No reader of the Apocalypse can miss the seven-fold features out of which it is constructed. There are seven letters to the Churches, seven Seals, seven Trumpets, seven Vials. These are self-evident.

There is also mention of seven Thunders (10:3, 4), but because of the instruction: “Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and wrote them not,” it has commonly been assumed that nothing can be known about these awe-inspiring utterances, for the simple reason that nothing has been written. Yet the language plainly implies that something was written for it is only possible to “seal up” a message after it is committed to paper. The most reasonable view, then, is that when the “seven thunders uttered their voices” John wrote a description of the visions by which they were accompanied and the words that were spoken, but did not write the explanation of the message. Alternatively, “write them not” may mean “do not write these details just now but later.” One of these two interpretations must surely be accepted if only because, when the reader comes to chapter 14, he finds a seven-fold sequence of revelations each of which involves “an angel with a great voice,” that is, an angel with a voice like thunder, speaking on God’s behalf (see John 12:28, 29).[10] It may be well to list these, so as to make this point more evident.

	14:6,7:	“Another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel… saying with a great voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him…”
	14:8:	“Another angel, saying (mightily with a strong voice: see 18:2), Babylon is fallen, is fallen.”
	14:9:	“the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image … the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.”
	14:15:	“another angel came out of the temple, crying with a great voice, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap.”
	14:17:	“Another angel came out of the temple … he also having a sharp sickle.” This brief picture is expanded in ch. 19:17: “an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice … Come and gather yourselves together to the supper of the great God …”
	14:18:	“Another angel came out from the altar … and cried with a great voice … Thrust in thy sharp sickle …”
	16:1:	“And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven (vial-bearing) angels, Go your ways, and pour out …”

Thus the seventh of these “thunders” opens up into the series of seven vial judgements, just as the seventh seal becomes seven trumpets.

This identification of the seven thunders means that the entire Apocalypse is now taken up with sequences of seven-fold judgements, except for chapters 12, 13 and the last few chapters, 17-22 or 19-22, according to whichever view of the scope of the vials is adopted. A re-examination of these sections discloses the existence of a seven-fold structure here also.

In chapters 12, 13, there are seven dramatis personae:

	12:1:	the woman clothed with the sun.
	12:3:	the great red dragon.
	12:5:	the man-child born to rule with a rod of iron.
	12:7:	Michael the archangel.
	12:10, 17; 13:7:	the other seed of the woman, the “saints.”
	13:1:	the beast out of the abyss.
	13:11:	the two-horned beast like a lamb.

And the concluding section of Revelation is made up of seven visions each introduced with the words: “And I saw …”

	19:11:	the rider on the white horse.
	19:19:	the warring armies.
	20:1:	the thousand years.
	20:11:	the great white throne.
	20:12:	the judgement.
	21:1:	new heaven and a new earth.
	21: 22:	the glory of the holy city.

With the exception of short sections coming between the groups of revelations already mentioned, the entire Book of Revelation is now seen to be composed of seven sections each of which is itself in seven parts.

Further examination brings to light that each of these unallotted sections is a vision of the heavenly sanctuary and each includes a hymn of praise. Also, each seven is divided into four and three by the mention of a heavenly voice.

Ch. 1:	the glorified High Priest.
	(Anthem: “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood … to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen “)
Ch. 2:	FOUR LETTERS
	(Voice: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.)[11]
Ch. 3:	THREE LETTERS
Ch. 4, 5:	the heavenly tabernacle and the Lamb with the Book of Life.
	(Anthem: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power.”)
Ch. 6:	FOUR SEALS
	(Voice: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood?”)
	THREE SEALS
Ch. 7:	the great multitude before the throne.
	(Anthem: “Amen: Blessing, and glory and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever ever. Amen “)
Ch. 8:	FOUR TRUMPETS
	(Voice: “Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth …”)
Ch. 9:1l:	THREE TRUMPETS
Ch. 9:19:	the temple of God opened in heaven.
	(Anthem: “We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. “)
Ch. 12:1-9:	FOUR DRAMATIS PERSONAE
	(Voice: “Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ.”)
Ch. 12:13-13:18:	THREE DRAMATIS PERSONAE
Ch.14:1-5:	the Lamb and the redeemed on Mount Zion
	(Anthem: A new song before the throne, and no man could learn that song.)
Ch. 14:6-11:	THREE THUNDERS
	(Voice: “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. “)
Ch. 14:14 20:	FOUR THUNDERS
Ch. 15:	The temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven opened.
	(Anthem: the Song of Moses and of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty …”)
Ch. 1 6:1-4:	THREE VIALS
	(Voice: Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and which wast, because thou hast judged thus.”)
Ch. 16:8-18:24:	FOUR VIALS
Ch. 19:1-10:	The praising multitude.
	(Anthem: “Hallelujah: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”)
Ch.l9: 11-20: 5:	THREE VISIONS
	(Voice: “Blessed and Holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection …”)
Ch. 20:7-22:5:	FOUR VISIONS

The conclusion (22:6-21) has a three-fold “I come quickly” and a threefold prayer for that coming. Only the Second Coming itself can complete this – the eighth – set of seven.

[10] Cp. also Exodus 9:28, where the Hebrew expression “voices of God” is translated “mighty thunderings.”

[11] These words are apparently deliberately dislocated from their usual place (v.26) in order to fill this role.

Revelation 5 is an immediate continuation of the vision of the heavenly throne and sanctuary described in chapter 4. The prophet now sees a sealed book – a cylindrical scroll, of course, after the manner of the times – in the hand of the Holy One on the throne. Grief at the inability of anyone to take the book and open it is assuaged by the sight of the slain Lamb who himself takes the book and is thereupon extolled in a hymn of praise. The vision then moves by stages to a climax. The Lamb is honoured also by a multitude of angels acknowledging his right to all kingly power and majesty. And after this, every living thing in all the universe joins in a mighty shout of praise “unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.”

It is obviously of crucial importance to be able to identify without any manner of doubt the nature and character of the book, which the Lamb takes and unseals. Happily this need not be at all a matter for conjecture (as a great many have made it) for there is available a mass of Bible evidence to demonstrate that the sealed scroll is none other than the Book of Life. The main items are catalogued here. Some of these have been received, with gratitude, from a fellow student of the Scriptures in South Wales.

1. The tremendous emphasis put on the connection between the Book and the sacrifice of Christ:

	(a)	“Thou art worthy to take the book … for thou wast slain …” (v. 9)
	(b)	“A Lamb as it had been slain” (v. 6).
	(c)	“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive …” (v. 12).
	(d)	“the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath conquered to open the book …” (v. 5) – i.e. the overcoming by Christ was in order that the Book might be opened. This point by itself is all but conclusive.

2. John’s weeping because, at first, no one was found to open the Book, is scarcely explained on any other hypothesis, but is fully explained on this.

3. “The Lamb came and took the book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the throne” (v. 7). Then, later in Revelation, there is reference to the Lamb’s Book of Life (13: 8), and in such a way as to imply that the reader already knows its existence.

4. This chapter has three songs of praise:

	(a)	By cherubim and elders when the Lamb takes the Book-at his ascension to heaven?
	(b)	By a great multitude of angels-when he assumes his royal dignity at his second coming?
	(c)	By all creation-when the Son gives the kingdom to God, even the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24)?

If this is a correct interpretation of the main structure of the vision, then the Book can scarcely be other than the Book of Life. It is from the time of Christ’s ascension that all authority is given to him in heaven and in earth.

5. Verse 12 contains a verbatim quotation from Daniel 7:10. Beyond question they refer to the same thing. The context bears this out:

	Daniel 7:9, 10	Revelation
(a)	thrones were set	the 24 elders upon 24 thrones (R.V. ) (ch. 4 :4).
(b)	the Ancient of days did sit.	a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne (4:2).
(c)	His garment white as snow.	like unto a jasper (4:3).
(d)	His throne like the fiery flame.	and a sardine stone.
(e)	His wheels as burning fire.	(Ezekiel 1:15-21. Not mentioned in Revelation except by implication in connection with the four-fold cherubim-chariot of Revelation 6).
(f)	a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him.	the sea of glass.
(g)	thousand thousands ministered unto Him and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.	the number of the angels was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands (ch. 5:11).
(h)	the judgement was set and the books were opened.	I saw the dead small and great stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life (ch. 20:12).

The passage in Daniel is continuous. The parallels in Revelation are first in ch. 4, 5 and then in ch. 20 – a plain demonstration that ch. 5:5 concerns the one who has the right to open the Book of Life which is mentioned explicitly in Revelation 20:12.

6. The Book cannot be a book of prophecy because:

	(a)	it could have been revealed to John as other prophecies were revealed to Isaiah, Daniel etc.
	(b)	the emphasis on the sacrifice of Christ and on the expressions of great joy would lack adequate explanation.
	(c)	the prophecies (ch. 6 etc.) come when the seals are being broken, i.e. before the Book is actually opened.

7. The general shape of the first half of Revelation requires this conclusion.

Observe the sequence:

	(i)	The Book is taken by the Lamb (ch. 5).
	(ii)	Six of the seals are broken (ch. 6).
	(iii)	The seventh seal is broken. Its opening is accompanied by the sounding of the seven trumpets (ch. 8, 9).
	(iv)	With the sounding of the seventh trumpet the opening of the Book is now fully possible: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ… the time of the dead that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants… “ (ch. 11: 15, 18).

What could be clearer?

8. A further parallel, this time with Daniel 12, is instructive. It is often assumed that the sealed book of Revelation 5 is the book of Daniel 12:4, 9 which was to be “closed up and sealed until the time of the end.” But proximity of context and that phrase “until the time of the end” combine to require that this sealed book should be the one just mentioned in v. 1: “a time of trouble such as never was… and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the Book.” This book (of v. 1) is without doubt the Book of Life; verse 2 with its unequivocal reference to the Day of Judgement is decisive on this. The same conclusion must therefore hold for the sealed Book of Revelation 5.

Quite a number of the foregoing eight points of evidence are sufficiently weighty in themselves to establish a good case for believing the scroll of Revelation 5 to be the Book of Life. Taken together, the testimony becomes truly formidable. By contrast the evidence in favour of any of the many other suggested interpretations (that the scroll is the Old Testament and New Testament – “written within and on the backside” – or that it is the Apocalypse itself) is meagre indeed, to the point of being non-existent.

WHO IS WORTHY?

It is time now to give attention to other details about the Book. It is described as being “upon the right hand of Him that sat on the throne” not, as in the A.V., “in his right hand.” The difference is significant. The Book was not grasped. There is no withholding on God’s part. The only obstacle to the Book being taken and read was the divine Glory. Because of it, “no person (not, no man) in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.” This last phrase should probably read: “neither to see it” – the 24 elders were all on their faces (ch. 4:10), because of the divine Glory.

When, therefore, the angel shouted out: “Who is worthy to open the book and (even) to loose the seals thereof?” his appeal (to which Peter may be making allusion in 1 Peter 1:12) is that one be found worthy to approach to the very throne of God. And there was found none worthy to do so, neither an angel in heaven, nor any mortal man on earth, nor any of past generations now buried under the earth. Well might John weep! The situation emphasized that redemption and the reading of a Book of Life could never come by angelic ministration nor by the efforts of any mortal man, nor by the self-sacrifice of those prepared to die for others, but in one way and one way only – through the death of a divinely provided sacrifice (v. 6). Is it exaggeration or presumption or blasphemy to suggest that even divine omnipotence and omniscience could have devised no other means to bring about human redemption than that Purpose which is being worked out in Christ?[3]

A LION – A LAMB

John’s grief was assuaged. One of the elders (how one would like to know his name!) tells him of a conqueror-the Lion of the tribe of Judah. The title is derived directly from Jacob’s prophecy concerning Judah: “Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion, who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until he comes whose it is, and until there is unto him the gathering of the peoples (the Gentiles?).” The first part of this passage hints at resurrection. Its conclusion suggests the wider purpose of God with the Gentiles.

In harmony with this prophecy of Judah’s sovereignty, Jesus is also called “the Root of David.” Chapter 22:16 describe him as “the Root and Offspring of David.” The paradox is a striking one and yet perfectly true. Jesus was acknowledged during the days of his flesh as Son of David, and his right to David’s throne (whether legally or by natural descent) is fully established by the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Hence Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch (Hebrew: nezer, whence “Nazareth”) shall grow out of his roots.’’[4]

But Jesus was also the Root of David, as well as conversely. Apart from the redemptive work of Christ there would be no eternal life for David who died with faith in him. The very promise God made to David implies this: “He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:13, 14, 16).

This double title of Jesus as Root and Offspring of David is the answer to the problem with which Jesus closed the mouths of his opponents in dialectic: Whose son (descendent) is the Messiah to be? David’s, to be sure! Then why does David in Psalm 110 speak of Messiah as his Lord? What man would dream of according superior status and honour to one of his own descendents? No father would dream of addressing his son as “sir” – yet, in effect, this is what David did! The only possible answer-which those astute theologians must have known full well, only it stuck in their throats – was that this Messianic Son of David must also have superhuman status. He must be divine! Thus Jesus taught the necessary dogma of the Virgin Birth, but his teaching fell on deaf ears and hard hearts.

Another delightful paradox now meets the student of Revelation 5: “Weep not: the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed … and I beheld, and lo, … a Lamb”[5] – a Lamb slain and yet standing, i.e. one who has given himself in sacrifice and has risen again from the dead (the word the Bible uses for ‘resurrection’ means ‘standing up’).

THE EYES OF THE LAMB

The Lamb’s seven horns and seven eyes imply fulness of power and knowledge-”All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” were the words of Jesus after his resurrection. The seven eyes, in particular, have a possible meaning that is worth exploring. This can best be done by putting alongside each other four passages from different parts of Revelation:

Chap. 5:6: “the seven eyes are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.”

Chap. 4:5: “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.’

Chap. 8:2: “the seven angels which stood before God.”

Chap. 1:20: “the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.”

The combined teaching of these verses seems to be that in the symbolism of Revelation the seven representative churches of Asia figure as a seven branched candlestick, and that the light associated with each is an angel (compare the language of Jesus: “their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven”). This seems plain enough. Thus the “angel of the church” may be an actual angel, in accordance with the best canon of Biblical interpretation, that, if at all possible, words be allowed to mean precisely what they say. But then the exposition runs into rough water with the words: “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write…;” for this approach seems to carry with it the rather fantastic corollary that the letters to the churches were addressed to angels and not to men.

However, such a strange conclusion is not inevitable. The Greek dative translated: “unto the angel of the church,” could also read: “for the angel of the church,” in the sense of “on behalf of the angel.” Admittedly this is not the commonest meaning to be read into a Greek dative, yet it is common enough in the New Testament. Here are a few illustrations where the same grammatical form is used.

	(a)	Mark 14:15: “there made ready for us” i.e. on our behalf.
	(b)	Matthew 6:25: “take no thought for your life”.
	(c)	Matthew 17:4: “let us make here three tabernacles: one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.”
	(d)	Matthew 11:29: “and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” The obvious meaning is “rest for your souls.”
	(e)	Hebrews 4:9: “There remaineth therefore a (sabbath) rest for the people of God.”

The generally accepted view of the “angels of the churches” as being those men having oversight or leadership of the churches (and adopted in the notes on p. 16) has without doubt found favour only because any attempt to take the word “angel” literally has seemed to lead to such hopelessly absurd conclusions. Yet the group of passages cited earlier seems to point to the possibility that these angels are actual heavenly beings.

With the interpretation just suggested an entirely different picture emerges. The churches are seen to have guardian angels; and the letters to the churches are sent by Christ, and with his authority, on behalf of those unseen guardians of the spiritual well-being of the ecclesias. The idea is a most impressive one.

A similar picture is presented to the mind of the reader of Micah 5:5, although the context is very different: “And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into out land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.” Here, apparently, once more are Christ and the seven angels who care for his faithful (cp. also Matthew 24:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7).

ASCENSION

Jesus, the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, is described as approaching the throne and taking the book out of the right hand of Him that sat on the throne (v. 7). But the previous verse has described him as already standing “in the midst of the throne.” Once the Tabernacle setting of this vision is recalled this apparent contradiction is immediately and most instructively resolved.

In Ezekiel 1:26 the throne of the Almighty is over the outstretched wings of the cherubim. Thus the mercy seat, between the cherub figures in the Sanctuary, is “in the midst of the throne” of God, and is also His footstool. In the vision the slain Lamb is naturally seen first of all in the place of the sprinkling of blood, that is, between the cherubim, “in the midst of the throne.” In order that he might take the Book from the hand of Him that sits on the throne, an exaltation is needed up to the level of God’s dignity, a change of status which corresponds to the Ascension of Jesus and to the prophecy: “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool.” That this part of the vision is a “flash back” to the day of Christ’s ascension is strongly supported by the literal translation given in the R.V. margin: “he came and hath (already) taken the book” – what John is now seeing is a representation of what had actually taken place nearly forty years earlier.

THOU ART WORTHY

No sooner had the Lamb received the Book than the cherubim and elders burst into a mighty hymn of praise to the accompaniment of harps and the offering of much incense (“the prayers of the saints”). In Scripture harps appear to signify intensification of emotion, whether of sorrow or of joy (here, certainly, the latter).

The worshippers proceeded to sing “a new song.’’[6]

It may be that the substance of this “new song” is in the words that follow: “thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof …” But it is tempting to believe that the song was something more in addition to this ascription of praise, for Psalms 92, 96, 98 are all “new songs,” two of which specifically mention “singing unto the Lord with the harp.” Furthermore, each of these is followed by a “cherubim psalm,” beginning “The Lord reigneth,” and concluding with “Holy, Holy, Holy.” Perhaps, then, there is reference to these six psalms by the description “golden vials full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

The text of the additional song of praise (vv. 9, 10) seems to have suffered quite an appreciable amount of dislocation, so that it is difficult to know just what the correct manuscript reading should be. If the preponderating evidence of the manuscripts is followed, the following rather strange text results: “Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain and didst redeem (or purchase) us to God by thy blood out of every tribe and tongue, and people, and nation, and didst make them a kingdom of priests, and they reign upon the earth (or, in the Land).”

Three points here call for comment. First, from this time onward – that is – from the time of the Ascension, it has been in the power of the Lamb to break the seals and to open the Book of Life, and therefore – by implication – to establish the Kingdom. Then why the delay? What decides when the Book is to be opened?[7]

The unexpected switching of pronouns, if the above reading can be sustained (a matter by no means certain), presents difficulty. So also does the present tense: “they reign on the earth.” One thing is clear – the cherubim and elders represent those who have been redeemed through Christ. But they are spoken of in two classes: those out of every tribe and people, i.e. faithful Israelites, for in the Old Testament these two words are normally appropriated for the chosen race; and those out of every tongue and nation which only too obviously are the believing Gentiles. The switch of pronouns from “us” to “them” and “they” may perhaps be a further indication of the greater blessing now being given to Gentiles at a time when Israel’s casting-off was imminent.

Readers need to be warned against the unscrupulous manhandling of this passage by some of those with a dogma to support, who believe that Christ comes to gather his saints together and take them off to heaven. Faced with the plain statement of Revelation 5:10 which can only mean either “on the earth” or “in the Land,” these misguided people attempt ta cook the translation so as to read “and we shall reign over the earth,” i.e. from heaven.[8] This reading can only be the result of ignorance or dishonesty, for the same grammatical form comes literally dozens of times in Revelation and is never translated “over” (e.g. 11:10; 14:6).

HEAVENLY ANTHEMS

Now cherubim and elders are joined by an innumerable host of angels who share their rejoicing at the glory of the Lamb.[9]

In their adoration of the Lamb the angelic hosts are led by “the Church.” This is John’s counterpart to the lofty inspiration which was Paul’s in Ephesians 3:10 R.V.: “To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places (that is, to the angels in heaven) might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God.”

There follows yet another paean of praise both to God and to the Lamb It comes from “every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and in the sea” (cp. Philippians 2:10), and appropriately the Amen is said by the four cherubim.

[3] In Gethsemane, when Jesus prayed: “If it be possible…” the Father’s answer was, in effect: “No, it is not possible.”

[4] And this Hebrew verb strongly suggests “Ephratah” (i.e. Bethlehem).

[5] There does not seem to be any obvious reason why John should consistently use in Revelation a different Greek word for “Lamb” from that which he employs in his gospel. Is it this? — The same title “Lamb” identifies the one who died as a sacrifice for sin but the change of word implies a change of nature and of status.

[6] They did so falling down before the Lamb. Then ought not saints today to worship the Lamb, for they are represented in this vision (Luke 24:52)?

[7] This question is discussed at length in the Appendix.

[8] e.g. the J.W.’s “New World” translation, which here, and here only, translates this common expression in this particular way.

[9] Yet let it be observed that the redeemed stand nearer the throne than the angels do!

The visions accompanying the opening of the Seals in Revelation 6 immediately provoke a problem of first-rate importance. Whilst the general symbolism of the Seals (or of some of them!) may be easy of interpretation, e.g. Seals 2, 3, 4 clearly signify War, Famine, Pestilence – to what particular events does the series refer? For without question, the details of some of the Seals are of such a precise and particular character as to make it certain that they have reference to specific events.

Working on this principle, John Thomas and others have suggested an impressive correspondence between the Seals (and also succeeding sections of Revelation) and certain epochs of Roman and Church history, a correspondence running right through the Trumpets, Beast Visions and Vials to the titanic events associated with the coming of the Lord.

Whilst there may be places where the equation of prophecy and history staggers somewhat, there can be no question that in general the way in which the one answers to the other is impressive. Viewed even in the most unsympathetic fashion, it has to be granted that this is hardly likely to be accident. But it is necessary to point out a fact much overlooked, so much overlooked, indeed, that at first some will be loth to believe the truth of it. This “continuous-historic” method of interpreting Revelation is, of necessity, un-Biblical.

What is meant by this seemingly radical statement is this: When a prophecy like Revelation is considered in detail, its symbols interpreted in a reasonable fashion, and the prophecy then given an application to certain epochs in world history, there cannot – from the very nature of the case – be any Biblical warrant for so doing. The only sanction available lies in a resemblance between a piece of history (say, for the sake of argument, some particular phase of the Holy Roman Empire) and the interpretation that has been put on the symbols of a certain portion of Revelation. There is no known hint in the Bible saying either explicitly or in veiled fashion: “This part of the prophecy concerns the Holy Roman Empire.”

In order that this point may be seen more clearly, contrast might well be made with Daniel ch. 2, where the various parts of the Image are given a definite Biblical interpretation in the same chapter, an interpretation that is completely beyond criticism (vv. 37 45). Or, again, consideration might be given to some of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, which without any doubt whatever should be applied to the work, and experience of Jesus because Jesus or his apostles say so in the New Testament.

Thus, whilst it is possible in the study of a great many Old Testament prophecies to have one’s feet planted on the solid foundation of New Testament authority, from the very nature of the case this is not possible with the “continuous-historic” method of interpreting Revelation. At the same time it has to be insisted that lack of Biblical confirmation does not at all constitute disproof. And certainly the resemblances between history and this particular scheme of interpretation of Apocalyptic symbol should not be dismissed with an airy wave of the hand. Those inclined to consign them to the wastepaper basket should think carefully.

But it has to be said that even the warmest enthusiasts for the continuous historic exposition must admit, and usually do so concede, that the results of this approach are somewhat unequal. For example, most students find the historic link-up of Revelation 11, 12 less satisfactory than other sections of the prophecy. But this does not necessarily mean that the rest is of no consequence.

THE BIBLE INTERPRETS ITSELF

Next, attention must focus, and must remain focussed, on a big fact concerning Revelation which – to one’s lasting surprise – has been almost completely ignored in the standard interpretation of the middle section of Revelation. This big (biggest!) fact about Revelation is that the entire book from beginning to end is a masterly mosaic of quotations from and allusions to the rest of the Bible. Approximately 500 of these have been catalogued in Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament. The present writer is certain that this hopelessly underestimates the true figure.

In the rest of Scripture the citation of or allusion to earlier parts of the Bible is normally taken as an inspired directive as to how such a passage should be interpreted. Jesus applied Isaiah 61 to his own work of redemption; therefore Isaiah 61 must be given an interpretation on these lines. In Romans 15 Paul quotes Isaiah 11:1, 10 applying the words to the gospel concerning Christ; therefore the conscientious exponent of the Word must follow where Paul has led. Peter and Paul both apply to Christ the two Isaiah prophecies of the stone of stumbling and the chief corner stone (Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16; 1 Peter 2:6, 8; Romans 9:33); therefore the Holy Spirit intended these as prophecies of Jesus. One might go further and note Matthew’s use of “Rachel weeping for her children” (Matthew 2:18; Jeremiah 31:15) and infer – though with what reluctance this is done by some! – that Jeremiah 31 should also be read as having definite Messianic content. Alas! Instead, too many students of such Scriptures are over-ready to confess the ignorance of the inspired writer rather than their own. It is seriously to be doubted whether there is a single page of the New Testament without Old Testament links of this kind.

All these various echoes of the rest of Scripture to be encountered in Revelation, and especially in the middle section of it now about to be attempted, are to be regarded as so many hints as to what the various parts of the prophecy are about. Here is a lead to the interpretation of Revelation, which is too valuable to leave ignored. Even with this guiding principle difficulties abound. But a patient attempt on these lines to integrate Revelation with the rest of Scripture instead of regarding it as something altogether separate and distinct is bound to bring big results.

RESULTS OF THIS METHOD

It can be said right away that in the main the use of the rest of the Bible to elucidate Revelation leads to the emphatic conclusion that practically all the book from chapter 6 onwards applies either (1) to the grim events associated with the fall of Jerusalem in AD. 70 and God’s rejection of Israel, or else (2) to the great events prior to and contemporary with the return of the Lord, or else (3) to both.

Thus, both method and results in this study will prove to be drastically different from those of the familiar continuous-historic interpretation yet neither need exclude it. Since Scripture presents many instances of prophecies framed by the wisdom of God in such a way as to anticipate accurately in the same words two or more widely separated crises-in the divine programme (see chapter 8), there need be no difficulty whatever in the idea of yet another fulfilment of Revelation on the lines suggested here, in addition to the scheme made familiar through “Eureka.” (In this study emphasis wil1 not be put on the continuous-historic scheme simply because it has already been set out elsewhere fully and completely).

A SPECIAL BLESSING

The considerations just advanced illuminate and are themselves illuminated by the opening words of the Apocalypse: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy.” Why the special blessing which understanding of Revelation is to bring?

Firstly, because Revelation is so much dependent on the rest of the Bibl’ that he who would understand it must first understand the rest of Scripture In other words, the one who hears (i.e. understands) this Book is special, blessed because he must first have profited richly from the rest of the Word of God.

Secondly, if the view to be advanced in this study is correct, then in ever, age the devout and faithful reader of the Apocalypse has found and will find strong confirmation of his faith. The early Christian of the First Century would see how much of its vivid symbolism was fulfilled in A.D. 70. The brother of Christ, tenaciously holding to truth amidst error in the Twentieth Century, is able to discern that much, which the Book reveals, may be this modern world’s experience at almost any moment. And the obscure faithful remnant at any epoch throughout the ages would be able, in whatever generation, to find some part of this divine panorama passing under hi gaze from prophecy to history.

So, then, the exposition, which follows, will be, in the main, a Biblical exposition, seeking to follow the directives supplied by the copious link with other parts of Scripture. Now and then, to emphasize (rather than prove) the A.D. 70 application, there will be reference to First Century history, chiefly to Josephus, who is invaluable here. And to point the imminence of the final and great fulfilment in the Last Days some attempt will be mad to spot-light the relevance of those Apocalyptic prophecies to the Twentieth Century. The present writer is convinced that there is need of only little patience before a truly startling fulfilment of some of these things through current affairs becomes plain and undeniable.

The document you are looking for may have been removed or re-named. Please contact the web site owner for further assistance.

The date of the writing of Revelation is a matter of fundamental importance, vitally affecting the interpretation of the book. Two possible dates have been suggested: A.D. 95 in the reign of Domitian, and A.D. 66 in the reign of Nero. It is hoped to shew that the evidence for A.D. 66 is overwhelming. The reason why these two dates and these two only, are possible is that Revelation was written in a time of persecution (ch. 1:9 and many other places), and there were no other vigorous persecutions of Christians by the Romans in the First Century.

THE LATE DATE

The A.D. 95 dating rests almost solely on the testimony of Irenaeus (c. A.D. 178) who wrote concerning the apostle John that he “saw the Revelation: for it was not long since it was seen, but almost within our own generation about the end of Domitian’s reign” i.e. A.D. 95. John Thomas regarded this as decisive, but two considerations weaken the force of this testimony:

	(a)	Irenaeus’ doubtful value as a witness, e.g. he insists that Jesus die. at the age of 50; he also gives credence to the fantastic story of the miraculous translation of the Septuagint Version.
	(b)	Possible mistranslation. The words of Irenaeus could read: “For it i not long since 1le (John) was seen . . .” a statement which would the’ merely confirm the well-known fact of John’s great age when h’ died, without making any reference whatever to the writing of the. Apocalypse.

Eusebius, the church historian (c. A.D. 314), often cited for the late date is really a witness for the early date. His testimony for the A.D. 95 dating’ is not independent, being actually a verbatim quotation of the words o Irenaeus. In another place, however, he definitely couples the banishing o John to Patmos with the deaths of Paul and Peter, i.e. A.D. 64-66.

Victorinus (Fourth Century) plumps for the late date, and yet elsewhere h’ asserts that the Gospel of John was written after Revelation, a statement’ very difficult or even impossible to square with the A.D. 95 date. Other’ witnesses on this side all come well after the time of Constantine, too far re” moved from the First Century, to be of great consequence.

THE EARLY DATE

The fairly copious evidence usually cited for Revelation being written about A.D. 66 is now summarized:

	(a)	Various early Christian fathers, especially Tertullian (A.D. 200 approx.), mention the early date, i.e. the time of Nero’s persecution.
	(b)	The heading of the very ancient Syriac Version: “The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.” This item of evidence is specially strong.
	(c)	The circumstantial story, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, that after returning from Patmos John committed one of his young disciples to the care of a certain bishop; a long while afterwards when the disciple has lapsed from the Faith and had actually become captain of a band of brigands, the Apostle journeyed into the hills, found this man and reclaimed him for Christ. This achievement would have been a physical impossibility for the aged John, if all this happened after A.D. 95.
	(d)	The frequent references in Revelation to persecution harmonize admirably with the Nero date, when Christians truly had to face a fiery trial; so far as is known Domitian’s persecution was by no means so fierce.
	(e)	The extremely Hebraistic style of the Greek text of Revelation, a fact discernible even in the English translation and which positively shouts from the original text, argues a date of writing fairly soon after John was come to Ephesus out of Judaea. Here is a man thinking in Biblical Hebrew or its kindred Aramaic and writing in less familiar Greek. After many years at Ephesus (if writing in A.D. 95) John would surely have had no difficulty at all with his Greek.
	(f)	The very early appearance of pseudo-apocalypses (uninspired imitations of the Apocalypse given to John) implies that they had a yet earlier prototype.

The foregoing evidence and arguments have a cumulative force, which far outweighs the dubious arguments advanced for the later date. But these are themselves flimsy by comparison with the Biblical argument now to be set out, which demands that the date of Revelation be in the reign of Nero and not Domitian.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

Briefly, the argument (first hinted at by Sir Isaac Newton, and lately expanded by the present writer) is this: It is possible to identify many allusions to the Book of Revelation in Hebrews and in the two Epistles of Peter. If this assertion can be established as true, then Revelation must predate the three epistles mentioned. Since Peter definitely died in Nero’s persecution of A.D. 64 66 approx. (much of his First Epistle was to strengthen the brethren in that fiery trial) and since Hebrews is generally admitted to have been written before the Jewish War of A D 67-70, the dating of Revelation is narrowed down to a very fine margin.

Before getting down to details it may be as well to dispose of the only way of upsetting this argument. It could perhaps be suggested that whilst the links between Revelation and the three epistles may be undoubted, the facts are capable of the reverse interpretation, namely, that Revelation is borrowing from Hebrews and 1st and 2nd Peter as it borrows from almost every other book in the Bible.

The answer to this comes from careful consideration of the character of the phrases under review. Practically all of them will be seen at once to be “Apocalyptic” in style – they belong naturally to Revelation, they are in keeping with its idiom and symbolism; e.g. “the morning star” (see below). Further, when they occur in the three epistles they often introduce matters which have received no mention whatever in their context but which are fully explained in Revelation, e.g. “the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (again, see below on this).

REVELATION AND HEBREWS

The main parallels between Revelation and Hebrews can now be sent out for the reader’s considered judgement:

	Hebrews	Revelation
1.	The Word of God (4:12=Jesus, not the Bible; see v. 13)	The Word of God (=Jesus: 19:13)
2.	is sharper than any two-edged sword (4:12).	with the sharp two-edged sword (1 16).
3.	A fierceness of fire, which shall devour the adversaries (10:27 R.V.).	Satan (the Adversary) cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (20:10).
4.	The city which hath the foundations (already described in Revelation) whose builder and maker is God (11:10 R.V.).	The wall of the city (the city of my God) had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (20:14).
5.	(The Mosaic tabernacle appointments were) the patterns of things in the heavens (8:23).	The visions of Revelation all make reference to details of a heavenly tabernacle service similar to the tabernacle in the wilderness.
6.	Ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation (1:14: this word “minister” means specially “to minister as a priest”).	Another angel . . . having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar (8:3 and several other passages).
7.	That they without us should not be made perfect (11 :40).	It was said unto them[12] that they should rest yet for a little season, until their brethren that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled (6:11).

The examples cited this far might perhaps be considered suggestive but hardly conclusive. It is when attention is given particularly to Hebrews 12: 22-25, 28, 29 that there is seen to be a long series of correspondences with the heavenly visions of Revelation:

	Hebrews 12	Revelation
8.	Mount Zion.	The Lamb on Mount Zion (14:1).
9.	The heavenly Jerusalem, the city of	New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven (21 :2).
10.	the living God.	The God of the living creatures (4:6). Cp. also, the angel having the seal of the living God (7:2).
11.	An innumerable company of angels	The voice of many angels round about the throne . . . ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands[13] (5:11).
12.	The gcneral assembly.	The hundred and forty and four thousand sealed out of the twelve tribes of Israel (“Israel is my first born”) (ch. 7 and 14).
13.	The church (ecclesia) of the firstborn	Twenty-four elders (4:4, “the Levites instead of the firstborn of the children of Israel”. Numbers 8 :16).
14.	Written in heaven.	Written in the Lamb’s book of life (13:8; 21.27)
15.	God the Judge of all.	The dead standing before God . . .and were judged (20:12).
16.	Spirits of	?[14]
17.	just men made perfect.	?
18.	Jesus the mediator of a new covenant	A Lamb as it had been slain (5:5, 6).
19.	The blood of sprinkling.	Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood (5:9).
20.	Him that spake from heaven.	The Apocalypse itself (when else has Jesus spoken from heaven?)
21.	Let us serve God.[15]	They serve2 Him day and night in His temple (7:15).

Sufficient material has now been assembled to put point to the argument for an A.D. 66 date for the writing of Revelation. A number of the foregoing correspondences may not impress some readers as being more than coincidence. But even if a full half of them were to be considered inadmissible, the argument still stands. An argument based an cumulative evidence of this kind is extremely difficult to set aside. Should doubts exist, then, before these suggested parallels are airily dismissed as coincidence, let the unconvinced select any similar block of four verses or so at random from any other part of the New Testament (except 1st and 2nd Peter! – or Jude, which is a commentary on 2nd Peter), and see if he can assemble as readily a set of correspondences with Revelation comparable with the above.

This dependence of Hebrews on Revelation requires an earlier date for the latter. But it is not possible to assign to Hebrews a date after A.D. 70. “It is generally agreed that Hebrews was written near, but not after the destruction of Jerusalem. The writer throughout speaks of the Levitical ritual as still in force” (Angus). “It is impossible to suppose that a writer wishing to demonstrate the evanescent nature of the Levitical dispensation and writing after the Temple service had been discontinued, should not have pointed to that event as strengthening his argument” (Marcus Dods).

REVELATION AND 1 PETER

Precisely the same type of argument is available from 1 Peter, an epistle certainly written in connection with the Nero persecution. 1 Peter 1:9-13 carefully studied, seems to indicate that Revelation had been published just before the writing of this Epistle. Paraphrased, the passage says: The Old Testament prophets studied their own inspired writings that they might learn more concerning the suffering and glory of Christ, realizing that their message was primarily for the benefit of later generations and especially for yourselves who have had the same message continued through the ministrations of the Spirit-guided Apostles. And now (v. 13) “set your hope perfectly on the grace that is being brought (or carried) unto you in ‘An Apocalypse of Jesus Christ’.” This word “grace” is often used in the New Testament with reference to Holy Spirit guidance and power (e.g. Romans 12:3 6; 1 Corinthians 1:4, 7 and 15:10; Galatians 2:9, Ephesians4: 7; Luke 4: 22 and many others) and consequently sets this third divine help which Peter specifies in the same category as the inspiration (previously mentioned imparted first to prophets and then apostles. And since Revelation, like 1 Peter, was written expressly to strengthen the believers in time of persecution, there was every reason why Peter’s readers should “set their hop perfectly” on its consolations.

With this passage as a clue, a whole series of allusions to Revelation ca now be traced in 1 Peter.

	1 Peter	Revelation
1.	Which things angels desire to look into (1:12).	A strong angel proclaiming, Who is worthy to open the book . . .(5 2).
2.	Your faith . . . much more precious than gold that perisheth, though it be tried in the fire(3:18).	I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire (1: 7).
3.	Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house (2:5).	The city had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (21:14).
4.	A royal priesthood[16] (2:9).	Thou hast made us unto our God kings and priests (5:10 .and 1:6)
5.	Redeemed . . . with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1:19).	A Lamb as it had been slain…Thou art worthy . . . for thou was slain, and hast by thy blood (5:6, 9).redeemed us to God
6.	Foreordained before the foundation of the world (1:20).	Written in the Lamb’s book of life from foundation of the work(13 8).
7.	Let them commit the keeping of their souls to him (4:19).	The souls under the altar (6 :9).
8.	As unto a faithful Creator (4:19; this unusual word means “the founder of a city”).	The new Jerusalem coming down from God (21:2).
9.	To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever (5:11).	1:6 is verbatim the same.
10.	Babylon (5:13).	Babylon the Great (17:5).

REVELATION AND 2 PETER

It is to be expected that if 1 Peter has ample allusion to Revelation then the same characteristic will be at least equally marked in 2 Peter. To say, that such is probably the case is a considerable understatement.

After plain reference to that almost unique Apocalypse of Christ’s glory, on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:16-18), Peter goes on to mention also “the more sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed in your hearts, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,1[17] until the day dawn and the daystar arise.” Is this a reference to another Apocalypse of Jesus Christ given to strengthen the Lord’s people in the dark and difficult days? The reference to the Day-Star suggests it-compare “I am the bright and morning star”; Revelation 22:16. The phrase in the next verse, which would rule out any reference to Revelation, disappears in the Revised Version.

Certainly the rest of the Epistle turns itself into a kind of running commentary on Revelation.

	2 Peter	Revelation
1.	Until the day dawn and the day star arise (1:19).	I am the bright and morning star (22:16 and 2:28).
2.	False prophets . . . swift destruction (2:1).	The false prophet . . . cast alive into a lake of fire (19:20).
3.	The Lord (Despot) that bought them (2:1).	O Lord (Despot), holy and true . . . (6:10).
4.	Through covetousness . . . shall they make merchandise of you(2 3).	The merchandise (of Babylon) . . . bodies and souls of men (I8:13,14).
5.	Angels . . . cast down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgement[18] to be punished (2:4). The Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement to be punished (2:9).	An angel . . . with a great chain in his hand . . . and he bound the Devil and Satan a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit (20:1, 2).
6.	They walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness . . . having eyes full of an adulteress (R.V.m.). . . they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness (2:10, 14, 18).	They have committed fornication, and lived wantonly (R.V.) with her. . . the great whore . . . mother of harlots . . . the unclean things of her fornication(18:9and 17:1,2,4, 5, etc.).
7.	They speak great swelling words of vanity (2:18).	The deep things of Satan, as they speak (2:24)
8.	s natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed (2:12).	The beast and the false prophet – another beast (13:11) – cast into the lake of fire (19:20) – and the dragon (20:10).
9.	Following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor (2:15).	Them that hold the doctrine of Balaam (2:14).
10.	One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (3 :8).	Satan bound a thousand years(20 3).
11.	The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (3:10).	Behold, I will come on thee as a thief (3:3 and 16:15).
12.	The heavens shall pass away with a great noise (3 :10).	Before whose face the earth and the heaven fled away: and there was no place found for them (20:11).
13.	We, according to his promise (in Revelation) look for new heavens and a new earth (3:13).	A new heaven and a new earth (21:1).

As already insisted, a cumulative demonstration of this kind is extremely difficult to overturn. For even if some of the parallels cited be disallowed the result remains virtually unaffected.

It follows that Revelation was written before 1, 2 Peter and therefore before the death of Peter which is known to have happened in Nero’s persecution of the Christians A.D. 66 approximately. This then must fix the date of the writing of Revelation and this in turn must influence not a little the interpretation of a book concerning “things which must shortly come to pass.”

[12] A very strong case can be made for identifying these “souls under the altar” with the Old Testament saints of Hebrews 11 (see on the Fifth Seal).

[13] Literally innumerable, because the numeration system of the ancient Greeks could not take them further than a hundred millions.

[14] Exposition of these and other items not included in this list is really a separate study. Readers may find it profitable to follow the clue for themselves.

[15] Another uncommon specialized word meaning to worship or to serve as a priest.

[16] This idea comes here only and in Exodus 19:5, 6.

[17] This Greek word is used in LXX for “wilderness.” Thus the “Light in a Wilderness compares prophetic Scripture to the Shekinah Glory guiding Israel to the Land of Promise. Now consider Revelation 7:14-17 RV.

[18] Here, surely is an explanation why Peter uses such odd language in his allusion to Korah’s rebellion — his mind is intent on the resemblance to the symbolic punishment meted out to “Satan” in Revelation.

In the Book of Revelation Bible prophecy comes to a magnificent climax. This is the greatest prophecy of all, given by Jesus himself. It is “the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him.” A recognition, therefore, of the main characteristics of Bible prophecy should be a considerable help towards understanding Revelation In two outstanding respects this turns out to be true.

The first is this: Practically every prophecy of the Old Testament springs out of the immediate circumstances surrounding the prophet at the time of writing. The terminology employed and the imagery with which the prophecy is clothed both grow naturally (or, more correctly, supernaturally) out of what is familiar and vivid in the prophet’s own experience.

Moses, the first and greatest of the prophets, assures the people that “a prophet like unto me” shall be given to them. David describes Messiah’s kingdom in terms of the great hopes, which he had for the reign of his blessed son Solomon. Jeremiah’s terrific, almost blood-curdling, prophecy of the judgement of God on the nations in the Last Days is couched in terms of the Babylonian threat hanging over much of the known world of his day. The Messianic prophecies in the early chapters of Zechariah spring out of contemporary events associated with Zerubbabel the prince and Joshua the high-priest at the time of the restoration from Babylon. The wonderful prophecies of Isaiah, perhaps without a single exception, after the first few chapters, are built round the character and experiences of good king Hezekiah. Any expositor attempting a study of the later relevance of that tremendous book without taking this fact into consideration is hamstrung from the start. Indeed, it is possible to go further and assert that the Hezekiah background to Isaiah 40-66 provides perhaps the strongest refutation available of fashionable theories about “Deutero-Isaiah.”

The examples available of this characteristic of Bible prophecy are so very numerous that it is hardly possible to list here more than a small fraction of them. The experienced Bible student takes this factor into consideration automatically whenever he is working in the field of Old Testament prophecy.

Then ought not this feature to be taken into account in the study of Revelation also? At the time when the prophecy was given to John (A.D. 66 – see chapter 7), the outstanding circumstances of importance to the early believers were the ferocious persecution of the Christians by Nero, and the seething restlessness and turmoil in Judaea which already gave plain promise of worse to come in the troubles of the Jewish War, A.D. 67-70. It would be strange indeed, and altogether out of character, if this latest and most wonderful example of Bible prophecy were to shew no sign of the proximity of these critical developments.

MORE THAN ONE FULFILMENT

Much more important, for present purposes, is another feature of Old Testament prophecy. This, closely related to what has just been mentioned, is best explained by means of a familiar example.

Psalm 2 describes an organized opposition to the Lord’s Anointed by the kings of the earth. This psalm of David doubtless sprang out of that king’s personal experience in the early years of his reign when he captured Jerusalem and established it as his capital. Very soon after that, David found himself beset by Gentile enemies who came at him from all directions. Philistia, Moab, Hamath, Edom, Syria, Ammon, Zobah – all of these, separately or in confederacy – made violent attempts to wreck the consolidation of the kingdom, which David had lately achieved (2 Samuel 8, 10).

But the New Testament makes a different and more important use of this inspired Psalm. After the first futile attempt by the Jews to persecute the early disciples, the prayer of praise and thanksgiving (Acts 4:24 28) included this quotation from Psalm 2 together with the interpretation of it: “Lord, thou art God . . . who by the mouth of Thy servant David hast said, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed (his Christ), both Herod (the kings of the land), and Pontius Pilate (the rulers) with the Gentiles (the heathen), and the people of Israel (the people) were gathered together (same word as in v. 6).”

It is possible to continue the reference of the rest of the Psalm to the events in the early church, but that is not advanced here because such a suggested interpretation would not have behind it the Holy Spirit’s inspiration which this, just quoted, undoubtedly has. Acts 4 provides an unimpeachable warrant for reading Psalm 2 with respect to the experience of the church in the First Century.

But, equally clearly, Revelation 19:15 gives yet another application of the Psalm in the time of the Lord’s manifestation in power: “Out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron” (Psalm 2:9).

Yet another, closely related, application of the Psalm is given in Revelation 2:26, 27: “He that overcometh . . . to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father (in the fiat of Psalm 2).”

Thus in the New Testament this inspired Scripture, clearly based 011 David’s experiences, is given two (or three) other applications to the greater work of Christ, one of these being the time of his first coming, and another the time of the end.

A NORMAL FEATURE OF PROPHECY

Other examples follow a similar pattern. The familiar prophecy in Joel 2 about the outpouring of the Spirit could be shewn to have its roots in events of the prophet’s own day. But its true fulfilment was at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21), and without doubt more fully in the days to come.

Similarly with the equally familiar Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me . . .” The entire chapter is marvelously relevant to certain events in the reign of Hezekiah. In the synagogue at Nazareth Jesus applied it to his own ministry. Today the faithful await with eagerness its yet greater fulfilment.

Indeed, this is the pattern of much of Isaiah’s matchless Scripture. From beginning to end the relevance of the prophecies to his own time can be traced. But the real fulfilment is in Christ-sometimes his first Advent, sometimes his second, sometimes both. Even the wonderful prophecy in chapter 11 about the great Messianic King is given a preliminary application by Paul to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles in the First Century (Romans 15:12).

Jeremiah’s denunciation of the temple, as being in his day “a den of robbers” destined to destruction (7:11), was applied by Jesus to his contemporaries (Mark 11:17) and may yet conceivably have another fulfilment in our time.

Ezekiel’s repetitious “I will overturn, overturn, overturn it” (21:27) is probably more than just emphasis, but is intended to teach the reader to seek applications of his prophecies not only to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but also to A.D. 70 and to the Twentieth Century.

The well-known words of Micah 5 were written primarily with reference to contemporary events – verses 5, 6 are explicit about this. But there is New Testament authority (Matthew 2:6) for interpreting verse 2 with reference to the birth of Jesus. And the general character of the prophecy makes it only too evident that the rest of it is yet to be fulfilled by Christ in his Second Coming.

“A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me,” Moses promised Israel (Deuteronomy 18:15-19). And no doubt the less discerning among them were satisfied that the prophecy was fulfilled in Joshua. But even without the apostle Peter’s authority (Acts 3: 22) it is easy to see that the true reference is to Jesus.

In a completely authentic superscription Psalm 18 declares itself to be spoken unto the Lord by David “in the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.” But even if there were not at least four Messianic allusions to it in the New Testament it would be evident enough that the entire Psalm belongs to Christ in his suffering and his glory.

And David knew this! Peter’s exposition of Psalm 16 in Acts 2:25-32 has these significant words: “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing . . . he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ . . .” So when David penned Psalms about his own experiences he knew that he was enacting beforehand the experiences of the Messiah. What he wrote out of the vicissitudes of his own life (he is a type of Christ at least five times over!), he wrote also about Christ.

With little effort this catalogue of Bible prophecies with dual (or triple) fulfilment could be extended to four or five times its length. But the principle is surely evident by now.

IN REVELATION ALSO?

The question demands consideration: If this is the character of so much Bible prophecy, is it unlikely that the greatest prophecy of all – Revelation – has none of the same characteristics?

And, further, why is it that we have had to wait so long before this question was even asked?

LASTLY, A WARNING

Familiarity with the continuous-historic method of interpretation has left a marked effect on the thinking of many students of a kind which they are often hardly aware of. One finds an almost obsessive determination to seek an interpretation of Revelation (even if it is not the one advocated by John Thomas) which puts the fulfilment in chronological order, demanding (for example) that Seal 3 be fulfilled before Seal 4 begins to operate, and Trumpet 6 only after Trumpet 5 has come and gone.

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that much Bible prophecy does not follow this pattern at all. The sequence of the “In that day” prophecies in Zechariah 12, 13, 14 is anything but chronological. Nor, by modern standards, is there a nice tidy development about Isaiah’s Little Apocalypse chapters 2~27. Similarly, it is very evident that God’s “four sore judgements on Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 14:21; 33:27; 5:17) all came together, and not one after another. Even the Olivet prophecy lacks straight chronological order.

The long-received continuous-historic exposition itself could be somewhat more consistent in this respect. For instance, chapters 11, 12 (the two witnesses, the seventh trumpet, the woman and man-child) are hardly in chronological sequence if they refer to the Huguenots, the resurrection, and the Christian take-over in the time of Constantine. Similarly with chapters 14, 16.

The point will have to be made more than once in this exposition that the visions of Revelation present a series of “snapshots” of big developments in the divine purpose, without special regard to time sequence. Seals, Trumpets, and Vials will be fulfilled together in a tremendously powerful complex of divine judgements on an evil system. And there are clear hints in the Vials (16:2, 10, 19) that its fulfilment is to be regarded as contemporaneous with or even after chapter 17.

The problem of the strange conclusion to the Book of Judges has still to be faced. Consideration of it has been deferred long enough. Briefly re-stated, the problem is this:

The main part of Judges consists of the development of a regular pattern in this period of Israel’s history. Declension into apostasy, tribulation, repentance, appeal to God, then the raising up of a deliverer. These features follow one another in regular sequence. Then, when the story of Samson’s single-handed struggles has prepared the way for Samuel, the sequence is interrupted by three appendices:

A. Micah’s Levite and the Danite Migration (Judges 17,18).

B. The Sin of Gibeah and its Punishment (Judges 19,20,21).

C. The story of Ruth.

All of these are chronologically out of place, and none of them concern the activities of a judge. Why the sudden change in the character of the book? Why these additions, so different in theme from the original purpose of the Judges narrative?

A clear hint meets the reader in the concluding verses of Ruth, and in its very last word. One of the main purposes of the Book of Ruth is to supply important links in the genealogy of David, the man after God’s own heart. Again, is it just accident that A and B, like C, are concerned with Bethlehem? In A, a worthless Levite is expelled from the town. In B, a Levite of better quality is given lavish hospitality there. Again, it can hardly fail to evade notice that Gibeah was the city of Saul, the first king of Israel — a fact which seems to be specially underlined by an emphasis on various other details which are picked out because of their association with Saul — the story of Jabesh-gilead, the rousing of the tribes of Israel by sending to each a portion of a carcase (1 Sam. 11:1-7).

It would seem, then, that these Scriptures under review are far from being a chance agglomeration of folk tales. They have a definite intention — to emphasize the striking difference between the origins of Saul and David. Once this point has been grasped, much in these stories of ‘Israel’s Iron Age’ which has hitherto seemed rather aimless and unimpressive now begins to fit into a purposeful pattern.

The man who left the friendliness of Bethlehem and scorned the city of Jerusalem (David’s chosen capital) as a place of lodging was left by Saul’s forefathers to fend for himself. It was a stranger who eventually offered hospitality.

The men of Gibeah, Saul’s ancestors, were the vilest kind of perverts, men of Belial, unfit for inter-marriage. Gibeah should have been not only destroyed but left as a ruin for ever, a warning to succeeding generations (Deut. 13:16). More than this, they were men who refused correction, and later were only too willing to add abduction to their crimes. “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf.”

The contrast with David’s progenitors in the Book of Ruth could hardly be sharper. There is the picture of the kindly, godly Boaz and of the helpless Gentile who came to Bethlehem with no means of support save an unwavering trust in the God of Israel: “binding…his ass’s colt unto the choice vine “ (Gen. 49:11). There is the quiet devout determination to follow as closely as possible the provisions of the Law which Moses gave, especially a scrupulous carefulness to avoid the slightest breath of ill-fame.

It becomes easier now to cope with the problem presented by the recurring refrain of Appendices A and B: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

The problem is really a double one:

1. Every man did not do what was right in his own eyes; some men did. Appendices B and C show that others had a genuine desire to obey the laws of God. The allusions to the Law of Moses in these two sections are really impressive.
2. The words seems to imply that, if only there had been a king in Israel in those days, men would have feared the Lord and walked in His ways.

Yet subsequent history hardly bore out such an optimistic expectation. The reign of Saul was marked by the slaughter of priests and a deliberate disregard of divine instructions. And once the influence of David was left behind, the monarchy became an era of spreading corruption, schism, and recurring chaos (except for the temporary influence of men like Hezekiah and Josiah, who set themselves deliberately to recapture the good days of David).

So it looks as though “no king in Israel” has to be read with the idealism of the writer as meaning: ‘no king like David’.

Samuel, compiling this variegated and highly instructive record, had a firm conviction that the boy from Bethlehem would one day make life in Israel very different, to the glory of God.

The three Appendices to Judges would demonstrate to a fickle nation their lack of stability in choosing a man like Saul, and would indicate how much finer were the expectations that could be safely rested on God’s chosen leader from Bethlehem.

Such a hypothesis as this serves immediately to explain quite a number of the characteristics of Appendices A and B. For instance, as already hinted, the mention of Phineas supplies an explanation (see Chapter 22) of the switching of the priesthood to the junior branch of the family of Aaron, culminating in Eli, Samuel’s mentor. The emphasis on the dexterity of Benjamin’s left-handed slingers can now be set over against the story of the lad from Bethlehem, who went in the fear of the God of Israel and slew his mighty adversary with his first sling stone.

Again, the downfall of Benjamin is preceded by what is, in effect, a conflict between Benjamin and Judah (20:18), in which Judah is worsted at first and at second, but ultimately Benjamin is reduced to obscurity. In his declining years Samuel, grieving over the increasing arrogance and godlessness of Saul, would see in the history of these bygone days a prophecy of Saul and David written in advance. And he would be able to go to his long sleep confident that Saul’s hunting of David would fail of its purpose. God had chosen His king from Judah.

Yet again, it is to be noted that in all the narratives under consideration the only outstanding character to go unnamed is the Levite of Mount Ephraim. Can it be that, just as the gospel writers mention themselves either not at all or only indirectly, so the narrative here is designedly vague because this Levite was an ancestor of Samuel’s? And does this explain why his home town also goes unspecified? (See 1 Sam. 1:1.) And is there a touch of fellow feeling in the mention of the old man of Ephraim who offered hospitality in Gibeah?

This Saul-David hypothesis now being explored seems to have relevance to the rest of the Book of Judges also.

The first tribe to go up against the Canaanites (1:2) was Judah, and Judah had to take the lead in the capture of Jerusalem, even though it was assigned to Benjamin (1:8). And apparently it was Benjamin that relinquished Jerusalem again to the Jebusites.

David’s call to serve the Lord was comparable with that of Barak (through a prophet); comparable also with that of Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson — by the Spirit of the Lord coming upon him. Whereas Saul came to the kingship by popular demand, as did Abimelech! Facts such as these do not just happen. They are designed.

Further, it is possible to trace quite a number of connections between the Book of Judges and 1 Samuel which can hardly be accidental. It is noteworthy and significant that the contacts with the story of Saul are of a disreputable character, whereas those with the life of David are of an opposite nature altogether.

For instance, the Lord departed from Saul as he did from Samson when at his lowest spiritual ebb (Judges 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:14). And in place of Holy Spirit there came upon him an evil spirit from the Lord, as happened in Abimelech’s experience also (Judges 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14). And the death of Saul was almost precisely that of Abimelech (Judges 9:54; 1 Sam. 31:4).

By contrast, any parallels with the life of David suggest a comparison with Barak and Jephthah and also Samson at his best.

The Adullam period in David’s chequered career, when he was thrust out from his own folk and was joined in an outlaw life by men in debt and men bitter of soul, is marvellously like the experience of Jephthah. And David and Jephthah are the only two men in Scripture of whom it is recorded that the maidens went forth to greet them in songs and dancing as they returned from the vanquishing of their enemies. It was appointed to Samson to “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines”; and it was David who finished the work (1 Sam. 17 and 2 Sam. 8:1).

On the other hand, it was the Philistines who brought Saul’s miserable career to an end. When David was encouraged in his struggle against the enemies of the Lord, it was by “the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees” (2 Sam. 5:24) — an experience immediately reminiscent of Barak’s: “Up; for this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the Lord gone out before thee?”

For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that the story of Gideon presents two points of contact with the life of Saul which at first glance seem scarcely to agree with the idea now being worked out. When Saul spoke self-deprecatingly of his qualifications for kingship, his words were a clear echo of Gideon’s: “Am not I….of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family the least of all the families….?” (1 Sam. 9:21; cp. Judges 6:15). And when, in 1 Sam. 11:11, Saul divided his forces into three companies to go against the Ammonites, he was copying Gideon’s tactics against the same people (Judges 7:16). But this — let it be carefully observed — is Saul at his best, before the declension into jealousy and disobedience and faithlessness had set in.

Similarly, a complete series of correspondences can be traced between Gideon and — not Saul but — Saul’s son, Jonathan, the Jonathan whose love for David, the Lord’s anointed, was passing the love of women, the Jonathan whose humility and faith in the promises of God was so real and intense that he could say: “Thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee.” (The words are a prophecy yet to be fulfilled!) Like another Jonathan he was content to say: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). Consequently, the Word of God honours him by stressing certain striking resemblances between him and one of the “saviours” whom God raised up. Indeed it may well be that Gideon was a hero of the family and that the resemblances are actually conscious imitations. It looks as though one of the few good things Jonathan learned from his father was a glowing admiration for Gideon the Abi-ezrite. The similarities referred to include the following:

1. When Jonathan went out against the enemy, there was a great trembling in the host of Israel (1 Sam. 14:15 and 13:11); compare Gideon’s army at the well Harod (trembling): “Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return” (Judges 7:1,3).
2. In each battle the enemy was “as the sand by the seaside in multitude” (1 Sam. 13:5; Judges 7:12).
3. Both Saul’s and Gideon’s armies were severely reduced; and Jonathan was content to give battle almost single-handed. “There is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few.”
4. Both Jonathan and Gideon went forth accompanied only by an armour-bearer (1 Sam. 14:6; Judges 7:10).
5. And in each case there was a sign given from the enemy — and each sign was acknowledged as coming really from the Lord (1 Sam. 14:10; Judges 7:11,14,15).
6. In the victory which each won, “every man’s sword was against his fellow” (1 Sam. 14:20; Judges 7:22).

This impressive catalogue serves not only to heighten the reader’s esteem both for Gideon and for Jonathan, but it emphasizes the contrast between Saul and Jonathan, and so between Saul and David.

Thus, when the relevant facts are marshalled together, the Book of Judges is seen to be a history with a purpose. The condescending critical opinion of the book as an inconsequential collection of old hero stories, exaggerated and distorted by oral tradition and ‘licked into shape’ generations later by an ignorant and none-too-scrupulous editor, must give place to a more reverent and thankful spirit. Not least among the men upon whom the Spirit of the Lord came, to transform them into saviours of a wayward people, was the man who was guided to produce this divine record of history divinely caused.

Chapter 1 – The Son Of Man (ch. 1)

1.	Is it	(a) a Revelation given by Jesus Christ?
		(b) a Revelation concerning Jesus Christ? (e.g. ch. 1 :13-18).
		(c) a description of the future manifestation of Jesus Christ? (e.g. v. 10; 1 Corinthians 1:7).

The rest of v. 1 is decisive in favour of (a). “It is not Christ who is revealed, but Christ who reveals”. Contrast with revelation through other men; this is through Christ himself (Matthew 11:27).

revelation. The very word implies intelligibility, and not the reverse, which is the reputation the book has somehow gained. Today, would not most students of this Revelation consider “mystery” (in the sense of “secret”) to be more appropriate? Then should it be assumed that some explanation (not written down) went with the symbolism of the book? Or did Christians of the first century have a much greater insight into the meaning of Holy Scripture than is normal today?

which God gave unto him. Emphasizes the inferior status of the Son; Mark 13:22; Acts 1:7; 1 Timothy 6:15 R.V.m. Compare also many passages in John; e.g. 5:20 and 7:16 and 12:49 and 14:10 and 17:7, 8.

things which must shortly come to pass. Cp. Daniel 2:29 LXX: “what thing must come to pass after these things.” There is no “shortly” in Daniel 2. Also=Matthew 24:6, suggesting a connection between Revelation and Olivet Prophecy. This is important; see ch. 10.

shortly. The Greek word does not mean either “swiftly” or “suddenly,” but “shortly”, “soon” (see the analysis in Appendix – An Important and Difficult Problem).

signified. Better: sign-ified them. s.w. Acts 11:28 (how? see Acts 21:11); John 12:33 and 21:19; obviously = “revealed by symbols.” Each of these passages also means “revealed beforehand.”

by his angel. 1 Peter 3:22. Is this the guiding interpreting angel of the rest of the book? 4:1 and 10:4, 8, 11 and 14:3 and 17:1(?), 7 and 19:10 and 21:5, 9(?) and 22:8, 9.

his servants. Amos 3:7; Revelation 22:9 R.V.

John. Thus John authenticates his prophecy. Compare “I John” in v. 9 and 22:8 and also “I Daniel” in Daniel 9:2 and 8:1. John is “the disciple Jesus loved”, and Daniel is “greatly beloved.”

2. The word of God, the testimony of Jesus Christ, all things that he saw. Either: ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (1 John 1:1, 2; John 19:35); or, Gospel of John, Epistles of John, Revelation John 1:1, 14 and 21:24, 25); or, three descriptions of the same thing. This is the first of a series of triads which occur in Revelation 1; compare v. 4, 5, 6a, 7, 9, 18, 19.

the word of God. Hence the title “John the theo-logian, or the divine.” The Jews applied this title to Moses, and Eusebius used it of the prophets.

the testimony of Jesus Christ means “the truth about Jesus Christ,” compare v. 9 and 19:10 and especially 20:4 R.V. The testimony of Moses (the 10 commandments) was about Jesus Christ (see Exodus 20:6 and compare Luke 1:50 R.V.m.).

that he saw suggests that this preface (v. 1-3) was written after the rest of Revelation. Compare the details in 22:6-8. Similarly, Isaiah 1 may have been the last of the 66 chapters to be written.

3. he that readeth refers to the brother reading Scripture at the Breaking of Bread service (as today); modelled on synagogue service. “He that knows accurately” is a wrong translation.

they that hear-and-keep = the congregation-one class, not two.

hear = hear understandingly; Acts 22:9 (contrast Acts 9:7 where the Gk. grammatical form is different). Was an inspired interpretation forthcoming in First Century days from Spirit-guided elders with the gift of interpretation? Nehemiah 8:8.

keep. Generally used of observing commandments, e.g. Luke 11:28 with 8:21; applies especially to chapters 2 and 3. Note the 7-fold chain in the communicating of Revelation God – Christ – his angel – John – the messenger – the reader – the hearer-and-keeper.

the time is at hand. Cp. 22:10 where the context will hardly allow of: “the time for the fulfillment to begin is at hand.”

4. churches in Asia. Why to churches in Asia? Because they were the only churches with the man who was properly suited to receive it. The only other-Paul, to whom much of it may have already been revealed (see Chapter 26 – The Seventh Trumpet (11:14-19)) had lately suffered martyrdom (18:20; 20:4).

Why seven? – maintaining the figure of the seven-branched lampstand.

Why to these seven (there were many other churches in Asia, e.g. Colosse, Hierapolis, Miletus, etc.)? Ramsay answers: These were each the leading ecclesia in a particular district. Paul also wrote letters to seven churches (1 Samuel 2:5).

grace and peace. Paul’s greeting; John’s conclusion also; ch. 22:21.

is, was, is to come = Jehovah. See on v. 8. The Gk. involves a solecism, which only makes sense when this expression is taken as a name, and not a description, of God.

which is to come = which is the Coming One – a neat variation of “which shall be.” Reference to the literal coming, the manifestation of God in Christ (21: 3). Messiah was often spoken of as the Coming One; John 1: 15, 27; Matthew 11:3 R.V.

seven spirits. If reference here to the Holy Spirit, then the context would require the Holy Spirit to be a person separate from the Father and Son, sending greeting. Rather: these seven spirits are seven archangels. Compare ch. 4:5 and 5:6; Zechariah 3:9 (the eyes are not engraven on the stone, but are fastened attentively on it); Zechariah 4:10; Ezekiel 1:18, 20; Micah 5:5 (Christ and his seven archangels); Luke 1:19. Note the seven-fold spirit in Isaiah 11:2 and also I Corinthians 12:29, 30.

5. faithful witness, first-begotten, prince. All three titles come in Psalm 89:27 37. Whence:

faithful witness = the rainbow (look at Psalm 89:36, 37) =

	(a)	the glory of his Father; Ezekiel I :27, 28; Matthew 16:27;
	(b)	guarantee of the keeping of God’s promise and covenant of redemption; Genesis 9:12-17.

(a)         and (b) are really identical; John 18:37: “the Truth” here is an Old Testament idiom for covenants of promise called “the Truth” because God will not be found a liar. This makes Psalm 89:37 = 89:28. The three titles then come in two verses. So Jesus was born, not to be a king, but to bear witness to his future kingship, fulfilling the promises of God. Thus Jesus was “the faithful witness” before Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13). So the candidate for baptism witnessing his good confession follows closely the pattern of Christ witnessing his – note the context here (6:12). Compare the force of Isaiah 54:9 (and context) applied to the true Israel of God.

first begotten of the dead. Always when Jesus is referred to as First-born it is in this sense, “from the dead.” Hence Colossians 1:15 is to be explained by Colossians 1:18. The entire context shouts for application to the New Creation of whom the Risen Lord was literally the Beginning. Compare 1 Corinthians 15: 20 and Acts 13:33 (which definitely applies to Christ’s resurrection, as is proved by Hebrews 1: 4, 5 and 5: 5).

prince of the kings of the earth. An honour gained through the conquest of temptation, not by submission to it (Matthew 4: 8, 9). These three titles also come together in Isaiah 55: 3, 4:

	(a)	leader and commander of the people = first begotten from the dead; cp. Acts 13:33.
	(b)	witness for the people = faithful witness.
	(c)	everlasting covenant, sure mercies of David = prince of the kings of the earth (see R.V.m. here).

Ioved us, washed us, made us to be kings and priests. Another triad of closely-related ideas.

in his blood should be “by his blood” i.e. it is his blood (metonymy for his sacrifice) which makes the disciple’s baptism a valid washing away of sins.

washed us. Some doubt as to whether this should read “loosed us.” The two Greek words are nearly identical. If “washed,” cp. ch. 7:14 and especially Leviticus 8:6. If “loosed,” see Isaiah 40:2. Job 42:9 LXX has: “he loosed their sin for the sake of Job.”

6. made us kings and priests. This was God’s design with Israel, Exodus 19:6. And since “a priest’s lips shall keep knowledge,” this implied a missionary work amongst the nations. With Israel’s failure, a new beginning was made with a New Israel; 1 Peter 2:9; Malachi 3:17 (reference here to the twelve jewels on the breastplate of the High Priest).

to him be glory and dominion. This doxology is the response to the greeting of Grace and Peace conveyed in v. 4.

7. he cometh with clouds. i.e. in the Glory of the Lord. The interpretation which makes this into a public “manifestation” of a Messiah who is already come, along with “clouds” of immortalised saints is not faithful to the text. It also rests on a very inadequate Biblical foundation, as does the whole idea of a secret coming of Christ. For full details, see “The Last Days” ch. 10, 12, and “The Time of the End” ch. 16. The conventional interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, even if correct, does not help the idea just mentioned. And Jude 14, 15 palpably refers to angels coming with the Messiah. Also Mark 13:26, 27 makes perfectly clear that this coming “in the clouds” precedes the gathering of the saints and must therefore be distinct from it.

There is a much more satisfactory and much more Biblical interpretation available. The Glory of the Lord appeared to ancient Israel in cloud and fire: Exodus 13:21, 22; 14:19, 20, 24; 16:10; 19:16-19; 20:18; 24:15-19; 33:18-21 with 34:4-7; 40:34-38; Numbers 10:34; 12:5, 10; 14:9 mg. 10, 14, 21, 22; Deuteronomy 31:14, 15; Psalm 105:39; 1 Corinthians 10:1, 2. The same Shekinah Glory appeared to Abraham: Genesis 15:17 (Acts 7:2). In later days the Glory appeared in a Cloud to David (Psalm 18:6-15), to Ezekiel (1:4 and 10:4), to Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-13), to Solomon and his people (1 Kings 8:10, 11), to Job (38:1), to the apostles (Luke 9:34, 35). The judgments of God are to be manifest in the Last Days in this Cloud of Glory: Joel 2:2; Zephaniah 1:15; Ezekiel 30:3; Isaiah 19:1; 25:5. In particular, the Lord Jesus Christ who ascended to heaven in the Cloud of Glory (Acts 1: 9) will so come in like manner: Luke 21: 27; Matthew 26: 64; Revelation 14:14-16, Isaiah 4:5. Revelation 1:7 chimes in perfectly with this latter group of passages. It expresses in another way the simple but powerful truth: “The Son of man shall come in the Glory of his Father” (Matthew 16:27). With such a solid mass of Biblical support for this interpretation it is difficult to see why expositors should ever have looked elsewhere. The idea that “clouds” means “clouds of witnesses” is either almost or completely devoid of Biblical support (Hebrews 12: 1 uses a different Greek word).

the earth. Greek ge means “earth” or “Land” (so also Hebrew eretz). Usually the context decides. Here and in many places in Revelation read: “the Land;” s.w. Luke 21: 23; Matthew 24: 30. Then:

The reference is to Zechariah 19:10-14 where note: v. 10: “me . . . him.”

For this switch of pronoun compare. “why persecutest thou me?’’ v. 11: only divine inspiration would describe a national mourning in the day of deliverance. v. 12, 13: King, Prophet and Priest-and Shimei, type of the rejectors of the Lord’s Anointed in all ages; 2 Samuel 16:5-8 and 19; 16-23.

pierced. Was not the piercing of John 19: 34 done by a Roman? True, but this as well as the actual crucifixion was by procuration of the Jews.

wail. Matthew 23: 39. Contrast Luke 23: 28.

Even so, Amen. Ch. 22: 20. Even so (Gk.)=Amen (Hebrew). If John were so earnest about the Second Coming, we also! 2 Corinthians 1: 20. John, the only one to record the piercing of Jesus, is appropriately the one to add this fervent prayer that these men be brought to acknowledgement of their crime and to contrition for it.

8. Alpha and Omega. In ch. 21: 6, concerning the Father (observe v. 7). In ch. 22:13 concerning the Son. “The Almighty says that I (Jesus) am the and (cp. v. 11). The context requires this. If this verse were applied to the Father, then it stands alone and pointless.

This use of the same title with reference to the Father and to the Son need perplex no-one. Cp. use of “Lord;” and note that much of the language describing Christ in this chapter and elsewhere is used also to describe the Father; e.g. v. 14; 3:14; Isaiah 45:23, 24 (note the pronouns!); Philippians 2:10, 11; Isaiah 8:13 = 1 Peter 3:15; Joel 2:32 = Acts 2:21, 36; Zechariah 12:10 (me, him); Psalm 45:17; Jeremiah 23:6; Isaiah 47:4. The Father is and as being the One who has planned all from the beginning and will yet bring all to perfection. The Son is and since, in the practical outworking of the plan, he has begun redemption by his sacrifice and will yet perfect it by his kingdom. Cp. v. 7 – they who pierced him will see him come in glory.

The first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet were similarly used by the Rabbis as a code-word for the Shekinah Glory possibly because of its occurrence in Genesis 4:1: “I have gotten a man it Jehovah.” This word normally the (untranslateable) sign of the objective case. Therefore read: “I have gotten a Man, even Jehovah.” Eve here is justified by her faith: she looked for the coming of the God-man (Genesis 3:15). That the Lord, in Revelation 1: 8, uses Greek and not Hebrew (Aleph, Taw) is a possible hint of the imminent casting-off of Israel.

Alpha and Omega is pure Old Testament in idea:

	(a)	Isaiah 41:4: “calling the generations from the beginning” = ; “hath wrought and done it” = ; v. 8, 9: the Messiah; v. 11: his sufferings (); v. 15, 16: his glory (); v. 4 = “with the last ones” – “bringing many sons unto glory.” Here the same Hebrew particle precedes “the last ones.”
	(b)	Isaiah 44:6, where note (1) redeemer (2) King, v. 7,8 – the One who declares His unerring Purpose from the beginning.
	(c)	Isaiah 48:12. v. 13-creation (the New Creation?), v. 14 – the Purpose declared; v. 15 -Messiah; v. 16 – Messiah speaks of the Purpose to be fulfilled in himself “from the beginning.”
	(d)	Revelation 1:8 summarises v. 5-7. (1) the sacrifice for sins (2) the King of Glory.
	(e)	Revelation 22:13. v. 14: “tree of life” suggests Genesis 3:15 () now accomplished in the bringing of the Kingdom ().
	(f)	Revelation 21:6. v. 4: the curse of Genesis; v. 1: new heavens and earth.

saith the Lord God (R.V.) etc. This verse has the main titles of God in the Old Testament.

All of these call for much fuller study than can be given here.

1.	Adonai. “Lord” in the ordinary dictionary sense of “master, ruler, prince, chief,” e.g. Psalms 2:4 and 110:1, 5; Psalm 68:17-22. Emphasizes God’s special relationship to Israel.
2.	Elohim. God as a God of might and power. Occurs very frequently. Also used of (a) false gods (b) angels (Psalm 8 :5) cp. Exodus 23 :20, 21 and Genesis 16:11, 13; Hosea 12:3, 5. (c) judges and others in authority on God’s behalf (e.g. the Messiah); Exodus 21:6 and 22 :8,9; Psalm 82:6. This usage is more common than is usually recognized. e.g. Isaiah 64:4 and 40:3, 9 and 65:16; Revelation 3:14; Psalm 138:1; John 10:34 and 20:28.
3.	Jehovah. Moderns insist that Hebrew should read Yahweh or Yahveh. They usually explain the traditional Jehovah as a Massoretic hybrid by addition of vowels of Adonai. This may be correct but should not be taken as proven. From the parallel columns Revelation 1:8 is seen to be an inspired interpretation of the Memorial Name=He who is and was and is to come (see the note on v. 4), cp. Genesis 21:33; Malachi 3:6; Psalm 135:13 (contrast Revelation 17:8). Several scholars have suggested very plausibly that Jehovah (more correctly Y’howah) is a composite name, which would sound in the ears of any Israelite like “Shall-is-was”. Many Scriptures stress this timelessness of God. He has not only been actively manifest in the past, He continues the development of His Purpose in the present, and He will certainly bring all to fulfillment in a multitude of redeemed worthy to bear His Name: Psalm 90:1, 2; Isaiah 41: 4; and 43: 10, 11 and 44:6, 7, 8; Exodus 3: 14-17; Genesis 15:7, 18.
	Jehovah also marks God as a God of Covenant and Promise. This is frequently the main idea where this Divine name is used; e.g. Exodus 3:15 (reference back to the promise of Genesis 15); 6:3 (reference also to Genesis 15:2, 7; “And by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them”?); Genesis 4:1 (Eve knew the Covenant Name!); Psalm 105:1, 8, 42; Jeremiah 14:21, 22; Isaiah 26:8; Micah 4:5; Malachi 3:16. In these and many other passages, emphasis is not only on God’s covenant promises but also on Jehovah being His Memorial Name (Exodus 3:14, 15), that which (by an anthropomorphism) was to be a perpetual reminder to Him, as well as to His people, of the great Messianic Purpose. Many occurrences of “memorial,” “remember,” “remembrance” (use concordance) has this idea.
4.	Almighty. The LXX used the Greek work of Revelation 1: 8 represent the two Hebrew forms El Shaddai (Almighty God) a Jehovah Tsvaoth (Lord of Hosts).
5.	Shaddai is connected with the Hebrew root shadah (to water fertilise) and shad (breast), or with shadad, to destroy. Every occurrence in Old Testament has this idea of fertility and so of prosperity except in Job and a few places in the prophets where the other meaning is prominent. For the first idea see Genesis 17:1-8; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3, 4; 49:25; Ruth 1:20; 2 Numbers 24:4, 7; and compare 2 Corinthians 6:18. Thus “Almighty God” is the name, which emphasizes that the multitudinous seed and all other forms of prosperity are the purposed gifts of God. But perhaps in Revelation the other idea is more appropriate: God, the Destroyer of evil men.
6.	Jehovah Tsvaoth: Lord of Hosts. Reference is either to: (a) the hosts of Israel under the control of the Almighty (Exodus 12:41 [R.V.]; Joshua 5:14-Joshua thought he was captain; 2 Samuel 6:1, 2); or to: (b) the host of heaven, the angels (Psalm 148:2; 103:21; 46:7; 1 Kings 22:19; Isaiah 24:23 and 25:6; Luke 2:13). Both (a) and (b): Isaiah 37:36; Psalm 24:10, 1 Samuel 17:45. In Revelation it is always (b) rather than (a) which is intended (ch. 11: 17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, I5; 21 :22).

9. John tells how he was commissioned; cp. Isaiah 6:8; Jeremiah 1:1; Ezekiel 1: 3.

1 John. Contrast his anonymity in the Gospel. Why?

tribulation and kingdom and patience. Another triad. Romans 8:17; Timothy 2:12; 1 Peter 4:17 (us = the apostles).

patience = doggedness. Best equivalent is the modern slang “guts”. Not all a passive virtue; e.g. Hebrews 10:32, 36 and 12:1, 2, 3, 7; 2 Timothy 2:10; Revelation 13:10; Luke 2:43 (“tarried” = hung on, loath to leave).

Patmos. Why called Patmos? Did John see significance in the name? cp. John 9:7; Revelation 11:8; 16:16. But what meaning? Just possibly: “Only a little trial,” with a sidelong glance at Massah (Exodus 17:7 “Is the Lord among us or not?” The answer is in 1:10. Banishment to Patmos is said to have been reserved for people of wealth and standing.

for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. “for” = because of. Either: (a) retirement to solitude in order to receive the word of God; cp. Elijah, 1 Kings 19:8; Paul, Galatians 1: 7; 2 Corinthians 12:1,2; Philippians 1: 23. (b) Because of preaching Christ; 2 Timothy 1:8; cp. heading of Syriac Version: “in the island of Patmos to which he was, banished by Nero the Emperor”; Matthew 20:22. Also supported v. 9a and 6: 9 and 20: 4. (b) is almost certainly correct.

10. in the spirit = in a trance, seeing visions (by contrast with a revealed word); ch. 4: 2 and 17: 3 and 21: 10; Acts 10: 10 and 11: 5 and 22: 1 Ezekiel 1: 1, 3 and 37: 1 and 40: 1, 2 and many others. 2 Corinthians 12: 1

Lord’s day. Only other occurrence of this Greek word is 1 Corinthian 11: 20 which is altogether indecisive as to meaning.

(a)	The first day of the week.
	(i)	1 Corinthians 11:20-same word used of the Lord’s Supper. But: what special point is there in having this Revelation on a Sunday?
	(ii)	The early church used the word kuriakos in this sense (Ignatius: To the Magnesians). But this may have been derived from a misreading of Revelation 1:10.
	(iii)	The letters would be read to the ecclesias on this day.
	(iv)	v. 5 R.V. “loveth us” might be an allusion to the Love Feast.
	(v)	ch. 1:18 would harmonize nicely.
(b)	The great day of the Lord’s Second Coming; cp. v. 7; 1 Thessalonians 5:2.
	(i)	1 Corinthians 11:20 (kuriakos) matches Luke 22:16.
	(ii)	Note “in that day” in Zechariah 12:3, 6, 9, 11 and 13:1, 2, 4 and 14:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20.
	(iii)	Peshito version uses kuriakos with this meaning.
		Difficulty: this view would seem to require that everything in Revelation shall have reference to the Last Day. Is that absurd? Further difficulty: Is the emphasis here on Jesus as a High Priest appropriate to the day of his return in glory?
(c)	The anniversary of the Lord’s own resurrection. See v. 18. Note: “I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand on me saying, Fear not.” Precisely this in Matthew 28:5, 9.
(d)	The Day of Atonement, called by the Jews: “The Day,” and by Isaiah “a day to (for) the Lord” (58:5). Description of Jesus as a High Priest on duty in the Holy Place (ch. 1) and as sacrifice in the Holy of Holies (ch. 5) harmonizes well. John falling on his face would correspond with prostration of worshippers in the temple court. And “I heard behind me . . . “ would imply that literal observances in a literal sanctuary were now “behind.”

behind me. Often explained as intimating Revelation to be in terms of types and symbols of the Old Testament (which are now “behind”). Or: “No man shall see my face and live.” Hence “behind me” corresponds to the cloud, which veiled the Glory. Then John turns and immediately falls “dead” (v. 17). Recognition that there is here an allusion to Isaiah 30:21 supplies a further idea. That chapter furnishes a prophetic parallel with (or should one write: a straight prophecy of?) the circumstances of John when Revelation was written. Observe:

v. 8	Revelation 1: 11, 19.
v. 9	Israel is about to be cast off.
v. 10	The gospel rejected by them.
v. 12-14, 17	Jerusalem to be destroyed.
v. 19	Consolation of the saints.
v. 20	Saints persecuted, John banished.
v. 22	Christianity v. Paganism.
v. 23, 24	Ultimate blessing.
v. 24b	Day of Judgement.
v. 25ff	The coming of the Kingdom.

Note especially in v. 21: “a word behind thee saying, This is the way, walk ye in it;” the implication is that at the moment the exhortation is received, the “walking” is in the wrong direction. Revelation 2, 3 proves that this was so already in the early church. Those two chapters are the equivalent of: “This is the way walk ye in it.”

as of a trumpet. (a) the voice of God (Exodus 19:13, 16, 19; Joshua 6:9, 10, 13). (b) a summons to God’s people; Numbers 10:2, 8; Judges 3:27 and 6:34; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Matthew 24:31. (c) a prophetic warning: Isaiah 58:1; Ezekiel 33:3-6. More detail in Chapter 26 – The Seventh Trumpet (11:14-19).

11. in a book. Not in seven separate books. Therefore each ecclesia could read what was written to the others (cp. 1 Timothy 5:20 – a practice of the early church no longer followed. Why?). This was necessary because, whilst the general character of each ecclesia was accurately summed up, there would be some of every type in every ecclesia; cp. ch. 2:23 – a lesson for all churches.

send it to the seven churches. Therefore each would receive the book in turn and make its own copy.

Why seven and not eight? Just as the seven spirits represent the universal activity of the Holy Spirit in the world, so also these seven churches represent the Gentile church everywhere. The sins rebuked are common to the ecclesias everywhere and at all times. The exhortations are such as have been always needed by all ecclesias in Christ. See also notes on v. 16. Why these seven? There were a good many other churches in Asia. Ramsay answers: These were the recognized centres of well-defined districts. Why to Asia and not to Judaea? Because Gentiles are now more important than Jews in the purpose of God? (see on v. 16). Or, because the Revelation had to be given where there was a man fit to receive it?

12. turned to see the voice. Not a solecism, but a synecdoche, or-more probably-a personification; i.e. to see who was “the Voice of God;” cp. Genesis 3:8 (an angel).

seven golden candlesticks. This calls for a study of Exodus 25:31-40:

31.	There was a central shaft and branch and six other branches. Revelation 1:12 demonstrate the incorrectness of speaking of a six-branched candlestick. Candlestick = lampstand. Candles were not used. According to Josephus it was 5 ft. high, 3½ ft. wide. “It terminated in seven heads all in one row… and these branches carried seven lamps … These lamps looked to the east and south (near the southern wall of the Holy Place), the candlestick being situate obliquely” (Jos. Ant. 3.6.7). Did Josephus mean “in one row” or “in one plane?” He himself says the representation on the Arch of Titus was erroneous. If there was a central stem with six others arranged in a regular hexagon round it, the origin of the Star of David is explained.
	“beaten work.” So Christ. Isaiah 53:5, 10. So also his saints: Leviticus 2:1, 14 and 24:2, 5; Exodus 29:40 and 37:7; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 3:10.
	shafts, branches, bowls, knops, flowers. Obviously intended to represent a tree-an almond tree (v. 33)-the Tree of Life (Numbers 17:8). This leads to an interpretation of the “cherubim and flaming sword” of Genesis 3:24. In the Tabernacle cherubim were not angels but symbols of redemption. And there, above them, and in the midst of them, was the Shekinah Glory (“a flaming sword”); Psalm 80:1 R.V. In what sense are ecclesias a Tree of Life? Proverbs 15:4 and 11:30. “The fruit of the righteous (proves him to be) a tree of life;” Psalm 1:3; Revelation 22:1, 2.
33.	70 ornaments in all (Josephus)=the Gentile nations: Genesis 10 (70 names); Deuteronomy 32:8; Genesis 46:27. Cp. Revelation 1 :12-Gentile churches. Solomon’s temple had ten seven-branched candlesticks of gold like a fence before the veil (2 Chronicles 4:7).
34.	The central stem spoken of as The Candlestick.
37.	lamps thereof. The Candlestick shone in the Tabernacle, not outside it. It revealed bread and wine, altar of incense, cherubim on the veil, the way into the Holy of Holies.
	to give light over against it. Boat-shaped lamps at the end of each stem projected so as to cast light on the central stem (Christ?). Thus Scripture testifies to its own glories and to Christ, its chief glory. Cp. also the glory on the face of Moses (Exodus 34:29); Stephen (Acts 6:15; 7:55)
40.	after the pattern. i.e. according to their true significance; Hebrews 8:5 and 9:23, 24.
	Exodus 30:8. Lamps apparently lit at even, to burn during the night; cp. Exodus 27:21; Leviticus 24:2, 3, I Samuel 3:3 (God called Samuel before the light of Truth was quite gone out in Israel); 2 Chronicles 13:11. But the windowless Holy Place would need light in day-time. Cp. also the idea in Scripture of a perpetual lamp: Psalm 132:17 (this is a definite reference to the Candlestick-see context); 1 Kings 11:36; 2 Kings 8:19.
	Exodus 27:20. No quantity specified. Without measure: John 3:34. But it must be “beaten out.” Problem: Why does this section on the Candlestick come here and not in ch. 25?

13. In what sense was Jesus seen “in the midst” of the lampstand?

	(a)	Seen through the grid of the seven branches? But chapter 2:1 “walking” vetoes this.
	(b)	Did John see seven seven-branched Candlesticks? (Each ecclesia mentioned would be the centre of a ring of lesser ecclesias.)
	(c)	More likely, the phrase is interpretative. Jesus was seen beside or behind the Candlestick, and John interprets this as symbolic of his ceaseless activity in the midst of the ecclesias which are represented thus; v. 20; 2:1.

Iike unto the Son of man means “one who is the Son of man.” A common Bible idiom; e.g. Romans 8:3; 5:14; 1:23 R.V.; Philippians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 2:17; Matthew 14:5. The idea that this Holy One seen in the vision is the multitudinous Christ bristles with difficulties.

	(a)	He is Alpha and Omega; v. 11.
	(b)	He sends messages to the churches.
	(c)	He is accoutred like a High Priest (v. 13 and see notes there).
	(d)	John falls down before him (v. 17).
	(e)	“I am the first and the last” (v. 17). If the multitudinous Christ, “last” would be plural (as in Isaiah 41:4), and “first” would be inappropriate.
	(f)	“I have the keys of hell and of death” (v. 18).
	(g)	He walks in the midst of the seven candlesticks (2:1),
	(h)	saying: “I know thy works” (2 2).

It would seem that the main (only?) reason for interpreting with respect to the multitudinous Christ (a thoroughly Biblical idea taught clearly elsewhere) is v. 15: “his voice as the sound of many waters.” But this may carry a different meaning (see notes on v. 15).

The description in Revelation I of the Son of man has its counterpart in almost every detail in the description of the archangel in Daniel 10:

What is the point of this detailed designed similarity? What interpretation is to be put on it? First, this glorious being was actually there (even though the word “vision” is used; v.7). He spoke to Daniel and touched him. This rules out the view that here was a vision of Christ or of the multitudinous Christ (for the last phrase of 10:6 see note on Revelation 1:15). The only interpretation left is that this was an angel, helped by another angel characteristics of the divine nature. There is one significant difference. Revelation 1:14 has: “his head and his hairs were white like wool”. This is part of the description of the Almighty in Daniel 7:9 – another example of Jesus being described in terms appropriate to the Father; cp. “Alpha and Omega”.

clothed with a garment down to the foot. s.w. Exodus 28:4, 31 LXX. So obviously a linen garment of righteousness that John doesn’t even trouble to say so. Here, immediately, is Christ the Priest.

girt about the paps with a golden girdle. The High Priest wore two girdles -one round his loins (Jeremiah 13:1-11), and the other round his chest (Leviticus 8:7). To the latter was affixed the breastplate of judgement containing on its outer face the twelve stones of Israel and within its pouch the stones of judgement, the Urim and Thummim. The second girdle, the one referred to in this verse, was called “the cunningly woven band of the ephod.” Cp. two girdles in Isaiah 11:5 (a High Priest-King). “Righteousness the girdle of his loins” suggests that his “seed” share his righteousness!

Revelation 15:6 – Christ delegates to the angels his office of judgement (breastplate of judgement!) upon the nations-but not upon his servants; cp. Daniel 10:5 (no priestly girdle).

14. All the following details-seven of them-are different expressions describing the glory of the divine nature and of the power of the Holy Spirit.

his head and his hair white like wool. In this way Scripture describes the Glory in his face and the halo of glory about his head, Luke 9:29, Daniel 7:9, where the Father is similarly described – another instance of Christ sharing the Glory of his Father (as in Matthew 16:27); cp. v. 8, 15. Cp. also Revelation 14:14 (= a radiant cloud, the pillar of cloud), and 3.4 (the saints already share Christ’s righteousness, this promises radiant glory of divine nature also: “walk with me”). Is this also the secondary meaning behind Matthew 5: 36?

Iike wool suggests the Lamb of God and the forgiveness of sins; Isaiah 1:18.

eyes as a flame of fire. The piercing glance which discerns between the good and the evil (people); Hebrews 4:12, 13 (Jesus, the Word of God); Psalm 11:4 and 33:18 and 94:7, 9; Proverbs 15:3; Ezekiel 1:18, 19, 20. Contrast Daniel 7:20.

of fire. Judgement of the ungodly; 19:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:8. The seven spirits are the eyes of the Lamb; 4:5 and 5:6.

15. feet, fine brass. In Scripture brass is always a symbol of strength, not of human nature; Daniel 10:6 (Revelation 10:1); Jeremiah 15:20; Job 6:12 (note the setting) and 40:18; 1 Samuel 17:5, 6; Micah 4:13. John 3:14 may be an allusion to the strength of the power of sin, or differently, to the Redeemer as one showing sin’s nature (serpent) but made strong to overcome it

as if they burned. The Greek perfect tense implies this is not a momentary characteristic; Exodus 3:2.

in a furnace. Zechariah 13:9 LXX. To reach the same divine nature, his disciples must endure fiery trial as he endured (and he still endures it with them!).

voice as the sound of many waters. As the voice of God, mighty and authoritative.

	(a)	John 12:28-30; Ezekiel 1:24; Psalm 29 (7 times) and 68:33; 93:4; Jeremiah 51:16; Exodus 19:16, 19 and 20:18, 19; hence
	(b)	Deuteronomy 18:16-19.
	(c)	In his coming again: Joel 3:16; Isaiah 30:30, 31.
	(d)	As is the voice of the Bridegroom so also is the voice of the Bride; Revelation 14:2, 3 and 19:6, 7; compare Daniel 7:14 LXX, 27 (saints).

16. seven stars. Here as in the other details there must be an Old Testament basis; see Isaiah 62:3, where observe “in thy hand,” as here. A strange way to use a crown! Why? There is reason to believe that a crown of 7 jewels was part of the High Priest’s equipment:

	(a)	Isaiah 61:10 “decketh”=to deck as a priest (see mg.). And 62:1 has allusion to the Shekinah Glory. The word for “ornaments” here is the normal one for the priestly head-gear. With 62:3 this suggests a tiara with jewels.
	(b)	Zechariah 9:16: “as the stones of a crown” would seem to have priestly reference. Note v. 15 (bowls and horns of the altar); v. 17, “beauty” is a word often associated with the priesthood and temple.
	(c)	Exodus 28:36-38. If the mitre consisted only of a turban with a golden plate affixed to the front, it is difficult to see why it should be called a “crown.” This Hebrew word is the normal one for a king’s crown; 2 Samuel 1: 10; 2 Kings 11: 12, etc. Further, the word “lace” (v. 37) is somewhat misleading. It should read “circlet ;” s.w. Genesis 38:18, 25.

This, then, was the original of the diadem of seven stars seen in the hand of Christ the High Priest. The seven stars would be seven large diamonds. It is noteworthy that nowhere else was the diamond used in the High Priestly equipment (Exodus 28:18 A.V. is wrong; see R.V. and authorities). It would be strange if the finest of all gems were not to have some hallowed use in the Tabernacle. It is perhaps permissible to argue back from Revelation 1:16 and say that the High Priest’s crown consisted of six large diamonds equally spaced (seven-branched candlestick again!) with one in the centre and with the golden plate “Holy to the Lord” over the forehead. These seven stones symbolize Gentiles: Isaiah 62:5: “so shall thy sons marry thee. But natural sons do not marry their mother. Therefore “sons” = “disciples” (common Hebrew idiom). Who are they? – v. 2: the Gentiles. This interprets v. 3.

Thus the High Priest bore symbols of Israel on his breast and of the Gentiles on his head! But in Revelation 1:16 the High Priest’s crown is in his hand-thus to intimate that at the time of the vision Israel’s precedence was not yet ended but was about to be ended (A.D. 70 not far ahead) Note also that the gems are spoken of in Revelation 1:16 as “stars” because; when reflecting the Glory of Christ, that is how they would appear; cp. Philippians 2:15 (R.V.m.); Psalm 19:1-4 (which Paul applies to the preaching of the gospel; Romans 10:18).

sharp two-edged sword.

• In his ministry; Isaiah 49:2 (= 51:16); Matthew 8: 8.
• Today; Hebrews 4:12, 13, where the reference is to Jesus the “Word of God” – ”his sight.”
• The saints in the Kingdom; Psalm 149:6 (no more literal than Hebrews 4:12).

two-edged.

• Old Testament and New Testament?
• condemning and converting?

countenance as the sun.

• At the transfiguration; Matthew 17:2.
• After his resurrection; Acts 26:13.
• His coming in glory; Malachi 4:2; Psalm 19:4.
• The saints with him; Judges 5:31; cited in Matthew 13:43.

countenance here may = “general appearance,” as in John 7:24. This now agrees with Daniel 10:6.

17. I fell at his feet as dead. Would John fall at the feet of a vision? And if John the disciple whom Jesus loved, who leaned on his bosom, thus fell down as dead, what of us when we see him (Luke 21:36)? This was the normal experience of mortal man in the presence of the Glory of the Lord. It taught that without death and resurrection no mortal man can experience an abiding knowledge of the divine Presence; Exodus 33: 20; Leviticus 16: 13. In each case death and resurrection are symbolized: Daniel 10:9-11 and 8:18; Genesis 15:12; Numbers 16:42~7; Jeremiah 31: 26; Job 42:5, 6 (there can be little doubt that Job saw the Shekinah Glory); Ezekiel 1.28 and 2:1, 2; Luke 9:32; Acts 9:4-8; Luke 21:36 (with allusion to Ezekiel’s experience?). Why was Isaiah’s experience different (Isaiah 6:5-7)?

Iaid his right hand upon me. Cp. the touch of Jesus in his miracles during his ministry. In Scripture the right hand is always associated with approval and blessing, the left with rejection and curse; Genesis 48:13, 14; Deuteronomy 27:12, 13 (since the Tabernacle faced east, and Gerizim was to the south, the blessings would be spoken from the right, and the curses from the left); Leviticus 1:11 (the sacrifice bearing the curse was on the left-hand side of the altar, but the priest’s approach was from the right); Ezekiel 4:4, 6; Matthew 25:34; cp. Old Testament written in Hebrew from right to left, and the New Testament written in Greek from left to right. The right hand that touched John (cp. Matthew 17:6, 7) was the one, which held the diadem (v. 16) as though intimating that one day John is to share it.

Fear not. This consoling imperative is many times associated with the Glory. An explicit instruction (to the worthy) that the divine presence need not be feared by the pure in heart; Daniel 10:7-11, 17-19; Luke 1:13, 20 and 2:10 and 9:34, 35; John 12:15 (though guilty Jerusalem might well fear at the approach of its King); Matthew 28:5; Malachi 4:1, 2; Isaiah 41:5, 10, 13, 14 and 44:1, 2 and 35:4; Revelation 21:8; Matthew 25:25; 5:8. In the Day of Judgement the disciple will pronounce judgement on himself by the way in which he meets his Lord in fear or in confidence- confidence not in himself or his own achievements, but in the love and mercy of Christ (“The Last Days” ch. 11); 1 John 3:21, and 4:17, 18.

In the Transfiguration when Jesus came and touched the disciples, saying: “Be not afraid, they then saw no man, save Jesus only”-and he now divested of the Glory. Is that what happened in this instance also?

18. he that liveth. s.w. Luke 24:5. Numbers 14:21 LXX: “But I live and Living is my name” – another divine title applied to Christ; cp. Revelation 4:9.

alive for evermore. John 5:26, 21 and 14:6, 19.

Amen. Some MSS omit. But if to be included, then it must be understood as John’s instinctive response: “From my own personal experience (John 19:35 and 20:24) I know this statement to be true.”

the keys of hell and of death. Psalm 9:13. Possession of these keys is the qualification to be able to talk with the Almighty (Job 12:14 and 38:17). Are these keys the same as the keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19; Proverbs 1: 21)? Hardly so, for Christ will use the keys of hell and death himself (Genesis 22:17; Isaiah 61: 1; Zechariah 9:11, 12; Revelation 20:3, 13, 14).

death and hell (R.V.). The natural order. The king and his attendant minister; ch. 6: 8.

19. Another triad. The three phrases in this verse all refer to the same things; i.e. to the main body of Revelation still to be unfolded to the Apostle.

which thou sawest. Why past sense? At the time John wrote them the visions would be already past. This “epistolary aorist” is a normal form in Greek; cp. v. 2.

and (i.e. even) the things which are should read “what things they are,” i.e. what they mean. For use of the verb “to be” in an interpretative sense see v. 20 here and 17:9, 12, 15, 18; Matthew 13:37-39; Luke 15:26 Gk., Acts 2:12 and 10:17 Gk.; Ezekiel 37:11. The form of the Greek requires: “What they individually and separately mean.”

Did John obey this instruction and write the meaning of his vision? Yes -by the way in which he reported everything in terms of Old Testament prophecy! And the Apostle’s key has been mostly left untried.

and (even) the things which shall be hereafter. The things to be seen are a prophecy of future events.

write therefore (R.V.). Meaning either:

• having seen this vision which guarantees the validity and importance of all the rest; or
• now that thy fear is past . . . write . . .

The instruction is repeated in 14:13 and 19:9 and 21:5. Why in these places particularly? These passages refer to things heard. All the rest was seen. Revelation 22:10: “Publish the book.”

20. mystery. The unfolded meaning; cp. 17:7, 9.

seven stars. Daniel 12:3; contrast Jude 13 (false leaders). Why should explanation be offered as to “stars” and “angels,” but not for any of the rest of the elaborate symbolism in this chapter and those succeeding?

the angels of the churches.

	(a)	Cannot refer to the messengers carrying the letters from Patmos.
	(b)	Could be either the Bishop (senior elder) of the church (as Timothy at Ephesus or Titus in Crete), or the elders of the church spoken of collectively.
		“Messenger of God” is a description of the instructing priest of the Old Testament; Malachi 2:7; Ecclesiastes 5:6; cp. R.V. of Revelation 19:10, spoken by an angel from heaven.
		Elders in Israel were frequently referred to as “elohim ;” e.g. Exodus 22:8 and 28 and 23:20, 21; Psalm 82:1, 6; John 10:34. And this word “elohim” was also used of angels, Psalm 8: 5; Hosea 12:3; Exodus 3:4 (=Acts 7:30). Thus in John’s Hebraistic Greek the word “angel” might well take on the meaning of “elder;” cp. 2 Peter 2:4; these “angels” are leaders-Korah, Dathan, and Abiram-who left their own principality (Jude 6 R.V.).
		Observe that there is no distinction between Revelation 1 :4, “to the church,” and 2:1, “to the angel of the church.”
	(c)	The “messenger” was the title of a synagogue official who had charge of the scrolls and who was responsible for organization of services. And it is a known fact that the early churches adopted much of synagogue procedure.
	(d)	Careful comparison of Revelation 5:6 and 4:5 and 1:4, Luke 1:19; Zechariah 4:10, suggests that the angels may be angels (everywhere else in Revelation “angel” = angel; what other New Testament examples are there of “angel” = elders?). In which case Revelation 2:1 can read: “For the angel of the church at Ephesus” i.e. on behalf of the ministering angel concerned with the church at Ephesus. More on this in ch. 5: “The Sealed Book.”

It was the night of the winnowing of the barley, after the threshing during the day. Winnowing was customarily left for a moonlit night because about sunset there is in Palestine a brisk breeze from the sea such as is needed to facilitate separation of the chaff.

The winnowing was done this way. Using a large shovel called a fan (Mt. 3:12), the threshed mixture of corn and chaff was thrown up into the air straight into the wind. The lighter chaff was caught by the breeze and deposited some distance away, but the heavier barley kernels fell straight to the ground. Thus chaff and grain were sorted out into two well-defined heaps.

This done, both custom and self-interest required that the owner of the grain should sleep on the threshing floor to guard from theft the heap of grain, now more valuable than ever.

So when the winnowing was done and the harvest celebration concluded, Boaz wrapped himself in his thick cloak, and with a blanket across his legs lay down to sleep by the heap of corn.

It was after this that Ruth, anointed and arrayed as for a festive occasion, came quietly to the place where Boaz lay, and uncovering his feet she lay down under the rug as though in the position of a supplicant. Thus she preferred her claim to right of marriage.

For a while Boaz slept on but not so Ruth, who must have realized with an excitement difficult to control that her destiny hung on the outcome of the next few hours.

Startled from sleep

About midnight Boaz, moving in his sleep, became aware that he was not alone. Startled into wakefulness, he bent forward and drew back the rug and there crouched Ruth the Moabitess. It calls for little effort of the imagination to picture the staid bachelor’s embarrassed surprise as he identified the recumbent form close to his feet. Ruth hastened to explain:

An unconventional proposal

‘I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid: for thou art a go’el, thou art my redeemer.’

She now used the word “handmaid” unashamedly and, in contrast to the former occasion, free from all qualification, for she was now inviting Boaz to marry her. It was a kind of leap-year proposal. Such is the meaning of the idiom she now made use of.

In the light of her experiences in the harvest field Ruth surely knew the kind of reception she would meet with. Once again Boaz gave her the cordial harvest greeting: “Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter”, this time with the implied assurance that ‘God will give you a good harvest, for I intend to marry you.’

Far from behaving in any condescending or patronizing way towards her, he proceeded to thank her sincerely for honouring him in this way:

“Thou hast showed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.” Ruth’s kindness in remaining loyal to the aged Naomi was now matched by that which Boaz chose to think she was bestowing on himself, in ignoring the disparity in age and seeking him as a husband in preference to some other near kinsman.

He therefore promised with a solemn oath — ‘As the Lord liveth’ — that he would certainly take her for his wife if the go’el with prior claim was willing to waive his right. From the fact that Boaz knew himself to be not the first with the right to redeem, it may be inferred that, eager to marry Ruth, he had already made enquiry who might have a prior claim to this charming stranger. But evidently he had been deterred from further action by the disparity in their ages.

“And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.” That word “city” is really (as AVm) ‘gate’, and must mean either that the city elders who sat in the gate were already aware of Ruth’s situation and were satisfied regarding her character; or, since the city gate was where so much local gossip was exchanged, Boaz meant: ‘Even Bethlehem’s gossiping women have nothing against you!’

Criteria

It should be observed here that the primary reason for Boaz’s complete willingness to marry Ruth was not the she had a pretty face or a roguish smile or beautiful hair or a comely figure, nor that she was a first-rate housekeeper or had a talented brain; and certainly not that she had a good bank balance. It was her good character, her fidelity, her soberness, her kindness, her industry, and her faith in the God of Israel, which gave her beauty in his eyes. Yet how many marriages have either come to grief or have resolved themselves into banality destitute of the idealism which makes true marriage, because founded in the first instance on superficial personal attraction, rather than on the really worthwhile qualities of good character and spiritual outlook.

Circumspect behaviour

It would not have been wise either for Ruth to find her way home then at midnight, nor for Boaz to accompany her. There was too great a risk either to Ruth’s person or to the reputation of both. So she slept, serene and content, at his feet until the first sign of dawn, when she prepared to return to Naomi.

But Boaz would not allow her to go away empty. Converting her cloak into an improvised form of sack, he loaded her with six measures of barley, almost more than she could carry. There was a double purpose in this. First, to disarm the suspicion of anyone who might see Ruth coming away from the threshing floor. He sought to shield her from the calumny of slanderous tongues. And, secondly, the six measures were to indicate both to Ruth and Naomi that the “rest” Naomi had promised was night at hand — for rest is always associated in Scripture with the number seven.

Notes

1.	Rest for thee. Explained by 1:9.
4.	When he lieth down. There is no other sign in Scripture of this custom of guarding the winnowed grain.
8.	Afraid — of what? The Hebrew word means this.
	Turned himself. Better: he reached out.
12.	There is. Fairly emphatic. It means that Boaz quite definitely knew.
13.	Lie down. Ruth was about to go away. But Boaz knew it would be safer to stay till first dawn.
15.	She went should read: he went. Here is resolution. He meant to lose no time.
16.	Who art thou? There is a problem here. Was the light so dim that Ruth could not be recognized? But surely Naomi was expecting her.

The Bible narrative does not say what kind of home Naomi and Ruth at last found in Bethlehem, but Ruth’s suggestion that she go a-gleaning in the barley harvest seems to imply real poverty. Naomi would naturally wish to go too, not only to add to her meagre store but also because of her expressed fears that Ruth might come to some harm, as a stranger amongst harvesters of easy morals. The fact that Ruth went alone implies that Naomi was too old, or was worn out with recently experienced privations.

“I will glean….” said Ruth, “after him in whose sight I shall find grace.” This common expression is a charming Hebrew idiom for: ‘Grant me a favour, give me my request.’ Here, then, Ruth’s meaning is: ‘I will glean where I can get permission.’ Being a Moabitess, and unaccustomed to the laws of Israel, she would not realize that gleaning was a right of the poor for which no special permission was necessary. The poor had their mandate from God and God’s law in Deuteronomy 24:19.

Boaz of Bethlehem

It was then apparently by a lucky chance, but actually by the inscrutable design of Almighty God, that Ruth found herself gleaning in the fields of Boaz. Such are the ways of Providence! Strange that the entire redemptive purpose of God in Christ should hang on such an apparently trivial circumstance. So, at least, it would appear from a merely human point of view. Thus the discerning reader is bidden recognize that the dividing line between chance and design in human life is so fine that it cannot be drawn.

Boaz was near of kin to the dead Elimelech, and was evidently the leader of the tribe of Judah in those days, for was he not son of Salmon, the prince of Judah who had married Rahab the faithful? But Boaz is also described as “a mighty man of valour”, not a mighty man of wealth as in the Authorised Version. He deserves therefore to be classified with men like Gideon and Jephthah. His name is in striking contrast to that of Mahlon and Chilion, which mean ‘Sickness’ and ‘Pining’; for Boaz means: ‘In him in strength’.

Probably when Ruth and Naomi arrived in Bethlehem he was away from the town busily engaged, maybe, against the growing power of the Philistines, or in the struggle for freedom led by Othniel against Chushan-rishathaim. There are slight indications, such as the phrase “my daughter” (2:8), that suggest that Boaz was middle-aged and yet apparently and surprisingly unmarried. Or perhaps more probably, he was a childless widower. Such was the man in whose fields Ruth found herself gleaning.

There is an immediate clue to his character in his first recorded words — a hearty although conventional greeting to the reapers: “The Lord be with you”; and to this they gave ready response: “The Lord bless thee”.

Love at first sight — obviously

Boaz enquired with kindly curiosity after the stranger gleaning with his reapers, and was glad to encourage this young woman whose faith in the God of Israel and faithful friendship for Naomi had already made such an impression on the people of Bethlehem. After all, was not Boaz’s own mother just such an one as she?

The fact that in answering this enquiry about Ruth, the farm manager used the word ‘damsel, or girl’ shows that, even though Ruth had been a married woman for something like ten years, she still retained her youthful freshness.

Boaz was emphatic in his instructions that Ruth continue her gleaning in his fields, and nowhere else; for he not only admired her steadfast character, he also appreciated, perhaps more than she did, the risks that such a comely and unprotected girl ran among the none-too-scrupulous labourers in the corn fields. “Have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee?” he said.

To these assurances Boaz added all kinds of preferential treatment. Ruth was to avail herself freely of the refreshment provided for the workers as though she were one of his employees. And when a meal was provided in the middle of the day she was to be included in the circle of those who shared it. More than this, by himself handing her an ample supply of food he indicated to all his workers that she was under his own special protection.

Boaz also passed the word to all concerned that they were to allow her a special privilege in her gleaning so that she was actually among the reapers, and not behind them. He even added the further instruction that they were to make her gleaning all the more rewarding by deliberately dropping a handful out of the sheaves right in her path. There must have been a charming ingenuousness about Ruth not to see through a scheme as transparent as this was.

In her response to all this kindness Ruth showed neither false pride nor cringing self-pity. She could have misinterpreted Boaz’s motive, and have acknowledged his generosity coldly. On the other hand, in an attempt to make the most of the situation, she could have told a maudlin tale of adversity and poverty. Instead, marvelling quietly that a man of Boaz’s station should take notice of her at all, she thanked him frankly for his help to one so needy: ‘Thou hast comforted me….thou hast spoken friendly unto thine handmaid — though I be not like unto one of thine handmaidens,” she added lest the wrong construction be put on the ambiguous term she used.

One reason (though not the only one) for the concern of Boaz for Ruth’s welfare was her exceptional devotion to her destitute mother-in-law, and her quite surprising faith in the God of Israel:

Boaz answered and said unto her: “It hath fully been showed me all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore. The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”

What is particularly impressive about these words is their sustained allusion to God’s promises to Abraham: “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kin-dred and from thy father’s house….I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward….The Lord God of heaven which took me from my father’s house and from the land of my nativity….” Thus Boaz was more prophetic than he knew, for it was through this winsome Gentile, whose only strength was faith and fidelity, that those far-reaching promises to Abraham were to be fulfilled.

A good day’s work

Never was such a prosperous day’s gleaning. So bulky were the combined fruits of Ruth’s industry and the covert generosity of Boaz that she was unable to carry home what she had gathered. Instead she must needs spend the last hour of the day winnowing all of it. Picture her, then, utterly tired out, but happy in her anticipation of Naomi’s glad surprise, as she staggered wearily home burdened with half a hundred weight of barley. She carried also the remains of the lavish meal of roasted corn which Boaz had handed to her personally. With characteristic unselfishness she had saved some for Naomi at home, but the best of all her gleaning was the evident regard of a good man.

A redeemer

When Naomi learned the good fortune the day had brought, with a woman’s quiet intuition she immediately perceived a deeper and happier intent in Boaz than that of mere generosity to one destitute and deserving. “Blessed be he of the Lord” she said, “who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead.” By this she meant that God besides being gracious to Ruth and herself was also showing kindness to the dead Elimelech: “The man is near of kin unto us”, that is, he is a redeemer for us.

This term go’el calls for explanation. It described the nearest relative on whom devolved the responsibilities of redeeming an inheritance which through ill-fortune had passed out of the family. Another duty was that of continuing the family name of a near kinsman who had died childless, and also of avenging the blood of a kinsman slain in a feud. The first two of these, both appropriate in Ruth’s case, help to explain why the Law of Moses assigned a double portion of inheritance to the firstborn son, since he would have to take on himself most of these responsibilities. It would seem, then, that Naomi had already considered the possibility of Ruth finding a go’el in Bethlehem; by enquiry, if not be knowledge of the family, she had already ascertained that one of Elimelech’s near kinsmen, and therefore Ruth’s, was Boaz. It will be seen by and by that the same thought had also been pondered in the mind of Boaz himself.

Ruth gleaned in the fields of Boaz right through the barley harvest, and the wheat harvest as well — with intermission, a period of two months or more. Then Naomi came to an important though reluctant decision. Since Boaz was so evidently in love with Ruth, why did he not, more promptly, seek to make her his wife? Possibly he was deterred by the knowledge that he was not the nearest of near kinsmen with the right of redemption. Or, and perhaps more probably, he found it impossible to believe that the young and comely Ruth would wish to have as husband one so much older than herself.

Whatever the explanation, Naomi felt Ruth should now claim what was her right, for even though she were a Moabitess, the levirate law of marriage applied in her case by virtue of the fact that her first husband was an Israelite. Perhaps the biggest problem in this story of Ruth is to explain why Naomi chose such a method by which Ruth might claim her right of marriage, for it involved a serious risk of scandal throughout the town, with a distinct possibility of evil consequences for both Ruth and Boaz. Why, one wonders, did not Naomi herself act as go-between in this delicate matter, or devise some other means less open to misinterpretation?

Can it be that behind this charming but risky procedure recommended by Naomi there is some local custom of the time, knowledge of which has disappeared? Or is it possible that by such a device Naomi betrayed the flaw in her character, that she had the best possible aspirations on Ruth’s behalf but lacked the faith and patience to let God bring these hopes to fruition in His own way? One hesitates to adopt such a conclusion, but the possibility of it should not be excluded. Whatever the explanation, Naomi’s plan resulted in one of the most delightful stories in the Bible.

Notes

4.	The Lord be with you must mean, in this context: ‘The Lord give you a good harvest.’ The words come with that meaning in Ps. 129:7,8; Jud. 6:12; and also in a more subtle sense in 2 Th. 3:16; Lk. 1:28.
7.	Tarried; i.e. she first did the chores at home.
9.	After them, the other girls who were gleaning. The pronoun is feminine.
10.	Paraphrase: Why do you grant me my request and these privileges when I am a perfect stranger?
12.	Wings. An allusion to the cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat.
15.	Among the sheaves. Yet another privilege.
	Reproach her not. AVm shows what Boaz was afraid of.
16.	Let fall also….Literally: Ye shall plunder a plunder for her from the handfuls.
22.	That they (masc.) meet thee not. Again, AVm shows the implied meaning.