Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/robertsn/rwp-re/re.int

Text File | 1993-03-13 | 25KB | 465 lines

                      THE REVELATION OF JOHN
                          ABOUT A.D. 95

                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

                    DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM

        Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so
many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These
difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic
method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose,
the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New
Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages,
etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of
John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the
Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to
Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus,
who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea
(about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage
(A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led
Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to
deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as
canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But
finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the
west after a period of doubt.

                      POOR STATE OF THE TEXT

        There are only five uncials that give the text of John's
Apocalypse (Aleph A C P Q). Of these Aleph belongs to the fourth
century, A and C to the fifth, Q (really B2, B ending with #Heb
9:13|, both in the Vatican Library) to the eighth, P to the
ninth. Only Aleph A Q (=B2) are complete, C lacking #Re 1:1,
3:19-5:14, 7:14-17, 8:5-9:16, 10:10-11:3,14:13-18:2, 19:5-21|, P
lacking #Re 16:12--17:1, 19:21-20:9,22:6-21|. Both C and P are
palimpsests. In the 400 verses of the book "over 1,600 variants
have been counted" (Moffatt). Erasmus had only one cursive (of
the twelfth century numbered Ir) for his first edition, and the
last six verses of the Apocalypse, save verse 20, were a
translation from the Vulgate. The result is that the versions are
of special importance for the text of the book, since in no
single MS. or group of MSS. do we have a fairly accurate text,
though Aleph A C and A C Vulgate are the best two groups.

                      THE APOCALYPTIC STYLE

        The book claims to be an apocalypse (#Re 1:1|) and has to
be treated as such. It is an unveiling (\apokalupsis\, from
\apokaluptô\) or revelation of Jesus Christ, a prophecy, in other
words, of a special type, like Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel in
the Old Testament. There was a considerable Jewish apocalyptic
literature by this time when John wrote, much of it B.C., some of
it A.D., like the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the
Book of Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon,
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline Oracles,
some of them evidently "worked over by Christian hands" (Swete).
Jesus himself used the apocalyptic style at times (#Mr 13; Mt
24,25; Lu 21|). Paul in #1Co 14| spoke of the unpremeditated
apocalyptic utterances in the Christian meetings and suggested
restraints concerning them. "The Revelation of John is the only
written apocalypse, as it is the only written prophecy of the
Apostolic age.... The first Christian apocalypse came on the
crest of this long wave of apocalyptic effort" (Swete). The
reason for this style of writing is usually severe persecution
and the desire to deliver a message in symbolic form. The effort
of Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed to be "a god manifest," to
hellenize the Jews aroused violent opposition and occasioned many
apocalypses to cheer the persecuted Jews.

            EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S
                            APOCALYPSE

        There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor
worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians
that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The
book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts
refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not
possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic
picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and
the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power.
The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In
particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and
Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But
emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped
in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\,
Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to
be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for
worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was
killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire
purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed
in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty
of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which
slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had
himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and
God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers
of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular
the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when
they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians
were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and
so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no
standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the
emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in #1Co 12:3|. It
was \Kurios Iêsous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue
Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant
about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero
_redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to
Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the
Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to
be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were
circulated. We have seen already in #2Th 2:3ff.|, the man of sin
who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen
also in #1Jo 2:18,22; 4:3; 2Jo 1:7| the term antichrist applied
apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith
argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are
united in the beast.

                            THE AUTHOR

        The writer calls himself John (#Re 1:1,4,9; 22:8|). But
what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the
exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with
apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the
name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is
the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John
Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like
the so-called Presbyter John of Papias as quoted by Eusebius. The
uncertain language of Papias has raised a deal of questioning.
Swete thinks that the majority of modern critics ascribe the
Apocalypse to this Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns
probably II and III John. Irenaeus represents the Apostle John as
having lived to the time of Trajan, at least to A.D. 98. Most
ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin
Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the
Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus.
In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his
alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was
beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of
the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James
were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence
some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century
and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a
respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient
view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and
Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

                  RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL

        Here scholars divide again. Many who deny the Johannine
authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles accept the
apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse, Baur, for instance. Hort,
Lightfoot, and Westcott argued for the Johannine authorship on
the ground that the Apocalypse was written early (time of Nero or
Vespasian) when John did not know Greek so well as when the
Epistles and the Gospel were written. There are numerous
grammatical laxities in the Apocalypse, termed by Charles a
veritable grammar of its own. They are chiefly retention of the
nominative case in appositional words or phrases, particularly
participles, many of them sheer Hebraisms, many of them clearly
intentional (as in #Re 1:4|), all of them on purpose according to
Milligan (_Revelation_ in Schaff's Pop. Comm.) and Heinrici (_Der
Litterarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften_, p. 85).
Radermacher (_Neutestamentliche Grammatik_, p. 3) calls it "the
most uncultured literary production that has come down to us from
antiquity," and one finds frequent parallels to the linguistic
peculiarities in later illiterate papyri. J. H. Moulton
(_Grammar_, Vol. II, Part I, p. 3) says: "Its grammar is
perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a foreign language,
its whole style that of a writer who neither knows nor cares for
literary form." But we shall see that the best evidence is for a
date in Domitian's reign and not much later than the Fourth
Gospel. It is worth noting that in #Ac 4:13| Peter and John are
both termed by the Sanhedrin \agrammatoi kai idiôtai\ (unlettered
and unofficial men). We have seen the possibility that II Peter
represents Peter's real style or at least that of a different
amanuensis from Silvanus in #1Pe 5:12|. It seems clear that the
Fourth Gospel underwent careful scrutiny and possibly by the
elders in Ephesus (#Joh 21:24|). If John wrote the Apocalypse
while in Patmos and so away from Ephesus, it seems quite possible
that here we have John's own uncorrected style more than in the
Gospel and Epistles. There is also the added consideration that
the excitement of the visions played a part along with a certain
element of intentional variations from normal grammatical
sequence. An old man's excitement would bring back his early
style. There are numerous coincidences in vocabulary and style
between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.

                   THE UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE

        Repeated efforts have been made to show that the
Apocalypse of John is not the work of one man, but a series of
Jewish and Christian apocalypses pieced together in a more or
less bungling fashion. Spitta argued for this in 1889. Vischer
was followed by Harnack in the view there was a Jewish apocalypse
worked over by a Christian. Gunkel (_Creation and Chaos_, 1895)
argued for a secret apocalyptic tradition of Babylonian origin.
In 1904 J. Weiss carried on the argument for sources behind the
Apocalypse. Many of the Jewish apocalypses do show composite
authorship. There was a current eschatology which may have been
drawn on without its being a written source. It is in chapter #Re
12| where the supposed Jewish source is urged more vigorously
about the woman, the dragon, and the man child. There are no
differences in language (vocabulary or grammar) that argue for
varied sources. The author may indeed make use of events in the
reign of Nero as well as in the reign of Domitian, but the
essential unity of the book has stood the test of the keenest
criticism.

                             THE DATE

        There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after
Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is
quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of
John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This
testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by
Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the
severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the
earlier one. There is, besides, in #Re 17:11f.| an apparent
reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth
king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero
legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in
Parthia, or would be _redivivus_ after death. Juvenal termed
Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second
Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott
have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to
admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both
consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt
considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."

                           THE VISIONS

        No theory of authorship, sources, or date should ignore
the fact that the author claims to have had a series of visions
in Patmos. It does not follow that he wrote them down at once and
without reflection, but it seems hardly congruous to think that
he waited till he had returned from exile in Patmos to Ephesus
before writing them out. In fact, there is a note of sustained
excitement all through the book, combined with high literary
skill in the structure of the book in spite of the numerous
grammatical lapses. The series of sevens bear a relation to one
another, but more in the fashion of a kaleidoscope than of a
chronological panorama. And yet there is progress and power in
the arrangement and the total effect. There is constant use of
Old Testament language and imagery, almost a mosaic, but without
a single formal quotation. There is constant repetition of words
and phrases in true Johannine style. Each of the messages to the
seven churches picks out a metaphor in the first picture of
Christ in chapter I and there are frequent other allusions to the
language in this picture. In fact there is genuine artistic skill
in the structure of the book, in spite of the deflections from
ordinary linguistic standards. In the visions and all through the
book there is constant use of symbols, as is the fashion in
apocalypses like the beasts, the scorpions, the horses, etc.
These symbols probably were understood by the first readers of
the book, though the key to them is lost to us. Even the numbers
in the book (3 1/2, 7, 3, 4, 12, 24, 1000) cannot be pressed,
though some do so. Even Harnack called the Apocalypse the
plainest book in the New Testament, by using Harnack's key for
the symbols.

                    THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION

        They are literally many. There are those who make the
book a chart of Christian and even of human history even to the
end. These divide into two groups, the continuous and the
synchronous. The continuous historical theory takes each vision
and symbol in succession as an unfolding panorama. Under the
influence of this theory there have been all sorts of fantastic
identifications of men and events. The synchronous theory takes
the series of sevens (seals, trumpets, bowls) as parallel with
each other, each time going up to the end. But in neither case
can any satisfactory program be arranged. Another historical
interpretation takes it all as over and done, the preterist
theory. This theory again breaks into two, one finding the
fulfilment all in the Neronic period, the other in the Domitianic
era. Something can be said for each view, but neither satisfies
the whole picture by any means. Roman Catholic scholars have been
fond of the preterist view to escape the Protestant
interpretation of the second beast in chapter #Re 13| as papal
Rome. There is still another interpretation, the futurist, which
keeps the fulfilment all in the future and which can be neither
proved nor disproved. There is also the purely spiritual theory
which finds no historical allusion anywhere. This again can be
neither proved nor disproved. One of the lines of cleavage is the
millennium in chapter #Re 20|. Those who take the thousand years
literally are either pre-millennialists who look for the second
coming of Christ to be followed by a thousand years of personal
reign here on earth or the postmillennialists who place the
thousand years before the second coming. There are others who
turn to #2Pe 3:8| and wonder if, after all, in a book of symbols
this thousand years has any numerical value at all. There seems
abundant evidence to believe that this apocalypse, written during
the stress and storm of Domitian's persecution, was intended to
cheer the persecuted Christians with a view of certain victory at
last, but with no scheme of history in view.

                       A PRACTICAL PURPOSE

        So considered, this vision of the Reigning Christ in
heaven with a constant eye on the suffering saints and martyrs is
a guarantee of certain triumph in heaven and ultimate triumph on
earth. The picture of Christ in heaven is a glorious one. He is
the Lamb that was slain, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Word
of God, the Victor over his enemies, worshipped in heaven like
the Father, the Light and Life of men. Instead of trying to fit
the various symbols on particular individuals one will do better
to see the same application to times of persecution from time to
time through the ages. The same Christ who was the Captain of
salvation in the time of Domitian is the Pioneer and Perfecter of
our faith today. The Apocalypse of John gives glimpses of heaven
as well as of hell. Hope is the word that it brings to God's
people at all times.

                     THE READERS OF THE BOOK

        The whole book is sent to the seven churches in Asia (#Re
1:4|). There is a special message to each of the seven (chapters
#Re 2; 3|), suited to the peculiar needs of each church and with
a direct reference to the geography and history of each church
and city, so Ramsay holds (_The Letters to the Seven Churches_).
The book is to be read aloud in each church (#1:3|). One can
imagine the intense interest that the book would arouse in each
church. Children are charmed to hear the Apocalypse read. They do
not understand the symbols, but they see the pictures in the
unfolding panorama. There were other churches in the Province of
Asia besides these seven, but these form a circle from Ephesus
where John had lived and wrought. They do present a variety of
churches, not necessarily all types, and by no means a chart of
seven dispensations of Christian history.

           A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY (ONLY BOOKS SINCE 1875)

Abbott, E. A., _Johannine Grammar_ (1906).
   ,_Notes on New Testament Criticism_ (Part VII of
   Diatessarica, 1907).
Allo, E. B., _L'apocalypse et l'epoque de la parousia_ (1915).
   ,_Saint Jean. L'apocalypse_ (1921).
Baldensperger, _Messian. Apok. Hoffnung_. 3rd ed. (1903).
Baljon, J. M. S., _Openbaring van Johannes_ (1908).
Beckwith, J. T., _The Apocalypse of John_ (1919).
Benson, E. W., _The Apocalypse_ (1900).
Berg, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1894).
Bleek, F., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1875).
Boll, _Aus der Offenbarung Johannis_ (1914).
Bousset, W., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1906).
   ,_Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse_ (1894).
Brown, Charles, _Heavenly Visions_ (1911).
Brown, D., _The Structure of the Apocalypse_ (1891).
Bullinger, _Die Apokalypse_ (1904).
Bungeroth, _Schlussel zur Offenbarung Johannis_ (1907).
Burger, C. H. A., _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1877).
Cadwell, _The Revelation of Jesus Christ_ (1920).
Calmes, _L'Apokalypse devant la Critique_ (1907).
Campbell, _The Patmos Letters Applied to Modern Criticism_
   (1908).
Carrington, P., _The Meaning of the Revelation_ (1931).
Case, S. J., _The Millennial Hope_ (1918).
   ,_The Revelation of John_ (1920).
Charles, R. H., _Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1913).
   ,_The Revelation of St. John_. 2 vols. (1921).
Chevalin, _L'apocalypse et les temps presents_ (1904).
Crampon, _L'apocalypse de S. Jean_ (1904).
Dean, J. T., _The Book of Revelation_ (1915)
Deissmann, A., _Light from the Ancient East_. Tr. by Strachan
   (1927).
Delaport, _Fragments sahidiques du N.T. Apocalypse_ (1906).
Douglas, C. E., _New Light on the Revelation of St. John the
   Divine_ (1923).
Dusterdieck, _Offenbarung Johannis_. 4 Aufl. (1887).
Eckman, _When Christ Comes Again_ (1917).
Erbes, _Offenbar. Johan. Kritischuntersucht_ (1891).
Forbes, H. P., _International Handbook on the Apocalypse_
   (1907).
Gebhardt, _Doctrine of the Apocalypse_ (1878).
Geil, W. E., _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905).
Gibson, E. C. S., _The Revelation of St. John_ (1910).
Gigot, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1915).
Glazebrook, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1924).
Gunkel, H., _Schopfung und Chaos_ (1895).
Gwynn, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1897).
Harnack, A., _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur_.
   Bd I (1897).
Henderson, B. W., _The Life and Principate of the Emperor
   Nero_ (1903).
Hill, _Apocalyptic Problems_ (1916).
Hill, Erskine, _Mystic Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1931).
Hirscht, _Die Apokalypse und ihre neueste Kritik_ (1895).
Holtzmann, H. J., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1891).
Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm., Offenbarung des Johannis_.
   3 Aufl. (1908).
Horne, _The Meaning of the Apocalypse_ (1916).
Hort, F. J. A., _The Apocalypse of St. John, Chs. 1-3_ (1908).
James, M. R., _The Apocalypse in Art_ (1931).
Jowett, G. T., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1910).
Kubel, _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1893).
Laughlin, _The Solecisms of the Apocalypse_ (1902).
Lee, S., _Revelation in Speaker's Comm_. (1881).
Linder, _Die Offenbarung des Johannis aufgeschlossen_ (1905).
Llwyd, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932).
Lohmeyer, E., _Die Offenbarung des Johannes_. Handbuch
   zum N.T. (1926).
Loisy, A., _L'Apocalypse de Jean_ (1923).
Matheson, _Sidelights upon Patmos_.
Milligan, W., _The Revelation of St. John_. Schaff's Popular
   Comm. (1885).
   ,_The Book of Revelation_. Expositor's Bible (1889).
   ,_Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1892).
   ,_Discussions on the Apocalypse_ (1893).
Moffatt, James, _Intr. to Literature of the N.T_. (1911).
   ,_Revelation in Expos. Greek Testament_
   (1910).
Moule, H.C., _Some Thoughts on the Seven Epistles_ (1915).
Mozley, _The Christian's Hope in the Apocalypse_ (1915).
Oman, John, _The Book of Revelation_ (1923).
   ,_The Text of Revelation_ (1928).
Osborn, _The Lion and the Lamb_ (1922).
Palmer, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1902).
Paul, _Latter Day Light on the Apocalypse_ (1898).
Peake, A. S., _The Revelation of John_ (1921).
Porter, F. C., _The Messages of the Apocalyptic Writers_
   (1905).
Pounder, _Historical Notes on the Book of Revelation_ (1912).
Prager, L., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1901).
Ramsay, A., _Revelation in Westminster N.T_. (1910).
Ramsay, W. M., _The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia_
   (1904).
Rauch, _Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1894).
Reymond, _L'apocalypse_ (1908).
Ross, J. J., _Pearls from Patmos_ (1923).
Russell, J. S., _The Parousia_ (1878).
Sabatier, _Les Origines Litteraires et la Comp. de l'Apoc_.
  (1888).
Schlatter, _Der Evangelist Johannes_ (1931).
Schoen, _L'Origine de l'Apocalypse_ (1887).
Scott, C. Anderson, _Revelation in New Century Bible_ (1902).
Scott, C. A., _Revelation in Devot. Comm_. (1906).
Scott, J. J., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1909).
Selwyn, E. C., _The Christian Prophets and the Prophetic
   Apocalypse_ (1901).
Shepherd, W. J. L., _The Revelation of St. John the Divine_.
   2 vols. (1923).
Simcox, W. H., _Revelation in Cambridge Greek Testament_
   (1893).
Smith, J. A., _Revelation in American Comm_. (1888).
   ,_The World Lighted_ (1890).
   ,_The Divine Parable of History_ (1901).
Spitta, F., _Die Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1889).
Strange, _Instructions on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_
   (1900).
Swete, H. B., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1906). 2nd ed.
   1907.
Turner, C. H., _Studies in Early Church History_ (1912).
Vischer, _Die Offenb. Johan. eine judische Apok_ (1886).
Volter, _Offenb. Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1911).
   ,_Das Problem der Apok_. (1893).
Weiss, B., _Die Johannes-Apokalypse_. Textkrit. (1891, 2
   Aufl. 1902).
Weiss, J., _Offenb. Johannis_ (1904).
Wellhausen, J., _Analyse der Offenb_. (1907).
Weyland, _Omwerkings-en Compilatie-Hupothesen Toegepast
   op de Apok_. (1888).
Whiting, _The Revelation of John_ (1918).
Zahn, _Introduction to the N.T_. 3 vols. (1909).
    ,_Komm_. (1926).