Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

by Albert Barnes

In regard to the application of this, it is plain that, if it be admitted that it was the design of the author of the vision to refer to the Reformation, no more appropriate emblem could have been chosen. If we were now to endeavour to devise an emblem of the Reformation that would be striking and expressive, we could not well select one which would better represent the great work than that which is here presented. This will appear plain from a few considerations:—(1) The great agent in the Reformation, the moving cause of it, its suggestor and supporter, was a book—the Bible. Wycliffe had translated the New Testament into the English language, and though this was suppressed, yet it had done much to prepare the people for the Reformation; and all that Luther did can be traced to the discovery of the Bible, and to the use which was made of it. Luther had grown up into manhood; had passed from the schools to the university of Erfurt, and there having, during the usual four years’ course of study, displayed intellectual powers and an extent of learning that excited the admiration of the university, and that seemed to open to his attainment both the honour and emolument of the world, he appeared to have been prepared to play an important part on the great drama of human affairs. Suddenly, however, to the astonishment and dismay of his friends, he betook himself to the solitude and gloom of an Augustinian monastery. There he found a Bible—a copy of the Vulgate—hid in the shelves of the university library.Till then he had supposed that there existed no other Gospels or Epistles than what were given in the Breviary, or quoted by the preachers.[319] To the study of that book he now gave himself with untiring diligence and steady prayer; and the effect was to show to him the way of salvation by faith, and ultimately to produce the Reformation. No one acquainted with the history of the Reformation can doubt that it is to be traced to the influence of the Bible; that the moving cause, the spring of all that occurred in the Reformation, was the impulse given to the mind of Luther and his fellow-labourers by the study of that one book. It is this well-known fact that gives so much truth to the celebrated declaration of Chillingworth, that “the Bible is the religion of Protestants.” If a symbol of this had been designed before it occurred, or if one should be sought for now that would designate the actual nature and influence of the Reformation, nothing better could be selected than that of an angel descending from heaven, with benignant aspect, with a rainbow around his head, and with light beaming all around him, holding forth to mankind a book. (2) This book had before been hidden, or closed; that is, it could not till then be regarded as an open volume. (a) It was in fact known by few even of the clergy, and it was not in the hands of the mass of the people at all. There is every reason to believe that the great body of the Romish clergy, in the time that preceded the Reformation, were even more ignorant of the Bible than Luther himself was. Many of them were unable to read; few had access to the Bible; and those who had, drew their doctrinesrather from the fathers of the church than from the Word of God. Hallam (Middle Ages, ii. 241) says: “Of this prevailing ignorance [in the tenth century and onward] it is easy to produce abundant testimony. In almost every council the ignorance of the clergy forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by one held in 992, that scarcely a single person could be found in Rome itself who knew the first elements of letters. Not one priest of a thousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a letter of common salutation to another. In England, Alfred declares that he could not recollect a single priest south of the Thames (the best part of England), at the time of his accession, who understood the ordinary prayers, or who could translate the Latin into the mother tongue.” There were few books of any kind in circulation, and even if there had been an ability to read, the cost of books was so great as to exclude the great mass of the people from all access to the sacred Scriptures. “Many of the clergy,” says Dr. Robertson (Hist. of Charles V. p. 14, Harper’s ed.), “did not understand the Breviary which they were obliged daily to recite; some of them could scarcely read it.” “Persons of the highest rank, and in the most eminent stations, could neither read nor write.” One of the questions appointed by the canons to be put to persons who were candidates for orders was this, “Whether they could read the Gospels and Epistles, and explain the sense of them at least literally?” For the causes of this ignorance see Robertson’s Hist. of Charles V. p. 515. One of those causes was the cost of books. “Private persons seldom possessed any books whatever. Even monasteries of considerable note had only one Missal. The price of books became so high that persons of a moderate fortune could not afford to purchase them. The Countess of Anjou paid for a copy of the Homilies of Haimon, bishop of Alberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and the same quantity of rye and millet,” &c. Such was the cost of books that few persons could afford to own a copy of the sacred Scriptures; and the consequence was, there were almost none in the hands of the people. The few copies that were in existence were mostly in the libraries of monasteries and universities, or in the hands of some of the higher clergy. (b) But there was another reason that was still more efficacious, perhaps, in keeping the people at large from the knowledge of the Scriptures. It was found in the prevailing views in the Roman Catholic communion respecting the private use and interpretation of the sacred volume. Whatever theory may now be advocated in the Roman Catholic communion on this point, as a matter of fact, the influence of that denomination has been to withhold the Bible from a free circulation among the common people. No one can deny that, in the times just preceding the Reformation, the whole influence of the Papal denomination was opposed to a free circulation of the Bible, and that one of the great and characteristic features of the Reformation was the fact, that the doctrine was promulgated that the Bible was to be freely distributed, and that the people everywhere were to have access to it, and were to form their own opinions of the doctrines which it reveals. (3) The Bible became, at the Reformation, in fact an “open” book. It was made accessible. It became the popular book of the world—the book that did more than all other things to change the aspect of affairs, and to give character to subsequent times. This occurred because (a) the art of printing was discovered just before the Reformation, as if, in the providence of God, it was designed then to give this precious volume to the world; and the Bible was, in fact, the first book printed, and has been since printed more frequently than any other book whatever, and will continue to be to the end of the world. It would be difficult to imagine now a more striking symbol of the art of printing, or to suggest a better device for it, than to represent an angel giving an open volume to mankind. (b) The leading doctrine of the Reformers was, that the Bible is the source of all authority in matters of religion, and, consequently, is to be accessible to all the people. And (c) the Bible was the authority appealed to by the Reformers. It became the subject of profound study; was diffused abroad; and gave form to all the doctrines that sprang out of the times of the Reformation. These remarks, which might be greatly expanded, will show with what propriety, on the supposition that the chapter here refers to the Reformation, the symbol of a book was selected. Obviously no other symbol would have been so appropriate; nothing else would have given so just a view of the leadingcharacteristics of that period of the world.

¶ And he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot upon the earth. This is the third characteristic in the symbol. As a mere description this is eminently sublime. I was once (at Cape May, 1849) impressively reminded of this passage. My window was in such a position that it commanded a fine view at the same time of the ocean and the land. A storm arose such as I had never witnessed—the clouds from the different points of the compass seeming to come together over the place, and producing incessant lightning and thunder. As the storm cleared away the most magnificent rainbow that I ever saw appeared, arching the heavens, one foot of it far off on the sea, and the other on the land—an emblem of peace to both—and most strikingly suggesting to me the angel in the Apocalypse. The natural meaning of such a symbol as that represented here would be, that something was to occur which would pertain to the whole world, as the earth is made up of land and water. It is hardly necessary to say, that on the supposition that this refers to the Reformation, there is no difficulty in finding an ample fulfilment of the symbol. That great work was designed manifestly by Providence to affect all the world—the sea and the land—the dwellers in the islands and in the continents—those who “go down to the sea in ships, and do business in the great waters,” and those who have a permanent dwelling on shore. It may be admitted, indeed, that, in itself, this one thing—the angel standing on the sea and the land, if it occurred alone, could not suggest the Reformation; and if there were nothing else, such an application might seem fanciful and unnatural; but, taken in connection with the other things in the symbol, and assuming that the whole vision was designed to symbolize the Reformation, it will not be regarded as unnatural that there should be some symbol which would intimate that the blessings of a reformed religion—a pure gospel—would be ultimately spread over land and ocean—over the continents and islands of the globe; in all the fixed habitations of men, and in their floating habitations on the deep. The symbol of a rainbow bending over the sea and land, would have expressed this; the same thing would be expressed by an angel whose head was encircled by a rainbow, and whose face beamed with light, with one foot on the ocean and the other on the land.

3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven [320]thunders uttered their voices.

3. And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth. The lion is the monarch of the woods, and his roar is an image of terror. The point of the comparison here seems to be the loudness with which the angel cried, and the power of what he said to awe the world—as the roar of the lion keeps the dwellers of the forest in awe. What he said is not stated; nor did John attempt to record it. Professor Stuart supposes that it was “a loud note of woe, some interjection uttered which would serve to call attention, and at the same time be indicative of the judgments which were to follow.” But it is not necessary to suppose that this particular thing was intended. Any loud utterance—any solemn command—any prediction of judgment—any declaration of truth that would arrest the attention of mankind, would be in accordance with all that is said here. As there is no application of what is said, and no explanation made by John, it is impossible to determine with any certainty what is referred to. But, supposing that the whole refers to the Reformation, would not the loud and commanding voice of the angel properly represent the proclamation of the gospel as it began to be preached in such a manner as to command the attention of the world, and the reproof of the prevailing sins in such a manner as to keep the world in awe? The voice that sounded forth at the Reformation among the nations of Europe, breaking the slumbers of the Christian world, awaking the church to the evil of the existing corruptions and abominations, and summoning princes to the defence of the truth, might well be symbolized by the voice of an angel that was heard afar. In regard to the effect of the “theses” of Luther, in which he attacked the main doctrines of the Papacy, a contemporary writer says, “In the space of a fortnight they spread over Germany, and within a month they had run through all Christendom, as if angelsthemselves had been the bearers of them to all men.” To John it might not be known beforehand—as it probably would not be—what this symbolized; but could we now find a more appropriate symbol to denote the Reformation than the appearance of such an angel; or better describe the impression made by the first announcement of the great doctrines of the Reformation, than by the loud voice of such an angel? ¶ And when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. Professor Stuart renders this, “the seven thunders uttered their voices,” and insists that the article should be retained, which it has not been in our common version. So Elliott, Bishop Middleton, and others. Bishop Middleton says, “Why the article is inserted here I am unable to discover. It is somewhat remarkable that a few manuscripts and editions omit it in both places [ver. 3, 4]. Were the seven thunders anything well known and pre-eminent? If not, the omission must be right in the former instance, but wrong in the latter; if they were pre-eminent, then is it wrong in both. Bengel omits the article in ver. 3, but has it in ver. 4.” He regards the insertion of the article as the true reading in both places, and supposes that there may have been a reference to some Jewish opinion, but says that he had not been able to find a vestige of it in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, or Meuschen. Storr supposes that we are not to seek here for any Jewish notion, and that nothing is to be inferred from the article (Middleton, on the Greek Article, p. 358). The best editions of the New Testament retain the article in both places, and indeed there is no authority for omitting it. The use of the article here naturally implies either that these seven thunders were something which had been before referred to, either expressly or impliedly; or that there was something about them which was so well known that it would be at once understood what was referred to; or that there was something in the connection which would determine the meaning. Comp. Notes on [ch. viii. 2]. It is plain, however, that there had been no mention of “seven thunders” before, nor had anything been referred to which would at once suggest them. The reason for the insertion of the article here must, therefore, be found in some pre-eminence which these seven thunders had; in some well-known facts about them; in something which would at once suggest them when they were mentioned as when we mention the sun, the moon, the stars, though they might not have been distinctly referred to before. The number “seven” is used here either (a) as a general or perfect number, as it is frequently in this book, where we have it so often repeated—seven spirits; seven angels; seven seals; seven trumpets; or (b) with some specific reference to the matter in hand—the case actually in view of the writer. It cannot be doubted that it might be used in the former sense here, and that no law of language would be violated if it were so understood; as denoting many thunders; but still it is equally true that it may be used in a specific sense as denoting something that would be well understood by applying the number seven to it. Now let it be supposed, in regard to the application of this symbol, that the reference is to Rome, the seven-hilled city, and to the thunders of excommunication, anathema, and wrath that were uttered from that city against the Reformers; and would there not be all that is fairly implied in this language, and is not this such a symbol as would be appropriately used on such a supposition? The following circumstances may be referred to as worthy of notice on this point:—(a) the place which this occupies in the series of symbols—being just after the angel had uttered his voice as symbolical of the proclamation of the great truths of the gospel in the Reformation, if the interpretation above given is correct. The next event, in the order of nature and of fact, was the voice of excommunication uttered at Rome. (b) The word thunder would appropriately denote the bulls of excommunication uttered at Rome, for the name most frequently given to the decrees of the Papacy, when condemnatory, was that of Papal thunders. So Le Bas, in his Life of Wycliffe, p. 198, says: “The thunders which shook the world when they issued from the seven hills sent forth an uncertain sound, comparatively faint and powerless, when launched from a region of less devoted sanctity.” (c) The number seven would, on such a supposition, be used here with equal propriety. Rome was built on seven hills; was known as the “seven-hilled” city, and the thunders from that city would seem to echo and re-echo from those hills. Comp. ch. xvii. 9. (d) This supposition,also, will accord with the use of the article here, as if those thunders were something well known—“the seven thunders;” that is, the thunders which the nations were accustomed to hear. (e) This will also accord with the passage before us, inasmuch as the thunders would seem to have been of the nature of a response to what the angel said, or to have been sent forth because he had uttered his loud cry. In like manner, the anathemas were hurled from Rome because the nations had been aroused by the loud cry for reformation, as if an angel had uttered that cry. For these reasons there is a propriety in applying this language to the thunders which issued from Rome condemning the doctrines of the Reformation, and in defence of the ancient faith, and excommunicating those who embraced the doctrines of the Reformers. If we were now to attempt to devise a symbol which would be appropriate to express what actually occurred in the Reformation, we could not think of one which would be better fitted to that purpose than to speak of seven thunders bellowing forth from the seven-hilled city.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, [321]Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

4. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices. After he had listened to those thunders; or when they had passed by. ¶ I was about to write. That is, he was about to record what was uttered, supposing that that was the design for which he had been made to hear them. From this it would seem that it was not mere thunder—brutum fulmen—but that the utterance had a distinct and intelligible enunciation, or that words were employed that could be recorded. It may be observed, by the way, as Professor Stuart has remarked, that this proves that John wrote down what he saw and heard as soon as practicable, and in the place where he was; and that the supposition of many modern critics, that the Apocalyptic visions were written at Ephesus a considerable time after the visions took place, has no good foundation. ¶ And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me. Evidently the voice of God: at all events it came with the clear force of command. ¶ Seal up those things. On the word seal, see Notes on [ch. v. 1]. The meaning here is, that he was not to record those things, but what he heard he was to keep to himself as if it was placed under a seal which was not to be broken. ¶ And write them not. Make no record of them. No reason is mentioned why this was not to be done, and none can now be given that can be proved to be the true reason. Vitringa, who regards the seven thunders as referring to the Crusades, supposes the reason to have been that a more full statement would have diverted the mind from the course of the prophetic narrative, and from more important events which pertained to the church, and that nothing occurred in the Crusades which was worthy to be recorded at length: Nec dignæ erant quæ prolixius exponerentur—“for,” he adds, “these expeditions were undertaken with a foolish purpose, and resulted in real detriment to the church,” pp. 431, 432. Professor Stuart (vol. ii. pp. 204–206) supposes that these “thunders” refer to the destruction of the city and temple of God, and that they were a sublime introduction to the last catastrophe, and that the meaning is not that he should keep “entire silence,” but only that he should state the circumstances in a general manner, without going into detail. Mede supposes that John was commanded to keep silence because it was designed that the meaning should not then be known, but should be disclosed in future times; Forerius, because it was the design that the wise should be able to understand them, but that they were not to be disclosed to the wicked and profane. Without attempting to examine these and other solutions which have been proposed, the question which, from the course of the exposition, is properly before us is, whether, on the supposition that the voice of the seven thunders referred to the Papal anathemas, a rational and satisfactory solution of the reasons of this silence can be given. Without pretending to know the reasons which existed, the following may be referred to as not improbable, and as those which would meet the case:—(1) In these Papal anathemas there was nothing that was worthy of record; there was nothing that was important as history; there was nothing that communicatedtruth; there was nothing that really indicated progress in human affairs. In themselves there was nothing more that deserved record than the acts and doings of wicked men at any time; nothing that fell in with the main design of this book. (2) Such a record would have retarded the progress of the main statements of what was to occur, and would have turned off the attention from these to less important matters. (3) All that was necessary in the case was simply to state that such thunders were heard: that is, on the supposition that this refers to the Reformation, that that great change in human affairs would not be permitted to occur without opposition and noise—as if the thunders of wrath should follow those who were engaged in it. (4) John evidently mistook this for a real revelation, or for something that was to be recorded as connected with the divine will in reference to the progress of human affairs. He was naturally about to record this as he did what was uttered by the other voices which he heard; and if he had made the record, it would have been with this mistaken view. There was nothing in the voices, or in what was uttered, that would manifestly mark it as distinct from what had been uttered as coming from God, and he was about to record it under this impression. If this was a mistake, and if the record would do anything, as it clearly would, to perpetuate the error, it is easy to see a sufficient reason why the record should not be made. (5) It is remarkable that there was an entire correspondence with this in what occurred in the Reformation; in the fact that Luther and his fellow-labourers were, at first, and for a long time—such was the force of education, and of the habits of reverence for the Papal authority in which they had been reared—disposed to receive the announcements of the Papacy as the oracles of God, and to show to them the deference which was due to divine communications. The language of Luther himself, if the general view here taken is correct, will be the best commentary on the expressions here used. “When I began the affairs of the Indulgences,” says he, “I was a monk, and a most mad Papist. So intoxicated was I, and drenched in Papal dogmas, that I would have been most ready to murder, or assist others in murdering, any person who should have uttered a syllable against the duty of obedience to the pope.” And again: “Certainly at that time I adored him in earnest.” He adds, “How distressed my heart was in that year 1517—how submissive to the hierarchy, not feignedly but really—those little knew who at this day insult the majesty of the pope with so much pride and arrogance. I was ignorant of many things which now, by the grace of God, I understand. I disputed; I was open to conviction; not finding satisfaction in the works of theologians, I wished to consult the living members of the church itself. There were some godly souls that entirely approved my propositions. But I did not consider their authority of weight with me in spiritual concerns. The popes, bishops, cardinals, monks, priests, were the objects of my confidence. After being enabled to answer every objection that could be brought against me from sacred Scripture, one difficulty alone remained, that the Church ought to be obeyed. If I had then braved the pope as I now do, I should have expected every hour that the earth would have opened to swallow me up alive, like Korah and Abiram.” It was in this frame of mind that, in the summer of 1518, a few months after the affair with Tetzel, he wrote that memorable letter to the pope, the tenor of which can be judged of by the following sentences: and what could more admirably illustrate the passage before us, on the interpretation suggested, than this language? “Most blessed Father! Prostrate at the feet of thy blessedness I offer myself to thee, with all that I am, and that I have. Kill me, or make me live; call or recall; approve or reprove, as shall please thee. I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ presiding and speaking in thee.” See the authorities for these quotations in Elliott, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117. (6) The command not to record what the seven thunders uttered was of the nature of a caution not to regard what was said in this manner; that is, not to be deceived by these utterances as if they were the voice of God. Thus understood, if this is the proper explanation and application of the passage, it should be regarded as an injunction not to regard the decrees and decisions of the Papacy as containing any intimation of the divine will, or as of authority in the church. That this is to be so regarded is the opinion of all Protestants; and if this is so, it is not a forced suppositionthat this might have been intimated by such a symbol as that before us.

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth [322]lifted up his hand to heaven,

5. And the angel which I saw stand, &c. Ver. 2. That is, John saw him standing in this posture when he made the oath which he proceeds to record. ¶ Lifted up his hand to heaven. The usual attitude in taking an oath, as if one called heaven to witness. See Ge. xiv. 22; De. xxxii. 40; Eze. xx. 5, 6. Comp. Notes on Da. xii. 7.

6 And sware by [323]him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, [324]that there should be time no longer:

6. And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever. By the ever-living God: a form of an oath in extensive use now. The essential idea in such an oath is an appeal to God; a solemn reference to Him as a witness; an utterance in the presence of Him who is acquainted with the truth or falsehood of what is said, and who will punish him who appeals to him falsely. It is usual, in such an oath, in order to give to it greater solemnity, to refer to some attribute of God, or something in the divine character on which the mind would rest at the time, as tending to make it more impressive. Thus, in the passage before us, the reference is to God as “ever-living;” that is, he is now a witness, and he ever will be; he has now the power to detect and punish, and he ever will have the same power. ¶ Who created heaven and the things that therein are, &c. Who is the Maker of all things in heaven, on the earth, and in the sea; that is, throughout the universe. The design of referring to these things here is that which is just specified—to give increased solemnity to the oath by a particular reference to some one of the attributes of God. With this view nothing could be more appropriate than to refer to him as the Creator of the universe—denoting his infinite power, his right to rule and control all things. ¶ That there should be time no longer. This is a very important expression, as it is the substance of what the angel affirmed in so solemn a manner; and as the interpretation of the whole passage depends on it. It seems now to be generally agreed among critics that our translation does not give the true sense, inasmuch (a) as that was not the close of human affairs, and (b) as he proceeds to state what would occur after that. Accordingly, different versions of the passage have been proposed. Professor Stuart renders it, “that delay shall be no longer.” Mr. Elliott, “that the time shall not yet be; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, whensoever he may be about to sound, then the mystery of God shall be finished.” Mr. Lord, “that the time shall not be yet, but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel,” &c. Andrew Fuller (Works, vol. vi. p. 113), “there should be no delay.” So Dr. Gill. Mr. Daubuz, “the time shall not be yet.” Vitringa (p. 432), tempus non fore amplius, “time shall be no more.” He explains it (p. 433) as meaning, “not that this is to be taken absolutely, as if at the sounding of the seventh trumpet all things were then to terminate, and the glorious epiphany—ἐπιφάνεια (or manifestation of Jesus Christ)—was then to occur, who would put an end to all the afflictions of his church; but in a limited sense—restricte—as meaning that there would be no delay between the sounding of the seventh trumpet and the fulfilment of the prophecies.” The sense of this passage is to be determined by the meaning of the words and the connection. (a) The word time—χρόνος—is the common Greek word to denote time, and may be applied to time in general, or to any specified time or period. See Robinson, Lex. sub voce, (a, b). In the word itself there is nothing to determine its particular signification here. It might refer either to time in general, or to the time under consideration, and which was the subject of the prophecy. Which of these is the true idea is to be ascertained by the other circumstances referred to. It should be added, however, that the word does not of itself denote delay, and is never used to denote that directly. It can only denote that because delay occupies or consumes time, but this sense of the noun is not found in the New Testament. It isfound, however, in the verb χρονίζω, to linger, to delay, to be long in coming, Mat. xxv. 5; Lu. i. 21. (b) The absence of the article—“time,” not “the time”—would naturally give it a general signification, unless there was something in the connection to limit it to some well-known period under consideration. See Notes on [ch. viii. 2]; [x. 3]. In this latter view, if the time referred to would be sufficiently definite without the article, the article need not be inserted. This is such a case, and comes under the rule for the omission of the article as laid down by Bishop Middleton, part i. ch. iii. The principle is, that when the copula, or verb connecting the subject and predicate, is the verb substantive, then the article is omitted. “To affirm the existence,” says he, “of that of which the existence is already assumed, would be superfluous; to deny it, would be contradictory and absurd.” As applicable to the case before us, the meaning of this rule would be, that the nature of the time here referred to is implied in the use of the substantive verb (ἔσται), and that consequently it is not necessary to specify it. All that needs to be said on this point is, that, on the supposition that John referred to a specified time, instead of time in general, it would not be necessary, under this rule, to insert the article. The reference would be understood without it, and the insertion would be unnecessary. This is substantially the reasoning of Mr. Elliott (vol. ii. p. 123), and it is submitted for what it is worth. My own knowledge of the usages of the Greek article is too limited to justify me in pronouncing an opinion on the subject, but the authorities are such as to authorize the assertion that, on the supposition that a particular well-known period were here referred to, the insertion of the article would not be necessary. (c) The particle rendered “longer”—ἔτι)—“time shall be no longer”—means properly, according to Robinson (Lex.), yet, still; implying (1) duration—as spoken of the present time; of the present in allusion to the past, and, with a negative, no more, no longer; (2) implying accession, addition, yet, more, farther, besides. According to Buttmann, Gram. § 149, vol. i. p. 430, it means, when alone, “yet still, yet farther; and with a negative, no more, no farther.” The particle occurs often in the New Testament, as may be seen in the Concordance. It is more frequently rendered “yet” than by any other word (comp. Mat. xii. 46; xvii. 5; xix. 20; xxvi. 47; xxvii. 63; Mar. v. 35; viii. 17; xii. 6; xiv. 43—and so in the other Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles); in all, fifty times. In the book of Revelation it is only once rendered “yet,” ch. vi. 11, but is rendered “more” in ch. iii. 12; vii. 16; ix. 12; xii. 8; xviii. 21, 22 (three times), 23 (twice); xx. 3; xxi. 1, 4 (twice); “longer” in ch. x. 6; “ still” in ch. xxii. 11 (four times). The usage, therefore, will justify the rendering of the word by “yet,” and in connection with the negative, “not yet”—meaning that the thing referred to would not occur immediately, but would be hereafter. In regard to the general meaning, then, of this passage in its connection, we may remark, (a) That it cannot mean, literally, that there would be time no longer, or that the world would then come to an end absolutely, for the speaker proceeds to disclose events that would occur after that, extending far into the future (ch. x. 11), and the detail that follows (ch. xi.) before the sounding of the seventh trumpet is such as to occupy a considerable period, and the seventh trumpet is also yet to sound. No fair construction of the language, therefore, would require us to understand this as meaning that the affairs of the world were then to terminate. (b) The connection, then, apart from the question of grammatical usage, will require some such construction as that above suggested—“that the time,” to wit, some certain, known, or designated time, “would not be yet,” but would be in some future period; that is, as specified, ver. 7, “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound.” Then “the mystery of God would be finished,” and the affairs of the world would be put on their permanent footing. (c) This would imply that, at the time when the angel appeared, or in the time to which he refers, there would be some expectation or general belief that the “mystery” was then to be finished, and that the affairs of the world were to come to an end. The proper interpretation would lead us to suppose that there would be so general an expectation of this, as to make the solemn affirmation of the angel proper to correct a prevailing opinion, and to show that the right interpretation was not put on whatseemed to be the tendency of things. (d) As a matter of fact, we find that this expectation did actually exist at the time of the Reformation; that such an interpretation was put on the prophecies, and on the events that occurred; and that the impression that the Messiah was about to come, and the reign of saints about to commence, was so strong as to justify some interference, like the solemn oath of the angel, to correct the misapprehension. It is true that this impression had existed in former times, and even in the early ages of the church; but, as a matter of fact, it was true, and eminently true, in the time of the Reformation, and there was, on many accounts, a strong tendency to that form of belief. The Reformers, in interpreting the prophecies, learned to connect the downfall of the Papacy with the coming of Christ, and with his universal reign upon the earth; and as they saw the evidences of the approach of the former, they naturally anticipated the latter as about to occur. Comp. Da. ii. 34; xii. 11; 2 Th. ii. 3, 8. The anticipation that the Lord Jesus was about to come; that the affairs of the world, in the present form, were to be wound up; that the reign of the saints would soon commence; and that the permanent kingdom of righteousness would be established, became almost the current belief of the Reformers, and was frequently expressed in their writings. Thus Luther, in the year 1520, in his answer to the pope’s bull of excommunication, expresses his anticipations: “Our Lord Jesus Christ yet liveth and reigneth; who, I firmly trust, will shortly come, and slay with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming, that Man of Sin” (Merle D’Aubig., vol. ii. p. 166). After being summoned before the Diet at Worms, and after condemnation had been pronounced on him by the emperor, he fell back for comfort on the same joyous expectation. “For this once,” he said, “the Jews, as on the crucifixion-day, may sing their pæan; but Easter will come for us, and then we shall sing Hallelujah” (D’Aubig., vol. ii. p. 275). The next year, writing to Staupitz, he made a solemn appeal against his abandoning the Reformation, by reference to the sure and advancing fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy. “My father,” said he, “the abominations of the pope, with his whole kingdom, must be destroyed; and the Lord does this without hand, by the Word alone. The subject exceeds all human comprehension. I cherish the best hopes” (Milner, p. 692). In 1523 he thus, in a similar strain, expresses his hopes: “The kingdom of Antichrist, according to the prophet Daniel, must be broken without hands; that is, the Scriptures will be understood by and by; and every one will preach against Papal tyranny, from the Word of God, until the Man of Sin is deserted of all, and dies of himself” (Milner, p. 796). The same sentiments respecting the approach of the end of the world were entertained by Melancthon. In commenting on the passage in Daniel relating to the “little horn,” he thus refers to an argument which has been prevalent: “The words of the prophet Elias should be marked by every one, and inscribed upon our walls, and on the entrances of our houses. Six thousand years shall the world stand, and after that be destroyed; two thousand years without the law; two thousand years under the law of Moses; two thousand years under the Messiah; and if any of these years are not fulfilled, they will be shortened (a shortening intimated by Christ also, on account of our sins).” The following manuscript addition to this argument has been found in Melancthon’s hand, in Luther’s own copy of the German Bible:—“Written A.D. 1557, and from the creation of the world, 5519; from which number we may see that this aged world is not far from its end.” So also the British Reformers believed. Thus Bishop Latimer: “Let us cry to God day and night—Most merciful Father, let thy kingdom come! St. Paul saith, The Lord will not come till the swerving from the faith cometh (2 Th. ii. 3); which thing is already done and past. Antichrist is already known throughout all the world. Wherefore the day is not far off.” Then, reverting to the consideration of the age of the world, as Melancthon had done, he says, “The world was ordained to endure, as all learned ones affirm, 6000 years. Now of that number there be past 5552 years, so that there is no more left but 448 years. Furthermore, those days shall be shortened for the elect’s sake. Therefore, all those excellent and learned men, whom without doubt God hath sent into the world in these last days to give the world warning, do gather out of sacred Scripturethat the last day cannot be far off.” So again, in a sermon on the nearness of the second advent, he says, “So that peradventure it may come in my days, old as I am, or in my children’s days.” Indeed, it is well known that this was a prevalent opinion among the Reformers; and this fact will show with what propriety, if the passage before us was designed to refer to the Reformation, this solemn declaration of the angel was made, that the “time would not be yet”—that those anticipations which would spring up from the nature of the case, and from the interpretations which would be put on what seemed to be the obvious sense of the prophecies, were unfounded, and that a considerable time must yet intervene before the events would be consummated. (e) The proper sense of this passage, then, according to the above interpretation would be—“And the angel lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, That the time should not yet be; but, in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God shall be finished.” Appearances, indeed, would then indicate that the affairs of the world were to be wound up, and that the prophecies respecting the end of the world were about to be fulfilled: but the angel solemnly swears “by Him who lives for ever and ever”—and whose reign therefore extends through all the changes on the earth—“by Him who is the Creator of all things,” and whose purpose alone can determine when the end shall be, that the time would not be yet. Those cherished expectations would not yet be realized, but there was a series of important events to intervene before the end would come. Then—at the time when the seventh angel should sound—would be the consummation of all things.