Chapter XI (1)

AND there was given me a [329]reed like unto a rod: and the
angel stood, saying, Rise, and [330]measure the temple of God,
and the altar, and them that worship therein.

1. _And there was given me._ He does not say by whom, but the connection would seem to imply that it was by the angel. All this is of course to be regarded as symbolical. The representation undoubtedly pertains to a future age, but the language is such as would be properly addressed to one who had been a Jew, and the imagery employed is such as he would be more likely to understand than any other. The language and the imagery are, therefore, taken from the temple, but there is no reason to suppose that it had any _literal_ reference to the temple, or even that John would so understand it. Nor does the language here used prove that the temple was standing at the time when the book was written; for, as it is symbolical, it is what would be employed whether the temple were standing or not, and would be as likely to be used in the one case as in the other. It is such language as John, educated as a Jew, and familiar with the temple worship, would be likely to employ if he designed to make a representation pertaining to the church. ¶ _A reed_――κάλαμος. This word properly denotes a plant with a jointed hollow stalk, growing in wet grounds. Then it refers to the stalk as cut for use――as a measuring-stick, as in this place; or a mock sceptre, Mat. xxvii. 29, 30; or a pen for writing, 3 Jn. 13. Here it means merely a stick that could be used for measuring. ¶ _Like unto a rod._ This word――ῥάβδος――means properly a rod, wand, staff, used either for scourging, 1 Co. iv. 21; or for leaning upon in walking, Mat. x. 10; or for a sceptre, He. i. 8. Here the meaning {268} is, that the reed that was put into his hands was like such a rod or staff in respect to size, and was therefore convenient for handling. The word _rod_ also is used to denote a measuring-pole, Ps. lxxiv. 2; Je. x. 16; li. 19. ¶ _And the angel stood, saying._ The phrase, “the angel stood,” is wanting in many MSS. and editions of the New Testament, and is rejected by Professor Stuart as spurious. It is also rejected in the critical editions of Griesbach and Hahn, and marked as doubtful by Tittmann. The best critical authority is against it, and it appears to have been introduced from Zec. iii. 5. The connection does not demand it, and we may, therefore, regard the meaning to be, that the one who gave him the reed, whoever he was, at the same time addressed him, and commanded him to take a measure of the temple and the altar. ¶ _Rise, and measure the temple of God._ That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the _literal_ temple――whether standing or not――for the exact measure of that was sufficiently well known. The word, then, must be used of something which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be the church, considered as the abode of God on the earth. Under the old dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that abode; under the new, that peculiar residence was transferred to the church, and God is represented as dwelling in it. See Notes on 1 Co. iii. 16. Thus the word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true church of God; _as_ accurate as if he were to apply a measuring-reed to ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem. In doing that, if the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be distinguished from other edifices, or that one could be constructed like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be destroyed. If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was――as distinguished from all other bodies of men, and as constituted and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be organized according to this, and that the accurate description could be transmitted to future times. John has not, indeed, preserved the measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known. There would be, therefore, a fulfilment of this, if at the time here referred to there should be _occasion_, from any cause, to inquire what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary. ¶ _And the altar._ On the form, situation, and uses of the altar, see Notes on Mat. v. 23, 24; xxi. 12. The altar here referred to was, undoubtedly, the altar situated in front of the temple, where the daily sacrifice was offered. To measure that literally, would be to take its dimensions of length, breadth, and height; but it is plain that that cannot be intended here, for there was no such altar where John was, and, if the reference were to the altar at Jerusalem, its dimensions were sufficiently known. This language, then, like the former, must be understood metaphorically, and then it must mean――as the altar was the place of _sacrifice_――to take an estimate of the church considered with reference to its notions of sacrifice, or of the prevailing views respecting the sacrifice to be made for sin, and the method of reconciliation with God. It is by sacrifice that a method is provided for reconciliation with God; by sacrifice that sin is pardoned; by sacrifice that man is justified; and the direction here is equivalent, therefore, to a command to make an investigation on these subjects, and all that is implied would be fulfilled if a state of things should exist where it would be necessary to institute an examination into the prevailing views in the church on the subject of the atonement, and the true method of justification before God. ¶ _And them that worship therein._ In the temple, or, as the temple is the representation here of the church, of those who are in the church {269} as professed worshippers of God. There is some apparent incongruity in directing him to “_measure_” those who were engaged in worship; but the obvious meaning is, that he was to take a correct estimate of their character; of what they professed; of the reality of their piety; of their lives, and of the general state of the church considered as professedly worshipping God. This would receive its fulfilment if a state of things should arise in the church which would make it necessary to go into a close and searching examination on all these points, in order to ascertain what was the true church, and what was necessary to constitute true membership in it. There were, therefore, three things, as indicated by this verse, which John was directed to do, so far as the use of the measuring-rod was concerned: (a) to take a just estimate of what constitutes the true church, as distinguished from all other associations of men; (b) to institute a careful examination into the opinions in the church on the subject of sacrifice or atonement――involving the whole question about the method of justification before God; and (c) to take a correct estimate of what constitutes true membership in the church; or to investigate with care the prevailing opinions about the qualifications for membership.

2 But the [331]court which is without the temple [332]leave
out, and measure it not; for [333]it is given unto the
Gentiles: and the holy city shall they [334]tread under foot
forty _and_ two months.

2. _But the court which is without the temple._ Which is outside of the temple proper, and, therefore, which does not strictly appertain to it. There is undoubtedly reference here to the “court of the Gentiles,” as it was called among the Jews――the outer court of the temple to which the Gentiles had access, and within which they were not permitted to go. For a description of this, see Notes on Mat. xxi. 12. To an observer this would _seem_ to be a part of the temple, and the persons there assembled a portion of the true worshippers of God; but it was necessarily neither the one nor the other. In forming an estimate of those who, according to the Hebrew notions, were true worshippers of God, only those would be regarded as such who had the privilege of access to the inner court, and to the altar. In making such an estimate, therefore, those who had no nearer access than that court, would be omitted; that is, they would not be reckoned as necessarily any part of those who were regarded as the people of God. ¶ _Leave out and measure it not._ Marg., _cast out_. So the Greek. The meaning is, that he was not to reckon it as appertaining to the true temple of worshippers. There is, indeed, a degree of force in the words rendered “_leave out_,” or, in the margin, “_cast out_”――ἔκβαλλε ἔξω――which implies more than a mere _passing by_, or _omission_. The word (ἐκβάλλω) usually has the idea of _force_ or _impulse_ (Mat. viii. 12; xv. 17; xxv. 30; Mar. xvi. 9; Ac. xxvii. 38, _et al._); and the word here would denote some decisive or positive act by which it would be indicated that this was _not_ any part of the true temple, but was to be regarded as appertaining to something else. He was not merely _not_ to mention it, or _not_ to include it in the measurement, but he was to do this by some act which would indicate that it was the result of design in the case, and not by accidentally passing it by. ¶ _For it is given unto the Gentiles._ It properly appertains to them as their own. Though near the temple, and included in the general range of building, yet it does not pertain to those who worship there, but to those who are regarded as heathen and strangers. It is not said that it was _then_ given to the Gentiles; nor is it said that it was given to them to be overrun and trodden down by them, but that it _appertained to them_, and was to be regarded as belonging to them. They occupied it, not as the people of God, but as those who were _without_ the true church, and who did not appertain to its real communion. This would find a fulfilment if there should arise a state of things in the church in which it would be necessary to draw a line between those who properly constituted the church and those who did not; if there should be such a condition of things that any considerable portion of those who professedly appertained to the church ought to be _divided off_ as not belonging to it, or would have such characteristic marks that it could be seen that they were strangers and aliens. The interpretation would demand that they should sustain _some_ relation to the {270} church, or that they would _seem_ to belong to it――as the court did to the temple; but still that this was in appearance only, and that in estimating the true church it was necessary to leave them out altogether. Of course this would not imply that there might not be some sincere worshippers among them as individuals――as there would be found usually, in the court of the Gentiles in the literal temple, some who were proselytes and devout worshippers, but what is here said relates to them as a mass or body――that they did not belong to the true church, but to the Gentiles. ¶ _And the holy city._ The _whole_ holy city――not merely the outer court of the Gentiles, which it is said was given to them, nor the temple as such, but the _entire_ holy city. There is no doubt that the words “the holy city” _literally_ refer to Jerusalem――a city so called because it was the peculiar place of the worship of God. See Notes on Mat. iv. 5; comp. Ne. xi. 1, 18; Is. lii. 1; Da. ix. 24; Mat. xxvii. 53. But it is not necessary to suppose that this is its meaning here. The “holy city,” Jerusalem, was regarded as sacred to God――as his dwelling- place on earth, and as the abode of his people, and nothing was more natural than to use the term as representing the church. Comp. Notes on Ga. iv. 26; He. xii. 22. In this sense it is undoubtedly used here as the whole representation is emblematical. John, if he were about to speak of anything that was to occur to the church, would, as a native Jew, be likely to employ such language as this to denote it. ¶ _Shall they tread under foot._ That is, the Gentiles above referred to; or those who, in the measurement of the city, were set off as Gentiles, and regarded as not belonging to the people of God. This is not spoken of the Gentiles in general, but only of that portion of the multitudes that seemed to constitute the worshippers of God, who, in measuring the temple, were set off or separated as not properly belonging to the true church. The phrase “should tread under foot” is derived from warriors and conquerors, who tread down their enemies, or trample on the fields of grain. It is rendered in this passage by Dr. Robinson (_Lex._), “to profane and lay waste.” As applied literally to a city, this would be the true idea; as applied to the church, it would mean that they would have it under their control or in subjection for the specified time, and that the practical effect of that would be to corrupt and prostrate it. ¶ _Forty |and| two months._ Literally this would be three years and a half; but if the time here is prophetic time――a day for a year――then the period would be twelve hundred and sixty years――reckoning the year at 360 days. For a full illustration of this usage, and for the reasons for supposing that this is prophetic time, see Notes on Da. vii. 25. See also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. In addition to what is there said, it may be remarked, in reference to this passage, that it is impossible to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was “trampled under foot” by the Romans for the exact space of three years and a half. Professor Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, “It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country of Judæa.” But it is to be remembered that the affirmation here is, that “_the holy city_” was thus to be trodden under foot; and even taking the former supposition, in what sense is it true that the “whole country” was “trodden under foot” by the Romans only three years and a half? Even the wars of the Romans were not of that exact duration; and, besides, the fact was that Judæa was held in subjection, and trodden down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, regained its independence. If this is to be literally applied to Jerusalem, it has been “trodden down by the Gentiles,” with brief intervals, since the conquest by the Romans, to the present time. There has been no precise period of three years and a half, in respect to which the language here used would be applicable to the literal city of Jerusalem.

In regard, then, to the proper _application_ of the language which has thus been explained (ver. 1, 2), it may be remarked, in general, that, for the reasons just stated, it is not to be taken _literally_. John could not have been directed literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, and the altar, and the worshippers; nor could he have been {271} requested literally to leave out, or “cast out” the court that was without; nor could it be meant that the holy city literally was to be trodden under foot for three years and a half. The language clearly is symbolical, and the reference must have been to something pertaining to the church. And, if the preceding exposition of the tenth chapter is correct, then it may be presumed that this would refer to something that was to occur at about the period there referred to. Regarding it, then, as applicable to the time of the Reformation, and as being a continuation of the vision in ch. x., we shall find, in the events of that period, what would be properly symbolized by the language here used. This will appear by reviewing the particulars which have been explained in these verses:――

(1) The command to “measure the temple of God,” ver. 1. This, we have seen, was a direction to take an estimate of what constituted the true church; the very work which it was necessary to do in the Reformation, for this was the first point which was to be settled, whether the Papacy was the true church or was the Antichrist. This involved, of course, the whole inquiry as to what constitutes the church, alike in reference to its organization, its ministry, its sacraments, and its membership. It was long before the Reformers made up their minds that the Papacy was _not_ the true church; for the veneration which they had been taught to cherish for that lingered long in their bosoms. And even when they were constrained to admit that that corrupt communion was the predicted form of the great apostasy――_Antichrist_――and had acquired boldness enough to break away from it for ever, it was long before they settled down in a uniform belief as to what _was_ essential to the true church. Indeed, the differences of opinion which prevailed, the warm discussions which ensued, and the diversities of sect which sprang up in the Protestant world, showed with what intense interest the mind was fixed on this question, and how important it was to take an exact _measurement_ of the real church of God.

(2) The direction to “measure the altar.” This, as we have seen, would relate to the prevailing opinions on the subject of sacrifice and atonement; on the true method of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and, consequently, on the whole subject of justification. As a matter of fact, it need not be said that this was one of the first questions which came before the Reformers, and was one which it was indispensable to settle, in order to a just notion of the church and of the way of salvation. The Papacy had exalted the Lord’s supper into a real sacrifice; had made it a grand and essential point that the bread and wine were changed into the real body and blood of the Lord, and that a real offering of that sacrifice was made every time that ordinance was celebrated; had changed the office of the ministers of the New Testament from _preachers_ to that of _priests_; had become familiar with the terms _altar_, and _sacrifice_, and _priesthood_, as founded on the notion that a real sacrifice was made in the “mass;” and had fundamentally changed the whole doctrine respecting the justification of a sinner before God. The altar in the Romish communion had almost displaced the pulpit; and the doctrine of justification by the merits of the great sacrifice made by the death of our Lord, had been superseded by the doctrine of justification by good works, and by the merits of the saints. It became necessary, therefore, to restore the true doctrine respecting sacrifice for sin, and the way of justification before God; and this would be appropriately represented by a direction to “measure _the altar_.”

(3) The direction to take an estimate of those “who worshipped in the temple.” This, as we have seen, would properly mean that there was to be a true estimate taken of what constituted membership in the church, or of the qualifications of those who should be regarded as true worshippers of God. This, also, was one of the first works necessary to be done in the Reformation. Before that, for ages, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had been the established doctrine of the church; that all that was necessary to membership was baptism and confirmation, was the common opinion; the necessity of regeneration by the influences of the Holy Spirit, as a condition of church membership, was little understood, if not almost wholly unknown; and the grand requisition _in_ membership was not holy living, but the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the church. One of the first things necessary in the Reformation was to restore to its true place the doctrine laid down by the Saviour, that a change {272} of heart――that regeneration by the Holy Ghost――was necessary to membership in the church, and that the true church was composed of those who had been thus renewed in the spirit of their mind. This great work would be appropriately symbolized by a direction to take an estimate of those who “worshipped in the temple of God;” that is, to settle the question who should be regarded as true worshippers of God, and what should be required of those who professed to be such worshippers. No more important point was settled in the Reformation than this.

(4) The direction to leave out, or to “cast out” the court without the temple. This, as we have seen, would properly mean that a separation was to be made between that which was the true church and that which was not, though it might seem to belong to it. The one was to be measured or estimated; the other was to be left out, as not appertaining to that, or as belonging to the Gentiles, or to heathenism. The idea would be, that though it professedly appertained to the true church, and to the worship of God, yet that it deserved to be characterized _as_ heathenism. Now this will apply with great propriety, according to all Protestant notions, to the manner in which the Papacy was regarded by the Reformers, and should be regarded at all times. It claimed to be the true church, and to the eye of an observer would _seem_ to belong to it, as much as the outer court seemed to pertain to the temple. But it had the essential characteristics of _heathenism_, and was, therefore, properly to be left out, or cast out, as not pertaining to the true church. Can anyone doubt the truth of this representation as applicable to the Papacy? Almost everything that was peculiar in the ancient heathen systems of religion had been introduced into the Roman communion; and a stranger at Rome would see more that would lead him to feel that he was in a heathen land, than he would that he was in a land where the pure doctrines of Christianity prevailed, and where the worship was celebrated which the Redeemer had designed to set up on the earth. This was true not only in the pomp and splendour of worship, and in the processions and imposing ceremonials; but in the worship of images, in the homage rendered to the dead, in the number of festival days, in the fact that the statues reared in heathen Rome to the honour of the gods had been reconsecrated in the service of Christian devotion to the apostles, saints, and martyrs; and in the robes of the Christian priesthood, derived from those in use in the ancient heathen worship. The direction was, that, in estimating the true church, this was to be “left out,” or “cast out;” and, if this interpretation is correct, the meaning is, that the Roman Catholic communion, as an organized body, is to be regarded as no part of the true church――a conclusion which is inevitable, if the passages of Scripture which are commonly supposed by Protestants to apply to it are correctly applied. To determine this, and to separate the true church from it, was no small part of the work of the Reformation.

(5) The statement that the holy city was to be trodden under foot, ver. 2. This, as we have seen, must mean that the true church would thus be trodden down by those who are described as “Gentiles.” So far as pure religion was concerned; so far as appertained to the real condition of the church, and the pure worship of God, it would be _as if_ the whole holy city where God was worshipped were given into the hands of the Gentiles, and they should tread it down, and desecrate all that was sacred for the time here referred to. Everything in Rome at the time of the Reformation would sustain this description. “It is incredible,” says Luther, on his visit to Rome, “what sins and atrocities are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. So that it is usual to say: ‘If there be a hell, Rome is built above it; it is an abyss from which all sins proceed.’” So again he says: “It is commonly observed that he who goes to Rome for the first time, goes to seek a knave there; the second time he finds him; and the third time he brings him away with him under his cloak. But now, people are become so clever, that they make the three journeys in one.” So Machiavelli, one of the most profound geniuses in Italy, and himself a Roman Catholic, said, “The greatest symptom of the approaching ruin of Christianity is, that the nearer we approach the capital of Christendom, the less do we find of the Christian spirit of the people. The scandalous example and crimes of the court of Rome have caused Italy to lose every principle of piety and every religious sentiment.{273} We Italians are principally indebted to the church and to the priests for having become impious and profane.” See D’Aubigné’s _History of the Reformation_, p. 54, ed. Phila. 1843. In full illustration of the sentiment that the church seemed to be trodden down and polluted by heathenism, or by abominations and practices that came out of heathenism, we may refer to the general history of the Romish communion from the rise of the Papacy to the Reformation. For a sufficient illustration to justify the application of the passage before us which I am now making, the reader may be referred to the Notes on ch. ix. 20, 21. Nothing would better describe the condition of Rome previous to and at the time of the Reformation――and the remark may be applied to subsequent periods also――than to say that it was a city which once seemed to be a Christian city, and was not improperly regarded as the centre of the Christian world and the seat of the church, and that it had been, as it were, overrun and trodden down by heathen rites and customs and ceremonies, so that, to a stranger looking on it, it would seem to be in the possession of the “Gentiles” or the heathens.

(6) The _time_ during which this was to continue――“forty-two months;” that is, according to the explanation above given, twelve hundred and sixty years. This would embrace the whole period of the ascendency and prevalence of the Papacy, or the whole time of the continuance of that corrupt domination in which Christendom was to be trodden down and corrupted by it. The prophet of Patmos saw it in vision thus extending its dreary and corrupting reign, and during that time the proper influence of Christianity was trampled down, and the domination of practical heathenism was set up where the church should have reigned in its purity. Thus regarded, this would properly express the time of the ascendency of the Papal power, and the end of the “forty-two months,” or twelve hundred and sixty years, would denote the time when the influence of that power would cease. If, therefore, the time of the _rise_ of the Papacy can be determined, it will not be difficult to determine the time when it will come to an end. But for a full consideration of these points the reader is referred to the extended discussion on Da. vii. 25. See also Editor’s Preface, p. xxv. As the point is there fully examined it is unnecessary to go into an investigation of it here.

The general remark, therefore, in regard to this passage (ver. 1, 2) is, that it refers to what would be necessary to be done at the Reformation in order to determine what is the true church and what are the doctrines on which it is based; and to the fact that the Romish communion, to which the church had been given over for a definite time, was to be set aside as not being the true church of Christ.

3 And I will [335]give _power_ unto my [336]two
[337]witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred
_and_ threescore days, [338]clothed in sackcloth.

3. _And I will give |power| unto my two witnesses._ In respect to this important passage (ver. 3‒13) I propose to pursue the same method which I have pursued all along in this exposition: first, to examine the meaning of the words and phrases in the symbol, with a purpose to ascertain the fair signification of the symbols; and, secondly, to inquire into the application――that is, to inquire whether any events have occurred which, in respect to their character and to the time of their occurrence, can be shown to be a _fair_ fulfilment of the language. ¶ _And I will give |power|._ The word “power” is not in the original. The Greek is simply, “I will give”――that is, I will grant to my two witnesses the right or the power of prophesying during the time specified――correctly expressed in the margin, “give unto my two witnesses that they may prophesy.” The meaning is not that he would _send_ two witnesses to prophesy, but rather that these were _in fact_ such “witnesses,” and that he would during that time permit them to exercise their prophetic gifts, or give them the privilege and the strength to enunciate the truth which they were commissioned to communicate as his “witnesses” to mankind. Some word, then, like _power_, _privilege_, _opportunity_, or _boldness_, it is necessary to supply in order to complete the sense. ¶ _Unto my two witnesses._ The word “_two_” evidently denotes that the number would be small; and yet it is not necessary to confine it literally to two persons, or to two societies or communities. Perhaps the meaning is, that {274} as, under the law, two witnesses were required, and were enough, to establish any fact (Notes on Jn. viii. 17), such a number would during those times be preserved from apostasy as would be sufficient to keep up the evidence of truth; to testify against the prevailing abominations, errors, and corruptions; to show what was the real church, and to bear a faithful witness against the wickedness of the world. The law of Moses required that there should be _two_ witnesses on a trial, and this, under that law, was deemed a _competent_ number. See Num. xxxv. 30; De. xvii. 6; xix. 15; Mat. xviii. 16; Jn. v. 30‒33. The essential meaning of this passage then is, that there would be a _competent number_ of witnesses in the case; that is, as many as would be regarded as _sufficient_ to establish the points concerning which they would testify, with perhaps the additional idea that the number would be _small_. There is no reason for limiting it strictly to two persons, or for supposing that they would appear in pairs, two and two; nor is it necessary to suppose that it refers particularly to two people or nations. The word rendered _witnesses_――μάρτυσι――is that from which we have derived the word _martyr_. It means properly one who bears testimony, either in a judicial sense (Mat. xviii. 16; xxvi. 65), or one who can in any way testify to the truth of what he has seen and known, Lu. xxiv. 48; Ro. i. 9; Phi. i. 8; 1 Th. ii. 10; 1 Ti. vi. 12. Then it came to be employed in the sense in which the word _martyr_ is now――to denote one who, amidst great sufferings or by his death, bears witness to the truth; that is, one who is so confident of the truth, and so upright, that he will rather lay down his life than deny the truth of what he has seen and known, Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13. In a similar sense it comes to denote one who is so thoroughly convinced on a subject that it is not susceptible of being seen and heard, or who is so attached to one that he is willing to lay down his life as the evidence of his conviction and attachment. The word, as used here, refers to those who, during this period of “forty and two months,” would thus be _witnesses_ for Christ in the world; that is, who would bear their _testimony_ to the truth of his religion, to the doctrines which he had revealed, and to what was required of man――who would do this amidst surrounding error and corruption, and when exposed to persecutions and trials on account of their belief. It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to represent the righteous as _witnesses_ for God. See Notes on Is. xliii. 10, 12; xliv. 8. ¶ _And they shall prophesy._ The word _prophesy_ does not necessarily mean that they would predict future events; but the sense is, that they would give utterance to the truth as God had revealed it. See Notes on ch. x. 11. The sense here is, that they would in some public manner hold up or maintain the truth before the world. ¶ _A thousand two hundred |and| threescore days._ The same period as the forty and two months (ver. 2), though expressed in a different form. Reckoning a day for a year, this period would be twelve hundred and sixty years, or the same as the “time and times and the dividing of time” in Da. vii. 25. See Notes on that place; also Editor’s Preface. The meaning of this would be, therefore, that during that long period, in which it is said that “the holy city would be trodden under foot,” there would be those who might be properly called “witnesses” for God, and who would be engaged in holding up his truth before the world; that is, there would be no part of that period in which there would not be found _some_ to whom this appellation could with propriety be given. Though the “holy city”――the church――would _seem_ to be wholly trodden down, yet there would be a few at least who would assert the great doctrines of true godliness. ¶ _Clothed in sackcloth._ Sackcloth――σάκκους――was properly a coarse black cloth commonly made of hair, used for sacks, for straining, and for mourning garments. See Notes on ch. vi. 12; Is. iii. 24; and Mat. xi. 21. Here it is an emblem of mourning; and the idea is, that they would prophesy in the midst of grief. This would indicate that the time would be one of calamity, or that, in doing this, there would be occasion for their appearing in the emblems of grief, rather than in robes expressive of joy. The most natural interpretation of this is, that there would be but few who could be regarded as true witnesses for God in the world, and that they would be exposed to persecution.

4 These are the [339]two olive-trees, and the two
[340]candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

4. _These are the two olive-trees._ These {275} are represented by the two olive-trees, or these are what are symbolized by the two olive-trees. There can be little doubt that there is an allusion here to Zec. iv. 3, 11, 14, though the imagery is in some respects changed. The prophet (Zec. iv. 2, 3) saw in vision “a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which were upon the top thereof; and two olive-trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.” These two “olive branches” were subsequently declared (ver. 14) to be “the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The olive-trees, or olive-branches (ver. 12), appear in the vision of the prophet to have been connected with the ever-burning lamp by golden pipes; and as the olive-tree produced the oil used by the ancients in their lamps, these trees are represented as furnishing a constant supply of oil through the golden pipes to the candlestick, and thus they become emblematic of the supply of grace to the church. John uses this emblem, not in the sense exactly in which it was employed by the prophet, but to denote that these two “witnesses,” which might be compared with the two olive-trees, would be the means of supplying grace to the church. As the olive-tree furnished oil for the lamps, the two trees here would seem properly to denote ministers of religion; and as there can be no doubt that the candlesticks, or lamp- bearers, denote churches, the sense would appear to be that it was through the pastors of the churches that the oil of grace which maintained the brightness of those mystic candlesticks, or the churches, was conveyed. The image is a beautiful one, and expresses a truth of great importance to the world; for God has designed that the lamp of piety shall be kept burning in the churches by truth supplied through ministers and pastors. ¶ _And the two candlesticks._ The prophet Zechariah saw but _one_ such candlestick or lamp-bearer; John here saw two――as there are two “witnesses” referred to. In the vision described in ch. i. 12, he saw seven――representing the seven churches of Asia. For an explanation of the meaning of the symbol, see Notes on that verse. ¶ _Standing before the God of the earth._ So Zec. iv. 14, “These be the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The meaning is, that they stood, as it were, in the very presence of God――as, in the tabernacle and temple, the golden candlestick stood “before” the ark on which was the symbol of the divine presence, though separated from it by a veil. Comp. Notes on ch. ix. 13. This representation, that the ministers of religion “stand before the Lord,” is one that is not uncommon in the Bible. Thus it is said of the priests and Levites: “The Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to _stand before the Lord_, to minister unto him, and to bless his name,” De. x. 8; comp. xviii. 7. The same thing is said of the prophets, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha: “As the Lord liveth, _before whom I stand_,” 1 Ki. xvii. 1; also, xviii. 15; 2 Ki. iii. 14; v. 16; comp. Je. xv. 19. The representation is, that they ministered, as it were, constantly in his presence, and under his eye.

5 And if any man will hurt them, [341]fire proceedeth out of
their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will
hurt them, [342]he must in this manner be killed.

5. _And if any man will hurt them._ This implies that there would be those who would be disposed to injure or wrong them; that is, that they would be liable to persecution. The word “_will_” is here more than the mere sign of the future; it denotes _intention_, _purpose_, _design_――θέλει――“if any man _wills_ or _purposes_ to injure them.” See a similar use of the word in 1 Ti. vi. 9. The word _hurt_ here means to do _injury_ or _injustice_――ἀδικῆσαι――and may refer to wrong in any form――whether in respect to their character, opinions, persons, or property. The general sense is, that there would be those who would be disposed to do them harm, and we should naturally look for the fulfilment of this in some form of persecution. ¶ _Fire proceedeth out of their mouth._ It is, of course, not necessary that this should be taken literally. The meaning is, that they would have the power of destroying their enemies _as if_ fire should proceed out of their mouth; that is, their words would be like burning coals or flames. There may possibly be an allusion here to 2 Ki. i. 10‒14, where {276} it is said that Elijah commanded the fire to descend from heaven to consume those who were sent to take him (comp. Lu. ix. 54); but in that case Elijah commanded the fire to come “from heaven;” here it proceedeth “out of the mouth.” The allusion here, therefore, is to the denunciations which they would utter, or the doctrines which they would preach, and which would have the same effect on their enemies as if they breathed forth fire and flame. So Je. v. 14, “Because ye speak this word, Behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire and this people wood, and it shall devour them.” ¶ _And devoureth their enemies._ The word _devour_ is often used with reference to fire, which seems to _eat up_ or _consume_ what is in its way, or to _feed on_ that which it destroys. This is the sense of the word here――κατεσθίει――“to eat down, to swallow down, to devour.” Comp. ch. xx. 9; Sept. Is. xxix. 6; Joel ii. 5; Le. x. 2. As there is no reason to believe that there would be literal _fire_, so it is not necessary to suppose that their enemies would be literally devoured or consumed. The meaning is fulfilled if their words should in any way produce an effect on their enemies _similar_ to what is produced by fire: that is, if it should destroy their influence; if it should overcome and subdue them; if it should annihilate their domination in the world. ¶ _And if any man will hurt them._ This is repeated in order to make the declaration more intensive, and also to add another thought about the effect of persecuting and injuring them. ¶ _He must in this manner be killed._ That is, in the manner specified――by fire. It does not mean that he would be killed in the same manner in which the “witnesses” were killed, but in the method specified before――by the fire that should proceed out of their mouth. The meaning is, undoubtedly, that they would have power to bring down on them divine vengeance or punishment, so that there would be a just retaliation for the wrongs done them.

6 These[343] have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in
the days of their prophecy: and have [344]power over waters to
turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues,
as often as they will.

6. _These have power to shut heaven._ That is, so far as rain is concerned――for this is immediately specified. There is probably a reference here to an ancient opinion that the rain was kept in the clouds of heaven as in reservoirs or bottles, and that when they were opened it rained; when they were closed it ceased to rain. So Job, “He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them,” xxvi. 8. “Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly,” Job xxxvi. 28. “Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven?” Job xxxviii. 37; comp. Ge. i. 7; vii. 12; viii. 2; 2 Ki. vii. 2. To _shut or close up the heavens_, therefore, is to restrain the rain from descending, or to produce a drought. Comp. Notes on Ja. v. 17. ¶ _That it rain not in the days of their prophecy._ In the time when they prophesy. Probably the allusion here is to what is said of Elijah, 1 Ki. xvii. 1. This would properly refer to some miraculous power; but still it _may_ be used to denote merely that they would be clothed with the power of causing blessings to be withheld from men, _as if_ rain were withheld; that is, that in consequence of the calamities that would be brought upon them, and the persecutions which they would endure, God would bring judgments upon men as if _they_ were clothed with this power. The language, therefore, it seems to me, does not necessarily imply that they would have the power of working miracles. ¶ _And have power over waters to turn them to blood._ The allusion here is doubtless to what occurred in Egypt, Ex. vii. 17. Comp. Notes on Re. viii. 8. This, too, would literally denote the power of working a miracle; but still it is not absolutely necessary to suppose that this is intended. Anything that would be _represented_ by turning waters into blood, would correspond with all that is necessarily implied in the language. If any great calamity should occur in consequence of what was done to them that would be properly represented by turning the waters into blood so that they could not be used, and that was so connected with the treatment which they received as to appear to be a judgment of heaven on that account, or that would appear to have come upon the world in consequence of their imprecations, it would be all that is necessarily implied in this language. ¶ _And to {277} smite the earth with all plagues._ All kinds of plague or calamity; disease, pestilence, famine, flood, &c. The word _plague_――πληγῇ――which means, properly, _stroke_, _stripe_, _blow_, would include any or all of these. The meaning here is, that great calamities would follow the manner in which they were treated, _as if_ the power were lodged in their hands. ¶ _As often as they will._ So that it would seem that they could exercise this power as they pleased.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony [345]the
beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall [346]make
war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.