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.

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.”

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.”

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.

1. Sardis. Famous in earlier history. Capital of Lydia, the kingdom ruled by wealthy Croesus. At this time it was a declining city and had been ever since a destructive earthquake at the begim1ing of the century.

he that hath the seven Spirits and the seven stars. Ch. 4:5 and 5:6 and 1 :16, 20. Thus “seven spirits” emphasizes angelic action among the ecclesias, or the operation of Holy Spirit powers in the ecclesias. “Seven stars” emphasizes responsibility of ecclesias to Christ their llead.

I know thy works. Contrast the force and tone of this with 2:2, 9, 13, 19. Only here and in v. 15 does Christ begin with condemnation.

a name that thou livest and art dead. Ecclesia and city were alike-both living on a splendid past. What was wrong? (a) Indulgence in pleasure; cp. the similar language of 2 Timothy 3:5, 4; 1 Timothy 5:6; Titus 1:16, 12. (b) Lack of prayer may be inferred from “Be watchful ;” prayer and “watching” are frequently associated together; e.g. Matthew 26:38, 41; Luke 21 :36; Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 4:2. (e) Lack of faithful testimony to the Truth may be inferred from the allusion at the end of v. 5. What a shock when these words were read out before the ecclesia! There is a serious lack of this type of downright exhortation today. Why did not Jesus introduces himself by ch. 2:8?

become watchful. Nehemiah 7:3.

2. establish the things which remain. The reference is to the gifts of the Spirit. See on “fulfilled” in this verse and on “received” (v. 3). Evidently, the up-building power of the gifts of the Spirit was being neglected in Sardis Restraint of the exuberance of these powers had been necessary in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14) and in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 5: 19, 22). Had Sardis drifted into cold formality through striving after seemliness at the expense of spiritual fervour?

I have found. Greek: “eureka,” perfect tense, implies: “I found som~ time ago and it is still true.” This condemnation is not summary or hasty

no works of thine fulfilled. Romans 15: 13, 14; Ephesians 1:23; 3:19; 4:10; 5:18; Philippians 1:11.

before my God. Luke 12: 9, 6 and 15: 10.

my God. Only other occurrences: John 20:17; Revelation 3:12. What is the special significance of this? The expression is useful against the doctrine of the Trinity. Note that only dead Sardis and lukewarm Laodicea have no enemies, either in or outside the ecclesia!

3. Therefore. Twice in one verse, in consequences of “thy works not fulfilled…”

remember-”keep on remembering”-the key to faithfulness; Luke 22:19; Mark 14:72; whence 2 Peter 1:12, 13 and 3:1, 2.

how thou hast received (the gifts of the Spirit), as in Romans 8:15, Galatians 3:2; 2 Peter 4:10; 1 John 2:27. Gk. perfect tense implies that they were still possessed, but not honoured or used with profit.

how emphasizes the eager zeal of Sardis in its early days.

and didst hear (the word of life).

and keep (my commandments).

and repent. And apparently Sardis did! In the mid-second Century Melito bishop of Sardis was one of the outstanding characters of the early church. Among other things, he wrote a commentary on Revelation! If the leader of the ecclesia was faithful the rest would follow his lead. if thou wilt not watch. Luke 21:36; Matthew 24:42.

I will come as a thief. Matthew 24:42, 43 (Luke 12:39, 40), alluded to in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4, 6; Revelation 3.18 and 16:15; 2 Peter 3:10. The phrase always applies to the Second Coming, but what meaning could it have for Sardis in the first Century?

thou shalt not know what hour. Quote from Matthew 24:42 where context defines what is meant by “watching.” Should it be inferred that the watchful will know the hour?

4. a few names. Idiom for the faithful remnant; John 10:3; Acts 1:15; Revelation 11 :15; Numbers 26:63-65. These few faithful are not commanded to separate themselves from the rest!

not defiled their garments. Ch. 16:15, where also, “I come as a thief.” What is the point here in what seems to be a deliberate reference to the letter to Sardis?-to suggest that at the coming of the Lord the Truth will be in a Sardian state? Revelation 14: 4; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Jude 23.

their garments. Their Christ-righteousness; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:24 and 5:27; Revelation 6:11 and 7:9.

with me. In fulfilment of Christ’s High Priestly prayer; John 17:24; Revelation 2:1.

walk with me in white. Cp. Genesis 5:22; Luke 9:29; Matthew 13:43. Or, read as an allusion to Zechariah 3:3, the next verse becomes an appropriate reference to the Satan of Zechariah 3: 1-those in Ezra 2 :62, 63 whose names were blotted out of the book of the priesthood.

for they are worthy. What a contrast with 16:6!

5. he that overcometh. The one who repents: v. 3. Even his defiled garments shall be cleansed.

white raiment. The priestly robe; Matthew 6:29; Zechariah 3:4. Contrast Revelation 2:26-28 (royal majesty).

not blot out his name. Implying that it is possible for a name once written in the Book to be blotted out; Ezra 2:63. Cp. 2 Samuel 23, includes in David’s mighty men Joab’s armour-bearer, but not Joab; Ahithophel’s son, but not Ahithophel; the priest Benaiah but not the priest Abiathar. Revelation 7 omits Dan and Ephraim.

Direct reference here to Psalm 69:28. Implication: these Sardians by their empty service have put themselves among the Lord’s crucifiers, as in Hebrews 6:6 and 10:29. Cp. 1 Corinthians 11:27.

book of life. Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 and 21:27; Exodus 32:32; Psalm 69:28 and 56:8 and 87:6; Daniel 12:1; Isaiah 4:3; Ezekiel 13:9; Philippians 4:3; Luke 10 :20; Hebrews 12 :23; Malachi 3:16. There is no Book of Death, except Jeremiah 17:23. In fact, if there were, all would be written in it; Romans 3 :9, 23.

before my Father and 6efore His angels combines Matthew 10:32 and Luke 12:8. Implies a protasis; “he that confesses me before men.” Evidently Sardis was failing in this respect.

before His angels, who will be sent to gather the elect; Matthew 24:31.

7. Philadelphia. Further inland than the churches mentioned so far. It had been more devastated by earthquakes than any other town in the Roman Empire. Ignatius (died c. 112) has several interesting allusions to this letter in his letter to Philadelphia.

angel of the church (according to Apostolic Constitutions) was Demetrius. Probably the same as 3 John 12, where read: “Demetrius hath the witness (commendatory letter?) of all (the elders here?), and of the Truth itself (in the copy of the Gospel which he brings?),” and cp. rest of verse with John 19:35 and 21:24. If this suggestion be well-founded, there is special point in “he that is true,” and in “an open door,” and “no man can shut it” (contrast Diotrephes). Verse 7 is largely quotation from Isaiah 22:22. Almost this entire letter is shot through with allusions to that chapter and its background, so a diversion to study it becomes almost, if not quite, essential.

Isaiah 22:15-25.

Setting of the prophecy: Throughout the reign of wicked Ahaz, the Temple had been shut up, and the Temple area given over to base idolatry imported from Assyria (2 Chronicles 28:24, 25; 2 Kings 16:1~12). Shebna, along with Urijah the High Priest, was probably responsible to the king for the furtherance of this policy. With the accession of Hezekiah came drastic reformation. The Temple was re-opened (2 Chronicles 29:3) and cleansed (29: 16-19). Shebna was first transferred to a new office (Isaiah 36:2 and 22:15) and later thrust out altogether (Isaiah 22:17-19). Probably it was he that is denounced in Psalm 49. A man of godliness -Eliakim, replaced the time-serving Urijah. Using Shebna as a type of the old order, Isaiah foretells the replacement of Jewish self-sufficiency by the acceptable approach to God through Christ.

	15.	Shebna=sit down now. His name is symbolic of his imminent thrusting out of office. Contrast Eliakim (= whom God will raise up) son of Hilkiah (= the Lord is my portion).
		over the house. Not only the royal palace, but the temple (the two buildings were in the same enclosure); cp. 1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31: 10, 13; Jeremiah 20:1.
	16.	sepulchre. As though seeking to guarantee himself a glorious resurrection?
	17.	R.V. “hurl thee away.” s.w. Jeremiah 16:13.
		R.V. “will wrap thee up closely.” An allusion to Leviticus 10:5?
	18.	the chariots of thy glory. Imitation cherubim. 2 Kings 23:11 (contrast 1 Chronicles 28:18 R.V.).
	19.	I . . . he. God, and His servant.
		station. Priestly office, as in 1 Chronicles 23:28.
	20.	my servant. So the “servant of the Lord” is a feature of “Proto”- as well as “Deutero!”-Isaiah 49:1, 3. Read: “I will call my servant (Hezekiah the Suffering Servant of the Lord) to Eliakim”-the leper coming to the priest to be cleansed: Leviticus 14:2. Or perhaps the reference is to 2 Chronicles 29-the Temple restoration by Hezekiah. It is not Eliakim but “my Servant” who is the subject of this prophecy.
	21.	robe . . . girdle have special reference to priestly and royal garments; “government . . . father . . . shoulder” (v. 22) are all in Isaiah 9:6 a further hint that the whole of this Shebna transaction has Messianic significance.
	22.	key of the house of David. Kingship and priesthood are inextricably intertwined in this prophecy, as in v. 21 and again in v. 23, 24.
		opens and none shall shut. Reference to the temple, as in Malachi 1:10; see 2 Chronicles 28:24 and 29:3, 7. Contrast Isaiah 60:11 speaking of the day when temple and city shall be synonymous.
	23.	a nail in a sure place, and v. 24. Hezekiah is likened to a wall-hook in the temple on which to hang securely various things for the temple service (2 Chronicles 28:24 and 29:18, 19). The figure of Christ upon whom all depend is an obvious one. So understood by Ezra and Zechariah; Ezra 9:8 and Zechariah 10:4.
		a glorious throne. The King-Priest; Zechariah 6:12, 13. The words imply divine nature also: Jeremiah 17:12 and 14:21; Matthew 25:31.
	24.	they shall hang upon him. Israel being an utter failure in this particular respect (Ezekiel 15:3), God turns to one “made strong” for the purpose. “All the vessels . . . of cups . . . and of flagons” are interpreted as symbolic of “the offspring and the issue” in Christ.
	25.	In that day, further demonstrates the application of the prophecy to other than Hezekiah.
		the nail . . . removed . . . cut down . . . fan. Either (a) reference to Shebna the type of an unworthy priesthood, in which case, it adds nothing to v. 15-19; or (b) a prophecy of the humiliation of Christ on the cross; cp. Isaiah 52:13 (his dignity) and 53:8, 11 (his shame). Cp. also Daniel 9:24, 26-Messiah the prince cut off; 1 Corinthians 2:8-the Lord of glory crucified. Difficulty here is in the anticlimax of the prophecy. “In that day” so often refers to the glorious consummation.

It is now easy to see Shebna as a type of the offensive self-seeking of Israel’s priesthood, a shame to its Lord’s House and eventually to be utterly abolished. Luke 16:3 is almost a quotation from LXX of v. 19 here. And every detail written about Hezekiah finds much greater fulness in an application to Christ.

he that is holy. This title apparently not in ch. 1. But it is: cp. Psalm 16:10, the one raised from the dead; this in turn connects with Revelation 1: 18, where note reference to “keys.” Same title associated with resurrection in Acts 3:14, 15: John 6:69 R.V. (but the reading is doubtful). This is another of God’s titles appropriate to His Son; Revelation 4:8; John 17:3, 11.

he that is true. v. 14 (the Amen) and 6:10 (to open the grave for his martyrs, and no man shutteth), and 19:11 (to shut his enemies in the grave, and no man openeth). The word “true” often signifies “true” in contrast to “type” (Hezekiah), not in contrast to “false”.

the key of David. Again, as in Isaiah 22:22, 23 there is both kingship and priesthood here. On occasions Peter was deputed to use this key (Matthew 16:19), but no intrinsic right was conferred on him. That remains Christ’s. Alongside mention of false Jews in v. 9 this figure is appropriate: see Luke 11:52, and note Galatians 4:17 R.V.: same attitude shown by Judaisers in the ecclesia, seeking to shut out those not circumcised. John 10:7, 9 is also a parallel with this verse; for by metonymy “I am the door” probably means: “I am the shepherd who shews the way through the door;” otherwise, the Lord’s parable loses all coherence.

he that openeth and none shutteth. Not (a) the meaning of Scriptures; nor (b) the sealed Book of Life, but, as Isaiah 22 shows, (c) the way of approach to God (the temple doors); Colossians 1:13; and also (d) the way out of the tomb; ch. 1:18.

shutteth and no man openeth. Again, apply to the way of approach to God. The Jewish means of access (v. 9) is now shut by Christ. True also of the way out of the tomb; Christ will close the grave upon his enemies.

8. set. Gk.: “given” is Hebraism for “appointed.”

behold, suggesting urgency about the work before them.

a door opened. R.V. as in Hezekiah’s day, a door for access to God (Romans 5:2) and thus for communion with Him; a door also by which to bring men into God’s temple. (a) 2 Chronicles 26:16 and 27:2 and 28:24 and 29:3 Isaiah 22:22. (b) Acts 14:27; Colossians 4:3; I Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12. Philadelphia had a vast opportunity-providing hinterland. It was to be before all else a missionary ecclesia.

no man can shut it. Not even Jewish obstinacy.

I know thy works . . . that thou hast a little strength. (a) The words about the “open door” may be a parenthesis, as though Jesus were eager to reassure this struggling but faithful ecclesia. “Little strength” probably means “few in number and resources.” If taken as applying to lack of spiritual vigour, it accords ill with the rest of this commendatory epistle. (b) But A.V. reading is possible. In that case the sense is: “because thou hast but a little strength, I have appointed for thee an open door, with immense opportunities for preaching” i.e. the reward for faithful work in Christ is more work. Note too that Christ is best able to use those without confidence in their own power.

a little strength . . . thou hast kept my word. Allusion to 1 Kings 7:20; Boaz = in him is strength. Jachin = he will establish or make firm. Now see v. 12.

kept my word. 1 John 2:4, 5. Philadelphia = love of the brethren, v. 10; see also on v. 10 here.

didst not deny my name. R.V. Staunch loyalty in the face of persecution of the name Christian.

9. Behold (repeated), emphasizing the surprising outcome of their “little strength.” Make – ”give” as in v. 8.

synagogue of Satan. The adversary synagogue of Jews rebelling against the light by rejecting the gospel. Contrast the synagogue of truth; James 2:2 R.V. These Jews who boasted in their descent from Abraham were not Jews at all in the eyes of Abraham’s Seed; John 8:39. The “works of Abraham” are “belief in Christ” (v. 56).

but do lie. John 8:44.

make them to come and worship. If from Isaiah 60:14, a prophecy of Gentiles worshipping Jews is applied by Jesus to Gentile Jews worshipping Jewish Gentiles! Note there also “the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” and compare Revelation 3:7,12. If from Isaiah 49:23 note: “they that wait for me”-”keep the word of my patience” (Revelation 3:10); and v. 24, 25=“keep thee from the hour of trial.”

worship before thy feet continues the figure of a re-opened Temple and worshippers prostrating themselves in the temple court before the entrance of the Holy Place, flanked by Jachin and Boaz (v. 12). Is this a promise of conversion of hostile Jews in Philadelphia? This would be an utterly unexpected meaning to the “open door.” The fulness of the promise can only be at the Second Coming; Zechariah 8:20-23 (“him that is a Jew”=Christ and the spiritual seed of Abraham; Romans 2:29) Zechariah 12:10.

I loved thee. Christ died for these Gentiles also as well as for the natural seed of Abraham. Gk. aorist refers to the death of Christ, as in 1 John 4:10, 11.

10. the word of my patience. (a) My commandment with patience. (b) My commandment concerning patience; Matthew 10:22. (c) The word, which commands steadfastness such as I also shewed. (c) is preferable.

the hour of trial. A phrase full of meaning for Philadelphians. Philadelphia was the most earthquake-stricken city in the whole world of that day. What hour of trial? (a) The spreading Neronic persecution afflicting “all the world” of Christians. This persecution died suddenly with Nero, so it might never have reached Philadelphia. (b) The earthquake of Revelation 16:14, I8. The promise then assures the faithful remnant of safety in the divine visitation; Isaiah 26:20, 21. (c) Suggestion included in next note.

them that dwell on the earth. In Revelation this phrase almost always means “them that dwell in the Land (of Palestine”). Gk.: Luke 21:23. But this seems to contradict “all the inhabited earth.” Interpret thus: The impending Jewish war and destruction of Jerusalem would not only “try them that dwell in the Land,” but would also be an “hour of trial” to the millions of Jews already scattcred throughout “all the world.” I7or all Jews, in Palestine and out of it, A.D. 70 was to mean the utter abolition of all that their religion stood for. But whilst Philadelphia’s Jewish advcrsaries were to suffer in this way, these same events would be a consolidation of faith to faithful Christians at Philadelphia. In fact the fall of Jerusalem may have been the Lord’s means of bringing these Jewish adversaries to “worship before thy feet,” by accepting the faith they had hitherto reviled.

11. I come quickly: hold fast only makes sense on the assurnption that an early coming of the Lord was (at that time) the divine intention (see Appendix).

hold fast that which thou hast. So the primary duty of a faithful ecclesia is not to find new truth different from the principles already learned, but to maintain in purity those already received.

that no man take thy crown. As David supplanted Saul, or Matthias Judas, or the Gentiles the Jews. Modern examples?

thy crown. In the light of the reference in v. 12 to “a pillar in the temple” this should be read first as an allusion to Jachin and Boaz (cp. v. 8); I Kings 7:15-22, 41, 42; 2 Chronicles 3:15-17. Note detailed descriptions of “chapiters” or “crowns” which were later “taken away;” 2 Kings 25:13, 16, 17. Reference to Exodus 28:36-38 is unlikely because this crown was peculiar to the High Priest.

12. a pillar in the temple of my God. See precious note. But allusion to Jachin and Boaz by no means exhausts the force of this phrase. “In the temple (sanctuary)” may now allude to one of the pillars supporting the Veil (Exodus 26:32; 1 Kings 6:31, 33). Such a conclusion would harmonize well with the rest of the verse. See next note but one. Galatians 2:9 speaks of Apostles as pillars in God’s spiritual house (there is no innuendo about the word “seemed”); 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; I Peter 2:5. The new Jerusalem has no temple in it; ch. 21: 22, 23. It is all temple. City and temple are one and the same.

and he shall go no more out. The words appear almost unnecessary until the fate of Jachin and Boaz is recalled. And following Galatians 2:9 it is to be remembered that Cephas was crucified in Rome, James the Lord’s brother was battered to death in Jerusalem, the other James was slain by Herod, and John was banished to Patmos. Nevertheless: John 6:37 and 10:28, 29. Contrast 1 John 2:19.

Both these phrases would be specially eloquent to the much earthquaked Philadelphians. To be a “pillar” must mean ability to withstand unmoved the worst shocks that life can administer. To “go no more out” would provide startling and satisfying contrast with the masses of panic-stricken populace camping in the open fields in time of earth tremors.

the name of my God . . . of the city of my God . . . my new name. Another triad. Jeremiah 33:16 and 23:6 put it beyond all doubt that the name is The Lord our Righteousness (contrast the name of the Beast). Righteousness is essentially a personal quality, and yet-amazing fact – here is one who is the Righteousness of others. How so? Because besides being a King (Jeremiah 23: 5) he is also an altar – for every other example of a compounded Jehovah name in the Old Testament applies to an altar: Judges 6 :24; Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Ezekiel 48:35 (and see also Exodus 20:24, 25). Thus the allusions in this letter have taken the steadfast believer from the Temple door into the very Holy of Holies, where the Mercy Seat was the altar, or propitiatory, on the Day of Atonement. Consider also Genesis 28:22 (very probably an inscribed stone, as Joshua 24:27), alluded to in 1 Timothy 3:15, where “pillar and ground of the truth (i.e. the promise)” may possibly be in apposition to “thou,” the earnest Timothy.

new 7erusalem which cometh down from God. A remarkable anticipation of ch. 21: 2, almost suggesting that the letters to the churches were written after the rest of the book. The detail here is necessary to avoid unhappy confusion with the literal Jerusalem soon to be destroyed, leaving not even a pillar standing. In his Gospel John uses the Greek form Hierosoluma, but in Revelation writing of the new Jerusalem, he always has the Hebrew form: Hierousalem.

my new name. In the New Testament this always means the beginning of a new life different from the old; e.g. Cephas, Boancrges, Paul, Barnabas. See on ch. 2:17. It was only after his resurrection that Jesus became the Lord our Righteousness; Romans 4:25; Philippians 2:9-11. This detail is highly appropriate here, for Philadelphia had adopted a new name Neo-Caesarea, in honour of the Emperor Tiberius who gave material aid to help recovery after the A.D. 17 earthquake.

14. Laodicea. A very wealthy city in the Lycus valley near Hierapolis and Colosse. Big trade in woollen manufactures (fine black wool). Banking centre. Famous also for a local eye-ointment. There were hot springs in the vicinity. Utterly destroyed by earthquake in Nero’s reign (not long before this letter) and, unlike other cities, was completely and magnificently rebuilt without any Imperial aid.

the angel. Almost certainly the “bishop” of this ecclesia was Archippus, son of Philemon; Colossians 4:16, 17; Philemon 2. And so also in Apostolic Constitutions. It would seem that Archippus was slack in his service and the ecclesia took its tone from him-a warning to ecclesial elders in this generation! Also Nymphas (Colossians 4:15) was prominent at Laodicea. The name is probably a shortened form of the word for “the one who leads the bride.” Now note the contacts of this letter with the Song of Songs: 5:2, knock; 5:1, sup; 5:3, raiment; 5:17, naked; 5:11 fine gold; 3:10, 11, throne; 1: 3; 4:10, ointment. In 1st Century ecclesias there was a vocal response from all the congregation: 1 Corinthians 14:16. Why not in the 20th Century? Amen-the “verily” of Christ- “as I live, saith the Lord,” in the Old Testament. So the title here contrasts the unwavering purpose of God in Christ with the vague purposelessness of Laodicea. It is another title of God applied to the Son: Isaiah 65:16 R.V.m. Where does this descriptive title of Christ come in ch. 1? – in v. 18? in v. 5? The context of Isaiah 65 is magnificently appropriate: (v.11) “ye are they that forsake the Lord” = “lukewarm”; (v. 12) “When I called ye did not answer” etc. = “behold, I stand at the door and knock;” (v. 13) “ye shall be hungry . . . thirsty . . . ashamed,” “cry for sorrow of heart, howl for vexation of spirit” = “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, naked.”

faithful and true witness. See on ch. 1:5. In apposition to “the Amen.” Each explains the other. Isaiah 65: 16 LXX-the true God. Psalm 89:37 connects this title with thc rainbow, which in Gcnesis 9: 12-17 symbolized the end of troubles and the bringing in of new heavens and earth-now see again Isaiah 65:16, 17. “True,” Greek: alethinos, is in contrast to the type (the rainbow). Revelation 22: 6 and 21:5 and 19:11 are all associated with the “new heavens and earth,” and are all guaranteed by the words “faithful and true”. Amen, it shall be so! Revelation 19:11 would have an ominous ring for these Laodiceans: this glorious being could bring judgement and war on Laodicea too. Jeremiah 42:5, 6 (another divine title appropriated by Christ!) hints at the spirit Christ fain would see in Laodicea.

the beginning of the Creation of God. Revelation 1:5; Colossians 1:15, 18. The first to rise from the dead to immortality, the first of God’s new creation. Or, possibly, in an active sense: the beginner of the new creation; cp. John 1: 1-3, where the meaning is precisely that.

15. cold or hot Boiling hot – allusion to Laodicea’s beneficent hot springs. The verb is used in Acts 18:25 (a fine example) and Romans 12:11. The noun translated zeal, indignation, jealousy (in good or bad sense) is from the same root. Here, obviously: zealous, enthusiastic.

cold can hardly be a synonym for spiritually dead, because 1. It is never so used in Scripture. 2. The order of the words “cold or hot.” Would Jesus wish his disciples cold, in that sense? For, using a different figure, he said: “If the salt have lost his savour . . .” Instead, Matthew 10:42, Proverbs 25:25 point to the meaning “spiritualIy refreshing.”

16. neither hot nor cold. R.V. After “lukewarm” these words are, strictly speaking, superfluous. But who shall say this additional emphasis is unnecessary? Why is the order of the words switched from v. 15?

spue thee out. Appropriate after “lukewarm.” Comparing Laodicea to Israel in its worst apostasy, Leviticus 18: 24-28 (note the context and compare “that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear!”). How startled these very proper but lukewarm Laodiceans would be by the comparison. Yet the same comparison is valid in these days! See on v. 18.

will spue thee out. Gk: I am about to; cp. Luke 12:19-21: “this night.” What practical action does this figure symbolize? How can “about to” refer to a Second Coming 1900 years later?

17. rich etc. Another triad. Cp. Paul’s irony in 1 Corinthians 4:8. Contrast ch. 2:9. It is not literal riches of Laodicean bankers that is referred to here though doubtless it was their literal wealth that fostered this self-sufficiency (there is no more potent cause). Cp. Hosea 12:8, alluded to here. Laodicea was another faithless Isracl, the grounds for whose complacency are in v. 8b, 11 (where “heaps” = dung-heaps).

have need of nothing. Allusions to Laodicea’s self-sufficiency after recent earthquake; see on v. 14. Apparently Laodicea knew better than its Lord; Matthew 6:8.

wretched etc. Read: “the wretched and miserable one, even poor and blind and naked.” Then this triad of spiritual diseases are separately prescribed for in the next verse. All these words describe the man who cannot help himself and who must needs beg aid from others. Laodicea could get this help only from Christ (v. 18).

the wretched one. The outstandingly wretched one amongst all the churches? Or, he who is spiritually poor and yet imagines himself to be rich is specially the wretched one. He is beyond aid. Everyday Gk. used this word of the one compelled to earn a hard living by excessive physical effort; i.e. Laodicea must work for its living in Christ. The Old Testament (LXX) uses it of those plundered by the strong and unscrupulous.

blind. Christ’s eyesalve (v. 18) is so restorative that it will even bring back sight to the completely blind; John 9:6. Note how in this verse the Lord is driven to pile up stinging epithets in order to get under this thick Laodicean skin! As are its leading ministers, so is the ecclesia, nearly always. And these leaders are held responsible for their ecclesia! But this may have been more directly the case in the days of Holy Spirit gifts.

18. I counsel thee. Ironic? Where else in Scripture does Jesus advise? Isaiah 9:6?

buy of me, at the cost of self-esteem, as Paul; Philippians 3 :7-9. The thrce items following correspond to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 23: 9, 10, 8 R.V. The idea therefore is: Get back to the spirit and meaning of your baptism. Also, all three are allusions to local activities: see on v. 14.

gold tried in the fire. Tried faith? Very doubtful. 1 Peter 1:7 is a contrast not a comparison. More probably reference to the gold of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (ch. 1:12, 13 and 8:3 and 15:7); i.e. you may think of yourself as sharing divine fellowship, but you don’t; yours is worldly wealth only; Zechariah 13:9-a figure for the discipleship of the faithful remnant.

rich. Colossians 2:2, 3 (see 4:16); Revelation 2:9; Ephesians 1:18 and 3:8.

white raiment. Colossians 3:10, 12, 14.

shame of thy nakedness. When? At the Lord’s Coming, Matthew 22:11. When else? Revelation 16:15, with v. 3, 4, 10 here, suggests that Sardis Philadelphia and Laodicea (ecclesias like them!) will still exist in the 6th Vial these letters have a further application in the Last Days.

eyesalve. Their own sent forth a stinking savour (Ecclesiastes 10:1); contrast John 9:6; 1 John 2:20, 27 (was Laodicea another ecclesia not using Spirit gifts to the full advantage?) and v. 28c.

19. as many as I love. Gk: phileo, indicates the Lord’s natural affection for these erring disciples. Use of this word might imply that he had known some of them personally in the days of his flesh.

rebuke. In New Testament=reprove and convict; John 1(J:8.

chasten. Cp. David; 2 Samuel 12:13 (convicted), 14 (chastened). This verse is a dircct allusion to Proverbs 3:11, 12. Entire context there is relevant to Laodicea. v. 10 = true riches. v. 12b = Revelation 3:21. v. 14 = Revelation 3:18a. v. 21 = Revelation 3:18c.

be zealous. Cognate with “hot” (v. 15). Continuous imperative: “be always zealous; “ Colossians 4: 17.

20. Behold. A matter of urgency.

I stand at the door and knock. Song of Songs 5:2. In the elaborate type of the Song of Songs this refers to a literal (not mystical) coming of the Beloved deferred because his “sister-spouse” is unprepared for him. Note also that verse 3d here = Revelation 3:18b.

hear my voice and open— Luke 12:36, 37, (as the next words prove), and not John 14:23.

Come in and sup with him. Does not refer to present fellowship with Christ, but to Luke 12:36, 37, the Second Coming, ep. James 5:9. This is equivalent to the repeated “I come quickly” in the other Letters.

he with me – “(the Lord) shall gird himself, and come forth and serve them ;” Luke 12:37. Cp. John’s fondness for Christ’s “sayings of reciprocity:” John 6: 56 and 10:38 and 14:20 and 15:4, 5 and 17:21, 26, a rich collection.

21. sit with me in my throne. Christ’s earthly throne; John 17:22, 24. Contrast Matthew 20: 23. This v. (3: 21) supplies the answer to their question.

with my Father in his throne. The Father’s heavenly throne; ch. 4:2. But the two thrones are one and the same; ch. 22:1; Matthew 16:27 and 25:31.

THE LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES AND THE PROBLEM OF FELLOWSHIP

The bearing of the Letters to the Churches on the difficult problem of Fellowship is very direct and important. Sardis is “dead.” The Truth in its midst is “ready to die.” Its works are “not prefect.” Nevertheless there are here “a few names which have not defiled their garments.” There is no hint that these few are to separate themselves from an otherwise “dead” ecclesia. There is no reproach that they are defiling themselves by present associations, no instruction that they are to take any kind of drastic action. This is left to the Lord himself. Instead, these few are pronounced “worthy.”

Pergamos has the pernicious doctrine of Balaamites and Nicolaitans, but whilst there is reproach because these are tolerated, there is no hint to the rest of the seven churches that they dissociate themselves from over-tolerant Pergamos.

On the contrary the Lord speaks of himself as the one who “holds the seven stars in his right hand.” This includes Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea! Indeed every implication of the Letters is that he continues to hold them until he “comes quickly to fight against them with the sword of his mouth,” until he comes “as a thief.”

Most impressive of all is the Letter to Thyatira. Here there is “that woman Jezebel” who both practiced and taught evil. Nevertheless there is even a certain commendation for this ecclesia. There is also the express charge: “Unto you . . . as many as have not this doctrine I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.” Quite explicitly, then, there is no warning that the faithful in Thyatira were in duty bound to separate themselves from the corruption in their midst. But there is clear intimation of the need to discipline the false teacher.

Without any emphasis needed, it is evident that the Letters to the Churches, far from lending support to the doctrine of “iron curtain” excommunication, quite clearly require the faithful to remain even in unfaithful ecclesias holding tenaciously to their own faith and doing all possible to save the rest.

General characteristics.

1. Each has: “To the church at . . . write; These things saith . . . “
2. Each has: “I know they works.”
3. Each has: “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”
4. In the first three, “he that overcometh” precedes “he that hath an ear . . . “ In the last four this order is reversed. Why? (See Ch. 6).
5. Each introduces Christ by some description from chapter 1 appropriate to the particular church, and ends with a promise, which agrees with this description (details in notes).
6. Five churches are told to repent. The other two are promised a crown.
7. A coming of the Lord is referred to in five of the letters; “Satan” is mentioned in four.

Historical application.

The view that the Letters to the Churches are also prophetic of seven periods of church history has been somewhat uncritically received. Some of the reasons against it are:

	(a)	Church history through 1,900 years is not the history of the Truth, it is the history of the apostasy.
	(b)	The history of the Truth during that period is not known. For rnost of that long era, the Truth may have disappeared altogether. Certainly nothing approaching a continuous history of the faithful remnant is available. It is a big mistake to confuse communities such as Donatists, Waldenses, Huguenots with the true Faith. It is demonstrable that all of these were sadly astray on fundamentals.
	(c)	If “Ephesus” corresponds to the earliest period, “Smyrna” is manifestly better. Did the spiritual condition of the early church actually improve after the time of the apostles?
	(d)	The best of the seven-Philadelphia-is sandwiched between the two worst, Sardis and Laodicea. Can any consecutive periods in the history of the Truth be pointed to as corresponding clearly with such remarkable phenomena?
	(e)	If the twentieth century is the “Laodicean” period, then in what sense does the Truth today consider itself to be “rich and increased in goods?” – materially, or spiritually? And in what sense is it actually “poor and blind and naked?” If spiritually, how does it – apply, since ecclesias vary from one to the next very considerably?
	(f)	Is there so much as one small Biblical hint that this mode of application of the Letters to the Churches should be adopted?

1. Ephesus first because (a) it was nearest of them all to Patmos (see map); (b) it was John’s OWII ecclesia, according to universal tradition of the early church.

angel of the church at Ephesus. If the “angel” is the individual leader of the ecclesia (see Chapter 1 – The Son Of Man (ch. 1)), then the person addressed here could be Timothy. The reproach of this letter (v. 4) may not have been true of him personally; nevertheless he bore the responsibility. “We are members one of another;” cp. Exodus 32:25: Aaron, although reluctant, was held responsible.

that holdeth the seven stars. Gk.=holds firmly, has dominion over; cp. John 10:28. And among these seven-Sardis and Laodicea!

walketh in the midst. A most impressive idea. This one phrase will do efficiently the work of many a long exhortation, when it really penetrates the mind. “Thou God seest me.” Old Testament basis: Deuteronomy 23:14; Leviticus 26:11, 12 and 24:2-4.

2. I know thy works, both good and evil. This phrase is from Isaiah 66:18, where v. 18b=Matthew 25:32: the Day of Judgement! There is tremendous emphasis in the gospels on the Lord’s intuitive knowledge of the attitudes and thoughts of others: John 1 :48, 49; 2:24, 25; 3 :7; 4:18, 29; 6:61, 64; 11 :14; 13:38; 16:19, 30; 20:27; 21:17; Mark 2:6, 8; 3:23; 5:30; Luke 6:8; 7:39, 47; 9:47; Matthew 16:8; 17:25; Revelation 1:14; 2:1, 23, 18; Romans 8:27; Hebrews 4:12.

labour and patience. So the church at Ephesus was not “a comfortable club for the conserving of the life of a few saints,” as are so many ecclesias today. Cp. 1 Thessalonians 1:3-work of faith, labour of love, patience of

hope. In Ephesus love was dwindling (v. 4) and with it, doubtless, faith and hope also. Contrast 2 Thessalonians 1:3, 4 where these were “growing, abounding, enduring.”

labour here = labour to weariness. It is surely a correct inference that this was the past record of the Ephesians, not characteristic of the present; cp. v. 5: “do the first works.”

canst not bear them which are evil but hast tried them. Ecclesial discipline implied; 1 John 4:1. The command is to bear with weak brethren, but not false ones; Galatians 6:2.

say they are apostles and are not. Probably a reference to travelling preachers, who were a characteristic feature of the early church; 2 John 7,3 John 5-7. These did not claim to be apostles of the Lord (since there were only 13 such), but they did claim to be apostles of the church (2 Corinthians 8:23 R.V., Philippians 2:25 R.V.). In those days it would be a simple matter to appear in an ecclesia, claiming to be fully accredited from some other unknown ecclesia. Such individuals made a lot of trouble for Paul at Corinth; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 3-6, 20 and 10:7-12 (this Satan was Paul’s chief personal opponent). The same problem arose elsewhere also; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 3:6-11. Paul foretold it in Ephesus: Acts 20:30. According to Tertullian John rebuked an elder of an Asian church for writing an epistle in the name of Paul. Later, this kind of thing became a common phenomenon. But in this verse the immediate reference may well be to Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17), or the Nicolaitans.

found them liars. s.w. ch. 21 :8.

3. and thou hast borne what? reproach, probably. Contrast use of s.w. in v. 2.

4. thou hast left thy first love. Loss of earlier zeal. Cp. 2 Corinthians 11: 2, 3. “First love” for Christ; see Acts 19:10 and Acts 20:30; 2 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:5; Ephesians 5:23-32 and 1:15; all of these Scriptures were written to the same ecclesia. This was a fulfilment of Christ’s own words: Matthew 24:11, 12; but he only mentions it here after all the good features of the ecclesia have been mentioned. And so it will be in the Day of Judgement. The figure has its basis in Jeremiah 2:2; Ezekiel 16:8-15 and other similar passages.

I have against thee. Same phrase in Matthew 5:23. Therefore, “be reconciled to Christ thy brother.”

5. Remember. Not spoken to Ephesus for the first time; Ephesians 2:10, 11; Acts 20:31.

repent. Greek aorist suggests: “at once and drastically.” come quickly. R.V. omits “quickly,” but not in 3:11. Would this be by John returning from Patmos with authority to apply discipline? Cp. 3 John 10. With any other view, 1,900 years’ lapse of time is a serious difficulty. Another explanation in the Appendix.

remove thy candlestick. This threat would have special force after A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed and the seven-branched candlestick was “moved out of its place” to Rome. Cp. the force of Jeremiah 7:12. Cp. also Matthew 25:28, 29 and 21:41; Romans 11:17. These words are remarkably apt because (a) v. 1; (b) Ephesus was known as “the Light of Asia” (Pliny); (c) the city had already been moved out of its place by the silting up of the river estuary and the consequent shift of the trading centre. Why does Christ say “remove” and not “extinguish”? except thou repent. Notice the force of this repetition, twice in one verse.

6. hatest . . . the Nicolaitans. See on v. 14, 15. Here Christ praises his servants for hating; Psalm 119:104 and 139:21, 22 and 101:3.

7. he that hath an ear. Spoken by Christ on 14 separate occasions: Matthew 11:15 and 13:9, 43; Malk 4:23 and 7:16; Luke 14:35; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29 and 3:6, 13, 22 and 13:9.

churches. Not “church.” Mark 13:57. Therefore all the letters are for all the ecclesias, then and now.

what the spirit saith. Therefore here the Spirit=Christ; cp. Acts 13:2. Why not “what Christ saith?” Because he speaks through John and a book, not directly.

to him that overcometh what?-temptation? self? 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 2:4.

eat of the tree of life. Cp. John 5:26 and contrast Matthew 25:35. Greek aorist must mean “eat once and for all” i.e. of the fruit, ch. 22:14. Contrast 22:2 and Ezekiel 47:12-eating of the leaves heals but does not abolish mortality. In the light of “fruit every month,” can any inference be made about the duration of Adam’s probation? Note the appropriateness in the promises made in the other letters also. Every promise in the seven letters is alluded to in the rest of the book (see also Chapter 41 – The Seventh Vision: The New Jerusalem (21:1-8)).

8. was dead and is alive. Cp. Smyrna’s history-the city practically died out for 400 years, and then revived remarkably. A prominent feature of the local religion was commemoration of the death and resurrection of the god Dionysus.

9. I know. This time not only through inspection, but also through personal experience – tribulation, poverty, the blasphemy of enemies; contrast v. 2

tribulation in the form of persecution: v. 10.

poverty through expropriation of property. Christ offers no solution to their problem of suffering, but only the assurance that he knows about it.

rich. ch. 3:17; James 2:5; Matthew 6:19, 20; Luke 12:21; 2 Corinthians 6:10 and 8:9. Their commendation is in a parenthesis (“but thou art rich”) and a silence (no rebuke of any kind).

Jews. Wherever Paul took the gospel, his and its greatest enemies were the Jews. This was especially true in Smyrna. These Jews even broke the Sabbath to help in the burning of Polycarp, A.D. 147.

and are not. Romans 2:28, 29; Philippians 3:2, 4; Matthew 3:9; Romans 9:6.

blasphemy. Meek Moses was provoked to speak inadvisedly with his lips; Numbers 20:10; Psalm 106:33. But not so the Smyrna ecclesia!

synagogue of Satan. Truly the Jews were an adversary-synagogue. Today the Truth’s biggest enemies are those who claim to be spiritual seed of Abraham but are not.

10. Fear not. If there was no need to fear the very presence of the Lord of Glory (1: 17), how much less to fear futile godless enemies such as these.

the devil. The Jews, through their false accusations before the civil authorities; Acts 17:6, 7 and 24:5, 6.

tribulation ten days. All kinds of explanations, and none of them worth

much:

	(a)	symbolic number for worldly power; cp. ten horns.
	(b)	ten persecutions from Nero to Diocletian.
	(c)	for a short while, as in Genesis 24:55.
	(d)	to the bitter end, for ever; Deuteronomy 23:2; Nehemiah 13:1.
	(e)	ten literal days.
	(f)	ten years. But this was not true in Nero’s or Domitian’s reign.

In the circumstances dogmatism is difficult.

Most likely (c) or (e). When Nero died, the persecution he had set going came to a sudden stop.

be thou = “some of you.” “Thou” personifies the ecclesia or else refers to its Bishop. “You” speaks of the ecclesia as individuals.

faithful here = loyal. The city of Smyrna had a reputation for being faithful to its alliances.

unto death here = violent death. Smyrna took its name from the local trade in myrrh, and it was myrrh that embalmed the dead body of Jesus (read again v. 8). There is no promise given that they would escape suffering.

crown of life. Round the crest of the hill at the back of the city was a line of fine buildings known as “the crown” of Smyrna. Christ promised something more majestic, more enduring. It was also a Smyn1ean practice to present a crown to the high priest of Dionysus at the end of his term of office. Several epitaphs include the title: “crownbearer.” But what a flimsy honour compared with what Christ offers here! Note that all of v. 10 happened to Christ himself.

crown used to describe: (a) the crown of suffering (Matthew 27 :29); (b) faithful converts who will be a crown of joy in the day of Christ (I Thessalonians 2:19, Philippians 4:1); (c) the blessing of immortality (I Peter 5:4; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; this last is a puzzle. It reads as though it were an allusion to Revelation, but the dates of the two books do not allow of this. Is it a reference to Matthew 19:28?).

11. second death. Appropriate after v. 8. “The Smyrnean persecutors will pass through death to death, but these faithful will pass through death to life.”

12. Pergamos. An intellectual city, with a huge library. It gave its name to “parchment.” Centre of Roman administration for the province and of the state religion (Emperor worship), hence v. 13. Centre also of worship of Aesculapius, god of healing-his symbol a serpent. Temple prostitution was rampant here, more even than at other centres of idolatry.

sharp sword. Jesus appropriately chooses the word which describes, not the soldier’s weapon, but the proconsul’s ceremonial sword of office.

two-edged, to separate between true and false (Hebrews 4: 12), and to convert and to punish (v. 16).

13. Satan’s seat. R.V.: throne. In Smyrna (v. 9) the adversary was a Jewish synagogue. Here he is Roman governor.

holdest fast my name. It is the time of Nero’s persecution. At all costs every true disciple must hold to the name of Christian; cp. 1 Peter 4: 14, 16 (written in Rome in very similar circumstances).

Antipas my faithful martyr. (a) Some prominent Christian who had already suffered at the hands of the Romans. Shortened form of Antipater. (b) Shortened form of Antipanton = the one over against the many – not “against” in the sense of contending or combating, but in the sense of distinct from. Contrast the latitudinarianism now in the ecclesia, v. 14, 15. Jesus is the Faithful Witness (1: 5), and those who are signally loyal share this title of honour; cp. Acts 22: 20.

14. thou hast there. Note the distinction between the ecclesia and its unworthy members. The ecclesia itself was not false, but it tolerated false doctrine. “What the church lacked was discipline. What cursed it was a false charity.”

the doctrine of Balaam involves a careful study of Numbers 25 and related Scriptures. Its essence is in Numbers 25:1. The plan to corrupt Israel by idolatry and its associated unholy alliances was Balaam’s, Numbers 31:16. It involved not only the worship of Baal-Peor (a form of sun-worship; hence v. 4), but also ritual fornication (v. 2, 3 R.V.m., 8 and Hosea 9:10), belief in the immortality of the soul (Psalm 106:28) and spiritualism (Deuteronomy 32:16, 17), and orgiastic feasting in the presence of the “god.” The situation demanded drastic discipline, calling for loyalty to God even at the expense of severity to one’s own kith and kin (v. 5, 7). Eli in later years failed to supply this discipline when the same evil flourished and thus his line lost the high-priesthood; I Samuel 2:22 and 3: 13. Because the earlier Phinehas was prompt to apply discipline in similar circumstances, God made with his house an everlasting covenant. This danger was a normal part of the “civilization” of the Roman Empire in New Testament times. Temple “virgins” were recruited in hundreds. Temple prostitution was as respectable as going to church or political meetings today. Public banquets and special celebrations such as birthdays were commonly arranged in the pagan temples, so that each course of the meal was a kind of votive offering to the god. These facts explain the tremendous emphasis in the New Testament against fornication and eating food offered to idols-the two outstanding features of the Baal-Peor transgression; Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and 10:14-33 (v. 8 refers back to Numbers 25) and the whole of chapter 8; Colossians 3:5 (this word “covetousness” is used several times in the New Testament for coveting a woman); I Peter 4:3, 4; 2 Peter 2 (the entire chapter but especially v. 7 R.V., 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22 – “dog” cp. Deuteronomy 23:18); Jude 4, 7, 8, 11; I John 5:21. Revelation 14:4 makes utter nonsense until it is read as a reference to temple prostitution. Paraphrase: “they have not indulged in temple fornication because they are life-long servants of another god, the holy God of heaven, and must serve Him in His temple.”

But what was the doctrine of Balaam? It was the argument: “These wonderful prophecies of blessing which I have been guided to pronounce concerning Israel (Numbers 22, 23, 24) arc bound to come true. How then can anything which you do interfere with what is the plan of the Almighty? Therefore by all means indulge yourselves in all kinds of illicit enjoyment. Since God has blessed, what curse can come to Israel from Moab?”

This Antinomianism was a serious danger in the early church. In Corinth “meats for the belly and the belly for meats” was the slogan (caustically quoted by Paul), meaning: “God has made the body with certain functional powers. Then can it be wrong to use the body in these ways?” But 1 Corinthians 6:12, 13 shews that it was fornication which was being justified. Cp. also the emphasis in Romans 6:1, 15 and 3:8; I John 3:3, 7; Jude 4, which shew that the argument sometimes took the form: “Since we have forgiveness (grace) through the blood of Christ, the more we sin the more sin will be forgiven, and thus the more God will be magnified!” Obviously this argument is wrong; but where is it wrong?

stumbling-block. Literally, that part of the trap on which the bait was laid; Joshua 22:17 and 23:13.

Balaam. Cp. the False Prophet of ch. 13; and with Jezebel (v. 20) cp. the harlot of ch. 17.

15. Nicolaitans. This Greek name means “conqueror of the people.” “Balaam” is Hebrew for the same thing. Thus Nicolaitan = Balaamite. Hence this explains the apparent absence of any mention of Nicolaitanism elsewhere in the New Testament. Both names would be in use because of the Jewish and Gentile elements in the ecclesia.

also-as in Ephesus (v. 6) and Thyatira (v. 20). But note the contrast with Ephesus. In Pergamos the doctrine was tolerated.

doctrine. At the root of all evil works is an evil doctrine.

16. Repent or-the Greek particle adds a kind of sardonic emphasis. It is the entire ecclesia, which is commanded to repent, and not just the Nicolaitans. How repent?-by exhortation and reprimand of the evil doers, and (if necessary) by excommunication. To allow such to go uncorrected would be uncharitable, encouraging them to think themselves safe when they were not safe.

come unto thee quickly. See on v. 5.

fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Still referring to the story of Balaam; Numbers 22:31 and 24:17 and 31:8 and also, of course, Revelation 2:12. The normal meaning of this verse, especially in the light of Revelation 19:15, would appear to require reference to the Second Coming. What other kind of fulfilment is possible?

17. hidden manna. Genitive implies having some of it, sharing it with others. Contrast v. 14: “eating things offered to idols.” Reference is to Exodus 16:32, 33, where note: “that they may see the bread.” But if it were always in the Holy of Holies “before the Lord,” it would never be seen at all. Inference is that on the Day of Atonement the High Priest brought forth the golden pot (Hebrews 9:4) of manna at the time when he blessed them in the name of the Lord, and shewed the manna to the people. Jesus refers to this in John 6:49, 50, 27 (sealed). The other manna corrupted. The hidden manna did not, and so becomes a fit symbol of eternal life in Christ. And as this manna was brought forth on the Day of Atonement, so the fullness of eternal life will be bestowed in the Day when sin is done away, when the High Priest Jesus returns from the Divine Presence to bless the people in the name of the Lord; Hebrews 9:28. Further reference to this: Colossians 3:3, Revelation 11:19. Christ’s “hidden food” when on earth was (a) the Word of God, Job 23:12; (b) the work of conversion of sinners; John 4:32, 34. So also the saints in the Millenium.

White stone. All kinds of ideas have been suggested:

	(a)	the symbol of acquittal of a criminal, each judge putting a white stone into an urn;
	(b)	the token of victory given to a Roman general at his “triumph;”
	(c)	the honour accorded to a victor in the public games, entitling him to food at the public expense (cp. the manna);
	(d)	the symbol of unending friendship; a stone was broken, and a half kept by each; years later the correspondence of stone with stone would bring back memories of earlier faithfulness. There is a neat application here to the Second Coming of Christ.

But all these ideas lack a Biblical association. Like the hidden manna, the white stone must have some connection with Tabernacle or High Priest. So possibly:

	(e)	one of the seven “stars” in the crown of the High Pricst (see on 1:16); one of the principal passages used there is Isaiah 62: verses 2-4, 11, 12 there supply suggestions for the “new n.ame.” The combination of “hidden manna” and “white stone” would then be a symbolical equivalent of Revelation 5:10;
	(f)	(and this has more in its favour than any of the others) the white stone is an allusion to Urim and Thummim. These were small objects (stones of some kind-diamonds?) hidden in the pouch formed by the breastplate of the High Priest (the idea that the Urim and Thummim were the 12 jewels upon the breastplate is entirely without supporting evidence). Procedure when asking counsel of the Lord was to come before the High Priest and put a question to be answered Yes, or No. The High Priest drew the divine lot and thus gave decision. Exodus 28:16-the breastplate had a pocket. v. 30-”the breastplate” in LXX=logeion=speaking place, oracle; the word “in” does not mean “upon,” but “inside.” 1 Samuel 14:18 R.V.m. is correct. Urim and Thummim were in the breastplate attached to the ephod; see v. 19 and also v. 37 (was one of the stones a blank, indicating “No answer?”). v. 41 according to Symmachus: “O Lord the God of Israel, why hast thou not ansvered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urin1, and if thou sayest thus, the iniquity is in the people, give Thummim; and the lot fell on Jonathan.” 1 Samuel 23:6, 9-12. Note that the questions have a Yes or No answer. Also consider: Joshua 7:16-18 and 18:6; Ezra 2:63 (with which connect Zechariah 3:9), Proverbs 16:33 R.V., Psalm 60:6-9 and 43:3; Colossians 2:3. If this suggestion be correct, the white stone has immediate connection with the hidden manna, the latter symbolizing life eternal in Christ, and the former a sharing of his priesthood.

A new name which no man knoweth (learneth). Cp. new names of disciples -Peter, Boanerges, Paul, Barnabas. Only the High Priest knew what was inscribed on the Urim and Thummim. Or, was the new name Christ’s own “new name”-the Lord our Righteousness (see on 3:12)? Further, the new name, the new song, the new heavens and earth, the new Jerusalen1 and the hidden manna (all in Revelation) are all to be found in Isaiah 65:13-18. This suggests that the “new name” is the name of “the God of Truth” (Revelation 3 :14) i.e. the Amen. “Truth” is also the meaning of Thummim, according to the LXX.

white stone – new name. In view of the obvious dependence of this Letter to Pergamos on Numbers 25, it is interesting to observe that “Phinehas” is said to be Egyptian for “negro”. Now note the promise of abiding priesthood made to him.

18. Thyatira. Was the ecclesia founded by Lydia taking the Truth home? Acts 16:14.

Son of God. In chapter 1:13 it is “Son of man.” This change anticipates the allusion to Psalm 2:8, 9 in v. 27 (read the entire Psalm).

eyes as a flame of fire. ch. 1:14. Intimate knowledge, penetrating vision, appropriate here in view of v. 23: “searcheth hearts and reins.”

feet . . . fine brass. ch. 1:15. Coming judgement; Isaiah 63: 1-6 and 41:25 and I4:25; Malachi 4:3. Does this detail anticipate v. 27? Brass smelting and polishing were prominent among the local trades.

19. Read: thy works, even thy love and faith and ministry and patience. So in the service of Christ, “works” include the passive virtues such as love and faith.

patience probably means here: doggedness in face of persecution.

ministry in the New Testament means: (a) secretarial work, as 2 Timothy 4:11; 2 Corinthians 3:3, Acts 13:5; (b) succour in time of need, as Acts 11:29; 2 Corinthians 9 12; 1 Corinthians 16:15; (c) the ministry of the Word; Romans 11:13; 12:7; 2 Corinthians 3:7-9.

Iast works more than the first. i.e. more excellent (cp. Greek of Hebrews 11:4). Their Christian service was even better than it had been in former days; cp. 1 Thessalonians 4:1. One of the plainest signs of decadence is for an individual or ecclesia to look back on the past with wonder or satisfaction at the zeal and energy displayed in those earlier days; this spells retrogression. See frequeIlt emphasis on this: Revelation 2:4, 5; Matthew 12:43-45; 2 Peter 2:20.

20. sufferest. s.w. John 12:7; Hebrews 13:22.

Jezebel… a prophetess. Daughter of Ethbaal, king of Zidon, who is known to have been also priest of Astarte. Similarly Jezebel would be priestess of the foul religion she introduced into Israel; 1 Kings 16:31-33 and 21:25, 26; 2 Kings 9:22, 30. It is known that at this period on the outskirts of Thyatira there was a religious cult led by a woman calling herself a prophetess. Is this an allusion to her? Can it be that she accepted Christianity and brought her former errors with her? R.V.m. goes further and reads: “thy wife Jezebel” which might well mean that she was the wife of the Bishop of the ecclesia (cp. Ahab whose name means “love;” see v. 19). Even the reading behind the A.V. text probably means “thy wife” — cp. “the brother” in 2 Corinthians 8:18, which = “his brother.” So Deuteronomy 13:6-8, 5 is appropriate. In Ahab’s reign the evil was the worship of Baal along with the worship of Jehovah; in Thyatira, participation in rites associated with local idolatries along with the service of Christ.

teacheth and seduceth. Ephesus had zeal for orthodoxy but little love. Thyatira lacked discipline in doctrine, but was active in good works. Ephesus hated Nicolaitans, Pergamos tolerated them. Thyatira allowed them official position. The New Testament requires drastic action against those who teach false ideas; 2 John 10, 1 John 4:1; Titus 1:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:3; Galatians 1:8. Paul’s attitude to those who immaturely hold (but do not teach) wrong ideas is distinctly milder; Romans 14:1; Galatians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 15:12, 35, 36.

my servants. Contrast “her children” (v. 23).

fornication . . . idols. Cp. on v. 14. Thyatira had lovely groves, which were infamous for their association with these foul rites. Both ideas are included in 1 Kings 18:19, and in Acts 15:20, 29.

21. I gave her time to repent. Reference to a warning addressed to this Jezebel by John before he went to Patmos? Implication is that she had formerly been a worthy member of the ecclesia. R.V.: she willeth not to repent. Hence strong measures threatened.

22. cast. The normal New Testament idiom, as in Matthew 9:2 (Greek).

into a bed. The punishment fits the crime. But the bed is one of tribulation, not of evil enjoyment. Jezebel died under Jehu’s horses (cp. v. 18).

them that commit adultery. Here, and in v. 21, spiritual adultery. The idea moves readily from literal (v. 20) to figurative.

repent immediately and drastically. Greek aorist.

23. her children. i.e. disciples, as in Matthew 12:27 and many others (e.g. Hebrews 2:13). Similarly denunciation against Jezebel’s children (2 Kings 9:7-9), and devotees (1 Kings 18:40).

kill her children with death. Either: (a) as R.V.m. “pestilence” and ch. 6:8 (cp. the Black Death), or (b) very common Hebraism-repetition for emphasis, as Genesis 2:17; contrast Numbers 16:29; or (c) reference to Leviticus 20:10.

all the churches. Shews that the seven letters are intended for all the seven churches.

shall know. A different gnosis from v. 24.

searcheth the hearts and reins. See instructive mg. refs. especially: (a) Jeremiah 17:10, where the title applies to God; and cp. v. iOb with 23c here; (b) Romans 8:27, Christ; (c) 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10, where v. 10b =24b here; (d) Proverbs 24:11-14, where note: “he that pondereth the heart,” “render to every man according to his works,” “eat thou honey” (divine wisdom), and contrast 25:16 (human wisdom, the deep things of Satan).

24. Instead of the usual triad, the Lord here uses four phrases to describe the faithful remnant in Thyatira.

the rest. cp. 1 Kings 19:18.

the deep things of Satan. Cp. synagogue and throne of Satan; v. 9, 13. Was this false philosophy a reaction from Jewish emphasis on bodily cleanliness and ritual purity? “The body is nothing; it is the mind that matters; if only we truly serve God in our minds, it is of no concern at all how the body is used.” Perhaps by some such specious reasoning the practical conclusion was reached that sin is not sin. Apart from an explanation of this kind, it is difficult to see how the woman “Jezebel” could be a prophetess and teacher in the ecclesia. Note how such an approach starts from a very different idea but reaches the same practical conclusion as the Nicolaitan heresy (v. 20). The name and character of Jezebel is an apt summary; it means “chaste, virgin, pure!”

as they say. Three possibilities: (a) a skit on the jargon of these devotees (“the deep things of God”) who were stressing their own knowledge of the deeper things (the same sort of pose is not unknown today); they would use such passages as Daniel 2:21, 22; Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 2:10 (but see the warnings in 1 Timothy 6:20; 1 John 2:3); (b) they=the outside world, already beginning to speak with contempt of the evil in this ecclesia; (c) they = the apostles, who had already denounced these tendencies as “the deep things of Satan.”

none other burden. Elsewhere: (a) a burden of commandments to be observed; Matthew 23:4; (b) a revelation from God of coming judgement; Jeremiah 23:33-38. The allusion to Acts 15:28, 29 here requires the first of these. Note: Here Jesus is quoting from the inspired wisdom of his own apostle. A unique passage, surely.

25. holdfast. Ch. 3:11; Jude 3.

till I come. The Greek implies uncertainty (on the part of Jesus! Mark 13:32) as to when this might be.

26. And. This copula does not occur in v. 7, 11, 17, etc. Here it suggests that “overcoming” is by “holding fast” (v. 25).

power over the nations. Cp. v. 13. This reward, proper to one who first overcomes self, is a leading idea in Revelation; cp. ch. 1 :6, 9 and 3:21 and 5:10 and 20:4 and 22:5.

keepeth my works. John 6:29; 1 John 3:23. Contrast v. 22. “their works,” and v. 23, 19.

unto the end. See Matthew 24:13, 14 (and concordance). Reads very strangely if indeed the Lord knew that all the Thyatirans would be in their graves long before the End.

27. rod of iron. Psalm 2:9; what will be true of Christ (ch. 19:15) will be true also of his saints; cp. v. 28. And so also in many a place. Cp. the way in which various titles of God are applied to Christ. The Hebrew of Psalm 2:9 can be pointed so as to read “break” or “scatter” hence “rule;” here the Holy Spirit says “rule,” confirming the LXX.

rule. Greek=rule as a shepherd, which seems to accord ill with a rod of iron. The dominion of Christ and his saints will be mild as a shepherd’s but in face of contumacy strong as iron.

rod = sceptre, in Hebrews 1 :8. Note the appropriateness of Psalm 2: 3, 12 to Thyatira.

broken to shivers. Because unclean; Leviticus 15:12; Jeremiah 19:10, 11.

received. Past tense (Matthew 28:18)-although his rule is not yet begun -with reference to Psalm 2:7, which belongs to the day of Christ’s resurrection (Hebrews 5:5).

from my Father. Luke 22:29. Not from the Devil; Matthew 4:9.

28. the morning star. Symbol of royalty; ch. 22:16 (note the context); Numbers 24:17; Isaiah 14:12-14 (here “Lucifer” = morning star, the planet Venus; the reference is to Sennacherib, not to Nebuchadnezzar, seeking dominion over all lands); 2 Peter 1:19.

give him the morning star = he shall share my regal majesty (note v. 26, 27); cp. v. 7 = he shall share my eternal nature; v. 17 = he shall share my priesthood; contrast Jezebel (see on vv. 20, 24).

“The place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there” is a constantly recurring phrase in the Book of Deuteronomy. The reference is to the centre of worship, the tabernacle and its service, which was to be established in a convenient centre in the Land when wilderness wanderings were ended.

Shiloh

Shiloh was the place which was chosen “at the first” (Jer. 7:12). It was centrally situated in the territory of Ephraim. There Joshua convened the tribes when the earliest blows of conquest had been struck, in order to apportion the rest of the Land more precisely to those who had not inherited as yet. But, strangely enough, it was at Shechem and not Shiloh, where Joshua assembled the people to hear his final exhortations and to be renewed in covenant with their God who had given them the Land. This is doubly strange in that Shechem and Shiloh are so close together. It would have been just as easy for the tribes to assemble in one place as in the other. How came it, then, that the place sanctified by the presence of the tabernacle and the ark was disregarded?

There are references to Shiloh as a centre of worship in a section of the Book of Judges which probably belongs to the early part of this disturbed period (18:31 and ch. 21). And again in the early chapters of 1 Samuel, the sanctuary at Shiloh is the background to the familiar stories of Hannah and Samuel, of Eli and his wayward sons.

Then from this period onward Shiloh as a centre of worship in Israel disappears completely from the sacred records, apart from two allusions in Jeremiah (7:12; 26:6,9) to the utter destruction which overtook the tabernacle there and the town itself. It was disowned by God who destroyed it by the Philistines (Psa. 78:60).

It is a matter for surprise that Shiloh apparently played so little part in the history of the nation. The fact is that Shiloh was not unique as a holy place in Israel; it was not the only ‘place which the Lord was to choose to place his name there’.

An investigation of the various other centres, which were used in these unsettled times as places of approach to God should not be without value.

Shechem

Mention has already been made of Shechem which, at the time that Joshua made covenant there between the people and their God, was evidently already regarded as a right and proper place for worship and sacrifice. There the people presented themselves “before God” (Josh. 24:1). “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord” (Josh. 24:25,26). This sanctuary at Shechem was probably the one called Bochim (the weeping ones) in Judges 2:1-5. Indeed the incident described there may be the very occasion which Joshua 24 narrates in greater detail. The similarities are certainly very striking. This Judges narrative adds: “and they sacrificed unto the Lord”.

Other Scriptures make it plain that at Shechem there was an altar of special sanctity and historic importance. It was there that the Land was first promised to Abraham’s Seed (before it was promised to Abraham!), which gracious promise was acknowledged by sacrifice on the altar which Abraham raised up there in thanksgiving (Gen. 12:6,7). It was to this place that Jacob came after his encounter with Esau on his way back from the country of Laban; and there, after repurchasing the piece of land which Abraham had bought from the original Hittite owners (Acts 7:16), he rebuilt Abraham’s altar (Gen. 33:19,20).

It was this altar which was rebuilt again, this time by Joshua, when the tribes of Israel all came together between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim to hear proclaimed the blessings and curses of the Law (Josh. 8:30).

But the re-establishment of the Hittite worship of Baal-berith in the time of Abimelech, the unworthy son of Gideon, ended the special holiness of Shechem until, many years later, the Son of God himself called the people of that place to “worship God in sincerity and in truth”, even as Joshua himself had insisted in the day of the covenant (John 4:24; Josh. 24:14). The site of this Shechem altar, of ancient sanctity, has lately been identified by the archaeologists (“Biblical Archaeology Review”, Jan.-Feb. 1985; see also Jan.-Feb. 1988).

Gideon’s Ophrah

There was another sanctuary of much less prominent character in the early days of the Judges, in Ophrah the home of Gideon. Its origin was, of course, the consecration (as an altar) of the rock where the angel of the Lord accepted fearful Gideon’s offering (Judg. 6:21-26). The altar from that day forth was called “Jehovah-Shalom” — the Lord of Peace.

The language of Judges 8:27 implies that Gideon ill-advisedly, though with the best of intentions, chose to establish and equip at Jehovah-Shalom a centre of worship for the God who had wrought deliverance through him. There is also the further implication that this new institution was widely accepted as a new spiritual centre for the neighbouring tribes. This honouring of a place which God had not chosen for such purpose would doubtless have continued but for the defilement of it by the brutal slaughter of Gideon’s family at the hands of Abimelech and his hired assassins.

From this example, and others now to be considered, it appears that God was willing, during this period when the tribes were disturbed and incoherent, that other sanctuaries besides the main centre be used to focus the piety of Israel.

Mizpeh of Gilead

It is clear from the story of Jephthah that in his day there was a well-recognized sanctuary in Mizpeh of Gilead. Jephthah’s agreement with the elders of Gilead was made “before the Lord in Mizpeh” — a phrase which invariably has reference to an altar or holy place where God was worshipped. Apparently too, but not certainly, it was at this Mizpeh that Jephthah vowed his vow unto the Lord. And, it may be that it would be at this sanctuary where his daughter would serve the Lord during her life-long virginity — but not necessarily (“Bible Studies”, p. 205a).

Other Mizpeh sanctuaries

This Mizpeh is always referred to with the definite article: The Mizpeh, i.e. The Watchtower. The priests and prophets of the Lord are frequently alluded to in Scripture as ‘watchmen’ (e.g. Hab. 2:1; Ezek. 3:17 and 33:2-7; Hosea 9:8; Isa. 29:20 and 56:10 and 21:6; Jer. 31:6 and 6:17). This detail, combined with the reference in Joshua 13:26 to “Ramoth-Mizpeh” in Gilead, suggests fairly strongly that Mizpeh was an alternative name for Ramoth-gilead, which was one of the cities of refuge in eastern Israel. It seems not unlikely that Ramoth-gilead was also the Mizpeh where Jacob and Laban agreed to disagree, and where Jacob also “offered sacrifice upon the mount” (Gen. 31:48-54). If so, its sacred associations in Jacob’s day might well single it out in later times for re-consecration.

It may well be the same Mizpeh that is mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:16 along with Bethel, Gilgal and Ramah as one of the centres of Samuel’s administration. The Septuagint adds significantly in that place: “and he judged Israel in all these sanctuaries.”

The possibility should be considered of Mizpeh (watchtower) being a kind of technical term for a sanctuary in ancient Israel very much as ‘Ebenezer’ or ‘Bethel’ became for many a Methodist community in the last century a well-recognized name for their place of worship.

For instance, Mizpeh of Moab (1 Sam. 22:3), where David met the king of Moab when seeking refuge for his parents from the vengeful jealousy of Saul, may well be Bezer, the city of refuge, which was situated on the borders of Reuben and Moab.

There is another Mizpeh mentioned in Judges 20:1,3 and 21:1 in connection with the controversy between Benjamin and the rest of the nation. Geographical considerations immediately rule out the possibility that this might be Mizpeh of Gilead. But the text calls it “the house of God”, i.e. Bethel (20:18,26,31 RV and 21:2 RV), on the northern border of Benjamin. Some, however, identify it with Shiloh.

It is not certain where was the Mizpeh to which Samuel rallied the tribes for repentance before God (a long-neglected Day of Atonement?) and for resistance against further Philistine aggression (1 Sam. 7:5-16). Most probably it was the Gibeah (the priestly and Benjamite part of Kirjath-Jearim; Josh. 21:17; 18:14,28) where the ark was lodged after being returned by the Philistines. This may also have been Samuel’s Ramah, for that became a well-recognized religious centre during his lifetime. There is a good deal of uncertainty about some of these place-identifications.

Nob

Nob, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, is stated to have been a place of organised worship of some considerable importance. It had “fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod”; and Ahimelech himself, high-priest of the line of Ithamar and Eli, officiated there (1 Sam. 21 and 22:18,19). It was this place which is referred to in the narrative of the slaying of Goliath: “And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem” (1 Sam. 17:54; cp. 21:8,9). It is difficult to see just how or why Nob came to achieve such high but short-lived importance.

Gibeon

Lastly, mention must be made of Gibeon, “the great high place” (1 Kgs. 3:4). “There (at the beginning of Solomon’s reign) was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness” (2 Chron. 1:3).

This very tabernacle, first fashioned under the shadow of Mount Sinai, had undoubtedly been set up originally in Shiloh. How then did it come to be at Gibeon? One can only surmise. If the identity of Gibeon-Gibeah-Ramah be accepted (and a pretty good case can be made for this), then probably, when there was a serious threat, after the death of Eli, of Shiloh being overrun by the Philistines, Samuel had the tabernacle dismantled and removed elsewhere. When his administration settled down at Ramah-Gibeon he would have the sanctuary re-erected there; and there it continued right through the reign of David. If this identification of Gibeon is not accepted, then it is necessary to postulate that irreligious Saul took the trouble for no known reason, to have Moses’ tabernacle re-erected at a place which gets no mention at all in the history of his reign.

The numerous offerings which Solomon made at Gibeon (1 Kgs. 3:4) probably marked the formal closure of the sanctuary at Gibeon as “the great high place”. Whatever may have been its precise function hitherto, this would now be completely superseded by the temple that was a-building in Jerusalem.

Likely conclusions

It would seem, then, beyond question from the evidence available that during the period between Joshua and David quite a number of holy places were in use at various times for the offering of sacrifices and for approach to God. This fact suggests a different view of the often repeated phrase in Deuteronomy: “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there”. Instead of regarding it as an allusion to the one unique place, Shiloh, which was appointed as the centre of worship for the nation, perhaps it should be read as signifying the place (i.e. any place) which has been sanctified for that purpose.

In harmony with this suggestion are the words of Nathan the prophet to David: “Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in: for I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?” (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

This diversity of holy places helps to a clearer understanding of the repeated criticism made in the later history that “the high places were not taken away” by the kings of Judah. Gibeon is called “the great high place”. The sanctuary where the prophet Samuel ministered is called “the high place” (1 Sam. 9:13). And when, in a Hezekiah psalm, Assyrian invaders are said to have “burned up all the synagogues of God in the Land” (Psa. 74:7,8), the reference is most probably to the various religious centres mentioned in this compilation, to which a certain sanctity still clung

Micah’s consecration of Jonathan proved to be the prelude to an episode unique in the history of Israel. The tribe of Dan, although apparently one of the largest tribes at the time of the entering of the Land, had not proved strong enough for the task of both winning and holding its inheritance from the indigenous races. “And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley” (1:34). The reference here to Amorites where one would expect the word Philistines is interesting. Can it have been between the time of Joshua and Samson that the Philistines first migrated to Canaan from their original home in Crete? On the other hand, it may have been Philistine pressure from the west on the Amorites which caused them to expand eastwards at the expense of the tribe of Dan.

Wrong solution to a pressing problem

Whatever the explanation, it became a matter of urgent necessity that the portion of the Danite inheritance already occupied by speedily enlarged. So, after solemn conference, they proceeded to do the wrong thing. Instead of asking counsel of the Lord, instead of rallying their brethren of the other tribes of Israel to their aid, instead of strengthening themselves in the unfailing promises that had been made to their fathers, instead of going forth against both Amorite and Philistine in faith that God would give them the territory assigned to them under His leader Joshua — instead of any of these good alternatives, the men of Dan coveted another inheritance in a region where the divine lot had not fallen to them, and which was, indeed, outside the borders of the Promised Land as it had been measured off by Joshua. And there they planned to blot out a peaceful unsuspecting people rather than turn their weapons against legitimate and detestable foes on their own doorstep.

In pursuance of this aim they first sent out five spies to find new land for settlement. In the course of their journey, these men came to the house of Micah where they recognized the young Levite from Bethlehem. ‘They knew his voice’ (18:3). There seems to be an implication here that the wanderings of this worthless Levite had taken him into Zorah and Eshtaol. Perhaps they readily recognized his voice because he was singing psalms in the “sanctuary” at the time they came to the place.

Faith or superstition?

The men used this opportunity to ask counsel (somewhat belatedly!) of the Lord. How like human nature, to decide on the course to be followed, and then as an afterthought, when fully committed to it, to ask divine blessing on it!

The Levite was, of course, unable to give them any genuine communication from the Lord. That was only to be had through the high priest. Nevertheless his ready wit was fully equal to the occasion and he gave them a message in the best Delphic tradition of ambiguity: “Go in peace: before the Lord is your way wherein ye go.” What better than this most platitudinous of all truisms? It would apply perfectly to any circumstance that might befall them. But the men of Dan, with the naivete of so many who enquire of God in the wrong way, read into the words an assurance that their project would prosper, and they went off highly satisfied. Whatever bloody deeds they might plan hereafter, they were sure of divine approval — or so they thought.

In due time they came to the extreme border of the Land, at the very edge of the northern territory assigned to Naphtali. Exploring there the fertile, remote valleys of the Anti-Lebanon, they lighted upon the quiet prosperous city of Laish. The people were Zidonians by race but out of touch with the main body of their people, being cut off from them by difficult mountain ranges: “They were far from the Zidonians, and had no business with any man (or — probable reading — with Syria).”

The description of that quiet life of these people, as given either in the AV or RV, is not at all according to the original, and indeed scarcely makes sense. Yet it requires only the alteration of one letter to give the much more coherent reading: ‘There was no one to restrain (i.e. to exercise political control over) any in the land.’ In the eyes of these spies from Dan, this would be a factor of some considerable importance.

They hastened back home to report to a conclave of elders of their tribe. Their enthusiastic urgent story reads as though it had been their early intention to make an onslaught on this particular locality. It may be that from the first, this Danite migration was a deliberate move to rejoin Naphtali. Dan and Naphtali were both sons of Bilhah, and the two tribes shared the same encampment in the wilderness and were both in the rearguard when on the march. The returned spies reinforced their own favourable impression with Jonathan’s oracular utterance — or rather their interpretation of it: “God hath given it into your hands; a place where there is no want of any thing that is in the earth”.

Press-ganged!

Immediate action was taken. A body of six hundred well-equipped men set out accompanied by their families. En route the additional scheme was hatched of persuading Jonathan the Levite to accompany them, to be their spiritual guide and helper in their new land of promise.

This plan was expeditiously carried into effect. Whilst Jonathan was kept talking at the gate, others of the party boldly entered the “sanctuary” and brought forth the ephod and all the other appurtenances of priestly office. Jonathan felt bound to remonstrate, but there was little he could do about it, and when his own self-interest was coolly expounded to him, he speedily threw all scruples to the winds. Forgetting his commitment to Micah, and quite oblivious of the moral principles associated with the service of Jehovah, to whom he claimed to minister, he readily threw in his lot with these marauders.

It was only to be expected that there would be pursuit by Micah, so the women and children were put in front, out of harm’s way. But Jonathan, immediately assuming the authority due to his new office, insisted on the observance of the religious proprieties and arranged for the holy equipment to be carried “in the midst of the people”, that is, in the centre of the long caravan, just as the furniture of the Tabernacle had travelled during the wilderness journey (Num. 10; esp. v. 21).

Micah rebuffed

Micah and the neighbours who rallied to help him made immediate pursuit and soon came up with the slow-moving host. At first the men of Dan feigned innocence and surprise: “What aileth thee that thou comest with such a company?” Micah made bitter and reproachful reply (there is a superb realism about the narrative here): “Ye have taken away my gods which I made (see how the man confesses here his own folly!)….and what have I more? and how then say ye unto me, What aileth thee?” There was little strength of character behind these words. Why did he not insist that these men had earlier accepted his hospitality (v. 2) and therefore should now maintain the covenant of peace by returning his property?

As it was, the men of Dan speedily recognized that here was no formidable enemy. They knew now that they could bluff their way out of this situation without difficulty: “Let not thy voice be heard among us, lest angry fellows run upon thee, and thou lose thy life, with the lives of thy household”; as who would say: ‘These men are desperate; you would be wise to cut your losses, or worse things might befall.’ Which thing Micah did, for he loved his life more than his religion and its appurtenances.

Moses had made a prophecy about this strange change of policy by the tribe of Dan: “Dan is a lion’s whelp: he shall leap from Bashan” (Deut. 33:22). From this it may be inferred that from Ephraim the migrants crossed Jordan and travelled north round the east side of Galilee. Their target Laish means ‘a lion’, so there is fair likelihood that it was an understanding of Moses’ prophecy which led them to this remote place in the north.

The capture of Laish

The onslaught took place according to plan. A people “quiet and secure” were smitten with the edge of the sword, and their city burned with fire, “and there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon”. This burning of the city was a strangely illogical thing, for to save it intact would surely have furthered their plans considerably. Can it be that this was a conscious imitation of the burning of Jericho, the utter devoting to the Lord of the firstfruits of a new ‘Land of promise’? More likely, they contented themselves with firing a few of the houses to help terrorise the inhabitants.

With the city rebuilt and the area fully settled, “Jonathan, the son of Gershom the son of Moses” now came into his own as a priest of considerable consequence. Wordsworth comments aptly: “They glossed over their sin by the specious varnish of a holy name!”

A difficulty resolved

“He and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the Land.” This statement about their priesthood is usually taken to mean that this Danite sanctuary continued right up to the time when Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria, took the north-ern tribes into captivity. And to this is often added the inference that therefore the Book of Judges must have been written after that date and probably after the Babylonian captivity.

Both of these conclusions must be rejected because of two fairly plain indications that this unofficial priesthood ceased before the end of the reign of David — as indeed might be expected from a knowledge of David’s zeal for the sanctuary of the Lord in Zion. There was a Shebuel, a contemporary of David in the line of Moses-Gershom-Jonathan who was not a false priest in Dan but a faithful treasurer in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 26:24). Also, the words of the wise woman of Abel to Joab were, according to the Septuagint version:

“They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel in Abel and in Dan” (2 Sam. 20:18). The allusion is clearly to Judges 18, and she spoke as though of a custom now discontinued. So it may be safely inferred that by the end of David’s reign the worship at Dan had ceased.

A further detail in Judges 18 suggests a different “captivity” than the Assyrian or Babylonian: “And they set up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh”, i.e. until the days of Samuel. This time indication is precisely what would be expected, for it is difficult to believe that Samuel, with his stern sense of duty, would tolerate even in remote Dan the existence of an apostate priesthood. The true “house of God was in Shiloh”.

The Hebrew words for ‘land’ and ‘ark’ are very easily confused in Hebrew script. This alternative removes all difficulty: “Jonathan and his sons were priests until the day of the captivity of the ark (that is, until the time of Samuel: 1 Sam. 4:17,22); and Micah’s oracle continued its vogue all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh.

The first secession from true religious loyalty left its mark. In the days of Rehoboam, when upstart Jeroboam was seeking to wean the northern tribes from service to the House of David, he revived in Dan and Bethel the ancient worship of the golden calf. Dan was hardly a good centre to choose, because of its remoteness. Some site immediately north or south of Jezreel would surely have been better. But Dan already had a reputation as a place of worship. The memory of the sanctuary there still lingered.

Further, it is interesting to observe that whereas at Bethel “he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi”, the same is not written concerning Dan, for Dan already had its own tradition of priests descended from Moses.

Thus it can be seen that the doom of the Northern Kingdom is to be dated from the day that Jonathan, the restless Levite, joined forces with the men of Dan. From that time also there began to be fulfilled the prophecy: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path” (Gen. 49:17).

In Dan, apostasy was first fully organized. For this reason, probably, the name of Dan has been omitted from the roll of the tribes of Israel in Chronicles, and from the catalogue of the spiritual Israel who are sealed in their foreheads as the servants of God (Rev. 7). “Without are….idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

Notes

2.	Five men. Why five? Joshua had been content with two. Is this an emulation of the Philistines and their five lords?
7.	Quiet and secure. It would have been more to Dan’s credit had they stayed south and tackled the warlike Philistines. They applied Deut. 20:10-18 where it should not have been applied, because outside their specified boundaries.
	No business with (any) man. Since the distinction between ADaM and ARaM (Syria) is so very slight (see Psa. 119:25,153), the change is quite likely. There are plenty of examples of this accidental switch between D and R.
24.	My gods. Is it possible that elohim was used also to describe holy objects? Cp. Exod. 32:4.
30.	Son of (Manasseh) Moses. Is this bad streak in Moses’ family to be attributed to the early influence of Zipporah?

The punitive campaign against Benjamin was no sooner concluded than the tribes immediately became very uneasy about the consequences of their zeal for righteousness. So fully and completely had they done what they had deemed to be their duty that there was now grave prospect of the complete disappearance of one of their twelve tribes. For Benjamin was reduced to a mere handful of men, and how could these continue their families since their brethren had sworn not to give their daughters in marriage to a tribe of such wickedness? “And the people came to Bethel….and lifted up their voices, and wept sore.”

Here is demonstrated the folly of human oaths. Only God, the Eternal, who knows the end from the beginning, can truly bind Himself by an oath never to be set aside, for with Him, only, is the wisdom to foresee the outworking of events. In this incident there is the plainest of all warnings to those who love government by constitution and minute-book and all the paraphernalia of the Medes and Persians. Such may be all very well for business executives, but in a community of the people of God reliance on a cast-iron adherence to rules and resolutions is a sign of small-mindedness. The fewer the governing principles of an ecclesia the smaller will be the risk of becoming fettered hand and foot by chains of one’s own fashioning. It was a lesson Israel should have learned from this experience with Benjamin. It is a lesson the New Israel has not learned yet.

Another pitiable decision

As the people brooded on their problem before God in Bethel, bad became worse. Instead of confessing their folly and relying upon divine wisdom to correct their short-sightedness, they proceeded to indulge in casuistry with a typical Pharisaic flavour, and so piled more evils on top of the first. Such was ever the result of human cleverness. These men would fain disguise their spiritual immaturity with the brilliance of their scheming.

The solution was worked out with a logic at once admirable and reprehensible: The oath not to intermarry with Benjamin (they said) applies to all of us who assembled together at Mizpeh. Therefore it does not apply to those who refrained from joining the assembly. Therefore the only exceptions are the men of Jabesh-gilead. But we also swore most solemnly to destroy all who did not combine with us to punish the iniquity of Gibeah. Therefore Jabesh-gilead lies un-der a ban of extermination. And now see how clever-ly we can implement both ‘resolutions’ simultaneously! We will send an army against Jabesh-gilead to exterminate all except the maidens, and these will we give in marriage to the lonely men of Benjamin.

It was a mathematically concise solution which must surely have given much satisfaction to whoever propounded it. The comparatively trivial snag about it was that it punished the innocent and involved those who had started out to reform the corruptions of Israel in as great an injustice and as blatant an iniquity as that of Gibeah. More than a millenium later, the same mentality in the sons of these men was still straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

In this incident is to be found the origin of the connection and sympathy in later days between Saul, king of Israel, and the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. Saul would have descended from one of these women given as a consolation prize to the Benjamites. His intense anxiety to save Jabesh-gilead from the ravages of the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11) would be a perfectly natural expression of family feeling.

It is interesting too to observe that Saul’s method of rallying Israel for the defence of Jabesh was a conscious imitation of the unnamed Levite’s appeal to the tribes to take action against Gibeah — he took a sacrifice, but instead of offering it upon the altar he severed it into twelve pieces and sent it with an urgent message to all the twelve tribes. Only, there was this difference: the Levite was making an appeal; Saul was issuing a threat: “Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.” Saul had inherited the mentality of Israel at Mizpeh.

— and yet again!

As it turned out, the admirable scheme for the rehabilitation of Benjamin was not fully adequate to the occasion, for there was still a shortage of some two hundred women. So a further expedient, equally disreputable, had to be connived at.

The men of Benjamin were encouraged to satisfy their needs by crudely abducting the maidens of Shiloh as, dancing in the meadows at Passover, they kept fresh the memory of the crossing of the Red Sea and of the delight with which Miriam and the women of Israel celebrated that deliverance in dances before the Lord (Exodus 15).

The casuistry involved in this scheme was even worse than before, for in effect the elders of the people said to Benjamin: We vowed not to give our womenfolk to any of you in marriage, but if you take them by force, there will be no breaking of the vow on our part, and we will turn a blind eye to the offence of abduction.

This surely was straining out a gnat and swallowing a hippopotamus! The idea was particularly clever in its recommendation that the maidens of Shiloh be seized, for they would be virgins who, like Jephthah’s daughter, had been consecrated to the Lord in the service of the Tabernacle, and consequently they would — in a sense — be the special concern of no particular tribe. Hence the escapade — or rather, outrage — could be carried through with complete freedom of fear of reprisals.

It was, of course, blandly overlooked that these women were the Lord’s and that consequently this ‘Operation Shiloh’ was comparable with the sacrilege of misappropriating tithes and offerings which had been dedicated to God. What a serious lack of spiritual maturity there was in these men of Israel, now that Joshua was taken from them.

Phinehas?

It might be thought that the presence of Phinehas in their midst would contribute a certain degree of balance to their spiritual judgments. But far from this being the case, it is to be feared that Phinehas himself must bear a good deal of the responsibility for these tragic blunders. The more carefully this last chapter of Judges is compared with other incidents in which Phinehas figured, the more they are seen to be of a piece. First, there was the full-blooded zealous way in which he took action to stop the rot of the apostasy of Baal-peor: “And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel” (Num. 25:7,8).

In the circumstances it was an action wholly admirable and one that was blessed by God with an everlasting “covenant of peace”. But it betrayed an unreflecting impetuosity that was evidently characteristic of the man.

Next, there was the conclusion of the war against Midian: “And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males” (Num. 31:6,7).

The resemblances to the campaigns against Benjamin and Jabesh-gilead can readily be seen:

1. the priest taking the field along with the host.
2. the use of “the holy instruments” — Urim and Thummim — for divine decision.
3. a thousand from each tribe; compare the twelve thousand against Jabesh.
4. the slaughter of all the males.

These similarities suggest that Phinehas may have been the impetuous mind responsible, at least in part, for some of the decisions taken in this sorry epoch of Israel’s history. It is to be hoped that this tentative conclusion does him an injustice. On the other hand, it is just possible that there is here the reason for the otherwise unexplained transfer of the high-priesthood to the family of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron.

Notes

3.	The triple emphasis on “Israel” here is significant.
4.	Built there an altar. A pointer that “the house of God” (v. 2) was not Shiloh, for the altar there would not need (re-) building. But it is easy to understand that the ancient holy place at Bethel had fallen into disuse.
5.	Concerning him that came not up. Cp. the curse on Meroz (5:23).
7.	We will not give them of our daughters. Treating Benjamin like Canaanites: Deut. 7:3,4.
19.	Shiloh….on the north side of Bethel, etc. These precise details about the site of Shiloh were necessary for all readers of Judges from the time of Samuel onwards, because then the Philistines wiped Shiloh completely off the map; Jer. 7:12-15; 26:6,9.
21.	The daughters of Shiloh would be mostly from Ephraim. The other wives of Benjamin were from Manasseh. Thus the descendants of Rachel come together — Ephraim and Manasseh with Benjamin.

The second appendix to the Book of Judges comprises three chapters (Jud. 19,20,21), and — even more obviously than its predecessor — it is separate and distinct from the main purpose of the book. It mentions no judge, and it records no declension into idolatry. That there is a purpose in its inclusion here can scarcely be doubted, but consideration of the reasons for such an unexpected addendum must be deferred for the moment (see Chapter 32).

In point of time this incident and its grim sequel belong to the beginning and not the end of the Book of Judges. Many indications combine to establish this fact. There is no suggestion of either idolatry or foreign marriages, no judge is needed to save the people from oppression, there is the same military solidarity characteristic of the days of the Joshua, the people maintain the sanctuaries of the Lord and worship Him with offerings and fastings, they seek His counsel by Urim and Thummim and (as will be seen by and by) make strenuous, if mistaken, efforts to apply in full-blooded fashion the stern exhortations of Moses in Deuteronomy. Finally — the clearest of all indications as to date — there is mention of Phinehas the son of Eleazar as high priest. Eleazar was Joshua’s contemporary; so this incident of Gibeah and the Benjamites belongs to the generation after Joshua.

Strange proceedings at Bethlehem

A certain Levite of Mount Ephraim had taken to himself a concubine. With its story of Abimelech the Book of Judges has already taught something of the evils of concubinage, and now, that earlier lesson is to be reinforced. It may be inferred that this Levite already had a wife, otherwise he would surely have had this woman of Bethlehem as his wife and would have accorded her the full privileges of that higher status.

Not surprisingly the man soon ran into domestic difficulties. This concubine ran away, “played the harlot against him” (says the RV text), and eventually returned to her home in Bethlehem. Josephus has a different version of the story here — that “they quarrelled one with another perpetually; and at last the woman was so disgusted at these quarrels, that she left her husband and went to her parents.” The Septuagint tends to support this. And it requires but the interchange of two letters in the Hebrew text to read the same idea here.

This alternative reading seems likely, especially since it disposes of two other difficulties — the otherwise strange fact that a woman of such loose inclinations (if she were) should promptly return to her father’s house and settle down quietly there; and the remarkable circumstance that the Levite felt neither compunction about receiving the woman back again nor inclination to invoke the severity of the Law against her.

When he went to Bethlehem with the object of seeking reconciliation, the Levite was favourably received by the girl and by her father, and so there followed a time of feasting and friendship together. On the fourth day the man felt that his stay had been sufficiently prolonged, and he began preparations for departure. But the girl’s father was importunate: “Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.” When Abraham entertained angels unawares, “a morsel of bread” was his euphemism for three measures of meal made into cakes, with milk and butter and “a calf tender and good”. So it is not surprising that the Levite, who evidently enjoyed the good things of life, was easily persuaded, and when the meal ended it was too late to think of taking the road. What sort of Levite was this would could be so easily influenced by indulgence in food and drink?

Next day saw a repetition of the same pressing invitation to enjoy a long drawn-out meal before departure and the same willingness to be persuaded. Only this time as the afternoon declined the Levite threw off his post-prandial lethargy and insisted that a start be made. It may be that he was due to be on duty at the Tabernacle at Shiloh. Another guess is that the reconciliation had taken place on the Sabbath and in that case, since this was the fifth day, he would want to make the journey home before the next Sabbath came on.

Travel problems

As the sun sank into the west the man and his concubine and servant found themselves abreast of Jerusalem, known at that time (and until the reign of David) as Jebus.

The servant’s sensible suggestion that Jebus would be a good place to stay the night was scouted by his master. He refused to run the risk, as he considered, of entering “the city of a stranger”. How he would rue that decision before the night was out! Ramah and Gibeah were not far ahead. It would be better to press on to one of them. From the indication that Ramah and not Gibeah was the original objective (vv. 14,15) it may perhaps be inferred that the lawlessness of Gibeah was known to the servant, hence his advocacy of Jebus as a superior place of lodging.

But too much of the forenoon had been given over to feasting, and “the sun went down upon them” whilst they were still a good distance from their goal. There was nothing for it but to turn aside to Gibeah. Here surely they would find shelter, for hospitality was not only a prominent article in the social code of the times but was also an element of the religious duty of all good Israelites (Lev. 19:33,34).

However, it proved to be otherwise. There in the open square they had to make dismal preparation to spend the night under the stars, “for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging”.

Hazards of life at Gibeah

Then came an old man — not a native of the town, but an Ephraimite by birth — and enquired of their circumstances. There is more than a touch of surprise in his questions: “Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?”, as though implying: ‘Who are you, that you know no better than to seek shelter in a place as notorious as this?’ In his reply the Levite contrived to mention his religious status: “I walk in the house of the Lord.” This reading is better than the AV “I am now going to the house of the Lord”. Pity, truly, that he was not more conscious of his Levitical office when he was spending the greater part of a week in futile over-indulgence.

The old man readily gave to the party all possible hospitality, but before they were able to settle down for the night, stark horror and tragedy descended upon them. Vile men of the city, learning that strangers were within, thundered on the door and coarsely demanded that the man come forth that was with him. They knew, and so did he, what they wanted with him! The phrase “the men of the city” means ‘the city leaders’; thus is explained the complete absence of any restraint of wickedness. The fabric of society in Gibeah was rotten from top to bottom, as Rome was in the time of Claudius Caesar. That gentleman used to indulge in the same kind of beastliness, which in now a token of twentieth-century respectability.

The outcome of this assault on the only hospitable house in Gibeah is both unexpected and difficult. Instead of a stout refusal and a stern resolve to take the consequences, instead even of offering the man-servant as a substitute, the old man was prepared to hand over the two women in the house — his own daughter and the Levite’s concubine: “Do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”

As it turned out, the concubine only was thrust out into the clutches of the miscreants without, to be “humbled” (grim understatement!) through a long and ghastly night. If she had indeed played the whore against her lord (v. 2), this was a terrible retribution. Expositors may talk as plausibly as they may about the shockingly low status of women in those countries and those days; it still remains a grievous difficulty that the Levite should behave so callously to the woman whom he had just coaxed into returning with him. It has been argued that, after all, righteous Lot was prepared to make a similar offer to the vile men of Sodom (Gen. 19:8). But in this respect are the two cases really parallel? Lot probably had good reason already to suspect the identity of his guests, and he certainly knew something of the character of his daughters (!) and would realise that having grown up in the place it would not be beyond their powers to cope with that vicious mob, most of whom they knew personally.

Even so, this resemblance to the experience of Lot and the angels in Sodom is remarkably close in certain details. There can be little doubt that the narrative is designed to stress the similarities:

1. The wickedness of each city is general.
2. The one offering hospitality is a stranger, and aged.
3. The house is attacked,
4. the door is assaulted;
5. and the surrender of visitors is demanded,
6. for the same vile purpose.
7. Women are offered, that hospitality might not be abused,
8. and ultimately each city is utterly destroyed.

Can it be that in this resemblance between Gibeah and Sodom lies the explanation of the two men’s strange readiness to sacrifice their womenfolk to the animal appetite of the gang outside? When they did so, was it because they had already recognized the similarity with Lot’s experience, and were even then devoutly hoping that the outcome would be the same — blindness on the perverts howling outside the door, and speedy judgment from heaven on their incurable wickedness? Certainly there would then be added reason for the Levite’s precipitate departure next morning.

That horrible night, and its ghastly consequence — a pathetic corpse stark on the threshold next morning — wrought a profound change in this Levite who hitherto had given far more thought to food and drink and concubinage than to his calling as a servant in the house of the Lord and as an instructor in the Law of Moses. It came home to him with sickening force how rapid had been the declension in the moral and religious standards of the nation during the few short years since the death of Joshua. His own inexcusable case stood out as an epitome of the nation’s spiritual plight. Something drastic must be done.

A grim sequel

So he brought home that melancholy memento of his sojourn in Gibeah, and taking a knife, he carved the body into pieces as though it were a sacrifice to be laid in order on the altar. But here was no sacrifice. Instead a swift messenger carried a piece of the corpse to each tribe of Israel, and with a vivid account of how it came to be thus, ending in an urgent appeal for action. The Septuagint version concludes this portion of the narrative with the words: “And he charged the men whom he sent out, saying, Thus shall ye say to all the men of Israel, Did ever a thing like this happen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day? consider it, take counsel, and speak.” No need to say: ‘What do you mean to do about it?’ What had happened to her might happen to any other woman in Israel. The nation was sunk as low as Sodom. Ought not this evil to be dealt with speedily according to God’s Law?

Notes

3.	A couple of asses. In itself a plain intimation that he wished to take her home.
9.	The form of these sentences implies repeated persuasion.
15.	No man took them into his house. What a contrast with vv. 5-9!
17.	Whither….whence…? The man seems astonished that anyone should consider spending a night in such a place.
23.	Folly. This word (v. 24 RV; 20:6,10) is often used to describe some sexual evil.
24.	What seemeth good unto you. What an irony!
25.	The influence and memory of this night’s work lasted a long time: Hos. 9:9; 10:9.
27.	Apparently the Levite had now abandoned all hope of recovering the woman