Vet the opinion that the sixth emperor was Nero is liable to objection. The eighth and eleventh verses appear to contradict it, for they state that 'he was, and is not.' It will be ob served that in these verses an explanation re specting the beast is given, couched in the lan guage of current report. The words amount to this—`The beast which thou sawest is the em peror, of whom it is commonly believed that he shall be assassinated, recover from the wound, go to the East, and return from it to desolate the church and inflict terrible punishments on his enemies. Nero is described, according to the common belief—a belief that prevailed before his death.' In chap. xiii:3 it is not implied that Nero was then dead, for the holy seer beheld things which were about to occur, as well as things which were; and the passage is descriptive of a vision, not explanatory of one previously por trayed. We conclude, therefore, that the apostle saw the visions during the reign of the bloody and cruel Nero. Still, however, he may have written the book not at Patmos, but immediately after his return to Ephesus, if so be that he did return thither before Nero ceased to live.
(3) Age of Nero. In view of all circum stances we are inclined to assume that the Apoca lypse was written during the reign of Nero, when persecution had commenced, as many passages imply, and, therefore, at Patmos. It weighs noth ing with us that Eichhorn. Bleek, and De Wettc conjecturally assume that the place mentioned in i :9 may he a poetical fiction; even Ewald opposes such a thought.
Before leaving this subject it is necessary to glance at the circumstances supposed to show that the book was not written till after Nero's death. The general expectation of his return (xvii:t t), and the allusions to the prosecutions of Christians under him (vi:9; xvii:6). as also the presupposed fact of most of the apostles being dead (xviii:2o), are stated by De Wette. But in xvii :it the apostle merely describes Nero accord ing to the common report—a report current before his death, the substance of which was, that after reigning a while he should appear again, and make an eighth, though one of the seven. The passages (vi:9 and xvii:6) allude to different events, the former to the souls of the martyrs that had been slain by the Jews, the latter to the persecutions of imperial Rome generically. According to the right reading of xviii :20, it does not imply that most of the apostles were already dead.
(4) Under Domitian. In conformity with the testimony of Irenxus, understood in the ordinary i acceptation, it has been very generally believed that the book was written under Domitian, A. D. 96 or 97. But the vague report of the apostle's banishment, current among early writers in dif ferent and varying forms, must not be allowed to set aside internal evidence, especially the clearly defined chronological elements of the elev enth and seventeenth chapters.
The arguments adduced in favor of Domitian's reign are the following: (a) Nero's persecution did not reach the prov inces. (b) The Nicolaitans did not form a sect when the book was written, although they are spoken of as such. (c) The condition of the seven churches, as portrayed in the Apocalypse, shows that they had been planted a considerable time. (d) Mention is made of the martyr Antipas at Pergamos, who could not have suffered death in Nero's reign, because the persecution did not reach the provinces (Lenfant and Beausobre's Preface sur l'Apoc. de S. Jean, pp. 613-14, and Vitringa. in Apoc., cap. i, v :2, p.
(5) John's Banishment. (a) In order to ac count for John's banishment to Patmos, it is not needful to believe that the spirit of persecution raged at Ephesus. While it was so active at Rome we may fairly infer that the Christians in the prov inces trembled for their safety. Whatever affected the capital so fearfully would naturally affect the distant parts of the empire to a greater or less extent ; and John's retirement to Patmos does not necessarily presuppose the horrors of fire and sword. The storm was seen to lower ; the heathen magistrates, as well as the Jews, put forth their enmity in various forms, even when the edicts of emperors forbade violence to the persons of Christians, and the Apostle in consequence with drew for a time from the scene of his labors.
(b) The most probable interpretation is that Nicolaitans is a symbolic name, signifying cor rupters of the people, equivalent to Balaam in Hebrew. It is true that Irennus speaks of such a sect in his time, deriving the appellation from the deacon Nicolaus (Acts ii), and representing the allusion in the Apocalypse as belonging to it. The sect called the Nicolaitans, spoken of by Clement, is probably not the same that men tioned in the Apocalypse (Neander, i.2, p. 775, sg.).
(c) A close examination of the language ad dressed to each of the seven churches will show that it may have been appropriate in the year of our Lord 68. It does not by any means imply that there had been an open persecution in the provinces. About A. D. 61 the church of Ephesus is commended by Paul for their faith and love (Eph. i :15), which is quite consistent with Rev. ii :2, 3 ; while both are in agreement with the censure that the members had left their first love. In the lapse of a very few years, and especially in trying circumstances, the ardor of their love had cooled. The patience for which they are com mended refers, as the context shows, to the temp tations which they suffered from wicked and cor rupting teachers, and the difficulties attendant upon the faithful exercise of discipline in the church. Similar was the case with the church at Smyrna, their tribulation having chief reference to the blasphemy of Satan's synagogue.