GreekTestamentCritical

ExegeticalCommentary
Revelationoverview
CHAPTERVIII
REVELATION
SECTIONI
AUTHORSHIP,ANDCANONICITY
1.THEAuthorofthisbookcallshimselfinmoreplacesthanonebythenameJohn,
ch.Revelation1:1Revelation1:4Revelation1:9,Revelation22:8.Thegeneralview
hasbeen,thatthisnamerepresentsSt.JohnthesonofZebedee,theWriterofthe
GospelandthethreeEpistles,thedisciplewhomJesusloved.
2.Thisviewrestsonexternal,andoninternalevidence.Ishallfirstspecifyboth
these,andthenpassontootherviewsrespectingtheauthorship.Andinsodoing,I
shallatpresentcitemerelythosetestimonieswhichbearmoreorlessdirectlyonthe
authorship.Themostancientarethefollowing:
3.JustinMartyr,Dial.81,p.179(writtenbetweenA.D.139and161):
, , ,

,

.

Wemaymentionbytheway,thatthistestimonyofJustinisdoublyimportant,as
referredtobyEusebius,himselfnobelieverintheapostolicauthorship:H.E.iv.18:

.
TheauthenticityandvalueofthepassageofJustinhasbeendiscussedat
considerablelengthandwithmuchcandourbyLcke,Einl.pp.54856.He,himself
adisbelieverinSt.Johnsauthorship,confessesthatitisagenuineanddecided
testimonyinitsfavour.
4.Melito,bishopofSardis(+cir.171),issaidbyEuseb.H.E.iv.26,tohavewritten
(219)

treatises(oratreatise,butthepluralismorelikely:andsoJer
Catal.24,vol.ii.
p.867:dediabololibrumunum,deApocalypsiJoannislibrumunum)onthedevil,
andontheApocalypseofJohn: ,
.ItisfairlyreasonedthatEusebiuswouldhardlyhave
failedtonotice,supposinghimtohaveseenMelitoswork,anyviewofhiswhich
doubtedtheapostolicorigin:andthatthismaythereforebelegitimatelytakenasan
indirecttestimonyinitsfavour.SeeLcke,p.564Stuart,p.258Davidson,Introd.
iii.540.
5.Ofasimilarindirectnaturearethetwonexttestimonies.Theophilus,bishopof
Antioch(+cir.180),whoseLibriadAutolycumarestillextant,issaidbyEuseb.iv.
24tohavewrittenabook ,

 .
6.AndsimilarlyEusebius,H.E.Revelation22:18,saysofApollonius(ofEphesus?
sointhetreatisePrdestinatus,cent.v.:seeLcke,p.567),whoflourishedinAsia
Minorattheendofcent.ii.,andwroteagainsttheMontanists,therebymakinghis
testimonymoreimportant:

.Fromthislattersentencetherecanbenodoubtthat
ApolloniusregardedtheApocalypseastheworkofJohntheApostle.
7.Wenowcometotheprincipalsecondcenturywitness,Irenus(+cir.180).
Respectingthevalueofhistestimony,itmaysufficetoremindthestudentthathe
hadbeenahearerofPolycarp,thediscipleofSt.John.Andthistestimonyoccurs
upanddownhiswritingsingreatabundance,andinthemostdecisiveterms.
JoannesdominidiscipulusisstatedtohavewrittentheApocalypseinHr.iv.20.
1130.4v.26.135.2,pp.256,268,323,336:andJoannesiniv.21.3v.36.3,
pp.258,337.AndthisJohncanbenootherthantheApostle:forhesays,iii.1.1,p.
174, (intheLatin,asabove)
, ,
.Butthemostremarkabletestimony,andonewhichwillcome
beforeusagainandagainduringthecourseoftheseProlegomena,isinv.30.13,
pp.328ff.There,havinggivencertainreasonsforthenumberofAntichristsname
being666,heproceeds, ,
,
.
Then,aftersomeremarks,andstatingtwonamescurrentassuitingthenumber,he
concludes,
,

. ,
, .
Thisisbeyondquestionthemostimportantevidencewhichhasyetcomebeforeus.
Andwemayobservethatitisinnowayaffectedbyanyopinionwhichwemayhave
formedrespectingIrenussexegeticalmerits,norbyanyofhispeculiaropinions.
Heheremerelyassertswhat,ifhewereamanofordinarypowerofcollectingand
retainingfacts,hemustverywellhaveknownforcertain.
8.KeepingatpresenttothedirectwitnessesfortheauthorshipbySt.John,wenext
cometoTertullian(+cir.220).Histestimoniesaremanyanddecisive.
Adv.Marcion.iii.14,vol.ii.p.340:NametapostolusJohannesinapocalypsi
ensemdescribitexoreDominiprodeuntem.
Ib.24,p.356:Hanc(clestemcivitatem)etEzekielnovit,etapostolusJoannes
vidit.
DePudicitia19,p.1017:SedquoniamusquedePaulo,quandoetiamJoannes
nescioquiddiverspartisupplauderevideatur,quasiinapocalypsimanifeste
fornicationiposueritpnitentiauxilium,ubiadangelumThyatirenorum,&c.
SeealsodeResurr.27,p.834deAnima,8,p.658adv.Judos,9,p.620deCor.
Militis,13,p.96adv.Gnosticos,12,p.147.
9.ThefragmentontheCanoncalledbythenameofMuratori,andwrittencir.200,
says,etJoanneseniminApocalypsilicetseptemecclesiisscribat,tamenomnibus
dicit,wherethecontextshewsthattheApostleJohnmustbeintended.
10.Hippolytus,bishopofOstia(PortusRomanus),cir.240,inhiswritingsvery
frequentlyquotestheApocalypse,andalmostalwayswith .Whom
hemeantbyisevidentfromonepassage,Deantichristo,c.36,Migne,
Patr.Gr.,vol.x.p.756: , ,
, .Andthenheproceedstoquote
ch.Revelation17:118.Multitudesofothercitationswillbefoundbyconsultingthe
(220)

indextoLagardesedition

.Andoneofhisprincipalworks,asspecifiedinthe

cataloguefoundinscribedonhisstatue,was(or,forthewordhas
becomeobliterated,onlyAbeingnowlegible)
:mentionedalsobyJerome,Catal.61,vol.ii.p.
901.
11.ClementofAlexandria(cir.200),inhisStrom.vi.13(106),p.793P.,saysofthe
faithfulpresbyter,
, .Andelsewherehe
fixesthisnameasmeaningtheApostle,bysayinginhisQuisdivessalv.42,p.
959: , ,

.:andthenhe
proceedstotellthewellknownstoryofSt.Johnandtheyoungrobber.
12.Origen,thescholarofClement(+cir.233),whosodiligentlyenquiredintoand
reportedanydoubtsordisputesaboutthecanonicityandgenuinenessofthebooks
oftheN.T.,appearsnottohaveknownofanywhichregardedtheApocalypse.Ina
passageofhisCommentaryonSt.Matt.preservedbyEuseb.H.E.vi.25,hesays,
,,
,
,
.
WehavealsothisremarkabletestimonyinhisCommentaryonMatt.tom.xvi.6,vol.
v.p.719f.: ,
,
, ,
.
, ,
, (Revelation1:9),
. .
AndOrigenagainrepeatedlycitestheApocalypsewithouttheleastindicationof
doubtastoitsauthor:asmaybeseenbyconsultinganyoftheindicestothe
editions.Hisprocedureinthiscaseformsastrikingcontrasttothatinthecaseof
theEpistletotheHebrews:seeProlegg.tothisvol.ch.i.i.1623.
13.StillkeepingtothoseFatherswhogivedefinitetestimonyastotheauthorship,
wecometoVictorinus,bishopofPettauinPannonia,whosufferedmartyrdomunder
Diocletianin303.HisistheearliestextantcommentaryontheApocalypse.Onch.
Revelation10:4,hesays(seeMigne,Patr.Lat.,vol.v.p.333),Sedquiadicitse
scripturumfuisse(Joannes)quantalocutafuissenttonitrua,idest,qucunquein
veteritestamentoerantobscuraprdicata,vetatureascriberesedrelinquereea
signata,quiaestApostolus.
Andafterwards,onoportetautemteiterumprophetare,Hocest,proptereaquod
quandohcJoannesvidit,eratininsulaPathmos,inmetallodamnatusaDomitiano
Csare.IbiergoviditApocalypsin:etcumjamseniorputaretseperpassionem
accepturumreceptionem,interfectoDomitianoomniajudiciaejussolutasunt,et
Joannesdemetallodimissus,sicposteatradidithanceandemquamacceperata
DeoApocalypsin.
14.EphremSyrus(+cir.378),thegreatestFatherintheSyrianchurch,repeatedlyin
hisnumerouswritingscitestheApocalypseascanonical,andascribesittoJohn:
seethereff.inStuartsIntroduction,p.271.IntheGreektranslationofhisworks,we
readinthesecondHomilyontheSecondAdventoftheLord,
,andthenhequotesRevelation21:45vol.ii.p.248,
ed.Assem.SeeLcke,Einl.p.598,note.
Nowthesecitationsarethemoreremarkable,becausetheoldSyriacorPeschito
versiondoesnotcontaintheApocalypse:asneitherindeedapparentlydidthelater
orPhiloxenianversionoriginally,noritsrepublicationbyThomasofHarkel(see
Lcke,p.598).Itmayfairlybeaskedthen,HowcameEphrembyhisSyriacversion
oftheApocalypse(forheseemsnottohavebeenacquaintedwithGreek)?And,
HowcamethePeschitotowanttheApocalypse,ifitwasheldtobewrittenbythe
Apostle?

15.ItwouldexceedthelimitsoftheseProlegomenatoenterintotheanswersto
thesequestions,whichhavebeenvariouslygiven:byHugandThiersch,thatthe
Peschitooriginallycontainedthebook,andthatitonlybecameexcludedinthefourth
centurythroughtheinfluenceoftheschoolsofAntiochandNisibis:byWaltonand
Wichelhaus,thatthePeschitowasmadeinthefirstcentury,whenasyetthe
Apocalypsehadnotwonitswayamongthecanonicalbooks:byHengstenberg,that
thePeschitowasnotmadetilltheendofthethirdcentury,aftertheobjections
(221)

againsttheapostolicityofthebookhadbeenraisedbyDionysiusofAlexandria

16.TheseanswersarealldiscussedbyLcke,Einl.pp.597605,andseverally
rejected.Hisownsolutionisbynomeanssatisfactoryastotheformerofthetwo
questions,howEphremcamebyhisSyriacversion.Thelatterheanswersby
postponingthedateofthereceptionoftheApocalypseintothecanontillafterthe
publicationofthePeschito,i.e.asnowgenerallyacknowledged,theendofthe
secondcentury.
17.Epiphanius,bishopofSalamisinCyprusattheendofthefourthcentury,cites
theApocalypseaswrittenbytheApostle.IncombatingtheAlogi,whorejectedthe
gospelofJohnandtheApocalypse,hespeaksmuchandwarmlyofthatbook,and
saysamongotherthings(Hr.li.35,p.457),
,

:andib.32,p.455,havingcited1Corinthians15:52,heproceeds,

,

18.BasiltheGreat(+378),adv.Eunomiumii.14,vol.i.p.249,says,
,
...,andafterwards,
, ,,
,Revelation1:8.
19.HilaryofPoictiers(+368),inhisProloguetothePsalms,says(c.6,vol.i.p.5),
itabeatiJohannisApocalypsidocemur:etangeloPhiladelphiEcclesiscribe.
SoalsoinhisEnarratioinPs.1:12,p.26,sanctusJoannesinApocalypsitestatur,
dicens,Revelation22:2.Stuartcitesfromp.891oftheParisedn.of1693,etex
familiaritateDominirevelationeclestiummysteriorumdignusJohannes

(222)

20.Athanasius(+373)inhisOrat.i.contraArianos,i.11,vol.i.(ii.Migne)p.327,
citesJohn1:1,andthensays, ,
.
21.GregoryofNyssa,brotherofBasiltheGreat(+395),inhisdiscourse,Insuam
ordinationem,vol.iii.p.546,Migne,says,

,
,...Revelation3:15.Ofcourse
thiscannotmeanthattheRevelationiswhatwenowcommonlyknowasan
apocryphalbook,or,asLckeremarks,thesentencewouldcontradictitself:but
hereisequivalenttoor:inthesamewayasDion.
Areop.DeEccl.Hierarch.iii.4,vol.i.p.287,callsthebook
.
22.Didymus(+394)inhisEnarr.inEpist.i.Joann.iv.1,2,p.1795,says,Etin
apocalypsifrequenterJoannes(thewriteroftheEpistle)prophetavocatur.
23.Ambrose(+397)constantlycitestheApocalypseastheworkoftheApostle
John:e.g.Devirginitate14(86),vol.iii.p.234:Quomodoigituradscendamusad
clum,docetEvangelistaquidicitEtduxitmeSpiritusinmontemmagnum,&c.
Revelation21:10andDeSpirituSanctoiii.20(153),p.697,Sicenimhabes,
dicenteJohanneevangelistaEtostenditmihiflumenaquviv,&c.Revelation
22:1ff.
24.Augustine(+430)useseverywheretheApocalypseasagenuineproductionof

theApostleandEvangelistJohn.Thuswehave,Ep.55(cxix.)6(10),vol.ii.p.209,
Joannesapostolusinapocalypsi:DeCiv.Dei22:7.1,vol.vii.p.666,Joannes
Evangelistainlibroquidiciturapocalypsis.InJoan.Tract.xxxvi.5,vol.iii.p.1665,
inApocalypsiipsiusJoanniscujusesthocevangelium:seealsoTract.xiii.2,p.
1493Depeccat.mer.ii.7(8),vol.x.p.156deTrinit.ii.6(11),vol.viii.p.852,&c.
(223)
(223)

IthardlyappearsfairinLcketolayastressonsuchexpressionsasthis
ipsinsJoanniscujusest,asimplyingthatAugustinethoughtitnecessarytoprotest
byimplicationagainsttheoppositeview.Thereisnothingintheexpressionwhichhe
mightnotverywellhavesaidinspeakingoftheActsasrelatedtotheGospelofSt.
Luke:inwhichcasetherewasnodoubt.
25.Jerome(+420),adv.Jovin.i.26,vol.ii.p.280,speaksoftheApostleJohnas
alsobeingaprophet,viditeniminPathmosinsula,inquafuerataDomitiano
principeobDominimartyriumrelegatus,apocalypsin,infinitafuturorummysteria
continentem.Andthenfollows,asalsoinhisCatal.9,vol.ii.p.845,seebelow,ii.
par.12,Irenussaccountoftheplaceandtimeofwritingthebook.
WeshallhavetoadduceJeromeagainintreatingofthecanonicity.Andnowthatwe
havearrivedatthebeginningofthefifthcentury,thelatterquestionbecomes
historicallythemoreimportantofthetwo,andindeedthetwoarehenceforthhardly
capableofbeingtreatedapart.
26.BeforewepasstothetestimoniesagainsttheauthorshipbytheApostleand
EvangelistSt.John,letusbrieflyreviewthecourseofevidencewhichwehave
adducedinitsfavour.Itwillbeveryinstructivetocompareitscharacterwiththatof
theevidenceforthePaulineauthorshipoftheEpistletotheHebrews,ascollectedin
theProlegomenatothatEpistle.
27.Therewefoundthat,whilethereprevailedinthegreatmajorityofthemore
ancientFathersahabit,whentheyarespeakingloosely,oradpopulum,ofcitingthe
EpistleastheworkofSt.Paul,ontheonehand,allattemptsfailtodiscoverany
generalecclesiasticaltraditiontothiseffect:andontheother,thegreatestand
ablestofthesewritersthemselves,whenspeakingguardedly,throwdoubtonthe
Paulineauthorship,whilesomeofthemsetitasidealtogether.Incourseoftime,we
therealsofound,thehabitofcitingtheEpistleasSt.Paulsbecamemoregeneral:
thensprungupassertion,moreandmorestrong,thatitveritablywashis:tillatlastit
wasmadeanarticleoffaithtobelieveittobeso.Sothatthehistoryofopinionin
thatcasemaybedescribedasthegradualgrowingupofabeliefwhichwasentirely
voidofgeneralreceptionintheancientchurch.
28.Wearenotyetpreparedtoenteronthewholeofthecorrespondinghistoryof
opinioninthiscase:butasfaraswehavegone,itmaybedescribedasthevery
converseoftheother.Theapostolicauthorshiprestsonthefirmesttraditional
ground.Wehaveitassuredtousbyonewhohadcompaniedwithmenthathad
knownSt.Johnhimself:wehaveitheldincontinuoussuccessionbyFathersinall
partsofthechurch.Nowhere,inprimitivetimes,doesthereappearanycounter
traditiononthesubject.Wehavenothingcorrespondingtotheplaintestimoniesof
TertullianinfavourofBarnabas,orofOrigenthattherewasancomedown
thatClementofRomeorSt.LukehadwrittentheEpistle.Insubsequentparagraphs
weshallseehowvariationofopinionwasfirstintroduced,andwhy.
29.Butbeforedoingso,itwillbewelltocompletethisportionofourenquiry,by
mentioningthoseearlywritingsandFatherswhich,thoughtheydonotexpressly
statewhowastheauthorofthebook,yetciteitascanonical,oratalleventsshew
thattheywereacquaintedwithandapprovedit.
30.Amongthesetheveryearliesthavebeenmatterofconsiderablequestion.The
supposedallusionsinPolycarp,forinstance,thoughstronglymaintainedby
Hengstenberg,arereallysofaintanddistant,thatnonebutanadvocatewouldever
haveperceivedthem.Suchare,e.g.theexpressioninPolyc.adPhil.c.l,p.1005,
Migne, . ,seeingthat
isasaN.T.wordconfinedtotheApocalypse,beingin2Corinthians
6:18citedfromtheO.T.:inp.1012,c.8,
,becauseinRev.wefind [],(Revelation1:9,
rec.)Revelation3:10.Butsodowein2Thessalonians3:5indeeditneednotbean

allusionatall,beingaveryobviousexpression.AndHengstenbergsnextinstance,
whichhecallsasgoodasanexpresscitationoftheApocalypseasaninspired
writing,c.6,p.1012,
, ,
,
,isinrealitynoinstanceatall,thecitationbeingfromHebrews12:28,andthe
followingwordsbeingjustasapplicabletoSt.JamesandSt.Jude,astoSt.John.
Nay,Hengstenbergsargumenthastwoedges:foriftheallusionherebetothe
Apocalypse,thenwehaveamostimportantearlywitnesstoitsnothavingbeen
writtenbyanApostle.
31.ThepassageswhichHengstenbergbringsfromtheEpistleoftheChurchof
(224)

SmyrnaonthemartyrdomofPolycarp,areevenmoreuncertainandfarfetched
.
Suchadvocacyismuchtobelamented:ittendstoweakeninsteadofstrengthening
therealevidence.
32.Thenexttestimonyproducedishoweverofaverydifferentkind.Itisthatof
Papias,ofwhomIren.,Hr.v.33.4,p.333,inadducingthetraditionalwordsofour
Lordrespectingthemillennialabundanceoftheearth,says,
, , ,

.ItiswellknownthatEusebius,inhisfamous
chapter,H.E.iii.39s,attemptstosetasidethis bycitingfrom
Papiashimselfhisassertionthathesetdowninhisworkwhathehadheardasthe
sayingsoftheApostles,namingSt.Johnamongthem.Butthereisnothingto
preventhishavingunitedbothcharacters,thatofahearer,andthatofacollectorof
sayings:andIrenus,thescholarofPolycarp,ishardlylikelytohavebeen
mistakenonsuchapoint.NowregardingPapias,asawitnessfortheApocalypse,
wehaveascholiumofAndreas,ofCappadocia,attheendofthefifthcentury(see
Lcke,p.525note),printedinsubstanceinCramersCatena,p.176,atthe
beginningofthecommentariesontheApocalypse:
,
,
,,

,
.Andaccordingly,onRevelation12:79,heexpresslycitesPapiass
(225)

work:

,...

33.ThereseemstobeampleproofherethatPapiasdidmaintain,asfromwhatwe
otherwiseknowweshouldexpect,theinspiration,i.e.thecanonicityofthebook.All
thathasbeenarguedontheothersideseemstometofailtoobviatethefact,orto
weakenthegreatimportanceofthisearlytestimony.Seethewholediscussedat
lengthinStuart,pp.250254:Lcke,pp.524546:Hengstenberg,pp.101116.I
maybepermittedtosay,thatboththelastmentionedCommentatorshavesuffered
themselvestobeblindedastotherealworthoftheevidencebytheirzealtoserve
eachhisownhypothesis.
34.TheEpistleofthechurchesofLyonsandViennetothechurchesofAsiaand
PhrygiaconcerningthepersecutionwhichbefellthemunderMarcusAurelius,A.D.
177,ispreservedbyEusebius,H.E.Revelation12:12.Thecitationsinitfromthe
Apocalypseareunmistakable.Inspeakingofthemartyr,VettiusEpagathus,they
say,
(Revelation14:4).TheyaccountfortherageofthePagansagainstthe
ChristiansbyitsbeingthefulfilmentofRevelation22:11, ,
(226)

.TheycallChrist
. and ,expressions
manifestlytakenfromRevelation1:5Revelation3:14.SeeLcke,pp.567,568.

35.ThetestimonyofPolycratesofEphesus,inEuseb.H.E.v.24,concerningthe
burialofSt.JohninEphesus,hasbeenpressedbyHengstenbergintotheserviceof
thecanonicityoftheApocalypse,butisfartoouncertaininmeaningtobefairly
(227)

introduced

.SeeHengstb.,pp.125129:andLcke,pp.568571.

36.Cyprian(cir.250)repeatedlyreferstotheApocalypse,andunhesitatinglytreatsit
aspartofHolyScripture.InEp.xiii.1,p.260,hesays,maximecumscriptumsit
Mementoundececideris,etagepnitentiam,Revelation2:5seealsoEp.xxviii.1,
p.300,lii.(adAntonianumEp.x.,Migne,Patr.Lat.vol.iii.)22,p.787.InEp.xxvi.
4,p.293,hecitestheApocalypseasonalevelwiththeGospels:tubaEvangeliisui
nosexcitatDominusdicens,Quiplusdiligitpatrem,&c.:etiterum,Beatiqui
persecutionempassifuerint,&c.:et,Vincentidabosederesuperthronummeum,
&c.Revelation3:21.
InEp.lii.ubisupra,pnitentiamnonagentiDominuscomminaturHabeo,inquit,
adversustemulta,&c.Revelation2:20.
Delapsis,c.27,p.488,ipsequoqueDominusprmoneatetprstruatdicensEt
scientomnesecclesi,&c.Revelation2:23.
Deopereeteleem.c.14,p.611,AudiinApocalypsiDominituivocem.Dicis,
inquit,divessum,&c.Revelation3:17.Theopeningchaptersofthetreatise,De
ExhortationeMartyrii,consistofScripturetestimoniesstrungtogether.Inthemhe
citestheApocalypseasScripture,c.2,3,8,pp.657f.,661(etinApocalypsi
eademloquiturdivinprdicationishortatiodicens),10,11,12.Thesameisthe
caseintheLibriTestimoniorum.
BesidestheseplacesStuartquotesfromhisworks,p.168,Aquasnamquepopulos
significareinApocalypsiScripturadivinadeclarat,dicens,Aqu,&c.Revelation
17:15.
(228)

37.Athanasius
(+cir.373)givesinhis23rd ,Opp.Pars
ii.vol.ii.p.156,alistofthebooksofthesacredcanon,dividingthemintothree
classes:thefirstofthesebeingthecanonical,whicharethesourcesofsalvation:in
whichonlyisthetruedoctrineofreligiondeclared,towhichnomancanadd,and
fromwhichnonecantakeaway:thesecondecclesiasticalsuchasmaybereadin
thechurchforedification,butarenotinspired:thethird,apocryphal,writtenby
heretics,andsupposititious.InthefirstclassheplacestheApocalypse:andinhis
writingsaccordinglyhereferstoitfrequently

(229)

38.InChrysostomsownworkswehavenocommentsontheApocalypse,norany
distinctreferencestoitasScripture.Thathewasacquaintedwithit,plainlyappears
fromsuchpassagesasthatinHom.i.onMatt.8,vol.vii.p.23,ed.Migne,where
inspeakingoftheheavenlycity,hesays, ,
.
Suidassaysunder,
, .
(230)

39.IrecuragaintoJeromestestimony
.InhislettertoPaulinus,Ep.53,he
givesthewholesacredcanon.AndinincludingtheApocalypseinit,heremarks,
8,vol.i.p.280,ApocalypsisJoannistothabetsacramentaquotverba.Parumdixi
promeritovoluminis.Lausomnisinferiorest.Inverbissingulismultipliceslatent
intelligenti.InhisComm.onPsalms149,vol.vii.App.p.1267,Migne,hesays,
legimusinApocalypsiJoannis,quinecclesiislegituretrecipiturnequeeniminter
apocryphasscripturashabetur,sedinterecclesiasticas.
InhisEp.toDardanus,3(vol.i.p.971),wehavethepassagecitedatlengthinthe
Proleg.totheEpistletotheHebrews,i.par.74,inwhichhesays,quodsieam
(theEp.totheHeb.)Latinorumconsuetudononrecipitinterscripturascanonicas,
necGrcorumquidemecclesiApocalypsinJoanniseademlibertatesuscipiunt.et
tamennosutramquesuscipimus,nequaquamhujustemporisconsuetudinem,sed
veterumscriptorumauctoritatemsequentes,quiplerumqueutriusqueabutuntur
testimoniis,nonutinterdumdeapocryphisfaceresolent,quippequietgentilium
literarumraroutanturexemplis,sedquasicanonicis.
40.Itishardlyworthwhiletocitelaterandlessimportantauthoritiesonthisside.
TheywillbefoundenumeratedinStuart,Introd.p.276:Davidson,p.545:andstill
moreatlengthinLcke,pp.638ff.OfthegeneraltendencyoflatertraditionIshall
speakbelow,par.63.
41.Inowcometoconsiderthoseancientauthoritieswhichimpugntheapostolicity

andcanonicityofthebook.
42.Firstamongtheseinpointoftime,thoughnotofimportance,arethe
AntimontanistsorAlogioftheendofthesecondandbeginningofthethirdcentury
(seeEpiphan.Hr.li.32ff.pp.455ff.:Neander,Kirchengesch.i.2,p.907)who
rejectedthewritingsofSt.John. ,saysEpiphanius,
,
.
.Thenfollowtheirobjections
againstthebook,whichareentirelyofasubjectivecharacter:
,
andagain, ,

. :&c.Tothese
apparentlyDionysiusofAlexandria,presentlytobecited,alludes,whenhesays(ut
infra,par.48),
, ,
. ,
,

,
.
,
.
,
, ,
, ,
,
, .
43.Ihaveconsidereditimportanttoquotethispassageatlength,asgivingan
accountoftheearliestopponentstotheauthenticityoftheApocalypseandofthe
reasonoftheiropposition.Thestudentmayfurtherfollowouttheaccountofthese
AlogiinEpiphanius,l.c.TheyhavebeenverylightlypassedoverbyLcke(p.582)
andothers,whoarenotwillingthattheirprocessionofopponentstotheapostolic
authorshipshouldbeledbypersonswhosecharacterissolittlecreditable.Butthe
fairenquirerwillnotfeelatlibertythustoexcludethem.Theywereperhapsmore
outspokenandthorough,perhapsalsolesslearnedandcautiousthanthosewho
follow:buttheirmotivesofoppositionwereofthesamekind:anditisespeciallyto
benoted,asaweightypointintheevidence,that,beinghostiletotheauthorityof
thewritingscommonlyreceivedasthoseoftheApostleJohn,theyintheirtime
conceiveditnecessarytodestroythecreditoftheApocalypseaswellasthatofthe
Gospel.
44.TheRomanpresbyterCaius, accordingtoEuseb.vi.20,who
livedintheEpiscopateofZephyrinus(i.e.196219),wroteapolemicaldialogue
againsttheMontanistProclus,ofwhichafragmenthasbeenpreservedbyEusebius
iii.28,speakingoutstillmoreplainly:

,

.
,
.
45.Some,asHug,al.,haveinvainendeavouredtopersuadeusthatsomeother
bookisheremeant,andnottheApocalypseofJohn.Nosuchworkistobetraced,
thoughwehaveveryfullaccountsofCerinthusfromIrenus(Hr.i.26,p.105)and
Epiphanius(Hr.xxviii.pp.110ff.):andneithertheplural(whichis
alsousedbyDionysius,ascitedbelow,ofourapocalypticvisions),northe
exaggeratedaccountoftheearthlyKingdomaspromised(seethesameinthe
objectionsoftheAlogiascitedbyDionysiusabove)canhavetheleastweightin
inducingustoconcurinsuchasupposition.

46.WhenLckesetsasideCaiusinthesamecategoryastheAlogi,ashaving
equallylittletodowithecclesiasticaltradition,wecannothelpseeingagainthetrick
ofacraftypartisanwishingtogetridofanawkwardally.
47.UndoubtedlytheweightiestobjectortothecanonicityoftheApocalypseinearly
timesisDIONYSIUS,thesuccessornextbutonetoOrigeninthepresidencyofthe
catecheticalschoolofAlexandria,andafterwardsbishopofthatsee(A.D.247).This
worthyscholarofOrigen(seeNeander,Kirchengesch.i.p.1229f.)remainedever
attachedtohim,lovingandhonouringhim:andwrotehimaletterofconsolation
whenhewasthrownintoprisonintheDecianpersecution.ThisDionysius,ashe
himselftellsus,hadbecomeabelieverintheGospelbyacourseoffree
investigation,andunbiassedexaminationofallknownsystems:andafterhis
conversion,heremainedtruetothisprincipleasaChristianandasapublicteacher.
Hereadandexaminedwithoutbiasallthewritingsofheretics,anddidnotreject
them,untilhewasthoroughlyacquaintedwiththem,andwasinasituationtoconfute
themwithvalidarguments.Whilehewasthusemployed,oneofthepresbytersofhis
churchwarnedhimoftheharmwhichhisownsoulmighttakebysomuchcontact
withtheirimpuredoctrines.Ofthisdanger,hesays,hewashimselftooconscious:
butwhileponderingonwhathadbeensaidtohimhewasdeterminedinhiscourse
byaheavenlyvision( ):anda
voicedistinctlysaidtohim,Readeverythingthatcomesintothyhands:forthouart
wellabletojudgeandprovethemall(
):indeedsuchwas
atthefirstthesourceofthineownfaith.And,hesays,Ireceivedthevisionas
agreeingwiththeapostolicsaying( )whichsaystothestrong(
) .
48.ThenoticesleftusofDionysiusintheseventhbookofEusebius,entirely
correspondwiththeabove.AndthejudgmentwhichhepassesontheApocalypseis
characterizedbysounddiscretionandmoderation.Igiveitatlength.
Afterthepassagealreadycitedinpar.42,heproceeds(Eus.H.E.vii.25):
,
. ,
,
,
. ,
,
, , ,
, .

.
, , ,
.
, ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
.
, , ,
., ,
,

.
,
.
,
. ,
,
, ,
.
,
, .

 ,
, ,
.
, ,
,
, ,
.
.
.
, ,.
, ,
, ,
.
, .
. ,
.
,
, ,
,
.
.

,
. ,

, .
, .
,
.
,
.
, . ,
. ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
.
,

,
, ,
, .
.
.
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
,
.
, ,
, ,
,

,
.

 .
,
, ,
. , ,
. , , ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
, ,
.
, , ,
.
49.Itwillbeseenthatwhileontheonehandheseparateshimselffromthosewho
disparagedthebookandascribedittoCerinthus,ontheotherhedistinctly
repudiatesallliteralinterpretationsofitasimpossible,andapproachestheenquiry
withastrongantichiliasticbias.Thismoreespeciallyappears,fromaprevious
chapterofthesamebookofEusebius,inwhichisdetailedtheproceedingof
DionysiuswithregardtotheschismofNepos,anEgyptianbishopofchiliasticviews:
Eus.H.E.vii.24.
50.WithregardtothewholecharacterofDionysiusscriticism,wemaymakethe
followingremarks:
a)itsnegativeportionrestsupongroundscommontohimandourselves,and
respectingwhichawriterinthethirdcentury,howevermuchwemayadmirehisfree
andabletreatmentofhissubject,hasnoadvantageatalloveronewhowritesinthe
nineteenth.Itisasopentousasitwastohim,tojudgeofthephnomenaand
languageoftheApocalypseascomparedwiththeGospelandEpistlesofSt.John.
b)thepositiveresultofhisargument,iffairlyexamined,isworthabsolutelynothing.
Thewritertowhomheascribesthebookis,eventohimself,entirelyunknown:more
unknownthanSilvanusasaconjecturalauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrews:more
unknownthanevenAquila.Theveryexistence,inhismind,oftheotherJohn,who
wrotetheApocalypse,dependsontheveryshadowywords
, .
51.Andthislatterconsiderationisveryimportant.Itshewsusthatatallevents,the
ideaofJohnthePresbyterhavingwrittentheApocalypsewas,inthemiddleofthe
thirdcentury,whollyunknowntoecclesiasticaltraditioninthechurchofAlexandria:
orelseweshouldneverhavefoundthisseekingaboutandconjecturingonthe
matter.
52.Ishalltreat,furtheron,thequestionraisedbythiscriticismofDionysiusasto
theinternalprobabilityoftheauthorshipbytheApostleJohn.AtpresentIadvance
withnoticesofthosewhoimpugnedordoubteditinancienttimes.
53.AndofthosewenextcometoEusebiusofCsarea,thewellknown
ecclesiasticalhistorian.Hisopiniononthequestioniswaveringandundecided.In
hisH.E.iii.24,havingassertedthegenuinenessofSt.JohnsGospelandFirst
Epistle,andplacedtheothertwoEpistlesamongthe,heproceeds,

.
.Againinthenextchapter,ingivingalistofthe
,whenhehasmentionedthefourGospelsandActs
andoneEpistleofSt.JohnandoneofSt.Peter,hesays,
, ,
.Andalittlebelow,whenheisspeakingofthe,hesays,
, ,
.
54.Iniii.39,inadducingthewellknownpassageofPapias,
,

,


,hesays,
,
, ,

,
.
,
,
, .
,
.
55.Thestudentwillobservehowentirelyconjectural,andvaluelessasevidence,is
thisopinionofEusebius.CertainlyLckeiswronginhisverystrongdenunciationsof
HengstenbergfordescribingEusebiusasstudiouslyleavingthequestionopen.For
whatelseisit,whenhenumbersthebookononesideamongtheundoubted
Scriptureswithan ,andthenontheotheramongthespuriouswritings
withan also:whileattheverymomentofendorsingDionysiuss
conjecturethatthesecondJohnsawitsvisions,heinterposes
?ThatamanwiththeantichiliasticleaningsofEusebiusconcedes
thusmuch,makesthebalanceofhistestimonyinclinerathertothanawayfromthe
canonicityofthebook.Iwouldnotpressthis,butsimplytakeitasindicatingthatin
Eusebiusstime,aswellasinthatofDionysius,therewasnoecclesiasticaltradition
warrantingthedisallowingitastheworkoftheEvangelist.Adverseopinionthere
was,whichfounditsfairandworthieremployininternalcriticism,andissuedin
vagueconjecture,restingonthemerefactoftwopersonsnamedJohnhaving
existedinEphesus.WhoandwhatthesecondJohnwas,whetherhehadanyrightto
speakofhimselfasthewriteroftheApocalypsedoes,ortoaddresswithauthority
thesevenchurchesofAsia,ontheseandallsuchquestionswearewhollyinthe
dark.
56.CyrilofJerusalem(+386)isamoredecidedwitnessfortheexclusionofthe
ApocalypsefromtheCanon.InhisCatecheseis,iv.35,36,pp.68f.,having
prefacedtheaccountofthetwentytwocanonicalbooksoftheO.T.with
,heenumeratesthecanonicalbooksoftheN.T.,
thefourGospels,Acts,sevencatholicepistles,fourteenofSt.Paul,andconcludes
.
, , .And
itistobeobservedthatheappealsforthisarrangementtoancientauthorities:forhe
saystohiscatechumen,inthewordsalludedtointhelastcitedclause,
,
.
,
.
57.CyrilnowherementionstheApocalypsebyname.Butheseemstouseit,and
evenwherehebyinferencerepudiatesit,toadoptitstermsunconsciously.An
instanceoftheformerisfoundinCat.i.4,p.18,wherehesaystohiscatechumen,
speakingofhisbaptism,
,Revelation2:7Revelation2:17.Ofthelatter,inCat.xv.13,p.230,
where,professingtogethisparticularsrespectingAntichristfromDaniel,andhaving
said
,heproceeds, ,
,
:thislastparticularbeingfrom
Revelation17:11.Again,although,ib.c.16,p.232,heprotestsrespectingthe
threeandahalfyearsofAntichristsreign, ,
,inc.27,p.239,healludestotheheresyofMarcellusofAncyrain
thesewords,
(Revelation12:3).Indeedpreviouslyinc.15,p.232,hehad
written , , ,
,evidentlyfromthesameplaceintheApocalypse.

58.ThusCyrilpresentstousremarkableandexceptionalphnomena:familiarity
withthelanguageofthebook,soastouseitunconsciouslyasthatofprophecy,
combinedwitharepudiationofitascanonical,andaprohibitionofitsstudy.Itwould
appearthattherehadbeenatsometimeadeliberatechangeofopinion,andthatwe
have,intheseevidentreferencestotheApocalypse,instancesofslipsofmemory,
andretentionofphraseologywhichbelongedtohisformer,nottohissubsequent
views.
59.InthesixtiethcanonofthesynodofLaodicea,heldbetween343and381(see
Hefele,Conciliengeschichte,i.721ff.),anaccountofthecanonicalbooksoftheOld
andNewTestamentsisgiveninwhichtheApocalypseisomitted.Thegenuineness
ofthiscanonhasbeendoubted(Lcke,p.361),butapparentlywithoutreason:see
Hefele,utsupra,pp.749ff.WenextcometothetestimonyofGregoryofNazianzen
(+390),whoinhispoem,
,vol.ii.(iii.Migne)p.259ff.,givesthesamecanonasCyril,andadds,
, .Buthereagain,asin
Cyrilscase,wearemetbythephnomenonofreferencetothebookandcitationof
itasoftheologicalauthority.InOratioxlii.9,vol.i.(ii.Migne)p.755,hesays,
speakingoftheangelspresidingoverchurches,
, .And
inanotherplace,Oratioxxix.17,p.536,hecites,inspeakingoftheGodheadof
Christ, ,adding,
.
Lckesuggestsinexplanationofthis,thatpossiblythechurchesofAsiaMinor,
especiallythatofCappadocia,hadexcludedtheApocalypsefrompublicreadingin
thechurch,onaccountofthecountenancewhichithadbeenmadetogivetothe
errorsofMontanism,andplaceditamongthe.Thismayhavebeenso:
butIcannotthinkhisinferencesecure,thatthereforewemayinferthegeneralfact,
thatthebookrestedonnosecureecclesiasticaltradition.
60.IntheIambiadSeleucum,printedinGregorysworks,ii.(iii.Migne)p.1104f.,
ascribedbysometoGregoryhimself,butmoreusuallytoAmphilochiusofIconium,
wehavetheApocalypsementionedbyname:
, .
.
Butitistobenoticed,thatinthescholiumofAndreascitedabove,par.32,he
enumeratesGregoryamongthosewhorecognizedthecanonicityoftheApocalypse.
61.Afterthis,itwillbesufficienttogiveageneralviewoftheantagonismtothe
authorityofthebook.ItwasmaintainedchieflyintheEasternchurchtheWestern,
afterthefifthcentury,universallyrecognizingtheApocalypse.Itisremarkablethat
SulpiciusSeverus(Hist.Sacr.ii.31,Lcke)saystheApocalypseisaplerisqueaut
stulteautimpierejected.ButasLckeobserves,hemusthavefoundthese
pleriqueintheGreek,notintheLatinchurch.PopeGelasius(MignePatr.Lat.vol.
cxxx.p.984)inhisdecreedelibrisrecipiendisetnonrecipiendis(500)givesthe
bookitsplaceintheCanonoftheCatholicChurch,betweentheEpistlesofSt.Paul
andtheCatholicEpistles.PrimasiusandCassiodorus,inthesixthcentury,expound
itasapostolicandcanonical.ButJuniliustheAfrican,thefriendofPrimasius,says,
Departib.leg.div.i.4,inMignePatr.Lat.vol.lxviii.p.18,thatonlyseventeen
books,viz.theO.T.prophetsandthebookofPsalms,containtheScripture
prophecy:cterum,hecontinues,deJoannisapocalypsiapudOrientales
admodumdubitatur.ThishehadlearnedfromPaulus,aPersian,oftheschoolof
Nisibis:andheconsequentlyseemsinclinednottoplaceitamongthelibriperfect
auctoritatis.
62.ThefourthsynodofToledo(633)initsseventeenthcanon,decreesthat,seeing
theApocalypseisbymanycouncilsandPopessanctionedasaworkoftheApostle
John,andascanonical,itshouldunderpainofexcommunication,bepreachedonin
thechurchbetweenEasterandPentecost.TheSynodspeaksofplurimiquiejus
auctoritatemnonrecipiunt,atqueinecclesiisDeiprdicarecontemnunt.This,
Lckethinks,pointstodoubtersintheWestalso.ButIsidoreofSeville(+636)inhis
Deofficiiseccl.i.12,vol.vi.pp.374ff.,havinggiventhegenerallyreceivedcanon,
speaksofmanyLatinswhodoubtedofthePaulineoriginoftheEpistletothe
Hebrews,ofthegenuinenessof2Peter,oftheEpistleofJames,,2and3Johnbut
notawordofanywhodoubtedabouttheApocalypse.Sothatitmaybeafterallthat

theSynodofToledo,asJunilius,mayalludetoOrientalsonly.
63.HenceforwardintheWesternchurch,withthesoleexceptionoftheCapitulareof
Charlemagne,which,followingGreekauthoritiesandespeciallytheSynodof
Laodicea,excludedthebookfrompublicreading,wefinduniversalrecognitionofthe
ApocalypseuntiltheReformation.
64.IntheGreekchurchduringthelastnoticedperiodopinionsweremuchinthe
samestateasinthefourthcentury.Ononesidewefindrejectionofthebook,atthe
leastfrompublicecclesiasticaluse:ontheother,unsuspectingreceptionofitasa
genuineworkoftheApostleJohn.Neithersidetakesanypainstojustifyitsview
critically,butsimplyconformstolocalecclesiasticalusage.CyrilofAlexandria,de
Adorat.vi.vol.i.p.188,says,
, .Thevery
expressionhere,itistrue,betraysconsciousnessoftheexistenceofdoubts,which
howeverdonotaffecthisconfidence,northatofhiscontemporariesNilusand
IsidoreofPelusium

(231)

65.AtAntioch,however,theopinionincent.v.seemstohavebeendifferent.Its
greatestFatherofthisperiod,TheodoreofMopsuestia(+429),nevercitesthe
Apocalypseinhisextantwritingsandfragments,evenwherewemighthavecertainly
expectedit.InthefragmentsofhisexpositionsoftheN.T.wehavenoallusiontoit,
evenwhenon2Thessalonians2:3ff.(Migne,Patr.Gr.vol.lxvi.pp.933ff.)he
speaksofAntichristandofthesecondAdventnoragaininhisCommentaryonthe
twelveprophets.Opponentashewasoftheallegoricalmethodofinterpretation,he
mayhavebeenwithheldfromreceivingtheApocalypsebyconsciousnessthatno
othermodewouldsuitit:orhemayhavefollowedtheolderpracticeoftheSyrian
church,andthecanonoftheLaodiceanSynod.Still,herejectedtheEpistleof
James,whichboththeserecognized:andLckethinkshemayhaverejectedthe
Apocalypsefromthedecisionofhisownjudgment,helpedbyhisdisinclinationtothe
book,andtheexistingdoubtaboutitscanonicity:beingoneofthosewho,likeLuther
inlatertimes,denKanonimKanonsuchtenundfanden.
66.Theodoret(bishopofCyrus,+457)alludestwoorthreetimestothebookinhis
DialoguesontheTrinity(iii.12)andontheHolyGhost(i.18,printedbyMigne
amongtheworksofAthanasius,vol.iv.pp.447,485):buton2Thessalonians2.and
onHebrews12:22,heleavesitunnoticed,asalsoinhisCommentaryonDaniel.On
Psalms86:2,vol.i.p.1217,heseemstoaimatdescribingtheheavenlyJerusalem
incontrasttotheapocalypticdescription.Inspeaking(hret.fabb.lib.ii.3,vol.iv.
p.329f.)ofCerinthus,and(lib.iii.1,2,6,pp.340f.,346ff.)oftheNicolaitans,the
Montanists,andevenofthechiliastNeposandhisantagonistDionysiusof
Alexandria,hesaysnotawordoftheApocalypse.OnlyinhisDialogusImmutabilis
(vol.iv.p.59)heoncenamesit,andadducesch.Revelation1:9withtheformula
:butthenitisincitingfromAthanasius.
67.Afterthis,inthesixthcentury,theSyrianchurchesweredividedonthematter.
TheNestoriansrejectedtheApocalypse,followingTheodoreofMopsuestiaandthe
Peschito:theMonophysitesreceivedit,followingtheAlexandrians,andHippolytus,
andEphremSyrus.SeeLcke,pp.644,5,whothinksfromcertainindicationsthat
evenamongthemitwasnotinecclesiastical,butonlyintheologicaluse.
68.IntheGreekchurchinAsiaMinor,wehaveAndreas,ofCsareainCappadocia,
thewriterofthefirstentireandconnectedCommentaryontheApocalypse.Hefully
andearnestlyrecognizesitsgenuinenessandinspiration,and(seeabove,par.32)
appealstothetestimonyoftheancientstobearhimout:mentioningbyname
Papias,Irenus,Methodius,CyrilofAlexandria,andGregoryTheologus(of
Nazianzum).ItisperhapshardlyfairinLcketoinferthat,becausehenamesso
few,moremightnothavebeenadduced:hardlyfairagaintoconcludethat,because
hepromisestousetheirwritingsinhisCommentary,andhasnotexpresslycited
them,hedidnotsousethem,orwashimselfoneofthefirstwhoexplainedthe
book.
(232)

69.Arethas,whofollowedAndreas
inhissee,andinhisworkofcommentingon
theApocalypse,repeatsinhisprologuethescholiumofAndreasontheInspirationof
thebook,addingtheauthorityofBasiltheGreat.Butwearenowapproachingatime
when,asLckeremarks,itisreallyofsmallimportwhousedthebookandwhodid
not,whoregardeditastheworkoftheApostle,andwhodidnot.Still,afewfacts

standoutfromthegeneralmass,whichmaybeusefulasindications,oratallevents
haveaclaimtoourattention.
70.SuchisthefactoftheomissionofallreferencetotheApocalypseinthewritings
ofCosmasIndicopleustesincent.vi.InhisTopogr.Christiana,bookvii.(inMigne,
Patr.vol.lxxxviii.),hetreatsofthedurationoftheheavensaccordingtoScripture,
andLckethinksmustofnecessityhavecitedthebookhaditbeeninhiscanon.
Still,heusestheFestalEpistleofAthanasius,inwhichitisexpresslyincludedin
theCanon.
71.ThesecondcanonoftheTrullian,orQuinisextancouncil,sanctionsontheone
handthecanonoftheLaodiceancouncilandthatoftheeightyfiveapostolical
canons,bothwhichomittheApocalypse,andontheotherthatoftheAfricanSynods
oftheendofthefourthandbeginningofthefifthcenturies,whichincludeit.Various
conjectureshavebeenmadeastotheaccounttobegivenofthis(seeLcke,pp.
648,9).Thedesiretoleavethequestionopen(Lcke)canhardlyhavebeenthe
cause.Wemaysafelyleavesuchevidencetocorrectitself.
72.Thelistmaybeclosedwithoneortwonoticesfromlatercenturies,shewingthat
thedoubtswerenotaltogetherforgotten,thoughgenerallygivenup.
Nicephorus(beginningofcent.ix.),inhisChronographiabrevis,p.1057,Migne,
reckonsonlytwentysixbooksoftheN.T.,anddoesnotmentiontheApocalypse
eitherintheorinthe.
73.Aprologuetothebookinthecursivecodex64(cent.x.orbeginningofxi.),after
defendingitscanonicityandapostolicorigin,apologizesthusfortheancientFathers
notmentioningitamongthebookstobeopenlyreadinchurch:
, ,
, ,

,
, .

74.InthepromiumgiveninCramersCatenatotheextractsfromthecommentsof
cumenius(cent.xi.),p.173,thecanonicityofthebookisstronglyasserted,and
itsbeing
,andnot ,
.Forthis,thewriterrefersto
Athanasius,Basil,Gregory,Methodius,Cyril,andHippolytus:andthensays
,
.
75.IntheChurchHistoryofNicephorusCallistus(cent.xiv.),hetreatsit(ii.42)as
anacknowledgedfactthattheApostleJohn,wheninexileinPatmosunder
Domitian,wrotehisGospelandhis .Still,when
enumeratingthebooksofthecanoninii.46,partlyfromEusebius,hesays
summarilyoftheApocalypse,that thatitwastheworkof
JohnthePresbyter.
76.Itwillbewelltoreviewthecourseandcharacteroftheevidencefromantiquity.
Aswehavebeforenoticed,soagainwemayobserve,thatthroughout,wehave
resultshereinmarkedcontrasttothoseofourenquiryregardingtheEpistletothe
Hebrews.Inthatcasetherewasatotallackofanyfixedgeneraltraditioninthe
earliesttimes.Gradually,theforceandconvenienceofanillustriousnamebeing
attachedtotheEpistleboredownthedoubtsoriginallyrestingonitsauthorship,and
thePaulineoriginbecameeverywhereacquiescedin.Nothingcouldbemore
differentfromthehistoryofthedoubtsabouttheauthorshipoftheApocalypse.Here
wehaveafixedandthoroughlyauthenticatedprimitivetradition.Itcomesfrommen
onlyremovedbyonestepfromtheApostleJohnhimself.Thereisabsolutelyno
objectiveevidencewhateverinfavourofanyotherauthor.Thedoubtsfirstoriginate
inconsiderationspurelysubjective.
77.Thesearedivisibleintotwoclasses,antichiliasticandcritical.Itwasconvenient
todepreciatethebook,oncontroversialgrounds.Itwasfoundadvisablenottoread
itinthechurches,andtoforbidittotheyoungscholar.And,asmatteroffact,thusit

wasthatthedoubtsabouttheauthorshipsprungup.Ifitcountenancederror,ifitwas
notinthecanon,ifitwasnotfittoberead,thenitwouldnotbetheworkofthe
EvangelistandApostle.
78.Again,tothesameresultcontributedthecriticalgroundssoablyurgedby
DionysiusofAlexandriaandobserveduponabove,par.50.Ihavethereremarked,
notonlyhowabsolutelyshadowyandnothingworthisDionysiussthatJohn
thePresbyterwrotethebook,buthowthisverywordismostvaluable,asdenoting
theentireabsenceofallobjectivetraditiontothateffectinthemiddleofthethird
century.
79.Thusthedoubtsgrewup,andincertainpartsofthechurch,prevailed:thewhole
processbeingexactlytheconverseofthatwhichwetracedinourProlegomenato
theHebrews.
80.And,asfarastheforceofancienttestimonygoes,Isubmitthatourinference
alsomustbeacontraryone.TheauthorshipofthebookbytheApostleJohn,as
matterofprimitivetradition,restsonfirmandirrefragableground.Threeotherauthors
aresuggested:one,Cerinthus,bytheavowedenemiesoftheApocalypse,an
assertionwhichhasneverfoundanyfavour:thesecond,JohnthePresbyter,whose
existenceseemsindeedvouchedforbythepassageofPapias,butofwhomwe
knownothingwhatever,norhaveweoneparticleofevidencetoconnecthimwiththe
authorshipoftheApocalypse:andthethirdJohnMarktheEvangelist,whoisequally
unknowntoancienttraditionasitsauthor.
81.Asfarthenaspurelyexternalevidencegoes,Isubmitthatourjudgmentcan
onlybeinonedirection:viz.thattheApocalypsewaswrittenbytheApostleJohn,
thesonofZebedee.
82.Itwillnowbeforustoseehowfarinternalcriticalconsiderationssubstantiateor
impugnthetraditionoftheprimitivechurch.
83.Andinsodoing,itwillbewellforusatoncetodealwithcertainconfident
assertionswhichLckeandothersareinthehabitofmakingrespectingthe
testimonyoftheApocalypseitself.
84.LckebeginsthisportionofhisIntroductionbysettingasideatoncethe
evidenceofJustinMartyrandIrenus,onthegroundofsupposedinconsistency
withtheSelbstzeugnissofthewriterhimselfhecannotbetheApostleand
Evangelist,becauseheplainlydistinguisheshimselffromtheApostlesreferring
backtoaprevioussectionfortheconfirmationofthisassertion.Onlookingthere,we
findinch.Revelation21:14,indescribingtheheavenlyJerusalem,hespeaks
expresslyofthetwelveApostlesofChristandtheirnamesonthetwelvefoundation
stonesofthecelestialcity,butapparentlyinsuchamannerasnotinanywayto
includehimselfamongthem,butrathertoexcludehimselffromthem,andtospeak
ofthemasahigherandspecialclassofservantsandmessengersofGod.
85.Nowletthereaderobservethattheapparently(augenscheinlich)oftheformer
sectionhasbecomeplainly(deutlich)inthelatter:foritisthusthateventhebest
oftheGermansareoftenapttocreepon,andtobuildupawholefabricofargument
uponaninferencewhichatfirstwastothemselvesmerelyanuncertainty.
86.Inthisparticularcase,theoriginalassertionhasinfactnogroundtorestupon.
Theapocalypticwriterissimplydescribingtheheavenlycityasitwasshewntohim.
OnthefoundationsarethenamesofthetwelveApostlesoftheLamb.Nowwemay
fairlyask,Whatreasoncanbegiven,whythebelovedApostleshouldnothave
relatedthis?Washewho,withhisbrotherJames,soughtforthehighestplaceof
honourinthefuturekingdom,likelytohavedepreciatedtheapostolicdignityjust
becausehehimselfwasoneoftheTwelve?andontheotherhand,washewhose
personalmodestywasasnotableashisapostoliczeal,likely,inrelatingsuchhigh
honourdonetotheTwelve,toinsertanoticeprovidingagainstthepossiblemistake
beingmadeofnotcountinghimselfamongthem?
87.Sothatthefirsttentativeintroduction,andtheveryconfidentafterassertion,of
thistestimonyofthebookitself,arealikegroundless.Asimilarinstancewillbe
foundbelow,whenwecometodiscussthetimeandplaceofwriting,ofconfident
assertionrespectingtwosupposednoticesofdatecontainedinthebookitself.They
turnouttobealtogetherdependentfortheirrelevancyonaparticularmethodof

interpretation,notborneoutbyfairexegesis
88.ThenoticescontainedintheApocalypserespectingitswritermaybestatedas
follows
First,hisnameisJohn,ch.Revelation1:1Revelation1:4Revelation1:9,
Revelation22:8.
89.Secondly,hewasknownto,andofaccountamong,thechurchesofproconsular
Asia.
90.Thirdly,hewasinexile(forsowesubmitmustthewordsofch.Revelation1:9
beunderstood:seenotethere)intheislandofPatmosonaccountofhisChristian
testimony.
Wemayaddtothesepersonalnotices,thathetakesespecialpainstoassertthe
accuracyofhistestimony,bothinthebeginningandattheendofhisbook:ch.
Revelation1:2,Revelation22:8.
91.Nowthusfarwehavenothingwhichgoesagainsttheecclesiasticaltraditionthat
hewastheApostleandEvangelistJohn.Inthelatterpartofhislife,thisApostle
wasthusconnectedwithproconsularAsia,longresiding,andultimatelydyingat
Ephesus:seeProlegomenatoVol.I.,ch.v.i.9ff.Itisimpossibletorejectthis
concurrenttestimonyofChristianantiquity:norhaveeventhosedoneso,whose
doubtsontheApocalypsearethestrongest.
92.Again,theexileoftheApostleJohninPatmosunderDomitianismatterof
primitivetradition,apparentlydistinctfromthenoticecontainedintheApocalypse:
forhisreturnfromitunderNerva,ofwhichnonoticeiscontainedinthatbook,is
statedassuchbyEusebius:(whenthesenateafterDomitiansdeathdecreed
thattheunjustlyexiledshouldreturntotheirhomes)

, ,H.E.iii.20.And
again,ib.23,

,
.
93.Equallydefiniteisthetradition,thatSt.JohnlivedonamongtheAsiatic
churchestillthetimeofTrajan:seeProlegg.Vol.I.,utsupra.
94.Itisworthwhilejusttopausebytheway,andconsider,inwhatsituationweare
placedbythesetraditions.Torejectthemaltogetherwouldbeoutofallreason:and
thisisnotdonebyLckehimself.Sothatwemusteithersupposethatportionof
themwhichregardstheexiletohavefounditswayin,owingtothenoticeof
Revelation1:9,ortohavebeen,independentlyofthatnotice,theresultofa
confusioninmensmindsbetweentwopersonsofthesamename,John.Eitherof
theseisundoubtedlypossible:butitistheirprobability,inthefaceofotherevidence,
whichwehavetoestimate.
95.Wemaysafelyaskthen,waseitherofthesemistakesatalllikelytohavebeen
madebyIrenus,whocouldwriteasfollows:
,

,
,
, .Iownit

seemstomeoutofallprobabilitythatsuchawriter,inascribingtheApocalypseto
JohntheApostle,couldhaveconfusedhimwithanotherpersonofthesamename.If
weeverhavetrustworthypersonaltradition,itissurelywhenitmountsuptothose
whosawandconversedwithhimrespectingwhomwewishtobeinformed.
96.Itmaybesaidindeed,thatIrenusdoesnotmentiontheexileinPatmos.But
thiswouldbemeretrifling:hedoesnot,simplybecausehehadnooccasiontodo
so:buthisowndateoftheseeingoftheApocalypse,attheendofthereignof
Domitian(seeabove,par.7),would,incombinationwithothernotices,besufficient
toimplyit:andbesides,headmitsitbyinferencefromhisunhesitatinglyadopting

thebookaswrittenbytheApostle.
97.Itseemsthentomethatthecourseofprimitivetradition,evenamongthosewho
didnotbelievetheApocalypsetohavebeenwrittenbytheApostle,assertsofhim
thathewasexiledinPatmosunderDomitian:andthatwehavenoreasonable
groundforsupposingthisviewtohavearisenfromanyconfusionofpersons,orto
havebeenadoptedmerelyfromthebookitself.Personsareappealedto,whoknew
andsawandheardtheApostlehimself:andthosewhothusappealwerenotlikelyto
havemadeamistakeinapointofsuchvitalimportance.
98.Wenowcometoaweightyanddifficultpartofourpresentenquiry:howfarthe
matterandstyleoftheApocalypsebearoutthisresultofprimitivetradition.The
readerwillhaveseen,bythepreviouschaptersoftheseProlegomena,thatIamvery
farfromdeprecating,ordepreciating,suchacourseofcriticism.Idonot,assomeof
thosewhohaveupheldagainstallcriticismthecommonlyreceivedviews,
characterizesuchanenquiryaspresumptuous,oritsresultsasuncertainand
vague.Itisonewhichthesoundestandbestcriticsofallageshavefollowed,from
OrigenandDionysiusofAlexandriadowntoBleekandLke:and,asIhave
elsewhereobserved,isonewhichwillbemoreesteemedinproportionasbiblical
scienceisspreadanddeepened.
99.Inapplyingittothebookbeforeus,certainlytheupholderoftheprimitive
traditionofitsAuthorshipisnotencouragedbyfirstappearances.Heismetatonce
bythestartlingphnomenasoablydetailedbyDionysiusofAlexandriaattheendof
hisjudgment(above,par.48).TheGreekconstructionoftheGospeland
(233)

Epistle
,thoughpeculiar,issmoothandunexceptionable,freefromanythinglike
barbarismorsolcismingrammar:
,saysDionysius, ,
, .Whenhoweverwe
cometocomparethatoftheWriteroftheApocalypse,wefind,atfirstsight,allthis
reversed: ,
, .
100.Allthismustbefreelyacknowledged,andisabundantlyexemplifiedinthe
followingCommentary.Thequestionforushoweverisonewhichliesdeeperthan
thesurface,andbeyondmerefirstappearances.Itpresentsitselftousinadouble
form:
1)Isthereanyaccountwhichmightbegivenofthisgreatdissimilarity,consistent
withidentityofAuthorship?
2)Arethereanyindicationsofthatidentitylyingbeneaththesurface,
notwithstandingthisgreatdissimilarity?
101.Inreplytothefirstquestion,severalthoughtsatoncesuggestthemselvesas
claimingmentionandcontributingtoitssolution.ThesubjectoftheApocalypseisso
differentfromthoseoftheGospelandEpistle,thatwemaywellexpectanot
inconsiderabledifferenceofstyle.Inthose,theWriteris,underdivineguidance,
calmlyarranginghismaterial,infullselfconsciousness,anddeliberatelyputtingforth
theproduct,inwords,ofhisownreflectiveness:inthis,ontheotherhand,heisthe
raptseer,bornealongfromvisiontovision,speakinginaregionandcharactertotally
different
further.

(234)

.Isthiscircumstanceanycontributiontoourreply?Letusconsider

102.St.JohnwasnotaGreek,butaGalilean.TospeakacertainkindofGreekwas
probablynaturaltohim,astoalmostalltheinhabitantsofPalestineofhistime.But
towritetheGreekofhisGospelandEpistle,canhardlybuthavebeentohimmatter
ofeffort.Ortoputitinanotherpointofview,thedictionandforminwhichtheywere
conveyedweretheresultofadeliberateexerciseofaspecialgiftoftheSpirit,
maturedbypractice,anddeemednecessaryforthepurposeofthosewritings,tobe
putforthinthem.
103.IntheApocalypse,thecasemaybeconceivedtohavebeendifferent.The
necessarilyrhapsodicalandmysteriouscharacterofthatbookmayhaveledtothe
ApostlebeingleftmoretohisvernacularandlesscorrectGreek.Circumstancestoo
mayhavecontributedtothis.Thevisionsmayhavebeensetdowninthesolitudeof
exile,farfromfriends,andperhapsfromtheappliancesofcivilizedlife.The

HebraisticstylemayhavecomemorenaturallyinawritingsofashionedonOld
Testamentmodels,andboundbysomanylinkstothepropheciesofHebrew
prophets.Thestyletooofadvancedagemayhavedroppedthecarefulelaborationof
theprecedingyears,andresumedtheroughercharacterofearlyyouth.
104.Idonotsaythattheseconsiderationsareenoughtoaccountforthegreat
diversitywhichispresented:nay,Ifairlyown,thattakenalone,theyarenot:and
thatthedifficultyhasneveryetbeenthoroughlysolved.StillIdonotconceivethat
weareatlibertytocuttheknotbydenyingtheApostolicAuthorship,whichprimitive
traditionhassofirmlyestablished.Farbetterisittoinvestigatepatiently,andnot,by
blindpartisanshiponeitherside,tostopthewayagainstunfetteredsearchfora
betteraccountofthephnomenathanhashithertobeengiven.
105.Ithasbeenshewnmorethanonce,andinourowncountrybyDr.Davidsonin
hisIntroduction,pp.561ff.,thattheroughnessesandsolcismsintheApocalypse
havebeen,forthepurposesofargument,verymuchexaggerated:thatthereare
hardlyanywhichmaynotbeparalleledinclassicalauthorsthemselves,andthat
theirmorefrequentoccurrencehereisnomorethanisduetothepeculiarnatureof
thesubjectandoccasion.Thisconsiderationshouldbeborneinmind,andthematter
investigatedbythestudentforhimself.
106.Oursecondquestionaskedabovewas,whetherthereareanymarksofidentity
ofAuthorshiplinkingtogethertheGospel,Epistle,andApocalypse,notwithstanding
thisgreatandevidentdissimilarity?
107.TheindividualcharacteroftheWriteroftheGospelandEpistlestandsforth
evidentandundoubted.Weseemtoknowhiminamoment.Eveninthereportof
sayingsofourLordcommontohimandtheotherEvangelists,thepeculiartingeof
expression,thechoiceandcollocationofwords,leavenodoubtwhosereportweare
reading.AndsostronglydoestheEpistleresembletheGospelintheseparticulars,
thatthecriticismaswellasthetraditionofallageshasconcurredinascribingthe
twotothesameperson?
108.IfnowwelookattheApocalypse,wecannotforamomentfeelthatitisless
individual,lessreflectingtheheartandcharacterofitsWriter.Itsstyle,itsmannerof
conceptionandarrangementofthought,itsdiction,arealikefulloflifeandpersonal
reality.Sothatourconditionsformakingthisenquiryarefavourable.Ourtwoobjects
ofcomparisonstandoutwelltheoneoveragainsttheother.Botharepeculiar,
characteristic,individual.Butaretheindicationspresentedbythemsuchthatweare
compelledtoinferdifferentauthorship,oraretheysuchasseemtopointtooneand
thesameperson
109.TheformerofthesequestionshasbeenaffirmedbyLckeandtheopponents
oftheApostolicauthorship:thelatterbyHengstenbergandthosewhoupholdit.Let
usseehowthematterstands.Andinsodoing(aswasthecaseinthesimilar
enquiryintheProlegomenatotheEpistletotheHebrews),Ishallnotenterfullyinto
thewholelistofverbalandconstructionalpeculiarities,but,referringthereaderfor
thesetoLckeandDavidson,shalladduce,anddwellupon,someofthemore
remarkableandsuggestiveofthem.
110.ThefirstoftheseisoneundeniablyconnectingtheApocalypsewiththeGospel
andtheEpistle,viz.theappellation giventoourLordinch.
Revelation19:13(seeJohn1:11John1:1).Thisname forourLordis
foundintheN.T.,onlyinthewritingsofSt.John.Iamawareoftheingenuitywith
whichLcke(p.679)hasendeavouredtoturnthisexpressiontothecontrary
account,maintainingthatitisaproofofdiversityofauthorship,inasmuchasthe
Evangelistneverwrites :butImayleaveittoanyfairjudging
readertodecide,whetheritbenotafargreaterargumentforidentitythatthe
remarkabledesignation isused,thanfordiversitythat,onthesolemn
occasiondescribedintheApocalypse,thehithertounheardadjunct is
added.
111.Anotherreplymaybegiventoourdeductionfromtheuseofthisname:viz.that
itindicatesnotnecessarilyJohntheApostle,butonlyonefamiliarwithhisteaching,
aswemaysupposethatotherJohntohavebeen.AllIcansaytothisis,thatwhich
Icannothelpfeelingtoapplytothewholehypothesisoftheauthorshipbythe
secondJohn,thatifitbeso,ifonebearingthesamenameastheApostle,having
thesameplaceamongtheAsiaticchurches,putforthabookinwhichhealsoused

theApostlespeculiarphrases,andyettooknopainstopreventtheconfusionwhich
mustnecessarilyarisebetweenhimselfandtheApostle,Idonotwellseehowthe
advocatesofhisauthorshipcanhelppronouncingthebookaforgery,oratallevents
theworkofonewho,inrelatingthevisions,wasnotunwillingtobetakenforhis
greaterandApostolicnamesake.
112.Anotherlink,bindingtheApocalypsetobothGospelandEpistle,istheuseof
,intheEpistlestothechurches,ch.Revelation2:7Revelation2:11
Revelation2:17Revelation2:26,Revelation3:5Revelation3:12Revelation
3:21(bis):andinch.Revelation12:11,Revelation15:2,Revelation17:14,Revelation
21:7.CompareJohn16:331John2:13141John4:41John5:4(bis),5.Itis
amusingtoobserveagainhowdexterouslyLcketurnstheedgeofthis. is
neverusedabsolutelyinGospelorinEpistle,asitisintheApocalypse:thereforeit
againisamarkofdiversity,notofidentity.Butsurelythisistheverythingwemight
expect.The , ,,&c.,thesearethe
details,andcomeundernoticewhilethestrifeisproceeding,orwhentheobjectisof
moreimportthanthebareact:butwhentheendisspokenof,andthefinaland
generalvictoryisallthatremainsinview,nothingcanbemorenaturalthanthathe
whoalonespokeof , ,,shouldalsobe
theonlyonetodesignatethevictorby .Besideswhich,wehavealsothe
otheruse,inRevelation12:11Revelation17:14.
113.Athirdremarkableword,,isonceusedbySt.Luke(Luke16:11),
oncebySt.Paul(1Thessalonians1:9),andthreetimesintheEpistletothe
Hebrews(Hebrews8:2Hebrews9:24Hebrews10:22):butninetimesintheGospel
(235)

(236)

(237)

ofSt.John
,fourtimesintheEpistle
,andtentimesintheApocalypse
.
Hereagain,itistrue,Lckeadducesthisontheotherside,allegingthatwhilethe
Evangelistusesthewordonlyinthesenseofgenuine ,
, ,theAuthoroftheApocalypseusesitof
Christasasynonymwith,,,andasapredicateofthe
,,ofGod.Thislatteristrueenoughbuttheformerassertionis
singularlyuntrue.ForinthreeoutofthenineplacesintheGospel,thesubjective
senseofmustbetaken:viz.iniv.37,viii.16,xix.35:andinthelastof
these, ,thewordisusedexactlyasin
Revelation22:6, .
114.Theword,whichdesignatesourLord29timesintheApocalypse,only
elsewhereoccursinJohn21:15,notwithreferencetoHim.Butitisremarkablethat
John1:29John1:36aretheonlyplaceswhereheiscalledbythenameofalamb,
thewordbeingused,inreferencedoubtlesstoIsaiah53:7(Acts8:32),asin
oneotherplacewhereHeiscomparedtoalamb,1Peter1:19.TheApocalyptic
writer,asLckeobserves,probablychoosesthediminutive,andattachestoitthe
epithet,forthepurposeofcontrasttothemajestyandpowerwhichhe
hasalsotopredicateofChrist:butisitnottobetakenintoaccount,thatthis
personalname,theLamb,whetheror,whetherwithorwithout
,iscommononlytothetwobooks?
115.Tothesemanyminorexamplesmightbeadded,andwillbefoundtreatedat
(238)

lengthinLcke,p.669ff.,Davidson,p.561ff.
Thelatterwriterhassucceeded
inmanycasesinshewingtheunfairnessofLckesstrongpartisanship,bywhichhe
makeseverysimilarityintoadissimilarity:butontheotherhandheonhissidehas
goneperhapstoofarinattemptingtoanswereveryobjectionofthiskind.Afterall,
whiletherecertainlyareweightyindicationsofidentityofauthorship,thereisalsoa
residuumofphnomenaofdiversityquiteenoughforthereasonablesupportofthe
contraryhypothesis.Ifthebookstoodaloneinthematterofevidence,IownIshould
bequiteatalosshowtosubstantiateidentityofauthorshipbetweenitandthe
GospelandEpistle.Butasitisourmainrelianceisontheconcurrenttestimonyof
primitivetradition,whichhardlycanbestrongerthanitis,andwhichtheperfectly
gratuitoushypothesisrespectingasecondJohnastheauthorentirelyfailstoshake.
1. ,John16:12
,Revelation2:2.
2. ,John4:6.

 ,Revelation2:3.
3. John20:12.
,Revelation3:4.
4.Theverbusedofmereposition,John2:6John19:29John20:56John
21:9Revelation4:2only.
5. ,John1:6John3:1(Revelation18:10)Revelation6:8Revelation
9:11.
6.CompareRevelation3:18with1John2:201John2:27,astotheandits
effects.
116.Ourquestionrespectingtheinternalevidencefurnishedbythebookitselfis
thusinapositionentirelydifferentfromthatwhichitoccupiedintheProlegomenato
theEpistletotheHebrews.There,wehadnoprimitivetraditionsogeneral,orof
suchauthorityastocommandourassent.Thequestionwasperfectlyopen.The
authorshipbySt.Paulwasanopinionatfirsttentativelyandpartiallyheld:thenas
timeworeon,acquiringconsistencyandacceptance.Judgingofthisbythebook
itself,isitforustoacceptortorejectit?Inlackofanyworthyexternalevidence,we
werethrownbackonthisasourmainmaterialforajudgment.
117.ButwithregardtotheApocalypse,externalandinternalevidencehavechanged
places.Theformerisnowthemainmaterialforourjudgment.Itisofthehighestand
mostsatisfactorykind.Itwasunanimousinveryearlytimes.Itcamefromthose
whoknewandhadheardSt.Johnhimself.Itonlybeginstobeimpugnedbythose
whohaddoctrinalobjectionstothebook.Thedoubtwastakenupbymore
reasonablemenoninternalandcriticalgrounds.Butnorealsubstantivecounter
claimantwaseverproduced:onlyonewhoseveryexistencedependedonthereport
oftwotombsbearingthenameofJohn,andonanotveryperspicuouspassageof
Papias.
118.Thisbeingso,ourinquiryhasnecessarilytakenthisshape:Isthebookitself
inconsistentwiththisapparentlyirrefragabletestimony?Andinreplyingtoitwehave
confessedthatthedifferencesbetweenitandtheGospelandEpistlearevery
remarkable,andofacharacterhithertounexplained,ornotfullyaccountedfor:but
thatthereareatthesametimestrikingnotesofsimilarityinexpressionandcastof
thought:andthatperhapswearenotinapositiontotakeintoaccounttheeffectofa
totallydifferentsubjectandtotallydifferentcircumstancesuponone,whothough
knowingandspeakingGreek,wasyetaHebrewbybirth.
119.Thus,allthingsconsidered,beingitistruefarfromsatisfiedwithanyaccount
atpresentgivenofthepeculiarstyleandphnomenaoftheApocalypse,butbeing
farlesssatisfiedwiththeprocedureoftheantagonistsoftheApostolicauthorship,
wearenotpreparedtowithholdourassentfromthefirmandunshakentestimonyof
primitivetradition,thattheauthorwastheApostleandEvangelistSt.John.
SECTIONII
PLACEANDTIMEOFWRITING
1.Theenquiryastotheformeroftheseisnarrowedwithinaverysmallspace.From
thenoticecontainedinthebookitself(ch.Revelation1:9)thewritingmusthave
takenplaceeitherinPatmos,orafterthereturnfromexile.Thepasttenses,
inch.Revelation1:2,andinRevelation1:9,donotdecide
forthelatteralternativetheymaybothbeusedasfromthepointoftimewhenthe
bookshouldberead,asiscommoninallnarratives.Ontheotherhand,itwouldbe
moreprobableabextra,thatthewritingshouldtakeplaceafterthereturn,especially
ifwearetocredittheaccountgivenbyVictorinus,thatSt.Johnwascondemnedto
theminesinPatmos.Wehavenomeansofdeterminingthequestion,andmust
leaveitindoubt.Ifthestyleandpeculiaritiesaretobeinanydegreeattributedto
outwardcircumstances,thenitwouldseemtohavebeenwritteninsolitude,andsent
fromPatmostotheAsiaticchurches.
2.TheonlytraditionalnoticeworthrecountingisthatgivenbyVictorinus:on
Revelation10:11,Migne,Patr.Lat.vol.v.p.333:whereherelatesthatJohnsawthe

ApocalypseinPatmos,andthenafterhisreleaseonthedeathofDomitian,postea
tradidithanceandemquamacceperataDeoApocalypsin.Arethasindeedsayson
Revelation7, :
butthisistoolatetobeofanyaccountinthematter.
(239)

3.Ithasbeenremarked
,thatthecircumstanceofJohnhavingpreparedtowrite
downthevoicesoftheseventhunders,Revelation10:4,appearstosanctionthe
viewthatthewritingtookplaceatthesametimewiththeseeingofthevisions.
4.AsregardsPatmositself,itisoneofthegroupcalledtheSporades,totheS.of
Samos(Pliny,iv.23.Strabo,x.p.488.Thucyd.iii.23).ItisaboutthirtyRoman
milesincircumference.Acaveisstillshewnintheisland(nowPatmo)whereSt.
JohnissaidtohaveseentheApocalypse.SeeWinersRealwrterbuch,andthe
DictionaryofGreekandRomanGeography.
5.Withregardhowevertothetimeofwriting,therehasbeennosmallcontroversy.
Andatthisweneednotbesurprised,seeingthatprinciplesofinterpretationare
involved.
Wewillfirstdealwithancienttraditionasfarasitgivesusanyindicationastothe
date.
6.Irenus,v.30.3,p.330,inapassagealreadycited(i.par.7),tellsusthatthe
Apocalypse(forsuchistheonlylegitimateunderstandingoftheconstruction)
,
.
7.ClementofAlexandria(Quisdivessalvus,42,p.949P.,citedalsobyEusebius,
H.E.iii.23),says
,...Thispassage,itistrue,containsno
mentionwhothetyrantwas,noranyallusiontothewritingoftheApocalypse:butit
isinterestingforourpresentenquiryasshewing,initscitationbyEusebius,howhe
understoodthedatefurnishedbyit.ForheintroducesitbysayingthatSt.John
,
,andcitesClementasoneofthe
witnessesofthefact.
8.OrigenmerelycallsSt.Johnspersecutor ,without
specifyingwhich.Andheseemstodothiswittingly:forhenoticesthatJohnhimself
doesnotmentionwhocondemnedhim.Seethepassagequotedabove,i.par.12.
9.Eusebius,H.E.iii.18,havingcitedthepassageofIrenusnoticedabove,says

,
, ,
,
.Andthissamestatementherepeatsinhis
Chronicon,A.D.95,vol.i.p.551f.,Migne.InH.E.iii.20hegivestheaccountof
thereturnofSt.JohnfromPatmosinthebeginningofNervasreign,citedabove,i.
par.92.
10.TertulliandoesnotappearquitetobearoutEusebiussunderstandingofhim,H.
E.iii.20:forheonlysays,Apol.c.5,vol.i.p.293f.,aftermentioningthe
persecutionofNero,TentaveratetDomitianus,portioNeronisdecrudelitate:sed
quaethomo,facilecptumrepressit,restitutisetiamquosrelegaverat.Herehe
certainlymakesDomitianhimselfrecalltheexiles.
11.Victorinus,inthepassageabovereferredto(quandohocviditJohannes,eratin
insulaPatmos,inmetallumdamnatusaDomitianoCsare),andafterwards
(Johannes,demetallodimissus,sicposteatradidithanceandemquamacceperata
Deoapocalypsin),plainlygivesthedate:asalsoinanotherplace,p.338:Intelligi
oportettempusquoscriptaapocalypsiseditaest,quoniamtunceratCsar
Domitianus.unusexstatsubquoscriptaestapocalypsis,Domitianusscilicet.
12.Jerome(deVir.illustr.9,vol.ii.p.845)says,quartodecimoannosecundam
postNeronempersecutionemmoventeDomitianoinPatmosinsulamrelegatus

scripsitapocalypsin.interfectoautemDomitianoetactisejusobnimiam
crudelitatemaSenaturescississubNervaprincipereditEphesum.Soalsohis
testimonyabove,i.par.25.
13.SoalsoSulpiciusSeverusandOrosius,andlaterwritersgenerally.Thefirstwho
breaksinuponthisconcurrenttraditionisEpiphanius,Hr.li.,intwoverycurious
passages:thefirstwherehesaysc.12,vol.i.p.433f.,

,
, ,
:theother,c.33,p.456,
,
.
14.Nowitisplainthattheremustbesomestrangeblunderhere,whichLcke,who
makesmuchofEpiphaniusstestimonyasshewingthatthetradition,whichhecalls
theIrenan,wasnotreceivedbyEpiphanius,entirely,andconveniently,omitsto
notice.ThepassageevidentlysetsthereturnfromexileintheextremeoldageofSt.
John.Tosaythataconsiderableintervalmaybesupposedtoelapsebetweenthe
andhisninetiethyear,wouldbemeretriflingwiththecontext.Nowifthis
isso,seeingthatClaudiusreignedfrom41to54A.D.,puttingthereturnfromexileat
thelastofthesedates,weshouldhaveSt.Johnagedninetyintheyear54:inother
words,thirtythreeyearsolderthanourLord,andsixtythreeatleastwhencalledto
beanApostle:aresultwhichisatvariancewithallancienttraditionwhatever.Either
Epiphaniushasfallenintosomegreatmistake,whichisnotveryprobable,orhe
meansbyClaudiussomeotherEmperor:ifNero,thenhewouldstillbewrongasto
St.Johnsageatorneartohisreturn.
15.ThetestimonyofMuratorisfragmentontheCanonhasbeencited(byStuart,p.
218)astestifyingtoanearlydate.Butallitsaysisthis:IpsebeatusApostolus
PaulussequensprdecessorissuiJohannisordinem,nominenominatimseptem
ecclesiisscribatordinetali.Andthewordprdecessoris,ashasbeenpointedout
byCredner,merelyseemstomeanthatSt.JohnwasanApostlebeforeSt.Paul,not
thathewrotehissevenepistlesbeforeSt.Paulwrotehis.
16.TheprefacetotheSyriacversionoftheApocalypsepublishedbyDeDieu,
supposedtohavebeenmadeinthe6thcentury,saysthatthevisionswereseenby
St.JohnintheislandofPatmos,inquamaNeroneCsarerelegatusfuerat.
17.Theophylact,inhisprefacetotheGospelofSt.John,vol.i.p.504,saysthatit
waswrittenintheislandofPatmos,thirtytwoyearsaftertheAscension:andinso
saying,placestheexileunderNero.Butheclearlyiswrong,asLckeremarks,of
hismeaningnotclearlyunderstood,whenheattributesthewritingoftheGospelto
thistime:andmoreoverheisinconsistentwithhimself:forincommentingon
Matthew20:23,vol.i.p.107,heremarksthatasHerodputtodeaththeApostle
Jamesthegreater,soTrajancondemnedJohnasamartyrtothewordoftruth.
18.Jerome,adv.Jovin.i.26,vol.ii.p.280,determinesnothing,onlyciting
Tertullian,RefertautemTertullianusquodaNerone(foraNerone,Mignereads
Rom)missusinferventisoleidoliumpurioretvegetiorexiveritquamintraverit.
ButTertullianonlysays,ifatleastDeprscript.Hret.c.36,vol.ii.p.49,bethe
placereferredto,Felixecclesia(Romana).ubiPetruspassionidominic
adquatur,ubiPaulusJohannis(scil.baptist)exitucoronatur,ubiApostolus
Joannesposteaquaminoleumigneumdemersusnihilpassusest,ininsulam
relegatur.Itsurelyisstretchingapointheretosaythatheimpliesallthreeeventsto
havetakenplaceunderNero.
19.TheauthoroftheSynopsisdevitaetmorteprophetarum,apostolorumet
discipulorumDomini(ostensiblyDorotheus,bishopofTyre,socitedinTheophylact,
vol.i.p.500:butprobablyitbelongstothe6thcentury),makesJohntobeexiledto
PatmosbyTrajan.AndreasandArethasgivenodecidedtestimonyonthepoint.
Arethas,incommentingonRevelation6:12,says,thatsomeappliedthisprophecy
tothedestructionofJerusalemunderVespasian:butthisisdistinctlyrepudiatedby
Andreas:allowinghowever(onRevelation7:2)thatsuchthingsdidhappentothe
JewishChristianswhoescapedtheevilsinflictedonJerusalembytheRomans,yet
theymoreprobablyrefertothetimesofAntichrist.Arethasagain,onRevelation1:9,
citeswithoutanyprotestEusebius,asassertingSt.JohnsexileinPatmostohave

takenplaceunderDomitian.
20.Muchmoreevidenceonthissubjectfromotherlaterwriterswhosetestimonies
areoflessconsequence,andmoreminutediscussionoftheearliertestimonies,
willbefoundinElliott,HorApocalyptic,i.pp.3146,andAppendix,No.i.pp.
503517.Inthelastmentioned,hehasgonewellandcarefullythroughthe
argumentsonexternalevidenceadducedbyLckeandStuartforthewritingunder
GalbaandNerorespectively,and,asitseemstome,disposedofthemall.
21.Ourresult,asfarasthispartofthequestionisconsidered,maybethusstated.
WehaveaconstantandunswervingprimitivetraditionthatSt.Johnsexiletook
place,andtheApocalypsewaswritten,towardstheendofDomitiansreign.With
thistradition,ashasbeenoftenobserved,thecircumstancesseemtoagreevery
well.Wehavenoevidencethatthefirst,orNeronic,persecution,extendedbeyond
Rome,orfoundventincondemnationstoexile.Whereasinregardtothesecondwe
knowthatboththesewerethecase.IndeedtheliberationatDomitiansdeathof
thosewhomhehadexiledissubstantiatedbyDioCassius,who,inrelatingthe
beginningofNervasreign,lib.lxviii.1,says
.
, .
, .
22.AssumingthenthefactofSt.JohnsexileatPatmosduringapersecutionforthe
Gospelssake,itisfarmorelikelythatitshouldhavebeenunderDomitianthan
underNeroorunderGalba.Butonemainrelianceoftheadvocatesoftheearlierdate
isinternalevidencesupposedtobefurnishedbythebookitself.Andthis,first,from
theroughandHebraisticstyle.Ihavealreadydiscussedthispoint,andhavefully
admitteditsdifficulty,howeverweviewit.Ineedonlyaddnow,thatIdonot
conceiveweatalldiminishthatdifficultybysupposingittobewrittenbeforethe
GospelandEpistle.TheGreekoftheGospelandEpistleisnottheGreekofthe
Apocalypseinamaturerstate:butifthetwobelongtooneandthesamewriter,we
mustseekforthecauseoftheirdiversitynotinchronologicalbutratherin
psychologicalconsiderations.
23.Again,itissaidthatthebookfurnishesindicationsofhavingbeenwrittenbefore
thedestructionofJerusalem,bythefactofitsmentioningthecityandthetemple,
ch.Revelation11:1ff.,andthetwelvetribesasyetexisting,ch.Revelation7:48.
ThisargumenthasbeenverymuchinsistedonbyseveralofthemodernGerman
critics.Butwemaydemurtoitatonce,ascontaininganassumptionwhichweare
notpreparedtogrant:viz.thatthepropheticpassageistobethusinterpreted,orhas
anythingtodowiththeliteralJerusalem.Letthecanonofinterpretationbefirst
substantiated,bywhichwearetobeboundinourunderstandingofthispassage,
andthenwecanrecognizeitsbearingonthechronologicalquestion.CertainlyLcke
hasnotdonethis,pp.825ff.,but,asusualwithhim,hasfallentoabusing
Hengstenberg,forwhichheundoubtedlyhasastrongcase,whileforhisown
interpretationheseemstometomakeoutaveryweakone.
24.Anothersuchassumptionisfoundintheconfidentassertionbythesamecritics,
thatthepassagesinch.Revelation13:1ff.,Revelation17:10pointoutthethen
reigningCsar,andthatbytheconditionsofthosepassages,suchreigningCsar
mustbethatonewhosuitstheirchronologicaltheory.Itisnottheplacehereto
discussprinciplesofinterpretation:butwemayfairlydemuragaintothethus
assumingaprincipleirrespectiveoftherequirementsofthebook,andthenjudging
thebookitselfbyit.ThisismanifestlydonebyLcke,pp.835ff.Besideswhich,the
differencesamongthemselvesofthosewhoadoptthisviewaresuchastodepriveit
ofallfixityasanhistoricalindication.ArewetoreckonourCsarsforwards(andif
so,arewetobeginwithJulius,orwithAugustus?),orbackwards,uponsome
independentassumptionofthetimeofwriting,whichtheotherphnomenamustbe
madetofit?Ifthereaderwillconsultthenotesonch.Revelation17:10,Itrusthewill
seethatanysuchviewofthepassagesisuntenable.
25.Uponinterpretationslikethese,insulated,andderivedfrommerefirst
impressionsofthewordingofsinglepassages,isthewholefabricbuilt,whichisto
supersedetheprimitivetraditionastothedateoftheApocalypse.Onthisaccount,
Irenusmustbesupposedtohavemadeamistakeinthedatewhichheassigns,
whohadsuchgoodandsufficientmeansofknowing:onthisaccount,allthose
additionaltestimonies,whichinanyothercasewouldhavebeenadducedas
independentandimportant,aretobeassumedtohavebeenmererepetitionsofthat

ofIrenus.
26.Butitismostunfortunateforthesecriticsthat,whenoncesosureagroundis
establishedforthemasadirectindicationinthebookitselfoftheemperorunder
whomitwaswritten,theycannotagreeamongthemselveswhothisemperorwas.
Someamongthem(e.g.Stuart,al.)takingthenatural(andonewouldthinktheonly
possible)viewofsuchanhistoricalindication,beginaccordingtogeneralcustom
withJulius,andbringthewritingunderNero.EwaldandLcke,onaccountofthe
ofch.Revelation17:8,whichtheywishtoapplytoNero,
deserttheusualreckoningofRomanemperors,andbeginwithAugustus,thus
bringingthewritingunderGalba.Again,EichhornandBleek,wishingtobringthe
writingunderVespasian,omitGalba,Otho,andVitellius,relyingonanexpressionof
Suetoniusthattheirreignswereamererebelliotriumprincipum.Thusbychanging
theusualstartingpoint,andleavingoutoftheusuallistoftheCsarsanynumber
foundconvenient,anyviewwepleasemaybesubstantiatedbythiskindof
interpretation.Thosewhoseviewoftheprophecyextendswider,andwhoattacha
largermeaningtothesymbolsofthebeastandhisimageandhisheads,willnotbe
inducedbysuchveryuncertainspeculationstosetasideaprimitiveandasit
appearstothemthoroughlytrustworthytradition.
27.ItmaybeobservedthatLckeattemptstogiveanaccountoftheoriginofwhat
hecallstheIrenantradition,freelyconfessingthathisproof(?)ofthedateisnot
completewithoutsuchanaccount.Thecharacteroftheaccounthegivesiswell
worthobserving.When,hesays,menfoundthattheapocalypticprophecieshad
failedoftheiraccomplishment,theybegantogiveawidersensetothem,andtoput
thematalaterdate.Andhavinggiventhisaccount,heattemptstovindicateitfrom
thechargeofoverthrowingtheauthorityofScriptureprophecy,andsaysthatthough
itmaynotbeasconvenientasthewaywhichmodernorthodoxyhasstruckout,yet
itleadsmoresafelytothedesiredend,andtothepermanentenjoymentoftruefaith.
28.Witheverydispositiontosearchandproveallthings,andgroundfaithupon
thingsthusproved,IownIamquiteunabletocometoLckesconclusions,orto
thoseofanyofthemaintainersoftheNeronicoranyoftheearlierdates.Thebook
itself,itseemstome,refusestheassignmentofsuchtimesofwriting.Theevident
assumptionwhichitmakesoflongstandingandgeneralpersecution(ch.Revelation
6:9)forbidsustoplaceitintheveryfirstpersecutionandthatonlyapartialone:the
undoubtedtransferenceofJewishtempleemblemstoaChristiansense(ch.
Revelation1:20)ofitselfmakesussuspectthoseinterpreterswhomaintainthe
literalsensewhenthetempleandcityarementioned:theanalogyoftheprophecies
ofDanielforbidsustolimittoindividualkingstheinterpretationofthesymbolic
headsofthebeast:thewholecharacterandtoneofthewritingprecludesour
imaginingthatitsoriginalreferencewaseverintendedtobetomerelocalmattersof
secondaryimport.
29.Thestateofthosetowhomitwasaddressedfurnishesanotherpowerful
subsidiaryargumentinfavourofthelaterdate.Thiswillbeexpandedinthenext
section.
30.Thesethingsthenbeingconsidered,thedecisivetestimonyofprimitive
tradition,andfailureofallattemptstosetitaside,theinternalevidencefurnished
bythebookitself,andequalfailureofallattemptsbyanunwarrantableinterpretation
toraiseupcounterevidence,Ihavenohesitationinbelievingwiththeancient
fathersandmostcompetentwitnesses,thattheApocalypsewaswritten
,i.e.abouttheyear95or96A.D.
SECTIONIII
TOWHOMADDRESSED
1.Thesuperscriptionofthebookplainlystatesforwhatreadersitwasprimarily
intended.Atthesametimeindicationsabound,thatthewholeChristianchurchwas
inview.Intheveryepistlestothesevenchurchesthemselves,allthepromisesand
sayingsoftheLord,thougharisingoutoflocalcircumstances,areofperfectly
generalapplication.Andinthecourseoftheprophecy,thewiderangeofobjects
embraced,theuniversalityofthecautionsandencouragements,thevastperiodsof
timecomprised,leaveusnoinferencebutthis,thatthebookwasintendedforthe
comfortandprofitofeveryageoftheChristianchurch.Intreatingthereforethe

questionattheheadofthissectioninitsnarrowerandliteralsense,Iamnot
excludingthebroaderandgeneralview.Itliesbehindtheother,asintherestofthe
apostolicwritings.Thesethings,astheolderScriptures,arewrittenforour
ensamples,uponwhomtheendsoftheworldarecome:or,inthelanguageofthe
MuratorifragmentontheCanon,etJohanneseniminApocalypsilicetseptem
ecclesiisscribat,tamenomnibusdicit.
2.ThebookthenwasdirectlyaddressedtothesevenchurchesofproconsularAsia.
Afewremarksmustbemadeonthegeneralsubjectofthenamesandstateofthese
churches,beforeenteringonadescriptionofthemseverally.
3.First,astotheselectionofthenames.Thenumberseven,sooftenusedbythe
Seertoexpressuniversality,hashereprevailedinoccasioningthatnumberof
namestobeselectedoutofthechurchesinthedistrict.Forthesewerenotallthe
churchescomprisedinAsiaproper.WhethertherewereChristianbodiesinColoss
andHierapoliswecannotsay.Thosecitieshadbeen,sincethewritingofSt.Pauls
Epistle,destroyedbyanearthquake,andinwhatstateofrestorationtheywereat
thisdate,isuncertain.ButfromtheEpistlesofIgnatiuswemayfairlyassumethat
therewerechurchesinMagnesiaandTralles.Thenumberseventhenis
representative,notexhaustive.Thesesevenaretakeninthefollowingorder:
Ephesus,Smyrna,Pergamum,Thyatira,Sardis,Philadelphia,Laodicea.Thatis,
beginningwithEphesusthefirstcityintheprovince,itfollowsalinefromSouthto
NorthuptoPergamum,thentakestheneighbouringcityofThyatira,andfollows
anotherlinefromNorthtoSouth.
4.Asregardsthegeneralstateofthesechurches,wemaymakethefollowing
remarks:
WehavefromSt.Paul,settingasidetheEpistletotheEphesians,notfromany
doubtastoitsoriginaldestination,butascontainingnolocalnotices,andthatto
Philemon,asbeingofaprivatecharacter,threeEpistlescontainingnoticesofthe
Christianchurcheswithinthisdistrict.Thefirstinpointoftimeisthattothe
Colossians(A.D.6163):thenfollowthetwotoTimotheus,datingfrom67to68.Itis
importanttoobserve,thatalltheseEpistles,eventhelatestofthem,thesecondto
Timotheus,haveregardtoastateofthechurchesevidentlyprecedingbymany
yearsthatsetbeforeusinthisbook.Thegermsofheresyanderrorthereapparent
(seeVol.III.prolegg.ch.vii.i.par.12ff.)hadexpandedintodefinitesects(ch.
Revelation2:6Revelation2:15):thefirstardourwithwhichsomeofthemhad
receivedandpractisedtheGospel,hadcooled(ch.Revelation2:45,Revelation3:2):
othershadincreasedinzealforGod,andweresurpassingtheirformerworks(ch.
Revelation2:19).Again,thedaysofthemartyrdomofAntipas,aneminentservantof
Christ,arereferredbacktosometimepast(ch.Revelation2:13).
5.ItisalsoimportanttonoticethatLaodiceaisdescribed(ch.Revelation3:17)as
boastinginherwealthandselfsufficiency.NowweknowfromTacitus(seebelow,
par.13),thatinthesixthyearofNero,orinthetenth,accordingtoEusebius(and
apparentlywithmoreaccuracy),Laodiceawasdestroyedbyanearthquake,and
recoveredherselfpropriisopibus,withoutanyassistancefromtheHeadofthestate.
Howmanyyearsitmighttakebeforethecitycouldagainputonsuchaspiritofself
sufficingprideasthatshewninch.Revelation3:17,itisnotpossibletofixexactly:
butitisobviousthatwemustallowmoretimeforthisthanwouldbeconsistentwith
theNeronicdateoftheApocalypse.Thisisconfirmedwhenweobservethespiritual
charactergivenoftheLaodiceanchurch,thatoflukewarmness,andreflect,that
suchacharacterdoesnotordinarilyaccompany,norfollowcloseupon,great
judgmentsandafflictions,butistheresultofaperiodofcalmandprosperity,and
graduallyencroachingcompromisewithungodliness.
6.Imayfurthermention,thatthefactoftherelationhereshewntoexistbetween
JohnandthechurchesofproconsularAsia,pointstoaperiodwhollydistinctfrom
thatinwhichPaul,orhisdiscipleTimotheus,exercisedauthorityinthoseparts.And
thisalonewouldleadustomeetwithadecidednegativethehypothesisofthe
ApocalypsebeingwrittenunderNero,Galba,orevenVespasian.Atthesametime,
seenoteonch.Revelation2:20,thementionof there
identifiesthetemptationsanddifficultieswhichbesetthechurcheswhenthe
Apocalypsewaswritten,withthosewhichweknowtohavebeenprevalentinthe
apostolicage,andthusgivesastrongconfirmationoftheauthenticityofthebook.
Inowproceedtoconsiderthesechurchesonebyone.

7.EPHESUS,thecapitalofproconsularAsia,hasalreadybeendescribedanda
sketchofitshistorygiven,intheProlegg.totheEpistletotheEphesians,Vol.III.
prolegg.ch.2.ii.parr.16.Moredetailedaccountsaretherereferredto.Thenotes
totheEpistlewillineachcaseputthestudentinpossessionofthegeneralcharacter
andparticularexcellenciesorfailingsofeachchurch,sothatIneednotrepeatthem
here.InreferencetothethreatutteredbyourLordinch.Revelation2:5,wemay
remark,thatafewmiserablehuts,andruinsofgreatextentandmassiveness,areall
thatnowremainsoftheformersplendidcapitalofAsia.Thecandlestickhasindeed
beenremovedfromitsplace,andthechurchhasbecomeextinct.Wemaynotice,
thatEphesusnaturallyleadstheseven,bothasthemetropolisoftheprovince,and
ascontainingthatchurchwithwhichtheWriterhimselfwasindividuallyconnected.
8.SMYRNA,afamouscommercialcityofIonia,attheheadofthebaynamedafter
it,andatthemouthofthesmallriverMeles:fromwhichHomer,whosebirthplace
Smyrna,amongothercities,claimedtobe,issometimescalledMelesigenes.Itis
320stadia(40miles)northofEphesus.Itwasaveryancientcity(Herod.i.149):but
layinruins,afteritsdestructionbytheLydians(B.C.627:cf.Herod.i.16),for400
years(tillAlexandertheGreat,accordingtoPlinyv.31Pausan.vii.5.1till
Antigonus,accordingtoStrabo,l.xiv.p.646ofthefirstCsars,oneofthefairest
andmostpopulouscitiesinAsia(Strabo,ibid.).ModernSmyrnaisalargecityof
morethan120,000inhabitants,thecentreofthetradeoftheLevant.Thechurchin
SmyrnawasdistinguishedforitsillustriousfirstbishopthemartyrPolycarp,whois
saidtohavebeenputtodeathinthestadiumthereinA.D.166(cf.Iren.Hr.iii.3.
4,p.176).
9.PERGAMUM(sometimesPergamus),anancientcityofMysia,ontheriver
Cacus,an (Strabo,l.xiii.p.623).Atfirstitappearstohavebeen
amerehillfortressofgreatnaturalstrengthbutitbecameanimportantcityowingto
thecircumstanceofLysimachus,oneofAlexandersgenerals,havingchosenitfor
thereceptionofhistreasures,andentrustedthemtohiseunuchPhiletrus,who
rebelledagainsthim(B.C.283),andfoundedakingdom,whichlasted150years,
whenitwasbequeathedbyitslastsovereignAttalusIII.(B.C.133)totheRoman
people.Pergamumpossessedamagnificentlibrary,foundedbyitssovereign
Eumenes(B.C.197159),whichsubsequentlywasgivenbyAntonytoCleopatra
(Plut.Anton.c.58),andperishedwiththatatAlexandriaunderCaliphOmar.It
becametheofficialcapitaloftheRomanprovinceofAsia(Pliny,v.33).Therewas
thereacelebratedtempleofsculapius,onwhichseenote,ch.Revelation2:13.
Thereisstillaconsiderablecity,containing,itissaid(Stuart,p.450),about3000
nominalChristians.ItisnowcalledBergamah.
10.THYATIRA,oncecalledPelopiaandEuippia(Plin.v.31),atowninLydia,about
adaysjourneysouthofPergamum.ItwasperhapsoriginallyaMacedoniancolony
(Strabo,xiii.p.625).Itschieftradewasdyeingofpurple,cf.Acts16:14andnote.It
issaidtobeatpresentaconsiderabletownwithmanyruins,calledAkHisar,andto
containsome3000Christians.
11.SARDIS,theancientcapitalofthekingdomofLydia,layinaplainbetweenthe
mountainsTmolusandHermus,onthesmallriverPactolus:33milesfromThyatira
and28fromPhiladelphiabytheAntonineItinerary.Itsclassicalhistoryiswell
known.InthereignofTiberiusitwasdestroyedbyanearthquake,butrestoredby
orderofthatemperor,Tacit.Ann.ii.47Straboxiii.p.627.Itwasthecapitalofa
conventusinthetimeofPliny(Acts16:30)andcontinuedawealthycitytotheend
oftheByzantineempire.MorethanoneChristiancouncilwasheldhere.Inthe
eleventhcenturySardisfellintothehandsoftheTurks,andinthethirteenthitwas
destroyedbyTamerlane.Onlyavillage(Sart)nowremains,builtamongtheruinsof
theancientcity.
12.PHILADELPHIA,inLydia,ontheN.W.sideofMountTmolus,28milesS.E.from
Sardis.ItwasbuiltbyAttalusPhiladelphus,KingofPergamum.Earthquakeswere
exceedinglyprevalentinthedistrict,anditwasmorethanoncenearlydemolishedby
them:cf.Tacit.Ann.ii.47Straboxiii.628.ItdefendeditselfagainsttheTurksfor
sometime,butwaseventuallytakenbyBajazetin1390.Itisnowaconsiderable
townnamedAllahshar,containingruinsofitsancientwall,andofabouttwentyfour
churches.
13.LAODICEA,LaodiceaadLycum,wasacelebratedcityintheS.W.ofPhrygia,
neartheriverLycus.ItwasoriginallycalledDiospolis,andafterwardRhoas(Plin.
Acts16:29):andthenameLaodiceawasowingtoitsbeingrebuiltbyAntiochus

TheosinhonourofhiswifeLaodice.ItwasnotfarfromColoss,andonlysixmiles
W.ofHierapolis.ItsufferedmuchintheMithridaticwar(Appian,Bell.Mithr.20
Straboxii.578):butrecovereditself,andbecameawealthyandimportantplace,at
theendoftherepublicandunderthefirstemperors.Itwascompletelydestroyedby
thegreatearthquakeinthereignofNero:butwasrebuiltbythewealthofitsown
citizens,withouthelpfromthestate,Tacit.Ann.xiv.27.Itsstateofprosperityand
carelessnessinspiritualthingsdescribedintheEpistleiswellillustratedbythese
facts.St.PaulwroteanEpistletotheLaodiceans,nowlost.SeeColossians4:16,
andProlegg.toVol.III.ch.11.iii.2.Itproducedliterarymenofeminence,andhad
agreatmedicalschool.ItwasthecapitalofaconventusduringtheRomanempire.It
wasutterlyravagedbytheTurks,andnothing,saysHamilton,canexceedthe
desolationandmelancholyappearanceofthesiteofLaodicea.Avillageexists
amongsttheruins,namedEskihissar.
14.SeeforfurthernoticesontheSevenChurches,Winer,RWB.,andDr.Smiths
DictionaryofGeography:fromwhichtwosourcestheaboveaccountsaremainly
compiled.Inthoseworkswillbefounddetailedreferencestotheworksofvarious
travellerswhohavevisitedthem.
SECTIONIV
OBJECTANDCONTENTS
1.TheApocalypsedeclaresitsownobject(ch.Revelation1:1)tobemainly
prophetictheexhibitiontoGodsservantsofthingswhichmustshortlycometo
pass.Andtothisbyfarthelargerportionofthebookisdevoted.Fromch.
Revelation4:1toRevelation22:5,isaseriesofvisionspropheticofthingstocome,
orintroducingintheircompletenessallegorieswhichinvolvethingstocome.
Intermixedhoweverwiththispropheticdevelopment,wehaveacourseofhortatory
andencouragingsayings,arisingoutofthestateofthechurchestowhichthebook
iswritten,andaddressedthroughthemtothechurchuniversal.
2.ThesesayingsaremostlyrelatedinstyleandsensetotheEpistleswithwhichthe
bookbegan,soastopreserveinaremarkablemannertheunityofthewhole,andto
shewthatitisnot,asGrotiusandsomeothershavesupposed,acongeriesof
differentfragments,butoneunitedwork,writtenatoneandthesametime.The
practicaltendencyoftheEpistlestotheChurchesisneverlostsightofthroughout.
Sothatwemayfairlysaythatitsobjectisnotonlytoprophesyofthefuture,but
alsobysuchprophecytorebuke,exhort,andconsoletheChurch.
3.Suchbeingthegeneralobject,ourenquiryisnownarrowedtothatoftheprophetic
portionitself:andwehavetoenquire,whatwastheaimoftheWriter,orratherof
HimwhoinspiredtheWriter,indeliveringthisprophecy.
4.Andinthefirstplace,wearemetbyanenquirywhichitmaybestrangeenough
thatwehavetomakeinthisday,butwhichneverthelessmustbemade.Isthe
book,itisasked,strictlyspeaking,arevelationatall?Isitssocalledprophecyany
thingmorethantheardentandimaginativepoesyofaraptspirit,builtuponthethen
presenttrialsandhopesofhimselfandhiscontemporaries?Isnotitsfuturebounded
bytheageandcircumstancesthenexisting?Andarenotallthosemistaken,who
haveattemptedtodeducefromitindicationsrespectingourownoranysubsequent
ageoftheChurch?
5.Twosystemsofunderstandingandinterpretingthebookhavebeenraisedonthe
basisofaviewrepresentedbytheforegoingquestions.Theformerofthem,thatof
Grotius,Ewald,Eichhorn,andothers,proceedsconsistentlyenoughindenyingall
prophecy,andexplainingfiguratively,withregardtothenpresentexpectations,right
orwrong,allthethingscontainedinthebook.Thelatter,thatofLcke,DeWette,
Bleek,Dsterdieck,andothers,whileitprofessestorecognizeacertainkindof
inspirationintheWriter,yetbelieveshisviewtohavebeenentirelyboundedbyhis
ownsubjectivityandcircumstances,denyingthatthebookcontainsanything
speciallyrevealedtoJohnandbyhimdeclaredtousandregardingitswhole
contentsasonlyinstructive,insofarastheyrepresenttoustheaspirationsofa
fervidandinspiredman,fulloftheSpiritofGod,andhisinsightintoformsofconflict
andevilwhichareeverrecurringinthehistoryoftheworldandtheChurch.
6.Iownitseemstomethatwecannotinconsistencyorinhonestyacceptthis
compromise.Forletusaskourselves,howdoesitagreewiththephnomena?It

convenientlysavesthecreditoftheWriter,andrescuesthebookfrombeingan
imposture,byconcedingthathesawallwhichhesayshesaw:butatthesametime
maintains,thatallwhichhesawwaspurelysubjective,havingnoexternalobjective
existence:andthatthosethingswhichseemtobepropheciesofthedistantfuture,
areinfactnosuchprophecies,buthaveandexhausttheirsignificancewithinthe
horizonofthewritersownexperienceandhopes.
7.Butthen,ifthisbeso,Idonotsee,afterall,howthecreditoftheWriterisso
entirelysaved.Hedistinctlylaysclaimtobespeakingoflongperiodsoftime.To
saynothingofthetimeinvolvedintheothervisions,hespeaksofathousandyears,
andofthingswhichmusthappenattheendofthatperiod.Sothatwemustsay,on
thetheoryinquestion,thatallhisdeclarationsofthiskindarepuremistakes:and,in
exegesis,ourviewmustbeentirelylimitedtotheenquiry,notwhatisforusandfor
allthemeaningofthisorthatprophecy,butwhatwastheWritersmeaningwhenhe
setitdown.Whethersubsequenteventsjustifiedhisguess,orfalsifiedit,isforusa
purematterofarchologicalandpsychologicalinterest,andnomore.
8.Ifthisbeso,Isubmitthatthebookatoncebecomesthatwhichisknownas
apocryphal,asdistinguishedfromcanonical:itisofnomorevaluetousthanthe
ShepherdofHermas,ortheAscensionofIsaiah:andismerematterforcriticismand
independentjudgment.
9.Itwillbenosurprisetothereadersofthisworktobetold,thatwearenotprepared
thustodealwithabookwhichweacceptascanonical,andhaveallreasonto
believetohavebeenwrittenbyanApostle.Whilewearenobelieversinwhathas
been(wecannothelpthinkingfoolishly)calledverbalinspiration,wearenotprepared
tosetasidethewholesubstanceofthetestimonyofthewriterofabookwhichwe
acceptascanonical,nortodenythatvisions,whichhepurportstohavereceived
fromGodtoshewtotheChurchthingswhichmustshortlycometopass,wereso
receivedbyhim,andforsuchapurpose.
10.Maintainingthisground,andtakingintoaccountthetoneofthebookitself,and
theperiodsembracedinitsprophecies,wecannotconsenttobelievethevisionof
theWritertohavebeenboundedbythehorizonofhisownexperienceandpersonal
hopes.Wereceivethebookasbeingwhatitprofessestobe,arevelationfromGod
(240)

designedtoshewtohisservantsthingswhichmustshortlycometopass
.And
sofarfromthisword offendingus,wefindinit,ascomparedwiththe
contentsofthebook,ameasurebywhich,notourjudgmentofthosecontents,but
ourestimateofworldlyeventsandtheirduration,shouldbecorrected.The
confessedlycontains,amongotherperiods,aperiodofathousandyears.Onwhat
principlearewetoaffirmthatitdoesnotembraceaperiodvastlygreaterthanthisin
itswholecontents?
11.Weholdthereforethatthebook,judgedbyitsowntestimony,andwithregardto
theplacewhichitholdsamongthecanonicalbooksofScripture,iswrittenwiththe
objectofconveyingtotheChurchrevelationsfromGodrespectingcertainportionsof
hercourseevenuptothetimeoftheend.Whethersuchrevelationsdisclosetoher
acontinuousprophetichistory,oraretobetakenaspresentingvaryingviewsand
relationsofherconflictwithevil,andGodsjudgmentonherenemies,willbe
hereafterdiscussed.Butthegeneralobjectisindependentofthesedifferencesin
interpretation.
12.Thecontentsofthebookhavebeenvariouslyarranged.Itseemsbettertofollow
theplainindicationofthebookitself,thantodistributeitsoastosuitanytheoryof
interpretation.Wefindinsodoing,thatwehave,
I.Ageneralintroductiontoonewholebook,ch.Revelation1:13:
II.TheportioncontainingtheEpistlestothesevenchurches,Revelation
1:4toRevelation3:22,itselfconsistingof

.Theaddressandpreface,Revelation1:48.
.Theintroductoryvision,Revelation1:920

.ThesevenEpistles,Revelation2:1toRevelation3:22.
III.Thepropheticalportion,Revelation4:1toRevelation22:5andherein

.Theheavenlysceneofvision,Revelation4:111.
.1.Thesealedbook,andtheLambwhoshouldopenitsseven
seals,Revelation5:114.

2.Thesevensealsopened,Revelation6:1toRevelation8:5,
whereinareinsertedtwoepisodes,betweenthesixthandseventh
seals.
a.thesealingoftheelect,Revelation7:18.
b.themultitudeoftheredeemed,Revelation7:917.

.Theseventrumpetsofvengeance,introducedindeedbeforethe
conclusionoftheformerportion,Revelation8:2,butproperly
extendingfromRevelation8:6toRevelation11:19.

Buthereagainwehavetwoepisodes,betweenthesixthand
seventhtrumpets,
a.thelittlebook,Revelation10:111.
b.thetwowitnesses,Revelation11:114.

.Thewomanandherthreeenemies,Revelation12:1toRevelation
13:18.Andherein

a.thedragon,Revelation12:117.
b.thebeastRevelation13:1toRevelation13:10.
c.thesecondbeast,orfalseprophet,Revelation13:1118.

.Theintroductiontothefinaltriumphandthefinalvengeance,
Revelation14:120.Andherein

a.theLambandhiselect,Revelation14:15.
b.thethreeangelsannouncingtheheadsofthecoming
prophecy:
1.thewarningofjudgments,Revelation14:67.
2.thefallofBabylon,Revelation14:8.
3.thepunishmentoftheunfaithful,Revelation14:912.
4.avoiceproclaimingtheblessednessoftheholydead,
Revelation14:13.
c.theharvest(Revelation14:1416)andthevintage(Revelation
14:1720)oftheearth.

.Thepouringoutofthesevenlastvialsofwrath,Revelation15:1
toRevelation16:21.

.ThejudgmentofBabylon,Revelation17:1toRevelation18:24.
.Thefinaltriumph,Revelation19:1toRevelation22:5.Andherein
a.thechurchssongofpraise,Revelation19:110.
b.theissuingforthoftheLordandHishoststovictory,
Revelation19:1116.
c.thedestructionofthebeastsandfalseprophetandkingsof
theearth,Revelation19:1721.
d.thebindingofthedragon,andthemillennialreign,Revelation
20:16.
e.theunbinding,andfinaloverthrow,ofSatan,Revelation20:7
10.
f.thegeneraljudgment,Revelation20:1115.
g.thenewheavensandearth,andgloriesoftheheavenly
Jerusalem,Revelation21:1toRevelation22:5.
IV.Theconclusion,Revelation22:621.Seeonallthisthetableatp.
260,inwhichthecontentsarearrangedwithaviewtoprophetic
interpretation.
SECTIONV
SYSTEMSOFINTERPRETATION
1.Itwouldbeasmuchbeyondthelimitsasitisbesidethepurposeofthese
prolegomena,togiveadetailedhistoryofapocalypticinterpretation.Anditwouldbe,
afterall,spendingmuchlabouroverthatwhichhasbeenwellandsufficientlydone
already.ForEnglishreaders,thelargeportionofMr.Elliottsfourthvolumeofhis
HorApocalypticwhichisdevotedtothesubjectcontainsanampleaccountof
apocalypticexpositorsfromthefirsttimestothepresent:andforthosewhocanread
German,LckesEinleitungwillfurnishmorecriticalthoughshorternoticesofmany
(241)

(242)

amongthem
.Totheseworks,andtootherslikethem
,Imustrefermy
readersforanythinglikeadetailedhistoryofinterpretations:contentingmyselfwith
givingabriefclassificationofthedifferentgreatdivisionsofopinion,andwithstating
thegroundsandcharacteroftheinterpretationsadoptedinthefollowing
Commentary.
2.Theschoolsofapocalypticinterpretationnaturallydividethemselvesintothree
principalbranches:

.ThePrterists,orthosewhoholdthatthewholeorbyfarthe
greaterpartoftheprophecyhasbeenfulfilled

.TheHistoricalInterpreters,orthosewhoholdthattheprophecy

embracesthewholehistoryoftheChurchanditsfoesfromthetime
ofitswritingtotheendoftheworld:

.TheFuturists,orthosewhomaintainthattheprophecyrelates

entirelytoeventswhicharetotakeplaceatorneartothecomingof
theLord.
Ishallmakeafewremarksoneachoftheseschools.
3..ThePrteristviewfoundnofavour,andwashardlysomuchasthoughtof,in
thetimesofprimitiveChristianity.Thosewholivednearthedateofthebookitself

hadnoideathatitsgroupsofpropheticimagerywereintendedmerelytodescribe
(243)

thingsthenpassing,andtobeinafewyearscompleted
.Theviewissaidto
havebeenfirstpromulgatedinanythinglikecompletenessbytheJesuitAlcasar,in
hisVestigatioarcanisensusinApocalypsi,publishedin1614.Heregardedthe
prophecyasdescriptiveofthevictoryoftheChurchfirstoverthesynagogue,in
chapters511,andthenoverheathenRome,inchapters1219:onwhichfollowsthe
triumph,andrest,andgloriousclose,chapters2022.Verynearlythesameplan
wasadoptedbyGrotiusinhisAnnotations,publishedin1644:andbyourown
HammondinhisCommentary,publishedin1653:whomLeClerc,hisLatin
interpreter,followed.Thenextnameamongthisschoolofinterpretersisthatof
Bossuet,thegreatantagonistofProtestantism.HisCommentarywaspublishedin
1690.Inthemain,heagreeswiththeschemesofAlcasarandGrotius

(244)

4.Theprteristschoolofinterpretationhashoweveroflatebeenrevivedin
Germany,andisthattowhichsomeofthemosteminentexpositorsofthatnation
(245)

belong
:limitingtheviewoftheSeertomatterswithinhisownhorizon,and
believingthewholedenunciationsofthebooktoregardnothingfurtherthanthe
destructionofPaganandpersecutingRome.
5.Thisviewhasalsofoundexponentsinourownlanguage.Itisthatofthevery
ampleandlaboriousCommentaryofMosesStuartinAmerica,andofDr.Davidson
andMr.DesprezinEngland.
6..Thecontinuoushistoricalinterpretationbelongsalmostofnecessitytothese
laterdays.Inearlytimes,thehistoricmaterialsincetheapostolicperiodwasnot
copiousenoughtotemptmentofititontothesymbolsofthepropheticvisions.The
firstapproachtoitseemstohavebeenmadebyBerengaud,notfarfromthe
beginningofthetwelfthcentury:whohowevercarriedthehistoricrangeofthe
(246)

Apocalypsebacktothecreationoftheworld
.Thehistoricviewisfoundinthe
fragmentaryexpositionoftheSealsbyAnselmofHavelsburg(1145):inthe
(247)

importantexpositionbytheAbbotJoachim(cir.1200)

7.FromJoachimstimewemaydatetheriseofthecontinuoushistoricschoolof
interpretation.Fromthistimemensminds,evenwithintheRomishchurch,became
accustomedtotheideas,thattheapocalypticBabylonwasinsomesenseorother
notonlyPaganbutPapalRome:andthatAntichristwastosit,whetherasan
usurperornot,onthethroneofthePapacy.
8.Ipassoverlessremarkablenames,whichwillbefoundcomposinganinteresting
(248)

seriesinMr.Elliottshistory
,noticingasIpass,thatsuchwastheviewheldby
theprecursorsandupholdersoftheReformation:byWicliffeandhisfollowersin
England,byLutherinGermany,BullingerinSwitzerland,BishopBaleinIrelandby
Foxthemartyrologist,byBrightmann,Pareus,andearlyProtestantexpositors
generally.
9.Asweadvanceinorderoftime,thesameviewholdsitsgroundinthemain
amongtheProtestantchurches.Itis,withmoreorlessindividualvarietiesand
divergences,thatofMede(1630),Jurieu(1685),Cressener(1690),Vitringa(1705),
Daubuz(1720),SirIsaacNewton(firstpublishedin1733,afterhisdeathbut
belongingtoanearlierdate),Whiston(1706),andtheCommentatorsfurtheronin
thatcentury,BengelandBishopNewton,
10.Mr.ElliottverynaturallymakesthegreatFrenchRevolutionabreak,andthe
beginningofanewepoch,inthehistoryofapocalypticinterpretation.Fromit,the
continuoushistoricalviewseemedtoderiveconfirmationandconsistency,and
acquiredboldnesstoenterintonewdetails,andfixitsdateswithgreaterprecision.
11.SomeofthemoremarkedupholdersoftheviewsincethatgreatRevolutionhave
beendividedamongthemselvesastothequestion,whethertheexpectedsecond
adventofourLordistoberegardedasprecedingorsucceedingthethousandyears
reign,ormillennium.Themajoritybothinnumber,andinlearningandresearch,
adoptthepremillenialadvent:following,asitseemstome,theplainandundeniable
senseofthesacredtextofthebookitself.
12.ItisnotthepurposeofthepresentProlegomenatoopencontroversialdispute

(249)

withsystemsorwithindividuals
.ThefollowingCommentarywillshewhowfar
ourviewsagreewith,howfartheydifferfromtheschoolofwhichIamtreating.With
thiscaution,Icannotrefrainfromexpressingmyadmirationoftheresearchandpiety
whichhavecharacterizedsomeoftheprincipalmodernProtestantexpositorsofthis
school.ImustpaythistributemoreespeciallytoMr.Elliott,fromwhosesystemand
conclusionsIamcompelledsofrequentlyandsowidelytodiverge.
13..OurattentionnowpassestotheFuturistschool,consistingofthosewhothrow
forwardthewholebook,orbyfarthegreaterpartofit,intothetimesofthegreat
secondAdvent,denyingaltogetheritshistoricalsignificance.
(250)

14.Ofthesewriters,some,whohavebeencalledtheextremefuturists
,deny
eventhepastexistenceofthesevenAsiaticchurches,andholdthatwearetolook
forthemyettoariseinthelastdays:butthemajorityacceptthemashistorical
facts,andbegintheeventsofthelastdayswiththepropheticimageryinchap.4.
Someindeedexpoundtheearliersealsofeventsalreadypast,andtheninthelater
onespassatonceonwardtothetimesofantichrist.
15.Thefounderofthissysteminmoderntimes(theApostolicFatherscanhardly
withfairnessbecitedforit,seeingthatforthemallwasfuture)appearstohavebeen
(251)

theJesuitRibera,aboutA.D.1580
.Ithasoflatehadsomeableadvocatesin
thiscountry.ToitbelongtherespectednamesofDr.Maitland,Dr.Todd,Mr.Burgh,
IsaacWilliams,andothers.
16.IneedhardlysaythatIcannotregardthisschemeofinterpretationwithapproval.
Toargueagainstithere,wouldbeonlytoanticipatetheCommentary.Itseemsto
meindisputablethatthebookdoesspeakofthingspast,present,andfuture:that
someofitspropheciesarealreadyfulfilled,somearenowfulfilling,andothersawait
theirfulfilmentintheyetunknownfuture:buttoclassalltogetherandpostponethem
tothelastageoftheworld,seemstomeverylikeshrinkingfromthelabourswhich
theHolySpiritmeantus,andinvitesus,toundertake.
17.IntheexpositionoftheApocalypseattemptedinthisvolume,Ihave
endeavouredsimplytofollowtheguidanceofthesacredtext,accordingtoitsown
requirementsandtheanalogiesofScripture.Iamnotconsciousofhavinganywhere
forcedthemeaningtosuitmyownprepossession:butIhaveineachcase
examined,whitherthetextitselfandtherestofScriptureseemedtosendmefor
guidance.Ifadefinitemeaningseemedtobepointedatinsuchguidance,Ihave
upheldthatmeaning,towhateverschoolofinterpretationImightseemtherebyfor
thetimetobelong.Ifnosuchdefinitemeaningseemedtobeindicated,Ihave
confessedmyinabilitytoassignone,howeverplausibleandattractivetheguesses
ofexpositorsmayhavebeen.
18.Theresultofsuchamethodofinterpretationmaybeapparentwantofsystem
butIsubmitthatitistheonlywaywhichwillconductussafelyasfaraswego,and
whichwillpreventusfromwrestingthetexttomakeitsuitapreconceivedscheme.
Thislatterfaultseemedtomesoglaringandsofrequentinourexpositorsofthe
historicalschool,andinspiredmewithsuchdisgust,thatIdeterminedmyownpages
shouldnotcontainasingleinstanceofit,ifIcouldhelpit.AndIventuretohopethat
thedeterminationhasbeencarriedout.
19.ThecoursewhichIhavetaken,thatoffollowingthetextitselfundertheguidance
ofScriptureanalogy,naturallyledtotherecognitionofcertainlandmarks,orfixed
points,givingrisetocanonsofinterpretation,whichImaintainarenottobedeparted
from.Suchareforinstancethefollowing:
20.ThecloseconnexionbetweenourLordspropheticdiscourseontheMountof
Olives,andthelineofapocalypticprophecy,cannotfailtohavestruckeverystudent
ofScripture.Ifitbesuggestedthatsuchconnexionmaybemerelyapparent,andwe
subjectittothetestofmoreaccurateexamination,ourfirstimpressionwillIthink
becomecontinuallystronger,thatthetwo,beingrevelationsfromthesameLord
concerningthingstocome,andthosethingsbeingasitseemstomeboundbythe
fourfold,whichintroducestheseals,tothesamereferencetoChrists
coming,must,correspondingastheydoinorderandsignificance,answertoone
anotherindetail:andthusthediscourseinMatthew24becomes,asMr.Isaac
Williamshastrulynamedit,theanchorofapocalypticinterpretation:and,Imay
add,thetouchstoneofapocalypticsystems.Ifitsguidancebenotfollowedinthe

interpretationoftheseals,ifanyotherthanourLordishethatgoesforthconquering
andtoconquer,then,thoughthesubsequentinterpretationmayhaveoccasional
pointsofcontactwithtruth,andmaythusbeinpartsprofitabletous,thesystemis
anerroneousone,and,asfarasitisconcerned,thetruekeytothebookislost.
21.AnothersuchlandmarkisfoundIbelieveintheinterpretationofthesixthseal:if
itbenotindeedalreadylaiddowninwhathasjustbeensaid.Weallknowwhatthat
imagerymeansintherestofScripture.Anysystemwhichrequiresittobelongto
anotherperiodthanthecloseapproachofthegreatdayoftheLord,standsthereby
selfcondemned.ImayillustratethisbyreferencetoMr.Elliottscontinuous
historicalsystem,whichrequiresthatitshouldmeanthedownfallofPaganismunder
Constantine.Amorenotableinstanceofinadequateinterpretationcannotbe
imagined.
22.Closelyconnectedwiththislastisanotherfixedpointininterpretation.Asthe
sevenseals,sotheseventrumpetsandthesevenvialsrunontothetimeclose
upontheend.Attheterminationofeachseries,thenoteisunmistakablygiven,that
suchisthecase.Ofthesealswehavealreadyspoken.Astothetrumpets,itmay
sufficetorefertoch.Revelation10:7,Revelation11:18astothevials,totheirvery
designation ,andtotheofch.Revelation16:17.Anysystem
whichdoesnotrecognizethiscommonendingofthethree,seemstometostand
therebyconvictedoferror.
23.Anothersuchabsoluterequirementofthesacredtextisfoundinthevisionofch.
Revelation12:1ff.InRevelation12:5,wereadthatthewoman ,
,
.AllScripture
analogyandthatofthisbookitself(cf.ch.Revelation19:15)requiresthatthese
wordsshouldbeunderstoodofourincarnateLord,andofnoother.Anysystem
seemstomeconvictedoferror,whichiscompelledtointerpretthewordsotherwise.
24.Anothercanonofinterpretationhasseemedtometobededuciblefromthegreat
careandaccuracywithwhichtheSeerdistinguishesbetweenthedivinePersonsand
theministeringangels.Muchconfusionisfoundintheapocalypticcommentaries
fromthispointnotbeingattendedto.IssuchorsuchanangelChristHimself,or
not?isaquestioncontinuallymeetingusintheirpages.Suchaquestionneednever
tohavebeenasked.,throughoutthebook,isanangel:neverourLord,
neveroneofthesonsofmen.Thisholdsequally,Ibelieve,oftheangelsofthe
sevenchurchesandofthevariousangelsintroducedinthepropheticvision.
25.Variousotherrulesandrequirementsofthesamekindwillbefoundmentionedin
theCommentaryitself.Itmaybewelltospeakofsomeothermatterswhichseem
worthyofnoticehere.
26.TheapocalypticnumbersfurnishanimportantenquirytoeveryCommentator,as
totheirrespectivesignificance.And,ingeneralterms,suchaquestioncanbe
readilyanswered.Thevariousnumbersseemtokeepconstanttotheirgreatlinesof
symbolicmeaning,andmay,withoutanycaprice,beassignedtothem.Thusseven
isthenumberofperfection:sevenspiritsarebeforethethrone(ch.Revelation1:4
Revelation4:5):sevenchurchesrepresentthechurchuniversal:theLambhasseven
hornsandseveneyes(Revelation5:6):intheseveralseriesofGodsjudgments,
eachofthemcompleteinitself,eachofthemexhaustiveinitsownlineofdivine
action,sevenisthenumberoftheseals,ofthetrumpets,ofthethunders,ofthe
vials.
27.Four,again,isthenumberofterrestrialextension.Fourlivingbeingsarethe
celestialsymbolsofcreation(Revelation4:6ff.):fourangelsstandonthefour
cornersoftheearth,holdingthefourwindsofheaven(ch.Revelation7:1):four
seals,fourtrumpets,fourvials,ineachcasecompletethejudgmentsasfaras
physicalvisitationsareconcerned:fourangelsareloosedfromtheEuphratestoslay
thedestinedportionoutofallmankind(Revelation9:13ff.),inobediencetoavoice
fromthefourcornersofthealtar:Satandeceivesthenationsinthefourcornersof
theearth(Revelation20:8):thenewJerusalemliethfoursquare,havingallsides
equal.
28.TwelveisthenumberespeciallyappropriatedtotheChurch,andtothose
appearanceswhicharesymbolicallyconnectedwithher.Twicetwelveisthenumber
oftheheavenlyelders:twelvetimestwelvethousand,thenumberofthesealed

elect:thewomaninch.Revelation12:1hasacrownoftwelvestars:theheavenly
cityhastwelvegates,atthegatestwelveangels,andonthemthenamesofthe
twelvetribesofIsraelalsotwelvefoundations,andonthemthenamesofthetwelve
Apostles:anditscircumference(probably:seenote,ch.Revelation21:16)istwelve
thousandstadii.Finally,inthemidstofherthetreeoflifebringsforthtwelvemanner
offruits.
29.Theoccurrenceofaliquotportionsofthesenumbersisalsoworthyofour
attention.Thehalfofseven,threeandahalf,isarulingnumberintheapocalyptic
periodsoftime.Threeyearsandahalfhadbeenthedurationofthedraughtprayed
forbyElijah(seeJames5:17,note:alsoLuke4:25)atime,andtimes,andthe
dividingoftimewastheprescribedpropheticdurationoftheoppressionofthesaints
inDaniel7:25.Accordingly,wefindintheApocalypse(ch.Revelation11:2)thatthe
twowitnesses,oneofwhosepowersis,toshutupheaventhatthereshallbenorain
(Revelation11:6),shallprophesy1260days=3360+180=threeyearsanda
half.AndifthisparticularremindsusofElijah,theother,theturningthewaterinto
bloodandsmitingtheearthwithplagues,directsourattentiontoMoses,whose
testimonyenduredthroughoutthefortyandtwostationsofthechildrenofIsraels
pilgrimage,asthatofthesewitnessesistoendurefortyandtwomonths=312+
6months=threeyearsandahalf.(Again,forthreedaysandahalfshallthebodies
ofthesewitnesseslieunburiedinthestreetofthegreatcity,afterwhichtheyshall
riseagain.)Thesameperiodindays(1260)isthetermduringwhichthewomanshall
befedinthewilderness(Revelation12:6).Thesameinmonths(42)isallotted
(Revelation13:5)tothepowerofthefirstwildbeastwhichascendedfromthesea.
30.Ihavenotpretendedtoofferanysolutionoftheseperiodsoftime,soremarkably
pervadedbythehalfofthemysticseven.Iamquiteunabletosay,whothetwo
witnessesare:quiteunable,incommonwithallapocalypticinterpreters,topointout
definitelyanyperiodinthehistoryofthechurchcorrespondingtothe1260daysof
ch.Revelation12:6,oranyinthehistoryofthisworldscivilpowerwhichshall
satisfythefortytwomonthsofch.Revelation13:5.AsfarasIhaveseen,every
suchattempthithertomadehasbeencharacterizedbysignalfailure.Oneafter
another,theyearsfixedonfortheconsummationbydifferentauthorshavepassed
away,beginningwiththe1836ofBengel:oneafteranother,theexpositorswhohave
livedtobethusrefutedhaveshiftedtheirgroundintothesaferfuture.
31.Itisnotmyintentiontoenterthelistsoneithersideofthevexedyearday
question.Ihaveneverseenitproved,orevenmadeprobable,thatwearetotakea
dayforayearinapocalypticprophecy:ontheotherhandIhaveneverseenit
proved,ormadeprobable,thatsuchmysticperiodsaretobetakenliterally,adayfor
aday.Itisaweightyargumentagainsttheyeardaysystem,thataperiodofa
thousandyears(Revelation20:67)doesoccurintheprophecy:itishardlyaless
strongoneagainstliteralacceptationofdays,thattheprinciplesofinterpretation
givenusbytheSeerhimself(Revelation17:17)seemtorequireforthereignofthe
beastafarlongerperiodthanthiscalculationwouldallow.Sothatintheapparent
failureofbothsystems,Iamdriventobelievethattheseperiodsaretobeassigned
bysomeclue,ofwhichtheSpirithasnotyetputtheChurchinpossession.
32.StilllesscanIofferanysatisfactorysolutionofthepropheticnumberofthe
beast(Revelation13:18).EvenwhileIprintmynoteinfavouroftheof
Irenus,Ifeelalmostdisposedtowithdrawit.Itisbeyondquestionthebestsolution
thathasbeengiven:butthatitisnotthesolution,Ihaveapersuasionamountingto
certainty.Itmustbeconsideredmerelyasworthytoemergefromthethousandand
onefailuresstrewedupanddowninourbooks,andtobekeptinsighttillthe
challenge issatisfactorilyredeemed.
33.OnonepointIhaveventuredtospeakstrongly,becausemyconvictiononitis
strong,foundedontherulesoffairandconsistentinterpretation.Imean,the
necessityofacceptingliterallythefirstresurrection,andthemillennialreign.It
seemstomethatifinasentencewheretworesurrectionsarespokenofwithno
markofdistinctionbetweenthem(itisotherwiseinJohn5:28,whichiscommonly
allegedfortheviewwhichIamcombating),inasentencewhere,oneresurrection
havingbeenrelated,therestofthedeadareafterwardsmentioned,weareat
libertytounderstandtheformeronefigurativelyandspiritually,andthelatterliterally
andmaterially,thenthereisanendofalldefinitemeaninginplainwords,andthe
Apocalypse,oranyotherbook,maymeananythingweplease.Itisacuriousfact
thatthosewhomaintainthis,studiousastheygenerallyaretoupholdtheprimitive
interpretation,areobliged,notonlytowresttheplainsenseofwords,buttodesert

theunanimousconsensusoftheprimitiveFathers,someofwhomlivedearlyenough
tohaveretainedapostolictraditiononthispoint.Nottillchiliasticviewshadruninto
unspiritualexcesses,wasthisinterpretationdepartedfrom

(252)

34.ItnowremainsthatIsaysomewhatrespectingmyownviewofthecharacterand
arrangementoftheprophecy,whichmayfurnishthereaderwithageneralideaofthe
natureoftheinterpretationgiveninthenotes.
35.Andfirstfortheprinciplesonwhichthatinterpretationisbased.)Thebookisa
revelationgivenbytheFathertoChrist,andimpartedbyHimthroughHisangelto
St.John,todeclaretoHisservantsthingswhichmustshortlycometopass:inother
words,thefutureconflictsandtriumphsofHischurchthesebeingthethingswhich
concernedHisservants.
36.)Ofallthese,thegreatesteventisHisowncominginglory.Inconsequence,it
isputforwardintheintroductionofthebookwithallsolemnity,anditscertainty
sealedbyanasseverationfromtheAlmightyandeverlastingGod.
37.)Accordinglywefindeverypartoftheprophecyfullofthissubject.The
EpistlestotheChurchescontinuallyrecurtoit:thevisionsofseals,trumpets,vials,
allendinintroducingit:anditformsthesolemnconclusion,asitdidtheopeningof
thebook.
38.)Butitwasnotthefirsttimethatthisgreatsubjecthadbeenspokenofin
prophecy.TheOldTestamentprophetshadallannouncedit:andthelanguageof
thisbookisfullofthepropheticimagerywhichwealsofindinthem,Thefirstgreat
keytotheunderstandingoftheApocalypse,is,theanalogyofOldTestament
prophecy.
39.)ThenextisourLordsownpropheticdiscourse,beforeinsistedoninthis
reference.Hehimselfhadpreviouslydeliveredagreatprophecy,givinginclear
outlinethemainpointsofthehistoryofthechurch.Inthisprophecy,theprogressof
theGospel,itshindrancesandcorruptions,thejudgmentsontheunbelieving,the
trialsofthefaithful,thesafetyofGodselectamidstall,andthefinalredemptionin
gloryofHisfaithfulpeople,wereallindicated.There,theywereenwrappedin
languagewhichwasingreatpartprimarilyapplicabletothegreattypicaljudgmenton
thechosenpeoplethedestructionofJerusalem.Whenthisbookwaswritten,that
eventhadtakenplace:completingthefirstandpartialfulfilmentofourLords
predictions.Now,itremainedforprophecytodeclaretothechurchGodscourseof
dealingwiththenationsoftheearth,bywhichthesamepredictionsaretobeagain
fulfilled,onalargerscale,andwithgreaterfulnessofmeaning.
40.Itissomewhatastonishing,thatmanyofthosewhorecognizetothefullthe
eschatologicalcharacterofthepropheticdiscourseofourLord,shouldhavefailedto
observeintheApocalypsetheverysamefeaturesofarrangement,andananalogy
challengingcontinualobservation.
41.)Inaccordancewiththeanalogyjustpointedout,Iconceivethattheopening
sectionofthebook(afterthevisionintheintroduction),containingtheEpistlestothe
Churches,isanexpansionofourLordsbriefnotesofcomfort,reproof,and
admonitionaddressedtoHisownintheprophecyontheMountofOlivesand
elsewhereinHispropheticdiscourses.
(253)

ItrevealstousourLordaspresentwithHispeopleevermoreinthefulness
42.
ofHisdivineMajestyastheIncarnateandglorifiedSonofGod:presentwiththemby
HisSpirittosympathize,tosustain,tocomfort,toreprove,toadmonish,astheir
needrequires:hiseyeevermoreoneveryheart,hisloveeverreadytosupplyall
theirneed.TheEpistlesarenootherthantheexpressionofthatspecialmessageof
rebukeorencouragementwhichdaybydayinallagestheLordseestobeneeded,
inoneorotherofitsparts,byeveryChurch,andeveryChristian,onearth.Every
bodyofChristians,wearereminded,likeeveryindividual,hasateachmoment,its
owndefinitereligiouscharacterandcondition:likeEphesus,sound,butwith
decliningloveandfaith:likeSmyrna,faithfulintribulationandrichingoodworks:like
Pergamum,steadfastunderopentrial,buttootolerantofcompromiseswiththe
worldsways:likeThyatira,diligentinwelldoing,andwithmanysignsofspiritual
progress,yetallowingfalseteachingandcorruptpracticetogounchecked:like
Sardis,retainingtheformofsounddoctrine,butinpracticesunkintoadeepslumber

threateningspiritualdeath:likePhiladelphia,faithfultotheLordswordandname,
lovingHimthoughinweakness,andthereforekeptinsafety:orfinallylikeLaodicea,
lukewarm,andneithercoldnorhot:selfsatisfied,becausesunktoodeepinspiritual
slothandindifferencetobeconsciousofherpoverty,andreadythereforetoloseall
withoutstruggleorregret

(254)

43.ThisfirstsectionhassetbeforeustheLordpresentwithHischurchonearththe
nextintroducesusatoncetoHispresenceinheaven,andtothecelestialsceneryof
thewholecomingprophecy.ItistobenotedthatthisrevelationofGodisastheGod
ofHisChurch.TheFather,seatedontheThrone:theLambinthemidstofthe
throne,bearingthemarksofHisatoningsacrifice:thesevenfoldSpiritwithHis
lampsoffire:thisisJehovahthecovenantGodofHisredeemed.Andnextwehave
Creation,symbolizedbythefourlivingbeingstheChurch,patriarchialand
apostolic,representedbythetwentyfourelders:andtheinnumerablecompanyof
angels,ministeringintheirgloryandmight,nowbyoneofthem,nowbyanother,
throughoutthecourseoftheprophecy.
44.Inthenextsection,theLamb,alonefoundworthy,opensoneafteranotherthe
sealsoftheclosedbookorroll,sothat,whentheyareallopened,itmaybeunrolled
andread.OnepointIhaveurgedinthefollowingnotes:viz.,thattherollisnever
duringtheprophecyactuallyopened,norisanypartofitread.Theopeningsofits
successivesealsarebutthesuccessivepreparationsforitscontentstobe
disclosed:andaseachisopened,anewclassofpreparationsisseeninprophetic
vision.Whentheseventhisloosed,andallisreadyfortheunfoldingandreading,
thereisasymbolicsilence,andanewseriesofvisionsbegins.
45.Asregardsthesealsthemselves,thefirstfouraremarkedofffromtheother
threeinamannerwhichnonecanfailtoobserve.Theyrepresent,Ibelieve,Christs
victoryovertheworldinHisappointedway.WehaveHimselfgoingforthtoconquer,
andinHistrain,theswordwhichHecametosendonearth,thewars,famines,and
pestilences,whichHeforetoldshouldbeforerunnersofHiscoming.Ateachofthese
appearances,oneofthelivingbeingswhosymbolizeCreationechoeswithhis
thesighsoftheworldforthemanifestationofthesonsofGod.Iconceiveit
tobeamistake,necessarilyinvolvedintheconsecutivehistoricalinterpretation,but
sometimesfoundwherethatisnot,tointerpretthesefourseals,assucceedingone
anotherintime.Allarecoordinate,allarecorrelative.
46.NexttothesighsofCreationfortheLordscoming,wehavethoseofHis
martyredsaints,cryingfromunderHisaltar.Then,attheopeningofthesixthseal,
wehavereproducedthewellknownimageryofourLordsdiscourseandoftheO.T.
prophets,describingtheveryeveandthreshold,sotospeak,ofthedayoftheLord:
theportentswhichshouldusherinHiscoming:butnotthatcomingitself.Forthe
revelationofthis,thetimeisnotyet.First,Hiselectmustbegatheredoutofthefour
windsthecompletenumbersealed,beforethejudgmentsinvokedbythemartyred
soulsdescendontheearth,thesea,thetrees.First,theSeermustbevouchsafeda
visionofthegreatmultitudewhomnonecannumber,ineverlastingglory.Thedayof
theLordscomingisgoneby,andthevisionreachesforwardbeyonditintothe
blissfuleternity.Why?Becausethen,andnottillthen,shalltheseventhseal,which
loosestherollofGodseternalpurposes,beopened,andthebookreadtothe
adoringChurchinglory.Thenwehavethelastsealopened,andthehalfhours
silencetheinitium,asVictorinussublimelysays,quietistern.
47.Thusfarthevisionofthesealsnecessarilyreachedonwardforitscompletion.
Butthereismuchmoretoberevealed.Godsjudgmentsontheearthandits
inhabitantsarethesubjectofthenextseriesofvisions.Theprayersofthemartyred
saintshadinvokedthem:withthesymbolizingthereforeoftheanswertothese
prayersthenextsectionopens.Thenfollowthetrumpetblowingangels,hurtingthe
earth,thetrees,thesea,therivers,thelightsofheaven.Andhereagain,asbefore,
thefirstfourtrumpetscompletethesecumenicaljudgments,andwiththefifththe
threewoesonmankindbegin.Thepreviousplagueshaveaffectedonlythe
accessoriesoflife:thefollowingaffectlifeitself.
48.Intheselatterwehavethestrictestcorrespondencewiththeforegoingvisionof
theseals.Twoofthemareveritablyplagues,theoneofthelocust,theotherofthe
horsemen.Afterthissixthtrumpetareinsertedtwoepisodicalpassages,theonea
vision,theotheraprophecy(seebelow):then,whentheseventhisabouttosound,
theconsummationofGodsjudgmentspassesunrecorded,asitdidundertheseals

andattheseventhtrumpet,wehavethesongofthanksgivingandtriumphin
heaven.Suchremarkableandintimatecorrespondencecarriesitsownexplanation:
thetwovisionsofthetrumpetsandsealsrunontooneandthesameglorious
termination:theformer,intracingthecourseoftheworldasregardstheChurch,the
latter,intracingGodsjudgmentsofvengeanceontheungodlydwellersonearth:for
itisforthisthattheheavenlysongatitsconclusiongivesthanks.
49.Ifnowweturntothetwoepisodesbetweenthesixthandseventhtrumpets,we
findthemdistinctlyintroductorytothatsectionwhichisnexttofollow.Alittlebookis
giventotheSeer,sweettohismouth,butbitterindigestion,withanannouncement
thatheisyetagaintoprophesytomanynationsthatafreshseriesofprophetic
visions,gloriousindeedbutwoeful,wasnowtobedeliveredbyhim.
50.ThesebeginbythemeasurementofthetempleofGodseeingthatitisthe
Churchherself,inherinnermosthold,whichisnowtobecomethesubjectofthe
prophecy.Thecourseofthetwowitnesses,recallingtousbytheirspiritandpower
MosesandElias,ispredicted:andduringtheprediction,oneprincipalfigureofthe
subsequentvisionsisbyanticipationintroduced:thewildbeastthatcomethupout
oftheabyss.Thatthisisso,isatoncefatalinmyestimationtothecontinuous
historicalinterpretation.
51.Thestudentwillfindthatthereisnoexplanationofthetwowitnessesinthe
ensuingCommentary.Ihavestudiedthevarioussolutions,andIownthatIcannot
findanywhichIcanendorseasbeingthatwhichIcanfeeltobesatisfactory.Ihave
noneofmyown.Irecognizethecharacters:butIcannotappropriatethem.Idonot
feelittobeanyreproachtomysystem,oranydisproofofitssubstance,thatthere
arethisandothergapsinitwhichIcannotbridgeover.Nay,onthecontrary,ifitbe
asoundinterpretation,theremustbethese:andtofindeventsandpersonswhich
mayfitthewhole,ereyetthecourseoftimeisrun,wouldseemtomeratherwriting
aparody,thanearnestlyseekingasolution.
52.Andnowtheseventhangelsoundsandasbeforeattheopeningoftheseventh
seal,theheavenlysceneisbeforeus,andtherepresentativesofthechurch
universalfalldownandgivethanksthatGodskingdomiscome,andthetimeofthe
deadtobejudged.Butthoughthisseriesofvisionslikewisehasbeenthusbrought
downtotheendofthefinalconsummation,thereismoreyettoberevealedandin
anticipationofthecharacterofthesubsequentvisions,thetempleofGodinheaven
isopened,andthepausebetweenoneandanotherseriesisannounced,asbefore
betweenthesealsandthetrumpets,andasafterattheendofthevials,bythunders
andlightningsandvoices.
53.Andnowopensthegreatpropheticcourseofvisionsregardingthechurch.Her
identificationintheeyesoftheSeerisfirstrenderedunmistakable,bythescene
openingwiththeappearanceofthewomanandtheserpent,theenmitybetweenhim
andherseed,thebirthoftheManchildwhoshouldruleoverthenations,His
ascensiontoheavenandtothethroneofGod.Here,atleast,alloughttohavebeen
plain:andhereagainIseepronouncedthecondemnationofthecontinuoushistorical
system.
54.Theflightofthewomanintothewilderness,thecastingdownofSatanfrom
heaven,nolongertoaccusethebrethrenthere,hiscontinuedenmityonearth,his
persecutionoftheremnantofthewomansseed,thesebelongtotheintroductory
featuresofthegreatvisionwhichistofollow,andservetodescribethestatein
whichtheChurchofGodisfoundduringthenowpendingstageofherconflict.
55.Whatfollows,carriesoutthedescriptionofthewarmadebythedragononthe
seedofthewoman.Awildbeastisseenrisingoutofthedeep,unitinginitselfthe
formerlydescribedheadsandhornsofthedragon,andalsothewellknownprophetic
symbolsofthegreatempiresoftheworld:representing,infact,thesecularpowers
antagonistictotheChurchofChrist.Tothiswildbeastthedragongiveshismight
andhisthrone:andnotwithstandingthatoneofitsheads,thePaganRomanEmpire,
iscrushedtodeath,itsdeadlywoundishealed,andallwhoarenotwritteninthe
Lambsbookoflifeworshipit.
56.Thefurthercarryingoutofthepowerandinfluenceofthebeastisnowsetbefore
usbythevisionofanotherwildbeast,bornoftheearth,gentleasalambin
appearance,butdragonlikeandcruelincharacter.Thissecondbeastistheallyand
servantoftheformer:makesmentoworshipitsimageandreceiveitsmark,asthe

conditionofcivilrightsandevenoflifeitself.Here,incommonwithverymanyofthe
bestinterpreters,Icannotfailtorecognizethesacerdotalpersecutingpower,leagued
withandtheinstrumentofthesecular:professingtobealamb,butinrealitybeinga
dragon:persecutingthesaintsofGod:theinseparablecompanionandupholderof
despoticandtyrannicalpower.Thisinallitsforms,Pagan,Papal,andinsofaras
theReformedChurcheshaveretrogradedtowardsPapalsacerdotalism,Protestant
also,Ibelievetobethatwhichissymbolizedunderthesecondwildbeast.
57.Next,theapocalypticvisionbringsbeforeustheLambonMountSionwiththe
firstfruitsofHispeople,andtheheavenlysonginwhichtheyjoin,asprefatoryto
theannouncement,bythreeangels,oftheprophecieswhicharetofollow,sofullof
importtothepeopleandchurchofGod.Theseare,first,theproclamationofthe
everlastingGospelasprevioustothefinaljudgmentsofGod:next,thefallof
Babylon,asanencouragementforthepatienceofthesaints:third,thefinaldefeat
andtormentoftheLordsenemies.Aftertheseisheardavoiceproclaimingthe
blessednessoftheholydead.Thenfollow,instrictaccordwiththese,four
announcements,1)theharvestandthevintageoftheearth,andthesevenlast
plagues,symbolizedbytheoutpouringofthevials:2)theampledetailsofthefall
andpunishmentofBabylon:3)thetriumphoftheChurchinthelastdefeatofher
Lordsenemies:4)themillennialreign,andfinally,theeternityofbliss.Butoneach
ofthesesomewhatmoremustbesaid.
58.Ihavefoundreasontointerprettheharvest,oftheingatheringoftheLords
people:thevintage,ofthecrushingofHisenemies:boththesebeing,accordingto
theusageofthisbook,compendious,andinclusiveofthefullerdetailsofboth,
whicharetofollow.
59.Thevintageistakenupandexpandedindetailbytheseriesofthevials:seven
innumber,aswerethesealsandthetrumpetsbefore.Thesefinaljudgments,
speciallybelongingtotheChurch,areintroducedbyasongoftriumphfromthe
saintsofbothdispensations,andarepouredoutbyangelscomingforthfromthe
openedsanctuaryofthetabernacleofwitnessinheaven.
60.Thecourseofthesejudgmentsisinsomeparticularsthesameasthatofthe
trumpets.Theearth,thesea,therivers,thelightsofheaventhesearetheobjects
ofthefirstfour:buteverwithreferencetothosewhoworshipthebeastandhavehis
markonthem.Atthefifth,asineachcasebefore,thereisachangefromgeneralto
special:thethroneandkingdomofthebeast,theriverEuphrates,thesearenowthe
objects:andtheseventhpassesoff,asineachformercase,totheconsummation
ofallthings.
61.Meantime,assooftenbefore,anticipatinghintshavebeengivenofnewdetails
belongingtotheotherangelicannouncements.Atthesixthvial,wehavethesounds
ofthegatheringofanapproachingbattleofGodsenemiesagainstHim,andthevery
battlefieldpointedout.Aftertheseventhanditsclosingformula,Babyloncomes
intoremembrancebeforeGod,togiveherthecupofHisvengeance.Thusthenwe
passtothesecondoftheangelicannouncementsthefallofBabylon.Herethe
Seeriscarriedinspiritintothewilderness,andshewnthegreatvisionofthewoman
seatedonthebeast.IhaveenteredintheCommentaryintoallthedetailsofthis
importantportionoftheprophecy:anditisunnecessarytorepeatthemhere.Itmay
sufficetosay,thatthegreatpersecutingcity,thetypeoftheunionofecclesiastical
corruptionwithciviltyranny,isfinallyoverthrownbythehandsofthosevery
kingdomswhohadgiventheirpowertothebeast,andthisoverthrowiscelebratedby
thetriumphantsongsoftheChurchandofCreationandofinnumerablemultitudesin
heaven.
62.Buthereagain,accordingtothepracticeofwhichIcannottoooftenremindthe
student,avoicefromheavenannouncesthecharacterofthenewandfinalvision
whichistofollow:Blessedaretheywhicharecalledtothemarriagesupperofthe
Lamb.Andnow,inthepropheticdetailsofthethirdofthepreviousangelic
announcements,andoftheproclamationoftheblessednessoftheholydead,the
greateventsofthetimeoftheendcrowd,intheirdreadmajesty,uponus.First,the
processionoftheglorifiedRedeemerwiththearmiesofheavenfollowingHim,
comingforthtotreadthewinepressofthewrathofAlmightyGod.Thenthegreat
battleoftheLordagainstHisfoes,thebeastandthefalseprophet,leaguedwiththe
kingsoftheearthagainstHim.Then,thebindingofthedragon,theoldserpent,fora
season.Then,thefirstresurrection,thejudgmentofthechurch,themillennialreign:
astowhichIhaveagainandagainraisedmyearnestprotestagainstevadingthe

plainsenseofwords,andspiritualizinginthemidstofplaindeclarationsoffact.That
theLordwillcomeinpersontothisourearth:thatHisrisenelectwillreignherewith
Himandjudge:thatduringthatblessedreignthepowerofevilwillbebound,andthe
gloriouspropheciesofpeaceandtruthonearthfindtheiraccomplishment:thisis
myfirmpersuasion,andnotminealone,butthatofmultitudesofChristswaiting
people,asitwasthatofHisprimitiveapostolicChurch,beforecontroversyblinded
theeyesoftheFatherstothelightofprophecy.
63.Buttheendisnotyet.Onestrugglemoreandthatthelast.Attheendofthe
millennialperiod,Satanisunloosed,andthenationsoftheeartharedeceivedbyhim
theycomeupagainstandencirclethecampofthesaintsandthebelovedcity:
andfirecomesdownoutofheavenandconsumesthem:andthedevilwhodeceived
themiscastintothelakeoffire.Thenisdescribedthegeneraljudgmentofthedead,
thedestructionofdeathandHades,andthecondemnationofallwhosenamesare
notfoundwritteninthebookoflife.
64.Finally,inaccordwiththepreviousproclamationoftheblessednessoftheholy
dead,thedescriptionoftheheavenlyJerusalemformsthegloriouscloseofthe
whole.
65.ItremainsthatIsayafewwordsinexplanationoftheannexedTable,which
containsanarrangementoftheApocalypticmatterinaccordancewiththeview
upheldabove.
66.Intheupperpartofthetable,extendingallacrossit,arespecifiedthegeneral
subjectofthebook,printedinblack,andtheEpistlestothesevenchurches.Then
follow,printedinred,theheavenlysceneryandpersonagescommontothewhole
followingprophecy,tillallthevariousvisionsmerge,atthebottomofeachcolumn,
inthenewheavensandnewearth,thedescriptionofwhichisagainprintedinred
acrossthetablebeneaththecolumns.
67.Thecolumnsthemselvescontainsthevariousvisions,followedbytheepisodes
whichoccurinthem,inorder:eachinturnpassingawayintothegreatdayofthe
Lord,andtheeventsofthetimeoftheend.Anyonewhohasfollowedthe
Commentary,oreventheepitomegivenintheseProlegomena,willhavenodifficulty
inmakinguseoftheconspectusgiveninthetable.
68.Thewordsprintedinthicktypeareintendedtodirectthereadersattentionto
theirrecurrenceasfurnishinglandmarks,ortestsofinterpretation:e.g.thenumbers,
seven,four,twelve:thewhitehorseanditsRider:therulingthenationswitharodof
iron,asunmistakablyidentifyingtheManchildofch.12withtheVictorofch.19:
&c.&c.
69.IhavenowonlytocommendtomygraciousGodandFatherthisfeebleattempt
toexplainthemostmysteriousandgloriousportionofHisrevealedScripture:and
withit,thismylabourofnoweighteenyears,herewithcompleted.Idoitwithhumble
thankfulness,butwithasenseofutterweaknessbeforethepowerofHisWord,and
inabilitytosoundthedepthsevenofitssimplestsentence.MayHesparethehand
whichhasbeenputforwardtotouchHisArk:mayHe,forChristssake,forgiveall
rashness,allperverseness,alluncharitableness,whichmaybefoundinthisbook,
andsanctifyittotheuseofHisChurch:itstruth,ifany,forteaching:itsmanifold
defect,forwarning.Myprayerisandshallbe,thatinthestirandlabourofmenover
HisWord,towhichthesevolumeshavebeenonehumblecontribution,othersmay
ariseandteach,whoselaboursshallbesofarbetterthanmine,thatthisbook,and
itswriter,mayerelongbeutterlyforgotten.

.
CopyrightStatement
Thesefilesarepublicdomain.
TextCourtesyofBibleSupport.com.UsedbyPermission.
BibliographyInformation
Alford,Henry."Commentaryonrevelationoverview".GreekTestamentCritical
ExegeticalCommentary."http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/print.cgi?
bk=65&ch=0&vs=0".18631878.
20012015,StudyLight.org

PoweredbyLightspeedTechnology