Companion to the Bible Part 32

Hist. Eccl. 3. 39. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, etc. all quote it expressly. It is found in the Syriac Pes.h.i.to version which contains but three of the catholic epistles. It is wanting in the Muratorian canon, but to this circ.u.mstance much weight cannot be attached when we consider how dark and confused is the pa.s.sage referring to the catholic epistles.

8. _The readers_ addressed in the epistle are "the elect sojourners of the dispersion, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," all provinces of Asia Minor. The words "sojourners"--or "strangers" as rendered in our English version--and "dispersion" are both the appropriate terms for the Jews living in dispersion. That the apostle, in an introduction of this kind, should have used the word "sojourners"

in a simply figurative sense, to describe Christians as "pilgrims and strangers on the earth," is very improbable, especially in immediate connection with the word "dispersion," which must be understood literally. We must rather understand the apostle as recognizing in the Christian churches scattered throughout the world the true "Israel of G.o.d," having for its framework the believing portion of the covenant people, into which the Gentile Christians had been introduced through faith, and thus made the children of Abraham. Compare Rom. 4:12-17; Gal.

3:7-9; and especially Rom. 11:17-24. Hence it comes to pa.s.s that while Peter addresses them as the ancient people of G.o.d, he yet includes Gentile Christians in his exhortations, as is manifest from various pa.s.sages, especially from chap. 4:3.

9. According to chap. 5:13 the _place_ from which this epistle was written was Babylon. No valid reason exists why we should not understand here the literal Babylon. The old opinion that the apostle used the word enigmatically to signify Rome is nothing more than a conjecture in itself improbable. It has been urged not without reason that Peter names the provinces of Asia Minor in the order which would be natural to one writing from Babylon; naming Pontus first, which lay nearest to Babylon, and Asia and Bithynia, which were the most remote, last. The question of the _date_ of this epistle is connected with that of its _occasion_.

This seems to have been a "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come upon the Christians of the provinces named in the introductory address. Chaps. 1:6, 7; 2:12, 19, 20; 3:14, 16, 17; 4:1, 12-19; 5:9, 10. The exact date and character of this persecution cannot be determined. The majority of commentators a.s.sign it to the latter years of Nero's reign, which ended A.D. 68. The second epistle of Peter was written not long before the apostle's death, and after the epistles of Paul had become generally known in Asia Minor. As we cannot reasonably separate the two epistles by a great s.p.a.ce of time (see below, No. 11), we infer that the first was written after Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, say somewhere between A.D. 63 and 67.

10. The general tone of the first epistle is in harmony with its occasion. The apostle seeks to animate and strengthen his brethren in view of the "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come upon them. To this end he sets before them in glowing language the greatness and glory of the heavenly inheritance in reserve for them, which was purchased by the precious blood of Christ, and the dignity and blessedness of suffering for Christ's sake, with the a.s.surance of G.o.d's faithful presence and protection. With these encouragements he intermingles admonitions suited to their circ.u.mstances. He exhorts them as strangers and pilgrims to abstain from fleshly l.u.s.ts and all the other vices of their former life in ignorance; to commend their religion by a holy deportment which shall put to shame the calumnies of their adversaries; to perform faithfully all the duties of their several stations in life; to be humble, sober, vigilant, and ready always to give a reason of their Christian hope; and above all things to have fervent charity among themselves. The fervent spirit of the great apostle of the circ.u.mcision, chastened and mellowed by age, shines forth conspicuously in this epistle. The closing chapter, where he addresses first the elders, then the younger, then the whole body of believers, charms the reader by the holy tranquillity which pervades it throughout--a tranquillity deeply grounded in that faith which is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

11. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. The _address_ of this epistle is general (chap. 1:1); yet the reference which it contains to the first (chap. 3:1) shows that the apostle had in mind primarily the same circle of churches. The character of this reference--"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in which [two epistles] I stir up your pure minds by way of reminding [you]"--indicates that the second was not separated from the first by a very great s.p.a.ce of _time_, certainly not many years. The apostle wrote with the conviction that his decease was near at hand (chap. 1:13-15). There is a tradition, the correctness of which, however, is doubted by many, that he suffered martyrdom at Rome under the persecution raised by Nero against the Christians. This would be about A.D. 67. As to the _place_ from which the epistle was written we have no information.

12. The present epistle is one of the _disputed_ books. Chap. 5, No. 7, and Chap. 6. The question respecting its genuineness may be conveniently considered under the two heads of _external_ and _internal_ evidence.

The _external_ testimony to the present epistle is scanty.

Pa.s.sing by some doubtful references we come first to Origen who says (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6. 25): "But Peter, upon whom is built the church of Christ, against which the gates of h.e.l.l shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; a second also, if you will, for it is doubted of." In those of his works which are extant only in the Latin version of Rufinus, Origen in a number of pa.s.sages quotes the present epistle as Scripture. It has been suspected that these pa.s.sages were interpolated by Rufinus, who took many liberties with the text of Origen; but one of them, which occurs at the beginning of his seventh homily on Joshua, is so peculiar that we cannot well doubt that Origen himself was its author. In allusion to the procession of priests blowing with trumpets when the Israelites compa.s.sed the walls of Jericho (Josh. chap. 6), he compares the writers of the New Testament to so many sacerdotal trumpeters, a.s.signing to them trumpets for each book, and mentioning _every book_, as well the disputed as the acknowledged: "First Matthew in his gospel, gave a blast with his sacerdotal trumpet. Mark also, Luke, and John, sounded with their single sacerdotal trumpets. Peter also sounds aloud with the two trumpets of his epistles; James also, and Jude. But John adds yet again to blow with the trumpet through his epistles and Apocalypse; Luke, also, narrating the Acts of the Apostles. But last of all that man came, who said: 'I think that G.o.d has set forth us apostles last,' and thundering with the fourteen trumpets of his epistles, overthrew to their foundations the walls of Jericho, and all the engines of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers." The "epistles" through which the apostle John sounds are obviously his three epistles.

The "fourteen trumpets" upon which Paul blows include the epistle to the Hebrews. In this remarkable pa.s.sage, then, we have an _exhaustive list_ of our present canonical books; and there is no ground for imputing any interpolation to the translator. It may be said, indeed, that this enumeration of the books of the New Testament is made in a popular way, and does not imply Origen's deliberate judgment that they were all of apostolic authority. If this be granted, it still remains evident from the form of the pa.s.sage that _all the books of our present canon were in current ecclesiastical use_ in Origen's day, whatever doubts he may have had respecting some of them, and that they const.i.tuted, along with the writings of the Old Testament, that whole of divine revelation which the Christian churches employed in a.s.saulting the kingdom of Satan.

The testimony of Eusebius himself is of the same general import as that of Origen--that the first epistle of Peter has been universally acknowledged; but that the one current as the second has not been received as a part of the New Testament; but yet, appearing useful to many, has been studied with the other Scriptures (Hist. Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist.

Eccl., 3. 25).

Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles that are called catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on account of its disagreement in style with the first." Scrip.

Eccl., 1. But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style and character and structure of words by the a.s.sumption that Peter used _different interpreters_ in the composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap.

11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.

The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson's Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford's Commentary, Introduction to 2 Peter. We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6, No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the a.s.sumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no conclusive argument against it. It may have remained (as seems to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity. When it began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the churches of one region received anything new that came from another region. Chap. 2, No. 5. Jerome does indeed mention the objection from the difference of style between this epistle and the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he speaks for the early churches generally. The obscurity in which the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to have been the chief ground of doubt.

The _internal_ testimony for and against the genuineness of this epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers. The reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the modern Bible dictionaries. If one would come to true results in this field of investigation it is important that he begin with true principles. There are what may be called _staple peculiarities_, which mark the style of one writer as compared with that of another--that of John, for example, in contrast with that of Paul. We cannot conceive of these as being wanting.

But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of mind of which no definite account can be given. If one would be convinced of this, he has only to read side by side the epistle of Paul to the Romans and his second to the Corinthians.

Reserving now the second chapter of the present epistle for separate consideration, we do not find in the two remaining chapters, as compared with the first epistle, any such fundamental differences of style and diction as can const.i.tute a just ground for denying the common authorship of the two epistles. For the particulars, as well as for the examination of other objections of an internal character, the reader must be referred to the sources above named. It is certainly remarkable that Peter should refer to the writings of Paul in such terms as to cla.s.s them with the "Scriptures" of the Old Testament. Chap.

3:16. But, as Alford remarks, this implies not that the canon of the New Testament had been settled when the present epistle was written, but only that "there were certain writings by Christian teachers, which were reckoned on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures, and called by the same name. And that that was not the case, even in the traditional lifetime of Peter, it would be surely unreasonable to deny." We close this part of the discussion with the following words from the same author: "Our general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle; acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other, that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive, than that which separates all those writings from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of any one church or individual, required some considerable time to become generally known; which when known, were suspected, bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin, and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known, any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed, acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential place among the books of the New Testament."

13. The _object_ of the present epistle is to warn believers against being led away with the error of the wicked so as to fall from their own steadfastness. Chap. 3:17. It contains accordingly extended notices of the gross errors in doctrine and morals which, as we know from the New Testament, abounded in the Christian church near the close of the apostolic period. The second chapter, which is occupied with a vivid description of the false teachers that had "crept in unawares" (chap.

2:1; Jude 4), is very peculiar in its contents; and its agreement with the epistle of Jude is of such a character as leads to the inference that the two writings are somehow connected with each other. It has been supposed that both writers drew from a common source unknown to us. More probable is the opinion that one of them had in view the words of the other. A comparison of the two writings will perhaps lead to the belief that Jude's was the original, though on this point biblical scholars differ. It matters not to us whether, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter employed, in a free and independent way, the words of Jude, or Jude those of Peter. Upon either supposition his writing is as much inspired as if he had written independently. The most prominent idea of Peter's first epistle is patience and steadfastness in the endurance of suffering for Christ's sake; that of this second epistle is caution against the seductions of false teachers. Thus each epistle fills an important place in the entire economy of revelation.

III. EPISTLES OF JOHN.

14. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN bears throughout the impress of its _authorship_. That it was written by the same man who wrote the fourth gospel is too evident to be reasonably controverted. On this ground alone its genuineness and authenticity may be regarded as established on a firm basis. But the external testimonies to its authorship are also abundant from Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle, and onward. It is unnecessary to enumerate them. In respect to the _date_ of this epistle we have no certain knowledge. The common opinion is that it was written after the gospel, and towards the close of the first century. With this supposition the contents agree. It contains the affectionate counsel of an aged apostle to his younger brethren, whom he addresses as his "little children." He writes, moreover, in "the last time," when, according to the prediction of our Lord and his apostles, many antichrists and false prophets are abroad in the world (chaps. 2:18; 4:1-3), and there are some who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (chap. 4:2, 3). As to the _place_ of the apostle's writing, if we follow ancient tradition, which makes Ephesus his home in his old age, we may well believe that he wrote from that city, and that the epistle was addressed primarily to the circle of churches which had Ephesus for a centre.

Some of the ancients refer to the present epistle as written to the _Parthians_. But this is a very improbable a.s.sumption, and rests apparently on some mistake. The apostle evidently writes to those who are under his spiritual care; and these are not the Parthians, but the Christians of Asia, to whom also the seven letters of the Apocalypse are addressed.

15. The epistle has unity throughout, but not the unity of systematic logical arrangement. Its unity consists rather in the fact that all its thoughts revolve around one great central truth, _the incarnation of the Son of G.o.d in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world_. With this truth he begins, and he affirms it authoritatively, as one of the primitive apostolic witnesses: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." Chaps. 1:3; 4:6. He guards it also against perversion, when he insists upon the reality of our Lord's incarnation: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of G.o.d: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of G.o.d" (chap. 4:2, 3), words which are with good reason understood as referring to a very ancient form of error, that of the _Docet[oe]_, who maintained that the Son of G.o.d had not a real, but only an apparent body. The reception through faith of this great truth, that the Son of G.o.d has come in the flesh for man's salvation, brings us into blissful union and communion with the Father and the Son, and thus into the possession of sonship and eternal life. Chaps. 1:3; 3:1, 2; 4:15; 5:1, 13, 20. The rejection of this truth is the rejection of G.o.d's own testimony concerning his Son (chaps. 2:22; 5:9, 10), and thus the rejection of eternal life; for out of Christ, the Son of G.o.d, there is no life (chap. 5:11, 12). But this reception of Christ is not a matter of mere theoretic belief. It is a practical coming to the Father and the Son, and a holy union with them. The proof of such union with G.o.d and Christ is likeness to G.o.d and obedience to G.o.d's commandments. They who profess to know G.o.d and to be in him, while they walk in darkness and allow themselves in sin, are liars and the truth is not in them. Chaps.

1:5-7; 2:4-6; 3:5-10, 24; 5:4, 5, 18. The sum of all G.o.d's attributes is love; and the sum of Christian character is love also. Chap. 4:16. But there can be no true love towards G.o.d where there is none towards the brethren; and such love must manifest itself "not in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." Chaps. 3:11-18; 4:7-11, 20, 21; 5:1.

He that loves his brother abides in the light; but he that hates him abides in darkness and death. Chaps. 2:9-11; 3:14, 15. All believers have an abiding unction of the Spirit, which enables them to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and keeps them from the seductions of the many antichrists that are abroad. Chap. 2:18-27. Such true believers, whose hearts are filled with love, are raised above fear, and have confidence in prayer, and may look forward with joyful confidence to the day of judgment. Chaps. 2:28; 3:18-20; 4:17, 18; 5:14, 15. These fundamental truths the apostle reiterates in various forms and connections, intermingling with them various admonitions and promises of a more particular character. He dwells with especial fulness on the evidences of discipleship as manifested in the daily spirit and life.

There is perhaps no part of G.o.d's word so directly available to the anxious inquirer who wishes to know what true religion is, and whether he possesses it. He who, in humble reliance on the illumination of the divine Spirit, applies to himself this touchstone of Christian character, will know whether he is of G.o.d, or of the world that lies in wickedness.

16. SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. These two short epistles are so closely related to each other in style and manner that they have always been regarded as written by one and the same person. In considering, therefore, the question of their authorship we take them both together.

Though reckoned by Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 25) and by Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25; Demonstratio Evangel. 3. 5) among the disputed writings, the external testimony to their apostolic authorship is upon the whole satisfactory, embracing the names of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, etc.

When we take into account the small extent of these epistles it is plain that no unfavorable inference can be drawn from the silence of Tertullian and others. Nor is there any internal evidence against them.

That the man who, in his gospel, studiously avoids the mention of his own name, describing himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and, in his first epistle, simply cla.s.ses himself with the other apostles--"that which _we_ have seen and heard," etc.--should in these epistles, where some designation of himself was necessary, speak of himself as "the elder" is not surprising. Compare 1 Peter 5:1.

17. Concerning the date of these two epistles we know nothing. The object of the first seems to have been to set before the lady to whom it was addressed the importance of a discriminating love, which distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and does not allow itself to aid and abet error by misplaced kindness towards its teachers.

In the second the apostle, writing to Gaius, commends to his hospitality, certain missionary brethren, who were strangers in the place where this disciple lived. It would seem that the design of these brethren was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without charge; that he had in a former letter, commended them to the church where Gaius resided; but that Diotrephes had hindered their reception, and persecuted those who favored them.

Short as these epistles are, then, each of them contains weighty instruction--the first, in reference to ill-timed kindness and liberality towards the teachers of error; the second, concerning the character and conduct of those who love to have the preeminence, and the abhorrence in which they ought to be held by all who love the purity and peace of the churches.

IV. EPISTLE OF JUDE.

18. The writer of this epistle styles himself "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Chap. 1:1. This James is undoubtedly the same man who held so conspicuous a place in the church at Jerusalem, and was the author of the epistle which bears his name. Whether Jude was an apostle, or an apostolic man, like Mark and Luke, depends upon the question respecting the relation which his brother James held to Christ, concerning which see the introduction to the epistle of James. In either case the canonical authority of the epistle holds good. The close relation between this epistle and the second chapter of Peter's second epistle has already been noticed. See above, No. 13. It was probably anterior in time to that epistle, but not separated from it by a great number of years. If we may infer anything from the abundant use made by the writer of Jewish history and tradition, the persons addressed are Jewish Christians.

19. Eusebius cla.s.ses this epistle also among the disputed writings (Hist. Eccl., 2. 23; 3. 25), yet the testimonies to its genuineness are ample--the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, etc.

It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To this it may be answered--(1) that, if this be the case, Jude does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give offence. The apostle Paul does the same (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and Jude himself in another pa.s.sage (verse 9).

20. The _design_ of the epistle Jude himself gives in explicit terms (verses 3, 4). It is to guard believers against the seductions of false teachers, corrupt in practice as well as doctrine; whose selfishness, sensuality, and avarice; whose vain-glorious, abusive, and schismatic spirit, he describes in vivid language, denouncing upon them at the same time the awful judgment of G.o.d. The apostolic portraiture has not yet become antiquated in the history of Christ's church.

CHAPTER x.x.xII.

THE APOCALYPSE.

1. The word _Apocalypse_ (Greek _Apokalupsis_) signifies _Revelation_, the t.i.tle given to the book in our English version as well from its opening word as from its contents. Of all the writings of the New Testament that are cla.s.sed by Eusebius among the disputed books (_Antilegomena_, chap. 5. 6), the apostolic authorship of this is sustained by the greatest amount of _external_ evidence; so much so that Eusebius acknowledges it as doubtful whether it should be cla.s.sed among the _acknowledged_ or the _disputed_ books.

It was known to Papias, to Melito bishop of Sardis, and to Theophilus of Antioch; is quoted as a part of Scripture by the churches of Vienne and Lyons in the last quarter of the second century; and is expressly ascribed to the apostle John by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian canon, Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, etc. The testimonies may be seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Test., in Alford, and in the other works already frequently referred to. Eusebius, after giving a list of the _acknowledged_ books, adds: "After these should be placed, if it be thought proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall give the opinions at the proper time." Then, at the end of a list of the _disputed_ and _rejected_ books he adds: "And moreover, as I said, the Revelation of John, if it be thought proper, which some, as I said, reject, but others reckon among the acknowledged books" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25); and again, after mentioning with approbation the account of those who said that there were at Ephesus two who bore the name of John (John the _apostle_, and the so-called _presbyter_ John), he adds: "For it is probable that the second, if any one be not willing to allow that it was the first, saw the Revelation current under the name of John" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39). Those who denied the apostolic authorship of the book generally referred it to this latter, John the presbyter. So Dionysius of Alexandria and others. But for this they adduced no historic proof. Their arguments were drawn wholly from considerations relating to its internal character, especially in the case of some, its supposed millenarian views. Upon any fair principle of judging, we must concede that the apostolic authorship of this book is sustained by a ma.s.s of ancient testimony not reb.u.t.ted by any contrary testimony which rests on a historic basis.

2. In modern, as in ancient times, the main arguments against the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse have been drawn from its _internal_ character, especially as contrasted with that of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John. On this ground the a.s.saults upon the book have been many and strong, and they have been met with vigorous resistance. To review the arguments on both sides would exceed our limits. Many of them, moreover, presuppose a knowledge of the original languages of both the Old and the New Testament. We can only indicate some considerations of a general nature.

(1.) No valid argument against the apostolic authorship of this book can be drawn from the fact that the writer specifies his name in the introduction and elsewhere. Chaps. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8. It may surprise us that the man who studiously avoids mentioning his name in the fourth gospel, and who describes himself in his second and third epistles as "the elder," should here directly introduce his name at the beginning and in the progress of the book. But for this difference he may have had a good reason, whether we can discover it or not. The direct command, addressed to him personally, that he should write down his visions and send them to the seven churches of Asia would seem to imply the propriety, if not the necessity, of his connecting his own name with the record of them. He addressed the churches immediately and authoritatively in the name of the risen and glorified Saviour. What more natural and proper than that he should inform them directly who he was that had received this heavenly message.

(2.) The _doctrinal_ views of the Apocalypse afford no argument against its apostolic authorship. The writer, it is true, moves to a great extent in a new and peculiar sphere of truth; but there is nothing in it contradictory to the teachings of John's gospel and epistles. On the contrary, the great central truths that relate to Christ's person and office are in perfect harmony with those teachings.

(3.) The _spirit_ of the Apocalypse is not contradictory to that of the gospel and epistles. A writer in Alexander's Kitto says: "Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evangelist; mildness and love find utterance in affectionate discourse. But the spirit of the apocalyptist is stern and revengeful, with cutting reproofs, calls to repentance, commands and threatenings." The answer to all this is that, just as the human body has bones and muscles as well as fluids and soft tissues, so the mediatorial government of Christ has a stern as well as a mild side; and that the very nature of the visions contained in the apocalypse gives prominence to this side.

(4.) The main objections are based on _diversity of style and diction_. Notwithstanding all the true points of resemblance in this respect that have been adduced by various writers, the difference between the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and the gospel and epistles of John, on the other, is very striking. But here we must take into account, first of all, the great difference in the _subject-matter_, which naturally brings a corresponding difference of language. Next, the difference in the _mode of divine communication_. The gospel and epistles were written under that constant tranquil illumination of the Holy Spirit which all the apostles enjoyed. The subject-matter of the Apocalypse was given in direct vision--much of it, moreover, through the medium of oral address. To one who believes in the reality of the revelations here recorded it is vain that an opponent urge the difference in style between the first epistle of John and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; since these latter are expressed in the very words of Christ.

Inseparably connected with the peculiar mode of revelation in the Apocalypse are the peculiar _mental state and circ.u.mstances_ in which the apostle wrote. He composed the gospel and epistles in the calmness of tranquil contemplation and reminiscences of the past. The visions of the Apocalypse he received "in the Spirit" (chap. 1:10; 4:2); that is, in a state of ecstacy; and, according to the plain language of the book, he _wrote them down at the time_, beginning, as we must suppose, with the second chapter, the introductory chapter and some closing remarks having been added afterwards. The direction: "What thou seest write in a book" (chap. 1:11, 19), does not indeed imply that he should write upon the spot; but that he did so is plainly indicated elsewhere: "When the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not" (chap. 10:4). In entire harmony with this is another pa.s.sage: "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth," etc. (chap. 14:13); that is, "Write down now these words of comfort." The apostle, therefore, wrote down his visions one after another immediately after they were received. When he wrote he was not in a state of unconsciousness, but of mental and spiritual exaltation above his ordinary condition. To affirm that he could not have received this series of visions without being deprived of the capacity to record them at the time, would be to limit the modes of divine revelation by our ignorance. If we cannot understand how the apostle could hear "in the Spirit" the voices of the seven thunders, and immediately prepare to write down their utterances, we ought, at least, reverently to receive the fact as stated by him. To expect from one writing in such circ.u.mstances careful attention to the rules of Greek syntax and the idioms of the Greek language would be absurd. Undoubtedly Plato in a like situation would have written pure Attic Greek, because that would have been to him the most natural mode of writing. But the Galilean fisherman, a Jew by birth and education, fell back upon the Hebrew idioms with which he was so familiar. Finally we must remember that, after the a.n.a.logy of the Old Testament prophecies, this prophetic book is expressed in _poetic diction_. It is full of images borrowed from the old Hebrew prophets, often spiritualized and applied in a higher sense. Looking to the imagery alone, one may well call this book a _grand anthology_ of the old Hebrew poets. But the poetic diction of one and the same writer may differ widely from his prose style, as we see in the case of Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

If the above considerations do not wholly remove the difficulty under consideration they greatly relieve it. The apostolic authorship of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John is sustained by a ma.s.s of evidence that cannot be set aside. That the same John also wrote the visions of the Apocalypse is attested, as we have seen, by the almost unanimous voice of antiquity. Far greater difficulties are involved in the denial of the ancient tradition of the church than in the admission of it.

3. The _date_ of the Apocalypse has been a matter of much discussion, the great question being whether it was written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The external testimony strongly preponderates on the side of a late date; for the great body of this tradition represents the banishment of the apostle to the isle of Patmos as having taken place under Domitian who succeeded t.i.tus, and reigned from A.D. 81 to 96. This supposition also agrees with the fact that the recipients of our Lord's seven messages (chaps. 2, 3) are the seven churches of Proconsular Asia, among whom, according to the unanimous testimony of the primitive church, the apostle spent the latter years of his life. The hypothesis of an earlier date is but feebly supported by external testimony. It rests mainly on the alleged reference of the writer to the overthrow of Jerusalem as an event yet future, and as being the main subject of the prophesies contained in the book. But this reference has never been clearly established, and is contradicted by the general a.n.a.logy of prophecy, by the contents of the book, and by its manifest relation to the prophecies of Daniel. A few only of the briefer prophetic books, as those of Jonah and Nahum, confine themselves to one particular event lying in the near future. All the more extended among them, and many of the shorter, look forward undeniably to the distant future. The book of Daniel can be interpreted only as containing a great scheme of prophecy stretching forward into the distant future, and with this the revelation of John has the closest connection. The _place_ where the revelation was received was the isle of Patmos, one of the group called Sporades in the aegean sea off the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, where the apostle represents himself to have been "for the word of G.o.d, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (chap. 1:9): that is, in accordance with ancient tradition, banished to that isle on account of the gospel.

4. For the _interpretation_ of this book many and very discordant plans have been proposed. Setting aside at the outset all those schemes which do not find in the Apocalypse a view of the conflicts of Christ's people to the end of time and their final victory over their enemies, there remain two general principles of interpretation. The first may be called the _generic_ principle. Those who adopt it inquire only after the general import of the symbols employed, without attempting any particular application of them to the history of the church in connection with that of the world. Thus, the white horse of the first seal (chap. 6:2) denotes in general the conquests of Christ through his gospel; the red horse of the second seal (chap 6:4), war and carnage, as accompanying the progress of the truth; and so on throughout the other symbols of the book. But when we come to the most important part of the prophecies, those concerning the two beasts (chap. 13), and that concerning the woman riding on the scarlet-colored beast (chap. 17), this principle utterly fails. It cannot be that so many specific and very peculiar marks mean only persecuting powers in general. They point with wonderful clearness and precision to that grand combination of the civil with the ecclesiastical power of which papal Rome has ever been the chief representative.

We come, then, for the true key to the Apocalypse, to the other principle, which may be called the _historic_. This seeks in the history of the church and of the world for the great events foretold in this book. It is no valid objection to this principle, that in the attempt to apply it interpreters find great, and in many cases insuperable difficulties. The mystery of G.o.d is not yet finished. It may be that the mighty events of the future can alone throw a clear light on the entire plan of the book. Meanwhile we must wait in reverential expectation, having in the plain fulfilment of that part of its prophecies which describes the rise and character of the combined ecclesiastical and political power which, under the name of Christianity, persecutes the true servants of Christ, a certain pledge that all the rest will be accomplished in due season. Expositors are agreed that the predictions of the book do not run on in chronological order from beginning to end.