II. Time and place of writing.--There is some difficulty in ascertaining these. The prevailing opinion has been, that the book was written A.D. 95 or g6, at Patmos, under Domitian ; or, after his death, in Nerva's reign. This accords with the tradition that John was banished to Patmos towards the close of Domitian's reign, where he had the visions described in the book. The fact of his being sent to Patmos is mentioned by Iremens, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Euse bius, and Jerome. Irenmus calls the emperor Domitian ; but Clement and Origen merely style him the tyrant or king of the Romans. Epipha Dins makes him Claudius ; the Syriac version of the Apocalypse Nero ; with which Theophylact and the younger Hippolytus (of Thebes) agree. The author of the Synopsis de vita et merle prophetarum, aposto lorum et dircipulorum Domini, said to be Doro theus, bishop of Tyre, names Trojan. The oldest form of the tradition is that in Irenmus—viz., that the apostle saw and wrote the vision towards the end of the reign of Domitian, in Patmos, to which he had been banished. Later writers made a dis tinction between the time of the banishment and that of the composition, which latter was referred to Ephesus, after the emperor's death. The tradi tion is neither consistent nor weighty. It will scarcely stand the test of criticism. But we cannot take the view of those who think that it originated in the words of i. 9. Probably the basis is histori cal. The apostle was compelled to withdraw to Patmos for a time. At first sight it might appear doubtful whether he was really banished thither ; but the expressions, for the word of God,' for the testimony of Jesus Christ,' compared with their use in vi. 9 ; xii. r I ; xx. 4, can only imply banish ment or persecution, and will not bear a milder sense. In the absence of external evidence, inter nal considerations come to our aid. The book it self shows that Jerusalem had not been destroyed, for if it had the catastrophe could scarcely have been unnoticed. An event pregnant with momen tous consequences to the cause of truth and the fates of the early Christians, would have been surely mentioned. There are distinct allusions to the impending catastrophe. We see from ch. xi. 1-14, that the holy city, with the temple, was not destroyed ; for it is stated there, that only a part of the city should perish, while the temple is sup posed to be still standing. Had both been de stroyed, the fact would have been treated at some length. This is confirmed by xvii. to, And there are seven kings ; five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come,' i. e., when the miter lived five emperors had already fallen, the sixth was reigning, and the other had not yet come. The series begins with Augustus, so that Galba is the sixth, ' the king that is.' tus, Tiberias, Caius, Claudius, Nero, are the five fallen ones : the seventh coming one who must continue a short space means the returning Nero, as appears from xiii. 3, 14. Other critics begin the series with Julius Cmsar, and fix upon Nero as the sixth, under whom John wrote. Galba is then the seventh, and he reigned but seven months, ac cording to the prophecy. But this reckoning is faulty, since Julius Cmsar was not an Augustus ; nor was it till the time of Augustus and his succes sors that the Romans ruled over Jerusalem. Others begin with Augustus, but make the sixth Vespa sian —Otho, Galba, and Vitellius being passed over. It is arbitrary to omit these names. The most probable view is, that the book was composed under Galba, after Nero's death, which agrees best with the beast that was and is not and yet is' (xvii_ 8). The six gar4 shows that he who is spoken of is no longer living ; and it is little better than special pleading in Stuart to refer it to the future, on the ground that the prophets employed the present for the future in predicting. The author is not predicting here, but is simply ex plaining who the beast is.
The place in which the apostle wrote was Asia Minor, probably Ephesus itself, to which he had returned from Patmos. The visions were received
in the barren island, and afterwards committed to writing at Ephesus, as is probable from the past tense of the verb in i. 9 (l-rev6p.7). This is other circumstances, by the epi stles being addressed to the seven churches.
On the basis of Irenmus's testimony, it has been very generally believed that the book did not ap pear till Domitian's reign. The principal argu ments adduced against an earlier date, such as the time of Galba or Nero, are the following : Nero's persecution did not extend to the pro vinces ; the Nicolaitanes did not form a sect as early as 68 or 69, whereas they are spoken of as such ; and the condition of the seven churches shows that they had been planted a considerable time.
If it were necessary to speak of the extent of the Neronian persecution, we should refer to Tertul lian, who mentions the laws (commentarios) of Nero and Domitian against the Christians ; an ex pression, says Milman, too distinct to pass for rhetoric even in that passionate writer. And Oro sais expressly testifies to its extension beyond Rome.* While the spirit of hostility was active in the metropolis, we may fairly infer that the Christians in the provinces did not escape. What ever affected the centre with terror, would affect the more distant parts of the empire. If perse cution raged in Rome, it must soon have found its way to Asia Minor, as well as the various places where Christianity had been planted ; for the em peror's example was infectious. That a martyr called Antipas had suffered death at Pergamos even in Nero's reign need not excite surprise. But it is not necessary to assume that he was slain under that emperor. Individual Christians may have suffered in the provinces even before his day. Heathen persecutions in Asia Minor awakened in the minds of Christians the hope of Christ's speedy reappearance. The writer beheld the coming struggle. Heathen magistrates, as well as Jews, were ever ready to put forth their enmity, even when the edicts of emperors forbade injury to the persons of Christians, and their hostility increased.
As to the Nicolaitanes, Irenmus speaks of such a sect in his time, deriving their name from the deacon Nicolas (Acts vi.), and referring the allu sion in the Apocalypse to it. The sect of the Nicolaitanes, mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, is probably not the same with that here. And there is no proof in the book itself that the Nicolaitanes formed a sect so early. Their doctrine was not speculative but practical—a kind of antinomianism which encouraged sinfulness of life. The writer finds a certain resemblance between them and the morality of Balaam, which led to heathenism. The Balaamites and Nicolaitanes were not two heretical sects, as some haVe supposed ; but the lax morality of the latter resembled that of old Balaam. They were a class of men within the Ephesian church, not a sect. It does not seem probable that these Nicolaitanes were the adherents of Pauline free grace, as the Tubingen critics usually suppose ; or that John wrote with a polemic object against Paul's doctrine. The name is symbolical, formed with reference to the word Balaam. Still farther, a close examination of the language addressed to each of the churches will show its appropriateness even in A.D. 68 or 69. About A.D. 61 the church at Ephesus is commended by Paul for the faith and love of its members ; which is consistent with the language of Apocalypse (ii. 2, 3); and both are compatible with the charge that they had left their first love. In the lapse of a very few years, amid trying circumstances, the ardour of new converts is liable to cool. The patience for which they are commended refers, as the context shows, to the temptations they suffered from corrupting teachers, and the difficulties attendant on the faithful exer cise of discipline in the church. The case of the church at Smyrna was similar.