what was uttered, and therefore could not seal up any instrument or scroll which contained the words now spoken. The meaning of course must be, that John was not to disclose the words just uttered, but to keep them secret, as a writing which is sealed is kept secret. Comp. 5: 1, which presents to us a book with seven seals, and of course these seals prevented any one from inspecting its contents; also Rev. 22: 10, where John is directed not to seal up the Apocalypse, because its fulfilment was speedily to commence. Dan. 8: 26. 9: 24. 12: 4, quoted by Eichhorn and Heinrichs, are inapposite here, for they have a different sense.'

But what was it, or could it be, which the seven thunders uttered on this occasion? Vitringa (p. 429 seq.) makes a singular answer to this question. He says that the seven Crusades are meant by "the seven thunders; and as to the command to pass in silence what was uttered, he says (of the crusades): "Nec dignae erant quae prolixius exponerentur." I mention this only to remind the reader what extravagances have sometimes been manifested in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, even by some of the most distinguished commentators and divines, when they go into minute historical applications.

In general it seems to be agreed among recent commentators, that, from the nature of the circumstances and the nature of the signal itself, we must draw the conclusion, that what was declared in the voice of thunder, was ominous of the catastrophe near at hand. This is altogether appropriate. On an errand like to that of making such a declaration, the angel himself came; as is clear from vs. 6,7. And if we examine 11: 15-19 we shall see, that, with the exception of the triumphal song and a disclosure of a few symbols of destruction (v. 19), the writer has himself passed over the catastrophe in silence. Has this no designed connection with the verse before us? Critics in general do not seem to have looked at the subject in this point of view; I cannot but feel, however, that what the thunders here declared, and which John is forbidden to speak of, is there suppressed. This seems better to solve the mystery of comparative silence in chap. 11: 15-19, than all the other reasons that have, with so much discrepancy and variety of opinion, been brought forward.

But why keep silence? Entire silence, as I apprehend, is neither commanded nor observed; for what does the angel say in vs. 6, 7, and John in 11: 15-19? Yet in neither case is there any circumstantial and direct narration of the final catastrophe. If any one feels this to be a defect in the plan of the writer; or if he concludes from this (as several recent critics have done) that the writer intends to develope no catastrophe here; I would appeal to the reason and nature of the case. Suppose a father called upon to give some account of the death of a prodigal child, who had perished amid the most aggravated crimes; would he be likely to enter into a circumstantial detail of all the horrors and agonies that immediately preceded and accompanied the death of that child? Would he--could he -do anything more than distinctly bring to view the closing scene in general terms, while he suppressed the particulars, as being beyond his powers of description, and because it was altogether inappropriate for him to dwell upon them? Every one must feel the force of such an appeal. And why then can he not allow the same sympathy to have its place in the breast of John, or even a higher and more sacred one, in respect to the beloved people, city, and temple of God? The guilt of that people he has indeed faithfully and fully portrayed; for this was a duty to God and the church. Divine justice must be vindicated. But to

(5, 6) And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land, lifted up his right hand to heaven, and sware by him who liveth forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things which are in it, and the earth and the things which are in it, and the sea and the things which are in it, that delay shall be no longer.

Almost the exact model of this may be found in Dan. 12: 7; with the exception, that there both hands are lifted up, here only the right hand. However, in Gen. 14: 22. Deut. 32: 40. Ezek. 20: 5, 6, mention is made of only one hand, which almost of course would be the right one.-Eis tòv ovgavóv, i. e. toward the place where God dwells. -Zāvīɩ x. v. 2. recounts some of the most striking attributes of the Godhead, such as his eternity, and his supreme creative power; thus increasing the solemnity of the occasion and the oath.—Heaven, earth, and sea, is a triplex division of the universe, which is very common in the Scriptures.

Xoóros ovzeti čorai, lit. time shall be no more, i. e. there shall be no more delay, or no longer respite shall be given, to the persecutors of the church, when the last trumpet shall sound. So the sequel:

(7) But in the days of the sound of the seventh angel, when he shall blow the trumpet, then is the mystery of God completed, as he hath announced to his servants the prophets.

Kai irɛhéoon, one of those cases where the Praeter is said, by the older grammarians, to be put for the Future. But there is no need of such an enallage. The angel means to say, that immediately on the sounding of the seventh trumpet, the mystery of the seven-sealed book is brought to a close, all is fully completed. Had he used the Future here, it would have left open an indefinite time for completion, contrary to his plain intention. In fact the Greeks, like the Hebrews, employed a Praeterite sometimes to denote future actions which were

dwell with minuteness on their doom, their fearful end-why may he not be spared the difficult, the almost impossible task? Enough that the consummation is distinctly declared by the angel, 10: 6, 7, and that in 11: 15-19 the triumph of the redeemed is heard, because the church of God is delivered from the hands of its enemies and persecutors. What the seven thunders most probably declared fully to John, he is restrained from writing down, or rather, he is indulged with the privilege of not writing it down, although a sense of duty and fidelity had led at first to prepare for such a task.

The study of the Apocalypse will lead an attentive observer to see and feel, that the proprieties resulting from our sympathies, and the congruities of representation, are very apparent in it, and should not be overlooked in the interpretation of it. Is there not a plain indication here, in respect to suppressing what the seven thunders uttered, that the particulars of the final catastrophe were not to be fully disclosed? Pity toward the weaknesses of men, and kind regard to the feelings of the apostle, spared him the agonizing task.

regarded as certain. So in Eurip. Medea, 78, dzwλóμɛóð' äg', ei' κακὸν προσοίσομεν νεὸν παλαιῷ, i. e. we have been undone, in case we shall add a new evil to the old one. Plat. Repub. V. p. 462. See other examples of the like nature in Kühner's Gr. Gramm. § 443. 2, from Homer, Plat. and Demosth.-Mvoritov means the secret designs of God in respect to the enemies of his church, which only the prophets, i. e. inspired men in the Christian church, had been commissioned to make known.*

14: 21. 16: 10.

Einprédios, act. voice, and the only instance of this nature in the N. Testament. Usually this verb has the Midd. form, and governs the Acc. of the thing and Dat. of the person. But often, where the thing is omitted, the person is put in the Acc.; e. g. Luke 3: 18. Acts 8: 25. Here the construction is like the Hebrew, 2 Sam. 18: 19 al. In translating evŋppédiσe rods x. 7. 2, we are obliged to make a Dat. after the verb, in conformity with our usual English idiom. In Greek this was unnecessary, although it might have been so expressed.

*How, in the face of such a declaration as this, De Wette, Schott, Ewald, and Lücke, can still represent the sealed book as not brought to a close in chap. xi, and how they can find no catastrophe there, I am unable to see, specially when I compare with the sequel such a declaration as we find here. How language can make it stronger or more certain, that the first great scene of the drama closes here, it would be difficult to tell. The angel does not even say тsåσDjostai, which might leave a sequel of somewhat indefinite length, but he expresses the absolute and immediate close of the whole in the strongest manner possible, by the Aor. ¿relion. Nor is the nature of the case less explicit than the language. It is evident, that when the seventh and last seal was broken, all the heavenly world expected immediate consummation, and looked on in fearful silence, 8: 1. But when the last seal is divided into seven parts (seven trumpets), in order that the long-suffering of God might be exhibited, and time be protracted so that the number of martyrs should be completed, 6: 11, (for in this way a gradual accomplishment is provided for); if, I say, after all this the time of the catastrophe is still further protracted, would not the writer have given us some express intimation of it? But of this no notice whatever is given. Exactly the reverse is contained in the passage before us. The second subordinate seven (trumpets), grow. ing out of the seventh seal, admit of no subdivision. At least, this would be so contrary to the evident nature of the case, and to the usual meaning of completeness indicated by seren, that nothing but an explicit declaration of the Author himself should satisfy us of any further extension of the contents of the sealed book. Scarcely anything respecting the plan of the book seems to me more plain and certain than this; and I find it difficult to imagine how the subject can be viewed in a different light, even after attentively considering what the authors above named have written respecting it. That chap. xi. brings to view an interval, between the appearance of the angel here and the sounding of the seventh trumpet, is indeed sufficiently plain. But what the angel says, in the passage before us, does not interfere at all with this. His declaration is, that when the seventh trumpet shall sound, there shall be no more delay, ètɛhéo&ŋ μvorýgiov.

(8) And the voice which I had heard from heaven, again spake with me and said: Go, take the little open book in the hand of the angel, who is standing upon the sea and upon the land.

"Hzovoα, Aor. I. in the Pluperf. sense here as to time when, but aoristic as to continuance; N. Testament Gramm. § 136. 5. 3.—Makovoa... Léyovoa, Part. used as verb in the Praeter, v being implied; as often in this book. Respecting the contents of the little book proffered by the angel; see the remarks on v. 2 above. Almost an exact prototype is in Ezek. 3: 1-3, where the prophet eats the roll presented to him.

(9) And I went to the angel, speaking to him to give me the little book. And he saith to me: Take it and eat it up; and it shall make thy stomach bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey.

It is to be remembered that all is mere supposed and symbolic action here, and not a real transaction. Comp. the case of the girdle in Jer. 13: 1-7; the case of Ezekiel's lying on one side 390 days, and on the other 40 days, and eating bread baked with dung, Ezek. 4: 4—17; comp. also Hos. i. ii. The same may also be said of many other cases. Surely it is not necessary to suppose anything more in the case before us, than mere symbol. To devour a book is figurative language, like propinare, imbibere, devorare, deglutire, etc., employed by the Latins in order to designate mental action and eager acquisition by the mind. So Jeremiah also speaks of "eating the words of the Lord," 15: 16. In 4 Ezra 14: 38—40, the like idea is conveyed by the image of drinking from a cup of water which was of a fiery colour, and which filled the heart of the seer with pain, but sharpened his memory and increased his wisdom. So here, the contents of the book will be sweet to the taste, but bitter to the stomach of the seer; i. e. what he learns from the book is matter both of joy and grief; of joy, because of the good tidings respecting the faithful disciples of Christ; of grief, because of the evils which were to come upon many who would persevere in their wickedness. To the same purpose, and comprising the same expressions, is the passage in Ezek. 3: 1—3.

Why then should not our interpretation follow the path here marked out? Is it because we have no circumstantial account of the final fall of the metropolis? Investigating by this rule, where shall we find a catastrophe at all in the book? In chap. 16: 17-21, there is very little more of particularity, than in 11: 15—19. Nearly the same circumstances occur in both; and how consummation can be plainly found in the first passages, just alluded to, and denied in the second, I do not see. I must therefore interpret the words of the author, by taking a position on a different ground.

(10) And I took the little book from the hand of the angel, and ate it up, and it was in my mouth sweet as honey, and when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.

"Eqayor, is the Aor. II. of an obsolete root, gáyw; for the Pres. and several other tenses, iodio or do and their derivates are employed. Κατέφαγον and ἔφαγον are plainly employed here substantially in the same sense. If there be a difference, it may be expressed perhaps in English by ate up or devoured and ate.

(11) Then he saith to me: Thou must prophesy respecting many people and nations and tongues and kings.

I have referred zohλois, at the close of the verse, to all four of the nouns which precede it, because I deem this to have been the intention of the writer. But in the version, our English idiom demands a position of the adjective different from that in the Greek, and I have accordingly given to it the position required.*

#

Ewald, in order to make out his theory respecting the little book, (see on v. 2 above), says, that we must separate v. 11 from vs. 8-10. But no good reason for so doing is apparent to me; nor does the nature of the case, as I apprehend the matter, permit such a divulsion. The conference of the angel with John ends with chap. x. A new scene begins with chap. xi, an episode not unlike to that in chap. vii, before the breaking of the seventh seal, where a consummation was naturally to be expected. There the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads, and thus secured against impending evils. Here, where the last and finishing part of the crisis is near at hand, the temple of God, i. e. the holy place with the essential parts of worship, the residence of the Divinity, is meted out for the like purpose of safety. All that is external and merely ritual is devoted to destruction. The Jewish dispensation, as to its exterior, has now come to its final close, and a new and more purely spiritual religion is to take its place.

How can all this, now, cohere and unite with the vision, in which the angel presents the little book? Even Ewald does not plead for this in his note here; yet in his remarks on chap. 10: 1 (p. 187) he strenuously defends the unity of 10: 1-11: 13. If the reader feels any difficulty about a transition here (in 11: 1 seq.) to another vision, because xai simply is employed as the index of it, he needs only to be reminded, that such transitions are common throughout the whole book. He is referred, for a full disclosure of this, to the notes on 5: 1.

As to the speaker in the verse before us, he is doubtless the angel who held the little book in his hand. But as to the speaker in 11: 1 (λéyov), I take him to be quite a different person from the angel, although his name is not given. But in order to discover who he is, we may ask: Who are my two witnesses in v. 3? Ewald himself being judge (pp. 194, 200), they are the witnesses of Christ. It is Christ then who speaks here, and who commissions John to measure off the holy part of the temple for preservation. And if this is true, (and surely it must be either Christ or God), then is there a new vision here, and the angel of chap. x. is no longer the special agent in chap. xi. Should the reader feel any difficulty in regard to the introduction of a new agent without naming him, the perusal of the book through will satisfy him, that, as in the case of the Hebrew en, sapil, etc., the subject of the verb is often left to be supplied by the reader, so in respect