Page images
PDF
EPUB

resemblance whatever. We have shown satisfactorily, we think, that, although there are strong points of difference between the Apocalypse and the undisputed writings of John, there are also strong points of resemblance. We can account for the points of difference consistently with the belief that John was the author of the Apocalypse; but on the ground that he was not the author, how can we account for the points of resemblance which we have described? In the first place, let it be remembered, that the Apocalypse was written (as we shall show) thirty or forty years before the Gospel and Epistles; and in that time John's mind may have lost somewhat of its vigor and soaring tendency. And it is worthy of remark, too, that the object of the Apocalypse required a different style from an epistle, or a history. The Gospel is a biographical history; the Epistles are didactic addresses; but the Apocalypse is a prophecy. The Apocalypse is in the style of the ancient prophecies; we should not of course expect it to be in the style of a history or epistle. We see, therefore, that the objection we have stated is without force.

But, 5, It is said, the Gospel and Epistles of John are written in elegant Greek; but the writer of the Apocalypse proves that he had not an accurate knowledge of that language; on the contrary, the Apocalypse abounds with barbarisms and solecisms.

Allowing to its full extent the allegation here made, viz., as to the different style of the Gospel and the Apocalypse, we are very far from thinking it proves that the same hand did not write both books. May not an author's style be very different at one time from what it is at another? We know that the style of a writer is sometimes greatly changed, even in a few years, by his associations or his studies. If it be borne in mind that the Apocalypse was written twenty or thirty years earlier than the Gospel, we shall see that there was time enough for John's style to be greatly changed between the writing of the two works. The Apocalypse was John's first production, and was written when he was not so much accustomed to the Greek language as he

became in after life. So that the objection above noticed has no force at all; it utterly vanishes upon examination.

The last objection which we shall notice is

6. That the Apocalypse is so obscure as to be unintelligible, and is therefore not proper to be called a revelation from God.

If the allegation here were true, the objection might have some force. But it is not true; the book is not unintelligible. As to the interpretation, the difficulty has existed more in the minds of men than in the book itself. There is no book, let it be remembered, in the Bible, that has been so much perverted as this. Men have almost exhausted their powers of conception in contriving meanings for it. The wild and enthusiastic have given a loose rein to their imaginations in respect to it. The book has been too much given up into their hands. It has been buried, we had almost said, beneath the load of strange and contradictory interpretations which have been given of it. But we maintain this Of late we have seen

is more the fault of men than of the book. a class who have been so fully persuaded the Apocalypse cannot be understood, that they have not sought to understand it. Would it not be well to make an honest attempt first, before they pass so rash a decision against a portion of the word of God? One great bar to the proper understanding of the book has been the mistake that has prevailed in regard to its date. If men settle down in the impression that the Apocalypse was not written until about the year A. D. 96,-a quarter of a century after the destruction of Jerusalem, we see not how they can either rationally interpret it, or suppose it to have been written by John. That section of the book included in chapters vi. xi. is so manifestly a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, that if we supposed the work were written after that event, we should not have any facts to guide us in the interpretation. Place the date of the book previously, and many difficulties are at once solved,

To understand the Apocalypse, a person must learn to apply

metaphors by the help of the Old Testament. diligently to learn how the prophets used them.

He must study This of all helps

is the best. And if an honest inquirer after Bible truth will, in the first place, prepare himself in this manner, he will see many difficulties vanish, which at first appeared to him insurmountable; and although he may not understand every part, he will understand enough to repay him richly for all his pains. We do not suppose that we can now understand the book as well as those to whom it was originally addressed; nor do we think it can do us as much good as perhaps it did them. But by the help of other parts of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments, it may become profitable to us, and is therefore worthy of our serious attention and regard.

SECOND ESSAY.

THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE.

1. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

ONE of the most important questions concerning the Apocalypse is, at what time was it written? It is generally supposed to have been written by St. John the apostle, although there are not wanting those who incline to a different opinion. If written by him, (which has been inquired into in another place,) it must have been done sometime between the crucifixion of our Lord and the death of the apostle. The principal matter of interest is, was it written previously to the destruction of Jerusalem? If not written until after that event, it seems to form an exception to all the books of the New Testament which treat of the fall of that city. The warnings, the metaphors, which occur in the other

parts of the New Testament, and which are unquestionably applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, occur also in the Apoca lypse; and we have no help from any part of the New Testament in the application of these warnings and metaphors, unless the Apocalypse was written previously to that event. The question, then, as to the date, is one of great interest, and cannot too closely engage the attention of any person who desires to understand the book.

The learned editor of the "Universalist Expositor" published an article on the Apocalypse, in which, although it occupies less than a dozen pages of that work, he treats of the three highly important topics, the authenticity, the date, and the meaning, When he comes to the second topic, he says,

"Admitting, then, that St. John was probably the author of the Apocalypse, when was it written? Were we to judge solely from the allusions of the book itself, we should answer, at once, before the destruction of Jerusalem; but if from the balance of mere historical testimony, such as it is, we should place its date after that event, and about the year 96. This testimony, however, is not of the most unquestionable character. Eusebius, in the fourth. century, is the first to mention the time of St. John's banishment to Patmos, where he saw the Revelation; and he refers it, on what authority we know not, to the reign of Domitian, and adds that he was liberated on the accession of the emperor Nerva, which took place A. D. 96. There is indeed an ambiguous passage in an earlier and more competent witness, Irenæus, which has been generally understood to authenticate this statement, and to assert that the Revelation was seen at the end of Domitian's reign; but Wetstein and Rosenmuller contend that the language relates to the time when St. John himself lived, and not to the period of his vision. These are all the historical notices concerning the date of the book which are of any importance, for the statements of Jerome are probably founded on those of Eusebius; and as to

the contrary representations sometimes quoted from Epiphanius, who refers it back to about the year 50, nobody acquainted with the romancing habit of this writer ought to attach the least weight to them." So far the editor of the Expositor. He evidently inclined to the opinion that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but he allowed that the balance of historical testimony would place it about A. D. 96.

As to the relative weight which is to be given to the balance of historical testimony, on the one side, or the indications as to the date of the Apocalypse, which we find in the book itself, on the other, we decide in favor of the latter. The one is the undesigned testimony afforded by the writer himself; the other is that of other men, living at a distance of time from him, liable to be misinformed, to misunderstand language, and to mislead many others. Thus, the testimony of one man, having no very strong ground himself, perhaps, for the correctness of his opinion, goes by tradition, or record, to others, who help to swell the number of authors in defence of some position; and yet, after all, we have the testimony of only one man; and that we have, not from his own lips, or pen, but from the repetitions of others. We feel, therefore, a much stronger confidence in the internal evidences which the Apocalypse furnishes of its date, than we do in the historical testimony. It is for this reason, we think, that the number of those who believe that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is steadily increasing, among men of sound learning. Professor Stuart has added the weight of his great learning and influence to the support of that opinion. Some few years ago, in his work entitled "Hints on Prophecy," he showed very clearly that the internal evidences proved the book to have been written previously to the fall of Jerusalem; and in his more recent and larger work on the Apocalypse, he has expressed the opinion more fully and decidedly. It is highly probable that as the true intent of that book is more and

« PreviousContinue »