Albert Barnes Commentary Revelation 1

The Revelation of Jesus Christ. This is evidently a title or caption of the whole book and is designed to comprise its entire substance, for all that the book contains would be embraced in the general declaration that it is a Revelation of Jesus Christ. The word rendered Revelation—apokalypsis, from which we have derived our word Apocalypse—properly means an uncovering, that is, nakedness—from apokalyptō, to uncover. It would apply to anything that had been covered up so as to be hidden from view—as by a veil, by darkness, or in an ark or chest—and then made manifest by removing the covering. It then comes to be used in the sense of disclosing or revealing by removing the veil of darkness or ignorance. As it is said, There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed (Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2). It may be applied to the disclosing or manifesting of anything that was before obscure or unknown. This may be done:

1. By instruction regarding that which was before obscure—that is, by statements of what was unknown before the statements were made; as in Luke 2:32, where it is said that Christ would be a light to lighten the Gentiles—phōs eis apokalypsin ethnōn—or when it is applied to the Divine mysteries, purposes, or doctrines, before obscure or unknown, but made clear by light revealed in the gospel (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 14:6; Ephesians 3:5).

2. By the event itself; as the manifestation of the wrath of God at the day of judgment will disclose the true nature of His wrath. After your hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Romans 2:5). For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation (Greek, revelation) of the sons of God (Romans 8:19); that is, until it shall be manifest by the event what they who are the children of God are to be.

   In this sense, the word is frequently applied to the second advent or appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, as disclosing Him in His glory, or showing what He truly is: 2 Thessalonians 1:7, When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed—en tē apokalypsei—in the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:7, Waiting for the coming (the revelation—tēn apokalypsin) of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:7, At the appearing (Greek, revelation) of Jesus Christ. See also 1 Peter 4:13, When his glory shall be revealed.

3. It is used in the sense of making known what is to come—whether by words, signs, or symbols—as if a veil were lifted from that which is hidden from human vision, or which is covered by the darkness of the unknown future. This is called a revelation because the knowledge of the event is in fact made known to the world by Him who alone can see it, and in such a manner as He pleases to employ, though many of the terms or the symbols may be, from the necessity of the case, obscure, and though their full meaning may be disclosed only by the event. It is in this sense, evidently, that the word is used here, and in this sense that it is more commonly employed when we speak of a revelation. Thus the Hebrew word gala is used in Amos 3:7: Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants. So Job 33:16, Then he openeth (marginal reading, revealeth or uncovereth, from the Hebrew) the ears of men; that is, in a dream, He discloses to their ears His truth before concealed or unknown. (Compare Daniel 2:22, 28-29; Daniel 10:1; Deuteronomy 29:29).

These ideas enter into the word as used in the passage before us. The idea is that of a disclosure of an extraordinary character, beyond the mere ability of man, by a special communication from heaven. This is manifest, not only from the usual meaning of this word but by the word prophecy in Revelation 1:3, and by all the arrangements by which these things were made known. The ideas which would be naturally conveyed by the use of this word in this connection are two:

1. That there was something which was before hidden, obscure, or unknown; and

2. That this was so disclosed by these communications as to be seen or known.

The things hidden or unknown were those which pertained to the future; the method of disclosing them was mainly by symbols. In the Greek, in this passage, the article is wanting—apokalypsis—a Revelation, not hē, the Revelation. This is omitted because it is the title of a book, and because the use of the article might imply that this was the only revelation, excluding other books claiming to be a revelation, or it might imply some previous mention of the book, or knowledge of it in the reader.

The simple meaning is that this was "a Revelation;" it was only a part of the Revelation which God has given to mankind. The phrase, "the Revelation of Jesus Christ," might, so far as the construction of the language is concerned, refer either to Christ as the subject or object.

It might either mean that Christ is the object revealed in this book, and that its great purpose is to make Him known—and so the phrase is understood in the commentary called Hyponoia (New York, 1844)—or it may mean that this is a revelation which Christ makes to mankind; that is, it is His in the sense that He communicates it to the world. That this latter is the meaning here is clear for three reasons:

1. Because it is expressly said in this verse that it was a revelation which God gave to Him;

2. Because it is said that it pertains to things which must shortly come to pass; and

3. Because, in fact, the revelation is a disclosure of events which were to happen, and not of the person or work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Which God gave to him. Which God imparted or communicated to Jesus Christ. This is in accordance with the representations everywhere made in the Scriptures, that God is the original fountain of truth and knowledge, and that, whatever was the original dignity of the Son of God, there was a mediatorial dependence on the Father. See John 5:19-20: Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him (deiknysin autō) all things that himself doeth.John 7:16: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.John 8:28: As my Father hath taught me (edidaxe me), I speak these things.John 12:49: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. See also John 14:10; John 17:7–8; Matthew 11:27; Mark 13:32.

The same mediatorial dependence, the apostle teaches us, still subsists in heaven in His glorified state and will continue until He has subdued all things (1 Corinthians 15:24–28); and hence, even in that state, He is represented as receiving the Revelation from the Father to communicate it to men.

To show to his servants. That is, to His people, to Christians, often represented as the servants of God or of Christ (1 Peter 2:16; Revelation 2:20; Revelation 7:3; Revelation 19:2; Revelation 22:3).

It is true that the word is sometimes applied preeminently to the prophets (1 Chronicles 6:49; Daniel 6:20) and to the apostles (Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; James 1:1), but it is also applied to the mass of Christians, and there is no reason why it should not be so understood here. The book was sent to the churches of Asia and was clearly designed for general use; and the contents of the book were evidently intended for the churches of the Redeemer in all ages and lands. Compare Revelation 1:3. The word rendered to show—deixai—commonly denotes to point out, to cause to see, to present to the sight, and is a word eminently appropriate here, as what was to be revealed was, in general, to be presented to the sight by sensible tokens or symbols.

Things which must shortly come to pass. Not all the things that will occur, but such as it was deemed of importance for His people to be made acquainted with. Nor is it certainly implied that all the things that are communicated would shortly come to pass, or would soon occur.

Some of them might perhaps lie in the distant future, and still, it might be true that there were those which were revealed in connection with them, which soon would occur. The word rendered "things"—ha—is a pronoun and might be rendered what: "he showed to his servants what things were about to occur," not implying that he showed all the things that would happen, but such as he judged to be needful for his people to know.

The word would naturally embrace those things which, in the circumstances, were most desirable to be known. The phrase rendered "must come to pass"—dei genesthai—would imply more than mere futurity. The word used (dei) means it needs, there is need of, and implies that there is some kind of necessity that the event should occur.

That necessity may either arise from the felt want of anything, as where it is absent or wanting (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 4.10; ibid. 7.5.9); or from the nature of the case, or from a sense of duty—as Matthew 16:21, Jesus began to show to his disciples that he must go (dei apelthein) to Jerusalem. (Mark 14:31; Luke 2:49). Or the necessity may exist because a thing is right and just, meaning that it ought to be done—as Luke 13:14, There are six days in which men ought to work—dei ergazesthai; Luke 13:16, And ought not this woman (ouk edei) whom Satan hath bound, etc., be loosed from this bond. (John 4:20; Acts 5:11, 29; 2 Timothy 2:6; Matthew 18:33; Matthew 25:27).

Or the necessity may be that it is conformable to the Divine arrangement or is made necessary by Divine appointment—as in John 3:14, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must (dei) the Son of man be lifted up;John 20:9, For as yet they knew not the Scriptures, that he must (dei) rise again from the dead. (Acts 14:22 and others). In the passage before us, it is implied that there was some necessity that the things referred to should occur. They were not the result of chance; they were not fortuitous. It is not, however, stated what was the ground of the necessity—whether because there was a want of something to complete a great arrangement, or because it was right and proper in existing circumstances, or because such was the Divine appointment.

They were events which, on some account, must certainly occur, and which therefore it was important should be made known. The real ground of the necessity probably was founded in the design of God in redemption. He intended to carry out His great plans in reference to His church, and the things revealed here must necessarily occur in the completion of that design.

The phrase rendered shortly—en tachei—is one whose meaning has been much controverted, and on which much has been made to depend in the interpretation of the whole book. The question has been whether the phrase necessarily implies that the events referred to were soon to occur, or whether it may have such an extent of meaning as to admit the supposition that the events referred to, though beginning soon, would embrace in their development far distant years and would reach the end of all things.

Those who maintain (as Professor Stuart) that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the portion in chapters 4-11 has special reference to Jerusalem and Judea, and the portion in chapters 12-19 to persecuting and heathen Rome, maintain the former opinion; those who suppose that chapters 4-11 refer to the irruption of Northern barbarians in the Roman empire, and chapter 12 and following to the rise and the persecutions of the Papal power, embrace the latter opinion. All that is proper in this place is, without reference to any theory of interpretation, to inquire into the proper meaning of the language, or to ascertain what idea it would naturally convey.

1. The phrase properly and literally means with quickness, swiftness, speed; that is, speedily, quickly, shortly (Robinson's Lexicon; Stuart in loc.). It is the same in meaning as tacheōs. Compare 1 Corinthians 4:19, But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will.Luke 14:21, Go out quickly into the streets.Luke 16:6, Sit down quickly, and write fifty.John 11:31, She rose up hastily (tacheōs) and went out.Galatians 1:6, That you are so soon removed (tacheōs) from him that called you. 1 Timothy 5:22, Lay hands suddenly on no man. See also Philippians 2:19, 24; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:9. The phrase used here—en tachei—occurs in Luke 18:8, he will avenge them speedily (literally, with speed); Acts 12:7, arise up quickly; Acts 22:18, get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; Acts 25:4, would depart shortly; Romans 16:20, bruise Satan under your feet shortly; and Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6. The essential idea is that the thing which is spoken of was soon to occur, or it was not a remote and distant event. There is the notion of rapidity, of haste, of suddenness. It is such a phrase as is used when the thing is on the point of happening and could not be applied to an event which was in the remote future, considered as an independent event standing by itself. The same idea is expressed, in regard to the same thing, in Revelation 1:3: the time is at hand—ho gar kairos engys; that is, it is near; it is soon to occur. Yet,

2. It is not necessary to suppose that the meaning is that all that there is in the book was soon to happen. It may mean that the series of events which were to follow in their proper order was soon to commence, though it might be that the sequel would be remote.

   The first in the series of events was soon to begin, and the others would follow in their train, though a portion of them, in the regular order, might be in a remote future. If we suppose that there was such an order, that a series of transactions was about to commence involving a long train of momentous developments, and that the beginning of this was to occur soon, the language used by John would be that which would be naturally employed to express it.

   Thus, in case of a revolution in a government, when a reigning prince should be driven from his kingdom, to be succeeded by a new dynasty which would long occupy the throne, and involving as the consequence of the revolution important events extending far into the future, we would naturally say that these things were shortly to occur, or that the time was near.

   It is customary to speak of a succession of events or periods as near, however vast or interminable the series may be, when the commencement is at hand. Thus we say that the great events of the eternal world are near; that is, the beginning of them is soon to occur. So Christians now speak often of the millennium as near, or as about to occur, though it is the belief of many that it will be protracted for many ages.

3. That this is the true idea here is clear, whatever general view of interpretation in regard to the book is adopted. Even Professor Stuart, who contends that the greater portion of the book refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the persecutions of heathen Rome, admits that "the closing part of the Revelation relates beyond all doubt to a distant period, and some of it to a future eternity" (II. p. 5); and if this is so, then there is no impropriety in supposing that a part of the series of predictions preceding this may lie also in a somewhat remote future. The true idea seems to be that the writer contemplated a series of events that were to occur, and that this series was about to commence. How far into the future it was to extend is to be learned by the proper interpretation of all the parts of the series.

And he sent. Greek: "Sending by his angel, signified it to his servant John." The idea is not precisely that He sent His angel to communicate the message, but that He sent by him, or employed him as an agent in doing it. The thing sent was rather the message than the angel.

And signified it. esēmanen. He indicated it by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in John 12:33; John 18:32; John 21:19; Acts 11:28; Acts 25:27, and in the passage before us, in all which places it is rendered signify, signifying, or signified. It properly refers to some sign, signal, or token by which anything is made known (Romans 4:11; Genesis 9:12–13; Genesis 17:11; Luke 2:12; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Corinthians 14:22) and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the events referred to were to be communicated to John—for nearly the whole book is made up of signs and symbols. If it is asked what was signified to John, it may be replied that either the word "it" may be understood, as in our translation, to refer to the Apocalypse or Revelation, or what he saw—hosa eide—as Professor Stuart supposes; or it may be absolute, without any object following, as Professor Robinson (Lexicon) supposes. The general sense is that, sending by His angel, He made to John a communication by expressive signs or symbols.

By his angel. That is, an angel was employed to cause these scenic representations to pass before the mind of the apostle. The communication was not made directly to him but was through the medium of a heavenly messenger employed for this purpose. Thus in Revelation 22:6, it is said, And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show to his servants the things which must shortly be done. Compare Revelation 22:8-9.

There is frequent allusion in the Scriptures to the fact that angels have been employed as agents in making known the Divine will, or in the revelations which have been made to men. Thus in Acts 7:53, it is said, Who have received the law by the disposition of angels.Hebrews 2:2, For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, etc.Galatians 3:19, And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Compare Acts 7:38 and Acts 7:53.

There is almost no further reference to the agency of the angel employed for this service in the book, and there is no distinct specification of what he did, or of his great agency in the case. John is everywhere represented as seeing the symbols himself, and it would seem that the agency of the angel was either to cause those symbols to pass before the apostle or to convey their meaning to his mind.

How far John himself understood the meaning of these symbols we do not have the means of knowing with certainty. The most probable supposition is that the angel was employed to cause these visions or symbols to pass before his mind, rather than to interpret them. If an interpretation had been given, it is inconceivable that it should not have been recorded, and there is no more probability that their meaning should have been disclosed to John himself for his private use than that it should have been disclosed and recorded for the use of others. It would seem probable, therefore, that John had only that view of the meaning of what he saw which anyone else might obtain from the record of the visions. Compare 1 Peter 1:10–12.

To his servant John. Nothing could be learned from this expression as to who John was, the author of the book, whether the apostle of that name or some other. It cannot be inferred from the use of the word servant, rather than apostle, that the apostle John was not the author, for it was not uncommon for the apostles to designate themselves merely by the words servants or servants of God. Compare Romans 1:1.

Who bore record of the word of God. This means who bore witness to, or testified of (emarturhse) the word of God. He regarded himself merely as a witness of what he had seen, and claimed only to make a fair and faithful record of it. John 21:24 states: This is the disciple which testifieth (o marturwn) of these things, and wrote these things.John 19:35 says: And he that saw it bore record—memarturhke.

Compare also the following passages, where the apostle uses the same word of himself: 1 John 1:2; 1 John 4:14. The expression here, the word of God, is one whose meaning has been much debated, and it is important in its bearing on the question of who authored the book of Revelation.

The main inquiry is whether the writer refers to the testimony which he bears in this book respecting the word of God; or whether he refers to some testimony on that subject in some other book with which those to whom he wrote were so familiar that they would at once recognize him as the author; or whether he refers to the fact that he had borne his testimony to the great truths of religion, and especially respecting Jesus Christ, as a preacher who was well known, and who would be characterized by this expression.

The phrase "the word of God"—ton logon tou Theou—occurs frequently in the New Testament (Acts 4:31; Acts 6:2, 7; Acts 11:1; Acts 12:24) and may either mean the word or doctrine respecting God—that which teaches what God is—or that which He speaks or teaches. It is more commonly used in the latter sense (compare the passages referred to above) and especially refers to what God speaks or commands in the gospel.

The fair meaning of this expression would be that John had borne faithful witness to, or testimony of, the truth which God had spoken to humanity in the gospel of Christ. As far as the language here used is concerned, this might apply either to a written or an oral testimony; either to a treatise like that of his gospel, to his preaching, or to the record which he was then making.

Vitringa and others suppose that the reference here is to the gospel which he had published, and which now bears his name. Lucke and others suggest it refers to the revelation made to him in Patmos, the record of which he now makes in this book. Professor Stuart and others believe it refers to the fact that he was a teacher or preacher of the gospel, and that the allusion is to the testimony which he had borne to the gospel, and for which he was an exile in Patmos.

Is it not possible that these conflicting opinions may be to some extent harmonized by supposing that in the use of the aorist tense—emarturhse—the writer meant to refer to a characteristic of himself, namely, that he was a faithful witness of the word of God and of Jesus Christ, whenever and however it was made known to him?

With an eye, perhaps, to the record which he was about to make in this book, and intending to include that, may he not also refer to what had been and was his well-known character as a witness of what God communicated to him? He had always borne this testimony.

He always regarded himself as such a witness. He had been an eyewitness of what had occurred in the life and at the death of the Savior (see Barnes on 2 Peter 1:17–18) and had, in all his writings and public administrations, borne witness to what he had seen and heard. For that (Revelation 1:9) he had been banished to Patmos, and he was now about to carry out the same characteristic of himself by bearing witness to what he saw in these new revelations.

This would be much in the manner of John, who often refers to this characteristic of himself (John 21:24; 1 John 1:2), as well as harmonize the different opinions. The meaning then of the expression who bore record of the word of God, as I understand it, is that it was a characteristic of the writer to bear simple but faithful testimony to the truth which God communicated to people in the gospel. If this is the correct interpretation, it may be remarked:

1. that this is such language as John the apostle would be likely to use, and yet
2. that it is not such language as an author would be likely to adopt if there was an attempt to forge a book in his name.

The artifice would be too refined to probably occur to anyone, for although perfectly natural for John, it would not be so natural for a forger of a book to select this circumstance and weave it thus unostentatiously into his narrative.

And of the testimony of Jesus Christ.

That is, in accordance with the interpretation above, of the testimony which Jesus Christ bore for the truth; not of a testimony respecting Jesus Christ. The idea is that Jesus Christ was Himself a witness to the truth, and that the writer of this book was a witness merely of the testimony which Christ had borne.

Whether the testimony of Jesus Christ was borne in His preaching when in the flesh, or whether made known to the writer by Him at any subsequent period, it was His office to make a faithful record of that testimony. As He had always before done that, so He was about to do it now in the new revelation made to Him in Patmos, which He regarded as a new testimony of Jesus Christ to the truth (Revelation 1:1).

It is remarkable that, in confirmation of this view, John so often describes the Lord Jesus as a witness, or represents Him as having come to bear His faithful testimony to the truth. Thus in Revelation 1:5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful and true witness.John 8:18: I am one that bear witness—o marturwn—of myself.John 18:37: To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness—ina marturhsw—to the truth.Revelation 3:14: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness—o martuv o pistov k.t.l.

Of this testimony which the Lord Jesus came to bring to humanity respecting eternal realities, the writer of this book says that he regarded himself as a witness. To the office of bearing such testimony he had been dedicated; that testimony he was now to bear, as he had always done.

And of all things that he saw. osa te eide.

This is the common reading in the Greek, and according to this reading it would properly mean, "and whatsoever he saw." That is, it would imply that he bore witness to "the word of God," and to "the testimony of Jesus Christ," and to "whatever he saw"—meaning that the things which he saw, and to which he refers, were things additional to those to which he had referred by "the word of God" and the "testimony of Christ."

From this it has been supposed that in the former part of the verse he refers to some testimony which he had formerly borne, as in his gospel or in his preaching, and that here he refers to what he "saw" in the visions of the Revelation as something additional to the former.

But it should be remembered that the word rendered and—te—is missing in a large number of manuscripts (see Wetstein) and that it is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament—as by Griesbach, Tittmann, and Hahn. The evidence is clear that it should be omitted. If so omitted, the reference is to whatever he had at any time borne his testimony to, and not particularly to what passed before him in the visions of this book.

It is a general affirmation that he had always borne a faithful testimony to whatever he had seen respecting the word of God and the testimony of Christ. The correct rendering of the whole passage then would be, And sending by His angel, He signifies it to His servant John, who bare record of [i.e., whose character and office it was to bear his testimony to] the word of God, [the message which God has sent to me,] and the testimony of Jesus Christ, [the testimony which Christ bore to the truth,] whatsoever he saw.

He concealed nothing; he held nothing back; he made it known precisely as it was seen by him.

Thus interpreted, the passage refers to what was a general characteristic of the writer, and is designed to embrace all that was made known to him, and to affirm that he was a faithful witness to it. There were doubtless special reasons why John was employed as the medium through which this communication was to be made to the church and the world. Among these reasons may have been the following:

1. That he was the "beloved disciple."
2. That he was the only surviving apostle.
3. That his character was such that his statements would be readily received (John 21:24; 3 John 1:12).
4. It may be that his mind was better fitted to be the medium of these communications than that of any other of the apostles—even if they had been then alive. There is almost no one whose mental characteristics are less correctly understood than those of the apostle John. Among the most gentle and amiable of men—with a heart so fitted for love as to be known as "the beloved disciple"—he yet had mental characteristics which made it proper that he should be called "a son of thunder" (Mark 3:17): a mind fitted to preserve and record the profound thoughts in his gospel, a mind of high poetic order, fitted for the magnificent conceptions in this book.

Blessed is he that reads. This means it is to be regarded as a privilege accompanied by many blessings to be permitted to note the disclosures to be made in this book—the important revelations concerning future times. Professor Stuart supposes that this refers to a public reading, and that the phrase "those who hear the words of this prophecy" refers to those who listened to the public reader, and that both the reader and hearer should regard themselves as highly favored.

It is, however, more in accordance with the usual meaning of the word translated "read" to suppose that it refers to the act of one's reading for oneself, to learn by reading. So Robinson (Lexicon) understands it. The Greek word could indeed bear the other interpretation (Acts 13:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15), but as this book was sent out to be read by Christians, and not merely to be in the hands of ministers of religion to be read by them to others, it is more natural to interpret the word in its usual sense.

And hear the words of this prophecy. This means as they will be declared or repeated by others; or perhaps the word hear is used in a sense that is not uncommon: that of giving attention to, or taking heed to. The general sense is that those who became acquainted in any way with what is communicated here were to be regarded as highly favored.

The writer does not say that they were blessed who understood it, or that those who read or heard it would fully understand it. However, it is clearly implied that there would be enough understanding of its meaning to make it a blessed condition to have become acquainted with it.

An author could not be supposed to say that one should regard one's condition as favored if one merely heard words that one could not understand, or had magnificent symbols placed before oneself that had no meaning to oneself. The word prophecy is used here in its stricter sense, denoting the disclosure of future events, as a large portion of the book is of this nature. It is here synonymous with Revelation in Revelation 1:1.

And keep those things which are written therein. This means to keep in mind those things that relate to the future, and to obey those things that are required as truth and duty. The blessing that results from possessing God's revealed truth is not merely in reading it or hearing it; it results from the fact that the truth is properly regarded and exerts a suitable influence over our lives. Compare Psalm 19:11: And in keeping of them there is great reward.

For the time is at hand. See Revelation 1:1. The word used here—egguv—has substantially the same meaning as the word "shortly" in Revelation 1:1. It would apply to any event whose beginning was soon to occur, even though the end might be remote, for the series of events might stretch far into the future.

It cannot be doubted, however, that the writer meant to urge upon them the importance of paying attention to these things, from the fact that, either entirely or in part, these things were soon to happen. It may be inferred from this verse that it is possible to so understand this book that it may convey useful instruction.

This is the only book in the Bible for which a special blessing is pronounced on the one who reads it; but certainly, a blessing would not be pronounced on the reading of a book that is entirely unintelligible. Therefore, while there may be many obscurities in this book, it is also to be assumed that it can be understood enough to be useful to Christians in supporting their faith and giving them elevated views of the final triumph of religion and of the glory of the world to come. Anything is a blessing that enables us with well-founded hope and joy to look forward to the heavenly world.

John to the seven churches which are in Asia. The word Asia is used in quite different senses by different writers. It is used:

1. As referring to the whole eastern continent now known by that name;
2. As either Asia or Asia Minor;
3. As that part of Asia which Attalus III, king of Pergamos, gave to the Romans, namely, Mysia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Caria, Pisidia, and the southern coast—that is, all in the western, southwestern, and southern parts of Asia Minor; and
4. In the New Testament, usually, as the southwestern part of Asia Minor, of which Ephesus was the capital. (See Barnes' Notes on Acts 2:9).

The word Asia is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but it occurs often in the books of Maccabees and in the New Testament. In the New Testament, it is not used in the large sense in which it is now, as applied to the whole continent, but in its largest meaning, it would include only Asia Minor.

It is also used, especially by Luke, as denoting the country that was called Ionia, or that which embraced the provinces of Caria and Lydia. Of this region Ephesus was the principal city, and it was in this region that the “seven churches” were situated. Whether there were more than seven churches in this region is not intimated by the writer of this book, and on that point, we have no certain knowledge.

It is evident that these seven were the principal churches, even if there were more, and that there was some reason why they should be particularly addressed. There is mention of some other churches in the neighborhood of these. Colosse was near to Laodicea; and from Colossians 4:13, it would seem not improbable that there was a church also at Hierapolis.

But there may have been nothing in their circumstances that demanded particular instruction or admonition, and they may have been on that account omitted. There is also some reason to suppose that though there had been other churches in that vicinity besides the seven mentioned by John, they had become extinct at the time when he wrote the book of Revelation.

It appears from Tacitus (Annals 14.27; compare also Pliny, Natural History 5.29) that in the time of Nero, A.D. 61, the city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake, in which earthquake, according to Eusebius, the adjacent cities of Colosse and Hierapolis were involved. Laodicea was, indeed, immediately rebuilt, but there is no evidence of the re-establishment of the church there before the time when John wrote this book.

The earliest mention we have of a church there, after the one referred to in the New Testament by Paul (Colossians 2:1; 4:13, 15-16), is in the time of Trajan, when Papias was bishop there, sometime between A.D. 98 and 117. It would appear, then, to be not improbable that at the time when the Apocalypse was written, there were in fact but seven churches in the vicinity.

Professor Stuart (i. 219) supposes that “seven, and only so many, may have been named, because the sevenfold divisions and groups of various objects constitute a conspicuous feature in the Apocalypse throughout.” But this reason seems too artificial; and it can hardly be supposed that it would influence the mind of John, in the specification by name of the churches to which the book was sent. If no names had been mentioned, and if the statement had occurred in glowing poetic description, it is not inconceivable that the number seven might have been selected for some such purpose.

Grace be to you and peace. This is the usual form of salutation in addressing a church. (See Barnes' Notes on Romans 1:7).

From him which is, and which was, and which is to come. This refers to Him who is everlasting—embracing all duration, past, present, and to come. No expression could more strikingly denote eternity than this. He now exists; He has existed in the past; He will exist in the future. There is an evident allusion here to the name JEHOVAH, the name by which the true God is appropriately designated in the Scriptures.

That name—from a Hebrew root meaning to be, to exist—seems to have been adopted because it denotes existence, or being, and because it denotes simply one who exists, referring merely to the fact of existence. The word has no variation of form and has no reference to time; it would embrace all time. That is, it is as true at one time as another that He exists.

Such a word would not be inappropriately paraphrased by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” or “who is to be”; and there can be no doubt that John referred to Him here as being Himself the eternal and uncreated existence, and as the great and original fountain of all being.

Those who desire to find a full discussion regarding the origin of the name JEHOVAH may consult an article by Professor Tholuck in the Biblical Repository, vol. iv, pp. 89–108. It is remarkable that there are some passages in heathen inscriptions and writings which bear a very strong resemblance to the language here used by John respecting God.

Thus Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, p. 354), speaking of a temple of Isis at Sais in Egypt, says, “It bore this inscription: ‘I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my veil no mortal can remove.’”—egw eimi pan to gegonov, kai on, kai esomenon kai ton emon peplon oudeiv tw ynhtov anekaluqen.

So Orpheus (in De Mundo) says, “Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all things are made by Jupiter.” So in Pausanias (Phocica, 12), “Jupiter was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be.” The reference in the phrase before us is to God as such, or to God considered as the Father. (Compare “Him” in Revelation 1:8).

And from the seven spirits which are before his throne. After all that has been written on this very difficult expression, it is still impossible to determine its meaning with certainty. The principal opinions which have been held regarding it are the following:

1. That it refers to God as such. This opinion is held by Eichhorn and is favoured by Ewald. No arguments derived from any parallel passages are urged for this opinion, nor can any such be found where God himself is spoken of as a sevenfold Spirit. But the objections to this view are so obvious as to be insuperable:

   1. If it refers to God as such, then it would be mere tautology, for the writer had just referred to Him in the phrase “from him who was,” etc.
   2. It is difficult to perceive in what sense “seven spirits” could be ascribed to God, or how He could be described as a being of “Seven Spirits.” At least, if He could be spoken of as such, there would be no objection to applying the phrase to the Holy Spirit.
   3. How could it be said of God himself that He was “before the throne”? He is everywhere represented as sitting on the throne, not as before it. It is easy to conceive of angels as standing before the throne; and of the Holy Spirit, it is more easy to conceive as being represented thus as ready to go forth and convey a heavenly influence from that throne, but it is impossible to conceive in what sense this could be applied to God as such.

2. The opinion held by Grotius and by John Henry Heinrichs that it refers to “the multiform providence of God,” or to God considered as operating in seven or many different ways. In support of this, Grotius appeals to Revelation 5:12; 7:12. But this opinion is so far-fetched, and it is so destitute of support, that it has found, it is believed, no other advocates and needs no further notice.

   It cannot be supposed that John meant to personify the attributes of the Deity, and then to unite them with God himself, and with the Lord Jesus Christ, and to represent them as real subsistences from which important blessings descend to men. It is clear that as by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” and by “Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness,” he refers to real subsistences, so he must here. Besides, if the attributes of God, or the modes of Divine operation, are denoted, why is the number seven chosen? And why are they represented as standing before the throne?

3. A third opinion is that the reference is to seven attending and ministering presence-angels—angels represented as standing before the throne of God, or in His presence. This opinion was adopted among the ancients by Clement of Alexandria, Andreas of Caesarea, and others; among the moderns by Beza, Drusius, Hammond, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Clarke, Professor Stuart, and others.

   This opinion, however, has been held in somewhat different forms: some maintaining that the seven angels are referred to because it was a received opinion among the Hebrews that there were seven angels standing in the presence of God, as seven princes stood in the Persian court before the king; others, that the angels of the seven churches are particularly referred to, represented now as standing in the presence of God; others, that seven angels, represented as the principal angels employed in the government of the world, are referred to; and others, that seven archangels are particularly designated. (Compare Poole's Synopsis, in loco). The arguments which are relied on by those who suppose that seven angels are here referred to are briefly these:

   1. The nature of the expression here used. The expression, it is said, is such as would naturally denote beings who were before His throne—beings who were different from Him who was on the throne—and beings more than one in number. That it could not refer to one on the throne, but must mean those distinct and separate from one on the throne, is argued from the use of the phrases “before the throne” and “before God” in Revelation 4:5; 7:9, 15; 8:2; 11:4, 16; 12:10; 14:3; 20:12; in all these places, the representation denotes those who were in the presence of God and standing before Him.
   2. It is argued from other passages in the book of Revelation which, it is said (Professor Stuart), go directly to confirm this opinion. Thus in Revelation 8:2: “And I saw the seven angels which stood before God.” So in Revelation 4:5, the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne are said to be “the seven Spirits of God.” In these passages, it is alleged that the article “the” designates the well-known angels, or those which had been before specified, and that this is the first mention of any such angels after the designation in the passage before us.
   3. It is said that this is in accordance with what was usual among the Hebrews, who were accustomed to speak of seven presence-angels, or angels standing in the presence of Jehovah. Thus in the book of Tobit (12:15), Raphael is introduced as using this language: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” The apocryphal book of Enoch (chapter 20) gives the names of the seven angels who watch; that is, of the watchers (compare Barnes' Notes on Daniel 4:13, 17) who stand in the presence of God waiting for the Divine commands, or who watch over the affairs of men. So in the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster, seven amshaspends, or archangels, are mentioned. (See Professor Stuart, in loco).

   To these views, however, there are objections of great weight, if they are not in fact quite insuperable. They are such as the following:

   1. That the same rank should be given to them as to God, as the source of blessings. According to the view which represents this expression as referring to angels, they are placed on the same level, so far as the matter before us is concerned, with “Him who was, and is, and is to come,” and with the Lord Jesus Christ—a doctrine which does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures, and which we cannot suppose the writer designed to teach.
   2. That blessings should be invoked from angels—as if they could impart “grace and peace.” It is evident that, whoever is referred to here by the phrase “the seven spirits,” he is placed on the same level with the others mentioned as the source of “grace and peace.” But it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would invoke that grace and peace from any but a Divine being.
   3. That as two persons of the Trinity are here mentioned, it is to be presumed that the third would not be omitted; or to put this argument in a stronger form, it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would mention two of the persons of the Trinity in this connection, and then not only not mention the third, but refer to angels—to creatures—as bestowing that which would be appropriately sought from the Holy Spirit. The incongruity would be not merely in omitting all reference to the Spirit—which might indeed occur, as it often does in the Scriptures—but in putting in the place which that Spirit would naturally occupy an allusion to angels as conferring blessings.
   4. If this refers to angels, it is impossible to avoid the inference that angel-worship, or invocation of angels, is proper. To all intents and purposes, this is an act of worship, for it is an act of solemn invocation. It is an acknowledgment of the “seven spirits” as the source of “grace and peace.” It would be impossible to resist this impression on the popular mind; it would not be possible to meet it if urged as an argument in favor of the propriety of angel-invocation or angel-worship. And yet, if there is anything clear in the Scriptures, it is that God alone is to be worshipped. For these reasons, it seems to me that this interpretation cannot be well founded.

4. There remains a fourth opinion, that it refers to the Holy Spirit, and in favor of that opinion it may be urged:

   1. That it is most natural to suppose that the Holy Spirit would be invoked on such an occasion, in connection with Him “who was, and is, and is to come,” and with “Jesus Christ.” If two of the persons of the Trinity were addressed on such an occasion, it would be properly supposed that the Holy Spirit would not be omitted as one of the persons from whom the blessing was to descend. (Compare 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.”)
   2. It would be unnatural and improper, in such an invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to men. An invocation to God to send His angels, or to impart grace and favor through angelic help, would be in entire accordance with the usage in Scripture, but it is not in accordance with such usage to invoke such blessings from angels.

   3. It cannot be denied that an invocation of grace from “Him who is, and was, and is to come,” is of the nature of worship. The address to Him is as God, and the attitude of the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act of devotion.

      The effect of uniting any other being with Him in such a case would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with Him. Regarding the Lord Jesus, “the faithful and true witness,” it is from such expressions as these that we are led to the belief that He is Divine and that it is proper to worship Him as such.

      The same effect must be produced in reference to what is here called “the seven spirits before the throne.” We cannot well resist the impression that someone with Divine attributes is intended; or, if it refers to angels, we cannot easily show that it is not proper to render Divine worship to them. If they were thus invoked by an apostle, can it be improper to worship them now?

   4. The word used here is not angels, but spirits; and though it is true that angels are spirits, and that the word spirit is applied to them (Hebrews 1:7), yet it is also true that it is not a word which would be understood to refer to them without designating that angels were meant. If angels had been intended here, that word would naturally have been used, as is the case elsewhere in this book.

   5. In Revelation 4:5, where there is a reference to “the seven lamps before the throne,” it is said of them that they “are,” that is, they represent, “the seven spirits of God.” This passage may be understood as referring to the same thing as that before us, but it cannot be well understood of angels, for:

      1. If it did, it would have been natural to use that language for the reason above mentioned.
      2. The angels are nowhere called “the spirits of God,” nor would such language be proper. The phrase “Spirit of God” naturally implies divinity and could not be applied to a creature.

      For these reasons, it seems to me that the interpretation which applies the phrase to the Holy Spirit is to be preferred; and though that interpretation is not free from difficulties, yet there are fewer difficulties in that than in either of the others proposed. Though it may not be possible wholly to remove the difficulties involved in that interpretation, yet perhaps something may be done to diminish their force.

   1. First, as to the reason why the number seven should be applied to the Holy Spirit:

      1. There would be certainly as much propriety in applying it to the Holy Spirit as to God as such. And yet Grotius, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others saw no difficulty in such an application considered as representing a sevenfold mode of operation of God, or a manifold Divine agency.
      2. The word seven often denotes a full or complete number and may be used to denote that which is full, complete, or manifold; and might thus be used in reference to an all-perfect Spirit, or to a spirit which was manifold in its operations.
      3. The number seven is evidently a favorite number in the book of Revelation, and it might be used by the author in places, and in a sense, such as it would not be likely to be used by another writer. Thus there are seven epistles to the seven churches; there are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials of the wrath of God, seven last plagues; there are seven lamps, and seven Spirits of God; the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes. In Revelation 1:16, seven stars are mentioned; in Revelation 5:12, seven attributes of God; in Revelation 12:3, the dragon has seven heads; in Revelation 13:1, the beast has seven heads.
      4. The number seven, therefore, may have been given to the Holy Spirit with reference to the diversity or the fulness of His operations on the souls of men, and to His manifold agency on the affairs of the world, as further developed in this book.
   2. As to His being represented as “before the throne,” this may be intended to designate the fact that the Divine Spirit was, as it were, prepared to go forth, or to be sent forth, in accordance with a common representation in the Scriptures, to accomplish important purposes on human affairs. The posture does not necessarily imply inferiority of nature, any more than the language does respecting the Son of God, when He is represented as being sent into the world to execute an important commission from the Father. (Regarding “seven Spirits,” see also Revelation 3:1; Revelation 4:5).

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. (See Barnes on Revelation 1:2).

He is faithful in the sense that he is one on whose testimony there may be entire reliance, or who is entirely worthy to be believed. From him "grace and peace" are appropriately sought, as one who bears such a testimony, and as the first-begotten from the dead, and as reigning over the kings of the earth. Thus grace and peace are invoked from the infinite God in all his relations and operations: as the Father, the Source of all existence; as the Sacred Spirit, going forth in manifold operations upon the hearts of men; and as the Son of God, the one appointed to bear faithful testimony to the truth respecting God and future events.

And the first-begotten of the dead. The same Greek expression—prwtotokov—occurs in Colossians 1:18. (See Barnes on Colossians 1:18).

Compare Barnes on 1 Corinthians 15:20.

And the prince of the kings of the earth. Who has over all the kings of the earth the pre-eminence which kings have over their subjects. He is the Ruler of rulers; King of kings. In Revelation 17:14 and Revelation 19:16, the same thought is expressed by saying that he is the "King of kings."

No language could more sublimely denote his exalted character or his supremacy. Kings and princes sway a scepter over the millions of the earth, and the exaltation of the Savior is here expressed by supposing that all those kings and princes constitute a community over which he is the head. The exaltation of the Redeemer is elsewhere expressed in different language, but the idea is one that everywhere prevails in regard to him in the Scriptures. Compare Matthew 28:18; Matthew 11:27; John 17:2; Ephesians 1:20–22; Philippians 2:9–11; Colossians 1:15–18.

The word prince—o arcwn—means properly ruler, leader, the first in rank. We often apply the word prince to an heir to a throne who is not invested with absolute sovereignty. The word here, however, denotes that he actually exercises dominion over the rulers of the earth. As this is an authority which is claimed by God (compare Isaiah 10:5 and following; Isaiah 45:1 and following; Psalms 47:2; Psalms 99:1; Psalms 103:19; Daniel 4:34) and which can only pertain to God, it is clear that in ascribing this to the Lord Jesus it is implied that he possesses Divine attributes.

Since many of the revelations of this book pertained to the assertion of power over the princes and rulers of this world, it was fitting that, in the beginning, it should be asserted that he who was to exert that power was invested with the prerogative of a ruler of the nations and that he had this right of control.

Unto him that loved us. This refers undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus, whose love for humankind was so strong that nothing more was necessary to characterize him than to speak of him as the one "who loved us."

It is clear that the division in the verses should have been made here, for this commences a new subject, not having any special connection with what precedes. In Revelation 1:4 and the first part of this verse, the writer had invoked grace from the Father, the Spirit, and the Savior.

In the latter clause of the verse, an ascription of praise to the Redeemer begins; an ascription to him particularly, because the whole book is regarded as a revelation from him (Revelation 1:1), because he was the one who especially appeared to John in the visions of Patmos, and because he was to be the great agent in carrying out the purposes revealed in this book.

And washed us from our sins in his own blood. He has removed the pollution of sin from our souls by his blood; that is, his blood has been applied to cleanse us from sin. Blood can be represented as having a cleansing power only as it makes an expiation for sin, for considered literally its effect would be the reverse.

The language is such as would be used only on the supposition that he had made an atonement, and that it was by the atonement that we are cleansed; for in what sense could it be said of a martyr that he "had washed us from our sins in his blood?" How could this language be used of Paul or Polycarp; of Ridley or Cranmer?

The doctrine that the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin, or purifies us, is one that is common in the Scriptures. Compare 1 John 1:7; Hebrews 9:14. The specific idea of washing, however—representing that blood as washing sin away—is one which does not elsewhere occur. It is evidently used in the sense of cleansing or purifying, as we do this by washing, and the blood of Christ accomplishes regarding our souls what washing with water does regarding the body.