A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Notes On The Apocalypse by David Steele

D >> David Steele >> Notes On The Apocalypse




With these preliminaries, and expressing my obligation to the Doctor's
labors, to whose system of interpretation as well as to most of his
details, I cheerfully give my approbation in preference to all other
expositors whose works it has been in my power to consult; it is
proposed briefly to review some of his expositions and sentiments, from
which I crave liberty to dissent. "It is not the interest of any man to
be in error."

In his interpretation of the seals and trumpets of the Apocalypse, Dr.
M'Leod has unquestionably corrected many misapprehensions of his learned
predecessors, especially Bishop Newton and Mr. Faber: and it is perhaps
to be regretted that he did not favor the public with his view of the
vials also, a work which he seems to have had in contemplation when the
"Lectures" were published. The three last named interpreters did
certainly improve upon the expositions of all who went before them in
this field of investigation; and in most cases of disagreement the
Doctor excelled in accuracy the other two, as will readily appear on
careful examination.

In attempting to ascertain the import of the mystic "witnesses," as of
the Antichrist, expositors widely differ. Bishop Newton says
positively,--"The witnesses cannot be ... any two churches." Mr. Faber
is equally peremptory, that they "must be two churches," and he attempts
to sustain his position by many citations of Scripture, and by much
plausible argumentation. The Bishop is substantially correct in saying,
"They are a succession of men, and a succession of churches." Mr. Faber
is also correct in the main when he says,--"The two witnesses signify
the spiritual members of the catholic church:" but his notion of _two
churches_, the "Old and New Testament churches," betrays his imperfect
conception of the _essential unity_ of the church of God. Both he and
the Bishop overlook too often the important fact that civil magistracy
is a divine ordinance, which, as corrupted, constitutes the first beast
of the Apocalypse, and the most prominent feature of the great
Antichrist.

Doctor M'Leod's definition or description of the witnesses is as
follows:--"They are a small company of true Christians, defending the
interests of true religion against all opposition, and frequently
sealing with their blood the testimony which they hold," (p. 314.) This
description is more definite than either of the two preceding, and is
therefore worthy of preference; yet the reader will still wish for
something more precise and tangible. Since the prophets of the Old and
New Testaments reveal the hostility of the Devil to Christ and his
people, and since both Daniel and John represent this hostility by
appropriate and intelligible symbols, as carried out by corrupting the
two great ordinances of _church_ and _state_, would it not follow that
the witnesses are those Christians who, for 1260 years, apply the word
of God to these two ordinances, contending for a _scriptural magistracy_
and a _gospel ministry_,--the "Two Sons of Oil;" and testifying against
their _Counterfeits_? Such appears to be the import of those mystical
characters of whom we read, Zech. iv. 14; Rev. xi. 4.

In tracing the witnesses through their eventful history for 1260 years
as portrayed in the Apocalypse, and in fixing with precision their
_continuous identity_, I am constrained reluctantly to dissent from the
Doctor and agree with Faber. Adopting the language of "Frazer's Key,"
Dr. M'Leod says, "These witnesses differ as much from their
cotemporaries, the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed ones,
(Rev. vii. 4,) as Elijah differed from the seven thousand in Israel in
his time." The attempt is made to prove this assertion by the following
plausible argument:--"God is never for a moment without a people upon
earth." This is true,--"And the visible church is an indestructible
society." Is this assertion true? It is partly true, and partly
untrue:--"true of her _existence_ and moral identity, but not of her
_visibility_ as an organized body." For example, where was the visible
church while Elijah "dwelt by the brook Cherith?" (1 Kings xvii. 3, xix.
10;) or while the "woman was in the wilderness?" (Rev. xii. 6.) Is it
consistent with propriety to contemplate the woman as _literally
visible_, when she is symbolically "in the wilderness?" This seems to be
impossible. I am therefore prepared to give my decided preference to the
sentiment of Mr. Faber contained in the following words of his
"Dissertation:" "The one hundred and forty-four thousand here mentioned,
(Rev. xiv. 1,) are the immediate successors of the one hundred and forty
four thousand sealed servants of God; (ch. vii. 4.) They are the same in
short, as _the two witnesses_.... They constitute the _persecuted church
in the wilderness_."--I cannot but think the evidence of identity here
irresistible; and in the pithy language of the Doctor on another point,
I say,--"A man must shut his eyes not to see" the correctness of Mr.
Faber's interpretation of this identity. The Doctor's censure of English
expositors in one of his notes will too often justly apply to other
divines in expounding prophecy:--"They have greatly diminished the value
of their publications, by permitting themselves to indulge so much of
the spirit of political partiality." Doctor M'Leod and Mr. Faber I
consider among the best expositors of the prophecies on which they
severally wrote; and therefore their valuable works have been
principally contemplated in these animadversions. On material points
they have shed much light where those who preceded them left the reader
in darkness, or involved him in perplexing labyrinths. Faber preceded
M'Leod, and the latter availed himself of all the aid furnished by the
former; yet till the "mystery of God shall be finished," his people will
be receiving accessions of light from the "sure word of prophecy."


SOUNDING OP THE SEVENTH TRUMPET.

At the time when those learned divines wrote, the political agitations
in Europe and America, as already noticed, gave a peculiar tincture to
their opinions and expositions of the Apocalyptic symbols. This state of
feeling on the part of these distinguished men, and on opposite sides of
the Atlantic, is very strikingly illustrated in their conflicting
interpretations of the "third woe,"--the seventh trumpet. Amidst the
conflict of arms and the booming of cannon, in both hemispheres, those
writers thought the first blast of the seventh trumpet and third woe
could be distinctly heard. They differed widely, however, in their
interpretations of its import and effects. To Mr. Faber, Napoleon, who
was the most conspicuous figure in the passing drama, appeared as a
terrific Vandal at the head of his legions, threatening to uproot and
lay waste the fair fabric of European civilization. To the Doctor, on
the other hand, Napoleon seemed the possible minister of Providence,
destined to prepare the way of the Lord, and to introduce a better, a
scriptural civilization. As time has sufficiently demonstrated the
fallacy of their respective expositions of the seventh trumpet, it is
needless to quote or review their speculations.

The principal defect pervading the "Lectures," and one which most
readers will be disposed to view in an opposite light, appears to be, a
charity _too broad_, a catholicity _too expansive_, to be easily
reconciled with a consistent position among the mystic witnesses. Their
author, however, deriving much information from the learned labours of
English prelates on prophecy, could not "find in his heart" to exclude
them from a place in the _honourable roll of the witnesses_. I am unable
to recognize any of those who are in organic fellowship with the "eldest
daughter of Popery," as entitled to rank among those who are symbolized
as "clothed in sackcloth." The two positions and fellowships appear to
be obviously incompatible and palpably irreconcilable. It is true that
there have been and still are in the English establishment divines who
are strictly evangelical; but the reigning Mediator views and treats
individuals, as he views and treats the moral person with which
individuals freely choose to associate; and we ought to "have the mind
of Christ." (1 Cor. ii. 16.)

Assuming that the third woe trumpet was sounding in his ears, the
Doctor, transported with the imaginary but delightful prospect, that the
kingdoms of this world were speedily to become the kingdoms of our Lord
and of his Christ, speaks of France as follows:--"She had given
assistance to the sons of freedom on the plains and along the shores of
Columbia, until the republican eagle snatched the oppressed provinces
from the paw of the royal lion of England."--We may admire the metaphors
of the _orator_, while we deplore the political feeling of the _divine_.
It is true, as the orator in calmer moments reflects,--"The political
conduct of professing Christians is generally lamentable;" and alas!
this "lamentable conduct" is usually tolerated and too often exemplified
by their spiritual guides. It has been generally so since the days of
Jeroboam who "made priests of the lowest of the people," and thereby
rendered the ministry the stipendiaries of the state. And as it was
then, even so it is now, whether in the kingdoms, empires or republics
of the earth. "Let us," with the Doctor, "lament the political conduct
of Christians in the present age of the world."

Allusion has been already made to seeming inconsistencies in the
Doctor's sentiments. There is truth in the adage,--"_tempora mutantur et
nos mutamur cum illis_,"--"times change, and we change with them." And
indeed changes are allowable in matters of a circumstantial nature which
do not affect moral principle. Moral principle, however, is in its
nature immutable. In the early period of the Doctor's public life he had
nobly proved "Negro Slavery Unjustifiable." But this accursed system was
from the first interwoven with the very framework of that "Republican
America," which in his "Lectures" he takes occasion thus to eulogize!
"We never formed a street of the mystical Babylon.... Let this be the
asylum of the oppressed.... She (Republican America) has not, either by
sea or land, encouraged oppression (?) or despoiled of his goods him
that was at peace with us?"--I confess my inability to credit these
statements, or to reconcile them with "the great moral principles" which
the author justly tells his readers it was the object of the Author of
the Apocalypse to illustrate before the world.

I have thus noticed some of the most important particulars in which I
dissent from the interpretations of the Doctor and others, that the
reader may be guided by all accessible way-marks in searching after the
mind of God in this mysterious but highly instructive part of his
precious word. I can again cordially recommend to his attention the
Lectures of Doctor M'Leod, as the best exposition of those parts of the
Apocalypse of which he treats, that has come under my notice. In the
Notes will be found minor points of dissent from the Doctor's views, and
from multiplied aberrations of many others. I have studied great
plainness of speech, abstaining from the introduction of many verbal
criticisms on the original text, and from the use of terms and phrases
not familiar to the unlearned reader. Let no sincere Christian be
deterred by seeming difficulties from reading the Apocalypse, or be
dissuaded from searching it, by the discrepancies of interpreters; for
this is equally true of "the other Scriptures." (2 Pet. iii, 16.)


THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK.

In our authorized version of the Bible, this last book is correctly
translated "Revelation." It is otherwise designated "The Apocalypse," by
simply Anglicising the Greek title,--_Apokalupsis_. A distinguished
modern divine, Doctor Seiss, has furnished the public with a novel
interpretation of the title. But it is remarkable that he does not
propose an _interpretation_ at all; he merely gives what he conceives to
be a _correct translation_. It is this:--"The Book of the _Unvailing_ of
Jesus Christ!" In this singular translation two things are
transparent,--affectation of scholarship, and the (_proton pseudos_) the
cardinal error of Millenarianism. Learned men, however, are not devoid
of fancy. Of this fact those who are historically designated
Millenarians have given many illustrations from the primitive ages down
to our own time. The Doctor's rendering of the name of this book
discloses the predominant idea conceived in his imagination and
cherished there, that Christ is to appear upon earth in glorified
humanity at the beginning of the millennium, and that the Apocalypse is
intended chiefly to apprize the church and the world of this momentous
event.

"The unvailing of Jesus Christ," indeed! Why, the Lord Jesus Christ was
revealed,--"unvailed" to the faith of our first parents in the promise
of the "woman's seed" as every intelligent Christian knows, (Gen. iii.
15.) We are assured that "to him give all the prophets witness," (Acts
x. 43.) Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, (John viii. 56.) His
advent in the flesh was so well known that Old Testament believers spoke
of him familiarly as of "Him that was to come," (Matt. xi. 3.) Surely he
was "unvailed" to his disciples all the time that he went in and out
among them before his death. And after his resurrection he appeared unto
them the third time,--"was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after
that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," (1 Cor. xv. 5,
6.) After his ascension Stephen "saw Jesus standing on the right hand of
God," (Acts vii. 56) How preposterous then, since the whole Bible
"unvails" the Saviour, to insinuate that the _specific object_ of the
Apocalypse is to _unvail Jesus Christ_!

That Doctor Seiss and those who endorse his _mistranslation_, or, as it
ought to be called, his _false exposition_ of the title to this book, do
totally misapprehend and misinterpret the mind of the Holy Spirit, is
further evident from the obvious import of the plain words in the first
verse;--this "Revelation of Jesus Christ, God gave unto him."--Christ.
Did God the Father "unvail" Christ to Christ himself? How gross the
absurdity! We do not transgress the law of charity in pronouncing as
impious, such manifest "wresting of the Scriptures." Moreover, the
declared object of this book is to "show unto God's servants
_things_,--(not to show Christ,) which must shortly come to pass:"
namely, events of providence which were then future,--the evolution of
the purposes of God. It is indeed true that in the sublime scenery
presented in vision to John, the Lord Jesus often appears as a very
conspicuous object; but he is only one among a multiplicity of other
objects, and generally as the principal agent in executing the divine
decrees. In this attitude he appears immediately on the opening of the
seals of that book, which all sober expositors consider as the symbol of
God's purposes, especially of those "unvailed" in this prophetic book.
When in the sixth chapter, the "four animals" say in succession, "Come
and see," is Jesus Christ the only object to be seen?--the exclusive
object unvailed? or even always the _primary_ object? By no means.

Thus it is evident that at the very beginning of his career as an
expositor of this sacred book, Doctor Seiss gives loose reins to his
fancy; and then it is not difficult to foresee through what mazes of
error the credulous reader will be conducted, who in his simplicity,
follows such a reckless guide. The hallucinations of Millenarians of old
and of late have greatly discouraged the disciples of Christ, and
seriously hindered them in obeying his command,--"Search the
Scriptures," especially this precious book. Their unscriptural error,
which some might call an _antiscriptural heresy_, of the pre-millennial
corporeal appearance of our Saviour, with its carnal concomitants, has
been a temptation to not a few to look upon this part of the Bible as
wholly unintelligible, _contrary to its very name_,--REVELATION, The
hereditary and inveterate misconception by Millenarians of the nature of
the thousand years' reign of the saints, bears a striking analogy to
that of the Jews concerning the kingdom of their Messiah, and suggests a
remark by that prince of divines among English Dissenters, Doctor Owen,
in his "Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews." He says
truly,--"There are precious, useful, significant truths in the
Scripture, so disposed of, so laid up, as that if we accomplish not a
diligent search, we shall never set eye on them. The common course of
reading the Scriptures, nor the common help of expositors, who for the
most part, go in the same track, and scarce venture one step beyond
those that are gone before them, will not suffice, if we intend a
discovery of these hid treasures." And again he says, "How hard it is to
dispossess the minds of men of inveterate persuasions in religion!"

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Various - "The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, No. 579"

Various - "Continental Monthly, Vol. I., No. IV., April, 1862"

Jacques Futrelle - "The Diamond Master"

Anonymous - "Elene; Judith; Athelstan, or the Fight at Brunanburh; Byrhtnoth, or the Fight at Maldon; and the Dream of the Rood"

Obituary: Donald Westlake
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

Theatre review: Three Women / Jermyn Street, London
Obituary: Prolific crime novelist, Oscar-nominated screenwriter and man of many pseudonyms

Obama to feature in Marvel comic

We do not know the women's names, but their voices are quite distinct. All are pregnant. But while the first woman awaits the birth of her baby with a moon-like serenity, the other two are not so lucky. One, whose previous pregnancies have failed to go to term, is experiencing a heartbreaking late miscarriage; the other is a young student whose accidental pregnancy will end in her child being put up for adoption.

Sylvia Plath's only play was never intended for the stage, being broadcast instead on BBC radio in August 1962. Less than six months later, Plath killed herself, but not before the burst of astonishing creative energy that produced her extraordinary, terrifying Ariel poems.

Anyone who knows Plath's poetry will see the connection between Three Women and Plath's subsequent poems, particularly in the way she talks about the agony of childbirth, the rush of love for this tiny alien being, and both the wonder and wounded rawness of motherhood. It is a beautiful piece, full of startling imagery that draws you in through the sheer intensity of its femaleness, and because it so precisely articulates the emotions that are often thought but seldom voiced by women - certainly not in the early 1960s - about men, motherhood and our relationship to our bodies.

It's been 20 years since there has been an attempt at a professional stage version and - in a theatre world that happily accepts the poetic offerings of Sarah Kane and Debbie Tucker Green, or the staged possibilities of The Waves, one of Plath's own inspirations for the piece, I see no reason why it shouldn't be brought to life. Sadly, it doesn't breathe here, in a production by Robert Shaw that is clearly a labour of love, but which never finds a way to give the internal a physical reality. Plath's poetry, like most babies, is more robust than it appears - and won't break if treated with a little less reverence and considerably more grit.

Instead, what we are offered is tinkling piano music, mournful mood lighting, an innocuous pale setting, as well as three perfectly good but indisputably ladylike performances that capture none of the wounded redness of Plath's poetry, and do her the disservice of making her sound bleached and somewhat prissy. It's a pity. What might have been a wonder ends up a mere curiosity.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds