The first vision described by John was the intensely symbolic appearance of his High-Priestly Lord amidst the seven candlesticks. The next, following on the messages to be conveyed to the seven churches, was that of the glorious heavenly throne – the Almighty Himself enthroned above the cherubim.

Like so many of the visions revealed to John later, this vision also was seen in heaven. “Behold, a door opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, which said, Come up hither . . .” (4:1).

A simple rule will be found to be the key to the interpretation of this vision and of much that follows; What the Apostle beheld taking place in heaven has to do with those in covenant with God, those who are even now “in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” What the Apostle saw transpiring on the earth has reference to those, whether Jews or Gentiles, who are not within the Covenants of Promise.

A similar idiom appears to be employed in the Old Testament in connection with Solomon’s Temple. Solomon prayed to God that “Thine eyes may be open toward this house day and night . . . to hearken unto the prayer which thy servant prayeth toward this place[1] . . . hear thou from thy dwelling place even from heaven; and when thou hearest, forgive” (2 Chronicles 6:20, 21). It is possible here to impart a nice distinction between “this place” and “thy dwelling place, even heaven.” But the words certainly read more naturally if they are understood to speak of the Holy of Holies, towards which prayers were made, as the “heaven” which was God’s dwelling place among his people.

This “confusion” between heaven and sanctuary crops up in a number of Scriptures: “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Psalm 11: 4); “The Lord . . . send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion . . . the Lord saveth His anointed; He will hear him from His holy heaven” (Psalm 20:2, 6). Comparison of 2 Chronicles 7:1 with Leviticus 9:24 is another example of the same equivalence.

The relevance of this idea to John’s vision of the heavenly sanctuary will be apparent.

The door in heaven was not opened for John’s benefit (and, of course, for his fellow-disciples) for more than a short while. The Greek verb implies that the door had been opened to stay open. There is here the counterpart to the rending of the veil in the temple at the death of Christ. Is it also the open door set before the faithful in Philadelphia (3: 8), a door of access to the heavenly Presence which no man can shut (Romans 5:1, 2)?

The voice, which invited and directed John, was that of the Apostle’s angelic mentor and guide-the angel of ch. 1:1.

ENTHRONED ABOVE THE CHERUBIM

That it is the Almighty who is described as seated on the throne of glory hardly needs to be proved. But the hymn of the twenty-four elders (verse 11) leaves no room for doubt: “Thou art worthy, our Lord and our God (R.V.), to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all thit1gs, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

In substance what John beheld was the cherubim vision seen by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel and the rest. Here, so far as the heavenly throne and the cherubim themselves are concerned, detail after detail corresponds. There are the four cherub faces, the wings and eyes, the “lightnings, thunderings, and voices”, the Holy One vivid with effulgent glory and seated upon an exalted throne, and the bow round about the throne.

Other details seem to be different, but on more careful examination they also fall into line. For example, the Divine Being on the throne is described as “like a jasper and a sardine stone to look upon.” A phrase like this meets the reader in Revelation 2:11, where the light of the holy Jerusalem is described as “like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.” But jasper is not “most precious;” it is scarcely in the semi-precious category. Then is this John’s way of referring to a diamond? The phrase “clear as crystal” strongly supports the idea. The absence of any mention of diamond in Revelation or in any of the Old Testament lists (modern versions) makes this identification more likely. There is now special appropriateness in the first foundation of the new Jerusalem (21:18) being jasper (diamond) for thus it is seen to begin with immortality.

The sardine stone is reddish in colour. Thus jasper and sardine stone together suggest brilliant flashing, as of the diamond, together with the appearance of fire. And this is precisely what Ezekiel has in his description of the heavenly glory: “and out of the midst of thereof as the colour of electrum (a bright silvery metallic alloy), out of the midst of the fire” (Ezekiel 1:4).

“And there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald” (ch. 4:3). This detail implies that the word “bow” refers to shape rather than colour and that it is intended to suggest a “halo” of glory about the throne.

One of the most difficult questions to answer in this section is why the bow should be “in sight like unto an emerald”, i.e. green. This colour seems to have no very definite symbolic meaning in Scripture. Because of the predominance of green in Nature it may well be that in this vision the green bow suggests the idea that God is the Lord of All Life. But one could wish for further light on this.

It is a matter of first-rate importance that the student of this part of Revelation should recognize that all the rest of the description given here has as its basis the camp of Israel as it existed in the wilderness. In one particular after another this chapter and those that follow suggest deliverance from Egypt, the journeying in the wilderness and the appointments of the Tabernacle. In fact, what are here described (and also are frequently alluded to elsewhere in Revelation) are “the things in the heavens,” of which the Tabernacle system as inaugurated by Moses was a “pattern” (Hebrews 9:23 – one of the many allusions in that Epistle to Revelation):

	(a)	God enthroned in the Holy of Holies above the wings of the cherubim.
	(b)	The bow round about the throne corresponding to the shining forth of the Shekinah glory.
	(c)	The seven-branched candlestick: “Seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.”
	(d)	By and by there is reference to the altar of burnt offering (ch. 6:9 etc.) and the altar of incense (ch. 8:3).
	(e)	The encampment of priests and Levites next to the Tabernacle and all round it – “round about the throne . . . four and twenty elders sitting”. It is not known whether the Tabernacle order in the wilderness had anything to correspond with the 24 courses of priests arranged by David for his Tabernacle and for Solomon’s Temple (1 Chronicles 24:4), but it is highly probable that this is the allusion here.
	(f)	Just as the camp of ancient Israel was arranged round the Tabernacle outside the inner ring of Levite tents, so Revelation 7 goes on to describe the numbering of a symbolic 12,000 out of each of the tribes.
	(g)	The life in Christ is described in terms of Israel’s wilderness journey (7:14-17).

Further details of correspondence with the camp of Israel will emerge by and by.

The cherubim are described as being “in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne.” These phrases seem to be mutually contradictory. How is it possible to “be in the midst” of anything and at the same time round about it? Reference back to the Tabernacle arrangements clears up this difficulty immediately. The first phrase, “in the midst of the throne,” presents no problem (Isaiah 61:1, 2). Nor will the second, “round about the throne,” once it is remembered that in the Holy of Holies there were cherubim not only on the mercy-seat (“in the midst of the throne”) but also on all the walls and ceiling, and also on the veil. Consequently the heavenly throne had cherubim “in the midst” and also other cherubim “round about.”

A SEA OF GLASS

Another problem concerns the sea of glass: “And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal.” At first appearance it would seem evident that there is here an allusion to the laver in the Tabernacle court or in Solomon’s temple. However this interpretation runs into serious difficulty in Revelation 21:1, 3: “and there was no more sea;” and in 15:2, where A.V is correct, and R.V., R.S.V., N.E.B. are inaccurate.

A better alternative is available. When Moses and the representatives of Israel went up into Mount Sinai after the covenant had been made between God and the people, “they saw the God of Israel, and there was under His feet as the paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in His clearness” (Exodus 24:10). Here was a symbolic representation of the vast expanse of heaven. The roof of man’s world is the floor of God’s: “The Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, humbleth Himself to behold the things that are in heaven” (Psalm 113:6).

Ezekiel saw the same features of the divine glory and wrote this description: “And the likeness of the firmament over the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal stretched forth over their heads above” (1:22). It is this, which is now pictured in Revelation 4 as “a sea of glass before the throne.” Let it be remembered that the word “firmament” simply means “an expanse,” and is just as applicable to sea as to sky. How like they seem on a calm summer’s day! Both are like “the paved work of a sapphire stone.” “Hast thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” (Job 37:18).

The same sea of glass is described in Revelation 15:2 as being “mingled with fire.” This detail corresponds with Daniel 7:10: “A fiery stream issued and came forth before Him,” and explains why Ezekiel says it was like “the terrible crystal.” The reference is probably to God’s lightning in the sky-a symbol of “His judgements made manifest” (15: 4).

The apparent difference between a sea of glass before the throne, and Ezekiel’s firmament beneath the throne is no difference at all. The Greek word translated “before” means, strictly, “in the sight of, in the presence of.” The twenty-four elders are “before” the throne (same word) and also “round about” the throne (4:4, 10), thus involving the same “contradiction” until the more exact meaning of the preposition is allowed its place.

It is now possible to discern a very lovely meaning in the words of Revelation 21:1: “and there was no more sea.” When the New Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven, the awful barrier of space (space-time, a fourth dimension?) between God and man is removed. The “firmament” like the “terrible crystal” is done away. God Himself is with men. They experience His Presence in a way, which is at present altogether impossible.

ELDERS AND CHERUBIM

The identification of the twenty-four elders, whilst not quite so straightforward, is not difficult. When consideration is given to the undeniable fact that this vision describes a heavenly sanctuary in the midst of a spiritual Israel these elders correspond to the tribe of Levi with its encampment close to the tabernacle (Numbers 1:53) within the great square of the camp of Israel. There is special reference to the priests, of the family of Aaron, who did duty in turn in the sanctuary. From the time of David onwards (and possibly, but not certainly, before then) these were organized in twenty-four courses (1 Chronicles 24:1-19).

Then since the twelve tribes (Revelation 7) are represented as typical of redeemed spiritual Israel, the twenty-four elders correspond to the leaders of the ecclesias. They are twelve and twelve because the family of God has both Jews and Gentiles. Always, from the time of Abraham, it has been possible for a Gentile to become a Jew, yet only in the first century and at no other time were there both Jews and Gentiles in the congregation of the Lord in anything approaching equal numbers. Accordingly, in Revelation 7, these saints in Christ are represented as twelve tribes of Israel and also as “a great multitude which no man could number,” corresponding to the saved people of Israel in the wilderness and the mixed multitude which shared their exodus from Egypt.

The four living creatures, which deserve more detailed study than is possible in this exposition, typify the saints in the fulness of their redemption. Certain details seem to point fairly clearly in this direction. They are the standards of the parts of the camp of Israel. They “give glory and honour and thanks” to Him that sits on the throne. And in Revelation 19:7 R.V. their song of gladness appropriates the words of the Beatitudes which Christ pronounced for his saints: “Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad (Matthew 5:12), and let us give the glory unto him (the Lamb).” The earlier Sanctus of the cherubim (4:8) carries the same implication, for although the Greek word for “living creature” is neuter, the participle, which introduces the “Holy, holy, holy,” is masculine, showing that these cherubim represent people. And since they each had six wings, the number of wings corresponds to the number of elders.

In their Sanctus Isaiah’s cherubim sang: “the fulness of the whole earth is His glory.” Even though, as will be seen in the next chapter, John’s vision does not anticipate the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, the words (which must be assumed here also) are most fitting, for the Apocalypse was made known at a time when the gospel was being taken to Gentiles everywhere. They were receiving the Good News with an enthusiasm, which should have shamed the Chosen People. At this time it was not the response of Israel but the “fulness of the whole earth” which gave glory to God.

Perhaps there is something of a problem and seeming inconsistency in an interpretation, which has both twenty-four elders and also cherubim as typical of the saints in Christ. This is part of the multiple typology of the sanctuary and its service[2]. The twenty-four courses of priests and their work in the Holy Place represent the consecration of the saints in the present age when only their High Priest can penetrate beyond the veil to minister the fulness of atonement. But the cherubim are in the Holy of Holies where they are of one piece with the Mercy Seat. Thus, as the quotation just made from chapter 19:7 also suggests, these are the saints redeemed and glorified and united forever with the one who is the means of their redemption.

[1] A.V. margin: “in this place” is definitely wrong.

[2] e.g. how many different aspects of the person and work of Christ are represented by the two altars, the laver, the silver sockets, the shewbread, the cherubim, the pot of manna, etc.?

The Bible narrative does not say what kind of home Naomi and Ruth at last found in Bethlehem, but Ruth’s suggestion that she go a-gleaning in the barley harvest seems to imply real poverty. Naomi would naturally wish to go too, not only to add to her meagre store but also because of her expressed fears that Ruth might come to some harm, as a stranger amongst harvesters of easy morals. The fact that Ruth went alone implies that Naomi was too old, or was worn out with recently experienced privations.

“I will glean….” said Ruth, “after him in whose sight I shall find grace.” This common expression is a charming Hebrew idiom for: ‘Grant me a favour, give me my request.’ Here, then, Ruth’s meaning is: ‘I will glean where I can get permission.’ Being a Moabitess, and unaccustomed to the laws of Israel, she would not realize that gleaning was a right of the poor for which no special permission was necessary. The poor had their mandate from God and God’s law in Deuteronomy 24:19.

Boaz of Bethlehem

It was then apparently by a lucky chance, but actually by the inscrutable design of Almighty God, that Ruth found herself gleaning in the fields of Boaz. Such are the ways of Providence! Strange that the entire redemptive purpose of God in Christ should hang on such an apparently trivial circumstance. So, at least, it would appear from a merely human point of view. Thus the discerning reader is bidden recognize that the dividing line between chance and design in human life is so fine that it cannot be drawn.

Boaz was near of kin to the dead Elimelech, and was evidently the leader of the tribe of Judah in those days, for was he not son of Salmon, the prince of Judah who had married Rahab the faithful? But Boaz is also described as “a mighty man of valour”, not a mighty man of wealth as in the Authorised Version. He deserves therefore to be classified with men like Gideon and Jephthah. His name is in striking contrast to that of Mahlon and Chilion, which mean ‘Sickness’ and ‘Pining’; for Boaz means: ‘In him in strength’.

Probably when Ruth and Naomi arrived in Bethlehem he was away from the town busily engaged, maybe, against the growing power of the Philistines, or in the struggle for freedom led by Othniel against Chushan-rishathaim. There are slight indications, such as the phrase “my daughter” (2:8), that suggest that Boaz was middle-aged and yet apparently and surprisingly unmarried. Or perhaps more probably, he was a childless widower. Such was the man in whose fields Ruth found herself gleaning.

There is an immediate clue to his character in his first recorded words — a hearty although conventional greeting to the reapers: “The Lord be with you”; and to this they gave ready response: “The Lord bless thee”.

Love at first sight — obviously

Boaz enquired with kindly curiosity after the stranger gleaning with his reapers, and was glad to encourage this young woman whose faith in the God of Israel and faithful friendship for Naomi had already made such an impression on the people of Bethlehem. After all, was not Boaz’s own mother just such an one as she?

The fact that in answering this enquiry about Ruth, the farm manager used the word ‘damsel, or girl’ shows that, even though Ruth had been a married woman for something like ten years, she still retained her youthful freshness.

Boaz was emphatic in his instructions that Ruth continue her gleaning in his fields, and nowhere else; for he not only admired her steadfast character, he also appreciated, perhaps more than she did, the risks that such a comely and unprotected girl ran among the none-too-scrupulous labourers in the corn fields. “Have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee?” he said.

To these assurances Boaz added all kinds of preferential treatment. Ruth was to avail herself freely of the refreshment provided for the workers as though she were one of his employees. And when a meal was provided in the middle of the day she was to be included in the circle of those who shared it. More than this, by himself handing her an ample supply of food he indicated to all his workers that she was under his own special protection.

Boaz also passed the word to all concerned that they were to allow her a special privilege in her gleaning so that she was actually among the reapers, and not behind them. He even added the further instruction that they were to make her gleaning all the more rewarding by deliberately dropping a handful out of the sheaves right in her path. There must have been a charming ingenuousness about Ruth not to see through a scheme as transparent as this was.

In her response to all this kindness Ruth showed neither false pride nor cringing self-pity. She could have misinterpreted Boaz’s motive, and have acknowledged his generosity coldly. On the other hand, in an attempt to make the most of the situation, she could have told a maudlin tale of adversity and poverty. Instead, marvelling quietly that a man of Boaz’s station should take notice of her at all, she thanked him frankly for his help to one so needy: ‘Thou hast comforted me….thou hast spoken friendly unto thine handmaid — though I be not like unto one of thine handmaidens,” she added lest the wrong construction be put on the ambiguous term she used.

One reason (though not the only one) for the concern of Boaz for Ruth’s welfare was her exceptional devotion to her destitute mother-in-law, and her quite surprising faith in the God of Israel:

Boaz answered and said unto her: “It hath fully been showed me all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore. The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”

What is particularly impressive about these words is their sustained allusion to God’s promises to Abraham: “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kin-dred and from thy father’s house….I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward….The Lord God of heaven which took me from my father’s house and from the land of my nativity….” Thus Boaz was more prophetic than he knew, for it was through this winsome Gentile, whose only strength was faith and fidelity, that those far-reaching promises to Abraham were to be fulfilled.

A good day’s work

Never was such a prosperous day’s gleaning. So bulky were the combined fruits of Ruth’s industry and the covert generosity of Boaz that she was unable to carry home what she had gathered. Instead she must needs spend the last hour of the day winnowing all of it. Picture her, then, utterly tired out, but happy in her anticipation of Naomi’s glad surprise, as she staggered wearily home burdened with half a hundred weight of barley. She carried also the remains of the lavish meal of roasted corn which Boaz had handed to her personally. With characteristic unselfishness she had saved some for Naomi at home, but the best of all her gleaning was the evident regard of a good man.

A redeemer

When Naomi learned the good fortune the day had brought, with a woman’s quiet intuition she immediately perceived a deeper and happier intent in Boaz than that of mere generosity to one destitute and deserving. “Blessed be he of the Lord” she said, “who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead.” By this she meant that God besides being gracious to Ruth and herself was also showing kindness to the dead Elimelech: “The man is near of kin unto us”, that is, he is a redeemer for us.

This term go’el calls for explanation. It described the nearest relative on whom devolved the responsibilities of redeeming an inheritance which through ill-fortune had passed out of the family. Another duty was that of continuing the family name of a near kinsman who had died childless, and also of avenging the blood of a kinsman slain in a feud. The first two of these, both appropriate in Ruth’s case, help to explain why the Law of Moses assigned a double portion of inheritance to the firstborn son, since he would have to take on himself most of these responsibilities. It would seem, then, that Naomi had already considered the possibility of Ruth finding a go’el in Bethlehem; by enquiry, if not be knowledge of the family, she had already ascertained that one of Elimelech’s near kinsmen, and therefore Ruth’s, was Boaz. It will be seen by and by that the same thought had also been pondered in the mind of Boaz himself.

Ruth gleaned in the fields of Boaz right through the barley harvest, and the wheat harvest as well — with intermission, a period of two months or more. Then Naomi came to an important though reluctant decision. Since Boaz was so evidently in love with Ruth, why did he not, more promptly, seek to make her his wife? Possibly he was deterred by the knowledge that he was not the nearest of near kinsmen with the right of redemption. Or, and perhaps more probably, he found it impossible to believe that the young and comely Ruth would wish to have as husband one so much older than herself.

Whatever the explanation, Naomi felt Ruth should now claim what was her right, for even though she were a Moabitess, the levirate law of marriage applied in her case by virtue of the fact that her first husband was an Israelite. Perhaps the biggest problem in this story of Ruth is to explain why Naomi chose such a method by which Ruth might claim her right of marriage, for it involved a serious risk of scandal throughout the town, with a distinct possibility of evil consequences for both Ruth and Boaz. Why, one wonders, did not Naomi herself act as go-between in this delicate matter, or devise some other means less open to misinterpretation?

Can it be that behind this charming but risky procedure recommended by Naomi there is some local custom of the time, knowledge of which has disappeared? Or is it possible that by such a device Naomi betrayed the flaw in her character, that she had the best possible aspirations on Ruth’s behalf but lacked the faith and patience to let God bring these hopes to fruition in His own way? One hesitates to adopt such a conclusion, but the possibility of it should not be excluded. Whatever the explanation, Naomi’s plan resulted in one of the most delightful stories in the Bible.

Notes

4.	The Lord be with you must mean, in this context: ‘The Lord give you a good harvest.’ The words come with that meaning in Ps. 129:7,8; Jud. 6:12; and also in a more subtle sense in 2 Th. 3:16; Lk. 1:28.
7.	Tarried; i.e. she first did the chores at home.
9.	After them, the other girls who were gleaning. The pronoun is feminine.
10.	Paraphrase: Why do you grant me my request and these privileges when I am a perfect stranger?
12.	Wings. An allusion to the cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat.
15.	Among the sheaves. Yet another privilege.
	Reproach her not. AVm shows what Boaz was afraid of.
16.	Let fall also….Literally: Ye shall plunder a plunder for her from the handfuls.
22.	That they (masc.) meet thee not. Again, AVm shows the implied meaning.

General characteristics.

1. Each has: “To the church at . . . write; These things saith . . . “
2. Each has: “I know they works.”
3. Each has: “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”
4. In the first three, “he that overcometh” precedes “he that hath an ear . . . “ In the last four this order is reversed. Why? (See Ch. 6).
5. Each introduces Christ by some description from chapter 1 appropriate to the particular church, and ends with a promise, which agrees with this description (details in notes).
6. Five churches are told to repent. The other two are promised a crown.
7. A coming of the Lord is referred to in five of the letters; “Satan” is mentioned in four.

Historical application.

The view that the Letters to the Churches are also prophetic of seven periods of church history has been somewhat uncritically received. Some of the reasons against it are:

	(a)	Church history through 1,900 years is not the history of the Truth, it is the history of the apostasy.
	(b)	The history of the Truth during that period is not known. For rnost of that long era, the Truth may have disappeared altogether. Certainly nothing approaching a continuous history of the faithful remnant is available. It is a big mistake to confuse communities such as Donatists, Waldenses, Huguenots with the true Faith. It is demonstrable that all of these were sadly astray on fundamentals.
	(c)	If “Ephesus” corresponds to the earliest period, “Smyrna” is manifestly better. Did the spiritual condition of the early church actually improve after the time of the apostles?
	(d)	The best of the seven-Philadelphia-is sandwiched between the two worst, Sardis and Laodicea. Can any consecutive periods in the history of the Truth be pointed to as corresponding clearly with such remarkable phenomena?
	(e)	If the twentieth century is the “Laodicean” period, then in what sense does the Truth today consider itself to be “rich and increased in goods?” – materially, or spiritually? And in what sense is it actually “poor and blind and naked?” If spiritually, how does it – apply, since ecclesias vary from one to the next very considerably?
	(f)	Is there so much as one small Biblical hint that this mode of application of the Letters to the Churches should be adopted?

1. Ephesus first because (a) it was nearest of them all to Patmos (see map); (b) it was John’s OWII ecclesia, according to universal tradition of the early church.

angel of the church at Ephesus. If the “angel” is the individual leader of the ecclesia (see Chapter 1 – The Son Of Man (ch. 1)), then the person addressed here could be Timothy. The reproach of this letter (v. 4) may not have been true of him personally; nevertheless he bore the responsibility. “We are members one of another;” cp. Exodus 32:25: Aaron, although reluctant, was held responsible.

that holdeth the seven stars. Gk.=holds firmly, has dominion over; cp. John 10:28. And among these seven-Sardis and Laodicea!

walketh in the midst. A most impressive idea. This one phrase will do efficiently the work of many a long exhortation, when it really penetrates the mind. “Thou God seest me.” Old Testament basis: Deuteronomy 23:14; Leviticus 26:11, 12 and 24:2-4.

2. I know thy works, both good and evil. This phrase is from Isaiah 66:18, where v. 18b=Matthew 25:32: the Day of Judgement! There is tremendous emphasis in the gospels on the Lord’s intuitive knowledge of the attitudes and thoughts of others: John 1 :48, 49; 2:24, 25; 3 :7; 4:18, 29; 6:61, 64; 11 :14; 13:38; 16:19, 30; 20:27; 21:17; Mark 2:6, 8; 3:23; 5:30; Luke 6:8; 7:39, 47; 9:47; Matthew 16:8; 17:25; Revelation 1:14; 2:1, 23, 18; Romans 8:27; Hebrews 4:12.

labour and patience. So the church at Ephesus was not “a comfortable club for the conserving of the life of a few saints,” as are so many ecclesias today. Cp. 1 Thessalonians 1:3-work of faith, labour of love, patience of

hope. In Ephesus love was dwindling (v. 4) and with it, doubtless, faith and hope also. Contrast 2 Thessalonians 1:3, 4 where these were “growing, abounding, enduring.”

labour here = labour to weariness. It is surely a correct inference that this was the past record of the Ephesians, not characteristic of the present; cp. v. 5: “do the first works.”

canst not bear them which are evil but hast tried them. Ecclesial discipline implied; 1 John 4:1. The command is to bear with weak brethren, but not false ones; Galatians 6:2.

say they are apostles and are not. Probably a reference to travelling preachers, who were a characteristic feature of the early church; 2 John 7,3 John 5-7. These did not claim to be apostles of the Lord (since there were only 13 such), but they did claim to be apostles of the church (2 Corinthians 8:23 R.V., Philippians 2:25 R.V.). In those days it would be a simple matter to appear in an ecclesia, claiming to be fully accredited from some other unknown ecclesia. Such individuals made a lot of trouble for Paul at Corinth; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 3-6, 20 and 10:7-12 (this Satan was Paul’s chief personal opponent). The same problem arose elsewhere also; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 3:6-11. Paul foretold it in Ephesus: Acts 20:30. According to Tertullian John rebuked an elder of an Asian church for writing an epistle in the name of Paul. Later, this kind of thing became a common phenomenon. But in this verse the immediate reference may well be to Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17), or the Nicolaitans.

found them liars. s.w. ch. 21 :8.

3. and thou hast borne what? reproach, probably. Contrast use of s.w. in v. 2.

4. thou hast left thy first love. Loss of earlier zeal. Cp. 2 Corinthians 11: 2, 3. “First love” for Christ; see Acts 19:10 and Acts 20:30; 2 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:5; Ephesians 5:23-32 and 1:15; all of these Scriptures were written to the same ecclesia. This was a fulfilment of Christ’s own words: Matthew 24:11, 12; but he only mentions it here after all the good features of the ecclesia have been mentioned. And so it will be in the Day of Judgement. The figure has its basis in Jeremiah 2:2; Ezekiel 16:8-15 and other similar passages.

I have against thee. Same phrase in Matthew 5:23. Therefore, “be reconciled to Christ thy brother.”

5. Remember. Not spoken to Ephesus for the first time; Ephesians 2:10, 11; Acts 20:31.

repent. Greek aorist suggests: “at once and drastically.” come quickly. R.V. omits “quickly,” but not in 3:11. Would this be by John returning from Patmos with authority to apply discipline? Cp. 3 John 10. With any other view, 1,900 years’ lapse of time is a serious difficulty. Another explanation in the Appendix.

remove thy candlestick. This threat would have special force after A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed and the seven-branched candlestick was “moved out of its place” to Rome. Cp. the force of Jeremiah 7:12. Cp. also Matthew 25:28, 29 and 21:41; Romans 11:17. These words are remarkably apt because (a) v. 1; (b) Ephesus was known as “the Light of Asia” (Pliny); (c) the city had already been moved out of its place by the silting up of the river estuary and the consequent shift of the trading centre. Why does Christ say “remove” and not “extinguish”? except thou repent. Notice the force of this repetition, twice in one verse.

6. hatest . . . the Nicolaitans. See on v. 14, 15. Here Christ praises his servants for hating; Psalm 119:104 and 139:21, 22 and 101:3.

7. he that hath an ear. Spoken by Christ on 14 separate occasions: Matthew 11:15 and 13:9, 43; Malk 4:23 and 7:16; Luke 14:35; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29 and 3:6, 13, 22 and 13:9.

churches. Not “church.” Mark 13:57. Therefore all the letters are for all the ecclesias, then and now.

what the spirit saith. Therefore here the Spirit=Christ; cp. Acts 13:2. Why not “what Christ saith?” Because he speaks through John and a book, not directly.

to him that overcometh what?-temptation? self? 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 2:4.

eat of the tree of life. Cp. John 5:26 and contrast Matthew 25:35. Greek aorist must mean “eat once and for all” i.e. of the fruit, ch. 22:14. Contrast 22:2 and Ezekiel 47:12-eating of the leaves heals but does not abolish mortality. In the light of “fruit every month,” can any inference be made about the duration of Adam’s probation? Note the appropriateness in the promises made in the other letters also. Every promise in the seven letters is alluded to in the rest of the book (see also Chapter 41 – The Seventh Vision: The New Jerusalem (21:1-8)).

8. was dead and is alive. Cp. Smyrna’s history-the city practically died out for 400 years, and then revived remarkably. A prominent feature of the local religion was commemoration of the death and resurrection of the god Dionysus.

9. I know. This time not only through inspection, but also through personal experience – tribulation, poverty, the blasphemy of enemies; contrast v. 2

tribulation in the form of persecution: v. 10.

poverty through expropriation of property. Christ offers no solution to their problem of suffering, but only the assurance that he knows about it.

rich. ch. 3:17; James 2:5; Matthew 6:19, 20; Luke 12:21; 2 Corinthians 6:10 and 8:9. Their commendation is in a parenthesis (“but thou art rich”) and a silence (no rebuke of any kind).

Jews. Wherever Paul took the gospel, his and its greatest enemies were the Jews. This was especially true in Smyrna. These Jews even broke the Sabbath to help in the burning of Polycarp, A.D. 147.

and are not. Romans 2:28, 29; Philippians 3:2, 4; Matthew 3:9; Romans 9:6.

blasphemy. Meek Moses was provoked to speak inadvisedly with his lips; Numbers 20:10; Psalm 106:33. But not so the Smyrna ecclesia!

synagogue of Satan. Truly the Jews were an adversary-synagogue. Today the Truth’s biggest enemies are those who claim to be spiritual seed of Abraham but are not.

10. Fear not. If there was no need to fear the very presence of the Lord of Glory (1: 17), how much less to fear futile godless enemies such as these.

the devil. The Jews, through their false accusations before the civil authorities; Acts 17:6, 7 and 24:5, 6.

tribulation ten days. All kinds of explanations, and none of them worth

much:

	(a)	symbolic number for worldly power; cp. ten horns.
	(b)	ten persecutions from Nero to Diocletian.
	(c)	for a short while, as in Genesis 24:55.
	(d)	to the bitter end, for ever; Deuteronomy 23:2; Nehemiah 13:1.
	(e)	ten literal days.
	(f)	ten years. But this was not true in Nero’s or Domitian’s reign.

In the circumstances dogmatism is difficult.

Most likely (c) or (e). When Nero died, the persecution he had set going came to a sudden stop.

be thou = “some of you.” “Thou” personifies the ecclesia or else refers to its Bishop. “You” speaks of the ecclesia as individuals.

faithful here = loyal. The city of Smyrna had a reputation for being faithful to its alliances.

unto death here = violent death. Smyrna took its name from the local trade in myrrh, and it was myrrh that embalmed the dead body of Jesus (read again v. 8). There is no promise given that they would escape suffering.

crown of life. Round the crest of the hill at the back of the city was a line of fine buildings known as “the crown” of Smyrna. Christ promised something more majestic, more enduring. It was also a Smyn1ean practice to present a crown to the high priest of Dionysus at the end of his term of office. Several epitaphs include the title: “crownbearer.” But what a flimsy honour compared with what Christ offers here! Note that all of v. 10 happened to Christ himself.

crown used to describe: (a) the crown of suffering (Matthew 27 :29); (b) faithful converts who will be a crown of joy in the day of Christ (I Thessalonians 2:19, Philippians 4:1); (c) the blessing of immortality (I Peter 5:4; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; this last is a puzzle. It reads as though it were an allusion to Revelation, but the dates of the two books do not allow of this. Is it a reference to Matthew 19:28?).

11. second death. Appropriate after v. 8. “The Smyrnean persecutors will pass through death to death, but these faithful will pass through death to life.”

12. Pergamos. An intellectual city, with a huge library. It gave its name to “parchment.” Centre of Roman administration for the province and of the state religion (Emperor worship), hence v. 13. Centre also of worship of Aesculapius, god of healing-his symbol a serpent. Temple prostitution was rampant here, more even than at other centres of idolatry.

sharp sword. Jesus appropriately chooses the word which describes, not the soldier’s weapon, but the proconsul’s ceremonial sword of office.

two-edged, to separate between true and false (Hebrews 4: 12), and to convert and to punish (v. 16).

13. Satan’s seat. R.V.: throne. In Smyrna (v. 9) the adversary was a Jewish synagogue. Here he is Roman governor.

holdest fast my name. It is the time of Nero’s persecution. At all costs every true disciple must hold to the name of Christian; cp. 1 Peter 4: 14, 16 (written in Rome in very similar circumstances).

Antipas my faithful martyr. (a) Some prominent Christian who had already suffered at the hands of the Romans. Shortened form of Antipater. (b) Shortened form of Antipanton = the one over against the many – not “against” in the sense of contending or combating, but in the sense of distinct from. Contrast the latitudinarianism now in the ecclesia, v. 14, 15. Jesus is the Faithful Witness (1: 5), and those who are signally loyal share this title of honour; cp. Acts 22: 20.

14. thou hast there. Note the distinction between the ecclesia and its unworthy members. The ecclesia itself was not false, but it tolerated false doctrine. “What the church lacked was discipline. What cursed it was a false charity.”

the doctrine of Balaam involves a careful study of Numbers 25 and related Scriptures. Its essence is in Numbers 25:1. The plan to corrupt Israel by idolatry and its associated unholy alliances was Balaam’s, Numbers 31:16. It involved not only the worship of Baal-Peor (a form of sun-worship; hence v. 4), but also ritual fornication (v. 2, 3 R.V.m., 8 and Hosea 9:10), belief in the immortality of the soul (Psalm 106:28) and spiritualism (Deuteronomy 32:16, 17), and orgiastic feasting in the presence of the “god.” The situation demanded drastic discipline, calling for loyalty to God even at the expense of severity to one’s own kith and kin (v. 5, 7). Eli in later years failed to supply this discipline when the same evil flourished and thus his line lost the high-priesthood; I Samuel 2:22 and 3: 13. Because the earlier Phinehas was prompt to apply discipline in similar circumstances, God made with his house an everlasting covenant. This danger was a normal part of the “civilization” of the Roman Empire in New Testament times. Temple “virgins” were recruited in hundreds. Temple prostitution was as respectable as going to church or political meetings today. Public banquets and special celebrations such as birthdays were commonly arranged in the pagan temples, so that each course of the meal was a kind of votive offering to the god. These facts explain the tremendous emphasis in the New Testament against fornication and eating food offered to idols-the two outstanding features of the Baal-Peor transgression; Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and 10:14-33 (v. 8 refers back to Numbers 25) and the whole of chapter 8; Colossians 3:5 (this word “covetousness” is used several times in the New Testament for coveting a woman); I Peter 4:3, 4; 2 Peter 2 (the entire chapter but especially v. 7 R.V., 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22 – “dog” cp. Deuteronomy 23:18); Jude 4, 7, 8, 11; I John 5:21. Revelation 14:4 makes utter nonsense until it is read as a reference to temple prostitution. Paraphrase: “they have not indulged in temple fornication because they are life-long servants of another god, the holy God of heaven, and must serve Him in His temple.”

But what was the doctrine of Balaam? It was the argument: “These wonderful prophecies of blessing which I have been guided to pronounce concerning Israel (Numbers 22, 23, 24) arc bound to come true. How then can anything which you do interfere with what is the plan of the Almighty? Therefore by all means indulge yourselves in all kinds of illicit enjoyment. Since God has blessed, what curse can come to Israel from Moab?”

This Antinomianism was a serious danger in the early church. In Corinth “meats for the belly and the belly for meats” was the slogan (caustically quoted by Paul), meaning: “God has made the body with certain functional powers. Then can it be wrong to use the body in these ways?” But 1 Corinthians 6:12, 13 shews that it was fornication which was being justified. Cp. also the emphasis in Romans 6:1, 15 and 3:8; I John 3:3, 7; Jude 4, which shew that the argument sometimes took the form: “Since we have forgiveness (grace) through the blood of Christ, the more we sin the more sin will be forgiven, and thus the more God will be magnified!” Obviously this argument is wrong; but where is it wrong?

stumbling-block. Literally, that part of the trap on which the bait was laid; Joshua 22:17 and 23:13.

Balaam. Cp. the False Prophet of ch. 13; and with Jezebel (v. 20) cp. the harlot of ch. 17.

15. Nicolaitans. This Greek name means “conqueror of the people.” “Balaam” is Hebrew for the same thing. Thus Nicolaitan = Balaamite. Hence this explains the apparent absence of any mention of Nicolaitanism elsewhere in the New Testament. Both names would be in use because of the Jewish and Gentile elements in the ecclesia.

also-as in Ephesus (v. 6) and Thyatira (v. 20). But note the contrast with Ephesus. In Pergamos the doctrine was tolerated.

doctrine. At the root of all evil works is an evil doctrine.

16. Repent or-the Greek particle adds a kind of sardonic emphasis. It is the entire ecclesia, which is commanded to repent, and not just the Nicolaitans. How repent?-by exhortation and reprimand of the evil doers, and (if necessary) by excommunication. To allow such to go uncorrected would be uncharitable, encouraging them to think themselves safe when they were not safe.

come unto thee quickly. See on v. 5.

fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Still referring to the story of Balaam; Numbers 22:31 and 24:17 and 31:8 and also, of course, Revelation 2:12. The normal meaning of this verse, especially in the light of Revelation 19:15, would appear to require reference to the Second Coming. What other kind of fulfilment is possible?

17. hidden manna. Genitive implies having some of it, sharing it with others. Contrast v. 14: “eating things offered to idols.” Reference is to Exodus 16:32, 33, where note: “that they may see the bread.” But if it were always in the Holy of Holies “before the Lord,” it would never be seen at all. Inference is that on the Day of Atonement the High Priest brought forth the golden pot (Hebrews 9:4) of manna at the time when he blessed them in the name of the Lord, and shewed the manna to the people. Jesus refers to this in John 6:49, 50, 27 (sealed). The other manna corrupted. The hidden manna did not, and so becomes a fit symbol of eternal life in Christ. And as this manna was brought forth on the Day of Atonement, so the fullness of eternal life will be bestowed in the Day when sin is done away, when the High Priest Jesus returns from the Divine Presence to bless the people in the name of the Lord; Hebrews 9:28. Further reference to this: Colossians 3:3, Revelation 11:19. Christ’s “hidden food” when on earth was (a) the Word of God, Job 23:12; (b) the work of conversion of sinners; John 4:32, 34. So also the saints in the Millenium.

White stone. All kinds of ideas have been suggested:

	(a)	the symbol of acquittal of a criminal, each judge putting a white stone into an urn;
	(b)	the token of victory given to a Roman general at his “triumph;”
	(c)	the honour accorded to a victor in the public games, entitling him to food at the public expense (cp. the manna);
	(d)	the symbol of unending friendship; a stone was broken, and a half kept by each; years later the correspondence of stone with stone would bring back memories of earlier faithfulness. There is a neat application here to the Second Coming of Christ.

But all these ideas lack a Biblical association. Like the hidden manna, the white stone must have some connection with Tabernacle or High Priest. So possibly:

	(e)	one of the seven “stars” in the crown of the High Pricst (see on 1:16); one of the principal passages used there is Isaiah 62: verses 2-4, 11, 12 there supply suggestions for the “new n.ame.” The combination of “hidden manna” and “white stone” would then be a symbolical equivalent of Revelation 5:10;
	(f)	(and this has more in its favour than any of the others) the white stone is an allusion to Urim and Thummim. These were small objects (stones of some kind-diamonds?) hidden in the pouch formed by the breastplate of the High Priest (the idea that the Urim and Thummim were the 12 jewels upon the breastplate is entirely without supporting evidence). Procedure when asking counsel of the Lord was to come before the High Priest and put a question to be answered Yes, or No. The High Priest drew the divine lot and thus gave decision. Exodus 28:16-the breastplate had a pocket. v. 30-”the breastplate” in LXX=logeion=speaking place, oracle; the word “in” does not mean “upon,” but “inside.” 1 Samuel 14:18 R.V.m. is correct. Urim and Thummim were in the breastplate attached to the ephod; see v. 19 and also v. 37 (was one of the stones a blank, indicating “No answer?”). v. 41 according to Symmachus: “O Lord the God of Israel, why hast thou not ansvered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urin1, and if thou sayest thus, the iniquity is in the people, give Thummim; and the lot fell on Jonathan.” 1 Samuel 23:6, 9-12. Note that the questions have a Yes or No answer. Also consider: Joshua 7:16-18 and 18:6; Ezra 2:63 (with which connect Zechariah 3:9), Proverbs 16:33 R.V., Psalm 60:6-9 and 43:3; Colossians 2:3. If this suggestion be correct, the white stone has immediate connection with the hidden manna, the latter symbolizing life eternal in Christ, and the former a sharing of his priesthood.

A new name which no man knoweth (learneth). Cp. new names of disciples -Peter, Boanerges, Paul, Barnabas. Only the High Priest knew what was inscribed on the Urim and Thummim. Or, was the new name Christ’s own “new name”-the Lord our Righteousness (see on 3:12)? Further, the new name, the new song, the new heavens and earth, the new Jerusalen1 and the hidden manna (all in Revelation) are all to be found in Isaiah 65:13-18. This suggests that the “new name” is the name of “the God of Truth” (Revelation 3 :14) i.e. the Amen. “Truth” is also the meaning of Thummim, according to the LXX.

white stone – new name. In view of the obvious dependence of this Letter to Pergamos on Numbers 25, it is interesting to observe that “Phinehas” is said to be Egyptian for “negro”. Now note the promise of abiding priesthood made to him.

18. Thyatira. Was the ecclesia founded by Lydia taking the Truth home? Acts 16:14.

Son of God. In chapter 1:13 it is “Son of man.” This change anticipates the allusion to Psalm 2:8, 9 in v. 27 (read the entire Psalm).

eyes as a flame of fire. ch. 1:14. Intimate knowledge, penetrating vision, appropriate here in view of v. 23: “searcheth hearts and reins.”

feet . . . fine brass. ch. 1:15. Coming judgement; Isaiah 63: 1-6 and 41:25 and I4:25; Malachi 4:3. Does this detail anticipate v. 27? Brass smelting and polishing were prominent among the local trades.

19. Read: thy works, even thy love and faith and ministry and patience. So in the service of Christ, “works” include the passive virtues such as love and faith.

patience probably means here: doggedness in face of persecution.

ministry in the New Testament means: (a) secretarial work, as 2 Timothy 4:11; 2 Corinthians 3:3, Acts 13:5; (b) succour in time of need, as Acts 11:29; 2 Corinthians 9 12; 1 Corinthians 16:15; (c) the ministry of the Word; Romans 11:13; 12:7; 2 Corinthians 3:7-9.

Iast works more than the first. i.e. more excellent (cp. Greek of Hebrews 11:4). Their Christian service was even better than it had been in former days; cp. 1 Thessalonians 4:1. One of the plainest signs of decadence is for an individual or ecclesia to look back on the past with wonder or satisfaction at the zeal and energy displayed in those earlier days; this spells retrogression. See frequeIlt emphasis on this: Revelation 2:4, 5; Matthew 12:43-45; 2 Peter 2:20.

20. sufferest. s.w. John 12:7; Hebrews 13:22.

Jezebel… a prophetess. Daughter of Ethbaal, king of Zidon, who is known to have been also priest of Astarte. Similarly Jezebel would be priestess of the foul religion she introduced into Israel; 1 Kings 16:31-33 and 21:25, 26; 2 Kings 9:22, 30. It is known that at this period on the outskirts of Thyatira there was a religious cult led by a woman calling herself a prophetess. Is this an allusion to her? Can it be that she accepted Christianity and brought her former errors with her? R.V.m. goes further and reads: “thy wife Jezebel” which might well mean that she was the wife of the Bishop of the ecclesia (cp. Ahab whose name means “love;” see v. 19). Even the reading behind the A.V. text probably means “thy wife” — cp. “the brother” in 2 Corinthians 8:18, which = “his brother.” So Deuteronomy 13:6-8, 5 is appropriate. In Ahab’s reign the evil was the worship of Baal along with the worship of Jehovah; in Thyatira, participation in rites associated with local idolatries along with the service of Christ.

teacheth and seduceth. Ephesus had zeal for orthodoxy but little love. Thyatira lacked discipline in doctrine, but was active in good works. Ephesus hated Nicolaitans, Pergamos tolerated them. Thyatira allowed them official position. The New Testament requires drastic action against those who teach false ideas; 2 John 10, 1 John 4:1; Titus 1:10, 11; 1 Timothy 1:3; Galatians 1:8. Paul’s attitude to those who immaturely hold (but do not teach) wrong ideas is distinctly milder; Romans 14:1; Galatians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 15:12, 35, 36.

my servants. Contrast “her children” (v. 23).

fornication . . . idols. Cp. on v. 14. Thyatira had lovely groves, which were infamous for their association with these foul rites. Both ideas are included in 1 Kings 18:19, and in Acts 15:20, 29.

21. I gave her time to repent. Reference to a warning addressed to this Jezebel by John before he went to Patmos? Implication is that she had formerly been a worthy member of the ecclesia. R.V.: she willeth not to repent. Hence strong measures threatened.

22. cast. The normal New Testament idiom, as in Matthew 9:2 (Greek).

into a bed. The punishment fits the crime. But the bed is one of tribulation, not of evil enjoyment. Jezebel died under Jehu’s horses (cp. v. 18).

them that commit adultery. Here, and in v. 21, spiritual adultery. The idea moves readily from literal (v. 20) to figurative.

repent immediately and drastically. Greek aorist.

23. her children. i.e. disciples, as in Matthew 12:27 and many others (e.g. Hebrews 2:13). Similarly denunciation against Jezebel’s children (2 Kings 9:7-9), and devotees (1 Kings 18:40).

kill her children with death. Either: (a) as R.V.m. “pestilence” and ch. 6:8 (cp. the Black Death), or (b) very common Hebraism-repetition for emphasis, as Genesis 2:17; contrast Numbers 16:29; or (c) reference to Leviticus 20:10.

all the churches. Shews that the seven letters are intended for all the seven churches.

shall know. A different gnosis from v. 24.

searcheth the hearts and reins. See instructive mg. refs. especially: (a) Jeremiah 17:10, where the title applies to God; and cp. v. iOb with 23c here; (b) Romans 8:27, Christ; (c) 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10, where v. 10b =24b here; (d) Proverbs 24:11-14, where note: “he that pondereth the heart,” “render to every man according to his works,” “eat thou honey” (divine wisdom), and contrast 25:16 (human wisdom, the deep things of Satan).

24. Instead of the usual triad, the Lord here uses four phrases to describe the faithful remnant in Thyatira.

the rest. cp. 1 Kings 19:18.

the deep things of Satan. Cp. synagogue and throne of Satan; v. 9, 13. Was this false philosophy a reaction from Jewish emphasis on bodily cleanliness and ritual purity? “The body is nothing; it is the mind that matters; if only we truly serve God in our minds, it is of no concern at all how the body is used.” Perhaps by some such specious reasoning the practical conclusion was reached that sin is not sin. Apart from an explanation of this kind, it is difficult to see how the woman “Jezebel” could be a prophetess and teacher in the ecclesia. Note how such an approach starts from a very different idea but reaches the same practical conclusion as the Nicolaitan heresy (v. 20). The name and character of Jezebel is an apt summary; it means “chaste, virgin, pure!”

as they say. Three possibilities: (a) a skit on the jargon of these devotees (“the deep things of God”) who were stressing their own knowledge of the deeper things (the same sort of pose is not unknown today); they would use such passages as Daniel 2:21, 22; Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 2:10 (but see the warnings in 1 Timothy 6:20; 1 John 2:3); (b) they=the outside world, already beginning to speak with contempt of the evil in this ecclesia; (c) they = the apostles, who had already denounced these tendencies as “the deep things of Satan.”

none other burden. Elsewhere: (a) a burden of commandments to be observed; Matthew 23:4; (b) a revelation from God of coming judgement; Jeremiah 23:33-38. The allusion to Acts 15:28, 29 here requires the first of these. Note: Here Jesus is quoting from the inspired wisdom of his own apostle. A unique passage, surely.

25. holdfast. Ch. 3:11; Jude 3.

till I come. The Greek implies uncertainty (on the part of Jesus! Mark 13:32) as to when this might be.

26. And. This copula does not occur in v. 7, 11, 17, etc. Here it suggests that “overcoming” is by “holding fast” (v. 25).

power over the nations. Cp. v. 13. This reward, proper to one who first overcomes self, is a leading idea in Revelation; cp. ch. 1 :6, 9 and 3:21 and 5:10 and 20:4 and 22:5.

keepeth my works. John 6:29; 1 John 3:23. Contrast v. 22. “their works,” and v. 23, 19.

unto the end. See Matthew 24:13, 14 (and concordance). Reads very strangely if indeed the Lord knew that all the Thyatirans would be in their graves long before the End.

27. rod of iron. Psalm 2:9; what will be true of Christ (ch. 19:15) will be true also of his saints; cp. v. 28. And so also in many a place. Cp. the way in which various titles of God are applied to Christ. The Hebrew of Psalm 2:9 can be pointed so as to read “break” or “scatter” hence “rule;” here the Holy Spirit says “rule,” confirming the LXX.

rule. Greek=rule as a shepherd, which seems to accord ill with a rod of iron. The dominion of Christ and his saints will be mild as a shepherd’s but in face of contumacy strong as iron.

rod = sceptre, in Hebrews 1 :8. Note the appropriateness of Psalm 2: 3, 12 to Thyatira.

broken to shivers. Because unclean; Leviticus 15:12; Jeremiah 19:10, 11.

received. Past tense (Matthew 28:18)-although his rule is not yet begun -with reference to Psalm 2:7, which belongs to the day of Christ’s resurrection (Hebrews 5:5).

from my Father. Luke 22:29. Not from the Devil; Matthew 4:9.

28. the morning star. Symbol of royalty; ch. 22:16 (note the context); Numbers 24:17; Isaiah 14:12-14 (here “Lucifer” = morning star, the planet Venus; the reference is to Sennacherib, not to Nebuchadnezzar, seeking dominion over all lands); 2 Peter 1:19.

give him the morning star = he shall share my regal majesty (note v. 26, 27); cp. v. 7 = he shall share my eternal nature; v. 17 = he shall share my priesthood; contrast Jezebel (see on vv. 20, 24).

1. Sardis. Famous in earlier history. Capital of Lydia, the kingdom ruled by wealthy Croesus. At this time it was a declining city and had been ever since a destructive earthquake at the begim1ing of the century.

he that hath the seven Spirits and the seven stars. Ch. 4:5 and 5:6 and 1 :16, 20. Thus “seven spirits” emphasizes angelic action among the ecclesias, or the operation of Holy Spirit powers in the ecclesias. “Seven stars” emphasizes responsibility of ecclesias to Christ their llead.

I know thy works. Contrast the force and tone of this with 2:2, 9, 13, 19. Only here and in v. 15 does Christ begin with condemnation.

a name that thou livest and art dead. Ecclesia and city were alike-both living on a splendid past. What was wrong? (a) Indulgence in pleasure; cp. the similar language of 2 Timothy 3:5, 4; 1 Timothy 5:6; Titus 1:16, 12. (b) Lack of prayer may be inferred from “Be watchful ;” prayer and “watching” are frequently associated together; e.g. Matthew 26:38, 41; Luke 21 :36; Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 4:2. (e) Lack of faithful testimony to the Truth may be inferred from the allusion at the end of v. 5. What a shock when these words were read out before the ecclesia! There is a serious lack of this type of downright exhortation today. Why did not Jesus introduces himself by ch. 2:8?

become watchful. Nehemiah 7:3.

2. establish the things which remain. The reference is to the gifts of the Spirit. See on “fulfilled” in this verse and on “received” (v. 3). Evidently, the up-building power of the gifts of the Spirit was being neglected in Sardis Restraint of the exuberance of these powers had been necessary in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14) and in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 5: 19, 22). Had Sardis drifted into cold formality through striving after seemliness at the expense of spiritual fervour?

I have found. Greek: “eureka,” perfect tense, implies: “I found som~ time ago and it is still true.” This condemnation is not summary or hasty

no works of thine fulfilled. Romans 15: 13, 14; Ephesians 1:23; 3:19; 4:10; 5:18; Philippians 1:11.

before my God. Luke 12: 9, 6 and 15: 10.

my God. Only other occurrences: John 20:17; Revelation 3:12. What is the special significance of this? The expression is useful against the doctrine of the Trinity. Note that only dead Sardis and lukewarm Laodicea have no enemies, either in or outside the ecclesia!

3. Therefore. Twice in one verse, in consequences of “thy works not fulfilled…”

remember-”keep on remembering”-the key to faithfulness; Luke 22:19; Mark 14:72; whence 2 Peter 1:12, 13 and 3:1, 2.

how thou hast received (the gifts of the Spirit), as in Romans 8:15, Galatians 3:2; 2 Peter 4:10; 1 John 2:27. Gk. perfect tense implies that they were still possessed, but not honoured or used with profit.

how emphasizes the eager zeal of Sardis in its early days.

and didst hear (the word of life).

and keep (my commandments).

and repent. And apparently Sardis did! In the mid-second Century Melito bishop of Sardis was one of the outstanding characters of the early church. Among other things, he wrote a commentary on Revelation! If the leader of the ecclesia was faithful the rest would follow his lead. if thou wilt not watch. Luke 21:36; Matthew 24:42.

I will come as a thief. Matthew 24:42, 43 (Luke 12:39, 40), alluded to in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4, 6; Revelation 3.18 and 16:15; 2 Peter 3:10. The phrase always applies to the Second Coming, but what meaning could it have for Sardis in the first Century?

thou shalt not know what hour. Quote from Matthew 24:42 where context defines what is meant by “watching.” Should it be inferred that the watchful will know the hour?

4. a few names. Idiom for the faithful remnant; John 10:3; Acts 1:15; Revelation 11 :15; Numbers 26:63-65. These few faithful are not commanded to separate themselves from the rest!

not defiled their garments. Ch. 16:15, where also, “I come as a thief.” What is the point here in what seems to be a deliberate reference to the letter to Sardis?-to suggest that at the coming of the Lord the Truth will be in a Sardian state? Revelation 14: 4; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Jude 23.

their garments. Their Christ-righteousness; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:24 and 5:27; Revelation 6:11 and 7:9.

with me. In fulfilment of Christ’s High Priestly prayer; John 17:24; Revelation 2:1.

walk with me in white. Cp. Genesis 5:22; Luke 9:29; Matthew 13:43. Or, read as an allusion to Zechariah 3:3, the next verse becomes an appropriate reference to the Satan of Zechariah 3: 1-those in Ezra 2 :62, 63 whose names were blotted out of the book of the priesthood.

for they are worthy. What a contrast with 16:6!

5. he that overcometh. The one who repents: v. 3. Even his defiled garments shall be cleansed.

white raiment. The priestly robe; Matthew 6:29; Zechariah 3:4. Contrast Revelation 2:26-28 (royal majesty).

not blot out his name. Implying that it is possible for a name once written in the Book to be blotted out; Ezra 2:63. Cp. 2 Samuel 23, includes in David’s mighty men Joab’s armour-bearer, but not Joab; Ahithophel’s son, but not Ahithophel; the priest Benaiah but not the priest Abiathar. Revelation 7 omits Dan and Ephraim.

Direct reference here to Psalm 69:28. Implication: these Sardians by their empty service have put themselves among the Lord’s crucifiers, as in Hebrews 6:6 and 10:29. Cp. 1 Corinthians 11:27.

book of life. Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 and 21:27; Exodus 32:32; Psalm 69:28 and 56:8 and 87:6; Daniel 12:1; Isaiah 4:3; Ezekiel 13:9; Philippians 4:3; Luke 10 :20; Hebrews 12 :23; Malachi 3:16. There is no Book of Death, except Jeremiah 17:23. In fact, if there were, all would be written in it; Romans 3 :9, 23.

before my Father and 6efore His angels combines Matthew 10:32 and Luke 12:8. Implies a protasis; “he that confesses me before men.” Evidently Sardis was failing in this respect.

before His angels, who will be sent to gather the elect; Matthew 24:31.

7. Philadelphia. Further inland than the churches mentioned so far. It had been more devastated by earthquakes than any other town in the Roman Empire. Ignatius (died c. 112) has several interesting allusions to this letter in his letter to Philadelphia.

angel of the church (according to Apostolic Constitutions) was Demetrius. Probably the same as 3 John 12, where read: “Demetrius hath the witness (commendatory letter?) of all (the elders here?), and of the Truth itself (in the copy of the Gospel which he brings?),” and cp. rest of verse with John 19:35 and 21:24. If this suggestion be well-founded, there is special point in “he that is true,” and in “an open door,” and “no man can shut it” (contrast Diotrephes). Verse 7 is largely quotation from Isaiah 22:22. Almost this entire letter is shot through with allusions to that chapter and its background, so a diversion to study it becomes almost, if not quite, essential.

Isaiah 22:15-25.

Setting of the prophecy: Throughout the reign of wicked Ahaz, the Temple had been shut up, and the Temple area given over to base idolatry imported from Assyria (2 Chronicles 28:24, 25; 2 Kings 16:1~12). Shebna, along with Urijah the High Priest, was probably responsible to the king for the furtherance of this policy. With the accession of Hezekiah came drastic reformation. The Temple was re-opened (2 Chronicles 29:3) and cleansed (29: 16-19). Shebna was first transferred to a new office (Isaiah 36:2 and 22:15) and later thrust out altogether (Isaiah 22:17-19). Probably it was he that is denounced in Psalm 49. A man of godliness -Eliakim, replaced the time-serving Urijah. Using Shebna as a type of the old order, Isaiah foretells the replacement of Jewish self-sufficiency by the acceptable approach to God through Christ.

	15.	Shebna=sit down now. His name is symbolic of his imminent thrusting out of office. Contrast Eliakim (= whom God will raise up) son of Hilkiah (= the Lord is my portion).
		over the house. Not only the royal palace, but the temple (the two buildings were in the same enclosure); cp. 1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31: 10, 13; Jeremiah 20:1.
	16.	sepulchre. As though seeking to guarantee himself a glorious resurrection?
	17.	R.V. “hurl thee away.” s.w. Jeremiah 16:13.
		R.V. “will wrap thee up closely.” An allusion to Leviticus 10:5?
	18.	the chariots of thy glory. Imitation cherubim. 2 Kings 23:11 (contrast 1 Chronicles 28:18 R.V.).
	19.	I . . . he. God, and His servant.
		station. Priestly office, as in 1 Chronicles 23:28.
	20.	my servant. So the “servant of the Lord” is a feature of “Proto”- as well as “Deutero!”-Isaiah 49:1, 3. Read: “I will call my servant (Hezekiah the Suffering Servant of the Lord) to Eliakim”-the leper coming to the priest to be cleansed: Leviticus 14:2. Or perhaps the reference is to 2 Chronicles 29-the Temple restoration by Hezekiah. It is not Eliakim but “my Servant” who is the subject of this prophecy.
	21.	robe . . . girdle have special reference to priestly and royal garments; “government . . . father . . . shoulder” (v. 22) are all in Isaiah 9:6 a further hint that the whole of this Shebna transaction has Messianic significance.
	22.	key of the house of David. Kingship and priesthood are inextricably intertwined in this prophecy, as in v. 21 and again in v. 23, 24.
		opens and none shall shut. Reference to the temple, as in Malachi 1:10; see 2 Chronicles 28:24 and 29:3, 7. Contrast Isaiah 60:11 speaking of the day when temple and city shall be synonymous.
	23.	a nail in a sure place, and v. 24. Hezekiah is likened to a wall-hook in the temple on which to hang securely various things for the temple service (2 Chronicles 28:24 and 29:18, 19). The figure of Christ upon whom all depend is an obvious one. So understood by Ezra and Zechariah; Ezra 9:8 and Zechariah 10:4.
		a glorious throne. The King-Priest; Zechariah 6:12, 13. The words imply divine nature also: Jeremiah 17:12 and 14:21; Matthew 25:31.
	24.	they shall hang upon him. Israel being an utter failure in this particular respect (Ezekiel 15:3), God turns to one “made strong” for the purpose. “All the vessels . . . of cups . . . and of flagons” are interpreted as symbolic of “the offspring and the issue” in Christ.
	25.	In that day, further demonstrates the application of the prophecy to other than Hezekiah.
		the nail . . . removed . . . cut down . . . fan. Either (a) reference to Shebna the type of an unworthy priesthood, in which case, it adds nothing to v. 15-19; or (b) a prophecy of the humiliation of Christ on the cross; cp. Isaiah 52:13 (his dignity) and 53:8, 11 (his shame). Cp. also Daniel 9:24, 26-Messiah the prince cut off; 1 Corinthians 2:8-the Lord of glory crucified. Difficulty here is in the anticlimax of the prophecy. “In that day” so often refers to the glorious consummation.

It is now easy to see Shebna as a type of the offensive self-seeking of Israel’s priesthood, a shame to its Lord’s House and eventually to be utterly abolished. Luke 16:3 is almost a quotation from LXX of v. 19 here. And every detail written about Hezekiah finds much greater fulness in an application to Christ.

he that is holy. This title apparently not in ch. 1. But it is: cp. Psalm 16:10, the one raised from the dead; this in turn connects with Revelation 1: 18, where note reference to “keys.” Same title associated with resurrection in Acts 3:14, 15: John 6:69 R.V. (but the reading is doubtful). This is another of God’s titles appropriate to His Son; Revelation 4:8; John 17:3, 11.

he that is true. v. 14 (the Amen) and 6:10 (to open the grave for his martyrs, and no man shutteth), and 19:11 (to shut his enemies in the grave, and no man openeth). The word “true” often signifies “true” in contrast to “type” (Hezekiah), not in contrast to “false”.

the key of David. Again, as in Isaiah 22:22, 23 there is both kingship and priesthood here. On occasions Peter was deputed to use this key (Matthew 16:19), but no intrinsic right was conferred on him. That remains Christ’s. Alongside mention of false Jews in v. 9 this figure is appropriate: see Luke 11:52, and note Galatians 4:17 R.V.: same attitude shown by Judaisers in the ecclesia, seeking to shut out those not circumcised. John 10:7, 9 is also a parallel with this verse; for by metonymy “I am the door” probably means: “I am the shepherd who shews the way through the door;” otherwise, the Lord’s parable loses all coherence.

he that openeth and none shutteth. Not (a) the meaning of Scriptures; nor (b) the sealed Book of Life, but, as Isaiah 22 shows, (c) the way of approach to God (the temple doors); Colossians 1:13; and also (d) the way out of the tomb; ch. 1:18.

shutteth and no man openeth. Again, apply to the way of approach to God. The Jewish means of access (v. 9) is now shut by Christ. True also of the way out of the tomb; Christ will close the grave upon his enemies.

8. set. Gk.: “given” is Hebraism for “appointed.”

behold, suggesting urgency about the work before them.

a door opened. R.V. as in Hezekiah’s day, a door for access to God (Romans 5:2) and thus for communion with Him; a door also by which to bring men into God’s temple. (a) 2 Chronicles 26:16 and 27:2 and 28:24 and 29:3 Isaiah 22:22. (b) Acts 14:27; Colossians 4:3; I Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12. Philadelphia had a vast opportunity-providing hinterland. It was to be before all else a missionary ecclesia.

no man can shut it. Not even Jewish obstinacy.

I know thy works . . . that thou hast a little strength. (a) The words about the “open door” may be a parenthesis, as though Jesus were eager to reassure this struggling but faithful ecclesia. “Little strength” probably means “few in number and resources.” If taken as applying to lack of spiritual vigour, it accords ill with the rest of this commendatory epistle. (b) But A.V. reading is possible. In that case the sense is: “because thou hast but a little strength, I have appointed for thee an open door, with immense opportunities for preaching” i.e. the reward for faithful work in Christ is more work. Note too that Christ is best able to use those without confidence in their own power.

a little strength . . . thou hast kept my word. Allusion to 1 Kings 7:20; Boaz = in him is strength. Jachin = he will establish or make firm. Now see v. 12.

kept my word. 1 John 2:4, 5. Philadelphia = love of the brethren, v. 10; see also on v. 10 here.

didst not deny my name. R.V. Staunch loyalty in the face of persecution of the name Christian.

9. Behold (repeated), emphasizing the surprising outcome of their “little strength.” Make – ”give” as in v. 8.

synagogue of Satan. The adversary synagogue of Jews rebelling against the light by rejecting the gospel. Contrast the synagogue of truth; James 2:2 R.V. These Jews who boasted in their descent from Abraham were not Jews at all in the eyes of Abraham’s Seed; John 8:39. The “works of Abraham” are “belief in Christ” (v. 56).

but do lie. John 8:44.

make them to come and worship. If from Isaiah 60:14, a prophecy of Gentiles worshipping Jews is applied by Jesus to Gentile Jews worshipping Jewish Gentiles! Note there also “the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” and compare Revelation 3:7,12. If from Isaiah 49:23 note: “they that wait for me”-”keep the word of my patience” (Revelation 3:10); and v. 24, 25=“keep thee from the hour of trial.”

worship before thy feet continues the figure of a re-opened Temple and worshippers prostrating themselves in the temple court before the entrance of the Holy Place, flanked by Jachin and Boaz (v. 12). Is this a promise of conversion of hostile Jews in Philadelphia? This would be an utterly unexpected meaning to the “open door.” The fulness of the promise can only be at the Second Coming; Zechariah 8:20-23 (“him that is a Jew”=Christ and the spiritual seed of Abraham; Romans 2:29) Zechariah 12:10.

I loved thee. Christ died for these Gentiles also as well as for the natural seed of Abraham. Gk. aorist refers to the death of Christ, as in 1 John 4:10, 11.

10. the word of my patience. (a) My commandment with patience. (b) My commandment concerning patience; Matthew 10:22. (c) The word, which commands steadfastness such as I also shewed. (c) is preferable.

the hour of trial. A phrase full of meaning for Philadelphians. Philadelphia was the most earthquake-stricken city in the whole world of that day. What hour of trial? (a) The spreading Neronic persecution afflicting “all the world” of Christians. This persecution died suddenly with Nero, so it might never have reached Philadelphia. (b) The earthquake of Revelation 16:14, I8. The promise then assures the faithful remnant of safety in the divine visitation; Isaiah 26:20, 21. (c) Suggestion included in next note.

them that dwell on the earth. In Revelation this phrase almost always means “them that dwell in the Land (of Palestine”). Gk.: Luke 21:23. But this seems to contradict “all the inhabited earth.” Interpret thus: The impending Jewish war and destruction of Jerusalem would not only “try them that dwell in the Land,” but would also be an “hour of trial” to the millions of Jews already scattcred throughout “all the world.” I7or all Jews, in Palestine and out of it, A.D. 70 was to mean the utter abolition of all that their religion stood for. But whilst Philadelphia’s Jewish advcrsaries were to suffer in this way, these same events would be a consolidation of faith to faithful Christians at Philadelphia. In fact the fall of Jerusalem may have been the Lord’s means of bringing these Jewish adversaries to “worship before thy feet,” by accepting the faith they had hitherto reviled.

11. I come quickly: hold fast only makes sense on the assurnption that an early coming of the Lord was (at that time) the divine intention (see Appendix).

hold fast that which thou hast. So the primary duty of a faithful ecclesia is not to find new truth different from the principles already learned, but to maintain in purity those already received.

that no man take thy crown. As David supplanted Saul, or Matthias Judas, or the Gentiles the Jews. Modern examples?

thy crown. In the light of the reference in v. 12 to “a pillar in the temple” this should be read first as an allusion to Jachin and Boaz (cp. v. 8); I Kings 7:15-22, 41, 42; 2 Chronicles 3:15-17. Note detailed descriptions of “chapiters” or “crowns” which were later “taken away;” 2 Kings 25:13, 16, 17. Reference to Exodus 28:36-38 is unlikely because this crown was peculiar to the High Priest.

12. a pillar in the temple of my God. See precious note. But allusion to Jachin and Boaz by no means exhausts the force of this phrase. “In the temple (sanctuary)” may now allude to one of the pillars supporting the Veil (Exodus 26:32; 1 Kings 6:31, 33). Such a conclusion would harmonize well with the rest of the verse. See next note but one. Galatians 2:9 speaks of Apostles as pillars in God’s spiritual house (there is no innuendo about the word “seemed”); 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; I Peter 2:5. The new Jerusalem has no temple in it; ch. 21: 22, 23. It is all temple. City and temple are one and the same.

and he shall go no more out. The words appear almost unnecessary until the fate of Jachin and Boaz is recalled. And following Galatians 2:9 it is to be remembered that Cephas was crucified in Rome, James the Lord’s brother was battered to death in Jerusalem, the other James was slain by Herod, and John was banished to Patmos. Nevertheless: John 6:37 and 10:28, 29. Contrast 1 John 2:19.

Both these phrases would be specially eloquent to the much earthquaked Philadelphians. To be a “pillar” must mean ability to withstand unmoved the worst shocks that life can administer. To “go no more out” would provide startling and satisfying contrast with the masses of panic-stricken populace camping in the open fields in time of earth tremors.

the name of my God . . . of the city of my God . . . my new name. Another triad. Jeremiah 33:16 and 23:6 put it beyond all doubt that the name is The Lord our Righteousness (contrast the name of the Beast). Righteousness is essentially a personal quality, and yet-amazing fact – here is one who is the Righteousness of others. How so? Because besides being a King (Jeremiah 23: 5) he is also an altar – for every other example of a compounded Jehovah name in the Old Testament applies to an altar: Judges 6 :24; Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Ezekiel 48:35 (and see also Exodus 20:24, 25). Thus the allusions in this letter have taken the steadfast believer from the Temple door into the very Holy of Holies, where the Mercy Seat was the altar, or propitiatory, on the Day of Atonement. Consider also Genesis 28:22 (very probably an inscribed stone, as Joshua 24:27), alluded to in 1 Timothy 3:15, where “pillar and ground of the truth (i.e. the promise)” may possibly be in apposition to “thou,” the earnest Timothy.

new 7erusalem which cometh down from God. A remarkable anticipation of ch. 21: 2, almost suggesting that the letters to the churches were written after the rest of the book. The detail here is necessary to avoid unhappy confusion with the literal Jerusalem soon to be destroyed, leaving not even a pillar standing. In his Gospel John uses the Greek form Hierosoluma, but in Revelation writing of the new Jerusalem, he always has the Hebrew form: Hierousalem.

my new name. In the New Testament this always means the beginning of a new life different from the old; e.g. Cephas, Boancrges, Paul, Barnabas. See on ch. 2:17. It was only after his resurrection that Jesus became the Lord our Righteousness; Romans 4:25; Philippians 2:9-11. This detail is highly appropriate here, for Philadelphia had adopted a new name Neo-Caesarea, in honour of the Emperor Tiberius who gave material aid to help recovery after the A.D. 17 earthquake.

14. Laodicea. A very wealthy city in the Lycus valley near Hierapolis and Colosse. Big trade in woollen manufactures (fine black wool). Banking centre. Famous also for a local eye-ointment. There were hot springs in the vicinity. Utterly destroyed by earthquake in Nero’s reign (not long before this letter) and, unlike other cities, was completely and magnificently rebuilt without any Imperial aid.

the angel. Almost certainly the “bishop” of this ecclesia was Archippus, son of Philemon; Colossians 4:16, 17; Philemon 2. And so also in Apostolic Constitutions. It would seem that Archippus was slack in his service and the ecclesia took its tone from him-a warning to ecclesial elders in this generation! Also Nymphas (Colossians 4:15) was prominent at Laodicea. The name is probably a shortened form of the word for “the one who leads the bride.” Now note the contacts of this letter with the Song of Songs: 5:2, knock; 5:1, sup; 5:3, raiment; 5:17, naked; 5:11 fine gold; 3:10, 11, throne; 1: 3; 4:10, ointment. In 1st Century ecclesias there was a vocal response from all the congregation: 1 Corinthians 14:16. Why not in the 20th Century? Amen-the “verily” of Christ- “as I live, saith the Lord,” in the Old Testament. So the title here contrasts the unwavering purpose of God in Christ with the vague purposelessness of Laodicea. It is another title of God applied to the Son: Isaiah 65:16 R.V.m. Where does this descriptive title of Christ come in ch. 1? – in v. 18? in v. 5? The context of Isaiah 65 is magnificently appropriate: (v.11) “ye are they that forsake the Lord” = “lukewarm”; (v. 12) “When I called ye did not answer” etc. = “behold, I stand at the door and knock;” (v. 13) “ye shall be hungry . . . thirsty . . . ashamed,” “cry for sorrow of heart, howl for vexation of spirit” = “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, naked.”

faithful and true witness. See on ch. 1:5. In apposition to “the Amen.” Each explains the other. Isaiah 65: 16 LXX-the true God. Psalm 89:37 connects this title with thc rainbow, which in Gcnesis 9: 12-17 symbolized the end of troubles and the bringing in of new heavens and earth-now see again Isaiah 65:16, 17. “True,” Greek: alethinos, is in contrast to the type (the rainbow). Revelation 22: 6 and 21:5 and 19:11 are all associated with the “new heavens and earth,” and are all guaranteed by the words “faithful and true”. Amen, it shall be so! Revelation 19:11 would have an ominous ring for these Laodiceans: this glorious being could bring judgement and war on Laodicea too. Jeremiah 42:5, 6 (another divine title appropriated by Christ!) hints at the spirit Christ fain would see in Laodicea.

the beginning of the Creation of God. Revelation 1:5; Colossians 1:15, 18. The first to rise from the dead to immortality, the first of God’s new creation. Or, possibly, in an active sense: the beginner of the new creation; cp. John 1: 1-3, where the meaning is precisely that.

15. cold or hot Boiling hot – allusion to Laodicea’s beneficent hot springs. The verb is used in Acts 18:25 (a fine example) and Romans 12:11. The noun translated zeal, indignation, jealousy (in good or bad sense) is from the same root. Here, obviously: zealous, enthusiastic.

cold can hardly be a synonym for spiritually dead, because 1. It is never so used in Scripture. 2. The order of the words “cold or hot.” Would Jesus wish his disciples cold, in that sense? For, using a different figure, he said: “If the salt have lost his savour . . .” Instead, Matthew 10:42, Proverbs 25:25 point to the meaning “spiritualIy refreshing.”

16. neither hot nor cold. R.V. After “lukewarm” these words are, strictly speaking, superfluous. But who shall say this additional emphasis is unnecessary? Why is the order of the words switched from v. 15?

spue thee out. Appropriate after “lukewarm.” Comparing Laodicea to Israel in its worst apostasy, Leviticus 18: 24-28 (note the context and compare “that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear!”). How startled these very proper but lukewarm Laodiceans would be by the comparison. Yet the same comparison is valid in these days! See on v. 18.

will spue thee out. Gk: I am about to; cp. Luke 12:19-21: “this night.” What practical action does this figure symbolize? How can “about to” refer to a Second Coming 1900 years later?

17. rich etc. Another triad. Cp. Paul’s irony in 1 Corinthians 4:8. Contrast ch. 2:9. It is not literal riches of Laodicean bankers that is referred to here though doubtless it was their literal wealth that fostered this self-sufficiency (there is no more potent cause). Cp. Hosea 12:8, alluded to here. Laodicea was another faithless Isracl, the grounds for whose complacency are in v. 8b, 11 (where “heaps” = dung-heaps).

have need of nothing. Allusions to Laodicea’s self-sufficiency after recent earthquake; see on v. 14. Apparently Laodicea knew better than its Lord; Matthew 6:8.

wretched etc. Read: “the wretched and miserable one, even poor and blind and naked.” Then this triad of spiritual diseases are separately prescribed for in the next verse. All these words describe the man who cannot help himself and who must needs beg aid from others. Laodicea could get this help only from Christ (v. 18).

the wretched one. The outstandingly wretched one amongst all the churches? Or, he who is spiritually poor and yet imagines himself to be rich is specially the wretched one. He is beyond aid. Everyday Gk. used this word of the one compelled to earn a hard living by excessive physical effort; i.e. Laodicea must work for its living in Christ. The Old Testament (LXX) uses it of those plundered by the strong and unscrupulous.

blind. Christ’s eyesalve (v. 18) is so restorative that it will even bring back sight to the completely blind; John 9:6. Note how in this verse the Lord is driven to pile up stinging epithets in order to get under this thick Laodicean skin! As are its leading ministers, so is the ecclesia, nearly always. And these leaders are held responsible for their ecclesia! But this may have been more directly the case in the days of Holy Spirit gifts.

18. I counsel thee. Ironic? Where else in Scripture does Jesus advise? Isaiah 9:6?

buy of me, at the cost of self-esteem, as Paul; Philippians 3 :7-9. The thrce items following correspond to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 23: 9, 10, 8 R.V. The idea therefore is: Get back to the spirit and meaning of your baptism. Also, all three are allusions to local activities: see on v. 14.

gold tried in the fire. Tried faith? Very doubtful. 1 Peter 1:7 is a contrast not a comparison. More probably reference to the gold of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (ch. 1:12, 13 and 8:3 and 15:7); i.e. you may think of yourself as sharing divine fellowship, but you don’t; yours is worldly wealth only; Zechariah 13:9-a figure for the discipleship of the faithful remnant.

rich. Colossians 2:2, 3 (see 4:16); Revelation 2:9; Ephesians 1:18 and 3:8.

white raiment. Colossians 3:10, 12, 14.

shame of thy nakedness. When? At the Lord’s Coming, Matthew 22:11. When else? Revelation 16:15, with v. 3, 4, 10 here, suggests that Sardis Philadelphia and Laodicea (ecclesias like them!) will still exist in the 6th Vial these letters have a further application in the Last Days.

eyesalve. Their own sent forth a stinking savour (Ecclesiastes 10:1); contrast John 9:6; 1 John 2:20, 27 (was Laodicea another ecclesia not using Spirit gifts to the full advantage?) and v. 28c.

19. as many as I love. Gk: phileo, indicates the Lord’s natural affection for these erring disciples. Use of this word might imply that he had known some of them personally in the days of his flesh.

rebuke. In New Testament=reprove and convict; John 1(J:8.

chasten. Cp. David; 2 Samuel 12:13 (convicted), 14 (chastened). This verse is a dircct allusion to Proverbs 3:11, 12. Entire context there is relevant to Laodicea. v. 10 = true riches. v. 12b = Revelation 3:21. v. 14 = Revelation 3:18a. v. 21 = Revelation 3:18c.

be zealous. Cognate with “hot” (v. 15). Continuous imperative: “be always zealous; “ Colossians 4: 17.

20. Behold. A matter of urgency.

I stand at the door and knock. Song of Songs 5:2. In the elaborate type of the Song of Songs this refers to a literal (not mystical) coming of the Beloved deferred because his “sister-spouse” is unprepared for him. Note also that verse 3d here = Revelation 3:18b.

hear my voice and open— Luke 12:36, 37, (as the next words prove), and not John 14:23.

Come in and sup with him. Does not refer to present fellowship with Christ, but to Luke 12:36, 37, the Second Coming, ep. James 5:9. This is equivalent to the repeated “I come quickly” in the other Letters.

he with me – “(the Lord) shall gird himself, and come forth and serve them ;” Luke 12:37. Cp. John’s fondness for Christ’s “sayings of reciprocity:” John 6: 56 and 10:38 and 14:20 and 15:4, 5 and 17:21, 26, a rich collection.

21. sit with me in my throne. Christ’s earthly throne; John 17:22, 24. Contrast Matthew 20: 23. This v. (3: 21) supplies the answer to their question.

with my Father in his throne. The Father’s heavenly throne; ch. 4:2. But the two thrones are one and the same; ch. 22:1; Matthew 16:27 and 25:31.

THE LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES AND THE PROBLEM OF FELLOWSHIP

The bearing of the Letters to the Churches on the difficult problem of Fellowship is very direct and important. Sardis is “dead.” The Truth in its midst is “ready to die.” Its works are “not prefect.” Nevertheless there are here “a few names which have not defiled their garments.” There is no hint that these few are to separate themselves from an otherwise “dead” ecclesia. There is no reproach that they are defiling themselves by present associations, no instruction that they are to take any kind of drastic action. This is left to the Lord himself. Instead, these few are pronounced “worthy.”

Pergamos has the pernicious doctrine of Balaamites and Nicolaitans, but whilst there is reproach because these are tolerated, there is no hint to the rest of the seven churches that they dissociate themselves from over-tolerant Pergamos.

On the contrary the Lord speaks of himself as the one who “holds the seven stars in his right hand.” This includes Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea! Indeed every implication of the Letters is that he continues to hold them until he “comes quickly to fight against them with the sword of his mouth,” until he comes “as a thief.”

Most impressive of all is the Letter to Thyatira. Here there is “that woman Jezebel” who both practiced and taught evil. Nevertheless there is even a certain commendation for this ecclesia. There is also the express charge: “Unto you . . . as many as have not this doctrine I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.” Quite explicitly, then, there is no warning that the faithful in Thyatira were in duty bound to separate themselves from the corruption in their midst. But there is clear intimation of the need to discipline the false teacher.

Without any emphasis needed, it is evident that the Letters to the Churches, far from lending support to the doctrine of “iron curtain” excommunication, quite clearly require the faithful to remain even in unfaithful ecclesias holding tenaciously to their own faith and doing all possible to save the rest.

“The place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there” is a constantly recurring phrase in the Book of Deuteronomy. The reference is to the centre of worship, the tabernacle and its service, which was to be established in a convenient centre in the Land when wilderness wanderings were ended.

Shiloh

Shiloh was the place which was chosen “at the first” (Jer. 7:12). It was centrally situated in the territory of Ephraim. There Joshua convened the tribes when the earliest blows of conquest had been struck, in order to apportion the rest of the Land more precisely to those who had not inherited as yet. But, strangely enough, it was at Shechem and not Shiloh, where Joshua assembled the people to hear his final exhortations and to be renewed in covenant with their God who had given them the Land. This is doubly strange in that Shechem and Shiloh are so close together. It would have been just as easy for the tribes to assemble in one place as in the other. How came it, then, that the place sanctified by the presence of the tabernacle and the ark was disregarded?

There are references to Shiloh as a centre of worship in a section of the Book of Judges which probably belongs to the early part of this disturbed period (18:31 and ch. 21). And again in the early chapters of 1 Samuel, the sanctuary at Shiloh is the background to the familiar stories of Hannah and Samuel, of Eli and his wayward sons.

Then from this period onward Shiloh as a centre of worship in Israel disappears completely from the sacred records, apart from two allusions in Jeremiah (7:12; 26:6,9) to the utter destruction which overtook the tabernacle there and the town itself. It was disowned by God who destroyed it by the Philistines (Psa. 78:60).

It is a matter for surprise that Shiloh apparently played so little part in the history of the nation. The fact is that Shiloh was not unique as a holy place in Israel; it was not the only ‘place which the Lord was to choose to place his name there’.

An investigation of the various other centres, which were used in these unsettled times as places of approach to God should not be without value.

Shechem

Mention has already been made of Shechem which, at the time that Joshua made covenant there between the people and their God, was evidently already regarded as a right and proper place for worship and sacrifice. There the people presented themselves “before God” (Josh. 24:1). “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord” (Josh. 24:25,26). This sanctuary at Shechem was probably the one called Bochim (the weeping ones) in Judges 2:1-5. Indeed the incident described there may be the very occasion which Joshua 24 narrates in greater detail. The similarities are certainly very striking. This Judges narrative adds: “and they sacrificed unto the Lord”.

Other Scriptures make it plain that at Shechem there was an altar of special sanctity and historic importance. It was there that the Land was first promised to Abraham’s Seed (before it was promised to Abraham!), which gracious promise was acknowledged by sacrifice on the altar which Abraham raised up there in thanksgiving (Gen. 12:6,7). It was to this place that Jacob came after his encounter with Esau on his way back from the country of Laban; and there, after repurchasing the piece of land which Abraham had bought from the original Hittite owners (Acts 7:16), he rebuilt Abraham’s altar (Gen. 33:19,20).

It was this altar which was rebuilt again, this time by Joshua, when the tribes of Israel all came together between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim to hear proclaimed the blessings and curses of the Law (Josh. 8:30).

But the re-establishment of the Hittite worship of Baal-berith in the time of Abimelech, the unworthy son of Gideon, ended the special holiness of Shechem until, many years later, the Son of God himself called the people of that place to “worship God in sincerity and in truth”, even as Joshua himself had insisted in the day of the covenant (John 4:24; Josh. 24:14). The site of this Shechem altar, of ancient sanctity, has lately been identified by the archaeologists (“Biblical Archaeology Review”, Jan.-Feb. 1985; see also Jan.-Feb. 1988).

Gideon’s Ophrah

There was another sanctuary of much less prominent character in the early days of the Judges, in Ophrah the home of Gideon. Its origin was, of course, the consecration (as an altar) of the rock where the angel of the Lord accepted fearful Gideon’s offering (Judg. 6:21-26). The altar from that day forth was called “Jehovah-Shalom” — the Lord of Peace.

The language of Judges 8:27 implies that Gideon ill-advisedly, though with the best of intentions, chose to establish and equip at Jehovah-Shalom a centre of worship for the God who had wrought deliverance through him. There is also the further implication that this new institution was widely accepted as a new spiritual centre for the neighbouring tribes. This honouring of a place which God had not chosen for such purpose would doubtless have continued but for the defilement of it by the brutal slaughter of Gideon’s family at the hands of Abimelech and his hired assassins.

From this example, and others now to be considered, it appears that God was willing, during this period when the tribes were disturbed and incoherent, that other sanctuaries besides the main centre be used to focus the piety of Israel.

Mizpeh of Gilead

It is clear from the story of Jephthah that in his day there was a well-recognized sanctuary in Mizpeh of Gilead. Jephthah’s agreement with the elders of Gilead was made “before the Lord in Mizpeh” — a phrase which invariably has reference to an altar or holy place where God was worshipped. Apparently too, but not certainly, it was at this Mizpeh that Jephthah vowed his vow unto the Lord. And, it may be that it would be at this sanctuary where his daughter would serve the Lord during her life-long virginity — but not necessarily (“Bible Studies”, p. 205a).

Other Mizpeh sanctuaries

This Mizpeh is always referred to with the definite article: The Mizpeh, i.e. The Watchtower. The priests and prophets of the Lord are frequently alluded to in Scripture as ‘watchmen’ (e.g. Hab. 2:1; Ezek. 3:17 and 33:2-7; Hosea 9:8; Isa. 29:20 and 56:10 and 21:6; Jer. 31:6 and 6:17). This detail, combined with the reference in Joshua 13:26 to “Ramoth-Mizpeh” in Gilead, suggests fairly strongly that Mizpeh was an alternative name for Ramoth-gilead, which was one of the cities of refuge in eastern Israel. It seems not unlikely that Ramoth-gilead was also the Mizpeh where Jacob and Laban agreed to disagree, and where Jacob also “offered sacrifice upon the mount” (Gen. 31:48-54). If so, its sacred associations in Jacob’s day might well single it out in later times for re-consecration.

It may well be the same Mizpeh that is mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:16 along with Bethel, Gilgal and Ramah as one of the centres of Samuel’s administration. The Septuagint adds significantly in that place: “and he judged Israel in all these sanctuaries.”

The possibility should be considered of Mizpeh (watchtower) being a kind of technical term for a sanctuary in ancient Israel very much as ‘Ebenezer’ or ‘Bethel’ became for many a Methodist community in the last century a well-recognized name for their place of worship.

For instance, Mizpeh of Moab (1 Sam. 22:3), where David met the king of Moab when seeking refuge for his parents from the vengeful jealousy of Saul, may well be Bezer, the city of refuge, which was situated on the borders of Reuben and Moab.

There is another Mizpeh mentioned in Judges 20:1,3 and 21:1 in connection with the controversy between Benjamin and the rest of the nation. Geographical considerations immediately rule out the possibility that this might be Mizpeh of Gilead. But the text calls it “the house of God”, i.e. Bethel (20:18,26,31 RV and 21:2 RV), on the northern border of Benjamin. Some, however, identify it with Shiloh.

It is not certain where was the Mizpeh to which Samuel rallied the tribes for repentance before God (a long-neglected Day of Atonement?) and for resistance against further Philistine aggression (1 Sam. 7:5-16). Most probably it was the Gibeah (the priestly and Benjamite part of Kirjath-Jearim; Josh. 21:17; 18:14,28) where the ark was lodged after being returned by the Philistines. This may also have been Samuel’s Ramah, for that became a well-recognized religious centre during his lifetime. There is a good deal of uncertainty about some of these place-identifications.

Nob

Nob, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, is stated to have been a place of organised worship of some considerable importance. It had “fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod”; and Ahimelech himself, high-priest of the line of Ithamar and Eli, officiated there (1 Sam. 21 and 22:18,19). It was this place which is referred to in the narrative of the slaying of Goliath: “And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem” (1 Sam. 17:54; cp. 21:8,9). It is difficult to see just how or why Nob came to achieve such high but short-lived importance.

Gibeon

Lastly, mention must be made of Gibeon, “the great high place” (1 Kgs. 3:4). “There (at the beginning of Solomon’s reign) was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness” (2 Chron. 1:3).

This very tabernacle, first fashioned under the shadow of Mount Sinai, had undoubtedly been set up originally in Shiloh. How then did it come to be at Gibeon? One can only surmise. If the identity of Gibeon-Gibeah-Ramah be accepted (and a pretty good case can be made for this), then probably, when there was a serious threat, after the death of Eli, of Shiloh being overrun by the Philistines, Samuel had the tabernacle dismantled and removed elsewhere. When his administration settled down at Ramah-Gibeon he would have the sanctuary re-erected there; and there it continued right through the reign of David. If this identification of Gibeon is not accepted, then it is necessary to postulate that irreligious Saul took the trouble for no known reason, to have Moses’ tabernacle re-erected at a place which gets no mention at all in the history of his reign.

The numerous offerings which Solomon made at Gibeon (1 Kgs. 3:4) probably marked the formal closure of the sanctuary at Gibeon as “the great high place”. Whatever may have been its precise function hitherto, this would now be completely superseded by the temple that was a-building in Jerusalem.

Likely conclusions

It would seem, then, beyond question from the evidence available that during the period between Joshua and David quite a number of holy places were in use at various times for the offering of sacrifices and for approach to God. This fact suggests a different view of the often repeated phrase in Deuteronomy: “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there”. Instead of regarding it as an allusion to the one unique place, Shiloh, which was appointed as the centre of worship for the nation, perhaps it should be read as signifying the place (i.e. any place) which has been sanctified for that purpose.

In harmony with this suggestion are the words of Nathan the prophet to David: “Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in: for I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another. Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?” (1 Chron. 17:4-6).

This diversity of holy places helps to a clearer understanding of the repeated criticism made in the later history that “the high places were not taken away” by the kings of Judah. Gibeon is called “the great high place”. The sanctuary where the prophet Samuel ministered is called “the high place” (1 Sam. 9:13). And when, in a Hezekiah psalm, Assyrian invaders are said to have “burned up all the synagogues of God in the Land” (Psa. 74:7,8), the reference is most probably to the various religious centres mentioned in this compilation, to which a certain sanctity still clung

The punitive campaign against Benjamin was no sooner concluded than the tribes immediately became very uneasy about the consequences of their zeal for righteousness. So fully and completely had they done what they had deemed to be their duty that there was now grave prospect of the complete disappearance of one of their twelve tribes. For Benjamin was reduced to a mere handful of men, and how could these continue their families since their brethren had sworn not to give their daughters in marriage to a tribe of such wickedness? “And the people came to Bethel….and lifted up their voices, and wept sore.”

Here is demonstrated the folly of human oaths. Only God, the Eternal, who knows the end from the beginning, can truly bind Himself by an oath never to be set aside, for with Him, only, is the wisdom to foresee the outworking of events. In this incident there is the plainest of all warnings to those who love government by constitution and minute-book and all the paraphernalia of the Medes and Persians. Such may be all very well for business executives, but in a community of the people of God reliance on a cast-iron adherence to rules and resolutions is a sign of small-mindedness. The fewer the governing principles of an ecclesia the smaller will be the risk of becoming fettered hand and foot by chains of one’s own fashioning. It was a lesson Israel should have learned from this experience with Benjamin. It is a lesson the New Israel has not learned yet.

Another pitiable decision

As the people brooded on their problem before God in Bethel, bad became worse. Instead of confessing their folly and relying upon divine wisdom to correct their short-sightedness, they proceeded to indulge in casuistry with a typical Pharisaic flavour, and so piled more evils on top of the first. Such was ever the result of human cleverness. These men would fain disguise their spiritual immaturity with the brilliance of their scheming.

The solution was worked out with a logic at once admirable and reprehensible: The oath not to intermarry with Benjamin (they said) applies to all of us who assembled together at Mizpeh. Therefore it does not apply to those who refrained from joining the assembly. Therefore the only exceptions are the men of Jabesh-gilead. But we also swore most solemnly to destroy all who did not combine with us to punish the iniquity of Gibeah. Therefore Jabesh-gilead lies un-der a ban of extermination. And now see how clever-ly we can implement both ‘resolutions’ simultaneously! We will send an army against Jabesh-gilead to exterminate all except the maidens, and these will we give in marriage to the lonely men of Benjamin.

It was a mathematically concise solution which must surely have given much satisfaction to whoever propounded it. The comparatively trivial snag about it was that it punished the innocent and involved those who had started out to reform the corruptions of Israel in as great an injustice and as blatant an iniquity as that of Gibeah. More than a millenium later, the same mentality in the sons of these men was still straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

In this incident is to be found the origin of the connection and sympathy in later days between Saul, king of Israel, and the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. Saul would have descended from one of these women given as a consolation prize to the Benjamites. His intense anxiety to save Jabesh-gilead from the ravages of the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11) would be a perfectly natural expression of family feeling.

It is interesting too to observe that Saul’s method of rallying Israel for the defence of Jabesh was a conscious imitation of the unnamed Levite’s appeal to the tribes to take action against Gibeah — he took a sacrifice, but instead of offering it upon the altar he severed it into twelve pieces and sent it with an urgent message to all the twelve tribes. Only, there was this difference: the Levite was making an appeal; Saul was issuing a threat: “Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.” Saul had inherited the mentality of Israel at Mizpeh.

— and yet again!

As it turned out, the admirable scheme for the rehabilitation of Benjamin was not fully adequate to the occasion, for there was still a shortage of some two hundred women. So a further expedient, equally disreputable, had to be connived at.

The men of Benjamin were encouraged to satisfy their needs by crudely abducting the maidens of Shiloh as, dancing in the meadows at Passover, they kept fresh the memory of the crossing of the Red Sea and of the delight with which Miriam and the women of Israel celebrated that deliverance in dances before the Lord (Exodus 15).

The casuistry involved in this scheme was even worse than before, for in effect the elders of the people said to Benjamin: We vowed not to give our womenfolk to any of you in marriage, but if you take them by force, there will be no breaking of the vow on our part, and we will turn a blind eye to the offence of abduction.

This surely was straining out a gnat and swallowing a hippopotamus! The idea was particularly clever in its recommendation that the maidens of Shiloh be seized, for they would be virgins who, like Jephthah’s daughter, had been consecrated to the Lord in the service of the Tabernacle, and consequently they would — in a sense — be the special concern of no particular tribe. Hence the escapade — or rather, outrage — could be carried through with complete freedom of fear of reprisals.

It was, of course, blandly overlooked that these women were the Lord’s and that consequently this ‘Operation Shiloh’ was comparable with the sacrilege of misappropriating tithes and offerings which had been dedicated to God. What a serious lack of spiritual maturity there was in these men of Israel, now that Joshua was taken from them.

Phinehas?

It might be thought that the presence of Phinehas in their midst would contribute a certain degree of balance to their spiritual judgments. But far from this being the case, it is to be feared that Phinehas himself must bear a good deal of the responsibility for these tragic blunders. The more carefully this last chapter of Judges is compared with other incidents in which Phinehas figured, the more they are seen to be of a piece. First, there was the full-blooded zealous way in which he took action to stop the rot of the apostasy of Baal-peor: “And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel” (Num. 25:7,8).

In the circumstances it was an action wholly admirable and one that was blessed by God with an everlasting “covenant of peace”. But it betrayed an unreflecting impetuosity that was evidently characteristic of the man.

Next, there was the conclusion of the war against Midian: “And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males” (Num. 31:6,7).

The resemblances to the campaigns against Benjamin and Jabesh-gilead can readily be seen:

1. the priest taking the field along with the host.
2. the use of “the holy instruments” — Urim and Thummim — for divine decision.
3. a thousand from each tribe; compare the twelve thousand against Jabesh.
4. the slaughter of all the males.

These similarities suggest that Phinehas may have been the impetuous mind responsible, at least in part, for some of the decisions taken in this sorry epoch of Israel’s history. It is to be hoped that this tentative conclusion does him an injustice. On the other hand, it is just possible that there is here the reason for the otherwise unexplained transfer of the high-priesthood to the family of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron.

Notes

3.	The triple emphasis on “Israel” here is significant.
4.	Built there an altar. A pointer that “the house of God” (v. 2) was not Shiloh, for the altar there would not need (re-) building. But it is easy to understand that the ancient holy place at Bethel had fallen into disuse.
5.	Concerning him that came not up. Cp. the curse on Meroz (5:23).
7.	We will not give them of our daughters. Treating Benjamin like Canaanites: Deut. 7:3,4.
19.	Shiloh….on the north side of Bethel, etc. These precise details about the site of Shiloh were necessary for all readers of Judges from the time of Samuel onwards, because then the Philistines wiped Shiloh completely off the map; Jer. 7:12-15; 26:6,9.
21.	The daughters of Shiloh would be mostly from Ephraim. The other wives of Benjamin were from Manasseh. Thus the descendants of Rachel come together — Ephraim and Manasseh with Benjamin.

The second appendix to the Book of Judges comprises three chapters (Jud. 19,20,21), and — even more obviously than its predecessor — it is separate and distinct from the main purpose of the book. It mentions no judge, and it records no declension into idolatry. That there is a purpose in its inclusion here can scarcely be doubted, but consideration of the reasons for such an unexpected addendum must be deferred for the moment (see Chapter 32).

In point of time this incident and its grim sequel belong to the beginning and not the end of the Book of Judges. Many indications combine to establish this fact. There is no suggestion of either idolatry or foreign marriages, no judge is needed to save the people from oppression, there is the same military solidarity characteristic of the days of the Joshua, the people maintain the sanctuaries of the Lord and worship Him with offerings and fastings, they seek His counsel by Urim and Thummim and (as will be seen by and by) make strenuous, if mistaken, efforts to apply in full-blooded fashion the stern exhortations of Moses in Deuteronomy. Finally — the clearest of all indications as to date — there is mention of Phinehas the son of Eleazar as high priest. Eleazar was Joshua’s contemporary; so this incident of Gibeah and the Benjamites belongs to the generation after Joshua.

Strange proceedings at Bethlehem

A certain Levite of Mount Ephraim had taken to himself a concubine. With its story of Abimelech the Book of Judges has already taught something of the evils of concubinage, and now, that earlier lesson is to be reinforced. It may be inferred that this Levite already had a wife, otherwise he would surely have had this woman of Bethlehem as his wife and would have accorded her the full privileges of that higher status.

Not surprisingly the man soon ran into domestic difficulties. This concubine ran away, “played the harlot against him” (says the RV text), and eventually returned to her home in Bethlehem. Josephus has a different version of the story here — that “they quarrelled one with another perpetually; and at last the woman was so disgusted at these quarrels, that she left her husband and went to her parents.” The Septuagint tends to support this. And it requires but the interchange of two letters in the Hebrew text to read the same idea here.

This alternative reading seems likely, especially since it disposes of two other difficulties — the otherwise strange fact that a woman of such loose inclinations (if she were) should promptly return to her father’s house and settle down quietly there; and the remarkable circumstance that the Levite felt neither compunction about receiving the woman back again nor inclination to invoke the severity of the Law against her.

When he went to Bethlehem with the object of seeking reconciliation, the Levite was favourably received by the girl and by her father, and so there followed a time of feasting and friendship together. On the fourth day the man felt that his stay had been sufficiently prolonged, and he began preparations for departure. But the girl’s father was importunate: “Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.” When Abraham entertained angels unawares, “a morsel of bread” was his euphemism for three measures of meal made into cakes, with milk and butter and “a calf tender and good”. So it is not surprising that the Levite, who evidently enjoyed the good things of life, was easily persuaded, and when the meal ended it was too late to think of taking the road. What sort of Levite was this would could be so easily influenced by indulgence in food and drink?

Next day saw a repetition of the same pressing invitation to enjoy a long drawn-out meal before departure and the same willingness to be persuaded. Only this time as the afternoon declined the Levite threw off his post-prandial lethargy and insisted that a start be made. It may be that he was due to be on duty at the Tabernacle at Shiloh. Another guess is that the reconciliation had taken place on the Sabbath and in that case, since this was the fifth day, he would want to make the journey home before the next Sabbath came on.

Travel problems

As the sun sank into the west the man and his concubine and servant found themselves abreast of Jerusalem, known at that time (and until the reign of David) as Jebus.

The servant’s sensible suggestion that Jebus would be a good place to stay the night was scouted by his master. He refused to run the risk, as he considered, of entering “the city of a stranger”. How he would rue that decision before the night was out! Ramah and Gibeah were not far ahead. It would be better to press on to one of them. From the indication that Ramah and not Gibeah was the original objective (vv. 14,15) it may perhaps be inferred that the lawlessness of Gibeah was known to the servant, hence his advocacy of Jebus as a superior place of lodging.

But too much of the forenoon had been given over to feasting, and “the sun went down upon them” whilst they were still a good distance from their goal. There was nothing for it but to turn aside to Gibeah. Here surely they would find shelter, for hospitality was not only a prominent article in the social code of the times but was also an element of the religious duty of all good Israelites (Lev. 19:33,34).

However, it proved to be otherwise. There in the open square they had to make dismal preparation to spend the night under the stars, “for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging”.

Hazards of life at Gibeah

Then came an old man — not a native of the town, but an Ephraimite by birth — and enquired of their circumstances. There is more than a touch of surprise in his questions: “Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?”, as though implying: ‘Who are you, that you know no better than to seek shelter in a place as notorious as this?’ In his reply the Levite contrived to mention his religious status: “I walk in the house of the Lord.” This reading is better than the AV “I am now going to the house of the Lord”. Pity, truly, that he was not more conscious of his Levitical office when he was spending the greater part of a week in futile over-indulgence.

The old man readily gave to the party all possible hospitality, but before they were able to settle down for the night, stark horror and tragedy descended upon them. Vile men of the city, learning that strangers were within, thundered on the door and coarsely demanded that the man come forth that was with him. They knew, and so did he, what they wanted with him! The phrase “the men of the city” means ‘the city leaders’; thus is explained the complete absence of any restraint of wickedness. The fabric of society in Gibeah was rotten from top to bottom, as Rome was in the time of Claudius Caesar. That gentleman used to indulge in the same kind of beastliness, which in now a token of twentieth-century respectability.

The outcome of this assault on the only hospitable house in Gibeah is both unexpected and difficult. Instead of a stout refusal and a stern resolve to take the consequences, instead even of offering the man-servant as a substitute, the old man was prepared to hand over the two women in the house — his own daughter and the Levite’s concubine: “Do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”

As it turned out, the concubine only was thrust out into the clutches of the miscreants without, to be “humbled” (grim understatement!) through a long and ghastly night. If she had indeed played the whore against her lord (v. 2), this was a terrible retribution. Expositors may talk as plausibly as they may about the shockingly low status of women in those countries and those days; it still remains a grievous difficulty that the Levite should behave so callously to the woman whom he had just coaxed into returning with him. It has been argued that, after all, righteous Lot was prepared to make a similar offer to the vile men of Sodom (Gen. 19:8). But in this respect are the two cases really parallel? Lot probably had good reason already to suspect the identity of his guests, and he certainly knew something of the character of his daughters (!) and would realise that having grown up in the place it would not be beyond their powers to cope with that vicious mob, most of whom they knew personally.

Even so, this resemblance to the experience of Lot and the angels in Sodom is remarkably close in certain details. There can be little doubt that the narrative is designed to stress the similarities:

1. The wickedness of each city is general.
2. The one offering hospitality is a stranger, and aged.
3. The house is attacked,
4. the door is assaulted;
5. and the surrender of visitors is demanded,
6. for the same vile purpose.
7. Women are offered, that hospitality might not be abused,
8. and ultimately each city is utterly destroyed.

Can it be that in this resemblance between Gibeah and Sodom lies the explanation of the two men’s strange readiness to sacrifice their womenfolk to the animal appetite of the gang outside? When they did so, was it because they had already recognized the similarity with Lot’s experience, and were even then devoutly hoping that the outcome would be the same — blindness on the perverts howling outside the door, and speedy judgment from heaven on their incurable wickedness? Certainly there would then be added reason for the Levite’s precipitate departure next morning.

That horrible night, and its ghastly consequence — a pathetic corpse stark on the threshold next morning — wrought a profound change in this Levite who hitherto had given far more thought to food and drink and concubinage than to his calling as a servant in the house of the Lord and as an instructor in the Law of Moses. It came home to him with sickening force how rapid had been the declension in the moral and religious standards of the nation during the few short years since the death of Joshua. His own inexcusable case stood out as an epitome of the nation’s spiritual plight. Something drastic must be done.

A grim sequel

So he brought home that melancholy memento of his sojourn in Gibeah, and taking a knife, he carved the body into pieces as though it were a sacrifice to be laid in order on the altar. But here was no sacrifice. Instead a swift messenger carried a piece of the corpse to each tribe of Israel, and with a vivid account of how it came to be thus, ending in an urgent appeal for action. The Septuagint version concludes this portion of the narrative with the words: “And he charged the men whom he sent out, saying, Thus shall ye say to all the men of Israel, Did ever a thing like this happen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day? consider it, take counsel, and speak.” No need to say: ‘What do you mean to do about it?’ What had happened to her might happen to any other woman in Israel. The nation was sunk as low as Sodom. Ought not this evil to be dealt with speedily according to God’s Law?

Notes

3.	A couple of asses. In itself a plain intimation that he wished to take her home.
9.	The form of these sentences implies repeated persuasion.
15.	No man took them into his house. What a contrast with vv. 5-9!
17.	Whither….whence…? The man seems astonished that anyone should consider spending a night in such a place.
23.	Folly. This word (v. 24 RV; 20:6,10) is often used to describe some sexual evil.
24.	What seemeth good unto you. What an irony!
25.	The influence and memory of this night’s work lasted a long time: Hos. 9:9; 10:9.
27.	Apparently the Levite had now abandoned all hope of recovering the woman

The response to the Levite’s appeal was immediate and impressive. “As one man” (the phrase is used three times) the people came together in a formal national assembly at “the Mizpeh”. It is the only time in the entire Book of Judges that the people of Israel are found to be acting as a united nation. This fact is in itself one of the strongest proofs that this incident must be placed chronologically in the generation immediately after Joshua, for such national cohesion did not last long.

According to the maps and commentaries the place of meeting was Mizpeh-of-Benjamin, a few miles northwest of Jerusalem. But the evidence for the existence of such a Mizpeh is marvellously meagre. In a later study, reasons will be supplied for reading The Mizpeh as an alternative title for Shiloh, where the ark of God was, for the people assembled “unto the Lord in Mizpeh”. No place was more central than Shiloh, and there was also the added advantage of proximity to the territory of Benjamin. At Shiloh also the people would be able to ask counsel of the Lord by Urim and Thummim in the way that the narrative goes on to indicate.

First, there was careful investigation of the charge made against Gibeah. The Levite repeated his story. The charge was undefended, for the Benjamites had boycotted the enquiry. So great was the indignation of the rest that certain vigorous decisions were unanimously adopted. It was agreed not to let the matter drop until the criminals had been brought to book. It was also agreed to seek counsel of God by Urim and Thummim as to which tribe should carry out the necessary punitive measures, for it was already evident that the men of Benjamin would not take action against the sinners since it meant punishing their own folk.

This expectation proved to be well-founded, for when it was demanded of Benjamin that the men of Gibeah be handed over to the assembly, far from assisting the course of justice the Benjamites determined to resist what they deemed to be outside interference in their affairs, and armed themselves for war. It was not that they approved of the beastly violence of the lawless men of Gibeah. How, indeed, could they? Rather, their attitude was dictated by a proud unwillingness to admit that there was any wrong in Benjamin.

How like human nature! What man is there who has not at some time or another been perfectly aware of some wrong he has committed but who has bitterly resented the attempt of anyone else to point it out? Not for nothing is Pride included amongst the Seven Deadly Sins. How much better if Benjamin had turned these warlike inclinations against the idolaters of Jebus, the fairest city in Benjamite territory and with some of the holiest associations in the Land of Promise (Gen. 14 and 22) instead of embarking on civil war in Israel. In this they showed themselves more inconsistent than the men of Dan who gave way before the aggressive Philistines and Amorites, and instead fell upon the unwarlike and unsuspecting inhabitants of Laish.

Solemn determination

So intense was the feeling against Benjamin that the tribes bound themselves with a great oath not to intermarry with men so vile. Further, they judged that those Israelites who had refrained from attendance at the conference should be deemed to be in sympathy with wicked Benjamin, and therefore should be put to death (21:1,5). Reformers were ever given to ill-judged excesses such as these.

With Benjamin mobilising for war it was evident that justice could not be administered by peaceful means. It may be that Benjamite intransigence assumed divided counsels among the rest and also a marked reluctance to wage war against fellow-Israelites (v. 23).

It was anticipated that one tenth of the nation would suffice to bring home to the men of Benjamin, and Gibeah especially, the seriousness of their crime. This is the proper meaning of verse 10 which should probably read: ‘And we will take ten men of an hundred….for the pursuit on behalf of the people, they they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel.’

It is worthwhile, here, to observe the close connection between this narrative in Judges 20 and Deuteronomy 13, the chapter which sets out the stringent measures to be taken against any Israelitish city encouraging idolatry. It is true that idolatry was not Gibeah’s sin, but the difference in degree from such apostasy was negligible, for the Gibeathite practices were closely akin to Amorite religious customs (Deut. 23:17,18). There can be little doubt that the leaders of Israel were consciously following the very policy prescribed in these words of Moses:

“If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again” (Deut. 13:12-16).

It is therefore hardly wise to make sweeping denunciations of the men of Israel here in what was, after all, a sincere attempt to apply the difficult and unpalatable (v. 23) requirements of their divine law. These, at any rate, were scarcely men who were “doing what was right in their own eyes”. And their constant recourse to the sanctuary of the Lord throughout the campaign is further proof of their sincerity.

As commonly understood the number of the assembly at Mizpeh was enormous: “four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword”. Yet it may be doubted whether all of this huge army was actually marshalled at the rendezvous; for verse 2 reads: “And the chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God (which were) four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword.” The words seem to be open to the interpretation that only the chiefs met before the Lord. If this be so, then once policy had been decided upon, the men of war in the various tribes would be ‘called up’ as required. But this is not the only difficulty which the numbers of this narrative involve (“Bible Studies”, 10.15).

Bible-guided policy

“And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up first” (Jud. 20:18).

The “house of God” referred to here and in verse 31 can scarcely be Shiloh, for it was twenty miles away. Also, “the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days” might well imply that at this particular time the ark was not in its usual resting place. On the other hand, Bethel (the house of God, Gen. 28:17,19) was but a mile or two distant, and the topographical details (v. 31) about highways, which still follow exactly the same route, fit in nicely.

Once again Deuteronomy supplies the key to an understanding of the situation, and once again the leaders of Israel are seen to be following out most earnestly what they understood to be the teaching of the Word of God for the particular problem they were faced with: “And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, and shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; for the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you” (Deut. 20:2-4).

Accordingly Phinehas the high-priest and the ark of the covenant were now come as close to the field of battle as was reasonable, i.e. to Bethel, a holy place with many ancient patriarchal memories clustering round it, so that there might be opportunity for priestly exhortation and in order that divine counsel by Urim and Thummim might be immediately available for crucial decisions (Num. 27:21; “Samuel, Saul and David”, App. 1).

Failure — why?

Both the first and second attacks on Gibeah were disastrous. The men of Judah were beaten back with heavy loss of life. The slaughter in the first day’s fighting would be made good by the recruitment of others. Doubts as to whether the operation should be continued were set at rest by recourse to the divine oracle once again. Nevertheless in the next trial of strength there was further defeat almost as severe as at first.

Why was it that so well-intentioned a project foundered? Plainly all was not well in the camp of Israel. Where did the fault lie? The Jewish rabbis point to the Danite apostasy which was still recent history, and concerning which no retributive action had been taken. And in this they may be correct. But there is in this narrative itself a less remote reason than that.

Apparently (judging from 20:17; 21:9) in the record this campaign against Benjamin had been made the occasion of a census of Israel’s fighting men. But the Law required that whenever the people were numbered, each man must pay to the sanctuary of the Lord the half-shekel of redemption money, “that there be no plague when thou numberest them” (Exod. 30:12-16).

There is no suggestion in Judges 20 that anything of the kind was attempted on this occasion. So it may be that this disregard of the Law of God was visited with judgment in the successive defeats before Gibeah.

The tables turned

The men of Israel repented before the Lord at Bethel with weeping and fasting and offerings. Once again they were bidden go against the reprobates of Benjamin. What other decision could there be than this? For, if this judicial action were now to be dropped, the men of Gibeah would be confirmed in their vice and their fellows of Benjamin in their stubborn pride.

A further attempt was made, the men of Israel going literally in the strength of the Lord, for they had fasted. This time they tried out Joshua’s stratagem before Ai (Josh. 8), and the ruse succeeded perfectly, the more easily because of the over-weening confidence of the Benjamites in consequence of their previous victories. And after two crushing defeats, the men of Israel were not disposed to be lenient towards these men who, besides being such criminals, had slaughtered their fellows so ruthlessly in battle. Thus Gibeah was destroyed, and with it almost the entire tribe of Benjamin. That day Benjamin became “a son of sorrow” (Gen. 35:18), for there survived some six hundred men only, who fled for refuge to the impregnable natural fortress of the rock Rimmon.

Notes

1.	From Dan to Beersheba. This implies that the Danite migration (ch. 18) had already taken place.
2.	Four hundred thousand. Nearly all the numbers in this chapter are difficult. Perhaps one of the suggestions in “Bible Studies”, 10.15, may help.
3.	Tell us. A plural verb, implying that both the Levite and his servant gave evidence.
5.	Thought to have slain me. An exaggeration? or an added detail not included in ch. 19?
15.	Twenty six thousand….seven hundred. Is it possible that in the small territory of Benjamin there were nearly forty other places as big as Gibeah? And out of 26,000 fighting men, only 700 (v. 16) who were expert slingers? The numbers problem again.
38.	An appointed sign. Hebrew: mo’ed usually means a feast of the Lord. Then is the added meaning here: ‘God has blessed us and here we now offer sacrifice (the cherem) ’to Him’.
40.	The flame of the city. The archaeologists have concluded that Gibeah was destroyed by fire somewhere about 1100 B.C. (this date is a bit late by Bible chronology).
45.	Rimmon. Three miles east of Bethel.
	Unto Gidom. Or: until they had cut them of:; s.w. 21:6

Micah’s consecration of Jonathan proved to be the prelude to an episode unique in the history of Israel. The tribe of Dan, although apparently one of the largest tribes at the time of the entering of the Land, had not proved strong enough for the task of both winning and holding its inheritance from the indigenous races. “And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley” (1:34). The reference here to Amorites where one would expect the word Philistines is interesting. Can it have been between the time of Joshua and Samson that the Philistines first migrated to Canaan from their original home in Crete? On the other hand, it may have been Philistine pressure from the west on the Amorites which caused them to expand eastwards at the expense of the tribe of Dan.

Wrong solution to a pressing problem

Whatever the explanation, it became a matter of urgent necessity that the portion of the Danite inheritance already occupied by speedily enlarged. So, after solemn conference, they proceeded to do the wrong thing. Instead of asking counsel of the Lord, instead of rallying their brethren of the other tribes of Israel to their aid, instead of strengthening themselves in the unfailing promises that had been made to their fathers, instead of going forth against both Amorite and Philistine in faith that God would give them the territory assigned to them under His leader Joshua — instead of any of these good alternatives, the men of Dan coveted another inheritance in a region where the divine lot had not fallen to them, and which was, indeed, outside the borders of the Promised Land as it had been measured off by Joshua. And there they planned to blot out a peaceful unsuspecting people rather than turn their weapons against legitimate and detestable foes on their own doorstep.

In pursuance of this aim they first sent out five spies to find new land for settlement. In the course of their journey, these men came to the house of Micah where they recognized the young Levite from Bethlehem. ‘They knew his voice’ (18:3). There seems to be an implication here that the wanderings of this worthless Levite had taken him into Zorah and Eshtaol. Perhaps they readily recognized his voice because he was singing psalms in the “sanctuary” at the time they came to the place.

Faith or superstition?

The men used this opportunity to ask counsel (somewhat belatedly!) of the Lord. How like human nature, to decide on the course to be followed, and then as an afterthought, when fully committed to it, to ask divine blessing on it!

The Levite was, of course, unable to give them any genuine communication from the Lord. That was only to be had through the high priest. Nevertheless his ready wit was fully equal to the occasion and he gave them a message in the best Delphic tradition of ambiguity: “Go in peace: before the Lord is your way wherein ye go.” What better than this most platitudinous of all truisms? It would apply perfectly to any circumstance that might befall them. But the men of Dan, with the naivete of so many who enquire of God in the wrong way, read into the words an assurance that their project would prosper, and they went off highly satisfied. Whatever bloody deeds they might plan hereafter, they were sure of divine approval — or so they thought.

In due time they came to the extreme border of the Land, at the very edge of the northern territory assigned to Naphtali. Exploring there the fertile, remote valleys of the Anti-Lebanon, they lighted upon the quiet prosperous city of Laish. The people were Zidonians by race but out of touch with the main body of their people, being cut off from them by difficult mountain ranges: “They were far from the Zidonians, and had no business with any man (or — probable reading — with Syria).”

The description of that quiet life of these people, as given either in the AV or RV, is not at all according to the original, and indeed scarcely makes sense. Yet it requires only the alteration of one letter to give the much more coherent reading: ‘There was no one to restrain (i.e. to exercise political control over) any in the land.’ In the eyes of these spies from Dan, this would be a factor of some considerable importance.

They hastened back home to report to a conclave of elders of their tribe. Their enthusiastic urgent story reads as though it had been their early intention to make an onslaught on this particular locality. It may be that from the first, this Danite migration was a deliberate move to rejoin Naphtali. Dan and Naphtali were both sons of Bilhah, and the two tribes shared the same encampment in the wilderness and were both in the rearguard when on the march. The returned spies reinforced their own favourable impression with Jonathan’s oracular utterance — or rather their interpretation of it: “God hath given it into your hands; a place where there is no want of any thing that is in the earth”.

Press-ganged!

Immediate action was taken. A body of six hundred well-equipped men set out accompanied by their families. En route the additional scheme was hatched of persuading Jonathan the Levite to accompany them, to be their spiritual guide and helper in their new land of promise.

This plan was expeditiously carried into effect. Whilst Jonathan was kept talking at the gate, others of the party boldly entered the “sanctuary” and brought forth the ephod and all the other appurtenances of priestly office. Jonathan felt bound to remonstrate, but there was little he could do about it, and when his own self-interest was coolly expounded to him, he speedily threw all scruples to the winds. Forgetting his commitment to Micah, and quite oblivious of the moral principles associated with the service of Jehovah, to whom he claimed to minister, he readily threw in his lot with these marauders.

It was only to be expected that there would be pursuit by Micah, so the women and children were put in front, out of harm’s way. But Jonathan, immediately assuming the authority due to his new office, insisted on the observance of the religious proprieties and arranged for the holy equipment to be carried “in the midst of the people”, that is, in the centre of the long caravan, just as the furniture of the Tabernacle had travelled during the wilderness journey (Num. 10; esp. v. 21).

Micah rebuffed

Micah and the neighbours who rallied to help him made immediate pursuit and soon came up with the slow-moving host. At first the men of Dan feigned innocence and surprise: “What aileth thee that thou comest with such a company?” Micah made bitter and reproachful reply (there is a superb realism about the narrative here): “Ye have taken away my gods which I made (see how the man confesses here his own folly!)….and what have I more? and how then say ye unto me, What aileth thee?” There was little strength of character behind these words. Why did he not insist that these men had earlier accepted his hospitality (v. 2) and therefore should now maintain the covenant of peace by returning his property?

As it was, the men of Dan speedily recognized that here was no formidable enemy. They knew now that they could bluff their way out of this situation without difficulty: “Let not thy voice be heard among us, lest angry fellows run upon thee, and thou lose thy life, with the lives of thy household”; as who would say: ‘These men are desperate; you would be wise to cut your losses, or worse things might befall.’ Which thing Micah did, for he loved his life more than his religion and its appurtenances.

Moses had made a prophecy about this strange change of policy by the tribe of Dan: “Dan is a lion’s whelp: he shall leap from Bashan” (Deut. 33:22). From this it may be inferred that from Ephraim the migrants crossed Jordan and travelled north round the east side of Galilee. Their target Laish means ‘a lion’, so there is fair likelihood that it was an understanding of Moses’ prophecy which led them to this remote place in the north.

The capture of Laish

The onslaught took place according to plan. A people “quiet and secure” were smitten with the edge of the sword, and their city burned with fire, “and there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon”. This burning of the city was a strangely illogical thing, for to save it intact would surely have furthered their plans considerably. Can it be that this was a conscious imitation of the burning of Jericho, the utter devoting to the Lord of the firstfruits of a new ‘Land of promise’? More likely, they contented themselves with firing a few of the houses to help terrorise the inhabitants.

With the city rebuilt and the area fully settled, “Jonathan, the son of Gershom the son of Moses” now came into his own as a priest of considerable consequence. Wordsworth comments aptly: “They glossed over their sin by the specious varnish of a holy name!”

A difficulty resolved

“He and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the Land.” This statement about their priesthood is usually taken to mean that this Danite sanctuary continued right up to the time when Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria, took the north-ern tribes into captivity. And to this is often added the inference that therefore the Book of Judges must have been written after that date and probably after the Babylonian captivity.

Both of these conclusions must be rejected because of two fairly plain indications that this unofficial priesthood ceased before the end of the reign of David — as indeed might be expected from a knowledge of David’s zeal for the sanctuary of the Lord in Zion. There was a Shebuel, a contemporary of David in the line of Moses-Gershom-Jonathan who was not a false priest in Dan but a faithful treasurer in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 26:24). Also, the words of the wise woman of Abel to Joab were, according to the Septuagint version:

“They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel in Abel and in Dan” (2 Sam. 20:18). The allusion is clearly to Judges 18, and she spoke as though of a custom now discontinued. So it may be safely inferred that by the end of David’s reign the worship at Dan had ceased.

A further detail in Judges 18 suggests a different “captivity” than the Assyrian or Babylonian: “And they set up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh”, i.e. until the days of Samuel. This time indication is precisely what would be expected, for it is difficult to believe that Samuel, with his stern sense of duty, would tolerate even in remote Dan the existence of an apostate priesthood. The true “house of God was in Shiloh”.

The Hebrew words for ‘land’ and ‘ark’ are very easily confused in Hebrew script. This alternative removes all difficulty: “Jonathan and his sons were priests until the day of the captivity of the ark (that is, until the time of Samuel: 1 Sam. 4:17,22); and Micah’s oracle continued its vogue all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh.

The first secession from true religious loyalty left its mark. In the days of Rehoboam, when upstart Jeroboam was seeking to wean the northern tribes from service to the House of David, he revived in Dan and Bethel the ancient worship of the golden calf. Dan was hardly a good centre to choose, because of its remoteness. Some site immediately north or south of Jezreel would surely have been better. But Dan already had a reputation as a place of worship. The memory of the sanctuary there still lingered.

Further, it is interesting to observe that whereas at Bethel “he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi”, the same is not written concerning Dan, for Dan already had its own tradition of priests descended from Moses.

Thus it can be seen that the doom of the Northern Kingdom is to be dated from the day that Jonathan, the restless Levite, joined forces with the men of Dan. From that time also there began to be fulfilled the prophecy: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path” (Gen. 49:17).

In Dan, apostasy was first fully organized. For this reason, probably, the name of Dan has been omitted from the roll of the tribes of Israel in Chronicles, and from the catalogue of the spiritual Israel who are sealed in their foreheads as the servants of God (Rev. 7). “Without are….idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

Notes

2.	Five men. Why five? Joshua had been content with two. Is this an emulation of the Philistines and their five lords?
7.	Quiet and secure. It would have been more to Dan’s credit had they stayed south and tackled the warlike Philistines. They applied Deut. 20:10-18 where it should not have been applied, because outside their specified boundaries.
	No business with (any) man. Since the distinction between ADaM and ARaM (Syria) is so very slight (see Psa. 119:25,153), the change is quite likely. There are plenty of examples of this accidental switch between D and R.
24.	My gods. Is it possible that elohim was used also to describe holy objects? Cp. Exod. 32:4.
30.	Son of (Manasseh) Moses. Is this bad streak in Moses’ family to be attributed to the early influence of Zipporah?

The date of the book of Ruth cannot be fixed precisely but this does not matter greatly. It is sufficient to know that it was during the period of the judges. The genealogy at the end of chapter 4, if clear of omissions, suggests the time of Samson or maybe earlier when the growing Philistine oppression made itself felt against the southern tribes of Israel.

Possibly the famine in Israel which occasioned the rest of the story was brought about by Philistine depredation of the crops, for it would be a most unusual kind of famine that would afflict the land of Judah for so great a period as ten years and yet leave untouched the land of Moab less than thirty miles away. The fact too, that food and plenty were sought in Moab and not in Egypt, the traditional refuge in time of famine, suggests that the roads to Egypt were in the hands of unfriendly people. But these conclusions are at best tentative.

Whatever the cause of the famine, there can be little doubt that no bread in Bethlehem, the house of bread, was another indication of divine displeasure. Famine is a heavier punishment than pestilence (2 Sam. 24:14). God was chastening this people beloved for their fathers’ sakes (Lev. 26:19; Dt. 28:18; 1 Kgs. 8:37).

But one, Elimelech, chose not to endure the chastisement but to evade it. As in Abraham’s experience (Gen. 12:10), leaving the Land was a mistake to be paid for. Yet, by an impressive paradox, this was God’s way of seeking out Ruth the Moabitess, to add her to the family of His Beloved.

With his family, Elimelech migrated to safety and plenty in Moab, exchanging the land of God’s choice for a land of idols and ignorance. This was, who can doubt, a reprehensible policy and one which brought in its train a further danger of heathen marriages and their risk of idolatry. It has been surmised that the name Elimelech was originally Elimoloch — Moloch is my god — given to this child in Israel by a Moabite mother (Num. 25:1). Such an explanation, by no means impossible, makes the move to Moab easier to understand.

The Moabite marriages for Mahlon and Chilion actually took place in direct contravention of a divine commandment: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly” (Dt. 7:3).

And so it came about, for Elimelech did not survive for long. An old tree transplanted does not thrive. Thus, once again, the Word of truth re-emphasizes the folly of seeking marriages with those who do not share one’s faith in Christ. The fact that Orpah and Ruth proved to be vastly superior to the average Moabitish wife is only a further demonstration of the way in which God so very often shows his grace to men by bringing good out of their folly. “Let us do evil, that good may come” is a policy rightly and vigorously repudiated by the apostle Paul.

It is worth noticing that, although the marriages took place soon after the arrival in Moab and the death of Elimelech, there was no child to either marriage during the next 10 years (contrast 4:13). Then came the deaths of Mahlon and Chilion. Says one old writer: “Elimelech, like ripe fruit, fell down of his own accord; they, like green apples, were cudgelled off the tree.” Were these experiences a further sign of God’s displeasure?

It is a marvellous tribute to the character of Naomi that she was not very speedily forsaken by her sons’ wives, especially when the traditional relations between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law are considered. She had apparently inspired in the hearts of these two young women such a genuine affection that they were prepared not only to live their married lives in the same house, but to go on living with her after the loss of their husbands.

Return home!

News came that God was once again blessing Israel with plenty; and since Naomi herself had no roots in Moab there was nothing to hinder her return. Orpah and Ruth were bent on going with her; but soon, in words of thanks for past kindnesses, and with benediction for the future, Naomi bade them return. Then, as now in many countries, a young woman without family ties or a home of her own was a prey to all kinds of evil. So Naomi exhorted them to stay on in their own land with their own kith and kin so that in due time they might marry again.

The levirate law (Dt. 25:5-10) required that, when a man died without issue, his brother should take the widow and raise up children to bear his name. But Naomi urged that she herself was old and without husband. So, even if she were to re-marry and bear other sons, how grotesque it would be for Ruth and Orpah to wait for them until they were of marriageable age!

Thus she applied every possible discouragement. By this means she provided a none-too-easy problem for Bible readers ever since, as to whether she did well to urge her daughters-in-law to return home, or whether she ought not rather to have influenced them for their own good, to come with her to Israel and become good Israelites.

It was a big undertaking for these Moabite young women to venture into a land of strangers with no help other than what an aged and poverty-stricken mother-in-law could provide. And so they wept together.

Said Naomi: “It grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord (and not just bad luck; 1 Sam. 6:9) is gone out against me.”

Orpah, not so impressed with the religious issues as Ruth was, or maybe seeing the practical difficulties more clearly, at length chose to return, albeit with increased sadness at the parting.

Naomi now renewed her exhortation to Ruth, yet at the same time hoping that the advice would not be heeded. It was Elijah’s discouragement of Elisha over again, and Jesus’s calculated coldness to the Canaanite woman. “Return thou!” The words were spoken unselfishly, and perhaps to prove Ruth’s constancy, yet doubtless Naomi’s strong affection hoped fervently that this lovely daughter-in-law would hold to her purpose.

A true loyalty

And she did. Ruth was emphatic. In words of love and fidelity that will last for ever, she set aside every hardship and difficulty that might be mentioned:

“Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”

Never was more eloquent repetition! And (she might have added): “Where thou risest, I will rise”. Not even death will part these two.

Dominant in this resolve to be with Naomi was a determination to be a woman of Israel with her. Whereas Orpah was gone back to her Moabite people and to her Moabite god, Ruth insisted: “Thy God shall be my God.” And she meant it, for she sealed it by an oath sworn on the covenant name of the God of Israel: “The Lord do so to me and more also if ought but death part thee and me.” And Naomi was content that it should be so.

But how could Ruth declare with truth: “Thy God shall be my God”? Did not the Law lay it down that “a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation….” (Dt. 23:3)? Some have speculated that Ruth was the very first proselyte from Moab after the ten generations. However, the chronology hardly allows of this. More likely, that Mosaic prohibition applied only to males, for it is not certain that the masculine “Moabite” covered the womenfolk as well. It is even possible that the Lord was ready to make an exception to His law for such a one as Ruth. Parallel examples are not wanting.

Back in Bethlehem

Naomi’s arrival in Bethlehem caused a sensation. The women of the place were aghast at the change both in Naomi and her circumstances. Maybe there was something of ‘I told you so’ about the ejaculation: “Is this Naomi?”

Or perhaps what they said was: ‘This is Naomi!’ She had gone forth a prosperous woman, happy in her husband and two grown sons. The family had been one of some importance, for they were Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah, that is, they belonged to the distinguished family that sprang from Salmon, the prince of Judah who had married Rahab after the fall of Jericho. The family was closely connected with the hero Caleb after whose wife Bethlehem-Ephratah was named.

The name of Elimelech might also suggest prosperity, for practically every individual in the Bible whose name is compounded with the Hebrew word melech, king, is a person of some consequence.

But now Naomi was alone, apart from this comely stranger, and quite destitute. She had gone out full, so she declared, and returned empty. But how could she say so when she had Ruth by her side? Even so, she did well to speak no complaint against her dead husband. “Call me not Naomi (my pretty, my sweetie), call me Mara (bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.” And she told how her three-fold cord of comfort, not easily broken, was her stay no longer. Instead, only misery, “pressed down, shaken together, and running over”.

The divine name Shaddai, by which she chose to acknowledge the rebuke of God, may have been used in ironic allusion to its meaning in the promises to the Fathers about a multitudinous seed (Gen. 17:1,2; 28:3; 35:11; etc.). But in the poetical books “Shaddai” also means “Destroyer”. Perhaps that is what Naomi meant.

There is a marvellous dramatic irony about this, for, had she but known it, Naomi returned more full than when she went out. How could she realise that every word of God’s glorious promises to Abraham was going to be fulfilled through this helpless but devoted stranger returning with her from Moab? At this moment she saw herself only as an undefended prisoner-at-the-bar, with the powers of the universe arrayed against her both as counsel for the prosecution and as a judge on the bench: “The Lord testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me!” But before very long she was to marvel at the work of God on her behalf.

Notes

1.	The Hebrew Bible sets the Book of Ruth quite apart from Judges, but the LXX joins them together. So too does that first word: “And” (not “Now”).
	Ruled may mean “began to judge” (as in 2 Sam. 15:10). In which case, like Judges 17-21, Ruth belongs to the generation after Joshua.
	Went to sojourn. Would this be possible after Jud. 3:29,30? The early part of Jud. 3:14 has been suggested.
4.	The rabbis refer the curse in Ps. 109:14 to this verse.
6.	Visited his people. Referred to in Lk. 1:68.
9.	Find rest. This puts point to 3:1.
13.	It grieves me. Hebrew: mar; cp. v. 20.
15.	Her gods: Baal-Peor, Chemosh! (Josh. 24:15) — and the prospect of a husband.
17.	The Lord do so to me…. Reference to the sacrifice over which an oath is taken?
21.	Testified against me, by hard circumstance: Job 10:17.