the preparatory judgments of God (note b) come over the inhabitants of the earth, the Church of God continues to be saved from them (ix. 4), as Israel was once in Egypt; the members of the Church are expressly designated as such with a seal, they hence continue preserved (vii. 2, 3), and even in the sealing the New Testament Church ever appears, according to the type of the Old Testament, a Church which is to keep its ideal identity with the latter, as a people of twelve tribes, out of each of which are sealed 12,000 (vv. 3–8).o But it is by no means to be therewith said that the Church of God continues preserved from the tribulations of the last time; rather only other hard trials threaten her.

In

historical situation of the Apocalypse, if the Gentiles, as they are represented by the Roman Empire, appear to be the special seat of hatred to Christ; for the synagogue of Satan equally appears incidentally (ii. 9, 13) as the persecutor of the Christians. But the author no more, at any rate, expects, according to note b, any comprehensive conversion of the Gentiles; probably in consequence of the Neronian persecution at that time, a stoppage of the mission to the Gentiles had taken place.

6 As certainly the actual Israel no longer really consisted of the old twelve tribes, so certainly it could not be said that the Church of believers did not consist of an equal number of descendants from each of the old twelve tribes, but that these believers were the representatives of the old nation of the twelve tribes and the heir of its promises. To refer the 144,000 to the Jewish portion of the Church (Gess, p. 579 f.; Schenkel, p. 304), is utterly groundless (comp. on the other hand, Gebhardt, p. 203 f. [E. T. 193]). If the Messiah gathers about Him these 144,000 in order to march out with them to the last fight (xiv. 1, 3), so does He also take His stand upon the Mount Zion, the central-point of the Old Testament theocracy (ver. 1). But therewith also is represented but the Church of believers, as the ideal theocracy, while the holy hill of the Old Testament theocracy, which is not to be placed, with Gebhardt, p. 46 [E. T. 45], in heaven, is made ideally its central-point; for the actual Jerusalem has indeed become by the slaying of Messiah a Sodom or Egypt (xi. 8). It is simply from this point of view that the enemy of believers is ever designated by the name of the enemy of the old theocracy (Baßuλáv: xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2, 10, 21). The enemies are ever drawn out for the last fight over the Euphrates, and are collected at Armageddon (xvi. 12, 16; comp. ix. 14); the great decisive fight is fought outside the city (Jerusalem) (xiv. 20). But as certainly as this great battle-scene is but a description, shining in the glory of Old Testament imagery, of the final annihilation of the Roman Empire, so certainly is there no proof that Jerusalem is regarded locally as the central-point of the Christian Church. "That Christians will have to endure severe tribulation in the last times (s: i. 9, ii. 9, 10, vii. 14), is in the line of ordinary apostolic teaching (§ 51, b; 98, a) based on the prophecy of Christ (§ 30, a), and it is pure arbitrariness when Schenkel, p. 303, makes this tribulation come only on Gentile Christians for their purification. But this tribulation inflicted by unbelievers is something totally different from those plagues sent by God.

what ways these are thought of depends on the times of the author of the Apocalypse, when the world's power had begun with brutal power the struggle against Christianity (§ 113, a). The blood of many martyrs had even been shed (vi. 10, xvi. 6, xviii. 20, 24, xix. 2, xx. 4), but the number of these must be completed (vi. 11) in the struggle which Satan carries on against the Christians (xii. 17, xiii. 7, 10, 15), and innumerable martyrs will one day stand round the throne of God, and receive the reward (vii. 9-17) of their fidelity (ii. 10).

(d) While the Gentiles, as a whole impenitent, ripen for judgment (note b), the people of Israel have yet a future. To be sure, the capture of Jerusalem by the Gentiles stands already without question (xi. 1, 2); the supposition that the author hoped for the deliverance of the actual temple is, in view of Christ's prophecy (Mark xiii. 2), impossible. The temple of God in Jerusalem can therefore only be the believing Jewish Church itself, those whom even Christ had exhorted to sudden flight (Matt. xxiv. 16), and who now, according to the divine appointment (comp. the measuring, xi. 1, 2), are to be preserved from this judgment coming on Israel (xii. 6, 13-16), as, according to note c, the whole Church is preserved from the judgment on the heathen world. On the other hand, the fore-court, or unbelieving Israel, is given up to the rule of the Gentiles (xi. 2), and, following the type of the time of disaster in Daniel (Dan. v. 25, xii. 17), this Gentile rule is to last 3 years. The overthrow

8 That the Christian Church as such is with Paul the true temple of God, naturally cannot prevent this term being also transferred to the JewishChristian Church, as Hilgenfeld, p. 422, supposes; that Church had a temple of stone, but it is itself God's spiritual house, just as is the case with Peter (§ 45, a). That the Church, which as such forms the temple itself, is distinguished from its individual members, who then correspond to those worshipping in the temple, is in no respects different than when, chap. xii., the woman designates the Church, and her seed (ver. 17), the individual members of the Church, although the Church even consists of individual members. The literal explanation is, on the other hand, exegetically impossible, since not only must the temple buildings, but even the Jewish priesthood (oi æpooxuvoūvres iv avrâ) be spared. But if Hilgenfeld wishes to escape this difficulty by the supposition that the seer saw the real believers from among Israel transported into the (real) temple officiating only as priests (p. 423), then this is an unexegetical intermingling of the literal and the symbolical. Comp. the correct interpretation in Gebhardt, p. 270 ff. [E. T. 257].

of Jerusalem is therefore no longer the immediate signal of the second coming, as § 33, b; the time of great tribulation, which believers have to expect (vii. 14), no longer coincides with this overthrow, but begins with it, and this period is given to Israel as a respite for repentance. As certainly, that is to say, as this rule of the Gentiles is a judgment of God on Israel, so has it the purpose, just as the plagues (note b), to lead Israel to repentance. Hence God sends at this time two prophets, like Moses and Elias, who, to be sure, as Christ was, will be slain by the Gentiles, but will be raised and exalted to heaven (xi. 3-12). If the last judgment now comes (comp. also xvi. 18, 19a), then, no doubt, will a great part of the nation perish, but the remnant will repent (xi. 13). The author of the Apocalypse no longer then ventures to hope, as Paul did (§ 91, d), for the final conversion of all Israel; but, conformably with the prophecy of the ancient prophets (Isa. i. 9, x. 22, 23; comp. Rom. ix. 27, 29), a remnant of Israel shall yet be saved." Even amid the dispersion does he yet hope for the conversion of Jews (iii. 9).

§ 131. The Apocalyptic Reckoning of the End.

The God-defying power which, during the time of the last tribulation, persecutes Christians is the Roman Empire, as it was restored by the elevation of the Flavians to the dignity of Caesar, after the fall of the earlier Caesarean dynasty (a). In league with it were the false prophets, who moved the inhabitants of the earth to pay homage to the Roman Empire,

9 Contrary to the plain words (comp. i λaroí), Gebhardt, p. 276 f. [E. T. 263], asserts that here the conversion of all Israel is expected, as Rom. xi. 25 ff. But Paul differs in this, that with him the conversion of all Israel follows the incoming of the fulness of the Gentiles, while here Israel's remnant is converted before the inhabitants of the earth repent. Only the author of the Apocalypse agrees again with the early apostolic expectation (§ 42, a), as he does with Paul (§ 98, a), in this, that with the final conversion of Israel (at the end of the time of the rule of the Gentiles over Israel, which is identical with the time of the great tribulation) there comes at once the Messianic judgment and the end of the world (xi. 14, 15), which, to be sure, is clear only when one acknowledges the relation of the seven visions of the Apocalypse explained above, and gets emancipated from the exegetically untenable and utterly confusing idea, that these describe a continuous series of events.

and seduced even the Christians to heathenish immorality (b). With the expiry of the series of seven-headed rulers the development appointed for the Roman Empire is now finished; the eighth, which then yet comes, can be but the final incarnation of antichristianity (c). Along with his royal helpers he will destroy even the chief city of the world, and will then be destroyed in the struggle with the returning Messiah (d).

(a) The God-defying power, which occasions the great tribulation to believers, is the same power which is presented in the rule of the Gentiles over Jerusalem, and then kills God's messengers; it is therefore the Roman Empire. This empire therefore appears even, xi. 7, as the beast out of the abyss. It is more exactly described, xiii. 1, 2, as the monster which rises out of the sea in the West, because Rome, according to Jewish ideas, lay on the islands of the sea; and unites in his form the forms of the four beasts, which, Dan. vii., represent the ungodly powers of the world, because it is to be regarded as the most developed form of manifestation, which unites in itself the might and the dominion of all four. On this very account it has à priori all the seven heads of the forms of the beasts of Daniel, three of which had one head each, while one had four heads; the ten horns also of Dan. vii. 24 are not lacking to it. The author of the Apocalypse farther on refers the horns to the governors of provinces, who finally appear with royal authority, and therefore wear kingly crowns (comp. note d). The heads refer to the bearers of imperial authority themselves, who, it was well known, did not assume the diadem; these, on the other hand, wear, xiii. 1, the name of blasphemy (Augustus-oeßaσrós), and that in the view of the author of the Apocalypse points to divine honour. To this beast Satan has entrusted all his power and dominion over the world. This beast has, to be sure, received a deadly wound (xiii. 3, xii. 14) by the death of its head (Nero), as it seemed, after the overthrow of the first Caesarean dynasty, during the struggles of the interregnum, as though the empire would no more attain to its ancient power and enduring condition; but this deadly wound was healed by the elevation of Vespasian to the imperial power.1 The

1 The proposed interpretation, by which the healing of the deadly wound is supposed to refer to the return of the dead Nero, is exegetically untenable,

worldly power thus restored, which has once already persecuted the Christians, now receives power for the 3 years to persecute the saints (xiii. 4-8) and to rule over Israel (xi. 2, 7). The restoration of the empire, which coincides nearly with the fall of Jerusalem, is also the commencement of the last time of great tribulation, which is not, in conformity with the symbolism of numbers in the Apocalypse, reckoned as a period of 3 years, but only, in accordance with the type of the period of misfortune in Daniel, is characterized as such a time.2

(b) In league with the first beast there appears, xiii. 11, a second, which is designated by its two lamb's horns, a sort of counterpart of Christ; but, by its daemonic speech, is likewise characterized as an organ of Satan. It seduces the inhabitants of the earth by its lying wonders to worship the worldly power (vv. 12, 14, 16). The Apocalypse itself designates it repeatedly as the false prophet (xvi. 13, xix. 20), i.e. as the because a distinction is made in the most definite way between the beast, which, as with Daniel, represents a collective idea, and his heads, which symbolize individual kings; while, for the first time, xvii. 11, the personification of the beast as such is indicated in an eighth ruler (and this did not occur under the heads); this Hilgenfeld, p. 426, and Gebhardt, p. 232 [E. T. 221], equally overlook. Similarly, a distinction is made in the most definite way between the slaying of the one head, i.e. the death of the one ruler, and the deadly wound which the beast has thereby received. But the former interpretation is historically untenable, since the original Nero-myths knew nothing of the death and resurrection of Nero, but only made him flee into Parthia, and return from thence. It is, moreover, a mere untenable evasion when Hilgenfeld would weaken the Christian-apocalyptical idea of Jews and Gentiles (?!) to a simple flight, and it is also when Gebhardt, p. 240 [E. T. 228], would modify (rather completely change) the popular expectation accepted by him (?!) by the author of the Apocalypse. When Gebhardt, p. 234 [E. T. 222], renews the objection of Volkmar to the healing of the deadly wound by Vespasian, that the latter cannot be regarded as the founder of a new imperial dynasty, he overlooks the fact that his warlike son Titus, not to speak of Domitian, was already associated with him. Gess, however, p. 605 t., has put denials without any foundation in opposition to the correct interpretation.

2 When Hilgenfeld, p. 429, asks what Vespasian had done to justify the expectation that the time of the last tribulation should begin with him, it is indeed self-evident that Vespasian in his personal qualities does not here come into regard, but only as he is the bearer of the empire restored to its full power; an empire which, after Satan had once chosen it as his instrument, would, it was to be presumed, as soon as it is restored to power, carry forward its work begun under Nero (comp. moreover, note c). But if there is given to the beast, whose deadly wound is healed, a respite of 3 years (and certainly not in the future, as Hilgenfeld has to assume on account of his mistaken