15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared300for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to301slay the third part of men.15.And the four angels were loosed.Who had this mighty host under restraint. The loosening of the angels was, in fact, also a letting loose of all these hosts, that they might accomplish the work which they were commissioned to do. ¶Which were prepared.Seever.7. The word here used properly refers to that which is made ready, fitted up, arranged for anything: as persons prepared for a journey, horses for battle, a road for travellers, food for the hungry, a house to live in,&c.SeeRob.Lex.,sub. voceἙτοιμάζω. As used here, the word means that whatever was necessary topreparethese angels—the leaders of this host—for the work which they were commissioned to perform, was now done, and that they stood in a state of readiness to execute the design. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for some arrangements existing in the vicinity of the Euphrates, by which these restrained hosts werein a state of readinessto be summoned forth to the execution of this work, or in such a condition that theywouldgo forth spontaneously if the restraints existing were removed. ¶For an hour,&c.Marg.,at. The Greek—εἰς—means properlyunto,with reference to; and the sense is, that, with reference to that hour, they had all the requisite preparation. Professor Stuart explains it as meaning that they were “prepared for the particular year, month, day, and hour, destined by God for the great catastrophe which is to follow.” The meaning, however, rather seems to be that they were prepared, not for thecommencementof such a period, but they were prepared forthe whole periodindicated by the hour, the day, the month, and the year; that is,that the continuance of this “woe” would extend along through the whole period. For (a) this is the natural interpretation of the word “for”—εἰς; (b) it makes the whole sentence intelligible—for though it might be proper to say of anything that it was “prepared for an hour,” indicating the commencement of what was to be done, it is not usual to say of anything that it is “prepared for an hour, a month, a day, a year,” when the design is merely to indicate thebeginningof it; and (c) it is in accordance with the prediction respecting the first “woe” (ver.5), where the time is specified in language similar to this, to wit, “five months.” It seems to me, therefore, that we are to regard the time here mentioned as a prophetic indication of the period during which this woe would continue. ¶An hour, and a day, and a month, and a year.If this were to be taken literally, it would, of course, be but little more than a year. If it be taken, however, in the common prophetic style, where a day is put for a year (see Notes onDa.ix.24,seq.; also Editor’s Preface,p.xxv.&c.), then the amount of time (360 + 30 + 1 + an hour) would be three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by an hour—a twelfth or twenty-fourth part, according as the day was supposed to be divided into twelve or twenty-four hours. That this is the true view seems to be clear, because this accords with the usual style in this book; because it can hardly be supposed that the “preparation” here referred to would have been for so brief a period as the time would be if literally interpreted; and because the mention of so small a portion of time as an “hour,” if literally taken, would be improbable in so great transactions. The fair interpretation, therefore, will require us to find some events that will fill up the period of about three hundred and ninety-one years. ¶For to slay the third part of men.Comp.ch. viii.7, 9, 12. The meaning here is, that the immense host which was restrained on the Euphrates would, when loosed, spread desolation over about a third part of the world. We are not to suppose that this is to be understood in exactly a literal sense; but the meaning is, that the desolation would be so widespread that it would seem to embrace a third of the world. No such event as the cutting off of a few thousands of Jews in the siege of Jerusalem would correspond with the language here employed, and we must look for events more general and more disastrous to mankind at large.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared300for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to301slay the third part of men.
15.And the four angels were loosed.Who had this mighty host under restraint. The loosening of the angels was, in fact, also a letting loose of all these hosts, that they might accomplish the work which they were commissioned to do. ¶Which were prepared.Seever.7. The word here used properly refers to that which is made ready, fitted up, arranged for anything: as persons prepared for a journey, horses for battle, a road for travellers, food for the hungry, a house to live in,&c.SeeRob.Lex.,sub. voceἙτοιμάζω. As used here, the word means that whatever was necessary topreparethese angels—the leaders of this host—for the work which they were commissioned to perform, was now done, and that they stood in a state of readiness to execute the design. In the fulfilment of this it will be necessary to look for some arrangements existing in the vicinity of the Euphrates, by which these restrained hosts werein a state of readinessto be summoned forth to the execution of this work, or in such a condition that theywouldgo forth spontaneously if the restraints existing were removed. ¶For an hour,&c.Marg.,at. The Greek—εἰς—means properlyunto,with reference to; and the sense is, that, with reference to that hour, they had all the requisite preparation. Professor Stuart explains it as meaning that they were “prepared for the particular year, month, day, and hour, destined by God for the great catastrophe which is to follow.” The meaning, however, rather seems to be that they were prepared, not for thecommencementof such a period, but they were prepared forthe whole periodindicated by the hour, the day, the month, and the year; that is,that the continuance of this “woe” would extend along through the whole period. For (a) this is the natural interpretation of the word “for”—εἰς; (b) it makes the whole sentence intelligible—for though it might be proper to say of anything that it was “prepared for an hour,” indicating the commencement of what was to be done, it is not usual to say of anything that it is “prepared for an hour, a month, a day, a year,” when the design is merely to indicate thebeginningof it; and (c) it is in accordance with the prediction respecting the first “woe” (ver.5), where the time is specified in language similar to this, to wit, “five months.” It seems to me, therefore, that we are to regard the time here mentioned as a prophetic indication of the period during which this woe would continue. ¶An hour, and a day, and a month, and a year.If this were to be taken literally, it would, of course, be but little more than a year. If it be taken, however, in the common prophetic style, where a day is put for a year (see Notes onDa.ix.24,seq.; also Editor’s Preface,p.xxv.&c.), then the amount of time (360 + 30 + 1 + an hour) would be three hundred and ninety-one years, and the portion of a year indicated by an hour—a twelfth or twenty-fourth part, according as the day was supposed to be divided into twelve or twenty-four hours. That this is the true view seems to be clear, because this accords with the usual style in this book; because it can hardly be supposed that the “preparation” here referred to would have been for so brief a period as the time would be if literally interpreted; and because the mention of so small a portion of time as an “hour,” if literally taken, would be improbable in so great transactions. The fair interpretation, therefore, will require us to find some events that will fill up the period of about three hundred and ninety-one years. ¶For to slay the third part of men.Comp.ch. viii.7, 9, 12. The meaning here is, that the immense host which was restrained on the Euphrates would, when loosed, spread desolation over about a third part of the world. We are not to suppose that this is to be understood in exactly a literal sense; but the meaning is, that the desolation would be so widespread that it would seem to embrace a third of the world. No such event as the cutting off of a few thousands of Jews in the siege of Jerusalem would correspond with the language here employed, and we must look for events more general and more disastrous to mankind at large.
16 And the number of the302army of the horsemenwere303two hundred thousand thousand: and304I heard the number of them.16.And the number of the army of the horsemen.It is to be observed here that the strength of the army seemed to be cavalry. In the former plagues there is no distinct mention of horsemen; but here that which struck the beholder was the immense and unparalleled number of horsemen. ¶Weretwo hundred thousand thousand.A thousand thousand are a million, and consequently the number here referred to would be two hundred millions. This would be a larger army than was ever assembled, and it cannot be supposed that it is to be taken literally. That it would be a very large host—so large that it would not be readily numbered—is clear. The expression in the original, while it naturally conveys the idea of an immense number, would seem also to refer to some peculiarity in the manner of reckoning them. The language is,two myriads of myriads—δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων. The myriad was ten thousand. The idea would seem to be this. John saw an immense host of cavalry. They appeared to be divided into large bodies that were in some degree separate, and that might be reckoned by ten thousands. Of these different squadrons there were many, and to express their great and unusual numbers he said that there seemed to bemyriadsof them—two myriads of myriads, or twice ten thousand myriads. The army thus would seem to be immense—an army, as we should say, to be reckonedby tens of thousands. ¶And I heard the number of them.They were so numerous that he did not pretend to be able to estimate the number himself, for it was beyond his power of computation; but he heard it stated in these round numbers, that there were “two myriads of myriads” of them.
16 And the number of the302army of the horsemenwere303two hundred thousand thousand: and304I heard the number of them.
16.And the number of the army of the horsemen.It is to be observed here that the strength of the army seemed to be cavalry. In the former plagues there is no distinct mention of horsemen; but here that which struck the beholder was the immense and unparalleled number of horsemen. ¶Weretwo hundred thousand thousand.A thousand thousand are a million, and consequently the number here referred to would be two hundred millions. This would be a larger army than was ever assembled, and it cannot be supposed that it is to be taken literally. That it would be a very large host—so large that it would not be readily numbered—is clear. The expression in the original, while it naturally conveys the idea of an immense number, would seem also to refer to some peculiarity in the manner of reckoning them. The language is,two myriads of myriads—δύο μυριάδες μυριάδων. The myriad was ten thousand. The idea would seem to be this. John saw an immense host of cavalry. They appeared to be divided into large bodies that were in some degree separate, and that might be reckoned by ten thousands. Of these different squadrons there were many, and to express their great and unusual numbers he said that there seemed to bemyriadsof them—two myriads of myriads, or twice ten thousand myriads. The army thus would seem to be immense—an army, as we should say, to be reckonedby tens of thousands. ¶And I heard the number of them.They were so numerous that he did not pretend to be able to estimate the number himself, for it was beyond his power of computation; but he heard it stated in these round numbers, that there were “two myriads of myriads” of them.
17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horseswereas305the heads of lions: and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.17.And thus I saw the horses in thevision. That is, he saw them as he proceeds to describe them, for the wordthus—οὕτως—refers to what follows.Comp.Rob.Lex.on the word, (b), and seeMat.i.18;ii.5;Jn.xxi.1;He.iv.4. Professor Stuart, however, refers to what precedes. The meaning, as it seems to me, is, that he fixed his attention on the appearance of the immense army—the horses and their riders, and proceeded to describe them as they struck him. ¶And them that sat on them.He fixed the attention on horse and rider. Their appearance was unusual, and deserved a particular description. ¶Having breastplates of fire.That is, those who sat on them had such breastplates. The word here rendered breastplate denoted properly a coat of mail that covered the body from the neck to the thighs. See Notes onEp.vi.14. This would be a prominent object in looking at a horseman. This was said to be composed of “fire, and jacinth, and brimstone;” that is, the part of the body usually incased in the coat of mail had these three colours. The word “fire” here simply denotesred. It was burnished and bright, and seemed to be a blaze of fire. The word “jacinth”—ὑακινθίνους—means hyacinthine. The colour denoted is that of the hyacinth—a flower of a deep purple or reddish blue. Then it refers to a gem of the same colour, nearly related to thezirconof the mineralogists, and the colour here mentioned is deep purple or reddish blue. The word rendered “brimstone”—θειώδης—means properly sulphurous, that is, made of sulphur, and means here simplyyellow. The meaning of the whole then is, that these horsemen appeared to be clad in a peculiar kind of armour—armour that shone like fire, mingled with blue and yellow. It will be necessary to look for the fulfilment of this in cavalry that was so caparisoned. ¶And the heads of the horseswereas the heads of lions.Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does not say that theywerethe heads of lions, or that the riders were on monsters, but only that they, in some respects,resembledthe heads of lions. It would be easy to give this general appearance by the way in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed. ¶And out of their mouths issued.That is,appearedto issue. It is not necessary to understand this as affirming that it actually came from theirmouths, but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would have thisappearance. The heathen poets often speak of horses breathing out fire and smoke (Virg.Geor.vol. ii.p.140;iii.85; Ovid,Met.vol. vii.p.104), meaning that theirbreathseemed to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled withbrimstone. All thisseemedto issue from their mouths—that is, it was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it from their mouths. ¶Fire and smoke and brimstone.Theexactidea, whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and if it be supposed that the writermeantto describe such a discharge, this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that thisappearedto issue from the horses’ mouths. If, therefore, it should be found that there were any events where firearms were used, in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, thislanguagewould be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language here used would be that which he would adopt. One thing is certain, that this isnotlanguage which would be employed to describe the onset of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans, when the only armour was the sword and the spear, would think of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses’ mouths fire, and smoke, and brimstone.
17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horseswereas305the heads of lions: and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
17.And thus I saw the horses in thevision. That is, he saw them as he proceeds to describe them, for the wordthus—οὕτως—refers to what follows.Comp.Rob.Lex.on the word, (b), and seeMat.i.18;ii.5;Jn.xxi.1;He.iv.4. Professor Stuart, however, refers to what precedes. The meaning, as it seems to me, is, that he fixed his attention on the appearance of the immense army—the horses and their riders, and proceeded to describe them as they struck him. ¶And them that sat on them.He fixed the attention on horse and rider. Their appearance was unusual, and deserved a particular description. ¶Having breastplates of fire.That is, those who sat on them had such breastplates. The word here rendered breastplate denoted properly a coat of mail that covered the body from the neck to the thighs. See Notes onEp.vi.14. This would be a prominent object in looking at a horseman. This was said to be composed of “fire, and jacinth, and brimstone;” that is, the part of the body usually incased in the coat of mail had these three colours. The word “fire” here simply denotesred. It was burnished and bright, and seemed to be a blaze of fire. The word “jacinth”—ὑακινθίνους—means hyacinthine. The colour denoted is that of the hyacinth—a flower of a deep purple or reddish blue. Then it refers to a gem of the same colour, nearly related to thezirconof the mineralogists, and the colour here mentioned is deep purple or reddish blue. The word rendered “brimstone”—θειώδης—means properly sulphurous, that is, made of sulphur, and means here simplyyellow. The meaning of the whole then is, that these horsemen appeared to be clad in a peculiar kind of armour—armour that shone like fire, mingled with blue and yellow. It will be necessary to look for the fulfilment of this in cavalry that was so caparisoned. ¶And the heads of the horseswereas the heads of lions.Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does not say that theywerethe heads of lions, or that the riders were on monsters, but only that they, in some respects,resembledthe heads of lions. It would be easy to give this general appearance by the way in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed. ¶And out of their mouths issued.That is,appearedto issue. It is not necessary to understand this as affirming that it actually came from theirmouths, but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would have thisappearance. The heathen poets often speak of horses breathing out fire and smoke (Virg.Geor.vol. ii.p.140;iii.85; Ovid,Met.vol. vii.p.104), meaning that theirbreathseemed to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled withbrimstone. All thisseemedto issue from their mouths—that is, it was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it from their mouths. ¶Fire and smoke and brimstone.Theexactidea, whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and if it be supposed that the writermeantto describe such a discharge, this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that thisappearedto issue from the horses’ mouths. If, therefore, it should be found that there were any events where firearms were used, in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, thislanguagewould be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language here used would be that which he would adopt. One thing is certain, that this isnotlanguage which would be employed to describe the onset of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans, when the only armour was the sword and the spear, would think of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses’ mouths fire, and smoke, and brimstone.
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.18.By these three.Three things—explainedimmediately as referring to the fire, the smoke, and the brimstone. ¶Was the third part of men killed.See Notes onch. viii.7–12, on each of which verses we have notices of calamities that came upon the third part of the race, of the sea, of rivers,&c.We are not to suppose that this is to be taken literally, but the description is given as itappearedto John. Those immense numbers of horsemen would sweep over the world, and a full third part of the race of men would seem to fall before them.
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
18.By these three.Three things—explainedimmediately as referring to the fire, the smoke, and the brimstone. ¶Was the third part of men killed.See Notes onch. viii.7–12, on each of which verses we have notices of calamities that came upon the third part of the race, of the sea, of rivers,&c.We are not to suppose that this is to be taken literally, but the description is given as itappearedto John. Those immense numbers of horsemen would sweep over the world, and a full third part of the race of men would seem to fall before them.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for306their tailswerelike unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.19.For their power is in their mouth.That is, as described in the fire, smoke, and brimstone that proceeded out of their mouths. What struck the seer as remarkable on looking on the symbol was, that this immense destruction seemed to proceed out of their mouths. It was not that they trampled down their enemies; nor that they destroyed them with the sword, the bow, or the spear: it was some new and remarkable power in warfare—in which the destruction seemed to proceed from fire, and smoke, and sulphur issuing from the mouths of the horses themselves. ¶And in their tails.The tails of the horses. This, of course, was something unusual and remarkable in horses, for naturally they have no power there. The power of a fish, or a scorpion, or a wasp, may be said to be in their tails, for their strength or their means of defence or of injury are there; but we never think of speaking in this way of horses. It is not necessary, in the interpretation of this, to suppose that the reference is literally to the tails of the horses, any more than it is to suppose that the smoke, and fire, and brimstone literally proceeded from their mouths. John describes things as theyappearedto him in looking at them from a considerable distance. From their mouths the horses belched forth fire, and smoke, and sulphur, and even their tails seemed to be armed for the work of death. ¶For their tailswerelike unto serpents.Not like the tails of serpents, but like serpents themselves. ¶And had heads.That is, there was something remarkable in the position and appearance of theirheads. All serpents, of course, have heads; but John saw something unusual in this—or something so peculiar in their heads as to attract special attention. It would seem most probable that the heads of these serpents appeared to extend in every direction—as if the hairs of the horses’ tails had been converted into snakes, presenting a most fearful and destructive image. Perhaps it may illustrate this to suppose that there is reference to the Amphisbæna, or two-headed snake. It is said of this reptile that its tail resembles a head, and that with this it throws out its poison (Lucan,vol. ix.p.179; Pliny’sHist. Nat.vol. viii.p.35). It really has but one head, but its tail has the appearance of a head, and it has the power of moving in either direction to a limited degree. If we suppose these snakes fastened to the tail of a horse, the appearance ofheadswould be very prominent and remarkable. The image is that of the power of destruction. They seemed like ugly and poisonous serpents instead of tails. ¶And with them they do hurt.Not the main injury, but they have the power of inflictingsomeinjury by them.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for306their tailswerelike unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
19.For their power is in their mouth.That is, as described in the fire, smoke, and brimstone that proceeded out of their mouths. What struck the seer as remarkable on looking on the symbol was, that this immense destruction seemed to proceed out of their mouths. It was not that they trampled down their enemies; nor that they destroyed them with the sword, the bow, or the spear: it was some new and remarkable power in warfare—in which the destruction seemed to proceed from fire, and smoke, and sulphur issuing from the mouths of the horses themselves. ¶And in their tails.The tails of the horses. This, of course, was something unusual and remarkable in horses, for naturally they have no power there. The power of a fish, or a scorpion, or a wasp, may be said to be in their tails, for their strength or their means of defence or of injury are there; but we never think of speaking in this way of horses. It is not necessary, in the interpretation of this, to suppose that the reference is literally to the tails of the horses, any more than it is to suppose that the smoke, and fire, and brimstone literally proceeded from their mouths. John describes things as theyappearedto him in looking at them from a considerable distance. From their mouths the horses belched forth fire, and smoke, and sulphur, and even their tails seemed to be armed for the work of death. ¶For their tailswerelike unto serpents.Not like the tails of serpents, but like serpents themselves. ¶And had heads.That is, there was something remarkable in the position and appearance of theirheads. All serpents, of course, have heads; but John saw something unusual in this—or something so peculiar in their heads as to attract special attention. It would seem most probable that the heads of these serpents appeared to extend in every direction—as if the hairs of the horses’ tails had been converted into snakes, presenting a most fearful and destructive image. Perhaps it may illustrate this to suppose that there is reference to the Amphisbæna, or two-headed snake. It is said of this reptile that its tail resembles a head, and that with this it throws out its poison (Lucan,vol. ix.p.179; Pliny’sHist. Nat.vol. viii.p.35). It really has but one head, but its tail has the appearance of a head, and it has the power of moving in either direction to a limited degree. If we suppose these snakes fastened to the tail of a horse, the appearance ofheadswould be very prominent and remarkable. The image is that of the power of destruction. They seemed like ugly and poisonous serpents instead of tails. ¶And with them they do hurt.Not the main injury, but they have the power of inflictingsomeinjury by them.