The coming of the Lord

Front matter

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

THE

COMING OF THE LORD;

Preface

To the celebrated Dr. South has been attributed the saying, that the study of the Apocalypse either finds a man mad, or makes him so ; and long since it was mentioned as high praise of John Calvin, that he never wrote on this book of Holy Scripture. Even ministers of the gospel are sometimes heard to confess that they avoid making this book, or any portion of it, a subject of instruction to their congregations. But how are we to reconcile a studied neglect of this book, amounting to a virtual proscription of it, with its inspired authority ? Believing, as the writer does, that the Book of Revelation is a part of that " Scripture given by inspiration of God," he also believes that it must be " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." He knows of no warrant for turning away from this book, which we have not for turning away from Malachi, or Genesis, or any other book of the Bible. No one is authorized to say that he can find enough in other parts of Scripture for his instruction and consolation, without meddling with a book which is confessedly so hard to be understood. God knew where it was best to close the canon of Scripture ; and as He did not see fit to close it with the Epistle of Jude, no Christian has a right, at that point, to shut up his Bible, and refuse to read or study farther ; and especially is this true of those who profess to be expounders and teachers of the contents of the Bible.

It is a very mistaken idea that the Apocalypse is a confused medley of disconnected visions. On the contrary, it is one of the most methodical books of the New Testament. It is characterized by unity and continuity of design and structure, and has the connection and order of history itself. By this, however, we do not mean that it vi PREFACE.

constitutes a complete compendium of civil and ecclesiastical history. But, its design being to afford consolation to persecuted Christians, it predicts the overthrow not only of the persecuting powers that existed at the time it was written, but of all other persecuting powers that might arise in later ages, down to the period of the visible appearing of Christ in the clouds of heaven. The opinion that we are not to look in this book for anything relating to the enemies of pure religion, who have appeared subsequent to the apostolic age, because it was the design of John to console his companions in tribulation, appears very singular. How it was foreign to his design, after devoting at least one half of the book to foretelling the end of the existing persecuting powers, for him then to proceed to assure these suffering Christians that future enemies of Christ's church would meet with a similar doom, it is very hard to understand. Indeed, if John had ended his work with predicting the destruction of Jewish and Pagan persecutors, it would manifestly have been incomplete ; for in the Apostle Paul's day another mystery of iniquity had already begun to work. Papal Rome succeeded to somewhat of the authority and influence, in the world, of Pagan Rome. The same city was the metropolis of both ; and, to a remarkable extent, the same territory was included by each. The former, as has been abundantly shown by the learned Dr. Middleton, perpetuated the idolatry of the latter. It was in this manner that the beast, which symbolized Papal Rome, made an image to the beast which symbolized Pagan Rome. The second, therefore, was nothing more than a reproduction of the first beast. Or, to draw an illustration from another symbol employed in this book, if the beast with seven heads and ten horns, which we admit represents the empire of Pagan Rome, was to carry a woman, who was to pollute and afflict the earth, leading men into an idolatry as gross as that of Pagan Rome itself, how, we ask, was it incongruous with the design of the Apocalypse for the writer to proceed to describe this woman and her abominations. If the old Roman empire has been perpetuated to this day, even in its heathen worship, as well as its bloody violence against that kingdom which is not of this world, we ask if it was not entirely apposite to the end John had in view, to

PREFACE. vii

include in his prophecy its cruelties, errors, and final overthrow ?

But in saying that the Book of Revelation is not to be regarded as an epitome of history, we are very far from admitting that we are not to consult the pages of history to find specific events as a fulfilment of its various predictions. If the book is prophetical, it must predict events ; if it is fulfilled, it must be fulfilled by answering events, which it is the province of the historian to record. Truths so self-evident would not have been mentioned had it not been- for a theory promulgated, which, if the author understands it, amounts to this, that we are not to look for the particulars of history in the Apocalypse, but are to regard the prophecy it contains as a mere picture — a symbolical representation, not designed to be specifically or individually applied. It seems evident that such generalization as this is a more dangerous extreme than the theory which makes the Apocalypse contain a complete syllabus of history. Does it not nearly or quite destroy the prophetical character of the book ? It makes the object of John to be the publication of the general truth, that persecuting enemies of the church will be destroyed. It represents that the words of John would have been as truly fulfilled if these enemies had been destroyed in any other way or by any other means. But to declare the general truth, that persecutors would be overthrown, why was prophecy necessary at all, when a simple promise would amount to the same thing ? In a word, what are predictions, which are so " generic " as not to admit of a specific application to the events of history, but mere promises ?

In endeavoring to represent fairly the theory stated above, I feel bound to mention that by those who maintain it a specific application is given, in many instances, to the predictions of the Apocalypse. For example, what can be more specific than to understand by " the image of the beast that should speak," Rev., xiii. 15, certain statues of Nero, that had the appearance of animation, that could move the lips and appear to speak, &c. ?* The writer confesses that he does not understand the " hermeneutical principles " by which such an interpretation as this can be

* See Stuart's Commentary, Vol. II., p. 288.

Vlll PREFACE.

reconciled with the theory that, in interpreting this book, particular and specific facts, which the pen of history records, are scarcely in any instance to be recognized.

In conclusion, the author would say that it has been his aim to prepare a work that would be generally useful ; and hence, whilst he has had the original text constantly before him, he has avoided the introduction of Greek words into his volume, as well as words from other languages, and newly-invented phrases in our own, not generally understood by plain English readers. In two or three instances in which he has departed from this rule, it seemed to him unavoidable. At the same time, he is not conscious of having spared any pains to make his work worthy of attention from an enlightened Christian public. He hopes he has not written without some sense of solemn responsibility, and that he has not been unmindful of the awful denunciations which are made against that man who shall add to or take away any thing " from the words of the book of this prophecy. 5 ' He has sincerely sought to discover and promote the truth, and now humbly invokes on his work, and those who may give it a perusal, the blessing of the God of truth.

September, 1846.

Introduction

DATE OP THE APOCALYPSE.

From the confidence with which the testimony of Irenaeus has been appealed to, it might be inferred that he had written expressly on the date of the Apocalypse. In his work against Heresies, he remarks that there were some copies of the Revelation in which the passage, Rev. xiii. 18, was not to be found, but that all the more accurate copies contained it. The object of the whole chapter is to show that nothing should be rashly affirmed respecting the name of antichrist, (for it was to this name that Irenaeus supposed the passage, on which he was commenting, referred,) when the number of this name, 666, might be made to agree with so many names. He shows why the mystery of this name was not clearly explained, by the spirit of inspiration ; and the rest of the chapter relates to the kingdom, and the death of Antichrist. Obviously, it was not the design of the chapter in question to prove or assert any thing relative to the time when this book was written.

There is, however, in the chapter referred to (Adv. Haeres, v. 30), a passage in which it is contended that he has incidentally recorded his opinion that the Revelation was written near the end of the reign of Domitian, an emperor of Rome. The passage is as follows : — c H/ueig ovv ovx dnoyavdvvsvoftsv Ttsol rod ovo/uonog tov 'Avtixqiotov dcTToqpaivojLievoi, fisSaicoiixcog, h yoco edei uvacpavdbv

Q&dq tov xal tt^v ^Anoxalvifjiv ewgaxaoTog ; odds yag nob nokXov xqqvov ewo&Orj, dlld o~%sdbv inl Tr\g fifxereqag ysvsag t nqbg tw tbUl t^g sdofisTiavov agx^g. " We will not, therefore, in regard to this name of Antichrist, run the hazard of speaking positively ; for, if it had been necessary clearly to have proclaimed his name at the present time, it would have been done by him to whom the revelation was made. For it is not a long time ago [he] was seen, but almost in our day, near the end of the reign of Domitian." .

It will be observed that in the original the word swg&drj has no nominative expressed. If 'Anox&lvyjig is to be supplied, then it is evident that the testimony of Irenaeus is, that the Revelation was seen and written near the end of the reign of Domitian. But iVlw&vvqg is to be understood, as I have indicated in the translation above, then it follows that the authority of this ancient father can not be adduced in support of the later date which has been assigned to this book. The assertion that John was seen — that is, was alive — near the end of the reign of Domitian, of course does not prove that this book was written at that time.

It is admitted that 'Anox&lvyyig is the more appropriate nominative (grammatically considered) to the verb of sight ; that the application of this verb to the man who had seen the vision appears unusual ; and that it is used, just above, in the active voice of the vision itself, which makes the transition to the seer somewhat sudden. It is also admitted that the proper name itself, or the pronoun, might have been easily expressed, as the subject of ewgdOv, to remove all ambiguity arising from the fact that the word had just before been used of unox&lvipig.

But the impression which these considerations are calculated to make is much weakened, if not entirely overcome, by the fact, that in the beginning of the chapter Irenaeus, beyond all doubt, applies the same verb to John himself. His words are txeLvwv tojv xoti oijjip jov ' Iwavvrjv Sioquxotcov. Again, the scope of the entire passage is to assign a reason why it was not necessary, at the time Irenaeus wrote, for it certainly to be known who was pointed out by the number — " Six hundred three score and six." He argues that if this knowledge had been important at that time, it would have been communicated by the writer of the Apocalypse, who lived so near their own time that he might almost be said to be of their generation, yeveag. This being obviously the scope of his language, may have been the reason why Irenaeus did not, to remove all ambiguity, use the name of John, or the personal pronoun. There was also something about John, considering his great age, his somewhat mysterious character, and the deep interest which the church had in him as surviving apostle, which might make the verb kojgddi] peculiarly applicable to him. To say of one, " he was seen " — meaning thereby he was alive at a certain time, would be rather strange and unratural language, whether in Greek or English, as applied to an ordinary man. When we consider, however, how much would be thought of the mere fact of seeing this most aged apostle, and of being an eye-witness of one who had seen the Lord, there seems to be a natural solution of the difficulty arising from the unusual nature of the expression — especially in connexion with the fact that this verb, beyond all doubt, is applied to him in the beginning of the chapter.

To say the least, the meaning of Irenaeus is doubtful on the very point for which his testimony is cited ; and if so, is certainly not to be appealed to against the evidence which the book itself furnishes to a different date, nor against the clear, positive testimony of other ancient writers, if any such can be found.

If the above reasoning be correct, it is perfectly obvious that there is nothing in Irenaeus on which any reliance can be placed, in determining the time when the Apocalypse was written. If he simply declares, what is disputed by no one, that the apostle John was alive near the end of the reign of Domitian — and I think it would be difficult to prove that this is not the more natural import of his language — it by no means follows that he meant to assert that the apostle wrote the Apocalypse at that time.

Clement, of Alexandria, speaks of John being banished to Patmos, but he does not give the name of the emperor — or TYRANT, as he styles him — who banished him, nor refer to the time when the book was written.

Origen simply says that John was banished to Patmos by a king of the Romans, but he makes no mention of either Nero or Domitian.

It appears to have been Eusebius, who flourished in the earliest part of the fourth century, who first expressly asserted that John was an exile in Patmos during the reign of Domitian. It is on the authority of this historian, it will probably be found, that the theory which assigns the Apocalypse to the time of Domitian mainly rests. But it appears, by many, to have been overlooked, that Eusebius does not ascribe the Revelation to John the apostle ; for he expressly says, " It is likely the Revelation was seen by

John, the elder." Lardner thinks that the critical argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote against the Millenarians, had great weight with Eusebius. Dionysius held that the Apocalypse was written by an elder of Ephesus, whose name was John — " a holy and inspired man." He endeavored to prove from the book itself — and it was this argument which evidentlv influenced Eusebius — from its style, especially its solecisms, Idubnaot, /lisp @olqfiugtxolg* which so strikingly distinguish it from the Gospel and Epistles of the apostle, that he could not have been the author of it. Hence he gives the name of another John as its author. But I shall endeavor to show, in the sequel, that a more natural conclusion may be drawn from the style of the Greek, and one that will not tend to weaken the canonical authority of this book. I only add in relation to Eusebius, that, as he was dependent for his knowledge of the author on the book itself, he must have derived his knowledge of the time when it was written from the same source. His opinion, then, it is obvious, can have weight in determining the question under consideration, only as he can be shown to have been a sound and discriminating critic.

Epiphanius [fl. A.D. 366] dates the Apocalypse in the reign of Claudius, who preceded Nero. This, also, was the opinion of the learned Grotius. Epiphanius is admitted to have been an inaccurate writer. Bp. Newton makes the suggestion that he might possibly have mistaken Claudius for his successor ; inasmuch as Nero had assumed the name, Nero Claudius Caesar.

It is stated on the authority of Jerome, who flourished about the year of our Lord 380, that the apostle John, in

* Euseb. Hist. Ec. lib. vii. c. 25. 1* the year of our Lord 96, at which many of the moderns have dated this book, was " so very weak and infirm, that he was with great difficulty carried to church, and could hardly speak a few words to the people."* That so aged a man, weighed down with the infirmities of a hundred years, and nearly laid aside from the active duties of his apostleship and ministry — residing, too, at a great distance from Rome — should have so excited the ire of the emperor as to have been banished to Patmos, and that there, or at a still later period, he should have written the Revelation, appears, to say the least, highly improbable, if not clearly absurd. The romantic adventure of the apostle, in pursuing a young robber on horseback — related by Eusebius as having occurred after his return from exile — is equally inconsistent with fixing the time of his exile in the reign of Domitian. At the death of Domitian, A.D. 96, John was nearly one hundred years old ; and, as already shown from the testimony of Jerome, had become exceedingly infirm.

Andrew, who was bishop of Csesarea, in Cappadocia, near the close of the fifth century, wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse, in which he affirms that this book was understood to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Arethas, who was bishop of the same place in the sixth century, .assigns to the Apocalypse the same date.

In the Syriac version, this book is entitled — The Revelation which was made by God to John, the evangelist, in the island Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero C&sar. The Syriac version of the New Testament was made in the second century. It has, however, been confidently

asserted that the version of the Apocalypse was not made until about A.D. 508. But learned critics maintain that it is by no means absolutely certain that this version was made at so late a period. The above inscription, therefore, may possibly be among the more ancient testimonies in regard to the time when the Apocalypse was written.

Theophylact, in the eleventh century, places the origin of the Apocalypse during the reign of Nero. And such writers, it may be added, as Grotius, Lightfoot, Sir Isaac Newton, Warburton, Bishop Newton, Hammond, Wetstein, Dr. Tilloch, Dr. Adam Clarke, Prof. Lee, Prof. Stuart, and many of the German critics, have favored the opinion that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

I shall now proceed to point out the true and natural inference to be drawn from the instances of confused construction and Hebraisms with which the Apocalypse abounds. It is obviously this, that this book was written not long after John had left Judea, and of course before his Epistles and Gospel were written — i. e., before he had acquired that greater purity and accuracy of style, in the Greek language, which distinguish these last-named productions from the former. It may be premised, that about the beginning of the seventeenth century, scholars were divided in opinion in respect to the style of the New Testament ; some maintaining that it accorded in every respect with ancient Greek purity and elegance ; whilst the opposite party not only recognized its Hebrew complexion, but represented this as a predominant characteristic. Towards the close of that century the latter opinion prevailed. More recently, some philologists have appeared disposed to adopt a middle course, by maintaining that the Hebraisms of the New Testament are more frequently lexicographal than grammatical ; L e., that they chiefly consist in the change or extension of meaning of words, imitation of whole phrases, the analogous formation of new words, etc. At the same time, they admit that there are not wanting examples of the combination of Hebrew inflexions and constructions, and a predilection for the preposition, where the Greeks use only the cases ; and that " native Greeks generally, did not understand, and therefore despised 5 ' the Greek as spoken among the Jews.

In regard to the Apocalypse, in particular, Winer admits, as may be seen § 35, 2, Idioms of the New Testament, that the solecisms in the style of this book give it an appearance of greater imperfection and harshness than is found to characterize other parts of the New Testament. He endeavors, it is true, to explain these inaccuracies, by classing them as anacolutha (ungrammatical sentences), or as oratio variata (confused construction) ; he even asserts that analogous examples may be found in classic Greek writers, but he nevertheless admits that they are not of so frequent occurrence as in the Apocalypse. Here, then, it is admitted in a work — the object of which is to show that the grammatical character of the New Testament is in accordance with the laws of the Greek language — 1. That there are examples of ungrammatical sentences, and confused construction, which impart to the style of the Apocalypse a harshness and imperfection not to be found in other parts of the New Testament ; and 2. That these examples are without analogy, as to their number or frequency, in the Greek classics. These admissions are the more valued as it is so difficult to believe that the anomalies of the Revelation — as to their number at least — may be vindicated by parallel examples from classic Greek authors. Even Prof. Stuart, who labors with great earnestness to show that John had so learned Greek as to seldom make a misstep in the use of it, admits that instances of ungrammatical phrases and sentences, in the Apocalypse, occur more frequently than in any single classical writer of the Greek language. Now, it is these acknowledged inaccuracies of style, these palpable departures from the ordinary rules of syntax, so numerous that they may be said to pervade it, which sufficiently prove that the writer of this book was unaccustomed to the use of the Greek language, and had probably but recently come from Judea.

The conclusion is irresistible, that it must have been written before the Gospel and Epistles of John, and of course considerably previous to the year of our Lord 96 or 97. Nor would this conclusion be materially weakened if we were fully to admit all that some writers have contended for, who have undertaken to vindicate the grammatical character of the Apocalypse. Their vindication professes to go no farther than the principles of grammar are concerned. That the idiom is Hebraistic, that the meaning of some words has been changed, and that of others extended, and that entire Hebrew phrases are imitated, is not called in question. This Hebrew complexion, so prominent in the style of the Apocalypse, beyond any other portion of the New Testament, sufficiently proves that the writer of it was but recently arrived from Judea, and was scarcely, if at all, familiar with the classic Greek authors.

Some writers have supposed that several of the apostolical epistles contain quotations from the Apocalypse ; e. g. the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Second Epistle of Peter, So far as there is any evidence in support oi this opinion, it will afford some light as to the time when this book was written. In proof that the apostles had studied it, and were familiar with its phrases, Sir Isaac Newton remarks that — " the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews became more mystical than that of Paul's other epistles, and the style of John's Gospel more figurative and majestical than that of the other gospels. I do not apprehend that Christ was called the Word of God in any book of the New Testament written before the Apocalypse, and therefore am of opinion the language was taken from this prophecy." The phrases — " clouds of witnesses," " author and finisher of faith," may have been suggested by Rev. xi. 3, 12, which describes the two witnesses, and their ascension to heaven in a cloud; and Rev. i. 8 — "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending." Heb. xii. 22 — 29; xiii. 13, 14, may furnish some ground for supposing that the author of the Epistle was familiar with the Apocalypse — particularly the passages which describe the New Jerusalem, and the passing away of the present world.

The subject in regard to which the apostle Peter (2 Pet. i. 19) desired lo put Christians in remembrance, was the coming of Christ. In this passage, it seems to be his object to state one of the proofs of this glorious event : — u We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts." Is not here an obvious allusion to the Apocalypse ? Peter would prove that the doctrine of the coming of Christ, which he had advanced, was not a cunningly devised fable ; he, therefore, as being perfectly conclusive of its truth, refers to a more clear, fiefiatoTegof, or convincing word of prophecy — with which they were then favored — expressly designed more fully to predict this coming, and to lead Christians confidencly to expect it. In the second chapter, Peter describes the false teachers that were to infest the church ; in the third chapter, Christ's coming to judgment, the conflagration of the present heavens and earth— he describes the new heavens and the new earth — all strikingly agreeing, as to imagery and phrases, with the Apocalypse. Paul and Peter, it is well known, suffered martyrdom near the close of Nero's reign. It was also the opinion of Sir I. Newton,* that many phrases in the Gospel of John were taken from this prophecy ; " such as those of Christ's being the light of the world, — the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, — the Bridegroom, — He that testifieth, — He that came down from heaven, — the Son of God." f

But the most satisfactory evidence, in regard to the time when the Apocalypse was written, is that which is to be derived from the contents of the book itself. It bears interned evidence of having been written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. John represents an angel, Rev. xi. 1 — 8, as putting into his hand a reed, and commanding him to measure the temple and altar of God. The only temple of the true and living God was, and always had been, at Jerusalem. The angel styles it " the holy city." So Jerusalem was called, and is to this day, by the Jews. It was the seat of their sacred festivals. " And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." To understand Jerusalem here in a figurative sense, is not necessary, on the ground that the prophecy may not otherwise be clearly and consistently interpreted \ for it is the opinion of some learned annotators

* Obs. on Apoc. c. i. p. 240. See also Warburton's Sermons. t See Tilloch's Dissertations.

that the most consistent interpretation of this book is that which presupposes it to have been written anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem. And the symbolical sense, as universally acknowledged, can be supposed only when the general scope and design can be shown to forbid the literal sense.

It remains to notice a passage which much more definitely points out the date of this book. Professor Stuart, in his late work, has shown from it that Nero must have been the sixth, and the reigning emperor of Rome, at the time the Apocalypse was written. The passage is Rev. xvii. 7 — 11 ; the tenth verse reads thus: "And there are seven kings ; five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come ; and when he cometh he must continue a short space." From the expression, " five are fallen, and one is," it would appear that this book was written during the reign of the sixth of the emperors of Rome. Now the context strikingly describes Nero, by alluding to the popular belief, that after disappearing for a time, that emperor would make his appearance again, as if he had risen from the dead. In the eighth verse, we have the allusion to this popular belief, particularly in the expression, " the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." This beast was to ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition ; and this would greatly astonish the inhabitants of Pagan Rome, whose names were not written in the book of life. " Here is the mind which hath wisdom," or here is the thing which the instructed mind alone can understand. " The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." Rome was built on seven hills. "And there are seven kings." Julius Cassar was regarded by the patriots of the commonwealth as aiming at kingly authority ; he was at length declared perpetual Dictator, in consequence of which the nation was convulsed with civil wars ; and he was finally assassinated as one who had already usurped monarchical authority. Accordingly we find that the ancients, although the empire was not fully established till the time of Augustus, reckoned from Julius Caesar. " Five are fallen :" Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. " And one is :" Nero. " And the other is not yet come ; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space :" Galba, who reigned but seven months, makes the seventh. And then the popular belief in regard to Nero is again brought distinctly to view : " And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition." Had the expectation in regard to Nero, that, after disappearing for a time, he would come again, been fulfilled, he would have been the eighth ; and he might also have been said to be of the seven, in allusion to the short reign of Galba, who is generally reckoned as one of the mock emperors.