REVELATION,
BOOK
OF
took
the
best
means
of
preserving
the
revelation
from
cor-ruption.
Continuous
and
universal
tradition
has
very
few
safeguards
against
deterioration,
aa
the
Jewish
liistory
only
too
clearly
shows.
Our
acceptance
of
the
revelation
en-shrined
in
the
NT
is
based
on
the
belief
that
it
comes
through
men
uniquely
authorized
and
equipped
to
declare
God's
will.
Its
authority
depends
on
the
fact
that
their
special
relation
to
Christ
and
their
exceptional
possession
of
the
Spirit
gave
them
the
power
to
receive
and
declare
God's
truth
for
naankind.
Not_
fitness
to
edify,
or
age,
or
the
possession
of
truth,
but
with
these,
and
underlying
them,
the
presence
of
a
Divine
element
in
the
men
whose
writings
we
possess,
gives
the
boolcs
their
authority
for
us
as
a
record
and
vehicle
of
Divine
revelation.
This
uniqueness
may
be
seen
by
a
simple
appeal
to
fact.
The
comparison
of
the
Apostohc
and
sub-
Apostolic
ages
shows
the
imiqueness
of
the
NT.
Between
the
first
and
second
centuries
there
is
a
chasm
'
sheer,
abrupt,
abysmal
'
(Schaff),
and
no
transition
exists
which
was
so
silent,
and
yet
so
sudden
and
remarkable.
The
most
beautiful
i)roduct
of
the
second
century,
the
EpisUe
of
Diognetus,
is
incompar-ably
inferior
to
any
book
of
the
NT.
'There
is
no
steeper
descent
in
history
than
that
which
directly
follows
the
Apostolic
age.
We
pass
at
once
from
writings
unsurpassed
in
creative
power
to
writings
of
marked
in
tellectual
poverty,
.
.
.
the
distinction
commonly
made
between
the
books
of
the
Canon
and
the
rest
is
fully
justified'
(Gwatkin,
Kiuml-edge
of
God,
ii.
80).
This
difference
marks
the
distinction
between
the
Spirit
of
God
in
revelation
and
in
illumination.
Since
the
close
of
the
NT
times
there
has
been
strictly
no
addition
to
the
revelation,
but
only
its
manifold
realization
and
appUcatiou
in
the
Christian
Church
and
the
world.
It
should
be
carefully
noted
that
we
believe
in
the
Divine
revelation
contained
m
the
Scriptures,
without
holding
any
particular
theory
of
inspiration.
The
supreme
question
is
whether
they
contam
a
revelation
of
Divme
truth.
Are
they
true
and
trustworthy
for
our
spiritual
life?
If
so,
they
are
authori-tative
whatever
may
have
been
the
precise
method
of
their
delivery.
The
primary
question
is
not
the
method
of
in-spiration,
but
the
fact
of
authority.
Yet,
however
difficult
it
may
be
to
define
its
character
or
limits,
we
believe
in
a
special
inspiration
of
the
Bible
based
on
the
authority
of
its
authors
and
on
their
unique
power
to
reveal
God's
will.
This
special
inspiration
is
(1)
testified
to
by
the
Scriptures
themselves,
(2)
has
ever
been
held
in
the
Christian
Church,
and
(3)
constantly
authenticates
itself
to
the
Christian
con-science
through
the
ages.
8.
Purpose
o£
revelation.
—
The
essential
purpose
of
revelation
is
life:
the
gift
of
the
life
of
God
to
the
life
of
man.
Its
practical
character
is
stamped
on
every
part.
The
'
chief
end
of
revelation
'
is
not
philosophy,
though
it
has
a
philosophy
profound
and
worthy.
It
is
not
doctrine,
though
it
has
a
doctrine
satisfying
and
in-spuring.
It
is
not
enjoyment,
though
it
has
its
ex-periences
precious
and
lasting.
It
is
not
even
morality,
though
it
has
its
ethic
unique
and
powerful.
Chris-tianity
has
all
these,
but
is
far
more
than
them
all.
It
is
the
religion
of
redemption,
including
salvation
from
sin,
equipment
for
holiness,
and
provision
for
life
to
be
lived
in
fellowship
with
God
and
for
His
glory.
The
'chief
end'
of
revelation
is
the
union
of
God
and
man,
and
in
that
union
the
fulfilment
of
all
God's
purposes
for
the
world.
The
elements
of
sonship,
worship,
stewardship,
fellowship,
heirship,
practically
sum
up
the
purpose
of
Divine
revelation
as
it
concerns
man's
life
—
a
life
in
which
he
receives
God's
grace,
realizes
God's
will,
reproduces
God's
character,
renders
God
service,
and
rejoices
in
God's
presence
in
the
Kingdom
of
grace
below
and
the
Kingdom
of
glory
above.
W.
H.
Gkiffith
Thomas.
REVELATION,
BOOK
OF.
—
This
single
representa-tive
of
the
literature
of
apocalypse
(Gr.
apokalypsis,
whencethealternatingname,'TheApocalypse')preserved
in
the
NT
belongs
to
a
large
group
of
Christian
writings
of
a
similar
sort.
It
was
characteristic
of
the
early
Church
to
build
up
a
literature
about
the
names
of
the
various
Apostles.
Normally
this
literature
consisted
of
a
narrative,
an
apocalypse,
and
some
form
of
doctrinal
writing;
as,
for
example,
the
Gospel
of
Peter,
the
Apocalypse
of
Peter,
and
the
Preaching
of
Peter.
With
the
exception
of
the
present
book,
no
Christian
apocalypse
is
held
to
be
even
possibly
authentic.
REVELATION,
BOOK
OF
1.
Canonicity.
—
The
Revelation
was
not
universally
accepted
by
the
early
Church
as
canonical.
There
is
no
evidence
of
its
existence
worthy
of
consideration
in
the
writings
of
the
Apostolic
Fathers,
although
it
is
just
possible
that
Paplas
may
have
known
of
it.
By
the
middle
of
the
2nd
cent.,
however,
Revelation
is
well
known,
and
is
declared
by
Justin
to
be
by
the
Apostle
John
{Dial.
Ixxxi.
15).
It
is
also
used,
among
others,
by
Melito,
Tertullian,
Clement
of
Alexandria,
and
Origen,
and
attributed
to
the
Apostle
John
by
the
first-named
as
well
as
by
Irenaeus.
The
fact
that
it
appears
in
the
Canon
of
the
Muratorian
Fragment
is
evidence
that
by
the
middle
of
the
2nd
cent,
it
was
accepted
in
the
West.
After
its
defence
by
Hippolytus
its
position
was
never
seriously
questioned
except
in
the
East.
Jerome
is,
in
fact,
the
only
Western
theologian
of
importance
who
doubts
it,
and
he
puts
it
among
those
books
which
are
'
under
discussion,'
neither
canonical
nor
apocryphal.
In
the
East,
as
might
be
expected,
it
was
rejected
by
Marcion,
and,
because
of
disbelief
in
its
Apostolic
author-ship,
by
Dionysius
of
Alexandria
(middle
of
the
3rd
cent.).
Palestinian
and
Syrian
authors
(e.g.
Cyril
of
Jerusalem)
generally
rejected
it,
in
large
measure
because
of
the
struggle
with
the
Montanists,
by
whom
Revelation
was
used
as
a
basis
of
doctrine.
It
does
not
appear
in
the
lists
of
the
Synod
of
Laodicea,
the
Apos-tolic
Constitutions,
Gregory
of
Nazianzus,
Chrysostom,
the
Chronography
of
Nicephorus,
the
'
List
of
the
Sixty
Books,'
or
in
the
Peshitta
version
of
the
NT.
It
was
included
by
the
Gelasian
Decree
at
the
end
of
the
5th
cent,
as
canonical,
and
was
finally
recognized
by
the
Eastern
Church.
Yet
as
late
as
692
a
Synod
could
publish
two
decrees,
the
one
including
the
Apocalypse
in
the
Canon,
the
other
excluding
it.
It
was
not
held
in
high
repute
by
the
reformers
Carlstadt,
Luther,
Zwingli,
all
of
whom
doubted
its
Apostolicity,
or
apparently
by
Calvin,
who
omitted
to
comment
upon
it.
At
most,
the
first
two
of
these
theologians
were
apparently
in-clined
to
recognize
a
division
of
sacred
writings
similar
to
that
of
Jerome.
2.
Authorship.
—
The
title,
"Revelation
of
John,'
which
occurs
in
several
MSS,
including
the
Codex
Sinaiticus,
is
an
obvious
expression
of
a
belief
regarding
authorship.
This
John
was
believed
by
many
in
the
early
Church
to
be
the
Apostle.
Whether
this
view
was
correct
or
not
is
to-day
a
subject
of
lively
debate.
The
book
itself
contains
little
internal
evidence
serving
to
substantiate
this
claim,
for
the
author
simply
states
that
he
is
named
John
(!'•
<■
'
22=).
Justin
(Dial.
Ixxxi.
15)
distinctivelystatesthatRevelationisby
'
John,
one
of
the
Apostles
of
Christ,'
and
Tertullian
along
with
the
Western
Church
generally
held
to
its
Apostolic
authorship.
Eusebius,
however,
suggests
that
it
may
have
been
written
by
John
'
the
Presbyter,'
mentioned
by
Papias
but
otherwise
unknown.
At
the
present
time
the
belief
is
divided
as
to
whether
the
author
of
Revelation
is
John
the
Apostle
or
John
the
Presbyter.
The
chief
argument
against
the
view
that
the
author
is
John
the
Apostle
lies
in
the
differences
existing
between
Revelation
and
the
Gospel
and
the
Epistles
of
John,
both
in
style
and
in
method.
Notwithstanding
the
use
of
the
term
'Logos'
(19'^),
these
divergences
are
too
obvious
to
need
specifying.
If
Johannine
authorship
be
assigned
the
Gospel
and
Epistles,
it
is
difiicult
to
claim
it
for
Revelation;
but,
on
the
other
hand,
it
is
difficult
to
believe
it
to
be
either
pseudonymous
or
written
by
the
mysterious
John
the
Presbyter.
As
the
case
now
stands,
criticism
seems
to
have
reached
an
impasse,
and
the
plain
reader
may
best
use
the
book
in
disregard
of
questions
of
authorship,
—
a
procedure
the
more
justifiable
because
its
teaching
is
independent
of
personal
matters.
3.
Date.
—
Although
the
fixing
of
the
date
of
Revela-tion
presupposes
conclusions
as
to
its
composition
and
purpose,
it
may
here
be
said
that
in
all
probability
the
book
reached
its
present
form
in
the
latter
part
of
the
leign
of
Domitian
(a.d.
81-96).
