INTRODUCTION

Authenticity.—The author calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 2:8). Justin Martyr [Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308] (a.d. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work, the prophecy of the millennium of the saints, to be followed by the general resurrection and judgment. This testimony of Justin is referred to also by Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.18]. Justin Martyr, in the early part of the second century, held his controversy with Trypho, a learned Jew, at Ephesus, where John had been living thirty or thirty-five years before: he says that “the Revelation had been given to John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ.” Melito, bishop of Sardis (about a.d. 171), one of the seven churches addressed, a successor, therefore, of one of the seven angels, is said by Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.26] to have written treatises on the Apocalypse of John. The testimony of the bishop of Sardis is the more impartial, as Sardis is one of the churches severely reproved (Rev 3:1). So also Theophilus of Antioch (about a.d. 180), according to Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.26], quoted testimonies from the Apocalypse of John. Eusebius says the same of Apollonius, who lived in Asia Minor in the end of the second century. Irenaeus (about a.d. 180), a hearer of Polycarp, the disciple of John, and supposed by Archbishop Usher to be the angel of the Church of Smyrna, is most decided again and again in quoting the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle John [Against Heresies, 4.20.11; 4.21.3; 4.30.4; 5.36.1; 5.30.3; 5.35.2]. In [5.30.1], alluding to the mystical number of the beast, six hundred sixty-six (Rev 13:18), found in all old copies, he says, “We do not hazard a confident theory as to the name of Antichrist; for if it had been necessary that his name should be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the apocalyptic vision; for it was seen at no long time back, but almost in our generation, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” In his work Against Heresies, published ten years after Polycarp’s martyrdom, he quotes the Apocalypse twenty times, and makes long extracts from it, as inspired Scripture. These testimonies of persons contemporary with John’s immediate successors, and more or less connected with the region of the seven churches to which Revelation is addressed, are most convincing. Tertullian, of North Africa (about a.d. 220), [Against Marcion, 3.14], quotes the apostle John’s descriptions in the Apocalypse of the sword proceeding out of the Lord’s mouth (Rev 19:15), and of the heavenly city (Rev 21:1–27). Compare On the Resurrection of the Flesh [27]; A Treatise on the Soul, [8, 9, &c.]; The Prescription Against Heretics, [33]. The Muratori fragment of the canon (about a.d. 200) refers to John the apostle writing to the seven churches. Hippolytus, bishop of Ostia, near Rome (about a.d. 240) [On Antichrist, p. 67], quotes Rev 17:1–18, as the writing of John the apostle. Among Hippolytus’ works, there is specified in the catalogue on his statue, a treatise “on the Apocalypse and Gospel according to John.” Clement of Alexandria (about a.d. 200) [Miscellanies, 6.13], alludes to the twenty-four seats on which the elders sit as mentioned by John in the Apocalypse (Rev 4:5); also, [Who Is the Rich Man Who Shall Be Saved? 42], he mentions John’s return from Patmos to Ephesus on the death of the Roman tyrant. Origen (about a.d. 233), [Commentary on Matthew, in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 6.25], mentions John as the author of the Apocalypse, without expressing any doubts as to its authenticity; also, in Commentary on Matthew, [16.6], he quotes Rev 1:9, and says, “John seems to have beheld the Apocalypse in the island of Patmos.” Victorinus, bishop of Pettau in Pannonia, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian in a.d. 303, wrote the earliest extant commentary on the Apocalypse. Though the Old Syriac Peschito version does not contain the Apocalypse, yet Ephrem the Syrian (about a.d. 378) frequently quotes the Apocalypse as canonical, and ascribes it to John.

Its canonicity and inspiration (according to a scholium of Andreas of Cappadocia) are attested by Papias, a hearer of John, and associate of Polycarp. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea, one of the seven churches. Wordsworth conjectures that a feeling of shame, on account of the rebukes of Laodicea in Revelation, may have operated on the Council of Laodicea, so as to omit Revelation from its list of books to be read publicly (?). The Epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (in Eusebius, [Ecclesiastical History, 5.1–3]), in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius (a.d. 77) quotes Rev 1:5; 3:14; 14:4; 22:11, as Scripture. Cyprian (about a.d. 250) also, in Epistle 13, quotes Rev 2:5 as Scripture; and in Epistle 25 he quotes Rev 3:21, as of the same authority as the Gospel. (For other instances, see Alford’s Prolegomena, from whom mainly this summary of evidence has been derived). Athanasius, in his Festival Epistle, enumerates the Apocalypse among the canonical Scriptures, to which none must add, and from which none must take away. Jerome [Epistle to Paulinus] includes in the canon the Apocalypse, adding, “It has as many mysteries as words. All praise falls short of its merits. In each of its words lie hid manifold senses.” Thus an unbroken chain of testimony down from the apostolic period confirms its canonicity and authenticity.

The Alogi [Epiphanius, Heresies, 51] and Caius the Roman presbyter [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.28], towards the end of the second and beginning of the third century, rejected John’s Apocalypse on mere captious grounds. Caius, according to Jerome [On Illustrious Men], about a.d. 210, attributed it to Cerinthus, on the ground of its supporting the millennial reign on earth. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions many before his time who rejected it because of its obscurity and because it seemed to support Cerinthus’ dogma of an earthly and carnal kingdom; whence they attributed it to Cerinthus. This Dionysius, scholar of Origen, and bishop of Alexandria (a.d. 247), admits its inspiration (in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 7.10]), but attributes it to some John distinct from John the apostle, on the ground of its difference of style and character, as compared with John’s Gospel and Epistle, as also because the name John is several times mentioned in the Apocalypse, which is always kept back in both the Gospel and Epistle; moreover, neither does the Epistle make any allusion to the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse to the Epistle; and the style is not pure Greek, but abounds in barbarisms and solecisms. Eusebius wavers in opinion [Ecclesiastical History, 7.25.25] as to whether it is, or is not, to be ranked among the undoubtedly canonical Scriptures. His antipathy to the millennial doctrine would give an unconscious bias to his judgment on the Apocalypse. Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d. 386), [Catechetical Lectures, 4.35, 36], omits the Apocalypse in enumerating the New Testament Scriptures to be read privately as well as publicly. “Whatever is not read in the churches, that do not even read by thyself; the apostles and ancient bishops of the Church who transmitted them to us were far wiser than thou art.” Hence, we see that, in his day, the Apocalypse was not read in the churches. Yet in Catechetical Lectures, 1.4 he quotes Rev 2:7, 17; and in Catechetical Lectures, 1; 15.13 he draws the prophetical statement from Rev 17:11, that the king who is to humble the three kings (Da 7:8, 20) is the eighth king. In Catechetical Lectures, 15; 27 he similarly quotes from Rev 12:3, 4. Alford conjectures that Cyril had at some time changed his opinion, and that these references to the Apocalypse were slips of memory whereby he retained phraseology which belonged to his former, not his subsequent views. The sixtieth canon (if genuine) of the Laodicean Council in the middle of the fourth century omits the Apocalypse from the canonical books. The Eastern Church in part doubted, the Western Church, after the fifth century, universally recognized, the Apocalypse. Cyril of Alexandria [On Worship, 146], though implying the fact of some doubting its genuineness, himself undoubtedly accepts it as the work of St. John. Andreas of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, recognized as genuine and canonical, and wrote the first entire and connected commentary on, the Apocalypse. The sources of doubt seem to have been, (1) the antagonism of many to the millennium, which is set forth in it; (2) its obscurity and symbolism having caused it not to be read in the churches, or to be taught to the young. But the most primitive tradition is unequivocal in its favor. In a word, the objective evidence is decidedly for it; the only arguments against it seem to have been subjective.

The personal notices of John in the Apocalypse occur Rev 1:1, 4, 9 Rev 22:8. Moreover, the writer’s addresses to the churches of Proconsular Asia (Rev 2:1) accord with the concurrent tradition, that after John’s return from his exile in Patmos, at the death of Domitian, under Nerva, he resided for long, and died at last in Ephesus, in the time of Trajan [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.20, 23]. If the Apocalypse were not the inspired work of John, purporting as it does to be an address from their superior to the seven churches of Proconsular Asia, it would have assuredly been rejected in that region; whereas the earliest testimonies in those churches are all in its favor. One person alone was entitled to use language of authority such as is addressed to the seven angels of the churches—namely, John, as the last surviving apostle and superintendent of all the churches. Also, it accords with John’s manner to assert the accuracy of his testimony both at the beginning and end of his book (compare Rev 1:2, 3; 22:8, with Jn 1:14; 21:24 1 Jn 1:1, 2). Again, it accords with the view of the writer being an inspired apostle that he addresses the angels or presidents of the several churches in the tone of a superior addressing inferiors. Also, he commends the Church of Ephesus for trying and convicting “them which say they are apostles, and are not,” by which he implies his own undoubted claim to apostolic inspiration (Rev 2:2), as declaring in the seven epistles Christ’s will revealed through him.

As to the difference of style, as compared with the Gospel and Epistle, the difference of subject in part accounts for it, the visions of the seer, transported as he was above the region of sense, appropriately taking a form of expression abrupt, and unbound by the grammatical laws which governed his writings of a calmer and more deliberate character. Moreover, as being a Galilean Hebrew, John, in writing a Revelation akin to the Old Testament prophecies, naturally reverted to their Hebraistic style. Alford notices, among the features of resemblance between the styles of the Apocalypse and John’s Gospel and Epistle: (1) the characteristic appellation of our Lord, peculiar to John exclusively, “the Word of God” (Rev 19:13; compare Jn 1:1; 1 Jn 1:1). (2) the phrase, “he that overcometh” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17; 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7; compare Jn 16:33 1 Jn 2:13, 14; 4:4). (3) The Greek term (alethinos) for “true,” as opposed to that which is shadowy and unreal (Rev 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 21:5; 22:6). This term, found only once in Luke (Lu 16:11), four times in Paul (1 Th 1:9; Heb 8:2; 9:24; 10:22), is found nine times in John’s Gospel (Jn 1:9; 6:32; 7:28; 8:16; 15:1 Jn 17:3), twice in John’s First Epistle (1 Jn 2:8; 5:20), and ten times in Revelation (Rev 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 21:5 Rev 22:6). (4) The Greek diminutive for “Lamb” (arnion, literally, “lambkin”) occurs twenty-nine times in the Apocalypse, and the only other place where it occurs is Jn 21:15. In John’s writings alone is Christ called directly “the Lamb” (Jn 1:29, 36). in 1 Pe 1:19, He is called “as a lamb without blemish,” in allusion to Is 53:7. So the use of “witness,” or “testimony” (Rev 1:2, 9; 6:9; 11:7, &c.; compare Jn 1:7, 8, 15, 19, 32; 1 Jn 1:2; 4:14; 5:6–11). “Keep the word,” or “commandments” (Rev 3:8, 10; 12:17; compare Jn 8:51, 55; 14:15). The assertion of the same thing positively and negatively (Rev 2:2, 6, 8, 13; compare Jn 1:3, 6, 7, 20; Jn 1:3, 6, 7, 20, 1 Jn 2:27, 28). Compare also 1 Jn 2:20, 27 with Rev 3:18, as to the spiritual anointing. The seeming solecisms of style are attributable to that, inspired elevation which is above mere grammatical rules, and are designed to arrest the reader’s attention by the peculiarity of the phrase, so as to pause and search into some deep truth lying beneath. The vivid earnestness of the inspired writer, handling a subject so transcending all others, raises him above all servile adherence to ordinary rules, so that at times he abruptly passes from one grammatical construction to another, as he graphically sets the thing described before the eye of the reader. This is not due to ignorance of grammar, for he “has displayed a knowledge of grammatical rules in other much more difficult constructions” [Winer]. The connection of thought is more attended to than mere grammatical connection. Another consideration to be taken into account is that two-fifths of the whole being the recorded language of others, he moulds his style accordingly. Compare Tregelles’ Introduction to Revelation from Heathen Authorities.

Tregelles well says [New Testament Historic Evidence], “There is no book of the New Testament for which we have such clear, ample, and numerous testimonies in the second century as we have in favor of the Apocalypse. The more closely the witnesses were connected with the apostle John (as was the case with Irenaeus), the more explicit is their testimony. That doubts should prevail in after ages must have originated either in ignorance of the earlier testimony, or else from some supposed intuition of what an apostle ought to have written. The objections on the ground of internal style can weigh nothing against the actual evidence. It is in vain to argue, a priori, that John could not have written this book when we have the evidence of several competent witnesses that he did write it.”

Relation of the Apocalypse to the rest of the canon.—Gregory of Nyssa [tom. 3, p. 601], calls Revelation “the last book of grace.” It completes the volume of inspiration, so that we are to look for no further revelation till Christ Himself shall come. Appropriately the last book completing the canon was written by John, the last survivor of the apostles. The New Testament is composed of the historical books, the Gospels and Acts, the doctrinal Epistles, and the one prophetical book, Revelation. The same apostle wrote the last of the Gospels, and probably the last of the Epistles, and the only prophetical book of the New Testament. All the books of the New Testament had been written, and were read in the Church assemblies, some years before John’s death. His life was providentially prolonged that he might give the final attestation to Scripture. About the year a.d. 100, the bishops of Asia (the angels of the seven churches) came to John at Ephesus, bringing him copies of the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and desired of him a statement of his apostolical judgment concerning them; whereupon he pronounced them authentic, genuine, and inspired, and at their request added his own Gospel to complete the fourfold aspect of the Gospel of Christ (compare Muratori [Fragment on the Canon of Scripture]; Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 3.24]; Jerome [Commentary on Matthew]; Victorinus on the Apocalypse; Theodoret [Ecclesiastical History, 39]). A Greek divine, quoted in Allatius, calls Revelation “the seal of the whole Bible.” The canon would be incomplete without Revelation. Scripture is a complete whole, its component books, written in a period ranging over one thousand five hundred years, being mutually connected. Unity of aim and spirit pervades the entire, so that the end is the necessary sequence of the middle, and the middle of the beginning. Genesis presents before us man and his bride in innocence and blessedness, followed by man’s fall through Satan’s subtlety, and man’s consequent misery, his exclusion from Paradise and its tree of life and delightful rivers. Revelation presents, in reverse order, man first liable to sin and death, but afterwards made conqueror through the blood of the Lamb; the first Adam and Eve, represented by the second Adam, Christ, and the Church. His spotless bride, in Paradise, with free access to the tree of life and the crystal water of life that flows from the throne of God. As Genesis foretold the bruising of the serpent’s head by the woman’s seed (Ge 3:15), so Revelation declares the final accomplishment of that prediction (Rev 19:1–20:15).

Place and time of writing.—The best authorities among the Fathers state that John was exiled under Domitian (Irenaeus [Against Heresies, 5.30]; Clement of Alexandria; Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 3.20]). Victorinus says that he had to labor in the mines of Patmos. At Domitian’s death, a.d. 95, he returned to Ephesus under the Emperor Nerva. Probably it was immediately after his return that he wrote, under divine inspiration, the account of the visions vouchsafed to him in Patmos (Rev 1:2, 9). However, Rev 10:4 seems to imply that he wrote the visions immediately after seeing them. Patmos is one of the Sporades. Its circumference is about thirty miles. “It was fitting that when forbidden to go beyond certain bounds of the earth’s lands, he was permitted to penetrate the secrets of heaven” [Bede, Explanation of the Apocalypse on chap. 1]. The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John’s banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement of Alexandria’s story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (a.d. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called “rich and increased with goods” is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (a.d. 64). But the possible allusions to it in Heb 10:37; compare Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 22:12; Heb 11:10; compare Rev 21:14; Heb 12:22, 23; compare Rev 14:1; Heb 8:1, 2; compare Rev 11:19; 15:5; 21:3; Heb 4:12; compare Rev 1:16; Heb 4:9; compare Rev 20:1–15; also 1 Pe 1:7, 13; 4:13, with Rev 1:1; 1 Pe 2:9 with Rev 5:10; 2 Ti 4:8, with Rev 2:26, 27; 3:21; 11:18; Eph 6:12, with Rev 12:7–12; Php 4:3, with Rev 3:5; Col 1:18, with Rev 1:5; 1 Co 15:52, with Rev 10:7; 11:15–18, make a date before the destruction of Laodicea possible. Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John’s, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian’s reign. See Tilloch’s Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Rev 1:4) implies it was written after Paul’s death under Nero.

To what readers addressed.—The inscription states that it is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, that is, Proconsular Asia. John’s reason for fixing on the number seven (for there were more than seven churches in the region meant by “Asia,” for instance, Magnesia and Tralles) was doubtless because seven is the sacred number implying totality and universality: so it is implied that John, through the medium of the seven churches, addresses in the Spirit the Church of all places and ages. The Church in its various states of spiritual life or deadness, in all ages and places, is represented by the seven churches, and is addressed with words of consolation or warning accordingly. Smyrna and Philadelphia alone of the seven are honored with unmixed praise, as faithful in tribulation and rich in good works. Heresies of a decided kind had by this time arisen in the churches of Asia, and the love of many had waxed cold, while others had advanced to greater zeal, and one had sealed his testimony with his blood.