Albert Barnes Commentary Revelation 10:4

"And when the seven thunders uttered [their voices], I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying, Seal up the things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not." — Revelation 10:4 (ASV)

And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices. After he had listened to those thunders, or when they had passed by.

I was about to write. This means he was about to record what was uttered, supposing that this was the design for which he had been made to hear them.

From this it would seem that it was not mere thunder—brutum fulmen—but that the utterance had a distinct and intelligible enunciation, or that words were employed that could be recorded.

It may be observed, by the way, as Professor Stuart has remarked, that this proves John wrote down what he saw and heard as soon as practicable, and in the place where he was. This also suggests that the supposition of many modern critics—that the Apocalyptic visions were written at Ephesus a considerable time after the visions took place—has no good foundation.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying to me. Evidently, this was the voice of God; at all events, it came with the clear force of command.

Seal up those things. Regarding the word seal, see the comments on Revelation 5:1.

The meaning here is that he was not to record those things; instead, what he heard he was to keep to himself, as if it were placed under a seal that was not to be broken.

And write them not. Make no record of them. No reason is mentioned why this was not to be done, and none can now be given that can be proved to be the true reason.

Vitringa, who regards the seven thunders as referring to the Crusades, supposes the reason was that a more full statement would have diverted the mind from the course of the prophetic narrative and from more important events concerning the church. He also believed that nothing occurred in the Crusades worthy of being recorded at length: Nec dignae erant quae prolixius exponerentur—"for," he adds, "these expeditions were undertaken with a foolish purpose, and resulted in real detriment to the church" (pp. 431, 432).

Professor Stuart (vol. ii. pp. 204-206) supposes that these "thunders" refer to the destruction of the city and temple of God, and that they were a sublime introduction to the last catastrophe. He suggests the meaning is not that John should keep "entire silence," but only that he should state the circumstances in a general manner without going into detail.

Mede supposes that John was commanded to keep silence because it was designed that the meaning should not then be known, but should be disclosed in future times. Forerius believed it was because the wise should be able to understand them, while they were not to be disclosed to the wicked and profane.

Without attempting to examine these and other proposed solutions, the question properly before us from the course of the exposition is whether, on the supposition that the voice of the seven thunders referred to the Papal anathemas, a rational and satisfactory solution for the reasons of this silence can be given. Without pretending to know the reasons that existed, the following may be referred to as not improbable and as those that would meet the case:

1. In these Papal anathemas, there was nothing worthy of record; there was nothing important as history, nothing that communicated truth, and nothing that really indicated progress in human affairs. In themselves, there was nothing more deserving record than the acts and doings of wicked men at any time—nothing that aligned with the main design of this book.

2. Such a record would have retarded the progress of the main statements about what was to occur and would have diverted attention from these to less important matters.

3. All that was necessary in the case was simply to state that such thunders were heard. That is, on the supposition that this refers to the Reformation, that great change in human affairs would not be permitted to occur without opposition and noise—as if the thunders of wrath should follow those engaged in it.

4. John evidently mistook this for a real revelation, or for something to be recorded as connected with the Divine will regarding the progress of human affairs. He was naturally about to record this, just as he recorded what was uttered by the other voices he heard. If he had made the record, it would have been with this mistaken view. There was nothing in the voices, or in what was uttered, that would manifestly mark it as distinct from what had been uttered as coming from God, and he was about to record it under this impression. If this was a mistake, and if the record would do anything—as it clearly would—to perpetuate the error, it is easy to see a sufficient reason why the record should not be made.

5. It is remarkable that there was an entire correspondence with this in what occurred in the Reformation. Luther and his fellow-laborers were, at first and for a long time, disposed to receive the announcements of the Papacy as the oracles of God and to show them the deference due to Divine communications. Such was the force of education and the habits of reverence for Papal authority in which they had been reared.

   The language of Luther himself, if the general view taken here is correct, will be the best commentary on the expressions used here. "When I began the affairs of the Indulgences," he says, "I was a monk, and a most mad Papist. So intoxicated was I, and drenched in Papal dogmas, that I would have been most ready to murder, or assist others in murdering, any person who should have uttered a syllable against the duty of obedience to the Pope." And again: "Certainly at that time I adored him in earnest."

   He adds, "How distressed my heart was in that year 1517—how submissive to the hierarchy, not feignedly but really—those little know who at this day insult the majesty of the Pope with so much pride and arrogance. I was ignorant of many things which now, by the grace of God, I understand. I disputed; I was open to conviction. Not finding satisfaction in the works of theologians, I wished to consult the living members of the church itself. There were some godly souls that entirely approved my propositions. But I did not consider their authority of weight with me in spiritual concerns. The popes, bishops, cardinals, monks, and priests were the objects of my confidence. After being enabled to answer every objection that could be brought against me from sacred Scripture, one difficulty alone remained: that the Church ought to be obeyed. If I had then braved the Pope as I now do, I should have expected every hour that the earth would have opened to swallow me up alive, like Korah and Abiram."

   It was in this frame of mind that, in the summer of 1518, a few months after the affair with Tetzel, he wrote that memorable letter to the Pope, the tenor of which can be judged by the following sentences. What could more admirably illustrate the passage before us, on the interpretation suggested, than this language?

   "Most blessed Father! Prostrate at the feet of your blessedness I offer myself to you, with all that I am and all that I have. Kill me or make me live; call or recall; approve or reprove, as shall please you. I will acknowledge your voice as the voice of Christ presiding and speaking in you." (See the authorities for these quotations in Elliott, ii. pp. 116, 117).

6. The command not to record what the seven thunders uttered was in the nature of a caution not to regard what was said in this manner; that is, not to be deceived by these utterances as if they were the voice of God. Thus understood, if this is the proper explanation and application of the passage, it should be regarded as an injunction not to regard the decrees and decisions of the Papacy as containing any intimation of the Divine will, or as having authority in the church. That this is to be so regarded is the opinion of all Protestants; and if this is so, it is not a forced supposition that this might have been intimated by such a symbol as the one before us.