(On Luke 21:24 ;Rev.
11:1)
"In Rev. 11:2, the time during which the Romans are to tread down the holy
city, (in this case the capital is, as usual in the Jewish Scripture, the
representation of the country), is said to be forty-two months = three and a
half years. The active invasion of Judea continued almost exactly this length
of time, being at the most only a few days more; so few that they need not,
and would not, enter into symbolic computation of time." (Stuart,
p. 279)
"Forty and two months. After
all the investigation which I have been able to make I feel compelled to
believe that the writer refers to a literal and definite period, although not
so exact that a singly day, or even a few days, or variation from it would
interfere with the object he has in view. It is certain that the invasion of
the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem
was taken. And although the city was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis
in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand
for the country of Judea. During the invasion of Judea by the Romans the
faithful testimony of the persecuted witnesses for Christianity is continued,
while at last they are slain. The patience of God in deferring so long the
destruction of the persecutors is displayed by this, and especially His mercy
in continuing to warn and reprove them. This is a natural, simple, and easy
method of interpretation, to say the least, and one which, although it is not
difficult to raise objections against it, I feel constrained to adopt."
(On Hebrews 9:26)
"But now, at the close of the [Jewish] dispensation, He has once for all made
His appearance."
(On Hebrews 10:37)
"The Messiah will speedily come, and, by destroying the Jewish power, put an
end to the suffering which your persecutors inflict upon you." (Commentary
on Hebrews, in loc.)
(On Hebrews 12:25-29, and the
New Heavens and Earth)
"That the passage has respect to the changes which would be introduced by the
coming of the Messiah, and the new dispensation which he would commence, is
evident from Haggai ii. 7-9. Such figurative language is frequent in the
Scriptures, and denotes great changes which are to take place. So the apostle
explains it here, in the very next verse. (Comp. Isa. 13:13; Haggai 2:21,22;
Joel 3:16; Matt. 24:29-37). (Hebrews, in loc.)
(On the Early Date of
Revelation)
"If now the number of the witnesses were the only thing which
should control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must, so
far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix upon
the time of Domitian. But a careful examination of this matter shows, that the
whole concatenation of witnesses in favour of this position hangs upon the
testimony of Irenaeus, and their evidence is little more than a mere
repetition of what he has said. Eusebius and Jerome most plainly depend on
him; and others seem to have had in view his authority, or else that of
Eusebius." (Ibid.
2:269..)
"I say this, with full
recognition of the weight and value of Irenaeus’s testimony, as to any matters
of fact with which he was acquainted, or as to the common tradition of the
churches. But in view of what Origen has said. . . , how can we well suppose,
that the opinion of Irenaeus, as recorded in Cont. Haeres, V. 30 was formed in
any other way, than by his own interpretation of Rev. 1:9. (1:281)
"If there be anything certain
in the principles of hermeneutics, it is certain that they decide in favour of
a reference to Judea and its capital in Rev. vi – xi. The very fact, moreover,
that the destruction of Jerusalem (chap. xi) is depicted in such outlines and
mere sketches, shows that it was then sure, when the book was written. It is
out of all question, except by mere violence, to give a different
interpretation to this part of the Apocalypse." (1:276)
"Here then, on the very front
of the book, is exhibited a title-page, as it were, indicative of a
conspicuous part of the contents of the work. The punishment of the
unbelieving and persecuting Jew must follow the coming of the Lord; and this
it is one leading object of the book to illustrate and confirm. If so, then
the prediction must have preceded the event predicted.’ (1:273)
”A majority of the
older critics have been inclined to adopt the opinion of Irenaeus, viz., that
it was written during the reign of Domitian, i.e., during the last part of the
first century, or in A.D.95 or 96. Most of the recent commentators and
critics have called this opinion in question, and placed the composition of
the book at an earlier period, viz., before the destruction of Jerusalem.” (A
Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols; Andover, MD: Allen, Morrill, and
Wardwell, 1845; p. 1:263)
“The manner of the
declaration here seems to decide, beyond all reasonable appeal, against a
later period than about A.D.67 or 68, for the composition of the Apocalypse.”
(A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols; Andover, MD: Allen, Morrill,
and Wardwell, 1845; p. 2:326)
(On the timing of
John's Banishment)
"Now it strikes me, that Tertullian plainly means to class Peter, Paul, and
John together, as having suffered at nearly the same time and under the same
emperor. I concede that this is not a construction absolutely necessary; but I
submit it to the candid, whether it is not the most probable." (1 :284n.)
(On Nero, 'The Beast')
"The idea that Nero was the man of sin mentioned by Paul, and the
Antichrist spoken of so often in the epistles of St. John, prevailed
extensively and for a long time in the early church.."
"Augustine says: What means
the declaration, that the mystery of iniquity already works?... Some suppose
this to be spoken of the Roman emperor, and therefore Paul did not speak in
plain words, because he would not incur the charge of calumny for having
spoken evil of the Roman emperor: although he always expected that what he had
said would be understood as applying to Nero." (Excurs. iii.)
(On Revelation 1:7)
"Here then, on the very front of the book, is exhibited a title-page, as it
were, indicative of a conspicuous part of the contents of the work. The
punishment of the unbelieving and persecuting Jew must follow the coming of
the Lord; and this it is one leading object of the book to illustrate and
confirm. If so, then the prediction must have preceded the event predicted.’
(1:273)
(On Revelation 13:5-7)
"The persecution of Nero began about the middle or latter part of Nov. A.D.
64, at Rome. It ended with the death of Nero, which was on the ninth of June,
A.D. 68, for on that day Galba entered Rome and was proclaimed emperor. Here
again is 3 + years or 1260 days with sufficient exactness; for the precise
time of forty-two months expires about the middle or end of May, and Nero died
in the first part of June. . . (2:469)
"After all the investigation
which I have been able to make, I feel compelled to believe that the writer
refers to a literal and definite period, although not so exact that a single
day, or even a few days, of variation from it would interfere with the object
he has in view. It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just
about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. " (2:218)
(On Revelation 17:10)
"It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the
reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D. 68. He
is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) "has not
yet come." (2:324)
"But why only seven kings?
First because the number seven is the reigning symbolic number of the book;
then, secondly, because this covers the ground which the writer means
specially to occupy, viz., it goes down to the period when the persecution
then raging would cease. (2:325,326)
(On Origins of
Praeterist View)
"Near the
commencement of the seventeenth century (1614), the Spanish Jesuit Ludovicus
ab Alcasar published his Vestigatio arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi, a performance
distinguished by one remarkable feature, which was then new. He declared the
Apocalypse to be a continous and connected work, making regular advancement
from beginning to end, as parts of one general plan in the mind of the writer.
In conformity with this he brought out a result which has been of great
importance to succeeding commentators. Rev. v-vi, he thinks, applies to the
Jewish enemies of the Christian Church; xi-xix to heathen Rome and carnal and
worldly powers, xx-xxii to the final conquests to be made by the church, and
also to its rest, and its ultimate glorification. This view of the contents of
the book had been merely hinted at before, by Hentenius, in the Preface to his
Latin version of Arethas, Par. 1547. 8vo; and by Salmeron in his Preludia in
Apoc. But no one had ever developed this idea fully, and endeavoured to
illustrate and enforce it, in such a way as Alcasar ... Although he puts the
time of composing the Apocalypse down to the exile of John under Domitian, yet
he still applies ch. v-xi to the Jews, and of course regards the book as
partly embracing the past.
"It might be expected, that a
commentary that thus freed the Romish church from the assaults of the
Protestants, would be popular among the advocates of the papacy. Alcasar met,
of course, with general approbation and reception among the Romish community.
"'(Stuart, Moses, "Commentary on the Apocalypse", Allen, Morrill and Wardell,
Andover, 1845, Volume 1, p. 464.)