Summary of first period
On the whole, in reviewing our Sketch of this 1st and earliest Period of Apocalyptic Interpretation, the following points may remain in our minds as among its most marked and important characteristics.
1st, that the Apocalyptic figurations were supposed to be such as began to have fulfillment from the time of St. John, or commencement of the Christian æra. I believe there is no one expositor of the period just past under review that entertained the idea of the Apocalyptic prophecy overleaping the chronological interval, were it less or greater, antecedent to the consummation; and plunging at once into the times of the consummation, and of the then expected Antichrist. See e.g. Irenæus and Victorinus on the 1st Seal,; Tertullian on the 5th Seal; and also Methodius, &c. [127]
2. As regards the 1st Seal, and the interpretation of its white horse and horseman by Irenæus, and then Tertullian and Victorinus, as symbolizing Christ’s victories by the gospel, we have to note that though it is Victorinus who first conjoins this its explanation with that of the contrasted horse and horseman of the three next Seals, as symbolizing the “bella fames and pestis” that were to follow after the first gospel preaching and triumphs, antecedently to Christ’s second coming, so as predicted by Christ in Matt. xxiv., yet seems probable that Victorinus’ predecessors, as well as his successors, like him combined this view of the1st Seal with that of the next 3 Seals, and with similar reference to Christ’s prophecy respecting those antecedents to his second coming. Which being so, and as this is a primary and cardinal point in Apocalyptic interpretation, it will be well here to bear in mind Irenæus’ own caution, expressed with reference to another of the Apocalyptic mysteries; (I mean the Beast’s name
viz. that “if meant to be known at the time it would doubtless have been declared by him who saw the Apocalypse.” As part and parcel of an interpretation of all the four first Seals taken from Matt. xxiv., whereof the explanation of the next three Seals as symbolizing war, famine, and pestilence constitutes another essential part, it is disproved at once by the impossibility of the 3rd Seal’s symbol, with its choenix or 5 lbs. of barley for a denarius, together with plenty of wine and oil, ever meaning famine. [128]
3. As to the great subject of Antichrist, while there was a universal concurrence in the general idea of the prophecy, there was in respect of the details of application a considerable measure of difference; - these differences arising mainly out of certain current notions of the coming Antichrist as in some way Jewish as well as Roman, and the difficulty of combining and adjusting the two characteristics. The Roman view followed of course Apocalyptically from Antichrist’s being figured as the Roman Beast’s 8th head, after the healing of his deadly wound; (for all identified the Beasts of Apoc. xiii. and xvii.; [129] ) and joined too in closest union with the seven-hilled Harlot: as well as from Daniel’s depicting him as a little horn of the 4th or Roman Beast. Of his supposed Jewish connection no Apocalyptic evidence occurred to the early patristic expositors: save only that Irenæus thought Dan’s omission in Apoc. vii. from the sealed tribes might arise from that being the Jewish tribe of Antichrist’s origin; a notion in which none, I believe, followed him. The idea arose chiefly doubtless from a vague expectation of his being a Pseudo-Christ, such as Christ told of in Matt. xxiv. 5, which reads: “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many,” the thought being that the Jews might receive this impersonator as their long sought Messiah: conjoined by some of the Fathers, as Irenæus and Hippolytus, with the idea that the abomination of desolation of which Christ then spoke as predicted by Daniel, and which would in fact have the Jewish sanctuary as its place of manifestation, was not only the one prophesied of in Dan. ix. 27, as what would synchronize with the end of the 70 hebdomads, but that associated prediction which that verse refers to in Dan. xi. 36, which reads: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.” Whence the conclusion that the ending epoch of each, and ending epoch also of the 70 hebdomads, would be at the end of Antichrist’s 31/2 years, at the consummation.
Now we have ourselves elsewhere asked, Was there not this in the designation of the desolating abomination in Dan. xii. 11 which might serve to distinguish it from the desolating abomination of Dan. xi. 31 which reads: “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” and Dan. ix. 27, “: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”; and the latter be meant distinctively by Christ, not the former? [130] And I wish here to state it as not improbable that they were asked, and to the same effect, by some also of the patristic expositors of the æra I am referring to. For alike Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and I may add too Tatian, all before the end of the 2nd century, and also Julius Africanus, at the commencement of the 3rd century, explained Daniel’s 70 hebdomads, and their abomination of desolation, as having had their full accomplishment on Christ’s death, and the consequent desolation of Jerusalem by the Roman armies; and so having no reference whatsoever to any desolation by the then future Antichrist. [131] Nor of the few who with Irenæus and Hippolytus referred that last hebdomad and its abomination of desolation to the end of the world and Antichrist, do I find that any but Hippolytus expounded the 70th and last hebdomad as broken off from the preceding 69 by a great chronological gap. Certainly no such gap is spoken of by Irenæus. [132] And as Apollinarius of Laodicea, who lived a century and a half later under Valens, made the 70 hebdomads to have had commencement with Christ’s first advent, and so to come down continuously to an epoch 490 years later, which he expected might be the time of Antichrist’s coming and the consummation, [133] so might some such view very possibly have been that by which Irenæus referred the last week to the consummation. (I refer not to Judas Syrus, another and earlier writer on the subject mentioned by Eusebius, because how he managed to make the period of the 70 hebdomads end nearly at his own epoch of the 10th of Severus, or about A.D. 203, does not appear: though I infer from Eusebius’ words that he too computed continuously. [134] ) Hippolytus stands alone, as I said, [135] in the exprest view of the 69 hebdomads reaching to Christ’s first coming, and the 70th beginning separately, at some vast chronological gap, just before his second coming. [136]
On the whole, in reviewing our Sketch of this 1st and earliest Period of Apocalyptic Interpretation, the following points may remain in our minds as among its most marked and important characteristics.
1st, that the Apocalyptic figurations were supposed to be such as began to have fulfillment from the time of St. John, or commencement of the Christian æra. I believe there is no one expositor of the period just past under review that entertained the idea of the Apocalyptic prophecy overleaping the chronological interval, were it less or greater, antecedent to the consummation; and plunging at once into the times of the consummation, and of the then expected Antichrist. See e.g. Irenæus and Victorinus on the 1st Seal,; Tertullian on the 5th Seal; and also Methodius, &c. [127]
2. As regards the 1st Seal, and the interpretation of its white horse and horseman by Irenæus, and then Tertullian and Victorinus, as symbolizing Christ’s victories by the gospel, we have to note that though it is Victorinus who first conjoins this its explanation with that of the contrasted horse and horseman of the three next Seals, as symbolizing the “bella fames and pestis” that were to follow after the first gospel preaching and triumphs, antecedently to Christ’s second coming, so as predicted by Christ in Matt. xxiv., yet seems probable that Victorinus’ predecessors, as well as his successors, like him combined this view of the1st Seal with that of the next 3 Seals, and with similar reference to Christ’s prophecy respecting those antecedents to his second coming. Which being so, and as this is a primary and cardinal point in Apocalyptic interpretation, it will be well here to bear in mind Irenæus’ own caution, expressed with reference to another of the Apocalyptic mysteries; (I mean the Beast’s name
viz. that “if meant to be known at the time it would doubtless have been declared by him who saw the Apocalypse.” As part and parcel of an interpretation of all the four first Seals taken from Matt. xxiv., whereof the explanation of the next three Seals as symbolizing war, famine, and pestilence constitutes another essential part, it is disproved at once by the impossibility of the 3rd Seal’s symbol, with its choenix or 5 lbs. of barley for a denarius, together with plenty of wine and oil, ever meaning famine. [128]3. As to the great subject of Antichrist, while there was a universal concurrence in the general idea of the prophecy, there was in respect of the details of application a considerable measure of difference; - these differences arising mainly out of certain current notions of the coming Antichrist as in some way Jewish as well as Roman, and the difficulty of combining and adjusting the two characteristics. The Roman view followed of course Apocalyptically from Antichrist’s being figured as the Roman Beast’s 8th head, after the healing of his deadly wound; (for all identified the Beasts of Apoc. xiii. and xvii.; [129] ) and joined too in closest union with the seven-hilled Harlot: as well as from Daniel’s depicting him as a little horn of the 4th or Roman Beast. Of his supposed Jewish connection no Apocalyptic evidence occurred to the early patristic expositors: save only that Irenæus thought Dan’s omission in Apoc. vii. from the sealed tribes might arise from that being the Jewish tribe of Antichrist’s origin; a notion in which none, I believe, followed him. The idea arose chiefly doubtless from a vague expectation of his being a Pseudo-Christ, such as Christ told of in Matt. xxiv. 5, which reads: “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many,” the thought being that the Jews might receive this impersonator as their long sought Messiah: conjoined by some of the Fathers, as Irenæus and Hippolytus, with the idea that the abomination of desolation of which Christ then spoke as predicted by Daniel, and which would in fact have the Jewish sanctuary as its place of manifestation, was not only the one prophesied of in Dan. ix. 27, as what would synchronize with the end of the 70 hebdomads, but that associated prediction which that verse refers to in Dan. xi. 36, which reads: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.” Whence the conclusion that the ending epoch of each, and ending epoch also of the 70 hebdomads, would be at the end of Antichrist’s 31/2 years, at the consummation.
Now we have ourselves elsewhere asked, Was there not this in the designation of the desolating abomination in Dan. xii. 11 which might serve to distinguish it from the desolating abomination of Dan. xi. 31 which reads: “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” and Dan. ix. 27, “: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”; and the latter be meant distinctively by Christ, not the former? [130] And I wish here to state it as not improbable that they were asked, and to the same effect, by some also of the patristic expositors of the æra I am referring to. For alike Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and I may add too Tatian, all before the end of the 2nd century, and also Julius Africanus, at the commencement of the 3rd century, explained Daniel’s 70 hebdomads, and their abomination of desolation, as having had their full accomplishment on Christ’s death, and the consequent desolation of Jerusalem by the Roman armies; and so having no reference whatsoever to any desolation by the then future Antichrist. [131] Nor of the few who with Irenæus and Hippolytus referred that last hebdomad and its abomination of desolation to the end of the world and Antichrist, do I find that any but Hippolytus expounded the 70th and last hebdomad as broken off from the preceding 69 by a great chronological gap. Certainly no such gap is spoken of by Irenæus. [132] And as Apollinarius of Laodicea, who lived a century and a half later under Valens, made the 70 hebdomads to have had commencement with Christ’s first advent, and so to come down continuously to an epoch 490 years later, which he expected might be the time of Antichrist’s coming and the consummation, [133] so might some such view very possibly have been that by which Irenæus referred the last week to the consummation. (I refer not to Judas Syrus, another and earlier writer on the subject mentioned by Eusebius, because how he managed to make the period of the 70 hebdomads end nearly at his own epoch of the 10th of Severus, or about A.D. 203, does not appear: though I infer from Eusebius’ words that he too computed continuously. [134] ) Hippolytus stands alone, as I said, [135] in the exprest view of the 69 hebdomads reaching to Christ’s first coming, and the 70th beginning separately, at some vast chronological gap, just before his second coming. [136]
