See also De. xxviii. 38, 42; Ps. lxxviii. 46; Am. vii. 1. Comp. Ju. vi. 3–6; vii. 12; and Joel, ch. i. ii. (3) Locusts are an emblem of desolation or destruction. No symbol of desolation could be more appropriate or striking than this, for one of the most remarkable properties of locusts is, that they devour every green thing and leave a land perfectly waste. They do this even when what they destroy is not necessary for their own sustenance. “Locusts seem to devour not so much from a ravenous appetite as from a rage for destroying. Destruction, therefore, and not food, is the chief impulse of their devastations, and in this consists their utility; they are, in fact, omnivorous. The most poisonous plants are indifferent to them; they will prey even upon the crowfoot, whose causticity burns even the hides of beasts. They simply consume everything,without predilection—vegetable matter, linens, woollens, silk, leather, &c.; and Pliny does not exaggerate when he says, fores quoque tectorum—‘even the doors of houses’—for they have been known to consume the very varnish of furniture. They reduce everything indiscriminately to shreds, which become manure” (Kitto’s Encyclo. ii. 263). Locusts become, therefore, a most striking symbol of an all-devouring army, and as such are often referred to in Scripture. So also in Josephus, de Bello Jud. book v. ch. vii.:—“As after locusts we see the woods stripped of their leaves, so, in the rear of Simon’s army, nothing but devastation remained.” The natural application of this symbol, then, is to a numerous and destructive army, or to a great multitude of people committing ravages, and sweeping off everything in their march. ¶ And unto them was given power. This was something that was imparted to them beyond their ordinary nature. The locust in itself is not strong, and is not a symbol of strength. Though destructive in the extreme, yet neither as individuals, nor as combined, are they distinguished for strength. Hence it is mentioned as a remarkable circumstance that they had such power conferred on them. ¶ As the scorpions of the earth have power. The phrase “the earth” seems to have been introduced here because these creatures are said to have come up from “the bottomless pit,” and it was natural to compare them with some well-known objects found on the earth. The scorpion is an animal with eight feet, eight eyes, and a long, jointed tail, ending in a pointed weapon or sting. It is the largest and the most malignant of all the insect tribes. It somewhat resembles the lobster in its general appearance, but is much more hideous. See Notes on Lu. x. 19. Those found in Europe seldom exceed four inches in length, but in tropical climates, where they abound, they are often found twelve inches long. There are few animals more formidable, and none more irascible, than the scorpion. Goldsmith states that Maupertuis put about a hundred of them together in the same glass, and that as soon as they came into contact they began to exert all their rage in mutual destruction, so that in a few days there remained but fourteen, which had killed and devoured all the rest. The sting of the scorpion, Dr. Shaw states, is not always fatal; the malignity of their venom being in proportion to their size and complexion. The torment of a scorpion, when he strikes a man, is thus described by Dioscorides, lib. vii. cap. 7, as cited by Mr. Taylor:—“When the scorpion has stung, the place becomes inflamed and hardened; it reddens by tension, and is painful by intervals, being now chilly, now burning. The pain soon rises high, and rages, sometimes more, sometimes less. A sweating succeeds, attended by a shivering and trembling; the extremities of the body become cold, the groin swells, the hair stands on end, the members become pale, and the skin feels throughout the sensation of a perpetual pricking, as if by needles” (Fragments to Calmet’s Dic. vol. iv. p. 376, 377). “The tail of the scorpion is long, and formed after the manner of a string of beads, the last larger than the others, and longer; at the end of which are, sometimes, two stings which are hollow, and filled with a cold poison, which it ejects into the part which it stings” (Calmet’s Dic.). The sting of the scorpion, therefore, becomes the emblem of that which causes acute and dangerous suffering. On this comparison with scorpions see the remark of Niebuhr, quoted in the Notes on [ver. 7].
4 And it was [286]commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the [287]seal of God in their foreheads.
4. And it was commanded them. The writer does not say by whom this command was given, but it is clearly by some one who had the direction of them. As they were evoked from the “bottomless pit” by one who had the key to that dark abode, and as they are represented in ver. 11 as under the command of one who is there called Abaddon, or Apollyon—the Destroyer—it would seem most probable that the command referred to is one that is given by him; that is, that this expresses one of the principles on which he would act in his devastations. At all events, this denotes what would be one of the characteristics of these destroyers. Their purposewould be to vex and trouble men; not to spread desolation over vineyards, olive-yards, and fields of grain. ¶ That they should not hurt the grass of the earth, &c. See Notes on [ch. viii. 7]. The meaning here is plain. There would be some sense in which these invaders would be characterized in a manner that was not common among invaders, to wit, that they would show particular care not to carry their devastations into the vegetable world. Their warfare would be with men, and not with orchards and green fields. ¶ But only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. See Notes on [ch. vii. 2], [3]. They commenced war against that part of the human race only. The language here properly denotes those who were not the friends of God. It may here refer, however, either to those who in reality were not such, or to those who were regarded by him who gave this command as not being such. In the former case, the commission would have respect to real infidels in the sight of God—that is, to those who rejected the true religion; in the latter it would express the sentiment of the leader of this host, as referring to those who in his apprehension were infidels or enemies of God. The true interpretation must depend on the sense in which we understand the phrase “it was commanded;” whether as referring to God, or to the leader of the host himself. The language, therefore, is ambiguous, and the meaning must be determined by the other parts of the passage. Either method of understanding the passage would be in accordance with its fair interpretation.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
5. And to them it was given. There is here the same indefiniteness as in the former verse, the impersonal verb being here also used. The writer does not say by whom this power was given, whether by God, or by the leader of the host. It may be admitted, however, that the most natural interpretation is to suppose that it was given them by God, and that this was the execution of his purpose in this case. Still it is remarkable that this is not directly affirmed, and that the language is so general as to admit of the other application. The fact that they did not kill them, but tormented them—if such a fact should be found to exist—would be in every sense a fulfilment of what is here said. ¶ That they should not kill them. This is in accordance with the nature of the symbol. The locusts do not themselves destroy any living creature; and the sting of the scorpion, though exceedingly painful, is not usually fatal. The proper fulfilment of this would be found in that which would not be generally fatal, but which would diffuse misery and wretchedness. (Comp. ver. 6.) Perhaps all that would be necessarily meant by this would be, not that individual men would not be killed, but that they would be sent to inflict plagues and torments rather than to take life, and that the characteristic effects of their appearing would be distress and suffering rather than death. There may be included in the fair interpretation of the words, general distress and sorrow; acts of oppression, cruelty, and violence; such a condition of public suffering that men would regard death as a relief if they could find it. ¶ But that they should be tormented. That is, that they should be subjected to ills and troubles which might be properly compared with the sting of a scorpion. ¶ Five months. So far as the words here are concerned this might be taken literally, denoting five months or one hundred and fifty days; or as a prophetic reckoning, where a day stands for a year. Comp. Notes on Da. ix. 24, seq. The latter is undoubtedly the correct interpretation here, for it is the character of the book thus to reckon time. See Notes on [ver. 15]. [See also Editor’s Preface, pp. xi.–xv.] If this be the true method of reckoning here, then it will be necessary to find some events which will embrace about the period of one hundred and fifty years, during which this distress and sorrow would continue. The proper laws of interpretation demand that one or the other of these periods should be found—either that of five months literally, or that of a hundred and fifty years. It may be true, as Professor Stuart suggests (in loco), that “the usual time of locusts is from May to September inclusive—five months.” It may be true, also, that this symbol was chosen partly because that was the fact, and they would, from that fact, be well adapted to symbolizea period that could be spoken of as “five months;” but still the meaning must be more than simply it was “a short period,” as he supposes. The phrase a few months might designate such a period; but if that had been the writer’s intention, he would not have selected the definite number five. ¶ And their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, &c. See Notes on [ver. 3]. That is, it would be painful, severe, dangerous.
6 And in those days shall [288]men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
6. And in those days shall men seek death, &c. See Notes on [ver. 5]. It is very easy to conceive of such a state of things as is here described, and, indeed, this has not been very uncommon in the world. It is a state where the distress is so great that men would consider death a relief, and where they anxiously look to the time when they may be released from their sufferings by death. In the case before us it is not intimated that they would lay violent hands on themselves, or that they would take any positive measures to end their sufferings; and this, perhaps, may be a circumstance of some importance to show that the persons referred to were servants of God. When it is said that “they would seek death,” it can only be meant that they would look out for it—or desire it—as the end of their sorrows. This is descriptive, as we shall see, of a particular period of the world; but the language is beautifully applicable to what occurs in all ages and in all lands. There is always a great number of sufferers who are looking forward to death as a relief. In cells and dungeons; on beds of pain and languishing; in scenes of poverty and want; in blighted hopes and disappointed affections, how many are there who would be glad to die, and who have no hope of an end of suffering but in the grave! A few, by the pistol, by the halter, by poison, or by drowning, seek thus to end their woes. A large part look forward to death as a release, when, if the reality were known, death would furnish no such relief, for there are deeper and longer woes beyond the grave than there are this side of it. Comp. Notes on Job iii. 20–22. But to a portion death will be a relief. It will be an end of sufferings. They will find peace in the grave, and are assured they shall suffer no more. Such bear their trials with patience, for the end of all sorrow to them is near, and death will come to release their spirits from the suffering clay, and to bear them in triumph to a world where a pang shall never be felt, and a tear never shed.
7 And the [289]shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were [290]crowns like gold, and their [291]faces were as the faces of men.
7. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared for battle. The resemblance between the locust and the horse, dissimilar as they are in most respects, has been often remarked. Dr. Robinson (Bib. Research, i. 59) says: “We found to-day upon the shrubs an insect, either a species of black locust, or much resembling them, which our Bedouin called Farras el Jundy, ‘soldiers’ horses.’ They said these insects were common on Mount Sinai, of a green colour, and were found on dead trees, but did them no injury.” The editor of the Pictorial Bible makes the following remarks:—“The first time we saw locusts browsing with their wings closed, the idea of comparing them to horses arose spontaneously to our minds—as we had not previously met with such a comparison, and did not at that time advert to the present text [Joel ii. 4]. The resemblance in the head first struck our attention; and this notion having once arisen, other analogies were found or imagined in its general appearance and action in feeding. We have since found the observation very common. The Italians, indeed, from this resemblance, called the locust cavaletta, or little horse. Sir W. Ouseley reports: ‘Zakaria Cazvine divides the locusts into two classes, like horsemen and footmen—mounted and pedestrian.’ Niebuhr says that he heard from a Bedouin, near Bussorah, a particular comparison of the locust to other animals; but as this passage of Scripture did not occur to him at the time he thought it a mere fancy of the Arab’s, till he heard it repeated at Bagdad. He compared the head of the locust to that of the horse; the feet to those of the camel;the belly with that of a serpent; the tail with that of a scorpion; and the feelers (if Niebuhr remembered rightly) to the hair of a virgin” (Pict. Bib. on Joel ii. 4). The resemblance to horses would naturally suggest the idea of cavalry, as being referred to by the symbol. ¶ And on their heads were as it were crowns like gold. The writer does not say either that these were literally crowns, or that they were actually made of gold. They were “as it were” (ὡς) crowns, and they were like (ὅμοιος) gold. That is, as seen by him, they had a resemblance to crowns or diadems, and they also resembled gold in their colour and brilliancy. The word crown—στέφανος—means properly a circlet, chaplet, encircling the head (a) as an emblem of royal dignity, and as worn by kings; (b) as conferred on victors in the public games—a chaplet, a wreath; (c) as an ornament, honour, or glory, Phi. iv. 1. No particular shape is designated by the word στέφανος—stephanos—and perhaps the word crown does not quite express the meaning. The word diadem would come nearer to it. The true notion in the word is that of something that is passed around the head, and that encircles it, and as such it would well describe the appearance of a turban as seen at a distance. On the supposition that the symbolic beings here referred to had turbans on their heads, and on the supposition that something was referred to which was not much worn in the time of John, and, therefore, that had no name, the word stephanos, or diadem, would be likely to be used in describing it. This, too, would accord with the use of the phrase “as it were”—ὡς. The writer saw such head-ornaments as he was accustomed to see. They were not exactly crowns or diadems, but they had a resemblance to them, and he therefore uses this language: “and on their heads were as it were crowns.” Suppose that these were turbans, and that they were not in common use in the time of John, and that they had, therefore, no name, would not this be the exact language which he would use in describing them? The same remarks may be made respecting the other expression. ¶ Like gold. They were not pure gold, but they had a resemblance to it. Would not a yellow turban correspond with all that is said in this description? ¶ And their faces were as the faces of men. They had a human countenance. This would indicate that, after all, they were human beings that the symbol described, though they had come up from the bottomless pit. Horsemen, in strange apparel, with a strange head-dress, would be all that would be properly denoted by this.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their [292]teeth were as the teeth of lions.