Bible Commentaries

Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου

This title is according to the evidence (C. 2, al. b. Wetst.; also א [T., Tr., W. and H.]), and, since it is derived simply from Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:9, the oldest. Further statements concerning the author run: ἀποκ. Ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου (Elz.), καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ

ἣν ἐν Πάτμῳ τῳ νήσῳ ἐθεάσατο

ἡ ἀποκ. τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τ. θεολ.

ἀποκ. τοῦ ἁγίου ἐνδοξοτάτου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ παρθένου ἠγαπημένου ἐπιστηθίου Ἰωαννου θεολόγου (cf. Wetst., Griesb., Matthäi).

CHAPTER 1

[Revelation 1:1, א*, W. and H., ἰωάνει.]

Revelation 1:2. The τε after ὅσα (Elz., Ewald) is properly deleted already by Griesbach, after A, B, C, min. The particle does not generally occur in the Apoc., for Revelation 21:12 undoubtedly is found improperly in the Rec.; and even though Revelation 19:18 after ἐλευθ. has good evidence (א), yet it is absent in A, and is not found in the parallel Revelation 13:16. At the close of the verse it is added: καὶ [ὅσα ἤκουσε] καὶ ἄτινα εἰσι καὶ ἅ χρὴ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα (min. edd., b. Mill, Wetst.; cf. Revelation 1:19.

Revelation 1:3. ὁ ἀναγινώσκων κ. οἱ ἀκούοντες. Thus the preponderating evidence. The singular and plural also are found in both words.

Modification of the correct lectio media (Beng.).

The additions of τούτους to λόγους (C), and of ταύτης (min., Vulg. 2, Syr., Ar., Primas), should be here noted.

The reading τὸν λόγον τ. πρ. in B, א, Tisch. IX., also deserves consideration.

Revelation 1:4.[450] The τοῦ before Ὁ ὬΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ. (Elz.), in opposition to A, C, א, min., is, like the ΘΕΟῦ (B, min.), an attempted interpretation. In the same way, the Ὃς (Erasm. 1) before ἨΝ, instead of the correct Ὁ.

Instead of ΠΝΕΥΜ. Ἄ ἘΣΤΙΝ (Elz.), not ΠΝΕΜ. ΤῶΝ (Lach., sm. ed. according to A; so also א), but ΠΝΕΥΜ. Ἄ (B, C, al., Matthäi, Lach., Tisch., Lücke). The variations seem to originate with Andreas and Arethas.

Revelation 1:5. The ἘΚ (Elz.) is, according to A, B, C, א, min., Vulg., etc., to be deleted (Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc.; cf. Colossians 1:18).

Instead of ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑΝΤΙ (Elz.), according to A, C, א, min., with Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch., read ἈΓΑΠῶΝΤΙ. The reading ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ἈΠῸ ΤῶΝ ἈΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ἩΜΩΝ is uncertain. Even Lach. and Tisch. have vacillated in their edd. For ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ (Beng., Matth., Ew., Treg., De Wette, Tisch.) are B and Vulg.; but for ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ (Mill, Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) are A, C, א, 6, 7, 28, Primas. The ἘΚ which suits better ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ is well supported by A, C, א, 12. No decision is afforded by the remark of Andreas: Τῷ ΔΙʼ ἈΓΆΠΗς ΤῶΝ ΔΈΣΜΩΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΆΝΑΤΟΥ ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ΚΑῚ ΤῶΝ Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς ΚΗΛΊΔΩΝ ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ. Arethas says expressly, in repeating both conceptions: ΔΙΤΤΟΓΡΑΦΕῖΤΑΙ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΠΡῸς ΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ ἜΝΝΟΙΑΝ. So also, in Revelation 2:2, he trifles with a dittography of ΚΌΠΟς and ΣΚΌΠΟς, of which the latter has no value in a critical respect. Ewald unjustly suspects ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ as the easier reading. Perhaps ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ has entered the text, because probably with a reference to Revelation 7:14 written on the margin. Andr. and Areth. place ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ first, so that the ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ may appear as an interpretation. The idea following, in the context (Revelation 1:6), suits better ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ.

The ἩΜῶΝ after ἉΜΑΡΤ. is omitted in A, 12, 16, but stands in C, א, Lach. large ed., Tisch.

Revelation 1:6. Undoubtedly in the rec. reading, ἘΠΟΊΗΣ. ἩΜᾶς ΒΑΣΙΛΕῖς ΚΑῚ, Κ.Τ.Λ., the ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊς is incorrect, against A, C, א, 2, 4, 6, etc., which offer ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ, and that, too, without the succeeding ΚΑῚ; cf. Revelation 5:10. The more difficult reading, ἩΜᾶς with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ (Tisch., Ew. 2) is well attested by B, א (cf., on the other hand, Lücke, p. 471), and deserves, perhaps, the preference to ἩΜῖΝ (A, Syr., Ar., Lach. small ed.) and ἩΜῶΝ (C, Lach.), because both forms could serve as an interpretation. At any rate, the testimony of Cod. C, here confirmed by the Vulg., is more important than that of A; cf. Beng., Fund. cris. Apoc., sec. viii.

Revelation 1:7. For μετὰ (A, א, Vulg. edd.), C has επὶ from Matthew 24:30, etc.

Revelation 1:8. The discredited addition αρχὴ καὶ τέλος is an interpretation.

Instead of ὁ κύριος (Elz.), the reading according to all the testimonies is κύριος ὁ θεός (Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).

Revelation 1:9. After ὑ̔πομονῇ, do not read Ἰησού Χριστοῦ (Elz.), but ἐν Ἰησοῦ (C, א, Vulg., Copt., Orig., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cod. A has ἐν Χριστῷ; several minusc. (according to Wetst.), ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησ. (Tisch., 1854).

Revelation 1:11. The addition after λεγούσης, ʼΕγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ (Elz.), is without attestation.

Revelation 1:13. Instead of μαστοῖς (B, א, C, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]), it is more proper[451] to write ΜΑΖΟῖς (A, 10, 17, 18, And., Areth., Lach.). Possibly, however, the author of the Ap. wrote ΜΑΣΤ, contrary to the general usage.

ΧΡΥΣᾶΝ; so Lach., Tisch., Revelation 1:12, according to A, C, א. Tisch., in 1854, had received the form ΧΡΥΣῆΝ (Elz.).

Revelation 1:15. ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῌ. To this reading, the meaningless clerical error in A, C, points; viz., ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝΗς (originating from N, H, I), which form Lach. has received. The modified ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝΟΙ (B, Elz., Tisch.) is without sufficient attestation. ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῌ, perhaps ΠΕΠΥΡΩΜΈΝῼ (Mill, Prol., 371, 507; Beng., Gnom., in loco), is supported by the in camino ardenti of the Vulg. (cf. Syr.). The Mas. (א, Tisch. IX.) would belong to the χαλκολ., but incorrectly; see exposition.

Revelation 1:20. ὀὓς, Elz., Tisch.: ὧν incorrect, and opposed to A, C, א, 8, and the usage of the Apoc. Bengel already, like Lach., Tisch. IX., has οὓς. ἐπὶ τῆς δ. μ. Elz., Tisch., after C, א. ἐν τῇ δ. μ. occurs (A, Lach.) because of Revelation 1:16.

[450] In reference to Revelation 1:4-10 of the critical text of Lachmann and Tischendorf, cf. Lücke, Einl., p. 488 sqq. For criticism of text, cf. especially F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, Heft I. Die erasmischen Entstellungen, etc., Leipzig, 1861, ii. 1862.

[451] Suidas: μαζὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ ἀνδρὸς

καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ γυναικὸς, μασθὸς καὶ μαστὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ γυναικός, κ.τ.λ. [“μαζὸς, properly of a man, but by catachresis also of a woman. μασθὸς and μὰστος, of a woman”]. Cf. Wetstein, who has still more authorities. Luke 23:29, in Cod. C, has against this usage, μαζοί.

Revelation 1:1. Ἀποκάλυψις, i.e., revelation, unveiling of things concealed as divine mysteries, which are presented to the prophetic view of John, and interpreted to him.[454] Heinrichs incorrectly: ἀποκ. = παροισία or ἐπιφάνεια, viz., of Jesus Christ.

Ἰησοῦ Χρ. in no way an objective,[455] but a subjective genitive,[456] but not the possessive[457] or the genitive of reception;[458] but by the context Jesus Christ is designated as the author and the communicating witness.[459] ἣν ἕδωκεν αὐτ. ὁ θ. To the clause which has been concluded, since ἕδωκεν has ἣν as its object, the next clause δεῖξαι

τάχει is connected, as the infinitive δεῖξαι marks the purpose of the ἣν ἕδωκεν[460] and the words ἃ δεῖ γεν. ἐν ταχ., are combined as the object of δεῖξαι. On the contrary, Heinr.: ἣν

δεῖξαι, so that ἕδωκεν is combined with δεῖξαι in the sense of permitted, and then this infinitive is regarded as repeated with the object ἅ δεῖ γεν. ἐν ταχ. With the conception ἣν ἔδωκεν, cf. especially Revelation 5:7, and in general Acts 1:7; John 1:18; John 3:11; John 12:49; John 17:7 sqq.; Matthew 11:27. In conflict with the text, and in itself incorrect, is the remark of Calov.: “It was given to Christ according to his human nature;” still more, that of C. a Lap. and Tirin: “Christ received the revelation from the Father in his conception and incarnation.”[461] The revelation described in this book, Christ received from the Father, not in the flesh, but when exalted and glorified,[462] the perpetual mediator between God and man,[463] in order to communicate it by his testimony to the prophetic seer,[464] and thus besides to all his servants. Not so far as he is man, but so far as he is the Son, does the Father give to him.[465] [See Note XV., p. 121.] δεῖξαι. According to the constant usage of the Apoc.,[466] and the context in which the expressions ἀποκάλυψις and σημαίνειν occur,[467] to which ΔΕῚΞΑΙ, Κ.Τ.Λ., are correlate, this word can be understood not only in general, as Matthew 16:21, by “to point out, to give to know,”[468] but must have also the additional reference to the prophetic vision.[469] But it does not follow hence, that by the ΤΟῖς ΔΟΎΛΟΙς ΑὐΤΟῦ, the prophets are specially meant, of whom John would here appear as the representative.[470] The particular idea shadowed in this conception of the ΔΕῖΞΑΙ is justified, inasmuch as it is immediately explained that it is through the service of the prophet beholding Christ, that future things are proclaimed.

Τ. ΔΟΥΛ. ΑὐΤ., viz., not God’s[471] but Jesus Christ’s; as we find directly afterwards, Τ. ἈΓΓ. ΑὐΤΟΥ and Τ. ΔΟΥΛ. ΑὐΤΟΥ.[472] The parallel, Revelation 22:6, cannot be decisive as to the reference of the pronoun to us, as Jesus Christ is not mentioned there as the one who communicates. By the “servants of Jesus Christ,” believers in general are to be understood (cf. Revelation 22:9, where the angel calls himself the fellow-servant not only of the prophets, but also of those ΤΗΡΟῦΝΤΕς Τ. ΛΟΓ. Τ. ΒΙΒΛ. ΤΟΥΤ.). So Ebrard against Hengst. Cf. besides Revelation 22:16, according to the more correct reading.

Ἃ ΔΕῖ ΓΕΝΈΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ. The object of ΔΕῖΞΑΙ, and therefore, according to the connection with the first part of the sentence, forming the chief contents of the ΑΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙς as written in the present book. Cf. Revelation 1:19, where there is fuller mention made, besides the future, also of present things.

The ΔΕῖ[473] depends upon the (not fatalistic) idea of “the divine ordination which could not be frustrated.”[474] The idea of Divine Providence is the essential presupposition of all prophecy.[475] But when Klief. presses the ΔΕῖ in such a way as though thereby the facts of prophecy belonging to the sphere of human freedom were excluded, the reason is entirely unbiblical, and inapplicable for interposing a false interpretation derived from ecclesiastical or secular history.

ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ designates neither figuratively the “certainty” of the future,[476] nor the swiftness of the course of things, without reference to the proximity or remoteness of time in which they were to occur. So Ebrard, who appeals in vain to Romans 16:20 and Luke 18:8, since not only those passages, particularly Luke 18:8 (where the subject is not the concrete future, but a constant rule), are dissimilar to ours, but especially because by the ἘΓΓΎς,[477] Revelation 1:3, it is decided that the speedy coming of what is to happen is meant. When in addition to this idea reference is made on the one hand explicitly,[478] and on the other by the very organism and contents of the book, to the patient waiting, it does not follow that we dare not understand the “quickly” in its strict sense,[479] but that the prophet himself distinguishes the beginning of future things, as the beginning of the ultimate completion,[480] from that distant completion itself. The evasion that the ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ is to be understood “according to the divine method of computation,” as in 2 Peter 3:8,[481] is contrary to the context.[482]

With the words καὶ ἐσήμανεν, κ.τ.λ., the construction changes. As the ΣΗΜΑΊΝΕΙΝ corresponds in meaning to the preceding ΔΕῖΞΑΙ, because of which not ΤῊΝ ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙΝ,[483] but Ἁ ΔΕῖ ΓΕΝ. is to be regarded the object,[484] so not Ὁ ΘΕΌς,[485] but the one who is to show, viz., Jesus Christ, is the subject of ἘΣΉΜΑΝΕΝ. The ΔΕῖΞΑΙ occurs in the way peculiar to ΣΗΜΑΊΝΕΙΝ, i.e., the indication of what is meant by significative figures.[486]

ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΑς belongs to ΔΙʼ ἈΛΛΈΛΟΥ, and that too without supplying “this prophecy,”[487] etc.: on the contrary, the ἈΠΟΣΤ. ΔΙᾺ is absolute,[488] and to be understood according to the analogy of the Hebr. שָֹׁלח בִּיד.[489] Thus Ew. and Ebrard. Hengstenb., whom Klief. follows, tries to combine the ΔΙʼ ἈΓΓ. with ἙΣΗΜ., because in the N. T. the ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΑς is regarded as requiring the accusative of the person.[490] But Matthew 11:2, according to the more correct reading,[491] is ΠΈΜΨΑς ΔΙΆ; by the parallel passage, Revelation 22:6, the combination of ἈΠΟΣΤ. with ΔΙʼ ΑΓΓ. is maintained, while it is also to be noticed, that, according to the analogy of all the examples cited by Hengstb., ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΑς must stand before ἐσημ and that thereby the inner connection with ἘΣΗΜ. is in no way obscured.

ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΥ ΑὐΤΟῦ. Grot. incorrectly: “Learn hence that even when God or Christ is said to have appeared, it ought to be understood of the angel of God or Christ, acting in his name, and representing his attributes.” But God and Christ appear everywhere separated from all angels.

A difficulty lies in the fact that it is not everywhere the same angel who is the interpreter, as might be expected from our position.[492] Cf. Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:7, Revelation 19:9, Revelation 21:5; Revelation 21:9, Revelation 22:1; Revelation 22:6, and besides Revelation 1:10 sqq., Revelation 4:1 sqq., Revelation 6:8 sqq., Revelation 7:13 sqq., Revelation 10:8 sqq. Hence Ewald thinks that the angel of Revelation 1:1, and also mentioned in all the visions, even where not named, and where another is presented, is to be regarded as the attendant of the Apostle John. But wherefore this superfluous attendance if a third one undertakes the showing and interpreting? That the angel[493] has no more to do than to transport John into a state of ecstasy,[494] is an arbitrary conception directly contrary to Revelation 1:10 sqq., because there John is already in the Spirit when he hears the voice of the angel. The explanation of De Wette,[495] that the angel is meant who shows John the chief subject of the entire revelation, the judgment upon Rome,[496] as all that precedes is only preparatory thereto, has against it, first, that also the important preparations are shown and interpreted to the prophet, and, secondly, that even in Revelation 17:1 to Revelation 22:6, the same angel does not always appear as interpreter; for it is difficult to regard the angel coming forth at Revelation 21:9, who continues from that time to remain with the seer, identical with the one speaking already in Revelation 21:5.[497] Klief. refers to our position, and ascribes to the angel mentioned again in Revelation 22:8 the office of bringing the full revelation which is still uncertain to angels otherwise occupied. All difficulty vanishes, if, as is undoubtedly grammatical,[498] the ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΥ ΑὐΤΟῦ be generically conceived[499] This appears at Revelation 22:6 doubly supported by the τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ in the mouth of the angel speaking at that place.[500] The ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ thus understood can apply to all the individual angels who in the different visions have the office of significative declaration.[501] [See Note XVI., p. 122.] τῷ δούλῳ αὑτοῦ Ἰωαννῃ. The seer designates himself as the servant of Jesus Christ in respect to his prophetic service.[502] The addition of his own name[503] contains, according to the old prophetic custom, an attestation of the prophecy.

[454] Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.

[455] Heinr.

[456] As Galatians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 12:1.

[457] Ebrard.

[458] Kliefoth, who even compares it with Luke 2:32.

[459] Revelation 1:5, cf. Revelation 1:3; Revelation 19:10.

[460] John 5:26; John 6:52; Matthew 27:34. Cf. Winer, p. 298 sqq. Passages like Revelation 6:4, Revelation 7:2, etc., should also be compared. Instead of the construction of the inf. attached to the passive ἐδόθη, that with ἳνα, as, e.g., in Revelation 9:5, appears.

[461] Cf., besides, Stern: “The knowledge of the future events of the Church is imparted by God the Father to the man Christ Jesus, through the Logos hypostatically united with him.”

[462] Cf. Revelation 5:5 sqq.; John 17:5.

[463] Cf. Acts 2:33; Ephesians 4:7 sqq.; Hebrews 7:25.

[464] Cf. Revelation 19:10.

[465] Cf. also John 5:26.

[466] Cf. Revelation 4:1, Revelation 17:1, Revelation 21:9, Revelation 22:1.

[467] Cf. also the μαρτυρ Ἰησ. Χρ., the ὅσα εἷδε, Revelation 1:2, and besides the λογ. τ. προφητείας, Revelation 1:3.

[468] De Wette, Ebrard.

[469] Cf. Amos 7:1; Amos 7:4; Ew.

[470] Hengstenb. Cf. Vitringa.

[471] Ebrard.

[472] Cf. Revelation 2:20. So also Klief.

[473] Daniel 2:29; Matthew 24:6.

[474] Nic. de Lyra.

[475] Cf. Amos 3:7; Acts 15:18.

[476] Eich.

[477] Cf. Revelation 2:5; Revelation 2:16, Revelation 3:11, Revelation 22:7; Revelation 22:10; Revelation 22:12; Revelation 22:20.

[478] Cf. Revelation 1:9; Revelation 13:10; Revelation 14:12.

[479] De Wette. A confused conception, according to which two unlike views remain unadjusted with one another.

[480] Hengstenb. Cf. C. a Lap., Tirin, Ew., Klief., etc.

[481] Vitr., Wolf, etc. (Beck). Cf. also Grot.

[482] Cf. in general Einl., sec. 2.

[483] Ew., Ebrard.

[484] Hengstenb., Ew. 2, Bleek.

[485] Calov.

[486] An example, Acts 21:11. Cf., besides, Isaiah 20:2 sqq., Revelation 8:1 sqq.

[487] C. a Lap., Tirin, Züll., Stern.

[488] = hinsehend.

[489] Ezekiel 4:13.

[490] Matthew 2:16; Mark 6:17; Acts 7:14. Cf. Genesis 31:4; Genesis 41:8, etc.

[491] Lachm., Tisch. [W. and H.].

[492] Cf. Zechariah 1:9; Zechariah 1:13; Zechariah 2:3; Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21, where Gabriel appears as interpreter, which Züll., without ground, fancies to be our position. Cf. also Ebrard, Stern.

[493] Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6.

[494] Hengstb. Cf. also Ebrard.

[495] Cf. Eich., Bleek, Stern.

[496] Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:7; Revelation 17:15. Cf. Revelation 19:9, Revelation 21:9, Revelation 22:1; Revelation 22:6; Revelation 22:16.

[497] Cf. Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:7; Revelation 17:15, Revelation 19:9.

[498] Cf. Winer, p. 101.

[499] Cf. Matthew 13:44 : τῷ ἀγρ., Revelation 18:17.

[500] Cf. also Revelation 22:16.

[501] Thus even Ewald now maintains (Revelation 2:1) the theory of angels relieving one another.

[502] Revelation 22:9. Cf. Amos 3:7; Isaiah 49:5.

[503] Cf. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:9.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XV. Revelation 1:1. ἥν ἔδωκεν αυτῷ ὁ θεὸς

Alford presents the argument on the other side: “Stern asks, ‘How are we to understand this? Is not Christ very God, of one essence with the Father from eternity? Did he not, by virtue of the omniscience of his divine nature, know as exactly as the Father what should be the process of the world’s history, what the fate of the Church? What purpose was served by a revelation from God to Jesus?’ He proceeds to say that the words cannot refer to the revelation as made to us, but are clearly against such an interpretation; and gives, at some length and very well, that which, in one form or other, all will accept as the true explanation, in accordance with John 7:16; John 14:10; John 17:7-8. The man Christ Jesus, even in his glorified state, receives from the Father, by his hypostatic union with him, that revelation which, by his Spirit, he imparts to his Church. For (Acts 1:7) the times and seasons are kept by the Father in his own power; and of the day and the hour knoweth no man, not the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, but the Father only (Mark 13:32). I may observe that the coincidence, in statement of this deep point of doctrine, between the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse, is at least remarkable.”

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XVI. Revelation 1:1. διὰ τοῦ αγγέλου

Gebhardt (p. 40) maintains that the transference into an ecstasy cannot be regarded as showing the future; and, indorsing Düst.’s generic conception, defines the angel here as “the personification, so far as it respects the seer, of the whole revealing activity of God or Christ. With this idea alone, can we reconcile the fact that now this angel, and now that, sometimes, indeed, a voice, the voice of God, or Christ himself, speaks to the seer; and it is only on this principle that we can explain the manner in which, Revelation 22:6, the angel speaks of the angel of God being sent.” This conception of the angel as a personification harmonizes with the interpretation of the angels of the churches.

Beck, however, says, “The article before ἀγγ., according to the natural idiom, definitely presents an individual from the genus of angels, and the αὐτοῦ refers to Jesus Christ who sends; cf. Revelation 22:16. The designation ‘his angel’ is thoroughly consistent according to 1 Peter 3:22; cf. Matthew 13:41.”

Revelation 1:1-3. Title and commendation of the book.[452] But it is not the words Ἀποκαλ. Ἰης. Χρ. that declare the title; but in Revelation 1:1-2, the prophetic character and chief contents are given,[453] and in Revelation 1:3 follows its corresponding commendation to Christians.

[452] Calov., Beng.

[453] Proverbs 1:1 sqq.; Jeremiah 1:1; Isaiah 1:1.

Revelation 1:2. What Christ showed the seer, and what the latter beheld (ὅσα εἰδε), that he has testified[504] as a revelation of God through Christ (τ. λογ. τ. θ. κ. τ. μαρ. Ἰης. Χρ.; cf. Revelation 1:1) in this book, in order that it may be read and kept.[505] According to the connection borne by the clear correspondence of the individual parts, the entire Revelation 1:2 belongs to no other than the present book.[506] But not a few expositors have referred the entire Revelation 1:2 to the Gospel of John.[507] Others understand τ. λογ. τ. θ. as referring to the Gospel, and τ. μαρτ. Ἰησ. Χρ. to the Epistles of John; and, finally, the ὅσα (τε) εἷδε to the present revelation.[508] To the former, then, the εἱδε is understood in the sense of 1 John 1:1, as referring to the immediate eye-witness of the apostle who had seen the miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. With this false view of the whole are connected particular errors; viz., that τ. μαρτ. Ἰης. Χρ. is explained as “the testimony concerning Christ,”[509] or when the correct recognition of the subjective genitive is applied to a special testimony,[510] and τ. λογ. τ. θ. is understood[511] of the hypostatic Logos.[512] The occasion for referring Revelation 1:2 not, or not exclusively, to the present book, lies in the aor. ἐμαρτυρ. and the false reading ὄσα τε εἰδε. So formerly by Ewald: “who professed the Christian religion, and declared the visions which he saw.” He must thus regard the ἐμαρτ. repeated by a species of zeugma, in order to be able to refer the ὅσα (τε) εἷδε, according to Revelation 1:19, to the present revelation; while he must interpret the preceding words, as he cannot properly refer to the Fourth Evangelist,[513] in an entirely general sense. But the connection between Revelation 1:1-3, is decisive against Ebrard, while the aor. ἐμαρτυρ. is very easily explained by the fact that John pictures his readers[514] to himself.[515] Besides, that the revelation of Jesus Christ[516] belongs to the Christians who are to hear it,[517] is necessary, from the fact that John by his testimony[518] brings it to them; this occurs in the present book,[519] whose contents he therefore charges them to hear and keep. Against Ebrard and Klief, who acknowledge the correct reading, ὅσα εἶδε, testimony is given especially by the indubitable significance of the expression in Revelation 1:19, and all other passages in which John designates his reception of the vision of the revelation by εἶδον. But if the ὅσα εἶδε belongs to the visions here described, and yet cannot designate the position of the writer as an apostolic eye-and-ear witness,[520] and if the τε is false, then these words must form a suitable apposition to τ. λογ. τ. θ. κ. τ. μαρτ. Ἰησ. Χρ. These two expressions are, however, perfectly clear already from Revelation 1:1. The entire revelation, as here published in writing[521] in various λόγοι τ. προφ.,[522] is a λόγος τ. θεοῦ, because it was originally given by God;[523] it is further a μαρτυρία Ἰησ. Χρ., since Christ, the faithful witness,[524] “shows” it.[525] Discrepant with this is Ewald, ii.: “The testimony of Jesus Christ to the truth of this word.” The ἐμαρτύρησε, according to its meaning, finally can be said as well of the Prophet John[526] as of the angel,[527] who in like manner interprets to the gazing prophet the revelation made in the visions, as the latter interprets it to Christians.[528] Even to Christ, as the communicator of the revelation, is the μαρτυρεῖν to be ascribed.

[504] In writing, Revelation 1:3.

[505] Revelation 1:3.

[506] So Andr., Areth., C. a Lap., Beza, Beng., Züll., Bleek (Beitr., p. 192), Hofmann (Weiss, u. Erf., ii. 308), De Wette, Lücke (Einl., p. 510 sqq.), Stern, Ewald, ii.

[507] Ambrosiast., Beda, Nic. de Lyra, Aretius, Grot., Wolf., Eichh., Ebrard (who at the same time refers to “the apostolic activity” of John “in other respects”), Klief.

[508] Coccej., Vitr. Cf., besides, Hengstb.

[509] N. de Lyra.

[510] John 18:37. Oeder in Wolf.

[511] Ribera, Ebrard.

[512] Cf. Revelation 19:13.

[513] “Who did not blush to publicly confess and defend the Christian religion.”

[514] Cf. Revelation 1:3.

[515] “Because, when the book was read in Asia, he already had written it” (Beng.).

[516] Revelation 1:1.

[517] Revelation 1:3.

[518] Revelation 1:2. Cf. Revelation 1:11.

[519] Revelation 1:3.

[520] Acts 1:21 sqq. Klief.

[521] Cf. Revelation 21:5, Revelation 22:10.

[522] Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:18.

[523] Cf. Revelation 22:6.

[524] Revelation 1:5. Cf. Revelation 22:20.

[525] Revelation 1:1.

[526] Against Ebrard.

[527] Revelation 22:16.

[528] Cf. Revelation 19:10.

Revelation 1:3. Commendation of the book, which, to those who receive and keep it, may be a source of blessedness in the near impending and decisive time.

Μακάριος refers alone[529] to the participation in the kingdom of glory, which follows the conflict and tribulation of the preceding judgments, but not at the same time,[530] that the godly are to be preserved amid these judgments.

ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντεσ, κ.τ.λ. These are not, in spite of the change of singular and plural, to be regarded the same subject;[531] but by the Ὁ ἈΝΑΓΙΝ. the public reader, and by the ΟἹ ἈΚΟΎΟΝΤΕς the hearing congregations, are designated.[532] This exposition is not “more tasteless,” but is far more natural, than that according to which ἉΚΟΎΕΙΝ[533] means, not simply “to hear,” but “to lend the ear of understanding.”

Τ. ΛΟΓ. Τ. ΠΡΟΦ. By this John names this book,[534] because what he is to publish in the same in writing (ΤᾺ ΓΕΓΡ. ἘΝ ΑὐΤῆ) is a divine revelation, of which he as a prophet is the interpreter.[535]

By the mere hearing, of course, nothing is accomplished: hence John adds to what is said elsewhere only in Revelation 22:7 : ΚΑῚ ΤΗΡΟῦΝΤΕΣ, Κ.Τ.Λ. The ΤΗΡΕῖΝ is properly explained in conformity with its meaning by supplying mentally, “in their hearts;”[536] only, still further, that so far as what is written in the book contains, directly or indirectly, the commandments of fidelity, patience, etc., the additional relation which prevails in the combination ΤΗΡ. ΤᾺς ἘΝΤΟΛΆς[537] results.[538]

Ὁ ΓᾺΡ ΚΑΙΡῸς ἘΓΓΎς. Foundation for the commendation of the book which has just been expressed: the time[539] which will bring blessedness to the faithful is at hand;[540] blessed, therefore, he who takes to heart the instruction here offered.[541] Notice here how in Revelation 11:18, Revelation 22:10, cf. Revelation 12:12; Revelation 12:14, the expression ὁ καιρός is used, i.e., the fixed, expected point of time; while ὁ χρόνος, on the other hand, is time in general, according to the conception of duration, and is otherwise more external and chronological.[542]

[529] According to Revelation 19:9, Revelation 20:6, Revelation 22:14. Cf. with Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:17; Revelation 2:26, Revelation 3:5; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:21 (Revelation 14:15).

[530] Hengstb., Ebrard.

[531] Wolf, Ebrard. The comparison of Revelation 1:7, πᾶς ὀφθ. and καὶ ὅιτινες, is inapplicable, since in the very conception πᾶς a plurality is presupposed.

[532] Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstb., Bleek, Stern [Beck].

[533] Cf. Revelation 22:13.

[534] Idem.

[535] Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.

[536] Pricäus, Grot., Ewald, De Wette, etc.

[537] Cf. Revelation 14:12.

[538] Cf. in general my commentary on 1 John 2:3.

[539] Revelation 11:18.

[540] Cf. Revelation 1:1, ἐν τάχει.

[541] Cf. 1 Peter 4:7; 1 Peter 4:17; Romans 13:11.

[542] Revelation 6:11, Revelation 10:6, Revelation 20:3. Cf. Lünemann on 1 Thessalonians 5:1.

Revelation 1:4-8 contain the epistolary dedication of the entire book to the seven congregations of Asia,[543] Revelation 1:4-6, and its fundamental thought, Revelation 1:7-8. Thus the reference of Revelation 1:4-8 to the whole of the book has been correctly expressed in essentials by Beng.[544] So, also, Klief, who, however, separates Revelation 1:7-8, from Revelation 1:4-6, and tries to refer Revelation 1:7-20 a to the fundamental vision. The opinion of Hengstenberg,[545] that Revelation 1:4-6 have reference only “to the group of the seven epistles,” since everywhere, from Revelation 1:4 to Revelation 3:22, the treatment is concerning the wide province of the entire Church, and there is no special reference to the seven churches, is incorrect, for the reasons that not the contents of the seven epistles, but only those of the entire book, satisfy the announcement of Revelation 1:7; Revelation 1:19; and that, in a formal respect, the correspondence between the introduction, Revelation 1:1 sqq., and the conclusion, Revelation 22:6 sqq.,[546] makes manifest as a whole all that intervenes.

[543] Mentioned in Revelation 1:11.

[544] Cf. Herder, Ew., Lücke, De Wette, Rinck, Ebrard.

[545] Cf., against him, Lücke, p. 420, Ebrard, and Rinck.

[546] Cf. especially Revelation 22:16 with Revelation 1:4.

The epistolary introductory greeting, Revelation 1:4-5, is similar to the Pauline form,[547] but, in its contents, corresponds to the book which follows, with significative references to which it is filled.

John[548] writes to the seven churches in Asia. Ἀσία[549] is Proconsular Asia, consisting of the provinces of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, Lydia, Ionia, and Æolis. Ephesus[550] was regarded the metropolis. In this Asia, Paul had planted the gospel; also, the First Epistle of Peter had its first readers there.[551]

In the greeting, ΧΆΡΙς and ΕἸΡΉΝΗ are combined, as in all the Pauline Epistles except 1 and 2 Timothy, where, as in 2 John 1:3, ἜΛΕΟς is inserted. ΧΆΡΙς always stands in the foreground as the fundamental condition whence all salvation, all Christian ΧΑΊΡΕΙΝ, alone proceeds; the ΕἸΡΉΝΗ, the effect of divine grace, has an important significance at the head of the book which treats in an especial way of the conflicts of believers. Falsely, N. de Lyra: “grace in the present life; peace in the future, for there human appetite will be altogether quieted.” Rather is the peace which believers already have, through grace, of such nature that they maintain it through patience and victorious perseverance in all tribulations.[552]

ἈΠῸ Ὁ ὬΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ. Description of the divine name יהוה,[553] but not under the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical way, the three tenses are indicated.[554] As to the form of the expression, neither is the manifestly intentional combination of the nom. ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., with ἀπό to be impaired by the insertion of τοῦ,[555] or by supplying τοῦ λεγομένου ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., τοῦ ὅς ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., τοῦ θεοῦ ὅς ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., etc.;[556] nor is the irregularity, that, in the absence of a necessary preterite participle in the formula ὁ ην, the finite tense is treated as a participle, to be accounted for by the false conception that ὁ stood for ὅς;[557] nor, finally, is ὁ ἐρχόμενος to be taken as precisely equivalent to ὁ ἐσόμενος[558] by an accommodation of the use of הכָּא, perhaps with an allusion to Mark 10:30, John 4:21; John 5:25; John 16:25; John 16:31 : but, in that inflexible firmness of the divine name,[559] there is something mysterious;[560] viz., an intimation of the immutability of the eternal God [see Note XVII., p. 122], who, as is shown also by the idea itself of eternity, and especially by the Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς,[561] rules the destinies of his people, as well as of the hostile world, brings his prophecy to fulfilment, and especially holds in his firm hand the entire development of the judgment. Accordingly, John writes not Ὁ ἘΣΌΜΕΝΟς, but with living reference to the fundamental thoughts of the book,[562] Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς, as also Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8. [See Note XVIII., p. 122.] The question whether, by the formula Ὁ ὬΝ Κ. Ὁ ἩΝ Κ. Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς, the triune God, or only God the Father, be designated, can be answered only in connection with the two following members of the sentence. The ἙΠΤᾺ ΠΝΕὙΜΑΤΑ, Κ.Τ.Λ., are, at all events, to be regarded not as angels, neither[563] as “the entire body of angels” (universitas angelorum), who are the ministers of our salvation,[564] nor[565] as the seven archangels[566] found again in Revelation 8:2;[567] against this, the expression,[568] its occurrence before Ἰησοῦ Χρ., and the circumstance that from the ἑπτὰ πνεύματα, as well as from ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., and from Ἰησ. Χρ., grace and peace are to proceed.[569] The seven spirits are, according to Revelation 4:5, where they appear “before the throne of God,” “spirits of God” himself; according to Revelation 1:6, they are “the sent upon the whole earth,” and peculiar to the Lamb, as the seven eyes thereof. Christ “hath” the seven spirits.[570] Thus they belong to God and Christ himself in a way other than can be conceived of any creature. But they cannot be regarded mere attributes or manifestations, “the (seven[571]) virtues of God’s providence,”[572] “the seven members, as it were, of Divine Providence,”[573] “the most perfect nature of Jehovah,”[574] “the virtues, or what is proclaimed, of the Supreme Divinity,”[575]—which is neither clear in itself, nor consistent with John’s concrete mode of view; nor can the cabalistic personifications of the divine glory, nor the ten Sephiroth, be here thought of.[576] Essentially, by the seven spirits before the throne of God, nothing else can be understood than “the Spirit” who speaks to the churches,[577] and the Spirit of Christ[578] who makes men prophets.[579] Nevertheless, the sevenfoldness of this one Spirit is not to be explained, and, least of all, by an appeal to Isaiah 11:2, of the assumed “seven energies” of the Spirit;[580] but[581] John’s type is Zechariah 3:9; Zechariah 4:6; Zechariah 4:10. The Spirit cannot be beheld in his essential unity as he is before God’s throne, or as sent forth into all lands; besides, there is need of a concrete presentation,[582] which occurs according to the holy number of seven, representing the divine perfection; thus the one Spirit, who, as in Zechariah, is the treasure of the Church,[583] appears as seven eyes, lamps, or even as seven spirits.

[547] Romans 1:1 sqq.; 1 Corinthians 1:1 sqq. Cf. Ew., De Wette, Hengstb.

[548] Cf. Revelation 1:2.

[549] ἡ ἰδίως καλουμένη ʼΑσία (Asia properly so called), Ptolem., v. 2. Cf. Winer, Reallex., in loc.

[550] Cf. Revelation 1:11.

[551] 1 Peter 1:1. Cf. Introduction, sec. 3.

[552] Cf. Revelation 1:9; Revelation 3:10 sqq.; Romans 5:1 sqq.; John 16:33.

[553] Cf. Exodus 3:14. LXX.: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.

[554] Cf. yet Bengel: “Incomparable and wonderful is the composition of the name יהוה from יְהִי, he shall be, and הוֶה, being, and הָוָהָ, he was.” Cf. Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 3:14 : “Who was, is, and will be, spake to the world.” [Etheridge’s translation, 1. p. 450: “He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be.”] Targ. Jon. on Deuteronomy 32:39. Wetst.

[555] Erasmus.

[556] Cf. Wolf.

[557] Schöttgen.

[558] Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard.

[559] ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ. Cf. Revelation 1:5.

[560] Valla. Cf. L. Cappell., Pric., Grot., C. a Lap., Beng., Stern, Hengstenb., Winer, p. 66, etc.

[561] See below.

[562] Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.

[563] With N. de Lyra.

[564] Cf. on Revelation 1:4 : “By the number seven, the whole class is understood.”

[565] With Areth., Ribera, Viegas, C. a Lap., Bossuet, Drusius, J. Mede, etc. In the year 1460, their names (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Sealthiel, Jehudiel, and Barachiel) were said to have been revealed to a certain Amadeus, a man eminent for holiness, miracles, and prophecies. Cf. C. a Lap., Tir.

[566] Cf. Tob 12:15.

[567] Ew. ii.

[568] Cf. Revelation 8:2, ἅγγελοι.

[569] Cf. already Vitr., etc.

[570] Revelation 3:1.

[571] Alcasar enumerates the seven virtues of God, or endowments of Providence, thus: “Wisdom, fortitude, beneficence, justice, patience, threatening, severity.” This exposition C. a Lap. tries to combine with that received by most of the ancient Catholic interpreters, by stating that it is by means of angels that these virtues are exercised.

[572] Pareus.

[573] Grot.

[574] Eichh.

[575] Heinrichs.

[576] Herder.

[577] Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:29.

[578] Revelation 3:1, Revelation 5:6; cf. Revelation 19:10.

[579] Cf. also Revelation 14:13, Revelation 22:17[580] Andreas; cf. “Victorin., Primas., Beda, Revius, Zeger, Wolf, etc.

[581] Cf. Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebr.

[582] Cf. Matthew 3:16; Acts 2:2 sqq.

[583] Hengstenb.; cf. with Zechariah 4:6, also John 16:8.

This view of “the seven spirits before the throne of God” gives the answer to the question whether ὁ ὤν κ. ὁ ἦν κ. ὁ ἐρχ. be God the Father,[584] or the triune God[585] The question itself is properly more of a dogmatical than of an exegetical character, because nothing is more distant from John than the dogmatic reflection whence that question originates. Yet the answer must be given, on the one hand, that the expression ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., as a description of the name יהוה designates the God who in Revelation 1:1 is called ὁ θεός,[586] and in like manner is represented to be distinct from Christ, as Revelation 1:4-5, treat of the seven spirits and of Christ; and, on the other, that the threeness of “him who is,” etc., of the seven spirits, and of Jesus Christ, not only has “an analogy with the Trinity,”[587] but actually includes, in itself and in the doctrinal connection of the entire book,[588] the fundamental idea of the Trinity, which, if developed and dogmatically expressed, yields the result that the designation of the divine nature (ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ.,) is confined to the representation of the Father. [See Note XIX., p. 122.]

[584] Alcasar, Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard.

[585] Ribera, C. a Lap.

[586] Cf. especially Revelation 1:8.

[587] De Wette.

[588] Cf. Revelation 3:1, Revelation 5:6; Revelation 5:12 sqq.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XVII. Revelation 1:4. ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν

So also Trench: “Doubtless the immutability of God is intended to be expressed in this immutability of the name of God, in this absolute resistance to change or even modification which the name presents.” Beck: “The name of the Immutable is presented in the form of immutability.”

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XVIII. Revelation 1:4. ὁ ἐρχόμενος

Gebhardt (p. 21): “John does not use ἐρχόμενος as synonymous with ἐσόμενος, but in the sense of coming to judgment for the final completion of the eternal world-plan.” Cremer (Lexicon): “In Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, ὁ ἐρχόμενος denotes God as the God of the future revelation of salvation; cf. Isaiah 40:9 : and the title (viz., ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ.), as a whole, is given to God, as the God of an eternal and unchangeable covenant.” Tait: “The word ἐρχόμενος is the keynote of revelation. It runs like a silver thread throughout the entire book. It enters into it at the beginning, and it is summed up at the end by ‘Surely I come quickly.’ ”

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XIX. Revelation 1:4. τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων

Trench: “There is no doubt, that, by ‘the seven spirits,’ we are to understand, not, indeed, the sevenfold operations of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost sevenfold in his operations. Neither need there be any difficulty in reconciling this interpretation, as Mede urges, with the doctrine of his personality. It is only that he is regarded here not so much in his personal unity as in his manifold energies, 1 Corinthians 12:4. The matter could not be put better than it is by Richard of St. Victor: ‘Et a septem spiritibus, id est, a septiformi Spiritu, qui simplex quidem est per naturam, septiformis per gratiam.’ ” Gerhard (Loci Theologici, xviii. 234): “By the seven spirits, the Spirit is to be understood metonymically, of whom the Church sings that he is septiformis munere. This paraphrase is to be understood by synecdoche; viz., in the sense that the Holy Spirit is the author and giver, not only of seven but of all spiritual charisms. John, however, employs the number seven, because it is the number of perfection, and denotes multiplicity (Amos 1:6; Proverbs 24:15; Psalm 119:164; Isaiah 4:1). This interpretation is proved: 1. From the quality and condition of what is predicated. John prays for grace and peace to the seven churches, from the seven spirits. But the bestowment of grace and peace, i.e., spiritual and heavenly blessings, is the part of no creature, but of God alone; and hence the apostles, in their epistles, never pray that grace may be given those to whom they write, from angels or from any other creature, but only from God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because it is only God who is the author of grace and peace. 2. From the equal conjunction of the seven spirits with God the Father and the Son. John prays that grace and peace be given the churches equally ‘from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits, and from Jesus Christ;’ and that, too, by a mode of invocation in which the ἀπὸ is thrice repeated, and the seven spirits assigned the same degree of dignity with the Father and the Song of Solomon 3. From the order and position. The seven spirits are interposed between the Father and the Son. Therefore created spirits or angels cannot be understood; for, whenever angels are joined with God and Christ as ministers, they are subjoined (1 Timothy 5:21; Revelation 3:5 : the intention of the passage, Mark 13:32, is different, where the discourse rises to a climax),” etc. Cf., also, in the “Veni Creator Spiritus,” ascribed by many to Charlemagne, by others to Gregory the Great, referred to above by Gerhard,—

“Tu septiformis munere,”

as paraphrased in the most widely used English translation,—

“Thou the anointing Spirit art,

Who dost thy sevenfold gifts impart.”

Luther’s rendering—

“Du bist mit Gaben siebenfalt”—

more closely conforms to the original and the strict meaning of the passage, although the “sevenfold gifts” or “operations” is a necessary inference, and is sustained by such passages as Isaiah 11:2-3.

Revelation 1:5. As from the seven spirits of God, as the Spirit of God and of the Lamb beheld in living concretion, comforting, warning, strengthening believers, but judging the world, grace and peace are wished; so also, finally (Revelation 1:5-6), from Jesus Christ, since he is ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς, κ.τ.λ. The construction with the genitive is not abandoned in order to indicate “the immutability of the testimony,”[589] neither is it aided by supplying ὅς ἐστίν:[590] but the importance of the ideas breaks through the limitations of regular form; the abrupt mode of speech makes prominent the intense independence of all three predicates. Compare the energetic change of construction in the sentences immediately following. All three predicates of Jesus Christ stand in pragmatic connection with the contents of the entire ἀποκάλυψις communicated through him, but not[591] in correspondence with the three themes of the ascription of praise, τ. ἀγαπῶντι, λύσαντι, and ἐποίησεν ἡμ. βασιλ., κ.τ.λ. Inconsistent with the conception and reference of the three predicates, is also the opinion that in them Christ “is characterized according to the consecutive series of his works, and therefore according to his threefold office.”[592]

Christ exalted to his majesty is first ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, i.e., the trustworthy[593] witness, and not because in his earthly life he testified, in general, to the divine truth,[594] and maintained it even unto death;[595] nor because what he has threatened and promised in the flesh[596] he will execute: but also, not alone because of the attestation to apocalyptic truth,[597] which reference, of course, must not be omitted, but absolutely as the very one through whom each and every divine revelation occurs, who communicates predictions not only to the prophets in general,[598] as at present to the writer of the Apoc.,[599] but also testifies to the truth[600] by reproving, admonishing, and comforting the churches. That, just on this account, Christ was the faithful witness in the flesh, is self-evident, but lies here beyond the sphere of the visions.

ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν. This figurative expression[601] agrees, as to its essential meaning, with the figure, ἈΠΑΡΧΗ ΤῶΝ ΚΕΚΟΙΜΗΜΈΝΩΝ, 1 Corinthians 15:20.[602] The figure is obliterated if ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟς,[603] without any thing further, be received like ἀρχή, the first.[604] Grot. already justly remarks, “The resurrection is a birth.”[605] Yet the view according to which the resurrection to a new life[606] appears as a birth is to be maintained in its simplicity, and not, as with Ebrard, to be further portrayed.[607] But, since Christ is the ΠΡΩΤΌΤ. Τ. ΝΕΚΡ., he may represent himself as in Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; and that applies to him as returning, which Revelation 1:7 represents as the fundamental thought of the book. [See Note XX., p. 123.] ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἌΡΧΩΝ ΤῶΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΈΩΝ Τῆς Γῆς. This, Christ—to whom, as the Messiah, and that too as one dead and risen again, the dominion over all things belongs[608]—will prove himself to be, in the judgment, at his advent.[609]

[589] Grot., Stern.

[590] Er. Schmid, Schöttg.

[591] According to Ebrard.

[592] Ebrard. Cf. also Coccej., Vitr., Calov.

[593] Because true. Cf. Revelation 3:14, Revelation 19:11, Revelation 21:5, Revelation 22:6.

[594] Cf. John 3:11; 1 Timothy 6:13; Andr., Areth., Par., Coccej., Vitr., Grot., Calov., Eichh., Züll.

[595] Ebrard.

[596] Ewald compares John 7:7; Hengstenb., in addition to John 3:11; also John 16:33, etc.

[597] Revelation 1:2, De Wette; cf. Heinr., Ew. ii.

[598] Revelation 19:10.

[599] Revelation 1:2; Revelation 22:20; Revelation 22:16.

[600] Revelation 3:14.

[601] Cf. Colossians 1:18, πρωτότοκος ἔκ τ. νεκρ.

[602] Where also the partitive genitive denotes the mass to which Christ belongs.

[603] Cf. also Colossians 1:15, where Christ as the first-born is distinguished from that created by him.

[604] Hengstenb.

[605] Cf. also Ew.

[606] Cf. the ἔζησεν, Revelation 2:8.

[607] That the expression ὠδῖνες, Acts 2:24, properly has not been derived by Luke from the LXX. of Psalm 18:5 (cf. Revelation 1:6), but that Peter actually spake of the “bands” of death, is inferred from the fact that it is said that Christ could not have been held by it, viz., by death. That “the birth-pangs of death” could not have held Christ, that Christ forced his way through “these birth-pangs of death,” and therefore is to be understood as the first who “opened the womb,” is the inference of Ebrard.

[608] Psalms 2; cf. Acts 13:33; Psalms 110, Psalm 72:10 sqq., Psalm 89:28; Isaiah 52:13 sqq.; Php 2:9; Matthew 28:18.

[609] Cf. Revelation 6:15, Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16.

If the three predicates of Christ just mentioned are presented without formal opposition, because in this way the unconditional objectivity of the ideas is the more forcibly marked, the subjective references in the following expressions, τ. ἀγαπ. ἡμᾶς, λυσ. ἡμας ἐκ τ. ἁμαρτ. ἡμῶν, ἐποιησ. ἡμῶν βασιλ., require that they be made in the form of a doxology. The new clause, τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμ., looks from the very beginning to the close (ἀυτῷ) ἡ δόξα, κ.τ.λ.; the ἀυτῷ restoring the original form of the sentence after it had been interrupted, after a Hebraistic manner, by the finite tense, καὶ ἐποίησεν.[610]

The present, Τ. ἈΓΑΠῶΝΤΙ, is neither to be accounted for by the false reading ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑΝΤΙ, nor to be explained in the sense of an imperfect participle; but, on the contrary, the certainty that Christ continues to love his people is just as significant in the connection of the book as that of his being the faithful witness.[611] The bride is comforted, and rejoices in the coining of Him whom she loves.[612]

ΚΑῚ ΛΎΣΑΝΤΙ ἩΜᾶς ἘΚ ΤῶΝ ἉΜΑΡΤ. ἩΜ., Κ.Τ.Λ. The loosing which Christ has accomplished[613] by means of his blood[614] [see Note XXI., p. 124] represents our sins as a power enchaining us.[615] For the thought, cf. the similar conception of ἈΓΟΡΆΖΕΙΝ, Revelation 5:9.[616] The reading ΛΟΎΣΑΝΤΙ[617] yields, according to another figure,[618] essentially the same idea, in both of which[619] the forgiveness of sins and liberation from their power[620] are comprised. Yet, even in an exegetical respect, the reading λύσαντι is preferable. As in Revelation 5:9 the allied idea of the ἀγοράζειν, so also here the λύσαντι ἡμ. is followed by the declaration which, in most forcible opposition to the bondage of the sins from which we are delivered, ascribes to us a royal dominion and holy priesthood with God.

[610] De Wette, etc.

[611] Cf. Revelation 3:19.

[612] Revelation 22:17; cf. also Romans 8:37 sqq.

[613] In regard to the meaning of the aor. λύσαντι and ἐποίησεν, cf. Revelation 5:10; Hebrews 7:27; Galatians 2:20.

[614] Cf., concerning this meaning of the ἐν, Revelation 6:8; Winer, p. 363.

[615] Revelation 20:7, where also the ἐκ, Revelation 9:14-15, Revelation 20:3; cf. Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18.

[616] 1 Corinthians 6:20; Galatians 3:13; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18; Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 20:18.

[617] Cf. Critical Notes.

[618] Psalm 2:4; Isaiah 1:16; Isaiah 1:18; Revelation 7:14.

[619] Cf., on the other hand, De Wette.

[620] Cf. the καθαρίζειν of 1 John 1:7.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XX. Revelation 1:5. ὁ πρωτότοκος

Cf. Meyer on 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18. Others, indeed, were raised from the dead before Christ’s resurrection, e.g., the daughter of Jairus, and Lazarus; yet they were not raised to immortal life, but their souls were re-invested with mortal bodies. See the contrast drawn by Romans 6:9; also, in this chapter, Revelation 5:13.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXI. Revelation 1:5. καὶ λὐσαντι

Beck, who, however, prefers the reading λούσαντι, adds on the ἑν τῷ αἵματι: “For it is not the material, lifeless blood of one dead, but the spiritually quickened blood of the risen One, i.e., of one born anew by the resurrection, of the spiritually glorified Son of man. The sin-cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ is, therefore, one that works inwardly, cleansing the heart and mind, towards God (Hebrews 9:14; cf. Hebrews 7:16; Hebrews 10:19-21). λούειν is, therefore, not merely judicial liberation from sin as a debt, nor moral liberation from the bondage of sin (as two parties of exegetes here try to maintain), but one divine act accomplished in the person, whereby the habitual, sinful nature of the human heart and mind, discontent with God, and hostility towards him, are removed, and changed into a communion of peace and love with God, into a new habit, whence, at last, the personal freedom from sin, and sanctification in God, result.” Tait: “Tell us not, then, that the death of Christ was merely that of a martyr, a spectacle before men and angels of the dignity of self-sacrifice,—that it was intended to reconcile man to God by preaching to us, through a mortal, the evil of sin and the majesty of sorrow.”

Revelation 1:6. In the reading ἡμῶν βασιλείαν, as well as the variation ἥμιν, the βασιλεία designated is undoubtedly the royal sovereignty of believers,[621] to whom, therefore, Revelation 5:10, a βασιλεύειν is directly ascribed.[622] Were the reading ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, which is certainly that of Revelation 5:10, to be received here, upon grammatical considerations, the words could not signify that the redeemed are a “kingdom” in the sense of “a people of kings,” as ἱεράτευμα[623] is “a people of priests,”[624] or “a royal power opposed to the world.”[625] (If this idea is to be reached, we must read either ἡμῖν, or,[626] in conflict with all the testimonies, with the Rec., ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς); but only that the redeemed are the “kingdom” of God, the subjects, and, of course, also the blessed sharers in God’s kingdom.[627]

ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. These words stand in apposition to ἡμῶν βασιλείαν. The formal inconsequence that the ἱερεῖς is in apposition with a ἡμᾶς supplied from the ἡμῶν βασιλείαν,[628] each of the two points shows with especial force and independence.

The αὐτοῦ belongs not only to the πατρί,[629] but to the entire conception τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, as also Romans 15:6.[630] In the first case, the article must be repeated before the πατρί. But, on the other hand, John could not write as Ebrard, according to the analogy of Revelation 6:11, Revelation 9:21, John 2:12, expects, τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ τ. πατρὶ αὐτ., because thus two different subjects would be presented; viz., first, the God of Jesus Christ, and, secondly, the Father of Jesus Christ.[631]—“Priests unto God”[632] are the redeemed of Christ, and invested with the kingdom, in no way for the reason that they help to complete the sufferings of Christ;[633] for, while the suffering of believers must be considered the suffering of witnesses or martyrs, just in this is the idea of the suffering of a priest, which belongs absolutely only to one High Priest,[634] surrendered. But the priesthood of all the redeemed[635] lies in this, that they come immediately to God, offer to him their prayers, and further give themselves peculiarly to him in holy obedience and spiritual service.[636] A similar idea occurs, when, in Revelation 21:22, the new Jerusalem appears without a temple. [See Note XXII., p. 124.] αὐτῷ; viz., τῷ αγαπῶντι ἡμάς, κ.τ.λ., therefore Jesus Christ. To ἡ δόξα, κ.τ.λ., ἐστίν is understood.[637]

[621] Revelation 1:9; Revelation 17:12; Revelation 17:17-18; Luke 1:33; Luke 19:15; cf. also Daniel 7:22; Daniel 7:27.

[622] See Exposition, in loco.

[623] Exodus 19:16; 1 Peter 2:9.

[624] Hengstenb.

[625] Klief.

[626] Keil on Exodus 19:6.

[627] De Wette, Ebrard.

[628] Cf. Revelation 5:5.

[629] De Wette, Ebrard.

[630] Cf. Galatians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 3:7; Winer, p. 121.

[631] Cf., in general, John 20:17.

[632] Colossians 1:24; Ebrard.

[633] Colossians 1:24; Ebrard.

[634] Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 10:14.

[635] Cf. Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27, where to the ἁγίοις τοῦ ὑψίστου is ascribed the βασιλεία.

[636] Cf. Romans 12:1.

[637] De Wette, Hengstenb. Cf. 1 Peter 4:11.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXII. Revelation 1:6. ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ

On the relation of ἱερεῖς to the preceding verse, Plumptre refers to the consecration, as priests, of Aaron and his sons, by the sprinkling of blood, and adds: “The two ideas of being cleansed with blood, and of entering on a priest’s work, were accordingly closely linked together. But, in that baptism of blood of which St. John thought, the washing was not limited to any priestly family, but was co-extensive with the whole company of believers. They, therefore, had become what the older Israel of God was at first meant to be in idea and constitution, ‘a kingdom of priests.’ That sprinkling of blood upon the whole people, before the great apostasy of the golden calf, had been the symbol that they, too, were all consecrated, and set apart for their high calling (Exodus 20:6; Exodus 20:10; Exodus 24:8). So John (in this instance, also following in the track of the Epistle to the Hebrews) looked on the true priests’ work as not limited to any order of the Church’s ministry.”

Revelation 1:7-8. Just as Amos (Revelation 1:2), by a forcible expression, concentrates the chief contents of his book at the very head; so here the writer of the Apoc., who in this also follows the mode of the ancient prophets, by adding to the passage Revelation 1:7, containing the sum of his entire prophecy,[638] the full authority of the name of God, of whose message he is the prophet, Revelation 1:8.[639] Klief. incorrectly denies that the parousia is the proper theme of the Apocalyptic prophecy, and therefore combines Revelation 1:7-8, not with Revelation 1:4-6, but with Revelation 1:9 sqq.

[638] Cf. Joel 3:16.

[639] Cf., especially, Amos 4:13.

Already the ἰδού is an indication that something important is presented.[640]

ἔρχεται. He (Christ) cometh;[641] this is the theme of the Apoc.,[642] which is expressed here not in indefinite generality, but directly afterwards its chief points, as they are further unfolded in the book, are stated. For the coming of the personal Christ is a coming to judgment,[643] and indeed not only for hostile Jews (οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν), but also for the heathen (καὶ κοψ. πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς). Christ cometh “with the clouds.” The μετά[644] designates the coming one as accompanied by clouds; whether we are to regard these as beneath[645] or about him,[646] is not expressed. The ἐρχ. μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν does not form an apposition to “arising out of the sea,” and is not simply a descending from heaven,[647] for the conception, Revelation 13:1, is too unique to correspond to the stereotyped idea in our passage;[648] also, the μετὰ τ. νεφ. is too significant for “down from heaven.” But, according to the O. T. mode of representation, God coming to judgment appears surrounded by clouds.[649] [See Note XXIII., p. 124.] When he comes, absolutely all (πᾶς ὀφθαλμός) will see him; not only his believers, who have remained steadfast to him, and whom he, their Judge, their Deliverer, will introduce into his glory,[650] but also—as is expressly declared by the words ΟἽΤΙΝΕς

Τῆς Γῆς,—unbelievers. Among these, the first to be especially mentioned are ΚΑῚ ΟἽΤΙΝΕς ΑὐΤΟΝ ἘΞΕΚΈΝΤΗΣΑΝ, i.e., the Jews. Volkmar and Hilgenf.[651] incorrectly think here chiefly of the heathen, since heathen hands directed the plunge of the lance into the Crucified. [Note XXIV., p. 124.] But decisive against this is not only the relation to the subject, but also the expression, Κ. ΚΟΨ.

Πᾶς ΑἹ ΦΥΛ. Τ. Γῆς. Here, as in John 19:37, the prophecy, Zechariah 12:10, forms the foundation, where the words אֶת אַשֶר־דָּקָרוּ וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי are rendered by the LXX., ΚΑῚ ἘΠΙΒΛΈΨΟΝΤΑΙ ΠΡῸς ΜῈ, ἈΝΘʼ ὮΝ ΚΑΤΩΡΧΉΣΑΝΤΟ. According to Zechariah, the converted people are to look towards their God, whom they had wounded by their infidelity and disobedience, i.e., as the LXX. correctly explain, had despised; but in this passage the “seeing,” i.e., the actual beholding of the coming Christ, is understood in the sense that then, at the commencement of the judgment, repentance is no longer possible, and only terror remains concerning sins that have then undoubtedly occurred. Against the pragmatism of this passage, Ebrard wishes here to find the meaning: “When he cometh, Israel shall be converted,[652] and the nations of the earth shall certainly lament,[653] as those who have fallen away.” Bengel falls into the same error, when he remarks of the ΚΌΨΟΝΤΑΙ in the second member, “Undoubtedly with hostile, or even, on the part of some, with penitential, terror.” How John 19:37 is in this respect related to this passage, is not manifest; since there only the fact of the ἐξεκέντησαν, i.e., the thrust of the lance, is stated. The difference between John 19:37 and this lies in the fact that there (ΕἸς ὋΝ ἘΞΕΚΈΝΤ.) the special point of the thrust of the lance is emphasized; while here (ΑὐΤῸΝ ἘΞΕΚΈΝΤ.) the subject is the death—“the slaying”[654]—in general, as the most manifest proof of hostile unbelief. As to ἘΚΚΕΝΤΕῖΝ in this sense, cf. Numbers 22:29, Jdg 9:54, 2Ma 12:6. Partly because of this difference, and also partly because Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion translate the word דקר, Zechariah 12:10, by ἘΚΚΕΝΤΕῖΝ,[655] we dare not infer the identity of the Evangelist and the writer of the Apoc.

καὶ κόψονται ἐπʼ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. Although this expression may comprise also the Jews, yet, according to the connection, it is to be limited to the anti-theocratic and antichristian heathen. The κόψονται[656] obtains, by the construction with ἐπὶ and the acc.,[657] a graphic clearness, such as is peculiar to the entire style of the writer of the Apoc., by representing the mourning, not according to its inner reason (ἐπʼ αὐτῷ), but according to its external direction,—towards the coming Judge.[658]

Not only by the twofold assurance in both Greek and Hebrew,[659] at the close of Revelation 1:7, but still more completely and solemnly by the entire Revelation 1:8,[660] is the main sentence, Revelation 1:7, sealed. This verse contains a significant unfolding of the old prophetic formula נְאֻם יִהוָה. For the Eternal, who is at the same time Lord of all, will execute his prophecy, Revelation 1:7.[661]

The formula ΤῸ ἈΛΦᾺ ΚΑῚ ΤῸ Ὦ[662] is, according to its meaning,[663] correctly explained by the gloss ἈΡΧῊ ΚΑΙ ΤΈΛΟς.[664]

Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ. Cf. Amos 4:13, where the LXX. have it for אֱלֹהְֵי־צְבָוֹת.

[640] Cf. Revelation 16:15, where, in like manner, the same fundamental thought of the book suddenly enters with surprising force.

[641] Cf. concerning the present, Winer, p. 249.

[642] Introduction, sec. 2.

[643] Matthew 16:27.

[644] Daniel 7:13; Mark 14:62.

[645] Matthew 26:64.

[646] Cf. Psalm 97:2.

[647] Ebrard.

[648] Among the later Jews, the Messiah is expressly called “the cloud-man” (Wolkenmann) עֲנָנִי or כַר נִבְלִי; cf. Ewald.

[649] Psalm 97:2; Psalm 18:10 sqq.; Nahum 1:3; Grot., Hengstb.; cf. Knobel, Prophetismus d. Hebr., i. p. 361 sqq.

[650] Cf. Revelation 19:1 sqq., Revelation 20:11 sqq., Revelation 21:1 sqq.; Matthew 25:31 sqq; 1 Thessalonians 4:16 sqq.

[651] Introduction, p. 12.

[652] Zechariah 12:10.

[653] Matthew 24:30.

[654] Cf. Revelation 1:9; Revelation 1:12, etc.

[655] But in connection with the circumstance that the LXX. at other places translate the word דקר by ἐκκεντεὶν, not by κατορχεῖσθαι, we must not infer, with Ewald, that Zechariah 12:10 also may have been originally, with the LXX., ἐξεκέντησαν.

[656] Cf. Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 24:30.

[657] Cf. Revelation 18:9.

[658] Cf. 2 Corinthians 2:3; Matthew 27:42-43. See, also, De Wette.

[659] Erasmus, De Wette.

[660] Cf. exposition of Revelation 1:7-8.

[661] Observe here again, as in Revelation 1:4, the relation of the name ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

[662] Revelation 21:6.

[663] Cf. Revelation 1:17, Revelation 2:8, Revelation 22:13.

[664] Cf. Jalkut Rub., fol. 147: “Adam transgressed the whole law, from א to ת,” in Wolf.; cf. also Wetst.

Revelation 1:9 to Revelation 3:22. John receives in a vision the command from Christ to write down the revelations communicated to him, and to send them to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:9-20). This is to be done in such a way that to each one of these churches, in a special letter (Revelation 2:1 to Revelation 3:22), the contents of the revelation are to be applied for encouragement, consolation, and warning.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXIII. Revelation 1:7. μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν

Luthardt interprets the clouds as “in heavenly glory.” Trench, on the other hand, maintains that they belong “not to the glory and gladness, but the terror and anguish, of that day. The clouds have nothing in common with the νεφέλη φωτεινή (Matthew 17:5), ‘the glorious privacy of light,’ into which the Lord was withdrawn, for a while, from the eyes of his disciples at the transfiguration; but are rather the symbols or fit accompaniments of judgment (Psalm 97:2; cf. Psalm 18:11; Nahum 1:3; Isaiah 19:11).” Both ideas, however, are reconcilable, according as those who contemplate Christ’s coming are believing or unbelieving.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXIV. Revelation 1:7. οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν

Alford: “The persons intended in this expression are, beyond doubt, those to whom our Lord prophesied in like terms, Matthew 26:64; viz., those who were his murderers, whether the Jews who delivered him to be crucified, or the Romans who actually inflicted his death.”

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXIV. Revelation 1:7. οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν

Alford: “The persons intended in this expression are, beyond doubt, those to whom our Lord prophesied in like terms, Matthew 26:64; viz., those who were his murderers, whether the Jews who delivered him to be crucified, or the Romans who actually inflicted his death.”