Читать книгу The Revelation Explained - F. G. Smith - Страница 5

Table of Contents

Before proceeding with the interpretation of this wonderful book, it will be necessary for us to pause and make inquiry concerning the nature of the language employed in its prophecies and concerning the mode of its interpretation. It will be seen at a glance that it is wholly unlike the common language of life; and it will be useless for us to undertake to ascertain its signification unless we understand perfectly the principles upon which it is founded.

The question may be asked, "Is the language intelligible at all?" Considering the variety of interpretations placed upon it by expositors and the opinions generally held respecting it, we might conclude that it is not. The majority of the people look upon these prophecies as "a mass of unintelligible enigmas," and are ready to tell the student of Revelation that this book "either finds or leaves a man mad." But are we to look upon its language as being applied at a venture, without any definite rule, capable of every variety of meaning, so that we can never be quite sure that we have its correct interpretation?

Commentators generally unite in attaching a definite meaning to certain symbols, and they tell us that these can not be applied otherwise without violating their nature. They may not give us their reasons for thus applying them (in fact, they generally do not), yet it is evidently assumed that such reasons do exist. Now, if reasons actually exist why a definite signification must be applied to the symbol in the one case, why do they not exist in another case, and in all cases? If any law exists in the case at all, it is a uniform one, for a law that does not possess uniformity is no law; otherwise, it would be an unintelligible revelation, and the only possible thing left for us to do would be to attempt to solve it like a riddle—guess it out. It would be as if the writer were to use words with every variety of meaning peculiarly his own attached, without informing the reader what signification to give them in a given instance. No man has a right thus to abuse written or spoken language; and we may take it for granted that the God of heaven would not make such an indiscriminate use of symbolical language when making a revelation to men. There is no other book the wide world around in which language is as carefully employed as in the Bible; and we can rest assured that when God gave this Revelation to Jesus Christ "to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," he made choice of proper symbols whose meaning can be definitely evolved, provided we can but ascertain the great underlying principles upon which their original selection was based.

In the ordinary communication of our thoughts we employ arbitrary signs and sounds to which we have universally agreed to fix a definite meaning. Thus, our entire spoken language is made up of a great variety of sounds or words with which by long practise we have become familiar. We call a certain object a horse, not because there is any similarity between the sound and the animal designated, but because we have agreed that that sound shall represent that object. So, also, we have agreed that the characters h-o-r-s-e shall represent the same thing; and by the use of twenty-six characters, called the alphabet, placed together in various combinations, we are able to write our entire spoken language.

The incidents connected with the introduction of written language among a barbarous people are worthy of remark in this connection. That thought can be conveyed to persons at a distance by the use of certain cabalistic characters seems to them incredible, and when compelled to believe it, they look upon the person that can accomplish such wonders as embodying something supernatural. These things I mention merely to call attention to the fact that spoken and written language is a curious and wonderfully complicated affair. This is brought forcibly to our minds when we hear persons conversing in a foreign tongue, or when we pick up a book the characters of which are wholly unlike those of our own language. To us an English book is full of instinctive beauty, every letter or mark possessing a definite meaning that is instantly conveyed to our minds, because we have become familiar with them by diligent study and practise.

There are other ways of transferring thought besides the complicated system just mentioned—ways which are much more natural and simple. Thus, a simpler way to represent a certain object would be to draw a picture of it; or, better still, to represent a certain character or quality by exhibiting, not the object itself, but an analagous one whose peculiar character that property is; for examples: the quiet, peaceful, gentle disposition of a child, by a lamb; a man of cunning, artful, deceptive disposition, by a fox; or a cruel, bloodthirsty, vindictive tyrant, by a tiger, etc. This is hieroglyphical or symbolic language. This language takes precedence over every other for naturalness and simplicity, being common to a greater or less extent among all nations and intelligible to all.

Spoken language was undoubtedly a gift from God originally, while written language is probably a mere human invention. We are not to suppose that the first attempts to convey thought in writing would be by an alphabetical system, but by the symbolic, it being, as before stated, the most natural and within reach of the ordinary ingenuity of man. This is proved by the fact that the inscriptions on the ancient monuments of Egypt and the inscriptions of other nations of antiquity are of this character. It is also a fact worthy of notice that, four thousand years later, men of other countries and of other languages have, by much study and a careful comparison of the symbols, been able to decipher with accuracy those hierographical representations.¹ This of itself is sufficient to establish the point that definiteness can be attached to the use and the interpretation of carefully-selected symbols, when the principles that governed their original selection are discovered.

Footnote 1: (return)

The systems of hieroglyphical writing employed by various nations have, for the most part, remained unintelligible until a key of their interpretation was discovered. In 1799 M. Bouchard, a French captain of engineers, while digging intrenchments on the site of an old temple near the Rosetta mouth of the Nile, unearthed a black stone containing a trilingual inscription in hieroglyphics, demotic characters, and Greek. The last paragraph of the Greek inscription stated that two translations, one in the sacred and the other in the popular Egyptian language, would be found adjacent; hence this celebrated stone has afforded European scholars a key to the language and writing of the ancient Egyptians. The cuneiform writing of the Babylonians and Persians remained a mystery also until modern times, but great progress has now been made in the deciphering of thousands of inscribed clay tablets, cylinders, prisms, etc. The key to its interpretation is the celebrated inscription at Behistun, cut upon the face of a high rock three hundred feet above its base, and recording a portion of the history of Darius. It is written in the cuneiform characters, in three languages—Median, Persian, and Assyrian.

I do not wish to be understood as implying that the symbolical language of Scripture is identical with the hieroglyphics of ancient monuments. There may be different kinds of symbolic representations; but they are not arbitrary, as is spoken language, and can not be arbitrarily applied; a fixed law governs them all.

Now, the book of Revelation is made up of this symbolic language. It is not, however, confined to this book alone. There are many instances of it to be found elsewhere in the sacred volume, and in many cases it is explained by inspiration itself, thus giving us a reliable key to the whole. Joseph's dream of the eleven sheaves that made obeisance to his sheaf was of this description (Gen. 37:7, 8), and his eleven brethren were angered, because its meaning was apparent—that they should be humbled before him. Also, his dream of the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars (verses 9, 10) was understood to signify the subjection of the entire family unto him, which was actually fulfilled after Joseph's exaltation in Egypt. The chief butler's dream of the vine with three branches bearing grapes, which he took and pressed into the king's cup, was interpretated by Joseph as signifying the butler's restoration in three days to his former position of cup-bearer to the king; while the chief baker's dream of the three baskets upon his head, out of which the birds ate, was interpretated as signifying his execution in the same length of time. Gen. 40. Pharaoh's dream of the seven fat kine and the seven lean kine, also of the seven full ears and the seven thin ears, signified seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. Gen. 41.

Again, the four divisions of King Nebuchadnezzar's wonderful image was explained by Daniel as signifying four universal monarchies and the ten toes as signifying the ten minor kingdoms which grew out of the fourth; while the stone that was cut out of the mountain without human intervention he interpreted as signifying the divine kingdom of God. Dan. 2. The two-horned ram of Daniel's vision (chap. 8), according to the explanation of the angel, symbolized the Medo-Persian empire, its two horns signifying the two dynasties of allied kings that composed it. The he-goat signified the Greco-Macedonian empire; his great horn, its first mighty king; and the four horns that replaced the great one when broken represented four kings under whom the empire would eventually be divided into as many parts. In the Apocalypse itself we have a number of symbols divinely interpreted, "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." "The seven candle-sticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." "The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings." "The waters which thou sawest … are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." "The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth," etc.

It will be seen that the great underlying principle or law upon which symbolic language is based is ANALOGY. An object is chosen to represent not itself, but something of analagous character.

Webster defines symbol as follows: "The sign or representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things. Thus, a lion is the symbol of courage; the lamb is the symbol of meekness or patience." Home, in his Introduction to the Study of the Bible, says: "By symbols we mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures; or, if pictures, such as were at the time characters, and besides presenting to the eye the resemblance of a particular object, suggested a general idea to the mind, as when a horn was made to denote strength, an eye and scepter, majesty, and in numberless such instances; where the picture was not drawn to express merely the thing itself, but something else, which was, or was conceived to be, analagous to it." The main idea, then, as expressed in the foregoing definitions, is the representation of an object, not by a picture of itself, but by something analagous, such as the exhibition of moral qualities by images drawn from nature. But the use of symbols is not confined to the representation of moral subjects alone. Anything may be symbolized to which a corresponding analagous object can be found.

To establish the principle of analogy here laid down, it will be necessary to refer only to a few of the numerous examples of divinely interpreted symbols in the Scriptures. Any one can readily perceive the analogy between the seven fat kine of Pharaoh's dream and as many years of plenty; so, also, with the seven full, healthy ears that grew up on seven stalks. Likewise, the analogy between the seven thin kine and as many years of famine, and the seven thin, blasted ears that represented the same thing, is apparent. One fat kine or one full ear would symbolize one year of plenty, when crops were abundant; while seven would represent as many distinct seasons of prosperity, etc. Kine do not represent kine, but something analagous. The beasts of Daniel's visions do not represent animals like themselves, or a multitude of such animals, but something of analagous disposition. The analogy between a wild, ferocious beast, stamping upon or devouring everything within its reach, and a cruel, persecuting, tyrannical government is apparent. A horn does not signify a horn, but some great power, such as a dynasty of kings or rulers; and what the horn is to the animal in manifesting its desolating disposition, kings and rulers are to an empire in executing the persecuting or oppressive principles of the body politic. A pure, chaste virgin is used to symbolize the true church of God; whereas a corrupt harlot is chosen to represent an apostate church, and fornication her idolatrous worship.

Although this principle is worthy of further elucidation, yet enough has been said to firmly establish the point that symbolic language is founded upon analogy. It is also clear that, whenever we attach a literal signification to a symbolic object, we immediately destroy entirely its use as a symbol. So we may accept it as one established landmark in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, that every symbol, regardless of the department from which it is taken—whether from the material universe, the animal kingdom, human life or the heavenly realm—stands as the representative, not of itself, but of some other object of analagous character not found in the same department from which it is drawn.

This develops another important fact worthy of attention. If the great law of symbolic language is based upon analogy, it is clear to a demonstration that the symbols employed must be definitely applied. They can not be arbitrary, as the words composing our spoken language are. There is nothing in the nature of the thing to prevent our calling a horse an elephant, provided we had only agreed universally to adopt that designation of the animal referred to (arbitrary sounds can be arbitrarily applied); but we violate nature when we attempt to make a ferocious tiger the symbol of an innocent child, or represent a blood-thirsty tyrant by the symbol of a lamb. A disgusting, polluted harlot may be the proper symbol of an apostate church, but of the pure, holy church of God—never. A proper correspondence must be kept up. We must follow nature strictly.

Symbols are drawn from every department—from animate and inanimate creation, from animal life and human life, from the visible universe below and the heavenly world above, and also from some objects of fancy to which there is no corresponding object in existence, such as Daniel's four-headed beast, or the one in the Revelator's vision with seven heads and ten horns; but in the selection of the same a proper correspondence of quality is kept up. The symbols that are chosen to set forth the great spiritual affairs of the church are such as are in themselves nobler than those selected to describe the political affairs of kings and empires, because in the divine estimation the church is of infinitely greater importance and occupies a more honorable position than worldly kingdoms. Thus, a beautiful virgin bride is chosen to represent the church of God; whereas a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is chosen to symbolize the Pagan Roman empire. The glorious body of God's reformers is set forth under the symbol of an angel from heaven, with his face as the sun, his feet as pillars of fire, and a rainbow upon his head; whereas the Saracen warriors of Mahomet are locusts upon the earth, with stings of scorpions. The department of human and angelic life is chosen to set forth the spiritual affairs of the church, while the department of nature and of animal life represents the political affairs of nations. To this general rule, there is at least one exception. Certain things connected with God's chosen people under the old dispensation are considered proper symbols to represent similar things or events in the New Testament dispensation, without special regard to the department from which they are drawn. Thus, the temple, altar, incense, candlesticks, holy city, etc., of the former age, though not taken from the department of human or angelic life, are, nevertheless, clearly used to represent affairs of the church, the analogy in the case being apparent because of their former prominence as connected with the Lord's covenant people.

Again, when the symbol selected is that of a living, active, intelligent agent, it represents an analagous intelligent agent. Likewise, the actions of the former plainly denote analagous actions in the latter, and the effects produced by the actions of the symbolic agent signify analagous effects produced by the actions of the agent symbolized. To make it clearer: agents symbolize agents, actions symbolize actions, and effects symbolize effects. If this be not true—if agents can symbolize actions and effects as well as agents, or if actions can symbolize agents and effects—then all is an inextricable maze of confusion, and well may we repeat the words uttered by a certain minister to the writer, "The book should have been called Mystification, not Revelation."

The same principle of analogy is carried out in another particular. Whenever the enemies of God or destructive agents are intended, objects of a corresponding desolating character are chosen as their symbols; whereas the peaceful triumphs of the cross, as exhibited by God's chosen people, are described under symbols of an equally benign and gentle character. Thus, the anti-christian, persecuting power of Rome is described as a ferocious wild beast, stamping everything beneath its feet and spreading desolation on every side. The Vandal hordes of Northern barbarians, who, under Genseric overran the Western Roman empire early in the fifth century, are symbolized by a volcanic mountain cast into the sea and spreading its streams of molten lava in every direction. The fearful pest of Mohammedanism is a dense smoke issuing from the bottomless pit and darkening the heavens. The Saracens of Mahomet are swarms of locusts appearing upon the earth, with scorpion stings, tormenting men five months, or, prophetically, one hundred and fifty years. On the other hand, a church is a candle-stick; its pastor, a beautiful star; the whole church, a virgin bride; the glorious assembly of God's reformers, a rainbow angel, etc.

From the foregoing it will be seen that symbols are not words, but things, chosen because of some analagous resemblance to represent other things; and by a careful study of the nature of the symbols themselves we can ascertain where to look for their fulfilment. In the present work no attempt has been made to prove the interpretations given merely by the authority of learned names (for they can be arrayed on every side of a passage), but the nature of the symbols themselves has been developed; and the reader will be able to judge how nearly the known laws of symbolic language have been followed.

It will be necessary, however, to notice another exception to the rules given, although it can scarcely be said to form an exception—it rather proves the very position taken. Undoubtedly, there are some few objects whose nature forbids their symbolization, there being no object in existence of analagous character that can be chosen as their representative. God, evidently, can not be symbolized; for where is the individual in heaven or on earth that can stand as his representative? "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" Isa. 40:18. Man can not represent him, angels can not; for whenever they appear on the panoramic scene, they denote distinguished agencies among men. There may be certain symbols connected with his person, setting forth his divine attributes and proclaiming the eternal majesty of his name; but he himself is described as "One sitting upon a throne," before whom the created intelligences of earth and heaven fall down and worship unceasingly, but no symbol of Him is given. The same exception also applies to the person of Jesus, our Savior and Redeemer. While the human aspect of the Savior, as exhibited during the incarnation in his sacrificial death, may be properly symbolized by a lamb, as in chap. V, there is no created intelligence in God's great universe that can be chosen to represent, in his true, essential divinity, Him who does not deem it robbery to claim equality with God. There may, likewise, be certain symbols connected with his person to give us at least a faint impression of his divine character and infinite majesty; yet when he appears upon the symbolic scene, he distinctly announces, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore." "He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." So whenever the divine Christ appears on the symbolic scene, he comes in his own person, proclaiming his own name, and we need look for no symbol of him.

Upon the opening of the fifth seal, the souls of the martyrs are represented as crying unto God from the altar for the avenging of their blood on those who dwell on the earth. Where is there an object in all creation analagous to a disembodied spirit? None can be found. It is easy to give them an arbitrary name; therefore they appear in the Revelation under their own appropriate title, as "the souls of them that were slain." Chap. 6:9, 10, also 20:4.

This exception applies to every case where no corresponding object can be selected as a symbol. Where the nature of the subject forbids its symbolization, there the description must of necessity be literal, and all such objects appear under their own appropriate titles. Otherwise, we are to look upon the entire book of Revelation as a vast collection of symbols whose interpretation is to be found, not in the department from which they are taken, but in another, to which they bear a certain analagous resemblance.

Although not pertaining strictly to the subject of symbolic language, yet a word respecting the plan of the prophecy will be appropriate at this time. The prophetic events are not arranged after the ordinary plan of histories, narrating all the contemporaneous events in a given period, whether civil, religious, literary, scientific, or biographical, thus finishing up the history of that period; but it consists of a number of distinct themes running over the same ground. The proof of this assertion will appear as we proceed with the development of the prophecies.

May the wisdom of heaven direct us in the perusal of this wonderful book of Revelation, and may we at last be "accounted worthy to obtain that world," and the glorious privilege of rendering eternal praise to "Him that sitteth upon the throne," "upholding all things by the word of his power," "declaring the end from the beginning," and revealing his mighty works unto the children of men.