THOUGHTS ON THE FIFTH CHAPTER
THOUGHTS ON THE FIFTH CHAPTER
It is a remark, I think, of Lord Bacon’s that if one were to tell a falsehood to one’s self often enough, we should believe it at the year’s end: how much more when error comes from those we are accustomed to respect, and falls in with our natural wishes and feelings. “The throne, surrounded by the symbolic glories we have been considering, is intended, through all the deep darkness and sorrow of the present dispensation, to stand before us a sure sustaining object of faith.” Abstractedly, no doubt, the throne of God does so, though much more to us a Father’s love.+ But this does not hinder its being true that the revelations here made are, according to the author, all entirely future. The throne here displayed has never acted at all up to this time. And, according to the word, all the events were subsequent to what is stated as to the churches, which are Christ’s relationship to the excellent body, the church, according to the author. It is future glory too, according to him, that is revealed: so that it is not the throne as acting now. Further, while it shewed the church in its high and distinctive future glories, “our future exaltation,”++ yet the object also was to give us instruction essential to our testimony and service upon earth among men — precise and definite instruction through John to the churches upon the earth. Now what is the instruction as to service? Or when, save the two witnesses, is there any service of the church, or of any saints at all, spoken of in the Revelation; and that precisely and definitely? For that is what a book, we are told, is the symbol of. Not one word of proof or example is given as bearing out this assertion.
+The throne, I apprehend, is little spoken of in direct known addresses to the church.
++This is really all confusion, because the throne is surrounded with future glories, and yet is the throne of the present dispensation. It presents the church symbolically in glory, and gives Christ the titles which belong to His connection with Israel in a yet unasserted title; and yet it is hence that precise and definite instruction is given to the church for its present testimony and service. This has been in a measure felt by the author, though laboriously sought to be got over: for, after stating that it is not Christ’s church title, but a new relationship, he says, “yet it is not difficult to see the reason why He should be here introduced as the Lion of Judah.” Having mingled and confused all the relationships of Christ and the throne with the church and Israel, the reasons for that must be given: but the simple scripture does not need these reasons, nor this justification. He who was on earth the Lamb, and was withal the Lion of Judah, was thus identified and recognised in His own Person in the throne on high. Hereafter He will be known as Offspring of David too.
But again, “Hidden in the throne had been one who, now for the first time appeared, and assumed a new relation to Him who sat upon it” — first appeared, that is, in the heavenly vision; for He had been seen in another way among the churches. But if it was a new relation, it was not a relation to the churches at all. It is in vain to say that this was an anticipation of the millennium;+ because in the same character He opens all the seals, which are “this period,” the “church period,” and contain precise and definite instruction to the churches upon the earth. But how to the churches on earth, if it was, as indeed it really was, a new relation that the Lord was in; and instructions, moreover, for testimony and service? And when the author speaks of a new relation to the throne, was He in a new relation to the throne without its being new towards the earth and the saints? That cannot be, because it was a new intermediate relation. And it was a new relation. It is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the Root of David. No doubt that it was the same person as the Lamb slain, and all-important that we should know it; and no doubt this knowledge was communicated to the churches. For things to come belong in knowledge to the church. It was to Abraham that the knowledge of what was to happen to Lot at Sodom was given, not to Lot, nor because Abraham was there, or to be there, but because he was the friend of God. But this new relationship was not established with the churches, though communicated to them. If people choose to call it the church, it is the church on entirely a new footing, and in a new relation, after the Lord has done with the churches and His excellent relation to the body.
+If so, it was not the throne which was the sustaining object of faith during this dispensation.
[p. 67] Further, it is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David — that is, Christ’s name in relation to the earth and Israel in power.+ So also, on the other hand, it is not yet His millennial relation on earth, because then He takes the additional character of “Offspring of David” — that is, as actually coming, as may be seen at the close of the last chapter of this book. Judgment and righteousness (page 58) are to be exercised in the earth, and Judah be saved, and Israel dwell safely; but this is not Christ’s relation to the churches, nor to the church. So that it is not His relation to the churches, for it is a new relation. It is not His millennial relation, for then He is Offspring of David; and yet the throne in which He is found is the stay of faith during the present dispensation. Nor is even “Lamb slain” properly His relationship with the churches. He is, as such, the foundation of reconciliation with God, and the taker away of sin from before Him; but it is not His relationship with the churches.
I pass on to page 60, where I read, “The book taken from the throne reveals the manner in which God is about to enforce the title of His Son as the Lion of Judah, and to manifest that He is indeed the root of David.” Now, is this to be done connectedly with God’s relationship to the church? Clearly not, save as being with the Lord in heaven. Is it precise and definite instructions for the church’s service? It may be revealed to the churches. But are they the objects of its revelations, when God is enforcing this new relation, and manifesting that Christ is the Root of David? Is that the church period? Yet this, by the author’s own statement, describes the contents of this book. It is clear the church’s portion and place is when God does not enforce this title, nor manifest that Christ is the Root of David. The church suffers with Him, when His title is not enforced. It is the “contrariety of all things in the earth to this His title,++ and the consequent necessity of enforcing it by Almighty power, that will bring on the coming judgments of the throne.” But is it not the plainest first principle on this subject, that if we suffer with Him, from this very contrariety or contradiction of sinners when His title is not enforced by judgments from the throne, we shall reign with Him?
+A title, as the writer himself says (page 59), “yet unasserted.”
++After all, this is not the ground of the church’s suffering, properly speaking. It is as Saviour and Son of God that the church knows and declares Him, and suffers for Him; though the other be fully owned. But the writer always brings down the church to the earthly title of Christ. It is characteristic of the book, and that to which the saints have to give heed.
“[p. 68] It was only for a moment that the Lamb assumed this intermediate place between it (the throne) and the creature.” What place? “The effectual communicator of the blessings which will flow from the love, and from the glorious power of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth?” Does He assume this place in this chapter 5, or anything like or about it? That He will have it is certain. That there is here and often in this book an anticipation of the results actually to be produced by subsequent events I do not at all deny. But that it is a celebration of a millennial state of things, or that a millennial song is sung, or that Christ, even for a moment, assumed a millennial position, or that there is a word about Israel, is entirely false and contradicted by the statement of the chapter. “The Lamb had” not “taken His place between the throne and the creature, as the connecting link of blessing.” Where is there one word about it in the chapter? He will do so. That they may anticipate it from seeing Him may be possible, as I may do in thinking of Him now, and with a nearer approach to it; but He took no such place.
These are the words of Scripture: “And he came, and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. And when he had taken the book,” etc. “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God,” etc. Now, is that a millennial song, when the thing celebrated is the title to open the book, all the contents of which are to be accomplished before the millennium begins? Is the Lamb seen here as “the effectual communicator of the blessings which flow from the love, and from the glorious power of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth,” even in earnest, when the contents of the book, not yet opened, were the actings of God upon the throne for Him before He left it or took His place as such? When the throne from which He received it is one from which proceeded lightnings, and thunderings, and voices? If the preceding+ “chapter” (and it is the same throne) “had been describing the millennial relation of the throne to things below, and not its present relation, we should not have seen this Sinai character of awful majesty attached to it”; nor “if Israel and the earth had been reconciled to God.” (Pages 46, 47.) Whereas, when from this very throne, the Lamb takes the book which describes the judgments which are to flow from it, during the very period thus insisted upon as not millennial, “Israel is supposed to be reconciled” (page 61).
+See pages 46, 47.
[p. 69] It is in vain to say, The presence of the Lamb supposes the state of millennial reconciliation, because the “awful names” given Him are to be enforced by the “coming judgments of the throne,” and these judgments are what He is here receiving the communication of, in (as the author reminds us in a note) a bitter book. There is nothing about a link of blessing. That every creature owns His glory, when He appears, is quite true; but His relation is not as a link of millennial blessing then; nor is millennial blessing the thing celebrated in the song, but His worthiness to open the book, which is not millennial.
Again, in the note we read, “the prayers of the saints (i.e., Israel).” Why? This has been stated three or four times, and to be believed because it is said, if the reader pleases. No word or hint of proof is given. “Who are reigning”: where is Israel said to reign as such? Where is this oft-repeated statement, “The church discharging its priestly functions?” When men are sufficiently imbued with a system, they may receive these notices of it. But those who hold to Scripture must be excused if they do not receive an immense system because it has been repeatedly asserted without proof pretended even to be given. It is very convenient to say “saints, i.e., Israel.” But can any reasonable man be expected to receive things stated in this way? I would urge the saints who really believe that Scripture is the only source of truth, to ask themselves in reading the book we are examining, every time they meet with any statement, where the Scripture proof or authority alleged for this is. They will soon see how many have such authority even advanced for them.
I will close the examination of this chapter, by asking, Is it an interpretation which can be received for a single instant, which takes the proof of the actual reigning of Israel, being in view, as anticipated, from a passage thus presented: “Thou art worthy to take the book... for they [Israel] are reigning”? Yet this is what is presented to us in these “Thoughts.” I add (as to the criticism in the note: “This is the right reading: Thou hast redeemed us to God — and hast made THEM” etc.), that the “US” here insisted on, is rejected by Griesbach as absolutely spurious,+ and by Tischendorf, though admitted by Scholz. Mr. Tregelles, who generally approves Tischendorf, admits it, but without giving any authority for it in the margin. The only ancient MS of the three which remain++ (which MSS Mr. T. says are worth all the modern ones) rejecting it. Now I would only ask, When Griesbach and Tischendorf reject, Scholz, without quoting his authorities either, followed by Tregelles doing the same thing, receive, the word “us” (but both the latter giving as against it the best and only ancient MS, of which we have the reading here); what is the warrant, under these circumstances, for this short and conclusive dictum — “The right reading of this passage is”? It may be all very right; but things cannot be settled in that way. It is a most royal road, to critical certainty. And this word, thus uncertainly supported, is the only proof given (page 51) that the cherubim symbolise the redeemed. They may: I do not here decide; but on what a basis it rests, on the author’s statements!
+[So it was marked in Griesbach’s manual edition, Leipsic, 1805, and thus it is represented in some reprints; but in his critical edition it stands only as questionable. — Ed.]
++Unless one is here uncollated: no one cites it. The passage is wanting in the third. I will venture to make this remark on Mr. Tregelles’s book. As far as I can judge, the preface is the clearest and most satisfactory statement, as to the materials of an examination of the text of the Revelation which we have. But having generally given the cursive manuscripts in classes, and merely the numbers which agree, no one can form a judgment for himself, unless he assume the system of recension adopted by Mr. T. His judgment may be very good; but the reader is disabled from judging for himself. Another defect, as to convenience of reference, is, that the hiatuses in C (which no one can be well expected to carry in his memory) are not stated in the margin; so that the reader cannot judge whether it be silent or adverse. In the present case Tregelles’s note is a transcript of Scholz’s, which states the authorities against, but nothing more.