Notes on the Apocalypse

by David Steele

SOUNDING OP THE SEVENTH TRUMPET.

At the time when those learned divines wrote, the political agitations in Europe and America, as already noticed, gave a peculiar tincture to their opinions and expositions of the Apocalyptic symbols. This state of feeling on the part of these distinguished men, and on opposite sides of the Atlantic, is very strikingly illustrated in their conflicting interpretations of the "third woe,"—the seventh trumpet. Amidst the conflict of arms and the booming of cannon, in both hemispheres, those writers thought the first blast of the seventh trumpet and third woe could be distinctly heard. They differed widely, however, in their interpretations of its import and effects. To Mr. Faber, Napoleon, who was the most conspicuous figure in the passing drama, appeared as a terrific Vandal at the head of his legions, threatening to uproot and lay waste the fair fabric of European civilization. To the Doctor, on the other hand, Napoleon seemed the possible minister of Providence, destined to prepare the way of the Lord, and to introduce a better, a scriptural civilization. As time has sufficiently demonstrated the fallacy of their respective expositions of the seventh trumpet, it is needless to quote or review their speculations.

The principal defect pervading the "Lectures," and one which most readers will be disposed to view in an opposite light, appears to be, a charity too broad, a catholicity too expansive, to be easily reconciled with a consistent position among the mystic witnesses. Their author, however, deriving much information from the learned labours of English prelates on prophecy, could not "find in his heart" to exclude them from a place in the honourable roll of the witnesses. I am unable to recognize any of those who are in organic fellowship with the "eldest daughter of Popery," as entitled to rank among those who are symbolized as "clothed in sackcloth." The two positions and fellowships appear to be obviously incompatible and palpably irreconcilable. It is true that there have been and still are in the English establishment divines who are strictly evangelical; but the reigning Mediator views and treats individuals, as he views and treats the moral person with which individuals freely choose to associate; and we ought to "have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. ii. 16.)

Assuming that the third woe trumpet was sounding in his ears, the Doctor, transported with the imaginary but delightful prospect, that the kingdoms of this world were speedily to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, speaks of France as follows:—"She had given assistance to the sons of freedom on the plains and along the shores of Columbia, until the republican eagle snatched the oppressed provinces from the paw of the royal lion of England."—We may admire the metaphors of the orator, while we deplore the political feeling of the divine. It is true, as the orator in calmer moments reflects,—"The political conduct of professing Christians is generally lamentable;" and alas! this "lamentable conduct" is usually tolerated and too often exemplified by their spiritual guides. It has been generally so since the days of Jeroboam who "made priests of the lowest of the people," and thereby rendered the ministry the stipendiaries of the state. And as it was then, even so it is now, whether in the kingdoms, empires or republics of the earth. "Let us," with the Doctor, "lament the political conduct of Christians in the present age of the world."

Allusion has been already made to seeming inconsistencies in the Doctor's sentiments. There is truth in the adage,—"tempora mutantur et nos mutamur cum illis,"—"times change, and we change with them." And indeed changes are allowable in matters of a circumstantial nature which do not affect moral principle. Moral principle, however, is in its nature immutable. In the early period of the Doctor's public life he had nobly proved "Negro Slavery Unjustifiable." But this accursed system was from the first interwoven with the very framework of that "Republican America," which in his "Lectures" he takes occasion thus to eulogize! "We never formed a street of the mystical Babylon.... Let this be the asylum of the oppressed.... She (Republican America) has not, either by sea or land, encouraged oppression (?) or despoiled of his goods him that was at peace with us?"—I confess my inability to credit these statements, or to reconcile them with "the great moral principles" which the author justly tells his readers it was the object of the Author of the Apocalypse to illustrate before the world.

I have thus noticed some of the most important particulars in which I dissent from the interpretations of the Doctor and others, that the reader may be guided by all accessible way-marks in searching after the mind of God in this mysterious but highly instructive part of his precious word. I can again cordially recommend to his attention the Lectures of Doctor M'Leod, as the best exposition of those parts of the Apocalypse of which he treats, that has come under my notice. In the Notes will be found minor points of dissent from the Doctor's views, and from multiplied aberrations of many others. I have studied great plainness of speech, abstaining from the introduction of many verbal criticisms on the original text, and from the use of terms and phrases not familiar to the unlearned reader. Let no sincere Christian be deterred by seeming difficulties from reading the Apocalypse, or be dissuaded from searching it, by the discrepancies of interpreters; for this is equally true of "the other Scriptures." (2 Pet. iii, 16.)

THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK.

In our authorized version of the Bible, this last book is correctly translated "Revelation." It is otherwise designated "The Apocalypse," by simply Anglicising the Greek title,—Apokalupsis. A distinguished modern divine, Doctor Seiss, has furnished the public with a novel interpretation of the title. But it is remarkable that he does not propose an interpretation at all; he merely gives what he conceives to be a correct translation. It is this:—"The Book of the Unvailing of Jesus Christ!" In this singular translation two things are transparent,—affectation of scholarship, and the (proton pseudos) the cardinal error of Millenarianism. Learned men, however, are not devoid of fancy. Of this fact those who are historically designated Millenarians have given many illustrations from the primitive ages down to our own time. The Doctor's rendering of the name of this book discloses the predominant idea conceived in his imagination and cherished there, that Christ is to appear upon earth in glorified humanity at the beginning of the millennium, and that the Apocalypse is intended chiefly to apprize the church and the world of this momentous event.

"The unvailing of Jesus Christ," indeed! Why, the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed,—"unvailed" to the faith of our first parents in the promise of the "woman's seed" as every intelligent Christian knows, (Gen. iii. 15.) We are assured that "to him give all the prophets witness," (Acts x. 43.) Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, (John viii. 56.) His advent in the flesh was so well known that Old Testament believers spoke of him familiarly as of "Him that was to come," (Matt. xi. 3.) Surely he was "unvailed" to his disciples all the time that he went in and out among them before his death. And after his resurrection he appeared unto them the third time,—"was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," (1 Cor. xv. 5, 6.) After his ascension Stephen "saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God," (Acts vii. 56) How preposterous then, since the whole Bible "unvails" the Saviour, to insinuate that the specific object of the Apocalypse is to unvail Jesus Christ!

That Doctor Seiss and those who endorse his mistranslation, or, as it ought to be called, his false exposition of the title to this book, do totally misapprehend and misinterpret the mind of the Holy Spirit, is further evident from the obvious import of the plain words in the first verse;—this "Revelation of Jesus Christ, God gave unto him."—Christ. Did God the Father "unvail" Christ to Christ himself? How gross the absurdity! We do not transgress the law of charity in pronouncing as impious, such manifest "wresting of the Scriptures." Moreover, the declared object of this book is to "show unto God's servants things,—(not to show Christ,) which must shortly come to pass:" namely, events of providence which were then future,—the evolution of the purposes of God. It is indeed true that in the sublime scenery presented in vision to John, the Lord Jesus often appears as a very conspicuous object; but he is only one among a multiplicity of other objects, and generally as the principal agent in executing the divine decrees. In this attitude he appears immediately on the opening of the seals of that book, which all sober expositors consider as the symbol of God's purposes, especially of those "unvailed" in this prophetic book. When in the sixth chapter, the "four animals" say in succession, "Come and see," is Jesus Christ the only object to be seen?—the exclusive object unvailed? or even always the primary object? By no means.