(d) In regard to Antipas nothing is known. He suffered at Pergamos, but under what em peror, or in what circumstances, is uncertain. It is not at all necessary to our hypothesis to assume that he was put to death during Nero's persecu tion. Individual Christians were put to death even in the provinces before the time of Nero. On the whole, we see no good ground for believ ing that the book was written in the time of Claudius, or Galba, or Vespasian, or Domitian, or Trajan, or Adrian, though all these have been advocated ; nor is there sufficient reason for sepa rating.the .time of the writing from that of the receiving of the visions. In view of all circum stances we assign it to the time of Nero, and the locality of Patmos, A. D. 67 or 68. Sir Isaac Newton long ago fixed upon the same date.
10. Unity of the Book. A few writers have thought that the Apocalypse was written at differ ent times by the same author, as Grotius, Ham mond, and Bleek; or by different authors, as Vogel. Such dismemberment is now abandoned. Even De Wette allows that no reasonable doubts can be entertained of its unity.
(1) Regular Structure. The entire book is so regular in its structure, so intimately connected is one paragraph with another, that all must have proceeded from the same writer.
(2) Prophetic Perspective. If the nature of prophetic perspective be rightly understood, all will appear to be natural and easy. John saw things past, present, and future at once. He did not need to wait for the progress of events—for events were presented to his vision just as the Spirit willed. Hence the present tense is so much used in place of the future. The hypotheses of Grotius, Vogel, and Bleek have been refuted by Lucke; and that of Hammond requires not now the like examination.
11. The Class of Writings to Which it Be longs. (1) Dramatic. Pareus seems to have been the first who started the idea of its being a dramatic poem. The same opinion was also ex pressed by Hartwig. But the genius of Eichhorn wrought out the suggestion into a theory per vaded by great symmetry and beauty. Hence the opinion that it forms a regular dramatic poem is associated with his name alone. According to him the divisions are: 1. The title, chap. i :1-3. 2. The prologue, i :4 ; iii :22. 3. The drama, iv ; xxii:5. Act 1. The capture of Jerusalem, or the triumph of Christianity over Judaism, vii :6; xii: 17. Act 2. The capture of Rome, or the triumph of Christianity over Paganism, xii :18 ; xx:io. Act 3. The new Jerusalem descends from heaven, or the felicity which is to endure forever, xx ; xxii :5. 4. The epilogue, xxii :6-21 ; (a) of the angel, xxii:6; (b) of Jesus, xxii :7-16; (c) of John, xxii :16-20. The apostolical benediction,
xxii :2I.
(2) A Prophetic Poem. As this theory is now abandoned by all expositors, it needs no refuta tion. It is exceedingly ingenious, but without foundation. To represent the book as made up of little else than sublime scenery and fiction, is contrary to the analogy of such Old Testament writings as bear to it the greatest resemblance. Something more is intended than a symbolic de scription of the triumph of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism. The book contains his toric narrative. It exhibits real prophecies, which must have had their accomplishment in distinct events and individuals. It consists of a prophetic poem. Its diction is, with some ex ceptions, the diction of poetry. It is not made up of a series of disjointed visions; it is regular in its structure and artificial in its arrangement. According to the rules of rhetoric, it nearly ap proaches an epopee. Those who thoroughly ex amine it with a view to discover the arrangement and connection of parts will observe unity and artificiality in the disposition of the whole.
(3) Analogy to Old Testament Prophecy. It bears an analogy to the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, especially to those of Daniel. It is obvious, therefore, that a deep and thorough study of the Old Testament prophets should pre cede the study of the Apocalypse. If it bear a close resemblance in many of its features to the inspired productions of a former dispensation ; if the writer evidently imitated the utterances of Daniel, Ezekiel and Zechariah; if his language be more Hebraistic than that of the New Testament generally, the interpreter of the book should be previously qualified by a familiar acquaintance with the symbols, imagery, diction, and spirit of the Old Testament poets and prophets.
12. Object of the Book. (1) Instruction. The books of the New Testament, like those of the Old, were designed to promote the instruction of God's people in all ages. They were adapted to teach, exhort and reprove all mankind. They do not belong to the class of ephemeral writings that have long since fulfilled the purpose for which they were originally composed. Their object was not merely a local or partial one. So of the Apoc alypse. It is suited to all. 'Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy.' But this general characteristic is per fectly consistent with the fact that it arose out of specific circumstances, and was primarily meant to subserve a definite end.