Page images
PDF
EPUB

Neronic date is not so conclusive as that brought forward for the Domitianic date (although when it is considered that Eusebius followed Irenæus, and that Jerome followed Eusebius, and so on, the testimony becomes that not of many individuals but of one), yet still it must be admitted there is positive external evidence in favour of the Neronic, as well as of the Domitianic date, and all that can be done is to array father against father, and testimony against testimony, weighing the probabilities of the truthfulness of each in the balances of our own judgment.

It is plain the question cannot be settled by external testimony. What, then, is the fair and manly course to be taken in bringing this point to a right issue? If the conflicting traditions of the early church make it impossible to determine whether John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Nero or Domitian, let an appeal be made to the internal evidence of the book itself. Let the words traced by the Spirit of God teach us that knowledge which we cannot learn from the surmises of the early fathers, or from the traditions of the Church. Let the love of "science falsely so called," which would exhaust human wisdom in building up a position drawn from sources from which no valid argument can be drawn, turn from the fables of antiquity to the truth of revelation. The Scriptures are silent; the voice of antiquity is divided; one only course remains (a course the supporters of the Domitianic date are very reluctant to adopt), and that is, to rest the question upon far surer grounds than the tradition of Irenæus, or the hesitations of Eusebius, who does not seem to have believed that St. John wwwrote the book at all. Let us then inquire-Is there internal

Eusebius affords almost a solitary example amongst the early fathers of indisision and doubt respecting the authorship and canonical rank of the Apocablypse he says, (Eccles. Hist. iii. 24.): "The opinions respecting the ReveJalation are still greatly divided" “ Τῆς δ' ̓Αποκαλύψεως ἐφ ̓ ἑκάτερον ἔτι · νῦν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς περίελκεται ἡ δόξα.”

1

Speaking of canonical books, "To these may be added, if it seem good, (ɛi pavein,) the Apocalypse of John,".... "which some reject, but others reckon it among the acknowledged books."-Eus. Eccles Hist. iii. 25. He gives at some length the opinions of Dionysius, who supposed the author of the Apocalypse not to be the same John who wrote the Gospel: "That it is a John who wrote these things we must believe, as he says it; but what John it is, is uncertain." "I am of opinion, there were many of the same name with John the Apostle."... "I think, therefore, that it was another one of those in Asia, for

evidence from the book itself which makes it morally certain that the Revelation must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem? I answer, there is overwhelming evidence in favour of this position in every page and line of the Apocalypse, whilst there is no internal evidence, deserving the name, to show that it was written after that period.

1. Our first argument is, that St. John speaks continually of the speedy coming of Christ.

Rev. i. 7.-"Behold He cometh with clouds."

Rev. iii. 11.—“Behold I come quickly."

Rev. xiv. 14.—“Behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of Man."

Rev. xvi. 15.-" Behold I come as a thief."

Rev. xix. 11.-"I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and he that sat upon him is called the

Word of God."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Rev. xxii. 20.-" He which testifieth these things, saith, surely I come quickly."

No scriptural statement is capable of more decided proof than that the coming of Christ is the destruction of Jerusalem, and the close of the Jewish dispensation.1

they say that there are two monuments at Ephesus, and that each bears the name of John."--(Eus. Eccles. Hist. vii. 25.) I do not mention tthis to cast any doubt upon the authorship of the Apocalypse, for the testimony of antiquity may be said to be universally agreed that the Apocalypse was written by St. John. This is also confirmed by the internal evidence of the Book:

"If I will that he tarry till I come." John, xxi. 22.
"Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

"Behold the Lamb of God."

Rev. xxii. 20.
John, i. 36.

"A Lamb stood on the Mount Sion." Rev. xiv. 1.

[blocks in formation]

Compare

Rev. xix. 13.

"They shall look on him whom they pierced." John, xix. 37.
"Every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." Rev. 1. 7.

These and many other interesting peculiarities of style and language, found only in the Apocalypse and in the Gospel of St. John, render it highly probable that he was the author. These doubts of Eusebius are only adduced to show that no great dependence can be placed upon him with regard to any decision respecting the date, and if that in his opinion, the claim to authorship was not completely settled, his testimony with regard to the date must necessarily be looked upon as liable to suspicion.

1 Bishop Newton says: "Our Saviour's repeating so frequently in this book,— Behold, I come quickly;''Behold, he cometh with clouds, and

At this part of the subject I cannot stop to adduce the many and varied proofs which establish this-a few must suffice :Matt. xxiv. 29.-" Immediately after the tribulation of those days they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mark xiii. 24.-"In those days, after that tribulation then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the

clouds with power and great glory."

Luke xxi. 22-27.-" These be the days of vengeance

[ocr errors]

they

and Jeru

for there shall be great distress in the land, ¿πì tŷs yŵs, Judæa, and wrath upon this people, but woe to them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days shall fall by the edge of the sword salem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

and

Nothing can be plainer than that our Lord said his advent should take place, according to St. Matthew, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days;" according to St. Mark, "In those days after that tribulation;" according to St. Luke, when "Jerusalem should be trodden down of the Gentiles," and there should be "great distress in the land and wrath upon this people." At that time, and at no other, did our Lord say that he would come. At the outset, then, I state with what may be thought great boldness, but with the strongest conviction of truth, that the coming of Christ is the destruction of Jerusalem, and the close of the age, ovvτeλeía συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος, and that no other coming is spoken of in the Scriptures.

If so, and the Apocalypse be written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it must be the work of some higher arch-enemy than Cerinthus, for it represents Christ as yet to come after the object for which he said he would come had been fulfilled.

And be it remembered, the proof of our Lord's coming at

every eye shall see him;' and the like expressions, cannot surely be so well understood of any event as of the destruction of Jerusalem; which coming was also spoken of in the Gospels; and what other coming was there so speedy, and so conspicuous?" Add to this, "they also which pierced him,” were to look upon him; and who were they "which pierced him" but the Jews?

that period does not depend upon the Apocalypse. That truth would have remained the same had the Apocalypse never been written. The Apocalypse only confirms the statements in the Gospels. It is only when viewed as written after that event that the whole question is encircled with irreconcileable difficulties. For if the Gospels and Epistles state explicitly that Christ was to come within a certain defined period, and for a certain defined object, and the Apocalypse represents him as yet to come, after that event had taken place, and that period passed away, not only is Scripture set against Scripture, but the whole of the sacred canon is involved in one irremediable mass of contradiction and mystery.

2. The woes of the Apocalypse (and I presume I may take it for granted that the Book from the opening of the first seal to the final consummation of the destruction of Babylon, is one unmixed and uninterrupted series of terrible calamity) are said to fall upon the dwellers in a particular land, upon the Princes and Lords, and merchants of a particular land, and upon a particular city.

[ocr errors]

66

These are described as " they that dwell on the earth,"1 "oi κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.” "The kings of the earth," "Baσιλεῖς τῆς γῆς.” The great men of the earth,” “ μεγιστάνες τῆς γῆς.” "The merchants of the earth,' 66 ἔμποροι τῆς ys." "The great city which had dominion over the kings of the earth,” “ ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη ἡ ἔχουσα βασιλείαν ἐπὶ τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς.”

Let us see first whether the woes of the Apocalypse descend upon them that dwell on the earth."

This can be confirmed by numerous passages scattered everywhere throughout the Book, thereby proving that the Apocalypse embraces only one grand subject, and that the miseries about to fall on one particular people.

[ocr errors]

66

Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth," (Rev.

They that dwell on the earth," Éπì Tūs Yñs —in every passage this ought to be translated, "ON THE LAND," i. e. the land of Judæa. Compare Luke, xxi. 23.: “there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people,”“"Εσται γὰρ ἀνάγκη μεγάλη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὀργὴ ἐν τῷ λαῷ TOUT,” — where our translators, driven to the right meaning of the words by the qualifying clause, "this people," have translated iπì rns yns "in the

viii. 13.) "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea," (Rev. xii. 12.) "And there fell a noisome and a grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and which worshipped his image," (Rev. xvi. 2.) Now the men who had "the mark of the beast, and who worshipped his image," are defined as "they that dwell on the earth." "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him," i. e. the beast, (Rev. xiii. 8.) "He... causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast," (Rev. xiii. 12.) "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image," (Rev. xiii. 14.) (Compare also Rev. iii. 10., Rev. vi. 10., Rev. xvii. 2., Rev. xvii. 8.) I trust then it will be admitted as an irrefragable position, that the woes of the Apocalypse were to fall upon a particular people specially marked out and defined as "Them that dwell on the earth."

Now who are "they that dwell on the earth?"

The words "the earth," "," are not unfrequently used in the Apocalypse in connection with other clauses which qualify their meaning, making it evident that no particular land is pointed out, but the earth generally. I would adduce in support of this such passages as the following:-"And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth," (Rev. v. 3.); "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea," (Rev. v. 13. So also Rev. xi. 6., xiv. 7., xviii. 1., xx. 11. &c.) In all which passages it is at once evident from the qualifying adjuncts that no particular land can be intended, but the earth generally as part of creation.

In some other passages, the obscurity of which does not admit of a positive interpretation, it is possible that the earth generally or a particular land may be intended. I allude to

such texts as "The seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth," (Rev. v. 6.); "The stars of heaven fell to the earth," (Rev. vi. 13.); " And he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,” (Rev. x. 2.); although, if we bring our Lord's prophecies and the prevailing opinions of the Jews into the scale, it will seem most probable that a particular land was intended. But the words in question are sometimes found qualified by governing considerations which

« PreviousContinue »