CHAPTER V.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter introduces the disclosure of future events. It is done

in a manner eminently fitted to impress the mind with a sense of the

importance of the revelations about to be made. The proper state of

mind for appreciating this chapter is that when we look on the future,

and are sensible that important events are about to occur; when we feel

that that future is wholly impenetrable to us; and when the efforts of

the highest created minds fail to lift the mysterious veil which hides

those events from our view; it is in accordance with our nature that

the mind should be impressed with solemn awe under such circumstances;

it is not a violation of the laws of our nature that one who had

an earnest desire to penetrate that future, and who saw the volume

before him which contained the mysterious revelation, and who yet felt

that there was no one in heaven or earth who could break the seals,

and disclose what was to come, should weep. Comp. {120} ver. 4. The

_design_ of the whole chapter is evidently to honour the Lamb of God,

by showing that the power was intrusted to him which was confided to

no one else in heaven or earth, of disclosing what is to come. Nothing

else would better illustrate this than the fact that he alone could

break the mysterious seals which barred out the knowledge of the

future from all created eyes; and nothing would be better adapted to

impress this on the mind than the representation in this chapter――the

exhibition of a mysterious book in the hand of God; the proclamation

of the angel, calling on any who could do it to open the book; the

fact that no one in heaven or earth could do it; the tears shed by John

when it was found that no one could do it; the assurance of one of the

elders that the Lion of the tribe of Judah had power to do it; and the

profound adoration of all in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth

in view of the power intrusted to him of breaking these mysterious

seals.

The main points in the chapter are these: (1) Having in ch. iv.

described God as sitting on a throne, John here (ver. 1) represents

himself as seeing in his right hand a mysterious volume; written all

over on the inside and the outside, yet sealed with seven seals; a

volume manifestly referring to the future, and containing important

disclosures respecting coming events. (2) A mighty angel is introduced

making a proclamation, and asking who is worthy to open that book, and

to break those seals; evidently implying that none unless of exalted

rank could do it, ver. 2. (3) There is a pause: no one in heaven, or

in earth, or under the earth, approaches to do it, or claims the right

to do it, ver. 3. (4) John, giving way to the expressions of natural

emotion――indicative of the longing and intense desire in the human soul

to be made acquainted with the secrets of the future――pours forth a

flood of tears because no one is found who is worthy to open the seals

of this mysterious book, or to read what was recorded there, ver. 4.

(5) In his state of suspense and of grief, one of the elders――the

representatives of that church for whose benefit these revelations of

the future were to be made (Note on ch. iv. 4)――approaches him and says

that there _is_ one who is able to open the book; one who has the power

to loose its seals, ver. 5. This is the Messiah――the Lion of the tribe

of Judah, the Root of David――coming now to make the disclosure for

which the whole book was given, ch. i. 1. (6) Immediately the attention

of John is attracted by the Messiah, appearing as a Lamb in the midst

of the throne; with horns, the symbols of strength; and eyes, the

symbols of all-pervading intelligence. He approaches and takes the book

from the hand of Him that sits on the throne; symbolical of the fact

that it is the province of the Messiah to make known to the church and

the world the events which are to occur, ver. 6, 7. He appears here in

a different form from that in which he manifested himself in ch. i.,

for the purpose is different. There he appears clothed in majesty, to

impress the mind with a sense of his essential glory. Here he appears

in a form that recalls the memory of his sacrifice; to denote, perhaps,

that it is in virtue of his atonement that the future is to be

disclosed; and that therefore there is a special propriety that _he_

should appear and do what no other one in heaven or earth could do.

(7) The approach of the Messiah to unfold the mysteries in the book,

the fact that he had “prevailed” to accomplish what there was so strong

a desire should be accomplished, furnishes an occasion for exalted

thanksgiving and praise, ver. 8‒10. (8) This ascription of praise in

heaven is instantly responded to, and echoed back, from all parts of

the universe――all joining in acknowledging the Lamb as worthy of the

exalted office to which he was raised, ver. 11‒13. The angels around

the throne――amounting to thousands of myriads――unite with the living

creatures and the elders; and to these are joined the voices of every

creature in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, and in the sea,

ascribing to Him that sits upon the throne and the Lamb universal

praise. (9) To this loud ascription of praise from far-distant worlds

the living creatures respond a hearty _Amen_, and the elders fall down

and worship him that lives for ever and ever, ver. 14. The universe is

held in wondering expectation of the disclosures which are to be made,

and from all parts of the universe there is an acknowledgment that the

Lamb of God alone has the right to break the mysterious seals. The

_importance_ of the developments justifies the magnificence of {121}

this representation; and it would not be possible to imagine a more

sublime introduction to these great events.

CHAPTER V.

AND I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a

[194]book written within and on the back side, [195]sealed

with seven seals.

1. _And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne._ Of

God, ch. iv. 3, 4. His _form_ is not described there, nor is there

any intimation of it here except the mention of his “right hand.” The

book or roll seems to have been so held in his hand that John could

see its shape, and see distinctly how it was written and sealed. ¶ _A

book_――βιβλίον. This word is properly a diminutive of the word commonly

rendered book (βίβλος), and would strictly mean a small book, or a book

of diminutive size――a tablet, or a letter (Liddell and Scott, _Lex._).

It is used, however, to denote a book of any size――a roll, scroll, or

volume; and is thus used (a) to denote the Pentateuch, or the Mosaic

law, He. ix. 19; x. 7; (b) the book of life, Re. xvii. 8; xx. 12; xxi.

27; (c) epistles which were also rolled up, Re. i. 11; (d) documents,

as a bill of divorce, Mat. xix. 7; Mar. x. 4. When it is the express

design to speak of a small book, another word is used (βιβλαρίδιον),

Re. x. 2, 8, 9, 10. The book or roll referred to here was that which

contained the revelation in the subsequent chapters, to the end of the

description of the opening of the seventh seal――for the communication

that was to be made was all included in the seven seals; and to

conceive of the _size_ of the book, therefore, we are only to reflect

on the amount of parchment that would naturally be written over by the

communications here made. The _form_ of the book was undoubtedly that

of a scroll or roll; for that was the usual form of books among the

ancients, and such a volume could be more easily sealed with a number

of seals, in the manner here described, than a volume in the form in

which books are made now. On the ancient form of books, see Notes on

Lu. iv. 17. The engraving in Job, ch. xix., will furnish an additional

illustration of their form. ¶ _Written within and on the back side._

Gr., “within and behind.” It was customary to write only on one side of

the paper or vellum, for the sake of convenience in reading the volume

as it was unrolled. If, as sometimes was the case, the book was in the

same form as books are now――of _leaves_ bound together――then it was

usual to write on both sides of the leaf, as both sides of a page are

printed now. But in the other form it was a very uncommon thing to

write on both sides of the parchment, and was never done unless there

was a scarcity of writing material; or unless there was an amount

of matter beyond what was anticipated; or unless something had been

omitted. It is not necessary to suppose that John saw both sides of

the parchment as it was held in the hand of him that sat on the throne.

That it was written on the _back_ side he would naturally see, and, as

the book was sealed, he would infer that it was written in the usual

manner on the inside. ¶ _Sealed with seven seals._ On the ancient

manner of sealing, see Notes on Mat. xxvii. 66; comp. Notes on Job

xxxviii. 14. The fact that there were _seven_ seals――an unusual number

in fastening a volume――would naturally attract the attention of John,

though it might not occur to him at once that there was anything

significant in the number. It is not stated in what manner the seals

were attached to the volume, but it is clear that they were so attached

that each seal closed one part of the volume, and that when one was

broken and the portion which that was designed to fasten was unrolled,

a second would be come to, which it would be necessary to break in

order to read the next portion. The outer seal would indeed bind

the whole; but when that was broken it would not give access to the

whole volume unless each successive seal were broken. May it not have

been intended by this arrangement to suggest the idea that the whole

future is unknown to us, and that the disclosure of any one portion,

though necessary if the whole would be known, does not disclose all,

but leaves seal after seal still unbroken, and that they are all to

be broken one after another if we would know all? _How_ these were

arranged, John does not say. All that is necessary to be supposed is,

that the seven seals were put successively upon the _margin_ of the

volume as it was rolled up, so that each opening would extend only as

far as the next seal, when the unrolling would be arrested. Anyone,

by rolling up a sheet of paper, could {122} so fasten it with pins,

or with a succession of seals, as to represent this with sufficient

accuracy.

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who

is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

2. _And I saw a strong angel._ An angel endowed with great strength, as

if such strength was necessary to enable him to give utterance to the

loud voice of the inquiry. “Homer represents his heralds as powerful,

robust men, in order consistently to attribute to them deep-toned and

powerful voices” (Prof. Stuart). The inquiry to be made was one of vast

importance; it was to be made of all in heaven, all on the earth, and

all under the earth, and hence an angel is introduced so mighty that

his voice could be heard in all those distant worlds. ¶ _Proclaiming

with a loud voice._ That is, as a herald or crier. He is rather

introduced here as _appointed_ to this office than as _self-moved_.

The _design_ undoubtedly is to impress the mind with a sense of the

importance of the disclosures about to be made, and at the same time

with a sense of the impossibility of penetrating the future by any

created power. That one of the highest angels should make such a

proclamation would sufficiently show its importance; that such an

one, by the mere act of making such a proclamation, should practically

confess his own inability, and consequently the inability of all of

similar rank, to make the disclosures, would show that the revelations

of the future were beyond mere created power. ¶ _Who is worthy to open

the book_, &c. That is, who is “worthy” in the sense of having a rank

so exalted, and attributes so comprehensive, as to authorize and enable

him to do it. In other words, who has the requisite endowments of all

kinds to enable him to do it? It would require moral qualities of an

exalted character to justify him in approaching the seat of the holy

God, to take the book from his hands; it would require an ability

beyond that of any created being to penetrate the future, and disclose

the meaning of the symbols which were employed. The fact that the book

was held in the hand of him that was on the throne, and sealed in this

manner, was in itself a sufficient proof that it was not his purpose

to make the disclosure directly, and the natural inquiry arose whether

there was anyone in the wide universe who, by rank, or character, or

office, would be empowered to open the mysterious volume.

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth,

was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

3. _And no man in heaven._ No one――οὐδεὶς. There is no limitation

in the original to _man_. The idea is, that there was no one in

heaven――evidently alluding to the created beings there――who could

open the volume. Is it not taught here that _angels_ cannot penetrate

the future, and disclose what is to come? Are not their faculties

limited in this respect like those of man? ¶ _Nor in earth._ Among all

classes of men――sages, divines, prophets, philosophers――who among those

have ever been able to penetrate the future, and disclose what is to

come? ¶ _Neither under the earth._ These divisions compose, in common

language, the universe: what is in heaven above; what is on the earth;

and whatever there is under the earth――the abodes of the dead. May

there not be an allusion here to the supposed science of _necromancy_,

and an assertion that even the dead cannot penetrate the future, and

disclose what is to come? Comp. Notes on Is. viii. 19. In all these

great realms no one advanced who was qualified to undertake the office

of making a disclosure of what the mysterious scroll might contain.

¶ _Was able to open the book._ Had ability――ἠδύνατο――to do it. It was

a task beyond their power. Even if anyone had been found who had a rank

and a moral character which might have seemed to justify the effort,

there was no one who had the power of reading what was recorded

respecting coming events. ¶ _Neither to look thereon._ That is, so to

open the seals as to have a _view_ of what was written therein. That

it was not beyond their power merely to _see_ the book is apparent from

the fact that John himself saw it in the hand of him that sat on the

throne; and it is evident also (ver. 5) that in that sense the elders

saw it. But no one could prevail to inspect the contents, or so have

access to the interior of the volume as to be able to see what was

written there. It could be seen, indeed (ver. 1), that it was written

on {123} both sides of the parchment, but _what_ the writing was no one

could know.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and

to read the book, neither to look thereon.

4. _And I wept much, because no man was found worthy_, &c. Gr., as in

ver. 3, _no one_. It would seem as if there was a pause to see if there

were any response to the proclamation of the angel. There being none,

John gave way to his deep emotions in a flood of tears. The tears of

the apostle here may be regarded as an illustration of two things which

are occurring constantly in the minds of men: (1) The strong desire to

penetrate the future; to lift the mysterious veil which shrouds that

which is to come; to find some way to pierce the dark wall which seems

to stand up before us, and which shuts from our view that which is to

be hereafter. There have been no more earnest efforts made by men than

those which have been made to read the sealed volume which contains

the record of what is yet to come. By dreams, and omens, and auguries,

and astrology, and the flight of birds, and necromancy, men have

sought anxiously to ascertain what is to be hereafter. Compare, for an

expression of that intense desire, Foster’s _Life and Correspondence_,

vol. i. p. 111, and vol. ii. pp. 237, 238. (2) The weeping of the

apostle may be regarded as an instance of the deep grief which men

often experience when all efforts to penetrate the future fail, and

they feel that after all they are left completely in the dark. Often

is the soul overpowered with grief, and often are the eyes filled with

sadness at the reflection that there is an absolute limit to the human

powers; that all that man can arrive at by his own efforts is uncertain

conjecture, and that there is no way possible by which he can make

nature speak out and disclose what is to come. Nowhere does man find

himself more fettered and limited in his powers than here; nowhere

does he feel that there is such an intense disproportion between his

desires and his attainments. In nothing do _we_ feel that we are more

absolutely in need of divine help than in our attempts to unveil the

future; and were it not for revelation man might weep in despair.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the

[196]Lion of the tribe of Judah, the [197]Root of David, hath

prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals

thereof.

5. _And one of the elders saith unto me._ See Notes on ch. iv. 4. No

particular reason is assigned why this message was delivered by one

of the _elders_ rather than by an angel. If the elders were, however

(see Notes on ch. iv. 4), the representatives of the church, there was

a propriety that they should address John in his trouble. Though they

were in heaven, they were deeply interested in all that pertained to

the welfare of the church, and they had been permitted to understand

what as yet was unknown to him, that the power of opening the

mysterious volume which contained the revelation of the future was

intrusted particularly to the Messiah. Having this knowledge, they were

prepared to comfort him with the hope that what was so mysterious would

be made known. ¶ _Weep not._ That is, there is no occasion for tears.

The object which you so much desire can be obtained. There is one who

can break those seals, and who can unroll that volume and read what

is recorded there. ¶ _Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah._ This

undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus; and the points needful to be

explained are, why he is called a _Lion_, and why he is spoken of as

the Lion _of the tribe of Judah_. (a) As to the first: This appellation

is not elsewhere given to the Messiah, but it is not difficult to see

its propriety as used in this place. The lion is the king of beasts,

the monarch of the forest, and thus becomes an emblem of one of kingly

authority and of power (see Notes on ch. iv. 7), and as such the

appellation is used in this place. It is because Christ has _power_ to

open the seals――as if he ruled over the universe, and all events were

under his control, as the lion rules in the forest――that the name is

here given to him. (b) As to the other point: He is called the “Lion

_of the tribe of Judah_,” doubtless, with reference to the prophecy in

Ge. xlix. 9――“Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art

gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion;”

and from the fact that the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah. Comp.

Ge. xlix. 10. This use of the term would connect {124} him in the

apprehension of John with the prophecy, and would suggest to him the

idea of his being a ruler, or having dominion. As such, therefore, it

would be appropriate that the power of breaking these seals should be

committed to him. ¶ _The Root of David._ Not the Root of David in the

sense that David sprung from him as a tree does from a root, but in the

sense that _he himself_ was a “root-shoot” or sprout _from_ David, and

had sprung from him as a shoot or sprout springs up from a decayed and

fallen tree. See Notes on Is. xi. 1. This expression would connect him

directly with David, the great and glorious monarch of Israel, and as

having a right to occupy his throne. As one thus ruling over the people

of God, there was a propriety that to him should be intrusted the task

of opening these seals. ¶ _Hath prevailed._ That is, he has acquired

this power as the result of a conflict or struggle. The word used

here――ἐνίκησεν――refers to such a conflict or struggle, properly meaning

to come off victor, to overcome, to conquer, to subdue; and the idea

here is, that his power to do this, or the reason why he does this,

is the result of a conflict in which he was a victor. As the series

of events to be disclosed, resulting in the final triumph of religion,

was the effect of his conflicts with the powers of evil, there was

a special propriety that the disclosure should be made by him. The

_truths_ taught in this verse are, (1) that the power of making

disclosures, in regard to the future, is intrusted to the Messiah; and

(2) that this, so far as he is concerned, is the result of a conflict

or struggle on his part.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the

four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a [198]Lamb,

as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven[199]eyes,

which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the

earth.

6. _And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne._ We are not

to suppose that he was in the centre of the throne itself, but he was

a conspicuous object when the throne and the elders and the living

beings were seen. He was so placed as to seem to be in the midst of

the _group_ made up of the throne, the living beings, and the elders.

¶ _And of the four beasts._ See Notes, ch. iv. 6. ¶ _Stood a Lamb._ An

appellation often given to the Messiah, for two reasons: (1) because

the lamb was an emblem of innocence; and (2) because a lamb was offered

commonly in sacrifice. Comp. Notes on Jn. i. 29. ¶ _As it had been

slain._ That is, in some way having the appearance of having been

slain; having some marks or indications about it that it had been

slain. What those were the writer does not specify. If it were covered

with blood, or there were marks of mortal wounds, it would be all

that the representation demands. The great work which the Redeemer

performed――that of making an atonement for sin――was thus represented to

John in such a way that he at once recognized him, and saw the reason

why the office of breaking the seals was intrusted to him. It should

be remarked that this representation is merely _symbolic_, and we are

not to suppose that the Redeemer really _assumed_ this form, or that

he appears in this form in heaven. We should no more suppose that the

Redeemer appears literally as a lamb in heaven with numerous eyes and

horns, than that there is a literal throne and a sea of glass there;

that there are “seats” there, and “elders,” and “crowns of gold.”

¶ _Having seven horns._ Emblems of authority and power――for the _horn_

is a symbol of power and dominion. Comp. De. xxxiii. 17; 1 Ki. xxii. 11;

Je. xlviii. 25; Zec. i. 18; Da. vii. 24. The propriety of this symbol

is laid in the fact that the strength of an animal is in the horn,

and that it is by this that he obtains a victory over other animals.

The number _seven_ here seems to be designed, as in other places, to

denote _completeness_. See Notes on ch. i. 4. The meaning is, that

he had so large a number as to denote complete dominion. ¶ _And seven

eyes._ Symbols of intelligence. The number _seven_ here also denotes

_completeness_; and the idea is, that he is able to survey all things.

John does not say anything as to the relative arrangement of the horns

and eyes on the “Lamb,” and it is vain to attempt to conjecture how it

was. The whole representation is symbolical, and we may understand the

meaning of the symbol without being able to form an exact conception

of the figure as it appeared to him, ¶ _Which are the seven Spirits

of God sent forth into all the earth._ See Notes on ch. i. 4. That

is, which _represent_ the seven Spirits of God; or the manifold

operations of the one Divine Spirit. As the eye is {125} the symbol of

intelligence――outward objects being made visible to us by that――so it

may well represent an all-pervading spirit that surveys and sees all

things. The eye, in this view, among the Egyptians was an emblem of the

Deity. By the “seven Spirits” here the same thing is doubtless intended

as in ch. i. 4; and if, as there supposed, the reference is to the Holy

Spirit considered with respect to his manifold operations, the meaning

here is, that the operations of that Spirit are to be regarded as

connected with the work of the Redeemer. Thus, all the operations

of the Spirit are connected with, and are a part of, the work of

redemption. The expression “sent forth into all the earth,” refers to

the fact that that Spirit prevades all things. The Spirit of God is

often represented as sent or poured out; and the meaning here is, that

his operations are _as if_ he was sent out to survey all things and to

operate everywhere. Comp. 1 Co. xii. 6‒11.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him

that sat upon the throne.

7. _And he came and took the book out of the right hand_, &c. As if

it pertained to him by virtue of rank or office. There is a difficulty

here, arising from the incongruity of what is said of a _lamb_, which

it is not easy to solve. The difficulty is in conceiving how a _lamb_

could take the book from the hand of Him who held it. To meet this

several solutions have been proposed. (1) Vitringa supposes that the

Messiah appeared as a lamb only in some such sense as the four living

beings (ch. iv. 7) resembled a lion, a calf, and an eagle; that is,

that they bore this resemblance only in respect to the head, while the

body was that of a man. He thus supposes, that though in respect to the

upper part the Saviour resembled a lamb, yet that to the front part of

the body hands were attached by which he could take the book. But there

are great difficulties in this supposition. Besides that nothing of

this kind is intimated by John, it is contrary to every appearance of

probability that the Redeemer would be represented as a monster. In his

being represented as a lamb there is nothing that strikes the mind as

inappropriate or unpleasant, for he is often spoken of in this manner,

and the image is one that is agreeable to the mind. But all this beauty

and fitness of representation is destroyed, if we think of him as

having human hands proceeding from his breast or sides, or as blending

the form of a man and an animal together. The representation of having

an unusual number of horns and eyes does not strike us as being

incongruous in the same sense; for though the _number_ is increased,

they are such as pertain properly to the animal to which they are

attached. (2) Another supposition is that suggested by Professor Stuart,

that the form was changed, and a human form resumed when the Saviour

advanced to take the book and open it. This would relieve the whole

difficulty, and the only objection to it is, that John has not given

any express notice of such a change in the form; and the only question

can be whether it is right to _suppose_ it in order to meet the

difficulty in the case. In support of this it is said that all is

symbol; that the Saviour is represented in the book in various forms;

that as his appearing as a lamb was designed to represent in a striking

manner the fact that he was slain, and that all that he did was based

on the atonement, so there would be no impropriety in supposing that

when an action was attributed to him he assumed the form in which that

act would be naturally or is usually done. And as in taking a book from

the hand of another it is wholly incongruous to think of its being done

by a _lamb_, is it not most natural to suppose that the usual form in

which the Saviour is represented as appearing would be resumed, and

that he would appear again as a man?――But is it absolutely certain that

he appeared in the form of a lamb at all? May not all that is meant

be, that John saw him near the throne, and among the elders, and was

struck at once with his appearance of meekness and innocence, and with

the marks of his having been slain as a sacrifice, and spoke of him

in strong figurative language as a lamb? And where his “seven horns”

and “seven eyes” are spoken of, is it necessary to suppose that there

was any real assumption of such horns and eyes? {126} May not all

that is meant be that John was struck with that in the appearance of

the Redeemer of which these _would be_ the appropriate symbols, and

described him _as if_ these had been visible? When John the Baptist saw

the Lord Jesus on the banks of the Jordan, and said, “Behold the Lamb

of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. i. 29), is it

necessary to suppose that he actually appeared in the form of a

lamb? Do not all at once understand him as referring to traits in

his character, and to the work which he was to accomplish, which made

it proper to speak of him as a lamb? And why, therefore, may we not

suppose that John in the Apocalypse designed to use language in the

same way, and that he did not intend to present so incongruous a

description as that of a _lamb_ approaching a throne and taking a book

from the hand of Him that sat on it, and a lamb, too, with many horns

and eyes? If this supposition is correct, then all that is meant in

this passage would be expressed in some such language as the following:

“And I looked, and lo there was one in the midst of the space occupied

by the throne, by the living creatures, and by the elders, who, in

aspect, and in the emblems that represented his work on the earth, was

spotless, meek, and innocent as a lamb; one with marks on his person

which brought to remembrance the fact that he had been slain for the

sins of the world, and yet one who had most striking symbols of power

and intelligence, and who was therefore worthy to approach and take the

book from the hand of Him that sat on the throne.” It may do something

to confirm this view to recollect that when we use the term “Lamb

of God” now, as is often done in preaching and in prayer, it never

suggests to the mind the idea of a _lamb_. We think of the Redeemer

as resembling a lamb in his moral attributes and in his sacrifice, but

never as to form. This supposition relieves the passage of all that is

incongruous and unpleasant, and may be all that John meant.

8 And when he had taken the book, the [200]four beasts and

four _and_ twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having

every one of them [201]harps, and golden vials full of

[202]odours, which are the [203]prayers of saints.

8. _And when he had taken the book, the four beasts_, &c. The acts

of adoration here described as rendered by the four living creatures

and the elders are, according to the explanation given in ch. iv. 4‒7,

emblematic of the honour done to the Redeemer by the church, and by the

course of providential events in the government of the world. ¶ _Fell

down before the Lamb._ The usual posture of profound worship. Usually

in such worship there was entire prostration on the earth. See Notes on

Mat. ii. 2; 1 Co. xiv. 25. ¶ _Having every one of them harps._ That is,

as the construction, and the propriety of the case would seem to demand,

the _elders_ had each of them harps. The whole prostrated themselves

with profound reverence; the elders had harps and censers, and broke

out into a song of praise for redemption. This construction is demanded,

because (a) the Greek word――ἔχοντες――more properly agrees with the word

_elders_――πρεσβύτεροι――and not with the word _beasts_――ζῶα; (b) there

is an incongruity in the representation that the living creatures, in

the form of a lion, a calf, an eagle, should have harps and censers;

and (c) the song of praise that is sung (ver. 9) is one that properly

applies to the elders as the representatives of the church, and not to

the living creatures――“Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” The

_harp_ was a well-known instrument used in the service of God. Josephus

describes it as having ten strings, and as struck with a key (_Ant._

vii. 12, 3). See Notes on Is. v. 12. ¶ _And golden vials._ The word

_vial_ with us, denoting a small slender bottle with a narrow neck,

evidently does not express the idea here. The article here referred to

was used for offering incense, and must have been a vessel with a large

open mouth. The word _bowl_ or _goblet_ would better express the idea,

and it is so explained by Professor Robinson, _Lex._, and by Professor

Stuart, _in loco_. The Greek word――φιάλη――occurs in the New Testament

only in Revelation (v. 8; xv. 7; xvi. 1‒4, 8, 10, 12, 17; xvii. 1;

xxi. 9), and is uniformly rendered _vial_ and _vials_, though the idea

is always that of a bowl or goblet. ¶ _Full of odours._ Or rather, as

in the margin, full of _incense_――θυμιαμάτων. See Notes on Lu. i. 9.

¶ _Which are the prayers of saints._ {127} Which represent or denote

the prayers of saints. Comp. Ps. cxli. 2, “Let my prayer be set forth

before thee as incense.” The meaning is, that incense was a proper

emblem of prayer. This seems to have been in two respects: (a) as being

acceptable to God――as incense produced an agreeable fragrance; and

(b) in its being wafted towards heaven――ascending towards the eternal

throne. In ch. viii. 3, an angel is represented as having a golden

censer: “And there was given unto him much incense, that he should

offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was

before the throne.” The representation there undoubtedly is, that the

angel is employed in _presenting_ the prayers of the saints which were

offered on earth before the throne. See Notes on that passage. It is

most natural to interpret the passage before us in the same way. The

allusion is clearly to the temple service, and to the fact that incense

was offered by the priest in the temple itself at the time that prayer

was offered by the people in the courts of the temple. See Lu. i. 9, 10.

The idea here is, therefore, that the representatives of the church in

heaven――the elders――spoken of as “priests” (ver. 10), are described as

officiating in the temple above in behalf of the church still below,

and as offering incense while the church is engaged in prayer. It is

not said that _they_ offer the prayers themselves, but that they offer

_incense_ as representing the prayers of the saints. If this be the

correct interpretation, as it seems to be the obvious one, then the

passage lays no foundation for the opinion expressed by Professor

Stuart, as derived from this passage (_in loco_), that prayer is

offered by the redeemed in heaven. Whatever may be the truth on that

point――on which the Bible seems to be silent――it will find no support

from the passage before us. Adoration, praise, thanksgiving, are

represented as the employment of the saints in heaven: the only

representation respecting _prayer_ as pertaining to that world is, that

there are emblems there which symbolize its ascent before the throne,

and which show that it is acceptable to God. It is an interesting and

beautiful representation that there _are_ in heaven appropriate symbols

of ascending prayer, and that while in the outer courts here below _we_

offer prayer, incense, emblematic of it, ascends in the holy of holies

above. The _impression_ which this should leave on our minds ought to

be, that our prayers are wafted before the throne, and are acceptable

to God.

9 And they sung a [204]new song, saying, Thou art worthy to

take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast

slain, and hast redeemed us to God [205]by thy blood, out of

[206]every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

9. _And they sung a new song._ Comp. ch. xiv. 3. _New_ in the sense

that it is a song consequent on redemption, and distinguished therefore

from the songs sung in heaven before the work of redemption was

consummated. We may suppose that songs of adoration have always been

sung in heaven; we know that the praises of God were celebrated by the

angelic choirs when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job xxxviii.

7); but the song of redemption was a different song, and is one that

would never have been sung there if man had not fallen, and if the

Redeemer had not died. This song strikes notes which the other songs

do not strike, and refers to glories of the divine character which, but

for the work of redemption, would not have been brought into view. In

this sense the song was new; it will continue to be new in the sense

that it will be sung afresh as redeemed millions continue to ascend to

heaven. Comp. Ps. xl. 3; xcvi. 1; cxliv. 9; Is. xlii. 10. ¶ _Thou art

worthy to take the book_, &c. This was the occasion or ground of the

“new song,” that by his coming and death he had acquired a right to

approach where no other one could approach, and to do what no other one

could do. ¶ _For thou wast slain._ The _language_ here is such as would

be appropriate to a lamb slain as a sacrifice. The idea is, that the

fact that he was thus slain constituted the ground of his worthiness to

open the book. It could not be meant that there was in him no _other_

ground of worthiness, but that this was that which was most conspicuous.

It is just the outburst of the grateful feeling resulting from

redemption, that he who has died to save the soul is worthy {128} of

_all_ honour, and is fitted to accomplish what no other being in the

universe _can_ do. However this may appear to the inhabitants of other

worlds, or however it may appear to the dwellers on the earth who have

no interest in the work of redemption, yet all who are redeemed will

agree in the sentiment that He who has ransomed them with his blood

has performed a work to do which every other being was incompetent,

and that now all honour in heaven and on earth may appropriately

be conferred on him. ¶ _And hast redeemed us._ The word here

used――ἀγοράζω――means properly to purchase, to buy; and is thus

employed to denote redemption, because redemption was accomplished by

the payment of a price. On the meaning of the word, see Notes on 2 Pe.

ii. 1. ¶ _To God._ That is, so that we become _his_, and are to be

henceforward regarded as such; or so that he might possess us as his

own. See Notes on 2 Co. v. 15. This is the true nature of redemption,

that by the price paid we are rescued from the servitude of Satan, and

are henceforth to regard ourselves as belonging unto God. ¶ _By thy

blood._ See Notes on Ac. xx. 28. This is such language as they use

who believe in the doctrine of the atonement, and is such as would be

used by them alone. It would not be employed by those who believe that

Christ was a mere martyr, or that he lived and died merely as a teacher

of morality. If he was truly an atoning sacrifice, the language is full

of meaning; if not, it has no significance, and could not be understood.

¶ _Out of every kindred._ Literally, “of every tribe”――φυλῆς. The

word _tribe_ means properly a comparatively small division or class of

people associated together (Professor Stuart). It refers to a family,

or race, having a common ancestor, and usually associated or banded

together――as one of the tribes of Israel; a tribe of Indians; a tribe

of plants; a tribe of animals, &c. This is such language as a Jew

would use, denoting one of the smaller divisions that made up a nation

of people; and the meaning would seem to be, that it will be found

ultimately to be true that the redeemed will have been taken from all

such minor divisions of the human family――not only from the different

_nations_, but from the smaller _divisions_ of those nations. This can

only be true from the fact that the knowledge of the true religion will

yet be diffused among all those smaller portions of the human race;

that is, that its diffusion will be universal. ¶ _And tongue._ People

speaking all languages. The word here used would seem to denote a

division of the human family larger than a tribe, but smaller than a

nation. It was formerly a fact that a nation might be made up of those

who spoke many different languages――as, for example, the Assyrian,

the Babylonian, or the Roman nations. Comp. Da. iii. 29; iv. 1. The

meaning here is, that no matter what language the component parts of

the nations speak, the gospel will be conveyed to them, and in their

own tongue they will learn the wonderful works of God. Comp. Ac.

ii. 8‒11. ¶ _And people._ The word here used――λαός――properly denotes

a people considered as _a mass_, made up of smaller divisions――as an

association of smaller bodies――or as a multitude of such bodies united

together. It is distinguished from another word commonly applied to

a people――δῆμος――for that is applied to a community of free citizens,

considered as on a level, or without reference to any minor divisions

or distinctions. The words here used would apply to an army, considered

as made up of regiments, battalions, or tribes; to a mass-meeting, made

up of societies of different trades or professions; to a nation, made

up of different associated communities, &c. It denotes a _larger_ body

of people than the previous words; and the idea is, that no matter

of what _people_ or _nation_, considered as made up of such separate

portions, one may be, he will not be excluded from the blessings of

redemption. The sense would be well expressed, by saying, for instance,

that there will be found there those of the Gaelic race, the Celtic,

the Anglo-Saxon, the Mongolian, the African, &c. ¶ _And nation._ ἔθνους.

A word of still larger signification; the people in a still wider sense;

a people or nation considered as distinct from all others. The word

would embrace all who come under one sovereignty or rule; as, for

example, the British nation, however many minor _tribes_ there may

be; however many different _languages_ may be spoken; and however many

separate _people_ there may be――as the Anglo-Saxon, the Scottish, the

Irish, the people of Hindoostan, of Labrador, of New South Wales, &c.

The words here used by John would together denote nations of every kind,

great and {129} small; and the sense is, that the blessings of

redemption will be extended to all parts of the earth.

10 And hast made us unto our God [207]kings and priests: and

we shall [208]reign on the earth.

10. _And hast made us unto our God kings and priests._ See Notes on ch.

i. 6. ¶ _And we shall reign on the earth._ The redeemed, of whom we are

the representatives. The idea clearly is, in accordance with what is so

frequently said in the Scriptures, that the dominion on the earth will

be given to the saints; that is, that there will be such a prevalence

of true religion, and the redeemed will be so much in the ascendency,

that the affairs of the nations will be in their hands. Righteous men

will hold the offices; will fill places of trust and responsibility;

will have a controlling voice in all that pertains to human affairs.

See Notes on Da. vii. 27, and Re. xx. 1‒6. To such a prevalence of

religion all things are tending; and to this, in all the disorder and

sin which now exist, are we permitted to look forward. It is not said

that this will be a reign under the Saviour in a literal kingdom on

the earth; nor is it said that the saints will descend from heaven,

and occupy thrones of power under Christ as a visible king. The simple

affirmation is, that they will _reign_ on the earth; and as this seems

to be spoken in the name of the redeemed, all that is necessary to be

understood is, that there will be such a prevalence of true religion

on the earth that it will become a vast kingdom of holiness, and that,

instead of being in the minority, the saints will everywhere have the

ascendency.

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round

about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the

[209]number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and

thousands of thousands;

11. _And I beheld._ And I looked again. ¶ _And I heard the

voice of many angels._ The inhabitants of heaven uniting with the

representatives of the redeemed church in ascribing honour to the Lamb

of God. The design is to show that there is universal sympathy and

harmony in heaven, and that all worlds will unite in ascribing honour

to the Lamb of God. ¶ _Round about the throne and the beasts and

the elders._ In a circle or area _beyond_ that which was occupied

by the throne, the living creatures, and the elders. They occupied

the centre, as it appeared to John, and this innumerable company of

angels surrounded them. The angels are represented here, as they are

everywhere in the Scriptures, as taking a deep interest in all that

pertains to the redemption of men, and it is not surprising that they

are here described as uniting with the representatives of the church in

rendering honour to the Lamb of God. Comp. Notes on 1 Pe. i. 12. ¶ _And

the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand._ One hundred

millions――a general term to denote either a countless number, or an

exceedingly great number. We are not to suppose that it is to be taken

literally. ¶ _And thousands of thousands._ Implying that the number

before specified was not large enough to comprehend all. Besides the

“ten thousand times ten thousand,” there was a vast uncounted host

which one could not attempt to enumerate. The language here would

seem to be taken from Da. vii. 10: “Thousand thousands ministered unto

him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” Comp. Ps.

lxviii. 17: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands

of angels. ” See also De. xxxiii. 2; 1 Ki. xxii. 19.

12 Saying with a loud voice, [210]Worthy is the Lamb that was

slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,

and honour, and glory, and blessing.

12. _Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain._ See

Notes on ver. 2, 9. The idea here is, that the fact that he was slain,

or was made a sacrifice for sin, was the ground or reason for what

is here ascribed to him. Comp. Notes on ver. 5. ¶ _To receive power._

Power or authority to rule over all things. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxviii.

18. The meaning here is, that he was worthy that these things should

be ascribed to him, or to be addressed and acknowledged as possessing

them. A part of these things were his in virtue of his very nature――as

wisdom, glory, riches; a part were conferred on him as the result of

his work――as the mediatorial dominion over the universe, the honour

resulting from his work, &c. In view of all that he was, and of all

that he has done, he is here spoken {130} of as “_worthy_” of all these

things. ¶ _And riches._ Abundance. That is, he is worthy that whatever

contributes to honour, and glory, and happiness, should be conferred on

him _in abundance_. Himself the original proprietor of all things, it

is fit that he should be recognized as such; and having performed the

work which he has, it is proper that whatever may be made to contribute

to his honour should be regarded as his. ¶ _And wisdom._ That he should

be esteemed as eminently wise; that is, that as the result of the work

which he has accomplished, he should be regarded as having ability to

choose the best ends and the best means to accomplish them. The feeling

here referred to is that which arises from the contemplation of the

work of salvation by the Redeemer, as a work eminently characterized

by _wisdom_――wisdom manifested in meeting the evils of the fall; in

honouring the law; in showing that mercy is consistent with justice;

and in adapting the whole plan to the character and wants of man. If

wisdom was anywhere demanded, it was in reconciling a lost world to

God; if it has been anywhere displayed, it has been in the arrangements

for that work, and in its execution by the Redeemer. See Notes on 1 Co.

i. 24; comp. Mat. xiii. 54; Lu. ii. 40, 52; 1 Co. i. 20, 21, 30; Ep.

i. 8; iii. 10. ¶ _And strength._ Ability to accomplish his purposes.

That is, it is meet that he should be regarded as having such ability.

This _strength_ or _power_ was manifested in overcoming the great enemy

of man; in his control of winds, and storms, and diseases, and devils;

in triumphing over death; in saving his people. ¶ _And honour._ He

should be esteemed and treated with honour for what he has done. ¶ _And

glory. _ This word refers to a _higher_ ascription of praise than the

word _honour_. Perhaps that might refer to the honour which we feel in

our hearts; this to the expression of that by the language of praise.

¶ _And blessing._ Everything which would express the desire that he

might be happy, honoured, and adored. To bless one is to desire that he

may have happiness and prosperity; that he may be successful, respected,

and honoured. To bless God, or to ascribe blessing to him, is that

state where the heart is full of love and gratitude, and where it

desires that he may be everywhere honoured, loved, and obeyed as he

should be. The words here express the wish that the universe would

ascribe to the Redeemer all honour, and that he might be everywhere

loved and adored.

13 And [211]every creature which is in heaven, and on the

earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and

all that are in them, heard I saying, [212]Blessing, and

honour, and glory, and power, _be_ unto him that sitteth upon

the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

13. _And every creature which is in heaven._ The meaning of this verse

is, that all created things seemed to unite in rendering honour to Him

who sat on the throne, and to the Lamb. In the previous verse a certain

number――a vast host――of angels are designated as rendering praise as

they stood round the area occupied by the throne, the elders, and the

living creatures; here it is added that _all_ who were in heaven united

in this ascription of praise. ¶ _And on the earth._ All the universe

was heard by John ascribing praise to God. A voice was heard from

the heavens, from all parts of the earth, from under the earth, and

from the depths of the sea, _as if_ the entire universe joined in

the adoration. It is not necessary to press the language literally,

and still less is it necessary to understand by it, as Professor

Stuart does, that _the angels_ who presided over the earth, over the

under-world, and over the sea, are intended. It is evidently _popular_

language; and the sense is, that John heard a universal ascription of

praise. All worlds seemed to join in it; all the dwellers on the earth,

and under the earth, and in the sea, partook of the spirit of heaven in

rendering honour to the Redeemer. ¶ _Under the earth._ Supposed to be

inhabited by the shades of the dead. See Notes on Job x. 21, 22; Is.

xiv. 9. ¶ _And such as are in the sea._ All that dwell in the ocean.

In Ps. cxlviii. 7‒10, “dragons, and all deeps; beasts, and all cattle;

creeping things, and flying fowl,” are called on to praise the

{131} Lord; and there is no more incongruity or impropriety in one

description than in the other. In the Psalm, the universe is called on

to render praise; in the passage before us it is described as actually

doing it. The hills, the streams, the floods; the fowls of the air,

the dwellers in the deep, and the beasts that roam over the earth;

the songsters in the grove, and the insects that play in the sunbeam,

in fact, declare the glory of their Creator; and it requires no very

strong effort of the fancy to imagine the universe as sending up a

constant voice of thanksgiving. ¶ _Blessing, and honour_, &c. There

is a slight change here from ver. 12, but it is the same thing

substantially. It is an ascription of all glory to God and to the Lamb.

14 And the [213]four beasts said, Amen. And the four _and_

twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for

ever and ever.

14. _And the four beasts said, Amen._ The voice of universal praise

came to them from abroad, and they accorded with it, and ascribed

honour to God. ¶ _And the four and twenty elders fell down_, &c. The

living creatures and the elders _began_ the work of praise (ver. 8),

and it was proper that it should conclude with them; that is, they give

the last and final response (Professor Stuart). The whole universe,

therefore, is sublimely represented as in a state of profound adoration,

waiting for the developments to follow on the opening of the mysterious

volume. All feel an interest in it; all feel that the secret is with

God; all feel that there is but One who _can_ open this volume; and all

gather around, in the most reverential posture, awaiting the disclosure

of the great mystery.

The truths taught in this chapter are the following: (1) The knowledge

of the future is with God, ver. 1. It is as in a book held in his hand,

fully written over, yet sealed with seven seals. (2) It is impossible

for man or angel to penetrate the future, ver. 2, 3. It seems to be a

law of created being, that the ability to penetrate the future is

placed beyond the reach of any of the faculties by which a creature is

endowed. Of the past we have a record, and we can remember it; but no

created being seems to have been formed with a power in reference to

the future corresponding with that in reference to the past――with no

faculty of _foresight_ corresponding to _memory_. (3) It is natural

that the mind should be deeply affected by the fact that we _cannot_

penetrate the future, ver. 4. John _wept_ in view of this; and how

often is the mind borne down with heaviness in view of that fact! What

things there are, there must be, in that future of interest to us! What

changes there may be for us to experience; what trials to pass through;

what happiness to enjoy; what scenes of glory to witness! What progress

may we make in knowledge; what new friendships may we form; what

new displays of the divine perfections may we witness! All our great

interests are in the future――in that which is to us now unknown. There

is to be all the happiness which we are to enjoy, all the pain that

we are to suffer; all that we hope, all that we fear. All the friends

that we are to have are to be there; all the sorrows that we are to

experience are to be there. Yet an impenetrable veil is set up to hide

all that from our view. We cannot remove it; we cannot penetrate it.

There it stands to mock all our efforts, and in all our attempts to

look into the future we soon come to the barrier, and are repelled and

driven back. Who has not felt his heart sad that he cannot look into

that which is to come? (4) The power of laying open the future to

mortals has been intrusted to the Redeemer, ver. 5‒7. It is a part of

the work which was committed to him to make known to men _as much_ as

it was proper to be known. Hence he is at once a prophet, and is the

inspirer of the prophets. Hence he came to teach men what is to be in

the future pertaining to them, and hence he has caused to be recorded

by the sacred writers all that _is_ to be known of what is to come

until it is slowly unfolded as events develop themselves. The Saviour

alone takes the mysterious book and opens the seals; he only unrolls

the volume and discloses to man what is to come. (5) The fact that

he does this is the foundation of joy and gratitude for the church,

ver. 8‒10. It is impossible that the church should contemplate what

the Saviour has revealed of the future without gratitude and joy; and

how often, in times of persecution and trouble, has the church joyfully

turned to the developments made by the {132} Saviour of what is to

be when the gospel shall spread over the world, and when truth and

righteousness shall be triumphant. (6) This fact is of interest to

the angelic beings, and for them also it lays the foundation of praise,

ver. 11, 12. This may arise from these causes: (a) from the interest

which they take in the church, and the happiness which they have from

anything that increases its numbers or augments its joy; (b) from

the fact that in the disclosures of the future made by the Redeemer,

there may be much that is new and of interest to them (comp. Notes

on 1 Pe. i. 12); and (c) from the fact that they cannot but rejoice

in the revelations which are made of the final triumphs of truth

in the universe. (7) The universe at large has an interest in these

disclosures, and the fact that they are to be made by the Redeemer lays

the foundation for universal joy, ver. 13, 14. These events pertain to

all worlds, and it is proper that all the inhabitants of the universe

should join in the expressions of adoration and thanksgiving. The

universe is one; and what affects one portion of it really pertains to

every part of it. Angels and men have one and the same God and Father,

and may unite in the same expressions of praise.

CHAPTER VI.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter contains an account of the opening of six of the seven

seals. It need hardly be said to anyone who is at all familiar with the

numerous――not to say numberless――expositions of the Apocalypse, that

it is at this point that interpreters begin to differ, and that here

commences the divergence towards those various, discordant, and many

of them wild and fantastic theories, which have been proposed in the

exposition of this wonderful book. Up to this point, though there may

be unimportant diversities in the exposition of words and phrases,

there is no material difference of opinion as to the general meaning

of the writer. In the epistles to the seven churches, and in the

introductory scenes to the main visions, there can be no doubt, in the

main, as to what the writer had in view, and what he meant to describe.

He addressed churches then existing (ch. i.‒iii.), and set before them

their sins and their duties; and he described scenes passing before

his eyes as then present (ch. iv. v.), which were merely designed to

impress his own mind with the importance of what was to be disclosed,

and to bring the great actors on the stage, and in reference to which

there could be little ground for diversity in the interpretation. Here,

however, the scene opens into the future, comprehending all the unknown

period until there shall be a final triumph of Christianity, and all

its foes shall be prostrate. The actors are the Son of God, angels,

men, Satan, storms, tempests, earthquakes, the pestilence and fire;

the scene is heaven, earth, hell. There is no certain designation of

places; there is no mention of names――as there is in Isaiah (xlv. 1)

of Cyrus, or as there is in Daniel (viii. 21; x. 20; xi. 2) of the

“king of Grecia;” there is no designation of time that is necessarily

unambiguous; and there are no characteristics of the symbols used that

make it antecedently certain that they could be applied only to one

class of events. In the boundless future that was to succeed the times

of John, there would be, of necessity, many events to which these

symbols might be applied, and the result has shown that it has required

but a moderate share of pious ingenuity to apply them, by different

expositors, to events differing widely from each other in their

character, and in the times when they would occur. It would be too long

to glance even at the various theories which have been proposed and

maintained in regard to the interpretation of the subsequent portions

of the Apocalypse, and wholly impossible to attempt to examine those

theories. Time, in its developments, has already exploded many of them;

and time, in its future developments, will doubtless explode many more,

and each one must stand or fall as, in the disclosures of the future,

it shall be found to be true or false. It would be folly to add another

to those numerous theories, even if I had any such theory (see the

Preface), and perhaps equal folly to pronounce with certainty on

any one of those which have been advanced. Yet this seems to be

an appropriate place to state, in few words, what principles it is

designed to pursue in the interpretation of the remainder of the book.

(1) It may be assumed that large portions of the book relate to _the

future_; that is, to that which was future when John wrote. In this

all expositors are agreed, and this is manifest indeed on the very

face of the representation. It would be impossible to attempt an

interpretation {133} on any other supposition, and somewhere _in_ that

vast future the events are to be found to which the symbols here used

had reference. This is assumed, indeed, on the supposition that the book

is _inspired_――a fact which is assumed all along in this exposition,

and which should be allowed to control our interpretation. But assuming

that the book relates to the future, though that supposition will do

something to determine the true method of interpretation, yet it leaves

many questions still unsolved. Whether it refers to the destruction of

Jerusalem, on the supposition that the work was written before that

event, or to the history of the church subsequent to that; whether it

is designed to describe events minutely, or only in the most general

manner; whether it is intended to furnish a _syllabus_ of civil and

ecclesiastical history, or only a very general outline of future events;

whether the _times_ are so designated that we can fix them with entire

certainty; or whether it was intended to furnish any certain indication

of the periods of the world when these things should occur;――all these

are still open questions, and it need not be said that on these the

opinions of expositors have been greatly divided.

(2) It may be assumed that there _is_ meaning in these symbols, and

that they were not used without an intention to convey some important

ideas to the mind of John and to the minds of his readers――to the

church then, and to the church in future times. Comp. Notes on ch.

i. 3. The book is indeed surpassingly sublime. It abounds with the

highest flights of poetic language. It is Oriental in its character,

and exhibits everywhere the proofs of a most glowing imagination in

the writer. But it is also to be borne in mind that it is an _inspired_

book, and this fact is to determine the character of the exposition.

_If_ inspired, it is to be assumed that there is a _meaning_ in

these symbols; an idea in each one of them, and in all combined, of

importance to the church and the world. Whether we can ascertain the

meaning is another question; but it is never to be doubted by an

expositor of the Bible that there _is_ a meaning in the words and

images employed, and that to find out that meaning is worthy of earnest

study and prayer.

(3) Predictions respecting the future are often necessarily obscure

to man. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that God _could_ have foretold

future events in the most clear and unambiguous language. He who knows

all that is to come as intimately as he does all the past, could have

caused a record to have been made, disclosing names, and dates, and

places, so that the most minute statements of what is to occur might

have been in the possession of man as clearly as the records of the

past now are. But there were obvious reasons why this should not occur,

and in the prophecies it is rare that there is any such specification.

To have done this might have been to defeat the very end in view; for

it would have given to man, a free agent, the power of embarrassing or

frustrating the divine plans. But if this course is _not_ adopted, then

prophecy must, from the nature of the case, be obscure. The knowledge

of any one particular fact in the future is so connected with many

other facts, and often implies so much knowledge of other things, that

without that other knowledge it could not be understood. Suppose that

it had been predicted, in the time of John, that at some future period

some contrivance should be found out by which what was doing in one

part of the world could be instantaneously known in another remote part

of the world, and spread abroad by thousands of copies in an hour, to

be read by a nation. Suppose, for instance, that there had been some

symbol or emblem representing what actually occurs now, when in a

morning newspaper we read what occurred last evening at St. Louis,

Dubuque, Galena, Chicago, Cincinnati, Charleston, New Orleans; it is

clear that at a time when the magnetic telegraph and the printing-press

were unknown, any symbol or language describing it that could be

employed must be obscure, and the impression must have been that this

could be accomplished only by miracle――and it would not be difficult

for one who was disposed to scepticism to make out an argument to prove

that this could _not_ occur. It would be impossible to explain any

symbol that could be employed to represent this until these wonderful

descriptions should become reality, and in the meantime the book in

which the symbols were found might be regarded as made up of mere

riddles and enigmas; but when these inventions should be actually found

out, however much ridicule or contempt had been poured on the book

before, it {134} might be perfectly evident that the symbol was the

most appropriate that could be used, and no one could doubt that it was

a divine communication of what was to be in the future. Something of

the same kind _may_ have occurred in the symbols used by the writer of

the book before us.

(4) It is not necessary to suppose that a prophecy will be understood

in all its details until the prediction is accomplished. In the case

just referred to, though the _fact_ of the rapid spread of intelligence

might be clear, yet nothing would convey any idea of the _mode_, or of

the actual meaning of the _symbols_ used, unless the inventions were

themselves anticipated by a direct revelation. The trial of _faith_

in the case would be the belief that _the fact would occur_, but would

not relate to the _mode_ in which it was to be accomplished, or the

_language_ employed to describe it. There might be great obscurity in

regard to the symbols and language, and yet the knowledge of the fact

be perfectly plain. When, however, the fact should occur as predicted,

all would be clear. So it is in respect to prophecy. Many recorded

predictions that are now clear as noon-day, were once as ambiguous and

uncertain in respect to their meaning as in the supposed case of the

press and the telegraph. Time has made them plain; for the event to

which they referred has so entirely corresponded with the symbol as to

leave no doubt in regard to the meaning. Thus many of the prophecies

relating to the Messiah were obscure at the time when they were uttered;

were apparently so contradictory that they could not be reconciled;

were so unlike anything that then existed, that the fulfilment seemed

to be impossible; and were so enigmatical in the symbols employed, that

it seemed in vain to attempt to disclose their meaning. The advent of

the long-promised Messiah, however, removed the obscurity; and now they

are read with no uncertainty as to their meaning, and with no doubt

that those predictions, once so obscure, had a divine origin.

The view just suggested may lead us to some just conceptions of

what is necessary to be done in attempting to explain the prophecies.

Suppose, then, _first_, that there had been, say in the dark ages, some

predictions that claimed to be of divine origin, of the invention of

the art of printing and of the magnetic telegraph. The proper business

of an interpreter, if he regarded this as a divine communication, would

have consisted in four things: (a) to explain, as well as he could,

the fair meaning of the symbols employed, and the language used; (b) to

admit the _fact_ referred to, and implied in the fair interpretation

of the language employed, of the rapid spread of intelligence in that

future period, though he could not explain _how_ it was to be done;

(c) in the meantime it would be a perfectly legitimate object for him

to inquire whether there were any events occurring in the world, or

whether there had been any, to which these symbols were applicable, or

which would meet all the circumstances involved in them; (d) if there

were, then his duty would be ended; if there were not, then the symbols,

with such explanation as could be furnished of their meaning, should

be handed on to future times, _to be_ applied when the predicted events

should actually occur. Suppose, then, _secondly_, the case of the

predictions respecting the Messiah, scattered along through many books,

and given in various forms, and by various symbols. The proper business

of an interpreter would have been, as in the other case, (a) to explain

the fair meaning of the language used, and to bring together all

the circumstances in one connected whole, that a distinct conception

of the predicted Messiah might be before the mind; (b) to admit the

_facts_ referred to, and thus predicted, however incomprehensible

and apparently contradictory they might appear to be; (c) to inquire

whether anyone had appeared who combined within himself all the

characteristics of the description; and (d) if no one had thus appeared,

to send on the prophecies, with such explanations of words and symbols

as could be ascertained to be correct, to future times, to have their

full meaning developed when the object of all the predictions should

be accomplished, and the Messiah should appear. Then the meaning of all

would be plain; and then the argument from prophecy would be complete.

This is obviously now the proper state of the mind in regard to the

predictions in the Bible, and these are the principles which should be

applied in examining the book of Revelation.

(5) It may be assumed that new light _will_ be thrown upon the

prophecies by time, and by the progress of events. It cannot be

supposed that {135} the investigations of the meaning of the prophetic

symbols will all be in vain. Difficulties, it is reasonable to hope,

may be cleared up; errors may be detected in regard to the application

of the prophecies to particular events; and juster views on the

prophecies, as on all other subjects, will prevail as the world grows

older. We become wiser by seeing the errors of those who have gone

before us, and an examination of the causes which led them astray may

enable us to avoid such errors in the future. Especially may it be

supposed that light will be thrown on the prophecies as they shall be

in part or wholly fulfilled. The prophecies respecting the destruction

of Babylon, of Petra, of Tyre, of Jerusalem, are now fully understood;

the prophecies respecting the advent of the Messiah, and his character

and work, once so obscure, are now perfectly clear. So, we have reason

to suppose, it will be with _all_ prophecy in the progress of events,

and sooner or later the world will settle down into some uniform belief

in regard to the design and meaning of these portions of the sacred

writings. Whether the time has yet come for this, or whether numerous

other failures are to be added to the melancholy catalogue of past

failures on this subject, is another question; but ultimately all the

now unfulfilled prophecies will be as clear as to their meaning as are

those which have been already fulfilled.

(6) The plan, therefore, which I propose in the examination of

the remaining portion of the Apocalypse is the following: (a) To

explain the meaning of the symbols; that is, to show, as clearly as

possible, what those symbols properly express, independently of any

attempt to apply them. This opens, of itself, an interesting field of

investigation, and one where essential service may be done, even if

nothing further is intended. Without any reference to the _application_

of those symbols, this, of itself, is an important work of criticism,

and, if successfully done, would be rendering a valuable service to

the readers of the sacred volume. (b) To state, as briefly as possible,

what others who have written on this book, and who have brought eminent

learning and talent to bear on its interpretation, have supposed to be

the true interpretation of the symbols employed by John, and in regard

to the times in which the events referred to would occur. It is in this

way only that we can be made acquainted with the real progress made

in interpreting this book, and it will be useful at least to know how

the subject has struck other minds, and how and why they have failed

to perceive the truth. I propose, therefore, to state, as I go along,

some of the theories which have been held as to the meaning of the

Apocalypse, and as to the events which have been supposed by others to

be referred to. My limits require, however, that this should be briefly

done, and forbid my attempting to examine those opinions at length.

(c) To state, in as brief and clear a manner as possible, the view

which I have been led to entertain as to the proper application of the

symbols employed in the book, with such historical references as shall

seem to me to confirm the interpretation proposed. (d) Where I cannot

form an opinion as to the meaning, to confess my ignorance. He does no

service in a professed interpretation of the Bible who passes over a

difficulty without _attempting_ to remove it, or who, to save his own

reputation, conceals the fact that there is a real difficulty; and he

does as little service who is unwilling to confess his ignorance on

many points, or who attempts an explanation where he has no clear and

settled views. As his opinion can be of no value to anyone else unless

it is based on reasons in his own mind that will bear examination, so

it can usually be of little value unless those reasons are stated. It

is as important for his readers to have those reasons before their own

minds as it is for him; and unless he has it in his power to _state_

reasons for what he advances, his opinions can be worth nothing to the

world. He who lays down this rule of interpretation may expect to have

ample opportunity, in interpreting such a book as the Apocalypse, to

confess his ignorance; but he who interprets a book which he believes

to be inspired, may console himself with the thought that what is now

obscure will be clear hereafter, and that he performs the best service

which he can if he endeavours to explain the book _up to_ the time in

which he lives. There will be developments hereafter which will make

that clear which is now obscure; developments which will make this

book, in all past ages apparently so enigmatical, as clear as any other

portion of the inspired volume, as it is now, even with {136} imperfect

view which we may have of its meaning, beyond all question one of the

most sublime books that has ever been written.

This chapter describes the opening of the first six seals. (1) The

first discloses a white horse, with a rider armed with a bow. A crown

is given to him, symbolical of triumph and prosperity, and he goes

forth to conquer, ver. 1, 2. (2) The second discloses a red-coloured

horse, with a rider. The emblem is that of blood――of sanguinary war.

Power is given him to take peace from the earth, and a sword is given

him――emblem of war, but not of certain victory. Triumph and prosperity

are denoted by the former symbol; war, discord, bloodshed, by this,

ver. 3, 4. (3) The third discloses a black horse, with a rider. He

has a pair of balances in his hand, as if there were _scarcity_ in

the earth, and he announces the price of grain in the times of this

calamity, and a command is given not to hurt the oil and the wine,

ver. 5, 6. The emblem is that of scarcity――as if there were oppression,

or as a consequence of war or discord, while at the same time there is

care bestowed to preserve certain portions of the produce of the earth

from injury. (4) The fourth discloses a pale horse, with a rider. The

name of this rider is Death, and Hell (or Hades) follows him――as if the

hosts of the dead came again on the earth. Power is given to the rider

over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger,

with death, and with wild beasts. This emblem would seem to denote war,

wide-wasting pestilence, famine, and desolation――as if wild beasts were

suffered to roam over lands that had been inhabited; something of which

_paleness_ would be an emblem. Here ends the array of _horses_; and

it is evidently intended by these four symbols to refer to a series of

events that have a general resemblance――something that could be made to

stand by themselves, and that could be grouped together. (5) The fifth

seal opens a new scene. The horse and the rider no longer appear. It

is not a scene of war, and of the consequences of war, but a scene of

persecution. The souls of those who were slain for the word of God and

the testimony which they held are seen under the altar, praying to God

that he would avenge their blood. White robes are given them――tokens of

the divine favour, and emblems of their ultimate triumph; and they are

commanded to “rest for a little season, till their fellow-servants and

their brethren that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled;”

that is, that they should be _patient_ until the number of the martyrs

was filled up. In other words, there was (a) the assurance of the

divine favour towards them; (b) vengeance, or the punishment of those

who had persecuted them, would not be _immediate_; but (c) there was

the implied assurance that just punishment would be inflicted on their

persecutors, and that the cause for which they had suffered would

ultimately triumph, ver. 9‒11. (6) The opening of the sixth seal, ver.

12‒17. There was an earthquake, and the sun became dark, and the moon

was turned to blood, and the stars fell, and all kings and people were

filled with consternation. This symbol properly denotes the time of

public commotion, of revolution, of calamity; and it was evidently to

be fulfilled by some great changes on the earth, or by the overturning

of the seats of power, and by such sudden revolutions as would fill the

nations with alarm.

CHAPTER VI.

AND I saw when [214]the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I

heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts

saying, Come and see.

1. _And I saw._ Or, I looked. He fixed his eye attentively on what was

passing, as promising important disclosures. No one had been found in

the universe who could open the seals but the Lamb of God (ch. v. 2‒4);

and it was natural for John, therefore, to look upon the transaction

with profound interest. ¶ _When the Lamb opened one of the seals._

See Notes on ch. v. 1, 5. This was the first or outermost of the seals,

and its being broken would permit a certain portion of the volume to

be unrolled and read. See Notes on ch. v. 1. The representation in this

place is, therefore, that of a volume with a small portion unrolled,

and written on both sides of the parchment. ¶ _And I heard, as it

were the noise of thunder._ One of the four living creatures speaking

as with a voice of thunder, or with a loud voice. ¶ _One of the

four beasts._ Notes on ch. iv. 6, 7. {137} The particular one is not

mentioned, though what is said in the subsequent verses leaves no doubt

that it was the first in order as seen by John――the one like a lion,

ch. iv. 7. In the opening of the three following seals, it is expressly

said that it was the second, the third, and the fourth of the living

creatures that drew near, and hence the conclusion is certain that the

one here referred to was the first. If the four living creatures be

understood to be emblematic of the divine providential administration,

then there was a propriety that they should be represented as summoning

John to witness what was to be disclosed. These events pertained to

the developments of the divine purposes, and these emblematic beings

would therefore be interested in what was occurring. ¶ _Come and see._

Addressed evidently to John. He was requested to approach and _see_

with his own eyes what was disclosed in the portion of the volume now

unrolled. He had wept much (ch. v. 4) that no one was found who was

worthy to open that book, but he was now called on to approach and see

for himself. Some have supposed (Lord, _in loco_) that the address here

was not to John, but to the horse and his rider, and that the command

to them was not to “come and see,” but to _come forth_, and appear on

the stage, and that the act of the Redeemer in breaking the seal, and

unrolling the scroll, was nothing more than an emblem signifying that

it was by his act that the divine purposes were to be unfolded. But,

in order to this interpretation, it would be necessary to omit from the

received text the words καὶ βλέπε――“_and see_.” This is done, indeed,

by Hahn and Tittmann, and this reading is followed by Professor Stuart,

though he says that the received text has “probability” in its favour,

and is followed by some of the critical editions. The most natural

interpretation, however, is that the words were addressed to John.

John saw the Lamb open the seal; he heard the loud voice; he looked and

beheld a white horse――that is, evidently, he looked on the unfolding

volume, and saw the representation of a horse and his rider. That the

voice was addressed to John is the common interpretation, is the most

natural, and is liable to no real objection.

2 And I saw, and behold [215]a white horse: and he that sat on

him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went

forth [216]conquering, and to conquer.

2. _And I saw, and behold._ A question has arisen as to the mode of

representation here: whether what John saw in these visions was a

series of _pictures_, drawn on successive portions of the volume as one

seal was broken after another; or whether the description of the horses

and of the events was _written_ on the volume, so that John read it

himself, or heard it read by another; or whether the opening of the

seal was merely the _occasion_ of a scenic representation, in which a

succession of horses was introduced, with a written statement of the

events which are referred to. Nothing is indeed said by which this

can be determined with certainty; but the most probable supposition

would seem to be that there was some pictorial representation in

form and appearance, such as he describes in the opening of the six

seals. In favour of this it may be observed, (1) that, according

to the interpretation of ver. 1, it was something _in_ or _on_ the

volume――since he was invited to draw nearer, in order that he might

contemplate it. (2) Each one of the things under the first five seals,

where John uses the word “saw,” is capable of being represented by a

picture or painting. (3) The language used is not such as would have

been employed if he had merely _read_ the description, or had _heard_

it read. (4) The supposition that the pictorial representation was

not _in_ the volume, but that the opening of the seal was the occasion

merely of causing a scenic representation to pass before his mind, is

unnatural and forced. What would be the use of a sealed _volume_ in

that case? What the use of the _writing_ within and without? On this

supposition the representation would be that, as the successive seals

were broken, nothing was disclosed in the volume but a succession

of blank portions, and that the mystery or the difficulty was not

in anything in the volume, but in the want of ability to summon

forth these successive scenic representations. The most obvious

interpretation is, undoubtedly, that what John proceeds to describe

was in some way represented in the volume; and {138} the idea of

a succession of pictures or drawings better accords with the whole

representation, than the idea that it was a mere written description.

In fact, these successive scenes could be well represented now in a

pictorial form on a scroll. ¶ _And behold a white horse._ In order to

any definite understanding of what was denoted by these symbols, it

is proper to form in our minds, in the first place, a clear conception

of what the symbol properly represents, or an idea of what it would

naturally convey. It may be assumed that the symbol was significant,

and that there was some reason why that was used rather than another;

why, for instance, a _horse_ was employed rather than an eagle or

a lion; why a _white_ horse was employed in one case, and a red one,

a black one, a pale one in the others; why in this case a bow was in

the hand of the rider, and a crown was placed on his head. Each one

of these particulars enters into the constitution of the symbol; and

we must find something in the event which _fairly_ corresponds with

each――for the symbol is made up of all these things grouped together.

It may be farther observed, that where the general symbol is the

same――as in the opening of the first four seals――it may be assumed

that the same object or class of objects is referred to; and the

_particular_ things denoted, or the diversity in the general

application, is to be found in the _variety_ in the representation――the

colour, &c., of the horse, and the arms, apparel, &c., of the rider.

The specifications under the first seal are four: (1) the general

symbol of the horse――common to the first four seals; (2) the colour

of the horse; (3) the fact that he that sat on him had a bow; and

(4) that a crown was given him by some one, as indicative of victory.

The question now is, what these symbols would naturally denote.

(1) The horse. The meaning of this symbol must be drawn from the

natural use to which the symbol is applied, or the characteristics

which it is known to have; and it may be added, that there might have

been something for which that was best known in the time of the writer

who uses it, which would not be so prominent at another period of

the world, or in another country, and that it is necessary to have

that before the mind in order to obtain a correct understanding of

the symbol. The use of the horse, for instance, may have varied at

different times to some degree; at one time the prevailing use of the

horse may have been for battle; at another for rapid marches――as of

cavalry; at another for draught; at another for races; at another for

conveying messages by the establishment of posts or the appointment of

couriers. To an ancient Roman the horse might suggest prominently one

idea; to a modern Arab another; to a teamster in Holland another. The

things which would be most naturally suggested by the horse as a symbol,

as distinguished, for instance, from an eagle, a lion, a serpent, &c.,

would be the following: (a) War, as this was probably one of the first

uses to which the horse was applied. So, in the magnificent description

of the horse in Job xxxix. 19‒25, no notice is taken of any of his

qualities but those which pertain to war. See, for a full illustration

of this passage, and of the frequent reference in the classic writers

to the horse as connected with war, Bochart, _Hieroz._ lib. ii.

c. viii., particularly p. 149. Comp. Virg. _Geor._ iii. 83, 84:

“Si qua sonum procul arma dedêre,

Stare loco nescit, micat auribus, et tremit artus.”

Ovid, _Metam._ iii.:

“Ut fremit acer equus, cam bellicus, aere canoro

Signa dedit tubicen, pugnæque assumit amorem.”

_Silius_, lib. xiii.:

“Is trepido alituum tinnitu, et stare neganti,

Imperitans violenter equo.”

So Solomon says (Pr. xxi. 31), “The horse is prepared against the day

of battle.” So in Zec. x. 3, the prophet says, God had made the house

of Judah “as his goodly horse in the battle;” that is, he had made

them like the victorious war-horse. (b) As a consequence of this, and

of the conquests achieved by the horse in war, he became the symbol

of conquest――of a people that could not be overcome. Comp. the above

reference in Zec. Thus in Carthage the horse was an image of victorious

war, in contradistinction to the _ox_, which was an emblem of the arts

of peaceful agriculture. This was based on a tradition respecting the

foundation of the city, referred to by Virgil, _Æn._ i. 442‒445:

“Quo primum jactati undis et turbine Poeni

Effodêre loco signum, quod regia Juno

Monstrârat, _caput acris equi_: sic nam fore bello

Egregiam, et facilem victu per Secula gentem.”

{139} In reference to this circumstance Justin (lib. xviii. 5)

remarks, that “in laying the foundations of the city the head of an ox

was found, which was regarded as an emblem of a fruitful land, but of

the necessity of labour and of dependence; on which account the city

was transferred to another place. Then the head of a horse was found,

and this was regarded as a happy omen that the city would be warlike

and prosperous.” Comp. Creuzer, _Symbolik_, vol. ii. p. 456. (c) The

horse was an emblem of _fleetness_, and, consequently, of the rapidity

of conquest. Comp. Joel ii. 4: “The appearance of them is as the

appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.” Je. iv. 13:

“Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as the

whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles.” Compare Job xxxix. 18.

(d) The horse is an emblem of strength, and consequently of safety.

Ps. cxlvii. 10: “He delighteth not in the strength of the horse.” In

general, then, the horse would properly symbolize war, conquest, or

the rapidity with which a message is conveyed. The particular character

or complexion of the event――as peaceful or warlike, prosperous or

adverse――is denoted by the colour of the horse, and by the character

of the rider.

(2) The colour of the horse: _a white horse_. It is evident that this

is designed to be significant, because it is distinguished from the red,

the black, and the pale horse, referred to in the following verses. In

general, it may be observed that _white_ is the emblem of innocence,

purity, prosperity――as the opposite is of sickness, sin, calamity. If

the significance of the emblem turned alone on the _colour_, we should

look to something cheerful, prosperous, happy as the thing that was

symbolized. But the significance in the case is to be found not only in

the colour――_white_――but in the horse that was white; and the inquiry

is, what would _a horse of that colour_ properly denote; that is,

on what occasions, and with reference to what ends, was such a horse

used? Now, the general notion attached to the mention of a white horse,

according to ancient usage, would be that of state and triumph, derived

from the fact that white horses were rode by conquerors on the days of

their triumph; that they were used in the marriage cavalcade; that they

were employed on coronation occasions, &c. In the triumphs granted by

the Romans to their victorious generals, after a procession composed of

musicians, captured princes, spoils of battle, &c., came the conqueror

himself, seated on a high chariot drawn by four white horses, robed

in purple, and wearing a wreath of laurel (Eschenburg, _Man. of Class.

Literature_, p. 283. Comp. Ovid _de Arte Amandi_, lib. v. 214). The

name of λεύκιππος――_leucippos_――was given to Proserpine, because she

was borne from Hades to Olympus in a chariot drawn by white horses

(_Scol. Pind. Ol._ vi. 161. See Creuzer’s _Symbol._ iv. 253). White

horses are supposed, also, to excel others in fleetness. So Horace,

_Sat._ lib. i. vii. 8:

“Sisennas, Barrosque ut equis præcurreret albis.”

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

Λευκότεροι χιόνος, θείειν δʹ ἀνέμοισιν ὁμοῖοι.

――“Whiter than the snow, and swifter than the winds.” And in the

_Æneid_, where Turnus was about to contend with Æneas, he demanded

horses:

“Qui candore nives anteirent cursibus auras.”

――“Which would surpass the snow in whiteness, and the wind in

fleetness” (_Æn._ xii. 84). So the poets everywhere describe the

chariot of the sun as drawn by white horses (Bochart, _ut supra_).

So conquerors and princes are everywhere represented as borne on white

horses. Thus Propertius, lib. iv. eleg. i.:

“Quatuor huic albos Romulus egit equos.”

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

“Deposito mitis clypeo, candentibus urbem

Ingreditur trabeatus equis.”

And thus Ovid (lib. i. _de Arte_) addresses Augustus, auguring that he

would return a victor:

“Ergo erit illa dies, quâ tu, Pulcherrime rerum,

Quatuor in niveis aureus ibis equis.”

The preference of _white_ to denote triumph or victory was early

referred to among the Hebrews. Thus, Ju. v. 10, in the Song of Deborah:

“Speak, ye that ride on white asses,

Ye that sit in judgment,

And walk by the way.”

The expression, then, in the passage before us, would properly refer

to some kind of _triumph_; to some joyous occasion; {140} to something

where there was success or victory; and, so far as _this_ expression is

concerned, would refer to _any kind_ of triumph, whether of the gospel

or of victory in war.

(3) The bow: and _he that sat on him had a bow_. The bow would be

a natural emblem of war――as it was used in war; or of hunting――as it

was used for that purpose. It was a common instrument of attack or

defence, and seems to have been early invented, for it is found in all

rude nations. Comp. Ge. xxvii. 3; xlviii. 22; xlix. 24; Jos. xxiv. 12;

1 Sa. xviii. 4; Ps. xxxvii. 15; Is. vii. 24. The bow would be naturally

emblematic of the following things: (a) _War._ See the passages above.

(b) _Hunting._ Thus it was one of the emblems of Apollo as the god of

hunting. (c) _The effect of truth_――as that which secured conquest, or

overcame opposition in the heart. So far as _this_ emblem is concerned,

it might denote a warrior, a hunter, a preacher, a ruler――anyone who

exerted power over others, or who achieved any kind of conquest over

them.

(4) The crown: _and a crown was given unto him_. The word here

used――στέφανος――means a circlet, chaplet, or crown――usually such as

was given to a victor, 1 Co. ix. 25. It would properly be emblematic

of victory or conquest――as it was given to victors in war, or to the

victors at the Grecian games, and as it is given to the saints in

heaven regarded as victors, Re. iv. 4, 10; 2 Ti. iv. 8. The crown or

chaplet here was “given” to the rider as significant that he _would

be_ victorious, not that he _had been_; and the proper reference of

the emblem was to some conquest yet to be made, not to any which had

been made. It is not said _by whom_ this was given to the rider; the

material fact being only that such a diadem _was_ conferred on him.

(5) The going forth to conquest: _and he went forth, conquering and

to conquer_. He went forth _as a conqueror, and that he might conquer_.

That is, he went forth with the spirit, life, energy, determined

purpose of one who was confident that he would conquer, and who had the

port and bearing of a conqueror. John saw in him two things: one, that

he had the aspect or port of a conqueror――that is, of one who had been

accustomed to conquest, and who was confident that he could conquer;

the other was, that this was clearly the design for which he went

forth, and this would be the result of his going forth.

Having thus inquired into the natural meaning of the emblems used,

perhaps the proper work of an expositor is done, and the subject might

be left here. But the mind naturally asks what was this designed to

signify, and to what events are these things to be applied? On this

point it is scarcely necessary to say, that the opinions of expositors

have been almost as numerous as the expositors themselves, and that

it would be a hopeless task, and as useless as hopeless, to attempt

to enumerate all the opinions entertained. They who are desirous

of examining those opinions must be referred to the various books

on the Apocalypse where they may be found. Perhaps all the opinions

entertained, though presented by their authors under a great variety

of forms, might be referred to three: (1) That the whole passage in

ch. vi.‒xi. refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the wasting

of Judæa, principally by the Romans――and particularly the humiliation

and prostration of the Jewish persecuting enemies of the church: on

the supposition that the book was written before the destruction of

Jerusalem. This is the opinion of Professor Stuart, and of those

generally who hold that the book was written at that time. (2) The

opinion of those who suppose that the book was written in the time of

Domitian, about A.D. 95 or 96, and that the symbols refer to the Roman

affairs subsequent to that time. This is the opinion of Mede, Elliott,

and others. (3) The opinions of those who suppose that the different

horses and horsemen refer to the Saviour, to ministers of the gospel,

and to the various results of the ministry. This is the opinion

of Mr. David C. Lord and others. My purpose does not require me to

examine these opinions in detail. Justice could not be done to them

in the limited compass which I have; and it is better to institute

a direct inquiry whether any events are known which can be regarded as

corresponding with the symbols here employed. In regard to this, then,

the following things may be referred to:――

(a) It will be assumed here, as elsewhere in these Notes, that the

Apocalypse was written in the time of Domitian, about A.D. 95 or 96.

For the reasons for this opinion, see Intro. § 2. Comp. an article by

Dr. Geo. Duffield in the _Biblical Repository_, July, 1847, pp. 385‒411.

It will also be assumed that the book is inspired, and {141} that

it is not to be regarded and treated as a work of mere human origin.

These suppositions will preclude the necessity of any reference in the

opening of the seals to the time of Nero, or to the events pertaining

to the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish

persecuting enemies of the church――for the opinion that those events

are referred to can be held only on one of two suppositions: either

that the work was written in the time of Nero, and before the Jewish

wars, as held by Professor Stuart and others; or that it was penned

_after_ the events referred to had occurred, and is such a description

of the past as could have been made by one who was uninspired.

(b) It is to be presumed that the events referred to, in the opening

of the first seal, would occur _soon_ after the time when the vision

appeared to John in Patmos. This is clear, not only because that would

be the most natural supposition, but because it is fairly implied in ch.

i. 1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show

unto his servants things which must _shortly_ come to pass.” See Notes

on that verse. Whatever may be said of _some_ of those events――those

lying most remotely in the series――it would not accord with the fair

interpretation of the language to suppose that the _beginning_ of the

series would be far distant, and we therefore naturally look for that

beginning in the age succeeding the time of the apostle, or the reign

of Domitian.

(c) The inquiry then occurs whether there _were_ any such events in

that age as would properly be symbolized by the circumstances before

us――the horse; the colour of the horse; the bow in the hand of the

rider; the crown given him; the state and bearing of the conqueror.

(d) Before proceeding to notice what seems to me to be the

interpretation which best accords with all the circumstances of the

symbol, it may be proper to refer to the only other one which has

any plausibility, and which is adopted by Grotius, by the author of

_Hyponoia_, by Dr. Keith (_Signs of the Times_, i. 181, seq.), by

Mr. Lord, and others, that this refers to Christ and his church――to

Christ and his ministers in spreading the gospel. The objections to

this class of interpretations seem to me to be insuperable: (1) The

whole description, so far as it is a representation of triumph, is a

representation of the triumph of war, not of the gospel of peace. All

the symbols in the opening of the first four seals are warlike; all

the consequences in the opening of each of the seals where the horseman

appears, are such as are usually connected with war. It is the march

of empire, the movement of military power. (2) A horseman thus armed

is not the usual representation of Christ, much less of his ministers

or of his church. Once indeed (ch. xix. 14‒16) Christ himself is thus

represented; but the ordinary representation of the Saviour in this

book is either that of a man――majestic and glorious, holding the stars

in his right hand――or of a lamb. Besides, if it _were_ the design of

the emblem to refer to Christ, it must be a representation of him

_personally_ and _literally_ going forth in this manner; for it would

be incongruous to suppose that this relates to him, and then to give

it a metaphorical application, referring it not to himself, but to his

truth, his gospel, his ministers. (3) If there is little probability

that this refers to Christ, there is still less that it refers to

ministers of the gospel――as held by Lord and others――for such a symbol

is employed nowhere else to represent an order of ministers, nor do

the circumstances find a fulfilment in them. The minister of the gospel

is a herald of peace, and is employed in the service of the Prince of

Peace. He cannot well be represented by a warrior, nor is he in the

Scriptures. In itself considered, there is nothing more unlike or

incongruous than a warrior going forth to conquest with hostile arms,

and a minister of Christ. (4) Besides, this representation of a horse

and his rider, when applied in the following verses, on this principle

becomes most forced and unnatural. If the warrior on the white horse

denotes the ministry, then the warrior on the red horse, the black

horse, the pale horse, must denote the ministry also, and nothing is

more fanciful and arbitrary than to attempt to apply these to teachers

of various kinds of error――error denoted by the red, black, and pale

colour――as must be done on that supposition. It seems plain, therefore,

to me, that the representation was not designed to symbolize the

ministry, or the state of the church considered with reference to its

extension, or the various forms of belief which prevailed. But if so,

it only remains to inquire whether a state of things existed in the

Roman world of which these would be appropriate {142} symbols. We have,

then, the following facts, which are of such a nature as would properly

be symbolized by the horse of the first seal; that is, they are such

facts that if one were to undertake to devise an appropriate symbol of

them _since_ they occurred, they would be well represented by the image

here employed.

(1) It was in general a period of prosperity, of triumph, of

conquest――well represented by the horseman on the white horse going

forth to conquest. I refer now to the period immediately succeeding the

time of John’s banishment, embracing some ninety years, and extending

through the successive reigns of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two

Antonines, from the death of Domitian, A.D. 96, to the accession of

Commodus, and the peace made by him with the Germans, A.D. 180. As an

_illustration_ of this period, and of the pertinency of the symbol,

I will first copy from an historical chart drawn up with no reference

to the symbol here, and in the mind of whose author the application to

this symbol never occurred. The chart, distinguished for accuracy, is

that of A. S. Lyman, published A.D. 1845. The following is the account

of this period, beginning at the death of Domitian:――“Domitian, a cruel

tyrant, the last of the twelve Cæsars.” (His death, therefore, was an

important epoch.) “A.D. 96: Nerva, noted for his virtues, but enfeebled

by age.” “A.D. 98: Trajan, _a great general, and popular emperor; under

him the empire attains its greatest extent_.” “A.D. 117: Adrian, an

able sovereign; spends thirteen years travelling through the empire,

reforming abuses and rebuilding cities.” “A.D. 138: Antoninus Pius,

celebrated for his wisdom, virtue, and humanity.” “A.D. 161: Marcus

Aurelius Antoninus, the Stoic Philosopher, noted for his virtues.” Then

begins a new era――a series of wicked princes and of great calamities.

The _next_ entry in the series is, “A.D. 180: Commodus, profligate

and cruel.” Then follows a succession of princes of the same general

description. Their character will be appropriately considered under

the succeeding seals. But in regard to the period now supposed to

be represented by the opening of the first seal, and the general

applicability of the description here to that period, we have the

fullest testimony in Mr. Gibbon, in his _Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire_; a writer who, sceptic as he was, seems to have been raised

up by Divine Providence to search deeply into historic records, and

to furnish an inexhaustible supply of materials in confirmation of

the fulfilment of the prophecies, and of the truth of revelation. For

(1) he was eminently endowed by talent, and learning, and patience, and

general candour, and accuracy, to prepare a history of that period of

the world, and to place his name in the very first rank of historians.

(2) His history commences at about the period supposed in this

interpretation to be referred to by these symbols, and extends over

a very considerable portion of the time embraced in the book of

Revelation. (3) It cannot be alleged that he was biassed in his

statements of facts by a desire to favour revelation; nor can it be

charged on him that he perverted _facts_ with a view to overthrow the

authority of the volume of inspired truth. He was, indeed, thoroughly

sceptical as to the truth of Christianity, and he lost no opportunity

to express his feelings towards it by a sneer――for it seems to

have been an unfortunate characteristic of his mind to sneer at

everything――but there is no evidence that he ever designedly perverted

a _fact_ in history to press it into the service of infidelity, or that

he designedly falsified a statement for the purpose of making it bear

against Christianity. It cannot be suspected that he had any _design_,

by the statements which he makes, to confirm the truth of Scripture

prophecies. Infidels, at least, are bound to admit his testimony as

impartial. (4) Not a few of the most clear and decisive proofs of

the fulfilment of prophecies are to be found in his history. They

are frequently such statements as would be expected to occur in the

writings of a partial friend of Christianity who was endeavouring to

make the records of history speak out in favour of his religion; and

if they had been found in such a writer, they would be suspected of

having been shaped with a view to the confirmation of the prophecies,

and it may be added also with an intention to defend some favourite

interpretation of the Apocalypse. In regard to the passage before

us――the opening of the first seal and the general explanation of the

meaning of that seal, above given, there is a striking resemblance

between that representation and the state of the Roman empire as given

by Mr. Gibbon at the period {143} under consideration――from the end

of the reign of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. By a singular

coincidence Mr. Gibbon _begins_ his history at about the period

supposed to be referred to by the opening of the seal――the period

following the death of Domitian, A.D. 96. Thus in the opening sentences

of his work he says: “In the second century of the Christian era the

empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the

most civilized portion of mankind. During a happy period of more than

fourscore years the public administration was conducted by the virtue

and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two Antonines. It is

the design of this and the two succeeding chapters to describe the

prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death

of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its

decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is

still felt by the nations of the earth,” vol. i. 1. Before Mr. Gibbon

proceeds to give the history of the fall of the empire, he pauses to

describe the happy condition of the Roman world during the period now

referred to――for this is substantially his object in the first three

chapters of his history. The _titles_ of these chapters will show their

object. They are respectively the following:――Ch. i., “The Extent and

Military Force of the Empire, _in the Age of the Antonines_;” ch. ii.,

“Of the Union and Internal Prosperity of the Roman Empire, _in the Age

of the Antonines_;” ch. iii., “Of the Constitution of the Roman Empire,

_in the Age of the Antonines_.” In the language of another, this is

“the bright ground of his historic picture, from which afterwards more

effectively to throw out in deep colouring the successive traits of the

empire’s corruption and decline” (Elliott). The introductory remarks

of Mr. Gibbon, indeed, professedly refer to “the age of the Antonines”

(A.D. 138‒180); but that he designed to describe, under this general

title, the actual condition of the Roman world during the period which

I suppose to be embraced under the first seal, as a time of prosperity,

triumph, and happiness――from Domitian to Commodus――is apparent (a) from

a remarkable statement which there will be occasion again to quote,

in which he expressly designates this period in these words: “If a man

were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which

the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would,

without hesitation, name that which elapsed _from the death of Domitian

to the accession of Commodus_,” i. 47. The same thing is apparent also

from a remark of Mr. Gibbon in the general summary which he makes of

the Roman affairs, showing that this period constituted, in his view,

properly an _era_ in the condition of the world. Thus he says (i. 4):

“Such was the state of the Roman frontiers, and such the maxims of

imperial policy, from the death of Augustus _to the accession of

Trajan_.” This was A.D. 98. The question now is, whether, during

this period, the events in the Roman empire were such as accord with

the representation in the first seal. There was nothing in the first

century that could accord with this; and if John wrote the Apocalypse

at the time supposed (A.D. 95 or 96), of course it does not refer to

that. Respecting that century Mr. Gibbon remarks: “The only accession

which the Roman empire received, during the first century of the

Christian era, was the province of Britain. In this single instance the

successors of Cæsar and Augustus were persuaded to follow the example

of the former rather than the precept of the latter. After a war of

about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the

most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors,

the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke,”

i. 2, 3. Of course the representation in the first seal _could not_

be applied to such a period as this. In the second century, however,

and especially in the early part of it――the beginning of the period

supposed to be embraced in the opening of the first seal――a different

policy began to prevail, and though the main characteristic of the

period, as a whole, was comparatively peaceful, yet it began with a

career of conquests, and its general state might be characterized as

triumph and prosperity. Thus Mr. Gibbon speaks of Trajan on his

accession after the death of Nerva: “That virtuous and active prince

had received the education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of

a general. The peaceful system of his predecessors _was interrupted by

scenes of war and conquest_; and the legions, after a long interval,

beheld a military emperor at their head. The first exploits of Trajan

were against the {144} Dacians, the most warlike of men, who dwelt

beyond the Danube, and who, during the reign of Domitian, had insulted

the majesty of Rome. This memorable war, with a very short suspension

of hostilities, lasted live years; and as the emperor could exert,

without control, the whole force of the state, it was terminated by

an absolute submission of the barbarians. The new province of Dacia,

which formed a second exception to the precept of Augustus, was about

thirteen hundred miles in circumference,” i. 4. Speaking of Trajan

(p. 4), he says farther: “The praises of Alexander, transmitted by a

succession of poets and historians, had kindled a dangerous emulation

in the mind of Trajan. Like him, the Roman emperor undertook an

expedition against the nations of the East; but he lamented with a

sigh that his advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equalling

the renown of the son of Philip. Yet the success of Trajan, however

transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by

intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the river Tigris,

_in triumph_, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf. He

enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the

Roman generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets ravaged

the coasts of Arabia; and Trajan vainly flattered himself that he was

approaching towards the confines of India. Every day the astonished

senate received the intelligence _of new names and new nations_ that

acknowledged his sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus,

Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch

himself, had accepted their diadems from the hand of the emperor; that

the independent tribes of the Median and Carduchian hills had implored

his protection; and that the rich countries of Armenia, Mesopotamia,

and Assyria were reduced into the state of provinces.” Of such a reign

what more appropriate symbol could there be than the horse and the

rider of the first seal? If Mr. Gibbon had been writing a designed

commentary on this, what more appropriate language could he have used

in illustration of it? The reign of Hadrian, the successor of Trajan

(A.D. 117‒138), was comparatively a reign of peace――though one of

his first acts was to lead an expedition into Britain: but though

comparatively a time of peace, it was a reign of prosperity and triumph.

Mr. Gibbon, in the following language, gives a general characteristic

of that reign:――“The life of [Hadrian] was almost a perpetual journey;

and as he possessed the various talents of the soldier, the statesman,

and the scholar, he gratified his curiosity in the discharge of his

duty. Careless of the difference of seasons and of climates, he marched

on foot, and bareheaded, over the snows of Caledonia and the sultry

plains of Upper Egypt; nor was there a province of the empire which,

in the course of his reign, was not honoured with the presence of the

monarch,” p. 5. On p. 6 Mr. Gibbon remarks of this period: “The Roman

name was revered amongst the remote nations of the earth. The fiercest

barbarians frequently submitted their differences to the arbitration

of the emperor; and we are informed by a contemporary historian that

he had seen ambassadors who were refused the honour which they came

to solicit, of being admitted into the rank of subjects.” And again,

speaking of the reign of Hadrian, Mr. Gibbon remarks (i. 45): “Under

his reign, as has been already mentioned, the empire flourished in

peace and prosperity. He encouraged the arts, reformed the laws,

asserted military discipline, and visited all the provinces in person.”

Hadrian was succeeded by the Antonines, Antoninus Pius and Marcus

Aurelius (the former from A.D. 138 to 161; the latter from A.D. 161

to the accession of Commodus, A.D. 180). The general character of

their reigns is well known. It is thus stated by Mr. Gibbon: “The two

Antonines governed the world forty-two years with the same invariable

spirit of wisdom and virtue. Their united reigns are possibly the only

period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole

object of government,” i. 46. And after describing the state of the

empire in respect to its military and naval character, its roads, and

architecture, and constitution, and laws, Mr. Gibbon sums up the whole

description of this period in the following remarkable words (vol. i.

p. 47):――“_If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the

world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and

prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from

the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent

of the Roman empire was governed by absolute {145} power, under the

guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the

firm but gentle hands of four successive emperors, whose characters

and authority commanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil

administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and

the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased

with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws.

Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic, had the

Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom._” If

it be supposed now that John _designed_ to represent this period of the

world, could he have chosen a more expressive and significant emblem

of it than occurs in the horseman of the first seal? If Mr. Gibbon had

intended to prepare a commentary on it, could he have shaped the facts

of history so as better to furnish an illustration?

(2) The particular things represented in the symbol. (a) The bow――a

symbol of war. Mr. Elliott has endeavoured to show that the _bow_

at that period was _peculiarly_ the badge of the Cretians, and that

Nerva, who succeeded Domitian, was a Cretian by birth. The argument

is too long to be abridged here, but, if well founded, the fulfilment

is remarkable; for although the sword or the javelin was usually the

badge of the Roman emperor, if this were so there would be a peculiar

propriety in making the _bow_ the badge during this period. See Elliott,

vol. i. pp. 133‒140. But whatever may be said of this, the _bow_ was

so generally the badge of a warrior, that there would be no impropriety

in using it as a symbol of Roman victory. (b) The crown――στέφανος――was,

up to the time of Aurelian, A.D. 270 (see Spanheim, p. 60), the

distinguishing badge of the Roman emperor; after that, the _diadem_,

set with pearls and other jewels, was adopted and worn. The crown,

composed usually of laurel, was properly the badge of the emperor

considered as a military leader or commander. See Elliott, i. 130.

At the period now under consideration the proper badge of the Roman

emperor would be the _crown_; after the time of Aurelian, it would have

been the _diadem_. In illustration of this, two engravings have been

introduced, the first representing the emperor Nerva with the _crown_,

or στέφανος, the second the emperor Valentinian, with the _diadem_.

Illustration: Medal of the Emperor Nerva wearing Crown.

Illustration: Medal of the Emperor Valentinian wearing Diadem.

(c) The fact that the crown was _given_ to the rider. It was common

among the Romans to represent an emperor in this manner; either on

medals, bas-reliefs, or triumphal arches. The emperor appears going

forth on horseback, and with Victory represented as either crowning him,

or as preceding him with a crown in her hand to present to him. The

engraving on p. 146, copied from one of the bas-reliefs on a triumphal

arch erected to Claudius Drusus on occasion of his victories over the

Germans, will furnish a good illustration of this, and, indeed, is so

similar to the symbol described by John, that the one seems almost a

copy of the other.

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

Except that the bow is wanting, nothing could have a closer

resemblance; and the fact that such symbols were employed, and were

well understood by the Romans, may be admitted to be a confirmation of

the view above taken of the meaning of the first seal. Indeed, so many

things combine to confirm this, that it seems impossible {146} to be

mistaken in regard to it: for if it should be supposed that John lived

_after_ this time, and that he _meant_ to furnish a striking emblem

of this period of Roman history, he could not have employed a more

significant and appropriate symbol than he has done.

3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second

beast say, Come and see.

3. _And when he had opened the second seal._ So as to disclose another

portion of the volume. Notes, ch. v. 1. ¶ _I heard the second beast

say._ The second beast was like a calf or an ox. Notes, ch. iv. 7.

It cannot be supposed that there is any special significancy in the

fact that the _second_ beast addressed the seer on the opening of the

_second_ seal, or that, so far as the symbol was concerned, there was

any reason why this living creature should approach on the opening of

this seal rather than on either of the others. All that seems to be

designed is, that as the living creatures are intended to be emblems

of the providential government of God, it was proper to represent that

government as concerned in the opening of each of these four seals,

indicating important events among the nations. ¶ _Come and see._ See

Notes on ver. 1.