Revelation, Book of

Revelation Book Of

See Apocalypse.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Revelation, Book of

Protestant name for the Apocalypse .

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Revelation, Book of

Apocalypse, from the verb apokalypto, to reveal, is the name given to the last book in the Bible. It is also called the Book of Revelation.

Although a Christian work, the Apocalypse belongs to a class of literature dealing with eschatological subjects and much in vogue among the Jews of the first century before, and after, Christ.

AUTHENTICITY

The author of the Apocalypse calls himself John. “John to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Ap., i, 4). And again, “I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation . . . was in the island which called Patmos, for the word of God” (i, 9). The Seer does not further specify his personality. But from tradition we know that the Seer the Apocalypse was John the Apostle the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus. At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle. In Asia, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse, acknowledged the Revelation of John and wrote a commentary on it (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 26). In Gaul, Irenaeus firmly believes in its Divine and Apostolic authority (Adversus Haer., V, 30). In Africa, Tertullian frequently quotes Revelation without apparent misgivings as to its authenticity (C. Marcion, III, 14, 25). In Italy, Bishop Hippolytus assigns it to the Apostle St. John, and the Muratorian Fragment (a document about the beginning of the third century) enumerates it along with the other canonical writings, adding, it is true, apocryphal Apocalypse of St. Peter, but with the clause, quam quidam ex nostris in ecclesia legi nolunt. The Vetus Itala, moreover, the standard Latin version in Italy and Africa during the third century, contained the Apocalypse. In Egypt, Clement and Origen believed without hesitation in its Joannine authorship. They were both scholars and men of critical judgment. Their opinion is all the more valuable as they had no sympathy with the millennial teaching of the book. They contented themselves with an allegorical interpretation of certain passages but never ventured to impugn its authority. Approaching more closely the apostolic age we have the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century. From Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, xviii, 8), as well as from his dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon (c. 81), held in Ephesus, the residence of the apostle, we know that he admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypse. Another witness of about the same time is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a place not far from Ephesus. If he himself had not been a hearer of St. John, he certainly was personally acquainted with several of his disciples (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 39). His evidence however is but indirect. Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, in the prologue to his commentary on the Apocalypse, informs us that Papias admitted its inspired character. From the Apocalypse undoubtedly Papias derived his ideas of the millennium, on which account Eusebius decries his authority, declaring him to have been a man of limited understanding. The apostolic writings which are extant furnish no evidence for the authenticity of the book.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ITS AUTHENTICITY

The Alogi, about A.D. 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, LI, ff, 33; cf. Iren., Adv. Haer., III, 11, 9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation: “But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom” (Hist. Eccl., III, 28). The most formidable antagonist of the authority of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. “For”, he says, “this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite”. He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: “The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected” (Hist. Eccl., III, 25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catech. IV, 33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate. But although the authorities giving evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse deserve full consideration they cannot annul or impair the older and unanimous testimony of the churches. The opinion of its opponents, moreover, was not free from bias. From the manner in which Dionysius argued the question, it is evident that he thought the book dangerous as occasioning crude and sensual notions concerning the resurrection. In the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East.

THE APOCALYPSE COMPARED WITH THE FOURTH GOSPEL

The relation between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel has been discussed by authors, both ancient and modern. Some affirm and others deny their mutual resemblance. The learned Alexandrine Bishop, Dionysius, drew up in his time a list of differences to which modern authors have had little to add. He begins by observing that whereas the Gospel is anonymous, the writer of the Apocalypse prefixes his name, John. He next points out how the characteristic terminology of the Fourth Gospel, so essential to the Joannine doctrine, is absent in the Apocalypse. The terms, “life”, “light”, “grace”, “truth”, do not occur in the latter. Nor did the crudeness of diction on the part of the Apocalypse escape him. The Greek of the Gospel he pronounces correct as to grammar, and he even gives its author credit for a certain elegance of style. But the language of the Apocalypse appeared to him barbarous and disfigured by solecisms. He, therefore inclines to ascribe the works to different authors (Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). The upholders of a common authorship reply that these differences may be accounted for by bearing in mind the peculiar nature and aim of each work. The Apocalypse contains visions and revelations. In conformity with other books of the same kind, e.g. the Book of Daniel, the Seer prefixed his name to his work. The Gospel on the other hand is written in the form of an historical record. In the Bible, works of that kind do not bear the signature of their authors. So also as regards the absence of Joannine terminology in the Apocalypse. The object of the Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the life and the light of the world, the fullness of truth and grace. But in the Apocalypse Jesus is the conqueror of Satan and his kingdom. The defects of grammar in the Apocalypse are conceded. Some of them are quite obvious. Let the reader but notice the habit of the author to add an apposition in the nominative to a word in an oblique case; e.g. iii, 12; xiv, 12; xx, 2. It further contains some Hebrew idioms: e.g. the Hebrew word equivalent to erchomenos, “the one that is to come”, instead of esomenos, i, 8. But it should be borne in mind that when the Apostle first came to Ephesus he was, probably wholly ignorant of the Greek tongue. The comparative purity and smoothness of diction in the Gospel may be adequately accounted for by the plausible conjecture that its literary composition was not the work of St. John but of one of his pupils. The defenders of the identity of authorship further appeal to the striking fact that in both works Jesus is called the Lamb and the Word. The idea of the lamb making atonement for sin by its blood is taken from Isaias, liii. Throughout the Apocalypse the portraiture of Jesus is that of the lamb. Through the shedding of its blood it has opened the book with seven seals and has triumphed over Satan. In the Gospel Jesus is pointed out by the Baptist as the “Lamb of God . . . him who taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Some of the circumstances of His death resemble the rite observed in the eating of the paschal lamb, the symbol of redemption. His crucifixion takes place on the selfsame day on which the Passover was eaten (John xviii, 28). Whilst hanging on the cross. His executioners did not break the bones in His body, that the prophecy might be fulfilled: “no bone in it shall be broken” (John 19:36). The name Logos, “Word”, is quite peculiar to the Apocalypse, Gospel and first Epistle of St. John. The first sentence of the Gospel is, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The first epistle of St. John begins, “That which was from the beginning which we have heard . . . of the word of life”. So also in the Apocalypse, “And his name is called the Word of God” (xix, 13).

TIME AND PLACE

The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. “I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i. 9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus. Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God’s word (Hist. Eccl., III, 18). He obviously refers to the passage “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i, 9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, “in order to hear the word of God”, etc., and not “banished because of the word of God”, etc., (cf. i. 2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God’s word. The tradition recorded by Eusebius finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as “a brother and partaker in tribulation” (i, 9). Irenaeus places the Seer’s exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian’s reign. “Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii” (Adv. Haer., V. 4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A.D. 81-96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer’s exile the fourteenth of Domitian’s reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. “Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim” (Ex libro de Script. Eccl). Against the united testimony of these three witnesses of tradition the statement of Epiphanius placing the Seer’s banishment in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 41-54, appears exceedingly improbable (Haer., li, 12, 33).

CONTENTS

(1) THE SEVEN CHURCHES

1:1-3. Title and description of the book. The revelation made by Jesus the Messias to John.

1:4-9. Salutation. Salutation prefatory to the seven Epistles, wishing the churches the grace and the peace of God and Jesus.

1:9-20. The vision of Jesus as the Son of man. The portrait is taken from Daniel 10 and Henoch 46. Cf. the phrases, “one like the son of man” (Apocalypse 1:13, Daniel 10:16 and 7:13); “girded with gold” (Apocalypse 1:13; Daniel 10:5); “eyes like flames of fire” (Apocalypse 1:14; Daniel 10:6); “a voice like that of a multitude” (Apocalypse 1:15; Daniel 10:6); “I fell down like one senseless” (Apocalypse 1:17; Daniel 10:9); “and he touched me” (Apocalypse 1:17, Daniel 10:18); “hair white like wool” (Apocalypse 1:14; Daniel 7:9; Henoch 46:1).

2:1-3:22. The Epistles, to the seven Churches. The Churches are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. The Epistles are short exhortations to the Christians to remain steadfast in their faith, to beware of false apostles and to abstain from fornication and from meat offered to idols.

(2) THE BOOK WITH THE SEVEN SEALS

Chapters 4 and 5. The vision of God enthroned upon the Cherubim. The throne is surrounded by twenty-four elders. In the right hand of God is a scroll sealed with seven seals. In the midst of the Cherubim and the elders the Seer beholds a lamb, “agnus tamquam occisus”, having on its throat the scar of the gash by which it was slain. The Seer weeps because no one either in heaven or on earth can break the seals. He is comforted on hearing that the lamb was worthy to do so because of the redemption it had wrought by its blood. The portrait of the throne is taken from Ezechiel 1. Compare in both accounts the description of the four beasts. They resemble a lion an ox, a man, and an eagle. Their bodies are full of eyes (cf. Revelation 4:8; and Ezekiel 10:12). The twenty-four elders were probably suggested by the twenty-four courses of priests ministering in the Temple. The lamb slain for the sins of mankind is from Isaias 53.

Chapters 6 and 7. The seven seals and the numbering of the Saints. At the opening of four seals, four horses appear. Their colour is white, black, red, and sallow, or green (chloros, piebald), They signify conquest, slaughter, dearth and death. The vision is taken from Zach., vi, 1-8. At the opening of the fifth seal the Seer beholds the martyrs that were slain and hears their prayers for the final triumph. At the opening of the sixth seal the predestined to glory are numbered and marked. The Seer beholds them divided into two classes. First, 144,000 Jews, 12,000 of every tribe. Then a numberless multitude chosen from all nations and tongues.

Chapters 8 and 9. The seventh seal. After the interval of about half an hour, the seventh seal is broken; seven angels issue forth, each one holding a trumpet. The sounding of the first four trumpets causes a partial destruction of the elements of nature. One-third of the earth is burned, as also one-third of the trees and all the grass. One-third of the sea becomes blood (cf. Exodus 7:17). One-third of the rivers is turned into water of wormwood. One-third of the sun, moon, and stars is obscured, causing one-third of the day to be dark (cf. Exodus 10:21). At the sounding of the fifth trumpet locusts ascend from the abyss. Their work is to torment men for five months, They are specially charged not to touch the grass. Their shape is that of horses (Joel 2:4) their teeth like those of lions (Joel 1:6), their hair like the hair of women. They have the tails of scorpions where with to chastise man. The command over them is held by the Angel of the Abyss, named Abaddon, the destroyer. At the sound of the sixth trumpet the four angels chained at the Euphrates are let loose. They lead forth an army of horsemen. By the fire which the horses spit out and by their tails which are like serpents, one-third of mankind is killed. After the sixth trumpet there are two digressions. (1) The angel standing on the land and the sea. He swears that at the sound of the seventh trumpet the mystery will be completed. He hands to the Seer a little book. When eaten by him it is found sweet to taste, but bitter when once devoured. Taken from Ezech., ii. 8; iii, 3. (2) The contamination of the court of the Temple by the heathens. It lasts three and a half years. Taken from Dan., vii, 25; ix, 27; xii, 7-11. During that time two witnesses are sent to preach in Jerusalem. They are the two olive-trees foretold by Zach., iv, 3,11. At the end of their mission they are slain by the beast. They are raised to life after three and a half days (= years). The seventh trumpet is now sounded, the nations are judged and the kingdom of Christ is established.

(3) THE DIVINE DRAMA

First Act. Chapters 12-14. The lamb, the woman, and her seed; and opposed to them, the dragon, the beast from the sea, and the beast from the land. The main idea is taken from Gen., iii, 15. “I will put enmities between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and thy seed and her seed”. The woman is arrayed in heavenly splendour; a crown of twelve stars on her head and the sun and the moon under her feet (cf. Gen. xxxvii, 9, 10). She is in travail. Her first-born is destined to rule all the nation (Psalm 2:8, 9). She herself, and her other seed, are persecuted for three and a half years by the great dragon who tries to kill them. The great dragon is Satan (Genesis 3:1). He is cast out of heaven. With his tail he drags after him one-third of the stars. Taken from Dan., viii, 10. The fallen stars are the fallen angels. The beast from the sea is in great part taken from Daniel’s description of the four beasts. It arises from the sea (Dan., vii, 3); has seven heads marked all over with blasphemies. It had also ten horns, like the fourth beast of Daniel (vii, 7); it resembled a leopard, the third beast of Daniel (vii, 6), it had feet like a bear, the second beast of Daniel (vii, 5); and teeth like a lion, the first beast of Daniel (vii, 4). The great dragon gives full power unto the beast, whereupon all the world worship it (viz. those whose names are not contained in the book of the lamb). The followers of the beast have its mark on their head and hand. The beast from the land has two horns like a ram. Its power lies in its art of deceiving by means of tokens and miracles. Throughout the remainder of the book it is called the false prophet. Its office is to assist the beast from the sea, and to induce men to adore its image. The first act of the drama concludes with a promise of victory over the beast by the lamb of God.

Second Act. Chapters 15-16. The seven vials. They are the seven plagues preceding the destruction of the great city, Babylon. They were for the greater part suggested by the Egyptian plagues. The first vial is poured out on the earth. Men and beasts are smitten with ulcers (Exodus 9:9-10). The second and third vial upon the seas and rivers. They become blood (Exodus 7:17-21). The fourth vial upon the sun. It burns men to death. The fifth vial upon the throne of the beast. It causes great darkness (Exodus 10:11-29). The sixth vial upon the Euphrates. Its waters are dried up and form a passage for the kings of the East (Exodus 14). The seventh upon the air. Storm and earthquake destroy Babylon.

Third Act. Chapters 17-18. The great harlot. She is seated upon the scarlet beast with the seven heads and ten horns. She is robed in scarlet and decked with gold. On her head is written: Mystery, Babylon the great. The kings of the earth commit fornication with her. But the day of her visitation has come. She is made a desolate place, the habitation of unclean animals (Ls., xiii, 21, 22). Her fall is lamented by the rulers and merchants of the earth.

Fourth Act. Chapters 19-20. The victory over the beast and the great dragon. A knight appears mounted on a white horse. His name is “The word of God”. He defeats the beast and the false prophet. They are cast alive in the pool of fire. Their defeat is followed by the first resurrection and the reign of Christ for a thousand years. The martyrs rise to life and partake with Christ in glory and happiness. During these thousand years the great dragon is held in chains. At their completion he is once more set at large to torment the earth. He deceives the nations Gog and Magog. These two names are taken from Ezech., chaps. xxviii, xxxix, where however Gog is the king of Magog. At last he also is east for all eternity in the pool of fire. Hereupon the general judgement and the resurrection take place.

Fifth Act. Chapters 21-22. The new Jerusalem (cf. Ezechiel 40-48). God dwells in the midst of His saints who enjoy complete happiness. The new Jerusalem is the spouse of the lamb. The names of the Twelve Tribes and the Twelve Apostles are written on its gates. God and the lamb are the sanctuary in this new city.

Epilogue. Verses 18-21. The prophecy of the book is soon to be fulfilled. The Seer warns the reader not to add anything to it or take away from it under pain of forfeiting his share in the heavenly city.

PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the Seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The Seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ’s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of his book the Seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins, saying: “Blessed is he that . . . keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand” (i. 3). He closes his visions with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus”. With the coming of Christ the woes of the Christians will be avenged. Their oppressors will be given up to the judgment and the everlasting torments. The martyrs that have fallen will be raised to life, that they may share the pleasures of Christ’s kingdom, the millennium. Yet this is but a prelude to the everlasting beatitude which follows after the general resurrection. It is an article of faith that Christ will return at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. But the time of His second advent is unknown. “But of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36). It would appear, and is so held by many that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in the Epistles and Gospels (cf. John 21:21-23, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). The Christians of Asia Minor and the Seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation. Their mistaken hope, however, did not affect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin (De Civ. Dei Lib. XX). Thus the number 1,000 is to be taken indefinitely.

STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK AND ITS LITERARY COMPOSITION

The subject-matter of the Apocalypse required a threefold division.

The first part comprises the seven exhortatory letters. The leading idea in the second part is the wisdom of Christ. It is symbolized by the book with seven seals. In it are written the eternal decrees of God touching the end of the world, and the final victory of good over evil. No one except Jesus, the lamb slain for the sins of the world, is worthy to break the seals and read its contents. The third part describes the power of Christ over Satan and his kingdom. The lamb defeats the dragon and the beast. This idea is developed in a drama of five acts. In five successive scenes we see before us the struggle, the fall of Babylon the harlot, the victory, and final beatitude.

The third part is not only the most important, but also the most successful from a literary point of view. The drama of the lamb contains several beautiful thoughts of lasting value. The lamb, symbolizing gentleness and purity, conquers the beast, the personification of lust and cruelty. The harlot signifies idolatry. The fornication which the rulers and the nations of the earth commit with her signifies the worship they pay to the images of Caesar and the tokens of his power. The second part is inferior in literary beauty. It contains much that is taken from the Old Testament, and it is full of extravagant imagery. The Seer shows a fanciful taste for all that is weird and grotesque. He delights in portraying locusts with hair like that of women and horses with tails like serpents. There are occasional passages revealing a sense of literary beauty. God removes the curtain of the firmament as a scribe rolls up his scrolls. The stars fall from the heavens like figs from the fig-tree shaken by the storm (vi, 12-14). On the whole, however the Seer shows more love for Oriental splendour than the appreciation of true beauty.

INTERPRETATION

It would be alike wearisome and useless to enumerate even the more prominent applications made of the Apocalypse. Racial hatred and religious rancour have at all times found in its vision much suitable and gratifying matter. Such persons as Mohammed, the Pope, Napoleon, etc., have in turn been identified with the beast and the harlot. To the “reformers” particularly the Apocalypse was an inexhaustible quarry where to dig for invectives that they might hurl then against the Roman hierarchy. The seven hills of Rome, the scarlet robes of the cardinals, and the unfortunate abuses of the papal court made the application easy and tempting. Owing to the patient and strenuous research of scholars, the interpretation of the Apocalypse has been transferred to a field free from the odium theologicum. But then the meaning of the Seer is determined by the rules of common exegesis. Apart from the resurrection, the millennium, and the plagues preceding the final consummation, they see in his visions references to the leading events of his time. Their method of interpretation may be called historic as compared with the theological and political application of former ages. The key to the mysteries of the book they find in 17:8-14. For thus says the Seer: “Let here the mind that hath understanding give heed”.

The beast from the sea that had received plenitude of power from the dragon, or Satan, is the Roman Empire, or rather, Caesar, its supreme representative. The token of the beast with which its servants are marked is the image of the emperor on the coins of the realm. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the passage, that all business transactions, all buying and selling were impossible to them that had not the mark of the beast (Ap., xiii. 17). Against this interpretation it is objected that the Jews at the time of Christ had no scruple in handling money on which the image of Caesar was stamped (Matthew 22:15-22). But it should be borne in mind that the horror of the Jews for the imperial images was principally due to the policy of Caligula. He confiscated several of their synagogues, changing them into heathen temples by placing his statue in them. He even sought to erect an image of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem (Jos., Ant., XVIII, viii, 2).

The seven heads of the beast are seven emperors. Five of them the Seer says are fallen. They are Augustus Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The year of Nero’s death is A.D. 68. The Seer goes on to say “One is”, namely Vespasian, A.D. 70-79. He is the sixth emperor. The seventh, we are told by the Seer, “is not yet come. But when he comes his reign will be short”. Titus is meant, who reigned but two years (79-81). The eighth emperor is Domitian (81-96). Of him the Seer has something very peculiar to say. He is identified with the beast. He is described as the one that “was and is not and shall come up out of the bottomless pit” (xvii, 8). In verse 11 it is added: “And the beast which was and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction”. All this sounds like oracular language. But the clue to its solution is furnished by a popular belief largely spread at the time. The death of Nero had been witnessed by few. Chiefly in the East a notion had taken hold of the mind of the people that Nero was still alive. Gentiles, Jews, and Christians were under the illusion that he was hiding himself, and as was commonly thought, he had gone over to the Parthians, the most troublesome foes of the empire. From there they expected him to return at the head of a mighty army to avenge himself on his enemies. The existence of this fanciful belief is a well-attested historic fact. Tacitus speaks of it: “Achaia atque Asia falso exterrit velut Nero adventaret, vario super ejus exitu rumore eoque pluribus vivere eum fingentibus credentibusque” (Hist., II, 8). So also Dio Chrysostomus: kai nyn (about A.D. 100) eti pantes epithymousi zen oi de pleistoi kai oiontai (Orat., 21, 10; cf. Suet., “Vit. Caes.” s.v. Nero, 57, and the Sibyliine Oracles, V, 28-33). Thus the contemporaries of the Seer believed Nero to be alive and expected his return. The Seer either shared their belief or utilized it for his own purpose. Nero had made a name for himself by his cruelty and licentiousness. The Christians in particular had reason to dread him. Under him the first persecution took place. The second occurred under Domitian. But unlike the previous one, it was not confined to Italy, but spread throughout the provinces. Many Christians were put to death, many were banished (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 17-19). In this way the Seer was led to regard Domitian as a second Nero, “Nero redivivus”. Hence he described him as “the one that was, that is not, and that is to return”. Hence also he counts him as the eighth and at the same time makes him one of the preceding seven, viz. the fifth, Nero. The identification of the two emperors suggested itself all the more readily since even pagan authors called Domitian a second Nero (calvus Nero, Juvenal. IV, 38). The popular belief concerning Nero’s death and return seems to be referred to also in the passage (xiii, 3): “And I saw one of its heads as it were slain to death: and its death’s wound was healed”.

The ten horns are commonly explained as the vassal rulers under the supremacy of Rome. They are described as kings (basileis), here to be taken in a wider sense, that they are not real kings, but received power to rule with the beast. Their power, moreover, is but for one hour, signifying its short duration and instability (xvii, 17). The Seer has marked the beast with the number 666. His purpose was that by this number people may know it. He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. A human number, i.e. intelligible by the common rules of investigation. We have here an instance of Jewish gematria. Its object is to conceal a name by substituting for it a cipher of equal numerical value to the letters composing it. For a long time interpreters tried to decipher the number 666 by means of the Greek alphabet, e.g. Irenæus, “Adv. Haer.”, V, 33. Their efforts have yielded no satisfactory result. Better success has been obtained by using the Hebrew alphabet. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Nero is meant. For when the name “Nero Caesar” is spelled with Hebrew letters, it yields the cipher 666.

The second beast, that from the land, the pseudoprophet whose office was to assist the beast from the sea, probably signifies the work of seduction carried on by apostate Christians. They endeavoured to make their fellow Christians adopt the heathen practices and submit themselves to the cultus of the Caesar. They are not unlikely the Nicolaitans of the seven Epistles. For they are there compared to Balaam and Jezabel seducing the Israelites to idolatry and fornication. The woman in travail is a personification of the synagogue or the church. Her first-born is Christ, her other seed is the community of the faithful.

In this interpretation, of which we have given a summary, there are two difficulties:

In the enumeration of he emperors three are passed over, viz. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But this omission may be explained by the shortness of their reigns. Each one of the three reigned but a few months. Tradition assigns the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian. But according to the computation given above, the Seer himself assigns his work to the reign of Vespasian. For if this computation be correct, Vespasian is the emperor whom he designates as “the one that is”. To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g., of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies and give them the appearance of being the work of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended. It was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The Seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice. Though actually banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian, after the destruction of Jerusalem, he wrote as if he had been there and seen his visions in the reign of Vespasian when the temple perhaps yet existed. Cf. II, 1, 2.

We cannot conclude without mentioning the theory advanced by the German scholar Vischer. He holds the Apocalypse to have been originally a purely Jewish composition, and to have been changed into a Christian work by the insertion of those sections that deal with Christian subjects. From a doctrinal point of view, we think, it cannot be objected to. There are other instances where inspired writers have availed themselves of non-canonical literature. Intrinsically considered it is not improbable. The Apocalypse abounds in passages which bear no specific Christian character but, on the contrary, show a decidedly Jewish complexion. Yet on the whole the theory is but a conjecture. (See also APOCRYPHA)

———————————–

C. VAN DEN BIESEN Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume ICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Revelation, Book Of

This, the last of the books of the New Test., according to their usual arrangement, is entitled in the A.V. The Revelation (, Apocalypse) of [St.] John the Divine ( ), but in Codices Alex., Sinait., and Ephr. Rescrip. it is simply ; and in Cod. Vat. it takes the fuller and more explicit form of , thus clearly identifying the author with the writer of the fourth gospel. The true and authoritative title of the book, however, is that which it bears iln its own commencing words, ; which has been restored by Tregel!es in his critical edition of 1844, and whichl has been adopted by most of the critical authorities and versions since.

I. Canonical Authority and Authorship. These two points are intimately connected with each other. If it can be proved that a book, claiming so distinctly as this does the authority of divine inspiration, was actually written by John, then no doubt will be entertained as to its title to a place in the canon of Scripture. Was, then, John the apostle and evangelist the writer of the Revelation? This question was first mooted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius. H.E. 7:25). The doubt which he modestly suggested has been confidently proclaimed in modern times by Luther ( Vorrede auf die Offenbarung, 1522 and 1534), and widely diffused through his influence. Lucke (Einleitung, p. 802), the most learned and diligent of modern critics of the Revelation, agrees with a majority of the eminent scholars of Germany in denying that John was the author. But the general belief of the mass of Christians in all ages has been in favor of John’s authorship.

1. Evidence in Favor of the Apostolic Authorship. This consists of the assertions of the author and historical tradition.

(1.) The author’s description of himself in the first and twenty-second chapters is certainly equivalent to an assertion that he is the apostle. (a) He names himself simply John, without prefix or addition a name which at that period, and in Asia, must have been taken by every Christian as the designation, in the first instance, of the great apostle who dwelt at Ephesus. Doubtless there were other Johns among the Christians at that time, but only arrogance or an intention to deceive could account for the assumption of this simple style by any other writer. He is also described as (b) a servant of Christ, (c) one who had borne testimony as an eye-witness of the word of God and of the testimony of Christ terms which were surely designed to identify him with the writer of the verses Joh 19:35; Joh 1:14 : and l Joh 1:2. He is (d) in Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ: it may be easy to suppose that other Christians of the same name were banished thither, but the apostle is the only John who is distinctly named in early history as an exile at Patmos. He is also (e) a fellow-sufferer with those whom he addresses, and (f) the authorized channel of the most direct and important communication that was ever made to the seven churches of Asia, of which church es John the apostle was at that time the spiritual governor and teacher. Lastly (g), the writer was a fellowservant of angels and a brother of prophets titles which are far more suitable to one of the chief apostles, and far more likely to have been assigned to him than to any other man of less distinction. All these marks are found united together in the apostle John, and in him alone of all historical persons. We must go out of the region of fact into the region of conjecture to find such another person. A candid reader of the Revelation, if previously acquainted with John’s other writings and life, must inevitably conclude that the writer intended to be identified with John. It is strange to see so able a critic as Lucke (Einleitung, p. 514) meeting this conclusion with the conjecture that some Asiatic disciple and namesake of the apostle may have written the book in the course of some missionary labors or some time of sacred retirement in Patmos. Equally unavailing against this conclusion is the objection brought by Ewald, Credner, and others, from the fact that a promise of the future blessedness of the apostles is implied in 18:20 and 21:14: as if it were inconsistent with the true modesty and humility of an apostle to record as Daniel of old did in much plainer terms (Dan 12:13) a divine promise of salvation to himself personally. Rather those passages may be taken as instances of the writer quietly accepting as his just due such honorable mention as belongs to all the apostolic company. Unless we are prepared to give up the veracity and divine origin of the whole book, and to treat the writer’s account of himself as a mere fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignificance with an honored name, we must accept that description as a plain statement of fact, equally credible with the rest of the book, and in harmony with the simple, honest, truthful character which is stamped on the face of the whole narrative.

Besides this direct assertion of John’s authorship, there is also an implication of it running through the book. Generally, the instinct of single- minded, patient faithful students has led them to discern a connection between the Revelation and John’s gospel and epistles, and to recognise, not merely the same Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy Scripture, but also the same peculiarly formed human instrument employed both in producing this book and the fourth gospel, and in speaking the characteristic words and performing the characteristic actions recorded of John. This evidence is set forth at great length and with much force and eloquence by J. P. Lange in his essay on the connection between the individuality of the apostle John and that of the Apocalypse, 1838 (Vermischte Schriften, ii, 173-231). After investigating the peculiar features of the apostle’s character and position, and (in reply to Lucke) the personal traits shown by the writer of the Revelation, he concludes that the book is a mysterious but genuine effusion of prophecy under the New Test., imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, the product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great and noble, that it can be ascribed to the apostle John alone. The Revelation requires for its writer John, just as his peculiar genius requires for its utterance a revelation. This special character of the Apocalypse as an inspired production under remarkably vivid circumstances is the true key to its diction, which certainly exhibits many striking differences as compared with John’s other well-accredited writings. At the same time, there are not a few marked coincidences in the phraseology. Both of these points have been developed at great length by the writers above named and by others in their commentaries and introductions, to which we must refer the reader for details. Arguments of this nature are always inconclusive as to authorship, and we therefore rest the conclusion upon evidence of a more palpable character. (See 3 below.)

(2.) The historical testimonies in favor of John’s authorship are singularly distinct and numerous, and there is very little to weigh against them.

(a.) Justin Martyr (cir. A.D. 150) says: A man among us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem (Tryph. 81, p. 179, ed. Ben.).

(b.) The author of the Muratorian Fragment (cir. A.D. 170) speaks of John as the writer of the Apocalypse, and describes him as a predecessor of Paul, i.e. as Credner and Luicke candidly interpret it, his predecessor in the office of apostle.

(c.) Melito of Sardis (cir. A.D. 170) wrote a treatise on the Revelation of John. Eusebius (II. E. 4:26) mentions this among the books of Melito which had come to his knowledge; and as he carefully records objections against the apostle’s authorship, it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the doubts of Klenker and Lucke (Einleitung, p. 514), that Eusebius found no doubt as to John’s authorship in the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop.

(d.) Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (cir. 180), in a controversy with Hermogenes, quotes passages out of the Revelation of John (Eusebius, H.E. 4:24).

(e.) Irenseus (cir. 195), apparently never having heard a suggestion of any other author than the apostle, often quotes the Revelation as the work of John. In 4:20, 11, he describes John the writer of the Revelation as the same who was leaning on Jesus’ bosom at supper, and asked him who should betray him. The testimony of Irenaeus as to the authorship of Revelation is, perhaps, more important than that of any other writer: it mounts up into the preceding generation, and is virtually that of a contemporary of the apostle. For in 5:30, 1, where he vindicates the true reading (666) of the number of the Beast, he cites in support of it, not only the old correct copies of the book, but also the oral testimony of the very persons who themselves had seen John face to face. It is obvious that Irenseus’s reference for information on such a point to those contemporaries of John implies his undoubting belief that they, in common with himself, viewed John as the Writer of the book. Licke (p. 574) suggests that this view wvas possibly groundless because it was entertained before the learned fathers of Alexandria had set the example of historical criticism; but his suggestion scarcely weakens the force of the fact that such was the belief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion when we remember that the critical discernment of the Alexandrians, to whom he refers, led them to coincide with Irenaeus in his view.

(f.) Apollonius (cir. 200) of Ephesus (?), in controversy with the Montanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of the Revelation of John, and narrated a miracle wrought by John at Ephesus (Euseb. H.E. v. 18).

(g.) Clement of Alexandria (cir.200)quotes the book as the Revelation of John (Stromata, 6:13, p. 667), and as the work of an apostle (Poed. ii, 12, p. 207).

(h.) Tertullian (A.D. 207), in at least one place, quotes by name the apostle John in the Apocalypse (Adv. Marcion. 3:14).

(i.) Hippolytus (cir. 230) is said, in the inscription on his statue at Rome, to have composed an apology for the Apocalypse and Gosple of St. John the apostle. He quotes it as the work of John (De Antichristo, 36, p. 756, ed. Migne).

(j.) Origen (cir. 233), in his commentary on John, quoted by Eusebius (H.E. 6:25), says of the apostle, he wrote also the Revelation. The testimonies of later writers, in the 3d and 4th centuries, in favor of John’s authorship of the Revelation are equally distinct and far more numerous. They may be seen quoted at length in Lucke, p. 628-638, or in dean Alford’s Prolegomena (N.T. vol. 4. pt. 2). It may suffice here to say that they include the names of Victorinus, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Epiphanius, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory, Didymus, Ambrose, Augustine; and Jerome.

All the foregoing writers, testifying that the book came from an apostle, believed that it was a part of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant works cannot be quoted for testimony to the authorship of the book refer to it as possessing canonical authority. Thus

(a) Papias, who is described by Irenaeus as a hearer of John and friend of Polycarp, is cited, together with other writers, by Andreas of Cappadocia, in his commentary on the Revelation, as a guarantee to later ages of the divine inspiration of the book (Routh, Rel. Sacr. i, 15; Cramer, Catena [Oxford, 1840], p. 176). The value of this testimony has not been impaired by the controversy to which it has given rise, in which Licke, Bleek, Hengstenberg, and Rettig have taken different parts.

(b) In the epistle from the churches of Lyons and Vienne, A.D. 177, inserted in Eusebius, H.E. v, 1-3, several passages (e.g. 1:5; 14:4; 22:11) are quoted or referred to in the same way as passages of books whose canonical authority is unquestioned.

(c) Cyprian (Epp. 10,12,14,19, ed. Fell) repeatedly quotes it as a part of canonical Scripture. Chrysostom makes no distinct allusion to it in any extant writing; but we are informed by Suidas that he received it as canonical. Although omitted (perhaps as not adapted for public reading in church) from the list of canonical books in the Council of Laodicea, it was admitted into the list of the third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397.

2. Evidence against John’s Authorship. Marcion, who regarded all the apostles except Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the Apocalypse and all other books of the New Test. which were not written by Paul. The Alogi, an obscure sect, (cir. A.D. 180), in their zeal against Montanism, denied the existence of spiritual gifts in the Church, and rejected the Revelation, saving it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus (Epiphanius, Adv. Heer. 51). The Roman presbyter Caius (cir. A.D. 196), who also wrote against Montanism, is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. 3:28) as ascribing certain revelations to Cerinthus; but it is doubted (see Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii, 138) whether the Revelation of John is the book to which Caius refers. But the testimony which is considered the most important of all in ancient times against the Revelation is contained in a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria (cir. A.D. 240), the most influential, and perhaps the ablest, bishop in that age. The passage, taken from a book On the Promises, written in reply to Nepos, a learned Judaizing Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius (H.E. 7:25). The principal points in it are these: Dionysius testifies that some writers before him altogether repudiated the Revelation as a forgery of Cerinthus; many brethren, however, prized it very highly, and Dionysius would not venture to reject it, but received it in faith as containing things too deep and too sublime for his understanding. (In his Epistle to Hermammon [Euseb. H.E. 7:10] he quotes it as he would quote Holy Scripture.) He accepts as true what is stated in the book itself, that it was written by John, but he argues that the way in which that name is mentioned, and the general character of the language, are unlike what we should expect from John the evangelist and apostle; that there were many Johns in that age. He would not say that John Mark was the writer, since it is not known that he was in Asia. He supposes that it must be the work of some John who lived in Asia; and he observes that there are said to be two tombs in Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John. He then points out at length the superiority of the style of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John to the style of the Apocalypse, and says, in conclusion, that whatever he may think of the language, he does not deny that the Writer of the Apocalypse actually saw what he describes, and was endowed with the divine gifts of knowledge and prophecy. To this extent, and no further, Dionysius is a witness against John’s authorship. It is obvious that he keenly felt the difficulty arising from the use made of the contents of this book by certain unsound Christians under his jurisdiction; that he was acquainted with the doubt as to its canonical authority which some of his predecessors entertained as an inference from the nature of its contents; that he deliberately rejected their doubt and accepted the contents of the book as given by the inspiration of God; that, although he did not understand how John could write in the style in which the Revelation is written, he yet knew of no authority for attributing it, as he desired to attribute it, to some other of the numerous persons who bore the name of John.

A weightier difficulty arises from the fact that the Revelation is one of the books which are absent from the ancient Peshito version, and the only trustworthy evidence in favor of its reception by the ancient Syrian Church is a single quotation which is adduced from the Syriac works (ii, 332 c) of Ephrem Syrus. Eusebius is remarkably sparing in his quotations from the Revelation of John, and the uncertainty of his opinion about it is best shown by his statement in H.E. 3:39, that it is likely that the Revelation was seen by the second John (the Ephesian presbyter); if any one is unwilling to believe that it was seen by the apostle. SEE JOHN THE PRESBYTER. Jerome states (Ep. ad Dardanum. etc.) that the Greek churches felt, with respect to the Revelation, a similar doubt to that of the Latins respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Neither he nor his equally influential contemporary Augustine shared such doubts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret abstained from making use of the book, sharing, it is possible, the doubts to which Jerome refers. But they have not gone so far as to express a distinct opinion against it. The silence of these writers is the latest evidence of any importance that has been adduced against the overwhelming weight of the testimony in favor of the canonical authority and authorship of this book. SEE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.

II. Time and Place of Writing. The date of the Revelation is given by the great majority of critics as A.D. 95-97. The weighty testimony of Irenseus is almost sufficient to prevent any other conclusion. He says (Adv. Haer. v. 30, 3), It [i.e. the Revelation] was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign. Stuart’s attempt to interpret this of Nero’s reign (Comnment. ad loc.) is evidently forced. Eusebius also records as a tradition which he does not question, that in the persecution under Domitian, John the apostle and evangelist, being yet alive, was banished to the island of Patmos for his testimony of the divine word. Allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen point in the same direction. There is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place. Epiphanius (51, 12), obviously by mistake, says that John prophesied in the reign of Claudius. Two or three obscure and later authorities say that John was banished under Nero.

Unsupported by any historical evidence, some commentators have put forth the conjecture that the Revelation was written as early as the time of Nero. This is simply their inference from the style and contents of the book. But it is difficult to see why John’s old age rendered it, as they allege, impossible for him to write his inspired message with force and vigor, or why his residence in Ephesus must have removed the Hebraistic peculiarities of his Greek. It is difficult to see in the passages Rev 1:7; Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9; Rev 6:12; Rev 6:16; Rev 11:1, anything which would lead necessarily to the conclusion that Jerusalem was in a prosperous condition, and that the predictions of its fall had not been fulfilled when those verses were written. A more weighty argument in favor of an early date might be urged from a modern interpretation of Rev 17:10, if that interpretation could be established. Galba is alleged to be the sixth king, the one that is. In Nero these interpreters see the beast that was wounded (Rev 13:3), the beast that was and is not, the eighth king (Rev 17:11). For some time after Nero’s death the Roman populace believed that he was not dead, but had fled into the East, whence he would return and regain his throne; and these interpreters venture to suggest that the writer of the Revelation shared and meant to express the absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned Reuss (Theol. Chret. i, 443), by way of supporting this interpretation, advances his untenable claim to the first discovery of the name of Nero Caesar in the number of the beast, 666. The inconsistency of this interpretation with prophetic analogy, with the context of Revelation, and with the fact that the book is of divine origin, is pointed out by Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on ch. 13 and by Elliott, Horoe Apoc. 4:547.

It has been inferred from 1:2, 9, 10, that the Revelation was written in Ephesus, immediately after the apostle’s return from Patmos. But the text is scarcely sufficient to support this conclusion. The style in which the messages to the seven churches are delivered rather suggests the notion that the book was written in Patmos. SEE JOHN THE APOSTLE.

III. Language. The thought first suggested by Harenberg, that the Revelation was written in Aramaic, has met with little or no reception. The silence of all ancient writers as to any Aramaic original is alone a sufficient answer to the suggestion. Lucke (Einleit. p. 441) has collected internal evidence to show that the original is the Greek of a Jewish Christian.

Lucke has also (p. 448-464) examined in minute detail, after the preceding labors of Donker-Curtius, Vogel, Winer, Ewald, Kolthoff, and Hitzig, the peculiarities of language which obviously distinguish the Revelation from every other book of the New Test. In subsequent sections (p. 680-747) he urges with great force the difference between the Revelation, on one side, and the fourth Gospel and first Epistle on the other, in respect of their style and composition and the mental character and attainments of the writer of each. Hengstenberg, in a dissertation appended to his Commentary, maintains that they are by one writer. That the anomalies and peculiarities of the Revelation have been greatly exaggerated by some critics is sufficiently shown by Hitzig’s plausible and ingenious, though unsuccessful, attempt to prove the identity of style and diction in the Revelation and the Gospel of Mark. It may be admitted that the Revelation has many surprising grammatical peculiarities. But much of this is accounted for by the fact that it was probably written down, as it was seen, in the spirit, while the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, filled the apostle’s mind, and rendered him less capable of attending to forms of speech. His Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were composed equally under divine influence, but an influence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much care, after long deliberation, after frequent recollection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering of the doctrinal truths which they involve.

Gebhardt has recently given the coincidences in language between the Gospel and the Revelation of John in a most convincing manner (Doctrine of the Apocalypse, etc.; transl. from the German, Edinb. 1878): There are underlying identities of style which demonstrate identity of authorship. The subjects, of course, are stupendously different, and so require even of the same writer a stupendous difference of style. In the Apocalypse the pictorial imagination is perpetually on the utmost stretch; events and objects are crowding upon each other with intense rapidity. The scenery and pictorial material are generally borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures, with immense improvements. More than all, the mind of the writer, steeped in Hebraism, is in a preternatural state. He who was in his youth a son of thunder has all the thunder of his youth preternaturally renewed within him. Rightly, the extraordinary conditions demand an extraordinary change of style, both in thought and language. Yet, underlying all this change, the natural style and mind unmistakably disclose themselves. He who cannot see this was never born a critic, and can never be reconstructed into one (Meth. Quar. 1878. p. 739). SEE JOHN (Gospel and Epistles).

IV. Contents. A full analysis of the book would involve much that is disputed as to its interpretation. We therefore here content ourselves with a general outline, in which the main visions are specified.

The first three verses contain the title of the book, the description of the writer, and the blessing pronounced on the readers, which possibly, like the last two verses of the fourth gospel, may be an addition by the hand of inspired survivors of the writer. John begins (Rev 1:4) with a salutation of the seven churches of Asia. This, coming before the announcement that he was in the spirit, looks like a dedication not merely of the first vision, but of all the book, to those churches. In the next five verses (Rev 1:5-9) he touches the key-note of the whole following book, the great fundamental ideas on which all our notions of the government of the world and the Church are built the person of Christ; the redemption wrought by hiim; his second coming to judge mankind; the painful, hopeful discipline, of Christians in the midst of this present world; thoughts which may well be supposed to have been uppermost in the mind of the persecuted and exiled apostle even before the divine inspiration came on him.

a. The first vision (Rev 1:7 to Rev 3:22) shows the Son of Man with his injunction, or epistles to the seven churches. While the apostle is pondering those great truths and the critical condition of his Church which he bad left, a Divine Person resembling those seen by Ezekiel and Daniel, and identified by name and by description as Jesus, appears to John, and, with the discriminating authority of a lord and judge, reviews the state of those churches, pronounces his decision upon their several characters, and takes occasion from them to speak to all Christians who may deserve similar encouragement or similar condemnation. Each of these sentences, spoken by the Son of Man, is described as said by the Spirit. Hitherto the apostle has been speaking primarily, though not exclusively, to some of his own contemporaries concerning the present events and circumstances. Henceforth he ceases to iddress them particularly. His words are for the ear of the universal Church in all ages, and show the significance of things which are present in hope or fear, in sorrow or in joy, to Christians everywhere.

b. In the next vision (Revelation 4 :l-8:1), Patmos and the Divine Person whom he saw are gone. Only the trumpet voice is heard again calling him to a change of place. He is in the highest court of heaven, and sees God sitting on his throne.The seven-sealed book or roll is produced, and the slain lamb, the Redeemer, receives it amid the sound of universal adoration. As the seals are opened in order, the apostle sees

(1) a conqueror on a white horse;

(2) a red horse, betokening war;

(3) the black horse of famine;

(4) the pale horse of death;

(5) the eager souls of martyrs under the altar;

(6) an earthquake, with universal commotion and terror. After this there is a pause, the course of avenging angels is checked while 144,000, the children of Israel, servants of God, are sealed, and an innumerable multitude of the redeemed of all nations are seen worshipping God. Next

(7) the seventh seal is opened, and half an hour’s silence in heaven ensues.

c. Then (Rev 8:2 to Rev 11:19) seven angels appear with trumpets, the prayers of saints are offered up, the earth is struck with fire from the altar, and the seven trumpets are sounded.

(1) The earth, and

(2) the sea, and

(3) the springs of water, and

(4) the heavenly bodies are successively smitten;

(5) a plague of locusts afflicts the men who are not sealed (the first woe);

(6) the third part of men are slain (the second woe), but the rest are impenitent. Then there is a pause: a mighty angel with a book appears and cries out; seven thunders sound, but their words are not recorded; the approaching completion of the mystery of God is announced; the angel bids the apostle eat the book, and measure the temple with its worshippers, and the outer court given up to the Gentiles; the two witnesses of God, their martyrdom, resurrection, ascension, are foretold. The approach of the third woe is announced, and

(7) the seventh trumpet is sounded, the reign of Christ is proclaimed, God has taken his great power, the time has come for judgment and for the destruction of the destroyers of the earth.

The three preceding visions are distinct from one another. Each of the last two, like the longer one which follows, has the appearance of a distinct prophecy, reaching from the prophet’s time to the end of the world. The second half of the Revelation (chapters 12-22) comprises a series of visions which are connected by various links. It may be described generally as a prophecy of the assaults of the devil and his agents (i.e. the dragon, the ten-horned beast, the two-horned beast or false prophet, and the harlot) upon the Church, and their final destruction. It appears to begin with a reference to events anterior, not only to those which are predicted in the preceding chapter, but also to the time in which it was written. It seems hard to interpret the birth of the child as a prediction, and not as a retrospective allusion.

d. A woman (ch. 12) clothed with the sun is seen in heaven, and a great red dragon with seven crowned heads stands waiting to devour her offspring; her child is caught up unto God, and the mother flees into the wilderness for 1260 days. The persecution of the woman and her seed on earth by the dragon is described as the consequence of a war in heaven in’ which the dragon was overcome and cast out upon the earth.

The Revelator (ch. 13), standing on the sea-shore, sees a beast with seven heads, one wounded, with ten cxrowned horns, rising, from the water, the representative of the dragon. All the world wonders at and worships him, and he attacks the saints and prevails. He is followed by another two- horned beast rising out of the earth, who compels men to wear the mark of the beast, whose number is 666.

Next (ch. 14) the lamb is seen with 144,000 standing on Mount Zion, learning the song of praise of the heavenly host. Three angels fly forth calling men to worship God, proclaiming the fall of Babylon, denouncing the worshippers of the beast. A blessing is pronounced on the faithful dead, and the judgment of the world is described under the image of a harvest reaped by angels.

John (chapters 15 and 16) sees in heaven the saints who had overcome the beast, singing the song of Moses and the Lamb. Then seven angels come out of the heavenly temple having seven vials of wrath, which they pour out upon the earth, sea, rivers, sun. the seat of the beast, Euphrates, and the air, after which there are a great earthquake and a hail-storm.

One (chapters 17, 18) of the last seven angels carries John into the wilderness and shows him a harlot, Babylon, sitting on a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns. She is explained to be that great city, sitting upon seven mountains, reigning over the kings of the earth. Afterwards John sees a vision of the destruction of Babylon, portrayed as the burning- of a great city amid the lamentations of worldly men and the rejoicing of saints.

Afterwards (ch. 19) the worshippers in heaven are heard celebrating Babylon’s fall and the approaching marriage-supper of the lamb. The Word of God is seen going forth to war at the head of the heavenly armies; the beast and his false prophet are taken and cast into the burning lake, and their worshippers are slain.

An angel (Revelation 20 – Rev 22:5) binds the dragon, i.e. the devil, for one thousand years, while the martyred saints who had not worshipped the beast reign with Christ. Then the devil is unloosed, gathers a host against the camp of the saints, but is overcome by fire from heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with the beast and false prophet. John then witnesses the process of the final judgment, and sees and describes the new heaven and the new earth, and the new Jerusalem, with its people and their way of life.

In the last sixteen verses (Rev 22:6-21) the angel solemnly asseverates the truthfulness and importance of the foregoing sayings, pronounces a blessing on those who keep them exactly, gives warning of his speedy coming to judgment, and of the nearness of the time when these prophecies shall be fulfilled.

V. Schemes of Interpretation. Few, if any, books of the Bible have been the sport of so great differences of view as this, arising largely from prejudice and the passion of the times. We can give here but a brief outline of these conflicting opinions, which prevail even to the present day.

1. Historical Review. The interval between the apostolic age and that of Constantine has been called the Chiliastic period of Apocalyptic interpretation. The visions of John were chiefly regarded as representations of general Christian truths, scarcely yet embodied in actual facts, for the most part to be exemplified or fulfilled in the reign of Antichrist, the coming of Christ, the millennium, and the day of judgment. The fresh hopes of the early Christians, and the severe persecution they endured, taught them to live in those future events with intense satisfaction and cbmfort. They did not entertain the thought of building up a definite consecutive chronological scheme even of those symbols which some moderns regard as then already fulfilled; although from the beginning a connection between Rome and Antichrist was universally allowed, and parts of the Revelation were regarded as the filling up of the great outline sketched by Daniel and Paul. The only extant systematic interpretations in this period are the interpolated commentary on the Revelation by the martyr Victorinus, cir. A.D. 270 (Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima, 3, 414, and Migne, Patrologia Latina, 5, 318; the two editions should be compared), and the disputed treatise on Antichrist by Hippolytus (Migne, Patrologia Groeca, 10:726). But the prevalent views of that age are to be gathered also from a passage in Justin Martyr (Trypho, 80, 81), from the later books, especially the fifth, of Irenaeus, and from various scattered passages in Tertullian, Origen, and Methodins. The general anticipation of the last days of the world in Lactantius, 7:14-25, has little direct reference to the Revelation.

Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, the Christians, emancipated from oppression and persecution, and dominant and prosperous in their turn, began to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord’s speedy advent and their spiritual conception of his kingdom, and to look upon the temporal supremacy of Christianity as a fulfilment of the promised reign of Christ on earth. The Roman empire, become Christian, was regarded no longer as the object of prophetic denunciation, but as the scene of a millennial development. This view, however, was soon met by the figurative interpretation of the millennium as the reign of Christ in the hearts of all true believers. As the barbarous and heretical invaders: of the falling empire appeared, they were regarded: by the suffering. Christians as fulfilling the woes denounced in the Revelation. The beginning of a regular chronological interpretation is seen in Berengaud (assigned by some critics to the 9th century), who treated the Revelation as a history of the Church from the beginning of the world to its end. The original Commentary of the abbot Joachim is remarkable, not only for a further development of that method of interpretation, but for the scarcely disguised identification of Babylon with papal Rome, and of the second beast or Antichrist with some universal pontiff. The chief commentaries belonging to this period are that which is ascribed to Tichonius (cir. A.D. 390), printed in the works of Augustine; Primasius of Adrumetum in Africa (A.D. 550), in Migne, Patrologia Latina, l48, 1406; Andreas of Crete (cir. A.D. 650), Arethas of Cappadocia, and Ecumenius of Thessaly in the 10th century, whose commentaries were published together in Cramer’s Catena (Oxon. (1840); the Explanatio Apoc. in the works of Bede (A.D. 735); the Expositio of Berengaud, printed in the works of Ambrose; the Commentary of Haymo (A.D. 853), first published at Cologne in 1531; a short treatise on the (seals by Anselm, bishop of Havilberg (A.D. 1145), printed in D’Achery’s Spicilegium, i, 161; the Expositio of abbot Joachim of Calabria (A.D. 1200), printed at Venice in 1527.

In the dawn of the Reformation, the views to which the reputation of abbot Joachim gave currency were taken up by the harbingers of the impending change, as by Wycliffe and others; and they became the foundation of that great historical school of interpretation, which up to this time seems the most popular of all (For the later commentaries, see 6 below.)

2. Approximate Classification of Modern Interpretations. These are generally placed in three great divisions.

(1.) The Praeterist expositors, who are of opinion that the Revelation has been almost, or altogether, fulfilled in the time which has passed since it was written; that it refers principally to the triumph of Christianity over Judaism and paganism, signalized in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome. The most eminent expounders of this view are Alcasar, Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet,Wettstein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Lucke, De Wette; Dusterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and Maurice. This is the favorite interpretation with the critics of Germany, one of whom goes so far as to state that the writer of the Revelation promised the fulfilment of his visions within the space of three years and a half from the time in which he wrote.

Against the Proeterist view it is urged that prophecies fulfilled ought to be rendered so perspicuous to the general sense of the Church as to supply an argument against infidelity; that the destruction of Jerusalem, having occurred twenty-five years previously, could not occupy a large space in a prophecy; that the supposed predictions of the downfall of Jerusalem and of Nero appear from the context to refer to one event, but are by this scheme separated, and, moreover, placed in a wrong order; that the measuring of the Temple and the altar, and the death of the two witnesses (ch. 11), cannot be explained consistently with the context.

(2.) The Futurist expositors, whose views show a strong reaction against some extravagances of the preceding school. They believe that the whole book, excepting perhaps the first three chapters, refers principally, if not exclusively, to events which are yet to come. This view, which is asserted to be merely a revival of the primitive interpretation, has been advocated in recent times by Dr. J. H. Todd, Dr. S. R. Maitland, B. Newton, C. Maitland, I. Williams, De Burgh, and others.

Against the Futurist it is argued that it is not consistent with the repeated declarations of a speedy fulfilment at the beginning and end of the book itself (see Rev 1:3; Rev 22:6-7; Rev 22:12; Rev 22:20). Christians, to whom it was originally addressed, would have derived no special comfort from it had its fulfilment been altogether deferred for so many centuries. The rigidly literal interpretation of Babylon, the Jewish tribes, and other symbols which generally forms a part of Futurist schemes, presents peculiar difficulties.

(3.) The Historical or Continuous expositors, in whose opinion tihe Revelation is a progressive history of the fortunes of the Church from the first century to the end of time. The chief supporters of this most interesting interpretation are Mede, Sir L. Newton, Vitringa, Bengel, Woodhouse, Faber, E. B. Elliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and others. The recent Commentary of dean Alford belongs mainly to this school.

Against the historical scheme it is urged that its advocates differ very widely among themselves; that they assume without any authority that the 1260 days are son many years; that several of its applications e.g. of the symbol of the ten-horned beast to the popes, and the sixth seal to the conversion of Constantine are inconsistent with the context; that attempts by some of this school to predict future events by the help of Revelation have ended in repeated failures.

Two methods have been proposed by which the student of the Revelation may escape the incongruities and fallacies of the different interpretations, while he may derive edification from whatever truth they contain. It has been suggested that the book may be regarded as a prophetic poem, dealing in general and inexact descriptions, much of which may be set down as poetic imagery mere embellishment. But such a view would be difficult to reconcile with the belief that the book is an inspired prophecy. A better suggestion is made, or rather is revived, by Dr. Arnold in his sermons On the Interpretation of Prophecy: that we should bear in mind that predictions have a lower historical sense, as well as a higher spiritual sense; that there maybe one, or more than one, typical, imperfect, historical fulfilment, of a prophecy, in each of which the higher spiritual fulfilment is shadowed forth more or less distinctly. SEE DOUBLE SENSE

.

In choosing among the various schemes of interpretation, we are inclined to adopt that which regards the first series of prophetical visions proper (ch. 4-12) as indicating the collapse (in part at the time already transpired) of the nearest persecuting power, namely, Judaism; the second series (ch. 13-19) as denoting the eventual downfall of the succeeding persecutor, i.e. Rome (first in its pagan and next in its papal form); and the third series (20:1-10) as briefly outlining the final overthrow of a last persecutor, some yet future power or influence (figuratively represented by a name borrowed from Ezekiel). These three opponents of Christianity are set forth as successive developments of Antichrist, and the symbols employed are cumulative and reiterative rather than historical and consecutive. For special explanations, SEE ANTICHRIST; SEE MAGOG; SEE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, ETC.

VI. Commnentaries. Most of the above questions are treated in the regular commentaries and introductions, and in numerous monographs, published separately, or in periodicals. The following are the exegetical helps solely on the whole book; to the most important we prefix an asterisk: St. Anthony, Expositio (in Opp. p. 645); Victorinus, Scholia (in Bibl.Max. Patr. 3, 414; Galland. Bibl. Patr. 4:49; also Par. 1549, 1609, 8vo); Berengaud, Expositio (in Ambrosii Opp. ii, 499); Trichonius, Expositio (in Augustini Opp. 16:617); Primasius, Commentarius (in Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. x); Andreas Caesar, Commentarius (ibid. v, 590); Arethas, Explanationes (ibid. 9:741; also in (Ecumenii Opp. vol. ii); Bede, Explanatio (in Opp. v, 701; also in Works, i, 189; 12:337); Ambrosius Autpert. In Apocal. (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 13:403); Alcuin, Commentarii (in Mai, Script. Vet. 9:257); Bruno, in Apocal. (in Opp. vol. i); Hervaeus, Enarrationes (in Anselmi Opp. ed. Picard, 1612); Rupert, In Apocal. (in Opp. ii, 450); Anon. Glossa (Lips. 1481, 4to); Albert, Comment. (Basil. 1506, 4to; also in Opp. vol. xi); Joann. Viterb. Glossa (Colon. 1507, 8vo); *Joachim, In Apocal. (Ven. 1519, 527, 4to); Huss, Commentarius (ed. Luther, Vitemb. 1528, 8vo); Lambert, Exegesis (Marp. 1528; Basil. 1539, 8vo); Aimo, Commentarius (Colon. 1529,1531,1534; Par. 1540, 8vo); Melch. Hoffmann, Auslegung (Argent. 1530, 8vo); Bullinger, Conciones (Basil. 1535,1570, and often, fol.; also in English, Lond. 1573, 4to); Thompas of Wales, Expositio (Flor. 1549, 8vo; also in Aquinas, Conmment. Paris, 1641); Bibliander, Commentarius (Basil. 1549, 8vo); Meyer, Commentarius (Tigur. 1554, 1603, fol.); Fulke, Prcelectiones (Lond. 1557, 1573, 4to); Conrad, Commentarius (Basil. 1560,1574, 8vo); Borrhaus, Conzmnentarius, (ibid. 1561; Tigsur. 1600, fol.); Serranus, Commentaria (Complut. 1563, fol.); Chytraeus, Comnenztarius (Vitemb. 1563, 1571, 1575, 8v-; Rost. 1581, 4to); Artopoeus, Explicatio (Basil. 1563, 8vo); Selnecker, Erklirung (Jen. 1567, 1568, 1608, 4to); (Tyfford, Sermons (Lond. 1573, 4to); Marloratus, Exposition (from the Latin, ibid. 1574, 4to); Brocardus, Interpretatio (L. B. 1580, 1590, 8vo; also in English, Lond. 1583, 4to); De Fermo [Rom. Cath.], Enarratio (from the Italian, Antw. 1581, 8vo); De Melo [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Pint. 1584, fol.) Foxe, Proelectiones (Lond. 1587, fol.; Geneva, 1596,1618, 8vo); Bulenger [Rom. Cath. l, Ephrasis (Paris; 15.89, 1597, 8vo); Junius, Illustratio (Heidelb. 1591; Basil. 1599, 8vo; and in Opp. vol. i, 1694; also in French, Basle, 1592, 1598.; in English, Lond. -1592, 1596, 4to; 1616, 8vo); De Ribera [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Salam. 1591, fol.; Lugd. 1593, 4to; Antw. 1603: Duoc. 1623, 8vpo); Gallus, Clavis (Antw. 1592, 8vo); *Napier, Interpretation (Edinb. 1593, 1611, 1645. 4to; in French, Rupp. 1603,1607; Geneva, 1643, 4to; in Dutch, Magdeb. 1618; in German, Leips. 1611; Frankf. 1615, 627, 8vo; Ger. 1661,4to); Funcke, Erklarung (Fr. a. M. 1596, 4to); Du Jon, Exposition (from the French, Lond. 1596, 4to); Foorthe, Revelatio (ibid. 1597, 4to); Winckelmann. Commentarius (Francf. 1600, 1609; Lub. 1615, 8vo); De la Perie, Paraphrase (French, Geneva, 1600, 1651, 4to); Eglin, Epilysis (Tigur. 1601, fol.; Hanov. 1611, 4to); Viegas [Rom. Cath.], Commentarii (Ebor. 1601, fol,; Lugd. 1602, 1606; Ven. 1602, 1608; Colon. 1603, 1607-; Par. 1606, 1615, 1630, 4to); Richter, Die Offenbarung (Leips. 1602, 4to); Dent, Exposition (Lond. 1603, 1607, 4to; 1623, 8vo; 1644, 4to); Pererius, Disputationes (Lugd. 1606; Ven. 1607, 4to); Brightmann. Scholia (Francf. 1609, 4to; 1618; Heidelb. 1612, 8vo; also in English, Amst. 1611, 1615, 4to; Lond. 1616; Leyd. 1644, 8vo; and in Works, Lond. 1644, 4to); Taffin, Exposition (French, Fless. 1609; Middelb. 1614, 8vo); Hoe. Commentarii (Lips. 1609-11, 2 vols. 4to; 1671, fol.); Broughton, Revelation (Lond. 1610,4to; also in Works, p. 408); Becan, Commentarius (Mogunt. 1612, 12mo): Lucius, Notoe (Hanov. 1613, 8vo); Forbes. Commentary (Lond. 1613, fol.; also in Latin, Amst. 1646, 4to); CottiBre, Expositio (Salm. 1614; Sedan, 1625, 4to); Alcassar. [Rom. Cath.], Investigatio (Antw. 1614; Lugd. 1618, fol.); also 5 additional Libri (Lugd. 1632, fol.); Graser, Commentarius (Tigur. 1614, 4to); Cramer, Erklarung (Stet. 1618, 4to); Pareus, Commentarius (Heidelberg, 1618, 1622, 4to; also in English, Amst. 1644, fol.); Lautensack, Erklarungq (Frankf. 1619, 4to); Cowper, Commentary (Lond. 1619, 4to; and in Works, p. 811; also in Dutch. Amst. 1656, fol.; and in German, Leips. 1671, 8vo); Montacut, Paraphrasis (Lond. 1619, fol.); Cluver, Morgenlicht (Gosl. 1620, 8vo; in Latin, Lub. 1647, fol.); Wolter, Auslegung (Rost. 1625, 1629, 4to); De Dieu, Animadversiones (L. B. 1627, 4to); *Mede, Clavis (Cambr. 1627, 1629, 1649, 4to; also in English, ibid. 1632; Lond. 1643, 1650, 4to; 1831, 12mo; 1833, 8vo; both with additional notes in: Works, vol. ii); Baaz, Commentary (in Swedish, Calmar, 1629, 8vo); Anon. Explication (French, Leyd. 1633, 4to); Le Bux, Paraphrase (French, Genev. 1641, 4to); Gerhard, Adnotationes (Jen. 1643, 1645; Lips. 1712, 4to); Gravins, Tabuloe (L. B. 1647, fol.); also Ausleguy (Hamb. 1657, 4to); Holland, Exposition (Lond. 1650, 4to); Hartlib, Revelation (from the Dutch, ibid. 1651, 8vo); Ferrarius [Rom. Catbh.], Commentaria (Mediol. 1654, 3 vols. fol.); De la Haye [Rom. Cath.];Commentarii (Par. 1654 sq., 2 vols. fol.); Guild, Explanation (Aberdeen, 1656, 12mo); Fromond [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Lov. 1657, 4to; also [with other books] Par. 1670, fol.); Durham, Commentary (Glasg. 1658, fol.; 1680, 1764, 1788, 4to; Edinb. 1680, 4to; Amst. 1660, 4to; Falkirk, 1799, 2 vols. 8vo): Amyrald, Introduction (French, Hag, 1658, 4to); Bordes, Elucidatio (Par. 1658, 2 vols. fol.); also Explicatio (ibid. 1659, fol.); Kromayer [J.], Commentarius (Lips. 1662,1674, 4to); DeSylveira [Rom. Cath.], Commentaria (Lugd. 1663, 1669, 1700, 2 vols. fol.); Diest [A.], Analysis (Arnh. 1663, 4to); More, Apocalypsis (Lond. 1666,1680, 4to); and Ratio (ibid. 1666, 4to; in English, ibid. 1680, 4to; both in his Opp. ibid. 1675, fol.); Brenius, Verklaaringe [includ. Joh.] (Amst. 1666, 4to); Pegan, Erklarung (Frankf. 1670, 1676, 12mo); Schindler, Delineation (German, Brunlsen. 1670, 4to); Grellot, Prodromus (L. B. 1675, 4to); Kircher [Rom. Cath.], Explicatio (Colon. 1676. 4to); Matthew Hoffman, Chronotaxis (Jen. 1678, 1687, 4to); Heunisch, Synopsis (ibid. 1678, 4to); also Hauptschli’ssel (Schleus. 1684, 4to; Leips. 1697, 8vo; and in Latin, Rottenb. 1684; Lips. 1698, 4to); Muller, Elucidatio (Hard. 1684, 2 vols. 4to); Hierve [Rom. Cath.], Explanatio (Lugd. 1684, 4to); Heidegger, Diatribe (L. B. 1687, 2 vols. 4to); Van Wesel, Verklaaring (Ench. 1688, 4to); Bossuet [Rom. Cath.], Explication (French, Par. 1689, 8vo); Cressener, Explication (Lond. 1689, 4to); also Demonstration (ibid. 1690, 4to); also Paraplrase (ibid. 1693, 4to); Marck, Commentarius (Fr.-a.-Rh. 1689, 1699, 4to); La Cherlardie [Rom. Cath.], Explication (French, Par. 1692, 8vo; 1702, 1708, 4to); Petersenias, Anleitung (Leips. 1696, fol.); Brunsmann, Phosphorus (Hafn. 1696, 1699, 8vo); Gebhard, Isagoge (Gryphsw. 1696, 1697, 4to); Durer, Erkldirung (Hanov. 1701, 12mo); Biermann, Clavis (Fr.-a.-Rh. 1702, 4to); Vitringa, Anacrisis (Franeck. 1705; Amst. 1719; Wessenf. 1721,4to); Whiston, Essay (Cambr. 1706, 1744, 4to); M. Kromayer, Erkldrung (Leips. 1708, 4to); Scliweizer, Erklarung (Ulm, 1709, 8vo); Gronewegen, Auslegung (from the Dutch, Frankf. 1711, 4to); Kerckerdere [Rom. Cath.], Systemma (Lov. 1711, 12mo); Brussken, Schlissel (Offenb. 1713, 4to); Mandcit [Rom. Cath.], Analyse (Par. 1714, 8vo); Weple, Paraphrase (Lond. 1715,.4to); Boekholt, Verklaaring (Had. 1717, 4to); Driessen, Meditationes (Fr.-a.-Rh. 1717, 4to); Wells, Help (Oxf. 1718, 8vo); *Daubuz, Commentary (Lond. 1720, fol.); Abbadie, Ouverture (Amst. 1721, 2 vols. 12mo; also in Dutch, by Monbach, ibid. 1726, 2 vols. 4to); Bomble, Chronotaxis (ibid. 1721, 4to); Reinbeck, Errtferung (Berl. 1722, 8vo); Scheuermann, Erklarung (Lipstad. 1722, 4to); Andola, Clavis [includ. other passages] (Leon. 1726, 4to); De Dioneus, Essai (Amst. 1729, 4to); Lange [J.], Eklarung (Hal. 1730, fol.); Dimpel, Einleitung (Leips. 1730, 8vo); Lancaster, Commentary (Lond. 1730, 4to); Robertson, Exposition (Edinb. 1730, fol.); Losecken, Erklarung (Hal. 1731, 4to); Sir I. Newton, Observations (Lond. 1733, 4to; also in Latin, Amst. 1737, 4to); Pyle, Paraphraase (Lond. 1735, 1795, 8vo); Van den Hornet, Dissertationes (L. B. 1736, 4to); Lowman, Notes (Lond. 1737, 1745, 4to; 1791, 1807, 8vo; and since); *Bengel, Erkldrung (Stuttg. 1740, 1746, 8vo; new ed. ibid. 1834, 8vo; in English, Lond. 1757, 8vo); Reinhard, Chronotaxis (Vinar. 1741, 4to); Cremer, Commentarius (Zutph. 1757, 4to); Harenberg, Erklarung (Brunsw. 1759, 4to); Fehr. Anleitung (Altenb. 1761, 4to); Taylor, Essay (Lond. 1763, 8vo); Swedenborg, Revelatio (Amst. 1766, 4to; in English, Lond. 1832,2 vols. 8vo); Gill, Exposition (ibid. 1776, 4to); Murray EJ.], Sermons (ibid. 1778,8vo); Reader, Remarks (ibid. 1778, 8vo); Herrnschneider, Tentamen (Argent. 1786, 4to); Mrs. Bowdler, Observations (Bath, 1787,1800,8vo); Pfeiffer, Anleitung (Stuttg. 1788, 8vo); Purves, Observations (Edinb. 1789-93, 2 vols. 8vo); *Eichhorn, Commentarius (Gott. 1791, 2 vols. 8vo); Johnstone, Commentary (Edinb. 1794, 1807, 2 vols. 8vo); Semler, Eklarung (Leips. 1794, 1811, 8vo); Hagen, Anmerk. (Ell. 1796, 8 ,o); Gilbert, Reflections (French, Guernsey, 1796, 8vo); Sniodgrass, Commentary (Paislev, 1799, 8vo); Jung. Erklarung (Niirnb. 1799, 1822, 8vo); Mitchell, Exposition (Lond. 1800, 8-v); J. Galloway, Commentaries (ibid. 1802, 8vo); Whitaker, Commentary (ibid. 1802, 8vo); Woodhotlse, Notes (ibid. 1805, 8vo); also Annotations (ibid. 1828, 8vo); Thruston, Researches (Coventry, 1812, 2 vols. 8vo); Fuller, Discourses (Lond. 1815, 8vo; also in Works, p. 436); Holmes, Elucidation (ibid. 1815, 8vo); also Fulfilment (ibid. 1819, 8vo); *Heinrichs. Annotatio (Gott. 1818, 1821,2 vols. 8vo; also in Koppe’s New Test.); Culbertson, Lectures (Edinb. 1818, 8vo); Girdlestone [C.], Observations (Oxf. 1820, 8vo); Herder, Commentary (from the German, Lond. 1821, 12mo); Gauntlett, Exposition (ibid. 1821, and later, 8vo); Laurmann. Proelectio (Groning. 1822, 8vo); Tilloch, Dissertations (Lond. 1823, 8vo); Park, Exposition (ibid. 1823, 8vo); also Explanation (ibid. 1832, 12mo); Murray [R.], Introduction (Dubl. 1826, 8vo); Holzhauser, Erklarung (Leips. 1827, 8vo); Croly, Interpretation (Lond. 1827, 4to; 1838,8vo); *Ewald, Commentarius (Lips. 1828, 8vo; in German, Gott. 1862, 8vo); Matthaii: Erklarung (Gott. 1828, 8vo); Scholz, Erilduternung (Frankf. 1828, 8vo): Allwood, Key (Lond. 89, 2 vo8o) *orN.Y. 1892 s8vo; *Lord,.. 1831, 8vo); Irving, Lectures (Lo.nd. 1831, 4 vols.12mo); Losecke, Erklarung (Hal. 1831, 4to); *Lucke, Einleitung (Bonn. 1832, 1852, 8vo); Basset, Explication (French, Par. 1832-33, 3 vols. 8vo); Cooper, Commentary (Lond. 1833, 8vo); Anon. Unveiling (ibid. 1833, 12mo); Roe, Arrangement (Dubl. 1834, 4to); Ashe, Notes (ibid. 1834, 8vo); Boost, Erkldrung (Darmst. 1835,8vo); Hutchinson, Guide (Lond. 1835, 8vo); Pearson, Consideration (Camb. 1835, 8vo); Jones, Interpreter (Lond. 1836,12mo); Vivien, Explication (French, Par. 1837, 12mo); Sanderson, Essays (Lond. 1838, 12mo); Lovett, Eaplanation (ibid. 1838, 8vo); Anon. Studies (ibid. 1838, 12mo); Franz, Betrachtungen (Quedlinb. 1838-40, 3 vols. 8vo); Tinius, Erklarung (Leips. 1839, 8vo); *Tullig, Erkldrung (ibid. 1840, 2 vols. 8vo); Habershon, Exposition .(Lond. 1841,8vo; 1842,1844,2 vols.); Paulus [H.E. G.], Philosophie (Berl. 1843, 8vo); Govett, Revelation (Lond. 1843,12mo); *Stuart, Commentary (Andover and Lond. 1845, 2 vols. 8vo); Clifford, Exposition (Lond. 1845, 4 vols. 8vo); Storey, Notes (ibid. 1845,12mo); Von Brandt, Erklarung (Leips. 1845, 1847, 8vo); De Burgh, Exposition (Dubl. 1845, and later, 12mo); Galloway [W. B..], Exposition (Lond. 1846. 2 vols. 8vo); Newton [B. W.], Thoughts (ibid. 1846,1853, 8vo); Hooper [J.], Explanation (ibid. 1847, 8vo); Girdlestone [H.], Notes (ibid. 1847, 8vo); Rogers, Lectures (ibid. 1847, 12mo); *De Wette, Erklarung (Leips. 1848, in his Exeg. Handb.); Hoare, HIarmony (Lond. 1848, 8vo); Tregelles, Translation (ibid. 1848, 12mo); Wordsworth, Lectures (ibid. 1848, 8vo), also Notes (ibid. 1849, 12mo); also Harmony (ibid. 1851, 4to); Kelly, Interpretation (ibid. 1849-51, 2 vols. 12mo); Cumming, Lectures (ibid. 1849-52, 3 vols. 12mo); also Readings (ibid. 1853, 12mo); Graber, Erkldrung (Heidelb. 1850, 8vo); Frere, Notes (Lond. 1850, 8vo); *Elliott, 17orce Apoc. (English, ibid. 1851, 4 vols. 8vo), Goodwin, Exposition (ibid. 1851, 8vo); Wickes, Exposition (ibid. 1851,8vo); James, Lectures (ibid. 1851,12mo); *Hengstenberg, Eriauterung (Berl.:,1852, 2 vols. 8vo; in English, Edinb. and N. Y. 1851-53, 2 vols. 8vo); *Jenour, Rationale Apoc. (English, Lond. 1852, 2 vols. 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N. Y. 1852, 12mo); Williams, Notes (Lond. 1852, 8vo); *Ebrard, Er’kldrunq (Konigsb. 1853, 8vo, in Olshalusen’s Conmmentar); Scott, Interpretation (Lond. 1853, 8vo); *Auberlen, Quenbaruung, etc. (Basel, 1854,1857, 8vo; in English, Edinb. 1856,8vo); Graham, Readings (Lond. 1854, 12mo); Sutcliffe, Lecturies (ibid. 1854. 8vo); Stern [Rom. Cath.], Comnmentar (Schaffh. 1854. 8vo); Wichtler, Predigten (Essen. 1854-55, 2 vols. 8vo); Grieves, Analysis (Lond. 1855, 8vo); Desprez, Fuifilment (ibid. 1855, 8vo); Pollok, Lectures (ibid. 185558, 2 vols. 12mo); Godwin. Translation (ibid. 1856, 8vo); Skeen, Lectures (ibid. 1857, 8vo); C. Paulus, Blicke (Stuttg. 1857,12mo); Winslow, Examination (Lond. 1857, 12mo); Huntingford, Interpretation (ibid. 1858, 12mo; 1871, 1873, 8vo); Porter, Lectures (Edinb. 1858, 8vo); *Diisterdieck, Handbuch (Gott. 1859, 8vo, in Meyer’s Commentar); Monk, Interpretation (Lond. 1859, 12mo); Galton, Lectures (ibid. 1859, 2 vols. 12mo); Brandt, Anleitung (Amst. 1860, 8vo); Kelly [W.], Lectures (Lond. 1860,1871, 8vo); Curzon, Key (ibid. 1860, 12mo); Benno [Rom. Cath. ], Er-klarung (Munich, 1860, 8vo); Maurice, Lectures (Cambr. 1861, 8vo); Hooper [F. B.], Exposition (Lond. 1861, 2 vols. 8vo); Harper, Exposition (ibid. 1861, 2 vols. 8vo); Smith, Exposition (ibid. 1861, 8vo); Luthardt, Erklcrung (Leips. 1861, 8vo); Williams, Notes (Lond. 1861, 1873, 8vo); *Volkmar, Commentar (Ziir. 1862, 8vo); Sabel, Erklarun;g (Heidelb. 1862, 8vo); Tucker, Explanation (Lond. 1862,12mo); Kemmler, Erdluterung (Tiib. 1863, 8vo); Vaughan, Lectures (Lonl. 1863, 2 vols. 8vo); Bleek, Vorlesungen (Berl. 1863, 8vo; in English, Lond. 1875, 8vo); Jessin, Erkldrung (Leips. 1864, 8vo); Blech; Uebersicht (Dantz. 1864, 8vo); Pacificus, Erlauterung (Leips. 1864, 8vo); Lammert, Auslegung (Stuttg. 1864, 8vo); Clay, Exposition (Lond. 1864, 8vo); Richter, Auslegung (Leips. 1864, 8vo). Hirschfeld, Erluterung (Saarb. 1865, 8vo); Diedrich, Erlauterung (Neu Rupp.1865, 8vo); W. .A. B.,: Lectures (Dubl. 1865, 8vo); De Rougemont, Explication (French, Neucliatel, 1866,’8-o)’; Boihm’er, Versuch (Bres. 1866, 8vo); Garrett, Canmeifa-y j (Lond./1866, 8vo); Harvey, -Exposition:(ibid. 1867, 8vo); Riemann, Erlauterung (Halle, 1868, 8vo); Armstrong, Illustration (Lond. 1868, 8vo); Tomlin, Interpretation (ibid. 1868, 8vo); Snell, Notes-(2d ed. ibid. 1869, 8vo); Seirs, Lectures (ibid. 1869, 8vo); Stone, Explanation (ibid. 1869, 12mo); Vaughan, Lectures’ (3d ed. ibid. 1870, 2 vols. 8vo); Kienlen, Commentaire (Paris, 1870. 8vo): Anon. Commentary (Lond. 1870, 8vo); *Cowles,’Notes (N.Y. 1871, 12mo); Anon. Exposition (ibid. 1871, 8vo); Pond, Opening (Edinb. 1871, 8vo); Glasgow, Exposition (ibid. 1872, 8vo); Gartner, Erklarung (Stuttg. 1872, 8vo); Harms, Erlduterung (Leips. 1873, 8vo); *Kliefoth, Erklarung (ibid. 1874,3 vols. 8vo); Lincoln, Lectures (Lond. 1874,12mo); Filler, Erklarung (Nordl. 1874, 8vo); Henley, Musings (Lond. 1874, 12mo); Robinson, Expositions (ibid. 1876, 8vo); Baylee, Commentary (ibid. 1877, 8vo); Wolfe, Exposition (ibid. 1877, 8vo). SEE NEW TESTAMENT. The following are exclusively on the epistles to the seven churches: Laurentius, Expositio (Amst. 1649, 4to); Ramirez, Commentarius (Lugd. 1652, fol.); More, Exposition (Lond. 1669, 12mo); Smith, Epistola [topographical] (ibid. 1678, 8vo); Johnson, Laodicean Age (ibid. 1733, 8vo); Allen, Improvement (ibid. 1733, 8vo); Wadsworth, Lectures (Idle, 1825, 12mo); Theime, Commentatio (L. B. 1827, 4to); Wichelhaus, Predigten (Elberf. 1827, 8vo); *Arundel, Visit [descriptive] (Lond. 1828, 8vo); Milner [J.]. Sermons (ibid. 1830, 8vo); Milner [T.], History (ibid. 1832,8vo); Withy, Lectures (ibid. 1833, 8vo); Hyatt, Sermonois (ibid. 1834, 12mo); Muir, Sermons (ibid. 1835,12mo); *M’Farlane, Seven Churches [descriptive, with etchings] (ibid. 1836, 4to); Blunt, Exposition (ibid. 1838,12mo); Carr, Sermons (ibid. 1840, 12mo); Wallace, Con C- rdition (ibid. 1842, 8vo); West, Discourses (ibid. 1846,12mo); Thompson, Sermons (ibid. 1848. 8vo); Stathan, Lectures (ibid. 1848, 12mo); Heubner, Predigten (Berl. 1850, 8vo); Tom, Die sieben Sendschr. (Bayr. i850, 8vo); Cumming, Lectures (Lond. 1850, 12mo); Parker, Interpretation (ibid. 1852,12mo); Chamberlain, Seven Ages (ibid. 1856, 8vo); Biber, Sermons (ibid. 1857, 12mo); *Trench, Commentary (ibid. and N. Y. 1861, 12mo); *Svobode, Seven Churches [with 20 photographs, and Notes by Tristram] (Lond. 1869, 4to); *Plumptre, Exposition (ibid. 1877, 12mo); Anon. Symbolic Parables (Edinb. 1877,12mo). SEE ASIA MINOR.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Revelation, Book of

=The Apocalypse, the closing book and the only prophetical book of the New Testament canon. The author of this book was undoubtedly John the apostle. His name occurs four times in the book itself (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), and there is every reason to conclude that the “John” here mentioned was the apostle. In a manuscript of about the twelfth century he is called “John the divine,” but no reason can be assigned for this appellation.

The date of the writing of this book has generally been fixed at A.D. 96, in the reign of Domitian. There are some, however, who contend for an earlier date, A.D. 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero. Those who are in favour of the later date appeal to the testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus, who received information relative to this book from those who had See n John face to face. He says that the Apocalypse “was See n no long time ago.”

As to the relation between this book and the Gospel of John, it has been well observed that “the leading ideas of both are the same. The one gives us in a magnificent vision, the other in a great historic drama, the supreme conflict between good and evil and its issue. In both Jesus Christ is the central figure, whose victory through defeat is the issue of the conflict. In both the Jewish dispensation is the preparation for the gospel, and the warfare and triumph of the Christ is described in language saturated with the Old Testament. The difference of date will go a long way toward explaining the difference of style.” Plummer’s Gospel of St. John, Introd.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

REVELATION, BOOK OF

As its title suggests, the book of Revelation reveals things that might otherwise remain unknown. The revelation came from God and the risen Christ by way of the books writer to first century Christians, and it concerned things that were soon to take place (Rev 1:1). The traditional view is that the person named John who wrote the book was the apostle John, though no statement in the book makes this identification certain.

Background to the book

The church of the first century was persecuted almost from the beginning. Persecution at first came mainly from the Jews, but as the century progressed, civil authorities also turned against the Christians. The two main periods of persecution from the Roman Emperors came in the sixties under Nero and in the nineties under Domitian. It was during this latter period that John, having been imprisoned for his Christian testimony, received the revelation recorded in this book (Rev 1:9-10).

Patmos, the place of Johns imprisonment, was an island off the coast from Ephesus in the west of Asia Minor. Upon receiving the revelation, John wrote it in a book, then sent it with a messenger to the mainland to deliver to a group of seven churches in Asia Minor. The order in which the churches are listed probably represents the order in which they were visited by the messenger who delivered the letters. From these centres the message would no doubt spread to other churches of the region (Rev 1:11; for map see ASIA).

By this time the government was enforcing Emperor worship as a settled policy, with the result that Christians were being imprisoned, tortured and even killed (Rev 2:10; Rev 2:13; Rev 6:9-11). People in general were becoming anti-Christian. To make matters worse, false teachers were troubling the churches by encouraging Christians to participate in pagan religious practices (Rev 2:14; Rev 2:20-21). Some Christians were renouncing their faith, others losing heart. Many were confused, for it seemed that Jesus Christ, the almighty king whom they expected to return in triumph, was either unable or unwilling to save them from the power of Rome.

Through John, Jesus reassured the suffering Christians that he was still in control, though he did not want them to build up any false hopes. He gave no guarantee of quick relief. Rather he prepared them for greater endurance, by revealing the extent of the troubles yet to come and the eternal reward for those who stood firm for him. In Gods time he would return to punish all enemies, save his people, and bring in a new and eternal era.

Interpretation of the book

The book of Revelation belongs to a category of literature known as apocalyptic. (The name comes from the Greek apokalypsis, the word translated revelation in Rev 1:1.) In apocalyptic literature God gives revelations to people by means of strange visions explained by angels. The visions often feature fearsome beasts and mysterious numbers, and are usually concerned with great conflicts out of which God and his people triumph (see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE).

Because Christians of the first century were familiar with apocalyptic literature, they would have readily understood Revelation, but Christians of a different era and culture usually find the book difficult to interpret. Some interpret it as applying wholly to the time of John; others interpret it as applying wholly to the future, when God will bring the worlds history to an end. Some see the book as a continuous history of the world from Johns time to the end; others see it not as a record of historical events but as a presentation of the victory of the gospel in symbolic pictures. There are countless variations in the interpretation of the book, both as a whole and in its details.

In an attempt to solve the difficulties of the book of Revelation, some people simply choose the scheme of interpretation that suits them and reject the rest. But this is not the best way to understand the books message. The book is not a collection of puzzles designed to amuse Christians in their spare time by giving them mysteries to solve. It is a book given to strengthen and guide Christians in a time of persecution. The pictures are taken from life under Roman rule as the Christians of Johns time knew it, but the principles are applicable in any era.

Anti-Christian persecutions and divine judgments have been repeated throughout the churchs history, from Johns time to the present. But in every era Christians have triumphed through their troubles because of Christs victory on the cross (Rev 12:11). Opposition will continue till the worlds last great crisis comes and Jesus Christ returns. In that day the triumphant Saviour will banish evil, save his people, and bring in a new age of peace and joy (Rev 19:13-16; Rev 22:1-5).

Contents of the book

John begins by greeting the seven churches to whom the book is sent (1:1-8), then describes his vision of the risen and exalted Christ, who is Lord of all the churches (1:9-20). Then follow the seven letters. Each of the letters consists of a greeting from the risen Christ, a statement concerning the state of the church, a warning, an instruction and a promise (2:1-3:22). John then has two visions. In the first the Almighty is seated upon his throne and is worshipped as the Creator (4:1-11). In the second the Lamb is victorious out of death and is worshipped as the Redeemer (5:1-14).

After this are three series of judgments, each based on the symbolic number seven. In the first series a seven-section scroll is unrolled section by section by breaking one seal for each section. As the scroll is unrolled, each section reveals a vision relating to some aspect of suffering and judgment. There is an interval before the breaking of the final seal, when further visions reassure the faithful. No matter what they suffer, God will preserve them for his heavenly kingdom (6:1-8:5).

In the second series of judgments, each of the seven visions is announced by the blowing of a trumpet. Again there is an interval before the final vision, when further visions reassure the faithful of victory. They may suffer persecution, and perhaps martyrdom, but because of Christs victory they are triumphant (8:6-11:19).

Before the third series of judgments, John receives a number of visions to show the conflict and ultimate triumph that Gods people can expect. One vision is of a dragon that tries to destroy a woman and her child (12:1-17); another is of a beast that rises out of the sea to fight against God and his people (13:1-10); and a third is of a beast that rises out of the earth in support of the previous beast (13:11-18). However, the redeemed, not the beasts, are the victors (14:1-5), while the wicked suffer destruction (14:6-20).

The third series of judgments then follows, with seven angels pouring out seven bowls of Gods anger upon a rebellious world (15:1-16:21). The overthrow of this rebellious world is then pictured in the destruction of a prostitute (17:1-18) and the burning of Babylon (18:1-19:5). The triumph of God and his people is pictured in a wedding feast, the victorious reign of Jesus Christ, the defeat of Satan and the last great judgment (19:6-20:15).

Finally, John has a vision of a new heaven and a new earth, where God dwells with his people in a new order of existence (21:1-22:5). In view of the salvation and judgments that lie ahead, the book urges Christians to be faithful to God, and urges others to accept Gods offered mercy (22:6-21).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Revelation, Book Of

REVELATION, BOOK OF.Whatever perplexities may still attend the interpretation of the Apocalypse, there can be no question as to the place which it assigns to Jesus Christ, or the copiousness and variety of the references which the writer makes to His Person and His work. For him the fact of Christ conditions the whole of human history. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), and He is the Bridegroom-Judge, whose eagerly expected coming will bring to a close the history of the world that now is. And what is true of the worlds history is also true of the book itself; its whole contents are a revelation (Apocalypse) of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1), a revelation which proceeds from Him, and is mediated by his angel to his servant John.

It will be convenient to examine the references and the doctrine which lies behind them in the order of our Lords experience, beginning with His life on earth. In the first place, it is noteworthy that the human name Jesus, borne by Christ when He was on earth, which is rare in the writings of St. Paul and absent from those of St. Peter, occurs here nine (or ten) times. The martyrs are the witnesses of Jesus (Rev 17:6); their witness is the testimony of Jesus (Rev 1:1 etc.); and it is by this simple human name that the Divine Speaker describes Himself (Rev 22:16). In this usage we may see an indication of authorship by one who had known Christ after the flesh, to whom the name He had then borne was both familiar and dear. If authoritative criticism no longer permits us to see direct allusions to either the birth or the ascension of Jesus in the story of the man-child contained in ch. 12, His death by crucifixion is very pointedly alluded to as an historical fact (Rev 11:8), His victory in Rev 3:21 (as I also overcame), and His resurrection in Rev 1:5; Rev 1:18. His twelve Apostles find mention in Rev 21:14, and there are echoes of His teaching as recorded in the Gospels in Rev 3:5; Rev 3:10, Rev 7:17, Rev 21:6 and Rev 21:23.

These recollections of Jesus of Nazareth have not been obliterated by the vision of the exalted Christ; rather are the two elements held together in a singular harmony of conviction. Passing to the second, we find that the richness of the conception of Christ which marks the Apocalypse may be gauged by the variety and significance of the aspects in which He is presentedthe Word, the Lamb, the Shepherd, the Bridegroom, the Judge, the King of kings. Here only outside the Fourth Gospel does Christ receive the deeply significant title of the Word of God (Rev 19:13), and the idea of pre-existence which the name carries with it also lies behind the declaration twice repeated, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev 1:17, Rev 21:6). But the commonest and the most characteristic title of Christ in this book is the Lamba title which is used by the writer with great freedom, as though it had come to have for him almost the force of a proper name (cf. Rev 21:9; Rev 21:23; Rev 21:27, Rev 22:3). The use of the name is, however, rooted in the conviction of the redemptive efficacy of Christs sacrifice; it suggests the aspect of His work which is most prominent to the mind of John. It should be noted that the word itself is not identical with that applied to Jesus in Johns Gospel (Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36); it is a diminutive and a neuter; but the meaning is the same, and the sacrificial reference is indubitable. The Lamb stands as though it had been slain (Rev 5:6); He is hailed as One who has redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev 5:9); the adoring saints in heaven are those who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:14, cf. Rev 1:5). These latter passages emphasize the ethical consequences of the Atonement, and trace them to the blood of Christ in the same way as the First Epistle of John. The spiritual principle of the Atonement is suggested by the figure of the Lamb itself, in which are combined the attributes of lamb-like charactermeekness, gentleness, and purityand the sacrificial function historically associated with a lamb. At the same time, the Lamb, originally a figure for Christ in the sacrificial aspect of His work, takes on, besides, attributes which belong to Him in other of His functions, and so we read of the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:16), of the Lambs book of life (Rev 21:27), of kings making war with the Lamb and being overcome by Him (Rev 17:14), of the marriage of the Lamb (Rev 19:7), and, finally, of the Lamb as ruler of the heavenly city (Rev 22:3), as at once the temple of it and the light thereof (Rev 21:23-24). Thus, while every aspect of the work of Christ, whether in earth or heaven, finds adoring record here, there is a subtle recognition of the fact that all the forms of His relation to men spring out of the fundamental function of redemption.

The writer of the Apocalypse, therefore, holding firmly to the humanity of the Jesus whom probably he had known in the flesh, yet ascribing to Him as the Lamb funetions of redemption, government, and judgment, offers to Him throughout his book the homage which is due only to God manifest in the flesh. This is seen alike in the titles, the functions, and the attributes assigned to Him. Every detail of description serves only to enhance the dignity and the glory of His Person. He is the Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev 17:14, Rev 19:16). To Him is attributed all the honour and authority pertaining to the Messiah and more. Angels who refuse worship offered to themselves (Rev 19:10, Rev 22:8) unite with all ereation to worship God and the Lamb (Rev 5:11-13). His existence reaches back before the beginning of things created. Himself the principle from which all creation issues (Rev 3:14; cf. Col 1:15, Pro 8:22), He is the absolutely Living One from whose lips are heard words which can be spoken by God alone: I am the first and the last, and the Living One (Rev 1:17, cf. Rev 1:8). He holds the keys of Death and of Hades (Rev 1:18)keys which, according to the later Jewish tradition, were held by the hand of the Almighty alone. In the vision of the Son of Man which introduces the Letters to the Seven Churches, the writer takes one after another of those phrases which had been consecrated from old times to the description of the Most High God, those attributes in which He had been apparelled by prophets and psalmists, and lays them simply upon Christ as upon One whose right to bear them was beyond question. The description of the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9) is transferred to Him, as well as the power to search the heart and the reins, which is the peculiar attribute of Jehovah (Rev 2:23, cf. Psa 7:9). It is not strange, therefore, that to this Divine Figure is committed the unfolding of the Book of human Destiny (Rev 5:5), the waging of the final conflict with evil, and the holding of the Divine assize.

This complete and unhesitating attribution of Divine rank and authority to Jesus Christ is the more remarkable when we give due weight to the intense Hebraism of the writer. A Jew of the Jews, his mind saturated with Hebrew thought, a true son of the race to which monotheism had become a passion, and the ascription of Divine honour to any other than God a horror and a blasphemy, the author nevertheless sets Jesus side by side with the Almighty. One meaning of the phenomenon is plain. It offers the most striking proof of the impression made by Jesus upon His disciples, one which had been sufficient to revolutionize their most cherished religious belief; for them He had the value of God. And the special aspect of His Person and work which is emphasized, as we have seen, in the Apocalypse, gives the clue to the explanation of this exalted Christology. The kernel of experience from which the process starts is indicated in the declaration: He hath loosed (v.l. washed) us from our sins. John and those in whose name he wrote had found the sin-barrier between them and God removed, and the sin-dominion over them broken; and this experience they traced to Jesus, to what He had lone for them in dying, and in them as living again. And if, along with this their indubitable experience of forgiveness of, and deliverance from, sin, we take the universal conviction of their time, expressed in the question of the Pharisees, Who can forgive sins save God only? we have little difficulty in perceiving the avenue along which the gaze of the Apocalyptist travelled till it beheld the throne of God as a throne which was shared also by the Lamb.

C. Anderson Scott.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Revelation, Book Of

REVELATION, BOOK OF.This single representative of the literature of apocalypse (Gr. apokalypsis, whence the alternating name, The Apocalypse) preserved in the NT belongs to a large group of Christian writings of a similar sort. It was characteristic of the early Church to build up a literature about the names of the various Apostles. Normally this literature consisted of a narrative, an apocalypse, and some form of doctrinal writing; as, for example, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Preaching of Peter. With the exception of the present book, no Christian apocalypse is held to be even possibly authentic.

1. Canonicity.The Revelation was not universally accepted by the early Church as canonical. There is no evidence of its existence worthy of consideration in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, although it is just possible that Papias may have known of it. By the middle of the 2nd cent., however, Revelation is well known, and is declared by Justin to he by the Apostle John (Dial. lxxxi. 15). It is also used, among others, by Melito, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and attributed to the Apostle John by the first-named as well as by Irenus. The fact that it appears in the Canon of the Muratorian Fragment is evidence that by the middle of the 2nd cent. it was accepted in the West. After its defence by Hippolytus its position was never seriously questioned except in the East. Jerome is, in fact, the only Western theologian of importance who doubts it, and he puts it among those books which are under discussion, neither canonical nor apocryphal.

In the East, as might be expected, it was rejected by Marcion, and, because of disbelief in its Apostolic authorship, by Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the 3rd cent.). Palestinian and Syrian authors (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem) generally rejected it, in large measure because of the struggle with the Montanists, by whom Revelation was used as a basis of doctrine. It does not appear in the lists of the Synod of Laodicea, the Apostolic Constitutions, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, the Chronography of Nicephorus, the List of the Sixty Books, or in the Peshitta version of the NT. It was included by the Gelasian Decree at the end of the 5th cent. as canonical, and was finally recognized by the Eastern Church. Yet as late as 692 a Synod could publish two decrees, the one including the Apocalypse in the Canon, the other excluding it. It was not held in high repute by the reformers Carlstadt, Luther, Zwingli, all of whom doubted its Apostolicity, or apparently by Calvin, who omitted to comment upon it. At most, the first two of these theologians were apparently inclined to recognize a division of sacred writings similar to that of Jerome.

2. Authorship.The title, Revelation of John, which occurs in several MSS, including the Codex Sinaiticus, is an obvious expression of a belief regarding authorship. This John was believed by many in the early Church to be the Apostle. Whether this view was correct or not is to-day a subject of lively debate. The book itself contains little internal evidence serving to substantiate this claim, for the author simply states that he is named John (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:4; Joh 1:9; john 22:8). Justin (Dial. lxxxi. 15) distinctively states that Revelation is by John, one of the Apostles of Christ, and Tertullian along with the Western Church generally held to its Apostolic authorship. Eusebius, however, suggests that it may have been written by John the Presbyter, mentioned by Papias but otherwise unknown. At the present time the belief is divided as to whether the author of Revelation is John the Apostle or John the Presbyter. The chief argument against the view that the author is John the Apostle lies in the differences existing between Revelation and the Gospel and the Epistles of John, both in style and in method. Notwithstanding the use of the term Logos (19:13), these divergences are too obvious to need specifying. If Johannine authorship be assigned the Gospel and Epistles, it is difficult to claim it for Revelation; but, on the other hand, it is difficult to believe it to be either pseudonymous or written by the mysterious John the Presbyter. As the case now stands, criticism seems to have reached an impasse, and the plain reader may best use the book in disregard of questions of authorship,a procedure the more justifiable because its teaching is independent of personal matters.

3. Date.Although the fixing of the date of Revelation presupposes conclusions as to its composition and purpose, it may here be said that in all probability the book reached its present form in the latter part of the reign of Domitian (a.d. 8196).

4. Composition.The prevailing hypotheses may be grouped in three classes.

(1) The currently accepted view that it was written entirely by the Apostle John. Such a view is, however, open to serious objections, because of the similarities, if not identities, existing between Revelation and other apocalyptic literature of the period, as well as because of the evidences of composite character of the writing, implying sources of different origins and dates, such as the various breaks in the process of the vision (the lack of any single historical point of view is seen by a comparison of Rev 12:3; Rev 13:1; Rev 17:3, in an effort to identify historically the two breaks, or in a comparison of Rev 11:1-13 with Rev 17:11).

(2) The view that the work, while essentially a literary unit, is a Christian redaction of a Jewish writing. This view would attribute to the Christian redactor the first three chapters and important sections like Rev 5:9-14; Rev 7:9-17; Rev 13:11 ff; Rev 22:6-21, in addition to separate verses like Rev 12:11; Rev 14:1; Rev 14:5; Rev 12:13; Rev 12:15; Rev 16:15; Rev 17:14; Rev 19:9-10; Rev 19:13 b, Rev 20:4-6; Rev 21:5-8. The difficulties with this position are not only those which must be urged against any view that overlooks the evidences of the composite authorship of the work, but also the impossibility of showing that ch. 11 is Jewish in character.

(3) Theories of composite origin.These are of various forms(a) The theory according to which an original work has been interpolated with apocalyptic material of various dates (Rev 7:1-17; Rev 11:1-13; Rev 12:1-17; Rev 13:17) and subjected to several revisions. (b) The view that Revelation is a Christian book in which Jewish apocalypses have been framed. (c) The theory according to which Revelation is composed of three sources, each of which has subdivisions, all worked together by a Christian redactor. (d) Notwithstanding the difficulty in determining the sources, critics are pretty thoroughly agreed that, as the book now stands, it has a unity which, though not inconsistent with the use of older material by its author, is none the less easily recognized. Some of this older material, it is now held, undoubtedly represents the general stream of apocalyptic that took its rise in Babylonian mythology. The structural unity of the book appears in the repetition of sevenfold groups of episodes, as well as in a general grammatical and linguistic similarity. In achieving this remarkable result, the redactor so combined, recast, and supplemented his material as to give the book an essentially Christian rather than Jewish character.

5. Analysis.As it now stands, literary and critical analyses do not altogether coincide, but until criticism has finished its task, literary analysis must be of primary Importance. Authorities here differ, but the following analysis does not differ fundamentally from that of other writers.

i.Introduction (ch. 1).

ii.The message of the Spirit to the Seven Churches (chs. 2, 3).

iii.The period of struggle and misery (chs. 47).

iv.The final Messianic struggle (chs. 814).

v.The victory of the Messiah (chs. 1520).

vi.The vision of the Messianic Kingdom (chs. Rev 21:1 to Rev 22:5).

vii.Epilogue (Rev 22:6-21).

6. Interpretation.No Biblical writing, with the possible exception of the Book of Daniel, has been so subjected to the vagaries of interpreters as Revelation, (a) On the one extreme are those (Futurists) who have seen in its pictures a forecast of universal Christian history, as well as all the enemies of Christianity, both within and without the Church. To such interpreters the book has been a thesaurus of that chiliastic doctrine which the Greek as well as the modern scientific attitude of mind has found so repugnant. (b) At the other extreme there are those interpreters who see in Revelation simply a reference to the historical conditions of the first century of the Christian era. (c) There is a measure of truth in each of these two methods, but the real method of interpretation must be independent of dogmatic presuppositions. As narrative matter must be interpreted by the general principles applicable to all literature of its class, so must Revelation be interpreted in accordance with the general principles applicable to apocalypses as a form of literary expression. The fundamental principles of such interpretation involve the recognition of the facts(i.) that apocalypses are the outgrowth of definite historical situations; (ii.) that they attempt to stimulate faith by an exposition in symbolic terms of the deliverance which God will give His suffering people from actually existing sufferings; (iii.) that the message of deliverance gains authority because of its claim to superhuman origin reinforced by pseudonymous authorship; (iv.) that the deliverance which is thus supernaturally portrayed is dependent upon the introduction of a new age whose conditions are set miraculously by God rather than by evolving historical forces, and is not described with the same detail as are the conditions from which God is to deliver His people.

An application of these principles to the interpretation of Revelation demands (1) that an historical interpretation be given the pictures describing the miseries of the Church. The conditions of such interpretation are most naturally fulfilled in the persecution under Domitian (8196), although there may be references to that under the dead Nero. The persecuting force is clearly Rome, as represented both by the Emperor and by Emperor-worship, whatever the origin of the pictures with which the oppression of the Church is set forth. A point of departure for the identification of the historical figures who are to be subjected to the Messianic punishment might be thought to be the number of the Beast666that is to say, the Emperor Nero, who was expected to return from the dead (see Beast [in Apoc. [Note: Apocalypse, Apocalyptic.] ]). Pseudo-Nero did, in fact, appear in Asia Minor in a.d. 69, and among the Parthians in 7981 and 88. The identification, however, is not altogether satisfactory, as the Hebrew letters, whose numerical equivalents give by the process of Gematria 666, are not precisely those in Csar Nero. If the correct reading be 616, the equivalent is Gaius Csar. Another interpretation would make the Latin or the Roman Empire. The best that can be said, however, is that if the interpretation by Gematria is unsatisfactory, the interpreter is forced back upon the general references of the hills, the city, and the horns or kings, as a basis for regarding Rome as the great enemy of the Christian and his Church.

A further difficulty in formulating precisely the historical situation, arises from the fact that the author, though producing a book of great literary unity, has embodied sources which refer to conditions of different times. Thus Rev 11:1-13 would naturally infer the existence of the Temple, which was destroyed in 70; ch. 13 may have come from the days of Caligula; Rev 17:10 most naturally implies some time in the reign of Nero; Rev 17:11 apparently implies Domitian, the eighth emperor; Rev 17:8 would also argue that the book was written during the period that believed in Nero redivivus. The redactor (or redactors) has, however, so combined these materials as to give a unified picture of the approaching Messianic struggle.

(2) On the other hand, the deliverance of the Church is, like all apocalyptic deliverances, miraculous, and described transcendentally. Besides the martyrs, the only identification possible in this connexion is that of the conquering Lamb with Jesus the Christ. The fall of Rome is foretold definitely in ch. 17, but the seer is true to the general apocalyptic form in that he makes Rome and its religion the agents of Satan. The ultimate victory of the Church is similarly portrayed as the victory of God, and is identified with the return of Jesus to establish His Messianic Kingdom.

Such a method of interpretation, based upon general characteristics of apocalypses, preserves the element of truth in both the futurist and the historical methods of interpretation, the pictures of persecution symbolizing actual historical conditions, but the forecast of deliverance reverting to the general Messianic expectation of events lying outside of history.

The sublime theme of Revelation thus becomes evidentthe victory of the Messiah over the Roman Empire, together with the miseries to be inflicted on His enemies and the blessings to be enjoyed by His followers.

7. Religious value.If properly interpreted, Revelation is of really profound religious value. It cannot serve as a basis of theology, but, like any piece of imaginative writing, will serve to stir the emotion and the faith of the Christian. Its literary form is so remarkable, the passages descriptive of the triumph of the Messianic Kingdom are so exquisite, its religious teaching is so impressive, as not only to warrant its inclusion in the Canon, but also to make it of lasting value to the devotional life. More particularly the Letters to the Churches are of value as criticism and Inspiration for various classes of Christians, while its pictures of the New Jerusalem and its insistence upon the moral qualifications for the citizens of the Messianic Kingdom are in themselves notable incentives to right living: Stript of its apocalyptic figures, the book presents a noble ideal of Christian character, an assurance of the unfailing justice of God, and a prophecy of the victory of Christianity over a brutal social order.

Shailer Mathews.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Revelation, Book of

In respect to the authorship of this book, it is to be observed that the writer styles himself John, but does not call himself an apostle (Rev 1:4; Rev 1:9; Rev 22:8). Hence some have attributed the book to another John, usually designated the presbyter. But there is no direct evidence that this was the case; while on the other hand Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, all ascribe it to the Apostle. We are disposed, therefore, to abide by the ancient opinion that the book was written by the beloved disciple. Ecclesiastical tradition clearly favors this view, while the objections from alleged internal evidence, so earnestly urged by recent German critics, do not appear sufficiently strong to overturn it.

But the entire question of authorship is more curious than profitable. The book may not have been written by an apostle, and yet be equal in authority to any acknowledged production of an apostle. Luke was only an evangelist; and yet his writings are infallibly true and correct in every particular, because they proceeded from the Holy Spirit. The question whether the Apocalypse was written by an apostle or not, is of trifling importance as long as its inspiration is maintained. If any imagine that, in attempting to destroy the directly apostolic authorship, they lessen the value or disturb the canonical credit of the book, they are mistaken.

The canonical authority of the book has been called in question, both in ancient and modern times. But the external evidence in favor of its authenticity and genuineness is overwhelming, while internal circumstances amply confirm it.

The style, language, and manner of the book cannot be mistaken. In dignity and sublimity it is equal to any of the New Testament writings, if not superior to them all. The variety and force of the images impress the mind of every reader with conceptions of a divine origin. Surely no uninspired man could have written in such a strain.

There is considerable difficulty in ascertaining the time and place at which it was written. The prevalent opinion is, that the book was written A.D. 96 or 97, at Patmos or Ephesus, after Domitian’s death, i.e. under Nerva. There is no definite external evidence on this point, and, judging from internal circumstances, some writers assign it to the time of Nero, and the locality of Patmos, A.D. 67 or 68. Sir Isaac Newton fixed upon this date.

The books of the New Testament, like those of the Old, were designed to promote the instruction of God’s people in all ages. They were adapted to teach, exhort, and reprove all mankind. They do not belong to the class of ephemeral writings that have long since fulfilled the purpose for which they were originally composed. Their object was not merely a local or partial one. So of the Apocalypse. It is suited to all. ‘Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy.’ But this general characteristic is perfectly consistent with the fact that it arose out of specific circumstances, and was primarily meant to subserve a definite end. When first written, it was destined to suit the peculiar circumstances of the early Christians. The times were troublous. Persecution had appeared in various forms. The followers of Christ were exposed to severe sufferings for conscience sake. Their enemies were fierce against them. Comparatively few and feeble, the humble disciples of the Lamb seemed doomed to extinction. But the writer of the Apocalypse was prompted to present to them such views as were adapted to encourage them to steadfastness in the faithto comfort them in the midst of calamityand to arm them with resolution to endure all the assaults of their foes. Exalted honors, glorious rewards, are set before the Christian soldier who should endure to the end. A crown of victorythe approbation of the Redeemereverlasting felicitythese are prepared for the patient believer. In connection with such representations the final triumph of Christianity and the Messiah’s peaceful reign with his saints, form topics on which the writer dwells with emphatic earnestness (See Rev 1:1-3; Rev 2:1; Rev 3:22; Rev 22:6-7; Rev 22:10-17). The suffering Christians of primitive times may have sorrowfully thought that they should never be able to stand the shock of their bitter and bloody assailants, the power and policy of the world being leagued against thembut the statements of the writer all tend to the conclusion that truth should make progress in the earth, and the church, emerging out of all struggles, wax stronger and stronger. If such be the primary and principal aim of the book, it follows that we should not look in it for a history of the kingdoms of the world. To compose a civil history did not comport with the writer’s object. The genius of Christ’s kingdom is totally different from that of the kingdoms of the world. It advances steadily and silently, independently of, and frequently in opposition to them. Hence the Apocalypse cannot contain a history of the world. It exhibits a history of the church, specially of its early struggles with the powers of darkness and the malice of superstition. Trials impending over the church, and judgments over her enemiesthese form the burden of the prophecy.

The body of the work is contained in Rev 4:1 to Rev 22:6, and is almost entirely a series of symbolic representations. To this is prefixed a prologue (Revelation 1-4). A brief epilogue is subjoined (Rev 22:6-21). The prologue is of considerable length, embracing separate epistles to the seven churches in Asia Minor, peculiarly fitted to admonish and console amid the sufferings which were impending. After the prologue or introduction, we come to the body of the work itself, commencing with the fourth chapter, Revelation 4. With regard to the symbolical predictions of which this part of the work consists, the mere statement of the various conflicting theories which have been propounded would occupy a large volume. We cannot therefore enter upon a subject so extensive, but must content ourselves with referring the reader to the works in which the interpretation of these prophecies is discussed in all its bearings.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Revelation, Book of

Revelation, Book of. This book, frequently called by its Greek name, the Apocalypse, was written by John the apostle and the evangelist, about a.d. 95. “This is the last and the most mysterious book of the Bible. It is the divine seal of the whole. It is for the New Testament what Daniel is for the Old Testament. It gathers up all the former prophecies and extends them to the remotest future. It represents the church in conflict with the great secular powers. It unrolls a sublime panorama of Christ’s victorious inarch through the world’s history till the appearance of the new heaven and the new earth, when the aim of creation and redemption shall be fully realized. The theme is the divine promise, ‘ I come quickly,’ with the corresponding human prayer, ‘Even so, come, Lord Jesus.’ It gives us the assurance that the Lord is coming in every great event, and overrules all things for his glory and the ultimate triumph of his kingdom.”Schaff.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible