hills, with all their load, Rocks, waters, woods, and by the shaggy
tops Uplifting, bore them in their hands,” &c. Book vi. {200} The
poet, however, has not, as John has, represented a volcano borne
along and cast into the sea. The symbol employed here would denote
some fiery, impetuous, destructive power. If used to denote a nation,
it would be a nation that was, as it were, burning with the desire
of conquest――impetuous, and fierce, and fiery in its assaults――and
consuming all in its way. ¶ _Cast into the sea._ The image is very
sublime; the scene, should such an event occur, would be awfully grand.
As to the fulfilment of this, or the thing that was intended to be
represented by it, there cannot be any material doubt. It is not to
be understood literally, of course; and the natural application is to
some _nation_, or _army_, that has a resemblance in some respects to
such a blazing mountain, and the effect of whose march would be like
casting such a mountain into the ocean. We naturally look for agitation
and commotion, and particularly in reference to the sea, or to some
maritime coasts. It is undoubtedly required in the application of this,
that we should find its fulfilment in some country lying beyond the sea,
or in some sea-coast or maritime country, or in reference to commerce.
¶ _And the third part of the sea became blood._ Resembled blood; became
_as red as blood_. The figure here is, that as such a blazing mountain
cast into the sea would, by its reflection on the waters, seem to tinge
them with red, so there would be something corresponding with this in
what was referred to by the symbol. It would be fulfilled if there was
a fierce maritime warfare, and if in some desperate naval engagement
the sea should be tinged with blood.
9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea,
and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were
destroyed.
9. _And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had
life, died._ The effect was _as if_ one-third of all the fish in the
sea were cut off. Of course this is not to be taken literally. It is
designed to describe an effect, pertaining to the maritime portion of
the world, _as if_ a third portion of all that was in the sea should
perish. The _natural_ interpretation would be to apply it to some
invasion or calamity pertaining to the sea――to the islands, to the
maritime regions, or to commerce. If the whole description pertains
to the Roman empire, then this might be supposed to have particular
reference to something that would have a bearing on the maritime parts
of that empire. ¶ _And the third part of the ships were destroyed._
This also pertains to the same general calamity, affecting the
_commerce_ of the empire. The destruction of the “ships” was produced,
in some way, by casting the mountain into the sea――either by their
being consumed by the contact with the burning mass, or by being
sunk by the agitation of the waters. The essential idea is, that the
calamity would be of such a nature as would produce the destruction
of vessels at sea――either naval armaments, or ships of commerce. In
looking now for the application or fulfilment of this, it is necessary
(a) to find some event or events which would have a particular bearing
on the maritime or commercial part of the world; and (b) some such
event or events that, on the supposition that they were the things
referred to, would be properly symbolized by the image here employed.
(1) If the first trumpet had reference to the invasion of Alaric and
the Goths, then in this we naturally look for the next succeeding act
of invasion which shook the Roman empire, and contributed to its fall.
(2) The next invasion was that under Genseric, at the head of the
Vandals (Gibbon, ii. 306, seq.). This occurred A.D. 428‒468. (3) The
symbol of a blazing or burning mountain, torn from its foundation, and
precipitated into the ocean, would well represent this mighty nation
moved from its ancient seat, and borne along towards the maritime
parts of the empire, and its desolations there――as will be shown in
the following remarks. (4) The acts of the Vandals, under Genseric,
corresponded with the ideas expressed by the symbol. In illustrating
this I shall be indebted, as heretofore, principally to Mr. Gibbon.
(a) His general account of the Vandals is this: they are supposed
(i. 138) to have been originally the same people with the Goths, the
Goths and Vandals constituting one great nation living on the shores
of the Baltic. They passed in connection with them over the Baltic;
emigrated to Prussia and the Ukraine; invaded the Roman provinces;
received tribute from the Romans; subdued the countries about the
Bosphorus; plundered the cities of Bithynia; ravaged Greece and
{201} Illyrium, and were at last settled in Thrace under the emperor
Theodosius (Gibbon, i. 136‒166; ii. 110‒150), They were then driven
forward by the Huns, and having passed through France and Spain
into Africa, conquered the Carthaginian territory, established an
independent government, and thence through a long period harassed the
neighbouring islands, and the coasts of the Mediterranean by their
predatory incursions, destroying the ships and the commerce of the
Romans, and were distinguished in the downfall of the empire by
their ravages on the islands and the sea. Thus they were moved along
from place to place until the scene of their desolations became more
distinctly the maritime parts of the empire; and the effect of their
devastations might be well compared with a burning mountain moved
from its ancient base, and then thrown into the sea. (b) This will
be apparent from the statements of Mr. Gibbon in regard to their
ravages under their leader Genseric. “Seville and Carthagena became
the reward, or rather the prey of the ferocious conquerors” [after they
had defeated the Roman Castinus], “and the vessels which they found in
the harbour of Carthagena might easily transport them to the isles of
Majorca and Minorca, where the Spanish fugitives, as in a secure recess,
had vainly concealed their families and fortunes. The experience of
navigation, and perhaps the prospect of Africa, encouraged the Vandals
to accept the invitation which they received from Count Boniface” [to
aid him in his apprehended difficulties with Rome, and to enter into an
alliance with him by settling permanently in Africa (Gibbon, ii. 305,
306)]: “and the death of Gonderic” [the Vandal king] “served only to
forward and animate the bold enterprise. In the room of a prince, not
conspicuous for any superior powers of the mind or body, they acquired
his bastard brother, the terrible Genseric――_a name which, in the
destruction of the Roman empire, has deserved an equal rank with the
names of Alaric and Attila_. ” “The ambition of Genseric was almost
without bounds, and without scruples; and the warrior could dexterously
employ the dark engines of policy to solicit the allies who might be
useful to his success, or to scatter among his enemies the seeds of
enmity and contention. Almost in the moment of his departure he was
informed that Hermanric, king of the Suevi, had presumed to ravage the
Spanish territories, which he was resolved to abandon. Impatient of
the insult, Genseric pursued the hasty retreat of the Suevi as far as
Merida; precipitated the king and his army into the river Anas, and
calmly returned to the sea-shore to embark his troops. The vessels
which transported the Vandals over the modern Straits of Gibraltar, a
channel only twelve miles in breadth, were furnished by the Spaniards,
who anxiously wished for their departure; and by the African general
who had implored their formidable assistance” (Gibbon, ii. 306).
Genseric, in the accomplishment of _his_ purposes, soon took possession
of the northern coast of Africa, defeating the armies of Boniface, and
“Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius were the only cities that appeared
to rise above the general inundation” (Gibbon, ii. 308). “On a sudden,”
says Mr. Gibbon (ii. 309), “the seven fruitful provinces, from Tangier
to Tripoli, were overwhelmed by the invasion of the Vandals; whose
destructive rage has perhaps been exaggerated by popular animosity,
religious zeal, and extravagant declamation. War in its fairest
form implies a perpetual violation of humanity and justice; and the
hostilities of barbarians are inflamed by the fierce and lawless spirit
which perpetually disturbs their peaceful and domestic society. The
Vandals, where they found resistance, seldom gave quarter; and the
deaths of their valiant countrymen were expiated by the ruin of the
cities under whose walls they had fallen,” &c. The result of the
invasion was the conquest of all northern Africa; the reduction
of Hippo and Carthage, and the establishment of a government under
Genseric in Africa that waged a long war with Rome (Gibbon, ii. 310,
311). The symbol before us has particular reference to _maritime_ or
_naval_ operations and desolations, and the following extracts from Mr.
Gibbon will show with what propriety, if this symbol was designed to
refer to him, these images were employed. “The discovery and conquest
of the black nations [in Africa] that might dwell beneath the torrid
zone could not tempt the rational ambition of Genseric; but he cast his
eyes _towards the sea_; he resolved to create a naval power, and his
bold resolution was executed with steady and active {202} perseverance.
The woods of Mount Atlas afforded an inexhaustible supply of timber;
his new subjects were skilled in the arts of navigation and ship-
building; he animated his daring Vandals to embrace a mode of warfare
which would render every maritime country accessible to their arms;
the Moors and Africans were allured by the hope of plunder; and after
an interval of six centuries the fleets that issued from the port of
Carthage again claimed the empire of the Mediterranean. The success
of the Vandals, the conquest of Sicily, the sack of Palermo, and the
frequent descents on the coasts of Lucania, awakened and alarmed the
mother of Valentinian and the sister of Theodosius. Alliances were
formed; and armaments, expensive and ineffectual, were prepared for
the destruction of the common enemy, who reserved his courage to
encounter those dangers which his policy could not prevent or elude.
The revolutions of the palace, which left the Western empire without
a defender and without a lawful prince, dispelled the apprehension and
stimulated the avarice of Genseric. He immediately equipped a numerous
fleet of Vandals and Moors, and cast anchor at the mouth of the Tiber,”
&c. (Gibbon, ii. 352). “On the third day after the tumult [A.D. 455, on
the death of Maximus] Genseric boldly advanced from the port of Ostia
to the gates of the defenceless city. Instead of a sally of the Roman
youth, there issued from the gates an unarmed and venerable procession
of the bishop at the head of the clergy. But Rome and its inhabitants
were delivered to the licentiousness of the Vandals and the Moors,
whose blind passions revenged the injuries of Carthage. The pillage
lasted fourteen days and nights; and all that yet remained of public
or private wealth, of sacred or profane treasure, was diligently
transported to the vessels of Genseric,” &c. See the account of
this pillage in Gibbon, ii. 355‒366. The emperor Majorian (A.D. 457)
endeavoured to “restore the happiness of the Romans,” but “he
encountered the arms of Genseric, from his character and situation
their most formidable enemy. A fleet of Vandals and Moors landed at the
mouth of the Liris, or Garigliano; but the imperial troops surprised
and attacked the disorderly barbarians, who were encumbered with the
spoils of Campania; they were chased with slaughter to their ships;
and their leader, the king’s brother-in-law, was found in the number
of the slain. Such vigilance might announce the character of the new
reign; but the strictest vigilance, and the most numerous forces,
were insufficient to protect the long-extended coast of Italy from
the depredations of a naval war” (Gibbon, ii. 363). “The emperor had
foreseen that it was impossible, without a maritime power, to achieve
the conquest of Africa. In the first Punic war the republic had
exerted such incredible diligence, that within sixty days after the
first stroke of the axe had been given in the forest a fleet of one
hundred and sixty galleys proudly rode at anchor in the sea. Under
circumstances much less favourable Majorian equalled the spirit and
perseverance of the ancient Romans. The woods of the Apennines were
felled, the arsenals and manufactures of Ravenna and Misenium were
restored, Italy and Gaul vied with each other in liberal contributions
to the public service; and the imperial navy of three hundred large
galleys, with an adequate proportion of transports and smaller vessels,
was collected in the secure and capacious harbour of Carthagena in
Spain” (Gibbon, ii. 363, 364). The fate of this large navy is thus
described by Mr. Gibbon:――“Genseric was saved from impending and
inevitable ruin by the treachery of some powerful subjects; envious
or apprehensive of their master’s success. Guided by their secret
intelligence, he surprised the unguarded fleet in the bay of Carthagena;
many of the ships were sunk, or taken, or burnt; and the preparations
of three years were destroyed in a single day,” ii. 364. The farther
naval operations and maritime depredations of the Vandals under
Genseric are thus stated by Mr. Gibbon:――“The kingdom of Italy, a name
to which the Western empire was gradually reduced, was afflicted, under
the reign of Ricimer, by the incessant depredations of Vandal pirates.
In the spring of each year they equipped a formidable navy in the
port of Carthage; and Genseric himself, though in very advanced age,
still commanded in person the most important expeditions. His designs
were concealed with impenetrable secrecy till the moment that he
hoisted sail. When he was asked by the pilot what course he should
steer――‘Leave the determination to the winds,’ replied the barbarian,
with pious {203} arrogance; ‘_they_ will transport us to the guilty
coast whose inhabitants have provoked the divine justice;’ but if
Genseric himself deigned to issue more precise orders, he judged the
most wealthy to be the most criminal. The Vandals repeatedly visited
the coasts of Spain, Liguria, Tuscany, Campania, Lucania, Bruttium,
Apulia, Calabria, Venetia, Dalmatia, Epirus, Greece, and Sicily; they
were tempted to subdue the island of Sardinia, so advantageously placed
in the centre of the Mediterranean; and their arms spread desolation,
or terror, from the Columns of Hercules to the mouth of the Nile. As
they were more ambitious of spoil than of glory, they seldom attacked
any fortified cities, or engaged any regular troops in the open field.
But the celerity of their motions enabled them, almost at the same time,
to threaten and to attack the most distant objects which attracted
their desires; and as they always embarked a sufficient number of
horses, they had no sooner landed than they swept the dismayed country
with a body of light cavalry,” ii. 366. How far this description agrees
with the symbol in the passage before us――“a great mountain burning
with fire cast into the sea;” “the third part of the ships were
destroyed”――must be left to the reader to judge. It may be asked,
however, with at least some show of reason, whether, if it be admitted
that it was the _design_ of the author of the book of Revelation to
refer to the movements of the Vandals under Genseric as one of the
important and immediate causes of the ruin of the Roman empire, he
could have found a more expressive symbol than this? Indeed, is there
now any symbol that would be more striking and appropriate? If one
should now undertake to represent this as one of the causes of the
downfall of the empire _by a symbol_, could he easily find one that
would be more expressive? It is a matter that is in itself perhaps
of no importance, but it may serve to show that the interpretation
respecting the second trumpet was not _forced_, to remark that I had
gone through with the interpretation of the _language_ of the symbol
before I looked into Mr. Gibbon with any reference to the application.
10 And the third angel sounded, and there [275]fell a great
star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon
the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters:
10. _And the third angel sounded._ Indicating, according to the
interpretation above proposed, some important event in the downfall of
the Roman empire. ¶ _And there fell a great star from heaven._ A _star_
is a natural emblem of a prince, of a ruler, of one distinguished by
rank or by talent. Comp. Notes on ch. ii. 28. See Nu. xxiv. 17, and
the Notes on Is. xiv. 12. A star falling from heaven would be a natural
symbol of one who had left a higher station, or of one whose character
and course would be like a meteor shooting through the sky. ¶ _Burning
as it were a lamp._ Or, as a torch. The language here is such as would
describe a meteor blazing through the air; and the reference in the
symbol is to something that would have a _resemblance_ to such a meteor.
It is not a _lurid_ meteor (livid, pale, ghastly) that is here referred
to, but a bright, intense, blazing star――emblem of fiery energy; of
rapidity of movement and execution; of splendour of appearance――such
as a chieftain of high endowments, of impetuousness of character, and
of richness of apparel, would be. In all languages, probably, a _star_
has been an emblem of a prince whose virtues have shone brightly, and
who has exerted a beneficial influence on mankind. In all languages
also, probably, a meteor flaming through the sky has been an emblem of
some splendid genius causing or threatening desolation and ruin; of a
warrior who has moved along in a brilliant but destructive path over
the world; and who has been regarded as sent to execute the vengeance
of heaven. This usage occurs because a meteor is so bright; because
it appears so suddenly; because its course cannot be determined by
any known laws; and because, in the apprehensions of men, it is either
sent as a proof of the divine displeasure, or is adapted to excite
consternation and alarm. In the application of this part of the symbol,
therefore, we naturally look for some prince or warrior of brilliant
talents, who appears suddenly and sweeps rapidly over the world; who
excites consternation and alarm; whose path is marked by desolation,
and who is regarded as sent from heaven to execute the divine
purposes――who comes not to bless the world by brilliant talents {204}
well directed, but to execute vengeance on mankind. ¶ _And it fell upon
the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters._ On the
phrase, “the third part,” see Notes on ver. 7. This reference to the
“rivers” and to the “fountains of waters” seems, in part, to be for
the purpose of saying that _everything_ would be affected by this
series of judgments. In the previous visions the trees and the green
grass, the sea and the ships, had been referred to. The rivers and the
fountains of waters are not less important than the trees, the grass,
and the commerce of the world, and hence this judgment is mentioned as
particularly bearing on them. At the same time, as in the case of the
other trumpets, there is a propriety in supposing that there would be
something in the event referred to by the symbol which would make it
more appropriate to use this symbol in this case than in the others.
It is natural, therefore, to look for some desolations that would
particularly affect the portions of the world where rivers abound,
or where they take their rise; or, if it be understood as having a
more metaphorical sense, to regard it as affecting those things which
_resemble_ rivers and fountains――the sources of influence; the morals,
the religion of a people, the institutions of a country, which are
often so appropriately compared with running fountains or flowing
streams.
11 And the name of the star is called [276]Wormwood: and the
third part of the [277]waters became wormwood; and many men
died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
11. _And the name of the star is called Wormwood._ Is _appropriately_
so called. The writer does not say that it would be _actually_ so
called, but that this name would be properly descriptive of its
qualities. Such expressions are common in allegorical writings. The
Greek word――ἄψινθος――denotes _wormwood_, a well-known bitter herb.
That word becomes the proper emblem of bitterness. Comp. Je. ix. 15;
xxiii. 15; La. iii. 15, 19. ¶ _And the third part of the waters became
wormwood._ Became bitter as wormwood. This is doubtless an emblem
of the calamity which _would_ occur if the waters should be thus
made bitter. Of course they would become useless for the purposes to
which they are mostly applied, and the destruction of life would be
inevitable. To conceive of the extent of such a calamity we have only
to imagine a large portion of the wells, and rivers, and fountains of a
country made bitter as wormwood. Comp. Ex. xv. 23, 24. ¶ _And many men
died of the waters, because they were made bitter._ This effect would
naturally follow if any considerable portion of the fountains and
streams of a land were changed by an infusion of wormwood. It is not
necessary to suppose that this is intended to be _literally_ true; for
as, by the use of a symbol, it is not to be supposed that literally
a part of the waters would be turned into wormwood by the baleful
influence of a falling meteor, so it is not necessary to suppose that
there is intended to be represented a literal destruction of human life
by the use of waters. Great destruction and devastation are undoubtedly
intended to be denoted by this――destruction that would be well
represented in a land by the natural effects if a considerable part
of the waters were, by their bitterness, made unfit to drink.
In the interpretation and application, therefore, of this passage, we
may adopt the following principles and rules:――(a) It may be assumed,
in _this_ exposition, that the previous symbols, under the first and
second trumpet-blasts, referred respectively to Alaric and his Goths,
and to Genseric and his Vandals. (b) That the next great and decisive
event in the downfall of the empire is the one that is here referred to.
(c) That there would be some chieftain or warrior who might be compared
with a blazing meteor; whose course would be singularly brilliant; who
would appear suddenly _like_ a blazing star, and then disappear like
a star whose light was quenched in the waters. (d) That the desolating
course of that meteor would be mainly on those portions of the world
that abounded with springs of water and running streams. (e) That
an effect would be produced _as if_ those streams and fountains were
made bitter; that is, that many persons would perish, and that wide
desolations would be caused in the vicinity of those rivers and streams,
_as if_ a bitter and baleful star should fall into the waters, and
death should spread over the lands adjacent to them, and watered by
them. {205} Whether any events occurred of which this would be the
proper emblem is now the question. Among expositors there has been a
considerable degree of unanimity in supposing that Attila, the king of
the Huns, is referred to; and if the preceding expositions are correct,
there can be no doubt on the subject. After Alaric and Genseric, Attila
occupies the next place as an important agent in the overthrow of the
Roman empire, and the only question is, whether _he_ would be properly
symbolized by this baleful star. The following remarks may be made
to show the propriety of the symbol:――(1) As already remarked, the
_place_ which he occupies in history, as immediately succeeding
Alaric and Genseric in the downfall of the empire. This will appear
in any chronological table, or in the table of contents of any of
the histories of those times. A full detail of the career of Attila
may be found in Gibbon, vol. ii. pp. 314‒351. His career extended
from A.D. 433 to A.D. 453. It is true that he was contemporary with
Genseric, king of the Vandals, and that a portion of the operations
of Genseric in Africa were subsequent to the death of Attila
(A.D. 455‒A.D. 467); but it is _also_ true that Genseric _preceded_
Attila in the career of conquest, and was properly the first in order,
being pressed forward in the Roman warfare by the Huns, A.D. 428. See
Gibbon, ii. 306, seq. (2) In the manner of his appearance he strongly
resembled a brilliant meteor flashing in the sky. He came from the
east, gathering his Huns, and poured them down, as we shall see, with
the rapidity of a flashing meteor, suddenly on the empire. He regarded
himself also as devoted to Mars, the god of war, and was accustomed to
array himself in a peculiarly brilliant manner, so that his appearance,
in the language of his flatterers, was such as to dazzle the eyes
of beholders. One of his followers perceived that a heifer that was
grazing had wounded her foot, and curiously followed the track of blood,
till he found in the long grass the point of an ancient sword, which
he dug out of the ground and presented to Attila. “That magnanimous,
or rather that artful prince,” says Mr. Gibbon, “accepted with pious
gratitude this celestial favour; and, as the rightful possessor of
_the sword of Mars_, asserted his divine and indefeasible claim to the
dominion of the earth. The favourite of Mars soon acquired a sacred
character, which rendered his conquests more easy and more permanent;
and the barbarian princes confessed, in the language of devotion or
flattery, that they could not presume to gaze, with a steady eye, on
the divine majesty of the king of the Huns,” ii. 317. How appropriate
would it be to represent such a prince by the symbol of a bright and
blazing star――or a meteor flashing through the sky! (3) There may be
propriety, as applicable to him, in the expression――“a great star _from
heaven_ falling upon the earth.” Attila was regarded as an instrument
in the divine hand in inflicting punishment. The common appellation by
which he has been known is “the scourge of God.” This title is supposed
by the modern Hungarians to have been first given to Attila by a hermit
of Gaul, but it was “inserted by Attila among the titles of his royal
dignity” (Gibbon, ii. 321, foot-note). To no one could the title be
more applicable than to him. (4) His career as a conqueror, and the
effect of his conquests on the downfall of the empire, were such as
to be properly symbolized in this manner. (a) The _general_ effect of
the invasion was worthy of an important place in describing the series
of events which resulted in the overthrow of the empire. This is thus
stated by Mr. Gibbon: “The western world was oppressed by the Goths
and Vandals, who fled before the Huns; but the achievements of the
Huns themselves were not adequate to their power and prosperity. Their
victorious hordes had spread from the Volga to the Danube, but the
public force was exhausted by the discord of independent chieftains;
their valour was idly consumed in obscure and predatory excursions; and
they often degraded their national dignity by condescending, for the
hopes of spoil, to enlist under the banners of their fugitive enemies.
In the reign of Attila the Huns again became the terror of the world;
and I shall now describe the character and actions of that formidable
barbarian who alternately invaded and insulted the East and the West,
_and urged the rapid downfall of the Roman empire_,” vol. ii. pp. 314,
315. (b) The parts of the earth affected by the invasion of the Huns
were those which would be properly symbolized by the things specified
at the blowing of this trumpet. It is said particularly that the effect
would be on “the rivers,” {206} and on “the fountains of waters.” If
this has a literal application, or if, as was supposed in the case
of the second trumpet, the language used was such as had reference
to the portion of the empire that would be particularly affected by
the hostile invasion, then we may suppose that this refers to those
portions of the empire that abounded in rivers and streams, and
more particularly those in which the rivers and streams had their
origin――for the effect was permanently in the “_fountains_ of waters.”
As a matter of fact, the principal operations of Attila were in the
regions of the Alps, and on the portions of the empire whence the
rivers flow down into Italy. The invasion of Attila is described by
Mr. Gibbon in this general language: “The whole breadth of Europe, as
it extends above five hundred miles from the Euxine to the Adriatic,
was at once invaded, and occupied, and desolated, by the myriads
of barbarians whom Attila led into the field, ” ii. 319, 320. After
describing the progress and the effects of this invasion (pp. 320‒331)
he proceeds more particularly to detail the events in the invasion of
Gaul and Italy, pp. 331‒347. After the terrible battle of Châlons, in
which, according to one account, one hundred and sixty-two thousand,
and, according to other accounts, three hundred thousand persons were
slain, and in which Attila was defeated, he recovered his vigour,
collected his forces, and made a descent on Italy. Under pretence of
claiming Honoria, the daughter of the Empress of Rome, as his bride,
“the indignant lover took the field, passed the Alps, invaded Italy,
and besieged Aquileia with an innumerable host of barbarians.” After
endeavouring in vain for three months to subdue the city, and when
about to abandon the siege, Attila took advantage of the appearance of
a stork as a favourable omen to arouse his men to a renewed effort, “a
large breach was made in the part of the wall where the stork had taken
her flight; the Huns mounted to the assault with irresistible fury; and
the succeeding generation could scarcely discover the ruins of Aquileia.
After this dreadful chastisement Attila pursued his march; and as he
passed, the cities of Altinum, Concordia, and Padua were reduced into
heaps of stones and ashes. The inland towns, Vicenza, Verona, and
Bergamo, were exposed to the rapacious cruelty of the Huns; Milan and
Pavia submitted without resistance to the loss of their wealth, and
applauded the unusual clemency which preserved from the flames the
public as well as the private buildings, and spared the lives of the
captive multitude. The popular traditions of Comum, Turin, or Modena,
may be justly suspected, yet they concur with more authentic evidence
to prove that Attila spread his ravages over the rich plains of modern
Lombardy, which are divided by the Po, and bounded by the Alps and the
Apennines,” ii. pp. 343, 344. “It is a saying worthy of the ferocious
pride of Attila, that the grass never grew on the spot where his horse
had trod” (_ibid._ p. 345). Anyone has only to look on a map, and to
trace the progress of those desolations and the chief seats of his
military operations to see with what propriety this symbol would be
employed. In these regions the great rivers that water Europe have
their origin, and are swelled by numberless streams that flow down from
the Alps; and about the fountains whence these streams flow were the
principal military operations of the invader. (c) With equal propriety
is he represented in the symbol as affecting “_a third_” part of these
rivers and fountains. At least a third part of the empire was invaded
and desolated by him in his savage march, and the _effects_ of his
invasion were as disastrous _on_ the empire as if a bitter star
had fallen into a third part of those rivers and fountains, and had
converted them into wormwood. (d) There is one other point which shows
the propriety of this symbol. It is, that the meteor, or star, seemed
to be _absorbed_ in the waters. It fell into the waters; embittered
them; and was seen no more. Such would be the case with a meteor that
should thus fall upon the earth――flashing along the sky, and then
disappearing for ever. Now, it was remarkable in regard to the Huns,
that their power was concentrated under Attila; that he alone appeared
as the leader of this formidable host; and that when he died all the
concentrated power of the Huns was dissipated, or became absorbed and
lost. “The revolution,” says Mr. Gibbon (ii. 348), “which subverted
the empire of the Huns, established the fame of Attila, _whose genius
alone had sustained the huge and disjointed fabric_. After his death
the boldest chieftains aspired to the rank of kings; the most powerful
kings refused to acknowledge a superior; and {207} the numerous sons,
whom so many various mothers bore to the deceased monarch, divided
and disputed, like a private inheritance, the sovereign command of the
nations of Germany and Scythia.” Soon, however, in the conflicts which
succeeded, the empire passed away, and the empire of the _Huns_ ceased.
The people that composed it were absorbed in the surrounding nations,
and Mr. Gibbon makes this remark, after giving a summary account of
these conflicts, which continued but for a few years: “The Igours of
the north, issuing from the cold Siberian regions, which produced the
most valuable furs, spread themselves over the desert, as far as the
Borysthenes and the Caspian gates, _and finally extinguished the empire
of the Huns_.” These facts may, perhaps, show with what propriety
Attila would be compared with a bright but beautiful meteor; and that,
if the design was to symbolize him as acting an important part in the
downfall of the Roman empire, there is a fitness in the symbol here
employed.
12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of
[278]the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and
the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was
darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and
the night likewise.
12. _And the fourth angel sounded._ Notes, ver. 6, 7. ¶ _And the
third part of the sea was smitten._ On the phrase _the third part_, see
Notes on ver. 7. The darkening of the heavenly luminaries is everywhere
an emblem of any great calamity――_as if_ the light of the sun, moon,
and stars should be put out. See Notes on ch. vi. 12, 13. There is no
certain evidence that this refers to _rulers_, as many have supposed,
or to anything that would particularly affect the _government_ as such.
The meaning is, that calamity would come _as if_ darkness should spread
over the sun, the moon, and the stars, leaving the world in gloom.
What is the precise _nature_ of the calamity is not indicated by
the language, but anything that would diffuse gloom and disaster
would accord with the fair meaning of the symbol. There are a few
circumstances, however, in regard to this symbol which may aid us in
determining its application. (1) It would follow in the _series_ of
calamities that were to occur. (2) It would be _separated_ in some
important sense――of time, place, or degree――from those which were to
follow, for there is a _pause_ here (ver. 13), and the angel proclaims
that more terrible woes are to succeed this series. (3) Like the
preceding, it is to affect “one third part” of the world; that is, it
is to be a calamity _as if_ a third part of the sun, the moon, and the
stars were suddenly smitten and darkened. (4) It is not to be _total_.
It is not as if the sun, the moon, and the stars were entirely blotted
out, for there was still some remaining light; that is, there was
a continuance of the existing state of things――as if these heavenly
bodies should still give an obscure and partial light. (5) Perhaps it
is also intended by the symbol that there would be light again. The
world was not to go into a state of total and permanent night. For a
third part of the day, and a third part of the night, this darkness
reigned; but does not this imply that there would be light again――that
the obscurity would pass away, and that the sun, and moon, and stars
would shine again? That is, is it not implied that there would still be
prosperity in some future period?
Now, in regard to the application of this, if the explanation of the
preceding symbols is correct, there can be little difficulty. If the
previous symbols referred to Alaric, to Genseric, and to Attila, there
can be no difficulty in applying this to Odoacer, and to his reign――a
reign in which, in fact, the Roman dominion in the West came to an end,
and passed into the hands of this barbarian. Anyone has only to open
the _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, to see that this is the
next event that _should_ be symbolized if the design were to represent
the downfall of the empire. These four great barbarian leaders succeed
each other in order, and under the last, Odoacer, the barbarian
dominion was established; for it is here that the existence of the
Roman power, as such, ended. The Western empire terminated, according
to Mr. Gibbon (ii. p. 380), about A.D. 476 or 479. Odoacer was “King of
Italy” from A.D. 476 to A.D. 490 (Gibbon, ii. 379). The Eastern empire
still lingered, but calamity, like blotting out the sun, and moon, and
stars, had come over that {208} part of the world which for so many
centuries had constituted the seat of power and dominion.――Odoacer was
the son of Edecon, a barbarian, who was in the service of Attila, and
who left two sons――Onulf and Odoacer. The former directed his steps
to Constantinople; Odoacer “led a wandering life among the barbarians
of Noricum, with a mind and fortune suited to the most desperate
adventures; and when he had fixed his choice, he piously visited the
cell of Severinus, the popular saint of the country, to solicit his
approbation and blessing. The lowness of the door would not admit the
lofty stature of Odoacer; he was obliged to stoop; but in that humble
attitude the saint could discern the symptoms of his future greatness;
and addressing him in a prophetic tone, ‘Pursue,’ said he, ‘your design;
proceed to Italy; you will soon cast away this coarse garment of skins;
and your wealth will be adequate to the liberality of your mind.’ The
barbarian, whose daring spirit accepted and ratified this prediction,
was admitted into the service of the Western empire, and soon obtained
an honourable rank in the guards. His manners were gradually polished,
his military skill improved; and the confederates of Italy would not
have elected him for their general unless the exploits of Odoacer had
established a high opinion of his courage and capacity. Their military
acclamations saluted him with the title of king; but he abstained
during his whole reign from the use of the purple and the diadem, lest
he should offend those princes whose subjects, by their accidental
mixture, had formed the victorious army which time and policy might
insensibly unite into a great nation” (Gibbon, ii. 379, 380). In
another place Mr. Gibbon says: “Odoacer was the first barbarian who
reigned in Italy, over a people who had once asserted their superiority
above the rest of mankind. The disgrace of the Romans still excites
our respectful compassion, and we fondly sympathize with the imaginary
grief and indignation of their degenerate posterity. But the calamities
of Italy had gradually subdued the proud consciousness of freedom and
glory. In the age of Roman virtue the provinces were subject to the
arms, and the citizens to the laws, of the republic; till those laws
were subverted by civil discord, and both the city and the provinces
became the servile property of a tyrant. The forms of the constitution
which alleviated or disguised their abject slavery were abolished by
time and violence; the Italians alternately lamented the presence or
the absence of the sovereigns whom they detested or despised; and the
succession of five centuries inflicted the various evils of military
license, capricious despotism, and elaborate oppression. During the
same period the barbarians had emerged from obscurity and contempt, and
the warriors of Germany and Scythia were introduced into the provinces,
as the servants, the allies, and at length the masters of the Romans,
whom they insulted or protected,” ii. 381, 382. Of the effect of the
reign of Odoacer Mr. Gibbon remarks: “In the division and decline of
the empire the tributary harvests of Egypt and Africa were withdrawn;
the numbers of the inhabitants continually decreased with the means of
subsistence; and the country was exhausted by the irretrievable losses
of war, famine, and pestilence. St. Ambrose has deplored the ruin of
a populous district, which had been once adorned with the flourishing
cities of Bologna, Modena, Rhegium, and Placentia. Pope Gelasius was
a subject of Odoacer; and he affirms, with strong exaggeration, that
in Æmilia, Tuscany, and the adjacent provinces the human species was
almost extirpated. _One-third_ of those ample estates, to which the
ruin of Italy is originally imputed, was extorted for the use of the
conquerors,” ii. 383. Yet the light was not _wholly_ extinct. It was
“a third part” of it which was put out; and it was still true that
some of the forms of the ancient constitution were observed――that the
light still lingered before it wholly passed away. In the language
of another, “The authority of the Roman name had not yet entirely
ceased. The senate of Rome continued to assemble as usual. The consuls
were appointed yearly, one by the Eastern emperor, one by Italy
and Rome. Odoacer himself governed Italy under a title――that of
_Patrician_――conferred on him by the Eastern emperor. There was still
a certain, though often faint, recognition of the supreme imperial
authority. The moon and the stars might seem still to shine in the West,
with a dim reflected light. In the course of the events, however, which
rapidly followed in the next half-century, these too were extinguished.
After above a century and a half of calamities unexampled {209} almost,
as Dr. Robertson most truly represents it,[279] in the history of
nations, the statement of Jerome――a statement couched under the very
Apocalyptic figure of the text, but prematurely pronounced on the first
taking of Rome by Alaric――might be considered at length accomplished:
‘Clarissimum terrarum _lumen_ extinctum est’――‘The world’s glorious
_sun_ has been extinguished;’ or, as the modern poet Byron (_Childe
Harold_, canto iv.) has expressed it, still under the Apocalyptic
imagery:――
‘She saw her glories star by star expire,’
till not even one star remained to glimmer in the vacant and dark
night” (Elliott, i. 360, 361).
I have thus endeavoured to explain the meaning of the four first
trumpets under the opening of the seventh seal, embracing the
successive severe blows struck on the empire by Alaric, Genseric,
Attila, and Odoacer, until the empire fell, to rise no more. I cannot
better conclude this part of the exposition than in the words of
Mr. Gibbon, in his reflections on the fall of the empire. “I have now
accomplished,” says he, “the laborious narrative of the decline and
fall of the Roman empire, from the fortunate age of Trajan and the
Antonines to its total extinction in the West, about five centuries
after the Christian era. At that unhappy period the Saxons fiercely
struggled with the natives for the possession of Britain; Gaul and
Spain were divided between the powerful monarchies of the Franks
and the Visigoths, and the dependent kingdoms of the Suevi and the
Burgundians; Africa was exposed to the cruel persecution of the Vandals,
and the savage insults of the Moors; Rome and Italy, as far as the
banks of the Danube, were afflicted by an army of barbarian mercenaries,
whose lawless tyranny was succeeded by the reign of Theodoric the
Ostrogoth. All the subjects of the empire, who, by the use of the Latin
language, more particularly deserved the name and privileges of Romans,
were oppressed by the disgrace and calamities of foreign conquest; and
the victorious nations of Germany established a new system of manners
and government in the western countries of Europe. The majesty of Rome
was faintly represented by the princes of Constantinople, the feeble
and imaginary successors of Augustus” (vol. ii. pp. 440, 441). “The
splendid days of Augustus and Trajan _were eclipsed by a cloud of
ignorance_ [a fine illustration of the language ‘the third part of the
sun was smitten, and the day shone not, and the night likewise’]; and
the barbarians subverted the laws and palaces of Rome” (_ibid._ p. 446).
Thus ended the history of the Gothic period, and, as I suppose, the
immediate symbolic representation of the affairs of the Western empire.
An interval now occurs (ver. 13) in the sounding of the trumpets,
and the scene is transferred, in the three remaining trumpets, to the
Eastern parts of the empire. After that the attention is directed again
to the West, to contemplate Rome under a new form, and exerting a new
influence in the nations, under the Papacy, but destined ultimately to
pass away in its spiritual power, as its temporal power had yielded to
the elements of internal decay in its bosom, and to the invasions of
the northern hordes.
13 And I beheld, and heard an [280]angel flying through the
midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to
the inhabiters of the earth, by reason of the other voices of
the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
13. _And I beheld._ My attention was attracted by a new vision.
¶ _And I heard an angel flying_, &c. I heard the voice of an angel
making this proclamation. ¶ _Woe, woe, woe._ That is, there will be
_great_ woe. The repetition of the word is intensive, and the idea is,
that the sounding of the three remaining trumpets would indicate great
and fearful calamities. These three are grouped together as if they
pertained to a similar series of events, as the first four had been.
The two classes are separated from each other by this interval and by
this proclamation――implying that the first series had been completed,
and that there would be some interval, either of space or time, before
the other series would come upon the world. All that is fairly implied
here would be fulfilled by the supposition that the former referred to
the {210} _West_, and that the latter pertained to the _East_, and were
to follow when those should have been completed.
CHAPTER IX.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.
The three remaining trumpets (ch. ix.‒xi.) are usually called the
_woe-trumpets_, in reference to the proclamation of woes, ch. viii. 13
(Professor Stuart). The three extend, as I suppose, to the end of time,
or, as it is supposed by the writer himself (ch. xi. 15), to the period
when “the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kingdoms of
Christ,” embracing a succinct view of the most material events that
were to occur, particularly in a _secular_ point of view. See the
Analysis prefixed to the book. In ch. xi. 19, as I understand it, a
new view is commenced, referring to the church internally; the rise
of Antichrist, and the effect of the rise of that formidable power on
the internal history of the church, to the time of its overthrow, and
the triumphant establishment of the kingdom of God. This, of course,
synchronizes in its beginning and its close with the portion already
passed over, but with a different view. See the Analysis prefixed to
ch. xi. 19, seq.
This chapter contains properly three parts. _First_, a description of
the first of those trumpets, or the fifth in the order of the whole,
ver. 1‒12. This woe is represented under the figure of calamities
brought upon the earth by an immense army of locusts. A star is seen
to fall from heaven――representing some mighty chieftain, and to him is
given the key of the bottomless pit. He opens the pit, and then comes
forth an innumerable swarm of locusts that darken the heavens, and they
go forth upon the earth. They have a command given them to do a certain
work. They are not to hurt the earth, or any green thing, but they
are sent against those men which have not the seal of God on their
foreheads. Their main business, however, was not to kill them, but
to torment them for a limited time――for five months. A description of
the appearance of the locusts then follows. Though they are _called_
locusts, because in their general appearance, and in the ravages they
commit, they resemble them, yet, in the main, they are imaginary beings,
and combine in themselves qualities which are never found united in
reality. They had a strong resemblance to horses prepared for battle;
they wore on their heads crowns of gold; they had the faces of men but
the hair of women and the teeth of lions. They had breastplates of iron,
and tails like scorpions, with stings in their tails. They had a mighty
king at their head, with a name significant of the destruction which
he would bring upon the world. These mysterious beings had their origin
in the bottomless pit, and they are summoned forth to spread desolation
upon the earth. _Second_, a description of the second of these trumpets,
the sixth in order, ver. 13‒19. When this is sounded, a voice is heard
from the four horns of the altar which is before God. The angel is
commanded to loose the four angels which are bound in the great river
Euphrates. These angels are loosed――angels which had been prepared
for a definite period――a day, and a month, and a year, to slay the
third part of men. The number of the army that would appear――composed
of cavalry――is stated to amount to two hundred thousand, and the
_peculiarities_ of these horsemen are then stated. They are remarkable
for having breastplates of fire, and jacinth, and brimstone; the heads
of the horses resemble lions; and they breathe forth fire and brimstone.
A third part of men fall before them, by the fire, and the smoke, and
the brimstone. Their power is in their mouth and in their tails, for
their tails are like serpents. _Third_, a statement of the effect of
the judgments brought upon the world under these trumpets, ver. 20, 21.
The effect, so far as the reasonable result could have been anticipated,
is lost. The nations are not turned from idolatry. Wickedness still
abounds, and there is no disposition to repent of the abominations
which had been so long practised on the earth.
CHAPTER IX.
AND the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a [281]star fall from
heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the
[282]bottomless pit.
1. _And the fifth angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 6, 7. ¶ _And I
saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth._ This denotes, as was shown
in the Notes on ch. viii. 10, a leader, a military {211} chieftain,
a warrior. In the fulfilment of this, as in the former case, we look
for the appearance of some mighty prince and warrior, to whom is given
power, as it were, to open the bottomless pit, and to summon forth
its legions. That some such agent is denoted by the _star_ is farther
apparent from the fact that it is immediately added, that “to _him_
[the star] was given the key of the bottomless pit.” It could not be
meant that a key would be given to a literal _star_, and we naturally
suppose, therefore, that some intelligent being of exalted rank, and
of baleful influence, is here referred to. Angels, good and bad, are
often called stars; but the reference here, as in ch. viii. 10, seems
to me not to be to angels, but to some mighty leader of armies, who
was to collect his hosts, and to go through the world in the work of
destruction. ¶ _And to him was given the key of the bottomless pit._
Of the under-world, considered particularly of the abode of the wicked.
This is represented often as a dark prison-house, inclosed with walls,
and accessible by gates or doors. These gates or doors are fastened,
so that none of the inmates can come out, and the key is in the hand of
the keeper or guardian. In ch. i. 18 it is said that the keys of that
world are in the hand of the Saviour (comp. Notes on that passage);
here it is said that for a time, and for a temporary purpose, they are
committed to another. The word _pit_――φρέαρ――denotes properly a well,
or a pit for water dug in the earth; and then any pit, cave, abyss.
The reference here is doubtless to the nether world, considered as
the abode of the wicked dead, the prison-house of the guilty. The word
_bottomless_, ἄβυσσος――whence our word _abyss_――means properly _without
any bottom_ (from α, pr., and βύθος, _depth_, _bottom_). It would be
applied properly to the ocean, or to any deep and dark dell, or to any
obscure place whose depth was unknown. Here it refers to Hades――the
region of the dead――the abode of wicked spirits――as a deep, dark place,
whose bottom was unknown. Having the _key_ to this, is to have the
power to confine those who are there, or to permit them to go at large.
The meaning here is, that this master-spirit would have power to evoke
the dead from these dark regions; and it would be fulfilled if some
mighty genius, that could be compared with a fallen star, or a lurid
meteor, should summon forth followers which would _appear_ like the
dwellers in the nether world called forth to spread desolation over
the earth.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke
out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun
and the air were [283]darkened by reason of the smoke of the
pit.
2. _And he opened the bottomless pit._ It is represented before as
wholly confined, so that not even the smoke or vapour could escape.
¶ _And there arose a smoke out of the pit._ Comp. ch. xiv. 11. The
meaning here is, that the pit, as a place of punishment, or as the
abode of the wicked, was filled with burning sulphur, and consequently
that it emitted smoke and vapour as soon as opened. The common image
of the place of punishment, in the Scriptures, is that of a “lake that
burns with fire and brimstone.” Comp. ch. xiv. 10; xix. 20; xx. 10;
xxi. 8. See also Ps. xi. 6; Is. xxx. 33; Eze. xxxviii. 22. It is not
improbable that this image was taken from the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Ge. xix. 24. Such burning sulphur would produce, of course,
a dense smoke or vapour; and the idea here is, that the pit had been
closed, and that as soon as the door was opened a dense column escaped
that darkened the heavens. The purpose of this is, probably, to
indicate the _origin_ of the plague that was about to come upon the
world. It would be of such a character that it would appear as if it
had been emitted from hell; as if the inmates of that dark world had
broke loose upon the earth. Comp. Notes on ch. vi. 8. ¶ _As the smoke
of a great furnace._ So in Ge. xix. 28, whence probably this image is
taken: “And he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and all the land of
the plain, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the country went up as the
smoke of a furnace.” ¶ _And the sun and the air were darkened_, &c.
As will be the case when a smoke ascends from a furnace. The meaning
here is, that an effect would be produced _as if_ a dense and dark
vapour should ascend from the under-world. We are not, of course, to
understand this literally.
3 And there came out of the smoke [284]locusts upon the earth:
and unto them was given power, as the [285]scorpions of the
earth have power.
3. _And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth._ That
is, they escaped from the pit with the smoke. {212} At first they were
mingled with the smoke, so that they were not distinctly seen, but when
the smoke cleared away they appeared in great numbers. The idea seems
to be, that the bottomless pit was filled with vapour and with those
creatures, and that as soon as the gate was opened the whole contents
expanded and burst forth upon the earth. The sun was immediately
darkened, and the air was full, but the smoke soon cleared away, so
that the locusts became distinctly visible. The _appearance_ of these
locusts is described in another part of the chapter, ver. 7, seq. The
locust is a voracious insect belonging to the grasshopper or grylli
genus, and is a great scourge in Oriental countries. A full description
of the locust may be seen in Robinson’s _Calmet_, and in Kitto’s
_Encyclo._ vol. ii. pp. 258, seq. There are ten Hebrew words to denote
the locust, and there are numerous references to the destructive
habits of the insect in the Scriptures. In fact, from their numbers
and their destructive habits, there was scarcely any other plague that
was so much dreaded in the East. Considered as a _symbol_, or _emblem_,
the following remarks may be made in explanation:――(1) The symbol is
_Oriental_, and would most naturally refer to something that was to
occur in the East. As locusts have appeared chiefly in the East, and as
they are in a great measure an _Oriental_ plague, the mention of this
symbol would most naturally turn the thoughts to that portion of the
earth. The symbols of the first four trumpets had no especial locality,
and would suggest no particular part of the world; but on the mention
of this, the mind would be naturally turned to the East, and we should
expect to find that the scene of this woe would be located in the
regions where the ravages of locusts most abounded. Compare, on this
point, Elliott, _Horæ Apoc._ i. 394‒406. He has made it probable that
the prophets, when they used symbolical language to denote any events,
commonly, at least, employed those which had a local or geographical
reference; thus, in the symbols derived from the vegetable kingdom,
when Judah is to be symbolized, the olive, the vine, and the fig-tree
are selected; when Egypt is referred to, the reed is chosen; when
Babylon, the willow. And so, in the animal kingdom, the lion is the
symbol of Judah; the wild ass, of the Arabs; the crocodile, of Egypt,
&c. Whether this theory could be wholly carried out or not, no one
can doubt that the symbol of locusts would most naturally suggest the
Oriental world, and that the natural interpretation of the passage
would lead us to expect its fulfilment there. (2) Locusts were
remarkable for their _numbers_――so great often as to appear like
clouds, and to darken the sky. In this respect they would naturally
be symbolical of numerous armies or hosts of men. This natural symbol
of numerous armies is often employed by the prophets. Thus, in Je.
xlvi. 23:――
“Cut down her forests [_i.e._ her people, or cities],
saith Jehovah,
That it may not be found on searching;
Although they surpass the locusts in multitude,
And they are without number.”
So in Na. iii. 15:――
“There shall the fire devour thee;
The sword shall cut thee off; it shall devour thee as
the locust,
Increase thyself as the numerous locusts.”
So also in Na. iii. 17:――
“Thy crowned princes are as the numerous locusts,
And thy captains as the grasshoppers;
Which encamp in the fences in the cold day,
But when the sun ariseth they depart,
And their place is not known where they were.”
See also De. xxviii. 38, 42; Ps. lxxviii. 46; Am. vii. 1. Comp.
Ju. vi. 3‒6; vii. 12; and Joel, ch. i. ii. (3) Locusts are an emblem
of desolation or destruction. No symbol of desolation could be more
appropriate or striking than this, for one of the most remarkable
properties of locusts is, that they devour every green thing and leave
a land perfectly waste. They do this even when what they destroy is not
necessary for their own sustenance. “Locusts seem to devour not so much
from a ravenous appetite as from a rage for destroying. Destruction,
therefore, and not food, is the chief impulse of their devastations,
and in this consists their utility; they are, in fact, omnivorous.
The most poisonous plants are indifferent to them; they will prey even
upon the crowfoot, whose causticity burns even the hides of beasts.
They simply consume _everything_, {213} without predilection――vegetable
matter, linens, woollens, silk, leather, &c.; and Pliny does not
exaggerate when he says, _fores quoque tectorum_――‘even the doors
of houses’――for they have been known to consume the very varnish of
furniture. They reduce everything indiscriminately to shreds, which
become manure” (Kitto’s _Encyclo._ ii. 263). Locusts become, therefore,
a most striking symbol of an all-devouring army, and as such are often
referred to in Scripture. So also in Josephus, _de Bello Jud._ book v.
ch. vii.:――“As after locusts we see the woods stripped of their leaves,
so, in the rear of Simon’s army, nothing but devastation remained.”
The _natural_ application of this symbol, then, is to a numerous and
destructive army, or to a great multitude of people committing ravages,
and sweeping off everything in their march. ¶ _And unto them was given
power._ This was something that was _imparted_ to them beyond their
ordinary nature. The locust in itself is not strong, and is not a
symbol of strength. Though destructive in the extreme, yet neither
as individuals, nor as combined, are they distinguished for strength.
Hence it is mentioned as a remarkable circumstance that they had such
power conferred on them. ¶ _As the scorpions of the earth have power._
The phrase “the earth” seems to have been introduced here because these
creatures are said to have come up from “the bottomless pit,” and it
was natural to compare them with some well-known objects found on the
earth. The scorpion is an animal with eight feet, eight eyes, and a
long, jointed tail, ending in a pointed weapon or sting. It is the
largest and the most malignant of all the insect tribes. It somewhat
resembles the lobster in its general appearance, but is much more
hideous. See Notes on Lu. x. 19. Those found in Europe seldom exceed
four inches in length, but in tropical climates, where they abound,
they are often found twelve inches long. There are few animals more
formidable, and none more irascible, than the scorpion. Goldsmith
states that Maupertuis put about a hundred of them together in the
same glass, and that as soon as they came into contact they began
to exert all their rage in mutual destruction, so that in a few days
there remained but fourteen, which had killed and devoured all the
rest. The sting of the scorpion, Dr. Shaw states, is not always
fatal; the malignity of their venom being in proportion to their
size and complexion. The torment of a scorpion, when he strikes a
man, is thus described by Dioscorides, lib. vii. cap. 7, as cited by
Mr. Taylor:――“When the scorpion has stung, the place becomes inflamed
and hardened; it reddens by tension, and is painful by intervals, being
now chilly, now burning. The pain soon rises high, and rages, sometimes
more, sometimes less. A sweating succeeds, attended by a shivering and
trembling; the extremities of the body become cold, the groin swells,
the hair stands on end, the members become pale, and the skin feels
throughout the sensation of a perpetual pricking, as if by needles”
(Fragments to Calmet’s _Dic._ vol. iv. p. 376, 377). “The tail of the
scorpion is long, and formed after the manner of a string of beads,
the last larger than the others, and longer; at the end of which are,
sometimes, two stings which are hollow, and filled with a cold poison,
which it ejects into the part which it stings” (Calmet’s _Dic._).
The sting of the scorpion, therefore, becomes the emblem of that
which causes acute and dangerous suffering. On this comparison with
_scorpions_ see the remark of Niebuhr, quoted in the Notes on ver. 7.
4 And it was [286]commanded them that they should not hurt the
grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree;
but only those men which have not the [287]seal of God in
their foreheads.
4. _And it was commanded them._ The writer does not say _by whom_ this
command was given, but it is clearly by some one who had the direction
of them. As they were evoked from the “bottomless pit” by one who had
the key to that dark abode, and as they are represented in ver. 11 as
under the command of one who is there called Abaddon, or Apollyon――the
Destroyer――it would seem most probable that the command referred
to is one that is given by him; that is, that this expresses one
of the principles on which he would act in his devastations. At all
events, this denotes what would be one of the characteristics of these
destroyers. Their purpose {214} would be to vex and trouble men; not
to spread desolation over vineyards, olive-yards, and fields of grain.
¶ _That they should not hurt the grass of the earth_, &c. See Notes on
ch. viii. 7. The meaning here is plain. There would be some sense in
which these invaders would be characterized in a manner that was not
common among invaders, to wit, that they would show particular care
not to carry their devastations into the vegetable world. Their warfare
would be with men, and not with orchards and green fields. ¶ _But only
those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads._ See Notes
on ch. vii. 2, 3. They commenced war against that part of the human
race only. The _language_ here properly denotes those who were not the
friends of God. It may here refer, however, either to those who _in
reality_ were not such, or to those who were regarded by him who gave
this command as not being such. In the former case, the commission
would have respect to real infidels in the sight of God――that is, to
those who rejected the true religion; in the latter it would express
the sentiment of the leader of this host, as referring to those
who in _his_ apprehension were infidels or enemies of God. The true
interpretation must depend on the sense in which we understand the
phrase “it was commanded;” whether as referring to God, or to the
leader of the host himself. The language, therefore, is ambiguous,
and the meaning must be determined by the other parts of the passage.
Either method of understanding the passage would be in accordance with
its fair interpretation.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but
that they should be tormented five months: and their torment
_was_ as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
5. _And to them it was given._ There is here the same indefiniteness
as in the former verse, the impersonal verb being here also used. The
writer does not say _by whom_ this power was given, whether by God, or
by the leader of the host. It may be admitted, however, that the most
natural interpretation is to suppose that it was given them by God, and
that this was the execution of _his_ purpose in this case. Still it is
remarkable that this is not directly affirmed, and that the language is
so general as to admit of the other application. The _fact_ that they
did not kill them, but tormented them――if such a fact should be found
to exist――would be in every sense a fulfilment of what is here said.
¶ _That they should not kill them._ This is in accordance with the
nature of the symbol. The locusts do not themselves destroy any living
creature; and the sting of the scorpion, though exceedingly painful, is
not usually fatal. The proper fulfilment of this would be found in that
which would not be generally fatal, but which would diffuse misery and
wretchedness. (Comp. ver. 6.) _Perhaps_ all that would be necessarily
meant by this would be, not that individual _men_ would not be killed,
but that they would be sent to inflict plagues and torments rather than
to take life, and that the characteristic effects of their appearing
would be distress and suffering rather than death. There may be
included in the fair interpretation of the words, general distress and
sorrow; acts of oppression, cruelty, and violence; such a condition
of public suffering that men would regard death as a relief if they
could find it. ¶ _But that they should be tormented._ That is, that
they should be subjected to ills and troubles which might be properly
compared with the sting of a scorpion. ¶ _Five months._ So far as the
_words_ here are concerned this might be taken literally, denoting
five months or one hundred and fifty days; or as a prophetic reckoning,
where a day stands for a year. Comp. Notes on Da. ix. 24, seq. The
latter is undoubtedly the correct interpretation here, for it is the
character of the book thus to reckon time. See Notes on ver. 15. [See
also Editor’s Preface, pp. xi.‒xv.] If this be the true method of
reckoning here, then it will be necessary to find some events which
will embrace about the period of one hundred and fifty years, during
which this distress and sorrow would continue. The proper laws of
interpretation demand that one or the other of these periods should
be found――either that of five months literally, or that of a hundred
and fifty years. It may be true, as Professor Stuart suggests
(_in loco_), that “the usual time of locusts is from May to September
inclusive――five months.” It may be true, also, that this symbol was
chosen partly _because_ that was the fact, and they would, from that
fact, be well adapted to symbolize {215} a period that could be spoken
of as “five months;” but still the meaning must be more than simply it
was “_a short period_,” as he supposes. The phrase _a few months_ might
designate such a period; but if that had been the writer’s intention,
he would not have selected the definite number _five_. ¶ _And their
torment |was| as the torment of a scorpion_, &c. See Notes on ver. 3.
That is, it would be painful, severe, dangerous.
6 And in those days shall [288]men seek death, and shall not
find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from
them.
6. _And in those days shall men seek death_, &c. See Notes on ver. 5.
It is very easy to conceive of such a state of things as is here
described, and, indeed, this has not been very uncommon in the world.
It is a state where the distress is so great that men would consider
death a relief, and where they anxiously look to the time when they may
be released from their sufferings by death. In the case before us it is
not intimated that they would lay violent hands on themselves, or that
they would take any positive measures to end their sufferings; and this,
perhaps, _may be_ a circumstance of some importance to show that the
persons referred to were servants of God. When it is said that “they
would _seek_ death,” it can only be meant that they would look out for
it――or desire it――as the end of their sorrows. This is descriptive, as
we shall see, of a particular period of the world; but the _language_
is beautifully applicable to what occurs in all ages and in all lands.
There is always a great number of sufferers who are looking forward
to death as a relief. In cells and dungeons; on beds of pain and
languishing; in scenes of poverty and want; in blighted hopes and
disappointed affections, how many are there who would be glad to die,
and who have no hope of an end of suffering but in the grave! A few, by
the pistol, by the halter, by poison, or by drowning, seek thus to end
their woes. A large part look forward to death as a release, when, if
the reality were known, death would furnish no such relief, for there
are deeper and longer woes beyond the grave than there are this side
of it. Comp. Notes on Job iii. 20‒22. But to a portion death _will_
be a relief. It will be an end of sufferings. They will find peace in
the grave, and are assured they shall suffer no more. Such bear their
trials with patience, for the end of _all_ sorrow to them is near, and
death will come to release their spirits from the suffering clay, and
to bear them in triumph to a world where a pang shall never be felt,
and a tear never shed.
7 And the [289]shapes of the locusts _were_ like unto horses
prepared unto battle; and on their heads _were_ as it were
[290]crowns like gold, and their [291]faces _were_ as the
faces of men.
7. _And the shapes of the locusts |were| like unto horses prepared for
battle._ The resemblance between the locust and the horse, dissimilar
as they are in most respects, has been often remarked. Dr. Robinson
(_Bib. Research_, i. 59) says: “We found to-day upon the shrubs an
insect, either a species of black locust, or much resembling them,
which our Bedouin called _Farras el Jundy_, ‘soldiers’ horses.’ They
said these insects were common on Mount Sinai, of a green colour, and
were found on dead trees, but did them no injury.” The editor of the
_Pictorial Bible_ makes the following remarks:――“The first time we saw
locusts browsing with their wings closed, the idea of comparing them
to horses arose spontaneously to our minds――as we had not previously
met with such a comparison, and did not at that time advert to the
present text [Joel ii. 4]. The resemblance in the head first struck
our attention; and this notion having once arisen, other analogies
were found or imagined in its general appearance and action in feeding.
We have since found the observation very common. The Italians, indeed,
from this resemblance, called the locust _cavaletta_, or _little horse_.
Sir W. Ouseley reports: ‘Zakaria Cazvine divides the locusts into two
classes, like horsemen and footmen――mounted and pedestrian.’ Niebuhr
says that he heard from a Bedouin, near Bussorah, a particular
comparison of the locust to other animals; but as this passage of
Scripture did not occur to him at the time he thought it a mere fancy
of the Arab’s, till he heard it repeated at Bagdad. He compared the
head of the locust to that of the horse; the feet to those of the
camel; {216} the belly with that of a serpent; the tail with that of a
scorpion; and the feelers (if Niebuhr remembered rightly) to the hair
of a virgin” (_Pict. Bib._ on Joel ii. 4). The resemblance to horses
would naturally suggest the idea of _cavalry_, as being referred to by
the symbol. ¶ _And on their heads |were| as it were crowns like gold._
The writer does not say either that these were literally _crowns_, or
that they were actually made of _gold_. They were “_as it were_” (ὡς)
_crowns_, and they were _like_ (ὅμοιος) _gold_. That is, as seen by him,
they had a resemblance to crowns or diadems, and they also resembled
gold in their colour and brilliancy. The word _crown_――στέφανος――means
properly a circlet, chaplet, encircling the head (a) as an emblem of
royal dignity, and as worn by kings; (b) as conferred on victors in
the public games――a chaplet, a wreath; (c) as an ornament, honour,
or glory, Phi. iv. 1. No particular _shape_ is designated by the word
στέφανος――_stephanos_――and perhaps the word _crown_ does not quite
express the meaning. The word _diadem_ would come nearer to it. The
true notion in the word is that of something that is passed around the
head, and that encircles it, and as such it would well describe the
appearance of a _turban_ as seen at a distance. On the supposition that
the symbolic beings here referred to had turbans on their heads, and
on the supposition that something was referred to which was not much
worn in the time of John, and, therefore, that had no name, the word
_stephanos_, or _diadem_, would be likely to be used in describing it.
This, too, would accord with the use of the phrase “_as it were_”――ὡς.
The writer saw such head-ornaments as he was accustomed to see. They
were not _exactly_ crowns or diadems, but they had a resemblance to
them, and he therefore uses this language: “and on their heads were _as
it were_ crowns.” Suppose that these were _turbans_, and that they were
not in common use in the time of John, and that they had, therefore,
no name, would not this be the exact language which he would use in
describing them? The same remarks may be made respecting the other
expression. ¶ _Like gold._ They were not pure gold, but they had a
resemblance to it. Would not a yellow turban correspond with all that
is said in this description? ¶ _And their faces |were| as the faces
of men._ They had a human countenance. This would indicate that, after
all, they were human beings that the symbol described, though they had
come up from the bottomless pit. Horsemen, in strange apparel, with a
strange head-dress, would be all that would be properly denoted by this.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their [292]teeth
were as _the teeth_ of lions.
8. _And they had hair as the hair of women._ Long hair; not such as men
commonly wear, but such as women wear. See Notes on 1 Co. xi. 14. This
struck John as a peculiarity, that, though warriors, they should have
the appearance of effeminacy indicated by allowing their hair to grow
long. It is clear from this, that John regarded their appearance as
unusual and remarkable. Though manifestly designed to represent an army,
yet it was not the usual appearance of men who went forth to battle.
Among the Greeks of ancient times, indeed, long hair was not uncommon
(see the Notes above referred to on 1 Co. xi. 14), but this was by no
means the usual custom among the ancients; and the fact that these
warriors had long hair like women was a circumstance that would
distinguish them particularly from others. On this comparison of the
appearance of the locusts with the hair of women see the remarks of
Niebuhr, in the Notes on ver. 7. ¶ _And their teeth were as |the teeth|
of lions._ Strong; fitted to devour. The teeth of the locust are by
no means prominent, though they are strong, for they readily cut down
and eat up all vegetable substances that come in their way. But it is
evident that John means to say that there was much that was unusual and
remarkable in the teeth of these locusts. They would be ravenous and
fierce, and would spread terror and desolation like the lions of the
desert.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of
iron; and the sound of their wings _was_ as the [293]sound
of chariots of many horses running to battle.
9. _And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron._ Hard,
horny, impenetrable, _as if_ they were made of {217} iron. The locust
_has_ a firm and hard cuticle on the forepart of the breast, which
serves for a shield or defence while it moves in the thorny and furzy
vegetation. On those which John saw this was peculiarly hard and horny,
and would thus be well adapted to be an emblem of the breastplates
of iron commonly worn by ancient warriors. The meaning is, that the
warriors referred to would be well clad with defensive armour. ¶ _And
the sound of their wings |was| as the sound of chariots of many horses
running to battle._ The noise made by locusts is often spoken of by
travellers, and the comparison of that noise with that of chariots
rushing to battle, is not only appropriate, but also indicates
clearly what was symbolized. It was _an army_ that was symbolized,
and everything about them served to represent hosts of men well armed,
rushing to conflict. The same thing here referred to is noticed by
Joel, ch. ii. 4, 5, 7:――
“The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses;
And as horsemen so shall they run.
Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains, shall
they leap;
Like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble;
As a strong people set in battle array.
They shall run like mighty men;
They shall climb the wall like men of war;
And they shall march every one his ways, and shall not break
their ranks,” &c.
It is remarkable that Volney, who had no intention of illustrating
the truth of Scripture, has given a description of locusts, _as if_ he
meant to confirm the truth of what is here said. “Syria,” says he, “as
well as Egypt, Persia, and almost all the south of Asia, is subject
to another calamity no less dreadful [than earthquakes]; I mean those
_clouds_ of locusts so often mentioned by travellers. The quantity of
these insects is incredible to all who have not themselves witnessed
their astounding numbers; the whole earth is covered with them for
the space of several leagues. The _noise_ they make in browsing on the
trees and herbage may be heard to a great distance, and resembles that
of an army foraging in secret” (_Travels in Egypt and Syria_, vol. i.
pp. 283, 284).
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were
stings in their tails: and [294]their power _was_ to hurt men
five months.
10. _And they had tails like unto scorpions._ The fancy of an Arab now
often discerns a resemblance between the tail of the locust and the
scorpion. See the remark of Niebuhr, quoted in the Notes on ver. 7.
¶ _And there were stings in their tails._ Like the stings of scorpions.
See Notes on ver. 3. This made the locusts which appeared to John the
more remarkable, for though the fancy may imagine a resemblance between
the tail of a locust and a scorpion, yet the locusts have properly
no sting. The only thing which they have resembling a sting is a hard
bony substance like a needle, with which the female punctures the bark
and wood of trees in order to deposit her eggs. It has, however, no
adaptation, like a sting, for conveying poison into a wound. These,
however, appeared to be armed with stings properly so called. ¶ _And
their power |was| to hurt men._ Not primarily to _kill_ men, but to
inflict on them various kinds of tortures. See Notes on ver. 5. The
word here used――ἀδικῆσαι, rendered _to hurt_――is different from the
word in ver. 5――βασανισθῶσι, rendered _should be tormented_. This word
properly means _to do wrong_, _to do unjustly_, _to injure_, _to hurt_;
and the two words would seem to convey the idea that they would produce
distress by _doing wrong_ to others, or by dealing unjustly with
them. It does not appear that the wrong would be by inflicting bodily
torments, but would be characterized by that injustice towards others
which produces distress and anguish. ¶ _Five months._ See Notes on
ver. 5; [also Editor’s Preface, page xxiv].
11 And they had a [295]king over them, _which is_ the angel
of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue _is_
Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath _his_ name [296]Apollyon.
11. _And they had a king over them._ A ruler who marshalled their
hosts. Locusts often, and indeed generally, move in bands, though they
do not appear to be under the direction of any one as a particular
ruler or guide. In this case it struck John as a remarkable peculiarity
that they _had_ a king――a king who, it would seem, had the absolute
control, and to whom was to {218} be traced all the destruction which
would ensue from their emerging from the bottomless pit. ¶ _|Which is|
the angel of the bottomless pit_. See Notes on ver. 1. The word _angel_
here would seem to refer to the chief of the evil angels, who presided
over the dark and gloomy regions from whence the locusts seemed to
emerge. This may either mean that this evil angel seemed to command
them personally, or that his spirit was infused into the leader
of these hosts. ¶ _Whose name in the Hebrew tongue |is| Abaddon._
The name Abaddon means literally _destruction_, and is the same as
Apollyon. ¶ _But in the Greek tongue hath |his| name Apollyon._ From
ἀπόλλυμι――_to destroy_. The word properly denotes a destroyer, and the
name is given to this king of the hosts, represented by the locusts,
because this would be his principal characteristic.
After this minute explanation of the literal meaning of the symbol,
it may be useful, before attempting to apply it, and to ascertain the
_events_ designed to be represented, to have a distinct impression
of the principal image――the locust. It is evident that this is, in
many respects, a creature of the imagination, and that we are not to
expect the exact representation to be found in any forms of actual
existence in the animal creation. The following engraving, prepared
by Mr. Elliott (vol. i. p. 410), will give a sufficiently accurate
representation of this symbolical figure as it appeared to John.
Illustration: Symbolical Locust, according to Elliott.
The question now is, whether any events occurred in history, subsequent
to and succeeding those supposed to be referred to in the fourth
trumpet, to which this symbol would be applicable. Reasons have already
been suggested for supposing that there was a transfer of the seat of
the operations to another part of the world. The first four trumpets
referred to a continual series of events of the same general character,
and having a proper close. These have been explained as referring
to the successive shocks which terminated in the downfall of the
Western empire. At the close of that series there is a pause in the
representation (ch. viii. 13), and a solemn proclamation that other
scenes were to open distinguished for woe. These were to be symbolized
in the sounding of the remaining three trumpets, embracing the whole
period till the consummation of all things――or sketching great and
momentous events in the future, until the volume sealed with the seven
seals (ch. v. 1) should have been wholly unrolled and its contents
disclosed. The whole scene now is changed. Rome has fallen. It has
passed into the hands of strangers. The power that had spread itself
over the world has, in that form, come to an end, and is to exist no
more――though, as we shall see (ch. xi. seq.), _another_ power, quite as
formidable, existing there, is to be described by a new set of symbols.
But here (ch. ix.) a new power appears. The scenery is all Oriental,
and clearly has reference to events that were to spring up in the East.
With surprising unanimity, commentators have agreed in regarding this
as referring to the empire of the Saracens, or to the rise and progress
of the religion and the empire set up by Mahomet. The inquiry now is,
whether the circumstances introduced into the symbol find a proper
fulfilment in the rise of the Saracenic power, and in the conquests of
the Prophet of Mecca.
(1) _The country where the scene is laid._ As already remarked, the
scene is Oriental――for the mention of locusts naturally suggests the
East――that being the part of the world where they abound, and they
being in fact peculiarly an Oriental plague. It may now be added,
that in a more strict and proper sense Arabia may be intended; that is,
if it be admitted that the design was to symbolize events pertaining
to Arabia, or the gathering of the hosts of Arabia for conquest,
the symbol of _locusts_ would have been employed for the locust, the
groundwork of the symbol is peculiarly Arabic. It was the east wind
which brought the locusts on Egypt (Ex. x. 13), and they must therefore
have come from some portion of Arabia――for Arabia is the land that
lies over against Egypt in the east. Such, too, is the testimony {219}
of Volney; “the most judicious,” as Mr. Gibbon calls him, “of modern
travellers.” “The inhabitants of Syria,” says he, “have remarked that
locusts come constantly from the desert of Arabia,” ch. xx. sect. 5.
All that is necessary to say further on this point is, that on the
supposition that it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration in
the passage before us to refer to the followers of Mahomet, the image
of the locusts was that which would be naturally selected. There was
no other one so appropriate and so striking; no one that would so
naturally designate the country of Arabia. As some confirmation of
this, or as showing how _natural_ the symbol would be, a remark may be
introduced from Mr. Forster. In his _Mohammedanism Unveiled_, vol. i.
p. 217, he says, “In the Bedoween romance of _Antar_, the _locust_
is introduced as the national emblem of the Ishmaelites. And it is
a remarkable coincidence that Mohammedan tradition speaks of locusts
having dropped into the hands of Mohammed, bearing on their wings this
inscription――‘We are the army of the Great God.’” These circumstances
will show the propriety of the symbol on the supposition that it refers
to Arabia and the Saracens.
(2) _The people._ The question is, whether there was anything in
the symbol, as described by John, which would properly designate the
followers of Mahomet, on the supposition that it was designed to have
such a reference. (a) As to _numbers_. “They (the Midianite Arabs)
came as locusts for multitude,” Ju. vi. 5. See Notes on ver. 3. Nothing
would better represent the _numbers_ of the Saracenic hordes that
came out of Arabia, and that spread over the East――over Egypt, Libya,
Mauritania, Spain, and that threatened to spread over Europe――than
such an army of locusts. “One hundred years after his flight [Mahomet]
from Mecca,” says Mr. Gibbon, “the arms and the reign of his successors
extended from India to the Atlantic Ocean, over the various and distant
provinces which may be comprised under the names of Persia, Syria,
Egypt, Africa, and Spain,” vol. iii. p. 410. “At the end of the first
century of the Hegira the caliphs were the most potent and absolute
monarchs on the globe. Under the last of the Ommiades the Arabian
empire extended two hundred days’ journey from east to west, from the
confines of Tartary and India to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean”
(_ibid._ p. 460). In regard to the immense _hosts_ employed in these
conquests, an idea may be formed by a perusal of the whole fifty-first
chapter in Gibbon (vol. iii. pp. 408‒461). Those hosts issued primarily
from Arabia, and in their numbers would be well compared with the
swarms of locusts that issued from the same country, so numerous as
to darken the sky. (b) The _description_ of the people. ¶ _Their faces
were as the faces of men._ This would seem to be in contrast with other
people, or to denote something that was peculiar in the appearance of
the persons represented. In other words, the meaning would seem to be,
that there was something manly and warlike in their appearance, so far
as their _faces_ were concerned. It is remarkable that the appearance
of the Goths (represented, as I suppose, under the previous trumpets)
is described by Jerome (comp. on Is. viii.) as quite the reverse. They
are described as having faces shaven and smooth; faces, in contrast
with the bearded Romans, _like women’s faces_.[297] Is it fancy to
suppose that the reference here is to the beard and moustache of the
Arabic hosts? We know with what care they regarded the beard; and _if_
a representation was made of them, especially in contrast with nations
that shaved their faces, and who thus resembled women, it would be
natural to speak of those represented in the symbol as “having faces
as the faces of _men_.” ¶ _They had hair as the hair of women._ A
strange mingling of the appearance of effeminacy with the indication
of manliness and courage. See Notes on ver. 8. And yet this strictly
accords with the appearance of the Arabs or Saracens. Pliny, the
contemporary of John, speaks of the Arabs then as having the hair
long and uncut, with the moustache on the upper lip, or the beard:
Arabes mitrati sunt, aut _intonso crine_. Barba abraditur, _præterquam
in superiore labro_. Aliis et _hæc intonsa_ (_Nat. Hist._ vol. vi.
p. 28). So Solinus describes them in the third century (Plurimis crinis
intonsus, mitrata capita, pars rasâ in cutem barbâ, c. 53); so Ammianus
Marcellinus, in the fourth century (_Crinitus_ quidam a Saracenorum
cuneo, vol. xxxi. p. 16); and so Claudian, Theodore of Mopsuesta, and
Jerome, in the fifth. Jerome lived {220} about two centuries before the
great Saracen invasion; and as he lived at Bethlehem, on the borders
of Arabia, he must have been familiar with the appearance of the Arabs.
Still later, in that most characteristic of Arab poems, _Antar_, a poem
written in the time of Mahomet’s childhood, we find the moustache, and
the beard, and the long flowing hair on the shoulder, and the turban,
all specified as characteristic of the Arabians: “He adjusted himself
properly, twisted his whiskers, _and folded up his hair under his
turban_, drawing it from off his shoulders,” vol. i. p. 340. “His hair
flowed down on his shoulders,” vol. i. p. 169. “Antar cut off Maudi’s
hair in revenge and insult,” vol. iii. p. 117. “We will hang him up by
his hair,” vol. iv. p. 325. See Elliott, vol. i. pp. 411, 412. Comp.
_Newton on the Prophecies_, p. 485. ¶ _And on their heads |were| as
it were crowns of gold._ See Notes on ver. 7. That is, diadems, or
something that appeared like crowns, or chaplets. This will agree well
with the _turban_ worn by the Arabs or Saracens, and which was quite
characteristic of them in the early periods when they became known. So
in the passage already quoted, Pliny speaks of them as Arabes _mitrati_;
so Solinus, _mitrata capita_; so in the poem of _Antar_, “he folded up
his hair _under his turban_.” It is remarkable also that Ezekiel (ch.
xxiii. 42) describes the turbans of the Sabean or Keturite Arabs under
the very appellation here used by John: “Sabeans from the wilderness,
which put beautiful _crowns_ upon their heads.” So in the preface to
_Antar_, it is said, “It was a usual saying among them, that God had
bestowed four peculiar things on the Arabs; that their _turbans_ should
be unto them instead of _diadems_, their tents instead of walls and
houses, their swords instead of intrenchments, and their poems instead
of written laws.” Mr. Forster, in his _Mohammedanism Unveiled_, quotes
as a precept of Mahomet: “Make a point of wearing _turbans_, because it
is the way of angels.” Turbans might then with propriety be represented
as crowns, and no doubt these were often so gilded and ornamented that
they might be spoken of as “crowns _of gold_.” ¶ _They had breastplates,
as it were breastplates of iron._ See Notes on ver. 9. As a _symbol_,
this would be properly descriptive of the Arabians or Saracens. In
the poem _Antar_ the steel and iron cuirasses of the Arab warriors are
frequently noticed: “A warrior immersed in _steel armour_,” vol. ii.
p. 203. “Fifteen thousand men armed with cuirasses, and well accoutred
for war,” vol. ii. p. 42. “They were clothed in iron armour, and
brilliant cuirasses,” vol. i. p. 23. “Out of the dust appeared horsemen
clad in iron,” vol. iii. p. 274. The same thing occurs in the Koran:
“God hath given you coats of mail to defend you in your wars,” vol. ii.
p. 104. In the history of Mahomet we read expressly of the cuirasses of
himself and of his Arab troops. Seven cuirasses are noted in the list
of Mahomet’s private armoury (Gagnier, vol. iii. p. 328‒334). In his
second battle with the Koreish, seven hundred of his little army are
spoken of by Mr. Gibbon as armed with cuirasses. See Elliott, vol. i.
p. 413. These illustrations will show with what propriety the locusts
in the symbol were represented as having breastplates like breastplates
of iron. On the supposition that this referred to the Arabs and the
Saracens this would have been the very symbol which would have been
used. Indeed, all the features in the symbol are precisely such as
_would_ properly be employed on the supposition that the reference was
to them. It is true that beforehand it might not have been practicable
to describe exactly what people were referred to, but (a) it would be
easy to see that some fearful calamity was to be anticipated from the
ravages of hosts of fearful invaders; and (b) when the events occurred,
there would be no difficulty in determining to whom this application
should be made.
(3) _The time when this would occur._ As to this there can be no
difficulty in the application to the Saracens. On the supposition that
the four first trumpets refer to the downfall of the Western empire,
then the proper time supposed to be represented by this symbol is
subsequent to that; and yet the manner in which the last three trumpets
are introduced (ch. viii. 13) shows that there would be an _interval_
between the sounding of the last of the four trumpets and the
sounding of the fifth. The events referred to, as I have supposed, as
represented by the fourth trumpet, occurred in the close of the fifth
century (A.D. 476‒490). The principal events in the seventh century
were connected with the invasions and conquests of the Saracens. The
interval of a century is not more than the fair {221} interpretation of
the proclamation in ch. viii. 13 would justify.
(4) _The commission given to the symbolical locusts._ This embraces the
following things:――(a) They were not to hurt the grass of the earth,
nor any green thing; (b) they were especially to go against those who
had not the seal of God in their foreheads; (c) they were not to _kill_
them, but were to _torment_ them. ¶ _They were not to hurt the grass of
the earth_, &c. Notes, ver. 4. This agrees remarkably with an express
command in the Koran. The often-quoted order of the Caliph Aboubekir,
the father-in-law and successor of Mahomet, issued to the Saracen
hordes on their invasion of Syria, shows what was understood to be the
spirit of their religion: “Remember that you are always in the presence
of God, on the verge of death, in the assurance of judgment, and the
hope of paradise. Avoid injustice and oppression; consult with your
brethren, and study to preserve the love and confidence of your troops.
When you fight the battles of the Lord, acquit yourselves like men,
without turning your backs; _but let not the victory be stained with
the blood of women or children. Destroy no palm-trees, nor burn any
fields of corn. Cut down no fruit-trees, nor do any mischief to cattle,
only such as you kill to eat._ When you make any covenant or article,
stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find
some religious persons who live retired in monasteries, and propose
to themselves to serve God in that way; let them alone, and _neither
kill them_ [‘and to them it was given that they should not kill them,’
ver. 5], nor destroy their monasteries,” &c. (Gibbon, iii. 417, 418).
So Mr. Gibbon notices this precept of the Koran: “In the siege of
Tayaf,” says he, “sixty miles from Mecca, Mohammed violated _his own
laws_ by the extirpation of the fruit-trees,” ii. 392. The same order
existed among the Hebrews, and it is not improbable that Mahomet
derived his precept from the command of Moses (De. xx. 19), though what
was _mercy_ among the Hebrews was probably mere _policy_ with him. This
precept is the more remarkable because it has been the usual custom in
war, and particularly among barbarians and semi-barbarians, to destroy
grain and fruit, and especially to cut down fruit-trees, in order
to do greater injury to an enemy. Thus we have seen (Notes on ch.
viii. 7), that in the invasion of the Goths their course was marked
by desolations of this kind. Thus, in more modern times, it has been
common to carry the desolations of war into gardens, orchards, and
vineyards. In the single province of Upper Messenia the troops of
Mahomet Ali, in the war with Greece, cut down half a million of
olive-trees, and thus stripped the country of its means of wealth. So
Scio was a beautiful spot, the seat of delightful villas, and gardens,
and orchards; and in one day all this beauty was destroyed. On the
supposition, therefore, that this prediction had reference to the
Saracens, nothing could be more appropriate. Indeed, in all the history
of barbarous and savage warfare it would be difficult to find another
distinct command that no injury should be done to gardens and orchards.
(d) Their commission was expressly against “those men who had not the
seal of God in their foreheads.” See Notes on ver. 4. That is, they
were to go either against those who were not _really_ the friends of
God, or those who _in their estimation_ were not. Perhaps, if there
were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation,
the former would be the most natural explanation of the passage; but
the language _may be_ understood as referring to the purpose which
they considered themselves as called upon to execute: that is, that
they were to go against those whom they regarded as being strangers
to the true God, to wit, idolaters. Now it is well known that Mahomet
considered himself called upon, principally, to make war with idolaters,
and that he went forth, professedly, to bring them into subjection to
the service of the true God. “The means of persuasion,” says Mr. Gibbon,
“had been tried, the season of forbearance was elapsed, and he was
now commanded to propagate his religion by the sword, to destroy the
monuments of idolatry, and, without regarding the sanctity of days or
months, to pursue the unbelieving nations of the earth,” iii. 387. “The
fair option of friendship, or submission, or battle, was proposed to
the enemies of Mahomet” (_ibid._). “The sword,” says Mahomet, “is the
key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a
night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting and
prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven; at the day
of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent {222} as vermilion, and
odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the
wings of angels and cherubim” (Gibbon, iii. 387). The first conflicts
waged by Mahomet were against the _idolaters_ of his own country――those
who can, on no supposition, be regarded as “having the seal of God in
their foreheads;” his subsequent wars were against _infidels_ of all
classes; that is, against those whom he regarded as not having the
“seal of God in their foreheads,” or as being the enemies of God.
(e) The other part of the commission was “not to kill, but to torment
them.” Notes, ver. 5. Compare the quotation from the command of
Aboubekir, as quoted above: “Let not the victory be stained with the
blood of women and children.” “Let them alone, and neither kill them
nor destroy their monasteries.” The meaning of this, if understood
as applied to their commission against Christendom, would seem to be,
that they were not to go forth to “kill,” but to “torment” them; to
wit, by the calamities which they would bring upon Christian nations
for a definite period. Indeed, as we have seen above, it was an express
command of Aboubekir that they should not put those to death who were
found leading quiet and peaceable lives in monasteries, though against
another class he _did_ give an express command to “cleave their skulls.”
See Gibbon, iii. 418. As applicable to the conflicts of the Saracens
with Christians, the meaning here would seem to be, that the power
conceded to those who are represented by the locusts was not to cut
off and to destroy the church, but it was to bring upon it various
calamities to continue for a definite period. Accordingly, some of the
severest afflictions which have come upon the church have undoubtedly
proceeded from the followers of the Prophet of Mecca. There were times
in the early history of that religion when, to all human appearance,
it would universally prevail, and wholly supplant the Christian church.
But the church still survived, and no power was at any time given to
the Saracenic hosts to destroy it altogether. In respect to this, some
remarkable facts have occurred in history. The followers of the false
prophet contemplated the subjugation of Europe, and the destruction of
Christianity, from two quarters――the East and the West――expecting to
make a junction of the two armies in the north of Italy, and to march
down to Rome. Twice did they attack the _vital_ part of Christendom
by besieging Constantinople: first, in the seven years’ siege, which
lasted from A.D. 668 to A.D. 675; and, secondly, in the years 716‒718,
when Leo the Isaurian was on the imperial throne. But on both occasions
they were obliged to retire defeated and disgraced.――Gibbon, iii. 461,
seq. Again, they renewed their attack on the West. Having conquered
Northern Africa, they passed over into Spain, subdued that country and
Portugal, and extended their conquests as far as the Loire. At that
time they designed to subdue France, and having united with the forces
which they expected from the East, they intended to make a descent on
Italy, and complete the conquest of Europe. This purpose was defeated
by the valour of Charles Martel, and Europe and the Christian world
were saved from subjugation (Gibbon, iii. 467, seq.). “A victorious
line of march,” says Mr. Gibbon, “had been prolonged above a thousand
miles, from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the
repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the
confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland. The Rhine is not
more impassable than the Nile or the Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet
might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames.
Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the
schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised
people the sanctity and truth of the revelations of Mohammed.” The
arrest of the Saracen hosts before Europe was subdued, was what there
was no reason to anticipate, and it even yet perplexes historians
to be able to account for it. “The calm historian,” says Mr. Gibbon,
“who strives to follow the rapid course of the Saracens, must
study to explain by what means the church and state were saved from
this impending, and, as it should seem, inevitable danger.” “These
conquests,” says Mr. Hallam, “which astonish the careless and
superficial, are less perplexing to a calm inquirer than their
cessation――the loss of half the Roman empire than the preservation
of the rest” (_Middle Ages_, ii. 3, 169). These illustrations may
serve to explain the meaning of the symbol――that their {223} grand
commission was not to annihilate or root out, but to annoy and afflict.
Indeed, they did not go forth with a primary design to _destroy_. The
announcement of the Mussulman always was “the Koran, the tribute, or
the sword,” and when there was submission, either by embracing his
religion or by tribute, life was always spared. “The fair option of
friendship, or submission, or battle, ” says Mr. Gibbon (iii. 387),
“was proposed to the enemies of Mohammed. ” Comp. also vol. iii. 453,
456. The _torment_ mentioned here, I suppose, refers to the calamities
brought upon the Christian world――on Egypt, and Northern Africa, and
Spain, and Gaul, and the East――by the hordes which came out of Arabia,
and which swept over all those countries like a troublesome and
destructive host of locusts. Indeed, would _any_ image better represent
the effects of the Saracenic invasions than such a countless host of
locusts? Even now, can we find an image that would better represent
this?
(5) _The leader of this host._ (a) He was like a star that fell
from heaven, (ver. 1), a bright and illustrious prince, _as if_
heaven-endowed, but fallen. Would anything better characterize the
genius, the power, and the splendid but perverted talent of Mahomet?
Mahomet was, moreover, by birth, of the princely house of the Koreish,
governors of Mecca, and to no one could the term be more appropriate
than to one of that family. (b) He was a king. That is, there was to be
one monarch――one ruling spirit to which all these hosts were subject.
And never was anything more appropriate than this title as applied to
the leader of the Arabic hosts. All those hosts were subject to one
mind――to the command of the single leader that originated the scheme.
(c) The name _Abaddon_, or _Apollyon_――_Destroyer_, ver. 11. This name
would be appropriate to one who spread his conquests so far over the
world; who wasted so many cities and towns; who overthrew so many
kingdoms; and who laid the foundation of ultimate conquests by which
so many human beings were sent to the grave. (d) The description of
the leader “as the angel of the bottomless pit,” ver. 11. If this be
regarded as meaning that “the angel of the bottomless pit”――the spirit
of darkness himself――originated the scheme, and animated these hosts,
what term would better characterize the leader? And if it be a poetic
description of Mahomet as sent out by that presiding spirit of evil,
how could a better representative of the spirit of the nether world
have been sent out upon the earth than he was――one more talented,
more sagacious, more powerful, more warlike, more wicked, more fitted
to subdue the nations of the earth to the dominion of the Prince of
Darkness, and to hold them for ages under his yoke?
(6) _The duration of the torment._ It is said (ver. 5) that this would
be five months; that is, prophetically, a hundred and fifty years. See
Notes on ver. 5. The Hegira, or flight of Mahomet, occurred A.D. 622;
the Saracens first issued from the desert into Syria, and began their
series of wars on Christendom, A.D. 629. Reckoning from these periods
respectively, the five months, or the hundred and fifty years, would
extend to A.D. 772 or 779. It is not necessary to understand this
period of a hundred and fifty years of the actual continued existence
of the bodies symbolized by the locusts, but only of the period
in which they would inflict their “torment”――“that they should be
tormented five months.” That is, this would be the period of the
_intensity_ of the woe inflicted by them; there would be at that time
some marked intermission of the torrent. The question then is, whether,
in the history of the Saracens, there was any period after their career
of conquest had been continued for about a hundred and fifty years,
which would mark the intermission or cessation of these “torments.” If
so, then this is all that is necessary to determine the applicability
of the symbol to the Arabian hordes. Now, in reply to this question,
we have only to refer to Mr. Gibbon. The table of contents prefixed
to chapters forty-one and forty-two of his work would supply all the
information desired. I looked at that table, after making the estimate
as to what period the “five months,” or hundred and fifty years, would
conduct us to, to see whether anything occurred at about that time in
the Mahometan power and influence, which could be regarded as marking
the time of the intermission or cessation of the calamities inflicted
by the Arabic hordes on the Christian world. After Mr. Gibbon had
recorded in detail (vol. iii. 360‒460) the character and conquests of
the Arabian {224} hordes under Mahomet and his successors, I find the
statement of the decline of their power at just about the period to
which the hundred and fifty years would lead us, for at that very time
an important change came over the followers of the prophet of Mecca,
turning them from the love of conquest to the pursuits of literature
and science. From that period they ceased to be formidable to the
church; their limits were gradually contracted; their power diminished;
and the Christian world, in regard to them, was substantially at
peace. This change in the character and purposes of the Saracens
is thus described by Mr. Gibbon, at the close of the reign of the
caliph Abdalrahman, whose reign commenced A.D. 755, and under whom the
_peaceful_ sway of the Ommiades of Spain began, which continued for a
period of two hundred and fifty years. “The luxury of the caliphs, so
useless to their private happiness, relaxed the nerves, and terminated
the progress, of the Arabian empire. Temporal and spiritual conquest
had been the sole occupation of the first successors of Mahomet; and
after supplying themselves with the necessaries of life, the whole
revenue was scrupulously devoted to that salutary work. The Abassides
were impoverished by the multitude of their wants, and their contempt
of economy. Instead of pursuing the great object of ambition, their
leisure, their affections, and the powers of their minds were diverted
by pomp and pleasure: the rewards of valour were embezzled by women
and eunuchs, and the royal camp was encumbered by the luxury of the
palace. A similar temper was diffused among the subjects of the caliph.
Their stern enthusiasm was softened by time and prosperity: they
sought riches in the occupations of industry, fame in the pursuits of
literature, and happiness in the tranquillity of domestic life. War
was no longer the passion of the Saracens; and the increase of pay, the
repetition of donatives, were insufficient to allure the posterity of
those voluntary champions who had crowded to the standard of Aboubekir
and Omar for the hopes of spoil and of paradise,” iii. 477, 478. Of
the Ommiades, or princes who succeeded Abdalrahman, Mr. Gibbon remarks
in general――“Their mutual designs or declarations of war evaporated
without effect; but instead of opening a door to the conquest of
Europe, Spain was dissevered from the trunk of the monarchy, engaged
in perpetual hostility with the East, _and inclined to peace and
friendship with the Christian sovereigns of Constantinople and France_,”
iii. p. 472. How much does this look like some change occurring by
which they would cease to be a source of “torment” to the nations with
whom they now dwelt! From this period they gave themselves to the arts
of peace; cultivated literature and science; lost entirely their spirit
of conquest, and their ambition for universal dominion, until they
gradually withdrew, or were driven, from those parts of the Christian
world where they had inspired most terror, and which in the days of
their power and ambition they had invaded. By turning merely to the
“table of contents” of Mr. Gibbon’s history, the following periods,
occurring at about the time that would be embraced in the “five months,”
or hundred and fifty years, are distinctly marked:――
“A.D.
668‒675. First siege of Constantinople by the Arabs.
677. Peace and tribute.
716‒718. Second siege of Constantinople.
” Failure and retreat of the Saracens.
” Invention and use of the Greek fire.
721. Invasion of France by the Arabs.
732. Defeat of the Saracens by Charles Martel.
” They retreat before the Franks.
746‒750. The elevation of the Abassides.
750. Fall of the Ommiades.
755. Revolt of Spain.
” Triple division of the caliphate.
750‒960. Magnificence of the caliphs.
” Its consequences on private and public happiness.
754, &c. Introduction of learning among the Arabians.
” Their real progress in the sciences.”
It will be seen from this that the decline of their military and civil
power; their defeats in their attempts to subjugate Europe; their
turning their attention to the peaceful pursuits of literature and
science, synchronize remarkably with the period that would be indicated
by the five months, or the hundred and fifty years. It should be added,
also, that in the year 762, Almanzor, the caliph, built Bagdad, and
made it the capital of the Saracen empire. Henceforward that became the
seat of Arabic learning, luxury, and power, and the wealth and talent
of the Saracen empire were gradually drawn to that capital, and they
ceased to vex and annoy the Christian world. The {225} building of
Bagdad occurred within just ten years of the time indicated by the
“five months”――reckoning that from the Hegira, or flight of Mahomet; or
reckoning from the time when Mahomet began to preach (A.D. 609――Gibbon,
iii. 383), it wanted but three years of coinciding exactly with the
period.
These considerations show with what propriety the fifth trumpet――the
symbol of the locusts――is referred to the Arabian hordes under the
guidance of Mahomet and his successors. On the supposition that it
was the design of John to symbolize these events, the symbol has been
chosen which of all others was best adapted to the end. If, now that
these events are past, we should endeavour to find some symbol which
would appropriately represent them, we could not find one that would be
more striking or appropriate than that which is here employed by John.
12 One[298] woe is past; _and_, behold, there come two woes
more hereafter.
12. _One woe is past._ The _woe_ referred to in ver. 1‒11. In ch.
viii. 13 three woes are mentioned which were to occur successively,
and which were to embrace the whole of the period comprised in the
seven seals and the seven trumpets. Under the last of the seals we
have considered four successive periods, referring to events connected
with the downfall of the Western empire; and then we have found one
important event worthy of a place in noticing the things which would
permanently affect the destiny of the world――the rise, the character,
and the conquests of the Saracens. This was referred to by the first
_woe-trumpet_. We enter now on the consideration of the second. This
occupies the remainder of the chapter, and in illustrating it the same
method will be pursued as heretofore: first, to explain the literal
meaning of the words, phrases, and symbols; and then to inquire what
events in history, if any, succeeding the former, occurred, which would
correspond with the language used. ¶ _|And|, behold, there come two
woes more hereafter_. Two momentous and important events that will be
attended with sorrow to mankind. It cannot be intended that there would
be no _other_ evils that would visit mankind; but the eye, in glancing
along the future, rested on these as having a special pre-eminence in
affecting the destiny of the church and the world.
13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the
four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
13. _And the sixth angel sounded._ See Notes on ch. viii. 2, 7.
¶ _And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which
is before God._ In the _language_ here used there is an allusion to the
temple, but the scene is evidently laid in heaven. The temple in its
arrangements was designed, undoubtedly, to be in important respects
a symbol of heaven, and this idea constantly occurs in the Scriptures.
Comp. the Epistle to the Hebrews _passim_. The golden altar stood
in the holy place, between the table of show-bread and the golden
candlestick. See Notes on He. ix. 1, 2. This altar, made of shittim
or acacia wood, was ornamented at the four corners, and overlaid
throughout with laminæ of gold. Hence it was called “the golden altar,”
in contradistinction from the altar for sacrifice, which was made of
stone. Comp. Notes on Mat. xxi. 12, seq. On its four corners it had
projections which are called _horns_ (Ex. xxx. 2, 3), which seem to
have been intended mainly for ornaments. See Jahn, _Arch._ § 332;
Joseph. _Ant._ iii. 6, 8. When it is said that this was “before God,”
the meaning is, that it was directly before or in front of the symbol
of the divine presence in the most holy place. This image, in the
vision of John, is transformed to heaven. The voice seemed to come from
the very presence of the Deity; from the place where offerings are made
to God.
14 Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet, Loose the
four angels which are bound in the great river [299]Euphrates.
14. _Saying to the sixth angel, which had the trumpet._ Notes, ch.
viii. 2. ¶ _Loose_, &c. This power, it would seem, was given to the
sixth angel in addition to his office of blowing the trumpet. All this,
of course, was in vision, and cannot be literally interpreted. The
meaning is, that the effect of his blowing the trumpet would be the
same _as if_ angels that had been bound should be suddenly loosed
and suffered to go forth over the earth; that is, some event would
occur which would be properly symbolized by {226} such an act. ¶ _The
four angels._ Comp. Notes, ch. viii. 2. It was customary to represent
important events as occurring under the ministry of angels. The general
meaning here is, that in the vicinity of the river Euphrates there
were mighty powers which had been bound or held in check, which were
now to be let loose upon the world. What we are to look for in the
fulfilment is evidently this――some power that seemed to be kept back
by an invisible influence as if by angels, now suddenly let loose
and suffered to accomplish the purpose of desolation mentioned in the
subsequent verses. It is not necessary to suppose that angels were
actually employed in these restraints, though no one can demonstrate
that their agency was _not_ concerned in the transactions here referred
to. Comp. Notes on Da. x. 12, 13. It has been made a question why the
number _four_ is specified, and whether the forces were in any sense
made up of four divisions, nations, or people. While nothing certain
can be determined in regard to that, and while the number four _may_
be used merely to denote a great and strong force, yet it must be
admitted that the most obvious interpretation would be to refer it to
some combination of forces, or to some union of powers, that was to
accomplish what is here said. If it had been a single nation, it would
have been more in accordance with the usual method in prophecy to have
represented them as restrained by an angel, or by angels in general,
without specifying any number. ¶ _Which are bound._ That is, they
_seemed_ to be bound. There was something which held them, and the
forces under them, in check, until they were thus commanded to go forth.
In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for something
of the nature of a check or restraint on these forces, until they were
commissioned to go forth to accomplish the work of destruction. ¶ _In
the great river Euphrates._ The well-known river of that name, commonly
called, in the Scriptures, “the great river,” and, by way of eminence,
“_the_ river,” Ex. xxiii. 31; Is. viii. 7. This river was on the east
of Palestine; and the language here used naturally denotes that the
power referred to under the sixth trumpet would spring up in the East,
and that it would have its origin in the vicinity of that river. Those
interpreters, therefore, who apply this to the invasion of Judæa by the
Romans have great difficulty in explaining this――as the forces employed
in the destruction of Jerusalem came from the West, and not from
the East. The fair interpretation is, that there were forces in the
vicinity of the Euphrates which were, up to this period, bound or
restrained, but which were now suffered to spread woe and sorrow over
a considerable portion of the world.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared
[300]for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to
[301]slay the third part of men.