the word of God and the testimony of Jesus, partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and patience

which are in Jesus. His punishment took place at a time when the penalty for Christianity was already fixed

as death in the severer form (i.e. fire, crucifixion, or as a public spectacle at games and festivals) for persons

of humbler position and provincials, and simple execution for Roman citizens. Nor is it possible to suppose

that St. John was banished at an early stage in the persecution, before the procedure was fully

comprehended and strictly carried out. The tradition that connects his punishment with Domitian is too

The conclusion seems inevitable: St. John was not punished with the recognised Roman penalty of

banishment to an island (deportatio in insulam): the exile to Patmos must have been some kind o f

punishment of a more serious character.

There was such a penalty. Banishment combined with hard labour for life was one of the grave penalties.

Many Christians were punished in that way. It was a penalty for humbler criminals, provincials and slaves. It

was in its worst forms a terrible fate: like the death penalty it was preceded by scourging, and it was marked

by perpetual fetters, scanty clothing, insufficient food, sleep on the bare ground in a dark prison, and work

under the lash of military overseers. It is an unavoidable conclusion that this was St. John's punishment.

Patmos is not elsewhere mentioned as one of the places where convicts of this class were sent; but we know

very little about the details and places of this penalty; and the case of St. John is sufficient proof that such

criminals were in some cases sent there. There were no mines in Patmos. Whether any quarries were worked

there might be determined by careful exploration of the islet. Here, as everywhere in the New Testament, one

is met by the difficulty of insufficient knowledge. In many cases it is impossible to speak confidently, where

a little exploration by a competent traveller would probably give certainty.

Undoubtedly, there were many forms of hard labour under the Roman rule, and these varied in degree, some

being worse than others. We might wish to think that in his exile St. John had a mild type of punishment to

undergo, which permitted more leisure and more ease; but would any milder penalty be suitable to the

language of 1:9, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation? It is possible perhaps to explain those

words as used by an exile, though subjected only to the milder penalty inflicted on persons of rank. But how

much more meaning and effect they carry, when the penalties of both parties are of the same severe

character. Now it is a safe rule to follow, that the language of the New Testament is rarely, if ever, to be

estimated on the lower scale of effectiveness. The interpretation which gives most power and meaning is the

right one. St. John wrote to the Churches in those words of 1:9, because he was suffering in the same degree

as themselves.

Banished to Patmos, St. John was dead to the world; he could not learn much about what was going on in

the Empire and in the Province Asia. It would be difficult for him to write his Vision in a book, and still more

difficult to send it to the Churches when it was written. He could exercise no charge of his Churches. He

could only think about them, and see in the heavens the process of their fate. He stood on the sand of the

seashore, and saw the Beast rise from the sea and come to the land of Asia: and he saw the battle waged

and the victory won. Just as the Roman supreme magistrate or general was competent to read in the sky the

signs of the Divine will regarding the city or the army entrusted to his charge, so St. John could read in the

heavens the intimation of the fortunes and the history of his Churches.

In passing, a remark on the text must be made here. It is unfortunate that the Revisers departed from the

reading of the Authorised Version in 13:1; and attached the first words to the preceding chapter,

understanding that the Dragon "stood upon the sand of the sea." Thus a meaningless and unsuitable

amplification--for where is the point in saying that the Dragon waxed wroth with the Woman, and went away

to war with the rest of her seed; and he stood upon the sand of the sea? the history breaks off properly with

his going away to war against the saints (the conclusion of that war being related in 19:19-21), whereas it

halts and comes to a feeble stop, when he is left standing on the seashore --was substituted for the bold and

effective personal detail, I stood upon the sand of the shore of Patmos, and saw a Beast rise out of the sea.