THE MESSAGES OF THE LIVING CHRIST
The Book of Revelation (First Lesson)
1. THE APOCALYPSE AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
In the Student's Text Book it was maintained that the Apocalypse was written by John the son of Zebedee. The strongest objection to this view is to be found in the striking difference of language and style which exists between the Apocalypse on the one side and the Gospel and Epistles of John on the other. The style of the Apocalypse is extraordinarily rough; in it the most elementary laws of Greek grammar are sometimes disregarded. Such peculiarities appear scarcely at all in the Gospel; the language of the Gospel, though simple, is perfectly grammatical.
This observation has led many scholars to decide that the Gospel and the Apocalypse never could have been written by the same person; the argument, indeed, was advanced as early as the third century by Dionysius of Alexandria. Those who thus deny the unity of authorship do not all reject either one book or the other as authoritative; some suppose that the John whose name appears in the Apocalypse, though not the same as John the son of Zebedee, was a genuine prophet.
The evidence, however, for attributing all the Johannine books to the son of Zebedee is exceedingly strong. If the Apocalypse is to be attributed to some one else, tradition is very seriously at fault, and it is also very difficult to see how another John could have introduced himself to the churches of Asia Minor in the way that the author does at the beginning and end of the book without distinguishing himself from the greater man of the same name who was residing at Ephesus at the very same time. The Apocalypse must therefore be assigned to the son of Zebedee unless there is absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the contrary.
Such evidence is not really forthcoming. The difference of style between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel is capable of explanation.
(1) Possible Difference of Date.—In the first place, it might be explained by a wide difference of date. If the Apocalypse was written at about A. D. 68, then an interval of some twenty-five years or more separates it from the Gospel. Such an interval would allow plenty of time for the style of the author to change. When the Galilean fisherman first left his home in Palestine, his command of the Greek language might conceivably be slight; whereas after a long residence in Asia Minor, as leader of a group of Greek-speaking churches, the roughness of his style would be removed. Hence the un-Greek, strongly Hebraistic usages of the Apocalypse would in the Gospel naturally give place to a correct, though simple style.
This hypothesis, however, is beset with serious difficulties. It is difficult to suppose that the Apocalypse was written before the closing decade of the first century. Some passages, it is true, have been strongly urged in favor of the early date. Particularly the reference to the seven kings in Rev. 17:10 has been thought by many excellent scholars to be decisive. The reference to the seven hills in the preceding verse seems to show that the "beast" represents Rome; the seven kings therefore naturally represent Roman emperors. The fifth emperor, beginning with Augustus, was Nero. If at the time when the book was written five were fallen, one was and the other was not yet come, v. 10, the book must apparently have been written under Nero's successor. His successor, Galba, reigned only a few months: the book was therefore written in A. D. 68 or 69. Or if the very brief reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius be not counted, then the book was written between A. D. 69 and 79, during the reign of Vespasian.
The passage remains, however, so obscure that it is very doubtful whether any one interpretation of it should be allowed to overbalance the evidence for the later date. Such evidence is abundant. Most weighty of all, perhaps, is the strong tradition which places the Apocalypse in the closing years of Domitian. It is hard to believe that that tradition is seriously at fault. The condition of the Church, moreover, as it is presupposed in the book, is more naturally to be sought at A. D. 95 than twenty-five years earlier. The persecution, for example, which the writer describes, seems far more like the persecution under Domitian than it is like the outbreak which was occasioned by the cruelty of Nero.
(2) The Difference of Subject.—If the later date be accepted, then the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written in the same period of the apostle's life, and the difference of style cannot be explained by a difference of date. Another explanation, however, is sufficient. The difference between the two books may be explained by the total difference of subject. The Gospel is a narrative of Jesus' life, written with abundant opportunity for reflection; the Apocalypse is a record of wonderful visions, where stylistic nicety would have marred the immediateness of the revelation. The very roughness of the Apocalypse is valuable as expressing the character of the book. In the Gospel, John brought to bear all his power of reflection and of expression; in the Apocalypse, he wrote in haste under the overpowering influence of a transcendent experience.
The grammatical irregularities of the Apocalypse, moreover, often create the impression that they are intentional. They belonged, apparently, to an apocalyptic style which to a certain extent had already been formed; they were felt to be suited to the peculiar character of the work.
Finally, it must not be forgotten that side by side with the differences of style there are some remarkable similarities. The underlying unity of thought and expression points to unity of authorship.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APOCALYPSE
(1) A Record of Visions.—In what has just been said, the dominant peculiarity of the Apocalypse has already been indicated. The Apocalypse is no careful literary composition, pieced together from previous works of a similar character. On the contrary, it is a record of genuine revelations. Before writing, the seer was "in the Spirit."
(2) Influence of the Old Testament.—Nevertheless, although the Apocalypse is a record of visions, and was written consciously under the impulsion of the Spirit, it is by no means uninfluenced by previous works. To a degree that is perhaps not paralleled by any other New Testament book, the Apocalypse is suffused with the language and with the imagery of the Old Testament. Though there is not a single formal quotation, the Old Testament Scriptures have influenced almost every sentence of the book. Particularly the books of Ezekiel and Daniel, which, like the Apocalypse, are composed largely of the records of visions, have supplied much of the imagery of the New Testament work.
This wide-spread influence of the Old Testament upon the Apocalypse is by no means surprising. The Apocalypse is based upon direct revelation, but direct revelation is not necessarily out of relation to everything else. On the contrary, it uses the language which its recipients can understand; and part of the language of the apostle John was the phraseology and imagery of the Old Testament.
It has already been hinted that works very similar in form to the Apocalypse are to be found in the Old Testament. This apocalyptic form was continued in a number of Jewish works written after the conclusion of the Old Testament canon. Superficially these works bear considerable resemblance to the New Testament Apocalypse; but closer examination reveals profound differences. The Jewish apocalypses appeared under assumed names—the most important of them under the name of Enoch—while John is so firmly convinced of having received genuine revelation that he requires no such spurious authority for his work. The similarity between our Apocalypse and its extra-canonical Jewish predecessors and contemporaries is a similarity at most of form; in spirit and content the difference is incalculable. Unlike these other works, the Apocalypse is a genuine prophecy.
3. THE MESSAGES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES
The so-called letters to the seven churches were never intended to be circulated separately. From the beginning the letters formed part of the Apocalypse, which was addressed to all seven of the churches. From the beginning, therefore, each of the letters was intended to be read not only by the church whose name it bears, but also by all the others. The seven churches, moreover, are representative of the Church at large.
Nevertheless, despite the universal purpose of the letters, they are very concrete in the information that they provide about the churches in Asia Minor. Like the Second and Third Epistles of John they illumine an exceedingly obscure period in the history of Christianity.
(1) The "Angels" of the Churches.—Some details in the letters, it is true, are to us obscure. What, for example, is meant by the "angels" of the churches to which the several letters are addressed? The Greek word translated "angel" may also mean simply "messenger." Conceivably, it might designate merely a congregational officer. Many have supposed that it designates a bishop. In the epistles of Ignatius, which were written not very many years after the Apocalypse, the term "bishop" is applied to an officer who had supreme authority over a congregation including the presbyters. The appearance of these "angels" or "messengers" in the Apocalypse has been urged as proof that John as well as Ignatius recognized the institution of the episcopacy.
Surely, however, the matter is more than doubtful. The Greek word used, whether it be translated "angel" or "messenger," is a very strange designation of a bishop. Moreover, in the rest of the Johannine literature there is no recognition of the episcopacy. In the Third Epistle of John, for example, even if Diotrephes had set himself up as a bishop—which is itself exceedingly doubtful—his claim is certainly not accepted by the apostle.
On the whole, it seems better to regard the "angels" to which the seven letters of the Apocalypse are addressed merely as ideal representatives of the churches—representatives conceived of perhaps as guardian angels. Compare Matt. 18:10.
(2) The Nicolaitans.—Another puzzling question concerns the "Nicolaitans" who appear in several of the letters. The name itself is obscure. By tradition it is connected with that Nicolaüs of Antioch who was one of the seven men appointed in the early days of the Jerusalem church to attend to the administration of charity. Acts 6:5. The tradition may possibly be correct. If it is correct, then Nicolaüs, in his later life, had not justified the confidence originally reposed in him.
At the first mention of the Nicolaitans, in the letter to Ephesus, Rev. 2:6, nothing whatever is said about their tenets. Their error, however, was not merely theoretical, but practical, for it was their "works" that the Lord is represented as hating. In the letter to Pergamum, the Nicolaitans are probably meant in v. 14. Like Balaam, they enticed the people of God to idolatry and impurity. The form which their idolatry took was the eating of meats offered to idols. The question of meats offered to idols was no simple matter. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians Paul had permitted the eating of such meats under certain circumstances, but had sternly forbidden it wherever it involved real or supposed participation in idolatrous worship. The form in which it was favored by the Nicolaitans evidently fell under the latter category. In a time of persecution, the temptation to guilty compromise with heathenism must have been insidious; and also the low morality of the Asian cities threatened ever and again to drag Christian people back into the impure life of the world.
In the letter to Thyatira, also, "the woman Jezebel" is apparently to be connected with the same sect, for the practical faults in Thyatira and in Pergamum were identical. Jezebel, the Phœnician wife of Ahab, was, like Balaam, a striking Old Testament example of one who led Israel into sin. It is significant that the woman Jezebel in Thyatira called herself a prophetess. Rev. 2:20. This circumstance seems to indicate that the Nicolaitans had excused their moral laxness by an appeal to special revelations. The impression is confirmed by v. 24. Apparently the Nicolaitans had boasted of their knowledge of the "deep things," and had despised the simple Christians who contented themselves with a holy life. At any rate, whatever particular justification the Nicolaitans advanced for their immoral life, they could not deceive the all-searching eye of Christ. Their "deep things" were deep things, not of God, but of Satan!
Who is meant by "the woman Jezebel"? Some interpreters, who suppose that the "angel" of the church was the bishop, regard Jezebel as a designation of the bishop's wife. This whole interpretation is, however, beset with serious difficulty. Perhaps "the woman Jezebel" does not refer to an individual at all, but is simply a figurative designation of the Nicolaitan sect. The description of the coming retribution in vs. 21-23 seems to be highly figurative.
It will be observed that the sin of the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira was not limited to those who actually accepted the Nicolaitan teaching. Even to endure the presence of the guilty sect was the object of the Lord's rebuke. Toward the works of the Nicolaitans only hatred was in place. Rev. 2:6. That is a solemn lesson for modern indifferentism. Tolerance is good; but there are times when it is a deadly sin.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 274, 308-312. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (supplemented), article on "Revelation." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 150-155. Milligan, "Lectures on the Apocalypse" and "Discussions on the Apocalypse." Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 523-641: Carpenter, "The Revelation of St. John." Ramsay, "The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia." Plumptre, "A Popular Exposition of the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia." Swete, "The Apocalypse of St. John." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp. 384-449. The two last-named works are intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.