the roll be read, until the whole were broken? To make all parts of the description congruous, we must suppose the roll to have a seal upon the extreme end that was last rolled up, which would of course prevent its being unrolled. When the first seal was broken, the Ms. could be unrolled, until one came to a second seal; and so in succession of the rest. Now if these seals were put on so as to be visible at the ends of the roll, (which might be easily done by some small label attached to each seal indicative of its place), then John could have seen the seven seals, if the end of the roll was toward him, i. e. he could have at least seen what indicated their presence. But how can all the demands of this representation be answered, either by the supposition of Eichhorn or of Ewald? If, however, we suppose the seals to be put successively upon the margin of the book or scroll, as it was rolled up, each opening would extend only so far as the next seal, where the unrolling would be arrested; and the presence of these seals might in some way have been indicated to a beholder, as has already been suggested.

(2) And I saw a mighty angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

Iozvoóv, "merum epitheton ornans," says Eichhorn. But how it is ornans, in the present instance, I wot not, unless there is something apposite in it to the nature of the case. Homer represents his heralds as powerful, robust men, in order consistently to attribute to them deeptoned and powerful voices. Is not this the design of the epithet isquoór here? The writer immediately subjoins: κηρύσσοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλη. The adjective uɛyúkŋ, when applied to voice, must of course mean loud. Τίς ἄξιος κ. τ.

Tis žios z. 7. 2. The quotation of the words is direct, (as usual elsewhere), and the whole phrase forms the requisite complement to the participle zouGovta.-Atos in the sense of suitable, well adapted to, or more probably with the meaning, of sufficient rank or dignity, i. e. who by his rank or attributes deserves the honour of opening this book of divine decrees?—Kai hõσai x. 7. 2. is added for the sake of specification. Seven seals had been mentioned. Some special guard is implied, therefore, against the reading of this book. It could not be fully read, unless they were all successively broken; and to this the expression before us refers.

(3) And no one in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, was able to open the book, or to inspect it.

Heaven, earth, and the under-world, by the common usus loquendi of the Hebrews, denote the universe; q. d. no being in the universe could be found, who was able to open the book, and survey its contents.' Of course the meaning is, that no one could be found among created beings, who was competent to perform this task.-Avo is inserted after

ovoare here in several critical editions, but omitted by Hahn. The idea of heaven among the Hebrews was, that it is the region immediately above the apparent welkin or sky. Later Hebrew usage made seven heavens; indeed, the Ascension of Isaiah, (cotemporary with the Apocalypse), makes seven; but I find no traces of this in the O. or N. Testament. Trоzáτw rys jūs, see the popular idea of the subterranean region fully developed in Is. xiv. The bix of the Hebrews, and the Aions of the Greeks, both designate the under-world in its usual sense, as employed in popular language.

Avoiža refers to breaking the seals of the book; phéne to the inspection of its contents. Blέno is not confined merely to the ocular sense, but occasionally is employed to designate the mental one of seeing or considering. So Soph. Oed. Tyr. v. 740. The first two examples of oud here are the proper sequences of the previous negative in οὐδείς implied before ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ; the οὐδέ before βλέπειν is dependent also upon the first ovdeís in the verse; see N. Test. Gramm. § 183. 1.

(4) And I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open the book, nor to inspect it.

Пold neut. plur. used adverbially, as often. Agios in the same sense as above.

(5) Then one of the elders saith to me: Weep not; behold! the lion of the tribe of Judah, the offspring of David, hath prevailed to open the book and the seals thereof.

=

Eis , which is sometimes used, in the later Hebrew, as being equivalent to zís, i. e. one, some one, a certain one; see Ges. Lex.— Aya the Present of narration, i. e. the historical Present.-Evixqaɛv has an intensive meaning here. It does not merely signify, that the Messiah was able to open the book, but that he had acquired this power by a victorious struggle. Comp. a similar sentiment in Phil. 2: 6—10. By such a struggle with trials and sorrows, he had opened or prepared the way for the highest honour to be bestowed upon him, i. e. he had won by his victories the honour and the right to open the sealed book. 'O Léov, the emblem of heros fortissimus, inasmuch as the lion is the king of beasts, in consequence of his strength and invincible courage; comp. Jer. 4: 7. The lion of God is an epithet among the Arabians, for an invincible hero.—Εκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, because Christ sprung from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7: 14); and with reference, also, to the declaration of the dying Jacob respecting Judah, Gen. 49: 9, where lion is used in a sense like to that which it has in the verse before us. That λέων is the subject of ἐνίκησε, is proof that it has the meaning just assigned to it.-H ¿íça Aavíð, not root of David, but a root-shoot from the

trunk or stem of David; comp. ", a root-shoot or sprout from the trunk of Jesse, Is. 11: 1, to which the clause before us undoubtedly refers. How familiar the Old Testament Scriptures were to the author of the Apocalypse, must be evident to every attentive reader. Here a plain reference to two distinct texts widely separated, is comprised in a very narrow compass. See the like image respecting the Messiah, in 4 Ezra 12: 31, 32.

(6) And I saw between the throne and the four living creatures, and between the elders, a Lamb standing, as it were slain, having seven heads and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that are sent into all the earth.

Lit. év és means in the middle [space]. Plainly the writer means to say, in the space between the throne of God, borne up by the four (wa, and the twenty-four elders who sat in a semi-circular form around it; a most appropriate station for the performance of what the sequel discloses. The repetition of έv uέog is a Hebrew idiom. The Hebrews in such a case often say: ... 1; see Gen. 1: 7. Lev. 27: 12.

Aqvior, properly a diminutive, agnellus, from dov, Gen. ¿gvós; yet, like ßßlíor above, not employed in a sense actually diminutive. It designates, as it were, a tender lamb, a young innocent lamb, in its primary sense; and so is used by John, and applied to the Saviour, about thirty times in the Apocalypse; and, therefore, is to be regarded as a favourite appellation, indicative of two things, viz. perfect innocence, and propitiatory sacrifice or victim. Comp. the source of this in the exclamation of John the Baptist, John 1: 29, "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world!" It would seem probable, that John the evangelist was present, when this was said; see John 1: 35, 36. It is true the word durós is here used; but this makes no appreciable difference. The Septuagint uses both doriov and duvós for the Hebrew ; and the evangelist himself employs dovíor in 21: 15. So in Testamentum XII. Patriarcharum (Fabric.) I. p. 724, 725, 730, duròs so is used for the Messiah. In 1 Pet. 1: 19. Acts. 8: 32, it is used in reference to the passage in Is. 53: 7. Otherwise, the use of it in the New Testament is appropriate and peculiar to John.

2s loqayuérov, as slain, i. e. wearing the marks, or bearing the appearance, of having been slain; where the propitiatory design in the employment of the appellation lamb exhibits itself; comp. as iogaquévov, in 13: 3, as to the meaning of os here. In what way this appearance of having been slain developed itself, whether in the apparent marks of wounds, or of blood, the writer does not say; nor is it important that he should. Enough, in a description which is altogether symbolic, that he gives the leading traits, without stopping to note the particular manner in which they were developed.

Earà xéqara, seven horns, the horn being the common emblem of power in the Hebrew Scriptures; see Ps. 112: 9. 75: 10. 89: 17. 148: 14. 132: 17. Comp. also Dan. 7: 7, 8, 20, 24. 8: 3, 8, 9, 20, 21; and see also Rev. 13: 1. That the number seven here means complete, seems obvious, both from the nature of the case, and also of the number. But that in itself the expression, seven horns, would denote omnipotence, seems not to be correct, inasmuch as the beast in Rev. 13: 1 has even a still greater number of horns; and so of some of the examples cited above from the book of Daniel. The other attributes ascribed to the Lamb do indeed make him Lord of all; but the expression itself of seven horns must be regarded as simply designating the idea of great power. This also stands connected and harmonizes well with door and évíznoɛ above. With the measure of power designated by seven horns, he might well be compared to a lion, and έvízŋoɛ be reasonably expected of him.

'Opdahμovs inτá of course means acute and wide-reaching vision. -Oï ɛioɩ... Tηv yv. Is the meaning, that these seven eyes are indicative of his own attributes? Or are they symbols of that power which he possesses, of sending abroad over all the earth the seven spirits before his throne, in order that they may inspect and oversee the affairs of his kingdom? There is some difficulty in the present case; because the seven horns seem plainly to denote the Messiah's attribute of mighty power. Yet in Rev. 3: 1, it seems to be equally plain, that the seven spirits are the seven presence-angels; for there the Redeemer is said ev, to have or hold them at his disposal, in the same manner as he has at his disposal the seven stars, i. e. the angels of the churches. Indeed, in all the instances brought under review, in the remarks made on 3: 1, the case is the same, if we except the present one, which is at least somewhat doubtful. In order, however, that congruity of representation should be preserved, we seem to be constrained here to regard the seven eyes as symbols of the all-pervading survey or perspicacity of the Saviour himself; especially as we are obliged here to acknowledge a reference to Zech. 3: 9 and 4: 10, where the seven eyes, engraved upon the corner-stone of the new temple, are plainly symbolic of "the eyes of Jehovah which run to and fro through the whole earth," i. e. God is ὁ πανόπτης, omnituens. Plainly τὰ ἀπεσταλμένα εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν,

, הֵמָה מְשׁוֹטְטִים בְּכָל־הָאָרֶץ,10 :4 .is a translation of the phrase in Zech

these run to and fro through the whole earth. With this passage before us, which in Zech. is so plain, we cannot well withhold our assent to the proposition, that the writer here means to designate Christ as o пavóлins or omnituens; comp. Rev. 2: 18.*

*As to the method in which John disposed of the seven horns and seven eyes, i. e. in what manner or how they were inserted; whether each eye was at the

(7) And he came and took the book from the right hand of him who sat upon the throne.

Simple and majestic, without any pomp of words, or any effort to decorate the scene.-E98, Perf. joined with an Aor. (208); as often in narration, N. Test. Gramm. § 136. 3. But here the Perf. has simply an aoristic sense, which is very unusual; see Gramm. § 136. 3. b. Note.

But how could a Lamb take the book? Was it only the head, in this case, which bore the resemblances to a lamb designated in the sixth verse, the rest of the person remaining simply human? This would seem to destroy at least the congruity of the image, and to make something monstrous, like Centaurs, etc. Was the appearance of a lamb, then, exchanged for the simple human form, when he advanced to take the book? This would at least appear more probable than the other supposition; yet of this the writer has given us no express intimation.* root of each horn, and in what order the horns stood in relation to each other; of all this the author himself has said nothing, and to indulge in conjecture with confidence would be worse than useless. Symbolic representations of this nature do indeed demand some congruity and appropriateness; but then, as the writer goes designedly into the region of imagination for images to express his thoughts, we must not limit him to the mere realities of our natural world, nor pronounce all that to be incongruous, which does not agree with those realities in all its parts. The mirificum we may well admit; the monstrosum would be another question. If one is disposed to conjecture, he may suppose double horns in the common place upon the sides of the head, and three in the centre; and so of the eyes. But it would be useless to make conjectures of this nature, as the significancy of the symbols is not in any degree affected by them.

*

Nearly every commentary that I have seen keeps a guarded silence in relation to the apparent difficulty here. It does not even seem as if most interpreters had once entertained the thought that there was any difficulty. Herder, Ewald, and Vitringa are the only critics whom I have found doing so much as to notice it. Of these the former says: "We see the images are symbols; and we must not unreasonably dwell upon individual traits, nor inquire (for example): How did the Lamb stand? How did he take the book? Where were his eyes? The images of the Revelation have a meaning; and in the connection of that meaning must we follow them;" Maran Atha, p. 54. Ewald says: "Non quaerimus [de loco oculorum], imaginum delineationem exactam et congruam non esse scrutandam reputantes;" p. 145 Comm. The spirit of this remark he means doubtless to apply also to the case before us. Vitringa commences his remarks with an ob servation true enough: "Sicco pede passim praeteriunt hic Interpretes difficul tatem." He then goes on to compare the present case with that of the toa in chap. iv, which, as he avers, had each a human body, while only the head and feet resembled the respective animals to which they are compared. But in this he is surely mistaken; for their bodies are represented as being under the throne; which could not be said of human bodies, as it would imply a prostrate condition. Besides, how are the four feet of the lion and the ox to be joined to the human body?