Notes
Notes
CHAPTER ONE: PURPOSE, THEME AND AUTHORSHIP OF REVELATION
[1] For a descriptive note on the various theories of interpretation see M. C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (I.V.F.), pp. 387 and L. Morris, art. ‘Book of Revelation’ in The New Bible Dictionary (I.V.F.).
[2] See chapter 6, pp. 44 f., for a fuller discussion of this point.
[3] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii. 25.
[4] W. Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, II, p. 362.
[5] See for example the writings of F. Bleek and J. Neander.
[6] This view is held by the Tübingen school.
[7] Bousset, Harnack, Holtzmann, and Moffatt, are amongst these.
[8] An interesting explanation is given in A. Pieters, The Lamb, the Woman, and the Dragon, pp. 18 ff. See also A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, VI, p. 274.
[9] For further similarities between the Gospel and the Apocalypse, see J. P. Lange, The Revelation of John (Commentary of the Holy Scriptures, The New Testament, X), pp. 56 ff.
[10] See A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 113.
[11] For a survey of this whole subject, see H. Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, especially pp. 304 ff.; and G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament, pp. 536 ff., 547.
[12] See the discussion in R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation, pp. 8 ff.
[13] From Gk. chilioi, ‘1000’; a term used to describe eschatological views which are strongly millennarian in character.
[14] N. B. Stonehouse, The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church, p. 151.
[15] Ante-Nicene Fathers, I–III. See also N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 153 ff.
[16] Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, pp. 416, 559.
[17] For the earlier date, however, see H. Cowles, The Revelation of St. John, pp. 17 ff. Amongst those who support the late date are Alford, Godet, Moffatt, Ramsay, Swete, Warfield and L. Berkhof in his New Testament Introduction, pp. 347 f.
[18] See A. Plummer, The Book of Revelation (Pulpit Commentary), p. 150.
CHAPTER TWO: GENERAL ANALYSIS
[1] See W. Milligan, The Book of Revelation (Expositor’s Bible), VI, p. 836; E. H. Plumptre, The Epistles to the Seven Churches, p. 9; W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, pp. 30, 177 ff.; R. C. Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, pp. 59 ff.; C. F. Wishart, The Book of Day, p. 22.
[2] See chapter XIV, p. 184.
[3] This view, in one form or another, is adopted by R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., pp. 216, 240, 350, 358; S. L. Morris, The Drama of Christianity, p. 26; M. F. Sadler, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, pp. xvi. ff. See further B. B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, pp. 645, 661.
[4] Although the visions describe the new dispensation, they have the old dispensation as their starting-point. Cf., e.g., 12: 1–4; 17: 10; 20: 3 (‘that he should deceive the nations no more’).
[5] S. L. Morris, op. cit., p. 64.
[6] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 553.
[7] S. L. Morris, op. cit., p. 27; W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 124.
[8] For one of many other systems of division, see H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. xxxiii and xliv.
[9] The varying systems of division into these seven sections will be found in L. Berkhof, op. cit., p. 339; H. B. Swete (for Ewald’s division), op. cit., p. xlv; P. Mauro, The Patmos Visions, pp. 11 f.; W. Milligan, op. cit., passim; S. L. Morris, op. cit., p. 29; M. F. Sadler, op. cit., pp. xvi ff.; C. F. Wishart, op. cit., p. 30; B. B. Warfield, op. cit., p. 645 note.
[10] H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. xxxix.
[11] See J. P. Lange, op. cit., p. 83; A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 159; A. T. Robertson, Syllabus for New Testament Study, p. 260; H. B. Swete, op. cit., pp. xl, lxii.
[12] See C. J. Ellicott, The Revelation (Handy Commentary), p. 19.
[13] I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, pp. 254, 523.
CHAPTER THREE: THE UNITY OF THE BOOK
[1] This is the view held, for example, by Harnack. J. Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, pp. 489 ff., gives a detailed account of the different views.
[2] See chapter IX, p. 93. This identification is made by Irenaeus, the disciple of a disciple of the apostle John, in his work Against Heresies. S. L Morris, op. cit., p. 52, says, ‘The church... in all the ages has been practically unanimous in interpreting it as the conquering Christ entering upon His militant world career.’ Amongst other modern scholars who support it are J. P. Lange, R. C. H. Lenski, W. Milligan and A. Plummer, in the works cited above.
[3] The preterists offer a more consistent explanation here than others. They see the unity of Rev. 6: 3-11. See, for example, H. Cowles, op. cit., pp. 98 ff.; P. Mauro, op. cit., p. 202; A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 184. R. C. H. Lenski, on the other hand, holds that what happens to believers is not even included in the symbolism of the horsemen (op. cit., p. 223). His reason for this position is, however, that he takes the ‘Hades’ of verse 8 to mean hell, whereas it is in fact the state of death, always following death. See art. ‘Hades’ in ISBE (1929 edn.).
[4] See R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John (International Critical Commentary), I, p. 165; P. Mauro, op. cit., p. 200; H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. clvi; F. C. Thompson, The New Chain Reference Bible, on this passage.
[5] A. T. Robertson, in Syllabus for New Testament Study, p. 265, mentions as an objection to the synchronous (parallelistic) view that in 8: 1 the trumpets seem to grow out of the seals. This is indeed true, and yet the two series—seals and trumpets—run parallel. Throughout history seals of persecution always give rise to trumpets of judgment. Hence, both series span the same long period of time, and the trumpets always grow out of the seals. Thus the seventh seal is not given a content of its own but immediately introduces the trumpets. The whole difficulty arises from the fact that parallelists have neglected the unity of the entire book.
[6] See chapter II, pp. 22 f.
[7] This, of course, cannot be open to doubt. The Man-child can be none other than the Christ. Abundant evidence for this is given in chapter XI.
[8] Notice that the Man-child is here represented as the Seed of the woman, while the dragon opposes Him. The entire passage is rooted in Gn. 3: 15.
[9] Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 412; A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 412.
[10] See pp. 19f.
CHAPTER FOUR: PROGRESSIVE TEACHING CONCERNING FINAL JUDGMENT
[1] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 267.
[2] J .P. Lange, op. cit., p. 81; see also p. 5; B. B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, p. 645.
CHAPTER FIVE: SYMBOLISM IN THE BOOK
[1] N.B. the first verse of the book ‘and he made it known by means of signs (or symbols)’.
[2] S. L. Morris, op. cit., pp. 32, 46, etc.
[3] See W. M. Taylor, The Parables of Our Saviour, p. 14.
[4] A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 71.
[5] B. B. Warfield, op. cit., p. 646.
[6] A. Pieters, op. cit., pp. 132 ff.
[7] See chapter II, pp. 16–19.
[8] Other numbers found in the Apocalypse are: ½; 1; 2; 3; 3½; 4; 5; 6; 10; 12; 24; 144; 666; 1000; 1260; 1600; 7000; 12000; 144000; 100,000,000; 200,000,000. See G. F. Wishart, op. cit., pp. 19 ff., for a very fine treatise on the significance of numbers in the Apocalypse.
[9] See B. B. Warfield, op. cit., p. 646.
[10] See further, W. Milligan, op. cit., VI, pp. 860, 867; S. L. Morris, op. cit., p. 65; H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. ccxvi; G. F. Wishart, op. cit., p. 42.
CHAPTER SIX: BACKGROUND AND BASIS FOR INTERPRETATION
[1] See chapter 1, pp. 7–10.
[2] See H. Cowles, op. cit., p. 43; A. Pieters, op. cit., pp. 67 ff.; H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. ccxiii.
[3] This is where the preterists (see chapter 1, note 1) often fall down.
[4] See pp. 184–186.
[5] See chapter 1, pp. 12 f.
[6] J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 361; A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 72; A. T. Robertson, Syllabus for New Testament Study, p. 254; H. B. Swete, op. cit., pp. cxxxix ff.; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 612 ff.; C. F. Wishart, op. cit., pp. 14 ff.
[7] Op. cit., pp. 612 ff.
[8] F. Bleek, Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 643; H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. cliii.
[9] See B. B. Warfield, op. cit., p. 643.
[10] R. C. H. Lenski (op. cit., p. 600), who has made a very successful attempt to avoid them in his commentary, refers to a few of these novelties found in the commentaries of others.
[11] See chapter 1, p. 15.
CHAPTER SEVEN: REVELATION 1: THE SON OF MAN
[1] Cf. C. A. Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John, pp. 81 ff. He points out that while both prophecy and apocalypse are products of divine, special revelation, the predominance of the divine act of unveiling over the human act of mediation is more clearly evident in apocalypse than in prophecy. The very term ‘prophecy’ emphasizes the human factor, whereas the word ‘apocalypse’ (‘unveiling’) stresses the divine act.
[2] A remarkable agreement with the Christology of Johns Gospel. See Jn. 5: 20; 7: 16; 12: 49; 14: 10; 17: 7, 8: ‘for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them’.
[3] We do not believe that the term ‘shortly’, as used here, indicates that the events are to follow one another in rapid succession. After all, a reference to Jas. 1: 19; Acts 22: 18 is not decisive. The question is: what does the term mean here, in Rev. 1: 1? The context ought to decide. Verse 3 gives us an excellent commentary: the time is at hand: the symbols begin to be realized immediately. This view is confirmed by the parallel passage, Rev. 22: 10: ‘And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.’ (Cf. 20: 7, 12.) Thus interpreted—and we are confident that this is the correct interpretation—the very first verse of the Apocalypse deals the death-blow to any futuristic view.
[4] See chapter I, pp. 10ff.
[5] The term ‘to bear witness’ is characteristic of John’s writings.
[6] The seven are found in the following passages: Rev. 1: 3; 14: 13; 16: 15; 19: 9; 20: 6; 22: 7; 22: 14. This is one more strong argument in favour of the unity of the entire book.
[7] See chapter 1, p. 10; and chapter VIII, pp.60, 79f.
[8] We should not be too ready to condemn John’s grammar. See Moffatt’s translation, and cf. A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 83.
[9] In stating that the second coming is not the dominant note nor the main theme of the book we disagree with many excellent commentaries. See chapter I, pp. 8 f; and D. S. Clark, The Message from Patmos, p. 25.
[10] This is yet another link between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. Both the author of the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 19: 37) and the author of the Apocalypse (Rev. 1: 7) follow the Massoretic Hebrew text of Zc. 12: 10, and desert the LXX, which adds weight to the evidence for common authorship.
[11] W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 85, 98.
[12] There is no reason for identifying ‘the Lord’s Day’ with ‘the Day of the Lord’. The Lord’s Day is the day which we observe in commemoration of the Lord’s resurrection; just as the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor. 11: 20, is the supper which we observe in remembrance of the Lord’s death on the cross. The term ‘the Day of the Lord’ is a translation of the Hebrew ‘the Day of Jehovah’ and has a completely different meaning (see I. T. Beckwith, op. cit pp 20 ff). To identify these two terms in support of the notion that John in the Spirit was transported to the day of Christ’s second coming is quite without foundation.
[13] We use the definite article advisedly here. The term ‘Son of man’ is to be regarded as a proper noun which does not need the definite article in the original.
[14] See chapter v, pp. 38ff.
[15] See art. ‘Hades’ in ISBE (1929 ed.). For Lenski’s view see chapter III, p. 27, note 1.
[16] If these ‘angels’ in fact indicated the messengers of the churches sent to visit John, as the Scofield Bible holds, the expression ‘To the angel of the church at... write’ would be meaningless. Nor can real angels, heavenly beings, be meant, for it would have been rather difficult to deliver the book or its epistles to them. Neither do we believe that the expression ‘angels’ can mean the churches as personified or as in the expression ‘the Spirit of Ephesus’. We seriously doubt whether the expression, thus interpreted would have been understood by those who first read or heard the book. For an excellent defence of the view that these angels refer to the bishops, pastors or ministers of the churches, see R. C. Trench, op. cit., pp. 53–58
CHAPTER EIGHT: REVELATION 2, 3: THE SEVEN LAMPSTANDS
[1] R. C. Trench, op. cit., p. 97; W. Milligan, op. cit., p. 841.
[2] See chapter II, pp. 22f. and R. C. Trench, op. cit., p. 90.
[3] W. J. McKnight, ‘The Letter to the Laodiceans’, Biblical Review, XVI, p. 519; A. Pieters, op. cit., pp. 100 ff. (an excellent discussion). The contrary view is defended by the Scofield Reference Bible.
[4] W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 210–236.
[5] This is not affected by whether or not we regard this Epistle as a circular letter. R. C. H. Lenski ably defends the genuineness of the words ‘that are at Ephesus’ (Eph. 1: 1) in his Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, pp. 329 ff.
[6] See F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, pp. 43 ff.
[7] See R. C. Trench, op. cit., p. 80.
[8] All commentators note this fact.
[9] See E. L. Harris’s article, ‘Some Ruined Cities of Asia Minor’, in The National Geographic Magazine, Dec. 1908.
[10] See our explanation of the epistle to Pergamum and of that to Thyatira, especially pp. 67, 71 f.
[11] This fact is likewise stressed by almost all commentators.
[12] W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 251–267.
[13] Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, pp. 37 ff.
[14] See W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 269. He seems to prove his point with respect to the meaning of the aorist here.
[15] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 91.
[16] See W. Milligan, op. cit., p. 845.
[17] See E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., note on p. 97. This is not the royal diadem (Trench) but the wreath of victory.
[18] On the present condition of Smyrna see E. L. Harris, article cited above.
[19] W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 281–290.
[20] See W. Milligan, op. cit., p. 846.
[21] See pp. 71f.
[22] See W. Milligan, op. cit., p. 846.
[23] The following are among the views which we cannot accept:
a. That the white stone of the Apocalypse is the tessera or ticket which the visitor receives, admitting him to the feast of the Great King. See E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., pp. 127 ff. for a very able defence of this view. An excellent refutation of this theory is found in an article by M. Stuart, ‘The White Stone of the Apocalypse’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, O, pp. 461–477.
b. That the white stone represents the pebble of acquittal used in courts ot justice. M. Stuart, in the article just mentioned, likewise refutes this view.
c. That the white stone with the name inscribed upon it refers to the Old Testament Urim and Thummim. This is very ably argued by R. C. Trench, op. cit., pp. 132 ff. and A. Plummer (op. cit., p. 64) finds it a very attractive theory. It cannot, however, be correct. The arguments of Plumptre (op. cit. pp. 126 ff.) against this view are decisive.
d. R. H. Charles, Revelation (International Critical Commentary), pp. 66 ff. argues that the true source of the symbol is to be found in the sphere of popular superstition. This needs no answer. A variety of other explanations may be found in The Speaker's Commentary; art. ‘Stones’ in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, and elsewhere.
[24] This view (which is the popular one), with variations, is defended by J. P. Lange, op. cit., p. 120, who, however, views the white stone itself as indicating acquittal; by R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 113, and a host of others.
[25] For a defence of this interpretation see M. Stuart, ‘The White Stone of the Apocalypse’, Bibliotheca Sacra, O, pp. 461–477.
[26] W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 316–326.
[27] Ibid., pp. 354–368.
[28] Cf. especially the letter to Ephesus, pp. 61f.
[29] See W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., pp. 391-400.
[30] Ibid., pp. 413–423. See also W.J. McKnight, art. cited above, pp. 519 ff.
[31] That they boasted of their spiritual wealth, and not primarily of their material possessions is the view supported by nearly all commentators. W. Milligan, however, defends the opposite view.
[32] It is clear, of course, that man, not God, is here represented as opening the door. Man repents. The opening of the door, accordingly, refers to conversion, and cannot refer to regeneration, which is entirely God’s work. In conversion man takes an active part.
[33] See pp. 144ff., 167ff.
CHAPTER NINE: REVELATION 4–7: THE SEVEN SEALS
[1] This representation is, however, favoured by many pre-millennialists. See the introductory note to the book of Revelation in the Scofield Reference Bible.
[2] Cf. C. A. Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John, pp. 76 ff.
[3] At various times in the history of cosmography the earth, the sun and the stars have been placed at the centre of the universe.
[4] For the opposite view, see R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation, p. 171.
[5] The translation ‘jasper’ does not fit Rev. 21: 11.
[6] See p. 85, note 1.
[7] Cf. R. H. Charles (op. cit., I, pp. 118 ff.) who enumerates various items of contrast.
[8] So, for example, the fact that each of the cherubim in Ezekiel has four faces, so as to be facing in all four directions simultaneously, is thoroughly in harmony with their mission, namely to carry the throne in whichever direction its Occupant wills. In Revelation the cherubim do not carry the throne.
[9] A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 112.
[10] For the contrary view, see R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 182.
[11] The throne (God’s sovereignty) controlling and directing all things is the heart and centre of this vision.
[12] Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 194.
[13] Cf. the synonyms in J. H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, under klaio.
[14] This is not entirely explained by a reference to Is. 11: 1, 10. The Messiah is David’s Lord (Mt. 22: 41–55). The Unincarnate Son forms His father (David) according-to-the-flesh.
[15] Cf. C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, pp. 635 ff.
[16] In heaven the souls now reign with the risen and exalted Christ—which, of course, was not possible under the old dispensation; with respect to the earth Satan is now bound. (See chapter XIV.) Scripture constantly speaks of the life hereafter in terms of time. (Cf. also Eph. 2: 7 and an explanation of Rev. 10: 6.)
[17] See A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 117.
[18] AV reading ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us’ is incorrect.
[19] For the particular and universal character of Christ’s redemptive work see L. Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement Through Christ, pp. 165 ff.
[20] See not only the outermost circle, but circles 4, 5, 6, 7. The entire universe offers praise.
[21] See R. H. Charles, op. cit., I, p. 151.
[22] See the Scofield Reference Bible, marginal note f, on Rev. 6: 2.
[23] Rev. 11: 7; 13: 7.
[24] W. Milligan, op. cit., VI, p. 855.
[25] Wherever the original has nikao we have translated it by some form of the verb ‘to conquer’. Thus the reader is able to see, e.g., that the same word is used in the original in Rev. 5: 5 as in 6: 2.
[26] Cf. K. Schilder, Christ on Trial, p. 381.
[27] See chapter VI, pp. 45–49.
[28] See p. 94, note 3.
[29] An objection often advanced is that Christ cannot at the same time be the One who opens the seals and the contents of the first seal. But why should this be considered impossible? By the same process of reasoning should we not reach the conclusion that Christ cannot lay His right hand on John (1: 17), for in that right hand He is holding seven stars (1: 16); that a Lamb—with seven horns and seven eyes—cannot take a scroll out of the hand of God (5: 6, 7); a star cannot accept a key (9: 1), etc.? The symbolism of the Apocalypse again and again surprises us: John is told to look up and see a Lion, and he sees... a Lamb standing as having been slaughtered (5: 6). Again, he expects to see the bride, and he sees a city, the holy city Jerusalem (21: 9, 10). Yet, when we begin to study these seeming irregularities, we find a very good reason for every one of them: what may be impossible as far as the symbol is concerned, is entirely reasonable and true with respect to the reality to which the symbol refers. Is not Christ constantly holding the seven stars in His right hand; that is, does He not constantly exercise His authority and His protecting care over the ministers? Yet, can He not at the same time lay His right hand on John? Again, a literal lamb may not be able to take a scroll, but the One to whom the lamb refers, namely Christ, certainly can do, and did do so when He sat down at the right hand of the Father. A bride cannot also be a city, but the Church of God—to which both bride and city refer—can be, and is, both at the same time. And for the same reason Jesus Christ, indeed, opens the seals; He carries out the plan of God in the history of the world. Yet, at the same time, all of history reveals the Christ as the One who is riding forth in triumph conquering and to conquer. He opens the seals and He is Himself the content of the first seal.
[30] Cf. R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 158, and several popular treatises and pamphlets.
[31] Matthew mentions several ‘signs’ not mentioned in Rev. 6, e.g., false prophets, false Christs, the abomination of desolation, heedlessness (as in the days of Noah); while Rev. 6 (see our summary) mentions several signs which do not occur in Mt. 24. Rev. 6 describes what will follow Christ’s first coming; Mt. 24 what will precede His second coming; the point of departure and, in fact, the entire setting, is different.
[32] See chapter VI, pp. 45–49.
[33] See the explanation of the second and third horsemen, pp. 99–103.
[34] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 184.
[35] See chapter III, p. 27 and note 1.
[36] A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 185.
[37] See also p. 104, first paragraph.
[38] N. L. Saloff-Ostakhoff, Christianity and Communism: Real Russia 1905 to 1932. Mrs. H. Taylor, The Triumph of John and Betty Stam.
[39] See R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 227.
[40] See our explanation of the letter to Thyatira, chapter VIII.
[41] Cf. for the colour, 8: 7; 9: 4.
[42] The preposition here is different from that used in the other cases.
[43] See A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 122.
[44] See chapter VII, p. 57.
[45] See R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 169.
[46] This is the number of the universe: North, South, East, West.
[47] Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 231.
[48] The disease suffered by the Philistines after they had taken the ark was, in all probability, the bubonic Plague, for the following reasons:
[49] Both mass conversions and moral and religious disintegration result from calamities such as these. (See H. Zinsser, op. cit., pp. 86, 139.)
[50] See pp. 99–101.
[51] See chapter IV, p. 35.
[52] Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 241.
[53] See chapter V, pp. 38ff.
[54] Cf. our explanation of Rev. 2: 17.
[55] Cf. C. F. Wishart, op. cit., pp. 22 ff.
[56] Ibid., p. 23.
[57] That the entire (not only the Jewish) Church is meant is also the view of W. Milligan, op. cit., pp. 861 ff.: a series of very convincing arguments.
[58] See pp. giff.
[59] Notice that the definite article precedes each of the seven items of praise. It indicates that in the fullest, deepest sense these excellences pertain to God, and to Him alone. These seven have the following meaning:
a. he eulogia: probably not merely the invocation of blessing but the actual possession of the blessed fullness of the divine attributes upon which our salvation is founded.
b. he doxa: the glory which results when the splendour of God’s attributes (sovereignty, righteousness, love, grace, etc.) is recognized.
c. he sophia: the wisdom of God revealed in the plan of salvation and in the execution of that plan. God ever employs the best means to reach the highest goal. This wisdom, moreover, implies the reconciliation of seeming incompatibilities. (Cf. Eph. 3: 10 in the light of the entire preceding context.)
d. and e. he eucharistia and he time: the thanksgiving and the honour result whenever this wisdom of God in our salvation is recognized.
f. and g. he dynamis and he ischys: the power and the strength of God (power includes strength) are as clearly revealed in the work of salvation as is His wisdom.
CHAPTER TEN: REVELATION 8–11: THE SEVEN TRUMPETS
[1] See chapter v, pp. 41ff
[2] Cf. R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 223.
[3] Throughout the book of Revelation God ever remains the Sovereign of the universe. Notice how often the word ‘given’ occurs.
[4] In Rev. 6: 9 it appears as the altar of burnt-offering.
[5] Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 269.
[6] See R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 176.
[7] It is, perhaps, possible to expand the meaning of this plague so that, under the symbolism of making the land-waters bitter, it indicates all calamities which obstruct whatever means man employs in order to satisfy his needs. Water, then, symbolizes that which supplies man’s needs, e.g. industry, commerce. Hence, the poisoning of fountains and waters would indicate, among other things, the derangement of industry, commerce, etc.
[8] Notice, again, the arrangement of the seven into two groups: one of four and another of three. See chapter II, pp. 22f.
[9] We do not think it at all necessary to allegorize sun and air. It is possible to look upon sun and air as indicating the literal sun and the literal air as these appear in the vision. In the vision, so thick and black is the smoke that even sun and air were darkened by it. Hence, the picture, taken as a whole, symbolizes a very grievous moral and spiritual darkening by the forces of evil.
[10] The entire prophecy of Joel centres around these three themes: Plague 1: 1–2: 11; Penitence 2: 12–17; Promise 2: 18–3: 21. Note the very vivid description of the locusts in 2: 2b–11.
[11] So many explanations of these ‘five months’ have been given that we think it best to say no more than this.
[12] See chapter v, pp. 38ff.
[13] The four angels of 7: 1 stand ‘at the four corners of the earth’. The four angels of 9: 14 are bound at the great river Euphrates.
[14] Christ is not called ‘an angel’ in the Apocalypse. Besides we do not read that John worships this angel as he worships the Christ (1: 17).
[15] Notice that the expression ‘the voice of Jehovah’ occurs seven times in this psalm in which God’s greatness in the storm is set forth.
[16] See the emphasis that this is all vision and symbolism, in R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 325.
[17] We do not mean that Ezekiel had arrived at the New Testament representation of the Church as the body of Christ.
[18] Notice the difference in the two forms of the verb in the original.
[19] See pp. 143, 162–165, 182f., 195.
[20] The term ‘great city’ always refers to Babylon and never to the New and Holy Jerusalem.
[21] See chapter IV, p. 35.
[22] The term rendered ‘kingdom’ in our English translation often means kingship, rule, dominion, sovereignty. See the author’s Sermon on the Mount, p. 31.
[23] See also the author’s Covenant of Grace.
CHAPTER ELEVEN: REVELATION 12–14: THE CHRIST VERSUS THE DRAGON AND HIS ALLIES
[1] See chapter II, pp. 22f.
[2] See chapter I, pp. 8f.
[3] See A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 161.
[4] Nearly all commentators of all schools agree that the child is Christ.
[5] Not borrowed in the ordinary sense, however; for Christ wrote Psalm 2 and revealed the Apocalypse.
[6] For Satan’s names see our explanation of Rev. 20: 2, p. 186.
[7] Compare chapters 11, 12 and 20 of Revelation: a very striking parallel.
[8] See chapter VI, pp. 44f.
[9] See also K. Schilder, op. cit., p. 141.
[10] See chapter VI, p. 46.
[11] See P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I, p. 381.
[12] See A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 236.
[13] pp. 142ff.
[14] See our explanation of 11: 7 ff., p. 130ff.
[15] The words ‘from the foundation of the world’ modify ‘written’, as in ASV.
[16] Although the definite article is omitted in order to emphasize the character of this beast, yet we immediately feel that this monster is the devil’s imitation of the true Lamb of God. In reality, this second beast is inspired by ‘the’ dragon, Satan.
[17] See chapter VIII, p. 66.
[18] See W. M. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 98.
[19] Ibid., pp. 100 ff.
[20] See pp. 68ff., 109ff.
[21] The mark of the beast has been interpreted as meaning, e.g., the symbol of freemasonry; the fasces on an American dime; the mono-mark; the observance of the Sabbath on the first day of the week; antichrist’s initials appearing on the forehead of the wicked, and so on.
[22] See R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 409.
[23] See chapter VIII, pp. 71f.
[24] See C. F. Wishart, op. cit., p. 25. The attempts to arrive at an interpretation by adding the numerical values in the name Nero, Plato and so on, lead to nothing just because they lead to everything. The Apocalypse is a book of symbols; it is not a book of riddles!
[25] See R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 425.
[26] ‘Described’ is the right wor now. See chapter IV, pp. 35f.
[27] See R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 74, on the distinction between stephanos and diadema. Yet, although the stephanos is the victor’s wreath, that victor is sometimes viewed as a king, so that the distinction between the two terms is not always sharp.
[28] See C. F. Wishart, op. cit., p. 23.
CHAPTER TWELVE: REVELATION 15, 16: THE SEVEN BOWLS
[1] See Principal Fairburn’s splendid paragraph quoted in S. L. Morris, op. cit., p. 96.
[2] The following are amongst the views we reject:
[3] See our comments on these paragraphs, pp. 130ff., 181ff., 193ff.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: REVELATION 17–19: THE FALL OF THE DRAGON’S ALLIES
[1] See pp. 144–147.
[2] A. Pieters, op. cit., p. 260.
[3] We reject the following views:
[4] Babylon is never called moichalis, ‘adulteress’; always porne, ‘harlot’. Hence, Babylon was never the Lamb’s wife. She is not the false church See under note 2 above.
[5] The Scripture passages which should be studied, as forming the foundation for this New Testament symbolism, are: Gn. 10: 10; 11: 11; Is. 13; 14; 21; 46; 47; 48; Je. 25; 50; 51; Dn. 2; 4: 30; 7; Hab. 3; also Ezk. 27, the fall of Tyre.
[6] Most commentators, whether preterists or parallelists (and even some futurists) grant this point.
[7] See chapter VI, p. 46.
[8] Some make this seventh head the papacy; others, the nominally Christian Roman Empire beginning with Constantine the Great; still others, the Germanic nations that overwhelmed Rome.
[9] Some say Rome; others hold that, in some form or sense, the ancient Babylonian Empire will be re-established, or that conditions existing in that empire shall return.
[10] Hence the world, in a sense, destroys itself.
[11] This seems to be the correct reading, rather than ‘have fallen’. Cf. R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 96.
[12] L. Berkhof, Biblical Archaeology, p. 63; G. M. Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, p. 122; J. S. Wright, J. A. Thompson, art. ‘Marriage’, New Bible Dictionary.
[13] See the argument in R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 549.
[14] See our explanation of Rev. 2: 17.
[15] On the final attack of the antichristian forces against the Church in the days just preceding Christ’s second coming, see pp. 162–165, 195.
[16] R. C. H. Lenski (op. cit., pp. 562 ff.) ably argues that Rev. 19: 20 in no way proves that the beast and the false prophet are here viewed as two actual persons living at the parousia.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: REVELATION 20–22: VICTORY THROUGH CHRIST
[1] For the premillennialistic view see A. H. Burton, The Apocalypse Expounded; H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Revelation; C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible; J. Seiss, Lectures on the Book of Revelation; W. H. Simcox, The Revelation of St. John. See further the bibliography.
[2] See chapter 1, pp. 8f.
[3] We reject the following views on the binding of Satan for a thousand years:
[4] We reject the following interpretations of Gog and Magog:
[5] For our interpretation of Gog and Magog we are indebted to E. W. Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, II, pp. 303 ff.; W. Fairweather, From the Exile to the Advent, pp. 133 ff.; The Background of the Gospels, pp. 95 ff.; A. H. Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament, p. 73.
[6] Read pp. 130, 143, 162 ff., 182 f. where this subject is discussed more fully.
[7]See J. Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, p. 195.
[8] See G. A. Gordon, ‘The Vision of the Dead’ in Great Sermons by Great Preachers, ed. J. L. Hurlbut.
[9] See our explanation of Rev. 1: 18; 6: 8.
[10] Cf. W. Milligan, op. cit.
[11] Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., pp. 620 ff.
[12] The original has kainos, not neos.
[13] See pp. 179 ff.
[14] For the full meaning of this wedding of the Lamb, see pp. 179ff.
[15] Babylon is ‘great’; Jerusalem is ‘new’. See chapter x, p. 131 note 1.
[16] On the expression ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega’, see pp. 54 f.
[17] See the author’s The Covenant of Grace.
[18] On this designation, see pp. 179 ff.
[19] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XV. I; cf. xiv. 28; W. Walker, Great Men of the Christian Church, pp. 63 ff.
[20] The reading favoured by AV in 21: 10 is wrong. The term ‘great city’ never applies to the Holy Jerusalem—always to Babylon. See chapter x, p. 131, note 1.
[21] See pp. 179 ff.
[22] RV mg. is correct.
[23] See our comments on Rev. 4: 3, p. 85.
[24] See our explanation of Rev. 7: 4.
[25] For these characteristics of the harlot, see Rev. 17: 4–6; 18: 3, 9; 19: 2.
[26] See p. 177.
[27] Cf. our explanation of Rev. 14: 1, p. 151.
[28] P. 51, note 3; p. 82 and note 1.
[29] Q.v., p. 181.
[30] See 1 Jn. 5: 16 and our explanation of Rev. 15: 8, p. 160.
[31] For the meaning of verse 14 see pp. 54, 57 f., 64, 77.
[32] Cf. p. 113.
[33] See p. 90.
[34] See pp. 72 f.