Page images
PDF
EPUB

worship. In the present case, the worshippers in the inner court are of course priests; and Christians, it should be remembered here, are kings and priests to God, and to them the inmost recesses of the temple of God are opened; comp. Rev. 11: 19, also Heb. 9: 8 and 10: 19, 20. Matt. 27: 51. Ἔκβαλε ἔξω is to be taken in a qualified or secondary sense here, (for the literal meaning would make no good sense), i. e. it means here to reject, despise, neglect; comp. Luke 6: 22. Kai μù avriv μerońons explains the meaning of the preceding clause. As he did not include the exterior court in his measurement for preservation, so he gave it up of course to destruction.

Tois vest, to the heathen or Gentiles. That the Romans are meant in this case, seems to be very obvious, if we suppose the Apocalypse to have been written during the latter part of Nero's reign, when the Jewish troubles had actually begun. The meaning plainly is, that by the decree of Heaven the exterior temple was to be given up to the Gentiles.-Tór aríar, holy city, a familiar name of Jerusalem, comp. Neh. 11: 1, 18. Is. 48: 2. Matt. 4: 5. 27: 53; a name which it still preserves. This seems plainly to identify the special object which is to be destroyed; and from the impending ruin, the true spiritual worship and worshippers of God are to be preserved.

Ilarioovai, shall tread down, trample upon, which of course implies thorough subjection and treating with great indignity. Ewald construes it as designating only profanation by the presence of the heathen. But surely legovoahuμ ëσtai nazovμévy vnò ¿ðvær, in Luke 21: 24, in connection with the context, means something more than profaning. Indeed, how can we compare the expression here with that in Luke, without being necessitated to suppose, that the object of both passages is precisely the same? And if so, nothing can be more certain, than that the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem is threatened, and not merely profanation by the presence of heathen.

Forty and two months. Is this period to be regarded as literal, or as merely a figurative mode of designating a short period, by a reference to a well known period of time in the book of Daniel, 7: 25. 12: 7? The same question occurs in regard to the next verse, and some other passages in the sequel. After all the investigation which I have been able to make, I feel compelled to believe that the writer refers to a literal and definite period, although not so exact that a single day, or even a few days, of variation from it would interfere with the object he has in view. It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis, in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the

country of Judea. During the invasion of Judea by the Romans, the faithful testimony of the persecuted witnesses for Christianity is continued, while at last they are slain. The patience of God in deferring so long the destruction of the persecutors, is displayed by this; and especially his mercy in continuing to warn and reprove them. This is a natural, simple, and easy method of interpretation, to say the least, and one which, although it is not difficult to raise objections against it, I feel constrained to adopt.

In order to save repetition I must refer the reader, for the discussion of the whole subject in relation to times designated by the Apocalypse, to Excursus V. at the end of this volume; and for a more ample discussion, to my little work entitled Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy.

(3) And 1 will give to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sack-cloth.

But who are these two witnesses? A question that has been the occasion, perhaps, of more conjecture and more unlimited speculation than almost any other which the Apocalypse has originated. Some notice of the efforts which interpreters have made to answer it, seems to be necessary in a case like the present; and particularly so, inasmuch as the subject is not without real difficulties even when viewed in its most simple light. If this notice should answer no other purpose than a warning against groundless and boundless conjecture, and a caution against admitting anything which will destroy the connection and congruity of the author's representations, yet this of itself would be a sufficient apology for introducing it.

Inquiry respecting the Two Witnesses.

In pursuing the object of this Inquiry, I shall first introduce in the briefest manner possible, those opinions respecting the two witnesses which are plainly nothing but mere conjectures, and therefore not entitled to any serious examination. I shall then subjoin some other views to which particular importance has been recently attached, and which therefore need some discussion.

I. Conjectures in respect to the Two Witnesses.

(a) They are the O. and N. Testament; so Melchior, Affelman, and recently Croly. (b) They mean all preachers instructed by the Law and the Gospel; so Pannonius and Thomas Aquinas. (c) Christ and John the Baptist; Ubertinus. (d) Pope Sylvester and Mena, who wrote against the Eutychians; Lyranus and Ederus. (e) Francis and Dominic, the respective heads of two orders of monks; quoted in Cornelius a Lapide. (ƒ) The great wisdom and sanctity of the primitive preachers; Alcassar. (g) John Huss and Luther; so Horzoff. Others; John Huss and Jerome of Prague. (h) The Waldenses and Albigenses; and the Apocalyptist names two, be

cause of the Law and the Gospel, and also with respect to such pairs in sacred history as Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, Joshua and Zerubba→ bel; he had also his eye upon John Huss and Jerome of Prague; Vitringa. Andrew Fuller also supposes the two witnesses are the Waldenses and Albigenses; Lect. on Apoc. in loc. (i) The Jewish and Gentile Christians in Aelia, (the new name of the city built on the ruins of Jerusalem by Adrian), who preached to Jews and Gentiles the necessity of reformation; Grotius, and after him Hammond.

This syllabus comprises only a part of the interpretations given to the verse before us. The intelligent reader, who is in any tolerable measure acquainted with the criticism of the present day, needs no formal refutation of such interpretations. Almost all are wholly inappropriate, in that they have respect not to the period of the invasion of Palestine by the Romans, but to one a long time afterwards. One of them (c) even falls upon a period antecedent to the death of Christ. The whole of them, with some slight exception in the cases (b) and (ƒ), are entirely incongruous and irrelevant.

II. Other views which have a better claim to be examined.

(1) The two witnesses are the two high-priests, Ananus and Jesus; who nobly withstood the Zealots in Jerusalem, and were massacred by them, Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. 3. 13-6. 1. So Herder and Eichhorn; and after the latter, his humble imitator, F. A. L. Matthaei, and others.

The reason for rejecting this opinion, which was made current for a time through the eloquence and ability of Herder and Eichhorn, are brief, and in my apprehension entirely conclusive. (a) These two high-priests were zealous Jews and the enemies of Christianity. How then could the Saviour say of them: My witnesses? v. 3. And how could he be called THEIR Lord? v. 8. If what Bleek (Zeitschrift von Schleiermacher, etc., Heft II. p. 269), Hänlein (Theol. Journal von H. and Ammon, III. p. 380), and Lange (Comm. in Apoc. 11: 10, 11) say, were true, viz. that Ananus was an active persecutor of Christians, and occasioned the death of James the Lord's brother, then the case would be more glaring still, and all attempts to reconcile their character with the description in Rev. 11: 3—13 must be vain. But in respect to this particular point, these writers seem to have erred. There was indeed an Ananus, a high-priest, who occasioned the death of James; but he was slain by the Sicarii in A. D. 66; Jos. Antiq. XX. 9. 1 and Bell. Jud. II. 17. 9. But the Ananus and Jesus who withstood the Sicarii, and were massacred by them and the Idumaeans, were other and different persons, and were assassinated in A. D. 67; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. 3. 13-5. 2. Still, that Ananus and Jesus were zealous Jews, and opposed to Christianity, no one can doubt who reads their history. (b) How can these two high-priests be said to prophesy during the 1260 days of the invasion, when in fact they were destroyed during the very first year of it, viz. during A. D. 67? (c) What mean their resurrection and ascension to heaven? (d) In what sense could the Apocalyptist say, that these two high-priests possessed miraculous powers, like those of Moses and Elijah? vs. 5, 6. (e) The spontaneous impression of every reader is, that the two witnesses, whoever they might be, were the friends of Christ and the Christian cause, and that they were endowed with the miraculous powers

of the primitive teachers of Christianity; but how can these predicates belong to the decided enemies of Christ-the persecuting Jews of that time? And how can we assign to them a triumph in their resurrection and ascension, which is denied even to the early martyrs? Comp. 5: 9-11. Finally; in reflecting upon this exegesis once quite popular, we cannot help the feeling of surprise, that it could ever have been brought forward and patronized by such men as Herder and Eichhorn. Its day, I trust, has past; but have succeeding times offered us something better in its stead? (2) Recent commentators of distinguished note in Germany have revived in part the ancient exegesis of Rev. 11: 3-13, which maintained that Moses and Elijah, or Enoch and Elijah, are the two witnesses spoken of in the passage before us.

So Bleek (in loc. cit. supra), and so Ewald in his recent Commentary. The ground of this interpretation is, that the Jews of ancient times, and also the early Christians, expected that Christ would make his appearance to vindicate the rights of his kingdom, preceded by the prophets above named, or at least by two of them. Elijah was considered as undoubtedly one of the two, because Mal. 4: 5 was regarded as having expressly named him; and in respect to the other, there was a division of opinion, the Jews in general believing the other prophet to be Moses, while some of them held to Enoch. The position of Bleek and Ewald of course is, that the writer of the Apocalypse partook of these alleged ancient views; that he expected that Christ would speedily come in person to destroy or subdue all his enemies, and would then commence his new and glorious terrestrial reign; and also that his heralds would be Elijah and some other distinguished ancient prophet. These heralds would indeed be slain by opposing enemies; but they would be raised triumphantly from the dead, and then the victories of the Messiah would become conspicuous and universal.

Of course, all apprehension that the writer of the Apocalypse was inspired, or had any correct knowledge of the future, is abandoned by such a position; and indeed nothing is more manifest, than that both Bleek and Ewald, (and others also who agree with their views), do not hesitate at all to believe, and do virtually maintain, that John was in no important respect any more enlightened as to the future, than other Jewish Christians of the times in which he lived.

To contest the point of John's inspiration with those who adopt such an exegesis, would be a task inappropriate to a book of Commentary. But I may be permitted, I would hope, to suggest some doubts in respect to the propriety of the interpretation before us, on grounds simply of a historical and critical nature.

Heinrichs (on Rev. 11: 3) says: "That Moses and Elijah would return from heaven to earth, and be the precursors of the Messiah, constans erat Judaeorum opinio." To this opinion Bleek (p. 270 ut sup.) plainly inclines; while Ewald seems undecided whether Moses and Elijah, or Enoch and Elijah, were the specific witnesses in question.

But what is the proof of this constans opinio? In Mal. 4: 5 it is said, that 'Elijah the prophet will come, before the great day of the Lord.' That the Jews of ancient times gave a literal interpretation to this passage, seems to be quite clear from Matt. 17: 10-12. Mark 9: 11-13, "Why say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" But equally clear is it, also, from these pas

sages and from Matt. 11: 14, that the Saviour explicitly declares John the Baptist to have been the Elijah meant by the prophet Malachi. Comp. Luke 1: 17, which gives the ground of this interpretation, viz. ‘he (John) had the spirit and energy of Elijah.'

How, now, I may be permitted to ask, after declarations so explicit as these, can we be persuaded, that the primitive Christians still continued to believe in another and a literal coming of Elijah? That John the apostle was familiar with the views of Christians, will not, I trust, be questioned. What ground then is there, to induce us to believe that John expected a literal coming of Elijah? And what is there in the Scriptures, which is a good ground for supposing that another prophet was then expected to come with him? Perhaps it may be said here, that John 1: 21 furnishes some ground for supposing that such an opinion was current among the Scribes and Pharisees. But still, if ongoing in that passage should be so construed, this exposition would not seem to be favoured by most of the early Jewish testimony.

Pesiqta Rab. fol. 62. col. 1, speaks of only Elijah. Jalkuth Shimoni, fol. 53. col. 3, gives the same view: "Elijah will come three days before the Messiah;" quoted in Eisenmeng. Entdeckt. Jud. II. p. 696. So the Talmud, Tract. Shabbath, fol. 118. col. 1; Rabbi Bechai, Shulchan Arba, fol. 5. col. 4; Jalkuth Shimoni in Mal. fol. 88. col. 4; each and all repeat the same sentiment, Eisenm. ut supra p. 712. Emek Hammelekh repeatedly declares the same thing; quoted in Eisenm. II. 714, 715. Nothing is said in all these of any more precursors than Elijah, or of any other one but he. But there is still more ancient evidence than any of this. In Sirach 48: 1-9, is a culogy of Elijah; after which the writer says, that 'he will appear to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' etc. [as in Mal. 4: 5, 6], and then adds: "Blessed are those who shall see him," viz. at the time of the Messiah; vs. 10, 11.

All these opinions are plainly founded on a literal interpretation of Mal. 4: 5, and probably have respect to Christ's first coming. In accordance with these, but as referring to Christ's second coming, we find the opinions of Jerome on Matt. 17: 12. Aug. De Civ. Dei, XX. 29. Theodoret, Epit. div. Decret. c. 23, quoted in Suicer Thes. I. p. 393. Justin, Dial, cum Tryph. p. 226. Lactantius, Instt. Lib. VII. All of these Christian fathers appear to believe in the reappearance of Elijah, before Christ's second coming to destroy Antichrist.

We have here then, as yet, but one witness named; and all that is said respecting him, is evidently founded on the literal sense of Mal. 4: 5. The difference of opinion, in the cases above cited, respects not the number of the witnesses, nor yet the person who will appear, viz. Elijah, but only the point whether the first or second coming is the one to which Malachi refers.

Thus far, then, all seems to make nothing for the ground assumed by Bleek, Heinrichs, and Ewald. Still they have some apparent ground to build upon. Debarim Rabba, § 3. fol. 255. 2, and Tanchuma, fol. 42. 1, speak of MOSES AND ELIJAH as forerunners of the Messiah; quoted in Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in Matt. 17: 3, also in Vol. II. de Messia, p. 544. So Targ. Hierosol. in Ex. x-xii, quoted in Eisenmeng. Entd. Jud. II. p. 698. Hilarius Pictaviensis (on Matt. 17: 3) expresses the same opinion; quoted in Corrodi, Geschichte des Chiliasmus, II. p. 438. But this is a small foundation to build upon, in order to support the opinion in question; and even

« PreviousContinue »