Jamieson-Fausset-Brown on Revelation 16:5

Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), was a Church of Scotland pastor, Andrew Fausset (1821-1910) was in Irish Anglican pastor, and David Brown (1803-1897) was a Free Church of Scotland Pastor. The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, by Robert Jamieson, Andrew Fausset, and David Brown, also known as the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary is their work and the result of their interdenominational effort.

In the following, I've provided two versions of each statement as Studylight offers to versions, one of them allegedly from an "unabridged" edition.

JFB, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

O Lord—omitted by A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and ANDREAS.

and shalt be—A, B, C, Vulgate, and ANDREAS for this clause read, "(which art and wast) holy." The Lord is now no longer He that shall come, for He is come in vengeance and therefore the third of the three clauses found in Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8 is here and in Revelation 4:8- : omitted.

(allegedly "unabridged" version)

O Lord. Omitted by 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Andreas.

And shalt be. 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Andreas, for this clause, read, '(which art and wast) holy' [ hosios (G3741) for ho (G3588) esomenos]. The Lord is no longer He that shall be, for He is come in vengeance; therefore the third of the three clauses, Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, is here, and in Revelation 11:17, omitted.

JFB's explanation, while it leans too heavily on "future being," is right in saying that the coming in vengeance is what is meant by the earlier references to the coming one, and that vengeance has now arrived in the narrative of Revelation.

JFB, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

and art to come—omitted in A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, CYPRIAN, and ANDREAS. The consummation having actually come, they do not address Him as they did when it was still future, "Thou that art to come." Compare Revelation 11:18, "is come." From the sounding of the seventh trumpet He is to His people JAH, the ever present Lord, WHO IS, more peculiarly than JEHOVAH "who is, was, and is to come."

(allegedly "unabridged" version)

And art to come. Omitted in 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Syriac, Cyprian, Andreas. The consummation having come, they do not address him as when it was still future. Compare Revelation 11:18, "is come." From the seventh trumpet He is to His people Yaah (H3050), the ever-present Lord WHO is, rather than Yahweh (H3068), 'who is was, and is to come.'

The explanation is similar here, but I do find it curious how they seem to suggest that we should take "Yah" as a shortening of "Yahweh" by removing the futurity that it partly represents.  It seems creative, but I do not yet feel myself persuaded by it.

JFB, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

him which is . . . was . . . is to come—a periphrasis for the incommunicable name JEHOVAH, the self-existing One, unchangeable. In Greek the indeclinability of the designation here implies His unchangeableness. Perhaps the reason why "He which is to come" is used, instead of "He that shall be," is because the grand theme of Revelation is the Lord's coming (2 John 1:3- :). Still it is THE FATHER as distinguished from "Jesus Christ" (2 John 1:3- :) who is here meant. But so one are the Father and Son that the designation, "which is to come," more immediately applicable to Christ, is used here of the Father.

(allegedly "unabridged" version)

Him which is ... was ... is to come - a periphrasis for the incommunicable name Yahweh (H3068), the self-existing, unchangeable. [apo ho oon kai ho een kai ho erchomenos (G2064).] The indeclinability implies His unchangeableness. Perhaps 'He which is to come' is used instead of 'He that shall be,' because Revelation's grand theme is the Lord's coming (Revelation 1:7). Still, THE FATHER (Revelation 1:5) is here meant. But so one are the Father and Son, that the designation, "which is to come," special to Christ, is used here of the Father.

This explanation raises the question, at least to me, as to how the Greek should be translated, if this is the correct understanding.  If John intended to indicate God's unchangeableness by his solecism here, then ought we not use a similar grammatical irregularity in English to indicate the same thing?  On the other hand, if the intent is to indicate that the word is a name, we have English conventions for doing that - shouldn't we use them?

The latest "Pro-Rhinoceros" Scholarship

Nick Sayers argues that the Re'em is a rhinoceros.  The most recent scholarship cited in support of Nick Sayers' view appears to be two things: the "Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK)" and the J-F-B Commentary, namely Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871).

TSK

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK). The TSK first publication indicated, "Consisting of Five-hundred Thousand Scripture References and Parallel Passages from Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and Others, with Numerous Illustrative Notes." The TSK was created in London by publisher Samuel Bagster (1772-1851) and apparently first published around 1830. The earliest edition I found was 1833, which contains a brief statement identifying the Reem with the rhinoceros.

(The treasury Bible. First division: containing the authorized Engl. version. Second division: containing The treasury of Scripture knowledge. (1833). United Kingdom: (n.p.))

There were highly similar opinions expressed in the first half of the 19th century.  For example:

(Cater, P. (1845). Entertaining Knowledge: Or, the Curious Origin and Primary Meaning of Numerous Words and Phrases, Illustrated and Explained with a Dissertation on Ancient and Modern Tongues: by Philip Cater, .... United Kingdom: J. Gilbert. Canterbury: S. Prentice)

These sources are both drawing, directly or indirectly, from a late 1700s book called, "The Natural History of the Bible," or from a prior work quoted by that source. Source citation of that era (at least in the quality of work still promoting the "rhinoceros" theory) leaves much to be desired.

(HARRIS, T. M. (1793). The Natural History of the Bible: Or, a Description of All the Beasts, ... Trees, ... Metals, Precious Stones, Etc. Mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures. Collected from the Best Authorities, and Alphabetically Arranged. United States: (n.p.).)

For another example, a still earlier source:

(Beilby, R. (1792). A General History of Quadrupeds. United Kingdom: S. Hodgson, R. Beilby, & T. Bewick.)

Or this still earlier:

(Hall, W. H. (1789). THE NEW ROYAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA; OR, COMPLETE MODERN UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY OF ARTS & SCIENCES, ON A NEW AND IMPROVED PLAN: IN WHICH ALL THE RESPECTIVE SCIENCES, ARE ARRANGED INTO COMPLETE SYSTEMS, AND THE ARTS DIGESTED INTO DISTINCT TREATISES. ALSO THE DETACHED PARTS OF KNOWLEDGE, Alphabetically Arranged and Fully Explained, According to the BEST AUTHORITIES. Containing a Digest and Display of the Whole Theory and Practice of the Liberal and Mechanical Arts. Comprising a General REPOSITORY of ANCIENT AND MODERN LITERATURE, FROM THE EARLIEST AGES, DOWN TO THE PRESENT TIME: Containing All the New IMPROVEMENTS and Latest DISCOVERIES Made in the ARTS and SCIENCES, Particularly Acoustic ... Vermeology, &c. The Superfluities which Abound in Other Dictionaries are Expunged, for the Purpose of Incorporating Complete Systems, and Distinct Treatises. By Means of this Addition and Deviation from the Old Plan it Comprizes A GENERAL CIRCLE OF SCIENCE, AND FORMS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE LIBRARY OF UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE, That was Ever Published in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The Whole Entirely Freed from the Errors, Obscurities, and Superfluities of Other DICTIONARIES. Illustrated with Upwards of 150 Large Superb COPPER PLATES, Accurately Descriptive of the Subjects to which They Refer. IN THREE VOLUMES.. United Kingdom: C. COOKE, No 17, PATER-NOSTER ROW.)

 J-F-B Commentary

The J-F-B commentary has books commented by identified primary commenters.  Brown is only for the Gospels and Acts, while Fausset is for the rest of the New Testament and Job through Malachi.  Jamieson covers Genesis through Esther.  With this division of labor, some of the comments may be from one commentator or the other.  As you will see, the testimony of the J-F-B is all over the map and agrees both with the "rhinoceros" view but also the "buffalo" view.

Considering Jamieson's section frist:

Numbers 23

      22. he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn--Israel is not as they were at the Exodus, a horde of poor, feeble, spiritless people, but powerful and invincible as a reem--that is, a rhinoceros (Job 39:9; Ps 22:21; 92:10).

(nothing relevant at Numbers 24:8)

Deuteronomy 33

      13-17. of Joseph he said--The territory of this tribe, diversified by hill and dale, wood and water, would be rich in all the productions--olives, grapes, figs, &c., which are reared in a mountainous region, as well as in the grain and herbs that grow in the level fields. "The firstling of the bullock and the horns of the unicorn" (rhinoceros), indicate glory and strength, and it is supposed that under these emblems were shadowed forth the triumphs of Joshua and the new kingdom of Jeroboam, both of whom were of Ephraim (compare Ge 48:20).

Turning to Fausset's section:

Job 39

      9. unicorn--PLINY [Natural History, 8.21], mentions such an animal; its figure is found depicted in the ruins of Persepolis. The Hebrew reem conveys the idea of loftiness and power (compare Ramah; Indian, Ram; Latin, Roma). The rhinoceros was perhaps the original type of the unicorn. The Arab rim is a two-horned animal. Sometimes "unicorn" or reem is a mere poetical symbol or abstraction; but the buffalo is the animal referred to here, from the contrast to the tame ox, used in ploughing (Job 39:10, 12).

      abide--literally, "pass the night."

      crib-- (Isa 1:3).

      10. his band--fastened to the horns, as its chief strength lies in the head and shoulders.

      after thee--obedient to thee; willing to follow, instead of being goaded on before thee.

Psalm 22

      21. Deliverance pleaded in view of former help, when in the most imminent danger, from the most powerful enemy, represented by the unicorn or wild buffalo.

      the lion's mouth--(Compare Ps 22:13). The lion often used as a figure representing violent enemies; the connecting of the mouth intimates their rapacity.

(nothing relevant at Psalm 29:6)

(nothing relevant at Psalm 92:10)

Isaiah 34

      7. unicorns--Hebrew, reem: conveying the idea of loftiness, power, and pre-eminence (see on Job 39:9), in the Bible. At one time the image in the term answers to a reality in nature; at another it symbolizes an abstraction. The rhinoceros was the original type. The Arab rim is two-horned: it was the oryx (the leucoryx, antelope, bold and pugnacious); but when accident or artifice deprived it of one horn, the notion of the unicorn arose. Here is meant the portion of the Edomites which was strong and warlike.

      come down--rather, "fall down," slain [LOWTH].

      with them--with the "lambs and goats," the less powerful Edomites (Isa 34:6).

      bullocks . . . bulls--the young and old Edomites: all classes.

      dust--ground.