Interpretation of the book Apocalypse

Ἀποκάλυψις ABOUT THE REVELATION (APOCALYPSE) OF THE HOLY APOSTLE JOHN THE THEOLOGIST Tradition of the Apocalypse Self-testimony of the Apocalypse about the writer Time, place and purpose of writing the Apocalypse Purpose and method of interpretation of the Apocalypse Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In the series of evidence about the origin of any sacred book, the first place belongs to the testimony of tradition. If all church antiquity, from almost the time to which the book is attributed, speaks in a certain way about its origin, then we are fully authorized to believe this voice of the Church, and the internal data of the book itself are then of secondary importance. This is what must be remembered above all when critically examining the Apocalypse. Based on an examination of the content and language of the book in connection with the content and language of the fourth Gospel, criticism has invented many hypotheses regarding its origin, but for us the most important fact is that the most ancient church tradition considers the Apocalypse to be the writing of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. True, Ignatius the God-Bearer does not say anything about the origin of the Apocalypse, but he already knows it. Nothing other than the attitude towards this sacred book should explain some of the expressions of the apostolic man, as, for example, in the letter to the Ephesians XV, 3 - cf. Rev. 21 and others. From the writings of another most important witness of antiquity, Papias, we have only fragments. But, fortunately, Bishop Andrew of Caesarea (5th century), in the introduction to his interpretation of the Apocalypse, classifies Papias as a guarantor for his dignity. The testimony of the learned commentator is all the more valuable because he, of course, himself read the work of Papias, traces of whose existence are still found at a much later time. Elsewhere in his interpretation, Andrew quotes Papias literally. Among those links that connect the apostolic age with subsequent generations that did not convert with the apostles, the first place belongs to St. Polycarp of Smyrna. He is the main and direct witness of the apostolic tradition for his disciple Irenaeus, and through the latter - for the entire Church. Irenaeus testifies that Polycarp was not only taught by the apostles and treated many who saw the Lord, but was also made bishop of Smyrna by the apostles. Of the apostles, Polycarp was especially close to St. John, which Irenaeus testified in his letter to Florinus and Victor of Rome. The entire significance of Polycarp is based on his relationship to Ap. John, and then on the fact that Irenaeus is, of course, the mouth of Polycarp and the other elders. Consequently, Irenaeus’ messages about the Apocalypse can be traced back to the same source. And so, as for Irenaeus, he is a witness to the recognition of the divine inspiration of the Apocalypse as coming from the Holy Spirit. He considers his writer to be “John, the disciple of the Lord” - a stereotypical phrase for the Apostle John. The writer of this sacred book is identical with the writer of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus also provides literal excerpts from the Apocalypse. Then St. Irenaeus authenticates the number 666 (not 616) and discusses its meaning. Finally, he also speaks out regarding the time of origin of the Apocalypse, attributing it to the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian. Along with these main ones, there is a whole series of witnesses regarding the dignity of Revelation. Their voices, although sometimes not completely defined due to the loss of sources, nevertheless, in their agreement, represent something harmonious and impressive. Thus, the testimony of St. Justin the philosopher in “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew.” According to him, the Apocalypse was written by “a certain man named John, one of the apostles of Christ.” He also has expressions that are explained by his dependence on the Apocalypse. Justin's testimony is important, firstly, because of its certainty; secondly, because he is a witness to the tradition of the Church of Ephesus - the first of the seven apocalyptic churches. Further, among the works of the prolific second-century writer Melito of Sardis, Eusebius names one: “On the Devil and on the Apocalypse of John.” Theophilus of Antioch, in his work against the heresy of Hermogenes, used, according to the same Eusebius, evidence from the revelation of John. This fact indicates the general acceptance of the Apocalypse at that time and in the Antiochian Church. Eusebius, whose interests were to find evidence that the Apocalypse was not written by the Apostle John, obviously did not find the slightest confirmation for his thesis in the works of the named writers. It is very important that the Apocalypse was recognized by the church writer Apollonius. The importance of his recognition of the dignity of this sacred book is determined by the fact that Apollonius was an opponent of the Montanists, against whom his work was directed. And it is known that the Montanists made wide use of the Apocalypse. Unfortunately, only a few excerpts from this work have come down to us from Eusebius. As for Apollonius’s attitude to the Apocalypse, here we have a brief remark by Eusebius about Apollonius’ use of evidence from the revelation of John. Eusebius, of course, could not object to the authorship of the Apostle John on the basis of the work of Apollonius, but that Apollonius gave interesting information regarding the stay of Evsebius. John in Ephesus, this follows from the story noted by the historian about the resurrection of the dead by the apostle. Based on 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, the Bishop of Ephesus in the second half of the second century, mentions John reclining on the chest of the Lord. Polycrates calls this John - of course, the apostle - a witness and teacher - μάρτυς και διδάσκαλος. In the name μάρτυς it is fair to see an allusion to John’s writing of the Apocalypse, since this name corresponds to apocalyptic terminology and cannot mean a martyr due to the fact that it is placed before διδάσκαλος; In addition, the understanding of the word μάρτυς in the sense of martyr contradicts the entire church tradition about the Apostle. John. From the message of the churches of Lyon and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia about the persecution under Marcus Aurelius in 177, it is clear that the Apocalypse was widely used by Christians as a book of comfort, since this message contains many parallels to the expressions of the Apocalypse. At one point in the message it is directly quoted as “Scripture.” Of the non-church witnesses to the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, with the exception of the Montanists, one can point to Leucius Charinus, the author of περίοδοι Ιωάννου. Levky, who belonged to the school of Valentinus in a broad sense, can be classified as a witness to the Asia Minor tradition. Tsang places the appearance of his work within the period of 140–200. Ap. John, according to Leucius, is obviously the author of not only the Gospel and 1 Epistle, but also the Apocalypse. In his description of the journey of the Apostle John, this heretic clearly adheres to the messages 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 the writing of the Apostle John. Only the voice of the alogs sounds dissonant in this consonant chorus of witnesses to his canonical dignity. But the criticism of the alogs is so weak that it probably has not found any significant acceptance. At least, the most heretical movement that the Alogs produced appears, according to sources, to have 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 Alogs is probably the result of a heated polemic against the Montanists, and their criticism had exclusively dogmatic, and not historical, grounds. In addition, it testifies that the church of that time attributed Ap. John has both the fourth Gospel with the epistle and the revelation. As for the tradition of the Roman Church, the Muratorian fragment, which testifies to the state of the Roman canon around the time of Pope Pius I († about 155), names the Apocalypse twice - the second time along with the Apocalypse of Peter. The Apocalypse is further quoted by Hippolytus, who wrote both an interpretation and an apology for it under the title: “Chapters against Caius.” Caius, a Roman presbyter, had a negative attitude towards the Apocalypse; perhaps he attributed it to Cerinthos. However, Kai's polemic against the Apocalypse is not higher in merit than the polemic of the Alogs and was caused by dogmatic grounds. In the Roman Church itself it did not have the slightest success. In Africa, Tertullian and Cyprian accept the Apocalypse. Clement of Alexandria does not at all doubt his apostolic origin, and his voice can be traced even further - to Panten. Origen, who began the critical study of the Holy Scriptures, does not doubt at all the apostolic origin of the revelation of John. A new era in the history of criticism of the Apocalypse in the ancient church is opened by St. Dionysius, first the teacher of the catechetical school in Alexandria, and from 247 the bishop of Alexandria. The reason for his criticism was given by the struggle with the chiliasts, whose leader was Bishop Nepos, who left for the guidance of his supporters the essay: “The Refutation of the Allegorists.” St. Dionysius, in refutation of this, wrote an essay: “On the Promises,” in which he discusses in detail the Apocalypse of St. John. Dionysius of Alexandria does not directly reject the book, considers it worthy of respect, but doubts that its writer was Ap. John, son of Zebedee, author of the Gospel and the Council Epistle. Dionysius obtains his arguments by comparing the Apocalypse and other writings of the Ap. John. The evidence of the Bishop of Alexandria is based on the difference between the Apocalypse and the Gospel and the Epistle of John in content and language. Also, John’s reference to himself in the Apocalypse does not agree, according to Dionysius, with the way the apostle identifies himself in the Gospel. Although, according to Dionysius, one must believe that the writer of the Apocalypse was John, based on everything he said, it is doubtful that it was the Apostle John. It is difficult to define John the Apocalyptic more precisely. It is most likely that there was another John in Asia, especially since in Ephesus there are said to be two graves, each of them attributed to John. This is the judgment of Dionysius of Alexandria about the Apocalypse. Until recently, there are people who consider Dionysius’s reasoning to be a model of philological and critical research (Renan). But we must treat the criticism of the learned Alexandrian with more restraint. Hardly anyone will now agree with the statement that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel do not have even a syllable in common with the message. Despite all the differences in language, the latest research reveals remarkable parallels between them. The criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria cannot shake the conviction that before him the Apocalypse occupied a very firm position in the canon, like the scriptures of St. John - Apostle and Evangelist. It is nowhere visible that he took the path of internal criticism because he did not find any support for himself in historical tradition. If the tradition had been unstable or confused, then, undoubtedly, Dionysius would have taken advantage of this state of affairs. That he was aware of the worthless protest of the alogs is evident from an excerpt from the essay “On the Promises,” preserved by Eusebius. Dionysius had no historical basis for the hypothesis of two Ephesian Johns, which is why he seized on the rumor about two graves in Ephesus, each of which was said to be John’s. Criticism of Dionysius could not completely destroy respect for the Apocalypse as an apostolic scripture: the tradition was very strong. And we see that such men as Methodius, Pamphilus, Lactantius, Victorinus, Commodianus consider and use the Apocalypse as the writing of the Apostle John. The first to be clearly influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria was the famous Eusebius of Caesarea. But in his list of canonical books he also places the Apocalypse among the generally accepted ones - ομολογούμενα, “if you wish”; and then, “if you like,” between the false ones - νόθα, that is, he mentions it under two completely opposite and incompatible headings, appealing to personal taste. Elsewhere, regarding an excerpt from Papias’s preface to his work, Eusebius repeats Dionysius’s hypothesis about the two Johns of Ephesus, and also refers to the existence in Ephesus of two graves attributed to John. From all the arguments of Eusebius, it is clear that he has no historical data. Obviously, he had no one behind him except Dionysius, whose argument about the two graves he uses. In Demonstratio evangelica, Eusebius cites the Apocalypse as New Testament authority. Subsequent time does not provide anything interesting for the history of the question of the position of the Apocalypse in the New Testament canon. The fathers faced a dilemma: either follow the tradition of the church, or their personal taste, often determined by the direction of the school. Therefore, further it is impossible to find any research about our book, but we simply have to note which church writer recognized the Apocalypse or simply quoted it and which did not. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386), in the fourth catechumen, recounted all the holy books of our canon with the exception of the Apocalypse. On the contrary, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus († 403) accepts the Apocalypse and refutes in detail the objections against it from the Alogians. John Chrysostom does not quote the Apocalypse. The opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia about him is unknown. In the same way, Theodorit does not quote the Apocalypse anywhere. Junilius, a 6th-century African bishop, notes that regarding the Apocalypse “there is considerable doubt among Eastern Christians.” St. Ephraim the Syrian († 373) does not quote him. St. John of Damascus († 750) considers the Apocalypse among the canonical writings. St. Gregory the Theologian uses it, as do Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. St. Amphilochius of Icopius says that the majority considers this book to be fraudulent. But in Alexandria itself she is received by St. Athanasius the Great. Further, it is accepted by Cyril of Alexandria, Dadim Nilus, Isidore Pelusiot. In the 5th century, Bishop Andrew of Caesarea writes an interpretation of the Apocalypse; Another bishop of Caesarea, Arethas, does the same later. 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, by the way, are Hilary of Pictavia, Ambrose, the Donatist Tikhonius, Blessed. Augustine et al. Negative opinions regarding the Apocalypse by representatives of theological thought since the 4th century could not have any significance due to the conditions in which they were expressed. In fact, they are neither the fruit of a thorough study of ancient church tradition, nor the fruit of a free critical study of the book. The attitude of this or that writer towards it, apparently, was simply determined by personal taste or the traditions of the school. In view of the remarkable and concordant evidence of deeper antiquity, we can assert that the Apocalypse is brilliantly attested by ancient church tradition, like the writings of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Self-testimony of the Apocalypse about the writer. After all that has been said, it is necessary to turn to the book of revelation itself and see how far its own testimony confirms the opinion about the writing of the apostle. John calls himself a servant of God. Addressing the Christians of Asia Minor, he calls himself their brother and accomplice in the tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, and also reports that he was on the island called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. John sends his book, written in the form of an epistle, to the seven churches located in Asia: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. As the letters to the seven churches show, the apocalyptic man was well acquainted with the state of their external and internal life, which was only possible if he spent a long time in Asia Minor. That's all we can learn about the writer from the Apocalypse itself. As the name John shows, the apocalyptic was a Palestinian Jew, and not a Hellenist - the latter were not in the habit of bearing Jewish names. Obviously, long before the writing of the Apocalypse, he moved to Asia and occupied the highest position among Christians there. He was such a prominent figure in 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 am John, who hears and sees these things” (Rev. 22:8). This meaning of apocalyptic could not be based on his hierarchical position, but to explain it it is necessary to assume another basis. Such a basis for John's authority could only be his apostolic dignity. But not only the nature of the self-designation of the writer of the Apocalypse is more understandable if we consider the apostle to be such, but the very tone of unlimited authority with which at least the epistles to the seven churches were written does not make it possible for one of the ordinary Christians to assimilate them, even if he is a very respected person. In fact, every bishop can say about himself that he, too, has the Spirit of God, but it is worth paying attention to the tone of Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians. The writer speaks on behalf of his church and avoids everything that would express his personal authority. Here the ardent Ignatius writes to some of those churches to which the apocalyptic was supposed to send his book. But he also expresses himself in the most moderate tone. Even the epistles of the Apostles Peter and Paul are not as expressive as the apocalyptic epistles. In view of all this, it is completely impossible to attribute the Apocalypse not to the Apostle, but to some other John. If, further, they would point out to us that Christ in the New Testament Apocalypse is described exclusively by sublime and supranatural features, which is understandable only in the mouth of a person who did not interact with the Lord in His earthly life, and in general they would assert that in the Apocalypse there are no traces of the writer’s personal relationship with the Savior, then for the first we would find a satisfactory explanation, but with the latter we may not entirely agree. The nature of the work is determined by the individuality of the author, and among the disciples of Christ we must assume a personality who, from considering the human-historical features of the Lord, has risen completely to the contemplation of His divine and premium essence. Humanity is not so poor in character that Providence does not find among it a worthy organ of Its revelations. To assert that the height of contemplation manifested in John in his ideal view of the face of Christ is impossible for the self-seeing Savior means to contradict the facts known from the history of religious life. After all, even not very high characters sometimes received divine veneration from their extremely mystical admirers. The Personality of the Lord, considered from a historical point of view, is so complete in revealing the features of His highest origin that, under certain conditions, it takes possession of the entire human heart. As for the traces of John’s personal conversion with the Lord in the Apocalypse, we do not have the right to persistently look for them here in view of the prophetic nature and apocalyptic form of expression of ideas in the work. With all this, together with Tsang, one can point to the touching scene described in Rev. 1:17–18. John writes, describing the likeness of the Son of Man who appeared to him: “When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as if dead. And He laid His right hand on me, saying: Do not be afraid: I am the first and the last and the living; and was dead and is alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of hell and death." This is touching: “he laid his right hand on me”; this assurance: “He was dead and behold is alive forever and ever,” attributed to the Son of Man, whose face is like the sun shining in its power, and whose voice is like the sound of many waters, who holds in His right hand seven stars and has a sword coming out of His mouth sharp on both sides - this laying on of His right hand and this assurance are understandable only on the assumption that the apocalyptic was a close disciple of the Lord. It was the disciple who reclined on the chest of Jesus, John, we can affirm both on the basis of tradition and on the basis of the self-testimony of the Apocalypse. They object to the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse by pointing to Rev. 21:14 and Rev. 18:20. In the first case it is said that on the foundations of the new Jerusalem the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are written; in the second, saints, apostles, and prophets are invited to rejoice over the destruction of Babylon. They say that especially the first of the above verses is inappropriate in the mouth of a person belonging to the ranks of the twelve, and that in general the apostles are spoken of here very objectively. The objection, however, will not seem fundamental at all if we keep in mind that the number of twelve apostles was not accidental, but has a symbolic meaning. The consciousness of this significance was especially alive among the apostles, as the first chapter of the book of Acts shows. In view of this, when mentioned in Rev. 21:14 about the twelve apostles. John may not have had in mind the personalities of Christ’s disciples; the number 12 as such was important to him. The fundamental significance of the apostolic ministry could be affirmed in the apostolic age and by the apostle. Yes, and St. Paul calls Christians built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). The call in Rev. 18:20 is understandable in view of the fact that by the time the Apocalypse was written, almost all the apostles had already died. The comparison of apostles and prophets is found in Eph 3:5. Based on all of the above, it can be argued that the self-testimony of the Apocalypse about the writer not only does not speak against his apostolic origin, but is rather understandable when recognizing that the author of the book was St. Apostle John, son of Zebedee 1. Objections to the writing of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John, based on the difference between its content and language from the content and language of the Fourth Gospel. Even Dionysius of Alexandria decisively argued for the difference between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel, which does not allow them to be attributed to the same author. For modern criticism, this difference also served as a basis for denying that one of these two writings belonged to the Apostle John. But by now, the scientific study of Johannine literature has put the question we raised on a different path. Many points of contact are recognized between the Apocalypse and other writings of John, forcing, at least, to assume their origin in the same school (Thus Joh. Weiss, Weizsacker, Bousset). We do not have the opportunity to discuss here in detail how grounded or unfounded are the indications of the difference between the teachings of the Apocalypse and the Gospel with the Epistles, and we will limit ourselves to only pointing out the most striking parallels between them. These parallels are all the more important because the differences, if their indications are not exaggerated, are quite explainable from the nature of revelation as prophetic writing, written, moreover, in an apocalyptic form. The general tone of the Apocalypse coincides with the tone of the Gospel and the Epistles of John. Just as in the first, the executions and death of the wicked are depicted in bright colors, in sharp colors, in gloomy images, so in the Gospel and epistles one can find many harsh expressions, one can see a special decisiveness in the thoughts expressed. The latter, in turn, is explained by the nature of Ap’s views. John. Opposites were drawn before his eyes, he imagined all the 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 the children of the devil, into those who walk in the light and those who walk in darkness, into the wicked and those who keep the commandments of God and those who have the testimony of Jesus, who did not worship the beast and his image and did not receive his mark on their foreheads and on their hands - this sharp division is carried out by John in all his writings, constituting their peculiarity. In addition to the similarity in general character, we also note the same similarity in the following frequent points. The Christology of the Apocalypse coincides with the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. The parallels are in some cases surprising. Thus, in the Alocalypse, the Messiah is often depicted under the image of the Lamb - τό αρνίον. He is also called the Lamb ό αμνός in the fourth Gospel (John 1:36). The prologue of the latter offers a coherent doctrine of Christ as the divine Logos; in Rev. 19:13 we read about the Messiah: “and His name is called the Word of God.” The apocalypticist, who often represents Christ under the image of the Lamb, depicts Him in the most exalted features. The evangelist, under the mortal bodily covering of the Lord, sees everywhere a premium divine being. The parallel between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel is also observed in their relationship to Judaism. For the apocalypticist, Judaism developed into Christianity, the church is the true spiritual Israel; supporters of nomism only say about themselves that they are Jews; in fact, they are not such, but a synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). Some of the Evangelist’s expressions relating to the Jewish law have exactly the same meaning, for example, John 7:19: “Did not Moses give you the law”; Wed John 7:22, 8:17, 15:25. Easter, further, is called: “Passover of the Jews” (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55). Finally, in John 8:44 the representatives of Judaism are directly called children of the devil. The Apocalypse also coincides with the Gospel in the doctrine of the “spirit” - τ o πνεύμα. In both scriptures, τό πνεύμα is an enlightening factor for believers, a personal principle of divine revelation. Finally, apocalyptic chiliasm can be considered a figurative expression of the teaching of the fourth Gospel 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 really presents significant features in comparison with the language of the Gospel and the Epistles of John. But many of these features, however, receive a proper explanation from the nature of the Scripture. Thus, if in the greeting of Revelation 1:4 we read: άπό ό ών και ό ην και ό ερχόμενος then this does not at all indicate the author’s ignorance of the Greek language, reaching the point that he did not know that after άπό it is necessary to put the genitive case or that the verb is an indeclinable part of speech - no, the method of expression reveals even the skill of the writer, a certain freedom of speech. This feature of the language can be called an irregularity of rhetorical property, which should also include everything that was determined by the liveliness and power of poetic prophetic speech. Other features are explained by Jewish influence, which is especially clear in the Apocalypse. Finally, there are such irregularities of language in the Apocalypse that can hardly be explained - see, for example, Rev. 14:19. There are cases of costructio ad sensum - see Rev. 4:1, 6:9, 11:15, etc. The style and general character of speech, however, in the Apocalypse is somewhat different compared to other writings of John. But even the latter do not show the apostle to be very skillful when it comes to the construction of Greek speech. This is evident both from the style of 1 Epistle, where freedom in expressing thoughts through language is not seen - on the contrary, some monotony is noticed - and from the Gospel, from which it is clear that it was written by a Jew. As for the Apocalypse, which nevertheless, of course, stands out from a number of other writings of John in this regard, its style can be explained from the form of the writing. Just as a sermon in our country almost always stands out from a number of other literary works in its language, even sometimes requiring a special style from it, so, one can assume, in the Apocalypse of the Ap. John was influenced by a special apocalyptic style. Finally, between the Apocalypse and other writings of Ap. John there are also direct contacts in the area of ​​language. This kinship is expressed in the choice of identical images, in some coincidences of a syntactic nature and, finally, in the coincidence in some cases of vocabulary (see Bousset, D. Offenbarung Iohannis. S. 177–179). Since the eighties of the last century, the critical study of the Apocalypse has acutely raised the question of the unity of this sacred. books. The initiative in this matter belongs to the scientist Daniel Felter, who came out in 1882 with the essay “The Origin of the Apocalypse” (in German). Since then, many experiments have appeared suggesting one or another division of it. Here we can also mention the works of Erbes, Spitta, I. Weiss and others. They all admit that several hands worked on the Apocalypse at different times. In addition, back in 1886, Fisher came up with the hypothesis that the Apocalypse is a Jewish work with Christian interpolations. Finally, Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, Busset and others adhere to the fragment hypothesis, according to which the author of the Apocalypse used various apocalyptic fragments that were widespread among the Jews when writing his work. When studying all these hypotheses, one notices their extreme complexity. There is no way to attribute to the persons, according to the named critics, who worked on the Apocalypse, the complex and cunning literary work that these authors find. And in general, the extreme subjectivism of all constructions can be concluded from the fact that no hypothesis has supporters, and almost every denier of the unity of the book offers his own solution to the question, if he does not completely refuse such a solution. Further, 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 that the entire Apocalypse is of the same linguistic character. And in general, in the writer of a book full of spirit and life, it is impossible to see a dry compiler. Time, place and purpose of writing the Apocalypse. In determining the time of writing of the Apocalypse, there is complete agreement between the primary external evidence and the data for determining the era contained in the book itself. Thus, Irenaeus reports that John saw a revelation towards the end of the reign of Domitian. The position of Christians under Domitian was also reflected in the content of the Apocalypse. What is remarkable above all is the fact that the revelation presupposes the widespread persecution of Christians. However, it is not yet evident that this persecution has produced many martyrs. The apocalyptic, however, has already experienced one period of time when Christian blood flowed like a river and, as the vision of the fifth seal shows, is currently only in anticipation that the same thing will happen again in the near future. As can be seen from the circumstances of his personal life, during the period of the appearance of the Apocalypse, special punishment was practiced for the Christian confession - for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. This punishment was exile. All of the listed features of the position of Christians point to the time of Domitian. The bloody persecution that the apocalyptic refers to is the persecution of Nero, which, however, did not extend beyond the borders of Rome. Now the persecution is becoming widespread - this directly points to Domitian. It would be wrong to see this as a feature of Trajan's time. Firstly, from Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan it is clear that even without the emperor’s instructions he was already taking decisive measures against Christians - obviously, in the previous reign these measures were in the order of things. Secondly, Cassius Dio has direct information about the trials of Christians under Domitian. Finally, exile in relation to Christians was practiced precisely under the last Flavius, and not earlier and not under Trajan. An indication of another feature of Domitian’s reign is hidden in the symbolism of the Apocalypse. Here we are often talking about those who did not worship the image of the beast. According to Rev. 13:14, the false prophet convinces people to make an image of the beast. Symbolism, of course, has its origins in the practice of the imperial cult. But again, it is not about Nero, but about Domitian, that it is testified that he had a particularly high opinion of his divinity. In short, based on historical evidence, it can be argued that the Antonines did not introduce anything new with their policy towards Christians, but only continued and developed the program of the last representative of the previous dynasty. In view of this, the testimony of Irenaeus that the revelation was contemplated at the end of the reign of Domitian receives all the force of undoubted persuasiveness and complete reliability. We are unable to accurately indicate the year the Apocalypse was written. As for the place of writing, it was the island of Patmos. The Apocalyptic is clearly told: “write what you see in a book and send it to the churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1:11). It would be strange to assume that the apocalyptic postponed the fulfillment of this order of the Lord for a more or less long time. Moreover, the revelation is written in the form of a letter addressed to certain churches, which also suggests that John was outside Asia at the time of its writing. The reason for writing the revelation was the impending storm in the form of severe persecution that awaited the church. At that time, it was already clear that a period was coming when the Roman Empire would open a campaign against Christianity with the goal of erasing it from the face of the earth. The idea of ​​these disasters threatening the church in connection with the consciousness of its complete victory was the reason for writing the Apocalypse. The purpose corresponded to the occasion. Revelation refers not only to the seven churches of Asia Minor, but to the entire Church of the Universe in general and wants to give consolation to all those believers of all times who, being imbued with the true spirit of Christ, feel the hatred of this world in any form. The purpose and method of interpreting the Apocalypse. The purpose of studying and interpreting the Apocalypse should be to facilitate the achievement of the intentions of its divinely inspired writer. This intention was to teach and confirm all Christians in faith and hope, therefore the task of interpretation should be to strive to awaken and strengthen interest in the Apocalypse and the desire to delve deeper into its content and the desire to derive possible spiritual benefit from it. The method of interpreting the Apocalypse must be as original as its very content. The tradition of our Orthodox Church has established that the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian is a foreshadowing of the future fate of the Church and the world. The phenomena and images described in it are neither a hidden history of the past, nor a prediction of certain eras of church history and individual human personalities. No, the Apocalypse and its visions (except for the first three chapters) are in the proper sense eschatology, they are an image of the final fate of the world and the Church and those events that will precede and prepare this death. Therefore, the Orthodox theologian must look for the key to understanding the Apocalypse, on the one hand, in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, where some images of the future fate of the Old Testament and New Testament churches are drawn (Prophet Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel), and on the other - and this in particular - in the eschatological speech of the Savior (Matthew 24). 2 What the Savior predicted would happen at the end of the world should serve as a guide to understanding the predictions of the Apocalypse. And everything that we find eschatological in the epistles of the Apostles Paul, Peter, Jude, must also be taken into account when interpreting the Apocalypse. Naturally, one or another view of the content of the Apocalypse and the meaning of its prophetic visions should be the basis for dividing the Apocalypse into parts when studying it. The general division remains the same for everyone: namely, they are divided into introduction (Rev. I: 1–8), the first part (Rev. 1:9–3:22), the second part (Rev. 4–22:5) and conclusion (Rev. 22:6–21). The introduction is nothing more than an introduction containing an explanation of the title of the book (Rev. 1:1-2), the purpose of its writing (Rev. 1:3), an indication of the persons to whom it is addressed (Rev. 1:4), the good wishes for peace from the Triune God (Rev. 1:4-5), the doxology of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:5-6) and its authorization (Rev. 1:7-9). The first part (Rev. 1:9–3:22) contains letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea, outlining their merits and demerits, foretelling their future fate and promising rewards, along with a warning and a threat. This part can be called prophetic and teaching. Its content differs sharply from the content of the second part; The form of presentation is just as different. The historical form of the ancient prophecies predominates here. Further, there is nothing eschatological here, but everything is limited to the flow 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 this view of the relationship of the content of the first three chapters to the entire Church is indicated by the Muratorian canon, where it is noted that although John “wrote to seven churches, yet he speaks to all.” This opinion is shared by the newest interpreters. The revelations to the seven churches constitute a special series of revelations, assigned, first of all, directly to the well-known seven churches of Asia Minor, and if they concern all Christians, then in the same way as, for example, the epistles of St. Paul to private societies and individuals, concern all Christians of the universal Church, that is, insofar as they contain general Christian instructions, or insofar as certain particular situations and cases may be repeated in the history of the world. Based on this position, we have to completely separate the first part from the second part of the Apocalypse, if we examine 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 eschatological truths, which were accidentally and piecemeal conveyed in other writings of the Old (especially Daniel) and New Testaments (in the Gospel of Apostle Paul and Peter), are revealed in an apocalyptic way, that is, through pictures, symbols and visions, sometimes strange and inaccessible to clear representation. 3 In relation to this kind of content and its presentation, the interpreter’s tasks are more complex and difficult. Therefore, it seems that there are no two interpreters who would completely agree with each other in dividing apocalyptic visions into groups and in indicating their connection with each other. The content of the Apocalypse is so diverse, the visions and pictures are so numerous, that for each interpreter, despite the diversity of human minds and abilities, there is always a new point of view, which makes him disagree (albeit often in a very minor respect) with all previous interpreters. One must adhere to the general conviction that the Apocalypse represents several groups of visions, partly parallel to each other. 4 This general rule, applied to the interpretation of the Apocalypse, was, so to speak, consecrated by ancient interpreters and undoubtedly reflected in the interpretation of St. Andrew of Caesarea. Bearing in mind this general view of the nature of fragmentation in revealing the content of the Apocalypse, its entire second eschatological part can be divided into five department-groups. Each department-group represents a special and independent order of phenomena that serve as a revelation of the Divine world government. This order, beginning at one point or another in Christian history, comes to its final events at the end of the world. – Let us briefly indicate these five orders. First order. Vision of a throne in heaven and Him sitting with a sealed book in his right hand; the appearance of an Angel in the midst of the throne to open the seals of the book (Rev. 4–5). The appearance of horses after the opening of each seal: after the first - white, the second - red, the third - black, the fourth - pale (Rev. 6: 1-8). When the fifth seal is opened, there is a vision under the altar of the souls killed for the word of God (Rev. 6:9–12); after the opening of the sixth seal - the appearance of a world revolution and the horror of all living on earth (Rev. 6:13-17). Second order. Vision of four Angels at the four corners of the earth and an Angel descending from heaven with the seal of God in his hand to seal 144 thousand servants of God (Rev. 7); the opening of the seventh seal and the sound of six trumpets, accompanied by executions (Rev. 8–9). Vision of an Angel with an open book. Church measurement. Appearance of two witnesses; earthquake after their ascent to heaven. The sound of the seventh trumpet: voices in heaven praising the reigning Lord Jesus Christ. The vision of the church in heaven and the appearance of the ark with lightning, voices, thunder and an earthquake (Rev. 10–11). Third order. Great sign: vision of a woman clothed with the sun, a red dragon, the struggle of the archangel. Michael with the dragon and the latter’s casting down to earth (Rev. 12–13). A vision of virgins standing on Mount Zion - an Angel flying through the sky with the eternal Gospel, another Angel announcing the fall of Babylon with a threat to those who worship the beast. A vision on a bright cloud of someone like the Son of Man with a sickle in his hand for reaping the earth and a vision of an Angel with a sickle for pruning the grapes on the earth, who was thrown into the great winepress of the wrath of God (Rev. 14). Fourth order. The vision of seven Angels with the seven bowls of the last plagues and the vision of those who defeated the beast (Rev. 15). Pouring out six bowls one after another and six plagues after each of them. Earthquake after the seventh bowl (Rev. 16). Explanation of the vision of the harlot sitting on the beast (Rev. 17). Proclamation of the destruction of Babylon and lamentation for it (Rev. 18). Joy in heaven. Vision of the open sky, a white horse and the Faithful and True Word of God sitting on it, coming accompanied by an army to judge the beast and the false prophet (Rev. 19). Fifth order. A vision of an Angel with a chain and a key in his hand to imprison a dragon for a thousand years in the abyss. The resurrection of the slain and their reign with Christ for a thousand years. The liberation of Satan, the emergence of the peoples of Gog and Magog, their defeat and the casting of Satan into Gehenna (Rev. 20). Vision of a new heaven, a new earth, a new Jerusalem and its inhabitants (Rev. 21:1–22:5). This vision is immediately adjacent to the conclusion of the Apocalypse, which, in addition to pointing to the authority of Jesus Christ as the author of revelation, contains an exhortation to accept with all your heart what has been proclaimed and to look forward to the imminent 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 clarification of the Divine government of the world proceeds from the general to the particular, gradually adding more and more new details. And since this world rule must end with a general judgment and retribution, which must be preceded by Divine calls to repentance, then in these orders a certain gradualness of increasingly intensifying executions of the wrath of God over the wicked is also applied. – In the first order, only the general consequences of Christian preaching in the world are depicted: disasters on earth and rewards in heaven (the first five seals). This order ends only with a prediction of a future judgment, which must be preceded by upheavals in the world. The second order, beginning with the indication of the division between God's elect and sinners, contains the revelation of the manifestations of God's wrath directly over these sinners as punishing themselves. These plagues will cause extreme disunity between the elect and the sinners, and the representatives of the elect (the two witnesses) will suffer extreme persecution from the sinners. But this extreme development of evil will also be the threshold of its fall: thunder and earthquakes foreshadow the approach of judgment. Phenomena of the third order serve as an explanation for the phenomena of the previous orders: the earthly suffering of the righteous, the atrocities of sinners and their enmity against the first are a consequence of the struggle that took place on earth between good and evil, good angels and evil angels. The devil even sends the Antichrist (the beast) into the world. But the struggle must end in the victory of good; An angel is already announcing this victory, and the Son of God appears with a sickle in his hand, which, according to the Savior’s parable, means the end of the world. After the main cause of evil on earth has been indicated in the third order, the phenomena of the fourth order paint, on the one hand, pictures of just executions that the sinful world must undergo, and on the other, the prosperity of evil that will be the brainchild of the devil. Divine providence does not sleep: the punishments of the sinful world will reach their end, and after it becomes obvious to everyone that humanity will remain unrepentant, the Lord will appear with the heavenly army and carry out judgment on the world, starting with the main deceivers - the beast and the false prophet, i.e. with the Antichrist and his champion. Phenomena of the fifth order, although, apparently, represent a continuation and derivation of the order of the previous one, in reality there is an answer to some possible perplexities about the previous orders. According to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, the devil was already defeated. Why is he so powerful in the world? To this the Apocalypse replies that the devil is indeed defeated, that he is, as it were, bound by the redemptive merits of the Savior; but these bonds are valid only in relation to those who are the true servants of Christ, who, having been crucified to Him, are resurrected with Him for reign and freedom over evil. The devil is free only in relation to the sons of disobedience. He will receive his former complete freedom only at the end of the world, and then only for a short time (the time of the Antichrist). Then he will receive the power to wage war even against the saints. But this temporary complete freedom of the devil will at the same time be his final triumph, which will be followed by the final shame and final condemnation of him and all his followers. He will ascend to a height, but not in order to remain there forever, but in order for everyone to see him and be thrown from there into the abyss - Gehenna. Then, when this fall of the devil takes place in full view, eternal peace and bliss of the righteous will begin and the eternal torment of sinners will begin. – Aurelius Augustine. "About the City of God." - Andrew of Caesarea. « Interpretation of the Apocalypse - Victorin. "Interpretation of the Apocalypse". - Zhdanov. "The Revelation of the Lord about the Seven Asian Churches." M. 1891 – Eusebius Pamphilus. « History of the Church – Hippolytus of Rome. » Word about Christ and Antichrist – Irenaeus of Lyons. "Against heresies." Book V, ch. 18 – Norov, A. “Journey to the Seven Churches Mentioned in the Apocalypse.” 1847 - Oberlen. “Prop. Daniel and the Apocalypse. John." 1882 - Orlov, priest, N.D. “Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian" M. 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. T.XXV. In Apocalypsin dilucidatio et commentaria. 1842 – Bousset, D. Offenbarung Johannis. 1906 – Winer. Biblisches Realworterbuch. 1872 See Volume IX of the Explanatory Bible, pp. 285 ff. "Apostle John the Theologian" Kliefoth 14; Ewald 10–16; Corn. 11; Ebrard 28–33; Auberlen, Luthard 173. Le Blane D'ambonne, page 159. You might be interested in: