And the likenesses of the locusts [were] like to horses prepared for war; and upon their heads as crowns like gold, and their faces as faces of men;
Revelation 9:7 belongs to the fifth trumpet, where a swarm rises from the smoke of the pit to torment people, not to strip the fields. The verse pictures that swarm — war horses, gold-like crowns, human faces — and the question is what it describes: insects, armies, or something else.
Commentators point to the command given in the earlier verses as the decisive clue. Real locusts eat grass. These must leave the grass alone.
The command given shows, I think very plainly, the error of those who apply the locusts in a literal way. They were not to hurt the grass of the earth, and so on — that is, their natural food, if real locusts were meant. The targets of these symbolic raiders were men — all except God's sealed ones.
The verse gives three images, and each one carries its own weight.
The locusts are shaped like horses prepared for battle (v. 7). This speaks of their strength in conquest: they subdue men. "Crowns like gold" speaks of a dignity they have assumed, one that deceives people. Their faces, like the faces of men, add to the deception with a boastful, humanistic approach.
The verse does not say they wore crowns of gold. It says they wore what looked like crowns of gold. One writer presses that difference.
The crown of gold adorns the head of the Son of Man (Rev. 14:14), and also those of the triumphant elders or redeemed (Rev. 4:4). But these satanic invaders from the smoke of the pit are not really crowned, nor is real gold in question. They lay claim to a dignity God never gave them. "On their heads were what looked like crowns of gold." Their claim to royal authority is false.
Another writer reads the crowns not as royal headgear at all, and ties the human face to the mind behind the attack.
The crowns they wear are not royal crowns. They are victory wreaths, which they have taken for themselves. To the eye they looked like gold. But they were not what they appeared to be — only "as it were." The face of a man speaks of intelligence.
The front view is not the whole truth. Another writer turns the swarm around and looks at it from behind.
To those who met them they looked like military imperial power — crowned, and full of masculine energy. But seen from behind, with the secret uncovered, they were subject and weak: their faces were like human faces, their hair like the hair of women.
The same writer calls them "crowds of moral locusts with the sting of false doctrine in their tail." Their work was not to destroy prosperity on earth, but to harass and torment.
Many have read this passage as a picture of the Arab armies that swept the East. Commentators differ on how much weight that reading carries, and several object that the details do not fit.
We may admit that in history this foreshadows the swarms who overran the East under the satanic inspiration of Muhammad. But this is only a secondary fulfilment of the prophecy, and far from a complete one. The reason is clear: Muhammad's conquests were carried out with great bloodshed, while Scripture says plainly that these locusts do not inflict death.
The alternative is to read every feature as a description of character, not of physical looks.
To my mind the meaning is moral, not geographical. This kind of teaching takes away from the real force of Scripture. Is it not almost trifling to take the faces of men, the hair of women, and crowns like gold, and draw out of them a hint of a beard or moustache, with long flowing hair and a turban on top? Taken as emblems of character, the word of God keeps its dignity, and we feel it. The likeness to horses prepared for battle expresses their aggressive attitude, and the crowns like gold seem to hint at their boasted confidence that God had righteously sent them to conquer. Their faces like men's, but with women's hair, may show that, for all their claim to act with authority in God's name, they were subject to mere human authority after all, and not to God.
- Appearance. Every phrase in the verse is a comparison — like horses, like gold, like human faces. The swarm is a symbol: these locusts must leave alone the very food real locusts eat.
- Claim. The war-horse shape claims conquest. The crowns claim royal dignity. The human faces claim intelligence.
- Reality. The crowns are not real crowns, and the gold is not real gold. God never gave them that dignity. What looks like strength of their own is really subjection to a darker power.
- Target. The attack is not on fields or bodies but on minds. The sting is false doctrine, aimed at those who lack God's seal. It torments; it does not kill.
- Reading. When readers point to past armies as the fulfilment, the details resist them. Above all, this swarm may not kill. Read as marks of character, the description keeps its force.
and they had hair as women's hair, and their teeth were as of lions,
John's fifth trumpet vision describes a swarm of locusts part by part, and each part carries a meaning. Here two features stand side by side: hair like a woman's and teeth like a lion's. How can weakness and ferocity belong to the same creature?
Scripture already sets a pattern for this. Long hair marks a person's place, not a person's strength.
The New Testament speaks of long hair as the natural covering of a woman. It owns her subjection to the man, and it is a glory to her. But nature teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a shame to him. He must not cover his head in that way, for "he is the image and glory of God." 1 Corinthians 11:6-15. "Hair as the hair of women" is a symbol of subjection to a head, and of effeminacy. Revelation 9:8.
The same detail carries other associations, and the mention of women may point to something besides obedience.
"They had hair like the hair of women" (length of hair) — perhaps the badge of luxury, or of beauty (2 Samuel 14:26; Isaiah 3:24). The mention of women may assert the appearance of weakness (Isaiah 3:12; Isaiah 19:16). Or, taking 1 Corinthians 11 where the hair serves as a veil, it may assert apparent subjection.
If hair means submission, the question becomes whose orders these creatures take. Commentators differ. One answer points to the ruler named later in the chapter:
Their effeminacy and subjection come next. They are subject not to God, but to Satan their leader: "They had hair as women's hair."
Another sees the detail as puncturing a religious claim: they speak as though sent from God, yet answer to men.
Their faces are as of men, but with the hair of women. This may show that, for all their claim to act with authority in the name of God, they were subject to the lowest human authority after all, and not to God.
The verse before gives these creatures human faces; this verse gives them women's hair. Read together, the outside and the inside do not match.
"Their faces were as faces of men" also — they had the dignity and apparent independence of men. And yet "they had hair as the hair of women." They were in the fullest subjection to the dark and dreadful power that ruled over them.
The teeth tell a different story from the hair.
Teeth as those of lions exposes their actual character of greed and tenacity: they catch a person and do not let go.
One writer traces the same emblem across Scripture. The lion carries a fixed sense, whichever side it stands on.
"Their teeth were as the teeth of lions." This shows their readiness for consuming. The lion stands for courage and power, whether the word is applied to Judah, to Messiah, to Satan, or to the animal in nature. (Proverbs 28:1; Proverbs 30:14, 30; Daniel 7:7, 19; Joel 1:6.)
Some readers have taken the hair and faces as clues to a particular nation's appearance. One writer rejects that approach as too small for the passage.
To my mind the intention is moral, not geographical... Does it not seem almost trifling to take the faces of men, the hair of women, and crowns like gold as a hint at beard or moustache, with literal flowing hair under a turban? Taken as emblems of character, the dignity of the divine word is vindicated and felt. The locusts naturally point to countless swarms, devouring within set limits, but they are marked out more by the tormenting sting of false doctrine.
Writers also admit where a symbol defeats them. One rejects the idea that this hair stands for joy, then owns the limit of his own reading.
That a woman shaving her head may signify grief, I understand — it is a shame, and her ornament is gone. But why a man putting on woman's hair should be joy is, I confess, beyond me. I am not prepared to argue against it, because I am not clear about the point myself.
- Face — the human face gives them dignity and apparent independence; it is the impression they make, not the truth about them.
- Hair — women's hair is a symbol of subjection to a head, drawn from 1 Corinthians 11. It cancels the independence the face claimed.
- Master — commentators differ on whose subjects they are. Some say Satan their leader; others say the lowest human authority, hidden behind a claim to speak for God.
- Teeth — the lion's teeth show what they are for: courage, power, and a grip that catches a person and does not let go.
- Reading — the details are emblems of character, not clues to beards and turbans. Their real sting is false doctrine. Where a symbol stays unclear, saying so is better than forcing it.