Revelation, book of

L Introduction. 1. Title. 2. Canoiiicity. 3. History of Interpretation. IL The Nature of Apocalj-ptical Writings. L Daniel : (a) occasion and message ; (M anderlying faith; (c) source and authority of the message; ((/) plan of the book. 8, Charaoteriatics of Apocalypses in comparison with Prophecy : (a) situation and message ; (b) dualistic theology ; (c) element of prediction ; (d) j>8cud- onyraous authorship; (e) literary materiiil and form ; (/) literary composition and history ; 0/) ai.

>ocal>T>tical dogmas. 8. Inferences as to Methods of Interpretation. 4. Book of Rev. as an Apocalypse : (a) likeness to Jewish Apocalypses ; (6) unlikeness ; (c) remain- ing questions. 111. Contents and Composition of Revelation. 1. Contents. 5. Plan : (a) introduction ; (6) plan of chs. 1-3 ; (c) plan of cha. 4-22 ; (d) experiences of the leor, (1) place and movement, (2) heavenly scenes, (8) form of inspirution. S. Sources: {a) Old Testament (chs. 18.

21-22B lia-ao)- (b) Jewish apocalj-ptical tradition (chs. A. ll^-u 12. 13. 17). It. Historical Situation. T. Teachings of Revelation. 1. Predictions : (a) general ; (^) details, (1) fall of Rome, (2) saving of the faithful, (3) fall of Satan, (4) the thousand years. 1. EeligiouB Ideas (Theology) : (a) Ood • (6) Christ's person and work ; (c) the Christian Ufs. rt Relation of Rov. to other HT Books. 1. St. Paul. i. Synoptic Gospels. 8. Gospel and Epistles of St. John. Conclusion. I. Introduction.

— 1. Title.— The first word of the Book of Revelation gives the current title not only to this book, but to the class of literature to winch it belongs. The word apocalypse does not occur again in Rev., and does not here sicnifr a literary product. The title which the lK)ot • Unless wa read Cholubai In 1 Cb A^. 240 REVELATIOJS, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF suggests is rather ' the words {or the book) of the prophecy of John' ( l 22'- 1"- "'»).

Certainly the title 'Apocalypse of John' (xC etc.) implies a dillerent use of the word ' Apocalypse ' from tliat which tlie NT attests. The book is introduced not as the Apocalypse of John, but as ' an apoca- lypse of Jesus Christ.' God is the ultimate autlior of the revelation.

He gave it to Christ, and Christ, through His angel, to His servant John, w ho therefore testifies to tliat which is ultimately ' the word of God,' and more immediately ' the testimony of Jesus Clirist,' though it can also be called 'whatsoever things he saw' (I-, cf. "■'"). The phrase 'apocalypse of Jesus Christ' here means, not a revelation of Him (i.e. the Parousia, as in 1 Co 1', 2 Th V, 1 P !'• " 413), nor a revela- tion concerning Him, but a revelation by Him concerning the future (cf.

Gal P^- ", where the revelation is by Christ, but also concerning Him — a self-revelation). 2. Canonicity. — There is probably no trace of Kev. in the Apostolic Fathers (Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kanons, L 954 f.) Ign. ad Eph. xv. 3 does not necessarily imply Rev 21' ; still less does ad Phil. vi. 1 require Rev 3'-"-. Papias is the first to attest, not the apostolicity, but the credibility of Rev.

, according to Andreas, bishop of Caesarca (Cappa- docia), \vho in his commentary cites two remarks of Papias on Rev 12'. Their source, however, is unknowTi, and Euseb. does not directly mention any reference to Rev. by Papias (HE m. xxxix.) He does, however, say that Papias based his chiliasm on apostolic statements, which he took literally, instead of figuratively as he should have done.

It is true that when Irenseus appeals in favour of the reading 666 (13'*) to presbyters who had seen John (Hcer. V. xxx. I ; Euseb. HE V. viii. 5), we naturally think of Polycarp or Papias as his authority. But this is not a matter about which Iren. would naturally remember what, as a boy, he had heard the aged Polycarp say ; and if lie had been able to appeal to Polycarp, he would have done so by name. It is probably tradition rather than recollection on which lie rests. Justin (Dial. Ixxxi.

15) is the first to declare that Rev. is by ' John, one of the apostles of Christ ' (cf. Euseb. IV. xviii. 8). Melito, bishop of Sardis (170), wrote a lost work on the 'Rev. of John' (Euseb. IV. xxvi. 2). This is important, since Sardis is one of the seven Churches. Theophilus cited Rev. (Euseb. IV. xxiv. 1), and so did Apollonius (Euseb. V. xviii.) Irenaeus was a defender of the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, Epistles, and Rev. of John (for Rev. see^trr. IV. xx. 11, V. xxxv.

2, ' John the Lord's disciple,' elsewhere simply ' John,' I. xxvi. 3, IV. xiv. 2, etc., or without name). Iren. took his high estimation of the book with him to the Vt'^est. It was regarded aa ' sacred Scripture ' by the Churches in Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177 (Euseb. V. i. 10, 58 ; Zahn i. 201, 203 f.) Tertullian cites Rev. frequently, and attests its recognition in Africa, as by ' the Apostle John ' (c. Marcion. iii. 14. 25).

Clement of Alex, cites it and other apoca- lypses also, and puts value upon them. So also does Origen, in spite of his opposition to chiliasm, •.vhicli he escapes by allegorical interpretation. For the Roman Church, the eschatology of Hernias is significant for its independence of Revelation.

The book stands, however, in the Muratorian Canon without suspicion ('Jolm, too, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven Chuiches, yet addresses all ') ; and after the elaborate defence of it by Hippolytus against Caius, its canonicity remained established for the Western Church. But though hardly any other book in the NT is 80 well attested in tlie2na cent., there were already those who denied its authority, and its place in the Canon of the Eastern Church was long uncertain.

The objections appear to have rested on dogmatia grounds, though they required to be maintained by a denial of the apostolic authorship of the book. Marcion, as was mevitable, rejected the book because of its strongly Jewish character (Tert. c. Marcion. iv. 5).

On the other hand, the Mon- tanists, with their high appreciation of the new Christian prophecy and the strongly eschatological type of their Christianity, held the book in liigh esteem ; and it was in opposition to them that the well-known, long-remaining antipathy of tho Eastern Church to Rev. was developed. Epiphanius (Beer. li. 33) tells of a sect which rejected John'l Gospel and Rev. , and ascribed both to Cerinthus.

He caUs them Alogi, which su^j^ests that the reason for their criticism was the Logos Christolo^'y, in which the Gospel, the First Epistle, and Rev. agree. The sect would then be anti-Gnostic, as the choice of Cerinthus for the author would indicate, Epiph, says they supported their view by the fact that there was no Christian Church at Thyatira [Rev 21h], where this sect had ita seat.

They are further described as being averse to the sensuous and ex- travagant form of the apocal^'ptical language, the significanc* of angels, etc. Iren»u8 (in. xi. 9) describes a certain sect which rejected John's Gospel on account of its doctrine of the Paraclete, and not only contended against false prophets, but would exclude prophecy from the Church altogether. Since this ground for the rejectionof the Gospel would be even more conclusive against Rev., and since Epiph.

himself says that the Alo^ji opposed the Spirit and denied its gifts, Zahn (i. 223-227, 237-262, u. na7-973) concluded that this wus the same sect that Epiph. called Alo^, and that it was an anti-Montanist, rather than an anti-Gnostic, movement. Now Ejjiph. probably got his information about the Alogi from Hippolytus (c. 19i;-235 a.i>. at Rome), who knew ft sect which rejected both books because of the support which the Gospel, in its doctrine of the Spirit, and Rev.

in its pro- phetic character, gave to ilontanism. Against these Hippolytua wrote in defence of the Gospel and Revelation. He also wrote another book against Caius, a pre-sbrter of Rome, in defence of Revelation. This Caius, in a controversial writing againrt ProcluB the Montanist (Euseb. 11. xxv. 6, in. xxviii. xxxi. 4, VL XX. 3), had evidently rejected Rev., ascribing it, as the Alogi did, to Cerinthus. The citation in Eusebius (111. xxviii.

2) reads : 'Cerinthus, through revelations professing to have been written by a great apostle, brings before us marvels which he falsely claims were shown to him through angels, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that men dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, he said that a period of a thousand years would be spent in nuptial festivities.'

The long dispute as to whether thia referred to our Rev. must be regarded as ended by the publica- tion, by J. Gwynn (^Uermafhena, vi, 397-41S), of fragments of the reply of Hippolytus to Oaius, from which it is evident that Caius, who was not one of the Alogi (not a heretic), argued in detail against the harmony of Rev. with the rest of the NT, using some of the arguments of the Alogi, and in all probability ascribing it, and not some other apocal.

x-pse, to Cerinthus (so Zahn, Bousset, Holtzmann, et<:., against Gwynn). Zahn dates the writing of Caius against Proclus about A.D. 210, and the reply of Hippolytus in defence of Rev. about 215. It i» evident that Caius did not question the Gospel of John. After this, no Western Church writer seriously questioned Rev. (though see Jerome's position, below). In the East, Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 255), a pupil of Origen, wrote a temperate and scholarly criticism (Euseb. vil. xxv.)

, in which he argues that Rev, is not by John the apostle. He reviews previous criticisms, evidently among others that of Caius, mentioning the hypothesis that Cerinthus was its author. He does not leject the book out and out, since others valued it, but cannot himself understand it ; and proves, by an elaborate com- parison as to literary character, language, and composition, that it is not by the author of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John.

It is indeed by some holy and inspired man whose name wa» John. There were many of that name (e.g. John Mark), and it is said, he adds, that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each i)earing the name of John. The ground of the rejection of its aposto- licity by Dionysius was probably in part a sense of its difi'erence from Jolin's Gospel, in part the Hellenist's aversion to sensuous hopes, and to the chiliasm which made room for such ho|ie8.

Eusebius, who gives the argument of Dionysins at some length, evidently sympathized with his view, though his own judgment wavers. He in- KEVELATION, BOOK OF EEVELATION, BOOK OF 241 clines to ascribe Rev. to the Presbyter John of whom Papias WTote (Euseb. III. xxxi.\. : 'It is probably the second [John], if one is not willing to admit that it is the lirst, that saw the Apocalypse').

Uis doubt as to the place of the book, wlielher among the Ilomolunoumenn (accepted) or among the ^lotha (rejected), is expressed in III. xxv. 4. He emphasizes the rejection of the book by good churchmen, and does not mention the ahnost certain use of it by Pai)ias, or the elaborate defence of it by Hippolytus. Yet he cites many words in its favour. After Euseb. the opposition to Rev. was for a time general in the Syro-Palestinian Church. Cyril of Jerusalem [Catech. iv.

33-36) does not name it among canonical books ; nor does it appear in the Canon 60 of the Sj-nod of Laodicea (c^ 560?), nor in Canon 85 of Apost. Const, viii. (Zahn, iL 177 11'., 197 tr., 191 ff.) ; nor is it in the list of Gregory of Nazianzus (ii. 216 f.), nor in the so-called i^'i/nupsis of Chrysostom (ib. 230). Neither Chrysostum nor Theotiore of Mopsuestia mentions the book, and Theodoret does not accept it.

It dues not appear in the Chronograpliy of Nicephorus, or in the List of 60 books (|6. L"JS, 290 f.) The Nestorian and Jacobit« Churches did not receive it (Bousset, p. 25). The question a« to the origin and significance of this attitude of the tj>TO-I'aIestiniun Church leads back to the striltuii,' fact th&t Rev. (Willi 2 and 3 Jn, 2 V, Jude) did not ori;^inally stand In the Syriac NT (Peshitta).

It has been supiiosed tliat it was •till wanting in the I^hiloxenian version, but Uwynn argues that the vereion he edited belonged to that translation {Tl'ie Apoca- lupteoj St. Joint inSj/riac,lS3T). Was the book, then, w:inting in tile Canon of the Syrian Churcli from the beginning? An ftlfirmative answer is niade doubtful Ity the apparent references to liev. in I::uhrttem. It is not certain," however, that Eplinieni used Itev.

, the question being involved in questions of text and of authenticity («ee Bousset, 21-*2a). (Jwynn (pp. c-cv) believes that the book was excluded 'In ignorance rather than of set purpose ' from the Peshitta Canon, anrl remained unknown to 8\ rmc-speaking Christians for perhaps four centuries, except to tlie few who could read it in Greek, among whom he reckons Epliraem. Even after translation into Syriac, the book never became familiarly known in any of the Syrian Churches.

Their religious thought and rich liturgical literature remained practi- cally uninlluenced by it. Bousset thinks the dominance of another type of eschatology, the Apocalypse of Anticlirist, helped to effect the exclusion of Revelation. The Greek Church yielded only slowly to the decision of the Western, and adiiiitied tlie book into it« Canon. In Egypt, wlu-re the opposition lirst developi'd in orthodox circles, it was sooner overcome. Athanasius, and others after him, re- cognized the book.

Tlie first Eastern commentary, that of Andreas, belongs to the 5lh cent., and the next, that of Arethaa, to the 9th. Each begins with a defence against doubts as to the canonicity of the book. In the West, after the elaborate defence of Hijipolytus, Jerome alone shows the influence of Eastern doubts. The Eastern Church, he says, receives Hebrews ; tlie Western, Revelation. He inclined to accept it {£/>. ad Dardanum, 129), but elsewhere (in Psalm.

149) he puts it in a middle cla-ss between canonical and apocryphal. This suggestion did not bear fruit until Carlstadt (132U), at the beginning of the Reformation, made a threefold division of NT books, corresponding to that of the OT in Hebrew, and put in the third, least authoritative, class (with the UT ' Hnriiogruplia'), 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Jnnies, Hebrews, Revelation. Of these seven, wiiich are ' of third and lowest authority,' Rev. ■tands last, on the verge of being apuciyphal.

Luther at first (Preface in Trannlation of NT, ir)22)cxpre««cd a ■trong aversion to the book, declaring that to him it liad every mark of ln'ing neither ajiostolic nor prophetic. Ai'owtles s)>ok'e clearly, wuliout figure or vision, of Chrisl and His deeds ; and no prophet in the' IT. tosay nothing of the NT. deals so entirely with visions and llgures. It is comparable onlv with 4 IC/.ra t'l Kj^dras), »nd he cannot see that it was the work of' the llnly .'■piril.

More- over, be does not like tlio comnuuida and IhreaU which the writer VOL. IV.— 16 makes about his book (22'8 19), and the promise of blessedness to those who keep what is written in it (is 227), when no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it, and there are many nobler books to be kept. Moreover, many Fathers re- jected the book ; and though Jerome says it is aliove all praise, and has as many mysteries in it as it has words, yet he cannot prove this.

'Finally, every one thinks of it whatever his spirit imparts. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the book, and a sufficient reason why I do not esteem it highly is that Christ is neither taught nor recognized in it, which is what an apostle ought before all things to do." Later(1634), Luther tindsapossi- bility of Christian usefulness in it, and gives its message in words well worth quoting: 'Briefly IKev.

teaches that) our holiness is in heaven where Clirist is, and not in the world before our eyes, as some paltry ware in the market. Therefore let offence, factions, lieresy, and wickedness be and do what they may ; if only the Word of God remains pure with us, and we hold it dear and precious, we need not doubt that Christ is near and with us, even if m.

atters go hardest: as we see in this Book tiiat through and above all plagues, beasts, evil angels, Christ is still near and with His saints, and at last overthrows tlicm (translation of Westcott, Lanon, ISn'J, p. 1S3). He still thought it a hidden, dumb projihec.v, unless interiireted, and upon tht interpretation no ceitainty bad been reached after many efforts. His own interpretation of the book as anti-Papist niay have led him to a more favourable opinion of it.

But he remained doubtful about its apostolicity (l*reface to Revelation in the edition of 1546). and printe<i it, with Hebrews, James, Jude, as nil njipendix to his New Teytament, not numbered in the index. The other three doubtful books, 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter, it w;ia not so natural to sejtarate from 1 John and 1 Peter. In this way these four books were printed in Luther's Bible as late as the 17th cent. So also in Tindale's New Testament.

' In general the standpoint of the Reformation is marked by a return to the Canon of Eusebius, and consequently by a lower valuation of Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation ' (lioltzniann, Einleittiiuj.xt. \Wt). Zwingli regarded Rev. as ' not a BibUcal book ' ; and even Calvin, with his high view of inspiration, does not comment on 2 and 3 John and Revelation.

Only gradually was the effort to maintain such a deutero-canonical class of boohs in the NT given up, as Che dogmatic displaced the freer and more his- torical attitude toward the Bible. In f'eneral it may be said that Rev. has main- tained its pl.ace in the Canon, in spite of doubts and a.s.

siUiUs, not because of its extravagant claims to inspiration and authority, not because of its visionary form, and not because of its eschat- ology, but rather in sjjite of all these, which were marks also of the many apocalypses, Jewish and Cliiistian, that the Church rejected.* Nor can it be s.

aid that belief in its apostolic authorship kept tlie book in the NT, lor this was very early denied, and could as easily be set aside, as, for example, that of tlio Apocalypse of Peter, which the Church rejected.

The real reason, for the sake of which apostolic authorship was maintained, was the consciousness that, on the wliole, the religious faith and feeling of the book predominate over its apocalyptical form, and give to ajiocalyptical language, which the majority cannot understand or accept in its literal sense, practically the value of figure for the emotional exjiression of Christian faith and hope.

It is really as Christian poetry, rather than as the disclosure of mysteries of the unseen world and of the future, that the book has been valued, and, because valued, preserved and canonized by the Christian Church. A book, however, which has been canonized because of its general contents, and the spirit behind its form, will inevitably le used by many for its details literally taken. So used. Rev.

has often had a harmful influence, setting thought upon useless tasks, and stimulating self-centred and morbid hopes and fears. If one puts over against this the wonderful ministry of comfort and strength in limes of trial which the book liaa rendered, he may lind justilicntion both for the doubts and for the tinal decision of the Church regarding its canonicity. 3. History of Interpretation. — The history of the interpretation of Rev.

is an interesting chapter in 'Christianity has been in certain sects and at certain times apocal.\'ptical in temper, but not on the whole. Many npo- cal.vpcea were treasured a.i sacrnl by sects ami at times, wjijch were left aside by the Church as a whole and in the end. 242 REYELATTOX, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF Churcli history ; * but it is an inseparable part of a much larger chapter which it would be quite im- possible to write here. Harnack (Hist, of Dogma, 1. 12911'., 16711.)

describes tlie two contrasted, though not mutually exclusive, conceptions of Christianity, the sschatological and the spiritual, the relatious of which make on« of the chief themes in the history of Christian thought. The earlier eschatological view gave way, especially under the inlluence of Greek thought, to the spiritual conception of salvation. Chiliasm, of which Rev. was the one clear and authoritative source, ' is found wherever the gospel is not yet Hellenized.'

It is evident that where Hellenistic views prevailed Rev. must be either rejected or spiritually interpreted. Among chiliasts, besides Cerinthiis, the heretic, are Papias, Justin, Irenffius. Hippolynjs, Tertullian — the early defenders of the authority' of Revelation. Origen, on the other hand, could receive the book and yet oppose a chiliastic conception of Christianity. The Eastern Church in general, as we have seen, followed the easier method of rejecting or neglecting the booic.

In the West, Victorinus (c. 303) commented on the boolc in a chiliastic [i.e. literal) sense ; but a greater influence was exerted by the Commentarj' of T3'conius (before 3S0), whose interpreta- tion is spiritualistic. Through hiui 'the Latin Church finally broke ftnth all chiliastic inclinations and all realistic eschat- ology ' (Bousset, C3)- The ' thousand years' denote the present period of the Church between the First and the Second Coming of Christ.

He was followed by Augustine (d« civitate Dei, xi. 7-17) and Jerome. The possession of world-nilership by the Church took away the ground for chiliastic hopes, and re- moved both the circumstances and the temper out of which Rev. came. There was, however, a revival of the prophetic spirit in the Middle Ages, in re- action against ecclesiasticism and the secvuar spirit.

From the protesting order of the Franciscans, who attempted to recover the character and spirit of apostolic Christianity, came a chiliastic interpretation of Rev. about a.d. 1200, by Joachim of Floris. In Commentaries on Jeremiah and Isaiah under his name the end of the world was fixed at 1240 (Rev 113 1'2'i) and then at 1'290. The woman (Rev 17) was already inter- preted of the Romish Church by these pre-Reformation reformers, and this, together with a like application of the beasts of ch.

13 to Rome and the Pope, inevitably became a standing feature of Protestant commentators from Luther onwards; with ex- ceptions, such as Qrotius (l(i44) and Hammond (1653-1659). Over against this enticing but flagrant misuse of the book, Catholic scholars in part sought for other historical applications of these figures (Turks, Mohammed, etc.)

; but in part made a beginning of a more correct method of interpretation by seeking in events of the author's own time, in the Jews and the Roman empire, for the clue to his predictions. So especially Alcazar (lfll4), a Spanish Jesuit of Antwerp, who maintained that Rev 1-11 was aimed against Judaism, chs. 12 fl. against Rome. This correct effort to interpret Rev.

in the light of the events of its own time was carried forward bv Grotius, llannnond, Clericus (1698), Wetstein (176'2) and others, at first wilh too nmch reference to Judaism and the fall of Jerusalem, but finally with a growing reco;jnition of Rome as the object of the book's denunciations (Semler (1769, etc.), Corrodi (1780), Eichhorn (1791)). The reference to Nero, in the wounded head (ch.

13), which had been found already by Victorinus (303), and again in a Jesuit commentary (Juan Mariana), was introduced into Protestant exegesis by Corrodi. This so-called contem- ftorarj/.historical (by some called 'prteteriat ') method of inter- pretation {i.e. by reference to historical events of the writer's own time) was most fully carried to completion in the great works of Liicke (Versuch einer vollstanditjen Einleitung in die Offenbarumi, 1832, 2nd cd. 18.'

>2), Bleek {Vorlesurwen iiber die Apok. 186'2if, and Ewald (Comm. in Latin, 1828, Die Johann. Sehriften, 1862). So also Volkmar (1862), Diisterdieck (Meyer, 1859-87). t In general these writers date the book before 70 (Rev 11M8); regard it as written chiefly against Rome ; and And in it a pre- • See Liicke, Einl. in die Offenbarunrfl, 1863 ; Holtzmann, Band-Commentar, iv. p. 280 ff. : Bousset, KommenUir, pp. 51-141. t To Liicke was especially due the recognition of the fact that Rev.

is not an isolated book, but is one of a class, that It belongs in kind to the Jewish apocalypses, and is to be inter- prcted as they are. The fact that Daniel contains allusions to the Greek empire and to Antiochus Epiphanes was a strong reason for accepting the apparent references in Bev. to Borne and Nero. diction of the return of Nero.

The interpretation of the numbei tU'iCi as Nero Vifxar seems to have been made independently by several scholars (Frilzsche, Benary, Hitzig, Reuss, Ewald COX With this understanding and dating of Rev,, Baur athrmed iti apostolicity, and made it a monument of the original Jewish Christianity.

Against this method conservative theologians still attempted either new interpretations of the book as a summarj- of Church history (the ' Church- historical' or 'continuously historical' method, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, etc.), or a reference of ita predictions to events still future, the end of the world (the endgeschichtliche, 'fnturist ' method, Kliefoth, Zahn). A method which is in some sense intermediate between these is one that sees in Rev.

not definite events in Church history, but symbolic representations of good and evil prin- ciples, their conflict and the coming victory of the good (Auberlen's reic/isgeschichtlichi Methode). A similar standpoint is occupied by Milligan {Commentary/ on the Apocalypge ; Th£ Rev. oj St. John, Baird Lectures, 18S6 ; DiscitSifions on the Apocalypse, 1893; The Bk. of Rev. [Ex- positor's Bible], 1S99. The Apoc. embraces the whole period from the First to the Second Coming of the Lord.

It sets before us within this period the action of ^eat principles and not special incidents. We must interpret in a spiritual and universal sense that language of the Apoc. which appears at first sight to be material and locals So also Benson {The Apocalifpse, 1900) maintains that Rev.

unveils Jesus Christ as present in this world, and His enemies, Satan and his agents, who are ali principles not persons or historical characters, ' the principles which maintain the self-deceiving half of human nature in its death strugi.'le8 with a Divine Wisdom wilicb slowly vanquishes it' (p. 176). It is, of course, true that beneath every book there are certain fundamental beliefs and hopes capable of being generalized and taken out of all historical relations.

It is true also, as we shall see, that the allusions, for example, to Nero are not so clear as we should expect of one who set out to describe him in sjmbol. But the principles which these writers look for are still less clearly symbolized, and it is a fundamental mistake to pro- ceed upon the assumption that such principles are everywhere intended, and also that the teachings of Rev. must agree with all other teachings of the NT and with the judgment of the Christian con- sciousness.

The history of the book in the Canon might well have kept others from the bondage of this assumption, as it kept Luther and the early Reformers. But the assumption is no longer possible for those who approach Biblical study in a historical spirit. For such, the efl'ort to find in the book allusions to events of its author's time is natural, and this method is destined to general acceptance.

Of late, however, a growiu" convic- tion has arisen that this contemporary-liisturiral method is not sufficient by itself to solve all the proltlems of the book. The first question to arise concerned the unity of the book. As prophetic books like Isaiah and Zechariah and apocal3'pse3 such as Enoch are composite, it was natural to raise the question with reference to Rev.

, and to remove by literary analysis the unevenness in structure and the :vant of harmony, both in historical references and in doctrinal views, that had troubled interpreters. Theories of composite origin have been advanced in two general forms: (1) The book is in its present form a unity, but its author made use of various documentary or traditional sources, of Jewish or Christian origin, incorporating them in his work.

(2) The present book is the result of one or more revisions of an older Jewish or Christian apocalypse, or more than one. Weizsacker, who gave the impulse to this effort at literary criticism, held the former of these two views : * ' We have in • The historj' of these efforts has been told by Holtzmann, Jahrb. /. Prot. Theol. 1891 : Barton, AJTh, 1898 ; A, Meyer in Theol. liundechau, 1897 ; and in fuller detail by Ranch, Dx4 O^enbarunff det Johannee, 1894, and Bousset, Komm. p. 127 fl.

KEVELATIOX, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 243 Uiis writing, which is as certainly pseudonrmous as are all apocalypses, a compilation, which in its origin is already a compilation ; and in its various strata, which certainly reach for back, it testifies in itself alone to an extensive practice of (Christian) prophecy' (Theol. Lit.-ZHtung, 18S2). The first efforts aiter detail were, however, made on the basis ot the •econd theory.

— Volter, a pupil of Weizsacker, in a series of works (Du Knlsteliung der Apuk. 1882, ISsS ; Dot Problem der Apok. 1893), attempted to construct a primitive apocal^'pse of a.D. 66-66, which tne author revised after Nero's death. Three or four other revisers added to the work, to the last of whom the letters are due. Volter argues on the basis of (1) want of formal and material conne.

\iou, (2) reference to different his- torical situations, (3) doctrinal differences, especially as to Ohristolog>. Some of his observations are just, but his solu- tioo of the ditticulties is arbitrary and unconvincing.— Vischer (Die Oj^ettOarumj JohannU, eine juduiche Apokalyp^e in c/tri^t- licher BeurbeitutujtlSbti) put forth a simpler and more attractive hypothesis, which, appearing with Harnack's hearty approval, won nianv adherents.

He believed Rev 4-225 to be a Jewish apocal^-pse set in a Christian framework (1-3. 22'^^) with a •light Christian revision (o^->* 79-" 12" 139- '» 14' 6- '2- 13 15-' 161' ]7n 19!) 10. 13b sow 211»>J and all references to the Lamb). His •tarting-point is Biblico-theological, the presence in tlie book of Jewish by the side of Christian ideas. Hamack (Sachwort) admits that this does not in itself involve Jewish authorship, but regards that hypothesis as necessary in this case.

Weyland {Omwa-hiiuji en compUatie -hypotheeen toctjepast op de Apoailypse tan Johannes, 1888) elaborated Vischer's theory by supposing two Jewish sources. The oldest (:) con- tained (omitting slight and obvious Christian words or phrases) 10.11'U 12.13. 14«11 152-« 16. (part, esp. 1» ") 19112120. 211 », i.e. the little book, Jerusalem and tne two witnesses, i^;& appearance of the dragon and beasts and their final overthrow the last judgment and the new world. The later source (N) contained 110.

12.17.19 4. 51.7 6. 7'*n' (part) 8.9. liu-i» 14^3 165 lolTb .20 1411 20 17. 18. i9l.« 21927 22111, i_e. the seven seals and trumpets, the fall of Babylon (Rome), and the new Jerusalem. These were united by a Christian redactor who additi (hesides occasional phraaes) lie. i».2u 2. 8. 14i-'> I6II'' 19,, 1U '>-r,^ li li, 1S-.-2.

Weizsacker in his Apostolic Age rejected these and similar efforts at analysis, and held to his original suggestion that the hook is a unity ; but its author has made use of various older materials, apocal^-ptical visions, fragmentary in character, and has introduced these in such a way as often to interrupt his plan. Such pieces are 71«-9 17 111-13 121-11. 12-17 13. 17. Sahatier (.Ren. de Th/ol. et de Phil. 1887, and Les oriijinrs iitteraire ft la compointion de I'apoc. de St.

Jean, 18S8) defends a similar view. The Christian writer introduced foreign oracles bito his work, viz. : Ill's 121-1313 W-^ I6ia-16 171-1«2 (IS'^n 1911-201*1 219-225. Very similar is the view of 8choen (L'origine de VApoc. 1887X This \'iew of the composition of Rev., which does jnstice both to its general unity of pl.tn and .stj-le and to the brealcs in its phui and the coiitra.

sts in its thought, and does not attempt the impossible task of reconstnicting complete lost books, has gained the adherence of an increasin" number of competent critics. It is the view of JUliclier (Einhitung in d. NT, 1894). It is also the view of (junkel and of I5ous.set, though these two scholars have carried the problem of the interpretation of Rev. on to a new phase. On the other hand Spitta (Offenb.

JohnnnU, 1889), who had reached his main conclusions in- de[>endently before the appearance of Volter's work, attempts an elaborate analjsis in which every verse and word is ascribed to its source. The basis of our present book is held by Spitta to be a primitive Christian a|)Ocalvp9e, containing the letters and the teals (14*919 2-3. (omitting the conclusion of each letter, 2', •tc.) 4-6. 81 7»-l' I99i>- 1» 22a- 10-13- 16-18.. aob.2l).

He believes that thiiM-aa written by John Mark, about 60 a. D. To this a later Christian adde<l two older Jewish apocaI>ikse8 ; one is from the time of Caligula (133- 14 refers to an illness from which he noovered ; 616 (lalsj = r.;»< K»7»»*), occasioned by his effort to et»ct his image in the temple (13M. I2ir.) it contains (a) ri-» 8", ((1)81-921, (c) (915) 101', (rf) 11(15) ID 121-17 1218-13KI 141 11 1S1>.«>, (,) iQii_2ii.s. iU.

The other Jewish source is put back to the time of Pompey (Israel's first conflict with Rome, and the danger of the temple). It is composed of (a) iQlb. 2m».«b^il (6) llllll5.1M»_ (c)14H.» 162-I, (rf^ 154.1814. (7. 21, («) 171*81. 181-19S, CO 2i»-22»^ 15. All other parU are from the bond of CAe reviser.

Spitta's work contains much that is of great value, but scholars generally agree that such minute analysis is impossible, that the book liaa a greater unity than this theory admits, and that in particular to ascribe the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls to three ditferent hands is to over- look one of the unmistakable characteristics of the final writer. Yet Briggs (Messiah of Apustlcs, 1895, chs. 9-15) goes even further in this direc- tion.

His analysis but not his view as to author- ship [epistles, seals, bowls, and probablj' trumpets being attributed by Briggs to one author, the Apostle Jolin (pp. 303, 369)] is followed by Barton (AJTh, 189S). It is not to be concluded that the many laborious and ingenious ellorts at literary analysis have been without value, even though they have led to no agreeing result. There has been increasing agreement as to certain general points.

The book, though probably the work of one writer, is not the original product of one mind or one occasion. It contains sections which appear to be foreign to the rest, and may well be of Jewish origin, though the line between Jewish and Jewish-Christian is one impossible to determine. 7'"' 11'"' 12. 13. 17 quite certainly belong to this category, and there are other sections which may have been taken by the writer in practically finished form from apocalyptical tradition (e.g. 18. 20.

219-22'). This result, however, important as are its bearings on the interpretation of the book, since it relieves us of the necessity of finding one type of religious thought or one historical situation in all parts, bj' no means solves all or even the more important problems of historical exegesis. Guiikel (Sclio))fung unci Chaos in Urzeit und EnUzeil : Eine religionsgeschichtliclie Unterauchung uher Gen. 1 und Apoc. Joh.

12 (1895)) sharply formulated one of these outstanding problems — that concerning the ultimate origin, the first meaning, and subsequent history of that tradi- tional material from which apocalyptical writers drew. He criticized both the methods in which critical scholars had treated the book — that which looks everywhere for figiuative references to his- torical events of the writer's time, and that which devotes itself to literary analysis as an end.

Ac- knowledging that some of the apocalyptical figures are allegories of current events (Dn 7. 8, Enoch 85 II'., 4 Ezr 11 f.. Rev 13.

17), and also that criticism must separate some sections from their setting, he yet urges that tradition largely fixes the form of the figures, and that the apocalyptical writer uses them not with freedom, Ijut with reverence ; not creating them as a poetical embodiment of well- known persons and events, but seeking in them for the clue to the mjstery of the present and future. The history of tradition is therefore more important than the historj'of literary composition. Tradition i.

s, in fact, the real author of an apoca- lypse, and it is this fact that gives the writer his deep conviction of the truth of his predictions. Except where it is expressly indicated, it is not to be assumed that references to historical persons and events are hidilcn behind the apocalyptical imagerj'. With reftrence to most of such images (e.g. 9'-" 9'», a IP-'' IG'^'^i" ti"-" (cf. 4 Ezr 4«) 11'- » 6'-' 16.6'=-"), Gunkel decl.ares the contem- porary-historical method bankrupt. Even in ch.

13, where the first beast is the Roman empire, and in ch. 17, where the woman is the city (Rome), many details are not to be explained historically. Here Gunkel carries his opposition to the ruling method so far as to deny the almost universal opinion of critics that Nero is indicated by the beast and its' number (pp. 21011., .3:«ifi'.) Of Gunkel's specific argument, which is to illustrate and vindicate his method, viz. that Rev 12 is ulti- mately an otherwise lost Bab.

vlonian myth of the birth of Marduk, the conqueror of the Dragon, more will be said below. Other elements tai<cn from l!al)yloniaii mythology (Junkel found, especi- ally in chs. 13 and 17, but also in the seven angels, stars, candlesticks, eyes (p. 294 IT.), the twenty-i'oui 244 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF elders (302 ff.), Harmagedon (263 ff.), the number 3i (266 ff.), the number 666 (374 ff.)

Bousset adopted Ounkel's method in Dtr Antichriit in dtr Ueberlicferung dfi Jtuientumji, dis neu^n Testaments und der neuen liirche (IbUa), and attempted to sliow that an essentially fixed apocal^-pse of Antichrist, originating in Judaism, can be traced from the New Test, down through the Middle Ages ; and that this tradition is essentially independent of Kev,, though Eev. at certain points shows dependence upon it.

In his Kritisch-exeiji^tuiche Kmnmentar (Meyer, 1896), Bousset, on the question of composition, follows the method of WeizsJiclier, regarding the hook as a unity, but seeing in many sections apooalj'ptical fragments introduced by the writer from existing tradition, in part Jewish in origin. In several of these frag- meius Bousset finds parts of the Antichrist-tradition (71-^ ll'-" 1311 17 1414.

20); others also may well be of Jewish origin (131-i» >» 17 (with which should probalily go also 16'2-21 and IS], 219-2:25), while 12 is of foreign but apparently not of Jewish origin. Bousset's treatment of various matters of detail will be men. tioned in the course of this article. Holtzniann (,Einleituug in d.

XT^, 1892 ; Band-Cmnmentar^, 1893) recognizes indications of a double historical background (soon after the dt-alh of Nero, and in the reign of Domitian), but does not go beyond the recognition of two or more streams in the book, and liolds chiefly to the contemporary -historical method of interj^retation, though now recognizing also the importance of tradition ob a source of the writer's material (Lehrtfuch der neutetit. Theol. i. 403-476).

The relative value of the three methods of interpretation last discussed — the conteinporary- huitorical, the literary-critical, and tlie tradition- historical — is still a matter of debate (see Well- hausen, Skizzen u. Vorarbeilen, vi. 18fi9, pp. '215- 249, and Gunkel, Zeitschr. f. wissen-schl. Theol. 1899). Each in a measure limits or controls tlie application of the other, and the right of each, within its bounds, may fairly be said to be estab- lished.

Yet they do not, taken together, wholly cover the ground. On two general Hues, nnuh work remains to be done. One is the psychological study of apocalyptical writing, the other is the hi-storical relations of the Christianity of Rev., — esp the relation of its eschatologj' to that of Jesus and to that of St. Paul, and the relation of its Chiistology and Soteriology to the Pauline and the primitive apostolic.

Gunkel at first put for- ward his tradition, historical method as also a psychological explanation of the apocalypse. The writer's belief in the truth and inviolable sanctity of his mysterious message could arise only from actual vision (which the nature of the material and the tendency of the modern mind exclude), or from the real antiquity of the material, before which the writer himself stood with awe.

But Gunkel himself is now inclined to allow the actu- ality of visionary experiences (as psycliologists recognize them) in connexion with the writing of apocalypses (see the Introduction to his translation of 4 Ezra in Kautzsch's PseudcpicirapJien d. AT, 1900, and Preface to the 2nd eii. of his Wirkungen des Ileiligcn Gcistes, 1900).

The most significant effort in this direction, and the occasion of Gunkel's modification of his former position, is Weinel's Wirkungen des Geiites und der Gcister, 1899. On the other Iiand, the question so vital to an understanding of the beginnings of Christianity, whether the Chiistology and Soteriology of Kev. are Pauline, anti-Pauline, or independent of Paul- inism, remains quite unanswered ; as does the other still more vital question whether the eschatology of Kev.

(given as the dictation of Jesus, 1' 22") is based on that of the Gospels, and ultimately on the teaching of Jesus, or is the source of the eschat- ologj' which the Gospels wrongly ascribe to Him. The final problem of the interpreter is, of course, to get back as fully as possible into the mind of the writer. Two main paths are now open that lead toward this result in the cose of Revelation.

(1) The study of apocalyptical literature in general ; (2) the study of the contents, plan, sources (so far as known), historical situation, and teachings of the book itself. These two paths will be pur- sued in the following discussion. Two other paths invite exploration — (1) the psychological study of trance and ecstatic conditions and phenomena in religious history, (2) the origin and relations of the apocalyptical and the spiritual types of Christian thought in the 1st cent.

These two paths must be opened by further research, in the latter oise most of all in the Gospels, before results can be sum- marized in an article like the present. In following the two main paths just indicated, the following presuppositions will be in part assumed as a result of the history of criticism, in part, it is hoped, proved by the discussion — (1) Kev. is an apocalypse among others, and is to be viewed and mterpreted as such.

(2) Rome is that emliodiment of evil against which the book is chiefly diiected, whose overthrow it immediately predicts. (3) The book makes use of apocalyptical materials from various (often probably from Jewish) sources, so that the question as to the place of a given section in the writer's plan, its meaning in his use of it, is to be kept distinct from the ques- tion of its original meaning and use, and the interpreter at many points has a twofold task.

(4) It may not infrequently happen that the writer receives from tradition details which have no meaning at all for him, but which he retains as parts of the picture. The traditional meaning is in such cases the only one for which we need to search ; and often we can only say that it belongs to tradition, since the clue to its meaning is lost.

(5) In such cases, and in various others, the possi- bility is open that the writer uses such material for its poetic value, and not because of a reverence which prevents his altering it. ii. The Natitre of Apocalyptical WRinNcs. — The Book of Rev.

calls itself a prophecy, and ita author classes himself among prophets ; but the book is called by us an apocalypse, and we have applied this title to certain other Jewish books, and some Cliristian adaptations and imitations of them, which we distinguish somewhat sharply from prophecy. Our interpretation and estima- tion of Kev. is deeply affected by this classification. What, then, is the apocalypse in its distinction from prophecy ? We cannot avoid some prelimin.

ary discussion of this question (though see, further, Apocrypha i.. Apocalyptic Literatitre, Pro- phecy), as it bears on the nature of our book and the way in which it should be used. There are still some who class Kev. with the prophetic rather than with the apocalyptical writings of Israel (e.g. Zahn), and there are some who class it with apoca- lypses, but regard the apocalyptic as a higher form of inspiration than the prophetic (see Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 1898, pp. 11, 12).

Since such views strongly att'ect interpretation, it is essential to understand the historical relation of the two forms of writing and the place of Kev. in relation to them. The transition from prophecy to apocalypse wag effected in the OT itself. It was not a sudden but a gradual transition, nor is the contrast at the end an absolute one. Tlie change is usually traced to Ezekiel for its beginning.

Daniel is the oldest book which has complete apocalyptical form ; and it remains the classical example and tyjie of this kind of writing. Yet anticipations of certain marks of tliis literature can be found in earlier prophets, especially in Isaiah (e.g. Vision of God, ch. 6 ; description of Day of J", ch. 2 ; perhaps the inviolability of Jerusalem), and genuinely pro- phetic traits are not wanting in Daniel (ct. 9'""), or even in other apocalypses from Bk. of Enoch to 4 Ezra.

The character of the Book of Daniel deserves somewhat close attention because of iti fundamental significance and many special point* of contact with Revelation. REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 245 1. Biok of Dnnkl. — (a) Occasion and message. — The }5k. of Ilanirl .-ipiicurfd during the_reIigioa3 persecution of Am ii>. hus lljiiphanes. ItsaiiiiwaS the encourH;;eniuiil of ijalitiut endurance and fidelity anud j)er.secution.

It taught this lesson in part by stories (histories) illustrating the safe- keeping by God of those who resist the tempta- tions and endure the violence of the world-power in its hostility to God ; in part by predictions of the approaching end of the power now threatening and atuicting the people of God. AntiochuB shall die by a Judffment of Ood {Sa^/Xi.-n n27.«) »ft«r about 3* years (S'-i 9-1 12' "• l^X and the Greek world- empire shall be overthrown (23<. ss «■ « 7"- »).

This is to be accomplished not by human effort, but by God directly (2^^- •"• ^ gSB 7»fl". 83.;), or throujrh Gabriel and Michael, who contend with the pods of heathen nations (lO'3-lll 121). After this a time of trouble shall follow, testing the Jewsh people, includ- ing some of the de.vl, and dividing the pood from the wicked (121-*- 10). Then shall be established the kingdom of God, which 10 the world-kingdom of Israel, and is to endure tor ever. (6) Underhjing faith.

— The general foundation on which this message rests, the underlying doc- trine of tliabook.^iajnonotheism, the faith llial all power is (JoU's f that • tlie iviost High ruletli in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will ' (4"- ' 5-M, and that times and seasons are in His hand, fixed by His purpose.

This faith requires the inference that God's rule must and at last shall be recognized by all kings and nations, and that He must, in the end, take His kingdom to Himself (2"), and rule it tlirough His own people (7i»- "• M- ■-■'). But the very fact that the realization of God's rule is fnt^rp r^vffl]s t])^ rliifll. iatie element which stands over against mono- ttieism in the theology of the book.

The contrast between the present and the future, between this age and the age to come, reaches beyond the visible into the invisible world, and is connected with oontrast and conflict there, finds there, indeed, its explanation. The seer who would understand the present perverse and intolerable cour.

se of history, with heathen nations at the head and Israel at the tail, must not only have the veil lifted that hides the future developments of God's fixed plan, but must see behind the scenes those actions in the angelic world by which man's history may be influenced, in some sense, and for a time, even against God's plan. (c) Hource and authority of the message.

— Whence did the writer gain his certainty of the near approach of the fall of the existing world-empire, and the realization of the kingship of God, and of the beings and actions in the angel-world which explain present evils and are to effect their end ? The predictive parts of Daniel (clis. 7-12) could well be described, like Rev 1', as 'revelations of God through his angel Gabriel to his servant Daniel.'

Gabriel's communications are in part in the form of interpretations of dream-visions (chs. 7. 8, of. 2), but once he interprets an OT prediction after Daniel haa studied it and prayed over it (ch. 9), and once Gabriel appears to Daniel after a three weeks' fast, and declares to him directly (not through figure) mysteries of the spirit-world and of the future (chs. 10-12).

The visions are described as real experiences, time and place being given, and tlie deep emotions of the seer described (7"- >» 8'»-'«- " 9»- » lO'"'"- ">■'»). The experiences seem to lie in the region of sleep or on its borderland (7'- ' 8" 10"). Their subjective reality seems to be in a measure confirmed by the intense seriousness which characterizes the book, and the writer's evident belief in the value and Divine origin of his message.

But, on the other hand, the book is nnquestion- ahly pseudonymous, and the visions contain, in the form of Gabriel's di.^closures about the future, much that was to the author really, and of course consciously, history. Is this consistent with the impression that the writer is describing really visionary, ecstatic experiences, or docs it compel us to assume that the vision is tliroughout a literary form ? The problem is really a psychological one.

How are we to explain the form ot tlie book, that of visions and angelic interpretations, so as to explain both the fact that tliese consist largely in history disguised as prediction, and the fact of the writer's emotion and conviction as to their contents ?

It is evident that this form served the writer's practical purpose, for it showed that the present insupportable condition of his people was foreknown and determined by God, and it gave a ground for belief in the truth of predictions of really future events. But the emotion and con- viction of the writer seem inconsistent with his use of a purely artistic, not to say artful, form of composition.

We are undoubtedly helped towards a solution of tlie problem hy the fact, whose significance we owe to G'\nkel, that the predictions of the apoca- lypse are not novelties, but rest in part on tradi- tion. The foresight of Daniel comes to the ^vriter, at least in part, through the study of the older Srophets. Tlie interpretation of the 70 weeks of er 25'"- 29'" is certainly of central si-'nilicance in the book (ch. 9). But it is probable also that symbolical figures such as those of chs.

7 and 8 (cf. 2) were not invented de novo by tlie author, but came to him from the past, and were regarded by him as mysterious types and forecasts of human history, in which he could find the future the more surely because he could lind in them the past.

The pseudonymous form becomes both less oirensive to us and more intelligible if we suppose that the writer was actually searching in ancient prophecies, and in apocalyptical traditions to him no less ancient, for previsions of the actual course of post-exilic Jewish history, in order that he might the more firmly believe and the more surely convince others that the present crisis is not a break in the plan of God, but a necessary stage in its unfoldin<^, and that the promised deliverance is near.

It is possible also in this case to suppose that the interpretation came in connexion with deep emotional experiences. (a) Plan of the cumpo.s-it ion. — Daniel is char- acterized by an unmistakable unity of tone and general teaching ; but unity in plan and in detail IS not obvious, and various ell'orts to prove com- posite authorship have been made.

In fact the book is made up of ten quite distinct pieces, largely independent oi each other (divided according to chapters, except the 10th, which includes chs. 10-12). Distinct apocalypses could easily be made of chs. 2. 7. 8. 9. lU-12.

It is, however, the prevailing and probable view that the book, as we have it, comes from one author ; that the enemy of God and His people is everywhere Antiochus, and the hone every- where that 01 his speedy overthrow and tiie ruler- ship of Israel over the nations. The book, then, has no chronological sequence throughout ; it does, however, describe the present distress and the coming deliverance on the whole with increasing definiteness and detail in the successive figures. Ch.

7 is more explicit than ch. 2, while cli. i^jlcsauiid ) ol Aiiliipi Iius IV. Tins pi as serving well the tntmonitory aim of the writer, which the stories also evidently serve. His plan is to give a clearer and fuller disclosure of the future OS the book proceeds, but to enforce con- stantly in varied forms the les.son of the reality of God's rule and the safety of patient and enduring trust in Him amid present troubles. There is no anxiety about exact consistency throughout.

Th« 246 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF overthrow of the Greek kingdom is at first the deed of God alone, but in the last vision Michael is the deliverer. At first the consummation seems to follow directly upon the fall of Antiochus, hut in oh. 12 a period of trial for Israel intervenes before its glory. The stories teach a present de- liverance for the faithful, but at the end martyrdom and a deliverance only after death come into view. 2.

Characteristics of Apocalypses in comparison with Prophecy. — On tne basis of this description of Daniel we may attempt a brief discussion of the characteristics of apocalyptical literature in general in comj)arison with OT prophecy. (a) situation and message.

— In the case of the apocalj£se the situation is always one in which the righteous arein trouble, because ot tlie rule uf y foreign power, and usually also because in the Jewish community itself those who have power and prosperity are the wicked, not the righteous. Thft pipss.'

ycr^ ii^ f'^t '^plij^erance is soon_if' "nmo andjnr tliit i iTie pre-exil pre-exilic prophets, on the contrary, spoke in times of national prosperity and conlidence of a coming day of J", which would be a day of judg- ment on Israel at the hand of a foreign power. The message was one of repentance and righteous- ness that the threatened judgment might be averted, the sentence recalled.

The prophets pre- dicted primarily judgment, not deliverance ; the prediction was conditional, not fixed ; and the practical inference was repentance, not patience. The change of message belonged in part to the ^change of situation which the ExUe itself effected. (6) The dualistic theology. — Bousset rightly calls 4 Ezr 7™ ' The Most High has made not one world, but two,' the inner principle of the apocalypse.

The sliarp contrast in which the kingdom of this world, which is the kingdom of Satan, is set over against the kingdom of God, can he partly explained as a result of tendencies within Judaism ; but it seems probable that the Persian dualistic religion must be taken into account in order to explain this strange departure from the otherwise strongly marked monotheism of Judaism (see esp. Stave, Einfluss des Parsismus auf den Judentum, 1898).

In contrast to this dualistic tendency the older prophets were far more consistently, even if less theoretically and consciously, monotheistic, for they believed in the actual rule of the God of right- eousness in present world-history as well as in the coming age, in the visible and not only in the invisible realm.

They therefore saw evidence of the nearness and reality of God's rule in the presence and growth of tlie power of good ; while the tendency of the apocalypse was to see in the Rowing power of evil the evidence that God's intervention. His reversal of human history, was at hand. (c) The element of prediction. — -Unfulfilled pro- phecy is the foundation upon which the whole struc- ture of the apocalypse was built. This was both the problem and the reliance of Jewish faith and hope.

What was spoken must be literally accom- plished. Of conditional prediction the apocaly])se knows nothing. The prophets' predictions of judg- ment had been fulfilled by the Exile, but tlieir predictions with reference to the return from exile had never been fulfilled by tlie actual return ; hence it must be that these hojies of the renewed land, the united tribes, the royal power and glory of Israel, were still to be realized.

What the pro- phecies really meant, in view of their apparent contradiction by events, when and liow their ful- filment was to come about, it was the task of the apocalyptic scribe to discover.

Ezekiel took a de- cided step towards apocalypse when, on the basis of the words of Zephaniah and Jeremiah concerning the Scythians, he predicted the final assault of Gog and his wild hosts upon Jerusalem and their over- throw, and thus established one of the fixed elements in apocalyptical dogma (Ezk 38" 39*).

Haggai and Zechariah still looked for a human explanation of the failuie of the hopes, and found it in the delay in rebuilding the temple ; Malachi, in imperfect ofl'erings and withheld tithes. Tti,^ jn pnnioj the reason is found nc longer in the fault of man but in the plan of God. The VU years are 70 wee^ of years, and the un- alterable time tor the ega~tronIy ^ust now draw- ing near.

4 Ezra reinterprets thelourth beast of Un 7 to~prove that Rome also was included in the predehtined course of history before the end could come (12"-"). Only in the Bk. of Jonah do we have a protest against the dominant apocalyptic by a surviving prophetic spirit. Here the prediction is of judgment, its aim to produce repentance, and the result the success of the preaching, with the failure of the prediction.

Yet even a book written in part to prove that prediction is ethical in aim and conditional in result could be used by Jews as if its predictions were magical and inviolable (To 14- , B). The fault of the prophet Jonah, which the book uncovers and rebukes, was the fault of Judaism and its apocalypses. The Bk. of Jonah is a true utterance of the spirit of prophecy in unavailinor protest against tlieji9ira:vaJ«as,-the iealoiisY.

and tile" rev^'n'^p f^'t^t Tfi°["''" ni'ic'igj^jj^j' iipnciljp'''' writing. Prophecy is fulfiUeiriiy every evidence in history of the rule of a righteous and merciful God, whether anticipated or not, whether for the benefit of Jews or of Gentiles. Apocalypse sees the hand of God and the vindication and glory of the seer only in a literal correspondence between predictions and events, and only in the fall of a Nineveh and the glory of Zion and Israel. (d) Pseudonymous authorship.

— It corresponds perfectly to the contrast just described that pro- phecy should be a personal and direct form of speech, the apocalypse a pseudepigraphic and mj'sterious form of writing. The prophet stood before his people and spoke in his own person. Tlie authority of his speech was in no small measure that of his personality. He spoke first and wrote afterwards, but wrote as he spoke, in the first person.

When, in the Exile and after it, prophets followed who repeated what others had said, or gave expression to the common faith, and had no peculiar message, their names were unim- portant, and many of them wrote anonymously (Is 40-66, Malachi, Zee 9-14, etc.) Daniel is the tir.st example of that pseudonymous prophetic writing which characterizes the whole apocalyp- tical group. It embodies the Jewish worship of prediction.

Yet the moral earnestness and reliL'ioua elevation of books like Daniel and 4 Ezra malce it ditficult for us to regard tliem as fictions, and cer- tain considerations may help us to understand how this form of v\Titing could be used by such men, although we must at best put their work far below the simplicitj' and openness of genuine propliecy.

■The fact that the apocalyptical writer was a serious student of ancient prophecies, whose sacredness he reverenced, and whose secrets he believed he could in a measure expound, suggests that he did not regard his thoughts as his own.

The fixed and really ancient cliaracter of such apocalyptical tra- ditions as those of the dragon of the deep, makes conceivable such a writer's evident faith in his pre- dictions, which would be psychologically incredible if the visions were pure works of the imagination. Furthermore, — and this is an observation of great importance, — no apocalypse gives the impression of entire unity and harmony.

Not only the writer's own studies of OT proi)hets, not only his own in- terpretations of apocalyptical imagery, but those of others before hiiu are at his command, and furnisi EEVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATIOX, BOOK OF 247 the materials of his book. Not only traditions, bat writings form his sources. Tliese materials may already have connected themselves with Enoch, or Mose.-, or some other great name. So that one may venture to say that the pseudonymity of these books has some basis in actuality.

The hiding or sealing of the book until the end (Dn 12^' 8'^ (10"), Assump. Mos. l"->8) belongs to the pseudepi- graphic form, accounting for tlie appearance of tlie book so long after the time of its assumed origin. Yet this may also express the actual fact of the ancient character of the writer's sources. Tlie writers could not have put forth this material altogether in their own names, for it is not as a whole their invention.

They are largely compilers and commentators, and have a deep reverence for tlicir sources. Yet this observation, which we owe to Gunkel, must be modilied in view of those figures which are unmistakably and even e.xplicitly con- structed for the purpose of setting forth in alle- gorical form the nistory of the past, especially of the recent past, as foreseen by the supposed ancient author.

Dn 7 contains, no doubt, traditional material of the sort just described, but it has been freely re-shaped so as to contain the history of four successive world-empires. If the original form of the tradition contained only one dra^'ou of the deep, how can we be sure that the description of the one like a man was not part of the writer's elaboration of his material, rather than, as Gunkel affirms, part of the tradition itself?

And if so, his belief in the forecast it contains preceded his use of the tradition and determined his use of it. (e) Literary material and form. — The apoca- lypse is characterized by the use of striking bgures, not only strange and unnatural, but evidently mysterious in character, seen in dreams and visions, interpreted by angels, and yielding secrets of the future course of history.

Although prophecy is full of figurative forms of speecL, Ireely fashioned, or poetically and rhetorically applied, j-et these figures liave neither the strange unearthly character nor the mysterious value of the distinctively apocalyptical symbols. Those latter, at least in part, go back to primitive mythological formations. This connexion is quite unmistakable in Zecli. , where a mass of this material suddenly meets us. The four winds, messengers and agents of God, and the seven planets.

His eyes, which run to and fro through the whole earth, are still clearly to be perceived as the underlying foundation of figures wliich the pro- phet applies to the historical situation, and to the two men, Joshua and Zerubltabd, on whom he fixes his high hopes (2»-" 6'-» 4="'^ ""■"). Yet Zech. uses such material aa poetry, while in Daniel it has value as mystery, containing, for one who could interpret it, the secrets of tlie future.

The vision and its interjiretation by an angel comes therefore to be of supreme value, and revelation is conceived of in this half-sensible and wholly eupernaturalistic way. Ezekiel here also leads the way. Ilia vision of God is more sensible than Isaiah's, and his inspiration more external and eupernaturalistic than Jeremiah's (cf. Ezk 1 with Is G, and Ezk 2. 3 with Jcr I). (/) Literary composilivn and history. — After Daniel, the Jewish apocalypses appear to be in no case proper unities.

^lost of tliera have been ailapted by revision to use in later and changed con- ditions, and all of them, including Daniel, appear to l>e based in their first writing on older materials wliich they embody, without serious ellort to build them into a harmonious structure. The Bk. of Enoch is a compilation of Enoch literature, having indeed a certain rough plan as it now stiiiids, but without real unity. Even chs. 1-36 contain three distinct descriptions of the Messianic consummation (chs. 5. 10.

25), which, in connexion with the description of Slieol (cli. 22), form any- thing but a continuous and consistent picture.

Almost all forms of the Jewish hope are contained in this book : that in which the Messiah occupies the central place, that in which he is subordinate, and that in which he is wholly absent ; that in which the scene and character are purely earthly, that in which they are properly heavenly (angelic) ; that in which the heavenly precedes the earthly and finally descends to earth (37-70), and that in which the heavenly follows after the earthly in chronological succession (91'-'") — the chiliastic scheme.

In general the apocalypses are not char- acterized by a thoroughgoing unity of scheme, nor even by a consistent unity of teaching, and cannot be undsrstood except by the recognition of inde- pendent sources, and also, in some cases, editorial revision. Here we have especially to do with the additions of Christian hands, since througli them alone these books, after Daniel, have reached us. In some cases this Christian revision has gone but a little way (Enoch, Assump. Mos., Apoc.

Bar) ; while in some cases the Jewish apocalypse is found in a radical Christian revision (Asc. of Isaiah, Test. XII. Patriarchs). The questions as to literary analysis and the presence of a considerable Christian element are still very variously answered, especially in the case of Enoch 37-70 (71) and 4 Ezra. {(/) Apocalyptical dogmas.

— The religious teach- ings of the prophets, individual and distinct as they are, can be summarized only in some such statement of their moral and religious principles as Mic 6' ('to do justly, and to love mere}', and to walk humbly with thy God '), in con- nexion with such a formulation of their preach- ing of repentance in view of tlie threatened judgment as Zech. gives (I* 1'^- connecting v." with v.') But in the apocalj'pses not jjrinciples so much as details become fixed in dogmas.

Daniel's general scheme for the future is unchanged : a coming Day of J", which is near at hand, and comes when evil is at its height ; the overthrow of the world-kingdom, the siltin" of the Jewish people, and the possession by the righteous of kingship over the nations and lasting blessedness.

To this were added, from Ezekiel, a final assault of the outstanding heathen upon Zion, in which they are gloriously and finally vanquished ; from various prophecies, the expectation of the return of the ten tribes and the gathering of the dis- fiersed Jews ; and details regarding the renewed and and city, such as Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and others suggested. within this general Bcheme Bome important differences were possible.

Tile Messiah is sometimes conceived of as God't agent in establiiihing his ItiiiK'iiom on eartli (e.</. Ps-£iol 17, Enoch 37-70), sometimes as king after the kingdom hoa been set up by Ood, e.g. Enoi^h 90, 4 Ezr 7'^, Apoc. Bar 29 ; and sometimes all is done by God alone, and there is no king beside him (e.g. I>aniel, Enoch 1-3<J, Assump. Mos. lU). Tile place of the individual in this eschatulogicol scheme Is differently estimated.

Sometimes, and in ^'encral one may say in earlier times, nations are the chief actors, and it is the problem of Israel that events are to solve. Increasingly the individual claimed consideration, and the sug^'estions of Dn 1'^ 3. 13 were followed and elaborated. An oscbatology of the individual was developed in connexion with the national, and gradually threatened to subordinate the national to itself.

At first it was enough that the righteous dead should arise to have the part they deserved in the glory of the nation. Ijut at *tome time the effort to claim for the individual a more than earthly and temporary future, and perhaps also the effort to ascribe to the comuig age a more than earthlv glory, produced a strain and at lajit a break in the traditional nope.

There came to be two consummations, the earthly, the world-rule of Israel, the Messianic king<iom, which would come to an end and be fol- lowed by the heavenly and eternal. Of this break of the one hope into two our earliest rCLOnl is in the AiiocalviMe of Tea Weeks in Enoch 93110 91ia-l'. Ct. 4 Ezr 7*', Apoc. Uar 40», Secrete of Enoch 33, and see Millrvnm'm.

In connexion with this scheme, the lot of the soul after death became a subject of apocah-ptical research and vision by the side of the lot ol Isruel and Zion <4 Ezra).

248 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF The Idea that the visible and human world waa to be under- stood by the invisible and angelic that lay about and beneath and above it, led the apocali-pticul writers not only to a de- veloped an^elology, in part Persian in orisfin, but also to researches in the mysteries of nature, especially in refcrenfie to the movements of the planets, most of all those of the moon, •uch as are elaborated in Enoch 72-79. 82. iV^^ 43. 44. 69. (J9.

But while some apocalypses are concerned with such specula- tions, others move back in the oiiposite direction to an almost prophetic earnestness of moral denunciation and exhortation le.g. Enoch 91-104), (3) Inferences as to Methods of Interpretation. — From this brief study of the nature of the apoca- lypse certain inferences follow as to the method of interpretation. (a) Not 'futurist.' — The apocalj'pse has to do witli the present and the uiimcuiate, not the remote future.

Its predictions are to be under- stood as referring to actual or imminent historical factors and events. (b) Conteynporary-historical. — Some of the figures of the apocalypse are invented or freely adapted in order to reiiresent historical persons, nations, and events. These are to be explained in accord- ance vnth their origin by the events which they describe. From them we may hope to get tlie clearest light upon the date of the writing. (c) TradUion-kistorkal.

— Some of the ligures are borrowed from the OT or from older apocalypses or traditions. In such cases the interpreter must distinguish between the original meaning of the figure and the present author's purpose in using it. He may have used it because in the main it lent itself to his application, but he may have preferred not to change it, either from artistic instinct or from reverence. It is a mistake, then, to assume that every detail had a meaning to him, and to insist on finding it.

Perhaps some features of the picture were as much a mystery to the writer of our book as they are to us. Some- times we can guess quite plausibly what tlie original meaning was, although we cannot tell whether the writer of our book gave it a meaning or not. ((f) Literary-critical. — The unity of an apoca- lypse cannot be assumed. The ancient material just alluded to may be introduced almost entire from some unknown source.

Later readers might weave together distinct oracles, especially if they passed under the same name ; and editorial com- ments or changes are always possible in tlie etlort to adapt an apocalypse to the changed conditions or the changed beliefs of a later time. Literary criticism must, however, be held in check by the fact that a writer often himself used ancient tra- ditional materials only partly harmonious with his own time and teaching, and fitted them but im- perfectly into his plan.

(e) Poeitea/.— The underlying religious faith and the immediate practical aim of an apocalyptical writer (to encourage faith amid trial, to recall apostates, to guard readers against the influence of foreign thought and life, etc.), must not be lost sight of in the study of the mysteries of the unseen or future world which he woulil unveil.

The ques- tion is always to be asked how far the strange accounts of the unseen world and of coming events were of literal, and how far of figurative or poetic value to the writer himself. There was something of the poet in the apocalyptical seer. He was seldom simply a scribe and a literalist. The greater the variety and the less the outward consistency of his Wsions, the less probably were they regarded by him as literally true.

In con- nexion with this the question must arise as to the psychical experience of the ajioialyptical writer, the possibility of some actual visionary experi- ences among the many which must be regarded as fictitious, a mere literary form. Thus Gunkel believes that such genuine experiences lie behind some of the %'isions in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras), more in th« first three visions (chs. 3'-9") and less in the last three (11-14). 4. Bci: as an Apocalypse.

— AVe may now notice certain points of likeness and of uuliKeness which a general comparison of Rev. with the Jewish apocalypse suggests, and certain points of un- certainty which form the main problems in the follow ing discussion. ('0 Likeness of Eev. to Jewish apornbjpses. — The Bk. of liev. is written to encourage faith and en- durance amid trials and persecution.

These trials are at least chiutly due to the rule of Rome, though within the Christian communities directly addressed there are false as well as true members. The message of the book is one of repentance only in the case of indifferent or wavering believers (OS. 16 33. 14 [and Jews, ll'" ?]) It is not a message of repentance for those whose sin is chiefly denounced (;,M.2i 169.

u 22"), but of deliverance and reward for those who endure a little longer ; and of judg- ment and destruction for the evil power and its adherents. The situation and message are those of apocalypse, and not those of prophecy. Apocal3'ptical, al.

so, is the contrast betiveen the present and the coming age ; the conviction that evil must increase, and that its violence is a sign of the nearness of the end ; the belief that evil has its source and strength in the world of spirits, and that angelic conflicts and triiunphs precede or accompany those among men. Rev. contains an abundance of that striking and higlily wrought imagery which characterizes an apocalypse. These images are in part borrowed from ^ech.

and Daniel and other OT writers; in part, presumably, from the storehouse of apoca- lyptical traditions. That they are not used simply as poetical ornament, but have for the writer in ])art a mysterious value, is at all events a natural first impression. The facts that the book is so largely made up of such imagery, and that it is put in the form of Wsion, and is interpreted to the seer by angels, make up the most obvious resemblance between this book and tlie Jewish apocalypses.

Tlie literary materials and form are largely apocalyptical. Ihat this resemblance is not merely formal but deep-going, is suggested by the extraordinary claims with which tlie book is sent out (!'■' 22"- ''). In its supernaturalistic con- ception of inspiration the book is apocalyptical rather than proplietic (l'"- 4'*- etc.)

In its scheme of the future, the contents of its prediction, the book has an obvious likeness to the Jewish books of this class : the coming of the day of the Lord Christ, when evil is at its height ; the overthrow of the world, kingdom, Rome ; the sifting of the Christian people ; the earthly Messianic age, in which the saints (Chris- tian martyrs) \\iW possess the kingdom and reign with Christ ; the final assault and overthrow of the powers of evil, the Gog of Ezekiel's predic- tion; the general resurrection and judgment, and the new heaven and earth with individual and eternal awards : this is simply the Jewish scheme in its Messianic and chiliastic form, with Jesus as the Messiah, and His servants as the saints and heirs.

Over against such likenesses in form and substance no difference can be sufficient to sever the relationship between our book and other apocalypses. Liicke was the first fully to estab- lish the relationship. Zahn (Einleitung in d. NT, ii. 1899) is the last — one is tempted to say, will be the last — real scholar to deny it. He may at least teach us to be on our guard against false infer- ences from this undeniable literary relationship. (A) Unlikencss of Eev. and Jewish apucal ijpset. — Rev.

is a Christian apocalypse. What and how great unlikenesses does this involve i Two genera] EEVELATION, BOOK OF EEVELATI02f, BOOK OF 249 eonsiderations would lead us in opposite directions «ith reference to this question. Tlie Christian religion as tlie Baptist prepared the way for it, as Christ founded it, and as St. Paul preached it, was undoubtedly in essential respects a return to pro- phecy, not only from the law, but also from the national and sensuous liopes of Judaism.

The Baptist and Jesus announced not the fall of Rome, but the fall of Jerusalem, just as Amos and Hosea announced the approaching fall of Samaria, and Micah and Jeremiah that of Jerusalem ; and for the same reason, in the same way, with the same motive, the call to repentance and righteousness.

Jesus was a prophet in His belief in this world as God's world, and in good as already the ruling power in it, and also in the directness and personal authority of His words, the immediateness and inwardness of His relation to God, His eye for the supernatural in spiritual and not in magical mani- festations. We should certainly hope that the new Cliristian prophecy would be truly piophetic in character, and not apocal3'ptical.

But, on the other hand, we know th-at the early Christian Church found itself fully at homo in Jewish apocal3-pscs. It was the Jews who threw away their apocalypses. Christians who preserved them almost witliout change, applying to the second coining of the Messiah what Jews had imagined of His first coming. How early this happened the NT and even the Gospels give evidence. We can- not, therefore, assume that the Christian apoca- lypse is esseulially unlike the Jewish.

The Chris- tian element may be an entirely superficial one, the mere identilication of the coming ilessiah with Jesus, aud of the redeemed with the Christian Church. Looking at the book itself, the most obvious nn- likeness to the Jewish apocalypse, after the identi- fications just named, is the letters to the seven Churches. To be sure, they are introduced by a highly coloured Christophany, based on Zech.

and Daniel, and are given in the form of a direct communication of the exalted Christ through the Spirit. Yet they have to do with actual, concrete conditions; they praise and blame, encourage and warn, with close discrimination and intense moral earnestness, so that we feel the prophetic si'irit behind the partly apocalyptical form.

Their warnings are aimed, not at foreign powers, but at the Christian communities ; and the judgment they predict, though not itself conditional, is nevertheless the basis of a teaching of repentance. These are not like the letters of St. Paul, but they are far les,s' like the Epistle of Baruch to the nine and a half tribes (Apoc. Bar 78-87).* (c) Eemaining rjucstions as to the relation of Reo. to the apocalypses.

— Certain points remain at which the question of likeness or unlikencss be- tween Rev. and Jewish apocalypses cannot be answered by a general view, but only, if at all, by closer study. (1) Pseudunymity. — The Jewish apocalypses are all pseudonymous, and contain accounts, in direct or figurative form, of the past course of history, In the form of predictions by the assumed author. 'Who can compare the name John (l'- »■ » 228) with Enoch or Moeis, or even with Daniel, liaruch, and Ezra?

The authors of tlioae hooka dated themaelves centuries bock, veiled ttiem- ■elvos in tlie sjwred names of the remote past, and turned to a credulous public of their time without even pretending any personal reliUiun to it whatever. Here, on tne contrarv, a inan si>eaks to seven Churches of the province of Asia and pves them his book, who is most accurately acquainted with their S resent conditions ; and he speaks to them under the name, ohn, which was borne there about a.d.

70-100 by the most eonsiiicuouB ecclesinjitical personalitv ; and this he does accord- ing to tradition about a.i>. 96, so in the lifetime of the famous • Of. the possible companioD letter to the two and a half feribM In Bar li-t SM«. John of Ephesus, or according to any conceivable hypothesis in the lifetime of the personal pupils of this John' (Zabn. ExtUat. ii. p. 684 f.X \— ™> This is Zahn's chief objection to classing Rev.

with the apocalypses, to the very essence of which, he says, belongs pseudonymity. ' The representation of the development of world-history under the form of an ante-dated prediction, if it is present at all in Rev., is a wholly subordinate element in it.' With this sentence Zahn makes his position in- secure.

A certain amount of antedated prediction, or at least of history in the form of vision, can hardly be excluded from the picture of the Roman empire in Rev 13 and 17 ; but pseudonymity has such visions for its most characteristic product and one of its reasons for being. Even as a subordi- nate element in the book, comparable to the place of chs. 11. 12 in the Apoc.

of Ezra, such visions suggest the possibility of pseudonymous author- ship, which in the case of a Christian apocalypse might well choose an apostolic name. Weizsacker tlierefore thinks we should start from the fact 'that among all similar writings of Jewish and ancient Christian origin, we know not a single one which bears the name of its own author.' Even Hernias is hardly a unity, and professes a greater than its actual age.

This does not make it impossible that John wrote under his own name. ' But a strong presupposition always re- mains that the general practice of this art-form is followed in this case also' (Apostolic Acre, ii. p. 174). » i- The question of pseudonymity, and the connected question whether and how far Rev. contains history in the form of vision, remains open at this pre- liminary stage of our discussion. (2) Composite cknrnrter.

—Ho also must the ques- tion of composite chfiracter be regarded as opened, and not closed, by a general comparison of Rev. with the Jewish apocalypses. Boes Rev. share this common characteristic of the apocalypse ?

The book has often been praised for its architectural construction, but there are various indications of seams or breaks in its struc- ture, and neither in the historical situation which it reflects (before or after 70; soon after Nero or under Domitian) nor in the type of religious thought which it repiesents (Jewish or Pauline [universalistic] Christianity ; primitive Jewish, or developed [HellenisticJ Christology) is unity of impression easily gained.

The course of recent investigation abundantly vindicates the proposi- tion that the question of likeness or unlikencss between Rev. aud the apocalypses in the matter of unity and sources is at present an o|)en one. (3) Mature of vltion. — A third uncertainty con- cerns the question of the nature of the visions, the narrative of which makes up the book. All apocalypses arc coiii]iosed largely of accounts of visions and tlnur interpretation by angels.

The question, how far this is a literary (artistic) form, and how far really ecstatic experiences were con- nected with their authorship, is one that should not be answered too confidently and sweepingly even with reference to the .Jewish apocalypses. Zahn accepts the visions of Rev. as actual ex- periences literally described, while he regards the visions of other apocalypses as artistic fictions. The diflerence is to him that between true and false prophecy.

Others, the majority, judge the vision to he everywhere, at least in this age, a literary form, anil point for evidence especially to tlie many repetitions or imitations of OT and other traditional materials which they contain, ami to the many visions which simply embody history in allegorical form, to account for which real vision is a wholly unnecessary supposition.

250 REVELATION, BOOK OF EEVELATION, BOOK OF Becent investigation, however, showing the large dependence of the visionary upon memory, does not allow us to saj' with confidence of the abund- ance of OT allusions in Rev., ' This is literary art, and not the way in which living vision in the spirit expresses itself (Weizsacker). Three important questions, then, are opened by the general comparison of Rev. with Jewish apocalypses : Is it pseudonymous ! Is it a literary unity, or is it composite ?

Are its \'isions actual, or a literary form ? The questions converge in the etl'ort to recover the author's personality, and tlie method and purpose or spirit of his work, the self-consciousness of the man. Weizsacker, to whom the recent course of criticism is directly due, gives his answer to our questions in this sum- mary fashion: 'The Apoc. of John was not written by the apostle. It is also not the record of a revelation or a vision which the author experienced on a day.

It is, further, not the work of a homo- geneous conception ' (Apostolic Age, ii. 174). iii. Contents and Composition of Revela- tion.— 1. Contents of the Book. The Book of Rev.

reads briefly as follows: — An introduction, giving title, author, address, and subject (li-S), is followed by the appearance of Christ to John at Patuios, and the charge to write to the seven Churches (l^-^**), to each of which a letter is dictated by Christ (or His angel-spirit), in which the Church is praised or blamed vnih reference to past trials and heathen influences, and in view of a greater trial soon to come iu con- nexion with the approaching coming of Christ (2. 3).

The seer then sees heaven opened, and, being summoned up thither, he sees and describes the throne of God, and the twenty-four elders, seven spirits, and four living beini^s, who praise God the creator (4). He sees the sealed book in God's hand, and the Lamb as if slain with seven horns and seven eyes (the spirits of God) ap- pears amid the praises of the highest angels and of all creation, as the one who alone can open the seven seals (5). He opens six seals.

The first four introduce four horsemen who seem to be agents of judgment (war, famine, pestilence). The fifth reveals the prayers of martjTed souls for vengeance ; the sixth an earthquake, which brings destruction to nature and terror to men (0). Before the destructive powers(winds)are.loosed, 12,000 from each of Israel's twelve tribes are sealed (71-^), and John sees a countless multitude of all nations who have passed through the great tribulation, in heavenly blessedness (79-17).

Xhe seventh seal brings silence in heaven (81). Then 'the seven angels' appear (8'-), and, after the prayers of the saints have again been offered before God (83-'), six of the angels sound their trumpets. The first four bring forth earthquake and volcanic phenomena with destructive effect upon a third of earth, sea, rivers, and heaven (Si^-l^). The remaining three are to be three woes (813).

The fifth (first woe) brings demonic Iocus^beings from theabyss, under their king Apollyon, who torment unsealed men five months (91-12). The sixth brings armies of cavalry from the Euphrates, destroying one-third of men (91>-2i).

Before this second woe is declared to be past [in 111-*], the seer receives a new commission and message, a httle book which he eats (10) ; and it is revealed to him that Jerusalem, except the temple and inner court, will be trodden by the Gentiles 42 months, and that ' the two witnesses ' will prophesy during that time, and then be killed, and after SJ days raised to heaven (lliU).

The leventh trumpet (third woe) sounds, and heavenly voices announce the establishment of the kingdom of God and Christ (111&-18). Storm and earthquake follow the opening of God's heavenly temple (111»). The seer then beholds the unavailing effort of the dragon Satan to destroy the Messiah at His birth ; the dragon's fall from heaven, and his persecution of the woman who bore the child, and of her other seed (PiilT).

Out of the sea comes a beast with ten horns and seven heads, whom the dragon equips with his own authority. He wars against the saints anti is worshipped by all other men (131 lo). This worship is furthered and enforced by another beast out of the earth with miraculous powers, who stamps men with the number of the beast, (MB (I3111S). Over against these evil powers the Lamb is seen with the 1-14,000 undeflled on ilt. Zion (1 lis).

Angels announce the eternal gospel of the worship of God in view of judgment to come, the fall of Babylon, the punishment of the worshippers of the beast, the blessedness of martyTS (146-13). One like a son of man (Messiah or angel ?J reaps the earth with his sickle, and another angel gathers the grapes into the winepress of God's wrath (14 n-'io).

Seven angels, after the heavenly praises of the redeemed are heard, pour out seven bowls containing the seven Last plagues, the sixth of which brings remote nations to the last war at Har-Ma^edon, and the seventh an earthquake which destroys cities, dinilea Babylon, destroys nature (15. 16). The city is then seen as a woman seated on a scarlet beast, at last wasted and destroyed by the beast and its 10 horns (17ii»).

Angels utter prophetic woes over Babylon, announcing its fall because of its persecution of prophets and saints (18). After heavenly rejoicings over the city's fall, and the readiness of the Lamb's bride (19l-10), the Messiah appears as warrior and king, tbo two beasts are ca8t into the lake of Are, and their followers destroyed (1911-21). Satan is bound, while Christ and the risea martj'rs reign 1000 years. Satan is loosed, and brings remote peoples to a final war against Jerusalem.

They are Jestroyed, and he is cast into the lake ot fire (201-10). The general resurrec- tion and judgment follow (2011-15). The new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem, and final blessedness in it, are described (211-22'). The conclusion consists of attestations and admoni- tions regarding the Divine authorship and sanctity of the book (226-21). 2. Plan of the Book. — (n) Introductory. — There are two main methods by which plan and order are discovered in the visions of 4i-22°.

The recapitulation method (from Tyconius and Augus- tine to recent times) finds no progress in the suc- cessive sevens (seals, trumpets, and bowls) which form the main structure of this section, but repe- tition under varj'ing forms. The seals bring already the last judgment (6""") and the fiuEU blessedness (""""). Among more recent critics, however, the view prevails that the seventh in each series is developed in the new series of seven that follows.

The seventh seal contains the re- mainder of the book, and is unfolded in seven trum- pets, of which the seventh includes all that follows to the end (10'), but is unfolded in the seven bowls (Liicke, Bleek, Ewald, etc.) In this scheme ch. 7 appears as an interlude between the si.\th and seventh seals, and lO-lIi^ as a similar insertion between the sixth and seventh trumpets.

The bowls are not interrupted in the same way, but before and after them are visions which give the same impression of standing outside of the writer's rulin" scheme (12-14. 17-191"}. HoTtzmann represents the structure of the book in the following scheme (Comm. p. 295) : — 11-8 Introduction. 18-352 The seven Letters. 4I-5I-* Heavenly scene of the visions. 61-" Six seals. 7117 The sealed and the blessed- gl-s The coming forth of the trumpets out of the 7th seal. 86-921 Six trumpets.

101-1114 Destiny of Jerusalem, llis-is Seventh trumpet. I21-145 The great visions of the three chief foes and the Messiah- kingdom. 146-20 Return to the earlier connexion. 161-161 Transition to the bowls. 16J-S1 Seven bowls. 171-1910 The great Bibylon. 19U.201S Final catastrophes. 211-22' The new Jerusalem. 228-21 Conclusion.

It is to be noticed that the sections at the right contain most of the material which Weizsacker and others regard as of earlier origin, and that of which Jewish authorship can be most plausibly affirmed. The supposition that they were inserted by the writer, ancf that he was not able to bring them into the sevenfold scheme which he chose, is a natural one.

Holtzmann, however, says that if this was the case, these sections have at all events been assimilated to the rest in style, and connected with it by various references, so that the lines of sep.iration do not remain sharply defined. 15y the side of this we may well place in bare outline the analysis of Zahn [Einl. ii. 587 tf.), which, as he believes, demonstrates the unity of the book 'in spite of all lack of literary art.' Introd. (ll-«). Fir«( Fiition, 110-S" (Letters).

Second Vitum, 4I-SI (Seals), with two Episodes, (o) 7i-8, (4) 7»i7, before the seventh. Third Vigiim, S'^llis (Trumpets), with two Episodes, (a) 101-11,(6)111-14, before the seventh, fourth Tmon, lli»-1420. Fifth Vision, ISi-lG" (Bowls). Sixth Viiion, 17I-IS" (Judg- ment on Babylon), 1618 21 introduces it, and 101-8- 9-10 concludes it and introduces the Seventh Visicn, 1911-218 (Judgment and Awards).

Eighth Vudon, 21^-22' ior 1') (a description not of tht new heaven and earth of 211-8, but of the world during th« 1000 years' reign of Christ, 204-6). ConcluiioD, 226 {or i«i 21. EEVELATIOX, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 251 (6) Plan of c/w. 1-3. — The construction of these chapters gives the greatest evidence of conscious and careful literary art, and no doubt may fairly predispose the reader to look for art tlirou^'liout.

The introductory verses (l''") contain a remarkably complete statement of the source, character, and contents of the entire book, and prepare us to re- cognize such summary, anticipatory introductions elsewliere. The ultimate author of the revelation is God, who gave it to Christ, who sent an angel to signif}' it to John. It can therefore be called ' the word of God,' ' the testimony of Jesus,' or ' the things \\ hich John saw.'

Its contents are ' the thing^i which must happen quickly ' ; that is, it is a prediction, but of the immediate not the remote future. Its readers are God's servants, who are blessed if they hear and keep what is written. More expressly 'the seven Churches in Asia' are addressed, and in saluting them the author com- pletely sums up his theology. It is in some sense trinitarian (vv.

*'), and the kingly exaltation of Christ through resurrection, the saving ell'ect of His death, and tlie destination He made possible for believers, are described. Tlie central message of the book, the coming of Christ, and that in its judicial aspect, is expressly announced, perhaps by God, who, at all events, as the real author of the revelation, adds in tlie first person His attestation. It is not, indeed, impossible to di\dde this intro- duction into independent parts (1-3. 4-6. 7.

8), and supi'ose them to have introduced separate apoca- lypses (cf. Spitta, Briggs). Hut it can hardly be denii-d that tlie whole is admirably adapted to in- troduce the book. The vision of Christ (1'"^) brings before us the priestly and kingly One, who lives amid His Churches and possesses or rules them.

The letters are introduced by descriptions of Chri-st which are in most cases burrowed from the vision, and close with promises ' tii liiiii that overcometh,' wliich in most cases anticipate the fuller descriptions of chs. 19-22. The selection of descriptive features from the vision of Christ in several cases fits the special message of the letter ; and this is sometimes, but not so often and clearly, the case with the selection of the reward. (1) The de.

scription, 2' (from I"'- '^), is referred to in 2\ The reward, 2"' (cf. 22^), has no obvious relation to the letter. (2) The descrip- tion, 2« (from l"i'-'>), (its both the mes-sage, 2""', and the reward, 2'"' (cf. 20»). (3) The description, 2" (from 1'"'), is referred to in 2'«. The reward, 2'"' (only in part, if at all, parallel to 22^ cf. 19"), may possibly stand in contrast to the eating of things sacrificed to idols (2'''). (4) The de.scription, 2'" (from !'"

■• '», but ' Son of God ' is here only), pre- pares for 2^. The reward, 2-""^ (in part parallel to 20«, cf. 12» 19'» 22'»), could relate to the letter if Jezebel's teaching included submission to Rome. (5) The description, 3' (from l'", cf. 2' 1), has no special relation to the letter. The reward, 3" (cf. C"" 7.U. 13 i-» .2ij'-2. i» oi^T^ Mt, 1032), ia connected with v.« and perhaps v.' (0) The description, 3' (not from the vision, cf. Is 22'-'' [cf. 1"]), is used in v." The reward, 3'- (cf.

H"- 22 2P- '" 19'^- '»), has no obvious connexion with the letter (Bousset compares v.'-^ with v."") (7) The descrijition, 3" (not from the vLsion, cf. I, Col 1""'-, Jn P), may prepare for the severity of the letter (cf. v.'") The reward, 3^' (cf. 20*-« !• Z"'- 6" 22»), connects with v."" (cf. Lk That the writer is working as an artist is evident, and a reason may have determined his choice of titles and promises where it is no longer evident.

The last title is perhaps the highest, and the last reward also represents a climax. The first reward suggests Eden ; the second, the Fall ; the third, the Wilderness ; the fourth, the Kingdom ; but though the intention to represent the fulfilment of .successive stages of OT history is wholly conceiv- able, the evidence for it is not convincing.* No evident reason for the changed position of the sentence, 'He that hath an ear,' etc., in the last four letters, is manifest.

Of the historical condi- tions described in the letters something will be said further on. But, in spite of unmistakable references to local conditions, each letter is a message of the spirit to 'the Churches.' Tliey were not .sent separately or meant to be read separately, but have each a representative and all together a complete character, which the number seven itself suggests. Chs. 1-3 show not onlj' a conscious artistic pur- po.

se, but in more details than can here be noted and still more in total efiect they show a high order of poetic instinct and skill. (c) Plan of chs. 4-22. — The choice of three series of sevens in the representation of the coming woes and judgment shows the same mind tliat addressed the Churches as seven. To assign these sevens to different sources (Spitta, Briggs), is to miss one of the most evident marks of unity in the book. It is more likely, e.g.

, that the author made seven seals out of an original four (see below) than that he found his sevens ready made. But what is to be said of the two twofold interludes inserted between the sLxth and seventh seals and trumpets (71-8.8-17 10. U>-'3)? The first two of these visions not only interrupt the plan, but are apjiarently inharmonious with each other.

In one (7''") a definite number of Jews are sealed before the coming of evil, in order to be kept from it ; in the other (7"'") a countless number from all nations liave already come through trials and death to heavenly blessedness. The first could well be of Jewish origin (based on Kzk 9*'-), and describe the literal safe-keeping of Jews in the troubles of the last days. Did our writer believe that Jews would play a distinct rule in the end'; This is possible (cf. St.

Paul in Ko 9-11), but it is more probable that he adopts a Jewish apocalyptical fragment api)lying it to the Christian communitj', and understanding it not in a literal sen.se. This would account for the fact that the four winds (7') are never loosed. We have not a whole but a jiart (9''- is related, but difl'eieiit). We have indeed an allusion to the sealing (9, cf. 14') as if to prevent our supposing the section a later in.sertion.

But there tlie sealed can only be all true Christians, as in 14'-» the 144,000 are. If Rev 7'" applies a Jemsh oracle to the Christian community, the deliverance it assumes may well be no more literal than the rest, and its meaning in the author's in- tention may be wholly like the meaning of 7"'". Not deliverance from death, but deliverance through death, is, iu fact, the promise of the book.

These two visions, then, contrasted as they are, and of difl'erent origin, may have meant the same thin{» to the author. They are assurances of escape and salvation, inserted here, after the beginning of evils but before their culmination, to serve the practical purpose of encouragement. The second one seems to describe by anticipation nothing less than the final heavenly blessedness, for no such host had as yet passed through trial (martyrdom ?)

to heaven, and 6'"" seems to prevent the supposition that those who had already died were in possession of their final glory. Our iiil'trLiice in regard to cli. 7 is, then, that the writer introduces foreign (in part Jewish) frajj- ments into his book, apparently interrupting his plan, but not without a purpose. He is writing even more to encourage true Christians than to " Trench {Kpisllea to the Seven Churohei, N.Y. 1802, p. 287(.)

, who procetsiH with a new seriea, thuti ; flfth, individuarB lot at the l>ay of Judj^uient; tiixth^ in cunipuniuiiship with the re- deemed ; seventh, in commumoa with God. 252 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF warn apostates, and so wUl not let assurance and promise wait until its proper plate, whv.n judgment has run its course, but will autitipate deliverance, setting lij;ht over against dark in his picture, though dark must predominate.

Turning to the second pair of insertions, we notice tliat ch. 10 seems to describe nothing less than a new beginning of the prophet's activity, a new commission and inspiration. It seems meant to e.xplain the new and strange nature of the oracles that follow. I'erhaps 10^- * maj' seri-e to explain the writer's departure from the jdan of developing the seventh of one series of judgments in the form of a new series of seven.

Instead of the seven thunders which he heard, he is charged to WTite the contents of the little book of prophecies over many peoples. Yet this apparent change of plan is not a real break in the order, since it is still allirmed that the seventh angel's trumpet will bring the end (10'). The second section, 11'"", is still preliminary, as 1 1" (cf . 9'-) clearlj' indicates. Its strange character is evident.

Yet it maj' well have been meant to serve the same purpose as 7'"", and indeed it falls into two similar parts. II'-', like 7'"*, assures Christians, the true worshippers in the true temple of God, that they will escape from the evils of the last days. Undoubtedly in their origin these verses referred to the real temple and to Jewish worshippers. This must have been a Jewish oracle uttered some time before A.D. 70.

But our author can have used it only as a figure, precisely like the sealing of the 144,000. Its unprepared and fragmentary character are explicable if it was to the writer symbol, not reality. Not otherwise must we judge Ip-'^ In our writer's plan it must mean that those who do not in the outward sense escape the evil, but because of their testimony and work against the power of evil suffer and die, will nevertheless rise in glory and be avenged upon their enemies (not unlike 7'"").

Of course this does not explain the origin of the section. It is full of unexplained allusions, and is clearly part of a larger whole. Its Jewish origin is unmistakable. Bousset regards it as a part of the apocalyptical tradition of Antichrist. It suggests an elaboration of the expectation of the return of Elijah for a work of protest and reform (Mal 4''- ', Mt 17" 11"), and the similar hope of the return of Moses based on Dt 18'°- '* (Mt 17').

But since our writer intro- duces it, not SIS an incident in the direct develop- ment of the drama, but in an interlude and for its general message of encouragement in faithful testimony unto death, it is natural to raise the question whether he took the details literally, and expected the two prophets and especially the conversion of the majority of the Jewish people after a partial judgment upon them (v.") How, indeed, could a Christian, in view of the pre- diction of Christ, even before A.D.

70, have taken literally either the expectation that the temple would be exempt from desecration by the heathen, or that only a tenth of the city would fall? Still less possible would the literal sense of the oracle be after 70. It is true that a Christian hand has touched the narrative (v.« end), but it is not prob- able that the resurrection of the two witnesses is shaped after that of Christ (v.")

In its strongly Jewish character, its evident date (before 70), much earlier than the book as a whole, its unpre- pared insertion, apparently only for its general thought of faithful testimony, martyrdom, and heavenly reward, the section is very instructive regarding the litierary manner of the author (see below, iii. 3). The seventh trumpet must be the third woe (II"), and it must bring the consummation (10').

Its contents cannot therefore be given in U"-'", but must include the rest of the book. The third woe cannot be less than the last conflict with th« powers of evil and their overthrow, which form the theme of chs. 12-20 (see 12'=). In ll""' we have, therefore, an anticipation in a heavenly chorus of the consummation which is not yet fully come (as in 16="^ ly'j ; a superscription for chs. 12-20. The general plan of chs. ll"-22' is clear.

After an introductory anticipation of the kingdom of (iod and the wrath and destruction that must precede its coming (ll'°''*), Satan, the real power of evil, is introduced, and his present peculiar aggressiveness is explained in such a way as to malJe it a ground of special hope, not of discouragement. He has been cast down from heaven, and knows that his time on earth is short (ch. 12).

The chief agents of Satan in his perse- cution of Christians — Rome, the empire and the religion — are then introduced (ch. 13). Before judg- ment against the evil powers begins, the author, according to his custom, inserts various antici- patory passages : a vision of the blessedness of the saints with Christ (vv.'"*) ; a review of the entire teaching of the book (w.'

^'^) : its gospel, the sole worship of God in view of judgment to come ; its prediction, the fall of Rome, and the eternal punishment of those who yield to Roman life and cultus ; the supreme Christian duty, patience, endurance in Christian life and faith, and the promises of heavenly blessedness for martyrs ; then a general vision of judgment in two acts, the reaping of grain and the gathering of grapes (vv. '■*•-"). The seven bowls are introduced as finishing the wrath of God (15', cf.

'it is done," 7^701'f;', 16"). They lead up to the destruction of Rome. But for this great event the writer has larger resources of description at his command. The vision of the >voman seated on the dragon shows that it is her own evil demon that will turn against the city, and ^\'ith its ten horns, which are ten kings, destroy her (ch. 17). Her fall will fulfil the language of prophecy against Babj'lon and Tyre (ch. 18).

It will be finally effected — the end having been once more anticipated in heavenly praises (19i-io)_at Christ's coming and by Him (19"-"). Then, the beasts having been destroyed, Satan's own judgment must come, a preliminary binding and a final destruction (ch. 20). Then at last the consummation so often anticipated will be an actuality (21-22=). Although the wTiter connects ch.

17 and 21'*- with one of the angels of the bowls, yet it must be evident that we are not to judge this section (12-22') as consisting of the seven howl? (develop- ing the seventh trumpet), and some introductory and concluding sections ; for the prelude and post- hide would in this case far overbalance the piece itself both in length and in interest and power.

On tlie other hand, the theme of 12-22' being the fall of Rome, the present Satanic power, and with it the deliverance and blessedness of faithful Christians, it is clear that chs. 12. 13 and 17-22* form the solid framework of the structure. Ch. 19 bring! the beasts of ch. 13 to judgment ; ch. 20 brings the Satan of ch. 12 to an end ; 21-22' brings to actuality the anticipation of 11""".

To set aside the passages put in the right-hand column in Holtzmann's scheme for the sake of carrying out the plan of developing the seventh of each serie« bj' a new series of seven, would sacrifice the most important parts of the section, in which order and movement are most evident. We must conclude that the writer, in the second half of his book, renounced that plan as not adequate for his ma terial, as ch. 10 may have been meant to suggest. The seven bowls, in fact, form the lea.'

t origins.' and impressive part of this section, being de- REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 253 pendent on the seven trumpets and inferior to them in cirectiveness (see oelow). The seven bowls do not furnish the plan of this section. But we may fairly ask whether we are to give to the sevens quite sucli signilicanee in the earlier part of the book as is commonly done.

If both the seventh seal and the seventh trumpet include all that follows in the book (as also the seventh bowl is simply more fully described in ehs. 17-19), then we should not divide by sevens, since this would cut oU' the announcement of the seventh from its development. The seventh sliould open, not end, a new section, and the separation of the seventh from the sixth by passages of vital importance (not mere interludes m character) seems to indicate this intention on the part of the writer.

Clis. 7 and 10 seem most evidently to mark transitions. Some such outline as this may therefore with reserve be suggested — L Preliminarj' Judgments (4-9). 1. Visions of tile actors (4-6). — a. God (4) ; 0. Christ (5) ; c Destroctiv* powere(d). 2. Promises of deliverance out of coming evils (7). 8. The jud;,Tiienta (one-third, without producwg re- I'eiitance, S. 9X n. Final jud|;uieiiu (10-2-2). 1. The prophet's new commission (10). 2. Vision of deliverance for true worshippen of God, and esp.

for martyrs (111'*). 8. Prelude, summarizing the action (lllMB), 4. Visions of the actors (12. 13 [14i-^V]). — «. Satan (12) ; b. Roman empire and emperor- worship (13) ; [e. The Lamb and His followers (Hl-S)). 5. Promises and warnings (14 [or 146-20]). e. The judgi)ients(15-20).— a. Upon the earth, leading up to the fall of the city, Eome (15. 10. 171-lS, " 1191-10?)); ft. Upon the demon-beasts of the Roman empire and religion and their followers(19Ji-2i); c.

Upon Satan and all that belongs to him (20). T. The new world and city (211-8 21»-22»(9?))« Titles or Buper8cri|)tions quite frequently summarize the con- tents of following visions :— U-s sums up the whole book, §2 Is a title, and b^-San anticipation of the effect of the trumpets (&fi" ), and the bowls arc similarly introduced (16'- 2-1). iil5ia IS a summary t itle of cha.

12-22 ; 182- » summarizes IS-* '-^ ; 19'-10 iumn-arizes 1011, 2221 ; 211-8 summarizes 218-22' (211- 2 = i>-2i, s-4 Yet though we find evidence of a general order in the book which the artistic structure of chs. l-.'5 prepares us to look for, ^ve must take account of various departures from any strict order, if we would understand the spirit of the writer. Tliough the interruption of tlie sevens by clis.

7 and 10-11'* is not due to a want of plan, yet here and in various anticipatory voices, visions, and comments (e.p.ll"-'« 14'" 15^-< I'J'-'" 12") we find evidences of the practical impulse to encourage and admonish, rather than artistic reflexion. In the failure to observe strict chronological sequence the book is in- deed only like Daniel and other apocalypses. There is here as in Daniel a progress towards greater concretencss and detail.

In 6""" tlie final day of God's wrath seems already come. It is described again in 14"™. The fall of Home is announced in 14'as if accomplished ; more fully described in IG"'"'; still predicted in 17'" ; announced in 18", predicted still in 18'". Again the letters seem to assume that though trials have been endured, martyrdom is almost wholly future (2") ; but in 5""" many souls of martyrs are seen, and 7""" implies a multi- tude, as 20''' also does. ((/) Jixperienrcn of the seer.

— We have already met with evidence that the author used some ancient materials for their general thought, and not In a literal sense. Before passing to a more detailed stuilj' of his use of material, it is import- ant to ask whether ho gives a consistent picture of bis own experiences. • It Is evident that 171 and 21* are meant to mark the begin- nings of paralti'l set-tiona, and It Is pos^iilile that the likewise parikllel IB'i and 22> are meant to mark their close.

(1) The position and movements of the seer, — He is on earth in V^- ; in 41 he is summoned up into heaven, where he may be conceived as remaining through ch. 9 (cf. 6' 8'- 2 etc.), though earth is not out of bis sight (6i2(r. 71 etc.) That he is literally in heaven is clearly implied in 5-f. 713'-. But in lU', without a break ( and 1 saw '), he ajipears to be on earth (so 10- <), Eartli appears to bo the scene of the action in lll-'5*, but in ll'B voices in heaven are beard, and in v.

'9 the temple in heaven is seen to be open. In 12 the seer seems to be in heaven (?), but in 13 and probably in 14'-" he is on earth. If we read iirTaO>i> in 12" (13'). we have a definite reference to the seer's position, comparable to 19. But the judgment scene 14'* '■"^ suggests heaven. Again chs. 16. 16 give a heavenly scene. In 173 an angel carries John away in the spirit into a wilderness to see the woman (Rome), and in 21'0 to a mountain to see Jerusalem descending out of heaven.

18'- -* indicate that the seer is on earth. In 19'-io he seems to be in heaven, but in v.n on earth again (for he sees heaven open, as in 41) ; so also in 20^ 212, and probably in 2110'.. There is so little law in those movements, and so little care to make the connexion clear, that one might infer that our writer leaves such refer- ences as they stood in his dili'erent sources ; but this would mean that the vision was to him a form, not a reality. (2) The heavenly scenes.

— The scenery in heaven is not clearly described. Ch. 4 pictures a throne of Uod, with 24 elders on thrones around it, seven lamps before it which are the seven spirits of God, before it a glassy sea, and, in the midst of it and around it, four living creatures. Here in the mirUt of the throne stood tlie Lamb (ch. 6), whose seven eyes arc the seven spirits of God, of which the seven lamps were already a 8.\Tiibol. About the throne and the elders and living beings are myriads of angels (6" 7").

Here also are the multitudes who iiave come out of great tribulation (7«-17). Of them, however, it is said not only that they are before the throne of God, but that they serve Him in His temple. 3'2 has prepared us for the conception of a teraple in heaven, and in C» wo have suddenly been m.ode aware of ' the altar, beneath which are the souls of martyrs. Now the trumpets are Bounded by 'the seven angels which stand before God,' 82 (cf. 1«).

Tiiese did not api'ear in the scene just drawn, unless they are the same as * the seven spirits,' as 14 might indicate. The altar is mentioned again, ana, perhaps in distinction from it, ' the golden altar which is before the throne,' the altar of Incense (S^-^).

From the bonis of this 'golden altar which is before God' comes the voice which directs the angel of the sixth trumpet (D'^'-)- The seventh truniiiet reveals the original scene (the throne and elders and living beings, il'fi-ls) ; but then we reafl. ' there was opened the temple of God that is in hea\-en,' and in it the ark of Ills covenant was seen (11'9). After this the 24 elders appear only in 141-6 and 19'-*, two soinewbat similar pjissages, though 152- may have the saii-e setting (cf.

4"). One of the four living creatures is mentioned in 157 in connexion with the temjile ; but more often the temple scenery stands by itself. Out of the temple comes the angel who summons the reaper (14"^) and the angel who is to gather the grapes (1417), whom another angel f rum the altar directs (14'«). Out of the temple come the seven angels, having the seven last jilagues, and the temple is filled with smoke from the glory of God, so that it could not be entered, although open (Ij-' ^).

A great voice from the temple commands them (16') ; 'the altar' affirms the justice of the judgment (10'), and the final, ' It is done,' comes 'out of the temple and from the throne,' uniting the two (16'7). It is not easy to unite in one picture the concep- tion of God as sitting on a throne surrounded by His court, and of His dwelling, in lieaven as on earth, in the temple's holiest place, from whicli His voice or messengers issue forth.

Since tlie scenery of the throne is that of the seals, and the temple scenery that of the bowls, it is natural to think of this unharmonized element as due to sources. The author has mixed the scenes somewhat (15' could be an insertion, as the angels came out of the temple already having seven plagues, vv.'-')j but he does not harmonize them, or [laint a heaven that can be imagined. The new Jerusalem must al.

so have been in heaven (3'- 21'-'), though the seer beholds it only as it descends to earth (21'"-). The description ot the new heaven and earth resolvea itself into the description of a city, and in this there is no temjile (21, '), but the throne roiiiains the final seat of God (20-'- " 21» 22'»). If the writer had wislied to paint a clear, consistent picture, ho could easily have done so.

The infer- ence that ho took his descriptions as they were, and valued them as poetical not literal accounts, is hurely a natural one. 254 REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF (3) Form of insjnration. — The same freedom and disregard of formal consistency is evident in the representation of the way in which the seer re- ceived his revelations. There is no set way, no fixed medium.

The fli-st verses seem explicit, yet leave us uncertain whether we are to conceive of the writer as reeei\ing: Christ's revelation throu(;h angel (!') or by vision ('all the things that he saw,' l*'^, cf. l^^}. The letters are given by Ciirist in the first person. Yet they are introduced by a description of Christ in the third person, and the expression ' hear what the spirit saith to the Churches ' sug-gesta that the letters are dictated to John by an angel-spirit in the name of Christ.

The voice which John hears at first (l>*"") must be the voice of Christ Himself (cf. 1'^). The Bame voice summons John into the open heaven (4')- He is there ' in the spirit' (4^, as in V^). Hut it does not appear to be Christ Himself who shows him what is to come. Christ appears as an actor in the drama of the future, not as the seer's inteqtreter. Not till ltJi& is His voice heard again, and then not till 22' (V). In 1"!

one of the seven angels of the bowls summons John and carries him away in the spirit into a wilderness to see the judgment upon Rome. This is the sort of angel guidance that 1^ would lead us to expect, but which we look for thus far in vain.

This angel fulfils his function as interpreter (177-18); but then we hear another angel announcing Babylon's fall (181-3) ; another voice from heaven pronouncing the prophetic denuncia- tion over her (IS-^"); and still another angel predicting the fall by deed and word (1821-2^). Then are heard various voices from heaven (19i-«); and only then, in I99l0(and he says to me'), does the original angel-guide speak again. He then rejects John's impulse to worship him (cf. Asc.

Isaiah 721 s-^) with the words, ' I am a fellow-servant of thee and thy brothers who have the testimony of Jesus ; worship God : for the testi- mony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy ' (19li). The last clause is often struck out as a gloss by critics (Bousset, Hilgen- feld, etc.), but this is venturesome. The spirit of prophecy' should mean the spirit from God which inspires the prophet; that is, in this case, the angel himself (cf. 226).

So he would say, ' I am only one of you who have the testimony of Jesus ; indeed this testimony constitutes my verj' being.' The angel-spirit of prophecy is simply the personified testimony of Jesus, the word of Jesus Himself. As a messenger this angel is on an equality with John, — because his message is wholly and simply the message of Christ.

There follow visions of the first and of the final judgments (19ii-20i^), and an introductory (summary) vision of the consummation (21l-^), in which are heard the words of God Himself (\'v.8-8); and then 'one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls' (not the same one as before?) carried John in the spirit to a mountain to see the new Jeru- salem.

It is this angel who measured the city and showed John the details of the vision (21i5-i7 22'), so that when 22^ begins •and he said to me,' it can be only the angel that speaks (one of the 'spirits of the prophets'); but in v.7 his words become Christ's words, 'behold, 1 come quickly.' No wonder John would again worship him, but again he classes himself with the prophets. As a person he is only a revealer, a voice; but his words are those of Christ. So when he speaks again (2210H.)

his words ajiain become Christ's words (vv.I'-ff). Now it is to be observed that the seven angels of the bowls (ch. 15), two CO of whom are the imparters of these last prophecies of the book, naturally lead us back to ' the seven angels which stand before God,' to whom the trumpets are given (82), and these again to the seven lamps burning before the throne, which are the seven Bjtirits of Goa (4*), from whom (H), as from God and Christ, John's message comes.

When now Christ is described as 'he that hath the seven spirits of God ' (31), and is pictured as the Lamb with seven eyes ' which are the seven spints of God sent forth into all the earth' (56), we have certainly significant indications of what the WTiter meant hy calling bis book an •apocal>^»se of Jesus Christ,' and of his idea of the inspiration of a Christian prophet.

Angels, however realistically described, are hardly more than a means of expressing the fact that the writer was somehow consrious of having a message from Christ for the Churches. Any further Interpretation of his consciovis- ness must he deferred until we have studied the sources and relationships of his materials. Any set and consistent form of representing his experiences, however, the author seems purposely to avoid. Apart from 17iff.

2iy^- we have no indication of a special interpretmg angel, taking the part of Gabriel in the Bk. of Daniel. The speakers in the book are verj' many. The underlying faith in the king- ship of God and of Christ, and its ultimate triumph, are expressed in heavenly choruses, led by the twenty-four elders and the four cherubim, but joined in by multitudes of angels and of glorified men (4a-li 591 79-12 nl-" 1210 142.3 152.4 191-7 (S). One of the elders instructs John in 5^ and Tl*^!"

Often it is simply 'a voice from heaven' that he hear8(10-8 1413 I8 218, cf. Wi\ or from the horns of the altar (9i-'f-)i or from the altar itself (16^. He records woMs of God, 18 I? ) 215-8 \Qn (?) ; of Christ, 1" l» »> 2. 3. ini5 227- I2flr. ; of the spirit, 14»3 2217. There are beatitudes uttered by Christ (16i» 22' H), by a voice from heaven (14>3), by the angel-guide (19'-*), by John (l^).

Sometimes he seems to interrupt the storj- of what he had seen with a direct word of his own to the reader (27» etc. 13^ 10 1318 1412, cf. 179?) Among the other voices that are heard are those of the souls of martyrs (610): of various angels undefined (7* 14«- 8.»- 16. 13 1917 etc.) ; of Hhe angel of the waters' (Iti^f); an eagle (&13); the ro<l QW).

At the beginning and at the end the book is declared to be from Gbriflt Himself, His testimony (li- 9 221^ The part which the anpels perform might almost he regarded as pictorial, since the wnter reduces the significance of these beings, who are the uniform at^tors and speakers in the Jewish apocal>-pses, to thai of messengers of Christ. He is the primary and final actor la the book (.opens the seals, ch. 6 f., and executes the judgment^ igiiff), and He is the real speaker.

Here also, as in the case of the place and move- ments of the seer and the heavenly scennry, a variety of sources nu*;ht explain the diversity of the representation, but we must also suppose the author to be relatively inditlerent to formal con- sistency. He must, one is forced to think, have taken the external language of apocalypses in a figurative or poetic way. The only other hypothesis would seem to be that of composite origin (as held by Volter, Spitta, etc.)

; but the etibrt to bring con- sistency out of the book by analysis and the recon- struction of sources out 01 which it was gradually and unskilfully put together, fails to do justice to the unity of style and even of plan which the book has been found to exhibit. Moreover, this etiort has been made by many able men, and, according to the prevailing opinion of scholars, has failed.

In order, however, to test the possibility of a free, more or less poetic, use of traditional apoca- lyptical material, we must examine our autlior'a use of tradition at various points more closely. 3. Sources. — (a) Old Testament. — Although Rev, contains no direct citations from the OT, it is full of OT language from the beginning to the end.

An impression of its dependence on OT phrase- ology may be gained from the text of W estcott and Hort, or from that of Nestle, in which such allusions or remini.scences are printed in a distinct type. In the corresponding list of references in WHs Appendix, pp. 184-188, out of the total number of 404 verses in the book about 265 verses contain OT language, and about 550 references are made to OT pas.^ages. The material is still more fully gathered by Hiihn [Die alttest.

Citate und Rcminlscenzen iin NT, 1900). Nothing is more hnportant for the understanding of our author's mental and literary processes than a close study of his use of OT language. The bearmg of such study upon the interpreta- tion of our book can here only be suggested by illustrations. One of the simplest cases is the prophetic denunciation of the fall of Babylon (Rome) in ch. 18. It is composed almost wholly of material taken from the prophetic woes over Babylon (Is 13. 14, Jer 50.

51), Tyre (Is 23, Ezk 26-28), and, in a slight degree, Edom (Is 34). Even the admonition that mi^ht seem to have direct reference to the historical situation, Come forth, my people, out of her,' etc. (18-), is directly borrowed from prophetic utterances (Jer 51^-'-** 50^, Is 48^ 52"), and lias there rather than here its historical explanation. Yet the chapter does not make the impression of being a laborious piece of patchwork.

It has a unity of its oven and a high degree of impressiveness, and seems to be the work of one who?^e mind is tilled with the language of prophecy, and who draws abundantly, and of course consciously', from his storehouse, and yet ^^'rites with freedom and from a strong inner im- pulse of his o^\'n, and elaborates with his omu con- ceptions the themes which the prophetic words contain. So he makes out of the old a product in a real sen.se new, a poetical whole.

But what shall we say of hia putting this product into the • The allusions agree in part with the Heb., in part with the LXX. WH mark 33 references as distinctly from IK-b. (and Chald.), 15 as from LXX; 5 are marked Ileb. and LXX, viz. 4 references to Ex 19I6 (4^*8^ 11 !'-> 1618) and one to Zee 3'^ (12i'). Schurer(3 iii. 323) cites 9-^ 1(P 13' 20^ as citations from Daniel, which follow Theodotion more closely than LXX. See Bludau, ' Die Apokalvpse und Thcodotions Daniel-Uebersetzung,' in Theol.

QuarthLchri/t, 1897, pp. 1-26. Salmon (Introd. to tht yT, p. (i«2f.) argue that the citations in Rev. show a nearer relationship to Theod. than to LXX. referring to »20 io5 12? W 196 20^ 11 ; on the other side, 1" X916. Cf. Swete, Introd. p. 48 L REVELATION, BOOK OF REVELATION, BOOK OF 255 moutli of angels? It ia easier to attribute such a literary tomi«Jsition to a poet than to a voice from lieaven. Kven the action of tlie an<;el in 18-' rests on the s)-mliolic act of Jeremiah (51'^").

And if our writer says that lie hears and sees tliese things, must we not judge the nature of his vision by its contents? A literal voice from heaven this certainly cannot be, and we seem shut up to two possibilities regarding it : either the angels and the voice from heaven belong wholly to the poetry of the piece, its literary form, or they express the writer's own interpretation of the strong impulse, as if from without, under which he wrote.

Another instructive illustration of the author's use of the OT is to be found in his description of the new Jerusalem, 2I'-22'. This is largely taken from the anticipations of the prophets of the Exile, Ezekiel and Deutero- Isaiah, with reference to the return and the reb\uldiiig of Jerusalem. Features are added from other sources. Here, as in ch. 18, the impression i.

s not that of mere clipping and piecing, but rather that of the work of a mind full of the Messianic language of the prophets, WTiting out of a genuine and deep religious and poetic emotion, with a dependence on the OT which is free, not slavish, and yet with very little real inventive- ness. Yet this also is shown to the seer by an angel, who seems to be in general the speaker (see 21" 4 \a\uy, 22"); and an action of his is described 21""" which is taken from Ezekiel (40"^-).

In this case, more clearly than in ch. 18, we may suspect a cer- tain limitation of the author's imagination by bis sources, which is not inconsistent with a large measure of freedom in the use of them. He has mastered the OT material of this sort, and can use it etlectively, b\it cannot go much beyond it.

How otherwise can \i'e explain the emphatically Jewish picture of a future which was certainly to this writer universal in scope ; the presence still of thoroughly earthl}' features in a consummation which must surely, in t he writer's view, be heavenly; the appearance still of nations and kings and their wealth after heaven .and earth have passed away?

He has little but the old familiar national and earthly language at command for the description of that which heaven contains for Christian hope. He can describe the Christian heaven only in Jewish language. Hut though bound in language he is not bound in thought.

He knows no more impressive and expressive language (nor do we) ; but the language is poetry to him, it is figurative, not literal, chosen for its poetic worth and emotional ellect, which belonged to it, indeed, partly because it was old and familiar. It must of course be re- cognized that the most powerful imagination comes guickly to an end if it attempts to leave the earth in its descriptions of heaven.

Religious faith and hope cannot do better than take the language which tlie greater souls have created, which genera- tions have shaped, which age has hallowed, and use it not for its literal but for its emotional and poetic worth, to symbolize and suggest inexpressible realities. Jewish literature furnishes other similar collec- tions of OT Messianic imagery (To 13, etc.)

; and the possibility that some earlier (Jewish) mind had already shaped the material in 21»-22', and that our author, in 21'"*, introduces and summarizes this section, and adds his own concluding sentences (22'-^'), is to be considered. A still more striking illustration of our author's dependence on OT language, yet his freedom in the use of it, both in combination and in application, is his description of Christ in l', ".

Almost all of it is taken from Daniel, but it unites in a most surprising way features from the descriptions of the one like a son of man, and of the Am lent of Days, in Dn 7, with still more from the angel (Gabriel) in Dn 10. The seven golden candlesticks and the seven stars .are without parallel in Daniel. Something can he said, however, as to their source and use. The former was of course a familiar OT symbol (Ex 25" 37^) which Zech.

(4-) uses in an unearthly sense, exjilaining that the seven lamps are the .seven eyes of J", which run to and fio through the whole earth (4""' following v."). He sees by the candlestick two olive-trees (4), and evidently interprets their two branches as signify- ing Zerubbabcl and Joshua, so that the two trees are the Davidic and the Aaronic houses. These two men, Zech. would say, have the eyes of the Lord upon them in favour and blessing.

But this is a free npi)lication by the prophet to the historical present and to his practical purpose of a symbol which originally, no doubt, pictured the seven planets and the w.ay in which their light was con- stantly replenished by the oil from ever-growing trees. It was a mythological .symbol (Gunkel, Schop/ung, pp. 122-131), which Zech. used as poetry, not interpreting all of the symbol (4-''), and perhaps adding a feature for the sake of the interpretation (4'-).

Now in Uev 1'-" the writer chooses to identify the seven lamps with the seven churches among which Christ is and moves. But in 4°'' he sees seven lamps burning before the throne of God, which are, he explains, the seven spirits of God, altirmed in l"" to be before God's tlirone (cf. 8") ; and even in the letters (3') Christ is described as the one who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, so that this interpreta- tion of the lamps was in his mind l)y the side of the other.

When, still furtlier, we read that the Lamb has 'seven ej-es, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth ' (5"), with evident allusion to Zee 4'"'', we are able to realize how far from a slavish literalness and formal con- sistency our author's >ise of OT figures is. Finally, Zech.'s figure reappears in 1 1'', where the two wit- nesses are declared to be ' the two olive-trees and the two candlesticks [what two ?] st.

-mding before the Lord of the earth,' a free identification for a purpose, similar in kind to that of Zech. himself, this time certainly made not by our author, but by some source. Our writer cares miich for OT prophetic language, and cannot easily add much to it, but he ap[dies it freely to new uses. Note esp. that we have in Rev. no such anxious ell'ort to interiuet an OT predic- tion, assuming the necessity of its literal fulfil- ment, as Dn 9 contains.

The relation of 11^ to Zee 4, and of 20» to Ezk 38 f., is wholly dillbrent. Other illustrations could readily be given, — such as the relation of ch. 4 to Is G and Ezk 1, — but enough has been presented to justify the following presupjiositions with reference to passages in our book which contain imagery not derived from the