[4] The Apocalypse is quite different in style and in respect to pure Greek. For these reasons and others some of the early Fathers denied that the Apostle wrote it. But such was the early tradition. Justin Martyr refers to him as the author, and as Dr. Sears, in his Heart of Christ, well argues, these differences are sufficiently accounted for by the highly excited state of mind in which the Apocalypse was written; and he points out many agreements both in doctrine and mode of expression.
[5] Three years, and possibly four.
[A] Its omission of Peter’s want of faith, as recorded in Matthew 14-30, is an exception.
[6] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 210; Norton’s Genuineness, etc., Vol. I., p. 188; Wescott’s Introduction, cc. 3 and 4.
CHAPTER XV.
THE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES.
While all Infidels, from Celsus before the year 180 to Waite, in 1881, have agreed that “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not really rise again,” some[1] of them have assumed the one, and some the other alternative. Strauss, with Celsus, doubts the reality of the resurrection, rather than the death. Schleiermacher, on the other hand, held that Jesus returned again to life from a state of lethargy; and this view, although not the position generally taken by skeptics, is still held by a very few.
There have been two institutions in the Christian church, the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s day, that have testified from the beginning that Jesus was really dead, and did really rise again from the dead. They displaced the Jewish Passover and the Jewish Sabbath, both strongly entrenched in the law of Moses and long established custom. Such substitution can be accounted for, only upon the hypothesis of the fullest conviction of the death and resurrection of our Lord. The Lord’s day is referred to by Paul in First Corinthians (c. xvi.) under the designation of “the first day of the week,” and is mentioned by John in Revelation (c. i. 10), where he says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” The Lord’s Supper has great prominence given to it by Paul in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians. Those to whom he writes are admonished not to eat “of that bread,” or drink “of that cup,” in an unworthy manner, “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” As to the origin of this sacrament, he says, “I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake and said, Take, eat; this is my body broken for you; this do in remembrance of me: and after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” This Epistle was written as early as the year[2] 57, or within 27 years after the Crucifixion. It is not to be doubted that such a command would be observed from the first formation of any church. Both the death and resurrection of Christ appear in the book of Revelation. He is called “The first begotten of the dead” (c. i. 5), “He that liveth and was dead” (c. i. 88), “The Lamb as it had been slain,” before whom the four living creatures and the elders (as representing the whole Church) fall down, saying, “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (c. v. 6 to 10). And John says that he was in exile, “for the Word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (c. i. 9). What was this “testimony,” other than that which Luke says in Acts (c. iv. 2) was given by Peter and John when the Sadducees were “grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus Christ the resurrection from the dead;” or other than that, given by Peter in the presence of John, (c. iii. 15) that the Jews had “killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” Even from the book of Revelation[3] alone, were there no other proof, should we conclude that John testified that Jesus died and rose again.
This was the burden of Paul’s preaching and the inspiration of his life.
Nor do we stop with Paul. From his writings we know that all the Apostles and the whole Church from the beginning, maintained the same grand theme with all the strength of conviction of which men are capable. He had been preaching three years prior to the first visit to Jerusalem referred to in Galatians (c. i. 18). At this visit he had “returned again,” to Damascus. His leaving Damascus was probably the time when he was let down from the wall in a basket, as stated in Second Corinthians (c. xi. 33), and the city was then held “under Aretus the King.” Fourteen years after his conversion or his escape (it is uncertain which), he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with him. The precise date of his conversion is unknown, but was approximately[4] in the year 36. He writes of the last visit mentioned in Galatians, “that when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” From that time, then, if not before, with the full recognition of all the Apostles, he became distinctively the Apostle to the Gentiles. And at the first visit mentioned, he saw James, the Lord’s brother, and also Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Afterwards, he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea, but they had heard, “That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed;” and he says, “they glorified God in me” (c. i. 18-24). He says in the thirteenth verse, “Ye have heard of my conversation in time past, in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.”