Notes On The Apocalypse by David Steele

D >> David Steele >> Notes On The Apocalypse

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

By a formal syllogism Mr. Faber proposes to overthrow the generally
received interpretation of the term _Antichrist_, that it means, the
_Papacy_, or, the _Church of Rome_. Thus he reasons:--"He is Antichrist
that denieth the Father and the Son: but _the Church of Rome_ never
denied either the Father or the Son: therefore _the church of Rome_
cannot be the _Antichrist_ intended by St. John." Now, in this argument,
which seems to be so clear and conclusive, there is a latent sophism, an
assumption contrary to the Scriptures. The false assumption is, that the
word _denieth is univocal_; that is, that it has in the Bible, and on
this doctrinal point in particular, only _one sense_; whereas this is
not the case. The Church of Rome does indeed "profess to know" the
Father and the Son, but "in works denies" both, (1 Tim. v. 8; Tit. i.
16.) Therefore Mr. Faber's conclusion is not sustained by his premises,
and the Church of Rome might be the Antichrist for any thing that his
syllogism says to the contrary.

Mr. Faber imagined that "Republican France,--infidel and atheistical
France,"--was the Antichrist; and he labored with much ingenuity to
sustain his position by applying to revolutionary France the latter part
of the eleventh chapter of Daniel, together with the prophecies of Paul,
Peter and Jude. I presume that most divines and intelligent Christians
are long since convinced, by the developments of Providence, that he was
mistaken. The commotions of the French Revolution and the military
achievements of the first Napoleon, however important to peninsular
Europe, were on much too limited a scale to correspond with the
magnitude and duration of the great Antichrist's achievements. They
were, however, owing to their proximity to Britain and their threatening
aspect, of sufficient importance to excite the alarm and rouse the
political antipathies of the Vicar of Stockton upon Tees! Mr. Faber's
Antichrist is an "infidel king, wilful king, an atheistical king, a
professed atheist," of short duration, and his influence of limited
geographical extent. He is not in most of these features the Antichrist
of prophecy, whose baleful influence is co-extensive with Christendom,
and whose duration is to be 1260 years. Mr. Faber's erudition is to be
respected, his imagination admired, but his political feelings to be
lamented. Indeed, his very ecclesiastical title of office,--"Vicar," is
itself partly indicative and symbolical of the prophetic Antichrist.

I do not believe that infidel France, whether republican or monarchical,
nor the Papacy, nor the Church of Rome, is the Antichrist of the apostle
John; yet I do believe that all these are essential elements in his
composition. The following are the principal component parts of that
complex moral person, as defined by the Holy Spirit, by which any
disciple of Christ without much learning may identify John's Antichrist.
His elemental parts are three, _and only three_, and all presented in
the thirteenth chapter of Revelation. The "beast of the sea," (vs. 1,
2,) the "beast of the earth," (v. 11,) and the "image of, or to the
first beast," (v. 14,) that is, the Roman empire, the Roman church and
the Pope: all these in combination, _professing Christianity_; these,
with their adjuncts as subordinate agencies constitute the Apocalyptic
Antichrist. Besides this personage, well defined by the inspired
prophets, Daniel, Paul, John and others, there is no other Antichrist.
An "infidel king, a professed atheist," as distinct from this one and
symbolized in prophetic revelation, I find not. I conclude that such a
personage is wholly chimerical, framed as a creature of a lively
imagination.

THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST.

Mr. Faber is unsuccessful in his interpretation of the "image of the
beast." His reasoning is ingenious, specious and intelligible as usual.
He labours to prove that the worshipping of images by the Papists is the
meaning of the symbol. Material images, however, whether of papal origin
or otherwise, are harmless vanities: "for they cannot do evil, neither
also _is it_ in them to do good," (Jer. x. 5.) The case is quite
otherwise with this image. It has "life, speaks, and has power to
_kill_," (Rev. xiii. 15.) These properties of John's "image" are so
opposite to those of the Papal images, that they effectually confute Mr.
Faber's fanciful, not to say whimsical theory. It has been already shown
that the "image" symbolizes the Papacy, the _fac-simile_ of the Roman
emperor.

THE BEAST'S "_deadly wound_."

The Erastian heresy, the usual concomitant of prelacy, will readily
account for Mr. Faber's explanation of the "deadly wound," which the
first beast received in his sixth head. Constantine, he thinks,
inflicted that wound by abolishing paganism. He writes as though the
beast had been _actually killed_, and had lain literally dead for a
period of nearly three centuries! (viz., from 313 till 606.) Yet the
apostle assures us that the "deadly wound was healed." The _beast did
not die_. Daniel gives no hint of the death of his fourth beast, which
is the same as John's beast of the sea, until his final destruction at
the close of the 1260 years. It was in fact under the reigns of
Constantine and his successors, that ambitious pastors were nurtured
into antichristian prelates, and passed by a natural transition into
Popery. The empire never ceased to be a beast during the whole period of
its continuance. The sixth _head_ was wounded, but the beast still
survived. The sixth or imperial form of government was changed, but that
change brought no advantage to the Christian church either in her
doctrine or order. As a distinct horn of this beast the British nation
with her hierarchy is easily traceable to mystic Babylon in point of
maternity. Since, as well as before the time of Henry the Eighth,
spiritual fornication has ever been the crime of the "British
Establishment." This historical fact requires no proof.

Mr. Faber seems to me to give too little prominence in his exposition to
Daniel and John's beast of the sea, as an enemy to Christ. Indeed, he
appears to overlook the leading idea involved in the name Antichrist, as
a _substitutionary_, false, and therefore inimical or hostile christ.
Instead of keeping before his mind the glorious person of the Mediator
as the special object of Antichrist's enmity, as prophecy requires, he
places before him the church or the gospel instead of Christ. Hence he
writes thus:--"We find in the predictions of St. John,--(why not _St_
Daniel?) two _great enemies_ of the _gospel_, Popery and Mohammedism."
Then he adds,--"a third power is introduced," (Preface, p. 7.) This
"third power" he calls "a wilful infidel king," and, as already noticed,
interprets it of "atheistical France." Now, it will be evident to the
intelligent reader that among his "three powers" considered by him as
"enemies to the gospel," he has entirely lost sight of the _seven headed
ten horned beast_, and _his hostility to Christ_! He has, in fact,
manifestly substituted his imaginary "wilful king",--infidel France, for
the Roman empire, the beast of Daniel and John, the agent that slays the
witnesses, (Rev. xi. 7.) To almost every expositor, and in his lucid
moments, even to Mr. Faber himself, it is apparent, that the Roman
empire is the primary element in the complex personage that wars against
the Lamb. Even kings are but _horns of the beast_, and Popery but a
_horn_. (Dan. vii. 20; Rev. xvii. 12, 13.)

It is therefore a great mistake on the part of this learned author, to
feign an Antichrist distinct from the three confederated enemies of
Christ and his witnesses,--enemies so clearly pointed out in prophecy by
appropriate and intelligible symbols:--the beast with ten, and the beast
with two horns, and the image of the first. These three, all professing
the Christian religion, and practically denying it, without the shadow
of a doubt, constitute the Antichrist of John, (1 John ii. 19-21.) This
is the identical enemy described by Daniel, and according to the
inspired predictions of both prophets, doomed to eternal destruction,
(Dan. vii. 11; Rev. xix. 20.) Hence it is obvious that Mr. Faber's
"wilful king" is wholly a creature of his own fancy, constituting no
feature of the prophetic Antichrist.

THE LITTLE BOOK.

This symbol is in the tenth chapter evidently distinguished from the one
in the fifth chapter. It is considered by several interpreters as
containing all that follows to the end of the book. According to this
view, it would be larger than the sealed book, (ch. v. 1.) Such a view
is altogether untenable, involving, as it does, almost a palpable
contradiction. The little book is indeed comprehended in the sealed
book, as a part of the whole; or it may be viewed as an appendix or
codicil, or perhaps still more correctly as a _parenthesis_,
interrupting the series of the trumpets, that the object of the seventh
or last woe-trumpet maybe thus described and rendered intelligible when
sounded.

Mr. Faber is correct in saying, "the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and
fourteenth chapters, in point of chronology run parallel to each other;"
but he is mistaken when he says the "little book comprehends these four
chapters." It comprehends only so much as intervenes between the close
of the ninth chapter and the fifteenth verse of the eleventh chapter;
or, in other words, between the sounding of the sixth and seventh
trumpet. To be more correct and explicit,--the tenth chapter introduces
the little book, and the eleventh chapter, from the first to the
fourteenth verse inclusive, exhibits an abstract of its contents,--a
condensed narrative or mere outline of the contest during the 1260
years.

THE DEATH OF THE WITNESSES.

Many divines have considered the death of the two witnesses, as
consisting in a moral slaying, equivalent to apostacy. Mr. Faber views
their life and death as altogether political. He censures Mr. Galloway
for "want of strict adherence to _unity of symbolical_ interpretation,"
but he inadvertently falls into the same error. Assuming, as he does,
that the two witnesses are the Old and New Testament _Churches_, where
is the "unity of symbolical interpretation" when he tells us that the
witnesses were politically slain in the "disastrous battle of Mulburgh
in the year 1547, by the total route of the protestants under the lead
of the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse?" The _political_
death of two churches in the battle of Mulburgh!--Such language
exemplifies neither the accuracy of historic narrative, nor the "unity
of symbolical interpretation:" nor does it accord with another rule of
the writer, one of his three cardinal rules, namely,--That "no
interpretation of a prophecy is valid, except the prophecy agree _in
every particular_ with the event to which it is supposed to relate."
Mistaking the character of the witnesses, as one of the primary symbols
in the Apocalypse, he is unable to ascertain in history either their
identity or work, their life or their death. Having imagined their
political death in 1547, he supposes their resurrection to political
life in 1550,--"by the accession of Edward the Sixth to the throne of
England!" and "the defeat of the Duke of Mecklenburgh in the October of
that year!!" Of course, these witnesses, according to Mr. Faber's
interpretation, resumed their function of prophesying so soon as they
were restored to political life: but we look in vain for the prophesying
of the mystic witnesses after their ascension to the symbolic heaven,
(Rev. xi. 12.) As we have shown to the readers of these Notes, their
lives and their testimony, or prophesying, terminate together, (ch. xi.
7; xii. 11.)

THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

"With regard to the mark of the beast," Mr. Faber "thinks, with Sir
Isaac Newton, that it is _the cross_," (p. 176.) This _thought_ has
indeed been almost universal in the minds of protestants. So deep-seated
is this conviction in the popular belief, that one is deemed chargeable
with temerity, if not something worse, who would call its grounds in
question. Popular opinion, or belief in matters of this spiritual and
mystical nature, is, however, of very little weight in the estimation of
such as are accustomed to "try the spirits." Although the mark was to be
received at the instance and by the authority of the two horned beast of
the earth, it was not enjoined as a mark of devotion to _himself_. It
was manifestly commanded by him as a _tessera_ of loyalty to the
ten-horned beast of the sea, the obvious symbol of corrupt and
tyrannical civil power. Instead therefore of the cross as a sign of
devotion to Popery,--of membership in the church of Rome, as identifying
with the beast's mark, this mark is evidently and demonstrably the
tessera of loyalty to the Roman empire,--immoral civil power; and this,
too, in any of the dependencies of that iron empire, (Dan. ii. 40; vii.
7.)

From the errors and vagaries of this learned and acute expositor, some
of which have been pointed out, it is apparent that no amount of
intellectual culture, no natural powers of discrimination, no logical or
metaphysical acumen, will compensate for the want of early and accurate
training in the knowledge of supernatural revelation. On the prophetical
and priestly offices of our Redeemer, some of the English prelates have
written with a force, perspicuity and zeal against the heresies of the
Romish apostacy, not excelled by the writings of those who have
dissented from the semi-papal hierarchy of the Anglican Church. But on
the _royal_ office of Immanuel, their prelatic training and associations
seem to have blinded their minds. "No bishop, no king," is a maxim which
seems to lie at the foundation of all their political disquisitions and
speculations, and which gives a tincture to all their expositions of
prophecy. Nevertheless, even in this field of labor, the diligent
student may consult with much advantage the learned works of such
writers as the two Newtons, Kett, Galloway, Whitaker, Zouch, with their
predecessors, Lowman, Mede and others.

After all, the best works to be obtained as helps to understand the
prophetic parts of Scripture, will be found in the labors of those who,
from age to age, have obeyed the gracious call of Christ,--who have
"come out from mystic Babylon," from the Romish communion,--from the
mother and her harlot daughters, and who have associated more or less
intimately with the _witnesses_. Among these may be consulted with
profit the works of Durham, Mason and M'Leod. But while searching after
the mind of God revealed in this part of his word, let us never exercise
implicit faith in the teachings of any fallible expositor. Let us always
regard the injunction of our apostle:--"Beloved, believe not every
spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God." Of course, the
only infallible standard by which we can try the spirits is the whole
word of God,--"comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

Bishop Newton, among those divines distinguished in ecclesiastical
history as Millenarians, may be regarded as one of the most learned,
judicious and cautious. The amount of the deductions which this class of
writers draw from the scripture phrase "first resurrection," and its
context, confirmed as they suppose by many other parts of Scripture,
appears to be the following:--All the righteous shall be raised from
their graves to meet our Saviour coming from heaven at the beginning of
the Millennium: he and these saints, clothed in real human bodies, are
to dwell and reign together upon a renovated earth during that happy
period. Indeed, writers on this interesting subject differ so much in
details, that no well-defined theory or system can be discovered among
them. The _literal resurrection_ of the bodies of the saints, and the
_corporeal presence_ of Christ among them, seem to be the cardinal
points of agreement with this class of expositors; and from this literal
interpretation of the resurrection of the righteous and bodily
appearance of the Saviour, they either took or received the name
_Millenarians_. Other Christians, however, who differ from them in the
interpretation of symbols, are no less believers in a millennium than
they,--a thousand years of righteousness and peace _on the earth_.

Bishop Newton understands "this 'first resurrection' of a particular
resurrection preceding the general one at least a thousand years." "It
is to this first resurrection," says he, "that St. Paul alludes, (1
Thess. iv. 16,) when he affirms that the 'dead in Christ shall rise
first,' and (1 Cor. xv. 23;) that every man shall be made alive in his
own order, Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at
his coming." It is surprising that a person of the Bishop's learning
should so readily mistake the _sound_ for the _sense_ of the words which
he quotes. While the apostle is, for the "comfort" of the saints,
treating of _their_ resurrection, he is evidently speaking of the
general resurrection at the _end of time_. In the morning of the
resurrection Christ's members will be raised after the manner and in
virtue of his resurrection,--"the first fruits" securing the following
harvest, in obvious allusion to the ceremonial law. In the other case,
when Paul says, "the dead in Christ shall rise first," does he
mean,--before "the rest of the dead?" No, but before those of their
_redeemed brethren_ who shall then be "alive and remain;" for these
"shall not prevent (_anticipate_) them which are asleep," (_in the
grave_.) That is, the bodies of the saints who have died shall be raised
in glory, _before_ those then alive shall undergo a change equivalent to
that of the resurrection. Such is manifestly the meaning of the
apostle's plain language which has no reference whatever to the
millennium, not even the remotest allusion. Nothing but a groundless
preconception of the nature of the millennium will account for the sound
of words taking the place of their sense in the reader's mind, and no
degree of mere scholarship can obviate this propensity of the human mind
in "the things of the Spirit of God."

Not only does the learned prelate misapprehend and misapply the texts
above quoted to support his theory, but he makes a gratuitous
concession, which is at once fatal to his scheme and inconsistent with
himself. He says,--"Indeed, the _death_ and _resurrection_ of the
witnesses before mentioned, (Rev. xi. 7, 11,) appears from the
concurrent circumstances of the vision to be _figurative_." The Bishop
evidently viewed the witnesses of the eleventh chapter as a company
altogether different from those of whom John speaks in the twentieth
chapter, (vs. 4, 5.) This is another of his surprising mistakes; for
that the _identical party_ as a moral person appears in both parts of
the symbolic and allegorical representation will readily appear to any
unbiassed mind by an induction of the following particulars.

These witnesses are to continue "prophesying 1260 days (_years_,) (Rev.
xi. 3.) Then they are killed, (v. 7.) But we learn that _in death_ they
are _victorious_, (ch. xii. 11) They triumph "with the Lamb on Mount
Zion," (ch. xiv. 1) In a similar attitude of triumph they again appear
"standing on the sea of glass, (ch. xv. 2.) They are with their
victorious King, (ch. xvii. 14.) They are exhorted to retaliate upon
mystic Babylon, (xviii. 6.) They are also engaged in the last campaign
with the Captain of their salvation, (ch. xix. 14, 19, 20.) And at
length they are advanced to thrones of civil power to "rule the
nations," (ch. xx. 4,) in fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy and their
Saviour's promise, (Dan. vii. 27; Rev. ii. 26, 27.) The death and
resurrection of the witnesses is compendiously stated in the former part
of the eleventh chapter, (vs. 7-14;) but these events, epitomised again
in the "little book," are amplified in the subsequent chapters, where we
are made acquainted more fully with their enemies, their conflicts,
death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation; and in all these respects
is exhibited their conformity to the example of their Captain and
Leader. If, therefore, according to the Bishop's conception, "the death
and resurrection" of the witnesses in the eleventh chapter be
_figurative_, and if the witnesses of the twentieth be the same as those
of the eleventh chapter, which identity I have proved, it follows
incontrovertibly, that the "first resurrection" is to be understood in a
figurative sense. This interpretation may be abundantly confirmed in the
following manner:--The witnesses prophesy 1260 years. But since no
individual persons live so long, a succession _must_ be supposed. They
are, in fact, mystic characters, having their real counterpart in actual
history on this earth. The scarlet colored beast and woman, (ch. xvii.
3,) are of equal duration with the witnesses, and of similar mystic
character, and have their real counterpart in history. The witnesses are
slain by the beast at the instigation of the woman; but their death is
only temporary, (ch. xi. 7, 11;) their enemies "have no more that they
can do:" while, on the other hand, the death of the beast is
"perdition,"--eternal death, (ch. xvii. 8,) and in this death the
woman,--"the false prophet" participates, (ch. xix. 20.) All this
symbolical language respects Christ's enemies as corporate or organized
bodies.

Here it is proper to notice an objection of Bishop Newton. He
asks,--"With what propriety can it be said, that some of the dead who
were beheaded "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; but the
rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were
finished;" unless _the dying_ and _living again_ be the same in both
places?" Very true, the dying and living are doubtless "the same in both
places." The Bishop's mistake consists in taking these expressions in a
literal sense, "a proper death and resurrection." He evidently assumes
that "the rest of the dead," here mentioned, are to be literally raised
at the last day. This is undoubtedly true, for there shall be a
resurrection ... of the unjust." (Acts xxiv. 15,) but it is not the
truth contained in the words in question. From the assumption of the
_literal_ raising of "the rest of the dead," he infers the _literal_
raising of those that were beheaded. The converse of this is obviously
the correct way of reasoning. We have found that the witnesses are
spoken of, (xi. 14,) as _figuratively_ raised by the Bishop's own
acknowledgment, therefore it is most natural and logical to infer that
"the rest of the dead" were to be raised in the same manner, namely,
_figuratively_. As at the beginning of the millennium,--the martyrs, not
some of them only, as the Bishop hints, will be raised in the persons of
their legitimate successors in faith and practice; and their faith and
practice will constitute the happy state of the world for a thousand
years, so, when that period shall have expired, Satan, being "loosed out
of his prison," (ch. xx. 8,) will deceive the nations as before, and
during the "little season" of liberty, will succeed in raising from the
dead as it were, a multitude of the same character as those who killed
the witnesses,--"Gog and Magog." This maybe called the _second_
resurrection, and there will never be a _third of that kind_, for the
Lord will destroy them for ever, (ch. xx. 9.) The character of the
witnesses and their unparalleled conflicts with Antichrist sufficiently
identify them in the Apocalypse throughout the 1260 years, as also
during the thousand years of their reign; and the character of their
enemies identifies them in the time of conflict for 1260 years; but
during the succeeding period of righteousness and peace for a thousand
years, they will not be permitted to lift up the head. And so soon as
they are organized under the conduct of Satan, and like Pharaoh, most
confident of victory, (Exod. xv. 9,) then "sudden destruction cometh
upon them, and they shall not escape."

THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO WITNESSES.

The late Rev. Alexander M'Leod, D. D., who had the works of learned
predecessors before him, has successfully corrected many of their
misinterpretations in his valuable publication, entitled "Lectures upon
the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation." At the time when he wrote
that work, he possessed several advantages in aid of his own
expositions. He had access to the most valuable works which had been
issued before that date, (1814.). He was then in the vigor of youthful
manhood; and he was also comparatively free from the trammels which in
attempts to expound the Apocalypse, have cramped the energies of many a
well-disciplined mind, _political partialities_. At the time of these
profound studies, he occupied a position "in the wilderness," from which
as a stand point, like John in Patmos, he could most advantageously
survey the passing scenes of providence with the ardor of youthful
emotion, and with unsullied affection for the divine Master. With all
these advantages, however, the dispassionate and impartial reviewer may
discover, in the rapid current of his thoughts, that the active powers
of the expositor some times took precedence of the intellectual. Two
special causes may be assigned for this, hereditary love of liberty, and
the actual condition of society at the time. Born in Scotland, the
cradle of civil and religious liberty from the days of John Knox, Dr.
M'Leod's traditions and mental associations were necessarily imbued with
the atmosphere of such surroundings. To such causes may be attributed
occasional declamation, extravagant verbosity and unconscious
inconsistencies, not well comporting with the solidity and self
possession so desirable on the part of an expositor. Yet even in such
outbursts of impassioned eloquence we may sometimes discover noble
conceptions commanding our admiration, if not altogether such as to
secure our approbation. It ought to be considered, moreover, that the
"Lectures" came from their author in a turbulent, if not in a
revolutionary condition of society. Peninsular Europe was convulsed by
the successful military career of that brilliant general, Napoleon.
England and the United States were also at war. The independence and
even the existence of the young Republic were apparently in peril. The
lecturer very naturally sympathized with the land of his adoption, in
which resided his domestic treasures and many of the "excellent ones of
the earth," to whom he was bound by conjugal, paternal and covenant
ties. In a condition of actual warfare, he could not but feel most
keenly the constriction of these manifold and endearing bonds,
especially when thought to be jeopardized.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23