Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

by Albert Barnes

5. And one of the elders saith unto me. See Notes on [ch. iv. 4]. No particular reason is assigned why this message was delivered by one of the elders rather than by an angel. If the elders were, however (see Notes on [ch. iv. 4]), the representatives of the church, there was a propriety that they should address John in his trouble. Though they were in heaven, they were deeply interested in all that pertained to the welfare of the church, and they had been permitted to understand what as yet was unknown to him, that the power of opening the mysterious volume which contained the revelation of the future was intrusted particularly to the Messiah. Having this knowledge, they were prepared to comfort him with the hope that what was so mysterious would be made known. ¶ Weep not. That is, there is no occasion for tears. The object which you so much desire can be obtained. There is one who can break those seals, and who can unroll that volume and read what is recorded there. ¶ Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah. This undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus; and the points needful to be explained are, why he is called a Lion, and why he is spoken of as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. (a) As to the first: This appellation is not elsewhere given to the Messiah, but it is not difficult to see its propriety as used in this place. The lion is the king of beasts, the monarch of the forest, and thus becomes an emblem of one of kingly authority and of power (see Notes on [ch. iv. 7]), and as such the appellation is used in this place. It is because Christ has power to open the seals—as if he ruled over the universe, and all events were under his control, as the lion rules in the forest—that the name is here given to him. (b) As to the other point: He is called the “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” doubtless, with reference to the prophecy in Ge. xlix. 9—“Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion;” and from the fact that the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah. Comp. Ge. xlix. 10. This use of the term would connecthim in the apprehension of John with the prophecy, and would suggest to him the idea of his being a ruler, or having dominion. As such, therefore, it would be appropriate that the power of breaking these seals should be committed to him. ¶ The Root of David. Not the Root of David in the sense that David sprung from him as a tree does from a root, but in the sense that he himself was a “root-shoot” or sprout from David, and had sprung from him as a shoot or sprout springs up from a decayed and fallen tree. See Notes on Is. xi. 1. This expression would connect him directly with David, the great and glorious monarch of Israel, and as having a right to occupy his throne. As one thus ruling over the people of God, there was a propriety that to him should be intrusted the task of opening these seals. ¶ Hath prevailed. That is, he has acquired this power as the result of a conflict or struggle. The word used here—ἐνίκησεν—refers to such a conflict or struggle, properly meaning to come off victor, to overcome, to conquer, to subdue; and the idea here is, that his power to do this, or the reason why he does this, is the result of a conflict in which he was a victor. As the series of events to be disclosed, resulting in the final triumph of religion, was the effect of his conflicts with the powers of evil, there was a special propriety that the disclosure should be made by him. The truths taught in this verse are, (1) that the power of making disclosures, in regard to the future, is intrusted to the Messiah; and (2) that this, so far as he is concerned, is the result of a conflict or struggle on his part.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a [198]Lamb, as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven[199]eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

6. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne. We are not to suppose that he was in the centre of the throne itself, but he was a conspicuous object when the throne and the elders and the living beings were seen. He was so placed as to seem to be in the midst of the group made up of the throne, the living beings, and the elders. ¶ And of the four beasts. See Notes, [ch. iv. 6]. ¶ Stood a Lamb. An appellation often given to the Messiah, for two reasons: (1) because the lamb was an emblem of innocence; and (2) because a lamb was offered commonly in sacrifice. Comp. Notes on Jn. i. 29. ¶ As it had been slain. That is, in some way having the appearance of having been slain; having some marks or indications about it that it had been slain. What those were the writer does not specify. If it were covered with blood, or there were marks of mortal wounds, it would be all that the representation demands. The great work which the Redeemer performed—that of making an atonement for sin—was thus represented to John in such a way that he at once recognized him, and saw the reason why the office of breaking the seals was intrusted to him. It should be remarked that this representation is merely symbolic, and we are not to suppose that the Redeemer really assumed this form, or that he appears in this form in heaven. We should no more suppose that the Redeemer appears literally as a lamb in heaven with numerous eyes and horns, than that there is a literal throne and a sea of glass there; that there are “seats” there, and “elders,” and “crowns of gold.” ¶ Having seven horns. Emblems of authority and power—for the horn is a symbol of power and dominion. Comp. De. xxxiii. 17; 1 Ki. xxii. 11; Je. xlviii. 25; Zec. i. 18; Da. vii. 24. The propriety of this symbol is laid in the fact that the strength of an animal is in the horn, and that it is by this that he obtains a victory over other animals. The number seven here seems to be designed, as in other places, to denote completeness. See Notes on [ch. i. 4]. The meaning is, that he had so large a number as to denote complete dominion. ¶ And seven eyes. Symbols of intelligence. The number seven here also denotes completeness; and the idea is, that he is able to survey all things. John does not say anything as to the relative arrangement of the horns and eyes on the “Lamb,” and it is vain to attempt to conjecture how it was. The whole representation is symbolical, and we may understand the meaning of the symbol without being able to form an exact conception of the figure as it appeared to him, ¶ Which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. See Notes on [ch. i. 4]. That is, which represent the seven Spirits of God; or the manifold operations of the one Divine Spirit. As the eye isthe symbol of intelligence—outward objects being made visible to us by that—so it may well represent an all-pervading spirit that surveys and sees all things. The eye, in this view, among the Egyptians was an emblem of the Deity. By the “seven Spirits” here the same thing is doubtless intended as in ch. i. 4; and if, as there supposed, the reference is to the Holy Spirit considered with respect to his manifold operations, the meaning here is, that the operations of that Spirit are to be regarded as connected with the work of the Redeemer. Thus, all the operations of the Spirit are connected with, and are a part of, the work of redemption. The expression “sent forth into all the earth,” refers to the fact that that Spirit prevades all things. The Spirit of God is often represented as sent or poured out; and the meaning here is, that his operations are as if he was sent out to survey all things and to operate everywhere. Comp. 1 Co. xii. 6–11.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

7. And he came and took the book out of the right hand, &c. As if it pertained to him by virtue of rank or office. There is a difficulty here, arising from the incongruity of what is said of a lamb, which it is not easy to solve. The difficulty is in conceiving how a lamb could take the book from the hand of Him who held it. To meet this several solutions have been proposed. (1) Vitringa supposes that the Messiah appeared as a lamb only in some such sense as the four living beings (ch. iv. 7) resembled a lion, a calf, and an eagle; that is, that they bore this resemblance only in respect to the head, while the body was that of a man. He thus supposes, that though in respect to the upper part the Saviour resembled a lamb, yet that to the front part of the body hands were attached by which he could take the book. But there are great difficulties in this supposition. Besides that nothing of this kind is intimated by John, it is contrary to every appearance of probability that the Redeemer would be represented as a monster. In his being represented as a lamb there is nothing that strikes the mind as inappropriate or unpleasant, for he is often spoken of in this manner, and the image is one that is agreeable to the mind. But all this beauty and fitness of representation is destroyed, if we think of him as having human hands proceeding from his breast or sides, or as blending the form of a man and an animal together. The representation of having an unusual number of horns and eyes does not strike us as being incongruous in the same sense; for though the number is increased, they are such as pertain properly to the animal to which they are attached. (2) Another supposition is that suggested by Professor Stuart, that the form was changed, and a human form resumed when the Saviour advanced to take the book and open it. This would relieve the whole difficulty, and the only objection to it is, that John has not given any express notice of such a change in the form; and the only question can be whether it is right to suppose it in order to meet the difficulty in the case. In support of this it is said that all is symbol; that the Saviour is represented in the book in various forms; that as his appearing as a lamb was designed to represent in a striking manner the fact that he was slain, and that all that he did was based on the atonement, so there would be no impropriety in supposing that when an action was attributed to him he assumed the form in which that act would be naturally or is usually done. And as in taking a book from the hand of another it is wholly incongruous to think of its being done by a lamb, is it not most natural to suppose that the usual form in which the Saviour is represented as appearing would be resumed, and that he would appear again as a man?—But is it absolutely certain that he appeared in the form of a lamb at all? May not all that is meant be, that John saw him near the throne, and among the elders, and was struck at once with his appearance of meekness and innocence, and with the marks of his having been slain as a sacrifice, and spoke of him in strong figurative language as a lamb? And where his “seven horns” and “seven eyes” are spoken of, is it necessary to suppose that there was any real assumption of such horns and eyes?May not all that is meant be that John was struck with that in the appearance of the Redeemer of which these would be the appropriate symbols, and described him as if these had been visible? When John the Baptist saw the Lord Jesus on the banks of the Jordan, and said, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. i. 29), is it necessary to suppose that he actually appeared in the form of a lamb? Do not all at once understand him as referring to traits in his character, and to the work which he was to accomplish, which made it proper to speak of him as a lamb? And why, therefore, may we not suppose that John in the Apocalypse designed to use language in the same way, and that he did not intend to present so incongruous a description as that of a lamb approaching a throne and taking a book from the hand of Him that sat on it, and a lamb, too, with many horns and eyes? If this supposition is correct, then all that is meant in this passage would be expressed in some such language as the following: “And I looked, and lo there was one in the midst of the space occupied by the throne, by the living creatures, and by the elders, who, in aspect, and in the emblems that represented his work on the earth, was spotless, meek, and innocent as a lamb; one with marks on his person which brought to remembrance the fact that he had been slain for the sins of the world, and yet one who had most striking symbols of power and intelligence, and who was therefore worthy to approach and take the book from the hand of Him that sat on the throne.” It may do something to confirm this view to recollect that when we use the term “Lamb of God” now, as is often done in preaching and in prayer, it never suggests to the mind the idea of a lamb. We think of the Redeemer as resembling a lamb in his moral attributes and in his sacrifice, but never as to form. This supposition relieves the passage of all that is incongruous and unpleasant, and may be all that John meant.

8 And when he had taken the book, the [200]four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them [201]harps, and golden vials full of [202]odours, which are the [203]prayers of saints.

8. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts, &c. The acts of adoration here described as rendered by the four living creatures and the elders are, according to the explanation given in ch. iv. 4–7, emblematic of the honour done to the Redeemer by the church, and by the course of providential events in the government of the world. ¶ Fell down before the Lamb. The usual posture of profound worship. Usually in such worship there was entire prostration on the earth. See Notes on Mat. ii. 2; 1 Co. xiv. 25. ¶ Having every one of them harps. That is, as the construction, and the propriety of the case would seem to demand, the elders had each of them harps. The whole prostrated themselves with profound reverence; the elders had harps and censers, and broke out into a song of praise for redemption. This construction is demanded, because (a) the Greek word—ἔχοντες—more properly agrees with the word elders—πρεσβύτεροι—and not with the word beasts—ζῶα; (b) there is an incongruity in the representation that the living creatures, in the form of a lion, a calf, an eagle, should have harps and censers; and (c) the song of praise that is sung (ver. 9) is one that properly applies to the elders as the representatives of the church, and not to the living creatures—“Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” The harp was a well-known instrument used in the service of God. Josephus describes it as having ten strings, and as struck with a key (Ant. vii. 12, 3). See Notes on Is. v. 12. ¶ And golden vials. The word vial with us, denoting a small slender bottle with a narrow neck, evidently does not express the idea here. The article here referred to was used for offering incense, and must have been a vessel with a large open mouth. The word bowl or goblet would better express the idea, and it is so explained by Professor Robinson, Lex., and by Professor Stuart, in loco. The Greek word—φιάλη—occurs in the New Testament only in Revelation (v. 8; xv. 7; xvi. 1–4, 8, 10, 12, 17; xvii. 1; xxi. 9), and is uniformly rendered vial and vials, though the idea is always that of a bowl or goblet. ¶ Full of odours. Or rather, as in the margin, full of incense—θυμιαμάτων. See Notes on Lu. i. 9. ¶ Which are the prayers of saints.Which represent or denote the prayers of saints. Comp. Ps. cxli. 2, “Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense.” The meaning is, that incense was a proper emblem of prayer. This seems to have been in two respects: (a) as being acceptable to God—as incense produced an agreeable fragrance; and (b) in its being wafted towards heaven—ascending towards the eternal throne. In ch. viii. 3, an angel is represented as having a golden censer: “And there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.” The representation there undoubtedly is, that the angel is employed in presenting the prayers of the saints which were offered on earth before the throne. See [Notes] on that passage. It is most natural to interpret the passage before us in the same way. The allusion is clearly to the temple service, and to the fact that incense was offered by the priest in the temple itself at the time that prayer was offered by the people in the courts of the temple. See Lu. i. 9, 10. The idea here is, therefore, that the representatives of the church in heaven—the elders—spoken of as “priests” (ver. 10), are described as officiating in the temple above in behalf of the church still below, and as offering incense while the church is engaged in prayer. It is not said that they offer the prayers themselves, but that they offer incense as representing the prayers of the saints. If this be the correct interpretation, as it seems to be the obvious one, then the passage lays no foundation for the opinion expressed by Professor Stuart, as derived from this passage (in loco), that prayer is offered by the redeemed in heaven. Whatever may be the truth on that point—on which the Bible seems to be silent—it will find no support from the passage before us. Adoration, praise, thanksgiving, are represented as the employment of the saints in heaven: the only representation respecting prayer as pertaining to that world is, that there are emblems there which symbolize its ascent before the throne, and which show that it is acceptable to God. It is an interesting and beautiful representation that there are in heaven appropriate symbols of ascending prayer, and that while in the outer courts here below we offer prayer, incense, emblematic of it, ascends in the holy of holies above. The impression which this should leave on our minds ought to be, that our prayers are wafted before the throne, and are acceptable to God.

9 And they sung a [204]new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God [205]by thy blood, out of [206]every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

9. And they sung a new song. Comp. ch. xiv. 3. New in the sense that it is a song consequent on redemption, and distinguished therefore from the songs sung in heaven before the work of redemption was consummated. We may suppose that songs of adoration have always been sung in heaven; we know that the praises of God were celebrated by the angelic choirs when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job xxxviii. 7); but the song of redemption was a different song, and is one that would never have been sung there if man had not fallen, and if the Redeemer had not died. This song strikes notes which the other songs do not strike, and refers to glories of the divine character which, but for the work of redemption, would not have been brought into view. In this sense the song was new; it will continue to be new in the sense that it will be sung afresh as redeemed millions continue to ascend to heaven. Comp. Ps. xl. 3; xcvi. 1; cxliv. 9; Is. xlii. 10. ¶ Thou art worthy to take the book, &c. This was the occasion or ground of the “new song,” that by his coming and death he had acquired a right to approach where no other one could approach, and to do what no other one could do. ¶ For thou wast slain. The language here is such as would be appropriate to a lamb slain as a sacrifice. The idea is, that the fact that he was thus slain constituted the ground of his worthiness to open the book. It could not be meant that there was in him no other ground of worthiness, but that this was that which was most conspicuous. It is just the outburst of the grateful feeling resulting from redemption, that he who has died to save the soul is worthyof all honour, and is fitted to accomplish what no other being in the universe can do. However this may appear to the inhabitants of other worlds, or however it may appear to the dwellers on the earth who have no interest in the work of redemption, yet all who are redeemed will agree in the sentiment that He who has ransomed them with his blood has performed a work to do which every other being was incompetent, and that now all honour in heaven and on earth may appropriately be conferred on him. ¶ And hast redeemed us. The word here used—ἀγοράζω—means properly to purchase, to buy; and is thus employed to denote redemption, because redemption was accomplished by the payment of a price. On the meaning of the word, see Notes on 2 Pe. ii. 1. ¶ To God. That is, so that we become his, and are to be henceforward regarded as such; or so that he might possess us as his own. See Notes on 2 Co. v. 15. This is the true nature of redemption, that by the price paid we are rescued from the servitude of Satan, and are henceforth to regard ourselves as belonging unto God. ¶ By thy blood. See Notes on Ac. xx. 28. This is such language as they use who believe in the doctrine of the atonement, and is such as would be used by them alone. It would not be employed by those who believe that Christ was a mere martyr, or that he lived and died merely as a teacher of morality. If he was truly an atoning sacrifice, the language is full of meaning; if not, it has no significance, and could not be understood. ¶ Out of every kindred. Literally, “of every tribe”—φυλῆς. The word tribe means properly a comparatively small division or class of people associated together (Professor Stuart). It refers to a family, or race, having a common ancestor, and usually associated or banded together—as one of the tribes of Israel; a tribe of Indians; a tribe of plants; a tribe of animals, &c. This is such language as a Jew would use, denoting one of the smaller divisions that made up a nation of people; and the meaning would seem to be, that it will be found ultimately to be true that the redeemed will have been taken from all such minor divisions of the human family—not only from the different nations, but from the smaller divisions of those nations. This can only be true from the fact that the knowledge of the true religion will yet be diffused among all those smaller portions of the human race; that is, that its diffusion will be universal. ¶ And tongue. People speaking all languages. The word here used would seem to denote a division of the human family larger than a tribe, but smaller than a nation. It was formerly a fact that a nation might be made up of those who spoke many different languages—as, for example, the Assyrian, the Babylonian, or the Roman nations. Comp. Da. iii. 29; iv. 1. The meaning here is, that no matter what language the component parts of the nations speak, the gospel will be conveyed to them, and in their own tongue they will learn the wonderful works of God. Comp. Ac. ii. 8–11. ¶ And people. The word here used—λαός—properly denotes a people considered as a mass, made up of smaller divisions—as an association of smaller bodies—or as a multitude of such bodies united together. It is distinguished from another word commonly applied to a people—δῆμος—for that is applied to a community of free citizens, considered as on a level, or without reference to any minor divisions or distinctions. The words here used would apply to an army, considered as made up of regiments, battalions, or tribes; to a mass-meeting, made up of societies of different trades or professions; to a nation, made up of different associated communities, &c. It denotes a larger body of people than the previous words; and the idea is, that no matter of what people or nation, considered as made up of such separate portions, one may be, he will not be excluded from the blessings of redemption. The sense would be well expressed, by saying, for instance, that there will be found there those of the Gaelic race, the Celtic, the Anglo-Saxon, the Mongolian, the African, &c. ¶ And nation. ἔθνους. A word of still larger signification; the people in a still wider sense; a people or nation considered as distinct from all others. The word would embrace all who come under one sovereignty or rule; as, for example, the British nation, however many minor tribes there may be; however many different languages may be spoken; and however many separate people there may be—as the Anglo-Saxon, the Scottish, the Irish, the people of Hindoostan, of Labrador, of New South Wales, &c. The words here used by John would together denote nations of every kind, great andsmall; and the sense is, that the blessings of redemption will be extended to all parts of the earth.

10 And hast made us unto our God [207]kings and priests: and we shall [208]reign on the earth.