The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be the revelation of mystery has become instead the mystery of Revelation.

There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.2 And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified [pg 018] in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John's mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,3 yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far-seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God's thought has mostly proved wider than man's first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.

The visions of the Apocalypse are generally conceded to belong to the latter part of the first century, and manifestly relate in main portion to the then future, whether near or far, of the church of Christ in the world, for they pertain to a profoundly impressive prophetic experience. The divine path of God's people among the nations is beheld in symbol, type, and figure, ever leading on to victory through Jesus Christ his Son and our Lord; the church and the world are seen engaged in a multiform [pg 019] and deadly conflict, while the consummation is depicted in the fall of evil and the ruin of nature wrought by sin; and the triumph of the holy is set forth in a vision of complete restoration to the divine presence amid the beauty of a new world and the glories of the New Jerusalem—an outcome never once in doubt, for God rules through all and wins. And though in this ever changing picture the conditions of the early church and of the first century are constantly reflected in every part, yet the representative character of the whole may be clearly seen. Indeed one cannot but be impressed with the fine insight and spirit of reserve which is manifested by John throughout the book, in avoiding such explanations as might serve to narrow the visions to a purely local and temporary perspective, thereby evidencing that he had risen to a truly prophetic view, and that to his mind the visions belonged to a wider horizon as well as to the nearer limit of his own day. For whatever application or fulfilment these may have had, and surely did have, in the period in which they were given, has not exhausted their meaning. To the ear that is open to God's voice they have a lesson and significance that belong alike to the past, the present, and the future, a perennial freshness that time can neither fade nor destroy, for they manifest the principles of the divine government which abide for all the ages.

In the light of modern criticism the primary question to be decided is whether we are dealing with an ordinary Jewish-Christian apocalypse of similar value with a multitude of others in the past, and with no essentially deeper meaning or diviner message; or whether we have not in the Apocalypse of John a true revelation, given in this literary form because of its particular suitability to the condition of the time, and its fitness for the needs of the generation that first received it. And the answer to this question must be sought in the contents of the book itself as vindicated by the Christian conscience—an answer that the church has never been slow to make, and that never can be changed so long as the needs of the human heart remain the same. We must therefore regard the fundamental question which lies back of that of interpretation, viz. the inspiration of the book itself, which alone can give it permanent value to the Christian mind, as definitely settled by the clear message which it contains for life, by the multitudinous voices [pg 020] of God which reverberate within it, and by the heaven-born solace which it ever affords to tried and tempted men in the midst of the conflict of life. And we shall find that the general meaning, so far from being hopelessly obscure, may be fairly understood by the attentive student and devout reader.

The obscurity of the Revelation arises both from its literary form and from the mystical character of its contents. The Apocalyptic form is so foreign to our way of thinking, and the mysticism is so peculiarly Oriental and Jewish, that these are apt to perplex rather than enlighten us. The Apocalyptist, deeply absorbed in the later prophecies of the Old Testament, especially those of Daniel and Ezekiel, and his mind steeped in the dreams and images of current Jewish apocalypses, found under the influence of the Spirit a fitting sphere for his prophetic fervor in a series of strange symbolic visions such as belonged to the fashion of his time. The chief symbolism throughout is that of the Old Testament, quickened and vivified by the thought of the New,—for it is everywhere assumed that the mysteries of the former dispensation find their only adequate solution in the supreme and final testimony of Jesus the Christ,4—but the atmosphere of the visions is that of Apocalyptic, which curiously enough has contrived to cast its own peculiar glow upon all the Old Testament teachings and thus create a new symbolism out of the old. And even when many of the symbols are assumed to be drawn in their present form from apocalypses then current in the Jewish world but which are no longer extant, and these to be derived in part from Babylonian and Persian sources, as held by one class of interpreters, they are yet found to have become so assimilated by the Jewish mind that they reflect the later development of Old Testament thought. These visions of the seer, like shadows cast upon the foreground of the future, depict in outline great fundamental truths or pervasive principles of the divine government that are, and are to be, manifested in multiple facts in the progress of the ages. It is not the purpose of the visions to disclose the facts themselves, for that belongs to the development of history, but rather to furnish the means for interpreting the facts, when once they appear, by the exalted standard of the divine ideals. There are, [pg 021] indeed, a few cardinal facts of the future that are kept well in the foreground, such as the second coming of Christ, the triumph of God's kingdom, and the end of the present world; but these belong to the content of previous revelation as well, and are not new or peculiar to this book. The content of the visions is generic and not specific, and whenever we depart from broad generalization and attempt to enter into detail in our interpretation, we destroy the beauty and force of the lesson conveyed, and wander into the field of speculation concerning things that were never intended to be revealed, if the analogy of all other prophecy can be relied upon as a guide.5 For though the Apocalypse undoubtedly contains an element of predictive prophecy, yet such prophecy is not history written before its time, but a divinely inspired and profoundly discriminative pre-view of certain dominant issues in the future that belong to the purpose of God, and are the resultant of well established principles of the divine government—issues that stand out to the prophet's illumined eye in bold relief against the sky-line like the headlands of a continent amid the surrounding mists which envelop them.

Prophecy in this view is looked upon as much broader in its scope than the foretelling of things that are future. This element should be regarded as subordinate to the general purpose of prophecy, which is the forthtelling of the mind of God.6 And we should avoid that “dwarfed sense of the word prophecy in modern speech” which leads most readers (and even interpreters) to fasten upon a revelation of the secrets of the future. For it is evident that “Old Testament history and prophecy make prominent another kind of revelation—the unveiling of the ideal, as when the pattern of things sacred was unfolded to Moses in the mount”.7 In the true sense of prophecy it manifestly contains both these conceptions, viz. the Prophetico-predictive, and the Prophetico-ideal, which enter in varying proportion into the great messages of old. But it is believed by many of our best authorities, and it will be found in a careful study of the [pg 022] book of Revelation, that the prophetic element is not chiefly predictive in the strict sense, and can for the most part be best interpreted as the unveiling of the divine ideal which is being inwrought in the sphere of human life, or the manifestation of the divine purpose which is discovered as interpenetrating all the moral struggle and apparent contradictions of earthly experience, and which is leading up to the final victory; and only such glimpses of the future are given as serve to assure a better comprehension of this main idea.8

The two most obvious principles that pervade the book of Revelation and underlie its ever changing scenes, are, first, God's method of government in the world by the trial of his people and the judgment of the wicked; and, second, God's method of developing character in moral agents by moral conflict. Accepting these as in a measure interpretative of the ways of God with men, the Apocalypse approaches the standpoint of the divine perspective, and traces the great lines of the divine purpose as they traverse the entire field of human history. It makes Christ's relation to his people both in time and in eternity the ground of an exhaustive inquiry into the mysteries of earthly life, which aims not only to discover God in the trend of history but also to interpret God through history wrought out to its end. It affords glimpses of God's far reaching plan in the process of redemption, leading up to the final salvation of unnumbered multitudes; it finds the key to earth's long-drawn-out story of sin and suffering, of conflict and of death, in wider victory at larger cost; and it teaches us to look calmly out beyond the ebb and flow of tides and noons to the shoreless, timeless life that ever abides in the presence of God. To the heart of faith it speaks of an unwavering trust when days are dark and storms fill the sky; like a clear voice out of the night it tells of the coming day; and with persuasive force its visions bring man face to face with God, his Creator, Redeemer, and Eternal Friend.

The Title used in the Authorized Version of our English Scriptures, and retained by the English Revisers, [pg 023] is “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” a name given to the book by the early church, though many of the older manuscripts omit “the Divine”. Our American Revisers read, “The Revelation of John;” but the more correct title is the one that is commonly used, and that is printed in the upper margin of the text, simply “The Revelation,” i. e. the unveiling, or uncovering [viz. of the mystery of the divine purpose and method in human life and history]—the opening words of the book itself—or, if preferred, the original Greek name, “The Apocalypse”,9 which perhaps should have been retained without translation as in the Douay Version, but of which “The Revelation” is the exact equivalent. The phrase “of St. John”, or “of John”, may properly be omitted because of its ambiguity; for the book is declared in its opening sentence to be “the Revelation of Jesus Christ”, i. e. a revelation of or from Jesus Christ, and it is only in a secondary sense “the Revelation of John”, i. e. a revelation made to and recorded by John. The occasion for the use of this title, “The Revelation of St. John”, in the first centuries was in order to distinguish the canonical Apocalypse from many others then in circulation, but this necessity has long since ceased to exist. For us it stands alone, it is the Apocalypse, the Revelation.

That the Author of the Revelation was named John we have no reason to doubt, if we believe the statements of the book itself, for this is distinctly affirmed three different times.10 He is also further described in one form of the title as “the Divine,” i. e. the one who discoursed about God, or the theologian. This latter designation, though of uncertain origin and date, and omitted by the American Revisers as without sufficient support, is yet undoubtedly as old as the latter part of the third century11 while it may be much older, and has therefore some [pg 024] claim to traditional authority. The title, however, in any form is subsequent to the book itself. The statements of the Author concerning himself and his relations to the church in Asia, appear to the general reader to be decisive, and to indicate with sufficient clearness that the writer was none other than John the son of Zebedee, the apostle whom Jesus loved, though this is not the view of the majority of the later critics. Some consider it to be the work of another John known to tradition as the Presbyter;12 others attribute it to an unknown author of that name, or to some one writing under that name. But notwithstanding the frequency and positiveness with which the Apostolic Authorship and the Unity of the Book have been called in question during the last half century, the entire results of critical research may with some confidence be said not to have discredited either of them.13

The considerations which support the Apostolic Authorship are chiefly the following:—(1) the evidence of early Christian tradition imbedded in history is practically unanimous in its favor, and the book was accepted as the Apostle's without question by the church in Asia where it originated: (2) the internal evidence is to most minds convincing and even decisive, viz. (a) the Author declares himself to be John, and addresses the churches in Asia as their “brother, and partaker in tribulation,” and there is no satisfactory historical evidence of any other John in Asia, except the Apostle, of sufficient standing and influence to have spoken to the churches with the authority of a prophet;14 (b) there is a deep and essential similarity of thought, diction, and doctrine in the Apocalypse and in John's Gospel and Epistles which outweighs all differences of language, grammar, and style that appear upon the surface; (c) there is an undercurrent [pg 025] “tragic tone” found in the Apocalypse, such as is manifest in all of John's writings, especially when he deals with the sad and terrible phases of human life and character, and this serves to point toward the Apostle as the author.

The grounds upon which the Apostolic Authorship is denied are:—(1) the general inconclusiveness of tradition, even though in this case the evidence is admitted to be particularly strong: (2) the pseudonymity of all other apocalypses, with the apparent exception of “The Shepherd of Hermas”, and hence the probability that this in a similar way may have been written under the assumed name of John in order to give it acceptance:15 (3) the marked differences observable between the Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles, viz. (a) the Greek of the Apocalypse is full of striking peculiarities, of solecisms, and of Hebraisms, quite at variance with the purer style of the other Johannine writings;16 (b) the spirit of the Apocalypse as revealed in its ideas, terms, tone, and temper, differs widely from that of the Gospel and Epistles. These differences, however, it should be noted, were recognized and their force as objections to a common authorship was felt as early as the time of Dionysius (circ. A. D. 260), for they are apparent to every careful student of the Greek text; but they may be accounted for in a good degree by the difference of occasion, purpose, and theme, as well as of form and structure incident to the choice of a literary style that has definite and necessary limitations. The differences have also been further accounted for on the part of some by accepting the earlier date of the Apocalypse, which in that case is assigned to the period just preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The peculiarities of language are in this view attributable to an imperfect knowledge of Greek, which was later overcome by John's long residence in Ephesus, while the apocalyptic form and general contents are held to indicate an earlier stage of Christian thought.17 On the other hand [pg 026] it has been efficiently maintained, favoring the later date, that the differences are mainly due to psychological effects wrought by old age in the mind of John, whose mental activities reverted to the familiar thought-forms and apocalyptic conceptions of his youth, the Greek he used being simply a modified translation of Hebrew thought, while the Christological conceptions of the Apocalypse are manifestly among the most advanced in the New Testament.18 In any case it will be seen that the reasons given under (1) and (2) have little force apart from the question of internal evidence, and are at most only inferences, while upon the other hand the divergent qualities given under (3), forceful as they are, cannot be assumed as without parallel in the history of literature. It has been pointed out that the difference in style between Carlyle's earlier and later productions, as well as those found in the works of Milton, Watts, Burke, and Wordsworth, written at different periods in their lives, is quite as marked as that of the writings in question.19 And we must not leave out of view the possibility that John, if at an advanced age, may have used one of his disciples as a collaborator, which would necessarily modify both the language and style of the work produced. So that after all has been said, it may be accepted as the concurrent judgment of the majority of interpreters,—the advanced critics being excepted,—that as great or greater difficulties are met in denying the Apostolic Authorship as in accepting it. For notwithstanding the confident assertion of most of the later critics that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle, yet indications are not lacking in some quarters now, influenced perhaps by the really cogent arguments so well stated by the decadent school of Baur, of a return in opinion to the recognition of the Johannine authorship as in some sense at least undeniable, though foreign elements are conceived to enter into it.20 It has indeed, not infrequently been held, among those who deny that the Apostle was the author of the Fourth Gospel, that he wrote the Apocalypse; but still more commonly it is accepted that the work belongs to the “so-called Johannine writings”, and originated in the same circle at Ephesus to which these [pg 027] writings are now attributed by advanced critics,21 leaving the personal authorship more or less indefinite. The question of authorship, however, is a subordinate one, for the book maintains its own message, and it should be dealt with purely as a subject of historical inquiry and not one of dogmatic importance, in the interest of correctness rather than of traditional opinion.

The question of Unity is one of modern literary criticism. The view now generally accepted that Jewish apocalypses, as we find them, are often of composite origin, representing an original writing to which various additions have been subsequently made by editors and redactors,22 has had its influence upon the judgment formed by critics concerning the Apocalypse of John. The present tendency of critical investigation is to consider the book as a composite structure, and to direct its effort toward searching out the various sources from which it is supposed to be derived, and determining what parts of the book are original, as well as in pointing out various minor passages that are regarded as drawn from other sources, or are the work of a later hand. This tendency has been carried to such an extreme that the results are largely theoretical and inconclusive, depending upon the personal taste of the critic and having little force for other minds. The grounds upon which the unity of the book has been disputed are:—(1) Frequent breaks in continuity which make it difficult or impossible to trace the connection of thought: (2) a lack of harmony in its various conceptions that is more or less incongruous, and that is apparently inconsistent with its being the work of one author: (3) an apparent indication in various parts of the book of different dates of writing—see remarks in the section on Date. All of these reasons, however, if taken together, and it be granted that they are well-founded, are yet insufficient to establish a diversity of authorship. The most that can be said is that they suggest it. For it should be remembered that logical sequence is not a quality of Apocalyptic thought; and also that there is not even an approximate agreement, as yet, among advanced scholars as to the character or extent of the material regarded as drawn from other sources.

In favor of its Unity we find:—(1) a uniformity of style throughout which is scarcely possible in the combined product of different authors without such redaction as is equivalent to authorship: (2) an elaborate literary structure quite incompatible with the existence of more than one author—see section on Structure: (3) an essential Unity, whatever the extent to which elements of Jewish apocalyptic may have been made use of in its composition, which appeals to the literary judgment in a way that is both forcible and convincing, for the personality of the author is interwoven in every fibre of its frame. Though the present trend of critical opinion is largely against the Unity of the book in the general sense of the term, yet its essential unity is so manifest that it is commonly conceded—“its inner unity is the foundation of all more recent works on the Apocalypse”.23 This is accounted for on the part of those who accept a composite origin by attributing its unification to the final editor, redactor, or author, a judgment that fails to carry conviction with it for those who approach the question from the broader standpoint of literary composition in general, instead of the narrower one of the apocalyptic writings. The later critical views have, however, not yet reached a conclusive stage, and indeed in the face of so great diversity of judgment, can scarcely be said to have assumed a consistent form; though it may be confidently predicated that no hypothesis of composite origin is ever likely to command general assent in the case of a book marked by such a definite unity of style and plan. The effort to discover in it an original Jewish apocalypse which has been wrought over by Christian editors into its present form,24 or to reconstruct the various sources, Jewish or Christian, from which it has been derived,25 may well be said to have been “thoroughly worked out”, and to have apparently failed, though the labors of the critics have added largely to our knowledge of Apocalyptic, and contributed not a little to a better understanding of the book. The view now in the ascendant admits one author, but attributes various portions of greater or less extent to a common stock of Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalyptic fragments, current [pg 029] at that time, which have been appropriated from and used in its composition.26 This, to the more conservative Christian mind, involves an apparent denial of its true unity, and proceeds upon a theory of its origin that is scarcely consistent with its effective inspiration. But it fails to be conclusive on other grounds, for upon careful examination it must become more and more apparent to the thoughtful student of Scripture and apocalyptic that this view does not accord with the author's use of his materials, so far as we have any knowledge of their source. For although he draws largely from the thought and figures of the prophets, and uses freely the general form of imagery found in extant Jewish apocalypses, yet everything has been transmuted in the crucible of his own vivid imagination into new combinations, and there is not a single instance in which he interpolates an entire passage from any known author—indeed there are no quotations at all, in the strict sense, found in the Apocalypse, but only allusions, reminiscences, and echoes, literary devices which reflect the thought without reproducing the form—and it is certainly an exceptional assumption that he interpolates only from authors whose works are now lost, or from sources furnished solely by tradition.27 The impressions of unity are entirely too strong to be dissipated by visionary and purely theoretical views.

A modified form of the Apocalyptic-Traditional view, advanced by some late writers,28 indicates a healthful reaction from the piecemeal theories of the earlier source-criticism, and affords valuable suggestion for further study—whether, indeed, we can follow them or not in finding evidence of the introduction of a limited number of fragments of earlier origin,—viz. that the author drew freely from a mass of apocalyptic ideas and forms, or “apocalyptic conventions” as they have been called, which were widely current in Jewish circles, and with which his own mind was richly stored; and that this suggestive material was wrought over in his mental processes and used like that from the Old Testament, with which it was closely allied, as a framework for expressing the new and higher Christian thought peculiar to his message, the old form [pg 030] being constantly adapted to new meanings. The origin or source of these forms is chiefly a matter of theory; but the probability of their use is the more practical side of the problem. It will be seen that this view would account for all that the theory of diverse origin does without doing violence to the real unity of the book;29 and it does not affect the question of the inspiration or reality of the visions, for the thought of the seer necessarily took form from his own mental furnishing, and his imagination, though quickened by the prophetic ecstasy, was not essentially altered in its mode of operation. But, with it all, let us not fail to apprehend that these questions pertaining to the method used in the composition of the Apocalypse, and to the introduction of foreign elements into its literary structure, which so largely occupy the minds of critical scholars in the present day, are, after all, mainly secondary to the larger question. In it has God spoken? And if so, what are the spiritual lessons of the book for the devout Christian mind and heart?

Two different Dates of authorship have been commonly maintained by different authorities, viz. either about A. D. 69 under one of Nero's immediate successors, Galba or Vespasian; or about A. D. 96 under Domitian. Many modern critics have accepted the earlier date, though the majority of commentators favor the later and traditional one. The evidence cannot be considered as decisive for either, but the preponderance seems to be in favor of the later date.30 The earlier date, though accepted by the majority of critics a score and more years ago, is not now in such favor. The influence of present criticism, which is chiefly taken up with discussion of the sources from which the book is assumed to be derived, has produced a marked drift in opinion toward the acceptance of a date near the close of the first century (the traditional view) as the time of composition, or at least the period of final editing.31 This view, though accepting in a sense one author, yet holds that the contents of the book indicate different dates of writing, and that it is made up of [pg 031] visions of different origin, and composed at different times, which have been subsequently formed into one consistent whole32—a conclusion that would require something more than a theory to sustain it. The exact date, however, is not of any great importance, as the difference does not materially affect the interpretation, especially if we accept the symbolic view of the purpose and teaching of the book; for though the date fixed upon does affect somewhat the historical situation, and hence the immediate reference, it does not affect the larger meaning which belongs to all time.

The indications of the Earlier Date that usually obtain are:—(1) the linguistic peculiarities already referred to under the head of Unity, which are considered by many to indicate an earlier period in John's life and thought when he was still Hebraistic in method: (2) the historical allusions in the book that seem to favor the earlier date, and which some have thought are even decisive, viz. (a) the condition of the churches in Asia as set forth in the Seven Epistles, which fairly accords with what is known of the period of Nero's reign and shortly thereafter; (b) the references to persecution, war, earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which find a ready explanation in current events of the earlier date;33 (c) the measurement of the temple directed in ch. 11:1f., which appears to indicate that it was still standing; (d) the apparently veiled allusions to Nero found in the description of the Wild Beast in chs. 13 and 17, which, according to a widely accepted interpretation, point to a period shortly after his death, when he was still a prominent figure in the public mind.

For the Later Date the chief considerations are:—(1) the early and uniform tradition concerning the origin of the book, viz. that it was written by the Apostle John near the end of the reign of Domitian (see the section on Canonicity): (2) the historical situation described and implied, which as a whole is considered by most authorities as more suitable to and more fully met by the later than the earlier date, viz. (a) the churches in Asia, as indicated in the Seven Epistles, are in a more highly developed condition than is likely to have been attained at so early a period as the close of the sixth decade of the [pg 032] Christian era, and the omission of any reference to the Apostle Paul as their founder within a quarter-century of their establishment would be entirely unaccountable; (b) the indications of persecution are better suited to the time of Domitian than that of Nero,34 while the references to war, famine, and pestilence are equally applicable to all the latter part of the first century; (c) the advanced stage of the conflict between Christianity and the state religion of Rome, shown in the worship of the Beast and the antagonism of Babylon, is a strong indication of the later date;35 (d) the assumed allusions to Nero, and to the temple as still standing, depend in each case upon a particular interpretation, and rest upon no certain foundation,—or admitting an earlier date for this section, it is regarded as having been inserted later,36 which is a critical guess of uncertain value. This seems to leave the balance of evidence upon the side of the later date, though the best authorities have formerly been nearly equally divided.

The Revelation was given in Patmos, one of the group of the Sporades, a small, rocky, and irregularly shaped island, some ten miles long by five miles wide, lying in the Ægean Sea, off the coast of Asia Minor, about sixty miles from Ephesus and thirty-five miles from Miletus,37 to which John was banished “for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus”. According to tradition offenders of rank were banished to this island under the Roman Empire to work in the mines and marble quarries; and the Apostle John perhaps shared in this harsh lot during his imprisonment, as asserted by Victorinus in his commentary, the earliest work on the Apocalypse, written [pg 033] toward the close of the third century. The chief feature of the modern island is the Monastery of St. John, founded in A. D. 1088, which lies a mile and a half south of La Scala, the landing place; while halfway up the hillside a grotto, known as the cave of the Apocalypse, is pointed out as the traditional place where the visions of the book were seen. The natural scenery of the island is rugged and the view of the sea and of the neighboring islands very fine, which may have contributed somewhat to the imagery of the book, as has been suggested by different travelers.38 The content of the visions was doubtless committed to writing soon afterward, and probably while John was still a prisoner in Patmos, though the general work of authorship may have been done later at Ephesus.39

The right of the Book of Revelation to a place in the New Testament Canon is well attested both historically and by internal evidence. The historical evidence is especially complete, and is regarded by some as stronger than that of any other book in the New Testament:40 the objections have all arisen from the internal evidence, which has been differently estimated by different minds.

The Historical Evidence covers the question both of authorship and of canonicity,—for these cannot well be separated, since the apostolic authorship carried with it for the early church the canonicity also—and it may be briefly stated as follows, viz:—

(1) Papias (circ. A. D. 130). Bishop of Hierapolis, “the hearer of John”, and “the companion of Polycarp”, regarded it as authoritative, and is the first to attest it, though he does not affirm its apostolicity. We are indebted for his testimony to Andreas of Cappadocia (about the end of the fifth century), who refers to Papias along with Irenæus and others, and quotes from a work by Papias his comment on Rev. 12:7-9. In this early witness of its canonicity we can scarcely conceive of [pg 034] Papias being mistaken, and his testimony is of great value.

(2) Justin Martyr (circ. A. D. 140) says it was written by “a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ”. This testimony is within fifty years of the later date assigned to the book, and seventy-five years of the earlier one, and is therefore of special importance; and there is no hesitancy in affirming that the author was “one of the apostles of Christ”.

(3) According to Eusebius, Melito, Bp. of Sardis (circ. A. D. 170), wrote a lost work on “the Revelation of John”; also two other bishops, Theophilus of Antioch, and Appolonius of Ephesus (both before the close of the second century), cited from it in their writings.

(4) In a letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne (circ. A. D. 177) the Revelation is cited, and is described as “sacred Scripture”.

(5) Irenæus (circ. A. D. 180) defends its apostolic authority, and asserts frequently and positively that the Apocalypse was written by “John, a disciple of the Lord”.

(6) Clement of Alexandria (circ. A. D. 200) refers to the four and twenty elders with an explanatory clause, “as John says in the Apocalypse”.

(7) Tertullian (circ. A. D. 200) cites it frequently, ascribing it to John the Apostle, and attests its recognition in Africa.

(8) The Canon of Muratori (circ. 200) includes it without question, and says, “John in the Apocalypse, though he writes to the Seven Churches, yet says to all, &c,” and the context shows that the reference is to the Apostle.

(9) Hippolytus (circ. A. D. 210) wrote on “the Gospel and Apocalypse of John”; and he also cites the Apocalypse as a Scripture authority against Caius. After this time its canonicity was regarded as established by the Western Church.

(10) Origen (circ. A. D. 250), the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and the first textual critic of the New Testament, whose knowledge of the opinion and usage in different parts of the church was very wide, knows of no doubts concerning the Apocalypse, but quotes it as the recognized composition of the Apostle and Evangelist.

The authority of the Apocalypse was not, however, destined to remain unquestioned, though its apostolic authorship and canonical right were practically unchallenged until toward the end of the second century—and in fact it was generally received by the church until the middle of the third century—but subsequently both of these were questioned, viz:—

(1) Marcion, the so-called “Heretic” (circ. A. D. 150), rejected it in forming his Canon because of its apparently Jewish character, and not because he did not regard it as genuine. This, however, did not represent a church view, and had little influence on opinion outside of his own sect.

(2) Dionysius of Alexandria (circ. A. D. 247) argues that it is not by the Apostle, though he does not reject the book. With him the question is mainly one of authorship, and not of canonicity.

(3) Eusebius (circ. A. D. 270) follows the opinion of Dionysius and may be regarded as “wavering”, for he cites much in its favor. After Eusebius, however, opposition to it became general in the Syro-Palestinian Church, and it does not appear in the Peshito Version, though St Ephraim Syrus, the chief father of the Syrian Church, cites it and ascribes it to the Apostle John.

(4) Cyril of Jerusalem (circ. A. D. 386) omits the Apocalypse from his list of the canonical books of the New Testament.

(5) In the Eastern Church the book was questioned on dogmatic grounds connected with the Millenarian controversy, and it was omitted from the Canon by the Council of Laodicea (circ. A. D. 360).

(6) Finally, however, in deference to the strong testimony of the Western Church, and influenced somewhat, no doubt, by the internal evidence of the book itself, it was authoritatively accepted and universally recognized by the church at large.

The Internal Evidence for the canonicity of the book, apart from the difficulties discussed under the head of Unity, is quite clear and satisfying and is practically irrefutable, for the disputed questions of authorship and date are not of such character as to affect its canonicity. This evidence may be briefly stated as follows, viz:—

(1) The historical situation and references correspond to the time in which the book claims to have been [pg 036] written, the latter half of the first century, and are fully sustained by contemporaneous history.

(2) The literary form and diction are each suitable to the period and authorship to which the book is ascribed.

(3) The doctrinal teachings are fully and distinctively Christian, and are such as we would expect in a work of the period, written by inspiration for the whole church, viz:—(a) the Christianity it bears witness to has escaped from the particularism of Jewish thought into the broad catholicity of the Pauline Epistles; (b) Christ is presented as the divine atoning Lamb seated in the midst of the throne, co-equal with the Father; (c) the personality of the Holy Spirit is recognized, and his illuminative work illustrated; (d) the chief duties of the Christian life are those presented in the Gospels, faith, witness, and purity, while the reward of overcoming is set forth in terms of apostolic hope; and (e) the entire contents of the book, so widely different from the non-canonical literature, appeal to the instincts of the Christian heart now as in the first generation, and verify themselves afresh to the Christian consciousness in such a forceful and convincing way that this goes far to overcome any apparent objections to its canonical authority based upon subjective judgments of another class. In fact the impartial verdict of careful investigation serves to confirm the opinion that the Apocalypse is rightfully received on ample and concurrent testimony both of Historical and Internal Evidence as a part of sacred Scripture by the whole church throughout the world.

The Book consists of a series of strange and impressive symbolic visions which contrast present and historic conditions of trial and suffering in the church and in the world with future and prophetic conditions of triumph and reward for the holy and of wrath and punishment for the sinful. It is an interpretative view of the divine path and plan of the centuries that is evidently given for the comfort and help of God's children in the midst of trial and distress. Its Literary Form is marked and significant, and belongs to that highly figurative style of late Jewish and early Christian writings which is known [pg 037] as the Apocalyptic Literature.41 And though John must often have felt himself hampered and impeded by the fanciful and more or less unreal character of this literary form, yet it doubtless met more fully than any other the conditions of the time, and afforded an adequate method of reaching the devout Christian mind of that generation. This literature is distinguished both by its peculiar style and by the exceptional range of its thought, and may be described as consisting of all of that particular class of the Apocryphal writings which are couched in mystic symbols and figures, and which attempt to give an account of hidden things miraculously disclosed, especially those pertaining to the other world and to the closing events of human history. The word Apocalyptic in its present sense belongs to recent usage, being introduced by the modern critical school as a generic term to designate these writings as a distinct department of the Apocryphal books, and also to denote the literary style or art-form in which they are cast. The use of the word Apocalypse to designate the writings or books now known by that name (as the Apocalypse of Baruch, and others) is undoubtedly very old, though it did not apparently begin before the end of the first century, and seems to have taken rise from the common use of the title “The Apocalypse of John” in Christian circles to designate the Revelation, from which the word came to be applied to all writings of a similar class. Every Apocalypse is thus an example of Apocalyptic; but, owing to the late introduction of the latter term as now used, most dictionaries do not give an adequate definition.42

The unique symbolism of these writings constitutes their most striking and characteristic feature; and it is this uniform use of cryptic symbols instead of ordinary figures of speech that invests the Apocalypse of John with its peculiar charm, and at the same time creates the special problems of its interpretation. A symbol may be defined as a conventional objective form chosen to represent something else, often not otherwise capable of portraiture, because of some real or fancied resemblance [pg 038] that appeals to the mind; an ideal representation couched in sensuous form that embodies one or more of the prominent features of its subject, and that comes to represent a fixed conception in the world of fancy, a lower and material sign being used to represent a higher and abstract idea. The use of symbols of some sort is instinctive and universal, and grows out of a natural effort of the mind to clothe its ideas in forms that give free scope to the imagination. But the peculiar nature of the symbols and the profusion of their use in the Apocalyptic literature, serve to mark it as separate from all other literary forms. Oriental symbols, too, are so unfamiliar and oftentimes so incongruous to our minds, such as the Dragon, the Scarlet Beast, the Two-horned Beast, and even the Cherubim, that we perhaps fail to realize how much they meant to people of a primitive civilization who were possessed of a vivid imagination without scientific precision of thought. This difference in the instinctive appreciation of the nature and value of symbols, together with the wide possibilities of meaning that are apparently inherent in the symbols used in the Apocalypse, has always given room for the fertile fancy of interpreters. But the later study of the Apocalyptic writings as a class has made it plain that this effort was largely misspent, and has led to more discriminating views of the meaning and use of symbols as there found, and to their limitation by established usage, where such is known to have existed. For while the growth of recognized symbols is necessarily slow, and their origin often impossible to trace yet when they have once been formed, and have come to possess an established meaning in the public mind, they exhibit a remarkable persistence; and though their meaning may be somewhat modified by subsequent use and by particular application, yet it can scarcely suffer sudden and radical change. And let us remember that the symbols, metaphors, and other figures found in the Revelation are not purely literary: they have had a history and have acquired a recognized and conventional meaning. We have, therefore, an available guide to the interpretation of the symbols in the book furnished by their use not only in the Old Testament, in which by former interpreters they were mainly sought, but especially in Jewish apocalypses, which give the current meaning of many of them at the time when this book was written, a sense which [pg 039] could not well have been departed from to any great extent without making their meaning wholly unintelligible. And the more clearly we apprehend this fact, the more constantly we apply it in our interpretation, the more likely are we to arrive at the meaning intended.43 For while the Western mind revolts against the oftime obscurity of Apocalyptic symbols, yet we not infrequently recur to the same method of illustration. For instance, a good example of the present day use of symbols, aided by illustrative skill, is found in such a cartoon as “The Modern Juggernaut” that appeared a few years ago, in which the wheeled car of India was transformed into a huge wine bottle full of intoxicating drink that rolls along its way, crushing out the lives of thousands of miserable victims, while the fierce dogs of War, Famine, and Pestilence have under its malign influence slipped their leash and go forth to prey upon men.44 This symbolism in some measure parallels that of the Scarlet Beast in the Revelation, and shows how a great destructive force operating in the world may be presented to many minds in an objective form much more effectively than by any abstract verbal statement. Like a parable an apocalypse flings a great truth across our path, instinct with the touch of spiritual life.

The revelation made to John doubtless took the Apocalyptic form because it was the prevailing literary method of that time for the treatment of the theme dealt with by his prophecy, and its constructive symbolism already filled and colored his thought. But notwithstanding that it is cast in a Jewish mould, the Christian thought everywhere triumphs over the Jewish form. The line of thought is limited to the peculiar range of Apocalyptic subjects, and is found to be closely related to that of our Lord's discourse upon the last things (the so-called “little apocalypse” of our Lord in Mat. 24), though it should not be regarded as formally an amplification of that discourse, or as chiefly or wholly determined in content by [pg 040] it.45 The prophetic mood is manifest in every part of the book, and the exalted mental state of the writer is sustained throughout after the manner of a rhapsody, in the structure and movement of which all literary forms are in a measure fused together.46 Indeed by a deeper study of this unique work we come to feel as though in it “we touch the living soul of Asiatic Christendom”.

It remains to be said that while we class the Apocalypse of John with Jewish apocalypses as to literary form, yet it so manifestly rises above its class both in method and content that it is universally accorded the first place among Apocalyptic writings, and fully establishes its claim to a place among the inspired books of Scripture by reason of the penetrative prophetic insight which it everywhere displays in dealing with the greatest, the most central, and the most mysterious theme in the whole sphere of Christian thought.

The Theme of the Revelation, stated in its broadest terms, is Christ and the Church through Time to Eternity; the mystery of God in human life and history made manifest through the disclosure of the divine redemptive plan becoming effective and triumphant.47 The theme we assign to the Revelation will, of course, be determined largely by our view of its contents. Many interpret it to be Jerusalem, Rome, and the End, limiting its outlook to the horizon of the early church; others make it the Course of History, or the Future Path of the Church in the World; still others affirm it to be the Last Things, or the Second Coming of Christ. But the wider view is the truer one, which includes many phases of the kingdom, and the theme is properly interpreted as Christ and the Church here and hereafter, or Redemption in its present and future relation to Human Life. This theme is wrought out in prophetic vision by an evolving drama that moves forward in multiple and progressive cycles of trial and triumph, of conflict and victory, ever advancing toward the [pg 041] complete and final consummation, when righteousness shall win, sin be punished, and the redeemed be restored to the immediate presence of God; and whereby the divine plan shall be abundantly vindicated notwithstanding all apparent anomalies, and seeming contradictions, and temporary reverses, for it is confidently affirmed that the night of sin shall ultimately pass away, and the day dawn at last in which “the glory of God and of the Lamb shall be the light thereof”; and “He that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them ... that come out of great tribulation”. Thus the book gives answer to the deep call of the soul for some sign concerning the future that shall point the path of faith and cheer the heart for service; and the answer is abundantly satisfying, for those who interpret the theme aright. Occupied with such a subject of thought it finds its proper place at the end of the inspired volume; it forms a fitting close for the entire line of prophetic voices; and it binds the long succession of books into an unbroken unity.48 With illimitable sweep its visions look backward through time and forward into eternity, downward on earth's struggles and upward upon heaven's victory, inward to the soul's conflicts and outward to God's eternal peace, while through it all there rings out the one transcendent note, Christ reigns but to triumph.

The conditions which gave Occasion for this sole Apocalyptic book of the New Testament have left their impress on its form and thought, viz. persecution from without, and trial and distress within the church. These conditions which are subsumed throughout must be clearly recognized in order to interpret the message aright, and to estimate its proper value for the age which first received it. For, whether we accept the earlier or later date of writing, the deadly power of the Roman Empire was being put forth to repress and destroy the church. At the later date the worship of the Emperor was being made the test of obedience to law, and at either time many Christians in the face of persecution were weak and wavering. The immediate outlook was increasingly dark, and the future prospect full of gloom. The failure of the Messiah to reappear and of the church to triumph; the [pg 042] bitter experience of persecution already endured, and the certainty of greater suffering yet to follow; in a word, the apparent reversal of the brightest hopes of early Christianity, all of these called for some divine message of cheer that would inspirit the discouraged, throw light upon the path of sorrow and shame, and make their lot endurable because of the assuredly glorious outcome of the future. And there was no kind of message so well suited to meet such a crisis as the form of Apocalyptic, which grew out of similar conditions, and had a tone and temper peculiarly adapted to infuse a triumphant hope in the midst of growing religious despair.49 But let us not fail to perceive that though the Apocalypse was specially designed to meet a great crisis in the life of the early church, its effectiveness does not end there. Its lessons are for us and for all time; it has the course and end of world-history in view, and this is an ever-living theme for the church of Christ in every age.

The Purpose of the Apocalypse, as indicated by its introductory words “The Revelation”, is the revealing or unveiling of mystery. In the Christian sense a mystery is a former secret of divine truth that has now been at least partially revealed (Eph. 3:1-11), while an apocalypse is the process of revealing it, and also the revelation itself containing the truth made known. The comprehensive design of the book is to unfold and interpret the divine purpose and method in human history, especially in relation to the redemptive process, by portraying in scenic outline the present and future course of the church of Christ through conflict to victory, for the vindication of God's righteousness in the final issue, and for the comfort and encouragement of tried and persecuted Christians in the midst of the pathway of life.50 The more immediate purpose was to strengthen the church in the strain of present distress, while the ultimate aim is to be found not in the disclosure of history itself, but in the establishment of the moral order of the world, in illustrating the fact that history is a divinely guided “moral process toward a goal”, as the substantial ground of a true philosophy of life, and [pg 043] as a permanent defense against false and partial views. And this purpose is so wrought out by the portrayal of the world as an ideal battlefield full of opposing forces, with alternating scenes of triumph and danger, that the whole becomes a fervent and powerful appeal to the heroic in Christian life and character, and a clear call to new faith and courage. For whatever else may be its lessons, we must not leave out of view this practical purpose of divine monition to the world of men, which has so deeply impressed itself upon every generation of Christians. Its message of warning is inwrought with and reënforced by its prophetic scenes of terror and reward: for the Apocalypse is the book of the future as well as of the past and present, and that future is ever near in prophetic vision, however far it may be in historic relation, and to John's eye is always filled with the figure of the returning Christ who comes to judgment and to victory. The message, however, viewed in its entirety, while it contains a sympathetic element of encouragement for the saints, and a monitory element of exhortation and warning for all men, is yet fundamentally a philosophic interpretation of the divine method in history for all who would see God in the story of man's life on the earth—a theodicy based upon prophecy. And any view which assumes for the author a narrow field of vision, such as that he merely grouped together the current apocalyptic conceptions of his time in order to fling them in fierce polemic against the Roman Empire and to foreshadow its defeat and fall,51 rests upon a manifestly imperfect judgment that fails in religious depth, missing the spiritual significance of the message, and lacks in literary insight, denying the evident marks of originality, genius, and inspiration in the most wonderful and unique composition of its kind that has ever been produced.

There are two essentially different methods of Interpretation that have been followed in attempting to arrive at the meaning of this manifestly difficult book, which are founded upon different conceptions of its didactic purpose, and proceed upon different lines of inquiry, viz. the Historical, and the Symbolical.

The Historical Interpretation regards the book as a prophetic review and forecast of history veiled in symbol, [pg 044] and seeks the meaning and fulfilment of the visions in certain specific historical events which either have occurred, are occurring, or will occur within the sphere of human life and experience. There are three different forms of this method of interpretation, all of which specialize the prophecy but differ as to the time and nature of the fulfilment, viz. (1) the Preterist view (also called the Contemporaneous-Historical), which regards that the visions relate mainly to events in the history of the early church, and that they have been already fulfilled in the far past; (2) the Futurist view (also called the Future-Historical), that the visions relate mainly to events which shall occur in the last days, and that the fulfilment is to be looked for chiefly in the more or less remote future; and (3) the Progressivist view (also called the Continuous- or Church-Historical), that the several visions constitute a continuous and progressive series, covering the whole period of the church's history from the time of John to the last judgment, and that their fulfilment is therefore to be found in a successive line of historical events, part of which lie in the past and part in the future.

The Symbolical Interpretation, upon the other hand, regards the book as a prophetic idealization of history, dealing with the general course and outcome of man's life upon the earth, and disclosing under the form of symbols the spiritual and moral forces which give to history its deeper meaning; and seeks the significance and fulfilment of the visions not, therefore, in particular events, but rather in classes of events, not solely at one definite time, but at many different times, finding the revelation mainly illustrative of general principles of the divine government rather than predictive of particular facts of history, a view of various phases rather than of historic stages of the church's experience,52 and interpreting its symbols in the genuine spirit of Apocalyptic as pictorial representations of the prevailing fortunes of the church in the world as she moves forward to the final consummation.53 This method of interpretation, which is commonly known as [pg 045] the Symbolist view (also called the Spiritual), presents no such marked difference of form as the Historical, but with a wider outlook regards that the visions relate to all such like events in every age as specially manifest God's rule in the world sending forth judgment unto victory, and such as particularly exhibit the progressive development of good and evil in human life, together with their constant conflict and their final reward and punishment.

All the current interpretations may be classified under one or other of the above heads, yet in the hands of individual interpreters they are often modified and blend into each other in their application—a manifest recognition of the fact that there is an element of truth underlying each view, which we may perhaps say has been unduly emphasized, for all agree that the interpretation is somehow and somewhere to be found in human life and history.

What might be called still another method of interpretation is the Apocalyptic-Traditional (or Tradition-Historical) view of late critical writers on the Apocalypse already referred to, which approaches the question from the viewpoint of literary origin, and attributes certain portions of the book to the introduction of traditional Jewish or Jewish-Christian Apocalyptic fragments that have been utilized by the author and applied to the historical conditions of his time, adapting them to a new meaning. This, however, is not so much a separate method of interpretation as it is a corollary of the present Literary-Critical method of dealing with the book, which regards it as an early Christian work in successive editions that has taken into itself certain Jewish elements. With this origin assumed the interpretation does not differ materially from the Preterist view except, perhaps, that it is less rigorous in its application to current events, and recognizes more fully the idealism of the author; for the historical outlook has measurably lost its value except as an indication of the date of writing, and for most who hold this view the book has no longer any distinctive prophetic message for the church; it has become chiefly a fantastic dream, a pious dream it is true, but only a dream of the far past.

The principal question of interpretation, as will be seen by a consideration of the current views, relates not only to the view-point, but also to the aim or design of the [pg 046] Revelation. The Historical method centers the chief aim of the book in a predictive-prophetic element which it finds throughout and regards as pointing to specific events in particular periods of history that are designed to teach important spiritual lessons. With this idea of the didactic purpose, it yet presents the widest variation of opinion concerning the viewpoint of the book, and includes upon the one hand the extreme rationalist who considers it a purely human writing, a Jewish apocalypse that has been revamped to include Christian ideas, which blends history with prediction and reflects only the horizon of the first century; and on the other hand the devout mystic who accepts its message as chiefly predictive prophecy of the far future, and interprets it well nigh literally as a prophetic account of the world's ending amid terror and blood. The Symbolist method, with a quite different conception, centers the aim of the book in an interpretative-prophetic element which it finds in every part, and regards as setting forth the principles of the divine government, and pointing to their exemplification in multiple events occurring in different periods of history that are working together toward the final consummation. According to this method of interpretation the viewpoint is idealistic, universal, and timeless, and the scope of the visions correspondingly wide.

The latter view, which is the one presented in the following outline, affords a fairly satisfactory interpretation that has been steadily gaining ground during the last half-century, and to the present author seems destined in some form to attain general though perhaps not universal acceptance. The views of the leaders in the symbolical school present no material divergence in general interpretation,54 and the principles of this interpretation seem likely to prevail throughout the Christian church of the future, though the form and application may be somewhat modified. The objection that “this system of interpretation is out of keeping with the general purpose of Apocalyptic literature”,55 loses its force if we grant that the book is inspired, and realize that the literary form was chosen because of its adaptability for the treatment of the topics dealt with in the Apocalypse; for once, the Apocalyptic form becomes the vehicle of a divine revelation, it thereby escapes some of the main limitations of its class, one [pg 047] of which was “the consciousness of no new message from God for the generation to which it was addressed”; and accordingly it should here be regarded as only the literary setting in which the message continually overtops the form, the art-form in which the art is lost sight of through the beauty and power of the truth which it presents. This view, although not without difficulties, is yet believed by a good proportion of eminent scholars to be based upon sound and temperate exegesis, to be best suited to the character of the book, and to give relative value to all the elements of truth contained in other views. The importance of the historical situation of John's time and of the lessons for that age is fully recognized, the eschatological element throughout is given due consideration, and the application of the prophecy to the entire trend and events of history is made apparent, while the precise time-relation of the visions is for the most part eliminated, and thus the field of prophetic prospective is maintained in its true breadth, and not narrowed as in the historical interpretation to a particular age or series of events. And the interpretation as a whole rests for its validity upon the scope and tenor of the book throughout, and can therefore be maintained without determining the full or specific meaning of every part. The Revelation thus understood ceases to be either a political diatribe of the first century, or the terrored story of the End; it rises above an epitome of history whether near or far, and takes rank as a true prophetic book in Apocalyptic form, dealing with the all-embracing plan of God for the ages, and the munificent purpose of redemption; and it is thereby rescued from many conjectural and contradictory interpretations which have obscured its meaning, and becomes a living prophecy of value to the church in every age.

The tendency toward wiser methods in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, and the growing spirit of unanimity concerning its larger lessons, provide good ground for encouragement to the troubled reader. And while, no doubt, the influence of the individual type of mind will continue to be felt in the interpretation, the rationalistic emphasizing the preterist application, the mystic the futurist, and the practical mind the symbolic and universal reference, yet it should always be kept in view that the chief importance of the book for the church at large [pg 048] transcends any question of theoretical interpretation, and lies in its practical worth in providing a rich source of religious inspiration, an invigorating aid to imperfect faith, and an abiding stimulus to the Christian imagination, in enabling the ordinary mind to realize the spiritual in the midst of and transcending the natural, and in making the deep conflict of life with its divine superintendence an ever present fact to the human soul. Indeed the book was evidently written for common use in the early church in public worship (ch. 1:3), which indicates an appreciation of its value in striking contrast with the modern indifference that passes it by as unintelligible. The Apocalypse has also a historical value, quite apart from its general meaning and use, that we should not overlook, for it throws important light upon the political and social conditions as well as the inner thought and development of the Christian church in the latter part of the first century. It reflects throughout the faith and temper in which the early church faced its growing conflict with the world. And it serves to show that at the close of the apostolic age there was a Christianity which was free from the law and universal, and yet continued to adhere to Jewish modes of expression.56

The elaborate and artistic Literary Structure of the Apocalypse, the numerical symmetry of its parts, the parallelism of its visions, and the recurrent climaxes in its development, together unite to give it a unique place among the writings of Scripture; and a clear perception of these relations becomes a distinct aid to the better understanding of its message, for these belong to it as the outer robes which enfold its inner thought. The predominance of the number seven in the arrangement of its subject-matter throughout, especially the recurrence of formal series of sevens in the Epistles, Seals, Trumpets, and Vials, has commonly led to the conclusion that the book is somehow capable of division into seven parts fundamental to its structure. And although the failure of commentators to agree generally upon any lines of division yet proposed scarcely seems to support this opinion, yet the possible correctness and the general helpfulness of such a division is fully recognized. Any such division which we may make, however, is chiefly one of analysis, for the visions are continuous and develop without any distinctive break of prophetic view. The outline analysis given above divides the Visions, or main portion of the book, into seven parts, the Episodes being made parenthetical and subordinate, as their contents and connection serve to indicate; while the four subdivisions of the Introduction and three of the Conclusion taken together, form another seven. This general division, which is not an uncommon one, agrees in the main, though not in statement or in full detail, with that in the Pulpit Commentary,57 and is one of [pg 050] the most natural as well as the most helpful in bringing out the chief thought of the book. The carefully wrought out and remarkably suggestive division and subdivision into complete series of sevens, given in the Modern Reader's Bible,58 after the same manner as the Prophecy of Ezekiel, and the Rhapsody of Joel, is worthy of attentive consideration, though it may well be doubted whether such an extensive subdivision found place in the Apocalyptist's thought.59 With discriminative literary insight the author of that work says, concerning the general outline of the book, “The seven visions of St. John's Revelation seem in the line of their succession to trace the figure of an arch, the keystone of the arch being the master-thought of the prophecy;... On either side of it [in the arrangement of the visions] III is closely parallel with V, and II with VI ... while I and VII are separate from the rest.... As always, literary form is here pointing to the deepest spiritual meaning”. The theme of the central vision according to this view, is “Salvation: the Kingdom of this World becoming the Kingdom of Christ”, which puts the purpose of the Christian warfare to the front, and has much to commend it; for the warfare is in order that the redemptive purpose of God may become effective and triumphant. There are reasons, however, in the scheme of the book which seem to place the main emphasis upon the warfare itself as leading to salvation, and that view has been accepted in this work. Following the fertile suggestion given above, though with a somewhat different conception of the theme of the several visions, we arrive at the following outline of the thought and plan of the chief part of the book,60 viz:—

[Transcriber's Note: In the book, the above table had the following text for each of the seven sections; they are laid out here to make it look correct with modern readers.]

IV—A Vision of Warfare—the Church-Historic World-Conflict of the Evil against the Just. (Ch. 12:1-14:20)

III—A Vision of Threatening—the World's Punishment Threatened. (Ch. 8:2-9:21, and 11:14-19)

V—A Vision of Judgment—the World's Judgment Executed. (Ch. 15:1-16:12, and 16:17-21)

II—A Vision of Trial—the Church's Trial Foreshown. (Ch. 6:1-17, and 8:1)

VI—A Vision of Vindication—the Church's Vindication Manifested. (Ch. 17:1-20:15)

I—A Vision of Sovereignty—the Throne during Conflict. (Ch. 4:1-5:14)

VII—A Vision of Triumph—the Throne after Victory. (Ch. 21:1-22:5)

If we follow the natural order of the visions from I to VII, we find it to be one of progression, viz. from Sovereignty to Trial, then to Threatening, and on through Warfare, Judgment, and Vindication to Triumph, each being a separate step in advance: if we compare I with VII, II with VI, and III with V, we find the order to be marked by parallelism, viz. Sovereignty corresponding to Triumph, Trial to Vindication, and Threatening to Judgment, vision IV, that of Warfare, holding the balance between them: while if we regard the central vision in relation to the rest, we find the arrangement to be one of climax, vision IV forming the connecting link between I and VII, II and VI, and III and V, the visions preceding and following it forming an ascending and descending scale to and from the center, viz. that of Sovereignty leading through Warfare to Triumph, that of Trial through Warfare to Vindication, and that of Threatening through Warfare to Judgment. The movement of thought is thereby indicated to be from the throne challenged to the throne triumphant, from the church tried to the church vindicated, from the world threatened to the world judged, through a world-conflict which forms the acme of the dramatic purpose, and discloses the entire sweep of redemptive history as buttressed upon the eternal throne. The seven visions, according to this view, are not bound together by any temporal succession, but each displays a world-process complete in itself, and they are so arranged that the climax is reached at the center instead of the end, after the analogy of Hebrew poetry, the central vision furnishing the key to the interpretation of the whole.61 The value of such an analytic interpretation, when sustained by the contents of the book, lies not alone in the help which it affords in penetrating the deeper purpose of the writer, and of the revelation made through him, but in the illuminative effect which, in a case like this, it throws upon the disputed question of unity; for if any such clearly marked and continuous current of thought can be shown to thread its way throughout the entire book, despite all by-currents and eddies, then the various theories of diverse or composite authorship cease to be credible except to pure theorists.

The Literature relating to this difficult book is very extensive, more works, strange to say, having been written on the Apocalypse which has been so imperfectly understood than upon any other part of Scripture, though many of them are now rightly regarded as of little value. A careful study of one or more of the leading authorities representing each of the current methods of interpretation will give a fair view of the whole field, and will serve to show that in many points there is essential agreement among all schools of thought, though for advanced work one's reading must necessarily cover a wider range, for the student should then know all the best that has been said upon the problems of the book. The most important qualification, however, for this difficult study is to approach the whole subject with an open mind and a fresh spirit of inquiry, resolved to be quite untrammelled by traditional interpretations, to investigate with scrupulous care the various points of view, and to apply with fearless courage all the well-established results of investigation, especially those of the later fruitful studies in Apocalyptic literature, which enable us to approach more nearly the viewpoint of the earliest readers of the book, but which yet remain to be duly correlated with our previous knowledge, being confidently assured that there is “light yet to break” for the earnest soul upon the deep things of the Apocalypse.

It is not likely that any one commentary will prove entirely satisfactory to the thoughtful reader, owing to the wide variation of opinion upon many minor points among those holding the same general view. Milligan is very suggestive though not always convincing, for he is oftentimes too indefinite in interpretation to be satisfying to the reader, telling us that “no detail of historic events need be looked for”. His discussion of principles, however, is always illuminative, even when his application is not quite so clear; and not infrequently his work is of more value in showing the inconclusiveness of other views than in establishing his own. We are indebted to him, through the general circulation of his works, perhaps more than to any other writer, for the present prevalence of the symbolic view in the English speaking world, and his Lectures, and one or other of his Commentaries, should be read by every student. Plummer, in the Pulpit [pg 053]Commentary, will be found more satisfactory by the general reader, especially if he inclines to the symbolic interpretation, and there is, in fact, no better commentary for common use, though we may not agree with all his conclusions. To his wise and discriminative judgment the present author wishes to express a deep indebtedness. The short introduction to that volume, with its scholarly notes on manuscripts, versions, &c, will also be found very helpful to the busy student. Farrar, supporting the preterist view, gives the historical conditions of the Neronic period in a striking way, many of which are equally applicable to the whole latter part of the first century. Lee is especially valuable for the condensed résumé of opinions concerning many obscure passages throughout the book, though the great diversity of views at times presented is apt to be confusing. Faussett is excellent from his point of view, ranking among the best premillennial interpreters. Seiss is also a popular authority with those who share the premillennial expectation, but his exegesis is often faulty, and his interpretation fanciful. Moulton's Modern Reader's Bible vol. John, is indispensable for its literary analysis and aid in gaining the general perspective, and should be in the library of every student. The Introduction to Revelation in the New Century Bible, by C. A. Scott, gives an admirable and concise statement of the present status of opinion concerning the problems of the book, and the notes of the same volume are especially valuable for their references to Jewish Apocalyptic. This is the best small book for the use of the student who wishes to get an outline of the modern view concerning the incorporation of Jewish apocalypses. For those who are acquainted with the Greek text, Alford, Stuart, and Düsterdieck will be found quite helpful, even though they belong to a former generation, for each has a special excellency; but the late work of Swete, the Apocalypse of St. John (1906), which is both thorough and scholarly, is indispensable for the critical use of the student in that it meets more fully the questions of modern inquiry and present discussion, and maintains a moderate view of the opinions now to the fore concerning the origin of the book. On the other hand Briggs' Messiah of the Gospels, and Moffatt's Historical New Testament give a good account of late theories of composite authorship and deserve attention. Also the able work of Moffatt on Revelation in the final volume of the Expositor's Greek Testament [pg 054] has been issued (1910), and deserves careful notice. The author adopts the modern critical view, that portions of the book have been incorporated from current apocalypses, and devotes considerable attention to source-criticism as an aid to interpretation, but too much time is given to pointing out what he regards as parallel thought in Greek, Roman, and Jewish writings, and this often has little interpretative value. The work is adapted to the ripe scholar rather than the earlier student, and though rejecting extreme views, it will not be found altogether satisfying to those of more conservative mind who believe that the Apocalypse is entitled to a primary rather than a secondary place among the books of Scripture. Another work awaited with much interest is the volume on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary which is in course of preparation by Charles, the eminent authority upon Apocalyptic.62 This volume when issued will no doubt add much of value to the modern point of view, and serve to throw additional light upon the relations of Apocalyptic literature to this its greatest masterpiece. His Studies in the Apocalypse (1913) serves to indicate the general line of interpretation to be expected, and it must be said that this is somewhat disappointing to the conservative reader, for it is highly critical. One naturally hesitates to disagree so widely with such an eminent scholar and distinguished apocalyptist as has been found necessary to do in the following pages; but it should be remembered that all Scripture is written for the world of men, and that the opinion of no one scholar or number of scholars can authoritatively determine the meaning of any part of it, but that rather the interpretation must be arrived at by a general consensus of opinion among men of learning and piety throughout the world. That this opinion, though now veering toward the critical view, will not be eventually sustained by more thorough research is the confirmed judgment of many scholars. But with it all there are many points of interpretation formerly in dispute that may now be regarded as already settled, their essential meaning in any case being substantially the same, and thus the book so long aglow with mysteries has virtually become every man's book in the light of intelligent interpretation.

Finally, with special emphasis it should be said, that it is of prime importance for those who would understand [pg 055] the Apocalypse in its proper relations to Biblical thought, that a careful study should be made of the prophecies of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Isaiah, Amos, Joel, and Habakkuk, together with the Book of Psalms, in connection with the Revelation, in order to catch the inner thought of the book; also of some portion of the Apocalyptic literature, particularly the Book of Enoch,63 the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Fourth Book of Ezra, for these will furnish the atmosphere of Jewish thought in which the Apocalypse was conceived, and will provide substantial aid in understanding the peculiarities of its literary form and the general spirit of the work, as well as in freeing the mind from the trammels of traditional interpretation. But, above all, we should not forget that the book of Revelation is a properly recognized part of canonical Scripture in practically the universal judgment of the entire Christian world, and that notwithstanding its many and persistent difficulties of interpretation, it is yet entitled to our earnest study and attentive thought as containing a living and abiding message from Almighty God, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord to John the last of the apostles, and through him to the sin-burdened souls of men the world over.

A few authorities are named below, which will be found sufficient to give most that is of value in interpretation for the general reader; others are referred to in the foot-notes. For a fuller list, especially of the older books, consult the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, or Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, art. “Revelation”; while for the later literature see Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

For the English Reader.

Preterist View:—

Futurist View:—

Progressivist View:—

Symbolist View:—

For Critical Study.

Preterist View:—

Preterist View—Modern Critical:—

Progressivist View—Modified Historical:—

Futurist View—Modified Historical:—

For Recent Critical Views.

Moffatt's Historical New Testament;

Scott's “Revelation”, in New Century Bible;

Dean's Book of Revelation;

Alexander Ramsay's “Revelation and Johannine Epistles”, in Westminister New Test.;

Briggs' Messiah of the Apostles;

Barton, art. “The Apocalypse and Recent Criticism”, in Amer. Journ. of Theol., Apr. 1884;

Porter, art. “Revelation”, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible;

Bousset, art. “Apocalypse”, in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Moffatt, art. “Wellhausen and Others on the Apocalypse”, in the Expositor, Mar. 1909;

Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse;

Charles, Revelation of St. John (I. C. C.);

Beckwith, Apocalypse of John.

For General Discussion.

Fairbairn, On Prophecy;

Bleek, Lectures on the Apocalypse;

Vaughan, Lectures on the Revelation of St. John;

Milligan, Lectures on the Apocalypse; and Discussions on the Apocalypse;

Scott, “Book of Revelation”, in the Practical Commentary;

Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, Part VI;

Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches;

Introductions to the New Testament by Salmon, Dods, Bacon, Jülicher, and others;

Introductions to Revelation in the leading Commentaries, and in the Modern Reader's Bible, the New Century Bible, the Temple Bible, and the Modern American Bible; and the text of Revelation in the New Translation of the New Testament, by Moffatt.

The Text here given is that of the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible, copyright 1901 by Thomas Nelson & Sons, which is used by permission of the publishers.

The arrangement of the text belongs to the present volume, and is offered as a contribution to the correct interpretation. This in itself is of the nature of a commentary, though no changes have been introduced into the body of the text. The paragraphs, however, have been changed, and many new paragraphs made, in order to emphasize the thought of the text.

The introductory and epistolary portions of the book which occupy the first three chapters, consist of four parts, viz. the superscription, the salutation, a vision of the exalted Redeemer, and messages to the seven churches in Asia. These give the source and authority of the Revelation, convey a greeting to the seven churches that are named, set forth the present activity of Christ in his redemptive work with the certainty of his personal return, and then present particular messages to each of the churches in Asia, which through their general condition afford a perspective view of the continuous and varied experience of the whole church in the process of redemption. These preliminary parts of the book, also, serve to introduce the great theme which is to occupy the subsequent revelation, viz. Christ and the Church through Time to Eternity. The style is at once that of Apocalyptic, though the form is less characteristic in the second and third chapters than in the first and subsequent ones; the literary construction is marked by obvious and sustained artistic skill; and the subject-matter shows a profound inner connection of thought with the visions that follow, affording a clear indication of the unity of the whole work that should not be overlooked in our study of the book.300

The Revelation Proper, which occupies the chief portion of the book, is a symbolic view of the great spiritual conflict of the ages, reviewing the whole course and outcome of the far-reaching struggle between the church and the world, with the multiple and diverse forces that are engaged in it, and setting forth the absolute decisiveness of the final issue. It consists of a series of seven visions which undertake to solve the apparent anomalies of God's present rule among men by affording recurrent glimpses of the working out of a great, comprehensive, underlying plan,—a providential and moral order in the world that is divine and sovereign, interpenetrated with a concurrent redemptive purpose that is gracious and elective,—which leads on through progressive stages of trial and warfare, of threatening and judgment, to the complete and final overthrow and punishment of all the wicked and to the full and glorious vindication and triumph of all the holy. The seven visions, when carefully examined, will be seen to be progressive in their revelation; for while they do not follow any line of temporal succession, they yet show a progress of thought and movement throughout. Beginning with the vision of God on the throne, a vision of sovereignty, they advance in manifest order through the vision of the seven seals, a vision of trial, and the vision of the seven trumpets, a vision of threatening, to the vision of conflict, a vision of warfare, which is central to all and furnishes a key to the general interpretation of the book. Then by a scale of descending climax they pass on to the vision of the seven vials, a vision of judgment, followed by the vision of victory, a vision of vindication, and this again by the vision of the New Jerusalem, a vision of triumph, which reveals the final goal of Christian hope in the immediate presence of God.365 The purpose of the Apocalypse is thus disclosed to be interpretative of God's plan of the ages, an unfolding of the drama of destiny, in which, notwithstanding all apparent contradictions and present reverses, he is yet ever leading on to full and final victory in the end—through all the conflict he is winning, even against appearances, and will triumph at last,—a view full of encouragement for tried and disheartened Christians of the first and each succeeding century. Why God permitted [pg 113] this struggle to be begun and then let it continue throughout the centuries, why he ever allowed sin to find a place among his moral creatures, is a topic nowhere entered upon or discussed throughout the book. It is evidently recognized as belonging to the unrevealed mysteries of God which lie outside the sphere of the present Revelation. But that he overrules all the apparently inapt and sinful conditions of this world for the ultimate good of his kingdom, and that he will victoriously triumph at last, is the assuring witness of the whole series of visions. The Apocalyptic form, we find, becomes more marked and definite in this main portion of the book, and the difficulties of interpretation are correspondingly increased; for they are no longer chiefly those of grammatical exegesis and historical allusion, but rather the elucidation of a body of mysterious symbols. The purpose and limits of the present volume forbid the discussion of many of the exegetical difficulties, and serve to confine attention mainly to the meaning of the symbolism as the chief subject concerning which there is wide difference of opinion. Questions of grammatical, or grammatico-historical, exegesis will be found more fully considered in the various commentaries to which the reader is referred in the footnotes. The visions and episodes into which the main part of the book is properly divisible, are given separately in the following analysis, i. e. the seven seals, trumpets, and vials are each considered in order consecutively, and the episodes which intervene are taken up after each sevenfold vision is complete, in order that they may be better understood. This preserves the connection of the seven in the series, and emphasizes by itself the lesson of the episodes which are interjected into the natural order.