The Apocalypse
(1801 English Edition PDF)
“His third argument he rests on what is said respecting Christ’s coming quickly, (ch. xxii, 20) which he considers as not having reference to the second coming of Christ to the General Judgment, but to the judgment impending over Jerualem.”
“the Apocalypse contains prophecies with which the very persons to whom it was sent were immediately concerned. But if none of these prophecies were designed to be completed till long after their death, those persons were not immediately concerned with them, and the author would surely not have said that they were blessed in reading prophecies of which the time was at hand, if those prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after the lapse of many ages” Alexander Tilloch: Dissertations introductory to the study and right understanding of the Apocalypse (1823)
“Michaelis believes that (the Apocalypse of John) was written in the reign of Claudius,’ who died A. D. 54. and appeals to Sir Isaac Newton, ” that prodigy of learning,” whose arguments in favor of an early date he considers as generally unexceptionable, (excepting those drawn from allusions to the Revelation, alleged to be found in the first Epistle of Peter, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.) “I have so high an opinion (says he) of the divine understanding of Newton, that I cannot flatter myself with having discovered a proof in his positions which was undiscovered by him. It is therefore with some diffidence that I lay before my readers some additional arguments for his opinion, that the Revelation was written so early as in the time of Claudius or Nero.” Alexander Tilloch: Dissertations (1823)
 |
(On Jerusalem = Harlot / Babylon)
“If I could only find a single authority for calling Jerusalem by the name of Babylon, I would rather follow Cappellus and Harduin who take Jerusalem to have been the place; which was also, according to Cyril of Alexandria, meant by Isaiah when he is speaking of Babylon. For the contents of this Epistle are not so well suited to any time as to that soon after the Council of Jerusalem, whilst Peter continued in that city. It is not impossible that St. Peter might call Jerusalem by the name of Babylon after she had begun to persecute the Church; and the expression of the elected church at Babylon seems to imply a paradox which would be removed had Jerusalem itself been named. It is therefore not improbable that St. Peter might in an epistle make use of this figurative and opprobrious name to signify Jerusalem. . . . Add to this that St. Peter sends a salutation from Mark, and this Mark, who was also called John, was returned to Jerusalem, not long before the said Council (Acts 13:13) All circumstances thus concurring, and it being never more necessary to the Gentile converts that they should ‘stand in the true grace of God,’ it appears to me, whilst I am writing, probable in the highest degree, that this Epistle was written at Jerusalem soon after the Council, i.e., in the year of Christ 49. . . . I am the less influenced by the testimony of the ancients to the contrary, as the matter depends not upon the historical question, whether St. Peter ever was at Rome, but upon the critical question, whether he calls Rome by the name of Babylon?” (“The First Epistle of St. Peter was written at Jerusalem at the time of the first council” (See Introd. Lect. to the “Sacred Books of the New Testament,” by J. D. Michaelis, § 148).
(On the Date of Revelation)
“I have so high an opinion of the divine understanding of Newton, that I cannot flatter myself with having discovered a proof in his positions which was undiscovered by him. It is therefore with some diffidence that I lay before my readers some additional arguments for his opinion, that the Revelation was written so early as in the time of Claudius or Nero.” (Introductory Lectures 1761. 4to. p. 389)
(On Revelation 1:1)
“If it be objected that the prophecies in the Apocalypse are not yet fulfilled, that they are therefore not fully understood, and that hence arises the difference of opinion in respect to their meaning, I answer, that if the prophecies are not yet fulfilled, it is wholly impossible that the Apocalypse should be a Divine work; since the author expressly declares (Rev. 1:1) that the things which it contains ‘must shortly come to pass.’ Consequently, either a great part of them, I will not say all, must have been fulfilled, or the author’s declaration, that they should shortly be completed, is not consistent with fact. It is true that to the Almighty a thousand years are but as one day, and one day as a thousand years; but if we therefore explain the term ‘shortly,’ as denoting a period longer than that which has elapsed since the Apocalypse was written, we sacrifice the love of truth to the support of a preconceived opinion. For when the Deity condescends to communicate information to mankind, He will of course use such language as is intelligible to mankind; and not name a period short which all men consider as long, or the communication will be totally useless. Besides, in reference to God’s eternity, not only seventeen hundred but seventeen thousand years are nothing. But the author of the Apocalypse himself has wholly precluded any such evasion, by explaining (Rev. 1:3) what he meant by the term ‘shortly,’ for he there says, ‘Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein; for the time is at hand.’ According, therefore, to the author’s own declaration, the Apocalypse contains prophecies with which the very persons to whom it was sent were immediately concerned. But if none of these prophecies were designed to be completed till long after their death, those persons were not immediately concerned with them, and the author would surely not have said that they were blessed in reading prophecies of which the time was at hand, if those prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after the lapse of many ages” (“Introduction to the New Testament,” vol. 4. pp. 503, 504).
“The First Epistle of St. Peter was written at Jerusalem at the time of the first council” (See Introd. Lect. to the “Sacred Books of the New Testament,” by J. D. Michaelis, § 148).
What do YOU think ?