The gospel of Christian glory in the Apocalypse of St. Apostle John the Theologian

Contents Introductory remarks about the Apocalypse of St. Apostle John the Theologian § 1. Apocalypse and “revelation” § 2. Normal character and obligatory limit of interpretation of the Apocalypse § 3. The authority of the Apocalypse § 4. Apocalyptic letters to the seven Asian churches and their position in the whole composition of the book of revelation § 5. Apocalypse as a book of visions of the revelation of God § 6. The method of literary depiction in the Apocalypse and the method of exegetical explanation of it § 7. General content of the Apocalypse Introductory Notes on the Apocalypse of St. Apostle John the Theologian § 1. APOCALYPSE AND “REVELATION” "Apocalypse" of St. John the Theologian is the most mysterious book in the entire New Testament canon. The point concerns not the endless disputes about it of a literary-critical, exegetical and dogmatic nature, but its very essence. According to the conviction and purpose of the writer, it serves as a revelation in a given area, revealing and bringing into clarity what was previously dark, but is now outlined and shown to everyone with sufficient clarity, understandable to everyone. It is natural to expect that everything here should be visual and transparent, impressive and intelligible. In fact, it is true that from the moment of its appearance to this day, the Apocalypse remains a mystery, where - in the apt expression of Blessed Jerome - there are as many secrets as there are words, not to mention the fact that there is generally “a whole forest of prophecies.” This is a truth undoubted for everyone, but... how then can we comprehend such a blatant contradiction between name and content, between intention and execution? I will not go into various assumptions, which are always subjective and kill themselves by their very multiplicity. Let me turn to a fundamental analysis, according to biblical data. “Revelation” necessarily refers to the presence of “hidden secrets,” but in reality does not reveal them at all in the Apocalypse; rather, it obscures and aggravates. If, nevertheless, the writer strives for clarification, then it means that these secrets do not allow disclosure in the sense that is desirable for us. And the fault for this is not the weakness and inability of the pretentious author, for he immediately testifies that he is communicating the “revelation” of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what should soon happen; and He showed it by sending it through His angel to His servant John. The seer, of course, saw what was shown and contemplated it, and if, being entirely concerned about this, he does not reveal it to us, then we must agree that he himself was the only one who was “shown.” But since the other side also wanted to open it, one cannot speak here of concealment or silence, but it is necessary to take it as an axiom that these are by nature understandable secrets, in which nothing more can be shown or more precisely explained. And the word of God directly states that in its depths, the “Wisdom of God,” destined before the ages for our glory, is a mystery (1 Cor. II, 7), hidden from centuries (Eph. III, 9) and generations (Col. I, 26) and until its specific discovery, hidden from the wise and prudent (Luke X, 21). Even something beyond this - the Apostle Paul was caught up into paradise and clearly heard ineffable verbs, but it is impossible for a person to retell them (2 Cor. XII, 4). All this relates to the realm of those things “for which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and the heart of man has not breathed what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. II: 9). It is necessary that in this sphere, until we stand face to face with the events themselves, we now know in part, and we see like a mirror in fortune-telling - as if through a glass darkly (1 Cor. XIII, 12), for one Father reveals (Matt. XI, 25, 27: ἀ πεκ ά λυψας ἀ ποκαλ ύ ψαι) and reveals only the Only Begotten Son (John I, 18). This is not something hidden or secret, but not yet accessible to our direct discretion. From these simplest truths no less compelling conclusions follow. The first main and dogmatically fundamental one is that the author did not seek a detailed disclosure and a generally understandable interpretation. He only lifts the veil and only shows gradually changing pictures for contemplation, observes them and notes his impressions, but usually does not comment on them. In this case, St. John provides the opportunity for visual contemplation, and not at all for rational understanding provided by the author’s descriptions and teachings. Hence, the methodological principle is obligatory for us that we should not look in the Apocalypse for what is not there and what cannot be in relation to the author. § 2. NORMAL CHARACTER AND OBLIGATORY LIMIT OF INTERPRETATION OF THE APOCALYPSE Unfortunately, scientific thought went in the opposite direction, trying to bring the sunlight of bright knowledge into the fortune-telling visions of our dim vision. This applies equally to all interpretive and critical experiences. The most attractive in them are “historical” theories that apply apocalyptic visions and images to historical events and persons and which shine with their factual specificity, sometimes reaching to the very smallest detail in our present or in our near future, presuming a “strictly chronological order” in the Apocalypse. Such, for example, is the work of Archimandrite Theodore (A. M. Bukharev): Studies of the Apocalypse (Sergiev Posad, 1916), which needlessly caused him such a tragic catastrophe, but often similar trends prevail today. The same is true for all attempts to see in the Apocalypse living reflections of the initial destinies of the Church of the Apostolic age - persecutions beginning, spreading and becoming fierce - and insights of gradual pacification and the final shining of the light of Christ in triumphant Christianity. It was gratifying for militant and suffering confessors to find at St. John's divine consolation and encouragement in earthly sorrows and heavenly hopes - no less than that we, deprived of our homeland, passionately want to read there the divine broadcasts about our rebirth and return home to the shelter of our holy mother. But the more transparent such exegetical “revelations” and historical convergences were, the sooner and more strongly they were destroyed by mutual struggle, and irreconcilable dissonance among discordant inventors, as well as direct revelations of actual history when it approached the alleged events (for example, in the fantastic projections of Archimandrite Theodore). We also find this among the newest performers of the “temporary historical interpretive method”, for whom the entire content of the Apocalypse is actually modern history reflected in it (die Zeitgeschichte), and it grew out of the persecution of Christians under Domitian, who is our denounced world owner and is designated by the mysterious number 666 for the 16th year of his reign (from the beginning of the tribunica potestas on September 14, 81) and until his murder (Sept. 14, 98), in Greek ΔΚΛΙΧ, in Latin DCLXVI. But to what extent this chronological convincingness is illusory, this is evidenced by an equally confident statement (by Prof. Le P. E. Allö Saint Jean Apocalypse. Paris, 1933, p. 214) that 666 is the mystical number of Nero (“666, chiffr de Nero, etait... un nombre au sens mystique consacré.” It turns out that the chronological evidence represents only obvious subjectivity without solid validity. The same is true for eschatological interpretations, which at one time acquired a purely psychopathic influence in scientific communities and in scientific minds. And here the exegetical cacophony ultimately gave rise to complete despair to achieve the truth through this path of ecstatic premonitions and arbitrary insights. All of the above undoubtedly concerns critical experiments, which have become a clearly abnormal hobby of modern exegesis. It proceeds from the supposed “scientific dogma” that the Apocalypse should be no less understandable than all other New Testament writings. And since there was nothing of the kind, from this point it was naturally accepted that what was initially clear became dull later, as a result of later distortions of the text, which had sufficient substantive transparency and logical harmony. Therefore, it was necessary to restore the Apocalypse in the form in which it was depicted by the famous scientist according to general views. For this purpose, cuts have been and are being made - sometimes entire chapters - new combinations of different passages with the most daring combinations and shuffles and with the necessary textual changes. In this area there were even more minds than heads, because here everyone thought in their own way and fantasized in a thousand ways, and was also bound by tendentious postulates about the relationship of private departments to selected phenomena and doctrines. The inevitable result was the boundless arbitrariness of boundless subjectivity, unchecked even by strong critical prejudices. A terrible illustration is the most painstaking book, hardly accessible to the ascetic reading of the selfless martyrs of science, the book: Die Offenbarung des Johannes, untersucht von (Prof.) Friedr. Spitta (Halle a. S., 1889), who confesses with brutal frankness (p. vii) that during the six months of printing his work he changed a lot in his fundamental view regarding the composition of the Apocalypse (“bezueglich der Zerlegung der Apokalypse in ihre Grundbestandteile”), What now to think about the secondary points, voices and echoes that rudely stun with their awkward noise? Eastern fantasy is replaced by the individual-subjective dreaminess of the Western scientist. And if in the first respect it was possible to look with amazement or fascination, then in the second there was an insatiable need to argue fruitlessly with bitterness and hopelessness. It was necessary to consolidate such a precarious position of inevitable failure, and for this it was necessary to find some solid factual support. In the literary field, this naturally appeared in the form of literary documents that would guarantee all sorts of transformations and layers in the original apocalyptic text of our book. The closest thing to imagine them was, of course, in the Jewish monuments, and from there they become the genetic and transformative factor of the Apocalypse. 1 Two forms of this process are outlined, when a) the Jewish base is Christianized, or b) the Christian fabric is embroidered with Jewish colors and patterns. There is an immense amount of all kinds of constructions and reparations, but everything is ruined by the presence of the most acute opposites, which mutually negate one another. It is indisputable that there is no scientific and objective basis for these critical restitutions, if the beginning of the first turns out to be the conclusion of the second and vice versa, for the entire set of similar constructions. Then this is just a double-edged sword. It is clear that the restoration of the sought-after prototype, like the many-sided Janus, cannot but be arbitrary, changeable and illusory, because even common words and phrases acquire too different content. What kind of foundation is this, since it is considered to be so terribly unstable and amorphous? What can be built on it that is durable and stylish? A chaotic pile-up accompanied by constant crashes is inevitably expected. And, truly, each new work of this kind easily and successfully defeats all its predecessors in this category, but prepares for itself the same fate, as a review of all works of a similar nature with the justification of new modifications in the general reconstruction convinces. Apparently, the trouble lies not in the particulars, but in the fundamental defects of the entire theory. Naturally, some additional innovations of a saving nature do not save her from her congenital collapse. It is known that post-exilic Judaism was not integral in its original typical purity, but was multi-component and contained different elements, even if processed and adapted. These are especially the Babylonian elements, as the most suitable both in terms of ideological similarity and historical connections, which is why, for example, in later Jewish angelology they become predominant. It was easiest for critical interpreters to turn in this direction and enrich or replace the previous exegetical material of a Jewish nature. The most radical creation of this kind was given by prof. G. Gunkel, making special comparisons with Babylonian religious-heroic and asteric myths for the XII chapter of the Apocalypse. 2 At first, this attempt had enthusiastic success in some circles as a happy approximation to the sought-after truth. There is no doubt that from the point of view of religious-historical reciprocity the proposed understanding was natural and promising and could in fact serve as an illustrative commentary; but it suffered from an incurable flaw, because it turned an extremely distant benefit into a direct source, representing the genesis of religious beliefs as a genetic process of the origin of one series from another, 3 when between them there was simply an independent ideological affinity 4 or some parallelism. 5 Therefore, this concept required the most incredible reinterpretations of the apocalyptic text and no less violent adaptations of Babylonian myths with a very fantastic explanation and its own completion of the surviving Babylonian fragments and vague extraneous evidence. And in the interests of ideological harmony, it was necessary to make tendentious “corrections” of a textual-critical nature in the New Testament monument in the spirit and taste of literary experimenters. All these “free” exercises did not seem so noticeable because they were supported by subjective Babylonian contemplations. But here one arbitrariness was covered by another, and each of them became purely. With all this, the Babylonian element was portrayed as dominant, since it was it that was considered productive and explanatory for the New Testament element and supposedly penetrated it with its specific content, which turned out to be purely Babylonian, although somewhat Christianized under such artificial illumination. It is not surprising that in the end the Apocalypse loses its Christian individuality, becoming a kind of apocrypha, which some church authors sometimes tend to do. 6 But then the whole theory with its ephemeral creations falls, for it does not reveal, but destroys its Christian object. We must again take the precautionary turns of exegetical aspiration in order to ensure, to a certain extent, a Christian understanding of Christian Scripture. In the direction taken, this goal could be externally achieved only by attracting closer Christian monuments. This is a huge mass of Jewish, Jewish and Judeo-Christian documents in the form of numerous apocrypha of apocalyptic-fantastic content. Fragmentary notes have long been allowed, and in modern times systematic constructions are also being developed, of which the most fundamental and grandiose is the colossal work of canon R. H. Charles “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John with Introduction, Notes and Indices, also the Greek Text and English Translation" (in two volumes, Edinburgh, 1920). This work combines and utilizes all previous works and views, taking advantage of their benefits and guarantees, but at the same time it completely shares all the fatal ailments. It is painful to read this ponderous product of a quarter-century of selfless ascetic zeal and... constantly see all the previous defects and identical errors. The same arbitrariness of any rapprochement and subjectively free reinterpretation of both quantities predominate solely for the sake of the success of the author’s conciliatory plans. In their name, vague or mutual expressions of apocryphal-apocalyptic obscurity are often Christianized without the strictest consideration of the basic Judeo-messianic dreams, and contemplations of the Apocalypse are smoothed out in their Christian clarity and original incomparability, when the entire New Testament document is portrayed as unoriginal and - at most - half-Christian and half-Judaic. Everything blurs into formless impersonality, where you can assume a lot with impunity and nothing can be seen definitely - despite the visual pictures of the Apocalypse, which is roughly stripped of all its typicality. But this is also achieved despotically and necessarily requires corresponding violent accommodations in the current apocalyptic original. It turns out that the old “critical” story is that the New Testament text is everywhere violated in numerous particulars, completely disappearing or completely changing 7, and sometimes - especially at the end of the book - entire chapters (XX-XXII) are cut off and moved according to the designer’s single bias. However, this is exactly what all the “authoritative textual critics” 8 did, and - therefore - there is no fundamental progress in this regard, because, in fact, material development can never occur in the sphere of subjectivism and arbitrariness. The common and unified thing that prevails everywhere is that the true Apocalypse, taken as the object of interpretation, is erased and lost 9. It is clear that the reason for such a scientific catastrophe is not in individuals, but in the very essence of their research mentality. The Apocalypse, of course, is not a literary refined “squaring of the circle,” but it is also not a simple public novel 10. The contemplator himself was more delighted and shocked, perplexed, asked about the incomprehensible meaning of what he saw and did not always hear a clear answer or received new mysterious broadcasts. He could not offer more than what he had acquired, or better than he had comprehended. It is unthinkable for him to intend to give a coherent drama of content transparent to everyone, since the latter was communicated in a movement of visions independent of him, which he could not foresee either materially or chronologically. The opposite and dogmatically incorrect desire to find something directly opposite there leads to textual-critical liberties, which also plague the more sober, calm and cautious exegetes of the conservative camp 11 . John the Theologian did not report everything he saw 12 and, of course, did not in the least intend to present beyond what he contemplated and comprehended then. Everything with him is eschatological and apocalyptic and therefore not entirely comprehensible to the mind, which sometimes even seems strange 13 . The very nature of the subject under discussion and the experiences of its study should serve as an exegetical principle for us, and we are obliged to restore the true picture of apocalyptic visions and make dogmatic-moral applications, but we have neither the basis nor the right to include them in our exegetical descriptions. This does not at all condemn us to the hopeless futility of the process of the result of such work. It cannot be useless and in vain because it must put each student in the position of the apostle himself, “a spectator of heavenly revelations,” and what is more important and precious than this acquisition? And what other success can we think of than seeing and understanding together and in accordance with the direct contemplator? Here is the absolute limit of our desires and quests. And if we, as human beings, want greater understanding, and the Apocalypse does not give it, it means that this did not actually happen, and apocalyptic pictures do not contain this, pursuing a completely different goal. Their task is to show “the invisible as if it were visible, the desired and expected, as if it were real.” 14 Realistic clarity convinces us of the reality of reproducing things unknown to us and generates a living faith in them. 15 Since the latter arises from the depths of the receptive being itself, our soul and heart are organically imbued with the corresponding feelings and inner moods, so as not only to expect the future, but also to be as ready as possible for it and always sweetly cry: “Hey, come. Lord Jesus! (Apoc. XXII, 20). This is all that is required for our normal fruitful existence as God’s creatures, as long as we see directly and know, just as we ourselves are known (1 Cor. XIII, 12) by God in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. We are now walking along a mournful “sharp” and dark path, where only the gloomy emptiness of the grave yawns before us and there is no clear star either in front or above; but we are convinced that, guided by the radiance of faith, we will undoubtedly reach those abodes in which the ever-present and life-giving Light glows forever. § 3. AUTHORITY OF APOCALYPSE This is the divine meaning of the heavenly visions of the Apocalypse, and the exclusive meaning of the entire book depends on them. It is therefore necessary to determine the authority of the visions themselves by their merit and integrity. But already at the very beginning we read that Revelation was given by God from Christ through the mediation of an Angel of God, deliberately sent to John, who reports that he saw why the content of Scripture exactly coincides with contemplation. The only question is when the latter was written down (or was written down), and whether it was smoothed out when it was later consolidated on the charter. On this subject we have sufficient instructions. The apocalyptic was commanded from above to “write” what he saw (I, 19; II, 1, 8, 12; III, 1, 7, 17; XIV, 13; XIX, 9; XXI, 5) and even “write down” the speeches of the speaking voice (I, 12 and cf. 10; IV, 1; X, 8). And this suggestion was all the more obligatory because in another case the opposite was directly commanded (X, 4): “Hide what the seven thunders said, and do not write it!” Obviously, what is written down is revered as a direct reproduction of what is seen and acquires all its divinity, for it is said (XXII, 18-19); “And I also testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, that if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away anything from the words of this book, God will take away his part from the book of life, and from the Holy City, and from what is written in this book.” Judging by the undoubted distinction between the threatening and the certifying (in verses 18 and 20), we must think that the former means Jesus Christ Himself, since the personal self-testimony of the author would not have the necessary force (cf. John V, 31; VIII, 13), and the certification of Christ was required by the commission itself, since it was they who ensured that “blessed is he who reads and hears the words of this prophecy and keeps what is written in him" (I, 3). Consequently, the sanction guaranteeing book honor is completely indisputable, extends to the entire present scripture 16 and must be justified by the actual data of human accuracy. In this regard, the categorical indication of the Seer himself (X, 3-4) is very significant that when another Angel exclaimed, then the seven thunders spoke with their voices: “and when the seven thunders spoke with their voices, then I wanted to write; but I heard a voice from heaven saying to me: “Hide what the seven thunders said and do not write it.” τ ὰ ς ἑ αυτ ώ ν φων ὰ ς. ἤμελλον γρ ά φειν. γουσαν. γραψης). Here the simultaneity of the phenomenon with its recording is strongly affirmed, as is the usual manner of the author of the Apocalypse, why what is not recorded in the moments of vision is not reported in the book according to memory. appropriate time, was opened officially for public information, and previously remained a secret of a few people. Of course, all these textual procedures are impracticable even with the most contemplation, but it is possible to understand the matter in such a way that it is not possible to “fix” it in a written form convenient and accepted for testamentary writing, but in a general sense, this suggests that this or that event should remain hidden for the time being. On the contrary, the words (XXII, 10): μ ὴ σφαγ ί σης το ύ ς λ ό γους τ ῆ ς προφητε ί ας το ῦ βιβλ ί ου το ύ του command possible immediate and indispensable communication, but only when a complete scroll of divine revelations has been compiled. 18 Therefore, one should not exaggerate the chronological compatibility of vision and recording, but it is also unfair to separate them by too long an interval. It is necessary to choose something in between, namely, to assume that during the very revelations mnemoneutical notes were made, most often completely fragmentary and mutually unrelated, as far as was conceivable with the immediate, stunning impressions of what was contemplated and heard from above, and during breaks they served as a documentary basis for an accurate reproduction of events in all realistic clarity and, finally, all these sketches were combined in a complete book of the mysterious revelation of God. We allow three stages of written representation of experienced perceptions, but all of them are raised to actual contemplation and receive the meaning of genuine phenomena shown by the Lord God Himself. And all this is all the more indisputable because this process did not last long, for by the end of his visions the Apocalyptic had a systematized book (XXII, 7, 9, 10), which in its content went back to the actual primary source of inviolable greatness, which is why it is impossible to add or subtract from it without terrible danger in the sense of loss of eternal life and extreme condemnation (XXII, 18-19). And in this form, precisely as a book, the Apocalypse addresses the reader and listeners (I, 3), of course, from among the confessors of Christ, who are and are called hearing (XXII, 18) only because there are obligatory and impressive readers for them. This presupposes joint meetings of both for special religious and educational edifications, when the former listen and the latter instruct. Scenes of a liturgical nature are depicted before us, and from here it is fair to conclude that the Apocalypse, from the very beginning of its textual publication as the Testament of God to believers, parallel to Torah 19, is intended and applied for church liturgical use in the dignity of Holy Scripture - like the “Jewish Gospel of Matthew”. 20 § 4. APOCALYPTIC LETTERS TO THE SEVEN ASIAN CHURCHES AND THEIR POSITION IN THE WHOLE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION Thus, the whole book is recommended to be reliable in content and divine in authority according to the prologue, which refers to the whole Apocalypse, and not to the first part alone. 21 Further the question can only be about the seven messages of the Apocalyptic (I, 11 et seq.), preceded by his own vision. It is usually assumed that they were originally private letters, which the Seer composed for each of the named churches and sent them separately. Naturally, these documents were isolated in their origin and had no mutual connection, either factually or ideologically. They even claim that envoys from the indicated churches came to the Apostle John (maybe even with letters from them) and received from him written explanations and edifications in special messages, which were sent to those who inquired, addressed and kept among them. 22 Only later did they all gradually begin to unite due to the topographical proximity of the addressees and the essential commonality of church needs, as was done with the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians (Laodiceans) according to the direct commandment of the writer. Their merger with the Apocalypse itself occurred much later (for example, due to the prevailing belief about the Patmos origin and Asia Minor purpose of this entire book) and is devoid of historical basis, because there could only be a separate collection of seven letters, which is why the characteristics of the true Revelation given to the servant of God John do not apply to them. In this construction, the only correct thing is that the latter, undoubtedly, was consistent with the real conditions of the churches of Asia Minor and was in one way or another motivated by them, and everything else is interesting in appearance, but in fact is completely problematic. If a well-known letter is intended for a specific environment, then it must reflect it with a specific reality, and when the writer was closely connected and familiar with it, then in this case close coincidences are natural even in particulars, and the messages would give the key to some historical mysteries of the given church and information about it would fill the abstract pomp of apostolic expressions with factual details. Research of this kind is legitimate, of which the most competent in modern times is supposed to be the work of the undisputed expert on the history and geography of Asia Minor, Sir Professor 'a W. M. Ramsay: The Letters to the seven Churches of Asia and their Place in the Plan of the Apocalypse (London, 1904). The book is interesting and instructive in the sense of picturesque illustrations from the religious, cultural and everyday life of the churches of Asia Minor, although theoretical considerations and various guesses of resourceful imagination often prevail. But for the direct understanding of apocalyptic texts, little is acquired, and their difficulties are not eliminated at all, but, in the main, even increase. Firstly, the oblivion or omission of some Asia Minor church communities, which no less deserved searching attention, is incomprehensible: such, for example, is the Colossian Church. True, it was hardly founded by John himself, but this is far from indisputable for St. Apostle Paul, and, however, the Apostle considered it necessary to write a special letter there, so important that it was recommended for (liturgical) reading in the Laodicean church, which is no longer commanded for any New Testament document, except for the one from Laodicea (Col. IV, 16). And the Colossians had no less need for apostolic edification under St. John than under the evangelist Paul. Secondly, it is completely unclear why only seven churches were chosen and characterized by the Apocalyptic. It is said that they were previously known 23 as “the seven churches in Asia,” but this is not attested and does not in the least explain either their number or their election. If we assume that the Colossian Church is not noted due to its similarity with others in terms of the typicality of light and shadows, then all this is true for those depicted in the Apocalypse, because some of them are also similar to each other - especially in their negative differences (for example, about the Nicolaitans in Ephesus and Pergamum, equally in Smyrna, 24 in Thyatira and Philadelphia), and their joint depiction would be much more vivid and impressive in exposure, warning and healing of both existing defects and bad inclinations. Finally, thirdly, the very location of the listed churches is incomprehensible. Let them be in the centers of military and judicial districts, which cannot be stated categorically. It is also true that in missionary work, the routes of communication of a given territory and the mutual connections of cities and central points were of great importance at that time. However, this was not the most decisive factor, because in missionary interests it was possible for Apostle Andrew to go from Byzantium to Rome through Kyiv, although for natural reasons such a route seems irrational. But, in any case, it was necessary to take these external conditions into account so as not to waste energy in overcoming unnecessary travel difficulties and not to doom oneself to various unpleasant accidents among the unenlightened and rude backwaters. After all, they admit (Prof. W. M. Ramsay) that Mark left Paul in Pamphylia and did not want to go with him into the depths of the Asia Minor continent for fear of difficult travel obstacles in that direction, and the Galatians, who received the Apostle of the tongues with childish enthusiasm and pure adoration for their enlightener, soon cruelly struck the evangelist with their unexpected and unforeseen falling away. The cultural element, more capable of perception and no less thirsty for the preaching of the Gospel, was scattered along convenient roads in cities and adjacent villages. All the more necessary was all this for the success and security of correspondence from a person who supposedly himself sent his reply letters to a known destination. In this regard, it would be in every possible way more practical to send your messengers with a gradual movement from the starting point to the next, but in the Apocalypse we see a lot of confusion here: first, a distant place for delivering messages is marked, and then the nearest one, or it is assumed that the messenger goes in different, incompatible directions. Here missionary irregularity does not help at all, but traveler's correctness is equally hopeless. Prof. W. M. Ramsay has used much learned effort and inventive wit to throw light on historical-geographical distinctness, but he successfully copes with his task only in parts that have been self-evident for a long time, and the whole classification of the distribution of cities remains impenetrable and unsolved, despite all sorts of artificial combinations. In the best case, acceptable possibilities are obtained, but along with them others are no less probable - and it is completely incomprehensible to us why the first ones were taken and not the second. We must agree that from a historical-geographical point of view there is no hope for a satisfactory explanation; however, one cannot be reconciled with the assumption that the Apostle was confused on this important point intentionally or out of ignorance. You have to think that there is a deep meaning here - just not a historical-geographical one. Finally, the text of the apocalyptic messages does not correspond to the latter. They do not at all involve private inquiries and authorized questioners, for they fulfill the command of God, which precisely indicated the churches addressed in the established order (I, 4). And this was when the Apocalyptic was “in the spirit,” being in a state of “prophetic rapture” (I, 9, 10, 19). There is no place for geographical calculations in it. Therefore, the letters themselves do not certify only a local purpose. They address themselves to “everyone who has an ear to hear” (II, 7, 11, 17, 29; III, 6, 13, 22) and are directed to precisely named churches (II, 7, 11, 29; III, 6, 13, 22), so that “all the churches in Asia” may understand the teachings of the Lord (II, 23). 25 This does not deny their application to individuals of that time: “I will reward each of you according to his deeds and merits” (II, 23), but in each of them one should see in the words of God the dogmatic, generally binding commandments of the Apostle for all Christianity. 26 From this side, they closely correspond to the general tone of the Apocalypse in its universal church-authoritative exhortation, since they reveal and state “what is and what will happen after this”; at the same time, there are not just theoretical arguments and moral edifications about what John “saw” (I, 19). Therefore, the further course of the story is closely connected with the abstract about the messages, like the transfer of the former “after this” (IV, 1). XXII, 16) and included all the apocalyptic content. Therefore, I myself decide to assert that the Asian Epistles of St. John, neither separately nor in the aggregate, 28 were released separately from the entire Apocalypse and are its ideological and ingredient elements, 29 receiving equal reliability and the same authority. All other experiments, not justified by factual data, compromise themselves by the fact that they must make arbitrary textual corrections, omit or distort the entire introduction (I, 4 et seq.) and the end of the book (XXII, 16, compare I, 4, 11, 20; II, 11, 17, 23, 29; III, 6, 13, 22) - not in the name of objective criticism, not representing the slightest textual support, but to adapt to their theories, which for this very reason turn out to be violent, unsuitable and fruitless. § 5. APOCALYPSE AS A BOOK OF VISIONS OF GOD’S REVELATION In the end, we find that the Apocalypse is a book of visions of the revelation of the mysteries of God. She confirms visions to us not with direct messages and clear words, but in contemplated images, because the most mysterious objects defy our understanding and cannot be expressed by simple descriptions. This means that all apocalyptic visions have the replacing nature of a symbolic reminder and typically illustrative clarity. But symbols should never be taken for the genuine “truth of things,” but must be penetrated into the very (Rev. Prof. H. V. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John. P. XL); however, we must not forget that the entire book (from I, 4 to the end) is actually a single letter (R. H. Charles: A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, I, p. 8; cp. y Rev. Prof. H. B. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John. P. 40). understand their essence and assimilate their ideological and doctrinal content. This also applies to apocalyptic messages. They were published under the inspiration of the One who is “Alpha and Omega” (I, 10), and they offer what the Seer saw, why only this was seen by the churches of Asia Minor. The letters themselves speak more about exposing what is happening and about instructions of the normal order, about theoretical edifications; but even in the command itself regarding the recording of what was seen, a loud voice dominates, in fact, which can be heard, and not seen with the eyes. It is clear that the concept of visions, equally contemplated and heard, in their mutual combination with the predominance of one or another element, embraces all revelation from above, due to which the general characteristic of the Apocalypse is also applicable to the collection of messages. What do we find there? - The author first states that he is a brother in Christ to the readers and their partner in tribulation for the promised kingdom, with patience in the spirit and power of His Divine Founder, the Lord Savior, and is now on the small island of the Aegean Sea, Patmos, for the word of God which he proclaimed, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ (I, 9), the Faithful Witness in the atoning ministry, life-giving death and sovereign-royal resurrection, after washing us from sins with His Blood, who, out of immeasurable love, made us co-royal with Him and, therefore, likened us to His self-devotion to the Father, that is, as priests to God. And Christ - the Son - will not leave His true confessors, but will appear a second time with irresistible brightness for enemies and pagans throughout the universe, as is undoubtedly the supreme authority in the Primary Source and Finisher of all existence, Who in this essential dignity is naturally above all created being and therefore timeless in beginning and end - was, is and will be forever (I, 5–8). He Himself is the inspirer of the Apocalyptic during the prophetic rapture on the island of Patmos on Sunday (I, 10). Upon direct examination, it turned out that he was endowed with a high priesthood - like the Son of Man, with the experience and wisdom of a venerable old man, with the keen insight of a mature man and with the indestructible strength of an adult youth, and in general - the Lord of all churches, an unhypocritical Judge and a brilliant sun for everyone, savingly illuminating our earthly position and the entire further path to heaven (I, 12-16). And, since it is impossible for an earth-born person to see God (cf. John I, 18), the contemplator, out of ecstatic horror, fell at the feet of the Lord as if dead. But it was the Author and Source of the eternal life, who created it by His resurrection and contained hell and death in His right hand, which is why he immediately erected the Seer and repeated the command to write what he saw (I, 16-19). In this image the features of God the Father and the Son the Redeemer are perceived; however, it is the Last One who appears, uniting in His person and deed all the Divine virtues. And this is because Christ the Lord appears everywhere in the Apocalypse as personally Divine and one with God the Father, and in all visions and appearances the One Divinity acts throughout the entire book of Revelation, where this essential unification of the Divine Persons under the common Divinity prevails. In this case, the more dazzling is the divine authentication of the collection of messages together with the whole as a divine scripture, which affirms the truth in images and must be understood in the spirit of mysterious symbolism. 30 § 6. METHOD OF LITERARY IMAGE IN THE APOCALYPSE AND METHOD OF EXEGETIC EXPLANATION OF IT Then it is beyond doubt that symbols are used there instead and in the dignity of words, replacing them in meaning and location. To these symbols we must apply all the features of verbal and literary speech and be guided by the same rules of interpretation of the Apocalypse, assimilated by John the Theologian, and, therefore, we must conform in the exegesis of the Book of Revelation with the literary techniques and manners of the Apostle of Love. And it is characteristic of him that he avoids dogmatically complete expressions that immediately state the whole truth in all its roundness and detailed clarity. On the contrary, first a general image is given, and then one feature is isolated from it, then the latter is noted again and characterized comprehensively in its individuality, filling it with its own special content. With such repetitions, phrases are strung on top of each other and connected with each other, like rings in a chain, and the thought gradually grows and with each sentence is enriched with new matters, when as a result it reaches the entire ideological completeness of the exact designation. This literary manner of the Apostle John in the predominant use of anaphora 31 is fully reflected in the apocalyptic use of images and symbols, some of which are repeated in this vision, in the next they reveal more and continue the chosen concept in its natural development and growth. Parallel to language, in apocalyptic contemplations we find gradual generalizations based on the previous, the addition of new pictures, etc. All this formulates for us an exegetical norm, which should serve as a guiding principle of interpretation. Here we come closer and seem to coincide with the “recapitulation system” long accepted in science in revealing the images of the Apocalypse, but the similarity between us is only in the idea of ​​“repetition”, and it is utilized very differently. “Recapitulation,” methodologically not justified by anything other than better exegetical suitability, asserts the reproduction of the entire pattern or even a whole complex of them and presupposes only pure renewals of the former (repetitio), at least from the other side and under a different symbolic form. The main idea does not develop or expand, and the image, covered on top with subsequent layers, only grows upward and gradually moves away from contemplation, becomes heavy and fades. With our method, when a new addition is added to a part of the general, the expansion goes in breadth and is accompanied by an organic addition of realistic details, and the result is a bright and living picture, where all the particulars are closely connected and, by their totality, express the ideas in their entirety. There is no tedious and vain doubling of identical content, but a constant renewal of it with progressive enrichment and specific expressiveness prevails. § 7. GENERAL CONTENT OF THE APOCALYPSE Of course, for this there must be complete cycles, which in turn are interconnected, forming a whole harmonious gallery of related paintings, clearly and plastically illustrating the entire mysterious phenomenon. But these circles are not precisely marked and must be determined in accordance with the apocalyptic goal set, so that the very content in its organic revelation is destined accordingly to it. In this regard, it is clear that the messages, preceded by an introduction common to the entire book (I, 1-3) and a special introduction for them (I, 4-20), stand out in a coherent group in comparison with the rest of the parts; all find their place in the chain of revelation already through connection with all parts, as equally serving a single aspiration, achieved according to a systematic plan. The task of the Apocalyptic was to contemplate what was shown and write down what was seen (I, 2, 11, 19) regarding “what should soon be” (I, 1; XXII, 6), as if a historical forecast was being verified, but the stated “speed” is not at all absolute and is commensurate with the fact that “the time is near” (I, 3; XXII, 10), and the latter embraces the entire unlimited period of the complete implementation of the destinies of God in the world (cf.: 1 Cor. VII, 29) and was accelerated in the early Christian consciousness by intense “parousia” expectations, 32 which are now decisively seen in ὑ πομοῇ (I, 9). 33 Consequently, the entire future of Christianity is captured, revealed in changing chronological visions (IV, 1). Due to this eschatological character, the entire Apocalypse is rightly called a book of prophecy (XXII, 7, 18), 34 just as John himself was sometimes directly called to prophesy (X, 11). But the future of something is unthinkable without its existence in a known factual state. Therefore, it is argued here that the Apocalyptic had to depict historical Christian reality as it was depicted in the light of revelation in connection with everything to come. John could not contemplate anything outside these boundaries, and therefore in the words of command to him (I, 19): “Write what you saw, and what is, and what will happen after this,” the first “and” is exegetical and expresses that what was seen was the present and the future. Of course, all modernity rests on what preceded it and certainly affirms it, but the latter is already absorbed by the emerging reality and has no significance outside of it. This association is characterized by evidence (I, 8) that the Almighty “is, and was, and is to come,” somewhat unusual, since the past always happens before the later and never vice versa. And it cannot be said that the first term makes known “the One” in Jehovah, who has always been and will always be. It is impossible to agree with this interpretation, because “is” is not at all a qualified object, and its very qualification is on a par with the other two. And it is given from the point of view of being as such, and from here the extraordinary form ὁ ἦν is explained, which decisively states this side by its very originality; placing it in second place says that the past has not at all passed in the stream of times as a vanished stream, but is entirely contained in the present, which only for this reason exists in its ontological dignity. In turn, it is declared about the former that it is important only in its continuation, as a previous stage that functions in the future, and in itself no longer possesses the energy of independent strength and effectiveness. In this regard, apocalyptic messages also presuppose something of the past, but in their presence they are illuminated by the radiance of everything to come. This is their mutual connection and internal relationship. We now receive two main parts for the Apocalypse, of which the first specifically describes and fundamentally analyzes Christian modernity, the second reveals the inevitable future for it. For one, seven points of application are indicated, the other should show the immediate subsequent and final in the history of the militant Church of God, and both of them depict the destinies of the kingdom of Christ on earth. This is the general apocalyptic content. For all the theories about the composition and origin of our book of Revelation, see in detail V.V. Chetyrkin: Apocalypse of St. Apostle John the Theologian, isagogical study. Petrograd, 1916 (pp. 56–70; 71–126; 127–140; 140–182; 183–261). – Die Einheit der Apokalypse gegen die neuesten Hypothesen der Bibelkritik verteidigt von Pfarrer Dr. Matthias Kohlhofer. "Biblische Studien". Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Bartenhewer, Band VII, Heft 4, Freiburg i Bresgau, 1902. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen. I. und Apok. Joh. XII, von Hermann Gunkel mit Beiträgen von Prof. Heinrich Zimmermann. Göttingen, 1921. See † Prof. Wilhelm Bousset: Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judenthums des neuen Testaments und der alten Kirchë ein Betrag zur Auslegung der Apokalypse. Güttingen 1895, pp. 169–173. Comp. precisely for the XII chapter of the Apocalypse and Archdeacon R. N. Charles: A Commentary an the Revelation of St. John I, p. 311, 313, that there is neither Babylonism nor Parsism there. The latter must be said especially about Franz Boll's search for Aus der Offenbarung Johannis: hellenische Studien zum Weltbild der Apokalypse. Berlin, 1914, where the author draws on Hellenistic ideas oversaturated with Orientalism, in particular for “cosmic-astrological elements in the Apocalypse” (p. 128), but all these are just extremely strained parallelisms for pre-interpreted apocalyptic texts and only indicate that there was some pre-prepared ground for a peculiar perception of apocalyptic revelations. This, for example, we see in The Rev. Douglas: New Light and the Revelation of St. John the Divine. London, 1923. I note only some of the most characteristic places. “The author was not necessarily confined to Hebrew sources” – “the last hand work over the apocalyptic material, to us, – the most important. He is no clumsy Redactor, but the prophet. “He is no clumsy ubra have the mystic tradition of the 9 reacohave semitic border – the Christian Lives in which we have it” (P. 48). Therefore, “with the mecoveny of the earlier model of Revelation we are able to follow the process of evolution in apocalyptic science fairly completely and... the results are of far – reaching importance” (P. 123), that “Revelation is a Synthesis of mystic speculation, not the worn of any single man but the result of a growth covering centuries and proceeding a definite, quasiscientific line. – First, we have the ancient cosmic System of the Apocalypse of the Thiane, existing certainly, in a fairly complete state, at least as early as the time of Everrieb, and probably formed the common stock of Canaanita theology in the days of the Kingdoms of Israels and Judah. – Later this cosmic apocalypse was given a secondary application to the sacrificial System of the Sanctuary (or Sanctuaries) of the one God. It is not safe, in our present state of knowledge, to decide whether this specialization was exclusively Jeuruh or wether ayam it was common Stocks. The question is, however, not of immediate importance in studying the ultimate Christian prophecy, because the ancestry of the last must have been in the Hebrew rather than in any Gentils, in the combination of the Thiane and of the Sanctuary – with definite relation to the Jerusalem Temple and probably with an eschatological or Messianic twist. – Lastly, the whole concept was spiritualized (for the) purpose of the rejection of the bloody sacrifices. The result is the Apocalypse of the Lamb and the incorporation of this in the old body of tradition gives exactly the Revelation of St. John the Divine." Apart from the preface and epilogue, the following texts are all that could not naturally have been part of the teaching of the Baptist (P. 146–147), whom S. E. Douglas considers the compiler of our Apocalypse. But, in this case, what remains and is there in him that is independent and specifically Christian in origin and nature? For example, interpolations are approved in I, 4, 8; VIII, 7–12; XIV, 3, 4, 15–17; XX, 13, etc., XVII, 14 is inserted instead of the interpolated XIX 9–6-10, movements are allowed in the XVIII chapter, XVI, 5–6-7 are placed after XIX and XVI, 15 after III, 3, and XIV, 12,13 and XVII, 15 – before XIV, 1 and XVII, 1. For an instructive example, see the typical study of the aged patriarch on the biblical-textual critical operations of transformation and violence, Prof. Wekhausen'a: Analyze der Offenbarung Johannis. Berlin, 1907. Yes. R. H. Charles condemns “a hoghly hazardous proceeding” when something in Chapter X is attributed to one author, and something else to another (I, pp. 257, 261, 263), but for his part claims that the Apocalypse is an unfinished and unrevised work, so, for example, XII, 14–16; XVIII, 4 represent in 95 (I, p. 315) meaningless remnants of old, long-standing aspirations, and it is edited by some incapable student (I, p. 153), who always makes up for erroneous additions (I, p. 203), and “his manipulation of the text” (II, p. 6) “so badly attested readings” (III, p. 339, 616), and himself R. H. Charles resumes the original original, “by a happy conjecture (1, p. 237), although (for example, in the XX chapter) “the best authorities support the abnormal (in his opinion) text” (II, p. 237) and even so that (in XIV, 18 and XIX, 12) the style is the author’s (II, p. 31) and “though the dictum is Johannine, – the clause appears, to be interpolated" (II, p. 132). See Associate Professor A. A. Zhdanov in his speech before defending his dissertation on June 4, 1891 in “Additions to the works of St. Fathers", XLVIII, Moscow, 1891, book. III, pp. 264–270–275) From the old ones, see for example: Die Offenbarung des heiligen Johannes fü r solche die in der Schrift forschen, erlä utert von Prof. Dr. E. W. Hangstenberg. Bande I–II, 1–2, Berlin, 1849, 1850, 1851; of the newest – Die Offenbarung des Johannes ausgelegt von Prof. Dr. Theodor Lahn (1–2 Hälfte). Leipzig, 1924, 1926 in his Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Band XVIII. See Apoc. X. 4 and cp. Rev. Prof. H. B. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John: the Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices. London, 1907, R. 1266. We have a certain illustration of this in the fate of our great writer N.V. Gogol, “whose religious consciousness was apocalyptic: the earth is burning, the heavens are twisting, the dead are rising from their graves, monsters are growing from the seeds of our sins.” – “Gogol’s religious view is eschatological, because the last times are coming, the birth date of the Antichrist; those faithful to Christ will suffer great torment; The Antichrist is already partially born; he incarnates in people, taking possession of souls.” See prof. K. V. Mochulsky; Gogol's spiritual path. Paris, 1931, p. 33. All this is similar to the depiction of the Apocalypse, but, as you know, Gogol was not understood by “enlightened contemporaries” and was declared abnormal... Lengthy catechism of Metropolitan Philaret. Preliminary concepts. Moscow, 1903, p. 4. Wed. Rev. Prof. H. V. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John, p. CLXXIÏ “it is not the purpose of the Apocalypse to teach Christian doctrine, but to inspire Christian hope.” This is especially certain if the “Witness” in XXII, 18 and 20 is the Apostle John himself, who wrote them at the end of the book of Revelation, as we assume. Therefore, the newest statements (in Prof. Ernst Lohmeyer: Die Offenbarung des Johannes, S. 13), allegedly ἐ γενόμην, 10, state that when recording the apocalyptic visions, St. John was not on Patmos, do not have a theoretical probability, and the indicated verbal form does not describe time in general, but the existence and state of the contemplator during the period depicted in the book of visions. Yes, Prof. Theodor Lahn believes (Die Offenbarung des Johannes, I, 8. 319) that “die Pause zwischen der ersten und der zweiten Vision von Johannes dazu benüzt worden ist, das bis dahin Geschaute und Gehö rte aufzuzeichnen”, just as in general it cannot be allowed that the supreme commands γρ ά ψον were delayed in execution longer than the time required by circumstances, when John could not know whether new revelations would follow what he had seen. Rev. Prof. H. V. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John. P. CXVIII; Rudolphus Cornely, S. J.: Introductio specialist in singulos Novi Testamenti libros. Parisiis 2 1925, p. 700; Prof. Dr. Theodor Lahn: Die Offenbarung des Johannes, I, 53. Prof. Adolf von Harnack: Die Apostelgeschichte. Untersuchungen. Leipzig, 1908, S. 2, 1: “Matthäus hat immer die Gemeinde vor sich und spricht liturgisch... er ein Lesebuch für den kultischen Gebrauch schaffen wollte”; this is “Gemeindebuch, erstes liturgische Buch der christlichen Kirche, zunächst der palästinischen”; Prof. A.v. Harnack: Lukas der Arzt, der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte. Leipzig, 1906, S. 120). Compare in my book: St. Apostle Luke, Evangelist and Writer. Sofia, 1932, p. 120. Compare and Post merit Selmar Keferstein: Die Offenbarung Johannes nach rein symbolischer Auffasung. Gütersloh, 1907. S. 51. See Rev. Prof. H. V. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John. P. 216. Rev. Prof. H. V. Swetë The Apocalypse of St. John. P. CXXXV. Prof. Ernst Lohmeyer: Die Offenbarung des Johannes. S. 14. It is only in this sense that it can be accepted that the seven Asian churches had the claim to represent the very earliest Christianity (Prof. Ernst Lohmeyer: Die Offenbarung des Johannes. S. 40). Prof. Dr. Theodor Lahn: Die Offenbarung des Johannes ausgelegt, II, S. 629. Such breaks for a similar purpose Prof. Dr. Theodor Lahn admits not only between chapters III and IV, but also in other places (Die Offenbarung des Iohannes ausgelegt, I, S. 317, 319; XIV, S. 534 for XV, 5 f. 614 for the time between the 9th and 10th visions). See Prof. Ernst Lohmeyer; Die Offenbarung des Johannes. S. 39. It is said that if the second part of the Apocalypse had been lost (XII, 1 – XXII, 5), it would have remained unnoticed Cp. Post merit Selmar Keferstein: Die Offenbarung St. Johannes nach rein symbolischen Auffassung. Gütersloh, 1907; See the dissertation of I.V. Bazhanov; Characteristics of the fourth Gospel in terms of content and language in connection with the question of the origin of the Gospel. Kazan, 1907, pp. 322 et seq. About her, see I.V. Bazhanov, previous note. See below, in the treatise “On Canvas”. Prof. Ernst Lohmeyer: Die Offenbarung des Johannes, S. 13. Prof. Theodor Lahn: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, II. Leipzig, 2, 1907, S. 604; Prof. Ernst Lohmeyer: Die Offenbarung des Johannes, S. 189, 194. You might be interested in: