Revelation 9:11

And they had a king over them - A ruler who marshalled their hosts. Locusts often, and indeed generally, move in bands, though they do not appear to be under the direction of anyone as a particular ruler or guide. In this case it struck John as a remarkable peculiarity that they had a king - a king who, it would seem, had the absolute control, and to whom was to be traced all the destruction which would ensue from their emerging from the bottomless pit.

Which is the angel of the bottomless pit - See the notes on Rev 9:1. The word “angel” here would seem to refer to the chief of the evil angels, who presided over the dark and gloomy regions from whence the locusts seemed to emerge. This may either mean that this evil angel seemed to command them personally, or that his spirit was infused into the leader of these hosts.

Whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon - The name Abaddon means literally “destruction,” and is the same as Apollyon.

But in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon - From ἀπόλλυμι apollumi - “to destroy.” The word properly denotes “a destroyer,” and the name is given to this king of the hosts, represented by the locusts, because this would be his principal characteristic.

After this minute explanation of the literal meaning of the symbol, it may be useful, before attempting to apply it, and to ascertain the events designed to be represented, to have a distinct impression of the principal image - the locust. It is evident that this is, in many respects, a creature of the imagination, and that we are not to expect the exact representation to be found in any forms of actual existence in the animal creation. The following engraving, prepared by Mr. Elliott (vol. i. p. 410), will give a sufficiently accurate representation of this symbolical figure as it appeared to John.

The question now is, whether any events occurred in history, subsequent to and succeeding those supposed to be referred to in the fourth trumpet, to which this symbol would be applicable. Reasons have already been suggested for supposing that there was a transfer of the seat of the operations to another part of the world. The first four trumpets referred to a continual series of events of the same general character, and having a proper close. These have been explained as referring to the successive shocks which terminated in the downfall of the Western empire. At the close of that series there is a pause in the representation Rev 8:13, and a solemn proclamation that other scenes were to open distinguished for woe. These were to be symbolized in the sounding of the remaining three trumpets, embracing the whole period until the consummation of all things - or sketching great and momentous events in the future, until the volume sealed with the seven seals Rev 5:1 should have been wholly unrolled and its contents disclosed. The whole scene now is changed. Rome has fallen. It has passed into the hands of strangers. The power that had spread itself over the world has, in that form, come to an end, and is to exist no more - though, as we shall see (Rev. 11ff), another power, quite as formidable, existing there, is to be described by a new set of symbols. But here Rev. 9 a new power appears. The scenery is all Oriental, and clearly has reference to events that were to spring up in the East. With surprising unanimity, commentators have agreed in regarding this as referring to the empire of the Saracens, or to the rise and progress of the religion and the empire set up by Muhammed. The inquiry now is, whether the circumstances introduced into the symbol find a proper fulfillment in the rise of the Saracenic power, and in the conquests of the Prophet of Mecca:

(1) “The country where the scene is laid.” As already remarked the scene is Oriental - for the mention of locusts naturally suggests the East - that being the part of the world where they abound, and they being in fact especially an Oriental plague. It may now be added, that in a more strict and proper sense Arabia may be intended; that is, if it be admitted that the design was to symbolize events pertaining to Arabia, or the gathering of the hosts of Arabia for conquest, the symbol of locusts would have been employed for the locust, the groundwork of the symbol is especially Arabic. It was the east wind which brought the locusts on Egypt Exo 10:13, and they must therefore have come from some portion of Arabia - for Arabia is the land that lies over against Egypt in the east. Such, too, is the testimony of Volney; “the most judicious,” as Mr. Gibbon calls him, “of modern travelers.” “The inhabitants of Syria,” says he, “have remarked that locusts come constantly from the desert of Arabia,” ch. 20:sect. 5.

All that is necessary to say further on this point is, that on the supposition that it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration in the passage before us to refer to the followers of Muhammed, the image of the locusts was that which would be naturally selected. There was no other one so appropriate and so striking; no one that would so naturally designate the country of Arabia. As some confirmation of this, or as showing how natural the symbol would be, a remark may be introduced from Mr. Forster. In his Mohammedanism Unveiled, vol. i. p. 217, he says, “In the Bedoween romance of Antar, the locust is introduced as the national emblem of the Ishmaelites. And it is a remarkable coincidence that Muslim tradition speaks of locusts having dropped into the hands of Muhammed, bearing on their wings this inscription - ‘We are the army of the Great God.’” These circumstances will show the propriety of the symbol on the supposition that it refers to Arabia and the Saracens.

(2) The people. The question is, whether there was anything in the symbol, as described by John, which would properly designate the followers of Muhammed, on the supposition that it was designed to have such a reference:

(a) As to numbers. “They (the Midianite Arabs) came as locusts for multitude,” Joh 6:5. See the notes on Rev 9:3. Nothing would better represent the numbers of the Saracenic hordes that came out of Arabia, and that spread over the East - over Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Spain, and that threatened to spread over Europe - than such an army of locusts. “One hundred years after his flight (Muhammed) from Mecca,” says Mr. Gibbon, “the arms and the reign of his successors extended from India to the Atlantic Ocean, over the various and distant provinces which may be comprised under the names of Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, and Spain,” vol. iii. p. 410. “At the end of the first century of the Hegira the caliphs were the most potent and absolute monarchs on the globe. Under the last of the Ommiades the Arabian empire extended two hundred days’ journey from east to west, from the confines of Tartary and India to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean” (ibid. p. 460). In regard to the immense hosts employed in these conquests, an idea may be formed by a perusal of the whole fifty-first chapter in Gibbon (vol. iii. pp. 408-461). Those hosts issued primarily from Arabia, and in their numbers would be well compared with the swarms of locusts that issued from the same country, so numerous as to darken the sky.

(b) The description of the people.

“Their faces were as the faces of men” This would seem to be in contrast with other people, or to denote something that was unique in the appearance of the persons represented. In other words, the meaning would seem to be, that there was something manly and warlike in their appearance, so far as their faces were concerned. It is remarkable that the appearance of the Goths (represented, as I suppose, under the previous trumpets) is described by Jerome (compare on Isa. 8) as quite the reverse. They are described as having faces shaven and smooth; faces, in contrast with the bearded Romans, like women’s faces. Is it fancy to suppose that the reference here is to the beard and moustache of the Arabic hosts? We know with what care they regarded the beard; and if a representation was made of them, especially in contrast with nations that shaved their faces, and who thus resembled women, it would be natural to speak of those represented in the symbol as “having faces as the faces of men.”

“They had hair as the hair of women” A strange mingling of the appearance of effeminacy with the indication of manliness and courage. See the notes on Rev 9:8. And yet this strictly accords with the appearance of the Arabs or Saracens. Pliny, the contemporary of John, speaks of the Arabs then as having the hair long and uncut, with the moustache on the upper lip, or the beard: Arabes mitrati sunt, aut intoso crine. Barba abraditur, praeterquam in superiore labro. Aliis et haec intonsa (Nat. Hist. vol. 6, p. 28). So Solinus describes them in the third century (Plurimis crinis intonsus, mitrata capita, pars rasa in cutem barba, 100:53); so Ammianus Marcellinus, in the fourth century (Crinitus quidam a Saracenorum cuneo, vol. xxxi. p. 16); and so Claudian, Theodore of Mopsuesta, and Jerome, in the fifth. Jerome lived about two centuries before the great Saracen invasion; and as he lived at Bethlehem, on the borders of Arabia, he must have been familiar with the appearance of the Arabs. Still later, in that most characteristic of Arab poems, Antar, a poem written in the time of Muhammed’s childhood, we find the moustache, and the beard, and the long flowing hair on the shoulder, and the turban, all specified as characteristic of the Arabians: “He adjusted himself properly, twisted his whiskers, and folded up his hair under his turban, drawing it from off his shoulders,” vol. i. p. 340. “His hair flowed down on his shoulders,” vol. i. p. 169. “Antar cut off Maudi’s hair in revenge and insult,” vol. iii. p. 117. “We will hang him up by his hair,” vol. iv. p. 325. See Elliott, vol. i. pp. 411, 412. Compare Newton on the Prophecies, p. 485.

“And on their heads were as it were crowns of gold” See the notes on Rev 9:7. That is, diadems, or something that appeared like crowns, or chaplets. This will agree well with the turban worn by the Arabs or Saracens, and which was quite characteristic of them in the early periods when they became known. So in the passage already quoted, Pliny speaks of them as Arabes mitrati; so Solinus, mitrata capita; so in the poem of Antar, “he folded up his hair under his turbans.” It is remarkable also that Ezekiel Eze 23:42 describes the turbans of the Sabean or Keturite Arabs under the very appellation used here by John: “Sabeans from the wilderness, which put beautiful crowns upon their heads.” So in the preface to Antar, it is said, “It was a usual saying among them, that God had bestowed four special things on the Arabs; that their turbans should be unto them instead of diadems, their tents instead of walls and houses, their swords instead of intrenchments, and their poems instead of written laws.” Mr. Forster, in his Mohammedanism Unveiled, quotes as a precept of Muhammed; “Make a point of wearing turbans, because it is the way of angels.” Turbans might then with propriety be represented as crowns, and no doubt these were often so gilded and ornamented that they might be spoken of as “crowns of gold.”

“They had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron” See the notes on Rev 9:9. As a symbol, this would be properly descriptive of the Arabians or Saracens. In the poem Antar the steel and iron cuirasses of the Arab warriors are frequently noticed: “A warrior immersed in steel armor,” vol. ii. p. 203. “Fifteen thousand men armed with cuirasses, and well accoutred for war,” vol. ii. p. 42. “They were clothed in iron armor, and brilliant cuirasses,” vol. i. p. 23. “Out of the dust appeared horsemen clad in iron,” vol. iii. p. 274. The same thing occurs in the Koran: “God hath given you coats of mail to defend you in your wars,” vol. ii. p. 104. In the history of Muhammed we read expressly of the cuirasses of himself and of his Arab troops. Seven cuirasses are noted in the list of Muhammed’s private armory (Gagnier, vol. iii. p. 328-334). In his second battle with the Koreish, seven hundred of his little army are spoken of by Mr. Gibbon as armed with cuirasses. See Elliott, vol. i. p. 413. These illustrations will show with what propriety the locusts in the symbol were represented as having breastplates like breastplates of iron. On the supposition that this referred to the Arabs and the Saracens this would have been the very symbol which would have been used. Indeed, all the features in the symbol are precisely such as would properly be employed on the supposition that the reference was to them. It is true that beforehand it might not have been practicable to describe exactly what people were referred to, but:

(a)It would be easy to see that some fearful calamity was to be anticipated from the ravages of hosts of fearful invaders; and,

(b)When the events occurred, there would be no difficulty in determining to whom this application should be made.

(3) “the time when this would occur.” As to this there can be no difficulty in the application to the Saracens. On the supposition that the four first trumpets refer to the downfall of the Western empire, then the proper time supposed to be represented by this symbol is subsequent to that; and yet the manner in which the last three trumpets are introduced Rev 8:13 shows that there would be an interval between the sounding of the last of the four trumpets and the sounding of the fifth. The events referred to, as I have supposed, as represented by the fourth trumpet, occurred in the close of the fifth century (476-490 a.d.). The principal events in the seventh century were connected with the invasions and conquests of the Saracens. The interval of a century is not more than the fair interpretation of the proclamation in Rev 8:13 would justify.

(4) “the commission given to the symbolical locusts.” This embraces the following things:

They were not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing;

(b)They were especially to go against those who had not the seal of God in their foreheads;

(c)They were not to kill them, but were to torment them.

“They were not to hurt the grass of the earth, ...” see the notes at Rev 9:4. This agrees remarkably with an express command in the Koran. The often-quoted order of the Caliph Aboubekir, the father-in-law and successor of Muhammed, issued to the Saracen hordes on their invasion of Syria, shows what was understood to be the spirit of their religion: “Remember that you are always in the presence of God, on the verge of death, in the assurance of judgment, and the hope of paradise. Avoid injustice and oppression; consult with your brethren, and study to preserve the love and confidence of your troops. When you fight the battles of the Lord, acquit yourselves like men, without turning your backs; but let not the victory be stained with the blood of women or children. Destroy no palm-trees, nor burn any fields of grain. Cut down no fruit-trees, nor do any mischief to cattle, only such as you kill to eat. When you make any covenant or article, stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find some religious persons who live retired in monasteries, and propose to themselves to serve God in that way; let them alone, and neither kill them (‘and to them it was given that they should not kill them,’ ver 5), nor destroy their monasteries,” etc. (Gibbon, iii. 417, 418).

So Mr. Gibbon notices this precept of the Koran: “In the siege of Tayaf,” says he, “sixty miles from Mecca, Muhammed violated his own laws by the extirpation of the fruit-trees,” ii. 392. The same order existed among the Hebrews, and it is not improbable that Muhammed derived his precept from the command of Moses Deu 20:19, though what was mercy among the Hebrews was probably mere policy with him. This precept is the more remarkable because it has been the usual custom in war, and particularly among barbarians and semi-barbarians, to destroy grain and fruit, and especially to cut down fruit-trees, in order to do greater injury to an enemy. Thus, we have seen (notes on Rev 8:7), that in the invasion of the Goths their course was marked by desolations of this kind. Thus, in more modern times, it has been common to carry the desolations of war into gardens, orchards, and vineyards. In the single province of Upper Messenia the troops of Muhammed Ali, in the war with Greece, cut down half a million of olive-trees, and thus stripped the country of its means of wealth. So Scio was a beautiful spot, the seat of delightful villas, and gardens, and orchards; and in one day all this beauty was destroyed. On the supposition, therefore, that this prediction had reference to the Saracens, nothing could be more appropriate. Indeed, in all the history of barbarous and savage warfare it would be difficult to find another distinct command that no injury should be done to gardens and orchards.

(d) Their commission was expressly against “those men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads.” See the notes on Rev 9:4. That is, they were to go either against those who were not really the friends of God, or those who in their estimation were not. Perhaps, if there were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation, the former would be the most natural explanation of the passage; but the language way be understood as referring to the purpose which they considered themselves as called upon to execute: that is, that they were to go against those whom they regarded as being strangers to the true God, to wit, idolaters. Now it is well known that Muhammed considered himself called upon, principally, to make war with idolaters, and that he went forth, professedly, to bring them into subjection to the service of the true God. “The means of persuasion,” says Mr. Gibbon, “had been tried, the season of forbearance was elapsed, and he was now commanded to propagate his religion by the sword, to destroy the monuments of idolatry, and, without regarding the sanctity of days or months, to pursue the unbelieving nations of the earth,” iii. 387. “The fair option of friendship, or submission, or battle, was proposed to the enemies of Muhammed” (ibid.). “The sword,” says Muhammed, “is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting and prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven; at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent as vermilion, and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim” (Gibbon, iii. 387) The first conflicts waged by Muhammed were against the idolaters of his own country - those who can, on no supposition, be regarded as “having the seal of God in their foreheads”; his subsequent wars were against infidels of all classes; that is, against those whom he regarded as not having the “seal of God in their foreheads,” or as being the enemies of God.

(e) The other part of the commission was “not to kill, but to torment them.” See the notes at Rev 9:5. Compare the quotation from the command of Aboubekir, as quoted above: “Let not the victory be stained with the blood of women and children.” “Let them alone, and neither kill them nor destroy their monasteries.” The meaning of this, if understood as applied to their commission against Christendom, would seem to be, that they were not to go forth to “kill,” but to “torment” them; to wit, by the calamities which they would bring upon Christian nations for a definite period. Indeed, as we have seen above, it was an express command of Aboubekir that they should not put those to death who were found leading quiet and peaceable lives in monasteries, though against another class he did give an express command to “cleave their skulls.” See Gibbon, iii. 418. As applicable to the conflicts of the Saracens with Christians, the meaning here would seem to be, that the power conceded to those who are represented by the locusts was not to cut off and to destroy the church, but it was to bring upon it various calamities to continue for a definite period.

Accordingly, some of the severest afflictions which have come upon the church have undoubtedly proceeded from the followers of the Prophet of Mecca. There were times in the early history of that religion when, to all human appearance, it would universally prevail, and wholly supplant the Christian church. But the church still survived, and no power was at any time given to the Saracenic hosts to destroy it altogether. In respect to this, some remarkable facts have occurred in history. The followers of the false prophet contemplated the subjugation of Europe, and the destruction of Christianity, from two quarters - the East and the West - expecting to make a junction of the two armies in the north of Italy, and to march down to Rome. Twice did they attack the vital part of Christendom by besieging Constantinople: first, in the seven years’ siege, which lasted from 668 a.d. to 675 a.d.; and, secondly, in the years 716-718, when Leo the Isaurian was on the imperial throne.

But on both occasions they were obliged to retire defeated and disgraced - Gibbon, iii. 461ff. Again, they renewed their attack on the West. Having conquered Northern Africa, they passed over into Spain, subdued that country and Portugal, and extended their conquests as far as the Loire. At that time they designed to subdue France, and having united with the forces which they expected from the East, they intended to make a descent on Italy, and complete the conquest of Europe. This purpose was defeated by the valor of Charles Martel, and Europe and the Christian world were saved from subjugation (Gibbon, iii. 467, following). “A victorious line of march,” says Mr. Gibbon, “had been prolonged above a thousand miles, from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland. The Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or the Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed.” The arrest of the Saracen hosts before Europe was subdued, was what there was no reason to anticipate, and it even yet perplexes historians to be able to account for it.

The calm historian,” says Mr. Gibbon, “who strives to follow the rapid course of the Saracens, must study to explain by what means the church and state were saved from this impending, and, as it should seem, inevitable danger.” “These conquests,” says Mr. Hallam, “which astonish the careless and superficial, are less perplexing to a calm inquirer than their cessation - the loss of half the Roman empire than the preservation of the rest” (Middle Ages, ii. 3, 169). These illustrations may serve to explain the meaning of the symbol - that their grand commission was not to annihilate or root out, but to annoy and afflict. Indeed, they did not go forth with a primary design to destroy. The announcement of the Mussulman always was “the Koran, the tribute, or the sword,” and when there was submission, either by embracing his religion or by tribute, life was always spared. “The fair option of friendship, or submission, or battle,” says Mr. Gibbon (iii. 387), “was proposed to the enemies of Muhammed.” Compare also vol. iii. 453, 456. The torment mentioned here, I suppose, refers to the calamities brought upon the Christian world - on Egypt, and Northern Africa, and Spain, and Gaul, and the East - by the hordes which came out of Arabia, and which swept over all those countries like a troublesome and destructive host of locusts. Indeed, would any image better represent the effects of the Saracenic invasions than such a countless host of locusts? Even now, can we find an image that would better represent this?

(5) The leader of this host:

(a) He was like a star that fell from heaven, Rev 9:1, a bright and illustrious prince, as if heaven-endowed, but fallen. Would anything better characterize the genius, the power, and the splendid but perverted talent of Muhammed? Muhammed was, moreover, by birth, of the princely house of the Koreish, governors of Mecca, and to no one could the term be more appropriate than to one of that family.

(b) He was a king. That is, there was to be one monarch - one ruling spirit to which all these hosts were subject. And never was anything more appropriate than this title as applied to the leader of the Arabic hosts. All those hosts were subject to one mind - to the command of the single leader that originated the scheme.

(c) The name Abaddon, or Apollyon - Destroyer, Rev 9:11. This name would be appropriate to one who spread his conquests so far over the world; who wasted so many cities and towns; who overthrew so many kingdoms; and who laid the foundation of ultimate conquests by which so many human beings were sent to the grave.

(d) The description of the leader “as the angel of the bottomless pit,” Rev 9:11. If this be regarded as meaning that “the angel of the bottomless pit” - the spirit of darkness himself - originated the scheme, and animated these hosts, what term would better characterize the leader? And if it be a poetic description of Muhammed as sent out by that presiding spirit of evil, how could a better representative of the spirit of the nether world have been sent out upon the earth than he was - one more talented, more sagacious, more powerful, more warlike, more wicked, more suited to subdue the nations of the earth to the dominion of the Prince of Darkness, and to hold them for ages under his yoke?

(6) The duration of the torment. It is said Rev 9:5 that this would be five months; that is, prophetically, 150 years. See the notes on Rev 9:5. The Hegira, or flight of Muhammed, occurred 622 a.d.; the Saracens first issued from the desert into Syria, and began their series of wars on Christendom, 629 a.d. Reckoning from these periods respectively, the five months, or 150 years, would extend to 772 or 779 a.d. It is not necessary to understand this period of 150 years of the actual continued existence of the bodies symbolized by the locusts, but only of the period in which they would inflict their “torment” - “that they should be tormented five months.” That is, this would be the period of the intensity of the woe inflicted by them; there would be at that time some marked intermission of the torrent. The question then is, whether, in the history of the Saracens, there was any period after their career of conquest had been continued for about a hundred and fifty years, which would mark the intermission or cessation of these “torments.”

If so, then this is all that is necessary to determine the applicability of the symbol to the Arabian hordes. Now, in reply to this question, we have only to refer to Mr. Gibbon. The table of contents profixed to chapters forty-one and forty-two of his work would supply all the information desired. I looked at that table, after making the estimate as to what period the “five months,” or hundred and fifty years, would conduct us to, to see whether anything occurred at about that time in the Muhammedan power and influence, which could be regarded as marking the time of the intermission or cessation of the calamities inflicted by the Arabic hordes on the Christian world. After Mr. Gibbon had recorded in detail (vol. iii. 360-460) the character and conquests of the Arabian hordes under Muhammed and his successors, I find the statement of the decline of their power at just about the period to which the hundred and fifty years would lead us, for at that very time an important change came over the followers of the prophet of Mecca turning them from the love of conquest to the pursuits of literature and science.

From that period they ceased to be formidable to the church; their limits were gradually contracted; their power diminished; and the Christian world, in regard to them, was substantially at peace. This change in the character and purposes of the Saracens is thus described by Mr. Gibbon, at the close of the reign of the caliph Abdalrahman, whose reign commenced 755 a.d., and under whom the peaceful sway of the Ommiades of Spain began, which continued for a period of two hundred and fifty years. “The luxury of the caliphs, so useless to their private happiness, relaxed the nerves, and terminated the progress, of the Arabian empire. Temporal and spiritual conquest had been the sole occupation of the first successors of Muhammed; and after supplying themselves with the necessaries of life, the whole revenue was scrupulously devoted to that salutary work. The Abassides were impoverished by the multitude of their needs, and their contempt of economy. Instead of pursuing the great object of ambition, their leisure, their affections, and the powers of their minds were diverted by pomp and pleasure: the rewards of valor were embezzled by women and eunuchs, and the royal camp was encumbered by the luxury of the palace. A similar temper was diffused among the subjects of the caliph. Their stern enthusiasm was softened by time and prosperity: they sought riches in the occupations of industry, fame in the pursuits of literature, and happiness in the tranquility of domestic life.

War was no longer the passion of the Saracens; and the increase of pay, the repetition of donatives, were insufficient to allure the posterity of those voluntary champions who had crowded to the standard of Aboubekir and Omar for the hopes of spoil and of paradise,” iii. 477, 478. Of the Ommiades, or princes who succeeded Abdalrahman, Mr. Gibbon remarks in general - “Their mutual designs or declarations of war evaporated without effect; but instead of opening a door to the conquest of Europe, Spain was dissevered from the trunk of the monarchy, engaged in perpetual hostility with the East, and inclined to peace and friendship with the Christian sovereigns of Constantinople and France,” iii. p. 472. How much does this look like some change occurring by which they would cease to be a source of “torment” to the nations with whom they now dwelt! From this period they gave themselves to the arts of peace; cultivated literature and science; lost entirely their spirit of conquest, and their ambition for universal dominion, until they gradually withdrew, or were driven, from those parts of the Christian world where they had inspired most terror, and which in the days of their power and ambition they had invaded. By turning merely to the “table of contents” of Mr. Gibbon’s history, the following periods, occurring at about the time that would be embraced in the “five months,” or hundred and fifty years, are distinctly marked:

“a.d.

668-675

First siege of Constantinople by the Arabs.

677

Peace and tribute.

716-718

Second siege of Constantinople.

716-718

Failure and retreat of the Saracens.

716-718

Invention and use of the Greek fire.

721

Invasion of France by the Arabs.

732

Defeat of the Saracens by Charles Martel.

732

They retreat before the Franks.

746-750

The elevation of the Abassides.

750

Fall of the Ommiades.

755

Revolt of Spain.

755

Triple division of the caliphate.

750-960

Magnificence of the caliphs.

750-960

Its consequences on private and public happiness.

754 etc.

Introduction of learning among the Arabians.

754 etc.

Their real progress in the sciences.”

It will be seen from this that the decline of their military and civil power; their defeats in their attempts to subjugate Europe; their turning their attention to the peaceful pursuits of literature and science, synchronize remarkably with the period that would be indicated by the five months, or 150 years. It should be added, also, that in the year 762, Almanzor, the caliph, built Bagdad, and made it the capital of the Saracen empire. Henceforward that became the seat of Arabic learning, luxury, and power, and the wealth and talent of the Saracen empire were gradually drawn to that capital, and they ceased to vex and annoy the Christian world. The building of Bagdad occurred within just ten years of the time indicated by the “five months” - reckoning that from the Hegira, or flight of Muhammed; or reckoning from the time when Muhammed began to preach (609 ad - Gibbon, iii. 383), it wanted only three years of coinciding exactly with the period.

These considerations show with what propriety the fifth trumpet - the symbol of the locusts - is referred to the Arabian hordes under the guidance of Muhammed and his successors. On the supposition that it was the design of John to symbolize these events, the symbo has been chosen which of all others was best adapted to the end. If, now that these events are past, we should endeavor to find some symbol which would appropriately represent them, we could not find one that would be more striking or appropriate than what is here employed by John.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9:11 The king of the locusts is identified in three ways: (1) as the angel from the bottomless pit (probably different from the fallen star, 9:1, who unlocked the abyss rather than coming from it); (2) as Abaddon (“destruction”), often paired with death (see Job 28:22; Ps 88:11); and (3) as Apollyon—the Destroyer (see 1 Cor 10:10). • Although John makes no direct connection between the devil and this king of the locusts, the prince of demons is linked with Satan in the Gospels (Mark 3:22-26; see Matt 12:24-27; Luke 11:15-18). The New Testament also identifies the devil as the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) and as the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), so he probably represents Satan. There is also a connection with the Roman emperor Domitian, whose patron god Apollo was symbolized by the locust.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rev 9:11. [95] Ἀβαδδὼν—Ἀπολλύων) The Septuagint renders Abaddon by ἀπώλεια: here it is put in the concrete, Ἀπολλύων.—ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ) The feminine, put for the neuter, by a Hebraism, as immediately afterwards ἡ οὐαὶ: or by ellipsis of the noun γλῶττα, of the omission of which by the Greeks, L. Bos notes down instances. By the Hebrew and Greek nomenclature of this angel, Patrick Forbes and James Durham acknowledge that the Jews and Greeks, harassed by the locusts, are pointed out.

[95] τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου, the angel of the bottomless pit) This is not Satan himself.—V. g.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rev_9:11. As in their form and entire nature, the demoniacal locusts are distinguished from those which are natural,[2584] also in that they have a king, viz., ΤῸΝ ἌΓΓΕΛΟΝ Τῆς ἈΒΎΣΣΟΥ, i.e., not an angel from the abyss,[2585] but the angel of the abyss, by which, however, not Satan himself is to be understood;[2586] since this is indicated neither by the designation, Τ. ἌΓΓ. Τ. ἈΒ., nor the definite appellation. Still less is the king to be identified with the star, Rev_9:1, as Hengstenb.[2587] must do, because he assumes that as often as a star is mentioned in the Apoc. a ruler is meant, and therefore says here, If what is said here were concerning another king, the locusts would have two kings. The expression ΤῸΝ ἌΓΓ. Τ. ἈΒ.[2588] makes us think only of such an angel as is in a special way the overseer of the abyss.[2589] One thing, pertaining to this position of his, is here mentioned, viz., that he is the king of the locusts rising from the abyss. As the overseer of the abyss, however, he is not only designated its angel, but bears also the very name which in its Heb. form expressly indicates that relation: ὌΝΟΜΑ ΑὐΤῼ ἘΒΡΑΪΣΤῚ ʼΑΒΑΔΔῺΝ ΚΑῚ ἘΝ Τῇ ἘΛΛΗΝΙΚῇ ὌΝΟΜΑ ἜΧΕΙ ἈΠΟΛΛΎΩΝ. Already in the O. T., אַבַדּוֹך (LXX.: ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ), parallel with שְׁאוֹל, designates the kingdom of corruption in a local respect;[2590] with the rabbins, Abaddon is the lowest space of hell.[2591] Accordingly the ἌΒΥΣΣΟς itself receives the name ἈΒ.; but very appropriately the angel of the abyss here bears it, who as overseer is in a certain respect its personal representative. The Greek interpretation ἈΠΟΛΛΎΩΝ is given in this formnot as possibly ὈΛΟΘΡΕΥΤΉς, etc., not to give a sound corresponding with the name Apollo,[2592] but because in the LXX. the personal name is naturally connected with the expression ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ. An express contrast between Apollyon the Destroyer, and Jesus the Saviour, can be found only by those who[2593] understand the former as Satan himself. [See Note LVIII., p. 292.]

[2584] Pro_30:27.

[2585] Luth.

[2586] Ebrard. Cf. Grot., Calov., etc.

[2587] Also Volkmar.

[2588] Cf. Rev_16:5.

[2589] Beng., Ew., De Wette.

[2590] Cf. Job_26:6; Job_28:22; and, besides, Hirzel-Olshaus.

[2591] Cf. Schöttg.

[2592] Grot.

[2593] Beng., Hengstenb.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

LVIII. Rev_9:11. Ἀβαδδών

Alford: It is a question who this angel of the abyss is. Perhaps, for accurate distinctions sake, we must not identify him with Satan himself (cf. ch. Rev_12:3; Rev_12:9), but must regard him as one of the principal of the bad angels. Weiss (Bib. Theol. of N. T., ii. 270 sq.): He [sc., Satan] seduced a portion of the angels, who are also (Rev_1:20) symbolized by stars, to fall away from God, so that they are now designated as his angels. It is such a Satan-angel who is the star fallen from heaven (Rev_9:1), who lets loose the plague of locusts from the abyss over the inhabitants of the earth, and is expressly designated (Rev_9:11) as the angel of the abyss, Abaddon or Apollyon. Luthardt emphasizes the contrast which Düsterdieck rejects, and closely follows Hengstenberg: The angel of the abyss, i.e., Satan. Between him and the Saviour the choice of the world is divided. He who will not have the latter as Lord must have the former, who is hereafter to attain still greater power on earth than now; cf. 2Th_2:11-12. Beck objects to the identification of the angel and the star, on the ground that the latter was only an astronomico-physical phenomenon. But to what, then, does the αὐτῷ of Rev_9:1 refer?

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The order of the powers of maliciousness: that they are subject to one infernal King, whom thou mayest call in English, The Destroyer: who driveth the whole world both Jews and Gentiles into the destruction that belongeth unto himself. And I cannot tell whether this name belongeth unto the Etymological interpretation of Hildebrand, by a figure often used in the holy Scripture: which albeit it may otherwise be turned of the Germans (as the sense of compound words is commonly ambiguous) yet in very deed it signifieth as much as if thou shouldest call him the firebrand, that is, he that setteth on fire those that be faithful unto him.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

And--so Syriac. But A, B, and Aleph, omit "and."

had--Greek, "have."

a king . . . which is the angel--English Version, agreeing with A, Aleph, reads the (Greek) article before "angel," in which reading we must translate, "They have as king over them the angel," &c. Satan (compare Rev 9:1). Omitting the article with B, we must translate, "They have as king an angel," &c.: one of the chief demons under Satan: I prefer from Rev 9:1, the former.

bottomless pit--Greek, "abyss."

Abaddon--that is, perdition or destruction (Job 26:6; Pro 27:20). The locusts are supernatural instruments in the hands of Satan to torment, and yet not kill, the ungodly, under this fifth trumpet. Just as in the case of godly Job, Satan was allowed to torment with elephantiasis, but not to touch his life. In Rev 9:20, these two woe-trumpets are expressly called "plagues." ANDREAS OF CÆSAREA, A.D. 500, held, in his Commentary on Revelation, that the locusts mean evil spirits again permitted to come forth on earth and afflict men with various plagues.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 11. A king over them] A supreme head; some think Mohammed, some think Vespasian.

The angel of the bottomless pit] The chief envoy of Satan.

Abaddon] From אבד abad, he destroyed.

Apollyon.] From απο, intensive, and ολλυω, to destroy. The meaning is the same both in the Hebrew and Greek.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(11) And they had a king . . .—Better, They have over them as king (not “the angel,” as in English version) an angel of the abyss; his name (is) in Hebrew Abaddon, and in the Greek he has a name, Apollyon. There is more than one point in which the seer wishes us to mark the contrast between these symbolical and the natural locusts. Locusts have no sting; these have. Locusts have no king (Pro_30:27); these have a king. The movements of the invading locusts are conducted with wonderful precision and order, yet no presiding monarch arranges their march; but here there is a directing and controlling head. The great movement is no mere undesigned or instinctive one, but the offspring of a hidden, spiritual force. The great battle is not on the surface only, the invasions, revolutions, tyrannies, which try and trouble mankind, involve spiritual principles, and are but tokens of the great conflict between the spirit of destruction and the spirit of salvation, between Christ and Belial, God and Mammon, the Prince of this world and the Prince of the kings of the earth. The king of these locust hordes is named in Hebrew Abaddon, or Perdition, a name sometimes given to the place or abode of destruction (Job_26:6). “Destruction (Abaddon) hath no covering”—i.e., before God. (Comp. Pro_15:11). In Greek his name is Apollyon, or Destroyer: The spirit of the destroyer is the spirit that inspires these hosts. It is a great movement, but its end is destruction, as its inspiring genius is from beneath, from an angel of the nether world. It is not necessary for us to seek some great historical personage for the fulfilment of this portion of the prophecy, any more than we ought to accept any great historical event as an exhaustive fulfilment of the vision. The picture is vivid and forcible, and its full and certain meaning will be plain hereafter; but it at least should draw our minds from the curiosity which seeks for historical or personal counterparts to the self-vigilance which fears lest our own spirit should be injured by the prevalence of any form of evil. It should teach us to remember always the vehement, earnest way in which the sacred writers describe the subtle, venomous power of all sin, and the merciless destructiveness of its work. It is not of any invading hosts, or signal and special forms of evil, but of the terrible and usual influence of all sin, that the Apostle St. Paul writes when he describes the world-wide devastations of sin in language partly borrowed from the Old Testament, but singularly reminding us of the vision before us. “There is none that doeth good; no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; the poison of asps is upon their lips; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom_3:12-18). It is perhaps well to notice that at this fifth trumpet the unseen spiritual powers of darkness appear taking part in. the conflict. There is a time when the obstinate resistance of mankind (yes, and of individual men and women also) to better things becomes fortified by an evil spirit, and they are no longer passive resisters of good, but they become active antagonists of good, hating and obscuring the light of truth, and wounding the spirits and consciences of men. Alas! many walk of whom the Apostle could only say with tears, “they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (the emblem of salvation), “and whose end is destruction” (Php_3:18-19).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. And they had a king] Whereas “the (natural) locusts have no king,” Pro_30:27. In Amo_7:1 the LXX. has the curious mistranslation or corrupt reading, “and behold one locust grub [was] Gog the king;” which possibly arose from, or suggested, a superstition that St John uses as an image.

the angel of the bottomless pit] Either the fallen star of Rev_9:1, who opened the pit and let them out of it, or a spirit—presumably, if not quite certainly, a bad one—made the guardian of that lowest deep of God’s creation. See Excursus I.

Abaddon] Properly an abstract noun, “destruction,” but used apparently in the sense of “Hell” in Job_26:6, &c. But

Apollyon] is a participle, “destroying,” and so “Destroyer.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they had a king over them,.... Which natural locusts have not, Pro 30:27; by whom is meant the false prophet Mahomet, who was at the head of the Saracens, and led them on to commit the outrages they did; and is believed in by the Turks to this day, as the great prophet of God, and by them preferred to all prophets, not only to Moses, but to Jesus Christ; he is the king of the eastern locusts, as the pope of Rome is the king of the western ones; for the Romish antichrist reigns, or at least has reigned, over the kings of the earth, Rev 17:17;

which is the angel of the bottomless pit; to whom the key of it was given, Rev 9:1;

whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon; both which signify a "destroyer"; and are very applicable both to Mahomet, who by his imposture has been the cause of the destruction of multitudes of souls, as well as by his wars, and those of the Saracens and Turks, of the lives of millions, and of the ruin of many kingdoms, countries, cities, and towns. Abulpharagius (w), an Arabic writer, relates, that in the times of the Chalif Al-walid, there was one Hejajus, who had caused to be slain, of the chief and illustrious men, an hundred and twenty thousand, besides others of the common people, and that fell in war; moreover, that there died in his prison fifty thousand men, and thirty thousand women: and the same writer reports (x), that the famous Abu Moslem put to death six hundred thousand men, who were known, besides those that were unknown, and whom he slew in wars and battles: both these instances are taken notice of by Mr. Daubuz, who justly observes, that surely nothing can come near this "Abaddon", but the beast, the son of perdition, Th2 2:3. And to him, the pope of Rome, may the name be truly applied, who has led thousands into perdition, and will go into it himself; and both he, and the false prophet, with the devil, will be east into the lake, which burns with fire and brimstone, and will be tormented for ever and ever, Th2 2:4. "Abaddon", with the Jews, is one of the habitations or apartments of hell (y), because it destroys all; "Apollyon" is the same with "Apollo", the god of the Heathens, who has his name from destroying (z).

(w) Hist. Dynast. p. 129. Dya. 9. (x) lb. p. 140. (y) T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. Zohar in Gen. fol. 47. 2. & in Numb. fol. 74. 2. Yalkut Simeoni, par. 2. fol. 47. 3. & 93. 4. Raziel, fol. 14. 2. & 35. 2. (z) Phurnutus de Natura Deorum, p. 92. Macrob. Saturnal. l. 1. c. 17.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Ver. 11. And they had a king over them] Being herein wiser than those other locusts, Pro 30:27.

The angel of the bottomless pit] That apostate star, Rev 9:1, the devil’s lieutenant, general, the Western Antichrist the pope, not excluding the Turk, that Antichrist of the East, that comes next to be spoken of. And indeed they may well go together; for they both set up another law than that of Christ, they kill the contrary part, they give liberty to the flesh, they will not have their religions to be disputed, &c.

Is Abaddon] A destroyer. I know not (saith learned Junins) whether the Holy Ghost in this name hath not some respect to the etymology or notation of Hildebrand, which signifies Fidei incendium, the firebrand of the faith.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Solomon saith, Pro 30:27, The locusts have no king, yet go they forth by bands; according to which these locusts cannot be understood of insects so called; or, if they have a king, yet it is certain the devil is not their king, who is here called the angel of the bottomless pit.

Abaddon; from אבד he hath destroyed.

Apollyon; that is, a destroyer; intimating that the whole business of this barbarous enemy should be to ruin and destroy nations.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. A king over them—Unlike the natural locusts, who are a noisy and pestilent democracy.

Abaddon—He is King Destruction. For so the Hebrew word signifies. In Job_26:6, and Pro_15:11, it seems to designate the place of the destruction of the wicked. So that here the word for sheol, or the abyss, or bottomless pit, is framed into a name for its angel. In Rev_20:14, death and hades are framed into personalities. Abaddon is translated by our seer into Greek, as Apollyon, Destroyer. As angel of the bottomless pit, bearing its title as his name, and heading the demons of sin swarming through the world, he can hardly be less than Satan himself. Abaddon and his locusts are a plain image of the devil and his angels, Mat_25:41. This description is a reduction to picture of St. Paul’s “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the hearts of the children of disobedience.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit; they have over them as king the angel of the abyss (Revised Version). Most commentators contrast with the condition of the natural locusts, who have no king. (Pro_30:7) "The angel" evidently, points to the star of ver. l, who is Satan himself. Some think a particular angel, not Satan, is intended. Alford unnecessarily hesitates to decide that Satan is meant, owing to Rev_12:3, Rev_12:9. Whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. Abaddon is the Hebrew wODba, a noun representing the abstract idea "destruction", (Job_31:12) but more frequently employed to designate the netherworld. (Job_26:6 Job_28:22 Pro_15:11 Psa_88:12) Apollyon (apolluwn , present participle) is the Greek apwleia (by which the LXX renders wODba) personified. It is in conformity with St. John"s usual practice to give the two forms of the name. (cf. Joh_1:38, 42 4:25 9:7 11:16 19:13, 17) In the name we have summed up the character of him who bears it. He is the "destroyer," the one who causes "perdition" to mankind. Cf. the words of our Lord given by St. John, (Joh_8:44) "He was a murderer from the beginning." Bengel and others contrast with "Jesus" the "Saviour." Perhaps the height of absurdity is reached by those writers (Bleek, Volkmar) who see in the name Apollyon a reference to (N)apoleon.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they have over them a king - One by whom they are peculiarly directed and governed. His name is Abaddon - Both this and Apollyon signify a destroyer. By this he is distinguished from the dragon, whose proper name is Satan.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

angel (See Scofield "Heb 1:4").

Apollyon i.e. Destroyer. Cf. Job 26:6; 1Pe 5:8.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. They had a king over them. The real king was not the star, but the power of the bottomless pit. Apollyon. The destroyer; either the devil or one of his angels.

FULFILLMENT.

The locust, the horse, the horsemen, the scorpions, and indeed all the symbols point to Arabia as the source from whence the locusts come. I believe that there ought to be no reasonable doubt that the uprising of the Mohammedan or Saracen power is meant. The Western Roman Empire had fallen in a.d. 476. There yet existed the Eastern Roman Empire, with Constantinople for a capital, called the Greek Empire. Against it the Saracen effort was especially directed. Let us see how that movement corresponded to the symbols: It was the right time, after a.d. 476, and in the right place, directed against the eastern part of the Old Roman world. Not only the facts just mentioned, but the description of the men symbolized by the locusts, point to Arabia. The locusts “were like unto horses prepared for battle.” The Arabians, unlike the Goths, Vandals, and Huns, were an army of horsemen, and moved over a country almost with the swiftness of the locust. Let the reader note the following facts concerning the Arabs: 1. They came forth from the home of the locust. 2. They all fought on horseback. There was not a foot-soldier in the armies which in a.d. 632 assailed the Eastern Empire. 3. They wore upon their heads something like crowns of gold. The historians often speak of them as the “turbaned Arabs.” Ezekiel (23:42), speaking of the Sabeans, which were an Arabian tribe, says, “The Sabeans of the wilderness who put upon their heads beautiful crowns.” The yellow turbans of the Arab horsemen, at a little distance, would strikingly resemble “crowns of gold.” 4. The locusts had “the faces of men.” The Jews and Arabs wore long, patriarchal beards. The Roman and northern races shaved the face. John notes that these locusts have the distinguishing mark of manhood in the East,—the unshorn beard. 5. But to the faces of men is added “the hair of women.” The female distinction is long hair, and evidently John beholds, as the riders rush by, long hair flowing from their shoulders and streaming in the air. Did the Arabs in the seventh century wear long hair? Pliny, who was the contemporary of John, speaks (Nat. His. 7:28) of “the turbaned Arabs with their uncut hair.” Ammianus Marcellinus in the fourth, and Jerome in the fifth century, each speak of the long-haired Arabs. An Arabian poem, Antar, written in Mahomet's time, often speaks of the hair of its heroes flowing down upon their shoulders. We quote: “He adjusted himself, twisted his beard, and folded his hair under his turban, drawing it up from his shoulders.” 6. But the locust had “breastplates of iron.” The historians of the Arabian wars constantly speak of the iron coats of mail. Mohammed, in the Koran, says: “God has given you coats of mail to defend you in your wars.”

Other Details. —Many corroborations might be added. 1. Mohammed was literally a fallen star. He was a prince by birth, the heir of the rule of Mecca, but his grandfather and father dying while he was young, he was pushed aside and became a servant. 2. The locusts came out of the smoke. The Arabs were unknown as a conquering power before Mohammed. The smoke of his imposture filled them with the fierce, stern fanaticism of the Koran. 3. They had literal orders in their invasion not to destroy vegetation. “Cut down no palm trees, nor burn fields of corn. Destroy no fruit trees.“—Gibbon, Vol. V., page 189. 4. Passing other marks, their destructive work was to continue five months, or one hundred and fifty years. Though Mohammed's work began earlier, it was in a.d. 632 that the Arab hosts bursts forth from their deserts to assail the world. Within a hundred years Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, the north of Africa, and Spain had fallen beneath their sway. In 762, the capital of the Saracen Empire was placed at Bagdad and their rulers began to cherish peaceful ideas. In 781, the Caliph Haroun Al Rashid was their ruler. This is the golden age of the Saracen power. This is the era of the Arabian Nights. Bagdad was called the “City of Peace.” How long is this from the time when the torment that had stricken half the world began? In a.d. 632, the Arabs assailed the nations, to which date one hundred and fifty years may be added. This would bring us to 782, the second year of Haroun Al Rashid's reign. Did the torment continue longer? Nay. He was engaged in friendly correspondence with the Christian rulers of Europe, and from this time the Saracens ceased their efforts to make the world Mohammedan. Their aggressive wars were forever ended.

THE SIXTH TRUMPET.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

11. ἔχουσιν ἐπ αὐτῶν βασιλέα. Whereas “the (natural) locusts have no king,” Pro 30:27. In Amo 7:1 the LXX. has the curious mistranslation or corrupt reading, καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἶς Γὼγ ὁ βασιλεύς; which possibly arose from, or suggested, a superstition that St John uses as an image.

τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου. Either the fallen star of Rev 9:1, who opened the pit and let them out of it; or a spirit—presumably, but hardly certainly, a bad one—made the guardian of that lowest deep of God’s creation. See Excursus I.

Ἀβαδδών. St Jerome seems to have kept alive in Latin a reading Labaddon, which was supposed to represent the Hebrew more accurately. The word is properly an abstract noun “destruction,” but used apparently in the sense of “Hell” in Job 26:6, &c. Here it probably stands for Destroyer, like the Greek participle given as an equivalent.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They had a king over them (ecousin ejf' aujtwn basilea). Render, as Rev., they have over them as king. Compare Pro 30:27. Hence distinguished from the natural locusts.

In Hebrew [εβραιστι] . Used only by John. Compare Joh 5:2; Joh 19:13, 17, 20; Rev 16:16.

Abaddon. Meaning destruction. Compare Job 26:6; Job 28:22; Pro 14:11. Here the Destroyer, as is evident from the Greek equivalent Apolluwn Apollyon destroyer. Perdition is personified. It is after John's manner to give the Hebrew with the Greek equivalent. Compare Joh 1:38, 42; Joh 4:25; Joh 9:7; Joh 11:16, etc.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.