Joshua 19:49-51: Joshua’s Inheritance

Verse 49:[1] When they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts, the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun among them…

[The children of Israel gave] Note here and admire the modesty of the Commander-in-Chief, Joshua; for he who first divided lots to all the others, received his own last (Lapide almost out of Masius, Bonfrerius). Again, he was unwilling that a lot be cast for himself, as for the others, but he received it as a gift from the people. In which matter he was a type of Christ, who, so that He might enrich us, was made the last of men (Bonfrerius). Among his own tribesmen he received a possession not at all eminent (for this is that בְּתוֹכָם, among them), but inferior to many. Certainly those mountainous possessions in those dry lands were the worst, and were esteemed as less than the plains. And Jerome writes that Paula[2] wondered, when she visited the tomb of Joshua, that Joshua had chosen for himself mountainous and rough places.[3] But it does not say that the place was furnished with buildings, for he built the city (Masius).

The children of Israel gave, etc.: that is, They are said to give it, because the whole land was given to Joshua, and Eleazar, and the princes, as joint trustees, acting in the name and for the good of the people; so that even Joshua could take nothing without their gift.


[1444 BC] Verse 50:[4] According to the word of the LORD they gave him the city which he asked, even (Josh. 24:30) Timnath-(1 Chron. 7:24)serah in mount Ephraim: and he built the city, and dwelt therein.

[According to the precept of the Lord, עַל־פִּ֙י יְהוָ֜ה] It is able to be translated, according to the promise. But where then is this promise, or precept? Response: It is nowhere expressed directly. The Scripture is wont to pass over in silence a great many things, which it leaves to be gathered from other places. Nevertheless, this is not obscurely indicated in Joshua 14:6, thou knowest the thing that the Lord said concerning me and thee. And why, I ask, would Joshua, who had been in the same cause and confidence in God, have been passed over? But what did God promise to him? Response: That he might choose what place he would (Bonfrerius). But I rather think that he was induced to seek this from the mouth of Eleazer, since an oracle was given to the latter concerning this matter. For this appears to be that, according to the mouth of the Lord (Vatablus), that is, from the commandment of the Lord (Vatablus). This passage reminds us that in all matters we ought to look to the will of God (Masius).

According to the word of the Lord; as God promised or commanded; either, first, formerly, as may be gathered from Joshua 14:6; where we read that the Lord said something unto Moses concerning me, Caleb, and thee, Joshua; though only what is said to Caleb be there expressed, the other not being to his purpose there; for Joshua having showed the same courage and faithfulness which Caleb did, did doubtless receive equal encouragement and comfort from God at that time. Or, secondly, now at this time by Eleazar. Timnath-serah, called Timnath-heres, Judges 2:9. He built, that is, repaired and enlarged it, in which sense Nebuchadnezzar is said to have built Babylon, Daniel 4:30.


Verse 51:[5] (Num. 34:17; Josh. 14:1) These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance by lot (Josh. 18:1, 10) in Shiloh before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. So they made an end of dividing the country.

[1] Hebrew: וַיְכַלּ֥וּ לִנְחֹל־אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִגְבֽוּלֹתֶ֑יהָ וַיִּתְּנ֙וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֧ל נַחֲלָ֛ה לִיהוֹשֻׁ֥עַ בִּן־נ֖וּן בְּתוֹכָֽם׃

[2] Paula (347-404) was a member of a rich senatorial family.  After being widowed in her early thirties, she devoted herself to the religious life, which included a visit to the Holy Land.

[3] To Eustochium 13.

[4] Hebrew: עַל־פִּ֙י יְהוָ֜ה נָ֣תְנוּ ל֗וֹ אֶת־הָעִיר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר שָׁאָ֔ל אֶת־תִּמְנַת־סֶ֖רַח בְּהַ֣ר אֶפְרָ֑יִם וַיִּבְנֶ֥ה אֶת־הָעִ֖יר וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בָּֽהּ׃

[5] Hebrew: אֵ֣לֶּה הַנְּחָלֹ֡ת אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִחֲל֣וּ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֣ן׀ וִיהוֹשֻׁ֪עַ בִּן־נ֟וּן וְרָאשֵׁ֣י הָֽאָב֣וֹת לְמַטּוֹת֩ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֙ל׀ בְּגוֹרָ֤ל׀ בְּשִׁלֹה֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַיְכַלּ֕וּ מֵֽחַלֵּ֖ק אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Joshua 19:47, 48: The Founding of Dan in the Far North

Verse 47:[1] And (see Judg. 18) the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father.

[And with that border it is enclosed, וַיֵּצֵ֥א גְבוּל־בְּנֵי־דָ֖ן מֵהֶ֑ם] And the border of the children of Dan went out from them (Munster, Pagnine, Montanus, Syriac, Arabic, Masius). The sense: The Danites of old emigrated outside of themselves, that is, outside of their inheritance, and set out to seek other possessions (Masius). This does not satisfy; for this is not, the border went out from them, but, the Danites went beyond their borders (Bonfrerius). [Nevertheless, Castalio translates it thus, Now, the Danites went out from their borders.] Others thus: It went out from them, that is, it was taken from them, which is to say, it left them (Vatablus). It was less than was sufficient for them (Junius and Tremellius). Hebrew: from them, that is, smaller than them (Junius, similarly Vatablus, English, Dutch, Piscator, Serarius). It appears that קָטוֹן/smaller is missing from than them, from a comparison with verse 9, where it isרַ֣ב מֵהֶ֔ם , greater than them (Piscator). Others: and from them went out the boundaries of the children of Dan (Tigurinus), that is, in these regions he was confined (Malvenda). The border went out from them, that is, from the inhabitants of Joppa, is the same thing as it reached to them, and stopped there (Bonfrerius).

Went out too little for them; Hebrew, went out from them,[2] to wit, out of their hands or possession; for so this Hebrew word is used concerning those lands, which in the year of the jubilee are said to go out, Leviticus 25:28,[3] 30, 31, 33, that is, out of the hands of the present possessor, to the first and ancient owner. And so peradventure this may signify that many of the Danites were forced by their powerful neighbors the Philistines to relinquish their coast, and their allotted habitations; which put them upon the following course.

[And the children of Dan went up] That is, some from the children of Dan (Vatablus).

[And they fought against Leshem] These things were done after the death of Joshua. See Judges 18 (Grotius, Junius, Masius, Bonfrerius). And thence it is evident that this Record was not written by Joshua (Masius, Grotius): or rather, that many things were inserted in and added to it by one that arranged and edited it (Lapide). But why, you will ask, are they now commemorated? Namely, so that it might be shown at one and the same time in what places the Danites dwelt. Objection: But those things were transacted when the lot had not fallen to them, Judges 18:1. Response: But, that this ought to be taken concerning a lot in which they might be able to live content within their own borders, those words, and they went out from them, that is, from their borders, which they had obtain by lot, relate. But why were they less content with their lot than the other Tribes? Response: Because they were not sufficiently able to drive out the barbarous nations hostile to them, since that coast was full of harbors. See Judges 5:17. And Jacob[4] and Moses[5] testify that they were otherwise plunderers, and rapacious of the propers of others, by their own nature. But it is evident that the Danites even then dwelt at Zorah and Eshtaol (Masius).

The children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem after Joshua’s death, as appears from Judges 18 and seems to be here inserted, partly that all the chief places where the Danites (dwelt,) though far distant, might be mentioned together; and partly to give an account of this strange accident, why they removed from their appointed portion to so remote a place; which may be this, that being much molested and terrified by their bad neighbours, they thought fit to go to some place remote from them, which also they were in a manner constrained to do, because otherwise they must have taken some part of the portions of other tribes, whereas now going to the very utmost northern point of the land, they took that which did not belong to, or, at least, was not in the possession of any other tribe. See more Judges 18.

[Calling the name of it Leshem Dan[6]] That of it is to be erased; for it was not called Leshem-Dan, but Leshem itself was called Dan (Masius).


Verse 48:[7] This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families, these cities with their villages.

[1] Hebrew: וַיֵּצֵ֥א גְבוּל־בְּנֵי־דָ֖ן מֵהֶ֑ם וַיַּעֲל֣וּ בְנֵֽי־דָ֠ן וַיִּלָּחֲמ֙וּ עִם־לֶ֜שֶׁם וַיִּלְכְּד֥וּ אוֹתָ֣הּ׀ וַיַּכּ֧וּ אוֹתָ֣הּ לְפִי־חֶ֗רֶב וַיִּֽרְשׁ֤וּ אוֹתָהּ֙ וַיֵּ֣שְׁבוּ בָ֔הּ וַיִּקְרְא֤וּ לְלֶ֙שֶׁם֙ דָּ֔ן כְּשֵׁ֖ם דָּ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם׃

[2] Hebrew: וַיֵּצֵא—מֵהֶם.

[3] For example, Leviticus 25:28:  “But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubile:  and in the jubile it shall go out (וְיָצָא֙ בַּיֹּבֵ֔ל), and he shall return unto his possession.”

[4] Genesis 49:16, 17.

[5] Deuteronomy 33:22.

[6] Hebrew: וַיִּקְרְא֤וּ לְלֶ֙שֶׁם֙ דָּ֔ן.

[7] Hebrew: זֹ֗את נַחֲלַ֛ת מַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵי־דָ֖ן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֑ם הֶֽעָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה וְחַצְרֵיהֶֽן׃

Joshua 19:40-47: The Cities of Dan

Verse 40:[1] And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families.

[To the tribe of the children of Dan] Here he describes the borders of the Danites in such a way that he enumerates almost only cities, and does not distinctly draw a line around. It is not doubtful that this tribe was on the sea, or not far from the sea; which the city of Joppa sufficiently indicates, which was on the sea:[2] but Benjamin and Judah were on its Eastern side (Bonfrerius). The Danites possessed cities attributed to the Judahites; which was previously discussed. The received a small portion from the Judahites southward; otherwise they withdraw from them unto the North (Masius): and indeed all the way to Dora,[3] says Josephus;[4] how correctly does no appear to me, since the Ephraimites (whose lot reached all the way to the sea) came between the Manassites (in whose lot was Dora) and the Danites (Bonfrerius). But Josephus appears to have been more conversant in arms than in the Holy Books (Masius). Moreover, this Tribe included in its lot three satrapies of the Philistines, namely, Azotus, Gath-rimmon (which was also Gath [Masius, Bonfrerius]), and Ekron. For Josephus ascribes only two of the five satrapies to Judah, namely, Ashkelon and Gaza (Bonfrerius on verse 46). But the Southern side was extended from Azotus beyond Eleutheropolis Westward, and thus it was bent back toward Kirjath-Jearim, and thence to Joppa. Moreover, the lot of Dan appears to have been drawn in the last place, although he was older than Naphtali, because Jacob[5] and Moses[6] had predicted certain inauspicious things concerning him. Furthermore, because those predictions appear to have regard to the character and habits of the men, rathan than to the situation of their inheritance, it would be superfluous to explain them here (Masius on verse 48).


Verse 41:[7] And the coast of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh…

Their inheritance; which is here described only by its cities, not by its borders, which are in part the same with Judah’s; and their inheritance is in good part taken out of Judah’s too large portion, as appears from divers of the cities here mentioned, which are also reckoned as in Judah’s portion.

[Ir-shemesh, וְעִ֥יר שָֽׁמֶשׁ׃] That is, City of the Sun. They think that it was a בֵּת שָׁמֶשׁ, Beth Shemesh, House/Temple of the sun of the Jews (Masius). Others maintain that it was Beth-shemesh, 1 Kings 4:9, which is called also Har-Heres, that is, the mountain of the Sun, Judges 1:35 (Malvenda out of Junius).


Verse 42:[8] And (Judg. 1:35) Shaalabbin, and Ajalon, and Jethlah…


Verse 43:[9] And Elon, and Thimnathah, and Ekron…


Verse 44:[10] And Eltekeh, and Gibbethon, and Baalath…

[Baalath, וּבַעֲלָת] I do not know whether this is Baalath of the Judahites, or in fact Baalah, that is, Kirjath-Jearim.[11] The former satisfies the Hebrews, who gather out of Judges 18:12[12] that the city belongs to the Judahites, but a suburban field to the Danites (Masius).


Verse 45:[13] And Jehud, and Bene-berak, and Gath-rimmon…


Verse 46:[14] And Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, with the border before (or, over againt[15]) Japho (or, Joppa, Acts 9:36).

[With the border that looks toward Joppa, עִֽם־הַגְּב֖וּל מ֥וּל יָפֽוֹ׃] With the border over against Japho (Pagnine, Montanus, Jonathan), or, that is opposite to Japho (Munter, Tigurinus); with its border opposite to Japho (Junius and Tremellius), or, Joppa (Junius). With that entire tract that was lying next to Japho (Vatablus). With the borders and region of Japho (Arabic). With all the cities that were situated in sight of Joppa (Malvenda out of Masius).

[1] Hebrew: לְמַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵי־דָ֖ן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֑ם יָצָ֖א הַגּוֹרָ֥ל הַשְּׁבִיעִֽי׃

[2] See Joshua 19:46; 2 Chronicles 2:16; Ezra 3:7; Jonah 1:3; Acts 9; 10.

[3] Dora was on the Mediterranea coast, almost as far north as the southern tip of the sea of Galilee.

[4] Antiquities 5:1.

[5] Genesis 49:16, 17.

[6] Deuteronomy 33:22.

[7] Hebrew: וַיְהִ֖י גְּב֣וּל נַחֲלָתָ֑ם צָרְעָ֥ה וְאֶשְׁתָּא֖וֹל וְעִ֥יר שָֽׁמֶשׁ׃

[8] Hebrew: וְשַֽׁעֲלַבִּ֥ין וְאַיָּל֖וֹן וְיִתְלָֽה׃

[9] Hebrew: וְאֵיל֥וֹן וְתִמְנָ֖תָה וְעֶקְרֽוֹן׃

[10] Hebrew: וְאֶלְתְּקֵ֥ה וְגִבְּת֖וֹן וּבַעֲלָֽת׃

[11] See Joshua 15:9-11, 29; 1 Chronicles 13:6.

[12] Judges 18:12:  “And they went up, and pitched in Kirjath-jearim, in Judah:  wherefore they called that place Mahaneh-dan (מַחֲנֵה־דָן, the camp of Dan) unto this day:  behold, it is behind Kirjath-jearim.”

[13] Hebrew: וִיהֻ֥ד וּבְנֵֽי־בְרַ֖ק וְגַת־רִמּֽוֹן׃

[14] Hebrew: וּמֵ֥י הַיַּרְק֖וֹן וְהָֽרַקּ֑וֹן עִֽם־הַגְּב֖וּל מ֥וּל יָפֽוֹ׃

[15] Hebrew: מוּל.

Revelation 1:1a: Revelation is Revelation

[96 AD]  Verse 1:[1]  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, (John 3:32; 8:26; 12:49) which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which (Rev. 4:1; 1:3) must shortly come to pass; and (Rev. 22:16) he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John…

[The Apocalypse, Ἀποκάλυψις] The revealing (Castalio, Piscator), that is, the oracle (Castalio); the Revelation (Erasmus, Vatablus,[2] Camerarius, Piscator, etc.), that is, of various events which were going to happen in the Church and World (Piscator), or of things previously hidden (Beza, similarly Pererius, Cotterius). It is the title or inscription of the book, after the fashion of the Prophets[3] (Beza, similarly Erasmus, Pererius). Afterwards he calls it a Prophecy,[4] then a book,[5] and in the last chapter a book of Prophecy.[6] Now, this Prophecy is called a Revelation, with respect to both, 1. the signs, that is, the visions and similitudes, which are here described and revealed: and, 2. the things signified, for the signification of the visions was revealed to John (Pererius). However, by Apocalypse he does not understand here the book (for the Son did not receive the book from the Father, nor is the book said to be signified), but the events or series of events written in the book; as εὐαγγέλιον, the Gospel, in Mark 1:1 is not the book, but the truth of those things that Christ did and said. Καλύπτειν is to hide; ἀποκαλύπτειν is to bring forth a hidden matter into the open (Cotterius): נִגְלָה/ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, to be revealed, is often in Daniel[7] concerning those things, the knowledge of which is had by a Divine gift. Thence Ἀποκάλυψις, by which name that book of Enoch is called, concerning which we spoke on Jude. In Isaiah 25:7, בִּלַּע—הַלּוֹט , He will destroy…the covering,[8] is a circumluction ἀποκαλύψεως, for revelation. The Greeks translate it, παράδος ταῦτα πάντα τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Impart thou all these things to the nations. The language ἀποκαλύψεως, of revelation, is used in this sense in 1 Corinthians 14:26;[9] 2 Corinthians 12:1,[10] 7;[11] Galatians 2:2[12] (Grotius). Now, revelation here is understood, not as common to all the faithful, as in Matthew 11:25 and Ephesians 1:17, but as singular, as in Numbers 24:4;[13] 1 Samuel 2:27[14] (Cluverus’ Apocalyptic Dawn 3), and extraordinary (Beza).

[Of Jesus Christ]  Either, 1.  Passively, which Christ received from the Father (Hammond).  Or, 2.  Actively (Pareus), received from Christ (Menochius), accomplished through Christ (Grotius, similarly Beza, Piscator, Durham), as the Church’s everlasting mediator (Beza), and great Prophet (Durham); through whom the Father treats (Cotterius), and reveals Himself to the Church (Beza), and exhibits to us knowledge and grace (Hammond).

[Which to Him God gave]  That is, the Father, for here He is set over against the Son (Cotterius).  For, just as power, so also the knowledge of such things, is in Christ by God the Father, Revelation 5:7; John 7:16; 14:10.  Consult Isaiah 8:18 (Grotius).  Thus he speaks, for the Father is the first author of all things, from whom also the Son draws, John 5:19, 30, and learns, John 8:28; but here He is only said to have received, for this agrees more closely with Christ glorified (Cotterius).  It denotes the order of the subsisting and working of the persons.  The Father works of Himself through the Son (Durham). He gave to Him, namely, as man (Piscator, similarly Pererius, Aquinas[15] in Ribera); or, as the Mediator (Durham, Pareus):  for as God He of Himself knew (Piscator, Durham).  Now, He gave, either, 1.  in His conception and incarnation, for with respect to that Christ is said to be full of all knowledge, grace, etc. (Lapide, similarly Ribera), but now is said to have received, for now it was known to men, as matters are said to be done at that time when they become known (Ribera).

The Revelation of Jesus Christ; the Apocalypse, (as this book is sometimes called,) that is, the discovering or unveiling of some hidden things; so the word revelation signifieth. The Greek word is often used in the New Testament, and is ordinarily translated so. It is called The Revelation of Jesus Christ because Christ received it from his Father, as the next words show. Which God gave unto him, as he was Mediator: by God, here, is to be understood the Father, not exclusively to the Son, as if he were not God, but to show the order of working in the Holy Trinity, John 7:16; 14:10. Christ in his state of humiliation is said to learn of the Father; in his state of exaltation, to receive from the Father.

            [Openly, etc., δεῖξαι, etc.[16]] An expression of the Greeks, of which sort is in Luke 1:72, ποιῆσαι, for the purpose of doing.[17] Thus Matthew 5:17, I have not come to destroy, etc.[18] (Ribera). Δεῖξαι is in the place of εἰς τὸ δεῖξαι, for the purpose of showing. There is a similar sort of speaking in John 6:52[19] and elsewhere (Grotius). So that He might point out (or, represent [Erasmus, Zegers[20]], openly produce, or, exhibit [Vatablus], not plainly, but by enigmas and symbols [Menochius]: or, show [Erasmus, Vatablus, thus Valla,[21] Cotterius], that is, as if He would place events, clothed in figures, before their eyes: it indicates the force and splendor of the figures [Cotterius]: or, reveal, that is, that He, the Christ, might reveal, in accordance with the promise, John 16:12 [Grotius]) to the servants of Him (Beza, Piscator), that is, either, of God the Father (Cotterius): or, of Christ, as the reciprocal αὐτοῦ/His indicates (Pareus out of Beza). To His servants, that is, to John, namely, so that he might write (Pareus): or, to the teachers and pastors of the Churches (Piscator): or, to the principal men of the Christians (Grotius): or, to Christians (Menochius, Piscator), or to all the faithful (Pareus, Durham), so that every one might from thence draw out what according to his own time and capacity would be sufficient for his education in the faith and fear of the Lord (Cotterius).

To show unto his servants; to John, and by him to all saints that will be studious of things revealed.

[1] Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ, ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ…

[2] Francis Vatablus (c. 1485-1547) was a prominent Hebrew scholar, doing much to stimulate Hebraic studies in France.  He was appointed to the chair of Hebrew in Paris (1531).  Because of some consonance with Lutheran doctrine, his annotations (Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum), compiled by his auditors, were regarded with the utmost esteem among Protestants, but with a measure of suspicion and concern by Roman Catholics.  Consequently, the theologians of Salamanca produced their own edition of Vatablus’ annotations for their revision of the Latin Bible (1584).

[3] For example, Obadiah 1.

[4] Revelation 1:3.

[5] For example, Revelation 1:11.

[6] Verses 7, 10, 18, 19.

[7] For example, Daniel 10:1a:  “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed (נִגְלָה; ἀπεκαλύφθη in the Theodotion) unto Daniel…”

[8] Isaiah 25:7:  “And he will destroy (וּבִלַּע) in this mountain the face of the covering cast (פְּנֵֽי־הַלּ֥וֹט׀ הַלּ֖וֹט) over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.”

[9] 1 Corinthians 14:26a:  “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation (ἀποκάλυψιν), hath an interpretation….”

[10] 2 Corinthians 12:1:  “It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations (ἀποκαλύψεις) of the Lord.”

[11] 2 Corinthians 12:7a:  “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations (τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων), there was given to me a thorn in the flesh…”

[12] Galatians 2:2a:  “And I went up by revelation (ἀποκάλυψιν), and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles…”

[13] Numbers 24:4:  “He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open (וּגְל֥וּי עֵינָֽיִם׃; ἀποκεκαλυμμένοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ, in the Septuagint)…”

[14] 1 Samuel 2:27:  “And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Did I plainly appear (הֲנִגְלֹ֤ה נִגְלֵ֙יתִי֙; ἀποκαλυφθεὶς ἀπεκαλύφθην, in the Septuagint) unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?”

[15] Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-1274) was perhaps the greatest of the mediæval scholastic theologians.  He wrote on much of the Bible, gathering together the comments, observations, and interpretations of the Fathers.

[16] Revelation 1:1a:  “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew (δεῖξαι) unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass…”

[17] Luke 1:72:  “To perform (ποιῆσαι) the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant…”  Here, the infinitive is used to express purpose.

[18] Matthew 5:17:  “Think not that I am come to destroy (katalu=sai) the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy (katalu=sai), but to fulfil (plhrw~sai).”

[19] John 6:52:  “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat (φαγεῖν)?”

[20] Nicholas Tacitus Zegers (died 1559) was a Flemish Franciscan exegete.  He wrote Scholion in Omnes Novi Testamenti Libros (1553), Epanorthotes, sive Castigationes Novi Testamenti (1555), and Inventorium in Testamentum Novum, a concordance (1558).

[21] Laurentius Valla (1406-1457) was one of the great Latin scholars of his age.  He was Professor of Eloquence at Parvia, then at Milan.  Later he served as Canon of St. John the Lateran.  He wrote In Novum Testamentum Annotationes and De Collationibus Novi Testamenti.

Preface to the Annotations upon Revelation

Although some particular heretics, such as Cerdon and Marcyon, have doubted the Divine authority of this mysterious piece of holy writ, and some better men in the primitive times doubted of it, the manuscript copy of it having been at first reserved in few hands, and (as some think) in the fewer because of the affairs and fate of the Roman empire revealed in it; yet, besides its general reception as such by the church in all late ages, there is in it such a harmony, both with Daniel’s prophecy in the Old Testament, and with the types made use of by the holy prophets; such manifest allusions to the whole order and economy of the Jewish church; such an agreement of the doctrine contained in it with the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, concerning God and Christ, the resurrection from the dead, and the day of judgment; and of the promises and threatenings contained in it, with the promises and threatenings in other parts of holy writ; that none who hath not a vanity to question the whole canon of Scripture, can reasonably dispute the Divine authority of this part of it.

It appeareth from Revelation 1:1, that John was the penman of it; and that this John was the beloved disciple, he that was the penman of one of the Gospels, hath been doubted by very few, and with very little reason, as will appear to him that will but wisely consider the terms and phrases used in it almost peculiar to this apostle, and hardly to be found in Scripture any where but in this book and the Gospel of John, such as calling Christ the Word, of which he bare record, etc. Nor is their objection of any validity, who object, that in the Gospel he ordinarily concealeth his name, which this author doth not; considering that in that he wrote a relation or history of things past, to be proved by many eye and ear-witnesses; but here a Revelation or prophecy of things to come, to which his name was necessary, that men might judge by what authority he thus wrote.

For the time of his writing it, himself tells us, Revelation 1:9, that he received this Revelation from God, while he was in Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ; this was (if we may believe history, and we have nothing else to inform us) in the time of Domitian the Roman emperor, about the ninety-fourth or ninety-fifth year after the nativity of Christ; so as this book pleads a prescription of near sixteen hundred years, in which very few ever questioned its Divine authority.

For the scope of it, it is plainly told us, Revelation 1:1, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ, δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. The like we have repeated, Revelation 22:6: upon which account it is called a Revelation and a prophecy, neither of which terms agree to a narration or history, the object of which is some thing or things that are already past.

I will not undertake to give the certain and infallible sense of the several passages of this mysterious prophecy: In magnis voluisse sat est, in great things it is sufficient to have willed. But I have proceeded upon these few postulata:

1.  That the whole of this book is no historical relation of things that were past before the year 95 or 96, or at least not long before, but of things to come; which hath made me wholly reject the notions of Grotius and Dr. Hammond, so far as they concerned the siege or destruction of Jerusalem, which was past twenty-six or twenty-seven years before John heard of this Revelation. I cannot understand how this can agree with Revelation 1:1, or Revelation 22:6.

2.  That it contains a prophecy of the most remarkable things that happened either to the Roman empire, or to the church (all which was within the latitude of that in St. John’s time) during the whole time of that; or which should happen after the decay of that, throughout the church, to the end of the world.

3.  That this time is reasonably divided into three periods; the first determining with the Roman empire’s, continuing pagan, 310 or 325 years after Christ: the second with the total ruin of antichrist; when that shall be I cannot tell: the third with Christ’s coming to the last judgment. The first is by some called Regnum draconis ethnicum, the pagan Kingdom of the dragon; the second, Vicariatus draconis antichristianus, the antichristian curacy of the dragon; the third, Regnum Christi, the Kingdom of Christ, or, Status ecclesiæ tranquillus, settled state of the church.

4.  I see no reason to dissent from those eminent men, who think that part of the Revelation which relates to the first period, and is predictive of what happened to the church of God until the time of Constantine the Great, 310 or 325 years after Christ, beginneth with Revelation 4 and endeth with Revelation 7; and that the silence in heaven for half an hour, mentioned Revelation 8:1, relateth to the rest which the church had from Constantine’s time till the end of Theodosius’s reign, about seventy or seventy-five years.

5.  Where to fix the epoch, or beginning, of the one thousand two hundred and sixty years, or forty-two months, I cannot tell. That the mystery of iniquity begun to work in the apostles’ time, is evident from 2 Thessalonians 2:7; and reason will tell us, that Rome, as it now stands, or as it was in the year 606, was not built up in a day, the great corruptions then in it came in and grew up by degrees; but I cannot tell how to count antichrist’s reign, but from the time Phocas humoured the pope with the title and style of “supreme” or “universal bishop;”[1] from which time I should rather reckon the one thousand two hundred and sixty years, than from any time before.

6.  I do agree with those who think the first eleven chapters contain the sum of whatsoever is prophesied concerning the two first periods, though many things falling within them are more particularly and fully opened, Revelation 12-19. Revelation 12 gives us a particular account of the church during the first two periods. Revelation 13 gives us a more particular account of antichrist, both in the secular power and in his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Revelation 15, 16 more fully open to us what should be done under the sixth trumpet. In Revelation 17 we have a more full description of the beast with two horns, mentioned Revelation 13:11, which signified antichrist as sitting in the temple of God. Revelation 18 more fully describes his fall, summarily before mentioned, Revelation 14. Revelation 19, so far as it concerneth the praise given to God for this, relates to that great dispensation of providence.

7.  I take the third state of the church (to which I cannot conceive we are yet come, which I called its serene and quiet state) to be foretold and described, Revelation 20; after which shall be the battle with all the wicked of the earth, which shall end in Christ’s coming to judge the world, and the general resurrection in order to it.

8.  I take the last two chapters to describe a state of the church agreeing to none but the church triumphant, and have accordingly interpreted them.

If any differ from me in any of these things, it will be no wonder if he disagreeth with me in the explication of the chapters and verses relating to them.

I dare not be positive as to the sense I have given, but shall only say it is what appeareth to me most probable. There have been found some in the tents of Protestants, that have taken much pains to free the papacy from the imputation of antichrist. This I conceive was Grotius’s design, in his interpretation of this book, as if it had been a history rather than a prophecy, and if a prophecy, fulfilled in less than two hundred and fifty years after it was published. As to the papacy being antichrist, I think that great person spake well, who would not be peremptory in the case, but said, it had so many of his marks, that upon a hue and cry for antichrist, he should apprehend him. I shall add, that if he were so apprehended and tried, he could never acquit himself either at the bar of Scripture or reason.

[1] Phocas was the Byzantine Emperor from 602 to 610; in 606/7 he decreed that Pope Boniface III should assume the title of “Universal Bishop”.

Joshua 19:35-39: The Cities of Naphtali

Verse 35:[1] And the fenced cities are Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth…

[And Emath] Or Hammath. It was twofold: 1. greater (which is called great, Amos 6:2), namely, Antioch; 2. lesser, which is Epiphaneia,[2] concerning which in this place (Bonfrerius). But, But when Ptolemy locates Antioch higher than Damascus by two and half degrees, but Epiphaneia by almost one and half, I infer (I do not know how rightly) that this is another and third Hamath, near which is Riblah, 2 Kings 23:33, which is below the source of Jordan, Numbers 34:11. Although it was able to happen that the Nephthalim were lying extended above the fountains of Jordan toward the North and East (Masius). Some ascribe to them Damascus, Abilene,[3] Chalchis,[4] Palmyra,[5] Emesa,[6] and other most famous cities toward Euphrates: But it was not yet conceded to them to dwell near Euphrates. See what things are on Joshua 1:4 (Masius).

Hammath, or, Hamath; of which see Numbers 34:8; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 23:33.

[And Chinnereth] Whence the lake afterwards called Gennesaret received its name (Junius, Lapide, similarly Masius, Bonfrerius). This city was near the sea of Gennesaret, where the Jordan flows into that; and so it was not able to be Tiberias,[7] as it appears in Masius and Montanus (since it moves away from that part of the lake toward the south), but rather Capernaum, or another city near to it in situation (Bonfrerius). Nevertheless, others maintain that there were two Chinnereths, one in the tribe of Naphtali, the other in Zebulun, which is also called Tiberias (thus Eusebius in Masius, Adrichomius in Bonfrerius).

Chinnereth; whence the lake of Chinnereth or Gennesaret received its name.


Verse 36:[8] And Adamah, and Ramah, and Hazor…


Verse 37:[9] And Kedesh, and Edrei, and En-hazor…


Verse 38:[10] And Iron, and Migdal-el, Horem, and Beth-anath, and Beth-shemesh; nineteen cities with their villages.

[Nineteen cities] But we have twenty-three locations here. Therefore, the others were names of obscurer villages (Bonfrerius).

Nineteen cities: see on verse 15, 22, 30.


Verse 39:[11] This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali according to their families, the cities and their villages.

[1] Hebrew:  וְעָרֵ֖י מִבְצָ֑ר הַצִּדִּ֣ים צֵ֔ר וְחַמַּ֖ת רַקַּ֥ת וְכִנָּֽרֶת׃

[2] Located in west-central Syria.

[3] Abilene was a region/plain, reaching from the eastern slopes of the Anti-Libanus to the south and east of Damascus.

[4] Located in north-western Syria.

[5] Located in central Syria.

[6] Located in west-central Syria.

[7] Located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

[8] Hebrew: וַאֲדָמָ֥ה וְהָרָמָ֖ה וְחָצֽוֹר׃

[9] Hebrew: וְקֶ֥דֶשׁ וְאֶדְרֶ֖עִי וְעֵ֥ין חָצֽוֹר׃

[10] Hebrew: וְיִרְאוֹן֙ וּמִגְדַּל־אֵ֔ל חֳרֵ֥ם וּבֵית־עֲנָ֖ת וּבֵ֣ית שָׁ֑מֶשׁ עָרִ֥ים תְּשַֽׁע־עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה וְחַצְרֵיהֶֽן׃

[11] Hebrew: זֹ֗את נַחֲלַ֛ת מַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵֽי־נַפְתָּלִ֖י לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֑ם הֶעָרִ֖ים וְחַצְרֵיהֶֽן׃

Revelation’s Time, Form and Method, and Argument

[8. It is to be inquired concerning the time of writing.]  The Apocalypse was written in the fourteenth year of the reign of Domitian;[1] when he was banished unto the island of Patmos, there he wrote it (Ribera, similarly Pererius, Lapide, Apocalyptic Harmony).  Thus Irenæus’ Against Heresies 5, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3:18, Jerome on the life of John:[2]  Nicephorus’[3] Ecclesiastical History[4] 2:24; 3:9 (Ribera).  Indeed, John afterwards wrote the Gospel, having returned from exile on Patmos, as Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine, etc., relate; and he died two years after.  Hence it is apparent that the Apocalypse was not written before the destruction of Jerusalem, as Johannes Annius,[5] Salmeron,[6] and Hentenius[7] maintain, but a long time after that (Lapide).  [Others think otherwise:]  The Apocalypse was written, not in the time of Domitian, but of Claudius Cæsar,[8] as Epiphanius expressly says (Hammond’s Annotations upon the New Testament “Preface”):  concerning which Reverend Hammond has here many things [which things and others to the same purpose let the reader seek in the things to be Noted on Revelation 13 or 17.  9.  It is to be seen concerning the form and method of the Apocalypse.]  Indeed, the form appears Epistolary.  For it has an Epistolary ἐπιγραφὴν/ inscription and ὑπογραφὴν/outline, and it is concluded with the Epistolary prayer common to the Apostles:  also all the acts of the first vision are ἐπιστολικά/epistolary.  But what things follow after the fourth chapter, where the second vision (which is the first prophetic vision) begins, unto the end plainly have a Dramatic form:  whence the Apocalypse is truly able to be called a Prophetic Drama.  For, as in a Tragedy, to depict matters conducted through diverse scenes some persons come forth into the theatre after others, and withdraw again, likewise various choruses of musicians or singers distinguish the acts.  The same also is done here, etc.  Which those that do not observe wonder what so many hymns signify, what the so often repeated φαινόμενα/ appearances of Angels, the Beast, Babylon, the Final judgment, etc., and they contrive anticipations, recapitulations, etc. (Pareus’ Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of St. John “Proœm” 8).  Now, in the individual visions (but I speak of the six prophetic visions) there is to be a prudent discrimination between the dramatic and prophetic.  I call Dramatic both the introductory things and preparations of the visions, as in Revelation 1:9-20; 4; 5; 8:1-6; 15, and the choruses of the twenty-four elders, and of the four living creatures, and of the Angels, etc., and their prayers, hymns, ἐπινίκια, triumphal odes.  All which things properly regard decorum.  However, I call Prophetic those parts or figures of the visions, by which future events are represented (Pareus’ Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of St. John “Proœm” 10).  Indeed, all the Visions, except the first two, generally have three Acts:  1.  the Tragic ills of the Church; 2.  liberation; 3.  ἐπινίκιον, a triumphal ode, and δοξολογίαν/ doxology (Apocalyptic Harmony).  [10.  It is to be treated of the Argument, or substance, and the division or parts, of this Book.]  1.  This is a representation of future events, not likewise of past events, which are nevertheless sprinkled repeatedly among the future events, with the rationale of the visions so requiring, namely, Revelation 12:1, 2; 17:8, 10; 20.  2.  The Apocalypse is not, as it could seem, one continuous vision, but several, namely, seven distinct visions.  For it is apparent that John was seized by the Spirit several times, neither did he see all things in one place, but some on Patmos,[9] some in heaven,[10] some near the shore of the sea,[11] some in the desert,[12] some finally in a high mountain.[13]  Now, the latter visions are clearer here than the former (Pareus’ Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of St. John “Proœm” 9:36).  3.  The Apocalypsis is nothing other than a commentary on those words of Christ in Matthew 24:3-13 and in Luke 21:25-27.  And thus chapter 20 of this Book is concluded with a prophecy of the final judgment.  But the two final chapters contain the blessedness of the saints after the judgment (Ribera).  4.  The one sequential history of the Church from beginning unto end is continued in this Book (certain interpreters in Pareus’ Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of St. John 37).  That explanation is most certain, which seizes the beginning of the predicted events from the very vision of John, and then progresses by order through the ages following upon the vision unto the very end of the age.  Which thus is demonstrated:  1.  Out of Revelation 4:1, I will show to thee what things are necessary to be done hereafter.  Now, that neatly arranged structure of events is loosened, if what future things are shown to him, either already previously happened, or were not immediately connected to those present events, which had preceded, but are understood to be following finally after many years.  2.  Otherwise the evidence and certitude of the sense will be imperiled.  For if the first alteration, which followed the vision of the Apostle, remarkable and singular among the events of the Church or of the world, God did not foretell, whence will it be apparent that the second or third has been foretold?  3.  The context itself argues an ordered series of times, and of events succeeding themselves.  First, the seals are opened in order, which open the more general oracles about to come upon the entire world.  Next, with the last seal opened, seven Trumpet Angels come forth, proclaiming certain singular judgments of Christ, and remarkable alterations of the Church and world; and under each the plagues are made worse and worse.  And they are nowhere called the last plagues, except finally in Revelation 15 and 16 under the seven vials, which are comprehended in the space of the blast of the seventh trumpet, since during it the end is predicted to be, Revelation 10:6.  Finally, particles of order are inserted repeatedly into the Book. Hereafter, afterwards, finally…I saw, etc., and one vision is always brought out from the other.  Therefore, the visions are not to be mixed, as if the same things were contained in the first and last visions, or what things were previously completed were related later.  Yet I desire not all repetitions and explications to be removed.  For in Revelation 11, 12, and 20, where new visions are begun, certain succinct recapitulations are inserted, by which, on account of the necessary perspicuity of the sense, the occasion and preparation for those things to be done, which properly ought to be explained by the visions, is set down before, and is recalled out of the preceding age (Cluverus’ Apocalyptic Dawn 2:3:22).  There are those that maintain that the first ages of the Church, and the war of the Church with the Synagogue and Paganism are treated separately, and think that the triumph over both enemies is treated, at least from Revelation 5 to 20.  Thus Alcasar[14] (Cluverus’ Apocalyptic Dawn 28, similarly Lapide) [whose opinion Cluverus in this place refutes, which nevertheless some others follow, as we shall hereafter see in its own place.]  From Revelation 6 to 12, they maintain that the abrogation of the Synagogue and Judaism is treated:  from there unto Revelation 20, the ruin of Paganism and the reign of the Church.  Thus Salmeron and Alcasar.  But this opinion, 1.  is new and singular; 2.  makes history out of prophecy, and supposes that John wished to describe an event which happened twenty-five years earlier and was well-known, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem, and that by an obscure and continual enigma; 3.  wrests a great many passages of the Apocalypse, which most clearly speak of most recent times (Lapide).  [Others, therefore, think otherwise:]  The general argument of the Apocalypse consists in two things.  It forewarns the Church concerning approaching calamities, and fortifies it against those with consolations.  The individual visions treat the same (Pareus Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of St. John “Proœm” 10:40).  Now, all the visions represent the same period of the Church and of Ecclesiastical history, as the description of the final judgment, so often repeated, clearly demonstrates.  Yet not all represent the whole; but some the whole, others certain definite intervals.  Also they represent the same period, but now in one way and now in another, according to more eminent histories, now one and now another, and that with various and clearer figures.  The universal visions, or those representing the whole, are four, concerning the seven seals; concerning the seven trumpets; concerning the woman in labor; concerning the Dragon bound and loosed, etc.  But the particular visions, whether they shadow forth later intervals of the whole period, or the tragedy, advance and ruin of Antichrist, are two:  concerning the seven vials; and concerning the judgment of the great harlot, the ruin of Babylon and Antichrist (Pareus’ Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of St. John “Proœm” 9:37).  But that all the visions are ended with the type of the final judgment, which Pareus maintains, I utterly deny.  For, if it be so, what use was it to reserve the figure of that judgment unto the end of the Book?  And if the third Woe includes the eternal punishments of the impious, why in Revelation 15 and 16 are they in the end commemorated as the final plagues, since there are none later than the last plagues of gehenna?  Then, if an undoubted figure of the final judgment will appear to close the vision, this will be done in Revelation 6:12, etc., which nevertheless Pareus explains otherwise.  And why would he not do the same in the individual ones (Cluverus’ Apocalyptic Dawn 23)?  Others:  The Apocalypse is an uninterrupted order of speech describing what things were done thence from the time of the Apostles, and will be done onward unto the end of the world.  He confirms this, 1.  as the genius of the other Scriptures, which all proceed from the beginning, through the middle, unto the end:  2.  because the fourth part of the Earth is injured, Revelation 6:8; the third part, Revelation 8; the whole body, Revelation 16.  Who does not see the order?  3.  The mention of the last plague, Revelation 15:1.  Therefore, what things precede in the book, also precede in time.  This observation is of the greatest utility.  If this be true, on what basis are the vials of Revelation 16 confused with the trumpets of Revelation 8 and 9?  Let us approach closer to the matter.  The Apocalypse begins, Revelation 1.  It is written to the Churches, Revelation 2 and 3.  The Old Testament, Revelation 4.  The New Testament, Revelation 5.  The events begin, Revelation 6 and 7.  They proceed, Revelation 8-11.  The same things are related more extensively, Revelation 12-14.  The Apocalypse is moved forward, Revelation 15 and 16.  With the argument repeated more profusely, Revelation 17, 18, and the first part of 19.  Thence unto Revelation 22 all things are reconsidered.  You see a continuous series.  Moreover, the Apocalypse (strange but true, let me say) is twofold at least, as the twofold epilogue or conclusion relates; indeed threefold, 1.  Expanded, which embraces all things, and concerning them explains most plainly, which, beginning with chapter 4, extends unto Revelation 19:9.  2.  Contracted, which repeats those things more concisely and compactly, in the remaining part of Revelation 19.  3.  Restricted, of which the argument is narrower, and the narrowest, Revelation 21 and part of 22.  In these individuals, moreover, there are classes.  I call a class a series of events, conjoined by the order of succession, and limited by a certain, perfect number.  We have acknowledged classes in the seals, trumpets, vials:  which, therefore, were revealed so that from them we might be led unto others.  Therefore, whatever is contained in chapter 4, and thence unto chapter 22, either is part of a class, or pertains to a class; either, 1.  in the place of a prelude, as in the vials, which begin in chapter 16, although you have παρασκευαστικῶς, by way of preparation, concerning them in chapter 15, and in chapter 16, where before the seventh poured vial we are advised, verse 15, concerning the last day, which will soon be revealed:  or, 2.  in the place of an appendix, as in Revelation 16:14, 16 and 19:9 (Cotterius’ Exposition of the Apocalypse 20, etc.).  Others:  There are those that interpret the Apocalypse to no purpose, as if the events everywhere succeed each other in the same order and series as the Visions.  For here there are many Synchronisms (Mede’s The Key of Revelation in his Works 2:536).  [Concerning which it is here briefly to be explained.]  Those things are synchronous which, beginning from the same time, and thence continuing in unbroken succession, end at the same time.  Now, it is much to be observed that the beginnings and endings of the Synchronous Visions do not require to be understood precisely and Mathematically, so that they might be circumscribed on the hour, day, or year; but are to be taken with greater latitude and are to be defined according to the nature of the Vision out of the circumstances of the Histories.  Thus the beginning or Epoch of the Beast, which was and was not and yet is, coincides with that time in which the ten Kings begin their reign, Revelation 17:12, which was done by degrees, and extended unto a succession of several years (More’s Synchronistic Rationale of the Apocalyptic Visions 1).  Now, the principal thread of the Series and Order of the Apocalyptic Visions is to be established without controversy as the Vision of the seven Seals, which advances directly and plainly from the beginning unto the end of the Apocalyptic course.  For it is apparent that the Vision of Revelation 6:1 is the beginning of the events to be foretold, and that the rest of the Seals follow in their own order.  And hence, since immediately after the opening of the seventh Seal, in Revelation 8:1, the Vision of the seven trumpet Angels is exhibited, it is plain that that very Vision is the Vision of the seventh Seal, and that space of time of the seventh Seal is divided in this manner into seven parts, which are able to be called the times or intervals of the seven Trumpets.  Moreover, the seventh Trumpet (the time of which no one doubted to extend all the way to the end of the World, especially if one rightly understands that passage in Revelation 10:5) is divided into the intervals of the seven Thunders, for these are commemorated as if immediately following the sixth Trumpet.  Whence this manifest Tripartition of this entire, Principal thread of the Apocalyptic Visions arises, namely, in the first six Seals, in the first six Trumpets, and in the seven Thunders (More’s Synchronistic Rationale of the Apocalyptic Visions 2:18).  Now, the Thunders are able to have this use among others, that they are distinct Intervals, to which as many Principal Antisynchronous Visions in the Prophecy of the open Book, might correspond; this I think that hardly anyone will doubt; namely, if as many Visions, advancing in one series from the Beginning of this Interval unto the end, are able to be found in this Prophecy also.  Which indeed I doubt not at all that I have found.  Now, they are, 1.  The pouring out of the seven Vials, five or six of which some gather under the sixth Trumpet, but I would prefer that all be gathered within the seventh Trumpet.  2.  The descent of the New Jerusalem from heaven.  3.  The Millennial Kingdom of Christ on the earth, etc.  4.  The loosing of Satan.  5.  The siege of the beloved city by Gog and Magog.  6.  The advent of Christ unto judgment.  7.  The burning of the earth.  These are the seven principal Antisynchronisms directly corresponding by a reasonable step to the seven Thunders (More’s Synchronistic Rationale of the Apocalyptic Visions 5).  [As far as the special Synchronisms, concerning which the Reverend Mede here treats in his Key, and More in his Synchronistic Rationale of the Apocalyptic Visions, those I cast back to the proper places of each.]  It is a matter most worthy of observation, that the entire Apocalypse from the fourth chapter forward is divided into two Principal Prophecies, each of which proceeds from the same Epoch and beginnings, as it were, and arrives at the same end.  The first is of the Seals, and in those the Trumpets; for the seventh Seal is the Seal of the Trumpets, because the seven trumpet Angels follow the opening of that.  The other Prophecy (or if you prefer, System of Prophetic Visions) is τοῦ βιβλαριδίου, of the little roll, or of the open Book, which Prophecy, commencing from the same beginning, reviews the times of the former Prophecy, which is of the Seals, from Revelation 10:8 unto the end of the Book.  And this repetition of the Prophecy is indicated by that Transition in Revelation 10:11.  Moreover, near the individual beginnings of both of these, likewise also of the first Vision of all concerning the seven Churches, as if of three entire Prophecies, a voice as of a Trumpet is raised, namely, of the first, Revelation 1:10, of the second, Revelation 4:1, of the third, Revelation 10:8, as if the Holy Spirit desired to distinguish by this sign from the rest of the Prophecies, the portions of these principal Prophecies, in which you will see no such thing done (Mede’s The Key of Revelation 528).  Some are amazed that no certain Epoch (as in the Prophecy of Daniel 9:24) is appointed by the Holy Spirit to the Apocalyptic Prophecies; but that it is uncertain whence it is to be begun, whether from the Nativity of Christ, or from His Passion in 33 AD, or indeed from the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or finally from the time of this Revelation made to John, suppose 94 AD.  But to me the Holy Spirit appears to have prefixed the Epoch, and that especially agreeable to the matters, and expecially suitable to the place (More’s Synchronistic Rationale of the Apocalyptic Visions 6:34), namely, Revelation 17 (More, similarly Mede’s The Key of Revelation 537), which contains the key, as it were, of this whole structure of Prophecies (More’s Synchronistic Rationale of the Apocalyptic Visions 6:34):  which alone of all the Visions the Angel interprets contrary to his custom, so that by it an entrance might be opened to the rest (Mede’s The Key of Revelation 537).  This Epoch is very useful, for it denotes those time in which the Church begins to apostatize unto Idolatrous and Pagan Rites, concerning which times it was of especial interest that Christians be warned.  Now, this Epoch has a sufficiently wide latitude, for this Apostasy gradually came on and emerged, namely, during the space in which the ten Kings took their kingdoms, as it is plainly signified in Revelation 17:12, which began in 365 AD, that ominous year and extraordinary on account of the great earthquake, etc., and ended in 455 AD (More).

[1] Circa 95 AD.

[2] In De Viris Illustribus, the ninth chapter of which treats the life of John.

[3] Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos was a fourteenth century Greek ecclesiastical historian.

[4] Historia Ecclesiastica.

[5] Johannes Annius of Viterbo (c. 1432-1502) was an Italian Dominican theologian, who served as papal theologian.  He was the author of Antiquitates, a collection of historical texts, some of which were forged.  He published Glosa super Apocalypsim.

[6] Alfonso Salmeron (1515-1585) was a Spanish Jesuit and biblical scholar.  He wrote Præludia in Apocalypsin.

[7] Johannes Hentenius (1499-1566) was a Flemish Dominican and biblical scholar.  He produces a Latin edition of Arethas’ Commentary on the Apocalypse.

[8] Claudius (10 BC-54 AD) reigned from 41 to 54.

[9] Revelation 1:9.

[10] Revelation 4:1.

[11] Revelation 13:1.

[12] Revelation 17:3.

[13] Revelation 21:10.

[14] Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613) is said to be the forerunner of modern preterism.  He spent forty years writing Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi, a massive, nine hundred page commentary on Revelation.

Joshua 19:32-34: The Borders of Naphtali

Verse 32:[1] The sixth lot came out to the children of Naphtali, even for the children of Naphtali according to their families.

[Naphtali] The Asherites were separating them from the Mediterranean Sea: Libanus was to the North; Jordan to the East (Masius).


Verse 33:[2] And their coast was from Heleph, from Allon to Zaanannim, and Adami, Nekeb, and Jabneel, unto Lakum; and the outgoings thereof were at Jordan…

[And the border began] The Eastern border from the North to the south (Junius, Malvenda, similarly Masius, Serarius, etc.). And Heleph and Allon were not so far from the springs of Jordan. But to me this does not satisfy: For, 1. concerning the situation of these cities nothing is evident. 2. What follows does not support this explication, but rather opposes. Objection: But, since the Southern side is described in verse 34, the eastern side appears to have been previously described. Response: The Eastern side is sufficiently indicated, when it is indicated also that the Northern side had reached to Jordan, and that the Southern side is begun by turning back from Jordan, and that to such an extent that entire stretch of Jordan that lies between pertains to the Nephthalim, and furnishes the eastern border. For me it is settled that the Northern border is here described: 1. Because otherwise that is nowhere described, which the aforementioned interpreters confess: But what is the reason why this border alone would be passed over in silence? 2. From those words, and the outgoings thereof all the way to Jordan: which words would have no suitable sense, unless either the Southern or Northern border is here described; but the Southern border is described below; therefore, the Northern border is described here. For those words, to have their outgoings in some place, in the rest of the descriptions signify only this, to be shut up and ended there. And how would they say that the eastern border is shut up by Jordan, if the entire border proceeds along Jordan? It was rather to be said, the outgoings of that side are at the sea of Cinnereth; for there the eastern side extends (Bonfrerius). But that, it ended at Jordan, is plainly the twin of that in verse 26, it falls unto Carmel toward the sea. For, even if we has hitherto traced our descent along Jordan, nevertheless the river ought to be named, so that that very thing might be understood, that we yet concerned with its bank. And it is able to happen that that, being curved in this place, hindered from descending any further toward the south (Masius).

[And Allon to Zaanannim[3]] Thus Judges 4:11.[4] Therefore, the Septuagint and the Chaldean incorrectly read Meelon unto Besaanaim, as if the prepositions were part of the names; just like Meeleph in the place of Heleph (Masius).

[מֵֽאֵל֜וֹן בְּצַעֲנַנִּ֗ים[5]] From Allon in Zaanannim (Montanus), that is, which are cities in the region of Zaanannim (Vatablus): or, rather, before the face of these people; since Zaanannim is plural. It is a phrase of this sort, Douai is before the face of the Dutch[6] (Bonfrerius). From the oak forest in Zaanannim (Junius and Tremellius).

[And Adami, which is Nekeb, וַאֲדָמִ֥י הַנֶּ֛קֶב[7]] [They render it variously.] Adami, Nekeb (Munster, Tigurinus, Pagnine). Adami of that Nekeb (Montanus). A great many, following our translation, think that it is one and the same city (Malvenda, thus Bonfrerius). I think that Nekeb is an epithet of the city Adami (Masius). From the pass of Adami (Junius and Tremellius). From the possessors of the cellar (Arabic). [It appears to have read וַאֲדוֹנֵי, and the lords.] Moreover, Adami appears to be the same as that in Joshua 3:16 (Masius).

[And the outgoings of them (that is, of the Nephthalim [Bonfrerius]) all the way to Jordan] Hebrew: and its outgoing was Jordan[8] (Montanus, similarly the Septuagint), or, to (or toward [Tigurinus], or unto [Junius and Tremellius]) Jordan (Jonathan, Pagnine, similarly the Syriac). Hence it arrives at Jordan (Vatablus). Its borders cease at Jordan (Munster). [Concerning the sense see what things were said on the prior part of this verse.]

Their coast; their northern border, drawn from west to east, as appears, because when this coast is described and brought to its end, the coast is said to turn from the east westward, verse 34. The outgoings, that is, the end of that coast.


Verse 34:[9] And then (Deut. 33:23) the coast turneth westward to Aznoth-tabor, and goeth out from thence to Hukkok, and reacheth to Zebulun on the south side, and reacheth to Asher on the west side, and to Judah upon Jordan toward the sunrising.

[And the border is turned back] The Southern border is undoubtedly here described from the East Westward (Bonfrerius, thus Masius, Malvenda). It is turned back, that is, from the Sunrise (Vatablus).

Westward: this is unquestionably the southern border described from east to west.

[It passes unto Zebulun toward the south] It meets with Zebulun on the south side (Junius and Tremellius), in such a way that the Northern side of the Zebulonites is the same as the Southern side of the Nephthalim (Bonfrerius after Masius). Moreover, that the Nephthalim reached all the way to the lake of Gennesaret, appears to me to be proven out of Isaiah 9, the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, etc., compared with Matthew 4. Now, that those two cities, Aznoth-tabor and Hukkok, occur before the arrival at the Zebulonites, I think it to be explained by the fact that there is some bending back toward the West along the shore of the lake of Gennesaret before the arrival at the Zebulonites, and these two cities were situated in that place (Bonfrerius).

[And unto Asher toward the west] That is, on the Western side the Nephthalim were bordering the Asherites (Bonfrerius, Menochius).

[And unto Judah on Jordan toward the rising of the sun[10]] But this appears unbelievable, for the Judahites were separated from the Nephthalim with so many tribes interposed (Masius), namely, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun; all which, as was shown, were extending to Jordan (Bonfrerius). But these words do not signify that the tribe of Naphtali shared a border with the Judahites, but that by means of the Jordan in a certain manner it was a neighbor and connected to the Tribe of Judah, namely, through trade by means of the Jordan (Menochius). The author wanted to indicate that the prophecy of Moses was here fulfilled, Deuteronomy 33:23 (Bonfrerius, Masius). That is to say, Suppose it to be so that the Nephthalim appear to be removed from the sea and the other tribes, especially Judah; nevertheless through commerce by means of the Jordan they readily enjoy all goods (Bonfrerius, similarly Masius, Menochius). And this sense the Hebrew words do allow, which are able thus to be translated, and unto Judge by Jordan (or, through Jordan) toward the sunrising. Now, that toward the sunrising ought to be referred, not to Judah, but to Jordan (Bonfrerius). [Junius refers the reader to Joshua 15:5, the border (namely, of Judah) Northward, from the bay of that sea, was part of Jordan: where he observes these things:] That is, Judah possessed the greatest part of Jordan from its end to the lake of Gennesaret, even if the borders of certain tribes were falling unto the same Jordan. It was done in this manner, that the border of Naphtali on Jordan might be coterminous with Judah, as it is found in Joshua 19:34 (Junius). The Septuagint thus reads it, and the Jordan toward the sunrise: thus the difficulty vanishes: but they omit the reference to Judah, which is found in the Hebrew (Bonfrerius). Moreover, that these things that were predicted by Moses were fulfilled, shall be readily demonstrated from the fecundity of that soil, extolled by many authors. See also on Judges 18:9, 10, where that tract near the springs of Jordan is treated. But you will set over against this Deuteronomy 33:23, possess the sea and the south. But the Chaldean takes this of the sea of Tiberias. But, since the use of sea in this sense is unusual, the sense is rather, Although they dwelt in an altogether different part, that is, the North and the East, nevertheless through with the other tribes they were going to share in whatever good were among them (Masius on verse 39).

To Judah, upon Jordan. Question. How can this be, when there were divers tribes between this and Judah, all which reached to Jordan? Answer. He doth not say of Judah, as he doth of Zebulun and Asher, that it reacheth to it; but, as it seems, purposely leaves out that word which he had used in both the former branches, lest it should be understood of a local reaching to it, or being contiguous with it, which was not true; and that he might signify that he meant this clause in another sense, to wit, that it did in some sort go or reach to, or converse with Judah by Jordan. And so this may be here added, to show the accomplishment of that famous and obscure prophecy, That Naphtali, though he should be planted in the utmost border of the land, on the north-east, yet he should possess the riches of the west and south, Deuteronomy 33:23, that is, of those tribes which were at a great distance from him westward and southward; and this he should do by way of commerce with them by their famous river Jordan, which he did not only touch in a small part, as some of the other tribes did, but lay all along it for a good space together, even from the very fountain unto the sea of Gennesaret. Some think that this is verified by that royalty of this river, which they suppose God gave to the tribe of Judah, which extended as far as Naphtali.

[1] Hebrew: לִבְנֵ֣י נַפְתָּלִ֔י יָצָ֖א הַגּוֹרָ֣ל הַשִּׁשִּׁ֑י לִבְנֵ֥י נַפְתָּלִ֖י לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָֽם׃

[2] Hebrew: וַיְהִ֣י גְבוּלָ֗ם מֵחֵ֙לֶף מֵֽאֵל֜וֹן בְּצַעֲנַנִּ֗ים וַאֲדָמִ֥י הַנֶּ֛קֶב וְיַבְנְאֵ֖ל עַד־לַקּ֑וּם וַיְהִ֥י תֹצְאֹתָ֖יו הַיַּרְדֵּֽן׃

[3] Hebrew: מֵֽאֵל֜וֹן בְּצַעֲנַנִּ֗ים.

[4] Judges 4:11:  “Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim (עַד־אֵל֥וֹן בַּצְעַנִּ֖ים), which is by Kedesh.”

[5] אֵלוֹן/Elon can signify a terebinth.

[6] Douai is in the extreme northern reaches of France.

[7] נֶקֶב/Nekeb may signify a mountain pass, from נָקַב, to pierce.

[8] Hebrew: וַיְהִ֥י תֹצְאֹתָ֖יו הַיַּרְדֵּֽן׃.

[9] Hebrew: וְשָׁ֙ב הַגְּב֥וּל יָ֙מָּה֙ אַזְנ֣וֹת תָּב֔וֹר וְיָצָ֥א מִשָּׁ֖ם חוּקֹ֑קָה וּפָגַ֙ע בִּזְבֻל֜וּן מִנֶּ֗גֶב וּבְאָשֵׁר֙ פָּגַ֣ע מִיָּ֔ם וּבִ֣יהוּדָ֔ה הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן מִזְרַ֥ח הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ׃

[10] Hebrew: וּבִ֣יהוּדָ֔ה הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן מִזְרַ֥ח הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ׃.