┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ 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.