The Revelation of St. John the Divine · Chapter I. Analysis of the Chapter · Part 4

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw 83seven golden candlesticks;

12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. He naturally turned round to see who it was that spake to him in this solitary and desolate place, where he thought himself to be alone. To see the voice here means to see the person who spake. ¶ And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks. These were the first things that met his eye. This must have been in vision, of course, and the meaning is, that there seemed to be there seven such lamps or candelabras. The word rendered candlesticks (λυχνία) means properly a light-stand, lamp-stand—something to bear up a light. It would be applied to anything that was used for this purpose; and nothing is intimated, in the use of the word, in regard to the form or dimensions of the light-bearers. Lamps were more commonly used at that time than candles, and it is rather to be supposed that these were designed to be lamp-bearers, or lamp-sustainers, than candlesticks. They were seven in number; not one branching into seven, but seven standing apart, and so far from each other that he who appeared to John could stand among them. The lamp-bearers evidently sustained each a light, and these gave a peculiar brilliancy to the scene. It is not improbable that, as they were designed to represent the seven churches of Asia, they were arranged in an order resembling these churches. The scene is not laid in the temple, as many suppose, for there is nothing that resembles the arrangements in the temple except the mere fact of the lights. The scene as yet is in Patmos, and there is no evidence that John did not regard himself as there, or that he fancied for a moment that he was translated to the temple in Jerusalem. There can be no doubt as to the design of this representation, for it is expressly declared (ver. 20) that the seven lamp-bearers were intended to represent the seven churches. Light is often used in the Scriptures as an emblem of true religion; Christians are represented as “the light of the world” (Mat. v. 14; comp. Phi. ii. 15; Jn. viii. 12), and a Christian church may be represented as a light standing in the midst of surrounding darkness.

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks 84one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks. Standing among them, so as to be encircled with them. This shows that the representation could not have been like that of the vision of Zechariah (Zec. iv. 2), where the prophet sees “a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon.” In the vision as it appeared to John, there was not one lamp-bearer, with seven lamps or branches, but there were seven lamp-bearers, so arranged that one in the likeness of the Son of man could stand in the midst of them. ¶ One like unto the Son of man. This was evidently the Lord Jesus Christ himself, elsewhere so often called “the Son of man.” That it was the Saviour himself is apparent from ver. 18. The expression rendered “like unto the Son of man,” should have been “like unto a son of man;” that is, like a man, a human being, or in a human form. The reasons for so interpreting it are, (a) that the Greek is without the article, and (b) that, as it is rendered in our version, it seems to make the writer say that he was like himself, since the expression “the Son of man” is in the New Testament but another name for the Lord Jesus. The phrase is often applied to him in the New Testament, and always, except in three instances (Ac. vii. 56; Re. i. 13; xiv. 14), by the Saviour himself, evidently to denote his warm interest in man, or his relationship to man; to signify that he was a man, and wished to designate himself eminently as such. See Notes on Mat. viii. 20. In the use of this phrase in the New Testament, there is probably an allusion to Da. vii. 13. The idea would seem to be, that he whom he saw resembled “the Son of man”—the Lord Jesus, as he had seen him in the days of his flesh—though it would appear that he did not know that it was he until he was informed of it, ver. 18. Indeed, the costume in which he appeared was so unlike that in which John had been accustomed to see the Lord Jesus in the days of his flesh, that it cannot be well supposed that he would at once recognize him as the same. ¶ Clothed with a garment down to the foot. A robe reaching down to the feet, or to the ankles, yet so as to leave the feet themselves visible. The allusion here, doubtless, is to a long, loose, flowing robe, such as was worn by kings. Comp. Notes on Is. vi. 1. ¶ And girt about the paps. About the breast. It was common, and is still, in the East, to wear a girdle to confine the robe, as well as to form a beautiful ornament. This was commonly worn about the middle of the person, or “the loins,” but it would seem also that it was sometimes worn around the breast. See Notes on Mat. v. 38‒41. ¶ With a golden girdle. Either wholly made of gold, or, more probably, richly ornamented with gold. This would naturally suggest the idea of one of rank, probably one of princely rank. The raiment here assumed was not that of a priest, but that of a king. It was very far from being that in which the Redeemer appeared when he dwelt upon the earth, and was rather designed to denote his royal state as he is exalted in heaven. He is not indeed represented with a crown and sceptre here, and perhaps the leading idea is that of one of exalted rank, of unusual dignity, of one fitted to inspire awe and respect. In other circumstances, in this book, this same Redeemer is represented as wearing a crown, and going forth to conquest. See ch. xix. 12‒16. Here the representation seems to have been designed to impress the mind with a sense of the greatness and glory of the personage who thus suddenly made his appearance.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and 85his eyes were as a flame of fire;

14. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow. Exceedingly or perfectly white—the first suggestion to the mind of the apostle being that of wool, and then the thought occurring of its extreme whiteness resembling snow—the purest white of which the mind conceives. The comparison with wool and snow to denote anything peculiarly white is not uncommon. See Is. i. 18. Professor Stuart supposes that this means, not that his hairs were literally white, as if with age, which he says would be incongruous to one just risen from the dead, clothed with immortal youth and vigour, but that it means radiant, bright, resplendent—similar to what occurred on the transfiguration of the Saviour, Mat. xvii. 2. But to this it may be replied, (a) That this would not accord well with that with which his hair is compared—snow and wool, particularly the latter. (b) The usual meaning of the word is more obvious here, and not at all inappropriate. The representation was fitted to signify majesty and authority; and this would be best accomplished by the image of one who was venerable in years. Thus, in the vision that appeared to Daniel (ch. vii. 9), it is said of him who is there called the “Ancient of Days,” that “his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool.” It is not improbable that John had that representation in his eye, and that therefore he would be impressed with the that this was a manifestation of a divine person. We are not necessarily to suppose that this is the form in which the Saviour always appears now in heaven, any more than we are to suppose that God appears always in the form in which he was manifested to Isaiah (ch. vi. 1), to Daniel (ch. vii. 9), or to Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu in the mount, Ex. xxiv. 10, 11. The representation is, that this form was assumed for the purpose of impressing the mind of the apostle with a sense of his majesty and glory. ¶ And his eyes were as a flame of fire. Bright, sharp, penetrating; as if everything was light before them, or they would penetrate into the thoughts of men. Such a representation is not uncommon. We speak of a lightning glance, a fiery look, &c. In Da. x. 6, it is said of the man who appeared to the prophet on the banks of the river Hiddekel, that his eyes were “as lamps of fire.” Numerous instances of this comparison from the Greek and Latin classics may be seen in Wetstein, in loco.

15 And 86his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and 87his voice as the sound of many waters.

15. And his feet like unto fine brass. Comp. Da. x. 6, “And his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass.” See also Eze. i. 7, “and they” [the feet of the living creatures] “sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.” The word here used—χαλκολιβάνῳ—occurs in the New Testament only here and in ch. ii. 18. It is not found in the Septuagint. The word properly means white brass (probably compounded of χαλκός, brass, and λιβανός, whiteness, from the Hebrew לָבָן, white). Others regard it as from χαλκός, brass, and λιπαρόν, clear. The metal referred to was undoubtedly a species of brass distinguished for its clearness or whiteness. Brass is a compound metal, composed of copper and zinc. The colour varies much according to the different proportions of the various ingredients. The Vulgate here renders the word aurichalcum, a mixture of gold and of brass—perhaps the same as the ἤλεκτρον—the electrum of the ancients, composed of gold and of silver, usually in the proportion of four parts gold and one part silver, and distinguished for its brilliancy. See Robinson, Lex., and Wetstein, in loco. The kind of metal here referred to, however, would seem to be some compound of brass—of a whitish and brilliant colour. The exact proportion of the ingredients in the metal here referred to cannot now be determined. ¶ As if they burned in a furnace. That is, his feet were so bright that they seemed to be like a beautiful metal glowing intensely in the midst of a furnace. Anyone who has looked upon the dazzling and almost insupportable brilliancy of metal in a furnace, can form an idea of the image here presented. ¶ And his voice as the sound of many waters. As the roar of the ocean, or of a cataract. Nothing could be a more sublime description of majesty and authority than to compare the voice of a speaker with the roar of the ocean. This comparison often occurs in the Scriptures. See Eze. xliii. 2, “And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the east: and his voice was like the sound of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.” So Re. xiv. 2; xix. 6. Comp. Eze. i. 24; Da. x. 6.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his mouth went 88a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as 89the sun shineth in his strength.

16. And he had in his right hand seven stars. Emblematic of the angels of the seven churches. How he held them is not said. It may be that they seemed to rest on his open palm; or it may be that he seemed to hold them as if they were arranged in a certain order, and with some sort of attachment, so that they could be grasped. It is not improbable that, as in the case of the seven lamp-bearers (Notes, ver. 13), they were so arranged as to represent the relative position of the seven churches. ¶ And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword. On the form of the ancient two-edged sword, see Notes on Ep. vi. 17. The two edges were designed to cut both ways; and such a sword is a striking emblem of the penetrating power of truth, or of words that proceed from the mouth; and this is designed undoubtedly to be the representation here—that there was some symbol which showed that his words, or his truth, had the power of cutting deep, or penetrating the soul. So in Is. xlix. 2, it is said of the same personage, “And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword.” See Notes on that verse. So in He. iv. 12, “The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword,” &c. So it is said of Pericles by Aristophanes:

“His powerful speech

Pierced the hearer’s soul, and left behind

Deep in his bosom its keen point infixt.”

A similar figure often occurs in Arabic poetry. “As arrows his words enter into the heart.” See Gesenius, Comm. zu, Is. xlix. 2. The only difficulty here is in regard to the apparently incongruous representation of a sword seeming to proceed from the mouth; but it is not perhaps necessary to suppose that John means to say that he saw such an image. He heard him speak; he felt the penetrating power of his words; and they were as if a sharp sword proceeded from his mouth. They penetrated deep into the soul, and as he looked on him it seemed as if a sword came from his mouth. Perhaps it is not necessary to suppose that there was even any visible representation of this—either of a sword or of the breath proceeding from his mouth appearing to take this form, as Professor Stuart supposes. It may be wholly a figurative representation, as Heinrichs and Ewald suppose. Though there were visible and impressive symbols of his majesty and glory presented to the eyes, it is not necessary to suppose that there were visible symbols of his words. ¶ And his countenance. His face. There had been before particular descriptions of some parts of his face—as of his eyes—but this is a representation of his whole aspect; of the general splendour and brightness of his countenance. ¶ Was as the sun shineth in his strength. In his full splendour when unobscured by clouds; where his rays are in no way intercepted. Comp. Ju. v. 31: “But let them that love him [the Lord] be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might;” 2 Sa. xxiii. 4, “And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds;” Ps. xix. 5, “Which [the sun] is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.” There could be no more striking description of the majesty and glory of the countenance than to compare it with the over-powering splendour of the sun.—This closes the description of the personage that appeared to John. The design was evidently to impress him with a sense of his majesty and glory, and to prepare the way for the authoritative nature of the communications which he was to make. It is obvious that this appearance must have been assumed. The representation is not that of the Redeemer as he rose from the dead—a middle-aged man; nor is it clear that it was the same as on the mount of transfiguration—where, for anything that appears, he retained his usual aspect and form though temporarily invested with extraordinary brilliancy; nor is it the form in which we may suppose he ascended to heaven—for there is no evidence that he was thus transformed when he ascended; nor is it that of a priest—for all the peculiar habiliments of a Jewish priest are wanting in this description. The appearance assumed is, evidently, in accordance with various representations of God as he appeared to Ezekiel, to Isaiah, and to Daniel—that which was a suitable manifestation of a divine being—of one clothed in the majesty and power of God. We are not to infer from this, that this is in fact the appearance of the Redeemer now in heaven, or that this is the form in which he will appear when he comes to judge the world. Of his appearance in heaven we have no knowledge; of the aspect which he will assume when he comes to judge men we have no certain information. We are necessarily quite as ignorant of this as we are of what will be our own form and appearance after the resurrection from the dead.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

17. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. As if I were dead; deprived of sense and consciousness. He was overwhelmed with the suddenness of the vision; he saw that this was a divine being; but he did not as yet know that it was the Saviour. It is not probable that in this vision he would immediately recognize any of the familiar features of the Lord Jesus as he had been accustomed to see him some sixty years before; and if he did, the effect would have been quite as over-powering as is here described. But the subsequent revelations of this divine personage would rather seem to imply that John did not at once recognize him as the Lord Jesus. The effect here described is one that often occurred to those who had a vision of God. See Da. viii. 18, “Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright;” ver. 27, “And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterwards I rose up, and did the king’s business.” Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 20; Is. vi. 5; Eze. i. 28; xliii. 3; Da. x. 7‒9, 17. ¶ And he laid his right hand upon me. For the purpose of raising him up. Comp. Da. viii. 18, “He touched me and set me upright.” We usually stretch out the right hand to raise up one who has fallen. ¶ Saying unto me, Fear not. Comp. Mat. xiv. 27, “It is I; be not afraid.” The fact that it was the Saviour, though he appeared in this form of overpowering majesty, was a reason why John should not be afraid. Why that was a reason, he immediately adds—that he was the first and the last; that though he had been dead he was now alive, and would continue ever to live, and that he had the keys of hell and of death. It is evident that John was overpowered with that awful emotion which the human mind must feel at the evidence of the . Thus men feel when God seems to come near them by the impressive symbols of his majesty—as in the thunder, the earthquake, and the tempest. Comp. Hab. iii. 16; Lu. ix. 34. Yet, amidst the most awful manifestations of divine power, the simple that our Redeemer is near us is enough to allay our fears, and diffuse calmness through the soul. ¶ I am the first and the last. Notes, ver. 8. This is stated to be one of the reasons why he should not fear—that he was eternal: “I always live—have lived through all the past, and will live through all which is to come—and therefore I can accomplish all my promises, and execute all my purposes.”

18 I am 90he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have 91the keys of hell and of death.

18. I am he that liveth, and was dead. I was indeed once dead, but now I live, and shall continue to live for ever. This would at once identify him who thus appeared as the Lord Jesus Christ, for to no one else could this apply. He had been put to death; but he had risen from the grave. This also is given as a reason why John should not fear; and nothing would allay his fears more than this. He now saw that he was in the presence of that Saviour whom more than half a century before he had so tenderly loved when in the flesh, and whom, though now long absent, he had faithfully served, and for whose cause he was now in this lonely island. His faith in his resurrection had not been a delusion; he saw the very Redeemer before him who had once been laid in the tomb. ¶ Behold, I am alive for evermore. I am to live for ever. Death is no more to cut me down, and I am never again to slumber in the grave. As he was always to live, he could accomplish all his promises, and fulfil all his purposes. The Saviour is never to die again. He can, therefore, always sustain us in our troubles; he can be with us in our death. Whoever of our friends die, he will not die; when we die, he will still be on the throne. ¶ Amen. A word here of strong affirmation—as if he had said, it is truly, or certainly so. See Notes on ver. 7. This expression is one that the Saviour often used when he wished to give emphasis, or to express anything strongly. Comp. Jn. iii. 3; v. 25. ¶ And have the keys of hell and of death. The word rendered hell—ᾅδης, hades—refers properly to the underworld; the abode of departed spirits; the region of the dead. This was represented as dull and gloomy; as inclosed with walls; as entered through gates which were fastened with bolts and bars. For a description of the views which prevailed among the ancients on the subject, see Notes on Lu. xvi. 23, and Job x. 21, 22. To hold the key of this, was to hold the power over the invisible world. It was the more appropriate that the Saviour should represent himself as having this authority, as he had himself been raised from the dead by his own power (comp. Jn. x. 18), thus showing that the dominion over this dark world was intrusted to him. ¶ And of death. A personification. Death reigns in that world. But to his wide-extended realms the Saviour holds the key, and can have access to his empire when he pleases, releasing all whom he chooses, and confining there still such as he shall please. It is probably in part from such hints as these that Milton drew his sublime description of the gates of hell in the Paradise Lost. As Christ always lives; as he always retains this power over the regions of the dead, and the whole world of spirits, it may be further remarked that we have nothing to dread if we put our trust in him. We need not fear to enter a world which he has entered, and from which he has emerged, achieving a glorious triumph; we need not fear what the dread king that reigns there can do to us, for his power extends not beyond the permission of the Saviour, and in his own time that Saviour will call us forth to life, to die no more.

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

19. Write the things which thou hast seen. An account of the vision which thou hast had, ver. 10‒18. ¶ And the things which are. Give an account of those things which thou hast seen as designed to represent the condition of the seven churches. He had seen not only the Saviour, but he had seen seven lamp-stands, and seven stars in the hand of the Saviour, and he is now commanded to record the meaning of these symbols as referring to things then actually existing in the seven churches. This interpretation is demanded by ver. 20. ¶ And the things which shall be hereafter. The Greek phrase rendered hereafter—μετὰ ταῦτα—means “after these things;” that is, he was to make a correct representation of the things which then were, and then to record what would occur “after these things:” to wit, of the images, symbols, and truths, which would be disclosed to him after what he had already seen. The expression refers to future times. He does not say for how long a time; but the revelations which were to be made referred to events which were to occur beyond those which were then taking place. Nothing can be argued from the use of this language in regard to the length of time embraced in the revelation—whether it extended only for a few years or whether it embraced all coming time. The more natural interpretation, however, would seem to be, that it would stretch far into future years, and that it was designed to give at least an outline of what would be the character of the future in general.

20 The mystery of 92the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and 93the seven candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches.

20. The mystery of the seven stars. On the word mystery, see Notes on Ep. i. 9. The word means, properly, that which is hidden, obscure, unknown—until it is disclosed by one having the ability to do it, or by the course of events. When disclosed, it may be as clear, and as capable of comprehension, as any other truth. The meaning here, as applied to the seven stars, is, that they were symbols, and that their meaning as symbols, without a suitable explanation, would remain hidden or unknown. They were designed to represent important truths, and John was directed to write down what they were intended in the circumstances to signify, and to send the explanation to the churches. It is evidently implied that the meaning of these symbols would be beyond the ordinary powers of the human mind to arrive at with certainty, and hence John was directed to explain the symbol. The general and obvious truths which they would serve to convey would be that the ministers of the churches, and the churches themselves, were designed to be lights in the world, and should burn clearly and steadily. Much important truth would be couched under these symbols, indeed, if nothing had been added in regard to their signification as employed here by the Saviour; but there were particular truths of great importance in reference to each of these “stars” and “lamp-bearers,” which John was more fully to explain. ¶ Which thou sawest in my right hand. Gr., “upon my right hand”—ἐπὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς μου: giving some support to the opinion that the stars, as they were seen, appeared to be placed on his hand—that is, on the palm of his hand as he stretched it out. The expression in ver. 16 is, that they were “in (ἐν) his right hand;” but the language here used is not decisive as to the position of the stars. They may have been held in some way by the hand, or represented as scattered on the open hand. ¶ The seven golden candlesticks. The truth which these emblematic representations are designed to convey. ¶ The seven stars are. That is, they represent, or they denote—in accordance with a common usage in the Scriptures. See Notes on Mat. xxvi. 26. ¶ The angels of the seven churches. Gr., “Angels of the seven churches:” the article being wanting. This does not refer to them as a collective or associated body, for the addresses are made to them as individuals—an epistle being directed to “the angel” of each particular church, ch. ii. 1, 12, &c. The evident meaning, however, is, that what was recorded should be directed to them, not as pertaining to them exclusively as individuals, but as presiding over or representing the churches, for what is recorded pertains to the churches, and was evidently designed to be laid before them. It was for the churches, but was committed to the “angel” as representing the church, and to be communicated to the church under his care. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of the word angels here. By the advocates of Episcopacy, it has been argued that the use of this term proves that there was a presiding bishop over a circle or group of churches in Ephesus, in Smyrna, &c., since it is said that it cannot be supposed that there was but a single church in a city so large as Ephesus, or in the other cities mentioned. A full examination of this argument may be seen in my work on the Apostolic Church [pp. 191‒199, London ed.]. The word angel properly means a messenger, and is thus applied to celestial beings as messengers sent forth from God to convey or to do his will. This being the common meaning of the word, it may be employed to denote anyone who is a messenger, and hence, with propriety, anyone who is employed to communicate the will of another; to transact his business, or, more remotely, to act in his place—to be a representative. In order to ascertain the meaning of the word as used in this place, and in reference to these churches, it may be remarked, (1) That it cannot mean literally an angel, as referring to a heavenly being, for no one can suppose that such a being presided over these churches. (2) It cannot be shown to mean, as Lord (in loco) supposes, messengers that the churches had sent to John, and that these letters were given to them to be returned by them to the churches; for, (a) there is no evidence that any such messenger had been sent to John; (b) there is no probability that while he was a banished exile in Patmos such a thing would be permitted; (c) the message was not sent by them, it was sent to them—“Unto the angel of the church in Ephesus write,” &c. (3) It cannot be proved that the reference is to a prelatical bishop presiding over a group or circle of churches, called a diocese; for, (a) There is nothing in the word angel, as used in this connection, which would be peculiarly applicable to such a personage—it being as applicable to a pastor of a single church, as to a bishop of many churches. (b) There is no evidence that there were any such groups of churches then as constitute an episcopal diocese. (c) The use of the word “church” in the singular, as applied to Ephesus, Smyrna, &c., rather implies that there was but a single church in each of those cities. Comp. ch. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; see also similar language in regard to the church in Corinth, 1 Co. i. 2; in Antioch, Ac. xiii. 1; at Laodicea, Col. iv. 16; and at Ephesus, Ac. xx. 28. (d) There is no evidence, as Episcopalians must suppose, that a successor to John had been appointed at Ephesus, if, as they suppose, he was “bishop” of Ephesus; and there is no probability that they would so soon after his banishment show him such a want of respect as to regard the see as vacant, and appoint a successor. (e) There is no improbability in supposing that there was a single church in each of these cities—as at Antioch, Corinth, Rome. (f) If John was a prelatical “bishop,” it is probable that he was “bishop” of the whole group of churches embracing the seven: yet here, if the word “angel” means “bishop,” we have no less than seven such bishops immediately appointed to succeed him. And (g) the supposition that this refers to prelatical bishops is so forced and unnatural that many Episcopalians are compelled to abandon it. Thus Stillingfleet—than whom an abler man, or one whose praise is higher in Episcopal churches, as an advocate of prelacy, is not to be found—says of these angels: “If many things in the epistles be directed to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel must be taken as a representative of the whole body; and then why may not the angel be taken by way of representation of the body itself, either of the whole church, or, which is far more probable, of the concessors, or order of presbyters in this church?” (4) If the word does not mean literally an angel; if it does not refer to messengers sent to John in Patmos by the churches; and if it does not refer to a prelatical bishop, then it follows that it must refer to some one who presided over the church as its pastor, and through whom a message might be properly sent to the church. Thus understood, the pastor or “angel” would be regarded as the representative of the church; that is, as delegated by the church to manage its affairs, and as the authorized person to whom communications should be made in matters pertaining to it—as pastors are now. A few considerations will further confirm this interpretation, and throw additional light on the meaning of the word. (a) The word angel is employed in the Old Testament to denote a prophet; that is, a minister of religion as sent by God to communicate his will. Thus in Haggai (i. 13) it is said, “Then spake Haggai, the Lord’s messenger [Heb. angel, מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה—Sept. ἄγγελος κυρίου], in the Lord’s message unto the people,” &c. (b) It is applied to a priest, as one sent by God to execute the functions of that office, or to act in the name of the Lord. Mal. ii. 7, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts”—מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת—that is, “angel of the Lord of hosts.” (c) The name prophet is often given in the New Testament to the ministers of religion, as being appointed by God to proclaim or communicate his will to his people, and as occupying a place resembling, in some respects, that of the prophets in the Old Testament. (d) There was no reason why the word might not be thus employed to designate a pastor of a Christian church, as well as to designate a prophet or a priest under the Old Testament dispensation. (e) The supposition that a pastor of a church is intended will meet all the circumstances of the case: for, (1) it is an appropriate appellation; (2) there is no reason to suppose that there was more than one church in each of the cities referred to; (3) it is a term which would designate the respect in which the office was held; (4) it would impress upon those to whom it was applied a solemn sense of their responsibility. Further, it would be more appropriately applied to a pastor of a single church than to a prelatical bishop; to the tender, intimate, and endearing relation sustained by a pastor to his people, to the blending of sympathy, interest, and affection, where he is with them continually, meets them frequently in the sanctuary, administers to them the bread of life, goes into their abodes when they are afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave, than to the union subsisting between the people of an extended diocese and a prelate—the formal, unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and pompous visitations of a diocesan bishop—to the unsympathizing relation between him and a people scattered in many churches, who are visited at distant intervals by one claiming a “superiority in ministerial rights and powers,” and who must be a stranger to the ten thousand ties of endearment which bind the hearts of a pastor and people together. The conclusion, then, to which we have come is, that the “angel of the church” was the pastor, or the presiding presbyter in the church; the minister who had the pastoral charge of it, and who was therefore a proper representative of it. He was a man who, in some respects, performed the functions which the angels of God do; that is, who was appointed to execute his will, to communicate his message, and to convey important intimations of his purposes to his people. To no one could the communications in this book, intended for the churches, be more properly intrusted than to such an one; for to no one now would a communication be more properly intrusted than to a pastor.