Introduction to the Apocalypse, part II

Posted by Michael Bunker
editor@lazarusunbound.com

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:1-3).

September 16, 2004 – 

AUTHENTICITY, AUTHORSHIP AND CANONICITY

The authenticity, authorship and canonicity of John’s Apocalypse have been attacked fairly consistently through the ages by those who either hate that the book identifies and exposes all that is called “Rome”, or hate the book’s account of the thousand year reign of Christ.  It is always important to examine the motivations of those who would question the plain teaching of scripture.  Some commentators have agreed that the book was written by “a” John, but refuse to accept that the book was written by the Apostle John, while some modern antagonists claim that the book must have been written by another author altogether.  A few have pointed at Cerinthus as the Apocalyptic author, all based on what John Gill quoted Dionysius of Alexandria as calling, the “monstrously stupid notion of Caius” (John Gill Commentary on Revelation).  The notion of Cerinthus writing this Apocalypse is even more notably stupid when you realize that Cerinthus was an obvious heretic in his notions of both the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, and that John heroically defends both the complete divinity and the humanity of Jesus in this book.

Based on all the evidence we must conclude that the earliest church embraced the book, and up until the latter half of the third century there was little doubt that the apostle John was its author.  From the death of John, somewhere around 98 a.d. until around 150 a.d., there were men around who conversed with, were taught by, or who might have had communication with the apostles.  Since these men were highly regarded in Christianity (which was still a rather small belief system), and these men would have been drawn together by persecution, strain and trial, it is highly probable (in fact necessary) that they would have had contact (either in person, by letter, or by other communication) with the Apostle John.  The testimony of these men, who lived and wrote shortly after the death of John, is very important to our study. The testimonies of Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, Polycarp (who undisputably was a friend of John), and Papias offer either direct or indirect support to Johannine authorship and the canonicity of the Revelation.

Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred by the Emperor Trajan around 10 years after the death of John, was appointed to the leadership of the Antioch church by Peter, and most likely grew up under the teaching of Peter and John.  As Ignatius was being carried to his martyrdom in Rome, he wrote epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp.  Although there appear to be many spurious Ignatian epistles, attributed to him by the Popish church, these seven letters are widely accepted as authentic epistles from the hand of Ignatius.  It seems evident that Ignatius either closely quotes, or alludes to quotes from the Apocalypse at least three times in these epistles:

1.)   In the conclusion to his Epistle to the Romans, Ignatius refers to himself as being “In the patience of Jesus Christ”, which closely resembles a statement made by John in Revelation 1:9 where John says, “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ…”.

2.)   In his Epistle to the Church in Philadelphia, Ignatius says, “If they do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are but sepulchral pillars, and upon them are written only the names of men.”  Notice how he contrasts what the Spirit says to John in the third chapter of the Revelation, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God…”

3.)   In his Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius applauds the Ephesians for being, “stones of the temple, prepared beforehand for a building of God the Father”, which is evidently a reference to John’s description of true Christians as the New Jerusalem, and Holy Temple of God taken from the 21^st chapter of the Revelation.

Polycarp, a contemporary of John and a close friend of Ignatius, is mentioned by some of those who lived contemporaneously with him and who knew him, as one who supported the Johannine authorship and the apostolic nature of the Revelation.  Andrew of Caesarea adds that he reckons the support of Gregory, Cyril, and the ancient writers “Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus”, add to the rock solid testimony concerning the authorship and authority of the book.

From about 150 to 200 a.d., starting only about 50 years after the death of John, we can add testimony from Justin Martyr, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.  Justin Martyr, who indeed became a martyr of Jesus Christ about 67 years after the death of John, and who was a contemporary of Papias and of Polycarp, stated, “And a man from among us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a revelation made to him, has prophesied that the believers in one Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together.”  So it is evident that within 50 years of the death of John, and for the next 3 centuries, it was widely accepted that this book was apostolic in nature, and had been embraced and ratified by those closest to the Apostles.

In his great Commentary Upon The Book of the Revelation, James Durham gives this defense to the authority and penmanship of the book:

“We need not stand upon the Authority, nor Title of it that holds out the Penman; it being of such a divine stamp and majesty, doth carry Authority in the bosom of it, that if any Scripture hold forth the Sovereignty, Majesty, Justice, Mercy and Truth of God, to the comfort of His People, and the making the hearts of His Enemies to quake, this Scripture doth it.  The Author, that is, the Penman, is John the Divine, as he is holden out in the Title.  Whether this Title be authentic or not, it’s not much to be disputed.  It is in some Greek Copies, The Revelation of the holy Apostle and Evangelist, John, the Divine.  And, we think it is clear to be John, the Apostle, honoured here to bear Christ’s last Message to His Church.  He got this name in the primitive times, as being most full of Divine Revelations, and prying into the Mysteries of the Gospel, and particularly of Christ’s Divinity.  And in the Preface, there seems to be some things that bear this out, 1. That he is called John, without designing what John, importing that he was the John, that was well known and famous for an infallible and extraordinary measure of the Spirit.  2. He is said to be that John, that was banished into the Isle of Patmos: which, from the ancient famous story, is clear to be John, the Apostle, he being banished thither under the persecution of Domitian the Emperor.  3. It’s further clear, from the 2. ver. in his description, Who bare record of the Word of God, and of the Testimony of Jesus Christ, which relates to his writing of the Gospel, as he styles himself in the close of it, chap. 21:24, This is that Disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his Testimony is true.  Neither doth it make anything against this, that this Book (being prophetical) doth differ somewhat in style from his other Writings: for, the style is not so unlike his; there being many words and phrases in his Gospel, and in several Chapters of this Book so like one another; as, that Christ is called the Word, and the Lamb, in the one and in the other, these phrases being peculiar to Him.”

DATING

Due to the growing influence (and increasing shrillness) of Jesuitical Preterist opinion, only now in these last days is there a large outcry against the traditional and accepted dating of the Apocalypse.  The testimony of the Fathers concerning this issue is virtually unanimous in ascribing the persecution and exile of John, and the writing of the Apocalypse, to the time of Domitian.

The most evident and inarguable evidence comes from Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul.  Irenaeus had been a disciple of Polycarp, who, himself, was a disciple of the apostle John.  Irenaeus wrote that ‘The Apocalypse,’ was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, near the end of the reign of Domitian.’ (Contra Haereses, v. 20.)  Irenaeus could not have been in error about the timing of the Apocalypse, seeing that he was so close to those who would have had concrete evidence about the dating of the book.  Please note that the closer our witnesses are to the actual event, the more unanimous they are in their declaration of the Domitianic dating:

1.)   Victorinus states that John was banished by Domitian, and in his time saw the Revelation.

2.)   Hippolytus claims that John had been exiled to Patmos under Domitian, where he saw the Apocalypse.

3.)   Eusebius, speaking of the persecution, says: ‘In this persecution, John the apostle and evangelist, being still alive, was banished into the isle of Patmos.’

4.)   Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, says: ‘Domitian, in the fourteenth year of his reign, raised the next persecution after Nero, when John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.’ In another work, he says: ‘John was a prophet. He saw the Revelation in the isle of Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian.’

5.)   Sulpicius Severus says, that ‘John, the apostle and evangelist, was banished by Domitian to the isle of Patmos, where he had visions, and where he wrote the Revelation.’

The Preterist is left with such overwhelming evidence that the book could not have been written earlier (during the persecution of Nero), but was actually written while John was banished to Patmos by Domitian, that they must conclude (for the survival of their own theories) that Ireneaus and the rest of these witnesses were all “Catholic conspirators” who desired to confuse the rest of us concerning the date of the Apocalypse.  Moreover, they will accuse any who stand on these faithful accounts of “using Catholic arguments of tradition and the word of Church Fathers over the plain scriptures themselves.  A simple question destroys their stupid accusations:

Is the Pope benefited by the accepted view of the Domitianic dating of the Apocalypse?  Or by the Preterist view?  The answer is simple.  It is the Preterist view that clears the Pope of the imputation of Antichrist.  The Historicist view is not only backed by all the historical facts, but it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Papacy is the Antichrist, and Roman Catholicism is the Whore of Revelation.

The accusations made by the Preterist camp serve to even further expose their motives.  It is fact that the Preterist argument about the dating of the Apocalypse had its birth with the Spanish Jesuit Priest Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613) in his commentary entitled Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse.  Catholics admit to inventing Preterism.  Catholic writer G.S. Hitchock said,

“The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D.” (G.S. Hitchcock, The Beasts and the Little Horn, p. 7.)

The evidence that both Futurism and Preterism were concocted within 10 years of one another, shortly after the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, by Jesuits who were sworn to engage in counter-reformation, is wholly ignored by modern Preterists.  Preterists and Futurists must go to great lengths to avoid some basic facts of history:

1.)     That the Papacy discouraged and avoided the discussion or study of Daniel and Revelation until AFTER the Protestants began to widely identify the Papacy as Antichrist in the mid 1500’s.  Only in response to the widely acknowledged Historicist view of the Protestant Reformation did the Pope’s agents of Counter-Reformation begin to address their defense of the Papacy from these books.

2.)     Both of these prophetic interpretive views (Preterism and Futurism) were provably devised by the Papacy during the Counter-Reformation; and both by Spanish Jesuits (Ribera from Salamanca and Alcazar from Seville) within 10 years of one another.

As the great commentator E.B. Elliot, author of Horae Apocalypticae said concerning the attempts to divert attention from the plain statements of Irenaeus and others concerning the dating of the Apocalypse:

“The attempts have been made to get rid of this testimony, and force another meaning on Irenaeus’ words, by those whose Apocalyptic theories made them wish to do so, seem to me to have utterly failed.”

We also mention that Tertullian states that the Neronic persecution was one of the sword, and it was under this persecution that Paul and Peter were killed by the sword (around 64 a.d., when the Preterists suppose that John was banished).  Tertullian goes on to note that Domitian’s persecution was one of banishment, the punishment we know that was meted out against John.  John would not have been banished in 64-68 a.d., he would have been killed.  Not only was banishment not used by Nero during his persecution, but it is doubtful whether Nero’s persecution extended much outside the area of Rome itself.  But there is direct evidence that Domitian’s persecution extended to the area of Ephesus where we can place John at the time of that persecution.

We affirm, then, that the book we intend to study is indeed a canonical book of the Bible, beloved and confirmed by the church in all ages.  It is a Holy Spirit inspired work, written by the Apostle John, beloved friend and disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.  We also affirm that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that it serves to solidify and strengthen the true, invisible, Church of Jesus Christ in their persecutions and trials in all ages, from the time it was written and distributed, until the consummation of the age.  We also believe that all who attempt to reinterpret the authorship, authority, canonicity or dating of this book are subject to the curses therein; and they should be suspected of Jesuitism, whether intentional or not, and should be informed that they are active warring enemies of the true and invisible Body of Jesus Christ, both in heaven and on earth, and that they should repent of their errors.  If they be true Christians, they should join their voices with those of the Church Militant on earth and the Church Victorious in heaven in condemning the Papal Antichrist and in calling on the Lord Jesus Christ to come quickly to judge and destroy His enemies.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

 
DISAGREE? Discuss or Debate this: Forum