NOTES ON CHAPTER 4 AND 5
[p. 70] NOTES ON CHAPTER 4 AND 5
The author insists that the words “Come up hither” do not refer to being seated in heavenly places in Christ, nor to a future translation of the church. That it is not as to John personally one or other is clear; but this is not the question, but whether he is not therein brought prophetically to view events from the position in which the church would view them as so placed. I do not here decide the question; I only state it, because his allusion to John’s personal condition and conduct entirely falsifies the question. If John was taken there to be instructed, and these instructions are for the church, is not the church to view the things he speaks of from the same point of view? Or why is he set to instruct the saints from this point of view, if it is not theirs when the things arrive, though always prospectively profitable? I repeat, I do not decide this question: I only disencumber it of the fallacy of his argument.
But the following note really goes too far. “It is immaterial whether the Greek be translated ‘hereafter’ or ‘after these things.’” Is this really to be said, that it is immaterial whether a passage of Scripture be translated right or wrong? Whichever be the right translation, it cannot be immaterial; because it is not immaterial to translate it right. But, moreover, it is so little immaterial here, that the whole structure of the book depends upon it; and if the exact translation be given, the whole system of these “Thoughts” is entirely subverted. The words are “after these,” which plainly signify “after these things.” There can be no disputing about the plain meaning of the words. They are used in the Revelation continually in this sense, and all through the New Testament; and I find no case in which they are used, without reference to some previously stated fact or time, after which certain things happened. This might be translated very commonly “afterwards.” This would be the ordinary English word in a great many cases. In a few “hereafter” may be used, where there is no subsequent limit put to the second period.
Thus, if speaking of present things actually existing, I should say “now,” or “already” and “hereafter.” Now, or already, you are guilty of such or such things, and hereafter you will do yet worse; because I mean thereby, after these that you are now doing. But then it always supposes an existing state of things, after which the things subsequently stated take place — never the general English idea of “hereafter,” referring to a distant future, with a length of time elapsing before that future arrives. The preposition meta means sometimes things co-existent with+ others, sometimes things immediately consequent upon the cessation of the others++ As Tregelles translates it “hereafter,” I thought there might be some special idiom, and I had the LXX and other lexicons also searched by a friend: but there is nothing whatever to modify the usual sense of the words.
+It is then used with the genitive.
++Then (as here) with the accusative.
[p. 72] Further, in this particular case we have a special guide to the employment of these words, because they form a distinct division of the book. The division I allude to is admitted in page 37 of the “Thoughts”: indeed, no one can deny it. It is found (Revelation 1:19), “Write the things which thou hast seen” — contained in chapter 1; “the things which are” — contained in chapters 2 and 3; “and the things which shall be after these things” — i.e., which are future to the things which are: the seven churches; at the close of which (related and judged in chapters 2 and 3) John is caught up to see the things which are to happen afterwards.
The form of the Greek in chapter 1 is stronger even than if the words in question were found alone. The things which are, and the things which are going to happen afterwards, after these. But if this be so, and the seven churches be the relation of Christ to the body gathered out of the nations, then the things which happen after are not during the period of that relationship. The system of argument followed in these “Thoughts” depends on the period treated of in the prophetic part of the Revelation being the church period. But if the seven churches give us Christ’s relationship to that body, as previously stated by the author, then the words “after these” (afterwards) shew that the prophetic part refers to what is subsequent to that period. In a word, his system is founded on the prophetic period and the church period being the same. The words “after these” are a positive declaration that they are distinct, and that the prophetic period is subsequent to that treated in chapters 2 and 3, and denominated “things that are,” the only direct mention of the church, considered as on earth, in the Revelation. In the prophetic part it is only seen as in heaven above. If it be “hereafter,” then it is merely that the things there related were after John’s time. Is this immaterial? Or can the divisional structure of the whole book, relative to the very point in debate, be immaterial to the argument?
Next as to the throne. We are told it was something then existent, and not future: but inasmuch as the symbols which surrounded it pointed onward to yet future glories, these chapters have a prophetic character indirectly attached to them. If this merely meant that God had an eternal throne, but that its character here was prophetic, this might be all very well. But in the next note we have an application of this which throws all into confusion, the object being, as may be seen in reading the note, to connect the throne with this dispensation. But before I enter into any detail, I would ask, Is it not singular that, to give the vision of the throne of this dispensation, we have first the throne “in itself,” as it is “unchanged throughout all dispensations,” and surrounded by symbols which do not belong to it in this? The throne by itself belongs to none, or (if you please) is unchanged throughout all. Its relative character must then be determined by the symbols attached to it. But these pointed onward to future glories. It is thus indirectly prophetic when the symbols are separately and abstractedly considered. They were anticipative, and of the next dispensation, as is clear according to the “Thoughts” (see page 61, in the text and note). The symbols themselves then do not belong to this dispensation. Indeed this is clear, for the church (the elders) are in heaven. Nor does the throne belong to it.
But the symbols “will not be attached to it in the same manner” in the next dispensation: which in several respects is quite true. But then, would not the natural conclusion be that, if the symbols do not belong to this dispensation at all, but are prophetic of future glories, and yet that they are not attached to the throne in the same manner as they will be when the next dispensation is established, the throne represents a peculiar state of things, and belongs properly to neither? Is it not (seeing that the symbols are confessedly in themselves not indicative of this dispensation, but prophetic of future glories, and that the throne belongs to none) — is it not strange from those premises to draw the conclusion? “The vision of the throne, therefore, must be regarded as peculiarly belonging to our present dispensation. It is only indirectly prophetic when the symbols are separately and abstractedly considered.” And what if considered as characterising the throne, which in itself is unchanged throughout all dispensations? But it may be added, “the Sinai character of the throne” has to be considered as well as the symbols. Be it so. Is the Sinai character of the throne what characterises our dispensation? Is this its relation to the church? Or is the church really to have no place at all in considering our dispensation? Take the Hebrews. Is Sinai the character given to the throne there as we view it? (See chapters 4 and 12.) It is all very well to say, “a character it may well retain whilst Israel and the earth remain unreconciled by the blood of sprinkling.” But what is this but to put the church and church-relationship wholly out of view as characterising the “church period” and “our dispensation”?
[p. 74] The church is seen exclusively in heaven in the prophetic part of the Revelation. It is not seen, save after chapter 19, in its millennial state. The throne has a judicial character, governing and plaguing the earth. What am I to conclude? That it is the church dispensation? or something special?
The statement of the unchangeable throne, however, is full of confusion, because all the titles, the revelation of which distinguished dispensations, are given as the titles of the unchangeable throne, and declared to be the same one as the other. Now, they are just what distinguish the relationship, as the symbolic circumstances and the Sinai character do here the peculiar position which it takes. The eternal throne, we are told, of Jehovah Elohim Shaddai, the covenant God of Israel.
Now, that the one true God was all this is well known: but the revelation of these names was what constituted the difference of dispensation. “I appeared,” says God, “to your fathers, by my name God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.” Now He takes this name as the covenant God of Israel. At Sinai the legal covenant connected with it is sealed by blood. As “seen by Isaiah and Ezekiel,” it was not a heavenly throne. In Isaiah, “His train filled the temple,” which is now no longer owned. In Ezekiel, He is the God of judgment against that temple. For His throne was not there, but came there. And now the throne was found in heaven. The throne was supreme and immutable power in government: but its relationship varied. These variations are what are called here the unchanged throne, throughout all dispensations; and that which is Sinaical in its character, and clothed with a glory confessedly future, is said to be peculiarly belonging to our present dispensation. But when we find this Sinai character connected with the expression “after these things,” speaking of the churches, or “things that are,” does not the character of the throne become most peculiar and significant?
[p. 75] That the throne was then existent (that is, the throne of God simply as such) nobody doubts at all. But this proves nothing. It is a mere sophism, because the throne will be connected in the mind of the reader with that throne, and thus that throne attached to the present period or dispensation. But let him remember that the existence of the throne is alike true of all dispensations, and before and after all. The question is, Was that throne, i.e., the throne in that state, existent? because otherwise it has nothing to do with dispensations at all. It is “unchanged throughout all.”+ It is not revealed by itself. It is clothed with prophetic glories, and we must not consider, in order to judge of dispensations, either the throne by itself, “for it is unchanged through all,” nor the symbols by themselves, but the throne clothed with these symbols, and these symbols connected with the heavenly throne — that is, the church in heavenly glory, the Lamb in the throne, etc., and yet the throne having a judicial Sinai character (i.e., a character which does not belong to the next dispensation, and is not its relationship with the church in this). The church indeed being seen, not as its object at all, but enthroned around it, or in, and in the circle of it, if we so apply the cherubim also. But to judge of the throne by separating the symbols from it, is to separate it from what characterises it here. Nor is anything gained by what is called its Sinai character, i.e., that it is actively judging the world, and enforcing the awful names of Lion of the tribe of Judah, and Root of David, because that certainly is not its character as belonging to the present dispensation. It evidently has its own proper character, such as is nowhere else found; which is not millennial with the world, and is not its relationship with the church.
As to the opposition between government and worship — that it is a court of government and not of worship — all that can be said is, while the government part is fully admitted, that it is not the fact; of which any one can satisfy himself by reading the book. That government is the predominant thought, most have long seen. The added thought, that it is not worship too, is clearly entirely false, as these very chapters particularly demonstrate; their chief subject being worship as soon as the throne is manifested. Government, though the throne be set for it in this new peculiar character, not being exercised at all. If in “this dispensation it is otherwise,” it is clearly not otherwise here; so that it is not this dispensation that is in question.
+The question clearly is, not about the existence of God’s throne, but to what period the vision applied.
[p. 76] When it is stated that the court of regal government will finally be identical with the temple, the answer is, It is not so stated in Scripture. Zion is not the temple, and Zion is the holy hill on which the decree has set the Son. That He is a priest upon His throne is another matter, but that is before the Possessor of heaven and earth. That does not set the throne in the temple.
What the following statement (page 66) may mean, is hard to tell: “The seat of His universal government cannot be symbolised by the temple, until Israel and the earth are reconciled through applied redemption.” And what is it symbolised by in this vision? Is not that seat symbolised by the temple?
“The contrast between the court of government and the temple is clearly sustained in the Revelation.” That is a strange note to append to Revelation 4 and 5. I can only ask the reader to read the chapters.
“It is whilst in the court [what court?+] that John sees the vision, in which vision the temple, the earth, the sea, are all equally employed as symbols of something external to the place in which he was.” In vision he was in heaven. It was said, when the door was opened in heaven, “Come up hither,” and the throne was set in heaven. As far as one can speak of a man in vision being anywhere, he was there where he saw these things. Nothing is said of any court where he was. He was in heaven, where all this was, and he saw it. There was no veil to distinguish the holy and holy of holies, nor is this distinction maintained here. The prophet was near enough too to converse with the elders. I hardly know whether the confusion or the unsustained character of the assertions is more remarkable in this note.
I have only to repeat here that “fellowship with divine glory,” and the church being “the fulness of him who filleth all in all,” are not at all the same thing (the latter being the description of the church as the body of Christ); nor is all fulness dwelling in Him the same as filling all in all. The former relates to His Person; the other refers to the place He has actually filled as mediator, as may be seen in Ephesians 4.
+I suppose the court of government is meant. It was so much more natural, in reading the symbols found in this chapter, to suppose it the court of the temple, if in any, that I did not know what to think.
As to the note on “They sung+ a new song” — its contents have already been discussed, as to the new song being millennial. It is added now for the first time, “It is plain that Israel is meant by the saints... because it is said they are reigning, or shall reign,” etc. Neither Israel nor the saints were reigning when the book was opened: that is a clear case, if it be a future thing. Are not the saints to reign over the earth? — the heavenly saints? They are a kingdom and priests, Why is it so plainly Israel to the exclusion of those who need encouragement as being yet under trial in this book? And where is kingship on earth said to be the privilege of Israel? That they will have great privileges, I do not doubt, and be a royal nation: but I do not know where it is said that they are to reign on the earth. The nearest statement is, “Instead of thy fathers, thou shalt have children, whom thou mayest make princes in all lands”; but it is never said anywhere in Scripture that Israel shall reign on the earth. Kings are to be their nursing fathers, but their reigning is never spoken of.
But there is another point here. The author rests on the words “on earth,” putting them in italics — “kingship on earth.” “We are kings: but we suffer, instead of reigning on the earth.” But here he is simply and entirely wrong. The translation in a general sense might be borne with as it stands, taking the earth as the subjected object of government. But when the word “on” is insisted on as distinctive, the answer at once is, It is not the meaning of the Greek word. Hence Mr. Tregelles has very properly translated it “over” in this passage.++ Yet this, which is simple error, is the basis of the very important interpretation given to the passage. Moreover, the least attention to the system of the author will shew that it is an essential link of it. It has been already stated four or five times (no proof of it being given) in the previous pages we have examined, as necessary to the understanding of the order and relationship of the different parts of what he calls the Israel of God. The church in heaven being Israel’s priests, and Israel thus united and brought into the same body, though in an inferior position, and enjoying, through the intercession and priesthood of the church, communion in all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places, and so standing “in all the full excellency of the heavenly calling manifested on earth.” Now this connection of Israel and the church standing in a priestly place is found to rest on a complete error in the use of a Greek preposition.
+It ought to be, “they sing.”
++Any Greek scholar who has paid a little attention to the point, would know that epi, with words of government or rule, used with accusative, genitive, or dative, is connected with the subject of rule, and not the place of rule. I refer to the following passages as illustrating this: Matthew 2: 22; Luke 1:33; Revelation 19:14, Revelation19:27; Judges 9:8, Judges 9:10, Judges 9:12-15, Judges 9:22; 1 Samuel 8:7, 1 Samuel 8:9, 1 Samuel 8:11 (LXX); Matthew 24:47; Luke 12:44. Indeed, with a genitive it has itself the sense of being set over anything, as those set over affairs. The contrast of en reigning in a place, and epi, over a people or land, may be seen in 2 Samuel 5:5. As to epi, “over,” all Samuel, and still more Kings and Chronicles, afford instances without end. Genesis 36: 31, of en. See Volume 13, page 131.
[p. 78] As to the mediate place. It is a very strange assertion, that opening the book was a sign that there was some one worthy to communicate blessing. No doubt opening a book may look like communicating its contents; but how communicating blessing? Is not worthiness to receive and open, a common identical title in the passage? And how to communicate blessing, or (as is said, page 61, of its “understood meaning”) “the effectual communication of the blessings which will flow from the love and from the glorious power of the Most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth,” when page 7, “the chief subject” of chapter 6, i.e., the opened book, is the infliction of divine chastisements on the earth, until they are consummated by the day of the wrath of the Lamb?” Or how indeed did He appear as communicator, when (pages 74, 75) “the Lamb opened the seals, not to fulfil the events declared under them, but to instruct us prophetically concerning them?” Or, after all, what is a mediate place between receiving and communicating? Or what is there about all this in the chapter, contradictory as it all is? The taking the book, that was in the right hand of power of Him that sat on the throne, called forth the song of those in heavenly places seen in their glory, because the glory and person of Him who took it to receive and develop the accomplishment of God’s counsels were brought before their eyes. That He will be the effectual communicator of blessing no one doubts; but there is nothing about it here. And the reason of His title to receive and open the book is quite another reason, that is, His having accomplished the redemption of those who sing.
As to the vials.+ 2 Chronicles 4: 22 only says, the basons were of pure gold; and where they are mentioned elsewhere, all that is said is “and he made an hundred basons of gold.” From the place they are mentioned in, and the materials, it may be supposed that they were somewhere in the holy place; but there is no kind of connection with the altar of incense whatever. It is elsewhere that that is mentioned, and these hundred basons are connected with other things. Nor does the author venture to state why they “answer to the vials.” Incense, of which the vials were full, was put in another kind of vessel called censers.
As to the note at the close, stating “they are reigning,” it seems to me absurd; because the song celebrates the opening of the book, when most certainly they were not reigning. Griesbach and Scholz both give “they shall reign” (the latter citing the authorities for both readings together, without distinguishing them). As to the evidence of these different readings, it is this. Two of the three ancient MSS are here wanting. One has not this passage: the other, if it has, is not cited. The one uncial MS which remains reads “they reign,” with fifteen others, and some versions. Eighteen MSS read “they shall reign.” Tischendorf reads “they reign” — Knapp, “they shall reign.” When the writer states that it is not found in any ancient MS, he goes farther than he is warranted. There are but three. One has not this place in it at all, being imperfect, and the other is not cited at all.
+The Greek word phiala is indeed used in 2 Chronicles 4: 22, by the LXX, of the hundred golden basons made by king Solomon. But these bowls are never connected in the Old Testament with incense, nor even with what men used to take fire from the altar with to put the incense on. It is employed for the Hebrew word used in Numbers 7 several times for the silver bowls offered by the princes; Exodus 38: 3. (LXX Exodus 38:34, Ed. Bos.) Bowls of brass connected with the brazen altar; the same in Numbers 4:14. In Amos 6:6, when used for a drinking bowl the LXX translation is quite different. In 2 Chronicles 4:22 (21), the Septuagint seems to give another word; but a little attention will, I think, make it plain. The word labides is placed by the Complutensian edition, after luknoi. Of this there can be very little doubt, seeing it is the term used for a part of the luknoi in the description, Exodus 37. (LXX 38: 20, or Compl. 24.) There is no word for this in 2 Chronicles 4: 22 in Hebrew; the Septuagint adds it. This being so, phialai corresponds with the usual Hebrew word. The general expression of phialai is borrowed possibly from Solomon rather than others. But they had no particular connection with the altar of incense. The censers, or vessels used for that, are translated by the LXX as purcia, as in Exodus 38:3 (35). The same thing is in Exodus 27:3 as to both words. They are used to contain the plagues oftener than prayers. See chapters 15-18, Revelation 21:9.
[p. 80] There is one thing, curious enough, as to the exactitude and authority of these criticisms, namely, that in the beginning of this note, the MS “A” has no authority whatever; at the end, it is almost conclusive. The statement of the friend alluded to, we are told, leaves little doubt that the reading “they are reigning” is the correct one. That on which the author rests, leaving all other authorities out, is, that it has the authority of the Alexandrian MSS (read MS), whereas the other reading is not found in any ancient MSS. In the beginning of this short note we are told that there is no doubt that the correct reading is “thou hast redeemed us,” etc. The unlearned reader will be surprised to hear that this same Alexandrian MS is against this reading. It is conclusive at the end of the note, under the same circumstances (that is, the silence of the other two); on the other side, it is totally rejected at the beginning, where no authority at all is cited against it; that is, a certain MS called “A” rejects the word “us.” But “us” is retained as of undoubted authority, though not found in any ancient MS either. This same MS reads “they are reigning,” and then it is conclusive, though a majority of other MSS read “will reign.” It can hardly be of no authority, and of all but conclusive authority, in the same note. Yet, as we have seen, a whole edifice of interpretation, a complete system, as to the church’s priesthood, and Israel’s place, is founded on all this. Do not let the reader complain of my plunging him into criticism: I engage him to keep out of it. But when vast systems of interpretation are based on assertions made about them as of undoubted authority, one may be forced to enquire whether such assertions are well founded, because they have an imposing air with many who have happily no idea of distrusting them.