Studies in the book of Revelation

Preface

This little book is not a commentary on the Revelation; it does not aspire to such a dignity. It is designed to be just what its title announces — studies in the Revelation. Fc£ years the writer has deeply felt the lack of a satisictctory analysis of this book and a reasonable and helpful solution of its mysterious and marvellous structure. Reading it, as he has done, through a rather long life, he confesses he saw little or no connection between the various parts, he understood nothing scarcely of the articulation of its Visions, nor saw any definite, far-reaching plan running through it and binding its strange members into a harmonious and majestic unity. The studies of some months past, rather years, have served to open much of what for long was almost sealed and to pour light into many a dark place. The chief aim of this Study is to help the reader and student of the Apocalypse into an apprehension of the plan and the design of this great Scripture. Whether the writer

iii

IV

PREFACE.

has acnieved this aim or not must be left to others to judge.

All available books have been freely used, some of which have proved very serviceable. Grateful acknowledgment is here made of the clear suggestions and wise criticisms of a personal friend, Dr. W. J. Erdman.

William G. Moorehead.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Preface iii

I. Authorship and Date 7

CHAPTER I. Authorship and Date

The study of this great prophecy is entered upon with much diffidence; almost with hesitation. Many regard it as so abstruse and obscure that any satisfactory interpretation of it is extremely difficult, if not hopeless. Only great scholars and lifelong students of the Bible are competent, it is thought, to deal with its profound mysteries, and even these are often baffled by its symbolism, and defeated by its depths. Others should not attempt its elucidation. Such is the feeling of many.

Notwithstanding the difficulties, its study is imposed on all Christians. It is a part of the word of God. It bears the name and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Its august title is, " The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show unto his servants." It is an Apocalypse, an unveiling of what could not be otherwise known. It is for the instruction, guidance, and comfort of God's people.

The prophet Daniel was bidden to " shut up the vision," to " shut up the words, and seal the book, even

THE REVELATION.

to the time of the end " (Dan. viii: 26; xii: 4, 9). But our Lord's command to John is : " What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches," i: 11. The instruction of the revealing angel to the Seer when he is bringing the mighty visions of the prophecy to an end is, " Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand," xxii : 10. Explicitly the Saviour declares, " I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches/' xxii: 16. The Revelation, therefore, is for the whole people of God; to them it is an unsealed book, and it is intended to be their teacher and their guide in things that very vitally concern them.

Furthermore, a special blessing is promised to him who reads and to them who " hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein/' i: 3. The public reading of the book in the assemblies of Christians is here recognized, which places it on the same plane with the other books of Scripture. Its Divine Author is thus at pains to exalt its importance, to commend its teachings, and to promise a rich reward for its study. Among the last words in the Bible is this gracious encouragement to the diligent student of the Apocalypse : " Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book/' xxii: 7. To keep these words one must know them ; to know them one must ponder them, and fill his mind with their deep teachings. They make a grievous mistake who look on the book as enigmatical, incomprehensible; or

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.

who, if granting it may be in measure understood, stigmatize it as impractical and profitless; as having little, if any, bearing on the believer's life. Let us turn to the book.

L Who was its penman? Four times he called himself John, i: i, 4, 9; xxii: 8. There is no description of him beyond his name, no word is there to indicate what John it was to whom the writing of the Apocalypse was committed. But it is not difficult to identify him. There is but one John to v/hom we would naturally suppose the Lord would entrust such a work, the John so intimately associated with Him during His earthly ministry, the " Beloved Disciple," the near friend of Jesus; John the apostle. There is scarcely any doubt but that the writer was this John, or one who sought to pass for him. We may at once put aside the notion of fraud or imposture. The spirit of holiness and truth which pervades every page of the book is incompatable with the spirit of falsehood. The internal evidence overwhelmingly supports this view. That a forger should write such a book as this is simply incredible.

Moreover, the unanimous testimony of the Christian Church of the second century by its chief teachers strengthens this conclusion. But few witnesses need here be introduced. Justin Martyr (c. A. D, 150) expressly affirms that John, " one of the apostles of Christ/' was the writer of the Revelation. Justin was probably born within a few years of John's death, or even while John was living, and he bore this witness within fifty years of John's demise. It is not likely Justin could be mis-

IO

THE REVELATION.

taken touching so vital a matter, nor that the source of his information was not thoroughly trustworthy. Irenaeus (c. 180) apparently never heard of any other than John the apostle as the writer. Irenaeus' testimony is of the utmost value, for he was " the grandpupil of John," as Dr. Whedon describes him ; he was the disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was the disciple of John, so that between John and Irenaeus there stands but one, the sainted Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and martyr of Christ, and intimate companion of John himself. The Muratori Canon (c. A. D. 170), Melito of Sardis (c. A. D. 180), Tertullian the great Latin Father, and many others bear the like witness to the genuineness of the Apocalypse. If credence is to be put in the unanimous testimony of antiquity, if historical evidence is worth anything in deciding a historical date and the authorship of a book, it seems to be decided by unimpeachable witnesses that the apostle John was the writer of this book.

But why does John suppress his name in the Gospel and in the epistles and record it here? Because the Revelation is pre-eminently prophecy, and every prophetic writing is authenticated by the name of the prophet. The prophets of the Old Testament invariably attach their names to their books, because their names are a guarantee of their predictions. John opens the Apocalypse with the announcement of his own name, and of the source and aim of his prophecies, precisely as do the Old Testament prophets.

II. The date of the book is a matter of almost bitter controversy. Two widely differing dates compete

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.

IT for the mastery. Each characterizes a school of interpreters, and each is advocated and defended with great zeal, and in some instances with violence. These dates are, respectively, A. D. 68, and A. D. 95-6. The first affirms that the book was written when Galba was Emperor of Rome, the other when Domitian was reigning. The adoption of either of these dates determines almost exclusively one's interpretation of the book. If the earlier is accepted as true, then one of necessity must accept what is commonly known as the preterist interpretation, namely, that the predictions contained herein had, and were expected to have their fulfilment in John's own time, that chaps i-xix, particularly, relate to the persecutions of Nero, the fall of Jerusalem, the dismemberment of the Jewish nation and the dispersion of Israel among the nations of the world. If the second date is assumed to be the correct one, then the Revelation has little or nothing to do with the events referred to, for it lies this side of them by a quarter of a century.

A. D. 68 is advocated by many writers of great learning and keen, critical acumen. Historical evidence for it there is none till centuries after the book was written. The first writer to mention an early date is Epiphanius, about A. D. 365, but his statement is of no value, for he says that John wrote the Apocalypse in the reign of the emperor Claudius, i. e., about A. D. 50-54, and he makes the incredible assertion that at the time John was ninety years old, whereas, in point of fact he could hardly have been above fifty. If Epiphanius had named Domitian as

THE REVELATION.

the emperor, he would have been in exact accord with Irenaeus, who affirms that it was written near the close of Domitian's reign, i. e. y A. D. 90-96, at which time the apostle would be about ninety. Some even suppose that Domitian and not Claudius is meant, but the blunderer, as Epiphanius is known to be, twice wrote the wrong name. He is the only witness for an early date among the primitive writers, and his testimony is a huge mistake.

A. D. 68 rests almost exclusively on internal evidence. Language and style are pressed into its support. Dionysius of Alexandria (3d cent.), argued from these, that he who wrote the Fourth Gospel and I John did not write the Revelation, for the language and style employed in the latter forbid the belief that its author also wrote the other books ascribed to John. Dionysius has been followed by multitudes since, whose main argument is, John may have written Revelation, but if he did it was early in his life, when he did not know Greek as he came to know it when an older man ; and so he may have written this book at 68 A. D., and the Gospel about A. D. 80-90. We may dismiss the point without further remark.

Chap, xi: 1, 2, 8, seems to affirm that Jerusalem was standing and the Temple was still existing when the book was written. But it may as conclusively be affirmed that it is Jerusalem rebuilt and reinhabited by Hebrews, as that the Beast and the two witnesses of the same chapter have never yet appeared in history. Whedon well says, " The use of Jerusalem and temple and tribes as apocalyptic symbols no more

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.

proves the literal existence of the city than the description of Babylon proves that that great capital then existed in all its power and glory." The advocacy of this early date mainly arises out of the interpretation of the book. All who hold it teach that these prophecies relate to events near John's own time, that they sprang from the conditions then existing, and are addressed to his contemporaries. Accordingly, the interpretation governs the date, and then the date is made to rule the interpretation, a vicious method which has no real worth. It is believed that Nero was " The Beast," that he did not die by his own hand, but that he was almost fatally wounded, but was hidden by friends, that he concealed himself in Parthia, his " deadly wound " being healed, and that in due time he would reappear at the head of a great army, destroy Rome, annihilate Christianity, deliver Israel from all foes, glorify Jerusalem, and become the Antichrist, the mock Messiah. Such was the vague rumor floating about over the empire about A. D. 68, and John accepted it, and wrote the Apocalypse with this hypothesis dominating him. The seven heads on the Beast are explained to signify Roman Emperors, viz.: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, the " five fallen" (xvii: 10); the sixth is Galba (" the one is "), and the seventh, Galba's successor, was to be Nero restored, the Man of Sin, the Antichrist. Such is the rationalistic view 7 of Revelation, and it is supported by its advocates by vast research and acute reasoning.

Now, if the Apocalypse was actually based on the

THE REVELATION.

foundation just described, then, in less than ten years historical events and facts proved the book to be totally mistaken, false, and untrustworthy. For Nero did not reappear, the seventh head of the Beast did not become Antichrist, Rome did not fall ; instead, Jerusalem did, and Israel, instead of being delivered and exalted, went into an exile that still endures. Could any book, specially one claiming to be a revelation from God, survive such an overwhelming defeat — such utter bankruptcy of its essential contents? Yet the book lived, and has continued to live to this day. We may dismiss both the hypothesis and the date from further consideration. Unhesitatingly we accept Irenaeus' date, viz. : near the close of Domitian's reign, A. D. 90-96. Many whose judgment on this point is of the highest worth accept, in part, or wholly, this date, e. g., Ramsay, Orr, Harnack, Swete. " Critical opinion appears to be steadily returning to the traditional date," i. e., 90-96 (Purves).

CHAPTER IL

Symbolism.

III. Symbolism. Every reader is impressed with the extraordinary imagery of the book. Other prophetic Scripture exhibits the same peculiarity, as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, even the Pentateuch has it in some degree. But this is a book of symbols; a series of gorgeous pictures which begin with the opening chapter and continue to the end. A marvellous profusion of this pictorial representation characterizes it. Some of the symbols are easily understood, for their meaning shines through the drapery that covers the great thought, but others are so complex, so unearthly, and portentous in their vastness and mysteriousness as to daze, overwhelm us. But let us be persuaded of this, that whether we can read the enigma, the deep idea hidden in the symbol or not, the idea is there all the same, and it is the supreme duty of the expositor to toil on at it till he uncover its meaning, at least partially. Let some features of the symbolism be noted :

(a) The imagery is taken from the Old Testament. In chap, i, the dress and posture of the glorified Son of Man, the candlesticks amid which He walks, are from the Temple, from Israel's high priest, and from the candlestick of the sanctuary. The four living creatures of chap, iv are taken from the Pentateuch i6

THE REVELATION.

and Ezekiel. The Beast of chap, xiii is already in Daniel vii. The harvest of xiv: 14-16, and the vintage of xiv: 17-20 are in Joel iii, and in Zech. xiv, while the last worldwide conflict, xix, is described in Dan. vii, xi, xii ; in Zeph., in Joel, Zech. and Matt. xxiv. We might go on to see that the Revelation, as a whole, is bound up with the earlier prophetic Scriptures by the closest and most intimate ties. Indeed, as one studies this relation of the two Testaments to each other in type, symbol, language, thoughts and expressions, he is profoundly struck with the unity of the Bible, and particularly with the oneness of the great prophetic themes of the holy word.

John lays all Scripture under tribute, and draws from it much, if not all his material. Numbers furnished by another may serve to make this plain. Revelation consists of 404 verses, of which 265 verses contain O. T. language, while there are 550 references to it (Prof. Swete gives 278 verses). The Greek texts of Wescott and Hort, and of Nestle, exhibit its use of the O. T. by printing the borrowed words and phrases in a different type. On a single page of Nestle's small volume no less than twenty such words and phrases have been counted. The Revelation gathers into itself the imagery, language, and objects of the older prophecies, and to know the full mind of the Spirit the student must go back to the source for light and guidance.

All this shows how intimately the prophetic parts of the Bible are united, and how one must take his principles of interpretation from the whole word of

SYMBOLISM.

God. To attempt to interpret the book by heathen customs and Gentile habits and history is fatal to the right understanding of it. It is strictly Biblical; it moves within the circle of the prophets of God; it is saturated with Hebrew modes of thought, and is filled and thrilled with Hebrew hopes and assurances. John thinks in Hebrew, writes in the style of a Hebrew prophet, and speaks with the authority of a Hebrew Seer.

(b) Progress marks Biblical prophecy. Daniel's predictions advance beyond those of Isaiah, of Joel, and even of Ezekiel. Zechariah adds features to the growing picture of the End-time, and of the mighty struggle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, which none of the prophets who preceded him have foretold. Jesus in the Olivet prophecy, Matt, xxiv, xxv, Luke xxi, fills into it details, and features, and lines, which make it far more specific, clear, intelligible, and graphic; while Paul, in 2 Thess., with a few strokes of the prophetic pencil, paints the Man of Sin so vividly and so frightfully, as that the monster when he comes will be recognized instantly by the people of God. But the Apocalypse crowns the whole prophetic word with its symbols and pictures, its explanations and its solemn testimonies, its four great series of sevens, all leading to the consummation, to the Advent and the Victory, so that the man of God is furnished an infallible guide for the perilous times that are fast approaching

While the Apocalypse is the final and by far the fullest revelation of the " Things to come," it is not i8

THE REVELATION.

an independent prophecy, nor is it disconnected with the earlier disclosures of the future which God has been pleased to give us. On the contrary, the book gathers into itself all that precedes it in the same great field, but adds thereto, and unfolds, and reveals more and more, till the colossal portrait, in all its awful features, stands complete.

With two great prophecies the Revelation is most closely and indissolubly bound up, namely, Daniel's and the Lord's Olivet Discourse. How intimately the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation are connected every careful reader of the Bible well knows. The supreme subjects, the times, the opposing forces, and the issue of the mighty conflict are in both identical. In both the same theme is prominent, viz. : the Kingdom of God in its deadly struggle with the hostile world-power and its victory over it. Daniel and John are companion books, at once complemental and supplemental of each other. The Lord's Olivet Discourse, as recorded in Matt, xxiv, and Luke xxi, furnishes a sort of frame for much of the Apocalypse. It is beyond dispute that Christ deals with two supreme events, viz.: the Fall of Jerusalem and His Second Advent. It is with the latter event He mainly is concerned. He speaks with much fulness on the closing scenes of the age, of the Tribulation, the signs that announce the nearness of the Advent, and of the Advent itself. It is with the same great crisis of the world that our book deals. In Daniel it is the Gentile World-power, become apostate and hostile to God and His cause and people, that is crushed by the

SYMBOLISM.

overwhelming judgment of the Lord. The same monstrous Power, beastly and savage, reappears in the Revelation, and meets there the same tremendous doom. In the Olivet Prophecy of Christ the people of Israel hold a pre-eminent place ; and in the Revelation the same chosen people are alike conspicuous. It is not too much to say that the Apocalypse is the expansion, with marvellous additions, of the Olivet Prophecy and the book of Daniel. He who studies both these until he comes to understand them will find the study of our book greatly facilitated.

CHAPTER III. Systems of Interpretation

IV. Systems of Interpretation. Four methods of interpreting the book are advocated, which we describe as briefly as possible.

The first is that commonly called Preterism, to which reference has already been made. Its fundamental principle is this: the Revelation is a dramatic representation of conditions and events existent in John's own day, that its visions must be limited to his horizon, that it has to do with the Roman State, with Israel, Jerusalem, and the Christian Church of the first century, the apostolic age, and with the conflicts then raging. It holds that Nero was the Beast, that the letters of his name written in Hebrew (Nero Caesar) give the mystic number 666; that John adopted the absurd fiction, that Nero did not die by his own hand, that he was somewhere concealed till the hour should arrive for his reappearance, when most extraordinary things would take place. This, in short, is the rationalistic interpretation which obviously destroys the credibility of the book and reduces it to the level of the wildest fable.

There are those, however, who are evangelical in their belief, who accept the book as an authoritative revelation, but who adopt the preterist explanation. Among these may be mentioned the most recent

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 21 writers; as, e. g., Prof. Ramsay (Letters to the Seven Churches, 1905), Dr. Swete (Apocalypse of St. John, 1907, 2d ed.), and Simcox (Cambridge Series of Comm.). They hold that John did actually accept the fiction about Nero, and that he used it to make his teaching effective and illustrative. Both Ramsay and Swete date the book in the reign of Domitian, A. D. 95-6, and they think that Nero's " deadly wound was healed" when the fierce persecutor of the Christians, Domitian, became Emperor. They hold that Domitian, A. D. 81-96, was the Beast of xiii, and Babylon the Harlot City of Rome, xvii. These writers have poured a flood of light on the times and the conditions of the apostolic age; in this respect, as in others also, their books are genuinely helpful. But we believe their exposition of the Revelation utterly breaks down when confronted with the facts in the case. John distinctly tells us that five of the heads of the Beast had fallen (of course when he wrote), that one, the sixth, was existing at the time, and that there was to come the seventh head of the monster, when the mighty events which he was foretelling would be accomplished (xvii: 10). But Domitian was not the seventh head of the Beast, nor the eighth, as this view necessitates he should be. No less than five Emperors ruled between Nero and Domitian, viz. : Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and Titus. Even if the first three of these be thrown out because of their short reigns, still two others remain, one of whom was Emperor for ten years and the other for two. Besides, none of the stupendous events predicted in the

THE REVELATION.

book, as occurring when the Beast is here, took place under any of these Emperors, nor have they to this day, in the judgment of many scholars. The defect of these preterist views is mainly this: a totally inadequate recognition of the inspiration of the book. One who really believes that Jesus Christ gave this revelation to John in Patmos, as John solemnly affirms He did (i: i-ii), cannot for a moment accept the notion that John adopted the fiction about Nero, or that he fancied the visions shown him were being fulfilled in the conditions which surrounded him. Christ's glorious Advent is the center and sum of this book, not John's own times, and not till He comes will its supreme predictions be realized.

The second system of interpretation is the Spiritual. By this is meant that the book treats of the conflict between good and evil, between Christ and Satan, the conflict that began with man's sin and fall, that runs through all history, and that will end only with the end of time. The Revelation is a poetic and prophetic picture of the struggle between righteousness and sin, and that accordingly we are not to look for special fulfilments of its predictions; it deals with great principles, with their action, and with their defeats and victories. So the Seals are intended to show one phase of the conflict, the Trumpets another, and the Vials a third — all these are but vivid photographs of the war between good and evil, not specific transactions.

The objections to this interpretation are conclusive, we think, (i.) There is its novelty, to begin with.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.

The ancient Church did not so regard the book; nor did the Church of the Middle Ages; nor did that of the Reformation; nor has it in later times. Few, indeed, even in our own day accept it. It is advocated, however, by some very able and devout men, as Prof. Milligan, Archdeacon Lee, Prof. Randell, Prof. Purves, and many others. The great teachers of the church have believed that while the stupendous symbolism is to be constantly recognized, the symbols themselves describe real events and actors. With them the Dragon is Satan, the Beast is the hostile power of the state, the harlot the apostate ecclesiastical system, and the heavenly Conqueror is Christ.

(2.) The book itself claims to be genuine prophecy. It fills, or seems to fill, the future with actual beings, some human, some extra-human, some Divine. But, if the spiritual explanation be true, then the book is an exaggeration and its pictures overdrawn and unnatural.

(3.) This theory ignores the plain statements of Revelation. Very distinctly and definitely the inspired writer furnishes certain chronological data that fix periods and events of the future which mark historical sequence and exact time-limits. In chap, xx: 2-7, six times the period of one thousand years is mentioned. It is the number from which we derive the idea of a Millennium. It is described as a period of blessedness, of Satan's imprisonment, of evil suppressed, of righteousness in the ascendency, of the universal sway of the heavenly Kingdom. That time is not put as ideal, as spiritual or figurative, but as

THE REVELATION.

actual and real. Other numbers are given, as e. g., forty-two months, xi: 2; xiii : 5 ; twelve hundred and sixty days, xi : 3 ; xii : 6 ; time, times, and dividing of time, xii: 14 — all which betoken history, reality.

(4.) Evil ever seeks to concentrate in a person or a system; so does good. Revelation shows us evil centralized in the Beast and in the False Prophet, and in their followers. Faithfulness and loyalty to God is also centralized in persons ; in the two Witnesses, xi : in the angels who fill so large a place in the action of the book ; in the Sun-clothed Woman and her Son ; in the Palm-bearers, vii; and the Conqueror and His armies, xix. We cannot accept this method of explaining the book. For it empties it of much of its significance, and impeaches it as guilty of inflation and distortion. Whatever is true in it may be recognized, but as an interpretation it is wholly inadequate.

The third is, the Historical Interpretation. Briefly, it means this: the book is a prophetic history of the church and the world from the time of John to the final consummation at Christ's Advent. The predictions deal only with the most prominent events of this vast period, and not with details. The majority of Protestant commentators adopt it. Its dominant idea is this: the Seals, Trumpets and Vials are symbols of successive stages in the world's history. Each set belongs to a distinct class of events. So, likewise the explanatory visions, as chaps, x-xiv, mark epochs that follow each other in temporal sequence. Some of the ablest students of the book have sought to open these prophecies according to this principle, as Bengel,

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.

Mead, Newton, Elliott, Guinness, and the late A. J. Gordon. That there is truth in this method of interpretation cannot be doubted by those who have made ecclesiastical and profane history a real study. The correspondence between the prediction and its historical fulfilment is too obvious and striking to be accidental or fortuitous. The one matches the other so marvellously that God is recognized as the author of the prophecy. It may at once be admitted that the prophecy is so constructed as to touch the salient events of our dispensation. But as a system of interpretation it is incomplete. It leaves huge gaps in the history of the past 1,800 years. A period of 500 years, from A. D. 1000 to 1500 inclusive, it leaves almost untouched. It rests chiefly on the year-day theory, i. e. y that a day in prophetic Scripture stands for a year. This is extremely doubtful. Indeed, it does not now commend itself to sober interpreters as once it did. In the judgment of not a few, Tregelles has demonstrated it to be fallacious and unbiblical. But even assuming there is ground for it in the prophetic word, the historical expounders of Revelation are wide apart in its application. For instance, there is a number that frequently occurs in the book, viz.: 1,260 days, 42 months, three years and a half — the three denote the same period of time. A year for a day amounts to 1,260 years. The end of the 1,260 is the consummation of our age: it is the supreme crisis. But from what point is it to be dated? What is its terminus a quo? Here disagreement and divergence at once arise. Unanimity as to the starting-point of the 1,260