Introduction

Introduction1. General Introduction.The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be therevelationof mystery has become instead themysteryof Revelation.There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.2And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified[pg 018]in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John's mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,3yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far-seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God's thought has mostly proved wider than man's first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.The visions of the Apocalypse are generally conceded to belong to the latter part of the first century, and manifestly relate in main portion to the then future, whether near or far, of the church of Christ in the world, for they pertain to a profoundly impressive prophetic experience. The divine path of God's people among the nations is beheld in symbol, type, and figure, ever leading on to victory through Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord; the church and the world are seen engaged in a multiform[pg 019]and deadly conflict, while the consummation is depicted in the fall of evil and the ruin of nature wrought by sin; and the triumph of the holy is set forth in a vision of complete restoration to the divine presence amid the beauty of a new world and the glories of the New Jerusalem—an outcome never once in doubt, for God rules through all and wins. And though in this ever changing picture the conditions of the early church and of the first century are constantly reflected in every part, yet the representative character of the whole may be clearly seen. Indeed one cannot but be impressed with the fine insight and spirit of reserve which is manifested by John throughout the book, in avoiding such explanations as might serve to narrow the visions to a purely local and temporary perspective, thereby evidencing that he had risen to a truly prophetic view, and that to his mind the visions belonged to a wider horizon as well as to the nearer limit of his own day. For whatever application or fulfilment these may have had, and surelydidhave, in the period in which they were given, has not exhausted their meaning. To the ear that is open to God's voice they have a lesson and significance that belong alike to the past, the present, and the future, a perennial freshness that time can neither fade nor destroy, for they manifest the principles of the divine government which abide for all the ages.In the light of modern criticism the primary question to be decided is whether we are dealing with an ordinary Jewish-Christian apocalypse of similar value with a multitude of others in the past, and with no essentially deeper meaning or diviner message; or whether we have not in the Apocalypse of John a true revelation, given in this literary form because of its particular suitability to the condition of the time, and its fitness for the needs of the generation that first received it. And the answer to this question must be sought in the contents of the book itself as vindicated by the Christian conscience—an answer that the church has never been slow to make, and that never can be changed so long as the needs of the human heart remain the same. We must therefore regard the fundamental question which lies back of that of interpretation, viz. the inspiration of the book itself, which alone can give it permanent value to the Christian mind, as definitely settled by the clear message which it contains for life, by the multitudinous voices[pg 020]of God which reverberate within it, and by the heaven-born solace which it ever affords to tried and tempted men in the midst of the conflict of life. And we shall find that the general meaning, so far from being hopelessly obscure, may be fairly understood by the attentive student and devout reader.The obscurity of the Revelation arises both from its literary form and from the mystical character of its contents. The Apocalyptic form is so foreign to our way of thinking, and the mysticism is so peculiarly Oriental and Jewish, that these are apt to perplex rather than enlighten us. The Apocalyptist, deeply absorbed in the later prophecies of the Old Testament, especially those of Daniel and Ezekiel, and his mind steeped in the dreams and images of current Jewish apocalypses, found under the influence of the Spirit a fitting sphere for his prophetic fervor in a series of strange symbolic visions such as belonged to the fashion of his time. The chief symbolism throughout is that of the Old Testament, quickened and vivified by the thought of the New,—for it is everywhere assumed that the mysteries of the former dispensation find their only adequate solution in the supreme and final testimony of Jesus the Christ,4—but the atmosphere of the visions is that of Apocalyptic, which curiously enough has contrived to cast its own peculiar glow upon all the Old Testament teachings and thus create a new symbolism out of the old. And even when many of the symbols are assumed to be drawn in their present form from apocalypses then current in the Jewish world but which are no longer extant, and these to be derived in part from Babylonian and Persian sources, as held by one class of interpreters, they are yet found to have become so assimilated by the Jewish mind that they reflect the later development of Old Testament thought. These visions of the seer, like shadows cast upon the foreground of the future, depict in outline great fundamental truths or pervasive principles of the divine government that are, and are to be, manifested in multiple facts in the progress of the ages. It is not the purpose of the visions to disclose the facts themselves, for that belongs to the development of history, but rather to furnish the means for interpreting the facts, when once they appear, by the exalted standard of the divine ideals. There are,[pg 021]indeed, a few cardinal facts of the future that are kept well in the foreground, such as the second coming of Christ, the triumph of God's kingdom, and the end of the present world; but these belong to the content of previous revelation as well, and are not new or peculiar to this book. The content of the visions is generic and not specific, and whenever we depart from broad generalization and attempt to enter into detail in our interpretation, we destroy the beauty and force of the lesson conveyed, and wander into the field of speculation concerning things that were never intended to be revealed, if the analogy of all other prophecy can be relied upon as a guide.5For though the Apocalypse undoubtedly contains an element of predictive prophecy, yet such prophecy is not history written before its time, but a divinely inspired and profoundly discriminative pre-view of certain dominant issues in the future that belong to the purpose of God, and are the resultant of well established principles of the divine government—issues that stand out to the prophet's illumined eye in bold relief against the sky-line like the headlands of a continent amid the surrounding mists which envelop them.Prophecy in this view is looked upon as much broader in its scope than theforetelling of things that are future. This element should be regarded as subordinate to the general purpose of prophecy, which is theforthtelling of the mind of God.6And we should avoid that“dwarfed sense of the word prophecy in modern speech”which leads most readers (and even interpreters) to fasten upon a revelation of the secrets of the future. For it is evident that“Old Testament history and prophecy make prominent another kind of revelation—the unveiling of the ideal, as when the pattern of things sacred was unfolded to Moses in the mount”.7In the true sense of prophecy it manifestly contains both these conceptions, viz. the Prophetico-predictive, and the Prophetico-ideal, which enter in varying proportion into the great messages of old. But it is believed by many of our best authorities, and it will be found in a careful study of the[pg 022]book of Revelation, that the prophetic element is not chiefly predictive in the strict sense, and can for the most part be best interpreted as the unveiling of the divine ideal which is being inwrought in the sphere of human life, or the manifestation of the divine purpose which is discovered as interpenetrating all the moral struggle and apparent contradictions of earthly experience, and which is leading up to the final victory; and only such glimpses of the future are given as serve to assure a better comprehension of this main idea.8The two most obvious principles that pervade the book of Revelation and underlie its ever changing scenes, are,first, God's method of government in the world by the trial of his people and the judgment of the wicked; and,second, God's method of developing character in moral agents by moral conflict. Accepting these as in a measure interpretative of the ways of God with men, the Apocalypse approaches the standpoint of the divine perspective, and traces the great lines of the divine purpose as they traverse the entire field of human history. It makes Christ's relation to his people both in time and in eternity the ground of an exhaustive inquiry into the mysteries of earthly life, which aims not only to discover God in the trend of history but also to interpret God through history wrought out to its end. It affords glimpses of God's far reaching plan in the process of redemption, leading up to the final salvation of unnumbered multitudes; it finds the key to earth's long-drawn-out story of sin and suffering, of conflict and of death, in wider victory at larger cost; and it teaches us to look calmly out beyond the ebb and flow of tides and noons to the shoreless, timeless life that ever abides in the presence of God. To the heart of faith it speaks of an unwavering trust when days are dark and storms fill the sky; like a clear voice out of the night it tells of the coming day; and with persuasive force its visions bring man face to face with God, his Creator, Redeemer, and Eternal Friend.2. The Title.The Title used in the Authorized Version of our English Scriptures, and retained by the English Revisers,[pg 023]is“The Revelation of St. John the Divine,”a name given to the book by the early church, though many of the older manuscripts omit“the Divine”. Our American Revisers read,“The Revelation of John;”but the more correct title is the one that is commonly used, and that is printed in the upper margin of the text, simply“The Revelation,”i. e. the unveiling, or uncovering [viz. of the mystery of the divine purpose and method in human life and history]—the opening words of the book itself—or, if preferred, the original Greek name,“The Apocalypse”,9which perhaps should have been retained without translation as in the Douay Version, but of which“The Revelation”is the exact equivalent. The phrase“of St. John”, or“of John”, may properly be omitted because of its ambiguity; for the book is declared in its opening sentence to be“the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, i. e. a revelation of or from Jesus Christ, and it is only in a secondary sense“the Revelation of John”, i. e. a revelation made to and recorded by John. The occasion for the use of this title,“The Revelation of St. John”, in the first centuries was in order to distinguish the canonical Apocalypse from many others then in circulation, but this necessity has long since ceased to exist. For us it stands alone, it istheApocalypse, the Revelation.3. The Author.That the Author of the Revelation was named John we have no reason to doubt, if we believe the statements of the book itself, for this is distinctly affirmed three different times.10He is also further described in one form of the title as“the Divine,”i. e. the one who discoursed about God, or the theologian. This latter designation, though of uncertain origin and date, and omitted by the American Revisers as without sufficient support, is yet undoubtedly as old as the latter part of the third century11while it may be much older, and has therefore some[pg 024]claim to traditional authority. The title, however, in any form is subsequent to the book itself. The statements of the Author concerning himself and his relations to the church in Asia, appear to the general reader to be decisive, and to indicate with sufficient clearness that the writer was none other than John the son of Zebedee, the apostle whom Jesus loved, though this is not the view of the majority of the later critics. Some consider it to be the work of another John known to tradition as the Presbyter;12others attribute it to an unknown author of that name, or to some one writing under that name. But notwithstanding the frequency and positiveness with which the Apostolic Authorship and the Unity of the Book have been called in question during the last half century, the entire results of critical research may with some confidence be said not to have discredited either of them.13The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle's without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their“brother, and partaker in tribulation,”and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;14(b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John's Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent[pg 025]“tragic tone”found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John's writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of“The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:15(3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;16(b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John's long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.17On the other hand[pg 026]it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought-forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.18In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle's earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.19And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it. For notwithstanding the confident assertion of most of the later critics that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle, yet indications are not lacking in some quarters now, influenced perhaps by the really cogent arguments so well stated by the decadent school of Baur, of a return in opinion to the recognition of the Johannine authorship as in some sense at least undeniable, though foreign elements are conceived to enter into it.20It has indeed, not infrequently been held, among those who deny that the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel, that he wrote the Apocalypse; but still more commonly it is accepted that the work belongs to the“so-called Johannine writings”, and originated in the same circle at Ephesus to which these[pg 027]writings are now attributed by advanced critics,21leaving the personal authorship more or less indefinite. The question of authorship, however, is a subordinate one, for the book maintains its own message, and it should be dealt with purely as a subject of historical inquiry and not one of dogmatic importance, in the interest of correctness rather than of traditional opinion.4. The Unity.The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,22has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.[pg 028]In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.23This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,24or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,25may well be said to have been“thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current[pg 029]at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.26This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.27The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,28indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or“apocalyptic conventions”as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form[pg 030]being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;29and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?5. The Date.Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of[pg 031]visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33(c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the[pg 032]Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35(d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.

Introduction1. General Introduction.The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be therevelationof mystery has become instead themysteryof Revelation.There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.2And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified[pg 018]in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John's mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,3yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far-seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God's thought has mostly proved wider than man's first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.The visions of the Apocalypse are generally conceded to belong to the latter part of the first century, and manifestly relate in main portion to the then future, whether near or far, of the church of Christ in the world, for they pertain to a profoundly impressive prophetic experience. The divine path of God's people among the nations is beheld in symbol, type, and figure, ever leading on to victory through Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord; the church and the world are seen engaged in a multiform[pg 019]and deadly conflict, while the consummation is depicted in the fall of evil and the ruin of nature wrought by sin; and the triumph of the holy is set forth in a vision of complete restoration to the divine presence amid the beauty of a new world and the glories of the New Jerusalem—an outcome never once in doubt, for God rules through all and wins. And though in this ever changing picture the conditions of the early church and of the first century are constantly reflected in every part, yet the representative character of the whole may be clearly seen. Indeed one cannot but be impressed with the fine insight and spirit of reserve which is manifested by John throughout the book, in avoiding such explanations as might serve to narrow the visions to a purely local and temporary perspective, thereby evidencing that he had risen to a truly prophetic view, and that to his mind the visions belonged to a wider horizon as well as to the nearer limit of his own day. For whatever application or fulfilment these may have had, and surelydidhave, in the period in which they were given, has not exhausted their meaning. To the ear that is open to God's voice they have a lesson and significance that belong alike to the past, the present, and the future, a perennial freshness that time can neither fade nor destroy, for they manifest the principles of the divine government which abide for all the ages.In the light of modern criticism the primary question to be decided is whether we are dealing with an ordinary Jewish-Christian apocalypse of similar value with a multitude of others in the past, and with no essentially deeper meaning or diviner message; or whether we have not in the Apocalypse of John a true revelation, given in this literary form because of its particular suitability to the condition of the time, and its fitness for the needs of the generation that first received it. And the answer to this question must be sought in the contents of the book itself as vindicated by the Christian conscience—an answer that the church has never been slow to make, and that never can be changed so long as the needs of the human heart remain the same. We must therefore regard the fundamental question which lies back of that of interpretation, viz. the inspiration of the book itself, which alone can give it permanent value to the Christian mind, as definitely settled by the clear message which it contains for life, by the multitudinous voices[pg 020]of God which reverberate within it, and by the heaven-born solace which it ever affords to tried and tempted men in the midst of the conflict of life. And we shall find that the general meaning, so far from being hopelessly obscure, may be fairly understood by the attentive student and devout reader.The obscurity of the Revelation arises both from its literary form and from the mystical character of its contents. The Apocalyptic form is so foreign to our way of thinking, and the mysticism is so peculiarly Oriental and Jewish, that these are apt to perplex rather than enlighten us. The Apocalyptist, deeply absorbed in the later prophecies of the Old Testament, especially those of Daniel and Ezekiel, and his mind steeped in the dreams and images of current Jewish apocalypses, found under the influence of the Spirit a fitting sphere for his prophetic fervor in a series of strange symbolic visions such as belonged to the fashion of his time. The chief symbolism throughout is that of the Old Testament, quickened and vivified by the thought of the New,—for it is everywhere assumed that the mysteries of the former dispensation find their only adequate solution in the supreme and final testimony of Jesus the Christ,4—but the atmosphere of the visions is that of Apocalyptic, which curiously enough has contrived to cast its own peculiar glow upon all the Old Testament teachings and thus create a new symbolism out of the old. And even when many of the symbols are assumed to be drawn in their present form from apocalypses then current in the Jewish world but which are no longer extant, and these to be derived in part from Babylonian and Persian sources, as held by one class of interpreters, they are yet found to have become so assimilated by the Jewish mind that they reflect the later development of Old Testament thought. These visions of the seer, like shadows cast upon the foreground of the future, depict in outline great fundamental truths or pervasive principles of the divine government that are, and are to be, manifested in multiple facts in the progress of the ages. It is not the purpose of the visions to disclose the facts themselves, for that belongs to the development of history, but rather to furnish the means for interpreting the facts, when once they appear, by the exalted standard of the divine ideals. There are,[pg 021]indeed, a few cardinal facts of the future that are kept well in the foreground, such as the second coming of Christ, the triumph of God's kingdom, and the end of the present world; but these belong to the content of previous revelation as well, and are not new or peculiar to this book. The content of the visions is generic and not specific, and whenever we depart from broad generalization and attempt to enter into detail in our interpretation, we destroy the beauty and force of the lesson conveyed, and wander into the field of speculation concerning things that were never intended to be revealed, if the analogy of all other prophecy can be relied upon as a guide.5For though the Apocalypse undoubtedly contains an element of predictive prophecy, yet such prophecy is not history written before its time, but a divinely inspired and profoundly discriminative pre-view of certain dominant issues in the future that belong to the purpose of God, and are the resultant of well established principles of the divine government—issues that stand out to the prophet's illumined eye in bold relief against the sky-line like the headlands of a continent amid the surrounding mists which envelop them.Prophecy in this view is looked upon as much broader in its scope than theforetelling of things that are future. This element should be regarded as subordinate to the general purpose of prophecy, which is theforthtelling of the mind of God.6And we should avoid that“dwarfed sense of the word prophecy in modern speech”which leads most readers (and even interpreters) to fasten upon a revelation of the secrets of the future. For it is evident that“Old Testament history and prophecy make prominent another kind of revelation—the unveiling of the ideal, as when the pattern of things sacred was unfolded to Moses in the mount”.7In the true sense of prophecy it manifestly contains both these conceptions, viz. the Prophetico-predictive, and the Prophetico-ideal, which enter in varying proportion into the great messages of old. But it is believed by many of our best authorities, and it will be found in a careful study of the[pg 022]book of Revelation, that the prophetic element is not chiefly predictive in the strict sense, and can for the most part be best interpreted as the unveiling of the divine ideal which is being inwrought in the sphere of human life, or the manifestation of the divine purpose which is discovered as interpenetrating all the moral struggle and apparent contradictions of earthly experience, and which is leading up to the final victory; and only such glimpses of the future are given as serve to assure a better comprehension of this main idea.8The two most obvious principles that pervade the book of Revelation and underlie its ever changing scenes, are,first, God's method of government in the world by the trial of his people and the judgment of the wicked; and,second, God's method of developing character in moral agents by moral conflict. Accepting these as in a measure interpretative of the ways of God with men, the Apocalypse approaches the standpoint of the divine perspective, and traces the great lines of the divine purpose as they traverse the entire field of human history. It makes Christ's relation to his people both in time and in eternity the ground of an exhaustive inquiry into the mysteries of earthly life, which aims not only to discover God in the trend of history but also to interpret God through history wrought out to its end. It affords glimpses of God's far reaching plan in the process of redemption, leading up to the final salvation of unnumbered multitudes; it finds the key to earth's long-drawn-out story of sin and suffering, of conflict and of death, in wider victory at larger cost; and it teaches us to look calmly out beyond the ebb and flow of tides and noons to the shoreless, timeless life that ever abides in the presence of God. To the heart of faith it speaks of an unwavering trust when days are dark and storms fill the sky; like a clear voice out of the night it tells of the coming day; and with persuasive force its visions bring man face to face with God, his Creator, Redeemer, and Eternal Friend.2. The Title.The Title used in the Authorized Version of our English Scriptures, and retained by the English Revisers,[pg 023]is“The Revelation of St. John the Divine,”a name given to the book by the early church, though many of the older manuscripts omit“the Divine”. Our American Revisers read,“The Revelation of John;”but the more correct title is the one that is commonly used, and that is printed in the upper margin of the text, simply“The Revelation,”i. e. the unveiling, or uncovering [viz. of the mystery of the divine purpose and method in human life and history]—the opening words of the book itself—or, if preferred, the original Greek name,“The Apocalypse”,9which perhaps should have been retained without translation as in the Douay Version, but of which“The Revelation”is the exact equivalent. The phrase“of St. John”, or“of John”, may properly be omitted because of its ambiguity; for the book is declared in its opening sentence to be“the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, i. e. a revelation of or from Jesus Christ, and it is only in a secondary sense“the Revelation of John”, i. e. a revelation made to and recorded by John. The occasion for the use of this title,“The Revelation of St. John”, in the first centuries was in order to distinguish the canonical Apocalypse from many others then in circulation, but this necessity has long since ceased to exist. For us it stands alone, it istheApocalypse, the Revelation.3. The Author.That the Author of the Revelation was named John we have no reason to doubt, if we believe the statements of the book itself, for this is distinctly affirmed three different times.10He is also further described in one form of the title as“the Divine,”i. e. the one who discoursed about God, or the theologian. This latter designation, though of uncertain origin and date, and omitted by the American Revisers as without sufficient support, is yet undoubtedly as old as the latter part of the third century11while it may be much older, and has therefore some[pg 024]claim to traditional authority. The title, however, in any form is subsequent to the book itself. The statements of the Author concerning himself and his relations to the church in Asia, appear to the general reader to be decisive, and to indicate with sufficient clearness that the writer was none other than John the son of Zebedee, the apostle whom Jesus loved, though this is not the view of the majority of the later critics. Some consider it to be the work of another John known to tradition as the Presbyter;12others attribute it to an unknown author of that name, or to some one writing under that name. But notwithstanding the frequency and positiveness with which the Apostolic Authorship and the Unity of the Book have been called in question during the last half century, the entire results of critical research may with some confidence be said not to have discredited either of them.13The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle's without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their“brother, and partaker in tribulation,”and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;14(b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John's Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent[pg 025]“tragic tone”found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John's writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of“The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:15(3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;16(b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John's long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.17On the other hand[pg 026]it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought-forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.18In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle's earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.19And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it. For notwithstanding the confident assertion of most of the later critics that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle, yet indications are not lacking in some quarters now, influenced perhaps by the really cogent arguments so well stated by the decadent school of Baur, of a return in opinion to the recognition of the Johannine authorship as in some sense at least undeniable, though foreign elements are conceived to enter into it.20It has indeed, not infrequently been held, among those who deny that the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel, that he wrote the Apocalypse; but still more commonly it is accepted that the work belongs to the“so-called Johannine writings”, and originated in the same circle at Ephesus to which these[pg 027]writings are now attributed by advanced critics,21leaving the personal authorship more or less indefinite. The question of authorship, however, is a subordinate one, for the book maintains its own message, and it should be dealt with purely as a subject of historical inquiry and not one of dogmatic importance, in the interest of correctness rather than of traditional opinion.4. The Unity.The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,22has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.[pg 028]In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.23This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,24or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,25may well be said to have been“thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current[pg 029]at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.26This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.27The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,28indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or“apocalyptic conventions”as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form[pg 030]being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;29and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?5. The Date.Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of[pg 031]visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33(c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the[pg 032]Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35(d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.

Introduction1. General Introduction.The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be therevelationof mystery has become instead themysteryof Revelation.There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.2And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified[pg 018]in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John's mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,3yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far-seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God's thought has mostly proved wider than man's first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.The visions of the Apocalypse are generally conceded to belong to the latter part of the first century, and manifestly relate in main portion to the then future, whether near or far, of the church of Christ in the world, for they pertain to a profoundly impressive prophetic experience. The divine path of God's people among the nations is beheld in symbol, type, and figure, ever leading on to victory through Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord; the church and the world are seen engaged in a multiform[pg 019]and deadly conflict, while the consummation is depicted in the fall of evil and the ruin of nature wrought by sin; and the triumph of the holy is set forth in a vision of complete restoration to the divine presence amid the beauty of a new world and the glories of the New Jerusalem—an outcome never once in doubt, for God rules through all and wins. And though in this ever changing picture the conditions of the early church and of the first century are constantly reflected in every part, yet the representative character of the whole may be clearly seen. Indeed one cannot but be impressed with the fine insight and spirit of reserve which is manifested by John throughout the book, in avoiding such explanations as might serve to narrow the visions to a purely local and temporary perspective, thereby evidencing that he had risen to a truly prophetic view, and that to his mind the visions belonged to a wider horizon as well as to the nearer limit of his own day. For whatever application or fulfilment these may have had, and surelydidhave, in the period in which they were given, has not exhausted their meaning. To the ear that is open to God's voice they have a lesson and significance that belong alike to the past, the present, and the future, a perennial freshness that time can neither fade nor destroy, for they manifest the principles of the divine government which abide for all the ages.In the light of modern criticism the primary question to be decided is whether we are dealing with an ordinary Jewish-Christian apocalypse of similar value with a multitude of others in the past, and with no essentially deeper meaning or diviner message; or whether we have not in the Apocalypse of John a true revelation, given in this literary form because of its particular suitability to the condition of the time, and its fitness for the needs of the generation that first received it. And the answer to this question must be sought in the contents of the book itself as vindicated by the Christian conscience—an answer that the church has never been slow to make, and that never can be changed so long as the needs of the human heart remain the same. We must therefore regard the fundamental question which lies back of that of interpretation, viz. the inspiration of the book itself, which alone can give it permanent value to the Christian mind, as definitely settled by the clear message which it contains for life, by the multitudinous voices[pg 020]of God which reverberate within it, and by the heaven-born solace which it ever affords to tried and tempted men in the midst of the conflict of life. And we shall find that the general meaning, so far from being hopelessly obscure, may be fairly understood by the attentive student and devout reader.The obscurity of the Revelation arises both from its literary form and from the mystical character of its contents. The Apocalyptic form is so foreign to our way of thinking, and the mysticism is so peculiarly Oriental and Jewish, that these are apt to perplex rather than enlighten us. The Apocalyptist, deeply absorbed in the later prophecies of the Old Testament, especially those of Daniel and Ezekiel, and his mind steeped in the dreams and images of current Jewish apocalypses, found under the influence of the Spirit a fitting sphere for his prophetic fervor in a series of strange symbolic visions such as belonged to the fashion of his time. The chief symbolism throughout is that of the Old Testament, quickened and vivified by the thought of the New,—for it is everywhere assumed that the mysteries of the former dispensation find their only adequate solution in the supreme and final testimony of Jesus the Christ,4—but the atmosphere of the visions is that of Apocalyptic, which curiously enough has contrived to cast its own peculiar glow upon all the Old Testament teachings and thus create a new symbolism out of the old. And even when many of the symbols are assumed to be drawn in their present form from apocalypses then current in the Jewish world but which are no longer extant, and these to be derived in part from Babylonian and Persian sources, as held by one class of interpreters, they are yet found to have become so assimilated by the Jewish mind that they reflect the later development of Old Testament thought. These visions of the seer, like shadows cast upon the foreground of the future, depict in outline great fundamental truths or pervasive principles of the divine government that are, and are to be, manifested in multiple facts in the progress of the ages. It is not the purpose of the visions to disclose the facts themselves, for that belongs to the development of history, but rather to furnish the means for interpreting the facts, when once they appear, by the exalted standard of the divine ideals. There are,[pg 021]indeed, a few cardinal facts of the future that are kept well in the foreground, such as the second coming of Christ, the triumph of God's kingdom, and the end of the present world; but these belong to the content of previous revelation as well, and are not new or peculiar to this book. The content of the visions is generic and not specific, and whenever we depart from broad generalization and attempt to enter into detail in our interpretation, we destroy the beauty and force of the lesson conveyed, and wander into the field of speculation concerning things that were never intended to be revealed, if the analogy of all other prophecy can be relied upon as a guide.5For though the Apocalypse undoubtedly contains an element of predictive prophecy, yet such prophecy is not history written before its time, but a divinely inspired and profoundly discriminative pre-view of certain dominant issues in the future that belong to the purpose of God, and are the resultant of well established principles of the divine government—issues that stand out to the prophet's illumined eye in bold relief against the sky-line like the headlands of a continent amid the surrounding mists which envelop them.Prophecy in this view is looked upon as much broader in its scope than theforetelling of things that are future. This element should be regarded as subordinate to the general purpose of prophecy, which is theforthtelling of the mind of God.6And we should avoid that“dwarfed sense of the word prophecy in modern speech”which leads most readers (and even interpreters) to fasten upon a revelation of the secrets of the future. For it is evident that“Old Testament history and prophecy make prominent another kind of revelation—the unveiling of the ideal, as when the pattern of things sacred was unfolded to Moses in the mount”.7In the true sense of prophecy it manifestly contains both these conceptions, viz. the Prophetico-predictive, and the Prophetico-ideal, which enter in varying proportion into the great messages of old. But it is believed by many of our best authorities, and it will be found in a careful study of the[pg 022]book of Revelation, that the prophetic element is not chiefly predictive in the strict sense, and can for the most part be best interpreted as the unveiling of the divine ideal which is being inwrought in the sphere of human life, or the manifestation of the divine purpose which is discovered as interpenetrating all the moral struggle and apparent contradictions of earthly experience, and which is leading up to the final victory; and only such glimpses of the future are given as serve to assure a better comprehension of this main idea.8The two most obvious principles that pervade the book of Revelation and underlie its ever changing scenes, are,first, God's method of government in the world by the trial of his people and the judgment of the wicked; and,second, God's method of developing character in moral agents by moral conflict. Accepting these as in a measure interpretative of the ways of God with men, the Apocalypse approaches the standpoint of the divine perspective, and traces the great lines of the divine purpose as they traverse the entire field of human history. It makes Christ's relation to his people both in time and in eternity the ground of an exhaustive inquiry into the mysteries of earthly life, which aims not only to discover God in the trend of history but also to interpret God through history wrought out to its end. It affords glimpses of God's far reaching plan in the process of redemption, leading up to the final salvation of unnumbered multitudes; it finds the key to earth's long-drawn-out story of sin and suffering, of conflict and of death, in wider victory at larger cost; and it teaches us to look calmly out beyond the ebb and flow of tides and noons to the shoreless, timeless life that ever abides in the presence of God. To the heart of faith it speaks of an unwavering trust when days are dark and storms fill the sky; like a clear voice out of the night it tells of the coming day; and with persuasive force its visions bring man face to face with God, his Creator, Redeemer, and Eternal Friend.2. The Title.The Title used in the Authorized Version of our English Scriptures, and retained by the English Revisers,[pg 023]is“The Revelation of St. John the Divine,”a name given to the book by the early church, though many of the older manuscripts omit“the Divine”. Our American Revisers read,“The Revelation of John;”but the more correct title is the one that is commonly used, and that is printed in the upper margin of the text, simply“The Revelation,”i. e. the unveiling, or uncovering [viz. of the mystery of the divine purpose and method in human life and history]—the opening words of the book itself—or, if preferred, the original Greek name,“The Apocalypse”,9which perhaps should have been retained without translation as in the Douay Version, but of which“The Revelation”is the exact equivalent. The phrase“of St. John”, or“of John”, may properly be omitted because of its ambiguity; for the book is declared in its opening sentence to be“the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, i. e. a revelation of or from Jesus Christ, and it is only in a secondary sense“the Revelation of John”, i. e. a revelation made to and recorded by John. The occasion for the use of this title,“The Revelation of St. John”, in the first centuries was in order to distinguish the canonical Apocalypse from many others then in circulation, but this necessity has long since ceased to exist. For us it stands alone, it istheApocalypse, the Revelation.3. The Author.That the Author of the Revelation was named John we have no reason to doubt, if we believe the statements of the book itself, for this is distinctly affirmed three different times.10He is also further described in one form of the title as“the Divine,”i. e. the one who discoursed about God, or the theologian. This latter designation, though of uncertain origin and date, and omitted by the American Revisers as without sufficient support, is yet undoubtedly as old as the latter part of the third century11while it may be much older, and has therefore some[pg 024]claim to traditional authority. The title, however, in any form is subsequent to the book itself. The statements of the Author concerning himself and his relations to the church in Asia, appear to the general reader to be decisive, and to indicate with sufficient clearness that the writer was none other than John the son of Zebedee, the apostle whom Jesus loved, though this is not the view of the majority of the later critics. Some consider it to be the work of another John known to tradition as the Presbyter;12others attribute it to an unknown author of that name, or to some one writing under that name. But notwithstanding the frequency and positiveness with which the Apostolic Authorship and the Unity of the Book have been called in question during the last half century, the entire results of critical research may with some confidence be said not to have discredited either of them.13The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle's without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their“brother, and partaker in tribulation,”and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;14(b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John's Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent[pg 025]“tragic tone”found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John's writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of“The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:15(3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;16(b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John's long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.17On the other hand[pg 026]it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought-forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.18In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle's earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.19And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it. For notwithstanding the confident assertion of most of the later critics that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle, yet indications are not lacking in some quarters now, influenced perhaps by the really cogent arguments so well stated by the decadent school of Baur, of a return in opinion to the recognition of the Johannine authorship as in some sense at least undeniable, though foreign elements are conceived to enter into it.20It has indeed, not infrequently been held, among those who deny that the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel, that he wrote the Apocalypse; but still more commonly it is accepted that the work belongs to the“so-called Johannine writings”, and originated in the same circle at Ephesus to which these[pg 027]writings are now attributed by advanced critics,21leaving the personal authorship more or less indefinite. The question of authorship, however, is a subordinate one, for the book maintains its own message, and it should be dealt with purely as a subject of historical inquiry and not one of dogmatic importance, in the interest of correctness rather than of traditional opinion.4. The Unity.The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,22has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.[pg 028]In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.23This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,24or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,25may well be said to have been“thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current[pg 029]at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.26This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.27The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,28indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or“apocalyptic conventions”as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form[pg 030]being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;29and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?5. The Date.Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of[pg 031]visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33(c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the[pg 032]Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35(d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.

1. General Introduction.The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be therevelationof mystery has become instead themysteryof Revelation.There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.2And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified[pg 018]in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John's mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,3yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far-seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God's thought has mostly proved wider than man's first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.The visions of the Apocalypse are generally conceded to belong to the latter part of the first century, and manifestly relate in main portion to the then future, whether near or far, of the church of Christ in the world, for they pertain to a profoundly impressive prophetic experience. The divine path of God's people among the nations is beheld in symbol, type, and figure, ever leading on to victory through Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord; the church and the world are seen engaged in a multiform[pg 019]and deadly conflict, while the consummation is depicted in the fall of evil and the ruin of nature wrought by sin; and the triumph of the holy is set forth in a vision of complete restoration to the divine presence amid the beauty of a new world and the glories of the New Jerusalem—an outcome never once in doubt, for God rules through all and wins. And though in this ever changing picture the conditions of the early church and of the first century are constantly reflected in every part, yet the representative character of the whole may be clearly seen. Indeed one cannot but be impressed with the fine insight and spirit of reserve which is manifested by John throughout the book, in avoiding such explanations as might serve to narrow the visions to a purely local and temporary perspective, thereby evidencing that he had risen to a truly prophetic view, and that to his mind the visions belonged to a wider horizon as well as to the nearer limit of his own day. For whatever application or fulfilment these may have had, and surelydidhave, in the period in which they were given, has not exhausted their meaning. To the ear that is open to God's voice they have a lesson and significance that belong alike to the past, the present, and the future, a perennial freshness that time can neither fade nor destroy, for they manifest the principles of the divine government which abide for all the ages.In the light of modern criticism the primary question to be decided is whether we are dealing with an ordinary Jewish-Christian apocalypse of similar value with a multitude of others in the past, and with no essentially deeper meaning or diviner message; or whether we have not in the Apocalypse of John a true revelation, given in this literary form because of its particular suitability to the condition of the time, and its fitness for the needs of the generation that first received it. And the answer to this question must be sought in the contents of the book itself as vindicated by the Christian conscience—an answer that the church has never been slow to make, and that never can be changed so long as the needs of the human heart remain the same. We must therefore regard the fundamental question which lies back of that of interpretation, viz. the inspiration of the book itself, which alone can give it permanent value to the Christian mind, as definitely settled by the clear message which it contains for life, by the multitudinous voices[pg 020]of God which reverberate within it, and by the heaven-born solace which it ever affords to tried and tempted men in the midst of the conflict of life. And we shall find that the general meaning, so far from being hopelessly obscure, may be fairly understood by the attentive student and devout reader.The obscurity of the Revelation arises both from its literary form and from the mystical character of its contents. The Apocalyptic form is so foreign to our way of thinking, and the mysticism is so peculiarly Oriental and Jewish, that these are apt to perplex rather than enlighten us. The Apocalyptist, deeply absorbed in the later prophecies of the Old Testament, especially those of Daniel and Ezekiel, and his mind steeped in the dreams and images of current Jewish apocalypses, found under the influence of the Spirit a fitting sphere for his prophetic fervor in a series of strange symbolic visions such as belonged to the fashion of his time. The chief symbolism throughout is that of the Old Testament, quickened and vivified by the thought of the New,—for it is everywhere assumed that the mysteries of the former dispensation find their only adequate solution in the supreme and final testimony of Jesus the Christ,4—but the atmosphere of the visions is that of Apocalyptic, which curiously enough has contrived to cast its own peculiar glow upon all the Old Testament teachings and thus create a new symbolism out of the old. And even when many of the symbols are assumed to be drawn in their present form from apocalypses then current in the Jewish world but which are no longer extant, and these to be derived in part from Babylonian and Persian sources, as held by one class of interpreters, they are yet found to have become so assimilated by the Jewish mind that they reflect the later development of Old Testament thought. These visions of the seer, like shadows cast upon the foreground of the future, depict in outline great fundamental truths or pervasive principles of the divine government that are, and are to be, manifested in multiple facts in the progress of the ages. It is not the purpose of the visions to disclose the facts themselves, for that belongs to the development of history, but rather to furnish the means for interpreting the facts, when once they appear, by the exalted standard of the divine ideals. There are,[pg 021]indeed, a few cardinal facts of the future that are kept well in the foreground, such as the second coming of Christ, the triumph of God's kingdom, and the end of the present world; but these belong to the content of previous revelation as well, and are not new or peculiar to this book. The content of the visions is generic and not specific, and whenever we depart from broad generalization and attempt to enter into detail in our interpretation, we destroy the beauty and force of the lesson conveyed, and wander into the field of speculation concerning things that were never intended to be revealed, if the analogy of all other prophecy can be relied upon as a guide.5For though the Apocalypse undoubtedly contains an element of predictive prophecy, yet such prophecy is not history written before its time, but a divinely inspired and profoundly discriminative pre-view of certain dominant issues in the future that belong to the purpose of God, and are the resultant of well established principles of the divine government—issues that stand out to the prophet's illumined eye in bold relief against the sky-line like the headlands of a continent amid the surrounding mists which envelop them.Prophecy in this view is looked upon as much broader in its scope than theforetelling of things that are future. This element should be regarded as subordinate to the general purpose of prophecy, which is theforthtelling of the mind of God.6And we should avoid that“dwarfed sense of the word prophecy in modern speech”which leads most readers (and even interpreters) to fasten upon a revelation of the secrets of the future. For it is evident that“Old Testament history and prophecy make prominent another kind of revelation—the unveiling of the ideal, as when the pattern of things sacred was unfolded to Moses in the mount”.7In the true sense of prophecy it manifestly contains both these conceptions, viz. the Prophetico-predictive, and the Prophetico-ideal, which enter in varying proportion into the great messages of old. But it is believed by many of our best authorities, and it will be found in a careful study of the[pg 022]book of Revelation, that the prophetic element is not chiefly predictive in the strict sense, and can for the most part be best interpreted as the unveiling of the divine ideal which is being inwrought in the sphere of human life, or the manifestation of the divine purpose which is discovered as interpenetrating all the moral struggle and apparent contradictions of earthly experience, and which is leading up to the final victory; and only such glimpses of the future are given as serve to assure a better comprehension of this main idea.8The two most obvious principles that pervade the book of Revelation and underlie its ever changing scenes, are,first, God's method of government in the world by the trial of his people and the judgment of the wicked; and,second, God's method of developing character in moral agents by moral conflict. Accepting these as in a measure interpretative of the ways of God with men, the Apocalypse approaches the standpoint of the divine perspective, and traces the great lines of the divine purpose as they traverse the entire field of human history. It makes Christ's relation to his people both in time and in eternity the ground of an exhaustive inquiry into the mysteries of earthly life, which aims not only to discover God in the trend of history but also to interpret God through history wrought out to its end. It affords glimpses of God's far reaching plan in the process of redemption, leading up to the final salvation of unnumbered multitudes; it finds the key to earth's long-drawn-out story of sin and suffering, of conflict and of death, in wider victory at larger cost; and it teaches us to look calmly out beyond the ebb and flow of tides and noons to the shoreless, timeless life that ever abides in the presence of God. To the heart of faith it speaks of an unwavering trust when days are dark and storms fill the sky; like a clear voice out of the night it tells of the coming day; and with persuasive force its visions bring man face to face with God, his Creator, Redeemer, and Eternal Friend.

The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be therevelationof mystery has become instead themysteryof Revelation.

There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.2And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified[pg 018]in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John's mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,3yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far-seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God's thought has mostly proved wider than man's first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.

The visions of the Apocalypse are generally conceded to belong to the latter part of the first century, and manifestly relate in main portion to the then future, whether near or far, of the church of Christ in the world, for they pertain to a profoundly impressive prophetic experience. The divine path of God's people among the nations is beheld in symbol, type, and figure, ever leading on to victory through Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord; the church and the world are seen engaged in a multiform[pg 019]and deadly conflict, while the consummation is depicted in the fall of evil and the ruin of nature wrought by sin; and the triumph of the holy is set forth in a vision of complete restoration to the divine presence amid the beauty of a new world and the glories of the New Jerusalem—an outcome never once in doubt, for God rules through all and wins. And though in this ever changing picture the conditions of the early church and of the first century are constantly reflected in every part, yet the representative character of the whole may be clearly seen. Indeed one cannot but be impressed with the fine insight and spirit of reserve which is manifested by John throughout the book, in avoiding such explanations as might serve to narrow the visions to a purely local and temporary perspective, thereby evidencing that he had risen to a truly prophetic view, and that to his mind the visions belonged to a wider horizon as well as to the nearer limit of his own day. For whatever application or fulfilment these may have had, and surelydidhave, in the period in which they were given, has not exhausted their meaning. To the ear that is open to God's voice they have a lesson and significance that belong alike to the past, the present, and the future, a perennial freshness that time can neither fade nor destroy, for they manifest the principles of the divine government which abide for all the ages.

In the light of modern criticism the primary question to be decided is whether we are dealing with an ordinary Jewish-Christian apocalypse of similar value with a multitude of others in the past, and with no essentially deeper meaning or diviner message; or whether we have not in the Apocalypse of John a true revelation, given in this literary form because of its particular suitability to the condition of the time, and its fitness for the needs of the generation that first received it. And the answer to this question must be sought in the contents of the book itself as vindicated by the Christian conscience—an answer that the church has never been slow to make, and that never can be changed so long as the needs of the human heart remain the same. We must therefore regard the fundamental question which lies back of that of interpretation, viz. the inspiration of the book itself, which alone can give it permanent value to the Christian mind, as definitely settled by the clear message which it contains for life, by the multitudinous voices[pg 020]of God which reverberate within it, and by the heaven-born solace which it ever affords to tried and tempted men in the midst of the conflict of life. And we shall find that the general meaning, so far from being hopelessly obscure, may be fairly understood by the attentive student and devout reader.

The obscurity of the Revelation arises both from its literary form and from the mystical character of its contents. The Apocalyptic form is so foreign to our way of thinking, and the mysticism is so peculiarly Oriental and Jewish, that these are apt to perplex rather than enlighten us. The Apocalyptist, deeply absorbed in the later prophecies of the Old Testament, especially those of Daniel and Ezekiel, and his mind steeped in the dreams and images of current Jewish apocalypses, found under the influence of the Spirit a fitting sphere for his prophetic fervor in a series of strange symbolic visions such as belonged to the fashion of his time. The chief symbolism throughout is that of the Old Testament, quickened and vivified by the thought of the New,—for it is everywhere assumed that the mysteries of the former dispensation find their only adequate solution in the supreme and final testimony of Jesus the Christ,4—but the atmosphere of the visions is that of Apocalyptic, which curiously enough has contrived to cast its own peculiar glow upon all the Old Testament teachings and thus create a new symbolism out of the old. And even when many of the symbols are assumed to be drawn in their present form from apocalypses then current in the Jewish world but which are no longer extant, and these to be derived in part from Babylonian and Persian sources, as held by one class of interpreters, they are yet found to have become so assimilated by the Jewish mind that they reflect the later development of Old Testament thought. These visions of the seer, like shadows cast upon the foreground of the future, depict in outline great fundamental truths or pervasive principles of the divine government that are, and are to be, manifested in multiple facts in the progress of the ages. It is not the purpose of the visions to disclose the facts themselves, for that belongs to the development of history, but rather to furnish the means for interpreting the facts, when once they appear, by the exalted standard of the divine ideals. There are,[pg 021]indeed, a few cardinal facts of the future that are kept well in the foreground, such as the second coming of Christ, the triumph of God's kingdom, and the end of the present world; but these belong to the content of previous revelation as well, and are not new or peculiar to this book. The content of the visions is generic and not specific, and whenever we depart from broad generalization and attempt to enter into detail in our interpretation, we destroy the beauty and force of the lesson conveyed, and wander into the field of speculation concerning things that were never intended to be revealed, if the analogy of all other prophecy can be relied upon as a guide.5For though the Apocalypse undoubtedly contains an element of predictive prophecy, yet such prophecy is not history written before its time, but a divinely inspired and profoundly discriminative pre-view of certain dominant issues in the future that belong to the purpose of God, and are the resultant of well established principles of the divine government—issues that stand out to the prophet's illumined eye in bold relief against the sky-line like the headlands of a continent amid the surrounding mists which envelop them.

Prophecy in this view is looked upon as much broader in its scope than theforetelling of things that are future. This element should be regarded as subordinate to the general purpose of prophecy, which is theforthtelling of the mind of God.6And we should avoid that“dwarfed sense of the word prophecy in modern speech”which leads most readers (and even interpreters) to fasten upon a revelation of the secrets of the future. For it is evident that“Old Testament history and prophecy make prominent another kind of revelation—the unveiling of the ideal, as when the pattern of things sacred was unfolded to Moses in the mount”.7In the true sense of prophecy it manifestly contains both these conceptions, viz. the Prophetico-predictive, and the Prophetico-ideal, which enter in varying proportion into the great messages of old. But it is believed by many of our best authorities, and it will be found in a careful study of the[pg 022]book of Revelation, that the prophetic element is not chiefly predictive in the strict sense, and can for the most part be best interpreted as the unveiling of the divine ideal which is being inwrought in the sphere of human life, or the manifestation of the divine purpose which is discovered as interpenetrating all the moral struggle and apparent contradictions of earthly experience, and which is leading up to the final victory; and only such glimpses of the future are given as serve to assure a better comprehension of this main idea.8

The two most obvious principles that pervade the book of Revelation and underlie its ever changing scenes, are,first, God's method of government in the world by the trial of his people and the judgment of the wicked; and,second, God's method of developing character in moral agents by moral conflict. Accepting these as in a measure interpretative of the ways of God with men, the Apocalypse approaches the standpoint of the divine perspective, and traces the great lines of the divine purpose as they traverse the entire field of human history. It makes Christ's relation to his people both in time and in eternity the ground of an exhaustive inquiry into the mysteries of earthly life, which aims not only to discover God in the trend of history but also to interpret God through history wrought out to its end. It affords glimpses of God's far reaching plan in the process of redemption, leading up to the final salvation of unnumbered multitudes; it finds the key to earth's long-drawn-out story of sin and suffering, of conflict and of death, in wider victory at larger cost; and it teaches us to look calmly out beyond the ebb and flow of tides and noons to the shoreless, timeless life that ever abides in the presence of God. To the heart of faith it speaks of an unwavering trust when days are dark and storms fill the sky; like a clear voice out of the night it tells of the coming day; and with persuasive force its visions bring man face to face with God, his Creator, Redeemer, and Eternal Friend.

2. The Title.The Title used in the Authorized Version of our English Scriptures, and retained by the English Revisers,[pg 023]is“The Revelation of St. John the Divine,”a name given to the book by the early church, though many of the older manuscripts omit“the Divine”. Our American Revisers read,“The Revelation of John;”but the more correct title is the one that is commonly used, and that is printed in the upper margin of the text, simply“The Revelation,”i. e. the unveiling, or uncovering [viz. of the mystery of the divine purpose and method in human life and history]—the opening words of the book itself—or, if preferred, the original Greek name,“The Apocalypse”,9which perhaps should have been retained without translation as in the Douay Version, but of which“The Revelation”is the exact equivalent. The phrase“of St. John”, or“of John”, may properly be omitted because of its ambiguity; for the book is declared in its opening sentence to be“the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, i. e. a revelation of or from Jesus Christ, and it is only in a secondary sense“the Revelation of John”, i. e. a revelation made to and recorded by John. The occasion for the use of this title,“The Revelation of St. John”, in the first centuries was in order to distinguish the canonical Apocalypse from many others then in circulation, but this necessity has long since ceased to exist. For us it stands alone, it istheApocalypse, the Revelation.

The Title used in the Authorized Version of our English Scriptures, and retained by the English Revisers,[pg 023]is“The Revelation of St. John the Divine,”a name given to the book by the early church, though many of the older manuscripts omit“the Divine”. Our American Revisers read,“The Revelation of John;”but the more correct title is the one that is commonly used, and that is printed in the upper margin of the text, simply“The Revelation,”i. e. the unveiling, or uncovering [viz. of the mystery of the divine purpose and method in human life and history]—the opening words of the book itself—or, if preferred, the original Greek name,“The Apocalypse”,9which perhaps should have been retained without translation as in the Douay Version, but of which“The Revelation”is the exact equivalent. The phrase“of St. John”, or“of John”, may properly be omitted because of its ambiguity; for the book is declared in its opening sentence to be“the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, i. e. a revelation of or from Jesus Christ, and it is only in a secondary sense“the Revelation of John”, i. e. a revelation made to and recorded by John. The occasion for the use of this title,“The Revelation of St. John”, in the first centuries was in order to distinguish the canonical Apocalypse from many others then in circulation, but this necessity has long since ceased to exist. For us it stands alone, it istheApocalypse, the Revelation.

3. The Author.That the Author of the Revelation was named John we have no reason to doubt, if we believe the statements of the book itself, for this is distinctly affirmed three different times.10He is also further described in one form of the title as“the Divine,”i. e. the one who discoursed about God, or the theologian. This latter designation, though of uncertain origin and date, and omitted by the American Revisers as without sufficient support, is yet undoubtedly as old as the latter part of the third century11while it may be much older, and has therefore some[pg 024]claim to traditional authority. The title, however, in any form is subsequent to the book itself. The statements of the Author concerning himself and his relations to the church in Asia, appear to the general reader to be decisive, and to indicate with sufficient clearness that the writer was none other than John the son of Zebedee, the apostle whom Jesus loved, though this is not the view of the majority of the later critics. Some consider it to be the work of another John known to tradition as the Presbyter;12others attribute it to an unknown author of that name, or to some one writing under that name. But notwithstanding the frequency and positiveness with which the Apostolic Authorship and the Unity of the Book have been called in question during the last half century, the entire results of critical research may with some confidence be said not to have discredited either of them.13The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle's without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their“brother, and partaker in tribulation,”and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;14(b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John's Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent[pg 025]“tragic tone”found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John's writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of“The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:15(3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;16(b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John's long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.17On the other hand[pg 026]it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought-forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.18In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle's earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.19And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it. For notwithstanding the confident assertion of most of the later critics that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle, yet indications are not lacking in some quarters now, influenced perhaps by the really cogent arguments so well stated by the decadent school of Baur, of a return in opinion to the recognition of the Johannine authorship as in some sense at least undeniable, though foreign elements are conceived to enter into it.20It has indeed, not infrequently been held, among those who deny that the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel, that he wrote the Apocalypse; but still more commonly it is accepted that the work belongs to the“so-called Johannine writings”, and originated in the same circle at Ephesus to which these[pg 027]writings are now attributed by advanced critics,21leaving the personal authorship more or less indefinite. The question of authorship, however, is a subordinate one, for the book maintains its own message, and it should be dealt with purely as a subject of historical inquiry and not one of dogmatic importance, in the interest of correctness rather than of traditional opinion.

That the Author of the Revelation was named John we have no reason to doubt, if we believe the statements of the book itself, for this is distinctly affirmed three different times.10He is also further described in one form of the title as“the Divine,”i. e. the one who discoursed about God, or the theologian. This latter designation, though of uncertain origin and date, and omitted by the American Revisers as without sufficient support, is yet undoubtedly as old as the latter part of the third century11while it may be much older, and has therefore some[pg 024]claim to traditional authority. The title, however, in any form is subsequent to the book itself. The statements of the Author concerning himself and his relations to the church in Asia, appear to the general reader to be decisive, and to indicate with sufficient clearness that the writer was none other than John the son of Zebedee, the apostle whom Jesus loved, though this is not the view of the majority of the later critics. Some consider it to be the work of another John known to tradition as the Presbyter;12others attribute it to an unknown author of that name, or to some one writing under that name. But notwithstanding the frequency and positiveness with which the Apostolic Authorship and the Unity of the Book have been called in question during the last half century, the entire results of critical research may with some confidence be said not to have discredited either of them.13

The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle's without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their“brother, and partaker in tribulation,”and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;14(b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John's Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent[pg 025]“tragic tone”found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John's writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.

The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of“The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:15(3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;16(b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John's long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.17On the other hand[pg 026]it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought-forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.18In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle's earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.19And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it. For notwithstanding the confident assertion of most of the later critics that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle, yet indications are not lacking in some quarters now, influenced perhaps by the really cogent arguments so well stated by the decadent school of Baur, of a return in opinion to the recognition of the Johannine authorship as in some sense at least undeniable, though foreign elements are conceived to enter into it.20It has indeed, not infrequently been held, among those who deny that the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel, that he wrote the Apocalypse; but still more commonly it is accepted that the work belongs to the“so-called Johannine writings”, and originated in the same circle at Ephesus to which these[pg 027]writings are now attributed by advanced critics,21leaving the personal authorship more or less indefinite. The question of authorship, however, is a subordinate one, for the book maintains its own message, and it should be dealt with purely as a subject of historical inquiry and not one of dogmatic importance, in the interest of correctness rather than of traditional opinion.

4. The Unity.The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,22has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.[pg 028]In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.23This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,24or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,25may well be said to have been“thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current[pg 029]at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.26This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.27The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,28indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or“apocalyptic conventions”as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form[pg 030]being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;29and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?

The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,22has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.

In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.23This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,24or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,25may well be said to have been“thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current[pg 029]at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.26This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.27The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.

A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,28indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or“apocalyptic conventions”as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form[pg 030]being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;29and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?

5. The Date.Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of[pg 031]visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33(c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the[pg 032]Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35(d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.

Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of[pg 031]visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.

The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33(c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.

For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the[pg 032]Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35(d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.

Back to IndexNext