• INTRODUCTION

• SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES

• STUDY TOPICS

  • Authorship: John the Apostle, Presbyter, Other

  • Babylon: Rome, Jerusalem, Other

  • Date of Composition: Before AD70, After AD70, Composite

  • Language of Origin: Greek, Syriac, Other

  • Antichrist: Nero, Nero Redivivus, Nero Rediturus, Etc.

  • Origin: Christian, Christian Redaction of Jewish Apocalyptic

History of the Use of the Apocalypse

By Friedrich Bleek
Lectures on the Apocalypse, pp. 44-72

After Rome and the Roman emperors were converted to Christianity, the fact exercised such an influence on the apprehension of the Apocalypse, that persons no longer referred the hostile powers—especially the beast ascending out of the sea, the seven kings and the woman—to heathen Rome and the Roman emperors as such, but gave them a more general application, viz. to the kingdoms of the world in general and its chief cities, or to a still future kingdom of Antichrist and its capital, or to the state of the world in general in opposition to the Church. The millennarian mode of interpretation entirely receded; for Victorinus of Petau already began the thousand- years' reign with the first appearance of Christ at his incarnation or his death, and viewed the thousand years only as a symbolical number in a general way. The first resurrection was referred in part to the rising of the world to a spiritual life, or to the establishment of the Christian Church.

With regard to the relation of the different visions or series of visions one to another, the synchronistic mode of apprehension was followed, as it was by Victorinus, so that in many ways the later were referred to the same facts and relations as the earlier; by which means, as was the case in the whole treatment of the book, much arbitrariness was committed, and no fixed rule followed. As to the Commentaries received by and known to us, the first and properly the only one of the Greek Church to be considered is that already mentioned, Andreas, who was Bishop of Caesarea and Cappadocia, belonging to the end of the fifth century; he proceeds in the manner of Origen, distinguishes various senses, and endeavours everywhere to point out the fulfilment of the prophecy. But in doing so he generalizes the concrete. The Commentary of Arethas (sixth century), which we possess under the name of Oecumenius, is still less worthy of notice; its relation to the Commentary of Arethas is also very uncertain (see Lucke, p. 472, Remark, 991 and following).

From the Latin Church at this time, an Expositio in Apocalypsin, under the name of the Douatist Tichonius, has been preserved to us. It is also certain that this contemporary of Augustine and Jerome wrote a commentary on the book. Yet that cannot be regarded as the work lying before us, which may have proceeded from the former as an extract, with the separation of the Donatist element. Augustine himself and Jerome did not write any commentary on the book; nevertheless, intimations are to be found in their writings showing in what manner they apprehended individual parts, especially in Augustine (de Civ. D. xx 7—17, on Apocalypse xx. xxi.).

On the other hand, we possess a complete commentary of Primasius's, an African bishop about the middle of the sixth century; and shorter expositions by his contemporary Cassiodorus (Complexiones Actuum apostolorum et Apocalypsis S. Johannis). Both do not depart widely from the mode of interpretation usual at that time; as also two expositions belonging to the eighth century, a shorter one of the Venerable Bede (died 738) and that of the Gallic presbyter, Ambrosius Ausbertus (after the middle of the eighth century). In the latter period of the middle ages also, the Apocalypse was frequently treated exegetically in the Western Church, but without any of these compositions having a scientific value.

The usual view of the time was that the thousand-years' kingdom had already begun at the incarnation of Christ or his death, and therefore people expected the end of the world to come at the expiration of the thousand years after Christ. On account of this, the mind of Christendom in the West, towards the end of the tenth, and at the beginning of the eleventh century, was very much excited in strained and anxious expectation. But when no particular catastrophe happened at the time, the minds of the people gradually became calm, and the opinion prevailed all the more generally that the thousand years are not to be understood as so many ordinary years according to our mode of reckoning, but in a general way and as some sort of symbolical apocalyptic date. But the relations of the times and party considerations exercised great influence upon the definite interpretation of the hostile powers. After the spread of Mahometanism, it was usual to understand the beast with the false prophet (ch. xiii. and following) of Mahomet and Mahometanism. So especially at the time of the Crusades, when Pope Innocent III., at the time he ordered a new crusade in 1215, expressly asserted this interpretation, and announced withal that the hostile power of the Saracens would soon be destroyed; referring the number 666 to so many years after the appearance of Mahomet and the continuance of Mahometanism.

Nevertheless, there were other interpretations, suggested by the relations of the times. Thus in the contests of the Romish Church with the Hohenstaufen, the beast was interpreted of this worldly power by the adherents of the former; as in the struggle of the Church with the sects and heresies which spread especially after the end of the twelfth century, the false prophet of the Apocalypse was referred to these latter. On the contrary, the same adversaries of the Romish hierarchy referred precisely to it and to the Pope, the beast full of names of blasphemy and the false prophet; so Frederick II., and also the heretical parties of the time. This was done in a peculiar manner, in the thirteenth century, by the stricter Franciscans, who attached themselves especially to the interpretation of the Apocalypse [See concerning the interpretation, Lucke, pp. 1066 and following ; De Wette, Commenear zur Offenbarung Johannes, p. 15.] which the Cistercian abbot Joachim of Flora, in Calabria (died about 1201) published. Whether that was originally anti-Papal is not certain (see Engelhardt, der Abt. Joachim, und das ewige Evangelium, in his kirchengeschichtlichen Abhandlungen, 1832, pp. 1—150); but it certainly had from the commencement a millennarian character; and was perhaps still further developed by those stricter Franciscans in an anti-Romish sense. Other anti-Romish parties also, as the Cathari, Wahlenses, Wicklifites and Hussites, made use of the Apocalypse in their polemics against the Romish Church, although the individual sects did it in a very different manner, while believing that the Papacy was prophesied of as Antichristianism: and they thought they were able to prove that the fall of it was near, even the very year, when it should take place. But in recognizing the book as an apostolic and truly prophetical writing, all parties in the Western Church were then agreed.

At the time of the Reformation, critical doubts were again prevalent, as well about several other books of the New Testament, as also about the origin of the Apocalypse. Erasmus, of Rotterdam, fell into a dispute with the Paris theologians about the Apocalypse, because he maintained that doubts had for a long time prevailed concerning it; and that not only among heretics, but orthodox theologians also, chiefly with regard to its author, although they received it as a book written by the Holy Ghost. He himself intimates several grounds of doubt without coming to a determination; but seems pretty clearly to incline to the view that the Apocalypse is not a work of the evangelist and apostle John, and is not quite equal in value to the other canonical books. Carlstadt expresses himself of the same opinion, in two treatises of the year 1520, a Latin and a shorter German one, as to what books are canonical or sacred and biblical. He makes three different classes of biblical books, puts the Apocalypse in the third and lowest, describes it as the least of the books of this order, and hints that it was not written by the evangelist John. At the religious conference in Berne, 1528, between Roman Catholics and Reformed theologians, Swiss and South German, when the Roman Catholics appealed to Apocalypse v. 8 on behalf of the doctrine of the intercession of saints, Zwinglius rejected the testimony, because the Apocalypse was no biblical book, nor even a work of the evangelist John, but that of another John. Martin Luther before him had already expressed an opinion about the Apocalypse much harsher and rougher, in his German translation. He gives prominence to a distinction among the New Testament books, between those acknowledged as canonical or right books, and those whose authority is not secure : the latter, in his opinion, are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse. In his translation he assigns to these four books the last place, and distinguishes them from the others by numbering only the latter in the list of books prefixed, from 1—23, and then, after a short pause, he makes these four follow without numbers, just as if they were not at all to be included among the New Testament books. Luther wrote a preface to the Apocalypse in the first edition of the German New Testament (1522), in which he expressed himself very strongly against the book. He said he would allow every one to follow his own opinion with regard to it; he wished to force his judgment upon no one; but he could neither hold it to be apostolic nor prophetic, and could not admit that it was prompted by the Holy Ghost; he held it almost similar to the fourth Book of Esdras, since it has to do with visions throughout, contrary to the manner of the apostolic and other prophetic books, and does not prophesy in clear plain words. He was also offended at the expressions of the book (xxii. 7—9, 18 and following), where those are pronounced blessed who keep its words, and blessedness is denied to such as take away aught from its contents, since it is so obscure that no one knows what it really means ; that there are much more noble books which should be maintained. He appeals also to the fact that many of the old Fathers rejected the book. He concludes, "Every one may judge of the book according to his spirit; his own mind cannot adapt itself to the book, and cannot value it highly, because Christ is neither taught nor recognized in it."

Instead of this preface, which perhaps may have excited much offence, and is also openly unjust, at least with regard to the last assertion (that Christ is not taught or recognized in the book), Luther afterwards prefixed another preface, not, as is frequently stated (also by Lucke, pp. 898,1014), first in 1534, but already in the Wittenberg edition of the New Testament of the year 1530, which runs more smoothly, although in the main it expresses the same doubts. He says that the book in its past obscurity and uncertainty of interpretation is still a concealed mute prophecy, and without its intended use for Christendom; that many had tried it, but up to the present day had brought forth nothing certain; that some had manufactured out of their heads much unsuitable stuff, and put it into it. On account of such uncertain interpretation and concealed meaning, he had hitherto left it alone, especially since some old Fathers did not consider the book as the writing of St. John the apostle, as may be seen from Eusebius; in such uncertainty he would let it remain for his own part, without hindering anybody from holding it to be by St. John the apostle, or whatever he liked. Yet Luther makes an attempt to state the contents of the Apocalypse according to the single visions; referring individual images to individual events and epochs in the history of the Christian Church in succession. The bitter-sweet book (x. 10) he refers to the Papacy with its great spiritual appearance. He reckons the thousand years from the time of the composition of the book down to Gregory VII., and fixes upon the number 666 (xiii. 18) as being so many years of the above-mentioned Pope, the time of the anti-christian Papacy.

Yet we may easily perceive that Luther himself does not attach much weight to these explanations of his. Already two years earlier he had published an old Latin Commentary, sent to him in manuscript out of Poland or Livonia, by an unknown author, but written before the Council of Constanz (Commentarius in Apocalypsin ante centum annos editus; Wittenb. 1528, 8), and accompanied it with a Preface, in which he himself does not express an opinion on the Apocalypse, but allows that Antichrist in it refers to the Romish Papacy. Luther's unfavourable opinion about the Apocalypse exercised an influence upon the Lutheran Church for a long time. After his example, people continued to separate those four books from the proper leading ones of the New Testament. Somewhat later, indeed, Martin Chemnitz, in his Examen Concilii Tridenetini (1565), began even to specify these four, to which the three other Antilegomena of Eusebius, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were added, as the Apocrypha of the New Testament, i. e. as writings whose origin is not sufficiently certified, and which therefore, though useful for reading and edification, must not be applied in establishing doctrines of faith; as those to which canonical authority did not properly belong (see upon this, Gesch. des Kanons, in my Einl. i. N. T. pp. 669 sqq., and my Einl. z. Hebr. Br. pp. 449 sqq.).

Catholics, as well as Reformed theologians, did not take part in this proceeding in general ; [Yet see upon Musculus in Lucke, 907. The Bernese Government hesitated to permit the printing of a work by Bullinger on the Apocalypse (1557), because he reckoned it among the canonical books, in opposition to Zwingli and the ecclesiastical edition of the Bible.] nor did Zwinglius' condemnatory opinion with reference to the Apocalypse in particular find any following in the Reformed Church.

John Calvin makes use of the book, without hesitation, as a canonical writing, even for dogmatic proofs; a certain shyness prevented him from treating it exegetically in a continuous commentary. Beza, in his N. T., tries energetically to refute objections against the authenticity of the Apocalypse: in his remarks, he limits himself almost exclusively to explanations of the meaning of words, abstaining almost wholly from properly prophetic exposition. In the Lutheran Church also, after the first half of the seventeenth century, theologians gradually refrained from distinguishing two classes, of different canonical authority, among the New Testament writings, and therefore from questioning the Apocalypse with regard to its apostolic origin, and from lowering it in comparison with other writings. The interpretation of the book in the Protestant Church was in general directed against the Papacy and the Romish Church; the representation of the beast, of the false prophet and Babylon, being referred to them.

At the same time, no continuous progression in the several visions was assumed, but parallels and recapitulations running beside one another. So, among others, Collado (Lausann. 1551), who assumed a complete parallelism between the seals, trumpets and vials of wrath; partly, also, Paraeus (1618), who, however, only views the seven seals ar.d the seven trumpets as running parallel, referring to the time between Constantino the Great, on the one hand, with Boniface III. and Mahomet, on the other; but the seven vials of wrath, to the time to come, as far as Luther and thence to the end. Farther, the Englishman, Joseph Mede, whose Clavis Apocalyptica appeared at the same time with his Commentary upon the Acts, 1627, who finds in the first part of the book as far as the six trumpets, ck ix. inclusive, the destinies of the kingdom foretold ; in the second part, those of the Church, running parallel with the former; but in the second part he assumes a number of synchronisms. He places the thousand-years' kingdom, however, at the end, departing from the usual interpretation, which makes it to commence already with the first appearance of Christ, which also was firmly held by most of the Protestant interpreters,—in opposition to the fanatical chiliasm of the Anabaptists and others.

The interpretations of these expositors individually were very copious, wanting throughout in certainty, and presenting little to promote scientific interpretation.

Hugo Grotius (died 1645) departs most from the ordinary mode of interpretation. He assumes in the book different visions, and visions received at different times, of which those in the first part, as far as ch. xi. inclusive, refer to the relations of the Jews; the following, as far as ch. xx. inclusive, to the relations of the Romans from Claudius to Vespasian; the remaining chapters to the later relations of the Church, as far as the end. He reckons the thousand years from Constantine the Great to the beginning of the fourteenth century, when the Turks and Mahometanism. penetrated into Asia and Greece. Hence Grotius, with whom also Henry Hammond and Clericus agreed, entirely forsook the usual way of the Protestant Church in applying the Apocalypse polemically against the Romish Church, and in finding the destruction of that Church described in it; yet a simple comparison of the contents of the book does not make it at all probable that in his interpretation he attained to the proper aim and essential meaning of it, or that he penetrated into its depths.

Of Catholic commentators belonging to this period, I name here only the three following:— (a) In the end of the sixteenth century, Francis Ribeira, professor in Salamanca (1591), who tries to explain the book by the relations of time as much as possible; for example, he understands the Babylonian whore as heathen Rome, in opposition to the Protestants of the time. (b) Another Spaniard, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Jesuit Ludwig ab Alcassar (Ludovicus ab Alcazar), whose copious Commentary (1614) attained great authority in the Romish Church. In apprehending the economy of the book, he may be viewed, in a manner, as the forerunner of Hugo Grotius ; he interprets v. 11 of the struggle of Christ's church with the Jewish synagogue; xii. 19, with Roman heathenism, both its worldly power and fleshly wisdom; xx. 22, of the victory, rest and glorious excellency of the Church, (c) The French bishop, Jacob Benignus Bossuet (Jacques Bousset) (died 1701), who as an interpreter of the Apocalypse (Commentaire sur l'Apocalypse; Paris, 1689, 8) also attained to great authority in the Catholic Church, partly too outside the Church. His explanation is allied to that of Alcassar and Grotius; naturally in opposition to the usual interpretation of Protestant expositors against the Papacy and its hostility to the true Church of God. He refers the thousand years (xx. 1—10) to the time of the sovereignty of the Church upon earth; the preceding visions (iv. 19), to the war of Judaism and that of Romish heathenism (especially under Diocletian) against the Church; he also refers the number 666 to Diocletian; the letting loose of Satan at the end of the thousand years, to the spread of the Turks in Europe and to Lutheranism; the last chapters, to the impending final attack of Satan on the Church, and the general resurrection immediately following it, with the last judgment. [On Noel Aubert de Vend, see Lucke, 1031 ff. ]

He believes he found the 18th of June, 1836, to be the date of the coming of Christ after the last raging of Antichrist; from that time Satan should be bound for a thousand years, until 2836 ; the thousand-years' kingdom of the saints in heaven was to begin in 2836, lasting until 3836.

This apocalyptic system of Bengel found much acceptance, even admiration and following, in a considerable portion of the Evangelical Church, not merely in Wittenberg, but also in England and elsewhere, and has been firmly held in its essential features even till later times, until it found its refutation in the historical course of affairs, at least partly; as Bengel himself, with all confidence in the correctness of his manner of interpretation, expressed his opinion to the effect, that if the year 1836 should pass without perceptible change, undoubtedly there must be a main fault in his system. Nevertheless, he thinks that even if the disclosure of the numbers given by him should be incorrect, which he is not, however, inclined to grant, still the explanation of the things, together with their practical application, will maintain its correctness. But the entire Bengelian and similar modes of treating the Apocalypse rest upon the supposition, not merely of the genuineness and apostolic composition of the book, but also upon its inspiration in the strictest sense, viz. that it wfis communicated to the apostle in its whole contents by immediate divine revelation, and is therefore thoroughly credible in all its prophetic statements, if it is only explained in a right way. Yet this view of the book at the time of Bengel, about the middle of the 18th century, was not the one generally prevalent in the Protestant Church. On the one side, a freer, less strict view of the character of prophecy in general was taken, whence there arose a tendency to interpret the Apocalypse in a simple manner; and more by the relations out of which the book arose, scruples about the apostolic origin of the book were again rife, and it was soon attacked with great eagerness. The latter attacks and disputes began already about 1730, and in England too, first in the Greek English New Testament published anonymously and by an unknown writer (The New Testament in Greek and English, &c.; London, 1729). The editor in his remarks attacks the genuineness of the Apocalypse in a very decided manner, relying mainly upon the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria. It is further assailed in a treatise that likewise appeared anonymously (A Discourse, Historical and Critical, on the Revelation ascribed to St. John; London, 1730).

The author is the Genevan librarian, Firmin Abauzit, distinguished for abundant erudition, who with much energy seeks to show that reasons preponderate against the apostolic origin of the book. He wrote the treatise originally in French, and at the inducement of an English friend, in order to counteract the assiduous study of apocalyptic chronology; yet it was at first published in the English translation.

A refutation of these two attacks by the English theologian, Leonhard Twells, appeared in the third part of his criticism of that Greek-English edition of the New Testament, 1732. The treatise relating to the Apocalypse is somewhat abridged in the Latin translation taken by Wolf into his Curse Philol. et Criticse on the New Testament, and prefixed to the remarks upon the Apocalypse. Twells knows how to make the most of external as well as internal grounds in favour of the composition of the book by the apostle John, with learning and sagacity, and his defence met with much approbation. The same Abauzit wrote another treatise which belongs to this place (Essai sur 1'Apocalypse, 1730), in which he tries to show that the book was written under Nero, and is in its prophecy only a development of the sayings of Christ about the fall of Jerusalem; that all refers to the destruction of this Jewish capital and the Roman-Jewish war (ch. xxi. and xxii.); to the more extensive spread of the Christian Church after that catastrophe.

Similar is the interpretation of Wetstein (De Interpretatione libri Apocalypseos) in his New Testament, II. 889 and following; 1752), who refers the main contents to the Romish-Jewish war and the contemporary civil war in Italy, but understands the thousand years (ch. xx.) as the fifty years after the death of Domitian until the insurrection of the Jews under Bar Cochba, and takes the heavenly Jerusalem as a type of the great spread and rest of the Christian Church after the complete subjection of the Jews. Further, Johann Christoph Harenberg's (Professor at Brunswick, died 1774) Erklarung der Oifenbarung Johannis: Es entwickelt sich zugleich die Frage, wo wir jetzt in der Zeit der Anzeigen soldier Offenbarung leben; Braunschw. 1759,4), which refers all to Jerusalem as far as ch. xviii., understanding Babylon as that city; but the following chapters he refers to the development of the Christian Church till the last day.

Semler, on the contrary, in his edition of Wetstein's Libell. ad crisin et interpretationem N. T. (1766), where he (pp. 217— 246) gives Observations breves de interpretatione Apocalypseos, considers the book as chiefly directed against the Romans, the protectors of idolatry and enemies of the Christian Church, but views the prophetical images as merely borrowed from Jewish Apocalyptic, without imputing to them any special value. In the same treatise, Semler also expresses doubts about the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. But the contest respecting it raged far more vigorously in the German Protestant Church a few years later, when Semler published the treatise of a defunct theologian (Georg Ludwig Oeder, Dean at Feuchtwangen in the Ansbach district, died 1760), "Christlich freie Untersuchung iiber die sogenannte Ofleubarung Johannis, aus der nachgelassenen Handschrift eines frankischen Gelehrten," herausgegeben mit einigen Anmerk. von J. S. Semler; Halle, 1769, 8. The treatise is divided into two parts ; in the first, Oeder contests the genuineness of the Apocalypse on historical grounds by considering the testimonies of the ancients ; in the second, on dogmatic grounds, from a consideration of its contents. He agrees with the Alogi and Caius that it is a work of Cerinthus. Semler, in his remarks, almost everywhere approves of the judgment of Oeder. Subsequently, Semler treated of the same subject still farther, with reference to counter works that had appeared meanwhile : (a) in his Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, Thl. i.; nebst Antwort auf die Tiibingische Vertheidigung der Apokalypse (von Beust), Halle, 1771, 8; (&) in his Neuen Untersuchungen iiber die Apokalypse, Halle, 1776, where he seeks to prove that it was not at all known in the Church before the middle of the second century, and that it was first brought to Italy and Gaul by Montanists (in opposition to Knittel); and (c) in his theological Epistles, two collections, Leipzig, 1781,8 (against Hartwig).

The spuriousness of the Apocalypse was also sought to be proved (a) by F. A. Stroth: Freymjithige Untersuchungen, die Offenbarung Johannis betreffend (against C. F. Schmidt), mit Vorrede von Semler, Halle, 1771, 8 : the treatise appeared anonymously ; the author studied at that time in Halle, and afterwards became rector in Gotha (died 1785); and (&) by Michael Merkel, candidate of theology, in two treatises, Frankf. and Leipzig, 1782 and 1785 (against Hartwig and Storr). The German theologians who sought to justify the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse against these attacks of Semler and his friends, have been already mentioned, for the most part incidentally. Here belong (a) the Wiirtemberg Chancellor, Jeremias Reuss (1767 and 1772); (b) the Leipzig, afterwards Wittenberg theologian, Christian Friedrich Schmidt (1771 and 1775); (c) the Brunswick General Superintendent, Franz Antony Knittel (1773); (cT) the Wijrtemberg theologian, Gottlob Christian Storr (1782 and 1786). One of the most valuable among the apologetic treatises of this time in favour of the Apocalypse is the following: Apologie der Apokalypse wider falschen Tadel und falsches Lob. Chemnitz 4 Theile, 1780-83. The writer is Friedrich Gotthold Hartwig, pastor at Grosshartmannsdorf, near Freiberg. The first part of the work, written with much circumspection and calmness, but with too great diffuseness, is chiefly taken up with the investigation of the testimony of the presbyter Caius, and with the refutation of the view that the Apocalypse teaches an earthly kingdom of Christ; the second part, among others, with the investigation of the testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria ; the third part answers Sender's reply to the two first parts (in his Theolog. Briefe), and then seeks to unfold the plan of the book as a symbolic-dramatic poem in several acts and scenes ; the fourth part treats of (1) the apostolic genuineness of the Apocalypse from internal signs—(a) from the seven epistles (ch. ii. and iii.); and (b) from the exact agreement of the book with the other writings and entire character of John; giving (2) an answer to the historical grounds of doubt still remaining, including a historical proof of the genuineness of the book. But before this work of Hartwig, there had appeared an exegetical treatise on the Apocalypse by J. G. Herder: "MARANATHA," das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des Neuen Testamentes Siegel; Riga, 1779 (in Herder's Werken zur Religion 'a. Theologie, Thl. xii.). He views the book as a work of the apostle John, but refers the whole contents, as Abauzit among others did, to the destruction of Jerusalem, which he also understands by Babylon, and to the disturbances and wars in Palestine preceding that catastrophe. In his letters on the Study of Theology (1780), Part ii. Br. 21, he expresses himself to the effect that he viewed the entire destruction of Jerusalem only as a sign, pledge, type of the final and greater end of things, and that the proper object of prophecy is to develop this end in such sign and pledge. Yet this point of view does not appear definitely in the interpretation itself. But he gives prominence to the practical particulars whereby the Apocalypse is a book for all hearts and for all times. By means of its warm and enthusiastic character, the Herder- treatment of the Apocalypse obtained much approval in its time, and succeeded in interesting many new friends in the book, at least in directing them to its formal and sesthetic beauties. Hartwig, in the above-mentioned work, attached himself specially to Herder in the historical relations of the Apocalypse.

Fully two years later appeared the work of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Commentarius in Apocalypsiu Joannis, 2 vols., Gott. 1791, 8. He also considers the Apocalypse as a genuine writing of the apostle John, but brings out very little of its prophetic character. With regard to its meaning, he agrees essentially with the Strasburg theologian Johann Samuel Herrenschneider (in his Inaugural Dissertation, Testamen Apocalypseos ; Strasburg, 1786, 4). Eichhorn takes the whole as a general poetical representation of the victory of Christianity over Judaism which is symbolized by Jerusalem; and over heathenism, which is symbolized by Rome designated as Babylon; referring the phenomena of the fifth and sixth trumpets, exactly in the same way as Herder, to definite historical relations in the Romish-Jewish war which preceded the destruction of. Jerusalem.

In respect to form, he views the Apocalypse as a drama with different acts and scenes, as Hartwig and David Parseus (1628) did. This mode of treatment by Eichhorn certainly met with opposition in his time; for example, from Joh. Friedr. Kleuker (Ueber den Ursprung und Zweck der Offenbarung Johanuis; Hamb. 1800), who objected to it on the ground that the properly prophetic character of the book was done away with. But in general it found much approval. It had the effect of making people more disposed to recognize the genuineness and the apostolic origin of the book, even without regard to its prophetic value; and it also found many followers with respect to the main points of interpretation, and the essential character of the whole. So also Joh. Heinrich Heinrichs mostly agrees with the interpretation of Eichhorn, in his Latin work on the Apocalypse, in the N. T. of Koppe, Vol. X. 2 parts, 1818—21, who, however, tries to make out that John the presbyter is the author of the book. Another theologian, Paul Joachim Sigismund Vogel, in Erlangen (died 1834), had tried to prove in seven programmes (1811, 16, 4), that the Apocalypse is the work of two different writers; that i. 9—xi. 29 was written by the apostle John; the remainder, probably by John the presbyter.

An essay of mine, in the Theolog. Zeitsehrift, Heft 2 (Berlin, 1820), pp. 240—315, " Beitrage zur Kritik und Deutung der Offenbarung Johannis," the former edited by Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette and Lucke, refers to the two last- named writings, namely, to the first part of Heinrichs' Commentary and Vogel's Programmes. Some further contributions by me towards this object are to be found in my Beitrage zur Evangelien-Kritik (1846), especially pp. 182—200, 267 fl. 81, as well as in the before-mentioned copious review of the second edition of Liicke's Einl. in die Apok. (Theolog. Stud. u. Krit., 1854, Heft 4, 1855, Heft 1). In the first-named essay, I expressed my opinion that the whole Apocalypse was, without doubt, from one. and the same writer, but was partly written before the destruction of Jerusalem, partly (from ch. xii. onwards) after it. This I expressly retracted afterwards (in the Beitriige), and declared myself in favour of the unity of the book, and the composition of the whole not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. On the other hand, I have also, at a later period, held firmly other leading points which I sought to make conclusive in the first treatise, namely, (a) that the Apocalypse is not a work of the apostle and evangelist John, nor even falsely attributed to him by a later writer, but was composed by another John, the presbyter of Papias; (&) that it is not, according to the view of Eichhorn, merely a general poetical representation of the victory of Christianity over Judaism and heathenism, but has the determinate object of comforting and consoling the oppressed Christians of the time, by directing them to the nearness of the second coming of the Lord to earth; that this advent of Christ is annexed to the fall of anti-christian paganism and particularly of Rome as its chief seat; that, on the contrary, the destruction of Jerusalem is nothing peculiar in the prophetic representation, and that even the visions in the first part, particularly in ch. ix., contain no references to definite historical events at the time of the Romish-Jewish war, which the author may have had in view. In these points, Heinrich Ewald and De Wette, among succeeding interpreters of the Apocalypse, agree with me in the main. Ewald, in his Latin work, by which the interpretation of individual portions is very much advanced: Commentarius in Apocalypsin Joannis exegeticus et criticus; Gott. 1828, 8. De Wette, in his Einl. in N.T., and his Knrze Erklarung der Offenbanmg Johannis (Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handb. iiber das K T., Band III. Thl. ii., Leipzig, 1848, 8 ; 2 Ausg. mit Vorrede von Lijcke, 1853). This Commentary is the last work of De Wette (died the 16th June, 1849), closing his literary and theological career in a highly worthy and edifying manner; particularly the Preface, written amid the severe political and social relations of the time. The Commentary itself is, with all its brevity, rich in matter and instructive, both for the interpretation of single parts, as well as for the right understanding of the object and spirit of the whole book. [De Wette in his Commentary made much use of Bleek's Heft on the Revelation of John, which the latter handed over to him complete. ]

A very significant and important work is that of Liicke, already mentioned in its first edition, which appeared a few years after the Commentary of Ewald: Versuch einer Vollstiindigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannes und in die gesammte Apokalyptische Litteratur; Bonn, 1832, 8 ; 2nd edition (Versuch einer Vollstandi- gen Einl. in die Offenb. Joh., oder allgemeine Untersuchungen iiber die Apokalyptische Litteratur uberhaupt, und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere), Bonn, 1852. This second edition is almost double the size of the first, fully thirty sheets more, and therefore as good as a complete revision. The work is divided into three books: (1) Conception and History of Apocalyptic Literature. (2) Consideration of the Apocalypse of John. (3) Theory and History of the Interpretation of the Book. With reference to the explanation of the Apocalypse, Lucke had already, in an earlier treatise, Theolog. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1829, Heft 2 (Apokalyptische Studien, in Beziehung auf Ewald's Commentar), so far approached nearer to Eichhorn, as to believe that not only Roman paganism but also Judaism is the anti-christianism which is to be overcome, without assuming a definite reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; and he held essentially the same opinion in the work already named, as well as in the second edition, although he admits that Jerusalem is not conceived of in such absolute opposition to the kingdom of Christ, as Rome, the new Babylon (against it, see my remarks in the Beitrage zur Ev. Krit. pp. 187 ff. and Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 163). With regard to the origin of the book, Lucke decides that it could not be written by the evangelist and apostle John. In the first edition, however, he had sought to make good the conjecture that it was written in the apostle's name by another, not exactly with the intention to deceive, who based it upon a revelation communicated to the apostle, partly corresponding to what the same apostle may have orally expressed, and developed it in his own manner. (Schott, Isagoge in N. T., § 116, Not. 5, had already put forward a similar view, that some Aramaic notes, made by the apostle John for his private use, lay at the foundation of the visions communicated to him, which a pupil of his worked out farther). Yet Liicke at a Later period retracted this view, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit, 1830. 3, pp. 654 If., and agreed in the opinion that the book is the work of another John, who wrote and published it in his own name. And he expressed still more decidedly the same opinion in the second edition of the Introduction, holding it as most probable that the author was the presbyter of Papias. Very great care and diligence are here applied in proving that the Apocalypse could not be written by the author of the Gospel. Other scholars of later times, who are likewise convinced that the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse cannot belong to one and the same writer, have decided that the Apocalypse is by the apostle John, but not the Gospel. Thus Dr. Christ. Friedr. Jak. Ziillig, Die Offenbarung Johannis vollstandig erkliirt, 2 Thle., 1834, 41, 8. The first part is in a popular style, for readers who are not learned; a form of treatment which is given up in the second part. The author refers the second part of the book, with Herder and others, to Jerusalem and Judaism, and explains Babylon of it also; he advances besides many singular, unnatural explanations. Still much valuable matter is to be found, especially in his remarks about the distinction between the essential in the prophetic contents of the book and the non-essential that belongs to prophetic form and dress. He places the composition of the Apocalypse earlier than any other of the more modern interpreters, 44—47 after Christ, and ascribes it to the apostle John, though the latter did not write the fourth Gospel. In the same light is the subject viewed still more decidedly by the entire Tubingen school of Baur, which considers it almost an article of faith that the apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Schwegler first expressed this opinion in his treatise on Montanism (1841), and repeated it in his Nachapos- tolisches Zeitalter, Band II. (1846), pp. 249 sqq., as well as Baur himself (Kritische Untersuchung iiber die 4 Kanouischen Evan- gelien, pp. 345 sqq.), Schnitzer, Zeller, &c. These scholars find in the Apocalypse the judaizing standpoint which, as they believe, must be pre-supposed in the apostle John, and therefore think themselves justified in refusing him the fourth Gospel.

Ferdinand Hitzig tried to establish another view respecting the author of the Apocalypse: Uber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften oder welcher Johannes hat die Offenbarung verfasst Zurich, 1843, 8. Dionysius of Alexandria had already mentioned John Mark the evangelist, as one who might be considered the writer of the Apocalypse; and Beza briefly mentions the assumption. Hitzig, however, asserts decidedly that this very person wrote the Apocalypse; and is able to give some plausibility to the assumption by his usual acute and confident manner. Weisse agrees with him; in a review of the book, Neue Jen. A. L. Z. (1843), No. 225 sqq. The supposition is rejected by Lucke, pp. 778—796, as it had been already by Ebrard in his treatise : Das Evangelium Johannis und die neueste Hypothese Tiber seine Entstehung (1845), pp. 137—217.

Ebrard declares himself decidedly in favour of identity of authorship between the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, and the composition of both by the apostle John. So also in his explanation of the Revelation of John (in the continuation of Olshausen's Bibl. Commentary, Vol. VII.); Konigsberg, 1853. The same has again been asserted in other quarters, in the last twenty or thirty years, for example, by Kolthoff (Apocalypsis Johanni Apostolo vindicata; Copenhagen, 1834); by Daunemann (Wer ist derVerfasser der Offenb. Johamiis? mit einem Vorwort von Liicke; Hannov. 1841); by Guerike (lastly in the second edition of his Introduction to the New Testament); by Hengstenberg (die Offenbarung des h. Johannes, fur solche die in der Schrift forschen erlautert; Berlin, 1849-51, 2 vols., the second in two divisions; 2nd edition, 1861, without essential alterations), and by others. A revolution in the interpretation of the book and the estimation of its value as a prophetic writing, is connected with the fact of taking the whole, as well as the single visions and images, as absolutely inspired predictions of the fortunes of the Church in its straggles with the world, and so rejecting the assumption of a poetic envelope.

The political relations of the times exercised a particular influence upon it at the time of the war of freedom, as it had done before during the heavy oppression which weighed on Europe, particularly on Germany; and afterwards too, when the minds of the people were directed in excited expectation to the farther development of affairs, and were -therefore led to seek for disclosures respecting them in the prophetic parts of the Bible, particularly in the Apocalypse.

This had the effect of leading men to use the book much, and also tended to refer its contents in an especial manner to existing temporal relations as if foretold in it. Accordingly many interpretations of the book appeared, for a long time only of a popular kind, without a proper philological, historical foundation ; and without receiving particular attention from scientific theologians. I may mention among these only the treatise of Friedr. Sander (Versuch eimer Erklarang der Offenbarung Johannes; Stuttg. 1829, 8), who agrees with Bengel in particular, and finds in many things the relations and occurrences of his times, viewing 1847 as the decisive year when the millennial kingdom should begin, yet without disguising from himself the uncertainty of the calculation, so that he would not look upon it as a sure designation of time. It was not till a somewhat later period that a stricter representation of the prophetic character of the Apocalypse in general prevailed among scientific Protestant theologians; with which idea several attempts at interpretation appeared, which do not, however, refer precisely all the single visions to individual events in the history of the world and of the Church, as did many earlier interpretations; and do not differ very much in their spirit from one another. I mention, in particular, the following:—

(1) J. Chr. A. Hofmann: Weissagung und Erfiillung, 2 Hiilfte (1844), pp. 300—378. He ascribes the Apocalypse to the apostle and evangelist John and the age of Domitian, believing that the book may be best explained from this standpoint of the seer, according to which the destruction of Jerusalem had already happened a considerable time before. He does not assume a continuous series of prophecies, but several series running in part beside one another. For example, he characterizes it as a false supposition that the events introduced by the seven trumpets should follow the opening of the seven seals in temporal succession. The woman (ch. xii.) he interprets as the Hebrew Church; the wilderness to which she flees, the land of Israel; but so as to refer the contents of this chapter to the last time, the last half week of years, assuming that the land of Israel should actually become again the theatre of sacred history. He understands Babylon of Rome, and the seven kings in ch. xvii., not of single Roman emperors, but of seven different forms of worldly power: (1) Asshur with Nineveh, (2) Chaldea with Babylon, (3) Persia with Suza, (4) Greece, (5) Antiochus Epi- phanes ; these are the five which had fallen ; (C) Rome's Coesar. The seventh had not appeared at that time, which he takes to be the Germanic empire, and explains the oXiyov peivai of remaining for a considerable time. The beast ascending out of the abyss he refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. Many things are not quite clear, as Hofmaun properly supposes.

(2) Hengsteuberg. He also puts the writing of the book under Domitian, towards the end of his reign. In this work, produced under severe illness according to the Preface, he differs from Hofmann in general, in explaining the Apocalypse as a whole and in single visions, by the former history of the world and the Church, viewing it for the most part as already fulfilled, which involves the fact of generalizing very much the interpretation of many single visions, pressing exceedingly the individual contents in other cases as it serves his purpose. He refers the prophecies of the book to the whole time, from the seer's age till the New Jerusalem; and withal to the external destiny as well as the internal condition of the Church, particularly its struggles with paganism. He assumes in the book a number (3) of independent and completed groups, each giving prominence to special particulars, and supplementing one another. He attributes only a general preparatory character to the first of these seven groups (as far as ch xi. inclusive), i.e. to the phenomena at the opening of the seven seals and at the seven trumpet voices. The beast ascending up out of the sea, with the seven heads, he understands of the world-power, hostile to God in general, with seven phases ; and refers the five heads notified as fallen to five earlier world monarchies—(1) the Egyptian, (2) Assyrian, (3) Chaldean, (4) Medo-Persian, (5) Grecian. He takes the sixth—the head wounded to death—as the Roman world-power. He views its apparently deadly wound as having been indicted upon it by Christ's atonement; the seventh head and the ten horns he refers to the Germans, their kings and tribes, in round numbers, whose Christianizing (ch. xix.) is represented under the type of their conquest by Christ in battle. He looks upon the thousand-years' kingdom as having already expired, referring it to the period from the Christianizing of the Germanic nations to the expiration of the German kingdom, as the devil was bound during that period, so that he includes in it the period before and after the Reformation. He does not assume any reference to the Romish Church as a power hostile either to Judaism as such, or even to the worship of idols ; but considers the essence of paganism here pictured to be only the fleshly mind with its determined hatred against God, against Christ and his Church. He does not accept the appearance of a personal Antichrist. He does not take the first resurrection in a literal sense, but refers it to the blessedness which begins to the faithful immediately at their departure from this life. The loosing again of Satan he refers to our present time, especially after 1848, the period of Gog and Magog. His looking at the phenomena of modern times in a moral and religious aspect exercised an unmistakable influence upon Hengstenberg's interpretation of the Apocalypse. (3) Ebrard. TMs expositor, according to his own declaration (p. 29), wishes to make a first attempt, different from all interpreters of the book before him, to separate strictly and throughout the interpretation of prophecy from the question of its fulfilment. Yet the entire character of his interpretation does not exactly produce the impression that he had this end in view throughout, in good earnest. The way in which he interprets the seven epistles (ch. ii. iii.) proves this; for he believes that types of the Church of later times are to be found in the condition of the Asiatic Churches here represented, as in the four first consecutively, from the apostolic time to the middle ages. He has much in common with Hengstenberg and Hofmann, but differs from them in many points; amongst other things, in assuming a definite reference to the Romish Church and the Papacy. He explains the seven heads of the beast as seven monarchies, of which the first is Assyria; the sixth—represented by the head wounded to death—the Romish, which is the beast ascending out of the sea (ch. xiii.), the same as the whore or Babylon (ch. xvii.); the ten horns are the Germanic and Slavic peoples of the dispersed nations, which inflict the wound upon the worldly power of the Romans, and bring it almost to destruction, but again recover, and figure in the new Roman empire formed with Rome into the spiritual centre, which still exists, compounded of Romish and Germanic elements; though in it, since the thirteenth century, the Pope, instead of the Emperor, always appears more and more as the real and ideal representative of such power. Of the Papacy itself, the Roman Chair as a spiritual power, he explains the beast ascending out of the earth (the false prophet). He refers the seventh head to the fact that those ten kingdoms, which first appear at the dispersion of the nations, will one day emerge as an independent power in place of the Romish ; i.e. in the last tune, that of Antichrist, yet only for a short time; whereupon the three-and-a-half years of the personal Antichrist, Babylon's fearful destruction and Christ's visible advent, will take place (ch. xvii. and following). He understands the 42 months or 1260 days (xi. 2, 3, xii . 6, xiii. 5)

as a mystic sign for the whole period from the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus to the conversion and restoration of the Jewish nation, or until the downfall of the Roman power, in its second phase, after the healing again of the wound that had appeared deadly; in short, till the appearing of Antichrist, during which time also fleshly Israel, in spite of their present unbelief, will be wonderfully upheld. He understands the two witnesses (eh. xi.) of the law and gospel. The three-and-a-half days (xi. 9, 11) he reckons, like the three-and-a-half times (xii. 14) as three-and-a-half years.

(4) Carl August Auberlen: Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis; Basel, 1854, 2 Aufl., 1857. Auberlen is chiefly concerned with the book of Daniel, starts with it, and interprets the Apocalypse on its basis (from ch. xii. onwards); as is also the case with the interpreters already considered (2nd ed. pp. 266 and following). The beast ascending out of the sea he also understands of the world-power in general, and refers the seven heads of the beast to seven universal monarchies, of which the five fallen are, according to him, as well as Hengstenberg, the Egyptian, the Assyrian, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece; the sixth, the Romish kingdom; the seventh, the Germanic-Slavonic kingdom, is that still continuing. Peculiar to himself is the interpretation of the woman (xvii. 3 and following), whom he holds to be the same as the woman with child (ch. xii.); this latter he understands to be the Church of God in its Old Testament and in its New Testament form. The wilderness to which she flies before the dragon (xii. 14), he refers to the taking away of the kingdom of God from the Jews, and its transference to the Gentiles, especially to Rome; all the time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the coming again of Christ. He holds the great whore (ch. xvii.) to be the same woman that sits upon the beast, understanding that the Church of God in the world has become a whore through apostasy; that is, the whole of Christendom all over the world; the Catholic Church (the Roman and Greek), in a much deeper sense than the Evangelical; yet not that or any special single Church or ecclesiastical party. He thinks that the seven hills (xvii. 9) are, at the most, only an incidental allusion to Rome, which should not be considered the proper sense of the passage; by the hills, great kings, the great world-powers, are much more probably signified; that the beast slain as it were to death (xiii. 3) points to similarity with Christ (v. 6) and signifies outward Christianizing ; that the death-wound should be referred to the seventh head, the seventh kingdom, which had become a Christian kingdom of the world, since the woman, the whore, allows herself to be carried by the beast. The pointed opposition between world and church is done away with; both make mutual concessions: secularized Christianity and a Christianized world is the fundamental type of the Christian centuries until the wound of the beast should be healed. The same beast revives, and returns out of the abyss, signifying that the Christian-Germanic world should again fall away from Christianity (modern paganism); that this healing of the wound of the beast has already begun in our time, in the beastly outbreak of the French Revolution, &c.; the eighth (xvii. 11) is the kingdom of Antichrist, which is to bring the entire world of beastly existences into complete manifestation. Auberlen takes the thousand- years' reign, as well as the first resurrection, in the proper millennarian sense, as still future, yet he leaves it undecided whether that number is intended to denote with chronological precision the continuance of the kingdom. He thinks that it should be especially taken in its symbolical significance—ten as the number of world-fullness, potentiated by the divine number three, viz. that the world is then actually penetrated by the divine.

I omit here the interpretations of modern Catholic theologians, as well as of non-German Protestants: see Auberlen, pp. 381 and following, on two of the latter; the Englishman Elliott (Horre Apocalypticse, &c., 4th ed., London, 1851, 4 vols.), and the Genevese Gaussen (Daniel le Prophete, edit. 1850, in several volumes). Both interpret in an anti-Romish sense (especially Elliott), and adopt far more and exacter references to chronology and the historical relations of the Church down to our time than even the last-named German interpreters. [Remark of the Editor: After Bleek's death there appeared as a worthy conclusion to the Commentary of Meyer on the New Testament, from Dr. Fr. Dusterdieck, Kritisch-exegetische Handbuch uber die Offenbarung Johannis (des Meyer'schen Com- mentars 1C. Abtheilung). Djisterdieck returns to the beaten track of Bleek, De Wette and Liicke. Whilst rejecting, on the one hand, the idea developed by Eichhorn, that the Apocalypse is a poetic description of the victory of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism; he opposes, on the other, those interpreters who find the most specific predictions of time, from the period of John to the final appearance of the Lord, whether they view the Apocalypse as a prophetic compendium of Church history (as Bengel), or (as Hofmann, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Auberlen) find described " the great epochs and leading forces of the development of the kingdom of God in its relation to the world-power." Like Bleek, he finds the object of the Apocalypse to comfort oppressed Christians, by instructing them concerning the appearing of the Lord, wherein the present form of the Romish world-kingdom appears to the author as the last phenomenon of the kind that is to be overthrown by the speedy coming of the Lord. Diisterdieck puts over against Eichhorn's " rationalistic idea of inspiration," as well as Hengstenberg's " magic one," &c., the " ethical" idea, according to which the prophetic vision, which shapes itself by divine inspiration in the soul of the prophet, is conditioned by the whole subjectivity of the man (p. 45). This is pretty much the same view as that expressed by Bleek (Section iii.), " that the visions and prophecies are not an absolutely pure creation of the divine spirit; but that human weakness, worldly or personal individuality, has more or less influenced their form." But whilst it is uncertain to Bleek whether the form of representation in the visions is not a mere envelope (see Section iii. 4), Dusterdieck holds firmly that the visions presented themselves to the writer just as he actually describes them, only " that the objects viewed shaped themselves in a moral way, according to the measure of the prophet's human subjectivity." Dusterdieck also contests decidedly, as did De Wetto, Ewald, Liicke, Bleek, the authorship of the Apocalypse by the apostle John; and, like them, expresses it as a possible conjecture that the writer is identical with the presbyter John, who wrote the book shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem.]

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..