ON THE APOCALYPSE.

THE book of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" has been spoken of as a sealed book. This is without authority; that is, it has no authority that a wary and prayerful student will regard. To such the word of God alone is authoritative.

That there will be something new in the following studies is not announced in a vain-glorious spirit: in the presence of God we have His word (pòs ov nμiv ó λóyos, Heb. iv. 13). Any careless or irreverent handling of this word must bring rebuke and failure. It has been said of a certain book, "what is new is not true, and what is true is not new." This would be a just censure on any production that professes to bring forward something absolutely new, for "there is nothing new under the sun." In a blessed sense, however, the New Covenant is both new and true. It is new in contrast with the Old Covenant, and it is true having God for its Author. Again, we must distinguish between what is newly invented and what is newly discovered. Justification by faith was newly discovered by Luther, America by Columbus. Jesus as only a Pattern was an invention. The pre-millenial and the post-millenial schemes are both discoveries: one of these, at least, loomed up in a fog; and, as with the labourer who mistook his own cottage for a lordly mansion, a near view dissipates the illusion.

The Apocalypse has been characterized as a book of symbols. This is only in part true. There are symbols, but the

arbitrariness of more than one commentator must be treated with caution. That the river Euphrates prefigures the Turkish empire should have more support than mere assertion. Such assertions and prelections on them effect much in breeding the sneers of hearers.

Perhaps no one will object to the thought that the Apocalypse presents a series of tableaux vivants from chap. iv. I to xxii. 2. If this is so we must then interpret them as we should any other representative pictures. When we read these words, "we are fully committed to the historical scheme," we feel that it is hopeless to attempt for some any other exposition. Nor is this meant to be an elaborate and exhaustive effort. The following principles will be observed in our inquiries :—

X

1. The Scriptures are self-explanatory, if not they are incomplete.

2. Nothing should be admitted as a symbol, or as figurative, without divine sanction.

3. Prophecy fulfilled, and prophecy unfulfilled have definite boundaries separated by "the dispensation of the grace of God."

4. This dispensation being "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" is not one in which God openly works.

5. The finishing of this mystery will be the period when God will resume His open rectorship of the world. ·

6. There is no thought that these studies will do more than yield the supply of one little joint of the body, under the care of the great Head.

7. A different translation is presented only when it seems to be demanded: no various reading, unless quite affecting the general sense will be regarded.

Chap. i. I. A revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He showed them by signs, sending by His angel to His servant John.

2. Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatsoever he saw (Tè is rejected).

10. I was in spirit on the Lord's day, &c.

"A revelation of Jesus Christ." Why have the translators put the definite article? Were this the only revelation, or had there been no previous one, then it might be justified although there is no article in the Greek. But there had been several previous revelations of Himself by Jesus. This is assuming that a revelation of Himself is meant here. When revelation is predicated of a person, and even sometimes of a thing, the actual appearing is meant, for which see Gal. i. 12; Eph. iii. 3; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 7; iv. 13. In Galatians above Paul tells us that he went into Arabia, where it seems that not only was Jesus revealed to him, but also in him, (èv èμoí), verse 16. The translation of Eph. iii. 3 should be "in a revelation," as Matt. i. 20; xxvii. 19, "in a dream," et alia. "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" says the Apostle. Now when was this? Not when he was struck to the earth on going to Damascus, for

he was at the same time struck blind; he heard a voice, but saw no man. He might have seen Jesus when caught up to the third heaven, but this was subsequent-as we have reason to think-to his assertion as a ground of apostleship. This revelation or manifestation of Jesus was for the express purpose of showing to His servants "things which must shortly come to pass." In the plural this word always refers to the substance of things made known, sometimes also in the singular.

"I was in spirit on the Lord's day." Middleton says that when T TVEÚμaтi means in his mind or spirit the preposition is not used. This may be true in the instances he cites, but not in others, as Rom. i. 9; Matt. xxii. 43; Luke i. 17. Middleton further says that when Tvévμa is used of the Holy Spirit personally the word always has the article, unless it loses it by a definite rule. Another prelate rejects all these elaborate rules. How would these rules apply in 1 Cor. xii. 3? Our translators evidently understood it of the Holy Spirit; but as being a dissertation on spirit-gift, it should rather be "a spirit of God," viz. a spirit conferred by God: on this consider xiv. 12, “as ye are zealous of spirits" (πveνμáτwv); so also I John iv. 1, 2. Supposing Middleton's rule good, it is well illustrated in this chapter of Corinthians. "In spirit" is an adverbial only. Whilst it is strictly scriptural to speak of the Holy Spirit being in a spiritual man, it is not so to speak of one being in the Holy Spirit. The state or condition of John seems something analogous to that of Peter when he was in a trance; with this essential difference however, that Peter was taught by a figure, John by representative exhibitions, literal but prospective"things that shall be." Perhaps what Paul saw when he was called up to the third heaven, but which he could not utter, was of the same character as the things which John saw. Something similar is the Fata Morgana; ships at sea, cities in their entirety, are sometimes seen where they are not by some extraordinary abnormal condition of the atmosphere-they are unreal exhibitions of real objects existing elsewhere. But here again differences exist; the occurrences recorded in the Revelation cast their shadows before them by more than 1800 years; rather they are reflected on the chart of time so far back, photographed through God's lens on heavenly tissues, and by an

inspired pen press.

"written for our learning" in imperishable letter

As to the expression "the Lord's day" (кvριaкn ημépa), whilst there can be no objection to apply this epithet to the first day of the week" which saw our Lord arise," it would be erring reason to appeal to this passage as authority. There is a similar formula in 1 Cor. iv. 3 (ȧv0ρwπívη nμéрa), with which this may be contrasted. "Man's day" is the present time; "the Lord's day' is that yet to come, when it shall be said "the great day of His wrath is come" (Rev. vi. 17).

The Lord's day is anticipated in these scenic representationsthese prelusory photograms. To these we do well to take heed, for "blessed is he who readeth and they who hear." We hardly need them if they are to us only records of the past. Unlike the fulfilment of prophecy concerning the death and resurrection of our Lord, which are to us life and joy through faith, these are a light shining in a dark place, carrying our vision through the extended darkness-a vista of unbelieving gloom. Of how much is faith despoiled, should these visions have vanished and "leave not a wreck behind," for there is no wreck of the nations which John announces. As God was pleased to show to Abraham, His friend, what He was about to do, so is He pleased to show to His servants things that must shortly come to pass. Let faith measure this "shortly."

We may here announce our conviction that the Apocalypse is a Jewish book. Throughout there is an abundance of Jewish drapery: this has been remarked on by Michaelis. The quotations from the Old Covenant Scriptures are more numerous in this book than in any other. The next in order is the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jews; then the Gospel by Luke; and then the Hebrews and the Acts of the Apostles, all having a prevalent Jewish aspect. Some of these quotations are here presented.

This may suffice as a sample. The same might be done with every chapter. As to the Pauline and other epistles, every one contains quotations from the Old Covenant Scriptures except the second epistle of John, but comparatively few. Some of these indeed scarcely rank as quotations, e.g. "Peace be to thee," 3 John 14 and Judges vi. 23. Perhaps only a few are strictly quotations, but yet identical in thought and similar in expression,, which will suffice to illustrate the assertion that this is ostensibly a Jewish book; having, however, very high claims on the Church of God for their attention, reverence, and study.

Christ does not appear under any official title in this book, unless we except v. 6, a Lamb as it had been slain." Also the titles given to Him are not found elsewhere, unless we excep "King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. ii. 15). Other titles in common-if they may be called titles-are "First-begotten" (Heb. i. 6; Rev. i. 5) and "Son of God." The following titles occur nowhere else, "Lion of the tribe of Judah" (v. 5), "Root and offspring of David" (xxii. 16). These are strictly Jewish eponyms.