Upon this it should be observed, first, that it was not by the arrangement of the inspired writer himself that the Book of Revelation was made the last book of the Bible; nor is that book the last inspired book of the New Testament collection that was written. It is the prevailing opinion of the early Christian writers that the Book of Revelation was written while the apostle John was an exile on the isle of Patmos, and that he did not write his book called "The Gospel according to St. John," until after his return from Patmos.11 "The weight of evidence now tends to prove," says Canon Farrar, speaking of the Book of Revelation, "that it is not the last book in chronological order; that it was written nearer the beginning than the end of St. John's period of apostolic activity amid the churches of Asia; that the last accents of revelation which fall upon our ears are not those of a treatise which, though it ends in such music, contains so many terrible visions of blood and fire; but rather those of the gospel which tells us that the 'Word was made flesh,' and of the epistle which first formulated the most blessed truth which was ever uttered to human hearts—the truth that 'God is love.'"12 And again: "Some may think it an exaggeration to say that this closing of the Holy Book with the Apocalypse has not been without grave consequences for the history of Christendom; but certainly it would have been better both for the church and for the world if we had followed the divine order, and if those books had been placed last in the canon which were last in order of time. Had this been done, our Bible would have closed as the Book of God to all intents and purposes did close, with the epistle and solemn warning of the last apostle, 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols.'"13
If the words in the last chapter in the Book of Revelation mean that no more scripture or revelation was to be written after the prohibitory words under consideration, then John himself became a violator of the word of God which he himself had written; for according to the testimony here adduced his gospel and first epistle were written after he Book of Revelation. Such an alternative as makes the divinely inspired writer a violator of his own supposed inhibition of further revelation is so absurd, so unlike the conduct of an inspired apostle, that it is sufficient in itself to overthrow the theory that the passage in the last chapter of the Apocalypse intended to close the volume of revelation.
Second: Since the Apocalypse had no connection with the other books of the New Testament for many years after it was written, its prohibitory clause under the most liberal construction could only have reference to itself—it forbade men adding anything more to that particular book of prophecy, the Apocalypse, not to a volume of scripture with which, at the time, it had no connection.
Third: A careful reading of the passage discloses that it is only man who is prohibited from adding anything more to that book of prophecy, not God. While man may have added to him the plagues which are written in the book if he presumptuously adds to the words of the prophecy and passes them off for the word of God, yet God would still be left free to give revelation ad infinitum. I must needs think that this is the proper view to take of the prohibition, since in Deuteronomy I find it recorded: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it."14 To give to this passage the same interpretation that is placed by modern Christians on the passage under consideration from the Apocalypse (and it is just as reasonable to place such an interpretation on the passage in Deuteronomy as to place it on the one in Revelation) would result in rejecting all scripture that was given after the prohibitory clause in the writings of Moses—which would be the greater part of the Old Testament and all of the New. The same is true of the prohibitory passage in Proverbs: "Every word of the Lord is perfect. * * * Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar."15 There can be no doubt that these passages mean only this: Man must not add his own words to the revelation of God and pass them off as God's word. To say that they mean that no more revelation is to be given after they were uttered is to condemn all the scripture written subsequent to that time. What those passages mean the passage in Revelation means. Man must not add to the words of Deity; but God is left as free to give more revelation as he was before this prohibition to man was placed on record. The passage in question does not in the remotest manner refer to the close of the volume of revelation.
When the last act of indignity which the wicked ingenuity of his persecutors could suggest was perpetrated on the Son of God, Jesus bowed his thorn-crowned head and exclaimed "It is finished." By some who contend against new revelation it is held that this means that no more revelation is to be expected—revelation is finished! Such a construction would exclude the inspired revelations, visions, dreams and revelations given to the apostles after the crucifixion of Jesus and abundantly testified of in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. It is so clearly evident that the exclamation, "It is finished,"16 had reference to the suffering of the Son of God, that it is not necessary to enter further into a refutation of the claim that it means the revelation of God to man was finished.
Again it is contended that Paul predicted that prophecies should cease: "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away."17 Unfortunately, however, for those who see in this passage a prophecy of the discontinuance of revelation, Paul tells us when prophecy or revelation (for prophecy must needs always be founded on revelation) will cease; that it is not in this mortal life, but "when that which is perfect is come." "For we know in part and prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. * * * For now we see through a glass darkly, but then [when that which is perfect is come] face to face. Now I know in part, but then [when that which is perfect is come] shall I know even as I am known."18 That this refers not to this life, where the best and purest only see in part and know in part, but is to be looked for in that future and perfect existence where men shall see as they are seen and know as they are known, is too obvious to need comment. That prophecy, and the revelation on which it is based, was designed to continue with the saints in this mortal existence is evident from the fact that in the opening verse of the succeeding chapter19 the apostle admonishes the saints to "follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."
The whole genius of the gospel contemplates continuous revelation in the church; and so far is the Bible from justifying the belief that the time will come when it will cease, that on the contrary it teaches that revelation will increase more and more, especially becoming abundant in the last days.
Revelation is the very "rock" or principle upon which the Church of Christ is founded. "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" was the abrupt question which Jesus once put to his disciples. The answers given were varied. "But whom say ye that I am?" Then Peter answered: "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona," was the Lord's reply, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."20 That is as if the Master had said: "Blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto you that I am Christ, the Son of the living God, but my Father which is in heaven; and I say unto thee, Peter, upon this principle of revelation will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
This I hold to be the plain meaning of the passage, and not the interpretation given it by the Catholic Church, which is as follows: First let me remind the reader that when Peter was introduced by his brother Andrew to the Lord Jesus, the latter said to Him: "Thou art Simon, the son Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone."21 Therefore when on the occasion above referred to Jesus