Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the gospel of John. The evangelist seems to have learned it originally from the Baptist. With his accustomed open-heartedness, the latter said, "Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him he that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly, because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled;" John iii. 28. Here, unquestionably, Christ was the bridegroom; and the Baptist was the bridegroom's friend, who rejoiced to hear his voice. John was the only one of the evangelists who recorded this. Does it not tend to fortify the proof that John was the author of the Apocalypse?

Another very striking metaphor of the Apocalypse is that of water, to represent the truth and its influences. What beauty is there in the following description of the felicity of the redeemed! "For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;" Rev. vii. 17. Again: "I will give unto him that is athirst of the water of life freely;" xxi. 6. Again: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water

of life freely;" xxii. 17. These are to be ranked surely among the most beautiful metaphors of the book; and from whom did the author derive them? If he were John, we know very well from what source he obtained them. Let the reader turn to the 4th chapter of the Gospel of John, and peruse the account of our Lord's conversation with the woman of Samaria. See how strikingly he represented his doctrine by " living water," of which if the thirsty drank, they should thirst no more. It should be to them the source of everlasting life; iv. 10-14. See also vii. 37, 38. This event does not seem to have made the same deep impression upon the minds of the other evangelists, that it did upon the

mind of John. He is the only one who recorded it; he is the only New Testament writer who has given the metaphor water a great significance as a representation of the truth in Jesus. And we regard this as another strong point of similarity between the style of the Apocalypse and that of the undisputed writings of John.

This was

Still another metaphor of the Apocalypse is manna. the food from heaven with which God miraculously fed the children of Israel on their forty years' journey through the wilderness. John is the only writer who uses it as a figure of divine truth. We find it in the Apocalypse: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna,” (Rev. ii. 17,) that is, unseen by the outward eye. In the Gospel we learn that Jesus mentions the manna, as an article of temporal food, in connection with the bread of life, or the spiritual food of the Gospel. With the exception of Heb. ix. 4, where the pot of manna that was kept in the temple is referred to, the manna is mentioned in no other part of the New Testament, except the Gospel of John, and the Apocalypse.

There is no New Testament writer who has recorded, as John has, Christ's description of the gospel under the figure of food. The same figure is found in the Apocalypse: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God;" ii. 7. "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna;" 17. This was the metaphor of Jesus, which John alone has preserved. According to that apostle, Jesus claimed that his doctrine was the true bread from heaven;" vi. 32. He was "the bread of God, which came down from heaven;" 33; the "living bread," of which, if a man eat, he should live forever; 51. The "tree of life in the paradise of God," is but another metaphor for the heavenly bread. Do not these facts form a link in the chain of proofs that John was the author of the Apocalypse?

There is no New Testament writer who has given that prominence that John has to the metaphor of blood, to represent the cleansing power of divine truth. There is scarce any mention of blood, in this sense, by any other writer. It is the purifying power of the truth to which John refers, when he says, "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one;" 1 John v. 8. Being "born of water and the spirit," John iii. 5, was being cleansed by divine truth. John further testifies, 1 Epis. i. 7, "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." How often do we find this metaphor in the Apocalypse: "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood;" i. 5. “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ;” v. 9. "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb;" vii. 14. Is there not a striking similarity between the style of the Apocalypse and the style of the undisputed writings of John?

Matthew records the words of Jesus, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness;" v. 6. With this exception, John is the only evangelist who uses hunger and thirst as metaphors to represent the need which the human soul hath for the truth of Christ. The revelator says, of those who have

66

entered the new Jerusalem, They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat;" vii. 16. To this agrees the metaphor in John's Gospel : "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst;" vi. 35.

We have thus brought to a close our remarks on the points of resemblance between the Apocalypse and the undisputed writings

of John. Many strong points may have been omitted. We have purposely avoided any comparisons in points of doctrine, because we believe that the New Testament writers all agree essentially with each other in those respects; but if any one would take the labor to compare the manner in which the doctrine of judgment is stated in the Apocalypse with the manner in which it is stated in the Gospel of John, he would find a strong confirmation of the opinion we have expressed, viz., that the Apocalypse had an apostolic origin, and that it was written by John. Previously, however, to closing up entirely this part of our subject, we shall take time to notice several objections which have been urged against the hypothesis, that John was the author of the Apocalypse.

1. It is said, the author of the Gospel and of the Epistles has not named himself, in a single instance, whereas the writer of the Apocalypse has named himself repeatedly.

We cannot think this objection well founded. Is the case uncommon for men to avow themselves the authors of certain books, and to publish others anonymously? and must we suppose, on that account, that they could not have been the authors both of the avowed works and the anonymous? It seems to us this would be strange reasoning. We should remember that John was a much younger man when he wrote the Apocalypse than he was when he wrote the Gospel and Epistles; and there may have been reasons unknown to us why he affixed his name to the first, and omitted it from the two last. Besides, although he has not named himself in the Gospel, he has described himself in such a manner, that the church from the beginning was never puzzled to know the author. We think the objection we have named has but very little weight.

2. It is also objected, that although the author of the Apocalypse calls himself John, he does not show that he is the apostle of that name.

And why needed he to state that, since he was preeminently the

JOHN of the church? If it had been any other John, it would have been necessary for him to have described himself more particularly, that he might not be mistaken by any person for him who was preeminently known by that name. When we speak of Washington, we do not need to add a circumlocution to show that we mean the first President of the United States; but if we spoke of some person of that name of less distinction, it would be necessary that we should show in some way what individual we The fact, therefore, that the John who was the author of the Apocalypse simply gave his name, should weigh nothing against the presumption that he was the apostle.

meant.

3. It is said, the Apocalypse does not mention the Epistle, nor the Epistle the Apocalypse.

Is there any force in this objection? How could the writer of the Apocalypse name the catholic Epistle, since when the former was written the latter had not been even contemplated that we know of? And are we so sure that there was a necessity for John to name the Apocalypse in his subsequent writings as to conclude from the omission that he was not the author of it? Was it the custom of Paul, for instance, when he wrote an epistle, to name the works he had previously written? We all know that he did not do so. When he wrote a second time to the same church, it was very natural that he should name his first communication; but not when he wrote to different persons. As Dr. Lardner says, Paul in his epistle to the Romans was utterly silent in regard to all his epistles, although at the time he had written several.

4. Again, it is objected, that there is a great resemblance in sentiment, manner and expression, between the Gospel and the first Epistle of St. John; but the Apocalypse is altogether different, without any affinity or resemblance whatever.

In the first place, we remark, that this objection is founded on a false basis. It is not true that the Apocalypse is altogether different from the Gospel and Epistle, and without any affinity or

« PreviousContinue »