A Key to the Book of Revelation. By James M’Donald, minister of the Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, L. I. Second Edition. New London, 1848.
Das Alte und Neue Morgenland. Rosenmüller. Leipzig, 1820.
The Season and Time; or, an Exposition of the Prophecies which relate to the two periods subsequent to the 1200 years now recently expired, being the time of the Seventh Trumpet, &c. By W. Ettrick, A.M. London, 1816.
Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Von Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Leipzig, 1811.
For a very full view of the history of the interpretation of the Apocalypse, and of the works that have been written on it, the reader is referred to Elliott’s Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. iv. pp. 307–487, and Prof. Stuart, vol. i. pp. 450–475. See, for a condensed view, [Editor’s Preface].
EDITOR’S PREFACE.
YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE.
Professor Bush, in the Hierophant for January, 1845, at the close of a review of Barnes on the Hebrews, thus wrote:—“We sincerely hope Mr. Barnes may be enabled to accomplish his plan to its very ultimatum, and furnish a commentary of equal merit on the remaining books of the New Testament;with the exception, however, of the Apocalypse, to which, we think, his rigid Calvinian austerity of reason is not so well adapted; and which, we presume to think, would fare better under our own reputed fanciful and allegorical pen.”[2] The indefatigable author has lived to accomplish his plan, and has ventured to include within it the mysterious prophecy, for the elucidation of which the reviewer imagined the severe character of his mind disqualified him. Many will think the supposed disqualification a foremost requisite in an Apocalyptic commentator, inasmuch as the Apocalypse has been too long interpreted on fanciful and allegorical principles;and it is now “high time for principle to take the place of fancy, for exegetical proof to thrust out assumption.”[3] The advocates of what has been called the Protestant Historic Scheme of Interpretation, have been supposed peculiarly liable to delusions of this nature. It is, therefore, gratifying to find that this new defender of that scheme has been distinguished by a “Calvinian austerity of reason,” which may help to preserve both him and his readers from being in like manner led astray, and at the same time secure a more respectful tone from critics who have espoused opposite views. Bush, who has himself so ably defended the Protestant scheme on the other side of the Atlantic, now that he finds Barnes on the same ground, will think that the spirit of severe logic and searching inquiry which he has brought with him to the contest, render him all the more valuable an associate. In examining the former volumes of Mr. Barnes, we found it was no part of his system of interpretation to admit typical and mystical senses where the literal one could at all be adopted.We had to complain that his tendency was too strong in the opposite direction.[4]
The plan which the author tells us he adopted in preparing his commentary, is a singular illustration of his judgment and caution; and therefore affords another assurance of his sobriety as an interpreter of the symbols of John. Up to the time of commencing the exposition of this book, he tells us he had no theory in his mind as to its meaning. The utmost he contemplated, when he began, was to explain the meaning of its language and symbols, without attempting to apply that explanation to historical events. But, to his own surprise, he found a series of events, recorded chiefly in Gibbon, such as seemed to correspond, to a great extent, with the series of symbols found in the Apocalypse. Farther examination exhibited this correspondence stillmore strikingly; and the result was, that his views ultimately took the shape of those given by the great body of Protestant interpreters.He therefore justly claims to be another and independent witness in favour of the common interpretation.[5] These statements, while they cannot but increase the reader’s confidence in the guide who now offers to lead him through the mazes of the Apocalypse,ought also to mitigate the scorn with which some have affected to regard all expositions of this school—speaking of them as “hariolations” and “surmises,” which set the reader “afloat upon a boundless ocean of conjecture and fancy, without rudder or compass.”[6] It is easy to say such things, and they are therefore too often said by the followers of Eichhorn and Stuart; but accurate inquiry into the non-Protestant scheme will speedily convince anyone that the hariolations do by no means all belong to one side.We venture to say, that nothing so much deserving the name occurs in the whole series of Protestant expositions, as the absurd and unfounded guesses of the last-named writer regarding the witnesses in chap. xi., and the explanation of chap. xvii. 8, by an unfounded heathen rumour regarding the reappearance of Nero after he had been slain.[7]
With this edition of the Notes on the Book of Revelation we have not found it expedient to present any accompanying or supplementary notes. The author’s text has been carefully revised, and many errors which had crept both into the American and English editions have been corrected. On certain points we could have wished a little more fulness. The important question of the date of the book; the history of apocalyptic interpretation; and the principles of prophetic interpretation, particularly as regards designations of time, are matters lying at the very foundation of just views of the Apocalypse. The first of these points has, indeed, a page or two allotted to it in the “Introduction,” and is also incidentally noticed in the commentary; the second is less or more touched on in the exposition of difficult passages; but the last is almost entirely overlooked, on the ground that the author intends a full discussion of the subject in his forthcoming volume on Daniel. We somewhat regret this, because of the importance of the Year-day principle itself, and because every reader of the Notes on the Book of Revelation may not possess, or have immediately at hand, those on Daniel. We have no doubt that the author’s defence of this part of the Protestant citadel will prove one of the most able that has yet been given. It will, beyond a doubt, avoid the errors of those who have weakened the argument by insisting on points which, at best, are uncertain; and place the theory on a basis sufficiently broad to admit of rational and hopeful maintaining of it, in spite of numerous learned and able assaults. In the meantime, that our edition may not be without something, however brief and imperfect, on a point which onall hands is allowed to be fundamental, we purpose to devote the following pages to an examination of the Year-day principle.