CHAPTER II.
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN BROAD PRINCIPLES, ON WHICH THE APOCALYPSE IS
TO BE INTERPRETED.-IT IS A SYMBOLIC PROPHECY, AND MUST BE TRANSLATED INTO
ORDINARY LANGUAGE BEFORE IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD.
It is clear that before a student can understand a given work, he must
be acquainted with the language in which the book is written; and he must
read it as written in that language, not in another. If the work be in
French, he will fail to decipher its meaning if he reads the words as
Latin or as English.
In what language is the Apocalypse written? Is it to be understood literally?
If not, on what principle is it to be interpreted?
It is obvious to the most superficial reader, that in its actual texture
and construction, the Apocalypse is a record of visions that are past.
All allow that it is nevertheless, as to its meaning, a prophecy of events
that are future; or were future at the time that the visions were granted
to St. John. The angel calls the book a prophecy, "seal not the sayings
of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand." Of its prophetic
character there can therefore be no more question, than that its form
is a record of past visions. In the strictest sense then no one understands
the book literally; for the statement, "I saw a beast rise up out
of the sea," taken literally, is in no sense whatever a prophecy
; it is a narrative of a past event, not a prediction of a future one.
Such literalism as this is divinely excluded. John beheld things which
were to take place "hereafter," but the future was signified
to the apostle in a series of visions.
The book is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him,
to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and
He sent and signified it by his angel, unto his servant John."
To "signify" is to show by signs, to intimate your meaning,
not in plain words, but by signs and symbols.
Now it were clearly folly, to confound the sign with the thing signified.
In a language of signs, each sign and each combination of signs, has a
definite meaning. The first verse of the book therefore answers our first
question about it: is it to be understood literally? No! IT is A BOOK
OF SIGNS. Its true meaning is veiled under significant figures, and a
process of translation must take place, ere that true meaning can be reached.
Each symbol used, must be separately studied, and its force gathered,
from its context, from comparison with other scriptures, from its own
nature, and from such explanations as are given in the prophecy itself,
before we can expect to discover the mind of the Spirit of God in this
book.
If on opening a letter from a friend, the first sentence that met the
eye was "I write in Latin in order that my letter may not be understood
by all," we should at once be prepared to translate as we read; we
should not pore over a certain combination of letters and syllables, trying
in vain to make some intelligible English word out of them; we should
say the word is so and so, but the meaning is so and so. In reading the
symbolic portion of the Apocalypse, we are bound to do the same; on no
other principle can anything like a consistent interpretation be attained.
The nature of the case forbids it. And yet an opposite maxim of interpretation
is often laid down; it is said, take everything literally unless you are
forced by impossibility in the nature of things, to give a symbolic signification.
This is like saying, if you can find any combination of letters or syllables
in this Latin letter, that will form any English word, take it as English,
but where you cannot possibly make anything out of them as English, then
no doubt they are Latin. What a singularly lucid communication would be
the result of such a system of interpretation I And yet, alas! it is in
connection with the Apocalypse too common, among some, whose spirituality
and intelligence ought to be fruitful of more wisdom. Such interpreters
argue in defence of the monstrosities evoked by their hybrid system, somewhat
in this way: "The Nile was once literally turned to blood, we doubt
not therefore that this prediction, Revelation viii.8, the third part
of the sea became blood, means just what it says.; God, who wrought the
one miracle, can accomplish the other." Undoubtedly: the question
is not what God can do, but what He here says He will do. Now Exodus is
a literal history; when it says the river became blood it means it; Revelation
is, a symbolic prophecy, when therefore it says "the third part of
the sea became blood," it does not mean it, but it means something
entirely different; and it is needful not only to substitute a future
for a past time, but to translate these symbols into plain language, in
order to ascertain what the meaning really is.
It would be ludicrous, were it not painful, to contemplate the absurdities
and inconsistencies, which have arisen from a neglect of this simple and
almost self-evident maxim of interpretation, demanded by the opening verse
of the book, as well as by its whole construction. To overlook it is to
turn the most majestic and comprehensive prophecy in the Bible, into a
chaos of vague monstrosities, unworthy of being attributed to inspiration;
it is "to degrade the highest and latest of God s holy revelations,
into a grotesque patchwork of unmeaning prodigies.
Prophecy like science has its own peculiar language; for understanding
the prophecies, therefore, as Sir Isaac Newton justly observes, we are
in the first place to acquaint ourselves with the figurative language
of the prophets. "In the infancy of society ideas were more copious
than words; hence . . . men were obliged to employ the few words which
they possessed, not only in their natural and direct sense, but likewise
in an artificial and tropical sense. . . . Half civilized nations abound
in metaphor and allegory. . . . Why is it that a Cherokee warrior talks
of burying the hatchet and of lighting the pipe?
His meagre language cannot supply him with the various terms, which the
precision of modern diplomacy has rendered familiar to Europeans, and
therefore he expresses the making of peace by allusion to certain well
known ceremonies attendant upon it. . . . If such then of necessity was
the language of defective civilization, such also would be the first rude
attempt to express it in writing. The earliest manuscripts were neither
more nor less than pictures, but these pictures closely followed the analogy
of spoken language: . . . hence they were partly proper and partly tropical.
A member of a half civilized community, who wished to express to the eye
the naked idea of a man, would rudely delineate the picture of a man,
. . a brave, and ferocious, and generous man, he was already accustomed
to denominate a lion, if therefore he wished to express such a man in
writing, he would delineate a lion.
Nation bears to nation, the same relation, that individual bears to individual.
Hence, according to their attributed characteristics, this nation would
be the lion; that would be the bear; and that would be the tiger. . .
. The general prevalence of the science of heraldry in all ages, under
one modification or another, perpetuated and extended the form of speech
to which it owed its origin. Thus the dove was the ancient banner of the
Assyrian empire. . . . Such is the principle on which is built the figurative
language of prophecy. Like the ancient hieroglyphics, and like those non-alphabetic
characters which are derived from them, it is a language of ideas rather
than of words. It speaks by pictures, quite as much as by sounds. Nor
is this derogatory to the all-wise spirit of prophecy when God deigns
to converse with man, He must use the language of man. The Scriptures
were designed for the whole world; hence it was meet, that their predictions
should be couched in what may be termed a universal language. But the
only universal language in existence, is the language of hieroglyphics.
To understand this character, we have not the least occasion to understand
the spoken language of the nation who uses it, . . not being alphabetic
it is the representative, not of words but of things. . . . Let the conventional
mark be extended to the whole world, and we have forthwith a written universal
language Our common numerical cyphers, so far as they extend, form a universal
language; for the figures 1, 2 or 3 convey the same ideas to each person
that uses them, by whatever different names the numbers themselves may
be called. In the use of this language there is by no means that obscurity
and uncertainty which some pretend. They might just as reasonably throw
aside a Chinese inscription as incapable of being deciphered. Without
a key neither can be understood, but when the key is procured, the book
will very readily be opened. Now the key to the scriptural hieroglyphics,
is furnished by Scripture itself and when the import of each hieroglyphic
is thus ascertained, there is little difficulty in translating, as it
were, a hieroglyphical prophecy, into the unfigured phraseology of modern
language. . . . When once it is known that a wild beast is the symbol
of an idolatrous and persecuting empire, and when the empire intended,
has been satisfactorily ascertained, it matters not whether this deed
or that deed be verbally ascribed to the empire, or symbolically ascribed
to the wild beast. Either mode of speech is equally intelligible.
In any case the elements of a language must be first learned, but when
that has been accomplished, the rest will follow of course, whether the
language in question be verbal or hieroglyphical.* (* Faber s "Sacred
Calendar of Prophecy," vol. 1., chap. i.)
It is hardly needful to add that there are exceptions to this rule as
to every other. Plain predictive sentences and literal explanatory clauses
are interspersed here and there, amid the signs of this book. They stand
out from the general text, as distinctly as a few words of English introduced
here and there in a page of a Greek book would do; it needs no signpost
to say "adopt a literal interpretation here." They speak for
themselves, common sense dispenses with critical canons, and recognises
them unaided.
Any system of interpretation that violates this fundamental law of the
book is thereby stamped as erroneous. The system that says: "Babylon
means Babylon; and the literal ancient Babylon, will, we are bound to
believe, be revived," must be false. In the Apocalypse, Babylon does
not mean Babylon, nor Jerusalem Jerusalem, nor a Jew a Jew, nor the temple
the temple ; the system therefore that says "all this Jewish imagery
proves that the book has reference to the future of the Jewish nation,
and not to the future of the church," must be false. All this Jewish
imagery is symbolic; these things are used as signs. Everything connected
with Israel was typical of things connected with the church. The things
signified must therefore be Christian, otherwise the sign and the thing
signified, would be one and the same. The system that says the. New Jerusalem
is a literal city, 1500 miles square and 1500 high (!), made of gems and
gold, must be false; the New Jerusalem is a sign; the thing signified,
is the glorified church of Christ, as comparison with other Scripture
proves.*
(*"The application of symbols literally seems to me to be very false
in principle, and a very unsuitable mode of interpretation. It is the
denial that they are symbols. I believe the language of symbols to be
as definite as any other, and always used in the same sense as much as
language is."-J. N. DARBY, "Notes on Revelation," p. 31.)
The Divine explanation attached to some of the earliest symbols employed
in the book, furnish the key by which much of its sign language is to
be interpreted. They are to the symbology of the Apocalypse, what the
Rosetta stone was to the hieroglyphics of Egypt. "The seven stars
are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks which
thou sawest are the seven churches." The seven branched candlestick;
was one of the most important emblematic vessels in the tabernacle "which
was a figure for the time then present" of spiritual realities. John
saw seven separate candlesticks, and saw Christ the great High Priest,
walking in their midst, like Aaron, trimming his lamps. He tells John
what the emblem represents; the seven candlesticks symbolised the seven
churches of Asia. This explanation authorizes us whenever we meet the
same symbol of a candlestick, to attach to it the same signification;
and it does more. .The candlestick was one feature of the tabernacle and
temple economy, in which every feature was typical of heavenly things;
many other symbols borrowed from the same system, appear in the Apocalypse:
this one key unlocks them all. We have no right to say that the ark of
the covenant, the altar, the sea of glass, the temple of the tabernacle
of the testimony, the court, the holy city, the New Jerusalem, the priests
and their garments, or the worshippers, are to be taken literally. We
are bound on the contrary to interpret them all on one harmonious principle.
The seven candlesticks mean seven Christian churches, that is, they are
a perfect representation of the Christian church. A Christian and not
a Jewish sense, then, must attach to all the rest. The seven stars are
not a part of the tabernacle system, but they are equally symbols, standing
for a reality of an entirely different nature. Whatever the angels of
the churches were, they were not stars; and whenever we meet with this
symbol in the book, we may be sure from the Lord s translation of it here,
that it will not mean literal stars, but rulers, governors, chief men,
messengers, or something analogous. "The seven, stars are the angels
of the seven churches." What sort of consistency would there be in
the book, if a star in one place meant a ruler, and in the next a literal
star? Language used in so indeterminate and inexplicable a way, would
cease to answer then purpose of language; no definite meaning could attach
to it. The study of the Apocalypse might well be abandoned, as more hopeless
than that of the hieroglyphics, or the arrow-headed inscriptions of remotest
antiquity; for these we possess keys, for the Apocalypse none, of our
Lord s own explanations are rejected as such. There is another indication
of the same kind in the twice repeated expression, "which say they
are Jews and are not, but do lie." The parties alluded to clearly
were literal Jews, but being unbelievers, our Lord here denies to them
the name, thereby taking from "few" thenceforth, its old literal
meaning and confining it to a higher sense. "He is not a Jew which,
is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the
flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that
of the heart." These explanations and indications at the commencement
of this prophecy, are like a Divine warning against the error of taking
these Jewish emblems literally; in the Apocalypse they must uniformly
be interpreted as signs of other things.
In every part of Scripture it is the spirit, and not the letter, that
is life and light giving; how especially must this be the case in a part
where the letter, that is the outward form and expression of the truth,
is so mysterious, so enigmatical, so unspiritual, as in the Apocalypse?
Popery has surely read the church of Christ a lesson, as to the danger
of a false literalism; and yet if there be an apparently simple sentence
in the Bible it is surely "this is my body." How can they who
object to a literal interpretation of these words, consistently claim
one for the strange supernatural symbolisms of the Apocalypse? "That
literalism is to be renounced which involves a contradiction to the purified
reason, or narrows and contracts the messages of God below the instincts
of a holy and spiritual mind." * (*Birks, "Elements," p.
252.)
Another argument for the symbolic and Christian nature of this book may
be drawn from the fact that it is written by John. A unity of character
and style generally attaches To the different writings of the same author;
and, subordinate To the higher unity of inspiration, this may be detected
in the writings of the New Testament. One who is familiar with the style
of Paul, for instance, would find it hard To believe that any one else
was the author of the epistle To the Hebrews; and one who has entered
into the peculiar matter and manner and spirit of John s gospel would;
even were they anonymous, assign his three epistles To him. They are characterized
by the same selection of high and deep truth; by the same spirituality
and unearthliness; by the same profound simplicity of style; by the same
massive divisions, which overlook all minor distinctions; by the same
unguarded breadth of statement, which leaves aside qualifying limitations;
by the same marked, abrupt, contrasts; by the same ignoring of the Jews,
and disowning of everything Jewish, based on the great fact stated at
the commencement of the gospel, "He came unto his own, and his own
received Him not "; and by a recurrence of many of the very same
ideas and forms of expression. It may safely be asserted that John, is
the least Jewish and the least earthly of all the apostles, and of all
the writers of the New Testament.
The Apocalypse is written by this same John; not only it claims To be
so, and is proved by external evidence To be so, but it bears internal
evidence of the fact. Though in very. different connections, we meet with
too many of the peculiar thoughts and expressions of John, To admit of
any doubt as To the authorship of the book. "The Word of God,"
"the light," "a voice," "the Lamb of God,"
"the witnesses," the ascending and descending angels, the temple,
the temple of his body, the living water, the shepherd leading the sheep;
these and many such points of resemblance, recall continually, that the
apostle favoured To receive the Revelation of Jesus Christ, was "that
disciple whom Jesus loved," and of whom He said, "if I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that To thee?"
Now, if we take the Revelation as a symbolic prophecy, predicting the
fortunes of the Christian church throughout this dispensation, it is harmonious
with all the rest. The strange outward material symbols are only signs;
the things signified are mighty spiritual realities; the book is one grand
contrast throughout; it traces the long and deadly conflict between the
Lamb and the Beast, qeriou and arnion, and their respective armies, between
the whore associated with the Beast, and the bride of the Lamb, the false
and faithless church, and the true and faithful church. In spite of all
the Jewish symbolism, (which is natural from the typical character of
the Jewish economy, and the antitypical character of the Christian) the
Jews and their fortunes, are scarcely glanced at in the book; which; starting
from a period subsequent to the final destruction of Jerusalem, and to
the dispersion of the Jews, occupies itself, nor Gentile. The whole drama
as it is enacted before us, recalls such words of John’s earlier
writings as, "ye are from beneath, I am from above "; "ye
seek to kill Me "; "ye are of your father the devil ";
the time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God
service ; "in the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good
cheer, I have overcome the world": "0 righteous Father, the
world hath not known Thee, but these have known Thee "; "art
Thou a king then? for this end was I born, and for this cause came I into
the world " "behold your king "; "he is antichrist
that denieth the Father and the Son"; "the world passeth away
"; "it is the last time"; "when He shall appear we
shall be like Him," "for this purpose was the Son of God manifested,
that He might destroy the works of the devil"."boldness in the
day of judgment, because as He is so are we in this world". "this
is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith". "he
that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath
not life."
These and many other thoughts, familiar To us from the gospel and epistles
of John, shine out with their old lustre in their new surroundings; reading
Revelation as a symbolic prophecy, we feel that it is as characteristic
of the soaring, eagle eyed, spiritual apostle, as any of his writings.
But if it be a record of mere material wanders To happen after the Christian
church has been removed To heaven, in connection with a future Jewish
remnant, how singularly unlike is it, To anything John was ever inspired
To write! What a rude and incomprehensible contrast, would exist between
this and all his other productions!
And finally the principle of progressive revelation, demands that these
visions should not be taken as literal predictions of a coming crisis
at the end of the age. Other previous prophecies, had already brought
down the chain of events To the destruction and fall of Jerusalem, and
our Lord Himself in treating of it, passed on To the final crisis, of
which it was a precursor. The one and only period, unillumined by prophetic
light was the church’s history on earth. Our Lord had revealed little,
save its general character as a time of tribulation; the other apostles
had foretold certain events which were To characterize its course; it
remained for the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave To Him, and
which He now sends, as his last gift To the churches, To map it out in
detail, and present in a mystic form, all its lea ding outlines. If the
Apocalypse merely went over again, the events of the final crisis, it
would not be an advance on all previous revelation, as its place in the
canon of Scripture warrants our concluding that it is. To be this, it
must be a symbolical history of the Christian dispensation.
Index I. 1 2 3 II. 1 2 3 III. 1 2 IV. a. 1 2 b. 1 2 3 c. 1 2 3 4 5 6
