Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

by Albert Barnes

(3) The direction to take an estimate of those “who worshipped in the temple.” This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church, or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary to be done in the Reformation. Before that, for ages, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church; that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation, was the common opinion; the necessity of regeneration by the influences of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little understood, if not almost wholly unknown; and the grand requisition in membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the church. One of the first things necessary in the Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down by the Saviour, that a changeof heart—that regeneration by the Holy Ghost—was necessary to membership in the church, and that the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the spirit of their mind. This great work would be appropriately symbolized by a direction to take an estimate of those who “worshipped in the temple of God;” that is, to settle the question who should be regarded as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled in the Reformation than this.

(4) The direction to leave out, or to “cast out” the court without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that a separation was to be made between that which was the true church and that which was not, though it might seem to belong to it. The one was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not appertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to heathenism. The idea would be, that though it professedly appertained to the true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be characterized as heathenism. Now this will apply with great propriety, according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the Papacy was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times. It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would seem to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain to the temple. But it had the essential characteristics of heathenism, and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or cast out, as not pertaining to the true church. Can anyone doubt the truth of this representation as applicable to the Papacy? Almost everything that was peculiar in the ancient heathen systems of religion had been introduced into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more that would lead him to feel that he was in a heathen land, than he would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer had designed to set up on the earth. This was true not only in the pomp and splendour of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials; but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in the number of festival days, in the fact that the statues reared in heathen Rome to the honour of the gods had been reconsecrated in the service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs; and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use in the ancient heathen worship. The direction was, that, in estimating the true church, this was to be “left out,” or “cast out;” and, if this interpretation is correct, the meaning is, that the Roman Catholic communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the true church—a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.

(5) The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot, ver. 2. This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be trodden down by those who are described as “Gentiles.” So far as pure religion was concerned; so far as appertained to the real condition of the church, and the pure worship of God, it would be as if the whole holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was sacred for the time here referred to. Everything in Rome at the time of the Reformation would sustain this description. “It is incredible,” says Luther, on his visit to Rome, “what sins and atrocities are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. So that it is usual to say: ‘If there be a hell, Rome is built above it; it is an abyss from which all sins proceed.’” So again he says: “It is commonly observed that he who goes to Rome for the first time, goes to seek a knave there; the second time he finds him; and the third time he brings him away with him under his cloak. But now, people are become so clever, that they make the three journeys in one.” So Machiavelli, one of the most profound geniuses in Italy, and himself a Roman Catholic, said, “The greatest symptom of the approaching ruin of Christianity is, that the nearer we approach the capital of Christendom, the less do we find of the Christian spirit of the people. The scandalous example and crimes of the court of Rome have caused Italy to lose every principle of piety and every religious sentiment.We Italians are principally indebted to the church and to the priests for having become impious and profane.” See D’Aubigné’s History of the Reformation, p. 54, ed. Phila. 1843. In full illustration of the sentiment that the church seemed to be trodden down and polluted by heathenism, or by abominations and practices that came out of heathenism, we may refer to the general history of the Romish communion from the rise of the Papacy to the Reformation. For a sufficient illustration to justify the application of the passage before us which I am now making, the reader may be referred to the Notes on [ch. ix. 20], [21]. Nothing would better describe the condition of Rome previous to and at the time of the Reformation—and the remark may be applied to subsequent periods also—than to say that it was a city which once seemed to be a Christian city, and was not improperly regarded as the centre of the Christian world and the seat of the church, and that it had been, as it were, overrun and trodden down by heathen rites and customs and ceremonies, so that, to a stranger looking on it, it would seem to be in the possession of the “Gentiles” or the heathens.

(6) The time during which this was to continue—“forty-two months;” that is, according to the explanation above given, twelve hundred and sixty years. This would embrace the whole period of the ascendency and prevalence of the Papacy, or the whole time of the continuance of that corrupt domination in which Christendom was to be trodden down and corrupted by it. The prophet of Patmos saw it in vision thus extending its dreary and corrupting reign, and during that time the proper influence of Christianity was trampled down, and the domination of practical heathenism was set up where the church should have reigned in its purity. Thus regarded, this would properly express the time of the ascendency of the Papal power, and the end of the “forty-two months,” or twelve hundred and sixty years, would denote the time when the influence of that power would cease. If, therefore, the time of the rise of the Papacy can be determined, it will not be difficult to determine the time when it will come to an end. But for a full consideration of these points the reader is referred to the extended discussion on Da. vii. 25. See also Editor’s Preface, [p. xxv.] As the point is there fully examined it is unnecessary to go into an investigation of it here.

The general remark, therefore, in regard to this passage (ver. 1, 2) is, that it refers to what would be necessary to be done at the Reformation in order to determine what is the true church and what are the doctrines on which it is based; and to the fact that the Romish communion, to which the church had been given over for a definite time, was to be set aside as not being the true church of Christ.

3 And I will [335]give power unto my [336]two [337]witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, [338]clothed in sackcloth.

3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses. In respect to this important passage (ver. 3–13) I propose to pursue the same method which I have pursued all along in this exposition: first, to examine the meaning of the words and phrases in the symbol, with a purpose to ascertain the fair signification of the symbols; and, secondly, to inquire into the application—that is, to inquire whether any events have occurred which, in respect to their character and to the time of their occurrence, can be shown to be a fair fulfilment of the language. ¶ And I will give power. The word “power” is not in the original. The Greek is simply, “I will give”—that is, I will grant to my two witnesses the right or the power of prophesying during the time specified—correctly expressed in the margin, “give unto my two witnesses that they may prophesy.” The meaning is not that he would send two witnesses to prophesy, but rather that these were in fact such “witnesses,” and that he would during that time permit them to exercise their prophetic gifts, or give them the privilege and the strength to enunciate the truth which they were commissioned to communicate as his “witnesses” to mankind. Some word, then, like power, privilege, opportunity, or boldness, it is necessary to supply in order to complete the sense. ¶ Unto my two witnesses. The word “two” evidently denotes that the number would be small; and yet it is not necessary to confine it literally to two persons, or to two societies or communities. Perhaps the meaning is, thatas, under the law, two witnesses were required, and were enough, to establish any fact (Notes on Jn. viii. 17), such a number would during those times be preserved from apostasy as would be sufficient to keep up the evidence of truth; to testify against the prevailing abominations, errors, and corruptions; to show what was the real church, and to bear a faithful witness against the wickedness of the world. The law of Moses required that there should be two witnesses on a trial, and this, under that law, was deemed a competent number. See Num. xxxv. 30; De. xvii. 6; xix. 15; Mat. xviii. 16; Jn. v. 30–33. The essential meaning of this passage then is, that there would be a competent number of witnesses in the case; that is, as many as would be regarded as sufficient to establish the points concerning which they would testify, with perhaps the additional idea that the number would be small. There is no reason for limiting it strictly to two persons, or for supposing that they would appear in pairs, two and two; nor is it necessary to suppose that it refers particularly to two people or nations. The word rendered witnesses—μάρτυσι—is that from which we have derived the word martyr. It means properly one who bears testimony, either in a judicial sense (Mat. xviii. 16; xxvi. 65), or one who can in any way testify to the truth of what he has seen and known, Lu. xxiv. 48; Ro. i. 9; Phi. i. 8; 1 Th. ii. 10; 1 Ti. vi. 12. Then it came to be employed in the sense in which the word martyr is now—to denote one who, amidst great sufferings or by his death, bears witness to the truth; that is, one who is so confident of the truth, and so upright, that he will rather lay down his life than deny the truth of what he has seen and known, Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13. In a similar sense it comes to denote one who is so thoroughly convinced on a subject that it is not susceptible of being seen and heard, or who is so attached to one that he is willing to lay down his life as the evidence of his conviction and attachment. The word, as used here, refers to those who, during this period of “forty and two months,” would thus be witnesses for Christ in the world; that is, who would bear their testimony to the truth of his religion, to the doctrines which he had revealed, and to what was required of man—who would do this amidst surrounding error and corruption, and when exposed to persecutions and trials on account of their belief. It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to represent the righteous as witnesses for God. See Notes on Is. xliii. 10, 12; xliv. 8. ¶ And they shall prophesy. The word prophesy does not necessarily mean that they would predict future events; but the sense is, that they would give utterance to the truth as God had revealed it. See Notes on [ch. x. 11]. The sense here is, that they would in some public manner hold up or maintain the truth before the world. ¶ A thousand two hundred and threescore days. The same period as the forty and two months (ver. 2), though expressed in a different form. Reckoning a day for a year, this period would be twelve hundred and sixty years, or the same as the “time and times and the dividing of time” in Da. vii. 25. See Notes on that place; also Editor’s Preface. The meaning of this would be, therefore, that during that long period, in which it is said that “the holy city would be trodden under foot,” there would be those who might be properly called “witnesses” for God, and who would be engaged in holding up his truth before the world; that is, there would be no part of that period in which there would not be found some to whom this appellation could with propriety be given. Though the “holy city”—the church—would seem to be wholly trodden down, yet there would be a few at least who would assert the great doctrines of true godliness. ¶ Clothed in sackcloth. Sackcloth—σάκκους—was properly a coarse black cloth commonly made of hair, used for sacks, for straining, and for mourning garments. See Notes on [ch. vi. 12]; Is. iii. 24; and Mat. xi. 21. Here it is an emblem of mourning; and the idea is, that they would prophesy in the midst of grief. This would indicate that the time would be one of calamity, or that, in doing this, there would be occasion for their appearing in the emblems of grief, rather than in robes expressive of joy. The most natural interpretation of this is, that there would be but few who could be regarded as true witnesses for God in the world, and that they would be exposed to persecution.

4 These are the [339]two olive-trees, and the two [340]candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

4. These are the two olive-trees. Theseare represented by the two olive-trees, or these are what are symbolized by the two olive-trees. There can be little doubt that there is an allusion here to Zec. iv. 3, 11, 14, though the imagery is in some respects changed. The prophet (Zec. iv. 2, 3) saw in vision “a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which were upon the top thereof; and two olive-trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.” These two “olive branches” were subsequently declared (ver. 14) to be “the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The olive-trees, or olive-branches (ver. 12), appear in the vision of the prophet to have been connected with the ever-burning lamp by golden pipes; and as the olive-tree produced the oil used by the ancients in their lamps, these trees are represented as furnishing a constant supply of oil through the golden pipes to the candlestick, and thus they become emblematic of the supply of grace to the church. John uses this emblem, not in the sense exactly in which it was employed by the prophet, but to denote that these two “witnesses,” which might be compared with the two olive-trees, would be the means of supplying grace to the church. As the olive-tree furnished oil for the lamps, the two trees here would seem properly to denote ministers of religion; and as there can be no doubt that the candlesticks, or lamp-bearers, denote churches, the sense would appear to be that it was through the pastors of the churches that the oil of grace which maintained the brightness of those mystic candlesticks, or the churches, was conveyed. The image is a beautiful one, and expresses a truth of great importance to the world; for God has designed that the lamp of piety shall be kept burning in the churches by truth supplied through ministers and pastors. ¶ And the two candlesticks. The prophet Zechariah saw but one such candlestick or lamp-bearer; John here saw two—as there are two “witnesses” referred to. In the vision described in ch. i. 12, he saw seven—representing the seven churches of Asia. For an explanation of the meaning of the symbol, see [Notes] on that verse. ¶ Standing before the God of the earth. So Zec. iv. 14, “These be the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The meaning is, that they stood, as it were, in the very presence of God—as, in the tabernacle and temple, the golden candlestick stood “before” the ark on which was the symbol of the divine presence, though separated from it by a veil. Comp. Notes on [ch. ix. 13]. This representation, that the ministers of religion “stand before the Lord,” is one that is not uncommon in the Bible. Thus it is said of the priests and Levites: “The Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless his name,” De. x. 8; comp. xviii. 7. The same thing is said of the prophets, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha: “As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand,” 1 Ki. xvii. 1; also, xviii. 15; 2 Ki. iii. 14; v. 16; comp. Je. xv. 19. The representation is, that they ministered, as it were, constantly in his presence, and under his eye.

5 And if any man will hurt them, [341]fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, [342]he must in this manner be killed.