Page images
PDF
EPUB

more developed, the opinion will become more generally embraced.1

II. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

In respect to the historical testimony, the first thing which strikes the mind of the inquirer is, that it is contradictory. Irenæus, who is the most ancient authority we have upon the subject, seemed to think that the Apocalypse made its appearance about the end of Domitian's reign, say A. D. 95. Epiphanius said repeatedly that John wrote the Revelation during the time. of Claudius, the predecessor of Nero; and if this be true, it must have been written before A. D. 54. Tertullian, and after him Jerome, are supposed to have taught, that John was banished to Patmos during the reign of Nero; and in the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, the title-page explicitly declares, that it was written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Cæsar. If the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Nero, it was but a few years before the Jewish war; and it would render very natural the language of that book in respect to the immediateness of the threatened judgments.

I See "Hints on Prophecy," 2d Edit., Andover, 1842, pp. 108-151, especially pp. 111-113; and also his large work on the Apocalypse, vol. i., 263— 282. Among other writers who have supposed the book to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, may be mentioned Sir Isaac Newton, in his "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John;" London, 1733; Dr. Hammond, in his Commentary; the learned Lightfoot's works, (edited by J. R. Pitman, London, 1825,) vol. iii., pp. 331— 371, and various other places; Bp. Thomas Newton, in his Dissertations on the Prophecies, London, 1832, pp. 444-447; and to these we are told we may add the authorities of Grotius, Wetstein, Eichorn, and many other learned men. The opinion is now becoming more and more general, that the Apocalypse was written previously to the destruction of Jerusalem. Dr. Adam Clarke, in closing his notes on the Apocalypse, says, "I think the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and not in 95 or 96, the date I follow in the margin; which date I give, not as my own opinion, but the opinion of others."— [See the paragraph at the end of his Commentary on the New Testament.]

Irenæus, it will be remembered, did not live until about a cen tury after St. John. The language of that father does not seem to be intended to define the time when the Apocalypse was written, so much as the time of its first appearance so far as he knew. The words are these: "The Apocalypse was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian's reign." Supposing Irenæus here to have intended that the Apocalypse, so far as he knew, did not appear until near the end of Domitian's reign, would this prove that it was not written until that time? or that none others had seen it until then? We think not. The passage quoted from Irenæus is evidently ambiguous; some authors take one view of it, and some another. Whether he meant that John had his vision near the end of Domitian's reign, or that the Apocalypse first came to light at that time, so far as he knew, we cannot tell. If the latter, it is entirely consistent with the fact asserted on the title-page of the Syriac version, viz., that John was banished to Patmos in the time of Nero. Eusebius, who lived about one hundred years after Irenæus, has left the same testimony; but he evidently quoted from him. As to the assertion of Epiphanius, that John wrote the Revelation during the reign of Claudius, all the critics speak lightly of his authority, except Hammond, who thinks there are strong reasons for believing him. Epiphanius contended with the Montanists, who maintained, against the credibility of the book of Revelation, that there was no church at Thyatira at the time the Apocalypse was said to have been written. Epiphanius, therefore, was under a temptation, if we may so speak, to put the date later rather than earlier than others. In placing it in the reign of Claudius, therefore, he must have stated what he believed to be true, because his success with the Montanists would have been subserved if he had placed it later.

To sum up the historical testimony, "It is plain that an ancient tradition existed, and was propagated through succeeding

ages, that the Apocalypse was seen near the close of Domitian's reign, i. e., about A. D. 95, for Domitian died in September of 96." When such a report originated is not known, though Irenæus seems to have been the first who recorded it. The testimony of Epiphanius places the date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Claudius; but he is not thought to be good authority, except by Hammond, who states several reasons why he is to be relied on. Again, there are fragments of history which fix the date in the time of Nero; and these are strengthened by the declaration on the title-page of the Syriac version, that the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Nero Cæsar. The result is that no great dependence can be placed upon the historical testimony. There are sound modern critics both on the one side and the other. Among those who suppose the book was written previously to the destruction of Jerusalem, may be mentioned Grotius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Sir Isaac Newton, Bp. Newton, Wetstein, and Prof. Stuart of Andover, —an array of talent that is sufficient to give to any opinion great weight. But the safer way, after all, whereby to determine the question before us, is by the help of the internal evidence.

[blocks in formation]

The single question which we shall seek to settle now is, Was the Apocalypse written before the destruction of Jerusalem ?

1. Let it be observed that it was addressed to the seven churches in Asia. We are not sure that these churches only were addressed. They may have been used symbolically for the churches at large, seven being separated as a sample of the whole, for the same reason that John speaks of the seven spirits, the seven lamps of fire, seven seals, seven angels, seven trumpets, seven thunders, &c. &c. But however this may be, it seems evident that the churches addressed were regarded as being on the eve of great dangers, as though a crisis in their affairs was very near.

Some of them are represented as having begun to grow cold, to waver, to faint; and they are exhorted to steadfastness and renewed exertions, that they might overcome all opposition, and have their names inscribed in the temple of God, the New Jerusalem. See chaps. ii. and iii. at large. Now, is not this almost precisely the form of address, exhortation, and warning, adopted by the apostles to other churches, in regard to the coming of Christ and the attending judgments? Is there any hint, in the address to the seven churches, that the judgment had taken place? Does not the revelator look forward to the judgment? Had the destruction of Jerusalem already taken place when he addressed the churches, that terrible event, which was a time of trouble such as there had not been from the beginning of the world to that time, no, nor ever shall be,- can we suppose he would have passed it by without drawing some warning from it, or passed it by without any reference whatsoever? But the special point to be observed, under this head of our subject, is, that the style of address to the churches of Asia does not differ greatly from that of the epistles of Paul and Peter. The revelator urges the church at Ephesus to labor to overcome their enemies, - to sustain themselves well in the midst of persecutions; and Paul surely urges the same thing in substance on the same church. He exhorted them to be "strong in the Lord and the power of his might;" to "put on the whole armor of God," &c. &c.; because they were obliged to wrestle, not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers, &c. Here is such a state of this church recognized by both writers as would lead us to think the two addresses were written not far from the same time. It is alleged by some writers that no such falling away had taken place in the seven churches of Asia, before the destruction of Jerusalem, as is described by 'the revelator. But does not St. Paul assure the Thessalonians, that the coming of Christ should not take place, except there came a falling away first? and that the man of sin, the son of

perdition, should be fully revealed before that event? This would lead us to think that the apostasy in the churches did take place before Jerusalem was destroyed. Paul says also to Timothy, that in the last days [viz., the last days of the Jewish dispensation] perilous times should come, men should be filled with self-love, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, &c. Here he was describing the apostasy of Christians, because he adds that such had "a form of godliness, but denied the power thereof," and exhorts the faithful to turn away from them. Why, then, should it be denied, that the churches of Asia had not been visited with signs of coldness before the destruction of Jerusalem? Were they not as likely to be carried away as the churches addressed by Paul and Peter? That the churches had begun to falter under the weight of persecutions before the destruction of Jerusalem, is further evident from the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, (for he is faithful that promised,) and let us consider one another, to provoke unto love, and good works not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth," &c., &c.; Heb. x. 23--26; also, 38, 39. Precisely the same state of the churches is described in the 2d Epistle of Peter with that described in the Apocalypse. It is such, it would almost seem, that these two books were written about the same time; and the same remark may be made in regard to the brief epistle of Jude. St. Peter speaks at large of the falling away which was to precede the destruction of Jerusalem; 2d Pet. ii., iii. Peter accuses the churches of pride, presumption, adultery, and following the way of Balaam; and these are precisely the sins charged upon them by the revelator. The church at Laodicea is charged with being proud and presumptu

« PreviousContinue »