Introduction

Revelation ON THE REVELATION (APOCALYPSE) OF THE HOLY APOSTLE JOHN THE THEOLOGIAN Tradition on the Apocalypse

The Apocalypse’s self-testimony about its author

The unity of the Apocalypse

The time, place, and purpose of writing the Apocalypse

The purpose and method of interpreting the Apocalypse

The content of the Apocalypse

Literature

Tradition on the Apocalypse

Among the testimonies concerning the origin of any sacred book, tradition holds first place. If the entire church from earliest times to nearly the very period to which the book is assigned has spoken in a consistent manner about its origin, we are fully authorized to trust this voice of the Church, and the internal evidence from the book itself becomes secondary. This must be remembered above all when making a critical examination of the Apocalypse. On the basis of studying the content and language of the book in connection with the content and language of the Fourth Gospel, criticism has invented many hypotheses about its origin, but for us the chief significance lies in the fact that the most ancient church tradition considers the Apocalypse to be the writing of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian.

It is true that Ignatius the God-bearer says nothing about the origin of the Apocalypse, but he already knew of it. Nothing else can explain certain expressions of this apostolic man, as for instance in his epistle to the Ephesians XV, 3 – compare Rev 21 and so forth. Of the writings of another most important witness from antiquity – Papias – we have only fragments. But fortunately, Bishop Andrew of Caesarea (5th century) in the introduction to his commentary on the Apocalypse cites Papias as a voucher for its authenticity. The testimony of this learned commentator has all the greater value since he clearly read Papias’ work himself, traces of which exist even in much later times. In another place in his commentary Andrew quotes Papias literally.

Among those links connecting the apostolic age with subsequent generations who did not associate with the apostles, the first place belongs to the holy Polycarp of Smyrna. He stands as the chief and immediate witness to apostolic tradition for his student Irenaeus, and through the latter, for the entire Church. Irenaeus testifies that Polycarp was not only taught by the apostles and associated with many who had seen the Lord, but was also appointed by the apostles as bishop of Smyrna. Of all the apostles, Polycarp was especially close to the holy John, as Irenaeus witnesses in his epistle to Florinus and to Victor of Rome. All the significance of Polycarp rests on his relationship to the Apostle John, and then on the fact that Irenaeus is indeed the voice of Polycarp and other presbyters. Consequently, Irenaeus’ accounts of the Apocalypse can be traced back to this same source.

As for Irenaeus, he is a witness to the recognition of the Apocalypse’s divine inspiration as coming from the Holy Spirit. He considers the author to be “John, a disciple of the Lord” – the stereotypical phrase for designating the Apostle John. The author of this sacred book is identical with the author of the Fourth Gospel. Irenaeus also provides literal quotations from the Apocalypse. Furthermore, the holy Irenaeus confirms the authenticity of the number 666 (not 616) and reasons about its significance. Finally, he also speaks regarding the time of the Apocalypse’s origin, placing it near the end of Emperor Domitian’s reign.

Alongside these main witnesses, there is another entire series of witnesses regarding the dignity of the Revelation. Though their voices are sometimes not entirely clear due to the loss of sources, in their agreement they present something coherent and compelling. Thus, the testimony of the holy Justin the Philosopher in his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” is very important. According to his conviction, the Apocalypse was written by “a certain man named John, one of the apostles of Christ.” He also has expressions that can be explained by dependence on the Apocalypse. Justin’s testimony is important, first, because of its definiteness; second, because he is a witness to the tradition of the Church of Ephesus – the first of the seven apocalyptic churches.

Furthermore, among the writings of the prolific second-century author Melito of Sardis, Eusebius names one: “On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John.”

Theophilus of Antioch, in his work against the heresy of Hermogenes, used, according to the report of the same Eusebius, testimony from John’s revelation. This fact points to the general recognition of the Apocalypse at that time in the Antiochian church. Eusebius, who was interested in finding proof that the Apocalypse was not written by Apostle John, clearly found not the least confirmation of his thesis in the writings of these authors.

It is very important that the church writer Apollonius acknowledged the Apocalypse. The importance of his recognition of the dignity of this sacred book is due to the fact that Apollonius was an opponent of the Montanists, against whom his work was also directed. Now it is known that the Montanists made wide use of the Apocalypse. Unfortunately, only a few fragments of this work have come down to us in Eusebius. As for Apollonius’ relationship to the Apocalypse, we have a brief remark from Eusebius about Apollonius’ use of testimony from John’s revelation. Eusebius could not argue against the authorship of Apostle John on the basis of Apollonius’ work, but that Apollonius gave interesting information about the residence of the evangelist John in Ephesus is evident from the historian’s account of the apostle raising the dead. On the basis of all this, Apollonius must be recognized as one of the most important witnesses to the apostolic origin and divinely-inspired dignity of the Apocalypse.

Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in the second half of the second century, makes mention of John who reclined on the bosom of the Lord. Polycrates calls this John – certainly the apostle – a witness and teacher – “martyr and didascalos.” In the designation “martyr,” it is rightly seen as an allusion to John writing the Apocalypse, since this name corresponds to apocalyptic terminology and cannot mean a martyr in the sense of one who suffered for the faith, given that it is placed before “didascalos”; moreover, understanding the word “martyr” in the sense of one who suffered death contradicts all church tradition about the Apostle John.

From the epistle of the churches of Lyon and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia about the persecution under Marcus Aurelius in 177 AD, it is evident that the Apocalypse was in wide use among Christians as a consolatory book, since this epistle contains many parallels to expressions in the Apocalypse. Once in this epistle it is directly cited as “Scripture.”

Among non-ecclesiastical witnesses to the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, with the exception of the Montanists, we can point to Leucius Charinus, author of the “Journeys of John.” Leucius, who belonged to the school of Valentinus in the broader sense, may be counted among the witnesses to the Anatolian tradition. Zahn places the appearance of his work within 140–200 AD. According to Leucius, the Apostle John is obviously the author not only of the Gospel and First Epistle, but also of the Apocalypse. In his account of the travels of Apostle John, this heretic clearly adheres to the epistles of the Apocalypse: it is clear that he considered this book an apostolic work.

Thus, the Apocalypse in the churches of Asia Minor enjoyed general recognition as a writing of the Apostle John. Only the voice of the Alogi sounds as a dissonance in this harmonious chorus of witnesses to its canonical dignity. But the criticism of the Alogi is so weak that it probably did not find any significant acceptance. At least, the very heretical movement produced by the Alogi appears in the sources in very unclear outlines. But in any case, they rejected the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, attributing them to Cerinthus. The protest of the Alogi is probably the result of heated polemic against the Montanists, and their criticism had exclusively doctrinal rather than historical grounds. Besides, it testifies that the church of that time attributed both the Fourth Gospel with its epistle and the revelation to the Apostle John.

As for the tradition of the Roman church, the Muratorian Fragment, which witnesses to the state of the Roman canon around the time of Pope Pius I (died around 155 AD), mentions the Apocalypse twice – the second time alongside the apocalypse of Peter.

The Apocalypse is cited by Hippolytus, who wrote both a commentary on it and its apology under the title: “Chapters Against Gaius.” Gaius, a Roman presbyter, had a negative view of the Apocalypse; perhaps he attributed it to Cerinthus. However, Gaius’ polemic against the Apocalypse is no superior in quality to the polemic of the Alogi and was motivated by doctrinal grounds. In the Roman church itself it met with not the least success.

In Africa, the Apocalypse is accepted by Tertullian and Cyprian. Clement of Alexandria has no doubts whatsoever about its apostolic origin, and his voice can be traced back even further – to Pantainus. Origen, who began the critical study of Scripture, has not the slightest doubt about the apostolic origin of John’s revelation.

A new era in the history of the criticism of the Apocalypse in the ancient church is opened by the holy Dionysius, first teacher of the catechetical school in Alexandria, and from 247 AD – bishop of Alexandria. The occasion for his criticism was the struggle against the chiliasts, whose leader was Bishop Nepos, who left a work as instruction to his followers: “Refutation of the Allegorists.” The holy Dionysius in refutation of it wrote a work: “On the Promises,” in which he reasons extensively about the Apocalypse of John. Dionysius of Alexandria does not directly reject the book, considers it worthy of respect, but doubts whether its author was the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, the author of the Gospel and the catholic epistle. Dionysius obtains his arguments by comparing the Apocalypse and other writings of the Apostle John. The proofs of the Alexandrian bishop are based on the difference of the Apocalypse from the Gospel and epistle of John in content and language. Also, John’s self-reference in the Apocalypse is, in Dionysius’ opinion, inconsistent with the manner of the apostle’s self-designation in the Gospel. Although, according to Dionysius, we must believe that the author of the Apocalypse was John, on the basis of everything he said, it is questionable whether this was the Apostle John. It is difficult to determine more precisely who this John the apocalypticist was. It is most likely that there was another John in Asia, especially since in Ephesus, it is said, there are two tombs, each of which is attributed to John.

Such is the judgment of Dionysius of Alexandria on the Apocalypse. To this day, there are people who consider Dionysius’ reasoning a model of philological and critical study (Renan). But we must approach the criticism of the learned Alexandrian more cautiously. Hardly anyone would now agree with the assertion that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel with its epistle have nothing of style in common. For all their difference in language, recent research discovers remarkable parallels between them.

Nor can Dionysius of Alexandria’s criticism shake the conviction that before him the Apocalypse held a very firm place in the canon as a writing of the Evangelist John – the Apostle. It is nowhere evident that he entered upon the path of internal criticism because he found no points of support in historical tradition. Had tradition been uncertain or confused, Dionysius would certainly have taken advantage of such a state of affairs. That he was aware of the worthless protest of the Alogi is evident from the excerpt from the work “On the Promises” preserved by Eusebius. Dionysius had no historical foundation for the hypothesis of two Ephesian Johns, so he grasped at the rumor of two tombs in Ephesus, each of which was said to be John’s.

Dionysius’ criticism could not completely destroy respect for the Apocalypse as an apostolic writing: tradition was very strong. And we see that such men as Methodius, Pamphilus, Lactantius, Victorinus, and Commodian consider and use the Apocalypse as a writing of the Apostle John. The first one on whom the influence of Dionysius of Alexandria was clearly felt was the famous Eusebius of Caesarea. But even he in his list of canonical books places the Apocalypse among the acknowledged ones – “homologoumena,” “if you will”; and then, “if you will,” among the spurious – “notha,” i.e., he mentions it under two completely opposite and incompatible rubrics, appealing to personal taste. In another place – regarding an excerpt from the preface of Papias to his work – Eusebius repeats Dionysius’ hypothesis of two Ephesian Johns, citing the existence of two tombs in Ephesus attributed to John. From all of Eusebius’ reasoning, the complete absence of historical data on his part is evident. He clearly had no one behind him except Dionysius, whose argument about two tombs he uses. In the Demonstratio evangelica, Eusebius cites the Apocalypse as a New Testament authority.

The subsequent period gives nothing remarkable for the history of the question of the Apocalypse’s place in the New Testament canon. The fathers faced a dilemma: either to follow the tradition of the church, or their own personal taste, often determined by the direction of their school. Therefore, afterward no studies about our book can be found, but rather one simply notes which church writer accepted the Apocalypse or merely cited it and which did not.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) in his fourth catechetical discourse enumerated all the sacred books of our canon except the Apocalypse. On the contrary, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (died 403) accepts the Apocalypse and extensively refutes the objections against it raised by the Alogi. John Chrysostom does not cite the Apocalypse. The opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia concerning it is unknown. Similarly, Theodoret nowhere cites the Apocalypse. Junilius, an African bishop of the 6th century, remarks that among the Eastern Christians there exists considerable doubt regarding the Apocalypse. St. Ephrem the Syrian (died 373) does not cite it. St. John of Damascus (died 750) counts the Apocalypse among the canonical writings. St. Gregory the Theologian uses it, as do Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. St. Amphilochius of Iconium says that the majority consider this book spurious. But in Alexandria itself it is accepted by St. Athanasius the Great. Furthermore, it is accepted by Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus, Nilus, and Isidore of Pelusium. In the 5th century Bishop Andrew of Caesarea writes a commentary on the Apocalypse; the same later is done by another bishop of Caesarea, Arethas. In the western church, the Apocalypse is considered by all church writers to be the work of the Apostle John and is accepted into the canon. Such, among others, are Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, the Donatist Tyconius, the blessed Augustine, and others.

The negative opinions regarding the Apocalypse held by representatives of theological thought from the 4th century could have had no significance given the conditions under which they were expressed. Indeed, they are neither the fruit of thorough study of ancient church tradition nor the fruit of free critical investigation of the book. The attitude of one or another writer toward it appears to have been simply determined by personal taste or the traditions of his school. In view of the remarkable and consistent testimonies of deeper antiquity, we can affirm that the Apocalypse is brilliantly attested by ancient church tradition as a writing of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian.

The Apocalypse’s self-testimony about its author.

After all that has been said, we must turn to the book of revelation itself and examine how far its own testimony confirms the opinion about the apostle’s authorship. John calls himself a servant of God. Speaking to the Christians of Asia Minor, he calls himself their brother and fellow-participant in tribulation and in the kingdom and in the patience of Jesus Christ; he also reports that he was on an island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. His book, written in the form of an epistle, John sends to the seven churches located in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. As the epistles to the seven churches show, the apocalypticist was thoroughly acquainted with the external and internal state of their life, which was possible only if he had spent a considerable time in Asia Minor. That is all we can learn about the author from the Apocalypse itself.

As the name John shows, the apocalypticist was a Palestinian Jew, not a Hellenist – the latter did not have the custom of bearing Hebrew names. Clearly, long before writing the Apocalypse, he moved to Asia Minor and held the highest position among Christians there. He was so distinguished by his position and well-known in the churches of the province that he considered it possible to simply call himself: “John” (Rev 1:4), “I am John” (Rev 1:9), “and I John, hearing and seeing these things” (Rev 22:8). Such authority of the apocalypticist could not have been based on his hierarchical position, but to explain it we must presuppose another foundation. That foundation for John’s authority could only have been his apostolic dignity.

But not only is the character of the author of the Apocalypse’s self-designation more understandable if we consider him an apostle – the very tone of unlimited authority with which even the epistles to the seven churches are written does not permit ascribing them to an ordinary Christian, be he ever so respected a person. For any bishop can say of himself that he also possesses the Spirit of God – but one need only pay attention to the tone of Clement of Rome’s epistle to the Corinthians. The author writes on behalf of his church and avoids everything that would express his personal authority. Here is the passionate Ignatius writing to some of those very churches to which the apocalypticist was supposed to send his book. But even he expresses himself in the most moderate tone. Even the epistles of the Apostles Peter and Paul do not have the expressiveness of the apocalyptic epistles. In view of all this, it is completely impossible to attribute the Apocalypse to anyone other than an apostle – to some other John.

If, further, we were to be told that Christ in the New Testament Apocalypse is described exclusively in elevated and supranatural traits, which is understandable only in the words of a man who did not associate with the Lord in his earthly life, and if they were generally to affirm that in the Apocalypse there are no traces of the author’s personal relations with the Savior, then for the first we would find a satisfactory explanation, but with the second we might not fully agree. The character of a work is determined by the individuality of its author, and among the disciples of Christ we must presume such a person who from contemplation of the humanly-historical traits of the Lord rose fully to the vision of His divine and transcendent essence. Humanity is not so poor in characters that Providence would not find among it a worthy instrument of His revelations. To assert that the height of vision manifested in John’s ideal perception of the face of Christ is impossible for an eyewitness of the Savior means contradicting facts known from the history of religious life. After all, even those not of the highest character sometimes enjoyed divine veneration from their extremely mystically-inclined worshippers. The person of the Lord, moreover, when regarded even from a historical point of view, is so complete in the manifestation of the traits of His higher origin that it masters, under certain conditions, the entire human heart.

As for traces of John’s personal association with the Lord in the Apocalypse, we have no right to insist on seeking them here given the prophetic character and apocalyptic form of expression of ideas in the work. Nevertheless, along with Zahn we can point to a touching scene described in Rev 1:17-18. John writes, after depicting the one who appeared to him like the Son of Man: “when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as if dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying: do not fear; I am the First and the Last and the Living One; and I was dead and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of Hades and Death.” This touching “He laid His right hand upon me”; this assurance “I was dead and behold I am alive forever and ever,” attributed to the Son of Man, whose face shines as the sun shining in its strength, whose voice sounds like the noise of many waters, who holds in His right hand the seven stars and has a sharp two-edged sword coming from His mouth – this laying on of His right hand and this assurance are understandable only if we presume that the apocalypticist was an intimate disciple of the Lord. This was the disciple who reclined on the bosom of Jesus – we can affirm this both on the basis of tradition and on the basis of the self-testimony of the Apocalypse – John.

Against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, objection is raised on the basis of Rev 21:14 and Rev 18:20. In the first case, it is said that on the foundations of the new Jerusalem are written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; in the second case, to the rejoicing over the destruction of Babylon the saints, the apostles, and the prophets are invited. It is said that the first of the cited verses is especially inappropriate in the mouth of a man belonging to the group of the twelve, that in general the apostles are spoken of here very objectively. The objection, however, will not seem founded if we keep in mind that the number of twelve apostles was not accidental, but has symbolic significance. This consciousness of such significance was especially alive among the apostles, as the first chapter of Acts shows. In view of this, in the mention in Rev 21:14 of the twelve apostles, the Evangelist John might not at all have had in mind the persons of Christ’s disciples – for him the number 12 as such was important. The substantial significance of apostolic ministry could be affirmed both in the apostolic age and by an apostle. Thus, the holy Paul also calls Christians established “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20).

The call in Rev 18:20 is understandable given that by the time of the writing of the Apocalypse almost all the apostles had already died. The juxtaposition of apostles and prophets we find in Eph 3:5.

On the basis of all that has been set forth, we can affirm that the self-testimony of the Apocalypse about its author not only does not testify against its apostolic origin, but is rather understandable when we recognize that the book’s author was the holy Apostle John, son of Zebedee.

Objections against the writing of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John, based on the difference between its content and language and the content and language of the Fourth Gospel.

Already Dionysius of Alexandria decisively argued for the idea of a difference between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel, which does not permit attributing them to one and the same author. For modern criticism, this difference has also served as a basis for denying that one of these two writings belongs to the Apostle John. But by the present time, the work of scholarly investigation of Johannine literature has placed the question we have touched on a different path. Many points of contact have been recognized between the Apocalypse and other writings of John, compelling us at least to suppose their origin from one school (Thus Joh. Weiss, Weizsacker, Bousset).

We do not have the opportunity to reason here in detail about how well-founded or ill-founded the indications of difference between the teaching of the Apocalypse and the Gospel with the epistles are, and we will confine ourselves only to pointing out the most striking parallels between them. These parallels have all the more significance in that the differences, if the indications of them do not exaggerate, are fully explainable from the character of revelation as a prophetic writing, written moreover in apocalyptic form.

The general tone of the Apocalypse coincides with the tone of the Gospel and epistles of John. Just as in the former, the punishments and destruction of the wicked are depicted in bright colors, in sharp tones, in dark images, so in the Gospel and epistles one can find many sharp expressions, can discern particular decisiveness in the thoughts expressed. The latter in turn is explained by the character of the Apostle John’s views. Before his eyes were depicted contrasts; he was presented with the entire sharp antagonism of the two kingdoms of good and evil. And so we see that this ideal division of the world into two halves – into the children of God and children of the Devil, into those who walk in light and those who walk in darkness, into the ungodly and those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, those who have not bowed to the beast and his image and have not received his mark on their forehead and hand – this sharp division is carried out by John in all his writings, constituting their peculiarity.

Besides similarity in general character, let us note such similarity also in the following frequent points. The Christology of the Apocalypse coincides with the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. The parallels in some cases are remarkable. So in the Apocalypse the Messiah is often presented under the image of the Lamb – “to arnion.” The Lamb is also called with the name “o amnos” in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:36). The Prologue of the latter proposes connected teaching about Christ as the divine Logos; in Rev 19:13 we read of the Messiah: “and His name is called: the Word of God.” The apocalypticist, often representing Christ under the image of the Lamb, depicts Him in the most elevated traits. The evangelist beneath the mortal bodily covering of the Lord everywhere perceives the transcendent divine being.

A parallel between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel is also observed in their relationship to Judaism. For the apocalypticist Judaism has developed into Christianity, the church – the true spiritual Israel; the adherents of nomism only say of themselves that they are Jews; in reality they are not such, but the synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9). Such precisely is the meaning of some expressions of the evangelist relating to the Jewish law, for example, John 7:19: “Did not Moses give you the law”; compare John 7:22. Passover, moreover, is called: “the Passover of the Jews” (John 2:13). Finally, in John 8:44 the representatives of Judaism are directly called children of the Devil.

The Apocalypse agrees with the Gospel in the teaching about “the Spirit” – “to pneuma.” In both writings “to pneuma” appears as a factor enlightening the believers, a personal principle of divine revelation.

Finally, the apocalyptic chiliasm can be considered a figurative expression of the Fourth Gospel’s teaching about two resurrections – the first spiritual and the second – the general resurrection of human bodies for the final judgment.

As for the language of the Apocalypse, it indeed presents in comparison with the language of the Gospel and epistles of John considerable peculiarities. But many, however, of these peculiarities receive proper explanation from the character of the writing. So, if in the greeting Rev 1:4 we read: “apo o on kai o en kai o erchomenos,” this does not at all indicate an ignorance of the author in the Greek language so extensive that he did not know that after “apo” one must place the genitive case or that a verb is an indeclinable part of speech – no, the manner of expression reveals even mastery on the part of the writer, a certain freedom in command of speech. This peculiarity of language can be called rhetorical irregularity, to which must be assigned everything that was conditioned by the liveliness and force of poetic prophetic speech. Other peculiarities are explained by the influence of Hebrew, which is especially understandable in the Apocalypse. There are, finally, such irregularities of language in the Apocalypse that hardly admit of explanation – see, for example, Rev 14:19. Cases occur of “constructio ad sensum” – see Rev 4:1 and so forth.

The style, the general character of speech is, it is true, somewhat different in the Apocalypse compared with other writings of John. But the latter also do not show the apostle to be very skilled in what concerns the construction of Greek speech. This is evident both from the style of the First Epistle, where one does not perceive freedom in expressing thoughts by means of language – on the contrary, some uniformity is noticed – and from the Gospel, from which it is clear that it was written by a Jew.

As for the Apocalypse, which certainly stands out among the other writings of John in this regard, its style can be explained by the form of the writing. As a sermon almost always stands out among other literary works by its language, and we even sometimes demand of it a special style, so we can suppose that in the Apocalypse of the Apostle John a special apocalyptic style manifested itself.

Finally, between the Apocalypse and other writings of the Apostle John there exist direct points of contact in the area of language. This kinship between them is expressed in the choice of the same images, in some coincidences of a syntactic character, and, finally, in coincidence in some cases in vocabulary (see Bousset, D. Offenbarung Iohannis. P. 177–179).

The unity of the Apocalypse.

From the eighties of the previous century, critical investigation of the Apocalypse sharply raised the question of the unity of this sacred book. The initiative in this matter belongs to the learned Daniel Völter, who came forth in 1882 with the work “The Origin of the Apocalypse” (in German). Since then many attempts have appeared proposing one or another division of it. Here one can mention the works of Erbes, Spitta, J. Weiss, and others. All of them recognize that several hands worked on the Apocalypse at different times. Besides this, Fisher in 1886 came forth with a hypothesis according to which the Apocalypse is a Jewish work with Christian interpolations. Finally, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Bousset, and others hold the hypothesis of fragments, according to which the author of the Apocalypse made use of various apocalyptic fragments, widely distributed among the Jews, in writing his work.

In studying all these hypotheses, one is struck by their extreme complexity. There is no possibility of attributing to the persons, in the opinion of the named critics, who worked on the Apocalypse, such a complex and intricate literary work as these authors find. Moreover, one can conclude about the extreme subjectivity of all constructions from the fact that no hypothesis has supporters, and almost each denier of the book’s unity proposes his own solution to the question, if he does not refuse to do so altogether.

Moreover, the complex and harmonious plan of the Apocalypse speaks in favor of its unity. Finally, the strongest proof of this unity is based on the fact of the uniform linguistic character throughout the entire Apocalypse. And moreover, in the author of a book full of spirit and life, it is impossible to perceive a dry compiler.

The time, place, and purpose of writing the Apocalypse.

In determining the time of writing of the Apocalypse, there is complete agreement between first-rate external testimony and the data for determining the epoch contained in the book itself. So, Irenaeus reports that John saw the revelation near the end of Domitian’s reign. The position of Christians under Domitian is reflected in the content of the Apocalypse. What is remarkable first of all is that the revelation presupposes persecution of Christians everywhere. However, it is not yet evident that this persecution brought many martyrs. The apocalypticist, it is true, has already lived through one period of time when Christian blood flowed in streams and, as the vision of the fifth seal shows, at the present time is only in expectation that something similar will be repeated in the near future. As is evident from the circumstances of his personal life, during the period of the appearance of the Apocalypse, a particular punishment for Christian confession was practiced – for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. That punishment was banishment.

All the enumerated traits of the position of Christians point to the time of Domitian. The bloody persecution which the apocalypticist has in view is the persecution of Nero, which, it is true, did not extend beyond Rome. Now persecution becomes universal – this points directly to Domitian. It would be erroneous to see in this a trait from the time of Trajan. First, from the letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan it is evident that he, even without the emperor’s indication, was already taking decisive measures against Christians – obviously, in the previous reign these measures were the order of things. Second, Dio Cassius has direct information about trials of Christians under Domitian. Finally, banishment with respect to Christians was practiced precisely under the last Flavian, not earlier and not under Trajan.

Indication of another peculiarity of Domitian’s reign is concealed in the symbolism of the Apocalypse. Here there is often talk of those who did not bow to the image of the beast. The false prophet according to Rev 13:14 persuades people to make an image of the beast. The symbolism, of course, has its origin in the practice of the imperial cult. But again, not about Nero, but precisely about Domitian has it been testified that he held an especially high opinion of his divinity.

In a word, on the basis of historical testimonies it can be affirmed that the Antonines did not introduce anything new in their policy toward Christians, but only continued and developed the program of the last representative of the previous dynasty. In view of this, Irenaeus’ testimony that the revelation was contemplated near the end of Domitian’s reign acquires full force of indubitable convincingness and complete certainty. We do not have the opportunity to indicate precisely the year of the writing of the Apocalypse.

As for the place of writing, it was the island of Patmos. The apocalypticist is clearly told: “Write what you see in a book and send it to the churches located in Asia” (Rev 1:11). It would be strange to suppose that the apocalypticist postponed the fulfillment of this command of the Lord for a more or less extended period. Besides, the revelation is written in the form of an epistle addressed to definite churches, and this also compels us to suppose that John was outside Asia Minor at the time of its writing.

The occasion for writing the revelation was the impending storm in the form of cruel persecutions which awaited the church. At that time it was already clear that a period was beginning when the Roman Empire would launch a campaign against Christianity with the goal of erasing it from the face of the earth. The representation of these threatening church calamities in connection with the consciousness of its complete victory served as the occasion for writing the Apocalypse.

The purpose corresponded to the occasion. The Revelation has in view not only the seven churches of Asia Minor, but the entire Church of the universe and wishes to give consolation to all those believers of all times who, being penetrated by the true spirit of Christ, feel on themselves the hatred of this world in whatever form.

The purpose and method of interpreting the Apocalypse.

The purpose of the study and interpretation of the Apocalypse should be to promote the achievement of the intention of its divinely-inspired author. That intention was the teaching and strengthening of all Christians in faith and hope, and therefore the task of interpretation should consist in the effort to awaken and strengthen interest in the Apocalypse and the desire to delve into its content and the effort to extract from it possible spiritual benefit.

The method of interpretation of the Apocalypse must be as distinctive as its very content.

It is established by the tradition of our Orthodox Church that the Apocalypse of the holy John the Theologian is a prediction of the future destiny of the Church and the world. The phenomena and images described in it are neither the hidden history of the past nor predictions of certain periods of church history and individual human persons. No, the Apocalypse and its visions (except for the first three chapters) are in the proper sense eschatology, are a depiction of the final destiny of the world and Church and those events which will precede and prepare this end. Therefore, the Orthodox theologian should seek the key for understanding the Apocalypse, on the one hand, in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, where certain images of the future destiny of the old and new covenant churches are depicted (the prophet Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel), and on the other – and this especially – in the eschatological discourse of the Savior (Matt 24). What the Savior predicted as having to be at the end of the world should serve as guidance for understanding the predictions of the Apocalypse. And everything eschatological that we find in the epistles of the Apostles Paul, Peter, and Jude should also be taken into account in interpreting the Apocalypse.

The content of the Apocalypse.

It is natural that one or another view of the content of the Apocalypse and the meaning of its prophetic visions should be the basis for the division of the Apocalypse into parts in its study. The general division remains the same for all: that is, one divides it into the introduction (Rev 1:1-8), the first part (Rev 1:9-3:22), the second part (Rev 4-22:5), and the conclusion (Rev 22:6-21). The introduction is nothing other than a preface containing the explanation of the name of the book (Rev 1:1-2), the purpose of its writing (Rev 1:3), indication of the persons to whom it is addressed (Rev 1:4), a greeting of peace to them from the Triune God (Rev 1:4-5), a doxology of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:5-6), and its authorization (Rev 1:7-9).

The first part (Rev 1:9-3:22) contains epistles to the seven churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, with indication of their virtues and shortcomings, with prediction of their future destiny and promise of reward along with warning and threat. This part can be called prophetic-didactic. Its content sharply differs from the content of the second part; the form of expression is also different. Here the historical form of ancient prophecies predominates. Moreover, there is nothing eschatological here, but everything is limited to the course of the present time or the near future. The seven churches of Asia Minor are types of the state of the universal Church and its followers. The beginning of such a view regarding the relationship of the content of the first three chapters to the entire Church is indicated in the Muratorian canon, where it is noted that although John “wrote to seven churches, yet speaks to all.” This opinion is shared by modern interpreters. The revelations to the seven churches constitute a special series of revelations, intended, first of all, directly to the known seven churches of Asia Minor, and if they concern all Christians, they do so in the same way as, for example, the epistles of the Apostle Paul to particular communities and persons concern all Christians of the universal Church, that is, insofar as they contain general Christian teachings, or insofar as those or other particular positions and cases might be repeated in the history of the world.

On the basis of this position, one comes to completely separate the first part from the second part of the Apocalypse if we investigate it from the point of view of the eschatology of the world.

The second part of the Apocalypse can be called apocalyptic-eschatological, since in this part the eschatological truths, which were communicated incidentally and in parts in other writings of the Old Testament (especially in Daniel) and New Testament (in the Gospel, by the Apostles Paul and Peter), are revealed in the apocalyptic manner, that is, through pictures, symbols, and visions, sometimes strange and inaccessible for clear representation. With regard to such content and its exposition, the tasks of the interpreter are more complex and difficult. Therefore, it seems, there are no two interpreters who would completely agree among themselves in the division into groups of apocalyptic visions and in the indication of the connection among them. The content of the Apocalypse is so diverse, the visions and pictures so numerous, that for each interpreter, given the diversity of human minds and abilities, there is always a new point of view which makes him disagreeing (though often only very slightly) with all previous interpreters. We must maintain the general conviction that the Apocalypse represents several groups of visions, partly parallel to each other. This general principle, applied to the interpretation of the Apocalypse, so to say, has been sanctioned by ancient interpreters and is undoubtedly reflected in the interpretation of the holy Andrew of Caesarea.

Having in mind this general view regarding the character of fragmentariness in the revelation of the content of the Apocalypse, the entire second eschatological part can be divided into five divisions-groups. Each division-group represents a special and independent order of phenomena serving to reveal Divine providence. This order, beginning at one or another point in Christian history, comes to its last events at the end of the world. Let us briefly indicate these five orders.

The first order. A vision of the throne in heaven and the One sitting with a sealed book in His right hand; the appearance of an Angel in the midst of the throne to unseal the book (Rev 4-5). Visions of horses after the opening of each seal: after the first – a white one, after the second – a red one, after the third – a black one, after the fourth – a pale one (Rev 6:1-8). At the opening of the fifth seal – a vision beneath the altar of the souls of those killed for the word of God (Rev 6:9-12); and after the opening of the sixth seal – phenomena of a world upheaval and terror of all living on the earth (Rev 6:13-17).

The second order. A vision of four Angels at the four corners of the earth and an Angel descending from heaven with the seal of God in hand to seal 144 thousand servants of God (Rev 7); the opening of the seventh seal and the sounds of six trumpets accompanied by plagues (Rev 8-9). A vision of an Angel with an open book. The measuring of the temple. The appearance of two witnesses; an earthquake after their ascent to heaven. The sound of the seventh trumpet: voices in heaven with praise for the Lord Jesus Christ who has begun His reign. A vision of the temple in heaven and the appearance of the ark with flashes of lightning, sounds, thunder, and an earthquake (Rev 10-11).

The third order. A great sign: a vision of a woman clothed in the sun, a red dragon, the struggle of the archangel Michael with the dragon and the casting down of the dragon to the earth (Rev 12-13). A vision of virgins standing on Mount Zion – an Angel flying through heaven with an eternal Gospel, another Angel proclaiming the fall of Babylon with a threat against those who worship the beast. A vision on a bright cloud of one like the Son of Man with a sickle in hand to harvest the earth, and a vision of an Angel with a sickle to cut the vintage on the earth, which was cast into the great wine-press of the wrath of God (Rev 14).

The fourth order. A vision of seven Angels with seven bowls of the last plagues and a vision of those who overcome the beast (Rev 15). The pouring out one after another of six bowls and six plagues after each of them. An earthquake after the seventh bowl (Rev 16). An explanation of the vision of the harlot sitting on a beast (Rev 17). A proclamation of the destruction of Babylon and lamentation over it (Rev 18). Joy in heaven. A vision of an open heaven, a white horse, and One sitting on it, the Faithful and True, the Word of God, advancing in the company of an army for judgment on the beast and the false prophet (Rev 19).

The fifth order. A vision of an Angel with a chain and a key in hand to bind the dragon in the abyss for a thousand years. The resurrection of those killed and their reigning with Christ for a thousand years. The release of Satan, the appearance of the peoples of Gog and Magog, their defeat and the casting of Satan into hell (Rev 20). A vision of a new heaven, a new earth, a new Jerusalem and its inhabitants (Rev 21:1-22:5).

Directly following this vision is the conclusion of the Apocalypse, which, besides the indication of the authority of Jesus Christ as the author of the revelation, contains an exhortation to all to accept with whole heart what is proclaimed and to await the soon second coming (Rev 22:6-22).

From this brief indication of the content of the five orders of apocalyptic visions, one can discern the general idea that the manifestation of Divine providence proceeds from the general to the particular, gradually adding ever new and new particulars. And since this providence must end with universal judgment and retribution, which should be preceded by Divine calls to repentance, in these orders there is also applied a certain progression of increasingly intensifying plagues of the wrath of God on the ungodly. – In the first order are depicted only the general consequences of Christian preaching in the world – suffering on the earth and reward in heaven (the first five seals). This order ends only with a prediction of the future judgment, which should be preceded by upheavals in the world. The second order, beginning with the indication of division between the chosen of God and sinners, contains the revelation of phenomena of the wrath of God directly upon these sinners as self-condemned. These plagues will cause extreme separation between the chosen and sinners, and the representatives of the chosen (two witnesses) will be subjected to extreme persecution by sinners. But this extreme development of evil will also be the gateway to its fall: thunder and earthquakes will herald the approach of judgment.

The phenomena of the third order serve as an explanation of the phenomena of preceding orders: the earthly sufferings of the righteous, the deeds of sinners and their enmity toward the former is the consequence of that struggle which was occurring on earth between good and evil, good angels and evil angels. The Devil sends even an antichrist (the beast) into the world. But the struggle must end with the victory of good; an Angel already proclaims this victory, and the Son of God appears with a sickle in hand, which by the parable of the Savior means the end of the world. After the third order has indicated the chief cause of evil on earth, the phenomena of the fourth order depict, on the one hand, pictures of just punishments which the sinful world must undergo, and on the other – that flowering of evil which will be the offspring of the Devil. Divine providence does not slumber: the punishments of the sinful world will reach their end, and after it becomes evident to all that humanity will remain unrepentant, the Lord will appear with His heavenly host and will perform judgment on the world, beginning it with the chief deceivers – the beast and the false prophet, that is, the antichrist and his supporter.

The phenomena of the fifth order, though apparently representing a continuation and conclusion of the preceding order, in reality are an answer to some possible perplexities regarding the preceding orders. According to the teaching of Christ and the apostles the Devil was already defeated. Why then is he so powerful in the world? To this the Apocalypse answers that the Devil is indeed defeated, that he is as if bound by the redemptive merits of the Savior; but these bonds are real only with respect to those who are true servants of Christ, who, being crucified with Him, are also raised with Him to reigning and freedom over evil. The Devil is free only with respect to the sons of disobedience. His former complete freedom he will receive only at the end of the world and even then only for a short time (the time of the antichrist). Then he will receive power even to wage war against the saints. But this temporary complete freedom of the Devil will be at the same time his last triumph, after which will follow his final shame and final condemnation and that of all his adherents. He will ascend to the height, but not to remain there forever, but so that before all he be cast down from there into the abyss – hell. Then, when this fall of the Devil is accomplished before all, will come the eternal peace and bliss of the righteous and will begin the eternal torments of sinners.

Literature.

– Aurelius Augustine. “The City of God.”

– Andrew of Caesarea. “Commentary on the Apocalypse”

– Victorinus. “Commentary on the Apocalypse.”

– Zhdanov. “The Revelation of the Lord about the Seven Asian Churches.” Moscow, 1891.

– Eusebius Pamphili. “History of the Church”

– Hippolytus of Rome. “Discourse on Christ and on the Antichrist”

– Irenaeus of Lyon. “Against Heresies.” Book V, Chapter 18

– Norov, A. “Journey to the Seven Churches mentioned in the Apocalypse.” 1847.

– Oberlin. “The Prophet Daniel and the Apocalypse of John.” 1882.

– Orlov, priest, N. D. “Apocalypse of the Holy John the Theologian” Moscow, 1904. Novum Testamentum Graece ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit Const. Tischendorf, editio septima.

– Ebrard. Die Offenbarung Johannis. 1835.

– Ewald g. H. A. Commentarius in Apocalypsin Johannis exegeticus et criticus. 1828.

– Ewald g. H. A. Johannis Apocalypse. 1862.

– Hengstenberg. Die Offenbarung desh. Johannis. 1849.

– Kliefoth. Die Offenbarung desh Johannis. 1874. Lutardt, C.E. Die Offenbarung Johannis. 1861.

– Migne, J. P. Scripturae Sacrae cursus completus. Vol. XXV. In Apocalypsin dilucidatio et commentaria. 1842. – Bousset, D. Offenbarung Johannis. 1906.

– Winer. Biblisches Realworterbuch. 1872.

* * *

See Volume IX of the Explanatory Bible, p. 285 and following. “Apostle John the Theologian”

Kliefoth 14; Ewald 10–16; Corn. 11; Ebrard 28–33; Oberlin, Luthard 173.

Le Blance D’ambonne, p. 159.

Lutardt 171.