« AnteriorContinuar »
reign of Nero the sixth.” Another demonstration that will surprise the reader who allows not his imagination to be his expositor. He is indeed much perplexed with the septimo-octave head of the beast, or the line of his succession after Nero—"the king which was and is not and yet is.” But “oỦx xote,” he says,
seems to say that he who is spoken of, is no longer living. “Nothing is more common in the predictions of the prophets, than the use of the præter and the present in order to designate future things. John seems simply to mean, that the beast first exists as king, then disappears or dies, and afterwards (as was generally supposed and had been predicted by the parteis) will reappear.” “ The writer means simply to say, the beast symbolizes one of whom it might be said, He was and is not and will reäppear.?” " In short, the more I reflect on these circumstances, the more am I compelled to believe, that John wrote his book pending the Neronian persecution.”2 Thus, to say nothing of other inconsistencies, we have the divinely inspired apostle, if not endorsing, at least availing himself of the heathen predictions that Nero should rise from the dead and actually reappear as emperor, merely to give a hint as to the individual meant to be designated by the beast. We know of nothing more perfectly at war with every well established principle of common sense exegesis. Such hermeneutics, employed to elicit internal evidence of a date, render the whole subject of prophecy as truly contemptible, as it feebly arrays itself against the impregnable fortress of Protestant exposition, armed, as it has been for centuries, with logical demonstrations and unanswerable arguments.
The above specimens of internal evidence will suffice, so far as our author is concerned, whose main reliance rests upon it. Others, equally confident with him as to the accuracy of their interpretation, by the very same process of argument, might place its origin, with equal show of evidence, at a much later date. This he is constrained to admit. “If,” says he, “it was viewed as in part a prediction, respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, then, of course, the composition of the book would be looked upon as having taken place anterior to that event; if, however, all the former part of the work was referred merely to the coming of Antichrist, or to any event of the times that followed the first century, then the era of Domitian might be fixed
any apprehension of difficulty.”3. The article in the last number of the Repository has settled, we think, which of the two expositions i correct, and leaves nothing further on that point to be said. Thu internal evidence, therefore, does not, and cannot be rendered available to set aside the external or traditionary.
Dr. Tilloch presents the argument from the former for an early date in a different aspect, and with much less that is postulative 1 Com., vol. ii., p. 226. - 2 Com., vol. i., p. 277.
3 p. 270.
in the way of exposition. A brief notice of his method of argument, with a remark or two as to its inconclusiveness, shall conclude this article. It consists in general, in tracing a similarity of thoughts and language in many respects, with those of the epistles of Paul, to prove, as it is alleged, the priority of the Apocalypse. Thus in i Cor. 15 : 52, where Paul speaks of “ the last trump," the reference, it is contended, is to the series of trumpets or blasts, spoken of by John. When Paul, in Hebrews 11: 19, says that Abraham looked for την τους θεμελιους εχουσαν πολιν, “the city having the foundations," the use of the article, it is said, implies that the subject was familiar to those whom he addressed. As to the last trump, Paul might have learned enough from the prophets, as some understand Isa. 27: 13, and 54:11-17, Zach. 9:14, to authorize such an expression ; but we prefer to say, that there is nothing remarkable in the fact, since Paul too was divinely inspired by an original and independent revelation. Certainly the Old Testament predictions set forth, distinctly enough, the heavenly city--the city of God's abode, that shall be called JEHOVAH Shammah, Ezek. 48: 35, Jer. 3:17, and Zech. 2: 10–13, which was the great object of hope and expectancy, on the part of the ancient worthies who “died in the faith”-familiarly and confidently spoken of and anticipated, anterior to, and during the days of Christ and his apostles. : The value and force of this sort of internal evidence may
be judged of by the reader from one or two additional examples. Peter speaks in Ch. 1:3-9 of the appearing of Jesus Christ, and in v. 13 of his revelation. The word is unoxalvyns in both places. This, Dr. Tilloch accounts to be a reference by name to the book of Revelations –εν αποκαλυψει Ιησε Χριστο-and hence he infers that it must have been written prior to Peter's first epistle. In the epistle to the Colossians also he finds “ a torrent of internal evidence of its having been written later than the Apocalypse," and is surprised that critics “ should not have perceived it.” But that evidence is found in such expressions as the inheritance of the saints,” Col. 1:12, compared with Rev. 21:7, delivered as from “the power of the darkness,' &c.;. and Col. 1: 13, compared with Rev. 16:10, 22:5. Col. 1:14, 16, 17, 18 with Rev. 1:5, 9 and 4; 11:10, 6.' Just as if different writers, referring to a common subject of deep interest, would not sometimes adopt similar expressions, especially those by which it is most frequently and forcibly presented :—and, as if separate and independent communications might not be made by the same Spirit of inspiration, and in the case of Paul, who actually received by inspiration the Lord's Supper, an ordinance previously established (1 Cor. 11:23–25), and the Gospel he preached, which was identical with that of the older apostles (Gal. 1: 12, δι' αποκαλύψεως Ιησου Χριστου)-not certainly from John's Apoca
| Tilloch on the Apocalypse, p. 88.
lypse!! Who does not see, that this is in fact learned trifling? and that such exalting of the internal evidence against the external, is only exposing its weakness and want of just claim to the confidence demanded for it!
It is much more direct and manly to do as Bauchmair has done, -amend the reading of Irenæus by introducing a syllable into a word, and claim that what he is reported to have written, 40MITIANOY was originally foutie, which was the pronomen of Nero. Certainly it is much more ingenious to do as Guerike suggests, that when Irenæus says “ that the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation προς το τέλει της Δομιτιανού άρχης, the word Louitlavov is to be taken, not as a noun, but adjective, and if an adjective, according to Greek formations, it belongs properly to Domitias, as 4ouutiavixos would to Domitian, so that Irenæus has been always thus understood, having in fact meant to date the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero! Prof. Stuart, however, cannot accede to the correctness of the criticism, however important it would be for his argument, and however convincing it'. was to Guerike.
Such is a careful and we think candid investigation of the evidence pro and con, on the subject of the date of the Apocalypse. The reader will make his own reflections, and the whole is submitted to his serious consideration,
CHRISTIANITY FORETOLD. UNDER THE SYMBOLS OF
Ry Prof. E. P. BARROWS, Jr., Western Reserve College, Hudson, o.
In the beginning of the fourth chapter of Micah, occurs the following passage, which, by the beauty and grandeur of its imagery, never fails to arrest the attention of the reader of taste, while its bright anticipations of the future glory of God's house, send a thrill of holy rapture through every pious bosom :
“But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth
of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid : for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it.”
The same words, with the exception of the last sentence, occur also in Isaiah (2:1-4), with some unessential variations. As Micah and Isaiah were contemporaries, the context alone will enable us to decide to which prophet the passage belongs as original, if indeed both have not quoted from some source to us unknown. The evidence from this would seem to be in favor of Micah; for in him it appears in connexion with what precedes and follows, while in Isaiah such a connexion cannot be clearly discovered. But this is a question of no importance to the view which we propose to take of the prophecy, and, with these passing remarks, we dismiss it.
That these remarkable words contain a prophecy of the extension of Christianity over all the earth, with the peace, plenty, and blessedness that ever follow in its train, will hardly be denied by any one who believes in the reality of prophetic inspiration. Under the Mosaic economy, which has vanished away never to return, they were not fulfilled either in form or in spirit. It remains that they be fulfilled under the gospel. But, though the matter of the prophecy is the Christian dispensation, its dress is wholly Jewish; and this is the point to which we wish particularly to direct the attention of our readers-Christianity foretold under the symbols of Judaism. The conception of the prophecy is throughout thoroughly Jewish. Under the Mosaic ritual, “the mountain of the house of the Lord” was the central point of divine worship. According to this ritual, all the public services of religion were restricted to one place—the tabernacle, and afterwards the temple erected by Solomon upon Mount Moriah, which, by the Jewish writers, is reckoned a part of Zion. Whoever wished to bring an offering to the Lord from any part of the land, was compelled to repair to Jerusalem, and present it to the priests in attendance at the temple ; for, by the laws of Moses, no sacrifice or oblation could be offered except by the priests, and at no other place except the altar in the court, first of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple. “ Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burntofferings in every place that thou seest : but in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.” (Deut. 12: 13, 14.) The same rule applied to unbloody offerings of every kind, as abundantly appears from an inspection of the Levitical institutions. To the mountain of the Lord's house” the people were, moreover, commanded to resort three times every year, and that with offerings according to their ability.
“Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread (the passover), and in the feast of weeks (the feast of Pentecost), and in the feast of tabernacles : and they shall not appear before the Lord empty: every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God, which he hath given thee.” (Deut. 16: 16, 17.)
And the priests were commanded, in return, to instruct the people in the knowledge of God's law. It was especially enjoined upon them to do this on the Sabbatical year. " At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.” (Deut. 31: 10–12.)
Jerusalem was also the seat of royal authority, the fountain of civil as well as of religious law. There were “set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David." In a word, Zion was the centre of both political and ecclesiastical power. Ark, altar of burnt-offering, altar of incense, priest, king-all were collected within the walls of Jerusalem. There God dwelt between the Cherubim in the holy of holies, concealing the brightness of his glory from all mortal vision, save that of the high priest, who was allowed to enter into his immediate presence once every year, on the great day of atonement. It is hardly possible for us to conceive of the depth and 'tenderness of emotion with which the pious Jew thought of Mount Zion. To him the holy city was "the beauty of perfection.” (Ps. 50: 2.) At the prospect of visiting her, his heart leaped for joy. “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall stand within thy walls, O Jerusalem.” (Ps. 122:1, 2.) When he beheld her sacred walls, he exclaimed, in a transport of holy rapture, “Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. God is known in her palaces for a refuge." (Ps. 48: 2, 3.) He ever conceived of her as the appointed residence of Jehovah. When his king had gone forth to battle, he prayed that God would succor him from Zion, as from his constant dwelling-place. "The Lord send thee help from his sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion.” (Ps. 20 : 2.) In exile, he ever turned his face towards Jerusalem in prayer (Dan. 6 : 10); and, though her walls were laid in ruins, he took pleasure in her stones, and favored the dust thereof. (Ps. 102 : 14.) It was impossible for him to form any other conception of the extension of the true religion to the diffe