A word relative to the plan of the prophecies will be appropriate at this time. I will again state what will be made very clear hereafter—that the events are narrated by series, and not by centuries. A particular theme is taken up and carried through to its completion, then the narrative returns and another subject is traced to its end. Thus, the entire book consists of a number of distinct parallel series covering the same ground.
Upon the opening of the first seal, John is summoned as with a voice of thunder by one of the living creatures to draw near; and the object that meets his vision is a white horse with its rider. The symbol is that of a victorious warrior, being drawn from the civil and military life of the Romans. The symbol is one of dignity. It does not consist of some inanimate object such as a mountain, a sea, or a river, neither is it a wild ferocious beast; but it is that of a living, active, intelligent being, and he, as denoted by various insignia, a conqueror. He rides a white horse, such as victors used in triumphal procession; his bow and crown are also symbols of victory. He goes forth conquering and to conquer, or to make conquests.
This symbol is a faithful representation of the early triumphs of Christianity in its aggressive conflict with the huge systems of error with which it had to contend. Some have supposed that the rider represented Jesus Christ; but this can not be, for many reasons, two of which I will give. First. Christ always appears on the symbolic stage in his own character, unrepresented by another, for the reason, as before stated, that there is no creature that can analagously represent Him who claims equality with God. Not one name or attribute peculiar to him is mentioned in the description. Second. There are four horsemen brought to view in this chapter, and the symbols all being drawn from the same department, must have the same general application. If the first horseman symbolizes a definite personage, so do the remaining three; but we should have great difficulty in identifying the last three, giving them an individual application.
Others make the first horseman a symbol of the gospel itself, but the gospel is not a living, active, intelligent agent, such as the symbol evidently is, but is only a system of the revealed truth. All congruity and appropriateness in the comparison is lacking.
But let us give this symbol further consideration. It is not enough that its interpretation alone be given, but the reader is justly entitled to a knowledge of the process by which we arrive at the truth. In the first place, we have a symbol of great dignity and excellence, and we must look for an object of corresponding character. The symbol is that of a living agent, and consequently, we must look for its fulfillment in an active, intelligent agent. The purity, or whiteness, of the horse on which the rider was seated would indicate an agency of mild, beneficent character. Finally, the symbol is drawn, as before stated, from the civil and military life of the Romans. Now, according to the laws of symbolic language, a symbol never represents an object like itself, but an analagous one in another department. A wild beast does not represent a wild beast, but something of analagous character. Seven fat and seven lean kine do not represent kine like themselves, but something analagous—seven years of plenty and as many of famine. There are only two great series of events described in the Revelation—the history of ecclesiastical events and the political history of certain nations. The present symbol is drawn from one of these departments—the political or the civil life of the Romans; and leaving the latter department to find its signification in another department, we have no place to go except into the department of ecclesiastical affairs. Entering, therefore, the spiritual realm, and looking about us for an object that perfectly meets every requirement of the symbol, we find it in the humble ministers of Christ, who boldly went forth in obedience to the divine command to extend the peaceful triumphs of the cross and to carry the gospel of the kingdom of God "into all the world." Mark 16:15-18; Mat. 28:19, 20. This succession of faithful, holy, devoted men is worthy of a place in Apocalyptic vision. They went forth "conquering and to conquer"; and the victories they gained were such as the world never witnessed before. Worthy are they to wear a victor's crown, for they have "fought a good fight."
Because of its connection with events following, it is necessary for us to consider the divine position of these first ministers of the church. Their equality is clearly taught in the New Testament. Christ gave them the express command, "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Mat. 23:8. When two of the disciples manifested a desire to gain preeminence over their brethren and their aspirations displeased the ten, Christ said to them all, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you." Mat. 20:25, 26. Thus a perfect standard of equality in the ministry is lifted up. The beloved apostle, the writer of the Revelation, when addressing the elders of the seven churches of Asia in particular, humbly and affectionately represented himself as their "brother and companion in tribulation." Rev. 1:9.
I will now adduce the testimony of several creditable historians, who are compelled to admit the humble equality of the New Testament ministry, notwithstanding the fact that some of them belonged to churches containing a very unequal ministry.
Mosheim says: "The rulers of the church were called their presbyters or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men.... Let no one confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church, with those of whom we read in the following ages. For, though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed extremely, and that in many respects." Vol. I, p. 99.
This fact is now admitted by nearly all denominations, even Episcopalians. In the work entitled "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," published by the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, New York, the author, one of their able advocates, makes the following admission concerning the title bishop in the New Testament, "that the name is there given to the middle order or presbyters; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning bishops, including of course the words overseer and oversight, which have the same derivation, is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade"—the presbyters or elders. Page 12.
The noted historian Waddington, also an Episcopalian, makes the same admission in the following words: "It is also true that in the earliest government of the first Christian society, that of Jerusalem, not the elders only, but the 'whole church' were associated with the apostles; and it is even certain that the terms bishop and elder or presbyter were, in the first instances, and for a short period, sometimes used synomously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order in the ministry." Church History, Part I, p. 41. The italicizing is mine.