Page images
PDF
EPUB

unto him ;" and he confesses that he "bare record of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."-Rev. i. 1, 2. To the Lord Jesus is assigned a prominent place in all the representations of the book. It begins and ends by acknowledging the authority and grace of Christ. So much being certain, we remark that it is further evident,

3. That he had been a diligent student of the Old Testament Scriptures. He was very familiar with them. The truth of this statement shines forth from every page, and is one of the most prominent features of the whole work. How frequently are we called on, in the course of our examination of it, to recognize its relation to the Old Testament. It seems to have grown up out of the ancient Scripture, like a luxuriant branch from its parent root. The allusions of the Revelation are drawn from the earliest sacred history of the Jews; from the dress of the priests at the temple service; from the forms of Jewish worship; from the furniture and symbols of the temple; from the divisions and characteristics of the twelve tribes; from the paschal lamb; from Mount Zion, &c., &c., &c. It is past all denial, that the writer of the Apocalypse was well versed in the Old Testament. How frequently he draws his metaphors from the prophets. It is a fact, which those forget who find fault with the Apocalypse on account of the exuberance of its metaphors, that the most of them are of prophetic origin. There are no two books in the Bible more nearly allied in their style than the book of Daniel and the Apocalypse. The former is the Apocalypse of the Old Testament. Compare the 20th chapter of Revelation with the 7th chapter of Daniel, and see how nearly the revelator in some parts imitates the prophet. Compare the 12th and 13th chapters with Daniel's account of the beast with seven horns, vii. 7, 8. No person can read the Apocalypse with any degree of attention, without being fully persuaded that its author had been deeply studious, not

only of the prophecy of Daniel, but of the Old Testament Scriptures at large.

4. He had not only been deeply studious of the Old Testament Scriptures, but he had also been learned in the school of Christ. Whoever he was, he had heard much, he knew much, and felt much of Christianity. He had sat at the feet of the Lord Jesus. How else could he have known, before the events transpired, the fall of Jerusalem? (for we shall show in another place that the book was written before the destruction of that city.) He had heard the prophecy uttered by the Lord concerning that series of events. There are points of resemblance between certain parts of the Apocalypse and the prophecy referred to, as given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which cannot be mistaken. And if the Apocalypse was written previously to either of the gospels, (as we doubt not it was,) it becomes a nice question how the revelator learned his facts concerning the approaching destruction of Jerusalem except by divine communication? It would seem probable that he was one of the disciples mentioned in Matthew xxiv. 3, to whom Jesus delivered his notable prophecy on this great subject. See Rev. i. 7, and vi. 12-17, as instances of imagery borrowed from our Lord's description of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is very singular, if the author of the Apocalypse were a pretender, a cheat, and deceiver of mankind, that he should have followed so closely him whom we call distinctively "the way, the truth, and the life."

5. It is worthy of remark, that the Apocalypse claims to be a prophecy. It was such a prophecy, according to the author's confession, as he was empowered to make by "the Revelation of Jesus Christ." If it was a true prophecy, it must be a divine book, for no true prophecy can be otherwise; and if it was writ ten before the destruction of Jerusalem, (as is shown in another place,) it certainly was a true prophecy. That the author of the Apocalypse considered his book a prophecy, see i. 3, xxii. 7, 10,

18, 19. Indeed, it is the suggestion, we think, of Sir Isaac Newton, that when St. Peter said, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place," he had respect to the Apocalypse. No objection can be taken to the prophetic character of the Apocalypse from its metaphorical or mystical style; for many, we might perhaps say all, the sacred prophecies partake more or less of that style. Ancient prophecy declared that “the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head;" that Jesus was king in Zion; that Jerusalem should break forth on the right hand and on the left; that Zion should arise and shine; that a new heavens and new earth should be created; that the God of heaven should set up a kingdom, and this kingdom should be given to the Son of man; that fierce beasts should arise, and trouble the nations, and tear and stamp them in pieces, &c.; and who can fail to see that this is the style of the Apocalypse? Moreover, there is a vast concatenation of metaphors in the Apocalypse, not referred to above, which we find scattered through the prophecies of the Old Testament. There is nothing, therefore, in the style of the Apocalypse, which forbids the belief that it is, what its author asserted it to be, a prophecy.

[ocr errors]

6. The next fact worthy of attention is, that it was evidently written for the benefit of the churches. Whatever view we take of it in other respects, we must acknowledge, that it constantly aimed at the highest spiritual welfare of the churches which were addressed. Nothing could have been more to the advantage of those churches than to have received heartily, and carried out faithfully, the exhortations of the revelator, whoever he was. Again and again he impressed the subject of their duty upon them; he told them of their faults, in a kind and affectionate manner; he warned them of their dangers; he was evidently their friend, and what is more, the friend of God. seek to please them, so much as to benefit them.

He did not An impostor

seeks his own advantage; the revelator sought the advantage of others. For himself he sought nothing but peace of conscience and joy in the Holy Ghost. He threw his whole soul, and all his powers of body and of mind, into the work of benefiting the churches. He must have been a good man.

7. This is further confirmed by comparing his instructions with those given by the rest of the apostles. Is there any opposition in their nature or design? Keep in mind the fact, that at the time the Apocalypse was written the churches were in the midst of a grievous persecution; and then ask, if the advice given by its author does not accord with the advice given by Jesus, and all his apostles, and all the New Testament writers, to Christians in like circumstances? This might be shown at length, if necessary, by a comparison of particular parts of the Apocalypse with other portions of the New Testament; but we have not room for such a process. We merely hint at a fact, which we are confident will strike the reader with force, and which he can verify at his pleasure.

What presumption are we to make then from these facts? The author of the Apocalypse, whoever the individual may have been, was certainly a Hebrew Christian, well versed in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and especially their tropes and metaphors; he claimed to have written a prophecy agreeing in many essential respects with the prophecy of our Lord in regard to the destruction of Jerusalem; and it is certain that he aimed at the welfare of the churches he addressed, urging them to stability and faithfulness in the midst of their trials, and assuring them of such rewards as agreed strictly with the nature of Christ's kingdom, and the instructions of acknowledged divine persons on these matters. What then is the presumption? The work was one of very early date. It is supposed by Sir Isaac Newton, that it was known to Peter and to Paul, both of whom, he thought, from the similarity of their language, made quotations from it. It was

probably known to Polycarp, who was in part contemporary with the apostles, and was constituted bishop of Smyrna by the apostle John. What then is the presumption? In the absence of all evidence to the contrary, it is fair to conclude that the Apocalypse was written by one of the apostles.

INTERNAL PROOFS THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE APOSTLE JOHN.

These proofs are to be principally derived from a comparison of the Apocalypse with the undisputed writings of John, viz., his Gospel and Epistles. But there is one fact to be borne in mind, and which it may be well to state here, viz., that nearly a generation passed away after the writing of the Apocalypse, and previously to the writing of the Gospel and the Epistles. The Apocalypse was one of the earliest written of the New Testament books, while the Gospel and Epistles of John were written the latest of all. Forty years, or nearly so, probably transpired after the writing of the Apocalypse, before the Gospel was written; and it is altogether probable that John wrote the Epistles also in his extreme old age. We are not to expect, therefore, the vigor in the Gospel and Epistles which we find in the Apocalypse. In the one there may be evidence of transporting excitement, rising into the romantic and the visionary; in the other we may find that the ardor of the meridian of life has calmed down, in extreme old age, into the affectionate, contemplative, and artless. The Christian world has hitherto, for the most part, formed its opinion of John solely from his Gospel and his Epistles. Failing to make due allowance for the fact that he wrote these in exceeding old age, many have concluded that John never had any other element in his character than that of affectionateness and mildness. And supposing, also, that the Apocalypse was written as late as the reign of Domitian, or about A. D. 96, they have found it difficult to believe that it was written by the same hand that wrote the Gospel and Epistles. But if the Apocalypse were written forty years, or nearly so,

« PreviousContinue »