'Eni laois x. 7. 2. our version renders: "Before many people, etc." But although í is capable of such a sense, we can hardly suppose the angel to have directed John to write or to utter the Apocalypse in presence of many people, etc. Plainly the contents of the book, in the sequel, have respect to many people. With this agrees the natural meaning of iní, in such a connection as that in which it here stands.

THE TEMPLE: CHAP. XI. 1, 2.

[The first two verses of this chapter have occasioned much trouble to commentators; and the variety of opinion respecting them is so great, that even to give a tolerably full account of it would occupy many pages. I shall briefly state my own apprehensions respecting the passage, and then glance at some of the other interpretations which are entitled to particular notice. No commentator that I have been able to consult, seems to have made the comparison between the present passage and Rev. vii. Previous to this last passage, as has been noted above, six seals had been mentioned as already opened, and the opening of the seventh and last was now expected. But before this was broken, the servants of God were to be impressed upon their foreheads by his seal, which thus became the emblem of protection and safety in respect to impending evils. Unexpectedly to the spectators, the seventh seal is disparted, so that a gradual accomplishment of the woes which it threatens is to take place. (I say unexpectedly, because 8: 1 shows that the final catastrophe was expected forthwith). This gradation is marked by the seven trumpets. Six of these have now been sounded; and there remains, at the point of time where we now are, only one to close the scene. And here comes in another interposition, viz. that in respect to saving a part of the temple, like to that in chap. vii. with respect to saving Christians from impending evils. Christians, indeed, have already been made secure, in the case now before us. But the close of the Jewish or Mosaic institutions is near at hand. Shall all which pertained to these now go to ruin? Or is there not something, that constitutes the essential unity of religion under both dispensations, which is worthy of preservation, and which therefore must be preserved? If the ground taken by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is correct, (which we may well believe), then the basis of Judaism and Christianity is the same.

Besides; how can we consider the representation before us as anything more than mere symbol? Is it to be once imagined, that John actually expected the Gentiles, who would tread down the holy city and the exterior part of the temple (τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν), to spare the interior part of the temple and the worshippers there? This would be to suppose him wholly ignorant of the manner in which war was conducted, at the time when he lived. Moreover, as to matter of fact, the reverse of what is implied by such a supposition actually took place. The temple-the very Sanctum itself—

to the agent or speaker in the Apocalypse, we are often obliged to resort to the context in order to discover who he is; e. g. Rev. 22: 12 al. The Aéyow in 11: 1 is sufficiently explained by the udoτvoi μov in v. 3. If these views are correct, we cannot hesitate to connect 10: 11 with 10: 8-10.

was the great slaughter house, at the time of the Roman invasion; and all the sacred building was destroyed together, at one and the same period. Neither fact nor probability, therefore, plead for a literal interpretation in this case. And besides this, what shall we say of measuring the worshippers (v. 1) in a literal sense, in order that they might be preserved?

For these reasons the whole transaction is to be regarded merely as a symbolical matter. Yet symbol must of course signify something; and what is that something in the present case? So far as I can understand the meaning of the symbolic transaction before us, its design seems plainly to be this, viz. to prefigure the preservation of all which was fundamental and essential in the ancient religion, notwithstanding the destruction of all that was external, in respect to the temple, the city, and the ancient people of God. It is as much as to say: Amid the ruin of the Jews as a nation, while the holy city is reduced to ashes, and all the sacred ritual of worship forever closed, there are some imperishable things which will survive the work of destruction, and over which the invading hostile nations have no power. Is not the preservation of the Sanctum of the temple an appropriate and significant emblem of this?

The greater part of the commentators have passed over this paragraph sicco pede, without even seeming to feel that there was any difficulty in the case. A few have given some hints; specimens of which I will now lay before the reader. Zegerus: 'The temple means the church; the altar, Christ; or the temple and altar mean Christ, who with his two-fold nature is the temple of God and the altar of the church. The porch without means heretics and pseudo-Christians. To cast them out is to excommunicate them.' See Crit. Sac. Londinenses on Rev. xi.

Vitringa: The interior temple means true Christians; the exterior, false Christians, heretics, etc.; the altar means Christ; measuring the temple and worshippers is scrutinizing the character of Christians real or professed; the casting out of the outer court is excommunicating false professors; the heathen who are to tread down the temple and city, are Christians in name only, (and therefore called heathen), who are to form an external church and have dominion over it, suppressing at the same time the true worshippers of God, until at last God shall exclude them from even the external pale of his church.' Comm. in loc.

Heinrichs (in Comm.) thinks that John, like Ezekiel (chap. xl-xlviii.), designed to give a sketch of a literally new temple, more holy and perfect, which would be erected under the new dispensation, in which only the Sanctum of the old one would be preserved. Comm. in loc.

Ewald thinks that John designed to represent the most holy and precious part of the temple, as actually to be saved from the ravages of the invading enemy; and that he has said this out of compassion to Jewish prejudices still cleaving to the minds of Hebrew Christians, as well as to those of proper Jews. He says, that the author means to include both pious Jews and Christians among the worshippers mentioned in v. 1. Whether John believed that such would be the fact, viz., that the Sanctum of the temple would be spared, or whether he only made such a representation in order to conciliate Jewish sympathies, Ewald does not say; but the manner of his representation would seem to indicate the former opinion, viz. that the writer really hoped and expected the Sanctum would be spared.

Bleek gives a different and perhaps in some respects more probable

view of the case. He thinks that John supposed the city and temple would be invaded and trodden down for forty-two months by the heathen; but that he expected the sanctuary would be spared, and given up to Christians during that period, because they are "priests unto God," and would have access therefore to the holy places in the temple, where priests only were allowed to come. Thus he makes out a kind of literal and at the same time figurative meaning; with much ingenuity indeed, but still, as I apprehend, in a manner foreign to the true design of the Apocalyptist. Bleek supposes that John had not the least expectation of anything more than a mere temporary invasion and subjection of the city; and he represents John as indicating plainly that the city would ultimately be spared.

The interpretations of Zegerus and Vitringa are a striking specimen of the aliquid ex aliquo in the exegesis of the Apocalypse; a specimen, however, the like of which may be found in multitudes of writers. The interpretations of Heinrichs, Ewald, and Bleek, all stand on the ground, that the writer of the book before us was not only ignorant of the future, but that he designed nothing more than to express his hopes, and give vent to his remaining Jewish sympathies for the literal temple and its ritual. But viewed in their proper light, even these hopes seem to me to be quite destitute of probability. The writer of the Apocalypse, whether inspired or not, well knew the embittered nature of the contest between the Romans and the Jews. As well did he know, also, the vehemence of the Jewish superstitions, and of course that they would be likely, in the natural course of things, to occasion the destruction of the temple and worship which appeared to be the central point of these superstitions, and through them of insurrections among the Jews and opposition to the authority of the Romans. How could he then, with any good ground of hope, expect the temple to be spared? Or how could he suppose that Christians, already the objects of embittered persecution by Nero, would be permitted to retain possession of the Sanctum (according to Ewald and Bleek); or to rebuild another structure there more magnificent than the former one? (according to Heinrichs). In whatever light this matter is viewed, the interpretations before us look improbable, even when contemplated from the position in which these critics would fain place us.

But if John (whether apostle or not) was really what he declares himself to be, i. e. év лvɛuati when he wrote this book or had these visions, then of course do the expositions of the last named writers, and all others that are like them, fall entirely to the ground. Facts contradict the declarations of John, in case they are expounded as the writers named bid us to expound them. It comes at last then to the simple question, whether being v яvεúμat affords any security against erroneous and unfounded expectations? These critics would doubtless answer this question at once in the negative; I am as fully persuaded, that an affirmative answer is the proper one.

In a word; why should we, with these interpreters, adopt an exegesis which is half literal and half figurative? Why should we adopt one which on its very face would show that the author of the Apocalypse was merely a prejudiced Jew, and besides this, but a very poor sort of augurer as to the future? Why should we adopt one, which contradicts facts that actually took place? Or why should we so spiritualize, with the older writers, as to make out aliquid ex aliquo? I may even ask with some emphasis: Why should we do any part of this, when there is an easy and nat

ural interpretation, in harmony with the whole tenor of the book, which gives a plain and intelligible sense, and one fraught with appropriate meaning?

Eichhorn, previous to the productions of Bleek, Heinrichs, and Ewald, had already set an example of interpretation here, which Lange followed, and which others would have done well to follow; and although his book is not always wanting in exegesis which is improbable and incongruous, yet here he has happily hit upon a proper medium between two extremes. For substance his views are such as I have given above, and which seem to-me altogether preferable to those of most succeeding commentators.]

(1) And there was given to me a reed like to a staff, saying: Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship therein.

Kahapos is a generic word, and sometimes means, as here, a light measuring-rod, sometimes a staff for the hand, and sometimes a pen. The use of the záhauos depends on the size. In Ezek. 40: 3, such a reed is called a reed of measurement; and the passage there is the model, in some respects, of the one before us.-Oμotos gáßdo, like to a staff or sceptre, i. e. like to it in regard to size, and therefore convenient for handling. Or we may construe the clause in another way. In Heb., which usually means staff, rod, also means measuring rod or pole, Ps. 74: 2. Jer. 10: 16. 51: 19, in these cases = measured or meted portion. The Sept. in more than twenty-five instances translate this word by gά3dos; and in like manner do they translate the first two instances just mentioned. We may therefore interpret thus: A reed was given me like to a measuring-rod, i. e. like to it in respect to length, size, etc.

Ayoor-but who is the speaker? The vulgate text has supplied the agent, by inserting: zai ó äppelos eiorize. But this clause is justly rejected, as wanting sufficient support from Mss. It is moreover evidently against the tenor of the sequel, for v. 3 (μáorvoív μov) shows that God or Christ must have been the speaker in this case. The addition in the vulgate text seems to be a gloss introduced from Zech. 3: 5, latter clause. Evidently the speaker, in this verse, is the person who gave John the measuring-rod. But as the passive voice (860) is here used, the agent in this case is not designated. This must be supplied, therefore, from the context, and v. 3 enables us to supply the proper Nominative. The interpretation which makes xalauos itself the speaker, is not worth notice, except as a fact which exhibits the possibility of any and every extravagance in interpretation. See further in the remarks at the close of the preceding chapter. Ἔγειραι, rise, Dap or so common in the Psalms. It does not imply merely rising up from a sitting or reclining posture, but rousing up to action from a state of inaction; and so it is like the Latin age, agedum, etc.-Μέτρησον ... τοῦ Θεοῦ, offers no difficulty as to the

simple meaning of the words, but merely as to the design or object of the action. In Ezek. 40: 3 seq., the angel who has the measuring-rod uses it in the way of meting out the proportions of a new temple to be erected. In Zech. 2: 1 seq., the angel with a measuring-line employs it for the like purpose in respect to the city of Jerusalem. But in Lam.

2: 8. 2 Kings 21: 13. Is. 34: 11. Amos 7: 8, 9, a line and plumb-line are employed as symbols of destruction; and these are altogether analogous to the case before us. As a part is to be preserved, and a part to be destroyed, so the former has boundaries assigned to it, beyond which destruction cannot be extended.-Ovoiαorýgiov means the altar, either for burnt offerings or for incense; for the word is employed in respect to both, although it is more appropriate to the former meaning, so far as etymology is concerned. But here doubtless it means the altar of incense, which stood near the most holy place.

στόμα ... καὶ ἢ Comp. 1 Tim. 4:

Καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ, (sc. ἐν τῷ ναῷ). But how could the seer measure the worshippers with a xáλapos? He could not, in a literal sense. I understand the passage, therefore, as exhibiting a zeugma, i. e. a verb is connected with two nouns, while it has a sense appropriate only to one. So in Luke 1: 64, ἀνεῴχθη τὸ γλώσσα; 1 Cor. 3: 2, γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα. 3, and Homer's olvov xai oirov dovres, Gramm. § 192. In the present case we have only to supply some appropriate verb to be connected with προσκυνοῦντας, such as λόγισαι, take an account of; or we may simply transfer the generic sense of péronoov so as to be connected with this noun, and the meaning will be good, viz., mete out, apportion off, quasi'draw a line of circumvallation around the inner temple and the worshippers in spirit and in truth who are there; for such shall be protected amid the general ruin.'-That év avro means in the temple, seems sufficiently plain from the nature of the case. Agreement of a pronoun with a more remote antecedent, is by no means an unusual phenomenon in the sacred writings; Gramm. § 124. 4. Note. 3.

(2) But the porch without the temple cast out, and measure it not, for it is given up to the Gentiles; and they shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months.

Τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν. That the temple was divided in the manner here indicated, is plain from Ezek. 40: 17, 19, where we have 2 and is, i. e. the inner court and the outer court. The Sanctum Sanctorum, and the vaós or apartment for incense and sacrifices, constituted the inner court, which only the priests could frequent; the remaining or front part of the building constituted another court, where worshippers of the common order assembled; and still farther out was the court of the Gentiles, i. e. a space where foreigners might 28

VOL. II.