(5) Many expressions are to be met with in the seven epistles which find their explanation only in those later chapters of the book where a reference to the Church universal cannot be denied. The _tree of life_ of the first epistle meets us again, more fully spoken of, in the description of the new Jerusalem.[39] The _second death_ mentioned in the second epistle is not explained till judgment upon the Church's enemies is complete.[40] The writing upon believers of the _new name_, promised in the third epistle, is almost unintelligible until we behold the hundred and forty-four thousand upon Mount Zion.[41] The _authority over the nations_, and more especially the gift of _the morning star_, referred to in the fourth epistle, cannot be comprehended until we are introduced to the vision of the thousand years and the last utterances of the glorified Redeemer.[42] The _white garments_ of the fifth epistle can hardly be rightly understood until we see the white-robed company standing before the throne and before the Lamb.[43] The mention in the sixth epistle of _the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God_, remains a mystery until we actually witness her descent.[44] And, finally, the _sitting in Christ's throne_ of the seventh epistle is only elucidated by the reign of the thousand years with Him.[45]
(6) It is worthy of notice that the descriptions of our Lord given in the first and last epistles have a wider application than to the churches of Ephesus and Laodicea, to which they are immediately addressed, thus making it evident that, while each of these epistles has its own place in the series, it is at the same time treated as the first or last member of a group which is to be regarded as a whole.
To the church of Ephesus the Saviour describes Himself as _He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand, He that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks_[46]; and the description has no more reference to Ephesus than to any other of the churches named. In like manner to the church of Laodicea He describes Himself as _the Amen, the Witness faithful and true, the Beginning of the creation of God_.[47] The first of these appellations is no doubt derived from Isa. lxv. 16, where we have twice repeated in the same verse the formula "God Amen;" and the meaning of the name as applied to Jesus is, not that all the Divine promises shall be accomplished by Him, but that He is Himself the fulfilment of every promise made by the Almighty to His people. The second appellation reminds us of John xviii. 37, where Jesus replies to Pilate's question in the words, "To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." His whole mission is summed up by Him in the idea of "witnessing." He is the perfect, the true, the real Witness to eternal truth in its deepest sense, in its widest and most comprehensive range. The third appellation, again, cannot be limited to the thought of the mere material creation, as if equivalent to the statement that by the Word were all things made. It would thus fail to correspond with the two appellations preceding it, which undoubtedly apply to the work of redemption, while at the same time the addition of the words "of God" would be meaningless or perplexing. Let us add to this that in chap. i. 5, immediately after Jesus has been called the "faithful Witness," He is described as the "first-begotten of the dead," and we shall not be able to resist the conviction that the words before us refer primarily to the new creation, the Christian Church, that redeemed humanity which has its true life in Christ. It may not indeed be necessary to exclude the thought of the material universe; but, in so far as it is alluded to, it is only as redeemed, in its ideal condition of rest and glory, when the new Jerusalem has come down out of heaven, and when the Church's enemies have been cast into the lake of fire.[48] The three appellations, it will be observed, have thus a general rather than a special aspect; and the salutation containing them is to be distinguished from the salutations of the other epistles, all of which, with the exception of the last, exhibit the closest possible connexion with the contents of the epistles to which they respectively belong. It is no mere fancy, therefore, when we say that we have in this a proof that the first and last epistles are not simply members of a continuous series, the last of which may leave the first far behind, but that they are binding terms which gather up all the members of the series and group them into one.