[Sidenote: The Author.]
The writer does not insert his name in the Epistle, but simply describes himself as "the elder." Some writers have therefore supposed that it was written by the presbyter named John, who lived at Ephesus about the close of the apostolic age. But Irenaeus, who was not likely to be mistaken in such a matter, certainly regarded it as the work of the apostle, and theMuratorian Fragmentapparently so regards it. Clement of Alexandria was certainly acquainted with more than one Epistle by St. John, and a Latin translation of hisHypotyposesdefinitely says, "the Second Epistle of John, written to virgins, is very simple." Moreover, the title "elder" or "presbyter" is by no means incompatible with apostolic authorship. St. Peter in 1 Pet. v. 1 expressly describes himself by this title, nor does the title appear to have become confined to the presbyters or priests of the Church until about A.D. 200. The similarity to the First Epistle is strong, seven of the thirteen verses having parallels in the First Epistle. If the Epistle were a forgery, it is probable that the writer would have claimed to be an apostle in unmistakable language. And if the author were not a forger, but the presbyter who was for some years a contemporary of the apostle, it is hardly likely that he would have been content to write this diminutive letter, which does little more than sum up part of the First Epistle. The language of the Second Epistle bears almost the same relation to that of the first as the first bears to that of the Gospel. There is a fundamental likeness combined with a few fresh expressions, such as "walkaccording to," "comingin the flesh" instead of "come in the flesh," "to have God."
{262}
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"Unto the elect lady and her children." The interpretation of these words is a notorious difficulty. At first sight the "lady" would be supposed to be a private individual. But if so, why is not the individual's name mentioned, like the name of the recipient of the Third Epistle? Perhaps it is mentioned, for the words translated "the elect lady" may mean "the elect Kyria." The "house" of the lady (ver. 10) also suggests that the lady is an individual. On the other hand, it has been supposed that the lady is a symbolical name for a localChurch. In favour of this interpretation is the fact that the writer speaks, not only of the children of the lady who are with her, but also of others whom he has met (ver. 4), and in a manner which suggests a large number of persons. The same interpretation can be put upon the "elect sister" mentioned in the last verse of the Epistle. Writers of deserved repute accept this symbolical interpretation. But when a literal meaning and a symbolical meaning are supported by equally good arguments, it seems prudent to accept the simpler,i.e.the literal interpretation. It is hard to believe that St. Jerome and Hilgenfeld are right in thinking that it is addressed to the whole Catholic Church. This is surely excluded by the mention of an "elect sister."
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
Probably from Ephesus, and the contents suggest that it was written later than the first Epistle.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The letter contains an affectionate expression of happiness due to the steadfast Christianity of the children of the "elect lady." But its main object is to utter a warning against the deceivers who deny that Christ is "come in the flesh." These deceivers were evidently Docetists. In order to appreciate the necessity for such a warning we must remember the extraordinary attraction which many persons who liked adilettanteChristianity found in the theory that Christ was a divine Spirit who clothed Himself with flesh in which He did not suffer. At the close of the apostolic age, and {263} for many generations afterwards, orthodox Christianity was often regarded as too materialistic for advanced thinkers. They endeavoured to make Christianity keep pace with the times by infusing into it the decadent Greek or Oriental mysticism which depreciated our human body.
Salutation, thanksgiving for certain of the elect lady's children, reminder of the commandments to love and obey, the deceivers who deny the incarnation not to be welcomed; the writer, expecting to visit his correspondents, closes his letter.
[Sidenote: The Author.]
It is generally admitted, both by those who deny and those who accept the authenticity of the works of St. John, that this Epistle was written by the author of 2 John. It presents several close parallels both with 2 John and with the Gospel. Its obviously private character accounts for the fact that it is seldom quoted in early literature. It is found in the Old Latin version of the New Testament, though not in theMuratorian Fragment. It was known to Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria. Eusebius places it among theAntilegomena(H. E.iii. 25), but it was generally accepted in the 4th century.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"Unto Gaius the beloved." The name was a common one, being a form of the Latin "Caius." There is no reason for identifying this Gaius with one of the persons of the same name who are mentioned as living in Corinth, Macedonia, and Derbe respectively, all of whom may have been dead at the late period when this letter was written. The Gaius of this Epistle was evidently a faithful and hospitable Christian. Baur displayed more than even his {264} usual powers of invention by suggesting that Gaius was a Montanist of the latter part of the 2nd century, and "Diotrephes" a symbolical name for one of the Catholic bishops of Rome opposed to Montanism.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
Probably at Ephesus; subsequently to the First Epistle, and probably very soon after the Second.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
This little letter gives us a few brief glimpses of the life of the Church near the end of the 1st century. The purpose of the letter is to commend a Christian of good character, named Demetrius, to the hospitable care of Gaius. It appears, therefore, to be one of those "letters of commendation" which are mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 1, and were common in later times. By the side of this pleasantness there is distress. Connected with the Church to which Gaius belongs there is an ambitious schismatic named Diotrephes, who refuses to admit the authority of the apostle. The fact that he was guilty of casting the friends of the apostle out of the Church (ver. 10), suggests that Diotrephes was at least a presbyter, and perhaps a bishop appointed by the apostle. We are told by Clement of Alexandria that St. John appointed bishops in Asia, and there is no reason for doubting that episcopacy dates back to this period. The apostle evidently intends to punish Diotrephes for his malice when he visits the district again. It is just possible that the letter to the Church (ver. 9) which Diotrephes repudiated is our "Second Epistle" of St. John. This theory will win acceptance with some of those who think that the Second Epistle was not written to an individual, but to a Church.
Salutations to Gaius, congratulations that he is walking in the truth, his hospitality to travelling Christians, the tyranny of Diotrephes, recommendation of Demetrius, personal matters.
[1]H. E.iii. 39.
[2] It is impossible to accept the recent Rationalist hypothesis that these words were written by a pious Christian who had not seen Jesus, but wished to emphasize the truth that the historical Church was intimately connected with the historical Jesus.
[3] Among these critics must be numbered Lützelberger (1840), Keim (1867), Bousset (1899).
{265}
[Sidenote: The Author.]
"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." We can be sure that the James here mentioned is the James who acted as the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. The author's designation of himself would not be intelligible unless he meant that he was related to a very prominent man of that name. The writer cannot be the Apostle Jude. He does not claim to be an apostle, and he seems indirectly to repudiate the authority of an apostle by describing himself only in relation to his brother and by referring to "the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" in a manner which seems to distinguish them for himself. If the Apostle Jude was thesonof James (as many scholars think), this Jude was clearly another man. If the Apostle was thebrotherof James (as the English Authorised Version holds), then his identification with this Jude is still doubtful.
Jude was a son of St. Joseph. At first he did not believe in our Lord (John vii. 5), but was convinced by the Resurrection (Acts i. 14). He was married (1 Cor. ix. 5). Hegesippus, a writer of the 2nd century, tells us that two of his grandsons were taken before the Emperor Domitian as being of the royal house of David, and therefore dangerous to the empire.[1] He found them to be poor rough-handed men, and dismissed them with good-humoured contempt when they described the kingdom of Christ as heavenly. Philip of Side, about 425, says {266} that Hegesippus gave the names of these two men as Zocer and James.
The Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and is in theMuratorian Fragment.
The chief objections to the authenticity of this Epistle fall under three heads. It is said that (a) a late date is indicated by the allusion to the teaching of the apostles in ver. 17. But the allusion seems to correspond exactly with a late date in the apostolic age, for vers. 17 and 18 assume that the readers remember what the apostles had said. It is said that (b) the phrase in ver. 3, "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints," indicates that a definite body of doctrine was recognized by the Christians of the period, and that the Christians of the apostolic age did not use the word "faith" in this sense. But it is not difficult to suppose that the word would be soon extended from the act of believing to the facts believed. And in such early passages as Gal. i. 23 and Rom. x. 8 we find the word closely approximating to the latter sense. It is said that (c) the heresy which is described is a heresy of the 2nd century, and implies a definite Gnostic system. But the fact that the Epistle does not describe such a definite system is convincingly shown by the inability of certain critics to determine who the heretics are. The Balaamites of Asia Minor, the Carpocratians of Egypt, and some obscure sects of Syria, are all suggested. There is no evidence to show that the errors here described could not have grown up in apostolic times, and the Epistles of St. Paul contain several passages which point to similar perversions of Christianity. The word "sensual" in ver. 19 was an insulting term applied to ordinary Christians by the Gnostics of the 2nd century, but St. Jude's use of it betrays no consciousness of this later application.
The style of the letter makes it practically certain that it was written by some one who had been a Jew. The Greek is forcible. It shows a considerable knowledge of Greek words, {267} including various poetical and archaic expressions. But the manner is stiff, and the sentences are linked together with difficulty. Several phrases come from the Septuagint, some of them being taken from the Book of Wisdom. It is probable that the author was acquainted with the Hebrew Old Testament, as ver. 12 (from Ezek. xxxiv. 2) and ver. 22 f. (from Zech. iii. 2 f.) suggest this.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
The Epistle is simply addressed "to them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ." It seems that these Christians must have been natives of Palestine or Syria. They had been personally instructed by the apostles (ver. 17), which makes this region probable. No place seems more likely than Antioch and its neighbourhood. The libertinism which was endangering the Church would not be likely to arise except in a district where the Christians were in close contact with heathenism. Extreme critics now usually maintain that it was written either in Asia or in Egypt. If written in Asia, it can hardly have been written by the Lord's brother, as we know that his descendants lived in Palestine. If written in Egypt, it can hardly belong to the age of the apostles. These two sceptical theories as to the place where the Epistle was written contradict one another effectively.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
The style and contents of the letter show that it was probably written in Palestine and at Jerusalem. The date is probably soon after the martyrdom of St. James in A.D. 62. St. Jude was dead before his grandsons had their interview with Domitian. The Epistle must therefore be before A.D. 81.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The Epistle is remarkable as containing references to two Jewish books of an apocalyptic character which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. This caused some writers in early days to hesitate to ascribe the Epistle to a brother of St. James, and in recent times the same argument has been revived in a new {268} form. But these quotations seem quite compatible with a belief in the genuineness of the Epistle. The books quoted were in existence in the apostolic age, and would be likely to be valued by a devout Jew. In ver. 9 there is reference to Michael, which Origen says was derived from theAssumption of Moses, a Jewish work written at the beginning of the Christian era. In 2 Pet. ii. 11 the allusion to Michael is so modified, that the origin of the reference is no longer obvious. In vers. 4, 6, and 14, there are quotations from theBook of Enoch, a Jewish book composed of sections written at various dates, the latest being written in the century before Christ.
The purpose of the Epistle is to warn the Church against certain depravers of God's grace who denied "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (ver. 4). The author sees fit to remind his readers of ancient examples of unfaithfulness and impurity, and shows that they must be compassionate towards the wavering, and try to save the worst by a desperate effort. It is plain that the false teachers were guilty of gross and unnatural vice, that they were greedy, and destitute of godly fear. They also, like the evil Christians at Corinth, brought discredit upon the Agapé (ver. 12), a social meal which the Christians were first wont to partake of before the Eucharist, and at a later date after the Eucharist. The licence which is rebuked by St. Jude probably arose from a perversion of the doctrine of justification by faith which had been taught by our Lord. Christians who had been taught that they could be saved without observing the Jewish ceremonial law, imagined that they could be saved without any self-discipline or self-restraint. Many parallels to such errors have been found in modern times, the worst example being that afforded by the Anabaptists, who arose in Germany at the time of the Reformation. It is worth noticing that, in spite of the untheological character of this Epistle, the writer shows his belief in the Holy Trinity by the manner in which he refers to the Father {269} and Jesus Christ (ver. 1) and the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). The Epistle gives no encouragement to the theory that the first Jewish Christians were Unitarians.
Salutation and charge to maintain "the faith" (1-4). Warnings from the punishment of the Israelites, of the angels, of Sodom and Gomorrha (5-7).
Railing at dignities rebuked (8-10).
Denunciation of those who imitate Cain (murder), Balaam (encouragement of impurity), Korah (schism), and spoil theAgapé(11-13).
These sectaries foretold by Enoch (14-16).
And by the apostles (17-19).
Duty of edifying believers, and saving sinners (20-23).
Doxology (24, 25).
[1] Eusebius,H. E.iii. 20.
{270}
[Sidenote: The Author.]
Like the First Epistle of St. John, the Revelation has particularly strong external evidence in its favour. About A.D. 150 Justin Martyr speaks of it as the work of "John, one of the apostles of Christ," in his dialogue held with Trypho, a Jew, at Ephesus, where St. John had lived. Still earlier, Papias looked upon the book as "inspired," and "bore testimony to its genuineness." Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, quotes it as written by "John, the disciple of the Lord." About A.D. 170 Melito of Sardis, one of the places to which part of the book was specially addressed, wrote a commentary upon it. It was accepted by the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul in A.D. 177, for they wrote of it as "Scripture" in their letter to the Christians of Asia Minor. Near the same date theMuratorian Fragmentmentions it twice. It will be observed that this evidence is not only good, but it is also mostly drawn from sources which were most closely connected with St. John. The evidence of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons would be important, even if it stood alone. For these Greek-speaking Churches were allied with the Church of Ephesus, and were not likely to be mistaken about this question. And the evidence of Irenaeus and Melito is still more weighty.
Strange to say, the belief in the authenticity of the Revelation began to waver as time went on. We need pay little heed to the sect known as the Alogi, who attributed both St. John's {271} Gospel and the Revelation to Cerinthus, because they disliked the doctrine of the Logos contained in these two books. They were too ignorant to have been influenced by any real critical knowledge. But it is an important fact that about A.D. 248 Dionysius of Alexandria stated that it was probably written by John the Presbyter, and that the great Eusebius seems at one time to have been inclined to accept the opinion of Dionysius.[1] So far as we can discover, Dionysius founded his opinion solely on the difference of style which can be observed as separating the Revelation from the Gospel. He does not seem to have been in possession of any facts which gave historical support to his theory. Nevertheless, we can legitimately think that there was another reason which induced orthodox Christians to regard the Revelation with less confidence. The Montanist sect, which arose in the latter half of the 2nd century and became powerful in Asia Minor and North Africa, taught an extravagant doctrine about the millennium when Christ would return to reign on earth. This doctrine was partly founded on Rev. xx., and was supported by pretended prophecies. It caused orthodox Christians to be more suspicious about the statements of Christian prophets, and probably made them less anxious to translate and circulate the Revelation. This hesitation was soon overruled, and Eusebius, in spite of his own slight doubts, reckons it as received among the undisputed books of the Canon. This was c. A.D. 320.
In modern times the controversy about the authorship has been revived. About one hundred years ago a school of critics took up the argument of Dionysius. They urged that the Gospel and the Revelation must have been written by two different authors, the Revelation being much more Hebrew in style than the Gospel. The argument was elaborated by F. C. Baur and the Tübingen School. As they were determined to deny the genuineness of the Gospel which so clearly teaches {272} that Jesus is God, they tried to discredit the Gospel by insisting upon the authenticity of the Revelation. The successors of these critics soon found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. A closer examination of the Revelation made it clearer that on many important points the theology of the Revelation is the same as that of the Gospel. If they admit that St. John wrote both the books or one of them, they will be forced to admit that the apostle taught definite orthodox Christian theology.[2] If, on the other hand, they affirm that both the books were written by John the Presbyter, they will shatter the old argument that diversity of style proves diversity of authorship. It will therefore surprise no one to learn that they are now engaged in continuous disputes with regard to the identity of the author, and the materials, Jewish or otherwise, which he is supposed to have used in compiling his book. At the present time the writers who hold the Revelation to have been written by various authors, are divided into no less than four camps, while the rationalists who hold that it was written by one author cannot agree who that author was. It is extremely significant that, in spite of his conviction that the book was not all written at the same date, the critic who is now by far the ablest opponent of orthodox Christianity, holds that the Revelation was (i.) published in the time of Domitian, as the tradition of the Church affirms; (ii.) published by the author of the fourth Gospel, though not by the real St. John.[3]
It must be admitted that the style of the book is more Hebrew and less Greek than that of the Gospel. But some arguments may be reasonably alleged against the theory that {273} this proves the Revelation to be by a different author. The difference in the scope and origin of the two books account in a large measure for the differences of vocabulary and style. No book in the New Testament is so steeped as the Revelation in the imagery of the Old Testament; Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are constantly used. The thoroughness with which their spirit has been assimilated, and their ideas combined by the writer, would create a Hebrew tendency in his language. Whether St. John made use of the material furnished by non-canonical apocalypses is uncertain. If he did, their style would also influence him in the same way. We must also beware of exaggerating the contrast in style which does exist between the Gospel and the Revelation. The Gospel is not always in correct Greek, and never shows a thorough mastery of that language. But the Revelation is certainly in much rougher Greek. The writer uses the nominative case for the accusative (vii. 9; xiv. 6); similar instances are in iii. 12; xiv. 12. This rugged usage is introduced with magnificent, and perhaps intentional, effect in i. 4, where the author emphasizes the eternity of God by using an entirely ungrammatical construction.[4] Apart from the question of grammar, the language of the Apocalypse shows a remarkable affinity with St. John's Gospel. We may observe the use of such words as "witness," "true," "tabernacle," "have part," "keep the word," and "overcome."
The theology of the two books is in close agreement. This can easily be shown in the case of the doctrine of Christ's Person. He is called the "Lamb" [5] in the Gospel (i. 29, 36) and in the Revelation (v. 6, 8, 12, etc.). He is called the "Word" in the Gospel (i. 1, etc.) and in the Revelation (xix. 13). He is taught to be eternal and divine. He is "the Alpha and {274} the Omega, the first and the last" (xxii. 13; cf. Isa. xliv. 6). He shares the throne of God (xxii. 1, 3); He determines who shall be released from the realm of death (i. 18); He joins in the judgment (vi. 16); He is worshipped by the elders and the angels (v. 8, 11). He is the Bridegroom of the Church (xix. 7; xxi. 2, cf. John iii. 29). The attitude towards Judaism is the same as that in the Gospel. The Jews who oppose Jesus are strongly denounced (iii. 9), and though the Church is a newJerusalem, it is composed of people gathered out of every nation (vii. 9). The necessity of good works is strenuously upheld (ii. 5, 19); but they are not works of rabbinical righteousness, but works of Jesus (ii. 26), and the "righteous acts of the saints" (xix. 8) are based on "the faith of Jesus" (xiv. 12). Salvation is the free gift of Christ (xxi. 6; xxii. 17). The saints who overcome, conquer not by relying upon their own righteousness, but "because of the blood of the Lamb" (xii. 11).
In the Revelation (ii. 17) Jesus promises to believers "the hidden manna;" in the Gospel, referring also to the manna, He promises "the true bread from heaven" (John vi. 32). In the Revelation (xxii. 17) Jesus says, "Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely;" in the Gospel He says, "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink" (John vii. 37). If, then, the Revelation is full of Hebrew expressions, it is essentially and profoundly Christian, and linked with the other Johannine books by the closest kinship. The theology and the style of the Revelation are the same throughout.[6] We can therefore reject without hesitation the recent hypothesis that it is one large Jewish work with numerous Christian interpolations. The difficulty of supposing that the book was ever a purely Jewish Apocalypse {275} can quickly be realized by any one who undertakes to strike out all the Christian allusions in the book.
The author states that he is John, in the strongest fashion both in the beginning and end (i. 4, 9; xxii. 8), and his attitude towards the seven Churches is inexplicable unless the writer held a position of the highest ecclesiastical importance.
[Sidenote: For whom written.]
Plainly for the whole Church, as represented by "the seven Churches which are in Asia" (i. 4).
[Sidenote: Date.]
From i. 9 we learn that the revelation was made to John when he "was in the isle that is called Patmos" (in the Aegean Sea) "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." Irenaeus expressly says that the date of this banishment was at the end of the reign of Domitian (Emperor 81-96 A.D.), and therefore he says it was almost within his own generation. On the other hand, some modern writers have assigned part or the whole of the book to the time of Nero (54-68), or a little later. But though some parts of it seem earlier than Domitian, the final form of the book is unquestionably late. A late date is indicated by the corruptions existing in some of the Churches addressed, by the expression "the Lord's day" (i. 10) instead of the older expression "first day of the week," by the strong opposition to Judaism which is called the "synagogue of Satan" (ii. 9; iii. 9), and above all by the attitude of the writer towards Rome. The imperial rule is no longer regarded with the tolerance which we find in Acts and in St. Paul's Epistles. It is no longer the "restraining" and protecting power. It is denounced as cruel and aggressive, and not only is the worship offered to the Roman emperor mentioned as widespread, but also the worship offered to Rome. The city is called the Great Harlot, because in prophetical language idolatry is described as an act of fornication, being a violation of the pure love which should be felt by man towards his Creator. The worship of Rome does not seem to have become common in {276} Asia until late in the 1st century, and it is not even mentioned once in Acts.
The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely mentioned in xi. 2, where the earthly Jerusalem is symbolized as the "court which is without the temple," the temple which the prophet measures being the heavenly temple only (xi. 19). This chapter seems to imply that Jerusalem is already destroyed, and is founded on Ezek. xl., when the prophet measures the ideal city, not the city which had been destroyed previously. We are therefore pointed to a date later than A.D. 70. The same seems to be suggested by xiii. 1 and xvii. 10. For the beast in xiii. 1 is the pagan Roman State as typified by Nero, and so is the number 666 in xiii. 18; for if the words Nero Caesar are written in Hebrew letters, and the numerical values of the letters are added together, the result is 666. In xvii. 8 Nero is described as dead, and in xvii. 10 Vespasian is the sixth emperor, Titus the seventh, and the eighth, in xvii. 11, is Domitian, who plays the Satanic part of Nero. The sixth emperor is described as still living, and we therefore seem compelled to assign part of this passage to Vespasian's reign. Nevertheless, there is abundant internal evidence for thinking that the book was not completed until the time of Domitian. It is worth noting that Domitian exacted a more extravagant worship of his own person than any previous emperor, and that his policy therefore made the publication of the book doubly appropriate.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
There were a number of Jewish books called by the name of Revelation or Apocalypse (i.e.revelation or unveiling). In the Old Testament an Apocalypse is to be found in the second part of Daniel, and there is a fine short Apocalypse in Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., where we find striking passages relating to the resurrection and eternal life. TheBook of Enochand theApocalypse of Baruchare later examples of this class of literature. These books were generally written with the special purpose of giving encouragement to the {277} servants of God in times of distress and persecution. The Revelation of St. John was written under similar circumstances, but is by far the most sublime of these writings. The interpretation of the Revelation appears to have always been a standing difficulty, in spite of the fact that there has been no age of the Christian Church which has not been able to draw consolation and vigour from its beautiful pages, all illuminated as they are with glowing pictures. The question as to whether different portions of the book were written at different dates, and afterwards edited in one volume by the writer, does not necessarily interfere with the interpretation. For the book is one work, the materials have been fitted into one structure.
The connection between the different parts is organic and internal. Not only is the doctrinal standpoint the same throughout, but the whole book has an immense number of connecting thoughts and words. The letters to the seven Churches contain statements which are taken up in the visions which follow. Among such we may compare ii. 7 with xxii. 2; ii. 11 with xx. 6; ii. 26 with xii. 5, ii. 28 with xxii. 16; iii. 5 with xix. 8; iii. 12 with xxi. 2. The description of the glorified Redeemer in i. 10-18 is reflected in numerous passages, and the strong assertion of the author's personality in i. 9 is again presented in xxii. 8. And the meaning of the book rapidly becomes clearer to the reader if he sees (a) that the notices of contemporary history in each of the seven parts of the book are arranged chronologically in reference to what is contained in that part; (b) that these seven parts are not related to one another in the order of temporal succession: each part is complete in itself, and is a full presentation of one aspect of the whole subject. This is exactly what we find in Isaiah, Amos, and Zechariah.
This leads us to another fact. Some writers have held that the Revelation is to be interpreted simply onhistoricallines, as though it contained a list of events occurring through the whole of history since the time of St. John. Other writers {278} have held that little or no historical meaning can be found in the book, and that it is to be interpreted onideallines, as teaching certain principles of religion. The truth seems to be that these two methods of interpretation are both partly true. Certain historical facts, such as the Ascension of our Lord, the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Church, the struggle between the Church and the Roman empire, are taken as a basis. Certain great principles of God's dealings with the world, and of the continued conflict between good and evil, are then illustrated in connection with these facts, and the whole is knit together by the fixed expectation that Christ will come again to vanquish the wicked and rescue the good. While each division of the book thus possesses a real meaning, it seems hardly possible to attach a significance to each detail in the imagery which is employed. Many items and even numbers appear to be introduced in order to make the scenes clear to the mind's eye rather than impart a knowledge of independent events. In after-ages Dante, like St. John, showed this care for minute imagery in the midst of verses of mystic vision. The book is the highest example of Christian imagination led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, and although at is written in prose it is of the nature of a poem.
The book contains seven revelations, which are preceded by a prologue concerning the divine Son of Man and the seven Churches of Asia. Of these seven revelations, the fourth is central both in place and meaning. It represents the kingdom of the world becoming the kingdom of Christ as the result of the coming of the Messiah, born of that glorious mother, the woman whose seed wars against the serpent (Gen. iii. 15), and the maiden who bears Immanuel (Isa. vii. 14), and who also represents the Church banished to the wilderness.
On each side are three revelations, which correspond with one another like the petals of a mystical rose. Thethird, which deals with the divine judgment upon Jerusalem, corresponds with thefifth, which contains God's judgment upon {279} Rome. Here we see the triumph of God over corrupt religion and corrupt imperialism. Thesecond, which describes the powers of divine judgment kept in check, and the seal of God imprinted on the saints of the new Israel, corresponds with thesixth, which describes the war of the Word of God with the Beast, and events which end with the universal judgment. Thefirst, which describes the Lamb that was slain and the book of destiny which He alone could open, corresponds with theseventh, which describes the Bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem in heaven. Thus the final glory of the Church corresponds with the glory which the ascended Jesus already receives in heaven.
The whole closes with a short epilogue.
It will be observed that the book contains seven choric songs. The first revelation contains two such songs, one after each division. The second, third, and fifth revelation, each close with a song. The fourth and central revelation contains two songs; one is sung by the bodyguard of the Lamb before they go to war, the other is sung after the victory is gained. The seventh and last chorus celebrates the fall of Babylon (Rome), and ushers in the marriage of the Lamb. It comes at the end of the fifth revelation. Its form is double, and it sums up the remaining action of the book. Two more facts must be mentioned in this connection. The first is that the words of the song of the bodyguard of the Lamb (xiv. 3) are not told; it can only be learned by the redeemed. It begins with the voice of Christ, the voice "of many waters," and it is taken up by the "thunder" of the cherubim and the harps of the elders. The second is that there is no song between the sixth and seventh revelation. It is simply the voice out of the throne itself, the voice of the cherubim who uphold the throne of God (see iv. 6), which proclaims that the tabernacle of God is now with men, and that He shall wipe away every tear (xxi. 4). The exquisite art of this arrangement of the songs is manifest.
{280}
Title and description (i. 1-3).
Prologue (i. 4-iii. 22).
The vision of the Son of Man (i. 4-20).
The message to each of the seven Churches of Asia (ii., iii.).
A general idea of conflict is present in this introduction. The Churches of Asia have special temptations against which they must fight,e.g.coldness at Ephesus, false prophecy at Thyatira, emperor worship at Pergamum.
I. Revelation of the Book of Destiny: iv.-v.—The throne of God is manifested, surrounded by the elders and by the four living creatures who represent the created universe,chorus of creation(iv.). The sealed book which none can open but the Lamb,chorus of redemption(v.).
II. Revelation of the Seals: vi.-viii. 1.—The first four seals of the book are opened. Christ appears riding on a white horse, and is followed by four symbolic powers of evil: (a) Apollyon, who rides on a red horse; (b) the Steward, who rides on a black horse, and dispenses corn at a dear price, representing a perverted ministry of the Word, which nevertheless cannot hurt the unction given to the Christian nor the wine of Christ's Passion; (c) Death on a pale horse; and (d) his companion Hell. When the fifth scene is opened, the martyrs who are under the altar which is before the throne cry in expectancy. With the sixth seal there is a warning of prophetic horrors. The day of God's wrath all but comes. But judgment is restrained for a season (vi.). Chastisement is suspended until 144,000 of Israelites are sealed, then a multitude of all nations,chorus of salvation(vii.). The seventh seal, which discloses a war against God, can now be opened; silence (viii. 1).
{281}
III. Revelation of the Trumpets: viii. 2-xi. 18.—Seven angels receive trumpets, incense offered. With the sounding of each of the first four trumpets a chastisement is sent from above to rouse repentance (viii.). With the fifth, chastisement ascends from the pit; with the sixth, angels and terrific horsemen come from the Euphrates; but men repent not (ix.). Before the seventh trumpet sounds, an angel tells the seer that when it has sounded the mystery of God as declared to the prophets will be finished (x.). Two prophets resembling Elijah and Moses appear as the symbols of Christian prophecy; they are slain in Jerusalem where our Lord was crucified, they ascend like Christ amid the wreck of a tenth of the city. The city confesses God. Then the seventh trumpet proclaims the subject of the next revelation: the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdoms of Christ,chorus of God reigning(xi. 1-18).
IV. Revelation of the Lamb's Redemption: xi. 19-xv. 4.—The ark itself is revealed to show that the coming revelation manifests what is most sacred and most profound. The conflict between Christ and evil is shown first as the conflict of the Child of the Woman against the dragon, then as the conflict of Michael and his angels against the dragon, then as the conflict of the dragon against the woman's seed (xii.). Next come the allies of the dragon, the beast out of the sea, which is imperial pagan Rome; and the beast out of the earth, which is the priesthood of Asia appointed to promote the worship of the emperor (xiii.). Then there is seen on Mount Zion the Lamb with His bodyguard of 144,000, singingthe incommunicable chorus. An angel proclaims the eternal gospel; another tells that Babylon,i.e.pagan Rome, has fallen; another proclaims the eternal punishment of those who worship the beast. Then a voice from heaven announces the blessedness of the dead in Christ. The Son of Man is seen with a sickle; then comes the harvest of the good, and the vintage of those who {282} are to suffer in the winepress of God's wrath (xiv.). Seven angels appear, and the victors over the beast singthe chorus Of Moses and the Lamb(xv. 1-4).
V. Revelation of the Bowls: xv. 5-xix. 10.—The heavenly temple opens, and the seven angels come to pour out the seven last punishments from the golden bowls (xv. 6-8). There is a plague, and the turning of the sea, and then of the rivers, into blood, then the sun's heat is intensified, then darkness is poured over Rome. Then, in conformity with Revelation III., we are shown the Euphrates. It is dried up that the kings of the East, probably conceived of as Parthians, may march to destroy Babylon. Other kings come to aid the beast. They muster at Har-Magedon. The seventh bowl is poured on the air. Babylon breaks into three parts. Storms (xvi.). Then an angel shows John Babylon riding triumphantly upon a beast as the mother of harlots, drunken with the blood of the martyrs, and he explains how she shall be destroyed by her subject kings (xvii.). There follows a solemn dirge on Babylon (xviii.). Then comes atriumphant chorusfor the judgment of the city (xix. 1-8). John is forbidden to worship his angel-guide (xix. 10).
VI. Revelation of the Word of God and the universal Judgment: xix. 11-xx. 15.—It is now shown that judgment is the work of the Word of God Himself. As in Revelation II., He appears upon a white horse. Brief sections display the complete overthrow of the great enemies of Christ, the beast, the false prophet, and the dragon. Then comes the millennium, when the martyrs of Jesus reign with Christ while Satan is bound. Satan is then loosed, and with Gog and Magog, who are leaders of nations hostile to God's people, he is finally vanquished. The final judgment takes place, and Death and Hell are cast into fire.
{283}
VII. Revelation of the New Jerusalem: xxi. i-xxii. 5.—From a mountain-top is seen the Church, the holy city, New Jerusalem, the Bride prepared for Jesus. Its luminary and structure are described. It rises on a vast rock of jewels. The throne of God is no longer remote from man, but in the midst of the city. From the throne pours the river of life through the very heart of the city. The river is shaded on both sides by the "tree" or wood of life, with its perpetual variety of fruit. This is in contrast with the one tree and its forbidden fruit which was the means of the Fall.
Epilogue(xxii. 6-21).
The attestation of the angel, the watchword of Jesus, John again forbidden to worship the angel. The book to remain unclosed. The watchword repeated. The attestation of Jesus to Himself and the angel, to His Bride, to the book, to His advent.
The response of John to the Lord Jesus.
Salutation.
[1]H. E.iii. 25, 39; vii. 25.
[2] The determination to deny that St. John could have believed in the Divinity of Christ made Zeller maintain that in the Revelation Christ is called theWord of Godas a mere honorary title. Davidson interpreted it as meaning "the highest creature." Renan tried to extricate himself from the difficulty by saying that St. John did not write the Revelation, but, "having approved of it, saw it circulate under his name without displeasure" (L'Antichrist, p. xli.).
[3] Harnack,Chronologie, vol. i. pp. 245, 246, 679.
[4] Many of the supposed wrong constructions in the Revelation are capable of justification (Dr. Benson,The Apocalypse, p. 131 ff.).
[5] It is true that a different Greek word for Lamb is used in the Revelation from that in the Gospel, but the variation can be accounted for by the author's desire to use a word similar in form to the word used for the Beast, who is contrasted with the Lamb.
[6] The attempt to divide a supposed Judaizing element in the book from a more Catholic element has led to the assertion that vii. 1-8 is inconsistent with vii. 9-17. There is no more incongruity between these two passages than in the statement of St. Paul in Rom. i. 16, that the gospel is a power unto salvation "to the Jewfirst, and also to the Greek."
{284}
The following table will illustrate the points of agreement arrived at by the more prominent Rationalist critics of the last sixty years:—
F. C. Baur, By a forger, By a By a By St.1847. 170 A.D. second third John.forger. forger.
Th. Keim, By the same forger, —— Not by1867. 100-117 A.D. St. John.
A. Hilgen- By a forger, All by a second forger, By St. John.feld, 1875. 120-140 A.D. 130 A.D.
E. Renan, By the Presbyter John and others, who Not by St.1879. pretended that they were by St. John, John, but120 A.D. circulatedby him.
C. Weizsäc- By a disciple Not by St. John nor by the Not byker, 1886. of St. John. author of the Gospel. St. John.
A. Harnack, The Gospel and Epistles all probably by By the1897. the Presbyter John, who did not pretend Presbyterthat they were by St. John, John,80-110 A.D. 96 A.D.
A. C. Uncertain. By the Uncertain. PossiblyMcGiffert, author by the1897. of the PresbyterGospel. John.
B. W. By an All by another unknown By St.Bacon, unknown writer, A.D. 95-100 A.D. John.1900. writer,100-110 A.D.
P. W. Not by St. By a By a third PossiblySchmiedel, John, nor second forger. by the1901. by the forger. PresbyterPresbyter. John.
{285}
Papias, a Phrygian by birth, and Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century a book calledExpositions of Oracles of the Lord. Among the "Elders" whom Irenaeus quotes, Papias and Polycarp alone are called "ancient" (archaios—Adv. Haer.v. 33). This helps us to fix the date of Papias. For Polycarp died either in A.D. 155 or 156. He had been a Christian for eighty-six years, and was therefore born in A.D. 70 at the very latest. Papias was therefore probably born about A.D. 70. We know from Irenaeus that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and several ancient writers, including Irenaeus, expressly assert that Papias also was a hearer of St. John. Eusebius (H. E.iii. 39) says that "in his preface" Papias does not declare that he was an "eye-witness of the holyapostles." But Eusebius in his Chronicle (Syncell.655, 14) plainly says that Papias, like Polycarp, was a "hearer" of John the Divine and Apostle. The preface of Papias, which Eusebius transcribes, mentions John the Presbyter. The following is a literal translation of it:—
"But for your advantage I will not hesitate to put side by side with my interpretations everything that in time past I learnt well from the Elders, and remembered well, guaranteeing its truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who say much, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in those who relate such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from 'the Truth' itself. And again, on any occasion when a person came who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the Elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and the things which Aristion and John the Presbyter (Elder), the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did {286} not suppose that the contents of books would profit me so much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice."
The exact meaning of this passage is disputed, but much of it is perfectly clear. It is plain that Papias is referring to his action at a time long past (pote), probably about A.D. 100. It is also plain that he had no direct access at that date to the apostles about whose sayings he inquired. They were already dead, their speech was a thing of the past (eipen). On the other hand, Aristion and John the Presbyter were then living, their speech was a thing of the present (legousin). They survived at the time of his inquiries, and we cannot accept the hypothesis that Papias only meant that he inquired what Aristion and John the Presbyter said in their books. He recorded what they said to his friends, and he quoted them both so freely that Eusebius believed that Papias also wrote down words which Aristion and John the Presbyter said in his own hearing. But whether he heard them or only heard about them, it is evident that he had reached manhood before they were dead. It is also certain that he calls them "disciples of the Lord." He must mean by this that they had been personally in contact with Christ, like the apostles whom he has just mentioned. We therefore can only draw the conclusion that Papias believed that these two men had known the Lord in their boyhood, and the fact that he mentions only two such men favours this interpretation.
With regard to the other Elders, the question at once arises, Did Papias include among those Elders the apostles whom he mentions? If he didnotinclude them, he means that he inquired of travellers what they had heard from Elders who had known the apostles. This seems incredible; the information gained would be far inferior to that contained in books, whereas Papias speaks of it as superior. Moreover, it would imply that the knowledge possessed by Papias about those who had known the Lord was less direct than that possessed by Irenaeus! For Irenaeus (1) knew Polycarp (2) and others, who knew St. John and others who had seen the Lord. Whereas, according to this theory, Papias (1) was instructed by travellers (2), who had heard the Elders (3) speak about the apostles. If Papias had no better knowledge than this, Irenaeus would not have referred to Papias with such marked deference. We conclude, therefore, that Papias used the word "Elders" to denote Christians who had actually seen the Lord, including the apostles whom he mentions. This interpretation is {287} supported by the fact that in the New Testament both St. Peter and St. John give themselves this very title.
If the above views are correct, they have an important bearing on the authenticity of St. John's Gospel. The lifetime of Papias, like that of Polycarp, covers the whole period of dates to which modern Rationalists now assign that Gospel. If it was not written by the apostle, it is hard indeed to suppose that Papias did not know the truth, and record it. And it is equally hard to believe that his statements about it would not have been copied by such men as Irenaeus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius.
{288}
TheMuratorian Fragmentis part of a Latin list of the books of the New Testament, named after Muratori, the librarian at Milan, who published it in A.D. 1740. The Canon of which the Fragment is a part was probably written about A.D. 180. It begins in the midst of a sentence relating to St. Mark—
[Sidenote: The Gospels.]
". . . at some things, however, he was present, and has thus recorded them."
"The third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke compiled in his own name from report, the physician whom Paul took with him after the ascension of Christ, for a companion as devoted to the law: however he did not himself see the Lord in the flesh, and hence begins his account with the birth of John as he was able to trace (matters) up."
[Sidenote: The Epistles of St. John.]
"Of the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of the disciples. At the instance of his fellow-disciples and bishops he said, 'Fast with me to-day for three days, and whatever shall be revealed to each, let us relate it to one another.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write all in his own name, the rest revising. . . . And therefore, although varying ideas may be taught in the several books of the Evangelists, there is no difference in that which pertains to the faith of believers, since by one Sovereign Spirit in all are declared all things that relate to the nativity (of the Lord), His passion, resurrection, intercourse with His disciples, and concerning His double advent, the first in humble guise, which has taken place, the second splendid with royal power, which is yet to be. . . . What wonder, then, if John in his Epistles also, speaking of his own authorship, so boldly advances each {289} detail, saying, 'What we have seen with our eyes, and have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written unto you.' For thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of all the wonders done by the Lord in their order."
[Sidenote: Acts.]
"But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book, Luke relates them excellently to Theophilus, confining himself to such as fell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the omission of all reference either to the martyrdom of Peter or the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. . . ."
[Sidenote: The Epistles of St. Paul.]
"But the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who would know both what they are, and from what place, or what occasion they were sent. At considerable length he wrote to the Corinthians first, forbidding schismatic divisions, then to the Galatians (forbidding) circumcision, and to the Romans (expounding) the general tenor of the Scriptures, showing, however, that Christ is the essence of their teaching; to these (Epistles) we must devote separate discussion; for the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, wrote by name to seven Churches only in this order: First to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third to the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. True, he wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, but he shows thereby[1] the unity of the universal Church; for John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven Churches only, yet speaks to all. He also writes one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy, out of personal regard and affection, but these too are hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline. Moreover, there is in circulation an Epistle to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul, looking towards the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for gall should not be mixed with honey. However, the Epistle of Jude, and two of John the above named, are received among Catholics. Also the Book of Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honour."
{290}
[Sidenote: Apocalypses.]
"We receive, moreover, the Apocalypse of John and Peter only, though some of our body will not have the latter read in the Church. TheShepherdindeed was written quite recently in our own times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother Pius occupied the seat of Bishop of the Church of Rome; wherefore the private reading of it is indeed commendable, but it can never be publicly read to the people in the Church whether among the Prophets . . . or among the Apostles."
"We receive nothing whatever of the Arsinoite, or Valentinus, or of Mitias (?) . . . who also were the compilers of the new Book of Psalms (?) for Marcion, together with Basilides. . . ."
[1] As symbolized by the number seven.
{291}
CLEMENT OF ROME. Bishop of Rome.Epistle to Corinthians. . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 95
BARNABAS.Epistle of, not by the Barnabas whowas St. Paul's companion . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 98
DIDACHÉ. "The Teaching of the TwelveApostles," a manual of Church regulations . . . . c. A.D. 100
IGNATIUS. Bishop of Antioch and Martyr.7Epistles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 110
POLYCARP. Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr.Epistle to Philippians. . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 110
PAPIAS. Bishop of Hierapolis.Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord(fragments are preserved by Eusebius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 130
HERMAS.The Shepherd, an allegory . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 140
MARCION. Heretic from Pontus at Rome . . . . . . . c. A.D. 144
JUSTIN MARTYR. Apologist.1 and 2 ApologiesandDialogue with Trypho. . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 152-157
EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. Anonymous defenceof Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 160
TATIAN. Syrian Apologist, disciple of JustinMartyr.Diatessaron, a harmony of the Gospels A.D. 160-170
THEOPHILUS. Apologist of Antioch.Ad Autolycumc. A.D. 180
IRENAEUS. Bishop of Lyons.Against Heresiesc. A.D. 185
[1] In the case of most of these witnesses the date here given is that of their chief literary activity.
{292}
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Head of the CatecheticalSchool.Paedagogus, Hypotyposes, etc. . . . . c. A.D. 190
TERTULLIAN. Of Carthage. Apologist . . . . . . . . A.D. 200
HIPPOLYTUS. Presbyter at Rome.Refutation ofAll Heresiesand numerous commentaries . . . . . c. A.D. 220
ORIGEN. Of Alexandria. Successor of Clement,great philosopher and writer . . . . . . . . . . . c. A.D. 230
DIONYSIUS. Bishop of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 248
EUSEBIUS. Bishop of Caesarea.EcclesiasticalHistory, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 320
APHRAATES. Syrian writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 338
ATHANASIUS. Bishop of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . A.D. 328-373
EPIPHANIUS. Bishop of Salamis . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 380
JEROME. Author of the revised or "Vulgate"Latin version of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 390
{293}
In this list are included the most useful books written in English or translated into English. An * is placed before those commentaries which contain the whole Greek text of the books indicated, or which comment much on the Greek text.
1. CANON—Charteris (Prof. A. H.), Canonicity, 18s.Sanday (Dr. W.), Inspiration, 6s. 6d. (Longmans.)Westcott (Bishop), History of the Canon, 10s. 6d. (Macmillan.)
2. TEXT—The Greek Text of the Revised Version, various prices.(Oxford University Press.)Concordance to the Greek Testament, by Moulton (W. F.)and Geden (A. S.), 26s. (T. and T. Clark.)
3. TEXTUAL CRITICISM—Lake (Prof. K.), The Text of the New Testament, 1s. net.Oxford Church Text Books. (Rivingtons.)Nestle (E.), Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament,10s. 6d. (Williams and Norgate.)
4. INTRODUCTION—Zahn (Prof. Th.), Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols.,English Translation, 36s. (T. and T. Clark.)Salmon (Prof. G.), Historical Introduction to the Books ofthe New Testament, 9s. (Murray.)Godet (F.), Introduction to the New Testament. Part I.The Epistles of St. Paul, 12s. 6d. (T. and T. Clark.)
5. THE GOSPELS AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM—Burkitt (Prof. F. C.), The Earliest Sources for the Life ofJesus, 1s. net. (Constable.)Sanday (Dr. W.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 12s. 6d.(Oxford Clarendon Press.)Wright (Dr. A.), *A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 10s.(Macmillan.)Campbell (Dr. Colin), *The First Three Gospels in Greek,5s. (Williams and Norgate.)
{294}
Hawkins (Sir J. C.), *Horae Synopticae, 7s. 6d.(Oxford Clarendon Press.)Rushbrooke (W. G.), *Synopticon, 35s. (Macmillan.)Westcott (Bishop), Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,10s. 6d. (Macmillan.)Stanton (Dr. V. H.), The Gospels as Historical Documents,Part I. 7s. 6d., Part II. 10s. (Cambridge University Press.)
6. COMMENTARIES—St. Matthew.—Godet (F.), The Collection of the FourGospels and the Gospel of St. Matthew, 6s. (T. and T. Clark.)Allen (Ven. W. C.), *Commentary, 12s. (T. and T. Clark.)Plummer (Dr. A.), *Exegetical Commentary on theGospel according to St. Matthew, 12s. (Elliot Stock.)Carr (A.), "The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 4s. 6d.(Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges.)
St. Mark.—Swete (Prof. H. B.), *Greek Text with Notes,15s. (Macmillan.)Maclear (G. F.), *The Gospel according to St. Mark,4s. 6d. (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools andColleges.)
St. Luke.—Plummer (Dr. A.), *Commentary, 12s.(T. and T. Clark.)
St. John.—Godet (F.), Commentary, 3 vols., 31s. 6d.(T. and T. Clark.)Westcott (Bishop), Commentary, 10s. 6d. (Murray.)Lightfoot (Bishop), Biblical Essays, 12s. (Macmillan.Sanday (Dr. W.), The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel,7s. 6d. (Longmans.)
Acts.—Knowling (Dr. R. J.), in *Expositor's Greek Testament,vol. ii., 28s. (Hodder and Stoughton.)Rackham (R. B.), 12s. 6d. (Methuen.)Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), The Church in the RomanEmpire, 12s. (Hodder and Stoughton.)Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), St. Paul the Traveller and theRoman Citizen, 10s. 6d. (Hodder and Stoughton.)
Romans.—Sanday (Dr. W.) and Headlam (A. C.),*Commentary, 12s. (T. and T. Clark.)Liddon (Dr. H. P.), *Analysis, 14s. (Longmans.)Gore (Bishop), Exposition, 2 vols., 3s. 6d. each. (Murray.)
{295}
1 Corinthians.—Goudge (H. L.), in WestminsterCommentaries, 6s. (Methuen.)Findlay (G. G.), in *Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. ii.
2 Corinthians.—Meyer's *Critical Commentary on the NewTestament, 1 and 2 Cor., in 2 vols., 10s. 6d. each.(T. and T. Clark.)
Galatians.—Lightfoot (Bishop), *Text with Introduction,12s. (Macmillan.)Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), Historical Commentary, 12s.(Hodder and Stoughton.)
Ephesians.—Abbott (T. K.), *Commentary on Ephesiansand Colossians, 10s. 6d. (T. and T. Clark.)Robinson (Dr. J. Armitage), *St. Paul's Epistle to theEphesians, 12s. (Macmillan.)Westcott (Bishop), *St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,10s. 6d. (Macmillan.)Gore (Bishop), Exposition, 3s. 6d. (Murray.)
Philippians.—Lightfoot (Bishop), Text with Introduction,12s. (Macmillan.)
Colossians and Philemon.—Lightfoot (Bishop), *Text withIntroduction, 12s. (Macmillan.)
1 and 2 Thessalonians.—Milligan (Dr. G.), *Commentary, 12s.(Macmillan.)Ellicott (Bishop), *Commentary, 7s. 6d. (Longmans.)
1 and 2 Timothy, Titus.—Bernard (Dr. J. H.), *CambridgeGreek Testament, 3s. 6d. (Cambridge University Press.)
Hebrews.—Westcott (Bishop), *Greek Text with Notes.14s. (Macmillan.)Davidson (Prof. A. B.), Handbook, 2s. 6d.(T. and T. Clark.)
St. James.—Mayor (Dr. J. B.), *Greek Text with Notes., 12s.(Macmillan.)Carr (A.), *The General Epistle of St. James, 2s. 6d.(Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges.)
1 and 2 St. Peter, St. Jude.—Bigg (Dr. C.), *Commentary,10s. 6d. (T. and T. Clark.)Mayor (Dr. J. B.), *The Epistle of St. Jude and theSecond Epistle of St. Peter, 14s. (Macmillan.)
1, 2, 3 St. John.—Westcott (Bishop), *Greek Text withNotes, 12s. 6d. (Macmillan.)
{296}
Revelation.—Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), Letters to the SevenChurches, 12s. (Hodder and Stoughton.)Simcox (W. H.), *The Revelation of St. John theDivine, 5s. (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schoolsand Colleges.)Milligan (Prof. W.), Lectures on the Apocalypse, 5s.(Macmillan.)Swete (Prof. H. B.), *The Apocalypse of St. John, 15s.(Macmillan.)
{297}
Acts, Book of, 102Agapé, or Love-feast, 139, 269Alexandria, St. Mark at, 50; philosophy of, 95Alogi, rejected St. John's writings, 82Antichrist, in 2 Thess., 131; in 1 John, 255Antilegomena, or disputed books, 222, 271Antioch, in Syria, collision between SS. Peter and Paul at, 121, 157Antioch, Pisidian, 152Apocalypse.SeeRevelationApocalyptic teaching, in St. Matt., 38; in 2 Thess., 131;general nature of, 276Apollos, his partisans at Corinth, 135, 137; supposed author ofHebrews, 211Aramaic language, 1; original of St. Matt., 34Aristion (author of St. Mark xvi. 9-20), 63, 285
"Babylon" in N. T., 242, 279Balaamites, 266Baptism, St. Paul's doctrine of, 164, 175, 205; for the dead, 140Barnabas, St., author (?) of Hebrews, 211Barnabas, so-called Epistle of, 14Baur, F. C., his misrepresentation of the apostles, 111, 121;what Epistles accepted by, 133; repudiation of Rom. xv., xvi.,158; of Colossians, 171; of Ephesians, 182; of Philippians, 188Beast in Revelation, 276, 281Bousset, W., denies St. John's residence at Ephesus, 257Brethren of our Lord, 224
Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, not Pauline, 166Canon, formation of, 2, 220Catholic Epp., 219; gradual insertion in Canon, 3, 221Census in St. Luke, 79Christology, or doctrine about Christ's Person, in St. Matt., 40;in St. Mark, 54, 56; in St. Luke, 71; in St. John, human side of,31, divine side of, 82, 95; in Acts, 109; of St. Paul, 123, 146,174, 185, 192Church, doctrine of, in St. Matt., 44; in St. Paul, 185Clement, St., of Rome, quotes Synoptic narrative, 14; quotesthe Epistles, 133, 235Clement of Alexandria, on date of St. Mark, 52; on 2 Peter, 248Colossians, Ep. to, 170; heresy of, 173Corinthians, Epp. to, 133, 143; first lost Ep. to, 135; secondlost Ep. to, 145; factions among, 137; doctrine of resurrectionin Epp., 140, 146
Date of N. T. books, p. x.; of Christ's nativity, 78Date of Christ's death, 28; St. John supported by St. Luke as to,30; and by St. Paul, 142Davidson, S., on I John, 256; on Christology of Revelation, 272"Diaspora," or Dispersion, 229, 241Diatessaron of Tatian, 11Dionysius of Alexandria on Revelation, 271Diotrephes, 264Disputed books, 222, 271Docetic heresy, 197, 259, 262Domitian, his treatment of Christians, 265, 276
Ebionites, their Gospel, 34; St. Luke not influenced by, 72Enoch, Book of, 249, 268, 276Epaphroditus or Epaphras, 171, 191Ephesians, Ep. to, 180Ephesus, St. John at, 81, 257Epiphanius on Gospel of the Hebrews, 34Eschatology, in St. Matt., 38; in St. Mark, 58; in St. Luke, 67;in St. John, 97; in St. Paul, 121, 131, 146Essenes, sect of, possible influence at Rome, 167; at Colossae, 173Eucharist, in St. Luke, 70; in 1 Cor., 139Eusebius, on Hebrews, 209; on Catholic Epp., 222; on 2 Peter, 248;on Revelation, 271