xix. 16, the same thought is expressed by saying that he is the

“King of kings.” No language could more sublimely denote his exalted character, or his supremacy. Kings and princes sway a sceptre over the millions of the earth, and the exaltation of the Saviour is here expressed by supposing that all those kings and princes constitute a community over which he is the head. The exaltation of the Redeemer is elsewhere expressed in different language, but the idea is one that everywhere prevails in regard to him in the Scriptures. Comp. Mat. {44} xxviii. 18; xi. 27; Jn. xvii. 2; Ep. i. 20‒22; Phi. ii. 9‒11; Col. i. 15‒18. The word _prince_――ὁ ἄρχων――means properly, _ruler_, _leader_, _the first in rank_. We often apply the word _prince_ to an heir to a throne who is not invested with absolute sovereignty. The word here, however, denotes that he actually exercises dominion over the rulers of the earth. As this is an authority which is claimed by God (comp. Is. x. 5, seq.; xlv. 1, seq.; Ps. xlvii. 2; xcix. 1; ciii. 19; Da. iv. 34), and which can only appertain to God, it is clear that in ascribing this to the Lord Jesus it is implied that he is possessed of divine attributes. As much of the revelations of this book pertained to the assertion of power over the princes and rulers of this world, there was a propriety that, in the commencement, it should be asserted that he who was to exert that power was invested with the prerogative of a ruler of the nations, and that he had this right of control. ¶ _Unto him that loved us._ This refers undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus, whose _love_ for men was so strong that nothing more was necessary to characterize him than to speak of him as the one “who loved us.” It is manifest that the division in the verses should have been made here, for this commences a new subject, not having any special connection with that which precedes. In ver. 4, and the first part of this verse, the writer had invoked grace from the Father, the Spirit, and the Saviour. In the latter clause of the verse there commences an ascription of praise to the Redeemer; an ascription to him particularly, because the whole book is regarded as a revelation from him (ver. 1); because he was the one who especially appeared to John in the visions of Patmos; and because he was to be the great agent in carrying into execution the purposes revealed in this book. ¶ _And washed us from our sins in his own blood._ He has removed the pollution of sin from our souls by his blood; that is, his blood has been applied to cleanse us from sin. Blood can be represented as having a cleansing power _only_ as it makes an expiation for sin, for considered literally its effect would be the reverse. The language is such as would be used only on the supposition that he had made an atonement, and that it was _by_ the atonement that we are cleansed; for in what sense could it be said of a martyr that he “had washed us from our sins in his blood?” How could this language be used of Paul or Polycarp; of Ridley or Cranmer? The doctrine that the blood of Christ _cleanses_ us from sin, or _purifies_ us, is one that is common in the Scriptures. Comp. 1 Jn. i. 7; He. ix. 14. The specific idea of _washing_, however――representing that blood as _washing_ sin away――is one which does not elsewhere occur. It is evidently used in the sense of _cleansing_ or _purifying_, as we do this by _washing_, and as the blood of Christ accomplishes in respect to our souls, what washing with water does in respect to the body.

6 And hath made us [66]kings and priests unto God and his Father; [67]to him _be_ glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

6. _And hath made us kings and priests unto God._ In 1 Pe. ii. 9 the same idea is expressed by saying of Christians that they are “_a royal priesthood_.” See Notes on that verse. The quotation in both places is from Ex. xix. 6: “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.” This idea is expressed here by saying that Christ had made us in fact kings _and_ priests; that is, Christians are exalted to the dignity and are invested with the office, implied in these words. The word _kings_, as applied to them, refers to the exalted rank and dignity which they will have; to the fact that they, in common with their Saviour, will reign triumphant over all enemies; and that, having gained a victory over sin and death and hell, they may be represented as reigning together. The word _priests_ refers to the fact that they are engaged in the holy service of God, or that they offer to him acceptable worship. See Notes on 1 Pe. ii. 5. ¶ _And his Father._ Even his Father; that is, the Saviour has redeemed them, and elevated them to this exalted rank, in order that they may thus be engaged in the service of his Father. ¶ _To him |be| glory._ To the Redeemer; for so the construction (ver. 5) demands. The word {45} “glory” here means praise, or honour, implying a wish that all honour should be shown him. ¶ _And dominion._ This word means literally _strength_――κράτος; but it here means the strength, power, or authority which is exercised over others, and the expression is equivalent to a wish that he may _reign_.

7 Behold, he [68]cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and [69]they _also_ which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth [70]shall wail because of him. [71]Even so, Amen.

7. _Behold he cometh with clouds._ That is, the Lord Jesus, when he returns, will come accompanied with clouds. This is in accordance with the uniform representation respecting the return of the Saviour. See Notes on Mat. xxiv. 30. Comp. Mat. xxvi. 64; Mar. xiii. 26; xiv. 62; Ac. i. 9, 11. Clouds are appropriate symbols of majesty, and God is often represented as appearing in that manner. See Ex. xix. 18; Ps. xviii. 11, seq.; Is. xix. 1. So, among the heathen, it was common to represent their divinities as appearing clothed with a cloud:

“tandem venias, precamur, Nube candentes humeros amictus Augur Apollo.”

The _design_ of introducing this representation of the Saviour, and of the manner in which he would appear, seems to be to impress the mind with a sense of the majesty and glory of that being from whom John received his revelations. His rank, his character, his glory were such as to demand respect; all should reverence him, and all should feel that his communications about the future were important to them, for they must soon appear before him. ¶ _And every eye shall see him._ He will be made visible in his glory to all that dwell upon the earth; to all the children of men. Everyone, therefore, has an interest in what he says; everyone has this in certain prospect, that he shall see the Son of God coming as a Judge. ¶ _And they |also| which pierced him._ When he died; that is, they who pierced his hands, his feet, and his side. There is probably an allusion here to Zec. xii. 10: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn.” The language here is so general that it may refer to _any_ act of looking upon the pierced Saviour, and might be applied to those who would see him on the cross and to their compunctious visitings then; or to their subsequent reflections, as they might look by faith on him whom they had crucified; or to the feeling of any sinners who should reflect that their sins had been the cause of the death of the Lord Jesus; or it might be applied, as it is here, more specifically to the feelings which his murderers will have when they shall see him coming in his glory. All sinners who have pierced his heart by their crimes will then behold him and will mourn over their treatment of him; they, in a special manner, who imbrued their hands in his blood will then remember their crime and be overwhelmed with alarm. The _design_ of what is here said seems to be, to show that the coming of the Saviour will be an event of great interest to all mankind. None can be indifferent to it, for all will see him. His friends will hail his advent (comp. ch. xxii. 20), but all who were engaged in putting him to death, and all who in any manner have pierced his heart by sin and ingratitude, unless they shall have repented, will have occasion of bitter lamentation when he shall come. There are none who have a more fearful doom to anticipate than the murderers of the Son of God, including those who actually put him to death, and those who would have engaged in such an act had they been present, and those who, by their conduct, have done all they could to pierce and wound him by their ingratitude. ¶ _And all kindreds of the earth._ Gr., “All the tribes――φυλαὶ――of the earth.” This language is the same which the Saviour uses in Mat. xxiv. 30. See Notes on that passage. The word _tribes_ is that which is commonly applied to the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus used, it would describe the inhabitants of the Holy Land; but it may be used to denote nations and people in general, as descended from a common ancestor, and the connection requires that it should be understood in this sense here, since it is said that “every eye shall see him;” that is, all that dwell on the face of the earth. ¶ _Shall wail because of him._ On account of him; on account of their treatment of him. The word rendered _wail_――κόπτω――means properly to beat, to cut; then {46} to beat or cut one’s self in the breast as an expression of sorrow; and then to lament, to cry aloud in intense grief. The coming of the Saviour will be an occasion of this, (a) because it will be an event which will call the sins of men to remembrance, and (b) because they will be overwhelmed with the apprehension of the wrath to come. Nothing would fill the earth with greater consternation than the coming of the Son of God in the clouds of heaven; nothing could produce so deep and universal alarm. This fact, which no one can doubt, is proof that men _feel_ that they are guilty, since, if they were innocent, they would have nothing to dread by his appearing. It is also a proof that they believe in the doctrine of future punishment, since, if they do not, there is no reason why they should be alarmed at his coming. Surely men would not dread his appearing if they really believed that all will be saved. Who dreads the coming of a benefactor to bestow favours on him? Who dreads the appearing of a jailer to deliver him from prison; of a physician to raise him up from a bed of pain; of a deliverer to knock off the fetters of slavery? And how _can_ it be that men should be alarmed at the coming of the Saviour, unless their consciences tell them that they have much to fear in the future? The presence of the Redeemer in the clouds of heaven would destroy all the hopes of those who believe in the doctrine of universal salvation――as the approach of death now often does. Men _believe_ that there is much to be dreaded in the future world, or they would not fear the coming of Him who shall wind up the affairs of the human race. ¶ _Even so, Amen_――ναὶ, ἁμήν. “A double expression of _so be it_, _assuredly_, _certainly_, one in Greek and the other in Hebrew” (Professor Stuart). Comp. Ro. viii. 16, “Abba, Father”――ἀββᾶ, ὁ πατήρ. The idea which John seems to intend to convey is, that the coming of the Lord Jesus, and the consequences which he says will follow, are events which are altogether _certain_. This is not the expression of a wish that it _may_ be so, as our common translation would seem to imply, but a strong affirmation that it _will_ be so. In some passages, however, the word (ναὶ) expresses _assent_ to what is said, implying approbation of it as true, or as desirable. “_Even so_, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight,” Mat. xi. 26; Lu. x. 21. So in Re. xvi. 7, “_Even so_ (ναὶ), Lord God Almighty.” So in Re. xxii. 20, “_Even so_ (ναὶ), come, Lord Jesus.” The word _Amen_ here seems to determine the meaning of the phrase, and to make it the affirmation of a _certainty_, rather than the expression of a _wish_.

8 I [72]am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, [73]the Almighty.

8. _I am Alpha and Omega._ These are the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet, and denote properly the first and the last. So in Re. xxii. 13, where the two expressions are united, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” So in ch. i. 17, the speaker says of himself, “I am the first and the last.” Among the Jewish Rabbins it was common to use the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of anything, from beginning to end. Thus it is said, “Adam transgressed the whole law, from א to תּ”――from Aleph to Tâv. “Abraham kept the whole law, from א to תּ.” The language here is that which would properly denote _eternity_ in the being to whom it is applied, and could be used in reference to no one but the true God. It means that he is the beginning and the end of all things; that he was at the commencement, and will be at the close; and it is thus equivalent to saying that he has always existed, and that he will always exist. Comp. Is. xli. 4, “I the Lord, the first, and with the last;”――xliv. 6, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God;”――xlviii. 12, “I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.” There can be no doubt that the language here would be naturally understood as implying divinity, and it could be properly applied to no one but the true God. The obvious interpretation here would be to apply this to the Lord Jesus; for (a) it is he who is spoken of in the verses preceding, and (b) there can be no doubt that the same language is applied to him in ver. 11. As there is, however, a difference of reading in this place in the Greek text, and as it cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically {47} here, this cannot be adduced with propriety as a proof-text to demonstrate his divinity. Many MSS., instead of “_Lord_,” κύριος, read “_God_,” θεὸς; and this reading is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and is now regarded as the correct reading. There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such, since the introduction of a reference to him would not be inappropriate to his manifest design. Besides, a portion of the language here used, “which is, and was, and is to come,” is that which would more naturally suggest a reference to God as such, than to the Lord Jesus Christ. See ver. 4. The _object_ for which this passage referring to the “first and the last――to him who was, and is, and is to come,” is introduced here evidently is, to show that as he was clothed with omnipotence, and would continue to exist through all ages to come as he had existed in all ages past, there could be no doubt about his ability to execute all which it is said he would execute. ¶ _Saith the Lord._ Or, saith God, according to what is now regarded as the correct reading. ¶ _Which is, and which was_, &c. See Notes on ver. 4. ¶ _The Almighty._ An appellation often applied to God, meaning that he has all power, and used here to denote that he is able to accomplish what is disclosed in this book.

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

9. _I John, who also am your brother._ Your Christian brother; who am a fellow-Christian with you. The reference here is doubtless to the members of the seven churches in Asia, to whom the epistles in the following chapters were addressed, and to whom the whole book seems to have been sent. In the previous verse, the writer had closed the salutation, and he here commences a description of the circumstances under which the vision appeared to him. He was in a lonely island, to which he had been banished on account of his attachment to religion; he was in a state of high spiritual enjoyment on the day devoted to the sacred remembrance of the Redeemer; he suddenly heard a voice behind him, and turning saw the Son of man himself, in glorious form, in the midst of seven golden lamps, and fell at his feet as dead. ¶ _And companion in tribulation._ Your partner in affliction. That is, he and they were suffering substantially the same kind of trials on account of their religion. It is evident from this that some form of persecution was then raging, in which they were also sufferers, though in their case it did not lead to banishment. The leader, the apostle, the aged and influential preacher, was banished; but there were many other forms of trial which they might be called to endure who remained at home. What they were we have not the means of knowing with certainty. ¶ _And in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ._ The meaning of this passage is, that he, and those whom he addressed, were not only companions in affliction, but were fellow-partners in the kingdom of the Redeemer; that is, they shared the honour and the privileges pertaining to that kingdom; and that they were fellow-partners in the _patience_ of Jesus Christ, that is, in enduring with patience whatever might follow from their being his friends and followers. The general idea is, that alike in privileges and sufferings they were united. They shared alike in the results of their attachment to the Saviour. ¶ _Was in the isle that is called Patmos._ Patmos is one of the cluster of islands in the Ægean Sea anciently called the _Sporades_. It lies between the island of Icaria and the promontory of Miletus. It is merely mentioned by the ancient geographers (Plin. _Hist. Nat._ iv. 23; Strabo, x. 488). It is now called Patino or Patmoso. It is some six or eight miles in length, and not more than a mile in breadth, being about fifteen miles in circumference. It has neither trees nor rivers, nor has it any land for cultivation, except some little nooks among the ledges of rocks. On approaching the island, the coast is high, and consists of a succession of capes, which form so many ports, some of which are excellent. The only one in use, however, is a deep bay, sheltered by high mountains on every side but one, where it is protected by a projecting cape. The town attached to this port is situated upon a high rocky mountain, rising immediately from the sea, and this, with the Scala below upon the shore, consisting of some ships and houses, forms the only inhabited site of the island. Though Patmos is deficient in trees, it abounds in flowery plants {48} and shrubs. Walnuts and other fruit trees are raised in the orchards, and the wine of Patmos is the strongest and the best flavoured in the Greek islands. Maize and barley are cultivated, but not in a quantity sufficient for the use of the inhabitants and for a supply of their own vessels, and others which often put into their good harbour for provisions. The inhabitants now do not exceed four or five thousand; many of whom are emigrants from the neighbouring continent. About half-way up the mountain there is shown a natural grotto in a rock, where John is _said_ to have seen his visions and to have written this book. Near this is a small church, connected with which is a school or college, where the Greek language is taught; and on the top of the hill, and in the centre of the island, is a monastery, which, from its situation, has a very majestic appearance (Kitto’s _Cyclopædia of Bib. Lit._). The annexed engraving is supposed to give a good representation of the appearance of the island. It is commonly supposed that John was banished to this island by Domitian, about A.D. 94. No place could have been selected for banishment which would accord better with such a design than this. Lonely, desolate, barren, uninhabited, seldom visited, it had all the requisites which could be desired for a place of punishment; and banishment to that place would accomplish all that a persecutor could wish in silencing an apostle, without putting him to death. It was no uncommon thing, in ancient times, to banish men from their country; either sending them forth at large, or specifying some particular place to which they were to go. The whole narrative leads us to suppose that this place was _designated_ as that to which John was to be sent. Banishment to an island was a common mode of punishment; and there was a distinction made by this act in favour of those who were thus banished. The more base, low, and vile of criminals were commonly condemned to work in the mines; the more decent and respectable were _banished_ to some lonely island. See the authorities quoted in Wetstein, _in loco_. ¶ _For the word of God._ On account of the word of God; that is, for holding and preaching the gospel. See Notes on ver. 2. It cannot mean that he was sent there with a view to his _preaching_ the word of God; for it is inconceivable that he should have been sent from Ephesus to preach in such a little, lonely, desolate place, where indeed there is no evidence that there were any inhabitants; nor can it mean that he was sent there by the Spirit of God to receive and record this revelation, for it is clear that the revelation could have been made elsewhere, and such a place afforded no peculiar advantages for this. The fair interpretation is, in accordance with all the testimony of antiquity, that he was sent there in a time of persecution, as a punishment for preaching the gospel. ¶ _And for the testimony of Jesus Christ._ See Notes on ver. 2. He did not go there to bear testimony to Jesus Christ on that island, either by preaching or recording the visions in this book, but he went because he _had_ preached the doctrines which testified of Christ.

10 I was [74]in the Spirit on the [75]Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

10. _I was in the Spirit._ This cannot refer to his own spirit, for such an expression would be unintelligible. The language then must refer to some unusual state, or to some influence that had been brought to bear upon him from without, that was appropriate to such a day. The word _Spirit_ may refer either to the Holy Spirit, or to some state of mind such as the Holy Spirit produces――a spirit of elevated devotion, a state of high and uncommon religious enjoyment. It is clear that John does not mean here to say that he was under the influence of the Holy Spirit in such a sense as that he was _inspired_, for the command to make a record, as well as the visions, came subsequently to the time referred to. The fair meaning of the passage is, that he was at that time favoured, in a large measure, with the influences of the Holy Spirit――the spirit of true devotion; that he had a high state of religious enjoyment, and was in a condition not inappropriate to the remarkable communications which were made to him on that day. The state of mind in which he was at the time here referred to, is not such as the prophets are often represented to have been in when under the prophetic inspiration (comp. Eze. i. 1; viii. 3; xl. 2; Je. xxiv. 1), and which was often accompanied {49} with an entire prostration of bodily strength (comp. Nu. xxiv. 4; 1 Sa. xix. 24; Eze. i. 28; Da. x. 8‒10; Re. i. 17), but such as any Christian may experience when in a high state of religious enjoyment. He was not _yet_ under the prophetic ecstasy (comp. Ac. x. 10; xi. 5; xxii. 17), but was, though in a lonely and barren island, and far away from the privileges of the sanctuary, permitted to enjoy, in a high degree, the consolations of religion――an illustration of the great truth that God can meet his people anywhere; that, when in solitude and in circumstances of outward affliction, when persecuted and cast out, when deprived of the public means of grace and the society of religious friends, He can meet them with the abundant consolations of His grace, and pour joy and peace into their souls. This state was not inappropriate to the revelations which were about to be made to John, but this itself was not that state. It was a state which seems to have resulted from the fact, that on that desert island he devoted the day to the worship of God, and, by honouring the day dedicated to the memory of the risen Saviour, found, what all will find, that it was attended with rich spiritual influences on his soul. ¶ _On the Lord’s day._ The word here rendered _Lord’s_ (κυριακῇ), occurs only in this place and in 1 Co. xi. 20, where it is applied to the Lord’s supper. It properly means _pertaining to the Lord_; and, so far as this _word_ is concerned, it might mean a day pertaining to the Lord, in any sense, or for any reason; either because he claimed it as his own, and had set it apart for his own service, or because it was designed to commemorate some important event pertaining to him, or because it was observed in honour of him. It is clear, (1) That this refers to some day which was distinguished from all other days of the week, and which would be sufficiently designated by the use of this term. (2) That it was a day which was for some reason regarded as peculiarly a day of the Lord, or peculiarly devoted to him. (3) It would further appear that this was a day particularly devoted to the Lord Jesus; for, (a) that is the natural meaning of the word _Lord_ as used in the New Testament (comp. Notes on Ac. i. 24); and (b) if the Jewish Sabbath were intended to be designated, the word _Sabbath_ would have been used. The term was used generally by the early Christians to denote the first day of the week. It occurs twice in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A.D. 101), who calls the Lord’s day “the queen and prince of all days.” Chrysostom (on Ps. cxix.) says, “It was called the Lord’s day because the Lord rose from the dead on that day.” Later fathers make a marked distinction between the _Sabbath_ and the _Lord’s day_; meaning by the former the Jewish Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, and by the latter the first day of the week, kept holy by Christians. So Theodoret (_Fab. Haeret._ ii. 1), speaking of the Ebionites, says, “They keep the _Sabbath_ according to the Jewish law, and sanctify the _Lord’s day_ in like manner as we do” (Professor Stuart). The strong probability is, that the name was given to this day in honour of the Lord Jesus, and because he rose on that day from the dead. No one can doubt that it was an appellation given to the first day of the week; and the passage, therefore, proves (1) that that day was thus early distinguished in some peculiar manner, so that the mere mention of it would be sufficient to identify it in the minds of those to whom the apostle wrote; (2) that it was in some sense regarded as devoted to the Lord Jesus, or was designed in some way to commemorate what he had done; and (3) that if this book were written by the apostle John, the observance of that day has the apostolic sanction. He had manifestly, in accordance with a prevailing custom, set apart this day in honour of the Lord Jesus. Though alone, he was engaged on that day in acts of devotion. Though far away from the sanctuary, he enjoyed what all Christians _hope_ to enjoy on such a day of rest, and what not a few _do_ in fact enjoy in its observance. We may remark, in view of this statement, (a) that when away from the sanctuary, and deprived of its privileges, we should nevertheless not fail to observe the Christian Sabbath. If on a bed of sickness, if in a land of strangers, if on the deep, if in a foreign clime, if on a lonely island, as John was, where we have none of the advantages of public worship, we should yet honour the Sabbath. We should worship God alone, if we have none to unite with us; we should show to those around us, if we are with strangers, by our dress and our conversation, by a serious and devout manner, by abstinence from labour, {50} and by a resting from travel, that we devoutly regard this day as set apart for God. (b) We may expect, in such circumstances, and with such a devout observance of the day, that God will meet with us and bless us. It was on a lonely island, far away from the sanctuary and from the society of Christian friends, that the Saviour met “the beloved disciple,” and we may trust it will be so with us. For on such a desert island, in a lonely forest, on the deep, or amid strangers in a foreign land, he can as easily meet us as in the sanctuary where we have been accustomed to worship, and when surrounded by all the privileges of a Christian land. No man, at home or abroad, among friends or strangers, enjoying the privileges of the sanctuary, or deprived of those privileges, ever kept the Christian Sabbath in a devout manner without profit to his own soul; and, when deprived of the privileges of public worship, the visitations of the Saviour to the soul may be more than a compensation for all our privations. Who would not be willing to be banished to a lonely island like Patmos, if he might enjoy such a glorious vision of the Redeemer as John was favoured with there? ¶ _And heard behind me a great voice._ A loud voice. This was of course sudden, and took him by surprise. ¶ _As of a trumpet._ Loud as a trumpet. This is evidently the only point in the comparison. It does not mean that the tones of the voice resembled a trumpet, but only that it was clear, loud, and distinct like a trumpet. A trumpet is a well-known wind-instrument, distinguished for the clearness of its sounds, and was used for calling assemblies together, for marshalling hosts for battle, &c. The Hebrew word employed commonly to denote a trumpet (שׁוֹפָר――_shophar_) means _bright_ and _clear_, and is supposed to have been given to the instrument on account of its clear and shrill sound, as we now give the name “clarion” to a certain wind-instrument. The Hebrew trumpet is often referred to as employed, on account of its clearness, to summon people together, Ex. xix. 13; Nu. x. 10; Ju. vii. 18, &c.; 1 Sa. xiii. 3; 2 Sa. xv. 10.

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send _it_ unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto [76]Ephesus, and unto [77]Smyrna, and unto [78]Pergamos, and unto [79]Thyatira, and unto [80]Sardis, and unto [81]Philadelphia, and unto [82]Laodicea.

11. _Saying._ That is, literally, “the trumpet saying.” It was, however, manifestly the _voice_ that addressed these words to John, though they _seemed_ to come through a trumpet, and hence the trumpet is represented as uttering them. ¶ _I am Alpha and Omega._ Ver. 8. ¶ _The first and the last._ An explanation of the terms Alpha and Omega. See Notes on ver. 8. ¶ _And, What thou seest._ The voice, in addition to the declaration, “I am Alpha and Omega,” gave this direction that he should record what he saw. The phrase, “what thou seest,” refers to what would pass before him in vision, what he there saw, and what he would see in the extraordinary manifestations which were to be made to him. ¶ _Write in a book._ Make a fair record of it all; evidently meaning that he should describe things as they occurred, and implying that the vision would be held so long before the eye of his mind that he would be able to transfer it to the “book.” The fair and obvious interpretation of this is, that he was to make the record in the island of Patmos, and then send it to the churches. Though Patmos was a lonely and barren place, and though probably there were few or no inhabitants there, yet there is no improbability in supposing that John could have found writing materials there, nor even that he may have been permitted to take such materials with him. He seems to have been banished for _preaching_, not for _writing_; and there is no evidence that the materials for writing would be withheld from him. John Bunyan, in Bedford jail, found materials for writing the _Pilgrim’s Progress_, and there is no evidence that the apostle John was denied the means of recording his thoughts when in the island of Patmos. The word _book_ here (βιβλίον), would more properly mean _a roll_ or _scroll_, that being the form in which books were anciently made. See Notes on Lu. iv. 17. ¶ _And send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia._ {51} The churches which are immediately designated, not implying that there were no other churches in Asia, but that there were particular reasons for sending it to these. He was to send _all_ that he should “see;” to wit, all that is recorded in this volume or book of “Revelation.” Part of this (ch. ii., iii.) would appertain particularly to them; the remainder (ch. iv.‒xxii.) would appertain to them no more than to others, but still they would have the common interest in it which all the church would have, and, in their circumstances of trial, there might be important reasons why _they_ should see the assurance that the church would ultimately triumph over all its enemies. They were to derive from it themselves the consolation which it was fitted to impart in time of trial, and to transmit it to future times, for the welfare of the church at large. ¶ _Unto Ephesus._ Perhaps mentioned first as being the capital of that portion of Asia Minor; the most important city of the seven; the place where John had preached, and whence he had been banished. For a particular description of these seven churches, see the Notes on the epistles addressed to them in ch. ii., iii.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw [83]seven golden candlesticks;

12. _And I turned to see the voice that spake with me._ He naturally turned round to see who it was that spake to him in this solitary and desolate place, where he thought himself to be alone. To see _the voice_ here means to see _the person_ who spake. ¶ _And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks._ These were the _first_ things that met his eye. This must have been in _vision_, of course, and the meaning is, that there _seemed_ to be there seven such lamps or candelabras. The word rendered _candlesticks_ (λυχνία) means properly a light-stand, lamp-stand――something to bear up a light. It would be applied to anything that was used for this purpose; and nothing is intimated, in the use of the word, in regard to the form or dimensions of the light-bearers. Lamps were more commonly used at that time than candles, and it is rather to be supposed that these were designed to be lamp-bearers, or lamp-sustainers, than _candlesticks_. They were seven in number; not one branching into seven, but seven standing apart, and so far from each other that he who appeared to John could stand among them. The lamp-bearers evidently sustained each a light, and these gave a peculiar brilliancy to the scene. It is not improbable that, as they were designed to represent the seven churches of Asia, they were arranged in an order resembling these churches. The scene is not laid in the temple, as many suppose, for there is nothing that resembles the arrangements in the temple except the mere fact of the _lights_. The scene as yet is in Patmos, and there is no evidence that John did not regard himself as there, or that he fancied for a moment that he was translated to the temple in Jerusalem. There can be no doubt as to the _design_ of this representation, for it is expressly declared (ver. 20) that the seven lamp-bearers were intended to represent the seven churches. Light is often used in the Scriptures as an emblem of true religion; Christians are represented as “the light of the world” (Mat. v. 14; comp. Phi. ii. 15; Jn. viii. 12), and a Christian church may be represented as a light standing in the midst of surrounding darkness.

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [84]_one_ like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

13. _And in the midst of the seven candlesticks._ Standing among them, so as to be encircled with them. This shows that the representation could not have been like that of the vision of Zechariah (Zec. iv. 2), where the prophet sees “a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon.” In the vision as it appeared to John, there was not _one_ lamp-bearer, with seven lamps or branches, but there were _seven_ lamp-bearers, so arranged that one in the likeness of the Son of man could stand in the midst of them. ¶ _|One| like unto the Son of man._ This was evidently the Lord Jesus Christ himself, elsewhere so often called “the Son of man.” That it was the Saviour himself is apparent from ver. 18. The expression rendered “like unto _the_ Son of man,” should have been “like unto {52} _a_ son of man;” that is, like a man, a human being, or in a human form. The reasons for so interpreting it are, (a) that the Greek is without the article, and (b) that, as it is rendered in our version, it seems to make the writer say that he was _like himself_, since the expression “_the_ Son of man” is in the New Testament but another name for the Lord Jesus. The phrase is often applied to him in the New Testament, and always, except in three instances (Ac. vii. 56; Re. i. 13; xiv. 14), by the Saviour himself, evidently to denote his warm interest _in_ man, or his relationship to man; to signify that he was a man, and wished to designate himself eminently as such. See Notes on Mat. viii. 20. In the use of this phrase in the New Testament, there is probably an allusion to Da. vii. 13. The idea would seem to be, that he whom he saw resembled “the Son of man”――the Lord Jesus, as he had seen him in the days of his flesh――though it would appear that he did not _know_ that it was he until he was informed of it, ver. 18. Indeed, the costume in which he appeared was so unlike that in which John had been accustomed to see the Lord Jesus in the days of his flesh, that it cannot be well supposed that he would at once recognize him as the same. ¶ _Clothed with a garment down to the foot._ A robe reaching down to the feet, or to the ankles, yet so as to leave the feet themselves visible. The allusion here, doubtless, is to a long, loose, flowing robe, such as was worn by kings. Comp. Notes on Is. vi. 1. ¶ _And girt about the paps._ About the breast. It was common, and is still, in the East, to wear a girdle to confine the robe, as well as to form a beautiful ornament. This was commonly worn about the middle of the person, or “the loins,” but it would seem also that it was sometimes worn around the breast. See Notes on Mat. v. 38‒41. ¶ _With a golden girdle._ Either wholly made of gold, or, more probably, richly ornamented with gold. This would naturally suggest the idea of one of rank, probably one of princely rank. The raiment here assumed was not that of a _priest_, but that of a _king_. It was very far from being that in which the Redeemer appeared when he dwelt upon the earth, and was rather designed to denote his royal state as he is exalted in heaven. He is not indeed represented with a crown and sceptre here, and perhaps the leading idea is that of one of exalted rank, of unusual dignity, of one fitted to inspire awe and respect. In other circumstances, in this book, this same Redeemer is represented as wearing a crown, and going forth to conquest. See ch. xix. 12‒16. Here the representation seems to have been designed to impress the mind with a sense of the greatness and glory of the personage who thus suddenly made his appearance.

14 His head and _his_ hairs _were_ white like wool, as white as snow; and [85]his eyes _were_ as a flame of fire;

14. _His head and |his| hairs |were| white like wool, as white as snow._ Exceedingly or perfectly white――the first suggestion to the mind of the apostle being that of wool, and then the thought occurring of its _extreme_ whiteness resembling snow――the purest white of which the mind conceives. The comparison with wool and snow to denote anything peculiarly _white_ is not uncommon. See Is. i. 18. Professor Stuart supposes that this means, not that his hairs were literally white, as if with age, which he says would be incongruous to one just risen from the dead, clothed with immortal youth and vigour, but that it means radiant, bright, resplendent――similar to what occurred on the transfiguration of the Saviour, Mat. xvii. 2. But to this it may be replied, (a) That this would not accord well with that with which his hair is compared――_snow_ and _wool_, particularly the latter. (b) The usual meaning of the word is more obvious here, and not at all inappropriate. The representation was fitted to signify majesty and authority; and this would be best accomplished by the image of one who was venerable in years. Thus, in the vision that appeared to Daniel (ch. vii. 9), it is said of him who is there called the “Ancient of Days,” that “his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool.” It is not improbable that John had that representation in his eye, and that therefore he would be impressed with the conviction that this was a manifestation of a divine person. We are not necessarily to suppose that this is the form in which the Saviour always appears now in heaven, any more than we are to suppose that God appears always in the form in which he was manifested {53} to Isaiah (ch. vi. 1), to Daniel (ch. vii. 9), or to Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu in the mount, Ex. xxiv. 10, 11. The representation is, that this form was assumed for the purpose of impressing the mind of the apostle with a sense of his majesty and glory. ¶ _And his eyes |were| as a flame of fire._ Bright, sharp, penetrating; as if everything was light before them, or they would penetrate into the thoughts of men. Such a representation is not uncommon. We speak of a lightning glance, a fiery look, &c. In Da. x. 6, it is said of the man who appeared to the prophet on the banks of the river Hiddekel, that his eyes were “as lamps of fire.” Numerous instances of this comparison from the Greek and Latin classics may be seen in Wetstein, _in loco_.

15 And [86]his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and [87]his voice as the sound of many waters.

15. _And his feet like unto fine brass._ Comp. Da. x. 6, “And his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass.” See also Eze. i. 7, “and they” [the feet of the living creatures] “sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.” The word here used――χαλκολιβάνῳ――occurs in the New Testament only here and in ch. ii. 18. It is not found in the Septuagint. The word properly means _white brass_ (probably compounded of χαλκός, _brass_, and λιβανός, _whiteness_, from the Hebrew לָבָן, _white_). Others regard it as from χαλκός, _brass_, and λιπαρόν, _clear_. The _metal_ referred to was undoubtedly a species of brass distinguished for its clearness or whiteness. Brass is a compound metal, composed of copper and zinc. The colour varies much according to the different proportions of the various ingredients. The Vulgate here renders the word _aurichalcum_, a mixture of gold and of brass――perhaps the same as the ἤλεκτρον――the _electrum_ of the ancients, composed of gold and of silver, usually in the proportion of four parts gold and one part silver, and distinguished for its brilliancy. See Robinson, _Lex._, and Wetstein, _in loco_. The kind of metal here referred to, however, would seem to be some compound of brass――of a whitish and brilliant colour. The exact proportion of the ingredients in the metal here referred to cannot now be determined. ¶ _As if they burned in a furnace._ That is, his feet were so bright that they seemed to be like a beautiful metal glowing intensely in the midst of a furnace. Anyone who has looked upon the dazzling and almost insupportable brilliancy of metal in a furnace, can form an idea of the image here presented. ¶ _And his voice as the sound of many waters._ As the roar of the ocean, or of a cataract. Nothing could be a more sublime description of majesty and authority than to compare the voice of a speaker with the roar of the ocean. This comparison often occurs in the Scriptures. See Eze. xliii. 2, “And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the east: and his voice was like the sound of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.” So Re. xiv. 2; xix. 6. Comp. Eze. i. 24; Da. x. 6.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his mouth went [88]a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance _was_ as [89]the sun shineth in his strength.

16. _And he had in his right hand seven stars._ Emblematic of the angels of the seven churches. _How_ he held them is not said. It may be that they seemed to rest on his open palm; or it may be that he seemed to hold them as if they were arranged in a certain order, and with some sort of attachment, so that they could be grasped. It is not improbable that, as in the case of the seven lamp-bearers (Notes, ver. 13), they were so arranged as to represent the relative position of the seven churches. ¶ _And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword._ On the form of the ancient two-edged sword, see Notes on Ep. vi. 17. The two edges were designed to cut both ways; and such a sword is a striking emblem of the penetrating power of _truth_, or of words that proceed from the mouth; and this is designed undoubtedly to be the representation here――that there was some symbol which showed that his words, or his truth, had the power of cutting deep, or penetrating the soul. So in Is. xlix. 2, it is said of the same personage, “And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword.” {54} See Notes on that verse. So in He. iv. 12, “The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword,” &c. So it is said of Pericles by Aristophanes:

“His powerful speech Pierced the hearer’s soul, and left behind Deep in his bosom its keen point infixt.”

A similar figure often occurs in Arabic poetry. “As arrows his words enter into the heart.” See Gesenius, _Comm. zu_, Is. xlix. 2. The only difficulty here is in regard to the apparently incongruous representation of a _sword_ seeming to proceed from the mouth; but it is not perhaps necessary to suppose that John means to say that he _saw_ such an image. He heard him speak; he felt the penetrating power of his words; and they were _as if_ a sharp sword proceeded from his mouth. They penetrated deep into the soul, and as he looked on him it seemed as if a sword came from his mouth. Perhaps it is not necessary to suppose that there was even _any_ visible representation of this――either of a sword or of the breath proceeding from his mouth appearing to take this form, as Professor Stuart supposes. It may be wholly a figurative representation, as Heinrichs and Ewald suppose. Though there were visible and impressive symbols of his majesty and glory presented to the eyes, it is not necessary to suppose that there were visible symbols of his _words_. ¶ _And his countenance._ His face. There had been before particular descriptions of some parts of his face――as of his eyes――but this is a representation of his whole aspect; of the general splendour and brightness of his countenance. ¶ _|Was| as the sun shineth in his strength._ In his full splendour when unobscured by clouds; where his rays are in no way intercepted. Comp. Ju. v. 31: “But let them that love him [the Lord] be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might;” 2 Sa. xxiii. 4, “And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds;” Ps. xix. 5, “Which [the sun] is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.” There could be no more striking description of the majesty and glory of the countenance than to compare it with the over-powering splendour of the sun.――This closes the description of the personage that appeared to John. The design was evidently to impress him with a sense of his majesty and glory, and to prepare the way for the authoritative nature of the communications which he was to make. It is obvious that this appearance must have been _assumed_. The representation is not that of the Redeemer as he rose from the dead――a middle-aged man; nor is it clear that it was the same as on the mount of transfiguration――where, for anything that appears, he retained his usual aspect and form though temporarily invested with extraordinary brilliancy; nor is it the form in which we may suppose he ascended to heaven――for there is no evidence that he was thus transformed when he ascended; nor is it that of a priest――for all the peculiar habiliments of a Jewish priest are wanting in this description. The appearance assumed is, evidently, in accordance with various representations of God as he appeared to Ezekiel, to Isaiah, and to Daniel――that which was a _suitable_ manifestation of a divine being――of one clothed in the majesty and power of God. We are not to infer from this, that this is in fact the appearance of the Redeemer now in heaven, or that this is the form in which he will appear when he comes to judge the world. Of his appearance in heaven we have no knowledge; of the aspect which he will assume when he comes to judge men we have no certain information. We are necessarily quite as ignorant of this as we are of what will be _our own_ form and appearance after the resurrection from the dead.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

17. _And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead._ As if I were dead; deprived of sense and consciousness. He was overwhelmed with the suddenness of the vision; he saw that this was a divine being; but he did not as yet know that it was the Saviour. It is not probable that in this vision he would immediately recognize any of the familiar features of the Lord Jesus as he had been accustomed to see him some sixty years before; and if he _did_, the effect would have been quite as over-powering as is here described. But the subsequent revelations of this divine {55} personage would rather seem to imply that John did not at once recognize him as the Lord Jesus. The effect here described is one that often occurred to those who had a vision of God. See Da. viii. 18, “Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright;” ver. 27, “And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterwards I rose up, and did the king’s business.” Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 20; Is. vi. 5; Eze. i. 28; xliii. 3; Da. x. 7‒9, 17. ¶ _And he laid his right hand upon me._ For the purpose of raising him up. Comp. Da. viii. 18, “He touched me and set me upright.” We usually stretch out the _right_ hand to raise up one who has fallen. ¶ _Saying unto me, Fear not._ Comp. Mat. xiv. 27, “It is I; be not afraid.” The fact that it was the Saviour, though he appeared in this form of overpowering majesty, was a reason why John should not be afraid. _Why_ that was a reason, he immediately adds――that he was the first and the last; that though he had been dead he was now alive, and would continue ever to live, and that he had the keys of hell and of death. It is evident that John was overpowered with that awful emotion which the human mind must feel at the evidence of the presence of God. Thus men feel when God seems to come near them by the impressive symbols of his majesty――as in the thunder, the earthquake, and the tempest. Comp. Hab. iii. 16; Lu. ix. 34. Yet, amidst the most awful manifestations of divine power, the simple assurance that our Redeemer is near us is enough to allay our fears, and diffuse calmness through the soul. ¶ _I am the first and the last._ Notes, ver. 8. This is stated to be one of the reasons why he should not fear――that he was _eternal_: “I always live――have lived through all the past, and will live through all which is to come――and therefore I can accomplish all my promises, and execute all my purposes.”

18 _I am_ [90]he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have [91]the keys of hell and of death.

18. _|I am| he that liveth, and was dead._ I was indeed once dead, but now I live, and shall continue to live for ever. This would at once identify him who thus appeared as the Lord Jesus Christ, for to no one else could this apply. He had been put to death; but he had risen from the grave. This also is given as a reason why John should not fear; and nothing would allay his fears more than this. He now saw that he was in the presence of that Saviour whom more than half a century before he had so tenderly loved when in the flesh, and whom, though now long absent, he had faithfully served, and for whose cause he was now in this lonely island. His faith in his resurrection had not been a delusion; he saw the very Redeemer before him who had once been laid in the tomb. ¶ _Behold, I am alive for evermore._ I am to live for ever. Death is no more to cut me down, and I am never again to slumber in the grave. As he was always to live, he could accomplish all his promises, and fulfil all his purposes. The Saviour is never to die again. He can, therefore, always sustain us in our troubles; he can be with us in our death. Whoever of our friends die, he will not die; when we die, he will still be on the throne. ¶ _Amen._ A word here of strong affirmation――as if he had said, it is _truly_, or _certainly so_. See Notes on ver. 7. This expression is one that the Saviour often used when he wished to give emphasis, or to express anything strongly. Comp. Jn. iii. 3; v. 25. ¶ _And have the keys of hell and of death._ The word rendered _hell_――ᾅδης, _hades_――refers properly to the underworld; the abode of departed spirits; the region of the dead. This was represented as dull and gloomy; as inclosed with walls; as entered through gates which were fastened with bolts and bars. For a description of the views which prevailed among the ancients on the subject, see Notes on Lu. xvi. 23, and Job x. 21, 22. To hold the _key_ of this, was to hold the power over the invisible world. It was the more appropriate that the Saviour should represent himself as having this authority, as he had himself been raised from the dead by his own power (comp. Jn. x. 18), thus showing that the dominion over this dark world was intrusted to him. ¶ _And of death._ A personification. Death reigns in that world. But to his wide-extended realms the Saviour holds the key, and can have access to his empire when he pleases, releasing all whom he chooses, and confining there still {56} such as he shall please. It is probably in part from such hints as these that Milton drew his sublime description of the gates of hell in the _Paradise Lost_. As Christ always lives; as he always retains this power over the regions of the dead, and the whole world of spirits, it may be further remarked that _we_ have nothing to dread if we put our trust in him. We need not fear to enter a world which he has entered, and from which he has emerged, achieving a glorious triumph; we need not fear what the dread king that reigns there can do to us, for his power extends not beyond the permission of the Saviour, and in his own time that Saviour will call us forth to life, to die no more.

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

19. _Write the things which thou hast seen._ An account of the vision which thou hast had, ver. 10‒18. ¶ _And the things which are._ Give an account of those things which thou hast seen as designed to represent the condition of the seven churches. He had seen not only the Saviour, but he had seen seven lamp-stands, and seven stars in the hand of the Saviour, and he is now commanded to record the meaning of these symbols as referring to things then actually existing in the seven churches. This interpretation is demanded by ver. 20. ¶ _And the things which shall be hereafter._ The Greek phrase rendered _hereafter_――μετὰ ταῦτα――means “_after these things_;” that is, he was to make a correct representation of the things which then were, and then to record what would occur “_after_ these things:” to wit, of the images, symbols, and truths, which would be disclosed to him after what he had already seen. The expression refers to future times. He does not say for _how long_ a time; but the revelations which were to be made referred to events which were to occur beyond those which were then taking place. Nothing can be argued from the use of this language in regard to the length of time embraced in the revelation――whether it extended only for a few years or whether it embraced all coming time. The more natural interpretation, however, would seem to be, that it would stretch far into future years, and that it was designed to give at least _an outline_ of what would be the character of the future in general.

20 The mystery of [92]the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and [93]the seven candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches.

20. _The mystery of the seven stars._ On the word _mystery_, see Notes on Ep. i. 9. The word means, properly, that which is hidden, obscure, unknown――until it is disclosed by one having the ability to do it, or by the course of events. _When_ disclosed, it may be as clear, and as capable of comprehension, as any other truth. The meaning here, as applied to the seven stars, is, that they were symbols, and that their meaning as symbols, without a suitable explanation, would remain hidden or unknown. They were designed to represent important truths, and John was directed to write down what they were intended in the circumstances to signify, and to send the explanation to the churches. It is evidently implied that the meaning of these symbols would be beyond the ordinary powers of the human mind to arrive at with certainty, and hence John was directed to explain the symbol. The general and obvious truths which they would serve to convey would be that the ministers of the churches, and the churches themselves, were designed to be lights in the world, and should burn clearly and steadily. Much important truth would be couched under these symbols, indeed, if nothing had been added in regard to their signification as employed here by the Saviour; but there were particular truths of great importance in reference to each of these “stars” and “lamp-bearers,” which John was more fully to explain. ¶ _Which thou sawest in my right hand._ Gr., “_upon_ my right hand”――ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς μου: giving some support to the opinion that the stars, as they were seen, appeared to be placed _on_ his hand――that is, on the _palm_ of his hand as he stretched it out. The expression in ver. 16 is, that they were “_in_ (ἐν) his right hand;” but the language here used is not decisive as to the position of the stars. They _may_ have been held in some way _by_ the hand, or {57} represented as scattered on the open hand. ¶ _The seven golden candlesticks._ The truth which these emblematic representations are designed to convey. ¶ _The seven stars are._ That is, they represent, or they denote――in accordance with a common usage in the Scriptures. See Notes on Mat. xxvi. 26. ¶ _The angels of the seven churches._ Gr., “Angels of the seven churches:” the article being wanting. This does not refer to them as a collective or associated body, for the addresses are made to them as individuals――an epistle being directed to “the angel” of each particular church, ch. ii. 1, 12, &c. The evident meaning, however, is, that what was recorded should be directed to them, not as pertaining to them exclusively as individuals, but as presiding over or representing the churches, for what is recorded pertains _to_ the churches, and was evidently designed to be laid before them. It was _for_ the churches, but was committed to the “angel” as representing the church, and to be communicated to the church under his care. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of the word _angels_ here. By the advocates of Episcopacy, it has been argued that the use of this term proves that there was a presiding bishop over a circle or group of churches in Ephesus, in Smyrna, &c., since it is said that it cannot be supposed that there was but a single church in a city so large as Ephesus, or in the other cities mentioned. A full examination of this argument may be seen in my work on the _Apostolic Church_ [pp. 191‒199, London ed.]. The word _angel_ properly means a messenger, and is thus applied to celestial beings _as_ messengers sent forth from God to convey or to do his will. This being the common meaning of the word, it may be employed to denote anyone who is a messenger, and hence, with propriety, anyone who is employed to communicate the will of another; to transact his business, or, more remotely, to act in his place――to be a representative. In order to ascertain the meaning of the word as used in this place, and in reference to these churches, it may be remarked, (1) That it cannot mean literally an _angel_, as referring to a heavenly being, for no one can suppose that such a being presided over these churches. (2) It cannot be shown to mean, as Lord (_in loco_) supposes, messengers that the churches had sent to John, and that these letters were given to them to be returned by them to the churches; for, (a) there is no evidence that any such messenger had been sent to John; (b) there is no probability that while he was a banished exile in Patmos such a thing would be permitted; (c) the message was not sent _by_ them, it was sent _to_ them――“_Unto_ the angel of the church in Ephesus _write_,” &c. (3) It cannot be proved that the reference is to a prelatical bishop presiding over a group or circle of churches, called a _diocese_; for, (a) There is nothing in the word _angel_, as used in this connection, which would be peculiarly applicable to such a personage――it being _as_ applicable to a pastor of a single church, as to a bishop of many churches. (b) There is no evidence that there _were_ any such groups of churches then as constitute an episcopal diocese. (c) The use of the word “_church_” in the singular, as applied to Ephesus, Smyrna, &c., rather implies that there was but a single church in each of those cities. Comp. ch. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; see also similar language in regard to the _church_ in Corinth, 1 Co. i. 2; in Antioch, Ac. xiii. 1; at Laodicea, Col. iv. 16; and at Ephesus, Ac. xx. 28. (d) There is no evidence, as Episcopalians must suppose, that a successor to John had been appointed at Ephesus, if, as they suppose, he was “bishop” of Ephesus; and there is no probability that they would _so soon_ after his banishment show him such a want of respect as to regard the see as vacant, and appoint a successor. (e) There is no improbability in supposing that there was a _single_ church in each of these cities――as at Antioch, Corinth, Rome. (f) If John was a prelatical “bishop,” it is probable that he was “bishop” of the whole group of churches embracing the seven: yet here, if the word “angel” means “bishop,” we have no less than seven such bishops immediately appointed to succeed him. And (g) the supposition that this refers to prelatical bishops is so forced and unnatural that many Episcopalians are compelled to abandon it. Thus Stillingfleet――than whom an abler man, or one whose praise is higher in Episcopal churches, as an advocate of prelacy, is not to be found――says of these angels: “If many things in the epistles be directed to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel must be taken as a _representative_ of the whole body; and then {58} why may not the angel be taken by way of representation of the body itself, either of the whole church, or, _which is far more probable_, of the _concessors_, or order of _presbyters_ in this church?” (4) If the word does not mean literally an angel; if it does not refer to messengers sent to John in Patmos by the churches; and if it does not refer to a prelatical bishop, then it follows that it must refer to some one who presided over the church as its pastor, and through whom a message might be properly sent to the church. Thus understood, the pastor or “angel” would be regarded as the representative of the church; that is, as delegated by the church to manage its affairs, and as the authorized person to whom communications should be made in matters pertaining to it――as pastors are now. A few considerations will further confirm this interpretation, and throw additional light on the meaning of the word. (a) The word _angel_ is employed in the Old Testament to denote a _prophet_; that is, a minister of religion as sent by God to communicate his will. Thus in Haggai (i. 13) it is said, “Then spake Haggai, the Lord’s _messenger_ [Heb. _angel_, מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה――Sept. ἄγγελος κυρίου], in the Lord’s message unto the people,” &c. (b) It is applied to a _priest_, as one sent by God to execute the functions of that office, or to act in the name of the Lord. Mal. ii. 7, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, for he is the _messenger of the Lord of hosts_”――מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת――that is, “_angel_ of the Lord of hosts.” (c) The name _prophet_ is often given in the New Testament to the ministers of religion, as being appointed by God to proclaim or communicate his will to his people, and as occupying a place resembling, in some respects, that of the prophets in the Old Testament. (d) There was no reason why the word might not be thus employed to designate a pastor of a Christian church, as well as to designate a prophet or a priest under the Old Testament dispensation. (e) The supposition that a pastor of a church is intended will meet all the circumstances of the case: for, (1) it is an appropriate appellation; (2) there is no reason to suppose that there was more than one church in each of the cities referred to; (3) it is a term which would designate the respect in which the office was held; (4) it would impress upon those to whom it was applied a solemn sense of their responsibility. Further, it would be more _appropriately_ applied to a pastor of a single church than to a prelatical bishop; to the tender, intimate, and endearing relation sustained by a pastor to his people, to the blending of sympathy, interest, and affection, where he is with them continually, meets them frequently in the sanctuary, administers to them the bread of life, goes into their abodes when they are afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave, than to the union subsisting between the people of an extended _diocese_ and a _prelate_――the formal, unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a diocesan bishop――to the unsympathizing relation between him and a people scattered in many churches, who are visited at distant intervals by one claiming a “superiority in ministerial rights and powers,” and who must be a stranger to the ten thousand ties of endearment which bind the hearts of a pastor and people together. The conclusion, then, to which we have come is, that the “angel of the church” was the pastor, or the presiding presbyter in the church; the minister who had the pastoral charge of it, and who was therefore a proper representative of it. He was a man who, in some respects, performed the functions which the angels of God do; that is, who was appointed to execute his will, to communicate his message, and to convey important intimations of his purposes to his people. To no one could the communications in this book, intended for the churches, be more properly intrusted than to such an one; for to no one now would a communication be more properly intrusted than to a pastor.

Such is the sublime vision under which this book opens; such the solemn commission which the penman of the book received. No more appropriate introduction to what is contained in the book could be imagined; no more appropriate circumstances for making such a sublime revelation could have existed. To the most beloved of the apostles, now the only surviving one of the number; to him who had been a faithful labourer for a period not far from sixty years after the death of the Lord Jesus, who had been the bosom friend of the Saviour when in the flesh, who had seen him in the mount of transfiguration, who had seen him die, and who had seen him ascend into heaven; to him {59} who had lived while the church was founded, and while it had spread into all lands; and to him who was now suffering persecution on account of the Saviour and his cause, it was appropriate that such communications should be made. In a lonely island; far away from the abodes of men; surrounded by the ocean, and amid barren rocks; on the day consecrated to the purposes of sacred repose and the holy duties of religion――the day observed in commemoration of the resurrection of his Lord, it was most fit that the Redeemer should appear to the “beloved disciple” in the last Revelation which he was ever to make to mankind. No more appropriate time or circumstance could be conceived for disclosing, by a series of sublime visions, what would occur in future times; for sketching out the history of the church or the consummation of all things.