See this
explained in the Notes on ver. 2. (b) The colour of the horse: _another
horse |that was| red_. This symbol cannot be mistaken. As the white
horse denoted prosperity, triumph, and happiness, so this would denote
carnage, discord, bloodshed. This is clear, not only from the nature
of the emblem, but from the explanation immediately added: “And power
was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and
that they should kill one another.” On the _colour_, compare Bochart,
_Hieroz._ P. i. lib. ii. c. vii. p. 104. See also Zec. i. 8. There is
no possibility of mistaking this, that a time of _slaughter_ is denoted
by this emblem. (c) The power given to him that sat on the horse:
_and |power| was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from
the earth, and that they should kill one another_. This would seem
to indicate that the condition immediately preceding this was a
condition of tranquillity, and that this was now disturbed by some
cause producing discord and bloodshed. This idea is confirmed by the
original words――τὴν εἰρήνην――“_the_ peace;” that is, the previously
existing peace. When peace in general is referred to, the word is used
without the article: Mat. x. 34, “Think not that I am come to send
peace――βαλεῖν εἰρήνην――upon the earth.” Comp. Lu. i. 79; ii. 14; xix.
38; Mar. v. 34; Jn. xiv. 27; xvi. 33; Ac. vii. 26; ix. 31, _et al._ in
the Greek. In these cases the word peace is without the article. The
characteristics of the period referred to by this are: (a) that peace
and tranquillity existed before; (b) that such peace and tranquillity
were now taken away, and were succeeded by confusion and bloodshed;
and (c) that the particular form of that confusion was civil discord,
producing mutual slaughter: “that they should kill one another.”
(d) The presentation of a sword: _and there was given unto him a great
sword_. As an emblem of what he was to do, or of the period that was
referred to by the opening of the {147} seal. The sword is an emblem
of war, of slaughter, of authority (Ro. xiii. 4), and is here used as
signifying that that period would be characterized by carnage. Comp.
Is. xxxiv. 5; Re. xix. 17, 18; Le. xxvi. 25; Ge. xxvii. 40; Mat. x. 34;
xxvi. 52. It is not said _by whom_ the sword was presented, but _the
fact_ is merely referred to, that the rider _was_ presented with a
sword as a symbol of what would occur.

In inquiring now into the period referred to by this symbol, we
naturally look to that which immediately succeeded the one which was
represented by the opening of the first seal; that is, the period
which followed the accession of Commodus, A.D. 180. We shall find,
in the events which succeeded his accession to the empire, a state
of things which remarkably accords with the account given by John in
this emblem――so much so, that if it were supposed that the book was
written _after_ these events had occurred, and that John had _designed_
to represent them by this symbol, he could not have selected a more
appropriate emblem. The only authority which it is necessary to refer
to here is Mr. Gibbon; who, as before remarked, seems to have been
raised up by a special Providence to make a record of those events
which were referred to by some of the most remarkable prophecies in
the Bible. As he had the highest qualifications for an historian, his
statements may be relied on as accurate; and as he had no belief in the
inspiration of the prophetic records, his testimony will not be charged
with partiality in their favour. The following particulars, therefore,
will furnish a full illustration of the opening of the second seal:
(a) The previous state of peace. This is implied in the expression,
“and power was given to him to _take peace_ from the earth.” Of this
we have had a full confirmation in the peaceful reign of Hadrian and
the Antonines. See the Notes on the exposition of the first seal.
Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the accession of Commodus to the imperial
throne, says that he “had nothing to wish, and everything to enjoy.
The beloved son of Marcus [Commodus] succeeded his father amidst the
acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he ascended the throne,
the happy youth saw around him neither competitor to remove, nor
enemies to punish. In this calm elevated station, it was surely natural
that he should prefer the love of mankind to their detestation; the
mild glories of his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero
and Domitian,” i. 51. So again, on the same page, he says of Commodus,
“His graceful person, popular address, and imagined virtues attracted
the public favour; the honourable peace which he had recently granted
to the barbarians diffused an universal joy.” No one can doubt that the
accession of Commodus was preceded by a remarkable prevalence of peace
and prosperity. (b) Civil war and bloodshed: _to take peace from the
earth, and that they should kill one another_. Of the applicability of
this to the time supposed to be represented by this seal, we have the
fullest confirmation in the series of civil wars commencing with the
assassination of the emperor Commodus, A.D. 193, and continued, with
scarcely any intervals of intermission, for eighty or ninety years.
So Sismondi, on the fall of the Roman empire (i. 36), says, “With
Commodus’ death commenced the third and most calamitous period. It
lasted ninety-two years, from 193 to 284. During that time, thirty-two
emperors, and twenty-seven pretenders to the empire, alternately
hurried each other from the throne, by incessant civil warfare.
Ninety-two years of almost incessant civil warfare taught the world
_on what a frail foundation the virtue of the Antonines had reared the
felicity of the empire_.” The full history of this period may be seen
in Gibbon, i. pp. 50‒197. Of course it is impossible in these Notes
to present anything like a complete account of the characteristics
of those times. Yet the briefest summary may well show the general
condition of the Roman empire then, and the propriety of representing
it by the symbol of a red horse, as a period when peace would be taken
from the earth, and when men would kill one another. Commodus himself
is represented by Mr. Gibbon in the following words:――“Commodus was not,
as he has been represented, a tiger, born with an insatiate thirst of
human blood, and capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions.
Nature had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition. His
simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his attendants, who
gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty, which at first obeyed the
dictates of others, degenerated into habit, and at length became the
ruling passion of his soul,” i. 51. During the first {148} three years
of his reign “his hands were yet unstained with blood” (_Ibid._), but
he soon degenerated into a most severe and bloody tyrant, and “when
Commodus had once tasted human blood, he was incapable of pity or
remorse,” i. 52. “The tyrant’s rage,” says Mr. Gibbon (i. 52), “after
having shed the noblest blood of the senate, at length recoiled on
the principal instrument of his cruelty. While Commodus _was immersed
in blood and luxury_ he devolved the detail of public business on
Perennis, a servile and ambitious minister, who had obtained his post
by the murder of his predecessor,” &c. “Every sentiment of virtue and
humanity was extinct in the mind of Commodus,” i. 55. After detailing
the history of his crimes, his follies, and his cruelties, Mr. Gibbon
remarks of him: “His cruelty proved at last fatal to himself. He had
shed with impunity the best blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he
was dreaded by his own domestics. Marcia, his favourite concubine,
Eclectus, his chamberlain, and Lætus, his pretorian prefect, alarmed by
the fate of their companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the
destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either from the mad
caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation of the people. Marcia
seized the occasion of presenting a draught of wine to her lover, after
he had fatigued himself with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired
to sleep; but while he was labouring with the effects of poison and
drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered his
chamber, and strangled him without resistance,” i. 57. The immediate
consequence of the assassination of Commodus was the elevation of
Pertinax to the throne, and his murder eighty-six days after (_Decline
and Fall_, i. 60). Then followed the public setting-up of the empire
to sale by the pretorian guards, and its purchase by a wealthy Roman
senator, Didius Julianus, or Julian, who, “on the throne of the
world, found himself without a friend and without an adherent,” i. 63.
“The streets and public places in Rome resounded with clamours and
imprecations.” “The public discontent was soon diffused from the centre
to the frontiers of the empire,” i. 63. In the midst of this universal
indignation Septimius Severus, who then commanded the army in the
neighbourhood of the Danube, resolved to avenge the death of Pertinax,
and to seize upon the imperial crown. He marched to Rome, overcame the
feeble Julian, and placed himself on the throne. Julian, after having
reigned sixty-six days, was beheaded in a private apartment of the
baths of the palace, i. 67. “In less than four years Severus subdued
the riches of the East, and the valour of the West. He vanquished
two competitors of reputation and ability, and defeated numerous
armies provided with weapons and discipline equal to his own,” i. 68.
Mr. Gibbon then enters into a detail of “the two _civil wars_ against
Niger and Albinus”――rival competitors for the empire (i. 68‒70), both
of whom were vanquished, and both of whom were put to death “in their
flight from the field of battle.” Yet he says, “Although the wounds
of civil war were apparently healed, its mortal poison still lurked
in the vitals of the constitution,” i. 71. After the death of Severus,
then follows an account of the contentions between his sons, Geta and
Caracalla, and of the death of the former by the instigation of the
latter (i. 77); then of the remorse of Caracalla, in which it is said
that “his disordered fancy often beheld the angry forms of his father
and his brother rising into life to threaten and upbraid him” (i. 77);
then of the cruelties which Caracalla inflicted on the friends of Geta,
in which “it was computed that, under the vague appellation of the
friends of Geta, above twenty thousand persons of both sexes suffered
death” (i. 78); then of the departure of Caracalla from the capital,
and his cruelties in other parts of the empire, concerning which
Mr. Gibbon remarks (i. 78, 79), that “Caracalla was the common enemy
of mankind. Every province was by turns the scene of his rapine
and cruelty. In the midst of peace and repose, upon the slightest
provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria in Egypt for a
general massacre. From a secure post in the temple of Serapis he
viewed and directed the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well
as strangers, without distinguishing either the number or the crime of
the sufferers,” &c. Then follows the account of the assassination of
Caracalla (i. 80); then, and in consequence of that, of the civil war
which crushed Macrinus, and raised Elagabalus to the throne (i. 83);
then of the life and follies of that wretched voluptuary, and of his
massacre by the pretorian guards {149} (i. 86); then, after an interval
of thirteen years, of the murder of his successor, the second Severus,
on the Rhine; then of the civil wars excited against his murderer and
successor, Maximin, in which the two emperors of a day――the Gordians,
father and son――perished in Africa, and Maximin himself, and his son,
in the siege of Aquileia; then of the murder at Rome of the two joint
emperors, Maximus and Balbinus; and quickly after that an account of
the murder of their successor in the empire, the third and youngest
Gordian, on the banks of the river Aboras; then of the slaughter of
the next emperor Philip, together with his son and associate in the
empire, in the battle near Verona:――and this state of things may be
said to have continued until the accession of Diocletian to the empire,
A.D. 284. See _Decline and Fall_, i. 110‒197. Does any portion of the
history of the world present a similar period of connected history that
would be so striking a fulfilment of the symbols used here of “peace
being taken from the earth,” and “men killing one another?” In regard
to this whole period it is sufficient, after reading Mr. Gibbon’s
account, to ask two questions: (1) If it were supposed that John lived
_after_ this period, and designed to represent this by an expressive
symbol, could he have found one that would have characterized it
better than this does? (2) And if it should be supposed that Mr. Gibbon
_designed_ to write a commentary on this “seal,” and to show the exact
fulfilment of the symbol, could he have selected a better portion of
history to do it, or could he have better described facts that would
be a complete fulfilment? It is only necessary to observe further,
(c) that this is a _marked_ and _definite_ period. It has such a
beginning, and such a continuance and ending, as to show that this
symbol was applicable to this _as_ a period of the world. For it was
not only preceded by a state of peace, as is supposed in the symbol,
but no one can deny that the condition of things in the empire, from
Commodus onward through many years, was such as to be appropriately
designated by the symbol here used.

5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third
beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo, a black horse;
and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say,
[217]A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of
barley for a penny; and _see_ thou [218]hurt not the oil and
the wine.

5, 6. _And when he had opened the third seal._. Unfolding another
portion of the volume. See Notes on ch. v. 1. ¶ _I heard the third
beast say, Come and see._ See Notes on ch. iv. 7. It is not apparent
why the _third_ beast is represented as taking a particular interest
in the opening of _this_ seal (comp. Notes on ver. 3), nor is it
necessary to show why it was so. The general design seems to have been,
to represent each one of the four living creatures as interested in
the opening of the seals, but the _order_ in which they did this does
not seem to be a matter of importance. ¶ _And I beheld, and lo, a
black horse._ The specifications of the symbol here are the following:
(a) As before, the horse. See Notes on ver. 2. (b) The _colour_ of the
horse: _lo, a black horse_. This would properly denote distress and
calamity――for _black_ has been regarded always as such a symbol. So
Virgil speaks of _fear_ as black: “atrumque timorem” (_Æn._ ix. 619).
So again, _Georg._ iv. 468:

“Caligantem nigra formidine lucum.”

So, as applied to the dying Acca, _Æn._ xi. 825:

“Tenebris nigrescunt omnia circum.”

Black, in the Scriptures, is the image of fear, of famine, of death.
La. v. 10: “Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible
famine.” Je. xiv. 2: “Because of the drought Judah mourneth, and the
gates thereof languish; they are in deep mourning [literally, _black_]
for the land.” Joel ii. 6: “All faces shall gather blackness.” Na.
ii. 10: “The knees smite together, and there is great pain in all
loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.” Comp. Re. vi. 12;
Eze. xxxii. 7. See also Bochart, _Hieroz._ P. i. lib. ii. c. vii.
pp. 106, 107. From the _colour_ of the horse here introduced we should
naturally look for some dire calamity, though the _nature_ of the
calamity would not be designated by the mere use of the word _black_.
What the calamity was to be must be determined by what follows in
the symbol. Famine, pestilence, oppression, heavy taxation, tyranny,
invasion――any of these might be denoted by the colour of the horse.
(c) The balances: _and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his
hand_. The original word here rendered _a pair {150} of balances_, is
ζυγὸν. This word properly means _a yoke_, serving to couple anything
together, as a yoke for cattle. Hence it is used to denote the _beam_
of a balance, or of a pair of scales――and is evidently so used here.
The idea is, that something was to be _weighed_, in order to ascertain
either its _quantity_ or its _value_. Scales or balances are the
emblems of justice or equity (comp. Job xxxi. 6; Ps. lxii. 9; Pr.
xi. 1; xvi. 11); and when joined with symbols that denote the sale of
corn and fruit by weight, become the symbol of scarcity. Thus “bread by
weight” (Le. xxvi. 26) denotes scarcity. So in Eze. iv. 16, “And they
shall eat bread by weight.” The use of balances here as a symbol would
signify that something was to be accurately and carefully weighed out.
The connection leads us to suppose that this would appertain to the
necessaries of life, and that it would occur either in consequence of
scarcity, or because there would be an accurate or severe exaction, as
in collecting a revenue on these articles. The balance was commonly the
symbol of equity and justice; but it was also, sometimes, the symbol
of exaction and oppression, as in Ho. xii. 7: “The balance of deceit
is in his hands; he loveth to oppress.” If the balances stood alone,
and there were no proclamation as to what was to occur, we should look,
under this seal, to a time of the exact administration of justice, as
scales or balances are now used as emblems of the rigid application
of the laws and of the principles of justice in courts, or in public
affairs. If _this_ representation stood alone, or if the black horse
and the scales constituted the whole of the symbol, we should look
for some severe administration, or perhaps some heavy calamity under a
rigorous administration of laws. The reference, however, to the “wheat
and barley,” and to the price for which they were to be weighed out,
serves still further to limit and define the meaning of the symbol
as having reference to the necessaries of life――to the productions of
the land――to the actual capital of the country. Whether this refers
to scarcity, or to taxation, or both, must be determined by the other
parts of the symbol. (d) The proclamation: _And I heard a voice in the
midst of the four beasts say_. That is, from the throne, ch. iv. 6.
The voice was not that of one of the four beasts, but it seemed to come
from among them. As the rider went forth, this was the proclamation
that was made in regard to him; or this is that which is symbolized
in his going forth, to wit, that there would be such a state of things
that a measure of wheat would be sold for a penny, &c. The proclamation
consists essentially of two things――that which refers to the price
or value of wheat and barley, and that which requires that care shall
be taken not to injure the oil and the wine. Each of these demands
explanation. ¶ _A measure of wheat for a penny._ See the margin. The
word rendered _measure_――χοῖνιξ, _chœnix_――denotes an Attic measure
for grain and things dry, equal to the forty-eighth part of the Attic
medimnus, or the eighth part of the Roman modius, and consequently was
nearly equivalent to one quart English (Rob. _Lex._). The word rendered
_penny_, δηνάριον――Lat. _denarius_――was of the same value as the
Greek δραχμή, _drachmē_, and was equivalent to about fourteen cents or
sevenpence. This was the usual price of a day’s labour, Mat. xx. 2, 9.
The chœnix, or measure of grain here referred to, was the ordinary
daily allowance for one man [_Odyss._, xix. 27, 28). See Stuart, _in
loco_. The common price of the Attic medimnus of wheat was five or six
denarii; but here, as that contained forty-eight chœnixes or quarts,
the price would be augmented to forty-eight denarii――or it would
be about eight times as dear as ordinary; that is, there would be a
scarcity or famine. The price of a _bushel_ of wheat at this rate would
be about four dollars and a half or 18 shillings――a price which would
indicate great scarcity, and which would give rise to much distress.
¶ _And three measures of barley for a penny._ It would seem from this
that barley usually bore about one-third the price of wheat. It was
a less valuable grain, and perhaps was produced in greater abundance.
This is not far from the proportion which the price of this grain
usually {151} bears to that of wheat, and here, as in the case of
the wheat, the thing which would be indicated would be scarcity. This
proclamation of “a measure of wheat for a penny” was heard either
as addressed _to_ the horseman, as a rule of action for him, or as
addressed _by_ the horseman as he went forth. If the former is the
meaning, it would be an appropriate address to one who was going forth
to collect tribute――with reference to the _exact_ manner in which this
tribute was to be collected, implying some sort of severity of exaction;
or to one who should distribute wheat and barley out of the public
granaries at an advanced price, indicating scarcity. Thus it would
mean that a severe and heavy tax――represented by the scales and the
scarcity――or a tax so severe as to _make_ grain dear, was referred
to. If the latter is the meaning, then the idea is that there would be
a scarcity, and that grain would be dealt out by the government at a
high and oppressive price. The latter idea would be as consonant with
the symbol of the scales and the price mentioned as the other, if it
were not for the _additional_ injunction not to “hurt the oil and the
wine”――which cannot be well applied to the idea of dealing out grain at
a high price. It can, however, be connected, by a fair interpretation
of that passage, with such a severity of taxation that there would
be a propriety in such a command――for, as we shall see, under the
explanation of that phrase, such a law was actually promulgated
as resulting from severity of taxation. The idea, then, in
the passage before us, would seem to be, (a) that there would
be a rigid administration of the law in regard to the matter
under consideration――that pertaining to the productions of the
earth――represented by the balances; and (b) that that would be
connected with general scarcity, or such an exercise of this power as
to determine the price of grain, so that the price would be some three
times greater than ordinary. ¶ _And see thou hurt not the oil and the
wine._ There has been a great variety of interpretations proposed of
this passage, and it is by no means easy to determine the true sense.
The first inquiry in regard to it is, to whom is it addressed? Perhaps
the most common impression on reading it would be, that it is addressed
to the horseman with the balances, commanding _him_ not to injure the
oliveyards and the vineyards. But this is not probably the correct view.
It does not appear that the horseman goes forth to destroy anything, or
that the effect of his going forth is directly to injure anything. This,
therefore, should not be understood as addressed to the horseman, but
should be regarded as a general command to any and all _not_ to injure
the oliveyards and vineyards; that is, an order that nothing should
be done essentially to injure them. If thus regarded as addressed to
others, a fair and congruous meaning would be furnished by either of
the following interpretations: either (a) considered as addressed to
those who were disposed to be prodigal in their manner of living, or
careless as to the destruction of the crop of the oil and wine, as
they would now be needed; or (b) as addressed to those who raised such
productions, on the supposition that they would be _taxed_ heavily,
or that large quantities of these productions would be extorted for
revenue, that they should not mutilate their fruit-trees in order to
evade the taxes imposed by the government. In regard to the things
specified here――oil and wine――it may be remarked, that they were
hardly considered as articles of luxury in ancient times. They were
almost as _necessary_ articles as wheat and barley. They constituted
a considerable part of the food and drink of the people, as well as
furnished a large portion of the revenue, and it would seem to be with
reference to that fact that the command here is given that they should
not be injured; that is, that nothing should be done to diminish
the quantity of oil and wine, or to impair the productive power of
oliveyards and vineyards. The state of things thus described by this
seal, as thus interpreted, would be, (a) a rigid administration of the
laws of the empire, particularly in reference to taxation, producing a
scarcity among the necessary articles of living; (b) a strong tendency,
_from_ the severity of the taxation, to mutilate such kinds of property,
with a view either of concealing the real amount of property, or of
diminishing the amount of taxes; and (c) a solemn command from some
authoritative quarter _not_ to do this. A command from the ruling
power _not_ to do this would meet all that would be fairly demanded
in the _interpretation_ of the passage; and what is necessary in
its _application_, is to find such a state of things as would {152}
correspond with these predictions; that is, such as a writer _would
have_ described _by_ such symbols on the supposition that they were
referred to.

Now it so happens that there _were_ important events which occurred
in the Roman empire, and connected with its decline and fall, of
sufficient importance to be noticed in a series of calamitous events,
which corresponded with the symbol here, as above explained. They
were such as these: (a) The _general_ severity of taxation, or the
oppressive burdens laid on the people by the emperors. In the account
which Mr. Gibbon gives of the operation of the _Indictions_, and
_Superindictions_, though the specific laws on this subject pertained
to a subsequent period, the general nature of the taxation of the
empire and its oppressive character may be seen (_Decline and Fall_,
i. 357‒359). A general estimate of the amount of revenue to be exacted
was made out, and the collecting of this was committed to the pretorian
prefects, and to a great number of subordinate officers. “The lands
were measured by surveyors who were sent into the provinces; their
nature, whether arable, or pasture, or woods, was distinctly reported;
and an estimate made of their common value, from the average produce of
five years. The number of slaves and of cattle constituted an essential
part of the report; an oath was administered to the proprietors, which
bound them to disclose the true state of their affairs; and their
attempts to prevaricate or elude the intention of the legislature were
severely watched, and punished as a capital crime, which included the
double guilt of treason and of sacrilege. According to the different
nature of lands, their real produce in the various articles of _wine or
oil, corn or barley_, wood or iron, was transported by the labour or at
the expense of the provincials to the imperial magazines, from whence
they were occasionally distributed for the use of the court or of the
army, and of the two capitals, Rome and Constantinople,” i. p. 358.
Comp. Lactant. _de Mort. Persecut._, c. 23. (b) The particular order,
under this oppressive system of taxation, respecting the preservation
of vineyards and oliveyards, may be referred to, also, as corresponding
to the command sent forth under this rider, not to “hurt the oil and
the wine.” That order was in the following words:――“If any one shall
sacrilegiously cut a vine, or stint the fruit of prolific boughs,
and craftily feign poverty in order to avoid a fair assessment,
he shall, immediately on detection, suffer death, and his property
be confiscated” (_Cod. Theod._ l. xiii. lib. xi. seq.; Gibbon,
i. 358, note). Mr. Gibbon remarks: “Although this law is not without
its studied obscurity, it is, however, clear enough to prove the
minuteness of the inquisition, and the disproportion of the penalty.”
(c) Under this general subject of the severity of taxation――as a fact
far-spreading and oppressive, and as so important as to hasten the
downfall of the empire, may be noticed a distinct edict of Caracalla
as occurring more directly in the period in which the rider with
the balances may be supposed to have gone forth. This is stated by Mr.
Gibbon (i. 91) as one of the important causes which contributed to the
downfall of the empire. “The personal characters of the emperors, their
victories, laws, and fortunes,” says he, “can interest us no farther
than they are connected with the general history of the decline and
fall of the monarchy. Our constant attention to that object will not
suffer us to overlook a most important edict of Antoninus Caracalla,
which communicated to all the free inhabitants of the empire the name
and privileges of Roman citizens. His unbounded liberality, however,
flowed not from the sentiments of a generous mind; it was the sordid
result of avarice,” &c. He then proceeds at length to state the nature
and operations of that law, by which a heavy tax, under the pretence
of liberality, was in fact imposed on all the citizens of the empire――a
fact which, in its ultimate results, the historian of the _Decline and
Fall_ regards as so closely connected with the termination of the
empire. See Gibbon, i. pp. 91‒95. After noticing the laws of Augustus,
Nero, and the Antonines, and the real privileges conferred by them on
those who became entitled to the rank of Roman citizens――privileges
which were a compensation in the honour, dignity, and offices of that
rank for the measure of taxation which it involved――he proceeds to
notice the fact that the _title_ of “Roman citizen” was conferred
by Caracalla on all the free citizens of the empire, involving
the subjection to all the heavy taxes usually imposed on those who
sustained the rank expressed by the title, but with nothing of the
compensation connected {153} with the title when it was confined to
the inhabitants of Italy. “But the favour,” says he, “which implied
a distinction, was lost in the prodigality of Caracalla, and the
reluctant provincials were compelled to assume _the vain title_, and
the real _obligations_, of Roman citizens. Nor was the rapacious son
of Severus [Caracalla] contented with such a measure of taxation as
had appeared sufficient to his moderate predecessors. Instead of a
twentieth, he exacted a tenth of all legacies and inheritances; and
during his reign he crushed alike every part of the empire under the
weight of his iron sceptre,” i. 95. So again (_Ibid._), speaking of
the taxes which had been lightened somewhat by Alexander, Mr. Gibbon
remarks: “It is impossible to conjecture the motive that engaged him
to spare so trifling a remnant of the evil; but the noxious weed,
which had not been totally eradicated, again sprung up with the most
luxuriant growth, and in the succeeding age darkened the Roman world
with its deadly shade. In the course of this history we shall be too
often summoned to explain the land-tax, the capitation, and the heavy
contributions of _corn_, _wine_, _oil_, and meat, which were exacted
from the provinces for the use of the court, the army, and the capital.”
In reference to this whole matter of _taxation_ as being one of the
things which contributed to the downfall of the empire, and which
spread woe through the falling empire――a woe worthy to be illustrated
by one of the seals――a confirmation may be derived from the reign of
Galerius, who, as Cæsar, acted under the authority of Diocletian; who
excited Diocletian to the work of persecution (_Decline and Fall_,
i. 317, 318); and who, on the abdication of Diocletian, assumed the
title of Augustus (_Decline and Fall_, i. 222). Of his administration
in general Mr. Gibbon (i. 226) remarks: “About that time the avarice
of Galerius, or perhaps the exigencies of the state, had induced him
to make a very strict and rigorous inquisition into the property of
his subjects for the purpose of a general taxation, both on their
lands and on their persons. A very minute survey appears to have been
taken of their real estates; and wherever there was the slightest
suspicion of concealment, torture was very freely employed to obtain
a sincere declaration of their personal wealth.” Of the nature of this
exaction under Galerius; of the cruelty with which the measure was
prosecuted――particularly in its bearing on Christians, towards whom
Galerius cherished a mortal enmity (_Decline and Fall_, i. 317);
and of the extent and severity of the suffering among Christians and
others, caused by it――the following account of Lactantius (_De Mort.
Persecut._, c. 23) will furnish a painful but most appropriate
illustration:――“Swarms of exactors sent into the provinces and cities
filled them with agitation and terror, as though a conquering enemy
were leading them into captivity. The fields were separately measured,
the trees and vines, the flocks and herds numbered, and an examination
made of the men. In the cities the cultivated and rude were united as
of the same rank. The streets were crowded with groups of families,
and every one required to appear with his children and slaves. Tortures
and lashes resounded on every side. Sons were gibbeted in the presence
of their parents, and the most confidential servants harassed that
they might make disclosures against their masters, and wives that
they might testify unfavourably of their husbands. If there were
a total destitution of property, they were still tortured to make
acknowledgments against themselves, and, when overcome by pain,
inscribed for what they did not possess. Neither age nor ill-health was
admitted as an excuse for not appearing. The sick and weak were borne
to the place of inscription, a reckoning made of the age of each, and
years added to the young and deducted from the old, in order to subject
them to a higher taxation than the law imposed. The whole scene was
filled with wailing and sadness. In the meantime individuals died,
and the herds and the flocks diminished, yet tribute was none the less
required to be paid for the dead, so that it was no longer allowed
either to live or die without a tax. Mendicants alone escaped, where
nothing could be wrenched, and whom misfortune and misery had made
incapable of farther oppression. These the impious wretch affecting to
pity, that they might not suffer want, ordered to be assembled, borne
off in vessels, and plunged into the sea.” See Lord on the Apoc., pp.
128, 129. These facts in regard to the severity of taxation, and the
rigid nature of the law enforcing it; to the sources of the révenue
exacted in the provinces, and to the care that none {154} of those
sources should be diminished; and to the actual and undoubted bearing
of all this on the decline and fall of the empire, are so strikingly
applicable to the symbol here employed, that if it be supposed that it
was _intended_ to refer to them, no more natural or expressive symbol
could have been used; if it were supposed that the historian _meant_ to
make a record of the fulfilment, he could not well have made a search
which would more strikingly accord with the symbol. Were we _now_ to
represent these things by a symbol, we could scarcely find one that
would be more expressive than that of a rider on a black horse with
a pair of scales, sent forth under a proclamation which indicated
that there would be a most rigid and exact administration of severe
and oppressive laws, and with a special command, addressed to the
people, not for the purposes of concealment, or from opposition to the
government, to injure the sources of revenue. It may serve further to
illustrate this, to copy one of the usual emblems of a Roman procurator
or questor. It is taken from Spanheim, _De Usu Num. Diss._, vi. 545.
See Elliott, i. 169. It has a balance as a symbol of exactness or
justice, and an ear of grain as a symbol employed with reference to
procuring or exacting grain from the provinces.

Illustration: Emblem of a Roman Procurator.

7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of
the fourth beast say, Come and see.

7. _And when he had opened the fourth seal._ See Notes, ch. v. 1.
¶ _I heard the voice of the fourth beast say._ The flying eagle. Notes,
ch. iv. 7. As in the other cases, there does not appear to have been
any particular reason why the _fourth_ of the living creatures should
have made this proclamation rather than either of the others. It was
poetic and appropriate to represent each one in his turn as making
proclamation. ¶ _Come and see._ See Notes, ver. 1.

8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that
sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power
was given [219]unto them over the fourth part of the earth,
to kill [220]with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and
with the beasts of the earth.

8. _And I looked, and behold a pale horse_――ἵππος χλωρὸς. On the
_horse_, as an emblem, see Notes on ver. 2. The _peculiarity_ of
this emblem consists in the _colour_ of the horse, the rider, and the
power that was given unto him. In these there is entire harmony, and
there can be comparatively little difficulty in the explanation and
application. The _colour_ of the horse was _pale_――χλωρὸς. This word
properly means _pale-green_, _yellowish-green_, like the colour of the
first shoots of grass and herbage; then _green_, _verdant_, like young
herbage, Mar. vi. 39; Re. viii. 7; ix. 4; and then _pale yellowish_
(Rob. _Lex._). The colour here would be an appropriate one to denote
the reign of death――as one of the most striking effects of death is
_paleness_――and, of course, of death produced by any cause, famine,
pestilence, or the sword. From this portion of the symbol, if it stood
with nothing to limit and define it, we should naturally look for some
condition of things in which death would prevail in a remarkable manner,
or in which multitudes of human beings would be swept away. And yet,
perhaps, from the very nature of _this_ part of the symbol, we should
look for the prevalence of death in some such peaceful manner as by
famine or disease. The _red_ colour would more naturally denote the
ravages of death in war; the black, the ravages of death by sudden
calamity; the pale would more obviously suggest famine or wasting
disease. ¶ _And his name that sat on him was Death._ No description is
given of his aspect; nor does he appear with any emblem――as sword, or
spear, {155} or bow. There is evident scope for the fancy to picture
to itself the form of the destroyer; and there is just that kind of
obscurity about it which contributes to sublimity. Accordingly, there
has been ample room for the exercise of the imagination in the attempts
to paint “Death on the pale horse,” and the opening of this seal has
furnished occasion for some of the greatest triumphs of the pencil. The
simple _idea_ in this portion of the symbol is, that death would reign
or prevail under the opening of this seal――whether by sword, by famine,
or by pestilence, is to be determined by other descriptions in the
symbol. ¶ _And Hell followed with him._ Attended him as he went forth.
On the meaning of the word here rendered _hell_――ᾅδης, _hades_――see
Notes on Lu. xvi. 23, comp. Notes on Job x. 21, 22; Is. xiv. 9. It is
here used to denote the abode of the dead, considered as a place where
they dwell, and not in the more restricted sense in which the word is
now commonly used as a place of punishment. The idea is, that the dead
would be so numerous at the going forth of this horseman, that it would
seem as if the pale nations of the dead had come again upon the earth.
A vast retinue of the dead would accompany him; that is, it would be
a time when death would prevail on the earth, or when multitudes would
die. ¶ _And power was given unto them._ Marg., _to him_. The common
Greek text is αὐτοῖς――_to them_. There are many MSS., however, which
read αὐτῷ――_to him_. So Professor Stuart reads it. The authority,
however, is in favour of _them_ as the reading; and according to this,
death and his train are regarded as grouped together, and the power is
considered as given to them collectively. The sense is not materially
varied. ¶ _Over the fourth part of the earth._ That is, of the Roman
world. It is not absolutely necessary to understand this as extending
over _precisely_ a fourth part of the world. Comp. Re. viii. 7‒10, 12;
ix. 15, _et al._ Undoubtedly we are to look in the fulfilment of this
to some far-spread calamity; to some severe visitations which would
sweep off great multitudes of men. The _nature_ of that visitation
is designated in the following specifications. ¶ _To kill with sword_.
In war and discord――and we are, therefore, to look to a period of
war. ¶ _And with hunger._ With famine――one of the accompaniments of
war――where armies ravage a nation, trampling down the crops of grain;
consuming the provisions laid up; employing in war, or cutting off,
the men who would be occupied in cultivating the ground; making it
necessary that they should take the field at a time when the grain
should be sown or the harvest collected; and shutting up the people in
besieged cities to perish by hunger. Famine has been not an unfrequent
accompaniment of war; and we are to look for the fulfilment of this
in its extensive prevalence. ¶ _And with death._ Each of the other
forms――“with the sword and with hunger”――imply that _death_ would reign;
for it is said that “power was given to _kill_ with sword and with
hunger.” This word, then, must refer to death in some other form――to
death that seemed to reign without any such _visible_ cause as the
“sword” and “hunger.” This would well denote the pestilence――not
an unfrequent accompaniment of war. For nothing is better fitted
to produce this than the unburied bodies of the slain; the filth of
a camp; the want of food; and the crowding together of multitudes
in a besieged city; and, accordingly, the pestilence, especially in
Oriental countries, has been often closely connected with war. That the
_pestilence_ is referred to here is rendered more certain by the fact
that the Hebrew word דֶּבֶר, _pestilence_, which occurs about fifty times
in the Old Testament, is rendered θάνατος, _death_, more than thirty
times in the Septuagint. ¶ _And with the beasts of the earth_. With
wild beasts. This, too, would be one of the consequences of war, famine,
and pestilence. Lands would be depopulated, and wild beasts would be
multiplied. Nothing more is necessary to make them formidable than a
prevalence of these things; and nothing, in the early stages of society,
or in countries ravaged by war, famine, and the pestilence, is more
formidable. Homer, at the very beginning of his _Iliad_, presents us
with a representation similar to this. Comp. Eze. xiv. 21: “I send my
four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the
noisome beast, and the pestilence,” דֶבֶר――Sept., as here, θάνατον. See
also 2 Ki. xvii. 26.

In regard to the fulfilment of this there can be little difficulty, if
the principles adopted in the interpretation of the first three seals
are correct. We {156} may turn to Gibbon, and, as in the other cases,
we shall find that he has been an unconscious witness of the fidelity
of the representation in this seal. Two _general_ remarks may be made
before there is an attempt to illustrate the particular things in the
symbol. (a) The first relates to _the place_ in the order of time, or
in history, which this seal occupies. If the three former seals have
been located with any degree of accuracy, we should expect that this
would follow, not very remotely, the severe laws pertaining to taxation,
which, according to Mr. Gibbon, contributed so essentially to the
downfall of the empire. And if it be admitted to be probable that the
fifth seal refers to a time of persecution, it would be most natural to
fix this period between those times and the times of Diocletian, when
the persecution ceased. I may be permitted to say, that I was led to
fix on this period without having any definite view beforehand of what
occurred _in_ it, and was surprised to find in Mr. Gibbon what _seems_
to be so accurate a correspondence with the symbol. (b) The second
remark is, that the _general_ characteristics of this period, as
stated by Mr. Gibbon, agree remarkably with what we should expect
of the period from the symbol. Thus speaking of this whole period
(A.D. 248‒268), embracing the reigns of Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus,
Valerian, and Gallienus, he says, “From the great secular games
celebrated by Philip to the death of the emperor Gallienus, there
elapsed twenty years of shame and misfortune. During this calamitous
period every instant of time was marked, every province of the Roman
world was afflicted by barbarous invaders and military tyrants, and
the ruined empire seemed to approach the last and fatal moment of its
dissolution,” i. 135.

In regard to the _particular_ things referred to in the symbol, the
following specifications may furnish a sufficient confirmation and
illustration: (a) The killing with the sword. A fulfilment of this,
so far as the _words_ are concerned, might be found indeed in many
portions of Roman history, but no one can doubt that it was eminently
true of this period. It was the period of the _first_ Gothic invasion
of the Roman empire; the period when those vast hordes, having
gradually come down from the regions of Scandinavia, and having moved
along the Danube towards the Ukraine and the countries bordering on the
Borysthenes, invaded the Roman territories from the East, passed over
Greece, and made their appearance almost, as Mr. Gibbon says, within
sight of Rome. Of this invasion Mr. Gibbon says, “This is the first
considerable occasion [the fact that the emperor Decius was summoned
to the banks of the Danube, A.D. 250, by the invasion of the Goths]
in which history mentions that great people, who afterwards broke the
Roman power, sacked the Capitol, and reigned in Gaul, Spain, and Italy.
So memorable was the part which they acted in the subversion of the
Western empire, that the name of GOTHS is frequently, but improperly,
used as a general appellation of rude and warlike barbarism,” i. p. 136.
As one of the illustrations that the “sword” would be used by “Death”
in this period, we may refer to the siege and capture of Philippolis.
“A hundred thousand persons are reported to have been massacred in the
sack of that great city” (_Dec. and Fall_, i. 140). “The whole period,”
says Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, “was
one uninterrupted series of confusion and calamity. The Roman empire
was, at the same time, and on every side, attacked by the blind fury
of foreign invaders, and the wild ambition of domestic usurpers,”
i. 144. “Such were the barbarians,” says Mr. Gibbon in the close of
his description of the Goths at this period, and of the tyrants that
reigned, “and such the tyrants, who, under the reigns of Valerian and
Gallienus, dismembered the provinces, and reduced the empire to the
lowest pitch of disgrace and ruin, from whence it seemed impossible
that it should ever emerge,” i. 158. (b) Famine: “Shall kill with
hunger.” This would naturally be the consequence of long-continued
wars, and of such invasions as those of the Goths. Mr. Gibbon says
of this period: “Our habits of thinking so fondly connect the order
of the universe with the fate of man, that this gloomy period of
history has been decorated with inundations, earthquakes, uncommon
meteors, preternatural darkness, and a crowd of prodigies, fictitious
or exaggerated. But _a long and general famine_ was a calamity of a
more serious kind. It was the inevitable consequence of rapine and
oppression, which extirpated the produce of the present, and the hope
of future harvests,” i. p. 159. Prodigies, and preternatural {157}
darkness, and earthquakes, were _not_ seen in the vision of the opening
of the _seal_――but _war_ and _famine_ were; and the facts stated by
Mr. Gibbon are such as would be now appropriately symbolized by Death
on the pale horse. (c) Pestilence: “And shall kill with death.” Of the
pestilence which raged in this period Mr. Gibbon makes the following
remarkable statement, in immediate connection with what he says of
the famine:――“Famine is almost always followed by epidemical diseases,
the effect of scanty and unwholesome food. Other causes must, however,
have contributed to the furious plague, which, from the year 250 to
the year 265, _raged without interruption in every province, every
city, and almost every family of the Roman empire_. During some time
five thousand persons died daily at Rome; and many towns that had
escaped the hands of the barbarians were entirely depopulated,” i. 159.
(d) Wild beasts: “And shall kill with the beasts of the earth.” As
already remarked, these are formidable enemies in the early stages of
society, and when a country becomes, from any cause, depopulated. They
are not mentioned by Mr. Gibbon as contributing to the decline and fall
of the empire, or as connected with the calamities that came upon the
world at that period. But no one can doubt that in such circumstances
they would be likely to abound, especially if the estimate of
Mr. Gibbon be correct (i. 159), when speaking of these times, and
making an estimate of the proportion of the inhabitants of Alexandria
that had perished――which he says was more than one-half――he adds,
“Could we venture to extend the analogy to the other provinces, we
might suspect that _war_, _pestilence_, and _famine_ had consumed in
a few years the moiety of the human species.” Yet, though not adverted
to by Mr. Gibbon, there _is_ a record pertaining to this very period,
which shows that this was one of the calamities with which the world
was then afflicted. It occurs in Arnobius, _Adv. Gentes_, lib. i.
p. 5. Within a few years after the death of Gallienus (about A.D. 300)
he speaks of wild beasts in such a manner as to show that they were
regarded as a sore calamity. The public peril and suffering on this
account were so great, that in common with other evils this was charged
on Christians as one of the judgments of heaven which they brought
upon the world. In defending Christians against the general charge that
these judgments were sent from heaven on their account, he adverts to
the prevalence of wild beasts, and shows that they could not have been
sent as a judgment on account of the existence of Christianity, by
the fact that they had prevailed also in the times of heathenism,
long before Christianity was introduced into the empire. “Quando cum
feris bella, et proelia cum leonibus gesta sunt? Non ante nos? Quando
pernicies populis venenatis ab anguibus data est? Non ante nos?” “When
were wars waged with wild beasts, and contests with lions? Was it not
before our times? When did a plague come upon men poisoned by serpents?
Was it not before our times?” In regard to the _extent_ of the
destruction which these causes would bring upon the world, there is a
remarkable confirmation in Gibbon. To say, as is said in the account
of the seal, that “a _fourth_ part of the earth” would be subjected to
the reign of death by the sword, by famine, by pestilence, and by wild
beasts, may seem to many to be an improbable statement――a statement
for the fulfilment of which we should look in vain to any historical
records. Yet Mr. Gibbon, without expressly mentioning the plague of
wild beasts, but referring to the three others――“war, pestilence, and
famine”――goes into a calculation, in a passage already referred to, by
which he shows that it is probable that from these causes _half_ the
human race was destroyed. The following is his estimate:――“We have the
knowledge of a very curious circumstance, of some use perhaps in the
melancholy calculation of human calamities. An exact register was kept
at Alexandria of all the citizens entitled to receive the distribution
of corn. It was found that the ancient number of those comprised
between the ages of forty and seventy had been equal to the whole sum
of claimants, from fourteen to fourscore years of age, who remained
alive after the reign of Gallienus. Applying this authentic fact to
the most correct tables of mortality, it evidently proves that above
half the people of Alexandria had perished; and could we venture to
extend the analogy to the other provinces, _we might suspect that
war, pestilence, and famine had consumed in a few years the moiety
of the human species_, ” i. 159. The historian says that it might be
“_suspected_ ” from these data that one-half of the {158} human race
had been cut off in a few years, from these causes; in the Apocalyptic
vision it is said that power was given over one “_fourth_” of the earth.
We may remark, (a) that the description in the symbol is as _likely_
to be correct as the “suspicion” of the historian; and (b) that his
statement that in this period “a moiety of the race,” or one-half of
the race, perished, takes away all improbability from the prediction,
and gives a most graphic confirmation of the symbol of _Death on
the pale horse_. If such a desolation in fact occurred, there is no
improbability in the supposition that it might have been prefigured by
the opening of a prophetic seal. Such a wide-spread desolation would
be _likely_ to be referred to in a series of symbols that were designed
to represent the downfall of the Roman power, and the great changes in
human affairs that would affect the welfare of the church.

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under
the [221]altar the [222]souls of them that were slain for
[223]the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, [224]How long,
O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and [225]avenge
our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And [226]white robes were given unto every one of them;
and it was said unto them, that they should [227]rest yet
for a little season, until[228] their fellow-servants also
and their brethren, that should be killed as they _were_,
should be fulfilled.

9‒11. _And when he had opened the fifth seal._ Notes, ch. v. 1; vi. 1.
¶ _I saw under the altar._ The four living creatures are no longer
heard as in the opening of the first four seals. No reason is given
for the change in the manner of the representation; and none can be
assigned, unless it be, that having represented each one of the four
living creatures in their turn as calling attention to the remarkable
events about to occur, there seemed to be no necessity or propriety
in introducing them again. In itself considered, it cannot be supposed
that they would be any less interested in the events about to be
disclosed than they were in those which preceded. This seal pertains
to _martyrs_――as the former successively did to a time of prosperity
and triumph; to discord and bloodshed; to oppressive taxation; to war,
famine, and pestilence. In the series of woes, it was natural and
proper that there should be a vision of martyrs, if it was intended
that the successive seals should refer to coming and important periods
of the world; and accordingly we have here a striking representation
of the martyrs crying to God to interpose in their behalf and to
avenge their blood. The points which require elucidation are: (a) their
position――under the altar; (b) their invocation――or their prayer that
they might be avenged; (c) the clothing of them with robes; and (d) the
command to wait patiently a little time. (1) The position of the
martyrs――_under the altar_. There were in the temple at Jerusalem two
altars――the altar of burnt sacrifices, and the altar of incense. The
altar here referred to was probably the former. This stood in front
of the temple, and it was on this that the daily sacrifice was made.
Comp. Notes on Mat. v. 23, 24. We are to remember, however, that the
temple and the altar were both destroyed before the time when this
book was written, and this should, therefore, be regarded merely as
a vision. John saw these souls _as if_ they were collected under the
altar――the place where the sacrifice for sin was made――offering their
supplications. _Why_ they are represented as being there is not so
apparent; but probably two suggestions will explain this: (a) The altar
was the place where sin was expiated, and it was natural to represent
these redeemed martyrs as seeking refuge there; and (b) it was usual to
offer prayers and supplications _at_ the altar, in connection with the
sacrifice made for sin, and on the ground of that sacrifice. The idea
is, that they who were suffering persecution would naturally seek a
refuge in the place where expiation was made for sin, and where prayer
was appropriately offered. The _language_ here is such as a Hebrew
would naturally use; the _idea_ is appropriate to anyone who believes
in the atonement, and who supposes that that is the appropriate refuge
for those who are in trouble. But while the language here is such as
a Hebrew would use, and while the reference in the language is to the
altar of burnt sacrifice, the scene should be regarded as undoubtedly
laid in heaven――the temple where God resides. The whole representation
is that of fleeing to the atonement, and pleading with {159} God in
connection with the sacrifice for sin. ¶ _The souls of them that were
slain._ That had been put to death by persecution. This is one of the
incidental proofs in the Bible that the soul does not cease to exist
at death, and also that it does not cease to be conscious, or does not
sleep till the resurrection. These souls of the martyrs are represented
as still in existence; as remembering what had occurred on the earth;
as interested in what was now taking place; as engaged in prayer; and
as manifesting earnest desires for the divine interposition to avenge
the wrongs which they had suffered. ¶ _For the word of God._ On account
of the word or truth of God. See Notes on ch. i. 9. ¶ _And for the
testimony which they held._ On account of their testimony to the truth,
or being faithful witnesses of the truth of Jesus Christ. See Notes on
ch. i. 9. (2) The invocation of the martyrs, ver. 10: _And they cried
with a loud voice._ That is, they pleaded that their blood might be
avenged. ¶ _Saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true._ They did not
doubt that God _would_ avenge them, but they inquired _how long_ the
vengeance would be delayed. It seemed to them that God was slow to
interpose, and to check the persecuting power. They appeal therefore to
him as a God of holiness and truth; that is, as one who could not look
with approval on sin, and in whose sight the wrongs inflicted by the
persecuting power must be infinitely offensive; as one who was true
to his promises, and faithful to his people. On the ground of his own
hatred of wrong, and of his plighted faithfulness to his church, they
pleaded that he would interpose. ¶ _Dost thou not judge and avenge our
blood._ That is, dost thou _forbear_ to judge and avenge us; or dost
thou delay to punish those who have persecuted and slain us. They do
not speak as if they had any doubt that it would be done, nor as if
they were actuated by a spirit of _revenge_; but as if it would be
_proper_ that there should be an expression of the divine sense of the
wrongs that had been done them. It is not right to desire vengeance
or revenge; it is to desire that justice should be done, and that
the government of God should be vindicated. The word “_judge_” here
may either mean “judge _us_,” in the sense of “vindicate _us_,” or
it may refer to their persecutors, meaning “judge _them_.” The more
probable sense is the latter: “How long dost thou forbear to execute
judgment on our account on those that dwell on the earth?” The word
_avenge_――ἐκδικέω――means to do justice; to execute punishment. ¶ _On
them that dwell on the earth._ Those who are still on the earth. This
shows that the scene here is laid in heaven, and that the souls of
the martyrs are represented as there. We are not to suppose that this
_literally_ occurred, and that John actually saw the souls of the
martyrs beneath the altars――for the whole representation is symbolical;
nor are we to suppose that the injured and the wronged in heaven
actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged them, or that the
redeemed in heaven will continue to pray with reference to things on
the earth; but it may be fairly inferred from this that there will be
_as real_ a remembrance of the wrongs of the persecuted, the injured,
and the oppressed, _as if_ such prayer were offered there; and that the
oppressor has as much to dread from the divine vengeance _as if_ those
whom he has injured should cry in heaven to the God who hears prayer,
and who takes vengeance. The wrongs done to the children of God; to the
orphan, the widow, the down-trodden; to the slave and the outcast, will
be as certainly remembered in heaven as if they who are wronged should
plead for vengeance there, for every act of injustice and oppression
goes to heaven and pleads for vengeance. Every persecutor should dread
the death of the persecuted _as if_ he went to heaven to plead against
him; every cruel master should dread the death of his slave that is
crushed by wrongs; every seducer should dread the death and the cries
of his victim; every one who does wrong in any way should remember that
the sufferings of the injured cry to heaven with a martyr’s pleadings,
saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and
avenge our blood?” (3) The robes that were given to the martyrs: _And
white {160} robes were given unto every one of them._ Emblems of purity
or innocence. See Notes on ch. iii. 5. Here the robes would be an
emblem of their innocence as martyrs; of the divine approval of their
testimony and lives, and a pledge of their future blessedness. (4) The
command to wait: _And it was said unto them, that they should rest yet
for a little season._ That is, that they must wait for a little season
before they could be avenged as they desired, ver. 10. They had pleaded
that their cause might be at once vindicated, and had asked how long
it would be before it should be done. The reply is, that the desired
vindication would not at once occur, but that they must wait until
other events were accomplished. Nothing definite is determined by the
phrase “a little season,” or a short time. It is simply an intimation
that this would not _immediately_ occur, or was not soon to take place.
Whether it refers to an existing persecution, and to the fact that
they were to wait for the divine interposition until that was over, and
those who were then suffering persecution should be put to death and
join them; or whether to a series of persecutions stretching along in
the history of the world, in such a sense that the promised vengeance
would take place only when all those persecutions were passed, and the
number of the martyrs completed, cannot be determined from the meaning
of their words. Either of these suppositions would accord well with
what the language naturally expresses. ¶ _Until their fellow-servants
also._ Those who were then suffering persecution, or those who should
afterwards suffer persecution, grouping all together. ¶ _And their
brethren._ Their brethren as Christians, and their brethren in
trial: those then living, or those who would live afterwards and pass
through similar scenes. ¶ _Should be fulfilled._ That is, till these
persecutions were passed through, and the number of the martyrs was
complete. The state of things represented here would seem to be, that
there was then a persecution raging on the earth. Many had been put
to death, and their souls had fled to heaven, where they pleaded
that their cause might be vindicated, and that their oppressors and
persecutors might be punished. To this the answer was, that _they_ were
now safe and happy――that God approved their course, and that in token
of his approbation they should be clothed in white raiment; but that
the invoked vindication could not at once occur. There were others who
would yet be called to suffer as they had done, and they must wait
until all that number was completed. _Then_, it is implied, God would
interpose, and vindicate his name. The scene, therefore, is laid in a
time of persecution, when many had already died, and when there were
many more that were exposed to death; and a sufficient fulfilment of
the passage, so far as the _words_ are concerned, would be found in
_any_ persecution, where many might be represented as having already
gone to heaven, and where there was a certainty that many more would
follow. We naturally, however, look for the fulfilment of it in some
period succeeding those designated by the preceding symbols. There
would be no difficulty, in the early history of the church, in finding
events that would correspond with all that is represented by the
symbol; but it is natural to look for it in a period succeeding that
represented, under the fourth seal, by Death on the pale horse. If the
previous seals have been correctly interpreted we shall not be much in
danger of erring in supposing that this refers to the persecution under
Diocletian; and perhaps we may find in one who never intended to write
a word that could be construed as furnishing a proof of the fulfilment
of the prophecies of the New Testament, what should be regarded as a
complete verification of all that is represented here. The following
particulars may justify this application: (a) The _place_ of that
persecution in history, or the time when it occurred. As already
remarked, if the previous seals have been rightly explained, and the
fourth seal denotes the wars, the famine, and the pestilence, under
the invasion of the Goths, and in the time of Valerian and Gallienus,
then the last great persecution of the church under Diocletian would
well accord with the period in history referred to. Valerian died in
A.D. 260, being flayed alive by Sapor, king of Persia; Gallienus died
in A.D. 268, being killed at Milan. Diocletian ascended the throne
A.D. 284, and resigned the purple A.D. 304. It was during this period,
and chiefly at the instigation of Galerius, that the tenth persecution
of the Christians occurred――the last under the Roman power; for in
A.D. 306 Constantine ascended the throne, and ultimately became {161}
the protector of the church. (b) The _magnitude_ of this persecution
under Diocletian is as consonant to the representation here as its
place in history. So important was it, that, in a general chapter
on the persecutions of the Christians, Mr. Gibbon has seen fit,
in his remarks on the nature, causes, extent, and character of the
persecutions, to give a prominence to this which he has not assigned
to any others, and to attach an importance to it which he has not to
any other. See vol. i. pp. 317‒322. The _design_ of this persecution,
as Mr. Gibbon expresses it (i. 318), was “to set bounds to the progress
of Christianity;” or, as he elsewhere expresses it (on the same page),
“the destruction of Christianity.” Diocletian, himself naturally averse
from persecution, was excited to this by Galerius, who urged upon the
emperor every argument by which he could persuade him to engage in
it. Mr. Gibbon says in regard to this, “Galerius at length extorted
from him [Diocletian] the permission of summoning a council, composed
of a few persons, the most distinguished in the civil and military
departments of the state. It may be presumed that they insisted on
every topic which might interest the pride, the piety, the fears
of their sovereign _in the destruction of Christianity_,” i. 318.
The _purpose_ evidently in the persecution, was, to make a last and
desperate effort, through the whole Roman empire, for the destruction
of the Christian religion; for Mr. Gibbon (i. 320) says that “the
edict against the Christians was designed for a general law _of the
whole empire_.” Other efforts had failed. The religion still spread,
notwithstanding the rage and fury of nine previous persecutions. It was
resolved to make one more effort. This was designed by the persecutors
to be the last, in the hope that then the Christian name would cease
to be: in the providence of God it _was_ the last――for then even
these opposing powers became convinced that the religion could not be
destroyed in this manner――and as this persecution was to establish this
fact, it was an event of sufficient magnitude to be symbolized by the
opening of one of the seals. (c) The _severity_ of this persecution
accorded with the description here, and was such as to deserve a place
in the series of important events which were to occur in the world. We
have seen above, from the statement of Mr. Gibbon, that it was designed
for the “whole empire,” and it in fact raged with fury throughout the
empire. After detailing some of the events of local persecutions under
Diocletian, Mr. Gibbon says, “The resentment or the fears of Diocletian
at length transported him beyond the bounds of moderation, which he
had hitherto preserved, and he declared, in a series of edicts, his
intention of abolishing the Christian name. By the first of these
edicts the governors of the provinces were directed to apprehend all
persons of the ecclesiastical order; and the prisons destined for
the vilest criminals were soon filled with a multitude of bishops,
presbyters, deacons, and exorcists. By a second edict the magistrates
were commanded to employ every method of severity which might reclaim
them from their odious superstition, and oblige them to return to the
established worship of the gods. This rigorous order was extended, by a
subsequent edict, to the whole body of Christians, who were exposed to
a violent and general persecution. Instead of those salutary restraints
which had required the direct and solemn testimony of an accuser,
it became the duty as well as the interest of the imperial officers
to discover, to pursue, and to torment the most obnoxious among the
faithful. Heavy penalties were denounced against all who should presume
to save a proscribed sectary from the just indignation of the gods,
and of the emperors,” i. 322. The first decree against the Christians,
at the instigation of Galerius, will show the general nature of this
fiery trial of the church. That decree was to the following effect:
“All assembling of the Christians for the purposes of religious worship
was forbidden; the Christian churches were to be demolished to their
foundations; all manuscripts of the Bible should be burned; those who
held places of honour or rank must either renounce their faith or be
degraded; in judicial proceedings the torture might be used against
all Christians, of whatever rank; those belonging to the lower walks
of private life were to be divested of their rights as citizens and
as freemen; Christian slaves were to be incapable of receiving their
freedom, so long as they remained Christians” (Neander, _Hist. of the
Church_, Torrey’s Trans. i. 148). This persecution was the last against
the Christians by the Roman emperors; the {162} last that was waged by
that mighty Pagan power. Diocletian soon resigned the purple, and after
the persecution had continued to rage, with more or less severity,
under his successors, for ten years, the peace of the church was
established. “Diocletian,” says Mr. Gibbon (i. 322), “had no sooner
published his edicts against the Christians, than, as if he had been
committing to other hands his work of persecution, he divested himself
of the imperial purple. The character and situation of his colleagues
and successors sometimes urged them to enforce, and sometimes to
suspend, the execution of these rigorous laws; nor can we acquire
a just and distinct idea of this important period of ecclesiastical
history, unless we separately consider the state of Christianity in
the different parts of the empire, during the space of ten years which
elapsed between the first edicts of Diocletian _and the final peace
of the church_.” For this detail consult Gibbon, i. 322‒329, and the
authorities there referred to; and Neander, _Hist. of the Church_,
i. 147‒156. Respecting the details of the persecution, Mr. Gibbon
remarks (i. 326), “It would have been an easy task, from the history
of Eusebius, from the declamations of Lactantius, and from the most
ancient acts, to collect a long series of horrid and disgustful
pictures, and to fill many pages with racks and scourges, with
iron-hooks, and red-hot beds, and with the variety of tortures which
fire and steel, savage beasts, and more savage executioners, could
inflict on the human body.” It is true that Mr. Gibbon professes to
doubt the truth of these records, and attempts to show that the account
of the number of the martyrs has been greatly exaggerated; yet no one,
in reading his own account of this persecution, can doubt that it was
the result of a determined effort to blot out the Christian religion,
and that the whole of the imperial power was exerted to accomplish
this end. At length the last of the imperial persecutions ceased,
and the great truth was demonstrated that Christianity could not be
extinguished by power, and that “the gates of hell could not prevail
against it.” “In the year 311,” says Neander (i. 156), “the remarkable
edict appeared which put an end to the last sanguinary conflict of
the Christian church and the Roman empire.” This decree was issued by
the author and instigator of the persecution, Galerius, who, “softened
by a severe and painful disease, the consequence of his excesses, had
been led to think that the God of the Christians might, after all, be
a powerful being, whose anger punished him, and whose favour he must
endeavour to conciliate.” This man suspended the persecution, and gave
the Christians permission “once more to hold their assemblies, provided
they did nothing contrary to the good order of the Roman state.” “Ita
ut ne quid contra disciplinam agant” (Neander, _ibid._).

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo,
there was a great [229]earthquake; and the sun[230] became
black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the [231]stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a
fig-tree casteth her [232]untimely figs, when she is shaken of
a mighty wind.

14 And the [233]heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled
together; and [234]every mountain and island were moved out of
their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the
rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every
bondman, and every freeman, [235]hid themselves in the dens
and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And [236]said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and
hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and
from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the [237]great day of his wrath is come; and [238]who
shall be able to stand?

12‒17. _And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal._ See Notes,
ch. v. 1; vi. 1. ¶ _And, lo, there was a great earthquake._ Before
endeavouring to ascertain to what the sixth seal was designed to
refer, it is proper, as in the previous cases, to furnish a particular
explanation of the meaning of the symbols. All the symbols represented
in the opening of this seal denote consternation, commotion, changes;
but still they are all significant, and we are to suppose that
something would occur corresponding with each one of them. It cannot
be supposed that the things here described were represented on the
part of the roll or volume that was now unfolded in any other way than
that they were pictures, or that the whole was a species of panoramic
representation made to pass before the eyes. Thus understood, it would
not be difficult to represent each one of these things in a painting:
as the heaving ground――the agitated forests――the trembling hills――the
falling cities and houses――the sun blackened, and the moon turned to
blood.

(a) The earthquake, ver. 12: _There was a great earthquake._ The word
here used denotes a shaking or agitation of the earth. The effect, when
violent, is to produce important changes――opening chasms in the earth;
throwing down houses and temples; sinking hills, and elevating plains;
causing ponds and lakes to dry up, or forming them where none existed;
elevating the ocean from its bed, rending rocks, &c. As all that occurs
in the opening of the other seals is symbolical, it is to be presumed
that this is also, and that for the fulfilment {163} of this we are not
to look for a literal earthquake, but for such agitations and changes
in the world as would be properly symbolized by this. The earthquake,
as a symbol, would merely denote great agitations or overturnings on
the earth. The particular character of those changes must be determined
by other circumstances in the symbol that would limit and explain it.
There are, it is said, but three literal earthquakes referred to in the
Scripture: that mentioned in 1 Ki. xix. 11; that in Uzziah’s time, Am.
i. 1; Zec. xiv. 5; and that which took place at the Saviour’s death.
All the rest are emblematical or symbolical――referring mostly to civil
commotions and changes. Then in Hag. ii. 6, 7: “Yet once, it is a
little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea,
and the dry land, and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all
nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the
Lord of hosts.” That is, there would be great agitations in the world
before he came. See Notes on He. xii. 26‒28. So also great changes
and commotions are referred to in Is. xxiv. 19, 20: “The earth is
utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved
exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall
be removed like a cottage.” An _earthquake_, if there were no other
circumstances limiting and explaining the symbol, would merely denote
great agitation and commotion――_as if_ states and empires were tumbling
to ruin. As this is here a mere _symbol_, it is not necessary to
look for a literal fulfilment, or to expect to find in history actual
earthquakes to which this had reference, any more than when it is said
that “the heavens departed as a scroll” we are to expect that they will
be literally rolled up; but if, in the course of history, earthquakes
preceded remarkable political convulsions and revolutions, it would be
proper to represent such events in this way.

(b) The darkening of the sun: _And the sun became black as sackcloth of
hair._ Sackcloth was a coarse black cloth, commonly, though not always,
made of hair. It was used for sacks, for strainers, and for mourning
garments; and as thus worn it was not an improper emblem of sadness and
distress. The idea here is, that the sun put on a dark, dingy, doleful
appearance, _as if_ it were in mourning. The general image, then, in
this emblem, is that of calamity――_as if_ the very sun should put on
the robes of mourning. We are by no means to suppose that this was
_literally_ to occur, but that _some_ great calamity would happen, of
which this would be an appropriate emblem. See Notes on Is. xiii. 10;
Mat. xxiv. 29. Comp. Is. xxiv. 23; xxxiv. 4; l. 3; lx. 19, 20; Eze.
xxxii. 7, 8; Joel ii. 10; iii. 15, 16; Am. viii. 9. What is the
particular nature of the calamity is to be learned from other parts
of the symbol.

(c) The discoloration of the moon: _And the moon became as blood._
Red like blood――either from the smoke and vapour that usually precedes
an earthquake, or as a mere emblem. This also would betoken calamity,
and _perhaps_ the symbol may be so far limited and modified by this
as to denote _war_, for that would be most naturally suggested by the
colour――_red_. Comp. Notes on ver. 4 of this chapter. But _any_ great
calamity would be appropriately represented by this――as the change of
the moon to such a colour would be a natural emblem of distress.

(d) The falling of the stars, ver. 13: _And the stars of heaven fell
unto the earth._ This _language_ is derived from the poetic idea that
the sky seems to be a solid concave, in which the stars are _set_,
and that when any convulsion takes place, that concave will be shaken,
and the stars will be loosened and fall from their places. See this
language explained in the Notes on Is. xxxiv. 4. Sometimes the expanse
above us is spoken of as a curtain that is spread out, and that may
be rolled up; sometimes as a solid crystalline expanse in which the
stars are fixed. According to either representation the stars are
described as falling to the earth. If the expanse is _rolled up_, the
stars, having nothing to support them, fall; if violent tempests or
concussions shake the heavens, the stars, loosened from their fixtures,
fall to the earth. Stars, in the Scriptures, are symbols of princes
and rulers (see Da. viii. 10; Re. viii. 10, 11; ix. 1); and the natural
meaning of this symbol is, that there would be commotions which would
{164} unsettle princes, and bring them down from their thrones――like
stars falling from the sky. ¶ _Even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely
figs._ Marg., _green_; Gr., ὀλύνθους. This word properly denotes
_winter-figs_, or such as grow under the leaves, and do not ripen at
the proper season, but hang upon the trees during the winter (Rob.
_Lex._). This fruit seldom matures, and easily falls off in the spring
of the year (Stuart, _in loco_). A violent wind shaking a plantation of
fig-trees would of course cast many such figs to the ground. The point
of the comparison is, the ease with which the stars would seem to be
shaken from their places, and hence the ease with which, in these
commotions, princes would be dethroned.

(e) The departing of the heavens, ver. 14: _And the heaven departed
as a scroll._ That is, as a book or volume――βιβλίον――rolled up. The
heavens are here described as spread out, and their passing away
is represented by the idea that they might be rolled up, and thus
disappear. See Notes on Is. xxxiv. 4. This, too, is a symbol, and we
are not to suppose that it will literally occur. Indeed it never _can_
literally occur; and we are not, therefore, to look for the fulfilment
of this in any physical fact that would correspond with what is here
said. The plain meaning is, that there would be changes _as if_ such
an event would happen; that is, that revolutions would occur in the
high places of the earth, and among those in power, _as if_ the stars
should fall, and the very heavens were swept away. This is the natural
meaning of the symbol, and this accords with the usage of the language
elsewhere.

(f) The removal of mountains and islands, ver. 14: _And every
mountain and island were moved out of their places._ This would denote
convulsions in the political or moral world, as great as would occur in
the physical world if the very mountains were removed and the islands
should change their places. We are not to suppose that this would
literally occur; but we should be authorized from this to expect that,
in regard to those things which seemed to be permanent and fixed on
an immovable basis, like mountains and islands, there would be violent
and important changes. If thrones and dynasties long established were
overthrown; if institutions that seemed to be fixed and permanent were
abolished; if a new order of things should rise in the political world,
the meaning of the symbol, so far as the language is concerned, would
be fulfilled.

(g) The universal consternation, ver. 15‒17: _And the kings of the
earth_, &c. The design of these verses (15‒17), in the varied language
used, is evidently to denote universal consternation and alarm――_as
if_ the earth should be convulsed, and the stars should fall, and
the heavens should pass away. This consternation would extend to all
classes of men, and fill the world with alarm, _as if_ the end of
all things were coming. ¶ _The kings of the earth._ Rulers――all who
occupied thrones. ¶ _The great men._ High officers of state. ¶ _And
the rich men._ Their wealth would not secure them from destruction,
and they would be alarmed like others. ¶ _And the chief captains._ The
commanders of armies, who tremble like other men when God appears in
judgment. ¶ _And the mighty men._ Men of great prowess in battle, but
who feel now that they have no power to withstand God. ¶ _And every
bondman._ Servant――δοῦλος. This word does not necessarily denote a
_slave_ (comp. Notes on Ep. vi. 5; 1 Ti. vi. 1; Phile. 16), but here
the connection seems to demand it, for it stands in contrast with
_freeman_. There were, in fact, slaves in the Roman empire, and there
is no objection in supposing that they are here referred to. There
is no reason why they should not be filled with consternation as well
as others; and as this does not refer to the end of the world, or the
day of judgment, the word here determines nothing as to the question
whether slavery is to continue on the earth. ¶ _And every freeman._
Whether the master of slaves or not. The idea is, {165} that all
classes of men, high and low, would be filled with alarm. ¶ _Hid
themselves in the dens._ Among the caves or caverns in the mountains.
See Notes on Is. ii. 19. These places were resorted to for safety in
times of danger. Comp. 1 Sa. xiii. 6; xxiv.; Ju. vi. 2; Je. xli. 9; Jos.
_Ant._ book xiv. ch. xv.; _Jewish Wars_, book i. ch. xvi. ¶ _And in
the rocks of the mountains._ Among the crags or the fastnesses of the
mountains――also natural places of refuge in times of hostile invasion
or danger. See Notes on Is. ii. 21. ¶ _And said to the mountains and
rocks, Fall on us_, &c., ver. 16. This language is found substantially
in Ho. x. 8: “And they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to
the hills, Fall on us.” It is also used by the Saviour as denoting the
consternation which would occur at his coming: “Then shall they begin
to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us,”
Lu. xxiii. 30. It is language denoting consternation, and an awful
fear of impending wrath. The state of mind is that where there is
an apprehension that God himself is coming forth with the direct
instruments of his vengeance, and where there is a desire rather to
be crushed by falling rocks and hills than by the vengeance of his
uplifted arm. ¶ _From the face of him that sitteth on the throne._
The face of God――for he seems to be coming forth with the displays of
his vengeance. It is not said that God would actually come forth in a
visible form, but their consternation would be as great as if he were
to do this; the state of mind indicated by this was an apprehension
that it would be so. ¶ _And from the wrath of the Lamb._ The Lamb
of God; the Lord Jesus. See Notes on ch. v. 6. There seems to be an
incongruity between the words _wrath_ and _Lamb_; but the word _Lamb_
here is so far a proper name as to be used only to designate the
Redeemer. He comes forth to execute wrath, not as a Lamb, but as the
Son of God, who bore that name. It would seem from this that they who
thus dreaded the impending terrors were aware of their source, or had
knowledge enough to understand by whom they were to be inflicted. They
would see that these were _divine_ judgments, and would apprehend that
the end of the world drew near. ¶ _For the great day of his wrath is
come_, ver. 17. The threatening judgments would be so severe and awful
that they would suppose that the end of the world was coming. ¶ _And
who shall be able to stand?_ To stand before him, or to withstand his
judgments.

It is unnecessary to say that there has been, in this case, as in
reference to every other part of the book of Revelation, a great
diversity of opinion respecting the events symbolized by this seal.
Grotius applied it to the wars between the Jews and Romans under Nero
and Vespasian; Dr. Hammond supposed that the defeat of the Jewish
leaders in those wars was particularly symbolized; Mr. Brightman
referred these symbols to the persecution under Diocletian; Mr. Mede,
Dr. Cressner, Dr. More, Mr. Whiston, Mr. Jurien, Mr. Daubuz, Mr. Lowman,
Bishop Newton, Mr. Elliott, and others, refer it to the defeat of the
Pagan powers, and the final suppression of those powers as opposed to
Christianity; Vitringa regarded it as foreshadowing the overthrow of
the antichristian powers of the western Roman empire; Cocceius explains
it of the wars of the Emperor Frederick against the German princes in
the sixteenth century; Dean Woodhouse, of the day of vengeance at the
end of the world; Mr. Cunninghame, of the same period as the seventh
trumpet, commencing with the French revolution, and to be consummated
by the visible advent of the Son of God; Professor Stuart, of the
destruction of Jerusalem; and Mr. Lord, of a series of events, part of
which are fulfilled, three of them corresponding with the first three
vials――the first expressive of the revolution of France, the second
of a despotism extending through several years, and the third of the
overthrow of that violent dynasty, at the fall of {166} Bonaparte, in
1815. It is not my purpose to examine these views; but, amidst this
great variety of opinion, it seems to me that the obvious and natural
application of the opening of the seal has not been adverted to. I
shall suggest it because it _is_ the most natural and obvious, and
seems to be demanded by the explanations given of the previous seals.
It is, in one word, the impending judgments from the invasions of the
northern hordes of Goths and Vandals, threatening the breaking up of
the Roman empire――the gathering of the storm, and the hovering of those
barbarians on the borders of the empire; the approaches which they made
from time to time towards the capital, though restrained as yet from
taking it; the tempest of wrath that was, as it were, _suspended_ yet
on the frontiers, until the events recorded in the next chapter should
occur, then bursting forth in wrath in successive blasts, as denoted
by the first four trumpets of the seventh seal (ch. viii.), when the
empire was entirely overthrown by the Goths and Vandals. The precise
point of time which I suppose this seal occupies is that _succeeding_
the last persecution. It embraces the preparatory arrangements of
these hordes of invaders――their gathering on the frontiers of the
empire――their threatened approaches toward the capital――and the
formation of such vast armies as would produce universal consternation.
A brief notice of these preparatory scenes, as adapted to produce the
alarm referred to in the opening of the sixth seal, is all that will
be necessary here; the more complete detail must be reserved for the
explanation of the four trumpets of the seventh seal, when the work
of destruction was consummated. These preparations and threatened
invasions were events sufficiently important in their relation to the
church, to what preceded, and to the future history of the world, to
be symbolized here; and they are events in which all the particulars of
the symbol may find a fulfilment. Anyone has only to look on a chart of
history to see how appropriately this application of the symbol follows,
if the previous explanations have been correct. In the illustration of
this, in order to show the probability that these events are referred
to by the symbols of the sixth seal, I would submit the following
remarks:――

(1) The _time_ is that which would be naturally suggested by this
seal in its relation to the others. If the fifth referred to the
persecutions under Diocletian――the last great persecution of the Pagan
powers in attempting to extinguish the Christian name――then we should
naturally look for the fulfilment of the opening of the next in some
event, or series of events, which would succeed that at no very distant
interval, and that pertained to the empire or power that had been the
prominent subject of the predictions in the previous seals. It would
also be natural to look for some events that might be regarded as
conveying an expression of the divine feeling in regard to that power,
or that would present it in such an aspect that it would be seen that
its power to persecute was at an end. This natural _expectation_ would
be answered either by some symbol that would refer to the complete
triumph of the Christian system, or by such a series of judgments as
would break the persecuting power itself in pieces. Now the threatened
irruption of the northern barbarians followed the series of events
already described with sufficient _nearness_ to make it proper to
regard that series of events as referred to.

(2) The events were of sufficient _importance_ in the history of
the empire to deserve this notice in the foreshadowing of what would
occur. They were connected with the breaking up of that mighty power,
and the complete change of the aspect of the world, in a political and
religious point of view. A new order of things arose in the world’s
history. A new religion became established. New kingdoms from the
fragments of the once-mighty Roman empire were founded, and the affairs
of the world were put on a new footing. These mighty northern hordes
not only spread consternation and alarm, as if the world were coming
to an end, but they laid the foundations of kingdoms which continue to
this day. In fact, few more important events have occurred in history.

(3) This series of events was _introduced_ in the manner described
in the opening of the sixth seal. I have already said that it is not
_necessary_ to suppose, in the fulfilment of the symbol, that there
would be a literal earthquake; but nothing in the symbol forbids us
to suppose that there might be, and if there were we could not but
consider it as remarkable. Now it so happens that the series of events
pertaining {167} to the Gothic invasions is introduced by Mr. Gibbon
in the following language: “A.D. 365. In the second year of the reign
of Valentinian and Valens, on the morning of the twenty-first day of
July, the greatest part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and
destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the waters;
the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the sudden retreat
of the sea; great quantities of fish were caught with the hand; large
vessels were stranded on the mud; and a curious spectator amused his
eye, or rather his fancy, by contemplating the various appearances of
valleys and mountains which had never before, since the formation of
the globe, been exposed to the sun. But the tide soon returned, with
the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was severely
felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece, and of Egypt;
large boats were transported, and lodged on the roofs of houses, or
at the distance of two miles from the shore; the people, with their
habitations, were swept away by the waters; and the city of Alexandria
annually commemorated the day on which fifty thousand persons had
lost their lives in the inundation. This calamity, the report of which
was magnified from one province to another, _astonished and terrified
the subjects of Rome_; and their affrighted imagination enlarged the
real extent of the momentary evil. They recollected the preceding
earthquakes which had subverted the cities of Palestine and Bithynia;
they considered these alarming strokes as the prelude only of still
more dreadful calamities, and their fearful vanity was disposed to
confound _the symptoms of a declining empire and a sinking world_,”
vol. ii. pp. 115, 116. Mr. Gibbon then proceeds to detail the evils
of war, as greatly surpassing the calamities produced by any natural
causes, and adds (p. 116), “In the disastrous period of the fall of the
Roman empire, which may be justly dated from the reign of Valens, the
happiness and security of each individual was personally attacked; and
the arts and labours of ages were rudely defaced by the barbarians of
Scythia and Germany.” He then proceeds with an exceedingly interesting
description of the origin, the habits, and the movements of the
Tartar nations, particularly the Huns, as they moved to the West, and
precipitated the Gothic nations on the provinces of the Roman empire,
until Rome itself was thrice besieged, was taken, and was sacked
(ii. 116‒266). The earthquake referred to occurred in A.D. 365. The
movements of the Huns from their territories in the neighbourhood of
China had commenced about A.D. 100, and in A.D. 375 they overcame the
Goths lying along the Danube. The Goths, pressed and overcome by these
savage invaders, asked permission of the Romans to cross the Danube, to
find protection in the Roman empire, and to cultivate the waste lands
of Thrace (Gibbon, ii. 129, 130). In the year 376 they were transported
over the Danube, by the permission of the Roman emperor Valens; an
event which, according to Mr. Gibbon, in its ultimate result, was
the cause of the downfall of the empire; for they learned their own
strength; they were attracted by the riches of the capital and the
hope of reward, until they finally drew the Western emperor to Ravenna,
sacked Rome, and took possession of Italy.

(4) A slight reference to the _series_ of events in these periods
of consternation and conquest may show more closely the nature of
the alarms which would be caused by the prospect of these dreadful
invasions, and may prepare us for a better understanding of the
successive calamities which occurred under these invaders, when the
empire fell, as described by the four first trumpets of the seventh
seal. I shall copy from the tables of contents of Mr. Gibbon’s history,
under the twenty-sixth, thirtieth, and thirty-first chapters:――

“A.D.
365. Earthquakes.
376. The Huns and Goths.
100. The emigration of the Huns.
375. Their victories over the Goths.
376. The Goths implore the protection of Valens.
” They are transported over the Danube into the
Roman empire.
” They penetrate into Thrace.
377. Union of the Goths with Huns, Alani, &c.
378. Battle of Hadrianople.
” The defeat of the Romans.
383‒395. The settlement of the Goths in Thrace and Asia.
395. Revolt of the Goths.
396. Alaric marches into Greece.
398. Is proclaimed king of the Visigoths.
400‒403. He invades Italy.
406. Radagaisus invades Italy.
” Besieges Florence.
” Threatens Rome.
” The remainder of the Germans invade Gaul.
407. Desolation of Gaul.
408. Alaric marches to Rome.
” First siege of Rome by the Goths.
{168} 408. Famine, plague, superstition.
409. Alaric accepts a ransom and raises the siege.
” Fruitless negotiations for peace.
” Second siege of Rome by the Goths.
410. Third siege and sack of Rome by the Goths.
” Respect of the Goths for the Christian religion.
” Pillage and fire of Rome.
” Captives and fugitives.
411‒416. Fall of the usurpers Jovinus, Sebastian, and
Attalus.
409. Invasion of Spain by the Suevi, Vandals, Alani, &c.
415‒418. The Goths conquer and restore Spain.”

(5) This would coincide, in the _effects_ produced on the empire, with
the consternation and alarm described in the passage before us. The
symbols are such as _would be_ employed on the supposition that these
are the events referred to; they are such as the events are fitted to
suggest. The mighty preparations in the East and North――the report of
which could not but spread through the empire――would be appropriately
symbolized by the earthquake, the darkened sun, the moon becoming like
blood, the stars falling, the departing heavens, and the kings and
great men of the earth fleeing in alarm to find a place of safety, as
if the end of the world were drawing near. Nothing could have been so
well adapted to produce the consternation described in the opening of
the sixth seal, as the dreaded approach of vast hosts of barbarians
from the regions of the North. This alarm would be increased by the
fact that their numbers were unknown; that their origin was hidden;
and that the advancing multitudes would sweep everything before them.
As in other cases, also, rumour would increase their numbers and
augment their ferocity. The sudden shock of an earthquake, the falling
stars, the departing heavens, the removal of mountains and islands,
and the consternation of kings and all classes of people, would be
the appropriate emblems to represent these impending calamities. In
confirmation of this, and as showing the _effect_ produced by the
approach of the Goths, and the dread of the Gothic arms, in causing
universal consternation, the following extracts may be adduced from Mr.
Gibbon, when describing the threatened invasion of Alaric, king of the
Visigoths. He quotes from Claudian. “‘Fame,’ says the poet, ‘encircling
with terror her gloomy wings, proclaimed the march of the barbarian
army, and filled Italy with consternation.’” Mr. Gibbon adds, “the
apprehensions of each individual were increased in just proportion
to the measure of his fortune; and the most timid, who had already
embarked their valuable effects, meditated their escape to the island
of Sicily, or to the African coast. The public distress was aggravated
by the fears and reproaches of superstition. Every hour produced some
horrid tale of strange and portentous accidents; the Pagans deplored
the neglect of omens and the interruption of sacrifices; but the
Christians still derived some comfort from the powerful intercession of
the saints and martyrs,” ii. 218, 219. See further illustrations in the
Notes on ch. viii. 7‒13.

CHAPTER VII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

The state of things represented in this chapter is, that where there
had been awful consternation and alarm, as if the end of the world
were coming, and where the signs of the approaching consummation of all
things are, as it were, held back until there should be an opportunity
of sealing the number that was to be saved. This is symbolized by
four angels standing in the four quarters of the earth, and holding
the winds and the storms that they should not blow on the earth until
the servants of God should be sealed in their foreheads. The idea
is that of sudden destruction about to burst on the world, which, if
unrestrained, would apparently bring on the consummation of all things,
but which is held back until the purposes of God in regard to his
people shall be accomplished――that is, until those who are the true
servants of God shall be designated by some appropriate mark. This
furnishes an opportunity of disclosing a glorious vision of those who
will be saved, alike among the Jews and the Gentiles. The _fact_, as
seen in the symbol, is, that the end of the world does _not_ come at
the opening of the sixth seal, as it seemed as if it would, and as
it was anticipated in the time of the consternation. The number of
the chosen was not complete, and the impending wrath was therefore
suspended. God interposes in favour of his people, and discloses in
vision a vast number from all lands who will yet be saved, and the
winds and storms are held back as if by angels.

The _points_, then, that are apparent in this chapter, without
any reference {169} now to the question of the application, are the
following: (1) The impending ruin that seemed about to spread over
the earth, apparently bringing on the consummation of all things,
restrained or suspended, ver. 1. This impending ruin is symbolized by
the four winds of heaven that seemed about to sweep over the world;
the interposition of God is represented by the four angels who have
power over those winds to hold them back, as if it depended on their
will to let them loose and to spread ruin over the earth or not. (2) A
suspension of these desolating influences and agents until another
important purpose could be accomplished――that is, until the servants
of God could be sealed in their foreheads, ver. 2, 3. Another angel,
acting independently of the four first seen, and having power to
command, appears in the east, having the seal of the living God; and
he directs the four angels having the four winds not to let them loose
upon the earth until the servants of God should be sealed in their
foreheads. This obviously denotes some suspension of the impending
wrath, and for a specific purpose, that something might be done by
which the true servants of God would be so marked as to be publicly
known――_as if_ they had a mark or brand to that effect imprinted on
their foreheads. Whatever would serve to designate them, to determine
who they were, to ascertain their number, would be a fulfilment of this
act of the sealing angel. The length of _time_ during which it would
be done is not designated; the essential thing is, that there would
be a suspension of impending judgments, _in order_ that it might be
done. Whether this was to occupy a longer or a shorter period is not
determined by the symbol; nor is it determined _when_ the winds thus
held back would be suffered to blow. (3) The number of the sealed,
ver. 4‒8. The seer does not represent himself as actually beholding
the process of sealing, but he says that he heard the number of those
who were sealed. That number was an hundred and forty-four thousand,
and they were selected from the twelve tribes of the children of
Israel――Levi being reckoned, who was not usually numbered with the
tribes, and the tribe of Dan being omitted. The number from each tribe,
large or small, was the same; the entire portion selected being but
a very small part of the whole. The general idea here, whatever may
be the particular application, is, that there would be a _selection_,
and that the whole number of the tribe would not be embraced; that
the selection would be made from _each_ tribe, and that all would
have the same mark, and be saved by the same means. It would not be
in accordance with the nature of symbolic representation to suppose
that the saved would be the precise number here referred to; but _some_
great truth is designed to be represented by this fact. We should look,
in the fulfilment, to some process by which the true servants of God
would be designated; we should expect that a portion of them would be
found in each one of the classes here denoted by a tribe; we should
suppose that the true servants of God thus referred to would be _as
safe_ in the times of peril as if they were designated by a visible
mark. (4) After this, another vision presents itself to the seer. It
is that of a countless multitude before the throne, redeemed out of all
nations, with palms in their hands, ver. 9‒17. The scene is transferred
to heaven, and there is a vision of _all_ the redeemed――not only of the
hundred and forty-four thousand, but of all who would be rescued and
saved from a lost world. The _design_ is doubtless to cheer the hearts
of the true friends of God in times of gloom and despondency, by a
view of the great numbers that will be saved, and the glorious triumph
that awaits the redeemed in heaven. This portion of the vision embraces
the following particulars:――(a) A vast multitude, which no man can
number, is seen before the throne in heaven. They are clad in white
robes――emblems of purity; they have palms in their hands――emblems
of victory, ver. 9. (b) They are engaged in ascribing praise to God,
ver. 10. (c) The angels, the elders, and the four living creatures,
fall down before the throne, and unite with the redeemed in ascriptions
of praise, ver. 11, 12. (d) A particular inquiry is made of the
seer――evidently to call his attention to it――respecting those who
appear there in white robes, ver. 13. (e) To this inquiry it is
answered, that they were those who had come up out of great tribulation,
and who had washed their robes, and had made them pure in the blood of
the Lamb, ver. 14. (f) Then follows a description of their condition
and employment in heaven, ver. 15‒17. They are {170} constantly
before the throne; they serve God continually; they neither hunger nor
thirst; they are not subjected to the burning heat of the sun; they are
provided for by the Lamb in the midst of the throne; and all tears are
forever wiped away from their eyes. This must be regarded, I think,
as an episode, having no _immediate_ connection with what precedes or
with what follows. It seems to be thrown in here――while the impending
judgments of the sixth seal are suspended, and before the seventh is
opened――to furnish a _relief_ in the contemplation of so many scenes
of woe, and to cheer the soul with inspiring hopes from the view of
the great number that would ultimately be saved. While these judgments,
therefore, are suspended, the mind is directed on to the world of
triumph, as a view fitted to sustain and comfort those who would be
partakers in the scenes of woe. At the same time it is one of the most
touching and beautiful of all the representations of heaven ever penned,
and is eminently adapted to comfort those, in all ages, who are in a
vale of tears.

In the exposition it will be proper (ver. 1‒8) to inquire into the
fair meaning of the _language_ employed in the symbols; and then to
inquire whether there are any known facts to which the description is
applicable. The first inquiry may and should be pursued independently
of the other; and it may be added, that the explanation offered on this
may be correct, even if the other should be erroneous. The same remark,
also, is applicable to the remainder of the chapter (ver. 9‒17), and
indeed is of general applicability in the exposition of this book.

CHAPTER VII.

AND after these things I saw four angels standing on the four
corners of the earth, holding the [239]four winds of the earth,
that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea,
nor on any tree.

1. _And after these things._ After the vision of the things referred
to in the opening of the sixth seal. The natural interpretation
would be, that what is here said of the angels and the winds occurred
_after_ those things which are described in the previous chapter.
The exact chronology may not be always observed in these symbolical
representations, but doubtless there is a general order which is
observed. ¶ _I saw four angels._ He does not describe their forms,
but merely mentions their agency. This is, of course, a symbolical
representation. We are not to suppose that it would be _literally_
fulfilled, or that, at the time referred to by the vision, four
celestial beings would be stationed in the four quarters of the world
for the purpose of checking and restraining the winds that blow from
the four points of the compass. The meaning is, that events would
occur which would be properly _represented_ by four angels standing
in the four quarters of the world, and having power over the winds.
¶ _Standing on the four corners of the earth._ This language is, of
course, accommodated to the prevailing mode of speaking of the earth
among the Hebrews. It was a common method among them to describe it as
a vast plain, having four corners, those corners being the prominent
points――north, south, east, and west. So we speak now of the four winds,
the four quarters of the world, &c. The Hebrews spoke of the earth,
as we do of the rising and setting of the sun and of the motions of
the heavenly bodies, according to appearances, and without aiming at
philosophical exactness. Comp. Notes on Job xxvi. 7. With this view
they spoke of the earth as an extended plain, and as having boundaries
or corners, as a plain or field naturally has. Perhaps, also, they used
this language with some allusion to an edifice, as having four corners;
for they speak also of the earth as having _foundations_. The language
which the Hebrews used was in accordance with the prevailing ideas
and language of the ancients on the subject. ¶ _Holding the four winds
of the earth._ The winds blow in fact from every quarter, but it is
convenient to speak of them as coming from the four principal points
of the compass, and this method is adopted probably in every language.
So among the Greeks and Latins, the winds were arranged under four
classes――Zephyrus, Boreas, Notus, and Eurus――considered as under
the control of a king, Æolus. See Eschenburg, _Man. Class. Lit._
§ 78, comp. § 108. The angels here are represented as “_holding_” the
winds――κρατοῦντας. That is, they held them back when about to sweep
over {171} the earth, and to produce far-spread desolation. This is an
allusion to a popular belief among the Hebrews, that the agency of the
angels was employed everywhere. It is not suggested that the angels
had _raised_ the tempest here, but only that they now restrained and
controlled it. The essential idea is, that they had _power_ over those
winds, and that they were now exercising that power by keeping them
back when they were about to spread desolation over the earth. ¶ _That
the wind should not blow on the earth._ That there should be a calm,
_as if_ the winds were held back. ¶ _Nor on the sea._ Nowhere――neither
on sea nor land. The sea and the land constitute the surface of the
globe, and the language here, therefore, denotes that there would be a
universal calm. ¶ _Nor on any tree._ To injure it. The _language_ here
used is such as would denote a state of profound quiet; as when we say
that it is so still that not a leaf of the trees moves.

In regard to the literal meaning of the symbol here employed there can
be no great difficulty; as to its application there may be more. The
winds are the proper symbols of wars and commotions. Comp. Da. vii. 2.
In Je. xlix. 36, 37 the symbol is both used and explained: “And upon
Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and
will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation
whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come. For I will cause Elam to
be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life.”
So in Je. li. 1, 2, a destroying wind is an emblem of destructive war:
“I will raise up against Babylon a destroying wind, and will send unto
Babylon fanners, that shall fan her, and shall empty her land.” Comp.
Horace, _Odes_, b. i. 14. The essential ideas, therefore, in this
portion of the symbol, cannot be mistaken. They are two: (1) that at
the period of time here referred to――after the opening of the sixth
seal and before the opening of the seventh――there would be a state of
things which would be well represented by rising tempests and storms,
which if unrestrained would spread desolation afar; and (2) that this
impending ruin was held back as if by angels having control of those
winds; that is, those tempests were not suffered to go forth to spread
desolation over the world. A suspended tempest; calamity held in check;
armies hovering on the borders of a kingdom, but not allowed to proceed
for a time; hordes of invaders detained, or stayed in their march, as
if by some restraining power not their own, and from causes not within
themselves――any of these things would be an obvious fulfilling of the
meaning of the symbol.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the
[240]seal of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice
to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and
the sea,

2. _And I saw another angel._ Evidently having no connection with the
four, and employed for another purpose. _This_ angel, also, must have
been symbolic; and all that is implied is, that something would be done
_as if_ an angel had done it. ¶ _Ascending from the east._ He appeared
in the east, and seemed to rise like the sun. It is not easy to
determine what is the special significancy, if any, of the _east_ here,
or why this quarter of the heavens is designated rather than the north,
the south, or the west. It may be that as light begins in the east,
this would be properly symbolic of something that could be compared
with the light of the morning; or that some influence in “sealing”
the servants of God would in fact go out from the east; or perhaps no
special significance is to be attached to the quarter from which the
angel is seen to come. It is not necessary to suppose that every minute
thing in a symbol is to receive a complete fulfilment, or that there
will be some particular thing to correspond with it. Perhaps all that
is meant here is, that as the sun comes forth with splendour from the
east, so the angel came with magnificence to perform a task――that of
sealing the servants of God――cheerful and joyous like that which the
sun performs. It is certain that from no other quarter of the heavens
would it be so appropriate to represent an angel as coming forth to
perform a purpose of light, and mercy, and salvation. It does not
seem to me, therefore, that we are to look, in the fulfilment of this,
for any special influence setting in _from the east_ as that which
is symbolized here. ¶ _Having the seal of the living God._ Bearing
it in his hands. In regard to this seal the following remarks may be
made:――(a) {172} The phrase “seal _of the living God_” doubtless means
that which God had appointed, or which he would use; that is, if God
himself came forth in this manner, he would use this seal for these
purposes. Men often have a seal of their own, with some name, symbol,
or device, which designates it as theirs, and which no other one has a
right to use. A seal is sometimes used by the person himself; sometimes
intrusted to a high officer of state; sometimes to the secretary of a
corporation; and sometimes, as a mark of special favour, to a friend.
In this case it was intrusted to an angel, who was authorized to use it,
and whose use of it would be sanctioned, of course, wherever he applied
it, by the living God, as if he had employed it himself. (b) As to the
_form_ of the seal, we have no information. It would be most natural to
suppose that the _name_ “of the living God” would be engraven on it, so
that that name would appear on anyone to whom it might be affixed. Comp.
Notes on 2 Ti. ii. 19. It was customary in the East to brand the name
of the master on the forehead of a slave (Grotius, _in loco_); and such
an idea would meet all that is implied in the _language_ here, though
there is no certain evidence that there is an allusion to that custom.
In subsequent times, in the church, it was common for Christians
to impress the sign of the cross on their foreheads (Tertullian
_de Corona_; Cyrill. lib. vi. See Grotius). As nothing is said here,
however, about any mark or device on the seal, conjecture is useless
as to what it was. (c) As to what was to be designated by the seal,
the main idea is clear, that it was to place some such mark upon his
friends that they would be known to be his, and that they would be safe
in the impending calamities. There is perhaps allusion here to Eze. ix.
4‒6, where the following direction to the prophet occurs:――“Go through
the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark
upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and that cry, for all the
abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he
said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite; let
not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay utterly old and young,
both maids and little children, and women; but come not near any man
upon whom is the mark.” The essential ideas in the _sealing_, in the
passage before us, would therefore seem to be, (1) that there would
be some mark, sign, or token, by which they who were the people of God
would be known; that is, there would be _something_ which would answer,
in this respect, the same purpose _as if_ a seal had been impressed
upon their foreheads. Whether this was an outward badge, or a religious
rite, or the doctrines which they would hold and by which they would be
known, or something in their spirit and manner which would characterize
his true disciples, may be a fair subject of inquiry. It is not
specifically designated by the use of the word. (2) It would be
something that would be conspicuous or prominent, _as if_ it were
impressed on the forehead. It would not be merely some _internal_
sealing, or some designation by which they would be known to themselves
and to God, but it would be something _apparent_, as if engraved on
the forehead. What this would be, whether a profession, or a form of
religion, or the holding of some doctrine, or the manifestation of a
particular spirit, is not here designated. (3) This would be something
appointed by God himself. It would not be of human origin, but would
be _as if_ an angel sent from heaven should impress it on the forehead.
If it refers to the doctrines which they would hold, they could not be
doctrines of human origin; if to the spirit which they would manifest,
it would be a spirit of heavenly origin; if to some outward protection,
it would be manifest that it was from God. (4) This would be a pledge
of safety. The design of sealing the persons referred to seems to have
been to secure their safety in the impending calamities. Thus the winds
were held back until those who were to be sealed could be designated,
and then they were to be allowed to sweep over the earth. These things,
therefore, we are to look for in the fulfilment of the symbol. ¶ _And
he cried with a loud voice._ As if he had authority to command, and as
if the four winds were about to be let forth upon the world. ¶ _To whom
it was given to hurt the earth and the sea._ Who had power committed
{173} to them to do this by means of the four winds.

3 Saying, [241]Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the
trees, till we have [242]sealed the servants of our God
[243]in their foreheads.

3. _Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea_, &c. Let the winds
be restrained until what is here designated shall be done. These
destroying angels were commanded to suspend the work of destruction
until the servants of God could be rendered secure. The division here,
as in ver. 1, of the “earth, the sea, and the trees,” seems to include
everything――water, land, and the productions of the earth. Nothing was
to be injured until the angel should designate the true servants of God.
¶ _Till we have sealed the servants of our God._ The use of the plural
“_we_” seems to denote that he did not expect to do it alone. Who were
to be associated with him, whether angels or men, he does not intimate;
but the work was evidently such that it demanded the agency of more
than one. ¶ _In their foreheads._ See Notes on ver. 2; comp. Eze. ix. 4,
5. A mark thus placed on the forehead would be conspicuous, and would
be something which could at once be recognized if destruction should
spread over the world. The fulfilment of this is to be found in two
things: (a) in something which would be conspicuous or prominent――so
that it could be seen; and (b) in the mark being of such a nature or
character that it would be a proper designation of the fact that they
were the true servants of God.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: _and there
were_ sealed [244]an hundred _and_ forty _and_ four thousand
of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

4. _And I heard the number of them which were sealed._ He does not
say _where_ he heard that, or _by whom_ it was communicated to him, or
_when_ it was done. The material point is, that he _heard_ it; he did
not _see_ it done. Either by the angel, or by some direct communication
from God, he was _told_ of the number that would be sealed, and of the
distribution of the whole number into twelve equal parts, represented
by the tribes of the children of Israel. ¶ _|And there were| sealed
an hundred |and| forty |and| four thousand of all the tribes of the
children of Israel._ In regard to this number, the first and the main
question is, whether it is meant that this was to be the _literal_
number, or whether it was _symbolical_; and, if the latter, of what
it is a symbol. I. As to the first of these inquiries, there does not
appear to be any good reason for doubt. The fair interpretation seems
to require that it should be understood as symbolical, or as designed
not to be literally taken; for (a) the whole scene is symbolical――the
winds, the angels, the sealing. (b) It cannot be supposed that this
number will include _all_ who will be sealed and saved. In whatever
way this is interpreted, and whatever we may suppose it to refer
to, we cannot but suppose that more than this number will be saved.
(c) The number is too exact and artificial to suppose that it is
literal. It is inconceivable that exactly the same number――precisely
twelve thousand――should be selected from each tribe of the children of
Israel. (d) If literal, it is necessary to suppose that this refers to
the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. But on every supposition
this is absurd. Ten of their tribes had been long before carried away,
and the distinction of the tribes was lost, no more to be recovered,
and the Hebrew people never have been, since the time of John, in
circumstances to which the description here could be applicable. These
considerations make it clear that the description here is symbolical.
But, II. Of _what_ is it symbolical? Is it of a large number, or of a
small number? Is it of those who would be saved from among the Jews, or
of all who would be saved in the Christian church――represented as the
“tribes of the children of Israel?” To these inquiries we may answer,
(1) that the representation seems to be rather that of a comparatively
_small_ number than a _large_ one, for these reasons: (a) The number
_of itself_ is not large. (b) The number is not large as _compared_
with those who must have constituted the tribes here referred to――the
number twelve thousand, for example, as compared with the whole number
of the tribe of Judah, of the tribe of Reuben, &c. (c) It would seem
from the language that there would be some _selection_ from a much
greater number. Thus, not _all_ in the tribes were sealed, but those
who were sealed were “of all the tribes”――ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς; that is,
_out of_ these tribes. So in the specification in each tribe――ἐκ φυλῆς
Ἰούδα, Ρουβὴν, &c. Some _out of_ the tribe, to wit, twelve thousand,
were sealed. It is not said of the {174} twelve thousand of the tribes
of Judah, Reuben, &c., that they _constituted_ the tribe, but that they
were sealed _out of_ the tribe, as a part of it preserved and saved.
“When the preposition ἐκ, or _out of_, stands after any such verb as
_sealed_, between a definite numeral and a noun of multitude in the
genitive, sound criticism requires, doubtless, that the numeral should
be thus construed as signifying, not the whole, but a part taken out”
(Elliott, i. 237). Comp. Ex. xxxii. 28; Nu. i. 21; 1 Sa. iv. 10. The
phrase, then, would properly denote those taken _out of_ some other and
greater number――as a portion of a tribe, and not the whole tribe. If
the reference here is to the church, it would seem to denote that a
portion only of that church would be sealed. (d) For the same reason
the idea would seem to be, that comparatively a _small_ portion is
referred to――as twelve thousand would be comparatively a small part
of one of the tribes of Israel; and if this refers to the church, we
should expect to find its fulfilment in a state of things in which the
largest proportion would _not_ be sealed; that is, in a corrupt state
of the church in which there would be many professors of religion, but
comparatively few who had real piety. (2) To the other inquiry――whether
this refers to those who would be sealed and saved among the Jews, or
to those in the Christian church――we may answer, (a) that there are
strong reasons for supposing the latter to be the correct opinion. Long
before the time of John all these distinctions of tribe were abolished.
The ten tribes had been carried away and scattered in distant lands,
never more to be restored; and it cannot be supposed that there was
any such _literal_ selection from the twelve tribes as is here spoken
of, or any such designation of twelve thousand from each. There was no
occasion――either when Jerusalem was destroyed, or at any other time――on
which there were such transactions as are here referred to occurring
in reference to the children of Israel. (b) The language is such as
a Christian, who had been by birth and education a Hebrew, would
naturally use if he wished to designate the church. Comp. Notes on Ja.
i. 1. Accustomed to speak of the people of God as “the twelve tribes
of Israel,” nothing was more natural than to transfer this language
to the church of the Redeemer, and to speak of it in that figurative
manner. Accordingly, from the necessity of the case, the language is
universally understood to have reference to the Christian church. Even
Professor Stuart, who supposes that the reference is to the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, interprets it of the
preservation of Christians, and their flight to Pella, beyond Jordan.
Thus interpreted, moreover, it accords with the entire symbolical
character of the representation. (c) The reference to the particular
_tribes_ may be a designed allusion to the Christian church as it would
be divided into denominations, or known by different names; and the
fact that a certain portion would be sealed from every tribe would
not be an unfit representation of the fact that a portion of all the
various churches or denominations would be sealed and saved. That
is, salvation would be confined to no one church or denomination, but
among them all there would be found true servants of God. It would be
improper to suppose that the division into tribes among the children
of Israel was designed to be a _type_ of the sects and denominations
in the Christian church, and yet the fact of such a division may not
improperly be employed as an _illustration_ of that; for the whole
church is made up not of any one denomination alone, but of all
who hold the truth combined, as the people of God in ancient times
consisted not solely of any one tribe, however large and powerful,
but of all combined. Thus understood, the symbol would point to a
time when there would be various denominations in the church, and
yet with the idea that true friends of God would be found among them
all. (d) Perhaps nothing can be argued from the fact that exactly
twelve thousand were selected from each of the tribes. In language
so figurative and symbolical as this, it could not be maintained that
this proves that the same definite number would be taken from each
denomination of Christians. Perhaps all that _can be_ fairly inferred
is, that there would be no partiality or preference for one more than
another; that there would be no favouritism on account of the tribe
or denomination to which any one belonged; but that the seal would
be impressed on all, of any denomination, who had the true spirit of
religion. No one would receive the token of the divine favour _because_
he was of the tribe {175} of Judah or Reuben; no one _because_ he
belonged to any particular denomination of Christians. Large numbers
from every branch of the church would be sealed; none would be sealed
because he belonged to one form of external organization rather than to
another; none would be excluded because he belonged to any one tribe,
if he had the spirit and held the sentiments which made it proper to
recognize him as a servant of God. These views seem to me to express
the true sense of this passage. No one can seriously maintain that
the writer meant to refer literally to the Jewish people; and if he
referred to the Christian church, it seems to be to some selection
that would be made out of the whole church, in which there would
be no favouritism or partiality, and to the fact that, in regard to
them, there would be some something which, in the midst of abounding
corruption or impending danger, would designate them as the chosen
people of God, and would furnish evidence that they would be safe.

5 Of the tribe of Juda _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the
tribe of Reuben _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of
Gad _were_ sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the
tribe of Nepthalim _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe
of Manasses _were_ sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the
tribe of Levi _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of
Issachar _were_ sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of
the tribe of Joseph _were_ sealed twelve thousand. Of the
tribe of Benjamin _were_ sealed twelve thousand.

5‒8. _Of the tribe of Juda |were| sealed twelve thousand._ That is, a
selection was made, or a number sealed, _as if_ it had been made from
one of the tribes of the children of Israel――the tribe of Judah. If the
remarks above made are correct, this refers to the Christian church,
and means, in connection with what follows, that each portion of the
church would furnish a definite part of the whole number sealed and
saved. We are not required to understand this of the exact number of
twelve thousand, but that the designation would be made from all parts
and branches of the church _as if_ a selection of the true servants
of God were made from the whole number of the tribes of Israel.――There
seems to be no particular reason why the tribe of Judah was mentioned
first. Judah was not the oldest of the sons of Jacob, and there was
no settled order in which the tribes were usually mentioned. The order
of their birth, as mentioned in Ge. xxix. xxx., is as follows: Reuben,
Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun,
Joseph, Benjamin. In the blessing of Jacob, Ge. xlix., this order is
changed, and is as follows:――Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun,
Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin. In the blessing
of Moses, De. xxxiii., a different order still is observed: Reuben,
Judah, Levi, Benjamin, Joseph, Zebulun, Issachar, Gad, Dan, Naphtali,
Asher; and in this last, moreover, Simeon is omitted. So, again,
in Eze. xlviii., there are two enumerations of the twelve tribes,
differing from each other, and both differing from the arrangements
above referred to: viz., in ver. 31‒34, where Levi is reckoned as one,
and Joseph as only one; and in ver. 1‒27, referring to the division of
the country, where Levi, who had no heritage in land, is omitted, and
Ephraim and Manasseh are counted as two tribes (Professor Stuart, ii.
172, 173). From facts like these it is clear that there was no certain
and settled order in which the tribes were mentioned by the sacred
writers. The same thing seems to have occurred in the enumeration of
the tribes, which would occur, for example, in the enumeration of the
several States of the American Union. There is indeed an order which is
usually observed, beginning with Maine, &c., but almost no two writers
would observe throughout the same order; nor should we deem it strange
if the order should be materially varied by even the same writer in
enumerating them at different times. Thus, at one time it might be
convenient to enumerate them according to their geographical position;
at another, in the order of their settlement; at another, in the order
of their admission into the Union; at another, in the order of their
size and importance; {176} at another, in the order in which they are
arranged in reference to political parties, &c. Something of the same
kind may have occurred in the order in which the tribes were mentioned
among the Jews. _Perhaps_ this may have occurred also of design, in
order that no one tribe might claim the precedence or the pre-eminence
by being always placed at the head of the list. If, as is supposed
above, the allusion in this enumeration of the tribes was to the
various portions of the Christian church, then perhaps the idea
intended to be conveyed is, that no one division of that church is to
have any preference on account of its locality, or its occupying any
particular country, or because it has more wealth, learning, or numbers
than others; but that all are to be regarded, where there is the true
spirit of religion, as on a level.

There are, however, three peculiarities in this enumeration of the
tribes which demand a more particular explanation. The number indeed is
twelve, but that number is made up in a peculiar manner. (1) _Joseph_
is mentioned, and also _Manasseh_. The matter of fact was, that Joseph
had two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Ge. xlviii. 1), and that these two
sons gave name to two of the tribes, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
There was, properly speaking, no tribe of the name of _Joseph_. In Nu.
xiii. the name Levi is omitted, as it usually is, because that tribe
had no inheritance in the division of the land; and in order that the
number twelve might be complete, Ephraim _and_ Joseph are mentioned
as two tribes, ver. 8, 11. In ver. 11 the writer states expressly
that by the tribe Joseph he meant Manasseh――“Of the tribe of Joseph,
_namely_, of the tribe of Manasseh,” &c. From this it would seem that,
as Manasseh was the oldest (Ge. xlviii. 14), the name _Joseph_ was
sometimes given to that tribe. As Ephraim, however, became the largest
tribe, and as Jacob in blessing the two sons of Joseph (Ge. xlviii. 14)
laid his right hand on Ephraim, and pronounced a special blessing
on him (ver. 19, 20), it would seem not improbable that, when not
particularly designated, the name _Joseph_ was given to that tribe,
as it is evidently in this place. Possibly the name _Joseph_ may have
been a general name which was occasionally applied to _either_ of these
tribes. In the long account of the original division of Canaan in Jos.
xiii.‒xix., Levi is omitted, because he had no heritage, and Ephraim
and Manasseh are mentioned as two tribes. The name Joseph in the
passage before us (ver. 8) is doubtless designed, as remarked above,
to refer to Ephraim. (2) In this list (ver. 7) the name of _Levi_
is inserted among the tribes. As already remarked, this name is not
commonly inserted among the tribes of the children of Israel, because
that tribe, being devoted to the sacerdotal office, had no inheritance
in the division of the country, but was scattered among the other
tribes. See Jos. xiv. 3, 4; xviii. 7. It may have been inserted here,
if this refers to the Christian church, to denote that the ministers of
the gospel, as well as other members of the church, would share in the
protection implied by the sealing; that is, to denote that no class in
the church would be excluded from the blessings of salvation. (3) The
name of one of the tribes――_Dan_――is omitted; so that by this omission,
and the insertion of the tribe of Levi, the original number of twelve
is preserved. There have been numerous conjectures as to the reason why
the tribe of _Dan_ is omitted here, but none of the solutions proposed
are without difficulty. All that can be known, or regarded as probable,
on the subject, seems to be this:――(a) As the tribe of Levi was usually
omitted in an enumeration of the tribes, because that tribe had no part
in the inheritance of the Hebrew people in the division of the land
of Canaan, so there appear to have been instances in which the names
of some of the other tribes were omitted, the reason for which is not
given. Thus, in De. xxxiii., in the blessing pronounced by Moses on
the tribes just before his death, the name Simeon is omitted. In 1 Ch.
iv.‒viii. the names of Zebulun and Dan are both omitted. It would seem,
therefore, that the name of a tribe might be sometimes omitted without
any particular reason being specified. (b) It has been supposed by some
that the name _Dan_ was omitted because that tribe was early devoted
to idolatry, and continued idolatrous to the time of the captivity.
Of that _fact_ there can be no doubt, for it is expressly affirmed in
Ju. xviii. 30; and that fact seems to be a sufficient reason for the
omission of the name. As being thus idolatrous, it was in a measure
separated {177} from the people of God, and deserved not to be reckoned
among them; and in enumerating those who were the servants of God,
there seemed to be a propriety that a tribe devoted to idolatry should
not be reckoned among the number. This will account for the omission,
without resorting to the supposition of Grotius, that the tribe of Dan
was extinct at the time when the Apocalypse was written――a fact which
also existed in regard to all the ten tribes; or to the supposition
of Andreas and others, that Dan is omitted because Antichrist was to
spring from that tribe――a supposition which is alike without proof and
without probability. The fact that Dan was omitted cannot be supposed
to have any special significancy in the case before us. Such an
omission is what, as we have seen, might have occurred at any time in
the enumeration of the tribes.

In reference to the application of this portion of the book (ver. 1‒8),
or of what is designed to be here represented, there has been, as might
be expected, a great variety of opinions. From the exposition of the
words and phrases which has been given, it is manifest that we are to
look for a series of events like the following:――(1) Some impending
danger, or something that threatened to sweep everything away――like
winds that were ready to blow on the earth. (2) That tempest restrained
or held back, as if the winds were held in check by an angel, and were
not suffered to sweep over the world. (3) Some new influence or power,
represented by an angel coming from the east――the great source of
light――that should designate the true church of God――the servants of
the Most High. (4) Some mark or note by which the true people of God
could be designated, or by which they could be known――_as if_ some name
were impressed on their foreheads. (5) A selection or election of the
number from a much greater number who were the professed, but were not
the true servants of God. (6) A definite, though comparatively a small
number thus designated out of the whole mass. (7) This number taken
from all the divisions of the professed people of God, in such numbers
and in such a manner, that it would be apparent that there would be no
partiality or favouritism; that is, that wherever the true servants of
God were found, they would be sealed and saved. These are things which
lie on the face of the passage, if the interpretation above given is
correct, and in its application it is necessary to find some facts that
will properly correspond with these things.

If the interpretation of the sixth seal proposed above is correct,
then we are to look for the fulfilment of this in events that soon
succeeded those which are there referred to, or at least which
had their commencement at about that time; and the inquiry now is,
whether there _were_ any events that would accord properly with the
interpretation here proposed: that is, any impending and spreading
danger; any restraining of that danger; any process of designating the
servants of God so as to preserve them; anything like a designation or
selection of them from among the masses of the professed people of God?
Now, in respect to this, the following facts accord so well with what
is demanded in the interpretation that it may be regarded as morally
certain that they were the things which were thus made to pass in
vision before the mind of John. They have at least this degree of
probability, that if it were admitted that he intended to describe
them, the symbols which are actually employed are those which it would
have been proper to select to represent them.

I. The impending danger, like winds restrained, that threatened
to sweep everything away, and to hasten on the end of the world.
In reference to this, there may have been two classes of impending
danger――that from the invasion of the northern hordes, referred to
in the sixth seal (ch. vi.), and that from the influx of error, that
threatened the ruin of the church. (a) As to the former, the language
used by John will accurately express the state of things as it existed
at the period supposed at the time of the sixth seal――the series of
events introduced, now suspended, like the opening of the seventh
seal. The idea is that of nations pressing on to conquest; heaving like
tempests on the borders of the empire; overturning everything in their
way; spreading desolation by fire and sword, _as if_ the world were
about to come to an end. The language used by Mr. Gibbon in describing
the times here referred to is so applicable, that it would seem almost
as if he had the symbols used by John in his eye. Speaking of the time
of Constantine, he says, “The _threatening {178} tempest_ of barbarians,
which so soon subverted the foundations of Roman greatness, was still
repelled, _or suspended on the frontiers_” (i. 362). This language
accurately expresses the condition of the Roman world at the period
succeeding the opening of the sixth seal; the period of suspended
judgments, in order that the servants of God might be sealed. See the
Notes on ch. vi. 12‒17. The nations which ultimately spread desolation
through the empire hovered around its borders, making occasional
incursions into its territory; even carrying their arms, as we have
seen in some instances, as far as Rome itself, but still restrained
from accomplishing the final purpose of overthrowing the city and the
empire. The church and the state alike were threatened with destruction,
and the impending wrath seemed only to be held back _as if_ to give
time to accomplish some other purpose. (b) At the same time there was
another class of evils which threatened to sweep like a tempest over
the church――the evils of error in doctrine that sprang up on the
establishment of Christianity by Constantine. That fact was followed
with a great increase of professors of religion, who, for various
purposes, crowded into a church patronized by the state――a condition of
things which tended to do more to destroy the church than all that had
been done by persecution had accomplished. This effect was natural;
and the church became filled with those who had yielded themselves to
the Christian faith from motives of policy, and who, having no true
spiritual piety, were ready to embrace the most lax views of religion,
and to yield themselves to any form of error. Of this period, and of
the effect of the conversion of Constantine in this respect, Mr. Gibbon
makes the following remarks, strikingly illustrative of the view now
taken of the meaning of this passage:――“The hopes of wealth and honours,
the example of an emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles,
diffused conviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually
fill the apartments of a palace. The cities which signalized a forward
zeal, by the voluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished
by municipal privileges, and rewarded with popular donatives; and
the new capital of the East gloried in the singular advantage, that
Constantinople was never profaned by the worship of idols. As the lower
ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those
who possessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon
followed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people
was purchased at an easy rate, if it be true that, in one year, twelve
thousand men were baptized at Rome, besides a proportionable number
of women and children, and that a white garment, with twenty pieces
of gold, had been promised by the emperor to every convert” (i. 425).
At a time, therefore, when it might have been supposed that, under the
patronage of a Christian emperor, the truth would have spread around
the world, the church was exposed to one of its greatest dangers――that
arising from the fact that it had become united with the state. About
the same time, also, there sprang up many of those forms of error
which have spread farthest over the Christian world, and which then
threatened to become the universal form of belief in the church.
Of this class of doctrine were the views of Arius, and the views of
Pelagius――forms of opinion which, there were strong reasons to fear,
might become the prevailing belief of the church, and essentially
change its character. About this time, also, the church was passing
into the state in which the Papacy would arise――that dark and gloomy
period in which error would spread over the Christian world, and the
true servants of God would retire for a long period into obscurity.
“We are now but a little way off from the commencement of that
noted period――obscurely hinted at by Daniel, plainly announced by
John――the twelve hundred and sixty prophetic days or years, for which
preparations of a very unusual kind, but requisite, doubtless, are
made. This period was to form the gloomiest, without exception, in
the annals of the world――the period of Satan’s highest success, and of
the church’s greatest depression; and lest she should become during it
utterly extinct, her members, never so few as then, were all specially
sealed. The long night passes on, darkening as it advances; but the
sealed company are not visible; they disappear from the Apocalyptic
stage, just as they then disappeared from the observation of the
world; for they fled away to escape the fire and the dungeons of their
persecutors, to hide in the hoary caves of the earth, or to inhabit
the {179} untrodden regions of the wilderness, or to dwell beneath the
shadow of the Alps, or to enjoy fellowship with God, emancipated and
unknown, in the deep seclusion and gloom of some convent” (_The Seventh
Vial_, London, 1848, pp. 27, 28). These facts seem to me to show,
with a considerable degree of probability, what was designated by the
_suspense_ which occurred after the opening of the sixth seal――when
the affairs of the world _seemed_ to be hastening on to the great
catastrophe. At that period the prophetic eye sees the tendency of
things suddenly arrested; the winds held back, the church preserved,
and a series of events introduced, intended to designate and to save
from the great mass of those who professedly constituted the “tribes of
Israel,” a definite number who should be in fact the true church of God.

II. The facts, then, to which there is reference in checking the
tendency of things, and sealing the servants of God, may have been the
following:――(a) The preservation of the church from extinction during
those calamitous periods when ruin seemed about to sweep over the Roman
world. Not only as a matter of fact was there a suspension of those
impending judgments that seemed to threaten the very extinction of the
empire by the invasion of the northern hordes (see Notes on ch. vi.),
but there were _special_ acts in favour of the church, by which these
fierce barbarians appeared not only to be restrained from destroying
the church, but to be influenced by tenderness and sympathy for it, as
if they were raised up to preserve it when Rome had done all it could
to destroy it. It would seem _as if_ God restrained the rage of these
hordes for the sake of preserving his church; _as if_ he had touched
their hearts that they might give to Christians an opportunity to
escape in the impending storm. We may refer here particularly to the
conduct of Alaric, king of the Goths, in the attack on Rome already
referred to; and, as usual, we may quote from Mr. Gibbon, who will not
be suspected of a design to contribute anything to the illustration of
the Apocalypse. “At the hour of midnight,” says he (vol. ii. pp. 260,
261), “the Salarian Gate was silently opened, and the inhabitants were
awakened by the tremendous sound of the Gothic trumpet. Eleven hundred
and sixty-three years after the foundation of Rome, the imperial city,
which had subdued and civilized so considerable a part of mankind,
was delivered to the licentious fury of the tribes of Germany and
Scythia. The proclamation of Alaric, when he forced his entrance into
the vanquished city, discovered, however, some regard for the laws
of humanity and religion. He encouraged his troops boldly to seize
the rewards of valour, and to enrich themselves with the spoils of a
wealthy and effeminate people; but he exhorted them at the same time
to spare the lives of the unresisting citizens, _and to respect the
churches of the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul as holy and inviolable
sanctuaries_. While the barbarians roamed through the city in quest of
prey, the humble dwelling of an aged virgin, who had devoted her life
to the service of the altar, was forced open by one of the powerful
Goths. He immediately demanded, though in civil language, all the
gold and silver in her possession; and was astonished at the readiness
with which she conducted him to a splendid hoard of massy plate, of
the richest materials and the most curious workmanship. The barbarian
viewed with wonder and delight this valuable acquisition, till he was
interrupted by a serious admonition, addressed to him in the following
words: ‘These,’ said she, ‘are the consecrated vessels belonging to St.
Peter; if you presume to touch them, the sacrilegious deed will remain
on your conscience: for my part, I dare not keep what I am unable to
defend.’ The Gothic captain, struck with reverential awe, despatched a
messenger to inform the king of the treasure which he had discovered;
and received a peremptory order from Alaric, that all the consecrated
plate and ornaments should be transported, without damage or delay, to
the church of the apostle. From the extremity, perhaps, of the Quirinal
hill, to the distant quarter of the Vatican, a numerous detachment of
the Goths, marching in order of battle through the principal streets,
protected, with glittering arms, the long train of their devout
companions, who bore aloft on their heads the sacred vessels of gold
and silver; and the martial shouts of the barbarians were mingled
with the sound of religious psalmody. From all the adjacent houses
a crowd of Christians hastened to join this edifying procession; and a
multitude of fugitives, without distinction of age or rank, or even of
sect, had {180} the good fortune to escape to the secure and hospitable
sanctuary of the Vatican.” In a note Mr. Gibbon adds: “According
to Isidore, Alaric himself was heard to say, that he waged war with
the Romans, and not with the apostles.” He adds also (p. 261), “The
learned work concerning the _City of God_ was professedly composed by
St. Augustine to justify the ways of Providence in the destruction
of the Roman greatness. He celebrates with peculiar satisfaction this
memorable triumph of Christ; and insults his adversaries by challenging
them to produce some similar example of a town taken by storm, in
which the fabulous gods of antiquity had been able to protect either
themselves or their deluded votaries.” We may refer here, also, to that
work of Augustine as illustrating the passage before us. In book i.
ch. 2, he defends this position, that “there never was war in which
the conquerors would spare them whom they conquered for the gods they
worshipped”――referring particularly to the sacking of Troy; in ch. 3
he appeals to the example of Troy; in ch. 4 he appeals to the sanctuary
of Juno, in Troy; in ch. 5 he shows that the Romans never spared the
temples of those cities which they destroyed; and in ch. 6 he maintains
that the fact that mercy was shown by the barbarians in the sacking
of Rome, was “through the power of the name of Jesus Christ.” In
illustration of this he says, “Therefore, all the spoil, murder,
violence, and affliction, that in this fresh calamity came upon Rome,
were nothing but the ordinary effects following the custom of war.
But that which was so unaccustomed, that the savage nature of the
barbarians should put on a new shape, and appear so merciful that it
would make choice of great and spacious churches to fill with such as
it meant to show pity on, from which none should be haled to slaughter
or slavery, in which none should be hurt, to which many by their
courteous foes should be conducted, and out of which none should be
led into bondage; this is due to the name of Christ, this is due to
the Christian profession; he that seeth not is blind; he that seeth
and praiseth it not is unthankful; he that hinders him that praiseth
it is mad” (_City of God_, p. 11; London, 1620). Such a preservation of
Christians; such a suspension of judgments, when all things seemed to
be on the verge of ruin, would not be _inappropriately_ represented by
winds that threatened to sweep over the world; by the staying of those
winds by some remarkable power, as by an angel; and by the special
interposition which spared the church in the tumults and terrors
of a siege, and of the sacking of a city. (b) There _may_ have been
a reference to another class of Divine interpositions at about the
same time, to designate the true servants of God. It has been already
remarked, that from the time when Constantine took the church under
his patronage, and it became connected with the state, there was a
large accession of nominal professors in the church, producing a great
corruption in regard to spiritual religion, and an extended prevalence
of error. Now the delay here referred to, between the opening of the
sixth and seventh seals, _may_ have referred to the fact, that during
this period the true doctrines of Christianity would be vindicated
and established in such a way that the servants of God would be
“sealed” and designated in contradistinction from the great mass
of the professed followers of Christ, and from the numerous advocates
of error. _From_ that mass a certain and definite number was to be
sealed――implying, as we have seen, that there would be a _selection_,
or that there would be something which would _discriminate_ them from
the multitudes as the true servants of God. This is represented by an
angel coming from the east: the angel representing the new heavenly
influence coming upon the church; and the coming from the east――as the
east is the quarter where the sun rises――denoting that it came from the
source and fountain of light――that is, God. The “sealing” would denote
anything in this new influence or manifestation which would mark the
true children of God, and would be appropriately employed to designate
any doctrines which would keep up true religion in the world; which
would preserve correct views about God, the way of salvation, and
the nature of true religion, and which would thus determine where the
church of God really was. If there should he a tendency in the church
to degenerate into formality; if the rules of discipline should be
relaxed; if error should prevail as to what constitutes spiritual
religion; and if there should be a new influence at that time which
would distinguish those who were the children {181} of God from those
who were not, _this_ would be appropriately represented by the angel
from the east, and by the sealing of the servants of God. Now it
requires but a slight knowledge of the history of the Roman empire,
and of the church at the period supposed here to be referred to, to
perceive that all this occurred. There was a large influx of professed
converts. There was a vast increase of worldliness. There was a wide
diffusion of error. Religion was fast becoming mere formalism. The true
church was apparently fast verging to ruin. At this period God raised
up distinguished men――as if they had been angels ascending from the
east――who came as with the “seal of the living God”――the doctrines of
grace, and just views of spiritual religion――to designate who were,
and who were not, the “true servants of God” among the multitudes who
professed to be his followers. Such were the doctrines of Athanasius
and Augustine――those great doctrines on which the very existence of the
true church has in all ages depended. The doctrines thus illustrated
and defended were fitted to make a broad line of distinction between
the true church and the world, and this would be well represented by
the symbol employed here――for it is by these doctrines that the true
people of God are sealed and confirmed. On this subject comp. Elliott,
i. 279‒292. The general sense here intended to be expressed is,
that there was at the period referred to, after the conversion of
Constantine, a decided tendency to a worldly, formal, lax kind of
religion in the church; a very prevalent denial of the doctrine of
the Trinity and of the doctrines of grace; a lax mode of admitting
members to the church, with little or no evidence of true conversion;
a disposition to attribute saving grace to the ordinances of religion,
and especially to baptism; a disposition to rely on the outward
ceremonies of religion, with little acquaintance with its spiritual
power; and a general breaking down of the barriers between the church
and the world, as there is usually in a time of outward prosperity,
and especially when the church is connected with the state. At
this time there arose another set of influences well represented
by the angel coming from the east, and sealing the true servants
of God, in illustration and confirmation of the true doctrines of
Christianity――doctrines on which the spirituality of the church has
always depended: the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, the
depravity of man, regeneration by the agency of the Holy Spirit,
justification by faith, the sovereignty of God, and kindred doctrines.
Such doctrines have in all ages served to determine where the true
church is, and to designate and “seal” the servants of the Most High.
(c) This process of “sealing” may be regarded as continued during the
long night of Papal darkness that was coming upon the church, when
error would abound, and the religion of forms would be triumphant.
Even then, in places obscure and unknown, the work of sealing the true
servants of God might be going forward――for even in those times of
gloomy night there _were_ those, though comparatively few in number,
who loved the truth, and who were the real servants of God. The number
of the elect was filling up, for even in the darkest times there were
those who loved the cause of spiritual religion, and who bore upon them
the impress of the “seal of the living God.” Such appears to have been
the intent of this sealing vision: a staying of the desolation that,
in various forms, was sweeping over the world, in order that the true
church might be safe, and that a large number, from all parts of the
church, might be sealed and designated as the true servants of God. The
winds that blowed from all quarters were stayed as if by mighty angels.
A new influence, from the great source of light, came in to designate
those who were the true servants of the Most High, as if an angel had
come from the rising sun with the seal of the living God, to impress
it on their foreheads. A selection was made out of a church filling up
with formalists, and in which the true doctrines of spiritual religion
were fast fading away, of those who could be designated as the true
servants of God. By their creed, and their lives, and their spirit, and
their profession, they could be designated as the true servants of God,
as if a visible mark were impressed on their foreheads. This selection
was confined to no place, no class, no tribe, no denomination. It
was taken from the whole of Israel, in such numbers that it could be
seen that none of the tribes were excluded from the honour, but that,
wherever the true spirit of religion was, God was acknowledging these
tribes――or churches――as his, and there he was gathering a people {182}
to himself. This would be long continued, until new scenes would open,
and the eye would rest on other developments in the series of symbols,
revealing the glorious host of the redeemed emerging from darkness, and
in countless numbers triumphing before the throne.

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no
man could number, [245]of all nations, and kindreds, and
people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the
Lamb, [246]clothed with white robes, and [247]palms in their
hands;

9. _After this._ Gr., “After these things”――Μετὰ ταῦτα: that is, after
I saw these things thus represented I had another vision. This would
undoubtedly imply, not only that he _saw_ these things after he had
seen the sealing of the hundred and forty-four thousand, but that they
would _occur_ subsequently to that. But he does not state whether they
would immediately occur, or whether other things might not intervene.
As a matter of fact, the vision seems to be transferred from earth to
heaven――for the multitudes which he saw appeared “before the throne”
(ver. 9); that is, before the throne of God in heaven. The design seems
to be to carry the mind forward quite beyond the storms and tempests
of earth――the scenes of woe and sorrow――the days of error, darkness,
declension, and persecution――to that period when the church should be
triumphant in heaven. Instead, therefore, of leaving the impression
that the hundred and forty-four thousand would be _all_ that would be
saved, the eye is directed to an innumerable host, gathered from all
ages, all climes, and all people, triumphant in glory. The multitude
that John thus saw was not, therefore, I apprehend, the same as the
hundred and forty-four thousand, but a far greater number――the whole
assembled host of the redeemed in heaven, gathered there as _victors_,
with palm-branches, the symbols of triumph, in their hands. The
_object_ of the vision is to cheer those who are desponding in times
of religious declension and in seasons of persecution, and when the
number of true Christians seems to be small, with the assurance that
an immense host shall be redeemed from our world, and be gathered
triumphant before the throne. ¶ _I beheld._ That is, he saw them
before the throne. The vision is transferred from earth to heaven; from
the contemplation of the scene when desolation seemed to impend over
the world, and when comparatively few in number were “sealed” as the
servants of God, to the time when the redeemed would be triumphant,
and when a host which no man can number would stand before God. ¶ _And,
lo._ Indicating surprise. A vast host burst upon the view. Instead
of the comparatively few who were sealed, an innumerable company were
presented to his vision, and surprise was the natural effect. ¶ _A
great multitude._ Instead of the comparatively small number on which
the attention had been fixed. ¶ _Which no man could number._ The number
was so great that no one could count them, and John, therefore, did
not attempt to do it. This is such a statement as one would make who
should have a view of all the redeemed in heaven. It would appear to
be a number beyond all power of computation. This representation is
in strong contrast with a very common opinion that only a few will be
saved. The representation in the Bible is, that immense hosts of the
human race will be saved; and though vast numbers will be lost, and
though at any particular period of the world hitherto it may seem that
few have been in the path to life, yet we have every reason to believe
that, taking the race at large, and estimating it as a whole, a vast
majority of the whole will be brought to heaven. For the true religion
is yet to spread all over the world, and perhaps for many, many
thousands of years, piety is to be as prevalent as sin has been; and
in that long and happy time of the world’s history we may hope that the
numbers of the saved may surpass all who have been lost in past periods,
beyond any power of computation. See Notes on ch. xx. 3‒6. ¶ _Of all
nations._ Not only of Jews; not only of the nations which, in the time
of the sealing vision, had embraced the gospel, but of all the nations
of the earth. This implies two things: (a) that the gospel would be
preached among all nations; and (b) that even when it was thus preached
to them they would keep up their national characteristics. There can
be no hope of blending all the nations of the earth under one visible
sovereignty. They may all be subjected to the spiritual reign of the
Redeemer, but still there is no reason to suppose that they will not
have their distinct organizations and laws. ¶ _And kindreds_――φυλῶν.
This word properly refers to those who are {183} descended from a
common ancestry, and hence denotes a race, lineage, kindred. It was
applied to the tribes of Israel, as derived from the same ancestor,
and for the same reason might be applied to a _clan_, and thence to
any division in a nation, or to a nation itself――properly retaining the
notion that it was descended from a common ancestor. Here it would seem
to refer to a smaller class than a nation――the different clans of which
a nation might be composed. ¶ _And people_――λαῶν. This word refers
properly to a people or community as a _mass_, without reference to
its origin or any of its divisions. The former word would be used by
one who should look upon a nation as made up of portions of distinct
languages, clans, or families; this word would be used by one who
should look on such an assembled people as a mere mass of human
beings, with no reference to their difference of clanship, origin, or
language. ¶ _And tongues._ Languages. This word would refer also to
the inhabitants of the earth, considered with respect to the fact that
they speak different languages. The use of particular languages does
not designate the precise boundaries of nations――for often many people
speaking different languages are united as one nation, and often those
who speak the same language constitute distinct nations. The view,
therefore, with which one would look upon the dwellers on the earth, in
the use of the word _tongues_ or _languages_, would be, not as divided
into nations; not with reference to their lineage or clanship; and not
as a mere mass without reference to any distinction, but as divided
by _speech_. The meaning of the whole is, that persons from all parts
of the earth, as contemplated in these points of view, would be among
the redeemed. Comp. Notes on Da. iii. 4; iv. 1. ¶ _Stood before the
throne._ The throne of God. See Notes on ch. iv. 2. The throne is there
represented as set up in heaven, and the vision here is a vision of
what will occur in heaven. It is designed to carry the thoughts beyond
_all_ the scenes of conflict, strife, and persecution on earth, to
the time when the church shall be triumphant in glory――when all storms
shall have passed by; when all persecutions shall have ceased; when
all revolutions shall have occurred; when all the elect――not only the
hundred and forty-four thousand of the sealed, but of all nations and
times――shall have been gathered in. There was a beautiful propriety
in this vision. John saw the tempests stayed, as by the might of
angels. He saw a new influence and power that would seal the true
servants of God. But those tempests were stayed only for a time,
and there were more awful visions in reserve than any which had been
exhibited――visions of woe and sorrow, of persecution and of death. It
was appropriate, therefore, just at this moment of calm suspense――of
delayed judgments――to suffer the mind to rest on the triumphant close
of the whole in heaven, when a countless host would be gathered there
with palms in their hands, uniting with angels in the worship of God.
The mind, by the contemplation of this beautiful vision, would be
refreshed and strengthened for the disclosure of the awful scenes
which were to occur on the sounding of the trumpets under the seventh
seal. The simple idea is, that, amidst the storms and tempests of
life――scenes of existing or impending trouble and wrath――it is well to
let the eye rest on the scene of the final triumph, when innumerable
hosts of the redeemed shall stand before God, and when sorrow shall be
known no more. ¶ _And before the Lamb._ In the midst of the throne――in
heaven. See Notes on ch. v. 6. ¶ _Clothed with white robes._ The
emblems of innocence or righteousness, uniformly represented as the
raiment of the inhabitants of heaven. See Notes on ch. iii. 4; vi. 11.
¶ _And palms in their hands._ Emblems of victory. Branches of the
palm-tree were carried by the victors in the athletic contests of
Greece and Rome, and in triumphal processions. See Notes on Mat. xxi. 8.
The palm-tree――straight, elevated, majestic――was an appropriate emblem
of triumph. The portion of it which was borne in victory was the long
_leaf_ which shoots out from the top of the tree. Comp. Notes on Is.
iii. 26. See Eschenberg, _Manual of Class. Lit._ p. 243, and Le. xxiii.
40: “And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees,
_branches of palm-trees_,” &c. So in the Saviour’s triumphal entry into
Jerusalem (Jn. xii. 12, 13)――“On the next day much people took branches
of {184} palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna.”

10 And [248]cried with a loud voice, saying, [249]Salvation to
our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

10. _And cried with a loud voice._ Comp. Zec. iv. 7. This is
expressive of the greatness of their joy; the ardour and earnestness
of their praise. ¶ _Salvation to our God._ The word rendered
_salvation_――σωτηρία――means properly safety, deliverance, preservation;
then welfare or prosperity; then victory; then, in a Christian sense,
deliverance from punishment and admission to eternal life. Here the
idea seems to be that their deliverance from sin, danger, persecution,
and death, was to be ascribed solely to God. It cannot be meant,
as the words would seem to imply, that they desired that God might
have salvation; but the sense is, that _their_ salvation was to be
attributed entirely to him. This will undoubtedly be the song of the
released for ever, and all who reach the heavenly world will feel that
they owe their deliverance from eternal death, and their admission
to glory, wholly to him. Professor Robinson (_Lex._) renders the word
here _victory_. The fair meaning is, that _whatever_ is included in the
word _salvation_ will be due to God alone――the deliverance from sin,
danger, and death; the triumph over every foe; the resurrection from
the grave; the rescue from eternal burnings; the admission to a holy
heaven――_victory_ in all that that word implies will be due to God.
¶ _Which sitteth upon the throne._ Notes on ch. iv. 2. ¶ _And unto the
Lamb._ Notes on ch. v. 6. God the Father, and He who is the Lamb of
God, alike claim the honour of salvation. It is observable here that
the redeemed ascribe their salvation to the Lamb as well as to Him who
is on the throne. Could they do this if he who is referred to as the
“Lamb” were a mere man? Could they if he were an angel? Could they if
he were not equal with the Father? Do those who are in heaven worship a
creature? Will they unite a created being with the Anointed One in acts
of solemn adoration and praise?

11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and
_about_ the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the
throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

11. _And all the angels stood round about the throne._ Notes on ch.
v. 11. ¶ _And |about| the elders._ Notes on ch. iv. 4. ¶ _And the four
beasts._ Notes on ch. iv. 6. The meaning is, that the angels stood
in the _outer_ circle, or _outside_ of the elders and the four living
creatures. The redeemed, it is manifest, occupied the inner circle, and
were near the throne, though their precise location is not mentioned.
The angels sympathize with the church redeemed and triumphant, as
they did with the church in its conflicts and trials, and they now
appropriately unite with that church in adoring and praising God. They
see in that redemption new displays of the character of God, and they
rejoice that that church is rescued from its troubles, and is now
brought triumphant to heaven. ¶ _And fell before the throne on their
faces._ The usual position of profound adoration, ch. iv. 10; v. 8.
¶ _And worshipped God._ Notes on ch. v. 11, 12.

12 Saying, [250]Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and
thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, _be_ unto our
God for ever and ever. Amen.

12. _Saying, Amen._ See Notes on ch. i. 7. The word _Amen_ here is
a word strongly affirming the truth of what is said, or expressing
hearty assent to it. It may be uttered, as expressing this, either
in the beginning or end of a sentence. Thus _wills_ are commonly
commenced, “In the name of God, _Amen_.” ¶ _Blessing, and glory_, &c.
Substantially the same ascription of praise occurs in ch. v. 12. See
Notes on that verse. The general idea is, that the highest kind of
praise is to be ascribed to God; everything excellent in character
is to be attributed to him; every blessing which is received is to be
traced to him. The _order_ of the words indeed is changed, but the
sense is substantially the same. In the former case (ch. v. 12) the
ascription of praise is to the Lamb――the Son of God; here it is to God.
In both instances the worship is described as rendered in heaven; and
the use of the language shows that God and the Lamb are regarded in
heaven as entitled to equal praise. The only words found here which do
not occur in {185} ch. v. 12 are _thanksgiving_ and _might_――words
which require no particular explanation.

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are
these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

13. _And one of the elders._ See Notes on ch. iv. 4. That is, as
there understood, one of the representatives of the church before the
throne. ¶ _Answered._ The word _answer_, with us, means to reply to
something which has been said. In the Bible, however, the word is not
unfrequently used in the _beginning_ of a speech, where nothing has
been said――as if it were a reply to something that _might_ be said
on the subject; or to something that is passing through the mind of
another; or to something in the case under consideration which suggests
an inquiry. Comp. Is. lxv. 24; Da. ii. 26; Ac. v. 8. Thus it is used
here. John was looking on the host, and reflecting on the state of
things; and to the train of thought passing through his mind the angel
_answered_ by an inquiry as to a part of that host. Professor Stuart
renders it _accosted me_. ¶ _What are these which are arrayed in white
robes?_ _Who_ are these? The object evidently is to bring the case of
these persons more particularly into view. The vast host with branches
of palm had attracted the attention of John, but it was the object of
the speaker to turn his thoughts to a particular part of the host――the
martyrs who stood among them. He would seem, therefore, to have turned
to a particular portion of the immense multitude of the redeemed,
and by an emphasis on the word _these_――“Who are _these_”――to have
fixed the eye upon them. _All_ those who are before the throne are
represented as clothed in white robes (ver. 9), but the eye might
be directed to a particular part of them as grouped together, and
as having something peculiar in their position or appearance. There
was a _propriety_ in thus directing the mind of John to the martyrs
as triumphing in heaven in a time when the churches were suffering
persecution, and in view of the vision which he had had of times of
darkness and calamity coming upon the world at the opening of the sixth
seal. Beyond all the scenes of sorrow and grief, he was permitted to
see the martyrs triumphing in heaven. ¶ _Arrayed in white robes._ Notes
on ver. 9. ¶ _And whence came they?_ The object is to fix the attention
more distinctly on what is said of them, that they came up out of great
tribulation.

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me.
These are they which [251]came out of great tribulation, and
have [252]washed their robes, and made them white [253]in the
blood of the Lamb.

14. _And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest._ The word _sir_ in this
place――κύριε, _lord_――is a form of respectful address, such as would
be used when speaking to a superior, Ge. xliii. 20; Mat. xiii. 27;
xxi. 30; xxvii. 63; Jn. iv. 11, 15, 19, 49; v. 7; xii. 21; xx. 15. The
simple meaning of the phrase “thou knowest” is, that he who had asked
the question must be better informed than he to whom he had proposed
it. It is, on the part of John, a modest confession that he did not
know, or could not be presumed to know, and at the same time the
respectful utterance of an opinion that he who addressed this question
to him must be in possession of this knowledge. ¶ _And he said unto
me._ Not offended with the reply, and ready, as he had evidently
intended to do, to give him the information which he needed. ¶ _These
are they which came out of great tribulation._ The word rendered
_tribulation_――θλίψις――is a word of general character, meaning
_affliction_, though perhaps there is here an allusion to persecution.
The sense, however, would be better expressed by the phrase _great
trials_. The object seems to have been to set before the mind of
the apostle a view of those who had suffered much, and who by their
sufferings had been sanctified and prepared for heaven, in order to
encourage those who might be yet called to suffer. ¶ _And have washed
their robes._ To wit, in the blood of the Lamb. ¶ _And made them white
in the blood of the Lamb._ There is some incongruity in saying that
they had made them _white_ in the _blood_ of the Lamb; and the meaning
therefore must be, that they had _cleansed_ or _purified_ them in that
blood. Under the ancient ritual, various things about the sanctuary
were _cleansed_ from ceremonial defilement by the sprinkling of blood
on them――the {186} blood of sacrifice. In accordance with that usage,
the blood of the Lamb――of the Lord Jesus――is said to cleanse and purify.
John sees a great company with white robes. The means by which it is
said they became white or pure is the blood of the Lamb. It is not said
that they were made white as the result of their sufferings or their
afflictions, but by the blood of the Lamb. The course of thought here
is such that it would be natural to suppose that, if at any time the
great deeds or the sufferings of the saints could contribute to the
fact that they will wear white robes in heaven, this is an occasion on
which there might be such a reference. But there is no allusion to that.
It is not by their own sufferings and trials, their persecutions and
sorrows, that they are made holy, but by the blood of the Lamb that had
been shed for sinners. This reference to the blood of the Lamb is one
of the incidental proofs that occur so frequently in the Scriptures
of the reality of the atonement. It could be only in allusion to that,
and with an implied belief in that, that the blood of the Lamb could be
referred to as cleansing the robes of the saints in heaven. If he shed
his blood merely as other men have done; if he died only as a martyr,
what propriety would there have been in referring to his blood more
than to the blood of any other martyr? And what influence could the
blood of _any_ martyr have in cleansing the robes of the saints in
heaven? The fact is, that if that were all, such language would be
unmeaning. It is never used except in connection with the blood of
Christ; and the language of the Bible everywhere is such as would be
employed on the supposition that he shed his blood to make expiation
for sin, and on no other supposition. On the general meaning of the
language used here, and the sentiment expressed, see Notes on He. ix.
14 and 1 Jn. i. 7.

15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him
day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne
[254]shall dwell among them.

15. _Therefore are they before the throne of God._ The reason why they
are there is to be traced to the fact that the Lamb shed his blood to
make expiation for sin. No other reason can be given why any one of
the human race is in heaven; and that is reason enough why any of that
race are there. ¶ _And serve him day and night in his temple._ That is,
continually or constantly. Day and night constitute the whole of time,
and this expression, therefore, denotes constant and uninterrupted
service. On earth, toil is suspended by the return of night, and the
service of God is intermitted by the necessity of rest; in heaven,
as there will be no weariness, there will be no need of intermission,
and the service of God, varied doubtless to meet the state of the
mind, will be continued for ever. The phrase, “to serve him in his
temple,” refers undoubtedly to heaven, regarded as the temple or
holy dwelling-place of God. See Notes on ch. i. 6. ¶ _And he that
sitteth on the throne._ God. Notes, ch. iv. 2. ¶ _Shall dwell among
them_――σκηνώσει. This word properly means, _to tent_, _to pitch a
tent_; and, in the New Testament, to dwell as in tents. The meaning
here is, that God would dwell among them as in a tent, or would have
his abode with them. Perhaps the allusion is to the tabernacle in the
wilderness. That was regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God,
and that always occupied a central place among the tribes of Israel. So
in heaven there will be the consciousness always that God dwells there
among his people, and that the redeemed are gathered around him in his
own house. Professor Stuart renders this, it seems to me, with less
beauty and propriety, “will spread his tent over them,” as meaning that
he would receive them into intimate connection and union with him, and
offer them his protection. Comp. ch. xxi. 3.

16 They shall [255]hunger no more, neither thirst any more;
neither shall the sun light on them, [256]nor any heat.

16. _They shall hunger no more._ A considerable portion of the
redeemed who will be there, were, when on earth, subjected to the
evils of famine; many who perished with hunger. In heaven they will be
subjected to that evil no more, for there will be no want that will not
be supplied. The bodies which the redeemed will have――spiritual bodies
(1 Co. xv. 44)――will doubtless be such as will be nourished in some
other way than by food, if they require any nourishment; and whatever
that nourishment may be, it will be fully supplied. The passage here
is taken from Is. xlix. 10: {187} “They shall not hunger nor thirst;
neither shall the heat nor sun smite them.” See Notes on that passage.
¶ _Neither thirst any more._ As multitudes of the redeemed have
been subjected to the evils of hunger, so have multitudes also been
subjected to the pains of thirst. In prison; in pathless deserts; in
times of drought, when wells and fountains were dried up, they have
suffered from this cause――a cause producing as intense suffering
perhaps as any that man endures. Comp. Ex. xvii. 3; Ps. lxiii. 1;
La. iv. 4; 2 Co. xi. 27. It is easy to conceive of persons suffering so
intensely from thirst that the highest vision of felicity would be such
a promise as that in the words before us――“neither thirst any more.”
¶ _Neither shall the sun light on them._ It is hardly necessary,
perhaps, to say that the word _light_ here does not mean to enlighten,
to give light to, to shine on. The Greek is πέσῃ――_fall on_――and the
reference, probably, is to the intense and burning heat of the sun,
commonly called a _sunstroke_. Excessive heat of the sun, causing great
pain or sudden death, is not a very uncommon thing among us, and must
have been more common in the warm climates and burning sands of the
countries in the vicinity of Palestine. The meaning here is, that in
heaven they would be free from this calamity. ¶ _Nor any heat._ In
Is. xlix. 10, from which place this is quoted, the expression is שָׁרָב,
_sharab_, properly denoting heat or burning, and particularly the
_mirage_, the excessive heat of a sandy desert producing a vapour
which has a striking resemblance to water, and which often misleads the
unwary traveller by its deceptive appearance. See Notes on Is. xxxv. 7.
The expression here is equivalent to intense heat; and the meaning is,
that in heaven the redeemed will not be subjected to any such suffering
as the traveller often experiences in the burning sands of the desert.
The language would convey a most grateful idea to those who had been
subjected to these sufferings, and is one form of saying that, in
heaven, the redeemed will be delivered from the ills which they suffer
in this life. Perhaps the whole image here is that of travellers who
have been on a long journey, exposed to hunger and thirst, wandering in
the burning sands of the desert, and exposed to the fiery rays of the
sun, at length reaching their quiet and peaceful home, where they would
find safety and abundance. The believer’s journey from earth to heaven
is such a _pilgrimage_.

17 For the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, shall
[257]feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of
waters: and God shall [258]wipe away all tears from their eyes.

17. _For the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne._ Notes on
ch. v. 6. He is still the great agent in promoting the happiness of the
redeemed in heaven. ¶ _Shall feed them._ Rather, shall exercise over
them the office of a shepherd――ποιμανεῖ. This includes much more than
mere _feeding_. It embraces all the care which a shepherd takes of his
flock――watching them, providing for them, guarding them from danger.
Comp. Ps. xxiii. 1, 2, 5; xxxvi. 8. See this fully illustrated in the
Notes on Is. xl. 11. ¶ _And shall lead them unto living fountains of
waters._ _Living_ fountains refer to running streams, as contrasted
with standing water and stagnant pools. See Notes on Jn. iv. 10.
The allusion is undoubtedly to the happiness of heaven, represented
as fresh and everflowing, like streams in the desert. No image of
happiness, perhaps, is more vivid, or would be more striking to an
Oriental, than that of such fountains flowing in sandy and burning
wastes. The word _living_ here must refer to the fact that that
happiness will be perennial. These fountains will always bubble; these
streams will never dry up. The thirst for salvation will always be
gratified; the soul will always be made happy. ¶ _And God shall wipe
away all tears from their eyes._ This is a new image of happiness taken
from another place in Isaiah (ch. xxv. 8), “The Lord God will wipe
away tears from off all faces.” The expression is one of exquisite
tenderness and beauty. The poet Burns said that he could never
read this without being affected to weeping. Of all the _negative_
descriptions of heaven, there is no one perhaps that would be better
adapted to produce consolation than this. This is a world of weeping――a
{188} vale of tears. Philosophers have sought a brief definition of man,
and have sought in vain. Would there be any better description of him,
as representing the reality of his condition here, than to say that he
is _one who weeps_? Who is there of the human family that has not shed
a tear? Who that has not wept over the grave of a friend; over his own
losses and cares; over his disappointments; over the treatment he has
received from others; over his sins; over the follies, vices, and woes
of his fellow-men? And what a change would it make in our world if
it could be said that henceforward not another tear would be shed;
not a head would ever be bowed again in grief! Yet this is to be
the condition of heaven. In that world there is to be no pain, no
disappointment, no bereavement. No friend is to lie in dreadful agony
on a sick-bed; no grave is to be opened to receive a parent, a wife, a
child; no gloomy prospect of death is to draw tears of sorrow from the
eyes. To that blessed world, when our eyes run down with tears, are
we permitted to look forward; and the prospect of such a world should
contribute to wipe away our tears here――for all our sorrows will soon
be over. As already remarked, there was a beautiful propriety, at a
time when such calamities impended over the church and the world――when
there was such a certainty of persecution and sorrow――in permitting
the mind to rest on the contemplation of these happy scenes in heaven,
where all the redeemed, in white robes, and with palms of victory
in their hands, would be gathered before the throne. To us also
now, amidst the trials of the present life――when friends leave us;
when sickness comes; when our hopes are blasted; when calumnies and
reproaches come upon us; when, standing on the verge of the grave,
and looking down into the cold tomb, the eyes pour forth floods of
tears――it is a blessed privilege to be permitted to look forward to
that brighter scene in heaven, where not a pang shall ever be felt,
and not a tear shall ever be shed.

CHAPTER VIII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

One seal of the mysterious roll (ch. v. 1) remains to be broken――six
having already disclosed the contents of the volume relating to the
future. It was natural that the opening of the seventh, and the last,
should be attended with circumstances of peculiar solemnity, as being
all that remained in this volume to be unfolded, and as the events thus
far had been evidently preparatory to some great catastrophe. It would
have been natural to expect that, like the six former, this seal would
have been opened at once, and would have disclosed all that was to
happen at one view. But, instead of that, the opening of this seal is
followed by a series of events, seven also in number, which succeed
each other, represented by new symbols――the blowing of as many
successive trumpets. These circumstances retard the course of the
action, and fix the mind on a new order of events――events which could
be appropriately grouped together, and which, for some reason, might
be thus more appropriately represented than they could be in so many
successive seals. What was the reason of this arrangement will be more
readily seen on an examination of the particular events referred to in
the successive trumpet-blasts.

The points in the chapter are the following:――(1) The opening of
the seventh seal, ver. 1. This is attended, not with an immediate
exhibition of the events which are to occur, as in the case of the
former seals, but with a solemn silence in heaven for the space of
half an hour. The _reason_ of this silence, apparently, is found in the
solemn nature of the events which are anticipated. At the opening of
the sixth seal (ch. vi. 12, seq.) the grand catastrophe of the world’s
history seemed about to occur. This had been suspended for a time, as
if by the power of angels holding the winds and the storm (ch. vii.),
and now it was natural to expect that there would be a series of
overwhelming calamities. In view of these apprehended terrors, the
inhabitants of heaven are represented as standing in awful silence, as
if anticipating and apprehending what was to occur. This circumstance
adds much to the interest of the scene, and is a forcible illustration
of the position which the mind naturally assumes in the anticipation
of dreaded events. Silence――solemn and awful silence――is the natural
state of the mind under such circumstances. In accordance with this
expectation of what was to come, a series of new representations is
introduced, adapted to prepare the mind for the fearful disclosures
which are yet to be made. (2) Seven angels appear, on the opening
of {189} the seal, to whom are given seven trumpets, as if they were
appointed to perform an important part in introducing the series of
events which was to follow, ver. 2. (3) As a still farther preparation,
another angel is introduced, standing at the altar with a golden censer,
ver. 3‒5. He is represented as engaged in a solemn act of worship,
offering incense and the prayers of the saints before the throne.
This unusual representation seems to be designed to denote that some
extraordinary events were to occur, making it proper that incense
should ascend, and prayer be offered to deprecate the wrath of God.
After the offering of the incense, and the prayers, the angel takes
the censer and casts it to the earth; and the effect is, that there are
voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. All these
would seem to be symbolical of the fearful events which are to follow.
The silence; the incense-offering; the prayers; the fearful agitations
produced by the casting of the censer upon the earth, as if the prayer
was not heard, and as if the offering of the incense did not avail
to turn away the impending wrath,――all are appropriate symbols to
introduce the series of fearful calamities which were coming upon
the world on the sounding of the trumpets. (4) The first angel sounds,
ver. 7. Hail and fire follow, mingled with blood. The third part of
the trees and of the green grass――that is, of the vegetable world――is
consumed. (5) The second angel sounds, ver. 8, 9. A great burning
mountain is cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea becomes
blood, and a third part of all that is in the sea――fishes and ships――is
destroyed. (6) The third angel sounds, ver. 10, 11. A great star,
burning like a lamp, falls from heaven upon a third part of the rivers,
and upon the fountains of waters, and the waters become bitter, and
multitudes of people die from drinking the waters. (7) The fourth
angel sounds, ver. 12. The calamity falls on the sources of light――the
sun, the moon, and the stars――and the third part of the light is
extinguished, and for the third part of the day there is no light, and
for the third part of the night also there is no light. (8) At this
stage of things, after the sounding of the four trumpets, there is a
pause, and an angel flies through the midst of heaven, thrice crying
_woe_, by reason of the remaining trumpets which are to sound, ver. 13.
Here would seem to be some natural interval, or something which
would separate the events which had occurred from those which were
to follow. These four, from some cause, are grouped together, and
are distinguished from those which are to follow――as if the latter
appertained to a new class of events, though under the same general
_group_ introduced by the opening of the seventh seal.

A few _general_ remarks are naturally suggested by the analysis of the
chapter, which may aid us in its exposition and application. (a) These
events, in their order, undoubtedly _succeed_ those which are referred
to under the opening of the first six seals. They are a continuation of
the _series_ which is to occur in the history of the world. It has been
supposed by some that the events here symbolized are substantially the
same as those already referred to under the first six seals, or that,
at the opening of the sixth seal, there is a catastrophe; and, one
series being there concluded, the writer, by a new set of symbols, goes
back to the same point of time, and passes over the same period by a
new and parallel set of symbols. But this is manifestly contrary to the
whole design. At the first (ch. v. 1) a volume was exhibited, sealed
with seven seals, the unrolling of which would manifestly develop
_successive_ events, and the whole of which would embrace _all_ the
events which were to be disclosed. When _all_ these seven seals were
broken, and the contents of _that_ volume were disclosed, there might
indeed be _another_ set of symbols going over the same ground with
another design, or giving a representation of future events in some
other point of view; but clearly the series should not be broken
until the whole seven seals are opened, nor should it be supposed
that there is, in the opening of the same volume, an arresting of the
course of events, in order to go back again to the same beginning.
The representation in this series of symbols is like drawing out a
telescope. A telescope might be divided into seven parts, as well as
into the usual number, and the drawing out of the seventh part, for
example, might be regarded as a representation of the opening of the
seventh seal. But the seventh part, instead of being one unbroken piece
like the other six, might be so constructed as to be subdivided {190}
into seven minor parts, each representing a smaller portion of the
seventh part. In such a case, the drawing out of the seventh division
would _succeed_ that of the others, and would be designed to represent
a subsequent order of events. (b) There was some reason, manifestly,
why these seven last events, or the series represented by the seven
trumpets, should be grouped together, as coming under the same general
classification. They were sufficiently distinct to make it proper to
represent them by different symbols, and yet they had so much of the
same general character as to make it proper to group them together. If
this had not been so, it would have been proper to represent them by
a succession of _seals_ extending to thirteen in number, instead of
representing six seals in succession, and then, under the seventh, a
new series extending also to the number seven. In the fulfilment, it
will be proper to look for some events which have some such natural
connection and bearing that, for some reason, they can be classed
together, and yet so distinct that, under the same general symbol of
the _seal_, they can be represented under the particular symbol of the
_trumpets_. (c) For some reason there was a further distinction between
the events represented by the first four trumpets and those which were
to follow. There was some reason why _they_ should be more particularly
grouped together, and placed in close connection, and why there should
be an interval (ch. viii. 13) before the other trumpet should sound.
In the fulfilment of this we should naturally look for such an order
of events as would be designated by four successive symbols, and then
for such a change, in some respects, as to make an interval proper,
and a proclamation of _woe_, before the soundings of the other three,
ch. viii. 13. Then it would be natural to look for such events as
could properly be grouped under the three remaining symbols――the
three succeeding trumpets. (d) It is natural, as already intimated,
to suppose that the _entire_ group would extend, in some general
manner at least, to the consummation of all things; or that there
would be, _under_ the last one, a reference to the consummation of all
things――the end of the world. The _reason_ for this has already been
given, that the apostle saw a volume (ch. v. 1), which contained a
sealed account of the future, and it is natural to suppose that there
would be a reference to the great leading events which were to occur in
the history of the church and of the world. This _natural_ anticipation
is confirmed by the events disclosed under the sounding of the seventh
trumpet (ch. xi. 15, seq.): “And the seventh angel sounded; and there
were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are
become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign
for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God
on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, saying, We
give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to
come; because thou hast taken thy great power, and hast reigned,” &c.
At all events, this would lead us on to the final triumph of
Christianity――to the introduction of the millennium of glory――to the
period when the Son of God should reign on the earth. After that (ch.
xi. 19, seq.) a new series of visions commences, disclosing, through
the same periods of history, a new view of the church to the time also
of its final triumph:――the church internally; the rise of Antichrist,
and the effect of the rise of this formidable power. See the Analysis
of the Book, part fifth.

CHAPTER VIII.

AND when he had opened the [259]seventh seal, there was
silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

1. _And when he had opened the seventh seal._ See Notes on ch. v. 1.
¶ _There was silence in heaven._ The whole scene of the vision is laid
in heaven (ch. iv.), and John represents things as they seem to be
passing there. The meaning here is, that on the opening of this seal,
instead of voices, thunderings, tempests, as perhaps was expected from
the character of the sixth seal (ch. vi. 12, seq.), and which seemed
only to have been suspended for a time (ch. vii.), there was an awful
stillness, as if all heaven was reverently waiting for the development.
Of course this is a symbolical representation, and is designed not to
represent a pause in the events themselves, but only the impressive and
fearful nature of the events which are now to be disclosed. ¶ _About
the space of half an hour._ He did not profess to {191} designate
the time exactly. It was a brief period――yet a period which in such
circumstances would appear to be long――_about_ half an hour. The word
here used――ἡμιώριον――does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.
It is correctly rendered _half an hour_; and as the day was divided
into twelve parts from the rising to the setting of the sun, the
time designated would not vary much from half an hour with us. Of
course, therefore, this denotes a brief period. In a state, however,
of anxious suspense, the moments would seem to move slowly; and
to see the exact force of this, we are to reflect on the scenes
represented――the successive opening of seals disclosing most important
events――increasing in interest as each new one was opened; the course
of events which seemed to be leading to the consummation of all things,
arrested after the opening of the sixth seal; and now the last in the
series to be opened, disclosing what the affairs of the world would
be at the consummation of all things. John looks on this; and in this
state of suspense the half hour may have seemed an age. We are not,
of course, to suppose that the silence in heaven is produced by the
_character_ of the events which are now to follow――for they are as
yet unknown. It is caused by what, from the nature of the previous
disclosures, was naturally apprehended, and by the fact that this is
the last of the series――the finishing of the mysterious volume. This
seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of this passage, though
there has been here, as in other parts of the book of Revelation, a
great variety of opinion as to the meaning. Those who suppose that
the whole book consists of a _triple series_ of visions designed to
prefigure future events, parallel with each other, and each leading
to the consummation of all things――the series embracing the seals,
the trumpets, and the vials, each seven in number――regard this as the
proper ending of the first of this series, and suppose that we have
on the opening of the seventh seal the beginning of a new symbolical
representation, going over the same ground, under the representations
of the trumpets, in a new aspect or point of view. Eichhorn and
Rosenmüller suppose that the silence introduced by the apostle is
merely for effect, and that, therefore, it is without any special
signification. Grotius applies the whole representation to the
destruction of Jerusalem, and supposes that the silence in heaven
refers to the restraining of the winds referred to in ch. vii. 1――the
wrath in respect to the city, which was now suspended for a short time.
Professor Stuart also refers it to the destruction of Jerusalem, and
supposes that the seven trumpets refer to seven gradations in the
series of judgments that were coming upon the persecutors of the church.
Mr. Daubuz regards the silence here referred to as a symbol of the
liberty granted to the church in the time of Constantine; Vitringa
interprets it of the peace of the millennium which is to succeed the
overthrow of the beast and the false prophet; Dean Woodhouse and
Mr. Cunninghame regard it as the termination of the series of events
which the former seals denote, and the commencement of a new train of
revelations; Mr. Elliott, as the suspension of the winds during the
sealing of the servants of God; Mr. Lord, as the period of repose
which intervened between the close of the persecution by Diocletian
and Galerius, in 311, and the commencement, near the close of that
year, of the civil wars by which Constantine the Great was elevated
to the imperial throne. It will be seen at once how arbitrary and
unsatisfactory most of those interpretations are, and how far from
harmony expositors have been as to the meaning of this symbol. The most
simple and obvious interpretation is likely to be the true one; and
that is, as above suggested, that it refers to silence in heaven as
expressive of the fearful anticipation felt on opening the last seal
that was to close the series, and to wind up the affairs of the church
and the world. Nothing would be more natural than such a state of
solemn awe on such an occasion; nothing would introduce the opening
of the seal in a more impressive manner; nothing would more naturally
express the anxiety of the church, the probable feelings of the pious
on the opening of these successive seals, than the representation that
incense, accompanied with their prayers, was continually offered in
heaven.

{192} 2 And I saw the seven angels which [260]stood before God;
and to them were given seven [261]trumpets.

2. _And I saw the seven angels which stood before God._ Professor
Stuart supposes that by these angels are meant the “presence-angels”
which he understands to be referred to, in ch. i. 4, by the “seven
spirits which are before the throne.” If, however, the interpretation
of that passage above proposed, that it refers to the Holy Spirit,
with reference to his multiplied agency and operations, be correct,
then we must seek for another application of the phrase here. The only
difficulty in applying it arises from the use of the article――“_the_
seven angels”――τοὺς――as if they were angels already referred to; and
as there has been no previous mention of “_seven_ angels,” unless
it be in the phrase “the seven spirits which are before the throne,”
in ch. i. 4, it is argued that this must have been such a reference.
But this interpretation is not absolutely necessary. John might use
this language either because the angels had been spoken of before;
or because it would be sufficiently understood, from the common use
of language, who would be referred to――as we now might speak of
“_the seven_ members of the cabinet of the United States,” or “_the_
thirty-one governors of the states of the Union,” though they had not
been particularly mentioned; or he might speak of them as just then
disclosed to his view, and because his meaning would be sufficiently
definite by the circumstances which were to follow――their agency in
blowing the trumpets. It would be entirely in accordance with the
usage of the article for one to say that he saw an army, and _the_
commander-in-chief, and _the_ four staff-officers, and _the_ five bands
of music, and _the_ six companies of sappers and miners, &c. It is not
absolutely necessary, therefore, to suppose that these angels had been
before referred to. There is, indeed, in the use of the phrase “which
stood before God,” the idea that they are to be regarded as permanently
standing there, or that that is their proper place――as if they were
angels who were particularly designated to this high service. Comp. Lu.
i. 19: “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God.” If this idea
is involved in the phrase, then there is a sufficient reason why the
article is used, though they had not before been mentioned. ¶ _And to
them were given seven trumpets._ One to each. By whom the trumpets were
given is not said. It may be supposed to have been done by Him who sat
on the throne. Trumpets were used then, as now, for various purposes;
to summon an assembly; to muster the hosts of battle; to inspirit and
animate troops in conflict. Here they are given to announce a series
of important events producing great changes in the world――as if God
summoned and led on his hosts to accomplish his designs.

3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a
golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that
he should [262]offer _it_ with the [263]prayers of all saints
upon the [264]golden altar which was before the throne.

3. _And another angel came._ Who this angel was is not mentioned, nor
have we any means of determining. Of course a great variety of opinion
has been entertained on the subject (see Poole’s _Synopsis_)――some
referring it to angels in general; others to the ministry of the church;
others to Constantine; others to Michael; and many others to the Lord
Jesus. All that we know is, that it was an _angel_ who thus appeared,
and there is nothing inconsistent in the supposition that anyone of
the angels in heaven may have been appointed to perform what is here
represented. The design seems to be, to represent the prayers of the
saints as ascending in the anticipation of the approaching series
of wonders in the world――and there would be a beautiful propriety in
representing them as offered by an angel, feeling a deep interest in
the church, and ministering in behalf of the saints. ¶ _And stood at
the altar._ In heaven――represented as a temple, with an altar, and with
the usual array of things employed in the worship of God. The altar was
the appropriate place for him to stand when about to offer the prayers
of the saints――for that is the place where the worshipper stood under
the ancient dispensation. Comp. Notes on Mat. v. 23, 24; Lu. i. 11. In
the latter place an angel is represented as appearing to Zacharias “on
the right side of the altar of incense.” ¶ _Having a golden censer._
The _fire-pan_, made for the purpose of carrying fire, on which to
burn incense in time of worship. See it described and illustrated
in the Notes on He. ix. 4. There {193} seems reason to suppose that
the incense that was offered in the ancient worship was designed to
be emblematic of the prayers of saints, for it was the custom for
worshippers to be engaged in prayer at the time the incense was offered
by the priest. See Lu. i. 10. ¶ _And there was given unto him much
incense._ See Notes on Lu. i. 9. A large quantity was here given to him,
because the occasion was one on which many prayers might be expected
to be offered. ¶ _That he should offer |it| with the prayers._ Marg.,
“_add |it| to_.” Gr., “that he should _give_ it with”――δώσῃ. The idea
is plain, that, when the prayers of the saints ascended, he would
also burn the incense, that it might go up at the same moment, and be
emblematic of them. Comp. Notes on ch. v. 8. ¶ _Of all saints._ Of all
who are holy; of all who are the children of God. The idea seems to be,
that, at this time, all the saints would unite in calling on God, and
in deprecating his wrath. As the events which were about to occur were
a matter of common interest to the people of God, it was to be supposed
that they would unite in common supplication. ¶ _Upon the golden
altar._ The altar of incense. This in the tabernacle and in the
temple was overlaid with gold. ¶ _Which was before the throne._
This is represented as a temple-service, and the altar of incense is,
with propriety, placed before his seat or throne, as it was in the
tabernacle and temple. In the temple, God is represented as occupying
the mercy-seat in the holy of holies, and the altar of incense is in
the holy place before that. See the description of the temple in the
Notes on Mat. xxi. 12.

4 And the smoke of the [265]incense, _which came_ with the
prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the
angel’s hand.

4. _And the smoke of the incense_, &c. The smoke caused by the burning
incense. John, as he saw this, naturally interpreted it of the prayers
of the saints. The meaning of the whole symbol, thus explained, is
that, at the time referred to, the anxiety of the church in regard
to the events which were about to occur would naturally lead to much
prayer. It is not necessary to attempt to verify this by any distinct
historical facts, for no one can doubt that, in a time of such
impending calamities, the church would be earnestly engaged in devotion.
Such has always been the case in times of danger; and it may always be
assumed to be true, that when danger threatens, whether it be to the
church at large or to an individual Christian, there will be a resort
to the throne of grace.

5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire
of the altar, and cast _it_ [266]into the earth: and there
were [267]voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an
[268]earthquake.

5. _And the angel took the censer._ Ver. 3. This is a new symbol,
designed to furnish a new representation of future events. By the
former it had been shown that there would be much prayer offered; by
this it is designed to show that, notwithstanding the prayer that would
be offered, great and fearful calamities would come upon the earth.
This is symbolized by casting the censer upon the earth, _as if_ the
prayers were not heard any longer, or as if prayer were now in vain.
¶ _And filled it with fire of the altar._ An image similar to this
occurs in Eze. x. 2, where the man clothed in linen is commanded to go
between the wheels under the cherub, and fill his hands with coals of
fire from between the cherubims, and to scatter them over the city as
a symbol of its destruction. Here the coals are taken, evidently, from
the altar of sacrifice. Comp. Notes on Is. vi. 1. On these coals no
incense was placed, but they were thrown at once to the earth. The new
emblem, therefore, is the taking of coals, and scattering them abroad
as a symbol of the destruction that was about to ensue. ¶ _And cast
it into the earth._ Marg., _upon_. The margin expresses undoubtedly
the meaning. The symbol, therefore, properly denoted that fearful
calamities were about to come upon the earth. Even the prayers of
saints did not prevail to turn them away, and now the symbol of the
scattered coals indicated that terrible judgments were about to come
upon the world. ¶ _And there were voices._ Sounds, noises. See Notes on
ch. iv. 5. The _order_ is not the same here as there, but lightnings,
thunderings, and voices are mentioned in both. {194} ¶ _And an
earthquake._ Ch. vi. 12. This is a symbol of commotion. It is not
necessary to look for a literal fulfilment of it, any more than it is
for literal “voices,” “lightnings,” or “thunderings.”

6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared
themselves to sound.

6. _And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared
themselves to sound._ Ver. 7. Evidently in succession, perhaps by
arranging themselves in the order in which they were to sound. The way
is now prepared for the sounding of the trumpets, and for the fearful
commotions and changes which would be indicated by that. The last seal
is opened; heaven stands in suspense to know what is to be disclosed;
the saints, filled with solicitude, have offered their prayers; the
censer of coals has been cast to the earth, as if these judgments could
be no longer stayed by prayer; and the angels prepare to sound the
trumpets indicative of what is to occur.

7 The first angel sounded, and [269]there followed hail and
fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth:
and the third part of [270]trees was burnt up, and all green
grass was burnt up.

7. _The first angel sounded._ The first in order, and indicating
the first in the series of events that were to follow. ¶ _And there
followed hail._ Hail is usually a symbol of the divine vengeance,
as it has often been employed to accomplish the divine purposes of
punishment. Thus in Ex. ix. 23, “And the Lord sent thunder and hail,
and the fire ran along the ground; and the Lord rained hail upon the
land of Egypt.” So in Ps. cv. 32, referring to the plagues upon Egypt,
it is said, “He gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their
land.” So again, Ps. lxxviii. 48, “He gave up their cattle also to the
hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.” As early as the time of
Job hail was understood to be an emblem of the divine displeasure, and
an instrument in inflicting punishment:

“Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow,
Or hast thou seen the treasure of the hail?
Which I have reserved against _the time of trouble_,
Against _the day of battle and war_?”
Job xxxviii. 22, 23.

So also, the same image is used in Ps. xviii. 13;

“The Lord also thundered in the heaven,
And the Most High gave forth his voice,
Hailstones and coals of fire.”

Comp. Hag., ch. ii. 17. The destruction of the Assyrian army, it
is said, would be accomplished in the same way, Is. xxx. 30. Comp.
Eze. xiii. 11; xxxviii. 22. ¶ _And fire._ Lightning. This also is an
instrument and an emblem of destruction. ¶ _Mingled with blood._ By
_blood_ “we must naturally understand,” says Professor Stuart, “in this
case, a shower of coloured rain; that is, rain of a rubidinous aspect,
an occurrence which is known sometimes to take place, and which, like
falling stars; eclipses, &c., was viewed with terror by the ancients,
because it was supposed to be indicative of blood that was to be shed.”
The appearance, doubtless, was that of a red shower, apparently of
_hail_, or snow――for _rain_ is not mentioned. It is not a _rain_-storm,
it is a _hail_-storm that is the image here; and the image is that of a
driving hail-storm, where the lightnings flashed, and where there was
the intermingling of a reddish substance that resembled blood, and that
was an undoubted symbol of blood that was to be shed. I do not know
that there is red _rain_, or red _hail_, but red _snow_ is not very
uncommon; and the image here would be complete if we suppose that there
was an intermingling of red snow in the driving tempest. This species
of snow was found by Captain Ross at Baffin’s Bay on the 17th of August,
1819. The mountains that were dyed with the snow were about eight miles
long, and six hundred feet high. The red colour reached to the ground
in many places ten or twelve feet deep, and continued for a great
length of time. Although red snow had not until this attracted much
notice, yet it had been long before observed in Alpine countries.
Saussure discovered it on Mount St. Bernard in 1778. Ramond found it
on the Pyrenees; and Summerfield discovered it in Norway. “In 1818
red snow fell on the Italian Alps and Apennines. In March, 1808, the
whole country about Cadore, Belluno, and Feltri was covered with a
red-coloured snow to the depth of six and a half feet; but a white snow
had fallen both before and after it, the red formed a stratum in the
middle of the white. At the same time a similar fall took place in
the mountains of the Valteline, Brescia, Carinthia, and Tyrol” (_Edin.
Encyclo._ art. “Snow”). These facts show that {195} what is referred
to here in the symbol might possibly occur. Such a symbol would be
properly expressive of blood and carnage. ¶ _And they were cast upon
the earth._ The hail, the fire, and the blood――denoting that the
fulfilment of this was to be _on the earth_. ¶ _And the third part of
trees was burnt up._ By the fire that came down with the hail and the
blood. ¶ _And all green grass was burnt up._ Wherever this lighted on
the earth. The meaning would seem to be, that wherever this tempest
beat the effect was to destroy a third part――that is, a large portion
of the _trees_, and to consume _all_ the grass. A portion of the
trees――strong and mighty――would stand against it; but that which was
so tender as grass is, would be consumed. The sense does not seem to
be that the tempest would be confined to a third part of the world,
and destroy _all_ the trees and the grass _there_; but that it would
be a sweeping and general tempest, and that wherever it spread it would
prostrate a third part of the trees and consume all the grass. Thus
understood, it would seem to mean, that in reference to those things
in the world which were firm and established like _trees_, it would not
sweep them _wholly_ away, though it would make great desolation; but
in reference to those which were delicate and feeble――like grass――it
would sweep them wholly away.――This would not be an inapt description
of the ordinary effects of invasion in time of war. A few of those
things which seem most firm and established in society――like trees in
a forest――weather out the storm; while the gentle virtues, the domestic
enjoyments, the arts of peace, like tender grass, are wholly destroyed.
The fulfilment of this we are undoubtedly to expect to find in the
terrors of invasion; the evils of war; the effusion of blood; the
march of armies. So far as the language is concerned, the symbol would
apply to _any_ hostile invasion; but in pursuing the exposition on the
principles on which we have thus far conducted it, we are to look for
the fulfilment in one or more of those invasions of the northern hordes
that preceded the downfall of the Roman empire and that contributed
to it.――In the “Analysis” of the chapter, some reasons were given why
these four trumpet signals were placed together, as pertaining to a
series of events of the same general character, and as distinguished
from those which were to follow. The natural place which they occupy,
or the events which we should suppose, from the views taken above of
the first six seals, would be represented, would be the successive
invasions of the northern hordes which ultimately accomplished the
overthrow of the Roman empire. There are _four_ of these “trumpets,”
and it would be a matter of inquiry whether there were _four_ events of
sufficient distinctness that would mark these invasions, or that would
constitute _periods_ or _epochs_ in the destruction of the Roman power.
At this point in writing, I looked on a chart of history, composed
with no reference to this prophecy, and found a singular and unexpected
prominence given to _four_ such events extending from the first
invasion of the Goths and Vandals at the beginning of the fifth century,
to the fall of the Western empire, A.D. 476. The first was the invasion
of Alaric, king of the Goths, A.D. 410; the second was the invasion
of Attila, king of the Huns, “scourge of God,” A.D. 447; a third was
the sack of Rome by Genseric, king of the Vandals, A.D. 455; and the
fourth, resulting in the final conquest of Rome, was that of Odoacer,
king of the Heruli, who assumed the title of King of Italy, A.D. 476.
We shall see, however, on a closer examination, that although two
of these――Attila and Genseric――were, during a part of their career,
contemporary, yet the most prominent place is due to Genseric in the
events that attended the downfall of the empire, and that the second
trumpet probably related to him; the third to Attila. These were,
beyond doubt, four great periods or events attending the fall of
the Roman empire, which synchronize with the period before us. If,
therefore, we regard the opening of the sixth seal as denoting the
threatening aspect of these invading powers――the gathering of the
dark cloud that hovered over the borders of the empire, and the
consternation produced by that approaching storm; and if we regard the
transactions in the seventh chapter――the holding of the winds in check,
and the sealing of the chosen of God――as denoting the _suspension_ of
the impending {196} judgments in order that a work might be done to
save the church, and as referring to the divine interposition in behalf
of the church; then the appropriate place of these four trumpets, under
the seventh seal, will be when that delayed and restrained storm burst
in successive blasts upon different parts of the empire――the successive
invasions which were so prominent in the overthrow of that vast power.
History marks four of these events――four heavy blows――four sweepings of
the tempest and the storm――under Alaric, Genseric, Attila, and Odoacer,
whose movements could not be better symbolized than by these successive
blasts of the trumpet.

The first of these is the invasion of Alaric; and the inquiry now is,
whether his invasion is such as would be properly symbolized by the
first trumpet. In illustrating this, it will be proper to notice some
of the movements of Alaric, and the alarm consequent on his invasion
of the empire; and then to inquire how far this corresponds with the
images employed in the description of the first trumpet. For these
illustrations I shall be indebted mainly to Mr. Gibbon. Alaric, the
Goth, was at first employed in the service of the emperor Theodosius,
in his attempt to oppose the usurper Arbogastes, after the murder
of Valentinian, emperor of the West. Theodosius, in order to oppose
the usurper, employed, among others, numerous barbarians――Iberians,
Arabs, and Goths. One of them was Alaric, who, to use the language
of Mr. Gibbon (ii. 179), “acquired in the school of Theodosius the
knowledge of the art of war, which he afterwards so fatally exerted for
the destruction of Rome,” A.D. 392‒394. After the death of Theodosius
(A.D. 395) the Goths revolted from the Roman power, and Alaric, who had
been disappointed in his expectations of being raised to the command
of the Roman armies, became their leader (_Decline and Fall_, ii. 213).
“That renowned leader was descended from the noble race of the Balti;
which yielded only to the royal dignity of the Amali; he had solicited
the command of the Roman armies; and the imperial court provoked him
to demonstrate the folly of their refusal, and the importance of their
loss. In the midst of a divided court and a discontented people the
emperor Arcadius was terrified by the aspect of the Gothic arms,” &c.
Alaric then invaded and conquered Greece, laying it waste in his
progress, until he reached Athens, ii. 214, 215. “The fertile fields of
Phocis and Bœotia were instantly covered by a deluge of barbarians, who
massacred the males of age to bear arms, and drove away the beautiful
females, with the spoil and cattle of the flaming villages.” Alaric
then concluded a treaty with Theodosius, the emperor of the East
(ii. 216); was made master-general of Eastern Illyricum, and created
a magistrate (ii. 217); soon united under his command the barbarous
nations that had made the invasion, and was solemnly declared to be the
king of the Visigoths, ii. 217. “Armed with this double power, seated
on the verge of two empires, he alternately sold his deceitful promises
to the courts of Arcadius and Honorius, till he declared and executed
his purpose of invading the dominions of the West. The provinces of
Europe which belonged to the Eastern empire were already exhausted;
those of Asia were inaccessible; and the strength of Constantinople had
resisted his attack. But he was tempted by the beauty, the wealth, and
the fame of Italy, which he had twice visited; and he secretly aspired
to plant the Gothic standard on the walls of Rome; and to enrich his
army with the accumulated spoils of three hundred triumphs,” ii. 217,
218. In describing his march to the Danube, and his progress towards
Italy, having increased his army with a large number of barbarians,
Mr. Gibbon uses the remarkable language expressive of the general
consternation, already quoted in the description of the sixth seal.
Alaric approached rapidly towards the imperial city, resolved to
“conquer or die before the gates of Rome.” But he was checked by
Stilicho, and compelled to make peace, and retired (_Decline and Fall_,
ii. 222), and the threatening storm was for a time suspended. See Notes
on ch. vii. 1, seq. So great was the consternation, however, that the
Roman court, which then had its seat at Milan, thought it necessary
to remove to a safer place, and became fixed at Ravenna, ii. 224.
This calm, secured by the retreat of Alaric, was, however, of short
continuance. In A.D. 408 he again invaded Italy in a more successful
manner, attacked the capital, and more than once pillaged Rome. The
following facts, for which I am indebted to Mr. Gibbon, will illustrate
the progress {197} of the events, and the effects of this blast of the
“first trumpet” in the series that announced the destruction of the
Western empire:――

(a) The effect, on the destiny of the empire, of removing the Roman
court to Ravenna from the dread of the Goths. As early as A.D. 303 the
court of the emperor of the West was, for the most part, established
at Milan. For some time before, the “sovereignty of the capital was
gradually annihilated by the extent of conquest,” and the emperors
were required to be long absent from Rome on the frontiers, until in
the time of Diocletian and Maximian the seat of government was fixed
at Milan, “whose situation at the foot of the Alps appeared far more
convenient than that of Rome for the important purpose of watching
the motions of the barbarians of Germany” (Gibbon, i. 213). “The life
of Diocletian and Maximian was a life of action, and a considerable
portion of it was spent in camps, or in their long and frequent marches;
but whenever the public business allowed them any relaxation, they
seem to have retired with pleasure to their favourite residences of
Nicomedia and Milan. Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his
reign, celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether
he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire” (Gibbon, i. 214).
From this place the court was driven away, by the dread of the northern
barbarians, to Ravenna, a safer place, which thenceforward became the
seat of government, while Italy was ravaged by the northern hordes,
and while Rome was besieged and pillaged. Mr. Gibbon, under date of
A.D. 404, says, “The recent danger to which the person of the emperor
had been exposed in the defenceless palace of Milan [from Alaric and
the Goths] urged him to seek a retreat in some inaccessible fortress
in Italy, where he might securely remain, while the open country was
covered by a deluge of barbarians” (vol. ii. p. 224). He then proceeds
to describe the situation of Ravenna, and the removal of the court
thither, and then adds (p. 225), “The fears of Honorius were not
without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect. While
Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a furious tempest was
excited among the nations of Germany, who yielded to the irresistible
impulse that appears to have been gradually communicated from the
eastern extremity of the continent of Asia.” That mighty movement of
the Huns is then described, as the storm was preparing to burst upon
the Roman empire, ii. 225. The agitation and the removal of the Roman
government were events not inappropriate to be described by symbols
relating to the fall of that mighty power.

(b) The particulars of that invasion, the consternation, the siege of
Rome, and the capture and pillage of the imperial city, would confirm
the propriety of this application to the symbol of the first trumpet.
It would be too long to copy the account――for it extends through many
pages of the _History of the Decline and Fall of the Empire_; but a few
selected sentences may show the general character of the events, and
the propriety of the symbols, on the supposition that they referred to
these things. Thus Mr. Gibbon (ii. 226, 227) says, “The correspondence
of nations was, in that age, so imperfect and precarious, that the
revolutions of the North might escape the knowledge of the court of
Ravenna, till the dark cloud which was collected along the coast of the
Baltic burst in thunder upon the banks of the Upper Danube. The king
of the confederate Germans passed, without resistance, the Alps, the
Po, and the Apennines; leaving on the one hand the inaccessible palace
of Honorius securely buried among the marshes of Ravenna; and on the
other the camp of Stilicho, who had fixed his head-quarters at Ticinum,
or Pavia, but who seems to have avoided a decisive battle till he had
assembled his distant forces. Many cities of Italy were pillaged or
destroyed. The senate and people trembled at their approach within a
hundred and eighty miles of Rome; and anxiously compared the danger
which they had escaped with the new perils to which they were exposed,”
&c. Rome was besieged for the first time by the Goths A.D. 408. Of this
siege Mr. Gibbon (ii. 252‒254) has given a graphic description. Among
other things, he says, “That unfortunate city gradually experienced the
distress of scarcity, and at length the horrid calamities of famine.”
“A dark suspicion was entertained, that some desperate wretches fed on
the bodies of their fellow-creatures whom they had secretly murdered;
and even mothers――such were the horrid conflicts of the {198} two
most powerful instincts implanted by nature in the human breast――even
mothers are said to have tasted the flesh of their slaughtered infants.
Many thousands of the inhabitants of Rome expired in their houses, or
in the streets, for want of sustenance; and as the public sepulchres
without the walls were in the power of the enemy, the stench which
arose from so many putrid and unburied carcasses infected the air; and
the miseries of famine were succeeded and aggravated by a pestilential
disease.” The first siege was raised by the payment of an enormous
ransom (Gibbon, ii. 254). The second siege of Rome by the Goths
occurred A.D. 409. _This_ siege was carried on by preventing the supply
of provisions, Alaric having seized upon _Ostia_, the Roman port,
where the provisions for the capital were deposited. The Romans finally
consented to receive a new emperor at the hand of Alaric, and Attalus
was appointed in the place of the feeble Honorius, who was then at
Ravenna, and who had abandoned the capital. Attalus, an inefficient
prince, was soon publicly stripped of the robes of office, and Alaric,
enraged at the conduct of the court at Ravenna towards him, turned his
wrath a third time on Rome, and laid siege to the city. This occurred
A.D. 410. “The king of the Goths, who no longer dissembled his appetite
for plunder and revenge, appeared in arms under the walls of the
capital; and the trembling senate, without any hope of relief, prepared,
by a desperate effort, to delay the ruin of their country. But they
were unable to guard against the conspiracy of their slaves and
domestics, who, either from birth or interest, were attached to the
cause of the enemy. At the hour of midnight the Salarian Gate was
silently opened, and the inhabitants were awakened by the tremendous
sound of the Gothic trumpet. Eleven hundred and sixty-three years
after the foundation of Rome, the imperial city, which had subdued
and civilized so considerable a part of mankind, was delivered to the
licentious fury of the tribes of Germany and Scythia” (Gibbon, ii. 260).

(c) It is, perhaps, only necessary to add that the invasion of Alaric
was in fact but _one_ of the great events that led to the fall of the
empire, and that, in announcing that fall, where a succession of events
was to occur, it would properly be represented by the blast of one of
the trumpets. The expressions employed in the symbol are, indeed, such
as might be applied to _any_ invasion of hostile armies, but they are
such as _would_ be used if the design were admitted to be to describe
the invasion of the Gothic conqueror. For (1) that invasion, as we
have seen, would be well represented by the storm of hail and lightning
that was seen in vision; (2) by the _red_ colour mingled in that
storm――indicative of blood; (3) by the fact that it consumed the trees
and the grass. This, as we saw in the exposition, would properly denote
the desolation produced by war――applicable, indeed, to _all_ war,
but _as_ applicable to the invasion of Alaric as _any_ war that
has occurred, and it is such an emblem as would be used if it were
admitted that it was the design to represent his invasion. The sweeping
storm, prostrating the trees of the forest, is an apt emblem of the
evils of war, and, as was remarked in the exposition, no more striking
illustration of the consequences of a hostile invasion could be
employed than the destruction of the “green grass.” What is here
represented in the symbol cannot, perhaps, be better expressed than in
the language of Mr. Gibbon, when describing the invasion of the Roman
empire under Alaric. Speaking of that invasion, he says――“While the
peace of Germany was secured by the attachment of the Franks and the
neutrality of the Alemanni, the subjects of Rome, unconscious of their
approaching calamities, enjoyed the state of quiet and prosperity which
had seldom blessed the frontiers of Gaul. Their flocks and herds were
permitted to graze in the pastures of the barbarians; their huntsmen
penetrated, without fear or danger, into the darkest recesses of the
Hercynian wood. The banks of the Rhine were crowned, like those of
the Tiber, with elegant houses and well-cultivated farms; and if a
poet descended the river, he might express his doubt on which side
was situated the territory of the Romans. This scene of peace and
plenty was suddenly changed into a desert; and the prospect of the
smoking ruins could alone distinguish the solitude of nature from the
desolation of man. The flourishing city of Mentz was surprised and
destroyed; and many thousand Christians were inhumanly massacred in
the church. Worms perished after a long and obstinate siege; Strasburg,
Spires, Rheims, {199} Tournay, Arras, Amiens, experienced the cruel
oppression of the German yoke; and the consuming flames of war spread
from the banks of the Rhine over the greatest part of the seventeen
provinces of Gaul. That rich and extensive country, as far as the ocean,
the Alps, and the Pyrenees, was delivered to the barbarians, who drove
before them, in a promiscuous crowd, the bishop, the senator, and the
virgin, laden with the spoils of their houses and altars,” ii. 230. In
reference, also, to the invasion of Alaric, and the particular nature
of the desolation depicted under the first trumpet, a remarkable
passage which Mr. Gibbon has quoted from Claudian, as describing the
effects of the invasion of Alaric, may be here introduced. “The _old_
man,” says he, speaking of Claudian, “who had passed his simple and
innocent life in the neighbourhood of Verona, was a stranger to the
quarrels both of kings and of bishops; _his_ pleasures, his desires,
his knowledge, were confined within the little circle of his paternal
farm; and a staff supported his aged steps on the same ground where
he had sported in infancy. Yet even this humble and rustic felicity
(which Claudian describes with so much truth and feeling) was still
exposed to the undistinguishing rage of war. His trees, his old
_contemporary_[271] trees, must blaze in the conflagration of the whole
country; a detachment of Gothic cavalry must sweep away his cottage and
his family; and the power of Alaric could destroy this happiness which
he was not able either to taste or to bestow. ‘Fame,’ says the poet,
‘encircling with terror or gloomy wings, proclaimed the march of the
barbarian army, and filled Italy with consternation,’” ii. 218. And
(4) as to the _extent_ of the calamity, there is also a striking
propriety in the language of the symbol as applicable to the invasion
of Alaric. I do not suppose, indeed, that it is necessary, in order to
find a proper fulfilment of the symbol, to be able to show that exactly
one-third part of the empire was made desolate in this way; but it is a
sufficient fulfilment if desolation spread over a considerable portion
of the Roman world――_as if_ a third part had been destroyed. No one who
reads the account of the invasion of Alaric can doubt that it would be
an apt description of the ravages of his arms to say that a third part
was laid waste. That the desolations produced by Alaric were such as
would be _properly_ represented by this symbol may be fully seen by
consulting the whole account of that invasion in Gibbon, ii. 213‒266.

8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great
[272]mountain burning with fire was [273]cast into the sea:
and the third part of the sea [274]became blood;

8. _And the second angel sounded._ Comp. Notes on ver. 2‒7. This,
according to the interpretation proposed above, refers to the second
of the four great events which contributed to the downfall of the Roman
empire. It will be proper in this case, as in the former, to inquire
into the literal meaning of the symbol, and then whether there was any
event that corresponded with it. ¶ _And as it were a great mountain._ A
_mountain_ is a natural symbol of strength, and hence becomes a symbol
of a strong and powerful kingdom; for mountains are not only places
of strength in themselves, but they anciently answered the purposes of
fortified places, and were the seats of power. Hence they are properly
symbols of strong nations. “The stone that smote the image became _a
great mountain_, and filled the whole earth,” Da. ii. 35. Comp. Zec.
iv. 7; Je. li. 25. We naturally, then, apply this part of the symbol to
some strong and mighty nation――not a nation, necessarily, that issued
_from_ a mountainous region, but a nation that in strength _resembled_
a mountain. ¶ _Burning with fire._ A mountain in a blaze; that is, with
all its woods on fire, or, more probably, a _volcanic_ mountain. There
would perhaps be no more sublime image than such a mountain lifted
suddenly from its base and thrown into the sea. One of the sublimest
parts of the _Paradise Lost_ is that where the poet represents the
angels in the great battle in heaven as lifting the mountains――tearing
them from their base――and hurling them on the foe:――

“From their foundations heaving to and fro, They plucked the seated
hills, with all their load, Rocks, waters, woods, and by the shaggy
tops Uplifting, bore them in their hands,” &c. Book vi. {200} The
poet, however, has not, as John has, represented a volcano borne
along and cast into the sea. The symbol employed here would denote
some fiery, impetuous, destructive power. If used to denote a nation,
it would be a nation that was, as it were, burning with the desire
of conquest――impetuous, and fierce, and fiery in its assaults――and
consuming all in its way. ¶ _Cast into the sea._ The image is very
sublime; the scene, should such an event occur, would be awfully grand.
As to the fulfilment of this, or the thing that was intended to be
represented by it, there cannot be any material doubt. It is not to
be understood literally, of course; and the natural application is to
some _nation_, or _army_, that has a resemblance in some respects to
such a blazing mountain, and the effect of whose march would be like
casting such a mountain into the ocean. We naturally look for agitation
and commotion, and particularly in reference to the sea, or to some
maritime coasts. It is undoubtedly required in the application of this,
that we should find its fulfilment in some country lying beyond the sea,
or in some sea-coast or maritime country, or in reference to commerce.
¶ _And the third part of the sea became blood._ Resembled blood; became
_as red as blood_. The figure here is, that as such a blazing mountain
cast into the sea would, by its reflection on the waters, seem to tinge
them with red, so there would be something corresponding with this in
what was referred to by the symbol. It would be fulfilled if there was
a fierce maritime warfare, and if in some desperate naval engagement
the sea should be tinged with blood.

9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea,
and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were
destroyed.

9. _And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had
life, died._ The effect was _as if_ one-third of all the fish in the
sea were cut off. Of course this is not to be taken literally. It is
designed to describe an effect, pertaining to the maritime portion of
the world, _as if_ a third portion of all that was in the sea should
perish. The _natural_ interpretation would be to apply it to some
invasion or calamity pertaining to the sea――to the islands, to the
maritime regions, or to commerce. If the whole description pertains
to the Roman empire, then this might be supposed to have particular
reference to something that would have a bearing on the maritime parts
of that empire. ¶ _And the third part of the ships were destroyed._
This also pertains to the same general calamity, affecting the
_commerce_ of the empire. The destruction of the “ships” was produced,
in some way, by casting the mountain into the sea――either by their
being consumed by the contact with the burning mass, or by being
sunk by the agitation of the waters. The essential idea is, that the
calamity would be of such a nature as would produce the destruction
of vessels at sea――either naval armaments, or ships of commerce. In
looking now for the application or fulfilment of this, it is necessary
(a) to find some event or events which would have a particular bearing
on the maritime or commercial part of the world; and (b) some such
event or events that, on the supposition that they were the things
referred to, would be properly symbolized by the image here employed.
(1) If the first trumpet had reference to the invasion of Alaric and
the Goths, then in this we naturally look for the next succeeding act
of invasion which shook the Roman empire, and contributed to its fall.
(2) The next invasion was that under Genseric, at the head of the
Vandals (Gibbon, ii. 306, seq.). This occurred A.D. 428‒468. (3) The
symbol of a blazing or burning mountain, torn from its foundation, and
precipitated into the ocean, would well represent this mighty nation
moved from its ancient seat, and borne along towards the maritime
parts of the empire, and its desolations there――as will be shown in
the following remarks. (4) The acts of the Vandals, under Genseric,
corresponded with the ideas expressed by the symbol. In illustrating
this I shall be indebted, as heretofore, principally to Mr. Gibbon.
(a) His general account of the Vandals is this: they are supposed
(i. 138) to have been originally the same people with the Goths, the
Goths and Vandals constituting one great nation living on the shores
of the Baltic. They passed in connection with them over the Baltic;
emigrated to Prussia and the Ukraine; invaded the Roman provinces;
received tribute from the Romans; subdued the countries about the
Bosphorus; plundered the cities of Bithynia; ravaged Greece and
{201} Illyrium, and were at last settled in Thrace under the emperor
Theodosius (Gibbon, i. 136‒166; ii. 110‒150), They were then driven
forward by the Huns, and having passed through France and Spain
into Africa, conquered the Carthaginian territory, established an
independent government, and thence through a long period harassed the
neighbouring islands, and the coasts of the Mediterranean by their
predatory incursions, destroying the ships and the commerce of the
Romans, and were distinguished in the downfall of the empire by
their ravages on the islands and the sea. Thus they were moved along
from place to place until the scene of their desolations became more
distinctly the maritime parts of the empire; and the effect of their
devastations might be well compared with a burning mountain moved
from its ancient base, and then thrown into the sea. (b) This will
be apparent from the statements of Mr. Gibbon in regard to their
ravages under their leader Genseric. “Seville and Carthagena became
the reward, or rather the prey of the ferocious conquerors” [after they
had defeated the Roman Castinus], “and the vessels which they found in
the harbour of Carthagena might easily transport them to the isles of
Majorca and Minorca, where the Spanish fugitives, as in a secure recess,
had vainly concealed their families and fortunes. The experience of
navigation, and perhaps the prospect of Africa, encouraged the Vandals
to accept the invitation which they received from Count Boniface” [to
aid him in his apprehended difficulties with Rome, and to enter into an
alliance with him by settling permanently in Africa (Gibbon, ii. 305,
306)]: “and the death of Gonderic” [the Vandal king] “served only to
forward and animate the bold enterprise. In the room of a prince, not
conspicuous for any superior powers of the mind or body, they acquired
his bastard brother, the terrible Genseric――_a name which, in the
destruction of the Roman empire, has deserved an equal rank with the
names of Alaric and Attila_. ” “The ambition of Genseric was almost
without bounds, and without scruples; and the warrior could dexterously
employ the dark engines of policy to solicit the allies who might be
useful to his success, or to scatter among his enemies the seeds of
enmity and contention. Almost in the moment of his departure he was
informed that Hermanric, king of the Suevi, had presumed to ravage the
Spanish territories, which he was resolved to abandon. Impatient of
the insult, Genseric pursued the hasty retreat of the Suevi as far as
Merida; precipitated the king and his army into the river Anas, and
calmly returned to the sea-shore to embark his troops. The vessels
which transported the Vandals over the modern Straits of Gibraltar, a
channel only twelve miles in breadth, were furnished by the Spaniards,
who anxiously wished for their departure; and by the African general
who had implored their formidable assistance” (Gibbon, ii. 306).
Genseric, in the accomplishment of _his_ purposes, soon took possession
of the northern coast of Africa, defeating the armies of Boniface, and
“Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius were the only cities that appeared
to rise above the general inundation” (Gibbon, ii. 308). “On a sudden,”
says Mr. Gibbon (ii. 309), “the seven fruitful provinces, from Tangier
to Tripoli, were overwhelmed by the invasion of the Vandals; whose
destructive rage has perhaps been exaggerated by popular animosity,
religious zeal, and extravagant declamation. War in its fairest
form implies a perpetual violation of humanity and justice; and the
hostilities of barbarians are inflamed by the fierce and lawless spirit
which perpetually disturbs their peaceful and domestic society. The
Vandals, where they found resistance, seldom gave quarter; and the
deaths of their valiant countrymen were expiated by the ruin of the
cities under whose walls they had fallen,” &c. The result of the
invasion was the conquest of all northern Africa; the reduction
of Hippo and Carthage, and the establishment of a government under
Genseric in Africa that waged a long war with Rome (Gibbon, ii. 310,
311). The symbol before us has particular reference to _maritime_ or
_naval_ operations and desolations, and the following extracts from Mr.
Gibbon will show with what propriety, if this symbol was designed to
refer to him, these images were employed. “The discovery and conquest
of the black nations [in Africa] that might dwell beneath the torrid
zone could not tempt the rational ambition of Genseric; but he cast his
eyes _towards the sea_; he resolved to create a naval power, and his
bold resolution was executed with steady and active {202} perseverance.
The woods of Mount Atlas afforded an inexhaustible supply of timber;
his new subjects were skilled in the arts of navigation and ship-
building; he animated his daring Vandals to embrace a mode of warfare
which would render every maritime country accessible to their arms;
the Moors and Africans were allured by the hope of plunder; and after
an interval of six centuries the fleets that issued from the port of
Carthage again claimed the empire of the Mediterranean. The success
of the Vandals, the conquest of Sicily, the sack of Palermo, and the
frequent descents on the coasts of Lucania, awakened and alarmed the
mother of Valentinian and the sister of Theodosius. Alliances were
formed; and armaments, expensive and ineffectual, were prepared for
the destruction of the common enemy, who reserved his courage to
encounter those dangers which his policy could not prevent or elude.
The revolutions of the palace, which left the Western empire without
a defender and without a lawful prince, dispelled the apprehension and
stimulated the avarice of Genseric. He immediately equipped a numerous
fleet of Vandals and Moors, and cast anchor at the mouth of the Tiber,”
&c. (Gibbon, ii. 352). “On the third day after the tumult [A.D. 455, on
the death of Maximus] Genseric boldly advanced from the port of Ostia
to the gates of the defenceless city. Instead of a sally of the Roman
youth, there issued from the gates an unarmed and venerable procession
of the bishop at the head of the clergy. But Rome and its inhabitants
were delivered to the licentiousness of the Vandals and the Moors,
whose blind passions revenged the injuries of Carthage. The pillage
lasted fourteen days and nights; and all that yet remained of public
or private wealth, of sacred or profane treasure, was diligently
transported to the vessels of Genseric,” &c. See the account of
this pillage in Gibbon, ii. 355‒366. The emperor Majorian (A.D. 457)
endeavoured to “restore the happiness of the Romans,” but “he
encountered the arms of Genseric, from his character and situation
their most formidable enemy. A fleet of Vandals and Moors landed at the
mouth of the Liris, or Garigliano; but the imperial troops surprised
and attacked the disorderly barbarians, who were encumbered with the
spoils of Campania; they were chased with slaughter to their ships;
and their leader, the king’s brother-in-law, was found in the number
of the slain. Such vigilance might announce the character of the new
reign; but the strictest vigilance, and the most numerous forces,
were insufficient to protect the long-extended coast of Italy from
the depredations of a naval war” (Gibbon, ii. 363). “The emperor had
foreseen that it was impossible, without a maritime power, to achieve
the conquest of Africa. In the first Punic war the republic had
exerted such incredible diligence, that within sixty days after the
first stroke of the axe had been given in the forest a fleet of one
hundred and sixty galleys proudly rode at anchor in the sea. Under
circumstances much less favourable Majorian equalled the spirit and
perseverance of the ancient Romans. The woods of the Apennines were
felled, the arsenals and manufactures of Ravenna and Misenium were
restored, Italy and Gaul vied with each other in liberal contributions
to the public service; and the imperial navy of three hundred large
galleys, with an adequate proportion of transports and smaller vessels,
was collected in the secure and capacious harbour of Carthagena in
Spain” (Gibbon, ii. 363, 364). The fate of this large navy is thus
described by Mr. Gibbon:――“Genseric was saved from impending and
inevitable ruin by the treachery of some powerful subjects; envious
or apprehensive of their master’s success. Guided by their secret
intelligence, he surprised the unguarded fleet in the bay of Carthagena;
many of the ships were sunk, or taken, or burnt; and the preparations
of three years were destroyed in a single day,” ii. 364. The farther
naval operations and maritime depredations of the Vandals under
Genseric are thus stated by Mr. Gibbon:――“The kingdom of Italy, a name
to which the Western empire was gradually reduced, was afflicted, under
the reign of Ricimer, by the incessant depredations of Vandal pirates.
In the spring of each year they equipped a formidable navy in the
port of Carthage; and Genseric himself, though in very advanced age,
still commanded in person the most important expeditions. His designs
were concealed with impenetrable secrecy till the moment that he
hoisted sail. When he was asked by the pilot what course he should
steer――‘Leave the determination to the winds,’ replied the barbarian,
with pious {203} arrogance; ‘_they_ will transport us to the guilty
coast whose inhabitants have provoked the divine justice;’ but if
Genseric himself deigned to issue more precise orders, he judged the
most wealthy to be the most criminal. The Vandals repeatedly visited
the coasts of Spain, Liguria, Tuscany, Campania, Lucania, Bruttium,
Apulia, Calabria, Venetia, Dalmatia, Epirus, Greece, and Sicily; they
were tempted to subdue the island of Sardinia, so advantageously placed
in the centre of the Mediterranean; and their arms spread desolation,
or terror, from the Columns of Hercules to the mouth of the Nile. As
they were more ambitious of spoil than of glory, they seldom attacked
any fortified cities, or engaged any regular troops in the open field.
But the celerity of their motions enabled them, almost at the same time,
to threaten and to attack the most distant objects which attracted
their desires; and as they always embarked a sufficient number of
horses, they had no sooner landed than they swept the dismayed country
with a body of light cavalry,” ii. 366. How far this description agrees
with the symbol in the passage before us――“a great mountain burning
with fire cast into the sea;” “the third part of the ships were
destroyed”――must be left to the reader to judge. It may be asked,
however, with at least some show of reason, whether, if it be admitted
that it was the _design_ of the author of the book of Revelation to
refer to the movements of the Vandals under Genseric as one of the
important and immediate causes of the ruin of the Roman empire, he
could have found a more expressive symbol than this? Indeed, is there
now any symbol that would be more striking and appropriate? If one
should now undertake to represent this as one of the causes of the
downfall of the empire _by a symbol_, could he easily find one that
would be more expressive? It is a matter that is in itself perhaps
of no importance, but it may serve to show that the interpretation
respecting the second trumpet was not _forced_, to remark that I had
gone through with the interpretation of the _language_ of the symbol
before I looked into Mr. Gibbon with any reference to the application.

10 And the third angel sounded, and there [275]fell a great
star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon
the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters:

10. _And the third angel sounded._ Indicating, according to the
interpretation above proposed, some important event in the downfall of
the Roman empire. ¶ _And there fell a great star from heaven._ A _star_
is a natural emblem of a prince, of a ruler, of one distinguished by
rank or by talent. Comp. Notes on ch. ii. 28. See Nu. xxiv. 17, and
the Notes on Is. xiv. 12. A star falling from heaven would be a natural
symbol of one who had left a higher station, or of one whose character
and course would be like a meteor shooting through the sky. ¶ _Burning
as it were a lamp._ Or, as a torch. The language here is such as would
describe a meteor blazing through the air; and the reference in the
symbol is to something that would have a _resemblance_ to such a meteor.
It is not a _lurid_ meteor (livid, pale, ghastly) that is here referred
to, but a bright, intense, blazing star――emblem of fiery energy; of
rapidity of movement and execution; of splendour of appearance――such
as a chieftain of high endowments, of impetuousness of character, and
of richness of apparel, would be. In all languages, probably, a _star_
has been an emblem of a prince whose virtues have shone brightly, and
who has exerted a beneficial influence on mankind. In all languages
also, probably, a meteor flaming through the sky has been an emblem of
some splendid genius causing or threatening desolation and ruin; of a
warrior who has moved along in a brilliant but destructive path over
the world; and who has been regarded as sent to execute the vengeance
of heaven. This usage occurs because a meteor is so bright; because
it appears so suddenly; because its course cannot be determined by
any known laws; and because, in the apprehensions of men, it is either
sent as a proof of the divine displeasure, or is adapted to excite
consternation and alarm. In the application of this part of the symbol,
therefore, we naturally look for some prince or warrior of brilliant
talents, who appears suddenly and sweeps rapidly over the world; who
excites consternation and alarm; whose path is marked by desolation,
and who is regarded as sent from heaven to execute the divine
purposes――who comes not to bless the world by brilliant talents {204}
well directed, but to execute vengeance on mankind. ¶ _And it fell upon
the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters._ On the
phrase, “the third part,” see Notes on ver. 7. This reference to the
“rivers” and to the “fountains of waters” seems, in part, to be for
the purpose of saying that _everything_ would be affected by this
series of judgments. In the previous visions the trees and the green
grass, the sea and the ships, had been referred to. The rivers and the
fountains of waters are not less important than the trees, the grass,
and the commerce of the world, and hence this judgment is mentioned as
particularly bearing on them. At the same time, as in the case of the
other trumpets, there is a propriety in supposing that there would be
something in the event referred to by the symbol which would make it
more appropriate to use this symbol in this case than in the others.
It is natural, therefore, to look for some desolations that would
particularly affect the portions of the world where rivers abound,
or where they take their rise; or, if it be understood as having a
more metaphorical sense, to regard it as affecting those things which
_resemble_ rivers and fountains――the sources of influence; the morals,
the religion of a people, the institutions of a country, which are
often so appropriately compared with running fountains or flowing
streams.

11 And the name of the star is called [276]Wormwood: and the
third part of the [277]waters became wormwood; and many men
died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

11. _And the name of the star is called Wormwood._ Is _appropriately_
so called. The writer does not say that it would be _actually_ so
called, but that this name would be properly descriptive of its
qualities. Such expressions are common in allegorical writings. The
Greek word――ἄψινθος――denotes _wormwood_, a well-known bitter herb.
That word becomes the proper emblem of bitterness. Comp. Je. ix. 15;
xxiii. 15; La. iii. 15, 19. ¶ _And the third part of the waters became
wormwood._ Became bitter as wormwood. This is doubtless an emblem
of the calamity which _would_ occur if the waters should be thus
made bitter. Of course they would become useless for the purposes to
which they are mostly applied, and the destruction of life would be
inevitable. To conceive of the extent of such a calamity we have only
to imagine a large portion of the wells, and rivers, and fountains of a
country made bitter as wormwood. Comp. Ex. xv. 23, 24. ¶ _And many men
died of the waters, because they were made bitter._ This effect would
naturally follow if any considerable portion of the fountains and
streams of a land were changed by an infusion of wormwood. It is not
necessary to suppose that this is intended to be _literally_ true; for
as, by the use of a symbol, it is not to be supposed that literally
a part of the waters would be turned into wormwood by the baleful
influence of a falling meteor, so it is not necessary to suppose that
there is intended to be represented a literal destruction of human life
by the use of waters. Great destruction and devastation are undoubtedly
intended to be denoted by this――destruction that would be well
represented in a land by the natural effects if a considerable part
of the waters were, by their bitterness, made unfit to drink.

In the interpretation and application, therefore, of this passage, we
may adopt the following principles and rules:――(a) It may be assumed,
in _this_ exposition, that the previous symbols, under the first and
second trumpet-blasts, referred respectively to Alaric and his Goths,
and to Genseric and his Vandals. (b) That the next great and decisive
event in the downfall of the empire is the one that is here referred to.
(c) That there would be some chieftain or warrior who might be compared
with a blazing meteor; whose course would be singularly brilliant; who
would appear suddenly _like_ a blazing star, and then disappear like
a star whose light was quenched in the waters. (d) That the desolating
course of that meteor would be mainly on those portions of the world
that abounded with springs of water and running streams. (e) That
an effect would be produced _as if_ those streams and fountains were
made bitter; that is, that many persons would perish, and that wide
desolations would be caused in the vicinity of those rivers and streams,
_as if_ a bitter and baleful star should fall into the waters, and
death should spread over the lands adjacent to them, and watered by
them. {205} Whether any events occurred of which this would be the
proper emblem is now the question. Among expositors there has been a
considerable degree of unanimity in supposing that Attila, the king of
the Huns, is referred to; and if the preceding expositions are correct,
there can be no doubt on the subject. After Alaric and Genseric, Attila
occupies the next place as an important agent in the overthrow of the
Roman empire, and the only question is, whether _he_ would be properly
symbolized by this baleful star. The following remarks may be made
to show the propriety of the symbol:――(1) As already remarked, the
_place_ which he occupies in history, as immediately succeeding
Alaric and Genseric in the downfall of the empire. This will appear
in any chronological table, or in the table of contents of any of
the histories of those times. A full detail of the career of Attila
may be found in Gibbon, vol. ii. pp. 314‒351. His career extended
from A.D. 433 to A.D. 453. It is true that he was contemporary with
Genseric, king of the Vandals, and that a portion of the operations
of Genseric in Africa were subsequent to the death of Attila
(A.D. 455‒A.D. 467); but it is _also_ true that Genseric _preceded_
Attila in the career of conquest, and was properly the first in order,
being pressed forward in the Roman warfare by the Huns, A.D. 428. See
Gibbon, ii. 306, seq. (2) In the manner of his appearance he strongly
resembled a brilliant meteor flashing in the sky. He came from the
east, gathering his Huns, and poured them down, as we shall see, with
the rapidity of a flashing meteor, suddenly on the empire. He regarded
himself also as devoted to Mars, the god of war, and was accustomed to
array himself in a peculiarly brilliant manner, so that his appearance,
in the language of his flatterers, was such as to dazzle the eyes
of beholders. One of his followers perceived that a heifer that was
grazing had wounded her foot, and curiously followed the track of blood,
till he found in the long grass the point of an ancient sword, which
he dug out of the ground and presented to Attila. “That magnanimous,
or rather that artful prince,” says Mr. Gibbon, “accepted with pious
gratitude this celestial favour; and, as the rightful possessor of
_the sword of Mars_, asserted his divine and indefeasible claim to the
dominion of the earth. The favourite of Mars soon acquired a sacred
character, which rendered his conquests more easy and more permanent;
and the barbarian princes confessed, in the language of devotion or
flattery, that they could not presume to gaze, with a steady eye, on
the divine majesty of the king of the Huns,” ii. 317. How appropriate
would it be to represent such a prince by the symbol of a bright and
blazing star――or a meteor flashing through the sky! (3) There may be
propriety, as applicable to him, in the expression――“a great star _from
heaven_ falling upon the earth.” Attila was regarded as an instrument
in the divine hand in inflicting punishment. The common appellation by
which he has been known is “the scourge of God.” This title is supposed
by the modern Hungarians to have been first given to Attila by a hermit
of Gaul, but it was “inserted by Attila among the titles of his royal
dignity” (Gibbon, ii. 321, foot-note). To no one could the title be
more applicable than to him. (4) His career as a conqueror, and the
effect of his conquests on the downfall of the empire, were such as
to be properly symbolized in this manner. (a) The _general_ effect of
the invasion was worthy of an important place in describing the series
of events which resulted in the overthrow of the empire. This is thus
stated by Mr. Gibbon: “The western world was oppressed by the Goths
and Vandals, who fled before the Huns; but the achievements of the
Huns themselves were not adequate to their power and prosperity. Their
victorious hordes had spread from the Volga to the Danube, but the
public force was exhausted by the discord of independent chieftains;
their valour was idly consumed in obscure and predatory excursions; and
they often degraded their national dignity by condescending, for the
hopes of spoil, to enlist under the banners of their fugitive enemies.
In the reign of Attila the Huns again became the terror of the world;
and I shall now describe the character and actions of that formidable
barbarian who alternately invaded and insulted the East and the West,
_and urged the rapid downfall of the Roman empire_,” vol. ii. pp. 314,
315. (b) The parts of the earth affected by the invasion of the Huns
were those which would be properly symbolized by the things specified
at the blowing of this trumpet. It is said particularly that the effect
would be on “the rivers,” {206} and on “the fountains of waters.” If
this has a literal application, or if, as was supposed in the case
of the second trumpet, the language used was such as had reference
to the portion of the empire that would be particularly affected by
the hostile invasion, then we may suppose that this refers to those
portions of the empire that abounded in rivers and streams, and
more particularly those in which the rivers and streams had their
origin――for the effect was permanently in the “_fountains_ of waters.”
As a matter of fact, the principal operations of Attila were in the
regions of the Alps, and on the portions of the empire whence the
rivers flow down into Italy. The invasion of Attila is described by
Mr. Gibbon in this general language: “The whole breadth of Europe, as
it extends above five hundred miles from the Euxine to the Adriatic,
was at once invaded, and occupied, and desolated, by the myriads
of barbarians whom Attila led into the field, ” ii. 319, 320. After
describing the progress and the effects of this invasion (pp. 320‒331)
he proceeds more particularly to detail the events in the invasion of
Gaul and Italy, pp. 331‒347. After the terrible battle of Châlons, in
which, according to one account, one hundred and sixty-two thousand,
and, according to other accounts, three hundred thousand persons were
slain, and in which Attila was defeated, he recovered his vigour,
collected his forces, and made a descent on Italy. Under pretence of
claiming Honoria, the daughter of the Empress of Rome, as his bride,
“the indignant lover took the field, passed the Alps, invaded Italy,
and besieged Aquileia with an innumerable host of barbarians.” After
endeavouring in vain for three months to subdue the city, and when
about to abandon the siege, Attila took advantage of the appearance of
a stork as a favourable omen to arouse his men to a renewed effort, “a
large breach was made in the part of the wall where the stork had taken
her flight; the Huns mounted to the assault with irresistible fury; and
the succeeding generation could scarcely discover the ruins of Aquileia.
After this dreadful chastisement Attila pursued his march; and as he
passed, the cities of Altinum, Concordia, and Padua were reduced into
heaps of stones and ashes. The inland towns, Vicenza, Verona, and
Bergamo, were exposed to the rapacious cruelty of the Huns; Milan and
Pavia submitted without resistance to the loss of their wealth, and
applauded the unusual clemency which preserved from the flames the
public as well as the private buildings, and spared the lives of the
captive multitude. The popular traditions of Comum, Turin, or Modena,
may be justly suspected, yet they concur with more authentic evidence
to prove that Attila spread his ravages over the rich plains of modern
Lombardy, which are divided by the Po, and bounded by the Alps and the
Apennines,” ii. pp. 343, 344. “It is a saying worthy of the ferocious
pride of Attila, that the grass never grew on the spot where his horse
had trod” (_ibid._ p. 345). Anyone has only to look on a map, and to
trace the progress of those desolations and the chief seats of his
military operations to see with what propriety this symbol would be
employed. In these regions the great rivers that water Europe have
their origin, and are swelled by numberless streams that flow down from
the Alps; and about the fountains whence these streams flow were the
principal military operations of the invader. (c) With equal propriety
is he represented in the symbol as affecting “_a third_” part of these
rivers and fountains. At least a third part of the empire was invaded
and desolated by him in his savage march, and the _effects_ of his
invasion were as disastrous _on_ the empire as if a bitter star
had fallen into a third part of those rivers and fountains, and had
converted them into wormwood. (d) There is one other point which shows
the propriety of this symbol. It is, that the meteor, or star, seemed
to be _absorbed_ in the waters. It fell into the waters; embittered
them; and was seen no more. Such would be the case with a meteor that
should thus fall upon the earth――flashing along the sky, and then
disappearing for ever. Now, it was remarkable in regard to the Huns,
that their power was concentrated under Attila; that he alone appeared
as the leader of this formidable host; and that when he died all the
concentrated power of the Huns was dissipated, or became absorbed and
lost. “The revolution,” says Mr. Gibbon (ii. 348), “which subverted
the empire of the Huns, established the fame of Attila, _whose genius
alone had sustained the huge and disjointed fabric_. After his death
the boldest chieftains aspired to the rank of kings; the most powerful
kings refused to acknowledge a superior; and {207} the numerous sons,
whom so many various mothers bore to the deceased monarch, divided
and disputed, like a private inheritance, the sovereign command of the
nations of Germany and Scythia.” Soon, however, in the conflicts which
succeeded, the empire passed away, and the empire of the _Huns_ ceased.
The people that composed it were absorbed in the surrounding nations,
and Mr. Gibbon makes this remark, after giving a summary account of
these conflicts, which continued but for a few years: “The Igours of
the north, issuing from the cold Siberian regions, which produced the
most valuable furs, spread themselves over the desert, as far as the
Borysthenes and the Caspian gates, _and finally extinguished the empire
of the Huns_.” These facts may, perhaps, show with what propriety
Attila would be compared with a bright but beautiful meteor; and that,
if the design was to symbolize him as acting an important part in the
downfall of the Roman empire, there is a fitness in the symbol here
employed.

12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of
[278]the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and
the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was
darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and
the night likewise.

12. _And the fourth angel sounded._ Notes, ver. 6, 7. ¶ _And the
third part of the sea was smitten._ On the phrase _the third part_, see
Notes on ver. 7. The darkening of the heavenly luminaries is everywhere
an emblem of any great calamity――_as if_ the light of the sun, moon,
and stars should be put out. See Notes on ch. vi. 12, 13. There is no
certain evidence that this refers to _rulers_, as many have supposed,
or to anything that would particularly affect the _government_ as such.
The meaning is, that calamity would come _as if_ darkness should spread
over the sun, the moon, and the stars, leaving the world in gloom.
What is the precise _nature_ of the calamity is not indicated by
the language, but anything that would diffuse gloom and disaster
would accord with the fair meaning of the symbol. There are a few
circumstances, however, in regard to this symbol which may aid us in
determining its application. (1) It would follow in the _series_ of
calamities that were to occur. (2) It would be _separated_ in some
important sense――of time, place, or degree――from those which were to
follow, for there is a _pause_ here (ver. 13), and the angel proclaims
that more terrible woes are to succeed this series. (3) Like the
preceding, it is to affect “one third part” of the world; that is, it
is to be a calamity _as if_ a third part of the sun, the moon, and the
stars were suddenly smitten and darkened. (4) It is not to be _total_.
It is not as if the sun, the moon, and the stars were entirely blotted
out, for there was still some remaining light; that is, there was
a continuance of the existing state of things――as if these heavenly
bodies should still give an obscure and partial light. (5) Perhaps it
is also intended by the symbol that there would be light again. The
world was not to go into a state of total and permanent night. For a
third part of the day, and a third part of the night, this darkness
reigned; but does not this imply that there would be light again――that
the obscurity would pass away, and that the sun, and moon, and stars
would shine again? That is, is it not implied that there would still be
prosperity in some future period?

Now, in regard to the application of this, if the explanation of the
preceding symbols is correct, there can be little difficulty. If the
previous symbols referred to Alaric, to Genseric, and to Attila, there
can be no difficulty in applying this to Odoacer, and to his reign――a
reign in which, in fact, the Roman dominion in the West came to an end,
and passed into the hands of this barbarian. Anyone has only to open
the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, to see that this is the
next event that _should_ be symbolized if the design were to represent
the downfall of the empire. These four great barbarian leaders succeed
each other in order, and under the last, Odoacer, the barbarian
dominion was established; for it is here that the existence of the
Roman power, as such, ended. The Western empire terminated, according
to Mr. Gibbon (ii. p. 380), about A.D. 476 or 479. Odoacer was “King of
Italy” from A.D. 476 to A.D. 490 (Gibbon, ii. 379). The Eastern empire
still lingered, but calamity, like blotting out the sun, and moon, and
stars, had come over that {208} part of the world which for so many
centuries had constituted the seat of power and dominion.――Odoacer was
the son of Edecon, a barbarian, who was in the service of Attila, and
who left two sons――Onulf and Odoacer. The former directed his steps
to Constantinople; Odoacer “led a wandering life among the barbarians
of Noricum, with a mind and fortune suited to the most desperate
adventures; and when he had fixed his choice, he piously visited the
cell of Severinus, the popular saint of the country, to solicit his
approbation and blessing. The lowness of the door would not admit the
lofty stature of Odoacer; he was obliged to stoop; but in that humble
attitude the saint could discern the symptoms of his future greatness;
and addressing him in a prophetic tone, ‘Pursue,’ said he, ‘your design;
proceed to Italy; you will soon cast away this coarse garment of skins;
and your wealth will be adequate to the liberality of your mind.’ The
barbarian, whose daring spirit accepted and ratified this prediction,
was admitted into the service of the Western empire, and soon obtained
an honourable rank in the guards. His manners were gradually polished,
his military skill improved; and the confederates of Italy would not
have elected him for their general unless the exploits of Odoacer had
established a high opinion of his courage and capacity. Their military
acclamations saluted him with the title of king; but he abstained
during his whole reign from the use of the purple and the diadem, lest
he should offend those princes whose subjects, by their accidental
mixture, had formed the victorious army which time and policy might
insensibly unite into a great nation” (Gibbon, ii. 379, 380). In
another place Mr. Gibbon says: “Odoacer was the first barbarian who
reigned in Italy, over a people who had once asserted their superiority
above the rest of mankind. The disgrace of the Romans still excites
our respectful compassion, and we fondly sympathize with the imaginary
grief and indignation of their degenerate posterity. But the calamities
of Italy had gradually subdued the proud consciousness of freedom and
glory. In the age of Roman virtue the provinces were subject to the
arms, and the citizens to the laws, of the republic; till those laws
were subverted by civil discord, and both the city and the provinces
became the servile property of a tyrant. The forms of the constitution
which alleviated or disguised their abject slavery were abolished by
time and violence; the Italians alternately lamented the presence or
the absence of the sovereigns whom they detested or despised; and the
succession of five centuries inflicted the various evils of military
license, capricious despotism, and elaborate oppression. During the
same period the barbarians had emerged from obscurity and contempt, and
the warriors of Germany and Scythia were introduced into the provinces,
as the servants, the allies, and at length the masters of the Romans,
whom they insulted or protected,” ii. 381, 382. Of the effect of the
reign of Odoacer Mr. Gibbon remarks: “In the division and decline of
the empire the tributary harvests of Egypt and Africa were withdrawn;
the numbers of the inhabitants continually decreased with the means of
subsistence; and the country was exhausted by the irretrievable losses
of war, famine, and pestilence. St. Ambrose has deplored the ruin of
a populous district, which had been once adorned with the flourishing
cities of Bologna, Modena, Rhegium, and Placentia. Pope Gelasius was
a subject of Odoacer; and he affirms, with strong exaggeration, that
in Æmilia, Tuscany, and the adjacent provinces the human species was
almost extirpated. _One-third_ of those ample estates, to which the
ruin of Italy is originally imputed, was extorted for the use of the
conquerors,” ii. 383. Yet the light was not _wholly_ extinct. It was
“a third part” of it which was put out; and it was still true that
some of the forms of the ancient constitution were observed――that the
light still lingered before it wholly passed away. In the language
of another, “The authority of the Roman name had not yet entirely
ceased. The senate of Rome continued to assemble as usual. The consuls
were appointed yearly, one by the Eastern emperor, one by Italy
and Rome. Odoacer himself governed Italy under a title――that of
_Patrician_――conferred on him by the Eastern emperor. There was still
a certain, though often faint, recognition of the supreme imperial
authority. The moon and the stars might seem still to shine in the West,
with a dim reflected light. In the course of the events, however, which
rapidly followed in the next half-century, these too were extinguished.
After above a century and a half of calamities unexampled {209} almost,
as Dr. Robertson most truly represents it,[279] in the history of
nations, the statement of Jerome――a statement couched under the very
Apocalyptic figure of the text, but prematurely pronounced on the first
taking of Rome by Alaric――might be considered at length accomplished:
‘Clarissimum terrarum _lumen_ extinctum est’――‘The world’s glorious
_sun_ has been extinguished;’ or, as the modern poet Byron (_Childe
Harold_, canto iv.) has expressed it, still under the Apocalyptic
imagery:――

‘She saw her glories star by star expire,’

till not even one star remained to glimmer in the vacant and dark
night” (Elliott, i. 360, 361).

I have thus endeavoured to explain the meaning of the four first
trumpets under the opening of the seventh seal, embracing the
successive severe blows struck on the empire by Alaric, Genseric,
Attila, and Odoacer, until the empire fell, to rise no more. I cannot
better conclude this part of the exposition than in the words of
Mr. Gibbon, in his reflections on the fall of the empire. “I have now
accomplished,” says he, “the laborious narrative of the decline and
fall of the Roman empire, from the fortunate age of Trajan and the
Antonines to its total extinction in the West, about five centuries
after the Christian era. At that unhappy period the Saxons fiercely
struggled with the natives for the possession of Britain; Gaul and
Spain were divided between the powerful monarchies of the Franks
and the Visigoths, and the dependent kingdoms of the Suevi and the
Burgundians; Africa was exposed to the cruel persecution of the Vandals,
and the savage insults of the Moors; Rome and Italy, as far as the
banks of the Danube, were afflicted by an army of barbarian mercenaries,
whose lawless tyranny was succeeded by the reign of Theodoric the
Ostrogoth. All the subjects of the empire, who, by the use of the Latin
language, more particularly deserved the name and privileges of Romans,
were oppressed by the disgrace and calamities of foreign conquest; and
the victorious nations of Germany established a new system of manners
and government in the western countries of Europe. The majesty of Rome
was faintly represented by the princes of Constantinople, the feeble
and imaginary successors of Augustus” (vol. ii. pp. 440, 441). “The
splendid days of Augustus and Trajan _were eclipsed by a cloud of
ignorance_ [a fine illustration of the language ‘the third part of the
sun was smitten, and the day shone not, and the night likewise’]; and
the barbarians subverted the laws and palaces of Rome” (_ibid._ p. 446).

Thus ended the history of the Gothic period, and, as I suppose, the
immediate symbolic representation of the affairs of the Western empire.
An interval now occurs (ver. 13) in the sounding of the trumpets,
and the scene is transferred, in the three remaining trumpets, to the
Eastern parts of the empire. After that the attention is directed again
to the West, to contemplate Rome under a new form, and exerting a new
influence in the nations, under the Papacy, but destined ultimately to
pass away in its spiritual power, as its temporal power had yielded to
the elements of internal decay in its bosom, and to the invasions of
the northern hordes.

13 And I beheld, and heard an [280]angel flying through the
midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to
the inhabiters of the earth, by reason of the other voices of
the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

13. _And I beheld._ My attention was attracted by a new vision.
¶ _And I heard an angel flying_, &c. I heard the voice of an angel
making this proclamation. ¶ _Woe, woe, woe._ That is, there will be
_great_ woe. The repetition of the word is intensive, and the idea is,
that the sounding of the three remaining trumpets would indicate great
and fearful calamities. These three are grouped together as if they
pertained to a similar series of events, as the first four had been.
The two classes are separated from each other by this interval and by
this proclamation――implying that the first series had been completed,
and that there would be some interval, either of space or time, before
the other series would come upon the world. All that is fairly implied
here would be fulfilled by the supposition that the former referred to
the {210} _West_, and that the latter pertained to the _East_, and were
to follow when those should have been completed.

CHAPTER IX.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

The three remaining trumpets (ch. ix.‒xi.) are usually called the
_woe-trumpets_, in reference to the proclamation of woes, ch. viii. 13
(Professor Stuart). The three extend, as I suppose, to the end of time,
or, as it is supposed by the writer himself (ch. xi. 15), to the period
when “the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kingdoms of
Christ,” embracing a succinct view of the most material events that
were to occur, particularly in a _secular_ point of view. See the
Analysis prefixed to the book. In ch. xi. 19, as I understand it, a
new view is commenced, referring to the church internally; the rise
of Antichrist, and the effect of the rise of that formidable power on
the internal history of the church, to the time of its overthrow, and
the triumphant establishment of the kingdom of God. This, of course,
synchronizes in its beginning and its close with the portion already
passed over, but with a different view. See the Analysis prefixed to
ch. xi. 19, seq.

This chapter contains properly three parts. _First_, a description of
the first of those trumpets, or the fifth in the order of the whole,
ver. 1‒12. This woe is represented under the figure of calamities
brought upon the earth by an immense army of locusts. A star is seen
to fall from heaven――representing some mighty chieftain, and to him is
given the key of the bottomless pit. He opens the pit, and then comes
forth an innumerable swarm of locusts that darken the heavens, and they
go forth upon the earth. They have a command given them to do a certain
work. They are not to hurt the earth, or any green thing, but they
are sent against those men which have not the seal of God on their
foreheads. Their main business, however, was not to kill them, but
to torment them for a limited time――for five months. A description of
the appearance of the locusts then follows. Though they are _called_
locusts, because in their general appearance, and in the ravages they
commit, they resemble them, yet, in the main, they are imaginary beings,
and combine in themselves qualities which are never found united in
reality. They had a strong resemblance to horses prepared for battle;
they wore on their heads crowns of gold; they had the faces of men but
the hair of women and the teeth of lions. They had breastplates of iron,
and tails like scorpions, with stings in their tails. They had a mighty
king at their head, with a name significant of the destruction which
he would bring upon the world. These mysterious beings had their origin
in the bottomless pit, and they are summoned forth to spread desolation
upon the earth. _Second_, a description of the second of these trumpets,
the sixth in order, ver. 13‒19. When this is sounded, a voice is heard
from the four horns of the altar which is before God. The angel is
commanded to loose the four angels which are bound in the great river
Euphrates. These angels are loosed――angels which had been prepared
for a definite period――a day, and a month, and a year, to slay the
third part of men. The number of the army that would appear――composed
of cavalry――is stated to amount to two hundred thousand, and the
_peculiarities_ of these horsemen are then stated. They are remarkable
for having breastplates of fire, and jacinth, and brimstone; the heads
of the horses resemble lions; and they breathe forth fire and brimstone.
A third part of men fall before them, by the fire, and the smoke, and
the brimstone. Their power is in their mouth and in their tails, for
their tails are like serpents. _Third_, a statement of the effect of
the judgments brought upon the world under these trumpets, ver. 20, 21.
The effect, so far as the reasonable result could have been anticipated,
is lost. The nations are not turned from idolatry. Wickedness still
abounds, and there is no disposition to repent of the abominations
which had been so long practised on the earth.

CHAPTER IX.

AND the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a [281]star fall from
heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the
[282]bottomless pit.

1. _And the fifth angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 6, 7. ¶ _And I
saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth._ This denotes, as was shown
in the Notes on ch. viii. 10, a leader, a military {211} chieftain,
a warrior. In the fulfilment of this, as in the former case, we look
for the appearance of some mighty prince and warrior, to whom is given
power, as it were, to open the bottomless pit, and to summon forth
its legions. That some such agent is denoted by the _star_ is farther
apparent from the fact that it is immediately added, that “to _him_
[the star] was given the key of the bottomless pit.” It could not be
meant that a key would be given to a literal _star_, and we naturally
suppose, therefore, that some intelligent being of exalted rank, and
of baleful influence, is here referred to. Angels, good and bad, are
often called stars; but the reference here, as in ch. viii. 10, seems
to me not to be to angels, but to some mighty leader of armies, who
was to collect his hosts, and to go through the world in the work of
destruction. ¶ _And to him was given the key of the bottomless pit._
Of the under-world, considered particularly of the abode of the wicked.
This is represented often as a dark prison-house, inclosed with walls,
and accessible by gates or doors. These gates or doors are fastened,
so that none of the inmates can come out, and the key is in the hand of
the keeper or guardian. In ch. i. 18 it is said that the keys of that
world are in the hand of the Saviour (comp. Notes on that passage);
here it is said that for a time, and for a temporary purpose, they are
committed to another. The word _pit_――φρέαρ――denotes properly a well,
or a pit for water dug in the earth; and then any pit, cave, abyss.
The reference here is doubtless to the nether world, considered as
the abode of the wicked dead, the prison-house of the guilty. The word
_bottomless_, ἄβυσσος――whence our word _abyss_――means properly _without
any bottom_ (from α, pr., and βύθος, _depth_, _bottom_). It would be
applied properly to the ocean, or to any deep and dark dell, or to any
obscure place whose depth was unknown. Here it refers to Hades――the
region of the dead――the abode of wicked spirits――as a deep, dark place,
whose bottom was unknown. Having the _key_ to this, is to have the
power to confine those who are there, or to permit them to go at large.
The meaning here is, that this master-spirit would have power to evoke
the dead from these dark regions; and it would be fulfilled if some
mighty genius, that could be compared with a fallen star, or a lurid
meteor, should summon forth followers which would _appear_ like the
dwellers in the nether world called forth to spread desolation over
the earth.

2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke
out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun
and the air were [283]darkened by reason of the smoke of the
pit.

2. _And he opened the bottomless pit._ It is represented before as
wholly confined, so that not even the smoke or vapour could escape.
¶ _And there arose a smoke out of the pit._ Comp. ch. xiv. 11. The
meaning here is, that the pit, as a place of punishment, or as the
abode of the wicked, was filled with burning sulphur, and consequently
that it emitted smoke and vapour as soon as opened. The common image
of the place of punishment, in the Scriptures, is that of a “lake that
burns with fire and brimstone.” Comp. ch. xiv. 10; xix. 20; xx. 10;
xxi. 8. See also Ps. xi. 6; Is. xxx. 33; Eze. xxxviii. 22. It is not
improbable that this image was taken from the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Ge. xix. 24. Such burning sulphur would produce, of course,
a dense smoke or vapour; and the idea here is, that the pit had been
closed, and that as soon as the door was opened a dense column escaped
that darkened the heavens. The purpose of this is, probably, to
indicate the _origin_ of the plague that was about to come upon the
world. It would be of such a character that it would appear as if it
had been emitted from hell; as if the inmates of that dark world had
broke loose upon the earth. Comp. Notes on ch. vi. 8. ¶ _As the smoke
of a great furnace._ So in Ge. xix. 28, whence probably this image is
taken: “And he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and all the land of
the plain, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the country went up as the
smoke of a furnace.” ¶ _And the sun and the air were darkened_, &c.
As will be the case when a smoke ascends from a furnace. The meaning
here is, that an effect would be produced _as if_ a dense and dark
vapour should ascend from the under-world. We are not, of course, to
understand this literally.

3 And there came out of the smoke [284]locusts upon the earth:
and unto them was given power, as the [285]scorpions of the
earth have power.

3. _And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth._ That
is, they escaped from the pit with the smoke. {212} At first they were
mingled with the smoke, so that they were not distinctly seen, but when
the smoke cleared away they appeared in great numbers. The idea seems
to be, that the bottomless pit was filled with vapour and with those
creatures, and that as soon as the gate was opened the whole contents
expanded and burst forth upon the earth. The sun was immediately
darkened, and the air was full, but the smoke soon cleared away, so
that the locusts became distinctly visible. The _appearance_ of these
locusts is described in another part of the chapter, ver. 7, seq. The
locust is a voracious insect belonging to the grasshopper or grylli
genus, and is a great scourge in Oriental countries. A full description
of the locust may be seen in Robinson’s _Calmet_, and in Kitto’s
_Encyclo._ vol. ii. pp. 258, seq. There are ten Hebrew words to denote
the locust, and there are numerous references to the destructive
habits of the insect in the Scriptures. In fact, from their numbers
and their destructive habits, there was scarcely any other plague that
was so much dreaded in the East. Considered as a _symbol_, or _emblem_,
the following remarks may be made in explanation:――(1) The symbol is
_Oriental_, and would most naturally refer to something that was to
occur in the East. As locusts have appeared chiefly in the East, and as
they are in a great measure an _Oriental_ plague, the mention of this
symbol would most naturally turn the thoughts to that portion of the
earth. The symbols of the first four trumpets had no especial locality,
and would suggest no particular part of the world; but on the mention
of this, the mind would be naturally turned to the East, and we should
expect to find that the scene of this woe would be located in the
regions where the ravages of locusts most abounded. Compare, on this
point, Elliott, _Horæ Apoc._ i. 394‒406. He has made it probable that
the prophets, when they used symbolical language to denote any events,
commonly, at least, employed those which had a local or geographical
reference; thus, in the symbols derived from the vegetable kingdom,
when Judah is to be symbolized, the olive, the vine, and the fig-tree
are selected; when Egypt is referred to, the reed is chosen; when
Babylon, the willow. And so, in the animal kingdom, the lion is the
symbol of Judah; the wild ass, of the Arabs; the crocodile, of Egypt,
&c. Whether this theory could be wholly carried out or not, no one
can doubt that the symbol of locusts would most naturally suggest the
Oriental world, and that the natural interpretation of the passage
would lead us to expect its fulfilment there. (2) Locusts were
remarkable for their _numbers_――so great often as to appear like
clouds, and to darken the sky. In this respect they would naturally
be symbolical of numerous armies or hosts of men. This natural symbol
of numerous armies is often employed by the prophets. Thus, in Je.
xlvi. 23:――

“Cut down her forests [_i.e._ her people, or cities],
saith Jehovah,
That it may not be found on searching;
Although they surpass the locusts in multitude,
And they are without number.”

So in Na. iii. 15:――

“There shall the fire devour thee;
The sword shall cut thee off; it shall devour thee as
the locust,
Increase thyself as the numerous locusts.”

So also in Na. iii. 17:――

“Thy crowned princes are as the numerous locusts,
And thy captains as the grasshoppers;
Which encamp in the fences in the cold day,
But when the sun ariseth they depart,
And their place is not known where they were.”

See also De. xxviii. 38, 42; Ps. lxxviii. 46; Am. vii. 1. Comp.
Ju. vi. 3‒6; vii. 12; and Joel, ch. i. ii. (3) Locusts are an emblem
of desolation or destruction. No symbol of desolation could be more
appropriate or striking than this, for one of the most remarkable
properties of locusts is, that they devour every green thing and leave
a land perfectly waste. They do this even when what they destroy is not
necessary for their own sustenance. “Locusts seem to devour not so much
from a ravenous appetite as from a rage for destroying. Destruction,
therefore, and not food, is the chief impulse of their devastations,
and in this consists their utility; they are, in fact, omnivorous.
The most poisonous plants are indifferent to them; they will prey even
upon the crowfoot, whose causticity burns even the hides of beasts.
They simply consume _everything_, {213} without predilection――vegetable
matter, linens, woollens, silk, leather, &c.; and Pliny does not
exaggerate when he says, _fores quoque tectorum_――‘even the doors
of houses’――for they have been known to consume the very varnish of
furniture. They reduce everything indiscriminately to shreds, which
become manure” (Kitto’s _Encyclo._ ii. 263). Locusts become, therefore,
a most striking symbol of an all-devouring army, and as such are often
referred to in Scripture. So also in Josephus, _de Bello Jud._ book v.
ch. vii.:――“As after locusts we see the woods stripped of their leaves,
so, in the rear of Simon’s army, nothing but devastation remained.”
The _natural_ application of this symbol, then, is to a numerous and
destructive army, or to a great multitude of people committing ravages,
and sweeping off everything in their march. ¶ _And unto them was given
power._ This was something that was _imparted_ to them beyond their
ordinary nature. The locust in itself is not strong, and is not a
symbol of strength. Though destructive in the extreme, yet neither
as individuals, nor as combined, are they distinguished for strength.
Hence it is mentioned as a remarkable circumstance that they had such
power conferred on them. ¶ _As the scorpions of the earth have power._
The phrase “the earth” seems to have been introduced here because these
creatures are said to have come up from “the bottomless pit,” and it
was natural to compare them with some well-known objects found on the
earth. The scorpion is an animal with eight feet, eight eyes, and a
long, jointed tail, ending in a pointed weapon or sting. It is the
largest and the most malignant of all the insect tribes. It somewhat
resembles the lobster in its general appearance, but is much more
hideous. See Notes on Lu. x. 19. Those found in Europe seldom exceed
four inches in length, but in tropical climates, where they abound,
they are often found twelve inches long. There are few animals more
formidable, and none more irascible, than the scorpion. Goldsmith
states that Maupertuis put about a hundred of them together in the
same glass, and that as soon as they came into contact they began
to exert all their rage in mutual destruction, so that in a few days
there remained but fourteen, which had killed and devoured all the
rest. The sting of the scorpion, Dr. Shaw states, is not always
fatal; the malignity of their venom being in proportion to their
size and complexion. The torment of a scorpion, when he strikes a
man, is thus described by Dioscorides, lib. vii. cap. 7, as cited by
Mr. Taylor:――“When the scorpion has stung, the place becomes inflamed
and hardened; it reddens by tension, and is painful by intervals, being
now chilly, now burning. The pain soon rises high, and rages, sometimes
more, sometimes less. A sweating succeeds, attended by a shivering and
trembling; the extremities of the body become cold, the groin swells,
the hair stands on end, the members become pale, and the skin feels
throughout the sensation of a perpetual pricking, as if by needles”
(Fragments to Calmet’s _Dic._ vol. iv. p. 376, 377). “The tail of the
scorpion is long, and formed after the manner of a string of beads,
the last larger than the others, and longer; at the end of which are,
sometimes, two stings which are hollow, and filled with a cold poison,
which it ejects into the part which it stings” (Calmet’s _Dic._).
The sting of the scorpion, therefore, becomes the emblem of that
which causes acute and dangerous suffering. On this comparison with
_scorpions_ see the remark of Niebuhr, quoted in the Notes on ver. 7.

4 And it was [286]commanded them that they should not hurt the
grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree;
but only those men which have not the [287]seal of God in
their foreheads.

4. _And it was commanded them._ The writer does not say _by whom_ this
command was given, but it is clearly by some one who had the direction
of them. As they were evoked from the “bottomless pit” by one who had
the key to that dark abode, and as they are represented in ver. 11 as
under the command of one who is there called Abaddon, or Apollyon――the
Destroyer――it would seem most probable that the command referred
to is one that is given by him; that is, that this expresses one
of the principles on which he would act in his devastations. At all
events, this denotes what would be one of the characteristics of these
destroyers. Their purpose {214} would be to vex and trouble men; not
to spread desolation over vineyards, olive-yards, and fields of grain.
¶ _That they should not hurt the grass of the earth_, &c. See Notes on
ch. viii. 7. The meaning here is plain. There would be some sense in
which these invaders would be characterized in a manner that was not
common among invaders, to wit, that they would show particular care
not to carry their devastations into the vegetable world. Their warfare
would be with men, and not with orchards and green fields. ¶ _But only
those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads._ See Notes
on ch. vii. 2, 3. They commenced war against that part of the human
race only. The _language_ here properly denotes those who were not the
friends of God. It may here refer, however, either to those who _in
reality_ were not such, or to those who were regarded by him who gave
this command as not being such. In the former case, the commission
would have respect to real infidels in the sight of God――that is, to
those who rejected the true religion; in the latter it would express
the sentiment of the leader of this host, as referring to those
who in _his_ apprehension were infidels or enemies of God. The true
interpretation must depend on the sense in which we understand the
phrase “it was commanded;” whether as referring to God, or to the
leader of the host himself. The language, therefore, is ambiguous,
and the meaning must be determined by the other parts of the passage.
Either method of understanding the passage would be in accordance with
its fair interpretation.

5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but
that they should be tormented five months: and their torment
_was_ as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

5. _And to them it was given._ There is here the same indefiniteness
as in the former verse, the impersonal verb being here also used. The
writer does not say _by whom_ this power was given, whether by God, or
by the leader of the host. It may be admitted, however, that the most
natural interpretation is to suppose that it was given them by God, and
that this was the execution of _his_ purpose in this case. Still it is
remarkable that this is not directly affirmed, and that the language is
so general as to admit of the other application. The _fact_ that they
did not kill them, but tormented them――if such a fact should be found
to exist――would be in every sense a fulfilment of what is here said.
¶ _That they should not kill them._ This is in accordance with the
nature of the symbol. The locusts do not themselves destroy any living
creature; and the sting of the scorpion, though exceedingly painful, is
not usually fatal. The proper fulfilment of this would be found in that
which would not be generally fatal, but which would diffuse misery and
wretchedness. (Comp. ver. 6.) _Perhaps_ all that would be necessarily
meant by this would be, not that individual _men_ would not be killed,
but that they would be sent to inflict plagues and torments rather than
to take life, and that the characteristic effects of their appearing
would be distress and suffering rather than death. There may be
included in the fair interpretation of the words, general distress and
sorrow; acts of oppression, cruelty, and violence; such a condition
of public suffering that men would regard death as a relief if they
could find it. ¶ _But that they should be tormented._ That is, that
they should be subjected to ills and troubles which might be properly
compared with the sting of a scorpion. ¶ _Five months._ So far as the
_words_ here are concerned this might be taken literally, denoting
five months or one hundred and fifty days; or as a prophetic reckoning,
where a day stands for a year. Comp. Notes on Da. ix. 24, seq. The
latter is undoubtedly the correct interpretation here, for it is the
character of the book thus to reckon time. See Notes on ver. 15. [See
also Editor’s Preface, pp. xi.‒xv.] If this be the true method of
reckoning here, then it will be necessary to find some events which
will embrace about the period of one hundred and fifty years, during
which this distress and sorrow would continue. The proper laws of
interpretation demand that one or the other of these periods should
be found――either that of five months literally, or that of a hundred
and fifty years. It may be true, as Professor Stuart suggests
(_in loco_), that “the usual time of locusts is from May to September
inclusive――five months.” It may be true, also, that this symbol was
chosen partly _because_ that was the fact, and they would, from that
fact, be well adapted to symbolize {215} a period that could be spoken
of as “five months;” but still the meaning must be more than simply it
was “_a short period_,” as he supposes. The phrase _a few months_ might
designate such a period; but if that had been the writer’s intention,
he would not have selected the definite number _five_. ¶ _And their
torment |was| as the torment of a scorpion_, &c. See Notes on ver. 3.
That is, it would be painful, severe, dangerous.

6 And in those days shall [288]men seek death, and shall not
find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from
them.

6. _And in those days shall men seek death_, &c. See Notes on ver. 5.
It is very easy to conceive of such a state of things as is here
described, and, indeed, this has not been very uncommon in the world.
It is a state where the distress is so great that men would consider
death a relief, and where they anxiously look to the time when they may
be released from their sufferings by death. In the case before us it is
not intimated that they would lay violent hands on themselves, or that
they would take any positive measures to end their sufferings; and this,
perhaps, _may be_ a circumstance of some importance to show that the
persons referred to were servants of God. When it is said that “they
would _seek_ death,” it can only be meant that they would look out for
it――or desire it――as the end of their sorrows. This is descriptive, as
we shall see, of a particular period of the world; but the _language_
is beautifully applicable to what occurs in all ages and in all lands.
There is always a great number of sufferers who are looking forward
to death as a relief. In cells and dungeons; on beds of pain and
languishing; in scenes of poverty and want; in blighted hopes and
disappointed affections, how many are there who would be glad to die,
and who have no hope of an end of suffering but in the grave! A few, by
the pistol, by the halter, by poison, or by drowning, seek thus to end
their woes. A large part look forward to death as a release, when, if
the reality were known, death would furnish no such relief, for there
are deeper and longer woes beyond the grave than there are this side
of it. Comp. Notes on Job iii. 20‒22. But to a portion death _will_
be a relief. It will be an end of sufferings. They will find peace in
the grave, and are assured they shall suffer no more. Such bear their
trials with patience, for the end of _all_ sorrow to them is near, and
death will come to release their spirits from the suffering clay, and
to bear them in triumph to a world where a pang shall never be felt,
and a tear never shed.

7 And the [289]shapes of the locusts _were_ like unto horses
prepared unto battle; and on their heads _were_ as it were
[290]crowns like gold, and their [291]faces _were_ as the
faces of men.

7. _And the shapes of the locusts |were| like unto horses prepared for
battle._ The resemblance between the locust and the horse, dissimilar
as they are in most respects, has been often remarked. Dr. Robinson
(_Bib. Research_, i. 59) says: “We found to-day upon the shrubs an
insect, either a species of black locust, or much resembling them,
which our Bedouin called _Farras el Jundy_, ‘soldiers’ horses.’ They
said these insects were common on Mount Sinai, of a green colour, and
were found on dead trees, but did them no injury.” The editor of the
_Pictorial Bible_ makes the following remarks:――“The first time we saw
locusts browsing with their wings closed, the idea of comparing them
to horses arose spontaneously to our minds――as we had not previously
met with such a comparison, and did not at that time advert to the
present text [Joel ii. 4]. The resemblance in the head first struck
our attention; and this notion having once arisen, other analogies
were found or imagined in its general appearance and action in feeding.
We have since found the observation very common. The Italians, indeed,
from this resemblance, called the locust _cavaletta_, or _little horse_.
Sir W. Ouseley reports: ‘Zakaria Cazvine divides the locusts into two
classes, like horsemen and footmen――mounted and pedestrian.’ Niebuhr
says that he heard from a Bedouin, near Bussorah, a particular
comparison of the locust to other animals; but as this passage of
Scripture did not occur to him at the time he thought it a mere fancy
of the Arab’s, till he heard it repeated at Bagdad. He compared the
head of the locust to that of the horse; the feet to those of the
camel; {216} the belly with that of a serpent; the tail with that of a
scorpion; and the feelers (if Niebuhr remembered rightly) to the hair
of a virgin” (_Pict. Bib._ on Joel ii. 4). The resemblance to horses
would naturally suggest the idea of _cavalry_, as being referred to by
the symbol. ¶ _And on their heads |were| as it were crowns like gold._
The writer does not say either that these were literally _crowns_, or
that they were actually made of _gold_. They were “_as it were_” (ὡς)
_crowns_, and they were _like_ (ὅμοιος) _gold_. That is, as seen by him,
they had a resemblance to crowns or diadems, and they also resembled
gold in their colour and brilliancy. The word _crown_――στέφανος――means
properly a circlet, chaplet, encircling the head (a) as an emblem of
royal dignity, and as worn by kings; (b) as conferred on victors in
the public games――a chaplet, a wreath; (c) as an ornament, honour,
or glory, Phi. iv. 1. No particular _shape_ is designated by the word
στέφανος――_stephanos_――and perhaps the word _crown_ does not quite
express the meaning. The word _diadem_ would come nearer to it. The
true notion in the word is that of something that is passed around the
head, and that encircles it, and as such it would well describe the
appearance of a _turban_ as seen at a distance. On the supposition that
the symbolic beings here referred to had turbans on their heads, and
on the supposition that something was referred to which was not much
worn in the time of John, and, therefore, that had no name, the word
_stephanos_, or _diadem_, would be likely to be used in describing it.
This, too, would accord with the use of the phrase “_as it were_”――ὡς.
The writer saw such head-ornaments as he was accustomed to see. They
were not _exactly_ crowns or diadems, but they had a resemblance to
them, and he therefore uses this language: “and on their heads were _as
it were_ crowns.” Suppose that these were _turbans_, and that they were
not in common use in the time of John, and that they had, therefore,
no name, would not this be the exact language which he would use in
describing them? The same remarks may be made respecting the other
expression. ¶ _Like gold._ They were not pure gold, but they had a
resemblance to it. Would not a yellow turban correspond with all that
is said in this description? ¶ _And their faces |were| as the faces
of men._ They had a human countenance. This would indicate that, after
all, they were human beings that the symbol described, though they had
come up from the bottomless pit. Horsemen, in strange apparel, with a
strange head-dress, would be all that would be properly denoted by this.

8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their [292]teeth
were as _the teeth_ of lions.

8. _And they had hair as the hair of women._ Long hair; not such as men
commonly wear, but such as women wear. See Notes on 1 Co. xi. 14. This
struck John as a peculiarity, that, though warriors, they should have
the appearance of effeminacy indicated by allowing their hair to grow
long. It is clear from this, that John regarded their appearance as
unusual and remarkable. Though manifestly designed to represent an army,
yet it was not the usual appearance of men who went forth to battle.
Among the Greeks of ancient times, indeed, long hair was not uncommon
(see the Notes above referred to on 1 Co. xi. 14), but this was by no
means the usual custom among the ancients; and the fact that these
warriors had long hair like women was a circumstance that would
distinguish them particularly from others. On this comparison of the
appearance of the locusts with the hair of women see the remarks of
Niebuhr, in the Notes on ver. 7. ¶ _And their teeth were as |the teeth|
of lions._ Strong; fitted to devour. The teeth of the locust are by
no means prominent, though they are strong, for they readily cut down
and eat up all vegetable substances that come in their way. But it is
evident that John means to say that there was much that was unusual and
remarkable in the teeth of these locusts. They would be ravenous and
fierce, and would spread terror and desolation like the lions of the
desert.

9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of
iron; and the sound of their wings _was_ as the [293]sound
of chariots of many horses running to battle.

9. _And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron._ Hard,
horny, impenetrable, _as if_ they were made of {217} iron. The locust
_has_ a firm and hard cuticle on the forepart of the breast, which
serves for a shield or defence while it moves in the thorny and furzy
vegetation. On those which John saw this was peculiarly hard and horny,
and would thus be well adapted to be an emblem of the breastplates
of iron commonly worn by ancient warriors. The meaning is, that the
warriors referred to would be well clad with defensive armour. ¶ _And
the sound of their wings |was| as the sound of chariots of many horses
running to battle._ The noise made by locusts is often spoken of by
travellers, and the comparison of that noise with that of chariots
rushing to battle, is not only appropriate, but also indicates
clearly what was symbolized. It was _an army_ that was symbolized,
and everything about them served to represent hosts of men well armed,
rushing to conflict. The same thing here referred to is noticed by
Joel, ch. ii. 4, 5, 7:――

“The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses;
And as horsemen so shall they run.
Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains, shall
they leap;
Like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble;
As a strong people set in battle array.
They shall run like mighty men;
They shall climb the wall like men of war;
And they shall march every one his ways, and shall not break
their ranks,” &c.

It is remarkable that Volney, who had no intention of illustrating
the truth of Scripture, has given a description of locusts, _as if_ he
meant to confirm the truth of what is here said. “Syria,” says he, “as
well as Egypt, Persia, and almost all the south of Asia, is subject
to another calamity no less dreadful [than earthquakes]; I mean those
_clouds_ of locusts so often mentioned by travellers. The quantity of
these insects is incredible to all who have not themselves witnessed
their astounding numbers; the whole earth is covered with them for
the space of several leagues. The _noise_ they make in browsing on the
trees and herbage may be heard to a great distance, and resembles that
of an army foraging in secret” (_Travels in Egypt and Syria_, vol. i.
pp. 283, 284).

10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were
stings in their tails: and [294]their power _was_ to hurt men
five months.

10. _And they had tails like unto scorpions._ The fancy of an Arab now
often discerns a resemblance between the tail of the locust and the
scorpion. See the remark of Niebuhr, quoted in the Notes on ver. 7.
¶ _And there were stings in their tails._ Like the stings of scorpions.
See Notes on ver. 3. This made the locusts which appeared to John the
more remarkable, for though the fancy may imagine a resemblance between
the tail of a locust and a scorpion, yet the locusts have properly
no sting. The only thing which they have resembling a sting is a hard
bony substance like a needle, with which the female punctures the bark
and wood of trees in order to deposit her eggs. It has, however, no
adaptation, like a sting, for conveying poison into a wound. These,
however, appeared to be armed with stings properly so called. ¶ _And
their power |was| to hurt men._ Not primarily to _kill_ men, but to
inflict on them various kinds of tortures. See Notes on ver. 5. The
word here used――ἀδικῆσαι, rendered _to hurt_――is different from the
word in ver. 5――βασανισθῶσι, rendered _should be tormented_. This word
properly means _to do wrong_, _to do unjustly_, _to injure_, _to hurt_;
and the two words would seem to convey the idea that they would produce
distress by _doing wrong_ to others, or by dealing unjustly with
them. It does not appear that the wrong would be by inflicting bodily
torments, but would be characterized by that injustice towards others
which produces distress and anguish. ¶ _Five months._ See Notes on
ver. 5; [also Editor’s Preface, page xxiv].

11 And they had a [295]king over them, _which is_ the angel
of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue _is_
Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath _his_ name [296]Apollyon.

11. _And they had a king over them._ A ruler who marshalled their
hosts. Locusts often, and indeed generally, move in bands, though they
do not appear to be under the direction of any one as a particular
ruler or guide. In this case it struck John as a remarkable peculiarity
that they _had_ a king――a king who, it would seem, had the absolute
control, and to whom was to {218} be traced all the destruction which
would ensue from their emerging from the bottomless pit. ¶ _|Which is|
the angel of the bottomless pit_. See Notes on ver. 1. The word _angel_
here would seem to refer to the chief of the evil angels, who presided
over the dark and gloomy regions from whence the locusts seemed to
emerge. This may either mean that this evil angel seemed to command
them personally, or that his spirit was infused into the leader
of these hosts. ¶ _Whose name in the Hebrew tongue |is| Abaddon._
The name Abaddon means literally _destruction_, and is the same as
Apollyon. ¶ _But in the Greek tongue hath |his| name Apollyon._ From
ἀπόλλυμι――_to destroy_. The word properly denotes a destroyer, and the
name is given to this king of the hosts, represented by the locusts,
because this would be his principal characteristic.

After this minute explanation of the literal meaning of the symbol,
it may be useful, before attempting to apply it, and to ascertain the
_events_ designed to be represented, to have a distinct impression
of the principal image――the locust. It is evident that this is, in
many respects, a creature of the imagination, and that we are not to
expect the exact representation to be found in any forms of actual
existence in the animal creation. The following engraving, prepared
by Mr. Elliott (vol. i. p. 410), will give a sufficiently accurate
representation of this symbolical figure as it appeared to John.

Illustration: Symbolical Locust, according to Elliott.

The question now is, whether any events occurred in history, subsequent
to and succeeding those supposed to be referred to in the fourth
trumpet, to which this symbol would be applicable. Reasons have already
been suggested for supposing that there was a transfer of the seat of
the operations to another part of the world. The first four trumpets
referred to a continual series of events of the same general character,
and having a proper close. These have been explained as referring
to the successive shocks which terminated in the downfall of the
Western empire. At the close of that series there is a pause in the
representation (ch. viii. 13), and a solemn proclamation that other
scenes were to open distinguished for woe. These were to be symbolized
in the sounding of the remaining three trumpets, embracing the whole
period till the consummation of all things――or sketching great and
momentous events in the future, until the volume sealed with the seven
seals (ch. v. 1) should have been wholly unrolled and its contents
disclosed. The whole scene now is changed. Rome has fallen. It has
passed into the hands of strangers. The power that had spread itself
over the world has, in that form, come to an end, and is to exist no
more――though, as we shall see (ch. xi. seq.), _another_ power, quite as
formidable, existing there, is to be described by a new set of symbols.
But here (ch. ix.) a new power appears. The scenery is all Oriental,
and clearly has reference to events that were to spring up in the East.
With surprising unanimity, commentators have agreed in regarding this
as referring to the empire of the Saracens, or to the rise and progress
of the religion and the empire set up by Mahomet. The inquiry now is,
whether the circumstances introduced into the symbol find a proper
fulfilment in the rise of the Saracenic power, and in the conquests of
the Prophet of Mecca.

(1) _The country where the scene is laid._ As already remarked, the
scene is Oriental――for the mention of locusts naturally suggests the
East――that being the part of the world where they abound, and they
being in fact peculiarly an Oriental plague. It may now be added,
that in a more strict and proper sense Arabia may be intended; that is,
if it be admitted that the design was to symbolize events pertaining
to Arabia, or the gathering of the hosts of Arabia for conquest,
the symbol of _locusts_ would have been employed for the locust, the
groundwork of the symbol is peculiarly Arabic. It was the east wind
which brought the locusts on Egypt (Ex. x. 13), and they must therefore
have come from some portion of Arabia――for Arabia is the land that
lies over against Egypt in the east. Such, too, is the testimony {219}
of Volney; “the most judicious,” as Mr. Gibbon calls him, “of modern
travellers.” “The inhabitants of Syria,” says he, “have remarked that
locusts come constantly from the desert of Arabia,” ch. xx. sect. 5.
All that is necessary to say further on this point is, that on the
supposition that it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration in
the passage before us to refer to the followers of Mahomet, the image
of the locusts was that which would be naturally selected. There was
no other one so appropriate and so striking; no one that would so
naturally designate the country of Arabia. As some confirmation of
this, or as showing how _natural_ the symbol would be, a remark may be
introduced from Mr. Forster. In his _Mohammedanism Unveiled_, vol. i.
p. 217, he says, “In the Bedoween romance of _Antar_, the _locust_
is introduced as the national emblem of the Ishmaelites. And it is
a remarkable coincidence that Mohammedan tradition speaks of locusts
having dropped into the hands of Mohammed, bearing on their wings this
inscription――‘We are the army of the Great God.’” These circumstances
will show the propriety of the symbol on the supposition that it refers
to Arabia and the Saracens.

(2) _The people._ The question is, whether there was anything in
the symbol, as described by John, which would properly designate the
followers of Mahomet, on the supposition that it was designed to have
such a reference. (a) As to _numbers_. “They (the Midianite Arabs)
came as locusts for multitude,” Ju. vi. 5. See Notes on ver. 3. Nothing
would better represent the _numbers_ of the Saracenic hordes that
came out of Arabia, and that spread over the East――over Egypt, Libya,
Mauritania, Spain, and that threatened to spread over Europe――than
such an army of locusts. “One hundred years after his flight [Mahomet]
from Mecca,” says Mr. Gibbon, “the arms and the reign of his successors
extended from India to the Atlantic Ocean, over the various and distant
provinces which may be comprised under the names of Persia, Syria,
Egypt, Africa, and Spain,” vol. iii. p. 410. “At the end of the first
century of the Hegira the caliphs were the most potent and absolute
monarchs on the globe. Under the last of the Ommiades the Arabian
empire extended two hundred days’ journey from east to west, from the
confines of Tartary and India to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean”
(_ibid._ p. 460). In regard to the immense _hosts_ employed in these
conquests, an idea may be formed by a perusal of the whole fifty-first
chapter in Gibbon (vol. iii. pp. 408‒461). Those hosts issued primarily
from Arabia, and in their numbers would be well compared with the
swarms of locusts that issued from the same country, so numerous as
to darken the sky. (b) The _description_ of the people. ¶ _Their faces
were as the faces of men._ This would seem to be in contrast with other
people, or to denote something that was peculiar in the appearance of
the persons represented. In other words, the meaning would seem to be,
that there was something manly and warlike in their appearance, so far
as their _faces_ were concerned. It is remarkable that the appearance
of the Goths (represented, as I suppose, under the previous trumpets)
is described by Jerome (comp. on Is. viii.) as quite the reverse. They
are described as having faces shaven and smooth; faces, in contrast
with the bearded Romans, _like women’s faces_.[297] Is it fancy to
suppose that the reference here is to the beard and moustache of the
Arabic hosts? We know with what care they regarded the beard; and _if_
a representation was made of them, especially in contrast with nations
that shaved their faces, and who thus resembled women, it would be
natural to speak of those represented in the symbol as “having faces
as the faces of _men_.” ¶ _They had hair as the hair of women._ A
strange mingling of the appearance of effeminacy with the indication
of manliness and courage. See Notes on ver. 8. And yet this strictly
accords with the appearance of the Arabs or Saracens. Pliny, the
contemporary of John, speaks of the Arabs then as having the hair
long and uncut, with the moustache on the upper lip, or the beard:
Arabes mitrati sunt, aut _intonso crine_. Barba abraditur, _præterquam
in superiore labro_. Aliis et _hæc intonsa_ (_Nat. Hist._ vol. vi.
p. 28). So Solinus describes them in the third century (Plurimis crinis
intonsus, mitrata capita, pars rasâ in cutem barbâ, c. 53); so Ammianus
Marcellinus, in the fourth century (_Crinitus_ quidam a Saracenorum
cuneo, vol. xxxi. p. 16); and so Claudian, Theodore of Mopsuesta, and
Jerome, in the fifth. Jerome lived {220} about two centuries before the
great Saracen invasion; and as he lived at Bethlehem, on the borders
of Arabia, he must have been familiar with the appearance of the Arabs.
Still later, in that most characteristic of Arab poems, _Antar_, a poem
written in the time of Mahomet’s childhood, we find the moustache, and
the beard, and the long flowing hair on the shoulder, and the turban,
all specified as characteristic of the Arabians: “He adjusted himself
properly, twisted his whiskers, _and folded up his hair under his
turban_, drawing it from off his shoulders,” vol. i. p. 340. “His hair
flowed down on his shoulders,” vol. i. p. 169. “Antar cut off Maudi’s
hair in revenge and insult,” vol. iii. p. 117. “We will hang him up by
his hair,” vol. iv. p. 325. See Elliott, vol. i. pp. 411, 412. Comp.
_Newton on the Prophecies_, p. 485. ¶ _And on their heads |were| as
it were crowns of gold._ See Notes on ver. 7. That is, diadems, or
something that appeared like crowns, or chaplets. This will agree well
with the _turban_ worn by the Arabs or Saracens, and which was quite
characteristic of them in the early periods when they became known. So
in the passage already quoted, Pliny speaks of them as Arabes _mitrati_;
so Solinus, _mitrata capita_; so in the poem of _Antar_, “he folded up
his hair _under his turban_.” It is remarkable also that Ezekiel (ch.
xxiii. 42) describes the turbans of the Sabean or Keturite Arabs under
the very appellation here used by John: “Sabeans from the wilderness,
which put beautiful _crowns_ upon their heads.” So in the preface to
_Antar_, it is said, “It was a usual saying among them, that God had
bestowed four peculiar things on the Arabs; that their _turbans_ should
be unto them instead of _diadems_, their tents instead of walls and
houses, their swords instead of intrenchments, and their poems instead
of written laws.” Mr. Forster, in his _Mohammedanism Unveiled_, quotes
as a precept of Mahomet: “Make a point of wearing _turbans_, because it
is the way of angels.” Turbans might then with propriety be represented
as crowns, and no doubt these were often so gilded and ornamented that
they might be spoken of as “crowns _of gold_.” ¶ _They had breastplates,
as it were breastplates of iron._ See Notes on ver. 9. As a _symbol_,
this would be properly descriptive of the Arabians or Saracens. In
the poem _Antar_ the steel and iron cuirasses of the Arab warriors are
frequently noticed: “A warrior immersed in _steel armour_,” vol. ii.
p. 203. “Fifteen thousand men armed with cuirasses, and well accoutred
for war,” vol. ii. p. 42. “They were clothed in iron armour, and
brilliant cuirasses,” vol. i. p. 23. “Out of the dust appeared horsemen
clad in iron,” vol. iii. p. 274. The same thing occurs in the Koran:
“God hath given you coats of mail to defend you in your wars,” vol. ii.
p. 104. In the history of Mahomet we read expressly of the cuirasses of
himself and of his Arab troops. Seven cuirasses are noted in the list
of Mahomet’s private armoury (Gagnier, vol. iii. p. 328‒334). In his
second battle with the Koreish, seven hundred of his little army are
spoken of by Mr. Gibbon as armed with cuirasses. See Elliott, vol. i.
p. 413. These illustrations will show with what propriety the locusts
in the symbol were represented as having breastplates like breastplates
of iron. On the supposition that this referred to the Arabs and the
Saracens this would have been the very symbol which would have been
used. Indeed, all the features in the symbol are precisely such as
_would_ properly be employed on the supposition that the reference was
to them. It is true that beforehand it might not have been practicable
to describe exactly what people were referred to, but (a) it would be
easy to see that some fearful calamity was to be anticipated from the
ravages of hosts of fearful invaders; and (b) when the events occurred,
there would be no difficulty in determining to whom this application
should be made.

(3) _The time when this would occur._ As to this there can be no
difficulty in the application to the Saracens. On the supposition that
the four first trumpets refer to the downfall of the Western empire,
then the proper time supposed to be represented by this symbol is
subsequent to that; and yet the manner in which the last three trumpets
are introduced (ch. viii. 13) shows that there would be an _interval_
between the sounding of the last of the four trumpets and the
sounding of the fifth. The events referred to, as I have supposed, as
represented by the fourth trumpet, occurred in the close of the fifth
century (A.D. 476‒490). The principal events in the seventh century
were connected with the invasions and conquests of the Saracens. The
interval of a century is not more than the fair {221} interpretation of
the proclamation in ch. viii. 13 would justify.

(4) _The commission given to the symbolical locusts._ This embraces the
following things:――(a) They were not to hurt the grass of the earth,
nor any green thing; (b) they were especially to go against those who
had not the seal of God in their foreheads; (c) they were not to _kill_
them, but were to _torment_ them. ¶ _They were not to hurt the grass of
the earth_, &c. Notes, ver. 4. This agrees remarkably with an express
command in the Koran. The often-quoted order of the Caliph Aboubekir,
the father-in-law and successor of Mahomet, issued to the Saracen
hordes on their invasion of Syria, shows what was understood to be the
spirit of their religion: “Remember that you are always in the presence
of God, on the verge of death, in the assurance of judgment, and the
hope of paradise. Avoid injustice and oppression; consult with your
brethren, and study to preserve the love and confidence of your troops.
When you fight the battles of the Lord, acquit yourselves like men,
without turning your backs; _but let not the victory be stained with
the blood of women or children. Destroy no palm-trees, nor burn any
fields of corn. Cut down no fruit-trees, nor do any mischief to cattle,
only such as you kill to eat._ When you make any covenant or article,
stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find
some religious persons who live retired in monasteries, and propose
to themselves to serve God in that way; let them alone, and _neither
kill them_ [‘and to them it was given that they should not kill them,’
ver. 5], nor destroy their monasteries,” &c. (Gibbon, iii. 417, 418).
So Mr. Gibbon notices this precept of the Koran: “In the siege of
Tayaf,” says he, “sixty miles from Mecca, Mohammed violated _his own
laws_ by the extirpation of the fruit-trees,” ii. 392. The same order
existed among the Hebrews, and it is not improbable that Mahomet
derived his precept from the command of Moses (De. xx. 19), though what
was _mercy_ among the Hebrews was probably mere _policy_ with him. This
precept is the more remarkable because it has been the usual custom in
war, and particularly among barbarians and semi-barbarians, to destroy
grain and fruit, and especially to cut down fruit-trees, in order
to do greater injury to an enemy. Thus we have seen (Notes on ch.
viii. 7), that in the invasion of the Goths their course was marked
by desolations of this kind. Thus, in more modern times, it has been
common to carry the desolations of war into gardens, orchards, and
vineyards. In the single province of Upper Messenia the troops of
Mahomet Ali, in the war with Greece, cut down half a million of
olive-trees, and thus stripped the country of its means of wealth. So
Scio was a beautiful spot, the seat of delightful villas, and gardens,
and orchards; and in one day all this beauty was destroyed. On the
supposition, therefore, that this prediction had reference to the
Saracens, nothing could be more appropriate. Indeed, in all the history
of barbarous and savage warfare it would be difficult to find another
distinct command that no injury should be done to gardens and orchards.
(d) Their commission was expressly against “those men who had not the
seal of God in their foreheads.” See Notes on ver. 4. That is, they
were to go either against those who were not _really_ the friends of
God, or those who _in their estimation_ were not. Perhaps, if there
were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation,
the former would be the most natural explanation of the passage; but
the language _may be_ understood as referring to the purpose which
they considered themselves as called upon to execute: that is, that
they were to go against those whom they regarded as being strangers
to the true God, to wit, idolaters. Now it is well known that Mahomet
considered himself called upon, principally, to make war with idolaters,
and that he went forth, professedly, to bring them into subjection to
the service of the true God. “The means of persuasion,” says Mr. Gibbon,
“had been tried, the season of forbearance was elapsed, and he was
now commanded to propagate his religion by the sword, to destroy the
monuments of idolatry, and, without regarding the sanctity of days or
months, to pursue the unbelieving nations of the earth,” iii. 387. “The
fair option of friendship, or submission, or battle, was proposed to
the enemies of Mahomet” (_ibid._). “The sword,” says Mahomet, “is the
key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a
night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting and
prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven; at the day
of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent {222} as vermilion, and
odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the
wings of angels and cherubim” (Gibbon, iii. 387). The first conflicts
waged by Mahomet were against the _idolaters_ of his own country――those
who can, on no supposition, be regarded as “having the seal of God in
their foreheads;” his subsequent wars were against _infidels_ of all
classes; that is, against those whom he regarded as not having the
“seal of God in their foreheads,” or as being the enemies of God.
(e) The other part of the commission was “not to kill, but to torment
them.” Notes, ver. 5. Compare the quotation from the command of
Aboubekir, as quoted above: “Let not the victory be stained with the
blood of women and children.” “Let them alone, and neither kill them
nor destroy their monasteries.” The meaning of this, if understood
as applied to their commission against Christendom, would seem to be,
that they were not to go forth to “kill,” but to “torment” them; to
wit, by the calamities which they would bring upon Christian nations
for a definite period. Indeed, as we have seen above, it was an express
command of Aboubekir that they should not put those to death who were
found leading quiet and peaceable lives in monasteries, though against
another class he _did_ give an express command to “cleave their skulls.”
See Gibbon, iii. 418. As applicable to the conflicts of the Saracens
with Christians, the meaning here would seem to be, that the power
conceded to those who are represented by the locusts was not to cut
off and to destroy the church, but it was to bring upon it various
calamities to continue for a definite period. Accordingly, some of the
severest afflictions which have come upon the church have undoubtedly
proceeded from the followers of the Prophet of Mecca. There were times
in the early history of that religion when, to all human appearance,
it would universally prevail, and wholly supplant the Christian church.
But the church still survived, and no power was at any time given to
the Saracenic hosts to destroy it altogether. In respect to this, some
remarkable facts have occurred in history. The followers of the false
prophet contemplated the subjugation of Europe, and the destruction of
Christianity, from two quarters――the East and the West――expecting to
make a junction of the two armies in the north of Italy, and to march
down to Rome. Twice did they attack the _vital_ part of Christendom
by besieging Constantinople: first, in the seven years’ siege, which
lasted from A.D. 668 to A.D. 675; and, secondly, in the years 716‒718,
when Leo the Isaurian was on the imperial throne. But on both occasions
they were obliged to retire defeated and disgraced.――Gibbon, iii. 461,
seq. Again, they renewed their attack on the West. Having conquered
Northern Africa, they passed over into Spain, subdued that country and
Portugal, and extended their conquests as far as the Loire. At that
time they designed to subdue France, and having united with the forces
which they expected from the East, they intended to make a descent on
Italy, and complete the conquest of Europe. This purpose was defeated
by the valour of Charles Martel, and Europe and the Christian world
were saved from subjugation (Gibbon, iii. 467, seq.). “A victorious
line of march,” says Mr. Gibbon, “had been prolonged above a thousand
miles, from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the
repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the
confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland. The Rhine is not
more impassable than the Nile or the Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet
might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames.
Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the
schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised
people the sanctity and truth of the revelations of Mohammed.” The
arrest of the Saracen hosts before Europe was subdued, was what there
was no reason to anticipate, and it even yet perplexes historians
to be able to account for it. “The calm historian,” says Mr. Gibbon,
“who strives to follow the rapid course of the Saracens, must
study to explain by what means the church and state were saved from
this impending, and, as it should seem, inevitable danger.” “These
conquests,” says Mr. Hallam, “which astonish the careless and
superficial, are less perplexing to a calm inquirer than their
cessation――the loss of half the Roman empire than the preservation
of the rest” (_Middle Ages_, ii. 3, 169). These illustrations may
serve to explain the meaning of the symbol――that their {223} grand
commission was not to annihilate or root out, but to annoy and afflict.
Indeed, they did not go forth with a primary design to _destroy_. The
announcement of the Mussulman always was “the Koran, the tribute, or
the sword,” and when there was submission, either by embracing his
religion or by tribute, life was always spared. “The fair option of
friendship, or submission, or battle, ” says Mr. Gibbon (iii. 387),
“was proposed to the enemies of Mohammed. ” Comp. also vol. iii. 453,
456. The _torment_ mentioned here, I suppose, refers to the calamities
brought upon the Christian world――on Egypt, and Northern Africa, and
Spain, and Gaul, and the East――by the hordes which came out of Arabia,
and which swept over all those countries like a troublesome and
destructive host of locusts. Indeed, would _any_ image better represent
the effects of the Saracenic invasions than such a countless host of
locusts? Even now, can we find an image that would better represent
this?

(5) _The leader of this host._ (a) He was like a star that fell
from heaven, (ver. 1), a bright and illustrious prince, _as if_
heaven-endowed, but fallen. Would anything better characterize the
genius, the power, and the splendid but perverted talent of Mahomet?
Mahomet was, moreover, by birth, of the princely house of the Koreish,
governors of Mecca, and to no one could the term be more appropriate
than to one of that family. (b) He was a king. That is, there was to be
one monarch――one ruling spirit to which all these hosts were subject.
And never was anything more appropriate than this title as applied to
the leader of the Arabic hosts. All those hosts were subject to one
mind――to the command of the single leader that originated the scheme.
(c) The name _Abaddon_, or _Apollyon_――_Destroyer_, ver. 11. This name
would be appropriate to one who spread his conquests so far over the
world; who wasted so many cities and towns; who overthrew so many
kingdoms; and who laid the foundation of ultimate conquests by which
so many human beings were sent to the grave. (d) The description of
the leader “as the angel of the bottomless pit,” ver. 11. If this be
regarded as meaning that “the angel of the bottomless pit”――the spirit
of darkness himself――originated the scheme, and animated these hosts,
what term would better characterize the leader? And if it be a poetic
description of Mahomet as sent out by that presiding spirit of evil,
how could a better representative of the spirit of the nether world
have been sent out upon the earth than he was――one more talented,
more sagacious, more powerful, more warlike, more wicked, more fitted
to subdue the nations of the earth to the dominion of the Prince of
Darkness, and to hold them for ages under his yoke?

(6) _The duration of the torment._ It is said (ver. 5) that this would
be five months; that is, prophetically, a hundred and fifty years. See
Notes on ver. 5. The Hegira, or flight of Mahomet, occurred A.D. 622;
the Saracens first issued from the desert into Syria, and began their
series of wars on Christendom, A.D. 629. Reckoning from these periods
respectively, the five months, or the hundred and fifty years, would
extend to A.D. 772 or 779. It is not necessary to understand this
period of a hundred and fifty years of the actual continued existence
of the bodies symbolized by the locusts, but only of the period
in which they would inflict their “torment”――“that they should be
tormented five months.” That is, this would be the period of the
_intensity_ of the woe inflicted by them; there would be at that time
some marked intermission of the torrent. The question then is, whether,
in the history of the Saracens, there was any period after their career
of conquest had been continued for about a hundred and fifty years,
which would mark the intermission or cessation of these “torments.” If
so, then this is all that is necessary to determine the applicability
of the symbol to the Arabian hordes. Now, in reply to this question,
we have only to refer to Mr. Gibbon. The table of contents prefixed
to chapters forty-one and forty-two of his work would supply all the
information desired. I looked at that table, after making the estimate
as to what period the “five months,” or hundred and fifty years, would
conduct us to, to see whether anything occurred at about that time in
the Mahometan power and influence, which could be regarded as marking
the time of the intermission or cessation of the calamities inflicted
by the Arabic hordes on the Christian world. After Mr. Gibbon had
recorded in detail (vol. iii. 360‒460) the character and conquests of
the Arabian {224} hordes under Mahomet and his successors, I find the
statement of the decline of their power at just about the period to
which the hundred and fifty years would lead us, for at that very time
an important change came over the followers of the prophet of Mecca,
turning them from the love of conquest to the pursuits of literature
and science. From that period they ceased to be formidable to the
church; their limits were gradually contracted; their power diminished;
and the Christian world, in regard to them, was substantially at
peace. This change in the character and purposes of the Saracens
is thus described by Mr. Gibbon, at the close of the reign of the
caliph Abdalrahman, whose reign commenced A.D. 755, and under whom the
_peaceful_ sway of the Ommiades of Spain began, which continued for a
period of two hundred and fifty years. “The luxury of the caliphs, so
useless to their private happiness, relaxed the nerves, and terminated
the progress, of the Arabian empire. Temporal and spiritual conquest
had been the sole occupation of the first successors of Mahomet; and
after supplying themselves with the necessaries of life, the whole
revenue was scrupulously devoted to that salutary work. The Abassides
were impoverished by the multitude of their wants, and their contempt
of economy. Instead of pursuing the great object of ambition, their
leisure, their affections, and the powers of their minds were diverted
by pomp and pleasure: the rewards of valour were embezzled by women
and eunuchs, and the royal camp was encumbered by the luxury of the
palace. A similar temper was diffused among the subjects of the caliph.
Their stern enthusiasm was softened by time and prosperity: they
sought riches in the occupations of industry, fame in the pursuits of
literature, and happiness in the tranquillity of domestic life. War
was no longer the passion of the Saracens; and the increase of pay, the
repetition of donatives, were insufficient to allure the posterity of
those voluntary champions who had crowded to the standard of Aboubekir
and Omar for the hopes of spoil and of paradise,” iii. 477, 478. Of
the Ommiades, or princes who succeeded Abdalrahman, Mr. Gibbon remarks
in general――“Their mutual designs or declarations of war evaporated
without effect; but instead of opening a door to the conquest of
Europe, Spain was dissevered from the trunk of the monarchy, engaged
in perpetual hostility with the East, _and inclined to peace and
friendship with the Christian sovereigns of Constantinople and France_,”
iii. p. 472. How much does this look like some change occurring by
which they would cease to be a source of “torment” to the nations with
whom they now dwelt! From this period they gave themselves to the arts
of peace; cultivated literature and science; lost entirely their spirit
of conquest, and their ambition for universal dominion, until they
gradually withdrew, or were driven, from those parts of the Christian
world where they had inspired most terror, and which in the days of
their power and ambition they had invaded. By turning merely to the
“table of contents” of Mr. Gibbon’s history, the following periods,
occurring at about the time that would be embraced in the “five months,”
or hundred and fifty years, are distinctly marked:――

“A.D.
668‒675. First siege of Constantinople by the Arabs.
677. Peace and tribute.
716‒718. Second siege of Constantinople.
” Failure and retreat of the Saracens.
” Invention and use of the Greek fire.
721. Invasion of France by the Arabs.
732. Defeat of the Saracens by Charles Martel.
” They retreat before the Franks.
746‒750. The elevation of the Abassides.
750. Fall of the Ommiades.
755. Revolt of Spain.
” Triple division of the caliphate.
750‒960. Magnificence of the caliphs.
” Its consequences on private and public happiness.
754, &c. Introduction of learning among the Arabians.
” Their real progress in the sciences.”

It will be seen from this that the decline of their military and civil
power; their defeats in their attempts to subjugate Europe; their
turning their attention to the peaceful pursuits of literature and
science, synchronize remarkably with the period that would be indicated
by the five months, or the hundred and fifty years. It should be added,
also, that in the year 762, Almanzor, the caliph, built Bagdad, and
made it the capital of the Saracen empire. Henceforward that became the
seat of Arabic learning, luxury, and power, and the wealth and talent
of the Saracen empire were gradually drawn to that capital, and they
ceased to vex and annoy the Christian world. The {225} building of
Bagdad occurred within just ten years of the time indicated by the
“five months”――reckoning that from the Hegira, or flight of Mahomet; or
reckoning from the time when Mahomet began to preach (A.D. 609――Gibbon,
iii. 383), it wanted but three years of coinciding exactly with the
period.

These considerations show with what propriety the fifth trumpet――the
symbol of the locusts――is referred to the Arabian hordes under the
guidance of Mahomet and his successors. On the supposition that it
was the design of John to symbolize these events, the symbol has been
chosen which of all others was best adapted to the end. If, now that
these events are past, we should endeavour to find some symbol which
would appropriately represent them, we could not find one that would be
more striking or appropriate than that which is here employed by John.

12 One[298] woe is past; _and_, behold, there come two woes
more hereafter.

12. _One woe is past._ The _woe_ referred to in ver. 1‒11. In ch.
viii. 13 three woes are mentioned which were to occur successively,
and which were to embrace the whole of the period comprised in the
seven seals and the seven trumpets. Under the last of the seals we
have considered four successive periods, referring to events connected
with the downfall of the Western empire; and then we have found one
important event worthy of a place in noticing the things which would
permanently affect the destiny of the world――the rise, the character,
and the conquests of the Saracens. This was referred to by the first
_woe-trumpet_. We enter now on the consideration of the second. This
occupies the remainder of the chapter, and in illustrating it the same
method will be pursued as heretofore: first, to explain the literal
meaning of the words, phrases, and symbols; and then to inquire what
events in history, if any, succeeding the former, occurred, which would
correspond with the language used. ¶ _|And|, behold, there come two
woes more hereafter_. Two momentous and important events that will be
attended with sorrow to mankind. It cannot be intended that there would
be no _other_ evils that would visit mankind; but the eye, in glancing
along the future, rested on these as having a special pre-eminence in
affecting the destiny of the church and the world.

13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the
four horns of the golden altar which is before God,

13. _And the sixth angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 2, 7.
¶ _And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which
is before God._ In the _language_ here used there is an allusion to the
temple, but the scene is evidently laid in heaven. The temple in its
arrangements was designed, undoubtedly, to be in important respects
a symbol of heaven, and this idea constantly occurs in the Scriptures.
Comp. the Epistle to the Hebrews _passim_. The golden altar stood
in the holy place, between the table of show-bread and the golden
candlestick. See Notes on He. ix. 1, 2. This altar, made of shittim
or acacia wood, was ornamented at the four corners, and overlaid
throughout with laminæ of gold. Hence it was called “the golden altar,”
in contradistinction from the altar for sacrifice, which was made of
stone. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxi. 12, seq. On its four corners it had
projections which are called _horns_ (Ex. xxx. 2, 3), which seem to
have been intended mainly for ornaments. See Jahn, _Arch._ § 332;
Joseph. _Ant._ iii. 6, 8. When it is said that this was “before God,”
the meaning is, that it was directly before or in front of the symbol
of the divine presence in the most holy place. This image, in the
vision of John, is transformed to heaven. The voice seemed to come from
the very presence of the Deity; from the place where offerings are made
to God.

14 Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet, Loose the
four angels which are bound in the great river [299]Euphrates.

14. _Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet._ Notes, ch.
viii. 2. ¶ _Loose_, &c. This power, it would seem, was given to the
sixth angel in addition to his office of blowing the trumpet. All this,
of course, was in vision, and cannot be literally interpreted. The
meaning is, that the effect of his blowing the trumpet would be the
same _as if_ angels that had been bound should be suddenly loosed
and suffered to go forth over the earth; that is, some event would
occur which would be properly symbolized by {226} such an act. ¶ _The
four angels._ Comp. Notes, ch. viii. 2. It was customary to represent
important events as occurring under the ministry of angels. The general
meaning here is, that in the vicinity of the river Euphrates there
were mighty powers which had been bound or held in check, which were
now to be let loose upon the world. What we are to look for in the
fulfilment is evidently this――some power that seemed to be kept back
by an invisible influence as if by angels, now suddenly let loose
and suffered to accomplish the purpose of desolation mentioned in the
subsequent verses. It is not necessary to suppose that angels were
actually employed in these restraints, though no one can demonstrate
that their agency was _not_ concerned in the transactions here referred
to. Comp. Notes on Da. x. 12, 13. It has been made a question why the
number _four_ is specified, and whether the forces were in any sense
made up of four divisions, nations, or people. While nothing certain
can be determined in regard to that, and while the number four _may_
be used merely to denote a great and strong force, yet it must be
admitted that the most obvious interpretation would be to refer it to
some combination of forces, or to some union of powers, that was to
accomplish what is here said. If it had been a single nation, it would
have been more in accordance with the usual method in prophecy to have
represented them as restrained by an angel, or by angels in general,
without specifying any number. ¶ _Which are bound._ That is, they
_seemed_ to be bound. There was something which held them, and the
forces under them, in check, until they were thus commanded to go forth.
In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for something
of the nature of a check or restraint on these forces, until they were
commissioned to go forth to accomplish the work of destruction. ¶ _In
the great river Euphrates._ The well-known river of that name, commonly
called, in the Scriptures, “the great river,” and, by way of eminence,
“_the_ river,” Ex. xxiii. 31; Is. viii. 7. This river was on the east
of Palestine; and the language here used naturally denotes that the
power referred to under the sixth trumpet would spring up in the East,
and that it would have its origin in the vicinity of that river. Those
interpreters, therefore, who apply this to the invasion of Judæa by the
Romans have great difficulty in explaining this――as the forces employed
in the destruction of Jerusalem came from the West, and not from
the East. The fair interpretation is, that there were forces in the
vicinity of the Euphrates which were, up to this period, bound or
restrained, but which were now suffered to spread woe and sorrow over
a considerable portion of the world.

15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared
[300]for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to
[301]slay the third part of men.

15. _And the four angels were loosed._ Who had this mighty host under
restraint. The loosening of the angels was, in fact, also a letting
loose of all these hosts, that they might accomplish the work which
they were commissioned to do. ¶ _Which were prepared._ See ver. 7. The
word here used properly refers to that which is made ready, fitted up,
arranged for anything: as persons prepared for a journey, horses for
battle, a road for travellers, food for the hungry, a house to live in,
&c. See Rob. _Lex._, sub. voce Ἑτοιμάζω. As used here, the word means
that whatever was necessary to _prepare_ these angels――the leaders of
this host――for the work which they were commissioned to perform, was
now done, and that they stood in a state of readiness to execute the
design. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for some
arrangements existing in the vicinity of the Euphrates, by which these
restrained hosts were _in a state of readiness_ to be summoned forth to
the execution of this work, or in such a condition that they _would_ go
forth spontaneously if the restraints existing were removed. ¶ _For an
hour_, &c. Marg., _at_. The Greek――εἰς――means properly _unto_, _with
reference to_; and the sense is, that, with reference to that hour,
they had all the requisite preparation. Professor Stuart explains it as
meaning that they were “prepared for the particular year, month, day,
and hour, destined by God for the great catastrophe which is to follow.”
The meaning, however, rather seems to be that they were prepared, not
for the _commencement_ of such a period, but they were prepared for
_the whole period_ indicated by the hour, the day, the month, and
the year; that is, {227} that the continuance of this “woe” would
extend along through the whole period. For (a) this is the natural
interpretation of the word “for”――εἰς; (b) it makes the whole sentence
intelligible――for though it might be proper to say of anything that it
was “prepared for an hour,” indicating the commencement of what was to
be done, it is not usual to say of anything that it is “prepared for
an hour, a month, a day, a year,” when the design is merely to indicate
the _beginning_ of it; and (c) it is in accordance with the prediction
respecting the first “woe” (ver. 5), where the time is specified in
language similar to this, to wit, “five months.” It seems to me,
therefore, that we are to regard the time here mentioned as a prophetic
indication of the period during which this woe would continue. ¶ _An
hour, and a day, and a month, and a year._ If this were to be taken
literally, it would, of course, be but little more than a year. If
it be taken, however, in the common prophetic style, where a day is
put for a year (see Notes on Da. ix. 24, seq.; also Editor’s Preface,
p. xxv. &c.), then the amount of time (360 + 30 + 1 + an hour) would be
three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated
by an hour――a twelfth or twenty-fourth part, according as the day was
supposed to be divided into twelve or twenty-four hours. That this
is the true view seems to be clear, because this accords with the
usual style in this book; because it can hardly be supposed that the
“preparation” here referred to would have been for so brief a period as
the time would be if literally interpreted; and because the mention of
so small a portion of time as an “hour,” if literally taken, would be
improbable in so great transactions. The fair interpretation, therefore,
will require us to find some events that will fill up the period of
about three hundred and ninety-one years. ¶ _For to slay the third
part of men._ Comp. ch. viii. 7, 9, 12. The meaning here is, that the
immense host which was restrained on the Euphrates would, when loosed,
spread desolation over about a third part of the world. We are not
to suppose that this is to be understood in exactly a literal sense;
but the meaning is, that the desolation would be so widespread that
it would seem to embrace a third of the world. No such event as the
cutting off of a few thousands of Jews in the siege of Jerusalem would
correspond with the language here employed, and we must look for events
more general and more disastrous to mankind at large.

16 And the number of the [302]army of the horsemen _were_
[303]two hundred thousand thousand: and [304]I heard the
number of them.

16. _And the number of the army of the horsemen._ It is to be observed
here that the strength of the army seemed to be cavalry. In the former
plagues there is no distinct mention of horsemen; but here that which
struck the beholder was the immense and unparalleled number of horsemen.
¶ _|Were| two hundred thousand thousand._ A thousand thousand are a
million, and consequently the number here referred to would be two
hundred millions. This would be a larger army than was ever assembled,
and it cannot be supposed that it is to be taken literally. That it
would be a very large host――so large that it would not be readily
numbered――is clear. The expression in the original, while it naturally
conveys the idea of an immense number, would seem also to refer to
some peculiarity in the manner of reckoning them. The language is, _two
myriads of myriads_――δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων. The myriad was ten thousand.
The idea would seem to be this. John saw an immense host of cavalry.
They appeared to be divided into large bodies that were in some
degree separate, and that might be reckoned by ten thousands. Of these
different squadrons there were many, and to express their great and
unusual numbers he said that there seemed to be _myriads_ of them――two
myriads of myriads, or twice ten thousand myriads. The army thus would
seem to be immense――an army, as we should say, to be reckoned _by
tens of thousands_. ¶ _And I heard the number of them._ They were so
numerous that he did not pretend to be able to estimate the number
himself, for it was beyond his power of computation; but he heard it
stated in these round numbers, that there were “two myriads of myriads”
of them.

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that
sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth,
and brimstone: and the heads of the horses _were_ as [305]the
heads of lions: and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke
and brimstone.

17. _And thus I saw the horses in the {228} vision_. That
is, he saw them as he proceeds to describe them, for the word
_thus_――οὕτως――refers to what follows. Comp. Rob. _Lex._ on the word,
(b), and see Mat. i. 18; ii. 5; Jn. xxi. 1; He. iv. 4. Professor Stuart,
however, refers to what precedes. The meaning, as it seems to me, is,
that he fixed his attention on the appearance of the immense army――the
horses and their riders, and proceeded to describe them as they struck
him. ¶ _And them that sat on them._ He fixed the attention on horse
and rider. Their appearance was unusual, and deserved a particular
description. ¶ _Having breastplates of fire._ That is, those who sat on
them had such breastplates. The word here rendered breastplate denoted
properly a coat of mail that covered the body from the neck to the
thighs. See Notes on Ep. vi. 14. This would be a prominent object
in looking at a horseman. This was said to be composed of “fire, and
jacinth, and brimstone;” that is, the part of the body usually incased
in the coat of mail had these three colours. The word “fire” here
simply denotes _red_. It was burnished and bright, and seemed to be
a blaze of fire. The word “jacinth”――ὑακινθίνους――means hyacinthine.
The colour denoted is that of the hyacinth――a flower of a deep
purple or reddish blue. Then it refers to a gem of the same colour,
nearly related to the _zircon_ of the mineralogists, and the colour
here mentioned is deep purple or reddish blue. The word rendered
“brimstone”――θειώδης――means properly sulphurous, that is, made of
sulphur, and means here simply _yellow_. The meaning of the whole
then is, that these horsemen appeared to be clad in a peculiar kind of
armour――armour that shone like fire, mingled with blue and yellow. It
will be necessary to look for the fulfilment of this in cavalry that
was so caparisoned. ¶ _And the heads of the horses |were| as the heads
of lions._ Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does
not say that they _were_ the heads of lions, or that the riders were on
monsters, but only that they, in some respects, _resembled_ the heads
of lions. It would be easy to give this general appearance by the way
in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed. ¶ _And out of their
mouths issued._ That is, _appeared_ to issue. It is not necessary to
understand this as affirming that it actually came from their _mouths_,
but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would
have this _appearance_. The heathen poets often speak of horses
breathing out fire and smoke (Virg. _Geor._ vol. ii. p. 140; iii. 85;
Ovid, _Met._ vol. vii. p. 104), meaning that their _breath_ seemed
to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not
found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled with
_brimstone_. All this _seemed_ to issue from their mouths――that is, it
was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it
from their mouths. ¶ _Fire and smoke and brimstone._ The _exact_ idea,
whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge
of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell
of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and
if it be supposed that the writer _meant_ to describe such a discharge,
this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in
describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that
this _appeared_ to issue from the horses’ mouths. If, therefore, it
should be found that there were any events where firearms were used,
in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, this _language_
would be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that
the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language here
used would be that which he would adopt. One thing is certain, that
this is _not_ language which would be employed to describe the onset
of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one
describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the
Romans, when the only armour was the sword and the spear, would think
of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses’ mouths fire,
and smoke, and brimstone.

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the
fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out
of their mouths.

18. _By these three._ Three things――explained {229} immediately as
referring to the fire, the smoke, and the brimstone. ¶ _Was the third
part of men killed._ See Notes on ch. viii. 7‒12, on each of which
verses we have notices of calamities that came upon the third part of
the race, of the sea, of rivers, &c. We are not to suppose that this is
to be taken literally, but the description is given as it _appeared_ to
John. Those immense numbers of horsemen would sweep over the world, and
a full third part of the race of men would seem to fall before them.

19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for
[306]their tails _were_ like unto serpents, and had heads, and
with them they do hurt.

19. _For their power is in their mouth._ That is, as described in the
fire, smoke, and brimstone that proceeded out of their mouths. What
struck the seer as remarkable on looking on the symbol was, that this
immense destruction seemed to proceed out of their mouths. It was not
that they trampled down their enemies; nor that they destroyed them
with the sword, the bow, or the spear: it was some new and remarkable
power in warfare――in which the destruction seemed to proceed from fire,
and smoke, and sulphur issuing from the mouths of the horses themselves.
¶ _And in their tails._ The tails of the horses. This, of course, was
something unusual and remarkable in horses, for naturally they have
no power there. The power of a fish, or a scorpion, or a wasp, may be
said to be in their tails, for their strength or their means of defence
or of injury are there; but we never think of speaking in this way of
horses. It is not necessary, in the interpretation of this, to suppose
that the reference is literally to the tails of the horses, any more
than it is to suppose that the smoke, and fire, and brimstone literally
proceeded from their mouths. John describes things as they _appeared_
to him in looking at them from a considerable distance. From their
mouths the horses belched forth fire, and smoke, and sulphur, and
even their tails seemed to be armed for the work of death. ¶ _For
their tails |were| like unto serpents._ Not like the tails of serpents,
but like serpents themselves. ¶ _And had heads._ That is, there was
something remarkable in the position and appearance of their _heads_.
All serpents, of course, have heads; but John saw something unusual
in this――or something so peculiar in their heads as to attract special
attention. It would seem most probable that the heads of these serpents
appeared to extend in every direction――as if the hairs of the horses’
tails had been converted into snakes, presenting a most fearful and
destructive image. Perhaps it may illustrate this to suppose that there
is reference to the Amphisbæna, or two-headed snake. It is said of this
reptile that its tail resembles a head, and that with this it throws
out its poison (Lucan, vol. ix. p. 179; Pliny’s _Hist. Nat._ vol. viii.
p. 35). It really has but one head, but its tail has the appearance of
a head, and it has the power of moving in either direction to a limited
degree. If we suppose these snakes fastened to the tail of a horse,
the appearance of _heads_ would be very prominent and remarkable. The
image is that of the power of destruction. They seemed like ugly and
poisonous serpents instead of tails. ¶ _And with them they do hurt._
Not the main injury, but they have the power of inflicting _some_
injury by them.

20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these
plagues, [307]yet repented not of the works of their hands,
that they should not [308]worship devils, and [309]idols of
gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which
neither can see, nor hear, nor walk.

21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their
[310]sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

20, 21. _And the rest of the men which were not killed by these
plagues_, &c. One third part is represented as swept off, and it might
have been expected that a salutary effect would have been produced
on the remainder, in reforming them, and restraining them from error
and sin. The writer proceeds to state, however, that these judgments
did _not_ have the effect which might {230} reasonably have been
anticipated. No reformation followed; there was no abandonment of the
prevailing forms of iniquity; there was no change in their idolatry and
superstition. In regard to the _exact_ meaning of what is here stated
(ver. 20, 21), it will be a more convenient arrangement to consider
it _after_ we have ascertained the proper application of the passage
relating to the sixth trumpet. What is here stated (ver. 20, 21)
pertains to the state of the world _after_ the desolations which would
occur under this woe-trumpet; and the explanation of the words may be
reserved, therefore, with propriety, until the inquiry shall have been
instituted as to the general design of the whole.

With respect to the fulfilment of this symbol――the sixth trumpet――it
will be necessary to inquire whether there has been any event, or class
of events, occurring at such a time, and in such a manner, as would be
properly denoted by such a symbol. The examination of this question
will make it necessary to go over the leading points _in_ the symbol,
and to endeavour to apply them. In doing this I shall simply state,
with such illustrations as may occur, what seems to me to have been the
design of the symbol. It would be an endless task to examine all the
explanations which have been proposed, and it would be useless to do so.

The reference, then, seems to me to be to the Turkish power, extending
from the time of the first appearance of the Turks in the neighbourhood
of the Euphrates, to the final conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The
general reasons for this opinion are such as the following:――(a) If
the previous trumpet referred to the Saracens, or to the rise of the
Mahometan power among the Arabs, then the Turkish dominion, being
the next in succession, would be that which would most naturally be
symbolized. (b) The Turkish power rose on the decline of the Arabic,
and was the next important power in affecting the destinies of the
world. (c) This power, like the former, had its seat in the East,
and would be properly classified under the events occurring there as
affecting the destiny of the world. (d) The introduction of this power
was _necessary_, in order to complete the survey of the downfall of the
Roman empire――the great object kept in view all along in these symbols.
In the first four of these trumpets, under the seventh seal, we found
the decline and fall of the _Western_ empire; in the first of the
remaining three――the fifth in order――we found the rise of the Saracens,
materially affecting the condition of the _Eastern_ portion of the
Roman world; and the notice of the Turks, under whom the empire at last
fell to rise no more, seemed to be demanded in order to the completion
of the picture. As a leading design of the whole vision was to describe
the ultimate destiny of that formidable power――the Roman――which, in the
time when the Revelation was given to John, ruled over the whole world;
under which the church was then oppressed; and which, either as a civil
or ecclesiastical power, was to exert so important an influence on
the destiny of the church, it was proper that its history should be
sketched until it ceased――that is, until the conquest of the capital
of the Eastern empire by the Turks. Here the termination of the empire,
as traced by Mr. Gibbon, closes; and these events it was important to
incorporate in this series of visions.

The rise and character of the Turkish people may be seen stated
in full in Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, iii. 101‒103, 105, 486; iv.
41, 42, 87, 90, 91, 93, 100, 127, 143, 151, 258, 260, 289, 350. The
leading facts in regard to the history of the Turks, so far as they
are necessary to be known before we proceed to apply the symbols, are
the following:――(1) The Turks, or Turkmans, had their origin in the
vicinity of the Caspian Sea, and were divided into two branches, one
on the east, and the other on the west. The latter colony, in the
tenth century, could muster forty thousand soldiers; the other numbered
a hundred thousand families (Gibbon, iv. 90). By the latter of these,
Persia was invaded and subdued, and soon Bagdad also came into their
possession, and the seat of the caliph was occupied by a Turkish prince.
The various details respecting this, and respecting their conversion
to the faith of the Koran, may be seen in Gibbon, iv. 90‒93. A mighty
Turkish and Moslem power was thus concentrated under Togrul, who had
subdued the caliph, in the vicinity of the Tigris and the Euphrates,
extending east over Persia and the countries adjacent to the Caspian
Sea, but it had not yet crossed the Euphrates to carry its conquests to
the west. The conquest of Bagdad by Togrul, {231} the first prince of
the Seljuk race, was an important event, not only in itself, but as
it was by this event that the Turk was constituted temporal lieutenant
of the prophet’s vicar, and so the head of the temporal power of
the religion of Islam. “The conqueror of the East kissed the ground,
stood some time in a modest posture, and was led toward the throne
by the vizier and an interpreter. After Togrul had seated himself on
another throne his commission was publicly read, which declared him the
temporal lieutenant of the prophet. He was successively invested with
seven robes of honour, and presented with seven slaves, the natives of
the seven climates of the Arabian empire, &c. Their alliance [of the
sultan and the caliph] was cemented by the marriage of Togrul’s sister
with the successor of the prophet,” &c. (Gibbon, iv. 93). The conquest
of Persia, the subjugation of Bagdad, the union of the Turkish power
with that of the caliph, the successor of Mahomet, and the foundation
of this powerful kingdom in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, is
all that is necessary to explain the sense of the phrase “which were
_prepared_ for an hour,” &c., ver. 15. The arrangements were then
made for the important series of events which were to occur when
that formidable power should be summoned from the East, to spread
the predicted desolation over so large a part of the world. A mighty
dominion had been forming in the East that had subdued Persia, and
that, by union with the caliphs, by the subjugation of Bagdad, and
by embracing the Mahometan faith, had become “_prepared_” to play its
subsequent important part in the affairs of the world. (2) The next
important event in their history was the crossing of the Euphrates, and
the invasion of Asia Minor. The account of this invasion can be best
given in the words of Mr. Gibbon: “Twenty-five years after the death
of Basil [the Greek emperor], his successors were suddenly assaulted
by an unknown race of barbarians, who united the Scythian valour with
the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art and riches of a powerful
monarchy. The myriads of Turkish horse overspread a frontier of six
hundred miles from Taurus to Arzeroum, and the blood of one hundred
and thirty thousand Christians was a grateful sacrifice to the Arabian
prophet. Yet the arms of Togrul did not make any deep or lasting
impression on the Greek empire. The torrent rolled away from the open
country; the sultan retired without glory or success from the siege of
an Armenian city; the obscure hostilities were continued or suspended
with a vicissitude of events; and the bravery of the Macedonian legions
renewed the fame of the conqueror of Asia. The name of Alp Arslan,
the valiant lion, is expressive of the popular idea of the perfection
of man; and the successor of Togrul displayed the fierceness and
generosity of the royal animal. [‘The heads of the horses were as the
heads of lions.’] He passed the Euphrates at the head of the Turkish
cavalry, and entered Cæsarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia, to which
he had been attracted by the fame and the wealth of the temple of
St. Basil” (vol. iv. 93, 94; comp. also p. 95). (3) The next important
event was the establishing of the kingdom of _Roum_ in Asia Minor.
After a succession of victories and defeats; after being driven once
and again from Asia Minor, and compelled to retire beyond its limits;
and after subjecting the East to their arms (Gibbon, iv. 95‒100) in
the various contests for the crown of the Eastern empire, the aid of
the Turks was invoked by one party or the other until they secured for
themselves a firm foothold in Asia Minor, and established themselves
there in a permanent kingdom――evidently with the purpose of seizing
upon Constantinople itself when an opportunity should be presented
(Gibbon, iv. 100, 101). Of this kingdom of _Roum_ Mr. Gibbon (iv. 101)
gives the following description, and speaks thus of the effect of its
establishment on the destiny of the Eastern empire: “Since the first
conquests of the caliphs, the establishment of the Turks in Anatolia,
or Asia Minor, was the most deplorable loss which the church and empire
had sustained. By the propagation of the Moslem faith Soliman deserved
the name of Gazi, a holy champion; and his new kingdom of the Romans,
or of _Roum_, was added to the table of Oriental geography. It is
described as extending _from the Euphrates to Constantinople_, from the
Black Sea to the confines of Syria; pregnant with mines of silver and
iron, of alum and copper, fruitful in corn and wine, and productive
of cattle and excellent horses. The wealth of Lydia, the arts of the
Greeks, the splendour of the Augustan age, {232} existed only in books
and ruins, which were equally obscure in the eyes of the Scythian
conquerors. By the choice of the Sultan, Nice, the metropolis of
Bithynia, was preferred for his palace and fortress――the seat of
the Seljukian dynasty of Roum was planted one hundred miles from
Constantinople; and the divinity of Christ was denied and derided in
the same temple in which it had been pronounced by the first general
synod of the Catholics. The unity of God and the mission of Mahomet
were preached in the mosques; the Arabian learning was taught in
the schools; the cadis judged according to the law of the Koran; the
Turkish manners and language prevailed in the cities; and Turkman
camps were scattered over the plains and mountains of Anatolia,” &c.
(4) The next material event in the history of the Turkish power was the
conquest of Jerusalem. See this described in Gibbon, iv. 102‒106. By
this the attention of the Turks was turned for a time from the conquest
of Constantinople――an event at which the Turkish power all along aimed,
and in which they doubtless expected to be ultimately successful. Had
they not been diverted from it by the wars connected with the Crusades,
Constantinople would have fallen long before it did fall, for it was
too feeble to defend itself if it had been attacked. (5) The conquest
of Jerusalem by the Turks, and the oppressions which Christians
experienced there, gave rise to the Crusades, by which the destiny
of Constantinople was still longer delayed. The war of the Crusades
was made on the Turks, and as the crusaders mostly passed through
Constantinople and Anatolia, all the power of the Turks in Asia Minor
was requisite to defend themselves, and they were incapable of making
an attack on Constantinople until after the final defeat of the
crusaders and restoration of peace. See Gibbon, iv. 106‒210. (6) The
next material event in the history of the Turks was the conquest of
Constantinople in A.D. 1453――an event which established the Turkish
power in Europe and completed the downfall of the Roman empire (Gibbon,
iv. 333‒359).

After this brief reference to the general history of the Turkish power,
we are prepared to inquire more particularly whether the symbol in the
passage before us is applicable to this series of events. This may be
considered in several particulars.

(1) _The time._ If the first woe-trumpet referred to the Saracens,
then it would be natural that the rise and progress of the Turkish
power should be symbolized as the next great fact in history, and as
that under which the empire fell. As we have seen, the Turkish power
rose immediately after the power of the Saracens had reached its height,
and identified itself with the Mahometan religion; and was, in fact,
the next great power that affected the Roman empire, the welfare of the
church, and the history of the world. There can be no doubt, therefore,
that the _time_ is such as is demanded in the proper interpretation of
the symbol.

(2) _The place._ We have seen (in the remarks on ver. 14) that this was
on or near the river Euphrates, and that this power was long forming
and consolidating itself on the east of that river before it crossed it
in the invasion of Asia Minor. It had spread over Persia, and had even
invaded the region of the East as far as the Indies; it had secured,
under Togrul, the conquest of Bagdad, and had united itself with the
caliphate, and was, in fact, a mighty power “_prepared_” for conquest
before it moved to the west. Thus Mr. Gibbon (iv. 92) says, “The more
rustic, perhaps the wisest, portion of the Turkmans continued to dwell
in the tents of their ancestors; and from the Oxus to the _Euphrates_
these military colonies were protected and propagated by their native
princes.” So again, speaking of Alp Arslan, the son and successor of
Togrul, he says (iv. 94), “He passed the _Euphrates_ at the head of
the Turkish cavalry, and entered Cæsarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia,
to which he was attracted by the fame and the wealth of the temple of
St. Basil.” If it be admitted that it was _intended_ by John to refer
to the Turkish power, it could not have been better represented than
as a power that had been forming in the vicinity of that great river,
and that was prepared to precipitate itself on the Eastern empire. To
one contemplating it in the time of Togrul or Alp Arslan, it would have
_appeared_ as a mighty power growing up in the neighbourhood of the
Euphrates.

(3) _The four angels_: “Loose the four angels which are bound.”
That is, loose the powers which are in the vicinity of the Euphrates,
_as if_ they were under the control of four angels. The most natural
construction of this would {233} be, that under the mighty power that
was to sweep over the world, there were four subordinate powers, or
that there were such subdivisions that it might be supposed they were
ranged under _four_ angelic powers or leaders. The question is, whether
there was any such division or arrangement of the Turkish power, that,
to one looking on it at a distance, there would _seem_ to be such a
division. In the _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_
(iv. 100) we find the following statement:――“The greatness and unity
of the Turkish empire expired in the person of Malek Shah. The vacant
throne was disputed by his brother and his four sons; and, after
a series of civil wars, the treaty which reconciled the surviving
candidates confirmed a lasting separation in the Persian dynasty, the
oldest and principal branch of the house of Seljuk. The three younger
dynasties were those of _Kerman_, of _Syria_, and of _Roum_; the first
of these commanded an extensive, though obscure dominion, on the shores
of the Indian Ocean; the second expelled the Arabian princes of Aleppo
and Damascus; and the third (our peculiar care) invaded the Roman
provinces of Asia Minor. The generous policy of Malek contributed to
their elevation; he allowed the princes of his blood, even those whom
he had vanquished in the field, to seek new kingdoms worthy of their
ambition; nor was he displeased that they should draw away the more
ardent spirits who might have disturbed the tranquillity of his reign.
As the supreme head of his family and nation, the great Sultan of
Persia commanded the obedience and tribute of his royal brethren:
the thrones of Kerman and Nice, of Aleppo and Damascus; the atabeks
and emirs of Syria and Mesopotamia erected their standards under
the shadow of his sceptre, and the hordes of Turkmans overspread the
plains of Western Asia. After the death of Malek the bands of union
and subordination were gradually relaxed and dissolved; the indulgence
of the house of Seljuk invested their slaves with the inheritance of
kingdoms; and, in the Oriental style, a crowd of princes arose from the
dust of their feet.” Here it is observable, that, at the period when
the Turkman hordes were about to precipitate themselves on Europe, and
to advance to the destruction of the Eastern empire, we have distinct
mention of _four_ great departments of the Turkish power: the original
power that had established itself in Persia, under Malek Shah, and the
three subordinate powers that sprung out of that of Kerman, Syria, and
Roum. It is observable (a) that this occurs at the period when that
power would appear in the East as advancing in its conquests to the
West; (b) that it was in the vicinity of the great river Euphrates;
(c) that it had never before occurred――the Turkish power having been
before united as one; and (d) that it never afterwards occurred――for,
in the words of Mr. Gibbon, “after the death of Malek the bands of
union and subordination were relaxed and finally dissolved.” It would
not be improper, then, to look upon this one mighty power as under the
control of four spirits that were held in check in the East, and that
were “prepared” to pour their energies on the Roman empire.

(4) _The preparation_: “Prepared for an hour,” &c. That is, arranged;
made ready――as if by previous discipline――for some mighty enterprise.
Applied to the Turkmans, this would mean that the preparation for
the ultimate work which they executed had been making as that power
increased and became consolidated under Togrul, Alp Arslan, and Malek
Shah. In its successful strides Persia and the East had been subdued;
the caliph at Bagdad had been brought under the control of the sultan;
a union had been formed between the Turks and the Saracens; and the
sultanies of Kerman, Syria, and Roum had been established――embracing
together all the countries of the East, and constituting this by far
the most mighty nation on the globe. All this would seem to be a work
of _preparation_ to do what was afterwards done as seen in the visions
of John.

(5) _The fact that they were bound_: “Which are bound in the great
river Euphrates.” That is, they were, as it were, _restrained_ and
_kept back_ for a long time in that vicinity. It would have been
natural to suppose that that vast power would at once move on toward
the West to the conquest of the capital of the Eastern empire. Such
had been the case with the Huns, the Goths, and the Vandals. But
these Turkish hordes had been long restrained in the East. They had
subdued Persia. They had then achieved the conquest of India. They had
conquered Bagdad, and the entire East was under their control. {234}
Yet for a long time they had now been inactive, and it would seem as if
they had been _bound_ or _restrained_ by some mighty power from moving
in their conquests to the West.

(6) _The material that composed the army_: “And the number of the army
_of the horsemen_.” “And thus I saw _the horses_ in the vision.――And
the heads of _the horses_ were as the heads of lions.” From this it
appears that this vast host was composed mainly of cavalry; and it is
hardly necessary to say that this description would apply better to
the Turkish hordes than to any other body of invaders known in history.
Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 94) says, “The myriads of the Turkish
_horse_ overspread a frontier of six hundred miles, from Taurus to
Arzeroum,” A.D. 1050. So again, speaking of Togrul (vol. iv. p. 94),
“He passed the Euphrates at the head of the Turkish _cavalry_”
(_ibid._). So again (vol. iii. p. 95), “Alp Arslan flew to the scene
of action at the head of forty thousand horse.” A.D. 1071. So in the
attack of the crusaders on Nice, the capital of the Turkish kingdom
of Roum, Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 127) says of the sultan Soliman:
“Yielding to the first impulse of the torrent, he deposited his
treasure and family in Nice; retired to the mountains with fifty
thousand horse,” &c. And so again (_ibid._), speaking of the Turks who
rallied to oppose the “strange” invasion of “the Western barbarians,”
he says, “The Turkish emirs obeyed the call of loyalty or religion;
the Turkman hordes encamped round his standard; and his whole force is
loosely stated by the Christians at two hundred, or even three hundred
and sixty thousand horse,” A.D. 1097. Every student of history knows
that the Turks, or Turkmans, in the early periods of their history,
were remarkable for their cavalry.

(7) _Their numbers_: “And the number of the army of the horsemen were
two hundred thousand thousand.” That is, it was _vast_, or it was such
as to be reckoned by _myriads_, or by tens of thousands――δύο μυριάδες
μυριάδων――_two myriads of myriads_. Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. iv. p. 94)
says, “The _myriads_ of Turkish horse overspread,” &c. It has been
suggested by Daubuz that in this there may be probably an allusion to
the Turkman custom of numbering by _tomans_, or _myriads_. This custom,
it is true, has existed elsewhere, but there is probably none with whom
it has been so familiar as with the Tartars and Turks. In the Seljukian
age the population of Samarcand was rated at seven _tomans_ (_myriads_),
because it could send out 70,000 warriors. The dignity and rank of
Tamerlane’s father and grandfather was thus described, that “they
were the hereditary chiefs of a _toman_, or 10,000 horse”――_a myriad_
(Gibbon, vol. iv. p. 270); so that it is not without his usual
propriety of language that Mr. Gibbon speaks of the _myriads_ of the
Turkish horse, or of the cavalry of the earlier Turks of Mount Altai,
“being, both men and horses, proudly computed by _myriads_.” One thing
is clear, that to no other invading hosts could the language here used
be so well applied, and if it were supposed that John was writing
_after_ the event, this would be the language which he would be likely
to employ――for this is nearly the identical language employed by the
historian Gibbon.

(8) _Their personal appearance_: “Them that sat on them having
breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone”――as explained
above, in a “uniform” of red, and blue, and yellow. This might,
undoubtedly, be applicable to other armies besides the Turkish hordes;
but the proper question here is, whether it _would be_ applicable to
them. The fact of the application of the symbol to the Turks in general
must be determined from other points in the symbol which designate them
clearly; the only natural inquiry here is, whether this description
would apply to the Turkish hosts; for if it would not, that would
be fatal to the whole interpretation. On the application of this
passage to the Turks Mr. Daubuz justly remarks, that “from their
first appearance the Ottomans have affected to wear warlike apparel of
scarlet, blue, and yellow――a descriptive trait the more marked from its
contrast to the military appearance of the Greeks, Franks, or Saracens
contemporarily.” Mr. Elliott adds: “It only needs to have seen the
Turkish cavalry (as they _were_ before the late innovations), whether
in war itself, or in the djerrid war’s mimicry, to leave an impression
of the absolute necessity of some such notice of their rich and varied
colourings, in order to give in description at all a just impression of
their appearance,” vol. i. p. 481.

(9) _The remarkable appearance of the cavalry_: “Having breastplates
of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone; and the {235} heads of the
horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire,
and smoke, and brimstone.” It was remarked in the exposition of this
passage that this is just such a description as would be given of an
army to which the use of gunpowder was known, and which made use of
it in these wars. Looking now upon a body of cavalry in the heat of
an engagement, it would seem, if the cause were not known, that the
horses belched forth smoke and sulphurous flame. The only question
now is, whether in the warfare of the Turks there was anything which
would peculiarly or remarkably justify this description. And here it is
impossible not to advert to the historical fact that they were among
the first to make use of gunpowder in their wars, and that to the use
of this destructive element they owed much of their success and their
ultimate triumphs. The historical truth of this it is necessary now to
advert to, and this will be done by a reference to Mr. Gibbon, and to
the account which he has given of the final conquest of Constantinople
by the Turks. It will be seen how he puts this new instrumentality of
war into the foreground in his account; how prominent this seemed to
_him_ to be in describing the victories of the Turks; and how probable,
therefore, it is that John, in describing an invasion by them, would
refer to the “fire and smoke and brimstone,” that seemed to be emitted
from the mouths of their horses. As preparatory to the account of the
siege and conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, Mr. Gibbon gives
a description of the invention and use of gunpowder. “The chemists of
China or Europe had found, by casual or elaborate experiments, that
a mixture of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal produces, with a spark
of fire, a tremendous explosion. It was soon observed that if the
expansive force were compressed in a strong tube, a ball of stone or
iron might be expelled with irresistible and destructive velocity. The
precise era of the invention and application of gunpowder is involved
in doubtful traditions and equivocal language; yet we may clearly
discern that it was known before the middle of the fourteenth century;
and that before the end of the same the use of artillery in battles and
sieges, by sea and land, was familiar to the states of Germany, Italy,
Spain, France, and England. The priority of nations is of small account;
none could derive any exclusive benefit from their previous or superior
knowledge; and in the common improvement they stood on the same
level of relative power and military science. Nor was it possible to
circumscribe the secret within the pale of the church; it was disclosed
_to the Turks_ by the treachery of apostates and the selfish policy of
rivals; and the sultans had sense to adopt, and wealth to reward, the
talents of a Christian engineer. By the Venetians the use of gunpowder
was communicated without reproach to the sultans of Egypt and Persia,
their allies against the Ottoman power; the secret was soon propagated
to the extremities of Asia; and the advantage of the European was
confined to his easy victories over the savages of the New World,”
vol. iv. p. 291. In the description of the conquest of Constantinople
Mr. Gibbon makes frequent mention of their artillery, and of the
use of gunpowder, and of its important agency in securing their final
conquests, and in the overthrow of the Eastern empire. “Among the
implements of destruction he [the Turkish sultan] studied with peculiar
care the recent and tremendous discovery of the Latins; and his
artillery surpassed whatever had yet appeared in the world. A founder
of cannon, a Dane or Hungarian, who had almost starved in the Greek
service, deserted to the Moslems, and was liberally entertained by
the Turkish sultan. Mahomet was satisfied with the answer to his first
question, which he eagerly pressed on the artist: ‘Am I able to cast a
cannon capable of throwing a ball or stone of sufficient size to batter
the walls of Constantinople? I am not ignorant of their strength, but,
were they more solid than those of Babylon, I could oppose an engine
of superior power; the position and management of that engine must be
left to your engineers.’ On this assurance a foundry was established
at Adrianople; the metal was prepared; and at the end of three months
Urban produced a piece of brass ordnance of stupendous and almost
incredible magnitude: a measure of twelve palms is assigned to the
bore; and the stone bullet weighed above six hundred pounds. A vacant
place before the new palace was chosen for the first experiment; but to
prevent the sudden and mischievous effects of astonishment and fear, a
proclamation was issued that the cannon would be {236} discharged the
ensuing day. The explosion was felt or heard in a circuit of a hundred
furlongs; the ball, by force of gunpowder, was driven above a mile; and
on the spot where it fell it buried itself a fathom deep in the ground,”
vol. iv. p. 339. So, in speaking of the siege of Constantinople by
the Turks, Mr. Gibbon says of the defence by the Christians (vol. iv.
p. 343): “The incessant volleys of lances and arrows were accompanied
with the smoke, the sound, and the fire of their musketry and cannon.”
“The same destructive secret,” he adds, “had been revealed to the
Moslems, by whom it was employed with the superior energy of zeal,
riches, and despotism. The great cannon of Mahomet has been separately
noticed――an important and visible object in the history of the times;
but that enormous engine was flanked by two fellows almost of equal
magnitude; the long order of the Turkish artillery was pointed against
the walls; fourteen batteries thundered at once on the most accessible
places; and of one of these it is ambiguously expressed that it was
mounted with one hundred and thirty guns, or that it discharged one
hundred and thirty bullets,” vol. iv. pp. 343, 344. Again: “The first
random shots were productive of more sound than effect; and it was by
the advice of a Christian that the engineers were taught to level their
aim against the two opposite sides of the salient angles of a bastion.
However imperfect, the weight and repetition of the fire made some
impression on the walls,” vol. iv. p. 344. And again: “A circumstance
that distinguishes the siege of Constantinople is the reunion of
the ancient and modern artillery. The cannon were intermingled with
the mechanical engines for casting stones and darts; the bullet
and the battering-ram were directed against the same walls; nor
had the discovery of gunpowder superseded the use of the liquid and
inextinguishable fire,” vol. iv. p. 344. So again, in the description
of the final conflict when Constantinople was taken, Mr. Gibbon says,
“From the lines, the galleys, and the bridge, the Ottoman artillery
thundered on all sides; and the camp and city, the Greeks and the Turks,
were involved in a cloud of smoke which could only be dispelled by the
final deliverance or destruction of the Roman empire,” vol. iv. p. 350.
Assuredly, if such was _the fact_ in the conquests of the Turks, it
was not unnatural in one who was looking on these warriors in vision
to describe them as if they seemed to belch out “fire and smoke and
brimstone.” If Mr. Gibbon had _designed_ to describe the conquest of
the Turks as a fulfilment of the prediction, could he have done it in
a style more clear and graphic than that which he has employed? If this
had occurred in a _Christian_ writer, would it not have been charged on
him that he had shaped his facts to meet his notions of the meaning of
the prophecy?

(10) The statement that “their power was in their mouth, and in their
tails,” ver. 19. The former part of this has been illustrated. The
inquiry now is, what is the meaning of the declaration that “their
power was in their tails?” In ver. 19 their tails are described as
resembling “serpents, having heads,” and it is said that “with them
they do hurt.” See Notes on that verse. The allusion to the “serpents”
would seem to imply that there was something in the horses’ tails, as
compared with them, or in some _use_ that was made of them, which would
make this language proper; that is, that their appearance would so
suggest the idea of death and destruction, that the mind would easily
imagine they were a bundle of serpents. The following remarks may show
how applicable this was to the Turks: (a) In the Turkish hordes there
was _something_, whatever it was, that naturally suggested _some_
resemblance to serpents. Of the Turkmans when they began to spread
their conquests over Asia, in the eleventh century, and an effort
was made to rouse the people against them, Mr. Gibbon makes the
following remark: “Massoud, the son and successor of Mahmoud, had too
long neglected the advice of his wisest Omrahs. ‘Your enemies’ [the
Turkmans], they repeatedly urged, ’were in their origin a swarm of
ants; they are now little snakes; and unless they be instantly crushed,
they will acquire the venom and magnitude of serpents,” vol. iv. p. 91.
(b) It is a remarkable fact that the horse’s tail is a well-known
Turkish standard――a symbol of office and authority. “The pashas are
distinguished, after a Tartar custom, by three horsetails on the side
of their tents, and receive by courtesy the title of _beyler bey_,
or prince of princes. The next in rank are the pashas of two tails,
the beys who are honoured with one tail.”――_Edin. Ency._ {237} (art.
“Turkey”). In the times of their early warlike career the principal
standard was once lost in battle, and the Turkman commander, in default,
cut off his horse’s tail, lifted it on a pole, made it the rallying
ensign, and so gained the victory. So Tournefort in his _Travels_
states. The following is Ferrario’s account of the origin of this
ensign:――“An author acquainted with their customs says, that a general
of theirs, not knowing how to rally his troops that had lost their
standards, cut off a horse’s tail, and fixed it to the end of a spear;
and the soldiers rallying at that signal, gained the victory.” He adds
farther, that whereas “on his appointment a pasha of the three tails
_used_ to receive a drum and a standard, now for the _drum_ there have
been substituted three horses’ tails, tied at the end of a spear, round
a gilded haft. One of the first officers of the palace presents him
these three tails as a standard” (Elliott, vol. i. pp. 485, 486). This
remarkable standard or ensign is found only among the Turks, and, if
there was an intended reference to them, the symbol here would be the
proper one to be adopted. The _meaning_ of the passage where it is said
that “their _power_ is in their tails” would seem to be, that their
tails were the symbol or emblem of their authority――as in fact the
horse’s tail is in the appointment of a pasha. The _image_ before the
mind of John would seem to have been, that he saw the horses belching
out fire and smoke, and, what was equally strange, he saw that their
power of spreading desolation was connected with the tails of horses.
Anyone looking on a body of cavalry with such banners or ensigns would
be struck with this unusual and remarkable appearance, and would speak
of their banners as concentrating and directing their power. The above
engraving, representing the standard of a Turkish pasha, will
illustrate the passage before us.

Illustration: Standard-bearer of a Turkish Pasha.

(11) The number slain, ver. 18. That is said to have been “the third
part of men.” No one in reading the accounts of the wars of the Turks,
and of the ravages which they have committed, would be likely to feel
that this is an exaggeration. It is not necessary to suppose that it is
_literally_ accurate, but it is such a representation as would strike
one in looking over the world, and contemplating the effect of their
invasions. If the other specifications in the symbol are correct, there
would be no hesitation in admitting the propriety of this.

(12) The time of the continuance of this power. This is a material,
and a more difficult point. It is said (ver. 15) to be “an hour, and a
day, and a month, and a year;” that is, as explained, three hundred and
ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by the expression
“an hour;” to wit, an additional twelfth or twenty-fourth part of
a year. The question now is, whether, supposing the time to which
this reaches to be the capture of Constantinople, and the consequent
downfall of the Roman empire――the object in view in this series of
visions――in reckoning _back_ from that period for 391 years, we should
reach an epoch that would properly denote the moving forward of this
power towards its final conquest; that is, whether there was any such
marked epoch that, if the 391 years were added to it, it would reach
the year of the conquest of Constantinople, A.D. 1453. The period
that would be indicated by taking the number 391 from 1453 would
be 1062――and that is the time in which we are to look for the event
referred to. This is on the supposition that the year consisted of 360
days, or twelve months of thirty days each. If, however, instead of
this, we reckon 365 days and six hours, then the length of time would
be found to amount to 396 years and {238} 106 days.[311] This would
make the time of the “loosening of the angels,” or the moving forward
of this power, to be A.D. 1057. In the uncertainty on this point, and
in the unsettled state of ancient chronology, it would, perhaps, be
vain to hope for minute accuracy, and it is not reasonable to demand
it of an interpreter. On any fair principle of interpretation it would
be sufficient if at _about_ one of these periods――A.D. 1062 or A.D.
1057――there was found such a definite or strongly marked event as would
indicate a movement of the hitherto restrained power toward the West.
This is the real point, then, to be determined. Now, in a common work
on chronology I find this record: “A.D. 1055, Turks reduce Bagdad, and
overturn the empire of the caliphs.” In a work still more important to
our purpose (Gibbon, iv. 92, 93), under the date of A.D. 1055, I find
a series of statements which will show the propriety of referring to
that event as the one by which this power, so long restrained, was “let
loose;” that is, was placed in such a state that its final conquest
of the Eastern empire certainly followed. The event was the union of
the Turkish power with the caliphate in such a way that the sultan was
regarded as “the temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” Of
this event Mr. Gibbon gives the following account. After mentioning the
conversion of the Turks to the Moslem faith, and especially the zeal
with which the son of Seljuk had embraced that faith, he proceeds to
state the manner in which the Turkish sultan Togrul came in possession
of Bagdad, and was invested with the high office of the “temporal
lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet.” There were two caliphs,
those of Bagdad and Egypt, and “the sublime character of the successor
of the prophet” was “disputed” by them, iv. 93. Each of them became
“solicitous to prove his title in the judgment of the strong though
illiterate barbarians.” Mr. Gibbon then says, “Mahmoud the Gaznevide
had declared himself in favour of the line of Abbas; and had treated
with indignity the robe of honour which was presented by the Fatimite
ambassador. Yet the ungrateful Hashemite had changed with the change of
fortune; he applauded the victory of Zendecan, and named the Seljukian
sultan his temporal vicegerent over the Moslem world. As Togrul
executed and enlarged this important trust, he was called to the
deliverance of the caliph Cayem, and obeyed the holy summons, which
gave a new kingdom to his arms. In the palace of Bagdad the commander
of the faithful still slumbered, a venerable phantom. His servant or
master, the prince of the Bowides, could no longer protect him from
the insolence of meaner tyrants; and the Euphrates and the Tigris were
oppressed by the revolt of the Turkish and Arabian emirs. The presence
of a conqueror was implored as a blessing; and the transient mischiefs
of fire and sword were excused as the sharp but salutary remedies
which alone could restore the health of the republic. At the head of an
irresistible force the sultan of Persia marched from Hamadan; the proud
were crushed, the prostrate were spared; the prince of the Bowides
disappeared; the heads of the most obstinate rebels were laid at the
feet of Togrul; and he inflicted a lesson of obedience on the people
of Mosul and Bagdad. After the chastisement of the guilty, and the
restoration of peace, the royal shepherd accepted the reward of his
labours; and a solemn comedy represented the triumph of religious
prejudice over barbarian power. The Turkish sultan embarked on the
Tigris, landed at the gate of Racca, and made his public entry on
horseback. At the palace gate he respectfully dismounted, and walked on
foot preceded by his emirs without arms. The caliph was seated behind
his black veil; the black garment of the Abbassides was cast over his
shoulders, and he held in his hand the staff of the Apostle of God. The
conqueror of the East kissed the ground, stood some time in a modest
posture, and was led toward the throne by the vizier and an interpreter.
After Togrul had seated himself on another throne, his commission was
publicly read, _which declared him the temporal lieutenant of the vicar
of the {239} prophet_. He was successively invested with seven robes
of honour, and presented with seven slaves, the natives of the seven
climates of the Arabian empire. His mystic veil was perfumed with musk;
two crowns were placed on his head; two scimetars were girded to his
side, as the symbols of a double reign over the East and West. Their
alliance was cemented by the marriage of Togrul’s sister with the
successor of the prophet,” iv. 93, 94. This event, so described, was
of sufficient importance, as constituting a _union_ of the Turkish
power with the Moslem faith, as making it practicable to move in their
conquests toward the West, and as connected in its ultimate results
with the downfall of the Eastern empire, to make it an _epoch_ in the
history of nations. In fact, it was _the_ point which one would have
particularly looked at, after describing the movements of the Saracens
(ch. ix. 1‒11), as the next event that was to change the condition of
the world.

Happily we have also the means of fixing the exact date of this event,
so as to make it accord with singular accuracy with the period supposed
to be referred to. The _general_ time specified by Mr. Gibbon is A.D.
1055. This, according to the two methods referred to of determining
the period embraced in the “hour, and day, and month, and year,” would
reach, if the period were 391 years, to A.D. 1446; if the other method
were referred to, making it 396 years and 106 days to A.D. 1451, with
106 days added, within less than two years of the actual taking of
Constantinople. But there is a more accurate calculation as to the time
than the _general_ one thus made. In vol. iv. 93 Mr. Gibbon makes this
remark:――“Twenty-five years after the death of Basil his successors
were suddenly assaulted by an unknown race of barbarians, who united
the Scythian valour with the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art
and riches of a powerful monarchy.” He then proceeds (p. 94, seq.) with
an account of the invasions of the Turks. In vol. iii. 307 we have an
account of the death of Basil. “In the sixty-eighth year of his age
his martial spirit urged him to embark in person for a holy war against
the Saracens of Sicily; he was prevented by death, and Basil, surnamed
the slayer of the Bulgarians, was dismissed from the world, with the
blessings of the clergy and the curses of the people.” This occurred
A.D. 1025. “Twenty-five years” after this would make A.D. 1050. To
this add the period here referred to, and we have respectively, as
above, the years A.D. 1446, or A.D. 1451, and 106 days. Both periods
are near the time of the taking of Constantinople and the downfall
of the Eastern empire (A.D. 1453), and the latter strikingly so; and,
considering the general nature of the statement of Mr. Gibbon, and the
great indefiniteness of the dates in chronology, may be considered as
remarkable.――But we have the means of a still more accurate calculation.
It is by determining the exact period of the investiture of Togrul with
the authority of caliph, or as the “temporal lieutenant of the vicar of
the prophet.” The time of this investiture, or coronation, is mentioned
by Abulfeda as occurring on the 25th of Dzoulcad, in the year of
the Hegira 449; and the date of Elmakin’s narrative, who has given
an account of this, perfectly agrees with this. Of this transaction
Elmakin makes the following remark:――“There was now none left in Irak
or Chorasmia who could stand before him.” The _importance_ of this
investiture will be seen from the charge which the caliph is reported
by Abulfeda to have given to Togrul on this occasion:――“The caliph
commits to your care all that part of the world which God has committed
to his care and dominion; and intrusts to thee, under the name of
vicegerent, the guardianship of the pious, faithful, and God-serving
citizens.”[312] The exact _time_ of this investiture is stated
by Abulfeda, as above, to be the 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449. Now,
reckoning this as the time, and we have the following result:――The 25th
of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449, would answer to February 2, A.D. 1058. From this
to May 29, 1453, the time when Constantinople was taken, would be 395
years and 116 days. The _prophetic_ period, as above, is 396 years and
106 days――making a difference only of 1 year and 10 days――a result that
cannot but be considered as remarkable, considering the difficulty of
fixing ancient dates. Or if, with Mr. Elliott (i. 495‒499), we suppose
that the time is to be reckoned from the period when the Turkman {240}
power went forth from Bagdad on a career of conquest, the reckoning
should be from the year of the Hegira 448, the year before the _formal_
investiture, then this would make a difference of only 24 days. The
date of that event was the 10th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 448. That was the day
in which Togrul with his Turkmans, now the representative and head of
the power of Islamism, quitted Bagdad to enter on a long career of war
and conquest. “The part allotted to Togrul himself in the fearful drama
soon to open against the Greeks was to extend and establish the Turkman
dominion over the frontier countries of Irak and Mesopotamia, that so
the requisite strength might be attained for the attack ordained of
God’s counsels against the Greek empire. The first step to this was
the siege and capture of Moussul; his next of Singara. Nisibis, too,
was visited by him; that frontier fortress that had in other days
been so long a bulwark to the Greeks. Everywhere victory attended his
banner――a presage of what was to follow.” Reckoning from that time, the
coincidence between the period that elapsed from that, and the conquest
of Constantinople, would be 396 years and 130 days――a period that
corresponds, with only a difference of 24 days, with that specified in
the prophecy according to the explanation already given. It could not
be expected that a coincidence more accurate than this could be made
out on the supposition that the prophecy was designed to refer to
these events; and if it _did_ refer to them, the coincidence could have
occurred only as a prediction by Him who sees with perfect accuracy all
the future.

(13) The effect. This is stated, in ver. 20, 21, to be that those who
survived these plagues did _not_ repent of their wickedness, but that
the abominations which existed before still remained. In endeavouring
to determine the meaning of this, it will be proper, first, to
ascertain the exact sense of the words used, and then to inquire
whether a state of things existed subsequent to the invasions of the
Turks which corresponded with the description here.

(a) The explanation of the language used in ver. 20, 21. ¶ _The rest of
the men._ That portion of the world on which these plagues did not come.
One-third of the race, it is said, would fall under these calamities,
and the writer now proceeds to state what would be the effect on the
remainder. The language used――“_the rest of the men_”――is not such as
to designate with certainty any particular portion of the world, but it
is implied that the things mentioned were of very general prevalence.
¶ _Which were not killed by these plagues._ The two-thirds of the race
which were spared. The language here is such as would be used on the
supposition that the crimes here referred to abounded in all those
regions which came within the range of the vision of the apostle.
¶ _Yet repented not of the works of their hands._ To wit, of those
things which are immediately specified. ¶ _That they should not worship
devils._ Implying that they practised this before. The word used
here――δαιμόνιον――means properly _a god_, _deity_; spoken of the heathen
gods, Ac. xvii. 18; then a genius, or tutelary demon, _e.g._ that of
Socrates; and, in the New Testament, a demon in the sense of an evil
spirit. See the word fully explained in the Notes on 1 Co. x. 20. The
meaning of the passage here, as in 1 Co. x. 20, “they sacrifice to
devils,” is not that they literally worshipped _devils_ in the usual
sense of that term, though it is true that such worship does exist in
the world, as among the Yezidis (see Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_,
vol. i. pp. 225‒254, and Rosenmüller, _Morgenland_, i.i. 212‒216); but
that they worshipped beings _which were inferior to the Supreme God_;
created spirits of a rank superior to men, or the spirits of men
that had been enrolled among the gods. This last was a common form of
worship among the heathen, for a large portion of the gods whom they
adored were heroes and benefactors who had been enrolled among the
gods――as Hercules, Bacchus, &c. All that is necessarily implied in this
word is, that there prevailed in the time referred to the worship of
spirits inferior to God, or the worship of the spirits of departed
men. This idea would be more naturally suggested to the mind of a Greek
by the use of the word than the worship of evil spirits as such――if
indeed it would have conveyed that idea at all; and this word would
be properly employed in the representation if there was _any_ homage
rendered to departed human spirits which came in the place of the
worship of the true God. Comp. a dissertation on the meaning of the
word used here, in {241} Elliott on the _Apocalypse_, Appendix I.
vol. ii. ¶ _And idols of gold, and silver_, &c. Idols were formerly,
as they are now in heathen lands, made of all these materials. The most
costly would, of course, denote a higher degree of veneration for the
god, or greater wealth in the worshipper, and all would be employed as
symbols or representatives of the gods whom they adored. The _meaning_
of this passage is, that there would prevail, at that time, what would
be properly called _idolatry_, and that this would be represented
by the worship paid to these images or idols. It is not necessary to
the proper understanding of this, to suppose that the images or idols
worshipped were acknowledged _heathen idols_, or were erected in honour
of _heathen gods_, as such. All that is implied is, that there would
be such images――εἴδωλα――and that a degree of homage would be paid
to them which would be in fact idolatry. The word here used――εἴδωλον,
εἴδωλα――properly means an image, spectre, shade; then an idol-image, or
that which was a representative of a heathen god; and then the idol-god
itself――a heathen deity. So far as the _word_ is concerned, it may be
applied to any kind of image-worship. ¶ _Which neither can see, nor
hear, nor walk._ The common representation of idol-worship in the
Scriptures, to denote its folly and stupidity. See Ps. cxv.; comp.
Is. xliv. 9‒19. ¶ _Neither repented they of their murders._ This
implies that, at the time referred to, murders would abound; or
that the times would be characterized by that which deserved to
be _called_ murder. ¶ _Nor of their sorceries._ The word rendered
_sorceries_――φαρμακεία――whence our word _pharmacy_, means properly _the
preparing and giving of medicine_, Eng. _pharmacy_ (Rob. _Lex._). Then,
as the art of medicine was supposed to have magical power, or as the
persons who practised medicine, in order to give themselves and their
art greater importance, practised various arts of incantation, the word
came to be connected with the idea of magic sorcery, or enchantment.
See Schleusner, _Lex._ In the New Testament the word is _never_ used in
a good sense, as denoting the preparation of medicine, but always in
this secondary sense, as denoting sorcery, magic, &c. Thus in Ga. v. 20,
“the works of the flesh――idolatry, _witchcraft_,” &c. Re. ix. 21, “Of
their _sorceries_.” Re. xviii. 23, “For by thy _sorceries_ were all
nations deceived.” Re. xxi. 8, “Whoremongers, and _sorcerers_.” The
word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament; and the _meaning_
of the word would be fulfilled in anything that purposed to accomplish
an object by sorcery, by magical arts, by trick, by cunning, by sleight
of hand, or by _deceiving the senses in any way_. Thus it would be
applicable to all jugglery and to all pretended miracles. ¶ _Nor of
their fornication._ Implying that this would be a prevalent sin in
the times referred to, and that the dreadful plagues which are here
predicted would make no essential change in reference to its prevalence.
¶ _And of their thefts._ Implying that _this_, too, would be a common
form of iniquity. The word used here――κλέμμα――is the common word
to denote _theft_. The true idea in the word is that of privately,
unlawfully, and feloniously taking the goods or movables of another
person. In a larger and in the popular sense, however, this word might
embrace all acts of taking the property of another by dishonest arts,
or on false pretence, or without an equivalent.

(b) The next point then is, the inquiry whether there was any such
state of things as is specified here existing in the time of the rise
of the Turkish power, and in the time of the calamities which that
formidable power brought upon the world. There are two things implied
in the statement here: (1) that these things had an existence before
the invasion and destruction of the Eastern empire by the Turkish
power; and (2) that they continued to exist after that, or were not
removed by these fearful calamities. The supposition all along in
this interpretation is, that the eye of the prophet was on the Roman
world, and that the design was to mark the various events which would
characterize its future history. We look, then, in the application
of this, to the state of things existing in connection with the Roman
power, or that portion of the world which was then pervaded by the
Roman religion. This will make it necessary to institute an inquiry
whether the things here specified prevailed in that part of the world
before the invasions of the Turks, and the conquest of Constantinople,
and whether the judgments inflicted by that formidable Turkish invasion
made any essential change in this respect.

(1) The statement that they worshipped {242} devils; that is, as
explained, demons, or the deified souls of men. Homage rendered to the
spirits of departed men, and substituted in the place of the worship
of the true God, would meet all that is properly implied here. We may
refer, then, to the worship of _saints_ in the Romish communion as a
complete fulfilment of what is here implied in the language used by
John. The fact cannot be disputed that the invocation of saints took
the place, in the Roman Catholic communion, of the worship of sages
and heroes in heathen Rome, and that the canonization of saints took
the place of the ancient deification of heroes and public benefactors.
The same kind of homage was rendered to them; their aid was invoked in
a similar manner, and on similar occasions; the effect on the popular
mind was substantially the same; and the one interfered as really
as the other with the worship of the true God. The decrees of the
seventh general council, known as the second council of Nice, A.D. 787,
authorized and established the worshipping (προσκυνέω――the same word
used here――προσκυνήσωσι τὰ δαιμόνια) of the saints and their images.
This occurred _after_ the exciting scenes, the debates, and the
disorders produced by the Iconoclasts, or image-breakers, and after the
most careful deliberation on the subject. In that celebrated council
it was decreed, according to Mr. Gibbon (iii. 341), “unanimously,”
“that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to
the fathers and councils of the church; but they hesitate whether that
worship be relative or direct; whether the Godhead and the figure of
Christ be entitled to the same mode of adoration.” This worship of
the “saints,” or prayer to the saints, asking for their intercession,
it is well known, has from that time everywhere prevailed in the Papal
communion. Indeed, a large part of the actual _prayers_ offered in
their services is addressed to the Virgin Mary. Mr. Maitland, “the
able and learned advocate of the Dark Ages,” says, “The superstition of
the age supposed the glorified saint to know what was going on in the
world; and to feel a deep interest, and to possess a considerable
power, in the church militant on earth. I believe that they who thought
so are altogether mistaken; and I lament, abhor, and am amazed at the
superstition, _blasphemies_, and _idolatries_, which have grown out
of that opinion” (Elliott, ii. p. 10). As to the question whether this
_continued_ after the judgments brought upon the world by the hordes
“loosed on the Euphrates,” or whether they repented and reformed on
account of the judgments, we have only to look into the Roman Catholic
religion everywhere. Not only did the old practice of “dæmonolatry,”
or the worship of departed saints, continue, but _new_ “saints” have
been added to the number, and the list of those who are to receive
this homage has been continually increasing. Thus in the year 1460,
Catharine of Sienna was canonized by Pope Pius II.; in 1482,
Bonaventura, the blasphemer,[313] by Sixtus IV.; in 1494, Anselm by
Alexander VI. Alexander’s bull, in language more heathen than Christian,
avows it to be the pope’s _duty_ thus to choose out, and to hold
up the illustrious dead, as their merits claim, for _adoration_ and
_worship_.[314]

(2) The statement that _idolatry_ was practised, and continued to be
practised, after this invasion:――“Repented not that they should not
worship idols of gold, silver, and brass.” On this point, perhaps it
would be sufficient to refer to what has been already noticed in regard
to the homage paid to the souls of the departed; but it may be farther
and more clearly illustrated by a reference to the worship of _images_
in the Romish communion. Anyone familiar with church history will
recollect the long conflicts which prevailed respecting the worship of
images; the establishment of images in the churches; the destruction
of images by the “Iconoclasts;” and the debates on the subject by the
council at Hiera; and the final decision in the second council of Nice,
in which the propriety of image-worship was affirmed and established.
See, on this subject, Bowers’ _History of the Popes_, ii. 98, seq.,
144, seq.; Gibbon, vol. iii. pp. 322‒341. The importance of the
question respecting _image-worship_ {243} may be seen from the remarks
of Mr. Gibbon, iii. 322. He speaks of it as “a question of popular
superstition which produced the revolt of Italy, the _temporal power
of the popes_, and the restoration of the Roman empire in the West.”
A few extracts from Mr. Gibbon――who may be regarded as an impartial
witness on this subject――will show what was the popular belief, and
will confirm what is said in the passage before us in reference to the
prevalence of _idolatry_. “The first introduction of a symbolic worship
was in the veneration of the cross, and of relics. The saints and
martyrs, when intercession was implored, were seated on the right
hand of God; but the gracious, and often supernatural favours, which,
in the popular belief, were showered round their tombs, conveyed an
unquestionable sanction of the devout pilgrims who visited, and touched,
and kissed these lifeless remains, the memorials of their merits and
sufferings. But a memorial, more interesting than the skull or the
sandals of a departed worthy, is a faithful copy of his person and
features delineated by the arts of painting or sculpture. In every
age such copies, so congenial to human feelings, have been cherished
by the zeal of private friendship or public esteem; the images of the
Roman emperors were adored with civil and almost religious honours;
a reverence, less ostentatious, but more sincere, was applied to
the statues of sages and patriots; and these profane virtues, these
splendid sins, disappeared in the presence of the holy men who had died
for their celestial and everlasting country. At first the experiment
was made with caution and scruple, and the venerable pictures were
discreetly allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and
to gratify the prejudices of the heathen proselytes. By a slow, though
inevitable progression, the honours of the original were transferred
to the copy; the devout Christian prayed before the image of a saint,
and the Pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and incense again stole
into the Catholic church. The scruples of reason or piety were silenced
by the strong evidence of visions and miracles; and the pictures which
speak, and move, and bleed, must be endowed with a divine energy, and
may be considered as the proper objects of religious adoration. The
most audacious pencil might tremble in the rash attempt of defining,
by forms and colours, the infinite Spirit, the eternal Father, who
pervades and sustains the universe. But the superstitious mind was
more easily reconciled to paint and worship the angels, and above
all, the Son of God, under the human shape, which on earth they have
condescended to assume. The Second Person of the Trinity had been
clothed with a real and mortal body, but that body had ascended into
heaven; and had not some similitude been presented to the eyes of his
disciples, the spiritual worship of Christ might have been obliterated
by the visible relics and representations of the saints. A similar
indulgence was requisite, and propitious, for the Virgin Mary; the
place of her burial was unknown; and the assumption of her soul and
body into heaven was adopted by the credulity of the Greeks and Latins.
_The use, and even the worship of images, was firmly established
before the end of the sixth century_; they were fondly cherished by
the warm imagination of the Greeks and Asiatics; _the Pantheon and
the Vatican were adorned with the emblems of a new superstition_;
but this semblance of idolatry was more coldly entertained by the
rude barbarians and the Arian clergy of the West,” vol. iii. p. 323.
Again:――“Before the end of the sixth century these images, _made
without hands_ (in Greek it is a single word――ἀχειροποίητος), were
propagated in the camps and cities of the Eastern empire; _they were
the objects of worship_, and the instruments of miracles; and in the
hour of danger or tumult their venerable presence could revive the
hope, rekindle the courage, or repress the fury of the Roman legions,”
vol. iii. pp. 324, 325. So again (vol. iii. p. 340, seq.):――“While
the popes established in Italy their freedom and dominion, the images,
the first cause of their revolt, were restored in the Eastern empire.
Under the reign of Constantine the Fifth, the union of civil and
ecclesiastical power had overthrown the tree, without extirpating the
root, of superstition. The _idols_, for such they were now held, were
secretly cherished by the order and the sex most prone to devotion;
and the fond alliance of the monks and females obtained a final
victory over the reason and the authority of man.” Under Irene a
council was convened――the second council of Nice, or the seventh
general council――in which, {244} according to Mr. Gibbon (iii. 341), it
was “unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to
Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the church.” The
_arguments_ which were urged in favour of the worship of images, in the
council above referred to, may be seen in Bowers’ _Lives of the Popes_,
vol. ii. pp. 152‒158, Dr. Cox’s edition. The answer of the bishops in
the council to the question of the empress Irene, whether they agreed
to the decision which had been adopted in the council, was in these
words:――“We all agree to it; we have all freely signed it; this is the
faith of the apostles, of the fathers, and of the Catholic church; we
all salute, honour, worship, and adore the holy and venerable images;
be they accursed who do not honour, worship, and adore the adorable
images” (Bowers’ _Lives of the Popes_, ii. 159). As a matter of fact,
therefore, no one can doubt that these images were _worshipped_ with
the honour that was due to God alone――or that the sin of _idolatry_
prevailed; and no one can doubt that that has been continued, and is
still, in the Papal communion.

(3) The next point specified is _murders_ (ver. 21):――“Neither
repented they of their murders.” It can hardly be necessary to dwell
on this to show that this was strictly applicable to the Roman power,
and extensively prevailed, both before and after the Turkish invasion,
and that that invasion had no tendency to produce repentance. Indeed,
in nothing has the Papacy been more remarkably characterized than
in the number of murders perpetrated on the innocent in persecution.
In reference to the fulfilment of this we may refer to the following
things:――(a) Persecution. This has been particularly the characteristic
of the Roman communion, it need not be said, in all ages. The
persecutions of the Waldenses, if there were nothing else, show that
the spirit here referred to prevailed in the Roman communion, or that
the times preceding the Turkish conquest were characterized by what is
here specified. In the third Lateran council, A.D. 1179, an anathema
was declared against certain dissentients and heretics, and then
against the Waldenses themselves in Papal bulls of the years 1183, 1207,
1208. Again, in a decree of the fourth Lateran council, A.D. 1215, a
_crusade_, as it was called, was proclaimed against them, and “plenary
absolution promised to such as should perish in the holy war, from the
day of their birth to the day of their death.” “And never,” says
Sismondi, “had the cross been taken up with more unanimous consent.”
It is supposed that in this crusade against the Waldenses a million
of men perished. (b) That this continued to be the characteristic of
the Papacy _after_ the judgments brought upon the Roman world by the
Turkish invasion, or that those judgments had no tendency to produce
repentance and reformation, is well known, and is manifest from the
following things:――(1) The continuance of the spirit of persecution.
(2) The establishment of the Inquisition. One hundred and fifty
thousand persons perished by the Inquisition in thirty years; and
from the beginning of the order of the Jesuits in 1540 to 1580, it
is supposed that nine hundred thousand persons were destroyed by
persecution. (3) The same spirit was manifested in the attempts to
suppress the true religion in England, in Bohemia, and in the Low
Countries. Fifty thousand persons were hanged, burned, beheaded, or
buried alive, for the crime of heresy, in the Low Countries, chiefly
under the Duke of Alva, from the edict of Charles V. against the
Protestants to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Comp. Notes on
Da. vii. 24‒28. To these are to be added all that fell in France on
the revocation of the edict of Nantz; all that perished by persecution
in England in the days of Mary; and all that have fallen in the bloody
wars that have been waged in the propagation of the Papal religion. The
number is, of course, unknown to mortals, though efforts have been made
by historians to form some estimate of the amount. It is supposed that
fifty millions of persons have perished in these persecutions of the
Waldenses, Albigenses, Bohemian Brethren, Wycliffites, and Protestants;
that some fifteen millions of Indians perished in Cuba, Mexico, and
South America, in the wars of the Spaniards, professedly to propagate
the Catholic faith; that three millions and a half of Moors and Jews
perished, by Catholic persecution and arms, in Spain; and that thus,
probably no less than sixty-eight millions and five hundred thousand
human beings have been put to death by this one persecuting power. See
Dr. Berg’s _Lectures on Romanism_, pp. 6, 7. Assuredly, if this be true,
it would be proper to characterize the times here {245} referred to,
both before and after the Turkish invasion, as a time when _murders_
would prevail.

(4) The fourth point specified is _sorceries_. It can hardly be
necessary to go into detail to prove that _this_ also abounded; and
that delusive appeals to the senses; false and pretended miracles; arts
adapted to deceive through the imagination; the supposed virtue and
efficacy of relics; and frauds calculated to impose on mankind, have
characterized those portions of the world where the Roman religion has
prevailed, and been one of the principal means of its advancement. No
Protestant surely would deny this, no intelligent Catholic can doubt
it himself. All that is necessary to be said in regard to this is, that
in this, as in other respects, the Turkish invasion, and the judgments
that came upon the world, made no change. The very recent imposture
of the “holy coat of Treves” is a full proof that the _disposition_
to practise such arts still exists, and that the _power_ to impose on
a large portion of the world in that denomination has not died away.

(5) The fifth thing specified is _fornication_. This has abounded
everywhere in the world; but the use of the term in this connection
implies that there would be something _peculiar_ here, and perhaps
that it would be associated with the other things referred to. It
is as unnecessary as it would be improper to go into any detail on
this point. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the Middle
Ages――the period here supposed to be referred to――must be aware of the
wide-spread licentiousness which then prevailed, especially among the
clergy. Historians and poets, ballads, and acts of councils, alike
testify to this fact.[315] It is to be remarked also, as illustrating
the subject, that the dissoluteness of the Middle Ages was closely, and
almost necessarily, connected with the worship of the images and the
saints above referred to. The character of many of those who were
worshipped as saints, like the character of many of the gods of the
Pagan Romans, was just such as to be an incentive to every species
of licentiousness and impurity. On this point Mr. Hallam makes the
following remarks:――“That the exclusive worship of saints, under
the guidance of an artful though illiterate priesthood, degraded
the understanding, and begat a stupid credulity and fanaticism, is
sufficiently evident. But it was also so managed as to loosen the bonds
of religion, and pervert the standard of morality” (_Middle Ages_,
vol. ii. pp. 249, 250; edit. Phil. 1824). He then, in a note, refers
to the legends of the saints as abundantly confirming his statements.
See particularly the stories in the _Golden Legend_. So, in speaking
of the monastic orders, Mr. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, vol. ii. 253) says:
“In vain new rules of discipline were devised, or the old corrected by
reforms. Many of their worst vices grew so naturally out of their mode
of life that a stricter discipline would have no tendency to extirpate
them. Their extreme licentiousness was sometimes hardly concealed by
the cowl of sanctity.” In illustration of this we may introduce here a
remark of Mr. Gibbon, made in immediate connection with his statement
about the decrees respecting the worship of images. “I shall only
notice,” says he, “the judgment of the bishops on the comparative merit
of image-worship and morality. A monk had concluded a truce with the
demon of fornication, on condition of interrupting his daily prayers to
a picture that hung in his cell. His scruples prompted him to consult
the abbot. ‘Rather than abstain from adoring Christ and his mother in
their holy images, it would be better for you,’ replied the casuist,
‘to enter every brothel, and visit every prostitute in the city,’” iii.
341. So again, Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the pope, John XII., says: “His
open simony might be the consequence of distress; and his blasphemous
invocation of Jupiter and Venus, if it be true, could not possibly be
serious. But we read with some surprise that the worthy grandson of
Marozia lived in public adultery with the matrons of Rome; that the
Lateran palace was turned into a place for prostitution, and that
his rapes of virgins and of widows had deterred the female pilgrims
from visiting the tomb of St. Peter, lest, in the devout act, they
should be violated by his successor,” iii. 353. Again, the system of
_indulgences_ led directly to licentiousness. In the pontificate of
John XXII., about A.D. 1320, there was invented the celebrated Tax of
Indulgences, of which more than forty editions are extant. According
to this, _incest_ was to cost, if {246} not detected, _five groschen_;
if known and flagrant, _six_. A certain price was affixed in a similar
way to adultery, infanticide, &c. See Merle D’Aubigné’s _Reformation_,
vol. i. p. 41. And farther, the very _pilgrimages_ to the shrines
of the saints, which were enjoined as a penance for sin, and which
were regarded as a ground of merit, were occasions of the grossest
licentiousness. So Hallam, _Middle Ages_, says: “This licensed vagrancy
was naturally productive of dissoluteness, especially among the women.
Our English ladies, in their zeal to obtain the spiritual treasuries
of Rome, are said to have relaxed the necessary caution about one that
was in their own custody,” vol. ii. 255. The celibacy of the clergy
also tended to licentiousness, and is known to have been everywhere
productive of the very sin which is here mentioned. The state of the
nunneries in the middle ages is well known. In the fifteenth century
Gerson, the French orator so celebrated at the council of Constance,
called them Prostibula meretricum. Clemangis, a French theologian, also
contemporary, and a man of great eminence, thus speaks of them: Quid
aliud sunt hoc tempore puellarum monasteria, nisi quædam non dico
Dei sanctuaria, sed veneris execranda prostibula; ut idem sit hodie
puellam velare, quod et publicè ad scortandum exponere (Hallam, _Middle
Ages_, ii. 253). To this we may add the fact that it was a habit,
not unfrequent, to license the clergy to live in concubinage (see the
proof in Elliott, i. 447, note), and that the practice of auricular
confession necessarily made “the tainting of the female mind an
integral part of Roman priestcraft, and gave consecration to the
communings of impurity.” It hardly needs any proof that these practices
continued _after_ the invasions of the Turkish hordes, or that those
invasions made no changes in the condition of the world in this respect.
In proof of this we need refer only to Pope Innocent VIII., elected
in 1484 to the Papacy;[316] to Alexander VI., his successor, who at
the close of the fifteenth century stood before the world a monster,
notorious to all, of impurity and vice; and to the general well-known
character of the Romish clergy. “Most of the ecclesiastics,” says the
historian Infessura, “had their mistresses; and all the convents of the
capital were houses of ill fame.”

(6) The sixth thing specified (ver. 21) is _thefts_; that is, as
explained, the taking of the property of others by dishonest arts, on
false pretences, or without any proper equivalent. In the inquiry as
to the applicability of this to the times supposed to be here referred
to, we may notice the following things, as instances in which money
was extorted from the people:――(a) The value fraudulently assigned to
_relics_. Mosheim, in his historical sketch of the twelfth century,
observes: “The abbots and monks carried about the country the carcasses
and relics of saints, in solemn procession, and permitted the multitude
to behold, touch, and embrace the sacred remains, _at fixed prices_.”
(b) The exaltation of the miracle-working merit of particular saints,
and the consecration of _new_ saints, and dedication of _new_ images,
when the popularity of the former died away. Thus Mr. Hallam says:
“Every cathedral or monastery had its tutelar saint, and every
saint his legend; fabricated in order to enrich the churches under
his protection; by exaggerating his virtues and his miracles, and
consequently his power of serving those who paid liberally for his
patronage.” (c) The invention and sale of _indulgences_――well known
to have been a vast source of revenue to the church. Wycliffe declared
that indulgences were mere forgeries whereby the priesthood “_rob men
of their money_; a subtle merchandise of Antichrist’s clerks, whereby
they magnify their own fictitious power, and instead of causing
men to dread sin, encourage men to wallow therein as hogs.” (d) The
prescription of _pilgrimages_ as penances was another prolific source
of gain to the church that deserves to be classed under the name of
_thefts_. Those who made such pilgrimage were expected and required
to make an offering at the shrine of the saint; and as multitudes went
on such pilgrimages, especially on the jubilee at Rome, the income
from this source was enormous. An instance of what was offered at the
shrine of Thomas à Becket will illustrate this. Through his reputation
Canterbury became the Rome of England. A jubilee was celebrated every
fiftieth year to his honour, with plenary indulgence to all such as
visited his tomb; of whom one hundred thousand were registered at one
time. {247} Two large volumes were filled with accounts of the miracles
wrought at his tomb. The following list of the value of offerings
made in two successive years to _his_ shrine, the Virgin Mary’s, and
Christ’s, in the cathedral at Canterbury, will illustrate at the same
time the gain from these sources, and the _relative_ respect shown to
Becket, Mary, and the Saviour:――

First Year. £ s. d.
Christ’s Altar 3 2 6
Virgin Mary’s 63 5 6
Becket’s 832 12 9

Next Year.
Christ’s Altar 0 0 0
Virgin Mary’s 4 1 8
Becket’s 954 6 3

Of the jubilee of A.D. 1300 Muratori relates the result as
follows:――“Papa innumerabilem pecuniam ab iisdem recepit; quia die et
nocte duo clerici stabant ad altare Sancti Pauli, tenentes in eorum
manibus rastellos, rastellantes pecuniam infinitam.” “The pope received
from them a countless amount of money; for two clerks stood at the
altar of St. Paul night and day, holding in their hands little rakes,
collecting an infinite amount of money” (Hallam). (e) Another source of
gain of this kind was the numerous testamentary bequests with which the
church was enriched――obtained by the arts and influence of the clergy.
In Wycliffe’s time there were in England 53,215 fœda militum, of which
the religious had 28,000――more than one-half. Blackstone says that, but
for the intervention of the legislature, and the statute of mortmain,
the church would have appropriated in this manner the whole of the land
of England, vol. iv. p. 107. (f) The money left by the dying to pay for
_masses_, and that paid by survivors for masses to release the souls
of their friends from purgatory――all of which deserve to be classed
under the word _thefts_ as already explained――was another source of
vast wealth to the church; and the practice was systematized on a large
scale, and, with the other things mentioned, deserves to be noticed
as a characteristic of the times. It is scarcely necessary to add,
that the judgments which were brought upon the world by the Turkish
invasions made no essential change, and wrought no repentance or
reformation, and hence that the _language_ here is strictly applicable
to these things: “Neither _repented they_ of their murders, nor of
their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.”

CHAPTER X.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter contains the record of a sublime vision of an angel
which, at this juncture, John saw descending from heaven, disclosing
new scenes in what was yet to occur. The vision is interposed between
the sounding of the sixth, or second woe-trumpet, and the sounding
of the seventh, or third woe-trumpet, under which is to be the final
consummation, ch. xi. 15, seq. It occupies an important _interval_
between the events which were to occur under the sixth trumpet and
the last scene――the final overthrow of the formidable power which had
opposed the reign of God on the earth, and the reign of righteousness,
when the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of God, ch. xi.
15. It is, in many respects, an unhappy circumstance that this chapter
has been separated from the following. They constitute one continued
vision, at least to ch. xi. 15, where the sounding of the seventh and
last trumpet occurs.

The tenth chapter contains the following things:――(1) An angel
descends from heaven, and the attention of the seer is for a time
turned from the contemplation of what was passing in heaven to this new
vision that appeared on the earth. This angel is clothed with a cloud;
he is encircled by a rainbow; his face is as the sun, and his feet
like pillars of fire――all indicating his exalted rank, and all such
accompaniments as became a heavenly messenger. (2) The angel appears
with a small volume in his hand, ver. 2. This book is not closed and
sealed, like the one in ch. v., but was “open”――so that it could be
read. Such a book would indicate some new message or revelation from
heaven; and the book would be, properly, a symbol of something that was
to be accomplished _by_ such an open volume. (3) The angel sets his
feet upon the sea and the land, ver. 2:――indicating by this, apparently,
that what he was to communicate appertained alike to the ocean and the
land――to all the world. (4) The angel makes a proclamation――the nature
of which is not here stated――with a loud voice, like the roaring of a
lion, as if the nations were called to hear, ver. 3. (5) This cry or
roar is responded to by heavy thunders, ver. 3. What those thunders
uttered is not stated, but it was evidently {248} so distinct that
_John_ heard it, for he says (ver. 4) that he was about to make a
record of what was said. (6) John, about to make this record, is
forbidden to do so by a voice from heaven, ver. 4. For some reason, not
here stated, he was commanded not to disclose what was said, but so to
seal it up that it should not be known. The _reason_ for this silence
is nowhere intimated in the chapter. (7) The angel lifts his hand to
heaven in a most solemn manner, and swears by the Great Creator of all
things that the time should not be yet――in our common version, “that
there should be time no longer,” ver. 5‒7. It would seem that just at
this period there would be an expectation that the reign of God was
to begin upon the earth; but the angel, in the most solemn manner,
declares that this was not _yet_ to be, but that it would occur when
the seventh angel should begin to sound. Then the great “mystery”
would be complete, as it had been declared to the prophets. (8) John
is then commanded, by the same voice which he heard from heaven, to
go to the angel and take the little book from him which he held in
his hand, and eat it――with the assurance that it would be found to be
sweet to the taste, but would be bitter afterwards, ver. 8‒10. (9) The
chapter concludes with a declaration that he must yet prophesy before
many people and nations (ver. 11), and then follows (ch. xi.) the
commission to measure the temple; the command to separate the pure
from the profane; the account of the prophesying, the death, and the
resurrection to life of the two witnesses――all preliminary to the
sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the introduction of the universal
reign of righteousness.

The question to what does the chapter refer, is one which it is proper
to notice before we proceed to the exposition. It is unnecessary to say,
that on this question very various opinions have been entertained, and
that very different expositions have been given of the chapter. Without
going into an examination of these different opinions――which would be
a task alike unprofitable and endless――it will be better to state what
seems to be the fair interpretation and application of the symbol,
in its connection with what precedes. A few remarks here, preliminary
to the exposition and application of the chapter, may help us in

determining the place which the vision is designed to occupy. (a) In
the previous Apocalyptic revelations, if the interpretation proposed is
correct, the _history_ had been brought down, in the regular course of
events, to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and the complete
overthrow of the Roman empire by that event, A.D. 1453, ch. ix. 13‒19.
This was an important era in the history of the world; and if the
exposition which has been proposed is correct, then the sketches of
history pertaining to the Roman empire in the book of Revelation have
been made with surprising accuracy. (b) A statement had been made
(ch. ix. 20, 21) to the effect that the same state of things continued
subsequent to the plagues brought on by those invasions, which had
existed before, or that the effect had not been to produce any general
repentance and reformation. God had scourged the nations; he had cut
off multitudes of men; he had overthrown the mighty empire that had so
long ruled over the world; but the same sins of superstition, idolatry,
sorcery, murder, fornication, and theft prevailed _afterwards_ that had
prevailed before. Instead of working a change in the minds of men, the
world seemed to be confirmed in these abominations more and more. In
the exposition of that passage (ch. ix. 20, 21) it was shown that those
things prevailed in the Roman church――which then embraced the whole
Christian world――_before_ the invasion of the Eastern empire by the
Turks, and that they continued to prevail _afterwards_: that, in fact,
the moral character of the world was not affected by those “plagues.”
(c) The next event, in the order of _time_, was the Reformation, and
the circumstances in the case are such as to lead us to suppose that
this chapter refers to that. For (1) the order of _time_ demands this.
This was the next important event in the history of the church and
the world after the conquest of Constantinople producing the entire
downfall of the Roman empire; and if, as is supposed in the previous
exposition, it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration to touch
on the great and material events in the history of the church and
the world, then it would be natural to suppose that the Reformation
would come next into view, for no previous event had more deeply or
permanently affected the condition of mankind. (2) The state of the
world, as described in {249} ch. ix. 20, 21, was such as to _demand_
a reformation, or something that should be more effectual in purifying
the church than the calamities described in the previous verse had
been. The representation is, that God had brought great judgments upon
the world, but that they had been ineffectual in reforming mankind. The
same kind of superstition, idolatry, and corruption remained _after_
those judgments which had existed before, and they were of such a
nature as to make it every way desirable that a new influence should
be brought to bear upon the world to purify it from these abominations.
Some such work as the Reformation is, therefore, what we should
naturally look for as the next in order; or, at least, such a work
is one that well fits in with the description of the previous state
of things. (d) It will be found, I apprehend, in the exposition of
the chapter, that the symbols are such as accord well with the great
leading events of the Protestant Reformation; or, in other words,
that they are such that, on the supposition that it was intended to
refer to the Reformation, these are the symbols which would have been
appropriately employed. Of course it is not necessary to suppose that
John understood distinctly _all_ that was meant by these symbols, nor
is it necessary to suppose that those who lived before the Reformation
would be able to comprehend them perfectly, and to apply them with
accuracy. All that is _necessary_ to be supposed in the interpretation
is, (1) that the symbol was designed to be of such a character as to
give some _general_ idea of what was to occur; and (2) that we should
be able, now that the event has occurred, to show that it is fairly
applicable to the event; that is, that on the supposition that this was
designed to be referred to, the symbols are such as would properly be
employed. This, however, will be seen more clearly after the exposition
shall have been gone through.

With this general view of what we should naturally anticipate in this
chapter, from the course of exposition in the preceding chapters, we
are prepared for a more particular exposition and application of the
symbols in this new vision. It will be the most convenient course,
keeping in mind the general views presented here, to explain the
symbols, and to consider their application as we go along.

CHAPTER X.

AND I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven,
clothed with a cloud; and a [317]rainbow _was_ upon his head,
and [318]his face _was_ as it were the sun, and his feet as
pillars of fire:

1. _And I saw._ I had a vision of. The meaning is, that he saw this
subsequently to the vision in the previous chapter. The attention is
now arrested by a new vision――as if some new dispensation or economy
was about to occur in the world. ¶ _Another mighty angel._ He had
before seen the seven angels who were to blow the seven trumpets (ch.
viii. 2), he had seen six of them successively blow the trumpet, he
now sees _another_ angel, different from them, and apparently having no
connection with them, coming from heaven to accomplish some important
purpose before the seventh angel should give the final blast. The angel
is here characterized as a “_mighty_” angel――ἰσχυρὸν――one of strength
and power; implying that the work to be accomplished by his mission
demanded the interposition of one of the higher orders of the heavenly
inhabitants. The coming of an angel at all was indicative of some
divine interposition in human affairs; the fact that he was one of
exalted rank, or endowed with vast power, indicated the nature of the
work to be done――that it was a work to the execution of which great
obstacles existed, and where great power would be needed. ¶ _Clothed
with a cloud._ Encompassed with a cloud, or enveloped in a cloud.
This was a symbol of majesty and glory, and is often represented as
accompanying the divine presence, Ex. xvi. 9, 10; xxiv. 16; xxxiv. 5;
Nu. xi. 25; 1 Ki. viii. 10; Ps. xcvii. 2. The Saviour also ascended
in a cloud, Ac. i. 9; and he will again descend in clouds to judge the
world, Mat. xxiv. 30; xxvi. 64; Mar. xiii. 26; Re. i. 7. Nothing can be
argued here as to the _purpose_ for which the angel appeared, from his
being encompassed with a cloud; nor can anything be argued from it in
respect to the question _who_ this angel was. The fair interpretation
is, that this was one of the angels now represented as sent forth on
an errand of mercy to man, and coming with appropriate {250} majesty
as the messenger of God. ¶ _And a rainbow |was| upon his head._ In ch.
iv. 3 the throne in heaven is represented as encircled by a rainbow.
See Notes on that verse. The rainbow is properly an emblem of peace.
_Here_ the symbol would mean that the angel came not for wrath, but
for purposes of peace; that he looked with a benign aspect on men,
and that the effect of his coming would be like that of sunshine
after a storm. ¶ _And his face |was| as it were the sun._ Bright
like the sun (Notes, ch. i. 16); that is, he looked upon men with
(a) an _intelligent_ aspect――as the sun is the source of light; and
(b) with _benignity_――not covered with clouds, or darkened by wrath.
The _brightness_ is probably the main idea, but the appearance of the
angel would, as here represented, naturally suggest the ideas just
referred to. As an _emblem_ or _symbol_ we should regard his appearing
as that which was to be followed by knowledge and by prosperity. ¶ _And
his feet as pillars of fire._ See Notes on ch. i. 15. In this symbol,
then, we have the following things:――(a) An angel――as the messenger
of God, indicating that some new communication was to be brought to
mankind, or that there would be some interposition in human affairs
which might be well represented by the coming of an angel; (b) the
fact that he was “mighty”――indicating that the work to be done required
power beyond human strength; (c) the fact that he came in a cloud――on
an embassage so grand and magnificent as to make this symbol of majesty
proper; (d) the fact that he was encircled by a rainbow――that the
visitation was to be one of peace to mankind; and (e) the fact that
his coming was like the sun――or would diffuse light and peace.

Now, in regard to the _application_ of this, without adverting to
any other theory, no one can fail to see that, on the supposition that
it was designed to refer to the Reformation, this would be the most
striking and appropriate symbol that could have been chosen. For (a) as
we have seen already, this is the _place_ which the vision naturally
occupies in the series of historical representations. (b) It was at
a period of the world, and the world was in such a state, that an
intervention of this kind would be properly represented by the coming
of an angel from heaven. God had visited the nations with terrible
judgments, but the effect had not been to produce reformation, for the
same forms of wickedness continued to prevail which had existed before.
Notes, ch. ix. 20, 21. In this state of things any new interposition of
God for reforming the world would be properly represented by the coming
of an angel from heaven as a messenger of light and peace. (c) The
great and leading events of the Reformation were well represented by
the _power_ of this angel. It was not, indeed, physical power; but
the work to be done in the Reformation was a _great_ work, and was
such as would be well symbolized by the intervention of a mighty angel
from heaven. The task of reforming the church, and of correcting the
abuses which had prevailed, was wholly beyond any ability which _man_
possessed, and was well represented, therefore, by the descent of
this messenger from the skies. (d) The same thing may be said of
the _rainbow_ that was upon his head. Nothing would better symbolize
the general aspect of the Reformation, as fitted to produce peace,
tranquillity, and joy upon the earth. And (e) the same thing was
indicated by the splendour――the light and glory――that attended the
angel. The symbol would denote that the new order of things would be
attended with light; with knowledge; with that which would be benign
in its influence on human affairs. And it need not be said, to anyone
acquainted with the history of those times, that the Reformation was
preceded and accompanied with a great increase of light; that at just
about that period of the world the study of the Greek language began
to be common in Europe; that the sciences had made remarkable progress;
that schools and colleges had begun to flourish; and that, to a
degree which had not existed for ages before, the public mind had
become awakened to the importance of truth and knowledge. For a full
illustration of this, from the close of the eleventh century and onward,
see Hallam’s _Middle Ages_, vol. ii. pp. 265‒292, ch. ix. part ii. To
go into any satisfactory detail on this point would be wholly beyond
the proper limits of these Notes, and the reader must be referred
to the histories of those times, and especially to Hallam, who has
recorded all that is necessary to be known on the subject. Suffice it
to say, that on the supposition that it was the intention to symbolize
those times, no more appropriate emblem could have {251} been found
than that of an angel whose face shone like the sun, and who was
covered with light and splendour. These remarks will show, that if
it be supposed it was intended to symbolize the Reformation, no more
appropriate emblem could have been selected than that of such an angel
coming down from heaven. If, after the events have occurred, we should
desire to represent the same things by a striking and expressive symbol,
we could find none that would better represent those times.

2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his
right foot upon the sea, and _his_ left _foot_ on the earth,

2. _And he had in his hand a little book open._ This is the first
thing that indicated the purpose of his appearing, or that would give
any distinct indication of the design of his coming from heaven. The
general aspect of the angel, indeed, as represented in the former
verse, was that of benignity, and his purpose, as there indicated,
was light and peace. But still there was nothing which would denote
the _particular_ design for which he came, or which would designate
the particular means which he would employ. Here we have, however, an
_emblem_ which will furnish an indication of what was to occur as the
result of his appearing. To be able to apply this, it will be necessary,
as in all similar cases, to explain the natural significancy of the
emblem. (1) _The little book._ The word used here――βιβλαρίδιον――occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament except in ver. 8, 9, 10 of this
chapter. The word βιβλίον――_book_――occurs frequently:――Mat. xix. 7;
Mar. x. 4――applied to a bill of divorcement; Lu. iv. 17, 20; Jn. xx. 30;
xxi. 25; Ga. iii. 10; 2 Ti. iv. 13; He. ix. 19; x. 7. In the Apocalypse
this word is of common occurrence: ch. i. 11; v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9;
vi. 14, rendered _scroll_; xvii. 8; xx. 12; xxi. 27; xxii. 7, 9, 10,
18, 19. The word was evidently chosen here to denote something that
was peculiar in the size or form of the book, or to distinguish it from
that which would be designated by the ordinary word employed to denote
a book. The word properly denotes a small roll or volume; a little
scroll (Rob. _Lex._, _Pollux._ _Onomast._ 7. 210). It is evident that
something was intended by the diminutive _size_ of the book, or that
it was designed to make a distinction between this and that which
is indicated by the use of the word _book_ in the other parts of the
Apocalypse. It was, at least, indicated by this that it was something
different from what was seen in the hand of him that sat on the throne
in ch. v. 1. That was clearly a large volume; this was so small that
it could be taken in the hand, and could be represented as eaten,
ver. 9, 10. But of what is a book an emblem? To this question there can
be little difficulty in furnishing an answer. A book seen in a dream,
according to Artemidorus, signifies the life, or the acts of him that
sees it (Wemyss). According to the Indian interpreters, a book is the
symbol of power and dignity. The Jewish kings, when they were crowned,
had the book of the law of God put into their hands (2 Ki. xi. 12; 2 Ch.
xxiii. 11); denoting that they were to observe the law, and that their
administration was to be one of intelligence and uprightness. The gift
of a Bible now to a monarch when he is crowned, or to the officer of a
corporation or society, denotes the same thing. A book, as such, thus
borne in the hand of an angel coming down to the world, would be an
indication that something of importance was to be communicated to men,
or that something was to be accomplished by the agency _of a book_. It
was not, as in ch. vi. 2, _a bow_――emblem of conquest; or ver. 4, _a
sword_――emblem of battle; or ver. 5, _a pair of scales_――emblem of
the exactness with which things were to be determined; but it was _a
book_――a speechless, silent thing, yet mighty; not designed to carry
desolation through the earth, but to diffuse light and truth. The
natural interpretation, then, would be, that something was to be
accomplished by the agency of a book, or that a book was to be the
prominent characteristic of the times――as the bow, the sword, and the
balances had been of the previous periods. As to the _size_ of the book,
perhaps all that can be inferred is, that this was to be brought about,
not by extended tomes, but by a comparatively small volume――so that
it could be taken in the hand; so that it could, without impropriety,
be represented as _eaten_ by an individual. (2) _The fact that it was
open_ “a little book _open_”――ἀνεῳγμένον. The word here used means,
properly, to open or unclose in respect to that which was {252} before
fastened or sealed, as that which is covered by a door, Mat. ii. 11;
tombs, which were closed by large stones, Mat. xxvii. 60, 66; a gate,
Ac. v. 23; xii. 10; the abyss, Re. ix. 2――“since in the east pits or
wells are closed with large stones, comp. Ge. xxix. 2” (Rob. _Lex._).
The meaning of this word, as applied to a book, would be, that it was
now opened so that its contents could be read. The word would not
_necessarily_ imply that it had been sealed or closed, though that
would be the most natural impression from the use of the word. Comp.
for the use of the word rendered _open_, Re. iii. 8, 20; iv. 1; v. 2, 3,
4, 5, 9; vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; viii. 1; ix. 2; x. 28; xi. 19; xx. 12.
This would find a fulfilment if some such facts as the following
should occur:――(a) if there had been any custom or arrangement by which
_knowledge_ was kept from men, or access was forbidden to books or to
some one book in particular; and (b) if something should occur by which
that which had before been kept hidden or concealed, or that to which
access had been denied, should be made accessible. In other words, this
is the proper symbol of a diffusion of knowledge, or of _the influence
of A BOOK on mankind_. (3) The fact that it was in the _hand_ of
the angel. All that seems to be implied in this is, that it was now
_offered_, or was ready to be put in possession of John――or of the
church――or of mankind. It was open, and was held out, as it were, for
perusal.

In regard to the _application_ of this, it is plain that, if it be
admitted that it was the design of the author of the vision to refer to
the Reformation, no more appropriate emblem could have been chosen. If
_we_ were now to endeavour to devise an emblem of the Reformation that
would be striking and expressive, we could not well select one which
would better represent the great work than that which is here presented.
This will appear plain from a few considerations:――(1) The great agent
in the Reformation, the moving cause of it, its suggestor and supporter,
was a _book_――the _Bible_. Wycliffe had translated the New Testament
into the English language, and though this was suppressed, yet it
had done much to prepare the people for the Reformation; and all that
Luther did can be traced to the discovery of the Bible, and to the use
which was made of it. Luther had grown up into manhood; had passed from
the schools to the university of Erfurt, and there having, during the
usual four years’ course of study, displayed intellectual powers and an
extent of learning that excited the admiration of the university, and
that seemed to open to his attainment both the honour and emolument
of the world, he appeared to have been prepared to play an important
part on the great drama of human affairs. Suddenly, however, to the
astonishment and dismay of his friends, he betook himself to the
solitude and gloom of an Augustinian monastery. There he found a
_Bible_――a copy of the Vulgate――hid in the shelves of the university
library. Till then he had supposed that there existed no other Gospels
or Epistles than what were given in the Breviary, or quoted by the
preachers.[319] To the study of that book he now gave himself with
untiring diligence and steady prayer; and the effect was to show to
_him_ the way of salvation by faith, and ultimately to produce the
Reformation. No one acquainted with the history of the Reformation can
doubt that it is to be traced to the influence of _the Bible_; that the
moving cause, the spring of all that occurred in the Reformation, was
the impulse given to the mind of Luther and his fellow-labourers by the
study of that one book. It is this well-known fact that gives so much
truth to the celebrated declaration of Chillingworth, that “the Bible
is the religion of Protestants.” If a symbol of this had been designed
before it occurred, or if one should be sought for now that would
designate the actual nature and influence of the Reformation, nothing
_better_ could be selected than that of an angel descending from heaven,
with benignant aspect, with a rainbow around his head, and with light
beaming all around him, holding forth to mankind _a book_. (2) This
book had before been hidden, or closed; that is, it could not till then
be regarded as an _open_ volume. (a) It was in fact known by few even
of the clergy, and it was not in the hands of the mass of the people at
all. There is every reason to believe that the great body of the Romish
clergy, in the time that preceded the Reformation, were even more
ignorant of the Bible than Luther himself was. Many of them were unable
to read; few had access to the Bible; and those who had, drew their
doctrines {253} rather from the fathers of the church than from the
Word of God. Hallam (_Middle Ages_, ii. 241) says: “Of this prevailing
ignorance [in the tenth century and onward] it is easy to produce
abundant testimony. In almost every council the ignorance of the clergy
forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by one held in 992, that
scarcely a single person could be found in Rome itself who knew the
first elements of letters. Not one priest of a thousand in Spain, about
the age of Charlemagne, could address a letter of common salutation
to another. In England, Alfred declares that he could not recollect
a single priest south of the Thames (the best part of England), at
the time of his accession, who understood the ordinary prayers, or who
could translate the Latin into the mother tongue.” There were few books
of any kind in circulation, and even if there had been an ability to
read, the _cost_ of books was so great as to exclude the great mass
of the people from all access to the sacred Scriptures. “Many of the
clergy,” says Dr. Robertson (_Hist. of Charles V._ p. 14, Harper’s
ed.), “did not understand the Breviary which they were obliged daily to
recite; some of them could scarcely read it.” “Persons of the highest
rank, and in the most eminent stations, could neither read nor write.”
One of the questions appointed by the canons to be put to persons
who were candidates for orders was this, “Whether they could read
the Gospels and Epistles, and explain the sense of them at least
literally?” For the causes of this ignorance see Robertson’s _Hist.
of Charles V._ p. 515. One of those causes was the _cost_ of books.
“Private persons seldom possessed any books whatever. Even monasteries
of considerable note had only one _Missal_. The price of books became
so high that persons of a moderate fortune could not afford to purchase
them. The Countess of Anjou paid for a copy of the _Homilies of Haimon_,
bishop of Alberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and
the same quantity of rye and millet,” &c. Such was the cost of books
that few persons could afford to own a copy of the sacred Scriptures;
and the consequence was, there were almost none in the hands of the
people. The few copies that were in existence were mostly in the
libraries of monasteries and universities, or in the hands of some of
the higher clergy. (b) But there was another reason that was still more
efficacious, perhaps, in keeping the people at large from the knowledge
of the Scriptures. It was found in the prevailing views in the Roman
Catholic communion respecting the private use and interpretation of
the sacred volume. Whatever theory may now be advocated in the Roman
Catholic communion on this point, as a matter of fact, the influence
of that denomination has been to withhold the Bible from a free
circulation among the common people. No one can deny that, in the
times just preceding the Reformation, the whole influence of the Papal
denomination was opposed to a free circulation of the Bible, and that
one of the great and characteristic features of the Reformation was the
fact, that the doctrine was promulgated that the Bible was to be freely
distributed, and that the people everywhere were to have access to it,
and were to form their own opinions of the doctrines which it reveals.
(3) The Bible became, at the Reformation, in fact an “open” book. It
was made accessible. It became _the_ popular book of the world――the
book that did more than all other things to change the aspect of
affairs, and to give character to subsequent times. This occurred
because (a) the art of printing was discovered just before the
Reformation, as if, in the providence of God, it was _designed_ then to
give this precious volume to the world; and the Bible was, in fact, the
first book printed, and has been since printed more frequently than any
other book whatever, and will continue to be to the end of the world.
It would be difficult to imagine now a more striking symbol of the art
of printing, or to suggest a better device for it, than to represent an
angel giving an open volume to mankind. (b) The leading doctrine of the
Reformers was, that the Bible is the source of all authority in matters
of religion, and, consequently, is to be accessible to all the people.
And (c) the Bible was the authority appealed to by the Reformers.
It became the subject of profound study; was diffused abroad; and
gave form to all the doctrines that sprang out of the times of the
Reformation. These remarks, which might be greatly expanded, will show
with what propriety, on the supposition that the chapter here refers
to the Reformation, the symbol of _a book_ was selected. Obviously no
other symbol would have been so appropriate; nothing else would have
given so just a view of the leading {254} characteristics of that
period of the world.

¶ _And he set his right foot upon the sea, and |his| left |foot| upon
the earth._ This is the _third_ characteristic in the symbol. As a mere
description this is eminently sublime. I was once (at Cape May, 1849)
impressively reminded of this passage. My window was in such a position
that it commanded a fine view at the same time of the ocean and the
land. A storm arose such as I had never witnessed――the clouds from the
different points of the compass seeming to come together over the place,
and producing incessant lightning and thunder. As the storm cleared
away the most magnificent rainbow that I ever saw appeared, arching
the heavens, one foot of it far off on the sea, and the other on the
land――an emblem of peace to both――and most strikingly suggesting to
me the angel in the Apocalypse. The natural meaning of such a symbol
as that represented here would be, that something was to occur which
would pertain to the whole world, as the earth is made up of land and
water. It is hardly necessary to say, that on the supposition that this
refers to the Reformation, there is no difficulty in finding an ample
fulfilment of the symbol. That great work was designed manifestly by
Providence to affect all the world――the sea and the land――the dwellers
in the islands and in the continents――those who “go down to the sea
in ships, and do business in the great waters,” and those who have
a permanent dwelling on shore. It may be admitted, indeed, that, in
itself, this one thing――the angel standing on the sea and the land, if
it occurred alone, could not suggest the Reformation; and if there were
nothing else, such an application might seem fanciful and unnatural;
but, taken in connection with the other things in the symbol,
and assuming that the whole vision was designed to symbolize the
Reformation, it will not be regarded as unnatural that there _should_
be some symbol which would intimate that the blessings of a reformed
religion――a pure gospel――would be ultimately spread over land and
ocean――over the continents and islands of the globe; in all the fixed
habitations of men, and in their floating habitations on the deep. The
symbol of a rainbow bending over the sea and land, would have expressed
this; the same thing would be expressed by an angel whose head was
encircled by a rainbow, and whose face beamed with light, with one foot
on the ocean and the other on the land.

3 And cried with a loud voice, as _when_ a lion roareth: and
when he had cried, seven [320]thunders uttered their voices.

3. _And cried with a loud voice, as |when| a lion roareth._ The lion is
the monarch of the woods, and his roar is an image of terror. The point
of the comparison here seems to be the _loudness_ with which the angel
cried, and the _power_ of what he said to awe the world――as the roar of
the lion keeps the dwellers of the forest in awe. _What_ he said is not
stated; nor did John attempt to record it. Professor Stuart supposes
that it was “a loud note of woe, some interjection uttered which would
serve to call attention, and at the same time be indicative of the
judgments which were to follow.” But it is not necessary to suppose
that this particular thing was intended. _Any_ loud utterance――any
solemn command――any prediction of judgment――any declaration of truth
that would arrest the attention of mankind, would be in accordance with
all that is said here. As there is no _application_ of what is said,
and no _explanation_ made by John, it is impossible to determine with
any certainty what is referred to. But, supposing that the whole refers
to the Reformation, would not the loud and commanding voice of the
angel properly represent the proclamation of the gospel as it began to
be preached in such a manner as to command the attention of the world,
and the reproof of the prevailing sins in such a manner as to keep
the world in awe? The voice that sounded forth at the Reformation
among the nations of Europe, breaking the slumbers of the Christian
world, awaking the church to the evil of the existing corruptions and
abominations, and summoning princes to the defence of the truth, might
well be symbolized by the voice of an angel that was heard afar. In
regard to the effect of the “theses” of Luther, in which he attacked
the main doctrines of the Papacy, a contemporary writer says, “In the
space of a fortnight they spread over Germany, and within a month they
had run through all Christendom, _as if angels {255} themselves had
been the bearers of them to all men_.” To John it might not be known
beforehand――as it probably would not be――what this symbolized; but
could we now find a more appropriate symbol to denote the Reformation
than the appearance of such an angel; or better describe the
_impression_ made by the first announcement of the great doctrines of
the Reformation, than by the loud voice of such an angel? ¶ _And when
he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices._ Professor Stuart
renders this, “_the_ seven thunders uttered their voices,” and insists
that the article should be retained, which it has not been in our
common version. So Elliott, Bishop Middleton, and others. Bishop
Middleton says, “Why the article is inserted here I am unable to
discover. It is somewhat remarkable that a few manuscripts and editions
omit it in both places [ver. 3, 4]. Were the seven thunders anything
well known and pre-eminent? If not, the omission must be right in the
former instance, but wrong in the latter; if they were pre-eminent,
then is it wrong in both. Bengel omits the article in ver. 3, but
has it in ver. 4.” He regards the insertion of the article as the
true reading in both places, and supposes that there may have been a
reference to some Jewish opinion, but says that he had not been able
to find a vestige of it in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, or Meuschen. Storr
supposes that we are not to seek here for any Jewish notion, and that
nothing is to be inferred from the article (Middleton, on the _Greek
Article_, p. 358). The best editions of the New Testament retain the
article in both places, and indeed there is no authority for omitting
it. The use of the article here naturally implies either that these
seven thunders were something which had been before referred to, either
expressly or impliedly; or that there was something about them which
was so well known that it would be at once understood what was referred
to; or that there was something in the connection which would determine
the meaning. Comp. Notes on ch. viii. 2. It is plain, however, that
there had been no mention of “seven thunders” before, nor had anything
been referred to which would at once suggest them. The reason for
the insertion of the article here must, therefore, be found in some
pre-eminence which these seven thunders had; in some well-known
facts about them; in something which would at once suggest them when
they were mentioned as when we mention _the_ sun, _the_ moon, _the_
stars, though they might not have been distinctly referred to before.
The number “seven” is used here either (a) as a general or perfect
number, as it is frequently in this book, where we have it so often
repeated――seven spirits; seven angels; seven seals; seven trumpets;
or (b) with some specific reference to the matter in hand――the case
actually in view of the writer. It cannot be doubted that it _might_
be used in the former sense here, and that no law of language would be
violated if it were so understood; as denoting _many_ thunders; but
still it is equally true that it _may_ be used in a specific sense as
denoting something that would be well understood by applying the number
_seven_ to it. Now let it be _supposed_, in regard to the application
of this symbol, that the reference is to Rome, the seven-hilled city,
and to the thunders of excommunication, anathema, and wrath that were
uttered from that city against the Reformers; and would there not
be _all_ that is fairly implied in this language, and is not this
such a symbol as _would_ be appropriately used on such a supposition?
The following circumstances may be referred to as worthy of notice
on this point:――(a) the place which this occupies in the series
of symbols――being just _after_ the angel had uttered his voice as
symbolical of the proclamation of the great truths of the gospel
in the Reformation, if the interpretation above given is correct.
The _next_ event, in the order of nature and of fact, was the voice
of excommunication uttered at Rome. (b) The word _thunder_ would
appropriately denote the bulls of excommunication uttered at Rome,
for the name most frequently given to the decrees of the Papacy, when
condemnatory, was that of Papal _thunders_. So Le Bas, in his _Life
of Wycliffe_, p. 198, says: “The _thunders_ which shook the world
when they issued _from the seven hills_ sent forth an uncertain sound,
comparatively faint and powerless, when launched from a region of less
devoted sanctity.” (c) The number _seven_ would, on such a supposition,
be used here with equal propriety. Rome was built on seven hills; was
known as the “seven-hilled” city, and the thunders from that city would
seem to echo and re-echo from those hills. Comp. ch. xvii. 9. (d) This
supposition, {256} also, will accord with the use of the article here,
_as if_ those thunders were something well known――“_the_ seven thunders;
” that is, the thunders which the nations were accustomed to hear.
(e) This will also accord with the passage before us, inasmuch as the
thunders would seem to have been of the nature of a response to what
the angel said, or to have been sent forth _because_ he had uttered his
loud cry. In like manner, the anathemas were hurled from Rome because
the nations had been aroused by the loud cry for reformation, as if
an angel had uttered that cry. For these reasons there is a propriety
in applying this language to the thunders which issued from Rome
condemning the doctrines of the Reformation, and in defence of the
ancient faith, and excommunicating those who embraced the doctrines
of the Reformers. If we were _now_ to attempt to devise a symbol
which would be appropriate to express what actually occurred in the
Reformation, we could not think of one which would be better fitted to
that purpose than to speak of seven thunders bellowing forth from the
seven-hilled city.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was
about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,
[321]Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered,
and write them not.

4. _And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices._ After he had
listened to those thunders; or when they had passed by. ¶ _I was about
to write._ That is, he was about to record what was uttered, supposing
that that was the design for which he had been made to hear them. From
this it would seem that it was not mere thunder――brutum fulmen――but
that the utterance had a distinct and intelligible enunciation, or that
_words_ were employed that could be recorded. It may be observed, by
the way, as Professor Stuart has remarked, that this proves that John
wrote down what he saw and heard as soon as practicable, and in the
place where he was; and that the supposition of many modern critics,
that the Apocalyptic visions were written at Ephesus a considerable
time after the visions took place, has no good foundation. ¶ _And I
heard a voice from heaven saying unto me._ Evidently the voice of God:
at all events it came with the clear force of command. ¶ _Seal up those
things._ On the word _seal_, see Notes on ch. v. 1. The meaning here
is, that he was not to record those things, but what he heard he was
to keep to himself _as if_ it was placed under a seal which was not to
be broken. ¶ _And write them not._ Make no record of them. No reason is
mentioned _why_ this was not to be done, and none can now be given that
can be proved to be the true reason. Vitringa, who regards the seven
thunders as referring to the Crusades, supposes the reason to have
been that a more full statement would have diverted the mind from the
course of the prophetic narrative, and from more important events which
pertained to the church, and that nothing occurred in the Crusades
which was worthy to be recorded at length: Nec dignæ erant quæ
prolixius exponerentur――“for,” he adds, “these expeditions were
undertaken with a foolish purpose, and resulted in real detriment to
the church,” pp. 431, 432. Professor Stuart (vol. ii. pp. 204‒206)
supposes that these “thunders” refer to the destruction of the city and
temple of God, and that they were a sublime introduction to the last
catastrophe, and that the meaning is not that he should keep “_entire_
silence,” but only that he should state the circumstances in a general
manner, without going into detail. Mede supposes that John was
commanded to keep silence because it was designed that the meaning
should not then be known, but should be disclosed in future times;
Forerius, because it was the design that the wise should be able to
understand them, but that they were not to be disclosed to the wicked
and profane. Without attempting to examine these and other solutions
which have been proposed, the question which, from the course of the
exposition, is properly before us is, whether, on the supposition that
the voice of the seven thunders referred to the Papal anathemas, a
rational and satisfactory solution of the reasons of this silence can
be given. Without pretending to _know_ the reasons which existed, the
following may be referred to as not improbable, and as those which
would meet the case:――(1) In these Papal anathemas there was nothing
that was _worthy_ of record; there was nothing that was important
as history; there was nothing that communicated {257} truth; there
was nothing that really indicated _progress_ in human affairs. In
themselves there was nothing more that deserved _record_ than the acts
and doings of wicked men at any time; nothing that fell in with the
main design of this book. (2) Such a record would have retarded the
progress of the main statements of what was to occur, and would have
turned off the attention from these to less important matters. (3) All
that was necessary in the case was simply to state that such thunders
were _heard_: that is, on the supposition that this refers to the
Reformation, that that great change in human affairs would not be
permitted to occur without opposition and noise――_as if_ the thunders
of wrath should follow those who were engaged in it. (4) John evidently
_mistook_ this for a real revelation, or for something that was to be
recorded as connected with the divine will in reference to the progress
of human affairs. He was naturally about to record this as he did what
was uttered by the other voices which he heard; and if he had made the
record, it would have been with this mistaken view. There was nothing
in the voices, or in what was uttered, that would _manifestly_ mark it
as distinct from what had been uttered as coming from God, and he was
about to record it under this impression. If this _was_ a mistake, and
if the record would do anything, as it clearly would, to perpetuate the
error, it is easy to see a sufficient reason why the record should not
be made. (5) It is remarkable that there was an entire correspondence
with this in what occurred in the Reformation; in the fact that Luther
and his fellow-labourers were, at first, and for a long time――such
was the force of education, and of the habits of reverence for the
Papal authority in which they had been reared――disposed to receive the
announcements of the Papacy as the oracles of God, and to show to them
the deference which was due to divine communications. The language of
Luther himself, if the general view here taken is correct, will be the
best commentary on the expressions here used. “When I began the affairs
of the Indulgences,” says he, “I was a monk, and a most mad Papist. So
intoxicated was I, and drenched in Papal dogmas, that I would have been
most ready to murder, or assist others in murdering, any person who
should have uttered a syllable against the duty of obedience to the
pope.” And again: “Certainly at that time I adored him in earnest.” He
adds, “How distressed my heart was in that year 1517――how submissive
to the hierarchy, not feignedly but really――those little knew who
at this day insult the majesty of the pope with so much pride and
arrogance. I was ignorant of many things which now, by the grace of
God, I understand. I disputed; I was open to conviction; not finding
satisfaction in the works of theologians, I wished to consult the
living members of the church itself. There were some godly souls
that entirely approved my propositions. But I did not consider their
authority of weight with me in spiritual concerns. The popes, bishops,
cardinals, monks, priests, were the objects of my confidence. After
being enabled to answer every objection that could be brought against
me from sacred Scripture, one difficulty alone remained, that _the
Church ought to be obeyed_. If I had then braved the pope as I now
do, I should have expected every hour that the earth would have opened
to swallow me up alive, like Korah and Abiram.” It was in this frame
of mind that, in the summer of 1518, a few months after the affair
with Tetzel, he wrote that memorable letter to the pope, the tenor
of which can be judged of by the following sentences: and what could
more admirably illustrate the passage before us, on the interpretation
suggested, than this language? “Most blessed Father! Prostrate at the
feet of thy blessedness I offer myself to thee, with all that I am,
and that I have. Kill me, or make me live; call or recall; approve or
reprove, as shall please thee. I will acknowledge _thy voice as the
voice of Christ_ presiding and speaking in thee.” See the authorities
for these quotations in Elliott, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117. (6) The command
_not_ to record what the seven thunders uttered was of the nature of a
_caution_ not to regard what was said in this manner; that is, not to
be deceived by these utterances as if they were the voice of God. Thus
understood, if this is the proper explanation and application of the
passage, it should be regarded as an injunction _not_ to regard the
decrees and decisions of the Papacy as containing any intimation of the
divine will, or as of authority in the church. That this is to be so
regarded is the opinion of all Protestants; and if this is so, it is
not a forced supposition {258} that this might have been intimated by
such a symbol as that before us.

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the
earth [322]lifted up his hand to heaven,

5. _And the angel which I saw stand_, &c. Ver. 2. That is, John saw
him standing in this posture when he made the oath which he proceeds to
record. ¶ _Lifted up his hand to heaven._ The usual attitude in taking
an oath, as if one called heaven to witness. See Ge. xiv. 22; De.
xxxii. 40; Eze. xx. 5, 6. Comp. Notes on Da. xii. 7.

6 And sware by [323]him that liveth for ever and ever, who
created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth,
and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things
which are therein, [324]that there should be time no longer:

6. _And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever._ By the ever-living
God: a form of an oath in extensive use now. The essential idea in such
an oath is an appeal to God; a solemn reference to Him as a witness;
an utterance in the presence of Him who is acquainted with the truth or
falsehood of what is said, and who will punish him who appeals to him
falsely. It is usual, in such an oath, in order to give to it greater
solemnity, to refer to some _attribute_ of God, or something in the
divine character on which the mind would rest at the time, as tending
to make it more impressive. Thus, in the passage before us, the
reference is to God as “ever-living;” that is, he is now a witness,
and he ever will be; he has now the power to detect and punish, and
he ever will have the same power. ¶ _Who created heaven and the things
that therein are_, &c. Who is the Maker of all things in heaven, on
the earth, and in the sea; that is, throughout the universe. The design
of referring to these things here is that which is just specified――to
give increased solemnity to the oath by a particular reference to
some one of the attributes of God. With this view nothing could
be more appropriate than to refer to him as the Creator of the
universe――denoting his infinite power, his right to rule and control
all things. ¶ _That there should be time no longer._ This is a very
important expression, as it is the substance of what the angel affirmed
in so solemn a manner; and as the interpretation of the whole passage
depends on it. It seems now to be generally agreed among critics that
our translation does not give the true sense, inasmuch (a) as that was
not the close of human affairs, and (b) as he proceeds to state what
_would_ occur _after_ that. Accordingly, different versions of the
passage have been proposed. Professor Stuart renders it, “that delay
shall be no longer.” Mr. Elliott, “that the time shall not yet be; but
in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, whensoever he may be
about to sound, then the mystery of God shall be finished.” Mr. Lord,
“that the time shall not be yet, but in the days of the voice of the
seventh angel,” &c. Andrew Fuller (_Works_, vol. vi. p. 113), “there
should be no delay.” So Dr. Gill. Mr. Daubuz, “the time shall not be
yet.” Vitringa (p. 432), _tempus non fore amplius_, “time shall be
no more.” He explains it (p. 433) as meaning, “not that this is to be
taken _absolutely_, as if at the sounding of the seventh trumpet all
things were then to terminate, and the glorious epiphany――ἐπιφάνεια
(or manifestation of Jesus Christ)――was then to occur, who would
put an end to all the afflictions of his church; but in a limited
sense――_restricte_――as meaning that there would be no _delay_
between the sounding of the seventh trumpet and the fulfilment
of the prophecies.” The sense of this passage is to be determined
by the meaning of the words and the connection. (a) The word
_time_――χρόνος――is the common Greek word to denote _time_, and may
be applied to time in general, or to any specified time or period.
See Robinson, _Lex._ _sub voce_, (a, b). In the word itself there is
nothing to determine its particular signification here. It might refer
either to time in general, or to the time under consideration, and
which was the subject of the prophecy. Which of these is the true idea
is to be ascertained by the other circumstances referred to. It should
be added, however, that the _word_ does not of itself denote _delay_,
and is never used to denote that directly. It can only _denote_ that
because _delay_ occupies or consumes _time_, but this sense of the noun
is not found in the New Testament. It is {259} found, however, in the
verb χρονίζω, to linger, to delay, to be long in coming, Mat. xxv. 5;
Lu. i. 21. (b) The absence of the article――“_time_,” not “_the_
time”――would naturally give it a general signification, unless there
was something in the connection to limit it to some well-known period
under consideration. See Notes on ch. viii. 2; x. 3. In this latter
view, if the time referred to would be sufficiently definite _without_
the article, the article need not be inserted. This is such a case,
and comes under the rule for the omission of the article as laid down
by Bishop Middleton, part i. ch. iii. The principle is, that when
the copula, or verb connecting the subject and predicate, is the verb
substantive, then the article is omitted. “To affirm the existence,”
says he, “of that of which the existence is already assumed, would
be superfluous; to deny it, would be contradictory and absurd.” As
applicable to the case before us, the meaning of this rule would be,
that the nature of the time here referred to is implied in the use of
the substantive verb (ἔσται), and that consequently it is not necessary
to specify it. All that needs to be said on this point is, that, on
the supposition that John referred to a specified time, instead of
time in general, it would not be necessary, under this rule, to insert
the article. The reference would be understood without it, and the
insertion would be unnecessary. This is substantially the reasoning
of Mr. Elliott (vol. ii. p. 123), and it is submitted for what it
is worth. My own knowledge of the usages of the Greek article is too
limited to justify me in pronouncing an opinion on the subject, but
the authorities are such as to authorize the assertion that, on the
supposition that a particular well-known period were here referred
to, the insertion of the article would not be necessary. (c) The
particle rendered “longer”――ἔτι)――“time shall be no _longer_”――means
properly, according to Robinson (_Lex._), _yet_, _still_; implying
(1) _duration_――as spoken of the present time; of the present in
allusion to the past, and, with a negative, _no more_, _no longer_;
(2) implying accession, addition, _yet_, _more_, _farther_, _besides_.
According to Buttmann, _Gram._ § 149, vol. i. p. 430, it means, when
alone, “yet still, yet farther; and with a negative, no more, no
farther.” The particle occurs often in the New Testament, as may be
seen in the _Concordance_. It is more frequently rendered “_yet_” than
by any other word (comp. Mat. xii. 46; xvii. 5; xix. 20; xxvi. 47;
xxvii. 63; Mar. v. 35; viii. 17; xii. 6; xiv. 43――and so in the other
Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles); in all, fifty times. In the book
of Revelation it is only once rendered “_yet_,” ch. vi. 11, but is
rendered “_more_” in ch. iii. 12; vii. 16; ix. 12; xii. 8; xviii. 21,
22 (three times), 23 (twice); xx. 3; xxi. 1, 4 (twice); “_longer_” in
ch. x. 6; “ _still_” in ch. xxii. 11 (four times). The usage, therefore,
will justify the rendering of the word by “_yet_,” and in connection
with the negative, “not yet”――meaning that the thing referred to would
not occur immediately, but would be hereafter. In regard to the general
meaning, then, of this passage in its connection, we may remark,
(a) That it cannot mean, literally, that there would be _time_ no
longer, or that the world would then come to an end absolutely, for
the speaker proceeds to disclose events that would occur after that,
extending far into the future (ch. x. 11), and the detail that follows
(ch. xi.) before the sounding of the seventh trumpet is such as to
occupy a considerable period, and the seventh trumpet is also yet to
sound. No fair construction of the language, therefore, would require
us to understand this as meaning that the affairs of the world were
then to terminate. (b) The connection, then, apart from the question
of grammatical usage, will require some such construction as that above
suggested――“that the time,” to wit, some certain, known, or designated
time, “would not be _yet_,” but would be in some future period; that is,
as specified, ver. 7, “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel,
when he shall begin to sound.” _Then_ “the mystery of God would be
finished,” and the affairs of the world would be put on their permanent
footing. (c) This would imply that, at the time when the angel appeared,
or in the time to which he refers, there would be some expectation
or general belief that the “mystery” was _then_ to be finished, and
that the affairs of the world were to come to an end. The proper
interpretation would lead us to suppose that there would be so general
an expectation of this, as to make the solemn affirmation of the angel
proper to correct a prevailing opinion, and to show that the right
interpretation was not put on what {260} seemed to be the tendency
of things. (d) As a matter of fact, we find that this expectation
did actually exist at the time of the Reformation; that such an
interpretation was put on the prophecies, and on the events that
occurred; and that the impression that the Messiah was about to come,
and the reign of saints about to commence, was so strong as to justify
some interference, like the solemn oath of the angel, to correct the
misapprehension. It is true that this impression had existed in former
times, and even in the early ages of the church; but, as a matter of
fact, it was true, and eminently true, in the time of the Reformation,
and there was, on many accounts, a strong tendency to that form of
belief. The Reformers, in interpreting the prophecies, learned to
connect the downfall of the Papacy with the coming of Christ, and
with his universal reign upon the earth; and as they saw the evidences
of the approach of the former, they naturally anticipated the latter
as about to occur. Comp. Da. ii. 34; xii. 11; 2 Th. ii. 3, 8. The
anticipation that the Lord Jesus was about to come; that the affairs
of the world, in the present form, were to be wound up; that the reign
of the saints would soon commence; and that the permanent kingdom of
righteousness would be established, became almost the current belief
of the Reformers, and was frequently expressed in their writings.
Thus Luther, in the year 1520, in his answer to the pope’s bull of
excommunication, expresses his anticipations: “Our Lord Jesus Christ
yet liveth and reigneth; who, I firmly trust, will shortly come, and
slay with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of
his coming, that Man of Sin” (Merle D’Aubig., vol. ii. p. 166). After
being summoned before the Diet at Worms, and after condemnation had
been pronounced on him by the emperor, he fell back for comfort on the
same joyous expectation. “For this once,” he said, “the Jews, as on
the crucifixion-day, may sing their pæan; but Easter will come for us,
and then we shall sing Hallelujah” (D’Aubig., vol. ii. p. 275). The
next year, writing to Staupitz, he made a solemn appeal against his
abandoning the Reformation, by reference to the sure and advancing
fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy. “My father,” said he, “the
abominations of the pope, with his whole kingdom, must be destroyed;
and the Lord does this without hand, by the _Word_ alone. The subject
exceeds all human comprehension. I cherish the best hopes” (Milner,
p. 692). In 1523 he thus, in a similar strain, expresses his hopes:
“The kingdom of Antichrist, according to the prophet Daniel, must be
broken _without hands_; that is, the Scriptures will be understood by
and by; and every one will preach against Papal tyranny, from the Word
of God, until the Man of Sin is deserted of all, and dies of himself”
(Milner, p. 796). The same sentiments respecting the approach of the
end of the world were entertained by Melancthon. In commenting on the
passage in Daniel relating to the “little horn,” he thus refers to
an argument which has been prevalent: “The words of the prophet Elias
should be marked by every one, and inscribed upon our walls, and on
the entrances of our houses. Six thousand years shall the world stand,
and after that be destroyed; two thousand years without the law;
two thousand years under the law of Moses; two thousand years under
the Messiah; and if any of these years are not fulfilled, they will
be shortened (a shortening intimated by Christ also, on account of
our sins).” The following manuscript addition to this argument has
been found in Melancthon’s hand, in Luther’s own copy of the German
Bible:――“Written A.D. 1557, and from the creation of the world, 5519;
from which number we may see that this aged world is not far from its
end.” So also the British Reformers believed. Thus Bishop Latimer:
“Let us cry to God day and night――Most merciful Father, let thy kingdom
come! St. Paul saith, The Lord will not come till the swerving from
the faith cometh (2 Th. ii. 3); which thing is already done and past.
Antichrist is already known throughout all the world. Wherefore the
day is not far off.” Then, reverting to the consideration of the age
of the world, as Melancthon had done, he says, “The world was ordained
to endure, as all learned ones affirm, 6000 years. Now of that number
there be past 5552 years, so that there is no more left but 448 years.
Furthermore, those days shall be shortened for the elect’s sake.
Therefore, all those excellent and learned men, whom without doubt God
hath sent into the world in these last days to give the world warning,
do gather out of sacred Scripture {261} that the last day cannot be
far off.” So again, in a sermon on the nearness of the second advent,
he says, “So that peradventure it may come in my days, old as I am,
or in my children’s days.” Indeed, it is well known that this was a
prevalent opinion among the Reformers; and this fact will show with
what propriety, if the passage before us was _designed_ to refer to the
Reformation, this solemn declaration of the angel was made, that the
“time would _not be yet_”――that those anticipations which would spring
up from the nature of the case, and from the interpretations which
would be put on what _seemed_ to be the obvious sense of the prophecies,
were unfounded, and that a considerable time must yet intervene before
the events would be consummated. (e) The proper sense of this passage,
then, according to the above interpretation would be――“And the angel
lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and
ever, That the time should not yet be; but, in the days of the voice
of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of
God shall be finished.” Appearances, indeed, would then indicate that
the affairs of the world were to be wound up, and that the prophecies
respecting the end of the world were about to be fulfilled: but the
angel solemnly swears “by Him who lives for ever and ever”――and whose
reign therefore extends through all the changes on the earth――“by
Him who is the Creator of all things,” and whose purpose alone can
determine when the end shall be, that the time would not be _yet_.
Those cherished expectations would not yet be realized, but there was
a series of important events to intervene before the end would come.
Then――at the time when the seventh angel should sound――would be the
consummation of all things.

7 But in the days of the voice of the [325]seventh angel,
when he shall begin to sound, the [326]mystery of God should
be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

7. _But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel._ The days in
the period of time embraced by the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
That is, the affairs of this world would not be consummated in that
period embraced in the sounding of the sixth trumpet, but in that
embraced in the sounding of the seventh and last of the trumpets.
Comp. ch. xi. 15‒19. ¶ _When he shall begin to sound._ That is, the
events referred to will _commence_ at the period when the angel shall
_begin_ to sound. It will not be merely _during_ or _in_ that period,
but the sounding of the trumpet, and the beginning of those events,
will be contemporaneous. In other words, then would commence the reign
of righteousness――the kingdom of the Messiah――the dominion of the
saints on the earth. ¶ _The mystery of God should be finished._ On the
meaning of the word _mystery_, see Notes on Ep. i. 9. It means here,
as elsewhere in the New Testament, the purpose or truth of God which
had been concealed, and which had not before been communicated to man.
Here the particular reference is to the divine purpose which had been
long concealed respecting the destiny of the world, or respecting the
setting up of his kingdom, but which had been progressively unfolded
by the prophets. That purpose would be “finished,” or consummated, in
the time when the seventh angel should begin to sound. Then all the
“mystery” would be revealed; the plan would be unfolded; the divine
purpose, so long concealed, would be manifested, and the kingdom of
the Messiah and of the saints would be set up on the earth. Under that
period, the affairs of the world would be ultimately wound up, and
the whole work of redemption completed. ¶ _As he hath declared to
his servants the prophets._ As he has from time to time disclosed
his purposes to mankind through the prophets. The reference here is,
doubtless, to the prophets of the Old Testament, though _the language_
would include all who at any time had uttered any predictions
respecting the final condition of the world. These prophecies had been
scattered along through many ages; but the angel says that at that
time all that had been said respecting the setting up of the kingdom
of God, the reign of the saints, and the dominion of the Redeemer on
the earth, would be accomplished. See Notes on ch. xi. 15. From the
passage thus explained, if the interpretation is correct, it will
follow that the sounding of the seventh trumpet (ch. xi. 15‒18)
is properly the conclusion of {262} this series of visions, and
denotes a “_catastrophe_” in the action, and that what follows is the
commencement of a new series of visions. This is clear, because (a) the
whole seven seals, comprising the seven trumpets of the seventh seal,
must embrace _one_ view of all coming events――since this embraced all
that there was in the volume seen in the hand of him that sat on the
throne; (b) this is properly implied in the word here rendered “should
be finished”――τελέσθη――the fair meaning of which is, that the “mystery”
here referred to――the hitherto unrevealed purpose or plan of God――would,
under that trumpet, be consummated or complete (see the conclusive
reasoning of Prof. Stuart on the meaning of the word, vol. ii. p. 210,
foot-note); and (c) it will be found in the course of the exposition
that, at ch. xi. 19, there commences a new series of visions, embracing
a view of the world in its _religious_ aspect, or _ecclesiastical_
characteristics, reaching down to the same consummation, and stating
at the close of that (ch. xx.) more fully what is here (ch. xi. 15‒18)
designated in a more summary way――the final triumph of religion, and
the establishment of the kingdom of the saints. The present series
of visions (ch. v.‒xi. 18) relates rather to the outward or secular
changes which would occur on the earth, which were to affect the
welfare of the church, to the final consummation; the next series
(ch. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.) relates to the church internally, the rise of
Antichrist, and the effect of the rise of that formidable power on the
internal history of the church, to the time of the overthrow of that
power, and the triumphant establishment of the kingdom of God. See
the Analysis of the work, Intro. § 5. In other words, this series
of visions, terminating at ch. xi. 18, refers, as the leading thing,
to what would occur in relation to the Roman empire considered as a
secular power, in which the church would be interested; that which
follows (ch. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.) to the Roman power considered as a great
apostasy, and setting up a mighty and most oppressive domination over
the true church, manifested in deep corruption and bloody persecutions,
running on in its disastrous influence on the world, until that power
should be destroyed, Babylon fall, and the reign of the saints be
introduced.

8 And the [327]voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me
again, and said, Go _and_ take the little book which is open
in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon
the earth.

8. _And the voice which I heard from heaven._ Ver. 4. This is not
the voice of the angel, but a direct divine command. ¶ _Said, Go |and|
take the little book that is open_, &c. That is, take it out of his
hand, and do with it as you shall be commanded. There is a very strong
resemblance between this passage and the account contained in Eze. ii.
9, 10; iii. 1‒3. Ezekiel was directed to go to the house of Israel and
deliver a divine message, whether they would hear or forbear; and in
order that he might understand what message to deliver, there was shown
to him a roll of a book, written within and without. That roll he was
commanded to eat, and he found it to be “in his mouth as honey for
sweetness.” John has added to this the circumstance that, though “sweet
in the mouth,” it made “the belly bitter.” The additional command
(ver. 11), that he must yet “prophecy before many people,” leads us to
suppose that he had the narrative in Ezekiel in his eye; for, as the
result of _his_ eating the roll, he was commanded to go and prophesy to
the people of Israel. The passage here (ver. 8) introduces a new symbol,
that of “eating the book,” and evidently refers to something that was
to occur _before_ the “mystery should be finished;” that is, before the
seventh trumpet should sound. ¶ _Which is open in the hand_, &c. On the
symbolical meaning of the word “open,” as applied to the book, see
Notes on ver. 2.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the
little book. And he said unto me, [328]Take _it_, and eat it
up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy
mouth sweet as honey.

9. _And I went unto the angel._ This is symbolic action, and is not
to be understood literally. As it is not necessary to suppose that an
angel _literally_ descended, and stood upon the sea and the land, so
it is not necessary to suppose that there was a literal act of going
to him, and taking the book from his hand and eating it. ¶ _Give me
the little book._ In accordance with the command {263} in ver. 8. We
may suppose, in regard to this, (a) that the symbol was designed to
represent that the book was to be used in the purpose here referred to,
or was to be an important agent or instrumentality in accomplishing the
purpose. The book is held forth in the hand of the angel as a striking
emblem. There is a command to go and take it from his hand for some
purpose not yet disclosed. All this seems to imply that the _book_――or
that which is represented by it――would be an important instrument in
accomplishing the purpose here referred to. (b) The application _for_
the book might intimate that, on the part of him who made it, there
would be some strong _desire_ to possess it. He goes, indeed, in
obedience to the command; but, at the same time, there would naturally
be a _desire_ to be in possession of the volume, or to know the
contents (comp. ch. v. 4), and his approach to the angel for the
book would be most naturally interpreted as expressive of such a
wish. ¶ _And he said unto me, Take |it|._ As if he had expected this
application; or had come down to furnish him with this little volume,
and had anticipated that the request would be made. There was no
reluctance in giving it up; there was no attempt to withhold it; there
was no prohibition of its use. The angel had no commission, and no
desire to retain it for himself, and no hesitation in placing it
in the hands of the seer on the first application. Would not the
readiness with which God gives his Bible into the hands of men, in
contradistinction from all human efforts to restrain its use, and to
prevent its free circulation, be well symbolized by this act? ¶ _And
eat it up._ There is a similar command in Eze. iii. 1. Of course, this
is to be understood figuratively, for no one would interpret literally
a command to eat a manuscript or volume. We have in common use a
somewhat similar phrase, when we speak of _devouring a book_, which
may illustrate this, and which is not liable to be misunderstood.
In Je. xv. 16, we have similar language: “Thy words were found, and
I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my
heart.” Thus in Latin, the words _propinare_, _imbibere_, _devorare_,
_deglutire_, &c., are used to denote the greediness with which
knowledge is acquired. Comp. in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras xiv. 38‒40. The
meaning here, then, is plain. He was to possess himself of the contents
of the book; to receive it into his mind; to apply it, as we do food,
for spiritual nourishment――truth having, in this respect, the same
relation to the mind which food has to the body. If the little book was
a symbol of the Bible, it would refer to the fact that the truths of
that book became the nourisher and supporter of the public mind. ¶ _And
it shall make thy belly bitter._ This is a circumstance which does not
occur in the corresponding place in Eze. iii. 1‒3. The expression here
must refer to something that would occur _after_ the symbolical action
of “eating” the little book, or to some consequence of eating it――for
the act of eating it is represented as pleasant: “in thy mouth sweet
as honey.” The meaning here is, that the effect which followed from
eating the book was painful or disagreeable――as food would be that was
pleasant to the taste, but that produced bitter pain when eaten. The
fulfilment of this would be found in one of two things. (a) It might
mean that the message to be delivered in consequence of devouring the
book, or the message which it contained, would be of a painful or
distressing character; that with whatever pleasure the book might be
received and devoured, it would be found to contain a communication
that would be indicative of woe or sorrow. This was the case with the
little book that Ezekiel was commanded to eat up. Thus, in speaking
of this book, it is said, “And it was written within and without: and
there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe,” Eze.
ii. 10. Comp. ch. iii. 4‒9, where the contents of the book, and the
effect of proclaiming the message which it contained, are more fully
stated. So here the meaning may be, that, however gladly John may have
taken the book, and with whatever pleasure he may have devoured its
contents, yet that it would be found to be charged with the threatening
of wrath, and with denunciations of a judgment to come, the delivery
of which would be well represented by the “bitterness” which is said
to have followed from “eating” the volume. Or (b) it may mean that the
consequence of devouring the book, that is, of embracing its doctrines,
would be persecutions and trouble――well represented by the “bitterness”
that followed the “eating” of the volume. Either of these ideas would
be a fulfilment of the {264} proper meaning of the symbol; for, on the
supposition that either of these occurred in fact, it would properly
be symbolized by the eating of a volume that was sweet to the taste,
but that made the belly bitter. ¶ _But it shall be in thy mouth sweet
as honey._ So in Eze. iii. 3. The proper fulfilment of this it is not
difficult to understand. It would well represent the pleasure derived
from divine truth――the sweetness of the Word of God――the relish with
which it is embraced by those that love it. On the supposition that
the “little book” here refers to the Bible, and to the use which would
be made of it in the times referred to, it would properly denote the
relish which would exist for the sacred volume, and the happiness
which would be found in its perusal; for this very image is frequently
employed to denote this. Thus in Ps. xix. 10: “More to be desired are
they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and
the honeycomb.” Ps. cxix. 103: “How sweet are thy words unto my taste!
yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth.” We are then to look for the
fulfilment of this in some prevailing delight or satisfaction, in
the times referred to, in the Word of the Lord, or in the truths of
revelation.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate
it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I
had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

10. _And as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter._ The effect
immediately followed: that is, as soon as he was made acquainted with
the contents of the book, either, as above explained, requiring him
to deliver some message of woe and wrath which it would be painful to
deliver, or that the consequence of receiving it was to bring on bitter
persecutions and trials.

11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many
peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

11. _And he said unto me._ The angel then said. ¶ _Thou must prophesy._
The word “_prophesy_” here is evidently used in the large sense of
making known divine truth in general; not in the comparatively narrow
and limited sense in which it is commonly used, as referring merely to
the foretelling of future events. See the word explained in the Notes
on Ro. xii. 6; 1 Co. xiv. 1. The meaning is, that, as a consequence of
becoming possessed of the little volume and its contents, he would be
called to proclaim divine truth, or to make the message of God known
to mankind. The direct address is to John himself; but it is evidently
not to be understood of him personally. _He_ is represented as seeing
the angel; as hearkening to his voice; as listening to the solemn
oath which he took; as receiving and eating the volume; and then as
prophesying to many people; but the reference is undoubtedly to the
far-distant future. If the allusion is to the times of the Reformation,
the meaning is, that the end of the world was not, as would be expected,
about to occur, but that there was to be an interval long enough to
permit the gospel to be proclaimed before “nations, and tongues, and
kings;” that in consequence of coming into possession of the “little
book,” the Word of God, the truth was yet to be proclaimed far and wide
on the earth. ¶ _Again_――πάλιν. This had been done before. That is,
supposing this to refer to the time of the Reformation, it could be
said, (a) that this had been done _before_――that the gospel had been
in former times proclaimed in its purity before “many peoples, and
nations, and tongues, and kings;” and (b) that it would be done “again;”
that is, though the Word of God had been hidden, and a mass of corrupt
traditions had taken its place, yet the time would come when those
pure truths would be made known again to all lands. This will explain
the word “_again_” in this place――not meaning that John would do
this personally, but that this would be in fact the result of the
restoration of the Bible to the church. ¶ _Before many peoples._ This
word denotes people considered as _masses_, or as grouped together
in masses, without reference to the manner in which it is done. It is
used when we look on a _mass_ of men, without taking into account the
question whether they are of the same nation, or language, or rank.
See Notes on ch. vii. 9. The plural is used here――“_peoples_”――perhaps
to denote that those to whom the truth would be made known would be
_very_ numerous. They would not only be numerous in regard to the
_individuals_ to whom it would be communicated, but numerous considered
as {265} communities or nations. ¶ _And nations._ The word _nations_
here denotes people considered as separated by national boundaries,
constitutions, laws, customs. See Notes on ch. vii. 9. ¶ _And tongues._
People considered as divided by languages――a division not always or
necessarily the same as that denoted by the word “people,” or “nations”
as used in this passage. ¶ _And kings._ Rulers of the people. The
meaning is, that the gospel would not only be borne before the _masses_
of mankind, but in a special manner before kings and rulers. The
effect of thus possessing the “little volume,” or of the “open book” of
revealed truth, would ultimately be that the message of life would be
carried with power before princes and rulers, and would influence them
as well as the common people.

In inquiring now for the proper application of this symbol as thus
explained, we naturally turn to the Reformation, and ask whether
there was anything in that of which this would be the proper emblem.
The following things, then, are found in fact as occurring at that
time, of which the symbol before us may be regarded as the proper
representation:――

(1) The reception of the Bible as from the hand of an angel――or
its recovery from obscurity and forgetfulness, _as if_ it were now
restored to the church by a heavenly interposition. The influence
of the Bible on the Reformation; the fact that it was now recovered
from its obscurity, and that it was made the grand instrument in the
Reformation, has already been illustrated. See Notes on ver. 2. The
symbolical action of taking it from the hand of an angel was not an
improper representation of its reception again by the church, and of
its restoration to its true place _in_ the church. It became, as it is
proper that it should always be, the grand means of the defence of the
faith, and of the propagation of truth in the world.

(2) The statement that the little book when eaten was “in the mouth
sweet as honey,” is a striking and proper representation of the relish
felt for the sacred Scriptures by those who love the truth (comp. Notes
on ver. 9), and is especially appropriate to describe the interest
which was felt in the volume of revealed truth in the time of the
Reformation. For the Bible was to the Reformers emphatically a new
book. It had been driven from common use to make way for the legends
of the saints and the traditions of the church. It had, therefore, when
translated into the vernacular tongue, and when circulated and read,
the freshness of novelty――the interest which a volume of revealed truth
would have if just given from heaven. Accordingly, it is well known
with what avidity and relish the sacred volume was studied by Luther
and his fellow-labourers in the Reformation; how they devoured its
doctrines; how they looked to it for comfort in their times of trial;
how sweet and sustaining were its promises in the troubles that came
upon them, and in the labours which they were called to perform.

(3) The representation that, after it was eaten, it was “bitter,”
would not improperly describe the _effect_, in some respects, of thus
receiving the Bible, and making it the groundwork of faith. It brought
the Reformers at once into conflict with all the power of the Papacy
and the priesthood; exposed them to persecution; aroused against them a
host of enemies among the princes and rulers of the earth; and was the
cause for which many of them were put to death. Such effects followed
substantially when Wycliffe translated the Bible; when John Huss and
Jerome of Prague published the pure doctrines of the New Testament; and
when Luther gave to the people the Word of God in their own language.
To a great extent this is always so――that, however sweet and precious
the truths of the Bible may be to the preacher himself, one of
the _effects_ of his attempting to preach those truths may be such
opposition on the part of men, such cold indifference, or such fierce
persecution, that it would be well illustrated by what is said here,
“it shall make thy belly bitter.”

(4) The representation that, as a consequence of receiving that book,
he would prophesy again before many people, is a fit representation of
the effect of the reception of the Bible again by the church, and of
allowing it its proper place there. For, (a) it led to _preaching_, or,
in the language of this passage, “prophesying”――a thing comparatively
little known before for many ages. The grand business in the Papal
communion was not, and is not, _preaching_, but the performance of
rites and ceremonies. Genuflexions, crossings, burning of incense,

processions, music, constitute the characteristic {266} features of
all Papal churches; the grand thing that distinguishes the Protestant
churches all over the world, just in proportion as they _are_
Protestant, is _preaching_. The Protestant religion――the pure form of
religion as it is revealed in the New Testament――has few ceremonies:
its rites are simple: it depends for success on the promulgation
and defence of the _truth_, with the attending influence of the Holy
Ghost; and for this view of the nature and degree of religion the
world is indebted to the fact that the Bible was again restored to its
true place in the church. (b) The Bible is the basis of all genuine
_preaching_. Preaching will not be kept up in its purity, except in the
places where the Bible is freely circulated, and where it is studied;
and where it _is_ studied, there will be, in the proper sense of the
term, _preachers_. Just in proportion as the Bible is studied in the
world, we may expect that preaching will be better understood, and that
the number of preachers will be increased. (c) The study of the Bible
is the foundation of all the efforts to spread the knowledge of the
truth to “peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings,” in our own
times. All these efforts have been originated by the restoration of
the Bible to its proper place in the church, and to its more profound
and accurate study in this age; for these efforts are but carrying out
the injunction of the Saviour as recorded in this book――to “go into
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (d) The same
thing will be true to the end of the world; or, in the language of the
portion of the book of Revelation before us, till “the kingdoms of this
world become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall
reign for ever and ever,” ch. xi. 15. The fact of the restoration of
the Bible to its proper place in the church will, therefore, ultimately
be the means of the conversion of the whole world to God; and this
fact, so momentous in its nature and its consequences, was worthy to
be symbolized by the appearance of the “angel descending from heaven
clothed with a cloud;” was properly represented by the manner in which
he appeared――“his face radiant as the sun, and his feet as pillars of
fire;” was worthy to be expressed by the position which he assumed,
as “standing on the sea and the earth”――as if all the world were
interested in the purpose of his mission, and was worthy of the
loud proclamation which he made――as if a new order of things were to
commence. Beautiful and sublime, then, as this chapter is, and always
has been esteemed as a composition, it becomes still more beautiful and
sublime if it be regarded as a symbol of the Reformation――an event the
most glorious, and the most important in its issues, of any that has
occurred since the Saviour appeared on the earth.

CHAPTER XI.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter, which is very improperly separated from the
preceding, and improperly _ended_――for it should have been closed at
ver. 18――consists (excluding the last verse, which properly belongs to
the succeeding chapter) essentially of three parts:――

I. The measuring of the temple, ver. 1, 2. A reed, or measuring-stick,
is given to John, and he is directed to arise and measure the temple.
This direction embraces two parts: (a) he was to measure, that is, to
take an exact estimate of the temple, of the altar, and of the true
worshippers; (b) he was carefully to separate this, in his estimate,
from the outward court, which was to be left out and to be given to
the Gentiles, to be trodden under foot forty-two months; that is, three
years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days――a period celebrated
in the book of Daniel as well as in this book.

II. The two witnesses, ver. 3‒13. This is, in some respects, the
most difficult portion of the book of Revelation, and its meaning can
be stated only after a careful examination of the signification of
the words and phrases used. The general statement in regard to these
witnesses is, that they should have power, and should prophesy for
twelve hundred and sixty days; that if anyone should attempt to injure
them, they had power, by fire that proceeded out of their mouths, to
devour and kill their enemies; that they had power to shut heaven so
that it should not rain, and power to turn the waters of the earth into
blood, and power to smite the earth with plagues as often as they chose;
that when they had completed their testimony, the beast that ascends
out of the bottomless pit would make war with them, and overcome them,
and kill them; that their dead bodies {267} would lie unburied in that
great city where the Lord was crucified three days and a half; that
they that dwelt upon the earth would exult in their death, and send
gifts to one another in token of their joy; that after the three days
and a half the spirit of life from God would enter into them again,
and they would stand up on their feet; that they would then be taken
up into heaven, in the sight of their enemies; and that, at the time
of their ascension, there would be a great earthquake, and a tenth part
of the city would fall, and many (seven thousand) would be killed, and
that the remainder would be affrighted, and would give glory to the God
of heaven.

III. The sounding of the seventh trumpet, ver. 14‒18. This is the
grand consummation of the whole; the end of this series of visions;
the end of the world. A rapid glance only is given of it here, for
under another series of visions a more detailed account of the state of
the world is given under the final triumph of truth. Here, as a proper
close of the first series of visions, the result is merely glanced
at or adverted to――that then the period would have arrived when the
kingdoms of the world were to become the kingdoms of the Lord, and
of his Christ, and when he should commence that reign which was to
continue for ever. Then universal peace and happiness would reign, and
the long-promised and expected kingdom of God on the earth would be
established. The “nations” had been “angry,” but the time had now come
when a judgment was to be pronounced on the dead, and when the due
reward was to be given to the servants of God――the prophets, and
the saints, and those who feared his name, small and great――in the
establishment of a permanent kingdom, and the complete triumph of the
true religion in the world.

I regard this chapter, therefore, to ver. 18, as extending down
to the consummation of all things, and as disclosing the last of the
visions seen in the scroll or volume “sealed with the seven seals,” ch.
v. 1. For a reason above suggested, and which will appear more fully
hereafter, the detail is here much less minute than in the earlier
portions of the historic visions, but still it embraces the whole
period, and states in few words what will be the condition of things
in the end. This was all that was necessary; this was, in fact,
the leading design of the whole book. The end towards which all
tended――that which John needed most to know and which the church needed
most to know, was that religion _would_ ultimately triumph, and that
the period _would_ arrive when it could be announced that the kingdoms
of this world had become the kingdoms of God and of his Christ. That is
here announced; and that is properly the close of one of the divisions
of the whole book.

CHAPTER XI.

AND there was given me a [329]reed like unto a rod: and the
angel stood, saying, Rise, and [330]measure the temple of God,
and the altar, and them that worship therein.

1. _And there was given me._ He does not say by whom, but the
connection would seem to imply that it was by the angel. All this is
of course to be regarded as symbolical. The representation undoubtedly
pertains to a future age, but the language is such as would be properly
addressed to one who had been a Jew, and the imagery employed is such
as he would be more likely to understand than any other. The language
and the imagery are, therefore, taken from the temple, but there is no
reason to suppose that it had any _literal_ reference to the temple,
or even that John would so understand it. Nor does the language here
used prove that the temple was standing at the time when the book was
written; for, as it is symbolical, it is what would be employed whether
the temple were standing or not, and would be as likely to be used in
the one case as in the other. It is such language as John, educated as
a Jew, and familiar with the temple worship, would be likely to employ
if he designed to make a representation pertaining to the church.
¶ _A reed_――κάλαμος. This word properly denotes a plant with a jointed
hollow stalk, growing in wet grounds. Then it refers to the stalk as
cut for use――as a measuring-stick, as in this place; or a mock sceptre,
Mat. xxvii. 29, 30; or a pen for writing, 3 Jn. 13. Here it means
merely a stick that could be used for measuring. ¶ _Like unto a rod._
This word――ῥάβδος――means properly a rod, wand, staff, used either for
scourging, 1 Co. iv. 21; or for leaning upon in walking, Mat. x. 10; or
for a sceptre, He. i. 8. Here the meaning {268} is, that the reed that
was put into his hands was like such a rod or staff in respect to size,
and was therefore convenient for handling. The word _rod_ also is used
to denote a measuring-pole, Ps. lxxiv. 2; Je. x. 16; li. 19. ¶ _And the
angel stood, saying._ The phrase, “the angel stood,” is wanting in many
MSS. and editions of the New Testament, and is rejected by Professor
Stuart as spurious. It is also rejected in the critical editions
of Griesbach and Hahn, and marked as doubtful by Tittmann. The
best critical authority is against it, and it appears to have been
introduced from Zec. iii. 5. The connection does not demand it, and we
may, therefore, regard the meaning to be, that the one who gave him the
reed, whoever he was, at the same time addressed him, and commanded him
to take a measure of the temple and the altar. ¶ _Rise, and measure the
temple of God._ That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed
in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the _literal_
temple――whether standing or not――for the exact measure of that was
sufficiently well known. The word, then, must be used of something
which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be
the church, considered as the abode of God on the earth. Under the old
dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that abode; under the new,
that peculiar residence was transferred to the church, and God is
represented as dwelling in it. See Notes on 1 Co. iii. 16. Thus the
word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who
is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true
church of God; _as_ accurate as if he were to apply a measuring-reed to
ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem. In doing that, if
the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem,
he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would
measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such
a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be
distinguished from other edifices, or that one could be constructed
like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be
destroyed. If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable
to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain
an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was――as
distinguished from all other bodies of men, and as constituted
and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that
its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be
organized according to this, and that the accurate description could
be transmitted to future times. John has not, indeed, preserved the
measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve
such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred
to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement
of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known.
There would be, therefore, a fulfilment of this, if at the time here
referred to there should be _occasion_, from any cause, to inquire
what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and
distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such
prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary.
¶ _And the altar._ On the form, situation, and uses of the altar,
see Notes on Mat. v. 23, 24; xxi. 12. The altar here referred to was,
undoubtedly, the altar situated in front of the temple, where the daily
sacrifice was offered. To measure that literally, would be to take its
dimensions of length, breadth, and height; but it is plain that that
cannot be intended here, for there was no such altar where John was,
and, if the reference were to the altar at Jerusalem, its dimensions
were sufficiently known. This language, then, like the former, must
be understood metaphorically, and then it must mean――as the altar was
the place of _sacrifice_――to take an estimate of the church considered
with reference to its notions of sacrifice, or of the prevailing
views respecting the sacrifice to be made for sin, and the method of
reconciliation with God. It is by sacrifice that a method is provided
for reconciliation with God; by sacrifice that sin is pardoned; by
sacrifice that man is justified; and the direction here is equivalent,
therefore, to a command to make an investigation on these subjects,
and all that is implied would be fulfilled if a state of things should
exist where it would be necessary to institute an examination into the
prevailing views in the church on the subject of the atonement, and
the true method of justification before God. ¶ _And them that worship
therein._ In the temple, or, as the temple is the representation
here of the church, of those who are in the church {269} as professed
worshippers of God. There is some apparent incongruity in directing
him to “_measure_” those who were engaged in worship; but the obvious
meaning is, that he was to take a correct estimate of their character;
of what they professed; of the reality of their piety; of their lives,
and of the general state of the church considered as professedly
worshipping God. This would receive its fulfilment if a state of
things should arise in the church which would make it necessary to go
into a close and searching examination on all these points, in order
to ascertain what was the true church, and what was necessary to
constitute true membership in it. There were, therefore, three things,
as indicated by this verse, which John was directed to do, so far
as the use of the measuring-rod was concerned: (a) to take a just
estimate of what constitutes the true church, as distinguished from
all other associations of men; (b) to institute a careful examination
into the opinions in the church on the subject of sacrifice or
atonement――involving the whole question about the method of
justification before God; and (c) to take a correct estimate of what
constitutes true membership in the church; or to investigate with care
the prevailing opinions about the qualifications for membership.

2 But the [331]court which is without the temple [332]leave
out, and measure it not; for [333]it is given unto the
Gentiles: and the holy city shall they [334]tread under foot
forty _and_ two months.

2. _But the court which is without the temple._ Which is outside of the
temple proper, and, therefore, which does not strictly appertain to it.
There is undoubtedly reference here to the “court of the Gentiles,” as
it was called among the Jews――the outer court of the temple to which
the Gentiles had access, and within which they were not permitted
to go. For a description of this, see Notes on Mat. xxi. 12. To an
observer this would _seem_ to be a part of the temple, and the persons
there assembled a portion of the true worshippers of God; but it was
necessarily neither the one nor the other. In forming an estimate
of those who, according to the Hebrew notions, were true worshippers
of God, only those would be regarded as such who had the privilege
of access to the inner court, and to the altar. In making such an
estimate, therefore, those who had no nearer access than that court,
would be omitted; that is, they would not be reckoned as necessarily
any part of those who were regarded as the people of God. ¶ _Leave out
and measure it not._ Marg., _cast out_. So the Greek. The meaning is,
that he was not to reckon it as appertaining to the true temple of
worshippers. There is, indeed, a degree of force in the words rendered
“_leave out_,” or, in the margin, “_cast out_”――ἔκβαλλε ἔξω――which
implies more than a mere _passing by_, or _omission_. The word (ἐκβάλλω)
usually has the idea of _force_ or _impulse_ (Mat. viii. 12; xv. 17;
xxv. 30; Mar. xvi. 9; Ac. xxvii. 38, _et al._); and the word here would
denote some decisive or positive act by which it would be indicated
that this was _not_ any part of the true temple, but was to be regarded
as appertaining to something else. He was not merely _not_ to mention
it, or _not_ to include it in the measurement, but he was to do this by
some act which would indicate that it was the result of design in the
case, and not by accidentally passing it by. ¶ _For it is given unto
the Gentiles._ It properly appertains to them as their own. Though near
the temple, and included in the general range of building, yet it does
not pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded
as heathen and strangers. It is not said that it was _then_ given to
the Gentiles; nor is it said that it was given to them to be overrun
and trodden down by them, but that it _appertained to them_, and was to
be regarded as belonging to them. They occupied it, not as the people
of God, but as those who were _without_ the true church, and who did
not appertain to its real communion. This would find a fulfilment if
there should arise a state of things in the church in which it would
be necessary to draw a line between those who properly constituted
the church and those who did not; if there should be such a condition
of things that any considerable portion of those who professedly
appertained to the church ought to be _divided off_ as not belonging to
it, or would have such characteristic marks that it could be seen that
they were strangers and aliens. The interpretation would demand that
they should sustain _some_ relation to the {270} church, or that they
would _seem_ to belong to it――as the court did to the temple; but
still that this was in appearance only, and that in estimating the true
church it was necessary to leave them out altogether. Of course this
would not imply that there might not be some sincere worshippers among
them as individuals――as there would be found usually, in the court
of the Gentiles in the literal temple, some who were proselytes and
devout worshippers, but what is here said relates to them as a mass or
body――that they did not belong to the true church, but to the Gentiles.
¶ _And the holy city._ The _whole_ holy city――not merely the outer
court of the Gentiles, which it is said was given to them, nor the
temple as such, but the _entire_ holy city. There is no doubt that the
words “the holy city” _literally_ refer to Jerusalem――a city so called
because it was the peculiar place of the worship of God. See Notes on
Mat. iv. 5; comp. Ne. xi. 1, 18; Is. lii. 1; Da. ix. 24; Mat. xxvii. 53.
But it is not necessary to suppose that this is its meaning here. The
“holy city,” Jerusalem, was regarded as sacred to God――as his dwelling-
place on earth, and as the abode of his people, and nothing was more
natural than to use the term as representing the church. Comp. Notes on
Ga. iv. 26; He. xii. 22. In this sense it is undoubtedly used here as
the whole representation is emblematical. John, if he were about to
speak of anything that was to occur to the church, would, as a native
Jew, be likely to employ such language as this to denote it. ¶ _Shall
they tread under foot._ That is, the Gentiles above referred to; or
those who, in the measurement of the city, were set off as Gentiles,
and regarded as not belonging to the people of God. This is not spoken
of the Gentiles in general, but only of that portion of the multitudes
that seemed to constitute the worshippers of God, who, in measuring the
temple, were set off or separated as not properly belonging to the true
church. The phrase “should tread under foot” is derived from warriors
and conquerors, who tread down their enemies, or trample on the fields
of grain. It is rendered in this passage by Dr. Robinson (_Lex._), “to
profane and lay waste.” As applied literally to a city, this would be
the true idea; as applied to the church, it would mean that they would
have it under their control or in subjection for the specified time,
and that the practical effect of that would be to corrupt and prostrate
it. ¶ _Forty |and| two months._ Literally this would be three years and
a half; but if the time here is prophetic time――a day for a year――then
the period would be twelve hundred and sixty years――reckoning the year
at 360 days. For a full illustration of this usage, and for the reasons
for supposing that this is prophetic time, see Notes on Da. vii. 25.
See also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. In addition to what is there said,
it may be remarked, in reference to this passage, that it is impossible
to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was
“trampled under foot” by the Romans for the exact space of three years
and a half. Professor Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to
the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, “It is certain
that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the
period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself
was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in
innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country
of Judæa.” But it is to be remembered that the affirmation here is,
that “_the holy city_” was thus to be trodden under foot; and even
taking the former supposition, in what sense is it true that the “whole
country” was “trodden under foot” by the Romans only three years and a
half? Even the wars of the Romans were not of that exact duration; and,
besides, the fact was that Judæa was held in subjection, and trodden
down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, regained its
independence. If this is to be literally applied to Jerusalem, it has
been “trodden down by the Gentiles,” with brief intervals, since the
conquest by the Romans, to the present time. There has been no precise
period of three years and a half, in respect to which the language here
used would be applicable to the literal city of Jerusalem.

In regard, then, to the proper _application_ of the language which
has thus been explained (ver. 1, 2), it may be remarked, in general,
that, for the reasons just stated, it is not to be taken _literally_.
John could not have been directed literally to measure the temple at
Jerusalem, and the altar, and the worshippers; nor could he have been
{271} requested literally to leave out, or “cast out” the court that
was without; nor could it be meant that the holy city literally was to
be trodden under foot for three years and a half. The language clearly
is symbolical, and the reference must have been to something pertaining
to the church. And, if the preceding exposition of the tenth chapter
is correct, then it may be presumed that this would refer to something
that was to occur at about the period there referred to. Regarding
it, then, as applicable to the time of the Reformation, and as being
a continuation of the vision in ch. x., we shall find, in the events
of that period, what would be properly symbolized by the language here
used. This will appear by reviewing the particulars which have been
explained in these verses:――

(1) The command to “measure the temple of God,” ver. 1. This, we have
seen, was a direction to take an estimate of what constituted the true
church; the very work which it was necessary to do in the Reformation,
for this was the first point which was to be settled, whether the
Papacy was the true church or was the Antichrist. This involved, of
course, the whole inquiry as to what constitutes the church, alike in
reference to its organization, its ministry, its sacraments, and its
membership. It was long before the Reformers made up their minds that
the Papacy was _not_ the true church; for the veneration which they had
been taught to cherish for that lingered long in their bosoms. And even
when they were constrained to admit that that corrupt communion was the
predicted form of the great apostasy――_Antichrist_――and had acquired
boldness enough to break away from it for ever, it was long before they
settled down in a uniform belief as to what _was_ essential to the true
church. Indeed, the differences of opinion which prevailed, the warm
discussions which ensued, and the diversities of sect which sprang up
in the Protestant world, showed with what intense interest the mind
was fixed on this question, and how important it was to take an exact
_measurement_ of the real church of God.

(2) The direction to “measure the altar.” This, as we have seen, would
relate to the prevailing opinions on the subject of sacrifice and
atonement; on the true method of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and,
consequently, on the whole subject of justification. As a matter of
fact, it need not be said that this was one of the first questions
which came before the Reformers, and was one which it was indispensable
to settle, in order to a just notion of the church and of the way
of salvation. The Papacy had exalted the Lord’s supper into a real
sacrifice; had made it a grand and essential point that the bread and
wine were changed into the real body and blood of the Lord, and that
a real offering of that sacrifice was made every time that ordinance
was celebrated; had changed the office of the ministers of the New
Testament from _preachers_ to that of _priests_; had become familiar
with the terms _altar_, and _sacrifice_, and _priesthood_, as founded
on the notion that a real sacrifice was made in the “mass;” and had
fundamentally changed the whole doctrine respecting the justification
of a sinner before God. The altar in the Romish communion had almost
displaced the pulpit; and the doctrine of justification by the
merits of the great sacrifice made by the death of our Lord, had
been superseded by the doctrine of justification by good works,
and by the merits of the saints. It became necessary, therefore, to
restore the true doctrine respecting sacrifice for sin, and the way of
justification before God; and this would be appropriately represented
by a direction to “measure _the altar_.”

(3) The direction to take an estimate of those “who worshipped in the
temple.” This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to
be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church,
or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true
worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary
to be done in the Reformation. Before that, for ages, the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church;
that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation,
was the common opinion; the necessity of regeneration by the influences
of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little
understood, if not almost wholly unknown; and the grand requisition
_in_ membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites
and ceremonies of the church. One of the first things necessary in the
Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down
by the Saviour, that a change {272} of heart――that regeneration by
the Holy Ghost――was necessary to membership in the church, and that
the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the
spirit of their mind. This great work would be appropriately symbolized
by a direction to take an estimate of those who “worshipped in the
temple of God;” that is, to settle the question who should be regarded
as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who
professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled
in the Reformation than this.

(4) The direction to leave out, or to “cast out” the court
without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that
a separation was to be made between that which was the true church
and that which was not, though it might seem to belong to it. The one
was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not
appertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to heathenism.
The idea would be, that though it professedly appertained to the
true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be
characterized _as_ heathenism. Now this will apply with great propriety,
according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the Papacy
was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times.
It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would
_seem_ to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain
to the temple. But it had the essential characteristics of _heathenism_,
and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or cast out, as not
pertaining to the true church. Can anyone doubt the truth of this
representation as applicable to the Papacy? Almost everything that was
peculiar in the ancient heathen systems of religion had been introduced
into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more
that would lead him to feel that he was in a heathen land, than he
would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity
prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer had
designed to set up on the earth. This was true not only in the pomp and
splendour of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials;
but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in
the number of festival days, in the fact that the statues reared in
heathen Rome to the honour of the gods had been reconsecrated in the
service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs;
and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use
in the ancient heathen worship. The direction was, that, in estimating
the true church, this was to be “left out,” or “cast out;” and, if
this interpretation is correct, the meaning is, that the Roman Catholic
communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the
true church――a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of
Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are
correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church
from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.

(5) The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot, ver.
2. This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be
trodden down by those who are described as “Gentiles.” So far as pure
religion was concerned; so far as appertained to the real condition of
the church, and the pure worship of God, it would be _as if_ the whole
holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the
Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was
sacred for the time here referred to. Everything in Rome at the time of
the Reformation would sustain this description. “It is incredible,”
says Luther, on his visit to Rome, “what sins and atrocities are
committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. So that
it is usual to say: ‘If there be a hell, Rome is built above it; it is
an abyss from which all sins proceed.’” So again he says: “It is
commonly observed that he who goes to Rome for the first time, goes to
seek a knave there; the second time he finds him; and the third time he
brings him away with him under his cloak. But now, people are become so
clever, that they make the three journeys in one.” So Machiavelli, one
of the most profound geniuses in Italy, and himself a Roman Catholic,
said, “The greatest symptom of the approaching ruin of Christianity
is, that the nearer we approach the capital of Christendom, the less
do we find of the Christian spirit of the people. The scandalous
example and crimes of the court of Rome have caused Italy to lose every
principle of piety and every religious sentiment.{273} We Italians are
principally indebted to the church and to the priests for having become
impious and profane.” See D’Aubigné’s _History of the Reformation_,
p. 54, ed. Phila. 1843. In full illustration of the sentiment that
the church seemed to be trodden down and polluted by heathenism, or by
abominations and practices that came out of heathenism, we may refer
to the general history of the Romish communion from the rise of the
Papacy to the Reformation. For a sufficient illustration to justify
the application of the passage before us which I am now making, the
reader may be referred to the Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21. Nothing would
better describe the condition of Rome previous to and at the time of
the Reformation――and the remark may be applied to subsequent periods
also――than to say that it was a city which once seemed to be a
Christian city, and was not improperly regarded as the centre of the
Christian world and the seat of the church, and that it had been, as
it were, overrun and trodden down by heathen rites and customs and
ceremonies, so that, to a stranger looking on it, it would seem to be
in the possession of the “Gentiles” or the heathens.

(6) The _time_ during which this was to continue――“forty-two months;”
that is, according to the explanation above given, twelve hundred and
sixty years. This would embrace the whole period of the ascendency and
prevalence of the Papacy, or the whole time of the continuance of that
corrupt domination in which Christendom was to be trodden down and
corrupted by it. The prophet of Patmos saw it in vision thus extending
its dreary and corrupting reign, and during that time the proper
influence of Christianity was trampled down, and the domination of
practical heathenism was set up where the church should have reigned in
its purity. Thus regarded, this would properly express the time of the
ascendency of the Papal power, and the end of the “forty-two months,”
or twelve hundred and sixty years, would denote the time when the
influence of that power would cease. If, therefore, the time of the
_rise_ of the Papacy can be determined, it will not be difficult
to determine the time when it will come to an end. But for a full
consideration of these points the reader is referred to the extended
discussion on Da. vii. 25. See also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. As
the point is there fully examined it is unnecessary to go into an
investigation of it here.

The general remark, therefore, in regard to this passage (ver. 1, 2)
is, that it refers to what would be necessary to be done at the
Reformation in order to determine what is the true church and what are
the doctrines on which it is based; and to the fact that the Romish
communion, to which the church had been given over for a definite time,
was to be set aside as not being the true church of Christ.

3 And I will [335]give _power_ unto my [336]two
[337]witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred
_and_ threescore days, [338]clothed in sackcloth.

3. _And I will give |power| unto my two witnesses._ In respect to
this important passage (ver. 3‒13) I propose to pursue the same method
which I have pursued all along in this exposition: first, to examine
the meaning of the words and phrases in the symbol, with a purpose
to ascertain the fair signification of the symbols; and, secondly, to
inquire into the application――that is, to inquire whether any events
have occurred which, in respect to their character and to the time
of their occurrence, can be shown to be a _fair_ fulfilment of the
language. ¶ _And I will give |power|._ The word “power” is not in the
original. The Greek is simply, “I will give”――that is, I will grant
to my two witnesses the right or the power of prophesying during the
time specified――correctly expressed in the margin, “give unto my two
witnesses that they may prophesy.” The meaning is not that he would
_send_ two witnesses to prophesy, but rather that these were _in fact_
such “witnesses,” and that he would during that time permit them to
exercise their prophetic gifts, or give them the privilege and the
strength to enunciate the truth which they were commissioned to
communicate as his “witnesses” to mankind. Some word, then, like
_power_, _privilege_, _opportunity_, or _boldness_, it is necessary to
supply in order to complete the sense. ¶ _Unto my two witnesses._ The
word “_two_” evidently denotes that the number would be small; and yet
it is not necessary to confine it literally to two persons, or to two
societies or communities. Perhaps the meaning is, that {274} as, under
the law, two witnesses were required, and were enough, to establish any
fact (Notes on Jn. viii. 17), such a number would during those times be
preserved from apostasy as would be sufficient to keep up the evidence
of truth; to testify against the prevailing abominations, errors, and
corruptions; to show what was the real church, and to bear a faithful
witness against the wickedness of the world. The law of Moses required
that there should be _two_ witnesses on a trial, and this, under that
law, was deemed a _competent_ number. See Num. xxxv. 30; De. xvii. 6;
xix. 15; Mat. xviii. 16; Jn. v. 30‒33. The essential meaning of this
passage then is, that there would be a _competent number_ of witnesses
in the case; that is, as many as would be regarded as _sufficient_ to
establish the points concerning which they would testify, with perhaps
the additional idea that the number would be _small_. There is no
reason for limiting it strictly to two persons, or for supposing that
they would appear in pairs, two and two; nor is it necessary to suppose
that it refers particularly to two people or nations. The word rendered
_witnesses_――μάρτυσι――is that from which we have derived the word
_martyr_. It means properly one who bears testimony, either in a
judicial sense (Mat. xviii. 16; xxvi. 65), or one who can in any way
testify to the truth of what he has seen and known, Lu. xxiv. 48; Ro. i.
9; Phi. i. 8; 1 Th. ii. 10; 1 Ti. vi. 12. Then it came to be employed
in the sense in which the word _martyr_ is now――to denote one who,
amidst great sufferings or by his death, bears witness to the truth;
that is, one who is so confident of the truth, and so upright, that he
will rather lay down his life than deny the truth of what he has seen
and known, Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13. In a similar sense it comes to
denote one who is so thoroughly convinced on a subject that it is not
susceptible of being seen and heard, or who is so attached to one that
he is willing to lay down his life as the evidence of his conviction
and attachment. The word, as used here, refers to those who, during
this period of “forty and two months,” would thus be _witnesses_ for
Christ in the world; that is, who would bear their _testimony_ to the
truth of his religion, to the doctrines which he had revealed, and to
what was required of man――who would do this amidst surrounding error
and corruption, and when exposed to persecutions and trials on account
of their belief. It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to represent
the righteous as _witnesses_ for God. See Notes on Is. xliii. 10, 12;
xliv. 8. ¶ _And they shall prophesy._ The word _prophesy_ does not
necessarily mean that they would predict future events; but the sense
is, that they would give utterance to the truth as God had revealed
it. See Notes on ch. x. 11. The sense here is, that they would in some
public manner hold up or maintain the truth before the world. ¶ _A
thousand two hundred |and| threescore days._ The same period as the
forty and two months (ver. 2), though expressed in a different form.
Reckoning a day for a year, this period would be twelve hundred and
sixty years, or the same as the “time and times and the dividing of
time” in Da. vii. 25. See Notes on that place; also Editor’s Preface.
The meaning of this would be, therefore, that during that long period,
in which it is said that “the holy city would be trodden under foot,”
there would be those who might be properly called “witnesses” for God,
and who would be engaged in holding up his truth before the world;
that is, there would be no part of that period in which there would
not be found _some_ to whom this appellation could with propriety be
given. Though the “holy city”――the church――would _seem_ to be wholly
trodden down, yet there would be a few at least who would assert
the great doctrines of true godliness. ¶ _Clothed in sackcloth._
Sackcloth――σάκκους――was properly a coarse black cloth commonly made
of hair, used for sacks, for straining, and for mourning garments. See
Notes on ch. vi. 12; Is. iii. 24; and Mat. xi. 21. Here it is an emblem
of mourning; and the idea is, that they would prophesy in the midst of
grief. This would indicate that the time would be one of calamity, or
that, in doing this, there would be occasion for their appearing in
the emblems of grief, rather than in robes expressive of joy. The most
natural interpretation of this is, that there would be but few who
could be regarded as true witnesses for God in the world, and that they
would be exposed to persecution.

4 These are the [339]two olive-trees, and the two
[340]candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

4. _These are the two olive-trees._ These {275} are represented by
the two olive-trees, or these are what are symbolized by the two
olive-trees. There can be little doubt that there is an allusion here
to Zec. iv. 3, 11, 14, though the imagery is in some respects changed.
The prophet (Zec. iv. 2, 3) saw in vision “a candlestick all of gold,
with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and
seven pipes to the seven lamps, which were upon the top thereof;
and two olive-trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and
the other upon the left side thereof.” These two “olive branches”
were subsequently declared (ver. 14) to be “the two anointed ones,
that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The olive-trees, or
olive-branches (ver. 12), appear in the vision of the prophet to have
been connected with the ever-burning lamp by golden pipes; and as the
olive-tree produced the oil used by the ancients in their lamps, these
trees are represented as furnishing a constant supply of oil through
the golden pipes to the candlestick, and thus they become emblematic
of the supply of grace to the church. John uses this emblem, not in
the sense exactly in which it was employed by the prophet, but to
denote that these two “witnesses,” which might be compared with the two
olive-trees, would be the means of supplying grace to the church. As
the olive-tree furnished oil for the lamps, the two trees here would
seem properly to denote ministers of religion; and as there can be
no doubt that the candlesticks, or lamp- bearers, denote churches,
the sense would appear to be that it was through the pastors of the
churches that the oil of grace which maintained the brightness of those
mystic candlesticks, or the churches, was conveyed. The image is a
beautiful one, and expresses a truth of great importance to the world;
for God has designed that the lamp of piety shall be kept burning
in the churches by truth supplied through ministers and pastors.
¶ _And the two candlesticks._ The prophet Zechariah saw but _one_
such candlestick or lamp-bearer; John here saw two――as there are two
“witnesses” referred to. In the vision described in ch. i. 12, he saw
seven――representing the seven churches of Asia. For an explanation of
the meaning of the symbol, see Notes on that verse. ¶ _Standing before
the God of the earth._ So Zec. iv. 14, “These be the two anointed ones,
that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The meaning is, that they
stood, as it were, in the very presence of God――as, in the tabernacle
and temple, the golden candlestick stood “before” the ark on which was
the symbol of the divine presence, though separated from it by a veil.
Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 13. This representation, that the ministers of
religion “stand before the Lord,” is one that is not uncommon in the
Bible. Thus it is said of the priests and Levites: “The Lord separated
the tribe of Levi, to _stand before the Lord_, to minister unto him,
and to bless his name,” De. x. 8; comp. xviii. 7. The same thing is
said of the prophets, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha: “As the
Lord liveth, _before whom I stand_,” 1 Ki. xvii. 1; also, xviii. 15;
2 Ki. iii. 14; v. 16; comp. Je. xv. 19. The representation is, that
they ministered, as it were, constantly in his presence, and under his
eye.

5 And if any man will hurt them, [341]fire proceedeth out of
their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will
hurt them, [342]he must in this manner be killed.

5. _And if any man will hurt them._ This implies that there would
be those who would be disposed to injure or wrong them; that is, that
they would be liable to persecution. The word “_will_” is here more
than the mere sign of the future; it denotes _intention_, _purpose_,
_design_――θέλει――“if any man _wills_ or _purposes_ to injure them.” See
a similar use of the word in 1 Ti. vi. 9. The word _hurt_ here means
to do _injury_ or _injustice_――ἀδικῆσαι――and may refer to wrong in
any form――whether in respect to their character, opinions, persons,
or property. The general sense is, that there would be those who would
be disposed to do them harm, and we should naturally look for the
fulfilment of this in some form of persecution. ¶ _Fire proceedeth out
of their mouth._ It is, of course, not necessary that this should be
taken literally. The meaning is, that they would have the power of
destroying their enemies _as if_ fire should proceed out of their mouth;
that is, their words would be like burning coals or flames. There may
possibly be an allusion here to 2 Ki. i. 10‒14, where {276} it is said
that Elijah commanded the fire to descend from heaven to consume those
who were sent to take him (comp. Lu. ix. 54); but in that case Elijah
commanded the fire to come “from heaven;” here it proceedeth “out of
the mouth.” The allusion here, therefore, is to the denunciations which
they would utter, or the doctrines which they would preach, and which
would have the same effect on their enemies as if they breathed forth
fire and flame. So Je. v. 14, “Because ye speak this word, Behold, I
will make my words in thy mouth fire and this people wood, and it shall
devour them.” ¶ _And devoureth their enemies._ The word _devour_ is
often used with reference to fire, which seems to _eat up_ or _consume_
what is in its way, or to _feed on_ that which it destroys. This is the
sense of the word here――κατεσθίει――“to eat down, to swallow down, to
devour.” Comp. ch. xx. 9; Sept. Is. xxix. 6; Joel ii. 5; Le. x. 2. As
there is no reason to believe that there would be literal _fire_, so
it is not necessary to suppose that their enemies would be literally
devoured or consumed. The meaning is fulfilled if their words should
in any way produce an effect on their enemies _similar_ to what is
produced by fire: that is, if it should destroy their influence; if
it should overcome and subdue them; if it should annihilate their
domination in the world. ¶ _And if any man will hurt them._ This is
repeated in order to make the declaration more intensive, and also
to add another thought about the effect of persecuting and injuring
them. ¶ _He must in this manner be killed._ That is, in the manner
specified――by fire. It does not mean that he would be killed in the
same manner in which the “witnesses” were killed, but in the method
specified before――by the fire that should proceed out of their mouth.
The meaning is, undoubtedly, that they would have power to bring down
on them divine vengeance or punishment, so that there would be a just
retaliation for the wrongs done them.

6 These[343] have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in
the days of their prophecy: and have [344]power over waters to
turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues,
as often as they will.

6. _These have power to shut heaven._ That is, so far as rain is
concerned――for this is immediately specified. There is probably a
reference here to an ancient opinion that the rain was kept in the
clouds of heaven as in reservoirs or bottles, and that when they were
opened it rained; when they were closed it ceased to rain. So Job, “He
bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent
under them,” xxvi. 8. “Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man
abundantly,” Job xxxvi. 28. “Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or
who can stay the bottles of heaven?” Job xxxviii. 37; comp. Ge. i. 7;
vii. 12; viii. 2; 2 Ki. vii. 2. To _shut or close up the heavens_,
therefore, is to restrain the rain from descending, or to produce a
drought. Comp. Notes on Ja. v. 17. ¶ _That it rain not in the days of
their prophecy._ In the time when they prophesy. Probably the allusion
here is to what is said of Elijah, 1 Ki. xvii. 1. This would properly
refer to some miraculous power; but still it _may_ be used to denote
merely that they would be clothed with the power of causing blessings
to be withheld from men, _as if_ rain were withheld; that is, that in
consequence of the calamities that would be brought upon them, and the
persecutions which they would endure, God would bring judgments upon
men as if _they_ were clothed with this power. The language, therefore,
it seems to me, does not necessarily imply that they would have the
power of working miracles. ¶ _And have power over waters to turn them
to blood._ The allusion here is doubtless to what occurred in Egypt,
Ex. vii. 17. Comp. Notes on Re. viii. 8. This, too, would literally
denote the power of working a miracle; but still it is not absolutely
necessary to suppose that this is intended. Anything that would be
_represented_ by turning waters into blood, would correspond with all
that is necessarily implied in the language. If any great calamity
should occur in consequence of what was done to them that would be
properly represented by turning the waters into blood so that they
could not be used, and that was so connected with the treatment which
they received as to appear to be a judgment of heaven on that account,
or that would appear to have come upon the world in consequence of
their imprecations, it would be all that is necessarily implied in this
language. ¶ _And to {277} smite the earth with all plagues._ All kinds
of plague or calamity; disease, pestilence, famine, flood, &c. The word
_plague_――πληγῇ――which means, properly, _stroke_, _stripe_, _blow_,
would include any or all of these. The meaning here is, that great
calamities would follow the manner in which they were treated, _as if_
the power were lodged in their hands. ¶ _As often as they will._ So
that it would seem that they could exercise this power as they pleased.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony [345]the
beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall [346]make
war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

7. _And when they shall have finished their testimony._ Professor
Stuart renders this, “And whenever they shall have finished their
testimony.” The reference is undoubtedly to a period when they should
have faithfully borne the testimony which they were appointed to
bear. The word here rendered “shall have finished”――τελέσωσι, from
τελέω――means properly to end, to finish, to complete, to accomplish. It
is used, in this respect, in two senses――either in regard to _time_ or
in regard to the _end_ or _object in view_, in the sense of _perfecting
it_, or _accomplishing it_. In the former sense it is employed in
such passages as the following:――“Till the thousand years should
be _fulfilled_,” Re. xx. 3. “Ye shall not have gone over the cities
of Israel [Gr., ye shall not have _finished_ the cities of Israel]
till the Son of man be come,” Mat. x. 23; that is, ye shall not have
finished passing through them. “When Jesus had made an end [Gr.,
_finished_] of commanding his twelve disciples,” Mat. xi. 1. “I have
_finished_ my course,” 2 Ti. iv. 7. In these passages it clearly
refers to _time_. In the other sense it is used in such places as the
following:――“And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it
_fulfil_ the law,” Ro. ii. 27; that is, if it accomplish or come up to
the demands of the law. “If ye _fulfil_ the royal law according to the
scriptures,” Ja. ii. 8. The word, then, may here refer not to _time_,
meaning that these events would occur at the _end_ of the “thousand two
hundred and threescore days,” but to the fact that what is here stated
would occur when they had completed their testimony in the sense of
having testified all that they were _appointed_ to testify; that is,
when they had borne full witness for God, and fully uttered his truth.
Thus understood, the meaning here may be that the event here referred
to would take place, not at the _end_ of the 1260 years, but at that
period _during_ the 1260 years when it could be said with propriety
that they had accomplished their testimony in the world, or that they
had borne full and ample witness on the points intrusted to them.
¶ _The beast._ This is the first time in the book of Revelation in
which what is here called “the beast” is mentioned, and which has so
important an agency in the events which it is said would occur. It is
repeatedly mentioned in the course of the book, and always with similar
characteristics, and as referring to the same object. Here it is
mentioned as “ascending out of the bottomless pit;” in ch. xiii. 1,
as “rising up out of the sea;” in ch. xiii. 11, as “coming up out of
the earth.” It is also mentioned with characteristics appropriate to
such an origin, in ch. xiii. 2‒4 (twice), 11, 12 (twice), 14 (twice),
15 (twice), 17, 18; xiv. 9, 11; xv. 2; xvi. 2, 10, 13; xvii. 3, 7,
8 (twice), 11, 12, 13, 16, 17; xix. 19, 20 (twice); xx. 4, 40. The word
here used――θηρίον――means properly _a beast, a wild beast_, Mar. i. 13;
Ac. x. 12; xi. 6; xxviii. 4, 5; He. xii. 20; Ja. iii. 7; Re. vi. 8.
It is once used tropically of brutal or savage men, Tit. i. 12.
Elsewhere, in the passages above referred to in the Apocalypse, it
is used symbolically. As employed in the book of Revelation, the
characteristics of the “beast” are strongly marked. (a) It has its
_origin_ from beneath――in the bottomless pit; the sea; the earth, ch.
xi. 7; xiii. 1, 11. (b) It has great _power_, ch. xiii. 4, 12; xvii.
12, 13. (c) It claims and receives worship, ch. xiii. 3, 12, 14, 15;
xiv. 9, 11. (d) It has a certain “seat” or throne from whence its
power proceeds, ch. xvi. 10. (e) It is of scarlet colour, ch. xvii. 3.
(f) It receives power conferred upon it by the kings of the earth,
ch. xvii. 13. (g) It has a mark by which it is known, ch. xiii. 17;
xix. 20. (h) It has a certain “_number_;” that is, there are certain
mystical letters or figures which so express its name that it may be
known, ch. xiii. 17, 18. These things serve to characterize the “beast”
as distinguished from all other things, and they are so numerous and
definite, {278} that it would seem to have been intended to make it
easy to understand what was meant when the power referred to should
appear. In regard to the _origin_ of the imagery here, there can be
no reasonable doubt that it is to be traced to Daniel, and that the
writer here means to describe the same “beast” which Daniel refers to
in ch. vii. 7. The evidence of this must be clear to anyone who will
compare the description in Daniel (ch. vii.) with the minute details
in the book of Revelation. No one, I think, can doubt that John
means to carry forward the description in Daniel, and to apply it to
new manifestations of the same great and terrific power――the power
of the fourth monarchy――on the earth. For full evidence that the
representation in Daniel refers to the Roman power prolonged and
perpetuated in the Papal dominion, I must refer the reader to the Notes
on Da. vii. 25. It may be assumed here that the opinion there defended
is correct, and consequently it may be assumed that the “beast” of this
book refers to the Papal power. ¶ _That ascendeth out of the bottomless
pit._ See Notes on ch. ix. 1. This would properly mean that its origin
is the nether world; or that it will have characteristics which will
show that it was from beneath. The meaning clearly is, that what was
symbolized by the beast would have such characteristics as to show
that it was not of divine origin, but had its source in the world of
darkness, sin, and death. This, of course, could not represent the true
church, or any civil government that is founded on principles which God
approves. But if it represent a community pretending to be a church,
it is an apostate church; if a civil community, it is a community
the characteristics of which are that it is controlled by the spirit
that rules over the world beneath. For reasons which we shall see in
abundance in applying the descriptions which occur of the “beast,” I
regard this as referring to that great apostate power which occupies
so much of the prophetic descriptions――the Papacy. ¶ _Shall make
war against them._ Will endeavour to exterminate them by force. This
clearly is not intended to be a general statement that they would
be _persecuted_, but to refer to the particular manner in which the
opposition would be conducted. It would be in the form of “_war_;”
that is, there would be an effort to destroy them by arms. ¶ _And shall
overcome them._ Shall gain the victory over them; conquer them――νικήσει
αὐτοὺς. That is, there will be some signal victory in which those
represented by the two witnesses will be subdued. ¶ _And kill them._
That is, an effect would be produced _as if_ they were put to death.
They would be overcome; would be silenced; would be apparently dead.
Any event that would cause them to cease to bear testimony, _as if_
they were dead, would be properly represented by this. It would not be
necessary to suppose that there would be literally _death_ in the case,
but that there would be some event which would be well represented _by_
death――such as an entire suspension of their prophesying in consequence
of force.

8 And their [347]dead bodies _shall lie_ in the street of
the great city, which spiritually is called [348]Sodom and
[349]Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

8. _And their dead bodies |shall lie| in the street._ Professor Stuart,
“Shall be in the street.” The words “shall lie” are supplied by the
translators, but not improperly. The literal rendering would be, “and
their corpses upon the street of the great city;” and the meaning is,
that there would be a state of things in regard to them which would
be well represented by supposing them to lie unburied. To leave a body
unburied is to treat it with contempt, and among the ancients nothing
was regarded as more dishonourable than such treatment. See the
_Ajax_ of Sophocles. Among the Jews also it was regarded as a special
indignity to leave the dead unburied, and hence they are always
represented as deeply solicitous to secure the interment of their dead.
See Ge. xxiii. 4. Comp. 2 Sa. xxi. 9‒13; Ec. vi. 3; Is. xiv. 18‒20;
xxii. 16; liii. 9. The meaning here is, that, for the time specified,
those who are here referred to would be treated with indignity and
contempt. In the fulfilment of this, we are not, of course, to look
for any _literal_ accomplishment of what is here said, but for some
treatment of the “witnesses” which would be well represented by this;
that is, which would show that they were treated, after they were
silenced, like unburied corpses putrefying in the sun. ¶ _Of {279}
the great city._ Where these transactions would occur. As a great city
would be the agent in putting them to death, so the result would be
_as if_ they were publicly exposed in its streets. The word “great”
here supposes that the city referred to would be distinguished for
its size――a circumstance of some importance in determining the place
referred to. ¶ _Which spiritually is called_――πνευματικῶς. This word
occurs only in one other place in the New Testament, 1 Co. ii. 14,
“because they are _spiritually_ discerned”――where it means, “in
accordance with the Holy Spirit,” or “through the aid of the Holy
Spirit.” Here it seems to be used in the sense of _metaphorically_, or
_allegorically_, in contradistinction from the literal and real name.
There may possibly be an intimation here that the city is so called
by the Holy Spirit to designate its real character, but still the
essential meaning is, that that was not its literal name. For some
reason the real name is not given to it; but such descriptions are
applied as are designed to leave no doubt as to what is intended.
¶ _Sodom._ Sodom was distinguished for its wickedness, and especially
for that vice to which its abominations have given name. For the
character of Sodom, see Ge. xviii., xix. Comp. 2 Pe. ii. 6. In
inquiring what “city” is here referred to, it would be necessary
to find in it such abominations as characterized Sodom, or so much
wickedness that it would be proper to call it Sodom. If it shall
be found that this was designed to refer to Papal Rome, no one can
doubt that the abominations which prevailed there would justify such
an appellation. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21. ¶ _And Egypt._ That
is, it would have such a character that the _name_ Egypt might be
properly given to it. Egypt is known in the Scriptures as the land
of oppression――the land where the Israelites, the people of God, were
held in cruel bondage. Comp. Ex. i.‒xv. See also Eze. xxiii. 8. The
particular idea, then, which seems to be conveyed here is, that the
“city” referred to would be characterized by acts of oppression and
wrong towards the people of God. So far as the _language_ is concerned,
it might apply either to Jerusalem or to Rome――for both were eminently
characterized by such acts of oppression toward the true children of
God as to make it proper to compare their cruelties with those which
were inflicted on the Israelites by the Egyptians. Of whichever of
these places the course of the exposition may require us to understand
this, it will be seen at once that the language is such as is strictly
applicable to either; though, as the reference is rather to Christians
than to the ancient people of God, it must be admitted that it would
be most natural to refer it to Rome. More acts authorizing persecution,
and designed to crush the true people of God, have gone forth from
Rome than from any other city on the face of the earth; and taking
the history of the church together, there is no place that would be
so properly designated by the term here employed. ¶ _Where also our
Lord was crucified._ If this refers to Jerusalem, it is to be taken
literally; if to another city, it is to be understood as meaning that
he was _practically_ crucified there: that is, that the treatment of
his friends――his church――was such that it might be said that he was
“crucified afresh” there; for what is done to his church may be said to
be done to him. Either of these interpretations would be justified by
the use of the language. Thus in He. vi. 6, it is said of apostates
from the true faith (comp. Notes on the passage), that “they crucify
to themselves the Son of God _afresh_.” If the passage before us is
to be taken figuratively, the meaning is, that acts would be performed
which might properly be represented as crucifying the Son of God; that,
as he lives in his church, the acts of perverting his doctrines, and
persecuting his people, would be, in fact, an act of crucifying the
Lord again. Thus understood, the language is strictly applicable to
Rome; that is, if it is admitted that John _meant_ to characterize
that city, he has employed such language as a Jewish Christian would
naturally use. While, therefore, it must be admitted that the language
is such as could be _literally_ applied only to Jerusalem, it is still
true that it is such language as might be figuratively applied to
any other city strongly resembling that, and that in this sense it
would characterize Rome above all other cities of the world. The
common reading of the text here is “_our_ Lord”――ἡμῶν; the text now
regarded as correct, however (Griesbach, Tittmann, Hahn), is “_their_
Lord”――αὐτῶν. This makes no essential difference in the sense, except
that it directs the attention more particularly to the fact that they
were treated like their own Master.

9 And they of the people, and kindreds, and tongues, and
nations, shall [350]see their dead bodies three days and an
half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in
graves.

{280} 9. _And they of the people._ Some of the people; a part of the
people――ἐκ τῶν λαῶν. The language is such as would be employed to
describe a scene where a considerable portion of a company of people
should be referred to, without intending to include all. The essential
idea is, that there would be an assemblage of different classes of
people to whom their carcasses would be exposed, and that they would
come and look upon them. We should expect to find the fulfilment of
this in some place where, from any cause, a variety of people should be
assembled――as in some capital, or some commercial city, to which they
would be naturally attracted. ¶ _Shall see their dead bodies._ That is,
a state of things will occur _as if_ these witnesses were put to death,
and their carcasses were publicly exposed. ¶ _Three days and an half._
This might be either literally three days and a half, or, more in
accordance with the usual style of this book, these would be prophetic
days; that is, three years and a half. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 5, 15.
¶ _And shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves._ That
is, there would be a course of conduct in regard to these witnesses
such as would be shown to the dead if they were not suffered to be
decently interred. The language used here――“_shall not suffer_”――seems
to imply that there would be those who might be disposed to show them
the respect evinced by interring the dead, but that this would not be
permitted. This would find a fulfilment if, in a time of persecution,
those who had borne faithful testimony were silenced and treated with
dishonour, and if there should be those who were disposed to show them
respect, but who would be prevented by positive acts on the part of
their persecutors. This has often been the case in persecution, and
there could be no difficulty in finding numerous instances in the
history of the church to which this language would be applicable.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them,
and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because
these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

10. _And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them._
Those dwelling in the land would rejoice over their fall and ruin. This
cannot, of course, mean _all_ who inhabit the globe; but, according to
the usage in Scripture, those who dwell in the country where this would
occur. Comp. Notes on Lu. ii. 1. We now affix to the word “earth” an
idea which was not necessarily implied in the Hebrew word אֶרֶץ _ērĕtz_
(comp. Ex. iii. 8; xiii. 5; De. xix. 2, 10; xxviii. 12; Ne. ix. 22;
Ps. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29; lxvi. 4; Pr. ii. 21; x. 30; Joel i. 2); or
the Greek word γῆ――_gē_, comp. Mat. ii. 6, 20, 21; xiv. 15; Ac. vii. 7,
11, 36, 40; xiii. 17. Our word _land_, as now commonly understood,
would better express the idea intended to be conveyed here; and thus
understood, the meaning is, that the dwellers in the country where
these things would happen would thus rejoice. The meaning is, that
while alive they would, by their faithful testimony against existing
errors, excite so much hatred against themselves, and would be so
great an annoyance to the governing powers, that there would be general
exultation when the voice of their testimony should be silenced. This,
too, has been so common in the world that there would be no difficulty
in applying the _language_ here used, or in finding events which it
would appropriately describe. ¶ _And make merry._ Be glad. See Notes
on Lu. xii. 19; xv. 23. The Greek word does not necessarily denote the
light-hearted mirth expressed by our word _merriment_, but rather joy
or happiness in general. The meaning is, that they would be filled
with joy at such an event. ¶ _And shall send gifts one to another._ As
expressive of their joy. To send presents is a natural expression of
our own happiness, and our desire for the happiness of others――as is
indicated now by “Christmas” and “New Year’s gifts.” Comp. also Ne.
viii. 10‒12: “Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and
drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is
prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry;
for the joy of the Lord is your {281} strength,” &c. See also Es. ix.
19‒22. ¶ _Because these two prophets tormented them that dwell on the
earth._ They “tormented” them, or were a source of annoyance to them,
by bearing testimony to the truth; by opposing the prevailing errors;
and by rebuking the vices of the age: perhaps by demanding reformation,
and by denouncing the judgment of heaven on the guilty. There is
no intimation that they tormented them in any other way than by the
truths which they held forth. See the word explained in the Notes on
2 Pe. ii. 8.

11 And after three days and an half the [351]Spirit of life
from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet;
and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

11. _And after three days and an half._ See Notes on ver. 9.
¶ _The Spirit of life from God._ The living, or life-giving Spirit
that proceeds from God entered into them. Comp. Notes on Job xxxiii. 4.
There is evidently allusion here to Ge. ii. 7, where God is spoken of
as the Author of life. The meaning is, that they would seem to come to
life again, or that effects would follow _as if_ the dead were restored
to life. If, when they had been compelled to cease from prophesying,
they should, after the interval here denoted by three days and a half,
again prophesy, or their testimony should be again borne to the truth
as it had been before, this would evidently be all that would be
implied in the language here employed. ¶ _Entered into them._ Seemed to
animate them again. ¶ _And they stood upon their feet._ As if they had
come to life again. ¶ _And great fear fell upon them which saw them._
This would be true if those who were dead should be literally restored
to life; and this would be the effect if those who had given great
annoyance by their doctrines, and who had been silenced, and who
_seemed_ to be dead, should again, as if animated anew by a divine
power, begin to prophesy, or to proclaim their doctrines to the world.
The statement in the symbol is, that those who had put them to death
had been greatly troubled by these “witnesses;” that they had sought
to silence them, and in order to this had put them to death; that they
then greatly rejoiced, as if they would no more be annoyed by them.
The fact that they seemed to come to life again would, therefore, fill
them with consternation, for they would anticipate a renewal of their
troubles, and they would see in this fact evidence of the divine favour
towards those whom they persecuted, and reason to apprehend divine
vengeance on themselves.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them,
Come up hither. And they [352]ascended up to heaven in a cloud;
and [353]their enemies beheld them.

12. _And they heard a great voice from heaven._ Some manuscripts read,
“I heard”――ἤκουσα――but the more approved reading is that of the common
text. John says that a voice was addressed to _them_ calling them to
ascend to heaven. ¶ _Come up hither._ To heaven. ¶ _And they ascended
up to heaven in a cloud._ So the Saviour ascended, Ac. i. 9; and so
probably Elijah, 2 Ki. ii. 11. ¶ _And their enemies beheld them._
That is, it was done openly, so that their enemies, who had put them
to death, saw that they were approved of God, _as if_ they had been
publicly taken up to heaven. It is not necessary to suppose that
this would literally occur. All this is, manifestly, mere symbol.
The meaning is, that they would triumph _as if_ they should ascend
to heaven, and be received into the presence of God. The sense of the
whole is, that these witnesses, after bearing a faithful testimony
against prevailing errors and sins, would be persecuted and silenced;
that for a considerable period their voice of faithful testimony would
be hushed as if they were dead; that during that period they would be
treated with contempt and scorn, as if their unburied bodies should be
exposed to the public gaze; that there would be general exultation and
joy that they were thus silenced; that they would again revive, as if
the dead were restored to life, and bear a faithful testimony to the
truth again; and that they would have the divine attestation in their
favour, _as if_ they were raised up visibly and publicly to heaven.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the
tenth part[354] of the city fell, and in the earthquake
were slain [355]of men seven thousand: and the remnant were
affrighted, and [356]gave glory to the God of heaven.

13. _And the same hour._ In immediate connection with their triumph.
¶ _Was there a great earthquake._ An earthquake {282} is a symbol
of commotion, agitation, change; of great political revolutions, &c.
See Notes on ch. vi. 12. The meaning here is, that the triumph of the
witnesses, represented by their ascending to heaven, would be followed
by such revolutions as would be properly symbolized by an earthquake.
¶ _And the tenth part of the city fell._ That is, the tenth part of
that which is represented by the “city”――the persecuting power. A city
would be the seat and centre of the power, and the acts of persecution
would seem to proceed from it; but the destruction, we may suppose,
would extend to all that was represented by the persecuting power.
The word “tenth” is probably used in a general sense to denote that a
considerable portion of the persecuting power would be thus involved
in ruin; that is, that in respect to that power there would be such a
revolution, such a convulsion or commotion, such a loss, that it would
be proper to represent it by an earthquake. ¶ _And in the earthquake._
In the convulsions consequent on what would occur to the witnesses.
¶ _Were slain of men seven thousand._ Marg., as in the Greek, “names
of men”――the name being used to denote the men themselves. The number
here mentioned――seven thousand――seems to have been suggested because
it would bear some proportion to the tenth part of the city which fell.
It is not necessary to suppose, in seeking for the fulfilment of this,
that just seven thousand would be killed; but the idea clearly is,
that there would be such a diminution of numbers as would be well
represented by a calamity that would overwhelm a tenth part of the
city, such as the apostle had in his eye, and a proportional number
of the inhabitants. The number that would be slain, therefore, in the
convulsions and changes consequent on the treatment of the witnesses,
might be numerically much larger than seven thousand, and might be as
great as if a tenth part of all that were represented by the “city”
should be swept away. ¶ _And the remnant were affrighted._ Fear and
alarm came on them in consequence of these calamities. The “remnant”
here refers to those who still remained in the “city”――that is,
to those who belonged to the community or people designed to be
represented here by the city. ¶ _And gave glory to the God of heaven._
Comp. Lu. v. 26: “And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and
were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to-day.” All
that seems to be meant by this is, that they stood in awe at what God
was doing, and acknowledged his power in the changes that occurred.
It does not mean, necessarily, that they would repent and become truly
his friends, but that there would be a prevailing impression that
these changes were produced by his power, and that his hand was in
these things. This would be fulfilled if there should be a general
willingness among mankind to acknowledge God, or to recognize his hand
in the events referred to; if there should be a disposition extensively
prevailing to regard the “witnesses” as on the side of God, and to
favour their cause as one of truth and righteousness; and if these
convulsions should so far change public sentiment as to produce an
impression that theirs was the cause of God.

14 The [357]second woe is past; _and_, behold, the third woe
cometh quickly.

14. _The second woe is past._ That is, the second of the three
that were announced as yet to come, ch. viii. 13; comp. ch. ix. 12.
¶ _|And|, behold, the third woe cometh quickly._ The last of the series.
The meaning is, that that which was signified by the third “woe” would
be the next, and final event, in order. On the meaning of the word
“_quickly_,” see Notes on ch. i. 1; comp. ii. 5, 16; iii. 11; xxii. 7,
12, 20.

In reference now to the important question about the application of
this portion of the book of Revelation, it need hardly be said that the
greatest variety of opinion has prevailed among expositors. It would
be equally unprofitable, humiliating, and discouraging to attempt to
enumerate all the opinions which have been held; and I must refer the
reader who has any desire to become acquainted with them to Poole’s
_Synopsis_, _in loco_, and to the copious statement of Professor Stuart,
_Com._ {283} vol. ii. pp. 219‒227. Professor Stuart himself supposes
that the meaning is, that “a competent number of divinely-commissioned
and faithful Christian witnesses, endowed with miraculous powers,
should bear testimony against the corrupt Jews, during the last days
of their commonwealth, respecting their sins; that they should proclaim
the truths of the gospel; and that the Jews, by destroying them,
would bring upon themselves an aggravated and an awful doom,” ii. 226.
Instead of attempting to examine in detail the opinions which have been
held, I shall rather state what seems to me to be the fair application
of the language used, in accordance with the principles pursued thus
far in the exposition. The inquiry is, whether there have been any
events to which this language is applicable, or in reference to which,
if it be admitted that it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration
to describe them, it may be supposed that such language would be
employed as we find here.

In this inquiry it may be assumed that the preceding exposition
is correct, and the application now to be made must accord with
that――that is, it must be found that events occurred in such times and
circumstances as would be consistent with the supposition that that
exposition is correct. It is to be assumed, therefore, that ch. ix. 20,
21, refers to the state of the ecclesiastical world after the conquest
of Constantinople by the Turks, and previous to the Reformation; that
ch. x. refers to the Reformation itself; that ch. xi. 1, 2, refers to
the necessity, at the time of the Reformation, of ascertaining what
was the true church, of reviving the Scripture doctrine respecting
the atonement and justification, and of drawing correct lines as to
membership in the church. All this has reference, according to this
interpretation, to the state of the church while the Papacy would have
the ascendency, or during the twelve hundred and sixty years in which
it would trample down the church _as if_ the holy city were in the
hands of the Gentiles. Assuming this to be the correct exposition, then
what is here said (ver. 3‒13) must relate to that period, for it is
with reference to that same time――the period of “a thousand two hundred
and threescore days,” or twelve hundred and sixty years――that it is
said (ver. 3) the witnesses would “prophesy,” “clothed in sackcloth.”
If this be so, then what is here stated (ver. 3‒13) must be supposed to
occur during the ascendency of the Papacy, and must mean, in general,
that during that long period of apostasy, darkness, corruption, and
sin, there would be faithful witnesses for the truth, who, though they
were few in number, would be sufficient to keep up the knowledge of the
truth on the earth, and to bear testimony against the prevailing errors
and abominations. The _object_ of this portion of the book, therefore,
is to describe the character of the faithful witnesses for the truth
during this long period of darkness; to state their influence; to
record their trials; and to show what would be the ultimate result in
regard to them, when their “testimony” should become triumphant. This
general view will be seen to accord with the exposition of the previous
portion of the book, and will be sustained, I trust, by the more
particular inquiry into the application of the passage to which I now
proceed. The essential points in the passage (ver. 3‒13) respecting
the “witnesses” are six: (1) who are meant by the witnesses; (2) the
war made on them; (3) their death; (4) their resurrection; (5) their
reception into heaven; and (6) the consequences of their triumph in the
calamity that came upon the city.

I. Who are meant by the witnesses, ver. 3‒6. There are several
specifications in regard to this point which it is necessary to notice.
(a) The fact that, during this long period of error, corruption, and
sin, there were those who were faithful witnesses for the truth――men
who opposed the prevailing errors; who maintained the great doctrines
of the Christian faith; and who were ready to lay down their lives
in defence of the truth. For a full confirmation of this it would be
necessary to trace the history of the church down from the rise of the
Papal power through the long lapse of the subsequent ages; but such an
examination would be far too extensive for the purpose contemplated in
these Notes, and, indeed, would require a volume by itself. Happily,
this has already been done; and all that is necessary now is to
refer to the works where the fact here affirmed has been abundantly
established. In many of the histories of the church――Mosheim, Neander,
Milner, Milman, Gïeseler――most ample proof may be found, that amidst

the general darkness and corruption {284} there were those who
faithfully adhered to the truth as it is in Jesus, and who, amidst
many sufferings, bore their testimony against prevailing errors.
The investigation has been made, also, with special reference to an
illustration of this passage, by Mr. Elliott, _Horæ Apoca_. vol. ii.
pp. 193‒406; and although it must be admitted that some of the details
are of doubtful applicability, yet the _main_ fact is abundantly
established, that during that long period there were “witnesses”
for the pure truths of the gospel, and a faithful testimony
borne against the abominations and errors of the Papacy. These
“witnesses” are divided by Mr. Elliott into (1) the earlier Western
witnesses――embracing such men, and their followers, as Serenus,
bishop of Marseilles; the Anglo-Saxon church in England;[358] Agobard,
archbishop of Lyons from A.D. 810 to 841, on the one side of the Alps,
and Claude of Turin on the other; Gotteschalcus, A.D. 884; Berenger,
Arnold of Brescia, Peter de Bruys, and his disciple Henry, and then
the Waldenses. (2) The Eastern, or Paulikian line of witnesses, a sect
deriving their origin, about A.D. 653, from an Armenian by the name
of Constantine, who received from a deacon, by whom he was hospitably
entertained, a present of two volumes, very rare, one containing the
Gospels, and the other the Epistles of Paul, and who applied himself
to the formation of a new sect or church, distinct from the Manicheans,
and from the Greek Church. In token of the nature of their profession,
they adopted the name by which they were ever after distinguished,
Paulikiani, _Paulicians_, or “disciples of the disciple of Paul.”
This sect continued to bear “testimony” in the East from the time of
its rise till the eleventh or twelfth centuries, when it commenced
a migration to the West, where it bore the same honourable character
for its attachment to the truth. See Elliott, ii. 233‒246, 275‒315.
(3) Witnesses during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, up to the time
of Peter Waldo. Among these are to be noticed those who were arraigned
for heresy before the councils of Orleans, Arras, Thoulouse, Oxford,
and Lombers, in the years 1022, 1025, 1119, 1160, 1165, respectively,
and who were condemned by those councils for their departure from the
doctrines held by the Papacy. For a full illustration of the doctrines
held by those who were thus condemned, and of the fact that they were
“witnesses” for the truth, see Elliott, ii. 247‒275. (4) The Waldenses
and Albigenses. The nature of the testimony borne by these persecuted
people is so well known that it is not necessary to dwell on the
subject; and a full statement of their testimony would require the
entire transcription of their history. No Protestant will doubt that
they were “witnesses” for the truth, or that from the time of their
rise, through all the periods of their persecution, they bore full
and honourable testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus. The general
ground of this claim to be regarded as Apocalyptic witnesses, will be
seen from the following summary statements of their doctrines. Those
statements are found in a work called _The Noble Lesson_, written
within some twenty years of 1170. The treatise begins in this manner:
“O brethren, hear a Noble Lesson. We ought always to watch and pray,”
&c. In this treatise the following doctrines are drawn out, says
Mr. Elliott, “with much simplicity and beauty: the origin of sin in the
fall of Adam; its transmission to all men, and the offered redemption
from it through the death of Jesus Christ; the union and co-operation
of the three persons of the blessed Trinity in man’s salvation; the
obligation and spirituality of the moral law under the gospel; the
duties of prayer, watchfulness, self-denial, unworldliness, humility,
love, as ‘the way of Jesus Christ;’ their enforcement by the prospect
of death and judgment, and the world’s near ending; by the narrowness,
too, of the way of life, and the fewness of those who find it; as also
by the hope of coming glory at the judgment and revelation of Jesus
Christ. Besides which we find in it a protest against the Romish system
generally, as one of soul-destroying idolatry; against masses for the
dead, and therein against the whole doctrine of purgatory; against the
system of the confessional, and asserted power of the priesthood to
absolve from sin; this last point being insisted on as the most deadly
point of heresy, and its origin referred to the mercenariness of the

priesthood, {285} and their love of money;――the iniquity further
noticed of the Romish persecutions of good men and teachers that
wished to teach the way of Jesus Christ; and the suspicion half-hinted,
and apparently half-formed, that, though a personal Antichrist might
be expected, yet Popery itself might be one form of Antichrist.” In
another work, the _Treatise of Antichrist_, there is a strong and
decided identification of the Antichristian system and the Papacy. This
was written probably in the last quarter of the fourteenth century.
“From this,” says Mr. Elliott (ii. 355), “the following will appear
to have been the Waldensian views: that the Papal or Romish system was
that of Antichrist; which, from infancy in apostolic times, had grown
gradually by the increase of its constituent parts to the stature of
a full-grown man; that its prominent characteristics were――to defraud
God of the worship due to Him, rendering it to creatures, whether
departed saints, relics, images, or Antichrist;――to defraud Christ,
by attributing justification and forgiveness to Antichrist’s authority
and words, to saints’ intercession, to the merits of men’s own
performances, and to the fire of purgatory;――to defraud the Holy Spirit,
by attributing regeneration and sanctification to the _opus operatum_ of
the two sacraments; that the origin of this Antichristian religion was
the covetousness of the priesthood; its tendency, to lead men away from
Christ; its essence, a ceremonial; its foundation, the false notion
of grace and forgiveness.” This work is so important as a “testimony”
against Antichrist, and for the truth, and is so clear as showing that
the Papacy was regarded as Antichrist, that I will copy, from the work
itself, the portion containing these sentiments――sentiments which may
be regarded as expressing the uniform testimony of the Waldenses on the
subject:――

“Antichrist is the falsehood of eternal damnation, covered with the
appearance of the truth and righteousness of Christ and his spouse. The
iniquity of such a system is with all his ministers, great and small:
and inasmuch as they follow the law of an evil and blinded heart, such
a congregation, taken together, is called Antichrist, or Babylon, or
the Fourth Beast, or the Harlot, or the Man of Sin, who is the son of
perdition.

“His first work is, that the service of _latria_, properly due to
God alone, he perverts unto Antichrist himself and to his doings; to
the poor creature, rational or irrational, sensible or insensible;
as, for instance, to male or female saints departed this life, and to
their images, or carcasses, or relics. His doings are the sacraments,
especially that of the Eucharist, which he worships equally with God
and Christ, prohibiting the adoration of God alone.

“His second work is, that he robs and deprives Christ of the merits
of Christ, with the whole sufficiency of grace, and justification,
and regeneration, and remission of sins, and sanctification, and
confirmation, and spiritual nourishment; and imputes and attributes
them to his own authority, or to a form of words, or to his own
performances, or to the saints and their intercession, or to the fire
of purgatory. Thus he divides the people from Christ, and leads them
away to the things already mentioned; that so they may seek not the
things of Christ, nor through Christ, but only the work of their own
hands; not through a living faith in God, and Jesus Christ, and the
Holy Spirit; but through the will and the work of Antichrist, agreeably
to the preaching that man’s salvation depends on his own deeds.

“His third work is, that he attributes the regeneration of the Holy
Spirit to a dead outward faith; baptizing children in that faith, and
teaching that by the mere outward consecration of baptism regeneration
may be procured.

“His fourth work is, that he rests the whole religion of the people
upon his Mass; for leading them to hear it, he deprives them of
spiritual and sacramental manducation.

“His fifth work is, that he does everything to be seen, and to glut his
insatiable avarice.

“His sixth work is, that he allows manifest sins without ecclesiastical
censure.

“His seventh work is, that he defends his unity, not by the Holy Spirit,
but by the secular power.

“His eighth work is, that he hates, and persecutes, and searches after,
and robs and destroys the members of Christ.

“These things, and many others, are the cloak and vestment of
Antichrist; by which he covers his lying wickedness, lest he should be
rejected as a heathen. {286} But there is no other cause of idolatry
than a false opinion of grace, and truth, and authority, and invocation,
and intercession; which this Antichrist has taken away from God, and
which he has ascribed to ceremonies, and authorities, and a man’s own
works, and to saints, and to purgatory” (Elliott, ii. 354, 355).

It is impossible not to be struck with the application of this
to the Papacy, and no one can doubt that the Papacy was intended
to be referred to. And, if this be so, this was a bold and decided
“testimony” against the abominations of that system, and they who bore
this testimony deserved to be regarded as “witnesses” for Christ and
his truth.

If to the “testimony” thus briefly referred to, we add that of
such men as Wycliffe, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, and then that
of the Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Zuingle, Melancthon, and their
fellow-labourers, we can see with what propriety it was predicted
that even during the prevalence of the great apostasy there would
be a competent number of “witnesses” to keep up the knowledge of
the truth in the world. And supposing that this is what was designed
to be represented, it is easy to perceive that the symbol which is
employed is admirably appropriate. The design of what is here said
is merely to show that during the whole of the period of the Papal
apostasy――whenever it may be supposed to have begun, and whenever
it shall cease, it is and will be true that the Saviour has had
true “witnesses” on the earth――that there have been those who have
“testified” against these abominations, and who, often at great
personal peril and sacrifice, have borne a faithful testimony for the
truth.

(b) The number of the witnesses. In ver. 3, this is said to be “two,”
and this has been shown to mean that there would be a _competent_
number, yet probably with the implied idea that the number would not be
large. The only question then is, whether, in looking through this long
period, it would be found that, according to the established laws of
testimony under the divine code, there was a _competent_ number to bear
witness to the truth. And of this no one can doubt, for, in respect to
each and every part of the period of the great apostasy, it is possible
now to show that there was a sufficient number of the true friends of

the Redeemer to testify against all the great and cardinal errors of
the Papacy. This simple and obvious interpretation of the language,
it may be added, also, makes wholly unnecessary and inappropriate all
the efforts which have been made by expositors to find precisely _two_
such witnesses, or _two_ churches or people with whom the line of the
faithful testimony was preserved: all such interpretations as that
the Old and New Testaments are referred to, as Melchior, Affelman, and
Croly suppose; or that preachers are referred to who are instructed by
the Law and the Gospel, as Pannonius and Thomas Aquinas, supposed; or
that Christ and John the Baptist are referred to, as Ubertinus supposed;
or that Pope Sylvester and Mena, who wrote against the Eutychians, are
meant, as Lyranus and Ederus supposed; or that Francis and Dominic,
the respective heads of two orders of monks, are intended, as Cornelius
à Lapide supposed; or that the great _wisdom_ and _sanctity_ of the
primitive preachers are meant, as Alcassar maintained; or that John
Huss and Luther, or John Huss and Jerome of Prague, or the Waldenses
and Albigenses, or the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Ælia, are
intended, as others have supposed. According to the obvious and fair
meaning of the language, all this is mere fancy, and can illustrate
nothing but the fertility of invention of those who have written on
the Apocalypse. All that is necessarily implied is, that the number
of true and uncorrupted followers of the Saviour has been at all times
sufficiently large to bear _a competent testimony_ to the world, or to
keep up the remembrance of the truth upon the earth――and the reality of
this no one acquainted with the history of the church will doubt.

(c) The condition of the “witnesses” as “clothed in sackcloth,” ver. 3.
This has been shown to mean that they would be in a state of sadness
and grief; and they would be exposed to trouble and persecution. It is
unnecessary to prove that all this was abundantly fulfilled. The long
history of those times was a history of persecutions; and if it be
admitted that the passage before us was designed to refer to those
above mentioned as “witnesses,” no more correct description could be
given of them than to say that they were “clothed in sackcloth.”

{287} (d) The power of the witnesses, ver. 5, 6. Of this there are
several specifications. (1) They had power over those who should injure
or hurt them, ver. 5. This is represented by “fire proceeding out
of their mouth, and devouring their enemies.” This has been shown to
refer to the doctrines which they would proclaim, and the denunciations
which they would utter, and which would resemble consuming fire. This
would be accomplished or fulfilled if their solemn testimony――their
proclamations of truth――and their denunciations of the wrath of God
should have the effect ultimately to bring down the divine vengeance
on their persecutors. And no one can doubt that this has had an ample
fulfilment. That is, the effect of the testimony borne; of the solemn
appeals made; of the denunciations of the judgment of heaven, has
been to show that that great persecuting power that oppressed them is
arrayed against God, and must be finally overthrown. In order to see
the complete fulfilment of this, it would be necessary to trace all the
effect of the testimony of the witnesses for the truth from age to age
on that power, and to see how far it has been among the causes of the
ultimate and final overthrow of the Papacy. Of course, it may be said
that in an important sense it is _all_ to be traced to that, since if
they had forborne to bear that testimony, and to protest against those
corruptions and abominations, that colossal power would have stood
unshaken. But the solemn appeals made from age to age by the friends
of truth, amidst much persecution, have contributed to weaken that
power, and to prepare the world for its ultimate fall――as if fire from
heaven fell upon it. The causes of the decline of the Papal power were,
therefore, laid far back in the solemn truths urged by those persecuted
“witnesses;” and the calamities which have ravaged Europe for these
three hundred years, and the changes now occurring which make it so
certain that this mighty power hastens to its fall, may all be the
regular results of the “testimony” for the truths of a pure gospel
borne long ago by the men that dwelt amidst the Alps, and their
fellow-sufferers in persecution. (2) They “have power to shut heaven,
that it rain not in the days of their prophecy,” ver. 6. This has
been shown to mean that they would have power to cause blessings to be
withheld from men _as if_ the rain were withheld. The reference here
is probably to the spiritual heavens, and to that of which rain is
the natural emblem――the influences of truth, and the influences of
the Divine Spirit on the world. So Moses says, in De. xxxii. 2, “My
doctrine shall drop as the rain, and my speech shall distil as the
dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon
the grass.” So the psalmist (Ps. lxxii. 6), “He shall come down like
rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth.” So Isaiah
(lv. 10, 11), “For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven,
so shall my word be,” &c. Comp. Mi. v. 7. The meaning here, then, must
be, that spiritual influences would seem to be under their control;
or that they would be imparted at their bidding, and withheld at their
will. This found an ample fulfilment in the history of the church in
those dark periods, in the fact that it was in connection with these
“witnesses,” and in answer to their prayers, that the influences of the
Holy Spirit were imparted to the world, and that the true religion was
kept up on the earth. “It is an historical fact,” says the author of
_The Seventh Vial_ (p. 130), “that during the ages of their ministry,
there was neither dew nor rain of a spiritual kind upon the earth, but
at the word of the witnesses. There was no knowledge of salvation but
by their preaching――no descent of the Spirit but in answer to their
prayers; and, as the witnesses were shut out from Christendom generally,
a universal famine ensued.” (3) They had power over the waters to turn
them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, ver. 6. That
is, as explained above, calamities would come upon the earth _as if_
the waters were turned into blood, and this would be so connected
with them, and with the treatment which they would receive, that these
calamities would _seem_ to have been called down from heaven in answer
to their prayers, and in order to avenge their wrongs. And can anyone
be ignorant that wars, commotions, troubles, disasters have followed
the attempts to destroy those who have borne a faithful testimony for
Christ in the dark period of the world here referred to? The calamities
that have befallen the Papal communion from time to time may have been,
and seem to have been, to a great degree, the consequence of its {288}
persecuting spirit, and of its attempts to quench the light of truth.
When the oppressed and persecuted nations of Europe had borne it long,
and when attempts had long been made to extinguish every spark of true
liberty, the spirit of freedom and revenge was roused. The yoke was
broken; and in the wars that ensued rivers of blood flowed upon the
earth, as if these “witnesses” or martyrs had, by their own power and
prayers, brought these calamities upon their oppressors. A philosophic
historian carefully studying human nature, and the essential spirit
of Christianity, might find in these facts a sufficient explanation
of all the calamities that have come upon that once colossal power――the
Papacy――and a full demonstration that, under the operation of these
causes, that power must ultimately fall――_as if_ in revenge called down
from heaven by the martyrs for the wrongs done to them who had borne a
faithful testimony to the truth.

II. The war against the witnesses, ver. 7. There are several
circumstances stated in regard to this which demand explanation in
order to a full understanding of the prophecy. Those circumstances
relate to the time when this would occur; to the government by which
this war would be waged; and to the victory.

(a) The time when the war referred to would be waged. The whole
narrative (comp. ver. 3, 5) supposes that opposition would be made to
them at all times, and that their condition would be such that they
could properly be represented as always clothed in sackcloth; but it is
evident that a particular period is here referred to, when there would
be _such_ a war waged with them that they would be for a time overcome,
and would seem to be dead. This time is referred to by the phrase “when
they shall have finished their testimony” (ver. 7); and it is to the
period when this could be properly said of them that we are to look
for the fulfilment of what is here predicted. This must mean, when
they should have borne _full_ or _ample_ testimony; that is, when they
had borne their testimony on all the great points on which they were
appointed to bear witness. See Notes on ver. 7. This, then, must not be
understood as referring to the time of the _completion_ of the twelve
hundred and sixty years, but to any time _during_ that period when it
could be said that they had borne a full and ample testimony for the
truths of the gospel, and against the abominations and errors that
prevailed. In this general expression there is not, indeed, anything
that would accurately designate the time, but no one can doubt that
this _had been done at the time of the Reformation_. In the preceding
remarks it has been shown that there was a succession of faithful
witnesses for the truth in the darkest periods of the church, and that
to all the great points pertaining to the system of religion revealed
in the gospel, as well as against the errors that prevailed, they had
borne an unambiguous testimony. There is no impropriety, therefore,
in fixing this period at about the time of the Reformation, for all
that is necessarily implied in the language is fulfilled on such a
supposition. Faithful testimony had been borne during the long period
of the Papal corruptions, until it could be said that their peculiar
work had been accomplished. The earlier witnesses for the truth――the
Paulicians, the Waldenses, the Vaudois, and other bodies of true
Christians――had borne an open testimony, from the beginning, against
the various corruptions of Rome――her errors in doctrine, her idolatries
in worship, and her immoralities, until in the end of the twelfth
century――the same century in which, according to Mr. Gibbon, the
meridian of Papal greatness was attained――they proclaimed her, as
we have seen, to be the Antichrist of Scripture, the Harlot of the
Apocalypse. Thus did they fulfil their testimony; and then was the war
waged against them, with all the power of apostate Rome, to silence
and to destroy them. This war was commenced in the edicts of councils,
which stigmatized the pure doctrines of the Bible, and branded those
who held them as heretics. The next step was to pronounce the most
dreadful anathemas on those who were regarded as heretics, which were
executed in the same remorseless and exterminating manner in which
they were conceived. The confessors of the truth were denied both their
natural and their civil rights. They were forbidden all participation
in dignities and offices; their goods were confiscated; their houses
were to be razed and never more to be rebuilt; and their lands were
given to those who were able to seize them. They were shut out from
the solace of human converse; no one might give them shelter {289}
while living, or Christian burial when dead. At length a crusade was
proclaimed against them. Preachers were sent abroad through Europe to
sound the trumpet of vengeance, and to assemble the nations. The pope
wrote to all Christian princes, exhorting them to earn their pardon
and win heaven rather by bearing the cross against heretics than by
marching against the Saracens. The war, in particular, which was waged
against the Waldenses, is well known, and the horror of its details is
among the darkest pages of history. The peaceful and fertile valleys of
the Vaudois were invaded, and speedily devastated with fire and sword;
their towns and villages were burnt; while not one individual, in
many cases, escaped to carry the tidings to the next valley. To all
the cruelties of these wars, and to all the open persecutions which
were waged, are to be added the horrors of the Inquisition, as an
illustration of the fact that “wars” would be made against the true
witnesses for Christ. Calculations, more or less accurate, have been
made of the numbers that Popery has slain; and the lowest of those
calculations would confirm what is said here, on the supposition that
the reference is to the Papal power. From the year 1540 to the year
1570, comprehending a space of only thirty years, no fewer than nine
hundred thousand Protestants were put to death by the Papists, in
different countries of Europe. During the short pontificate of Paul the
Fourth, which lasted only four years (A.D. 1555‒1559), the Inquisition
alone, on the testimony of Vergerius, destroyed a hundred and fifty
thousand! When he died, the indignant populace of Rome crowded to the
prison of the Inquisition, broke open the doors, and released seventeen
hundred prisoners, and then set fire to the building (Bowers’ _History
of the Popes_, iii. 319, edit. 1845). Those who perished in Germany
during the wars of Charles the Fifth, and in Flanders, under the
infamous Duke of Alva, are reckoned by hundreds of thousands. In France
several millions were destroyed in the innumerable massacres that took
place in that kingdom. It has been computed that since the rise of the
Papacy, not fewer than fifty millions of persons have been put to death
on account of religion! Of this vast number the greater part have been
cut off during the last six hundred years; for the Papacy persecuted
very little during the first half of its existence, and it was in this
way that it was not until the witnesses had “completed” their testimony,
or had borne full and ample testimony, that it made war against them.
Comp. _The Seventh Vial_, pp. 149‒157. For a full illustration of
the facts here referred to, see Notes on Da. vii. 21. There can be no
reasonable doubt that Daniel and John refer to the same thing.

(b) By whom this was to be done. In ver. 7, it is said that it would
be by “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit.” This is
undoubtedly the same as the fourth beast of Daniel (Da. vii.), and for
a full illustration I must refer to the Notes on that chapter. It is
necessary only to add here, if the above representation is correct,
that it is easy to see the propriety of this application of the symbol
to the Papacy. Nothing would better represent that cruel persecuting
power “making war with the witnesses,” than a fierce and cruel monster
that seemed to ascend from the bottomless pit.

(c) The victory of the persecutors, and the death of the witnesses:
“and shall overcome them, and kill them,” ver. 7. That is, they would
gain a temporary victory over them, and the witnesses would seem for
a time to be dead. The subsequent statement shows, however, that they
would revive again, and would again resume their prophesying. Comp.
Notes on ch. ix. 20. The victory over them would appear to be complete,
and the great object of the persecuting power would seem to have been
gained. A few facts on this subject will show the propriety of the
statement that “when they had finished,” or _had fully borne their
testimony_, a victory was obtained over them, and that they were so
silenced that it might be said they were _killed_. The first will be
in the words of Milner, in his account of the opening of the sixteenth
century (_History of the Church_, p. 660, ed. Edin. 1835): “The
sixteenth century opened with a prospect of all others the most gloomy,
in the eyes of every true Christian. Corruption both in doctrine and
in practice had exceeded all bounds; and the general face of Europe,
though the name of Christ was everywhere professed, presented nothing
that was properly evangelical. The Waldenses were too feeble to molest
the popedom; and the Hussites, divided {290} among themselves, and
worn out by a long series of contentions, were reduced to silence.
Among both were found persons of undoubted godliness, but they appeared
incapable of making effectual impressions on the kingdom of Antichrist.
The Roman pontiffs were still the uncontrolled patrons of impiety;
neither the scandalous crimes of Alexander VI., nor the military
ferocity of Julius II., seemed to have lessened the dominion of the
court of Rome, or to have opened the eyes of men so as to induce them
to make a sober investigation of the nature of true religion.” The
language of Mr. Cunninghame may here be adopted as describing the
state of things at the beginning of the sixteenth century: “At the
commencement of the sixteenth century, Europe reposed in the deep sleep
of spiritual death, under the iron yoke of the Papacy. That haughty
power, like the Assyrian of the prophet, said in the plenitude of his
insolence, ‘My hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people; and
as one gathereth eggs, I have gathered all the earth; and there was
none that moved the wing, _or opened the mouth_, or peeped.’” And in
a similar manner, the writer of the article on the Reformation, in
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_――in a statement made, of course, with no
reference to the fulfilment of this passage――thus speaks of that period:
“Everything was quiet; _every heretic was exterminated_, and the whole
Christian world supinely acquiesced in the enormous absurdities
inculcated by the Romish church.” These quotations will show the
propriety of the language used here by John, on the supposition that it
was intended to refer to this period. No symbol would be more striking,
or more appropriate to that state of things, than to represent the
witnesses for the truth as overcome and slain, so that, for a time at
least, they would cease to bear their testimony against the prevailing
errors and corruptions. It will be remembered, also, that this occurred
at a time when it might be said that they had “fulfilled” their
testimony, or when, in a most solemn manner, they had protested against
the existing idolatries and abominations.

III. The witnesses dead, ver. 8‒10. The preceding verse contains the
statement that they would be overcome and killed; these verses describe
their treatment when they would be dead; that is, when they would be
silenced. There are several circumstances referred to here which demand
notice.

(a) The _place_ where it is said that this would occur――that “great
city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our
Lord was crucified,” ver. 8. In the explanation of this verse, it has
been shown that the language used here is such as would be properly
employed, on the supposition that the intention was to refer to Rome,
or the Romish communion. A few testimonies may serve to confirm the
interpretation proposed in the Notes on ver. 8, and to show farther
the propriety of applying the appellation “Sodom” and “Egypt” to Rome.
Thus among the Reformers, “Grosteste perceived that the whole scheme
of the Papal government was enmity with God, and exclaimed that nothing
but the sword could deliver the church from the _Egyptian_ bondage”
(D’Aubigné). Wycliffe compared the Romish priestcraft to “the accursed
sorceries with which the sages of Pharaoh presumed to emulate the works
of Jehovah” (Le Bas’ _Wycliffe_, pp. 68, 147). Luther, in a letter to
Melancthon, says, “Italy is plunged, as in ancient times in Egypt, in
darkness that may be felt.” And of Zuingle in Switzerland, they who
longed for the light of salvation said of him, “He will be our Moses,
to deliver us out of the darkness of Egypt.” Any number of passages
could be found in the writings of the Reformers, and even some in
the writings of Romanists themselves, in which the abominations that
prevailed in Rome are compared with those in Sodom. Comp. Elliott, ii.
pp. 386, 387, notes. Assuming this to be the correct interpretation,
the meaning is, that a state of things would exist after the silencing
of the witnesses which would be well represented by supposing that
their dead bodies would lie unburied; that is, that there would be
dishonour and indignity heaped upon them, such as is shown to the dead
when they are suffered to lie unburied. No one needs to be informed
that this accurately represents the state of things throughout the
Roman world. To the “witnesses” thus persecuted, downtrodden, and
_silenced_, there was the same kind of indignity shown which there is
when the dead are left unburied.

(b) The exposure of their bodies, ver. 8. That is, as we have seen,
they {291} would be treated with indignity, _as if_ they were not
worthy of Christian burial. Now this not only expresses what was in
fact the general feeling among the Papists in respect to those whom
they regarded as heretics, but it had a literal fulfilment in numerous
cases where the rites of Christian burial were denied them. One of
the punishments most constantly decreed and constantly enforced in
reference to those who were called “heretics,” was their exclusion from
burial as persons excommunicated and without the pale of the church.
Thus, in the third council of Lateran (A.D. 1179), Christian burial was
denied to heretics; the same in the Lateran council A.D. 1215, and the
Papal decree of Gregory IX., A.D. 1227; the same again in that of Pope
Martin, A.D. 1422; and the same thing was determined in the council of
Constance, A.D. 1422, which ordered that the body of Wycliffe should
be exhumed, and that the ashes of John Huss, instead of being buried,
should be collected and thrown into the lake of Constance. It may be
added that Savonarola’s ashes were in a similar manner cast into the
Arno, A.D. 1498; and that in the first bull intrusted to the cardinal
Cajetan against Luther, this was one of the declared penalties, that
both Luther and his partisans should be deprived of ecclesiastical
burial. See Waddington, p. 717; D’Aubigné, i. 355; Foxe, v. 677.

(c) The mutual congratulations of those who had put them to death;
their exultation over them; and the expression of their joy by the
interchange of presents: “And they that dwell upon the earth shall
rejoice over them,” &c., ver. 10. The language here used is expressive
of general joy and rejoicing, and there can be no doubt that such joy
and rejoicing occurred at Rome whenever a new victory was obtained over
those who were regarded as heretics. Pareus remarks on the passage in
Luke xv. 32, “It was meet that we should make merry,” &c., that “when
heretics are burnt, Papists play at frolicsome games, celebrate feasts
and banquets, sing _Te Deum laudamus_, and wish one another joy.”
And so too Bullinger, _in loco_. But there was special rejoicing,
which accorded entirely with the prediction here, at the close of the
sessions of the Lateran council A.D. 1517, in the splendour of the
dinners and fêtes given by the cardinals. The scene on the closing of
the council is thus described by Dean Waddington: “The pillars of the
Papal strength seemed visible and palpable; and Rome surveyed them with
exultation from her golden palaces. The assembled princes and prelates
separated from the council with _complacency_, _confidence_, and
_mutual congratulations_ on the peace, unity, and purity of the church.”
Still, while this was true of that particular council, it should be
added that the language here used is general, and may be regarded as
descriptive of the usual joy which would be felt, and which was felt at
Rome, in view of the efforts made to suppress heresy in the church.

(d) The _time_ during which the witnesses would remain “dead.” This,
it is said (ver. 9), would be for “three days and an half,” during
which time they would “not suffer their dead bodies to be put in
graves;” that is, there would be a course of conduct, and a state of
things, _as if_ the dead were left unburied. This _time_, as we have
seen (Notes on ver. 9), means probably three years and a half; and in
the application of this we are to look for some striking event relating
to the “witnesses,” when they should have “finished their testimony,”
or when they had fully borne their testimony, that would fully
correspond with this. Now it happens that there _was_ a point of time,
just previous to the Reformation, when it was supposed that a complete
victory was gained for ever over those who were regarded as “heretics,”
but who were in fact the true witnesses for Christ. That point of time
was during the session of the council of Lateran, which was assembled
A.D. 1513, and which continued its sessions to May 16, 1517. In the
ninth session of this council a remarkable proclamation was made,
indicating that all opposition to the Papal power had now ceased. The
scene is thus described by Mr. Elliott (ii. 396, 397): “The orator
of the session ascended the pulpit; and, amidst the applause of the
assembled council, uttered that memorable exclamation of triumph――an
exclamation which, notwithstanding the long multiplied anti-heretical
decrees of popes and councils, notwithstanding the yet more multiplied
anti-heretical crusades and inquisitorial fires, was never, I believe,
pronounced before, and certainly never since――‘Jam nemo reclamat,
nullus obsistit’――‘There is an end of resistance to the Papal rule and
religion; opposers there exist no more:’ {292} and again, ‘The whole
body of Christendom is now seen to be subjected to its _Head_, _i.e._
to _Thee_.’” This occurred May 5, 1514. It is, probably, from this
“time” that the three days and a half, or the three years and a half,
during which the “dead bodies of the witnesses remained unburied,” and
were exposed to public gaze and derision, are to be reckoned.

But it was with remarkable accuracy that a period of three years and
a half occurred from the time when this proclamation was made, and
when it was supposed that these “witnesses” were “dead,” to the time
when the voice of living witnesses for the truth was heard again, as
if those witnesses that had been silenced had come to life again; and
“not in the compass of the whole ecclesiastical history of Christendom,
except in the case of the death and resurrection of Christ himself,
is there any such example of the sudden, mighty, and triumphant
resuscitation of his church from a state of deep depression, as was,
just after the separation of the Lateran council, exhibited in the
protesting voice of Luther, and the glorious Reformation.” All accounts
agree in placing the beginning of the Reformation in A.D. 1517. See
Bowers’ _History of the Popes_, iii. 295; Murdock’s _Mosheim_, iii. 11,
note. The _effect_ of this, as compared with the supposed suppression
of heresy, or the death of the witnesses, and as an illustration of
the passage before us, will be seen from the following language of
a writer in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_:――“Everything was quiet;
_every heretic exterminated_; and the whole Christian world supinely
acquiescing in the enormous absurdities inculcated in the Romish
church, when, in 1517, the empire of superstition received its first
attack from Luther.” Or, in the language of Mr. Cunninghame, “At the
commencement of the sixteenth century, Europe reposed in the deep sleep
of spiritual death, under the iron yoke of the Papacy. There was none
that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped: when suddenly in
one of the universities of Germany the voice of an obscure monk was
heard, the sound of which rapidly filled Saxony, Germany, and Europe
itself, shaking the very foundations of the Papal power, and arousing
men from the lethargy of ages.”

The remarkable coincidence in regard to _time_――supposing that
three years and a half are intended――will be seen from the following
statement. The day of the ninth session of the Lateran council, when
the proclamation above referred to was made, was, as we have seen,
May 5, 1514; the day of Luther’s posting up his theses at Wittemberg
(the well-known epoch of the beginning of the Reformation), was
October 31, 1517. “Now, from May 5, 1514, to May 5, 1517, are three
years; and from May 5, 1517, to October 31 of the same year, 1517, the
reckoning in days is as follows:――

May 5‒31 27
June 30 30
July 31 31
August 31 31
September 30 30
October 31 31

in all 180, or half of 360 days, that is, half a year; so that
the whole interval is precisely, to a day, three and a half years”
(Elliott, ii. 402, 403). But, without insisting on this very minute
accuracy, anyone can see, and all must be prepared to admit, that, on
the supposition that it was intended by the Spirit of God to refer to
these events, this is the language which would be used; or, in other
words, nothing would better represent this state of things than the
declaration that the witnesses would be “slain,” and would be suffered
to “remain unburied” during this period of time, and that at the end of
this period, a public testimony would be borne again for the truth, and
against the abominations of the Papacy, as if “the Spirit of life from
God should again enter into them, and they should stand upon their
feet,” ver. 11.

IV. The resurrection of the witnesses, ver. 11. Little need be added
on this point, after what has been said on the previous portions of
the chapter. We have seen (Notes on ver. 11) that this must mean that
a state of things would occur which would be well represented by their
being restored to life again; and if the previous illustrations are
correct, there will be little difficulty in admitting that this had
its fulfilment in the commencement of the Reformation. As to the
_time_ when they would revive, we have seen above how remarkably this
accords with the commencement of the Reformation in 1517; and as to
the correspondence of this with what is here symbolized, nothing would
better represent this than to describe the witnesses as coming to life
again. It was _as if_ “the Spirit of life from God entered into” those
who had been slain, {293} and “they stood upon their feet” again, and
again bore their solemn testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus. For
(a) it was the same kind of testimony――testimony _to_ the same truths,
and _against_ the same evils――which had been borne by the long array
of the confessors and martyrs that had been put to death. The truths
proclaimed by the Reformers on the great doctrines of grace were
the same which had been professed by the Waldenses, by Wycliffe, by
John Huss, and others; and the abominations of image-worship, of the
invocations of the saints, of the arrogant claims of the pope, of the
doctrine of human merit in justification, of the corruptions of the
monastic systems, of the celibacy of the clergy, of the doctrine
of purgatory, against which they testified, were the same. (b) That
testimony was borne by men of the same spirit and character. In what
would now be called _personal religious experience_ there was the
closest resemblance between the Waldenses and the other “witnesses”
before the Reformation, and the Reformers themselves――between the
piety of Huss, Jerome of Prague, Wycliffe, and Peter Waldo; and Luther,
Melancthon, Zuingle, Calvin, Bucer, Latimer, Ridley, and Knox. They
were men who belonged to the same spiritual communion, and who had been
moulded and fashioned in their spiritual character by the same power
from on high. (c) The testimony was borne with the same fearlessness,
and in the midst of the same kind of persecution and opposition. All
that occurred was _as if_ the same “witnesses” had been restored to
life and again lifted up their voice in the cause for which they had
been persecuted and slain. The _propriety_ of this language, as applied
to these events, may be further seen from expressions used by the
“witnesses” themselves, or by the persecuted friends of the truth. “And
I,” said John Huss, speaking of the gospel-preachers who should appear
after he had suffered at the stake, “and I, _awaking as it were from
the dead_, and _rising from the grave_, shall rejoice with exceeding
great joy.” Again, in 1523, after the Reformation had broken out,
we find Pope Hadrian saying, in a missive addressed to the Diet at
Nuremberg, “The heretics Huss and Jerome are now _alive again_ in the
person of Martin Luther” (_The Seventh Vial_, p. 190).

V. The ascension of the witnesses, ver. 12: “And they ascended to
heaven in a cloud.” We have seen (Notes on this verse) that this means
that events would take place _as if_ they should ascend in triumph to
heaven, or which should be properly symbolized _by_ such an ascent to
heaven. All that is here represented would be fulfilled by a triumph
of the truth under the testimony of the witnesses, or by its becoming
gloriously established in view of the nations of the earth, _as if_ the
witnesses ascended publicly and were received to the presence of God
in heaven. All this was fulfilled in the various influences that served
to establish and confirm the Reformation, and to introduce the great
principles of religious freedom, giving to that work ultimate triumph,
and showing that it had the favour of God. This would embrace the whole
series of events after the Reformation was begun, by which its triumph
was secure, or by which that state of things was gradually introduced
which now exists, in which the true religion is free from persecution,
in which it is advancing into so many parts of the world where the
Papacy once had the control, and in which, with so little molestation,
and with such an onward march toward ultimate victory, it is extending
its conquests over the earth. The triumphant ascent of the witnesses to
heaven, and the public proof of the divine favour thus shown to them,
would be an appropriate symbol of this.

VI. The consequences of the resurrection, ascension, and triumph of
the witnesses, ver. 13. These are said to be, that there would be “in
the same hour a great earthquake; that a tenth part of the city would
fall; that seven thousand would be slain, and that the remainder would
be affrighted and would give glory to the God of heaven.”

(a) The earthquake. This, as we have seen (Notes on ver. 13), denotes
that there would be a shock or a convulsion in the world, so that the
powers of the earth would be shaken, as cities, trees, and hills are in
the shocks of an earthquake. There can be little difficulty in applying
this to the _shock_ produced throughout Europe by the boldness of
Luther and his fellow-labourers in the Reformation. No events have ever
taken place in history that would be better compared with the shock
of an earthquake than those which occurred when the long-established
governments of Europe, and especially the {294} domination of the
Papacy, so long consolidated and confirmed, were shaken by the
Reformation. In the suddenness of the attack made on the existing
state of things, in the commotions which were produced, in the
overthrow of so many governments, there was a striking resemblance
to the convulsions caused by an earthquake. So Dr. Lingard speaks
of the Reformation: “That religious revolution which astonished and
_convulsed_ the nations of Europe.” Nothing would better represent the
convulsions caused in Germany, Switzerland, Prussia, Saxony, Sweden,
Denmark, and England by the Reformation than an earthquake.

(b) The fate of a part of the city: “And the tenth part of the city
fell.” That is, as we have seen (Notes on ver. 13), of that which is
represented by the city, to wit, the Roman power. The fall of a “tenth
part” would denote the fall of a considerable portion of that power;
_as if_, in an earthquake, a tenth part of a city should be demolished.
This would well represent what occurred in the Reformation, when
so considerable a portion of the colossal Papal power suddenly fell
away, and the immediate effect on the portions of Europe where the
Reformation prevailed, as compared with the whole of that power, might
well be represented by the fall of the _tenth_ part of a city. It is
true that a much larger proportion _ultimately_ fell off from Rome, so
that now the number of Romanists and Protestants is not far from being
equal; but in the first convulsion――in what passed before the eye in
vision as represented by the earthquake――that proportion would not be
improperly represented by the tenth part of a city. The idea is, that
the sudden destruction of a tenth part of a great city by an earthquake
would well represent the convulsion at the breaking out of the
Reformation, by which a considerable portion of the Papal power would
fall.

(c) Those who were slain, ver. 13: “And in the earthquake were slain
of men seven thousand.” That is, as we have seen (Notes on ver. 13),
a calamity would occur to this vast Papal power, _as if_ this number
should be killed in the earthquake, or which would be well represented
by that. In other words, a portion of those who were represented by
the city would be slain, which, compared with the whole number, would
bear about the same proportion which seven thousand would to the usual
dwellers in such a city. As the numbers in the city are not mentioned,
it is impossible to form any exact estimate of the numbers that would
be slain on this supposition. But if we suppose that the city contained
a hundred thousand, then the proportion would be something like a
fourteenth part; but if it were half a million, then it would be about
a seventieth part; if it were a million, then it would be about a
hundred and forty-fifth part; and, as we may suppose that John, in
these visions, had his eye on Rome as it was in the age in which
he lived, we may, if we can ascertain what the size of Rome was at
that period, take that estimate as the basis of the interpretation.
Mr. Gibbon (ii. 251, 252) has endeavoured to form an estimate of
the probable number of the inhabitants of ancient Rome; and, after
enumerating all the circumstances which throw any light on the subject,
says: “If we adopt the same average which, under similar circumstances,
has been found applicable to Paris, and indifferently allow about
twenty-five persons for each house, of every degree, we may fairly
estimate the inhabitants of Rome at twelve hundred thousand.” Allowing
this to be the number of the inhabitants of the city, then the number
here specified that was slain――seven thousand――would be about the one
hundred and seventieth part, or one in one hundred and seventy. This
would, according to the purport of the vision here, represent the
number that would perish in the convulsion denoted by the earthquake――a
number which, though it would be large in the aggregate, is not
probably too large in fact as referring to the number of persons
that perished in Papal Europe in the wars that were consequent on the
Reformation.

(d) The only other circumstance in this representation is, that “the
remnant were affrighted and gave glory to the God of heaven,” ver. 13.
That is, as we have seen (Notes on ver. 13), fear and consternation
came upon them, and they stood in awe at what was occurring, and
acknowledged the power of God in the changes that took place. How well
this was fulfilled in what occurred in the Reformation, it is hardly
necessary to state. The events which then took place had every mark
of being under the divine hand, and were such as to fill the minds of
men with awe and to teach them to recognize the hand of God. The power
which tore asunder that immense ecclesiastical establishment, that {295}
had so long held the whole of Europe in servitude; which dissolved the
charm which had so long held kings, and princes, and people spell-bound;
which rent away for ever so large a portion of the Papal dominions;
which led kings to separate themselves from the control to which they
had been so long subjected, and which emancipated the human mind, and
diffused abroad the great principles of civil and religious liberty,
was well adapted to fill the mind with awe, and to lead men to
recognize the hand and the agency of God; and if it be admitted that
the Holy Spirit in this passage _meant_ to refer to these events,
it cannot be doubted that the language here used is such as is well
adapted to describe the effects produced on the minds of men at large.

15 And the [359]seventh angel sounded; and there were great
voices in heaven, saying, [360]The kingdoms of this world are
become _the kingdoms_ of our Lord, and of his Christ; and
[361]he shall reign for ever and ever.

15. _And the seventh angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 2, 6, 7.
This is the last of the trumpets, implying, of course, that under this
the series of visions was to end, and that this was to introduce the
state of things under which the affairs of the world were to be wound
up. The place which this occupies in the order of time, is when the
events pertaining to the colossal Roman power――the fourth kingdom of
Daniel (Da. ii.‒vii.)――should have been completed, and when the reign
of the saints (Da. vii. 9‒14, 27, 28) should have been introduced.
This, both in Daniel and in John, is to occur when the mighty power of
the Papacy shall have been overthrown at the termination of the twelve
hundred and sixty years of its duration. See Notes on Da. vii. 25. In
both Daniel and John the termination of that persecuting power is the
commencement of the reign of the saints; the downfall of the Papacy,
the introduction of the kingdom of God, and its establishment on the
earth. ¶ _And there were great voices in heaven._ As of exultation and
praise. The grand consummation had come, the period so long anticipated
and desired when God should reign on the earth had arrived, and this
lays the foundation for joy and thanksgiving in heaven. ¶ _The kingdoms
of this world._ The modern editions of the New Testament (see Tittmann
and Hahn) read this in the singular number――“The kingdom of this world
has become,” &c. According to this reading, the meaning would be,
either that the sole _reign_ over this world had become that of the
Lord Jesus; or, more probably, that the dominion over the earth had
been regarded as one in the sense that Satan had reigned over it,
but had now become the kingdom of God; that is, that “the kingdoms of
this world are many considered in themselves; but in reference to the
sway of Satan, there is only _one_ kingdom ruled over by the ‘god of
this world’” (Professor Stuart). The sense is not materially different
whichever reading is adopted; though the authority is in favour of the
latter (Wetstein). According to the common reading, the sense is, that
all the kingdoms of the earth, being many in themselves, had been now
brought under the one sceptre of Christ; according to the other, the
whole world was regarded as in fact one kingdom――that of Satan――and
the sceptre had now passed from his hands into those of the Saviour.
¶ _|The kingdoms| of our Lord._ Or, the _kingdom_ of our Lord,
according to the reading adopted in the previous part of the verse. The
word _Lord_ here evidently has reference to God as such――represented
as the original source of authority, and as giving the kingdom to
his Son. See Notes on Da. vii. 13, 14; comp. Ps. ii. 8. The word
_Lord_――Κύριος――implies the notion of possessor, owner, sovereign,
supreme ruler――and is thus properly given to God. See Mat. i. 22; v. 33;
Mar. v. 19; Lu. i. 6, 28; Ac. vii. 33; He. viii. 2, 10; Ja. iv. 15,
_al. sæpe_ ¶ _And of his Christ._ Of his anointed; of him who is set
apart as the Messiah, and consecrated to this high office. See Notes on
Mat. i. 1. He is called “_his_ Christ,” because he is set apart by him,
or appointed by him to perform the work appropriate to that office on
earth. Such language as that which occurs here is often employed, in
which God _and_ Christ are spoken of as, in some respects, distinct――as
sustaining different offices, and performing different works. The
essential meaning here is, that the kingdom of this world had now
become the kingdom of God _under_ {296} Christ; that is, that that
kingdom is administered by the Son of God. ¶ _And he shall reign for
ever and ever._ A kingdom is commenced which shall never terminate. It
is not said that this would be on the earth; but the essential idea is,
that the sceptre of the world had now, after so long a time, come into
his hands never more to pass away. The fuller characteristics of this
reign are stated in a subsequent part of this book (ch. xx.‒xxii.).
What is here stated is in accordance with all the predictions in the
Bible. A time is to come when, in the proper sense of the term, God
is to _reign_ on the earth; when his kingdom is to be universal; when
his laws shall be everywhere recognized as binding; when all idolatry
shall come to an end; and when the understandings and the hearts of
men everywhere shall bow to his authority. Comp. Ps. ii. 8; Is. ix. 7;
xi. 9; xlv. 22; lx.; Da. ii. 35, 44, 45; vii. 13, 14, 27, 28; Zec.
xiv. 9; Mal. i. 11; Lu. i. 33. On this whole subject, see the very
ample illustrations and proofs in the Notes on Da. ii. 44, 45; vii. 13,
14, 27, 28; comp. Notes on chap. xx.‒xxii.

16 And the [362]four and twenty elders, which sat before God
on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God.

16. _And the four and twenty elders which sat_, &c. See Notes on
ch. iv. 4. ¶ _Fell upon their faces, and worshipped God._ Prostrated
themselves before him――the usual form of profound adoration. See Notes
on ch. v. 8‒14.

17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
[363]which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast
taken to thee thy great power, and [364]hast reigned.

17. _Saying, We give thee thanks._ We, as the representatives of
the church, and as identified in our feelings with it (see Notes on
ch. iv. 4), acknowledge thy goodness in thus delivering the church
from all its troubles, and having conducted it through the times of
fiery persecution, thus establishing it upon the earth. The language
here used is an expression of their deep interest in the church,
and of the fact that they felt themselves identified with it. They,
as representatives of the church, would of course rejoice in its
prosperity and final triumph. ¶ _O Lord God Almighty._ Referring to God
as all-powerful, because it was by his omnipotent arm alone that this
great work had been accomplished. Nothing else could have defended the
church in its many trials; nothing else could have established it upon
the earth. ¶ _Which art, and wast, and art to come._ The Eternal One,
always the same. See Notes on ch. i. 8. The reference here is to the
fact that God, who had thus established his church on the earth, is
unchanging. In all the revolutions which occur on the earth, he always
remains the same. What he was in past times he is now; what he is now
he always will be. The particular idea suggested here seems to be, that
he had now shown this by having caused his church to triumph; that is,
he had shown that he was the same God who had early _promised_ that it
should ultimately triumph; he had carried forward his glorious purposes
without modifying or abandoning them amidst all the changes that had
occurred in the world; and he had thus given the assurance that he
would now remain the same, and that all his purposes in regard to
his church would be accomplished. The fact that God remains always
unchangeably the same is the sole reason why his church is safe, or
why any individual member of it is kept and saved. Comp. Mal. iii. 6.
¶ _Because thou hast taken to thee thy great power._ To wit, by setting
up thy kingdom over all the earth. Before that it _seemed_ as if he had
relaxed that power, or had given the power to others. Satan had reigned
on the earth. Disorder, anarchy, sin, rebellion, had prevailed. It
seemed as if God had let the reins of government fall from his hand.
Now he came forth as if to resume the dominion over the world, and
to take the sceptre into his own hand, and to exert his great power
in keeping the nations in subjection. The setting up of his kingdom
all over the world, and causing his laws everywhere to be obeyed,
will be among the highest demonstrations of divine power. Nothing
can accomplish this but the power of God; when that power is exerted
nothing can prevent its accomplishment. ¶ _And hast reigned._ Professor
Stuart, “and shown thyself as king”――that is, “hast become king, or
acted as a king.” The idea is, that he had now vindicated {297} his
regal power (Rob. _Lex._)――that is, he had now set up his kingdom on
the earth, and had truly begun to reign. One of the characteristics of
the millennium――and indeed the main characteristic――will be that God
will be everywhere obeyed; for when that occurs all will be consummated
that properly enters into the idea of the millennial kingdom.

18 And the nations [365]were angry, and thy wrath is come,
and [366]the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
and that thou [367]shouldest give reward unto thy servants
the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy
name, [368]small and great; and shouldest destroy them which
[369]destroy the earth.

18. _And the nations were angry._ Were enraged against thee. This they
had shown by their opposition to his laws; by persecuting his people;
by slaying his witnesses; by all the attempts which they had made to
destroy his authority on the earth. The reference here seems to be to
the whole series of events preceding the final establishment of his
kingdom on the earth; to all the efforts which had been made to throw
off his government and to crush his church. At this period of glorious
triumph it was natural to look back to those dark times when the
“nations raged” (comp. Ps. ii. 1‒3), and when the very existence
of the church was in jeopardy. ¶ _And thy wrath is come._ That is,
the time when thou wilt punish them for all that they have done in
opposition to thee, and when the wicked shall be cut off. There will
be, in the setting up of the kingdom of God, some manifestation of
his wrath against the powers that opposed it; or something that will
show his purpose to destroy his enemies, and to judge the wicked.
The representations in this book lead us to suppose that the final
establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth will be introduced
or accompanied by commotions and wars which will end in the overthrow
of the great powers that have opposed his reign, and by such awful
calamities in those portions of the world as shall show that God has
arisen in his strength to cut off his enemies, and to appear as the
vindicator of his people. Comp. Notes on ch. xvi. 12‒16; xix. 11‒26.
¶ _And the time of the dead, that they should be judged._ According to
the view which the course of the exposition thus far pursued leads us
to entertain of this book, there is reference here, in few words, to
the same thing which is more fully stated in ch. xx., and the meaning
of the sacred writer will, therefore, come up for a more distinct
and full examination when we consider that chapter. See Notes on
ch. xx. 4‒6, 12‒15. The purpose of the writer does not require that
a _detailed_ statement of the order of the events referred to should
be made here, for it would be better made when, after another line
of illustration and of symbol (ch. xi. 19, xii.‒xix.), he should have
reached the same catastrophe, and when, in view of both, the mind would
be prepared for the fuller description with which the book closes,
ch. xx.‒xxii. All that occurs here, therefore, is a very _general_
statement of the final consummation of all things. ¶ _And that thou
shouldest give reward unto thy servants._ The righteous. Comp. Mat.
xxv. 34‒40; Re. xxi., xxii. That is, in the final winding-up of human
affairs, God will bestow the long-promised reward on those who have
been his true friends. The wicked that annoyed and persecuted them will
annoy and persecute them no more; and the righteous will be publicly
acknowledged as the friends of God. For the _manner_ in which this will
be done, see the details in ch. xx.‒xxii. ¶ _The prophets._ All who,
in every age, have faithfully proclaimed the truth. On the meaning of
the word, see Notes on ch. x. 11. ¶ _And to the saints._ To all who
are holy――under whatever dispensation, and in whatever land, and at
whatever time, they may have lived. Then will be the time when, in a
public manner, they will be recognized as belonging to the kingdom of
God, and as being his true friends. ¶ _And them that fear thy name._
Another way of designating his people, since religion consists in
a profound veneration for God, Mal. iii. 16; Job i. 1; Ps. xv. 4;
xxii. 23; cxv. 11; Pr. i. 7; iii. 13; ix. 10; Is. xi. 2; Ac. x. 22, 35.
¶ _Small and great._ Young and old; low and high; poor and rich. The
language is designed to comprehend _all_, of every class, who have a
claim to be numbered among the friends of God, and it furnishes a plain
intimation that men of all classes will be found at last {298} among
his true people. One of the glories of the true religion is, that, in
bestowing its favours, it disregards all the artificial distinctions of
society, and addresses man as man, welcoming all who are human beings
to the blessings of life and salvation. This will be illustriously
shown in the last period of the world’s history, when the distinctions
of wealth, and rank, and blood shall lose the importance which has been
attributed to them, and when the honour of being a child of God shall
have its true place. Comp. Ga. iii. 28. ¶ _And shouldest destroy them
which destroy the earth._ That is, all who have, in their conquests,
spread desolation over the earth, and who have persecuted the righteous,
and all who have done injustice and wrong to any class of men. Comp.
Notes on ch. xx. 13‒15.

Here ends, as I suppose, the first series of visions referred to in the
volume sealed with the seven seals, ch. v. 1. At this point, where the
division of the chapter should have been made, and which is properly
marked in our common Bibles by the sign of the paragraph (¶), there
commences a new series of visions, intended also, but in a different
line, to extend down to the consummation of all things. The former
series traces the history down mainly through the series of _civil_
changes in the world, or the _outward_ affairs which affect the destiny
of the church; the latter――the portion still before us――embraces the
same period with a more direct reference to the rise of Antichrist, and
the influence of _that_ power in affecting the destiny of the church.
When that is completed (ch. xi. 19, xii.‒xix.), the way is prepared
(ch. xx.‒xxii.) for the more full statement of the final triumph of the
gospel, and the universal prevalence of religion, with which the book
so appropriately closes. That portion of the book, therefore, refers
to the same period as the one which has just been considered under the
sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the description of the final state
of things would have immediately succeeded if it had not been necessary,
by another series of visions, to trace more particularly the history
of Antichrist on the destiny of the church, and the way in which that
great and fearful power would be finally overcome. See the Analysis
of the Book, part V. The way is then prepared for the description
of the state of things which will exist when all the enemies of the
church shall be subdued; when Christianity shall triumph; and when the
predicted reign of God shall be set up on the earth, ch. xx.‒xxii.

CHAPTER XII.

ANALYSIS OF CH. XI. 19, XII.

This portion of the book commences, according to the view presented
in the closing remarks on the last chapter, a new series of visions,
designed more particularly to represent the internal condition of the
church; the rise of Antichrist, and the effect of the rise of that
formidable power on the internal history of the church to the time of
the overthrow of that power, and the triumphant establishment of the
kingdom of God. See the Analysis of the Book, part V. The portion
before us embraces the following particulars:――

(1) A new vision of the temple of God as opened in heaven, disclosing
the ark of the testimony, and attended with lightnings, and voices,
and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail, ch. xi. 19. The
view of the “_temple_,” and the “_ark_,” would naturally suggest a
reference to the church, and would be an appropriate representation on
the supposition that this vision related to the church. The attending
circumstances of the lightnings, &c., were well fitted to impress the
mind with awe, and to leave the conviction that great and momentous
events were about to be disclosed. I regard this verse, therefore,
which should have been separated from the eleventh chapter and attached
to the twelfth, as the introduction to a new series of visions, similar
to what we have in the introduction of the previous series, ch. iv. 1.
The vision was of the temple――the symbol of the church――and it was
“opened” so that John could see into its inmost part――even within the
veil where the ark was――and could have a view of what most intimately
pertained to it.

(2) A representation of the church, under the image of a woman about to
give birth to a child, ch. xii. 1, 2. A woman is seen, clothed, as it
were, with the sun――emblem of majesty, truth, intelligence, and glory;
she has the moon under her feet, as if she walked the heavens; she
has on her head a glittering diadem of stars; she is about to become
a mother. This seems to have been designed to represent the church
as about to be increased, and as in that {299} condition watched
by a dragon――a mighty foe――ready to destroy its offspring, and thus
compelled to flee into the wilderness for safety. Thus understood, the
point of time referred to would be when the church was in a prosperous
condition, and when it would be encountered by Antichrist, represented
here by the dragon, and compelled to flee into the wilderness; that
is, the church for a time would be driven into obscurity, and be almost
unknown. It is no uncommon thing, in the Scriptures, to compare the
church with a beautiful woman. See Notes on Isa. i. 8. The following
remarks of Professor Stuart (vol. ii. 252), though he _applies_ the
subject in a manner very different from what I shall, seem to me
accurately to express the general design of the symbol:――“The _daughter
of Zion_ is a common personification of the church in the Old Testament;
and in the writings of Paul, the same image is exhibited by the phrase,
_Jerusalem, which is the mother of us all_; _i.e._ of all Christians,
Ga. iv. 26. The main point before us is the illustration of that church,
ancient or later, under the image of a _woman_. If the Canticles are
to have a spiritual sense given to them, it is plain enough, of course,
how familiar such an idea was to the Jews. Whether the woman thus
exhibited as a symbol be represented as _bride_ or _mother_ depends,
of course, on the nature of the case, and the relations and exigencies
of any particular passage.”

(3) The dragon that stood ready to devour the child, ver. 3, 4.
This represents some formidable enemy of the church, that was ready
to persecute and destroy it. The real enemy here referred to is,
undoubtedly, Satan, the great enemy of God and the church, but here
it is Satan in the form of some fearful opponent of the church that
would arise at a period when the church was prosperous, and when it
was about to be enlarged. We are to look, therefore, for some fearful
_manifestation_ of this formidable power, having the characteristics
here referred to, or some opposition to the church such as we may
suppose Satan would originate, and by which the existence of the church
might seem to be endangered.

(4) The fact that the child which the woman brought forth was caught up
to heaven――symbolical of its real safety, and of its having the favour
of God――a pledge that the ultimate prosperity of the church was certain,
and that it was safe from real danger, ver. 5.

(5) The fleeing of the woman into the wilderness, for the space of
a thousand two hundred and threescore days, or 1260 years, ver. 6.
This act denotes the persecuted and obscure condition of the church
during that time, and the period which would elapse before it would be
delivered from this persecution, and restored to the place in the earth
which it was designed to have.

(6) The war in heaven; a struggle between the mighty powers of heaven
and the dragon, ver. 7‒9. Michael and his angels contend against the
dragon, in behalf of the church, and finally prevail. The dragon is
overcome, and is cast out, and all his angels with him; in other words,
the great enemy of God and his church is overcome and subdued. This is
evidently designed to be symbolical, and the meaning is, that a state
of things would exist in regard to the church, which would be well
represented by supposing that such a scene should occur in heaven; that
is, _as if_ a war should exist there between the great enemy of God and
the angels of light, and _as if_, being there vanquished, Satan should
be cast down to the earth, and should there exert his malignant power
in a warfare against the church. The general idea is, that his warfare
would be _primarily_ against heaven, as if he fought with the angels in
the very presence of God, but that the form in which he would _seem_ to
prevail would be against the church, _as if_, being unsuccessful in his
direct warfare against the angels of God, he was permitted, for a time,
to enjoy the appearance of triumph in contending with the church.

(7) The shout of victory in view of the conquest over the dragon, ver.
10‒12. A loud voice is heard in heaven, saying, that now the kingdom of
God is come, and that the reign of God would be set up, for the dragon
is cast down and overcome. The grand instrumentality in overcoming
this foe was “the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony;”
that is, the great doctrines of truth pertaining to the work of the
Redeemer would be employed for this purpose, and it is proclaimed that
the heavens and all that dwell therein had occasion to rejoice at the
certainty that a victory would be ultimately obtained over this great
enemy of God. Still, however, his influence was not wholly at an end,
{300} for he would yet rage for a brief period on the earth.

(8) The persecution of the woman, ver. 13‒15. She is constrained to
fly, as on wings given her for that purpose, into the wilderness, where
she is nourished for the time that the dragon is to exert his power――a
“time, times, and half a time”――or for 1260 years. The dragon in rage
pours out a flood of water, that he may cause her to be swept away by
the flood: referring to the persecutions that would exist while the
church was in the wilderness, and the efforts that would be made to
destroy it entirely.

(9) The earth helps the woman, ver. 16. That is, a state of things
would exist _as if_, in such a case, the earth should open and swallow
up the flood. The meaning is, that the church would not be swept away,
but that there would be an interposition in its behalf, _as if_ the
earth should, in the case supposed, open its bosom, and swallow up the
swelling waters.

(10) The dragon, still enraged, makes war with all that pertains to the
woman, ver. 17. Here we are told literally who are referred to by the
“seed” of the woman. They are those who “keep the commandments of God,
and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (ver. 17); that is, the true
church.

The chapter, therefore, may be regarded as a general vision of the
persecutions that would rage against the church. It seemed to be about
to increase and to spread over the world. Satan, always opposed to it,
strives to prevent its extension. The conflict is represented _as if_
in heaven, where war is waged between the celestial beings and Satan,
and where, being overcome, Satan is cast down to the earth, and
permitted to wage the war there. The church is persecuted; becomes
obscure and almost unknown, but still is mysteriously sustained; and
when most in danger of being wholly swallowed up, is kept _as if_ a
miracle were wrought in its defence. The _detail_――the particular form
in which the war would be waged――is drawn out in the following chapters.

19 And the [370]temple of God was opened in heaven, and there
was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there
were [371]lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an
[372]earthquake, and great hail.

Ch. xi. 19. _And the temple of God was opened in heaven._ The temple
of God at Jerusalem was a pattern of the heavenly one, or of heaven,
He. viii. 1‒5. In that temple God was supposed to reside by the visible
symbol of his presence――the Shekinah――in the holy of holies. See Notes
on He. ix. 7. Thus God dwells in heaven, as in a holy temple, of which
that on earth was the emblem. When it is said that that was “opened in
heaven,” the meaning is, that John was permitted, as it were, to look
_into_ heaven, the abode of God, and to see him in his glory. ¶ _And
there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament._ See Notes on
He. ix. 4. That is, the very interior of heaven was laid open, and John
was permitted to witness what was transacted in its obscurest recesses,
and what were its most hidden mysteries. It will be remembered, as an
illustration of the correctness of this view of the meaning of the
verse, and of its proper place in the divisions of the book――assigning
it as the opening verse of a new series of visions――that in the _first_
series of visions we have a statement remarkably similar to this,
ch. iv. 1: “After this I looked, and, behold, _a door was opened in
heaven_;” that is, there was, as it were, an _opening_ made into heaven,
so that John was permitted _to look in_ and see what was occurring
there. The same idea is expressed substantially here, by saying that
the very interior of the sacred temple where God resides was “opened
in heaven,” so that John was permitted to look in and see what was
transacted in his very presence. This, too, may go to confirm the idea
suggested in the Analysis of the Book, part V., that this portion of
the Apocalypse refers rather to the _internal_ affairs of the church,
or the church itself――for of this the _temple_ was the proper emblem.
Then appropriately follows the series of visions describing, as in the
former case, what was to occur in future times: this series referring
to the internal affairs of the church, as the former did mainly to
what would outwardly affect its form and condition. ¶ _And there were
lightnings_, &c. Symbolic of the awful presence of God, and of his
majesty and glory, as in the commencement of the first series of
visions. See Notes on ch. iv. 5. {301} The _similarity_ of the symbols
of the divine majesty in the two cases may also serve to confirm the
supposition that this is the beginning of a new series of visions.
¶ _And an earthquake._ Also a symbol of the divine majesty, and perhaps
of the great convulsions that were to occur under this series of
visions. Comp. Notes on ch. vi. 12. Thus, in the sublime description
of God in Ps. xviii. 7, “Then the earth shook and trembled, the
foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he
was wroth.” So in Ex. xix. 18, “And Mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke――and the whole mount quaked greatly.” Comp. Am. viii. 8, 9; Joel
ii. 10. ¶ _And great hail._ Also an emblem of the presence and majesty
of God, perhaps with the accompanying idea that he would overwhelm and
punish his enemies. So in Ps. xviii. 13, “The Lord also thundered in
the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice: hailstones and coals of
fire.” So also Job xxxviii. 22, 23:――

“Hast thou entered into the treasures of snow?
Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail?
Which I have reserved against _the time of trouble_.
Against the day of _battle and war_?”

So in Ps. cv. 32:

“He gave them hail for rain,
And flaming fire in their land.”

Comp. Ps. lxxviii. 48; Is. xxx. 30; Eze. xxxviii. 22.

CHAPTER XII.

AND there appeared a great [373]wonder in heaven; a [374]woman
clothed with the [375]sun, and the moon under her feet, and
upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Ch. xii. 1. _And there appeared a great wonder in heaven._ In that
heavenly world thus disclosed, in the very presence of God, he saw the
impressive and remarkable symbol which he proceeds to describe. The
word _wonder_――σημεῖον――properly means something extraordinary, or
miraculous, and is commonly rendered _sign_. See Mat. xii. 38, 39;
xvi. 1, 3, 4; xxiv. 3, 24, 30; xxvi. 48; Mar. viii. 11, 12; xiii. 4, 22;
xvi. 17, 20;――in all which, and in numerous other places in the New
Testament, it is rendered _sign_, and mostly in the sense of _miracle_.
When used in the sense of a miracle, it refers to the fact that the
miracle is a _sign_ or _token_ by which the divine power or purpose
is made known. Sometimes the word is used to denote _a sign of
future things_――a portent or presage of coming events; that is, some
remarkable appearances which foreshadow the future. Thus in Mat. xvi. 3:
“_signs of the times_;” that is, the miraculous events which foreshadow
the coming of the Messiah in his kingdom. So also in Mat. xxiv. 3, 30;
Mar. xiii. 4; Lu. xxi. 7, 11. This seems to be the meaning here, that
the woman who appeared in this remarkable manner was a portent or
token of what was to occur. ¶ _A woman clothed with the sun._ Bright,
splendid, glorious, _as if_ the sunbeams were her raiment. Comp. ch.
i. 16; x. 1; see also Ca. vi. 10――a passage which, very possibly, was
in the mind of the writer when he penned this description: “Who is she
that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun,
and terrible as an army with banners?” ¶ _And the moon under her feet._
The moon _seemed_ to be under her feet. She seemed as if she stood on
the moon, its pale light contrasted with the burning splendour of the
sun, heightening the beauty of the whole picture. The woman, beyond all
question, represents the church. See Notes on ver. 2. Is the splendour
of the sunlight designed to denote the brightness of the gospel? Is the
moon designed to represent the comparatively feeble light of the Jewish
dispensation? Is the fact that she stood upon the moon, or that it was
under her feet, designed to denote the superiority of the gospel to the
Jewish dispensation? Such a supposition gives much beauty to the symbol,
and is not foreign to the nature of symbolic language. ¶ _And upon her
head a crown of twelve stars._ A diadem in which there were placed
twelve stars. That is, there were twelve sparkling gems in the crown
which she wore. This would, of course, greatly increase the beauty of
the vision; and there can be no doubt that the number _twelve_ here
is significant. If the woman here is designed to symbolize the church,
then the number twelve has, in all probability, some allusion either to
the twelve tribes of Israel――as being a number which one who was born
and educated as a Jew would be likely to use (comp. Ja. i. 1), or to
the twelve apostles――an allusion which, it may be supposed, an apostle
would be more {302} likely to make. Comp. Mat. xix. 28; Re. xxi. 14.

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and
pained to be delivered.

2. _And she being with child cried, travailing in birth_, &c. That is,
there would be something which would be properly represented by a woman
in such circumstances.

The question now is, what is referred to by this woman? And here
it need hardly be said that there has been, as in regard to almost
every other part of the book of Revelation, a great variety of
interpretations. It would be endless to undertake to examine them,
and would not be profitable if it could be done; and it is better,
therefore, and more in accordance with the design of these Notes, to
state briefly what seems to me to be the true interpretation. (1) The
woman is evidently designed to symbolize the church; and in this there
is a pretty general agreement among interpreters. The image, which is
a beautiful one, was very familiar to the Jewish prophets. See Notes on
Is. i. 8; xlvii. 1; comp. Eze. xvi. (2) But still the question arises,
_to what time_ this representation refers: whether to the church before
the birth of the Saviour, or after? According to the former of these
opinions, it is supposed to refer to the church as giving birth to the
Saviour, and the “man child” that is born (ver. 5) is supposed to refer
to Christ, who “sprang from the church”――κατὰ σάρκα――according to the
flesh (Professor Stuart, vol. ii. p. 252). The church, according to
this view, is not simply regarded as _Jewish_, but, in a more general
and theocratic sense, as _the people of God_. “From the Christian
church, considered as Christian, he could not spring; for this took its
rise only after the time of his public ministry. But from the bosom of
the _people of God_ the Saviour came. This church, _Judaical_ indeed
(at the time of his birth) in respect to rites and forms, but to become
_Christian_ after he had exercised his ministry in the midst of it,
might well be represented here by the woman which is described in ch.
xii.” (Professor Stuart). But to this view there are some, as it seems
to me, unanswerable objections. For, (a) there seems to be a harshness
and incongruity in representing the Saviour as _the Son of the church_,
or representing the church as giving birth to him. Such imagery is
not found elsewhere in the Bible, and is not in accordance with the
language which _is_ employed, where Christ is rather represented as the
_Husband_ of the church than the _Son_: “Prepared as a bride adorned
for her husband,” Re. xxi. 2. “I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s
wife,” Re. xxi. 9; comp. Is. liv. 5; lxi. 10; lxii. 5. (b) If this
interpretation be adopted, then this must refer to the _Jewish_ church,
and thus the woman will personify the Jewish community before the
birth of Christ. But this seems contrary to the whole design of the
Apocalypse, which has reference to the _Christian_ church, and not to
the ancient dispensation. (c) If this interpretation be adopted, then
the statement about the dwelling in the wilderness for a period of 1260
days or years (ver. 14) must be assigned to the Jewish community――a
supposition every way improbable and untenable. In what sense could
this be true? When did anything happen to the Jewish people that could,
with any show of probability, be regarded as the fulfilment of this?
(d) It may be added, that the statement about the “man child” (ver. 5)
is one that can with difficulty be reconciled to this supposition. In
what sense was this true, that the “man _child_” was “caught up unto
God, and to his throne?” The Saviour, indeed, ascended to heaven, but
it was not, as here represented, that he might be _protected_ from the
danger of being destroyed; and when he _did_ ascend, it was not as a
helpless and unprotected babe, but as a man in the full maturity of
his powers. The other opinion is, that the woman here refers to the
Christian church, and that the object is to represent that church as
about to be enlarged――represented by the condition of the woman, ver.
2. A beautiful woman appears, clothed with light――emblematic of the
brightness and purity of the church; with the moon under her feet――the
ancient and comparatively obscure dispensation now made subordinate and
humble; with a glittering diadem of twelve stars on her head――the stars
representing the usual well-known division of the people of God into
twelve parts――as the stars in the American flag denote the original
states of the Union; and in a condition (ver. 2) which showed that
the church was to be increased. The time there referred to is at the
{303} early period of the history of the church, when, as it were, it
first appears on the theatre of things, and going forth in its beauty
and majesty over the earth. John sees this church, as it was about
to spread in the world, exposed to a mighty and formidable enemy――a
hateful dragon――stationing itself to prevent its increase, and to
accomplish its destruction. From that impending danger it is protected
in a manner that would be well represented by the saving of the child
of the woman, and bearing it up to heaven, to a place of safety――an
act implying that, notwithstanding all dangers, the progress and
enlargement of the church was ultimately certain. In the meantime,
the woman herself flees into the wilderness――an act representing the
obscure, and humble, and persecuted state of the church――till the great
controversy is determined which is to have the ascendency――God or the
Dragon. In favour of this interpretation, the following considerations
may be suggested:――(a) It is the natural and obvious interpretation.
(b) If it be admitted that John _meant_ to describe what occurred in
the world at the time when the true church seemed to be about to extend
itself over the earth, and when that prosperity was checked by the rise
of the Papal power, the symbol employed would be strikingly expressive
and appropriate. (c) It accords with the language elsewhere used in the
Scriptures when referring to the _increase_ of the church. “Before she
travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered
of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? As soon as Zion travailed,
she brought forth her children,” Is. lxvi. 7, 8. “Sing, O barren, thou
that didst not bear; for more are the children of the desolate than
the children of the married wife, saith the Lord,” Is. liv. 1. “The
children which thou shalt have, after thou shalt have lost the other,
shall say again in thy ears, The place is too strait for me; give place
to me that I may dwell,” Is. xlix. 20. The comparison of the church
to a woman as the mother of children, is one that is very common in
the Scriptures. (d) The future destiny of the child and of the woman
agrees with this supposition. The child is caught up to heaven,
ver. 5――emblematic of the fact that God will protect the church, and
not suffer its increase to be cut off and destroyed; and the woman
is driven for 1260 years into the wilderness and nourished there,
ver. 14――emblematic of the long period of obscurity and persecution
in the true church, and yet of the fact that it would be protected and
nourished. The _design_ of the whole, therefore, I apprehend, is to
represent the peril of the church at the time when it was about to be
greatly enlarged, or in a season of prosperity, from the rise of a
formidable enemy that would stand ready to destroy it. I regard this,
therefore, as referring to the time of the rise of the Papacy, when,
_but_ for that formidable, corrupting, and destructive power, it might
have been hoped that the church would have spread all over the world.
In regard to the _rise_ of that power, see all that I have to say, or
can say, in the Notes on Da. vii. 24‒28.

3 And there appeared another wonder[376] in heaven; and behold
a [377]great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and
seven crowns upon his heads.

3. _And there appeared another wonder in heaven._ Represented as in
heaven. See Notes on ver. 1. That is, he saw this as occurring _at
the time_ when the church was thus about to increase. ¶ _And behold a
great red dragon._ The word rendered _dragon_――δράκων――occurs, in the
New Testament, only in the book of Revelation, where it is uniformly
rendered as here――_dragon_: ch. xii. 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17; xiii. 2, 4,
11; xvi. 13; xx. 2. In all these places there is reference to the same
thing. The word properly means a large serpent; and the allusion in the
word commonly is to some serpent, perhaps such as the anaconda, that
resides in a desert or wilderness. See a full account of the ideas that
prevailed in ancient times respecting the dragon, in Bochart, _Hieroz._
lib. iii. cap. xiv., vol. ii. pp. 428‒440. There was much that was
fabulous respecting this monster, and many notions were attached to the
dragon which did not exist in reality, and which were ascribed to it by
the imagination at a time when natural history was little understood.
The characteristics ascribed to the dragon, according to Bochart,
are, that it was distinguished (a) for its vast size; (b) that it had
something like a beard or dew-lap; (c) that it had three rows of teeth;
(d) that its colour was black, {304} red, yellow, or ashy; (e) that
it had a wide mouth; (f) that in its breathing it not only drew in the
air, but also birds that were flying over it; and (g) that its hiss
was terrible. Occasionally, also, feet and wings were attributed to the
dragon, and sometimes a lofty crest. The dragon, according to Bochart,
was supposed to inhabit waste places and solitudes (comp. Notes on Is.
xiii. 22), and it became, therefore, an object of great terror. It is
probable that the original of this was a huge serpent, and that all the
other circumstances were added by the imagination. The prevailing ideas
in regard to it, however, should be borne in mind, in order to see
the force and propriety of the use of the word by John. Two special
characteristics are stated by John in the general description of the
dragon: one is, its _red colour_; the other, that it was _great_. In
regard to the former, as above mentioned, the dragon was supposed to
be black, red, yellow, or ashy. See the authorities referred to in
Bochart, _ut sup._, pp. 435, 436. There was doubtless a reason why
the one seen by John should be represented as _red_. As to the other
characteristic――_great_――the idea is that it was a huge monster, and
this would properly refer to some mighty, terrible power which would be
properly symbolized by such a monster. ¶ _Having seven heads._ It was
not unusual to attribute many heads to monsters, especially to fabulous
monsters, and these greatly increased the terror of the animal. “Thus
Cerberus usually has three heads assigned to him; but Hesiod (_Theog._
312) assigns him fifty, and Horace (Ode II. 13, 34) one hundred. So the
Hydra of the Lake Lerna, killed by Hercules, had fifty heads (Virg.
_Æn._ vi. 576); and in Kiddushim, fol. 29, 2, Rabbi Achse is said to
have seen a demon like a dragon with seven heads” (Professor Stuart,
_in loco_). The seven heads would somehow denote _power_, or seats of
power. Such a number of heads increase the terribleness, and, as it
were, the _vitality_ of the monster. What is here represented would be
_as_ terrible and formidable as such a monster; or such a monster would
appropriately represent what was designed to be symbolized here. The
number seven _may_ be used here “as a perfect number,” or merely to
heighten the terror of the image; but it is more natural to suppose
that there would be something in what is here represented which would
lay the foundation for the use of this number. There would be something
either in the _origin_ of the power; or in the union of various powers
now combined in the one represented by the dragon; or in the _seat_
of the power, which this would properly symbolize. Comp. Notes on Da.
vii. 6. ¶ _And ten horns._ Emblems of power, denoting that, in some
respects, there were _ten_ powers combined in this one. See Notes on
Da. vii. 7, 8, 20, 24. There can be little doubt that John had those
passages of Daniel in his eye, and perhaps as little that the reference
is to the same thing. The meaning is, that, in some respects, there
would be a tenfold origin or division of the power represented by the
dragon. ¶ _And seven crowns upon his heads._ Gr., _diadems_. See Notes
on ch. ix. 7. There is a reference here to some _kingly_ power, and
doubtless John had some kingdom or sovereignty in his eye that would be
properly symbolized in this manner. The method in which these heads and
horns were arranged on the dragon is not stated, and is not material.
All that is necessary in the explanation is, that there was _something_
in the power referred to that would be properly represented by the
seven heads, and _something_ by the ten horns.

In the application of this, it will be necessary to inquire what was
properly symbolized by these representations, and to refer again to
these particulars with this view.

(a) _The dragon._ This is explained in ver. 9 of this chapter: “And
the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and
Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.” So again, ch. xx. 2, “And he
laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil.” Comp.
Bochart, _Hieroz._ ii. pp. 439, 440. There can be no doubt, therefore,
that the reference here is to Satan, considered as the enemy of God,
and the enemy of the peace of man, and especially as giving origin and
form to some mighty power that would threaten the existence of the
church.

(b) _Great._ This will well describe the power of Satan as originating
the organizations that were engaged for so long a time in persecuting
the church, and endeavouring to destroy it. It was a work of vast
power, controlling kings and nations for ages, and could have been
accomplished only by one to whom the appellation here used could be
given.

{305} (c) _Red._ This, too, is an appellation properly applied here
to the dragon, or Satan, considered as the enemy of the church, and
as originating this persecuting power, either (1) because it well
represents the bloody persecutions that would ensue, or (2) because
this would be the favourite _colour_ by which this power would be
manifest. Comp. ch. xvii. 3, 4; xviii. 12, 16.

(d) _The seven heads._ There was, doubtless, as above remarked,
something significant in these heads, as referring to the power
designed to be represented. On the supposition that this refers to
Rome, or to the power of Satan as _manifested_ by Roman persecution,
there can be no difficulty in the application; and, indeed, it is such
an image as the writer would naturally use on the supposition that it
had such a designed reference. Rome was built, as is well known, on
seven hills (comp. Notes on ch. x. 3), and was called the seven-hilled
city (_Septicollis_), from having been originally built on seven hills,
though subsequently three hills were added, making the whole number
ten. See Eschenburg, _Manual of Classical Literature_, p. 1, § 53. Thus
Ovid:――

“Sed quæ de septem totum circumspicit orbem
Montibus, imperii Romæ Deûmque locus.”

Horace:――

“Dis quibus septem placuere colles.”

Propertius:――

“Septem urbs alta jugis, toti quæ præsidet orbi.”

Tertullian:――“I appeal to the citizens of Rome, the populace that
dwell on the seven hills” (Apol. 35). And again, Jerome to Marcella,
when urging her to quit Rome for Bethlehem: “Read what is said in the
Apocalypse of the seven hills,” &c. The situation of the city, if that
was destined to be represented by the dragon, would naturally suggest
the idea of the seven-headed monster. Comp. Notes on ch. xiii. The
explanation which is here given of the meaning of the “seven heads” is,
in fact, one that is given in the book of Revelation itself, and there
can be no danger of error in this part of the interpretation. See ch.
xvii. 9: “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman
sitteth.” Comp. ver. 18.

(e) _The ten horns._ These were emblems of power, denoting that in
reference to that power there were, in some respects, _ten_ sources.
The same thing is referred to here which is in Da. vii. 7, 8, 20, 24.
See the Notes on Da. vii. 24, where this subject is fully considered.
The creature that John saw was indeed a _monster_, and we are not to
expect entire congruity in the details. It is sufficient that the main
idea is preserved, and that would be, if the reference was to Rome
considered as the place where the energy of Satan, as opposed to God
and the church, was centered.

(f) _The seven crowns._ This would merely denote that kingly or royal
authority was claimed.

Illustration: Roman Standard.

The _general_ interpretation which refers this vision to Rome may
receive confirmation from the fact that the _dragon_ was at one time
the Roman standard, as is represented by the annexed engraving from
Montfauçon. Ammianus Marcellinus (xvi. 10) thus describes this standard:
“The dragon was covered with purple cloth, and fastened to the end of a
pike gilt and adorned with precious stones. It opened its wide throat,
and the wind blew through it; and it hissed as if in a rage, with its
tail floating in several folds through the air.” He elsewhere often
gives it the epithet of _purpureus_――purple-red: _purpureum signum
draconis_, &c. With {306} this the description of Claudian well agrees
also:――

“Hi volucres tollent aquilas; hi picta draconum
Colla levant: multumque tumet per nubila serpens,
Iratus stimulante noto, vivitque receptis
Flatibus, et vario mentitur sibila flatu.”

The dragon was first used as an ensign near the close of the second
century of the Christian era, and it was not until the third century
that its use had become common; and the reference here, according to
this fact, would be to that period of the Roman power when this had
become a common standard, and when the applicability of this image
would be readily understood. It is simply _Rome_ that is referred
to――Rome, the great agent of accomplishing the purposes of Satan
towards the church. The _eagle_ was the common Roman ensign in the time
of the republic, and in the earlier periods of the empire; but in later
periods the dragon became also a standard as common and as well known
as the eagle. “In the third century it had become almost as notorious
among Roman ensigns as the _eagle_ itself; and is in the fourth century
noted by Prudentius, Vegetius, Chrysostom, Ammianus, &c.; in the fifth,
by Claudian and others” (Elliott).

4 And his [378]tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven,
and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before
the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her
child as soon as it was born.

4. _And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven._ The
word rendered _drew_――σύρω――means to _draw_, _drag_, _haul_. Professor
Stuart renders it “drew along;” and explains it as meaning that “the
danger is represented as being in the upper region of the air, so that
his tail may be supposed to interfere with and sweep down the stars,
which, as viewed by the ancients, were all set in the visible expanse
or welkin.” So Daniel (viii. 10), speaking of the little horn, says
that “it waxed great, even to the host of heaven, and it cast down some
of the host and of the stars to the ground.” See Notes on that passage.
The main idea here undoubtedly is that of _power_, and the object of
John is to show that the power of the dragon was _as if_ it extended
to the stars, and _as if_ it dragged down a third part of them to the
earth, or swept them away with its tail, leaving two-thirds unaffected.
A power that would sweep them _all_ away would be universal; a power
that would sweep away one-third only would represent a dominion of
that extent only. The dragon is represented as floating in the air――a
monster extended along the sky――and one-third of the whole expanse
was subject to his control. Suppose, then, that the dragon here was
designed to represent the Roman Pagan power; suppose that it referred
to that power about to engage in the work of persecution, and at a time
when the church was about to be greatly enlarged, and to fill the world;
suppose that it referred to a time when but one-third part of the Roman
world was subject to Pagan influence, and the remaining two-thirds were,
for some cause, safe from this influence,――all the conditions here
referred to would be fulfilled. Now it so happens that at a time when
the “dragon” had become a common standard in the Roman armies, and had
in some measure superseded the eagle, a state of things _did_ exist
which well corresponds with this representation. There were times under
the emperors when, in a considerable part of the empire, after the
establishment of Christianity, the church enjoyed protection, and the
Christian religion was tolerated, while in other parts Paganism still
prevailed, and waged a bitter warfare with the church. “Twice, at least,
before the Roman empire became divided permanently into the two parts,
the Eastern and the Western, there was a _tripartite_ division of
the empire. The first occurred A.D. 311, when it was divided between
Constantine, Licinius, and Maximin; the other A.D. 337, on the death of
Constantine, when it was divided between his three sons, Constantine,
Constans, and Constantius.” “In two-thirds of the empire, embracing its
whole European and African territory, Christians enjoyed toleration;
in the other, or Asiatic portion, they were still, after a brief and
uncertain respite, exposed to persecution, in all its bitterness and
cruelty as before” (Elliott). I do not deem it absolutely essential,
however, in order to a _fair_ exposition of this passage, that we
should {307} be able to refer to minute historical facts with names
and dates. A sufficient fulfilment is found if there was a period when
the church, bright, glorious, and prosperous, was apparently about to
become greatly enlarged, but when the monstrous Pagan power still held
its sway over a considerable part of the world, exposing the church to
persecution. Even after the establishment of the church in the empire,
and the favour shown to it by the Roman government, it was long before
the Pagan power ceased to rage, and before the church could be regarded
as safe. ¶ _And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be
delivered, for to devour her child._ To prevent the increase and spread
of the church in the world.

5 And [379]she brought forth a man child, [380]who was to rule
all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up
unto God, and _to_ his throne.

5. _And she brought forth a man child._ Representing, according to the
view above taken, the church in its increase and prosperity――_as if_ a
child were born that was to rule over all nations. See Notes on ver. 2.
¶ _Who was to rule all nations._ That is, according to this view, the
church thus represented was destined to reign in all the earth, or all
the earth was to become subject to its laws. Comp. Notes on Da. vii.
13, 14. ¶ _With a rod of iron._ The language here used is derived from
Ps. ii. 9: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron.” The form of the
expression here used, “who was to _rule_”――ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν――is
derived from the Septuagint translation of the Psalm――ποιμαίνεις――“thou
shalt _rule_ them;” to wit, as a shepherd does his flock. The
reference is to such control as a shepherd employs in relation to his
flock――protecting, guarding, and defending them, with the idea that
the flock is under his care; and, on the supposition that this refers
to the church, it means that it would yet have the ascendency or the
dominion over the earth. The meaning in the phrase, “with a rod of
iron,” is, that the dominion would be strong or irresistible――as an
iron sceptre is one that cannot be broken or resisted. The thoughts
here expressed, therefore, are, (a) that the church would become
universal――or that the principles of truth and righteousness
would prevail everywhere on the earth; (b) that the ascendency of
religion over the understandings and consciences of men would be
irresistible――as firm as a government administered under a sceptre of
iron; yet (c) that it would be rather of a character of protection than
of force or violence, like the sway which a shepherd wields over his
flock. I understand the “man child” here, therefore, to refer to the
church in its increase under the Messiah, and the idea to be, that
that church was, at the time referred to, about to be enlarged, and
that, though its increase was opposed, yet it was destined ultimately
to assert a mild sway over all the world. The _time_ here referred
to would seem to be some period in the early history of the church
when religion was likely to be rapidly propagated, and when it was
opposed and retarded by violent persecution――perhaps the last of the
persecutions under the Pagan Roman empire. ¶ _And her child was caught
up unto God._ This is evidently a symbolical representation. Some event
was to occur, or some divine interposition was to take place, _as if_
the child thus born were caught up from the earth to save it from death,
and was rendered secure by being in the presence of God, and near his
throne. It cannot be supposed that anything like this would _literally_
occur. Any divine interposition to protect the church in its increase,
or to save it from being destroyed by the dragon――the fierce Pagan
power――would be properly represented by this. Why may we not suppose
the reference to be to the time of Constantine, when the church came
under his protection; when it was effectually and finally saved from
Pagan persecution; when it was rendered safe from the enemy that waited
to destroy it? On the supposition that this refers to an increasing
but endangered church, in whose defence a civil power was raised up,
exalting Christianity to the throne, and protecting it from danger,
this would be well represented by the child caught up to heaven. This
view may derive confirmation from some well-known facts in history. The
old Pagan power was concentrated in Maximin, who was emperor from the
Nile to the Bosphorus, and who raged against the gospel and the church
“with Satanic enmity.” “Infuriate at the now imminent prospect of the
Christian body {308} attaining establishment in the empire, Maximin
renewed the persecution against Christians within the limits of his
own dominion; prohibiting their assemblies, and degrading, and even
killing their bishops.” Comp. Gibbon, i. 325, 326. The last struggle
of Pagan Rome to destroy the church by persecution, before the triumph
of Constantine, and the public establishment of the Christian religion,
might be well represented by the attempt of the dragon to destroy
the child; and the safety of the church, and its complete deliverance
from Pagan persecution, by the symbol of a child caught up to heaven,
and placed near the throne of God. The persecution under Maximin was
the last struggle of Paganism to retain the supremacy, and to crush
Christianity in the empire. “Before the decisive battle,” says Milner,
“Maximin vowed to Jupiter that, if victorious, he would abolish the
Christian name. The contest between Jehovah and Jupiter was now at its
height, and drawing to a crisis.” The result was the defeat and death
of Maximin, and the termination of the efforts of Paganism to destroy
Christianity by force. Respecting this event, Mr. Gibbon remarks, “The
defeat and death of Maximin soon delivered the church from the last and
most implacable of her enemies,” i. 326. Christianity was, after that,
rendered safe from Pagan persecution. Mr. Gibbon says, “The gratitude
of the church has exalted the virtues of the generous patron _who
seated Christianity on the throne of the Roman world_.” If, however, it
should be regarded as a forced and fanciful interpretation to suppose
that the passage before us refers to this _specific_ event, yet the
_general_ circumstances of the times would furnish a fulfilment of what
is here said. (a) The church would be well represented by the beautiful
woman. (b) The prospect of its increase and universal dominion would
be well represented by the birth of the child. (c) The furious opposing
Pagan power would be well represented by the dragon in its attempts
to destroy the child. (d) The safety of the church would be well
represented by the symbol of the child caught up to God, and placed
near his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a
place prepared of God, that they should feed her there [381]a
thousand two hundred _and_ threescore days.

6. _And the woman._ The woman representing the church. Notes, ver. 1.
¶ _Fled._ That is, she fled in the manner, and at the time, stated in
ver. 14. John here evidently anticipates, by a summary statement, what
he relates more in detail in ver. 14‒17. He had referred (ver. 2‒5) to
what occurred to the child in its persecutions, and he here alludes,
in general, to what befell the true church as compelled to flee into
obscurity and safety. Having briefly referred to this, the writer
(ver. 7‒13) gives an account of the efforts of Satan consequent on the
removal of the child to heaven. ¶ _Into the wilderness._ On the meaning
of the word _wilderness_ in the New Testament, see Notes on Mat. iii. 1.
It means a desert place, a place where there are few or no inhabitants;
a place, therefore, where one might be concealed and unknown――remote
from the habitations and the observations of men. This would well
represent the fact, that the true church became for a time obscure and
unknown――_as if_ it had fled away from the habitations of men, and had
retired to the solitude and loneliness of a desert. Yet even there (ver.
14, 16) it would be mysteriously nourished, though seemingly driven out
into wastes and solitudes, and having its abode among the rocks and
sands of a desert. ¶ _Where she hath a place prepared of God._ A place
where she might be safe, and might be kept alive. The meaning is, that
during that time the true church, though obscure and almost unknown,
would be the object of the divine protection and care――a beautiful
representation of the church during the corruptions of the Papacy and
the darkness of the middle ages. ¶ _That they should feed her._ That
they should _nourish_ or _sustain_ her――τρέφωσιν――to wit, as specified
in ver. 14, 16. Those who were to do this, represented by the word
“_they_,” are not particularly mentioned, and the simple idea is that
she _would be_ nourished during that time. That is, stripped of the
figure, the church during that time would find true friends, and would
be kept alive. It is hardly necessary to say that this has, in fact,
occurred in the darkest periods of the history of the church. ¶ _A
thousand two hundred |and| threescore days._ That {309} is, regarding
these as prophetic days, in which a day denotes a year, twelve hundred
and sixty years. The same period evidently is referred to in ver. 14,
in the words “for a time, and times, and half a time.” And the same
period is undoubtedly referred to in Da. vii. 25: “And they shall
be given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of
time.” For a full consideration of the meaning of this language, and
its application to the Papacy, see Notes on Da. vii. 25. The full
investigation there made of the meaning and application of the language
renders its consideration here unnecessary. I regard it here, as I
do there, as referring to the proper continuance of the Papal power,
during which the true church would remain in comparative obscurity, as
if driven into a desert. Comp. Notes on ch. xi. 2. The meaning here is,
that during that period the true church would not become wholly extinct.
It would have an existence upon the earth, but its final triumph would
be reserved for the time when this great enemy should be finally
overthrown. Comp. Notes on ver. 14‒17.

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.

7. _And there was war in heaven._ There was a state of things existing
in regard to the woman and the child――the church in the condition in
which it would then be――which would be well represented by a war in
heaven; that is, by a conflict between the powers of good and evil, of
light and darkness. Of course it is not necessary to understand this
_literally_, any more than the other symbolical representations in the
book. All that is meant is, that a vision passed before the mind of
John _as if_ there was a conflict, in regard to the church, between
the angels in heaven and Satan. There is a vision of the persecuted
church――of the woman fleeing into the desert――and the course of the
narrative is here interrupted by going back (ver. 7‒13) to describe the
conflict which led to this result, and the fact that Satan, as it were
cast out of heaven, and unable to achieve a victory there, was suffered
to vent his malice against the church on earth. The seat of this
warfare is said to be heaven. This language sometimes refers to heaven
as it appears to us――the sky――the upper regions of the atmosphere,
and some have supposed that that was the place of the contest. But
the language in ch. xi. 19, xii. 1 (see Notes on those places), would
rather lead us to refer it to heaven considered as lying beyond the sky.
This accords, too, with other representations in the Bible, where Satan
is described as appearing before God, and among the sons of God. See
Notes on Job i. 6. Of course this is not to be understood as a _real_
transaction, but as a symbolical representation of the contest between
good and evil――_as if_ there was a war waged in heaven between Satan
and the leader of the heavenly hosts. ¶ _Michael._ There have been very
various opinions as to who Michael is. Many Protestant interpreters
have supposed that Christ is meant. The reasons usually alleged
for this opinion, many of which are very fanciful, may be seen in
Hengstenberg (_Die Offenbarung des heiliges Johannes_), i. 611‒622. The
reference to _Michael_ here is probably derived from Da. x. 13; xii. 1.
In those places he is represented as the guardian angel of the people
of God; and it is in this sense, I apprehend, that the passage is to
be understood here. There is no evidence in the name itself, or in the
circumstances referred to, that Christ is intended; and if he had been,
it is inconceivable why he was not referred to by his own name, or
by some of the usual appellations which John gives him. Michael, the
archangel, is here represented as the guardian of the church, and as
contending against Satan for its protection. Comp. Notes on Da. x. 13.
This representation accords with the usual statements in the Bible
respecting the interposition of the angels in behalf of the church (see
Notes on He. i. 14), and is one which cannot be proved to be unfounded.
All the analogies which throw any light on the subject, as well as the
uniform statements of the Bible, lead us to suppose that good beings
of other worlds feel an interest in the welfare of the redeemed church
below. ¶ _And his angels._ The angels under him. Michael is represented
as the archangel, and all the statements in the Bible suppose that the
heavenly hosts are distributed into different ranks and orders. See
Notes on Jude 9; Ep. i. 21. If Satan is permitted to make war against
the church, there is no improbability in supposing that, in those
higher regions where {310} the war is carried on, and in those aspects
of it which lie beyond the power and the knowledge of man, good angels
should be employed to defeat his plans. ¶ _Fought._ See Notes on Jude 9.
¶ _Against the dragon._ Against Satan. Notes, ver. 3. ¶ _And the dragon
fought and his angels._ That is, the master-spirit――Satan, and those
under him. See Notes on Mat. iv. 1. Of the nature of this warfare
nothing is definitely stated. Its whole sphere lies beyond mortal
vision, and is carried on in a manner of which we can have little
conception. What weapons Satan may use to destroy the church, and in
what way his efforts may be counteracted by holy angels, are points
on which we can have little knowledge. It is sufficient to know
that the fact of such a struggle is not improbable, and that Satan is
successfully resisted by the leader of the heavenly host.

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
heaven.

8. _And prevailed not._ Satan and his angels failed in their purpose.
¶ _Neither was their place found anymore in heaven._ They were cast
out, and were seen there no more. The idea is, that they were defeated
and driven away, though for a time they were suffered to carry on the
warfare elsewhere.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old [382]serpent,
called the [383]Devil, and [384]Satan, which deceiveth the
whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels
were cast out with him.

9. _And the great dragon was cast out._ See Notes on ver. 3. That there
may be an allusion in the _language_ here to what actually occurred in
some far-distant period of the past, when Satan was ejected from heaven,
there can be no reason to doubt. Our Saviour seems to refer to such an
event in the language which he uses when he says (Lu. x. 18), “I beheld
Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” and Jude, perhaps (ver. 6), may
refer to the same event. All that we know on the subject leads us to
suppose that at some time there was a revolt among the angels, and that
the rebellious part were cast out of heaven, for an allusion to this is
not unfrequent in the Scriptures. Still the event _here_ referred to is
a symbolical representation of what could occur at a later period, when
the church would be about to spread and be triumphant, and when Satan
would wage a deadly war against it. That opposition would be _as if_
he made war on Michael the archangel, and the heavenly hosts, and his
failure would be as great _as if_ he were vanquished and cast out of
heaven. ¶ _That old serpent._ This doubtless refers to the serpent that
deceived Eve (Ge. iii. 1‒11; Re. xx. 2; comp. Notes on 2 Co. xi. 3);
and this passage may be adduced as a proof that the real tempter of Eve
was the devil, who assumed the form of a serpent. The word _old_ here
refers to the fact that his appearance on earth was at an early stage
of the world’s history, and that he had long been employed in the work
which is here attributed to him――that of opposing the church. ¶ _Called
the Devil._ To whom the name _Devil_ is given. That is, this is the
same being that is elsewhere and commonly known by that name. See Notes
on Mat. iv. 1. ¶ _And Satan._ Another name given to the same being――a
name, like the other, designed to refer to something in his character.
See it explained in the Notes on Job i. 6. ¶ _Which deceiveth the whole
world._ Whose character is that of a deceiver; whose agency extends
over all the earth. See Notes on Jn. viii. 44, and 1 Jn. v. 19. ¶ _He
was cast out into the earth._ That is, he was not suffered to pursue
his designs in heaven, but was cast down to the earth, where he is
permitted for a time to carry on his warfare against the church.
According to the interpretation proposed above, this refers to the
period when there were indications that God was about to set up his
kingdom on the earth. The _language_, however, is such as would be used
on the supposition that there had been, at some period, a rebellion in
heaven, and that Satan and his followers had been cast out to return
there no more. It is difficult to explain this language except on that
supposition; and such a supposition is, in itself, no more improbable
than the apostasy and rebellion of man. ¶ _And his angels were cast out
with him._ They shared the lot of their leader. As applicable to the
state of things to which this refers, the meaning is, that _all_ were
overthrown; that no enemy of the church would remain {311} unsubdued;
that the victory would be final and complete. As applicable to the
event from which the language is supposed to have been derived――the
revolt in heaven――the meaning is, that the followers in the revolt
shared the lot of the leader, and that all who rebelled were ejected
from heaven. The first and the only revolt in heaven was quelled; and
the result furnished to the universe an impressive proof that none who
rebelled there would be forgiven――that apostasy so near the throne
could not be pardoned.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, [385]Now is come
salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the
power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast
down, which accused them before our God day and night.

10. _And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven._ The great enemy was
expelled; the cause of God and truth was triumphant; and the conquering
hosts united in celebrating the victory. This representation of a song,
consequent on victory, is in accordance with the usual representations
in the Bible. See the song of Moses at the Red Sea, Ex. xv.; the song
of Deborah, Ju. v.; the song of David when the Lord had delivered him
out of the hand of all his enemies, 2 Sa. xxii.; and Is. xii., xxv. On
no occasion could such a song be more appropriate than on the complete
routing and discomfiture of Satan and his rebellious hosts. Viewed
in reference to the _time_ here symbolized, this would relate to the
certain triumph of the church and of truth on the earth; in reference
to the _language_, there is an allusion to the joy and triumph of the
heavenly hosts when Satan and his apostate legions were expelled.
¶ _Now is come salvation._ That is, complete deliverance from the power
of Satan. ¶ _And strength._ That is, now is the mighty power of God
manifested in casting down and subduing the great enemy of the church.
¶ _And the kingdom of our God._ The reign of our God. See Notes on Mat.
iii. 2. That is now established among men, and God will henceforward
rule. This refers to the certain ultimate triumph of his cause in the
world. ¶ _And the power of his Christ._ His anointed; that is, the
kingdom of Christ as the Messiah, or as anointed and set apart to
rule over the world. See Notes on Mat. i. 1. ¶ _For the accuser of
our brethren is cast down._ The phrase “_our_ brethren” shows by whom
this song is celebrated. It is sung in heaven; but it is by those
who belonged to the redeemed church, and whose brethren were still
suffering persecution and trial on the earth. It shows the tenderness
of the tie which unites all the redeemed as brethren, whether on earth
or in heaven; and it shows the interest which they “who have passed the
flood” have in the trials, the sorrows, and the triumphs of those who
are still upon the earth. We have here another appellation given to the
great enemy――“accuser of the brethren.” The word here used――κατήγορος,
in later editions of the New Testament κατήγωρ――means properly _an
accuser_, one who blames another, or charges another with crime. The
word occurs in Jn. viii. 10; Ac. xxiii. 30, 35; xxiv. 8; xxv. 16, 18;
Re. xii. 10, in all which places it is rendered _accuser_ or _accusers_,
though only in the latter place applied to Satan. The verb frequently
occurs, Mat. xii. 10; xxvii. 12; Mar. iii. 2; xv. 3, _et al._ The
description of Satan as an _accuser_ accords with the opinion of the
ancient Hebrews in regard to his character. Thus he is represented
in Job i. 9‒11; ii. 4, 5; Zec. iii. 1, 2; 1 Ch. xxi. 1. The phrase
“of the brethren” refers to Christians, or to the people of God;
and the meaning here is, that one of the characteristics of Satan――a
characteristic so well known as to make it proper to designate him by
it――is that he is an _accuser_ of the righteous; that he is employed in
bringing against them charges affecting their character and destroying
their influence. The propriety of this appellation cannot be doubted.
It is, as it has always been, one of the characteristics of Satan――one
of the means by which he keeps up his influence in the world――to bring
accusations against the people of God. Thus, under his suggestions,
and by his agents, they are charged with hypocrisy; with insincerity;
with being influenced by bad motives; with pursuing sinister designs
under the cloak of religion; with secret vices and crimes. Thus it was
that the martyrs were accused; thus it is that unfounded accusations
are often brought against {312} ministers of the gospel, palsying
their power and diminishing their influence, or that when a professed
Christian falls the church is made to suffer by an effort to cast
suspicion on all who bear the Christian name. Perhaps the most skilful
thing that Satan does, and the thing by which he most contributes to
diminish the influence of the church, is in thus causing “accusations”
to be brought against the people of God. ¶ _Is cast down._ The period
here referred to was, doubtless, the time when the church was about to
be established and to flourish in the world, and when accusations would
be brought against Christians by various classes of calumniators and
informers. It is well known that in the early ages of Christianity
crimes of the most horrid nature were charged on Christians, and
that it was by these slanders that the effort was made to prevent the
extension of the Christian church. ¶ _Which accused them before our
God._ See Notes on Job i. 9, 10. The meaning is, that he accused them,
as it were, in the very presence of God. ¶ _Day and night._ He never
ceased bringing these accusations, and sought by the perseverance and
constancy with which they were urged to convince the world that there
was no sincerity in the church and no reality in religion.

11 And they [386]overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and
by the word of their testimony; and [387]they loved not their
lives unto the death.

11. _And they overcame him._ That is, he was foiled in his attempt thus
to destroy the church. The reference here, undoubtedly, is primarily
to the martyr age and to the martyr spirit; and the meaning is, that
religion had not become extinct by these accusations, as Satan hoped
it would be, but lived and triumphed. By their holy lives, by their
faithful testimony, by their patient sufferings, they showed that
all these accusations were false, and that the religion which they
professed was from God, and thus in fact gained a victory over their
accuser. Instead of being themselves subdued, Satan himself was
vanquished, and the world was constrained to acknowledge that the
persecuted religion had a heavenly origin. No design was ever more
ineffectual than that of crushing the church by persecution, no victory
was ever more signal than that which was gained when it could be said
that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” ¶ _By the
blood of the Lamb._ The Lord Jesus――the Lamb of God. Notes, ch. v. 6;
comp. Notes on Jn. i. 29. The blood of Christ was that by which they
were redeemed, and it was in virtue of the efficacy of the atonement
that they were enabled to achieve the victory. Comp. Notes on Phi.
iv. 13. Christ himself achieved a victory over Satan by his death (see
Notes on Col. ii. 15; He. ii. 15), and it is in virtue of the victory
which he thus achieved that we are now able to triumph over our great
foe.

“I ask them whence their victory came.
They, with united breath,
Ascribe their conquest to the Lamb,
Their triumph to his death.”

¶ _And by the word of their testimony._ The faithful testimony which
they bore to the truth. That is, they adhered to the truth in their
sufferings, they declared their belief in it, even in the pains of
martyrdom; and it was by this that they overcame the great enemy――that
is, by this that the belief in the gospel was established and
maintained in the world. The reference here is to the effects of
persecution and to the efforts of Satan to drive religion from the
world by persecution. John says that the result as he saw it in vision
was, that the persecuted church bore a faithful testimony to the truth,
and that the great enemy was overcome. ¶ _And they loved not their
lives unto the death._ They did not so love their lives that they were
unwilling to die as martyrs. They did not shrink back when threatened
with death, but remained firm in their attachment to their Saviour, and
left their dying testimony to the truth and power of religion. It was
by these means that Christianity was established in the world, and John,
in the scene before us, saw it thus triumphant, and saw the angels
and the redeemed in heaven celebrating the triumph. The result of the
attempts to destroy the Christian religion by persecution demonstrated
that it was to triumph. No more mighty power could be employed to crush
it than was employed by the Roman emperors; and when it was seen that
Christianity could survive those efforts to crush it it was certain
{313} that it was destined to live for ever.

12 Therefore[388] rejoice, _ye_ heavens, and ye that dwell
in them. Woe[389] to the inhabiters of the earth, and of the
sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath,
because [390]he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

12. _Therefore rejoice, |ye| heavens._ It is not unusual in the
Scriptures to call on the heavens and the earth to sympathize with
the events that occur. Comp. Notes on Is. i. 2. Here the heavens are
called on to rejoice because of the signal victory which it was seen
would be achieved over the great enemy. Heaven itself was secure from
any further rebellion or invasion, and the foundation was laid for a
final victory over Satan everywhere. ¶ _And ye that dwell in them._
The angels and the redeemed. This is an instance of the sympathy of
the heavenly inhabitants――the unfallen and holy beings before the
throne――with the church on earth, and with all that may affect its
welfare. Compare Notes on 1 Pe. i. 12. ¶ _Woe to the inhabiters of the
earth._ This is not an imprecation, or a wish that woe _might_ come
upon them, but a prediction that it _would_. The meaning is this: Satan
would ultimately be entirely overcome――a fact that was symbolized by
his being cast out of heaven; but there would be still temporary war
upon the earth, as if he were permitted to roam over the world for a
time and to spread woe and sorrow there. ¶ _And of the sea._ Those who
inhabit the islands of the sea and those who are engaged in commerce.
The meaning is, that the world as such would have occasion to
mourn――the dwellers both on the land and on the sea. ¶ _For the devil
is come down unto you._ As if cast out of heaven. ¶ _Having great
wrath._ Wrath shown by the symbolical war with Michael and his angels
(ver. 7); wrath increased and inflamed because he has been discomfited;
wrath the more concentrated because he knows that his time is limited.
¶ _Because he knoweth that he hath but a short time._ That is, he knows
that the time is limited in which he will be permitted to wage war with
the saints on the earth. There is allusion elsewhere to the fact that
the time of Satan is limited, and that he is apprised of that. Thus in
Mat. viii. 29, “Art thou come hither to torment us _before the time_?”
See Notes on that passage. Within that limited space, Satan knows that
he must do all that he ever can do to destroy souls, and to spread woe
through the earth, and hence it is not unnatural that he should be
represented as excited to deeper wrath, and as rousing all his energy
to destroy the church.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he
persecuted the woman which brought forth the man _child_.

13. _And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth._ That
is, when Satan saw that he was doomed to discomfiture and overthrow,
_as if_ he had been cast out of heaven; when he saw that his efforts
must be confined to the earth, and that only for a limited time,
he “persecuted the woman,” and was more violently enraged against
the church on earth. ¶ _He persecuted the woman which brought forth
the man |child|._ See Notes on ver. 5. The child is represented as
safe; that is, the ultimate progress and extension of the church was
certain. But Satan was permitted still to wage a warfare against the
church――represented here by his wrath against the woman, and by her
being constrained to flee into the wilderness. It is unnecessary to
say that, after the _Pagan_ persecutions ceased, and Christianity
was firmly established in the empire; after Satan saw that all hope
of destroying the church in that manner was at an end, his enmity
was vented in another form――in the rise of the Papacy, and in the
persecutions under that――an opposition to spiritual religion no less
determined and deadly than that which had been waged by Paganism.

14 And to the woman were given two [391]wings of a great eagle,
that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where
she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from
the face of the serpent.

14. _And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle._ The
most powerful of birds, and among the most rapid in flight. See
Notes on ch. iv. 7. The meaning here is, that the {314} woman is
represented as prepared for a rapid flight; so prepared as to be able
to outstrip her pursuer, and to reach a place of safety. Divested of
the figure, the sense is, that the church, when exposed to this form
of persecution, would be protected _as if_ miraculously supplied with
wings. ¶ _That she might fly into the wilderness._ There is here a
more full description of what is briefly stated in ver. 6. A wilderness
or desert is often represented as a place of safety from pursuers.
Thus David (1 Sa. xxiii. 14, 15) is represented as fleeing into the
wilderness from the persecutions of Saul. So Elijah (1 Ki. xix. 4) fled
into the wilderness from the persecutions of Jezebel. The simple idea
here is, that the church, in the opposition which would come upon it,
would find a refuge. ¶ _Into her place._ A place appointed for her;
that is, a place where she could be safe. ¶ _Where she is nourished._
The word here rendered _nourished_ is the same――τρέφω――which occurs in
ver. 6, and which is there rendered _feed_. It means to feed, nurse,
or nourish, as the young of animals (Mat. vi. 26; xxv. 37; Lu. xii. 24;
Ac. xii. 20); that is, to sustain by proper food. The meaning here is,
that the church would be kept alive. It is not indeed mentioned by whom
this would be done, but it is evidently implied that it would be by God.
During this long period in which the church would be in obscurity, it
would not be suffered to become extinct. Comp. 1 Ki. xvii. 3‒6. ¶ _For
a time, and times, and half a time._ A year, two years, and half a
year; that is, forty-two months (see Notes on ch. xi. 2); or, reckoning
the month at thirty days, twelve hundred and sixty days; and regarding
these as prophetic days, in which a day stands for a year, twelve
hundred and sixty years. For a full discussion of the meaning of this
language, see Notes on Da. vii. 25; and Editor’s Pref. For the evidence,
also, that the time thus specified refers to the Papacy, and to the
period of its continuance, see the Notes on that place. The full
consideration given to the subject there renders it unnecessary to
discuss it here. For it is manifest that there is an allusion here to
the passage in Daniel; that the twelve hundred and sixty days refer to
the same thing; and that the true explanation must be made in the same
way. The main difficulty, as is remarked on the Notes on that passage,
is in determining the time when the Papacy properly commenced. If
that could be ascertained with certainty, there would be no difficulty
in determining when it would come to an end. But though there is
considerable uncertainty as to the exact time when it arose, and though
different opinions have been entertained on that point, yet it is
true that all the periods assigned for the rise of that power lead
to the conclusion that the time of its downfall cannot be remote. The
meaning in the passage before us is, that during all the time of the
continuance of that formidable, persecuting power, the true church
would not in fact become extinct. It would be obscure and comparatively
unknown, but it would still live. The fulfilment of this is found in
the fact, that during all the time here referred to, there has been a
true church on the earth. Pure, spiritual religion――the religion of
the New Testament――has never been wholly extinct. In the history of the
Waldenses, and Albigenses, the Bohemian brethren, and kindred people;
in deserts and places of obscurity; among individuals and among small
and persecuted sects; here and there in the cases of individuals in
monasteries,[392] the true religion has been kept up in the world, as
in the days of Elijah God reserved seven thousand men who had not bowed
the knee to Baal: and it is possible now for us, with a good degree of
certainty, to show, even during the darkest ages, and when Rome seemed
to have entirely the ascendency, where the true church was. To find out
this, was the great design of the Ecclesiastical History of Milner;
it has been done, also, with great learning and skill, by Neander.
¶ _From the face of the serpent._ The dragon――or Satan represented
by the dragon. Notes, ver. 3. The reference here is {315} to the
opposition which Satan makes to the true church under the persecutions
and corruptions of the Papacy.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a [393]flood,
after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of
the flood.

15. _And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood._ This is
peculiar and uncommon imagery, and it is not necessary to suppose that
anything like this literally occurs in nature. Some serpents are indeed
said to eject from their mouths poisonous bile when they are enraged,
in order to annoy their pursuers; and some sea-monsters, it is known,
spout forth large quantities of water; but the representation here does
not seem to be taken from either of those cases. It is the mere product
of the imagination, but the sense is clear. The woman is represented as
having wings, and as being able thus to escape from the serpent. But,
as an expression of his wrath, and as if with the hope of destroying
her in her flight by a deluge of water, he is represented as pouring a
flood from his mouth, that he might, if possible, sweep her away. The
figure here would well represent the continued malice of the Papal
body against the true church, in those dark ages when it was sunk in
obscurity, and, as it were, driven out into the desert. That malice
never slumbered, but was continually manifesting itself in some new
form, as if it were the purpose of Papal Rome to sweep it entirely
away. ¶ _That he might cause her to be carried away of the flood._
Might cause the church wholly to be destroyed. The truth taught is,
that Satan leaves no effort untried to destroy the church.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her
mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of
his mouth.

16. _And the earth helped the woman._ The earth _seemed_ to sympathize
with the woman in her persecutions, and to interpose to save her. The
meaning is, that a state of things would exist in regard to the church
thus driven into obscurity, which would be well represented by what
is here said to occur. It was cut off from human aid. It was still
in danger; still persecuted. In this state it was nourished from some
unseen source. It was enabled to avoid the direct attacks of the enemy,
and when he attacked it in a new form, a new mode of intervention in
its behalf was granted, _as if_ the earth should open and swallow up
a flood of water. We are not, therefore, to look for any _literal_
fulfilment of this, as if the earth interposed in some marvellous way
to aid the church. The sense is, that, _in_ that state of obscurity
and solitude, the divine interposition was manifested, in an unexpected
manner, _as if_, when an impetuous stream was rolling along that
threatened to sweep everything away, a chasm should suddenly open in
the earth and absorb it. During the dark ages many such interventions
occurred, saving the church from utter destruction. Overflowing waters
are often in the Scriptures an emblem of mighty enemies. Ps. cxxiv. 2‒5,
“If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, when men rose up
against us; then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was
kindled against us: then the waters had overwhelmed us, the stream
had gone over our soul: then the proud waters had gone over our soul.”
Ps. xviii. 16, “He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many
waters.” Je. xlvii. 2, “Behold, waters rise up out of the north, and
shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land,” &c. Comp.
Je. xlvi. 7, 8, and Notes on Is. viii. 7, 8. ¶ _And the earth opened
her mouth._ A chasm was made sufficient to absorb the waters. That is,
John saw that the church was safe from this attack, and that, in order
to preserve it, there was an interposition as marked and wonderful as
if the earth should suddenly open and swallow up a mighty flood.

17 And [394]the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went
to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the
commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

17. _And the dragon was wroth with the woman._ This wrath had been
vented by his persecuting her (ver. 13); by his pursuing her; and by
his pouring out the flood of water to sweep her away (ver. 15); and the
same wrath was now vented against her children. As he could not reach
and destroy the woman {316} herself, he turned his indignation against
all who were allied to her. Stripped of the imagery, the meaning is,
that as he could not destroy the church as such, he vented his malice
against all who were the friends of the church, and endeavoured to
destroy them. “The church, as such, he could not destroy; therefore
he turned his wrath against individual Christians, to bring as many of
them as possible to death” (De Wette). ¶ _And went to make war with the
remnant of her seed._ No mention is made before of his persecuting the
children of the woman, except his opposition to the “man child” which
she bore, ver. 1‒4. The “woman” represents the church, and the phrase
“the remnant of her seed” must refer to her scattered children, that is,
to the scattered members of the church, wherever they could be found.
The reference here is to persecutions against individuals, rather than
a general persecution against the church itself, and all that is here
said would find an ample fulfilment in the vexations and troubles of
individuals in the Roman communion in the dark ages, when they evinced
the spirit of pure evangelical piety; in the cruelties practised in
the Inquisition on individual Christians under the plea that they were
heretics; and in the persecutions of such men as Wycliffe, John Huss,
and Jerome of Prague. This warfare against individual Christians was
continued long in the Papal church, and tens of thousands of true
friends of the Saviour suffered every form of cruelty and wrong as
the result. ¶ _Which keep the commandments of God._ Who were true
Christians. This phrase characterizes correctly those who, in the dark
ages, were the friends of God, in the midst of abounding corruption.
¶ _And have the testimony of Jesus Christ._ That is, they bore a
faithful testimony to his truth, or were real _martyrs_. See ch. ii. 13.

The scene, then, in this chapter is this: John saw a most beautiful
woman, suitably adorned, representing the church as about to be
enlarged, and to become triumphant in the earth. Then he saw a great
red monster, representing Satan, about to destroy the church: the
Pagan power, infuriated, and putting forth its utmost energy for its
destruction. He then saw the child caught up into heaven, denoting
that the church would be ultimately safe, and would reign over all the
world. Another vision appears. It is that of a contest between Michael,
the protecting angel of the people of God, and the great foe, in
which victory declares in favour of the former, and Satan suffers a
discomfiture, _as if_ he were cast from heaven to earth. Still, however,
he is permitted for a time to carry on a warfare against the church,
though certain that he would be ultimately defeated. He puts forth
his power, and manifests his hostility, in another form――that of the
Papacy――and commences a new opposition against the spiritual church
of Christ. The church is, however, safe from _that_ attempt to destroy
it, for the woman is represented as fleeing to the wilderness beyond
the power of the enemy, and is there kept alive. Still filled with
rage, though incapable of destroying the true church itself, he turns
his wrath, under the form of Papal persecutions, against individual
Christians, and endeavours to cut them off in detail.

This is the _general_ representation in this chapter, and on the
supposition that it was _designed_ to represent the various forms
of opposition which Satan would make to the church of Christ, under
Paganism and the Papacy, it must be admitted, I think, that no
more expressive or appropriate symbols could have been chosen.
This fact should be allowed to have due influence in confirming the
interpretation suggested above; and _if_ it be admitted to be a correct
interpretation, it is conclusive evidence of the inspiration of the
book. Further _details_ of this opposition of Satan to the church under
the _Papal_ form of persecution are made in the subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER XIII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter is closely connected with ch. xii., which is properly
introductory to this and to the subsequent portions of the book to
ch. xx. See the Analysis of the Book. The vision in this chapter is of
two distinct “beasts,” each with peculiar characteristics, yet closely
related, deriving their power from a common source; aiding each other
in the accomplishment of the same object, and manifestly relating
to the same _power_ under different forms. To see the design of the
chapter, it will be necessary to exhibit the peculiar characteristics
of the two “beasts,” and {317} the points in which they resemble each
other, and sustain each other.

I. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEASTS.

A. _The characteristics of the first beast_, ver. 1‒10.

(a) It comes up out of the sea (ver. 1)――out of the commotion, the
agitation of nations――a new power that springs up from those disturbed
elements.

(b) It has seven heads and ten horns, and upon its horns ten crowns or
diadems, ver. 1.

(c) In its general form it resembles a leopard; its feet are like those
of a bear; its mouth like that of a lion. Its connection with the great
“dragon”――with Satan――is indicated by the statement that it derives its
“power, and its seat, and its authority” from him (ver. 2)――a striking
representation of the fact that the civil or secular Roman power
which supported the church of Rome through all its corrupt and bloody
progress was the putting forth of the power of Satan on the earth.

(d) One of the heads of this beast is “wounded to death”――that is,
with a wound that is in itself mortal. This wound is, however, in some
way as yet unexplained, so healed that the vitality yet remains, and
all the world pays homage to the beast, ver. 3. A blow is aimed at
this authority which seems to be fatal; and there is some healing or
restorative process by which its power is recovered, and by which the
universality of its dominion and influence is again restored.

(e) The effect of this is, that the world renders homage really to the
“dragon,” the source of this power, though _in the form_ of adoration
of the “beast,” ver. 4. That is, while the outward homage is rendered
to the “beast,” the real worship is that of the “dragon,” or Satan.
This beast is regarded as (1) _incomparable_――“Who is like unto the
‘beast?’” and (2) _invincible_――“Who is able to war with him?”

(f) In this form the beast is endowed with a mouth that “speaks great
things and blasphemies,” ver. 5――that is, the power here referred to is
arrogant, and reviles the God of heaven.

(g) The time during which he is to continue is “forty and two
months”――that is, twelve hundred and sixty days, or twelve hundred and
sixty years. See Notes on ch. xi. 2.

(h) The characteristics of this beast, and of his dominion, are
these:――(1) He opens his mouth in blasphemy against God, and his
church, and all holy beings, ver. 6. (2) He makes war with the saints
and overcomes them, ver. 7. (3) He asserts his power over all nations,
ver. 7. (4) He is worshipped by all that dwell on the earth, whose
names are not in the book of life, ver. 8.

(i) All are called on to hear――as if the announcement were important
for the church, ver. 9.

(j) The result or issue of the power represented by this monster, ver.
10. It had led others into captivity, it would itself be made captive;
it had been distinguished for slaying others, it would itself feel the
power of the sword. Until this is accomplished the patience and faith
of the saints must be sorely tried, ver. 10.

B. _The characteristics of the second beast_, ver. 11‒18.

(a) It comes out of the earth (ver. 11)――having a different origin
from the former; not springing from troubled elements, as of nations
at strife, but from that which is firm and established――like the solid
earth.

(b) It has two horns like a lamb, but it speaks as a dragon (ver. 11).
It is apparently mild, gentle, lamb-like, and inoffensive; but it is,
in fact, arrogant, haughty, and imperative.

(c) Its dominion is coextensive with that of the first beast, and the
effect of its influence is to induce the world to do homage to the
first beast, ver. 12.

(d) It has the power of performing great wonders, and particularly of
deceiving the world by the “miracles” which it performs. This power
is particularly manifested in restoring what might be regarded as an
“image” of the beast which was wounded, though not put to death, and
by giving life to that image, and causing those to be put to death who
will not worship it, ver. 13‒15.

(e) This beast causes a certain mark to be affixed to all, small and
great, and attempts a jurisdiction over all persons, so that none may
buy or sell, or engage in any business, who have not the mark affixed
to them――that is, the power represented attempts to set up a control
over the commerce of the world, ver. 16, 17.

(f) The way by which the power here referred to may be known is by
some {318} proper application of the number 666. This is stated in an
enigmatical form, and yet with such clearness that it is supposed that
it would be sufficient to indicate the power here referred to.

II. POINTS IN WHICH THE TWO BEASTS RESEMBLE OR SUSTAIN EACH OTHER.

It is manifest, on the slightest inspection of the characteristics
of the “beasts” referred to in this chapter, that they have a close
relation to each other; that, in important respects, the one is
designed to sustain the other, and that both are manifestations or
embodiments of that one and the same power represented by the “dragon,”
ver. 4. He is the great original source of power to both, and both are
engaged in accomplishing his purposes, and are combined to keep up his
dominion over the earth. The points of resemblance which it is very
important to notice are the following:――

(1) They have the same origin――that is, they both owe their power
to the “dragon,” and are designed to keep up his ascendency in human
affairs, ch. xii. 3; xiii. 2, 4, 12.

(2) They have the same extent of power and dominion.

FIRST BEAST.

The world wonders after the beast, ver. 3. They worship the
dragon and the beast, ver. 4; and all that dwell upon the
earth shall worship him, ver. 8.

SECOND BEAST.

He exercises all the power of the first beast, ver. 12.
He causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship
the first beast, ver. 12. He has power to give life unto the
image of the beast, ver. 15. He sets up jurisdiction over the
commerce of the world, ver. 16, 17.

(3) They do the same things.

FIRST BEAST.

The dragon gives power to the beast, ver. 4. There is given
unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, ver. 5.
He opens his mouth in blasphemy against God, ver. 6. It is
given him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them,
ver. 7.

SECOND BEAST.

He exercises all the power of the first beast, ver. 12. He
does great wonders, ver. 13. He makes fire come down from
heaven in the sight of men, ver. 13. He performs miracles,
ver. 14. He causes that as many as would not worship the first
beast should be killed, ver. 15. He claims dominion over all,
ver. 16, 17.

(4) The one is the means of healing the wounded head of the other, and
of restoring its authority.

FIRST BEAST.

One of his heads is, as it were, wounded to death: a wound
that would be mortal if it were not healed, ver. 3.

SECOND BEAST.

Has power to heal the wound of the first beast, ver. 12; for
it is manifest that the _healing_ comes from some influence of
the second beast.

(5) The one restores life to the other when dying.

FIRST BEAST.

Is wounded, ver. 3, and his power manifestly becomes exhausted.

SECOND BEAST.

Causes an “image” of the first beast――something that should
resemble that, or be the same power revived, to be made, and
to be worshipped, ver. 15.

(6) They have the same general characteristics.

FIRST BEAST.

Has a mouth given him to speak great things and blasphemies,
ver. 5; opens his mouth in blasphemy, ver. 6; blasphemes the
name of God, and his tabernacle, and his people, ver. 6; makes
war with the saints and overcomes them, ver. 7.

SECOND BEAST.

Speaks like a dragon, ver. 11; deceives those that dwell upon
the earth, ver. 14; is a persecuting power――causing those who
would not worship the image of the first beast to be killed,
ver. 15.

From this comparison of the two beasts, the following things are
plain:――(1) That the same _general_ power is referred to, or that they
are both modifications of one general dominion on the earth; having the
same origin, having the same locality, and aiming at the same result.
(2) It is the same general domination _prolonged_――that is, the one
is, in another form, but the _continuation_ of the other. (3) The one
becomes weak, or is in some way likely to lose its authority and power,
and is _revived_ by the other――that is, the other restores its waning
authority, and sets up substantially the same dominion again over the
earth, and causes the same great power to be acknowledged on the earth.
(4) The one _runs into_ the other; that is, one naturally produces,
or is followed by the other. (5) One _sustains_ the other. (6) They,
therefore, have a very close relation to each other: having the same
object; possessing the same general characteristics; and accomplishing
substantially the same thing on the earth. What this was, will be
better seen after the exposition of the chapter shall have been made.
It may be sufficient here to remark, that, on the very face of this
statement, it is impossible not to have {319} the Roman power suggested
to the mind, as a mighty persecuting power, in the two forms of the
civil and ecclesiastical authority, both having the same origin; aiming
at the same object; the one sustaining the other; and both combined to
keep up the dominion of the great enemy of God and man upon the earth.
It is impossible, also, not to be struck with the resemblance, in many
particulars, between this vision and that of Daniel (ch. vii.), and to
be impressed with the conviction that they are intended to refer to the
same kingdom in general, and to the same events. But this will be made
more manifest in the exposition of the chapter.

CHAPTER XIII.

AND I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a [395]beast
rise up out of the sea, [396]having seven heads and ten
horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the
[397]name of blasphemy.

1. _And I stood upon the sand of the sea._ The sand upon the shore of
the sea. That is, he seemed to stand there, and then had a vision of
a beast rising out of the waters. The _reason_ of this representation
may, perhaps, have been that among the ancients the sea was regarded
as the appropriate place for the origin of huge and terrible monsters
(Professor Stuart, _in loco_). This vision strongly resembles that
in Da. vii. 2, seq., where the prophet saw four beasts coming up in
succession from the sea. See Notes on that place. In Daniel, the four
winds of heaven are described as striving upon the great sea (ver. 2),
and the agitated ocean represents the nations in commotion, or in
a state of disorder and anarchy, and the four beasts represent four
successive kingdoms that would spring up. See Notes on Da. vii. 2.
In the passage before us, John indeed describes no storm or tempest;
but the sea itself, as compared with the land (see Notes on ver. 11),
represents an agitated or unsettled state of things, and we should
naturally look for that in the rise of the power here referred to. If
the reference be to the civil or secular Roman power that has always
appeared in connection with the Papacy, and that has always followed
its designs, then it is true that it rose amidst the agitations of the
world, and from a state of commotion that might well be represented by
the restless ocean. The sea in either case naturally describes a nation
or people, for this image is frequently so employed in the Scriptures.
Comp., as above, Da. vii. 2, and Ps. lxv. 7; Je. li. 42; Is. lx. 5;
Re. x. 2. The natural idea, therefore, in this passage, would be that
the power that was represented by the “beast” would spring up among
the nations, when restless or unsettled, like the waves of the ocean.
¶ _And saw a beast._ Daniel saw four in succession (ch. vii. 3‒7), all
different, yet succeeding each other; John saw two in succession, yet
strongly resembling each other, ver. 1, 11. On the general meaning of
the word _beast_――θηρίον――see Notes on ch. xi. 7. The beast here is
evidently a symbol of some power or kingdom that would arise in future
times. See Notes on Da. vii. 3. ¶ _Having seven heads._ So also the
dragon is represented in ch. xii. 3. See Notes on that passage. The
representation there is of Satan, as the source of all the power lodged
in the two beasts that John subsequently saw. In ch. xvii. 9, referring
substantially to the same vision, it is said that “the seven heads
are seven mountains;” and there can be no difficulty, therefore, in
referring this to the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built
(comp. Notes on ch. xii. 3), and consequently this must be regarded
as designed, in some way, to be a representation of Rome. ¶ _And ten
horns._ See this also explained in the Notes on ch. xii. 3; comp. also
the more extended illustration in the Notes on Da. vii. 25, seq. The
reference here is to Rome, or the one Roman power, contemplated as
made up of ten subordinate kingdoms, and therefore subsequently to the
invasion of the Northern hordes, and to the time when the Papacy was
about to rise. Comp. Re. xvii. 12: “And the ten horns which thou sawest
are ten kings [marg. _kingdoms_], which have received no kingdom as yet,
but receive power as kings with the beast.” For a full illustration
of this, see the copious Notes at the close of the seventh chapter of
Daniel. ¶ _And upon his horns ten crowns._ Greek, _ten diadems_. See
Notes on ch. xii. 3. These indicated dominion or authority. In ch.
xii. 3, the “dragon is represented as having _seven_ diadems on his
head;” {320} here, the beast is represented as having _ten_. The dragon
there represents the Roman domination, _as such_, the _seven-hilled_,
or _seven-headed_ power, and, therefore, properly described as having
_seven_ diadems; the beast here represents the Roman power, as now
broken up into the ten dominations which sprung up (see Notes on
Daniel as above) from the one original Roman power, and that became
henceforward the supporters of the Papacy, and, therefore, properly
represented here as having _ten_ diadems. ¶ _And upon his heads the
name of blasphemy._ That is, the whole power was blasphemous in its
claims and pretensions. The word _blasphemy_ here seems to be used in
the sense that titles and attributes were claimed by it which belonged
only to God. On the meaning of the word _blasphemy_, see Notes on Mat.
ix. 3; xxvi. 65. The meaning here is, that each one of these heads
appeared to have a frontlet, with an inscription that was blasphemous,
or that ascribed some attribute to this power that properly belonged
to God; and that the whole power thus assumed was in derogation of
the attributes and claims of God. In regard to the propriety of this
description considered as applicable to the Papacy, see Notes on
2 Th. ii. 4.

2 And the beast which I saw was [398]like unto a leopard, and
his feet were as _the feet_ of a bear, and his mouth as the
mouth of a lion: and [399]the dragon gave him his power, and
[400]his seat, and great authority.

2. _And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard._ For
a description of the leopard, see Notes on Da. vii. 6. It is
distinguished for bloodthirstiness and cruelty, and thus becomes an
emblem of a fierce, tyrannical power. In its general character it
resembles a lion, and the lion and the leopard are often referred
to together. In this description, it is observable that John has
combined in _one_ animal or monster, all those which Daniel brought
_successively_ on the scene of action as representing different empires.
Thus in Daniel (vii. 2‒7) the _lion_ is introduced as the symbol of the
Babylonian power; the bear, as the symbol of the Medo-Persian; the
leopard, as the symbol of the Macedonian; and a nondescript animal,
fierce, cruel, and mighty, with two horns, as the symbol of the Roman.
See Notes on that passage. In John there is one animal representing
the Roman power, as if it were made up of all these: a _leopard_ with
the feet of a _bear_, and the mouth of a _lion_, with two horns, and
with the general description of a fierce monster. There was an obvious
propriety in this, in speaking of the Roman power, for it was, in fact,
made up of the empires represented by the other symbols in Daniel, and
“combined in itself all the elements of the terrible and the oppressive,
which had existed in the aggregate in the other great empires that
preceded it.” At the same time there was an obvious propriety in the
symbol itself; for the bloodthirstiness and cruelty of the leopard
would well represent the ferocity and cruelty of the Roman power,
_especially_ as John saw it here as the great antagonistic power of
the true church, sustaining the Papal claim, and thirsting for blood.
¶ _And his feet mere as |the feet| of a bear._ See Notes on Da. vii. 5.
The idea here seems to be that of _strength_, as the strength of the
bear resides much in its feet and claws. At the same time, there is the
idea of a combination of fierce qualities――_as if_ the bloodthirstiness,
the cruelty, and the agility of the leopard were united with the
strength of the bear. ¶ _And his mouth as the mouth of a lion._ See
Notes on Da. vii. 4. The mouth of the lion is made to seize and hold
its prey, and is indicative of the character of the animal as a beast
of prey. John has thus brought together the qualities of activity,
bloodthirstiness, strength, ferocity, all as symbolical of the power
that was intended to be represented. It is hardly necessary to say that
this description is one that would apply well, in all respects, to Rome;
nor is it necessary to say, that if it be supposed that he _meant_ to
refer to Rome, this is such a description as he would have adopted.
¶ _And the dragon._ See Notes on ch. xii. 3. ¶ _Gave him his power._
Satan claimed, in the time of the Saviour, all power over the kingdoms
of the world, and asserted that he could give them to whomsoever he
pleased. See Notes on Mat. iv. 8, 9. How far the power of Satan in this
respect may extend, it may not be possible to determine; but it cannot
be doubted that the Roman power _seemed_ to have such an {321} origin,
and that in the main it was such as, on that supposition, it would be.
In its arrogance and haughtiness――in its thirst for dominion――in its
persecutions――it had such characteristics as we may suppose Satan would
originate. If, therefore, as the whole connection leads us to suppose,
this refers to the Roman secular power, considered as the support of
the Papacy, there is the most evident propriety in the representation.
¶ _And the seat_――θρόνον. Hence our word _throne_. The word properly
means a seat; then a high seat; then a _throne_, as that on which a
king sits. Here it refers to this power as exercising dominion on the
earth. ¶ _And great authority._ The authority _was_ great. It extended
over a large part of the earth, and, alike in its extent and character,
it was such as we may suppose Satan would set up in the world.

3 And I saw one of his heads, as it were [401]wounded to
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all [402]the world
wondered after the beast.

3. _And I saw one of his heads, as it were wounded to death._ The
phrase “wounded to death” means properly that it received a mortal
wound, that is, the wound would have been mortal if it had not been
healed. A blow was struck that would be naturally fatal, but there was
something that prevented the fatal result. John does not say, however,
by whom the wound was inflicted, nor does he describe farther the
nature of the wound. He says that “_one_ of the heads”――that is, one
of the seven heads――was thus wounded. In ch. xvii. 9, he says that “the
seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” In ch.
xvii. 10, he says, “there are seven kings.” And this would lead us to
suppose that there were “seven” administrations, or forms of dominion,
or dynasties, that were presented to the eye of John; and that while
the number “seven,” as applied to the “heads,” so far identified
the power as to fix its location on the seven “hills” (ch. xvii. 9),
in another respect also the number “seven” suggested forms of
administration of dynasties, ch. xvii. 10. What is meant by saying
that one of these heads was wounded to death has been among the most
perplexing of all the inquiries pertaining to the book of Revelation.
The use of the word _seven_, and the explanation in ch. xvii. 9, make
it morally certain that _Rome_, in some form of its administration, is
referred to. Of this there can be no doubt, and in this all are agreed.
It is not, however, the _Papal_ power as such that is here referred
to; for (a) the Papal power is designated under the image of the second
beast; (b) the descriptions pertaining to the first beast are all
applicable to a secular power; and (c) there was no form of the Papal
spiritual dominion which would properly correspond with what is said
in ch. xvii. 10. The reference in this place is, therefore, to Rome
considered as a civil or secular power, yet Rome regarded as giving
support to the second beast――the Papal power. The _general_ idea here
is, that a state of things would exist in regard to that power, at the
time referred to, _as if_ one of the seven heads of the monster should
receive a wound which would be fatal, if it were not healed in some way.
That is, its power would be weakened; its dominion would be curtailed,
and that portion of its power would have come to an end, if there
had not been something which would, as it were, restore it, and save
it from the wrath that was impending. The great point of difficulty
relates to the _particular_ application of this; to the facts in
history that would correspond with the symbol. On this there have
been almost as many opinions as there have been interpreters of the
Apocalypse, and there is no impropriety in saying that none of the
solutions are wholly free from objection. The _main_ difficulty, so far
as the interpretation proposed above is concerned, is, in the fact that
“_one_” of the seven heads is referred to as wounded unto death; as if
_one-seventh part_ of the power was endangered. I confess I am not able
wholly to solve this difficulty; but, after all, is it certain that the
meaning is that just _one-seventh part_ of the power was in peril; that
the blow affected just such a portion that it might be described as the
one-seventh part? Is not the number _seven_ so used in the Scriptures
as to denote a considerable portion――a portion quite material and
important? And may not all that is intended here be, that John saw a
wound inflicted on that mighty power which would have been fatal if
it had not been marvellously healed? And was it not true {322} that
the Roman civil and secular power was _so_ waning and decaying, that
it might properly be represented _as if_ one of the seven heads of the
monster had received a fatal wound, until its power was restored by the
influence of the spiritual domination of the church of Rome? If this be
the correct exposition, then what is implied here may be thus stated:
(a) The general subject of the representation is the Roman power,
as seen at first in its vigour and strength; (b) then that power
is said to be greatly weakened, as if one of its heads were smitten
with a deadly wound; (c) then the wound was healed――this power was
restored――by being brought into alliance with the Papacy; that is, the
whole Roman power over the world would have died away, if it had not
been restored and perpetuated by means of this new and mighty influence,
ver. 12. Under this new form, Rome had all the power which it had ever
had, and was guilty of all the atrocities of which it had ever been
guilty: _it was Rome still_. Every wound that was inflicted on that
power by the incursion of barbarians, and by the dividing off of
parts of the empire, was healed by the Papacy, and under this form its
dominion became as wide and as formidable as under its ancient mode of
administration. If a more _particular_ application of this is sought
for, I see no reason to doubt that it may be found in the quite common
interpretation of the passage given by Protestants, that the reference
is to the _forms_ of administration under which this power appeared in
the world. The number of distinct forms of government which the Roman
power assumed from first to last was the following:――kings, consuls,
dictators, decemvirs, military, tribunes, emperors. These _seven_ forms
of administration were, at least, sufficiently prominent and marked to
be represented by this symbol, or to attract the attention of one
contemplating this formidable power――for it was under these forms
that its conquests had been achieved, and its dominion set up over the
earth. In the time of John, and the time contemplated in this vision,
all these had passed away but the _imperial_. That, too, was soon to
be smitten with a deadly wound by the invasion of the Northern hordes;
and that would have wholly and for ever ceased if it had not been
restored――the deadly wound being healed――by the influence of the Papal
power, giving Rome its former ascendency. See Notes at the close of ver.
15. ¶ _And his deadly wound was healed._ That is, as explained above,
the waning Roman secular power was restored by its connection with the
spiritual power――the Papacy. This was (a) a simple matter of fact, that
the waning secular power of Rome was thus restored by connecting itself
with the spiritual or ecclesiastical power, thus prolonging what might
properly be called the _Roman_ domination far beyond what it would
otherwise have been; and (b) this would be _properly_ represented by
just the symbol employed here――the fatal wound inflicted on the head,
and the healing of that wound, or preventing what would naturally be
the effects. On the fulfilment of this, see Notes on ver. 15, at the
close. ¶ _And all the world wondered after the beast._ The word here
used――θαυμάζω――means, properly, to be astonished; to be amazed; then to
wonder at; then to admire and follow (Rob. _Lex._). In ver. 4, it is
said that the world “_worshipped_” the beast; and the general idea
is, that the beast received such universal reverence, or inspired such
universal awe, as to be properly called worship or adoration. There can
be no doubt of the propriety of this, considered as applicable to that
secular Roman power which sustained the Papacy. The homage was as wide
as the limits of the Roman empire had ever been, and might be said to
embrace “all the world.”

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the
beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who _is_ like
unto the beast? [403]who is able to make war with him?

4. _And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast._
Notes, chap. xii. 3; xiii. 2. That is, they _in fact_ worshipped him.
The word _worship_――προσκυνέω――is not always, however, used in a
_religious_ sense. It means, properly, _to kiss_; to kiss towards
anyone; that is, to kiss his own hand and to extend it towards a person,
in token of respect and homage (Rob. _Lex._). Comp. Job xxxi. 27.
Then it means to show respect to one who is our superior; to kings and
princes; to parents; and pre-eminently to God. See Notes on Mat. ii. 2.
The word may be used here to mean that homage or reverence, {323} as to
a higher power, was rendered to the “dragon;” not strictly that he was
openly _worshipped_ in a religious sense as God. Can anyone doubt that
this was the case under Papal Rome; that the power which was set up
under that entire domination, civil and ecclesiastical, was such as
Satan approved, and such as he sought to have established on the earth?
And can anyone doubt that the homage thus rendered, so contrary to the
law of God, and so much in derogation of his claims, was in fact homage
rendered to this presiding spirit of evil? ¶ _And they worshipped the
beast._ That is, they did it, as is immediately specified, by saying
that he was _incomparable_ and _invincible_; in other words, that
he was superior to all others, and that he was almighty. For the
fulfilment of this, see Notes on 2 Th. ii. 4. ¶ _Who is like unto the
beast?_ That is, he is to be regarded as unequalled and as supreme.
This was, in fact, ascribing honours to him which belonged only to
God; and this was the manner in which that civil and secular power
was regarded in the period here supposed to be referred to. It was the
policy of rulers and princes in those times to augment in every way
possible the respect in which they were held; to maintain that they
were the viceregents of heaven; to claim for themselves sacredness of
character and of person; and to secure from the people a degree of
reverence which was in fact idolatrous. Never was this more marked than
in the times when the Papacy had the ascendency, for it was its policy
to promote reverence for the power that sustained itself, and to secure
for itself the idolatrous veneration of the people. ¶ _Who is able to
make war with him?_ That is, he is invincible. They thus attributed
to him omnipotence――an attribute belonging only to God. This found a
fulfilment in the honour shown to the civil authority which sustained
the Papacy; for the policy was to impress the public mind with the
belief that that power was invincible. In fact, it was so regarded.
Nothing was able to resist that absolute despotism; and the authority
of princes and rulers that were allied with the Papal rule was of the
most absolute kind, and the subjugation of the world was complete.
There was no civil, as there was no religious liberty; and the whole
arrangement was so ordered as to subdue the world to an absolute and
uncontrollable power.

5 And there was given unto him a[404] mouth speaking great
things and blasphemies: and power was given unto him to
[405]continue [406]forty _and_two months.

5. _And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things._ John
does not say _by whom_ this was given; but we may suppose that it was
by the “dragon,” who is said (ver. 2) to have given him his power,
and seat, and authority. The fulfilment of this is found in the claims
set up by the princes and rulers here referred to――that mighty secular
power that sustained the Papacy, and that was, in some sort, a part of
the Papacy itself. These arrogant claims consisted in the assertion of
a divine right; in the power assumed over the liberty, the property,
and the consciences of the people; in the arbitrary commands that were
issued; and in the right asserted of giving absolute law. The language
here used is the same as that which is found in Daniel (vii. 8) when
speaking of the “little horn:” “In this horn were eyes like the eyes
of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” For an illustration of
the meaning of this, see Notes on that passage. Comp. Notes on Da.
vii. 25. ¶ _And blasphemies._ That is, the whole power represented by
the “beast” will be blasphemous. See Notes on ver. 1. Comp. Notes on
Da. vii. 25. ¶ _And power was given unto him to continue forty and two
months._ Three years and a half, reckoned as months; or twelve hundred
and sixty days, reckoning thirty days for a month; or twelve hundred
and sixty years, regarding the days as prophetic days. For the evidence
that this is to be so regarded, see Notes on Da. vii. 25. This is the
same period that we meet with in chap. xi. 2, and in chap. xii. 6. See
Notes on those places. This fact proves that the same power is referred
to in these places and in Daniel; and this fact may be regarded as
a confirmation of the views here taken, that the power here referred
to is designed to have a connection in some form with the Papacy. The
duration of the existence of this power is the same as that which is
everywhere ascribed to the Papacy, in the passages which refer to it;
and {324} all the circumstances, as before remarked, show that the same
_general_ power is referred to by the two “beasts” which are described
in this chapter. If so, the continuance or duration may be supposed to
be the same; and this is indicated in the passage before us, where it
is said that it would be twelve hundred and sixty years. In regard to
the application of this to the Papal power, and the manner in which the
calculation is to be made of the duration of that power, see the Notes
on Da. vii. 25, and the remarks at the end of that chapter. The meaning
in the passage before us I take to be, that the Papal power, considered
as a civil or secular institution, will have, from the time when that
properly commenced, a duration of twelve hundred and sixty years. In
the Scriptures there is nothing more definite in regard to any future
event than this.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to
blaspheme his name, and [407]his tabernacle, and [408]them
that dwell in heaven.

6. _And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his
name._ By his own arrogant claims; by his assumed authority in matters
of conscience; by setting aside the divine authority; and by impious
declarations in derogation of the divine claims. See Notes on ver. 1.
¶ _And his tabernacle._ Literally, his “_tent_”――σκηνὴν. This is the
word which is commonly applied to the sacred tent or tabernacle among
the Hebrews, in which the ark was kept, and which was the seat of the
Jewish worship before the building of the temple. It is thus used to
denote a place of worship, considered as the dwelling-place of God,
and is in this sense applied to heaven, He. viii. 2; ix. 11; Re.
xv. 5. It seems to be used here in a general sense to denote the place
where God was worshipped; and the meaning is, that there would be a
course of conduct in regard to the true church――the dwelling-place of
God on the earth――which could properly be regarded as blasphemy. Let
anyone remember the anathemas and excommunications uttered against the
Waldenses and Albigenses, and those of kindred spirit that appeared
in the long period of the Papal rule, and he will find no difficulty
in perceiving a complete fulfilment of all that is here said. ¶ _And
them that dwell in heaven._ The true worshippers; the members of
the true church, represented as dwelling in this holy tabernacle. No
one acquainted with the reproaches cast on the devoted and sincere
followers of the Saviour during the dark periods of the Papal rule can
fail to see that there was in that a complete fulfilment of all that is
here predicted.

7 And it was given unto him [409]to make war with the saints,
and to overcome them: and [410]power was given him over all
kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

7. _And it was given unto him._ By the same power that taught him to
blaspheme God and his church. Notes on ver. 2, 5. ¶ _To make war with
the saints._ See this fully illustrated in the Notes on the parallel
passage in Da. vii. 21, and at the end of that chapter, (f). ¶ _And
to overcome them._ In those wars. This was abundantly fulfilled in
the wars with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the other sincere
followers of the Saviour in the time of the Papal persecutions. The
language here used is the same as that which is found in Da. vii. 21:
“The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.”
See Notes on that passage. ¶ _And power was given him._ See Notes
on ver. 2. ¶ _Over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations._ For the
meaning of these words see Notes on ch. vii. 9. The meaning here is,
that this dominion was set up over the world. Comp. Da. vii. 25. The
fact that so large a portion of the kingdoms of the earth was under the
influence of the Papacy, and sustained it, and the claim which it set
up to universal dominion, and to the right of deposing kings and giving
away kingdoms, corresponds entirely with the language here used.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose
names are not written in [411]the book of life of the Lamb
slain [412]from the foundation of the world.

8. _And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him._ That is, as
immediately stated, all whose names are not in the book of life. On
the word _worship_, see Notes on ver. 4. ¶ _Whose {325} names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb._ That is, of the Lord
Jesus――the Lamb of God. See Notes on Phi. iv. 3. Comp. Notes on Jn.
i. 29. The representation here is, that the Lord Jesus keeps a book
or register, in which are recorded the names of all who shall obtain
everlasting life. ¶ _Slain from the foundation of the world._ See Notes
on ch. v. 6. Comp. Notes on ch. iii. 5. The meaning here is, not that
he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but
that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and
that it was so _certain_ that it might be spoken of as actually then
occurring. See Ro. iv. 17. The purpose was so certain, it was so
constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all
typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was “slain
from the foundation of the world.” Professor Stuart, however (_Com._
_in loco_), supposes that this phrase should be connected with the
former member of the sentence, “whose names are not written, from the
foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb, which was slain.
” Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that that
which is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

9. _If any man have an ear, let him hear._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. The
idea here is, that what was here said respecting the “beast” was worthy
of special attention, as it pertained to most important events in the
history of the church.

10 He[413] that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:
[414]he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the
sword. Here is the [415]patience and the faith of the saints.

10. _He that leadeth into captivity._ This is clearly intended to refer
to the power or government which is denoted by the beast. The form of
expression here in the Greek is peculiar――“If any one leadeth into
captivity,” &c.――Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει. The statement is _general_,
and is intended to make use of a general or prevalent truth with
reference to this particular case. The general truth is, that men will,
in the course of things, be dealt with according to their character
and their treatment of others; that nations characterized by war and
conquests will be subject to the evils of war and conquest――or that
they may expect to share the same lot which they have brought on others.
This general statement accords with what the Saviour says in Mat.
xxvi. 52: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
This has been abundantly illustrated in the world; and it is a very
important admonition to nations not to indulge in the purposes of
conquest and to individuals not to engage in strife and litigation. The
particular idea here is, that it would be a characteristic of the power
here referred to that it would “lead others into captivity.” This would
be fulfilled if it was the characteristic of this power to invade other
countries and to make their inhabitants prisoners of war; if it made
slaves of other people; if it set up an unjust dominion over other
people; or if it was distinguished for persecuting and imprisoning the
innocent, or for depriving the nations of liberty. It is unnecessary to
say that this is strikingly descriptive of Rome, considered in any and
every point of view, whether under the republic or the empire, whether
secular or ecclesiastical, whether Pagan or Papal. In the following
forms there has been a complete fulfilment under that mighty power of
what is here said: (a) In the desire of conquest or of extending its
dominion, and, of course, leading others captive as prisoners of war or
subjecting them to slavery. (b) In its persecutions of true Christians,
alike pursued under the Pagan and the Papal form of the administration.
(c) Especially in the imprisonments practised under the Inquisition,
where tens of thousands have been reduced to the worst kind of
captivity. In every way this description is applicable to Rome,
as seeking to lead the world _captive_ or to subject it to its own
absolute sway. ¶ _Shall go into captivity._ As a just recompense for
subjecting others to bondage, and as an illustration of a general
principle of the divine administration. This is yet, in a great measure,
to be fulfilled; and, as I understand it, it discloses the manner in
which the Papal secular power will come to an end. It will be by being
subdued, so that it might _seem_ to be made captive and led off by some
victorious host. Rome now is practically held in subjection by foreign
arms, {326} and has no true independence; perhaps this will be more and
more so as its ultimate fall approaches. ¶ _He that killeth with the
sword._ See Notes, as above, on Mat. xxvi. 52. There can be no doubt
that this is applicable to Rome in all the forms of its administration
considered as a Pagan power; or considered as a nominally Christian
power, either with reference to its secular or its spiritual dominion.
Compute the numbers of human beings that have been put to death by
that Roman power, and no better language could have been chosen to
characterize it than that which is here used――“killed with the sword.”
Comp. Notes on Da. vii. 24‒28, II. (3), (g). ¶ _Must be killed with the
sword._ This domination must be brought to an end by war and slaughter.
Nothing is more probable than this in itself; nothing could be more
in accordance with the principles of the divine dealings in the world.
Such a power as that of Rome will not be likely to be overcome but by
the force of arms; and the probability is that it will ultimately be
overthrown in a bloody revolution, or by foreign conquest. Indeed,
there are not a few intimations now that this result is hastening on.
Italy is becoming impatient of the secular power swayed in connection
with the Papacy, and sighs for freedom; and it is every way probable
that that land would have been free, and that the secular power of
the Papacy, if not every form of the Papacy itself, would have come
to an end in the late convulsion (1848), if it had not been for the
intervention of France and Austria. The period designated by prophecy
for the final overthrow of that power had not arrived; but nothing can
secure its continuance for any very considerable period longer. ¶ _Here
is the patience and the faith of the saints._ That is, the trial of
their patience and of their faith. Nowhere on earth have the patience
and the faith of the saints been put to a severer test than under the
Roman persecutions. The same idea occurs in ch. xiv. 12.

11 And I beheld [416]another beast coming up out of the earth;
and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

11. _And I beheld another beast._ Comp. Notes on ver. 1. This was so
distinct from the first that its characteristics could be described,
though, as shown in the Analysis of the Chapter, there was in many
points a strong resemblance between them. The relations between the
two will be more fully indicated in the Notes. ¶ _Coming up out of the
earth._ Professor Stuart renders this, “ascending from the land.” The
former was represented as rising up out of the sea (ver. 1); indicating
that the power was to rise from a perturbed or unsettled state of
affairs――like the ocean. This, from that which was more settled
and stable――as the land is more firm than the waters. It may not be
necessary to carry out this image; but the _natural_ idea, as applied
to the two forms of the Roman power supposed to be here referred
to, would be that the former――the secular power that sustained the
Papacy――rose out of the agitated state of the nations in the invasions
of the northern hordes, and the convulsions and revolutions of the
falling empire of Rome; and that the latter, the spiritual power
itself――represented by the beast coming up from the land――grew up
under the more settled and stable order of things. It was comparatively
calm in its origin, and had less the appearance of a frightful monster
rising up from the agitated ocean. Comp. Notes on ver. 1. ¶ _And he
had two horns like a lamb._ In some respects he resembled a lamb; that
is, he seemed to be a mild, gentle, inoffensive animal. It is hardly
necessary to say that this is a most striking representation of the
actual manner in which the power of the Papacy has always been put
forth――putting on the apparent gentleness of the lamb; or laying claim
to great meekness and humility, even when deposing kings, and giving
away crowns, and driving thousands to the stake, or throwing them into
the dungeons of the Inquisition. ¶ _And he spake as a dragon._ See
Notes on ch. xii. 3. The meaning here is, that he spoke in a harsh,
haughty, proud, arrogant tone――as we should suppose a dragon would
if he had the power of utterance. The general sense is, that while
this “beast” had, in one respect――in its resemblance to a lamb――the
appearance of great gentleness, meekness, and kindness, it had,
in another respect, a haughty, imperious, and arrogant spirit. How
appropriate this is, as a symbol, to represent the Papacy, considered
as a spiritual power, it is unnecessary to say. It will be admitted,
whatever may be thought {327} of the design of this symbol, that if it
was in fact _intended_ to refer to the Papacy, a more appropriate one
could not have been chosen.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before
him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to
worship the first beast, [417]whose deadly wound was healed.

12. _And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before
him._ The same amount of power; the same kind of power. This shows
a remarkable _relationship_ between these two beasts; and proves
that it was intended to refer to the same power substantially, though
manifested in a different form. In the fulfilment of this, we should
naturally look for some government whose authority extended far, and
which was absolute and arrogant in its character, for this is the power
attributed to the first beast. See Notes on ver. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8. This
description had a remarkable fulfilment in the Papacy, considered as a
spiritual dominion. The relation to the secular power is the same as
would be indicated by these two beasts; the dominion was as wide-spread;
the authority was as absolute and arrogant. In fact, on these points
they have been identical. The one has sustained the other; either one
would long since have fallen if it had not been upheld by the other.
The Papacy, considered as a spiritual domination, was in fact a new
power starting up in the same place as the old Roman dominion, to give
life to that as it was tending to decay, and to continue its ascendency
over the world. These two things, the secular and the spiritual power,
constituting _the Papacy_ in the proper sense of the term, are in fact
but the continuance or the prolongation of the old Roman dominion――the
fourth kingdom of Daniel――united so as to constitute in reality
but one kingdom, and yet so distinct in their origin, and in their
manifestations, as to be capable of separate contemplation and
description, and thus properly represented by the two “beasts” that
were shown in vision to John. ¶ _And causeth the earth and them which
dwell therein to worship the first beast._ That is, to respect, to
reverence, to honour. The word _worship_ here refers to _civil_ respect,
and not to _religious_ adoration. See Notes on ver. 4. The meaning here,
according to the interpretation proposed all along in this chapter,
is, that the Papacy, considered in its religious influence, or as a
spiritual power――represented by the second beast――secured for the civil
or secular power――represented by the first beast――the homage of the
world. It was the means of keeping up that dominion, and of giving it
its ascendency among the nations of the earth. The _truth_ of this,
as an historical fact, is well known. The Roman civil power would have
long ago lost all its influence and been unknown, if it had not been
for the Papacy; and, in fact, all the influence which it has had since
the irruption of the northern barbarians, and the changes which their
invasion produced, can be traced to that new power which arose in the
form of the Papacy――represented in Daniel (ch. vii. 8) by the “little
horn.” That new power gave life and energy to the declining influence
of Rome, and brought the world again to respect and honour its
authority. ¶ _Whose deadly wound was healed._ See Notes on ver. 3. That
is, was healed by the influence of this new power represented by the
second beast. A state of things occurred, on the rise of that new power,
_as if_ a wound in the head, otherwise fatal, was healed. The striking
applicability of this to the decaying Roman power――smitten as with
a deadly wound by the blows inflicted by the northern hordes, and
by internal dissensions――will occur to every one. It was as if a
healing process had been imparted by some life-giving power, and, as
a consequence, the Roman dominion――the prolongation of Daniel’s fourth
kingdom――has continued to the present time. Other kingdoms passed
away――the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian;
Rome alone, of all the ancient empires, has prolonged its power over
men. In all changes elsewhere, an influence has gone forth from the
seven-hilled city as wide and as fearful as it was in the brightest
days of the republic, the triumvirate, or the empire, and a large part
of the world still listens reverently to the mandates which issue from
the seat which so long gave law to mankind. The fact that it _is_ so is
to be traced solely to the influence of that power represented here by
the second beast that appeared in vision to John――the Papacy.

13 And he doeth [418]great wonders, so that he maketh fire
come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

{328} 13. _And he doeth great wonders._ _Signs_――σημεῖα――the word
commonly employed to denote _miracles_ (comp. Notes on Ac. ii. 19); and
the representation here is, that the power referred to by the second
beast would found its claim on pretended miracles, and would accomplish
an effect on the world _as if_ it actually did work miracles. The
applicability of this to Papal Rome no one can doubt. See Notes on
2 Th. ii. 9. Comp. ver. 14. ¶ _That he maketh fire come down from
heaven on the earth in the sight of men._ That is, he pretends this;
he accomplishes an effect _as if_ he did it. It is not necessary to
suppose that he actually did this, any more than it is to suppose that
he actually performed the other pretended miracles referred to in other
places. John describes him as he saw him in the vision; and he saw him
laying claim to this power, and actually producing an effect _as if_ by
a miracle he actually made fire to descend from heaven upon the earth.
This is to be understood as included in what the apostle Paul (2 Th.
ii. 9) calls “signs and lying wonders,” as among the things by which
the “man of sin and the son of perdition” would be characterized, and
by which he would be sustained. See Notes on that passage. Why this
particular pretended miracle is specified here is not certain. It may
be because this would be among the most striking and impressive of the
pretended miracles wrought――as if lying beyond all human power――as
Elijah made fire come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice (1 Ki.
xviii. 37, 38), and as the apostles proposed to do on the Samaritans
(Lu. ix. 54), _as if_ fire were called down on them from heaven. The
phrase “in the sight of men” implies that this would be done publicly,
and is such language as would be used of pretended miracles designed
for purposes of ostentation. Amidst the multitudes of pretended
miracles of the Papacy, it would probably not be difficult to find
instances in which the very thing here described was attempted, in
which various devices of pyrotechnics were shown off as miracles. For
an illustration of the wonders produced in the dark ages in reference
to fire, having all the appearance of miracles, and regarded _as_
miracles by the masses of men, the reader is referred to Dr. Brewster’s
_Letters on Natural Magic_, particularly Letter xii.

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by _the means
of_ those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of
the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they
should make an image to the beast, which had the [419]wound by
a sword, and did live.

14. _And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by |the means of|
those miracles._ Nothing could possibly be more descriptive of the
Papacy than this. It has been kept up by deception and delusion, and
its pretended miracles have been, and are to this day, the means by
which this is done. Anyone in the slightest degree acquainted with the
pretended miracles practised at Rome, will see the propriety of this
description as applied to the Papacy. The main fact here stated, that
the Papacy would endeavour to sustain itself by pretended miracles,
is confirmed by an incidental remark of Mr. Gibbon, when speaking
of the pontificate of Gregory the Great; he says: “The credulity or
the prudence of Gregory was always disposed to confirm the truths of
religion by the evidence of ghosts, _miracles_, and resurrections”
(_Decline and Fall_, iii. 210). Even within a month of the time that
I am writing (October 5, 1850), intelligence has been received in
this country of extraordinary privileges conferred on some city in
Italy, because the eyes of a picture of the Virgin in that city have
miraculously moved――greatly to the “confirmation of the faithful.” Such
things are constantly occurring; and it is by these that the supremacy
of the Papacy has been and is sustained. The _Breviary_ teems with
examples of miracles wrought by the saints. For instance: St. Francis
Xavier turned a sufficient quantity of salt water into fresh to save
the lives of five hundred travellers who were dying of thirst, enough
being left to allow a large exportation to different parts of the world,
where it wrought astonishing cures. St. Raymond de Pennafort laid his
cloak on the sea, and sailed from Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of
a hundred and {329} sixty miles, in six hours. St. Juliana lay on her
death-bed; her stomach rejected all solid food, and in consequence
she was prevented from receiving the Eucharist. In compliance with her
earnest solicitations, the consecrated wafer was laid on her breast;
the priest prayed; the wafer vanished, and Juliana expired. Many pages
might be filled with accounts of modern miracles of the most ridiculous
description, yet believed by Roman Catholics――the undoubted means by
which Papal Rome “deceives the world,” and keeps up its ascendency
in this age. See Forsyth’s _Italy_, ii. pp. 154‒157; _Rome in the
Nineteenth Century_, i. p. 40, 86, ii. p. 356, iii. pp. 193‒201; Lady
Morgan’s _Italy_, ii. p. 306, iii. p. 189; Graham’s _Three Months’
Residence_, &c. p. 241. ¶ _Saying to them that dwell on the earth._
That is, as far as its influence would extend. This implies that there
would be _authority_, and that this authority would be exercised to
secure this object. ¶ _That they should make an image to the beast._
That is, something that would _represent_ the beast, and that might
be an object of worship. The word rendered _image_――εἰκών――means
properly, (a) an image, effigy, figure, as an _idol_, image, or figure;
(b) a likeness, resemblance, similitude. Here the meaning would seem to
be, that, in order to secure the acknowledgment of the beast, and the
homage to be rendered to him, there was something like a statue made,
or that John saw in vision such a representation――that is, that a
state of things existed _as if_ such a statue were made, and men were
constrained to acknowledge this. All that is stated here would be
fulfilled if the old Roman civil power should become to a large extent
dead, or cease to exert its influence over men, and if then the Papal
spiritual power should cause a form of domination to exist, _strongly
resembling_ the former in its general character and extent, and if it
should secure this result――that the world would acknowledge its sway
or render it homage as it did to the old Roman government. This would
receive its fulfilment if it be supposed that the first “beast”
represented the ancient Roman civil power as such; that this died
away――as if the head had received a fatal wound; that it was again
revived under the influence of the Papacy; and that, under that
influence, a civil government, _strongly resembling_ the old Roman
dominion, was caused to exist, depending for its vital energy on
the Papacy, and, in its turn, lending its aid to support the Papacy.
All this _in fact_ occurred in the decline of the Roman power after
the time of Constantine, and its final apparent extinction, as if
“wounded to death,” in the exile of the last of the emperors, the son
of Orestes, who assumed the names of Romulus and Augustus, names which
were corrupted, the former by the Greeks into _Momyllus_, and the
latter by the Latins “into the contemptible diminutive _Augustulus_.”
See Gibbon ii. 381. Under him the empire ceased, until it was revived
in the days of Charlemagne. In the empire which then sprung up, and
which owed much of its influence to the sustaining aid of the Papacy,
we discern the “image” of the former Roman power; the prolongation of
the Roman ascendency over the world. On the exile of the feeble son of
Orestes (A.D. 476), the government passed into the hands of Odoacer,
“the first barbarian who reigned in Italy” (Gibbon); and then the
authority was divided among the sovereignties which sprang up after
the conquests of the barbarians, until the “empire” was again restored
in the time and the person of Charlemagne. See Gibbon, iii. 344, seq.
¶ _Which had the wound by a sword, and did live._ Which had a wound
that was naturally fatal, but whose fatal consequences were prevented
by the intervention of another power. See Notes on ver. 3. That is,
according to the explanation given above, the Roman imperial power
was “wounded with a fatal wound” by the invasions of the northern
hordes――the sword of the conquerors. Its power, however, was restored
by the Papacy, giving life to that which _resembled_ essentially the
Roman civil jurisdiction――the “image” of the former beast; and that
power, thus restored, asserted its dominion again, as the prolonged
Roman dominion――the fourth kingdom of Daniel (see Notes on Dan.
vii. 19, seq.)――over the world.

15 And he had power to give life[420] unto the image of the
beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and
cause that as many as would not [421]worship the image of the
beast should be killed.

{330} 15. _And he had power to give life unto the image of the
beast._ That is, that image of the beast would be naturally powerless,
or would have no life in itself. The second beast, however, had power
to impart life to it, so that it would be invested with authority, and
would exercise that authority in the manner specified. If this refers,
as is supposed, to the Roman civil power――the power of the empire
restored――it would find a fulfilment in some act of the Papacy by which
the empire that resembled in the extent of its jurisdiction, and in its
general character, the former Roman empire, received some vivifying
impulse, or was invested with new power. That is, it would have power
conferred on it through the Papacy which it would not have in itself,
and which would confirm its jurisdiction. How far events actually
occurred corresponding with this, will be considered in the Notes at
the close of this verse. ¶ _That the image of the beast should both
speak._ Should give signs of life; should issue authoritative commands.
The _speaking_ here referred to pertains to that which is immediately
specified, in issuing a command that they who “would not worship the
image of the beast should be killed.” ¶ _And cause that as many as
would not worship the image of the beast._ Would not honour it, or
acknowledge its authority. The “worship” here referred to is _civil_,
not _religious_ homage. See Notes on ver. 4. The meaning is, that what
is here called the “image of the beast” had power given it, by its
connection with the second “beast,” to set up its jurisdiction over
men, and to secure their allegiance on pain of death. The power by
which this was done was derived from the second beast; the obedience
and homage demanded was of the most entire and submissive character;
the nature of the government was in a high degree arbitrary; and the
penalty enforced for refusing this homage was death. The _facts_ that
we are to look for in the fulfilment of this are, (1) that the Roman
imperial power was about to expire――as if wounded to death by the sword;
(2) that this was revived in the form of what is here called the “image
of the beast”――that is, in a form closely resembling the former power;
(3) that this was done by the agency of the Papal power, represented
by the second beast; (4) that the effect of this was to set up over
men a wide-extended secular jurisdiction, of a most arbitrary and
absolute kind, where the penalty of disobedience to its laws was death,
and where the infliction of this was, in fact, to be traced to the
influence of the second beast――that is, the Papal spiritual power. The
question now is, whether _facts_ occurred that corresponded with this
emblematic representation. Now, as to the leading fact, the decline
of the Roman imperial power――the fatal wound inflicted on that by the
“sword”――there can be no doubt. In the time of “Augustulus,” as above
stated, it had become practically extinct――“wounded as it were to
death,” and _so_ wounded that it would never have been revived again
had it not been for some foreign influence. It is true also, that, when
the Papacy arose, the necessity was felt of allying itself with some
wide-extended civil or secular dominion, that might be under its own
control, and that would maintain its spiritual authority. It is true,
also, that the empire was revived――the very “image” or copy, so far
as it could be, of the former Roman power, in the time of Charlemagne,
and that the power which was wielded in what was called the “empire,”
was that which was, in a great measure, derived from the Papacy, and
was designed to sustain the Papacy, and was actually employed for that
purpose. These are the main facts, I suppose, which are here referred
to, and a few extracts from Mr. Gibbon will show with what propriety
and accuracy the symbols were employed were used, on the supposition
that this was the designed reference. (a) The rise, or restoration
of this imperial power in the time and the person of Charlemagne.
Mr. Gibbon says (iii. 342), “It was after the Nicene synod, and under
the reign of the pious Irene, that the popes consummated the separation
of Rome and Italy [from the Eastern empire] _by the translation of the
empire_ to the less orthodox Charlemagne. They were compelled to choose
between the rival nations; religion was not the sole motive of their
choice; and while they dissembled the failings of their friends, they
beheld with reluctance and suspicion the Catholic virtues of their
foes. The difference of language and manners had perpetuated the enmity
of the two capitals [Rome and Constantinople]; and they were alienated
from each other by the hostile opposition of seventy {331} years.
In that schism the Romans had tasted of freedom, and the popes of
sovereignty; their submission would have exposed them to the revenge of
a jealous tyrant, and the revolution of Italy had betrayed the impotence
as well as the tyranny of the Byzantine court.” Mr. Gibbon then proceeds
to state reasons why _Charlemagne_ was selected as the one who was to
be placed at the head of the revived imperial power, and then adds
(p. 343), “The title of patrician was below the merit and greatness of
Charlemagne; and _it was only by reviving the Western empire_ that they
could pay their obligations, or secure their establishment. By this
decisive measure they would finally eradicate the claims of the Greeks;
from the debasement of a provincial town the majesty of Rome would be
restored; the Latin Christians would be united, under a supreme head,
in their ancient metropolis; _and the conquerors of the West would
receive their crown from the successors of St. Peter. The Roman church
would acquire a zealous and respectable advocate_; and under the shadow
of the Carlovingian power, the bishop might exercise, with honour and
safety, the government of the city.” All this seems as if it were a
_designed_ commentary on such expressions as these: “And he exerciseth
all the power of the first beast, and causeth the earth and them
which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was
healed,” “saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make
an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live; and
he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,” &c. (b) Its
extent. It is said (ver. 12), “And he exerciseth all the power of the
first beast, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to
worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” Comp. ver.
14, 15. That is, the _extent_ of the jurisdiction of the revived power,
or the restored empire, would be as great as it was before the wound
was inflicted. Of the _extent_ of the restored empire under Charlemagne,
Mr. Gibbon has given a full account, iii. pp. 546‒549. The passage is
too long to be copied here in full, and a summary of it only can be
given. He says, “The empire was not unworthy of its title; and some
of the fairest kingdoms of Europe were the patrimony or conquest of a
prince who reigned at the same time in France, Spain, Italy, Germany,
and Hungary. I. The Roman province of Gaul had been transformed into
the name and monarchy of FRANCE, &c. II. The Saracens had been expelled
from France by the grandfather and father of Charlemagne, but they
still possessed the greatest part of Spain, from the rock of Gibraltar
to the Pyrenees. Amidst their civil divisions, an Arabian emir of
Saragossa implored his protection in the diet of Paderborn. Charlemagne
undertook the expedition, restored the emir, and, without distinction
of faith, impartially crushed the resistance of the Christians, and
rewarded the obedience and service of the Mohammedans. In his absence
he instituted the _Spanish March_, which extended from the Pyrenees to
the river Ebro: Barcelona was the residence of the French governor; he
possessed the counties of _Rousillon_ and _Catalonia_; and the infant
kingdoms of _Navarre_ and _Aragon_ were subject to his jurisdiction.
III. As king of the Lombards, and patrician of Rome, he reigned over
the greatest part of ITALY, a tract of a thousand miles from the
Alps to the borders of Calabria, &c. IV. Charlemagne was the first
who united GERMANY under the same sceptre, &c. V. He retaliated on
the Avars, or Huns of Pannonia, the same calamities which they had
inflicted on the nations: the royal residence of the Chagan was left
desolate and unknown; and the treasures, the rapine of two hundred and
fifty years, enriched the victorious troops, or decorated the churches
of Italy and Gaul.” “If we retrace the outlines of the geographical
picture,” continues Mr. Gibbon, “it will be seen that the empire of
the Franks extended, between east and west, from the Ebro to the Elbe
or Vistula; between the north and south, from the duchy of Beneventum
to the river Eyder, the perpetual boundary of Germany and Denmark.
Two-thirds of the Western empire of Rome were subject to Charlemagne,
and the deficiency was amply supplied by his command of the
inaccessible or invincible nations of Germany.” (c) The dependence of
this civil or revived secular power on the Papacy. “His deadly wound
was healed.” “And caused the earth to worship the first beast.” “Saying
to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the
beast.” “He had power to give life unto the image of the beast.” Thus
Mr. Gibbon {332} (iii. 343) says, “From the debasement of a provincial
town, the majesty of Rome would be restored; the Latin Christians would
be united, under a supreme head, in their ancient metropolis; _and the
conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors
of St. Peter_.” And again (iii. 344) he says, “On the festival of
Christmas, the last year of the eighth century, Charlemagne appeared
in the church of St. Peter; and, to gratify the vanity of Rome, he
had exchanged the simple dress of his country for the habit of a
patrician. After the celebration of the holy mysteries, Leo _suddenly
placed a precious crown on his head_, and the dome resounded with the
acclamations of the people, ‘Long life and victory to Charles, the most
pious Augustus, _crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the
Romans_!’ The head and body of Charlemagne were consecrated by the
royal unction; his coronation oath represents a promise to maintain
the faith and privileges of the church; and the first-fruits are
paid in rich offerings to the shrine of the apostle. In his familiar
conversation the emperor protested his ignorance of the intentions of
Leo, which he would have disappointed by his absence on that memorable
day. But the preparations of the ceremony must have disclosed the
secret; and the journey of Charlemagne reveals his knowledge and
expectation; he had acknowledged that the imperial title was the object
of his ambition, and a Roman senate had pronounced that it was the
only adequate reward of his merit and services.” So again (iii. 350),
Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the conquests of Otho (A.D. 962), and of his
victorious march over the Alps, and his subjugation of Italy, says,
“From that memorable era, two maxims of public jurisprudence were
introduced by force and ratified by time. I. That the prince who was
elected in the German diet, acquired from that instant the subject
kingdoms of Italy and Rome. II. But that he might not legally assume
the titles of emperor and Augustus, _till he had received the crown
from the hands of the Roman Pontiff_.” In connection with these
quotations from Mr. Gibbon, we may add, from Sigonius, the oath which
the emperor took on the occasion of his coronation: “I, the Emperor, do
engage and promise, in the name of Christ, before God and the blessed
apostle Peter, that I will be a protector and defender of this holy
church of Rome, in all things wherein I can be useful to it, so far as
divine assistance shall enable me, and so far as my knowledge and power
can reach” (quoted by Professor Bush, _Hieroph._ Nov. 1842, p. 141). We
learn, also, from the biographers of Charlemagne that a commemorative
coin was struck at Rome under his reign, bearing this inscription:
“Renovatio Imperii Romani”――“_Revival of the Roman Empire_” (_Ibid._).
These quotations, whose authority will not be questioned, and whose
authors will not be suspected of having had any design to illustrate
these passages in the Apocalypse, will serve to confirm what is said
in the Notes of the decline and restoration of the Roman secular power;
of its dependence on the Papacy to give it life and vigour; and of
the fact that it was designed to sustain the Papacy, and to perpetuate
the power of Rome. It needs only to be added, that down to the time
of Charles the Fifth――the period of the Reformation――nothing was more
remarkable in history than the readiness of this restored secular
power to sustain the Papacy and to carry out its designs; or than the
readiness of the Papacy to sustain an absolute civil despotism, and to
make the world subject to it by suppressing all attempts in favour of
civil liberty.

16 And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and bond, to [422]receive a mark in their right hand, or
in their foreheads:

16. _And he caused all._ He claims jurisdiction, in the matters here
referred to, over all classes of persons, and compels them to do his
will. This is the second beast, and, according to the interpretation
given above, it relates to the Papal power, and to its claim of
universal jurisdiction. ¶ _Both small and great._ All these expressions
are designed to denote _universality_――referring to various divisions
into which the human family may be regarded as divided. One of those
divisions is into “small and great;” that is, into young and old; those
small in stature and those large in stature; those of humble, and those
of elevated rank. ¶ _Rich and poor._ Another way of dividing the human
race, and denoting here, as in the former case, _all_――for it is a
common {333} method, in speaking of mankind, to describe them as “the
rich and poor.” ¶ _Free and bond._ Another method still of dividing the
human race, embracing _all_――for all the dwellers upon the earth are
either free or bond. These various forms of expression, therefore, are
designed merely to denote, in an emphatic manner, _universality_. The
idea is, that, in the matter referred to, none were exempt, either on
account of their exalted rank, or on account of their humble condition;
either because they were so mighty as to be beyond control, or so mean
and humble as to be beneath notice. And if this refers to the Papacy,
every one will see the propriety of the description. The jurisdiction
set up by that power has been as absolute over kings as over the feeble
and the poor; over masters and their slaves; alike over those in the
humblest and in the most elevated walks of life. ¶ _To receive a mark
in their right hand, or in their foreheads._ The word here rendered
_mark_――χάραγμα――occurs only in one place in the New Testament except
in the book of Revelation (Ac. xvii. 29), where it is rendered _graven_.
In all the other places where it is found (Re. xiii. 16, 17; xiv. 9, 11;
xv. 2; xvi. 2; xix. 20; xx. 4), it is rendered _mark_, and is applied
to the same thing――the “mark of the beast.” The word properly means
something graven or sculptured; hence, (a) a graving, sculpture,
sculptured work, as images or idols; (b) a mark cut in or stamped――as
the stamp on coin. Applied to men, it was used to denote some stamp or
mark on the hand or elsewhere――as in the case of a servant on whose
hand or arm the name of the master was impressed; or of a soldier on
whom some mark was impressed denoting the company or phalanx to which
he belonged. It was no uncommon thing to mark slaves or soldiers in
this way; and the design was either to denote their ownership or rank,
or to prevent their escaping so as not to be detected.[423] Most of us
have seen such marks made on the hands or arms of sailors, in which,
by a voluntary _tattooing_, their names, or the names of their vessels,
were written, or the figure of an anchor, or some other device, was
indelibly made by punctures in the skin, and by inserting some kind
of colouring matter. The thing which it is here said was engraven on
the hand or the forehead was the “name” of the beast, or the “number”
of his name, ver. 17. That is, the “name” or the “number” was so
indelibly inscribed either on the hand or the forehead, as to show
that he who bare it appertained to the “beast,” and was subject to his
authority――as a slave is to his master, or a soldier to his commander.
Applied to the Papacy, the meaning is, that there would be some mark
of distinction; some indelible sign; something which would designate,
with entire certainty, those persons who belonged to it, and who were
subject to it. It is hardly necessary to say that, in point of fact,
this has eminently characterized the Papacy. All possible care has been
taken to designate with accuracy those who belong to that communion,
and, all over the world, it is easy to distinguish those who render
allegiance to the Papal power. Comp. Notes on ch. vii. 3.

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the
mark, or the name of the beast, or [424]the number of his name.

17. _And that no man might buy or sell._ That is, this mighty power
would claim jurisdiction over the traffic of the world, and endeavour
to make it tributary to its own purposes. Comp. ch. xviii. 11‒13, 17‒19.
This is represented by saying that no one might “buy or sell” except
by its permission; and it is clear that where this power exists of
determining who may “buy and sell,” there is absolute control over
the wealth of the world. ¶ _Save he that had the mark._ To keep it
all among its own friends; among those who showed allegiance to this
power. ¶ _Or the name of the beast._ That is, the “mark” referred to
was _either_ the name of the beast, _or_ the number of his name. The
meaning is, that he had something branded on him that showed that he
{334} belonged to the beast――as a slave had the name of his master;
in other words, there was something that certainly showed that he was
subject to its authority. ¶ _Or the number of his name._ In regard to
what is denoted by the _number_ of the beast, see Notes on ver. 18. The
idea here is, that that “number,” whatever it was, was so marked on him
as to show to whom he belonged. According to the interpretation here
proposed, the meaning of this passage is, that the Papacy would claim
jurisdiction over traffic and commerce; or would endeavour to bring it
under its control, and make it subservient to its own ends. Traffic or
commerce is one of the principal means by which property is acquired,
and he who has the control of this has, to a great degree, the control
of the wealth of a nation; and the question now is, whether any such
jurisdiction has been set up, or whether any such control has in fact
been exercised, so that the wealth of the world has been subject to
Papal Rome? For a more full illustration of this I may refer to the
Notes on ch. xviii. 11‒13, 16, 17; but at present it may be sufficient
to remark, that the manifest aim of the Papacy, in all its history,
has been to control the world, and to get dominion over its wealth,
in order that it might accomplish its own purposes. But, besides this,
there have been numerous specified acts more particularly designed to
control the business of “buying and selling.” It has been common in
Rome to prohibit, by express law, all traffic with heretics. Thus a
canon of the Lateran council, under Pope Alexander III., commanded
that no man should entertain or cherish them in his house or land, or
_traffic_ with them (Hard. vi., ii. 1684). The synod of Tours, under
the same Pope Alexander, passed the law that no man should presume to
receive or assist the heretics, no, not so much as to exercise commerce
with them in _selling_ or _buying_. And so, too, the Constance council,
as expressed in Pope Martin’s bull (Elliott, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221).

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his
number _is_ six hundred threescore _and_ six.

18. _Here is wisdom._ That is, in what is stated respecting the name
and the number of the name of the beast. The idea is, either that there
would be need of peculiar sagacity in determining what the “number” of
the “beast” or of his “name” was, or that peculiar “wisdom” was shown
by the fact that the number could be thus expressed. The language used
in the verse would lead the reader to suppose that the attempt to make
out the “number” was not absolutely _hopeless_, but that the number was
so far enigmatical as to require much skill in determining its meaning.
It may also be implied that, for some reason, there was true “wisdom”
in designating the name by this number, either because a more direct
and explicit statement might expose him who made it to persecution,
and it showed practical wisdom thus to guard against this danger; or
because there was “wisdom” or skill shown in the fact that a number
could be found which would thus correspond with the name. On either of
these suppositions, peculiar wisdom would be required in deciphering
its meaning. ¶ _Let him that hath understanding._ Implying (a) that it
was _practicable_ to “count the number of the name;” and (b) that it
would require uncommon skill to do it. It could not be successfully
attempted by all; but still there were those who might do it. This is
such language as would be used respecting some difficult matter, but
where there was hope that, by diligent application of the mind, and
by the exercise of a sound understanding, there would be a prospect
of success. ¶ _Count the number of the beast._ In ver. 16 it is “the
number of his name.” The word here rendered “count”――ψηφισάτω――means,
properly, to count or reckon with pebbles, or counters; then to reckon,
to estimate. The word here means _compute_; that is, ascertain the
exact import of the number, so as to identify the beast. The “number”
is that which is immediately specified, “six hundred threescore and
six”――666. The phrase “the number of the beast” means, that somehow
this number was so connected with the beast, or would so represent its
name or character, that the “beast” would be identified by its proper
application. The mention in ver. 17 of “the _name_ of the beast,”
and “the _number_ of his name,” shows that this “number” was somehow
connected with his proper designation, so that by {335} this he would
be identified. The plain meaning is, that the number 666 would be so
connected with his _name_, or with that which would properly designate
him, that it could be determined who was meant by finding that number
_in_ his name or in his proper designation. This is the exercise of
the skill or wisdom to which the writer here refers: substantially
that which is required in the solution of a riddle or a conundrum.
If it should be said here that this is undignified and unworthy of
an inspired book, it may be replied, (a) that there might be some
important reason why the name or designation should not be more plainly
made; (b) that it was important, nevertheless, that it should be
so made that it would be possible to ascertain who was referred to;
(c) that this should be done only in some way which would involve
the principle of the enigma――“where a known thing was concealed under
obscure language” (Webster’s _Dict._); (d) that the use of symbols,
emblems, hieroglyphics, and riddles was common in the early periods of
the world; and (e) that it was no uncommon thing in ancient times, as
it is in modern, to test the capacity and skill of men by their ability
to unfold the meaning of proverbs, riddles, and dark sayings. Comp. the
riddle of Samson, Ju. xiv. 12, seq. See also Ps. xlix. 4; lxxviii. 2;
Eze. xvii. 2‒8; Pr. i. 2‒6; Da. viii. 23. It would be a _sufficient_
vindication of the method adopted here if it was certain or probable
that a direct and explicit statement of what was meant would have been
attended with immediate danger, and if the object could be secured
by an enigmatical form. ¶ _For it is the number of a man._ Various
interpretations of this have been proposed. Clericus renders it,
“The number is small, or not such as cannot be estimated by a man.”
Rosenmüller, “The number indicates _a man_, or a certain race of
men.” Professor Stuart, “The number is to be computed _more humano_,
not _more angelico_;” “it is a man’s number.” De Wette, “It is
such a number as is commonly reckoned or designated by men.” Other
interpretations may be seen in Poole’s _Synopsis_. That which is
proposed by Rosenmüller, however, meets all the circumstances of the
case. The idea is, evidently, that the number indicates or refers to
a certain man, or order of men. It does not pertain to a brute, or to
angelic beings. Thus it would be understood by one merely interpreting
the language, and thus the connection demands. ¶ _And his number |is|
six hundred threescore |and| six._ The number of his name, ver. 17.
This cannot be supposed to mean that his name would be composed
of six hundred and sixty-six letters; and it must, therefore, mean
that somehow the number 666 would be expressed by his name in some
well-understood method of computation. The _number_ here――six hundred
and sixty-six――is, in Walton’s _Polyglott_, written out in full:
Ἑξακόσιοι ἑξάκοντα ἕξ. In Wetstein, Griesbach, Hahn, Tittmann, and the
common Greek text, it is expressed by the characters χξϛʹ = 666. There
can be no doubt that this is the correct number, though, in the time
of Irenæus, there was in some copies another reading――χιϛʹ = 616.
This reading was adopted by the expositor Tychonius; but against
this Irenæus inveighs (Liv. v. c. 30). There can be no doubt that the
number 666 is the correct reading, though it would seem that this was
sometimes expressed in letters, and sometimes written in full. Wetstein
supposes that _both_ methods were used by John; that in the first copy
of his book he used the letters, and in a subsequent copy wrote it in
full. This inquiry is not of material consequence.

It need not be said that much has been written on this mysterious
“number,” and that very different theories have been adopted in
regard to its application. For the views which have been entertained
on the subject, the reader may consult, with advantage, the article
in Calmet’s _Dict._, under the word “Antichrist.” It was natural
for Calmet, being a Roman Catholic, to endeavour to show that the
interpretations have been so various, that there could be no certainty
in the application, and especially in the common application to the
Papacy. In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the passage, the
following _general_ remarks may be made, as containing the result of
the investigation thus far:――(a) There was some _mystery_ in the
matter――some designed concealment――some reason why a more explicit
statement was not adopted. The reason of this is not stated; but it
may not be improper to suppose that it arose from something in the
circumstances of the writer, and that the adoption of this enigmatical
expression was designed to avoid some {336} peril to which he or others
might be exposed if there were a more explicit statement. (b) It is
implied, nevertheless, that it _could_ be understood; that is, that
the meaning was not so obscure that, by proper study, the designed
reference could not be ascertained without material danger of error.
(c) It required _skill_ to do this; either natural sagacity, or
particular skill in interpreting hieroglyphics and symbols, or uncommon
spiritual discernment. (d) Some man, or order of men, is referred
to that could properly be designated in this manner. (e) The method
of designating persons obscurely by a reference to the numerical
signification of the letters in their names was not very uncommon, and
was one that was not unlikely, in the circumstances of the case, to
have been resorted to by John. “Thus, among the Pagans, the Egyptian
mystics spoke of Mercury, or Thouth, under the name 1218, because
the Greek letters composing the word Thouth, when estimated by their
numerical value, together made up that number. By others, Jupiter
was invoked under the mystical number 717; because the letters of
Ἡ ΑΡΧΗ――_Beginning_, or _First Origin_, which was a characteristic
of the supreme deity worshipped as Jupiter, made up that number.
And Apollo under the number 608, as being that of ηυς or ὑης, words
expressing certain solar attributes. Again, the pseudo-Christian, or
semi-Pagan Gnostics, from St. John’s time and downwards, affixed to
their gems and amulets, of which multitudes remain to the present day,
the mystic word αβρασαξ [_abrasax_] or αβραξας [_abraxas_], under the
idea of some magic virtue attaching to its number 365, as being that of
the days of the annual solar circle,” &c. See other instances referred
to in Elliott, iii. 205. These facts show that John would not be
unlikely to adopt some such method of expressing a sentiment which it
was designed should be obscure in form, but possible to be understood.
It should be added here, that this was more common among the Jews than
among any other people. (f) It seems clear that some _Greek_ word is
here referred to, and that the mystic number is to be found in some
word of that language. The _reasons_ for this opinion are these:
(1) John was writing in Greek, and it is most natural to suppose that
this would be the reference; (2) he expected that his book would be
read by those who understood the Greek language, and it would have been
unnatural to have increased the perplexity in understanding what he
referred to by introducing a word of a foreign language; (3) the first
and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and not those of the Hebrew,
are expressly selected by the Saviour to denote his eternity――“I am
Alpha and Omega,” ch. i. 8, 11; and (4) the numerals by which the
enigma is expressed――χξϛʹ――are Greek. It has indeed been supposed by
many that the solution is to be found in the Hebrew language, but these
reasons seem to me to show conclusively that we are to look for the
solution in some _Greek_ word.

The question now is, whether there is any word which corresponds
with these conditions, and which would naturally be referred to by
John in this manner. The exposition thus far has led us to suppose
that the Papacy in some form is referred to; and the inquiry now
is, whether there is any word which is so certain and determinate
as to make it probable that John meant to designate that. The word
Λατεινος――_Lateinos, the Latin_ [Man]――actually has all the conditions
supposed in the interpretation of this passage. From this word the
number specified――666――is made out as follows:――

Λ Α Τ Ε Ι Ν Ο Σ

30 1 300 5 10 50 70 200 = 666

In support of the opinion that this is the word intended to be
referred to, the following suggestions may be made: (a) It is a
Greek word. (b) It expresses the exact number, and corresponds in this
respect with the language used by John. (c) It was early suggested as
the probable meaning, and by those who lived near the time of John;
who were intimately acquainted with the Greek language; and who may be
supposed to have been familiar with this mode of writing. Thus it was
suggested by Irenæus, who says, “It seems to me very probable; for this
is a name of the last of Daniel’s four kingdoms; they being _Latins_
that now reign.” It is true that he also mentions two other words as
those which _may_ be meant――ευανθας, a word which had been suggested by
others, but concerning which he makes no remarks, and which, of course,
must have been destitute of any probability in his view; and Τειταν,
which he thinks has the clearest claims {337} for admission――though
he speaks of the word _Lateinos_ as having a claim of probability.
(b) This word would properly denote the Roman power, or the then
_Latin_ power, and would refer to that dominion as a Latin dominion――as
it properly was; and if it be supposed that it was intended to refer
to that, and, at the same time, that there should be some degree of
obscurity about it, this would be more likely to be selected than the
word _Roman_, which was better known; and (c) there was a _special_
propriety in this, on the supposition that it was intended to refer
to the _Papal_ Latin power. The most _appropriate_ appellation, if it
was designed to refer to Rome as a _civil_ power, would undoubtedly
have been the word _Roman_; but if it was intended to refer to the
_ecclesiastical_ power, or to the Papacy, this is the _very_ word to
express the idea. In earlier times the more common appellation was
_Roman_. This continued until the separation of the Eastern and Western
empires, when the Eastern was called _Greek_, and the Western the
_Latin_; or when the Eastern empire assumed the name of _Roman_, and
affixed to the Western kingdoms one and all that were connected with
Rome the appellation of _Latin_. This appellation, originally applied
to the _language_ only, was adopted by the Western kingdoms, and came
to be that by which they were best designated. It was the Latin world,
the Latin kingdom, the Latin church, the Latin patriarch, the Latin
clergy, the Latin councils. To use Dr. More’s words, “They _Latinize_
everything: mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, bulls,
are conceived in Latin. The Papal councils speak in Latin, women
themselves pray in Latin. The Scriptures are read in no other language
under the Papacy than Latin. In short, all things are Latin.” With what
propriety, then, might John, under the influence of inspiration, speak,
in this enigmatical manner, of the new power that was symbolized by the
beast as _Latin_.

The only objection to this solution that has been suggested is,
that the orthography of the Greek word is Λατινος――_Latinos_, and
not Λατεινος――_Lateinos_, giving the number 661, and not 666; and
Bellarmine asserts that this is the uniform method of spelling in
Greek authors. All that is necessary in reply to this is to copy the
following remark from Professor Stuart, vol. ii. p. 456: “As to the
form of the Greek word Λατεινος [_Lateinos_], viz., that ει is employed
for the Latin long [_ī_], it is a sufficient vindication of it to
cite Σαβεῖνος, Φαυστεῖνος, Παυλεῖνος, Αντωνεῖνος, Ατεῖλιος, Μετεῖλιος,
Παπεῖριος, Ουεῖβιος, &c. Or we may refer to the custom of the more
ancient Latin, as in Plautus, of writing _i_ by _ei_; _e.g._, solitei,
Diveis, captivei, preimus, Lateina, &c.” See this point examined
further, in Elliott, iii. 210‒213.

As a matter of historical interest, it may be observed that the
solution of the difficulty has been sought in numerous other words, and
the friends of the Papacy and the enemies of the Bible have endeavoured
to show that such terms are so numerous that there can be no certainty
in the application. Thus Calmet (_Dict._ art. “Antichrist”), after
enumerating many of these terms, says: “The number 666 is found in
names the most sacred, the most opposite to Antichrist. The wisest and
best way is to be silent.”

We have seen that, besides the name _Lateinos_, two other words had
been referred to in the time of Irenæus. Some of the words in which
the mysterious number has been since supposed to be found are the
following:――

נרון קסר Neron Cæsar = 50 + 200 + 6 + 50, and 100 + 60
+ 200 = 666

Diocles Augustus (Dioclesian) = DCLXVI.

C. F. Julianus Cæsar Atheus (the Apostate) = DCLXVI.

Luther――לולתר‭‬ = 200 + 400 + 30 + 6 + 30 = 666

Lampetis, λαμπετις = 30 + 1 + 40 + 80 + 5 + 300 + 10
+ 200 = 666

η Λατινη βασιλεια = 8 + 30 + 1 + 300 + 10 + 50 + 8 +
2 + 1 + 200 + 10 + 30 + 5 + 10 + 1 = 666

Ιταλικα εκκλησια = 10 + 300 + 1 + 30 + 10 + 20 + 1 +
5 + 20 + 20 + 30 + 8 + 200 + 10 + 1 = 666

Αποστατης (the Apostate) = 1 + 80 + 70 + 6 + 1 + 300
+ 8 + 200 = 666

רומיית (Roman, sc. _Sedes_) = 200 + 6 + 40 + 10 + 10 +
400 = 666

רמענוש (Romanus, sc. _Man_) = 200 + 40 + 70 + 50 + 6
+ 300 = 666

It will be admitted that many of these, and others that might be named,
are fanciful, and perhaps had their origin in a determination, on the
one hand, to find _Rome_ referred to somehow, or in a determination,
on the other hand, equally strong, _not_ to find this; but still it is

remarkable how {338} many of the most obvious solutions refer to Rome
and the Papacy. But the mind need not be distracted, nor need doubt
be thrown over the subject, by the _number_ of the solutions proposed.
They show the restless character of the human mind, and the ingenuity
of men; but this should not be allowed to bring into doubt a solution
that is simple and natural, and that meets all the circumstances
of the case. Such a solution, I believe, is found in the word
Λατεινος――_Lateinos_, as illustrated above; and as that, if correct,
settles the case, it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further. Those
who are disposed to do so, however, may find ample illustration in
Calmet, _Dict._ art. “Antichrist;” Elliott, _Horæ Apoca._ iii. 207‒221;
Prof. Stuart, _Com._ vol. ii. Excursus iv.; _Bibliotheca Sacra_, i.
84‒86; Robert Fleming on the _Rise and Fall of the Papacy_, 28, seq.;
De Wette, _Exegetisches Handbuch, N.T._, iii. 140‒142; Vitringa,
_Com._ 625‒637, Excursus iv.; _Nov. Tes. Edi. Koppianæ_, vol. x. b,
pp. 235‒265; and the Commentaries generally.

CHAPTER XIV.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

In the previous chapters (xii. xiii.) there is a description of the
woes and sorrows which, for a long period, would come upon the church,
and which would threaten to destroy it. It was proper that this gloomy
picture should be relieved, and accordingly this chapter, having much
of the aspect of an episode, is thrown in to comfort the hearts of
those who should see those troublous times. There were bright scenes
beyond, and it was important to direct the eye to them, that the hearts
of the sad might be consoled. This chapter, therefore, contains a
succession of symbolical representations designed to show the ultimate
result of all these things――“to hold out the symbols of ultimate and
certain victory” (Professor Stuart). Those symbols are the following:――

(1) The vision of the hundred and forty-four thousand on Mount
Zion, as emblematical of the final triumph of the redeemed, ver. 1‒5.
They have the Father’s name in their foreheads (ver. 1); they sing
a song of victory (ver. 2, 3); they are found without fault before
God――representatives, in this respect, of all that will be saved,
ver. 4, 5.

(2) The vision of the final triumph of the gospel, ver. 6, 7. An angel
is seen flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to
preach to all that dwell upon the earth, and announcing that the end is
near――a representation designed to show that the gospel _will_ be thus
preached among all nations; and when that is done, the time will draw
on when the affairs of the world will be wound up.

(3) The fall of Babylon, the mighty Antichristian power, ver. 8. An
angel is seen going forth announcing the glad tidings that this mighty
power is overthrown, and that, therefore, its oppressions are come to
an end. This, to the church in trouble and persecution, is one of the
most comforting of all the assurances that God makes in regard to the
future.

(4) The certain and final destruction of all the upholders of
that Antichristian power, ver. 9‒12. Another angel is seen making
proclamation that all the supporters and abettors of this formidable
power would drink of the wine of the wrath of God; that they would be
tormented with fire and brimstone; and that the smoke of their torment
would ascend up for ever and ever.

(5) The blessedness of all those who die in the Lord; who, amidst the
persecutions and trials that were to come upon the church, would be
found faithful unto death, ver. 13. They would rest from their labours;
the works of mercy which they had done on the earth would follow them
to the future world, securing rich and eternal blessings there.

(6) The final overthrow of all the enemies of the church, ver. 14‒20.
This is the grand completion; to this all things are tending; this
will be certainly accomplished in due time. This is represented under
various emblems: (a) The Son of man appears seated on a cloud, having
on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle――emblem of
gathering in the great harvest of the earth, and of his own glorious
reign in heaven, ver. 14. (b) An angel is seen coming out of the temple,
announcing that the time had come, and calling on the great Reaper to
thrust in his sickle, for the harvest of the world was ripe, ver. 15.
(c) He that has the sickle thrusts in his sickle to reap the great
harvest, ver. 16. (d) Another angel is seen representing the final
judgment of God on the wicked, ver. 17‒20. He also has a sharp sickle;
he is commanded by an angel that has power over fire to thrust in his
sickle {339} into the earth; he goes forth and gathers the clusters of
the vine of the earth, and casts them into the great wine-press of the
wrath of God.

This whole chapter, therefore, is designed to relieve the gloom of
the former representations. The _action_ of the grand moving panorama
is stayed that the mind may not be overwhelmed with gloomy thoughts,
but that it may be cheered with the assurance of the final triumph
of truth and righteousness. The chapter, viewed in this light, is
introduced with great artistic skill, as well as great beauty of poetic
illustration; and, in its place, it is adapted to set forth this great
truth, that, to the righteous, and to the church at large, in the
darkest times, and with the most threatening prospect of calamity and
sorrow, there is the certainty of final victory, and that this should
be allowed to cheer and sustain the soul.

CHAPTER XIV.

AND I looked, and, lo, a [425]Lamb stood on the mount Zion,
and with him [426]an hundred forty _and_ four thousand,
[427]having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

1. _And I looked._ My attention was drawn to a new vision. The eye was
turned away from the beast and his image to the heavenly world――the
Mount Zion above. ¶ _And, lo, a Lamb._ See Notes on ch. v. 6. ¶ _Stood
on the mount Zion._ That is, in heaven. See Notes on He. xii. 22.
Zion, literally the southern hill in the city of Jerusalem, was a name
also given to the whole city; and, as that was the seat of the divine
worship on earth, it became an emblem of heaven――the dwelling-place of
God. The scene of the vision here is laid in heaven, for it is a vision
of the ultimate triumph of the redeemed, designed to sustain the church
in view of the trials that had already come upon it, and of those which
were yet to come. ¶ _And with him an hundred forty |and| four thousand._
These are evidently the same persons that were seen in the vision
recorded in ch. vii. 3‒8, and the representation is made for the same
purpose――to sustain the church in trial, with the certainty of its
future glory. See Notes on ch. vii. 4. ¶ _Having his Father’s name
written in their foreheads._ Showing that they were his. See Notes
on ch. vii. 3; xiii. 16. In ch. vii. 3, it is merely said that they
were “sealed in their foreheads;” the passage here shows _how_ they
were sealed. They had the name of God so stamped or marked on their
foreheads as to show that they belonged to him. Comp. Notes on ch.
vii. 3‒8.

2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as [428]the voice of many
waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the
voice of [429]harpers harping with their harps:

2. _And I heard a voice from heaven._ Showing that the scene is laid in
heaven, but that John in the vision was on the earth. ¶ _As the voice
of many waters._ As the _sound_ of the ocean, or of a mighty cataract.
That is, it was so loud that it could be heard from heaven to earth.
No comparison could express this more sublimely than to say that it was
like the roar of the ocean. ¶ _As the voice of a great thunder._ As the
loud sound of thunder. ¶ _And I heard the voice of harpers._ In heaven:
the song of redemption accompanied with strains of sweet instrumental
music. For a description of the _harp_, see Notes on Is. v. 12.
¶ _Harping with their harps._ Playing on their harps. This image gives
new beauty to the description. Though the sound was loud and swelling,
so loud that it could be heard on the earth, yet it was not mere
shouting, or merely a tumultuous cry. “It was like the sweetness of
symphonious harps.” The music of heaven, though elevated and joyous,
is sweet and harmonious; and perhaps one of the best representations of
heaven on earth, is the effect produced on the soul by strains of sweet
and solemn music.

3 And they sung as it were [430]a new song before the throne,
and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could
learn that song but [431]the hundred _and_ forty _and_ four
thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

3. _And they sung as it were a new song._ See Notes on ch. v. 9. It
was proper to call this “_new_,” because it was on a new occasion,
or pertained to a new object. The song here was in celebration of the
complete redemption of the church, and was the song to be sung in view
of its final triumph over all its foes. Comp. Notes on ch. vii. 9, 10.
¶ _Before the throne._ The throne of God in heaven. See Notes {340} on
ch. iv. 2. ¶ _And before the four beasts._ See Notes on ch. iv. 6‒8.
¶ _And the elders._ See Notes on ch. iv. 4. ¶ _And no man could learn
that song_, &c. None could understand it but the redeemed. That is,
none who had not been redeemed could enter fully into the feelings
and sympathies of those who were. A great truth is taught here. To
appreciate fully the songs of Zion; to understand the language of
praise; to enter into the spirit of the truths which pertain to
redemption; one must himself have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.
He must have known what it is to be a sinner under the condemnation of
a holy law; he must have known what it is to be in danger of eternal
death; he must have experienced the joys of pardon, or he can never
understand, in its true import, the language used by the redeemed.
And this is only saying what we are familiar with in other things.
He who is saved from peril; he who is rescued from long captivity; he
who is pardoned at the foot of the scaffold; he who is recovered from
dangerous illness; he who presses to his bosom a beloved child just
rescued from a watery grave, will have an appreciation of the language
of joy and triumph which he can never understand who has not been
placed in such circumstances: but of all the joy ever experienced in
the universe, so far as we can see, that must be the most sublime and
transporting, which will be experienced when the redeemed shall stand
on Mount Zion above, and shall realize that they are _saved_.

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they
are [432]virgins. These are they [433]which follow the Lamb
whithersoever he goeth. These were [434]redeemed from among
men, _being_ [435]the first-fruits unto God and to the Lamb.

4. _These are they._ In this verse, and in the following verse, the
writer states the leading characteristics of those who are saved. The
_general_ idea is, that they are chaste; that they are the followers
of the Lamb; that they are redeemed from among men; and that they are
without guile. ¶ _Which were not defiled with women._ Who were chaste.
The word _defiled_ here determines the meaning of the passage, as
denoting that they were not guilty of illicit intercourse with women.
It is unnecessary to show that this is a virtue everywhere required
in the Bible, and everywhere stated as among the characteristics of
the redeemed. On no point are there more frequent exhortations in
the Scriptures than on this; on no point is there more solicitude
manifested that the professed friends of the Saviour should be without
blame. Comp. Notes on Ac. xv. 20; Ro. i. 24‒32; 1 Co. vi. 18; He. xiii.
4. See also 1 Co. v. 1; vi. 13; Ga. v. 19; Ep. v. 3; Col. iii. 5; 1 Th.
iv. 3. This passage cannot be adduced in favour of celibacy, whether
among the clergy or laity, or in favour of monastic principles in any
form; for the thing that is specified is, that they were not “_defiled_
with women,” and a lawful connection of the sexes, such as marriage,
is _not_ defilement. See Notes on He. xiii. 4. The word here rendered
_defiled_――ἐμολύνθησαν, from μολύνω――is a word that cannot be applied
to the marriage relation. It means properly _to soil_, _to stain_, _to
defile_. 1 Co. viii. 7: “Their conscience being weak, is _defiled_.”
Re. iii. 4: “Which have not _defiled_ their garments.” The word does
not elsewhere occur in the New Testament, except in the passage before
us, and it will be seen at once that it cannot be applied to that which
is lawful and proper, and consequently that it cannot be construed as
an expression against marriage and in favour of celibacy. It is a word
that is properly expressive of illicit intercourse――of impurity and
unchastity of life――and the statement is, that they who are saved
are not impure and unchaste. ¶ _For they are virgins_――παρθένοι. This
is the masculine form, but this form is found in the later Greek and
in the Christian fathers. See Suidas and Suicer, _Thes._ The meaning
of the word, when found in the feminine form, is well understood. It
denotes a virgin, a maiden, and thence it is used to denote that which
is chaste and pure: virgin modesty; virgin gold; virgin soil; virgin
blush; virgin shame. The word in the masculine form must have a similar
meaning as applied to men, and may denote {341} (a) those who are
unmarried; (b) those who are chaste and pure in general. The word is
applied by Suidas to Abel and Melchizedek. “The sense,” says De Wette,
_in loco_, “cannot be that all these 144,000 had lived an unmarried
life; for how could the apostle Peter, and others who were married,
have been excluded? But the reference must be to those who held
themselves from all impurity――_unkeuschheit und hurerei_――which, in the
view of the apostles, was closely connected with idolatry.” Comp. Bleek,
_Beitr._ i. 185. Professor Stuart supposes that the main reference
here is to those who had kept themselves from idolatry, and who were
thus pure. It seems to me, however, that the most obvious meaning is
the correct one, that it refers to the redeemed as chaste, and thus
brings into view one of the prominent things in which Christians are
distinguished from the devotees of nearly every other form of religion,
and, indeed, exclusively from the world at large. This passage,
also, cannot be adduced in favour of the monastic system, because,
(a) whatever may be said anywhere of the purity of virgins, there is no
_such_ commendation of it as to imply that the married life is impure;
(b) it cannot be supposed that God meant in any way to reflect on the
married life as in itself impure or dishonourable; (c) the language
does not demand such an interpretation; and (d) the _facts_ in regard
to the monastic life have shown that it has had very little pretensions
to a claim of virgin purity. ¶ _These are they which follow the Lamb._
This is another characteristic of those who are redeemed――that they
are followers of the Lamb of God. That is, they are his disciples; they
imitate his example; they obey his instructions; they yield to his laws;
they receive him as their counsellor and their guide. See Notes on
Jn. x. 3, 27. ¶ _Whithersoever he goeth._ As sheep follow the shepherd.
Comp. Ps. xxiii. 1, 2. It is one characteristic of true Christians that
they follow the Saviour _wherever_ he leads them. Be it into trouble,
into danger, into difficult duty; be it in Christian or heathen lands;
be it in pleasant paths, or in roads rough and difficult, they commit
themselves wholly to his guidance, and submit themselves wholly to
his will. ¶ _These were redeemed from among men._ This is another
characteristic of those who are seen on Mount Zion. They are there
_because_ they are redeemed, and they have the character of the
redeemed. They are not there in virtue of rank or blood (Jn. i. 13);
not on the ground of their own works (Tit. iii. 5); but because
they are redeemed unto God by the blood of his Son. See Notes on
ch. v. 9, 10. None will be there of whom it cannot be said that they
are “redeemed;” none will be absent who have been truly redeemed from
sin. ¶ _|Being| the first-fruits unto God._ On the meaning of the word
_first-fruits_, see Notes on 1 Co. xv. 20. The meaning here would seem
to be, that the hundred and forty-four thousand were not to be regarded
as the _whole_ of the number that was saved, but that they were
_representatives_ of the redeemed. They had the same characteristics
which all the redeemed must have; they were a pledge that all the
redeemed would be there. Professor Stuart supposes that the sense
is, that they were, as it were, “an offering peculiarly acceptable
to God.” The former explanation, however, meets all the circumstances
of the case, and is more in accordance with the usual meaning of the
word. ¶ _And to the Lamb._ They stood there as redeemed by him, thus
honouring him as their Redeemer, and showing forth his glory.

5 And in their mouth [436]was found no guile: for they are
[437]without fault before the throne of God.

5. _And in their mouth was found no guile._ No deceit, fraud,
hypocrisy. They were sincerely and truly what they professed to be――the
children of God. This is the last characteristic which is given of
them as redeemed, and it is not necessary to say that this is always
represented as one of the characteristics of the true children of
God. See Notes on Jn. i. 47. ¶ _For they are without fault before the
throne of God._ The word here rendered _without fault_――ἄμωμοι――means,
properly, _spotless_, _without blemish_, 1 Pe. i. 19. See Notes on Col.
i. 22. This cannot be construed as meaning that they were by nature
pure and holy, but only that they were pure as they stood before the
throne of God in heaven――“having washed their robes, and made them
pure in the blood of the Lamb.” See Notes on ch. vii. 14. It will be
certainly true that all who stand there will {342} be, in fact, pure,
for nothing impure or unholy shall enter there, ch. xxi. 27.

The _design_ of this portion of the chapter was evidently to comfort
those to whom the book was addressed, and, in the same way, to comfort
all the children of God in times of persecution and trial. Those living
in the time of John were suffering persecution, and, in the previous
chapters, he had described more fearful trials yet to come on the
church. In these trials, therefore, present and prospective, there
was a propriety in fixing the thoughts on the final triumph of the
redeemed――that glorious state in heaven where all persecution shall
cease, and where all the ransomed of the Lord shall stand before his
throne. What could be better fitted than this view to sustain the
souls of the persecuted and the sorrowful? And how often since in the
history of the church――in the dark times of religious declension and of
persecution――has there been occasion to seek consolation in this bright
view of heaven? How often in the life of each believer, when sorrows
come upon him like a flood, and earthly consolation is gone, is there
occasion to look to that blessed world where all the redeemed shall
stand before God; where all tears shall be wiped away from every face;
and where there shall be the assurance that the last pang has been
endured, and that the soul is to be happy for ever?

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having
[438]the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on
the earth, and to [439]every nation, and kindred, and tongue,
and people,

6. _And I saw another angel._ This must, of course, mean a different
one from some one mentioned before; but no such angel is referred to
in the previous chapters, unless we go back to ch. xii. 7. It is not
necessary, however, to suppose that John refers to a particular angel
immediately preceding this. In the course of these visions he had seen
many angels; and now, accustomed to these visions, he says that he
saw “another” one employed in a remarkable embassy, whose message was
fitted to cheer the hearts of the desponding, and to support the souls
of the persecuted and the sad――for his appearing was the pledge that
the gospel would be ultimately preached to all that dwell upon the
earth. The _design_ of this vision is, therefore, substantially the
same as the former――to cheer the heart, and to sustain the courage
and the faith of the church, in the persecutions and trials which
were yet to come, by the assurance that the gospel would be ultimately
triumphant. ¶ _Fly in the midst of heaven._ In the air; so as to
appear to be moving along the face of the sky. The scene cannot be _in_
heaven, as the gospel is not to be preached there; but the word must
denote heaven as it appears to us――the sky. Professor Stuart renders
it correctly “mid-air.” He is represented as _flying_, to denote the
_rapidity_ with which the gospel would spread through the world in
that future period referred to. Comp. Notes on Is. vi. 2. ¶ _Having the
everlasting gospel._ The gospel is here called everlasting or eternal,
(a) because its great truths have always existed, or it is conformed to
eternal truth; (b) because it will for ever remain unchanged――not being
liable to fluctuation like the opinions held by men; (c) because its
effects will be everlasting――in the redemption of the soul and the joys
of heaven. In all the glorious eternity before the redeemed, they will
be but developing the effects of that gospel on their own hearts, and
enjoying the results of it in the presence of God. ¶ _To preach unto
them that dwell on the earth._ To all men――as is immediately specified.
Comp. Mat. xxviii. 19; Mar. xvi. 15. ¶ _And to every nation, and
kindred_, &c. To all classes and conditions of men; to all men, without
any distinction or exception. See Notes on ch. vii. 9. The truth
here taught is, that the gospel is to be preached to all men as on
an equality, without any reference to their rank, their character, or
their complexion; and it is implied also, that at the time referred
to this _will_ be done. _When_ that time will be the writer does not
intimate farther, than that it would be _after_ the beast and his
adherents had attempted to stay its progress; and for the fulfilment of
this, therefore, we are to look to a period subsequent to the rise and
fall of that great Antichristian power symbolized by the beast and his
image. This is in entire accordance with the prediction in Daniel. See
Notes on Da. vii. 19‒22.

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him;
for the [440]hour of his judgment is come: and worship him
that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of
waters.

7. _Saying with a loud voice._ As if {343} all the nations were
summoned to hear. ¶ _Fear God._ That is, reverence, honour, obey God.
Render homage not to the beast, to his image, or to _any_ idol, but to
the only true God. This is the _substance_ of the gospel――its end and
design――to turn men from all forms of idol worship and superstition,
to the worship of the only true God. ¶ _And give glory to him._ To
give glory to him is to acknowledge him as the only true God; to set
up his pure worship in the heart; and to praise him as the great Ruler
of heaven and earth. ¶ _For the hour of his judgment is come._ His
judgment on the beast and on those who worship him. The imagery here is
substantially the same as in Da. vii. 9, 10, 14, 26, 27; and there can
be no doubt that there is reference to the same subject. See Notes on
those verses. The main idea is, that when God shall be about to cause
his gospel to spread through the world, there will be, as it were, a
solemn judgment on that Antichristian power which had so long resisted
his truth and persecuted his saints, and that on the fall of that power
his own kingdom will be set up on the earth; that is, in the language
of Daniel, “the kingdom, and the dominion, and the greatness of the
kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the
saints of the Most High.” ¶ _And worship him that made heaven, and
earth_, &c. The true God, the Creator of all things. As already
remarked, this is the ultimate design of the gospel, and, when this is
accomplished, the great end for which it was revealed will be reached.

The design of this portion of the chapter (ver. 6, 7), also, was to
comfort those to whom the book was addressed, and in the same way to
comfort the church in all the persecution and opposition which the
truth would encounter. The ground of consolation then was, that a
time was predicted when the “everlasting gospel” would be made to fly
speedily through the earth, and when it would be announced that a final
judgment had come upon the Antichristian power which had prevented its
being before diffused over the face of the world. The same ground of
encouragement and consolation exists now, and the more so as we see the
day approaching; and in all times of despondency we should allow our
hearts to be cheered as we see that great Antichristian power waning,
and as we see evidence that the way is thus preparing for the rapid and
universal diffusion of the pure gospel of Christ.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, [441]Babylon is
fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all
nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

8. _And there followed another angel._ That is, in the vision.
It is not necessary to suppose that this would, in the fulfilment,
succeed the other _in time_. The chapter is made up of a number of
representations, all designed to illustrate the same general thing, and
to produce the same general effect on the mind――that the gospel would
be finally triumphant, and that, therefore, the hearts of the troubled
and the afflicted should be comforted. The representation in this
verse, bearing on this point, is, that Babylon, the great enemy, would
fall to rise no more. ¶ _Babylon._ This is the first time that the
word _Babylon_ occurs in this book, though it is repeatedly mentioned
afterwards, ch. xvi. 19; xvii. 5; xviii. 2, 10, 21. In reference to
the literal Babylon, the word is used, in the New Testament, in Mat.
i. 11‒13; Ac. vii. 43; 1 Pe. v. 13. See Intro. to 1 Peter, § 2. Babylon
was a well-known city on the Euphrates (for a full description of which
see Notes on Isaiah, analysis of ch. xiii., xiv.), and was, in the days
of its pride and glory, the head of the heathen world. In reference to
the meaning of the word in this place, it may be remarked, (1) That the
general characteristics of Babylon were, that it was proud, haughty,
insolent, oppressive. It was chiefly known and remembered by the Hebrew
people as a power that had invaded the Holy Land; that had reduced its
capital and temple to ruins; that had destroyed the independence of
their country, subjecting it to the condition of a province, and that
had carried away the inhabitants into a long and painful captivity.
It became, {344} therefore, the emblem of all that was haughty and
oppressive, and especially of all that persecuted the church of God.
(2) The word must be used here to denote some power that resembled
the ancient and literal Babylon in these characteristics. The literal
Babylon was no more; but the name might be properly used to denote a
similar power. We are to seek, therefore, in the application of this,
for some power that had the same general characteristics which the
literal Babylon had. (3) In inquiring, then, what is referred to
here by the word Babylon, we may remark, (a) that it could not be
the _literal_ Babylon on the Euphrates, for the whole representation
here is of something _future_, and the literal Babylon had long since
disappeared, never, according to the prophecies, to be rebuilt. See
Notes on Is. xiii. 20‒22. (b) All the circumstances require us to
understand this of Rome, at some period of its history: for Rome, like
Babylon, was the seat of empire, and the head of the heathen world;
Rome was characterized by many of the same attributes as Babylon, being
arrogant, proud, oppressive; Rome, like Babylon, was distinguished for
its conquests, and for the fact that it made all other nations subject
to its control; Rome had been, like Babylon, a desolating power, having
destroyed the capital of the Holy Land, and burnt its beautiful temple,
and reduced the country to a province. Rome, like Babylon of old, was
the most formidable power with which the church had to contend. Yet
(c) it is not, I suppose, Rome considered as _Pagan_ that is here meant,
but Rome considered as the prolongation of the ancient power in the
_Papal_ form. Alike in this book and in Daniel, Rome, Pagan and Papal,
is regarded as _one_ power, standing in direct opposition to the gospel
of Christ, resisting its progress in the world, and preventing its
final prevalence. See Notes on Da. vii. When that falls, the last enemy
of the church will be destroyed, and the final triumph of the true
religion will be speedy and complete. See Da. vii. 26, 27. (d) So it
was understood among the early Christians. Mr. Gibbon, speaking of the
expectations of the early Christians about the end of the world, and
the glory of the literal reign of the Messiah, says, “Whilst the
happiness and glory of a temporal reign were promised to the disciples
of Christ, the most dreadful calamities were denounced against an
unbelieving world. The edification of the New Jerusalem was to advance
by equal steps with the destruction of the mystic Babylon; and as
long as the emperors who reigned before Constantine persisted in the
profession of idolatry, the epithet of Babylon was applied to the city
and to the empire of Rome,” vol. i. p. 263. ¶ _Is fallen._ That is, an
event appeared in vision _as if_ a mighty city fell to rise no more.
¶ _Is fallen._ This is repeated to give emphasis to the declaration,
and to express the joyousness of that event. ¶ _That great city._
Babylon in its glory was the largest city of the world. Rome, in its
turn, also became the largest; and the expression used here denotes
that the power here referred to would be properly represented by cities
of their magnitude. ¶ _Because she made all nations drink of the wine._
This language is probably taken from Je. li. 7: “Babylon hath been
a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken:
the nations have drunk of the wine, therefore the nations are mad.”
Babylon here, in accordance with the usual custom of the sacred writers
when speaking of cities (see Notes on Is. i. 8), is represented as a
female――here a female of abandoned character, holding in her hand a
cup of wine to attract her lovers; that is, she allures and intoxicates
them. This is a beautiful image to denote the _influence_ of a great
and corrupt city, and especially a city corrupt in its religion and
devoted to idolatry and superstition, and may well be applied either
to Babylon or Rome, literal or mystical. ¶ _Of the wrath._ There seems
an incongruity in the use of this word here, and Professor Stuart
proposes to render it “the inflammatory wine of her fornication;” that
is, inebriating wine――wine that excited the passions and that led to
uncleanness. He supposes that the word here used――θυμός――means _heat_,
_inflammation_, corresponding to the Hebrew חַמָּה. There are no instances,
however, in the New Testament in which the word is used in this sense.
The common and proper meaning is _mind_, _soul_, then mind agitated
with passion or under the influence of desire――a violent commotion of
mind, as wrath, anger, indignation (Rob. _Lex._). The _ground_ of the
representation here seems to be that Jehovah is often described as
giving to the nations in his wrath an intoxicating cup so that they
should reel and stagger to their destruction. Comp. Je. xxv. 15; li. 7.
The meaning {345} here is, that the nations had drunk of that cup which
_brought on the wrath of God_ on account of her “fornication.” Babylon
is represented as a harlot, with a cup of wine in her hand, and the
_effect_ of drinking that cup was to expose them to the wrath of God,
hence called “the wine of the wrath of her fornication”――the alluring
cup that was followed by wrath on account of her fornication. ¶ _Of
her fornication._ Due to her fornication. The word “fornication”
here is used to denote _spiritual_ uncleanness; that is, heathen and
superstitious rites and observances. The term is often used in the
Scriptures as applicable to idolatry and superstition. The general
meaning here is, that Rome――Papal Rome――would employ all forms of
voluptuous allurements to bring the nations to the worship of the beast
and his image, and that the “wrath” of God would be poured out on
account of these abominations. The _design_ of this verse also is to
impart consolation by the assurance that this great enemy――this mighty,
formidable, persecuting power――would be entirely overthrown. This is
everywhere held up as the brightest hope of the church, for with this
will fall its last great enemy, and the grand obstruction to the final
triumph of the gospel on earth will be removed.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice,
If[442] any man worship the beast and his image, and receive
_his_ mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

9. _And the third angel followed them._ This was a new vision
designed to represent the removal of all the obstructions to the final
prevalence of the gospel. We are not necessarily to suppose that this
event would succeed those mentioned before in the order of time, though
this would be the natural construction. The _design_ of this is to
show that the worshippers of the beast and his image would be certainly
and finally destroyed. ¶ _Saying with a loud voice._ Making a loud
proclamation. Ver. 7. ¶ _If any man worship the beast and his image._
See Notes on ch. xiii. 4, 8, 12, 15. This declaration is universal,
affirming of _all_ who thus render idolatrous reverence to the power
represented by the beast and his image that they should drink of the
wine of the wrath of God. The general meaning is, that they were guilty
of idolatry of a gross form; and wherever this existed they who were
guilty of it would come under the denunciations in the Scriptures
against idolaters. And why should not such denunciations fall on
idolaters under the Papacy as well as on others? Is it not true that
there is as _real_ idolatry there as in the heathen world? Is not
the idolatry as gross and debasing? Is it not attended with as real
corruption in the heart and the life? Is it not encompassed with as
many things to inflame the passions, corrupt the morals, and alienate
the soul from God? And is it not all the worse for being a perversion
of Christianity, and practised under the forms of the religion of the
Saviour? On what principle should idolatry be denounced and condemned
anywhere if it is not in Papal Rome? Comp. Notes on 2 Th. ii. 4. ¶ _And
receive |his| mark in his forehead or in his hand._ See Notes on ch.
xiii. 16. The word “_receive_” here implies that there was, on their
part, some degree of voluntariness: it was not a mark impressed _by
force_, but a mark _received_. This is true in respect to all idolatry;
and this lays the ground for condemnation. Whatever art is used to
induce men to worship the beast and his image, it is still true that
the worshippers are _voluntary_, and that, being voluntary, it is right
that they should be treated as such. It is on this ground only that any
idolaters, or any sinners of any kind, can be, in the proper sense of
that term, _punished_.

10 The same shall [443]drink of the wine of the wrath of
God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation; and he shall be tormented [444]with fire and
brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the
presence of the Lamb:

10. _The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God._ See Notes
on ver. 8. The “wine of the wrath of God” is the cup in the hand of
the Lord, which, when drunk, makes them reel and fall. The image would
seem to have been taken from the act of holding out a cup of poison
to a condemned man that he might drink and die. See the sentiment here
expressed illustrated in the Notes on Is. li. 17. ¶ _Which is poured
{346} out without mixture._ Without being diluted with water――that
is, in its full strength. In other words, there would be no mitigation
of the punishment. ¶ _Into the cup of his indignation._ The cup
held in his hand, and given them to drink. This is expressive of his
indignation, as it causes them to reel and fall. The sentiment here
is substantially the same, though in another form, as that which
is expressed in 2 Th. ii. 12. See Notes on that verse. ¶ _And he
shall be tormented._ Shall be punished in a manner that would be well
represented by being burned with fire and brimstone. On the meaning
of this word see Notes on ch. ix. 5; xi. 10. Comp. also ch. xviii. 7,
10, 15; xx. 10; Mat. viii. 29; Mar. v. 7; Lu. viii. 28. The word
commonly denotes severe torture. ¶ _With fire and brimstone._ _As if_
with burning sulphur. See Notes on Lu. xvii. 28‒30. Comp. Ps. xi. 6;
Job xviii. 15; Is. xxx. 33; Eze. xxxviii. 22. The imagery is taken
from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Ge. xix. 24. The common
representation of the punishment of the wicked is, that it will be in
the manner here represented, Mat. v. 22; xiii. 42; xviii. 9; xxv. 41;
Mar. ix. 44‒48; 2 Pe. iii. 7; Jude 7; Re. xx. 14. Comp. Notes on Mat. v.
22; Mar. ix. 44. ¶ _In the presence of the holy angels._ This may mean
either (a) that the angels will be present at their condemnation (Mat.
xxv. 31), or (b) that the _punishment_ will be actually witnessed by
the angels, as it is most probable it will be. Comp. Is. lxvi. 24; Lu.
xvi. 23‒26. ¶ _And in the presence of the Lamb._ The Lamb of God――the
final Judge. This also may mean either that the condemnation will occur
in his presence, or that the punishment will be under his eye. Both
of these things will be true in regard to him; and it will be no small
aggravation of the punishment of the wicked, that it will occur in the
very presence of their slighted and rejected Saviour.

11 And the [445]smoke of their torment ascendeth up for
ever and ever: and they [446]have no rest day nor night, who
worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the
mark of his name.

11. _And the smoke of their torment._ The smoke proceeding from
their place of torment. This _language_ is probably derived from the
account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Ge. xix. 28: “And he
[Abraham] looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of
the plain, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the country went up as the
smoke of a furnace.” The destruction of these cities is regarded as an
emblem of the destruction of the wicked, and the smoke that ascended
from them as a representation of that which ascends from the place
where the wicked suffer for ever. See Notes on Jude 7. ¶ _Ascendeth
up._ Continually rises from that world of woe. ¶ _For ever and ever._
See Notes on Jude 7. This does not indeed affirm that their individual
sufferings would be eternal, since it is only a declaration that “the
smoke of their torment ascends;” but it is such language as would be
used on the supposition that they would suffer for ever, and as can
be explained only on that supposition. It implies that their torments
continued, and were the cause of that ascending smoke; that is, that
they were tormented _while_ it ascended; and, as this is declared to be
“for ever and ever,” it implies that the sufferings of the wicked will
be eternal: and this is such language as _would_ not, and _could_ not
have been used in a revelation from God, unless the punishment of the
wicked is eternal. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxv. 46. ¶ _And they have no
rest day nor night._ “Day and night” include all time; and hence the
phrase is used to denote perpetuity――_always_. The meaning here is,
that they _never_ have any rest――any interval of pain. This is stated
as a circumstance strongly expressive of the severity of their torment.
Here, rest comes to the sufferer. The prisoner in his cell lies down
on his bed, though hard, and sleeps; the overworked slave has also
intervals of sleep; the eyes of the mourner are locked in repose, and
for moments, if not hours, he forgets his sorrows; no pain that we
endure on earth can be so certain and prolonged that nature will not,
sooner or later, find the luxury of sleep, or will find rest in the
grave. But it will be one of the bitterest ingredients in the cup of
woe, in the world of despair, that this luxury will be denied for ever,
and that they who enter that gloomy prison sleep no more, never know
the respite of a moment, never even lose the consciousness of their
heavy doom. Oh how different from the condition of sufferers here!
And oh how sad and strange {347} that any of our race will persevere
in sin, and go down to those unmitigated and unending sorrows! ¶ _Who
worship the beast and his image._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 4, 15. ¶ _And
whosoever receiveth the mark of his name._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 17.
The meaning here is, that such worshippers will receive the punishment
which other idolaters and sinners do. No exception will be made in
favour of an idolater, though he worships idols under the forms of an
abused Christianity; none will be made in favour of a sinner because he
practised iniquity under the garb of religion.

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here _are_ they that
keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

12. _Here is the patience of the saints._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 10.
¶ _Here are they that keep the commandments of God._ That is, in
exercising such patience. Those who exercise that “patience” in these
long-continued persecutions and trials, will show that they belong to
those who keep the commandments of God, and are his true children. Or
perhaps the meaning may be, “Here is a disclosure respecting the final
destiny of these persecutors, which is adapted to comfort and sustain
the saints in the trials which they will endure; an encouragement to
constancy in obeying the commands of God, and in evincing the meek
faith of the gospel.” ¶ _And the faith of Jesus._ To encourage
persevering faith in the Saviour. In these times of trial it will be
shown who are the friends of the Saviour; and in the prospect of the
certain overthrow of all the enemies of God and his cause, there is a
ground of encouragement for continued attachment to him.

The _design_ of this portion of the chapter (ver. 9‒12) is to encourage
Christians in their trials by the assurance, that this formidable
Antichristian power would be overthrown, and that all the enemies of
God would receive their just doom in the world of despair. Fearful
as that doctrine is, and terrible as is the idea of the everlasting
suffering of any of the creatures of God, yet the final overthrow
of the wicked is necessary to the triumph of truth and holiness,
and there is consolation in the belief that religion will ultimately
triumph. The desire for its triumph necessarily supposes that the
wicked will be overthrown and punished; and indeed it is the aim of all
governments, and of all administrations of law, that the wicked shall
be overthrown, and that truth and justice shall prevail. What would
be more consolatory in a human government than the idea that all the
wicked would be arrested and punished as they deserve? For what else is
government instituted? For what else do magistrates and police-officers
discharge the functions of their office?

13 And I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me, Write,
Blessed _are_ the dead which [447]die in the Lord [448]from
henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from
their labours; and their works do follow them.

13. _And I heard a voice from heaven._ A voice that seemed to speak
from heaven. ¶ _Saying unto me, Write._ Make a record of this truth.
We may suppose that John was engaged in making a record of what he
_saw_ in vision; he was now instructed to make a record of what he
_heard_. This passage may be referred to as a proof that he wrote this
book while in Patmos, or as the heavenly disclosures were made to him,
and not afterwards from memory. ¶ _Blessed are the dead._ That is, the
condition of those who die in the manner which is immediately specified,
is to be regarded as a blessed or happy one. It is much to be able to
say of the dead that they are “blessed.” There is much in death that
is sad; we so much dread it by nature; it cuts us off from so much that
is dear to us; it blasts so many hopes; and the grave is so cold and
cheerless a resting-place, that we owe much to a system of religion
which will enable us to say and to feel, that it is a blessed thing to
die. Assuredly we should be grateful for any system of religion which
will enable us thus to speak of those who are dead; which will enable
us, with corresponding feeling, to look forward to our own departure
from this world. ¶ _Which die in the Lord._ Not all the dead; for God
never pronounces the condition of the wicked who die, blessed or happy.
Religion guards this point, and confines the declaration to those who
furnish evidence that they are prepared for {348} heaven. The phrase
“to die in the Lord” implies the following things:――(1) That they who
thus die are the friends of the Lord Jesus. The language “to be in the
Lord” is often used to denote true attachment to him, or close union
with him. Comp. Jn. xv. 4‒7; Ro. xvi. 13, 22; 1 Co. iv. 17; vii. 39;
Phi. i. 14; Col. iv. 7. The assurance, then, is limited to those who
are sincere Christians; for this the language properly implies, and we
are authorized to apply it only as there is evidence of true religion.
(2) To “die in the Lord” would seem also to imply that there should
be, at the time, the evidence of his favour and friendship. This
would apply (a) to those who die as martyrs, giving their lives as
a testimony to the truth of religion, and as an evidence of their
love for it; and (b) to those who have the comforting evidence of his
presence and favour on the bed of death. ¶ _From henceforth_――ἀπάρτι.
This word has given no little perplexity to expositors, and it
has been variously rendered. Some have connected it with the word
_blessed_――“Blessed henceforth are the dead who die in the Lord;”
that is, they will be ever-onward blessed: some with the word _die_,
referring to the time when the apostle was writing――“Blessed are they
who, _after this time_, die in the Lord;” designing to comfort those
who were exposed to death, and who would die as martyrs: some as
referring to the times contemplated in these visions――“Blessed will
they be who shall die in those future times.” Witsius understands this
as meaning that, from the time of their death, they would be blessed,
as if it had been said, _immediately_ after their dissolution they
would be blessed. Doddridge renders it, “Henceforth blessed are the
dead.” The language is evidently not to be construed, as implying that
they who _had_ died in the faith before were not happy, but that in
the times of trial and persecution that were to come, they were to be
regarded as peculiarly blessed who should escape from these sorrows by
a Christian death. Scenes of woe were indeed to occur, in which many
believers would die. But their condition was not to be regarded as one
of misfortune, but of blessedness and joy, for (a) they would die in
an honourable cause; (b) they would emerge from a world of sorrow; and
(c) they would rise to eternal life and peace. The _design_, therefore,
of the verse is to impart consolation and support to those who would be
exposed to a martyr’s death, and to those who, in times of persecution,
would see their friends exposed to such a death. It may be added that
the declaration here made is true still, and ever will be. It is a
blessed thing to die in the Lord. ¶ _Yea, saith the Spirit._ The Holy
Spirit; “the Spirit by whose inspiration and command I record this”
(Doddridge). ¶ _That they may rest from their labours._ The word here
rendered _labour_――κόπος――means properly _wailing_, _grief_, from κόπτω,
_to beat_, and hence a beating of the breast as in grief. Then the
word denotes toil, labour, effort, Jn. iv. 38; 1 Co. iii. 8; xv. 58;
2 Co. vi. 5; x. 15; xi. 23, 27. It is here used in the sense of
wearisome toil in doing good, in promoting religion, in saving souls,
in defending the truth. From such toils the redeemed in heaven will
be released; for although there will be employment there, it will be
without the sense of fatigue or weariness. And in view of such eternal
rest from toil, we may well endure the labours and toils incident to
the short period of the present life, for, however arduous or difficult,
it will soon be ended. ¶ _And their works do follow them._ That is,
the _rewards_ or the _consequences_ of their works will follow them to
the eternal world, the word _works_ here being used for the _rewards_
or _results_ of their works. In regard to this, considered as an
encouragement to labour, and as a support in the trials of life, it may
be remarked, (a) that _all_ that the righteous do and suffer here will
be appropriately recompensed there. (b) This is _all_ that _can_ follow
a man to eternity. He can take with him none of his gold, his lands,
his raiment; none of the honours of this life; none of the means of
sensual gratification. All that will go with him will be his character,
and the results of his conduct here, and, in this respect, eternity
will be but a prolongation of the present life. (c) It is one of the
highest honours of our nature that we can make the present affect
the future for good; that by our conduct on the earth we can lay the
foundation for happiness millions of ages hence. In no other respect
does man appear so dignified as in this; nowhere do we so clearly see
the grandeur of the soul as in the fact, that what we do to-day may
determine our happiness in that future period, when all the affairs of
this world shall have been wound up, and when ages {349} which cannot
now be numbered shall have rolled by. It is then a glorious thing to
live, and will be a glorious thing to die. Comp. Notes on 1 Co. xv. 58.

14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud
_one_ sat [449]like unto the Son of man, having on his head a
golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

14. _And I looked._ See Notes on ver. 1. His attention is arrested by
a new vision. The Son of man himself comes forth to close the scene,
and to wind up the affairs of the world. This, too, is of the nature
of an episode, and the _design_ is the same as the previous visions――to
support the mind in the prospect of the trials that the church was to
experience, by the assurance that it would be finally triumphant, and
that every enemy would be destroyed. ¶ _And behold a white cloud._
Bright, splendid, dazzling――appropriate to be the seat of the Son of
God. Comp. Notes on Mat. xvii. 5; Re. i. 7. See also Mat. xxiv. 30;
xxvi. 64; Lu. xx. 27; Ac. i. 9; 1 Th. iv. 17; Re. x. 1. ¶ _And upon the
cloud |one| sat like unto the Son of man._ Comp. Notes on ch. i. 13; Da.
vii. 13. It is probable that there is here a designed reference to the
passage in Daniel. The meaning is, that one appeared on the cloud in a
human form, whom John at once recognized as he to whom the appellation
of “the Son of man” peculiarly belonged――the Lord Jesus. The meaning
of that term had not been fixed in the time of Daniel (vii. 13);
subsequently it was appropriated by the Saviour, and was the favourite
term by which he chose to speak of himself, Mat. viii. 20; ix. 6; x. 23;
xi. 19; xii. 8, 32, 40, _et al._ ¶ _Having on his head a golden crown._
Appropriate to him as king. It was mainly in virtue of his kingly
power and office that the work was to be done which John is now about
to describe. ¶ _And in his hand a sharp sickle._ The word _sickle_
here――δρέπανον――means a crooked knife or scythe for gathering the
harvest, or vintage, by cutting off the clusters of grapes. See ver. 17.
The image of a _harvest_ is often employed in the New Testament to
describe moral subjects, Mat. ix. 37, 38; xiii. 30, 39; Mar. iv. 29;
Lu. x. 2; Jn. iv. 35. Here the reference is to the consummation of all
things, when the great harvest of the world will be reaped, and when
all the enemies of the church will be cut off――for that is the grand
idea which is kept before the mind in this chapter. In various forms,
and by various images, that idea had already been presented to the mind,
but here it is introduced in a grand closing image, as if the grain of
the harvest-field were gathered in,――illustrating the reception of the
righteous into the kingdom,――and the fruit of the vineyard were thrown
into the wine-press, representing the manner in which the wicked would
be crushed, ver. 19, 20.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a
loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, [450]Thrust in thy
sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for
the [451]harvest of the earth is [452]ripe.

15. _And another angel._ The fourth in order, ver. 6, 8, 9. ¶ _Came
out of the temple._ See Notes on ch. xi. 19. Came, as it were, from
the immediate presence of God; for the temple was regarded as his
peculiar dwelling-place. ¶ _Crying with a loud voice to him that sat
on the cloud._ To the Messiah, ver. 14. That is, the command was borne
directly from God by the angel to the Messiah, to go forth and reap the
great harvest of the world. It is not a command _of the angel_, but a
command from God the Father to the Son. This is in accordance with all
the representations in the New Testament, that the Son, as Messiah or
Redeemer, is subordinate to the Father, and performs the work which
has been given him to do. See Jn. iii. 16, 17; v. 19; x. 18; xii. 49;
xiv. 31. Comp. Notes on Re. i. 1. ¶ _Thrust in thy sickle, and reap._
Into the great harvest of the world. ¶ _For the time is come for thee
to reap._ That is, “the harvest which _thou_ art to reap is ripe; the
seed which _thou_ hast sown has grown up; the earth which _thou_ hast
cultivated has produced this golden grain, and it is fit that _thou_
shouldst now gather it in.” This language is appropriately addressed
to the Son of God, for all the fruits of righteousness on the earth may
be regarded as the result of _his_ culture. ¶ _For the harvest of the
earth is ripe._ The “harvest” in {350} reference to the righteous――the
fruit of the good seed sown by the Saviour and his apostles and
ministers. The _time_ alluded to here is the end of the world, when the
affairs of earth shall be about to be wound up. The design is to state
that the Redeemer will then gather in a great and glorious harvest, and
by this assurance to sustain the hearts of his people in times of trial
and persecution.

16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the
earth; and the earth was reaped.

16. _And he that sat on the cloud._ The Saviour, ver. 14. ¶ _Thrust in
his sickle on the earth._ To cut down the harvest――that is, to gather
his people to himself. ¶ _And the earth was reaped._ So far as the
righteous were concerned. The end had come; the church was redeemed;
the work contemplated was accomplished; and the results of the work of
the Saviour were like a glorious harvest.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven,
he also having a sharp sickle.

17. _And another angel._ The fifth in order. This angel came for a
different purpose――with reference to the cutting off of the enemies of
God, represented by the gathering of a vintage. Comp. Mat. xiii. 41;
xxiv. 31. ¶ _Came out of the temple which is in heaven._ Sent or
commissioned by God. See Notes on ver. 15. ¶ _He also having a sharp
sickle._ On the word _sickle_, see Notes on ver. 14.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power
over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp
sickle, saying, [453]Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather
the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are
fully ripe.

18. _And another angel._ The sixth in order. He came, like the angel
in ver. 15, with a command to him who had the sickle to go forth and
execute his commission. ¶ _Came out from the altar._ This stood in the
front of the temple (see Notes on Mat. xxi. 12; comp. Notes on Mat.
v. 23, 24), and was the place where burnt-sacrifices were made. As the
work now to be done was a work of destruction, this was an appropriate
place in the representation. ¶ _Which had power over fire._ _As if_ he
kept the fire on the altar. Fire is the usual emblem of _destruction_;
and as the work now to be done was such, it was proper to represent
this angel as engaged in it. ¶ _And cried with a loud cry_, &c. See
ver. 15. That is, he came forth, as with a command from God, to call on
him who was appointed to do the work of destruction, now to engage in
performing it. The time had fully come. ¶ _Thrust in thy sharp sickle._
Ver. 15. ¶ _And gather the clusters of the vine of the earth._ That
portion of the earth which might be represented by a vineyard in which
the grapes were to be gathered and crushed. The image here employed
occurs elsewhere to denote the destruction of the wicked. See the very
beautiful description in Is. lxiii. 1‒6, respecting the destruction of
Edom, and the Notes on that passage. ¶ _For her grapes are fully ripe._
That is, the time has come for the ingathering; or, to apply the image,
for the winding up of human affairs by the destruction of the wicked.
The _time_ here, as in the previous representation, is the end of the
world; and the design is, to comfort the church in its trials and
persecutions, by the assurance that all its enemies will be cut off.

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and
gathered the vine of the earth, and cast _it_ into the great
[454]wine-press of the wrath of God.

19. _And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth._ That is, into
that part of the earth which might be represented by a vineyard; or the
earth considered as having been the abode of wicked men. ¶ _And cast
|it| into the great wine-press of the wrath of God._ See Is. lxiii. 1‒6.
That is, the wine-press where the grapes are crushed, and where the
juice, resembling blood, flows out, may be used as a symbol to denote
the destruction of the wicked in the last day; and as the _numbers_
will be immensely great, it is called the “_great_ wine-press of divine
wrath.” The symbol appears to be used here alike with reference to the
_colour_ of the wine resembling blood, and the _pressure_ necessary to
force it out; and thus employed it is one of the most striking emblems
conceivable to denote the final destruction of the wicked.

20 And the wine-press was [455]trodden [456]without the city,
and [457]blood came out of the wine-press, [458]even unto the
horse-bridles, by the space of a thousand _and_ six hundred
furlongs.

{351} 20. _And the wine-press was trodden without the city._ The
representation was made _as if_ it were outside of the city――that is,
the city of Jerusalem, for that is represented as the abode of the
holy. The word _trodden_ refers to the manner in which wine was usually
prepared, by being trodden by the feet of men. See Notes on Is. lxiii.
2. The wine-press was usually in the vineyard――not in the city――and
this is the representation here. As appearing to the eye of John, it
was not within the walls of any city, but standing without. ¶ _And
blood came out of the wine-press._ The representation is, that there
would be a great destruction which would be well represented by the
juice flowing from a wine-press. ¶ _Even unto the horse-bridles._ Deep,
as blood would be in a field of slaughter where it would come up to
the very bridles of the horses. The idea is, that there would be a
_great_ slaughter. ¶ _By the space of a thousand |and| six hundred
furlongs._ That is, two hundred miles; covering a space of two hundred
miles square――a lake of blood. This is designed to represent a _great_
slaughter; but why the space here employed to describe it was chosen
is unknown. Some have supposed it was in allusion to the length of
Palestine. Professor Stuart supposes that it refers to the _breadth of
Italy_, and that the allusion is to the attack made on the city of the
beast. But it is impossible to determine _why_ this space was chosen,
and it is unnecessary. The idea is, that there would be a slaughter
so great, as it were, as to produce a lake or sea of blood; that the
enemies of the church would be completely and finally overthrown, and
that the church, therefore, delivered from all its enemies, would be
triumphant.

The _design_ of this, as of the previous representations in this
chapter, is to show that _all_ the enemies of God will be destroyed,
and that, therefore, the hearts of the friends of religion should be
cheered and consoled in the trials and persecutions which were to come
upon it. What could be better fitted to sustain the church in the time
of trial, than the assurance that every foe will be ultimately cut off?
What is better fitted to sustain the heart of the individual believer,
than the assurance that all _his_ foes will be quelled, and that he
will ere long be safe in heaven?

CHAPTER XV.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter has a close connection in design with the previous
chapter. In that, pledges and assurances had been given that all
the enemies of religion would be cut off, and that the church would
be ultimately triumphant, and particularly that that formidable
Antichristian power represented by the “beast” would be destroyed. This
chapter commences the statement in regard to the manner in which these
pledges would be accomplished, and the statement is pursued through
the subsequent chapters, giving in detail what is here promised in a
general manner. The vision in this chapter may be thus described:――

I. The writer sees a new sign or wonder in heaven. Seven angels appear,
having the seven last plagues that fill up or complete the wrath of God;
representing the wrath that is to come upon the beast, or the complete
overthrow of this formidable Antichristian power, ver. 1.

II. Those who in former times had “gotten the victory over the beast,”
now appear standing on a sea of glass, rejoicing and rendering thanks
for the assurance that this great enemy of the church was now to be
destroyed, and that now all nations were to come and worship before God,
ver. 2‒4.

III. The writer sees the interior of the temple opened in heaven,
and the seven angels, having the seven plagues, issuing forth to
execute their commission. They come clothed in pure and white linen,
and girded with golden girdles. One of the four beasts before the
throne forthwith gives them the seven golden vials full of the wrath
of God, to empty them upon the earth――that is, to bring upon the beast
the predicted destruction. The temple is immediately filled with smoke,
so that no one might enter; that is, no one could now approach to make
intercession, and the destruction of this great enemy’s power is now
certain, ver. 5‒8.

This chapter, therefore, is merely introductory to what follows, and
its {352} interpretation is attended with no particular difficulty. It
is a beautiful scenic representation preparatory to the infliction of
predicted judgments, and designed to introduce the account of those
judgments with suitable circumstances of solemnity.

CHAPTER XV.

AND I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven
angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up
the [459]wrath of God.

1. _And I saw another sign in heaven._ Another wonder or extraordinary
symbol. The word _sign_ here――σημεῖον――is the same which in ch. xii.
1, 3; xiii. 13, is rendered _wonder_ and _wonders_, and in ch. xiii. 14;
xvi. 14; xix. 20, _miracles_. The word is not elsewhere found in the
book of Revelation, though it is of frequent occurrence in other parts
of the New Testament. See it explained in the Notes on ch. xii. 1.
Here it is used to denote something wonderful or marvellous. This is
represented as appearing in heaven, for the judgments that were to fall
upon the world were to come thence. Comp. ch. xi. 19; xii. 1; xiv. 1, 6,
13, 14, 17. ¶ _Great and marvellous._ Great and wonderful, or fitted to
excite admiration――θαυμαστὸν. The subsequent statements fully justify
this, and show that the vision was one of portentous character, and
that was fitted to hold the mind in astonishment. ¶ _Seven angels._
Comp. Notes on ch. i. 4. ¶ _Having the seven last plagues._ The article
here, “_the_ seven last plagues,” would seem to imply that the plagues
referred to had been before specified, or that it would be at once
understood what is referred to. These plagues, however, have not been
mentioned before, and the reason why the article is used here seems to
be this: the destruction of this great Antichristian power _had been_
distinctly mentioned, ch. xiv. That might be spoken of as a thing now
well known, and the mention of it would demand the article; and as that
was well known, and would demand the article, so any allusion to it,
or description of it, might be spoken of in the same manner, as a thing
that was definite and fixed, and hence the mention of the plagues by
which it was to be accomplished would be referred to in the same manner.
The word _plagues_――πληγὰς, from πληγή――means properly a wound caused
by a stripe or blow, and is frequently rendered _stripe_ and _stripes_,
Lu. xii. 48; Ac. xvi. 23, 33; 2 Co. vi. 5; xi. 23. It does not
elsewhere occur in the New Testament, except in the book of Revelation.
In this book it is rendered _wound_ in ch. xiii. 3, 12, 14; and
_plagues_ in ch. ix. 20; xi. 6; xv. 1, 6, 8; xvi. 9, 21; xviii. 4, 8;
xxi. 9; xxii. 18. It does not occur elsewhere. The secondary meaning
of the word, and the meaning in the passage before us, is _a stripe_ or
_blow inflicted by God_; calamity or punishment. The word “last” means
those under which the order of things here referred to would terminate;
the winding up of the affairs respecting the beast and his image――not
necessarily the closing of the affairs of the world. Important events
were to occur subsequent to the destruction of this Antichristian power
(xix.‒xxii.), but _these_ were the plagues which would come finally
upon the beast and his image, and which would terminate the existence
of this formidable enemy. ¶ _For in them is filled up the wrath of God.
_ That is, in regard to the beast and his image. All the expressions
of the divine indignation towards that oppressive and persecuting power
will be completed or exhausted by the pouring out of the contents of
these vials. Comp. Notes on ch. x. 7, where the word rendered _filled
up_――ἐτελέσθη――is rendered _finished_.

2 And I saw as it were a [460]sea of glass [461]mingled with
fire: and them that had gotten the victory [462]over the beast,
and over his image, and over his mark, _and_ over the number
of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the [463]harps
of God.

2. _And I saw as it were a sea of glass._ In ch. iv. 6, a similar
vision is recorded――“And before the throne there was a sea of glass,
like unto crystal.” See the Notes on that passage. The sea of _glass_
here means a sea clear, pellucid, like glass: an expanse that seemed to
be made of glass. There it was entirely clear; here it is mingled with
fire. ¶ _Mingled with fire._ That is, a portion of the sea was red like
fire. It was not all clear and pellucid, as in ch. iv. 6, but it was
as it were a tesselated expanse, composed in part of what seemed to
be glass, and in part of a material of a red or fiery colour. In the
former case (ch. iv. 6), the emblem was designed {353} to represent
the pure worship of heaven without reference to any other symbolic
design, and hence the sea is wholly clear and pellucid; here, in
connection with the purpose of furnishing an appropriate symbol of
the divine majesty, there is united the idea of punishment on the foes
of God, represented by the fiery or red colour. If it is proper, from
conjecture, to suggest the meaning of this as an emblem, it would be
that the foundation――the main element――of all the divine dealings is
justice or holiness――represented by the portion of the sea that seemed
to be glass; and that there was, in this case, intermingled with that,
the image of wrath or anger――represented by the portion that was fiery
or red. The very sight of the pavement, therefore, on which they stood
when worshipping God, would keep before their minds impressive views
of his character and dealings. ¶ _And them that had gotten the victory
over the beast._ Ch. xiii. 11. That is, they who had gained a victory
in times of persecution and temptation; or they whom the “beast” had
not been able, by arts or arms, to subdue. The persons referred to here,
I suppose, are those who in the long dominion of the Papal power, and
amidst all its arts and corruptions――its threats and persecutions――had
remained steadfast in the truth, and who might thus be said to
have gained _a victory_――for such victories of piety, virtue, and
truth, amidst the corrupting influences of sin and error, and the
intimidations of power, are the most important that are gained in
this world. ¶ _And over his image._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 14, 15.
The meaning is, that they had not been led to apostatize by the dread
of the power represented here by the “image of the beast.” In all the
attempts of that power to subdue them――to intimidate them――to induce
them to give up their attachment to the truth as it is in Jesus――they
had remained steadfast in the faith, and had triumphed. ¶ _And over his
mark._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 16. Over all the attempts of the beast
to fix his mark upon them, or to designate them as his own. ¶ _And
over the number of his name._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 17, 18. Over all
the attempts to fix upon them that mysterious number which expressed
his name. The general sense is, that in times of general error and
corruption; when the true friends of Christ were exposed to persecution;
when every effort was made to induce them to become the followers of
the “beast,” and to yield to the corrupt system represented by the
“beast,” they remained unmoved, and adhered firmly to the truth. The
number of such in the aggregate was not small; and with great beauty
and propriety they are here represented as rejoicing and giving thanks
to God on the overthrow of that corrupt and formidable power. ¶ _Stand
on the sea of glass._ That is, before God. They are now seen in heaven,
redeemed and triumphant. ¶ _Having the harps of God._ Harps that
pertained to the worship of God; harps to be employed in his praise.
See Notes on ch. xiv. 2.

3 And they sing the [464]song of Moses the servant of God,
and the [465]song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous
_are_ thy works, Lord God Almighty; [466]just and true _are_
thy ways, thou King of [467]saints.

3. _And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God._ A song of
thanksgiving and praise, such as Moses taught the Hebrew people to
sing after their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. See Ex. xv. The
meaning here is, not that they would sing that identical song, but
that, as Moses taught the people to celebrate their deliverance with an
appropriate hymn of praise, the redeemed would celebrate their delivery
and redemption in a similar manner. There is an obvious propriety
here in referring to the “song of Moses,” because the circumstances
are very similar; the occasion of the redemption from that formidable
Antichristian power here referred to, had a strong resemblance to the
rescue from Egyptian bondage. ¶ _And the song of the Lamb._ The hymn
which is sung in honour of the Lamb, as their great deliverer. {354}
Comp. Notes on ch. v. 9, 10, 12, 13. ¶ _Saying, Great and marvellous
|are| thy works._ See Notes on ver. 1. The meaning is, that great
_power_ was evinced in redeeming them; and that the interposition
of the divine goodness in doing it was _marvellous_, or was such as
to excite wonder and admiration. ¶ _Lord God Almighty._ This would
seem to mean the same thing as the expression so common in the Old
Testament, “Jehovah, God of hosts.” The union of these appellations
give solemnity and impressiveness to the ascription of praise, for
it brings into view the fact, that he whose praise is celebrated
is _Lord_――the JEHOVAH――the uncreated and eternal One; that he is
_God_――the creator, upholder, and sovereign of all things; and that
he is _Almighty_――having all power in all worlds. All these names
and attributes are suggested when we think of redemption; for all
the perfections of a glorious God are suggested in the redemption of
the soul from death. It is the _Lord_――the Ruler of all worlds; it is
_God_――the Maker of the race, and the Father of the race, who performs
the work of redemption; and it is a work which could be accomplished
only by one who is _Almighty_. ¶ _Just and true._ The attributes of
_justice_ and _truth_ are brought prominently into view also in the
redemption of man. The fact that God is just, and that in all this
work he has been careful to maintain his justice (Ro. iii. 26); and
the fact that he is true to himself, true to the creation, true to
the fulfilment of all his promises, are prominent in this work, and it
is proper that these attributes should be celebrated in the songs of
praise in heaven. ¶ _|Are| thy ways._ Thy ways or _dealings_ with us,
and with the enemies of the church. That is, all the acts or “ways” of
God in the redemption of his people had been characterized by justice
and truth. ¶ _Thou King of saints._ King of those who are holy; of
all who are redeemed and sanctified. The more approved reading here,
however, is _King of nations_――ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν――instead of _King
of saints_――τῶν ἁγίων. So it is read in the critical editions of
Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn. The sense is not materially affected by
the difference in the reading.

4 Who[468] shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy
name? for _thou_ [469]only _art_ holy: for [470]all nations
shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made
manifest:

4. _Who shall not fear thee, O Lord._ Reverence and adore thee; for
the word _fear_, in the Scriptures, is commonly used in this sense
when applied to God. The sense here is, that the judgments about to
be inflicted on the beast and his image should and would teach men
to reverence and adore God. There is, perhaps, included here also the
idea of awe, inasmuch as this would be the effect of punishment. ¶ _And
glorify thy name._ Honour thee――the _name_ being put for the person who
bare it. The sense is, that, as a consequence of these judgments, men
would be brought to honour God, and to acknowledge him as the Ruler of
the earth. ¶ _For |thou| only |art| holy._ That is, in these judgments
he would show himself to be a holy God; a God hating sin, and loving
righteousness and truth. When it is said that he “_only_” is holy,
the expression is used, of course, in a comparative sense. He is _so_
pure that it may be said that, in comparison with him, no one else is
holy. Comp. Notes on Job iv. 18; xv. 15. ¶ _For all nations shall come
and worship before thee._ That is, as the result of these punishments
inflicted on this dread Antichristian power, they shall come and
worship thee. Everywhere in the New Testament the destruction of that
power is connected with the promise of the speedy conversion of the
world. ¶ _For thy judgments are made manifest._ To wit, on the beast.
That formidable power is overthrown, and the grand hindrance to the
universal spread of the true religion is now taken away. Comp. Notes on
Is. xxvi. 9.

5 And after that I looked, and behold, the [471]temple of the
tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

5. _And after that I looked._ After I had seen in vision the redeemed
thus referred to, celebrating the praises of God, I saw the preparation
made for the execution of these purposes of judgment. ¶ _And behold,
the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony._ Not the _whole_
temple, but only that part to which this name was given. The word
_tabernacle_――σκηνή――means properly a booth, hut, tent, and was the
name commonly given {355} to the _tent_ or _tabernacle_ that was
erected in the wilderness for the service of God. See Notes on Ac. vii.
44. The same word came naturally to be applied to the temple that was
reared for the same purpose in Jerusalem. It is called the “tabernacle
of testimony,” because it was a _testimony_ or _witness_ of the
presence of God among the people――that is, it served to keep up the
remembrance of him. See Notes as above on Ac. vii. 44, where the same
Greek phrase is used as here――rendered there “tabernacle of _witness_.”
The word _temple_ here――ναός――does not refer to the _whole_ of the
building called the “temple,” but to the holy of holies. See Notes on
He. ix. 3. This was regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God;
and it was this sacred place, usually closed from all access, that
now seemed to be opened, implying that the command to execute these
purposes came directly from God himself. ¶ _In heaven._ That is, that
part of heaven which corresponds to the most holy place in the temple
was opened; to wit, that which is the peculiar residence of God himself.
¶ _Was opened._ Was thrown open to the view of John, so that he was
permitted to look, as it were, upon the very dwelling-place of God.
From his holy presence now came forth the angels to execute his
purposes of judgment on that Antichristian power which had so long
corrupted religion and oppressed the world.

6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the
seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having
their breasts girded with golden girdles.

6. _And the seven angels._ See Notes on ver. 1. ¶ _Came out of the
temple._ Were seen to come from the temple; that is, from the immediate
presence of God. ¶ _Having the seven plagues._ See Notes on ver. 1.
Each one intrusted with a single “plague” to be executed upon the earth.
The meaning here is, that they were designated or appointed to execute
those plagues in judgments. The _symbols_ of their office――the golden
vials――were given to them afterwards, ver. 7. ¶ _Clothed in pure and
white linen._ The emblem of holiness――the common representation in
regard to the heavenly inhabitants. See Notes on ch. iii. 4; vii. 13.
Comp. Mat. xvii. 2; Lu. ix. 29; Mar. xvi. 5. ¶ _And having their
breasts girded with golden girdles._ See Notes on ch. i. 13. The
meaning is, that they were attired in a manner befitting their rank
and condition.

7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven
golden vials, full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever
and ever.

7. _And one of the four beasts._ See Notes on ch. iv. 6, 7. _Which_ one
of the four is not mentioned. From the explanation given of the design
of the representation of the “four beasts,” or _living creatures_, in
the Notes on ch. iv. 6, 7, it would seem that the meaning here is, that
the great principles of that divine government would be illustrated
in the events which are now to occur. In events that were so closely
connected with the honour of God and the triumph of his cause on the
earth, there was a propriety in the representation that these living
creatures, symbolizing the great principles of divine administration,
would be particularly interested. ¶ _Gave unto the seven angels seven
golden vials._ The Word here used――φιάλη――means properly, “a bowl or
goblet, having more breadth than depth” (Rob. _Lex._). Our word vial,
though derived from this, means rather a thin long bottle of glass,
used particularly by apothecaries and druggists. The word would be
better rendered by _bowl_ or _goblet_, and probably the representation
here was of such bowls as were used in the temple service. See Notes on
ch. v. 8. They are called in ch. xvi. 1, “vials of the wrath of God;”
and here they are said to be “full of the wrath of God.” The allusion
seems to be to a drinking cup or goblet filled with poison, and given
to persons to drink――an allusion drawn from one of the methods of
punishment in ancient times. See Notes on ch. xiv. 10. These vials or
goblets thus became emblems of divine wrath, to be inflicted on the
beast and his image. ¶ _Full of the wrath of God._ Filled with that
which represented his wrath; that is, they seemed to be filled with
a poisonous mixture, which being poured upon the earth, the sea,
the rivers, the sun, the seat of the beast, the river Euphrates, and
into the air, was followed by severe divine judgments on this great
Antichristian power. See ch. xvi. 2‒4, 8, 10, 12, 17. ¶ _Who liveth
for ever and ever._ The eternal God. {356} The particular object in
referring to this attribute here appears to be, that though there may
seem to be delay in the execution of his purposes, yet they will be
certainly accomplished, as he is the ever-living and unchangeable God.
He is not under a necessity of abandoning his purposes, like men, if
they are not soon accomplished.

8 And the temple was [472]filled with smoke from the
[473]glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able
to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven
angels were fulfilled.

8. _And the temple was filled with smoke._ The usual symbol of the
divine presence in the temple. See Notes on Is. iv. 5; vi. 4. ¶ _From
the glory of God._ From the manifestation of the divine majesty. That
is, the smoke was the proper accompaniment of the Divine Being when
appearing in majesty. So on Mount Sinai he is represented as appearing
in this manner: “And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because
the Lord descended on it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the
smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly,” Ex. xix. 18.
The purpose _here_ seems to have been, partly to represent the smoke
as the proper symbol of the divine presence, and partly to represent
it as so filling the temple that no one could enter it until the seven
plagues were fulfilled. ¶ _And from his power._ Produced by his power;
and the symbol of his power. ¶ _And no man was able to enter into the
temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled._
Till those vials had been poured out, and all that was indicated by
them was accomplished. The meaning here seems to be, that no one would
be permitted to enter to make intercession――to turn away his wrath――to
divert him from his purpose. That is, the purpose of punishment
had been formed, and would certainly be executed. The agents or
instrumentalities in this fearful work had been now sent forth, and
they would by no means be recalled. The mercy-seat, in this respect,
was inaccessible; the time of judgment on the great foe had come, and
the destruction of the grand enemy of the church was certain. The
point, therefore, at which this vision leaves us is, that where all the
preparations are made for the infliction of the threatened punishment
on the grand Antichristian power which had so long stood up against
the truth; where the agents had prepared to go forth; and where no
intercession will ever avail to turn away the infliction of the divine
wrath. The detail follows in the next chapter.

CHAPTER XVI.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

The previous chapter had described the preparation for the last plagues
that were to come upon that mighty Antichristian power to which this
series of prophetic visions refers. All is now ready; and this chapter
contains the description of those seven last “plagues” under which this
power would reel and fall. These “plagues” are described _as if_ they
were a succession of physical calamities that would come upon this
Antichristian power, and bring it to an end; though perhaps it is not
necessary to look for a _literal_ infliction of such calamities. The
course of the exposition thus far will lead us to regard this chapter
as a description of the _successive blows by which the Papacy will
fall_. A part of this is still undoubtedly future, though perhaps not
far distant; and, in reference to this, and to some portions of the
remainder of the book, there may be more difficulty in satisfying the
mind than in the portions which pertain to past events.

The chapter comprises statements on the following points:――

A command is issued from the temple to the seven angels, to go and
execute the commission with which they were intrusted, ver. 1.

The first angel pours out his vial upon the earth――followed by a plague
upon those who had worshipped the beast and his image, ver. 2.

The second angel pours out his vial upon the sea――followed by the death
of all that were in the sea, ver. 3.

The third angel pours out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of
waters, and they become blood. This is followed by an ascription of
praise from the angel of the waters, because God had given to those who
had shed the blood {357} of the saints blood to drink, with a response
from the altar that this was just, ver. 4‒7.

The fourth angel pours out his vial upon the sun, and an intenser heat
is given to it to scorch men. The consequence is, that they blaspheme
the name of God, but repent not of their sins, ver. 8, 9.

The fifth angel pours out his vial upon the very seat of the beast,
and his kingdom is full of darkness. Men still blaspheme the name of
God and repent not of their sins, ver. 10, 11.

The sixth angel pours out his vial upon the great river Euphrates. The
consequence is, that the waters of the river are dried up, so that the
way of the kings of the East might be prepared. The writer sees also,
in this connection, three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the
mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the
mouth of the false prophet, that go forth into all the earth to gather
all nations to the great day of the battle of God Almighty, ver. 12‒16.

The seventh angel pours out his vial into the air, and a voice is heard
answering that “it is done:” the time of the consummation has come――the
formidable Antichristian power is to come to an end. The great city is
divided into three parts; the cities of the nations fall; great Babylon
thus comes up in remembrance before God to receive the punishment
which is her due. This terrific scene is accompanied with voices,
and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake, and with great
hail――a tempest of wrath beating upon that formidable power that had
so long stood up against God, ver. 17‒21. The _detail_ of the actual
destruction of this power is carried forward in the subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER XVI.

AND I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the
seven[474] angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the
wrath of God upon the earth.

1. _And I heard a great voice out of the temple._ A loud voice out
of the temple as seen in heaven (Notes on ch. xi. 19), and that came,
therefore, from the very presence of God. ¶ _Saying to the seven
angels._ That had the seven vials of wrath. Notes on ch. xv. 1, 7.
¶ _Go your ways._ Your respective ways, to the fulfilment of the task
assigned to each. ¶ _And pour out the vials of the wrath of God._
Empty those vials; cause to come upon the earth the plagues indicated
by their contents. The _order_ in which this was to be done is not
intimated. It seems to be supposed that that would be understood by
each. ¶ _Upon the earth._ The particular part of the _earth_ is not
here specified, but it should not be inferred that it was to be upon
the earth in general, or that there were any calamities, in consequence
of this pouring out of the vials of wrath, to spread over the whole
world. The subsequent statements show what parts of the earth were
particularly to be affected.

2 And the first went, and poured out his vial [475]upon the
earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous [476]sore upon
the men which had the [477]mark of the beast, and _upon_ them
which worshipped his image.

2. _And the first went._ Went forth from heaven, where the seat of the
vision was laid. ¶ _And poured out his vial upon the earth._ That is,
upon the _land_, in contradistinction from the sea, the rivers, the air,
the seat of the beast, the sun, as represented in the other vials. In
ver. 1, the word _earth_ is used in the general sense to denote this
world as distinguished from heaven; in this verse it is used in the
specific sense, to denote _land_ as distinguished from other things.
Comp. Mar. iv. 1; vi. 47; Jn. vi. 21; Ac. xxvii. 29, 43, 44. In many
respects there is a strong resemblance between the pouring out of those
seven vials, and the sounding of the seven trumpets, in ch. viii.,
ix., though they refer to different events. In the sounding of the
first trumpet (ch. viii. 7), it was the _earth_ that was particularly
affected in contradistinction from the sea, the fountains, and the sun:
“The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with
blood, and they were cast _upon the earth_.” Comp. ch. viii. 8, 10, 12.
In regard to the symbolical meaning of the term _earth_, considered
with reference to divine judgments, see Notes on ch. viii. 7. ¶ _And
there fell a noisome and grievous sore._ The judgment here is
specifically different from that inflicted under the first trumpet, ch.
viii. 7. {358} There it is said to have been that “the third part of
trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.” Here it is that
there fell upon _men_ a “noisome and grievous sore.” The two, therefore,
are designed to refer to different events, and to different forms of
punishment. The word rendered _sore_ properly denotes a _wound_ (Hom.
_Il._ xi. 812), and then, in later writers, an _ulcer_ or _sore_. It
is used in the New Testament only in the following places: Lu. xvi. 21,
“The dogs came and licked his _sores_;” and in Re. xvi. 2, 11, where
it is rendered _sore_, and _sores_. It is used in the Septuagint, in
reference to the _boils_ that were brought upon the Egyptians, in Ex.
ix. 9‒12, and probably De. xxviii. 27; in reference to the leprosy,
Le. xiii. 18‒20, 23; in reference to the boil, ulcer, or elephantiasis
brought upon Job, ch. ii. 7; and in reference to any sore or ulcer, in
De. xxviii. 35. In all these places it is the translation of the word
שְּׁחִין _shehhin_――rendered in our English version _boil_, Ex. ix. 9‒11;
Le. xiii. 18‒20, 23; 2 Ki. xx. 7; Job ii. 7; Is. xxxviii. 21; and
_botch_, De. xxviii. 27, 35. The proper meaning, therefore, is that or
a sore, ulcer, or boil of a severe and painful character; and the most
obvious reference in the passage, to one who was accustomed to the
language of Scripture, would be to some fearful plague like that which
was sent upon the Egyptians. In the case of Hezekiah (2 Ki. xx. 7;
Is. xxxviii. 21), it was probably used to denote a _plague-boil_,
or the black leprosy. See Notes on Is. xxxviii. 21. The word
“noisome”――κακὸν, _evil_, _bad_――is used here to characterize the
plague referred to as being peculiarly painful and dangerous. The word
_grievous_――πονηρὸν――_bad_, _malignant_, _hurtful_――is further used
to increase the intensity of the expression, and to characterize the
plague as particularly severe. There is no reason to suppose that it is
meant that this would be _literally_ inflicted, any more than it is in
the next plague, where it is said that the “rivers and fountains became
_blood_.” What is obviously meant is, that there would be some calamity
which would be well represented or symbolized by such a fearful plague.
¶ _Upon the men._ Though the plague was poured upon “_the earth_,” yet
its effects were seen upon “_men_.” Some grievous calamity would befall
them, _as if_ they were suddenly visited with the plague. ¶ _Which had
the mark of the beast._ Notes on ch. xiii. 16, 17. This determines the
portion of the earth that was to be afflicted. It was not the whole
world; it was only that part of it where the “beast” was honoured.
According to the interpretation proposed in ch. xiii., this refers
to those who are under the dominion of the Papacy. ¶ _And |upon| them
which worshipped his image._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 14, 15. According
to the interpretation in ch. xiii., those are meant who sustained the
civil or secular power to which the Papacy gave life and strength, and
from which it, in turn, received countenance and protection.

In regard to the application or fulfilment of this symbol, it is
unnecessary to say that there have been very different opinions in the
world, and that very different opinions still prevail. The great mass
of Protestant commentators suppose that it refers to the Papacy; and of
those who entertain this opinion, the greater portion suppose that the
calamity referred to by the pouring out of this vial is already past,
though it is supposed by many that the things foreshadowed by a part of
these “vials” are yet to be accomplished. As to the true meaning of the
symbol before us, I would make the following remarks:――

(1) It refers to the Papal power. This application is demanded by
the results which were reached in the examination of ch. xiii. See the
remarks on the “beast” in the Notes on ch. xiii. 1, 2, 11, and on “the
image of the beast” in the Notes on ch. xiii. 14, 15. This one mighty
power existed in two forms closely united, and mutually sustaining each
other――the civil or secular, and the ecclesiastical or spiritual. It
is this combined and consolidated power――the Papacy as such――that is
referred to here, for this has been the grand Antichristian power in
the world.

(2) It refers to some grievous and fearful calamity which would come
upon that power, and which would be _like_ a plague-spot on the human
body――something which would be of the nature of a divine judgment,
resembling that which came upon the Egyptians for their treatment of
the people of God.

(3) The course of this exposition leads us to suppose, that this
would be the beginning in the series of judgments, {359} which would
terminate in the complete overthrow of that formidable power. It
is the _first_ of the vials of wrath, and the whole description
evidently contemplates a _series_ of disasters, which would be properly
represented by these successive vials. In the application of this,
therefore, we should naturally look for the first of a series of such
judgments, and should expect to find some facts in history which would
be properly represented by the vial “poured upon the earth.”

(4) In accordance with this representation, we should expect to
find such a series of calamities gradually weakening, and finally
terminating the Papal power in the world, as would be properly
represented by the number _seven_.

(5) In regard now to the _application_ of this series of symbolical
representations, it may be remarked, that most recent expositors――as
Elliott, Cunninghame, Keith, Faber, Lord, and others――refer them to the
events of the French revolution, as important events in the overthrow
of the Papal power; and this, I confess, although the application is
attended with some considerable difficulties, has more plausibility
than any other explanation proposed. In support of this application,
the following considerations may be suggested:――

(a) France, in the time of Charlemagne, was the kingdom to which
the Papacy owed its civil organization and its strength――a kingdom to
which could be traced all the civil or secular power of the Papacy, and
which was, in fact, a restoration or reconstruction of the old Roman
power――the fourth kingdom of Daniel. See Notes on Da. vii. 24‒28; and
comp. Notes on Re. xiii. 3, 12‒14. The restoration of the old Roman
dominion under Charlemagne, and the aid which he rendered to the Papacy
in its establishment as to a temporal power, would make it probable
that this kingdom _would be_ referred to in the series of judgments
that were to accomplish the overthrow of the Papal dominion.

(b) In an important sense France has always been the head of the
Papal power. The king of France has been usually styled, by the popes
themselves, “the eldest son of the church.” In reference to the whole
Papal dominion in former times, one of the principal reliances has
been on France, and, to a very large extent, the state of Europe has
been determined by the condition of France. “A revolution in France,”
said Napoleon, “is sooner or later followed by a revolution in Europe”
(Alison). Its central position; its power; its direct relation to all
the purposes and aims of the Papacy, would seem to make it probable
that, in the account of the final destruction of that power, this
kingdom would not be overlooked.

(c) The scenes which occurred in the times of the French revolution
were such as would be properly symbolized by the pouring out of the
first, the second, the third, and the fourth vials. In the passage
before us――the pouring out of the first vial――the symbol employed is
that of “a noisome and grievous sore”――boil, ulcer, plague-spot――“on
the men which had the mark of the beast, and on them which worshipped
his image.” This representation was undoubtedly derived from the
account of the sixth plague on Egypt (Ex. ix. 9‒11); and the sense
here is, not that this would be literally inflicted on the power here
referred to, but that a calamity would come upon it which would be
_well represented_ by that, or of which that would be an appropriate
emblem. This interpretation is further confirmed by ch. xi. 8, where
Rome is referred to under the name of _Egypt_, and where it is clear
that we are to look for a course of divine dealing, in regard to the
one, resembling that which occurred to the other. See Notes on that
passage. Now, this “noisome and grievous sore” would well represent
the moral corruption, the pollution, the infidelity, the atheism,
the general dissolution of society, that preceded and accompanied
the French revolution; for that was a universal _breaking out_ of
loathsome internal disease――of corruption at the centre――and in its
general features might be represented as a universal plague-spot on
society, extending over the countries where the beast and his image
were principally worshipped. The symbol would properly denote that
“tremendous outbreak of social and moral evil, of democratic fury,
atheism, and vice, which was specially seen to characterize the French
revolution: that of which the ultimate source was in the long and
deep-seated corruption and irreligion of the nation; the outward vent,
expression, and organ of its Jacobin clubs, and seditious and atheistic
publications; the result, the dissolution of all society, all morals,
and all {360} religion; with acts of atrocity and horror accompanying,
scarce paralleled in the history of men; and suffering and anguish
of correspondent intensity throbbing throughout the social mass and
corroding it; that which, from France as a centre, spread like a
plague throughout its affiliated societies to the other countries
of Papal Christendom, and was, wherever its poison was imbibed, as
much the punishment as the symptoms of the corruption within.” Of
this sad chapter in the history of man, it is unnecessary to give
any description here. For scenes of horror, pollution, and blood, its
parallel has _never_ been found in the history of our race, and, as
an event in _history_, it was worthy of a notice in the symbols which
portrayed the future. The full details of these amazing scenes must
be sought in the histories which describe them, and to such works as
Alison’s _History of Europe_, and Burke’s _Letters on a Regicide
Peace_, the reader must be referred. A few expressions copied from
those letters of Mr. Burke, penned with no design of illustrating this
passage in the Apocalypse, and no expectation that they would be ever
so applied, will show with what propriety the spirit of inspiration
suggested the phrase, “a noisome and grievous sore” or plague-spot,
on the supposition that the design was to refer to these scenes. In
speaking of the revolutionary spirit in France, Mr. Burke calls it
“the fever of aggravated Jacobinism,” “the epidemic of atheistical
fanaticism,” “an evil lying deep in the corruptions of human nature,”
“the malignant French distemper,” “a plague, with its fanatical spirit
of proselytism, that needed the strictest quarantine to guard against
it,” whereof, though the mischief might be “skimmed over” for a time,
yet the result, into whatever country it entered, was “the corruption
of all morals,” “the decomposition of all society,” &c. But it is
unnecessary to describe those scenes farther. The “world has them by
heart,” and they can never be obliterated from the memory of man. In
the whole history of the race there has never been an outbreak of evil
that showed so deep pollution and corruption within.

(d) The result of this was to affect the Papacy――a blow, in fact, aimed
at that power. Of course, all the infidelity and atheism of the French
nation, before so strongly Papal, went just so far in weakening the
power of the Papacy; and in the ultimate result it will perhaps yet
be found that the horrid outbreaks in the French revolution were the
first in the series of providential events that will result in the
entire overthrow of that Antichristian power. At all events, it will be
admitted, I think, that, on the supposition that it was _intended_ that
this should be descriptive of the scenes that occurred in Europe at the
close of the last century, no more expressive symbol could have been
chosen than has been employed in the pouring out of this first vial of
wrath.

3 And the second angel poured out his vial [478]upon the sea;
and it became as the [479]blood of a dead _man_: and every
living soul died in the sea.

3. _And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea._ So the
second trumpet (ch. viii. 8), “And the second angel sounded, and as
it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea; and
the third part of the sea became blood.” For the meaning of this as
a symbol, see Notes on that verse. ¶ _And it became as the blood of
a dead |man|._ “Either very bloody, like a mangled corse, or else
coloured, as it were, with the dark and almost black blood of a dead
man” (Professor Stuart, _in loco_). The latter would seem to be, most
probably, the meaning; implying that the ocean would become discoloured,
and indicating that this was the effect of blood shed in great
quantities on its waters. In ch. viii. 8 it is, “the sea became blood;”
here the allusion to the blood of a dead man would more naturally
suggest the idea of naval conflicts, and of the blood of the slain
poured in great quantities into the deep. ¶ _And every living soul
died in the sea._ In ch. viii. 9 it is said that “the third part of the
creatures that were in the sea died, and the third part of the ships
were destroyed.” Here the destruction is more general; the calamity
is more severe and awful. It is as if _every living thing_――πᾶσα ψυχή
ζῶσα――had died. No emphasis should be put on the word _soul_ here, for
the word means merely a creature, a living thing, an animal, Ac. ii. 43;
iii. 23; Ro. xiii. 1; 1 Co. xv. 45. See Rob. _Lex._ _sub voce_, c. {361}
The sense here is, that there would be some dreadful calamity, _as if_
the sea were to be changed into dark blood, and as if every living
thing in it were to die.

In inquiring into the proper application of this, it is natural to
look for something pertaining to the sea, or the ocean (see Notes
on ch. viii. 8, 9), and we should expect to find the fulfilment in
some calamity that would fall on the marine force, or the commerce
of the power that is here referred to; that is, according to the
interpretation all along adopted, of the Papal power; and the proper
application, according to this interpretation, would be the complete
destruction or annihilation of the naval force that contributed to
sustain the Papacy. This we should look for in respect to the naval
power of France, Spain, and Portugal, for these are the only Papal
nations that have had a navy. We should expect, in the fulfilment of
this, to find a series of naval disasters, reddening the sea with blood,
which would tend to weaken the power of the Papacy, and which might be
regarded as _one_ in the series of events that would ultimately result
in its entire overthrow. Accordingly, in pursuance of the plan adopted
in explaining the pouring out of the first vial, it is to be observed
that immediately succeeding, and connected with, the events thus
referred to, there was a series of naval disasters that swept away the
fleets of France, and that completely demolished the most formidable
naval power that had ever been prepared by any nation under the Papal
dominion. This series of disasters is thus noticed by Mr. Elliott
(iii. 329, 330):――“Meanwhile, the great _naval_ war between France and
England was in progress; which, from its commencement in February,
1793, lasted for above twenty years, with no intermission but that
of the short and delusive peace of Amiens; in which war the maritime
power of Great Britain was strengthened by the Almighty Providence that
protected her to destroy everywhere the French ships, commerce, and
smaller colonies; including those of the fast and long-continued allies
of the French, Holland and Spain. In the year 1793, the greater part of
the French fleet at Toulon was destroyed by Lord Hood; in June, 1794,
followed Lord Howe’s great victory over the French off Ushant; then the
taking of Corsica, and nearly all the smaller Spanish and French West
India Islands; then, in 1795, Lord Bridport’s naval victory, and the
capture of the Cape of Good Hope; as also soon after of a French and
Dutch fleet, sent to retake it; then, in 1797, the victory over the
Spanish fleet off Cape St. Vincent; and that of Camperdown over the
Dutch; then, in succession, Lord Nelson’s three mighty victories――of
the Nile in 1798, of Copenhagen in 1801, and in 1805 of Trafalgar.
Altogether in this naval war, from its beginning in 1793, to its end in
1815, it appears that there were destroyed near 200 ships of the line,
between 300 and 400 frigates, and an almost incalculable number of
smaller vessels of war and ships of commerce. The whole history of the
world does not present such a period of naval war, destruction, and
bloodshed.” This brief summary may show, if this was referred to, the
propriety of the expression, “The sea became as the blood of a dead
man;” and may show also that, on the supposition that it was intended
that these events should be referred to, an appropriate symbol has
been employed. No language could more strikingly set forth these bloody
scenes.

4 And the third angel poured out his vial [480]upon the rivers
and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

4. _And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and
fountains of waters._ This coincides also with the account of the
sounding of the third trumpet (ch. viii. 10, 11):――“And the third angel
sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as a lamp,
and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains
of waters.” As to the meaning of the phrase, “rivers and fountains of
waters,” see Notes on that passage. We found, it was supposed, in the
application of that passage, that the invasion of the Roman empire
by Attila, king of the Huns, was referred to, affecting mainly those
parts of the empire where the rivers and streams had their origin. The
_analogy_ would lead us, in the fulfilment of the passage before us,
to look for some similar desolations on those portions of Europe. See
Notes at the close of ver. 7. ¶ _And they became blood._ This would
properly mean that they became _as_ blood; or became red {362} _with_
blood; and it would be fulfilled if bloody battles were fought near
them, so that they seemed to run blood.

5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, [481]Thou art
righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because
thou hast judged thus.

5. _And I heard the angel of the waters say._ The angel who presides
over the element of water; in allusion to the common opinion among
the Hebrews that the angels presided over elements, and that each
element was committed to the jurisdiction of a particular angel. Comp.
Notes on ch. vii. 1. ¶ _Thou art righteous, O Lord_. In view of the
judgments that reddened these streams and fountains with the blood of
men, the angel ascribes righteousness to God. These judgments seemed
terrible――the numbers slain were so vast――the bloody stream indicated
so great slaughter, and such severity of the divine judgment; yet the
angel sees in all this only the act of a righteous God bringing just
retribution on the guilty. ¶ _Which art, and wast, and shalt be._ That
is, who art _eternal_――existing now; who hast existed in all past time;
and who will exist ever onward. See Notes on ch. i. 8. The _reason_ why
this attribute of God is here referred to, seems to be that the mind
of the angel adverts to it in the _changes_ and _desolations_ that were
occurring around him. In such overturnings among men――such revolutions
of kingdoms――such desolations of war――the mind naturally turns to
one who is unchanging; to one whose throne is from everlasting to
everlasting. ¶ _Because thou hast judged thus._ Hast suffered these
wars to occur that have changed rivers and fountains to blood.

6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and
[482]thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

6. _For they have shed the blood of saints._ The nations here referred
to. They have been engaged in scenes of bloody persecution, and this
is a just recompense. ¶ _And prophets._ Teachers of religion; ministers
of truth. It is not necessary to understand the word _prophets_ here
in its technical sense, as denoting those who are raised up by God and
sent forth as inspired men, but it may be understood in its more common
signification in the New Testament as denoting teachers of religion in
general. See Notes on Ro. xii. 6; 1 Co. xiv. 1. ¶ _And thou hast given
them blood to drink._ To wit, by turning the streams and fountains
into blood, ver. 4. Blood had been poured out in such abundance that
it seemed to mingle with the very water that they drank. This was a
recompense for their having, in those very regions, poured out so much
blood in persecuting the saints and prophets――the pious private members
of the church, and the public teachers of religion. ¶ _For they are
worthy._ That is, they deserve this; or this is a just recompense
for their sins. It is not intended that those who would thus suffer
had been individually guilty of this, or that this was properly a
punishment on _them_; but it is meant that in those countries there had
been bloody persecutions, and that this was a fit recompense for what
had there occurred.

7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, [483]Lord
God Almighty, true and righteous _are_ thy judgments.

7. _And I heard another._ Evidently another _angel_, though this is not
specified. ¶ _Out of the altar._ Either the angel _of_ the altar――that
is, who presided over the altar (Professor Stuart), or an angel whose
voice seemed to come from the altar. The sense is essentially the same.
The writer seemed to hear a voice coming from the altar responding
to what had just been said in regard to the judgment of God, or to
his righteousness in bringing the judgment upon men, ver. 5. This
was evidently the voice of some one who was interested in what was
occurring, or to whom these things particularly appertained; that
is, one who was particularly connected with the _martyrs_ referred
to, whose blood was now, as it were, to be avenged. We are naturally
reminded by this of the martyr-scene in ch. vi. 9‒11, in the opening
of the fifth seal, though it cannot be supposed that the same _events_
are referred to. There “the souls of those that had been slain for the
word of God” are represented as being “under the altar,” and as crying
to God to “avenge their blood on them who dwelt on the earth.” Here
a voice is heard with reference to martyrs, as of one interested _in_
them, {363} ascribing praise to God for _having_ brought a righteous
judgment on those who had shed the blood of the saints. They are both,
for similar reasons, connected with the “altar,” and the voice is
heard proceeding from the same source. In regard to the meaning of
the word _altar_ here, and the reason why the martyrs are represented
in connection with it, see Notes on ch. vi. 9. ¶ _True and righteous,
|are| thy judgments._ Responding to what is said in ver. 5. That
is, God is “true” or faithful to his promises made to his people,
and “righteous” in the judgments which he has now inflicted. These
judgments had come upon those who had shed the blood of the martyrs,
and they were just.

In regard to the application of this there are several things to be
said. The following points are clear:――(a) That this judgment would
_succeed_ the first-mentioned, and apparently at a period not remote.
(b) It would occur in a region where there had been much persecution.
(c) It would be in a country of streams, and rivers, and fountains.
(d) It would be a just retribution for the bloody persecutions which
had occurred there. The question now is, where we shall find the
fulfilment of this, assuming that the explanation of the pouring out of
the first vial is correct. And here, I think, there can be no mistake
in applying it to the events bearing on the Papacy, and the Papal
powers, which followed the French revolution. The next material event,
after that revolution, was the invasion of Italy, where Napoleon began
his career of victories, and where he first acquired his fame. At
this stage of my examination of this passage, I looked into Alison’s
_History of Europe_ to see what events, in fact, followed the scenes
of confusion, crime, blood, atheism, and pollution in the French
revolution, and I found that the next chapters in these eventful scenes,
were such as would be well represented by the vial poured upon the
rivers and fountains, and by their being turned into blood. The detail
would be too long for my limits, and I can state merely a summary of a
few of the chapters in that history. Ch. xix. contains the “History of
the French Republic from the fall of Robespierre to the establishment
of the Directory”――comprising properly the closing scenes of “the
Reign of Terror.” Ch. xx. contains an account of the campaign in Italy
in 1796, embracing, as stated in the summing up of contents in this
chapter, the “Battles of Montenotte, Millesimo, Dego; the passage of
the bridge of Lodi, and fall of Milan; the siege of Mantua, and the
battle of Castiglione; the battles of Caldero and Arcola; and the
battles of Rivoli and Mantua.” This is followed (ch. xxiii.) with an
account of the campaign of 1797, which closed with the fall of Venice;
and this is followed (ch. xxvi.) with an account of the invasion
of Switzerland, &c. It is unnecessary to dwell on the details of
the wars which followed the French revolution on the Rhine, the
Po, and the Alpine streams of Piedmont and Lombardy. The slightest
acquaintance with that history will show the propriety of the following
remarks:――(a) These wars occurred in regions under the influence of
the Papacy, for these were all Papal states and territories. (b) These
scenes followed closely on the French revolution, and grew out of it
as a natural consequence, and would be properly represented as a second
“vial” poured out immediately after the first. (c) The country is
such as here supposed――“of rivers and fountains”――for, being mostly a
mountainous region, it abounds with springs, and fountains, and streams.
Indeed, on the supposition that this is the land referred to, a more
appropriate description could not have been given of it than is found
in this passage. One has only to look upon a map of Northern Italy
to see that there is no other portion of the world which would more
naturally be _suggested_ when speaking of a country abounding in
“rivers and fountains of water.” The admirable map of this region
prefixed to the volume, for which I am indebted to the work of Dr.
Alexander Keith, on the _Signs of the Times_, will clearly illustrate
this passage, and the corresponding passage in ch. viii. 10, 11. Let
anyone look at the Po and its tributaries on the map, and then read
with attention the twentieth chapter of Alison’s _History of Europe_
(vol. i. pp. 391‒424), and he will be struck with the appropriateness
of the description, on the supposition that this portion of the book of
Revelation was designed to refer to these scenes; for he cannot but see
that the battles there described were fought in a country in every way
corresponding with the statement here. (d) This country corresponds
with the description here given in another respect. In {364} ver.
5, 6 there is a tribute of praise rendered to God, in view of these
judgments, because he was righteous in bringing them upon a land where
the blood of saints and prophets had been shed――a land of martyrs. Now
this is applicable to the circumstances supposed, not only in the sense
that Italy in general had been the land where the blood of martyrs had
been shed――the land of Roman persecution, alike under Paganism and the
Papacy――but true in a more definite sense, from the fact that this was
the very region where the persecutions against the Waldenses and the
Albigenses had been carried on――_the valleys of Piedmont_. In the times
of Papal persecution these valleys had been made to flow with the blood
of the saints; and it _seemed_, at least, to be a righteous retribution
that these desolations of war, these conflagrations, and these scenes
of carnage, should occur in that very land, and that the very fountains
and streams which had before been turned into blood, by the slaughter
of the friends of the Saviour, should now be reddened with the blood
of men slain in battle. This is, perhaps, what John saw in vision: a
land where persecution had raged, and the blood of the holy had flowed
freely, and then the same land brought under the awful judgments of
God, and the fountains and streams reddened with the blood of the
slain. There was a propriety, therefore, that a voice should be heard
ascribing righteousness to God for avenging the blood of the saints
(ver. 5, 6), and that another voice should be heard from the “altar” of
the martyrs (ver. 7) responding and saying, “Even so, Lord God Almighty,
true and righteous are thy judgments.” (e) It may be added, to show the
propriety of this, that this was _one_ of the series of events which
will be found in the end to have contributed to the overthrow of the
Papal power; for a blow was struck, in the French invasion of Italy,
from which Rome has never recovered, and sentiments were diffused as
the result in favour of liberty which it has been difficult ever since
to suppress, and which are destined yet to burst out in favour of
freedom, and to be one of the means of the final destruction of the
power. Comp. Alison’s _History of Europe_, vol. i. p. 403.

8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial [484]upon the sun:
and power was given unto him to scorch men [485]with fire.

8. _And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun._ Toward
the sun, or so as to reach the sun. The effect was _as if_ it had been
poured _upon_ the sun, giving it an intense heat, and thus inflicting a
severe judgment upon men. This corresponds also with the fourth trumpet
(ch. viii. 12), where it is said, that the “third part of the sun was
smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the
stars.” For the general meaning of this symbol see Notes on that place.
The idea is, that a scene of calamity and woe would occur _as if_ the
sun should be made to pour forth such intense heat that men would be
“scorched.” It cannot be supposed that the sun would be _literally_
made hotter, or that the exact nature of these calamities would be that
men would be consumed by its rays. ¶ _And power was given unto him._
To the sun. The meaning is, that a calamity would follow _as if_ such
an increased power should be given to its rays. ¶ _To scorch men with
fire._ Literally, “And it was given him to scorch men with fire”――that
is, with heat so great that it _seemed_ to be fire. The Greek
word――καυματίσαι――meaning _to burn_, _to scorch_――is used in the New
Testament only in Mat. xiii. 6; Mar. iv. 6; Re. xvi. 8, 9, in all which
places it is rendered _scorch_ and _scorched_. Compare, however, the
use of the word καῦμα, in Re. vii. 16; xvi. 9; καῦσις, in He. vi. 8;
καυσόω, in 1 Pe. iii. 10, 12; and καύσων, in Mat. xx. 12; Lu. xii. 55;
Ja. i. 11. The notion of intense or consuming heat is implied in all
the forms of the word; and the reference here is to some calamity that
would be well represented by such an increased heat of the sun.

9 And men were [486]scorched with great heat, and
[487]blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these
plagues: and [488]they repented not, to give him glory.

9. _And men were scorched with great heat._ That is, as above
expressed, calamity came upon them which would be well represented
by such heat. It is said that this calamity would come upon _men_,
and we are to suppose that it would be such that human life would
be particularly affected; and as that heat of the {365} sun must be
exceedingly intense which would cut down _men_, we are to suppose
that the judgment here referred to would be intensely severe. ¶ _And
blasphemed the name of God._ The effect would be to cause them to
blaspheme God or to reproach him as the author of these calamities;
and in the fulfilment of this we are to look for a state of things when
there would be augmented wickedness and irreligion, and when men would
become worse and worse, notwithstanding the woes that had come upon
them. ¶ _Which hath power over these plagues._ Who had brought these
plagues upon them, and who had power to remove them. ¶ _And they
repented not._ The effect was not to produce repentance, though it was
manifest that these judgments had come upon them on account of their
sins. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 21. ¶ _To give him glory._ To turn from
sin; to honour him by lives of obedience. Comp. Notes on Jn. ix. 24.

In regard to the _application_ of this the following things may be
remarked:――(a) That the calamity here referred to was one of the
series of events which would precede the overthrow of the “beast,” and
contribute to that, for to this all these judgments tend. (b) In the
order in which it stands it is to follow, and apparently to follow
_soon_, the third judgment――the pouring of the vial upon the fountains
and streams. (c) It would be a calamity such _as if_ the sun, the
source of light and comfort to mankind, were smitten, and became a
source of torment. (d) This would be attended by a great destruction
of _men_, and we should naturally look in such an application for
calamities in which multitudes of _men_ would be, as it were, consumed.
(e) This would _not_ be followed, as it might be hoped it would,
by repentance, but would be attended with reproaches of God, with
profaneness, with a great increase of wickedness.

Now, on the supposition that the explanation of the previous passages
is correct, there can be no great difficulty in supposing that this
refers to the wars of Europe following the French revolution, the wars
that preceded the direct attack on the Papacy and the overthrow of the
Papal government, for these events had all the characteristics here
referred to. (a) They were one of a series in weakening the Papal
power in Europe――heavy blows that will yet be seen to have been among
the means preliminary to its final overthrow. (b) They followed in
their order the invasion of Northern Italy, for one of the purposes of
that invasion was to attack the _Austrian_ power there, and ultimately
through the Tyrol to attack Austria itself. Napoleon, after his
victories in Northern Italy, above referred to (comp. ch.xx. of
Alison’s _History of Europe_), thus writes to the French Directory:
“Coni, Ceva, and Alexandria are in the hands of our army; if you do not
ratify the convention I will keep these fortresses and march upon Turin.
Meanwhile I shall march to-morrow against Beaulieu, and drive him
across the Po; I shall follow close at his heels, overrun all Lombardy,
and in a month be in the Tyrol, join the army of the Rhine, and carry
our united forces into Bavaria. _That design is worthy of you, of
the army, and of the destinies of France_” (Alison, i. 401). (c) The
campaign in Germany in 1796 followed immediately this campaign in Italy.
Thus, in ch. xx. of Alison’s _History_, we have an account of the
campaign in Italy; in ch. xxi. we have the account of the campaign in
Germany; and the other wars in Europe that continued so long, and that
were so fierce and bloody, followed in quick succession――all tending,
in their ultimate results, to weaken the Papal power and to secure its
final overthrow. (d) It is hardly necessary to say here that these wars
had all the characteristics here supposed. It was _as if_ the sun were
smitten in the heavens and power were given to scorch men with fire.
Europe seemed to be on fire with musketry and artillery, and presented
almost the appearance of the broad blaze of a battle-field. The number
that perished was immense. These wars were attended with the usual
consequences――blasphemy, profaneness, and reproaches of God in every
form. And yet there was another effect wholly in accordance with the
statement here, that none of these judgments brought men to “repentance,
that they might give God the glory.” Perhaps these remarks, which might
be extended to great length, will show that, on the supposition that it
was _intended_ to refer to those scenes by the outpouring of this vial,
the symbol was well chosen and appropriate.

10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the [489]seat
of the beast; and his kingdom was full of [490]darkness; and
they gnawed their tongues for pain,

10. _And the fifth angel poured out his {366} vial upon the seat of
the beast._ The previous judgments had been preparatory to this. They
all had a bearing on this, and were all preliminary to it; but the
“seat”――the home, the centre of the power of the beast――had not yet
been reached. Here, however, there was a direct blow aimed at that
power, still not such yet as to secure its _final_ overthrow, for that
is reserved for the pouring out of the last vial, ver. 17‒21. All that
is represented here is a heavy judgment which was merely _preliminary_
to that final overthrow, but which affected _the very seat of
the beast_. The phrase “the seat of the beast”――τὸν θρόνον τοῦ
θηρίου――means the _seat_ or _throne_ which the representative of
that power occupied, the central point of the Antichristian dominion.
Comp. Notes on ch. xiii. 2. See also ch. ii. 13. I understand this
as referring to the very seat of the Papal power――Rome――the Vatican.
¶ _And his kingdom was full of darkness._ Confusion――disorder――distress,
for darkness is often the emblem of calamity, Is. lix. 9, 10; Je.
xiii. 16; Eze. xxx. 18; xxxii. 7, 8; xxxiv. 12; Joel ii. 2. ¶ _And they
gnawed their tongues for pain._ This is a “most significant expression
of the writhings of anguish.” The word here rendered _gnawed_ does not
occur elsewhere in the New Testament, nor is the expression elsewhere
used in the Bible; but its meaning is plain――it indicates deep anguish.

11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of [491]their
pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

11. _And blasphemed the God of heaven._ The same effect which it was
said would be produced by the pouring out of the fourth vial, ver. 9.
¶ _Because of their pains and their sores._ Of the calamities that
had come upon them. ¶ _And repented not of their deeds._ See Notes on
ver. 9. Comp. ch. ix. 21.

In regard to the fulfilment and application of this, the following
general remarks may be made here:――(a) It would succeed, at no great
interval probably, what is referred to under the previous “vials,”
and would be one in the series tending to the same result. (b) It
would fall directly on the seat of the authority of the “beast”――on
the central power of the Papacy, according to the interpretation of the
other symbols; and we should look, therefore, for some calamity that
would come upon Rome itself, and still more specifically upon the pope
himself, and those immediately around him. (c) This would be attended
with deep distress and darkness in the Papal dominions. (d) There would
be an increase of what is here called “blasphemy;” that is, of impiety
and reproaches of the Divine Being. (e) There would be no repentance
produced. There would be no reformation. The system would be as corrupt
as it was before, and men would be as much under its influence. And
(f) we should not expect that this would be the _final_ overthrow of
the system. _That_ is reserved for the outpouring of the seventh and
last vial in the series (ver. 17‒21), and under that the system would
be overthrown, and would come to an end. This is distinctly stated in
the account of that “vial;” and therefore we are not to expect to find,
in the application of the fifth “vial,” that the calamity brought upon
“the seat of the beast” would be such that it would not recover for a
time, and maintain, apparently, in some good degree, its former power
and influence.

With this view of what we are to expect, and in connection with the
explanations of the previous symbols, it seems to me that there can
be no hesitation in applying this to the direct attacks on the Papal
power and on the pope himself, as one of the consequences of the French
revolution, and to the calamities that were thus brought upon the Papal
States. In order to show the appropriateness of this application, I
will state a few facts which will show that, on the supposition that
it was the _intention_ in this symbol to refer to the Papal power at
that time, the symbol has been well chosen, and has been fulfilled. And,
in doing this, I will merely copy from Alison’s _History of Europe_
(vol. i. pp. 542‒546) a few statements, which, like many that have been
quoted from Mr. Gibbon in the former part of these Notes, would seem
almost to have been penned in view of this prophecy, and with a view to
record its fulfilment. The statement is as follows:――

“The Ecclesiastical States were the {367} next object of attack. It had
long been an avowed object of ambition with the Republican government
to revolutionize the Roman people, and plant the tricolour flag in the
city of Brutus,” and fortune at length presented them with a favourable
opportunity to accomplish the design.

“The situation of the pope had become, since the French conquests
in Italy, in the highest degree precarious. Cut off by the Cisalpine
Republic from any support from Austria; left by the treaty of Campo
Formio entirely at the mercy of the French republic; threatened by
the heavings of the democratic spirit within his own dominions; and
exposed to all the contagion arising from the complete establishment
and close vicinity of republican governments in the north of Italy,
he was almost destitute of the means of resisting so many seen and
unseen enemies. The pontifical treasury was exhausted by the immense
payments stipulated by the treaty of Tolentino; while the activity
and zeal of the revolutionary clubs in all the principal towns of the
Ecclesiastical States was daily increasing with the prospect of success.
To enable the government to meet the enormous demands of the French
army, the principal Roman families, like the pope, had sold their
gold, their silver, their jewels, their horses, their carriages――in a
word, all their valuable effects; but the exactions of the republican
agents were still unabated. In despair they had recourse to the fatal
expedient of issuing a paper circulation; but that, in a country
destitute of credit, soon fell to an inconsiderable value, and
augmented rather than relieved the public distress. Joseph Bonaparte,
brother to Napoleon, had been appointed ambassador at the court of Rome;
but as his character was deemed too honourable for political intrigue,
Generals Duphot and Sherlock were sent along with him, the former of
whom had been so successful in effecting the overthrow of the Genoese
aristocracy. The French embassy, under their direction, soon became
the centre of the revolutionary action; and those numerous ardent
characters with which the Italian cities abound, flocked there as to a
common focus, from whence the next great explosion of democratic power
was to be expected. In this extremity, Pius VI., who was above eighty
years of age, and sinking into the grave, called to his counsels
the Austrian general Provera, already distinguished in the Italian
campaigns; but the Directory soon compelled the humiliated pontiff to
dismiss that intrepid counsellor. As his recovery then seemed hopeless,
the instructions of government to their ambassador were to delay the
proclamation of a republic till his death, when the vacant chair of
St. Peter might be overturned with little difficulty; but such was
the activity of the revolutionary agents, that the train was ready
to take fire before that event took place, and the ears of the Romans
were assailed by incessant abuse of the ecclesiastical government, and
vehement declamations in favour of republican freedom.

“The resolution to overturn the Papal government, like all the other
ambitious projects of the Directory, received a very great impulse
from the re-ascendent of Jacobin influence at Paris, by the results
of the revolution of 18th Fructidor. One of the first measures of the
new government was to despatch an order to Joseph Bonaparte at Rome,
to promote, by all the means in his power, the approaching revolution
in the Papal States; and, above all things, to take care that at the
pope’s death no successor should be elected to the chair of St. Peter.
Napoleon’s language to the Roman pontiff became daily more menacing.
Immediately before setting out for Rastadt, he ordered his brother
Joseph to intimate to the pope that three thousand additional troops
had been forwarded to Ancona; that if Provera was not dismissed
within twenty-four hours, war would be declared; that if any of the
revolutionists who had been arrested were executed, reprisals would
forthwith be exercised on the cardinals; and that, if the Cisalpine
Republic was not recognized, it would be the signal for immediate
hostilities. At the same time ten thousand troops of the Cisalpine
Republic advanced to St. Leon, in the Papal duchy of Urbino, and made
themselves masters of that fortress; while at Ancona, which was still
garrisoned by French troops, notwithstanding its stipulated restoration
by the treaty of Tolentino to the Holy See, the democratic party openly
proclaimed the ‘Anconite Republic.’ Similar revolutionary movements
took place at Corneto, Civita Vecchia, Pesaro, and Senigaglia; while at
Rome itself, Joseph {368} Bonaparte, by compelling the Papal government
to liberate all persons confined for political offences, suddenly
vomited forth upon the capital several hundreds of the most heated
republicans in Italy. After this great addition, measures were no
longer kept with the government. Seditious meetings were constantly
held in every part of the city; immense collections of tricolour
cockades were made to distinguish the insurgents, and deputations of
the citizens openly waited on the French ambassador to invite him to
support the insurrection, to which he replied, in ambiguous terms――‘The
fate of nations, as of individuals, being buried in the womb of
futurity, it is not given to me to penetrate its mysteries.’

“In this temper of men’s minds, a spark was sufficient to occasion an
explosion. On the 27th of December, 1797, an immense crowd assembled,
with seditious cries, and moved to the palace of the French ambassador,
where they exclaimed, ‘Vive la République Romaine!’ and loudly invoked
the aid of the French to enable them to plant the tricolour flag on the
Capitol. The insurgents displayed the tricolour cockade, and evinced
the most menacing disposition; the danger was extreme; from similar
beginnings the overthrow of the governments of Venice and Genoa had
rapidly followed. The Papal ministers sent a regiment of dragoons to
prevent any sortie of the revolutionists from the palace of the French
ambassador; and they repeatedly warned the insurgents that their
orders were to allow no one to leave its precincts. Duphot, however,
indignant at being restrained by the pontifical troops, drew his sword,
rushed down the staircase, and put himself at the head of one hundred
and fifty armed Roman democrats, who were now contending with the
dragoons in the courtyard of the palace. He was immediately killed
by a discharge ordered by the sergeant commanding the patrol of the
Papal troops; and the ambassador himself, who had followed to appease
the tumult, narrowly escaped the same fate. A violent scuffle ensued;
several persons were killed and wounded on both sides; and, after
remaining several hours in the greatest alarm, Joseph Bonaparte, with
his suite, retired to Florence.

“This catastrophe, however, obviously occasioned by the revolutionary
schemes which were in agitation at the residence of the French
ambassador, having taken place within the precincts of his palace, was,
unhappily, a violation of the law of nations, and gave the Directory
too fair a ground to demand satisfaction. But they instantly resolved
to make it the pretext for the immediate occupation of Rome and
overthrow of the Papal government. The march of troops out of Italy
was countermanded, and Berthier, the commander-in-chief, received
orders to advance rapidly into the Ecclesiastical States. Meanwhile,
the democratic spirit burst forth more violently than ever at Ancona
and the neighbouring towns, and the Papal authority was soon lost
in all the provinces on the eastern slope of the Apennines. To these
accumulated disasters the pontiff could only oppose the fasts and
prayers of an aged conclave――weapons of spiritual warfare little
calculated to arrest the conquerors of Arcola and Lodi.

“Berthier, without an instant’s delay, carried into execution the
orders of the Directory. Six thousand Poles were stationed at Rimini to
cover the Cisalpine Republic; a reserve was established at Tolentino,
while the commander-in-chief, at the head of eighteen thousand veteran
troops, entered Ancona. Having completed the work of revolution in that
turbulent district, and secured the fortress, he crossed the Apennines;
and, advancing by Foligno and Narni, appeared on the 10th of February
before the Eternal City. The pope, in the utmost consternation, shut
himself up in the Vatican, and spent night and day at the foot of the
altar in imploring the divine protection.

“Rome, almost defenceless, would have offered no obstacle to the
entrance of the French troops; but it was part of the policy of
the Directory to make it appear that their aid was invoked by the
spontaneous efforts of the inhabitants. Contenting himself, therefore,
with occupying the castle of St. Angelo, from which the feeble guards
of the pope were soon expelled, Berthier kept his troops for five
days encamped without the walls. At length, the revolutionists having
completed their preparations, a noisy crowd assembled in the Campo
Vaccino, the ancient Forum; the old foundations of the Capitol were
made again to resound with the cries, if not the spirit, of freedom,
and the venerable {369} ensigns, S. P. Q. R., after the lapse of
fourteen hundred years, again floated in the winds. The multitude
tumultuously demanded the overthrow of the Papal authority; the French
troops were invited to enter; the conquerors of Italy, with a haughty
air, passed the gates of Aurelian, defiled through the Piazza del
Popolo, gazed on the indestructible monuments of Roman grandeur, and,
amid the shouts of the inhabitants, the tricolour flag was displayed
from the summit of the Capitol.

“But while part of the Roman populace were surrendering themselves to
a pardonable intoxication upon the fancied recovery of their liberties,
the agents of the Directory were preparing for them the sad realities
of slavery. The pope, who had been guarded by five hundred soldiers
ever since the entry of the republicans, was directed to retire into
Tuscany; his Swiss guard relieved by a French one; and he himself
ordered to dispossess himself of all his temporal authority. He replied,
with the firmness of a martyr, ‘I am prepared for every species of
disgrace. As supreme pontiff, I am resolved to die in the exercise of
all my powers. You may employ force――you have the power to do so; but
know that, though you may be masters of my body, you are not so of
my soul. Free in the region where it is placed, it fears neither the
events nor the sufferings of this life. I stand on the threshold of
another world; there I shall be sheltered alike from the violence
and impiety of this.’ Force was soon employed to dispossess him
of his authority; he was dragged from the altar in his palace, his
repositories all ransacked and plundered, the rings even torn from
his fingers, the whole effects in the Vatican and Quirinal inventoried
and seized, and the aged pontiff conducted, with only a few domestics,
amid the brutal jests and sacrilegious songs of the French dragoons,
into Tuscany, where the generous hospitality of the grand-duke strove
to soften the hardships of his exile. But, though a captive in the
hands of his enemies, the venerable old man still retained the supreme
authority in the church. From his retreat in the convent of the
Chartreuse, he yet guided the counsels of the faithful; multitudes fell
on their knees wherever he passed, and sought that benediction from
a captive which they would, perhaps, have disregarded from a ruling
pontiff.

“The subsequent treatment of this venerable man was as disgraceful
to the republican government as it was honourable to his piety and
constancy as the head of the church. Fearful that from his virtues and
sufferings he might have too much influence on the continent of Italy,
he was removed by their orders to Leghorn, in March, 1799, with the
design of transferring him to Cagliari in Sardinia; and the English
cruisers in the Mediterranean redoubled their vigilance in the generous
hope of rescuing the father of an opposite church from the persecution
of his enemies. Apprehensive of losing their prisoner, the French
altered his destination; and forcing him to traverse, often during the
night, the Apennines and the Alps in a rigorous season, he at length
reached Valence, where, after an illness of ten days, he expired,
in the eighty-second year of his age, and the twenty-fourth of his
pontificate. The cruelty of the Directory increased as he approached
their dominions, all his old attendants were compelled to leave him,
and the father of the faithful was allowed to expire, attended only
by his confessor. Yet even in this disconsolate state he derived the
highest satisfaction from the devotion and reverence of the people in
the provinces of France through which he passed. Multitudes from Gap,
Vizelle, and Grenoble flocked to the road to receive his benediction;
and he frequently repeated, with tears in his eyes, the words of
Scripture: ‘Verily, I say unto you, I have not seen such faith, no,
not in Israel.’

“But long before the pope had sunk under the persecution of his
oppressors, Rome had experienced the bitter fruits of republican
fraternization. Immediately after the entry of the French troops,
commenced the regular and systematic pillage of the city. Not only
the churches and the convents, but the palaces of the cardinals and of
the nobility, were laid waste. The agents of the Directory, insatiable
in the pursuit of plunder, and merciless in the means of exacting it,
ransacked every quarter within its walls, seized the most valuable
works of art, and stripped the Eternal City of those treasures which
had survived the Gothic fire and the rapacious hands of the Spanish
soldiers. The bloodshed was much less, but the spoil collected
incomparably greater, {370} than at the disastrous sack which followed
the death of the Constable Bourbon. Almost all the great works of art
which have since that time been collected throughout Europe, were then
scattered abroad. The spoliation exceeded all that the Goths or Vandals
had effected. Not only the palaces of the Vatican, and the Monte
Cavallo, and the chief nobility of Rome, but those of Castel Gandolfo,
on the margin of the Alban Lake, of Terracina, the Villa Albani, and
others in the environs of Rome, were plundered of every article of
value which they possessed. The whole sacerdotal habits of the pope
and cardinals were burned, in order to collect from the flames the gold
with which they were adorned. The Vatican was stripped to its naked
walls; the immortal frescoes of Raphael and Michael Angelo, which could
not be removed, remained in solitary beauty amid the general desolation.
A contribution of four millions in money, two millions in provisions,
and three thousand horses, was imposed on a city already exhausted by
the enormous exactions it had previously undergone. Under the direction
of the infamous commissary Haller, the domestic library, museum,
furniture, jewels, and even the private clothes of the pope were sold.
Nor did the palaces of the Roman nobility escape devastation. The noble
galleries of the Cardinal Braschi, and the Cardinal York, the last
relic of the Stuart line, underwent the same fate. Others, as those of
the Chigi, Borghese, and Doria palaces, were rescued from destruction
only by enormous ransoms. Everything of value that the treaty of
Tolentino had left in Rome became the prey of republican cupidity,
and the very name of freedom soon became odious, from the sordid and
infamous crimes which were committed in its name.

“Nor were the exactions of the French confined to the plunder of
palaces and churches. Eight cardinals were arrested and sent to Civita
Castellana, while enormous contributions were levied on the Papal
territory, and brought home the bitterness of conquest to every poor
man’s door. At the same time the ample territorial possessions of the
church and the monasteries were confiscated, and declared national
property――a measure which, by drying up at once the whole resources
of the affluent classes, precipitated into the extreme of misery the
numerous poor who were maintained by their expenditure, or fed by their
bounty. All the respectable citizens and clergy were in fetters; and
a base and despicable faction alone, among whom, to their disgrace be
it told, were found fourteen cardinals, followed in the train of the
oppressors; and, at a public festival, returned thanks to God for the
miseries they had brought upon their country.”[492]

12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon [493]the great
river Euphrates; and the water thereof was [494]dried up, that
the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

12. _And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river
Euphrates._ On the situation of that river, and the symbolical meaning
of this language, see Notes on ch. ix. 14‒21. The reference there was
supposed to be to the Turkish power, and the analogy of interpretation
would seem to require that it should be so understood here. There is
every reason, therefore, to suppose that this passage has reference
to something in the future history of the Turkish dominions, and to
some bearing of the events which are to occur in that history on the
ultimate downfall of the Antichristian power referred to by the “beast.”
¶ _And the water thereof was {371} dried up, that the way of the kings
of the east might be prepared._ That is, as the effect of pouring out
the vial. There is an allusion here, undoubtedly, to the dividing of
the waters of the Red Sea, so that the children of Israel might pass.
See Ex. xiv. 21, 22. Comp. Notes on Is. xi. 15. In this description the
Euphrates is represented as _a barrier_ to prevent the passage of “the
kings of the East,” on their way to the West for some purpose not yet
specified; that is, applying the symbol of the Euphrates as being the
seat of the Turkish power, the meaning is, that _that power_ is such
a hindrance, and that, in some way that hindrance is to be removed
_as if_ the waters of an unbridged and unfordable river were dried
up so as to afford a safe and easy passage through. Still there are
several inquiries as to the application of this, which is not easy,
and, as it refers to what is still future, it may be impossible
to answer. The _language_ requires us to put upon it the following
interpretation:――(a) The persons here referred to as “kings of the
East,” were ready to make a movement towards the West, over the
Euphrates, and would do this if this obstruction were not in their way.
_Who_ these “kings of the East” are is not said, and perhaps cannot
be conjectured. The natural interpretation is, that they are the kings
that reign in the East, or that preside over the countries of the
eastern hemisphere. _Why_ there was a proposed movement to the West
is not said. It might have been for conquest, or it might have been
that they were to bring their tribute to the spiritual Jerusalem, in
accordance with what is so often said in the prophets, that under the
gospel kings and princes would consecrate themselves and their wealth
to God. See Ps. lxxii. 10, 11: “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles
shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
Yea, all kings shall fall down before him.” So also Is. lx. 4‒6, 9, 11:
“Thy sons shall come from far.――The forces of the Gentiles shall come
unto thee.――All they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and
incense.――The isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first,
to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them.――Thy
gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night;
that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their
kings may be brought.” All that is _fairly_ implied in the language
used here is, that the kings of the East would be converted to the true
religion, or that they were, at the time referred to, in a state of
readiness to be converted, if there were no hindrance or obstruction.
(b) There was some hindrance or obstruction to their conversion; that
is, as explained, from the Turkish power: in other words, they would
be converted to the true faith if it were not for the influence of that
power. (c) The destruction of that power, represented by the drying up
of the Euphrates, would remove that obstruction, and the way would thus
be “prepared” for their conversion to the true religion. We should most
naturally, therefore, look, in the fulfilment of this, for some such
decay of the Turkish power as would be followed by the conversion of
the rulers of the East to the gospel.

13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs _come_ out of
the mouth of [495]the dragon, and out of the mouth of [496]the
beast, and out of the mouth of [497]the false prophet.

13. _And I saw three unclean spirits._ They assumed a visible
form which would well represent their odiousness――that of frogs――but
still they are spoken of as “spirits.” They were evil powers, or evil
influences (ver. 14, “spirits of devils”), and the language here is
undoubtedly designed to represent some such power or influence which
would, at that period, proceed from the dragon, the beast, and the
false prophet. ¶ _Like frogs_――βάτραχοι. This word does not occur
in the New Testament except in the passage before us. It is properly
translated _frogs_. The _frog_ is here employed clearly as a _symbol_,
and it is designed that certain qualities of the “spirits” here
referred to should be designated by the symbol. For a full illustration
of the meaning of the symbol, the reader may consult Bochart, _Hieroz._
P. II. lib. v. cap. iv. According to Bochart, the frog is characterized,
as a symbol, (1) for its rough, harsh, coarse voice; (2) on this
account, as a symbol of complaining or reproaching; (3) as a symbol
of empty loquacity; (4) as a symbol of heretics and philosophers,
as understood by Augustine; (5) because the frog has its origin in
{372} mud, and lives in mud, as a symbol of those who are born in sin,
and live in pollution; (6) because the frog endures all changes of
the season――cold and heat, summer, winter, rain, frost――as a symbol
of _monks_ who practise self-denial; (7) because the frog, though
abstemious of food, yet lives in water and drinks often, as a symbol
of drunkards; (8) as a symbol of impudence; (9) because the frog
swells his size, and distends his cheeks, as a symbol of pride. See
the authorities for these uses of the word in Bochart. How many or few
of these ideas enter into the symbol here, it is not easy to decide.
We may suppose, however, that the spirits referred to would be
characterized by pride, arrogance, impudence, assumption of authority;
perhaps impurity and vileness, for all these ideas enter into the
meaning of the symbol. They are not here, probably, symbols of
_persons_, but of _influences_ or _opinions_ which would be spread
abroad, and which would characterize the age referred to. The reference
is to what the “dragon,” the “beast,” and the “false prophet” would
_do_ at that time in opposing the truth, and in preparing the world for
the great and final conflict. ¶ _Out of the mouth of the dragon._ One
of which seemed to issue from the mouth of the dragon. On the symbolic
meaning of the word “dragon,” see Notes on ch. xii. 3. It, in general,
represents Satan, the great enemy of the church; perhaps here Satan
under the form of heathenism or paganism, as in ch. xii. 3, 4. The
idea then is, that, at the time referred to, there would be some
manifestation of the power of Satan in the heathen nations, which
would be bold, arrogant, proud, loquacious, hostile to truth, and which
would be well represented by the hoarse murmur of the frog. ¶ _And out
of the mouth of the beast._ The Papacy, as above explained, ch. xiii.
That is, there would be some putting forth of arrogant pretensions;
some loud denunciation or complaining; some manifestation of pride and
self-consequence, which would be well represented by the croaking of
the frog. We have seen above (Notes on ver. 5, 6), that although the
fifth vial was poured upon “the seat of the beast,” the effect was
not to crush and overthrow that power entirely. The Papacy would
still survive, and would be finally destroyed under the outpouring
of the seventh vial, ver. 17‒21. In the passage before us we have a
representation of it as still living; as having apparently recovered
its strength; and as being as hostile as ever to the truth, and able
to enter into a combination, secret or avowed, with the “dragon” and
the “false prophet,” to oppose the reign of truth upon the earth.
¶ _And out of the mouth of the false prophet._ The word rendered
_false prophet_――ψευδοπροφήτου――does not before occur in the book of
Revelation, though the use of the article would seem to imply that some
well-known power or influence was referred to by this. Comp. Notes on
ch. x. 3. The word occurs in other places in the New Testament, Mat.
vii. 15; xxiv. 11, 24; Mar. xiii. 22; Lu. vi. 26; Ac. xiii. 6; 2 Pe.
ii. 1; 1 Jn. iv. 1; and twice elsewhere in the book of Revelation, with
the same reference as here, ch. xix. 20; xx. 10. In both these latter
places it is connected with the “beast:” “And the beast was taken,
and with him the false prophet;” “And the devil that deceived them was
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false
prophet are.” It would seem, then, to refer to some power that was
similar to that of the beast, and that was to share the same fate
in the overthrow of the enemies of the gospel. As to the application
of this, there is no opinion so probable as that it alludes to the
Mahometan power――not strictly the _Turkish_ power, for that was to be
“dried up,” or to diminish; but to the Mahometan power as such, that
was still to continue for a while in its vigour, and that was yet to
exert a formidable influence against the gospel, and probably in some
combination, in fact, if not in form, with Paganism and the Papacy. The
_reasons_ for this opinion are: (a) that this was referred to, in the
former part of the book, as one of the formidable powers that would
arise, and that would materially affect the destiny of the world――and
it may be presumed that it would be again referred to in the account
of the final consummation, see ch. ix. 1‒11; (b) the name “_false
prophet_” would, better than any other, describe that power, and would
naturally suggest it in future times――for to no one that has ever
appeared in our world could the name be so properly applied as to
Mahomet; and (c) what is said will be found to agree with the facts
in regard to that power, as, in connection with the Papacy and with
Paganism, constituting the sum of the {373} obstruction to the spread
of the gospel around the world.

14 For they are the [498]spirits of devils, [499]working
miracles, _which_ go forth unto the kings of the earth and of
[500]the whole world, to gather them to the [501]battle of
that great day of God Almighty.

14. _For they are the spirits of devils._ On the meaning of the word
used here, see Notes on ch. ix. 20. It is used here, as it is in ch.
ix. 20, in a bad sense, as denoting _evil_ spirits. Comp. Notes on
Mat. iv. 1, 2, 24. ¶ _Working miracles._ Working what _seemed_ to be
miracles; that is, such wonders as to deceive the world with the belief
that they were miracles. See Notes on ch. xiii. 13, 14, where the same
power is ascribed to the “beast.” ¶ _|Which| go forth unto the kings
of the earth._ Which particularly affect and influence kings and
rulers. No class of men have been more under the influence of Pagan
superstition, Mahometan delusion, or the Papacy, than kings and princes.
We are taught by this passage that this will continue to be so in the
circumstances referred to. ¶ _And of the whole world._ That is, so
far that it might be represented as affecting the whole world――to wit,
the heathen, the Mahometan, and the Papal portions of the earth. These
still embrace so large a portion of the globe, that it might be said,
that what would affect those powers now would influence the whole world.
¶ _To gather them._ Not literally to assemble them all in one place,
but so to unite and combine them that it might be represented as an
assembling of the hosts for battle. ¶ _To the battle of that great
day of God Almighty._ Not the day of judgment, but the day which would
determine the ascendency of true religion in the world――the final
conflict with those powers which had so long opposed the gospel. It is
not necessary to suppose that there would be a literal “_battle_,” in
which God would be seen to contend with his foes; but there would be
that which might be properly _represented_ as a battle. That is, there
would be a combined struggle against the truth, and in that God would
appear by his providence and Spirit on the side of the church, and
would give it the victory. It accords with all that has occurred in the
past, to suppose that there will be such a combined struggle before the
church shall finally triumph in the world.

15 Behold, [502]I come as a thief. Blessed _is_ he that
watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk [503]naked,
and they see his shame.

15. _Behold, I come as a thief._ That is, suddenly and unexpectedly.
See Notes on Mat. xxiv. 43; 1 Th. v. 2. This is designed evidently
to admonish men to watch, or to be in readiness for his coming, since,
whenever it would occur, it would be at a time when men were not
expecting him. ¶ _Blessed |is| he that watcheth._ Comp. Mat. xxiv.
42‒44. The meaning here is, that he who watches for these events, who
marks the indications of their approach, and who is conscious of a
preparation for them, is in a better and happier state of mind than
he on whom they come suddenly and unexpectedly. ¶ _And keepeth his
garments._ The allusion here seems to be to one who, regardless of
danger, or of the approach of an enemy, should lay aside his garments
and lie down to sleep. Then the thief might come and take away his
garments, leaving him naked. The essential idea, therefore, here,
is the duty of vigilance. We are to be awake to duty and to danger;
we are not to be found sleeping at our post; we are to be ready for
death――ready for the coming of the Son of man. ¶ _Lest he walk naked._
His raiment being carried away while he is asleep. ¶ _And they see
his shame._ Comp. Notes on ch. iii. 18. The meaning here is, that, as
Christians are clothed with the garments of righteousness, they should
not lay them aside, so that their spiritual nakedness should be seen.
They are to be always clothed with the robes of salvation; always ready
for any event, however soon or suddenly it may come upon them.

16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the
Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

16. _And he gathered them together._ _Who_ gathered them? Professor
Stuart renders it, “_they_ gathered them together,” supposing that it
refers to the “spirits”――πνεύματα――in ver. 13, and that this is the
construction of the neuter plural with a singular verb. So De Wette
understands it. Hengstenberg supposes {374} that it means that _God_
gathered them together; others suppose that it was the sixth angel;
others that it was Satan; others that it was the beast; and others that
it was Christ. See Poole’s _Synopsis_, _in loco_. The authority of De
Wette and Professor Stuart is sufficient to show that the construction
which they adopt is authorized by the Greek, as indeed no one can
doubt, and perhaps this accords better with the context than any other
construction proposed. Thus, in ver. 14, the spirits are represented
as going forth into the whole world for _the purpose_ of gathering the
nations together to the great battle, and it is natural to suppose that
the reference is to them here as having accomplished what they went
forth to do. But who are to be gathered together? Evidently those who,
in ver. 14, are described by the word “_them_”――the “kings of the earth,
and the whole world;” that is, there will be a state of things which
would be well described by a universal gathering of forces in a central
battle-field. It is by no means necessary to suppose that what is
here represented will _literally_ occur. There will be a mustering of
spiritual forces; there will be a combination and a unity of opposition
against the truth; there will be a rallying of the declining powers
of Heathenism, Mahometanism, and Romanism, _as if_ the forces of
the earth, marshalled by kings and rulers, were assembled in some
great battle-field, where the destiny of the world was to be decided.
¶ _Into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon._ The word
_Armageddon_――Ἀρμαγεδδών――occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
is not found in the Septuagint. It seems to be formed from the Hebrew
הַר מְגִדּוֹ _Har Megiddo_――_Mountain of Megiddo_. Comp. 2 Ch. xxxv. 22, where
it is said that Josiah “came to fight _in the valley of Megiddo_.”
Megiddo was a town belonging to Manasseh, although within the limits
of Issachar, Jos. xvii. 11. It had been originally one of the royal
cities of the Canaanites (Jos. xii. 21), and was one of those of which
the Israelites were unable for a long time to take possession. It was
rebuilt and fortified by Solomon (1 Ki. ix. 15), and thither Ahaziah
king of Judah fled when wounded by Jehu, and died there, 2 Ki. ix. 27.
It was here that Deborah and Barak destroyed Sisera and his host (Ju.
v. 19); and it was in a battle near this that Josiah was slain by
Pharaoh-Necho, 2 Ki. xxiii. 29, 30; 2 Ch. xxxv. 20‒25. From the great
mourning held for his loss, it became proverbial to speak of any
grievous mourning as being “like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the
valley of Megiddon,” Zec. xii. 11. It has not been found easy to
identify the place, but recent searches have made it probable that the
vale or plain of Megiddo comprehended, if it was not wholly composed of,
the prolongation of the plain of Esdraelon, towards Mount Carmel; that
the city of Megiddo was situated there; and that the waters of Megiddo,
mentioned in Ju. v. 19, are identical with the stream Kishon in that
part of its course. See _Biblical Repository_, vol. i. pp. 602, 603.
It is supposed that the modern town called _Lejjûn_ occupies the site
of the ancient Megiddo (Robinson’s _Biblical Researches_, vol. iii. pp.
177‒180). Megiddo was distinguished for being the place of the decisive
conflict between Deborah and Sisera, and of the battle in which Josiah
was slain by the Egyptian invaders; and hence it became emblematic
of _any_ decisive battle-field――just as Marathon, Leuctra, Arbela, or
Waterloo is. The word “mountain,” in the term Armageddon――“Mountain of
Megiddo”――seems to have been used because Megiddo was in a mountainous
region, though the battles were fought in a _valley_ adjacent. The
meaning here is, that there would be, as it were, a decisive battle
which would determine the question of the prevalence of true religion
on the earth. What we are to expect as the fulfilment of this would
seem to be, that there will be some mustering of strength――some
rallying of forces――some opposition made to the kingdom of God in
the gospel, by the powers here referred to, which would be _decisive_
in its character, and which would be well represented by the battles
between the people of God and their foes in the conflicts in the valley
of Megiddo.

As this constitutes, according to the course of the exposition by which
we have been conducted, an important division in the book of Revelation,
it may be proper to pause here and make a few remarks. The previous
parts of the book, according to the interpretation proposed, relate
to the past, and thus far we have found such a correspondence between
the predictions and facts which have occurred as to lead us to suppose
that these predictions have {375} been fulfilled. At this point, I
suppose, we enter on that part which remains yet to be fulfilled, and
the investigation must carry us into the dark and unknown future. The
remaining portion comprises a very general sketch of things down to the
end of time, as the previous portion has touched on the great events
pertaining to the church and its progress for a period of more than one
thousand eight hundred years. A few general remarks, therefore, seem
not inappropriate at this point.

(a) In the previous interpretations, we have had the facts of history
by which to test the accuracy of the interpretation. The plan pursued
has been, first, to investigate the meaning of the words and symbols,
entirely independent of any supposed application, and then to inquire
whether there have been any facts that may be regarded as corresponding
with the meaning of the words and symbols as explained. Of this method
of testing the accuracy of the exposition, we must now take our leave.
Our sole reliance must be in the exposition itself, and our work must
be limited to that.

(b) It is always difficult to interpret a prophecy. The language of
prophecy is often apparently enigmatical; the symbols are sometimes
obscure; and prophecies relating to the same subject are often in
detached fragments, uttered by different persons at different times;
and it is necessary to collect and arrange them, in order to have
a full view of the one subject. Thus the prophecies respecting the
Messiah were many of them obscure, and indeed apparently contradictory,
before he came; they were uttered at distant intervals, and by
different prophets; at one time one trait of his character was dwelt
upon, and at another another; and it was difficult to combine these
so as to have an accurate view of what he would be, until he came.
The result has shown what the meaning of the prophecies was; and at
the same time has demonstrated that there was entire consistency in
the various predictions, and that to one who could have comprehended
all, it would have been _possible_ to combine them so as to have had
a _correct_ view of the Messiah, and of his work, even before he came.
The same remark is still more applicable to the predictions in the book
of Revelation, or to the similar predictions in the book of Daniel, and
to many portions of Isaiah. It is easy to see how _difficult_ it would
have been, or rather how _impossible_ by any human powers, to have
applied these prophecies in detail before the events occurred; and yet,
now that they have occurred, it may be seen that the symbols were the
happiest that could have been chosen, and the only ones that could with
propriety have been selected to describe the remarkable events which
were to take place in future times.

(c) The same thing we may presume to be the case in regard to events
which are to occur. We may expect to find (1) language and symbols that
are, in themselves, capable of clear interpretation as to their proper
meaning; (2) the events of the future so sketched out by that language,
and by those symbols, that we may obtain a _general_ view that will be
accurate; and yet (3) an entire impossibility of filling up beforehand
the minute details.

In regard, then, to the application of the particular portion now
before us, ver. 12‒16, the following remarks may be made:――

(1) The Turkish power, especially since its conquest of Constantinople
under Mahomet II. in 1453, and its establishment in Europe, has been
_a_ grand hindrance to the spread of the gospel. It has occupied a
central position; it has possessed some of the richest parts of the
world; it has, in general, excluded all efforts to spread the pure
gospel within its limits; and its whole influence has been opposed
to the spread of pure Christianity. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 14‒21. “By
its laws it was death to a Mussulman to apostatize from his faith, and
become a Christian; and examples, not a few, have occurred in recent
times to illustrate it.” It was not until quite recently, and that
under the influence of missionaries in Constantinople, that evangelical
Christianity has been tolerated in the Turkish dominions.

(2) The prophecy before us implies that there would be a _decline_ of
that formidable power――represented by the “drying up of the great river
Euphrates.” See Notes on ver. 12. And no one can be insensible to the
fact that events are occurring which would be properly represented by
such a symbol; or that there is, in fact, now such a decline of that
Turkish power, and that the beginning of that decline closely followed,
in regard to _time_, if not in regard to the _cause_, the events which
it is supposed {376} were designated by the previous vials――those
connected with the successive blows on the Papacy and the seat of the
beast. In reference, then, to the decline of that power, we may refer
to the following things:――(a) The first great cause was _internal
revolt and insurrection_. In 1820 Ali Pasha asserted his independence,
and by his revolt precipitated the Greek insurrection which had been
a long time secretly preparing――an insurrection so disastrous to the
Turkish power. (b) The Greek insurrection followed. This soon spread
to the Ægean isles, and to the districts of Northern Greece, Epirus,
and Thessaly; while at the same time the standard of revolt was raised
in Wallachia and Moldavia. The progress and issue of that insurrection
are well known. A Turcoman army of 30,000 that entered the Morea to
reconquer it was destroyed in 1823 in detail, and the freedom of the
peninsula was nearly completed by the insurgents. By sea the Greeks
emulated their ancestors of Salamis and Mycale; and, attended with
almost uniform success, encountered and vanquished the superior Turkish
and Egyptian fleets. Meanwhile the sympathies of Western Christendom
were awakened in behalf of their brother Christians struggling for
independence; and just when the tide of success began to turn, and
the Morea was again nearly subjected by Ibrahim Pasha, the united
fleets of England, France, and Russia (in contravention of all their
usual principles of policy) interposed in their favour; attacked
and destroyed the Turco-Egyptian fleets in the battle of Navarino
(September, 1827), and thus secured the independence of Greece. Nothing
had ever occurred that tended so much to weaken the power of the
Turkish empire. (c) The rebellion of the great Egyptian pasha, Mehemet
Ali, soon followed. The French invasion of Egypt had prepared him
for it, by having taught him the superiority of European discipline,
and thus this event was one of the proper results of those described
under the first four vials. Mehemet Ali, through Ibrahim, attacked
and conquered Syria; defeated the sultan’s armies sent against him
in the great battles of Hems, of Nezib, and of Iconium; and, but for
the intervention of the European powers of England, Russia, Prussia,
and Austria, by which he was driven out of Syria, and forced back
to his proper pashalic, Egypt, he would probably have advanced to
Constantinople and subdued it. (d) There has been for centuries a
gradual weakening of the Turkish power. It has done nothing to extend
its empire by arms. It has been resting in inglorious ease, and, in the
meantime, its wealth and its strength have been gradually decreasing.
It has lost Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, Algiers, and, practically,
Egypt; and is doing nothing to recruit its wasted and exhausted
strength. Russia only waits for a favourable opportunity to strike
the last blow on that enfeebled power, and to put an end to it
for ever. (e) The general condition of the Turkish empire is thus
described by the Rev. Mr. Walsh, chaplain to the British ambassador
to Constantinople:――“The circumstances most striking to a traveller
passing through Turkey is its _depopulation_. Ruins where villages had
been built, and fallows where land had been cultivated, are frequently
seen with no living thing near them. This effect is not so visible in
larger towns, though the cause is known to operate there in a still
greater degree. Within the last twenty years, Constantinople has lost
more than half its population. Two conflagrations happened while I was
in Constantinople, and destroyed fifteen thousand houses. The Russian
and Greek wars were a constant drain on the janizaries of the capital;
the silent operation of the plague is continually active, though not
always alarming; it will be no exaggeration to say that, within the
period mentioned, from three to four hundred thousand persons have been
swept away in one city in Europe by causes which were not operating in
any other――_conflagration_, _pestilence_, _and civil commotion_. The
Turks, though naturally of a robust and vigorous constitution, addict
themselves to such habits as are very unfavourable to population――the
births do little more than exceed the ordinary deaths, and cannot
supply the waste of casualties. The surrounding country is, therefore,
continually drained to supply this waste in the capital, which,
nevertheless, exhibits districts _nearly depopulated_. We see every day
life going out in the fairest portion of Europe; _and the human race
threatened with extinction_ in a soil and climate capable of supporting
the most abundant population” (Walsh’s _Narrative_, pp. 22‒26, as
quoted in Bush _on the Millennium_, 243, 244). The probability now is,
that this gradual decay {377} will be continued; that the Turkish power
will more and more diminish; that one portion after another will set up
for independence; and that, by a gradual process of decline, this power
will become practically extinct, and what is here symbolized by the
“drying up of the great river Euphrates” will have been accomplished.

(3) This obstacle removed, we may look for a general turning of the
princes, and rulers, and people of the Eastern world to Christianity,
represented (ver. 12) by its being said that “the way of the kings of
the East might be prepared.” See Notes on that verse. It is clear that
nothing would be more _likely_ to contribute to this, or to prepare the
way for it, than the removal of that Turcoman dominion which for more
than four hundred years has been an effectual barrier to the diffusion
of the gospel in the lands where it has prevailed. How rapidly, we
may suppose, the gospel would spread in the East, if all the obstacles
thrown in its way by the Turkish power were at once removed!

(4) In accordance with the interpretation suggested on ver. 13, 14,
we may look for something that would be well represented by a combined
effort on the part of Heathenism, Mahometanism, and Romanism, to stay
the progress and prevent the spread of evangelical religion. That is,
according to the fair interpretation of the passage, we should look for
some simultaneous movement _as if_ their influence was to be about to
cease, and as if it were necessary to arouse all their energies for a
last and desperate struggle. It may be added that, in itself, nothing
would be more _probable_ than this; but when it will occur, and what
form the aroused enemy will assume, it would be vain to conjecture.

(5) And in accordance with the interpretation suggested on ver. 15,
we are to suppose that something will occur which would be well
represented by the decisive conflicts in the valley of Megiddo; that
is, something that will determine the ascendency of true religion in
the world, _as if_ these great powers of Heathenism, Mahometanism,
and Romanism should stake all their interests on the issue of a single
battle. It is not necessary to suppose that this will _literally_
occur, and there are no certain intimations as to the time when what is
represented will happen; but all that is meant may be, that events will
take place which would be well represented by such a conflict. Still,
nothing in the prophecy prevents the supposition that these combined
powers _may be_ overthrown in some fierce conflict with Christian
powers.

17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and
there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the
throne, saying, [504]It is done.

17. _And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air._ This
introduces the final catastrophe in regard to the “beast”――his complete
and utter overthrow, accompanied with tremendous judgments. Why
the vial was poured into _the air_ is not stated. The most probable
supposition as to the idea intended to be represented is, that,
as storms and tempests seem to be engendered in the air, so this
destruction would come from some supernatural cause, as if the whole
atmosphere should be filled with wind and storm; and a furious and
desolating whirlwind should be aroused by some invisible power. ¶ _And
there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven._ The voice of God.
See Notes on ch. xi. 19. ¶ _From the throne._ See Notes on ch. iv. 2.
This shows that it was the voice of God, and not the voice of an
angel. ¶ _Saying, It is done._ The series of judgments is about to be
completed; the dominion of the beast is about to come to an end for
ever. The meaning here is, that that destruction was so certain, that
it might be spoken of as now actually accomplished.

18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and
there was a [505]great earthquake, [506]such as was not since
men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, _and_ so
great.

18. _And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings._ Accompanying
the voice that was heard from the throne. See Notes on ch. iv. 5; xi.
19. ¶ _And there was a great earthquake_, &c. See Notes on ch. vi. 12;
xi. 19. The meaning is, that a judgment followed _as if_ the world
were shaken by an earthquake, or which would be properly represented
by that.¶ _So mighty an {378} earthquake_, and _so great_. All this is
intensive, and is designed to represent the severity of the judgment
that would follow.

19 And the [507]great city was divided into three parts, and
the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in
remembrance before God, to give unto her the [508]cup of the
wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

19. _And the great city was divided into three parts._ The city of
Babylon; or the mighty power that was represented by Babylon. See
Notes on ch. xiv. 8. The division here mentioned into three parts was
manifestly with reference to its destruction――either that one part
was smitten and the others remained for a time, or that one form of
destruction came on one part, and another on the others. In ch. xi. 13
it is said, speaking of “the great city spiritually called Sodom and
Egypt”――representing Rome, that “the tenth part of the city fell, and
in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand” (see Notes on that
place); here it is said that the whole city, in the calamities that
came upon it, was divided into three portions, though it is evidently
implied that, in these calamities, the _whole_ city was sooner or later
destroyed. Professor Stuart (_in loco_) supposes that the number _three_
is used here, as it is throughout the book, “in a symbolical way,” and
that the meaning is, that “the city was severed and broken in pieces,
so that the whole was reduced to a ruinous state.” He supposes that
it refers to Pagan Rome, or to the Pagan Roman persecuting power.
Others refer it to Jerusalem, and suppose that the allusion is to the
divisions of the city, in the time of the siege, into Jewish, Samaritan,
and Christian parties; others suppose that it refers to a division of
the Roman empire under Honorius, Attalus, and Constantine; others to
the fact, that when Jerusalem was besieged by Titus, it was divided
into three factions; and others, that the number three is used to
denote _perfection_, or the total ruin of the city. All that, it seems
to me, can be said now on the point is, (a) that it refers to Papal
Rome, or the Papal power; (b) that it relates to something yet future,
and that it may not be possible to determine with precise accuracy
what will occur; (c) that it probably means that, in the time of the
final ruin of that power, there will be a threefold judgment――either
a different judgment in regard to some threefold manifestation of that
power, or a succession of judgments, _as if_ one part were smitten at
a time. The certain and entire ruin of the power is predicted by this,
but still it is not improbable that it will be by such divisions, or
such successions of judgments, that it is proper to represent the city
as divided into three portions. ¶ _And the cities of the nations fell._
In alliance with it, or under the control of the central power. As the
capital fell, the dependent cities fell also. Considered as relating to
Papal Rome, the meaning here is, that what may be properly called “the
cities _of the nations_” that were allied with it would share the same
fate. The cities of numerous “nations” are now, and have been for ages,
under the control of the Papal power, or the spiritual Babylon; and the
calamity that will smite the central power _as such_――that is, _as_ a
spiritual power――will reach and affect them all. Let the central power
at Rome be destroyed; the Papacy cease; the superstition with which
Rome is regarded come to an end; the power of the priesthood in Italy
be destroyed, and however widely the Roman dominion is spread now,
it cannot be kept up. If it falls _in_ Rome, there is not influence
enough _out of_ Rome to continue it in being――and in all its extended
ramifications it will die as the body dies when the head is severed;
as the power of provinces ceases when ruin comes upon the capital.
This the prophecy leads us to suppose will be the final destiny of the
Papal power. ¶ _And great Babylon._ See Notes on ch. xiv. 8. ¶ _Came
in remembrance before God._ That is, for purposes of punishment. It
had been, as it were, overlooked. It had been permitted to carry on its
purposes, and to practise its abominations, unchecked, as if God did
not see it. Now the time had come when all that it had done was to be
remembered, and when the long-suspended judgment was to fall upon it.
¶ _To give unto her the cup of the wine_, &c. To punish; to destroy
her. See Notes on ch. xiv. 10.

20 And [509]every island fled away, and the mountains were not
found.

{379} 20. _And every island fled away._ Expressive of great and
terrible judgments, _as if_ the very earth were convulsed, and
everything were moved out of its place. See Notes on ch. vi. 14.
¶ _And the mountains were not found._ The same image occurs in ch.
vi. 14. See Notes on that place.

21 And there fell upon men a great [510]hail out of heaven,
_every stone_ about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed
God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof
was exceeding great.

21. _And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven._ Perhaps this
is an allusion to one of the plagues of Egypt, Ex. ix. 22‒26. Comp.
Notes on ch. xi. 19. For a graphic description (by Com. Porter) of
the effects of a hail-storm, see Notes on Is. xxx. 30. Comp. Notes on
Job xxxviii. 22. ¶ _|Every stone| about the weight of a talent._ The
Attic talent was equal to about 55 lbs. or 56 lbs. Troy weight; the
Jewish talent to about 113 lbs. Troy. Whichever weight is adopted,
it is easy to conceive what must be the horror of such a storm, and
what destruction it must cause. We are not, of course, to suppose
necessarily, that this would literally occur; it is a frightful image
to denote the terrible and certain destruction that would come upon
Babylon――that is, upon the Papal power. ¶ _And men blasphemed God._ See
Notes on ver. 9. ¶ _Because of the plague of the hail._ Using the word
_plague_ in allusion to the plagues of Egypt. ¶ _For the plague thereof
was exceeding great._ The calamity was great and terrible. The design
of the whole is to show that the destruction would be complete and
awful.

This finishes the summary statement of the final destruction of this
formidable Antichristian power. The details and the consequences of
that overthrow are more fully stated in the subsequent chapters. The
_fulfilment_ of what is here stated will be found, according to the
method of interpretation proposed, in the ultimate overthrow of the
Papacy. The process described in this chapter is that of successive
calamities that would weaken it and prepare it for its fall; then
a rallying of its dying strength; and then some tremendous judgment
that is compared with a storm of hail, accompanied with lightning, and
thunder, and an earthquake, that would completely overthrow all that
was connected with it. We are not, indeed, to suppose that this will
_literally_ occur; but the fair interpretation of prophecy leads us to
suppose that that formidable power will, at no very distant period, be
overthrown in a manner that would be well represented by such a fearful
storm.

CHAPTER XVII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter properly commences a more detailed description of the
judgment inflicted on the formidable Antichristian power referred to
in the last chapter, though under a new image. It contains an account
of the sequel of the pouring out of the last vial, and the description,
in various forms, continues to the close of ch. xix. The whole of this
description (ch. xvii.‒xix.) constitutes the last great catastrophe
represented under the seventh vial (ch. xvi. 17‒21), at the close of
which the great enemy of God and the church will be destroyed, and the
church will be triumphant, ch. xix. 17‒21. The image in this chapter
is that of a harlot, or abandoned woman, on whom severe judgment is
brought for her sins. The action is here _delayed_, and this chapter
has much the appearance of _an explanatory episode_, designed to give
a more clear and definite idea of the character of that formidable
Antichristian power on which the judgment was to descend. The chapter,
without any formal division, embraces the following points:――

(1) Introduction, ver. 1‒3. One of the seven angels intrusted with
the seven vials comes to John, saying that he would describe to him
the judgment that was to come upon the great harlot with whom the kings
of the earth had committed fornication, and who had made the dwellers
upon the earth drunk by the wine of her fornication――that is, of that
Antichristian power so often referred to in this book, which by its
influence had deluded the nations, and brought their rulers under its
control.

(2) A particular description of this Antichristian power――represented
as an abandoned and attractive female, in the usual attire of an harlot,
ver. 3‒6. She is seated on a scarlet-coloured beast, covered over with
blasphemous names――a beast with seven heads and {380} ten horns. She is
arrayed in the usual gorgeous and alluring attire of an harlot, clothed
in purple, decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, with a
golden cup in her hand full of abomination and filthiness. She has on
her forehead a name expressive of her character. She is represented
as drunken with the blood of the saints, and is such as to attract
attention and excite wonder.

(3) An explanation of what is meant by this scarlet-clothed woman, and
of the design of the representation, ver. 7‒18. This comprises several
parts: (a) A promise of the angel that he would explain this, ver. 7.
(b) An enigmatical or symbolical representation of the design of the
vision, ver. 8‒14. This description consists of an account of the beast
on which the woman sat, ver. 8; of the seven heads of the beast, as
representing seven mountains, ver. 9; of the succession of kings or
dynasties represented, ver. 9‒11; of the ten horns as representing
ten kings or kingdoms giving their power and strength to the beast,
ver. 12, 13; and of the conflict or warfare of all these confederated
or consolidated powers with the Lamb, and their discomfiture by
him, ver. 14. (c) A more literal statement of what is meant by this,
ver. 15‒18. The waters on which the harlot sat represent a multitude
of people subject to her control, ver. 15. The ten horns, or the ten
kingdoms, on the beast, would ultimately hate the harlot, and destroy
her, _as if_ they should eat her flesh, and consume her with fire,
ver. 16. This would be done _because_ God would put it into their
hearts to fulfil his purposes, alike in giving their kingdom to the
beast, and then turning against it to destroy it, ver. 17. The woman
referred to is at last declared to be the great city which reigned over
the kings of the earth, ver. 18. For particularity and definiteness,
this is one of the most remarkable chapters in the book, and there can
be no doubt that it was the design in it to give such an _explanation_
of what was referred to in these visions, that there could be no
mistake in applying the description. “All that remains between this
and the twentieth chapter,” says Andrew Fuller, “would in modern
publications be called _notes of illustration_. No new subject is
introduced, but mere enlargement on what has already been announced”
(_Works_, vi. 205).

CHAPTER XVII.

AND there came one of the seven angels which had the seven
vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I
will show unto thee the judgment of the [511]great whore that
[512]sitteth upon many waters:

1. _And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials._
See Notes on ch. xv. 1, 7. Reference is again made to these angels in
the same manner in ch. xxi. 9, where one of them says that he would
show to John “the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” No particular one is
specified. The general idea seems to be, that to those seven angels
was intrusted the execution of the last things, or the winding up of
affairs introductory to the reign of God, and that the communications
respecting those last events were properly made through them. It is
clearly quite immaterial by which of these it is done. The expression
“which had the seven vials,” would seem to imply that though they had
emptied the vials in the manner stated in the previous chapter, they
still retained them in their hands. ¶ _And talked with me._ Spake to
me. The word _talk_ would imply a more protracted conversation than
occurred here. ¶ _Come hither._ Gr., δεῦρο――“Here, hither.” This is a
word merely calling the attention, as we should say now, “_Here_.” It
does not imply that John was to leave the place where he was. ¶ _I will
show thee._ Partly by symbols, and partly by express statements; for
this is the way in which, in fact, he showed him. ¶ _The judgment._
The condemnation and calamity that will come upon her. ¶ _Of the great
whore._ It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to represent a city under
the image of a woman――a pure and holy city under the image of a virgin
or chaste female; a corrupt, idolatrous, and wicked city under the
image of an abandoned or lewd woman. See Notes on Is. i. 21: “How is
the faithful city become an harlot!” Comp. Notes on Is. i. 8. In ver.
18 of this chapter it is expressly said that “this woman is that great
city which reigneth over the kings of the earth”――that is, as I suppose,
Papal Rome; and the design here is to represent it as resembling an
abandoned female――fit representative of an apostate, {381} corrupt,
unfaithful church. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 21. ¶ _That sitteth upon many
waters._ An image drawn either from Babylon, situated on the Euphrates,
and encompassed by the many artificial rivers which had been made to
irrigate the country, or Rome, situated on the Tiber. In ver. 15 these
waters are said to represent the peoples, multitudes, nations, and
tongues over which the government symbolized by the woman ruled. See
Notes on that verse. Waters are often used to symbolize nations.

2 With[513] whom the kings of the earth have committed
fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made
drunk with the wine of her fornication.

2. _With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication._
Spiritual adultery. The meaning is, that Papal Rome, unfaithful to God,
and idolatrous and corrupt, had seduced the rulers of the earth, and
led them into the same kind of unfaithfulness, idolatry, and corruption.
Comp. Jer. iii. 8, 9; v. 7; xiii. 27; xxiii. 14; Eze. xvi. 32; xxiii.
37; Ho. ii. 2; iv. 2. How true this is in history need not be stated.
All the princes and kings of Europe in the dark ages, and for many
centuries were, and not a few of them are now, entirely under the
influence of Papal Rome. ¶ _And the inhabitants of the earth have been
made drunk with the wine of her fornication._ The alluring cup which,
as an harlot, she had extended to them. See this image explained in
the Notes on ch. xiv. 8. There it is said that Babylon――referring to
the same thing――had “made them drink of the wine _of the wrath_ of her
fornication;” that is, of the cup that led to wrath or punishment. Here
it is said that the harlot had made them “_drunk_ with the wine of her
fornication;” that is, they had been, as it were, intoxicated by the
alluring cup held out to them. What could better describe the influence
of Rome on the people of the world, in making them, under these
delusions, incapable of sober judgment, and in completely fascinating
and controlling all their powers?

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness; and
I saw a woman sit upon a [514]scarlet-coloured beast, full of
names of blasphemy, [515]having seven heads and ten horns.

3. _So he carried me away in the spirit._ In vision. He _seemed_ to
himself to be thus carried away; or the scene which he is about to
describe was made to pass before him _as if_ he were present. ¶ _Into
the wilderness._ Into a desert. Comp. Notes on ch. xii. 6. Why this
scene is laid in a wilderness or desert is not mentioned. Professor
Stuart supposes that it is because it is “appropriate to symbolize
the future condition of the beast.” So De Wette and Rosenmüller. The
imagery is changed somewhat from the first appearance of the harlot
in ver. 1. There she is represented as “sitting upon many waters.” Now
she is represented as “riding on a beast,” and of course the imagery
is adapted to that. Possibly there may have been no intentional
significancy in this; but on the supposition, as the interpretation has
led us to believe all along, that this refers to Papal Rome, may not
the propriety of this be seen in the condition of Rome and the adjacent
country, at the rise of the Papal power? That had its rise (see Notes
on Da. vii. 25, seq.) after the decline of the Roman civil power,
and properly in the time of Clovis, Pepin, or Charlemagne. Perhaps
its first _visible_ appearance, as a power that was to influence
the destiny of the world, was in the time of Gregory the Great, A.D.
590‒605. On the supposition that the passage before us refers to the
period when the Papal power became thus marked and defined, the state
of Rome at this time, as described by Mr. Gibbon, would show with what
propriety the term _wilderness_ or _desert_ might be then applied to
it. The following extract from this author, in describing the state of
Rome at the accession of Gregory the Great, has almost the appearance
of being a designed _commentary_ on this passage, or is, at anyrate,
such as a partial interpreter of this book would _desire_ and _expect_
to find. Speaking of that period, he says (_Decline and Fall_, iii.
207‒211):――“Rome had reached, about the close of the sixth century, the
lowest period of her depression. By the removal of the seat of empire,
and the successive loss of the provinces, the sources of public and
private opulence were exhausted; {382} the lofty tree under whose shade
the nations of the earth had reposed was deprived of its leaves and
branches, and the sapless trunk was left to wither on the ground. The
ministers of command and the messengers of victory no longer met on
the Appian or Flaminian Way; and the hostile approach of the Lombards
was often felt and continually feared. The inhabitants of a potent and
peaceful capital, who visit without an anxious thought the garden of
the adjacent country, will faintly picture in their fancy the distress
of the Romans; they shut or opened their gates with a trembling
hand, beheld from the walls the flames of their houses, and heard the
lamentations of their brethren who were coupled together like dogs,
and dragged away into distant slavery beyond the sea and the mountains.
Such incessant alarms must annihilate the pleasures, and interrupt the
labours of a rural life; _and the Campagna of Rome was speedily reduced
to the state of a dreary WILDERNESS, in which the land is barren, the
waters are impure, and the air is infectious_. Curiosity and ambition
no longer attracted the nations to the capital of the world; but
if chance or necessity directed the steps of a wandering stranger,
he contemplated with horror _the vacancy and solitude of the city;
and might be tempted to ask, Where is the Senate, and where are the
people?_ In a season of excessive rains, the Tiber swelled above its
banks, and rushed with irresistible violence into the valleys of the
seven hills. A pestilential disease arose from the stagnation of the
deluge, and so rapid was the contagion that fourscore persons expired
in an hour in the midst of a solemn procession which implored the mercy
of Heaven. A society in which marriage is encouraged, and industry
prevails, soon repairs the accidental losses of pestilence and war;
but as the far greater part of the Romans was condemned to hopeless
indigence and celibacy, _the depopulation was constant and visible,
and the gloomy enthusiasts might expect the approaching failure of
the human race_. Yet the number of citizens still exceeded the measure
of subsistence; their precarious food was supplied from the harvests
of Sicily or Egypt; and the frequent repetition of famine betrays the
inattention of the emperor to a distant province. _The edifices of Rome
were exposed to the same ruin and decay; the mouldering fabrics were
easily overthrown by inundations, tempests, and earthquakes; and the
monks who had occupied the most advantageous stations exulted in their
base triumph over the ruins of antiquity_.

“Like Thebes, or Babylon, or Carthage, the name of Rome might have
been erased from the earth, if the city had not been animated by a
vital principle which again restored her to honour and dominion. The
power as well as the virtue of the apostles resided with living energy
in the breast of their successors; and the chair of St. Peter, under
the reign of Maurice, was occupied by the first and greatest of the
name of Gregory. The sword of the enemy was suspended over Rome; it was
averted by the mild eloquence and seasonable gifts of the pontiff, who
commanded the respect of heretics and barbarians.” Comp. Rev. xiii. 3,
12‒15. On the supposition, now, that the inspired author of the
Apocalypse had Rome, in that state when the civil power declined and
the Papacy arose, in his eye, what more expressive imagery could he
have used to denote it than he has employed? On the supposition――if
such a supposition could be made――that Mr. Gibbon _meant_ to furnish
a commentary on this passage, what more appropriate language could
_he_ have used? Does not this language look as if the author of the
Apocalypse and the author of the _Decline and Fall_ _meant_ to play
into each other’s hands?

And, in further confirmation of this, I may refer to the testimony of
two Roman Catholic writers, giving the same view of Rome, and showing
that, in their apprehension also, it was only by the reviving influence
of the Papacy that Rome was saved from becoming a total waste. They
are both of the middle ages. The first is Augustine Steuchus, who thus
writes:――“The empire having been overthrown, unless God had raised up
the _pontificate_, Rome, resuscitated and restored by none, would have
become uninhabitable, and been a most foul habitation thenceforward
of cattle. But in the pontificate it revived as with a _second birth_;
its empire in magnitude not indeed equal to the old empire, but its
form not very dissimilar: because all nations, from East and from West,
venerate the pope, not otherwise than they before obeyed the emperor.”
The other is Flavio Blondas:――“The princes of the world now adore and
worship as {383} _perpetual dictator_ the successor not of Cæsar but of
the fisherman Peter; that is, the _supreme pontiff_, the substitute of
the aforesaid emperor.” See the original in Elliott, iii. 113.

¶ _And I saw a woman._ Evidently the same which is referred to in
ver. 1. ¶ _Sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast._ That is, either the
beast was itself naturally of this colour, or it was covered with
trappings of this colour. The word _scarlet_ properly denotes a bright
red colour――brighter than crimson, which is a red colour tinged with
blue. See Notes on Is. i. 18. The word here used――κόκκινον――occurs
in the New Testament only in the following places:――Mat. xxvii. 28;
He. ix. 19; Re. xvii. 3, 4; xviii. 12, 16――in all which places it is
rendered _scarlet_. See Notes on Mat. xxvii. 28 and He. ix. 19. The
colour was obtained from a small insect which was found adhering to
the shoots of a species of oak in Spain and Western Asia. This was
the usual colour in the robes of princes, military cloaks, &c. It
is applicable in the description of Papal Rome, because this is a
favourite colour there. Thus it is used in ch. xii. 3, where the same
power is represented under the image of a “red dragon.” See Notes on
that passage. It is remarkable that nothing would better represent
the favourite colour at Rome than this, or the actual appearance
of the pope, the cardinals, and the priests in their robes, on some
great festival occasion. Those who are familiar with the descriptions
given of Papal Rome by travellers, and those who have passed much time
in Rome, will see at once the propriety of this description, on the
supposition that it was intended to refer to the Papacy. I caused this
inquiry to be made of an intelligent gentleman who had passed much
time in Rome――without his knowing my design――what would strike a
stranger on visiting Rome, or what would be likely particularly
to arrest his attention as remarkable there; and he unhesitatingly
replied, “The scarlet colour.” This is the colour of the dress of the
cardinals――their hats, and cloaks, and stockings being always of this
colour. It is the colour of the carriages of the cardinals, the entire
body of the carriage being scarlet, and the trappings of the horses
the same. On occasion of public festivals and processions, scarlet is
suspended from the windows of the houses along which processions pass.
The inner colour of the cloak of the pope is scarlet; his carriage is
scarlet; the carpet on which he treads is scarlet. A large part of the
dress of the body-guard of the pope is scarlet; and no one can take
up a picture of Rome without seeing that this colour is predominant.
I looked through a volume of engravings representing the principal
officers and public persons of Rome. There were few in which the
scarlet colour was not found as constituting some part of their apparel;
in not a few the scarlet colour prevailed almost entirely. And in
illustration of the same thought, I introduce here an extract from
a foreign newspaper, copied into an American newspaper of Feb. 22,
1851, as an illustration of the fact that the scarlet colour is
characteristic of Rome, and of the readiness with which it is referred
to in that respect:――“_Curious Costumes_.――The three new cardinals,
the archbishops of Thoulouse, Rheims, and Besançon, were presented to
the president of the French Republic by the Pope’s nuncio. They wore
red caps, red stockings, black Roman coats lined and bound with red,
and small cloaks.” I conclude, therefore, that if it be admitted that
it was _intended_ to represent Papal Rome in the vision, the precise
description would have been adopted which is found here. ¶ _Full of
names of blasphemy._ All covered over with blasphemous titles and names.
What could more accurately describe Papal Rome than this? Comp. for
some of these names and titles the Notes on 2 Th. ii. 4; 1 Ti. iv. 1‒4;
and Notes on Re. xiii. 1, 5. ¶ _Having seven heads and ten horns._ See
Notes on ch. xiii. 1.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,
and decked[516] with gold and precious stones and pearls,
[517]having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations of
filthiness of her fornication:

4. _And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour._ On
the nature of the _scarlet colour_, see Notes on ver. 3. The _purple_
colour――πορφύρα――was obtained from a species of shell-fish found on
the coasts of the Mediterranean, which yielded a reddish-purple dye,
much prized by the ancients. Robes dyed in that colour were commonly
{384} worn by persons of rank and wealth, Mar. xv. 17, 20; Lu. xvi. 19.
The purple colour contains more blue than the crimson, though the
limits are not very accurately defined, and the words are sometimes
interchanged. Thus the mock robe put on the Saviour is called
in Mar. xv. 17, 20, πορφύραν――_purple_, and in Mat. xxvii. 28,
κοκκίνην――_crimson_. On the applicability of this to the Papacy, see
Notes on ver. 3. ¶ _And decked with gold._ After the manner of an
harlot, with rich jewelry. ¶ _And precious stones._ Sparkling diamonds,
&c. ¶ _And pearls._ Also a much-valued female ornament. Comp. Notes on
Mat. vii. 6; xiii. 46. ¶ _Having a golden cup in her hand._ As if to
entice lovers. See Notes on ch. xiv. 8. ¶ _Full of abominations._ Of
abominable things; of things fitted to excite abhorrence and disgust;
things unlawful and forbidden. The word, in the Scriptures, is commonly
used to denote the impurities and abominations of idolatry. See Notes
on Da. ix. 27. The meaning here is, that it seemed to be a cup filled
with wine, but it was in fact a cup full of all abominable drugs,
leading to all kinds of corruption. How much in accordance this is with
the fascinations of the Papacy, it is not necessary now to say, after
the ample illustrations of the same thing already furnished in these
Notes. ¶ _And filthiness of her fornication._ The image here is that
of Papal Rome, represented as an abandoned woman in gorgeous attire,
alluring by her arts the nations of the earth, and seducing them into
all kinds of pollution and abomination. It is a most remarkable fact
that the Papacy, as if _designing_ to furnish a fulfilment of this
prophecy, has chosen to represent itself almost precisely in this
manner――as a female extending an alluring cup to passers by――as will
be seen by the engraving on this page. Far as the design of striking
this medal may have been from confirming this portion of the book of
Revelation, yet no one can fail to see that if this _had_ been the
design, no more happy illustration could have been adopted. Apostate
churches, and guilty nations, often furnish the very proofs necessary
to confirm the truth of the Scriptures.

Illustration: Medal of Pope Leo XII.

5 And upon her forehead _was_ a name written, [518]MYSTERY,
BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF [519]HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.

5. _And upon her forehead._ In a circlet around her forehead. That
is, it was made prominent and public, _as if_ written on the forehead
in blazing capitals. In ch. xiii. 1 it is said that “the name of
blasphemy” was written on the “heads” of the beast. The meaning in
both places is substantially the same, that it was prominent and
unmistakable. See Notes on that verse. Comp. Note on ch. xiv. 1.
¶ _|Was| a name written._ A title, or something that would properly
indicate her character. ¶ _Mystery._ It is proper to remark that there
is nothing in the original as written by John, so far as now known,
that corresponded with what is implied in placing this inscription
in capital letters; and the same remark may be made of the “title”
or inscription that was placed over the head of the Saviour on the
cross, Mat. xxvii. 37; Mar. xv. 26; Lu. xxiii. 38; Jn. xix. 19. Our
translators have adopted this form, apparently for the sole purpose of
denoting that it _was_ an inscription or title. On the meaning of the
word _mystery_, see Notes on 1 Co. ii. 7. Comp. Notes on {385} 1 Ti.
iii. 16. Here it seems to be used to denote that there was something
hidden, obscure, or enigmatical, under the title adopted; that is, the
word _Babylon_, and the word _mother_, were symbolical. Our translators
have printed and pointed the word _mystery_ as if it were part of the
inscription. It would probably be better to regard it as referring to
the inscription, thus: “a name was written――a _mysterious_ name, to wit,
Babylon,” &c. Or, “a name was written mysteriously.” According to this,
it would mean, not that there was any wonderful “mystery” about the
thing itself, whatever might be true on that point, but that the _name_
was enigmatical or symbolical; or that there was something _hidden_
or _concealed_ under the name. It was not to be literally understood.
¶ _Babylon the great._ Papal Rome, the nominal head of the Christian
world, as Babylon had been of the heathen world. See Notes on ch. xiv.
8. ¶ _The mother of harlots._ (a) Of that spiritual apostasy from God
which, in the language of the prophets, might be called adultery. See
Notes on ch. xiv. 8. (b) The promoter of lewdness by her institutions.
See Notes on ch. ix. 21. In both these senses, there never was a more
expressive or appropriate title than the one here employed. ¶ _And
abominations of the earth._ Abominable things that prevail on the earth,
ver. 4. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21.

6 And I saw the woman [520]drunken with the blood of the
saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I
saw her I wondered with great admiration.

6. _And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints._ A
reeling, intoxicated harlot, for that is the image which is kept up
all along. In regard to the phrase “drunken with blood,” comp. Je.
xlvi. 10. “The phraseology is derived from the barbarous custom (still
extant among many Pagan nations) of drinking the blood of the enemies
slain in the way of revenge. The effect of drinking blood is said to be
to exasperate, and to intoxicate with passion and a desire of revenge”
(Prof. Stuart, _in loco_). The meaning here is, that the persecuting
power referred to had shed the blood of the saints; and that, in its
fury, it had, as it were, drunk the blood of the slain, and had become,
by drinking that blood, intoxicated and infuriated. No one need say how
applicable this has been to the Papacy. Compare, however, the Notes on
Da. vii. 21, 25; Re. xii. 13, 14; xiii. 15. ¶ _And with the blood of
the martyrs of Jesus._ _Especially_ with their blood. The meaning is,
that the warfare, in which so much blood was shed, was directed against
the _saints as such_, and that, in fact, it terminated particularly on
those who, amidst cruel sufferings, were faithful _witnesses_ for the
Lord Jesus, and deserved to be called, by way of eminence, _martyrs_.
Comp. Notes on ch. ii. 13; vi. 9; xi. 5, 7. How applicable this is to
the Papacy, let the blood shed in the valleys of Piedmont; the blood
shed in the Low Countries by the Duke of Alva; the blood shed on
St. Bartholomew’s day; and the blood shed in the Inquisition, testify.
¶ _And when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration._ I was
astonished at her appearance, at her apparel, and at the things which
were so significantly symbolized by her.

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I
will tell thee the mystery of [521]the woman, and of [522]the
beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten
horns.

7. _And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel?_ He
was doubtless struck with the appearance of John as he stood fixed in
astonishment. The question asked him, _why_ he wondered, was designed
to show him that the cause of his surprise would be removed or lessened,
for that he would proceed so to explain this that he might have a
correct view of its design. ¶ _I will tell thee the mystery of the
woman._ On the word _mystery_, see Notes on ver. 5. The sense is, “I
will explain what is meant by the symbol――the hidden meaning that is
couched under it.” That is, he would so far explain it that a just
view might be obtained of its signification. The explanation follows,
ver. 8‒18. ¶ _And of the beast that carrieth her_, &c. Ver. 3.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall
[523]ascend out of the bottomless pit, and [524]go into
perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall [525]wonder,
whose names were not written in the book of life from the
foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was,
and is not, and yet is.

8. _The beast that thou sawest was, and is not._ In the close of the
verse it is added, “and yet is”――“the beast that was, and is not, and
yet is.” There are {386} three things affirmed here: first, that there
is a sense in which it might be said of the power here referred to,
that it “was,” or that, _before_ this, it had an existence; second,
that there was a sense in which it might be said that it is “not,” that
is, that it had become practically extinct; and third, that there is a
sense in which that power would be so _revived_ that it might be said
that it “still is.” The “beast” here referred to is the same that is
mentioned in ver. 3 of this chapter, and in ch. xiii. 1, 3, 11‒16. That
is, there was one great formidable power, having essentially the same
origin, though manifested under somewhat different modifications, to
one and all of which might, in their different manifestations, be given
the same name, “_the beast_.” ¶ _And shall ascend out of the bottomless
pit_――ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου. On the meaning of the word here used, see Notes
on ch. ix. 1. The meaning here is, that this power would _seem_ to come
up from the nether world. It would appear at one time to be extinct,
but would revive again _as if_ coming from the world over which Satan
presides, and would, in its revived character, be such as might be
expected from such an origin. ¶ _And go into perdition._ That is,
its end will be destruction. It will not be permanent, but will
be overthrown and destroyed. The word _perdition_ here is properly
rendered by Prof. Stuart _destruction_, but nothing is indicated by the
word of the _nature_ of the destruction that would come upon it. ¶ _And
they that dwell on the earth._ The inhabitants of the earth generally;
that is, the matter referred to will be so remarkable as to attract
general attention. ¶ _Shall wonder._ It will be so contrary to the
regular course of events, so difficult of explanation, so remarkable
in itself, as to excite attention and surprise. ¶ _Whose names were not
written in the book of life from the foundation of the world._ See this
explained in the Notes on ch. xiii. 8. The idea seems to be, that those
whose names _are_ written in the book of life, or who are truly the
friends of God, would not be drawn off in admiration of the beast, or
in rendering homage to it. ¶ _When they behold the beast that was, and
is not, and yet is._ That is, the power that once was mighty; that had
declined to such a state that it became, as it were, extinct; and that
was revived again with so much of its original strength, that it might
be said that it still exists. The fact of its being revived in this
manner, as well as the nature of the power itself, seemed fitted to
excite this admiration.

9 And here _is_ the mind which hath wisdom. The [526]seven
heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

9. _And here |is| the mind which hath wisdom._ Here is that which
requires wisdom to interpret it; or, here is a case in which the mind
that shows itself able to explain it will evince true sagacity. So
in ch. xiii. 18. See Notes on that place. Prof. Stuart renders this,
“Here is a meaning which compriseth wisdom.” It is undoubtedly implied
that the symbol _might_ be understood――whether in the time of John,
or afterwards, he does not say; but it was a matter which could not
be determined by ordinary minds, or without an earnest application of
the understanding. ¶ _The seven heads are seven mountains._ Referring,
undoubtedly, to Rome――the seven-hilled city――_Septicollis Roma_. See
Notes on ch. xii. 3, (d). ¶ _On which the woman sitteth._ The city
represented as a woman, in accordance with a common usage in the
Scriptures. See Notes on Is. i. 8.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is,
_and_ the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must
continue a short space.

10. _And there are seven kings._ That is, seven in all, as they are
enumerated in this verse and the next. An _eighth_ is mentioned in
ver. 11, but it is, at the same time, said that this one so pertains to
the seven, or is so properly in one sense of the number seven, though,
in another sense, to be regarded as an eighth, that it may be properly
reckoned as the seventh. The word _kings_――βασιλεῖς――may be understood,
so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, (a) literally, as
denoting a king, or one who exercises royal authority; (b) in a more
general sense, as denoting one of distinguished honour――a viceroy,
prince, leader, chief, Mat. ii. 1, 3, 9; Lu. i. 5; Ac. xii. 1; (c) in a
still larger sense, {387} as denoting a dynasty, a form of government,
a mode of administration, as that which, in fact, _rules_. See Notes
on Da. vii. 24, where the word _king_ undoubtedly denotes a dynasty, or
form of rule. The notion of _ruling_, or of authority, is undoubtedly
in the word, for the verb βασιλεύω means _to rule_, but the word may be
applied to anything in which sovereignty resides. Thus it is applied to
a king’s son, to a military commander, to the gods, to a Greek archon,
&c. See Passow. It would be contrary to the whole spirit of this
passage, and to what is demanded by the proper meaning of the word,
to insist that the word should denote literally _kings_, and that it
could not be applied to emperors, or to dictators, or to dynasties.
¶ _Five are fallen._ Have passed away as if fallen; that is, they have
disappeared. The language would be applicable to rulers who have died,
or who had been dethroned; or to dynasties or forms of government that
had ceased to be. In the fulfilment of this, it would be necessary
to find _five_ such successive kings or rulers who had died, and who
appertained to one sovereignty or nation; or five such dynasties or
forms of administrations that had successively existed, but which had
ceased. ¶ _And one is._ That is, there is one――a sixth――that now reigns.
The proper interpretation of this would be, that this existed in the
time of the writer; that is, according to the view taken of the time
of the writing of the Apocalypse (see Intro., § 2), at the close of
the first century. ¶ _And the other is not yet come._ The sixth one
is to be succeeded by another in the same line, or occupying the same
dominion. ¶ _And when he cometh._ When that form of dominion is set
up. No intimation is yet given as to the _time_ when this would occur.
¶ _He must continue a short space_――ὀλίγον. A short time; his dominion
will be of short duration. It is observable that this characteristic
is stated as applicable _only_ to this one of the seven; and the fair
meaning would seem to be, that the time would be short _as compared_
with the six that preceded, and as compared with the one that
followed――the _eighth_――into which it was to be merged, ver. 11.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth,
and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

11. _And the beast that was, and is not._ That is, the one power
that was formerly mighty; that died away so that it might be said
to be extinct; and yet (ver. 8) that “still is,” or has a prolonged
existence. It is evident that, by the “beast” here, there is some one
power, dominion, empire, or rule, whose essential identity is preserved
through all these changes, and to which it is proper to give the
same name. It finds its termination, or _its last form_, in what is
here called the “eighth;” a power which, it is observed, sustains
such a peculiar relation to the seven, that it may be said to be
“of the seven,” or to be a mere prolongation of the same sovereignty.
¶ _Even he is the eighth._ The eighth in the succession. This form of
sovereignty, though a mere prolongation of the former government, so
much so as to be, in fact, but keeping up the same empire in the world,
appears in such a novelty of form, that, in one sense, it deserves
to be called the _eighth_ in order, and yet is so essentially a mere
concentration and continuance of the one power, that, in the general
reckoning (ver. 10), it might be regarded as pertaining to the former.
There was a sense in which it was proper to speak of it as the eighth
power; and yet, viewed in its relation to the whole, it so essentially
combined and concentrated all that there was _in_ the seven, that, in
a general view, it scarcely merited a separate mention. We should look
for the fulfilment of this in some such concentration and embodiment of
all that it was, in the previous forms of sovereignty referred to, that
it perhaps would deserve mention as an _eighth_ power, but that it was,
nevertheless, such a more prolongation of the previous forms of the one
power, that it might be said to be “_of_ the seven;” so that, _in this
view_, it would not claim a separate consideration. This seems to be
the fair meaning, though there is much that is enigmatical in the form
of the expression. ¶ _And goeth into perdition._ See Notes on ver. 8.

In inquiring now into the application of this very difficult passage,
it may be proper to suggest some of the principal opinions which have
been held, and then to endeavour to ascertain the true meaning.

{388} I. The principal opinions which have been held may be reduced to
the following:――

(1) That the seven kings here refer to the succession of Roman
emperors, yet with some variation as to the manner of reckoning. Prof.
Stuart begins with Julius Cæsar, and reckons them in this manner:――the
“five that are fallen” are Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula,
Claudius. Nero, who, as he supposes, was the reigning prince at the
time when the book was written, he regards as the sixth; Galba, who
succeeded him, as the seventh. Others, who adopt this literal method
of explaining it, suppose that the time begins with Augustus, and then
Galba would be the sixth, and Otho, who reigned but three months, would
be the seventh. The expression, “the beast that was, and is not, who is
the eighth,” Prof. Stuart regards as referring to a general impression
among the heathen and among Christians, in the time of the persecution
under Nero, that he would again appear after it was reported that
he was dead, or that he would rise from the dead and carry on his
persecution again. See Prof. Stuart, _Com._ vol. ii., Excur. iii.
The _beast_, according to this view, denotes the Roman emperors,
specifically Nero, and the reference in ver. 8 is to “the well-known
hariolation respecting Nero, that he would be assassinated, and would
disappear for a while, and then make his appearance again to the
confusion of all his enemies.” “What the angel,” says he, “says,
seems to be equivalent to this――‘The _beast_ means the Roman emperors,
specifically Nero, of whom the report spread throughout the empire
that he will revive, after being apparently slain, and will come, as it
were, from the abyss or Hades, but he will perish, and that speedily,’”
vol. ii. p. 323.

(2) That the word “kings” is not to be taken literally, but that it
refers to forms of government, dynasties, or modes of administration.
The general opinion among those who hold this view is, that the first
six refer to the forms of the Roman government――(1) kings; (2) consuls;
(3) dictators; (4) decemvirs; (5) military tribunes; (6) the imperial
form, beginning with Augustus. This has been the common Protestant
interpretation, and in reference to these _six_ forms of government
there has been a general agreement. But, while the mass of Protestant
interpreters have supposed that the “six” heads refer to these forms of
administration, there has been much diversity of opinion as to the
seventh; and here, on this plan of interpretation, the main, if not the
sole difficulty lies. Among the opinions held are the following:――

(a) That of Mr. Mede. He makes the seventh head what he calls the
“Demi-Cæsar,” or the “Western emperor who reigned after the division
of the empire into East and West, and which continued, after the last
division, under Honorius and Arcadius, about sixty years――a short space”
(_Works_, book iii. ch. 8; book v. ch. 12).

(b) That of Bishop Newton, who regards the sixth or imperial “head”
as continuing uninterruptedly through the line of Christian as well as
Pagan emperors, until Augustulus and the Heruli; and the seventh to be
the _Dukedom_ of Rome, established soon after under the exarchate of
Ravenna (_Prophecies_, pp. 575, 576).

(c) That of Dr. More and Mr. Cunninghame, who suppose the Christian
emperors, from Constantine to Augustulus, to constitute the seventh
head, and that this had its termination by the sword of the Heruli.

(d) That of Mr. Elliott, who supposes the seventh head or power
to refer to a new form of administration introduced by Diocletian,
changing the administration from the _original imperial character_ to
that of _an absolute Asiatic sovereignty_. For the important changes
introduced by Diocletian that justify this remark, see the _Decline and
Fall_, vol. i. pp. 212‒217.

Numerous other solutions may be found in Poole’s _Synopsis_, but these
embrace the principal, and the most plausible that have been proposed.

II. I proceed, then, to state what seems to me to be the true
explanation. This must be found in some _facts_ that will accord with
the explanation given of the meaning of the passage.

(1) There can be no doubt that this refers to Rome, either Pagan,
Christian, or Papal. All the circumstances combine in this; all
respectable interpreters agree in this. This would be naturally
understood by the symbols used by John, and by the explanations
furnished by the angel. See ver. 18: “And the woman which thou sawest
is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”
Every circumstance combines here in leading to the conclusion {389}
that Rome is intended. There was no other power or empire on the
earth to which this could be properly applied; there was everything
in the circumstances of the writer to lead us to suppose that this
was referred to; there is an utter impossibility now in applying the
description to anything else.

(2) It was to be a _revived_ power; not a power in its original form
and strength. This is manifest, because it is said (ver. 8) that the
power represented by the beast “was, and is not, and yet is”――that is,
it was once a mighty power; it then declined so that it could be said
that “it is _not_;” and yet there was so much remaining vitality in
it, or so much revived power, that it could be said that it “still
is”――καίπερ ἐστίν. Now, this is strictly applicable to Rome when the
Papal power arose. The old Roman might had departed; the glory and
strength evinced in the days of the consuls, the dictators, and the
emperors, had disappeared, and yet there was a lingering vitality, and
a reviving of power under the Papacy, which made it proper to say that
it still continued, or that that mighty power was prolonged. The civil
power connected with the Papacy was a revived Roman power――the Roman
power prolonged under another form――for it is susceptible of clear
demonstration that, if it had not been for the rise of the Papal power,
the sovereignty of Rome, as such, would have been wholly extinct. For
the proof of this, see the passages quoted in the Notes on ver. 3.
Comp. Notes on ch. xiii. 3, 12, 15.

(3) It was to be a power emanating from the “abyss,” or that would
seem to ascend from the dark world beneath. See ver. 8. This was true
in regard to the Papacy, either (a) as apparently ascending from the
lowest state and the most depressed condition, _as if_ it came up
from below (see Notes on ver. 3, comp. ch. xiii. 11); or (b) as, in
fact, having its origin in the world of darkness, and being under
the control of the prince of that world, which, according to all
the representations of that formidable Antichristian power in the
Scriptures, is true, and which the whole history of the Papacy, and
of its influence on religion, confirms.

(4) One of the powers referred to _sustained_ the other. “The seven
heads are seven mountains on which the woman _sitteth_,” ver. 9.
That is, the power represented by the harlot was _sustained_ or
_supported_ by the power represented by the seven heads or the seven
mountains. Literally applied, this would mean that the Papacy, as an
ecclesiastical institution, was sustained by the civil power, with
which it was so closely connected. For the illustration and support
of this, see Notes on ch. xiii. 2, 3, 12, 15. In the Notes on those
passages it is shown that the support was _mutual_; that while the
Papacy, in fact, _revived_ the almost extinct Roman civil power, and
gave it new vitality, the price of that was, that _it_ should be, in
its turn, sustained by that revived Roman civil power. All history
shows that that has been the fact; that in all its aggressions,
assumptions, and persecutions, it has, _in fact_, and _professedly_,
leaned on the arm of the civil power.

(5) A more important inquiry, and a more serious difficulty, remains
in respect to the statements respecting the “seven kings,” ver. 10, 11.
The statements on this point are, that the whole number properly was
seven; that of this number five had fallen or passed away; that one
was in existence at the time when the author wrote; that another one
was yet to appear who would continue for a little time; and that the
general power represented by all these would be embodied in the “beast
that was, and is not,” and that might, in some respects, be regarded as
an “eighth.” These points may be taken up in their order.

(a) The first inquiry relates to the five that were fallen and the
one that was then in existence――the first six. These may be taken
together, for they are manifestly of the same class, and have the
same characteristics, at least so far as to be distinguished from the
“seventh” and the “eighth.” The meaning of the word “_kings_” here has
been already explained, ver. 10. It denotes ruling power, or forms of
power; and, so far as the signification of the _word_ is concerned, it
might be applicable to royalty, or to any other form of administration.
It is not necessary, then, to find an exact succession of _princes_ or
_kings_ that would correspond with this――five of whom were dead, and
one of whom was then on the throne, and all soon to be succeeded by one
more, who would soon die.

The true explanation of this seems to be that which refers this to the
forms of the Roman government or administration. These six “heads,” or
forms of {390} administration, were, in their order, _Kings_, _Consuls_,
_Dictators_, _Decemvirs_, _Military Tribunes_, and _Emperors_. Of these,
five had passed away in the time when John wrote the Apocalypse; the
sixth, the imperial, was then in power, and had been from the time
of Augustus Cæsar. The only questions that can be raised are, whether
these forms of administration were so _distinct_ and _prominent_,
and whether in the times previous to John they so embraced the whole
Roman power, as to justify this interpretation――that is, whether these
forms of administration were so marked in this respect that it may be
supposed that John would use the language here employed in describing
them. As showing the probability that he would use this language, I
refer to the following arguments, viz.: (1) The authority of Livy, lib.
vi. cap. 1. Speaking of the previous parts of his history, and of what
he had done in writing it, he says: “Quæ ab condita urbe Roma ad captam
eandem urbem, Romani sub _regibus_ primum, _consulibus_ deinde ac
_dictatoribus_, _decemviris_ ac _tribunis consularibus_ gessere, foris
bella, domi seditiones, quinque libris exposui.” That is, “In five
books I have related what was done at Rome, pertaining both to foreign
wars and domestic strifes, from the foundation of the city to the time
when it was taken, as it was governed by _kings_, by _consuls_, by
_dictators_, by the _decemvirs_, and by _consular tribunes_.” Here
he mentions _five_ forms of administration under which Rome had been
governed in the earlier periods of its history. The imperial power had
a later origin, and did not exist until near the time of Livy himself.
(2) The same distribution of power, or forms of government, among
the Romans, is made by Tacitus, _Annal._ lib. i. cap. 1: “Urbem Romam
à principio _reges_ habuere. Libertatem et _consulatum_ L. Brutus
instituit. _Dictaturæ_ ad tempus sumebantur. Neque _decemviralis
potestas_ ultrà biennium, neque _tribunorum militum consulare jus_
diu valuit. Non Cinnæ, non Syllæ longa dominatio: et Pompeii Crassique
potentia cito in Cæsarem, Lepidi atque Antonii arma in Augustum
cessere; qui cuncta, discordiis civilibus fessa, nomine _principis_
sub _imperium_ accepit.” That is, “In the beginning, Rome was governed
by _kings_. Then L. Brutus gave to her liberty and the _consulship_.
A temporary power was conferred on the _dictators_. The authority of
the _decemvirs_ did not continue beyond the space of two years: neither
was the consular power of the _military tribunes_ of long duration. The
rule of Cinna and Sylla was brief; and the power of Pompey and Crassus
passed into the hands of Cæsar; and the arms of Lepidus and Antony
were surrendered to Augustus, who united all things, broken by civil
discord, under the name of _prince_ in the _imperial_ government.”
Here Tacitus distinctly mentions the _six forms of administration_ that
had prevailed in Rome, the last of which was the imperial. It is true,
also, that he mentions the brief rule of certain _men_――as Cinna,
Sylla, Antony, and Lepidus; but these are not forms of _administration_,
and their temporary authority did not indicate any change in the
_government_――for some of these men were _dictators_, and none of
them, except Brutus and Augustus, established any permanent form of
administration. (3) The same thing is apparent in the usual statements
of history, and the books that describe the forms of government at
Rome. In so common a book as Adam’s _Roman Antiquities_, a description
may be found of the forms of Roman administration that corresponds
almost precisely with this. The forms of _supreme_ power in Rome, as
enumerated there, are what are called _ordinary_ and _extraordinary_
magistrates. Under the former are enumerated kings, consuls, prætors,
censors, quæstors, and tribunes of the people. But of these, in fact,
the _supreme_ power was vested in two; for there were, under this,
but _two_ forms of administration――that of kings and consuls; the
offices of prætor, censor, quæstor, and tribune of the people being
merely subordinate to that of the consuls, and no more a new form
of administration than the offices of secretary of the state, of
war, of the navy, of the interior, are now. Under the latter――that of
_extraordinary_ magistrates――are enumerated _dictators_, _decemvirs_,
_military tribunes_, and the _interrex_. But the _interrex_ did not
constitute a _form_ of administration, or a change of government, any
more than, when the President or Vice-president of the United States
should die, the performance of the duties of the office of president by
the speaker of the senate would indicate a change, or than the regency
of the Prince of Wales in the time of George III. constituted {391}
a new form of government. So that, in fact, we have enumerated, as
constituting _the supreme power_ at Rome, kings, consuls, dictators,
decemvirs, and military tribunes――five in number. The imperial power
was the sixth. (4) In confirmation of the same thing, I may refer to
the authority of Bellarmine, a distinguished Roman Catholic writer. In
his work _De Pontiff_., cap. 2, he thus enumerates the changes which
the Roman government had experienced, or the forms of administration
that had existed there: 1. Kings; 2. Consuls; 3. Decemvirs;
4. Dictators; 5. Military Tribunes with consular power; 6. Emperors.
See Poole’s _Synop._, _in loco_. And (5) it may be added, that this
would be _understood_ by the contemporaries of John in this sense.
These forms of government were so marked that, in connection with the
mention of the “seven mountains,” designating the city, there could be
no doubt as to what was intended. Reference would at once be made to
the _imperial_ power as then existing, and the mind would readily and
easily turn back to the five main forms of the supreme administration
which had existed before.

(b) The next inquiry is, what is denoted by _the seventh_. If the word
“kings” here refers, as is supposed (Notes on ver. 10), to a form of
government or administration; if the “five” refer to the forms previous
to the imperial, and the “sixth” to the imperial; and if John wrote
_during_ the imperial government, then it follows that this must refer
to some form of administration that was to succeed the imperial. If the
Papacy was “the eighth,” and of the “seventh,” then it is clear that
this must refer to some form of civil administration lying _between_
the decline of the _imperial_ and the rise of the _Papal_ power:
that “short space”――for it _was_ a short space that intervened. Now,
there can be no difficulty, I think, in referring this to that form of
administration over Rome――that “dukedom” under the exarchate of Ravenna,
which succeeded the decline of the imperial power, and which preceded
the rise of the Papal power;――between the year 566 or 568, when Rome
was reduced to a dukedom, under the exarchate of Ravenna, and the time
when the city revolted from this authority and became subject to that
of the pope, about the year 727. This period continued, according to
Mr. Gibbon, about two hundred years. He says, “During a period of two
hundred years, Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. The offices and professions,
which the jealousy of Constantine had separated, were united by
the indulgence of Justinian; and eighteen successive exarchs were
invested, _in the decline of the empire, with the full remains of
civil, of military, and even of ecclesiastical power_. Their immediate
jurisdiction, _which was afterwards consecrated as the patrimony of
St. Peter_, extended over the modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of
Ferrara and Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and
a second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the hills
of the Apennine. The duchy of Rome appears to have included the Tuscan,
Sabine, and Latian conquests, _of the first four hundred years of the
city_; and the limits may be distinctly traced along the coast, from
Civita Vecchia to Terracina, and with the course of the Tiber from
Ameria and Narni to the port of Ostia” (_Dec. and Fall_, iii. 202).
How accurate is this if it be regarded as a statement of a _new_ power
or form of administration that succeeded the imperial――a power that
was, in fact, a prolongation of the old Roman authority, and that
was designed to constitute and embody it all! Could Mr. Gibbon have
furnished a _better_ commentary on the passage if he had adopted the
interpretation of this portion of the Apocalypse above proposed, and
if he had _designed_ to describe this as the seventh power in the
successive forms of the Roman administration? It is worthy of remark,
also, that this account in Mr. Gibbon’s history immediately _precedes_
the account of the rise of the Papacy; the record respecting the
exarchate, and that concerning Gregory the Great, described by
Mr. Gibbon as “the Saviour of Rome,” occurring in the same chapter,
vol. iii. 202‒211.

(c) This was to “continue for a short space”――for a little time. If
this refers to the power to which in the remarks above it is supposed
to refer, it is easy to see the propriety of this statement. Compared
with the previous form of administration――the imperial――it was of
short duration; absolutely considered, it was brief. {392} Mr. Gibbon
(iii. 202) has marked it as extending through “a period of two hundred
years;” and if this is compared with the form of administration which
preceded it, extending to more than five hundred years, and more
especially with that which followed――the Papal form――which has extended
now some twelve hundred years, it will be seen with what propriety this
is spoken of as continuing for a “short space.”

(d) “The beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of
the seven,” ver. 11. If the explanations above given are correct, there
can be no difficulty in the application of this to the Papal power;
for (1) all this power was concentrated in the Papacy, all that revived
or prolonged Roman power had now passed into the Papacy, constituting
that mighty dominion which was to be set up for so many centuries over
what had been the Roman world. See the statements of Mr. Gibbon (iii.
207‒211), as quoted in the Notes on ver. 3. Compare also, particularly;
the remarks of Augustine Steuchus, a Roman Catholic writer, as quoted
in the Notes on that verse: “The empire having been overthrown, unless
God had raised up the _pontificate_, Rome, resuscitated and restored
by none, would have become uninhabitable, and been thenceforward a most
foul habitation of cattle. But in the pontificate it revived as with
a _second birth_; its empire in magnitude not indeed equal to the
old empire, but its form not very dissimilar: because all nations,
from East and from West, venerate the pope, not otherwise than they
before obeyed the emperor.” (2) This was an _eighth_ power or form of
administration――for it was different, in many respects, from that of
the kings, the consuls, the dictators, the decemvirs, the military
tribunes, the emperors, and the dukedom――though it comprised
substantially the power of all. Indeed, it could not have been spoken
of as identical with either of the previous forms of administration,
though it concentrated the power which had been wielded by them all.
(3) It was “_of_ the seven;” that is, it pertained to them; it was a
prolongation of the same power. It had the same central seat――Rome;
it extended over the same territory, and it embraced sooner or latter
the same nations. There is not one of those forms of administration
which did not find a prolongation in the Papacy; for it aspired after,
and succeeded in obtaining, all the authority of kings, dictators,
consuls, emperors. It was in fact still the _Roman_ sceptre swayed
over the world; and with the strictest propriety it could be said that
it was “_of_ the seven,” as having sprung out of the seven, and as
perpetuating the sway of this mighty domination. For full illustration
of this, see the Notes on Da. vii. and Re. xiii. (4) It would “go
into perdition;” that is, it would be under this form that this mighty
domination that had for so many ages ruled over the earth would die
away, or this would be the _last_ in the series. The _Roman_ dominion,
as such, would not be extended to a ninth, or tenth, or eleventh form,
but would finally expire under the eighth. Every indication shows that
this is to be so, and that with the decline of the Papal power the
_whole Roman domination_, that has swayed a sceptre for two thousand
five hundred years, will have come for ever to an end. If this is so,
then we have found an ample and exact application of this passage even
in its most minute specifications.

12 And the [527]ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings,
which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as
kings one hour with the beast.

12. _And the ten horns which thou sawest._ On the scarlet-coloured
beast, ver. 3. ¶ _Are ten kings._ Represent or denote ten kings;
that is, kingdoms or powers. See Notes on Da. vii. 24. ¶ _Which have
received no kingdom as yet._ That is, they were not in existence when
John wrote. It is implied, that during the period under review they
_would_ arise, and would become connected, in an important sense, with
the power here represented by the “beast.” For a full illustration
respecting the ten “kings,” or kingdoms here referred to, see Notes on
Da. vii., at the close of the chapter, II. (2). ¶ _But receive power._
It is not said from what _source_ this power is received, but it is
simply implied that it would in fact be conferred on them. ¶ _As
kings._ That is, the power would be that which is usually exercised
by kings. ¶ _One hour._ It cannot be supposed that this is to be taken
_literally_. The meaning clearly is, that this would be brief and
temporary; {393} that is, it was a form of administration which would
be succeeded by one more fixed and permanent. Anyone can see that, in
fact, this is strictly applicable to the governments, as referred to
in the Notes on Daniel, which sprang up after the incursion of the
northern barbarians, and which were finally succeeded by the permanent
forms of government in Europe. Most of them were very brief in their
duration, and they were soon remodelled in the forms of permanent
administration. Thus, to take the arrangement proposed by Sir Isaac
Newton, (1) the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa;
(2) the kingdom of the Suevians in Spain; (3) the kingdom of the
Visigoths; (4) the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia; (5) the kingdom of
the Burgundians; (6) the kingdom of the Franks; (7) the kingdom of the
Britons; (8) the kingdom of the Huns; (9) the kingdom of the Lombards;
(10) the kingdom of Ravenna――how _temporary_ were most of these; how
soon they passed into the more permanent forms of administration which
succeeded them in Europe! ¶ _With the beast._ With that rising Papal
power. They would exercise their authority in connection with that,
and under its influence.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and
strength unto the beast.

13. _These have one mind._ That is, they are united in the promotion
of the same object. Though in some respects wholly independent of each
other, yet they may be regarded as, in fact, so far united that they
tend to promote the same ultimate end. As a fact in history, all these
kingdoms, though of different origin, and though not unfrequently
engaged in war with each other, became Roman Catholics, and were united
in the support of the Papacy. It was with propriety, therefore, that
they should be regarded as so closely connected with that power that
they could be represented as “ten horns” on the seven-headed monster.
¶ _And shall give their power and strength unto the beast._ Shall lend
their influence to the support of the Papacy, and become the upholders
of that power. The meaning, according to the interpretation above
proposed, is, that they would all become Papal kingdoms, and supporters
of the Papal power. It is unnecessary to pause to show how true this
has been in history. At first, most of the people out of whom these
kingdoms sprang were Pagans; then many of them embraced Christianity
under the prevailing form of Arianism, and this fact was for a time
a bar to their perfect adhesion to the Roman see; but they were
all ultimately brought wholly under its influence, and became its
supporters. In A.D. 496, Clovis, the king of the Franks, on occasion
of his victory over the Allemanni, embraced the Catholic faith, and
so received the title, transmitted downward through nearly thirteen
hundred years to the French kings as his successors, of “_the eldest
son of the church_;” in the course of the sixth century, the kings of
Burgundy, Bavaria, Spain, Portugal, England, embraced the same religion,
and became the defenders of the Papacy. It is well known that each
one of the powers above enumerated as constituting these ten kingdoms,
became subject to the Papacy, and continued so during their separate
existence, or when merged into some other power, until the Reformation
in the sixteenth century. _All_ “their power and strength was given
unto the beast;” all was made subservient to the purposes of Papal Rome.

14 These shall [528]make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb
[529]shall overcome them: for he is [530]Lord of lords,
and King of kings: and [531]they that are with him _are_
[532]called, and [533]chosen, and [534]faithful.

14. _These shall make war with the Lamb._ The Lamb of God――the Lord
Jesus (Notes, ch. v. 6); that is, they would combine with the Papacy in
opposing evangelical religion. It is not meant that they would _openly_
and _avowedly_ proclaim _war_ against the Son of God, but that they
would _practically_ do this in sustaining a persecuting power. It is
unnecessary to show how true this has been in history; how entirely
they sustained the Papacy in all its measures of persecution. ¶ _And
the Lamb shall overcome them._ Shall ultimately gain the victory over
them. The meaning is, that they would not be able to extinguish the
true religion. In spite of all opposition and persecution, that would
still live in the world, until it would be said that a complete triumph
{394} was gained. ¶ _For he is Lord of lords, and King of kings._ He
has supreme power over all the earth, and all kings and princes are
subject to his control. Comp. ch. xix. 16. ¶ _And they that are with
him._ The reference is to the persecuted saints who have adhered
to him as his faithful followers in all these protracted conflicts.
¶ _|Are| called._ That is, called by him to be his followers; as if he
had selected them out of the world to maintain his cause. See Notes on
Ro. i. 7. ¶ _And chosen._ See Notes on Jn. xv. 16, and 1 Pe. i. 2. In
their steadfast adherence to the truth, they had shown that they were
truly _chosen_ by the Saviour, and could be relied on in the warfare
against the powers of evil. ¶ _And faithful._ They had shown themselves
faithful to him in times of persecution, and in the hour of darkness.

15 And he saith unto me, [535]The waters which thou sawest,
where the whore sitteth, are [536]peoples, and multitudes, and
nations, and tongues.

15. _And he saith unto me._ The angel, ver. 7. This commences the more
_literal_ statement of what is meant by these symbols. See the Analysis
of the chapter. ¶ _The waters which thou sawest._ See Notes on ver. 1.
¶ _Are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues._ For an
explanation of these terms, see Notes on ch. vii. 9. The meaning here
is, (a) that these waters _represent_ a multitude of people. This is a
common and an obvious symbol――for outspread seas or raging floods would
naturally represent such a multitude. See Is. viii. 7, 8; xvii. 12, 13;
Je. xlvii. 2. Comp. _Iliad_, v. 394. The sense here is, that vast
numbers of people would be subject to the power here represented by
the woman. (b) They would be composed of different nations, and would
be of different languages. It is unnecessary to show that this, in
both respects, is applicable to the Papacy. Nations have been, and
are subject to its control, and nations speaking a large part of the
languages of the world. Perhaps under no one government――not even the
Babylonian, the Macedonian, or the ancient Roman――was there so great a
diversity of people, speaking so many different languages, and having
so different an origin.

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast,
[537]these shall hate the whore, and shall [538]make her
desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and [539]burn her
with fire.

16. _And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast._ Ver. 3.
The ten powers or kingdoms represented by those horns. See Notes on
ver. 12. ¶ _These shall hate the whore._ There _seems_ to be some
incongruity between this statement and that which was previously made.
In the former (ver. 12‒14), these ten governments are represented as in
alliance with the beast; as “giving all their power and strength” unto
it; and as uniting with it in making war with the Lamb. What is here
said must, therefore, refer to some subsequent period, indicating some
great change in their feelings and policy. We have seen the evidence
of the fulfilment of the former statements. This statement will be
accomplished if these same powers, represented by the ten horns, that
were formerly in alliance with the Papacy, shall become its enemy, and
contribute to its final overthrow. That is, it will be accomplished if
the nations of Europe, embraced within the limits of those ten kingdoms,
shall become hostile to the Papacy, and shall combine for its overthrow.
Is anything more probable than this? France (see Notes on ch. xvi.) has
already struck more than one heavy blow on that power; England has been
detached from it; many of the states of Italy are weary of it, and are
ready to rise up against it; and nothing is more probable than that
Spain, Portugal, France, Lombardy, and the Papal States themselves,
will yet throw off the yoke for ever, and put an end to a power that
has so long ruled over men. It was with the utmost difficulty, in 1848,
that the Papal power was sustained, and this was done only by foreign
swords; the Papacy could not probably be protected in another such
outbreak. And this passage leads us to anticipate that the period will
come――and that probably not far in the future――when those powers that
have for so many ages sustained the Papacy will become its determined
foes, and will rise in their might and bring it for ever to an end.
¶ _And shall make her desolate and naked._ Strip her of all her power
and all her attractiveness. {395} That is, applied to Papal Rome,
all that is so gorgeous and alluring――her wealth, and pomp, and
splendour――shall be taken away, and she will be seen as she is, without
anything to dazzle the eye or to blind the mind. ¶ _And shall eat her
flesh._ Shall completely destroy her――_as if_ her flesh were consumed.
Perhaps the image is taken from the practice of cannibals eating the
flesh of their enemies slain in battle. If so, nothing could give a
more impressive idea of the utter destruction of this formidable power,
or of the feelings of those by whom its end would be brought about.
¶ _And burn her with fire._ Another image of total destruction. Perhaps
the meaning may be, that after her _flesh_ was eaten, such parts of
her as remained would be thrown into the fire and consumed. If this be
the meaning, the image is a very impressive one to denote absolute and
total destruction. Comp. Notes on ch. xviii. 8.

17 For [540]God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will,
and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast,
[541]until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

17. _For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will._ That is, in
regard to the destruction of this mighty power. They would be employed
as his agents in bringing about his designs. Kings and princes are
under the control of God, and, whatever may be their own designs, they
are in fact employed to accomplish _his_ purposes, and are instruments
in _his_ hands. See Notes on Is. x. 7. Comp. Ps. lxxvi. 10. ¶ _And to
agree._ See ver. 13. That is, they act harmoniously in their support
of this power, and so they will in its final destruction. ¶ _And give
their kingdom unto the beast._ Notes, ver. 13. ¶ _Until the words of
God shall be fulfilled._ Not for ever; not as a permanent arrangement.
God has fixed a limit to the existence of this power. When his purposes
are accomplished, these kingdoms will withdraw their support, and this
mighty power will fall to rise no more.

18 And the woman which thou sawest is [542]that great city,
which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

18. _And the woman which thou sawest._ Ver. 3. ¶ _Is that great city._
Represents that great city. ¶ _Which reigneth over the kings of the
earth._ Rome would of course be understood by this language in the time
of John, and all the circumstances, as we have seen, combined to show
that Rome, in some form of its dominion, is intended. Even the _name_
could hardly have designated it more clearly, and all expositors agree
in supposing that Rome, either as Pagan or as Christian, is referred
to. The chapter shows that its power is limited; and that, although
for purposes which he saw to be wise, God allows it to have a wide
influence over the nations of the earth, yet, in his own appointed
time, the very powers that have sustained it will become its foes, and
combine for its overthrow. Europe needs but little farther provocation,
and the fires of liberty, which have been so long pent up, will break
forth, and that storm of indignation which has expelled the Jesuits
from all the courts of Europe; which has abolished the Inquisition;
which has more than once led hostile armies to the very gates of Papal
Rome, will again be aroused in a manner which cannot be allayed, and
that mighty power, which has controlled so large a part of the nations
of Europe for more than a thousand years of the world’s history, will
come to an end.

CHAPTER XVIII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter may be regarded as a still further _explanatory episode_
(comp. Anal. to ch. xvii.), designed to show the _effect_ of pouring
out the seventh vial (ch. xvi. 17‒21) on the formidable Antichristian
power so often referred to. The description in this chapter is that
of a rich merchant-city reduced to desolation, and is but carrying
out the general idea under a different form. The chapter comprises the
following points:――

(1) Another angel is seen descending from heaven, having great power,
and making proclamation that Babylon the great is fallen, and is become
utterly desolate, ver. 1‒3.

(2) A warning voice is heard from heaven, calling on the people of
God to come out of her, and to be partakers neither of her sins nor her
plagues. Her torment and sorrow would be proportionate to her pride and
luxury; and her plagues would come upon her suddenly; {396} death, and
mourning, and famine, and consumption by fire, ver. 4‒8.

(3) Lamentation over her fall――by those especially who had been
connected with her; who had been corrupted by her; who had been
profited by her, ver. 9‒19. (a) By kings, ver. 9, 10. They had lived
deliciously with her, and they would lament her. (b) By merchants,
ver. 11‒17. They had trafficked with her, but now that traffic was to
cease, and no man would buy of her. Their business, so far as she was
concerned, was at an end. All that she had accumulated was now to be
destroyed; all her gathered riches were to be consumed; all the traffic
in those things by which she had been enriched was to be ended; and
the city that was more than all others enriched by these things, as if
clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold,
and precious stones, and pearls, was to be destroyed for ever. (c) By
ship-masters and seamen, ver. 17‒19. They had been made rich by this
traffic, but now all was ended; the smoke of her burning is seen to
ascend, and they stand afar off and weep.

(4) Rejoicing over her fall, ver. 20. Heaven is called upon to rejoice,
and the holy apostles and prophets, for their blood is avenged, and
persecution ceases in the earth.

(5) The final destruction of the city, ver. 21‒24. A mighty angel takes
up a stone and casts it into the sea as an emblem of the destruction
that is to come upon it. The voice of harpers, and musicians, and
pipers would be heard no more in it; and no craftsmen would be there,
and the sound of the millstone would be heard no more, and the light of
a candle would shine no more there, and the voice of the bridegroom and
bride would be heard no more.

CHAPTER XVIII.

AND after these things I saw another angel come down from
heaven, having great power; and the[543]earth was lightened
with his glory.

1. _And after these things._ After the vision referred to in the
previous chapter. ¶ _I saw another angel come down from heaven._
Different from the one that had last appeared, and therefore coming
to make a new communication to him. It is not unusual in this book
that different communications should be intrusted to different angels.
Comp. ch. xiv. 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18. ¶ _Having great power._ That is,
he was one of the higher rank or order of angels. ¶ _And the earth
was lightened with his glory._ The usual representation respecting the
heavenly beings. Comp. Ex. xxiv. 16; Mat. xvii. 2; Lu. ii. 9; Ac. ix. 3.
This would, of course, add greatly to the magnificence of the scene.

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
[544]Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is
[545]become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every
foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

2. _And he cried mightily._ Literally, “he cried with a strong great
voice.” See ch. x. 3. ¶ _Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen._ See
Notes on ch. xiv. 8. The proclamation here is substantially the same
as in that place, and no doubt the same thing is referred to. ¶ _And
is become the habitation of devils._ Of demons――in allusion to the
common opinion that the demons inhabited abandoned cities, old ruins,
and deserts. See Notes on Mat. xii. 43‒45. The language here is taken
from the description of Babylon in Is. xiii. 20‒22; and for a full
illustration of the meaning, see Notes on that passage. ¶ _And the hold
of every foul spirit_――φυλακὴ. A watch-post, station, haunt of such
spirits. That is, they, as it were, _kept guard_ there; were stationed
there; haunted the place. ¶ _And a cage of every unclean and hateful
bird._ That is, they would resort there, and abide there as in a cage.
The word translated “cage” is the same which is rendered “hold”――φυλακὴ.
In Is. xiii. 21, it is said, “and owls shall dwell there;” and in Is.
xiv. 23, it is said that it would be a “possession for the bittern.”
The idea is that of utter desolation; and the meaning here is, that
spiritual Babylon――Papal Rome (ch. xiv. 8)――will be reduced to a state
of utter desolation resembling that of the real Babylon. It is not
necessary to suppose this of the _city_ of Rome itself――for that is not
the object of the representation. It is the _Papacy_, represented {397}
under the image of the city, and having its seat there. _That_ is to be
destroyed as utterly as was Babylon of old; that will become as odious,
and loathsome, and detestable as the literal Babylon, the abode of
monsters is.

3 For [546]all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath
of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed
fornication with her, and the [547]merchants of the earth are
waxed rich through the [548]abundance of her delicacies.

3. _For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication._ See Notes on ch. xiv. 8. This is given as a _reason_
why this utter ruin had come upon her. She had beguiled and corrupted
the nations of the earth, leading them into estrangement from God, and
into pollution and sin. See Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21. ¶ _And the kings
of the earth have committed fornication with her._ Spiritual adultery;
that is, she has been the means of seducing them from God and leading
them into sinful practices. ¶ _And the merchants of the earth are
waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies._ The word rendered
“_abundance_” here, means commonly _power_. It might here denote
_influence_, though it may also mean _number_, _quantity_, _wealth_.
Comp. ch. iii. 8, where the same word is used. The word rendered
_delicacies_――στρήνους――occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It
properly means _rudeness_, _insolence_, _pride_; and hence _revel_,
_riot_, _luxury_. It may be rendered here properly luxury, or proud
voluptuousness; and the reference is to such luxuries as are found
commonly in a great, a gay, and a splendid city. These, of course,
give rise to much traffic, and furnish employment to many merchants and
sailors, who thus procure a livelihood, or become wealthy as the result
of such traffic. Babylon――or Papal Rome――is here represented under the
image of such a luxurious city; and of course, when she falls, they
who have thus been dependent on her, and who have been enriched by
her, have occasion for mourning and lamentation. It is not necessary to
expect to find a _literal_ fulfilment of this, for it is emblematic and
symbolical. The image of a great, rich, splendid, proud and luxurious
city having been employed to denote that Antichristian power, all that
is said in this chapter follows, of course, on its fall. The general
idea is, that she was doomed to utter desolation, and that all who were
connected with her, far and near, would be involved in her ruin.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, [549]Come out
of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and
that ye receive not of her plagues.

4. _And I heard another voice from heaven._ He does not say whether
this was the voice of an angel, but the idea seems rather to be that
it is the voice of God. ¶ _Come out of her, my people._ The reasons
for this, as immediately stated, are two: (a) that they might not
participate in her sins; and (b) that they might not be involved in
the ruin that would come upon her. The _language_ seems to be derived
from such passages in the Old Testament as the following:――“Go ye forth
of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing,” Is.
xlviii. 20. “Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man
his soul; be not cut off in her iniquity,” Je. li. 6. “My people, go
ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the
fierce anger of the Lord,” Je. li. 45. Comp. Je. l. 8. ¶ _That ye be
not partakers of her sins._ For the meaning of this expression, see
Notes on 1 Ti. v. 22. It is implied here that by remaining in Babylon
they would lend their sanction to its sins by their presence, and would,
in all probability, become contaminated by the influence around them.
This is an universal truth in regard to iniquity, and hence it is the
duty of those who would be pure to come out from the world, and to
separate themselves from all the associations of evil. ¶ _And that ye
receive not of her plagues._ Of the punishment that was to come upon
her――as they must certainly do if they remained in her. The judgment of
God that was to come upon the guilty city would make no discrimination
among those who were found there; and if they would escape these woes
they must make their escape from her. As applicable to Papal Rome, in
view of her impending ruin, this means, (a) that there might be found
in her some who were the true people of God; (b) that it was their
duty to separate wholly from her――a command that will not only justify
the Reformation, but which would have made a longer continuance in
communion {398} with the Papacy, when her wickedness was fully seen, an
act of guilt before God; (c) that they who remain in such a communion
cannot but be regarded as partaking of her sin; and (d) that if
they remain, they must expect to be involved in the calamities that
will come upon her. There never was any duty plainer than that of
withdrawing from Papal Rome; there never has been any act attended
with more happy consequences than that by which the Protestant world
separated itself for ever from the sins and the plagues of the Papacy.

5 For her sins have [550]reached unto heaven, and God hath
[551]remembered her iniquities.

5. _For her sins have reached unto heaven._ So in Je. li. 9, speaking
of Babylon, it is said, “For her judgment reacheth unto heaven, and is
lifted up even to the skies.” The meaning is not that the sins of this
mystical Babylon were like a mass or pile so high as to reach to heaven,
but that it had become so prominent as to attract the attention of God.
Comp. Ge. iv. 10, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from
the ground.” See also Ge. xviii. 20. ¶ _And God hath remembered her
iniquities._ He had _seemed_ to forget them, or not to notice them,
but now he acted as if they had come to his recollection. See Notes on
ch. xvi. 19.

6 Reward[552]her even as she rewarded you, and double unto
her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath
filled, fill to her double.

6. _Reward her even as she rewarded you._ It is not said to whom this
command is addressed, but it would seem to be to those who had been
persecuted and wronged. Applied to mystical Babylon――Papal Rome――it
would seem to be a call on the nations that had been so long under her
sway, and among whom, from time to time, so much blood had been shed
by her, to arise now in their might, and to inflict deserved vengeance.
See Notes on ch. xvii. 16, 17. ¶ _And double unto her double according
to her works._ That is, bring upon her double the amount of calamity
which she has brought upon others; take ample vengeance upon her. Comp.
for similar language, Is. xl. 2, “She hath received of the Lord’s hand
_double_ for all her sins.” “For your shame ye shall have double,” Is.
lxi. 7. ¶ _In the cup which she hath filled._ To bring wrath on others.
Notes, ch. xiv. 8. ¶ _Fill to her double._ Let her drink abundantly
of the wine of the wrath of God――double that which she has dealt out
to others. That is, either let the _quantity_ administered to her be
doubled, or let the ingredients in the cup be doubled in intensity.

7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously,
so much torment and sorrow give her; for she saith in her
heart, [553]I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no
sorrow.

7. _How much she hath glorified herself._ Been proud, boastful,
arrogant. This was true of ancient Babylon, that she was proud and
haughty; and it has been no less true of mystical Babylon――Papal
Rome. ¶ _And lived deliciously._ By as much as she has lived in
luxury and dissoluteness, so let her suffer now. The word used here
and rendered _lived deliciously_――ἐστρηνίασε――is derived from the
noun――στρῆνος――which is used in ver. 3, and rendered _delicacies_.
See Notes on that verse. It means properly, “to live strenuously,
rudely,” as in English, “to live _hard_;” and then to revel, to live
in luxury, riot, dissoluteness. No one can doubt the propriety of this
as descriptive of ancient Babylon, and as little can its propriety be
doubted as applied to Papal Rome. ¶ _So much torment and sorrow give
her._ Let her punishment correspond with her sins. This is expressing
substantially the same idea which occurs in the previous verse. ¶ _For
she saith in her heart._ This is the estimate which she forms of
herself. ¶ _I sit a queen._ Indicative of pride, and of an asserted
claim to rule. ¶ _And am no widow._ Am not in the condition of a
widow――a state of depression, sorrow, and mourning. All this indicates
security and self-confidence, a description in every way applicable to
Papal Rome. ¶ _And shall see no sorrow._ This is indicative of a state
where there was nothing feared, not withstanding all the indications
which existed of approaching calamity. In {399} this state we may
expect to find Papal Rome, even when its last judgments are about to
come upon it; in this state it has usually been; in this state it is
now, notwithstanding all the indications that are abroad in the world
that its power is waning, and that the period of its fall approaches.

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and
mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly [554]burned
with fire: for [555]strong _is_ the Lord God who judgeth her.

8. _Therefore._ In consequence of her pride, arrogance, and luxury,
and of the calamities that she has brought upon others. ¶ _Shall her
plagues come in one day._ They shall come in a time when she is living
in ease and security; and they shall come at the same time――so that
all these terrible judgments shall seem to be poured upon her at once.
¶ _Death._ This expression, and those which follow, are designed to
denote the same thing under different images. The general meaning is,
that there would be utter and final destruction. It would be _as if_
death should come and cut off the inhabitants. ¶ _And mourning._ As
there would be where many were cut off by death. ¶ _And famine._ As
if famine raged within the walls of a besieged city, or spread over
a land. ¶ _And she shall be utterly burned with fire._ As completely
destroyed _as if_ she were entirely burned up. The certain and complete
destruction of that formidable Antichristian power is predicted under
a great variety of emphatic images. See ch. xiv. 10, 11; xvi. 17‒21;
xvii. 9, 16. _Perhaps_ in this so frequent reference to a final
destruction of that formidable Antichristian power by _fire_, there
may be more intended than merely a figurative representation of its
final ruin. There is some degree of probability, at least, that Rome
itself will be literally destroyed in this manner, and that it is
in this way that God intends to put an end to the Papal power, by
destroying that which has been so long the seat and the centre of this
authority. The extended prevalence of this belief, and the grounds
for it, may be seen from the following remarks:――(1) It was an early
opinion among the Jewish rabbies that Rome would be thus destroyed.
Vitringa, on the Apocalypse, cites some opinions of this kind; the
Jewish expectation being founded, as he says, on the passage in Is.
xxxiv. 9, as Edom was supposed to mean Rome. “This chapter,” says
Kimchi, “points out the future destruction of Rome, here called
Bozra, for Bozra was a great city of the Edomites.” This is, indeed,
_worthless_ as a proof or an interpretation of Scripture, for it is a
wholly unfounded interpretation; it is of value only as showing that
somehow the Jews entertained this opinion. (2) The same expectation
was entertained among the early Christians. Thus Mr. Gibbon (vol. i.
p. 263, ch. xv.), referring to the expectations of the glorious reign
of the Messiah on the earth (comp. Notes on ch. xiv. 8), says, speaking
of Rome as the mystic Babylon, and of its anticipated destruction:
“A regular series was prepared [in the minds of Christians] of all
the moral and physical evils which can afflict a flourishing nation;
intestine discord, and the invasion of the fiercest barbarians from
the unknown regions of the north; pestilence and famine, comets and
eclipses, earthquakes and inundations. All these were only so many
preparatory and alarming signs of the great catastrophe of Rome,
when the country of the Scipios and Cæsars should be consumed by a
flame from heaven, and the city of the seven hills, with her palaces,
her temples, and her triumphal arches, should be buried in a vast
lake of fire and brimstone.” So even Gregory the Great, one of the
most illustrious of the Roman pontiffs, himself says, acknowledging
his belief in the truth of the tradition: Roma à Gentilibus non
exterminabitur; sed tempestatibus, coruscis turbinibus, ac terræ motu,
in se marcescet (_Dial._ ii. 15). (3) Whatever may be thought of these
opinions and expectations, there is _some_ foundation for the opinion
in the nature of the case. (a) The region is adapted to this. “It
is not Ætna, the Lipari volcanic islands, Vesuvius, that alone offer
visible indications of the physical adaptedness of Italy for such a
catastrophe. The great Apennine mountain-chain is mainly volcanic in
its character, and the country of Rome more especially is as strikingly
so almost as that of Sodom itself.” Thus the mineralogist Ferber, in
his _Tour in Italy_, says: “The road from Rome to Ostia is all volcanic
ashes till within two miles of Ostia.” “From Rome to Tivoli I went on
fields and hills of volcanic {400} ashes or _tufa_.” “A volcanic hill
in an amphitheatrical form includes a part of the plain over Albano,
and a flat country of volcanic ashes and hills to Rome. The ground
about Rome is generally of that nature,” pp. 189, 191, 200, 234.
(b) Mr. Gibbon, with his usual accuracy, _as if_ commenting on the
Apocalypse, has referred to the physical adaptedness of the soil of
Rome for such an overthrow. Speaking of the anticipation of the end
of the world among the early Christians, he says: “In the opinion
of a general conflagration, the faith of the Christian very happily
coincided with the tradition of the East, the philosophy of the Stoics,
and the analogy of nature; _and even the country, which, from religious
motives, had been chosen for the origin and principal scene of the
conflagration, was the best adapted for that purpose by natural and
physical causes_; by its deep caverns, beds of sulphur, and numerous
volcanoes, of which those of Ætna, of Vesuvius, and of Lipari, exhibit
a very imperfect representation,” vol. i. p. 263, ch. xv. As to the
_general_ state of Italy, in reference to volcanoes, the reader may
consult, with advantage, Lyell’s _Geology_, book ii. ch. ix.‒xii.
See also Murray’s _Encyclopædia of Geography_, book ii. ch. ii. Of
the country around Rome it is said in that work, among other things:
“The country around Rome, and also the hills on which it is built, is
composed of tertiary marls, clays, and sandstones, and intermixed with
a preponderating quantity of granular and lithoidal volcanic tufas. The
many lakes around Rome are formed by craters of ancient volcanoes.” “On
the road to Rome is the Lake of Vico, formerly the Lacus Cimini, which

has all the appearance of a crater.”

The following extract from a recent traveller will still further
confirm this representation:――“I behold everywhere――in Rome, near Rome,
and through the whole region from Rome to Naples――most astounding proof,
not merely of the possibility, but the probability, that the whole
region of central Italy will one day be destroyed by such a catastrophe
[by earthquakes or volcanoes]. The soil of Rome is _tufa_, with a
volcanic subterranean action going on. At Naples the boiling sulphur
is to be seen bubbling near the surface of the earth. When I drew a
stick along the ground, the sulphurous smoke followed the indentation;
and it would never surprise me to hear of the utter destruction of
the southern peninsula of Italy. The entire country and district is
volcanic. It is saturated with beds of sulphur and the substrata of
destruction. It seems as certainly prepared for the flames, as the wood
and coal on the hearth are prepared for the taper which shall kindle
the fire to consume them. The divine hand alone seems to me to hold the
element of fire in check by a miracle as great as that which protected
the cities of the plain, till the righteous Lot had made his escape to
the mountains” (Townsend’s _Tour in Italy_ in 1850). ¶ _For strong |is|
the Lord God who judgeth her._ That is, God has ample power to bring
all these calamities upon her.

9 And the [556]kings of the earth, who have committed
fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her,
and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her
burning,

9. _And the kings of the earth._ This verse commences the description
of the _lamentation_ over the fall of the mystical Babylon (see the
Analysis of the chapter). ¶ _Who have committed fornication._ That is,
who have been seduced by her from the true God, and have been led into
practical idolatry. Notes on ch. xiv. 8. The _kings_ of the earth seem
to be represented as among the chief mourners, because they had derived
important aid from the power which was now to be reduced to ruin. As a
matter of fact, the kings of Europe have owed much of their influence
and power to the support which has been derived from the Papacy, and
when _that_ power shall fall, there will fall much that has contributed
to sustain oppressive and arbitrary governments, and that has prevented
the extension of popular liberty. In fact, Europe might have been
long since free, if it had not been for the support which despotic
governments have derived from the Papacy. ¶ _And lived deliciously with
her._ In the same kind of luxury and dissoluteness of manners. See ver.
3, 7. The courts of Europe, under the Papacy, have had the same general
character for dissoluteness and licentiousness as Rome itself. The same
views of religion produce the same effects everywhere. ¶ _Shall bewail
her, and lament for her._ Because their ally is destroyed, and {401}
the source of their power is taken away. The fall of the Papacy will be
the signal for a general overturning of the thrones of Europe. ¶ _When
they shall see the smoke of her burning._ When they shall see her on
fire, and her smoke ascending towards heaven. Notes on ch. xiv. 11.

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas,
alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for [557]in
one hour is thy judgment come.

10. _Standing afar off for the fear of her torment._ Not daring to
approach, to attempt to rescue and save her. They who had so long
contributed to the support of the Papal power, and who had, in turn,
been upheld by that, would not now even attempt to rescue her, but
would stand by and see her destroyed, unable to render relief. ¶ _Alas,
alas, that great city Babylon._ The language of lamentation that so
great and so mighty a city should fall. ¶ _For in one hour is thy
judgment come._ See Notes on ver. 8. The general sentiment here is,
that, in the final ruin of Papal Rome, the kings and governments that
had sustained her, and had been sustained by her, would see the source
of their power taken away, but that they would not, or could not
attempt her rescue. There have been not a few indications already that
this will ultimately occur, and that the Papal power will be left to
fall, without any attempt, on the part of those governments which have
been so long in alliance with it, to sustain or restore it.

11 And the [558]merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn
over her; for no man buyeth her merchandise any more;

11. _And the merchants of the earth._ Who have been accustomed to
traffic with her, and who have been enriched by the traffic. The image
is that of a rich and splendid city. Of course, such a city depends
much on its merchandise; and when it declines and falls, many who
had been accustomed to deal with it, as merchants or traffickers, are
affected by it, and have occasion to lament its fall. ¶ _Shall weep
and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more._
The merchandise which they were accustomed to take to the city, and
by the sale of which they lived. The enumeration of the articles of
merchandise which follows, seems to have been inserted for the purpose
of filling out the representation of what is usually found in such a
city, and to show the desolation which would occur when this traffic
was suspended.

12 The merchandise of [559]gold, and silver, and precious
stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk,
and scarlet, and all [560]thyine wood, and all manner vessels
of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of
brass, and iron, and marble,

12. _The merchandise of gold, and silver._ Of course, these
constitute an important article of commerce in a great city. ¶ _And
precious stones._ Diamonds, emeralds, rubies, &c. These have always
been important articles of traffic in the world, and, of course, most
of the traffic in them would find its way to great commercial cities.
¶ _And pearls._ See Notes on Mat. vii. 6; xiii. 46. These, too,
have been always, and were, particularly in early times, valuable
articles of commerce. Mr. Gibbon mentions them as among the articles
that contributed to the luxury of Rome in the age of the Antonines:
“precious stones, among which the pearl claimed the first rank after
the diamond,” vol. i. p. 34. ¶ _And fine linen._ This was also a
valuable article of commerce. It was obtained chiefly from Egypt.
See Notes on Is. xix. 9. Linen, among the ancients, was an article of
luxury, for it was worn chiefly by the rich, Ex. xxviii. 42; Le. vi. 10;
Lu. xvi. 19. The original word here is βύσσος, _byssus_, and it is
found in the New Testament only in this place, and in Lu. xvi. 19. It
was a “species of fine cotton, highly prized by the ancients.” Various
kinds are mentioned――as that of Egypt, the cloth which is still found
wrapped around mummies; that of Syria, and that of India, which grew
on a tree similar to the poplar; and that of Achaia, which grew in the
vicinity of Elis. See Rob. _Lex._ ¶ _And purple._ See Notes on Lu. xvi.
19. Cloth of this colour was a valuable article of commerce, as it was
worn by rich men and princes. ¶ _And silk._ Silk was a very valuable
article of commerce, as it was costly, and could be worn only by the
{402} rich. It is mentioned by Mr. Gibbon as such an article in Rome
in the age of the Antonines:――“Silk, a pound of which was esteemed
not inferior in value to a pound of gold,” vol. i. p. 34. On the
cultivation and manufacture of silk by the ancients, see the work
entitled, _The History of Silk, Cotton, Linen, and Wool, &c._,
published by Harper Brothers, New York, 1845, pp. 1‒21. ¶ _And scarlet._
See Notes on ch. xvii. 3. ¶ _And all thyine wood._ The word here
used――θύϊνον――occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes an
evergreen African tree, from which statues and costly vessels were made.
It is not agreed, however, whether it was a species of cedar, savin,
or lignum-vitæ, which latter constitutes the modern genus _Thuja_, or
_Thyia_. See Rees’ _Cyclo._, art. “Thuja.” ¶ _And all manner vessels
of ivory._ Everything that is made of ivory. Ivory, or the tusk of
the elephant, has always been among the precious articles of commerce.
¶ _And all manner vessels of most precious wood._ Furniture of costly
wood――cedar, the citron tree, lignum-vitæ, &c. ¶ _And of brass, and
iron, and marble._ Brass or copper would, of course, be a valuable
article of commerce. The same would be the case with iron; and so
marble, for building, for statuary, &c., would likewise be.

13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense,
and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts,
and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and [561]slaves, and
[562]souls of men.

13. _And cinnamon._ Cinnamon is the aromatic bark of the _Laurus
Cinnamomam_, which grows in Arabia, India, and especially in the island
of Ceylon. It was formerly, as it is now, a valuable article in the
Oriental trade. ¶ _And odours._ Aromatics employed in religious worship,
and for making perfumes. Mr. Gibbon (vol. i. p. 34) mentions, among
the articles of commerce and luxury, in the age of the Antonines,
“a variety of aromatics that were consumed in religious worship and
the pomp of funerals.” It is unnecessary to say that the use of such
odours has been always common at Rome. ¶ _And ointments._ Unguents――as
spikenard, &c. These were in common use among the ancients. See
Notes on Mat. xiv. 7; Mar. xiv. 3. ¶ _And frankincense._ See Notes on
Mat. ii. 11. It is unnecessary to say that _incense_ has been always
much used in public worship in Rome, and that it has been, therefore,
a valuable article of commerce there. ¶ _And wine._ An article of
commerce and luxury in all ages. ¶ _And oil._ That is, olive oil.
This, in ancient times, and in Oriental countries particularly, was an
important article of commerce. ¶ _And fine flour._ The word here means
the best and finest kind of flour. ¶ _And beasts, and sheep, and horses.
_ Also important articles of merchandise. ¶ _And chariots._ The word
here used――ῥεδῶν――means, properly a carriage with four wheels, or a
carriage drawn by mules (Prof. Stuart). It was properly a travelling
carriage. The word is of Gallic origin (Quinctil. i. 9; Cic. _Mil._ 10;
_Att._ v. 17; vi. 1. See Adam’s _Rom. Ant._ p. 525). It was an article
of luxury. ¶ _And slaves._ The Greek here is σωμάτων――“_of bodies_.”
Prof. Stuart renders it _grooms_, and supposes that it refers to
a particular kind of slaves who were employed in taking care of
horses and carriages. The word properly denotes _body_――_an animal
body_――whether of the human body, living or dead, or the body of a
beast; and then the external man――the person, the individual. In later
usage, it comes to denote a slave (see Rob. _Lex._), and in this sense
it is used here. The traffic in slaves was common in ancient times, as
it is now. We know that this traffic was carried on to a large extent
in ancient Rome, the city which John probably had in his eye in this
description. See Gibbon, _Dec. and Fall_, vol. i. pp. 25, 26. Athenæus,
as quoted by Mr. Gibbon (p. 26), says that “he knew very many Romans
who possessed, not for use, but for ostentation, ten, and even twenty
thousand slaves.” It should be said here, however, that although this
refers evidently to traffic in slaves, it is not necessary to suppose
that it would be literally characteristic of Papal Rome. All this
is symbolical, designed to exhibit the Papacy under the image of a
great city, with what was customary in such a city, or with what most
naturally presented itself to the imagination of John as found in such
a city; and it is no more necessary to suppose that the Papacy would be
engaged in the traffic of slaves, than in the traffic of cinnamon, or
fine flour, or sheep and horses. {403} ¶ _And souls of men._ The word
used, and rendered _souls_――ψυχὰς――though commonly denoting the soul
(properly the breath, or vital principle), is also employed to denote
the living thing――the animal――in which the soul or vital principle
resides; and hence may denote a person or a man. Under this form it
is used to denote a _servant_ or _slave_. See Rob. _Lex._ Professor
Robinson supposes that the word here means _female slaves_, in
distinction from those designated by the previous word. Professor
Stuart (_in loco_) supposes that the previous word denotes a particular
kind of slaves――those who had the care of horses――and that the word
here is used in a generic sense, denoting slaves in general. This
kind of traffic in the “persons” or _souls_ of men is mentioned as
characterizing ancient Tyre, in Eze. xxvii. 13: “Javan, Tubal, and
Meshech, they were thy merchants; they traded in the persons of men.”
It is not quite clear why, in the passage before us, this traffic is
mentioned in two forms, as that of the _bodies_ and the _souls_ of
men; but it would seem most probable that the writer meant to designate
_all_ that would properly come under this traffic, whether male or
female slaves were bought and sold; whether they were for servitude,
or for the gladiatorial sports (see Wetstein, _in loco_); whatever
might be the _kind_ of servitude that they might be employed in,
and whatever might be their condition in life. The use of the _two_
words would include all that is implied in the traffic, for, in most
important senses, it extends to the body and the soul. In slavery both
are purchased; both are supposed, so far as he can avail himself of
them, to become the property of the master.

14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from
thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed
from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

14. _And the fruits that thy soul lusted after._ Literally, “the fruits
of the desire of thy soul.” The word rendered fruits――ὀπώρα――properly
means, _late summer_; _dog-days_, the time when Sirius, or the Dog-star,
is predominant. In the East this is the season when the fruits ripen,
and hence the word comes to denote _fruit_. The reference is to any
kind of fruit that would be brought for traffic into a great city, and
that would be regarded as an article of luxury. ¶ _Are departed from
thee._ That is, they are no more brought for sale into the city. ¶ _And
all things which were dainty and goodly._ These words “characterize
all kinds of furniture and clothing which were gilt, or plated, or
embroidered, and therefore were bright or splendid” (Professor Stuart).
¶ _And thou shalt find them no more at all._ The address here is
decidedly to the city itself. The meaning is, that they would no more
be found there.

15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her,
shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and
wailing,

15. _The merchants of these things._ Who trafficked in these things,
and who supplied the city with them, ver. 11. ¶ _Which were made rich
by her._ By traffic with her. ¶ _Shall stand afar off._ Ver. 10. ¶ _For
fear of her torment._ Struck with terror by her torment, so that they
did not dare to approach her, ver. 10.

16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was
[563]clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and
decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

16. _And saying, Alas, alas_, &c. Notes on ver. 10. ¶ _That was clothed
in fine linen._ In the previous description (ver. 12, 13), these are
mentioned as articles of traffic; here the city, under the image of
a female, is represented as clothed in the most rich and gay of these
articles. ¶ _And purple, and scarlet._ See Notes on ch. xvii. 3, 4.
Comp. ver. 12 of this chapter. ¶ _And decked with gold, and precious
stones, and pearls._ Notes on ch. xvii. 4.

17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And
[564]every ship-master, and all the company in ships, and
sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

17. _For in one hour._ In a very brief period――so short, that it
seemed to them to be but one hour. In the prediction (ver. 8), it is
said that it would be “in one day” (see Notes on that place); here it
is said that, to the lookers-on, it _seemed_ to be but an hour. There
is no inconsistency, therefore, between the {404} two statements. ¶ _So
great riches is come to nought._ All the accumulated wealth of so great
and rich a city. This should have been united with ver. 16, as it is a
part of the lamentation of the merchants, and as the lamentation of the
mariners commences in the other part of the verse. It is so divided in
the Greek Testaments. ¶ _And every ship-master._ This introduces the
lamentation of the mariners, who would, of course, be deeply interested
in the destruction of a city with which they had been accustomed to
trade, and by carrying merchandise to which they had been enriched. The
word _ship-master_――κυβερνήτης――means, properly, a _governor_; then a
governor of a ship――the _steersman_ or _pilot_, Ac. xxvii. 11. ¶ _And
all the company in ships._ Professor Stuart renders this _coasters_.
There is here, however, an important difference in the reading of the
text. The commonly received text is, πᾶς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ὁ ὅμιλος――“the
whole company in ships,” as in our common version; the reading which
is now commonly adopted, and which is found in Griesbach, Hahn, and
Tittmann, is ὁ ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων――“he who sails to a place;” that is, he
who sails from one place to another along the coast, or who does not
venture out far to sea; and thus the phrase would denote a secondary
class of sea-captains or officers――those less venturesome, or
experienced, or bold than others. There can be little doubt that this
is the correct reading (comp. Wetstein, _in loco_); and hence the class
of seamen here referred to is _coasters_. Such seamen would naturally
be employed where there was a great and luxurious maritime city, and
would have a deep interest in its fall. ¶ _And sailors._ Common seamen.
¶ _And as many as trade by sea._ In any kind of craft, whether employed
in a near or a remote trade. ¶ _Stood afar off._ Notes on ver. 10.

18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying,
What[565] _city_ is like unto this great city!

18. _And cried_, &c. That is, as they had a deep interest in it,
they would, on their own account, as well as hers, lift up the voice
of lamentation. ¶ _What_ city is _like unto this great city_? In her
destruction. What calamity has ever come upon a city like this?

19 And they [566]cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping
and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein
were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her
costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

19. _And they cast dust on their heads._ A common sign of lamentation
and mourning among the Orientals. See Notes on Job ii. 12. ¶ _By reason
of her costliness._ The word rendered _costliness_――τιμιότητος――means,
properly, _preciousness_, _costliness_; their magnificence, costly
merchandise. The luxury of a great city enriches many individuals,
however much it may impoverish itself. ¶ _For in one hour is she made
desolate._ So it seemed to them. Notes on ver. 17.

20 Rejoice[567] over her, _thou_ heaven, and _ye_ holy
apostles and prophets; for God hath [568]avenged you on her.

20. _Rejoice over her._ Over her ruin. There is a strong contrast
between this language and that which precedes. Kings, merchants,
and seamen, who had been countenanced and sustained by her in the
indulgence of corrupt passions, or who had been enriched by traffic
with her, would have occasion to mourn. But not so they who had been
persecuted by her. Not so the church of the redeemed. Not so heaven
itself. The great oppressor of the church, and the corrupter of the
world, was now destroyed; the grand hindrance to the spread of the
gospel was now removed, and all the holy in heaven and on earth would
have occasion to rejoice. This is not the language of vengeance, but it
is the language of exultation and rejoicing in view of the fact, that
the cause of truth might now spread, without hindrance, through the
earth. ¶ _|Thou| heaven._ The inhabitants of heaven. Comp. Notes on Is.
i. 2. The meaning here is, that the dwellers in heaven――the holy angels
and the redeemed――had occasion to rejoice over the downfall of the
great enemy of the church. ¶ _And |ye| holy apostles._ Professor Stuart
renders this, “Ye saints, and apostles, and prophets.” In the common
Greek text, it is, as in our version, “holy apostles and prophets.”
In the text of Griesbach, Hahn, and Tittmann, the word καὶ (_and_) is
interposed between the word “_holy_” and “_apostle_.” This {405} is,
doubtless, the true reading. The meaning, then, is that the _saints_ in
heaven are called on to rejoice over the fall of the mystical Babylon.
¶ _Apostles._ The twelve who were chosen by the Saviour to be his
_witnesses_ on earth. See Notes on 1 Co. ix. 1. The word is commonly
limited to the twelve, but, in a larger sense, it is applied to other
distinguished teachers and preachers of the gospel. See Notes on Ac.
xiv. 14. There is no impropriety, however, in supposing that the
apostles are referred to here _as_ such, since they would have occasion
to rejoice that the great obstacle to the reign of the Redeemer was now
taken away, and that that cause in which they had suffered and died was
now to be triumphant. ¶ _And prophets._ Prophets of the Old Testament
and distinguished teachers of the New. See Notes on Ro. xii. 6. All
these would have occasion to rejoice in the prospect of the final
triumph of the true religion. ¶ _For God hath avenged you on her._
Has taken vengeance on her for her treatment of you. That is, as she
had persecuted the church _as such_, they all might be regarded as
interested in it and affected by it. All the redeemed, therefore, in
earth and in heaven, are interested in whatever tends to retard or to
promote the cause of truth. All have occasion to mourn when the enemies
of the truth triumph; to rejoice when they fall.

21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone,
and cast _it_ into the sea, saying, [569]Thus with violence
shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be
found no more at all.

21. _And a mighty angel._ Notes on ver. 1. This seems, however, to have
been a different angel from the one mentioned in ver. 1, though, like
that, he is described as having great power. ¶ _Took up a stone like
a great millstone._ On the structure of mills among the ancients see
Notes on Mat. xxiv. 41. ¶ _And cast |it| into the sea._ As an emblem
of the utter ruin of the city; an indication that the city would be as
completely destroyed as that stone was covered by the waters. ¶ _Saying,
Thus with violence._ With force, as the stone was thrown into the sea.
The idea is, that it would not be by a gentle and natural decline,
but by the application of foreign power. This accords with all the
representations in this book, that violence will be employed to
overthrow the Papal power. See ch. xvii. 16, 17. The origin of this
image is probably Je. li. 63, 64: “And it shall be, when thou hast made
an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and
cast it into the midst of Euphrates; and thou shalt say, Thus shall
Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring on
her.”

22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers,
and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and
no craftsman, of whatsoever craft _he be_, shall be found any
more in thee; and [570]the sound of a millstone shall be heard
no more at all in thee;

22. _And the voice of harpers._ Those who play on the harp. This
was usually accompanied with singing. The idea, in this verse and
the following, is substantially the same as in the previous parts of
the chapter, that the mystical Babylon――Papal Rome――would be brought
to utter desolation. This thought is here exhibited under another
form――that all which constituted festivity, joy, and amusement, and
all that indicated thrift and prosperity, would disappear. Of course,
in a great and gay city, there would be all kinds of music; and when
it is said that this would be heard there no more it is a most striking
image of utter desolation. ¶ _And musicians._ Musicians in general;
but perhaps here _singers_, as distinguished from those who played on
instruments. ¶ _And of pipers._ Those who played on pipes or flutes.
See Notes on 1 Co. xiv. 7; Mat. xi. 17. ¶ _And trumpeters._ Trumpets
were common instruments of music, employed on festival occasions,
in war, and in worship. Only the principal instruments of music are
mentioned here, as representatives of the rest. The general idea is,
that the sound of music, as an indication of festivity and joy, would
cease. ¶ _Shall be heard no more at all in thee._ It would become
utterly and permanently desolate. ¶ _And no craftsman, of whatsoever
craft._ That is, artificers of all kinds would cease to ply their
trades there. The word here used――τεχνίτης――would include all artisans
or mechanics, all who were engaged in any kind of trade or craft. The
meaning here is, that all these would disappear, an image, {406} of
course, of utter decay. ¶ _And the sound of a millstone shall be heard
no more._ Taylor (_Frag. to Cal._ _Dict._ vol. iv. p. 346) supposes that
this may refer not so much to the rattle of the mill as to the voice
of singing, which usually accompanied grinding. The sound of a mill is
cheerful, and indicates prosperity; its ceasing is an image of decline.

23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in
thee; and the [571]voice of the bridegroom and of the bride
shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy [572]merchants
were the great men of the earth; for by thy [573]sorceries
were all nations deceived.

23. _And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee._
Another image of desolation, as if every light were put out, and
there were total darkness. ¶ _And the voice of the bridegroom and
of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee._ The merry and
cheerful voice of the marriage procession in the streets (Notes on Mat.
xxv. 1‒7), or the cheerful, glad voice of the newly-married couple in
their own dwelling (Notes on Jn. iii. 29). ¶ _For thy merchants were
the great men of the earth._ Those who dealt with thee were the rich,
and among them were even nobles and princes; and now that they trade
with thee no more there is occasion for lamentation and sorrow. The
contrast is great between the time when distinguished foreigners
crowded thy marts, and now, when none of any kind come to traffic with
thee. The origin of this representation is probably the description of
Tyre in Eze. xxvii. ¶ _For by thy sorceries were all nations deceived._
This is stated as a reason for the ruin that had come upon her. It
is a common representation of Papal Rome that she has _deceived_ or
_deluded_ the nations of the earth (see Notes on ch. xiii. 14), and no
representation ever made accords more with facts as they have occurred.
The word _sorceries_ here refers to the various arts――the tricks,
impostures, and false pretences by which this has been done. See Notes
on ch. ix. 21.

24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints,
and of [574]all that were slain upon the earth.

24. _And in her._ When she came to be destroyed, and her real
character was seen. ¶ _Was found the blood of prophets._ Of the public
teachers of the true religion. On the word _prophets_ see Notes on
ver. 20. ¶ _And of saints._ Of the holy. See Notes on ver. 20. ¶ _And
of all that were slain upon the earth._ So numerous have been the
slain, so constant and bloody have been the persecutions there, that
it may be said that all the blood ever shed has been poured out there.
Comp. Notes on Mat. xxiii. 35. No one can doubt the propriety of this
representation with respect to Pagan and Papal Rome.

In regard to the general meaning and application of this chapter the
following remarks may be made:――

(1) It refers to Papal Rome, and is designed to describe the final
overthrow of that formidable Antichristian power. The whole course of
the interpretation of the previous chapters demands such an application,
and the chapter itself naturally suggests it.

(2) If it be asked why so much of this imagery is derived from the
condition of a _maritime_ power, or pertains to _commerce_, since
both Babylon and Rome were at some distance from the sea, and neither
could with propriety be regarded as seaport towns, it may be replied,
(a) that the main idea in the mind of John was that of a rich and
magnificent city; (b) that all the things enumerated were doubtless
found, in fact, in both Babylon and Rome; (c) that though not properly
seaport towns, they were situated on rivers that opened into seas, and
were therefore not unfavourably situated for commerce; and (d) that,
in fact, they traded with all parts of the earth. The leading idea is
that of a great and luxurious city, and this is filled up and decorated
with images of what is commonly found in large commercial towns. We are
not, therefore, to look for a _literal_ application of this, and it is
not necessary to attempt to find _all_ these things, in fact, in the
city referred to. Much of the description may be for the mere sake of
_keeping_, or ornament.

(3) If this refers to Rome, as is supposed, then, in accordance with
the previous representations, it shows that the destruction of the
Papal power is to be complete and final. The image which John had in
his eye as illustrating that was undoubtedly ancient Babylon {407}
as prophetically described in Is. xiii., xiv., and the destruction of
the power here referred to is to be as complete as was the destruction
described there. It would not be absolutely necessary in the fulfilment
of this to suppose that Rome itself is to become a heap of ruins like
Babylon, whatever may be true on that point, but that the Papal power,
as such, is to be so utterly destroyed that the ruins of desolate
Babylon would properly represent it.

(4) If this interpretation is correct, then the Reformation was in
entire accordance with what God would have his people do, and was
demanded by solemn duty to him. Thus, in ver. 4 of this chapter, his
people are expressly commanded to “come out of her, that they might
not be partakers of her sins, nor of her plagues.” If it had been
the design of the Reformers to perform a work that should be in all
respects a fulfilling of the command of God, they could have done
nothing that would have more literally met the divine requirement.
Indeed, the church has never performed a duty more manifestly in
accordance with the divine will, and more indispensable for its own
purity, prosperity, and safety, than the act of separating entirely
and for ever from Papal Rome.

(5) The Reformation was a great movement in human affairs. It was
the index of great progress already reached, and the pledge of still
greater. The affairs of the world were at that period placed on a new
footing, and from the period of the Reformation, and just in proportion
as the principles of the Reformation are acted on, the destiny of
mankind is _onward_.

(6) The fall of Papal Rome, as described in this chapter, will remove
one of the last obstructions to the final triumph of the gospel. In
the Notes on ch. xvi. 10‒16, we saw that _one_ great hindrance to the
spread of the true religion would be taken away by the decline and
fall of the Turkish power. A still more formidable hindrance will be
taken away by the decline and fall of the Papal power; for that power
holds more millions of the race under its subjection, and with a more
consummate art, and a more powerful spell. The Papal influence has been
felt, and still is felt, in a considerable part of the world. It has
churches, and schools, and colleges, in almost all lands. It exercises
a vast influence over governments. It has powerful societies organized
for the purpose of propagating its opinions; and it so panders to some
of the most powerful passions of our nature, and so converts to its own
purposes all the resources of superstition, as still to retain a mighty,
though a waning hold on the human mind. When this power shall finally
cease, anyone can see that perhaps _the_ most mighty obstruction which
has ever been on the earth for a thousand years to the spread of the
gospel will have been removed, and the way will be prepared for the
introduction of the long-hoped-for millennium.

CHAPTER XIX.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter, as well as the last, is an episode, delaying the final
catastrophe, and describing more fully the effect of the destruction of
the mystical Babylon. The chapter consists of the following parts:――

I. A hymn of the heavenly hosts in view of the destruction of the
mystical Babylon, ver. 1‒7. (a) A voice is heard in heaven shouting
Hallelujah, in view of the fact that God had judged the great harlot
that had corrupted the earth, ver. 1, 2. (b) The sound is echoed and
repeated as the smoke of her torment ascends, ver. 3. (c) The four
and twenty elders, and the four living creatures, as interested in all
that pertains to the church, unite in that shout of Hallelujah, ver. 4.
(d) A voice is heard from the throne commanding them to praise God,
ver. 5; and (e) the mighty shout of Hallelujah is echoed and repeated
from unnumbered hosts, ver. 6, 7.

II. The marriage of the Lamb, ver. 8, 9. The Lamb of God is united
to his bride――the church――never more to be separated; and after all
the persecutions, conflicts, and embarrassments which had existed,
this long-desired union is consummated, and the glorious triumph of
the church is described under the image of a joyous wedding ceremony.

III. John is so overcome with this representation, that in his
transports of feeling he prostrates himself before the angel who shows
him all this, ready to _worship_ one who discloses such bright and
glorious scenes, ver. 10. He is gently rebuked for allowing himself
to be so overcome that he would render divine homage to any creature,
and is told that he who communicates this to {408} him is but a
fellow-servant, and that God only is to be worshipped.

IV. The final conquest over the beast and the false prophet, and
the subjugation of all the foes of the church, ver. 11‒21. (a) A
description of the conqueror――the Son of God, ver. 11‒16. He appears on
a white horse――emblem of victory. He has on his head many crowns; wears
a vesture dipped in blood; is followed by the armies of heaven on white
horses; from his mouth goes a sharp sword; and his name is prominently
written on his vesture and his thigh――all emblematic of certain victory.
(b) An angel is seen standing in the sun, calling on all the fowls of
heaven to come to the great feast prepared for them in the destruction
of the enemies of God――_as if_ there were a great slaughter sufficient
to supply all the fowls that feed on flesh, ver. 17, 18. (c) The
final war, ver. 19, 21. The beast, and the kings of the earth, and
their armies are gathered together for battle; the beast and the false
prophet are taken, and are cast into the lake that burns with fire and
brimstone; and all that remain of the enemies of God are slain, and the
fowls are satisfied with their flesh. The last obstacle that prevented
the dawn of the millennial morning is taken away, and the church is
triumphant.

CHAPTER XIX.

AND after these things I heard a [575]great voice of much
people in heaven, saying, [576]Alleluia; [577]Salvation, and
glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

1. _And after these things._ The things particularly that were
exhibited in the previous chapter. See Notes on ch. xviii. 1. ¶ _I
heard a voice of much people in heaven._ The voice of the worshippers
before the throne. ¶ _Saying, Alleluia._ The Greek method of writing
_Hallelujah_. This word――ἀλληλούϊα――occurs in the New Testament
only in this chapter, ver. 1, 3, 4, 6. The Hebrew phrase――הַלְלוּ יָהּ _
Hallelujah_――occurs often in the Old Testament. It means, properly,
_Praise Jehovah_, or _Praise the Lord_. The _occasion_ on which it is
introduced here is very appropriate. It is uttered by the inhabitants
of heaven, in the immediate presence of God himself, and in view of
the final overthrow of the enemies of the church, and the triumph of
the gospel. In such circumstances it was fit that heaven should render
praise, and that a song of thanksgiving should be uttered in which all
holy beings could unite. ¶ _Salvation._ That is, the salvation is to be
ascribed to God. See Notes on ch. vii. 10. ¶ _And glory, and honour._
Notes on ch. v. 12. ¶ _And power._ Notes on ch. v. 13. ¶ _Unto the Lord
our God._ That is, all that there is of honour, glory, power, in the
redemption of the world belongs to God, and should be ascribed to him.
This is expressive of the true feelings of piety always; this will
constitute the song of heaven.

2 For [578]true and righteous _are_ his judgments: for he hath
judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her
fornication, and hath [579]avenged the blood of his servants
at her hand.

2. _For true and righteous |are| his judgments._ That is, the
calamities that come upon the power here referred to are deserved.
¶ _For he hath judged the great whore._ The power represented by the
harlot. See Notes on ch. xvii. 1. ¶ _Which did corrupt the earth with
her fornication._ See Notes on ch. xiv. 8; xvii. 2, 4, 5; xviii. 3.
Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 21. ¶ _And hath avenged the blood of his
servants._ See Notes on ch. xviii. 20, 24. ¶ _At her hand._ Shed by
her hand.

3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her [580]smoke rose up
for ever and ever.

3. _And again they said, Alleluia._ Notes on ver. 1. The event was so
glorious and so important; the final destruction of the great enemy
of the church was of so much moment in its bearing on the welfare of
the world, as to call forth repeated expressions of praise. ¶ _And
her smoke rose up for ever and ever._ See Notes on ch. xiv. 11. This
is an image of final ruin; the image being derived probably from the
description in Genesis of the smoke that ascended from the cities of
the plain, Ge. xix. 28. On the joy expressed here in her destruction,
comp. Notes on ch. xviii. 20.

4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down
and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen;
Alleluia.

4. _And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts._ See Notes
on ch. iv. 4, 6, 7. As representatives of the church, {409} and as
interested in its welfare, they are now introduced as rejoicing in its
final triumph, and in the destruction of its last foe. ¶ _Fell down._
Prostrated themselves――the usual posture of worship. ¶ _And worshipped
God that sat on the throne._ Ch. iv. 2, 3, 10. That is, they now
adored him for what he had done in delivering the church from all its
persecutions, and causing it to triumph in the world. ¶ _Saying, Amen._
See Notes on Mat. vi. 13. The word here is expressive of approbation of
what God had done; or of their solemn assent to all that had occurred
in the destruction of the great enemy of the church. ¶ _Alleluia._
Notes on ver. 1. The repetition of this word so many times shows the
intenseness of the joy of heaven in view of the final triumph of the
church.

5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, [581]Praise our
God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and
great.

5. _And a voice came out of the throne._ A voice seemed to come from
the very midst of the throne. It is not said by whom this voice was
uttered. It cannot be supposed, however, that it was uttered by God
himself, for the command which it gave was this: “Praise _our_ God,”
&c. For the same reason it seems hardly probable that it was the voice
of the Messiah, unless it be supposed that he here identifies himself
with the redeemed church, and speaks of God as _his_ God and _hers_. It
would seem rather that it was a responsive voice that came from those
nearest the throne, calling on all to unite in praising God in view of
what was done. The meaning then will be, that all heaven was interested
in the triumph of the church, and that one portion of the dwellers
there called on the others to unite in offering thanksgiving. ¶ _Praise
our God._ The God that we worship. ¶ _All ye his servants._ All in
heaven and earth; all have occasion for thankfulness. ¶ _And ye that
fear him._ That reverence and obey him. The fear of the Lord is a
common expression in the Scriptures to denote true piety. ¶ _Both small
and great._ All of every class and condition――poor and rich――young and
old; those of humble and those of exalted rank. Comp. Ps. cxlviii. 7‒13.

6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude,
and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of
many thunderings, saying, Alleluia; [582]for the Lord God
omnipotent reigneth.

6. _And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude._ In ver. 1
he says that he “heard a great voice of much people;” here he says he
“heard _as it were_ a voice of a great multitude.” That is, in the
former case he heard a shout that he at once recognized as the voice
of a great multitude of persons; here he says that he heard a sound not
distinctly recognized at first as such, but which _resembled_ such a
shout of a multitude. In the former case it was _distinct_; here it was
confused――bearing a resemblance to the sound of roaring waters, or to
muttering thunder, but less distinct than the former. This phrase would
imply (a) _a louder_ sound; and (b) that the sound was more remote, and
therefore less clear and distinct. ¶ _And as the voice of many waters._
The comparison of the voices of a host of people with the roar of
mighty waters is not uncommon in the Scriptures. See Notes on Is.
xvii. 12, 13. So in Homer:――

“The monarch spoke, and straight a murmur rose,
Loud as the surges when the tempest blows;
That dash’d on broken rocks tumultuous roar,
And foam and thunder on the stony shore.”

¶ _And as the voice of mighty thunderings._ The loud, deep, heavy
voice of thunder. The distant shouts of a multitude may properly
be represented by the sound of heavy thunder. ¶ _Saying, Alleluia._
Notes on ver. 1. This is the _fourth_ time in which this is uttered as
expressive of the joy of the heavenly hosts in view of the overthrow
of the enemies of the church. The occasion will be worthy of this
emphatic expression of joy. ¶ _For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth._
Jehovah――God Almighty――the true God. The meaning is, that as the last
enemy of the church is destroyed, he now truly reigns. This is the
result of his _power_, and therefore it is proper that he should be
praised as the _omnipotent_ or _Almighty God_――for he has shown that
he can overcome all his enemies, and bring the world to his feet.

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the
[583]marriage of the Lamb is come, and his [584]wife hath made
herself ready.

{410} 7. _Let us be glad and rejoice._ Let all in heaven rejoice――for
all have an interest in the triumph of truth; all should be glad that
the government of God is set up over an apostate world. ¶ _And give
honour to him._ Because the work is glorious; and because it is by his
power alone that it has been accomplished. Notes on ch. v. 12. ¶ _For
the marriage of the Lamb is come._ Of the Lamb of God――the Redeemer
of the world. Notes on ch. v. 6. The relation of God, and especially
of the Messiah, to the church, is often in the Scriptures represented
under the image of marriage. See Notes on Is. liv. 4‒6; lxii. 4, 5;
2 Co. xi. 2; Ep. v. 23‒33. Comp. Je. iii. 14; xxxi. 32; Ho. ii. 19, 20.
The idea is also said to be common in Arabic and Persian poetry. It is
to be remembered, also, that Papal Rome has just been represented as
a gay and meretricious woman; and there is a propriety, therefore, in
representing the true church as a pure bride, the Lamb’s wife, and the
final triumph of that church as a joyous marriage. The meaning is, that
the church was now to triumph and rejoice as if in permanent union with
her glorious head and Lord. ¶ _And his wife hath made herself ready._
By putting on her beautiful apparel and ornaments. All the preparations
had been made far a permanent and uninterrupted union with its Redeemer,
and the church was henceforward to be recognized as his beautiful bride,
and was no more to appear as a decorated harlot――as it had during the
Papal supremacy. Between the church under the Papacy, and the church
in its true form, there is all the difference which there is between
an abandoned woman gaily decked with gold and jewels, and a pure virgin
chastely and modestly adorned, about to be led to be united in bonds of
love to a virtuous husband.

8 And to her was granted that she should be [585]arrayed in
fine linen, clean and [586]white: for the fine linen is the
[587]righteousness of saints.

8. _And to her was granted._ It is not said here _by whom_ this was
granted, but it is perhaps implied that this was conferred by the
Saviour himself on his bride. ¶ _That the should be arrayed in fine
linen, clean and white._ See Notes on ch. iii. 4, 5, 18; vii. 13.
_White_ has, perhaps, in all countries been the usual colour of the
bridal dress――as an emblem of innocence. ¶ _For the fine linen is the
righteousness of saints._ Represents the righteousness of the saints;
or is an emblem of it. It should be remarked, however, that it is
implied here, as it is everywhere in the Scriptures, that this is not
their _own_ righteousness, for it is said that this was “_given_” to
the bride――to the saints. It is the gracious bestowment of their Lord;
and the reference here must be to that righteousness which they obtain
by faith――the righteousness which results from justification through
the merits of the Redeemer. Of this Paul speaks, when he says (Phi.
iii. 9), “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness,
which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith.” Comp. Notes on Ro. iii. 25, 26.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, [588]Blessed _are_ they which
are called unto the [589]marriage-supper of the Lamb. And he
saith unto me, These[590]are the true sayings of God.

9. _And he saith unto me._ The angel who made these representations
to him. See ver. 10. ¶ _Write, Blessed |are| they._ See Notes on ch.
xiv. 13. ¶ _Which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lamb._
The idea of a festival, or a marriage-supper, was a familiar one to the
Jews to represent the happiness of heaven, and is frequently found in
the New Testament. Comp. Notes on Lu. xiv. 15, 16; xvi. 22; xxii. 16;
Mat. xxii. 2. The image in the passage before us is that of many
_guests_ invited to a great festival. ¶ _And he saith unto me, These
are the true sayings of God._ Confirming all by a solemn declaration.
The importance of what is here said; the desirableness of having
it fixed in the mind, amidst the trials of life and the scenes of
persecution through which the church was to pass, makes this solemn
declaration proper. The idea is, that in all times of persecution――in
every dark hour of despondency――the church, as such, and every
individual member of the church, should receive it as a solemn truth
never to be doubted, that the religion of Christ would finally {411}
prevail, and that all persecution and sorrow here would be followed by
joy and triumph in heaven.

10 And[591] I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said
unto me, See _thou do it_ not: I am thy fellow-servant, and of
thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus; worship God:
for the [592]testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

10. _And I fell at his feel to worship him._ At the feet of the angel.
Notes on ver. 9. This is a common posture of adoration in the East. See
Rosenmüller’s _Morgenland_, _in loco_. Notes on 1 Co. xiv. 25. John was
entirely overcome with the majesty of the heavenly messenger, and with
the amazing truths that he had disclosed to him, and in the overflowing
of his feelings he fell upon the earth in the posture of adoration.
Or it may be that he mistook the rank of him who addressed him, and
supposed that he was the Messiah whom he had been accustomed to worship,
and who had first (ch. i.) appeared to him. If so, his error was
soon corrected. He was told by the angel himself who made these
communications that he had no claims to such homage, and that the
praise which he offered _him_ should be rendered to God alone. It
should be observed that there is not the slightest intimation that
this _was_ the Messiah himself, and consequently this does not contain
any evidence that it would be improper to worship him. The only fair
conclusion from the passage is, that it is wrong to offer religious
homage to an angel. ¶ _And he said unto me, See |thou do it| not._ That
is, in rendering the homage which you propose to me, you would in fact
render it to a creature. This may be regarded as an admonition to be
_careful_ in our worship; not to allow our feelings to overcome us; and
not to render that homage to a creature which is due to God alone. Of
course, this would prohibit the worship of the Virgin Mary, and of any
of the saints, and all that homage rendered to a created being which
is due to God only. Nothing is more carefully guarded in the Bible
than the purity and simplicity of worship; nothing is more sternly
rebuked than idolatry; nothing is more contrary to the divine law
than rendering in any way that homage to a creature which belongs of
right to the Creator. It was necessary to guard even John, the beloved
disciple, on that subject; how much more needful, therefore, is it
to guard the church at large from the dangers to which it is liable.
¶ _I am thy fellow-servant._ Evidently this was an angel, and yet he
here speaks of himself as a “fellow-servant” of John. That is, he was
engaged in the service of the same God; he was endeavouring to advance
the same cause, and to honour the same Redeemer. The sentiment is,
that in promoting religion in the world, we are associated with angels.
It is no condescension in them to be engaged in the service of the
Redeemer, though it seems to be condescension for them to be associated
with us in anything; it constitutes no ground of merit in us to be
engaged in the service of the Redeemer (comp. Lu. xvii. 10), though
we may regard it as an honour to be associated with the angels, and it
may raise us in conscious dignity to feel that we are united with them.
¶ _And of thy brethren._ Of other Christians; for all are engaged in
the same work. ¶ _That have the testimony of Jesus._ Who are witnesses
for the Saviour. It is possible that there may be here a particular
reference to those who were engaged in preaching the gospel, though
the language will apply to all who give their testimony to the value of
the gospel by consistent lives. ¶ _Worship God._ He is the only proper
object of worship; he alone is to be adored. ¶ _For the testimony
of Jesus._ The meaning here seems to be, that this angel, and John,
and their fellow-servants, were all engaged in the same work――that of
bearing their testimony to Jesus. Thus, in this respect, they were on a
level, and one of them should not worship another, but all should unite
in the common worship of God. No one in this work, though an angel,
could have such a pre-eminence that it would be proper to render
the homage to him which was due to God alone. There _could be_ but
one being whom it was proper to worship, and they who were engaged
in simply bearing _testimony_ to the work of the Saviour should not
worship one another. ¶ _Is the spirit of prophecy._ {412} The design
of prophecy is to bear testimony to Jesus. The language does not
mean, of course, that this is the _only_ design of prophecy, but that
this is its great and ultimate end. The word _prophecy_ here seems to
be used in the large sense in which it is often employed in the New
Testament――meaning to make known the divine will (see Notes on Ro. xii.
6), and the _primary_ reference here would seem to be to the preachers
and teachers of the New Testament. The sense is, that their grand
business is to bear testimony to the Saviour. They are all――whether
angels, apostles, or ordinary teachers――appointed for this, and
therefore should regard themselves as “fellow-servants.” The _design_
of the angel in this seems to have been, to state to John what was his
own specific business in the communications which _he_ made, and then
to state a universal truth applicable to _all_ ministers of the gospel,
that they were engaged in the same work, and that no one of them should
claim adoration from others. Thus understood, this passage has no
direct reference to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and teaches
nothing in regard to their design, though it is _in fact_ undoubtedly
true that their grand and leading object was to bear testimony to the
future Messiah. But this passage will not justify the attempt so often
made to “find Christ” everywhere in the prophecies of the Old Testament,
or justify the many forced and unnatural interpretations by which the
prophecies are often applied to him.

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a [593]white horse;
and he that sat upon him _was_ [594]called Faithful and True,
and [595]in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

11. _And I saw heaven opened._ He saw a new vision, _as if_ an opening
were made through the sky, and he was permitted to look _into_ heaven.
See Notes on ch. iv. 1. ¶ _And behold, a white horse._ On the white
horse as a symbol, see Notes on ch. vi. 2. He is here the symbol of
the final victory that is to be obtained over the beast and the false
prophet (ver. 20), and of the final triumph of the church. ¶ _And he
that sat upon him |was| called Faithful and True._ He is not designated
here by his usual and real name, but by his attributes. There can be no
doubt that the Messiah is intended, as he goes forth to the subjugation
of the world to himself. The attributes here referred to――_faithful_
and _true_――are peculiarly appropriate, for they are not only strongly
marked attributes of his character, but they would be particularly
manifested in the events that are described. He would thus show that he
was _faithful_――or worthy of the confidence of his church in delivering
it from all its enemies; and _true_ to all the promises that he has
made to it. ¶ _And in righteousness he doth judge._ All his acts of
judgment in determining the destiny of men are righteous. See Notes on
Is. xi. 3‒5. ¶ _And make war._ That is, the war which he wages is not
a war of ambition; it is not for the mere purpose of conquest; it is to
save the righteous, and to punish the wicked.

12 His[596] eyes _were_ as a flame of fire, and on his head
_were_ [597]many crowns; and he had a [598]name written, that
no man knew but he himself.

12. _His eyes |were| as a flame of fire._ See Notes on ch. i. 14.
¶ _And on his head |were| many crowns._ Many diadems, indicative of his
universal reign. It is not said _how_ these were worn or arranged on
his head――perhaps the various diadems worn by kings were in some way
_wreathed_ into one. ¶ _And he had a name written._ That is, probably
on the frontlet of this compound diadem. Comp. Notes on ch. xiii. 1;
xiv. 1. ¶ _That no man knew but he himself._ See Notes on ch. ii. 17.
This cannot here mean that no one could _read_ the name, but the idea
is, that no one but himself could fully understand its import. It
involved a depth of meaning, and a degree of sacredness, and a relation
to the Father, which he alone could apprehend in its true import.
This is true of the name here designated――“the Word of God”――the
_Logos_――Λόγος; and it is true of _all_ the names which he bears.
See Mat. xi. 27. Comp. a quotation from Dr. Buchanan in the _Asiatic
Researches_, vol. i. vi. p. 264, as quoted by Rosenmüller, _Morgenland_,
_in loco_.

13 And he _was_ clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and
his name is called [599]The Word of God.

13. _And he was clothed with a vesture {413} dipped in blood._ Red, _as
if_ dipped in blood――emblem of slaughter. The original of this image is
probably Is. lxiii. 2, 3. See Notes on that passage. ¶ _And his name is
called The Word of God._ The name which in ver. 12, it is said that no
one knew but he himself. This name is Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, or “the Logos
of God.” That is, this is his peculiar name; a name which belongs only
to him, and which distinguishes him from all other beings. The name
_Logos_, as applicable to the Son of God, and expressive of his nature,
is found in the New Testament only in the writings of John, and is used
by him to denote the higher or divine nature of the Saviour. In regard
to its meaning, and the reason why it is applied to him, see Notes on
Jn. i. 1. The reader also may consult, with great advantage, an article
by Professor Stuart in the _Bibliotheca Sacra_, vol. vii. pp. 16‒31.
The following _may be_ some of the reasons why it is said (ver. 12)
that no one understands this but he himself:――(1) No one but he can
understand its _full import_, as it implies so high a knowledge of the
nature of the Deity; (2) no one but he can understand the _relation_
which it supposes in regard to God, or the relation of the Son to
the Father; (3) no one but he can understand what is implied in it,
regarded as the method in which God reveals himself to his creatures
on earth; (4) no one but he can understand what is implied in it in
respect to the manner in which God makes himself known to other worlds.
It may be added, as a further illustration of this, that none of the
attempts made to explain it have left the matter so that there are no
questions unsolved which one would be glad to ask.

14 And the armies _which were_ in heaven followed him upon
white horses, [600]clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

14. _And the armies |which were| in heaven followed him._ The heavenly
hosts; particularly, it would seem, the redeemed, as there would be
some incongruity in representing the angels as riding in this manner.
Doubtless the original of this picture is Is. lxiii. 3: “I have
trodden the wine-press _alone_, and of the people there was none with
me.” These hosts of the redeemed on white horses accompany him to be
witnesses of his victory, and to participate in the joy of the triumph,
not to engage in the work of blood. ¶ _Upon white horses._ Emblems
of triumph or victory. See Notes on ch. vi. 2. ¶ _Clothed in fine
linen, white and clean._ The usual raiment of those who are in heaven,
as everywhere represented in this book. See ch. iii. 4, 5; iv. 4;
vii. 9, 13; xv. 6.

15 And [601]out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with
it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a
[602]rod of iron: and [603]he treadeth the wine-press of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

15. _And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword._ See Notes on ch.
i. 16. In that place the sword seems to be an emblem of his _words_ or
_doctrines_, as penetrating the hearts of men; here it is the emblem
of a work of destruction wrought on his foes. ¶ _That with it he should
smite the nations._ The nations that were opposed to him; to wit, those
especially who were represented by the beast and the false prophet,
ver. 18‒20. ¶ _And he shall rule them with a rod of iron._ See Notes on
ch. ii. 27; xii. 5. ¶ _And he treadeth the wine-press of the fierceness
and wrath of Almighty God._ This language is probably derived from Is.
lxiii. 1‒4. See it explained in the Notes on that place, and on ch.
xiv. 19, 20. It means here that his enemies would be certainly crushed
before him――as grapes are crushed under the feet of him that treads in
the wine-vat.

16 And he hath on _his_ vesture and on his thigh a name
written, KING[604] OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

16. _And he hath on |his| vesture._ That is, this name was
conspicuously written on his garment――probably his military robe.
¶ _And on his thigh._ The robe or military cloak may be conceived
of as open and flowing, so as to expose the limbs of the rider; and
the idea is, that the name was conspicuously written not only on the
flowing robe, but on the other parts of his dress, so that it _must_ be
conspicuous whether his military cloak were wrapped closely around him,
or whether it was open to the breeze. Grotius supposes {414} that this
name was on the edge or hilt of the sword which depended from his thigh.
¶ _A name written._ Or a title descriptive of his character. ¶ _King of
kings, and Lord of lords._ As in ch. xvii. 5, so here, there is nothing
in the original to denote that this should be distinguished, as it is,
by capital letters. As a conspicuous title, however, it is not improper.
It means that he is, in fact, the sovereign over the kings of the earth,
and that all nobles and princes are under his control――a rank that
properly belongs to the Son of God. Comp. Notes on Ep. i. 20‒22. See
also ver. 12 of this chapter. The custom here alluded to of inscribing
the name or rank of distinguished individuals on their garments, so
that they might be readily recognized, was not uncommon in ancient
times. For full proof of this, see Rosenmüller, _Morgenland_, vol. iii.
pp. 232‒236. The authorities quoted there are, Thevenot’s _Travels_,
vol. i. p. 149; Gruter, p. 989; Dempster’s _Etruria Regalis_, t. ii.
tab. 93; Montfauçon, _Antiq. Expliq._ t. iii. tab. 39. Thus Herodotus
(vol. ii. p. 196), speaking of the figures of Sesostris in Ionia, says
that, “Across his breast, from shoulder to shoulder, there is this
inscription in the sacred characters of Egypt, ‘I conquered this
country by the force of my arms.’” Comp. Cic. _Verr._ iv. 23; Le Moyne
_ad_ Jer. xxiii. 6; Münter, _Diss. ad Apoc._ xvii. 5, as referred to by
Professor Stuart, _in loco_.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with
a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst
of heaven, [605]Come and gather yourselves together unto the
supper of the great God;

17. _And I saw an angel standing in the sun._ A different angel
evidently from the one which had before appeared to him. The _number_
of angels that appeared to John, as referred to in this book, was
very great, and each one came on a new errand, or with a new message.
Everyone must be struck with the image here. The description is as
simple as it can be; and yet as sublime. The fewest words possible are
used; and yet the image is distinct and clear. A heavenly being stands
in the blaze of the brightest of the orbs that God permits us here to
see――yet not consumed, and himself so bright that he can be distinctly
seen amidst the dazzling splendours of that luminary. It is difficult
to conceive of an image more sublime than this. _Why_ he has his place
in the sun is not stated, for there does not _appear_ to be anything
more intended by this than to give grandeur and impressiveness to
the scene. ¶ _And he cried with a loud voice._ So that all the fowls
of heaven could hear. ¶ _Saying to all the fowls that fly in the
midst of heaven._ That is, to all the birds of prey――all that feed on
flesh――such as hover over a battle-field. Comp. Notes on Is. xviii. 6;
lvi. 9. See also Je. vii. 33; xii. 9; Eze. xxxix. 4‒20. ¶ _Come and
gather yourselves together._ All this imagery is taken from the idea
that there would be a great slaughter, and that the bodies of the dead
would be left unburied to the birds of prey. ¶ _Unto the supper of the
great God._ As if the great God were about to give you a feast――to wit,
the carcasses of those slain. It is called “_his_ supper” because he
gives it; and the image is merely that there would be a great slaughter
of his foes, as is specified in the following verse.

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of
captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses,
and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all _men, both_
free and bond, both small and great.

18. _That ye may eat the flesh of kings._ Of the kings under the
control of the beast and the false prophet, ch. xvi. 14; xvii. 12‒14.
¶ _And the flesh of captains._ Of those subordinate to kings in command.
The Greek word is χιλιάρχων――_chiliarchs_――denoting captains of a
thousand, or, as we should say, commanders of a regiment. The word
_colonel_ would better convey the idea with us; as he is the commander
of a regiment, and a regiment is usually composed of about a thousand
men. ¶ _And the flesh of mighty men._ The word here means strong, and
the reference is to the robust soldiery――rank and file in the army.
¶ _And the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them._ Cavalry――for
most armies are composed in part of horsemen. ¶ _And the flesh of
all |men, both| free and bond._ Freemen and {415} slaves. It is not
uncommon that freemen and slaves are mingled in the same army. This was
the case in the American Revolution, and is common in the East. ¶ _Both
small and great._ Young and old; of small size and of great size;
of those of humble, and those of exalted rank. The later armies of
Napoleon were composed in great part of conscripts, many of whom were
only about eighteen years of age, and to this circumstance many of his
later defeats are to be traced. In the army that was raised after the
invasion of Russia no less than one hundred and fifty thousand of the
conscripts were between eighteen and nineteen years of age (Alison’s
_History of Europe_, vol. iv. p. 27). Indeed, it is common in most
armies that a considerable portion of the enlistments are from those
in early life; and besides this, it is usual to employ mere boys on
various services about a camp.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their
armies, gathered[606] together to make war against him that
sat on the horse, and against his army.

19. _And I saw the beast._ Notes on ch. xiii. 1, 11. Comp. ch.
xvii. 13. ¶ _And the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered
together._ There is allusion here to the same assembling of hostile
forces which is described in ch. xvi. 13, 14, for the great decisive
battle that is to determine the destiny of the world――the question
whether the Messiah or Antichrist shall reign. There can be no doubt
that the writer in these passages designed to refer to the same
events――the still future scenes that are to occur when the Roman, the
Pagan, and the Mahometan powers shall be aroused to make common cause
against the true religion, and shall stake all on the issue of the
great conflict. See the Notes on ch. xvi. 13, 14. ¶ _Against him that
sat on the horse._ The Messiah――the Son of God. Notes on ver. 11.
¶ _And against his army._ The hosts that are associated with him――his
redeemed people. Notes on ver. 14.

20 And the [607]beast was taken, and with him the false
prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he
deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and
them that worshipped his image. These both were [608]cast
alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

20. _And the beast was taken._ That is, was taken alive, to be thrown
into the lake of fire. The hosts were slain (ver. 21), but the leaders
were made prisoners of war. The _general_ idea is, that these armies
were overcome, and that the Messiah was victorious; but there is a
propriety in the representation here that the leaders――the authors of
the war――should be taken captive, and reserved for severer punishment
than death on the battle-field would be――for they had stirred up their
hosts, and summoned these armies to make rebellion against the Messiah.
The _beast_ here, as all along, refers to the Papal power; and the idea
is that of its complete and utter overthrow, _as if_ the leader of an
army were taken captive and tormented in burning flames, and all his
followers were cut down on the field of battle. ¶ _And with him the
false prophet._ As they had been _practically_ associated together,
there was a propriety that they should share the same fate. In regard
to the false prophet, and the nature of this alliance, see Notes on
ch. xvi. 13. ¶ _That wrought miracles before him._ That is, the false
prophet had been united with the beast in deceiving the nations of the
earth. See Notes on ch. xvi. 14. ¶ _With which he deceived them that
had received the mark of the beast._ Notes on ch. xiii. 16‒18. By
these arts they had been deceived――that is, they had been led into the
alliance, and had been sustained in their opposition to the truth. The
whole representation is that of an alliance to prevent the spread of
the true religion, _as if_ the Papacy and Mahometanism were combined,
and the one was sustained by the pretended miracles of the other. There
would be a practical array against the reign of the Son of God, _as
if_ these great powers should act in concert, and _as if_ the peculiar
claims which each set up in behalf of its own divine origin became a
claim which went to support the whole combined organization. ¶ _These
both were cast alive into a lake of fire._ The beast and the false
prophet. That is, the overthrow will be as signal, and the destruction
as complete, _as if_ the leaders of the combined hosts should be
taken alive, and thrown into a pit or lake that burns with an intense
heat. There is no necessity for supposing that this {416} is to be
_literally_ inflicted――for the whole scene is symbolical――meaning
that the destruction of these powers would be as complete _as if_ they
were thrown into such a burning lake. Comp. Notes on ch. xiv. 10, 11.
¶ _Burning with brimstone._ Sulphur――the usual expression to denote
intense heat, and especially as referring to the punishment of the
wicked. See Notes on ch. xiv. 10.

21 And the remnant were [609]slain with the sword of him that
sat upon the horse, which _sword_ proceeded out of his mouth;
and [610]all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

21. _And the remnant._ The remainder of the assembled hosts――the army
at large, in contradistinction from the leaders. ¶ _Were slain with the
sword._ Cut down with the sword; not rescued for protracted torment. A
proper distinction is thus made between the deceived multitudes and the
leaders who had deceived them. ¶ _Of him that sat upon the horse._ The
Messiah, ver. 11. ¶ _Which |sword| proceeded out of his mouth._ Notes
on ver. 15. That is, they were cut down by a _word_. They fell before
him as he spake, as if they were slain by the sword. Perhaps this
indicates that the effect that is to be produced when these great
powers shall be destroyed is a _moral_ effect; that is, that they will
be subdued by the word of the Son of God. ¶ _And all the fowls were
filled with their flesh._ Notes on ver. 17. An effect was produced _as
if_ the fowls of heaven should feed upon the carcasses of the slain.

The general idea here is, that these great Antichristian powers
which had so long resisted the gospel, and prevented its being spread
over the earth; which had shed so much blood in persecution, and had
so long corrupted and deceived mankind, would be subdued. The true
religion would be as triumphant as if the Son of God should go forth
as a warrior in his own might, and secure their leaders for punishment,
and give up their hosts to the birds of prey. This destruction of these
great enemies――which the whole course of the interpretation leads us to
suppose is still future――prepares the way for the millennial reign of
the Son of God――as stated in the following chapter. The “beast” and the
“false prophet” are disposed of, and there remains only the subjugation
of the great dragon――the source of all this evil――to prepare the way
for the long-anticipated triumph of the gospel. The subjugation of
the great original source of all those evil influences is stated in ch.
xx. 1‒3; and then follows the account of the thousand years’ rest of
the saints, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment.

CHAPTER XX.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter, like chapters xvi. 12‒21, xvii., xviii., xix., pertains
to the future, and discloses things which are yet to occur. It is not
to be wondered at, therefore, for the reason stated in the Notes on
ch. xvi. 16, that much obscurity should hang over it, nor that it is
difficult to explain it so as to remove all obscurity. The statement
in this chapter, however, is distinct and clear in its _general_
characteristics, and time will make all its _particular_ statements
free from ambiguity.

In the previous chapter, an account is given of the final destruction
of _two_ of the most formidable enemies of the church, and consequently
the removal of two of the hindrances to the universal spread of the
gospel――the beast and the false prophet――the Papal and the Mahometan
powers. But one obstacle remains to be removed――the power of Satan as
concentrated and manifested in the form of _Pagan_ power. These three
powers it was said (ch. xvi. 13, 14) would concentrate their forces as
the time of the final triumph of Christianity drew on; and with these
the last great battle was to be fought. Two of these have been subdued;
the conquest over the other remains, and Satan is to be arrested and
bound for a thousand years. He is then to be released for a time, and
afterwards finally destroyed, and at that period the end will come.

The chapter comprises the following parts:――

I. The binding of Satan, ver. 1‒3. An angel comes down from heaven with
the key of the bottomless pit, and a {417} great chain in his hand, and
seizes upon the dragon, and casts him into the pit, that for a thousand
years he should deceive the nations no more. The great enemy of God and
his cause is thus made a prisoner, and is restrained from making war in
any form against the church. The way is thus prepared for the peace and
triumph which follow.

II. The millennium, ver. 4‒6. John sees thrones, and persons sitting on
them; he sees the souls of those who were beheaded for the witness of
Jesus, and for the word of God――those who had not worshipped the beast
nor his image――living and reigning with Christ during the thousand
years: the spirits of the martyrs revived, and becoming again the
reigning spirit on earth. This he calls the first resurrection; and
on all such he says the second death has no power. Temporal death they
might experience――for such the martyrs had experienced――but over them
the second death has no dominion, for they live and reign with the
Saviour. This is properly the millennium――the long period when the
principles of true religion will have the ascendency on the earth, _as
if_ the martyrs and confessors――the most devoted and eminent Christians
of other times――should appear again upon the earth, and as if their
spirit should become the reigning and pervading spirit of all who
professed the Christian name.

III. The release of Satan, ver. 7, 8. After the thousand years of peace
and triumph shall have expired, Satan will be released from his prison,
and will be permitted to go out and deceive the nations which are in
the four quarters of the earth, and gather them together to battle;
that is, a state of things will exist _as if_ Satan were then released.
There will be again an outbreak of sin on the earth, and a conflict
with the principles of religion, as if an innumerable multitude of
opposers should be marshalled for the conflict by the great author of
all evil.

IV. The final subjugation of Satan, and destruction of his power on
the earth, ver. 9, 10. After the temporary and partial outbreak of
evil (ver. 7, 8), Satan and his hosts will be entirely destroyed. The
destruction will be _as if_ fire should come down from heaven to devour
the assembled hosts (ver. 9), and as if Satan, the great leader of evil,
should be cast into the same lake where the beast and false prophet are
to be tormented for ever. Then the church will be delivered from _all_
its enemies, and religion henceforward will be triumphant. How _long_
the interval will be between _this_ state and that next disclosed
(ver. 11‒15)――the final judgment――is not stated. The eye of the seer
glances from one to the other, but there is nothing to forbid the
supposition, that, according to the laws of prophetic vision, there may
be a long interval in which righteousness shall reign upon the earth.
Comp. Intro. to Isaiah, § 7, III. (3)‒(5).

V. The final judgment, ver. 11‒15. This closes the _earthly_ scene.
Henceforward (ch. xxi., xxii.) the scene is transferred to heaven――the
abode of the redeemed. The last judgment is the winding up of the
earthly affairs. The enemies of the church are all long since destroyed;
the world has experienced, perhaps for a long series of ages, the full
influence of the gospel; countless millions have been, we may suppose,
brought under its power; and then at last, in the winding up of human
affairs, comes the judgment of the great day, when the dead, small
and great, shall stand before God; when the sea shall give up its
dead; when death and hell shall give up the dead that are in them; when
the records of human actions shall be opened, and all shall be judged
according to their works; and when all who are not found written in the
book of life shall be cast into the lake of fire. This is the earthly
consummation; henceforward the saints shall reign in glory――the New
Jerusalem above, ch. xxi., xxii.

In order to prepare the way for a proper understanding of this chapter,
the following additional remarks may be here made:――

(a) The design of this book did not demand a minute _detail_ of the
events which would occur in the consummation of human affairs. The
main purpose was to trace the history of the church to the scene of
the final triumph when all its enemies would be overthrown, and when
religion would be permanently established upon the earth. Hence, though
in the previous chapters we have a detailed account of the persecutions
that would be endured; of the enemies that would rise up against the
church, and of their complete ultimate overthrow――leaving religion
triumphant on the earth――yet we have no minute statement of what will
occur in the millennium. A rapid view is taken of the closing scenes of
the earth’s {418} history, and the general results only are stated. It
would not be strange, therefore, if there should be much in this that
would seem to be enigmatical and obscure, especially as it is now all
in the future.

(b) There may be long intervening periods between the events thus
thrown together into the final grouping. We are not to suppose
necessarily that these events will succeed each other immediately, or
that they will be of short duration. Between these events thus hastily
sketched, there may be long intervals that are not described, and whose
general character is scarcely even glanced at. This results from the
very nature of the prophetic vision, as described in the Intro. to
Isaiah, § 7, III. (3)‒(5). This may be illustrated by the view which
we have in looking at a landscape. When one is placed in a favourable
situation, he can mark distinctly the _order_ of the objects in it――the
succession――the _grouping_. He can tell what objects appear to him
to lie _near_ to each other, and are apparently in juxtaposition. But
there are objects which, in such a vision, the eye cannot take in, and
which would not be exhibited by any description which might be given
of the view taken. Hills in the distant view may seem to lie near each
other; one may seem to rise just back of another, and to the eye they
may seem to constitute parts of the same mountain, and yet _between_
them there may be deep and fertile vales, smiling villages, running
streams, beautiful gardens and waterfalls, which the eye cannot take
in, and the _extent_ of which it may be wholly impossible to conjecture;
and a description of the whole scene, as it _appears_ to the observer,
would convey no idea of the actual extent of the intervals. So it is
in the prophecies. Between the events which are to occur hereafter, as
seen in vision, there may be long intervals, but the length of these
intervals the prophet may have left us no means of determining. See
these thoughts more fully illustrated in the Introduction to Isaiah,
as above referred to.

What is here stated may have occurred in the vision which John
had of the future, as described in this chapter. Time is marked in
the prophetic description until the fall of the great enemy of the
church; beyond that it does not seem to have been regarded as necessary
to determine the actual duration of the events referred to. Comp.
Professor Stuart, _Com._ ii. 353, 354.

(c) These views are sustained by the most cursory glance of the
chapter before us. There is none of the _detail_ which we have found in
the previous portions of the book――for such detail was not necessary to
the accomplishment of the design of the book. The grand purpose was to
show _that Christianity would finally triumph_, and hence the detailed
description is carried on until that occurs, and beyond that we have
only the most _general_ statements. Thus, in this chapter, the _great_
events that are to occur are merely hinted at. The events of a thousand
years; the invasion by Gog and Magog; the ultimate confinement and
punishment of Satan; the general judgment,――are all crowded into the
space of _twelve_ verses. This shows that the distant future is only
_glanced at_ by the writer; and we should not wonder, therefore, if it
should be found to be obscure, nor should we regard it as strange that
much is left to be made clear by the events themselves when they shall
occur.

(d) The _end_ is triumphant and glorious. We are assured that every
enemy of the church will be slain, and that there will be a long period
of happiness, prosperity, and peace. “The eye of hope,” says Professor
Stuart, beautifully, “is directed forward, and sees the thousand years
of uninterrupted prosperity; then the sudden destruction of a new and
fatal enemy; and all the rest is left to joyful anticipation. When all
clouds are swept from the face of the sky, why should not the sun shine
forth in all his glory? I cannot, therefore, doubt that the setting
sun of the church on earth is to be as a heaven of unclouded splendour.
Peaceful and triumphant will be her latest age. The number of the
redeemed will be augmented beyond all computation; and the promise
made from the beginning, that ‘the seed of the woman should bruise
the serpent’s head,’ will be fulfilled in all its extent, and with
a divine plenitude of meaning. The understanding and pious reader
closes the book with admiration, with wonder, with delight, with lofty
anticipations of the future, and with undaunted resolution to follow on
in the steps of those who, through faith and patience, have inherited
the promises, and entered into everlasting rest,” vol. ii. pp. 354, 355.

CHAPTER XX.

AND I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the [611]key
of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

{419} 1. _And I saw an angel come down from heaven._ Comp. Notes on
ch. x. 1. He does not say whether _this_ angel had appeared to him
before, but the impression is rather that it was a different one. The
whole character of the composition of the book leads us to suppose that
different angels were employed to make these communications to John,
and that, in fact, in the progress of things disclosed in the book, he
had intercourse with a considerable number of the heavenly inhabitants.
The scene that is recorded here occurred _after_ the destruction of the
beast and the false prophet (ch. xix. 18‒21), and therefore, according
to the principles expressed in the explanation of the previous chapters,
what is intended to be described here will take place _after_ the final
destruction of the Papal and Mahometan powers. ¶ _Having the key of
the bottomless pit._ See Notes on ch. i. 18; ix. 1. The fact that he
has the key of that underworld is designed to denote here, that he can
fasten it on Satan so that it shall become his prison. ¶ _And a great
chain in his hand._ With which to bind the dragon, ver. 2. It is called
_great_ because of the strength of him that was to be bound. The chain
only appears to have been in his hand. Perhaps the key was suspended to
his side.

2 And he laid hold on the [612]dragon, that old serpent, which
is the Devil, and Satan, and [613]bound him a thousand years,

2. _And he laid hold on._ Seized him by violence――ἐκράτησε. The word
denotes the employment of strength or force; and it implies that he
had power superior to that of the dragon. Comp. Mat. xiv. 3; xviii. 28;
xxi. 46; xxii. 6; xxvi. 4. We can at once see the propriety of the
use of this word in this connection. The great enemy to be bound has
himself mighty power, and can be overcome only by a superior. This
may teach us that it is only a power from heaven that can destroy the
empire of Satan in the world; and _perhaps_ it may teach us that the
interposition of angels will be employed in bringing in the glorious
state of the millennium. Why should it not be? ¶ _The dragon._ See
Notes on ch. xii. 2. Comp. ch. xii. 4, 7, 13, 16, 17; xiii. 2, 4, 11;
xvi. 13. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the word here;
for it is expressly said to mean the devil, and Satan. It would seem,
however, that it refers to some manifestation of the power of Satan
that would exist _after_ the beast and false prophet――that is, the
Papacy and Mahometanism――should be destroyed, and probably the _main_
reference is to the still existing power of Paganism. Comp. Notes on
ch. xvi. 13, 14. It _may_ include, however, all the forms of wickedness
which Satan shall have kept up on the earth, and all the modes of
evil by which he will endeavour to perpetuate his reign. ¶ _That old
serpent._ This is undoubtedly an allusion to the serpent that deceived
our first parents (Ge. iii. 1, seq.), and therefore a proof that it was
Satan that, under the form of a serpent, deceived them. Comp. Notes on
ch. xii. 3. ¶ _Which is the Devil._ On the meaning of this word, see
Notes on Mat. iv. 1. ¶ _And Satan._ On the meaning of this word, see
Notes on Job i. 6. In regard to the _repetition_ of the names of that
great enemy of God and the church here, Mr. Taylor, in the _Fragments
to Calmet’s Dictionary_, No. 152, says that this “almost resembles
a modern Old Bailey indictment, in which special care is taken to
identify the culprit, by a sufficient number of _aliases_. An angel
from heaven, having the key of the prison of the abyss, and a great
chain to secure the prisoner, ‘apprehended the dragon, _alias_ the
old serpent, _alias_ the devil, _alias_ the Satan, _alias_ the seducer
of the world,’ who was sentenced to a thousand years’ imprisonment.”
The _object_ here, however, seems to be not so much to _identify_ the
culprit by these _aliases_, as to show that under whatever forms, and
by whatever names he had appeared, it was always the same being, and
that now the author of the whole evil would be arrested. Thus the
one great enemy sometimes has appeared in a form that would be best
represented by a fierce and fiery dragon; at another, in a form that
would be best represented by a cunning and subtle serpent; now in a
form to which the word devil, or accuser, would be most appropriate;
and now in a form in which the word Satan――an adversary――would be most
expressive of what he does. In these various forms, and under these
various names, he has ruled the {420} fallen world; and when this one
great enemy shall be seized and imprisoned, all those forms of evil
will, of course, come to an end. ¶ _A thousand years._ This is the
period usually designated as the MILLENNIUM――for the word millennium
means _a thousand years_. It is on this passage that the whole doctrine
of the millennium _as such_ has been founded. It is true that there
are elsewhere in the Scriptures abundant promises that the gospel
will ultimately spread over the world; but the notion of a _millennium
as such_ is found in this passage alone. It is, however, enough to
establish the doctrine, if its meaning be correctly ascertained; for it
is a just rule in interpreting the Bible, that the clearly-ascertained
sense of a single passage of Scripture is sufficient to establish the
truth of a doctrine. The fact, however, that this passage stands alone
in this respect, makes it the more important to endeavour accurately
to determine its meaning. There are but three ways in which the phrase
“a thousand years” can be understood here: either (a) literally; or
(b) in the prophetic use of the term, where a day would stand for a
year, thus making a period of three hundred and sixty thousand years;
or (c) figuratively, supposing that it refers to a long but indefinite
period of time. It may be impossible to determine _which_ of these
periods is intended, though the first has been generally supposed to be
the true one, and hence the common notion of the millennium. There is
nothing, however, in the use of the language here, as there would be
nothing contrary to the common use of symbols in this book in regard to
time, in the supposition that this was designed to describe the longest
period here suggested, or that it is meant that the world shall enjoy
a reign of peace and righteousness during the long period of three
hundred and sixty thousand years. Indeed, there are some things in the
arrangements of nature which look as if it were contemplated that the
earth would continue under a reign of righteousness through a vastly
long period in the future.

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and
[614]set a seal upon him that he should deceive the nations no
more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after
that he must be loosed a little season.

3. _And cast him into the bottomless pit._ See Notes on ch. ix. 1.
A state of peace and prosperity would exist _as if_ Satan, the great
disturber, were confined in the nether world as a prisoner. ¶ _And shut
him up._ Closed the massive doors of the dark prison-house upon him.
Comp. Notes on Job x. 21, 22. ¶ _And set a seal upon him._ Or, rather,
“upon _it_”――ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. The seal was placed upon the _door_ or _gate_
of the prison, not because this would fasten the gate or door of itself,
and make it secure, for this was secured by the key, but because it
prevented intrusion, or any secret opening of it without its being
known. See Notes on Da. vi. 17, and Mat. xxvii. 66. The idea here
is, that every precaution was taken for absolute security. ¶ _That
he should deceive the nations no more._ That is, during the thousand
years. Comp. Notes on ch. xii. 9. ¶ _Till the thousand years should be
fulfilled._ That is, during that period there will be a state of things
upon the earth _as if_ Satan should be withdrawn from the world, and
confined in the great prison where he is ultimately to dwell for ever.
¶ _And after that he must be loosed a little season._ See ver. 7, 8.
That is, a state of things will then exist, for a brief period, _as if_
he were again released from his prison-house, and suffered to go abroad
upon the earth. The phrase “a little season”――μικρὸν χρόνον, _little
time_――denotes properly that this would be brief as compared with the
thousand years. No intimation is given as to the exact time, and it
is impossible to conjecture how long it will be. All the circumstances
stated, however, here and in ver. 7‒10, would lead us to suppose that
what is referred to will be like the sudden outbreak of a rebellion in
a time of general peace, but which will soon be quelled.

§ a.――_Condition of the world in the
period referred to in ver. 1‒3._

It may be proper, in order to a correct understanding of this chapter,
to present a brief summary under the different parts (see the Analysis
of the chapter) of what, according to the interpretation proposed, may
be expected {421} to be the condition of things in the time referred to.

On the portion now before us (ver. 1‒3), according to the
interpretation proposed, the following suggestions may be made:――

(1) This will be subsequent to the downfall of the Papacy and the
termination of the Mahometan power in the world. Of course, then, this
lies in the future――how far in the future it is impossible to determine.
The interpretation of the various portions of this book, and the book
of Daniel, have, however, led to the conclusion that the termination
of those powers cannot now be remote. If so, we are on the eve of
important events in the world’s history. The affairs of the world
look as if things were tending to a fulfilment of the prophecies so
understood.

(2) It will be a condition of the world _as if_ Satan were bound;
that is, where his influences will be suspended, and the principles of
virtue and religion will prevail. According to the interpretation of
the previous chapters, it will be a state in which all that has existed,
and that now exists, in the Papacy to corrupt mankind, to maintain
error, and to prevent the prevalence of free and liberal principles,
will cease; in which all that there now is in the Mahometan system to
fetter and enslave mankind――now controlling more than one hundred and
twenty millions of the race――shall have come to an end; and in which,
in a great measure, all that occurs under the direct influence of Satan
in causing or perpetuating slavery, war, intemperance, lust, avarice,
disorder, scepticism, atheism, will be checked and stayed. It is proper
to say, however, that this passage does not require us to suppose that
there will be a _total cessation_ of Satanic influence in the earth
during that period. Satan will, indeed, be bound and restrained as
to his former influence and power. But there will be no change in
the character of man as he comes into the world. There will still be
corrupt passions in the human heart. Though greatly restrained, and
though there will be a general prevalence of righteousness on the earth,
yet we are to remember that the race is fallen, and that even then, if
restraint should be taken away, man would act out his fallen nature.
This fact, if remembered, will make it appear less strange that, after
this period of prevalent righteousness, Satan should be represented as
loosed again, and as able once more for a time to deceive the nations.

(3) It will be a period of long duration. On the supposition that it
is to be literally a period of one thousand years, this is in itself
long, and will give, especially under the circumstances, opportunity
for a vast progress in human affairs. To form some idea of the length
of the period, we need only place ourselves in imagination _back_ for
a thousand years――say in the middle of the ninth century――and look at
the condition of the world then, and think of the vast changes in human
affairs that have occurred during that period. It is to be remembered,
also, that if the millennial period were soon to commence, it would
find the world in a far different state in reference to future progress
from what it was in the ninth century, and that it would _start off_,
so to speak, with all the advantages in the arts and sciences which
have been accumulated in all the past periods of the world. Even
if there were no special divine interposition, it might be presumed
that the race, in such circumstances, would make great and surprising
advances in the long period of a thousand years. And here a very
striking remark of Mr. Hugh Miller may be introduced as illustrating
the subject. “It has been remarked by some student of the Apocalypse,”
says he, “that the course of predicted events at first moves slowly, as
one after one, six of seven seals are opened; that, on the opening of
the seventh seal, the progress is so considerably quickened that the
seventh period proves as fertile in events――represented by the sounding
of the seven trumpets――as the foregoing six taken together; and that on
the seventh trumpet, so great is the further acceleration, that there
is an amount of incident condensed in this seventh part of the seventh
period equal, as in the former case, to that of all the previous
six parts in one. There are three cycles, it has been said, in the
scheme――cycle within cycle――the second comprised within a seventh
portion of the first, and the third within a seventh portion of
the second. Be this as it may, we may, at least, see something
that exceedingly resembles it in that actual economy of change and
revolution manifested in English history for the last two centuries.

_It would seem as if events, in their downward course, {422} had come
under the influence of that law of gravitation through which falling
bodies increase in speed, as they descend, according to the squares of
the distance_” (_First Impressions of England and its People_, pp. vii.,
viii.). If to this we add the supposition, which we have seen (Notes
on ver. 2) to be by no means improbable, that it is intended, in
the description of the millennium in this chapter, that the world
will continue under a reign of peace and righteousness for the long
period of three hundred and sixty thousand years, it is impossible
to anticipate what progress will be made during that period, or to
enumerate the numbers that will be saved. On this subject, see some
very interesting remarks in the _Old Red Sandstone_, by Hugh Miller,
pp. 248‒250, 258, 259. Comp. Professor Hitchcock’s _Religion and
Geology_, pp. 370‒409.

(4) What, then, will be the state of things during that long period of
a thousand years?

(a) There will be a great increase in the population of the globe.
Let wars cease, and intemperance cease, and slavery cease, and the
numberless passions that now shorten life be stayed, and it is easy to
see that there must be a vast augmentation in the number of the human
species.

(b) There will be a general diffusion of intelligence upon the earth.
Every circumstance would be favourable to it, and the world would be in
a condition to make rapid advances in knowledge, Da. xii. 4.

(d) It will be marked by unlimited subjection to the sceptre of Christ,
Ps. ii. 7; xxii. 27‒29; Is. ii. 2, 3; lxvi. 23; Zec. ix. 10; xiv. 9;
Mat. xiii. 31, 32; Re. xi. 15.

(e) There will be great progress in all that tends to promote the
welfare of man. We are not to suppose that the resources of nature are
exhausted. Nature gives no signs of exhaustion or decay. In the future
there is no reason to doubt that there will yet be discoveries and
inventions more surprising and wonderful than the art of printing,
or the use of steam, or the magnetic telegraph. There are profounder
secrets of nature that may be delivered up than any of these, and the
world is tending to their development.

(f) It will be a period of the universal reign of peace. The attention
of mankind will be turned to the things which tend to promote the
welfare of the race, and advance the best interests of society. The
single fact that wars will cease will make an inconceivable difference
in the aspect of the world; for if universal peace shall prevail
through the long period of the millennium, and the wealth, the talent,
and the science now employed in human butchery shall be devoted to the
interests of agriculture, the mechanical arts, learning, and religion,
it is impossible now to estimate the progress which the race will make,
and the changes which will be produced on the earth. For Scripture
_proofs_ that it will be a time of universal peace, see Is. ii. 4;
xi. 6‒9; Mi. iv. 3.

(g) There will be a _general_ prevalence of evangelical religion. This
is apparent in the entire description in this passage, for the two most
formidable opposing powers that religion has ever known――the beast and
the false prophet――will be destroyed, and Satan will be bound. In this
long period, therefore, we are to suppose that the gospel will exert
its fair influence on governments, on families, on individuals; in the
intercourse of neighbours, and in the intercourse of nations. God will
be worshipped in spirit and in truth, and not in the mere _forms_ of
devotion; and temperance, truth, liberty, social order, honesty, and
love, will prevail over the world.

(h) It will be a time when the Hebrew people――the Jews――will be brought
to the knowledge of the truth, and will embrace the Messiah whom their
fathers crucified, Zec. xii. 10; xiii. 1; Ro. xi. 26‒29.

(i) Yet we are not necessarily to suppose that _all_ the world will
be absolutely and entirely brought under the power of the gospel.
There will be still on the earth the remains of wickedness in the
corrupted human heart, and there will be so much _tendency_ to sin
in the human soul, that Satan, when released for a time (ver. 7, 8),
will be able once more to deceive mankind, and to array a formidable
force, represented by Gog and Magog, against the cause of truth and
righteousness. We are not to suppose that the nature of mankind, as
fallen, will be essentially changed, or that there may not be sin
enough in the human heart to make it capable of the same opposition
to the {423} gospel of God which has thus far been evinced in all
ages. From causes which are not fully stated (ver. 8, 9), Satan will
be enabled once more to rouse up their enmity, and to make one more
desperate effort to destroy the kingdom of the Redeemer by rallying his
forces for a conflict. See these views illustrated in the work entitled
_Christ’s Second Coming_, by Rev. David Brown, of St. James’ Free
Church, Glasgow, pp. 398‒442; New York, 1851.

4 And I saw [615]thrones, and they sat upon them, and
[616]judgment was given unto them: and [617]_I saw_ the souls
of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and
for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image, neither had received _his_ mark upon their
foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and [618]reigned
with Christ a thousand years.

4. _And I saw thrones_――θρόνους. See ch. i. 4; iii. 21; iv. 3, 4. John
here simply says, that he saw in vision _thrones_, with persons sitting
on them, but without intimating who they were that sat on them. It
is not the throne of God that is now revealed, for the word is in the
plural number, though the writer does not hint how _many_ thrones there
were. It _is_ intimated, however, that these thrones were placed with
some reference to pronouncing a judgment, or determining the destiny of
some portion of mankind, for it is immediately added, “and judgment was
given unto them.” There is considerable resemblance, in many respects,
between this and the statement in Daniel (vii. 9): “I beheld till the
thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit;” or, as it
should be rendered, “I beheld”――that is, I continued to look――“until
the thrones were _placed_ or _set_,” to wit, for the purposes of
judgment. See Notes on that passage. So John here sees, as the
termination of human affairs approaches, thrones placed with reference
to a determination of the destiny of some portion of the race, _as if_
they were now to have a trial, and to receive a sentence of acquittal
or condemnation. The _persons_ on whom this judgment is to pass are
specified, in the course of the verse, as those who were “beheaded for
the witness of Jesus, who had the word of God, who had not worshipped
the beast,” &c. The _time_ when this was to occur manifestly was at the
beginning of the thousand years. ¶ _And they sat upon them._ _Who_ sat
on them is not mentioned. The natural construction is, that _judges_
sat on them, or that persons sat on them to whom judgment was intrusted.
The language is such as would be used on the supposition either that
he had mentioned the subject before, so that he would be readily
understood, or that, from some other cause, it was so well understood
that there was no necessity for mentioning who they were. John seems
to have assumed that it would be understood who were meant. And yet to
us it is not entirely clear; for John has not before this given us any
such intimation that we can determine with certainty what is intended.
The probable construction is, that those are referred to, to whom it
appropriately belonged to occupy such seats of judgment, and who they
are is to be determined from other parts of the Scriptures. In Mat. xix.
28, the Saviour says to his apostles, “When the Son of man shall sit on
the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.” In 1 Co. vi. 2, Paul asks the question,
“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?” The meaning as
thus explained is, that Christians will, in some way, be employed in
judging the world; that is, that they will be exalted to the right hand
of the Judge, and be elevated to a station of honour, _as if_ they were
associated with the Son of God in the judgment. Something of that kind
is, doubtless, referred to here; and John probably means to say that
he saw the thrones placed on which those will sit who will be employed
in judging the world. If the apostles are specially referred to, it
was natural that John, eminent for modesty, should not particularly
mention them, as he was one of them, and as the true allusion would be
readily understood. ¶ _And judgment was given unto them._ The power of
pronouncing sentence in the case referred to was conferred on them, and
they proceeded to exercise that power. This was not in relation to the
whole race of mankind, but to the martyrs, and to those who, amidst
many temptations and trials, had kept themselves pure. The sentence
which is to be passed would seem to be that in consequence of which
they are to be permitted to “live and reign with Christ a thousand
years.” The _form_ of this expressed approval is that of a resurrection
and judgment; whether this be the _literal_ mode is another inquiry,
and will properly be considered when the exposition {424} of the
passage shall have been given. ¶ _And |I saw| the souls of them._ This
is a very important expression in regard to the meaning of the whole
passage. John says he saw _the souls_――not _the bodies_. If the obvious
meaning of this be the correct meaning; if he saw the _souls_ of the
martyrs, not the _bodies_, this would seem to exclude the notion of a
_literal_ resurrection, and consequently overturn many of the theories
of a literal resurrection, and of a literal reign of the saints with
Christ during the thousand years of the millennium. The doctrine of
the last resurrection, as everywhere stated in the Scripture, is, that
the _body_ will be raised up, and not merely that the _soul will live_
(see 1 Co. xv., and the Notes on that chapter); and consequently John
must mean to refer in this place to something different from that
resurrection, or to _any_ proper resurrection of the dead as the
expression is commonly understood. The doctrine which has been held,
and is held, by those who maintain that there will be a _literal
resurrection_ of the saints to reign with Christ during a thousand
years, can receive no support from this passage, for there is no
ambiguity respecting the word _souls_――ψυχὰς――as used here. By no
possible construction can it mean the _bodies_ of the saints. If John
had intended to state that the saints, as such, would be raised as
they will be at the last day, it is clear that he would not have used
this language, but would have employed the common language of the New
Testament to denote it. The language here does not express the doctrine
of the resurrection of the body; and if no other language but this had
been used in the New Testament, the doctrine of the resurrection, as
now taught and received, could not be established. These considerations
make it clear to my mind that John did not mean to teach that there
would be a _literal_ resurrection of the saints, that they might live
and reign with Christ personally during the period of a thousand years.
There was undoubtedly something that might be _compared_ with the
resurrection, and that might, in some proper sense, be _called_ a
resurrection (ver. 5, 6), but there is not the slightest intimation
that it would be a resurrection of the _body_, or that it would be
identical with the _final_ resurrection. John undoubtedly intends
to describe some honour conferred on the _spirits_ or _souls_ of the
saints and martyrs during this long period, _as if_ they were raised
from the dead, or which might be represented by a resurrection from
the dead. What that honour is to be, is expressed by their “_living_
and _reigning_ with Christ.” The meaning of this will be explained in
the exposition of these words; but the word used here is fatal to the
notion of a literal resurrection and a personal reign with Christ on
the earth. ¶ _That were beheaded._ The word here used――πελεκίζω――occur
nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, _to axe_, that
is, to hew or cut with an axe――from πέλεκυς, _axe_. Hence it means
to behead with an axe. This was a common mode of execution among the
Romans, and doubtless many of the Christian martyrs suffered in this
manner; but “it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the
writer to confine the rewards of martyrs to those who suffered in this
particular way; for this specific and ignominious method of punishment
is designated merely as the symbol of any and every kind of martyrdom”
(Professor Stuart). ¶ _For the witness of Jesus._ As witnesses of Jesus;
or bearing in this way their testimony to the truth of his religion.
See Notes on ch. i. 9; comp. ch. vi. 9. ¶ _And for the Word of God._
See Notes on ch. i. 9. ¶ _Which had not worshipped the beast._ Who
had remained faithful to the principles of the true religion, and had
resisted all the attempts made to seduce them from the faith, even
the temptations and allurements in the times of the Papacy. See this
language explained in the Notes on ch. xiii. 4. ¶ _Neither his image._
Notes on ch. xiii. 14, 15. ¶ _Neither had received |his| mark upon
their foreheads, or in their hands._ See Notes on ch. xiii. 16. ¶ _And
they lived_――ἔζησαν, from ζάω, _to live_. Very much, in the whole
passage, depends on this word. The meanings given to the word by
Professor Robinson (_Lex._) are the following:――(a) to live, to have
life, spoken of physical life and existence; (b) to live, that is, to
sustain life, to live _on_ or _by_ anything; (c) to live in any way, to
pass one’s life in any manner; (d) to live and prosper; to be blessed.
It _may_ be applied to those who were before dead (Mat. ix. 18; Mar.
{425} xvi. 11; Lu. xxiv. 23; Jn. v. 25; Ac. i. 3; ix. 41), but it does
not necessarily imply this, nor does the mere use of the word _suggest_
it. It is the proper notion of living, or having life _now_, whatever
was the former state――whether non-existence, death, sickness, or health.
The mind, in the use of this word, is fixed on the _present as a state
of living_. It is not necessarily in contrast with a former state _as
dead_, but it is on the fact that they are now _alive_. As, however,
there is reference, in the passage before us, to the fact that a
portion of those mentioned had been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus,”
it is to be admitted that the word here refers, in some sense, to
that fact. They were put to death in the body, but their “_souls_” were
now seen to be alive. They had not ceased _to be_, but they lived and
reigned with Christ _as if_ they had been raised up from the dead. And
when this is said of the “_souls_” of those who were beheaded, and who
were seen to reign with Christ, it cannot mean (a) that their _souls_
came to life again, for there is no intimation that they had for a
moment ceased to exist; nor (b) that they then became _immortal_,
for that was always true of them; nor (c) that there was any literal
_resurrection of the body_, as Professor Stuart (ii. 360, 475, 476)
supposes, and as is supposed by those who hold to a literal reign of
Christ on the earth, for there is no intimation of the resurrection
of the _body_. The meaning, then, so far as the language is concerned,
must be, that there would exist, at the time of the thousand years, a
state of things _as if_ the martyrs were raised up from the dead――an
honouring of the martyrs _as if_ they should live and reign with Christ.
Their names would be vindicated; their principles would be revived;
they would be exalted in public estimation above other men; they would
be raised from the low rank in which they were held by the world in
times of persecution to a state which might well be represented by
their sitting with Christ on the throne of government, and by their
being made visible attendants on his glorious kingdom. This would
not occur in respect to the rest of the dead――even the pious dead
(ver. 5)――for _their_ honours and rewards would be reserved for the
great day when _all_ the dead should be judged according to their
deeds. In this view of the meaning of this passage there is nothing
that forbids us to suppose that the martyrs will be _conscious_ of the
honour thus done to their names, their memory, and their principles
on earth, or that this consciousness will increase their joy even in
heaven. This sense of the passage is thus expressed, substantially, by
Archbishop Whately (_Essays on the Future State_): “It may signify not
the literal raising of dead men, but the raising up of an increased
Christian zeal and holiness; the revival in the Christian church, or
in some considerable portion of it, of the _spirit_ and _energy_ of
the noble martyrs of old (even as John the Baptist came in the spirit
and power of Elias), so that Christian principles shall be displayed
in action throughout the world in an infinitely greater degree than
ever before.” This view of the signification of the word _lived_ is
sustained by its use elsewhere in the Scriptures and by its common use
among men. Thus in this very book, ch. xi. 11: “And after three days
and a half, the Spirit of _life_ from God entered into them, and they
stood upon their feet.” So in Ezekiel, in speaking of the restoration
of the Jews: “Thus saith the Lord God, O my people, _I will open your
graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves_, and bring you
into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when
I have opened your graves, and brought you up out of your graves, and
shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall _live_,” ch. xxvii. 12‒14.
So in Ho. vi. 2: “After two days he will _revive_ us [cause us to live
again]; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall _live_ in
his sight.” So in the parable of the prodigal son: “This thy brother
was _dead_, and _is alive again_,” Lu. xv. 32. So in Is. xxvi. 19: “Thy
dead men shall _live_, together with my dead body shall they arise.”
The following extract, from D’Aubigné’s _History of the Reformation_,
will show how natural it is to use the _very_ language employed here
when the idea is intended to be conveyed of reviving former principles
_as if_ the men who held them should be raised to life again. It is
the language of the martyr John Huss, who, in speaking of himself in
view of a remarkable dream that he had, said, “I am no dreamer, but
I maintain this for {426} certain, that the image of Christ will never
be effaced. They [his enemies] have wished to destroy it, but it shall
be painted afresh in all hearts by much better preachers than myself.
The nation that loves Christ will rejoice at this. _And I, awaking
from among the dead, and rising, so to speak, from my grave, shall
leap with great joy._” So a Brief addressed by Pope Adrian to the
Diet at Nuremberg contains these words: “The heretics Huss and Jerome
_are now alive again_ in the person of Martin Luther.” For a further
illustration of the passage see the remarks which follow (§ b) on the
state of things which may be expected to exist in the time referred
to in ver. 4‒6. ¶ _And reigned with Christ._ Were exalted in their
principles, and in their personal happiness in heaven, _as if_ they
occupied the throne with him, and personally shared his honours and
his triumphs. Who can tell, also, whether they may not be employed
in special services of mercy, in administering the affairs of his
government during that bright and happy period? ¶ _A thousand years._
During the period when Satan will be bound, and when the true religion
will have the ascendency in the earth. Notes on ver. 2.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand
years were finished. This _is_ the first resurrection.

5. _But the rest of the dead._ In contradistinction from the
beheaded martyrs, and from those who had kept themselves pure in the
times of great temptation. The phrase “rest of the dead” here would
most naturally refer to the _same general class_ which was before
mentioned――the pious dead. The meaning is, that the martyrs would be
honoured as if they were raised up and the others not――that is, that
special respect would be shown to their principles, their memory, and
their character. In other words, _special_ honour would be shown _to
a spirit of eminent piety_ during that period above the _common_ and
_ordinary_ piety which has been manifested in the church. The “rest of
the dead”――the pious dead――would indeed be raised up and rewarded, but
they would occupy comparatively humble places, _as if_ they did not
partake in the exalted triumphs when the world should be subdued to
the Saviour. Their places in honour, in rank, and in reward would be
_beneath_ that of those who in fiery times had maintained unshaken
fidelity to the cause of truth. ¶ _Lived not._ On the word _lived_
see Notes on ver. 4. That is, they lived not during that period in the
peculiar sense in which it is said (ver. 4) that the eminent saints
and martyrs lived. They did not come into remembrance; their principles
were not what then characterized the church; they did not see, as the
martyrs did, _their_ principles and mode of life in the ascendency,
and consequently they had not the augmented happiness and honour which
the more eminent saints and martyrs had. ¶ _Until the thousand years
were finished._ Then all who were truly the children of God, though
some might be less eminent than others had been, would come into
remembrance, and would have their proper place in the rewards of heaven.
The _language_ here is not necessarily to be interpreted as meaning
that they _would_ be raised up then, or would live then, whatever may
be true on that point. It is merely an emphatic mode of affirming that
_up to that period they would not live_ in the sense in which it is
affirmed that the others would. But it is not affirmed that they would
even then “live” immediately. A long interval _might_ elapse before
that would occur in the general resurrection of the dead. See the
Analysis of the chapter. ¶ _This is the first resurrection._ The
resurrection of the saints and martyrs, as specified in ver. 4. It
is called the _first_ resurrection in contradistinction from the
second and last――the general resurrection――when all the dead will be
_literally_ raised up from their graves and assembled for the judgment,
ver. 12. It is not necessary to suppose that what is called here the
“first resurrection” will resemble the real and literal resurrection
in every respect. All that is meant is, that there will be such a
resemblance as to make it proper to call it _a_ resurrection――a coming
to life again. This will be, as explained in the Notes on ver. 4, in
the honour done to the martyrs, in the restoration of their principles
as the great actuating principles of the church, and perhaps in the
increased happiness conferred on them in heaven, and in their being
employed in promoting the cause of truth in the world.

6 Blessed and holy _is_ he that hath part in the first
resurrection: on such the [619]second death hath no power,
but they shall be [620]priests of God and of Christ, and shall
reign with him a thousand years.

6. _Blessed._ That is, his condition is to be regarded as a happy
or a {427} favoured one. This is designed apparently to support and
encourage those who, in the time of John, suffered persecution, or who
might suffer persecution afterwards. ¶ _And holy._ That is, no one will
be thus honoured who has not an established character for holiness.
Holy principles will then reign, and none will be exalted to that
honour who have not a character for eminent sanctity. ¶ _That hath part
in the first resurrection._ That participated in it; that is, who is
associated with those who are thus raised up. ¶ _On such the second
death hath no power._ The “second death” is properly the death which
the wicked will experience in the world of woe. See ver. 14. The
meaning here is, that all who are here referred to as having part in
the first resurrection will be secure against that. It will be one of
the blessed privileges of heaven that there will be absolute security
against DEATH in any and every form; and when we think of what death
_is_ here, and still more when we think of “the bitter pains of the
second death,” we may well call that state “blessed” in which there
will be eternal exemption from either. ¶ _But they shall be priests of
God and of Christ, and shall reign with him._ Notes ch. i. 6; v. 10.

§ b.――_Condition of the world in the period
referred to in ver. 4‒6._

I. It is well known that this passage is the principal one which is
relied on by those who advocate the doctrine of the literal reign of
Christ on the earth for a thousand years, or who hold what are called
the doctrines of the “second advent.” The points which are maintained
by those who advocate these views are substantially, (a) that at that
period Christ will descend from heaven to reign personally upon the
earth; (b) that he will have a central place of power and authority,
probably Jerusalem; (c) that the righteous dead will then be raised, in
such bodies as are to be immortal; (d) that they will be his attendants,
and will participate with him in the government of the world; (e) that
this will continue during the period of a thousand years; (f) that the
world will be subdued and converted during this period, not by moral
means, but by “a new dispensation”――by the power of the Son of God;
and (g) that at the close of this period all the remaining dead will be
raised, the judgment will take place, and the affairs of the earth will
be consummated.

The opinion here adverted to was held substantially by Papias, Justin
Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, and others among the Christian Fathers,
and, it need not be said, is held by many modern expositors of the
Bible, and by large numbers of Christian ministers of high standing,
and other Christians. See the _Literalist_, _passim_. The opinion of
the Christian Fathers, with which the modern “literalists,” as they are
called, substantially coincide, is thus stated by Mr. Elliott: “This
resurrection is to be literally that of departed saints and martyrs,
then at length resuscitated in the body from death and the grave; its
_time_ to synchronize with, or follow instantly after, the destruction
of the beast Antichrist, on Christ’s personal second advent; the
_binding_ of Satan to be an absolute restriction of the power of hell
from tempting, deceiving, or injuring mankind, throughout a literal
period of a thousand years, thence calculated; the _government of the
earth_, during its continuance to be administered by Christ and the
risen saints――the latter being now ἰσάγγελοι――in nature like angels;
and under it, all false religion having been put down, the Jews and
saved remnant of the Gentiles been converted to Christ, the earth
renovated by the fire of Antichrist’s destruction, and Jerusalem
made the universal capital, there will be a realization on earth of
the blessedness depicted in the Old Testament prophecies, as well as
perhaps of that too which is associated with the New Jerusalem in the
visions of the Apocalypse――until at length this millennium having ended,
and Satan gone forth to deceive the nations, the final consummation
will follow; the new-raised enemies of the saints, Gog and Magog, be
destroyed by fire from heaven: and then the general resurrection and
judgment take place, the devil and his servants be cast into the lake
of fire, and the millennial reign of the saints extend itself into one
of eternal duration” (Elliott on the Apocalypse, iv. 177, 178).

Mr. Elliott’s own opinion, representing, it is supposed, that of
the great body of the “_literalists_,” is thus expressed: {428} “It
would seem, therefore, that in this state of things and of feeling in
professing Christendom [a feeling of carnal security], all suddenly,
and unexpectedly, and conspicuous over the world as the lightning
that shineth from the east even unto the west, the second advent and
appearing of Christ will take place; that at the accompanying voice
of the archangel and trump of God, the departed saints of either
dispensation will rise from their graves to meet him――alike patriarchs,
and prophets, and apostles, and martyrs, and confessors――all at once
and in the twinkling of an eye; and then instantly the saints living
at the time will be also caught up to meet him in the air; these latter
being separated out of the ungodly nations, as when a shepherd divides
his sheep from the goats, and all, both dead and living saints, changed
at the moment from corruption to incorruption, from dishonour to glory,
though with very different degrees of glory; and so in a new angelic
nature, to take part in the judging and ruling in this world. Meanwhile,
with a tremendous earthquake accompanying, of violence unknown since
the revolutions of primeval chaos, an earthquake under which the Roman
world at least is to rock to and fro like a drunken man, the solid
crust of this earth shall be broken, and fountains burst forth from
its inner deep, not as once of water, but of liquid fire; and that the
flames shall consume the Antichrist and his confederate kings, while
the sword also does its work of slaughter; the risen saints being
perhaps the attendants of the Lord’s glory in this destruction of
Antichrist, and assessors in his judgment on a guilty world. And then
immediately the renovation of this our earth is to take place, its soil
being purified by the very action of the fire, and the Spirit poured
out from on high, to renew, in a yet better sense, the moral face of
nature; the Shekinah, or personal glory of Christ amidst his saints,
being manifested chiefly in the Holy Land and at Jerusalem, but the
whole earth partaking of the blessedness; and thus the regeneration of
all things, and the world’s redemption from the curse, having their
accomplishment, according to the promise, at the manifestation of the
sons of God,” iv. 224‒231.[621]

To this account of the prevailing opinion of the “literalists”
in interpreting the passage before us, there should be added that
of Professor Stuart, who, in general, is as far as possible from
sympathizing with this class of writers. He says, in his explanation of
the expression “_they lived_,” in ver. 4, “There would seem to remain,
therefore, only one meaning which can be consistently given to ἔζησαν
[_they lived_]; viz., that they (the martyrs who renounced the beast)
are now _restored to life_, viz., such life as implies the vivification
of the body. Not to a union of the soul with a gross material body
indeed, but with such an one as the saints in general will have at the
final resurrection――a spiritual body, 1 Co. xv. 44. In no other way can
this resurrection be ranked as _correlate_ with the second resurrection
named in the sequel,” vol. ii. p. 360. So again, Excursus vi. (vol. ii.
p. 476), he says, “I do not see how we can, on the ground of exegesis,
fairly avoid the conclusion that John has taught in the passage before
us, that _there will be a resurrection of the martyr-saints, at the
commencement of the period after Satan shall have been shut up in
the dungeon of the great abyss_.” This opinion he defends at length,
pp. 476‒490. Professor Stuart, indeed, maintains that the martyrs thus
raised up will be taken to heaven and reign with Christ _there_, and
opposes the whole doctrine of the literal reign on the earth, vol. ii.
p. 480. The risen saints and martyrs are to be “_enthroned_ with Christ;
that is, they are to be where he dwells, and where he will continue to
dwell, until he shall make his descent at the final judgment day.”

II. In regard to these views, as expressive of the meaning of the
passage under consideration, I would make the following remarks:――

(1) There is strong _presumptive_ evidence against this interpretation,
and especially against the main point in the doctrine, that there
will be a _literal resurrection_ of the bodies of the saints at the
beginning of that millennial period, to live and reign with Christ on
earth, from the following circumstances:――(a) It is admitted, on all
hands, that this doctrine, if contained in the Scriptures at all, is
found in this one passage only. It is not pretended that there is, in
any other place, a direct affirmation that this will literally occur,
nor would the advocates for that opinion undertake {429} to show that
it is fairly implied in any other part of the Bible. But it is strange,
not to say improbable, that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of
the righteous, a thousand years before the wicked, should be announced
in one passage only. If it were so announced in plain and unambiguous
language, I admit that the believer in the divine origin of the
Scriptures would be bound to receive it; but this is so contrary to
the usual method of the Scriptures on all great and important doctrines,
that this circumstance should lead us at least to doubt whether the
passage is correctly interpreted. The resurrection of the dead is a
subject on which the Saviour often dwelt in his instructions; it is
a subject which the apostles discussed very frequently and at great
length in their preaching, and in their writings; it is presented by
them in a great variety of forms, for the consolation of Christians in
time of trouble, and with reference to the condition of the world at
the winding up of human affairs; and it is strange that, in respect to
so important a doctrine as this, if it be true, there is not elsewhere,
in the New Testament, a hint, an intimation, an allusion, that would
lead us to suppose that the righteous are to be raised in this manner.
(b) If this is a true doctrine, it would be reasonable to expect that
a clear and unambiguous statement of it would be made. Certainly, if
there is but _one_ statement on the subject, that might be expected
to be a perfectly clear one, it would be a statement about which there
could be no diversity of opinion, concerning which those who embraced
it might be expected to hold the same views. But it cannot be pretended
that this is so in regard to this passage. It occurs in the book which,
of all the books in the Bible, is most distinguished for figures and
symbols; it cannot be maintained that it is _directly_ and _clearly_
affirmed; and it is _not_ so taught that there is any uniformity of
view among those who profess to hold it. In nothing has there been
greater diversity among men than in the opinions of those who profess
to hold the “_literal_” views respecting the personal reign of Christ
on the earth. But this fact assuredly affords _presumptive_ evidence
that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the saints a thousand
years before the rest of the dead, is not intended to be taught.
(c) It is presumptive proof against this, that nothing is said of
the employment of those who are raised up; of the reason why they are
raised; of the new circumstances of their being; and of their condition
when the thousand years shall have ended. In so important a matter as
this, we can hardly suppose that the whole subject would be left to a
single hint in a symbolical representation, depending on the doubtful
meaning of a single word, and with nothing to enable us to determine,
with absolute certainty, that this _must_ be the meaning. (d) If it be
meant that this is a description of the resurrection of the _righteous_
as such――embracing _all_ the righteous――then it is wholly unlike
all the other descriptions of the resurrection of the righteous that
we have in the Bible. Here the account is confined to “those that
were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,” and to “those who had not
worshipped the beast.” If the righteous, as such, are here referred
to, why are these particular classes specified? Why are not the usual
general terms employed? Why is the account of the resurrection confined
to these? Elsewhere in the Scriptures, the account of the resurrection
is given in the most _general_ terms (comp. Mat. xxv. 41; Jn. iv. 54;
v. 28, 29; Ro. ii. 7; 1 Co. xv. 23; Phi. iii. 20, 21; 2 Th. i. 10; He.
ix. 28; 1 Jn. ii. 28, 29; iii. 2); and if this had been the designed
reference here, it is inconceivable why the statement should be limited
to the martyrs, and to those who have evinced great fidelity in the
midst of temptations and allurements to apostasy. These circumstances
furnish strong _presumptive_ proofs, at least, against the doctrine
that there is to be a literal resurrection of _all_ the saints at the
beginning of the millennial period. Comp. _Christ’s Second Coming_, by
Rev. David Brown, p. 219, seq.

(2) In reference to many of the views necessarily implied in the
doctrine of the “second advent,” and avowed by those who hold that
doctrine, it cannot be pretended that they receive any countenance or
support from this passage. In the language of Professor Stuart (_Com._
vol. ii. p. 479), there is “not a word of Christ’s descent to the earth
at the beginning of the millennium. Nothing of the literal assembling
of the Jews in Palestine; nothing of the Messiah’s temporal reign on
_earth_; nothing of the overflowing abundance {430} of worldly peace
and plenty.” Indeed, in all this passage, there is not the remotest
hint of the grandeur and magnificence of the reign of Christ as a
literal king upon the earth; nothing of his having a splendid capital
at Jerusalem, or anywhere else; nothing of a new dispensation of a
miraculous kind; nothing of the renovation of the earth to fit it for
the abode of the risen saints. All this is the mere work of fancy, and
no man can pretend that it is to be found in this passage.

(3) Nor is there anything here of a literal resurrection of the
_bodies_ of the dead, as Professor Stuart himself supposes. It is not
a little remarkable that a scholar so accurate as Professor Stuart is,
and one, too, who has so little sympathy with the doctrines connected
with a literal reign of Christ on the earth, should have lent the
sanction of his name to perhaps the most objectionable of all the
dogmas connected with that view――the opinion that the _bodies_ of the
saints will be raised up at the beginning of the millennial period. Of
this there is not one word, one intimation, one hint, in the passage
before us. John says expressly, _and as if to guard the point from all
possible danger of this construction_, that he “saw the SOULS of them
that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus;” he saw them “_living_”
and “reigning” with Christ――raised to the exalted honour during that
period, as if they had been raised from the dead; but he nowhere
mentions or intimates that they were raised up from their graves;
that they were clothed with bodies; that they had their residence
now literally on the earth; or that they were, in any way, otherwise
than disembodied spirits. There is not even one word of their having
“_a spiritual body_.”

(4) There are _positive_ arguments, which are perfectly decisive,
against the interpretation which supposes that the bodies of the saints
will be raised up at the beginning of the millennial period, to reign
with Christ on the earth for a thousand years. Among these are the
following:――

(a) If the “first resurrection” means rising from the grave in
immortal and glorified bodies, we do not need the assurance (ver. 6),
that “on such the second death hath no power;” that is, that they would
not perish for ever. That would be a matter of course, and there was
no necessity for such a statement. But if it be supposed that the main
idea is that the _principles_ of the martyrs and of the most eminent
saints would be revived and would live, _as if_ the dead were raised
up, and would be manifested by those who were in _mortal_ bodies――men
living on the earth――then there would be a propriety in saying that all
such were exempt from the danger of the _second_ death. _Once_, indeed,
they would die; but the _second_ death could not reach them. Comp. Re.
ii. 10, 11.

(b) In the whole passage there are but two classes of men referred to.
There are those “who have part in the first resurrection;” that is,
according to the supposition, _all_ the saints; and there are those
over whom “the second death” _has_ power. Into which of these classes
are we to put the myriads of men having flesh and blood who are to
people the world during the millennium? They have no part in “the
first resurrection,” if it be a bodily one. Are they then given over
to the power of the “second death?” But if the “first resurrection” be
regarded as figurative and spiritual, then the statement that those who
are actuated by the spirit of the martyrs and of the eminent saints,
shall not experience the “second death,” is seen to have meaning and
pertinency.

(c) The mention of the _time_ during which they are to reign, if it be
literally understood, is contrary to the whole statement of the Bible
in other places. They are to “live and reign with Christ” _a thousand
years_. What, then? Are they to live no longer? Are they to reign no
longer with him? This supposition is entirely contrary to the current
statement in the Scriptures, which is, that they are to live and reign
with him _for ever_: 1 Th. iv. 17, “_And so shall we ever be with the
Lord_.” According to the views of the “literalists,” the declaration
that they “should live and reign with Christ,” considered as the
characteristic features of the millennial state, is to terminate with
the thousand years――for this is the promise, according to that view,
that they should thus live and reign. But it need not be said that this
is wholly contrary to the current doctrine of the Bible, that they are
to live and reign with him for ever.

(d) A further objection to this view is, that the wicked part of the
world――“the rest of the dead who lived not {431} again _until_ the
thousand years were finished”――must of course be expected to “live
again” in the same bodily sense _when_ those thousand years were
finished. But, so far from this, there is no mention of their living
then. When the thousand years are finished, Satan is loosed for a
season; then the nations are roused to opposition against God; then
there is a conflict, and the hostile forces are overthrown; and
then comes the final judgment. During all this time we read of no
resurrection at all. The period after this is to be filled up with
something besides the resurrection of the “rest of the dead.” There is
no intimation, as the _literal_ construction, as it is claimed, would
demand, that immediately after the “thousand years are finished” the
“rest of the dead”――the wicked dead――would be raised up; nor is there
any intimation of such a resurrection until _all_ the dead are raised
up for the final trial, ver. 12. But every consideration demands, if
the interpretation of the “literalists” be correct, that the “rest of
the dead”――the unconverted dead――should be raised up immediately after
the close of the millennial period, and be raised up as a distinct and
separate class.

(e) There is no intimation in the passage itself that the
_righteous_ will be raised up _as such_ in this period, and the proper
interpretation of the passage is contrary to that supposition. There
are but two classes mentioned as having part in the first resurrection.
They are those who were “beheaded for the witness of Jesus,” and those
who “had not worshipped the beast”――that is, the martyrs, and those
who had been eminent for their fidelity to the Saviour in times of
great temptation and trial. There is no mention of the resurrection
of the righteous _as such_――of the resurrection of the great body of
the redeemed; and if it could be shown that this refers to a _literal_
resurrection, it would be impossible to apply it, according to any
just rules of interpretation, to any more than the two classes that
are specified. By what rules of interpretation is it made to to teach
that _all_ the righteous will be raised up on that occasion, and will
live on the earth during that long period? In this view of the matter,
the passage _does not_ express the doctrine that the whole church of
God will be raised bodily from the grave. And supposing it had been the
design of the Spirit of God to teach this, is it credible, when there
are so many clear expressions in regard to the resurrection of the
dead, that so important a doctrine should have been reserved for one
single passage so obscure, and where the great mass of the readers
of the Bible in all ages have failed to perceive it? That is not the
way in which, in the Scriptures, great and momentous doctrines are
communicated to mankind.

(f) The fair statement in ver. 11‒15 is, that _all_ the dead will
then be raised up and be judged. This is implied in the general
expressions there used――“the dead, small and great;” the “book of
life was opened”――as if _not_ opened before; “the dead”――_all_ the
dead――“were judged out of those things which were written in the
books;” “the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell
(hades) delivered up the dead which were in them.” This is entirely
inconsistent with the supposition that a large part of the race――to wit,
all the righteous――had been before raised up; had passed the solemn
judgment; had been clothed with their immortal bodies, and had been
admitted to a joint reign with the Saviour on his throne. In the last
judgment what place are _they_ to occupy? In what sense are _they_ to
be raised up and judged? _Would_ such a representation have been made
as is found in ver. 11‒15, if it had been designed to teach that a
large part of the race had been already raised up, and had received
the approval of their judge?

(g) This representation is wholly inconsistent, not only with
ver. 11‒15, but with the uniform language of the Scriptures, _that
all the righteous and the wicked will be judged together, and both
at the coming of Christ_. On no point are the statements of the
Bible more uniform and explicit than on this, and it would seem that
the declarations had been of design so made that there should be no
possibility of mistake. I refer for full proof on this point to the
following passages of the New Testament:――Mat. x. 32, 33, compared
with Mat. vii. 21‒23; xiii. 30, 38‒43; xvi. 24‒27; xxv. 10, 31‒46;
Mar. viii. 38; Jn. v. 28, 29; Ac. xvii. 31: Ro. ii. 5‒16; xiv. 10, 12;
1 Co. iii. 12‒15; iv. 5; 2 Co. v. 9‒11; 2 Th. i. 6‒10; 1 Ti. v. 24, 25;
2 Pe. iii. 7, 10, 12; 1 Jn. ii. 28; iv. 17; Re. iii. 5; xx. 11‒15;
xxii. 12‒15. It is utterly _impossible_ to explain these passages on
any other supposition than that they are intended to teach that {432}
the righteous and the wicked will be judged together, and both at the
coming of Christ. And if this is so, it is of course impossible to
explain them consistently with the view that all the righteous will
have been already raised up at the beginning of the millennium in
their immortal and glorified bodies, and that they have been solemnly
approved by the Saviour, and admitted to a participation in his glory.
Nothing could be more irreconcilable than these two views; and it seems
to me, therefore, that the objections to the literal resurrection of
the saints at the beginning of the millennial period are insuperable.

III. The following points, then, according to the interpretation
proposed, are implied in this statement respecting the “first
resurrection,” and these will clearly comprise _all_ that is stated
on the subject.

(1) There will be a reviving, and a prevalence of the spirit which
actuated the saints in the best days, and a restoration of their
principles as the grand principles which will control and govern the
church, _as if_ the most eminent saints were raised again from the
dead, and lived and acted upon the earth.

(2) Their memory will then be sacredly cherished, and they will be
honoured on the earth with the honour which is due to their names,
and which they should have received when in the land of the living.
They will be no longer cast out and reproached; no longer held up to
obloquy and scorn; no longer despised and forgotten; but there will be
a reviving of sacred regard for their principles, _as if_ they lived
on the earth, and had the honour which was due to them.

(3) There will be a state of things upon the earth as if they thus
lived and were thus honoured. Religion will no longer be trampled
under foot, but will triumph. In all parts of the earth it will have
the ascendency, as if the most eminent saints of past ages lived and
reigned with the Son of God in his kingdom. A spiritual kingdom will be
set up with the Son of God at the head of it, which will be a kingdom
of eminent holiness, as if the saints of the best days of the church
should come back to the earth and dwell upon it. The ruling influence
in the world will be the religion of the Son of God, and the principles
which have governed the most holy of his people.

(4) It may be implied that the saints and martyrs of other times will
be employed by the Saviour in embassies of mercy; in visitations of
grace to our world to carry forward the great work of salvation on
earth. Nothing forbids the idea that the saints in heaven may be thus
employed, and in this long period of a thousand years, it may be that
they will be occupied in such messages and agencies of mercy to our
world as they have never been before――_as if_ they were raised from the
dead, and were employed by the Redeemer to carry forward his purposes
of mercy to mankind.

(5) In connection with these things, and in consequence of these
things, they may be, during that period, exalted to higher happiness
and honour in heaven. The restoration of their principles to the earth;
the Christian remembrance of their virtues; the prevalence of those
truths to establish which they laid down their lives, would in itself
exalt them, and would increase their joy in heaven. All this would
be well represented, in vision, by a resurrection of the dead; and
admitting that this was all that was intended, the representation of
John here would be in the highest degree appropriate. What could better
symbolize it――and we must remember that this is a symbol――than to
say that at the commencement of this period there was, as it were, a
solemn preparation for a judgment, and that the departed dead seemed
to stand there, and that a sentence was pronounced in their favour, and
that they became associated with the Son of God in the honours of his
kingdom, and that their principles were now to reign and triumph in the
earth, and that the kingdom which they laboured to establish would be
set up for a thousand years, and that, in high purposes of mercy and
benevolence during that period, they would be employed in maintaining
and extending the principles of religion in the world? Admitting that
the Holy Spirit intended to represent these things, and these only, no
more appropriate symbolical language could have been used; none that
would more accord with the general style of the book of Revelation.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be
loosed out of his prison,

7. _And when the thousand years are {433} expired_. See ver. 2.
¶ _Satan shall be loosed out of his prison._ See ver. 3. That is, a
state of things will then occur as if Satan should be for a time let
loose again, and should be permitted to go as formerly over the world.
No intimation is given _why_ or _how_ he would be thus released from
his prison. We are not, however, to infer that it would be a mere
arbitrary act on the part of God. All that is necessary to be supposed
is, that there would be, in certain parts of the world, a temporary
outbreak of wickedness, _as if_ Satan were for a time released from his
chains.

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the
four quarters of the earth, [622]Gog and Magog, to [623]gather
them together to battle: the number of whom _is_ as the sand
of the sea.

8. _And shall go out to deceive the nations._ See Notes on ch. xii. 9.
The meaning here is, that he would again, for a time, act in his true
character, and in some way delude the nations once more. In what way
this would be done is not stated. It would be, however, clearly an
appeal to the wicked passions of mankind, exciting a hope that they
might yet overthrow the kingdom of God on the earth. ¶ _Which are in
the four quarters of the earth._ Literally, _corners_ of the earth,
as if the earth were one extended square plain. The earth is usually
spoken of as divided into four parts or quarters――the eastern, the
western, the northern, and the southern. It is implied here that the
deception or apostasy referred to would not be confined to one spot or
portion of the world, but would extend afar. The idea seems to be, that
during that period, though there would be a _general_ prevalence of the
gospel, and a _general_ diffusion of its blessings, yet that the earth
would not be entirely under its influence, and especially that the
native character of the human heart would not be changed. Man, under
powerful temptations, would be liable to be deluded by the great master
spirit that has so often corrupted the race. Once more he would be
permitted to make the trial, and then his power would for ever come
to an end. ¶ _Gog and Magog._ The name _Gog_ occurs as the name of a
prince in Eze. xxxviii. 2, 3, 16, 18; xxxix. 1, 11. “He is an invader
of the land of Israel, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,” Eze.
xxxviii. 2. _Magog_ is also mentioned in Eze. xxxviii. 2, “the land
of Magog;” and in Eze. xxxix. 6, “I will send a fire on Magog.” As
the terms are used in the Old Testament, the representation would
seem to be that _Gog_ was the king of a people called _Magog_. The
signification of the names is unknown, and consequently nothing can
be determined about the meaning of this passage from that source. Nor
is there much known about the _people_ who are referred to by Ezekiel.
His representation would seem to be, that a great and powerful people,
dwelling in the extreme recesses of the north (ch. xxxviii. 15;
xxxix. 2), would invade the Holy Land after the return from the exile,
ch. xxxviii. 8‒12. It is commonly supposed that they were _Scythians_,
residing between the Caspian and Euxine Seas, or in the region of Mount
Caucasus. Thus Josephus (_Ant._ i. 6, 3) has dropped the Hebrew word
_Magog_, and rendered it by Σκύθαι――_Scythians_; and so does Jerome.
Suidas renders it Πέρσαι――Persians; but this does not materially vary
the view, since the word _Scythians_, among the ancient writers, is a
collective word, to denote all the north-eastern, unknown, barbarous
tribes. Among the Hebrews, the name _Magog_ also would seem to denote
all the unknown barbarous tribes about the Caucasian mountains. The
fact that the names Gog and Magog are, in Ezekiel, associated with
Meshech and Tubal, seems to determine the locality of these people,
for those two countries lie between the Euxine and Caspian Seas, or at
the south-east extremity of the Euxine Sea (Rosenmüller, _Bib. Geog._
vol. i. p. 240). The people of that region were, it seems, a terror to
Middle Asia, in the same manner as the Scythians were to the Greeks and
Romans. Intercourse with such distant and savage nations was scarcely
possible in ancient times; and hence, from their numbers and strength,
they were regarded with great terror, just as the Scythians were
regarded by the ancient Greeks and Romans, and as the Tartars were in
the middle ages. In this manner they became an appropriate symbol of
rude and savage people; of enemies fierce and warlike; of foes to be
dreaded; and as such they were referred to by both Ezekiel and John. It
has been made {434} a question whether Ezekiel and John do not refer to
the same period, but it is not necessary to consider that question here.
All that is needful to be understood is, that John means to say that
at the time referred to there would be formidable enemies of the church
who might be compared with the dreaded dwellers in the land of Magog;
or, that after this long period of millennial tranquillity and peace,
there would be a state of things which might be properly compared with
the invasion of the Holy Land by the dreaded barbarians of Magog or
Scythia. It is not necessary to suppose that any particular _country_
is referred to, or that there would be any one portion of the earth
which the gospel would not reach, and which would be still barbarous,
heathen, and savage; all that is necessary to be supposed is, that
though religion would generally prevail, human nature would remain
essentially corrupt and unchanged; and that, therefore, from causes
which are not stated, there might yet be a fearful apostasy, and a
somewhat general prevalence of iniquity. This would be nothing more
than _has_ occurred after the most favoured times in the church,
and nothing more than human nature would exhibit at any time, if all
restraints were withdrawn, and men were suffered to act out their
native feelings. _Why_ this will be permitted; what causes will bring
it about; what subordinate agencies will be employed, is not said,
and conjecture would be vain. The reader who wishes more information
in regard to Gog and Magog may consult Professor Stuart on this book,
vol. ii. pp. 364‒368, and the authorities there referred to. Comp.
especially Rosenmüller on Eze. xxxviii. 2. See also Sale’s _Koran_,
Pre. Dis. § 4, and the _Koran_ itself, Sura xviii. 94, and xxi. 95.
¶ _To gather them together to battle._ _As if_ to assemble them for war;
that is, a state of things would exist in regard to the kingdom of God
and the prevalence of the true religion _as if_ distant and barbarous
nations should be aroused to make war on the church of God. The meaning
is, that there would be an awakened hostility against the kingdom of
Christ in the earth. See Notes on ch. xvi. 14. ¶ _The number of whom
|is| as the sand of the sea._ A common comparison in the Scriptures to
denote a great multitude, Ge. xxii. 17; xxxii. 12; xli. 49; 1 Sa. xiii.
5; 1 Ki. iv. 20, _et al._

§ c.――_Condition of things in the period
referred to in ver. 7, 8._

(1) This will occur _at the close_ of the millennial period――the period
of the thousand years. It is not said, indeed, that it would be
_immediately_ after that; but the statement is explicit that it will
be _after_ that, or “when the thousand years are expired.” There may
be an interval before it shall be accomplished of an indefinite time;
the alienation and corruption may be gradual; a considerable period may
elapse before the apostasy shall assume an organized form, or, in the
language of John, before the hosts shall “be gathered to battle,” but
it is to be the _next_ marked and prominent event in the history of the
world, and is to precede the final consummation of all things.

(2) This will be a _brief period_. Compared with the long period of
prosperity that preceded it, and _perhaps_ compared with the long
period that shall follow it before the final judgment, it will be
short. Thus, in ver. 3, it is said that Satan “must be loosed _a little
season_.” See Notes on that verse. There is no way of determining the
time with exactness; but we are assured that it will not be long.

(3) What will be the exact state of things then can be only a
matter of conjecture. We may say, however, that it will _not_ be
(a) necessarily _war_. The language is figurative and symbolical, and
it is not necessary to suppose that an actual and bloody warfare will
be literally waged against the church. Nor (b) will there be a literal
invasion of the land of Palestine as the residence of the saints and
the capital of the Redeemer’s visible empire, for there is not a hint
of this――not a word to justify such an interpretation. Nor (c) is it
necessary to suppose that there will be literally such nations as will
be then called “_Gog_ and _Magog_,” for this language is figurative,
and designed to characterize the foes of the church――as being in some
respects formidable and terrible as were those ancient nations.

We may thus suppose that at that time, from causes which are
unexplained, there will be (a) a revived opposition to the truths
of religion; (b) the prevalence, to a greater or less extent, of
infidelity; (c) a great spiritual declension; (d) a combination of
interests opposed to the gospel; (e) possibly some new form of error
and delusion that shall extensively prevail. {435} Satan may set
up some new form of religion, or he may breathe into those that
may already exist a spirit of worldliness and vanity――some new
manifestation of the religion of forms――that shall for a limited
period produce a general decline and apostasy. As there is, however,
no distinct specification of what will characterize the world at that
time, it is impossible to determine what is referred to any more than
in this general manner.

(4) A few remarks may, however, be made on the _probability_ of what is
here affirmed, for it seems contrary to what we should suppose would be
the characteristics of the closing period of the world. The following
remarks, then, may show that this anticipated state of things is not
improbable:――(a) We are to remember that human nature will then be
essentially the same as now. There is no intimation that man, as born
into the world, will be then different from what he is now, or that any
of the natural corrupt tendencies of the human heart will be changed.
Men will be _liable_ to the same outbreaks of passion, to be influenced
by the same forms of temptation, to fall into the same degeneracy
and corruption, to feel the same unhappy influences of success and
prosperity as now, for all this appertains to a fallen nature, except
as it is checked and controlled by grace. We often mistake much in
regard to the millennial state by supposing that all the evils of
the apostasy will be arrested and that the _nature_ of man will
be as wholly changed as it will be in the heavenly world. (b) The
whole history of the church has shown that there is a liability to
_declension_ even in the best state and in the condition of the highest
spiritual prosperity. To see this we have only to remember the example
of the Hebrews, and how readily they apostatized after the most
striking manifestation of the divine mercies; the early Christian
church, and how soon it declined; the seven churches of Asia Minor,
and how soon their spirituality departed; the various revivals of
religion that have occurred from time to time, and how soon they have
been succeeded by coldness, worldliness, and error; the fact that great
religious denominations, which have begun their career with zeal and
love, have so soon degenerated in spirit, and fallen into the same
formality and worldliness which they have evinced who have gone before
them; and the case of the individual Christian, who from the most
exalted state of love and joy so soon often declines into a state of
conformity to the world. These are sad views of human nature, even
under the influence of true religion; but the past history of man has
given but too much occasion for such reflections, and too much reason
to apprehend that the same things may occur, for a time, even under
the best forms in which religion may manifest itself in a fallen
world. Man’s nature will be better in heaven, and religion there,
in its purest and best form, will be permanent; here we are not to
be surprised at _any_ outbreak of sin or any form of declension in
religion. What has often occurred in the world on a small scale we may
suppose may then occur on a larger scale. “Just as on a small scale,
in some little community like that of Northampton, as described by
President Edwards, after the remarkable sense of God’s presence over
the whole town had begun to wax feeble, the still unconverted persons
of it, though subdued and seemingly won over to Christ, would by little
and little recover themselves, and at length venture forth in their
true character; so it will be, in all probability, on a vast scale, at
the close of the latter day. The unconverted portion of the world――long
constrained by the religious influences everywhere surrounding them
to fall in with the spirit of the day, catching apparently its holy
impulses, but never coming savingly under its power――this portion of
mankind, which we have reason to fear will not be small, will now be
freed from these irksome restraints, no longer obliged to breathe an
atmosphere uncongenial to their nature” (Brown on the _Second Coming
of Christ_, p. 442). “No oppression is so grievous to an unsanctified
heart as that which arises from the purity of Christianity. A desire
to shake off this yoke is the true cause of the opposition which
Christianity has met with in the world in every period, and will, it is
most likely, be the chief motive to influence the followers of Gog in
his time” (Frazer’s _Key_, p. 455). (c) The representations of the New
Testament elsewhere confirm this view in regard to the latter state of
the world――the state when the Lord Jesus shall come to judgment. “When
the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Lu. xviii. 8.
“There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own
lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of {436} his coming?” 2 Pe. iii.
3, 4. “The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when
they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon
them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape,”
1 Th. v. 2, 3. See especially Lu. xvii. 26‒30: “As it was in the days
of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat,
they drank, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered
into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise also
as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought,
they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went
out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed
them all. _Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is
revealed._”

9 And [624]they went up on the breadth of the earth, and
compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:
and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

9. _And they went up on the breadth of the earth._ They spread over
the earth in extended columns. The image is that of an invading army
that seems, in its march, to spread all over a land. The reference here
is to the hosts assembled from the regions of Gog and Magog; that is,
to the formidable enemies of the gospel that would be roused up at the
close of the period properly called the _millennial_ period――the period
of the thousand years. It is not necessary to suppose that there would
be _literally_ armies of enemies of God summoned from lands that would
be called lands of “Gog and Magog;” but all that is necessarily implied
is, that there will be a state of hostility to the church of Christ
which would be well illustrated by such a comparison with an invading
host of barbarians. The expression “the breadth of the land” occurs in
Hab. i. 6, in a description of the invasion of the Chaldeans, and means
there _the whole extent of it_; that is, they would spread over the
whole country. ¶ _And compassed the camp of the saints about._ Besieged
the camp of the saints considered as engaged in war, or as attacked
by an enemy. The “camp of the saints” here seems to be supposed to be
_without_ the walls of the city; that is, the army was drawn out for
defence. The fact that the foes were able to “compass this camp about,”
and to encircle the city at the same time, shows the greatness of the
numbers of the invaders. ¶ _And the beloved city._ Jerusalem――a city
represented as beloved by God and by his people. The whole imagery here
is derived from a supposed invasion of the land of Palestine――imagery
than which nothing could be more natural to John in describing the
hostility that would be aroused against the church in the latter day.
But no just principle of interpretation requires us to understand
this _literally_. Comp. He. xii. 22. Indeed, it would be absolutely
_impossible_ to give this chapter throughout a _literal_ interpretation.
What would be the _literal_ interpretation of the very first verses? “I
saw an angel come down from heaven, having the _key_ of the bottomless
pit, and _a great chain_ in his hand; and he laid hold on the _dragon_
and _bound_ him.” Can anyone believe that there is to be a literal
_key_, and a _chain_, and an act of seizing a _serpent_, and _binding_
him? As little is it demanded that the passage before us should be
taken _literally_; for if it is maintained that this should be, we may
insist that the same principle of interpretation should be applied to
every part of the chapter, and every part of the book. ¶ _And fire came
down from God out of heaven, and devoured them._ Consumed them――fire
being represented as _devouring_ or _eating_. See Notes on ch. xvii. 16.
The meaning is, that they would be destroyed _as if_ fire should come
down from heaven, as on Sodom and Gomorrah. But it is not necessary
to understand _this_ literally, any more than it is the portions of
the chapter just referred to. What is obviously meant is, that their
destruction would be sudden, certain, and entire, and that thus the
last enemy of God and the church would be swept away. Nothing can
be determined from this about the _means_ by which this destruction
will be effected; and that must be left for time to disclose. It is
sufficient to know that the destruction of these last foes of God and
the church will be certain and entire. This _language_, as denoting
the final destruction of the enemies of God, is often employed in the
Scriptures. See Ps. xi. 6; Is. xxix. 6; Eze. xxxviii. 22; xxxix. 6.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the
[625]lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false
prophet _are_, and shall be tormented day and night for ever
and ever.

{437} 10. _And the devil that deceived them._ See Notes on ver. 3, 8.
¶ _Was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone._ In ch. xix. 20, it
is said of the beast and the false prophet that they were “cast alive
into a lake of fire, burning with brimstone.” Satan, on the other hand,
instead of being doomed at once to that final ruin, was confined for a
season in a dark abyss, ch. xx. 1‒3. As the final punishment, however,
he is appropriately represented as consigned to the same doom as the
beast and the false prophet, that those great enemies of God, that had
been associated and combined in deceiving the nations, might share the
same appropriate punishment in the end. Comp. ch. xvi. 13, 14. ¶ _Where
the beast and the false prophet |are|._ Notes on ch. xix. 20. ¶ _And
shall be tormented day and night for ever._ Comp. Notes on ch. xiv. 11.
All the great enemies of the church are destroyed, and henceforward
there is to be no array of hostile forces; no combination of malignant
powers against the kingdom of God. The gospel triumphs; the way is
prepared for the final consummation.

§ d.――_Condition of things in the period
referred to in ver. 9, 10._

(1) There will be, after the release of Satan, and of course at the
close of the millennial period properly so called, a state of things
which may be well represented by the invasion of a country by hostile,
formidable forces. This, as shown in the exposition, need not be
supposed to be literal; but it is implied that there will be decided
hostility against the true religion. It may be an organization and
consolidation, so to speak, of infidel principles, or a decided worldly
spirit, or some prevalent form of error, or some new form of depravity
that shall be developed by the circumstances of that age. What it will
be it is impossible now to determine; but, as shown above (§ c, (4)),
it is by no means improbable that this will occur even at the close of
the millennium.

(2) There will be a decided defeat of these forces thus combined, _as
if_ fire should come down from heaven to destroy an invading army. The
_mode_ in which this will be done is not indeed stated, for there is
no necessity of understanding the statement in ver. 9 _literally_, any
more than the other parts of the chapter. The fair inference, however,
is that it will be by a manifest divine agency; that it will be sudden,
and that the destruction will be entire. We have no reason, therefore,
to suppose that the outbreak will be of long continuance, or that it
will _very_ materially disturb the settled order of human affairs on
the earth――any more than a formidable invasion of a country does, when
the invading army is suddenly cut off by some terrible judgment from
heaven.

(3) _This_ overthrow of the enemies of God and of the church will be
_final_. Satan will be “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, to
be tormented day and night for ever.” The beast and the false prophet
are already there (ch. xix. 20); that is, they will have ceased long
since, even before the beginning of the millennial period (ch. xix. 20,
compared with ch. xx. 1‒3), to have opposed the progress of truth in
the world, and their power will have been brought to an end. Satan now,
the last enemy, will be doomed to the same hopeless woe; and _all_ the
enemies that have ever opposed the church――in all forms of Paganism,
Mahometanism, Popery, and delusion――will be destroyed for ever. The
world then will have peace; the church will have rest; the great
triumph will have been achieved.

(4) For reasons stated in the Analysis of the Chapter, V. (c), it is
possible that there will be a long period of continued prosperity and
peace between the events stated in ver. 9, 10, and the final judgment,
as described in ver. 11‒15. If so, however, the purpose of the book
did not require that that should be described at length, and it must
be admitted that the most _obvious_ interpretation of the New Testament
would not be favourable to such a supposition. Comp. Lu. xvii. 26‒30;
xviii. 8; 1 Th. v. 2, 3; 2 Pe. iii. 3, 4. The great glory of the world
will be the millennial period; when religion shall have the ascendency
and the race shall have reached its highest point of progress on earth,
and the blessings of liberty, intelligence, peace, and piety, shall
have during that period been spread over the globe. In {438} that
long duration, who can estimate the numbers that shall be redeemed
and saved? That period passed, the great purpose contemplated by the
creation of the earth――the glory of God in the redemption of a fallen
race, and in setting up a kingdom of righteousness in a world of
apostasy――will have been accomplished, and there will be no reason
why the final judgment should not then occur. “The work of redemption
will now be finished. The end for which the means of grace have been
instituted shall be obtained. All the effect which was intended to be
accomplished by them shall now be accomplished. All the great wheels of
Providence have gone round――all things are ripe for Christ’s coming to
judgment” (President Edwards’ _History of Redemption_).

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it,
from whose face the [626]earth and the heaven fled away; and
there was found no place for them.

11. _And I saw a great white throne._ This verse commences the
description of the final judgment, which embraces the remainder of
the chapter. The first thing seen in the vision is the burning throne
of the Judge. The things that are specified in regard to it are,
that it was _great_, and that it was _white_. The former expression
means that it was high or elevated. Comp. Is. vi. 1. The latter
expression――_white_――means that it was _splendid_ or _shining_. Comp.
1 Ki. x. 18‒20. The throne here is the same which is referred to in
Mat. xxv. 31, and called there “the throne _of his glory_.” ¶ _And him
that sat on it._ The reference here undoubtedly is to the Lord Jesus
Christ, the final Judge of mankind (comp. Mat. xxv. 31), and the scene
described is that which will occur at his second advent. ¶ _From whose
face._ Or, from whose presence; though the word _may_ be used here
to denote more strictly his _face_――as illuminated, and shining like
the sun. See ch. i. 16, “And his countenance was as the sun shineth in
his strength.” ¶ _The earth and the heaven fled away._ That is, as the
stars, at the rising of the sun, seem to flee to more remote regions,
and vanish from human view, so when the Son of God shall descend in
his glory to judge the world, the earth and all other worlds shall seem
to vanish. Every one must admire the sublimity of this image; no one
can contemplate it without being awed by the majesty and glory of the
final Judge of mankind. Similar expressions, where the natural creation
shrinks back with awe at the presence of God, frequently occur in the
Bible. Comp. Ps. xviii. 7‒15; lxxvii. 16‒19; cxiv. 3‒5; Hab. iii. 6,
10, 11. ¶ _And there was found no place for them._ They seemed to flee
_entirely_ away, as if there was _no_ place where they could find a
safe retreat, or which would receive and shelter them in their flight.
The image expresses, in the most emphatic manner, the idea that they
entirely disappeared, and _no_ language could more sublimely represent
the majesty of the Judge.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and
the [627]books were opened: and [628]another book was opened,
which is _the book_ of life: and the dead were judged out of
those things which were written in the books, [629]according
to their works.

12. _And I saw the dead, small and great._ _All_ the dead――for this
language would express that――the whole race being composed of the
“small and great.” Thus, in other language, the same idea might be
expressed by saying, the young and old; the rich and poor; the bond
and free; the sick and well; the happy and the unhappy; the righteous
and the wicked; for all the human family might, in these respects, be
considered as thus divided. The fair meaning in this place therefore is,
that _all_ the dead would be there, and of course this would preclude
the idea of a _previous_ resurrection of any part of the dead, as of
the saints, at the beginning of the millennium. There is no intimation
here that it is the _wicked_ dead that are referred to in this
description of the final judgment. It is the judgment of _all_ the dead.
¶ _Stand before God._ That is, they appear thus to be judged. The word
“God” here must naturally refer to the final Judge on the throne, and
there can be no doubt (see Mat. xxv. 31) that this is the Lord Jesus.
Comp. 2 Co. v. 10. None can judge the secrets of the heart; none can
pronounce on the moral character of all mankind, of all countries and
ages, and determine their everlasting allotment, but he who is Divine.
{439} _And the books were opened._ That is, the books containing the
record of human deeds. The representation is, that all that men have
done is recorded, and that it will be exhibited on the final trial, and
will constitute the basis of the last judgment. The imagery seems to be
derived from the accusations made against such as are arraigned before
human courts of justice. ¶ _And another book was opened, which is the
|book| of life._ The book containing the record of the names of all
who shall enter into life, or into heaven. See Notes on ch. iii. 5.
The meaning here is, that John saw not only the general books opened
containing the records of the deeds of men, but that he had a distinct
view of the list or roll of those who were the followers of the Lamb.
It would seem that in regard to the multitudes of the impenitent and
the wicked, the judgment will proceed _on their deeds_ in general; in
regard to the righteous, it will turn on the fact that their names had
been enrolled in the book of life. That will be sufficient to determine
the nature of the sentence that is to be passed on them. He will be
safe whose name is found in the book of life; no one will be safe
who is to have his eternal destiny determined by his own deeds. This
passage proves _particularly_ that the righteous dead are referred to
here as being present at the final judgment; and is thus an additional
argument against the supposition of a resurrection of the righteous,
and a judgment on them, at the beginning of the millennium. ¶ _And the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books._
The records which had been made of their deeds. The final judgment will
proceed on the record that has been made. It will not be arbitrary, and
will not be determined by rank, condition, or profession, but it will
be according to the record. ¶ _According to their works._ See Notes
on 2 Co. v. 10. The fact that the name of anyone was found in the book
of life would seem, as above remarked, to determine the _certainty_
of salvation; but the amount of reward would be in proportion to the
service rendered to the Redeemer, and the attainments made in piety.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
and [630]hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and
they were judged every man according to their works.

13. _And the sea gave up the dead which were in it._ All that had
been buried in the depths of ocean. This number in the aggregate will
be great. If we include all who were swept off by the flood, and all
who have perished by shipwreck, and all who have been killed in naval
battles and buried in the sea, and all who have been swept away by
inundations of the ocean, and all who have peacefully died at sea, as
sailors, or in the pursuits of commerce or benevolence, the number in
the aggregate will be immense――a number so vast that it was proper to
notice them particularly in the account of the general resurrection and
the last judgment. ¶ _And death and hell delivered up the dead which
were in them._ That is, _all_ the dead came, from all regions where
they were scattered――on the land and in the ocean――in this world and
in the invisible world. “Death and hell” are here personified, and are
represented as having dominion over the dead, and as now _delivering_
up, or _surrendering_ those who were held under them. On the meaning of
the words here used, see Notes on ch. i. 18; vi. 8. Comp. Notes on Mat.
x. 23; Job x. 21, 22; Is. xiv. 9. This whole representation is entirely
inconsistent with the supposition that a large part of the dead had
been already raised up at the beginning of the millennial period, and
had been permitted, in their glorified bodies, to reign with Christ.
¶ _And they were judged_, &c. All these were judged――the righteous
and the wicked; those buried at sea, and those buried on the land; the
small and the great; the dead, in whatever world they may have been.

14 And [631]death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death.

14. _And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire._ Death and
Hades (_hell_) are here personified, as they are in the previous verse.
The declaration is equivalent to the statement in 1 Co. xv. 26: “The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is _death_.” See Notes on that
passage. The idea is, that death, considered as the separation of soul
and body, with {440} all the attendant woes, will exist no more. The
righteous will live for ever, and the wicked will linger on in a state
never to be terminated by death. The reign of Death and Hades, as such,
would come to an end, and a new order of things would commence where
_this_ would be unknown. There might be that which would be properly
called death, but it would not be death in this form; the soul would
live for ever, but it would not be in that condition represented by
the word ᾅδης――_hades_. There would be _death_ still, but a “second
death differs from the first, in the fact that it is not a separation
of the soul and body, but a state of _continual agony_ like that which
the first death inflicts――like that in intensity, but not in kind”
(Professor Stuart). ¶ _This is the second death._ That is, this
whole process here described――the condemnation, and the final death
and ruin of those whose names are “not found written in the book of
life”――properly constitutes the second death. This proves that when
it is said that “death and hell were cast into the lake of fire,” it
cannot be meant that all punishment will cease for ever, and that all
will be saved, for the writer goes on to describe what he calls “the
second death” as still existing. See ver. 15. John describes this as
the second death, not because it in all respects resembles the first
death, but because it has so many points of resemblance that it may be
properly called _death_. Death, in any form, is the penalty of law;
it is attended with pain; it cuts off from hope, from friends, from
enjoyment; it subjects him who dies to a much-dreaded condition, and
in all these respects it was proper to call the final condition of the
wicked _death_――though it would still be true that the soul would live.
There is no evidence that John meant to affirm that the second death
would imply an extinction of _existence_. Death never does that; the
word does not naturally and properly convey that idea.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was
[632]cast into the lake of fire.

15. _And whosoever._ All persons, of all ranks, ages, and conditions.
No word could be more comprehensive than this. The single condition
here stated, as being that which would save _any_ from being cast into
the lake of fire, is, that they are “found written in the book of life.”
All besides these, princes, kings, nobles, philosophers, statesmen,
conquerors; rich men and poor men; the bond and the free; the young
and the aged; the gay, the vain, the proud, and the sober; the modest
and the humble, will be doomed to the lake of fire. Unlike in all
other things, they will be alike in the only thing on which their
eternal destiny will depend――that they have not _so_ lived that their
names have become recorded in the book of life. As they will also be
destitute of true religion, there will be a propriety that they shall
share the same doom in the future world. ¶ _Written in the book of
life._ See Notes on ch. iii. 5. ¶ _Was cast into the lake of fire._
See Notes on Mat. xxv. 41. That is, they will be doomed to a punishment
which will be well represented by their lingering in a sea of fire for
ever. This is the termination of the judgment――the winding up of the
affairs of men. The vision of John here rests for a moment on the doom
of the wicked, and then turns to a more full contemplation of the happy
lot of the righteous, as detailed in the two closing chapters of the
book.

§ e.――_Condition of things referred to in ver. 11‒15._

(1) There will be a general resurrection of the dead――of the righteous
and the wicked. This is implied by the statement that the “dead, small
and great,” were seen to stand before God; that “the sea gave up the
dead which were in it;” that “Death and Hades gave up their dead.” All
were there whose names were or were not written in the book of life.

(2) There will be a solemn and impartial judgment. How long a time this
will occupy is not said, and is not necessary to be known――for time is
of no consequence where there is an eternity of devotion――but it _is_
said that they will be all judged “according to their works”――that is,
strictly according to their character. They will receive no arbitrary
doom; they will have no sentence which will not be just. See Mat. xxv.
31‒46.

(3) This will be the _final_ judgment. After this, the affairs of the
race will be put on a different footing. This will be the end of the
present arrangements; {441} the end of the present dispensations; the
end of human probation. The great question to be determined in regard
to our world will have been settled; what the plan of redemption was
intended to accomplish on the earth will have been accomplished; the
agency of the Divine Spirit in converting sinners will have come to an
end; and the means of grace, as such, will be employed no more. There
is not here or elsewhere an intimation that beyond this period any of
these things will exist, or that the work of redemption, as such, will
extend into the world beyond the judgment. As there is no intimation
that the condition of the righteous will be changed, so there is none
that the condition of the wicked will be; as there is no hint that
the righteous will ever be exposed to temptation, or to the danger
of falling into sin, so there is none that the offers of salvation
will ever again be made to the wicked. On the contrary, the whole
representation is, that all beyond this will be fixed and unchangeable
for ever. See Notes on ch. xxii. 11.

(4) The wicked will be destroyed, in what may be properly called the
_second_ death. As remarked in the Notes, this does not mean that this
death will in all respects resemble the first death, but there will be
so many points of resemblance that it will be proper to call it _death_.
It does not mean that they will be _annihilated_, for _death_ never
implies that. The meaning is, that this will be a cutting off from what
is properly called _life_, from hope, from happiness, and from peace,
and a subjection to pain and agony, which it will be proper to call
_death_――death in the most fearful form; death that will continue for
ever. No statements in the Bible are more clear than those which are
made on this point; no affirmation of the eternal punishment of the
wicked _could be_ more explicit than those which occur in the sacred
Scriptures. See Notes on Mat. xxv. 46, and 2 Th. i. 9.

(5) This will be the end of the woes and calamities produced in the
kingdom of God by sin. The reign of Satan and of Death, so far as the
Redeemer’s kingdom is concerned, will be at an end, and henceforward
the church will be safe from all the arts and efforts of its foes.
Religion will be triumphant, and the affairs of the universe be reduced
to permanent order.

(6) The preparation is thus made for the final triumph of the
righteous――the state to which all things tend. The writer of this
book has conducted the prospective history through all the times of
persecution which awaited the church, and stated the principal forms of
error which would prevail, and foretold the conflicts through which the
church would pass, and described its eventful history to the millennial
period, and to the final triumph of truth and righteousness; and now
nothing remains to complete the plan of the work but to give a rapid
sketch of the final condition of the redeemed. This is done in the two
following chapters, and with this the work is ended.

CHAPTER XXI.

ANALYSIS OF CHAP. XXI., XXII. 1‒5.

The whole of ch. xxi., and the first five verses of ch. xxii.,
relate to scenes beyond the judgment, and are descriptive of the happy
and triumphant state of the redeemed church, when all its conflicts
shall have ceased, and all its enemies shall have been destroyed. That
happy state is depicted under the image of a beautiful city, of which
Jerusalem was the emblem, and it was disclosed to John by a vision of
that city――the New Jerusalem――descending from heaven. Jerusalem was
regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God, and to the Hebrews it
became thus the natural emblem or symbol of the heavenly world. The
conception having occurred of describing the future condition of the
righteous under the image of a beautiful city, all that follows is in
_keeping_ with that, and is merely a carrying out of the image. It is
a city with beautiful walls and gates; a city that has no temple――for
it is all a temple; a city that needs no light――for God is its light;
a city into which nothing impure ever enters; a city filled with trees,
and streams, and fountains, and fruits――the _Paradise Regained_.

The description of that blessed state comprises the following parts:――

I. A vision of a new heaven and a new earth, as the final abode of the
blessed, ver. 1. The first heaven and the first earth passed away at
the judgment (ch. xx. 11‒15), to be succeeded by a new heaven and earth
fitted to be the abode of the blessed.

II. A vision of the holy city――the New Jerusalem――descending from
heaven, as the abode of the redeemed, prepared as a bride adorned for
her {442} husband――representing the fact that God would truly abide
with men, ver. 2‒4. Now all the effects of the apostasy will cease; all
tears will be wiped away, and in that blessed state there will be no
more death, or sorrow, or pain. This contains the _general_ statement
of what will be the condition of the redeemed in the future world. God
will be there; and all sorrow will cease.

III. A command to make a record of these things, ver. 5.

IV. A general description of those who should dwell in that future
world of blessedness, ver. 6‒8. It is for all who are athirst; for all
who desire it, and long for it; for all who “overcome” their spiritual
enemies, who maintain a steady conflict with sin, and gain a victory
over it. But all who are fearful and unbelieving――all the abominable,
and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and liars――shall have
their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. That is,
that world will be pure and holy.

V. A minute description of the city, representing the happy abode of
the redeemed, ver. 9‒26. This description embraces many particulars:――

(1) Its general appearance, ver. 11, 18, 21. It is bright and
splendid――like a precious jasper-stone, clear as crystal, and composed
of pure gold.

(2) Its walls, ver. 12, 18. The walls are represented as “great and
high,” and as composed of “jasper.”

(3) Its gates, ver. 12, 13, 21. The gates are twelve in number, three
on each side; and are each composed of a single pearl.

(4) Its foundations, ver. 14, 18‒20. There are twelve foundations,
corresponding to the number of the apostles of the Lamb. They are all
composed of precious stones――jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald,
sardonyx, sardius, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprasus, jacinth, and
amethyst.

(5) Its size, ver. 15‒17. It is square――the length being as great as
the breadth, and its height the same. The extent of each dimension is
twelve thousand furlongs――a length on each side and in height of three
hundred and seventy-five miles. It would seem, however, that though
the _city_ was of that height, the _wall_ was only an hundred and
forty-four cubits, or about two hundred and sixteen feet high. The idea
seems to be that the city――the dwellings within it――towered high above
the wall that was thrown around it for protection. This is not uncommon
in cities that are surrounded by walls.

(6) Its light, ver. 23, 24; ch. xxii. 5. It has no need of the sun, or
of the moon, or of a lamp (ch. xxii. 5) to lighten it; and yet there is
no night there (ch. xxii. 5), for the glory of God gives light to it.

(7) It is a city without a temple, ver. 22. There is no one place
in it that is peculiarly sacred, or where the worship of God will be
exclusively celebrated. It will be all a temple, and the worship of God
will be celebrated in all parts of it.

(8) It is always open, ver. 25. There will be no need of closing it as
walled cities on earth are closed to keep enemies out, and it will not
be shut to prevent those who dwell there from going out and coming in
when they please. The inhabitants will not be prisoners, nor will they
be in danger, or be alarmed by the prospect of an attack from an enemy.

(9) Its inhabitants will all be pure and holy, ver. 27. There will in
no wise enter there anything that defiles, or that works abomination,
or that is false. They only shall dwell there whose names are written
in the Lamb’s book of life.

(10) Its inclosures and environs, ch. xxii. 1, 2. A stream of water,
pure as crystal, proceeds from the throne of God and the Lamb. That
stream flows through the city, and on its banks is the tree of life
constantly bearing fruit――fruit to be partaken of freely. It is
Paradise regained――a holy and beautiful abode, of which the garden of
Eden was only an imperfect emblem, where there is no prohibition, as
there was there, of anything that grows, and where there is no danger
of falling into sin.

(11) It is a place free, consequently, from the curse that was
pronounced on man when he forfeited the blessings of the first Eden,
and when he was driven out from the happy abodes where God had placed
him.

(12) It is a place where the righteous shall reign for ever, ch.
xxii. 5. Death shall never enter there, and the presence and glory of
God shall fill all with peace and joy.

Such is an outline of the figurative and glowing description of
the future blessedness of the redeemed; the eternal abode of those
who shall be saved. {443} It is poetic and emblematical; but it is
elevating, and constitutes a beautiful and appropriate close, not only
of this single book, but of the whole sacred volume――for to this the
saints are everywhere directed to look forward; this is the glorious
termination of all the struggles and conflicts of the church; this is
the result of the work of redemption in repairing the evils of the fall,
and in bringing man to more than the bliss which he lost in Eden. The
mind rests with delight on this glorious prospect; the Bible closes,
as a revelation from heaven should, in a manner that calms down every
anxious feeling; that fills the soul with peace, and that leads the
child of God to look forward with bright anticipations, and to say, as
John did, “Come, Lord Jesus,” ch. xxii. 20.

CHAPTER XXI.

AND I saw a [633]new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no
more sea.

1. _And I saw a new heaven and a new earth._ Such a heaven and earth
that they might properly be called _new_; such transformations, and
such changes in their appearance, that they seemed to be just created.
He does not say that they _were_ created now, or anew; that the old
heavens and earth were annihilated;――but all that he says is, that
there were such changes that they _seemed_ to be new. If the earth is
to be renovated by fire, such a renovation will give an appearance to
the globe as if it were created anew, and might be attended with such
an apparent change in the heavens that they might be said to be _new_.
The description here (ver. 1) relates to scenes _after_ the general
resurrection and the judgment――for those events are detailed in the
close of the previous chapter. In regard to the meaning of the language
here, see Notes on 2 Pe. iii. 13. Compare, also, _The Religion of
Geology and its Connected Sciences_, by Edward Hitchcock, D.D., LL.D.,
pp. 370‒408. ¶ _For the first heaven and the first earth were passed
away._ They had passed away by being changed, and a renovated universe
had taken their place. See Notes on 2 Pe. iii. 10. ¶ _And there was
no more sea._ This change struck John more forcibly, it would appear,
than anything else. Now, the seas and oceans occupy about three-fourths
of the surface of the globe, and, of course, to that extent prevent
the world from being occupied by men――except by the comparatively small
number that are mariners. There, the idea of John seems to be, the
whole world will be inhabitable, and no part will be given up to the
wastes of oceans. In the present state of things, these vast oceans
are necessary to render the world a fit abode for human beings, as well
as to give life and happiness to the numberless tribes of animals that
find their homes in the waters. In the future state, it would seem,
the present arrangement will be unnecessary; and if man dwells upon
the earth at all, or if he visits it as a temporary abode (see Notes
on 2 Pe. iii. 13), these vast wastes of water will be needless. It
should be remembered that the earth, in its changes, according to
the teachings of geology, has undergone many revolutions quite as
remarkable as it would be if all the lakes, and seas, and oceans of the
earth should disappear. Still, it is not certain that it was intended
that this language should be understood literally as applied to the
material globe. The object is to describe the future blessedness of the
righteous; and the idea is, that that will be a world where there will
be no such wastes as those produced by oceans.

2 And I John saw the [634]holy city, new Jerusalem, coming
down from God, out of heaven, prepared as [635]a bride
[636]adorned for her husband.

2. _And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God
out of heaven._ See the Analysis of the chapter. On the phrase “new
Jerusalem,” see Notes on Ga. iv. 26, and He. xii. 22. Here it refers to
the residence of the redeemed, the heavenly world, of which Jerusalem
was the type and symbol. It is here represented as “coming down from
God out of heaven.” This, of course, does not mean that this great
city was _literally_ to descend upon the _earth_, and to occupy any
one part of the renovated world; but it is a symbolical or figurative
representation, designed to show that the abode of the righteous will
be splendid and glorious. The idea of a city literally descending
from heaven, and being set upon the earth with such proportions――three
hundred {444} and seventy miles high (ver. 16), made of gold, and
with single pearls for gates, and single gems for the foundations――is
absurd. No man can suppose that this is literally true, and hence this
must be regarded as a figurative or emblematic description. It is a
representation of the heavenly state under the image of a beautiful
city, of which Jerusalem was, in many respects, a natural and striking
emblem. ¶ _Prepared as a bride adorned for her husband._ See Notes
on Is. xlix. 18; lxi. 10. The purpose here is, to represent it as
exceedingly beautiful. The comparison of the church with a bride, or a
wife, is common in the Scriptures. See Notes on ch. xix. 7, 8, and on
Is. i. 21. It is also common in the Scriptures to compare a city with
a beautiful woman, and these images here seem to be combined. It is a
beautiful city that seems to descend, and this city is itself compared
with a richly-attired bride prepared for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, Behold, the
[637]tabernacle of God _is_ with men, and he will dwell with
them, and they shall be [638]his people, and God himself shall
be with them, _and be_ their God.

3. _And I heard a great voice out of heaven._ As if uttered by God
himself, or the voice of angels. ¶ _Behold the tabernacle of God |is|
with men._ The _tabernacle_, as that word is commonly used in the
Scriptures, referring to the sacred _tent_ erected in the wilderness,
was regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God among his people――as
the temple was afterwards, which was also called a _tabernacle_. See
Notes on He. ix. 2. The meaning here is, that God would now dwell with
the redeemed, _as if_ in a tabernacle, or in a house specially prepared
for his residence among them. It is not said that this would be _on
the earth_, although that _may_ be; for it is possible that the earth,
as well as other worlds, may yet become the abode of the redeemed.
See Notes on 2 Pe. iii. 13. ¶ _And he will dwell with them._ As in a
tent, or tabernacle――σκηνώσει. This is a common idea in the Scriptures.
¶ _And they shall be his people._ He will acknowledge them in this
public way as his own, and will dwell with them as such. ¶ _And God
himself shall be with them._ Shall be permanently with them; shall
never leave them. ¶ _|And be| their God._ Shall manifest himself as
such, in such a manner that there shall be no doubt.

4 And God shall [639]wipe away all tears from their eyes; and
there shall be [640]no more death, neither [641]sorrow, nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former
things are passed away.

4. _And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes._ This will
be one of the characteristics of that blessed state, that not a tear
shall ever be shed there. How different will that be from the condition
here――for who is there here who has not learned to weep? See Notes on
ch. vii. 17. Comp. Notes on Is. xxv. 8. ¶ _And there shall be no more
death._. In all that future world of glory, not one shall ever die; not
a grave shall ever be dug! What a view do we begin to get of heaven,
when we are told there shall be no _death_ there! How different from
earth, where death is so common; where it spares no one; where our
best friends die; where the wise, the good, the useful, the lovely
die; where fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, all
die; where we habitually feel that we must die. Assuredly we have here
a view of heaven most glorious and animating to those who dwell in a
world like this, and to whom nothing is more common than death. In all
their endless and glorious career, the redeemed will never see death
again; they will never themselves die. They will never follow a friend
to the tomb, nor fear that an absent friend is dead. The slow funeral
procession will never be witnessed there; nor will the soil ever open
its bosom to furnish a grave. See Notes on 1 Co. xv. 55. ¶ _Neither
sorrow._ The word _sorrow_ here――πένθος――denotes sorrow or _grief_
of any kind; sorrow for the loss of property or friends; sorrow for
disappointment, persecution, or care; sorrow over our sins, or sorrow
that we love God so little, and serve him so unfaithfully; sorrow that
we are sick, or that we must die. How innumerable are the sources of
sorrow here; how constant is it on the earth! Since the fall of man
there has not been a day, an hour, a moment, in which this has not
been a sorrowful world; there has not been a nation, a tribe――a city
or a village――nay, not a family, where there has {445} not been grief.
There has been no individual who has been always perfectly happy. No
one rises in the morning with any certainty that he may not end the
day in grief; no one lies down at night with any assurance that it may
not be a night of sorrow. How different would this world be if it were
announced that henceforward there would be no sorrow! How different,
therefore, will heaven be when we shall have the assurance that
henceforward grief shall be at an end! ¶ _Nor crying_――κραυγὴ. This
word properly denotes a cry, an outcry, as in giving a public notice;
a cry in a tumult――a clamour, Ac. xxiii. 9; and then a cry of sorrow,
or wailing. This is evidently its meaning here, and it refers to all
the outbursts of grief arising from affliction, from oppression, from
violence. The sense is, that as none of these _causes_ of wailing will
be known in the future state, all such wailing will cease. This, too,
will make the future state vastly different from our condition here;
for what a change would it produce on the earth if the cry of grief
were never to be heard again! ¶ _Neither shall there be any more pain._
There will be no sickness, and no calamity; and there will be no mental
sorrow arising from remorse, from disappointment, or from the evil
conduct of friends. And what a change would _this_ produce――for how
full of _pain_ is the world now! How many lie on beds of languishing;
how many are suffering under incurable diseases; how many are
undergoing severe surgical operations; how many are pained by the
loss of property or friends, or subjected to acuter anguish by the
misconduct of those who are loved! How different would this world be,
if all _pain_ were to cease for ever; how different, therefore, must
the blessed state of the future be from the present! ¶ _For the former
things are passed away._ The world as it was before the judgment.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all
things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are
true and faithful.

5. _And he that sat upon the throne said._ Probably the Messiah, the
dispenser of the rewards of heaven. See Notes on ch. xx. 11. ¶ _Behold,
I make all things new._ A new heaven and new earth (ver. 1), and an
order of things to correspond with that new creation. The former state
of things when sin and death reigned will be changed, and the change
consequent on this must extend to everything. ¶ _And he said unto me,
Write._ Make a _record_ of these things, for they are founded in truth,
and they are adapted to bless a suffering world. Comp. Notes on ch. xiv.
13. See also ch. i. 19. ¶ _For these words are true and faithful._ They
are founded in truth, and they are worthy to be believed. See Notes on
ch. xix. 9. Comp. also Notes on Da. xii. 4.

6 And he said unto me, [642]It is done. I[643] am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end. I[644] will give unto him
that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

6. _And he said unto me._ That is, he that sat on the throne――the
Messiah. ¶ _It is done._ It is finished, complete; or, still more
expressively, _it is_――γέγονε. An expression remarkably similar to
this occurs in John xix. 30, when the Saviour on the cross said,
“It is finished.” The meaning in the passage before us evidently is,
“The great work is accomplished; the arrangement of human affairs is
complete. The redeemed are gathered in; the wicked are cut off; truth
is triumphant, and all is now complete――prepared for the eternal state
of things.” ¶ _I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end._ This
language makes it morally certain that the speaker here is the Lord
Jesus, for it is the very language which he uses of himself in ch.
i. 11. See its meaning explained in the Notes on ch. i. 8. If it _is_
applied to him here, it proves that he is divine, for in the following
verse (7) the speaker says that he would be a _God_ to him who should
“overcome.” The meaning of the language as here used, regarded as
spoken by the Redeemer at the consummation of all things, and as his
people are about entering into the abodes of blessedness, is, “I am
now _indeed_ the Alpha and the Omega――the first and the last. The
attributes implied in this language which I claimed for myself are now
verified in me, and it is seen that these properly belong to me. The
scheme for setting up a kingdom in the lost world began in me, and it
ends in me――the glorious {446} and triumphant king.” ¶ _I will give
unto him that is athirst._ See Notes on Mat. v. 6; Jn. iv. 14; vii. 37.
¶ _Of the fountain of the water of life._ An image often used in the
Scriptures to represent salvation. It is compared with a fountain that
flows in abundance, where all may freely slake their thirst. ¶ _Freely._
Without money and without price (Notes on Is. lv. 1; Jn. vii. 37);
the common representation in the Scriptures. The meaning here is, not
that he would do this _in the future_, but that he had shown that this
was his character, as he had claimed, in the same way as he had shown
that he was the Alpha and the Omega. The freeness and the fulness of
salvation will be one of the most striking things made manifest when
the immense hosts of the redeemed shall be welcomed to their eternal
abodes.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit [645]all things; and I will
be his God, and he shall be my son.

7. _He that overcometh._ See Notes on ch. ii. 7. ¶ _Shall inherit all
things._ Be an heir of God in all things. See Notes on Ro. viii. 17.
Comp. Re. ii. 7, 11, 17, 26; iii. 5, 12, 21. ¶ _And I will be his God._
That is, _for ever_. He would be to them all that is properly implied
in the name of _God_; he would bestow upon them all the blessings
which it was appropriate for God to bestow. See Notes on 2 Co. vi. 18;
He. viii. 10. ¶ _And he shall be my son._ He shall sustain to me the
relation of a son, and shall be treated as such. He would ever onward
sustain this relation, and be honoured as a child of God.

8 But the [646]fearful, and [647]unbelieving, and the
[648]abominable, and murderers,[649] and [650]whoremongers,
and [651]sorcerers, and [652]idolaters, and all [653]liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.

8. _But the fearful._ Having stated, in general terms, who they were
who would be admitted into that blessed world, he now states explicitly
who would _not_. The _fearful_ denote those who had not firmness boldly
to maintain their professed principles, or who were afraid to avow
themselves as the friends of God in a wicked world. They stand in
contrast with those who “_overcome_,” ver. 7. ¶ _And unbelieving._
Those who have not true faith; avowed infidels; infidels at heart;
and all who have not the sincere faith of the gospel. See Notes on
Mar. xvi. 16. ¶ _And the abominable._ The verb from which this word is
derived means to excite disgust; to feel disgust at; to abominate or
abhor; and hence the participle――“the abominable”――refers to all who
are detestable, to wit, on account of their sins; all whose conduct is
offensive to God. Thus it would include those who live in open sin; who
practise detestable vices; whose conduct is fitted to excite disgust
and abhorrence. These must all, of course, be excluded from a pure and
holy world; and this description, alas! would embrace a lamentably
large portion of the world as it has hitherto been. See Notes on Ro. i.
26, seq. ¶ _And murderers._ See Notes on Ro. i. 29; Ga. v. 21. ¶ _And
whoremongers._ See Notes on Ga. v. 19. ¶ _And sorcerers._ See the word
here used――φαρμακεῦσι――explained in the Notes on Ga. v. 19, under the
word _witchcraft_. ¶ _And idolaters._ 1 Co. vi. 9; Ga. v. 19. ¶ _And
all liars._ All who are false in their statements, their promises,
their contracts. The word would embrace all who are false towards God
(Ac. v. 1‒3), and false towards men. See Ro. i. 31. ¶ _Shall have their
part in the lake which burneth_, &c. Notes on ch. xx. 14. That is, they
will be excluded from heaven, and punished for ever. See Notes on 1 Co.
vi. 9, 10; Ga. v. 19‒21.

9 And there came unto me one of the [654]seven angels which
had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked
with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the [655]bride,
the Lamb’s wife.

9. _And there came unto me one of the seven angels_, &c. See Notes
on ch. xvi. 6, 7. Why one of these angels was employed to make this
communication is not stated. It may be that as they had been engaged
in bringing destruction on the enemies of the church, and securing
its final triumph, there was a propriety that that triumph should be
announced by one of their number. ¶ _And talked with me._ That is, in
regard to what he was about to show me. {447} ¶ _I will show thee the
bride, the Lamb’s wife._ I will show you what represents the redeemed
church now to be received into permanent union with its Lord――as a
bride about to be united to her husband. See Notes on ver. 2. Comp.
ch. xix. 7, 8.

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and
high mountain, and showed me [656]that great city, the holy
Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

10. _And he carried me away in the spirit._ Gave him a _vision_ of the
city; seemed to place him where he could have a clear view of it as it
came down from heaven. See Notes on ch. i. 10. ¶ _To a great and high
mountain._ The elevation, and the unobstructed range of view, gave him
an opportunity to behold it in its glory. ¶ _And showed me that great
city_, &c. As it descended from heaven. Notes on ver. 2.

11 Having the [657]glory of God: and her light _was_ like
unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear
as crystal;

11. _Having the glory of God._ A glory or splendour such as became
the dwelling place of God. The nature of that splendour is described
in the following verses. ¶ _And her light._ In ver. 23 it is said that
“the glory of God did lighten it.” That is, it was made light by the
visible symbol of the Deity――the _Shekinah_. See Notes on Lu. ii. 9;
Ac. ix. 3. The word here rendered _light_――φωστὴρ――occurs nowhere else
in the New Testament except in Phi. ii. 15. It means, properly, a light,
a light-giver, and, in profane writers, means commonly _a window_. It
is used here to denote the brightness or shining of the divine glory,
as supplying the place of the sun, or of a window. ¶ _Like unto a stone
most precious._ A stone of the richest or most costly nature. ¶ _Even
like a jasper stone._ On the _jasper_, see Notes on ch. iv. 3. It is
used there for the same purpose as here, to illustrate the majesty
and glory of God. ¶ _Clear as crystal._ Pellucid or resplendent like
crystal. There are various kinds of jasper――as red, yellow, and brown,
brownish yellow, &c. The stone is essentially a quartz, and the word
_crystal_ here is used to show that the form of it referred to by John
was clear and bright.

12 And had a wall great and high, _and_ had [658]twelve gates,
and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon,
which are _the names_ of the twelve tribes of the children of
Israel:

12. _And had a wall great and high._ Ancient cities were always
surrounded with walls for protection, and John represents this as
inclosed in the usual manner. The word _great_ means that it was thick
and strong. Its height also is particularly noticed, for it was unusual.
See ver. 16. ¶ _|And| had twelve gates._ Three on each side. The number
of the gates correspond to the number of the tribes of the children
of Israel, and to the number of the apostles. The idea seems to be
that there would be ample opportunity of access and egress. ¶ _And
at the gates twelve angels._ Stationed there as guards to the New
Jerusalem. Their business seems to have been to watch the gates that
nothing improper should enter; that the great enemy should not make
an insidious approach to this city as he did to the earthly paradise.
¶ _And names written thereon._ On the gates. ¶ _Which are |the names|
of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel._ So in the city which
Ezekiel saw in vision, which John seems also to have had in his eye.
See Eze. xlviii. 31. The inscription in Ezekiel denoted that that was
the residence of the people of God; and the same idea is denoted here.
The New Jerusalem is the eternal residence of the children of God, and
this is indicated at every gate. None can enter who do not belong to
that people; all who are within are understood to be of their number.

13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the
south three gates; and on the west three gates.

13. _On the east three gates_, &c. The city was square (ver. 16),
and the same number of gates is assigned to each quarter. There does
not appear to be any special significancy in this fact, unless it be
to denote that there is access to this city from all quarters of the
world, and that they who dwell there will have come from each of the
{448} great divisions of the earth――that is, from every land.

14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and
[659]in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

14. _And the wall of the city had twelve foundations._ It is not said
whether these foundations were twelve rows of stones placed one above
another under the city, and extending round it, or whether they were
twelve stones placed at intervals. The former would seem to be the
most probable, as the latter would indicate comparative feebleness and
liability to fall. Compare Notes on ver. 19. ¶ _And in them._ In the
foundation of stones. That is, the names of the apostles were cut or
carved in them so as to be conspicuous. ¶ _The names of the twelve
apostles of the Lamb._ Of the Lamb of God; the Messiah. For an
illustration of this passage, see Notes on Ep. ii. 20.

15 And he that talked with me had a golden [660]reed to
measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

15. _And he that talked with me._ The angel, ver. 9. ¶ _Had a
golden reed to measure the city._ See Notes on ch. xi. 1. The reed, or
measuring rod, here, is of gold, because all about the city is of the
most rich and costly materials. The rod is thus suited to the personage
who uses it, and to the occasion. Compare a similar description in Eze.
xl. 3‒5; xliii. 16. The object of this measuring is to show that the
city has proper architectural proportions. ¶ _And the gates thereof_,
&c. To measure every part of the city, and to ascertain its exact
dimensions.

16 And the city lieth four-square, and the length is as large
as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve
thousand furlongs. The length, and the breadth, and the height
of it are equal.

16. _And the city lieth four-square._ It was an exact square. That
is, there was nothing irregular about it; there were no crooked walls;
there was no jutting out, and no indentation in the walls, as if the
city had been built at different times without a plan, and had been
accommodated to circumstances. Most cities have been determined in
their outline by the character of the ground――by hills, streams, or
ravines; or have grown up by accretions, where one part has been joined
to another, so that there is no regularity, and so that the original
plan, if there was any, has been lost sight of. The New Jerusalem,
on the contrary, had been built according to a plan of the utmost
regularity, which had not been modified by the circumstances, or varied
as the city grew. The idea here may be, that the church, as it will
appear in its state of glory, will be in accordance with an eternal
plan, and that the great original design will have been fully carried
out. ¶ _And the length, is as large as the breadth._ The height also
of the city was the same――so that it was an exact square. ¶ _And he
measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs._ As eight
furlongs make a mile, the extent of the walls, therefore, must have
been three hundred and seventy-five miles. Of course, this must
preclude all idea of there being such a city literally in Palestine.
This is clearly a figurative or symbolical representation; and the
idea is, that the city was on the most magnificent scale, and with
the largest proportions, and the description here is adopted merely to
indicate this vastness, without any idea that it would be understood
_literally_. ¶ _The length, and the breadth, and the height of it are
equal._ According to this representation, the height of the _city_, not
of the _walls_ (comp. ver. 17), would be three hundred and seventy-five
miles. Of course, this _cannot_ be understood literally, and the very
idea of a literal fulfilment of this shows the absurdity of that method
of interpretation. The idea intended to be conveyed by this immense
height would seem to be that it would contain countless numbers of
inhabitants. It is true that such a structure has not existed, and that
a city of such a height may seem to be out of all proportion; but we
are to remember (a) that this is a _symbol_; and (b) that, considered
as one mass or pile of buildings, it may not seem to be out of
proportion. It is no uncommon thing that a house should be as high as
it is long or broad. The idea of _vastness_ and of _capacity_ is the
main idea designed to be represented. The image before the mind is,
that the numbers of the redeemed will be immense.

17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred _and_ forty
_and_ four cubits, _according to_ the measure of a man, that
is, of the angel.

{449} 17. _And he measured the wall thereof._ In respect to its
_height_. Of course, its _length_ corresponded with the extent of
the city. ¶ _An hundred |and| forty |and| four cubits._ This would be,
reckoning the cubit at eighteen inches, two hundred and sixteen feet.
This is less than the height of the walls of Babylon, which Herodotus
says were three hundred and fifty feet high. See Introduction to
ch. xiii. of Isaiah. As the walls of a city are designed to protect
it from external foes, the height mentioned here gives all proper
ideas of security; and we are to conceive of the city itself as
towering immensely _above_ the walls. Its glory, therefore, would
not be obscured by the wall that was thrown around it for defence.
¶ _|According to| the measure of a man._ The measure usually employed
by men. This seems to be added in order to prevent any mistake as to
the size of the city. It is an _angel_ who makes the measurement, and
without this explanation it might perhaps be supposed that he used some
measure not in common use among men, so that, after all, it would be
impossible to form any definite idea of the size of the city. ¶ _That
is, of the angel._ That is, “which is the measure employed by the
angel.” It was, indeed, an angel who measured the city, but the measure
which he employed was that in common use among men.

18 And the building of the wall of it was _of_ jasper; and the
city _was_ pure gold, like unto clear glass.

18. _And the building of the wall of it._ The material of which the
wall was composed. This means the wall _above_ the foundation, for
that was composed of twelve rows of precious stones, ver. 14, 19, 20.
The height of the foundation is not stated, but the entire wall above
was composed of jasper. ¶ _Was of jasper._ See Notes on ch. iv. 3. Of
course, this cannot be taken _literally_; and an attempt to explain
all this literally would show that that method of interpreting the
Apocalypse is impracticable. ¶ _And the city |was| pure gold._ The
material of which the edifices were composed. ¶ _Like unto clear
glass_. The word rendered _glass_ in this place――ὕαλος――occurs in the

New Testament only here and in ver. 21 of this chapter. It means,
properly, “anything transparent like water;” as, for example, any
transparent stone or gem, or as rock-salt, crystal, glass (Rob. _Lex._).
Here the meaning is, that the golden city would be so bright and
burnished that it would seem to be glass reflecting the sunbeams. Would
the appearance of a city, as the sun is setting, when the reflection
of its beams from thousands of panes of glass gives it the appearance
of burnished gold, represent the idea here? If we were to suppose a
city made entirely of glass, and the setting sunbeams falling on it, it
might convey the idea represented here. It is certain that, as nothing
could be more magnificent, so nothing could more beautifully combine
the two ideas referred to here――that of _gold_ and _glass_. Perhaps
the reflection of the sunbeams from the “Crystal Palace,” erected for
the late “industrial exhibition” in London, would convey a better idea
of what is intended to be represented here than anything which our
world has furnished. The following description from one who was an
eye-witness, drawn up by him at the time, and without any reference
to this passage, and furnished at my request, will supply a better
illustration of the passage before us than any description which I
could give:――“Seen as the morning vapours rolled around its base――its
far-stretching roofs rising one above another, and its great transept,
majestically arched, soaring out of the envelope of clouds――its pillars,
window-bars, and pinnacles, looked literally like a castle in the
air; like some palace, such as one reads of in idle tales of Arabian
enchantment, having about it all the ethereal softness of a dream.
Looked at from a distance at noon, when the sunbeams came pouring upon
the terraced and vaulted roof, it resembles a regal palace of silver,
built for some Eastern prince; _when the sun at eventide sheds on its
sides his parting rays, the edifice is transformed into a temple of
gold and rubies_; and in the calm hours of night, when the moon walketh
in her brightness, the immense surface of glass which the building
presents looks like a sea, or like throwing back, in flickering smile,
the radiant glances of the queen of heaven.”

19 And the [661]foundations of the wall of the city _were_
garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first
foundation _was_ jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a
chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

{450} 19. _And the foundations of the wall of the city._ Notes on
ver. 14. ¶ Were _garnished_. Were adorned, or decorated. That is, the
foundations were _composed_ of precious stones, giving them this highly
ornamented and brilliant appearance. ¶ _The first foundation._ The
first _row_, _layer_, or _course_. Notes on ver. 14. ¶ _|Was| jasper._
See Notes on ch. iv. 3. ¶ _The second, sapphire._ This stone is not
elsewhere mentioned in the New Testament. It is a precious stone, next
in hardness to the diamond, usually of an azure or sky-blue colour,
but of various shades. ¶ _The third, a chalcedony._ This word occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament. The stone referred to is an
uncrystallized translucent variety of quartz, having a whitish colour,
and of a lustre nearly like wax. It is found covering the sides of
cavities, and is a deposit from nitrated silicious waters. When it is
arranged in _stripes_, it constitutes _agate_; and if the stripes are
horizontal, it is the _onyx_. The modern _carnelian_ is a variety of
this. The carnelian is of a deep flesh red, or reddish-white colour.
The _name_ chalcedony is from _Chalcedon_, a town in Asia Minor,
opposite to Byzantium, or Constantinople, where this stone was probably
first known (Webster’s _Dict._). ¶ _The fourth, an emerald._ See Notes
on Re. iv. 3. The emerald is green.

20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh,
chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth,
a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an
amethyst.

20. _The fifth, sardonyx._ This word does not occur elsewhere in the
New Testament. The _name_ is derived from _Sardis_, a city in Asia
Minor (Notes on ch. iii. 1), and ὄνυξ, _a nail_――so named, according
to Pliny, from the resemblance of its colour to the flesh and the nail.
It is a silicious stone or gem, nearly allied to the onyx. The colour
is a reddish yellow, nearly orange (Webster, _Dict._). ¶ _The sixth,
sardius._ This word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It
is also derived from _Sardis_, and the name was probably given to the
gem because it was found there. It is a stone of a blood-red or flesh
colour, and is commonly known as a _carnelian_. It is the same as the
_sardine_ stone mentioned in Re. iv. 3. See Notes on that place. ¶ _The
seventh, chrysolite._ This word does not elsewhere occur in the New
Testament. It is derived from χρυσὸς, _gold_, and λίθος, _stone_, and
means _golden stone_, and was applied by the ancients to all gems of
a golden or yellow colour, probably designating particularly the topaz
of the moderns (Rob. _Lex._). But in Webster’s _Dict._ it is said that
its prevalent colour is green. It is sometimes transparent. This is the
_modern_ chrysolite. The ancients undoubtedly understood by the name
a _yellow_ gem. ¶ _The eighth, beryl._ This word occurs nowhere else
in the New Testament. The beryl is a mineral of great hardness, and
is of a green or bluish-green colour. It is identical with the emerald,
except in the colour, the emerald having a purer and richer green
colour, proceeding from a trace of oxide of chrome. Prisms of beryl
are sometimes found nearly two feet in diameter in the state of New
Hampshire (Webster). ¶ _The ninth, a topaz._ This word does not
elsewhere occur in the New Testament. The topaz is a well-known mineral,
said to be so called from _Topazos_, a small island in the Arabian
Gulf. It is generally of a yellowish colour, and pellucid, but it is
also found of greenish, bluish, or brownish shades. ¶ _The tenth, a
chrysoprasus._ This word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament.
It is derived from χρυσὸς, _gold_, and πράσον, _a leek_, and denotes
a precious stone of greenish golden colour, like a leek; that is,
“apple-green passing into a grass-green” (Rob. _Lex._). “It is a
variety of quartz. It is commonly apple-green, and often extremely
beautiful. It is translucent, or sometimes semi-transparent; its
hardness little inferior to flint” (Webster, _Dict._). ¶ _The eleventh,
a jacinth._ The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament.
It is the same word as _hyacinth_――ὑάκινθος――and denotes properly the
well-known flower of that name, usually of a deep purple or reddish
blue. Here it denotes a gem of this colour. It is a {451} red variety
of _zircon_. See Webster’s _Dict._ under the word _hyacinth_. ¶ _The
twelfth, an amethyst._ This word, also, is found only in this place in
the New Testament. It denotes a gem of a deep purple or violet colour.
The _word_ is derived from α, priv., and μεθύω, to be intoxicated,
became this gem was supposed to be an antidote against drunkenness.
It is a species of quartz, and is used in jewelry.

21 And the twelve gates _were_ twelve pearls; every several
gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city _was_ pure
gold, as it were transparent glass.

21. _And the twelve gates._ Ver. 12. ¶ Were _twelve pearls._ See Notes
on ch. xvii. 4; Mat. xiii. 46. ¶ _Every several gate was of one pearl._
Each gate. Of course, this is not to be understood literally. The idea
is that of ornament and beauty, and nothing could give a more striking
view of the magnificence of the future abode of the saints. ¶ _And the
street of the city was pure gold._ Was paved with gold; that is, all
the vacant space that was not occupied with buildings was of pure gold.
See Notes on ver. 18.

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and
the Lamb are the temple of it.

22. _And I saw no temple therein._ No structure reared expressly for
the worship of God; no particular place where he was adored. It was
_all_ temple――nothing but a temple. It was not like Jerusalem, where
there was but one house reared expressly for divine worship, and to
which the inhabitants repaired to praise God; it was all one great
temple reared in honour of his name, and where worship ascended from
every part of it. With this explanation, this passage harmonises with
what is said in ch. ii. 12: vii. 15. ¶ _For the Lord God Almighty and
the Lamb are the temple of it._ They are present in all parts of it
in their glory; they fill it with light; and the splendour of their
presence may be said _to be_ the temple. The idea here is, that it
would be a holy world――_all_ holy. No particular portion would be set
apart for purposes of public worship, but in all places God would be
adored, and every portion of it devoted to the purposes of religion.

23 And the city [662]had no need of the sun, neither of the
moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and
[663]the Lamb _is_ the light thereof.

23. _And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine
in it._ This imagery seems to be derived from Is. lx. 19, 20. See Notes
on those verses. No language could give a more striking or beautiful
representation of the heavenly state than that which is here employed.
¶ _For the glory of God did lighten it._ By the visible splendour of
his glory. See Notes on ver. 11. That supplied the place of the sun and
the moon. ¶ _And the Lamb is the light thereof._ The Son of God; the
Messiah. See Notes on ch. v. 6; Is. lx. 19.

24 And the [664]nations of them which are saved shall walk in
the light of it: and the [665]kings of the earth do bring
their glory and honour into it.

24. _And the nations of them which are saved._ All the nations that
are saved; or all the saved considered _as_ nations. This imagery is
doubtless derived from that in Isaiah, particularly ch. lx. 8‒9. See
Notes on that passage. ¶ _Shall walk in the light of it._ Shall enjoy
its splendour, and be continually in its light. ¶ _And the kings of the
earth do bring their glory and honour into it._ All that they consider
as constituting their glory, treasures, crowns, sceptres, robes. The
idea is, that all these will be devoted to God in the future days of
the church in its glory, and will be, as it were, brought and laid
down at the feet of the Saviour in heaven. The language is derived,
doubtless, from the description in Is. lx. 3‒14. Comp. Is. xlix. 28.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day; for
[666]there shall be no night there.

25. _And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day._ It shall
be constantly open, allowing free ingress and egress to all who reside
there. The language is derived from Is. lx. 11. See Notes on that place.
Applied to the future state of the blessed, it would seem to mean, that
while this will be their permanent {452} abode, yet that the dwellers
there will not be _prisoners_. The universe will be open to them. They
will be permitted to go forth and visit every world, and survey the
works of God in all parts of his dominions. ¶ _For there shall be
no night there._ It shall be all day; all unclouded splendour. When,
therefore, it is said that the gates should not be “shut _by day_,” it
means that they would _never_ be shut. When it is said that there would
be no _night_ there, it is, undoubtedly, to be taken as meaning that
there would be no _literal_ darkness, and nothing of which night is the
emblem: no calamity, no sorrow, no bereavement, no darkened windows on
account of the loss of friends and kindred. Comp. Notes on ver. 4.

26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations
into it.

26. _And they shall bring_, &c. See Notes on ver. 24. That blessed
world shall be made up of all that was truly valuable and pure on the
earth.

27 And[667] there shall in no wise enter into it any thing
that defileth, neither _whatsoever_ worketh abomination, or
_maketh_ a lie: but they which are written in the [668]Lamb’s
book of life.

27. _And there shall in no wise._ On no account; by no means.
This strong language denotes the absolute exclusion of all that is
specified in the verse. ¶ _Anything that defileth._ Literally, anything
“_common_.” See Notes on Ac. x. 14. It means here that nothing will be
found in that blessed abode which is unholy or sinful. It will be a
pure world, 2 Pe. iii. 13. ¶ _Neither |whatsoever| worketh abomination,
or |maketh| a lie._ See Notes on ver. 8. ¶ _But they which are written
in the Lamb’s book of life._ Whose names are there recorded. See Notes
on ch. iii. 5. Comp. Notes on ver. 8.

CHAPTER XXII.

For the analysis of the first five verses of this chapter, see the
Analysis of ch. xxi. The chapter comprises the remainder of the
description of the “New Jerusalem”――the blessed abode of the saints
(ver. 1‒5), and then (ver. 6‒21) the conclusion or epilogue of the
whole book. It is difficult to conceive what induced the author of the
division of the New Testament into chapters, to separate the first five
verses of this chapter from the preceding chapter. A new chapter should
have commenced at ver. 6 of ch. xxii.; for the remainder properly
comprises the conclusion of the whole book. Comp. Intro. to Notes on
the Gospels, vol. i. pp. vii., viii.

CHAPTER XXII.

AND he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

1. _And he showed me a pure river of water of life._ In the New
Jerusalem; the happy abode of the redeemed. The phrase “water of
life,” means _living_ or _running_ water, like a spring or fountain, as
contrasted with a stagnant pool. See Notes on John iv. 14. The allusion
here is doubtless to the first Eden, where a river watered the garden
(Gen. ii. 10, seq.), and as this is a description of Eden recovered, or
Paradise regained, it was natural to introduce a river of water also,
yet in such a way as to accord with the general description of that
future abode of the redeemed. It does not spring up, therefore, from
the ground, but flows from the throne of God and the Lamb. Perhaps,
also, the writer had in his eye the description in Eze. xlvii. 1‒12,
where a stream issues from under the temple, and is parted in different
directions. ¶ _Clear as crystal._ See Notes on ch. iv. 6. ¶ _Proceeding
out of the throne of God and of the Lamb._ Flowing from the foot
of the throne. Comp. ch. iv. 6. This idea is strictly in accordance
with Oriental imagery. In the East, fountains and running streams
constituted an essential part of the image of enjoyment and prosperity
(see Notes on Is. xxxv. 6), and such fountains were common in the
courts of Oriental houses. Here, the river is an emblem of peace,
happiness, plenty; and the essential thought in its flowing from the
throne is, that all the happiness of heaven proceeds from God.

2 In[669] the midst of [670]the street of it, and on either
side of the river, _was there_ [671]the tree of life, which
bare twelve _manner of_ fruits, _and_ yielded her fruit every
month: and the leaves of the tree _were_ for the healing of
the nations.

2. _In the midst of the street of it._ Professor Stuart renders this,
“between the street thereof and the river;” and says that “the writer
conceives of the river as running through the whole city; {453} then
of streets parallel to it on either side; and then, on the banks of
the river, between the water and the street, the whole stream is lined
on either side with two rows of the tree of life.” The more common
interpretation, however, is doubtless admissible, and would give a more
beautiful image; that in the street, or streets of the city, as well
as on the banks of the river, the tree of life was planted. It abounded
everywhere. The city had not only a river passing through it, but it
was pervaded by streets, and all those streets were lined and shaded
with this tree. The idea in the mind of the writer is that of _Eden_
or _Paradise_; but it is not the Eden of the book of Genesis, or the
Oriental or Persian Paradise: it is a picture where all is combined,
that in the view of the writer would constitute beauty, or contribute
to happiness. ¶ _And on either side of the river._ As well as in all
the streets. The writer undoubtedly conceives of a single river running
through the city――probably as meandering along――and that river lined
on both sides with the tree of life. This gives great beauty to the
imagery. ¶ _|Was there| the tree of life._ Not a single tree, but it
abounded everywhere――on the banks of the river, and in all the streets.
It was the _common_ tree in this blessed Paradise――of which all might
partake, and which was everywhere the emblem of immortality. In this
respect, this new Paradise stands in strong contrast with that in
which Adam was placed at his creation, where there seems to have been
a single tree that was designated as the tree of life, Ge. iii. 22, 23.
In the future state of the blessed, that tree will abound, and all may
freely partake of it; the emblem, the pledge of immortal life, will be
constantly before the eyes, whatever part of the future abode may be
traversed, and the inhabitants of that blessed world may constantly
partake of it. ¶ _Which bare twelve |manner of| fruits._ “Producing
twelve fruit-harvests; not (as our version) twelve manner of fruits”
(Professor Stuart). The idea is not that there are twelve kinds of
fruit on the same tree, for that is not implied in the language used
by John. The literal rendering is, “producing twelve _fruits_”――ποιοῦν
καρποὺς δώδεκα. The word “_manner_” has been introduced by the
translators without authority. The idea is, that the tree bore every
month in the year, so that there were twelve fruit-harvests. It was
not like a tree that bears but once a year, or in one season only, but
it _constantly_ bore fruit――it bore every month. The idea is that of
_abundance_, not _variety_. The supply never fails; the tree is never
barren. As there is but a single class of trees referred to, it might
have been supposed, perhaps, that, according to the common method in
which fruit is produced, there would be sometimes plenty and sometimes
want; but the writer says that, though there _is_ but one kind, yet
the supply is ample. The tree is everywhere; it is constantly producing
fruit. ¶ _|And| yielded her fruit every month._ The word “_and_” is
also supplied by the translators, and introduces an idea which is not
in the original, as if there was not only a _succession_ of harvests,
which _is_ in the text, but that each one differed from the former,
which is _not_ in the text. The proper translation is, “producing
twelve fruits, yielding or rendering its fruit in each month.” Thus
there is, indeed, a succession of fruit-crops, but it is the same
kind of fruit. We are not to infer, however, that there will not
be _variety_ in the occupations and the joys of the heavenly state,
for there can be no doubt that there will be ample diversity in the
employments, and in the sources of happiness, in heaven; but the single
thought expressed here is, that the means of life _will be abundant_:
the trees of life will be everywhere, and they will be constantly
yielding fruit. ¶ _And the leaves of the tree._ Not only the _fruit_
will contribute to give life, but even the _leaves_ will be salutary.
Everything about it will contribute to sustain life. ¶ _|Were| for
the healing._ That is, they contribute to impart life and health to
those who had been diseased. We are not to suppose that there will be
sickness, and a healing process in heaven, for that idea is expressly
excluded in ch. xxi. 4; but the meaning is, that the life and health of
that blessed world will have been imparted by partaking of that tree;
and the writer says that, in fact, it was owing to it that they who
dwell there had been healed of their spiritual maladies, and had been
made to live for ever. ¶ _Of the nations._ Of all the nations assembled
there, ch. xxi. 24. {454} There is a close resemblance between the
language here used by John and that used by Ezekiel (xlvii. 12), and
it is not improbable that both these writers refer to the same thing.
Comp. also in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras ii. 12; viii. 52‒54.

3 And [672]there shall be no more curse: but the [673]throne
of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his [674]servants
shall serve him:

3. _And there shall be no more curse._ This is doubtless designed to
be in strong contrast with our present abode; and it is affirmed that
what now properly comes under the name of a _curse_, or whatever is
part of the curse pronounced on man by the fall, will be there unknown.
The earth will be no more cursed, and will produce no more thorns and
thistles; man will be no more compelled to earn his bread by the sweat
of his brow; woman will be no more doomed to bear the sufferings which
she does now; and the abodes of the blessed will be no more cursed by
sickness, sorrow, tears, and death. ¶ _But the throne of God and of the
Lamb shall be in it._ God will reign there for ever; the principles of
purity and love which the Lamb of God came to establish, will pervade
that blessed abode to all eternity. ¶ _And his servants shall serve
him._ All his servants that are there; that is, all the inhabitants of
that blessed world. For the meaning of this passage, see Notes on ch.
vii. 15.

4 And[675] they shall see his face; and [676]his name _shall
be_ in their foreheads.

4. _And they shall see his face._ See Notes on Mat. xviii. 10. They
would be constantly in his presence, and be permitted continually to
behold his glory. ¶ _And his name |shall be| in their foreheads._ They
shall be designated as his. See Notes on ch. iii. 12; vii. 3; xiii. 16.

5 And[677] there shall be no night there: and they need no
candle, neither light of the sun; for [678]the Lord God giveth
them light: and [679]they shall reign for ever and ever.

5. _And there shall be no night there._ Notes on ch. xxi. 25. ¶ _And
they need no candle._ No lamp; no artificial light, as in a world where
there is night and darkness. ¶ _Neither light of the sun; for the Lord
God_, &c. Notes on ch. xxi. 23. ¶ _And they shall reign for ever and
ever._ That is, with God; they shall be as kings. See Notes on ch. v.
10; xx. 6. Comp. Notes on Ro. viii. 16; 2 Ti. ii. 11, 12.

REMARKS ON CHAP. XXI., XXII. 1‒5.

This portion of the Apocalypse contains the most full and complete
continuous description of the state of the righteous, in the world of
blessedness, that is to be found in the Bible. It seems to be proper,
therefore, to pause on it for a moment, and to state in a summary
manner what will be the principal features of that blessedness. All
can see that, as a description, it occupies an appropriate place,
not only in regard to this book, but to the volume of revealed truth.
In reference to this particular book, it is the appropriate close
of the account of the conflicts, the trials, and the persecutions of
the church; in reference to the whole volume of revealed truth, it is
appropriate because it occurs in the last of the inspired books that
was written. It was proper that a volume of revealed truth given to
mankind, and designed to describe a great work of redeeming mercy,
_should_ close with a description of the state of the righteous after
death.

The principal features in the description are the following:――

(1) There will be a new heaven and a new earth: a new order of things,
and a world adapted to the condition of the righteous. There will be
such changes produced in the earth, and such abodes fitted up for the
redeemed, that it will be proper to say that they are _new_, ch. xxi. 1.

(2) The _locality_ of that abode is not determined. No particular
_place_ is revealed as constituting heaven; nor is it intimated that
there would be such a _place_. For anything that appears, the universe
at large will be heaven――the earth and all worlds; and we are left
free to suppose that the redeemed will yet occupy any position of the
universe, and be permitted to behold the peculiar glories of the divine
character that are manifested in each of the worlds that he has made.
Comp. Notes on 1 Pe. i. 12. That there may be some one place in the
universe that will be their permanent home, and that will be more
properly called _heaven_, where the glory of their God and Saviour will
be peculiarly manifested, is not improbable; but still there is nothing
to prevent the hope and the belief that in the infinite duration that
awaits them they will be permitted to {455} visit all the worlds that
God has made, and to learn in each, and from each; all that he has
peculiarly manifested of his own character and glory there.

(3) That future state will be entirely and for ever free from all the
consequences of the apostasy as now seen on the earth. There will be
neither tears, nor sorrow, nor death, nor crying, nor pain, nor curse,
ch. xxi. 4; xxii. 3. It will, therefore, be a perfectly happy abode.

(4) It will be pure and holy. Nothing will ever enter there that shall
contaminate and defile, ch. xxi. 8, 27. On this account, also, it will
be a happy world, for (a) all real happiness has its foundation in
holiness; and (b) the source of all the misery that the universe has
experienced is sin. Let that be removed, and the earth would be happy;
let it be extinguished from any world, and its happiness will be secure.

(5) It will be a world of perfect light, ch. xxi. 22‒25; xxii. 5.
There will be (a) literally no night there; (b) spiritually and morally
there will be no darkness――no error, no sin. Light will be cast on a
thousand subjects now obscure; and on numerous points pertaining to the
divine government and dealings which now perplex the mind there will be
poured the splendour of perfect day. All the darkness that exists here
will be dissipated there; all that is now obscure will be made light.
And in view of this fact, we may well submit for a little time to
the mysteries which hang over the divine dealings here. The Christian
is destined to live for ever and ever. He is capable of an eternal
progression in knowledge. He is soon to be ushered into the splendours
of that eternal abode where there is no need of the light of the sun
or the moon, and where there is no night. In a little time――a few weeks
or days――by removal to that higher state of being, he will have made a
degree of progress in true knowledge compared with which all that can
be learned here is a nameless trifle. In that future abode he will
be permitted to know all that is to be known in those worlds that
shine upon his path by day or by night; all that is to be known in the
character of their Maker, and the principles of his government; all
that is to be known of the glorious plan of redemption; all that is
to be known of the reasons why sin and woe were permitted to enter
this beautiful world. There, too, he will be permitted to enjoy all
that there is to be enjoyed in a world without a cloud and without a
tear; all that is beatific in the friendship of God the Father, of the
Ascended Redeemer, of the Sacred Spirit; all that is blessed in the
goodly fellowship of the angels, of the apostles, of the prophets; all
that is rapturous in reunion with those that were loved on the earth.
Well, then, may he bear with the darkness and endure the trials of this
state a little longer.

(6) It will be a world of surpassing splendour. This is manifest by the
description of it in ch. xx., as a gorgeous city, with ample dimensions,
with most brilliant colours, set with gems, and composed of pure gold.
The writer, in the description of that abode, has accumulated all that
is gorgeous and magnificent, and doubtless felt that even _this_ was a
very imperfect representation of that glorious world.

(7) That future world will be an abode of the highest conceivable
happiness. This is manifest, not only from the fact stated that there
will be no pain or sorrow here, but from the positive description in
ch. xxii. 1, 2. It was, undoubtedly, the design of the writer, under
the image of a _Paradise_, to describe the future abode of the redeemed
as one of the highest happiness――where there would be an ample and a
constant supply of every want, and where the highest ideas of enjoyment
would be realized. And,

(8) All this will be eternal. The universe, so vast and so wonderful,
seems to have been made to be fitted to the eternal contemplation of
created minds, and _in_ this universe there is an adaptation for the
employment of mind for ever and ever.

If it be asked now why John, in the account which he has given
of the heavenly state, adopted this figurative and emblematic mode
of representation, and why it did not please God to reveal _any
more_ respecting the nature of the employments and enjoyments of the
heavenly world, it may be replied, (a) That this method is eminently
in accordance {456} with the general character of the book, as a book
of symbols and emblems. (b) He has stated _enough_ to give us a general
and a most attractive view of that blessed state. (c) It is not certain
that we would have appreciated it, or could have comprehended it, if a
more minute and literal description had been given. That state may be
so unlike this that it is doubtful whether we could have comprehended
_any_ literal description that could have been given. How little of
the future and the unseen can ever be known by a mere description; how
faint and imperfect a view can we ever obtain of anything by the mere
use of words, and especially of objects which have no resemblance to
anything which we have seen! Who ever obtained any adequate idea of
Niagara by a mere description? To what Greek or Roman mind, however
cultivated, could there have been conveyed the idea of a printing-press,
of a locomotive engine, of the magnetic telegraph, by mere description?
Who can convey to one born blind an idea of the prismatic colours; or
to the deaf an idea of sounds? If we may imagine the world of insect
tribes to be endowed with the power of language and thought, how could
the gay and gilded butterfly that to-day plays in the sunbeam impart
to its companions of yesterday――low and grovelling worms――any adequate
idea of that new condition of being into which it had emerged? And how
do we know that _we_ could comprehend _any_ description of that world
where the righteous dwell, or of employments and enjoyments so unlike
our own?

* * * * *

I cannot more appropriately close this brief notice of the
revelations of the heavenly state than by introducing an ancient poem,
which seems to be founded on this portion of the Apocalypse, and which
is the original of one of the most touching and beautiful hymns now
used in Protestant places of worship――the well-known hymn which begins,
“Jerusalem! my happy home!” This hymn is deservedly a great favourite,
and is an eminently beautiful composition. It is, however, of Roman
Catholic origin. It is found in a small volume of miscellaneous poetry,
sold at Mr. Bright’s sale of manuscripts in 1844, which has been placed
in the British Museum, and now forms the additional MS. 15,225. It is
referred, by the lettering on the book, to the age of Elizabeth, but it
is supposed to belong to the subsequent reign. The volume seems to have
been formed by or for some Roman Catholic, and contains many devotional
songs or hymns, interspersed with others of a more general character.
See Littell’s _Living Age_, vol. xxviii. pp. 333‒336. The hymn is as
follows:――

A SONG MADE BY F. B. P.

_To the tune of “Diana.”_

Jerusalem! my happy home!
When shall I come to thee?
When shall my sorrows have an end――
Thy joys when shall I see?

O happy harbour of the saints――
O sweet and pleasant soil!
In thee no sorrow may be found,
No grief, no care, no toil.

In thee no sickness may be seen,
No hurt, no ache, no sore;
There is no death, no ugly deil,[680]
There’s life for evermore.

No dampish mist is seen in thee,
No cold nor darksome night;
There every soul shines as the sun,
There God himself gives light.

There lust and lucre cannot dwell,
There envy bears no sway;
There is no hunger, heat, nor cold,
But pleasure every way.

Jerusalem! Jerusalem!
God grant I once may see
Thy endless joys, and of the same
Partaker aye to be.

Thy walls are made of precious stones,
Thy bulwarks diamonds square;
Thy gates are of right orient pearl,
Exceeding rich and rare.

Thy turrets and thy pinnacles
With carbuncles to shine;
Thy very streets are paved with gold,
Surpassing clear and fine.

Thy houses are of ivory,
Thy windows crystal clear;
Thy tiles are made of beaten gold――
O God, that I were there!

Within thy gates no thing doth come
That is not passing clean;
No spider’s web, no dirt, no dust,
No filth may there be seen.

Ah, my sweet home, Jerusalem!
Would God I were in thee;
Would God my woes were at an end,
Thy joys that I might see!

Thy saints are crown’d with glory great,
They see God face to face;
They triumph still, they still rejoice――
Most happy is their case.

We that are here in banishment
Continually do moan;
We sigh and sob, we weep and wail,
Perpetually we groan.
{457}
Our sweet is mixed with bitter gall,
Our pleasure is but pain;
Our joys scarce last the looking on,
Our sorrows still remain.

But there they live in such delight,
Such pleasure, and such play,
As that to them a thousand years
Doth seem as yesterday.

Thy vineyards and thy orchards are
Most beautiful and fair;
Full furnished with trees and fruits,
Most wonderful and rare.

Thy gardens and thy gallant walks
Continually are green;
There grow such sweet and pleasant flowers
As nowhere else are seen.

There’s nectar and ambrosia made,
There’s musk and civet sweet;
There many a fair and dainty drug
Are trodden under feet.

There cinnamon, there sugar grows,
There nard and balm abound;
What tongue can tell, or heart conceive,
The joys that there are found?

Quite through the streets, with silver sound,
The flood of life doth flow;
Upon whose banks, on every side,
The wood of life doth grow.

There trees for evermore bear fruit,
And evermore do spring;
There evermore the angels sit,
And evermore do sing.

There David stands with harp in hand,
As master of the quire;
Ten thousand times that man were blest
That might this music[681] hear.

Our Lady sings _Magnificat_,
With tune surpassing sweet;
And all the virgins bear their parts,
Sitting above her feet.

_Te Deum_ doth Saint Ambrose sing,
Saint Austin doth the like;
Old Simeon and Zachary
Have not their song to seek.

There Magdalene hath left her moan,
And cheerfully doth sing
With blessed saints, whose harmony
In every street doth ring.

Jerusalem, my happy home!
Would God I were in thee;
Would God my woes were at an end,
Thy joys that I might see!

ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER XXII. 6‒20.

This portion of the book of Revelation is properly the epilogue,
or conclusion. The main purposes of the vision are accomplished;
the enemies of the church are quelled; the church is triumphant; the
affairs of the world are wound up; the redeemed are received to their
blissful, eternal abode; the wicked are cut off; the earth is purified,
and the affairs of the universe are fixed on their permanent foundation.
A few miscellaneous matters, therefore, close the book.

(1) A solemn affirmation on the part of him who had made these
revelations, that they are true, and that they will be speedily
accomplished, and that he will be blessed or happy who shall keep
the sayings of the book, ver. 6, 7.

(2) The effect of all these things on John himself, leading him, as
in a former case (ch. xix. 10), to a disposition to worship him who
had been the medium in making to him such extraordinary communications,
ver. 8, 9.

(3) A command not to seal up what had been revealed, since the time was
near. These things would soon have their fulfilment, and it was proper
that the prophecies should be unsealed, or open, both that the events
might be compared with the predictions, and that a persecuted church
might be able to see what would be the _result_ of all these things,
and to find consolation in the assurance of the final triumph of the
Son of God, ver. 10.

(4) The fixed and unchangeable state of the righteous and the wicked,
ver. 11‒13.

(5) The blessedness of those who keep the commandments of God, and who
enter into the New Jerusalem, ver. 14, 15.

(6) Jesus, the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
and morning star, proclaims himself to be the Author of all these
revelations by the instrumentality of an angel, ver. 16.

(7) The universal invitation of the gospel――the language of Jesus
himself――giving utterance to his strong desire for the salvation of men,
ver. 17.

(8) A solemn command not to change anything that had been revealed in
this book, either by adding to it or taking from it, ver. 18, 19.

(9) The assurance that he who had made these revelations would come
quickly, and the joyous assent of John to this, and prayer that his
advent might soon occur, ver. 20.

(10) Tho benediction, ver. 21.

6 And he said unto me, These sayings _are_ faithful and true:
and the Lord God of the holy prophets [682]sent his angel to
show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

6. _And he said unto me._ The angel-interpreter, who had showed John
the vision of the New Jerusalem, ch. xxi. 9, 10. As these visions are
now at an {458} end, the angel comes to John directly, and assures him
that all these things are true――that there has been no deception of the
senses in these visions, but that they were really divine disclosures
of what would soon and certainly occur. ¶ _These sayings |are| faithful
and true._ These communications――all that has been disclosed to you
by symbols, or in direct language. See Notes on ch. xxi. 5. ¶ _And the
Lord God of the holy prophets._ The same God who inspired the ancient
prophets. ¶ _Sent his angel._ See Notes on ch. i. 1. ¶ _To show unto
his servants._ To all his servants――that is, to all his people, by the
instrumentality of John. The revelation was made to him, and he was to
record it for the good of the whole church. ¶ _The things which must
shortly be done._ The beginning of which must soon occur――though the
series of events extended into distant ages, and even into eternity.
See Notes on ch. i. 1‒3.

7 Behold, [683]I come quickly: blessed _is_ he that keepeth
the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

7. _Behold, I come quickly._ See Notes on ch. i. 3. The words here used
are undoubtedly the words of the Redeemer, although they are apparently
repeated by the angel. The meaning is, that they were used by the angel
as the words of the Redeemer. See ver. 12, 20. ¶ _Blessed is he that
keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book._ That receives them
as a divine communication; that makes use of them to comfort himself in
the days of darkness, persecution, and trial; and that is obedient to
the precepts here enjoined. See Notes on ch. i. 3.

8 And I John saw these things, and heard _them_. And when I
had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of
the angel which showed me these things.

8. _And I John saw these things, and heard |them|._ That is, I
_saw_the parts that were disclosed by pictures, visions, and symbols;
I _heard_ the parts that were communicated by direct revelation.
¶ _And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the
feet of the angel_, &c. As he had done on a former occasion. See Notes
on ch. xix. 10. John appears to have been entirely overcome by the
extraordinary nature of the revelations made to him, and not improbably
entertained some suspicion that it was the Redeemer himself who had
manifested himself to him in this remarkable manner.

9 Then saith he unto me, See _thou do it_ not: for I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them
which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

9. _Then saith he unto me, See |thou do it| not._ See Notes on ch.
xix. 10. ¶ _For I am thy fellow-servant._ Notes on ch. xix. 10. ¶ _And
of thy brethren the prophets._ In ch. xix. 10, it is “of thy brethren
that have the testimony of Jesus.” Here the angel says that, in the
capacity in which he appeared to John, he belonged to the general rank
of the prophets, and was no more entitled to worship than any of the
prophets had been. Like them, he had merely been employed to disclose
important truths in regard to the future; but as the prophets, even
the most eminent of them, were not regarded as entitled to worship
on account of the communications which they had made, no more was
he. ¶ _And of them which keep the sayings of this book._ “I am a mere
creature of God. I, like men, am under law, and am bound to observe the
law of God.” The “sayings of this book” which he says he kept, must be
understood to mean those great principles of religion which it enjoined,
and which are of equal obligation on men and angels. ¶ _Worship God._
Worship God only. Notes on ch. xix. 10.

10 And he saith unto me, [684]Seal not the sayings of the
prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

10. _And he saith unto me._ The angel. ¶ _Seal not the sayings of the
prophecy of this book._ That is, seal not the book itself, for it may
be regarded altogether as a prophetic book. On the sealing of a book,
see Notes on ch. v. 1. Isaiah (viii. 16; xxx. 8) and Daniel (viii. 26;
xii. 4, 9) were commanded to seal up their prophecies. Their prophecies
related to far-distant times, and the idea in their being commanded
to seal them was, that they should make the record {459} sure and
unchangeable; that they should finish it, and lay it up for future ages;
so that, in far-distant times, the events might be compared with the
prophecy, and it might be seen that there was an exact correspondence
between the prophecy and the fulfilment. Their prophecies would not
be immediately demanded for the use of persecuted saints, but would
pertain to future ages. On the other hand, the events which John had
predicted, though in their ultimate development they were to extend to
the end of the world, and even into eternity, were about to _begin_ to
be fulfilled, and were to be of immediate use in consoling a persecuted
church. John, therefore, was directed _not_ to seal up his predictions;
not to lay them away, to be opened, as it were, in distant ages; but
to leave them _open_, so that a persecuted church might pave access to
them, and might, in times of persecution and trial, have the assurance
that the principles of their religion would finally triumph. See Notes
on ch. x. 2. ¶ _For the time is at hand._ That is, they are soon to
_commence_. It is not implied that they would be soon _completed_. The
idea is, that as the scenes of persecution were soon to open upon the
church, it was important that the church should have access to these
prophecies of the final triumph of religion, to sustain it in its
trials. Comp. Notes on ch. i. 1, 3.

11 He[685]that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he
which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and [686]he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy,
let him be holy still.

11. _He that is unjust, let him be unjust still._ This must refer to
the scenes beyond the judgment, and must be intended to affirm an
important truth in regard to the condition of men in the future state.
It cannot refer to the condition of men on this side the grave, for
there is no fixed and unchangeable condition in this world. At the
close of this book, and at the close of the whole volume of revealed
truth, it was proper to declare, in the most solemn manner, that
when these events were consummated, everything would be fixed and
unchanging; that all who were then found to be righteous would remain
so for ever; and that none who were impenitent, impure, and wicked,
would ever change their character or condition. That this is the
meaning here seems to me to be plain; and this sentiment accords with
all that is said in the Bible of the final condition of the righteous
and the wicked. See Mat. xxv. 46; Ro. ii. 6‒9; 1 Th. i. 7‒10; Da.
xii. 2; Ec. xi. 3. Every assurance is held out in the Bible that the
righteous will be secure in holiness and happiness, and that there will
be no danger――no possibility――that they will fall into sin, and sink to
woe; and by the same kind of arguments by which it is proved that their
condition will be unchanging, is it demonstrated that the condition
of the wicked will be unchanging also. The argument for the eternal
punishment of the wicked is as strong as that for the eternal happiness
of the righteous; and if the one is open to doubt, there is no security
for the permanence of the other. The word _unjust_ here is a general
term for an unrighteous or wicked man. The meaning is, that he to whom
that character properly belongs, or of whom it is properly descriptive,
will remain so for ever. The design of this seems to be, to let the
ungodly and the wicked know that there is no change beyond the grave,
and by this solemn consideration to warn them _now_ to flee from the
wrath to come. And assuredly no more solemn consideration can ever be
presented to the human mind than this. ¶ _And he which is filthy, let
him be filthy still._ The word _filthy_ here is, of course, used with
reference to _moral_ defilement or pollution. It refers to the sensual,
the corrupt, the profane; and the meaning is, that their condition will
be fixed, and that they will remain in this state of pollution for ever.
There is nothing more awful than the idea that a polluted soul will be
always polluted; that a heart corrupt will be always corrupt; that the
defiled will be put for ever beyond the possibility of being cleansed
from sin. ¶ _And he that is righteous, let him be righteous still._ The
just, the upright man――in contradistinction from the _unjust_ mentioned
in the first part of the verse. ¶ _And he that is holy, let him be
holy still._ He that is pure, in contradistinction from the _filthy_
mentioned in the former part of the verse. The righteous and the holy
will be confirmed in their character and condition, as well as the
wicked. The affirmation {460} that their condition will be fixed is as
strong as that that of the wicked will be――and no stronger; the entire
representation is, that all beyond the judgment will be unchanging for
ever. Could any more solemn thought be brought before the mind of man?

12 And behold, [687]I come quickly; and my reward _is_ with me,
[688]to give every man according as his work shall be.

12. _And behold, I come quickly._ See Notes on ch. i. 1, 3. These
are undoubtedly the words of the Redeemer; and the meaning is, that
the period when the unchanging sentence would be passed on each
individual――on the unjust, the filthy, the righteous, and the
holy――would not be remote. The _design_ of this seems to be to impress
on the mind the solemnity of the truth that the condition hereafter
will soon be fixed, and to lead men to prepare for it. In reference to
each individual, the period is near when it is to be determined whether
he will be holy or sinful to all eternity. What thought could there be
more adapted to impress on the mind the importance of giving immediate
attention to the concerns of the soul? ¶ _And my reward |is| with me._
I bring it with me to give to every man: either life or death; heaven
or hell; the crown or the curse. He will be prepared immediately to
execute the sentence. Compare Mat. xxv. 31‒46. ¶ _To give every man
according as his work shall be._ See Notes on Mat. xvi. 27; Ro. ii. 6;
2 Co. v. 10.

13 I[689] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the
first and the last.

13. _I am Alpha and Omega_, &c. See Notes on ch. i. 8, 11. The idea
here is, that he will thus show that he is the first and the last――the
beginning and the end. He originated the whole plan of salvation, and
he will determine its close; he formed the world, and he will wind up
its affairs. In the beginning, the continuance, and the end, he will be
recognized as the same being presiding over and controlling all.

14 Blessed[690] _are_ they that do his commandments, that they
may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through
the gates into the city.

14. _Blessed are they that do his commandments._ See Notes on ch. i. 3;
xxii. 7. ¶ _That they may have right._ That they may be entitled to
approach the tree of life; that this privilege may be granted to them.
It is not a _right_ in the sense that they have _merited_ it, but in
the sense that the privilege is conferred on them as one of the rewards
of God, and that, in virtue of the divine arrangements, they will be
entitled to this honour. So the word here used――ἐξουσία――means in Jn.
i. 12, rendered _power_. The _reason_ why this right or privilege is
conferred is not implied in the use of the word. In this case it is
by _grace_, and all the _right_ which they have to the tree of life is
founded on the fact that God has been pleased graciously to confer it
on them. ¶ _To the tree of life._ See Notes on ver. 2. They would not
be forbidden to approach the tree as Adam was, but would be permitted
always to partake of it, and would live for ever. ¶ _And may enter in
through the gates into the city._ The New Jerusalem, ch. xxi. 2. They
would have free access there; they would be permitted to abide there
for ever.

15 For [691]without _are_ [692]dogs, and sorcerers, and
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever
loveth and maketh a lie.

15. _For without |are| dogs._ The wicked, the depraved, the vile: for
of such characters the dogs, an unclean animal among the Jews, was
regarded as a symbol, De. xxiii. 18. On the meaning of the expression,
see Notes on Phi. iii. 2. The word “without” means that they would not
be admitted into the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, ch. xxi. 8, 27.
¶ _And sorcerers_, &c. All these characters are specified in ch. xxi. 8,
as excluded from heaven. See Notes on that verse. The only change is,
that those who “love and make a lie” are added to the list; that is,
who delight in lies, or that which is false.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am [693]the root and the offspring
of David, _and_ the bright and morning star.

16. _I Jesus._ Here the Saviour appears expressly as the
speaker――ratifying and confirming all that had been communicated by
the instrumentality of the angel. ¶ _Have sent mine angel._ Notes on
ch. i. 1. ¶ _To testify unto you._ That is, to be a witness for me in
communicating {461} these things to you. ¶ _In the churches._ Directly
and immediately to the seven churches in Asia Minor (ch. ii. iii.);
remotely and ultimately to all churches to the end of time. Comp. Notes
on ch. i. 11. ¶ _I am the root._ Not the root in the sense that David
sprang from him, as a tree does from a root, but in the sense that he
was the “_root-shoot_” of David, or that he himself sprang from him,
as a sprout starts up from a decayed and fallen tree――as of the oak,
the willow, the chestnut, &c. See this explained in the Notes on Is.
xi. 1. The meaning then is, not that he was the _ancestor_ of David,
or that David sprang from him, but that he was the offspring of David,
according to the promise in the Scripture, that the Messiah should be
descended from him. No argument, then, can be derived from this passage
in proof of the pre-existence, or the divinity of Christ. ¶ _And the
offspring._ The descendant; the progeny of David; “the seed of David
according to the flesh.” See Notes on Ro. i. 3. It is not unusual to
employ two words in close connection to express the same idea with some
slight shade of difference. ¶ _|And| the bright and morning star._ See
Notes on ch. ii. 28. It is not uncommon to compare a prince, a leader,
a teacher, with that bright and beautiful star which at some seasons
of the year precedes the rising of the sun, and leads on the day.
Comp. Notes on Is. xiv. 12. The reference here is to that star as the
harbinger of day; and the meaning of the Saviour is, that he sustains
a relation to a dark world similar to this beautiful star. At one time
he is indeed compared with the sun itself in giving light to the world;
here he is compared with that morning star rather with reference to
its _beauty_ than its _light_. May it not also have been one object in
this comparison to lead us, when we look on that star, to think of the
Saviour? It is perhaps the most beautiful object in nature; it succeeds
the darkness of the night; it brings on the day――and as it mingles
with the first rays of the morning, it seems to be so joyous, cheerful,
exulting, bright, that nothing can be better adapted to remind us
of Him who came to lead on eternal day. Its _place_――the first thing
that arrests the eye in the morning――might serve to remind us that
the Saviour should be the first object that should draw the eye and
the heart on the return of each day. In each trial――each scene of
sorrow――let us think of the bright star of the morning as it rises on
the darkness of the night――emblem of the Saviour rising on our sorrow
and our gloom.

17 And the Spirit and [694]the bride say, [695]Come. And let
him that heareth say, Come. And [696]let him that is athirst
come: and whosoever will, let him take the water of life
freely.

17. _And the Spirit and the bride say, Come._ That is, come to the
Saviour; come and partake of the blessings of the gospel; come and be
saved. The construction demands this interpretation, as the latter part
of the verse shows. The design of this whole verse is, evidently, to
show the freeness of the offers of the gospel; to condense in a summary
manner all the invitations of mercy to mankind; and to leave on the
mind at the close of the book a deep impression of the ample provision
which has been made for the salvation of a fallen race. Nothing, it
is clear, could be more appropriate at the close of this book, and
at the close of the whole volume of revealed truth, than to announce,
in the most clear and attracting form, that salvation is free to
all, and that whosoever will may be saved. ¶ _The Spirit._ The Holy
Spirit. He entreats all to come. This he does (a) in all the recorded
invitations in the Bible――for it is by the inspiration of that Spirit
that these invitations are recorded; (b) by all his influences on the
understandings, the consciences, and the hearts of men; (c) by all the
proclamations of mercy made by the preaching of the gospel, and by the
appeal which friend makes to friend, and neighbour to neighbour, and
stranger to stranger――for all these are methods in which the Spirit
invites men to come to the Saviour. ¶ _And the bride._ The church. See
Notes, ch. xxi. 2, 9. That is, the church invites all to come and be
saved. This it does (a) by its ministers, whose main business it is to
extend this invitation to mankind; (b) by its ordinances――constantly
setting forth the freeness of the gospel; (c) by the lives of its
consistent members――showing the excellency and the desirableness of
true religion; (d) by all its efforts to do good in the world; (e) by
the example of {462} those who are brought into the church――showing
that all, whatever may have been their former character, may be
saved; and (f) by the direct appeals of its individual members. Thus
a Christian parent invites his children; a brother invites a sister,
and a sister invites a brother; a neighbour invites his neighbour,
and a stranger a stranger; the master invites his servant, and the
servant his master. The church on earth and the church in heaven unite
in the invitation, saying, Come. The living father, pastor, friend,
invites――and the voice of the departed father, pastor, friend, now
in heaven, is heard re-echoing the invitation. The once-loved mother
that has gone to the skies still invites her children to come; and the
sweet-smiling babe that has been taken up to the Saviour stretches out
its arms from heaven, and says to its mother――_Come_. ¶ _Say, Come._
That is, come to the Saviour; come into the church; come to heaven.
¶ _And let him that heareth say, Come._ Whoever hears the gospel, let
him go and invite others to come. Nothing could more strikingly set
forth the freeness of the invitation of the gospel than this. The
authority to make the invitation is not limited to the ministers of
religion; it is not even confined to those who accept it themselves.
All persons, even though _they_ should not accept of it, are authorized
to tell others that they may be saved. One impenitent sinner may go and
tell another impenitent sinner that if he will he may find mercy and
enter heaven. How _could_ the offer of salvation be made more freely
to mankind? ¶ _And let him that is athirst come._ Whoever desires
salvation, as the weary pilgrim desires a cooling fountain to allay his
thirst, let him come as freely to the gospel as that thirsty man would
stoop down at the fountain and drink. See Notes on Is. lv. 1. Comp.
Notes on Mat. v. 6; Jn. vii. 37; Re. xxi. 6. ¶ _And whosoever will,
let him take the water of life freely._ Ch. xxi. 6. Every one that is
disposed to come, that has any sincere wish to be saved, is assured
that he may live. No matter how unworthy he is; no matter what his
past life has been; no matter how old or how young, how rich or how
poor; no matter whether sick or well, a freeman or a slave; no matter
whether educated or ignorant; no matter whether clothed in purple or in
rags――riding in state or laid at the gate of a rich man full of sores,
the invitation is freely made to all to come and be saved. With what
more appropriate truth _could_ a revelation from heaven be closed?

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, [697]If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in
this book:

18. _For I testify._ The writer does not specify who is meant by
the word “_I_” in this place. The most natural construction is to
refer it to the writer himself, and not to the angel, or the Saviour.
The meaning is, “I bear this solemn witness, or make this solemn
affirmation, in conclusion.” The object is to guard his book against
being corrupted by any interpolation or change. It would seem not
improbable, from this, that as early as the time of John, books were
liable to be corrupted by additions or omissions, or that at least
there was felt to be great danger that mistakes might be made by the
carelessness of transcribers. Against this danger, John would guard
this book in the most solemn manner. Perhaps he felt, too, that as
this book would be necessarily regarded as obscure from the fact that
symbols were so much used, there was great danger that changes would
be made by well-meaning persons with a view to make it appear more
plain. ¶ _Unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book._ The word “heareth” seems here to be used in a very general
sense. Perhaps in most cases persons would be made acquainted with
the contents of the book by hearing it read in the churches; but still
the spirit of the declaration must include all methods of becoming
acquainted with it. ¶ _If any man shall add unto these things._ With
a view to furnish a more full and complete revelation; or with a
profession that new truth had been communicated by inspiration. The
reference here is to the book of Revelation only――for at that time the
books that now constitute what we call _the Bible_ were not collected
into a single volume. This {463} passage, therefore, should not be
adduced as referring to the whole of the sacred Scriptures. Still,
the _principle_ is one that is thus applicable; for it is obvious that
no one has a right to change any part of a revelation which God makes
to man; to presume to add to it, or to take from it, or in any way to
modify it. Comp. Notes, 2 Ti. iii. 16. ¶ _God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book._ These “plagues” refer to the
numerous methods described in this book as those in which God would
bring severe judgment upon the persecutors of the church and the
corrupters of religion. The meaning is, that such a person would be
regarded as an enemy of his religion, and would share the fearful doom
of all such enemies.

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
of this prophecy, [698]God shall take away his part [699]out
of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and _from_ the
things which are written in this book.

19. _And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
of this prophecy._ If he shall reject the book altogether; if he
shall, in transcribing it, designedly strike any part of it out. It
is conceivable that, from the remarkable nature of the communications
made in this book, and the fact that they seemed to be unintelligible,
John supposed there might be those who would be inclined to omit some
portions as improbable, or that he apprehended that when the portions
which describe Antichrist were fulfilled in distant ages, those to whom
those portions applied would be disposed to strike them from the sacred
volume, or to corrupt them. He thought proper to guard against this
by this solemn declaration of the consequence which would follow
such an act. The whole book was to be received――with all its fearful
truths――as a revelation from God; and however obscure it might seem,
in due time it would be made plain; however faithfully it might depict
a fearful apostasy, it was important, both to show the truth of divine
inspiration and to save the church, that these disclosures should be
in their native purity in the possession of the people of God. ¶ _God
shall take away his part out of the book of life._ Perhaps there is
here an intimation that this would be most likely to be done by those
who professed to be Christians, and who supposed that their names were
in the book of life. In fact, most of the corruptions of the sacred
Scriptures have been attempted by those who have professed some form
of Christianity. Infidels have but little interest in attempting such
changes, and but little influence to make them received by the church.
It is most convenient for them, as it is most agreeable to their
feelings, to reject the Bible altogether. When it said here that “God
would take away his part out of the book of life,” the meaning is not
that his name _had been written_ in that book, but that he would take
away the part which he _might_ have had, or which he _professed_ to
have in that book. Such corruption of the divine oracles would show
that they had no true religion, and would be excluded from heaven. On
the phrase “book of life,” see Notes on ch. iii. 5. ¶ _And out of the
holy city._ Described in ch. xxi. He would not be permitted to enter
that city; he would have no part among the redeemed. ¶ _And |from| the
things which are written in this book._ The promises that are made; the
glories that are described.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, [700]Surely I come
quickly; Amen. Even[701] so, come, Lord Jesus.

20. _He which testifieth these things._ The Lord Jesus; for he it was
that had, through the instrumentality of the angel, borne this solemn
witness to the truth of these things, and this book was to be regarded
as _his_ revelation to mankind. See Notes on ch. i. 1; xxii. 16. He
here speaks of himself, and vouches for the truth and reality of these
things by saying that he “_testifies_” of them, or bears witness to
them. Comp. Jn. xviii. 37. The fact that Jesus himself vouches for
the truth of what is here revealed, shows the propriety of what John
had said in the previous verses about adding to it, or taking from it.
¶ _Saith, Surely I come quickly._ That is, the development of these
events will soon _begin_――though their consummation may extend into far
distant ages, or into eternity. See Notes on ch. i. 1, 3; xxii. 7, 10.
¶ _Amen._ A word of solemn affirmation or assent. See Notes on Mat.
vi. 13. Here it is to be regarded as the expression of John, signifying
his solemn and cheerful assent to what the Saviour had said, that he
{464} would come quickly. It is the utterance of a strong desire that
it might be so. He longed for his appearing. ¶ _Even so._ These, too,
are the words of John, and are a response to what the Saviour had just
said. In the original, it is a response in the same _language_ which
the Saviour had used, and the beauty of the passage is marred by the
translation “_Even so_.” The original is, “He which testifieth to these
things saith, _Yea_――ναὶ――I come quickly. Amen. _Yea_――ναὶ――come, Lord
Jesus.” It is the utterance of desire in the precise language which the
Saviour had used――heart responding to heart. ¶ _Come, Lord Jesus._ That
is, as here intended, “Come in the manner and for the objects referred
to in this book.” The _language_, however, is expressive of the feeling
of piety in a more extended sense, and may be used to denote a desire
that the Lord Jesus would come in any and every manner; that he would
come to impart to us the tokens of his presence; that he would come
to bless his truth and to revive his work in the churches; that he
would come to convert sinners, and to build up his people in holiness;
that he would come to sustain us in affliction, and to defend us
in temptation; that he would come to put a period to idolatry,
superstition, and error, and to extend the knowledge of his truth
in the world; that he would come to set up his kingdom on the earth,
and to rule in the hearts of men; that he would come to receive us to
his presence, and to gather his redeemed people into his everlasting
kingdom. It was appropriate to the aged John, suffering exile in a
lonely island, to pray that the Lord Jesus would speedily come to
take him to himself; and there could have been no more suitable close
of this marvellous book than the utterance of such a desire. And it
is appropriate for us as we finish its contemplation, disclosing so
much of the glories of the heavenly world, and the blessedness of the
redeemed in their final state, when we think of the earth, with its
sorrows, trials, and cares, to respond to the prayer, and to say, “Come,
Lord Jesus, come quickly.” For that glorious coming of the Son of God,
when he shall gather his redeemed people to himself, may all who read
these Notes be finally prepared. Amen.

21 The[702] grace of our Lord Jesus Christ _be_ with you all.
Amen.

21. _The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ |be| with you all. Amen._ The
usual benediction of the sacred writers. See Notes on Ro. xvi. 20.

GLASGOW: W. G. BLACKIE AND CO., PRINTERS, VILLAFIELD.

Footnotes.

1 – “_The Apocalypse of St. John_, or Prophecy of the Rise,
Progress, and Fall of the Church of Rome; the Inquisition;
the Revolution in France; a Universal War, and the final
triumph of Christianity: being a new interpretation, by the
Rev. George Croly, A.M., H.R.S.L.”

2 – P. 192.

3 – Moses Stuart.

4 – See Supplementary Notes on Heb. vii.

5 – Author’s Preface, p. vi.

6 – Stuart on Apocalypse, p. 170, Edinburgh, 1847.

7 – This view of the great philologist has deservedly met with
indignant censure, both in this country and in America.
“We confess,” says Dr. Beecher of Boston, “that this whole
effort to force Nero into chap. xvii. as the wounded beast,
savours too much of that German infidelity that regards
John as little better than a soothsayer himself, and
does not hesitate to affirm that he believes the rumours
concerning Nero. Professor Stuart of course abandons this
ground, and yet he avers that John spoke as if he believed
it. This theory is perfectly consistent in the hands of
one who denies the inspiration of John, but it cannot be
so grafted on the tree of true Christian interpretation as
to appear like one of its true and genuine branches” (_Bib.
Repos._, 1847, p. 296). So also Elliott with still greater
severity, vol. iv. p. 548.

8 – “The first of these two counter schemes is the
_Preterists’_, which would have the prophecy stop
altogether short of the Popedom, explaining it of the
catastrophes, one or both, of the _Jewish nation_ and
_Pagan Rome_; the second, the _Futurists’_, which would
have it all shoot over the head of the Popedom into times
yet future” (Elliott, iv. 529). The first of these schemes
originated with the Jesuit _Alcassar_ in A.D. 1614; the
other with the Jesuit _Ribera_ in A.D. 1585; and it is not
a little remarkable, that both originated in the
necessities of the Papal cause, oppressed by Protestant
interpreters.

9 – _Hierophant_, p. 242.

10 – Compare Stuart on Apocalypse, Excursus v., with Davidson’s
_Introduction_, vol. iii. pp. 513, 514. Dr. D. justly
complains in his preface of being charged by Mr. Elliott
with the sin of copying Stuart. Besides the difference
mentioned above, there is between the two a difference
in regard to the entire scheme of interpretation, Dr. D.
condemning the Preterist scheme, of which Professor
Stuart is perhaps the ablest supporter. The theory which
the latter has put forth on the witnesses meets with
unequivocal condemnation in the pages of the former.
Dr. D. himself, in the meantime, seems to have no scheme
of interpretation. After remarking on the Preterist,
Continuous, and Futurist scheme, he says very candidly,
“we feel disinclined to support any of the rival
hypotheses till they be better supported” (vol. iii.
p. 627).

11 – _Introduction to the New Testament_, by Samuel
Davidson, D.D., vol. iii. p. 513.

12 – Elliott, iv. 419.

13 – Harduin, ix. 1808; in Elliott, ii. p. 83.

14 – P. 424, _et seq._

15 – _Hierophant_, p. 245.

16 – Reply to Cunninghame.

17 – Gen. xl., xli.

18 – Davidson’s _Introduction_, vol. iii. p. 520.

19 – P. 343.

20 – _Commentary on Apocalypse_, p. 790, Edinburgh, 1848; where
also are cited the following passages expressly from the
prophetic books: Ezek. xxix. 11, 12; Jonah iii. 4; Isa.
vii. 8; xvi. 4; Jer. xxvii., xxix.

21 – Stuart’s _Apocalypse_, p. 791.

22 – Dan. x. 2, 3.

23 – _Hierophant_, p. 252.

24 – Elliott, however, refuses to except the “seven times”
specified in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision from the category of
chronological prophecies to which the Year-day principle
is to be applied. He regards the monarch as the mystical
representative of the Assyrian empire, and Babylon,
governed by him. “For my own part,” says he, “considering
the extraordinary nature of the judgment――the fact of
its being so fully recorded by Daniel――the circumstance
of Nebuchadnezzar being addressed on occasion of another
prophecy as the representative of his nation (‘thou art
that head of gold’), and that of the symbolic tree, when
cut down, being bound with a band of _brass_ and _iron_,
the metals significant of the _Greek_ and _Roman empires_,
which for ages held sway over the prostrate region of
Babylon; all these considerations, united with that of
the prediction that _Assyria_ specifically is to recover
in the latter day from its apostasy (Isa. xix. 24, 25),
induce me to believe that Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity and
degradation typified that of his empire in its apostasy
from God; and the _seven times_ 360 _days_ that passed
over him in that state, the _seven times_ 360, or 2520
_years_ that would have to be completed, ere Assyria’s
recovery to a sound mind, at the termination of the _times
of the Gentiles_.” At the same time Mr. Elliott does not
deny the application of the prediction to Nebuchadnezzar
as an individual, and remarks, that it is not an uncommon
circumstance “for an individual person to be made the
subject of a prefigurative vision, and yet himself to
prefigure in that very action or character something
future.” If, then, we admit the truth of this
representation, and set aside Dan. x. 2, 3 as not a
prediction at all, both the passages insisted on by
Professor Stuart are in this way removed from the list of
exceptions.

25 – _Elements of Prophecy_, p. 375, and _Horæ Apocalyp._,
vol. iii. p. 250.

26 – Chap. xiii. 25; xiv. 34.

27 – _Introduction_, p. 518.

28 – Ezek. iv. 4‒6.

29 – Stuart’s _Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy_,
pp. 76, 78; _Apocalypse_, Excursus v.

30 – Davidson’s _Introduction_, vol. iii. p. 519.

31 – _Hierophant_, pp. 247, 248.

32 – Chap. xx. 2, 3.

33 – Davidson’s _Introduction_, vol. iii. p. 522.

34 – J. A. Alexander, _in loco_.

35 – See the _Critici Sacri_, Scott, Barnes, Alexander, &c.

36 – Dan. ix. 24‒27.

37 – Tyso, Govett, and Todd.

38 – _Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy_, p. 79.

39 – _Hierophant_, p. 250.

40 – Davidson’s _Introduction_, vol. iii. p. 515.

41 – Mede’s _Works_, book iii. chap. ix. p. 599.

42 – Gen. xxix. 27, 28; Lev. xii. 5; Exod. xxxiv. 22; Deut.
xvi. 9, twice, and 10; Jer. v. 24; Deut. xvi. 16; 2 Chron.
viii. 13; Num. xxviii. 26.

43 – Gesenius’ _Lexicon_.

44 – See margin.

45 – Chap. ix. 5‒10.

46 – Chap. ix. 15.

47 – _Horæ Apocalyp._, vol. i. p. 489.

48 – Chap. xi. 2.

49 – Chap. xi. 3, 11.

50 – Chap. xii. 6, 14.

51 – _Elements of Prophecy_, p. 382.

52 – Chap. xiii. 5.

53 – Compare chap. xiii. with xix. 19, 20.

54 – vii. 25; xii. 7.

55 – Stuart’s _Commentary_.

56 – Stuart, in the _Bibliotheca Sacra_, pp. 353, 354.

57 – Lu. 11:28.

58 – Ja. 5:8, 9; 1 Pe. 4:7.

59 – ver. 11.

60 – ver. 8.

61 – ch. 3:1; 4:5; Zec. 4:10.

62 – Jn. 8:14.

63 – Col. 1:18.

64 – Jn. 13:1.

65 – He. 9:14.

66 – Ex. 19:6; 1 Pe. 2:5‒9.

67 – He. 13:21.

68 – Da. 7:13; Mat. 26:64.

69 – Zec. 12:10.

70 – Mat. 24:30.

71 – ch. 22:20.

72 – Is. 41:4.

73 – Is. 9:6.

74 – 2 Co. 12:2.

75 – Jn. 20:26; Ac. 20:7; 1 Co. 16:2.

76 – ch. 2:1.

77 – ch. 2:8.

78 – ch. 2:12.

79 – ch. 2:18.

80 – ch. 3:1.

81 – ch. 3:7.

82 – ch. 3:14.

83 – Ex. 25:37; Zec. 4:2.

84 – Eze. 1:26‒28; Da. 7:9, 13; 10:5, 6.

85 – ch. 2:18; 19:12.

86 – Eze. 1:7.

87 – Eze. 43:2.

88 – Is. 49:2; He. 4:12.

89 – ch. 10:1; Ac. 26:13.

90 – Ro. 6:9.

91 – ch. 20:1, 2; Ps. 68:20.

92 – ver. 16.

93 – Mat. 5:15, 16.

94 – ch. 1:16, 20.

95 – ver. 9, 13, 19; ch. 3:1, 8, 15; Ps. 1:6.

96 – 1 Jn. 4:1.

97 – 2 Co. 11:13.

98 – Ga. 6:9.

99 – Je. 2:2, 3.

100 – Mat. 21:41, 43.

101 – ver. 15.

102 – ver. 11, 17, 29; Mat. 11:15.

103 – ch. 22:2, 14; Ge. 2:9.

104 – ch. 1:8, 17.

105 – 1 Ti. 6:18.

106 – Ro. 2:28, 29.

107 – ch. 3:9.

108 – Mat. 10:22.

109 – Ja. 1:12.

110 – ch. 20:14.

111 – ch. 1:16.

112 – ver. 9.

113 – 2 Ti. 2:12.

114 – Nu. 31:16.

115 – Ac. 15:29.

116 – 1 Co. 6:13, 18.

117 – Is. 11:4.

118 – ver. 7; ch. 3:6, 13, 22.

119 – Ps. 25:14.

120 – ch. 3:12; 19:12, 13; Is. 56:4, 5; 65:15.

121 – 1 Co. 2:14.

122 – ch. 1:14, 15.

123 – ver. 2.

124 – 1 Ki. 16:31.

125 – Ex. 34:15; 1 Co. 10:20, 28.

126 – Ro. 2:4; 2 Pe. 3:9.

127 – ch. 9:20.

128 – Eze. 16:37; 23:29.

129 – ch. 6:8.

130 – Zep. 1:11.

131 – 1 Ch. 28:9; 2 Ch. 6:30; Ps. 7:9; Je. 17:10.

132 – Ps. 62:12.

133 – 2 Th. 2:9‒12.

134 – ch. 3:11.

135 – ver. 7, 11, 17; ch. 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7.

136 – Jn. 6:29; Ja. 2:20.

137 – Ps. 49:14; 149:5‒9.

138 – Ps. 2:9.

139 – ch. 22:16.

140 – ch. 5:6.

141 – ch. 2:2, &c.

142 – 1 Ti. 5:6.

143 – ch. 2:5.

144 – Da. 5:27.

145 – He. 2:1.

146 – ver. 19.

147 – ch. 16:15.

148 – ch. 7:9; 19:8.

149 – ch. 17:8.

150 – Lu. 12:8.

151 – Ac. 3:14.

152 – 1 Jn. 5:20.

153 – Is. 22:22.

154 – Job 12:14.

155 – 1 Co. 16:9.

156 – ch. 2:9.

157 – Is. 60:14.

158 – 2 Pe. 2:9.

159 – Zep. 1:14.

160 – ver. 3.

161 – ch. 21:2, 10.

162 – or, _in Laodicea_.

163 – Is. 65:16.

164 – 1 Ki. 18:21.

165 – Ho. 12:8.

166 – Is. 55:1.

167 – ch. 16:15.

168 – He. 12:5, 6.

169 – Ca. 5:2; Lu. 12:36.

170 – Jn. 14:23.

171 – ch. 12:11; 1 Jn. 5:4, 5.

172 – Lu. 22:30.

173 – Jn. 16:33.

174 – ch. 2:7.

175 – ch. 1:10.

176 – ch. 11:12.

177 – ch. 17:3; 21:10; Eze. 3:12‒14.

178 – Is. 6:1; Je. 17:12; Eze. 1:26, 28.

179 – Da. 7:9; He. 8:1.

180 – ch. 11:16.

181 – ch. 3:4, 5.

182 – ver. 10.

183 – ch. 8:5; 16:18.

184 – Ge. 15:17; Ex. 37:23; Zec. 4:2.

185 – ch. 1:4.

186 – ch. 15:2.

187 – Eze. 1:5, &c.; 10:14.

188 – Is. 6:2, &c.

189 – _have no rest._

190 – ch. 5:14.

191 – ver. 4.

192 – ch. 5:12.

193 – Col. 1:16.

194 – Eze. 2:9, 10.

195 – Is. 29:11.

196 – Ge. 49:9, 10; Nu. 24:9; He. 7:14.

197 – ch. 22:16; Is. 11:1, 10.

198 – Is. 53:7; Jn. 1:29, 36.

199 – Zec. 4:10.

200 – ch. 4:4, 8, 10.

201 – ch. 15:2.

202 – or, _incense_.

203 – Ps. 141:2.

204 – ch. 14:3.

205 – Ac. 20:28; Ep. 1:7; He. 9:12; 1 Pe. 1:18, 19.

206 – ch. 7:9.

207 – ch. 1:6.

208 – ch. 22:5.

209 – Da. 7:10; He. 12:22.

210 – ch. 4:11.

211 – Phi. 2:10.

212 – 1 Ch. 29:11; 1 Ti. 6:16; 1 Pe. 4:11.

213 – ch. 19:4.

214 – ch. 5:5.

215 – Zec. 6:3, &c.

216 – Ps. 45:3‒5.

217 – The word _chœnix_ signifieth a measure containing one wine
quart, and the twelfth part of a quart.

218 – ch. 9:4.

219 – or, _to him_.

220 – Eze. 14:21.

221 – ch. 8:3.

222 – ch. 20:4.

223 – ch. 1:9; 12:17.

224 – Zec. 1:12.

225 – ch. 11:18; De. 32:41‒43.

226 – ch. 7:9, 14.

227 – ch. 14:13.

228 – He. 11:40.

229 – ch. 16:18.

230 – Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15.

231 – ch. 8:10.

232 – or, _green_.

233 – Ps. 102:26; Is. 34:4.

234 – ch. 16:20; Je. 4:23, 24; Hab. 3:6, 10.

235 – Is. 2:19.

236 – ch. 9:6; Ho. 10:8; Lu. 23:30.

237 – ch. 16:14; Is. 13:6, &c.; Zep. 1:14, &c.

238 – Ps. 76:7.

239 – Da. 7:2.

240 – 2 Ti. 2:19.

241 – ch. 6:6.

242 – Eze. 9:4.

243 – ch. 22:4.

244 – ch. 14:1.

245 – ch. 5:9; Ro. 11:25.

246 – ch. 6:11.

247 – Le. 23:40.

248 – Zec. 4:7.

249 – ch. 19:1; Is. 43:11.

250 – ch. 5:13, 14; Jude 25.

251 – ch. 6:9; Jn. 16:33.

252 – 1 Co. 6:11; He. 9:14.

253 – ch. 1:5; 1 Jn. 1:7.

254 – ch. 21:3, 4.

255 – Is. 49:10.

256 – Ps. 121:6; Is. 4:6.

257 – Ps. 23:1, 2, 5; 36:8; Is. 40:11.

258 – Is. 25:8.

259 – ch. 5:1.

260 – Lu. 1:19.

261 – 2 Ch. 29:25‒28.

262 – or, _add |it| to_.

263 – ch. 5:8.

264 – ch. 6:9.

265 – Ex. 30:1.

266 – or, _upon_.

267 – ch. 16:18.

268 – 2 Sa. 22:8.

269 – Eze. 38:22.

270 – Is. 2:13.

271 – Ingentem meminit parvo qui germine quercum
Æquævumque videt consenuisse nemus.
A neighbouring wood born with himself he sees
And loves his old contemporary trees.――COWLEY.

272 – Je. 51:25.

273 – Am. 7:4.

274 – ch. 16:3, &c.; Ex. 7:19‒21.

275 – ch. 9:1; Is. 14:12.

276 – De. 29:18; Am. 5:7; He. 12:15.

277 – Ex. 15:23; Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

278 – Is. 13:10; Je. 4:23; Eze. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:10; Am. 8:9.

279 – “If we were called on to fix a period most calamitous,
it would be that from the death of Theodosius to the
establishment of the Lombards” (_Charles V_ pp. 11, 12).

280 – ch. 14:6.

281 – ch. 8:10; Lu. 10:18.

282 – ch. 17:8; 20:1.

283 – Joel 2:2.

284 – Ex. 10:4, &c.

285 – ver. 10.

286 – ch. 6:6.

287 – ch. 7:3; Ex. 12:23; Job 2:6; Eze. 9:4.

288 – Job 3:21; Je. 8:3.

289 – Joel 2:4.

290 – Na. 3:17.

291 – Da. 7:4, 8.

292 – Ps. 57:4; Joel 1:6.

293 – Na. 2:4.

294 – ver. 5.

295 – Ep. 2:2.

296 – That is, _a destroyer_.

297 – Fœmineas incisas facies præferentes, virorum et bene
barbatorum fugientia terga confodiunt.

298 – ch. 8:13.

299 – ch. 16:12; Ge. 2:14; Je. 51:63.

300 – or, _at_.

301 – ch. 8:7‒9.

302 – Eze. 38:4; Da. 11:40.

303 – Ps. 68:17.

304 – ch. 7:4.

305 – 1 Ch. 12:8; Is. 5:28, 29.

306 – Is. 9:15; Ep. 4:14.

307 – Je. 5:3; 8:6.

308 – Le. 17:7; 1 Co. 10:20.

309 – Ps. 135:15; Is. 40:19, 20.

310 – ch. 22:15.

311 – “As the Julian year equalled 365 days 6 hours, the
Apocalyptic period would, on the year-day principle,
be in amount as follows:――
A year = 365-1/4 days = 365 years + 1/4 of a year.
A month = 30 days = 30 years.
A day = = 1 year.
-----
396 years.
1/4 of a prophetic day or year (left out above)
= 91-1/4 days.
An hour = 1/24 of a prophetic day or year = 15-1/6 days.
Total = years 396 + 106 days.”
Elliott, i. p. 496.

312 – Mandat Chalifa tuæ curæ omne id terrarum quod Deus ejus
curæ et imperio commisit; tibique civium piorum, fidelium,
Deum colentium, tutclam sublocatorio nomine demandat.

313 – In the Hereford Discussion, between the Rev. J. Venn and
Rev. James Waterworth, it was admitted by the latter, an
able and learned Romish priest, that Bonaventura’s Psalter
to the Virgin Mary, turning the addresses to God into
addresses to the Virgin, was _blasphemy_ (Elliott, ii. 25).

314 – Romanus Pontifex viros claros, et qui sanctimoniâ
floruerunt, et eorum exigentibus clarissimis meritis
aliorum sanctorum numero aggregari mereritur――inter
sanctos prædictos debet collocare, et ut sanctos ab
omnibus Christi fidelibus _coli_, _venerari_, et ADORARI
mandare.

315 – “If you wish to see the horrors of these ages” (the Middle
Ages), says Chateaubriand, _Dict. Hist._ tom. iii. 420,
“read the _Councils_.”

316 – His character is told in the well-known epigram――
Octo _nocens_ pueros genuit, totidemque puellas:
Hunc merito potuit dicere Roma _patrem_.

317 – Eze. 1:28.

318 – ch. 1:15, 16; Mat. 17:2.

319 – For the proof of this, see Elliott, ii. 92.

320 – ch. 8:5; 14:2.

321 – Da. 8:26; 12:4, 9.

322 – Ex. 6:8; De. 32:40.

323 – ch. 14:7; Ne. 9:6.

324 – Da. 12:6, 7.

325 – ch. 11:15.

326 – Ro. 11:25; Ep. 3:5‒9.

327 – ver. 4.

328 – Eze. 3:1‒3, 14.

329 – ch. 21:15; Zec. 2:1.

330 – Eze. xl.‒xlviii.

331 – Eze. 40:17‒20.

332 – _cast out._

333 – Lu. 21:24.

334 – Da. 7:25.

335 – or, _give unto my two witnesses that they may prophesy_.

336 – Mat. 18:16.

337 – ch. 20:4.

338 – Is. 22:12.

339 – Je. 11:16; Zec. 4:3, 11, 14.

340 – ch. 1:20.

341 – Ps. 18:8.

342 – Nu. 16:35; Ho. 6:5.

343 – 1 Ki. 17:1.

344 – Ex. 7:19.

345 – ch. 17:8.

346 – Da. 7:21; Zec. 14:2, &c.

347 – He. 13:12.

348 – Is. 1:10.

349 – Ex. 20:2.

350 – Ps. 79:3.

351 – Eze. 37:5‒14.

352 – 1 Th. 4:17.

353 – Mal. 3:18.

354 – ch. 16:19.

355 – _names of men._

356 – ch. 14:7; Is. 26:15, 16.

357 – ch. 8:13.

358 – “An old Welsh Chronicle preserved at Cambridge says,
‘After that by means of Austin the Saxons became
Christians, in such sort as Austin had taught them, the
Britons would not either eat or drink with or salute them;
because they corrupted with _superstition_, _images_, and
_idolatry_, the true religion of Christ.’” Cited in
Hearn’_Man of Sin_, p. 21.――Elliott.

359 – ch. 10:7.

360 – ch. 12:10.

361 – Da. 2:44; 7:14, 18:27.

362 – ch. 4:4.

363 – ch. 16:5.

364 – ch. 19:6

365 – ver. 9.

366 – He. 9:27.

367 – ch. 22:12.

368 – ch. 19:5.

369 – or, _corrupt_.

370 – ch. 15:5, 8.

371 – ch. 8:5.

372 – ch. 16:18, 21.

373 – or, _sign_.

374 – Is. 54:6.

375 – Ps. 84:11; Mal. 4:2.

376 – or, _sign_.

377 – ver. 9.

378 – Is. 9:15.

379 – Is. 7:14.

380 – Ps. 2:9.

381 – ch. 11:3.

382 – Ge. 3:1, 4.

383 – Jn. 8:44.

384 – Zec. 3:1.

385 – ch. 11:15.

386 – Ro. 8:33, 37.

387 – Lu. 14:26.

388 – Ps. 96:11; Is. 49:13.

389 – ch. 8:13.

390 – ch. 10:6.

391 – Is. 40:31.

392 – An affecting instance of this kind――perhaps one of many
cases that existed――is mentioned by D’Aubigné (book i. p.
79, Eng. trans.), which came to light on the pulling down,
in the year 1776, of an old building that had formed a
part of the Carthusian convent at Basle. A poor Carthusian
brother, by the name of Martin, had written the following
confession, which he had placed in a wooden box, and
inclosed in a hole which he had made in the wall of his
cell, where it was found:――“O most merciful God, I know
that I can only be saved, and satisfy thy righteousness,
by the merit, the innocent suffering, and death of thy
well-beloved Son. Holy Jesus! my salvation is in thy hands.
Thou canst not withdraw the hands of thy love from me; for
they have created and redeemed me. Thou hast inscribed my
name with a pen of iron in rich mercy, and so as nothing
can efface it, on thy side, thy hands, and thy feet,” &c.

393 – Is. 59:19.

394 – Ge. 3:15.

395 – Da. 7:2, &c.

396 – ch. 12:3; 17:3, 9, 12.

397 – or, _names_.

398 – Da. 7:4‒7.

399 – ch. 12:9.

400 – ch. 16:10.

401 – _slain._

402 – ch. 17:8.

403 – ch. 17:14.

404 – Da. 7:8, 11, 25; 11:36.

405 – _make war._

406 – ch. 11:2, 3; 12:6.

407 – Col. 2:9; He. 9:11, 24.

408 – He. 12:22, 23.

409 – ch. 11:7; 12:17; Da. 7:21.

410 – Lu. 4:6.

411 – ch. 21:27; Da. 12:1.

412 – ch. 17:8.

413 – Is. 33:1.

414 – Ge. 9:6.

415 – He. 6:12.

416 – ch. 11:7.

417 – ver. 3.

418 – Mat. 24:24; 2 Th. 2:9, 10.

419 – ver. 3, 12.

420 – _breath._

421 – ch. 16:2

422 – _give them._

423 – Among the Romans, slaves were stigmatized with the
master’s name or mark on their foreheads. So Valerius
Maximus speaks of the custom for slaves, “literarum
notis inuri;” and Plautus calls the slave “literatus.”
Ambrose (_De Obit. Valentin._) says, Charactere Domini
inscribuntur servuli. Petronius mentions the forehead as
the place of the mark; Servitia ecce in frontibus cernitis.
In many cases, soldiers bore the emperor’s name or mark
imprinted on the hand. Actius says, Stigmata vocant
quæ in facie, vel in aliâ parte corporis, inscribuntur;
qualia sunt militum in manibus. So Ambrose says, Nomine
imperatoris signantur milites. Comp. Notes on Gal. vi. 17.

424 – ch. 15:2.

425 – ch. 5:12.

426 – ch. 7:4.

427 – ch. 3:12.

428 – ch. 19:6.

429 – ch. 5:8, 9.

430 – ch. 15:3.

431 – ver. 1.

432 – Ca. 1:3; 6:8; 2 Co. 11:2.

433 – Jn. 10:27.

434 – bought, 1 Co. 6:20.

435 – Ja. 1:18.

436 – Ps. 32:2.

437 – Ep. 5:27; Jude 24.

438 – 2 Sa. 23:5; Is. 40:8.

439 – Ep. 3:9.

440 – ch. 15:4.

441 – ch. 18:2, 3; Is. 21:9; Je. 51:7, 8.

442 – ch. 13:14‒16.

443 – Ps. 75:8.

444 – ch. 19:20.

445 – Is. 34:10.

446 – Is. 57:20, 21.

447 – 1 Th. 4:14, 16.

448 – or, _from henceforth saith the Spirit, Yea_.

449 – Eze. 1:26; Da. 7:13.

450 – Joel 3:13.

451 – Je. 51:33; Mat. 13:39.

452 – or, _dried_.

453 – ver. 15.

454 – ch. 19:15.

455 – Is. 63:3.

456 – He. 13:11, 12.

457 – Is. 34:7.

458 – ch. 19:14.

459 – ch. 14:10.

460 – ch. 4:6.

461 – Is. 4:4, 5.

462 – ch. 13:15‒17.

463 – ch. 14:2.

464 – Ex. 15:1‒19; De. 32:1‒43.

465 – ch. 14:3.

466 – Ho. 14:9.

467 – or, _nations_, or _ages_, ch. 17:14.

468 – Je. 10:7.

469 – 1 Sa. 2:2.

470 – Is. 45:23.

471 – ch. 11:19.

472 – Is. 6:4.

473 – Ps. 29:9.

474 – ch. 15:1, 7.

475 – ch. 8:7.

476 – Ex. 9:8‒11.

477 – ch. 13:15‒17.

478 – ch. 8:8.

479 – Ex. 7:17‒20.

480 – ch. 8:10.

481 – ver. 7.

482 – De. 32:42, 43; Is. 49:26.

483 – ch. 15:3; 19:2.

484 – ch. 8:12.

485 – ch. 9:17.

486 – or, _burned_.

487 – ver. 11, 21.

488 – ch. 9:20; Da. 5:22, 23.

489 – ch. 13:2‒4.

490 – ch. 9:2.

491 – ver. 2.

492 – In this connection, I may insert here the remarkable
calculation of Robert Fleming, in his work, entitled,
_Apocalyptical Key_, or _The Pouring Out of the Vials_,
first published in 1701. It is in the following words:
――“The fifth vial (ver. 10, 11), which is to be poured out
_on the seat of the beast, or the dominions which more
immediately belong to, and depend on, the Roman see; that,
I say, this judgment will probably begin about the year
1794, and expire about A.D. 1848; or that the duration of
it upon this supposition will be the space of fifty-four
years_. For I do suppose that, seeing the pope received
the title of Supreme Bishop no sooner than A.D. 606, he
cannot be supposed to have any vial poured upon his seat
immediately (so as to ruin his authority so signally as
this judgment must be supposed to do) _until the year 1848,
which is the date of the twelve hundred and sixty years in
prophetical account, when they are reckoned from A.D. 606_.
But yet we are not to imagine that this will totally
destroy the Papacy (though it will exceedingly weaken it),
for we find that still in being and alive when the next
vial is poured out” [pp. 124, 125, Cobbin’s edition].
It is a circumstance remarkably in accordance with this
calculation, that in the year 1848 the pope was actually
driven away to Gaeta, and that at the present time (1851)
he is restored, though evidently with diminished power.

493 – ch. 9:14.

494 – Is. 42:15; Je. 50:38; 51:36.

495 – ch. 12:3, 9.

496 – ch. 13:2.

497 – ch. 19:20.

498 – 1 Ti. 4:1.

499 – 2 Th. 2:9.

500 – 1 Jn. 5:19.

501 – ch. 19:19.

502 – 2 Pe. 3:10.

503 – ch. 3:4, 18.

504 – ch. 21:6.

505 – ch. 11:13.

506 – Da. 12:1.

507 – ch. 14:8.

508 – Is. 51:17, 23; Je. 25:15, 16.

509 – ch. 6:14.

510 – ch. 11:19.

511 – ch. 19:2; Na. 3:4.

512 – Je. 51:13.

513 – ch. 18:3.

514 – ch. 12:3.

515 – ch. 13:1.

516 – _gilded._

517 – Je. 51:7.

518 – 2 Th. 2:7.

519 – or, _fornications_.

520 – ch. 16:6.

521 – ver. 1.

522 – ver. 3.

523 – ch. 11:7.

524 – ver. 11.

525 – ch. 13:3, 8.

526 – ch. 13:1.

527 – Da. 7:20; Zec. 1:18‒21.

528 – ch. 19:19.

529 – Je. 50:44.

530 – ch. 19:16; De. 10:17; 1 Ti. 6:15.

531 – Mi. 5:8, 9.

532 – Ro. 8:30, 37.

533 – Jn. 15:16.

534 – ch. 2:10.

535 – ver. 1; Is. 8:7.

536 – ch. 13:7.

537 – Je. 50:41, 42.

538 – Eze. 16:37‒44.

539 – ch. 18:8, 18.

540 – Ac. 4:27, 28.

541 – ch. 10:7.

542 – ch. 16:19.

543 – Eze. 43:2.

544 – ch. 14:8; Is. 13:19; 21:9; Je. 51:8.

545 – ch. 17:2; Is. 34:11, 14; Je. 50:39; 51:37.

546 – Is. 47:15.

547 – ver. 11, 15.

548 – or, _power_.

549 – Is. 48:20; 52:11; Je. 50:8; 51:6, 45; 2 Co. 6:17.

550 – Je. 51:9.

551 – ch. 16:19.

552 – Ps. 137:8; Je. 50:15, 29.

553 – Is. 47:7‒11; Zep. 2:15.

554 – ch. 17:16.

555 – Ps. 62:11; Je. 50:34.

556 – Eze. 26:16, 17.

557 – ver. 17, 19.

558 – Eze. 27:27‒36.

559 – ch. 17:4.

560 – or, _sweet_.

561 – or, _bodies_.

562 – Eze. 27:13.

563 – Lu. 16:19, &c.

564 – Is. 23:14.

565 – Je. 51:37.

566 – Jos. 7:6; Job 2:12; Eze. 27:30.

567 – Je. 51:48.

568 – ch. 19:2; De. 32:43; Lu. 18:7, 8.

569 – Je. 51:64.

570 – Je. 25:10.

571 – Je. 7:34; 16:9; 33:11.

572 – Is. 23:8.

573 – 2 Ki. 9:22; Na. 3:4.

574 – Je. 51:49.

575 – ch. 11:15.

576 – ver. 3, 4, 6.

577 – ch. 7:10, 12.

578 – ch. 16:7.

579 – ch. 18:20.

580 – ch. 18:9, 18; Is. 34:10.

581 – Ps. 135:1.

582 – Ps. 97:1, 12.

583 – Mat. 25:10.

584 – Is. 52:1.

585 – ch. 3:4; Is. 61:10.

586 – or, _bright_.

587 – Ps. 132:9.

588 – Lu. 14:15.

589 – ch. 3:20.

590 – ch. 22:6.

591 – ch. 22:8, 9.

592 – Ac. 10:43; 1 Pe. 1:10, 11.

593 – ch. 6:2.

594 – ch. 3:14.

595 – Ps. 45:3, 4; Is. 11:4.

596 – ch. 1:14; 2:18.

597 – ch. 6:2; Ca. 3:11; Is. 62:3; Zec. 9:16; He. 2:9.

598 – ch. 3:12.

599 – Jn. 1:1.

600 – Mat. 28:3.

601 – ch. 1:16.

602 – Ps. 2:9.

603 – Is. 63:3.

604 – ch. 17:14.

605 – Eze. 39:17‒20.

606 – ch. 16:14, 16.

607 – ch. 16:13, 14.

608 – ch. 20:10; Da. 7:11.

609 – ver. 15; ch. 1:16.

610 – ver. 17, 18.

611 – ch. 1:18; 9:1.

612 – ch. 12:9.

613 – 2 Pe. 2:4; Jude 6.

614 – Da. 6:17.

615 – Da. 7:9, 22, 27; Lu. 22:30.

616 – 1 Co. 6:2, 3.

617 – ch. 6:9.

618 – ch. 5:10.

619 – ch. 2:11; 21:8.

620 – ch. 1:6; Is. 61:6.

621 – I have slightly abridged this passage, but have retained
the sense.

622 – Eze. 38:2; 39:1.

623 – ch. 16:14.

624 – Is. 8:8; Eze. 38:9, 16.

625 – ch. 19:20.

626 – 2 Pe. 3:10, 12.

627 – Da. 7:10.

628 – ch. 21:27; Da. 12:1.

629 – Je. 32:19; Mat. 16:27.

630 – _the grave._

631 – Ho. 13:14; 1 Co. 15:26, 54.

632 – Mat. 25:41.

633 – Is. 65:17‒19; 66:22; 2 Pe. 3:13.

634 – Is. 52:1; He. 11:10; 12:22.

635 – Is. 54:5.

636 – Ps. 45:9‒14.

637 – 2 Co. 6:16.

638 – Zec. 8:8.

639 – ch. 7:17; Is. 25:8.

640 – 1 Co. 15:26, 54.

641 – Is. 35:10.

642 – ch. 16:17.

643 – ch. 1:8; 22:1.

644 – ch. 22:17; Is. 55:1; Jn. 4:10, 14; 7:37.

645 – or, _these_.

646 – Lu. 12:4‒9.

647 – 1 Jn. 5:4, 10.

648 – 1 Co. 6:9, 10.

649 – 1 Jn. 3:15.

650 – He. 13:4.

651 – Mal. 3:5.

652 – 1 Co. 10:20, 21.

653 – ch. 22:15; Pr. 19:5, 9.

654 – ch. 15:1, 6, 7.

655 – ch. 19:7.

656 – Eze. xl.‒xlviii.

657 – Is. 60:1, 2.

658 – Eze. 48:31‒34.

659 – Ep. 2:20.

660 – ch. 11:1; Eze. 40:3; Zec. 2:1.

661 – Is. 54:11.

662 – ch. 22:5; Is. 60:19, 20.

663 – Jn. 1:4.

664 – Is. 60:3‒11; 66:10‒12.

665 – Ps. 72:11.

666 – Zec. 14:7.

667 – Is. 35:8; 52:1; 60:21; Joel 3:17; Mat. 13:41; 1 Co. 6:9, 10;
Ga. 5:19‒21; Ep. 5:5; He. 12:14.

668 – ch. 13:8.

669 – Eze. 47:1, 12.

670 – ch. 21:21.

671 – ch. 2:7.

672 – Zec. 14:11.

673 – Eze. 48:35.

674 – ch. 7:15.

675 – Mat. 5:8; Jn. 12:26; 17. 24; 1 Co. 13:12; 1 Jn. 3:2.

676 – ch. 3:12.

677 – ch. 21:23, 25.

678 – Ps. 36:9.

679 – Ro. 5:17.

680 – Devil, in MS., but it must have been pronounced _Scoticè_,
“deil.”

681 – Musing, in MS.

682 – ch. 1:1.

683 – ver. 10, 12, 20.

684 – Da. 8:26.

685 – Pr. 1:24‒33; Ec. 11:3; Mat. 25:10; 2 Ti. 3:13.

686 – Pr. 4:18; Mat. 5:6.

687 – Zep. 1:14.

688 – ch. 20:12.

689 – Is. 44:6.

690 – Lu. 12:37, 38.

691 – ch. 21:8, 27.

692 – Phi. 3:2.

693 – ch. 5:5.

694 – ch. 21:2, 9.

695 – Is. 2:5.

696 – ch. 21:6.

697 – Pr. 30:6.

698 – ch. 3:5.

699 – or, _from the tree_.

700 – ver. 7, 12.

701 – He. 9:28; Is. 25:9.

702 – 2 Th. 3:18.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

The following corrections have been made in the text:

Page iv:
Sentence starting: Map of N. Italy....
– Publisher included this entry in the list but did no include
the map in the book.

Page xlviii:
Sentence starting: It is known that John....
– ‘like’ replaced with ‘life’
(the later years of his life)

Page 40:
Sentence starting: It is remarkable that....
– ‘incriptions’ replaced with ‘inscriptions’
(passages in heathen inscriptions)

Page 190; verse 8. 1:
Sentence starting: AND when he had opened....
– ‘and’ replaced with ‘an’
(space of half an hour.)

Page 217:
Sentence starting: The only thing which they have....
– ‘sub-substance’ replaced with ‘substance’
(a hard bony substance)

Page 280:
Sentence starting: That is, there would be....
– ‘sufferred’ replaced with ‘suffered’
(shown to the dead if they were not suffered to be)

Page 323:
Sentence starting: It was the policy of rulers....
– ‘vicegerents’ replaced with ‘viceregents’
(they were the viceregents of heaven)

Page 366:
Sentence starting: All that is represented here....
– duplicated word removed ‘to’
(_preliminary_ to that final)

Page 384:
Sentence starting: Our translators have adopted....
– ‘apparrently’ replaced with ‘apparently’
(apparently for the sole purpose)

Page 417:
Sentence starting: The main purpose was to....
– ‘chuch’ replaced with ‘church’
(history of the church)

Page 450:
Sentence starting: It is commonly apple-green....
– ‘inferor’ replaced with ‘inferior’
(little inferior to flint)

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical" ***

Home