Part 51
all events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly, (1) ex-
ternal manifestation, (2) internal suggestion, and
(3) concursive operation.
///. Modes of Revelation.—Theophany may be taken as the typical form of "external manifestation"; but by its side may be ranged
On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between revela2 Eaual tions given through such divergent modes. „' ^ The completely supernatural character of bupernaturevelations given in theophanies is obvious. ralness of He who will not allow that God spealis to the Several "^'^n, to make known His gracious pur- -, Ir poses toward him, has no other recourse MOaes here than to pronounce the stories legendary. The objectivity of the mode of communication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In ttiese communications wo are given accordingly just a series of " naked messages of God." But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not. indeed, leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation e-xcept only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face (Dt 34 10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeclies (Nu 12 8j ; but ttiroughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever
1. Modes of all of those mighty works by which Revelation God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the
affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what
are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under
"internal suggestion" may be subsumed all the
characteristic phenomena of what is most properly spoken of as "prophecy" : visions and dreams, which,
according to a fundamental passage (Nu 12 6), con-
stitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole "prophetic word," which shares its
essential characteristic with visions and dreams,
since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By "concursive operation" maybe meant that form
of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or
epistle or history, in which no human activity—
not even the control of the will—is superseded, but
the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all
in such a manner as to communicate to the product
qualities distinctly superhuman. There is no age
in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that
it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of tlie Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants"in a vision," "in a dream" (Nu 12 6). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfilment of His promise (Dt
of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which
all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteris-
tic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every
Revelation THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2578
man" in general, but spokesman by way of emi-
18 18), put His words in the moutlis of His prophets and gave t hem His commandments to speali. yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but tlieir minds and hearts as well—the play of their religious feehngs, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history—the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther Into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such revelations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been hmited and curtailed in the interests of the natural instrumentaUties employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the absolute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes ahke. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men. They afBrm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no hiunan admixttu'e whatever.
nence, that is, God's spokesman; and the character-
istic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: "The word of Jeh came to me," or
the brief "saith Jeh" (mn^ DSD, n''um Yahweh).
In no case does a prophet put his words forward
as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophe-
sies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth
(Ezk 3 26 f) and creates for him the fruit of the
lips (Isa 57 19; cf 6 7; 60 4). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart ("heart" in Bib. language includes the whole inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Jeh.
The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration.
It describes the characteristic manner
4. Prophecy in which Jeh communicates His mesin Visionsages to His prophets as through Form the medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called.
We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other
organs of revelation (Nu 12 6 ff), in
3. The point of dignity and favor, no sugProphet gestion whatever is made of any inGod's feriority, in either the directness or Mouthpiece the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in
Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face
The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is proclaimed as the "word of Jeh." 'That it should be announced by the formula, "Thus saith the Lord," is, therefore, only what we expect; and we are prepared for such a description of its process as: "The Lord Jeh
to face (Dt 34 10). But each of the whole series
of prophets raised up by Jeh that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Jeh commanded them (Dt 18 15.18.20). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there
. . . . wakeneth mine ear to hear," He "hath opened mine ear" (Isa 50 4.5). But this is not the way of spealdng of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: "The vision of Isaiah .... whicti he saw" (cf Isa 29 10.11; Ob ver 1); and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable words, "The word that Isaiah .... saw"(2 1): "the biu*den [m "oracle"] .... which Isaiah .... did see"
is also included a declaration of precisely how Jeh would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee," we read (Dt 18 18), "and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that
(13 1). Similarly there stand at the head of other prophecies: "the words of Amos .... which he saw" (Am 1 1); "the word of Jeh that came to Micah .... which he saw" (Mic 1 1); "the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see" (Hab 1 Im); and elsewhere such language occurs as this: "the word that Jeh hath showed me" (Jer 38 21); "the prophets have seen .... oracles" (Lam 2 14); "the word of Jeh came .... and I looked, and, behold" (Ezk 1 3.4); "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ezk 13 3); "I . . . . will look forth to see what he will speak with me Jeh .... said. Write the vision" (Hab 2 If). It is an inadequate e.xplanation of such language to suppose it merely a rehc of a time when vision was more predominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have quoted too obviotisly represents the living point of view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their hps. The prophets, in a word, represent the Divine communications which they received as given to them in some sense in visions.
I shall command him." The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Jeh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. "Then Jeh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth," e.xplains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies, "and Jeh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jer 19; of 5 14; Isa 51 16; 59 21; Nu 22 35; 23 5. 12.16). Accordingly, the words "with which" they spoke were not their own but the Lord's: "And he said unto me," records Ezekiel, "Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them" (Ezk 3 4). It is a process of nothing other than "dictation" which is thus described (2 S 14 3.19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Ex 4 10-17; 7 1-7. Here, in the most express words, Jeh declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is "a mouth of God," who speaks not his own but God's words. Accordingly, the Heb name for "prophet" {ndbhV), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just "spokesman," though not "spokes-
It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the Divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished (Nu 12 6-8). It is also an exaggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state mtist be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme
2579 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Revelation
views is tlie good one of doing full justice to the objectivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these revelations took place entirelv externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they wore implanted in the prophets by a process BO violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets' own minds. It is undoubtedly the fundamental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God's. The significant language we have just quoted from Ezk 13 3: "Woe unto the foohsh prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing," is a typical utterance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they "prophesy out of their own heart" (Ezk 13 2-17). or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jeh" (Jer 23 10.26; 14 14). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious fact that the inteUigence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revelation made through them (see Inspiration; Prophecy).
active in the production of their message: that it was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are sohcitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense coauthors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but "His mouth." But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them—instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.
There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all revelations must be "psychologically mediated," must be given "after the mode of moral mediation," and must be made first of all their recijiients' "own spiritual possession" ? And
That -which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions, strictly Bo called, and dreams is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject's will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and virions, extraneous to the totality of the subject's own psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Jeh Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Jeh (1 S 10 6.10; Neh 9 30; Zee 7 12; Joel 2 28.29). The prophets were therefore 'men of the Spirit' (Hos 9 7). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (Isa 42 1) or poured out on them (Joel 2 28.29), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit (Mic 3 8), or, in another but equivalent locution, that "the hand" of the Lord, or "the power of the hand" of the Lord, was upon them (2 K 3 15; Ezk 1 3; 3 14.22; 33 22; 37 1; 40 1), that is to say, they were under the Divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the "mover," but the "moved" in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known declaration: 'No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpretation; for prophecy was never brought by the
is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly traceable in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us to recognize him as in a true sense its real author ? The plausibility of such questionings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic messages which is suggested by them is directly contradicted by the prophets' own representations of their relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets' own view they were just instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Jeh. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate considerations, which are not without their vahdity in their own place and under their own Umiting conditions, as if they were the determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and in neglect of the really determining considerations. God is Himself the author of the instruments He employs for the communication of His messages to men and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communication of His message. There is just ground for tlie expectation that He wiU use all the instruments He employs according to their natures; intelligent beings therefore as intelhgent beings, moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for asserting tliat God is incapable of employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to proclaim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men. He would do it in tlie language of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as " the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic individuahties." But we should avoid thinking of it externaUy and therefore mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artiflcially phrased the message which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the prophets afflrm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the workings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phenomenon we are contemplating; and it is a much more intimate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon than an external "accommodation" of speech to individual habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the "accommodation" of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed ; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instruments He employs in accordance with their natures.
will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God' (2 Pet 1 20.21). What this language of Peter emphasizes—and what is emphasized in the whole account which the
prophets give of their own conscious-
5. "Passivness—is, to speak plainly, the passivity
ity" of the of the prophets with respect to the Prophets revelation given through them. This
is the significance of the phrase : 'it was
as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.' To be "borne" (0^/'e"', pherein) is not the same as to be led {^yetv, dgein), much less to be guided or directed {oS-q-ye'iv, hodegein): he that is "borne" contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term "passivity" is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained.
It is not intended to deny that the intelhgence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their in-
No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb
teUigence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was
Revelation THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2580
the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a reve-
beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the serv-
lation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process
ices of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by
raises the result above what could by any possi-
bility be achieved by mere human powers and con-
stitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable throughout its whole
extent, but at bottom it is a Divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (1 Cor 2 13); "The things which I write unto you .... are the commandment of the Lord" (1 Cor 14 37). See Inspiration.
It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible
it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on the messages
7. Complete may without violence be subsumed unRevelation der one or another of these three modes of God —external manifestation, internal sugin Christ gestion, and concursive operation.
All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His person, in which dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God's purpose of redemption, He
of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from God.
A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called "concursive opera-
tion." This mode of revelation differs
6. Revelafrom prophecy, properly so called, tion by precisely by the employment in it, Inspiraas is not done in prophecy, of the tion total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit's action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at—the discovery and enunciation of Divine truth—is attained through the action of the human powers—historical research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious aspiratioti—acting not by themselves, however, but under the prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole Ijody of Scripture in such passages as 2 Pet 1 20 f in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a inere "leading" but to the "bearing" of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, control, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit's action in revelation by "concursive operation." TheSpirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which gives to
is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Thetheophaniesare but faint shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Jeh; from Him as His Son, Jeh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified. Nevertheless, though all revelation
is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up ip Him—so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word—had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the NT is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law.
IV. Biblical Terminology.—There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and
processes of revelation, from the terms
1. The currently employed in Scripture to Ordinary express the idea. These terms are Forms ordinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, making mani-
fest, applied with more or less heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the Eng. Biljle (AV) the vb. "reveal" occurs about 51 t, of which 22 are in the OT and 29 in the NT. In the OT the word is always the rendering of a
2581 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Revelation
in Nu 12 6, while it is hdzon which commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the former passage
Heb term ri-'^
, gdlah, or its Aram, equivalent
, gHah, the root meaning of which appears to be "naliedness." When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception. In the NT the word "reveal" is always (with the single exception of Lk 2 35) the rendering of a Gr term AiroKoXinvTu, apokaluplo (but in 2 Thess 17; 1 Pet 4 13 the corresponding noun awoKdXvfis, apokdlupsis), which has a very similar basal significance with its Heb parallel. As this Heb word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun "revelation" does not occur in the Eng. OT, the idea being expressed, however, by other Heb terms variously rendered. It occurs in the Eng. NT, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the vb. rendered "reveal" {apokalupsis) . On the face of the Eng. Bible, the terms "reveal," "revelation" bear therefore uniformly the general sense of "disclose," "disclosure." The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms "reveal," "revelation" in EV. Indeed, the Heb and Gr terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the Eng. Bib. And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception.
nbjl
it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the revelation that is empha.sized. Perhaps a like distinction may be traced between the hazon of Dnl 8 15 and the mar'eh of the next verse. The ordinary vb. for "knowing," S?!^
, yddha', expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, informing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with the natural sen.se of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication, of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering to observation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is
paralleled not merely with n55
, gdldh (Ps 98 2: 'The Lord hath made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he displayed in the sight of the
nation'), but also with such terms as T33 , Idmadh (Ps 26 4: 'Make known to me thy ways, O Lord: leach me thy paths'). This vb. yddha' forms no substantive in the sense of "revelation" (cf nyT
^ da'alh, Nu 24 16; Ps 19 3). The most common vehicles of the idea of "revelation" in the OT are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned. These
2. "Word are the phrase, "word of Jeh," and of Jehothe term commonly but inadequately vah" and rendered in the EV by "law." The "Torah" former {d'bhar Yahweh, varied to d'hhar 'Slohim or d'bhar ha-' Elohlm; cf n''um Yahweh, massd' Yahweh) occurs scores of times and
In the NT the vb. 4>ai>ep6oi, phanerdo, with the general sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most common of these. It differs from apokaluplo as the more general and external term from the more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used: i-n-Kpavaa, epiphdneia, "manifestation" (2 Thess 2 8; 1 Tim 6 14; 2 Tim 1 10; 4 1; Tit 2 13; cf iTncfaha, epiphaino, Tit 2 11; 3 4); SeiKvioi, deiknuo (Rev 11; 17 1; 22 1.6.8; cf Acts 9 16; 1 Tim 4 15); i^-rftioixai, exegeomai (Jn 1 18), of which, however, only one perhaps Xp-niMTl^w, chremallzo (Mt 2 12.22; Lk 2 20; Acts 10 22; He 8 5; 11 7; 12 25); xprnanuixb^ chremalismds (Rom 11 4)—calls for particular notice as in a special way, according to its usage, expressing the idea of a Divine communication.
is at once the simplest and the most colorless designation of a Divine communication. By the latter
(torah), the proper meaning of which is "instruction," a strong implication of authoritativeness is conveyed
and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a specifically Divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought together, as in Isa 1 10: "Hear the word of Jeh, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law [m "teaching") of our God, ye people of Gomorrah"; or Isa 2 3 m; Mic 4 2: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law [m "instruction"], and the word of Jeh from Jerus." Both terms are used for any Divine communication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of Divine revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other more on the authoritativeness of this body of Divine revelation; and both passed into the NT with these implications. "The word of God," or simply "the word," comes thus to mean in the NT just the gospel, "the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said" looking to his salvation. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as God's redemptive revelation. "The law," on the other hand, means in this NT use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of as God's supernatural revelation. The two things, of course, are the same: God's authoritative revelation is His gracious revelation; God's redemptive revelation
In the OT, the common Heb vb. for "seeing" (HXI , rd'dh) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for "appearing," "showing": "the Lord appeared unto . . . ."; "the word which the Lord showed me." And from this vb. not only
is an active substantive formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official organ of
revelation: HXT , ro'e/i, "seer"; but also objective
substantives, nS'l'D , mar'dh, and HN"]^ , mar'eh, which were used to designate the thing seen in a revelation—the "vision." By the side of the.se terms there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the Aram, its common word for
"seeing," but in Heb has a somewhat more pregnant
meaning, ntn , hdzdh. Its active derivative, HTn
hozeh, was a designation of a prophet which remained
in occasional use, alternating with the more cus-
tomary S"'?5 , ndbhi', long after Hi?"! , ro'eh, had become practically obsolete; and its passive deriva-
tives hazon, hizzayon, hazulh, mah&zeh provided
the ordinary terms for the substance of the reve-
lation or "vision." The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respectively from ra'ah and hazdh, while not to be unduly pressed, seems to
is His supernatural revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own aspect of this one aggregated revelation.
lie in the direction that the former suggests external
manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro'eh is he to whom Divine manifestations, the
Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the NT in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without consciousness
hozeh he to whom Divine communication's, have
been vouchsafed; the mar'eh is an appearance, the
hdzon and its companions a vision. It may be of
of and at least occasional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that
interest to observe that mar'ah is the term employed
Revelation Revelation of John THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2582
REVELATION OF JOHN:
is written (Jn 15 25; 1 Cor 15 54), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition,
I. Title and General Character of Book
as if its written form were of its very
1. Title 2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions
3. "The idea (Mk 7 10); indeed, the written Scriptures" body of revelation—with an empha-
II. Canonicity and Authorship
sis on its written form—is designated expressly 'the prophetic word' (2 Pet 1 19). More distinctly still, "the Law" comes to be thought of as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divinely authoritative instructions. The phrase, "It is written in your law" (Jn 10 34; 15 25; Rom 3 19; 1 Cor 14 21), acquires the precise sense of, "It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all the content of which is 'law,' that is, Divine instruction." Thus "the Word of God," "the Law," came to mean just the written body of revelation, what we call, and what the NT writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, "the Scriptures." These "Scriptures" are thus identified with the revelation of God, conceived as a well-
1. Patristic Testimony
2. Testimony of Book Itself
3. Objections to Johannine Authorship—Relation to Fourth Gospel III. Date and Unity of the Book
1. Traditional Date under Domitian
2. The Nero-Theory 3. Composite Hypotheses—Babylonian Tlieory IV. Plan and Analysis of the Book
1. General Scope 2. Detailed Analysis V. Principles of Interpretation
1. General Scheme of Interpretation
2. The Newer Theories 3. The Book a True Prophecy VI. Theology of the Book Literature
The last book of the NT. It professes to be the record of prophetic visions given by Jesus Christ to John, while the latter was a prisoner, "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (1 9), in Patmos (q.v.), a small rocky island in the Aegean, about 15 miles W. of Ephesus. Its precursor in the OT is the Book of Dnl, with the syrribolic visions and mystical numbers of which it stands in close
defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity—the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the conception of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the Scriptures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Bib. usage of
affinity. The peculiar form of the book, its relation to other "apocalyptic" writings, and to the Fourth Gospel, likewise attributed to John, the interpretation of its symbols, with controverted questions of
its date, of worship, unity, relations to contemporary history, etc, have made it one of the most
"Law." The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the Enthusiasts' supercession of them in the interests of the "inner Word." When TertuUian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scriptures as an "Instrument," a legal document, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scriptures' own usage of lordh, "law," to designate their entire content. And when John Gerhard argues that "between the Word of God and Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is no real difference," he is only declaring plainly what is definitely implied in the NT use of "the Word of God" with the written revelation in mind. What is important to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the Scriptures as not merely containing here and there therecordof revelations— ' 'words of God
difficult books in the NT to explain satisfactorily.
/. Title and General Character ofBook.—"Revelation" answers to dTOKdXvJ/is, apokdlupsis, in ver 1.
The oldest form of the title would seem
1. Title to be simply, "Apocalypse of John," the appended words "the Divine"
(SeoX(S7os, theologos, i.e. "theologian") not being older than the 4th cent, (cf the title given to Gregory of Nazianzus, "Gregory the theologian"). The book belongs to the class of works commonly named "apocalyptic," as containing visions and revelations of the future, frequently in symbolical form (e.g. the Book of En, the Apocalypse of Bar, the Apocalypse of Ezr; see Apocalyptic Literature), but
it is doubtful if the word here bears this technical sense. The tendency at present is to group the NT Apocalypse with these others, and attribute to
it the same kind of origin as theirs, viz. in the unbridled play of religious phantasy, clothing itself in unreal visional form.
toroth—given by God, but as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given, are extant—rather as the Revelation, the only "Word of God" acces,sible to men, in all their parts "law," that is, authoritative instruction from God.
, '
But there is a wide distinction. These other works are pseudonymous—fictitious; on the face of them products of imagination; 2. Uniquebetraying that this is their origin in ness and their crude, confused, unedifying charReality of acter. The Apocalypse bears on it Visions the name of its author—an apostle of Jesus Christ (see below) ; claims to rest on real visions; rings with the accent of sincerity; is orderly, serious, sublime, purposeful, in
Literature.—Herman Witsius, " De Prophetis et Prophetia" in Miscell. Sacr.. I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G, F. Oehler, Theology of the OT, ET, Edinljurgti, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections in other Bib. Theologies); H. Bavincli, Gereformeerde Doijmatiek', I, Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dogmatic treatises) ; H. Voigt, Funtlamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 173 ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, ET, New Yorli, 1898, div. Ill, ch ii; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offenbarung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzschc, De revelaiionis notione biblica, Leipzig. 1828; E. W. Hengstenljerg, The Christolofjy of the OT, ET', Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Der Offenbarungsbegriff des AT, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903; AV. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New Yorlc, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, as per Index, "Revelation," and Revelation and Inspiration, London and New Yorli, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modem Doubt and Christian Belief, ET, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead. Supernatural Revelation, 1889; J. Quirmbach. Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der natilrlichen Gotteserkennlnis, etc, Freiburg, 1906.
its conceptions; deals with the most solemn and momentous of themes. On the modern Nerotheory, to which most recent expositors give adherence, it is a farrago of baseless phantasies, no one of which came true. On its own claim it is a product of true prophecy (13; 22 18 f), and has or will have sure fulfilment. Parallels here and there are sought between it and the Book of En or the Apocalypse of Ezr. As a rule the resemblances arise from the fact that these works draw from the same store of the ideas and imagery of the OT. It
is there the key is chiefly to be sought to the symbolism of John. The Apocalypse is steeped in the thoughts, the images, even the language of the OT
Benjamin B. W.^efield
(cf the illustrations in Lightfoot, Gal, 361, where it
2583 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Revelation Revelation of John
is remarked: "The whole book is saturated with illustrations from the OT. It speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel"). These remarks will receive elucidation in what follows.
the medium of these revelations, can hardly be thought of as other than the well-known John of the Go.spels and of consentient church tradition. The alternative view, first suggested as a possibility by Eusebius, now largely favored by modern writers,
//. Canonicity and Authority.—The two questions of canonicity and authorship are closely con-
is that the John intended is the "presbyter John" of a well-known passage cited by Eusebius from Papias (HE, III, 39). Without entering into the intricate questions connected with this "presbyter John"—whether he was really a distinct person from the apostle (Zahn and others dispute it), or whether,
nected. Eusebius states that opinion 1. Patristic in his day was divided on the book, and Testimony he himself wavers between placing it among the disputed books or ranking
it with the acknowledged {homologmmena) . "Among these," he says, "if such a view seem correct, we must place the Apocalj'pse of John" (HE, III, 25). That it was rightly so placed appears from a survey of the evidence. The first to refer to the book expressly is Justin Martyr (c 140 AD), who speaks of it as the work of "a certain man, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ" {Dial, 81). Irenaeus (c 180 AD) repeatedly and decisively declares that the Apocalypse was written by John, a disciple of the Lord (Adv. Haer., iv.20, 11; 30, 4; v.26, 1; 35, 2, etc), and comments on the number 666 (v.30, 1). In his case there can be no doubt that the apostle John is meant. Andreas of Cappadocia (5th cent.) in a Comm. on the Apocalypse states that Papias (c 130 AD) bore witness to its credibility, and cites a comment by him on Rev 12 7-9. The book is quoted in the Ep. on the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (177 AD); had a commentary written on it by Melito of Sardis (c 170 AD), one of the churches of the Apocalypse (Euseb., HE, IV, 26) ; was used by Theophilus of Antioch (c 168 AD) and by Apollonius (c 210 AD; HE, V, 25)—in these cases being cited as the Apocalypse of John. It is included as John's in the Canon of Muratori (c 200 AD). The Johannine authorship (apostolic) is abundantly attested by TertuUian
if he was, he resided at Ephesus (see John, Gospel of)—it is enough here to say that the reason already given, viz: the importance and place of authority of the author of the Apocalypse in the Asian churches, and the emphatic testimony above cited connecting him with the apostle, forbid the attribution of the book to a writer wholly unknown to church tradition, save for this casual reference to him in Papias. Had the assumed presbyter really been the author, he could not have dropped so completely out of the knowledge of the church, and had his place taken all but immediately by the apostle.
One cause of the hesitancy regarding the Apocalypse in early circles was dislike of its millenarian-
ism; but the chief reason, set forth
3. Objecwith much critical skill by Dionysius tions to of Alexandria (Euseb., HE, VII, 25), Johannine was the undoubted contrast in charAuthorship acter and style between this work and —Relation the Fourth Gospel, likewise claiming to Fourth to be from the pen of John. Two Gospel works so diverse in character—the Gospel calm, spiritual, mystical, abounding in characteristic expressions as "life," "light," "love," etc, written in idiomatic Gr; the Apocalypse abrupt, mysterious, material in its imagery, inexact and barbarous in its idioms, sometimes employing solecisms—could not, it was argued, proceed from the same author. Not much, beyond amplification of detail, has been added to the force of the arguments of Dionysius. There were three possibilities—either first, admitting the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, to assail the genuineness of the Gospel—this was the method of the school of Baur; or, second, accepting the Gospel, to seek a different author for the Apocalypse John the presbyter, or another: thus not a few reverent scholars (Bleek, Neander, etc); or, third, with most moderns, to deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, with a leaning to the "presbyter" as the author of the latter (Harnack, Bousset, Moffatt, etc). Singularly^ there has been of late in the advanced school itself a movement in the direction of recognizing that this difficulty of style is less formidable than it looks that, in fact, beneath the surface difference, there
(c 200 AD; Ad«. Mar., iii. 14, 24, etc); by Hippolytus (c 240 AD), who wrote a work upon it; by Clement of Alexandria (o 200 AD); by Origen (c 230 AD), and other writers. Doubt about the authorship of the book is first heard of in the obscure sect of the Alogi (end of 2d cent.), who, with Cains, a Rom presbyter (c 205 AD), attributed it to Cerinthus. More serious was the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (c 250 AD), who, on internal grounds, held that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could not have come from the same pen
(Euseb., HE, VII, 25). He granted, however, that
it was the work of a holy and inspired man—another John. The result was that, while "in the Western church," as Bousset grants, "the Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first" (EB, I, 193), a certain doubt attached to it for a time in sections of the Gr and Syrian churches. It
is not found in the Pesh, and a citation from it in Ephraim the Syrian (f 373) seems not to be genu-
is a strong body of resemblances pointing to a close relationship of Gospel and Apocalypse. This had long been argued by the older writers (Godet, Luthardt, Afford, Salmon, etc), but it is now more freely acknowledged. As instances among many may be noted the use of the term "Logos" (19 13), the image of the "Lamb," figures like "water of
ine. Cyril of Jerus (c 386 AD) omits it from his
list, and it is unmentioned by the Antiochian writers
(Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret). The Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea
(c 360 AD) does not name it, but it is doubtful whether this document is not of later date (cf West-
cott; also Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 28). On the other hand, the book is acknowledged by Methodius, Pamphilus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril
life," words and phrases as "true," "he that overcometh," "keep the commandments," etc. A striking coincidence is the form of quotation of Zee 12 10 in ,Jn 19 37 and Rev 1 7. If the Gr in parts shows a certain abruptness and roughness, it
Alex., Epiphanius, etc. The testimony to the canonicity, and also to the Johannine authorship, of the Apocalypse is thus exceptionally strong. In full accord-
is plainly evidenced by the use of the correct constructions in other passages that this is not due to want of knowledge of the language. "The very rules which he breaks in one place he observes in others" (Salmon). There are, besides, subtle
2. Testiance with it is the claim of the book mony of itself. It proclaims itself to be the Book Itself work of John (1 1.4.9; 22 8), who does not, indeed, name himself an
affinities in the Gr usage of the two books, and some of the very irregularities complained of are found in the Gospel (for ample details consult Bous.set, op.
apostle, yet, in his inspired character, position of
authority in the Asian churches, and selection as
Revelation of John THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2.584
book is said to be given in 13 18, where the number
cit.; Godet, Comm. onJn, I, 267-70, ET; Alford, Gr
of the beast is declared to be 666. Applying the method of numerical values (the Jewish Gematria),
Test., IV, 224-28; Salmon, Intro to the NT, 233-43, 2d pd; the last-named writer says: "I have produced instances enough to establish decisively that there is the closest possible affinity between the Revelation and the other Johannine books"). Great differences in character and style no doubt
this number is found to correspond with the name "Nero Caesar" in Heb letters (omitting the yodh). Nero then is the 5th head that is to live again; an interpretation confirmed by rumors prevalent at that time that Nero was not really dead, but only hidden, and was soon to return to claim his throne. As if to make assurance doubly sure, it is found that by dropping the final n in "Neron," the number becomes 616—a number which Irenaeus in his comments on the subject (v. 30.1) tells us was actually found in some ancient copies. The meaning therefore is thought to be clear. Writing under the emperor Galba, the 6th emperor (reckoning from Augustus), the author anticipates, after a short reign of a 7th emperor (17 10), the return of the Antichrist Nero—an 8th, but of the 7, with whom
still remain. Some, to leave room for these, favor an early date for the Apocalypse (68-69 BC; on this below); the trend of opinion, however, now seems, as will be shown, to be moving back to the traditional date in the reign of Domitian, in which case the Gospel will be the earlier, and the Apocalypse the later work. This, likewise, seems to yield the better explanation. The tremendous experiences of Patmos, bursting through all ordinary and calmer states of consciousness, must have produced startling changes in thought and style of composition. The "rapt seer" will not speak and write like the selfcollected, calmly brooding evangelist.
is to come the end. Jerus is to be miraculously preserved (ch 11), but Rome is to perish. This is
///. Date and Unity of the Book.—Eusebius, in summing up the tradition of the Church on this sub-
to happen within the space of 3i years. "The
final catastrophe, which was to destroy the city and
ject, assigns John's exile to Patmos,
empire, was to take place in three years and a half. .... The writer knows .... that Rome will
1. Tradiand consequently the composition of
tional Date the Apocalypse, to the latter part of under the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). Domitian Irenaeus (c 180 AD) says of the book, "For it was seen, not a long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian" (Adv. Haer., v.30, 3). This testimony is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (who speaks of "the tyrant"), Origen, and later
in three years and a half perish finally, never to rise again." It does not matter for this theory that not one of the things predicted happened—that every anticipation was falsified. Nero did not return ; Jerus was not saved ; Rome did not perish
3i years did not see the end of all things. Yet the Christian church, though the failure of every one
of these predictions had been decisively demonstrated, received the book as of Divine inspiration, apparently without the least idea that such things had been intended (see the form of the theory in Renan, with a keen criticism in Salmon's Intro to f/ieiVr, lect xiv).
writers. Epiphanius (4th cent.), indeed, puts {Haer.,
Ii.l2, 233) the exile to Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD) ; but as, in the same sentence, he speaks of the apostle as 90 years of age, it is plain there is a strange blunder in the name of the emperor. The former date answers to the conditions
What is to be said with reference to this "Nerotheory" belongs to subsequent sections: meanwhile it is to be observed that, while
of the book (decadence of the churches; widespread and severe persecution), and to the predilection of Domitian for this mode of banishment (cf Tacitus Hist, i.2; Euseb., HE, III, 18). This, accordingly, may be regarded as the traditional date of composition of the Apocalypse, though good writers, influenced partly
3. Comportions of the theory are retained, posite significant changes have since taken Hypotheses place in the view entertained of the —Babylobook as a whole, and with this of the nian Theory date to be assigned to it. First, after 1882, came a flood of disintegrating hypotheses, based on the idea that the Apocalypse was not a unity, but was either a working up of one or more Jewish apocalypses by Christian hands, or at least incorporated fragments of such apocalypses (Volter, Vischer, Weizsacker, Weyland, Pfieiderer, Spitta, etc). Hamack lent his influential support to the form of this theory advocated by Vischer, and for a time the idea had vogue. Very soon, however, it fell into discredit through
2. The by the desire to give time for the later Nerocomposition of the Gospel, have sigTheory nified a preference for an earlier date
(e.g. Westcott, Salmon). It is by no means to be assumed, however, that the Apocalypse
is the earlier production. The tendency of recent criticism, it will be seen immediately, is to revert to the traditional date (Bousset, etc) ; but for a decade or two, through the prevalence of what may be called the "Nero-theory" of the book, the pendulum swung strongly in favor of its composition shortly after the death of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerus (held to be shown to be still standing by ch 11), i.e. about 68-69 AD. This date was even held to be demonstrated beyond all question. Reuss may be taken as an example. According to him {Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, I, 369 ff, ET), apart from the ridiculous preconceptions of theologians, the Apocalypse is "the most simple, most transparent book that prophet ever penned." "There is no other apostolical writing the chronology of which can be more exactly fixed." "It was written before the destruction of Jerus, under the emperor Galba—that is to say, in the second half of the year 68 of our era." He proceeds to discuss "the irrefutable proofs" of this. The proof, in brief, is found in the beast (not introduced
its own excesses (for details on the different views, see Bousset, or Moffat's Intro to the NT, 489 ff), and through increasing appreciation of the internal evidence for the unity of the book. Gunkel, in his Schopfung und Ctoos (1895), started another line of criticism in his derivation of the conceptions of the book, not from Jewish apocalypse, but from Bab mythology. He assailed with sharp criticism the "contemporary history" school of interpretation
(the "Nero-theory" above), and declared its "bankruptcy." The number of the beast, with him, found its solution, not in Nero, but in the Heb name for the primeval chaos. This theory, too, has failed in general acceptance, though elements in it are adopted by most recent interpreters. The modified view most in favor now is that the Apocalypse is, indeed, the work of a Christian writer of the end of the 1st cent., but embodies certain sections borrowed from Jewish apocalypse (as 7 1-8, the 144,000; ch 11, measuring of the temple and the two witnesses; esp. ch 12, the woman and red dragon
till ch 13) with seven heads, one of which has been mortally wounded, but is for the present healed (13 3). "This is the Rom empire, with its first 7 emperors, one of whom is killed, but is to live again as Antichrist" (cf 17 10 f). The key to the whole
2585 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Revelation of John
and times, and half a time" (12 14) = 1,260 days, the period, borrowed from Dnl (7 25; 12 7), of anti-Christian ascendency. The following is a more detailed analysis: I. Introduction
this, in turn, reminiscent of Bab mythology). These supposed Jewish sections are, however, without real support in anything that is known, and the symbolism admits as easily of a Christian interpretation as any other part of the book. We are left, therefore, as before, with the book as a unity, and the tide of opinion flows back to the age of Domitian as the time of its origin. Moffatt (connecting it mistakenly, as it seems to us, with Domitian's emphasis on the imperial cultus, but giving also other reasons) goes so far as to say that "any earlier date for the book is hardly possible" (Expos Or
1. Title and Address (1 1-8) 2 Detailed ^- V^ion of Jesus and Message to the
a" „i „•„ Seven Churches of the Province of Asia Analysis (vs 9-20) 3. The Letters to the Seven Churches (chs 2 3) (1) Ephesus (2 1-7) (2) Smyrna (vs 8-11)
(.3) Pergamos (vs 12-17) (4) Thyatira (vs 18-29)
Test., V, 317). The list of authorities for the Domitianic date may be seen in Moffatt, Intro, 508.
(.5) Sardis (3 1-6)
(6) Philadelphia (vs 7-13) (7) Laodicea (vs 14-22)
IV. Plan and Analysis of the Book.—The method of the book may thus be indicated. After an introduction, and letters to the
II. The Things to Come. First Series of Visions: The Seals and Trumpets 1. The Vision of Heaven (1) Adoration of the Creator (ch 4) (2) The 7-Sealed Book; Adoration of God and the Lamb (ch 5) 2. Opening of Six Seals (ch 6) (1) The White Horse (vs 1.2) (2) The Red Horse (vs 3.4) (3) The Black Horse (vs 5.6) (4) The Pale Horse (vs 7.8) (5) Souls under the Altar (vs 9-11) (6) The Wrath of the Lamb (vs 12-17) 3. Interludes (ch 7) (1) Seahng of 144.000 on Earth (vs 1-8) (2) Triumphant Multitude in Heaven (vs 9-17) 4. Opening of Seventh Seal: under This Seven Trumpets, of Which Six Now Sounded (chs 8 9) (1) Hail and Fire on Earth (8 7) (2) Burning Mountain in Sea (vs 8.9) (3) Burning Star on Rivers and Fountains (vs 10.11) (4) One-third Sun. Moon, and Stars Darkened
1. General seven churches (chs 1-3), the properly Scope prophetic part of the book commences with a vision of heaven (chs 4, 6), following upon which are two series of visions of the future, parallel, it would appear, to each other the first, the 7 seals, and under the 7th seal, the 7 trumpets (chs 6-11, with interludes in ch 7 and again in 10; 11 1-12); the second, the woman and her child (ch 12), the 2 beasts (ch 13), and, after new interludes (ch 14), the bowls and 7 last plagues (chs 15, 16). The expansion of the last judgments is given in separate pictures (the scarlet woman, doom of Babylon, Har-Magedon, chs 17-
19) ; then come the closing scenes of the millennium, the last apostasy, resurrection and judgment (ch
20), followed by the new heavens and new earth, with the descending new Jerus (chs 21,22). The theme of the book is the conflict of Christ and His church with anti-Christian powers (the devil, the beast, the false prophet, 16 13), and the ultimate and decisive defeat of the latter; its keynote is in the words, "Come, Lord Jesus" (22 20; cf 1 7); but it is to be noticed, as characteristic of the book, that while this "coming" is represented as, in a manner, ever near, the end, as the crisis approaches,
(ver 12). "Woe"—Trumpets (ver 13) (5) The FaUen Star-Locusts (9 1-11) (6) Angels Loosed from Euphrates—the Horseman (vs 12-21) 5. Interludes (1) Angel with Little Book (ch 10) (2) Measuring of Temple and Altar—the Two
Witnesses (11 1-13) 6. Seventh Trumpet Sounded—Final Victory (vs 14-19) III. Second Series OF Visions: The Woman and the Red Dragon; the Two Beasts; the Bowls and Last Plagues 1. The Woman and Child; the Red Dragon and His Persecutions (ch 12) 2. The Beast from the Sea. Seven-headed, Tenhorned (13 1-10) ; the Two-horned Beast (vs 11-18) 3. Interludes (ch 14)
is again always postponed by a fresh development of events. Thus, under the 6th seal, the end seems reached (6 12-17), but a pause en.sues (ch 7), and on the opening of the seventh seal, a new series begins with the trumpets (8 2ff). Similarly, at the sounding of the 6th trumpet, the end seems at hand (9 12-21), but a new pause is introduced before the last sounding takes place (11 15 ff). Then is announced the final victory, but as yet only
(1) The Lamb on Mt. Zion; the 144,000 (vs 1-5) (2) The Angel with "an Eternal Gospel" (vs 6.7) (3) Second Angel— (Anticipatory) Proclamation of Fall of Babylon (ver 8) (4) Third Angel—Doom of Worshippers of the Beast (vs 9-12)
in summary. A new series of visions begins, open-
ing into large per.spectives, till, after fresh inter-
(5) Blessedness of the Dead in the Lord (ver 13) (6) The Son of Man and the Great Vintage (vs 14-20) 4. The Seven Last Plagues—the Angels and Their Bowls: the Preparation in Heaven (ch 15) —the Outpouring (ch 16) (1) On Earth (16 2) (2) On Sea (ver 3) (3) On Rivers and Fountains (vs 4-7)
ludes, and the pouring out of 6 of the bowls of judgment, Har-Magedon itself is reached; but though,
at the outpouring of the 7th bowl, it is proclaimed,
"It is done" (16 17), the end isagam held over till
these final judgments are shown in detail. At
length, surely, in ch 19, with the appearance of the white horseman—"The Word of God" (ver 13) and the decisive overthrow of all his adversaries
(4) On Sun (vs 8.9) (5) On Seat of Beast (vs 10.11) (6) On Euphrates —Har-Magedon (vs 12-16) (7) In the Air—Victory and Fall of Babylon (vs 17-21) IV. Expansion of Last Judgments (chs 17-19) 1. The Scarlet Woman on Beast—Her Judgment (ch 17) 2. Doom of Babylon and Lament over Her (ch 18) 3. Interlude—Announcement of Marriage of the Lamb (19 1-10) 4. Rider on White Horse ("The Word of God") and His Armies— Last Battle and Doom of Beast, False Prophet, and Their Followers (vs 11-21) V. The Millennium—New Heavens and New Earth (chs 20-22) 1. Satan Bound; First Resurrection and Reign of Saints for 1.000 Years (20 1-6) 2. Loosing of Satan and Final Conflict—Doom of Adversaries and of the Devil (vs 7-10)
(vs 18-21), the climax is touched; but just then,
to our surprise, intervenes the announcement of the binding of Satan for 1,000 years, and the reign of
Jesus and His saints upon the earth (the interpre-
tation is not here discussed), followed by a fresh
apostasy, and the general resurrection and judgment (ch 20). Precise time-measures evidently
fail in dealing with a book so constructed: the 3| years of the Nero-interpreters sink into insignificance in its crowded panorama of events. The symbolic numbers that chiefly rule in the book are
"seven," the number of completene.ss (7 spirits,
seals, trumpets, bowls, heads of beasts); "ten,"
the number of worldly power (10 horns); "four,"
the earthly number (4 living creatures, corners of
3. General Resurrection and Last Judgment (vs 11-15)
earth, winds, etc); 3i years—42 months— "time.
Revelation of John Reward THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2586
4. New Heavens and New Earth (1) The New Jerus from Heaven (21 1- (2) Description of the City (vs 10-27) (3) Blessedness of Its Citizens (22 1-7) (4) Epilogue (vs S-21)
which those who incorporated it must have known had never been fulfilled. The attempt to give a "contemporary historical" interpretation to the symbols of the successive churches, as Gunkel has acutely shown, completely breaks down in practice, while Gunkel's own attempt at a Bab explanation
V. Principles of Interpretation.—As a book intended for the consolation of the church under present and future afflictions, the
will be judged by most to be overstrained. "Dragon" in the OT and elsewhere may be associated with widespread oriental ideas, but the definite symbolism of the Apocalypse in ch 12 has no provable connection with Bab myths. There is the widest disagreement in the theories of "composite" origin (from Jewish apocalypse) . ^ What seems simple and demonstrable to one has no plausibility to others. A form of "Nero Caesar," indeed, yields the mystic 666, but so do 1 ,000 other names—almost any name, with proper manipulation (cf Salmon, lect xiv). Lastly, the retuming-Nero legend yields no satisfactory explanation of the language in 13 3.12.14; 17 11. The theory is that these words allude to the belief that Nero would return from the dead and become Antichrist (see above) . Tacitus attests that there were vague rumors that Nero had not really died {Hist, ii.8), and later a pretender arose in Parthia taking advantage of this feeling (Suet. Nero. 57). The idea of Nero returning from the dead is categorically stated in Sib Or 5 363-70 (c 120 AD);
1. General Apocaljqise is meant by its author to Scheme of be understood (1 3; 22 7). He must Interprehave been aware, however, that, while tation its general scope might be apprehended, mystery must rest upon many of its symbols, till the time of their actual fulfilment. The book relates to "things which must shortly come to pass" (1 1)—in their beginnings at least and the divers interpretations since put upon its prophecies are the best evidence of the difficulties attaching to them. Schemes of interpretation have generally been grouped into praeterist (the prophecies being regarded as already fulfilled), futurist (the fulfilment being thrown wholly into the
future), and the historical (the fulfilment being looked for in the continuous history of the church from John's day till the end). (1) The older praeterist view may be taken as represented by Moses Stuart, who finds the fulfilment of chs 6-11 in the destruction of Jerus (Comm., 520 ff), and of chs ISIS in the reign of Nero (690 ff). Even he, however, has to interpret the chapter on the last things of the future. (2) The futurist view connects the whole with the times of the second advent and the millennium. The beast is an individual who shall then appear as Anticlirist. This rejects the plain intimations of the book that the events predicted lay, in their beginnings at least, immediately in the future of the writer. (3) The historical view connects the various symbols with definite occurrences as the invasions which overthrew the Rom Empire (the first 4 trumpets), the Saracens (first woe-trumpet), the Turks (second woe-trumpet), the papacy