¶ _And he set his right foot upon the sea, and |his| left |foot| upon

the earth._ This is the _third_ characteristic in the symbol. As a mere

description this is eminently sublime. I was once (at Cape May, 1849)

impressively reminded of this passage. My window was in such a position

that it commanded a fine view at the same time of the ocean and the

land. A storm arose such as I had never witnessed――the clouds from the

different points of the compass seeming to come together over the place,

and producing incessant lightning and thunder. As the storm cleared

away the most magnificent rainbow that I ever saw appeared, arching

the heavens, one foot of it far off on the sea, and the other on the

land――an emblem of peace to both――and most strikingly suggesting to

me the angel in the Apocalypse. The natural meaning of such a symbol

as that represented here would be, that something was to occur which

would pertain to the whole world, as the earth is made up of land and

water. It is hardly necessary to say, that on the supposition that this

refers to the Reformation, there is no difficulty in finding an ample

fulfilment of the symbol. That great work was designed manifestly by

Providence to affect all the world――the sea and the land――the dwellers

in the islands and in the continents――those who “go down to the sea

in ships, and do business in the great waters,” and those who have

a permanent dwelling on shore. It may be admitted, indeed, that, in

itself, this one thing――the angel standing on the sea and the land, if

it occurred alone, could not suggest the Reformation; and if there were

nothing else, such an application might seem fanciful and unnatural;

but, taken in connection with the other things in the symbol,

and assuming that the whole vision was designed to symbolize the

Reformation, it will not be regarded as unnatural that there _should_

be some symbol which would intimate that the blessings of a reformed

religion――a pure gospel――would be ultimately spread over land and

ocean――over the continents and islands of the globe; in all the fixed

habitations of men, and in their floating habitations on the deep. The

symbol of a rainbow bending over the sea and land, would have expressed

this; the same thing would be expressed by an angel whose head was

encircled by a rainbow, and whose face beamed with light, with one foot

on the ocean and the other on the land.

3 And cried with a loud voice, as _when_ a lion roareth: and

when he had cried, seven [320]thunders uttered their voices.

3. _And cried with a loud voice, as |when| a lion roareth._ The lion is

the monarch of the woods, and his roar is an image of terror. The point

of the comparison here seems to be the _loudness_ with which the angel

cried, and the _power_ of what he said to awe the world――as the roar of

the lion keeps the dwellers of the forest in awe. _What_ he said is not

stated; nor did John attempt to record it. Professor Stuart supposes

that it was “a loud note of woe, some interjection uttered which would

serve to call attention, and at the same time be indicative of the

judgments which were to follow.” But it is not necessary to suppose

that this particular thing was intended. _Any_ loud utterance――any

solemn command――any prediction of judgment――any declaration of truth

that would arrest the attention of mankind, would be in accordance with

all that is said here. As there is no _application_ of what is said,

and no _explanation_ made by John, it is impossible to determine with

any certainty what is referred to. But, supposing that the whole refers

to the Reformation, would not the loud and commanding voice of the

angel properly represent the proclamation of the gospel as it began to

be preached in such a manner as to command the attention of the world,

and the reproof of the prevailing sins in such a manner as to keep

the world in awe? The voice that sounded forth at the Reformation

among the nations of Europe, breaking the slumbers of the Christian

world, awaking the church to the evil of the existing corruptions and

abominations, and summoning princes to the defence of the truth, might

well be symbolized by the voice of an angel that was heard afar. In

regard to the effect of the “theses” of Luther, in which he attacked

the main doctrines of the Papacy, a contemporary writer says, “In the

space of a fortnight they spread over Germany, and within a month they

had run through all Christendom, _as if angels {255} themselves had

been the bearers of them to all men_.” To John it might not be known

beforehand――as it probably would not be――what this symbolized; but

could we now find a more appropriate symbol to denote the Reformation

than the appearance of such an angel; or better describe the

_impression_ made by the first announcement of the great doctrines of

the Reformation, than by the loud voice of such an angel? ¶ _And when

he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices._ Professor Stuart

renders this, “_the_ seven thunders uttered their voices,” and insists

that the article should be retained, which it has not been in our

common version. So Elliott, Bishop Middleton, and others. Bishop

Middleton says, “Why the article is inserted here I am unable to

discover. It is somewhat remarkable that a few manuscripts and editions

omit it in both places [ver. 3, 4]. Were the seven thunders anything

well known and pre-eminent? If not, the omission must be right in the

former instance, but wrong in the latter; if they were pre-eminent,

then is it wrong in both. Bengel omits the article in ver. 3, but

has it in ver. 4.” He regards the insertion of the article as the

true reading in both places, and supposes that there may have been a

reference to some Jewish opinion, but says that he had not been able

to find a vestige of it in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, or Meuschen. Storr

supposes that we are not to seek here for any Jewish notion, and that

nothing is to be inferred from the article (Middleton, on the _Greek

Article_, p. 358). The best editions of the New Testament retain the

article in both places, and indeed there is no authority for omitting

it. The use of the article here naturally implies either that these

seven thunders were something which had been before referred to, either

expressly or impliedly; or that there was something about them which

was so well known that it would be at once understood what was referred

to; or that there was something in the connection which would determine

the meaning. Comp. Notes on ch. viii. 2. It is plain, however, that

there had been no mention of “seven thunders” before, nor had anything

been referred to which would at once suggest them. The reason for

the insertion of the article here must, therefore, be found in some

pre-eminence which these seven thunders had; in some well-known

facts about them; in something which would at once suggest them when

they were mentioned as when we mention _the_ sun, _the_ moon, _the_

stars, though they might not have been distinctly referred to before.

The number “seven” is used here either (a) as a general or perfect

number, as it is frequently in this book, where we have it so often

repeated――seven spirits; seven angels; seven seals; seven trumpets;

or (b) with some specific reference to the matter in hand――the case

actually in view of the writer. It cannot be doubted that it _might_

be used in the former sense here, and that no law of language would be

violated if it were so understood; as denoting _many_ thunders; but

still it is equally true that it _may_ be used in a specific sense as

denoting something that would be well understood by applying the number

_seven_ to it. Now let it be _supposed_, in regard to the application

of this symbol, that the reference is to Rome, the seven-hilled city,

and to the thunders of excommunication, anathema, and wrath that were

uttered from that city against the Reformers; and would there not

be _all_ that is fairly implied in this language, and is not this

such a symbol as _would_ be appropriately used on such a supposition?

The following circumstances may be referred to as worthy of notice

on this point:――(a) the place which this occupies in the series

of symbols――being just _after_ the angel had uttered his voice as

symbolical of the proclamation of the great truths of the gospel

in the Reformation, if the interpretation above given is correct.

The _next_ event, in the order of nature and of fact, was the voice

of excommunication uttered at Rome. (b) The word _thunder_ would

appropriately denote the bulls of excommunication uttered at Rome,

for the name most frequently given to the decrees of the Papacy, when

condemnatory, was that of Papal _thunders_. So Le Bas, in his _Life

of Wycliffe_, p. 198, says: “The _thunders_ which shook the world

when they issued _from the seven hills_ sent forth an uncertain sound,

comparatively faint and powerless, when launched from a region of less

devoted sanctity.” (c) The number _seven_ would, on such a supposition,

be used here with equal propriety. Rome was built on seven hills; was

known as the “seven-hilled” city, and the thunders from that city would

seem to echo and re-echo from those hills. Comp. ch. xvii. 9. (d) This

supposition, {256} also, will accord with the use of the article here,

_as if_ those thunders were something well known――“_the_ seven thunders;

” that is, the thunders which the nations were accustomed to hear.

(e) This will also accord with the passage before us, inasmuch as the

thunders would seem to have been of the nature of a response to what

the angel said, or to have been sent forth _because_ he had uttered his

loud cry. In like manner, the anathemas were hurled from Rome because

the nations had been aroused by the loud cry for reformation, as if

an angel had uttered that cry. For these reasons there is a propriety

in applying this language to the thunders which issued from Rome

condemning the doctrines of the Reformation, and in defence of the

ancient faith, and excommunicating those who embraced the doctrines

of the Reformers. If we were _now_ to attempt to devise a symbol

which would be appropriate to express what actually occurred in the

Reformation, we could not think of one which would be better fitted to

that purpose than to speak of seven thunders bellowing forth from the

seven-hilled city.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was

about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,

[321]Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered,

and write them not.

4. _And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices._ After he had

listened to those thunders; or when they had passed by. ¶ _I was about

to write._ That is, he was about to record what was uttered, supposing

that that was the design for which he had been made to hear them. From

this it would seem that it was not mere thunder――brutum fulmen――but

that the utterance had a distinct and intelligible enunciation, or that

_words_ were employed that could be recorded. It may be observed, by

the way, as Professor Stuart has remarked, that this proves that John

wrote down what he saw and heard as soon as practicable, and in the

place where he was; and that the supposition of many modern critics,

that the Apocalyptic visions were written at Ephesus a considerable

time after the visions took place, has no good foundation. ¶ _And I

heard a voice from heaven saying unto me._ Evidently the voice of God:

at all events it came with the clear force of command. ¶ _Seal up those

things._ On the word _seal_, see Notes on ch. v. 1. The meaning here

is, that he was not to record those things, but what he heard he was

to keep to himself _as if_ it was placed under a seal which was not to

be broken. ¶ _And write them not._ Make no record of them. No reason is

mentioned _why_ this was not to be done, and none can now be given that

can be proved to be the true reason. Vitringa, who regards the seven

thunders as referring to the Crusades, supposes the reason to have

been that a more full statement would have diverted the mind from the

course of the prophetic narrative, and from more important events which

pertained to the church, and that nothing occurred in the Crusades

which was worthy to be recorded at length: Nec dignæ erant quæ

prolixius exponerentur――“for,” he adds, “these expeditions were

undertaken with a foolish purpose, and resulted in real detriment to

the church,” pp. 431, 432. Professor Stuart (vol. ii. pp. 204‒206)

supposes that these “thunders” refer to the destruction of the city and

temple of God, and that they were a sublime introduction to the last

catastrophe, and that the meaning is not that he should keep “_entire_

silence,” but only that he should state the circumstances in a general

manner, without going into detail. Mede supposes that John was

commanded to keep silence because it was designed that the meaning

should not then be known, but should be disclosed in future times;

Forerius, because it was the design that the wise should be able to

understand them, but that they were not to be disclosed to the wicked

and profane. Without attempting to examine these and other solutions

which have been proposed, the question which, from the course of the

exposition, is properly before us is, whether, on the supposition that

the voice of the seven thunders referred to the Papal anathemas, a

rational and satisfactory solution of the reasons of this silence can

be given. Without pretending to _know_ the reasons which existed, the

following may be referred to as not improbable, and as those which

would meet the case:――(1) In these Papal anathemas there was nothing

that was _worthy_ of record; there was nothing that was important

as history; there was nothing that communicated {257} truth; there

was nothing that really indicated _progress_ in human affairs. In

themselves there was nothing more that deserved _record_ than the acts

and doings of wicked men at any time; nothing that fell in with the

main design of this book. (2) Such a record would have retarded the

progress of the main statements of what was to occur, and would have

turned off the attention from these to less important matters. (3) All

that was necessary in the case was simply to state that such thunders

were _heard_: that is, on the supposition that this refers to the

Reformation, that that great change in human affairs would not be

permitted to occur without opposition and noise――_as if_ the thunders

of wrath should follow those who were engaged in it. (4) John evidently

_mistook_ this for a real revelation, or for something that was to be

recorded as connected with the divine will in reference to the progress

of human affairs. He was naturally about to record this as he did what

was uttered by the other voices which he heard; and if he had made the

record, it would have been with this mistaken view. There was nothing

in the voices, or in what was uttered, that would _manifestly_ mark it

as distinct from what had been uttered as coming from God, and he was

about to record it under this impression. If this _was_ a mistake, and

if the record would do anything, as it clearly would, to perpetuate the

error, it is easy to see a sufficient reason why the record should not

be made. (5) It is remarkable that there was an entire correspondence

with this in what occurred in the Reformation; in the fact that Luther

and his fellow-labourers were, at first, and for a long time――such

was the force of education, and of the habits of reverence for the

Papal authority in which they had been reared――disposed to receive the

announcements of the Papacy as the oracles of God, and to show to them

the deference which was due to divine communications. The language of

Luther himself, if the general view here taken is correct, will be the

best commentary on the expressions here used. “When I began the affairs

of the Indulgences,” says he, “I was a monk, and a most mad Papist. So

intoxicated was I, and drenched in Papal dogmas, that I would have been

most ready to murder, or assist others in murdering, any person who

should have uttered a syllable against the duty of obedience to the

pope.” And again: “Certainly at that time I adored him in earnest.” He

adds, “How distressed my heart was in that year 1517――how submissive

to the hierarchy, not feignedly but really――those little knew who

at this day insult the majesty of the pope with so much pride and

arrogance. I was ignorant of many things which now, by the grace of

God, I understand. I disputed; I was open to conviction; not finding

satisfaction in the works of theologians, I wished to consult the

living members of the church itself. There were some godly souls

that entirely approved my propositions. But I did not consider their

authority of weight with me in spiritual concerns. The popes, bishops,

cardinals, monks, priests, were the objects of my confidence. After

being enabled to answer every objection that could be brought against

me from sacred Scripture, one difficulty alone remained, that _the

Church ought to be obeyed_. If I had then braved the pope as I now

do, I should have expected every hour that the earth would have opened

to swallow me up alive, like Korah and Abiram.” It was in this frame

of mind that, in the summer of 1518, a few months after the affair

with Tetzel, he wrote that memorable letter to the pope, the tenor

of which can be judged of by the following sentences: and what could

more admirably illustrate the passage before us, on the interpretation

suggested, than this language? “Most blessed Father! Prostrate at the

feet of thy blessedness I offer myself to thee, with all that I am,

and that I have. Kill me, or make me live; call or recall; approve or

reprove, as shall please thee. I will acknowledge _thy voice as the

voice of Christ_ presiding and speaking in thee.” See the authorities

for these quotations in Elliott, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117. (6) The command

_not_ to record what the seven thunders uttered was of the nature of a

_caution_ not to regard what was said in this manner; that is, not to

be deceived by these utterances as if they were the voice of God. Thus

understood, if this is the proper explanation and application of the

passage, it should be regarded as an injunction _not_ to regard the

decrees and decisions of the Papacy as containing any intimation of the

divine will, or as of authority in the church. That this is to be so

regarded is the opinion of all Protestants; and if this is so, it is

not a forced supposition {258} that this might have been intimated by

such a symbol as that before us.

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the

earth [322]lifted up his hand to heaven,

5. _And the angel which I saw stand_, &c. Ver. 2. That is, John saw

him standing in this posture when he made the oath which he proceeds to

record. ¶ _Lifted up his hand to heaven._ The usual attitude in taking

an oath, as if one called heaven to witness. See Ge. xiv. 22; De.

xxxii. 40; Eze. xx. 5, 6. Comp. Notes on Da. xii. 7.

6 And sware by [323]him that liveth for ever and ever, who

created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth,

and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things

which are therein, [324]that there should be time no longer:

6. _And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever._ By the ever-living

God: a form of an oath in extensive use now. The essential idea in such

an oath is an appeal to God; a solemn reference to Him as a witness;

an utterance in the presence of Him who is acquainted with the truth or

falsehood of what is said, and who will punish him who appeals to him

falsely. It is usual, in such an oath, in order to give to it greater

solemnity, to refer to some _attribute_ of God, or something in the

divine character on which the mind would rest at the time, as tending

to make it more impressive. Thus, in the passage before us, the

reference is to God as “ever-living;” that is, he is now a witness,

and he ever will be; he has now the power to detect and punish, and

he ever will have the same power. ¶ _Who created heaven and the things

that therein are_, &c. Who is the Maker of all things in heaven, on

the earth, and in the sea; that is, throughout the universe. The design

of referring to these things here is that which is just specified――to

give increased solemnity to the oath by a particular reference to

some one of the attributes of God. With this view nothing could

be more appropriate than to refer to him as the Creator of the

universe――denoting his infinite power, his right to rule and control

all things. ¶ _That there should be time no longer._ This is a very

important expression, as it is the substance of what the angel affirmed

in so solemn a manner; and as the interpretation of the whole passage

depends on it. It seems now to be generally agreed among critics that

our translation does not give the true sense, inasmuch (a) as that was

not the close of human affairs, and (b) as he proceeds to state what

_would_ occur _after_ that. Accordingly, different versions of the

passage have been proposed. Professor Stuart renders it, “that delay

shall be no longer.” Mr. Elliott, “that the time shall not yet be; but

in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, whensoever he may be

about to sound, then the mystery of God shall be finished.” Mr. Lord,

“that the time shall not be yet, but in the days of the voice of the

seventh angel,” &c. Andrew Fuller (_Works_, vol. vi. p. 113), “there

should be no delay.” So Dr. Gill. Mr. Daubuz, “the time shall not be

yet.” Vitringa (p. 432), _tempus non fore amplius_, “time shall be

no more.” He explains it (p. 433) as meaning, “not that this is to be

taken _absolutely_, as if at the sounding of the seventh trumpet all

things were then to terminate, and the glorious epiphany――ἐπιφάνεια

(or manifestation of Jesus Christ)――was then to occur, who would

put an end to all the afflictions of his church; but in a limited

sense――_restricte_――as meaning that there would be no _delay_

between the sounding of the seventh trumpet and the fulfilment

of the prophecies.” The sense of this passage is to be determined

by the meaning of the words and the connection. (a) The word

_time_――χρόνος――is the common Greek word to denote _time_, and may

be applied to time in general, or to any specified time or period.

See Robinson, _Lex._ _sub voce_, (a, b). In the word itself there is

nothing to determine its particular signification here. It might refer

either to time in general, or to the time under consideration, and

which was the subject of the prophecy. Which of these is the true idea

is to be ascertained by the other circumstances referred to. It should

be added, however, that the _word_ does not of itself denote _delay_,

and is never used to denote that directly. It can only _denote_ that

because _delay_ occupies or consumes _time_, but this sense of the noun

is not found in the New Testament. It is {259} found, however, in the

verb χρονίζω, to linger, to delay, to be long in coming, Mat. xxv. 5;

Lu. i. 21. (b) The absence of the article――“_time_,” not “_the_

time”――would naturally give it a general signification, unless there

was something in the connection to limit it to some well-known period

under consideration. See Notes on ch. viii. 2; x. 3. In this latter

view, if the time referred to would be sufficiently definite _without_

the article, the article need not be inserted. This is such a case,

and comes under the rule for the omission of the article as laid down

by Bishop Middleton, part i. ch. iii. The principle is, that when

the copula, or verb connecting the subject and predicate, is the verb

substantive, then the article is omitted. “To affirm the existence,”

says he, “of that of which the existence is already assumed, would

be superfluous; to deny it, would be contradictory and absurd.” As

applicable to the case before us, the meaning of this rule would be,

that the nature of the time here referred to is implied in the use of

the substantive verb (ἔσται), and that consequently it is not necessary

to specify it. All that needs to be said on this point is, that, on

the supposition that John referred to a specified time, instead of

time in general, it would not be necessary, under this rule, to insert

the article. The reference would be understood without it, and the

insertion would be unnecessary. This is substantially the reasoning

of Mr. Elliott (vol. ii. p. 123), and it is submitted for what it

is worth. My own knowledge of the usages of the Greek article is too

limited to justify me in pronouncing an opinion on the subject, but

the authorities are such as to authorize the assertion that, on the

supposition that a particular well-known period were here referred

to, the insertion of the article would not be necessary. (c) The

particle rendered “longer”――ἔτι)――“time shall be no _longer_”――means

properly, according to Robinson (_Lex._), _yet_, _still_; implying

(1) _duration_――as spoken of the present time; of the present in

allusion to the past, and, with a negative, _no more_, _no longer_;

(2) implying accession, addition, _yet_, _more_, _farther_, _besides_.

According to Buttmann, _Gram._ § 149, vol. i. p. 430, it means, when

alone, “yet still, yet farther; and with a negative, no more, no

farther.” The particle occurs often in the New Testament, as may be

seen in the _Concordance_. It is more frequently rendered “_yet_” than

by any other word (comp. Mat. xii. 46; xvii. 5; xix. 20; xxvi. 47;

xxvii. 63; Mar. v. 35; viii. 17; xii. 6; xiv. 43――and so in the other

Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles); in all, fifty times. In the book

of Revelation it is only once rendered “_yet_,” ch. vi. 11, but is

rendered “_more_” in ch. iii. 12; vii. 16; ix. 12; xii. 8; xviii. 21,

22 (three times), 23 (twice); xx. 3; xxi. 1, 4 (twice); “_longer_” in

ch. x. 6; “ _still_” in ch. xxii. 11 (four times). The usage, therefore,

will justify the rendering of the word by “_yet_,” and in connection

with the negative, “not yet”――meaning that the thing referred to would

not occur immediately, but would be hereafter. In regard to the general

meaning, then, of this passage in its connection, we may remark,

(a) That it cannot mean, literally, that there would be _time_ no

longer, or that the world would then come to an end absolutely, for

the speaker proceeds to disclose events that would occur after that,

extending far into the future (ch. x. 11), and the detail that follows

(ch. xi.) before the sounding of the seventh trumpet is such as to

occupy a considerable period, and the seventh trumpet is also yet to

sound. No fair construction of the language, therefore, would require

us to understand this as meaning that the affairs of the world were

then to terminate. (b) The connection, then, apart from the question

of grammatical usage, will require some such construction as that above

suggested――“that the time,” to wit, some certain, known, or designated

time, “would not be _yet_,” but would be in some future period; that is,

as specified, ver. 7, “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel,

when he shall begin to sound.” _Then_ “the mystery of God would be

finished,” and the affairs of the world would be put on their permanent

footing. (c) This would imply that, at the time when the angel appeared,

or in the time to which he refers, there would be some expectation

or general belief that the “mystery” was _then_ to be finished, and

that the affairs of the world were to come to an end. The proper

interpretation would lead us to suppose that there would be so general

an expectation of this, as to make the solemn affirmation of the angel

proper to correct a prevailing opinion, and to show that the right

interpretation was not put on what {260} seemed to be the tendency

of things. (d) As a matter of fact, we find that this expectation

did actually exist at the time of the Reformation; that such an

interpretation was put on the prophecies, and on the events that

occurred; and that the impression that the Messiah was about to come,

and the reign of saints about to commence, was so strong as to justify

some interference, like the solemn oath of the angel, to correct the

misapprehension. It is true that this impression had existed in former

times, and even in the early ages of the church; but, as a matter of

fact, it was true, and eminently true, in the time of the Reformation,

and there was, on many accounts, a strong tendency to that form of

belief. The Reformers, in interpreting the prophecies, learned to

connect the downfall of the Papacy with the coming of Christ, and

with his universal reign upon the earth; and as they saw the evidences

of the approach of the former, they naturally anticipated the latter

as about to occur. Comp. Da. ii. 34; xii. 11; 2 Th. ii. 3, 8. The

anticipation that the Lord Jesus was about to come; that the affairs

of the world, in the present form, were to be wound up; that the reign

of the saints would soon commence; and that the permanent kingdom of

righteousness would be established, became almost the current belief

of the Reformers, and was frequently expressed in their writings.

Thus Luther, in the year 1520, in his answer to the pope’s bull of

excommunication, expresses his anticipations: “Our Lord Jesus Christ

yet liveth and reigneth; who, I firmly trust, will shortly come, and

slay with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of

his coming, that Man of Sin” (Merle D’Aubig., vol. ii. p. 166). After

being summoned before the Diet at Worms, and after condemnation had

been pronounced on him by the emperor, he fell back for comfort on the

same joyous expectation. “For this once,” he said, “the Jews, as on

the crucifixion-day, may sing their pæan; but Easter will come for us,

and then we shall sing Hallelujah” (D’Aubig., vol. ii. p. 275). The

next year, writing to Staupitz, he made a solemn appeal against his

abandoning the Reformation, by reference to the sure and advancing

fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy. “My father,” said he, “the

abominations of the pope, with his whole kingdom, must be destroyed;

and the Lord does this without hand, by the _Word_ alone. The subject

exceeds all human comprehension. I cherish the best hopes” (Milner,

p. 692). In 1523 he thus, in a similar strain, expresses his hopes:

“The kingdom of Antichrist, according to the prophet Daniel, must be

broken _without hands_; that is, the Scriptures will be understood by

and by; and every one will preach against Papal tyranny, from the Word

of God, until the Man of Sin is deserted of all, and dies of himself”

(Milner, p. 796). The same sentiments respecting the approach of the

end of the world were entertained by Melancthon. In commenting on the

passage in Daniel relating to the “little horn,” he thus refers to

an argument which has been prevalent: “The words of the prophet Elias

should be marked by every one, and inscribed upon our walls, and on

the entrances of our houses. Six thousand years shall the world stand,

and after that be destroyed; two thousand years without the law;

two thousand years under the law of Moses; two thousand years under

the Messiah; and if any of these years are not fulfilled, they will

be shortened (a shortening intimated by Christ also, on account of

our sins).” The following manuscript addition to this argument has

been found in Melancthon’s hand, in Luther’s own copy of the German

Bible:――“Written A.D. 1557, and from the creation of the world, 5519;

from which number we may see that this aged world is not far from its

end.” So also the British Reformers believed. Thus Bishop Latimer:

“Let us cry to God day and night――Most merciful Father, let thy kingdom

come! St. Paul saith, The Lord will not come till the swerving from

the faith cometh (2 Th. ii. 3); which thing is already done and past.

Antichrist is already known throughout all the world. Wherefore the

day is not far off.” Then, reverting to the consideration of the age

of the world, as Melancthon had done, he says, “The world was ordained

to endure, as all learned ones affirm, 6000 years. Now of that number

there be past 5552 years, so that there is no more left but 448 years.

Furthermore, those days shall be shortened for the elect’s sake.

Therefore, all those excellent and learned men, whom without doubt God

hath sent into the world in these last days to give the world warning,

do gather out of sacred Scripture {261} that the last day cannot be

far off.” So again, in a sermon on the nearness of the second advent,

he says, “So that peradventure it may come in my days, old as I am,

or in my children’s days.” Indeed, it is well known that this was a

prevalent opinion among the Reformers; and this fact will show with

what propriety, if the passage before us was _designed_ to refer to the

Reformation, this solemn declaration of the angel was made, that the

“time would _not be yet_”――that those anticipations which would spring

up from the nature of the case, and from the interpretations which

would be put on what _seemed_ to be the obvious sense of the prophecies,

were unfounded, and that a considerable time must yet intervene before

the events would be consummated. (e) The proper sense of this passage,

then, according to the above interpretation would be――“And the angel

lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and

ever, That the time should not yet be; but, in the days of the voice

of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of

God shall be finished.” Appearances, indeed, would then indicate that

the affairs of the world were to be wound up, and that the prophecies

respecting the end of the world were about to be fulfilled: but the

angel solemnly swears “by Him who lives for ever and ever”――and whose

reign therefore extends through all the changes on the earth――“by

Him who is the Creator of all things,” and whose purpose alone can

determine when the end shall be, that the time would not be _yet_.

Those cherished expectations would not yet be realized, but there was

a series of important events to intervene before the end would come.

Then――at the time when the seventh angel should sound――would be the

consummation of all things.

7 But in the days of the voice of the [325]seventh angel,

when he shall begin to sound, the [326]mystery of God should

be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

7. _But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel._ The days in

the period of time embraced by the sounding of the seventh trumpet.

That is, the affairs of this world would not be consummated in that

period embraced in the sounding of the sixth trumpet, but in that

embraced in the sounding of the seventh and last of the trumpets.

Comp. ch. xi. 15‒19. ¶ _When he shall begin to sound._ That is, the

events referred to will _commence_ at the period when the angel shall

_begin_ to sound. It will not be merely _during_ or _in_ that period,

but the sounding of the trumpet, and the beginning of those events,

will be contemporaneous. In other words, then would commence the reign

of righteousness――the kingdom of the Messiah――the dominion of the

saints on the earth. ¶ _The mystery of God should be finished._ On the

meaning of the word _mystery_, see Notes on Ep. i. 9. It means here,

as elsewhere in the New Testament, the purpose or truth of God which

had been concealed, and which had not before been communicated to man.

Here the particular reference is to the divine purpose which had been

long concealed respecting the destiny of the world, or respecting the

setting up of his kingdom, but which had been progressively unfolded

by the prophets. That purpose would be “finished,” or consummated, in

the time when the seventh angel should begin to sound. Then all the

“mystery” would be revealed; the plan would be unfolded; the divine

purpose, so long concealed, would be manifested, and the kingdom of

the Messiah and of the saints would be set up on the earth. Under that

period, the affairs of the world would be ultimately wound up, and

the whole work of redemption completed. ¶ _As he hath declared to

his servants the prophets._ As he has from time to time disclosed

his purposes to mankind through the prophets. The reference here is,

doubtless, to the prophets of the Old Testament, though _the language_

would include all who at any time had uttered any predictions

respecting the final condition of the world. These prophecies had been

scattered along through many ages; but the angel says that at that

time all that had been said respecting the setting up of the kingdom

of God, the reign of the saints, and the dominion of the Redeemer on

the earth, would be accomplished. See Notes on ch. xi. 15. From the

passage thus explained, if the interpretation is correct, it will

follow that the sounding of the seventh trumpet (ch. xi. 15‒18)

is properly the conclusion of {262} this series of visions, and

denotes a “_catastrophe_” in the action, and that what follows is the

commencement of a new series of visions. This is clear, because (a) the

whole seven seals, comprising the seven trumpets of the seventh seal,

must embrace _one_ view of all coming events――since this embraced all

that there was in the volume seen in the hand of him that sat on the

throne; (b) this is properly implied in the word here rendered “should

be finished”――τελέσθη――the fair meaning of which is, that the “mystery”

here referred to――the hitherto unrevealed purpose or plan of God――would,

under that trumpet, be consummated or complete (see the conclusive

reasoning of Prof. Stuart on the meaning of the word, vol. ii. p. 210,

foot-note); and (c) it will be found in the course of the exposition

that, at ch. xi. 19, there commences a new series of visions, embracing

a view of the world in its _religious_ aspect, or _ecclesiastical_

characteristics, reaching down to the same consummation, and stating

at the close of that (ch. xx.) more fully what is here (ch. xi. 15‒18)

designated in a more summary way――the final triumph of religion, and

the establishment of the kingdom of the saints. The present series

of visions (ch. v.‒xi. 18) relates rather to the outward or secular

changes which would occur on the earth, which were to affect the

welfare of the church, to the final consummation; the next series

(ch. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.) relates to the church internally, the rise of

Antichrist, and the effect of the rise of that formidable power on the

internal history of the church, to the time of the overthrow of that

power, and the triumphant establishment of the kingdom of God. See

the Analysis of the work, Intro. § 5. In other words, this series

of visions, terminating at ch. xi. 18, refers, as the leading thing,

to what would occur in relation to the Roman empire considered as a

secular power, in which the church would be interested; that which

follows (ch. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.) to the Roman power considered as a great

apostasy, and setting up a mighty and most oppressive domination over

the true church, manifested in deep corruption and bloody persecutions,

running on in its disastrous influence on the world, until that power

should be destroyed, Babylon fall, and the reign of the saints be

introduced.

8 And the [327]voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me

again, and said, Go _and_ take the little book which is open

in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon

the earth.

8. _And the voice which I heard from heaven._ Ver. 4. This is not

the voice of the angel, but a direct divine command. ¶ _Said, Go |and|

take the little book that is open_, &c. That is, take it out of his

hand, and do with it as you shall be commanded. There is a very strong

resemblance between this passage and the account contained in Eze. ii.

9, 10; iii. 1‒3. Ezekiel was directed to go to the house of Israel and

deliver a divine message, whether they would hear or forbear; and in

order that he might understand what message to deliver, there was shown

to him a roll of a book, written within and without. That roll he was

commanded to eat, and he found it to be “in his mouth as honey for

sweetness.” John has added to this the circumstance that, though “sweet

in the mouth,” it made “the belly bitter.” The additional command

(ver. 11), that he must yet “prophecy before many people,” leads us to

suppose that he had the narrative in Ezekiel in his eye; for, as the

result of _his_ eating the roll, he was commanded to go and prophesy to

the people of Israel. The passage here (ver. 8) introduces a new symbol,

that of “eating the book,” and evidently refers to something that was

to occur _before_ the “mystery should be finished;” that is, before the

seventh trumpet should sound. ¶ _Which is open in the hand_, &c. On the

symbolical meaning of the word “open,” as applied to the book, see

Notes on ver. 2.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the

little book. And he said unto me, [328]Take _it_, and eat it

up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy

mouth sweet as honey.

9. _And I went unto the angel._ This is symbolic action, and is not

to be understood literally. As it is not necessary to suppose that an

angel _literally_ descended, and stood upon the sea and the land, so

it is not necessary to suppose that there was a literal act of going

to him, and taking the book from his hand and eating it. ¶ _Give me

the little book._ In accordance with the command {263} in ver. 8. We

may suppose, in regard to this, (a) that the symbol was designed to

represent that the book was to be used in the purpose here referred to,

or was to be an important agent or instrumentality in accomplishing the

purpose. The book is held forth in the hand of the angel as a striking

emblem. There is a command to go and take it from his hand for some

purpose not yet disclosed. All this seems to imply that the _book_――or

that which is represented by it――would be an important instrument in

accomplishing the purpose here referred to. (b) The application _for_

the book might intimate that, on the part of him who made it, there

would be some strong _desire_ to possess it. He goes, indeed, in

obedience to the command; but, at the same time, there would naturally

be a _desire_ to be in possession of the volume, or to know the

contents (comp. ch. v. 4), and his approach to the angel for the

book would be most naturally interpreted as expressive of such a

wish. ¶ _And he said unto me, Take |it|._ As if he had expected this

application; or had come down to furnish him with this little volume,

and had anticipated that the request would be made. There was no

reluctance in giving it up; there was no attempt to withhold it; there

was no prohibition of its use. The angel had no commission, and no

desire to retain it for himself, and no hesitation in placing it

in the hands of the seer on the first application. Would not the

readiness with which God gives his Bible into the hands of men, in

contradistinction from all human efforts to restrain its use, and to

prevent its free circulation, be well symbolized by this act? ¶ _And

eat it up._ There is a similar command in Eze. iii. 1. Of course, this

is to be understood figuratively, for no one would interpret literally

a command to eat a manuscript or volume. We have in common use a

somewhat similar phrase, when we speak of _devouring a book_, which

may illustrate this, and which is not liable to be misunderstood.

In Je. xv. 16, we have similar language: “Thy words were found, and

I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my

heart.” Thus in Latin, the words _propinare_, _imbibere_, _devorare_,

_deglutire_, &c., are used to denote the greediness with which

knowledge is acquired. Comp. in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras xiv. 38‒40. The

meaning here, then, is plain. He was to possess himself of the contents

of the book; to receive it into his mind; to apply it, as we do food,

for spiritual nourishment――truth having, in this respect, the same

relation to the mind which food has to the body. If the little book was

a symbol of the Bible, it would refer to the fact that the truths of

that book became the nourisher and supporter of the public mind. ¶ _And

it shall make thy belly bitter._ This is a circumstance which does not

occur in the corresponding place in Eze. iii. 1‒3. The expression here

must refer to something that would occur _after_ the symbolical action

of “eating” the little book, or to some consequence of eating it――for

the act of eating it is represented as pleasant: “in thy mouth sweet

as honey.” The meaning here is, that the effect which followed from

eating the book was painful or disagreeable――as food would be that was

pleasant to the taste, but that produced bitter pain when eaten. The

fulfilment of this would be found in one of two things. (a) It might

mean that the message to be delivered in consequence of devouring the

book, or the message which it contained, would be of a painful or

distressing character; that with whatever pleasure the book might be

received and devoured, it would be found to contain a communication

that would be indicative of woe or sorrow. This was the case with the

little book that Ezekiel was commanded to eat up. Thus, in speaking

of this book, it is said, “And it was written within and without: and

there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe,” Eze.

ii. 10. Comp. ch. iii. 4‒9, where the contents of the book, and the

effect of proclaiming the message which it contained, are more fully

stated. So here the meaning may be, that, however gladly John may have

taken the book, and with whatever pleasure he may have devoured its

contents, yet that it would be found to be charged with the threatening

of wrath, and with denunciations of a judgment to come, the delivery

of which would be well represented by the “bitterness” which is said

to have followed from “eating” the volume. Or (b) it may mean that the

consequence of devouring the book, that is, of embracing its doctrines,

would be persecutions and trouble――well represented by the “bitterness”

that followed the “eating” of the volume. Either of these ideas would

be a fulfilment of the {264} proper meaning of the symbol; for, on the

supposition that either of these occurred in fact, it would properly

be symbolized by the eating of a volume that was sweet to the taste,

but that made the belly bitter. ¶ _But it shall be in thy mouth sweet

as honey._ So in Eze. iii. 3. The proper fulfilment of this it is not

difficult to understand. It would well represent the pleasure derived

from divine truth――the sweetness of the Word of God――the relish with

which it is embraced by those that love it. On the supposition that

the “little book” here refers to the Bible, and to the use which would

be made of it in the times referred to, it would properly denote the

relish which would exist for the sacred volume, and the happiness

which would be found in its perusal; for this very image is frequently

employed to denote this. Thus in Ps. xix. 10: “More to be desired are

they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and

the honeycomb.” Ps. cxix. 103: “How sweet are thy words unto my taste!

yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth.” We are then to look for the

fulfilment of this in some prevailing delight or satisfaction, in

the times referred to, in the Word of the Lord, or in the truths of

revelation.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate

it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I

had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

10. _And as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter._ The effect

immediately followed: that is, as soon as he was made acquainted with

the contents of the book, either, as above explained, requiring him

to deliver some message of woe and wrath which it would be painful to

deliver, or that the consequence of receiving it was to bring on bitter

persecutions and trials.

11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many

peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

11. _And he said unto me._ The angel then said. ¶ _Thou must prophesy._

The word “_prophesy_” here is evidently used in the large sense of

making known divine truth in general; not in the comparatively narrow

and limited sense in which it is commonly used, as referring merely to

the foretelling of future events. See the word explained in the Notes

on Ro. xii. 6; 1 Co. xiv. 1. The meaning is, that, as a consequence of

becoming possessed of the little volume and its contents, he would be

called to proclaim divine truth, or to make the message of God known

to mankind. The direct address is to John himself; but it is evidently

not to be understood of him personally. _He_ is represented as seeing

the angel; as hearkening to his voice; as listening to the solemn

oath which he took; as receiving and eating the volume; and then as

prophesying to many people; but the reference is undoubtedly to the

far-distant future. If the allusion is to the times of the Reformation,

the meaning is, that the end of the world was not, as would be expected,

about to occur, but that there was to be an interval long enough to

permit the gospel to be proclaimed before “nations, and tongues, and

kings;” that in consequence of coming into possession of the “little

book,” the Word of God, the truth was yet to be proclaimed far and wide

on the earth. ¶ _Again_――πάλιν. This had been done before. That is,

supposing this to refer to the time of the Reformation, it could be

said, (a) that this had been done _before_――that the gospel had been

in former times proclaimed in its purity before “many peoples, and

nations, and tongues, and kings;” and (b) that it would be done “again;”

that is, though the Word of God had been hidden, and a mass of corrupt

traditions had taken its place, yet the time would come when those

pure truths would be made known again to all lands. This will explain

the word “_again_” in this place――not meaning that John would do

this personally, but that this would be in fact the result of the

restoration of the Bible to the church. ¶ _Before many peoples._ This

word denotes people considered as _masses_, or as grouped together

in masses, without reference to the manner in which it is done. It is

used when we look on a _mass_ of men, without taking into account the

question whether they are of the same nation, or language, or rank.

See Notes on ch. vii. 9. The plural is used here――“_peoples_”――perhaps

to denote that those to whom the truth would be made known would be

_very_ numerous. They would not only be numerous in regard to the

_individuals_ to whom it would be communicated, but numerous considered

as {265} communities or nations. ¶ _And nations._ The word _nations_

here denotes people considered as separated by national boundaries,

constitutions, laws, customs. See Notes on ch. vii. 9. ¶ _And tongues._

People considered as divided by languages――a division not always or

necessarily the same as that denoted by the word “people,” or “nations”

as used in this passage. ¶ _And kings._ Rulers of the people. The

meaning is, that the gospel would not only be borne before the _masses_

of mankind, but in a special manner before kings and rulers. The

effect of thus possessing the “little volume,” or of the “open book” of

revealed truth, would ultimately be that the message of life would be

carried with power before princes and rulers, and would influence them

as well as the common people.

In inquiring now for the proper application of this symbol as thus

explained, we naturally turn to the Reformation, and ask whether

there was anything in that of which this would be the proper emblem.

The following things, then, are found in fact as occurring at that

time, of which the symbol before us may be regarded as the proper

representation:――

(1) The reception of the Bible as from the hand of an angel――or

its recovery from obscurity and forgetfulness, _as if_ it were now

restored to the church by a heavenly interposition. The influence

of the Bible on the Reformation; the fact that it was now recovered

from its obscurity, and that it was made the grand instrument in the

Reformation, has already been illustrated. See Notes on ver. 2. The

symbolical action of taking it from the hand of an angel was not an

improper representation of its reception again by the church, and of

its restoration to its true place _in_ the church. It became, as it is

proper that it should always be, the grand means of the defence of the

faith, and of the propagation of truth in the world.

(2) The statement that the little book when eaten was “in the mouth

sweet as honey,” is a striking and proper representation of the relish

felt for the sacred Scriptures by those who love the truth (comp. Notes

on ver. 9), and is especially appropriate to describe the interest

which was felt in the volume of revealed truth in the time of the

Reformation. For the Bible was to the Reformers emphatically a new

book. It had been driven from common use to make way for the legends

of the saints and the traditions of the church. It had, therefore, when

translated into the vernacular tongue, and when circulated and read,

the freshness of novelty――the interest which a volume of revealed truth

would have if just given from heaven. Accordingly, it is well known

with what avidity and relish the sacred volume was studied by Luther

and his fellow-labourers in the Reformation; how they devoured its

doctrines; how they looked to it for comfort in their times of trial;

how sweet and sustaining were its promises in the troubles that came

upon them, and in the labours which they were called to perform.

(3) The representation that, after it was eaten, it was “bitter,”

would not improperly describe the _effect_, in some respects, of thus

receiving the Bible, and making it the groundwork of faith. It brought

the Reformers at once into conflict with all the power of the Papacy

and the priesthood; exposed them to persecution; aroused against them a

host of enemies among the princes and rulers of the earth; and was the

cause for which many of them were put to death. Such effects followed

substantially when Wycliffe translated the Bible; when John Huss and

Jerome of Prague published the pure doctrines of the New Testament; and

when Luther gave to the people the Word of God in their own language.

To a great extent this is always so――that, however sweet and precious

the truths of the Bible may be to the preacher himself, one of

the _effects_ of his attempting to preach those truths may be such

opposition on the part of men, such cold indifference, or such fierce

persecution, that it would be well illustrated by what is said here,

“it shall make thy belly bitter.”

(4) The representation that, as a consequence of receiving that book,

he would prophesy again before many people, is a fit representation of

the effect of the reception of the Bible again by the church, and of

allowing it its proper place there. For, (a) it led to _preaching_, or,

in the language of this passage, “prophesying”――a thing comparatively

little known before for many ages. The grand business in the Papal

communion was not, and is not, _preaching_, but the performance of

rites and ceremonies. Genuflexions, crossings, burning of incense,

processions, music, constitute the characteristic {266} features of

all Papal churches; the grand thing that distinguishes the Protestant

churches all over the world, just in proportion as they _are_

Protestant, is _preaching_. The Protestant religion――the pure form of

religion as it is revealed in the New Testament――has few ceremonies:

its rites are simple: it depends for success on the promulgation

and defence of the _truth_, with the attending influence of the Holy

Ghost; and for this view of the nature and degree of religion the

world is indebted to the fact that the Bible was again restored to its

true place in the church. (b) The Bible is the basis of all genuine

_preaching_. Preaching will not be kept up in its purity, except in the

places where the Bible is freely circulated, and where it is studied;

and where it _is_ studied, there will be, in the proper sense of the

term, _preachers_. Just in proportion as the Bible is studied in the

world, we may expect that preaching will be better understood, and that

the number of preachers will be increased. (c) The study of the Bible

is the foundation of all the efforts to spread the knowledge of the

truth to “peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings,” in our own

times. All these efforts have been originated by the restoration of

the Bible to its proper place in the church, and to its more profound

and accurate study in this age; for these efforts are but carrying out

the injunction of the Saviour as recorded in this book――to “go into

all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (d) The same

thing will be true to the end of the world; or, in the language of the

portion of the book of Revelation before us, till “the kingdoms of this

world become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall

reign for ever and ever,” ch. xi. 15. The fact of the restoration of

the Bible to its proper place in the church will, therefore, ultimately

be the means of the conversion of the whole world to God; and this

fact, so momentous in its nature and its consequences, was worthy to

be symbolized by the appearance of the “angel descending from heaven

clothed with a cloud;” was properly represented by the manner in which

he appeared――“his face radiant as the sun, and his feet as pillars of

fire;” was worthy to be expressed by the position which he assumed,

as “standing on the sea and the earth”――as if all the world were

interested in the purpose of his mission, and was worthy of the

loud proclamation which he made――as if a new order of things were to

commence. Beautiful and sublime, then, as this chapter is, and always

has been esteemed as a composition, it becomes still more beautiful and

sublime if it be regarded as a symbol of the Reformation――an event the

most glorious, and the most important in its issues, of any that has

occurred since the Saviour appeared on the earth.

CHAPTER XI.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter, which is very improperly separated from the

preceding, and improperly _ended_――for it should have been closed at

ver. 18――consists (excluding the last verse, which properly belongs to

the succeeding chapter) essentially of three parts:――

I. The measuring of the temple, ver. 1, 2. A reed, or measuring-stick,

is given to John, and he is directed to arise and measure the temple.

This direction embraces two parts: (a) he was to measure, that is, to

take an exact estimate of the temple, of the altar, and of the true

worshippers; (b) he was carefully to separate this, in his estimate,

from the outward court, which was to be left out and to be given to

the Gentiles, to be trodden under foot forty-two months; that is, three

years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days――a period celebrated

in the book of Daniel as well as in this book.

II. The two witnesses, ver. 3‒13. This is, in some respects, the

most difficult portion of the book of Revelation, and its meaning can

be stated only after a careful examination of the signification of

the words and phrases used. The general statement in regard to these

witnesses is, that they should have power, and should prophesy for

twelve hundred and sixty days; that if anyone should attempt to injure

them, they had power, by fire that proceeded out of their mouths, to

devour and kill their enemies; that they had power to shut heaven so

that it should not rain, and power to turn the waters of the earth into

blood, and power to smite the earth with plagues as often as they chose;

that when they had completed their testimony, the beast that ascends

out of the bottomless pit would make war with them, and overcome them,

and kill them; that their dead bodies {267} would lie unburied in that

great city where the Lord was crucified three days and a half; that

they that dwelt upon the earth would exult in their death, and send

gifts to one another in token of their joy; that after the three days

and a half the spirit of life from God would enter into them again,

and they would stand up on their feet; that they would then be taken

up into heaven, in the sight of their enemies; and that, at the time

of their ascension, there would be a great earthquake, and a tenth part

of the city would fall, and many (seven thousand) would be killed, and

that the remainder would be affrighted, and would give glory to the God

of heaven.

III. The sounding of the seventh trumpet, ver. 14‒18. This is the

grand consummation of the whole; the end of this series of visions;

the end of the world. A rapid glance only is given of it here, for

under another series of visions a more detailed account of the state of

the world is given under the final triumph of truth. Here, as a proper

close of the first series of visions, the result is merely glanced

at or adverted to――that then the period would have arrived when the

kingdoms of the world were to become the kingdoms of the Lord, and

of his Christ, and when he should commence that reign which was to

continue for ever. Then universal peace and happiness would reign, and

the long-promised and expected kingdom of God on the earth would be

established. The “nations” had been “angry,” but the time had now come

when a judgment was to be pronounced on the dead, and when the due

reward was to be given to the servants of God――the prophets, and

the saints, and those who feared his name, small and great――in the

establishment of a permanent kingdom, and the complete triumph of the

true religion in the world.

I regard this chapter, therefore, to ver. 18, as extending down

to the consummation of all things, and as disclosing the last of the

visions seen in the scroll or volume “sealed with the seven seals,” ch.

v. 1. For a reason above suggested, and which will appear more fully

hereafter, the detail is here much less minute than in the earlier

portions of the historic visions, but still it embraces the whole

period, and states in few words what will be the condition of things

in the end. This was all that was necessary; this was, in fact,

the leading design of the whole book. The end towards which all

tended――that which John needed most to know and which the church needed

most to know, was that religion _would_ ultimately triumph, and that

the period _would_ arrive when it could be announced that the kingdoms

of this world had become the kingdoms of God and of his Christ. That is

here announced; and that is properly the close of one of the divisions

of the whole book.

CHAPTER XI.

AND there was given me a [329]reed like unto a rod: and the

angel stood, saying, Rise, and [330]measure the temple of God,

and the altar, and them that worship therein.

1. _And there was given me._ He does not say by whom, but the

connection would seem to imply that it was by the angel. All this is

of course to be regarded as symbolical. The representation undoubtedly

pertains to a future age, but the language is such as would be properly

addressed to one who had been a Jew, and the imagery employed is such

as he would be more likely to understand than any other. The language

and the imagery are, therefore, taken from the temple, but there is no

reason to suppose that it had any _literal_ reference to the temple,

or even that John would so understand it. Nor does the language here

used prove that the temple was standing at the time when the book was

written; for, as it is symbolical, it is what would be employed whether

the temple were standing or not, and would be as likely to be used in

the one case as in the other. It is such language as John, educated as

a Jew, and familiar with the temple worship, would be likely to employ

if he designed to make a representation pertaining to the church.

¶ _A reed_――κάλαμος. This word properly denotes a plant with a jointed

hollow stalk, growing in wet grounds. Then it refers to the stalk as

cut for use――as a measuring-stick, as in this place; or a mock sceptre,

Mat. xxvii. 29, 30; or a pen for writing, 3 Jn. 13. Here it means

merely a stick that could be used for measuring. ¶ _Like unto a rod._

This word――ῥάβδος――means properly a rod, wand, staff, used either for

scourging, 1 Co. iv. 21; or for leaning upon in walking, Mat. x. 10; or

for a sceptre, He. i. 8. Here the meaning {268} is, that the reed that

was put into his hands was like such a rod or staff in respect to size,

and was therefore convenient for handling. The word _rod_ also is used

to denote a measuring-pole, Ps. lxxiv. 2; Je. x. 16; li. 19. ¶ _And the

angel stood, saying._ The phrase, “the angel stood,” is wanting in many

MSS. and editions of the New Testament, and is rejected by Professor

Stuart as spurious. It is also rejected in the critical editions

of Griesbach and Hahn, and marked as doubtful by Tittmann. The

best critical authority is against it, and it appears to have been

introduced from Zec. iii. 5. The connection does not demand it, and we

may, therefore, regard the meaning to be, that the one who gave him the

reed, whoever he was, at the same time addressed him, and commanded him

to take a measure of the temple and the altar. ¶ _Rise, and measure the

temple of God._ That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed

in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the _literal_

temple――whether standing or not――for the exact measure of that was

sufficiently well known. The word, then, must be used of something

which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be

the church, considered as the abode of God on the earth. Under the old

dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that abode; under the new,

that peculiar residence was transferred to the church, and God is

represented as dwelling in it. See Notes on 1 Co. iii. 16. Thus the

word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who

is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true

church of God; _as_ accurate as if he were to apply a measuring-reed to

ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem. In doing that, if

the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem,

he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would

measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such

a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be

distinguished from other edifices, or that one could be constructed

like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be

destroyed. If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable

to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain

an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was――as

distinguished from all other bodies of men, and as constituted

and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that

its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be

organized according to this, and that the accurate description could

be transmitted to future times. John has not, indeed, preserved the

measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve

such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred

to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement

of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known.

There would be, therefore, a fulfilment of this, if at the time here

referred to there should be _occasion_, from any cause, to inquire

what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and

distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such

prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary.

¶ _And the altar._ On the form, situation, and uses of the altar,

see Notes on Mat. v. 23, 24; xxi. 12. The altar here referred to was,

undoubtedly, the altar situated in front of the temple, where the daily

sacrifice was offered. To measure that literally, would be to take its

dimensions of length, breadth, and height; but it is plain that that

cannot be intended here, for there was no such altar where John was,

and, if the reference were to the altar at Jerusalem, its dimensions

were sufficiently known. This language, then, like the former, must

be understood metaphorically, and then it must mean――as the altar was

the place of _sacrifice_――to take an estimate of the church considered

with reference to its notions of sacrifice, or of the prevailing

views respecting the sacrifice to be made for sin, and the method of

reconciliation with God. It is by sacrifice that a method is provided

for reconciliation with God; by sacrifice that sin is pardoned; by

sacrifice that man is justified; and the direction here is equivalent,

therefore, to a command to make an investigation on these subjects,

and all that is implied would be fulfilled if a state of things should

exist where it would be necessary to institute an examination into the

prevailing views in the church on the subject of the atonement, and

the true method of justification before God. ¶ _And them that worship

therein._ In the temple, or, as the temple is the representation

here of the church, of those who are in the church {269} as professed

worshippers of God. There is some apparent incongruity in directing

him to “_measure_” those who were engaged in worship; but the obvious

meaning is, that he was to take a correct estimate of their character;

of what they professed; of the reality of their piety; of their lives,

and of the general state of the church considered as professedly

worshipping God. This would receive its fulfilment if a state of

things should arise in the church which would make it necessary to go

into a close and searching examination on all these points, in order

to ascertain what was the true church, and what was necessary to

constitute true membership in it. There were, therefore, three things,

as indicated by this verse, which John was directed to do, so far

as the use of the measuring-rod was concerned: (a) to take a just

estimate of what constitutes the true church, as distinguished from

all other associations of men; (b) to institute a careful examination

into the opinions in the church on the subject of sacrifice or

atonement――involving the whole question about the method of

justification before God; and (c) to take a correct estimate of what

constitutes true membership in the church; or to investigate with care

the prevailing opinions about the qualifications for membership.

2 But the [331]court which is without the temple [332]leave

out, and measure it not; for [333]it is given unto the

Gentiles: and the holy city shall they [334]tread under foot

forty _and_ two months.

2. _But the court which is without the temple._ Which is outside of the

temple proper, and, therefore, which does not strictly appertain to it.

There is undoubtedly reference here to the “court of the Gentiles,” as

it was called among the Jews――the outer court of the temple to which

the Gentiles had access, and within which they were not permitted

to go. For a description of this, see Notes on Mat. xxi. 12. To an

observer this would _seem_ to be a part of the temple, and the persons

there assembled a portion of the true worshippers of God; but it was

necessarily neither the one nor the other. In forming an estimate

of those who, according to the Hebrew notions, were true worshippers

of God, only those would be regarded as such who had the privilege

of access to the inner court, and to the altar. In making such an

estimate, therefore, those who had no nearer access than that court,

would be omitted; that is, they would not be reckoned as necessarily

any part of those who were regarded as the people of God. ¶ _Leave out

and measure it not._ Marg., _cast out_. So the Greek. The meaning is,

that he was not to reckon it as appertaining to the true temple of

worshippers. There is, indeed, a degree of force in the words rendered

“_leave out_,” or, in the margin, “_cast out_”――ἔκβαλλε ἔξω――which

implies more than a mere _passing by_, or _omission_. The word (ἐκβάλλω)

usually has the idea of _force_ or _impulse_ (Mat. viii. 12; xv. 17;

xxv. 30; Mar. xvi. 9; Ac. xxvii. 38, _et al._); and the word here would

denote some decisive or positive act by which it would be indicated

that this was _not_ any part of the true temple, but was to be regarded

as appertaining to something else. He was not merely _not_ to mention

it, or _not_ to include it in the measurement, but he was to do this by

some act which would indicate that it was the result of design in the

case, and not by accidentally passing it by. ¶ _For it is given unto

the Gentiles._ It properly appertains to them as their own. Though near

the temple, and included in the general range of building, yet it does

not pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded

as heathen and strangers. It is not said that it was _then_ given to

the Gentiles; nor is it said that it was given to them to be overrun

and trodden down by them, but that it _appertained to them_, and was to

be regarded as belonging to them. They occupied it, not as the people

of God, but as those who were _without_ the true church, and who did

not appertain to its real communion. This would find a fulfilment if

there should arise a state of things in the church in which it would

be necessary to draw a line between those who properly constituted

the church and those who did not; if there should be such a condition

of things that any considerable portion of those who professedly

appertained to the church ought to be _divided off_ as not belonging to

it, or would have such characteristic marks that it could be seen that

they were strangers and aliens. The interpretation would demand that

they should sustain _some_ relation to the {270} church, or that they

would _seem_ to belong to it――as the court did to the temple; but

still that this was in appearance only, and that in estimating the true

church it was necessary to leave them out altogether. Of course this

would not imply that there might not be some sincere worshippers among

them as individuals――as there would be found usually, in the court

of the Gentiles in the literal temple, some who were proselytes and

devout worshippers, but what is here said relates to them as a mass or

body――that they did not belong to the true church, but to the Gentiles.

¶ _And the holy city._ The _whole_ holy city――not merely the outer

court of the Gentiles, which it is said was given to them, nor the

temple as such, but the _entire_ holy city. There is no doubt that the

words “the holy city” _literally_ refer to Jerusalem――a city so called

because it was the peculiar place of the worship of God. See Notes on

Mat. iv. 5; comp. Ne. xi. 1, 18; Is. lii. 1; Da. ix. 24; Mat. xxvii. 53.

But it is not necessary to suppose that this is its meaning here. The

“holy city,” Jerusalem, was regarded as sacred to God――as his dwelling-

place on earth, and as the abode of his people, and nothing was more

natural than to use the term as representing the church. Comp. Notes on

Ga. iv. 26; He. xii. 22. In this sense it is undoubtedly used here as

the whole representation is emblematical. John, if he were about to

speak of anything that was to occur to the church, would, as a native

Jew, be likely to employ such language as this to denote it. ¶ _Shall

they tread under foot._ That is, the Gentiles above referred to; or

those who, in the measurement of the city, were set off as Gentiles,

and regarded as not belonging to the people of God. This is not spoken

of the Gentiles in general, but only of that portion of the multitudes

that seemed to constitute the worshippers of God, who, in measuring the

temple, were set off or separated as not properly belonging to the true

church. The phrase “should tread under foot” is derived from warriors

and conquerors, who tread down their enemies, or trample on the fields

of grain. It is rendered in this passage by Dr. Robinson (_Lex._), “to

profane and lay waste.” As applied literally to a city, this would be

the true idea; as applied to the church, it would mean that they would

have it under their control or in subjection for the specified time,

and that the practical effect of that would be to corrupt and prostrate

it. ¶ _Forty |and| two months._ Literally this would be three years and

a half; but if the time here is prophetic time――a day for a year――then

the period would be twelve hundred and sixty years――reckoning the year

at 360 days. For a full illustration of this usage, and for the reasons

for supposing that this is prophetic time, see Notes on Da. vii. 25.

See also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. In addition to what is there said,

it may be remarked, in reference to this passage, that it is impossible

to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was

“trampled under foot” by the Romans for the exact space of three years

and a half. Professor Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to

the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, “It is certain

that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the

period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself

was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in

innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country

of Judæa.” But it is to be remembered that the affirmation here is,

that “_the holy city_” was thus to be trodden under foot; and even

taking the former supposition, in what sense is it true that the “whole

country” was “trodden under foot” by the Romans only three years and a

half? Even the wars of the Romans were not of that exact duration; and,

besides, the fact was that Judæa was held in subjection, and trodden

down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, regained its

independence. If this is to be literally applied to Jerusalem, it has

been “trodden down by the Gentiles,” with brief intervals, since the

conquest by the Romans, to the present time. There has been no precise

period of three years and a half, in respect to which the language here

used would be applicable to the literal city of Jerusalem.

In regard, then, to the proper _application_ of the language which

has thus been explained (ver. 1, 2), it may be remarked, in general,

that, for the reasons just stated, it is not to be taken _literally_.

John could not have been directed literally to measure the temple at

Jerusalem, and the altar, and the worshippers; nor could he have been

{271} requested literally to leave out, or “cast out” the court that

was without; nor could it be meant that the holy city literally was to

be trodden under foot for three years and a half. The language clearly

is symbolical, and the reference must have been to something pertaining

to the church. And, if the preceding exposition of the tenth chapter

is correct, then it may be presumed that this would refer to something

that was to occur at about the period there referred to. Regarding

it, then, as applicable to the time of the Reformation, and as being

a continuation of the vision in ch. x., we shall find, in the events

of that period, what would be properly symbolized by the language here

used. This will appear by reviewing the particulars which have been

explained in these verses:――

(1) The command to “measure the temple of God,” ver. 1. This, we have

seen, was a direction to take an estimate of what constituted the true

church; the very work which it was necessary to do in the Reformation,

for this was the first point which was to be settled, whether the

Papacy was the true church or was the Antichrist. This involved, of

course, the whole inquiry as to what constitutes the church, alike in

reference to its organization, its ministry, its sacraments, and its

membership. It was long before the Reformers made up their minds that

the Papacy was _not_ the true church; for the veneration which they had

been taught to cherish for that lingered long in their bosoms. And even

when they were constrained to admit that that corrupt communion was the

predicted form of the great apostasy――_Antichrist_――and had acquired

boldness enough to break away from it for ever, it was long before they

settled down in a uniform belief as to what _was_ essential to the true

church. Indeed, the differences of opinion which prevailed, the warm

discussions which ensued, and the diversities of sect which sprang up

in the Protestant world, showed with what intense interest the mind

was fixed on this question, and how important it was to take an exact

_measurement_ of the real church of God.

(2) The direction to “measure the altar.” This, as we have seen, would

relate to the prevailing opinions on the subject of sacrifice and

atonement; on the true method of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and,

consequently, on the whole subject of justification. As a matter of

fact, it need not be said that this was one of the first questions

which came before the Reformers, and was one which it was indispensable

to settle, in order to a just notion of the church and of the way

of salvation. The Papacy had exalted the Lord’s supper into a real

sacrifice; had made it a grand and essential point that the bread and

wine were changed into the real body and blood of the Lord, and that

a real offering of that sacrifice was made every time that ordinance

was celebrated; had changed the office of the ministers of the New

Testament from _preachers_ to that of _priests_; had become familiar

with the terms _altar_, and _sacrifice_, and _priesthood_, as founded

on the notion that a real sacrifice was made in the “mass;” and had

fundamentally changed the whole doctrine respecting the justification

of a sinner before God. The altar in the Romish communion had almost

displaced the pulpit; and the doctrine of justification by the

merits of the great sacrifice made by the death of our Lord, had

been superseded by the doctrine of justification by good works,

and by the merits of the saints. It became necessary, therefore, to

restore the true doctrine respecting sacrifice for sin, and the way of

justification before God; and this would be appropriately represented

by a direction to “measure _the altar_.”

(3) The direction to take an estimate of those “who worshipped in the

temple.” This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to

be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church,

or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true

worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary

to be done in the Reformation. Before that, for ages, the doctrine of

baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church;

that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation,

was the common opinion; the necessity of regeneration by the influences

of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little

understood, if not almost wholly unknown; and the grand requisition

_in_ membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites

and ceremonies of the church. One of the first things necessary in the

Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down

by the Saviour, that a change {272} of heart――that regeneration by

the Holy Ghost――was necessary to membership in the church, and that

the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the

spirit of their mind. This great work would be appropriately symbolized

by a direction to take an estimate of those who “worshipped in the

temple of God;” that is, to settle the question who should be regarded

as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who

professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled

in the Reformation than this.

(4) The direction to leave out, or to “cast out” the court

without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that

a separation was to be made between that which was the true church

and that which was not, though it might seem to belong to it. The one

was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not

appertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to heathenism.

The idea would be, that though it professedly appertained to the

true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be

characterized _as_ heathenism. Now this will apply with great propriety,

according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the Papacy

was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times.

It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would

_seem_ to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain

to the temple. But it had the essential characteristics of _heathenism_,

and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or cast out, as not

pertaining to the true church. Can anyone doubt the truth of this

representation as applicable to the Papacy? Almost everything that was

peculiar in the ancient heathen systems of religion had been introduced

into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more

that would lead him to feel that he was in a heathen land, than he

would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity

prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer had

designed to set up on the earth. This was true not only in the pomp and

splendour of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials;

but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in

the number of festival days, in the fact that the statues reared in

heathen Rome to the honour of the gods had been reconsecrated in the

service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs;

and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use

in the ancient heathen worship. The direction was, that, in estimating

the true church, this was to be “left out,” or “cast out;” and, if

this interpretation is correct, the meaning is, that the Roman Catholic

communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the

true church――a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of

Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are

correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church

from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.

(5) The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot, ver.

2. This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be

trodden down by those who are described as “Gentiles.” So far as pure

religion was concerned; so far as appertained to the real condition of

the church, and the pure worship of God, it would be _as if_ the whole

holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the

Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was

sacred for the time here referred to. Everything in Rome at the time of

the Reformation would sustain this description. “It is incredible,”

says Luther, on his visit to Rome, “what sins and atrocities are

committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. So that

it is usual to say: ‘If there be a hell, Rome is built above it; it is

an abyss from which all sins proceed.’” So again he says: “It is

commonly observed that he who goes to Rome for the first time, goes to

seek a knave there; the second time he finds him; and the third time he

brings him away with him under his cloak. But now, people are become so

clever, that they make the three journeys in one.” So Machiavelli, one

of the most profound geniuses in Italy, and himself a Roman Catholic,

said, “The greatest symptom of the approaching ruin of Christianity

is, that the nearer we approach the capital of Christendom, the less

do we find of the Christian spirit of the people. The scandalous

example and crimes of the court of Rome have caused Italy to lose every

principle of piety and every religious sentiment.{273} We Italians are

principally indebted to the church and to the priests for having become

impious and profane.” See D’Aubigné’s _History of the Reformation_,

p. 54, ed. Phila. 1843. In full illustration of the sentiment that

the church seemed to be trodden down and polluted by heathenism, or by

abominations and practices that came out of heathenism, we may refer

to the general history of the Romish communion from the rise of the

Papacy to the Reformation. For a sufficient illustration to justify

the application of the passage before us which I am now making, the

reader may be referred to the Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21. Nothing would

better describe the condition of Rome previous to and at the time of

the Reformation――and the remark may be applied to subsequent periods

also――than to say that it was a city which once seemed to be a

Christian city, and was not improperly regarded as the centre of the

Christian world and the seat of the church, and that it had been, as

it were, overrun and trodden down by heathen rites and customs and

ceremonies, so that, to a stranger looking on it, it would seem to be

in the possession of the “Gentiles” or the heathens.

(6) The _time_ during which this was to continue――“forty-two months;”

that is, according to the explanation above given, twelve hundred and

sixty years. This would embrace the whole period of the ascendency and

prevalence of the Papacy, or the whole time of the continuance of that

corrupt domination in which Christendom was to be trodden down and

corrupted by it. The prophet of Patmos saw it in vision thus extending

its dreary and corrupting reign, and during that time the proper

influence of Christianity was trampled down, and the domination of

practical heathenism was set up where the church should have reigned in

its purity. Thus regarded, this would properly express the time of the

ascendency of the Papal power, and the end of the “forty-two months,”

or twelve hundred and sixty years, would denote the time when the

influence of that power would cease. If, therefore, the time of the

_rise_ of the Papacy can be determined, it will not be difficult

to determine the time when it will come to an end. But for a full

consideration of these points the reader is referred to the extended

discussion on Da. vii. 25. See also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. As

the point is there fully examined it is unnecessary to go into an

investigation of it here.

The general remark, therefore, in regard to this passage (ver. 1, 2)

is, that it refers to what would be necessary to be done at the

Reformation in order to determine what is the true church and what are

the doctrines on which it is based; and to the fact that the Romish

communion, to which the church had been given over for a definite time,

was to be set aside as not being the true church of Christ.

3 And I will [335]give _power_ unto my [336]two

[337]witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred

_and_ threescore days, [338]clothed in sackcloth.

3. _And I will give |power| unto my two witnesses._ In respect to

this important passage (ver. 3‒13) I propose to pursue the same method

which I have pursued all along in this exposition: first, to examine

the meaning of the words and phrases in the symbol, with a purpose

to ascertain the fair signification of the symbols; and, secondly, to

inquire into the application――that is, to inquire whether any events

have occurred which, in respect to their character and to the time

of their occurrence, can be shown to be a _fair_ fulfilment of the

language. ¶ _And I will give |power|._ The word “power” is not in the

original. The Greek is simply, “I will give”――that is, I will grant

to my two witnesses the right or the power of prophesying during the

time specified――correctly expressed in the margin, “give unto my two

witnesses that they may prophesy.” The meaning is not that he would

_send_ two witnesses to prophesy, but rather that these were _in fact_

such “witnesses,” and that he would during that time permit them to

exercise their prophetic gifts, or give them the privilege and the

strength to enunciate the truth which they were commissioned to

communicate as his “witnesses” to mankind. Some word, then, like

_power_, _privilege_, _opportunity_, or _boldness_, it is necessary to

supply in order to complete the sense. ¶ _Unto my two witnesses._ The

word “_two_” evidently denotes that the number would be small; and yet

it is not necessary to confine it literally to two persons, or to two

societies or communities. Perhaps the meaning is, that {274} as, under

the law, two witnesses were required, and were enough, to establish any

fact (Notes on Jn. viii. 17), such a number would during those times be

preserved from apostasy as would be sufficient to keep up the evidence

of truth; to testify against the prevailing abominations, errors, and

corruptions; to show what was the real church, and to bear a faithful

witness against the wickedness of the world. The law of Moses required

that there should be _two_ witnesses on a trial, and this, under that

law, was deemed a _competent_ number. See Num. xxxv. 30; De. xvii. 6;

xix. 15; Mat. xviii. 16; Jn. v. 30‒33. The essential meaning of this

passage then is, that there would be a _competent number_ of witnesses

in the case; that is, as many as would be regarded as _sufficient_ to

establish the points concerning which they would testify, with perhaps

the additional idea that the number would be _small_. There is no

reason for limiting it strictly to two persons, or for supposing that

they would appear in pairs, two and two; nor is it necessary to suppose

that it refers particularly to two people or nations. The word rendered

_witnesses_――μάρτυσι――is that from which we have derived the word

_martyr_. It means properly one who bears testimony, either in a

judicial sense (Mat. xviii. 16; xxvi. 65), or one who can in any way

testify to the truth of what he has seen and known, Lu. xxiv. 48; Ro. i.

9; Phi. i. 8; 1 Th. ii. 10; 1 Ti. vi. 12. Then it came to be employed

in the sense in which the word _martyr_ is now――to denote one who,

amidst great sufferings or by his death, bears witness to the truth;

that is, one who is so confident of the truth, and so upright, that he

will rather lay down his life than deny the truth of what he has seen

and known, Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13. In a similar sense it comes to

denote one who is so thoroughly convinced on a subject that it is not

susceptible of being seen and heard, or who is so attached to one that

he is willing to lay down his life as the evidence of his conviction

and attachment. The word, as used here, refers to those who, during

this period of “forty and two months,” would thus be _witnesses_ for

Christ in the world; that is, who would bear their _testimony_ to the

truth of his religion, to the doctrines which he had revealed, and to

what was required of man――who would do this amidst surrounding error

and corruption, and when exposed to persecutions and trials on account

of their belief. It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to represent

the righteous as _witnesses_ for God. See Notes on Is. xliii. 10, 12;

xliv. 8. ¶ _And they shall prophesy._ The word _prophesy_ does not

necessarily mean that they would predict future events; but the sense

is, that they would give utterance to the truth as God had revealed

it. See Notes on ch. x. 11. The sense here is, that they would in some

public manner hold up or maintain the truth before the world. ¶ _A

thousand two hundred |and| threescore days._ The same period as the

forty and two months (ver. 2), though expressed in a different form.

Reckoning a day for a year, this period would be twelve hundred and

sixty years, or the same as the “time and times and the dividing of

time” in Da. vii. 25. See Notes on that place; also Editor’s Preface.

The meaning of this would be, therefore, that during that long period,

in which it is said that “the holy city would be trodden under foot,”

there would be those who might be properly called “witnesses” for God,

and who would be engaged in holding up his truth before the world;

that is, there would be no part of that period in which there would

not be found _some_ to whom this appellation could with propriety be

given. Though the “holy city”――the church――would _seem_ to be wholly

trodden down, yet there would be a few at least who would assert

the great doctrines of true godliness. ¶ _Clothed in sackcloth._

Sackcloth――σάκκους――was properly a coarse black cloth commonly made

of hair, used for sacks, for straining, and for mourning garments. See

Notes on ch. vi. 12; Is. iii. 24; and Mat. xi. 21. Here it is an emblem

of mourning; and the idea is, that they would prophesy in the midst of

grief. This would indicate that the time would be one of calamity, or

that, in doing this, there would be occasion for their appearing in

the emblems of grief, rather than in robes expressive of joy. The most

natural interpretation of this is, that there would be but few who

could be regarded as true witnesses for God in the world, and that they

would be exposed to persecution.

4 These are the [339]two olive-trees, and the two

[340]candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

4. _These are the two olive-trees._ These {275} are represented by

the two olive-trees, or these are what are symbolized by the two

olive-trees. There can be little doubt that there is an allusion here

to Zec. iv. 3, 11, 14, though the imagery is in some respects changed.

The prophet (Zec. iv. 2, 3) saw in vision “a candlestick all of gold,

with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and

seven pipes to the seven lamps, which were upon the top thereof;

and two olive-trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and

the other upon the left side thereof.” These two “olive branches”

were subsequently declared (ver. 14) to be “the two anointed ones,

that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The olive-trees, or

olive-branches (ver. 12), appear in the vision of the prophet to have

been connected with the ever-burning lamp by golden pipes; and as the

olive-tree produced the oil used by the ancients in their lamps, these

trees are represented as furnishing a constant supply of oil through

the golden pipes to the candlestick, and thus they become emblematic

of the supply of grace to the church. John uses this emblem, not in

the sense exactly in which it was employed by the prophet, but to

denote that these two “witnesses,” which might be compared with the two

olive-trees, would be the means of supplying grace to the church. As

the olive-tree furnished oil for the lamps, the two trees here would

seem properly to denote ministers of religion; and as there can be

no doubt that the candlesticks, or lamp- bearers, denote churches,

the sense would appear to be that it was through the pastors of the

churches that the oil of grace which maintained the brightness of those

mystic candlesticks, or the churches, was conveyed. The image is a

beautiful one, and expresses a truth of great importance to the world;

for God has designed that the lamp of piety shall be kept burning

in the churches by truth supplied through ministers and pastors.

¶ _And the two candlesticks._ The prophet Zechariah saw but _one_

such candlestick or lamp-bearer; John here saw two――as there are two

“witnesses” referred to. In the vision described in ch. i. 12, he saw

seven――representing the seven churches of Asia. For an explanation of

the meaning of the symbol, see Notes on that verse. ¶ _Standing before

the God of the earth._ So Zec. iv. 14, “These be the two anointed ones,

that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The meaning is, that they

stood, as it were, in the very presence of God――as, in the tabernacle

and temple, the golden candlestick stood “before” the ark on which was

the symbol of the divine presence, though separated from it by a veil.

Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 13. This representation, that the ministers of

religion “stand before the Lord,” is one that is not uncommon in the

Bible. Thus it is said of the priests and Levites: “The Lord separated

the tribe of Levi, to _stand before the Lord_, to minister unto him,

and to bless his name,” De. x. 8; comp. xviii. 7. The same thing is

said of the prophets, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha: “As the

Lord liveth, _before whom I stand_,” 1 Ki. xvii. 1; also, xviii. 15;

2 Ki. iii. 14; v. 16; comp. Je. xv. 19. The representation is, that

they ministered, as it were, constantly in his presence, and under his

eye.

5 And if any man will hurt them, [341]fire proceedeth out of

their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will

hurt them, [342]he must in this manner be killed.

5. _And if any man will hurt them._ This implies that there would

be those who would be disposed to injure or wrong them; that is, that

they would be liable to persecution. The word “_will_” is here more

than the mere sign of the future; it denotes _intention_, _purpose_,

_design_――θέλει――“if any man _wills_ or _purposes_ to injure them.” See

a similar use of the word in 1 Ti. vi. 9. The word _hurt_ here means

to do _injury_ or _injustice_――ἀδικῆσαι――and may refer to wrong in

any form――whether in respect to their character, opinions, persons,

or property. The general sense is, that there would be those who would

be disposed to do them harm, and we should naturally look for the

fulfilment of this in some form of persecution. ¶ _Fire proceedeth out

of their mouth._ It is, of course, not necessary that this should be

taken literally. The meaning is, that they would have the power of

destroying their enemies _as if_ fire should proceed out of their mouth;

that is, their words would be like burning coals or flames. There may

possibly be an allusion here to 2 Ki. i. 10‒14, where {276} it is said

that Elijah commanded the fire to descend from heaven to consume those

who were sent to take him (comp. Lu. ix. 54); but in that case Elijah

commanded the fire to come “from heaven;” here it proceedeth “out of

the mouth.” The allusion here, therefore, is to the denunciations which

they would utter, or the doctrines which they would preach, and which

would have the same effect on their enemies as if they breathed forth

fire and flame. So Je. v. 14, “Because ye speak this word, Behold, I

will make my words in thy mouth fire and this people wood, and it shall

devour them.” ¶ _And devoureth their enemies._ The word _devour_ is

often used with reference to fire, which seems to _eat up_ or _consume_

what is in its way, or to _feed on_ that which it destroys. This is the

sense of the word here――κατεσθίει――“to eat down, to swallow down, to

devour.” Comp. ch. xx. 9; Sept. Is. xxix. 6; Joel ii. 5; Le. x. 2. As

there is no reason to believe that there would be literal _fire_, so

it is not necessary to suppose that their enemies would be literally

devoured or consumed. The meaning is fulfilled if their words should

in any way produce an effect on their enemies _similar_ to what is

produced by fire: that is, if it should destroy their influence; if

it should overcome and subdue them; if it should annihilate their

domination in the world. ¶ _And if any man will hurt them._ This is

repeated in order to make the declaration more intensive, and also

to add another thought about the effect of persecuting and injuring

them. ¶ _He must in this manner be killed._ That is, in the manner

specified――by fire. It does not mean that he would be killed in the

same manner in which the “witnesses” were killed, but in the method

specified before――by the fire that should proceed out of their mouth.

The meaning is, undoubtedly, that they would have power to bring down

on them divine vengeance or punishment, so that there would be a just

retaliation for the wrongs done them.

6 These[343] have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in

the days of their prophecy: and have [344]power over waters to

turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues,

as often as they will.

6. _These have power to shut heaven._ That is, so far as rain is

concerned――for this is immediately specified. There is probably a

reference here to an ancient opinion that the rain was kept in the

clouds of heaven as in reservoirs or bottles, and that when they were

opened it rained; when they were closed it ceased to rain. So Job, “He

bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent

under them,” xxvi. 8. “Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man

abundantly,” Job xxxvi. 28. “Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or

who can stay the bottles of heaven?” Job xxxviii. 37; comp. Ge. i. 7;

vii. 12; viii. 2; 2 Ki. vii. 2. To _shut or close up the heavens_,

therefore, is to restrain the rain from descending, or to produce a

drought. Comp. Notes on Ja. v. 17. ¶ _That it rain not in the days of

their prophecy._ In the time when they prophesy. Probably the allusion

here is to what is said of Elijah, 1 Ki. xvii. 1. This would properly

refer to some miraculous power; but still it _may_ be used to denote

merely that they would be clothed with the power of causing blessings

to be withheld from men, _as if_ rain were withheld; that is, that in

consequence of the calamities that would be brought upon them, and the

persecutions which they would endure, God would bring judgments upon

men as if _they_ were clothed with this power. The language, therefore,

it seems to me, does not necessarily imply that they would have the

power of working miracles. ¶ _And have power over waters to turn them

to blood._ The allusion here is doubtless to what occurred in Egypt,

Ex. vii. 17. Comp. Notes on Re. viii. 8. This, too, would literally

denote the power of working a miracle; but still it is not absolutely

necessary to suppose that this is intended. Anything that would be

_represented_ by turning waters into blood, would correspond with all

that is necessarily implied in the language. If any great calamity

should occur in consequence of what was done to them that would be

properly represented by turning the waters into blood so that they

could not be used, and that was so connected with the treatment which

they received as to appear to be a judgment of heaven on that account,

or that would appear to have come upon the world in consequence of

their imprecations, it would be all that is necessarily implied in this

language. ¶ _And to {277} smite the earth with all plagues._ All kinds

of plague or calamity; disease, pestilence, famine, flood, &c. The word

_plague_――πληγῇ――which means, properly, _stroke_, _stripe_, _blow_,

would include any or all of these. The meaning here is, that great

calamities would follow the manner in which they were treated, _as if_

the power were lodged in their hands. ¶ _As often as they will._ So

that it would seem that they could exercise this power as they pleased.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony [345]the

beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall [346]make

war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

7. _And when they shall have finished their testimony._ Professor

Stuart renders this, “And whenever they shall have finished their

testimony.” The reference is undoubtedly to a period when they should

have faithfully borne the testimony which they were appointed to

bear. The word here rendered “shall have finished”――τελέσωσι, from

τελέω――means properly to end, to finish, to complete, to accomplish. It

is used, in this respect, in two senses――either in regard to _time_ or

in regard to the _end_ or _object in view_, in the sense of _perfecting

it_, or _accomplishing it_. In the former sense it is employed in

such passages as the following:――“Till the thousand years should

be _fulfilled_,” Re. xx. 3. “Ye shall not have gone over the cities

of Israel [Gr., ye shall not have _finished_ the cities of Israel]

till the Son of man be come,” Mat. x. 23; that is, ye shall not have

finished passing through them. “When Jesus had made an end [Gr.,

_finished_] of commanding his twelve disciples,” Mat. xi. 1. “I have

_finished_ my course,” 2 Ti. iv. 7. In these passages it clearly

refers to _time_. In the other sense it is used in such places as the

following:――“And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it

_fulfil_ the law,” Ro. ii. 27; that is, if it accomplish or come up to

the demands of the law. “If ye _fulfil_ the royal law according to the

scriptures,” Ja. ii. 8. The word, then, may here refer not to _time_,

meaning that these events would occur at the _end_ of the “thousand two

hundred and threescore days,” but to the fact that what is here stated

would occur when they had completed their testimony in the sense of

having testified all that they were _appointed_ to testify; that is,

when they had borne full witness for God, and fully uttered his truth.

Thus understood, the meaning here may be that the event here referred

to would take place, not at the _end_ of the 1260 years, but at that

period _during_ the 1260 years when it could be said with propriety

that they had accomplished their testimony in the world, or that they

had borne full and ample witness on the points intrusted to them.

¶ _The beast._ This is the first time in the book of Revelation in

which what is here called “the beast” is mentioned, and which has so

important an agency in the events which it is said would occur. It is

repeatedly mentioned in the course of the book, and always with similar

characteristics, and as referring to the same object. Here it is

mentioned as “ascending out of the bottomless pit;” in ch. xiii. 1,

as “rising up out of the sea;” in ch. xiii. 11, as “coming up out of

the earth.” It is also mentioned with characteristics appropriate to

such an origin, in ch. xiii. 2‒4 (twice), 11, 12 (twice), 14 (twice),

15 (twice), 17, 18; xiv. 9, 11; xv. 2; xvi. 2, 10, 13; xvii. 3, 7,

8 (twice), 11, 12, 13, 16, 17; xix. 19, 20 (twice); xx. 4, 40. The word

here used――θηρίον――means properly _a beast, a wild beast_, Mar. i. 13;

Ac. x. 12; xi. 6; xxviii. 4, 5; He. xii. 20; Ja. iii. 7; Re. vi. 8.

It is once used tropically of brutal or savage men, Tit. i. 12.

Elsewhere, in the passages above referred to in the Apocalypse, it

is used symbolically. As employed in the book of Revelation, the

characteristics of the “beast” are strongly marked. (a) It has its

_origin_ from beneath――in the bottomless pit; the sea; the earth, ch.

xi. 7; xiii. 1, 11. (b) It has great _power_, ch. xiii. 4, 12; xvii.

12, 13. (c) It claims and receives worship, ch. xiii. 3, 12, 14, 15;

xiv. 9, 11. (d) It has a certain “seat” or throne from whence its

power proceeds, ch. xvi. 10. (e) It is of scarlet colour, ch. xvii. 3.

(f) It receives power conferred upon it by the kings of the earth,

ch. xvii. 13. (g) It has a mark by which it is known, ch. xiii. 17;

xix. 20. (h) It has a certain “_number_;” that is, there are certain

mystical letters or figures which so express its name that it may be

known, ch. xiii. 17, 18. These things serve to characterize the “beast”

as distinguished from all other things, and they are so numerous and

definite, {278} that it would seem to have been intended to make it

easy to understand what was meant when the power referred to should

appear. In regard to the _origin_ of the imagery here, there can be

no reasonable doubt that it is to be traced to Daniel, and that the

writer here means to describe the same “beast” which Daniel refers to

in ch. vii. 7. The evidence of this must be clear to anyone who will

compare the description in Daniel (ch. vii.) with the minute details

in the book of Revelation. No one, I think, can doubt that John

means to carry forward the description in Daniel, and to apply it to

new manifestations of the same great and terrific power――the power

of the fourth monarchy――on the earth. For full evidence that the

representation in Daniel refers to the Roman power prolonged and

perpetuated in the Papal dominion, I must refer the reader to the Notes

on Da. vii. 25. It may be assumed here that the opinion there defended

is correct, and consequently it may be assumed that the “beast” of this

book refers to the Papal power. ¶ _That ascendeth out of the bottomless

pit._ See Notes on ch. ix. 1. This would properly mean that its origin

is the nether world; or that it will have characteristics which will

show that it was from beneath. The meaning clearly is, that what was

symbolized by the beast would have such characteristics as to show

that it was not of divine origin, but had its source in the world of

darkness, sin, and death. This, of course, could not represent the true

church, or any civil government that is founded on principles which God

approves. But if it represent a community pretending to be a church,

it is an apostate church; if a civil community, it is a community

the characteristics of which are that it is controlled by the spirit

that rules over the world beneath. For reasons which we shall see in

abundance in applying the descriptions which occur of the “beast,” I

regard this as referring to that great apostate power which occupies

so much of the prophetic descriptions――the Papacy. ¶ _Shall make

war against them._ Will endeavour to exterminate them by force. This

clearly is not intended to be a general statement that they would

be _persecuted_, but to refer to the particular manner in which the

opposition would be conducted. It would be in the form of “_war_;”

that is, there would be an effort to destroy them by arms. ¶ _And shall

overcome them._ Shall gain the victory over them; conquer them――νικήσει

αὐτοὺς. That is, there will be some signal victory in which those

represented by the two witnesses will be subdued. ¶ _And kill them._

That is, an effect would be produced _as if_ they were put to death.

They would be overcome; would be silenced; would be apparently dead.

Any event that would cause them to cease to bear testimony, _as if_

they were dead, would be properly represented by this. It would not be

necessary to suppose that there would be literally _death_ in the case,

but that there would be some event which would be well represented _by_

death――such as an entire suspension of their prophesying in consequence

of force.

8 And their [347]dead bodies _shall lie_ in the street of

the great city, which spiritually is called [348]Sodom and

[349]Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

8. _And their dead bodies |shall lie| in the street._ Professor Stuart,

“Shall be in the street.” The words “shall lie” are supplied by the

translators, but not improperly. The literal rendering would be, “and

their corpses upon the street of the great city;” and the meaning is,

that there would be a state of things in regard to them which would

be well represented by supposing them to lie unburied. To leave a body

unburied is to treat it with contempt, and among the ancients nothing

was regarded as more dishonourable than such treatment. See the

_Ajax_ of Sophocles. Among the Jews also it was regarded as a special

indignity to leave the dead unburied, and hence they are always

represented as deeply solicitous to secure the interment of their dead.

See Ge. xxiii. 4. Comp. 2 Sa. xxi. 9‒13; Ec. vi. 3; Is. xiv. 18‒20;

xxii. 16; liii. 9. The meaning here is, that, for the time specified,

those who are here referred to would be treated with indignity and

contempt. In the fulfilment of this, we are not, of course, to look

for any _literal_ accomplishment of what is here said, but for some

treatment of the “witnesses” which would be well represented by this;

that is, which would show that they were treated, after they were

silenced, like unburied corpses putrefying in the sun. ¶ _Of {279}

the great city._ Where these transactions would occur. As a great city

would be the agent in putting them to death, so the result would be

_as if_ they were publicly exposed in its streets. The word “great”

here supposes that the city referred to would be distinguished for

its size――a circumstance of some importance in determining the place

referred to. ¶ _Which spiritually is called_――πνευματικῶς. This word

occurs only in one other place in the New Testament, 1 Co. ii. 14,

“because they are _spiritually_ discerned”――where it means, “in

accordance with the Holy Spirit,” or “through the aid of the Holy

Spirit.” Here it seems to be used in the sense of _metaphorically_, or

_allegorically_, in contradistinction from the literal and real name.

There may possibly be an intimation here that the city is so called

by the Holy Spirit to designate its real character, but still the

essential meaning is, that that was not its literal name. For some

reason the real name is not given to it; but such descriptions are

applied as are designed to leave no doubt as to what is intended.

¶ _Sodom._ Sodom was distinguished for its wickedness, and especially

for that vice to which its abominations have given name. For the

character of Sodom, see Ge. xviii., xix. Comp. 2 Pe. ii. 6. In

inquiring what “city” is here referred to, it would be necessary

to find in it such abominations as characterized Sodom, or so much

wickedness that it would be proper to call it Sodom. If it shall

be found that this was designed to refer to Papal Rome, no one can

doubt that the abominations which prevailed there would justify such

an appellation. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21. ¶ _And Egypt._ That

is, it would have such a character that the _name_ Egypt might be

properly given to it. Egypt is known in the Scriptures as the land

of oppression――the land where the Israelites, the people of God, were

held in cruel bondage. Comp. Ex. i.‒xv. See also Eze. xxiii. 8. The

particular idea, then, which seems to be conveyed here is, that the

“city” referred to would be characterized by acts of oppression and

wrong towards the people of God. So far as the _language_ is concerned,

it might apply either to Jerusalem or to Rome――for both were eminently

characterized by such acts of oppression toward the true children of

God as to make it proper to compare their cruelties with those which

were inflicted on the Israelites by the Egyptians. Of whichever of

these places the course of the exposition may require us to understand

this, it will be seen at once that the language is such as is strictly

applicable to either; though, as the reference is rather to Christians

than to the ancient people of God, it must be admitted that it would

be most natural to refer it to Rome. More acts authorizing persecution,

and designed to crush the true people of God, have gone forth from

Rome than from any other city on the face of the earth; and taking

the history of the church together, there is no place that would be

so properly designated by the term here employed. ¶ _Where also our

Lord was crucified._ If this refers to Jerusalem, it is to be taken

literally; if to another city, it is to be understood as meaning that

he was _practically_ crucified there: that is, that the treatment of

his friends――his church――was such that it might be said that he was

“crucified afresh” there; for what is done to his church may be said to

be done to him. Either of these interpretations would be justified by

the use of the language. Thus in He. vi. 6, it is said of apostates

from the true faith (comp. Notes on the passage), that “they crucify

to themselves the Son of God _afresh_.” If the passage before us is

to be taken figuratively, the meaning is, that acts would be performed

which might properly be represented as crucifying the Son of God; that,

as he lives in his church, the acts of perverting his doctrines, and

persecuting his people, would be, in fact, an act of crucifying the

Lord again. Thus understood, the language is strictly applicable to

Rome; that is, if it is admitted that John _meant_ to characterize

that city, he has employed such language as a Jewish Christian would

naturally use. While, therefore, it must be admitted that the language

is such as could be _literally_ applied only to Jerusalem, it is still

true that it is such language as might be figuratively applied to

any other city strongly resembling that, and that in this sense it

would characterize Rome above all other cities of the world. The

common reading of the text here is “_our_ Lord”――ἡμῶν; the text now

regarded as correct, however (Griesbach, Tittmann, Hahn), is “_their_

Lord”――αὐτῶν. This makes no essential difference in the sense, except

that it directs the attention more particularly to the fact that they

were treated like their own Master.

9 And they of the people, and kindreds, and tongues, and

nations, shall [350]see their dead bodies three days and an

half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in

graves.

{280} 9. _And they of the people._ Some of the people; a part of the

people――ἐκ τῶν λαῶν. The language is such as would be employed to

describe a scene where a considerable portion of a company of people

should be referred to, without intending to include all. The essential

idea is, that there would be an assemblage of different classes of

people to whom their carcasses would be exposed, and that they would

come and look upon them. We should expect to find the fulfilment of

this in some place where, from any cause, a variety of people should be

assembled――as in some capital, or some commercial city, to which they

would be naturally attracted. ¶ _Shall see their dead bodies._ That is,

a state of things will occur _as if_ these witnesses were put to death,

and their carcasses were publicly exposed. ¶ _Three days and an half._

This might be either literally three days and a half, or, more in

accordance with the usual style of this book, these would be prophetic

days; that is, three years and a half. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 5, 15.

¶ _And shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves._ That

is, there would be a course of conduct in regard to these witnesses

such as would be shown to the dead if they were not suffered to be

decently interred. The language used here――“_shall not suffer_”――seems

to imply that there would be those who might be disposed to show them

the respect evinced by interring the dead, but that this would not be

permitted. This would find a fulfilment if, in a time of persecution,

those who had borne faithful testimony were silenced and treated with

dishonour, and if there should be those who were disposed to show them

respect, but who would be prevented by positive acts on the part of

their persecutors. This has often been the case in persecution, and

there could be no difficulty in finding numerous instances in the

history of the church to which this language would be applicable.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them,

and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because

these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.