聖書注解書

本章は書全体への一般的な序文であり、次のものを含む。I. その起源と目的を明らかにする標題、Rev 1:1,2。II. この書の内容にふさわしい注意を払うすべての人に宣言された使徒的祝福、Rev 1:3-8。III. この啓示を使徒ヨハネに伝えられたとき、主イエス・キリストが彼に現れた栄光ある幻、すなわち顕現、Rev 1:9-20。

序論

エルミヤは、アナトテ（ベニヤミン族）に住む一般の祭司ヒルキヤの子である（エレ1:1）。律法の書を発見した大祭司ヒルキヤ（王下22:8）とは別人である。同一人物であれば「その祭司」あるいは「大祭司」という呼称が用いられたはずである。その上、アナトテに住んでいたことは、彼がアビアタルの系統に属することを示す。アビアタルはソロモンによって大祭司職から退けられ（王上2:26-35）、以後その職はザドクの系統に留まった。エルミヤについては歴代下35:25; 36:12, 21にも言及がある。

紀元前629年、ヨシヤ王の第十三年、彼はまだ非常に若かったが（エレ1:5）、アナトテで預言者としての召しを受けた（エレ1:2）。そして大祭司ヒルキヤ、女預言者フルダ、預言者ゼパニヤと共に、ヨシヤの宗教改革を助けた（王下23:1-25）。彼に与えられた最初の務めの一つは、エルサレムに行って神のメッセージを宣べ伝えることであった（エレ2:2）。彼はまた、神殿で発見された律法の書の内容をユダの諸都市に告げ知らせるため、公式の巡回を行った（エレ11:6）。これは預言者としての召しから五年後のことであった。アナトテに戻ると、同郷の人々は彼の責め言葉に憤り、彼の命を狙って陰謀を企てた。彼らの迫害（エレ11:21）、さらには家族の迫害（エレ12:6）から逃れるため、彼はアナトテを去りエルサレムに住んだ。ヨシヤ治世の十八年間、彼は妨害を受けなかった。エホアハズ（シャルム）の三个月の治世の間も同様であった（エレ22:10-12）。

エホヤキムが即位すると、ヨシヤの改革がもたらしたのは偶像礼拝の力による抑圧と、神礼拝の外面上の確立に過ぎなかったことが明らかになった。祭司、預言者、民衆はエルミヤを当局の前に引き出し、都に対する悪への非難ゆえに死刑にすべきだと主張した（エレ26:8-11）。しかし君侯たち、特にアヒカムが彼を弁護した（エレ26:16, 24）。それでも彼は拘禁下に置かれ、あるいは少なくとも公の場に出ないことが賢明と見なされた。エホヤキムの第四年（紀元前606年）、彼は口頭で与えられた預言を書き記し、民に読み聞かせるよう命じられた。「閉じ込められて」いたため、彼自身は主の家に行くことができず（エレ36:5）、そのため筆記係バルクを遣わし、断食の日に公衆の面前でそれを読ませた。これを受け、君侯たちはバルクとエルミヤに王の怒りから身を隠すよう助言した。その間、彼らは巻物を王に読み聞かせたが、王は激怒し、それを刀で切り裂いて火に投げ込んだ。同時に預言者とバルクの逮捕を命じた。彼らはエホヤキムの暴力から逃れた。その暴力はすでに預言者ウリヤを殺していた（エレ26:20-23）。バルクは別の巻物に、追加の預言と共に再びことばを書き記した（エレ36:27-32）。

エホヤキン（エコニヤ）の三个月の治世に、彼は王と母后の捕囚を預言した（エレ13:18; 22:24-30。王下24:12と比較）。この治世に、彼は主の家の総督パシュルによって短期間投獄された（エレ20:1-18）。しかしゼデキヤの即位時には自由であった（エレ37:4）。王はネブカデネザルがエルサレムに攻め上ってきたとき、「主に問う」ために彼に遣わした（エレ21:1-3等、エレ37:3）。カルデヤ人はパロの軍勢の接近を聞いて引き揚げた（エレ37:5）。しかしエルミヤは、エジプト人が王を見捨て、カルデヤ人が戻って都を焼き払うであろうと王に警告した（エレ37:7, 8）。君侯たちはこれに激昂し、休息の間のエルミヤの都からの退出を、カルデヤへの亡命の口実として投獄の理由とした（エレ38:1-5）。エチオピヤ人エベド・メレクのとりなしがなければ、彼はマルキヤの土坑の中で滅びていたであろう（エレ38:6-13）。ゼデキヤは密かにエルミヤに相談したが、君侯たちに促されてエルサレムが陥落するまで彼を牢に留めた（エレ38:14-28）。ネブカデネザルはその将軍ネブザルアダンに、彼に自由を与え、行きたいままにバビロンに行くか、残りの民と共に留まるかを選ばせるよう命じた。真の愛国者として、国が彼の奉仕を無視と迫害で報いた四十数年にもかかわらず、彼はネブカデネザルがユダに任命した総督ゲダリヤと共に留まった（エレ40:6）。

ゲダリヤがイシマエルに殺された後、民の公認の指導者であったヨハナンは、ゲダリヤ殺害の復讐を恐れ、民と共にエジプトへ逃れ、エルミヤとバルクに同行を強いた。これは、民がエジプトに行けば滅びるが、国に留まれば守られるという預言者の警告に反するものであった（エレ41:1-43:13）。タハパネス（ナイルのタニスまたはペルシア支流にある境界の都市）で、彼はエジプトの打倒を預言した（エレ43:8-13）。伝承によれば彼はエジプトで死んだ。『偽エピファニオス』によれば、タプネ（タハパネス）で石打ちの刑に処されたという。ユダヤ人は彼を深く敬い、彼が死人の中からよみがえり、メシアの先驱者になると信じていた（マタ16:14）。

ハヴェルニックは、エルミヤの性格に見られる諸特徴の組み合わせが彼の神からの使命を証明していると観察する。温和で、臆病で、憂鬱を感じやすい性格でありながら、預言的職務の遂行においては大胆不敵であり、最も身分の低い民と同様に君主をも容赦しなかった。預言の御霊が彼の自然の気質を統御し、危険な事業にふさわしい資質を備えさせたが、彼の個性に暴力を加えることはなかった。ゼパニヤ、ハバクク、ダニエル、エゼキエルが同時代人である。最後のエゼキエルはエルミヤとよい対照をなす。エゼキエルの場合、御霊は強固さによって際立つ気質に働き、エルミヤの場合は縮みやすく繊細な感受性によって際立つ気質に働いた。エゼキエルは国民の罪を義に対立するものとして見るが、エルミヤは惨めさを生み出すものとして見る。前者は客観的、後者は主観的な時代の悪の見方をとる。エルミヤの文体は彼の性格に対応している。彼は特に悲哀と不幸な者への同情によって際立ち、『哀歌』がこれを示している。一連の哀歌はただ一つの目的を持つ。すなわち、落ちた祖国への悲しみを表現することである。しかし彼がこれを示す光や像は非常に多様であり、読者は単調さを感じるどころか、全体を通じて哀調の変化に魅了される。言語にはアラム語的表現が見られ、これがヒエロニムスが文体を「粗野」と批判した根拠であろう。ロースはこの批判を否定し、ある部分ではイザヤに劣らないとみなしている。彼の句の重ね合わせ、定型句の反復――しかもしばしば三度――は、彼の感情の深さと、それを強く表現したい願いによる。特に外国諸国民に対して、また韻律的な部分では、より簡潔で力強く荘厳になる。

彼の預言の配列の原則を知ることは難しい。王の順序は次の通りであった。ヨシヤ（その下で十八年間預言）、エホアハズ（三个月）、エホヤキム（十一年）、エコニヤ（三个月）、ゼデキヤ（十一年）。しかしヨシヤの下での預言（第一〜二十章）は、すぐにゼデキヤの下の部分（第二十一章）に続く。さらに、エレ24:8-10のゼデキヤに関する記述が、エホアハズ、エホヤキム、エコニヤに関する部分（第二十二、二十三、二十五章等）のただ中に現れる。同様に、エホヤキムに関する第三十五、三十六章は、ゼデキヤに関する第二十七、二十八、二十九、三十三、三十四章の後に来る。またエホヤキムの第四年と年代づけられた第四十五章は、エルサレムの陥落後にエジプトへ逃れたユダヤ人に関する預言の後に来る。エヴァルトは現在の配列が実質的にエルミヤ自身のものと考える。各部分は「主からエルミヤに臨んだ言葉」という同じ定型句で始まる（エレ7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 25:1; 30:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 40:1; 44:1。エレ14:1; 46:1; 47:1; 49:34と比較）。年代的注記が他の、より歴史的な区分を示す（エレ26:1; 27:1; 36:1; 37:1）。さらに二つの部分が独立している（エレ29:1; 45:1）。第二章には連の始まりを示す短い序があり、第三章は不完全と思われ、「語って」という序しか持たない（エレ3:1、ヘブル語）。このように詩の部分には二十三の区分があり、各々七〜九節の連に分かれ、「主はまたわたしに言われた」のような形で示される。これらは五つの書から成る。I. 序、第一章。II. ユダヤ人への責め、第二〜二十四章、七つの区分から成る。（1）第二章。（2）第三〜六章。（3）第七〜十章。（4）第十一〜十三章。（5）第十四〜十七章。（6）第十七〜十九、二十章。（7）第二十一〜二十四章。III. 万国の回顧、二つの区分。第二十五章、および第二十六〜四十九章。歴史的付録三つの区分。（1）第二十六章。（2）第二十七章。（3）第二十八、二十九章。IV. より明るい時の希望を描く二つの区分。（1）第三十、三十一章。（2）第三十二、三十三章。および歴史的付録三つの区分。（1）エレ34:1-7。（2）エレ34:8-22。（3）エレ35:1-19。V. 結論、二つの区分。（1）エレ36:2。（2）エレ45:1-5。その後、エジプトで、彼はエジプトに関する先の預言にエレ46:13-26を追加した。また三つの区分、すなわち第三十七〜三十九章、第四十〜四十三章、第四十四章を加えた。第五十二章は（エレ51:64参照）、後代の編者による付録で、王下24:18等、王下25:30から取られたものであろう。

外国諸国民に対する預言は、ヘブル語と七十人訳（セプトゥアギンタ）とで異なる順序で並んでいる。またヘブル語におけるそれらの預言（第四十六〜五十一章）は、七十人訳ではエレ25:14の後に置かれ、第二十六、三十一章を形成する。ヘブル語の第二十五章の残りの部分が七十人訳の第三十二章である。ヘブル語のある箇所（エレ27:19-22; 33:14-26; 39:4-14。エレ48:45-47）は七十人訳にはない。ギリシャ語の翻訳者は異なるテキストを持っていたのであろう。おそらくより古いものである。ヘブル語はおそらくエルミヤ自身の手による最も新しく最も完全な版であろう。エレ25:13を参照。彼の預言の正典性は、新約聖書における引用（マタ2:17; 16:14; ヘブル8:8-12を参照。マタ27:9についてはゼカリヤ書の序論を参照）によって確立される。また『シラ書』49:7の証言（エレ1:10を引用）、フィロン（彼の言葉を「神託」として引用）、およびメリト、オリゲネス、ヒエロニムス、タルムードにおける正典書のリストによっても確立される。

（注: 当項目の ref は REV 1:- であるが、原文 en の内容は JER（エルミヤ書）の序論である。原著の編成上の帰属による。訳文は原文の内容に忠実に従う。）

ヨハネの黙示録 序論

第1節 ヨハネの黙示録の著者

この書の著者が誰であるかという問題については、多くのものが書かれてきた。この問題を詳しく調査することは、私に与えられた紙幅の限度を大きく超えるのみならず、この注解における私の目的にも合わない。この問題の十分な検討については他に譲るほかないが、特に、Prof. Stuart, Com. i.-283-427; Lardner, Works, vi. 318-327; Hug『Introduction to the New Testament』pp. 650-673、Andover、1836; Michaelis『Introduction to the New Testament』iv. 457-544; ならびに Kitto『Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature』の「Revelation」項目を挙げておく。ここでは、教会において一般に抱かれてきた見解、すなわち使徒ヨハネが著者であるという見解を支える証拠を簡潔に示したい。その証拠は私には十分満足のいくものと思われる。このことは、直接の歴史的証拠と、それを疑う理由の不十分さ、という二つの区分のもとで考察することができる。

I. 直接の歴史的証拠

この点について言い得るすべての要点は、第三世紀後半に至るまで、使徒ヨハネが著者であることは疑われなかった、ということである。それ以後なぜ疑われるようになったのか、またその疑いの力と価値がどのようなものであるかは、この序論の別の部分で考察する。

初期の歴史的証言を、ヨハネの死（紀元後約98年）から第三世紀中葉に至る、それぞれ半世紀ずつの三つの時期に分けて見ることは、いくらかの便宜があるだろう。

1. ヨハネの死（紀元後約98年）から紀元後150年まで

この時期は、使徒たちと語り合った、あるいは語り合うことができた人々、すなわちその生涯の一部でヨハネと同時代であった人々の最後の世代を含む。それゆえ、当時生きていた著者たちの証言は当然きわめて重要である。この時期に含まれるのは、ヘルマス、イグナティオス、ポリュカルポス、パピアスである。この時期の証拠は、確かにきわめて直接的なものではないが、ヨハネが著者であったという前提の下で期待されるような性質のものであり、その前提と矛盾するものは何もない。

ヘルマス（紀元後約100年）——この著者に帰せられる『牧者』(Pastor)には、この書を指すとみなされるいくつかの言及があり、その類似が非常に大きいため、著者がこの書を知っていた可能性を高めている。ラードナー博士は、この点についての検討の結果を次のように述べている。「ヘルマスはヨハネの黙示録を読み、それを模倣した可能性がある。彼にはそれに似た事柄が多くある」(vol. ii. pp. 69-72)。しかし、この著者には重要な意義を持つ「直接的な」証言は存在しない。

イグナティオス——彼はアンティオキアの監督であり、紀元後70～107年に活躍した。後者の年に、トラヤヌスの治世に殉教した。しかし、黙示録に関しては彼から多くを得ることはできない。彼はヨハネの同時代人でありながら、ヨハネについてもっと直接に言及していないことは、少なからず注目に値する。殉教の地ローマへと強制的に急ぎ旅する途上で、彼はエペソ人、マグネシア人、トラレス人、ローマ人、ヒラデルフィア人、スミルナ人へ、またポリュカルポスへ、いくつかの手紙を書いた。これらの手紙の真正性については多くの論争があり、現在私たちが持っているものは大きく損なわれていることが一般に認められている。これらの手紙には黙示録への直接の言及はなく、ミカエリスはこれを、その真正性を信じない強い根拠の一つとしている。彼の論証は、イグナティオスの沈黙は、彼がこの書の存在を知らなかったか、あるいはそれを聖なる聖書の一部として認めなかったことを示す、というものである。しかし、一人の著者の単なる沈黙から推論できることはほとんど何もない。この書が存在し、ヨハネの著作として認められていたとしても、イグナティオスがそれに言及しなかった理由はいくらでもあり得たからである。

ヨハネがエペソに住んだこと、パトモスへ流されたこと、その死に関する事柄の一切は、彼によって言及されていない。しかし、イグナティオスの手紙には、黙示録を指す、あるいは彼がその書に通じていたことを証明するとみなされてきた二、三の「言及」がある。もっとも、その言葉があまりに一般的であるため、彼がそれを引用しようとした確かな証拠を何も提供しないことは認めなければならない。それらは次のとおりである。ローマ人への手紙——「イエス・キリストの忍耐の中で」、Revelation 1:9 と比較せよ。エペソ人への手紙——「神の建物のために備えられた、父の宮の石々」、Revelation 21:2-19 と比較せよ。これに加えて、大英博物館のジョン・コリアー・ナイト氏は、近著『ヨハネの黙示録の真作性と真正性を擁護する二つの新論証』(London, 1842)において、第三のものを付け加えた。すなわち、ヒラデルフィア人への手紙——「彼らがイエス・キリストについて語らないなら、彼らは墓の柱にすぎず、その上には人間の名前だけが書き記されている」。Revelation 3:12「勝利を得る者を、わたしの神の宮の柱としよう。彼はもはや決して外に出ることがない。わたしの神の名を彼の上に書き記そう」と比較せよ。しかし、この言葉の一致は、イグナティオスが黙示録を見たという確かな証拠を何も与えないことは認めなければならない。ただし、彼がそれを見ていたなら用いたであろうような言葉ではある。とはいえ、彼がこの書を知っていたとしても、それに言及しなければならない既知の必要があったわけではなく、彼の沈黙から何かを推論することはできない。

ポリュカルポス——彼はスミルナの監督であり、殉教したが、その時期は確かでない。『復活祭年代記』(Chronicon Paschale)は紀元後163年を、エウセビオスは167年を、ウッシャーは169年を、ピアソンは148年を挙げる。彼は86歳で死んだので、紀元後約98年に死んだヨハネと同時代であった。彼の著作のうち現存する遺物は一つ、すなわちピリピ人への手紙のみである。エウセビオス(iv. 15)には、スミルナの教会からポントスの諸教会に宛てた、ポリュカルポスの殉教の経過を伝える手紙がある。これらのいずれにも、ヨハネの黙示録への明示的な言及や確かな言及はないことが認められている。しかしこの事情から、黙示録に関して賛否いずれの方向にも何かを推論することはできない。現存する著作において、ポリュカルポスや彼の友人たちがこの書について語る機会がなかったかもしれないからであり、彼らの沈黙からこの書に不利な推論を引き出すことは、パウロの手紙やヨハネによる福音書に不利な推論を引き出すことよりも正当ではあり得ない。とはいえ、この書に関するポリュカルポスの重要な証言とみなして差し支えないものがある。あらゆる理由から、ポリュカルポスはヨハネの個人的な友人であり、イレナエオスはポリュカルポスの個人的な友人であった(Lardner, ii.-94-96)。ところで、後に見るように、イレナエオスはあらゆる機会に、最も断定的な仕方で、黙示録が使徒ヨハネによって書かれたことを明確に証言している。ポリュカルポスがそれを真実と信じていなかったなら、イレナエオスがそうしただろうと想定することは不可能である。さらに、彼自身の友人であり、かつヨハネの友人でもあった者がそれを疑ったり否定したりしていたなら、彼がこの見解を抱いていた可能性は確かに低い。これは確かに絶対的な証明ではないが、ヨハネの黙示録が使徒ヨハネによって書かれたという見解に有利な強い推定的証拠を提供する。ポリュカルポスの歴史の全体と、新約聖書の諸書に対する彼の証言は、Lardner, ii.-94-114 に見ることができる。

パピアス——彼はコロッサイに近いヒエラポリスの監督であり、ケイヴによれば紀元後約110年に、他の人々によれば紀元後約115年ないし116年に活躍した。彼がどれほど長生きしたかは不確実である。イレナエオスは、彼がポリュカルポスの親密な友人——ἑτᾶίρος hetairos——であったと主張しており、これはエウセビオスにも認められている(Eccl. Hist. iii. 39)。彼はヨハネの同時代人であり、おそらく彼と面識があった。エウセビオスは、彼が「ヨハネの聞き手」であったと明言している(Lardner, ii. 117)。彼の著作のうち残っているのは、エウセビオス、ヒエロニムス、およびカッパドキアのカイサリアの監督アンドレアの注解に保存されたわずかな断片のみである。彼は千年王国の教理の熱心な擁護者であった。私たちに保存されている彼の著作(see Lardner, ii.-120-125)には、黙示録への明示的な言及も直接の参照もないが、カイサリアの注解者アンドレアは、彼をその信頼性を支持する明示的な証人の中に数えている。黙示録注解の序文で、アンドレアは次のように言う。「さて、この書の霊感については、祝福されたグレゴリオスとキュリロス、さらに古の（著者たち）である『パピアス、イレナエオス、メトディオス、ヒッポリュトス』がその信頼性を証言しているので、論述を広げるのは余計なことと考える」。この箇所は Hug, Introduction, p. 652; ならびに Prof. Stuart, i. 305 を見よ。アンドレアの後継者アレタスも、ほとんど同じ言葉で同様の証言をしている。それゆえ、この場合の証拠はポリュカルポスの場合と同じであり、この書を使徒ヨハネの著作と彼がみなしていたことが一様に理解されていなかったなら、パピアスがこのように引用されることは考えられない。

以上が、ヨハネの死後の最初の半世紀に正当に属するすべての証言であり、それ自体としては絶対的に「積極的かつ決定的」なものではないが、次の諸点は確立されたものとみなすことができる。

(a) この書は知られていた。

(b) 証言の及ぶ限り、それはヨハネによって書かれたという見解を支持する。

(c) 彼が著者であるという事実は、問題とされず、疑われもしなかった。

(d) この書は一般に彼に帰せられていた。

(e) この書は、パピアスが抱いていた千年王国の見解の基礎で「あったかもしれない」。すなわち、彼がこうした見解を抱いたという事実は、この書が知られており、彼がその見解をこの書の上に築いたと想定する方が、他のいかなる想定よりも容易に説明できる。Prof. Stuart, i.304 を見よ。

2. ヨハネの死後の第二の半世紀、紀元後150年から200年まで

ここには、殉教者ユスティヌス、リヨンの殉教者たちの記録者、イレナエオス、メリト、テオフィロス、アポロニオス、アレクサンドリアのクレメンス、テルトゥリアヌスの名が含まれる。

殉教者ユスティヌス——彼はキリスト教徒の哲学者であり、古代にはシケムと呼ばれたサマリヤの都市フラウィア・ネアポリスの生まれで、紀元後約103年の生まれと考えられている。紀元後約133年にキリスト教へ回心し、紀元後約165年に殉教した(Lardner, ii.-125-140)。彼は部分的にポリュカルポスやパピアスと同時代であった。彼はエジプト、イタリア、小アジアを旅行し、しばらくエペソに滞在した。彼は大胆で探究的な精神を備え、誠実と徳において傑出した人物であった。タティアヌスは彼を「立派な人物」と呼び、メトディオスは、彼は時においても徳においても「使徒たちから遠くない」人物であったと言い、フォティオスは、彼が「キリスト教の哲学に、とりわけ異教の哲学に精通し、歴史とその他すべての学問の知識に富んでいた」と述べている(Lardner)。それゆえ彼は、ヨハネの黙示録の起源に関する真理を確認する資格を十分に備えた人物であり、その証言は大きな価値を持つはずである。

彼は「キリアスム」——すなわち、キリストが地上で千年の間支配されるという教理——の擁護者であり、その擁護のために次の言葉を用いている。「また、私たちのうちの一人、名をヨハネという、キリストの使徒たちのひとりである者が、彼に与えられた啓示の中で——ἐν Ἀποκάλυψει γενομένη αὐτῷ en Apokalupsei genomenē autō——唯一のキリストを信じる者たちがエルサレムで千年の間生きること、その後には、すべての人々がともに受ける一般的な、一言で言えば永遠の復活とさばきとがあることを預言した」。ここに「ヨハネの黙示録」への言及があることは少しも疑い得ない。啓示というまさにその名——Ἀποκάλυψις Apokalupsis——が用いられているからである。また、ユスティヌスが、それが使徒ヨハネによって書かれたと信じていたこと、そして現在の黙示録20章に明示的に言及していることも疑い得ない。それゆえこの書は、ユスティヌスの時代——すなわちヨハネの死後約50年——に存在し、使徒ヨハネの作品と信じられ、そのように引用されていたのである。しかもその引用者は、ヨハネがまさに住んでいた地域に住んだ人物であり、人格において非難の余地がなく、この種の点において誤り得なかった人物である。それゆえ、殉教者ユスティヌスの証言はきわめて重要である。それは積極的であり、真理を知るあらゆる機会のあったところで、かつ偽りの証言をする動機のまったくないところで与えられたものであり、真実性において非難されていない人物の証言である。

ビエンヌとリヨンの殉教者たちの記録——Lardner, ii.-160-165. マルクス・アントニヌスの治世に、キリスト教徒は迫害によって多くの苦しみを受けた。この迫害はリヨンとその周辺地方で特に激しかった。リヨンとビエンヌの教会は、自分たちの苦難についての顛末を、アジアとフリギアの諸教会に宛てた手紙に書き送った。ラードナーによれば、これは紀元後約177年のことである。この手紙はエウセビオスによって保存されている。この手紙には、新約聖書への疑い得ない多くの言及のうち、次の言葉がある。ウェッティウス・エピガトスについて語る中で彼らは言う——「彼は実に、キリストの真の弟子であり、子羊がどこへ行かれるにも、ついて行く者であった」。Revelation 14:2「これらの人々は、子羊がどこへ行かれるにも、ついて行く人々である」と比較せよ。黙示録のこの箇所が引用されていることは疑いの余地がなく、これは、この書が当時知られており、著者たちがそれを他の聖なる書物と同列にみなすことに慣れていたことを証明する。

イレナエオス——この教父の証言は、ポリュカルポスについて述べた際にすでに触れた。彼はガリアのリヨンの監督であった。彼の出生地は確実には知られていないが、ラードナーは、彼がギリシヤ人であり、早くからポリュカルポスと親しくあったことから、アジア出身であったと推測している。若い頃、彼はポリュカルポスの聞き手であり、またパピアスの弟子でもあった。彼は第二世紀の初め頃に生まれ、極めて高齢で殉教したと一般に考えられている。70歳を過ぎてからリヨンの監督となり、その後におもな著作『異端反駁』(Contra Haereses)を書いた。彼の証言が特に貴重なのは、彼が早い時期に、使徒ヨハネの同時代人であり友人であったポリュカルポスと親しかったからである(Lardner, ii.-165-192)。ヨハネの黙示録への彼の言及について、ラードナーはこう言う。「黙示録すなわち啓示は、主の弟子ヨハネの啓示として、しばしば彼によって引用されている」。ある箇所で彼はこう言う。「それは大分以前に見られたのではなく、ほとんど私たちの時代に、ドミティアヌスの治世の終わりに見られたのである」。また彼は、この書の正確で古い写本について、ちょうど真の読みを確認することが重要であり、かつ当時それが可能であったかのように語っている。

こうしてエウセビオス(Lardner, ii. 167)は、彼について次のように述べている。「彼はその第五巻の中で、ヨハネの啓示と反キリストの名の数の計算について、次のように論じている。『これらの事がこのようであり、この数がすべての正確で古い写本にあり、ヨハネを見た人々が同じ事柄を証言しており、さらに理性が私たちに、獣の名の数は、ギリシヤ人の用法に従い、その中に含まれた文字によって表されることを教えるからである』」。ここには、黙示録への疑い得ない言及がある。

この章、すなわち Revelation 1 は、書全体に対する一般的な序論を含んでおり、次の各部分から成る。

I. この書の目的が、まもなく起こる重要な出来事を主イエス・キリストが啓示されたこと、そしてそれが御使いによって著者ヨハネに示されたことを記録することにある、という告知である、Revelation 1:1-3。この書を読み、悟る者には祝福が宣告され、預言された出来事の起こる時が近いがゆえに、この書への特別な注意が促される。

II. アジアの七つの教会への挨拶、Revelation 1:4-8。これによれば、この書は元来それらの教会に捧げられ、あるいは宛てられたものと見られ、二つの章である Revelation 2-3 はもっぱらそれらの教会に関して語る。著者は明らかにその中に住んでおり(Revelation 1:9)、書全体も疑いなく彼らに送られ、彼らの保管に委ねられた。この挨拶の中で、著者は彼らのために、恵みとあわれみと平安とを願っている。それは、「今いまし、昔いまし、やがて来たるべき方」——すべての光と真理のもとの泉である父を指す——から、「御座の前にある七つの御霊」——これは聖霊を指す(Revelation 1:4 の注を見よ)。あらゆる恵みは御霊によって人々に伝えられる——から、また啓示を伝えてくださる主イエス・キリストからである。これは彼による啓示であり、特に彼に栄光を帰すように意図され、彼の宗教の最終的勝利を予告するものであるので、著者はこの彼についての言及に、特別な賛美を付け加える、Revelation 1:5-8。彼は、ご自身の民を贖い、彼らを神に対する王また祭司とされた大いなるわざについて言及し、書き送った人々に、彼が栄光のうちに再びこの世界に来られ、すべての目が彼を見るであろうことを確信させ、さらに、贖い主ご自身が、ご自身の人格に「アルファでありオメガ」、「初めであり終り」という称号——それは彼の高められた本性と至高の権威とを示す——を適用されるさまを描いている。

III. 著者の委任、すなわち、このようにアジアの諸教会に語りかける彼の権威、Revelation 1:9-20。彼がそうする権威は、主イエスが流刑の地で彼に個人的に現れ、幻の中で見たことを啓示し、それをそれらの教会に送るように命じられたという事実に由来する。この委任の叙述は、あり得る限り印象的に作られている。

(a) 著者は流刑者であった——共通の信仰のゆえに、孤独な島に追放されていた、Revelation 1:9。

(b) キリスト教の安息の日——救い主の記念のためにそれぞれ定められた日であり、彼が孤独の中で聖なる時として敬って守っていた日——に、その日にふさわしい真理を静かに思い巡らす御霊のうちにあったとき、彼は突然、ラッパのような贖い主の声を聞いた。それは、見たことを書き記し、アジアの七つの教会に送るようにと、彼に命じた、Revelation 1:10-11。

(c) 次に Revelation 1:12-18 には、栄光のうちに現れた救い主の姿についての荘厳な描写が続く。彼は七つの金の燭台の間に立っておられるのが見える。長い白い衣を身にまとい、金の帯を腰に帯び、その髪は白く、その目は炎のようであり、その足は真鍮のようで、その声は大水のとどろきのようである。その手には七つの星があり、その口からは鋭い剣が出ており、その顔は満々と輝く太陽のようである。ヨハネは死んだ者のようにその足もとにひれ伏す。救い主は右の手を彼の上に置き、ご自身はかつて死んだが今は生きており、とこしえに生きる者であり、陰府と死とのかぎを持っておられるという保証によって、彼を力づける。

(d) 次に、委任そのものが続く、Revelation 1:19-20。彼は自分の見た事柄を書き記さなければならなかった。彼は特に、救い主の右の手に見た七つの星と、七つの金の燭台との意味を、小アジアの七つの教会を指すものとして明らかにしなければならなかった。そして次に、教会全体の将来の歴史と運命に関する幻の系列を描写しなければならなかった。

この章に表わされた場面には、エルサレムの神殿の配置から示唆されたであろういくつかの表象があり、ある人々(Elliott, i., 72, 73)は、幻はそこに置かれており、キリストは「古の大祭司の装いで」七つのともしびの間を歩いておられるものとして描かれている、と考えた。しかし、この幻は、神殿の聖所で示されたであろうようなものではない。あの場所には、七つのともしび皿を持つ一つの燭台しかなかったが、ここには七つの別々の燭台がある。あそこには「星々」はなく、ユダヤ人の大祭司の衣装は、救い主が現れたとされる装いのものではなかった。彼には聖冠も、エポデも、胸牌も、香炉もなかった。その目的は、キリストを祭司として、あるいはユダヤ人の大祭司に取って代わる方として表わすことではなく、神の子にふさわしい装いをした方として、すなわち死人の中から起こされ、天の栄光を受け入れられた方として、彼を表わすことであった。

その衣装は、預言者のものでも、王のものでも、祭司のものでもない。古の預言者たちが着たような衣装でもなく、君主たちが帯びる王冠と笏でもなく、かといって祭司の通常の衣装でもない。彼は、その担う諸職務とは無関係に、神の子として現れ、栄光化された教会の頭として、アジアの七つの教会に関するご自身のみこころを宣言し、教会全体の導きと慰めのために将来を明かすために来られる。場面はパトモスに置かれているように見え、救い主の幻の中で、使徒は自分が他のどこへか移されたとみなしたようには思われない。「今ある事柄」(Revelation 2-3)の描写において心の前に保つべき眺めは、七つの燃えるともしびと、その中に立っておられる神の子のものである。こうして、教会を表わすこれらのともしびの中にあって、彼は使徒に、諸教会に何を書き記すべきかを口述し、また諸教会の御使いを表わす七つの星を手に持って、彼らに何と言うべきかを口述される。これらのともしびの位置が、幻の中で諸教会自身の地理的な位置に似た仕方で配置されていたと想定することは、不自然であろうか。もしそうなら、その場面はいっそう意味深いものとなり、いっそう荘厳なものとなったであろう。

Preface to the Revelation of St. John the Divine

Among the interpreters of the Apocalypse, both in ancient and modern times, we find a vast diversity of opinions, but they may be all reduced to four principal hypotheses, or modes of interpretation: -

1. The Apocalypse contains a prophetical description of the destruction of Jerusalem, of the Jewish war, and the civil wars of the Romans.

2. It contains predictions of the persecutions of the Christians under the heathen emperors of Rome, and of the happy days of the Church under the Christian emperors, from Constantine downwards.

3. It contains prophecies concerning the tyrannical and oppressive conduct of the Roman pontiffs, the true antichrist; and foretells the final destruction of popery.

4. It is a prophetic declaration of the schism and heresies of Martin Luther, those called Reformers, and their successors; and the final destruction of the Protestant religion.

The first opinion has been defended by Professor Wetstein, and other learned men on the continent.

The second is the opinion of the primitive fathers in general, both Greek and Latin.

The third was first broached by the Abb Joachim, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was espoused by most of the Franciscans; and has been and still is the general opinion of the Protestants.

The fourth seems to have been invented by popish writers, merely by way of retaliation; and has been illustrated and defended at large by a Mr. Walmsley, (I believe), titular dean of Wells, in a work called the History of the Church, under the feigned name of Signior Pastorini.

In this work he endeavors to turn every thing against Luther and the Protestants, which they interpreted of the pope and popery; and attempts to show, from a computation of the Apocalyptical numbers, that the total destruction of Protestantism in the world will take place in 1825! But this is not the first prophecy that has been invented for the sake of an event, the accomplishment of which was earnestly desired; and as a stimulus to excite general attention, and promote united exertion, when the time of the pretended prophecy was fulfilled. But 1825 is past by, and 1832 is come, and the Protestant Church is still in full vigor, while the Romish Church is fast declining.

The full title of the book which I quote is the following: -

"The General History of the Christian Church, from her birth to her final triumphant state in Heaven, chiefly deduced from the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle. By Sig. Pastorini.

Blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy.' - Apocalypse, Revelation 1:3.

Printed in the year M.DCC.LXXI." 8vo. No place nor printer's name mentioned.

The place where he foretells the final destruction of Protestantism is in pp. 249 and 262.

The Catholic college of Maynooth, in Ireland, have lately published a new edition of this work! in which the author kindly predicts the approaching overthrow of the whole Protestant system, both in Church and state; and in the meantime gives them, most condescendingly, Abaddon or the devil for their king!

Who the writer of the Apocalypse was, learned men are not agreed. This was a question, as well in ancient as in modern times. We have already seen that many have attributed it to the Apostle John; others, to a person called John the presbyter, who they say was an Ephesian, and totally different from John the apostle. And lastly, some have attributed it to Cerinthus, a contemporary of John the apostle. This hypothesis, however, seems utterly unsupportable; as there is no probability that the Christian Church would have so generally received a work which came from the hands of a man at all times reputed a very dangerous heretic; nor can the doctrines it contains ever comport with a Cerinthian creed.

Whether it was written by John the apostle, John the presbyter, or some other person, is of little importance if the question of its inspiration be fully established. If written by an apostle it is canonical; and should be received, without hesitation, as a work Divinely inspired. Every apostle acted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John was an apostle, and consequently inspired; therefore, whatever he wrote was written by Divine inspiration. If, therefore, the authenticity of the work be established, i.e., that it was written by John the apostle, all the rest necessarily follow.

As I have scarcely any opinion to give concerning this book on which I could wish any of my readers to rely, I shall not enter into any discussion relative to the author, or the meaning of his several visions and prophecies; but for general information refer to Dr. Lardner, Michaelis, and others.

Various attempts have been made by learned men to fix the plan of this work; but even in this few agree. I shall produce some of the chief of these: and first, that of Wetstein, which is the most singular of the whole.

He supposes the book of the Apocalypse to have been written a considerable time before the destruction of Jerusalem. The events described from the fourth chapter to the end he supposes to refer to the Jewish war, and to the civil commotions which took place in Italy while Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian were contending for the empire. These contentions and destructive wars occupied the space of about three years and a half, during which Professor Wetstein thinks the principal events took place which are recorded in this book. On these subjects he speaks particularly in his notes, at the end of which he subjoins what he calls his Ανακεφαλαιωσις, or synopsis of the whole work, which I proceed now to lay before the reader.

"This prophecy, which predicts the calamities which God should send on the enemies of the Gospel, is divided into two parts. The first is contained in the closed book; the second, in the open book.

I. The first concerns the earth and the third part, i.e., Judea and the Jewish nation,

II. The second concerns many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings, Revelation 10:11, i.e., the Roman empire.

1. The book written within and without, and sealed with seven seals, Revelation 5:1, is the bill of divorce sent from God to the Jewish nation.

2. The crowned conqueror on the white horse armed with a bow, Revelation 6:2, is Artabanus, king of the Parthians, who slaughtered multitudes of the Jews in Babylon.

3. The red horse, Revelation 6:4. The Sicarii and robbers in Judea, in the time of the Proconsuls Felix and Festus.

4. The black horse, Revelation 6:5. The famine under Claudius.

5. The pale horse, Revelation 6:8. The plague which followed the robberies and the famine.

6. The souls of those who were slain, Revelation 6:9. The Christians in Judea, who were persecuted, and were now about to be avenged.

7. The great earthquake, Revelation 6:12. The commotions which preceded the Jewish rebellion.

8. The servants of God from every tribe, sealed in their foreheads, Revelation 7:3. The Christians taken under the protection of God, and warned by the prophets to flee immediately from the land.

9. The silence for half an hour, Revelation 8:1. The short truce granted at the solicitation of King Agrippa. Then follows the rebellion itself.

10. The trees are burnt, Revelation 8:7. The fields and villages, and unfortified places of Judea, which first felt the bad effects of the sedition.

11. The burning mountain cast into the sea which in consequence became blood, Revelation 8:8; and,

12. The burning star falling into the rivers, and making the waters bitter, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 8:11. The slaughter of the Jews at Caesarea and Scythopolis.

13. The eclipsing of the sun, moon, and stars, Revelation 8:12. The anarchy of the Jewish commonwealth.

14. The locusts like scorpions hurting men, Revelation 9:3. The expedition of Cestius Gallus, prefect of Syria.

15. The army with arms of divers colors, Revelation 9:16, Revelation 9:17. The armies under Vespasian in Judea. About this time Nero and Galba died; after which followed the civil war, signified by the sounding of the seventh trumpet, Revelation 10:7, Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:15.

16. The two prophetic witnesses, two olive trees, two candlesticks, Revelation 11:3, Revelation 11:4. Teachers in the Church, predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple and commonwealth.

17. The death of the witnesses, Revelation 11:7. Their flight, and the flight of the Church of Jerusalem, to Pella, in Arabia.

18. The resurrection of the witnesses, after three days and a half, Revelation 11:11. The predictions began to be fulfilled at a time in which their accomplishment was deemed impossible; and the doctrine of Christ begins to prevail over Judea, and over the whole earth.

19. The tenth part of the city fell in the same hour, and seven thousand names of men slain, Revelation 11:13. Jerusalem seized by the Idumeans; and many of the priests and nobles, with Annas, the high priest, signified by names of men, i.e. men of name, slain by the Zealots.

20. The woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head, Revelation 12:1. The Christian Church.

21. The great red dragon seen in heaven, with seven heads, seven diadems, and ten horns, Revelation 12:3. The six first Caesars, who were all made princes at Rome, governing the armies and the Roman people with great authority; especially Nero, the last of them, who, having killed his mother, cruelly vexed the Christians, and afterwards turned his wrath against the rebellious Jews.

22. The seven-headed beast from the sea, having ten horns surrounded with diadems, Revelation 13:1. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, who were shortly to reign, and who were proclaimed emperors by the army.

23. This beast, having a mouth like a lion, the body like a leopard, the feet like a bear, Revelation 13:2. Avaricious Galba; rash, unchaste, and inconstant Otho; Vitellius, cruel and sluggish, with the German army.

24. One head, i.e., the seventh, cut off, Revelation 13:3. Galba.

25. He who leadeth into captivity shall be led into captivity; he who killeth with the sword shall be killed with the sword, Revelation 13:10. Otho, who subdued the murderers of Galba, and slew himself with a dagger, Vitellius, who bound Sabinus with chains and was himself afterwards bound.

26. Another beast rising out of the earth, with two horns, Revelation 13:11. Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, elected emperors at the same time in Judea.

27. The number of the wild beast, 666, the number of a man, Teitan, Titan or Titus: T, 300. E, 5. I, 10. T, 300. A, 1. N. 50, making in the whole 666. [But some very respectable MSS. have 616 for the number; if the N be taken away from Teitan, then the letters in Teita make exactly the sum 616].

28. A man sitting upon a cloud, with a crown of gold upon his head, and a sickle in his hand, Revelation 14:14. Otho and his army, about to prevent supplies for the army of Vitellius.

29. An angel of fire commanding another angel to gather the vintage; the winepress trodden whence the blood flows out 1600 furlongs. The followers of Vitellius laying all waste with fire; and the Bebriaci conquering the followers of Otho with great slaughter.

Then follow the seven plagues: -

1. The grievous sore, Revelation 16:2. The diseases of the soldiers of Vitellius through intemperance.

2. The sea turned into blood, Revelation 16:3. The fleet of Vitellius beaten, and the maritime towns taken from them by the Flavii.

3. The rivers turned into blood, Revelation 16:4. The slaughter of the adherents of Vitellius, at Cremona and elsewhere, near rivers.

4. The scorching of the sun, Revelation 16:8. The diseases of the Vitellii increasing, and their exhausted bodies impatient of the heat.

5. The seat of the beast darkened, Revelation 16:10. All Rome in commotion through the torpor of Vitellius.

6. Euphrates dried up, and a way made for the kings of the east; and the three unclean spirits like frogs. The Flavii besieging Rome with a treble army; one part of which was by the bank of the Tiber.

The shame of him who is found asleep and naked. Vitellius, Revelation 16:15. Armageddon, Revelation 16:16. The praetorian camps.

7. The fall of Babylon, Revelation 16:19. The sacking of Rome.

8. The whore, Revelation 17:1. Rome.

9. The seven kings, Revelation 17:10. Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba.

10. The eighth, which is of the seven, Revelation 17:11. Otho, destined by adoption to be the son and successor of Galba.

11. The ten horns, Revelation 17:12-16. The leaders of the Flavian factions.

12. The merchants of the earth, Revelation 18:11; i.e., of Rome, which was then the emporium of the whole world.

13. The beast and the false prophet, Revelation 19:20. Vespasian and his family, contrary to all expectation, becoming extinct in Domitian, as the first family of the Caesars, and of the three princes, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius.

14. The millennium, or a thousand years, Revelation 20:2. Taken from Psalm 90:4, a time appointed by God, including the space of forty years, from the death of Domitian to the Jewish war under Adrian.

15. Gog and Magog, going out over the earth, Revelation 20:8. Barchochebas, the false Messiah, with an immense army of the Jews, coming forth suddenly from their caves and dens, tormenting the Christians, and carrying on a destructive war with the Romans.

16. The New Jerusalem, Revelation 21:1, Revelation 21:2. The Jews being brought so low as to be capable of injuring no longer; the whole world resting after being expiated by wars; and the doctrine of Christ propagated and prevailing everywhere with incredible celerity.

Wetstein contends (and he is supported by very great men among the ancients and moderns) that "the book of the Revelation was written before the Jewish war, and the civil wars in Italy; that the important events which took place at that time, the greatest that ever happened since the foundation of the world, were worth enough of the Divine notice, as the affairs of his Church were so intimately connected with them; that his method of exposition proves the whole book to be a well-connected, certain series of events; but the common method of interpretation, founded on the hypothesis that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, is utterly destitute of certainty, and leaves every commentator to the luxuriance of his own fancy, as is sufficiently evident from what has been done already on this book; some interpreters leading the reader now to Thebes, now to Athens, and finding in the words of the sacred penman Constantine the Great; Arius, Luther, Calvin; the Jesuits; the Albigenses; the Bohemians; Chemnitius; Elizabeth, queen of England; Cecil, her treasurer; and who not?" - See Wetstein's Gr. Test., vol. ii. p. 889.

Those who consider the Apocalypse as a prophecy and scenical exhibition of what shall happen to the Christian Church to the end of the world, lay this down as a proposition, which comprises the subject of the whole book: The contest of Christ with his enemies; and his final victory and triumph over them. See 1 Corinthians 15:25; Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-38. But what is but briefly hinted in the above scriptures, is detailed at large in the Apocalypse, and represented by various images nearly in the following order: -

1. The decrees of the Divine providence, concerning what is to come, are declared to John.

2. The manner in which these decrees shall be executed is painted in the most vivid colors.

3. Then follow thanksgivings to God, the ruler and governor of all things, for these manifestations of his power, wisdom and goodness.

After the exordium, and the seven epistles to the seven Churches of Asia Minor, to whose angels or bishops the book seems to be dedicated, (Revelation 1:1-3:22), the scene of the visions is opened in heaven, full of majesty; and John receives a promise of a revelation relative to the future state of the Church, Revelation 4:1-5:14.

The enemies of the Church of Christ which the Christians had then most to fear were the Jews, the heathens, and the false teachers. All these are overcome by Christ, and over them he triumphs gloriously. First of all, punishments are threatened to the enemies of the kingdom of Christ, and the preservation of his own followers in their greatest trials determined; and these determinations are accompanied with the praises and thanksgivings of all the heavenly inhabitants, and of all good men, Revelation 6:1-10:11.

The transactions of the Christian religion are next recorded, Revelation 11:1-14:5. The Christians are persecuted: -

1. By the Jews; but they were not only preserved, but they increase and prosper.

2. By the heathens; but in vain do these strive to overthrow the kingdom of Christ, which is no longer confined within the limits of Judea, but spreads among the Gentiles, and diffuses itself over the whole Roman empire, destroying idolatry, and rooting out superstition, in every quarter, Revelation 12:1-13:10.

3. False teachers and impostors of various kinds, under the name of Christians, but enemies of the cross of Christ, more intent on promoting the interests of idolatry or false worship than the cause of true religion, Revelation 13:11-18, exert their influence to corrupt and destroy the Church; but, notwithstanding, Christianity becomes more extended, and true believers more confirmed in their holy faith, Revelation 14:1-5. Then new punishments are decreed against the enemies of Christ, both Jews and heathens: the calamities coming upon the Jewish nation before its final overthrow are pointed out, Revelation 14:1-15:8. Next follows a prediction of the calamities which shall take place during the Jewish war; and the civil wars of the Romans during the contentions of Otho and Vitellius, Revelation 16:1-16, who are to suffer most grievous punishments for their cruelties against the Christians, Revelation 17:1-18. The Jewish state being now finally overthrown, Revelation 18:1-24, the heavenly inhabitants give praise to God for his justice and goodness; Christ is congratulated for his victory over his enemies, and the more extensive progress of his religion, Revelation 19:1-10.

Opposition is, however, not yet totally ended: idolatry again lifts up its head, and new errors are propagated; but over these also Christ shows himself to be conqueror, Revelation 19:11-21. Finally, Satan, who had long reigned by the worship of false gods, errors, superstitions, and wickedness, is deprived of all power and influence; and the concerns of Christianity go on gloriously, Revelation 20:1-6. But towards the end of the world new enemies arise, and threaten destruction to the followers of Christ; but in vain is their rage, God appears in behalf of his servants, and inflicts the most grievous punishments upon their adversaries, Revelation 20:6-10. The last judgment ensues, Revelation 20:11-15, all the wicked are punished, and the enemies of the truth are chained, so as to be able to injure the godly no more; the genuine Christians, who had persevered unto death, are brought to eternal glory; and, freed from all adversities, spend a life that shall never end, in blessedness that knows no bounds, Revelation 21:1-22:21. See Rosenmuller.

Eichhorn takes a different view of the plan of this book; though in substance not differing much from that above. According to this writer the whole is represented in the form of a drama, the parts of which are the following:

I. The title, Revelation 1:1-3.

II. The prologue, Revelation 1:4-3:22; in which it is stated that the argument of the drama refers to the Christians; epistles being sent to the Churches, which, in the symbolic style, are represented by the number seven.

Next follows the drama itself, the parts of which are: -

The prolusio, or prelude, Revelation 4:1-8:5; in which the scenery is prepared and adorned.

Act the first, Revelation 8:6-12:17. Jerusalem is taken, and Judaism vanquished by Christianity.

Act the second, Revelation 13:1-20:10. Rome is conquered, and heathenism destroyed by the Christian religion.

Act the third, Revelation 20:11-22:5. The New Jerusalem descends from heaven; or the happiness of the life to come, and which is to endure for ever, is particularly described, Revelation 22:6-11. Taken in this sense, Eichhorn supposes the work to be most exquisitely finished, and its author to have had a truly poetic mind, polished by the highest cultivation; to have been accurately acquainted with the history of all times and nations, and to have enriched himself with their choicest spoils.

My readers will naturally expect that I should either give a decided preference to some one of the opinions stated above, or produce one of my own; I can do neither, nor can I pretend to explain the book: I do not understand it; and in the things which concern so sublime and awful a subject, I dare not, as my predecessors, indulge in conjectures. I have read elaborate works on the subject, and each seemed right till another was examined. I am satisfied that no certain mode of interpreting the prophecies of this book has yet been found out, and I will not add another monument to the littleness or folly of the human mind by endeavoring to strike out a new course. I repeat it, I do not understand the book; and I am satisfied that not one who has written on the subject knows any thing more of it than myself. I should, perhaps, except J. E. Clarke, who has written on the number of the beast. His interpretation amounts nearly to demonstration; but that is but a small part of the difficulties of the Apocalypse: that interpretation, as the most probable ever yet offered to the public, shall be inserted in its proper place; as also his illustration of the xiith, xiiith, and xviith chapters. As to other matters, I must leave them to God, or to those events which shall point out the prophecy; and then, and probably not till then, will the sense of these visions be explained.

A conjecture concerning the design of the book may be safely indulged; thus then it has struck me, that the book of the Apocalypse may be considered as a Prophet continued in the Church of God, uttering predictions relative to all times, which have their successive fulfillment as ages roll on; and thus it stands in the Christian Church in the place of the Succession of Prophets in the Jewish Church; and by this especial economy Prophecy is Still Continued, is Always Speaking; and yet a succession of prophets rendered unnecessary. If this be so, we cannot too much admire the wisdom of the contrivance which still continues the voice and testimony of prophecy, by means of a very short book, without the assistance of any extraordinary messenger, or any succession of such messengers, whose testimony would at all times be liable to suspicion, and be the subject of infidel and malevolent criticism, howsoever unexceptionable to ingenuous minds the credentials of such might appear.

On this ground it is reasonable to suppose that several prophecies contained in this book have been already fulfilled, and that therefore it is the business of the commentator to point such out. It may be so; but as it is impossible for me to prove that my conjecture is right, I dare not enter into proceedings upon it, and must refer to Bishop Newton, and such writers as have made this their particular study.

After having lived in one of the most eventful eras of the world; after having seen a number of able pens employed in the illustration of this and other prophecies; after having carefully attended to those facts which were supposed to be the incontestable proofs of the fulfillment of such and such visions, seals, trumpets, thunders, and vials of the Apocalypse; after seeing the issue of that most terrible struggle which the French nation, the French republic, the French consulate, and the French empire, have made to regain and preserve their liberties, which, like arguing in a circle, have terminated where they began, without one political or religious advantage to them or to mankind; and after viewing how the prophecies of this book were supposed to apply almost exclusively to these events, the writers and explainers of these prophecies keeping pace in their publications with the rapid succession of military operations, and confidently promising the most glorious issue, in the final destruction of superstition, despotism, arbitrary power, and tyranny of all kinds, nothing of which has been realized; I say, viewing all these things, I feel myself at perfect liberty to state that, to my apprehension, all these prophecies have been misapplied and misapprehended; and that the Key to them is not yet intrusted to the sons of men. My readers will therefore excuse me from any exposure of my ignorance or folly by attempting to do what many, with much more wisdom and learning, have attempted, and what every man to the present day has failed in, who has preceded me in expositions of this book. I have no other mountain to heap on those already piled up; and if I had, I have not strength to lift it: those who have courage may again make the trial; already we have had a sufficiency of vain efforts.

Ter sunt conati imponere Pelio Ossam

Scilicet, atque Ossae frondosum involvere Olympum:

Ter Pater extructos disjecit fulmine montes.

Virg., G. i.281.

With mountains piled on mountains thrice they strove

To scale the steepy battlements of Jove;

And thrice his lightning and red thunder play'd,

And their demolish'd works in ruin laid.

Dryden

I had resolved, for a considerable time, not to meddle with this book, because I foresaw that I could produce nothing satisfactory on it: but when I reflected that the literal sense and phraseology might be made much plainer by the addition of philological and critical notes; and that, as the diction appeared in many places to be purely rabbinical, (a circumstance to which few of its expositors have attended), it might be rendered plainer by examples from the ancient Jewish writers; and that several parts of it spoke directly of the work of God in the soul of man, and of the conflicts and consolations of the followers of Christ, particularly in the beginning of the book, I changed my resolution, and have added short notes, principally philological, where I thought I understood the meaning.

I had once thought of giving a catalogue of the writers and commentators on this book, and had begun a collection of this kind; but the question of Cui bono? What good end is this likely to serve? not meeting with a satisfactory answer in my own mind, caused me to throw this collection aside. I shall notice two only.

1. The curious and learned work entitled, "A plaine Discovery of the whole Revelation of St. John," written by Sir John Napier, inventor of the logarithms, I have particularly described in the general preface to the Holy Scriptures, prefixed to the Book of Genesis, to which the reader is requested to refer.

2. Another work, not less singular, and very rare, entitled, "The Image of both Churches, after the most wonderful and heavenly Revelation of Sainct John the Evangelist, containing a very fruitfull exposition or paraphrase upon the same: wherein it is conferred with the other scriptures, and most auctorised histories Compyled by John Bale, an exyle also in thys lyfe for the faithful testimony of Jesu." Printed at London by Thomas East, 18mo., without date.

The author was at first a Carmelite, but was afterwards converted to the Protestant religion. He has turned the whole of the Apocalypse against the Romish Church; and it is truly astonishing to see with what address he directs every image, metaphor, and description, contained in this book, against the corruptions of this Church. He was made bishop of Ossory, in Ireland; but was so persecuted by the papists that he narrowly escaped with his life, five of his domestics being murdered by them. On the accession of Mary he was obliged to take refuge in the Low Countries, where it appears he compiled this work. As he was bred up a papist, and was also a priest, he possessed many advantages in attacking the strongest holds of his adversaries. He knew all their secrets, and he uncovered the whole; he was acquainted with all their rites, ceremonies, and superstitions, and finds all distinctly marked in the Apocalypse, which he believes was written to point out the abominations, and to foretell the final destruction of this corrupt and intolerant Church. I shall make a few references to his work in the course of the following notes. In Revelation 17:1, the author shows his opinion, and speaks something of himself: Come hither, I will show thee the judgment of the great whore, etc. "Come hither, friende John, I will show thee in secretnesse the tirrible judgement of the great whore, or counterfaite Church of hypocrites. Needs must this whore be Rome, for that she is the great citie which reigneth over the kings of the earth. Evident it is both by Scriptures and Cronicles that in John's dayes Rome had dominion over all the whole world: and being infected with the abominations of all landes, rightly is shee called Babylon. or Citie of Confusion. And like as in the Scriptures ofte tymes under the name of Jerusalem is ment the whole kingdom of Juda, so under the name of Rome here may be understanded the unyversall worlde, with all their abominations and divilleshnesses, their idolatryes, witchcraftes, sectes, superstitions, papacyes, priesthoodes, relygions, shavings, anointings, blessings, sensings, processions, and the divil of all such beggeryes. For all the people since Christes assencion, hath this Rome infected with hir pestilent poisons gathered from all idolatrous nations, such time as she held over them the monarchial suppremit. At the wryting of this prophecy felt John of their cruiltie, being exiled into Pathmos for the faithfull testimony of Jesu. And so did I, poore creature, with my poore wife and children, at the gatheringe of this present commentary, flying into Germanye for the same," etc.

Shall I have the reader's pardon if I say that it is my firm opinion that the expositions of this book have done great disservice to religion: almost every commentator has become a prophet; for as soon as he began to explain he began also to prophesy. And what has been the issue? Disappointment laughed at hope's career, and superficial thinkers have been led to despise and reject prophecy itself. I shall sum up all that I wish to say farther in the words of Graserus: Mihi tota Apocalypsis valde obscura videtur; et talis, cujus explicatio citra periculum vix queat tentari. Fateor me hactenus in nullius Scripti Biblici lectione minus proficere, quam in hoc obscurissimo Vaticinio.

The preface to this book, and the promise to them who read it, Revelation 1:1-3. John's address to the seven Churches of Asia, whose high calling he particularly mentions; and shows the speedy coming of Christ, Revelation 1:4-8. Mentions his exile to Patmos, and the appearance of the Lord Jesus to him, Revelation 1:9-11. Of whom he gives a most glorious description, Revelation 1:12-18. The command to write what he saw, and the explanation of the seven stars and seven golden candlesticks, Revelation 1:19, Revelation 1:20.

The Revelation of St. John the divine. To this book the inscriptions are various.

" - The Revelation.

• The Revelation of John.

• Of John the divine.

• Of John the divine and evangelist.

• The Revelation of John the apostle and evangelist.

• The Revelation of the holy and glorious apostle and evangelist, the beloved virgin John the divine, which he saw in the island of Patmos.

• The Revelation of Jesus Christ, given to John the divine."

These several inscriptions are worthy of little regard; the first verse contains the title of the book.

INTRODUCTION TO REVELATION

That this book was written by the Apostle and Evangelist John, is clear not only from the express mention of his name, and from his office, a servant of Jesus Christ, Revelation 1:1; but also from the character this writer gives of himself, Revelation 1:2; as being an eyewitness of the essential Logos, or Word of God, and who bore a faithful record of him as such, as John did in his Gospel, in a very peculiar and remarkable manner, and from this writer's being in the isle of Patmos when he wrote, Revelation 1:9; for of what other John can this be said? to which may be added the testimonies of the ancient writers, as Justin Martyr (a), who lived within fifty years of the apostle, and Irenaeus (b), who was the disciple of Polycarp, an hearer of this apostle, and Clemens Alexandrinus (c), Tertullian (d), Origen (e), and others, who ascribe it to him. It was a most monstrously stupid notion of Caius, Dionysius of Alexandria mentions (f), that it was written by Cerinthus the heretic, when his heresies concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ are most strongly refuted in it. What seems to have led to such a thought is, that the account of the thousand years' reign, and the descent of the new Jerusalem from heaven, seemed to favour the judaism of this man, and his carnal notions of an earthly paradise, whereas they have no such tendency. And as for its being written by another John, who is said to be presbyter at Ephesus, after the apostle, it is not certain there ever was such a man; and if there was, he must be too late to be the writer of this book; nor to him can the above characters agree. What is observed in favour of him, that the penman of this book is called, in the title, John the divine, and not the evangelist, or apostle, will do him no service; for to whom does this character so well agree, as to the Evangelist John, who wrote of divine things in so divine a manner, and particularly concerning the divinity of Christ? hence this book was sometimes called yeologia, "Divinity" (g): besides, the title of the book is not original, but is what has been affixed to it by others, and varies; for in the Complutensian edition it runs thus,

"the Revelation of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Divine.''

In the Vulgate Latin version it is called the Apocalypse of the blessed John the Apostle; and in the Syriac version, the Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist; and in the Arabic version, the Vision of John, the Apostle and Evangelist, to wit, the Apocalypse. All which acknowledge the Apostle John to be the writer of it, and show the sense of the ancients concerning it. Nor is it of any moment what is alleged, that this writer makes mention of his name several times, whereas it was usual with John, both in his Gospel and epistles, to conceal his name; since there is a wide difference between writing an history and epistles to friends, and prophecy which requires the author's name, on whom the authority and truth of the prophecy greatly depend: and so likewise the disagreement of style observed in this book, with the other writings of John, has no force in it; since the prophetic style is always different from an historical and epistolary one; and yet, after all, in many things, there is an agreement; John in this, as in his other writings, speaks of Christ as the Word and Son of God and under the character of the Lamb; and likewise the following: passages may be compared together, as Revelation 1:2 with John 19:35 and 1 John 1:1, Revelation 1:5 with 1 John 1:7. All which being observed there no room to doubt, neither of the writer nor of the authority of this book; especially when the agreement of the doctrine contained in it with other parts of the Scripture, the majesty of its style, and above all the many prophecies of things to come to pass in it, several of which have been already fulfilled, are considered; and though it was called in question and rejected by some heretical men, because some things in it did not suit with their tenets, yet we have not the least reason to doubt of its being authentic who have lived to see so much of it already accomplished and which could come from no other but God. As for the time of its writing this is not agreed upon on all hands; the place where, seems to be the isle of Patmos, which yet some question. Some think it was written in the times of Claudius Caesar (h), before the destruction of Jerusalem. In the title of the Syriac version, this revelation is said to be made to John in the isle of Patmos, into which he was cast by Nero Caesar. But the more commonly received opinion is, that he had this vision there, at the latter end of Domitian's reign (i) by whom he was there banished, about the year 95, or 96. But be this as it will, the book is certainly of divine authority, and exceeding useful and instructive; and contains in it the most momentous and important doctrines of the Gospel, concerning a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the deity and sonship of Christ, the divinity and personality of the Spirit, the offices of Christ, the state and condition of man by nature, justification, pardon, and reconciliation by the blood of Christ; and it recommends the several duties of religion, and encourages to the exercise of every grace and gives a very particular account of the rise, power, and fall of antichrist, and of the state of the church of Christ in all the periods of time to the end of the world. And though it is written in an uncommon style, yet may be understood, by the use of proper means, as by prayer and meditation, by comparing it with other prophetic writings, and the history of past times, by which many things in it will appear to have had their accomplishment; and it ought to be observed, that it is a revelation, and not a hidden thing; that it is now not a sealed book, but an open one; and that such are pronounced blessed that read and hear it, and observe the things in it, Revelation 1:3; and which is no small encouragement to attempt an explanation of it.

(a) Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 308. (b) Adv. Haeres. l. 4. c. 37, 50. & l. 5. c. 30. (c) Paedagog. l. 2. c. 12. (d) Adv. Marcion. l. 4. c. 5. (e) Comment. in Matt. p. 417. Ed. Huet. (f) Apud. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 28. & l. 7. c. 23. (g) Suidas in voce iwannhv. (h) Vid. Epiphan Haeres. 51. (i) Irenaeus adv. Haeres. l. 5. c. 36. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 18.

INTRODUCTION TO Revelation 1

This chapter contains the preface and introduction to the book, and the first vision in it. The preface begins with the title of the book, in which the subject matter of it is pointed at, a Revelation; the author of it, Jesus Christ, who had it from his Father; the minister of it, an angel: the person to whom it was made known, described by his name, office, and the testimony he bore to Christ, his Gospel, and to whatever he saw; and for encouragement to persons to read, hear, and observe it, happiness is pronounced to them Revelation 1:1; the inscription of the book follows, in which are the name of the writer, and the place where the churches to whom it is inscribed were, with a salutation of them; in which grace and peace are wished for them, from God the Father, from the Holy Spirit, and from Jesus Christ; who is described by characters expressing his prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices, and by the benefits, favours, and honours bestowed by him on his people, to whom a doxology or ascription of glory is made, Revelation 1:4; who is further described, first by his future visible coming in the clouds, which will greatly affect the inhabitants of the earth, and then by himself, as the eternal and almighty God, Revelation 1:7; and in order to introduce the vision, hereafter related in this chapter, he that saw it gives an account of himself, by his name, by his relation to the churches, and by his partnership with them in affliction, and of the place he was in; and for what, and of the time when he had the vision, and the frame he was in, and what awakened his attention to it, Revelation 1:9; and how, that adverting to it he saw seven golden candlesticks, and in the midst of them one like the son of man, who is described by his clothes and girdle, by his head, hair, and eyes, by his feet and voice, by what he had in his right hand, and by what went out of his mouth, and by his face shining like the sun in its strength, Revelation 1:12, next is related the effect this vision had on. John, who upon it fell down as one dead, but was comforted by Christ, laying his right hand on him, and telling him who he was, and bidding him write what he had seen, or should see, Revelation 1:17; and the chapter is concluded with an interpretation of the mystery of the seven stars, and the seven candlesticks, Revelation 1:20.

THE REVELATION

OF

ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.

The Revelation of St. John.

BY

THE RIGHT REV. W. BOYD CARPENTER, D.D.,

Lord Bishop of Ripon.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE REVELATION

OF

ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.

I.THE AUTHOR.

II.THE DATE AND TIME OF WRITING.

III.SCHOOLS AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

IV.GENERAL SCOPE OF THE BOOK.

V.LITERATURE.

I. The Author.—The general opinion of the Church of Christ has accepted the Apocalypse as the work of John the Apostle, but this general opinion has been called in question. Our space can only allow us to lay before our readers a brief resumé of the reasons which have been urged on either side. For convenience it will be as well to ask the following questions:—

(1) Was the Writer’s name John?—At first sight it would seem that there could be but one answer to this question. The book announces itself as written by a person whose name was John. Four times over does the name occur (Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 22:8).

Is there any reason for questioning the witness thus given by the book itself? It has been asserted that the writer does not claim to be John, but only “gives a report of a revelation which John had received” (Scholten). It is perfectly true that a writer might thus dramatically represent the Apostle John as the seer of the revelation; but such possibility is no proof that it was so, and certainly cannot be entertained in the total absence of all proof. The reiteration of the name four times is out of harmony with this conjecture; and the theory would not, as Gebhardt has remarked, be applied to any other book of the New Testament. Would any serious reply be “thought necessary should it occur to some one to reject the First Epistle to the Corinthians, because from such passages as 1Corinthians 1:13, it does not follow that the author identifies himself with Paul, but gives (1Corinthians 1:1-2), after the manner of an introduction, a report of an Epistle which the Apostle wrote?”

We may assume, then, that the writer’s name was John.

(2) Was the Writer John the Apostle.—It is round this question that we meet the most serious conflict.

(a) It is admitted on all hands, even by those who oppose the apostolic authorship of the book, that the great consensus of early opinion regarded the writer as St. John the Apostle. “From the time of Justin Martyr to that of Irenæus and the great Fathers, the Apocalypse was recognised as a production of the Apostle.” Such is the opinion of Keim (Jesu v. Nazara). “We find the Revelation unhesitatingly attributed to him (St. John) by the Fathers from the middle of the second century downwards; by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others” (Bleek). The opinion of the third century was the same. Origen, whose opposition to millenarianism adds value to his testimony, Cyprian, Lactantius, and others, acknowledge the Apocalypse as the work of St. John.

Setting aside the opinion of Marcion, and of the unimportant sect of the Alogi (see Introduction to the First Epistle to St. John), doubts respecting the apostolic authorship seem to have commenced with Dionysius of Alexandria; these doubts, which were echoed hesitatingly by Eusebius, were based not on historical or critical, so much as upon doctrinal grounds: the dread of millenarianism created a wish to discredit the book which appeared to lend such weight to the disliked doctrine. It is needless to follow the history of this controversy; it is enough to notice that the first breach of this continuous early opinion in favour of the apostolic authorship grew out of doctrinal prejudice rather than candid examination.

(b) In later years, the controversy has been fought from different bases of operation. The conflict respecting the authorship of the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction to St. John’s Gospel) has complicated the dispute. It seemed to some impossible to believe that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse proceeded from the same pen. The divergence in style and language was, in their view, too great to admit of their being written by the same man, even though that man were an Apostle. If the Gospel was the work of St. John, the Apocalypse could not be. The generally accepted opinion that St. John wrote the Apocalypse was assailed by those who, in their wish to preserve their faith in the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel, were ready to sacrifice the Book of Revelation. This was substantially the view adopted by Neander, Lücke, Ewald, Bleek, Düsterdieck, and others. In opposition to these, others were ready to adopt the other hypothesis: they accepted the view that the two books could not have been the work of one and the same writer; but they preferred to sacrifice the Gospel: the Apocalypse was the work of St. John; the Gospel, therefore, could not be. Such was the view of those who, like Baur, aimed at discrediting the Fourth Gospel, or who wished to support the theory of a designed antagonism between the school of St. John and that of St. Paul. Neither of these parties—those who would sacrifice the Apocalypse to the Gospel, and those who would sacrifice the Gospel to the Apocalypse—represent the most recent phase of the controversy. Another class of thinkers arose who felt that the witness which the Fourth Gospel and the Revelation alike gave to the Person of Christ was too strong to be allowed the authority of an Apostle by those who had formed other and lower conceptions of the Jesus of the Gospels. They saw no glimpses of His heavenly glory and majesty in the synoptical Gospels. They found that the Book of Revelation was full of them. The Christ of the Apocalypse was the Word of God, the King of Kings; the Christ of the Gospels was One who came not to be ministered to, but to minister. The portrait given in the Gospels of “the loving and amiable Son of Man,” as the Divine Son of God was patronisingly styled, was not to be found in the Apocalypse; such a book could not have been written by one who personally knew the gentle and self-sacrificing Prophet of Galilee—least of all, perhaps, by the beloved disciple. Such is the view of more recent critics, and advanced with varying power and arguments by Volkmar, Hoekstra, and Scholten. The book was a forgery, or at best the composition of some other John—not of John the Apostle. Besides, it was urged, the Apostle could not have been the author, for it is clear that the writer lived in Asia Minor, whereas the Apostle John never was in Asia Minor at all.

Such is, perhaps, the most recent phase of the controversy.

(c) We have not space to do more than touch but briefly, and only upon a few of the arguments advanced against the apostolic authorship of the book. It will, perhaps, be best to specify three or four.

(i.) St. John the Apostle, it is said, never resided in Asia Minor; he could not, therefore, have been the author of a book which is undoubtedly the work of one resident there.

It is proverbially difficult to prove a negative: it is increasingly difficult when only negative evidence can be adduced, and this is all that can be appealed to. The argument, if argument it can be called, runs thus: the residence of St. John in Asia Minor is not mentioned by those whom we might have expected to mention it: therefore, St. John did not reside there. To use the words of a modern critic (Mr. Matthew Arnold), “But there is the rigorous and vigorous theory of Prof. Scholten, that John never was at Ephesus at all. If he had been, Papias and Hegesippus must have mentioned it: if they had mentioned it, Irenæus and Eusebius must have quoted them to that effect. As if the very notoriety of John’s residence at Ephesus would not have disproved Irenæus and Eusebius from advancing formal testimony to it, and made them refer to it just in the way they do. Here, again, we may be sure that no one judging evidence in a plain fashion would ever have arrived at Dr. Scholten’s conclusion; above all, no one of Dr. Scholten’s great learning and ability” (Contemporary Review, vol. xxv., p. 988).

To this also we may add Gebhardt’s words:—“No one in the second century could believe that the Apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse, without at the same time believing that he lived in Asia Minor; and in like manner, the acknowledgment of the Apocalypse as the Apostle’s from the time of Justin Martyr downwards, made prominent by Keim, is an acknowledgment of his residence in Asia Minor, and inferentially at Ephesus.”

(ii.) There are, it is stated, traces of non-apostolic authorship in the book.

(α) The manner in which the Apostles are spoken of (see Revelation 18:20; Revelation 21:14) is thought to be inconsistent with the opinion that the Apostle wrote it. The Apostles are mentioned with a degree of objectivity, and are assigned a prominence which is unlikely if an Apostle were the writer. But with regard to the last, if St. John describes the foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem as bearing the names of the twelve Apostles, St. Paul speaks of the Church being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:20). The imagery is distinctly apostolic; and if the Apostles are mentioned with “objectivity” in the Apocalypse, are they not mentioned with an equal, if not greater, degree of objectivity by St. Matthew? (Matthew 10:2-4.)

(β) But, it is argued, there is no hint given throughout the book that the writer is an Apostle. If St. John were the writer, would he not betray himself somewhere as the beloved disciple? Should we not have some allusion to his intimacy with his Master, or to some circumstance connected with the life and ministry of Christ? In reply, it is enough to remark that the nature of the book would not lead us to expect such allusions. He writes as a Prophet, not as an Apostle. It would be as idle to expect some allusion to the circumstances of Milton’s political life in the Paradise Lost. “The Apocalypse declares itself not to be the work of an Apostle in the same sense as Schiller’s poetry declares itself not to be the work of a professor at Jena” (Gebhardt).

But it may be further urged that there are not wanting certain characteristic allusions which reveal the writer. The allusions to the piercing of the Saviour’s side (Revelation 1:7; comp. John 19:34), and to the washing, or cleansing (Revelation 1:5; Revelation 7:13-14; Revelation 22:14—see Note there—John 13:8-10), are not to be overlooked; and more than these may be detected by a careful student.

(γ) There is no trace of Apostolic authority.

If we are not to expect personal reminiscences, we surely should expect the air of official authority. But the answer is, Do we not find this? The language is surely that of one who does not doubt that his name will carry a guarantee with the book. (Comp. Prof. Davidson’s article in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopædia.)

(iii.) The Christology of the book is described as non-apostolic. The picture which the Apocalypse gives of Jesus Christ is not that of the Gospels. In the Gospels we have the loving and gentle Son of Man; in the Apocalypse we have the Word of God, whose eyes are as a flame of fire, and whose mouth a sharp sword, &c. Is not the whole conception of the kingly Christ thus portrayed the product of a later age? “The picture of Christ which here comes before us seems to presuppose a conception so perfectly free, that it can only belong to a later Christianity” (Scholten). “The apotheosis of Christ is too strong to be ascribed to a contemporary and disciple of Jesus” (quoted in Gebhardt).

Such objections as these arise from a fundamental misconception of the character and work of Jesus Christ. The Christ of the Gospels is not the colourless creation which has been evolved out of the thought of men living eighteen centuries afterwards. The Christology of the Apocalypse is distinct enough, but it does not differ from the Christology of St. Paul; and it is in complete harmony with the lofty and divine utterances of our Lord Himself even in the synoptical Gospels. Time and space would fail us in illustrating this position; it will suffice to refer to two or three passages, which might be multiplied: Matthew 25:31; Matthew 26:13; Luke 5:20; Luke 7:8-9; Luke 7:23; Luke 7:35; Luke 9:41; Luke 10:16-20.

(iv.) The divergence in style between the Revelation and the Fourth Gospel demands a few words. We have spoken of those critics, who, in their desire to preserve the authority of the Gospel, have been willing to throw overboard the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse Is it necessary to do this? It has been shown that the external evidence is in favour of the apostolic authorship. In the language of Prof. Davidson, “With the limited stock of early ecclesiastical literature that survives the wreck of time we should despair of proving the authenticity of any New Testament book by the help of early witnesses if that of the Apocalypse be rejected as insufficiently attested.” Is there any reason in the internal character of the book sufficient to reverse this verdict? Or, in other words, assuming (and the stormy controversy has rather increased than diminished the right to the assumption; see Introduction to St. John’s Gospel) the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel, is there any ground for believing that the Apocalypse could not have proceeded from the same writer? There are no doubt strongly marked differences. We have not space to touch on the whole question. One or two points call for notice. There are differences of language; there are “anomalies,” “awkward dispositions of words,” “peculiar constructions;” “the Greek is moulded by the Hebrew tendencies of the writer.” This is no doubt largely the case; but there has been often a want of appreciativeness at the root of some criticisms like these: some violations of grammatical construction have been set down to ignorance on the part of the writer, when it is clear that they were intentional. Notably, the language of Revelation 1:4 is beyond all doubt designedly ungrammatical; indeed, as Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out, were it not so, the writer would not have possessed sufficient literary power to construct a single sentence. Nor has sufficient weight been allowed to the different characters of the two books, or the interval of time which elapsed between their writing. The highly wrought rapture of the seer, when beholding the visions of the Apocalypse indicates a mental state in which volitional control is at the minimum, and the automatic action of the mind is left free. At such a time the images and associations which have been originally imbedded in the memory are those which rise uppermost to clothe the thoughts. Thus the strong Hebrew colouring is precisely what we should expect from one who, of ardent temperament, has spent the whole of his earlier life in Palestine, and among those who were constantly talking over Messianic hopes and prophecies. (Comp. John 1:38-41.) The force of this is not invalidated by saying that the seer did not write the visions as he saw them, but recorded them afterwards. In the first place, it is merely an assumption to affirm this; in the next, even were it true, the man who records such visions must recall the whole mental condition in which he was at the time of vision, and would preserve in his record the characteristics of such a state of mind. Nor can much stress be laid upon the fact that the writer was not young. The visions of God are given to the old as well as to the young. The loftiest revealings were given to Moses when he had passed fourscore years: and, even from a merely human point of view, it is possible for a man of sixty to retain the fire and warm imagination of youth. Even in modern life, when the faculties are too often drudged into imbecility by forced and premature development, and deprived of their full and ultimate power by being made reproductive when they ought to be remaining receptive, we may find the powers of imagination survive the strain and incessancy of toil; indeed, in some cases the imaginative powers have gathered force till the line of the threescore years has been passed. Edmund Burke was sixty when he wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France, and none will condemn him for deficiency in imagination. It was not in the ardour of youth that Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. The conditions of ancient and Eastern life were probably much more favourable to the preservation and quiet ripening of the powers of thought and imagination. The truth is that there is nothing so deceptive as the comparison between the ages and powers of different writers; there is no standard which can be fairly used as a measure. Some men of sixty are, in mental force, more nearly allied to men of forty than to those of their own age; and the addition of twenty or five-and-twenty years brings them to the mellow and quiet autumn-time of their life.

The Apocalypse may be “sensuous,” full of “creative fancy,” “objective,” and “concrete;” the Gospel may be “calm,” “mystic,” “spiritual,” and delighting in “speculative depth”; but differences equally great may be found in the works of other writers. Literature supplies numberless instances of such varieties. “It is strange,” wrote Lord Macaulay, “It is strange that the Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful, and the Letter to a Noble Lord should be the productions of one man;” yet no one has been found to doubt that they were both written by Edmund Burke. The writings of De Quincey supply examples. Let any one compare the Autobiographic Sketches, or The Confessions of an Opium Eater, with one of the little flights of fancy—such as the Daughter of Lebanon—written under different conditions, and he will find how much diversity may be found in the works of the same writer. And, not to go beyond the Gospels, might it not be said that there is a great separation in tone and thought between our Lord’s discourses in Matthew 23-25 and the Sermon on the Mount? We have, then, in the two books—the Gospel and the Apocalypse—different subject - matter, vision instead of history; a wide interval of time—some twenty or twenty-five years; and, with this interval of time, a changed atmosphere of associations and influences, Greek instead of Hebrew: these in themselves would account for divergences greater even than we find.

If we can thus account for the differences we meet with, we have to remember that there are resemblances in the two books which can scarcely be accidental, and which, found in two independent books, would have suggested to some shrewd critic the theory of a common authorship. There is a strong resemblance in language and imagery: both books delight in the words “witness” (martyr), “to overcome,” “to keep” (the word of God), “sign” (sémeion), “dwell,” or tabernacle (in this last case the coincidence is lost sight of in the English version, because the word “dwell” is used instead of tabernacle, or “tent”), “true” (alethinos), (John 1:9; John 19:35; Revelation 3:14; Revelation 19:9).

There is a similarity in the terms used to describe our Lord. He is the Word (John 1:1-3; Revelation 19:13); the Lamb (John 1:29; Revelation 5:6); the Shepherd (John 10 throughout; Revelation 7:17); the Bridegroom (John 3:29; Revelation 19:7; Revelation 21:2); similar images are used—the Living Water (John 4:10; John 7:38; and Revelation 7:17; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:17); the Hidden Food, bread, or manna (John 6:32-58; Revelation 2:17); the Harvest (John 4:34; John 4:38; Revelation 14:15). The same incident—the piercing of our Lord’s side—is referred to; and the word employed, both in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, is singularly not the word used in the LXX. version of the prophet Zechariah. There is, besides, a similar disposition towards a seven-fold arrangement of subjects in the Gospel and the Revelation. (See Introduction to St. John’s Gospel.)

Further resemblances might be pointed out. These, however, will suffice to show that Prof. Davidson, in his candid, impartial, and valuable article (see above), says no more than truth when be writes: “After every reasonable deduction, enough remains to prove that the correspondences between the Apocalpyse and the Fourth Gospel are not accidental. They either betray one author, or show that the writer of the one was acquainted with the other. These cognate phenomena have not been allowed their full force by Lücke, Ewald, De Wette, and Düsterdieck.”

To conclude. The author represents himself as John in a way, and at a time, that would naturally suggest that he either was John the Apostle and Evangelist, or wished to pass as such. The general consensus of early opinion believed that the Apostle was the writer. The doubts grew out of doctrinal prejudice; there is no reasonable ground for disputing the residence of the Apostle in Asia Minor. There are not wanting traces of personal reminiscences such as the beloved disciple would have cherished. The portrait of Jesus Christ is in complete harmony with apostolic teaching; and the difficulties which beset the theory that there were two Johns—one who wrote the Gospel, and the other the Apocalypse—are greater than those which surround the theory of a common authorship.

It is only necessary to add the attesting language of various and independent critics. “The apostolic origin of the Apocalypse is as well attested as that of any other book in the New Testament” (Davidson). “The testimony has been pronounced more absolutely convincing than can be adduced in favour of the apostolic authorship of any of the books of the New Testament” (Edinburgh Review, October, 1874).

II. The Date and Time of Writing.—The evidence for determining the date of the Apocalypse is in many respects conflicting. Any conclusion on the matter should be given with caution and hesitation, and with the full admission that the arguments which can be brought on the other side are entitled to consideration. It has been too much the practice among the supporters of different theories to insist with unwise positiveness upon their own view. Briefly, there are practically only two opinions, between which the reader must decide. The book was either written about the year A.D. 68 or 69, or about a quarter of a century later (A.D. 96), in the reign of Domitian.

The later date was that which was accepted almost uniformly by the older theologians. In favour of this early tradition has been appealed to. The most important witness (in some respects) is Irenæus, who says that “the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our own age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian.” Other writers have been claimed as giving a support to this view by their mention of Patmos as the place of St. John’s banishment; and it is plain from the way in which Eusebius quotes the mention of the Patmos exile by Clement of Alexandria, that he associated it with the reign of Domitian. On the other hand, it must be remembered that neither Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, or Jerome, state that the banishment took place in the reign of Domitian. Tertullian, indeed, represents Domitian as recalling the exiles; and other writers affirm that the banishment took place much earlier. Theophylact, for example, declares that the Apostle was in Patmos thirty-two years after the Ascension; and the preface to the Syriac version of the Apocalypse affirms that the revelation was given to St. John in Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero. Another tradition assigns the writing to the reign of Trajan. Epiphanius, in a passage of doubtful value, places the exile in the reign of Claudius.

On the whole, then, there is not any very certain conclusion to be drawn from the external evidence. The exile in Patmos receives ample support, but the date of the exile is hardly settled by early tradition.

Will the internal evidence help?

The advocates of the later date rely much upon the degenerate state of the Asiatic churches, as described in the Epistles to the Seven Churches. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were written during the captivity of St. Paul at Rome, about the year A.D. 63. If, then, the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 69 or 70, we have only an interval of six or seven years to account for a striking change in the spiritual condition of the Asiatic churches. Can we believe that a Church which is so forward in love as that of Ephesus (Ephesians 3:18) can have in so short a time left its first love? Can it be believed that the Laodicean Church—whoso spiritual condition in A.D. 63 can be inferred from that of Colossæ (Colossians 1:3-4)—can have, in six brief years, forsaken their “faith in Christ Jesus, and their love to all the saints,” and become the “lukewarm” church (Revelation 3:15-16) of the Apocalypse?

It may be noticed, in passing, that the above argument assumes that the (so-called) Epistle to the Ephesians was really addressed to the Church at Ephesus; and this is by no means certain: the weight of evidence appears to incline the other way. But allowing this to pass, and, for the purpose of argument, assuming that the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians afford indications of the spiritual condition of these and kindred Asiatic churches, it does not seem to the writer that the above argument can be sustained. The two propositions on which its force depends are the following:—

(1)It is impossible that churches could change much for the worse in six years.

(2)A comparison between the Apocalypse and the Letters of St. Paul show a great change for the worse.

From these two propositions it is inferred that the interval must have been more than six years: a generation at least being required to account for such degeneracy. “It bespeaks a change of persons, the arrival of a new generation” (Hengstenberg).

It is believed that neither of the two propositions mentioned above can be sustained. (1) It needs no long time for the first ardour of young converts’ zeal to cool. The New Testament gives us examples of such rapid changes: the “evil eye” of a perverted teaching bewitched the Galatians (Galatians 3:1), so that the Apostle marvelled that the disciples were so rapidly turning away to another gospel (Galatians 1:6). Changes quick and real soon sweep over a religious community, especially in districts where the natural temperament is warm, impressible, and vivacious. It is not impossible that six years may make changes in the religious condition of churches.

But (2) it is more important to consider the second proposition, and to ask whether it is so certain that any such great change had taken place in the instances before us. A comparison of the Epistle to the Colossians and that to Laodicea rather leads to an opposite conclusion. Professor (now Bishop) Lightfoot has shown that the same truths need enforcing (comp. Colossians 1:15-18, and Revelation 3:14), the same practical duties are taught (Colossians 3:1, and Revelation 3:21), the same lukewarmness is the subject of caution (Colossians 4:17, and Revelation 3:19), the same denunciations are heard against the pride of life, in wealth or intellect (Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:23, and Revelation 3:17-18). “The message communicated by St. John to Laodicea prolongs the note which was struck by St. Paul in the letters to Colossæ. An interval of a very few years has not materially altered the character of these churches. Obviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be applied” (Bishop Lightfoot, Epistle to the Colossians, pp. 41-44).

A similar comparison might be made between the two Ephesian Epistles. The impression left from a perusal of St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, whether addressed to that church or not, is that he was not without a fear that the warm love which prevailed among the Christians addressed might soon change: it is a love above the accidents of time and the powers of change which he desires may be theirs (Ephesians 6:24; Revelation 2:4). The area of comparison between this Epistle to the Ephesians and the Epistles to the Seven Churches becomes much wider when we regard it, in harmony with probability, as a circular letter addressed to the Asiatic churches: then the resemblances become more plain, and the so-called great change in spiritual condition disappears. It will be sufficient to mention the following: Ephesians 1:18, Revelation 3:18; Ephesians 2:6, Revelation 3:21; Ephesians 3:8, Revelation 2:9; Ephesians 3:17-19, Revelation 2:4.

Enough has been said to show that the argument from the spiritual condition of the churches lends little, or no support to the later date, but fairly strengthens the earlier.

The advocates of the earlier date adduce other internal evidence. They lay great weight upon inferences drawn from Revelation 11, 13, 17. They argue that the measuring of the Temple and the treading down of the Holy City, described in Revelation 11:1-2, is a token that Jerusalem had not yet fallen. This argument does not seem to the present writer satisfactory. The measuring of the Temple is symbolical, and it is unsafe to ground an argument upon it. The aim of the vision seems to us to point out the safety of the germ-Church during the times of desolation. The external framework, the old Jewish polity, might be swept away (Revelation 11:2; comp. Hebrews 8:13): the true spiritual germ would never die, but spring forth in fuller and freer vigour. Such a vision might indeed have preceded the fall of Jerusalem; but it might also have been given as a consolation and an instruction afterwards.

Hardly more convincing is the argument from Revelation 13, 17. In the account of the seven-headed wild beast we read of seven kings, five of whom are fallen. The seven kings are said to be the emperors of Rome. The five fallen are Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, Nero; the one that is, is Galba. The force of this depends upon the truth of the interpretation. If the seer meant the seven kings to represent seven emperors of Rome, then the date of the Apocalypse is fixed to the age of Galba; or to that of Nero if we begin to reckon with Julius Cæsar. The former is the most correct method of reckoning. To make the sixth head Vespasian, as some would do, is, as Dr. Davidson has remarked, quite arbitrary. There is no reason for omitting Galba, Otho, and Vitellius from the reckoning. But the force of the argument for the date here depends upon the truth of the interpretation; and the foundation passages in the prophecy of Daniel, from which the Apocalyptic seer drew so much of his imagery, describe under the emblem of the wild beasts, kingdoms, or world-powers, rather than individual monarchs. Still, of course, it is possible that there may be a double interpretation—one more local, the other more general—here as well as elsewhere. But the requisite interpretation does not seem to be sufficiently clear for the purpose of argument.

Nor can the argument from silence be accepted. There is no allusion to the fall of Jerusalem in the book; but it is scarcely safe to infer that the book was therefore earlier than that catastrophe.

One other internal (so called) argument respecting date may be noticed here. Lücke cites Revelation 18:20, where the Apostles and prophets are invited to rejoice because they have been avenged on Babylon, to prove that St. John the Apostle was dead when the book was written. This is one of those prosaic errors into which even the most learned and trustworthy of literary experts are betrayed by their own acuteness.

There yet remains another class of evidence: that of language and style. Assuming the common authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse (see Introduction to the Gospel, and section on the Author above), we shall have very little doubt that the general probability is in favour of the Apocalypse having been written first. Not only is the Gospel marked by the sententiousness of age, and the Apocalypse by the warm colouring of earlier life, but the influence of Jewish associations is more strongly marked in the latter; while Greek influences are more distinctly traceable in the former.

The evidence on this head inclines to the earlier date, but it is not absolutely conclusive: the prevalence of Hebraic influences noticeable in the Apocalypse might well fit in with the later date. The influences of youth often re-assert themselves with startling vigour in declining years: the provincialisms and accent of boyhood have been resumed by men in the evening of life, after having been kept long in abeyance by the joint powers of control and culture. Illustrations of this will occur to the reader. But, in the instance before us, the probability seems to lie the other way: in the Apostle’s case the Hebraic influences did prevail during the early life; the Greek influences were present during his later life; and we may well believe that the Apocalypse “marks the Hebraic period of St. John’s life which was spent in the East, and among Aramaic speaking populations”; and that the Gospel was written twenty or thirty years afterwards, at the “close of the Hellenic period during which St. John lived in Ephesus, the great centre of Greek civilisation.” (See Bishop Lightfoot’s Article on “Supernatural Religion,” Contemporary Review, vol. xxv., p. 859.)

To conclude this brief summary, we may say that the general weight of evidence is in favour of the earlier date, and certainly this supposition fits in best with all the circumstances of the case.

III. Schools and Principles of Interpretation.—Before entering upon the general meaning of the book, it is desirable to lay before the reader a brief account of the different schools of Apocalyptic interpretation.

(1) Schools of Interpretation.—It is well known that there are three main systems of interpretation: these are called, from their special tendencies of thought, the Præterist, the Futurist, and the Historical.

The Præterist in general maintains that the visions of the Apocalypse relate to events and circumstances which are past: the prophecies of the book—at least in their primary intention—have been fulfilled. Among the advocates of this view may be reckoned the names of Grotius and Hammond, the learned and eloquent Bossuet, Eichhorn, Ewald, De Wette, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Professor Moses Stuart of America, and in this country the late lamented Professor Maurice, Professor Davidson, and Mr. Desprez.

The Futurist is at the opposite pole of interpretation, and maintains that the fulfilment of the book is still future, when our Lord will come again. Professor Davidson has separated the Futurists into two classes—the simple Futurist and the extreme Futurist: the difference between these classes being that the simple Futurist believes that the prophecies of the book are future in fulfilment, while the extreme Futurist holds that even the first three chapters are prophetic. Among those who have maintained the more moderate Futurist view may be mentioned De Burgh, Maitland, Benjamin Newton, Todd, and the devout Isaac Williams. The extreme Futurist view has been supported chiefly by some Irish expositors.

The Historical school holds a sort of middle place between the Præterist and Futurist. Its advocates believe that in the Apocalypse we have a continuous prophecy, exhibiting to us the main features of the world’s history: the visions therefore are partly fulfilled, partly they are in course of fulfilment, and a portion still remains unfulfilled. This view has been sustained by men of conspicuous ability. It was the interpretation which commended itself to many of the Reformers, and was favoured by Wiclif, Bullinger, Bale, and others. It was upheld with more systematic power by such distinguished writers as Mede, Vitringa, Daubuz, Sir Isaac Newton, Whiston, Bengel, and Bishop Newton: more recently it has been advocated by Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Auberlen, by Elliott and Faber, by Bishop Wordsworth and the late Dean Alford, by Barnes, Lord, and Glasgow.

It is, of course, to be understood that there are many varieties of interpretation even among those who belong to the same school of interpreters: but it would quite exceed the limits at our disposal to speak of these varieties.

Against these three schools of interpretations it is not difficult to find objections. It is hard to believe, with the Præterist, that the counselling voice of prophecy should have spoken only of immediate dangers, and left the Church for fifteen centuries unwarned; or, with the Futurist, to believe that eighteen centuries of the eventful history of the Church are passed over in silence, and that the whole weight of inspired warning was reserved for the few closing years of the dispensation. Nor, on the other hand, can we be thoroughly satisfied with the Historical school, however ably and learnedly represented. There is a certain nakedness about the interpretations often advocated by this school: the interpreter is too readily caught by external resemblances, and pays too little heed to inner spiritual and ethical principles. A mistake into which this system falls is that of bringing into prominence the idea of time. According to them, the visions of the book are pictures of occurrences to take place at a certain fixed date. Now it must never be forgotten that the question of time—the time when this or that was to happen—was one which our Lord steadily put on one side. It was not for His disciples to know the times and the seasons. The knowledge of the time of an event is insignificant compared with the knowledge of the forces, elements, and laws which combine to produce it. This seems to be our Master’s teaching to His followers all through time. Our study is to know what are the foes we have to contend against, what combinations they are likely to make, in what power they are to be confronted, what difficulties are likely to arise, what certainty there is that all difficulties will be surmounted and every foe overthrown. It matters not for us to know when these things shall be: it may be at the first watch, or midnight, or at the cock-crowing: the time is a matter of no ethical importance. It is thus St. Peter treats it: “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” It is but the echo of His Lord’s warning. It may take a long time or a short time for the moral laws and moral forces at work in the world to bring forth a crisis period. To take St. Peter’s words as laying down a kind of prophetical “time-measure” is to fall into that fatal source of error, the conversion of poetry into prose. We are not, then, to look for any indications of time in the visions of the Apocalypse; and what might have made this very plain is the employment of proportional numbers to denote the prophetic epochs in the book. These carefully-selected numbers, always bearing a relationship to one another, and so selected that a literal interpretation of them is almost precluded, are beyond doubt symbolical, and thus in harmony with the whole character of the book. “Most numbers in the Revelation should not be taken arithmetically, but indefinitely, because they are part of the poetic costume borrowed from the Old Testament” (Davidson). The anxiety respecting the “times and seasons” has led many interpreters into voluminous errors, and has created a Thessalonian restlessness of spirit in many quarters. Infinitely more important is it to notice the moral and spiritual aspects of the book, the evil and the good principles which are described in conflict, and the features which in different ages the combat will assume.

But, though the time-interpretation of the book is thus to be placed in the background, it must not be so done as to imply that the book has no reference to occurrences which will happen in time. If some of the Historical school of interpreters have so forced the question of time into prominence as to ignore the more important ethical bearings of the book, it is no less true that critics on the other side have erred in removing the application of the book wholly out of the sphere of history, and giving it only the force of a fairy tale with a possible and doubtful moral. This is to set aside the value of the book to the Church of Christ as she moves across the vexed and stormy sea of this world’s history. The visions of the book do find counterparts in the occurrences of human history: they have had these, and they yet will have these, fulfilments; and these fulfilments belong neither wholly to the past, nor wholly to the future: the prophecies of God are written in a language which can be read by more than one generation: what was read here helped the early Christian to whom imperial Rome was the great Babylon which absorbed to herself the wealth, and the wickedness, the power and persecuting spirit of the world, to whom the emperor may have seemed as a wild beast, savage and relentless, rising out of the tumults of peoples and nations, fickle and ruthless as the sea. No less have the visions of this book consoled the mediæval saint or poet, who felt that the most influential seat of the Church had become the metropolis of worldliness when “the Prince of the New Pharisees” was seated in St. Peter’s chair, and when out of a professedly Christianised society had arisen a power aspiring to some religious culture, but fierce, wild, and wanton as the wild beast of ancient days. (Comp. Dante, Inf. xxvii. 85; and Rosetti’s Antipapal Spirit of the Italian Poets—passim). Nor is the force of the consolation exhausted: in the future, the visions of this book, showing the certain triumph of all that is good and true, in the final consummation of Christ’s kingdom, may hereafter serve to console men and women groaning under a tyranny of ungodliness more terrible and more specious than any which have preceded it, because built up of a pride which worships physical laws, while it treads under foot all moral laws, and spurns contemptuously all spiritual laws. In the past, the book has had its meaning: in the future, its meaning may grow fuller and clearer; but in the present also there is no doubt that it has its practical value for all who will reverently and patiently hear and keep the sayings of this book.

We are disposed to view the Apocalypse as the pictorial unfolding of great principles in constant conflict, though under various forms. The Præterist may, then, be right in finding early fulfilments, and the Futurist in expecting undeveloped ones, and the Historical interpreter is unquestionably right in looking for them along the whole line of history; for the words of God mean more than one man, or one school of thought, can compass. There are depths of truth unexplored which sleep beneath the simplest sentences. Just as we are wont to say that history repeats itself, so the predictions of the Bible are not exhausted in one or even in many fulfilments. Each prophecy is a single key which unlocks many doors, and the grand and stately drama of the Apocalypse has been played out perchance in one age to be repeated in the next. Its majestic and mysterious teachings indicate the features of a struggle which, be the stage the human soul, with its fluctuations of doubt and fear, of hope and love—or the progress of kingdoms—or the destinies of the world, is the same struggle in all.

(2) The Principles of Interpretation.—It will have been seen that the writer does not feel at home under the leadership of any of the three great schools of prophetical interpretation. The Church of Christ owes much to all of them, though the cause of truth has suffered much from many who have sought to be prophets when at the most they could aspire to be interpreters; but the result even of the errors of interpreters has been the slow formation of sounder views, and therefore an advance towards a clearer, because a more modest, system. There are certain principles which seem to be now very generally accepted as essential to a right understanding of the book. It is not, indeed, to be supposed that the acceptance of these principles will enable the student to unlock every mystery, or expound every symbol; but it will certainly save him from following “wandering fires.” Of these principles the chief seem to be the following:—(1) the root passages in the Old Testament prophecies must be considered; (2) the historical surroundings of the writer are to be remembered; (3) the fact that the book is symbolical must never be forgotten; (4) the obvious aim of the book to be a witness to the triumph and coming (parousia) of Jesus Christ must be recognised. These principles are simple enough, but their neglect has been only too fatally evident. The difficulty, indeed, lies rather in the application of these principles than in their acceptance. It is, perhaps, not too much to say that the Præterist school has been apt to ignore the first of these principles; the Historical school has not adequately recognised the second; and the Futurist school is in constant danger of forgetting the third; while partial views in all schools have violated or weakened the value of the last principle.

The “coming of Christ,” viewed from the human side, is a phrase which is not always to be held to one meaning: it is, in this aspect, analogous to the “kingdom of God.” “Holy Scripture, beyond all doubt, recognises potential and spiritual, as well as personal, ‘comings’ of the Lord.”[17] “There are many comings of Christ. Christ came in the flesh as a mediatorial Presence. Christ came at the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ came, a spiritual Presence, when the Holy Ghost was given. Christ comes now in every signal manifestation of redeeming power. Any great reformation of morals and religion is a coming of Christ. A great revolution, like a thunderstorm, violently sweeping away evil to make way for the good, is a coming of Christ” (Robertson, Sermons, Fourth Series, p. 73). It is thus that the sacred writers speak as of Christ’s coming always at hand: “The judge standeth at the door;” “The coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” “So, also, our Lord speaks: “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.” Thus, viewed from one aspect, the “coming of Christ” has various applications; but viewed from another aspect, it will be seen to be a phrase expressive of a simple thought, and free from all perplexing ambiguity. The coming of Christ, viewed from the divine side, is as a single act, in which all subordinate applications are included. There is no past or future with God. All that is being done, is, in one sense, done. God’s dealings, as seen by human eyes, are, as it were, projections on the page of history. An illustration may help. A telegraph cable, whether cut straight through or on the slope, will present to view exactly the same combination of copper and iron wire, gutta-percha, and tarred yarn; but in the elliptical section the elements will appear in more extended order than in the circular section: so the same features which to us appear separate and successive, when viewed from the higher level of heavenly thought, may be seen as forming parts of one act. The various advents of Christ may thus be viewed as forming elements in one Advent, which is progressive from one side, but complete from another. The morning spreads itself in every direction over the forehead of the sky, and yet is but one morning. All the varying scenes from the First Advent to the Second are but the beatings of the wings of God’s new day. “It is,” as the prophet expressed it in language of glorious paradox, “It is one day, known to the Lord, neither clear nor dark, but one day, at whose eventide it shall be light.” If this be true, there is no necessity for leaping to the conclusion that, when the sacred writers warned their hearers that the coming of the Lord was near, they were mistaken, or that they sought to sustain the fainting hopes of the early Church by expectations which have proved false. Doubtless some did not understand the full and deep meaning of the words employed: doubtless many still clung to their carnal conceptions: but the apostolic language, whether from the pen of a St. Paul, St. Peter, or St. John, expresses the wider and truer thoughts of the coming of Christ. We find them anxious to remind those to whom they wrote that the idea of an immediate visible personal coming of Christ must not be allowed to gain possession of the mind. There were forces at work which must have their way before the end would come: seeds had been planted, and these must grow: the sowing and the harvest are linked together as one in the law of growth, and are yet separate. Thus the spirit of wilfulness and impatience is rebuked when men grasp the true thoughts of God. Yet it must not be supposed that the waiting Church of Christ will be disappointed of her hope, or that the heavenly Bridegroom will not come. He will come again; and all the preliminary and subordinate advents in judgment and in comfort will then be seen to have been earnests of the fulness of His coming. The interpreters are as men who stand upon a plain to watch the sunrise. When the first veil of night is withdrawn, and the starlight is somewhat paled, the more ardent than the rest will cry, “The dawn!” but the rest answer, “Not yet.” Then when the mountain peaks begin to flame, another will cry, “The dawn!” and the rest will still reply, “Not yet.” And when the landscape around catches its true colours, another will cry, “The dawn!” but only when the great and glorious orb leaps into view will all be one in crying, “The dawn! the dawn!” So is the coming of Christ. Some look upon the faint lightening in the moral atmosphere, and say, “Christ comes!” Others look to the reflected lights of truth proclaimed in the high places of the world, and say, “Christ comes!” Others look to the general diffusion of knowledge, and say, “Christ comes!” They are right, and they are wrong: right, for it is indeed Christ who is thus enlightening the world; they are wrong, for there is a coming greater than these when He will, in fuller manifestation of Himself, tabernacle with His people as their everlasting light.

[17] The whole note from Bishop Waldegrave’s Bampton Lectures is worth quoting. “Holy Scripture, beyond all doubt, recognises (1) potential and spiritual, as well as personal, ‘comings’ of the Lord. See, for potential ‘comings,’ Matthew 10:23; John 21:22-23; Revelation 2:5; Revelation 2:15-16; Revelation 2:22-25; Revelation 3:3; Revelation 3:10. . . . See, for spiritual ‘comings,’ Psalm 101:2; John 14:18; John 14:21-24; Revelation 3:20. In like manner Holy Scripture recognises (2) a potential and spiritual, as distinct from a personal, ‘presence’ of Christ with His people. See Matthew 18:20; Matthew 28:20; Mark 16:20; 2Timothy 4:17. Now such potential and spiritual comings and presence will naturally, when translated, if I may so speak, into the language of imagery, assume the outward appearance of a personal and visible coming and presence. And this fact will abundantly account for the use of language (expressive of potential and spiritual comings) like that in Psalm 102:13-16; Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 19:16; Isaiah 19:19-21; Isaiah 40:10; Isaiah 59:20; Zechariah 2:10-12 : (expressive of potential and spiritual presence) like that in Psalm 135:21; Isaiah 12:6; Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 60:13 : Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 41:22; Ezekiel 43:1-9; Ezekiel 44:1-2; Joel 2:27; Joel 3:17; Joel 3:20-21; Micah 4:7; Zephaniah 3:14-15 : Zechariah 6:12-13; Zechariah 8:3, without expecting a personal reign of Christ upon earth as its only adequate counterpart.”

IV. General Scope of this Book.

(1) Its Aim.—What is the aim of this book? The answers given, though various, have much in common. Some see in it a prediction of the overthrow of Paganism; others carry it further, and see the destruction of Papal Rome; others read in it the rise and fall of some future Antichrist. Thus far the opinions vary; but in one respect there is agreement: the Revelation aims at assuring the Church of the advent of her Lord: it is the book of the Coming One. Every school of interpretation will admit this. Some indeed will say that the expectation raised was never fulfilled, but all appear to unite in regarding the Apocalypse as the book of the advent. We may take this as a key to its meaning: it proclaims Christ’s coming and victory. But is it the victory of Christ over Paganism, or over degenerate forms of Christianity, or over some final and future antichristian power or person? The true answer appears to be, It is the victory of Christ over all wrong-thoughtedness, wrong-heartedness, and wrong-spiritedness; the pictures given in the visions find their counterpart not in one age only, but gather their fullfilment as the ages advance: the fall of Paganism is included in the visions, as the downfall of the world power of Imperial Rome is included; but the picture-prophecy is not exhausted, and will not be till every form of evil of which Pagan and Imperial Rome, of which the wild beast and Babylon are types, has been overthrown. The ages are seen in perspective; the incidents separated from one another in historical sequence are gathered into one prophetical scene, and the Apocalypse presents us with a variety of these prophetical scenes, which depict the salient features of the conquest of evil, the triumph and advent of Christ—“He comes” is the key. He comes when Paganism falls; He comes when brute world force is cast down; He comes when worldliness falls—He comes, and His coming is spreading ever over the world, shining more and more unto the perfect day. Clouds may gather, and make the epochs which are nearest the full day darker than those which preceded them, but still in every epoch leading up to the golden day; the line of conflict may advance and recede from time to time, but it is a triumphant battle-field which is pictured. It is thus the book of the advent and victory of Christ.

But is it a book affording false hopes? Is it an echo of the wish of the early Christian Church, or is it a revelation from Christ to the waiting and perhaps impatient Church? I believe it is the latter. So far from the book giving colour to the expectation of an immediate personal coming of Jesus Christ, it seems distinctly to caution the early Christians against cherishing mistaken notions: “that day shall not come except there come a falling away first,” was the caution of St. Paul; the caution of St. John, though expressed in pictorial form, is none the less emphatic. Let any one bear in mind the eager impatience of suffering Christians in early days, and let them then read the Apocalypse, and they will learn that its undertone is “Not yet, not yet,” but still surely is He coming—not as you think, but as He thinks well, so is He coming. Let the seals furnish an illustration: the first shows an ideal conqueror; Christ, or the gospel of Christ goes forth to conquer—it is the picture of the Church’s hope; the vision tells her that her hope is right, Christ will conquer; but it is the prelude of visions which tell her that her expectation is wrong if she expects that the kingdom of Christ will be established without conflict, pain, suffering and revolution. The succeeding seals are the pictures of the things which must needs be: the wars, the persecutions, the sorrows which will afflict the world because she will not accept her King: the parable of Luke 19:11-27, and the emphatic warning language of Christ Jesus in Matthew 24:4-14, are not forgotten in the Apocalypse. In it we are bidden to remember that though the victory is sure, the victory is through suffering; we are shown scenes which betoken the prolonged sorrows of the faithful, the obstinate tenacity of evil, its subtle transformations. and the concealed powers by which it is sustained: we are thus, as it were, shown the world’s drama from a heavenly view-point, not in continuous historical succession, but in its various essential features, it is in this dramatic—that it does not tell its story right on, but groups its episodes round convenient centres, bringing into special prominence successively the principles of God’s world-government. It is thus an apocalypse unfolding in symbolical forms the characteristic features of the struggle between good and evil, when the power of the gospel enters the field; it is the revelation of the coming (parousia) of Christ, because it shows not only that He will come, but that He does come; that He who has been revealed, is being revealed, and will yet be revealed.

(2) The Form.—It is the symbolical form which hinders many in the right understanding of the book, “I am a man of the earth,” wrote Goëthe; “I am a man of the earth, earthy; to me the parables of the unjust steward, the prodigal son, the sower, the pearl, the lost piece of money, &c., are more divine (if aught divine there be about the matter), than the seven messengers, candlesticks, seals, stars, and woes.” This is only saying that symbolism employed in the one case was simpler than that employed in the latter—simpler, that is to say, to Western minds; for it may perhaps be doubted whether the symbolism which to the Teutonic mind seemed so strange, may not have been simple enough to those who were accustomed to Hebrew symbolism. But however this may be, the general symbols of the book are not so difficult as might appear. There is not space at our disposal to enter upon a discussion of this in detail. Certain features, however, are worthy of notice. The geographical imagery needs attention: Jerusalem stands as the type of the good cause, Babylon as the type of the metropolis of the world-power: Jerusalem is thus the Church of Christ (this symbolism is in complete harmony with St. Paul and other apostolic writers (comp. Galatians 4:24-31; Hebrews 12:22-23. Babylon is the emblem of Pagan Rome, but not only of Pagan Rome, for the Babylon type remains to this day: there are inspiring powers on the side of the heavenly Jerusalem—God is with her; she shall not be moved; the metropolis of evil has the assistance of evil powers: the dragon, the wild beast, and the false prophet are for a time with her. The family of evil bears a marked parallel to the family of good throughout the book: there is a trinity of evil powers on the side of Babylon the harlot, as the blessed Trinity are, with the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem. (See Excursus B: The Wild Beast.) The scenes in the great conflict range themselves round the members of these families of good and evil. The general features and elements of this struggle are depicted. There are numerical symbols: seven is the number of perfection, six of man’s worldly perfection without God, four of the universe, three and a half of a limited period. There are seals, trumpets, and vials; the seals of the book which could only be opened by Christ betoken that the direction of earth’s history and its explanation can be found only in Christ; the trumpets are the symbols of God’s war against all forms of evil; the vials are the tokens of the retribution which falls upon those who turn not at the divine summons to righteousness. The strong symbolism of the book has a two-fold advantage: when the application of the visions are not to be exhausted in one age, the pictorial form is the most convenient to embrace the manifold fulfilments. Again, the author has clothed his thoughts in the “variously limiting, but reverential and only suitable drapery of ancient sacred language and symbolism, in the conviction that the reader would penetrate the veil and reach the sense” (Gebhardt).

(3) The General Structure.—The majority of critics see a seven-fold structure in the book. The commentators differ, as might be expected, as to the way in which this seven-foldedness of structure shows itself; but most of them arrange the different parts of the book in a seven-fold fashion. This is worthy of note, as the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction to St. John’s Gospel) has been shown to have a similar seven-fold arrangement. When we notice the fondness of the seer for such an arrangement in the subordinate visions, it is not to be wondered at that the whole book should fall into seven groups; but we must be careful not to be carried away by our love of symmetry. The charts and maps of Apocalyptic interpretation are often very Procrustean. The general structure of the book, however, may be noted.

There are:—

1.The Preliminary Chapters.—Christ and His Church.

(1)THE VISION OF THE CHRIST (Revelation 1).

(2)THE MESSAGES TO THE CHURCHES (Revelation 2, 3.).

2.The Visions.

(1)THE VISION OF THE THRONED ONE (Revelation 4.).

(2)THE VISIONS OF THE CONFLICT, in two main sections.

(a)The conflict seen from the world side (Revelation 6-11.):

(α)The seven seals (Rev 6:1 to Rev 8:1).

(β)The seven trumpets (Revelation 8:2-11.).

(b)The conflict seen from the heavenly side (Revelation 12-20):

(α)The spiritual foes (Revelation 12-14.).

(β)The seven vials of retribution (Revelation 15, 16).

(γ)The fall of foes (Revelation 17-20).

(3)THE VISIONS OF PEACE (Revelation 21, Revelation 22:1-6).

3.The Epilogue (Revelation 22:6-21).

It will be seen that there is a moving onward from the more external to the deeper and more spiritual aspects of earth’s story. The earlier visions (the seals, for example) show the ordinary phenomena of the world’s story—war, famine, death, revolution. The next series (the trumpets) show us that there is another, even a spiritual war, going forward in the world, and that changes and revolutions are often tokens of the inner spiritual battle in life. These visions, however, are, so to speak, all in the sphere of earth: in the next series we are shown that the war carried on here is one which has its heavenly counterpart. The conflict is not simply between good men and bad, but between principalities and powers. (See an interesting article on “The Ideal Incarnation,” by Dr. S. Cox, in the Expositor, Vol. II., p. 405.) There is a heavenly view-point of all things on earth: there are spiritual forces, the ideal Church, the unseen strength of God, and the hidden inspirations of evil. In this struggle all evil will be vanquished. The earthly manifestations of evil, as well as the unearthly inspirations of it, will fall; the great and arch-enemy will be overthrown; the true spiritual, eternal rest be reached, and the golden age be realised. We are thus taught, in this ever-deepening spirituality of the book, to look beneath the phenomena, to trace the subtle and unmasked principles which are at work, to separate between the false and the true, to believe in ideals which are not mere ideas, but the true thoughts of God, which will one day be made real in the eyes of men, and which are even now real to the eye of faith Thus does the Book of Revelation become the unfolding of a dream which is from God. In it are painted the scenes of earth’s history: the thirst of a nation’s life and its passing groan; the tears and prayers of the unreckoned holy ones of earth; the agony of half-despair which even the best have felt in the night of conflict, that has so often been the eve of triumph; the sustaining faith which has transfigured the weakling into a hero, and nerved the heart of solitary saint-ship to do battle alone against a degenerate Church or a persecuting world; the silent victory of truth, or the unperceived growth of worldliness and falsehood. The book is thus a help and stay—not as yielding fruit to curiosity. It is not a manual of tiresome details: it is not meant to be a treasure-house of marvels for the prophetical archæologist: it is a book of living principles. It exhibits the force and fortune of truth as it acts upon the great mass of human society: it shows the revolutions which are the result. It shows the decay of the outward form, the release of the true germ, which will spring up in better harvests. It shows us how the corn of wheat may fall and die, and so bring forth much fruit. It shows us how evermore, from first to last, Christ is with us—encouraging, consoling, warning, helping, and leading us onward through conflict to rest.

V. Literature of the Apocalypse.—It is perfectly hopeless to touch so vast a subject as this. The mere list of works on the Apocalypse given in Darling’s Cyclopædia Bibliographica, published in 1859, occupies fifty-two columns. A history of various interpretations is given in Lücke, Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis; a similar sketch is given by Bleek, Lectures on the Apocalypse; and Elliott (Horce Apocalypticæ,” vol. iv.) has presented us with an exhaustive and impartial account, History of Apocalyptic Interpretations, followed by A Critical Examination and Refutation of the Three Chief Counter-schemes of Apocalyptic Interpretation; and also of Dr. Arnold’s General Prophetic Counter-theory. Dean Alford’s article (Greek Test.) on “Systems of Interpretation,” is lucid and compact.

Of Commentaries, leaving unnoticed earlier expositions, those of Vitringa, De Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Hengstenberg, Meyer, Ebrard, Auberlen, and Düsterdieck; of Hammond, Bishop Newton, Elliott, Alford, Bishop Wordsworth, Cunningham, Woodhouse, Moses Stuart, De Burgh, I. Williams, besides the works of Faber, Maitland. and Prof. Birks, are well known; and Dr. Currey’s Notes on Revelation, in the Christian Knowledge Society’s Commentary add much to the value of a really useful work.

Of lectures, the late Professor Maurice’s Lectures are full of thought and interest; and many are indebted to Dr. Vaughan for his Lectures on the Revelation of St. John, which are models of what expository lectures ought to be. Gebhardt’s Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse, now accessible to English readers in Clarke’s Foreign Translation Library—(Gebhardt’s Doctrine of the Apocalypse) is a valuable addition to the literature of the subject; it contains a close and careful comparison between the doctrine of the Apocalypse and that of the Gospel and Epistles of St. John. Of other books may be mentioned—Rev. S. Garratt’s Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, considered as the Divine Book of History; Prophetical Landmarks, by Rev. H. Bonar; Dr. J. H. Todd’s Donnellan Lectures; and Bishop Wordsworth’s Hulsean Lectures. The Apocalypse, by Rev. Charles B. Waller; The Parousia, a Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of our Lord’s Second Coming; The Life and Writings of St. John, by Dr. J. M. Macdonald, of Princetown. On special points the following works may be noted:—On the Epistles to the Seven Churches, in addition to Archbishop Trench’s indispensable work, and to Stier’s well-known one, a valuable contribution has been given by Prof. Plumptre. On the Millennium: Bishop Waldegrave’s “New Testament Millennarianism” (Bampton Lectures), and the Rev. Dr. Brown’s work entitled Christ’s Second Coming: will it be pre-Millennial? On the Babylon of the Apocalypse: Bishop Wordsworth’s Rome, the Babylon of the Apocalypse. On the types and symbols: Fairbairn’s Typology of Scripture; Rev. Malcolm White’s Symbolical Numbers of Scripture; and the essay on “The Formal Elements of Apocalyptics” prefixed to Lange’s Commentary on Revelation. Of this last book, which has not been mentioned above, it is to be regretted that, with much that is most valuable, it should be disfigured by pedantry of style.

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO REVELATION.

EXCUESUS A: THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES.

THE most usual interpretation regards the angels of the churches as the chief ministers or presiding elders of the congregations. This interpretation is so very widely adopted that it has been mentioned in the Notes; but the reader will have perceived that it is not a view which can be considered altogether satisfactory. In the first place, whatever date we accept for the Apocalypse, it is at least strange to find the titles, “elders” or “bishops,” which were in common use exchanged for the doubtful one of “angel.” A common explanation is that the term is derived from the synagogue staff, where the messenger or “angel of the synagogue” was a recognised office; but the transference of such a title to any office in the Christian Church is at least doubtful, and as the officer so styled was only a subordinate in the synagogue, a “clerk” or “precentor” to conduct the devotions of the worshippers, it becomes very improbable that such a term or title would have been employed to describe the presiding elder of a Christian Church. Turning to the Old Testament, it is true that the word “angel” is used in a higher sense (Haggai 1:13; Malachi 2:7), being employed to describe the messengers of God; but the usage here is different. “It is conceivable, indeed, that a bishop or chief pastor should be called an angel, or messenger of God, or of Christ, but he would hardly be styled an angel of the church over which he presides.” (Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, p. 197, note.) Thus the interpretation under consideration appears scarcely satisfactory.

Others have thought the word “angel” is not to be applied to the individual presiding elder, but to the whole ministry of the Church, treated as one. This view, though in some senses approaching nearer to the truth, can hardly be sustained without considerable modification. Others, again, fall back upon Jewish authorities, and see in the angels the guardian angels of the churches. “In Daniel every nation has its ruling angel; and, according to the Rabbins, an angel is placed over every people.” The angel, then, would be a literal, real angel who has the guardianship of the church in question. In popular thought, then, the angel would be one of the good angelic beings whose special duty it was to bear up the church during its trials, by such providential ministries as were needed and ordered. There are some difficulties in accepting this interpretation. In particular the language of rebuke which is addressed directly to the angel himself—the threatening to remove his candlestick, for example—sounds meaningless.

But here it is that we may inquire whether the angel of a particular community, nation, or people is to be understood always of a good and powerful being sent forth by the Almighty to love and watch over it. It is believed that this view does not satisfy the case. It is certain that Daniel represents the guardian angels of nations as opposed to each other, and not co-operating always for the same great and good end. “The prince (guardian angel) of the kingdom of Persia withstood me,” is the language addressed to Daniel by him whose face was like lightning (Daniel 10:13). (Compare also Jude 1:20-21, and Dr. Currey’s Notes in the Speaker’s Commentary on these passages.) Such passages seem to suggest that the “angels” are the powers in the spiritual sphere corresponding to the peoples or communities in the earthly; and these may be on the side of evil or of good. Next, it may be noticed that the action of these angels in the spiritual sphere seems to be the reflection of the action of the community or people in the earthly. If the church at Ephesus has left its first love, the angel is spoken of as sharing the same fault. The influences seen on the spiritual side correspond with those at work in the actual earthly community. The angel of the church or of the individual thus becomes their manifestation in the heavenly sphere. For all our life is thus double; our actions have an earthly meaning, and also a heavenly; what they touch of worldly interests gives them their earthly meaning, what they touch of spiritual welfare is their heavenly meaning. Like the planets, we lie half in shadow and half in light: from the earthly side the world-meaning of our actions lies in the light, and their spiritual value or force is only dimly seen, as it lies in at least partial shadow; but seen from the heavenly side the position is reversed, the worldly significance of human actions is cast into comparative shade, the actual spiritual influences of them are brought into clear light; and it is the spiritual significance of our actions which reveals what we are; in this is concentrated the true force which we are exerting. Seen from the heavenly side, the angel of our life mingles in the great spiritual war, and takes its part as a combatant there; while, on the earthly side, we are seen carrying on our daily occupations. Measured on the earthly side the balance is not struck; there is inconsistency in us; we are partly good and partly bad, sometimes helping, sometimes hindering the work of God on earth, as we judge; but the actual resultant of these inconsistent powers is seen in the heavenly sphere, either helping or thwarting the cause of good. Thus are we double combatants—in the world, for our livelihood, for our ease, for our advancement; in the heavenly, for good or for evil. And it is on the spiritual side that we lie open to spiritual influences; here, where our true self is seen more clearly than anywhere else, are the appeals to our better nature, as we say, most powerful; here, He who holds the stars in His right hand, makes His voice to be heard when He addresses, not merely the church or the individual, but the angel of the church; here, He calls them to see that there is a war in heaven, in which all are combatants, but in which He is the Captain of our salvation. Here too, on the heavenly side, are the wounds of the spiritual and better nature more plainly seen; the offence or blow given to the little one of Christ is not noticed on the earthly side, but the inner nature is wounded, and the wound is seen in its real dimensions in the presence of God, for the angel nature beholds God’s face. It is this thought which gives force and solemnity to our Lord’s warning (Matthew 18:10).

The angel of the church, then, would be the spiritual personification of the church; but it must not be concluded from this, as Züllig does, that these angels are in “the mind of the poet himself nothing more than imaginary existences,” or reduce the angel to be “just the community or church itself.” It is no more the church itself than the “star” is the same as the candlestick. “The star is the supra-sensual counterpart, the heavenly representative; the lamp, the earthly realisation, the outward embodiment” (Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, p. 198). The angel is the church seen in its heavenly representative, and seen, therefore, in the light of those splendid possibilities which are hers if she holds fast by Him who holds fast the seven stars.

Space forbids any treatment of the wider questions on the ministry of angels, or the nature of angelic beings. That such are recognised in Scripture there can be no doubt, and nothing written above is designed to militate against such a belief; but it seems well to remember that where we are dealing with a symbolical book, it is more in harmony with its character to treat symbols as symbols. The forces of nature are God’s messengers, and we may regard them as truly such, and feel that the expressions “the angel of the waters,” “the angel of fire,” “the angel of the abyss,” and so forth, are designed to remind us that all things serve Him, and are the ministers of Him, to do his pleasure; we may even believe that the various forces of nature, so little really understood by us, are under the guardianship of special personal messengers of God; but there is nothing in the imagery of the book which necessarily demands such a belief. It is, moreover, surely not inappropriate in our own day to reassert with some pertinacity the lofty thoughts of ancient belief that winds and storms, ocean and fire, do in truth belong to Him round whom are the clouds and darkness, whose is the sea, and whose hands prepared the dry land.

On the literature of this subject see Godet’s Studies on the New Testament; Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church; Lightfoot’s article on “The Christian Ministry” in the Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 193-199; Hengstenberg’s lengthy note on Revelation 1:20; Professor Milligan’s article, “The Candlestick and the Star,” in the Expositor of September, 1878; Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse, article “Die Engel,” p. 37, or p. 36 in the English translation (The Doctrine of the Apocalypse) published by Messrs. Clark in the Foreign Theological Library. Also “Excursus on Angelology” in the speaker’s Commentary on Daniel, p. 348; article “Angels” in Smith’s Dictionary.

EXCURSUS B: THE WILD BEAST.

IT is to be noticed that the interpretation of the I whole Apocalypse is coloured by the interpretation given to the wild beast. The book, as we have seen (see Introduction), is one of hope, but it is also one of warning; not without a struggle would the foe be driven from the earth where he had usurped power for so long. The devil is cast down—in the higher, heavenly sphere he is regarded as a fallen and defeated enemy; but this conflict has its counterpart on the arena of the world. The Apocalypse gives us in symbol some features of this conflict. It shows four powers of evil: the dragon, the first and second wild beasts, and Babylon the harlot. It is with the beast that we are now concerned, but one or two remarks on this family of evil will not be out of place.

I. The Family of Evil.

(1) The four antagonists of good are related to one another. The resemblance between the dragon and the wild beast (comp. Revelation 12:3; Revelation 13:1; Revelation 17:3; Revelation 17:7; Revelation 17:10) is too obvious to be passed over; it seems designed to show us that the same principle and spirit of evil is at work in both. Again, the way in which the first wild beast gives place to the second wild beast, or false prophet (comp. Revelation 13:11-12; Revelation 16:13; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10), and yet retains its ascendency (comp. Revelation 13:14-17) makes plain the close connection between them; and, lastly, the appearance of the harlot, riding on the scarlet-coloured beast (Revelation 17:3), completes the chain of association between them. The same principles and spirit of evil make themselves manifest in different spheres.

(2) The four antagonists of good are arranged to meet the four corresponding manifestations of good. For every power of good there is an analogous power of evil. If on the side of good we have the three Persons of the blessed Trinity—the Throned One, the Lamb, and the Holy Spirit—besides the Church, the bride, the Lamb’s wife, the heavenly Jerusalem; we have on the side of evil—the dragon, the beast, the false prophet, as a sort of trinity of evil—besides the harlot, Babylon. The dragon being a kind of anti-God; the wild beast, an anti-Christ; the false prophet, an anti-Spirit; the Babylon, an anti-Church. The minor features in the same way correspond: the true Christ died and rose again; the anti-Christ, the wild beast, was wounded unto death, but his deadly wound was healed. The crucified Christ was exalted to be Prince and Saviour, and the outpoured Spirit upon the Church glorified Him by taking of the things of Christ and showing them to the disciples, and by convincing the world of sin because Christ went to the Father; the second beast, or false prophet, works wonders, causes an image of the first wild beast to be made and worshipped. The followers of the Lamb are sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise; the worshippers of the wild beast receive from the false prophet the mark of the beast. (See Revelation 13 throughout.) It is desirable to keep these lines of parody and correspondent antagonism in mind.

II. The Wild Beast—or Antichrist.—It is with the beast that we are concerned in this Excursus; but we cannot altogether dissociate the first beast from the second, though their work is diverse.

(1) The first wild beast is clearly to be connected with the vision of Daniel 7:2-7; the identification of the beast described by Daniel with four great empires is’ unquestionable: it is hardly our purpose to inquire whether the four empires are Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, and Rome; or Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece: the former, which is the more ancient opinion, appears the more probable; but it is enough to remember that these four beasts represent four great world-powers. St. John saw rising out of the sea (comp. Daniel 7:2), not seven diverse beasts, but one seven-headed beast. Now it is perfectly true that to the early Christians Pagan and Imperial Rome was the one great world-power whose shadow darkened the earth, and that a seven-headed monster might well depict this Pagan Rome, as a four-headed beast had represented to Daniel an earlier empire (Greece or Persia); and the wild beast of Revelation 13 from one aspect undoubtedly represents this great tyrant power; but it seems to the present writer that the genius of the Apocalypse is concentration; that which to earlier prophets was seen in detail is to the Christian seer grouped. Daniel saw four beasts rising one after another; St. John saw one wild beast, uniting in himself all the early, present, and future manifestations of that world-empire which has ever been hostile to the spiritual kingdom. Two reasons may be noticed; one from the Book of Daniel, the other from Revelation. This concentration of different world-powers into one representative body was not foreign to the thought of the earlier prophet. Daniel relates the vision in which the’ diverse monarchies of the world were represented as one huge human figure cast out of gold, silver, brass, and iron (Daniel 2:31-49); the diverse powers were thus seen as one, and the little stone, which represented the true spiritual kingdom, in smiting upon one, caused the whole image to fall. The world-kingdoms were thus seen in prophetic vision as one great age-long world-power, which must be smitten by Christ’s kingdom. The Book of Revelation also gives us a hint that the seven-fold aspect of the wild beast must not be given too limited or too local an interpretation. The wild beast, with seven heads and ten crowns, is in these features reproducing the appearance of the red dragon, who is also represented as having seven heads and ten horns. (Comp. Revelation 12:3; Revelation 13:1.) Now the dragon is surely the type of the great arch-enemy the Devil—the Anti-God; the seven heads and ten horns denote that he is the prince of this world, who has more or less animated the successive great world-powers by hostility to righteousness; the empires of the world have been his in so far as they have been founded on force, or fraud, oppression, or unholiness. When, then, the seven-headed wild beast rises from the sea, must we not see in the seven heads the counterpart of those which the dragon bore? The dragon carries those seven heads as he is the great spiritual prince of this world, the one who is practically worshipped in all mere world-made empires. The wild beast carries these seven heads because he is the great representative of all these world-powers themselves, and what may give almost certainty to this interpretation is the fact that the wild beast unites in himself the appearances of leopard, bear, and lion, which were the emblems employed by Daniel to represent earlier monarchies. Actually at the moment St. John saw the vision the wild beast was to him Rome, because through Rome the great world-empire was then working. The seven heads might also look like types of successive emperors; but the more important, because age-long reading of the vision sets before us the concentration in one great monstrous wild beast of all those powers. Powers which were diverse and even politically hostile were yet ethically one power opposed to the fundamental principles of righteousness and peace, of purity and true godliness. The first wild beast, then, becomes the symbol of confederated and age-long world-powers.

(2) The second wild beast is allied with the first. His origin is not of God, he is of the earth: he is more peaceable in his appearance than the first beast, but his speech betrays him; the dragon-voice is his, and he revives the worship of the first wild beast. In him, therefore, are combined the powers of the dragon and the first wild beast. Yet he yields homage to existing order: unlike the first wild beast, which rises out of an ocean of disorder and tumult, he springs out of the earth. He assumes, in part, also, a Christian appearance: he is as a lamb. These features would lead us to expect a power not wholly irreligious—indeed, in some features Christian, yet practically Pagan: observing order, yet arrogant; a second power resembling the first, yet possessing a more specious appearance to mankind. It is on this second wild beast that the seer bids us fasten our more marked attention. It is this second wild beast who deceives by false wonders and false worship, and introduces a great and grinding tyranny. It is this second wild beast to whom is attributed the mysterious number 666. It is well now to turn back to earlier writings. In Daniel 7 we read of a “little horn,” and in the description there we find much that is parallel with the description here. (Comp. Daniel 7:8 with Revelation 13:5; Daniel 7:21 with Revelation 13:7.) This “little horn” of Daniel has been identified (comp. Excursus on Interpretation of 2Thessalonians 2:3-12) with the “Man of Sin” spoken of by St. Paul (2Thessalonians 2:3). Some think that the little horn of Daniel 7 is identical with the horn of Revelation 8. Into this question we have not space to enter: it will be enough here to keep in mind that St. Paul looked for the manifestation of an Antichrist, a Man of Sin, whose type in all likelihood he found in the little horn of Daniel 7; and that the picture of the Antichrist painted by St. Paul is that of a power not professedly irreligious, but yet claiming from mankind the homage due to God (2Thessalonians 2:4). This seems quite in harmony with the characteristics of the second wild beast, who, it is to be remembered, is described (Revelation 16:13; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10) as the “false prophet.” We may, then, take the second wild beast as the picture of a power, cultured, quasi-religious, borrowing much from Christianity, yet built upon anti-Christian principles, and animated by an anti-Christian spirit.

(3) The identification of the Wild Beast, False Prophet, or Antichrist.—“Ye have heard that Antichrist shall come” (1John 2:18). This is St. John’s acknowledgment of the wide-spread belief that a great falling away should precede the coming of Christ. Here he is at one with St. Paul, but it is consistent with the spirit of St. John’s thought that he should remind his hearers that the spirit of Antichrist was abroad already, and that in a present antagonism to this spirit lay true Christian duty: accordingly, he indicates in more than one place what were some features of the anti-Christian spirit (1John 2:22; 1John 4:1-3). It is also significant that he uses the phrase “false prophet,” reminding us of the Apocalypse, which identifies, as we have seen, the wild beast, or Antichrist, with the false prophet St. John thus appears to regard the spirits and false prophets abroad in his day as at least anticipations of the great future Antichrist and false prophet. Actually there were Antichrists then in the world; but in the prophetic ideal all these were as one great Antichrist. In the Apocalyptic vision the scattered spirits grew into one great representative opponent-the wild beast, the false prophet. Is there, then, no personal Antichrist? It has been ably argued (see Excursus on Prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2) that the Man of Sin must be an individual. There are certain expressions which seem to point to a single person—notably the remarkable use of the masculine gender when the wild beast is referred to (see Revelation 13:5): but it seems more consonant with the symbolism of the Apocalypse to regard the wild beast as the figurative embodiment of the false, seductive, anti-Christian principle and spirit, which belongs to more ages than one, which reveals itself in diverse aspects, and yet always manifests the same hostility to the Divine Spirit. It must not, however, be supposed that this view denies a personal Antichrist. On the contrary, it is perfectly in harmony with this view to note that the wild-beast spirit has often culminated in an individual: the typical forecasts of Antichrist have often been individuals. Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod, Nero, might fairly be regarded as the incarnation of the ungodly spirit. Similarly, in later ages, it is not to be wondered at that holy, Christ-taught men, groaning for the sorrows of the world and the corruptions of Christianity, saw in many who occupied the Papal chair the very representatives of the false prophet, the Antichrist. Not more need it surprise us to find the same thought passing through men’s minds when pretensions, which would be ridiculous if they were not blasphemous, have been advanced on behalf of the Roman pontiff, till the Church becomes a parody rather than a witness of divine truths. It follows that the view here maintained does not exclude the possibility of a future personal Antichrist, in whom the typical features shall yet find clearer and fuller manifestation than in any previous age. But though all this may be, and though godly men tell us that all these things must be, it appears to the writer infinitely more important to notice the principles which may constitute the Antichrist in every age: the denial of the Father and the Son (1John 2:22), the denial of the Mediator and Incarnate God (1John 4:2-3), the arrogant claim of divine honours, the specious resemblance to Him who is the Lamb of God, the disregard of sacred ties (2Thessalonians 2:10; 1Timothy 4:3), the possession of wonderful power and culture (Revelation 13:11-14). The spirit which is depicted is one which might well develop out of the elements around us. It would not be impossible to imagine the rankest materialism allying itself with a gorgeous ritual—to see the high priests of science acquiescing in the most elaborate of ecclesiasticisms, and the agnostic in creed becoming a ceremonialist in worship, till the satire should be only too sadly true, “I found plenty of worshippers, but no God.” We should then have every element in human nature allowed its nutriment—for the mind, science; for the emotions, worship; for the conduct, direction. The tripartite nature of man would be thus provided for, but the unity of his manhood would be at an end—for the worship would be unintelligent, the moral tone lifeless, because deprived of the vital sense of personal responsibility, and the intellect uninspired, because godless. Such an ago would be the reign of that climax of anti-Christian spirit which is the perfection of man’s powers without God, foreshadowed by the mysterious number 666, which is seeming exaltation of all human powers, but which is in truth their degradation and their discord.

III. The Number of the Beast.—It would serve but little purpose to recapitulate the various solutions of the number of the Beast. An account of them will be found in Elliott (vol. 3). The chief solutions are those mentioned in the Notes. The most ancient, and perhaps most general, solution sees in the number the equivalent of Lateinos. Others see in it the numerical equivalent of one of the Roman emperors; Nero, advocated by Renan; Otho, advocated by an Italian writer, who accounts for the reading, “616” instead of “666,” by the alteration made by a copyist to suit the name of another emperor, Caligula: Γαιος καισαρ = 616, None of these numerical solutions appears to the writer adequate to the whole depth of the seer’s meaning, though they may be included in the significance of the symbol.

The Revelation

This document has given rise to voluminous controversy as to its author, its origin, its purpose, and its interpretation. It has been held to be a forgery in the name of John; to have been composed by another writer in the apostle's name, not in order to deceive, but in order to record an oral revelation of John; or to have been the work of another John. Some who deny that John wrote the Gospel, have attributed Revelation to him, and the authenticity of the latter is maintained by some prominent rationalistic critics.

The Apostle John was banished to the Island of Patmos, probably by the Emperor Domitian, a.d. 95 or 96, and the book, composed either during his exile, or, as is more likely, after his return to Ephesus, contains the revelation given him there in a series of visions. It is directly addressed to the Seven Churches of Proconsular Asia; the number seven being representative, and not including all the Asiatic Churches. Its design was to encourage the Church during that trying period, predicted by Jesus himself, between the close of direct revelation and the second coming of the Lord. This encouragement centers in the return of Jesus to give His people eternal life and to trample down His foes. As related to the progress of doctrine in the New Testament, it represents the final consummation in the redeemed Church, the heavenly Jerusalem, which is foreshadowed in the rise and growth of the Apostolic Church.

The style is figurative and symbolical. It deals with principles rather than with particular events. To the neglect of this characteristic, and the corresponding attempt to link the symbols and prophecies with specific historical incidents or personages, are due most of the extravagances of interpretation. No satisfactory argument against its authenticity can be drawn from its contents as related to the other writings of John. It proclaims the same eternal truths which are asserted and vindicated in the Gospel and in the Epistles - the sovereignty of God, the conflict of sin with righteousness, the temporary triumph of evil, and the final, decisive victory of holiness. As in the other writings, Christ is the central figure, the conqueror of sin and death, the crowning joy of the redeemed, and the object of their adoration. It emphasizes the divine hatred of sin and the certainty of the divine judgment of the wicked and of the future bliss of believers in Jesus. The main idea of the Gospel and of Revelation is the same - that of a decisive conflict between the powers of good and evil.

The symbolism of Revelation is Jewish, and not Greek or Roman. It is pervaded with the style and imagery of the Old Testament, and is molded by its historical and prophetical books. "The book," says Professor Milligan, "is absolutely steeped in the memories, the incidents, the thoughts, and the language of the Church's past. To such an extent is this the case that it may be doubted whether it contains a single figure not drawn from the Old Testament, or a single complete sentence not more or less built up of materials brought from the same source.... It is a perfect mosaic of passages from the Old Testament, at one time quoted verbally, at another referred to by distinct allusion; now taken from one scene in Jewish history, and now again from two or three together." Thus the heresy of the Nicolaitanes is the heresy of Balaam (Revelation 2:14): the evil in the Church of Thyatira is personified in Jezebel (Revelation 2:20): the angelic captain in the war against the dragon is the Michael of Daniel (Revelation 7:7): Jerusalem, Mount Zion, Babylon, the Euphrates, Sodom, and Egypt are symbols of the holy bliss of the saints, of the transgressors against God, and of the judgment of the wicked (Revelation 21:2; Revelation 14:1; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 9:14; Revelation 11:8). The battle of Har-Magedon carries us back to the great slaughters in the plain of Megiddo (Judges 5:19; Psalm 83:9; 2 Kings 23:29). The promises to the churches are given under the figure of the tree of life, the hidden manna, the white stone, the iron scepter, the pillar in the temple of God (Revelation 2:7, Revelation 2:17, Revelation 2:27, Revelation 2:28; Revelation 3:5, Revelation 3:12, Revelation 3:20). Heaven is described under the image of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Revelation 11:1, Revelation 11:19; Revelation 6:9; Revelation 8:3; Revelation 4:6). The plagues of Revelation 8:1-13 are the plagues of Egypt: the crossing of the Red Sea and the destruction of Korah are blended in the representation of the deliverance of God's people (Revelation 12:15, Revelation 12:16). Of the Prophets, Haggai contributes the earthquake of chapter 6, and Joel the sun changed into the blackness of sackcloth and the moon into blood: Isaiah the falling stars, the fig tree casting her untimely fruit, and the heavens departing as a scroll: Ezekiel the scorpions of chapter 9, the description of the New Jerusalem in chapter 21, the roll in Revelation 5:1-14, and the little book in Revelation 10:1-11 : Zechariah the opening of the seals in chapter 6 and the olive trees in chapter 11. The vision of the glorified Redeemer (Revelation 1:12-20) is combined from Exodus, Zechariah Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Psalms.

Along with these coincidences there are certain contrasts, notably as respects the doctrine of Christ's coming, which, in the Gospel and Epistles lies in the background, while it is the main theme of Revelation. Revelation treats the impending judgment as external, the Gospel as spiritual. Revelation describes the triumph of Christianity under the imagery of Judaism; the consummation being an ideal Jerusalem and an ideal worship; while in the Gospel, Judaism appears in opposition to Christ, "standing without, isolated and petrified, and not taken up with it, quickened and glorified."

The symbols of the book are drawn from objects familiar to the writer - the locusts, the eagles, the millstone, the olive and palm and vine.

The principal objection urged against the common authorship of the Gospel and Revelation, is the difference in language and style. This difference must be frankly admitted. "The language," says Dr. Davidson, "departs materially from the usual Greek of the New Testament, presenting anomalies, incorrectnesses, peculiar constructions, and awkward dispositions of words, which have no parallel.... The language is so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of Greek." By many eminent critics these differences are regarded as irreconcilable on the assumption of a common authorship.

On the other hand, it may be urged that these differences are largely intentional; that the author departs from common usage under the peculiar demands of his subject, arising from the conditions under which he writes, and his intent to conform to the Old Testament style of address; and further, that his familiarity with correct usage is shown by other passages in the same book. Revelation, moreover, contains many of the words which are peculiar to the Gospel and Epistles, such as to witness, to tabernacle, to keep, to overcome, to name as the expression of character, true (ἀληθινός) in the sense of real; and the figures of hungering and thirsting, the manna, the living water, the shepherd and the sheep. It is, indeed, answered that, where the same words occur, they are used in a different sense; but many of these alleged differences disappear upon closer examination. The Hebrew character is only superficially different from that of the Gospel, which is Hebrew in spirit, though the Greek is much purer, and "the absence of solecisms arises from the avoidance of idiomatic expressions."

Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου

This title is according to the evidence (C. 2, al. b. Wetst.; also א [T., Tr., W. and H.]), and, since it is derived simply from Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:9, the oldest. Further statements concerning the author run: ἀποκ. Ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου (Elz.), καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ

ἣν ἐν Πάτμῳ τῳ νήσῳ ἐθεάσατο

ἡ ἀποκ. τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τ. θεολ.

ἀποκ. τοῦ ἁγίου ἐνδοξοτάτου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ παρθένου ἠγαπημένου ἐπιστηθίου Ἰωαννου θεολόγου (cf. Wetst., Griesb., Matthäi).

CHAPTER 1

[Revelation 1:1, א*, W. and H., ἰωάνει.]

Revelation 1:2. The τε after ὅσα (Elz., Ewald) is properly deleted already by Griesbach, after A, B, C, min. The particle does not generally occur in the Apoc., for Revelation 21:12 undoubtedly is found improperly in the Rec.; and even though Revelation 19:18 after ἐλευθ. has good evidence (א), yet it is absent in A, and is not found in the parallel Revelation 13:16. At the close of the verse it is added: καὶ [ὅσα ἤκουσε] καὶ ἄτινα εἰσι καὶ ἅ χρὴ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα (min. edd., b. Mill, Wetst.; cf. Revelation 1:19.

Revelation 1:3. ὁ ἀναγινώσκων κ. οἱ ἀκούοντες. Thus the preponderating evidence. The singular and plural also are found in both words.

Modification of the correct lectio media (Beng.).

The additions of τούτους to λόγους (C), and of ταύτης (min., Vulg. 2, Syr., Ar., Primas), should be here noted.

The reading τὸν λόγον τ. πρ. in B, א, Tisch. IX., also deserves consideration.

Revelation 1:4.[450] The τοῦ before Ὁ ὬΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ. (Elz.), in opposition to A, C, א, min., is, like the ΘΕΟῦ (B, min.), an attempted interpretation. In the same way, the Ὃς (Erasm. 1) before ἨΝ, instead of the correct Ὁ.

Instead of ΠΝΕΥΜ. Ἄ ἘΣΤΙΝ (Elz.), not ΠΝΕΜ. ΤῶΝ (Lach., sm. ed. according to A; so also א), but ΠΝΕΥΜ. Ἄ (B, C, al., Matthäi, Lach., Tisch., Lücke). The variations seem to originate with Andreas and Arethas.

Revelation 1:5. The ἘΚ (Elz.) is, according to A, B, C, א, min., Vulg., etc., to be deleted (Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc.; cf. Colossians 1:18).

Instead of ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑΝΤΙ (Elz.), according to A, C, א, min., with Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch., read ἈΓΑΠῶΝΤΙ. The reading ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ἈΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ἩΜΩΝ is uncertain. Even Lach. and Tisch. have vacillated in their edd. For ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ (Beng., Matth., Ew., Treg., De Wette, Tisch.) are B and Vulg.; but for ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ (Mill, Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) are A, C, א, 6, 7, 28, Primas. The ἘΚ which suits better ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ is well supported by A, C, א, 12. No decision is afforded by the remark of Andreas: Τῷ ΔΙʼ ἈΓΆΠΗς ΤῶΝ ΔΈΣΜΩΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΆΝΑΤΟΥ ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ΚΑῚ ΤῶΝ Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς ΚΗΛΊΔΩΝ ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ. Arethas says expressly, in repeating both conceptions: ΔΙΤΤΟΓΡΑΦΕῖΤΑΙ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΡῸς ΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ. So also, in Revelation 2:2, he trifles with a dittography of ΚΌΠΟς and ΣΚΌΠΟς, of which the latter has no value in a critical respect. Ewald unjustly suspects ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ as the easier reading. Perhaps ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ has entered the text, because probably with a reference to Revelation 7:14 written on the margin. Andr. and Areth. place ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ first, so that the ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ may appear as an interpretation. The idea following, in the context (Revelation 1:6), suits better ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ.

The ἩΜῶΝ after ἉΜΑΡΤ. is omitted in A, 12, 16, but stands in C, א, Lach. large ed., Tisch.

Revelation 1:6. Undoubtedly in the rec. reading, ἘΠΟΊΗΣ. ἩΜᾶς ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖς ΚΑῚ, Κ.Τ.Λ., the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊς is incorrect, against A, C, א, 2, 4, 6, etc., which offer ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ, and that, too, without the succeeding ΚΑῚ; cf. Revelation 5:10. The more difficult reading, ἩΜᾶς with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ (Tisch., Ew. 2) is well attested by B, א (cf., on the other hand, Lücke, p. 471), and deserves, perhaps, the preference to ἩΜῖΝ (A, Syr., Ar., Lach. small ed.) and ἩΜῶΝ (C, Lach.), because both forms could serve as an interpretation. At any rate, the testimony of Cod. C, here confirmed by the Vulg., is more important than that of A; cf. Beng., Fund. cris. Apoc., sec. viii.

Revelation 1:7. For μετὰ (A, א, Vulg. edd.), C has επὶ from Matthew 24:30, etc.

Revelation 1:8. The discredited addition αρχὴ καὶ τέλος is an interpretation.

Instead of ὁ κύριος (Elz.), the reading according to all the testimonies is κύριος ὁ θεός (Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).

Revelation 1:9. After ὑ̔πομονῇ, do not read Ἰησού Χριστοῦ (Elz.), but ἐν Ἰησοῦ (C, א, Vulg., Copt., Orig., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cod. A has ἐν Χριστῷ; several minusc. (according to Wetst.), ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησ. (Tisch., 1854).

Revelation 1:11. The addition after λεγούσης, ʼΕγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ (Elz.), is without attestation.

Revelation 1:13. Instead of μαστοῖς (B, א, C, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]), it is more proper[451] to write ΜΑΖΟῖς (A, 10, 17, 18, And., Areth., Lach.). Possibly, however, the author of the Ap. wrote ΜΑΣΤ, contrary to the general usage.

ΧΡΥΣᾶΝ; so Lach., Tisch., Revelation 1:12, according to A, C, א. Tisch., in 1854, had received the form ΧΡΥΣῆΝ (Elz.).

Revelation 1:15. ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῌ. To this reading, the meaningless clerical error in A, C, points; viz., ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝΗς (originating from N, H, I), which form Lach. has received. The modified ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝΟΙ (B, Elz., Tisch.) is without sufficient attestation. ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῌ, perhaps ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῼ (Mill, Prol., 371, 507; Beng., Gnom., in loco), is supported by the in camino ardenti of the Vulg. (cf. Syr.). The Mas. (א, Tisch. IX.) would belong to the χαλκολ., but incorrectly; see exposition.

Revelation 1:20. ὀὓς, Elz., Tisch.: ὧν incorrect, and opposed to A, C, א, 8, and the usage of the Apoc. Bengel already, like Lach., Tisch. IX., has οὓς. ἐπὶ τῆς δ. μ. Elz., Tisch., after C, א. ἐν τῇ δ. μ. occurs (A, Lach.) because of Revelation 1:16.

[450] In reference to Revelation 1:4-10 of the critical text of Lachmann and Tischendorf, cf. Lücke, Einl., p. 488 sqq. For criticism of text, cf. especially F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, Heft I. Die erasmischen Entstellungen, etc., Leipzig, 1861, ii. 1862.

[451] Suidas: μαζὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ ἀνδρὸς

καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ γυναικὸς, μασθὸς καὶ μαστὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ γυναικός, κ.τ.λ. [“μαζὸς, properly of a man, but by catachresis also of a woman. μασθὸς and μὰστος, of a woman”]. Cf. Wetstein, who has still more authorities. Luke 23:29, in Cod. C, has against this usage, μαζοί.