|
CLICK HERE FOR PDF FILES OF BOOK
1858 Edition
| 1881 Edition
"He had not only been deeply studious of
the Old Testament Scriptures, but he had also been learned
in the school of Christ. Whoever he was, he had heard much,
he knew much, and felt much of Christianity. He had sat at
the feet of the Lord Jesus. How else could he have known,
before the events transpired, the fall of Jerusalem ? (for
we shall show in another place that the book was written
before the destruction of that city.) He had heard the
prophecy uttered by the Lord concerning that series of
events. There are points of resemblance between certain
parts of the Apocalypse and the prophecy referred to, as
given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which cannot be mistaken.
And if the Apocalypse was written previously to either of
the gospels, (as we doubt not it was,) it becomes a nice
question how the revelator learned his facts concerning the
approaching destruction of Jerusalem except by divine
communication ? It would seem probable that he was one of
the disciples mentioned in Matthew xxiv. 3, to whom Jesus
delivered his notable prophecy on this great subject. See
Rev. i. 7, and vi. 12—17, as instances of imagery borrowed
from our Lord's description of the destruction of Jerusalem.
It is very singular, if the author of the Apocalypse were a
pretender, a cheat, and deceiver of mankind, that he should
have followed so closely him whom we call distinctively "
the way, the truth, and the life." (p. 20)
The learned editor of the " Universalist
Expositor" published an article on the Apocalypse, in which,
although it occupies less than a dozen pages of that work,
he treats of the three highly important topics, the
authenticity, the date, and the meaning. When he comes to
the second topic, he says, " Admitting, then, that St. John
was probably the author of the Apocalypse, when was it
written ? Were we to judge solely from the allusions of the
book itself, we should answer, at once, before the
destruction of Jerusalem ; but if from the balance of mere
historical testimony, such as it is, we should place its
date after that event, and about the year 96. This
testimony, however, is not of the most unquestionable
character. Eusebius, in the fourth century, is the first to
mention the time of St. John's banishment to Patmos, where
he saw the Revelation ; and he refers it, on what authority
we know not, to the reign of Domitian, and adds that he was
liberated on the accession of the emperor Nerva, which took
place A. D. 96. There is indeed an ambiguous passage in an
earlier and more competent witness, Irenseus, which has been
generally understood to authenticate this statement, and to
assert that the Revelation was seen at the end of Domitian's
reign : but Wetstein and Rosenmuller contend that the
language relates to the time when St. John himself lived,
and not to the period of his vision. These are all the
historical notices concerning the date of the hook which are
of any importance, for the statements of Jerome are probably
founded on those of Eusebius ; and as to the contrary
representations sometimes quoted from Epiphanius, who refers
it back to about the year 50, nobody acquainted with the
romancing habit of this writer ought to attach the least
weight to them." So far the editor of the Expositor. He
evidently inclined to the opinion that the Apocalypse was
written before the destruction of Jerusalem ; but he allowed
that the balance of historical testimony would place it
about A. D. 96.
As to the relative weight which is to be given to the
balance of historical testimony, on the one side, or the
indications as to the date of the Apocalypse, which we find
in the book itself, on the other, we decide in favor of the
latter. The one is the undesigned testimony afforded by the
writer himself; the other is that of other men, living at a
distance of time from him, liable to be misinformed, to
misunderstand language, and to mislead many others. Thus,
the testimony of one man, having no very strong ground
himself, perhaps, for the correctness of his opinion, goes
by tradition, or record, to others, who help to swell the
number of authors in defence of some position ; and yet,
after all, we have the testimony of only one man ; and that
we have, not from his own lips, or pen, but from the
repetitions of others. We feel, therefore, a much stronger
confidence in the internal evidences which the Apocalypse
furnishes of its date, than we do in the historical
testimony. It is for this reason, we think, that the number
of those who believe that the Apocalypse was written before
the destruction of Jerusalem is steadily increasing, among
men of sound learning. Professor Stuart has added the weight
of his great learning and influence to the support of that
opinion.
Some few years ago, in his- work entitled
" Hints on Prophecy," he showed very clearly that the
internal evidences proved the book to have been written
previously to the fall of Jerusalem ; and in his more recent
and larger work on the Apocalypse, he has expressed the
opinion more fully and decidedly. It is nighly probable that
as the true intent of that book is more and more developed,
the opinion will become more generally embraced." (pp.
37-39)
"We might mention other signs which were
pointed out by our Lord as presaging the destruction of
Jerusalem, but we have no more room to devote to this topic,
and we have already considered the principal. Now, if all
the signs named by our Lord as marking the approach of the
destruction of Jerusalem are referred to in the Apocalypse,
and restated and reaffirmed in the peculiar style of that
book, as marking an event still future, but close at hand,
are we not led with a high degree of probability to the
conclusion, that the Apocalypse was written before the fall
of Jerusalem ? And let it be added, that all these signs are
found in that part of the Apocalypse which is supposed to
refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, by those who believe
the book to have been written previously to that event.
3. But there is another very strong argument in favor of our
position, built on the agreement of the language of the
Apocalypse on the one side, and that of all the other books
of the New Testament on the other, in respect to the time
and circumstances of our Lord's coming. In the Apocalypse we
are told, even in the very first verse of it, that the
things foretold were " shortly to come to pass." Again,
verse 3, " Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear,
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are
written therein : for the time is at hand." See also ii. 16
; iii. 11, and xi. 14. But at the close of the book, as well
as at the beginning, the Christians were warned again, that
the old dispensation would very speedily pass away ; that
the New Jerusalem was about to come down from God out of
heaven, and that the coming of the Son of man was about to
take place. " Behold I come quickly ; blessed is he that
keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book ;" xxii. 7.
" Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book : for
the time is at hand ;" verse 10. "And behold, I come quickly
; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be ;" verse 12. Again, verse 20, " He which
testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen."
A person well versed in the language of the New Testament
respecting the coming of Christ cannot fail to be impressed
with its agreement with that of the Apocalypse. There are
two facts to be observed here : 1st. The immediateness of
the coming of Christ ; and, 2d, the rewarding of men
according to their works in connection with it. " I come
quickly" (pp. 47-48)
|
