Revelation.
Revelation.
§ 292. Regarding Revelation, too, the testimonies of antiquity vary. Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 21: “Even now there is a difference of opinion among many concerning Revelation—some approve it and others reject it.” Chapter 22:
It will be convenient for us, having begun in this place, to assemble the Scriptures of the New Testament briefly. In the first place we have to place the holy four-horse chariot of the evangelists, which the Acts of the Apostles follows. After this we must add the Epistles of Paul. To this we attach that authentic letter that is called 1 John, as well as the first Epistle of Peter. After these we place in order, if it seems right, the Revelation of John, and we shall explain in its own place what is thought about it. These are the writings considered undoubted. The ones that are spoken against are these: the Epistle attributed to James, the Epistle of Jude, the latter of Peter, and 2 and 3 John …. Among the corrupt books, let there be listed the Acts of Paul, the book called “The Shepherd,” and the Revelation of Peter. Furthermore, the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” are also circulated. To these we also add the Revelation of John, if it seems right. Some reject it, but others judge it to be among the definite and undoubted Scriptures.
In the same book, c. 36, he claims, according to the view of Papias, that there are two Johns: “one, the apostle; the other, the presbyter or elder,” who is outside the number of the apostles. He adds: “It is likely that the second, unless someone may prefer the first, saw that Apocalypse that is circulated under the name of John.” Bk. 7, c. 24, from Dionysius:
Some of those who preceded us completely disapproved of and rejected this book of Revelation, claiming that it was obscure because of its individual disjointed chapters and was supported by no logic. They also claim that its inscription lies. They have said that it is not John’s and, in act, that it is not even a revelation, but is still covered by the thick veil of ignorance. Why, they even have said that it was not one of the apostles nor someone of the saints nor of those who belong to the Church who authored this writing. Rather, they said that Cerinthus, the instigator of that heresy called Cerinthian, wanted to write down his innovation under John’s name so as to be worthy of confidence. They say it is the dogma of his teaching that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly; he dreamed that he would be amid those things that he desired as a carnal man concerned for his own body, namely, of his belly and of the gluttony that serves the belly—food, drink, marriage, etc.
This opinion is obviously false because the blasphemy of Cerinthus against the divinity of Christ is refuted in many passages of this book. His pleasure-filled dogma of an earthly kingdom of Christ finds no protection in that book, if the passage be explained according to the analogy of faith and the consensus of Scripture. So Dionysius adds:
I, however, surely would not dare disapprove of this book, because many of the brethren read it earnestly; but since an estimation of it has been formed that is higher than it was possible for me to understand myself, I suspect that it contains a sort of secret and wonderful expectation of things to come in each of its chapters.
And later:
I do not deny that he is called John and that this is John’s writing, for I believe it is the work of a saint and is imbued with the divine Spirit. However, I would not easily concede that this is the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose Gospel is inscribed “according to John” and who wrote a catholic Epistle.
This judgment that Dionysius held regarding Revelation is mentioned by the same Eusebius in bk. 3, c. 25. Jerome, Epistle ad Dardanum, vol. 4, f. 29: “The Greeks entertained doubts about Revelation, contrary to the common consensus of the Latins, as at this time most of the Latins did about the Epistle to the Hebrews, contrary to the common opinion of the Greeks.” Amphilochius, in his iambi ad Seleucum on the books of Holy Scripture: “Very many say that Revelation is corrupt.” Bishop Junilius, Quaestiones, c. 4: “There is still doubt among the Easterners about the Revelation of John.”
Some of the more recent writers hold the same judgment about this book. Erasmus, Annotat. on Acts 1, p. 199: “Italy accepted Revelation recently. Not even now does Greece give its complete approval.” Annot. on Revelation 22, p. 547:
St. Jerome testifies that the Greeks even at his time had not accepted Revelation. In addition, he says that some learned men have railed against this entire document with a loud uproar, as if it had nothing of apostolic gravity but were merely a common account of things, covered by the wrappings of imagery. Next, he says there is nothing in its ideas that seems worthy of apostolic majesty. To say nothing about this in the meantime, I can say that I was moved somewhat both by other conjectures, as well as those conjectures that the one writing the revelations so carefully emphasizes his own name, etc. These, I say, would have moved me somewhat from believing that this is the work of John the evangelist if the consensus of the world were not to call me in another direction, and especially the authority of the Church, if the Church still approves this work with the mind that it wants it to be considered as the evangelist John’s and to have equal weight with the other canonical books. Dionysius of Tyre, bishop and martyr, has already declared in his Compendium vitarum that John wrote his Gospel on the island of Patmos, and he makes absolutely no mention of Revelation. Not even the Greek Anastasius dares declare in his Catalogus that this is the work of that John; he merely says that some have accepted it as a work of his. In fact, I see that the ancient theologians bring out testimony for this more for the sake of adorning a matter than to prove a serious matter.
In his preface to Revelation, Luther leaves the matter undecided as to whether this is a book of John the evangelist. Nevertheless he does not forbid one from claiming that it is John’s. Meanwhile, he acknowledges that “it is a divinely inspired prophecy.” In his praefat. Apoc., Camerarius says, “The speech is different from that in which the exposition of the Gospel and the composition of the Epistle were written.”
§ 293. But it can be demonstrated with substantial arguments that the Book of Revelation is canonical and was written by the apostle John: (1) From its inscription. The inscription is quite clear: “The Revelation of John the theologian.” It is apparent that the apostle John is that “theologian” par excellence. This is apparent from the conformity of the introduction used in this book with the one used in the Gospel, as well as the one in the first Epistle. The author of this book writes: “Jesus Christ gave this revelation to His servant John, who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw” (1:1-2). In almost the same way John speaks of himself in his Gospel: “This is that disciple who is bearing word to these things and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (21:24). He begins his first Epistle in the same manner: “That which was from the beginning, which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked on with our eyes, this we proclaim to you” (1 John 1:1-3).
(2) From the style. It is peculiar to John—more than the other writers of the books of the New Testament—to call the Son of God “the Word” (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1). He attributes the same name to the Son of God in this book (Rev. 19:13).
(3) From the circumstances of place and time. Irenaeus (bk. 5, c. 5) and from him Eusebius (Histor. eccles., bk. 3, c. 16) testify: “At that time when John had been banished by Domitian to Patmos, he saw his revelation, and he saw it almost at the end of Domitian’s reign.” Jerome also agrees with this (De vir. illustrib.). According to the Computatio of Funccius, this happened in AD 97. But now, this book itself claims that John saw this vision that he described on Patmos at the end of Domitian’s reign: “I, John, your brother, who share with you in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance of Jesus Christ, was on the island called Patmos on account of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:9).
(4) From a comparison. If we establish a comparison of those visions with the prophetic visions, it will appear that Revelation does not differ much from the nature of the prophetic visions, especially from those of Ezekiel. In fact, they both seem to illustrate the same things, such as the four living creatures, Gog and Magog, the measurements of the temple, etc.
(5) From the fulfillment. Fulfillment of prophecies is the best interpreter. By it many visions have already been proved, and it provides a brilliant witness to the canonical and apostolic authority of this book. Jer. 28:9: “When the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent the prophet.” Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk. 4, c. 43: “Before every prophecy has its effect, they are enigmatic and ambiguous to men. Then when the time comes to pass and what was foretold happens, prophecies have a clear and certain explanation.”
(6) From prediction. The prophet Daniel was given the promise regarding the explanation of his prophecy, so long as the idolatrous tyranny of the kingdom of the Antichrist would endure (Dan. 12:4, 9). This promise was fulfilled in the visions of Revelation 11, 12, 13, 17, etc.
(7) From its quality. So lofty and majestic is this writing that it can be attributed to none of even the most ancient fathers because of its foretelling of future things, a foretelling that is proper to divine omniscience (Isa. 41:22), nor was it revealed to anyone except the apostle through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and through prophetic visions. Jerome, Epistle ad Paulin.: “Revelation has as many mysteries as it has words. I have said too little, for all praise is too little in proportion to the merit of the book. Multiple meanings are hidden in every word.” Abbot Joachim prefers this prophecy to all the prophecies of the other prophets.
(8) From its usefulness. Its usefulness to the Church, connected with a necessity, proves the authority of this book. Otherwise the condition of the New Testament Church would have been worse than that of the Old Testament, if it had been established under the terrible darkness of the Antichrist and had been divinely equipped with no book of canonical writings.
(9) From the testimony of the ancients. In the Council of Ancyra, c. 4, it is cited under the name of John “that John saw the mystery of the Revelation in spirit, not in the body.” The third Council of Carthage, c. 47, counts this book among the canonical oracles of the New Testament. The fourth Council of Toledo, c. 16: “The authority of many councils and the synodical decrees of the holy Roman prelates prescribe that the Book of Revelation is the work of the evangelist John and have decided that it is to be accepted among the canonical books. Because there are many who do not accept its authority and who despise preaching it in the Church of God, if anyone hereafter does not accept it and does not preach it in the Church at the time of Masses from Easter to Pentecost, he will receive the sentence of excommunication.” Dionysius calls Revelation “the secret and mystic vision of the beloved disciple” (Eccles. hierarch., c. 3). Justin (Dial. cum Tryph.) says that it is the work of the evangelist John: “… because also a certain man among us named John, one of the apostles of Christ, in a revelation that came to him, prophesied that those who believed in our Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem.” (Eusebius is looking at this passage of Justin when he writes, Hist., bk. 4, c. 18: “Justin has pondered the Revelation of John, and he says clearly that it belongs to John.”) Irenaeus quotes it twice under the name of John the apostle and writes especially (bk. 5, c. 25, p. 335): “I have known some people who heard from John himself an explanation of the mysteries set forth in the Revelation.” In De vir. illustr., Jerome relates: “Irenaeus wrote commentaries on Revelation.” Theophilus, who was bishop of the church at Antioch, in his book Contra haeresin Hermogenis, uses the testimonies of the Revelation of John, according to Eusebius in Hist. eccles., bk. 4, c. 23. Bishop Melito of Sardis wrote De Apocalypsi Johannis, according to the same Eusebius in bk. 4, c. 25. Although Dionysius of Alexandria denies that it is John’s work, nevertheless he acknowledges that “it is by an author imbued with the divine Spirit” (in Eusebius, Hist., bk. 7, c. 24). Clement of Alexandria quotes Revelation in Paedag., bk. 2, c. 12. In homily 7 on Joshua and on Psalm 1, Origen attributes it to the evangelist John, which Eusebius also does in Chron., ann. 96. Athanasius writes: “Revelation was approved by the early fathers” (Synopsis). Epiphanius (Haeres. 51 and 76), Chrysostom (homily 3 on Psalm 91), and the Damascene (bk. 4, c. 18) acknowledge that Revelation is “sacred and the work of John.” Note here that Irenaeus and the other ancients had the churches of Asia as witnesses for what they had told; it was on the authority of these churches that Irenaeus corrected the number of the beast, c. 14, so that it read as 666, not 616, that is, in the way we read it now.
The opinion of the Latin fathers is absolutely the same. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion., bk. 4, p. 226: “Although Marcion spurned the Revelation of John, a survey of the succession of bishops to Origen, however, will establish John as its author.” In De exhortat. martyr., c. 3ff., Cyprian cites Revelation in many places along with the rest of Scripture. The same is done by Hilary (preface to Psalms), Ambrose (on Psalm 40, where he specifically attributes it to the evangelist), Augustine (De doctr. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8; treatise 36 on John), Rufinus (Expos. symb.), and Isidore (Etymol., bk. 6, c. 1), where they acknowledge that it is the work of the apostle John. Jerome says (Epistle ad Dardan.): “This is the judgment of all the Latin fathers.”
To be sure, the Greeks did not accept Revelation, according to the work just cited; however, from the testimonies listed a little earlier, it appears they were both few and unimportant. Therefore Chytraeus justly writes (in Apoc.): “The earliest teachers who lived near the times of the apostles ascribed this book by common consent to John the apostle.” This can be confirmed with the testimonies of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Apollonius, Cyprian, Origen, Epiphanius, Augustine, Hippolytus, Andrew of Caesarea,50 Arethas, etc. Furthermore, Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, bk. 4), Epiphanius (Haeres. 51, 54), and Philastrius and Augustine rejected it as heresy that the Marcionites, Theodosians, and Alogians, respectively, called the canonical authority of this book into doubt.
§ 294. The arguments brought out against it are approximately these: (I) From the inscription.
The evangelist never wrote his own name and throughout both his Gospel and Epistle never preaches himself. The man who wrote Revelation, however, prefixes his name at the beginning of the book and says: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to His servants what must soon take place; and He made it known by sending His angel51 to His servant John, who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw” (Rev. 1:1—2). Next, John writes a letter “to the seven churches that are in Asia. Grace to you and peace” (Rev. 1:4). The evangelist, however, attached his name not even to his catholic Epistle but began plainly with the mystery of divine revelation in this way: “What we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes” (1 John 1:1). John does not put down his name even in the brief second and third Epistles that are circulated under the name of John. Rather, he wrote as an unnamed “elder.” This author [of Revelation], however, was not content to go on subsequently with what he had to say after once naming himself but repeats and says again: “I, John, your brother” (Rev. 1:9). In fact, even toward the end, he says the following: “Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book. I, John, am he who heard and saw these things” (Rev. 22:7—8). Accordingly, we must believe the one speaking in this way that it is a John who wrote these things. Who that is, however, is uncertain, for he did not call himself, as was done in many places of the Gospel, “the disciple beloved by the Lord,” nor that he was the one who reclined on the Lord’s breast, nor that he was the brother of James, nor that he had seen and heard the Lord. Indeed, he would have said some of this, had he wished to identify himself. He said none of these, however, except that he was our brother and associate and a witness of Jesus, blessed because of the vision and revelation he had heard. I believe that many men had the same name as John. Because of their love for the Lord and because they admired John, they wanted both to emulate him and to be loved by the Lord. Therefore they used this name for themselves.
So speaks Dionysius in Eusebius, Hist., bk. 7, c. 24. In a similar manner, Erasmus, in his Annot. on the last chapter of Revelation, draws the following conclusion:
As he writes the revelations, he emphasizes his own name with great care—”I, John,” “I, John”—as if he were writing a promissory note rather than a book. He does this not only contrary to the practice of the other apostles but, much more, also contrary to his own custom. Telling more modest matters in his Gospel, he still nowhere expresses his own name but indicates with little marks: “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” When Paul was driven to write about his visions, he explained the matter under the persona of another. Here, however, as the author describes such secret conversations with the angels, in how many places does he declare “I, John”? Moreover, in the Greek codices that I have seen, this was not the title of John the evangelist but of John the theologian.
We respond: (1) By inversion. Because John writes down his name so often, therefore one should not doubt that this Revelation is John’s work. Had he omitted his name, they would draw from that an argument against the canonical authority of this book, as is evident from the example of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Although John’s name now has been expressed so many times, they still stir up doubt.
(2) “John was not unaware,” Rupert says in his commentaries, “that eventually there would be not only heretics but also some Catholics who would reject this book because of the obscurity of its mysteries or for other reasons or who would deny that it was the work of the apostle and evangelist John. To fortify the book in advance against their false accusations and arguments, he wanted to affirm the authority and trustworthiness of this book by the frequent mention of his name.”
(3) John did this in accord with the custom and practice of the prophets, especially of Daniel, with whose prophecy (as Graserus observes in Plag. reg.) this book agrees in many ways, but especially in the first four chapters. For example, they are similar, first, in regard to their authors, for both were joined to Christ by the bond of blood and were loved by Him more than others. Thus Daniel is called “a man of desires,” that is, most desired, or “a man asked for” and desirable, as this title is given to him (Dan. 9:23; 10:11) with respect to the things that were revealed to him. And John is called “the disciple whom the Lord loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:20). They are alike, next, in subject matter. The principal aim of both prophecies is the history of the chief occurrences of the Church that would happen to it throughout its history under both covenants, as its faith and patience were being tested. The chief point of the account in both is the mystery of the Antichrist, which Daniel describes according to the type of Antiochus Epiphanes and John, according to the model of the Roman Empire. Third, they are alike in form of style. The form of style and character of speech in both is almost the same—sublime, that is, succinct, symbolic, and consequently obscure; for example, where the things become wrapped up in labyrinths of various perplexing visions, unlike the sermons in the other prophets.
Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 20, c. 17: “Indeed, in that book whose name is Revelation, much is said obscurely to train the mind of the reader. There are a few things in it from whose manifestation the rest is searched out through effort, especially because the same thing is repeated in many ways, so that it seems to say one thing here, another there, though it is found to say these things in one way here and in another way there.” Finally, they are alike in the fortune that both books experienced in the judgment of their canonical authority. The Book of Daniel was taken into the canon not without hesitation after the return from the Babylonian captivity, as we mentioned earlier (§ 155). Revelation experienced the same lot, as is evident from what we said before. Therefore because there is so great an agreement between the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of John, it is not so strange that John, following Daniel’s example, wanted to emphasize his name so often and, in fact, ought to have done so, something that we by no means should attribute to arrogance but to prophetic custom and actual necessity.
(4) There is surely dissimilarity between his Gospel account and this prophetic book. The truth and certainty of the Gospel did not have to be emphasized so often because the events took place before everyone’s eyes. On the other hand, the authority of this book surely had to be claimed diligently, and on account of this he added his name so many times for the sake of confirmation.
(5) John was given the name “theologian” because he declared the divinity of Christ more often than did the rest of the evangelists and apostles. The following give John the title “theologian”: Dionysius (in his Epistle to John, who was exiled on Patmos), Epiphanius (Haeres. 51), Athanasius (Synopsis), Cyril of Alexandria (De Trinit., bk. 3), Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 12), Chrysostom (on Psalm 37), and Augustine (tractate 36 on John). No one can produce from antiquity another John beside this apostle who was given the title “theologian.”
(6) The Complutensian text, which is considered to correspond to the oldest archetype, expressly states: “The Revelation of the holy apostle and evangelist, John the theologian.”
§ 295. (II) From the diversity of style. Dionysius, in Eusebius, loc. cit.:
If you consider the meaning of this book and the words and structure of his Gospel and Epistle, not undeservedly do you conclude an author other than the evangelist. The Gospel and Epistle are indeed harmonious with each other. The introductions of both are similar. The Gospel says, “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1); the Epistle: “That which was from the beginning” (1 John 1:1). The Gospel: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). The Epistle has the same words, only slightly changed. It says, “Which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands concerning the Word of life, the life was made manifest” (1 John 1:1—2). He who reads carefully will discover that both frequently and everywhere touch on life, light, dissuasion from darkness, and frequently on truth, grace, joy, the flesh and blood of the Lord, judgment, remission of sins, the love of God for us, the command that we love one another, that all commandments must be kept, a confutation of the world, the devil, and the Antichrist, the promise of the Holy Spirit, the adoption of God, the faith expected of us, the Father and the Son. If the character of both be noted in every detail, one will discover absolutely one and the same color for both the Gospel and Epistle. Revelation, however, is utterly foreign to both. It does not come close to them nor does it have a commonality with them even in a word, so to speak; it has not a syllable in common with them.
The same conclusion is drawn by Erasmus (whom alone Bellarmine mentions unfavorably here, as he suppresses the name of Dionysius of Alexandria): “Not to mention,” he says, “that the style is not a little different from that which is in the Gospel and Epistle.”
We respond. (1) The diversity of topics and theme produces also the diversity of style. The Gospel presents history; the Epistle teaches doctrines, commandments, and exhortations. This book contains a prophecy regarding future events through figures and images; as a result, it employs symbolic language that has a mystic, hidden meaning. Such a characteristic would not have been appropriate in an historical or doctrinal book. We ourselves do not use the same style in our more careful writings and in our letters. And what shall we say about the writings of the fathers, which differ much among themselves in their exegetical, dogmatic, and polemical writings? (2) John wanted to record those words that he heard in his vision rather than put together a prophecy with his own kind of speech. (3) In addition, an agreement of style and diction is discerned among them, as we mentioned earlier.
§ 296. (III) From a lach of witness. Dionysius, in Eusebius, loc. cit.: “His Epistle neither mentions nor considers this Revelation, not to mention his Gospel; nor does Revelation, in turn, mention the Epistle. Although Paul indicates something about his revelations in his Epistles, nevertheless he did not entitle them in such a way that they were called revelations.”
We respond. (1) In his Epistles, Paul does not mention his other Epistles, yet would anyone say that Paul did not write them? (2) From Epiphanius (Haeres. 51), Eusebius (Hist., bk. 3, c. 24), Athanasius (Synopsis), and Bede (De sex mundi aetatibus), some conclude that Revelation was written before the Gospel. This is the sense in which they take the words of Rev. 10:11: “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and kings.” Yet in his Gospel he could not suitably mention Revelation. (3) If Revelation is not John’s because in it he mentions neither his Gospel nor his Epistle, it will follow that his first catholic Epistle is also not John’s because he does not mention it in his Gospel. In the Church, however, there has never been any doubt about the authority or author of that first Epistle. (4) Paul did not want to call his Epistles “revelations” because he merely describes one revelation in one place. On the other hand, almost this entire book deals with the description of revelations. As a result it was given its name from greater merit.
§ 297. (IV) From the quality of its diction. Dionysius, loc. cit.:
Still, one can guess from the diction itself what the difference is between the Gospel and Epistle and between this Revelation. The former were not only written smoothly according to Greek diction but also with the most skillful expressions, syllogisms, and structure of exposition. They are far from having any barbarous word, solecism, or common manner of speaking. You see, the evangelist had
, the faculty of speech and of knowledge. But concerning the other book, I do not deny that he both saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. Yet I see him speaking a dialect and language not exactly Greek and frequently using a barbarous idiom. I even see him solecizing at times.
We respond. (1) The reason for this arises from the fact that he draws much from the prophets and especially from Daniel. Consequently, he stays with the Hebrew idiom. (2) If that barbarous idiom and solecisms were adduced specifically and individually, one could easily respond to them. (3) That comparison will rather show the opposite: namely, that there is a great agreement of diction in Revelation with the Gospel and Epistle of John.
§ 298. (V) From the silence of the ancients. Erasmus, op. cit.: “Bishop Dionysius of Tyre, a martyr, published in a collection of lives that John wrote his Gospel on the island of Patmos, and he does not mention Revelation. Not even the Greek Anastasius dares to declare in his catalog that this is John’s work.” Here we can report that the Council of Laodicea (canon 59) and Nazianzen (Carmina) do not mention Revelation. Apostolic Canon 84 also omits Revelation.
We respond. (1) This only proves that some people at one time had doubts about this book; thus it belongs to the canonical books of the second rank. (2) In the place of the small few who do not mention this book, we can produce many, many more Greek and Latin fathers who have given it their honorable testimony. (3) Eusebius, who seems to have doubts about the author of this book in his Historia ecclesiastica, declares in his Chronicon that he entertains absolutely no doubt about its author or authority. (4) If we want to insist on Apostolic Canon 84, we shall have to accept into the canon 3 Maccabees, the two epistles of Clement and his Apostolic Constitutions, and, on the other hand, we shall have to exclude from it the Books of Ezra, both of which things conflict with the unanimous approval of the entire early Church. It can be proved with many arguments that those Apostolic Canons are spurious and apocryphal.
§ 299. (VI) From its obscurity. “The obscurity of this book is great and nearly insurmountable. Because of this, it seems to some people that it must be rejected.”
We respond. (1) It has that obscurity in common with the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel. If, however, one were to reject it because of that obscurity, one could also have objected to the prophecy of Daniel before its fulfillment. (2) That obscurity originates not only from the subject matter or things with which it deals but also from the form or method of treatment. You see, it sets forth prophecies about coming events and deals with these in figures, visions, and images without adding an explanation. From this an obscurity necessarily arises, through which obscurity God wanted to resist boredom on the part of those who read Scripture, just as He provided for our hunger in the other clear passages in which the dogmas of faith are treated. (3) That obscurity draws light from a comparison with other passages of Scripture, especially with the prophecy of Daniel, as well as (or particularly from) its fulfillment, which comes to the eyes of all. (4) Although there are many obscure prophecies in this book, there are still many clear commandments, for example, those regarding constancy in persecutions, cursing heretics, patience, keeping the faith, fearing divine judgments, and loving the heavenly promises.
§ 300. (VII) From the subject matter or contents. (1) In Rev. 2:18 “there exists an epistle written to the church at Thyatira. Yet the church at Thyatira did not yet exist at John’s time, but a church was established there long after John.” To untie this knot, Epiphanius responds (Haeres. 51): “It was by the prophetic spirit that John foresaw that at some time there would be a church at Thyatira. Thus he wrote the truth, though at that time a congregation had not yet been gathered at Thyatira.” However, because in the epistle to the people at Thyatira John distinguishes clearly the devout from the wicked, it is quite likely that what is extant in some authors about the church at Thyatira being established only after John’s death is something we must take as being not about its first planting and growth but about its renewal and rebuilding.
(2) “It contains the seeds of the chiliastic error” in Revelation 20. We respond. We cannot deny that formerly men of great reputation were held as being involved in the chiliastic error, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, and others who claimed that when six millennia of the world were completed, Christ would descend from heaven, bind Satan, and rule with His saints in this world for a thousand years and that after that period had elapsed, Satan would go forth freed and would stir up against the Church foreign nations: Gog and Magog. They wanted to prove this idea from c. 20 of this book. Nowhere, however, does Scripture declare that Christ will rule on earth in a visible and external manner before the Last Day; rather, it calls the day of His coming to judgment the “final” and “last” day, when both the universal resurrection and final judgment will occur. Therefore we must explain this passage in Revelation so that it does not conflict with the analogy of faith. We showed in what manner this can be done in Disputatio 3 contra novos fanaticos instituta.
(3) Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 19) and Blasius de Viegas (on Revelation, p. 16) say that Luther says in his preface: “I wish that in Revelation it would declare that those will be blessed who keep the words of this prophecy, though no one understands what they are”; also that he says in his preface to the New Testament: “I acknowledge Revelation as neither a prophetic nor an apostolic book; rather, I consider it similar to 4 Ezra.” We respond. In the prefaces of Luther that we read today, we find no such thing, but rather the opposite: that with a learned preface he has brought no small help to the reader in understanding this prophecy. How, then, would he not consider it an apostolic book? The words “Blessed is he who reads the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:3) have an explanation added immediately, for he adds: “for the time is near,” as if to say, “Although future events are being told in this book, yet knowing them pertains to everyone, because these things will begin to happen soon.” Consequently, they have to do with those who lived when it was written.
It remains, then, that Revelation is an apostolic, canonical writing. It consists of twenty-two chapters in which, after his introduction, John describes his seven visions in order. Seven occurs frequently as a mystical number in this book, for it lists seven epistles, seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, etc.
46 Actually in the 1522 preface to the New Testament, AE 35:362; WA DB 6:10.
47 That is, as something added to it, outside its essence.
48 He is called “Jude, son of James” in Luke 6:16. He is the same person called Thaddaeus in many Greek manuscripts of Matt. 10:3. However, in Matt. 10:3 some Greek manuscripts have Lebbaeus, while the majority of Greek texts read “Lebbaeus, who was also called Thaddaeus.”
49 Some early manuscripts of Mark 3:18 read “Lebbaeus” instead of “Thaddaeus.”
50 Read Andreas Caesariensis instead of Andreas Carariensis.
51 Read per angelum instead of per evangelium.