This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/
rd hs POM
“2 >
BU
Ft $4
5)?
88 = ee ome
TE
BS 234Y 1 M623
1&EY yo ll |
Moir logan ce ic f, ‘Ne («Ce T Lele Cw ) hi
Consentany 0 “Us Neve Tea Fane « 1854 |
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
- HANDBOOK
REVELATION OF JOHN. 9/4 BS
BY
FRIEDRICH DUSTERDIECK, D.D.,
OBER-CONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE GERMAN, AND EDITED WITH NOTES,
BY
HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D.,
RORTON PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PHILADELPHIA, PENN.
NEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 18 & 20 AsToR PLAcE. 1887.
COPYRIGHT, 1886, By FUNK & WAGNALLS.
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
‘¢ Biessep is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy.’’ Such are the words in which this last book of the Bible is commended to our attention and study. However exalted its mysteries above our comprehension, we dare not because of their difficulty pass over them, but may confidently expect to be richly rewarded by the frequent contemplation even of those portions of the book whose solution we cannot even feebly conjecture in this life. It is perfectly consistent with the utmost simplicity in the preaching of the Gospel, and with the avoidance of curious specula- tions so much to be condemned, for the Christian pastor to aid the reading of his hearers by the exposition of such lines of divine thought in this book as in his private studies he can clearly trace.
This volume is offered as a help to such study. Its author, Dr. Fr. Diisterdieck, is well known as a writer on Apologetics, and still continues to publish exegetical papers in Luthardt’s Zeitschrift Sir kirchliche Wissenschaften and elsewhere. He has furnished us with perhaps the most important commentary on this book which we thus far possess. His spirit is reverent and devout, his judgment generally calm and discriminating, his investigations wide and ex- haustive. Although we concede so much, we are by no means ready to indorse his opinions on all the subjects presented, and in several of his long discussions we regard his judgment, which is ordinarily trustworthy, as seriously at fault. In revulsion from the assumptions of the Tiibingen school, which conceded the apostolic origin of the Book of Revelation, and then from that basis en-
deavored to prove, because of dissimilarity of style, etc., the non- iit
1V PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
Johannean origin of the Gospel ascribed to St. John, our author has taken the directly opposite position, and denied the apostolic - origin of Revelation, — with what success, the reader must judge. Compelled in translation to examine the argument very closely, it has seemed to us at every step unsatisfactory, forced, and unworthy of the high character of this work. It must not be inferred, how- ever, that, in denying that the Apostle John wrote the book, he also denies its inspiration: this he maintains, although with limitations which many of our readers will doubtless regret, as may be seen on pp. 84 sqq. The author belongs to the preeterist class of interpreters, and argues that the time of composition was prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In the notes, we have frequently given the arguments on an opposite side, mostly from some of the later standard authori- ties. This commentary is itself of high value, especially because of its compact summary of the interpretations of all the more prominent expositors, and in connection with what has been added, we are convinced, may be most safely and profitably employed.
The work of translation has often been extremely difficult, be- cause of the long and involved sentences, frequently consisting of a mosaic of quotations; but we trust that the reader may be able, in the form which we have given, to follow the author intelligently.
HENRY E. JACOBS.
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE Ev. LuTHeran CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 11, 1886.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
THE various expositions of the Book of Revelation would, of themselves, form a library. This list includes the more prominent works, as well as some others of interest to students, either because of their recent or their American
origin.
ALrorp: Greek Testament, vol. iv., 3d ed. 1866,
AUBERLEN: Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarnng Johannis. 1854. Eng- lish translation, 1856.
Barnes: Notes. 1852. " Beck: Erklarung d. Offenb. Joh. Cap. i.-xii., ed. Lindenmeyer, 1888,
BENGEL: Erklarte Off. Joh. 1740, 1834. 60 erbaul. Reden. 1748. 8d ed. 1835-37.
t Bisprne: Erklarung der sieben katholischen Briefe. 1871.
BLEEK: Vorlesungen herausg. von Hossbach. 1862.
BoEHMER (E.): Verfasser u. Abfassungszelt der joh. Apoc. 1855. BoEHMER (H.): Die Offenb. Joh. Ein never Versuch. 1865. Branot (A. H. W.): Einleitung zum Lesen der Offenb. St. Joh. 1860.
CARPENTER: The Revelation of John the Divine (Handy Comm. series). 1883. CHRISTIANI: Ubers. Darstellung des Inhalts. 1869.
Cowes: The Revelation of John. 1871.
Cumminea: Lectures. 2 vols. 1849-51.
DEesPREz: The Apocalypse fulfilled. New ed. 1865. De WETTE: Kurz Erklaérung d. O. T. 38d ed. 1862. DiepricuH: Die Offenb. Joh. kurz erlaéutert. 1865.
DEUTINGER: Die christliche Ethik nach dem Ap. Joh.; Vortrige iiber die Briefe und die Offenb. 1867.
EBRARD: Die Off. Joh. (vol. vii. of Olshausen’s Comm.). 1859, ELuiotr: Horae Apocalypticae. 4 vols. 65th ed. 1862. EICHHORN: Comm. in Apoc. J. 2vols. 1781.
vi EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
EWALD: Comm. in Apoc. exeg. et crit. 1828. Die johann. Schriften. 1862. vol. it.
FARRAR: The Early Days of Christianity. 1882. pp. 487-498. FULLER: Erklarung. 1874. FuLLER (S.): The Revelation of St. John. 1885.
GARTNER: Erkl. des Pr. Daniel u. d. Offenb. 1868.
GABEATT: Commentary on the Revelation. 1878.
GEBHARDT: Lehrbegriff d. Apok. 1873. English translation, 1878. GERHARD (J.): Annot. 1643, 1645, 1712.
GoveT: Studies on the N. T. English translation. pp. 204-898. GRABER: Versuch einer hist. Erk). 1863.
Haan: Leitfaden zum Verstandnisse, ete. 1851.
Harms (CiLAvus): Die Offenb. gepredigt. 1844.
HAvVERNICK: Uber die neueste Behandl. u. Ausleg. d. Apok. 1834. HEIDEGGER: Diatribe. 2 vols. 1687.
HEINEIcHs: Annotatio. 2vols. 1818, 1821.
HENGSTENBEEG: Erliuterung. 2 vols. 1849, 1850. English trans., 1851-53.
HERDER: Mapay Aéa, das Buch von der Zukunft d. Herrn. 1779. English translation, 1821.
Hess: Briefe iiber die Offenbarung. 1843. HEUBNER: Predigten ii. die 7 Sendschreiben. 3d ed. 1850. HILGENFELD: Nero der Antichrist (Zeitschrift fiir wissensch. Theol.). 1869. iv. HOFFMANN (W.): Maranatha. 1858. HOLTZHAUSER: Erklarung. 1827. HOLTZMANN: (in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk) 1858, HUNTINGFORD: The Voice of the Last Prophet. 1858. The Apocalypse, with Commentary, etc. 1881. HuscHkE: Das Buch mit 7 Siegels. 1860.
JENAUR: Rationale Apok. 2vols. 1852. JESSIN: Erklérung. 1864 JOHANNSEN: Die Offenb. J. 1788.
KE ty: The Revelation of John. 1860, 1871, KEMMLER: Die Offenb. Jesu Christi an Joh. 1863. KIENLEN: Commentaire. 1870.
t KIRcHER: Explicatio. 1676.
KLEUKER: Urspr. u. Zweck. 1799.
KLIEFOTH: Erklérung. 38 vols. 1874.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Vil
KREMMENTZ: Die Offenb. J. im Lichte d. Evang. nach J. 1883. KROMAYER (J.): Commentarius. 1662, 1674.
Linmmenrt: Die Offend. J. durch d. h. Schrift ausgelegt. * 1864. LANGE: (in Bibelwerk) 1870. English translation, 1874. Lorp: Exposition. 1881.
LOwE: Weissagung u. Weltgeschichte. 1868.
- LutrsHagptT: Die Offenb. J. iibersetzt u. kurz erklart. 1860. (Die Lehre von
den letzen Dingen, 1861.)
MAITLAND: The Apostles’ School of Prophetic Interpretation. 1849, t MarLoraTus: Exposition. 1574.
MaTTHAI: Erklérung. 1828.
Mavugkice: Lectures. 1861.
MEDE: Clavis Apocalyptica. 1627. Commentarius. 1682.
MILLIGAN: (in Schaff’s Popular Commentary) 1888. The Revelation of St. John. Boyle Lectures for 1885.
Murpuy: The Book of Revelation. 1882.
NAPIER: Interpretation. 15038, 1611, 1645. (Also in French, Dutch, and German. )
NEWTON (B. M.): Thoughts on the Apocalypse. 1848.
NEwTon (Sir I.): Observations on Daniel and the Revelation of St. John. 1738. Lat., 1787.
NEWTON (Bishop THomaS): Dissertation on the Prophecies. Lasted. 1843. OosTERZEE (v.): Christus unter den Leuchtern. 1874.
PakeEvs: Comment. in Apoc. 1618.
PHILIPPI: Der Lehre von Antichrist. 1875. PLUMPTRE: The Epistles to the Seven Churches. 1877. Ponp: The Seals opened. 1871.
' RICHTER: Kurzgef. Auslegung. 1864.
RiEMANN: Die Offenb. Joh, fiir chr. Volk. 1868.
RinckK: Die Zeichen der letzen Zeit, and der Lehre von Antichrist. 1868. ROUGEMONT: La Révél. de St. Jean. 1866.
SABEL: Die Offenb. aus dem Zusammenlung der mess. Reichsgesch. 1861. SANDER: Versuch einer Erkl. 1829.
SCHMUCKER (J. G.): Erklirung. Also translated into English, 1845. ScHRODER: Auff. der Offenb. (Jahr-Buch f. d. Theol., 1864).
bal
Vili EXEGETICAL LITERATUBE.
Sriss: Lectures. 1869-73.
SELNECKER: Erklarung. 1567, 1568, 1608.
t Stern: Komment. iiber die Offenb. 1854, Stork: Neue Apologie der Offenb. 1805. StuakT: Conimentary on the Apoc. 2 vols. 1845. SVOBODE: On the Seven Churches. 1869.
Tarr: The Messages to the Seven Churches. 1884. TRENCH: The Epistles to the Seven Churches, 1861.
Vaueun: Lectures. 1863. VirrRinea: Anacrisis. 1708. VOLEMAR: Commentary. 1862.
Wess: Apok. Studien (in Stud. u. Kr., 1869). WIESSELER: Zur Auslegung u. krit. apok. Lit. 1889. WoRDSWoORTH: Lectures. 1848.
ZULLIG: Die Offenb. J. vollst. erkL 1834, 1840.
———aw
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
‘
INTRODUCTION.
Gf. F. Liicke, Versuch einer vollst. Hinl. in die Offend. des Johannes u. in die apokalypt. Literatur tberhaupt. 2d ed., Bonn, 1848, 1852. Also the review of it by Bleek, Stud. u. Krit., 1854, p. 959; 1855, p. 159.
SEC. I.—CONTENTS, PLAN, UNITY, AND FORM OF THE APOCALYPSE.
1. As to contents, the Apocalypse falls into three manifestly distinct chief divisions.! For, with the most closely cohering series of visions, complete in themselves, of ch. iv. 1-xxii. 5, which form the chtef theme, as the fulness of the Apocalyptic subjects are all here brought into contemplation, the first three chapters are related in several ways (cf: i. 1-8; ver. 4 aqq.; ver. 9 8qq.; ii. 1 sqq.), as the introduction; while the section xxii. 6-21, expressly indicating a concluding retrospect of what precedes (ver. 6), forms the epilogue.
' Nore. — Even though the book be divided according to its formal organism,? three main divisions, but of different compass, still result. For then the chief theme is manifestly the entire recital of the visions imparted to John, from i. 0 to xxii. 17 (all ‘‘the words of the prophecy of this book,’’ xxif. 18; cf. i. 8), which the prophet in describing them to the churches accompanies with his own preface (i. 1-8) and conclusion (xxii. 18-21). Ewald’s division into four parts (title and introduction, L 1-8; the briefer vision with the seven epistles, i. 9- ili. 22; the long series of connected visions, iv. 1-xxil. 5; conclusion, xxii. 6-21) depends upon a confusion of the material and formal principles of division. Hence the separation of chs. fii. and iv. seems as groundless as the grouping together of xxii. 6-21.
1 Beng., Lticke, De Wette, etc. ® Cf. Vitringa. 1
2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
A survey of the contents in detail must here be given, so far as not only its methodical design, but also its unity, is thereby perceptible.
The Introduction (chs. i.-iii.) contains, in the first place (i. 1-3), the preface, properly so called, in which the book is designated (i. 1, 2) accord- ing to ite nature and contents; viz., as a prophetical writing, which is to present a revelation of God, through Jesus Christ, concerning events that are to occur in the near future, and is therefore most urgently commended (ver. 8). Then follows the preface of John, its writer (i. 4-8), to the seven churches of Asia Minor (cf. i. 11, ch. ii. 3), as the first readers of the prophetical book; a preface which not only presents a salutation in accord with the entire contents of the book (i. 4-6), but also—after the manner of the ancient prophets — expresses at the very outstart, in short and sen- tentious phrases (vv. 7, 8), the fundamental idea, and to a certain extent the theme, of the whole book. But if John, as the prophetic deliverer of a divine revelation, already in i. 1-3 and vv. 4-8 addresses particular churches, so he now reports (i. 9-20) how on a Lord’s Day the Lord had himself appeared to him, and given the express command that what he saw (vv. 11,19), — aud, therefore, not only this manifestation of the Lord in calling him, but also the entire dronddupy (revelation) (i. 1) described from the fourth chapter,—he should write to the churches named in ver. 11. With this, he intrusts to John special letters to all those churches (ii. 1-iii. 22); in which, according to the various conditions, necessities, and dangers of each church, the sum of the entire revelation (discernible already from i. 7 sq.; cf. i. 1, 3) is elaborated and applied for their consolation.
The proper chief subject of the prophetic book (iv. 1-xxii. 5) then intro- duces the report committed to writing by John, in compliance with the com- mand (i. 11, 19), concerning a series of visions, in which there is given to the prophet beholding them the revelation concerning things to come (4 dei yevéooa, iv. 1; cf. i. 1), which he is to testify to the churches. John, in compliance with a heavenly voice, taken up into the opened heaven, beholds God (the Father) upon his throne, surrounded by twenty-four elders, who likewise sit upon thrones. About the throne of God, there are also four beings who are described as cherubim. These beings, whose song of praise the elders adoringly continue, worship God enthroned, as the thrice holy, the Almighty, eternal Lord, which was, and is, and is to come (ch. iv.; cf. ver. 8 with i. 4, 8).
‘In the right hand of him that sits on the throne, John now sees a book written within and without, and sealed with seven seals (v. 1). At the loud cry of a strong angel, ‘‘ Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?” no one able to do this is found in the entire circuit of
INTRODUCTION. §
creation. Yet John, who weeps over this, as he has learned that the book contains the future things which he was to behold, is encouraged by one of the elders, who points him to the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has pre- vailed, to the Son of David, as the one who is worthy to open the book (v. 2-5). Then John sees in the midst of the throne and of the four beings and the elders, a Lamb standing as it had been slain, with seven horns and seven eyes (v. 6). This Lamb takes the book out of the right hand of him that sits upon the throne (ver. 7); upon which the four beings and the twenty-four elders celebrate his worthiness to open the book, and offer as the reason (cf. already ver. 5) the fact that the Lamb was slain, and has accomplished the work of redemption (vv. 8-10). All angels, yea all crea- tures, now unite in the ascription of praise to him who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb (vv. 11-14).
Upon this the Lamb begins (vi. 1) to unseal the book of fate; and John beholds not words written in the book, but significative forms and events as representations (cf. i. 1, éojzavev, be signified) of what was to happen (cf. iv. 1). After the opening of the first seal (vi. 2), John beholds a rider upon a white horse, and with a bow in his hand. A crown is given to him: he is @ conqueror, and goes forth to conquer. The second seal (vi. 8 sq.) brings a rider upon a flaming red horse. He receives a great sword: he is to take peace from the earth, that men should kill one another. From the third seal (vi. 5 sq.) comes a black horse, whose rider holds a pair of balances. A voice which is heard in the midst of the four beings proclaims famine. The fourth seal (vi. 7 sq.) brings a pale, livid horse, whose rider is called Death. He is to bring death to the fourth part of the earth, by the sword and hunger and other plagues. When the f/th seal (vi. 9-11) is opened, John hears how the souls of those who have been slain because of the word of God, cry to God from under the altar, as to how long he would delay to avenge their shed blood upon those who dwell upon the earth. To each of these martyrs a white robe is given, and it is said to them that a certain number of their brethren must first be killed. After the opening of the sizth seal (vi. 12-17), a mighty earthquake occurs, the sun is darkened, the stars fall upon the earth, the heaven is rent asunder, all mountains and islands are removed from their places, and the cries of alarm by the dwell- ers upon earth testify what also the fearful signs make known; viz., that the great day of God’s wrathful judgment has come.
This final judgment, as the end of what is to happen, is to be expected now in the last or seventh seal. But the complete final development proceeds from this last seal only through a long series of further visions. Before it is opened, another event occurs in ch. vii. John beholds four
4 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
angels, who stand upon the four corners of the earth, and hold there the four winds of the earth, in order that they may not yet break forth and inflict injury. For, as another angel who holds the seals of the living God cries out, the servants of God must first be marked on their foreheads with this seal (vii. 1-3). The number sealed out of Israel, John hears: they are one hundred and forty-four thousand; out of every tribe, twelve thousand (vii. 4-8). But hereupon he sees an innumerable multitude of all nations and tongues, standing before the throne of God and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and with palms in their hands, raising songs of praise in which the angels unite. These are they, as one of the elders says, which came out of great tribulation, and have entered into the glory of heaven (vv. 9-17).
After this episode, the seventh seal is opened by the Lamb (viii. 1). Silence in heaven for about a half hour follows, during which the seven angels receive seven trumpets (viii. 2). Another angel comes, and places himself by the altar, with a golden censer in his hand, because he is to offer up incense with the prayers of the saints, and thus to make them acceptable (v. 8sq.). Asa testimony that the prayers are heard, and that what fol- lows is a consequence of the hearing of the prayer, the angel fills his censer with fire from the altar, and casts it upon the earth. Threatening signs follow, interrupting the silence which has hitherto prevailed, and giving the signal to the seven angels with the trumpets, who prepare to sound them (ver. 5sq.). At the blast of the frst trumpet (viii. 7), hail and fire, min- gled with blood, fall upon the earth; and the third of all that grows upon it is consumed. The second trumpet (viii. 8 sq.) brings a great mountain, aflame with fire, which, on being cast into the sea, changes one-third of it into blood, and causes the death and destruction of the third of all living creatures in the sea, and of all ships. At the third trumpet (viii. 10 sq.), a burning star falls upon the third of the streams and springs, whose waters it makes bitter (its name is “ Wormwood ”), so that many men die thereby. At the fourth trumpet (viii. 12), the third of the sun and of the moon and of all the stars is darkened, and accordingly a third of the day, while a third of the night is deprived of the light of stars.
Before the three angels still remaining sound their trumpets, John hears an eagle, flying in the zenith, proclaim a threefold woe upon those who dwell upon the earth, because of the three blasts of the trumpets that are yet to come (viii. 13). The jth trumpet (ix. 1-11) brings from hell an army of locusts, which for five months were to fearfully torment, but not to kill, the men who were not sealed (cf. vii. 1 8q.). This is the first woe: two others follow (ix. 12). At the blast of the sizth trumpet (ix. 13-21), the command
=
INTRODUCTION. 5
is given, through a voice from the horns of the altar, to the sixth angel having a trumpet, to loose the four angels which are bound in the Euphrates, but are ready to rush upon the earth with an immense demoniacal army of horsemen, and to slay a third part of men. This happens, and yet the survivors do not repent.
The plague announced by the sixth trumpet belongs, of course, to the second woe (cf. viii. 13), but is not yet fulfilled (cf. xi. 14). Hence the seventh trumpet does not immediately sound; and there follows next, in chap. x., a significant digression, to which the part of the second woe that still remains (xi. 1-18) is added.
A mighty angel, having a little book in his hand, comes from heaven, and puts his feet, which are like pillars of fire, the right upon the sea, and the left upon the earth (x. 1 8q.). Seven thunders answer his loud call with their voices, which John understands, but is not to write, but to seal (ver. 88q.). The angel now swears that forthwith, viz., in the days of the seventh trumpet, the blessed and glorious end will come, when the mystery of God, as He himself has proclaimed it to the prophets, will be finished (vv. 5-7). Thereupon, at the command of a heavenly voice, John takes the little book from the angel’s hand, and swallows it. It is, as the angel said, as sweet to him in the mouth as honey, but bitter in his belly. A heavenly voice interprets this eating of the book : John is to prophesy again before peoples and tongues and many kings (vv. 8-11).
This new prophecy immediately begins. A reed is given to the seer, with which he is to measure the temple at Jerusalem, and the altar, together with those who worship in the temple, in order to separate what is measured from the court and the city, which for forty-two months is to be trodden down by the heathen (xi. 1 sq.). During this time, two witnesses of Christ, furnished with divine power to work miracles, are to preach repentance. But the beast out of the pit will kill them, and their corpses are’ to lie unburied in the streets of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also the Lord of those witnesses was crucified (ver. 8), for three days and a half, to the joy of the godless inhabitants of the earth (vv. 8-10). Yet after three days and a half —so John further reports his vision — the two witnesses are again awakened by God, and raised to heaven before the eyes of their terrified enemies (ver. 11 8q.). At the same time, & great earthquake destroys a tenth of the city, and kills seven thousand inhabitants, whereby the rest are brought to repentance (ver. 13). With this judgment upon Jerusalem, the second woe is finished. The third follows quickly (xi. 14).
The seventh trumpet also now sounds (xi. 15), whereupon various songs
6 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
of praise arise in heaven, which celebrate the fulfilment of the mystery of God — to be expected, according to x. 7, from the seventh trumpet — as hav- ing already occurred, and the day of wrathful judgment upon the heathen as having already come (vv. 15-18). The temple of God in heaven is opened, so that the ark of the covenant contained therein is visible; and other threatening signs occur like those in viii. 5 (xi. 19).
But the third woe in its actual coming is still not yet seen; and if the heavenly songs of praise and thanksgiving (xi. 15-18) celebrate the glori- ous end as already come, this can be only a prolepsis, which has its correct application in this, that the seventh trumpet is now sounded, and is partly the more fitting, as it is the inhabitants of heaven who, when the seventh sound of the trumpet has given the signal of the fulfilment, regard this as having already occurred. Yet a further revelation to John follows, concern- ing the days of the seventh trumpet, which in fact still impend (cf. x. 7), in a new series of visions, through which future things, as they actually belong to the fulfilment of the mystery of God, are represented. This blessed end (xxi. 1 sqq.), to which the divine gospel in the prophets points promissively (cf. x. 7), can come only through the complete judgment upon all that is ungodly (chs. xvii. sqq.). Yet the description of this judgment can be satisfactorily explained only by a description of that which is un- godly in its inmost nature and most peculiar forms of appearance. The latter forms the chief scope of chs. xii.-xvi. Nevertheless, even here there is no lack of elements pointing forward and giving assurance of systematic progress.
John beholds in heaven a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. She is with child, and is about to give birth (xii. 1 sq.). There appears a great flaming-red dragon, with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. His tail sweeps a third of the stars of heaven, and casts them upon the earth. He puts him- self before the travailing woman, in order, after the birth, to devour the child (xii. 8 sqq.). The woman bears a son who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. The child is caught up unto God, and God’s throne. The woman flees into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared for her, that she should be fed there twelve hundred and sixty days (xii. 5 sq.). A conflict now arises in heaven between Michael, together with his angels, and the dragon (i.e., the devil) and his angels ; and the latter are cast to the earth (vv. 7-9). This victory is celebrated by a loud voice in heaven, praising God and his Christ; but at the same time proclaiming wrath upon the earth and the sea, because the devil, cast down thereto, would exert his great wrath during the brief period allowed him (vv. 10-12). The dragon
INTRODUCTION. 7
persecutes the woman; but she receives two wings of an eagle, in order to fly into the wilderness to her place (ver. 13 sq.). In vain the dragon casts after the woman a stream of water, which the earth swallows up, so that he departs to contend with the rest of the seed of the woman (vv. 13-17).
The dragon goes upon the shore of the sea (vv. 11, 18), from which a beast rises with ten horns, seven heads, ten crowns, and names of blasphemy upon its heads. It is like a leopard, but has the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion; it receives from the dragon its power and throne (xiii. 1sq.). One of its heads is wounded unto death, but the deadly wound is healed (xiii. 8). The whole earth wonders at the beast, and worships the dragon. The beast dares to speak blasphemies, and to contend victoriously with the saints. It has power over the whole earth for forty-two months (ver. 5), and is worshipped by all who do not belong to the Lamb (vv. 4-8), —a fearful prophecy which John commits to writing, not without adding an intimation concerning the judgment upon this ungodly being, and admon- ishing the saints to patience and faith (ver. 9 sq.). Upon this, John sees another beast rise from the earth, with two horns like a lamb, and speaking like a dragon (xiii.11). By seduction, miracles, and‘force (ver. 17), this beast causes the dwellers upon earth to worship the former beast (xiii. 12-17). The number to explain its name to one having understanding is 666 (ver. 18).
Another vision follows essentially in the sense of the intercalated para- cletic section of xiii. 9 sq. On Mount Zion stands the Lamb, with a hun- dred and forty-four thousand of his people, while heavenly voices sing before God’s throne a new song which only the redeemed can learn. An angel, with the everlasting gospel intended for all dwellers upon earth, flying in the zenith, demands conversion to the true God, while he testifies that the hour of judgment has come (xiv. 6 sq.). Another angel proclaims the fall of great Babylon as having already occurred (ver. 8); and a third, the eternal punishment of the worshippers of the beast (vv. 9-11). There is next a paracietic digression of John (ver. 12); also a heavenly voice commands him to write that they who die in the Lord are blessed (ver. 18). Then the course of the development towards the end, whose next goal ver. 8 already proleptically marks, again continues. Upon a white cloud appears one like the Son of man, with a golden crown upon his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. From the temple comes another angel, who calls to him who sits upon the cloud, to begin with the sickle the harvest, for which the time has come. The latter then thrusts his sickle into the earth, which is harvested (vv. 14-16). Still another angel comes forth out of the heavenly temple, likewise holding a sharp sickle, which, by the order of an angel coming
8 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
forth from the altar, he thrusts into the earth. Thus the vine of the earth is harvested, and the wine-press is trodden outside of the city; the blood which proceeds therefrom extends to the horses’ bridles, sixteen hundred furlongs (17-20).
A new, astonishing sign in heaven appears to the seer: the seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is the wrath of God fulfilled (xv. 1), After a hymn of the victors over the beast, who, in the song of Moses and the Lamb, proclaim the righteousness of God and his glory, which is to be worshipped by all the nations (vv. 2-4), those seven angels come forth from God's temple, and receive from one of the four beings seven golden vials filled with the wrath of the everlasting God (vv. 5-7). The temple is filled with smoke from the glory and power of God, so that no one can enter therein until the seven plagues of the seven angels are ful- filled (ver. 8). A voice from the temple now commands the seven angels to pour their vials upon the earth (xvi. 1). The j/irst vial, poured out upon the earth (xvi. 2), brings a severe ulcer upon the men who bear the mark of the beast, and worship his image. The second vial (ver. 3), poured out upon the sea, changes it into blood as of a dead man; every thing living in the sea dies. The third vial (ver. 4), poured out upon the rivers and springs, changes thein into blood. The angel of the waters glorifies the righteous- ness of the divine judgments; so, too, the angel of the altar (vv. 5-7). The fourth vial (ver. 8 sq.), poured out upon the sun, causes a heat that scorches men. But all these plagues work no repentance. The fifth vial (ver. 10 8q.), poured out upon the throne of the beast, causes darkness in his kingdom, but only new blasphemies on the part of those who are afflicted. The sixth vial (vv. 12-16) is poured upon the Euphrates, which is dried, that the way may be prepared for the kings of the East. Out of the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, come three unclean spirits, like frogs, which gather the Kings for the struggle of that great day —« Behold, the Lord cometh quickly: blessed is he that watcheth ” (ver. 15) — and that, too, to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. The seventh vial (vv. 17-21) is poured out into the air. A heavenly voice cries, “It is done.” Amidst voices, lightnings, and thunders, an unprecedented earthquake occurs, which divides the great city into three parts, and overthrows the cities of the nations. Islands and mountains vanish (cf. vi. 14). A great hail falls. Yet men continue their blasphemies. One of the seven angels having the vials now comes to John, and wishes to show him the judgment of the great harlot, with whom the kings and the inhabitants of the earth in general have committed fornication (xvii. 1 sq.). He carries the seer, in spirit, into the wilderness. There sits upon a scarlet-colored beast, covered
INTRODUCTION. g
with names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns, a wanton woman, having in her hand a cup full of abominations, and upon her fore- head a name written which designates her as Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. She is drunken with the blood of saints (vv. 2-6). To the astonished John, the angel explains the mystery of the woman and the beast (xvii. 7-18). Another angel proclaims the fall of great Babylon as having already occurred (cf. xiv. 8), and declares that her sins are the cause of the judgment (xviii. 1-3). Another voice from heaven first commands the servants of God to go forth out of Babylon, in order to share neither her sins nor her plagues (ver. 4); and then, to more firmly establish the burden of her sins, describes her complete ruin (xviii. 5-20), which another angel portrays by casting a great millstone into the sea, thus describing the destruction of the godless city, stained by the blood of mar- tyrs (vv. 21-24). Thus the fulfilled judgment upon the great harlot is cele- brated in heaven with songs of praises (xix. 1-8). Before, however, the other ungodly powers are judged, there follows, in a brief digression (xix. 9 sq.), an allusion to the blessed fulfilment of the mystery of God (cf. x. 7) at the marriage-supper of the Lamb; for already a chief act of the judgment is accomplished, whereby that glorious end will be attained. The descrip- tion of the other acts of judgment continues directly afterward (xix. 11). Christ himself, with his followers, goes forth from the opened heaven (xix. 11-16),— while an angel, standing in the sun, with a loud voice calla together the birds to eat the flesh of the inhabitants of the earth (ver. 17 8q.), — against the beast, which with his army awaits the conflict (ver. 19). The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire; the rest are slain with the sword which proceeds from the mouth of Christ, and all the birds are filled with their flesh (v. 20 sq.). Then Satan himself is bound for a thousand years by an angel coming out of heaven, and cast into the abyss, whence he is to be loosed again for a short time after that period (xx. 1-3). During the thousand years, those reign with Christ who for his sake have been slain, and have not served the beast, after they have been raised from the dead, — the first resurrection (vv. 4-8), After the expiration of the thousand years, Satan loosed goes forth to deceive the nations in the four ends of the earth, Gog and Magog, and to bring them together for battle. They also rise up over the surface of the earth, and surround the camp of the saints, the beloved city; but fire from heaven consumes them, and they are cast to eternal torments in the lake of fire (xx. 7-10). Then finally, in the judgment of the world, in which all the dead appear before the gloriously enthroned Judge (the second resurrection; cf. ver. 5), all those whose names are not found written in the book of
10 ’" THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
life, together with death and hell, are cast out. This is the second death (xx. 11-15).
The entire judgment of every thing ungodly is thus completed. There follows, finally (xxi. 1-xxii. 5), the presentation of the blessed mystery of God, in its actual fulfilment (cf. x. 7). John beholds a new heaven and a new earth, and the new Jerusalem descending from heaven as an adorned bride (xxi. 1 sq.); at which not only a voice from heaven proclaims the eternal blessedness of those dwelling with God, but also he that sitteth on the throne himself testifies that the eterna] fulfilment is accomplished, both in the glorification of the believing victors, and in the condemnation of all the godless (vv. 8-8). But one of the seven angels having the vials wishes to show John the Lamb’s bride more closely; therefore he brings the seer in spirit to a high mountain (ver. 9 sq.), whence he beholds the new Jeru- salem in the glory of God, as it is described, xxi. 11-xxii. 5. Thus has the revelation, begun in ch. iv., attained its highest goal, and exhausted its subject; it has disclosed, up to the eternal accomplishment, that which was to come to pass (cf. iv. 1-i. 1). The two parts of the epilogue (vv. 6-17, 18-21), still following, conclude in a twofold respect all that precedes. On the one hand, the visions by means of which there is imparted to John the revelation concerning future things (ver. 6, & dei yevécBa: tv rayet) are closed, since an angel, who, in Christ’s name, speaks with John, confirms the cer- tainty and importance of that which John has seen, and is to publish in his " prophetical writing, and repeatedly testifies to the fundamental truth that the Lord is coming (vv. 6-17). On the other hand, the prophet himself completes his writing, in which, according to the command received, he has communicated the revelation given him, with the solemn testimony of the divine punishment of those who will either add any thing to, or subtract any thing from, the prophecies in this his book (ver. 18 8q.). But, as the Lord promises his speedy coming, the prophet answers with a cry of longing for this coming (ver. 20). With a benediction upon the reader, corresponding to the introductory greeting (cf. 1. 4 sqq.), the whole is finished (ver. 21).
2. The leading features of the plan, according to which the Apocalypse is skilfully designed, are clearly manifest already from this summary of the contents; but a more minute account not only is necessary for the establish- ment of the critical view of the complete and original unity of the present book, but also gives the most certain norm for the entire exposition, since it proceeds from the context itself. The question is especially concerning the central chief division of the book (iv. 1-xxii. 5); for.the section from xxii. 6 is to be regarded as the conclusion, upon which there is as little contro- versy among expositors as there is concerning the introductory design of
- INTRODUCTION. 11
chs. i.-iii., although, of course, the meaning of the seven epistles (chs. ii., iii.), in themselves, and in their relation to the proper revelation (chs. iv. 1-xxii. 5), is variously comprehended. Yet this depends upon the view of the development and disposition of the central chief subject. John himeelf testifies (i. 10) that he has written the visions of his prophetic book on one day.! It is never declared that in the course of the revelation of the future he has ever actually abandoned ? the standpoint to which he was raised at its beginning (iv. 1),® while it is self-evident that in his never-interrupted ecstatic condition, from iv. 1-xxii. 5, he yet can bé conscious of a change of standpoint (cf. x. 1, xvii. 8, xxi. 10; and especially xi. 1 sqq., where the seer in his trance must even be active); and as, even externally regarded, the report of the visions in no way admits the meaning that the individual parts of the revelation are immediately recorded the one after the other, after John has received them through sight and hearing :‘ so the revelation described in ch. iv., in its inner formation, is controlled from the begin- ning on by a development having unity, and directly tending towards a final goal. For the book of fate, at the throne of God (chap. v.), contains be- neath its seven seals just that which is to be revealed to John, and then to be prophetically published by him; viz., & det yevéoda, “the things which must come to pass” (cf. iv. 1-i. 1). If no one be found able to open the seals, the future also remains concealed from John (v. 4). But Christ, the Mediator of revelation (cf. i. 1), opens the seals, so that significant visions now appear to the seer, which describe to him the future things. If, in this entire fundamental idea of the book of fate, there is to be sense and order, neither can that which proceeds from the sixth seal already be regarded as the complete representation of the actual final judgment, — i.e., with the sixth geal, all revelation to its very end be once for all exhausted,5— neither can any thing concerning the future be revealed, which is not included in the book of fate, and to be interpreted as proceeding from the seals. The occa- sion for misunderstanding this formal fundamental law, controlling the entire composition of the Apocalypse, lies in this, that the sixth seal (vi. 12-17) is not immediately followed by the seventh (viii. 1), and that even the seventh seal does not bring, after the analogy of that which precedes, a vision that is definite and in itself intelligible, with which, then, the revelation proceed-
1 Against Grotinus and others, who wish 4 Against Bengel, Zrkidrte Offend. Joh., to distinguish the visions by different Stuitg., 1740, p. 206 aq. times. 8 As with Hofmann.
2 Against De Wette, etc. ® Against Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and, in
5 But not 1. 10-18, as Kiief. proposes; cf.on general, against the entire theory of a recapit- i. 20. ulatio. (See author’s note below.)
12 | THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ing from the sealed book of fate is to end, but rather, in another form (the seven trumpets), constitutes a new series of visions, or rather evolves them from itself.
The same art, however, with which John at the crisis of the seventh seal opens, as it were, a new path, which in its beginning is based upon the conclusion of the first (viz., in the seven seals, viii. 1), meets us again at the similar second crisis ; ‘namely, where, after the close of the vision of the six trumpets (ix. 21), the seventh trumpet, and with it the end of the entire revelation, is to be expected. As, between the sixth and the seventh seals, a digression of essentially progressive significance enters (ch. vii.), so also between the sixth and seventh trumpets (ch. x.). And if already, at that first crisis, many an expositor loses the course of the argument, this danger is all the more imminent at the second crisis, as not only externally the peculiar digression of ch. x., where John is provided with new prophecies, enters as a distinct revelation, not proceeding from the sixth trumpet (xi. 1-14), but also that which is directly represented after the blast of the sev- enth trumpet (xi. 15-19), may appear at first sight as the actual description of the complete end; from which, then, it would follow, that what succeeds ch. xii. forms an entirely new beginning, completely independent of the original plan of a series of seals and trumpets. There would consequently be a complete break between chs. xi. and xii. But this misunderstanding is obviated in a twofold way by the formal organism itself: first, between the fourth and fifth trumpets, three woes are proclaimed as still impending, of which the first two occur before the seventh trumpet; and, secondly, in the digression, x. 7, pointing to a new prophecy to all nations and many kings (cf. x. 11), it is expressly said that the seventh trumpet will bring the glorious fulfilment of the blessed mystery of God. But neither does the small section, xi. 15-19, contain the account of the fulfilment of the mystery of God, nor within xi. 1-14 do we find the demands of the prediction given to the prophet at x. 11 satisfied. On the contrary, the entire section, xii. 1-xxii. 5, contains all that according to viii. 13, x. 7, and x. 11, is still to be expected; viz., not only the third woe, which is truly analogous to the two first in seven vials of wrath, and with the same the detailed account of the final judgment of all that is ungodly, especially the definite prophecy concerning the kings and nations in the service of the beast which comes from the abyss (cf. already xi. 7, where the reach of the second woe extends across into that of the third), but also the description of the final glory in ’ which the mystery of God is to be fulfilled. If, therefore, that which suc- ceeds ch. xii. does not result from the seven trumpets in the same express form in which the series of the seven trumpets issues from the seven seals
INTRODUCTION. 18
(cf. especially the remarks to ch. xii., in the exposition), yet not only is the inner connection with that original design maintained, but the external conformity is to be recognized besides in this, that in clear analogy with the seven vials and the seven trumpets, the third woe appears in the form of seven vials. Thus it may be well said, in accordance with the original design of the Apocalypse (but, of course, without regard to the manner in which that original design is modified by chap. xii.), that the seventh seal, through the seven trumpets which also proceed therefrom, extends to xxii. 5. John, then, has seen all that is to happen; and the secret contents of the book of fate, sealed with the seven seals, are completely disclosed.
Nore. — This statement follows the course already indicated by Bengel, and, more safely and without his false side-look, by Liicke, Bleek, Ewald, and De Wette. It is opposed to the ancient and modern views which proceed from the theory of the Recapitulatio. This theory, which has been and still is highly influential in the exposition of the Apocalypse, even to the most minute details, owes its importance to Augustine, who in his renowned work, the De Civitate Dei, I. xx., c. 7-17, elaborately discusses the eschatological expressions in Rev. xx., xxi., especially with reference to the Donatist. Tichonius, who wrote a much- read but lost commentary on the Apocalypse.! ‘‘ To recapitulate” is the oppo- site of ‘‘ observing the order.’’ Augustine (l.c., c. 14): ‘‘ He speaks by recapit- ulating, as returning to that which he had omitted, or rather had deferred. ... That is, therefore, what I have said, that by recapitulating he has returned to that which he had passed over. But now he has observed the order,’ etc. To recapitulate, then, is when any thing is described at a later, while according to actual chronological order it should be described in a former, part of the book. By this exegetical canon of ‘‘recapitulation,’’? Augustine attempts to remove the chief difficulty which he finds in the Apocalypse. ‘‘ And in this book, indeed, many things are said obscurely to exercise the mind of the reader, and there are in it a few things from whose manifestation the rest may be labo- riously traced, especially since it so repeats the same things in many ways, that it seems to speak now one thing and then another, although it is discovered speak- ing the very same things now in this way, and again in that”? (l.c., c. 17). Reca- pitulation is not identical with repetition, although the Latin word repetere can be used also in the sense of recapitulare (l.c., c. 14); but already in Augustine both belong together, so that he fixes the course in accordance with which this entire theory has been so elaborated, that, by the apparent rule of recapitulation
1 Concerning the relation of the exposition which Beda especially (Explic. Apoc. Opp. under the name of Tichonius on the Apoc. of Col. Agripp., 1688, vol. v. p. 761) has taken St. John (Augustine’s works, ed. Bened., vol. the VII. Rules of Tichonius, cf. Lticke, p. ifl., App., p. 13), to the original work from 905.
14 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
and repetition, in fact the most immoderate and arbitrary freaks of exegesis may be justified. This is manifest already in Beda, since, mistaking the plan of the Apocalypse as a whole, because of a misunderstanding of the mutually interpenetrative construction of the seals and trumpets, he writes (Prolog., 1.c., p. 761): ‘* Where, according to the custom of this book, it observes the order up to the sixth number, and, omitting the seventh, recapiiulates, and, as if having followed the order, concludes the two narratives with the seventh. But even the recapitulation Itself is to be understood according to the passages. For sometimes it recapitulates from the origin of the suffering, sometimes from the middle of the time, sometimes concerning the very latest persecution alone, or will not speak of what is much before.” If, therefore, according to this view of the plan of the Apocalypse, the last seals could refer to things anterior to those of the preceding seals, or if, in the book, the trumpets succeeding the seals, and the vials succeeding the trumpets, could be stated to be a recapitula- tion of things which in reality belong under the seals, a true regularity of plan could not be acknowledged in these references which intersect one another. But the theory of recapitulation and repetition was, in this respect, very skilful. How if the first trumpet and the first vial by recapitulating referred to the same thing that had been referred to by the first seal, and if thus a regular parallel- ism would be shown between the seven seals, trumpets, and vials? Even to this extreme was the recapitulation theory carried by Nicholas Collado,! who was followed by David Pareus? and others. By the three forms of visions, viz., seals, trumpets, and vials, says Nic. Coll., the same thing is always described, and that, too, so that while the seals contain only a brief oxaypagia (sketch), the trumpets and seals always afford the more detailed images, to which then it is added, entirely in the sense of the ancient recapitulation theory : ‘‘ Not what will be before or after among these seven, but in what order of discourses and signs they were indicated to John.”? The individual seals, trumpets, and vials correspond thus, each in its place, to one another, so that finally the seventh seal, the seventh trumpet, and the seventh vial in like manner concur in por- traying the end of all things. In the results of this theory, Nic. Coll. does not allow himself to be deceived concerning the fact, that the individual par- allel seals, trumpets, and vials, although represented as declaring the same . thing with increasing clearness, yet occasionally express what, according to his own explanation, is directly the opposite. The fifth seal, e.g., speaks of the martyrs sacrificed by the Romish Church; but the fifth trumpet presents, in the figure of the locusts from hell, the Romish clergy, the mendicant monks, etc. ; and the fifth vial, finally, portrays a divine wrathful judgment upon the Pope of Rome. But there is only this yet wanting, viz., to place under this law of
1 Methodue Jacillima ad explicationem 3 Comment. in divin. Apoc. Heidel., 1618. eacrosanctae Apocalypsecos Joannis theologt, Opp. cd., Genev., T. II. ex ipso libro desumpta. Marg., 1584.
INTRODUCTION. 15
the recapitulating parallels, the seven epistles of chs. ii. and ifi., whose close historical relation has long ago already been explained by most expositors as a mere foil! to what is, properly speaking, the prophetic contents. Yet this is done, not only by Ludw. Crocius,? Matth. Hofmann,® and Coccejus,* who accordingly assign seven periods to the entire N. T. time, but also by Cam- pegius Vitringa,® the latter of whom is pre-eminently distinguished for his advocacy of the theory of the recapitulating parallelism in the plan of the Apocalypse, since, on the one hand, he represents this theory in its most remote consequences by including also the seven epistles in this parallelism, but, on the other hand, sees the necessity of being cautious in the application of the prin- ciple which he urges to an extreme. Vitringa does not say that all the seven letters, seals, trumpets, and vials each in every particular place correspond with one another; since such a complete correspondence in the formal arrangement is not supported by the prophetic contents, as Vitringa discovered by his exposi- tion: on the contrary, he frankly modifies his judgment concerning this, con- formably to the contents of the individual epistles, seals, trumpets, and vials, in the actual application of this principle of the recapitulating parallelism. Thus he frames a scheme of the book, which by its combination of the most accurate regularity, derived from the law of recapitulating parallelism urged to the extreme, and of the most confused irregularity, growing out of the inter- pretation of details that enter into the sphere of history, appears truly laby- rinthine. According to Vitringa, the three first epistles, seals, and trumpets are actually parallel. Then the fourth and fifth trumpets alone extend farther. The fourth epistle has its parallel in the fourth seal and the sixth trumpet, at the close of which the vials are inserted. The fifth epistle, fifth seal, and end of the sixth trumpet have as their parallels, the first, second, third, and fourth vials; the sixth epistle has its parallel in the fifth and sixth vials. Then the seventh epistle stands alone. The sixth seal and seventh vial belong together; and finaliy the seventh seal, parallel with the seventh trumpet, completes the whole.
In this way is confusion introduced under one rule. And yet—to be silent concerning the older adherents of the system of Vitringa, as Joachim Lange ® — Hofmann,’ Hengstenberg, and Ebrard have turned back into this course, even though they very clearly differ in many places from Vitringa. Concerning Hengstenberg, who, in his theory of the groups of visions standing one beside the other, repeats the old recapitulation theory; and concerning Ebrard, who not
2 [{.e., something of another kind, to set off mentary on the Song of Solomon, i.1. Opp.
something cise to advantage. ] T. II. 3 Syntagma theoil., 1685. 8 "Avdxpiots Apokalypsios Joannis A postoli, 8 Chronotas apocai., Opp. theol., 1674. Franeq. 1706. Amastel., 1719.
4 Cogitationes de Apoc. Opp. Amstel., © Apokalyptisches Lichtand Recht. Halle, 1701, T. VI. Cf. also the Synopsis e¢ 1780. medulla prophetiae Cantict, and the Com- 1 Wetes.u. Zrfiil., I1., p. 800 aqq.
16 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. |
only parallelizes the prophetic range of the epistles with that of the following visions (since the epistles interpreted as partly consecutive and partly synchro- nistic, i.e., describing conditions of the Church partly following each other chro- nologically, and partly co-existing simultaneously, are regarded as extending to the very end), but also places the ultimate end at xi. 15 sqq., within the series of visions (iv. 1-xxii. 5), — we will speak at greater length on the basis of partic- ular expositions of chs. ii., iii., viii. 1, xi. 15 sqq. Meanwhile we must here already judge how Hofmann’s view of the plan and of what is closely connected therewith, viz., of the prophetic relation of the Apocalypse, is, notwithstanding peculiar modifications, essentially like the ancient recapitulation theory. Hofm., whom A. Christiani} follows, divides what is properly the Book of Revelation (ii. 1-xxii. 5) into five sections: I., chs. ii., fii.; II., iv. 1-viii. 1; III., viii. 2- xi. 19; IV., xii.-xiv.; V., xv. 1-xxii. 6 (xv. 1-xvi. 18, xvi. 18~xxii. 5). The first part, viz., the seven epistles, refers? to the circumstances of the present: iv. 1-viii. 1 proceeds to ‘“‘the entire future,’’ as there is here portrayed “‘all that belongs thereto, in order to bring about the divine mystery of our salva- tion.”” The three remaining sections (vili. 2-xxii. 5) refer ‘‘to the end,’’ with the distinction that viii. 2-xi. 19 contains ‘‘God’s final calls to repentance be- fore the judgment;’’ chs. xii.—xiv., ‘‘ the final struggle against the Church in the flesh;’’ and, finally, the section from xv. 1, on “the judgment of wrath upon the world, and the deliverance of the Church.’’ To one not more fully acquainted with the peculiar view of Hofmann concerning the nature of prophecy, it must be inconceivable how he could at one time say that the seven epistles refer to the present, but likewise® that ‘‘ corresponding to the seven pictures presented alongside of one another in the epistles, there will be in like manner seven forms of Christian congregational life belonging together, until the end of Church history, when the Lord sends the final trial upon his Church and the world, in order then himself to come,’ etc. But if we receive the statement concerning the seven epistles just as Hofmann presents it, the recapitulatory character of his view of the plan of the Apocalypse comes into view at once. Just this view, which in our opinion harmonizes neither in general with the true conception of prophecy, nor in particular with the context of chs. ii., iii, viz., that the epistles continue to prophesy until ‘‘ the end of Church history,” declares that Hofm. already, at the beginning of the book, finds the end of all things. The second section (iv. 1-viii. 1), by recapitulating, starts again from the beginning, and brings us to the end, at which Hofm., in viii. 1, stands a second time. For the third time we reach the end in xi. 19, after a recapitulation has occurred for the second time from viii. 2; and after the third recapitulation, beginning with xii. 1, we come to the end for the fourth time. It will be suffi- cient to indicate the misunderstanding from which this modification by Hof- mann of the ancient recapitulation theory suffers, only with respect to the chief
1 Ueberstchti. Darst. des Inhalts der Apok., Dorpat, 1861. 2 p. 376. 8 p. 324 Bq.
INTRODUCTION. 17
critical point in the course of the Apocalypse, viz., where there is a transition from the last seal to the trumpets. This misunderstanding depends upon two hypotheses, which only with great difficulty can be regarded consistent with the context: (1) Hofmann regards the sealed book of v. 1, as not containing that which is represented to John by the visions proceeding from the opened seals, but that in the book something was written which could be known only after the opening of the seven seals, and must be realized by the events portrayed in the history of the seals; that the proper contents of the book are nothing else than “the new condition of things to which God is leading through the occur- rences of the present world.”? John, therefore, has reason to weep (v. 4); for, if the seals had remained unopened, ‘‘the blessed mystery of the future world, eternal life, would not have been attained.” But in this ¢xplanation the rela- tion of the seals to the book is not stated in accordance with the text. For, if it be not those very things that stand written in the book as the divine decree, which are made manifest by the account of the seals, it will, on the one hand, be very difficult to comprehend how, from the seals which then could be designated only as comprehending the sphere of what God has reserved, the mystery of what is written in the book, such rich contents as the visions of the seals show could proceed; and, on the other, it must also be somewhere indicated, that in the book that stands written which Hofm. wishes to find in distinction from the revelation of the seals actually presented to us. Hofm., however, not only has his conjectures concerning the contents of the book, but also errs in deciding the relation of the seals to the professed contents, by making the fruition or fulfil- ment of the glorious condition of the new world professedly described in the book dependent upon the opening of the seals. It is of course in itself correct to say that the mystery of God will attain its fulfilment only with the consummation (cf. x. 7) of all that the visions of the seals show to be, future; but this is not altogether the aspect under which the book with its seven seals is represented. For in v. 4, John weeps, not because, if no one can open the seals of the book, its contents must remain unfulfilled, but manifestly because then they must remain unknown. (2) But even granting that Hofm. has correctly divined the contents of the book, and correctly defined the relation of the seals, yet it would not follow that the seven trumpets proceeding from the seventh seal do not introduce a new series of visions, and that at viii. 1 we already stand at the real end. Especially according to Hofm.’s arrangement (cf. also Hengstb. and Christiani), is such a conception extremely difficult. Hofm. finds already in the sixth seal (vi. 12-17) the description of what is properly the judgment of the world. If we leave out of view the fact that he forces into this connection all also of ch. vii.,? and if we ask only concerning the contents of the seventh seal
1 Cf. Christiani. . is described, viz., both the believing who are 8 Where, in the Judgment, fn contrast with then stil) alive (vii. 1-8), and also the blessed the alarmed world the well-concealed Church dead (ver. 9 aq.), concerning which we are not
18 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
as distinguished from the professed contents of the book, Hofm. answers, ‘‘Thus the seventh seal can be opened; the last which still hinders the rolling- up of the book, i.e., the new world, can receive its beginning. This it was not | for John to see. He only receives at the opening one impression, which is to niake up for this vision: ‘ There was silence in heaven.’’”’ In fact, the seventh seal thus has no contents whatever; it is only opened, not in order that the con- tents of the book may be seen or heard, but that thereby John, to whom what shall happen has been revealed in definite visions through all the preceding seals, may attain, by the ensuing silence, ‘‘an impression’’ of that which is to be fulfilled without his seeing it, and which, notwithstanding, is nothing less than the blessed goal both of his own and all other prophecies (cf. x. '7). Such an outline! of course urgently demands a completion, which is to be effected by “vecapitulating.”’
The recapitulation theory is applied by H. Kienlen (Commentaire historique et critique sur 0 Apocal., Paris, 1870. Cf. my notice in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1871, p. 566), with the modification that essentially there is but one recapitula- tion, viz., from vii. 1, after the close of chap. vi. has for the first time reached the full end. Kliefoth utterly rejects the theory, yet does not maintain entire independence of it. He thinks that the parousia has been brought to contem- plation already in xiv. 14. The first part of the Apocalypse is to follow the pro- gressive development of the Church up to the parousia; the last of the seven epistles (iii. 14 sqq.) is to represent the condition of the churches as they will be found by the Lord at his coming; while the second part, beginning with iv. 1, has as its proper subject the final events far in the future. The way to deter- mine the meaning of particular passages corresponds to this form of recapitula- tion proposed by Kliefoth. He rejects the arbitrariness of allegorizing, yet not only has many allegorizing interpretations, but even presents concrete declara- tions in a way that may be called schematizing. Cf., e.g., xi. 8, xx. 9, where there will be found a description of the city of Jerusalem ; but in this he has in mind the metropolis of Christianity at the end of time.
B. The methodical disposition of the Apocalypse is further conditioned by the number seven, and the numbers three and four as its components. There are seven epistles, seals, trumpets, vials. Thus the fundamental plan of the book may almost be said to be projected according to the number seven. But in this similarity there enters a diversity, by the resolution of seven into three and four. The first three epistles are distinguished from the last four by the construction of the conclusion. In the seals, the num- ber four precedes, and three follows; for every time after the opening of the first four seals, one of the four beings, by whose introduction the scene is
to make the mistake that the world, whose appears as still (vil 1) existing. destruction is described in the sixth seal, now 2 p. 12
INTRODUCTION. 19
very significatively animated, summons the seer to come near. The first four trumpets, also, are distinguished from the three last: the latter are expressly proclaimed as three woes. Finally, in the vials, the first three are separated from the last four by voices which cease to be heard after the poaring-forth of the third vial.
Nore 1. —lIt is incorrect, when treating of the art displayed in the plan of the book, to introduce still other numeral standards, which do not control the composition of Apocalyptic scripture, but belong only to its prophetic contents. The fen of the dragon’s horns, the seven of his heads, the two of Christ’s wit- nesses, etc., and all chronological numbers, as three and a half, five, etc., there- fore in no way belong here. This is contrary to Liicke,! and to W. F. Rinck,* who * wished to represent the entire course of the Apocalypse according to the standard of a great jubilee period, but, in order to introduce the analogy of the seven periods of seven,‘ prior to the great Hallelujah, xix. 1 sqq., is compelled to arrange the most heterogeneous subjects in a series: I. The Seven Epistles. 2. The Seven Seals. 8. The Seven Trumpets. 4. The Seven Vials of Wrath. 5. Babylon upon the Seven Hills and with the Seven Emperors (xvii. 9). 6. The Beast with Seven Heads (xiil., xix.). 7 The Devil as the Dragon with Seven Heads (xii., xx.). Numbers 5-7, however, in no way stand in one line with numbers 1-4.
Note 2. — Ewald has recently,® in an ingenious way, sought to trace in the Apocalypse a plan founded upon an extremely skilful relation of numbers. His view is as follows: The development of the entire future — viz., not only to the first end, the fall of Rome, and to the two other stages (viz., the destruction of the entire Roman Empire, ch. xix., and of all heathendom, ch. xx.) which also still belong to the beginning of the last divine end, but even up to this, which {is the fulfilment in the proper sense — is revealed to the prophet in five series of seven visions each (iv. 1-7, 17; vill. 1-11, 14; xi. 15-xiv. 20; xv. I-xviii. 24; xix. 1-xxli. 5). Previous to these five series of seven each, there is a sixth series of seven in the seven epistles (chs. ii., ili.); and the whole is, as it were, framed by a seventh series of seven; whose first half (i. 1-20) forms the introduction, and whose second half (xxii. 6-21) the close, of the history and the prophetic writing. The five series of seven visions are constructed according to fixed numerical standards. These present themselves in the simplest way in the first two series of seven. We have here three small groups, viz., two introduc- tory visions (iv. 1-11, v. 1-14, and vili. 1, 2-6), besides three central visions,
1 p. 407 sqq. Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, dee Neuen 3 Apokalyptische Forechungen; oder, Grund- Teetamente Siegel. Riga, 1779, p. 247 aqq. ries der Offend. Joh. u. Anlettung au threm 4 “* Wochenjahre" should be Jahrwochen. Verstdadnies. Zur., 1853. 5 Die Johann. Schriften, vol. i. Gdtting., § Cf. already Herder, MAPAN A@A. Das 1843, p. 88 aq.
20 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
showing the real] progress of future things (vi. 1-8, Seals 1-4; vi. 9-11, Fifth Seal ; vi. 12-17, Seal 6; and viii. 7-18, Trumpets 1-4; ix. 1-12, Fifth Trumpet ; ix. 18-21, Sixth Trumpet), and finally two concluding visions (vii. 1-8, 9-17, and x. 1-11, xi. 1-14). In the first of the three chief visions, there are, moreover, always four parts (seals, trumpets): if we enumerate these singly, the result is ten parts for each of the two series of seven. This numerical standard lies at the basis, also, of each of the three other series of seven (xi. 15—xxii. 5), but in’ such a manner that these three series of seven unite with the two preceding as one great series of seven. Taking into consideration the individual series, we find in the series xi. 15-xiv. 20, first, two heavenly introductories (xi. 15-19, xii. 1-17); secondly, three central visions (xii. 18-xi{ii, 10, xiii. 11-18, xiv. 1-5); and, finally, two supplementarv visions {xiv. 6-18. xiv. 14-20). In like manner, in the fourth series, two introductory visions (xv. 1-4, xv. 5-xvi. 1), three cen- tral (xvi. 2-9, xvi. 10 8q., xvi. 12-21), and two supplementary (xvii. 1-18, xvill. 1-24); and in the fifth series, two introductory visions (xix. 1-10, 11-16), three central (xix. 17—xx. 6, xx. 7-10, xx. 11-15), two concluding visions (xxi. 1-8, xxi. 9-xxii. 5). We must, however, regard the entire group of the last three series of seven as one triple enlarged series of seven. If the question here were chiefly concerning a mere repetition of the scheme lying at the foundation of the two preceding series, the result would be, that just as, by a juncture (Anotenpunkt) in the seventh seal, the second series (the trumpets) are connected with the first, so also, by means of a juncture lying in the seventh trumpet, the addition of a seventh simple series of seven (the vials) follows. But for the proportion of pro- phetic views which are now to be mastered, such a simple form would be too short: it must be trebled. At the same time, therefore, in the expanded form it is indicated, that even if the course of the earthly development proceeds rapidly, and the beginning of the end (the fall of Rome) impends at a brief space, yet the true divine end itself appears as always postponed to a greater distance. Corresponding to this, also, is another expansion of the proportions of the original scheme. For, as we found in the first two of the five series, that in the seven there are at the same time ten sections, so also we can like- wise recognize in the third series ten smaller sections, since the first contains the succeeding, or side, visions (xiv. 6-13), and the second, two sections (xiv. 14-20); while the following series is so expanded as to embrace sixteen sections (for the first of the central visions (xvi. 2-0) contains four; the third (xvi. 12-21), two; and the last, —the supplementary vision (xviii. 1-24), — six smal] sections) ; and the sixth series extends so far that it likewise comprises seventeen small sections (for the first of the central visions (xix. 17-xx. 6) contains four, and the latter of the two concluding visions, though a small series (xxi. 9-xxii. 5), has seven separate sections).
But such determination of its skilful numerical construction contains one error that is so critical as to unsettle the entire structure. Ewald errs when he
INTRODUCTION. 21
thinks! that seventeen sections are to be obtained in the last series of seven: for there are but sixteen; viz., two introductories, four sections contained in the first of the central visions, the two following central visions, the first final vision, and the seven sections comprised in the last final vision. If the sixteen sections thus given be accepted, then the sum of all the small sections which should be found in the five series of seven (viz., in the first three series, ten each; in the fourth, sixteen; and in the fifth, as stated, seventeen, but in fact only sixteen) would be, not sixty-three,? but only sixty-two; i.e., the sum can be referred no longer to a proportion of seven (9 X 7); and this means nothing less than that the standard of seven is no longer applicable to what is properly the chief part of the scheme of construction. But if Ewald is to obtain the erroneously received ® number of seven small sections, he must, as he actually does in his division of the translation, separate the final vision into eight sections; i.e., just in that very part of the work of art which appears to be the crown of all, the standard of distribution into sevens, according to which the whole is said to be planned, is Jaid aside, and exchanged for an entirely different distribution into etghis.
The entire scheme traced by Ewald in this way only reaches the result that the laws determining the regular art of the composer of the Apocalypse are applied with an arbitrary exaggeration to the very extreme of artificiality. The division and classification of the small sections according to the standard of seven, which Ewald undertakes, in many passages are in no way supported by the text. Why should we, e.g., in the vision of the new Jerusalem, enumerate seven (or eight) small sections, while such visions as chap. xii., chap. xiii. 1-10 (where in vv. 8-10 a discussion of an entirely different character occurs), and chap. xvii., are each regarded as one small section? Ewald, moreover, mani- festly violates the order and meaning of the text, by connecting the section xi. 15-19 with xii. 1-7, and regarding both as one introductory vision, inserted, according to a regular plan, in the very beginning of a new series of seven. With entire justice, Ewald indeed says that in the last seal and the last trumpet the points of transition for the fuller development are found; but this does not justify the complete separation, in the plan of the book, of the seventh seal and the seven trumpets from the first six, and the insertion of the seventh seal as an introductory vision into the series of trumpets (viii. 1), or the consideration of the fina] trumpet as only the opening of the following series. The section xi. 15-19 is hereby put in a false light; for this section has just as obviously a definitive signification, already illustrative of the end of things, as the following (xii. 1 sq.) points us forward, by communicating here certain knowledge necessarily presupposed in the understanding of the succeeding visions. In xi. 15-19, we have a real closing vision; in xii. 1 8q., a@ true introductory vision. It is doubly false when Ewald separates the
i p- 47. 8 p- 48. 8 Pp- 47 sqq.
22 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
section xi. 15 sq. from what precedes, and reckons it with what follows. A similar contradiction to the drift of the text occurs, when in chap. vii. Ewald finds the two concluding visions of the first series of seven. What is recorded in chap. vii. has nothing whatever to do with the preceding six seals, but throughout is directed to what is to follow.
Contrary to the text, also, is the distribution proposed by G. Volkmar,? which, following Baur, is based essentially upon the hypothesis that the proclia- mation from a distance, of the judgment of Heaven, contained in the first part (i. 9-ix. 21), is described in the second part (x. 1-xxii. 5) in its earthly fulfilment.
8. The unity of this book, and that, too, its original unity, is proved by the methodical organism, in which the entire contents are harmoniously pre- sented from the beginning to the end. The entire Apocalypse is from one fount. A law of formal composition penetrates the whole;* a fundamental thought, an essential goal of the entire prophecy everywhere, is likewise prominent.* The promises in the seven epistles (chs. ii., iii.) are full of references to the description of the blessed fruition (xxi. 1 sqq.). Their superscriptions mention the Lord of his congregations, not only in the way in which he appears to John from i. 12 on, but also in the same sense where- in he reveals himself in all the visions. The individual parts of the funda- mental scene, ch. iv., particular subjects and personal beings,* constantly recur in the course of the visions, even to their end: a very marked being, belonging to the so-called second part of the Apocalypse (ch. xii. sqq.), is expressly mentioned already in the first part (xi. 7).
Nore. — Grotius was the. first to suppose that the visions of the Apocalypse were seen and committed to writing at different times and places. The occasion for this view, which throughout is neither clear nor expressed in consistent con- nection, he derived from the twofold tradition concerning the place and time of the composition of the Apocalypse. As he found testimony on the one hand that ‘‘ John received and wrote the revelation at Patmos during the times of the Emperor Claudius,’’ and again, ‘‘ This happened at Rome under Domitian,’’ he regarded both testimonies as correct, and then referred the former statement to what was first, and the latter to what was last, seen. But what the things first and what those last seen are, he has nowhere stated clearly. On xv. 1 he states that all which succeeds happened and was written at Ephesus, but then says that it was during the time of the Emperor Vespasian; and on xvii. 1, xix. 1, remarks, ‘‘ At another time.’? That the whole was ‘reduced to unity” by one hand, Grotius acknowledged, and expressly mentioned the Apostle John as this writer (on iv. 1).
2 Comment. sur Of. Joh., Ztirich, 1863. 8 Cf. 1. 7, 8, with iv. 8, vi. 10, x. 7, xi. 17, 2 Cf. i. 1 with i. 11, iv. 1, xxii. 6. xxii. 6 aq. * Annot. on i. 9.
INTRODUCTION. . 28
Vogel! songht more through inner criticism to distinguish four parts? in the Apocalypse, and to establish different authors; referring to the author of from xii. 1 sq., whom he regards as apparently the presbyter John, the business of editing the whole. Vogel’s hypothesis was attacked by Bleek,’ who in turn expressed the view that the second part of the Apocalypse (ch. xii. sq.) was not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem, while the first part (chs. iv.-xi.) was written prior to that event. In support of this, he appealed not only to the dissimilar historico-chronological references in the Apocalypse, but also to the want of connection between chs. xi. and xii., which he attempts to explain by regarding the proper close to be expected after the second woe, which must also have contained the quickly approaching third woe, as cut away and replaced by the now Ill-fitting second part. But Bleek has himself expressly withdrawn this opinion.®
4. It is only recently that the attempt has been made’ scientifically to characterize the literary form of the. Apoc. by a definite technical term, — and that, too, in opposition to Eichhorn,® who, as Pareus® before him, and Hart- wig,!° wished the Apoc. to be regarded as a dramatic work of art. Eichhorn distinguishes in the proper drama (iv. 1-xxii. 5 ; to which chs. i.-iii. form the prologue, and xxii. 6 sq. the epilogue), first, a prolusio (prelude) (iv. 1-viii. 5), in which the theatre for the dramatic action is prepared,” then three acts as follows: Act I. (viii. 6-xii. 17), Jerusalem is conquered, or J udaism over- come by Christianity. Act II. (xii. 18-xx. 10), Rome is conquered, or heathenism overcome by Christianity. Act III. (xx. 11-xxii. 5), the heaven- ly Jerusalem descends from heaven, or the blessedness of the future life which is to endure eternally is described. Eichhorn says,!? that the five chief subjects of history (viz.,1. The destruction of Judaism. 2. The kingdom of Christ in its feebleness arising therefrom. 8. The destruction of hea- thenism. 4. The kingdom of Christ prevailing on earth arising therefrom. 5. The kingdom of the blessed) would, properly speaking, have required for their presentation five acts, but that as John had but three cities (the earthly
1 Commentationese VII. de Apoc. Joann., Eriang., 1811-16.
3 j. 1-8, 1. 9-iil. 22, chs. iv.-xi., chs, xil.-xxil.
8 Betirag sur Kritik und Deutung der Of- Send. Joh., etc., in the Berlin Theol. Zeilechr., vol. fi., 1822, p. 240 aqq.
4 Cf. chap. xi.
§ xi. 14.
* Cf. Bettrage sur Kvangetien Kritik, Ber!., 1846, p.81. Studien u. Kritiz., 1856, p. 220 aq. Vories. Aber d. Apok., herauageg. von Th. Hoesdachk, Berlin, 1862, p. 116 sqq.
* Cf. especialiy Lticke, p. 874 sqq.
8 Comment. in Apoc. Joann., Gutting., 1791. Cf. aleo the Aint. in dae N. 7., vol. li. 2, Leipz., 1811, of the same author.
9 }.c., p.81 sq.: Drama propheticum een coeleste.
1% Apologte dey Apok. wider falseches Lod und falechen Tadel, Chenn., 1781 sq., ill. p. 283 #9q.
21 ‘* Scena adornatur.”
13 Rint., p. 360. :
24 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN.
Jerusalem, Rome, the heavenly Jerusalem) which were available as symbols, he had to restrict his drama to three acts. This view of the dramatic nature of the Apoc., Eichhorn bases on the assumption that everywhere in the same there is action, and these acts following one another are seen in definite places of exhibition.1 But hereby Eichhorn establishes as his fundamental view, since the entire elaboration into details depends thereon, especially this : viz., that John saw his vision as a drama, but in no way that the book com- posed by the seer in which he gives a report of the scene is dramatic; the only question, therefore, is as to what class of writings the Apoc. belongs with respect to its literary character and form. Eichhorn can therefore em- phatically assert, as he himself says ? in self-correction, that the Apoc. is “a description of a seen drama.” But even what the Apoc. reports far exceeds the precise artistic form of an actual drama; and as the interpretation of the prophetic contents given by Eichhorn, 80 also is the designation of the artistic form as dramatic, and the entire distribution into acts, scenes, and exodes, truly frivolous. Hence Eichhorn has found as little approbation for his view, as his predecessors for theirs. Even Heinrichs,* who in other respects is entirely dependent upon Eichhorn, controverts‘ it. The correct point in the conception of the Apoc. as a drama lies in this: that the lifelike change of the visional occurrences and language, written in the book, has such clearness as to correspond to the idea of what in artistic form is properly the drama. Hence also, no one can deny that a certain dramatic virtuosity in the artistic form of the Apoc. must be acknowledged; and in so far we may speak of particular scenes, etc., in the book.
Older theologians ® have regarded the Apoc. asa letter. But the episto- lary greeting and wishes found in the introduction (i. 4 8sqq.) and at the close (xxii. 21) just as little establish the true epistolary character of the entire writing, as, conversely, we could conclude from the absence of such formula, that, e.g., 1 John is not an actual letter, but only a brief discussion.
Liicke styles the literary form of Apoc. “ Old Testamental,” and that, too, “prophetic,” and more definitely “‘ apocalyptic; ” © particularly, that it follows and resembles the Ezekielian and Danielian form. This statement of Liicke is unsatisfactory in proportion as an answer to the question concerning the artistic form of the Apoc. is expected in terminology derived from unbiblical rhetoric and poetics. Yet just that which is unsatisfactory in the expla- nation that the literary forin of the Apoc. is apocalyptic, is instructive and
1 a.a. O.8., p. 834 aq. Qbtting., 1818, 1821. 2 p. 336. 41. 0.,p.1; Proleg., p. 84 aq. 8 ApocaR Novo. Teat. grace perpetua annota- 8 Cf. Lticke, p. 376,
tione illuatr. Hid. Koppiauae, vol. x. pp. 1,2; - © p. 377 aq.
INTRODUCTION. 25
not without a good foundation. For the artistic forms by which the works of art of unbiblical rhetoric and poetics are appropriately designated apply to the biblical books only in inexact analogy; since the biblical artistic form, which of course is present, is the organic moulding of matters which in virtue of divine inspiration are fundamentally different from the subjects of all unbiblical artistic language. Eichhorn, who regards every thing presented in the Apoc. as nothing else than pure fictions of a merely poetic genius, could, without any thing further, apply to the artistic work of the Apoc. the canons of classical poetics. But the more thoroughly the fundamental distinction between biblical and classical literature is recognized, must the standard of classical art appear inapplicable. Thus the subject is treated in Liicke, who, as he will not yield in “devotion ” to the Apoc., designates its artistic form, not according to classical poetics, but according to its own nature.
Since, however, the Apoc., like the prophetical scriptures of the O. T., as a work composed not without the exercise of human art, has an analogy to the works of art of unbiblical rhetoricians and poets; the literary form of the Apoc. may therefore also be defined by way of analogy, from general literary science. Even Liicke has suggested a comparison between the Apoc., and the poem of Dante which the poet himself called a “comedy,” while he celebrates the world to come by the prefix “divine.” It is a pity that G. Baur, who has compared the Book of Job with Dante's ‘* Divine Com- edy,” ? has taken no occasion to make passing references to the Apoc.; for what he has ingeniously elaborated might in many respects be applied here. If we still had the same terminology of rhetoric and poetics as Dante, we would designate the Apoc. as a sublime form of comedy. For Dante him- self declares * that he called his poem comedy, since the subject “ from the beginning is horrible and repulsive, because it is Hell; and in the end is pros- perous, desirable, and pleasing, because it is Paradise.” Besides, “ the mode of speaking is gentle and humble, — the common talk in which even women converse.” In the sense wherein Dante calls his powerful trio “a gentle and humble mode of speaking,” viz., because it is the ordinary vernacular (locu- tio vulgaris, etc.), the designation is applicable also to the Apoc.; so likewise as to the subject of the book, the development through the terrors of the plagues and the judgment of wrath, to the eternal peace of the new Jerusa- lem. Accordingly the Apoc. is in the sense of Dante, as to contents and form, a real (divine) comedy.‘ But if modern poetics more correctly ascribes the poem of Dante, relating what he saw in hell, purgatory, and
2 p. 301. ¢ Thus even Joh. Gerhard designates the
% Stud. u. Kritik., 1856, 8, p. 586 aq. history of Christ's suffering as a comedy in § Quoted by Baur, a. a. O. S., 618. five acts, because from a wonderfully brilliant
26 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
paradise, to the epic class, in like manner may the artistic form of the Apoc. be designated as epic; a character which is not impaired by particular lyrical parts of the book,! but only heightened thereby, since, according to De Wette’s excellent remark, “the parts exhibit in a well-executed way the great idéa of the divine peace” They form the pauses in the epic course and movemenu of the whole.
An unfavorable estimate of the Apoc. as a work of art has been made by E. Reuss.?
SEC. II. —THE FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT, THE PARACLETIC TENDENCY, THE PROPHETIC— ESPECIALLY THE APOCA- LYPTIC— CHARACTER, OF THE BOOK.
1. The more difficult the understanding of the Apoc. appears, and in many respects actually is both as a whole and in detail, the more necessary is it to obtain from the writing itself, with the utmost clearness and definiteness, the fundamental thoughts sustaining and conditioning the whole and the details in contents and form. These fundamental thoughts John has himself traced with such strong, broad lines, that they are visible even in the most intricate parts of the entire description. In this way, the prophet has him- self given for the exposition of his book, not only the most inviolable norm, but also the most correct key, so that the hope for an agreement and essen- tial harmony between the interpreters who cross and contradict one another, is based upon the extent that agreement in the recognition of the funda- mental thought is possible.
If, according to i. 1, iv. 1, xxii. 6, John beheld & de? yevéopas (tv réyer) “the things which must come to pass (shortly),” which therefore forms the subject of the prophecy contained in his writing, such varied contents seem thereby indicated, that a fixed fundamental thought reducing all the par- ticulars to unity apparently cannot possibly be present. This impossibility has been maintained by numerous expositors, who, as, e.g., Nicolaus de Lyra, have found the particular facts of ecclesiastical and secular history prophe- sied, by treating the Apoc. as, e.g., Aretius ® declares: “If you look well into this book, you will see the fortune of the whole Church portrayed as on a
beginning a blessed and joyful result follows; 3 Geach. der heil. Schrift. N.T., Braunschw., viz., the resurrection. To the Pharisees, etc., 1860, p. 146. On the artistic ideas of the Christ's suffering was a tragedy. Cf. Zrkid- Apoc., cf. F. Piper, Kinleit.in die Monumen- rung der Historie des Leiden und Sterbens tale Theologie, Gotha, 1867, p. 17 eqq. unsere Herrn Christi Jesu, Berlin, ed. 1868, 3 Comment. in omnes Epistolas —ttemque p. ii. in Apoc. Joann., Morg., 1588.
1 The hymns, etc.
INTRODUCTION. 27
tablet.”1 From this standpoint,? from which no fixed fundamental thought running through all the details can in any way be seen, there has been devised the art of allegorical exposition, from which alone the entire fulness of the most special predictions was to be derived. Hence, even to Hengsten- berg, Ebrard, Auberlen,® etc., allegorizing is a necessity, because even these expositors, although to them the fundamental thought of the Apoc. is not so hidden as to the older expositors, yet misunderstand its true relation to the individual members of the entire prophecy, and likewise find in the Apoc. a proportion of particular predictions concerning which it is not amiss to say that the modern allegorists wish to regard the particular events 4 foretold, not in the light of ecclesiastical or secular history, but in that of the history of empires, and hence that their mode of exposition should be designated the tmperial-historical.6 But the entire mass of future things (4 dei yevéobaz), apparently lacking a fixed limitation and organic unity, not only receives by the addition éy raya (shortly) ® a more specific determination, but it is also undeniable that the entire prophecy tends towards a definite and more than once expressly designated goal. To this must be added the undoubted rela- tionship between the Apoc. and the eschatological discourses of our Lord, especially Matt. xxiv., and the analogy of N. T. prophecy in general. As now the Lord himself presente his personal return as the fixed goal for the hopes of believers, and this his parousia forms the fundamental thought of all his prophetic discourses unto the end ;7 as, in the hour of his ascension, the two angels® proclaimed to the disciples the Lord’s return; and as the deepest and most essential feature of the entire hope and prophecy of the N. T. pertains to this personal parousia of the Lord, and all other eschato- logical questions, as, e.g., resurrection, judgment, etc., depend upon this centre,® —so also the entire prophecy of the Apoc. rests upon the funda- mental thought of the personal return of the Lord. As the proper theme of the entire book, this prophetic fundamental thought is explicitly announced from the very beginning ;?° and where in the epilogue the deepest relation of the entire revelation is once more summarily presented, there it is re-
1 Si probe insptcias hunc Ubrum, videdts quasi in tabelia depictam fortunam tottus ecclesiae (on 1. 9).
2 A formal synopsis of Church history, ap- plied to Apocalyptic prophecy, was written by Joh. Jonston (Hist. civ. et eccles. ab orbde cond. ad a. 1688, Francof. 1678. Secular his- tory he gave according to Daniel.
8 Der Prophet Daniel und die Offend. Joh., 2d ed. Basle, 1857.
4 e.g., the migration of nations, the German Empire, etc. .
5 See below, note to paragraph 8.
6 Cf.1.3: 4 yap xaspds éyyvs, “for the time is at hand.”
* Of. Matt. xxiv. aq., xxvi. 20, 64; Luke xii. 40; John v.26 aqq.
® Actal. 11.
® Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 5; 1 Cor. 1. 7 8q., xv. 22 0q.; 1 Thess. iv. 14 8q.; 1 John fi. 28. “0 4.8.
28 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
peated in the words Sox omar raz (“I come quickly ”),! as also then, on the other hand, the entire answer of all believers to the divine revelation given in the prophetical book is compressed into one word expressing the longing for the Lord’s return: lpyou (“ come ”).?
Nore. — Kliefoth’s exception (on i. 7), that the prophecy refers to the prepa- rations for the parousia and its effects, and hence that the parousia itself cannot be designated as the fundamental thought, seems to me entirely inapplicable, because, in connection with those very preparations and effects, the main question is concerning the parousia itself. Hilgenf. correctly recognizes the goal of proph- ecy, but incorrectly, and without foundation in the text, determines the goal of the parousia to be ‘‘ the erection of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah.’”? Even the thousand years reign of the Apoc. is not purely earthly. The error in Hil- genf. concurs with two other misunderstandings prevalent in Baur’s school, — that the account of Nero redivicus is the key to the Apoc.; and that the book is an expression of a decided anti-Pauline Judaeo-Christianity. But in the last respect Hilgenf. does not go as far as Volkmar.
If the prophet. thus himself presents the leading fundamental thought of his entire prophecy, it is scarcely necessary yet to indicate the particular passages in which this fixed basis becomes manifest. All the prophecies and threats which the Lord causes to be written to the seven churches pre- suppose that he will come. The entire manifestation of the Lord,‘ his designation as 6 mpato¢ xat 5 Eaxatoc (“ the first and the last”), is the pledge of his coming to judgment, which also is indicated in this: that God is called, already in the introductory greeting,’ and in the divine declaration ® sealing the principal theme? whose announcement precedes, 5 dv xa? 5 Wy xat 5 epyxé- pevos (“which is, and which was, and which is to come’’).® The definite relation of the entire prophecy to the future coming of the Lord is also established in the very beginning, where the revelation properly speaking begins, — viz., at the opening of the first sea],9— by the fact that the very first form which John beholds is the Lord himself going forth to victory; and again at the close, it is the Lord himself who goes forth from heaven to subdue his enemies. ?°
2. From this fundamental thought of the personal return of the Lord, whose further elaboration is to be more minutely traced under No. 3, pro-
1 xxii. 7, 12, 20. ? 1.7, €0xérac (“* Behold, he cometh”).
2 xxil. 17, 2. 8 iv. 8; cf. also xi. 17, where the 6 épydpuevos 8 Cf. especially ii. 16, iii. 311, 20. is lacking because the coming is there cele- € i. 12 oq. brated, although proleptically as having already 5.4. ; occurred.
61.8. 9 vi. 2. 10 xix. 11 9q.
INTRODUCTION. 29
ceeds the paracletic force and purpose of the Apoc. A delicate sense of this peculiar paracletic office of the Apoc. is expressed in several ecclesiastical statements concerning the use of the book in divine worship. Already in the so-called Comes, a pericope taken from the Apoc.? is in addition to Matt. ii. 13 sq. appointed for the festival of Holy Innocents, as the first martyrs for Christ,? and is retained by the Catholic, the Anglican, and other evan- gelical churches.* Still more characteristic is the ordinance of the fourth Synod of Toledo, in the year 633, that the Apoc. should be read between Easter and Whitsun-day ; an arrangement which isstillin force.* The entire Pentecostal season in its joyful character resembled Sunday; and therefore fasting and praying on bended knees occurred as rarely then as on the Lord’s Days.® For not only when a Church festival is to celebrate the eternal glory of the martyrs of Jesus Christ, and divine vengeance upon their murderers, does the Apoc. have a judicial tone;® but as it was itself given to the seer on a Lord's Day,’ so also upon it rests the sanction of this Christian day of peace and joy, and it becomes the text-book for every Sunday of the entire Pentecost. From the very nature of the case, the paracletic element in the Apoc. is presented not so much in the great series of visions, iv. 1-xxii. 5, as rather in the introductory part (chs. i.-iii.) and the close (xxii. 6 sqq.); but while here the paracletic force of the prophetic fundamental thought is expressly and intentionally unfolded and applied, yet this makes itself perceptible also in what is, properly speaking, the main part of the book. When the prophet at the very beginning addresses his brethren as “a com- panion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,”* he expressly renders the paracletic contents of his prophecy prominent. This prophetic consolation appears formally elaborated in the seven epistles (chs ii., iii.), whose admonitions, reproofs, warnings, threats, and promises all proceed from the fundamental thought of the impending coming of the Lord. In the eAiwe (tribulation) * sure to happen, and even already present, which Satan in his exasperation excites through the dwellers upon earth,
1 xiv. 1 aq.
3 Cf. E. Ranke, Dae kirchl. Perikopéensys- tem, Berl. 1847. Appendix Monwm. p. lv.
8 Cf. Daniel, Codex Liturg.ecel. Luth., Lip. 1848. Tab. I. A.
4 Cf. Luicke, p. 640 aq.
5 Cf. the fragment from the writings of Ire- naeus concerning the passover: +. rerraxooris dy fh ov aAivouer yévu, tredy ivoduvapet 77 hue Pe Ths cvuptacis, “on Pentecost at which wedo not bend the knee, since it has the same force
as the Lord’s Day.” Opp. ed. BStieren., T. [., Lelpz., 1853, p. 829. Cf. Justini, Opp. ed. Otto, T. III. p. 2, Jen., 1850, p. 180. Tertullian, De cor. mil., c. 3: “On the Lord’s Day, fasting or to adore with bended knees we regard sacri- lego. We rejoice in the same privilege from Easter to Pentecost.”
6 Cf. xix. 2, and similar passages.
T i. 10.
® 1.9.
9 i. 0, iii. 10.
80 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Jews and heathen, and will continue to excite with ever-increasing rage against believers,! they are with patience? and watchful fidelity to persevere unto the end, to firmly maintain the words and commandments of their heavenly Lord, not to deny his name,® to be faithful even to the end; * be- cause they know, and are assured most confidently by the present prophecy, that the Lord, who is the King of all kings,5 and the victor over all enemies both of himself and his people, and who by redemption has made his people also kings,’ will in the end personally return, to execute just ven- geance upon all‘enemies,® and after their conflicts and victories to reward his faithful servants.® John, therefore, has good reason for so urgently com- mending to readers !° his prophetic book, which in its most essential funda- mental thoughts brings with it such important comfort.
8. What has thus been said concerning the fundamental thoughts per- vading the entire Apoc., and the consolation derived therefrom, may be claimed to be recognized by every impartial expositor. For even though, in an individual passage cited, the particular exposition may be urged as contradictory, yet the result, as a whole, abides sure, since what has been said concerning the Apoc. stands as though written on its very front; and if, to mention some great name, ErcHHorNn states the fundamental thoughts of the book otherwise, he thereby testifies, not to the ambiguity of the subject, but only to his own rationalistic prejudice. We enter, however, a battle- field, when we proceed to more accurately state the concrete elaboration, in the Apoc., of the fundamental thought of the Lord’s personal return. In this lies the special apocalyptic character of the prophetical book; here is the special source of the controversy concerning the Apoc., with respect to criticism as well as exegesis. John himself expressly entitles his book prophetic ;*4 as he writes, he employs a true zpogntebew ( prophesying).2 He himself also indicates with what right his book can claim true prophetic authority, so that it is essentially on the same level with the Holy Scrip- tures of the O. T. prophets, as John also teaches nothing else than that the contents of his prophecy agree with those of the O. T.4% According to the biblical, and that, too, not merely the O. T. fundamental view, a prophet is one in whose mouth God puts his words, through whom God himself speaks
1 Of. xi. 12, 17, xx. 7 eqq- ® Cf. all the closing promises in the Epistles, 3 1.9, fii. 10, xili. 10, xvi. 15. cha, 11. 3, vil. 13 eqq., xi. 18, xxli. 12, etc.
8 ij1. 8, 10, xxii. 7, 14. 10 4, 3, xxii. 18 aq.
4 .10; cf. vi. 10 aq. 11 1,3: 7. Adyous THe wpodyreias, “the words 6 xix. 16. of this prophecy.” Cf. xxii. 7, 10, 18, 19: r. ® Cf. vi. 2, xiv. 1 sqq., xix. 11 sqq. Ady. Ths wpodyreias tov BiBAiov rovrov, “the 7 1. 6, ¥.9. sayings of the prophecy of this book.”
§ vi. 10, vill. 3 eqq., xf. 18, xiii. 10, xix. 2. 13 Cf. x. 11. 1% Cf. x. 7.
INTRODUCTION. 81
in revelation, an interpreter, as it were the mouth of God.!_ This conception of the prophetic character, corresponding to the biblical conception of God, is that in which the Apoc. presents itself most definitely and expressly. For, what he writes in the book, John has not derived from himself: he is only the witness,? who, in obedience to a divine command, according to an express divine call, writes what has been divinely presented to his view, — what has been first on God’s part revealed to him. This John urges repeatedly in attestation of the truly prophetic character of his book,® and it is also expressed in the entire plan of the Apoc. For what are here proclaimed are future things (4 del yevéodas) which have been previously ordained by the eternal, all-governing God, the Alpha and the Omega, just judgments, ways and works of his holiness, might, and glory, which, on the one hand, must of course come to pass, because he is the Alpha and the Omega,‘ but, on the other hand, are also a divine mystery ® enclosed in the seven-times sealed book.* But, as when God in former times revealed his mystery to the ancient prophets, he proclaimed the final glorious goal of his mystery in a joyful message,’ so also God gave to John a revelation ® concerning future things, which he was himself to prophetically proclaim, by opening the seals of the book of fate® before the gaze of the prophet who sees in the spirit,!° and furnishing him with the true gift of “ prophesying.”
- Still more definitely marked is this relation between the apocalypse of the
divine mystery, and the prophesying of John dependent thereon,!? in that not only the form of the Apoc., the vision, but as its personal communicator, first of all Christ himself, and afterwards an angel, is introduced.!® With respect to the vision as the form of the revelation and the mediating service of angels, John stands in a parallel with the later prophets of the O. T., especially with Zechariah and Daniel, the book of the latter being even sometimes called the O. T. Apocalypse; and also, in the mode of imparting the revelation through Christ, there is no essential distinction between John
2 Cf. Exod. iv. 154q., with vil.1; Deut. xviil. 18; John xi. 61; 1 Pet. i. 10 aq.; 2 Pet. i. 21.
21.2,
3 4.leqq., xxii. 6 0q.; of. iv.1, x. 8 8qq., xiv. 13, xix. 9 9q., xxi. 5 sq., 9, xxii. 1.
1.8; cf. xi. 15 aqq., xix. 1 eqq.
8 Cf. x. 7.
6 v. 1 aqq.
72,7: rd pvoripow Tov Ocod ws cinyydAice —Tovs xpodyras, “the mystery as he hath promised the glad tidings to the prophets.” Note the correlative conceptions.
8 gsocdAvyis, i.1. Cf. Dan. il. 19: re Aayv.
dy Opduars THs vuKTos Td wVOTHpLOY awexadUOn, ** Tho secret was revealed to Daniel in a night vision.”” Dan. li. 22: avros aroxaAuwre Babéa nai amoxpvda, “* He revealeth the deep and se- cret things.”
® vi. 1 eqq. 10 {. 10, iv. 1 eqq.
ul x. 8 aq.
12 Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 29 sq: Lpodyra: 88 dio ® Tpeis Aadcitwoay —cay 84 GAr(p azoxddvhey x.t.A.: “ Let the prophets speak, two or three .-. if any thing be revealed to another.”
18 i. 1, 12 aqq., vi. 1 eqq., x. 1 8qq., xvi. 1 eqq-, xxi. 9, xxii. 1, 6 agg.
82 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
and the ancient prophets. For, as they already pointed to Christ as the proper goal of their prophecy,! so from the N. T. standpoint we must judge also that the Spirit of Christ wrought in them that revelation from which their prophecy proceeded.? In the fullest and clearest way, this is applicable to the Christian prophets, whose fellowship of faith with Christ® is the On a Lord's Day, it is made to John.‘ Christ himself appears to the prophet, and sends him as his servant ® to his congregations to which he himself, as the Lord and Saviour, will make this revelation. Christ himself opens the seals of the book of fate, whose contents refer, even in that which essen- tially pertains to himself, to his return.
Accordingly, in calling his writing an droxdAubic 'Incod Xpiorod,” John does not mean to indicate what we have in mind when we apply to it the techni- cal term apocalyptic. There the word droxdAvye has no special emphatic sense ;® and it is undoubtedly an exegetical error when it is taken in the sense of rapovoia, Empavea, and the genitive ’Ijc. Xp. as an objective genitive.® John expresses nothing else than the prophetic character of his book, when he refers its mysterious contents to the revelation given him through Christ 1° The word dmoxdAupy, a8 a technical designation of a particular species of pro- phetical books, is entirely foreign to all scriptural usage. In the O. T., the noun dzoxdAvyic Occurs in the corresponding verb droxaAirrey,'! but not in a religious sense; yet, even in its general sense, it appears as a correlative of pvoripwov.12 In the sense of the N. T., it is also impossible to speak of an droxdAvytc Iwavvov, as the oldest title of our book reads; yet even in the N. T., already, occasion is given for the later application of the technical Paul presents dmoxdAvyec as a special kind of divine operation
first fundamental pre-supposition for the reception of revelation.
expression. alongside of mpogyreia, dikaxy7, yAwooa (prophecy, doctrine, tongues), etc. ; 18 and just that which forms the fundamental thought in the prophetic book of John, is called in the apostolic writings the droxdAvwe rod xupiov..4 Thus it occurred, that the book treating of that impending revelation, i. e., of the
1 Acts x. 48; cf. Rev. x. 17.
21 Pet. 1.11; ef. Rev. xix. 10.
31.1: ry 800Aq abrod “Iwavvp, “to his ser- vant John.” Cf. 1.5: ay. guas, ‘hath washed us; v.9: ovycow. dy r. SA. x. Bactreiq x. tropnory év “Inc., “ companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.”
¢ f. 10,
§ Cf. i. 1.
© §. 11 aqq- TLL
8 Against Auberlen, a. a. O. 8., 81.
9 Cf. 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Cor. i. 7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13, iv. 138. Against Heinr., Lticke also (p. 23) ia not clear.
10 Cf. Eph. ii. 3; Gal. 1. 12.
41 Dan. fi. 19 6q.
12 Sir. xxif. 22; cf. xli. 23, xi. 27. A very special uee of the term is presented in 1 Kings xx. W.
33 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 26.
14 2 Theses. 1.7; 1 Cor.1. 7; 1 Pet. i. 7, 18,
INTRODUCTION. 838
coming of the Lord, which is itself called an droxaAuipic "Inoot Xp., i. e., & revelation communicated by the Lord himself, is designated absolutely by the title droxaavyec, to which then the name of the writer could be attached. Thus then originated the title ’AroxdAuyic “Iwavvov, in no way corresponding to John’s meaning; and, in conformity with this ecclesiastical use of the term, the pseudo-J ohn, who. wrote an apocryphal Apocalypse, was able to employ it, when, without reflecting upon his bungling work, he fixed his title : "AmoxcGAuyec rob dyiov drootoAov Kat evayyeAicrov "lwavvev toi PeoAéyov.1 ABs a literary, technical expression, Justin ® does not yet use the term dnoxcAvytc ; but the fragment of Muratori already speaks of an Apoc. of Peter beside one of John; and Irenaeus quotes with the formula: “John in the Apoc. says,” * although he still can speak of “beholding” the revelation.‘ The adoption of the word dmoxdAvyic as a technical literary expression is analo- gous with the use of ebayyéAov, whereby in the N. T. confessedly nothing less is designated than a book, as, e. g., we speak of a “Gospel of Matthew,” etc. ; but the ancient traditional titles 5 correspond much more to the origi- nal meaning, than does the title dmox. ‘Iwévvov.
But when the question is concerning the comprehensive statement of the special apocalyptical character of biblical prophecy, it must be manifestly unhistorical and unjust to proceed from apocryphal apocalyptical literature, by including with the Jewish products of that class the canonical Book of Daniel as the O. T. Apocalypse,® and with the Christian writings of that class the canonical Apoc. of John, and thus for writings of a different char- acter seeking the same so-called apocalyptic standard. Even Licke’ pro- ceeds essentially in this way. More correct is Auberlen’s * view, above all things, to establish the pure conception of biblical apocalyptics ; but he pro- ceeds from Daniel, and according to that attempts to determine both what is the same and what is different in the N. T. Apocalypse. But the history of the origin of the idea of apocalyptics itself points in the opposite direc- tion. It is from the Johannean Apoc. that the name and idea of what is apocalyptic originate, and have been transferred to the Book of Daniel and the entire apocryphal apocalyptic literature which stands in most obvious dependence upon these two apocalypses in the canon. That is called apoca-
1 ( Apocalypse of the holy apostle and 4 1.c., v. 80, p. 803. evangelist, John, the divine.’’) 5 evayy. cara M. (Gospel according to M.) 2 év dwoxadupa yevoudvy alr — spoedirevee © Cf. Hilgenfeld: Die judische Apocalypttk ( prophesied by a revelation made to him”), in ihrer geachichtlichen Entwickelung, Jena, c. Trypho, ch. 81. 1857. ® C. Haer., iv. 14, 18. Ed. Stieren, pp. 600, TV a.a. O. 8., 34 aqq. 619. 8 p. 79 aq.
84 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
lyptic which appears to be like the book which designates itself as an droxdAupe 'Inoob Xp.: the Johannean Apoc. is, therefore, the norm according to which the conception of what is apocalyptic, both within and without the canon, must be determined.
Nore. —It is instructive first to compare this with definitions found in another way. Licker, who properly, and in conformity with the fundamental thought of the Johannean Apoc., emphasizes the eschatological element in the Apoc. prophecy,! reckons further among its characteristics the circle of visions pertaining to universal history, the combination of prophecy and history, and that, too, of the past and present not less than the future: to which it is besides added, not only that it is not always clearly seen what is actually past, present, or future to the Apoc. prophets, and that in a pseudepigraphic way the entire prophecy was ascribed to some ancient men (as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, etc.), but also, that, even according to the ideal truth of the symbol, there are actual and even chronological particulars prophesied; as, e. g., the symbol appears as the peculiar form of representation, corresponding to the vision as the preva- lent form of revelation. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld justly observes that this entire definition lacks unity in the determination of principles, and that the Johannean Apoc. is neither universal-historical nor pseudepigraphical. It is his purpose? to characterize only the Judaic apocalyptics. What he indicates concerning the nature of apocalyptics in general, he does not expressly apply to the Johannean Apoc.; yet his opinion in this respect also can, to an extent, be discerned. Apocalyptics, he says, presupposes the conclusion of the ancient, national prophecy: it is a sequel and imitation of the latter. From ancient prophecy, it derives the form, the prophetic garb (so that the pseudepigraphic mode of composition becomes almost a necessity), and also the most essential contents; only with the distinction, that ‘“‘the subject is no longer, as before, concerning the transient contact of Judaism with a great heathen power, but rather concerning its relation to an eventful and manifold worldly dominion passing from one heathen nation to another.” Jewish apocalyptics attempts to answer the question ‘how and when the dominion of the world, possessed so long by heathen nations, will finally be delivered to the people of God.’’® According to Hilgenfeld’s view, therefore, what is apocalyptic is not truly pro- phetic; the canonical prototype of Daniel, and the apocryphal imitations, he places in the same category; both kinds of apoc. writings are only copies of the national prophecy. According to this, an essentially apocalyptic element, belonging also to the true prophets, cannot be affirmed.‘ But even what has been said concerning the apocalyptic fundamental thoughts is incorrect. Daniel
1 “The eschatological Apoc. has chiefly to 2 a.a. O.8., 10 aqq. do with the future uf the divine kingdom” 8 p. 11 aq. (p. 34). 4 Cf. zx. 7.
INTRODUCTION. 85
does not prophesy the transition of the dominion of the world from the heathen to the people of God; and just as inapplicable is this to the Johannean Apocalypse.
In opposition to Liicke, as well as to Hilgenfeld, stands Auberlen. He also regards apocalyptics chiefly with reference to the silence of prophecy in gene- ral; but he does not, like Hilgenfeld, make apocalyptics an imitation of an- cient prophecy developed from times wherein there was no revelation. But with him apocalyptics is regarded as the very highest summit of true prophecy : ‘‘the Apocalypses are to serve the Church of God as prophetic lights for the times without revelation, in which the Church has been given over to the hands of the Gentiles.’?! The O. T. time of the Gentiles is the post-exilic period; for this, the Book of Daniel is intended. The N. T. time of the Gentiles is that of Church history, the entire period until the end of days ; for this, the Johan- nean Apoc. has been given. Thus it becomes accountable how each testament has but one Apoc. Connected with this, however, are the facts, that not only the apocryphal imitations of prophecy appearing in the times destitute of reve- lation, chiefly took the Apocalypses as models,? but also that criticism and exe- gesis, in the absence of spiritual understanding, can most easily do injustice to the Apocalypses as the most wonderful products of the Spirit of revelation. As to the peculiar character of the Apocalypses, the result of their special applica- tion to the times of the Gentiles without revelation, is that they are, on the one hand, more universal in their sweep, and, on the other, more special in their description of details,* than other prophecy. What Auberlen® says con- cerning the distinction between the O. T. and the N. T. Apocalyptics, does not allude to the nature of the conception. More important is the chapter on “‘ The Nature of Apocalyptics,” in which the dream and vision are explained as its subjective, and symbolism as its objective form. The prophet, says Auber- len, speaks only in the Spirit;? but the apocalyptist is in the Spirit.® ‘Here, therefore, where the object is not so much an immediate influence upon con- temporaries, but a communication to all coming generations, man is alone with God revealing himself, and perceives only that which has been disclosed to him from above.” But the form of symbolism® shows in the Apocalypses, which have to do especially with the second appearing of Christ for judging, ‘‘ how
2 xarpot ¢@vev, Luko xxi. 24.
-2“The times without revelation, which nevertheless retained the influence of its still fresh impression, in their efforts of imitation
naturally preferred the more to turn to that.
part of sacred literature which had revelation for its subject, as here the most wonderful and exalted form of the then painfully missed revelation was found.”
3 i.e., in foretelling particular facts, even in
secular history, and chronological determina- tion.
‘ a.a. 0. 8., pp. 79-85.
5 pp. 85-89. € pp. 89-101.
T 1 Cor. xil. 3. © Rev. 1. 10, iv. 2.
® Which, besides disclosing to the wise, at the same time is intended for a relative veiling, so that even to the wise its true significance is offered only gradually in its progressive ful- filment (p. 95).
86 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
every thing natural must die, in order that the glory of the essential spiritual life may emerge.” 1
This entire discussion of Auberlen rests upon a conception of inspiration and prophecy which seems to us as unbiblical as the criticism and exegesis condi- tioned thereby are erroneous; yet our exceptions here concern only particulars. 1. It is neither correct to say that the distinction between ordinary and apoca- lyptic prophecy lies in this, that the apocalyptist is in the Spirit, and the prophet speaks in the Spirit, nor that the apocalyptic form of revelation is the most won- derful and exalted. All prophets can speak in the Spirit, only by being in the Spirit: John, therefore, testifies concerning himself,? not that he is an apoca- lyptist as one being in the Spirit, but that he is a prophet like all the rest. The particular form of revelation, viz., the ecstatic vision and the dream, is not the summit, but only the lowest grade, of divine revelation;® in like manner, the symbolical form also of prophetic discourse is inferior to the non-symbolical; and that symbolism does not essentially belong to apocalyptics, follows not only from the fact that prophetic discourses of an apocalyptic form occur without the symbolical form, —above all others, the apocalyptic discourses of the Lord himself, —but also that there are symbolical discourses which are not of an apocalyptic nature. 2. Closely connected with this, is what Auberlen says con- cerning the peculiar contents of apocalyptic prophecy, and its designation more for all coming generations than for a circle present to the prophet. No doubt, if it were the office of apocalyptics to foretell by a universal survey, and at the same time by the special portrayal of details, the facts and chronological rela- tions of the history of the world, the church, or empires, such prophecy would have weight only with coming generations, and would gradually become intelli- gible by its gradual fulfilment. But John writes his Apocalypse for a definite circle of churches, with the express purpose to edify not all coming generations, but the contemporary congregations; and, on the other hand, it is to be emphat- ically denied that the Johannean Apocalypse intends to give either a universal or a special survey of history until the coming of Christ. The mode of exposition advanced by Auberlen can derive either from the text, only by the most arbitrary allegorizing. The pretended designation for all coming generations presupposes that the seven churches must be understood, in some sense or other, allegorically, —and even the geographical names of the cities have been allegorically inter- preted, — yet these universal or special predictions, in the sense of Auberlen and many ancient and modern expositors, are to be obtained only by interpreting allegorically the visions, which in no respect indicate their allegorical character, and by accommodating the historical circle of visions of the prophet, and the consequent definiteness and limitation of prophecy, by an allegorizing violation of the context. The former occurs especially in the accounts of the seals and trumpets; the latter, in the following chapters.
1 p. 97. 34.10; cf. 1. 1 eqq. 3 Num. xii. 6 aqq.; of. 1 Cor. xiv. 2 aqq.
INTRODUCTION. 87
Just as certainly as the conception and name of what is apocalyptic are derived from the Johannean Apocalypse (which professes to be nothing else than a prophetical book), with historical justice is only that to be regarded prophetical and apocalyptic which is peculiar to this book, and yet has essential similarity with the prophetical writings of the Old Testament; viz., the fundamental thought of the personal return of Christ, and the consequent glorious and eternal fruition of the kingdom of God. This apocalyptic prophecy, on the one hand, can grow in its fullest and purest form, only from New-Testament soil, since the actual manifestation of God in the flesh, and the completion of the work of redemption, constitute of themselves the actual pledge of his final manifestation for judgment, and the eternal fruition of his kingdom ;' and, on this account, the prophetic discourses of the Son of man himself are in a model way apocalyptic,? and all the New-Testament Scriptures are no less permeated by apocalyptic prophetic thoughts.? But on the other side, as Rev x. 7 profoundly indicates, the apocalyptic element is native to even Old-Testament prophecy. The protevangelium (Gen. iii. 15) already contains the living germ of the entire biblical apocalyptics; but just in the proportion as, in the development of Old-Testament prophecy, the image of the Redeemer to come in the flesh is the more clearly presented, is the apocalyptic prophecy of the eternal fruition of his work and kingdom the more definitely expressed. This is true, even though the apocalyptic predictions of those ancient prophets, since the first appearing of the Son of man had not yet occurred, with moral necessity bear the limitation of not distinguishing with New-Testament clearness between the first and second coming of Christ. |
But this essential apocalyptic prophecy receives a more definite form by the relation in which the coming of Christ, and the fruition of his kingdom, are placed to the antichristian powers. This reference in general is, accord- ing to the nature of the subject, necessary, because the coming of Christ can- not be thought of * without his work of judgment, by which thg victorious § fruition of his kingdom is conditioned: but, in biblical apocalyptics, this reference to the anti-theocratic and antichristian powers appears also in more concrete embodiment, and that, too, in such a way that this reference, as well in Old-Testament as in New-Testament apocalyptics, is to forms of
2 Cf. Rev. 1. 5, 18, fii. 21, v. 5, 9 0q. testimonies concerning Christian hope.
2 Cf. Maut. xxiv. eq., vil. 22 sy.; John vi. « Cf., as an example for this common char- 30 sq. acteristic of all apocalyptic prophecy, Ps cx.
3 Rom. vifi. 20 sqq., xiii. 11; 1 Cor. 111.18,v.5, 1 sqq.; Isa. xi. 4 9qq., Ixvi. 24; Matt. vii. 22, xv.548qq.; Phil. {3.9 aqq., ili. 20 eq.; Tit. 11.18; xxv. 31 6qq.; 1 Cor. xv. 25 aq. Heb. §. 10 aqq., iv. 9 qq. Of. especially all the 5 Cf. Rev. vi. 2, xix. 11 sqq.
38 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ungodly world-powers historically presented; but in this, not only does New- Testament prophecy in general have peculiar pre-eminence above that of the Old Testament, but, even within the New Testament, the apocalyptic proph- ecy of the Lord—as that which is truly complete — has pre-eminence above that of John. In Daniel’s view, the anti-theocratic world-power is concentrated in Antiochus Epiphanes: on him and his blasphemous reign, therefore, according to Daniel’s Apocalypse, the final judgment comes.! When the Lord himself speaks of his return to judgment, he applies the threat in his apocalyptics to Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, which had rejected him. He does not say, however, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be contemporaneous with the actual end of the world, and that immedi- ately after that event his kingdom will be completely established; but he renders prominent the real connection between that particular historical act of judgment and the final judgment of the world. He expresses the eschatological import, which the treading-down of the Holy City by the Gentiles has, more than any other event of history, to the parousia. In the Johannean Apocalypse, we find what is similar, although not precisely identical. On the one hand, John’s historical horizon is so extended as to embrace not only antichristian Judaism, but also antichristian heathenism, which, in the form of Rome drunk with the blood of the Christian martyrs, stands before the eyes of the prophet. But, on the other hand, John’s apoca- lyptic prophecy ? intentionally and completely discloses the demoniacal foun- dation of what is of antichrist among the inhabitants of the earth, so that also the judgment upon those demoniacal powers forms an especially impor- tant subject of prophecy. The synagogue of Satan are the Jews, who with blasphemy and deeds of violence prepare for believers the Lord’s tribu- lation; * and in Jerusalem, where Christ was crucified, his two witnesses will be killed by the beast from the abyss:‘ but the Roman secular power,
1 If we suppose that in Dan. vii. 26 (fi. 34 aq., 44 2q., vil. 9-14), the Judgment of Rev. xix. 11-21 (Matt. xxiv. 29 sqq.) is described in distinction from that of Rev. xx. 11 sq. (Matt. xxv. 81 9qq.), according to Anuberlen, p. 369, then Daniel’s Apocalypse would say, that, with the judgment upon Antiochus, the one thousand years reign begins. But it is arbi- trary to introduce into the prophecy of Danicl, from the Johanhean Apocalypse, the ideas of the one thousand years reign, and of the two acts of the final judgment. The allusion to Antiochus is questioned by Auberlen and
others, in ch. vil., but conceded by them in ch. vili.; the parallelism of the Individual prophecies in the Book of Daniel decides, how- ever, against Auberlen. The acknowledgment required by the text, that the apocalyptic ex- pectation is greatly limited by the historical horizon, coheres with the conception likewise obtruded upon the book throughout its inter- pretation, that it is pseudepigraphic.
2 Cf. also 2 Thess. ii. 3 aqq.; 1 John il. 18 844-
3 if. 9, iif, 9.
« xi. 7 sqq.
INTRODUCTION. 89
deceived by the satanic false prophet, and worshipping the antichristic image of the beast, stands entirely in the service of Satan, and is the instru- ment for his rage against the congregation of saints.1 Accordingly the final judgment proceeds, after Jerusalem has been trodden down, ?in such a way that first the great harlot Babylon, ie., heathen Rome,* is judged; after that, the demoniacal powers themselves, which were active in that human embodiment of antichrist, chiefly the beast worshipped by the heathen and the false prophet,‘ and then also Satan himself.6 The judgment of all the dead forms the full completion of the entire eschatological saat at at which death itself and hell are cast into the lake of fire.®
Two remarks are especially called for concerning this Apocalyptic con- templation of the antichristian powers, and the judgment upon them. 1. The judgment upon Jerusalem is presented, on the ohe hand, according to its inner connection with the proper final judgment.* It belongs in the series of the three woes, of the second of which it forms the latter half.?7 But, on the other hand, this judgment upon Jerusalem is expressly distinguished from the final judgment itself which succeeds. In general, the entire proph- ecy referring to the future treading-down of the Holy City by the heathen not so much predicts the future fact of its overthrow as such, as it rather interweaves it, in a peculiarly ideal way, into the chain of its eschatological development.* 2. The concrete view of the heathen secular power under the form, present to the prophet, of the Roman secular power, which is expressed not only in the general description of ch. xiii. 17 sqq., but also in the most definite individual features,® appears limited by John’s historical horizon to such an extent that he already mentions! the last of the Roman kings, who in the near impending advent of the Lord ™ is to be visited by the judgment. The sixth king is the present one; the seventh will remain only a short time; the eighth, the personification of the beast, will be the last.}2
Nore.— The proof for the above presentation can be given only by the exposition of the details from the text itself; yet so much should here be said concerning the nature of inspiration and prophecy, as is requisite, on the one hand, for the foregoing conclusion, and, on the other, for outlining the still deeper antitheses consequent upon methods and results of the criticism and exegesis of the Apoc. that are mutually contradictory.
1 Ch. xii. aqq. 8 Of. the Erpoeition from zi. 1-14.
3 xi. 1-14. ® xiii. 18, xvil. 9 sqq.
? xvil. 1 sqq. 10 Just as in Dan. vii. 26.
¢ xix. 11 sqq. 1 dy rdxe, tax, “shortly,” “quickly,” 1. ® xx. 1 eqq., 7 6qq. 1, 3, xxii. 7, 12, 20.
© xx. 11 aq. t xi. 14. 13 xvii. 10 aq.
.
40 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Auberlen! distinguishes, according to exegetical results, ‘‘ three-main groups of expositions.” 1. The Ecclesiastical-Historical, of which, in Germany, Bengel was the most prominent advocate, “‘ considers the Revelation of John as a prophetic compendium of Church history.’”? 2. The Chronologico-Historical, adopted by Herder, Ewald, De Wette, Liicke, Ziillig, Baur, etc., ‘‘ proceeds from a conception of prophecy which excludes an actual, divinely-wrought contem- plation of the future,” and refers the contents of the Apoc. to Jerusalem and Rome. 38. The Governmental-Historical,? adhered to by Hofmann, Hengstenb., Ebrard, and Aub. himself, ‘‘ rests, as to its principle, upon the same basis as the ecclesiastical-historical over against the chronologico-historical. It believes in actual prophecy. It also does not deny the possibility of special prophecy, but only that the N. T. Apoc., so far as actually presented, is intended as a detailed history of the future.’’ But against this classification, which unites, under No. 2, views the most divergent, and separates, under No. 1, those which are most closely allied, the most weighty objection may be urged. The chief defect is this: The exposition adopted by Bleek, De Wette, and Liicke is, on the one hand, directly contrary to the chronological-historical conception of the Apoc., as found in Grot., Eich., Heinrichs, ete. ; and, on the other hand, has correctly grasped the idea, in conformity with the text, of the kingdom of Christ, and its fruition at his return, as the chief thought of the Johannean Apoc.: yet what really distinguishes the so-called governmental-historical inter- preters® in respect to the Apocalyptic fundamental thought of the fruition of Christ’s kingdom, from Liicke, etc., is nothing else than what belongs also to the ecclesiastical-historical; viz., the pretended historical detail, which both governmental-historical and ecclesiastical-historical expositors derive only by
vying in arbitrariness of allegorizing with some of the chronologico-historical
expositors,‘ against which Bleek, Liicke, and De Wette constantly contend. Naturally, the critical and exegetical conceptions of the Apoc. are distinguished according to the attitude which they take to the peculiar prophetic character which the book claims, and to the Apocalyptic fundamental thought which throughout pervades it. 1. By the rationalistic conception of inspjration and prophecy, the prophetical character which the Apoc. claims for itself is directly denied, and its fundamental thought entirely explained away. If John says that he was in the Spirit, this is grata fraus® (a pleasing delusion), All the pro-
1 p. 411 aq.
3 Cf., agzainet this view, Baur, Die reicha- geschichtl. Anfassung der Apok. Theol. Jahr- biicher, xiv., Tiib., 1855; 2, p. 283 aqq.
8 Among whom it is difficult to reckon Hof- mann, since he virtually refers the whole Apoc., not to the course of history unto the end, but only to the end itscif; and also in one special point agrees with the chronologico-hisiorical
expositors. For in principle it is the same, whether the antichrist of the Apoc. be re- garded as Nero returned, — which Aub. pro- poses as probably the chronologico-historical interpretation most properly so called, — or as Antiochus Epiphanes returned. (Hofm., ii. 345.)
« Grot., Eich., Herder, Heinrichs, eto.
8 Kich. on iv. 1.
INTRODUCTION. 41
fessed visions are, in fact, nothing but fictions of a poetic genius; for by all those symbolical pictures the author represents ‘‘a future event, towards which all Christians looked forward with confidence; viz., the victory of Christianity over Judaism and heathenism.’?! When it is said in the Apoc., that Christ will be victorious, this is only a metonymy common “even in prosaic discourse,’”? which is to be understood in the same way of ‘‘ Christianity,’”’ as Jerusalem and Rome, by metonymy or symbolically, indicate Judaism and heathenism.? Upon this purely rationalistic standpoint, Grot. already stood, who, therefore, in the expo- sition of particulars, often agrees in a surprising way with Eich.* 2. It is according to a magical conception of inspiration and prophecy, that those whom Auberlen calls the ecclesiastical-historical and governmental-historical inter- preters, give their exposition. There are found in the Apoc. the most special, and even chronological, predictions, which are fulfilled in the course of all time, from John’s present even to the parousia. By allegorical interpretation, these predictions are derived from the text, as, conversely, the historical allusions of the Apoc. are accommodated by an allegorical interpretation to John’s present. Upon this standpoint we find N. de Lyra, and after him chiefly the old Prot- estant expositors, with their applications to the Turks and the Pope;‘ then Bengel, with his Apocalyptic chronology; and in modern times, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen, and Hofmann: and if these, as a class, substitute general conceptions (powers, potencies, tendencies, etc.) for the definite forms invented by the older interpreters of the same class, yet recently H. J. Griiber® has again made the Turks and the Pope the chief subjects of the book. 3. It is from an ethical® conception of inspiration, that the present attempt at an exposition of the Apoc. will proceed, in connection with the labors of Bleek, De Wette, and especially of Liicke. In the most decided opposition to the above rationalistic denial of actual inspiration, the true prophetical character of the Apoc. will be here acknowledged, although understood otherwise than in the magical sense.
1 Kich., Ein., p. 338. 3 a.a. O. 8., 832. 4 Cf., e.g., Nic. Collado, |. c., p. 82: Totum
3Cf., e.g. on 1. 7.2 Aderit cum magna tempestate adversus incredulose Judaeos et Romanos, “ He will come with a great tem- pest against unbelieving Jews and Romans.” On iti. 12: Sensus est, eos qui in persecutione Neroniana constantes Juerint, visuros Spirits prophetico, quomodo Deus secundum sua promisea triumphaturuse eit de Judaeis et Ro- manis, quod praecipuum eat Apocalypseos argumentum (‘‘The sense is, that they who in the Neronian persecution have been stead- fast will see, by the prophetic Spirit, how God, according to his promises, wil) triumph over Jewea and Romans, which is the chief argu- ment of the Apocalypse ’’).
Aunc librum spectare praeccipue ad describen- dam tyrannidem sepirtiualem Romant papa- tus et totiue cleri ejue (*‘ That this entire book is directed chiefly to the description of the spiritual tyranny of the Pope of Rome and of all his clergy ’’).
5 Vere. einer Aistorischen Erki. der Of. des Joh., Heidelb. 1857. Cf. also Ch. Paulus, Blicke in die Welssagung der Off. des Joh., Stuttg. 1857. J. Ph. Sabel, Die Offend. Joh. aue dem Zusammenhange der messian- Reichsgeschichte, Heidelb., 1861.
© Cf. my treatise: De Rei propheticae in. Vet. Test.— natura ethica, Apologet. Beitrage,, L, Gétt., 1865.
42 THE REVELATION OF 8T. JOHN.
If Bengel! can decide that particular expressions of prophetic language, as angels, heaven, sun, etc., like ‘‘ counters,’’? mean sometimes one thing and again another,? this is here denied just as decidedly as, e. g., the possibility that John 8 could have written the name of the ‘beast by the number 666, but could not himself have been acquainted with it.4 These examples mark the distinction between a magical and an ethical conception of revelation. According to the former, what the prophet beholds is presented externally to him as a foreign object: he can behold every thing that the divine revelation will show him, and declare what he has beheld. According to the ethical view of the subject, the prophetic vision which appears by means of divine inspiration in the spirit of the prophet is conditioned by the entire subjectivity of the man; what the prophet writes is not a pure “‘copy”’ of a heavenly book,® but a divinely human product of his activity supported by the inspiring Spirit of God, in which the prophetic writer acts also in accordance with his human knowledge of art. According to a magical conception of revelation, the question why the little book eaten by John was in his mouth sweet, but in his belly became bitter,® may be answered,’ ‘‘ that the mouth of the seer was consecrated to his calling, but his belly belonged to the earthly world.’’ On the other hand, in an ethical way, inspiration appears to be such as to sanctify and guide equally the entire indivisible personality of man in all his powers, the will as well as the intellect, the reason as well as the conscience and imagination, speech as well as writing and acting. Accordingly, the particular visions which John describes must be received for what he himself gives them; he has actually seen every thing, and the visions are not mere fabrications.® But the subjects contemplated have, as is usual, assumed a form according to the standard of the human subjectivity of the prophet. John, e. g., in ch. iv., beholds, and therefore describes, the cherubim in no other way than Ezekiel, but in their subjective truth; while but one of the two prophets could speak without error when the question was con- cerning objective reality. If, also, the visions in which John has beheld the individual plagues preceding the parousia of the Lord, have undoubtedly pre- sented themselves, just as he testifies, to his spirit enlightened by God, it would only be a consequence therefrom, that every individual vision would contain a definite prophecy, to be actually fulfilled; unless the fantasy of a prophet be not touched by the inspiring Spirit of God, just as well as every other faculty of his inner man, and there would not therefore be a poesy produced and sancti-
1 a.a. 0. 8., 89.
3 The earth is made to signify ‘ Asia” (Beng.), ‘‘the Jews”? (Alceagar), ‘‘the godly” (Aretius), ‘‘the Christian part of the earth” (Vitr.), ‘*Europe” (Launoi), the ‘godly world” (Stern), eto. The stars signify ‘‘ the teachers of the church” (Aretius on vi. 12), ** heretics ’’ (Bede on vill. 2), *‘ bishops” (Stern
on viif. 10), “* Jews” (BShmer on yi. 12), ** sov- ereigns"’ (Hengetb.), etc.
8 Rev. xiii. 18.
4 Hofm., a. a. O.II., p. 312. Likewise Klie- foth, Theol. Zeitachr., 1862, p. 83. Christian.
5 Bengel, a. a. O. 8., 819.
© x. 9 aq.
7 Hofm., ii. p. 342. ® Eich., Ewald, ete.
INTRODUCTION. 43
fied by the Spirit of God, which lends to the proclaimed truth the elevated beauty of a truly suitable form. The poesy of the writer of the Apocalypse stands in the same living relation to the subject of his prophecy as the rhetoric of a Paul or a John to the contents of their evangelical message and consoling discourse. Connected with this, also, is the fact that the writer of the Apoca- lypse, without injury to his actual] character as prophet, is customarily limited by his historicai horizon. A true prophet does not assume what the Sibyl! boasts of herself: —
Olda yd piipuwv 1’ apebpode Kal pérpa Badaoonc, 6:0’ dpiOuodc dotpwy nal dévdpea nal rréca pbAAa, x.T.A)
Hence John does not prophesy what many expositors, in spite of the express warning of the Lord, have tried to decipher from the Apoc.; viz., the day and the hour of the establishment of his kingdom.? But he errs in regarding the form of the Roman Empire present to him as the last of its kind, because of the speedily approaching manifestation of the Lord himself to subdue all. Con- nected with this error is the truth of a morally understood Inspiration, since this sunders man not from the natural fundamental condition of his individual personality; but what we dare not expect from a prophet is, e. g., the delusion ridiculed by cultivated heathen, that the deceased Emperor Nero,® or Antiochus Epiphanes,‘ shall return as antichrist.
The anti-Pauline Judaeo-Christian tendency of the Appeals emphasized by the school of Baur for critical interests, is derived neither from the pre- supposed number of the twelve apostles .(xxi. 14), nor from the polemical expressions of the epistles (ii. 2, 6, 14, etc.). The objectively firmly established number of the apostles is manifest even in Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5). The expressions against heretical manifestations, however we may decide concerning their con- troversial interpretation, are not, in any case, to be turned to account for the purpose of the school of Baur, because the free evangelical view of Paul con- cerning the ¢ayeiv eiéwA60. has ethical limitations, of which the heretical liber- tines of the Apocalypse wanted to know nothing, while in respect to the ropvedoa the Apostle Paul speaks as decidedly as the author of the Apocalypse. In no respect did Paul declare ropveia permissible (against Hilgenf.’s mutilated presen- tation, Einl., p. 415). That the Judaic Christianity of the Apocalypse is not anti-Pauline and anti-evangelical, is manifest from the fact that the new Jeru-
2 (“I know the numbers of the sands, and tor of Scripture otherwise so excellent as
the measures of the sea, Bengel (Ordo temporum, Stuttg., 1741, p. I know the numbers of the stars, and how 303 sq.) seeks to weaken the clearest Scripture many trees and leaves.’’) pasaages (Mark xiii. 832; Acta 1.7) is without I. vili. p. 749. Sibylline Oracles, Op. et Stud. a parallel. Servatii Galiaei, Amat. 1689. 8 Ewald, Lticke, De Wette.
3 The artificialness with which an fovestiga- « Hofmann.
44 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
salem appears without a temple (xxi. 22). This is also contrary to E. Renan, Der Antichrist, Ger. ed., Leipzig and Paris, 1878 (p. xxvii, ‘‘ The Apocalypse breathes dreadful hatred towards Paul,”’’ etc.).
SEC. III.— ORIGINAL INTENTION AND ORIGIN OF THE APOCALYPSE.
1. As to the original destination of the Apocalypse, — by which we under- stand not only the circle of readers according to its external local limitations, but also the purpose of the book, occasioned by these concrete circumstances and events, — we need especially speak only in a few words, since this original destination, which can be gathered with greater evidence from the context, is of importance in the examination of the difficult and controverted questions concerning its origin, and especially its author and the time of composition. The circle of readers in Asia Minor is expressly mentioned in the Apocalypse itself ;1 for even though the number seven of the congregations should have a
definite typical significance, and correspond to the relation to the universal Church, peculiar to the Apocalypse by virtue of its fundamental thought, as well as asserted by itself,? yet the simple geographical destination in the text is the less to be explained away by any sort of allegorizing theory, as that typical reference to the universal Church is undoubtedly based ® upon the firm foundation of fixed historical relations.‘
The inner purpose of the Apoc. is also to be clearly recognized from the text itself. The paracletic elaboration of the fundamental thought concern- ing the impending return of the Lord, discussed in Sec. 2, 2, serves the pur- pose expressed already in the introduction and conclusion, and occasionally in other passages,® partly of encouraging and strengthening in fidelity, by the hope of the Lord’s return, the seven churches, and still further the entire Church, in the distress already present and yet to be expected from the un- christian world (Jews and heathen), and partly, also,® to reprove and reform
14.4, 11; chs. ff. and fil.
3 Cf. i. 3, xxii. 7, 16 sqq.
8 See on 1. 4, 11, 20.
« Hengstb. (i. 83), who also errs in stating that what is sald in 1. 4 aqq. refers not to the entire Apoc., but only to chs. fi. and fil., says, ‘**When John wrote to the seven churches, he had already before his eyes the model of the seven catholic and the fourteen Pauline epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, though even not altogether directly, yet proceeded from Paul as its source.” The ar- bitrariness in thia critical Judgment (which
not only presupposes that Jobn had our canon of epistles, but also obtrudes upon the same an entirely senseless allusion to a simple and double enumeration of seven of those letters) is so great that Lilcke (p. 421) not even once correctly understands Hengstb.’s real mean- ing. Cf., on the other hand, Bieek, Studien u. Kritiken, 1855, p. 168. The fragment of Muratori thinks that Paul followed John, as the former also wrote his letters to seven different churches.
5 Cf. 1.3, 9, chs. fi. and ifi, xvi. 15, xxif. 7, 10 sqq. © Cf. the seven epistles.
INTRODUCTION. 45
the inner evils of the churches themselves, to guard and establish their good circumstances, and in general so to teach and guide those redeemed by Christ, that they may receive the blessed reward with which the Lord is to come.? The end of the Apoc. is therefore, even apart from the special inner relations of the seven churches, in so far a peculiar one, as the tribulation already suffered, and still impending, is the immediate occasion to which the rich fundamental thoughts concerning the personal advent of the Lord are so emphatically applied in consolatory hope and earnest warning, that the prophetic comfort contained in the entire book refers to that end ;? but, on the other hand, no N. T. consolatory work is conceivable which does not serve, at least indirectly, to lead believers to the coming Lord, to whom they belong, and that, too, as must necessarily occur from the nature of the oppo- sition between the kingdom of Christ and the world, through the very midst - of unavoidable trouble. Thus the Apoc., in its end, has that exclusively and immediately which in all other N. T. literature appears as an indis- pensable, special (apocalyptic) item.®
2. The question concerning the original destination of the Apoc. leads back to the final critical question concerning the origin of the book, i.e., concerning its author, and the time and place of its composition. As the author of the Apoc.4 belongs, as to his station in life, to the geographical circle in which are his first readers, and this circle belongs to a definite time, viz., the apostolic-Johannean, the question arises of itself, as to whether John, who announces himself as the author, is to be regarded as the apostle or not, —a question for whose answer it is highly important to determine, as far as possible, the time of the composition of the book, in its relation to the time ® during which the Apostle John labored in Asia Minor.
Criticism is here occupied with the testimony of the book concerning itself, and the testimonies of ecclesiastical tradition. Every expression® of the book concerning itself appears doubtful, in the degree that the exposition, both as a whole and in particulars, is a matter of controversy, while the tes- timonies of tradition are in complete agreement neither with one another, nor with the statements of the book itself. I£ now, in the latter case, the book’s own testimony is to be unconditionally preferred to that of tradition, the critical investigation will be the more difficult in proportion as the wit-
2 xxii. 12. * Cf. 1. 9.
2 j.e., it is of an Apocalyptic nature. 5 In iteelf, indeed, Hkewise uncertain.
8 Cf. 1 Cor. 1. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 14 6qq., v. 10, © fn their discussion we can and must dis- xi. 2; Phil. ffi. 20 0q.; 2 Tim. fi. 9sqq.; 1 Pet. tinguish what refers to the time and place of i. 18 aqq., iv. 12 eqq.; Jas. v. 7aqq.; 1 John composition, from those referring to the per- if. 28. son of the composer,
46 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ness contradicting the book is, perhaps because of his age, the more impor- tant, and the origin of his error can be less readily traced. In addition to such exegetical and historical difficulties, is the consideration that the Apoc., by reason of its peculiar prophetical character, manifestly serves as a touch- stone by which to test the entire theological culture of critics and exegetes, and, even apart from scientific elaboration, contains rich material as certainly for the pure hope of the Christian faith, as it does apparently for a curiosity that hankers after disclosures of the future. Thus is explained not only the fanatical abuse which is employed upon this book, but also the animosity by which the scientific investigation of this book is disturbed more than that of auy other in the Bible, — the O. T. Apoc. perhaps excepted. The most can- did and courageous judgment in regard to this has been excellently stated by Hengstenb.:! “ The position which every one takes, with respect to the con- tents of the book, is decisive concerning his blessedness or condemnation.” 2
a. The book’s testimony concerning iiself, as to the place and time of com- position, is (a) direct; i.e., there are in the Apoc. express declarations from which the time (and place) of composition can be learned, without requir- ing, as in the indirect testimonies, the interposition of a combination of rela- tions occurring in other places.
As John’s Apocalytic prophecy looks towards its proper goal, viz., the Lord’s return, in such a way that there is’ presented within the historical horizon of the prophet, not only unbelieving Judaism, but also antichristian heathenism, and that, too, under the concrete form of Rome ruling the world; ® so in these two respects the Apoc. contains direct chronological testimonies, viz., ch. xi. 1-14, and chs. xiii. and xvii. If the two testimonies harmonize chronologically, this is the more important as the contents of the former are in other respects dissimilar from those of the latter.
Whether xi. 1-144 be a prophecy concerning the impending destruction of Jerusalem as such, or not, may here be left entirely undecided. It is sufficient for chronological interest, that that prophecy depends upon the pre- supposition that the destruction of the Holy City had not yet occurred. This is derived with the greatest evidence from the text, since it is said, ver. 2, that the Holy City, i.e., Jerusalem,® is to be trodden down by the Gentiles. This testimony of the Apoc., which is completely indubitable to an unprejudiced
1 ii, 872.
3 xxii. 18, 19. assigns the Apoc. to the time of the destrac-
8 Cf. § 2, 3.
¢ Why E. Bohmer (Ueber Verfaseer und Abfassungasett der johannischen Apok., etc., Halle, 1855, p. 23) has not taken into considera- tion xi. 1 #qq., is inconceivable. Besides, he
tion of Jerusalem.
5 Cf., besides, v. 8.
©... Tt. COverty nal thy wédew Thy ayiay xarjcoves. Cf. Luke xxi. 23: cai ‘lepovoaAty fora, TaToupery Vid éOrwy.
INTRODUCTION. 47
wind, can still be misunderstood only with great difficulty,! by accompany- ing its acceptance with the avowal that so eminent an interpreter as Irenaeus made an erroneous statement concerning the time of its composition.
The chronological resulta of xi. 1 sqq. are confirmed by what is said in chs. xiii. and xvii. Even here a completely certain explanation of all indi- vidual difficulties is not advanced, but only the recognition of certain funda- mental lines of exposition: viz., that the beast rising from the sea with his ten horns, seven heads, and ten crowns (ch. xiii.), essentially signifies noth- ing else than the beast with seven heads and ten horns carrying the great harlot; in other words, that as certainly as the name of the beast (Aareivorc), indicated in xiii. 8, can apply only to the Roman secular empire, so also the mysterious name Babylon, xvii. 5, refers to Rome; and also that not only does xvii. 9 refer to the seven hills of the seven-hilled city, but also that the seven kings mentioned in xvii. 10, who are represented -by the seven horns, are to be understood not of dynasties or governments, but of personal sover- eigns, and therefore of the Roman emperors. If that be correct, then xvii. 18 contradicts the statement of Irenaeus, that the Apoc. was beheld under Domitian; for if five of the heads, i.e., emperors, have fallen, then the one at that time present, the sixth, can in no case be later than Vespasian. We reach him by beginning with Augustus, and passing over the three kings between Nero and Vespasian (Galba, Otho, Vitellius), regarding their short reign as an interregnum.’ After this, the result of the combination of xvii. 10 with xi. 1-14 would be, that the Apoc. was written in that part of the reign of Vespasian which was prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e., between the close of December, 69, and the spring of 70. And if the Lord's Day of i. 10 were to be regarded not as a Sunday, but as that particular day after which Sundays were designated as Lord’s Days, then it would follow * that John beheld the revelation on Easter of the year 70.
Ewald and others regard the sixth emperor present to John, not as Ves- pasian, — since they do not reckon him as Nero's immediate successor, — but as Galba. In a chronological respect, the distinction is insignificant, as Galba reigned only from June, 68, to January, 69. More important is the diversity of exposition in chs. xiii. and xvii., upon which each of these chro- nological results respectively rests. According to our view, the account in
1 Hofmann, a. a. O. II., p. 301. Hengstenb., length received and established the imperial etc. : power which by the rebellion and slaughter of * Cf. Suetonius, Veepas. 1: REBELLIONE the three princes had been long uncertain and trium principum et caede INCERTUM Giu et asit were tn transition.” quasi VAGUM IMPERIUM suscepit Armacitque § Buhmer, p. 29. tandem gens Flavia. ‘The Flavian gens at
48 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ch. xiii. presupposes that not only Galba, but also Otho and Vitellius, the latter of whom Ewald in no way considers, belong to the past; while the comparison with ch. xvii. yields the result that at that time Vespasian had the throne. For when John (xiii. 1 sqq.) ascribes to the beast seven heads, —of which one is wounded unto death, and yet healed, — but at the same time ten horns and fen crowns, he means on the one hand ten kings, i.e., persons, whose actual reign is symbolized by ten horns and crowns (viz., 1, Augustus; 2, Tiberius ; 3, Caligula; 4, Claudius; 5, Nero; 6, Galba; 7, Otho; 8, Vitellius ; 9, Vespasian ; 10, Titus): but, on the other hand, the three usurp- ers between Nero and Vespasian could not have the same position with the other emperors as “heads” of the beast; on the other hand, “ the rebel- lion of the three princes” which rendered ‘‘the imperial power uncertain and as though in transition,” gave the mortal wound to the head of the beast, which was healed only when Vespasian seized the power. He, there- fore, appears as the sizth head of the beast; he is the first of the Flavian family, which has again established the tottering government. But whether the sixth or the seventh head was then ruling, is learned not from ch. xiii., but from ch. xvii. Yet, notwithstanding the substantially identical signifi- cance in the whole, the presentation of details is not throughout the same. In ch. xiii., a beast appears as the symbol of the antichristian Roman Em- pire; while ch. xvii., under the figure of the harlot drunk with the blood of saints, sitting upon that beast, describes the world’s metropolis, Rome, as the concrete embodiment of the Roman dominion over the world.? But even the beast itself is depicted and understood in a somewhat different way. The seven heads, i.e., emperors, are alike; but from the seven crowns there is no speech, but only from the ten horns, which, however, do not stand, as in ch. xiii., in a parallel with the seven heads, but describe ® still future kings. These ten horns have therefore nothing whatever to do with the reckoning and interpretation of the seven heads, as is established from ch. xiii. and xvii. 10. The seven heads are, as in ch. xiii., the Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero— these five are fallen (xvii. 10); the sixth, which was then the present one; and Titus, the other which is still to come, and when come to remain only a short tiie. The eighth, symbolized by no special head on the beast, since he himself will be regarded the personification of the whole beast (xvii. 11), is, then, Domi- tian, the second son of Vespasian, the brother of Titus, of whom it is there- fore said, éx tov érra tore (“He is of the seven”’).4 This eighth emperor John considers not only as the individual personification of the Roman
1 Cf. xvii. 10. 8 xvii. 12. 2 Cf. xvii. 18, % wéAcs; Vv. 9, Spy éwrd. 4 Cf. Exposition.
ae
INTRODUCTION. 49
antichrist, but also as the last possessor of the Roman dominion over the world ; as in his person this finds its complete fulfilment, with him it also perishes.
In respect to the chronological interest, there is still only one point of the account in xvii. 8 sqq., to be kept in view, which serves to more accurately determine the declaration in xvii. 10. The beast, says John,? was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss. Here not only the yéAAe dvaBaive éx 1. aBiocov (v. 8), but also the relation of the entire conception to that of the healed mortal wound,® can remain undiscussed. It results only in this: viz., the beast is not, and yet is the sixth of his heads. This can have the mean- ing only that the then present emperor (Vespasian), symbolized by the sixth head, has the dominion in such way that, while in one respect he must be regarded a real head of the beast, yet in another respect it may be said that the dominion over the world, signified by the beast, is not there. This prophetic enigma appears therefore to point to the time when Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by his Oriental legions, while Vitellius still stood at the head of his Germanic army. As Vespasian had, in fact, already won the empire, — for there was no doubt as to what would be the result of the war with Vitellius, — Vespasian was already the head of the beast; and yet his imperial power was not unquestioned ahd undivided, and the Roman do- minion over the world lay neither in his hand nor in that of Vitellius. In so far, says John, the beast is not. This condition of things, which created violent commotion in Egypt, Syria (Palestine), and Asia,* where the legions swore allegiance to Vespasian, occurred in the beginning of the year 70. At this time, therefore, upon the basis of xvii. 8 sqq., we must put the composition of the Apoc.; and that, too, with the greater certainty, as we have already been taught from ch. xi. 1 sqq., that it at all events was completed before the destruction of Jerusalem.®
(8) The indirect self-witness of the Apoc. concerning the time of its origin, which is in its very nature more indefinite and doubtful,® lies in the relation of Christians to Jews and heathen, and in the intimations given of the inner circumstances of congregations. What appears in both respects, in the Apoc., appears on the one hand not so much in fixed historical form, as rather in the garb of a prophetic description ; but, on the other hand, we are by no means so fully instructed concerning the historical relations mentioned
2 xvil. 8, 11 sqq. ® xvii. 8, 11. horn, to fix the composition of the Apocalypse 8 xill. 3, 4. between the years 71 and 78. Cf., on the con- 4 Cf. Tacitus, Histories, i. 78 eqq.; Sueto- trary, already Heinrichs.
nius, Veepasian, 5. © Cf. Liicke, p. 483 sqq., 820 eqq., with
§ It is improper, therefore, as, e.g.,in Eich- | Hengstenb., i. p. 9 eqq.
50 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
in the Apoc., by accounts given elsewhere, as with confidence to recognize the temporal relations reflected in particular allusions of the book.
How great was the hostility of the Jews to the Christians, cannot be clearly learned from ii. 9 sq., iii. 9.1. Defamations on their part occur dur- ing the entire apostolic and post-apostolic periods. We also know already, from the Book of Acts, that in the beginning the Jews instigated the civil authorities against the Christians. At the martyrdom of Polycarp, Jews and heathen made common cause. Under the Roman government, the Jews did not dare with their own hands to do them violence. This was true in the time of Paul, as well as in that of Justin. Yet it happened, especially at the time of the revolt against the Roman government, that the Jews also showed their hatred to the Christians by deeds of violence. May it not, then, be supposed that the hostility of the Jews, indicated in the Apoc.,® was not content with mere “ blaspheming,” but brought upon Christians other sufferings also?® And is it not consistent with this, that by the war with the Romans the fanaticism of the Jews was stirred up? Perhaps in connec- tion with what is said in xi. 3 sqq., the remembrance of what James the Lord’s brother suffered at Jerusalem may be recalled.? The conjecture appears still nearer, that the promise to the church at Philadelphia ® is not without reference to the impending destruction of Jerusalem. If, now, we put together the facts that it is David’s key which the Lord has, and with which he has opened to the Church a door which no man can shut; that the Jews who hitherto have blasphemed are to acknowledge the Redeemer, and turn to the Church for aid; that the speedy return of the Lord® will bring the new Jerusalem, — all this is indicated, if we find herein traces in general of definite historical relations, not to the time of Domitian, whose heavy hand oppressed the Jews no less than the Christians, but to that of the destruction, of Jerusalem. By that impending judgment, the Lord would
1 Cf. also xi. 3 sqq.
3 Mart. Poly., c. 10 aqq.
8 Cf. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph., 6.16: xarapu- pevor dy Taig cuvaywyais Uuay TOUS micTevorTas éxi roy Xprorévy. Ov yap éfovaiay éxere avToxei- pes yerdoOat nua ba rovs ver éwixparovrras® dcdxcs 8@ av eduviOnre, cai rovro éxpdfare (* Cursing in your synagogues those who be- lieved in Christ. For you do not have the power to lay hands upon us, on account of those who now have the mastery. But as often as you could, you did so’).
* Justin, Apol., i. 31: ‘Avatpourres xai xo- Adgorres huacs owdray Sivwyra.—sxai yap éy
TP vuy yeyeyrnudve iovdaixp woddup BapywyéBag — Xproriavois pdvous eis Timwpias Secvas, et me apvocvro ‘Incovr roy Xpiordoy cai PAacdypoier, éxédXevey awayerOa (‘They slay and punish us whenever they are able. For, in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ, and utter blasphemy”).
5 if. 9 ag., ill. 9.
© GAtyus, waoxety, i. 9 aq.
7 In the year 69. Cf. Gleseler, AKirchen- geachichte, I. i. p. 125.
8 iii. 9. ® ii. 11.
INTRODUCTION. 51
show the blaspheming Jews that in his death he had loved the Church,! but that upon that unbelieving people his blood would justly be avenged. It was just this judgment upon Jerusalem which would open their eyes; one indeed of fearful violence, but yet like a door opened by the key of David, whereby believers in Philadelphia could introduce those Jews who would hear and see, into fellowship with the eternal King upon the throne of David, and could establish them in the hope of the new Jerusalem.
More fruitful and definite are the allusions of the Apoc. to the Roman Empire in its relation to the Christians; but, even in this respect, the pro- phetic-poetical coloring, wherein necessarily the historical facts are pre- sented, must be taken into consideration. It is by neglecting this, that Hengstenb., with seeming confidence, reaches the solution that the Apoc. could havs been written at no other time than that of Domitian. This emperor was the first, he says, to have himself deified: only, therefore, to him is what is said in xiii. 4, 8, 12, and xviii. 18, applicable. But in ch. xiii., it is no particular sovereign (no particular head), but the entire beast, which, in its godless nature, is-described. To the Roman imperial power, as such, is attributed the self-deifying pride, confiding in its own seemingly unlimited authority. If, in his prophetic description,? John had thought of special objects, they could be only such as, by recurring in a similar way in different*possessors of the Roman power, characterize its entire antichristian nature. There belong the apotheosis conferred already upon Julius Caxsar ; 8 the erection of altars which already pleased Augustus ;4 the madness of Caligula, who put the head of his own statue upon one of the Olympian Jupiter, and had himself saluted as Jupiter Latiaris, erecting a temple to himself, with special priests and sacrifices,’ etc. But what is said in ch. xili., concerning the Roman imperial power as such, is applied in xviii. 18 to the city as the concrete embodiment of the Roman dominion over the world. “Every passage points to Domitian”? as little as to any other emperor; but John has in view the blasphemous pride, as, e.g., it displays itself in the altars consecrated in the city of Rome. Besides, what the
1 ifi. 9.
3 Cf. Isa. xxxvi. 18 sqq.
8 Suetonius, Cues., 88. tropius, Hiet., vii. 13.
* Suetonius, Octav., 52: Templa in nulla tamen provincia nisi communi suo Romaeque nomine recepit. ‘‘ He allowed temples, never- theless, in no province unless in the common name of himself and Rome.” Herod the Great already had erected, in a city so well known as
Cf. on Claudius Eu-
Caesarea, a temple in honor of the Emperor Augustus, and in it his statue in the form of the Olympian Zeus, besides the image of Hera brought from Argos, representing Rome. Jo- sephus, B. Jud., 1. 21,7. Cf. Wieseler, Bet- trdge, Gotha, 1869. See especially the chapter Kaisercultus in L. Preller’s Romische Mythot- ogie. § Suetonius, Caliguia, 21
6 Cf. ch. xvii. 5 Hengstenb.
52 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Apoc. says concerning the violence inflicted upon Christians on the part of the Roman world-power, John thinks also pertains only to the time of Domitian. That the book was written in the midst of the oppression of the Neronian persecution,! dare not be inferred, since that persecution was con- fined to the city of Rome, and to the infliction of capital punishment; while the Apoc. presupposes that the persecution was co-extensive with Christian- ity,? and was accompanied not only by executions, but by banishment to desert islands,* and imprisonment.‘ But since, where the antichristian world-power is beheld in the more definite form of the harlot who symbol- izes the city,5 it appears drunk with the blood of the martyrs; just in the degree in which the description of the world-power, ch. xvii. sqq., is more concrete than in ch. xili., the leading feature in the picture of the hatred of antichrist has a coloring that is more historical, although the entire descrip- tion always remains of so very a prophetical-poetic character, that the city, as the proper centre of the entire empire, appears stained with the blood of the martyrs shed not only in the empire, but in the whole world. But that already, in the times before Domitian, Christians were cast into prison,’ and had otherwise in their daily life to bear the scorn and hatred of the heathen,® is self-evident, especially after Nero himself in the capital had given the example by surrendering the Christians to the already long-exiat- ing hatred of the heathen. But, even without definite testimonies, it must be accepted, that, especially in the East, during the war against the rebel- lious Jews, the Christians, as the Romans took no pains to distinguish them from Jews, had to endure all kinds of oppression and persecution.
The allusions of the Apoc., therefore, refer no more to the times of Domitian than to those of Vespasian. But if we combine the passages already discussed, with the direct testimony derived from xvii. 10 sq., and with what is said in vi. 10 sq., there will be a new confirmation of the view that the Apoc. was written under Vespasian. The question of the souls of the martyrs, foc rére, x.7.4.,° presupposes that since their martyrdom some time already had transpired. Had the Apoc. been seen in the beginning of the year 70, this would have harmonized with its application to those martyrs: but the reference is especially to be ascribed to those executed by Nero at Rome; for, in July of the year 64, that persecution broke out in which Peter perished, after, as is highly probable, Paul had been slain
1 De Wette, Liicke, Ewald, Bleek. 8 Ch. xvii. sqq. 2 Which Hengstenb. (i. p. 24) finds deslg- 6 xvill. 24.
nated also in xii. 7: racay duAqv — cOvos. 7 2 Cor. x., xili. 10. 31.9. 8 xiii. 16.
* xifi. 10. ® vi. 10.
INTRODUCTION. 58
at Rome a few months previously.1_ Of course, in itself, the question fu. note, «.1.A., would be with complete propriety applicable to the times of Domitian; but this chronological reference is rendered impossible by the answer.? For, in a short time,® the longing of the martyrs for revenge will be satisfied; only a certain number of believers must first suffer the martyrdom appointed them also. Then the Lord comes, yea, he comes quickly,‘ to destroy drunken Rome. This is to be determined more accu- rately according to xvii. 10 sq. Domitian, the eighth, i.e., the last sover- eign of the antichristian Roman Empire, is the one who, as the personifica- tion of the antichristian beast, will make the number of the martyrs complete, whereupon then the entire Roman sovereignty over the world will fall in ruins.
Finally, the inner circumstances of the Asiatic churches come into con- sideration, and especially the moral faults and false doctrines condemned in the seven epistles. If the Apocalyptic picture of any church be compared with such, e.g., as is presented in the Pauline Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, a contrast becomes manifest, which must then be chronologi- cally estimated. Hengstenb. thinks that the space between the work of the Apostle Paul in the Asiatic churches, and the time of composition assigned by Liicke, to be too brief to account for such facts as that the first love should already have so greatly cooled, such peculiar errors have arisen, and, in gen- eral, the entire condition of the churches become so unsatisfactory as repre- sented in the Apoc., and that the.time of Domitian is the very earliest wherein this is conceivable. But, on the one hand, the departure of the Apostle Paul had withdrawn a firm support from the young congregations, ——and even the Epistles to the Colossians and Galatians show how soon strong errors entered when the apostle’s absence gave them room, — and, on the other hand, it is highly improbable that the condition of those seven churches would not have been better than the Apoc. indicates, if it had been actually written only towards the end of Domitian’s reign, and there- fore after the Apostle John had personally labored for almost a generation in those congregations as his own peculiar district. But if we consider that between the close of Paul’s activity in Asia,’ and the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, —i.e., the time of the composition of the Apoc., — over twelve years intervene; and that since the composition of the Epistle
1 Cf. Wieseler’s Chronologie des apost. 5 Cha. if. and fii.
Zeitalteres, GUtt. 1818, p. 541 aqq. ® Hengstenb. 1. 54. 3 vi. 11. 7 He left Asia after a etay of almost three 3 xpévor puxpdv. i years, about Pentecost of the year 57. Wiese-
@ év raxer, Tax, db cacpds dyyvs. ler, a. a. O. 8., 118.
54 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
to the Ephesians,! perhaps eight years have passed; and, further, that the beginning of the more speculative and more practical errors which are reproved in the Apocalyptic epistles * had manifested themselves already in the times of Paul, — the condition of the Asiatic churches, presupposed by the Apoc., will not appear inconceivable at the time at which, for other reasons, we must fix the composition of the book.
Concerning the place where the Apoc. occurred, the author himself gives a definite testimony, inasmuch as he expressly states that on the Island of Patmos he received the divine revelation written in the book; for,® that the entire abode of the prophet on that island is only imaginary,‘ is an asser- tion without any foundation. But it is a further question, whether John also composed his book on that island. To Bengel, Hengstenb., etc., this is a matter of course, since they assume that the literary composition of the Apoc. was completed on the very same day on which the prophetic vision oecurred. But® it is not only inconceivable, according to the nature of the case, that the ecstatic condition of the seer soon yields to the more tranquil self-consciousness required for literary composition, and then again soon recurs, and thus the vision interrupted by the act of writing every time returns to its original connection; but also the preterite éyevéunv® expressly contradicts the view that the Apoc. was committed to writing at Patmos. Besides, the book nowhere else contains any direct expression concerning the place of its composition. But if John’? went to Patmos in order, in the quiet of that island, to receive the divine revelation to his spirit, and if, further, the Apocalyptic writing was intended for the seven churches of Asia Minor, the opinion is justified that John was at home among that circle of congregations, and that after his return from Patmos he wrote consecu- tively the revelation received for the seven churches. Perhaps Ephesus was the dwelling-place of John, and therefore the place of composition ; for the conjecture readily arises, that the prophet passed over to Patmos
from one of the cities ® bordering closely upon the coast. But Ephesus is
the nearest, and first mentioned.®
SEC. IV.—THE AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.
b. Concerning its author, also, the book itself gives testimony, both directly and indirectly. The former consists of such expressions as of
2 In the year 61 or 62. Cf. Weiseler, p. 455. 5 Bleek, Lticke, etc.
3 ii. 14, 20, 24. 6 j. 9, 10.
8 1.9. 7 1.9 aq.
¢ Eich., Zini., a. a. O. 8., 866 eqq.; Volkmar, 6 Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos. p. 63. ® 4. il, ii. 1.
INTRODUCTION. 55
themselves make known the author: the latter results from the comparison of the Apoc. with the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John.
(a) The direct self-witness of the Apoc. to its author.
As the author calls himself John,! first of all the question arises, whether or not he wished to be regarded as the apostle of that name. Even were this the case, criticism would have to ask further, whether the claim of the writer of the Apoc., to be regarded as the Apostle John, be actually justified or not. A result prejudicial to the canonical authority of the book would follow only in case criticism could with confidence decide that the author had falsely assumed the name of the Apostle John; for, while pseu- donymity, in a purely literary work, may in a moral respect be a matter of indifference, yet where not only the treatment is directed to the edification of Christian churches, but also where the attaching of a name thereto must serve to guarantee the truly prophetic authority of a writer, such absence of a delicate sense of regard for truth would be presupposed as would dis- qualify a Christian writer for full canonical credit. For, to a writer of such kind, the possible literary custom of the time, according to which pseudo- nymity is not regarded as properly false, would afford no adequate excuse; since in his moral character he must stand far above his times, if to these times, and those which are to follow, he is to give an actual norm, dependent upon divine inspiration. But, without any difficulty with respect to the canonical authority of the Apoc., it is the decision of criticism that the author is to be regarded not the Apostle John, for the very reason that he does not claim to be such.
The mere mention of his own name, on the part of the author, does not serve so much to make us acquainted with the person as, rather, to preseht _ the critical question, according to whose different answers the critics fall into two chief classes, as the author of the Apoc. is or is not regarded the Apostle John. The former class falls, again, into two very dissimilar groups. The one group consists of critics who ascribe to the Apostle John not only the Apoc., but also the Gospel and the three Epistles. To this first group belong all the Catholic expositors and critics;* the old Protestants; and — after the Apostolic-Johannean authenticity of the Apoc. was attacked in England by an anonymous edition of the N. T.,* and by a likewise anony- mously published “ Discourse, Historical and Critical, on the Revelation
14.1, 4, 9, xxii. 8. Evangeliums nach Joh., Schaffh. 1854, p. * Cf. Hug, Finl., ti. § 176. ©. Stern, Kom- 189 eqq., 222 eqq. mentar tiber die Ofenbar. dea Apostels Joh., 3 The New Testament in Greek and English, Schaffh. 1854. G.K. Mayer, Die Aechiheltdes etc., London, 1729.
56 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ascribed to St. John ” (Lond., 1730), by F. Abauzit,} and in Germany by the school of Semler 2 — men like Leonh. Twells,? J. F. Reuss,‘ F. A. Knit- tel,®§ Bengel, J. B. Liiderwald,® G. C. Storr,” Hartwig, Herder, Eichhorn, J. F. Kleuker,* Haenlein,® E. W. Kolthoff,° E. Dannemann; " and recently Hengstenberg, Ebrard, A. Niermeyer,!? Elliot,!® Auberlen, E. Bohmer, Geb- hardt, Kliefoth, ete. On the other hand, the second group is composed of the school of Baur, which ascribes the composition of the Apocalypee to the Apostle John, while it denies his authorship of the Gospel and the three Epistles. %5
The critics of the second class, also, who deny the composition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John, fall into different groups, as some who occupy the older rationalistic standpoint regard 1° the Apoc. as a supposititious writ- ing ; 2" while the later, more scientific criticism, which controverts the compo-
2 Concerning the remarkable history of this work written originally in French (Abauzit, Guvrese diverses, t. {., London, 1770), cf. Liicke, p. 496 aq.
® Oeder, Freie Unters. iber die sogennante Of. Joh. mit Anmerk, von Semler, Halle, 1760. Semler, Abhandl. von freier Unters. des Kanon, nebst Antwort auf die Tiibing. Ver- theidigung der Apok., Halle, 1771. Semler, Neue Unters. tiber Apok., Halle, 1776.
8 A critical examination of the late New Text and Version of the N. T. in Greek and English, London, 1732. Cf. Wolf, Curae Philolog. et Crit. ... in Apoc., Hamb. 1735, p. 887 eqq.
4 Dissert. theol. de auctore Apocal., Tiib. 1767. Cf. his Vertheldigung der Of. Joh. gegen — Semler, Frankf. 1772.
5 Betirdge sur Kritik tber Joh. Offenba- rung., Braunschweig and Hildesh. 1778.
© Bemtlhungen sur griindlichen Beurthet- lung und Erkenntniss der Offend. Joh., Helmet. 1777-78.
7 Neue Apologie der Offend. Joh., Tub. 1788. Zweck der evangel. Gesch. u. der Briefe Joh., Tub. 1786, p. 70 eq.
8 Uber den Ursprung und Zweck der Of. Joh., Hamburg, 1800.
® Handbuch der Einlett. in dle Schriften dea N. 7., vol. 1., Erl. 1801, p. 220 aqq.
% Apocalypsis Joannt Ap. vindicata, Hafn. 1834.
11 Wer ist der Verf. der Of. Joh., Hannov. 1841.
13 Verhandeling over de Echtheid der Jo- hanneischen Schriften, Gravenhage, 1852. Cf. Lechler, Stud. u. Krit., 1856, p. 867 sqq.
13 Horae Apocalypticae, or a Commentary on the Apocal., critical and historical, iv. ed., London, 1851.
14 Cf. Baur, Xrit. Untersuchungen dber die kanonischen Evangelien, Ttib. 1847. Dae Christenthum und die christ. Kirche der dret ersten Jahrhunderte, Ttb. 1858.
15 Volkmar deviates so far from these as to assert that the Apoc. was composed not by the Apostle John himself, but only in his spirit by an anti-Paulist. Cf., on the other hand, Hil. genf., Der Kanon und der Kritik des N. T., Halle, 1863, p. 286. Zint., p. 681.
te Abauzit, Oeder, Semler, eto , M. Merkel, Historisch-krit. Aufkidrung tlber die Streitig- keiten der Aloger —als Beitrag sum sueriaest- gen Beweiee, dase die Apok. ein undcht Buch sei, Frank. and Leipz. 1788. Umetdndlicher — Beweis, dasa die Apok. ein untergeschobenea Buch sei, Frank. and Leipz. 1785. H. Cor. rodi, Krit. Gesch. des Chiliasmus, Ziir. 1781 sqq., vol. ii. sec. 12eqq. Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Gesch. des jild. u. chriatl. Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792, vol. ii. p. 301 sqq., eto. é 37 Oeder (cf. also Corrodi, il. 332) again ad- vanced the idea already expressed in ancient
INTRODUCTION. 57
sition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John (i.e., by the author of the Gospel and Epistles), more or less definitely asserts that the writer of the Apoc. did not wish to be regarded the Apostle John, and, therefore, that the book is not supposititious, although it cannot be ascértained with certainty whether the writer be possibly the presbyter John,! or another of the same name,? — perhaps the evangelist John Mark.®
From the fact that the writer of the Apoc. calls himself John, it does not immediately follow that he must be regarded the apostle of that name, but only that to the first circle of readers of the book that self-designation of the prophet must have been sufficient. Quite a different representation has been made, not only to us, but already in ancient times, by the tradition that the -Apostle John composed the revelation to which that name is attached.‘ But: the question is, whether the book itself contains any further intimations concerning the composer. There are none such in the expression, 7) dobdy atr., i. 1, ascribed improperly to John’s apostolic office; nor in the tuaprépycev, 1. 2, which no more contains any allusion to a former written declaration of John, i.e., to his Gospel, than in the dca eldev there is to be found any to the fact® that John was an eye and ear witness ;°® nor also from i. 9 sqq., for the ancient tradition of the banishment of the apostle to the Island of Patmos arises from a misunderstanding of this passage, which does not speak in any way concerning a banishment.’ The immediate self- witness of the Apoc. concerning the John whom it mentions as its author is of negative character, as it only makes known that the writer of the Apoc. is not the Apostle John. [See Note I., p 87.] No trace of apostolic authority shows itself in the relation of the writer of the Apoc. to the churches to and for whom he writes. John writes only as a brother and companion,® without asserting that paternal attitude to his little children which the Apostle John takes in his first Epistle, without detracting from his fraternal fellowship, and of which some indications or other must have been found in the Apoc. if this had actually been written by the Apostle John, and at the end of his life, after many years’ service in those churches. The author of the Apoc. writes not from apostolic sovereignty, but from an especial revelation ; even the seven epistles were expressly dictated to him by the Lord. The apostle
times (cf. § 5), that the Apoc. derived its orl- en, Zlir. 1843. Cf., on the other aide, Lticke,
gin from Cerinthus. p- 778 eqq. 1 Bleek, Ewald, ii. 66. 4 See above, sec. §. 3 Heinrichs, Ewald, De Wette, Lticke; Ne- § Kilefoth. ander, * History of the Planting and Tralin- 6 Acts xxi. sqq. ing,” etc., Hamburg, 1841, vol. 1}. p. 540 aq. 7 See Exposition, and cf. sec. 5.
8 Hitzig, Uber Johannes Markus u.@. Schrift- ® Rev. i. 9.
58 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
hardly needed the complete and emphatic attestation to which the prophet refers in his special appeal. Possibly it is still more important that? no- where, neither in the introduction ® nor at the close, is there the least trace of the confidential relation between the Lord and the Apostle John.
A peculiar testimony to the fact that the author is not one of the apostles, he himself gives in the way in which he portrays their prominent position in the Church. In the twelve foundations which support the walls of the New Jerusalem, are the names of the twelve apostles ; 4 in the second half of the twenty-four elders who stand before the throne of God, are probably to be reckoned the twelve apostles, regarded as the patriarchs of the N.T.5 The point here ® is not so much that such a representation would be a violation of modesty if the author of the Apoc. were himself one of the twelve apostles,’ as, on the other hand, it has to do with the complete objectivity with which the twelve apostles are presented to the author of the Apoc. This has been felt even by Hengstenb., only with the result that he has not inferred that the author of the Apoc. must stand outside of that apostolic twelve, but simply that the Apoc. could have been composed “only at the end of the apostolic period.” Yet this does not remove the difficulty of the writer of the Apoc. seeing himself among the elders in heaven, and his own name in the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem. Even the appeal to Eph. ii. 20 does not serve to render what is said in Rev. xxi. 14 incon- ceivable in the mouth of an apostle. While we concede that in the former passage the gen. rv drocréAw is an appositive gen. to the ro depedly, and therefore, that, according to a different mode of conception from 1 Cor. iii. 11, the apostles and prophets are themselves considered the foundation of which Christ is the corner-stone ; ® yet we do not conclude ® that only a pupil of the apostles could have written thus concerning the apostles, as it is written in Eph. ii. 20, but we believe that only Paul, not one of the twelve, could have thus written. Just, therefore, as Paul (Eph. ii. 20) distinguishes himself from the apostles,!° John ' evidently presupposes that he himself does not belong to the twelve. [See Note II., p. 87.]
(8) The indirect self-witness of the Apoc. to its author lies in the relation occupied by the Apoc. to the writings of the Apostle John. In the entire mode of conception and statement, in type of doctrine, and in many linguis-
1 4.9 aq. 6 Cf. also xvili. 20.
3 Cf. Ewald, Jahroficher der bibl. Wise- * Ewald. Cf., on the contrary, Hengstenb. senech. vy. 1853, p. 179 sqq. ® Cf., on the contrary, Meyer.
8 Cf. especially 1. 9-20. ® De Wette.
# xxi. 14, 3 Cf., especially, also 1 Cor. xv. 8, 7, 11.
5 iv. 4, 10. 11 Rev. iv. 4, xxi. 14.
INTRODUCTION. 59
tic peculiarities, the author of the Apoc. is clearly to be distinguished from the author of the Gospel and the Epistles of John; i.e., from the apostle.
It must be acknowledged at the very beginning, that, from the indirect self-witness of the Apoc. on all the sides above mentioned, a completely rigid proof cannot be deduced. For as the Apoc. belongs to an entirely different class of writings from the Gospel and the Epistles of John, as even the Apoc. epistles could not have the same literary character as the three epistles of the apostle, it depends ultimately upon the tact of the critic cul- tivated in the Holy Scriptures, as to whether he will decide that the differ- ences between the Apoc. and the writings of the Apostle John, denied by no thoughtful person, have their ultimate foundation in the difference of sub- jects, or the personal diversity of authors. And this decision is in no way conditioned alone by critical observations as such, but rests fundamentally upon certain theological principles, which in the critical function may be said to be transparent. For, just to the degree in which the visions de- scribed in the Revelation are in their genesis to be regarded independent of the individuality of the prophet, and the composition of the book to be only a relation of images previously objectively formed, and not as a con- ception and composition conditioned by the subjectivity of the prophet,} must the critical significance of the differences indicated vanish. From this standpoint, therefore, it may be asserted that it is inconceivable that the com- position of the Apoc. and the other Johannean writings should have been con-
temporaneous ; 7 yea, the substantial ignoring of the difference between the
Apoc. and the Gospel with the Epistles, in connection with which there is perhaps an allusion still made to the difference in the character of the sub- jects, is from that standpoint much more correct than when it is accounted for by the statement, that, between the composition of the Gospel and the Apoc., there lies almost the life of a generation, in which time the apostle could have developed from the author of the Apoc. to that of the Gospel. Even though this development be not regarded a retrogression, as by Eichhorn and other rationalists, who find in the Gospel and the Epistles traces of old age, an unfitness of John to be the author of the Apoc. is thus assumed which agrees ill with the idea of his apostolic office, and that, too, apart from the fact that then the testimony of Irenaeus, according to which the Apoc. originates with the Apostle John and towards the end of Domitian’s reign, must be abandoned at least as to its latter half. Hengstenb. is therefore, from his standpoint, correct throughouf, when, holding fast to the testimony of Irenaeus even in a chronological respect, he denies that the differences
1 Cf. sec. 2. ® As, e.g., the Catholic Mayer.
60 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
between the Apoc. and the other Johannean writings are such as to justify the inference of different authors, and proceeds, on the other hand, to trace the peculiarities of the Evangelist also in the writer of the Apocalypse. For then the defence rests with all emphasis upon the assumption that John, as writer of the Apoc., was “in the Spirit,” which as Evangelist he was not.? Besides, not only does Hengstenb. see in the declaration, éyevéuny tv rvebyari? that which “convicts of falsehood ” ® the critics who wish the human genius of the writer of the Apoc. to be recognized, in distinction from that of the Evangelist ; but he regards it a priori self-evident that so great a prophecy as that of the Apoc. “could proceed ” only from the circle of the apostles, yea, only from one who among the apostles himself had one of the first places.” 4 This Apocalyptic prophecy, he says, “is the N. T. prophecy absolutely,” the “highest apostolic gift ;” and who “has this in the highest degree need not first assert that he is an apostle.”® This is not meant as though the Apoc. element belonged only to N. T. prophecy ;® but in the sense in which Auber- len also asserts that the summit of all biblical prophecy is the apocalyptic, which is presented in the Book, of Daniel and the Revelation of John.” But just as certainly as the allegorical mode of exposition, by which Hengstenb., Auberlen, etc., find in the Apoc. the most special and comprehensive circum- stances, is incorrect, is it without proper foundation to accord to the writer of the Apoc. the highest honor of prophetic character. It is a kind of exe- getical superstition, which prevents the recognition, by means of an impar- tial comparison, of the difference between the Apoc. and the apostolic and especially the Johannean writings. The essential distinction between the entire mode of contemplation, and accordingly of statement also, of the writer of the Apoc. and the Apostle John, lies — to speak briefly and directly — in this: that in the former a mode of contemplation appealing to the
1 a. a. O. I., pp. 425, 431.
3 4. 10.
8 a.a. O., lst ed. p. 170.
4 j, p. 39.
5 a.a. QO.
6 8. 0. sec. 2.
7 It is characteristic of the three different theological fundamental views which obtain among the critics and exegetes of the Apoc. (8. 0. sec. 2), how the estimation of the book goes hand jn hand with the critical Judgment concerning its apostolic or non-apostolic ori- gin. Hengstenb., Auberlen, etc., regard the book as written by the Apostle Jobn, because
it presupposes the greatest fulness of apostolic
inepiration. Baur and his school regard the book as written by the Apostle John, because standing on so low a stage of Christian, viz., Jewish-Christian, culture, that its production in the apostolic times, whither the strongest tradition points, is conceivable. Lilicke, De Wette, etc., regard the book as not written by the Apostle John, because to them it stands beneath the line of full apostolic dignity, espe- cially as it appears far inferior to the intel- lectual elevation of the Johanyean writings. Cf. De Wette, p. 6: ‘A book, of which we must Jay aside an entire chapter as an empty shell after having preseed out a few drops of juice.’ Cf. also Luther in his Preface of 1523.
INTRODUCTION. 61
senses, and in the latter one to the spirit, is expressed. In the writer of the Apoc., the fancy prevails; while in the apostle there is pure thought, in its free truth, speculative depth, and gracious life-power. When the writer of the Apoc. introduces, prior to the actual advent of the Lord, long series of purely earthly and cosmic plagues, or of such as are produced by infernal creatures, e.g., scorpion-like grasshoppers and ignivomous horses, such fanci- ful mode of contemplation is as foreign to the Evangelist as is the statement of the writer of the Apoc. concerning the nearness of the advent, since the latter not only regards the then existing Roman Empire as the last form of antichristian heathenism, but designates a definite emperor, who by the coming of the Lord is to be overthrown and perish. Besides, if such exposi- tors are to be justified, who! hold, concerning this, that the writer of the Apoc. considers Nero returned from the dead as the eighth and last emperor, it is of course comprehensible if the incorrectness of such an exposition becomes, to the criticism of the school of Baur, a proof against the origin of the Apoc. from the Apostle John; but one who acknowledges the N. T. conception of apostolic endowments and authority,? and finds the Gospel with the Epistles of John corresponding thereto, should need no proof that the apostle could not have written such a fable of a Nero redivivus.
If particular examples be required, in order — in contrast with the pneu- matical character of the apostle — to estimate what is peculiar to the writer of the Apoc., who loves to display every thing in concrete, plastic forms, in fixed and defined mass and numbers, we need only recall the seven Spirits of God, the description of the throne of God and the new Jerusalem, the seven angels,‘ the angel of the waters,® etc. ; even general tabular statements of numbers and places * belong here. If the Apoc. be received according to its own presentation, it is easily understood how through this peculiar character of concrete, external visibility, the poetic beauty of the book is essentially conditioned ;7 but at the same time such a species of poetic genius makes itself perceptible as is entirely different from the personality of the Apostle John, devoted entirely to introspection, and most delicately organized for purely spiritual objects and relations.
The characteristic distinction of the mode of presentation (style) is, as a whole, chiefly only the necessary reflection of the underlying. mode of con- templation; yet certain elements and means of presentation also come into
1 As even Niermeyer, who yet wishes to 8 i. 4, v. 6. 4 vill. 2. assert the composition of the Apoc. by the 8 xvi. 5. Apostle John. © Cf. on ix. 14.
3 Cf. my treatise on the Apostle Peter, Hann. 7 In connection with which, there is also the 1876. artistic blunder of villi. 12.
62 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
consideration, which have their natural source outside of the personality of the author, but just on this account afford a fulcrum for the science of criti- cism, by giving the means for judging as to whether the Evangelist John _ has appropriated the items conditioning the mode of presentation in the same way as has the writer of the Apocalypse. It is, in general, a charac- teristic of the deliberation manifest in the mode of thought of the Apostle John, that the statement has something on which it lingers, giving oppor- tunity for calm contemplation, and presenting it on its various sides in what might be called a circular movement about a subject which is still kept close at hand.! United with this is that gracious and gentle love which understands, also, how to use mild speech as a means to reach the heart. But, with this keynote of the Apostle John’s discourse, the manner of the Apocalypse throughout does not harmonize. It is self-evident that the writer of the Apocalypse cannot speak in the key of the First Epistle of John; but if these two works came from the same composer, it would nevertheless result, that just as the distinction’in mode of statement in the Epistles, and the historical writing of the apostle, in no way conceals the essential simi- larity, so, also, the distinction based upon the subject-matter between an apocalyptic and an epistolary or historical style, must still manifest a deeply underlying identity of authorship. But that is not the case. In the Apoca- lypse, another mind thinks, another heart beats, and another mouth speaks. This is not said in the least to the discredit of the writer of the Apocalypse; for there must be in the kingdom of God many men, even many teachers, and yet not every one is to speak like the one who leaned on the Lord’s breast. But this voice of the disciple we cannot recognize again in the language of the writer of the Apocalypse. Even the Apocalyptic epistles, that to Ephesus not excepted, are written in the lapidary style of brief sen- tences of the sharpest precision. The introductions rade Aéyes, «.7.A, the incon- trovertible oida, the incisive reproofs, peremptory demands of repentance, and direct threats, even the accredited sentences and rich promises, possess, in the most pregnant way, the majestic sublimity which is peculiar to the entire book ; but throughout, there is so little of the subtile magic of the apostle’s mildness, which expresses itself in the gentle harmony of a flexible style, that on the other hand, even in the minutest details, the structure of words and sentences of the writer of the Apocalypse is such as to render rough and stiff his language, which by its disdain of all polish, yea almost of all signs of inner consecutiveness of thought,? is just as truly the mode of expression
1 Cf. my Comm. on | John i., p. xxix. 8qq- while ches. 1.-{li. are mostly without any ex- -* It has been observed, e.g., that, from ch. press connective; and that the Apocalyptic iv. on, almost all the sentences begin with cai, atyle is remote from that circumstantiality
INTRODUCTION. 68
corresponding to his peculiar mode of contemplation, as it appears foreign to the Evangelist and epistolary writer John. [See Note III., p. 87.]
The mode of contemplation and expression of the Apocalypse has been called Old-Testamental and Judaeo-Christian ; yea, there has been found in it even a strong leaning towards rabbinical and cabalistic representations : while the Apostle John stands at the summit of the New-Testament stand- point, and his entire mode of contemplation and speech is Gentile-heathen, Hellenistic. In this point, also, the criticism of the Apocalypse displays the most remarkable irregularities. Herder, e.g., holds to the origin of the book from the Apostle John, and his judgment is: “The whole —the design, from which I can explain, in its place, every thing, to every manifestation, every angel, every sign, almost, I might say, every word —is the vision of Christ in the beginning of the book, clothed in the brilliancy of the Sephiroth.” } To Baur? the Judaic narrowness of the book (as he regards, e.g., Rev. xxi. 14, as excluding Paul from the number of the apostles, and ii. 2, vi. 9, 14 sq., to be an attack upon Paul and Pauline Christianity *) is an historical trace of its origin from the Apostle John. Ewald, who finds in the Apocalypse far more that is rabbinical than do Liicke, Bleek, and De Wette,‘ for this rea- son denies that it is the apostle’s ; while Hengstenb., etc.,5 deny every thing rabbinical and cabalistic, explaining what is seemingly so immediately from the Old Testament, and trying to trace the same in the Evangelist, in order to ascribe the Apocalypse to the Apostle John.
In order, therefore, to establish that the distinction between the Apoca- lypse and the other Johannean writings is accountable by the diversity of authors, there is no need of proof that the Apocalyptic modes of conception and expression are so greatly interpenetrated by rabbinical-cabalistic ele- ments, as Herder even expressly asserts, or that they stand upon so low a standpoint of Judaic bias as the school of Baur believes that it discerns, — for the one is as incorrect as the other, — but it results from two sources that are at hand, and scarcely need citation; viz., the relation of the Apocalypse to the Old Testament, and, even if all other numerical statements be omitted, the application, according to no Old-Testament type, of the art of gematria®
which the apostie delights to present in the perallelism of positive and negative sentences. An appeal to disprove this is improperly made to Rev. ii. 9, xx. 6 (Nierm.). Besides, two in- dividual examples would not prove linguistic ebaracier; but compere these sentences with the apostie’s mode of expression, e.g., in 1 John It. 4 sq., v. 10. 1 aa. O., p. 334.
3 Untere. tiber die kanon. HZvang., pp. 845 aq., 368.
8 Id., § 2, Anmerk.
« Cf. especially Licke, p. 688 aqq.
5 Cf. Hivernick, De Kabbalistica, quae Apocalypei inesse dicitur, forma et indole, Rost. 1834.
® [i. e., the numerical indication of names. See Farrar’s Early Days of Christianity, p.
64 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
for the purpose of concealing (xiii. 18). In both respects, the Apocalypse stands as far from the Apostle John as possible. Long ago it was noted,} that the Apocalypse does not contain a single express citation,? but also that it is filled through and through with allusions to, and reminiscences of, the Old Testament. No book of the New Testament is, in tone, so completely Old-Testamental as is the Apocalypse; but, on the other hand, the Old- Testamental tone is heard nowhere less than in the Gospel and Epistles of John. But the resort to an enigma whereby the writer of the Apocalypse ® describes in numbers a name whose letters, in their numerical valuation, yield that sum, is of such nature, that the writings of the Apostle John do not offer even the most remote similarity; but what is similar occurs in the Epistle of Barnabas, where the number 318 is applied so that 18 desig- nates the letters I H, the initial letters of the name of Jesus, while the 300, which is written with the cruciform T, is made to point to redemption. Similar is the designation of the name of Jesus, in the sibylline books, by the number 888;‘ and the prophecy that Rome will stand as many years as the numerical value of the letters declares, viz., 948.6 [See Note IV.,
p. 88.]
The differences occurring in type of doctrine between the writer of the Apoc. and the Apostle John are, in general, to such an extent conditioned by diversity in their mode of conception, that the particular examples per- taining thereto, concur partly with those above cited. We confine ourselves to the presentation of only a few that are especially clear; more especially, © as even among critics who, because of the diversity in doctrinal views, dis- tinguish the writer of the Apoc. from the Apostle John, it is not firmly established — and, from the nature of the case, it cannot in many cases be firmly established to all — wherein and how far a diversity of individuality in the composer is proved, and how much perhaps must be ascribed to diver- sity in the literary class of composition to which the books belong.® Of most decided significance is the one, that the Apoc. teaches a first and a second ‘resurrection, of which the writings of the Apostle John know as little as they do of the one thousand years reign, which the Apoc. places
468 aqq.; and article by same author, on Rab- 8 xili. 18. binical Exegesis, in The Hxpositor for 1877, 4 Sibyll. Or., ed. Gall., i. p. 176. 1st series, vol. v. 7.] 8 Jd., vil. p. 715 sqq- 1 Cf. Bengel’s Gnomon on i. 3. ¢ Cf. Ewald, Comment., p. 74; Lticke, p.
3 Even noti.7, with which John xix. 37 is 1078qq.; Bleek, Stud. u. Krét., 1855, p. 500 sqq. apt to be compared. But the evangelist quotes; On the other side, Hengstenb., fl. p. 444 sqq.; the writer of the Apoc. does not; andnotonly cf. alaoo H. Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegrif der the wording, but also the relation of the two Apok., Gotha, 1873. [English, Edinburgh, passages, is essentially different. 1878.]
INTRODUCTION. 65
between the first and the second resurrection.!_ But this distinction in the type of doctrine appears especially conspicuous in that the Evangelist also 2 speaks in his way of a twofold resurrection, but properly understands only the second to be expected at the Lord's advent; while he places the spiritual quickening in faith, the passing from death to life,8 as a spiritual resurrec- tion, parallel with the bodily resurrection at the last day.‘ [See Note V., p. 88.]}
No less important is the dissimilarity in the representation of antichrist, and his hostility to Christ and his kingdom. The apostle knows of one antichrist; i.e.,a human personality who will appear in a notable way as an instrument of Satan. We do not believe, as does Bleek,® that John, in his first Epistle, mentions antichrist as an individual personality, in order to correct this idea, and to change it into that of the many antichrists: but, on the one hand, the apostle gives no complete and precise description of antichrist; and on the other, because of the inner connection between the one antichrist and the already present many antichrists, who have proceeded from the Christian Church, and now disturb it by the false doctrine denying that the Son of God has come in the flesh, he appears to the apostle to be not one who attacks Christianity externally through the hatred of Jews and heathen, but who internally agitates it with diabolical deceit by undermin- ing the foundation of faith. All this is different in the Apoc.; and just where an apparent similarity occurs,’ there is in fact the greatest difference. What is the antichrist, the beast from the sea,® or the two-horned beast, the false prophet ?® Each, of course, in its manifestation, appears once in a definite human personality ; 1° but in the person of the Roman emperor, in whom the Roman dominion over the world, displayed under the image of & beast, is concentrated and expressed. Even the false prophet has imme- diate reference, not with respect to an opposition to divine fundamental truth, but only as regards the first beast, whose blasphemous worship he requires. Such an idea of antichrist as the Apostle John indicates in his Epistles 1! is foreign to the Apoc. It not only presents other forms tn which antichrist exists, but has an entirely different tendency and meaning. With this concurs the circumstance that the Apoc. does not contain the name 6 avrixptoroc, to which it cannot be objected that the word is not found in
2 xx. 4 8qq. 3 v. 25 aqq- 5 Cf. my Commentary on 1 John if. 18.
8 1 John ii. 14. 6 p. 208; cf. also Ewald, ii. 864 sqq. « The thoroughly established exposition of 7 xvii. 11. John v. 25 ag. by Lilcke, Meyer, etc., is at- 3 xili. 1 sqq., xvii. 3 sqq., xx. 10, tacked to no purpose by Hengstenb., who ® xiii. 11 sqq., xx. 10.
spiritualizes it. 20 xvii. 11. 2 2 Jobn 7.
66 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
the Gospel of John. For the Evangelist has no occasion to speak of anti- christ; but the writer of the Apoc. could not leave antichrist unmentioned, because it is his express purpose to fully portray the judgment of the Lord upon the antichristian principle whose particular manifestations in the Apoc. are actually presented. [See Note VI., p. 88.]
A deeply penetrating difference in an apparent similarity is displayed also at xix. 18, where Christ is designated by the name 4 Adyog rot Geos. + Al- ready the gen. rod 6eov shows something of a departure from the mode of contemplation of the Apostle John: it is, however, utterly inconceivable to us, how the apostle who wrote John i. 1 sqq. could have described the Logos under any other form whatever. If, against this, we are reminded that the accomplishment of the incarnation of the Word is presupposed by the de- scription in Rev. xix. 11 sqq., the distinctive character of the doctrinal view of the Apostle John is presented on only one side; for the apostle, who, of course, teaches that the Word (of God) has become man, nevertheless no- where designates the divinely-human person of the Lord, even not in his heavenly state of exaltation, as the Word (Logos) of God. Hence Rev. xix. 18 seems to us to testify to a theological mode of thought which remarkably deviates from that of the Apostle John. (See Note VII., p. 88.)
An indirect testimony to the fact that the Apoc. was not composed by the Evangelist John is given, finally, by many particular grammatical pecul- tarities.1 We believe that it is going too far when all the syntactical impro- prieties and grammatical irregularities which at first sight present them- selves in the Apoc. mode of expression are utilized to show the distinction between the style of the Apostle John and that of the Apoc. If the question be concerning the coloring of Apocalyptic style, as a whole, and the char- acter of the Apocalyptic mode of statement expressing itself in the whole structure of the language, which is in its nature conditioned by the nature of the subject, we need only refer to the fact? that the mode of thought which expresses itself in the mode of statement is foreign to the Evan- gelist; but then the simplicity and ruggedness, yea, even the grammatical incorrectness, besides the Hebraic tone of the Apocalyptic language, which appears to disdain the rules according to which man’s discourse is directed, because it has to reveal the immutable glory of divine mysteries,* are no more to be made prominent in the sense that the answer depends upon particular improprieties of construction in the Apoc., which have no analogy in the Gospel and Epistles of John; but these irregularities indicate only the peculiar Apocalyptic mode of statement to which they owe their origin.
1 Cf. Ewald, p. 66 sqq.; Liicke, p. 662 sqq. 3 Bee above. On the other side, Hengstenb., p. 428 sqq. ® Cf., e.g., 1. 4.
INTRODUCTION. 67
On the other hand, it seems to us, in a rhetorical respect, significant, when the writer of the Apoc. does not use such customary expressions in the writings of the Apostle John as are well adapted to the Apocalyptic style, or when, on the contrary, he has favorite expressions of his own, not current with the Evangelist John, and yet such as do not belong within the special sphere of apocalyptic literature. The most important consideration, finally, is when the same expressions are understood and fashioned by the writer of the Apoc. in a different way than by the apostle. In this last respect, most significant to us appears to be the manner which the idea of the Lord as the Lamb of God, derived from Isa. liii., and become the common property of the Christian Church, is expressed by each. The expression of the Evan- gelist, 5 duvd¢ rod 6eod, is nowhere found in the Apoc.: on the other hand, the apocalyptic 1rd dpviov (rd togaypévov) is nowhere found in John’s Gospel or Epistles. When Hengstenb.,? however, says that even the word dpvioy is common to the Evangelist and the writer of the Apoc., and appeals to John xxi. 15, even though it be conceded that this passage was written by the Evangelist himself, the more significant becomes the constant distinction made in the designation of .Christ. For, if the evangelist had used the term dpviov of the lambs of Christ’s flock, it would be the more incon- ceivable if the same writer in the Apoc. would constantly have used that expression of the Lord himself, but by an exception in his Gospel would have selected, in order to express this idea of the Lord, the term dyuvac (rob Geov). [See Note VIII., p. 89.] The word rudy, with respect to Christ and his believers, is common both to the Evangelist and the writer of the Apoc.; but, while the former constantly adds to it a definite object (rdv xoopov, Tov srovnpov), the latter, as a rule,® uses the word absolutely.* [See
Note IX., p. 89.] The writer of the Apoc. thinks and writes wevdje;*® the | Evangelist ‘thinks and writes weoornc-© The former writes ‘Iepovcadju; the latter, ‘IepocéAvya, although the writer of the Apoc., in the formula A and Q, in the enumeration of xiii. 18, and in many particular expressions, follows the Greek mode. [See Note X., p. 89.] Here belongs, also, the use of the /doi in the Apoc., in distinction from the ide by the Evangelist.
No less important than these linguistic variations, and partially con- nected therewith, is the circumstance that the entire series of expressions with which the Apostle John designates his peculiar fandamental conception of Christianity and its life, and which in his mouth, therefore, have such a
1 Acts vill. 32; 1 Pet. i. 19. 1 John ff. 18, v. 4 sq. 2 1. p. 204. 5 4j. 2, xxi. 8. 8 Nevertheless, cf. xi. 7, xii. 11, xifi. 7. 6 John viii. 44, 55; 1 John 1. 10, fi. 4, 22,
4 Cf Rev. v. 5, ili. 21, with John xvi. 88; _—iv. 20, v. 10.
68 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
characteristic tone, since there sounds in them the true and clear mysticism of a profound spiritual] realism, is far distant from the Apocalypse. Ideas and expressions like 4 dAjGeta, roueiv riyv GA70., elvas bx Tic GA90., Gat) aldvioc, 6 xdopoc, 5 xovnpéc, 6 dpyuv rod Koopov Tobrov, Ta Téxva Tod Geod, Ex Tod Geod elva: aNd yevvnbivas, Ta Téxva Tov caPddov, oxoria and ¢dc, closely connected with which is that of nappnoia,) and others, the writer of the Apocalypse does not have. [See Note XI., p. 90.] But he has a phraseology of his own, not used by the Apostle John. The Apocalypse speaks of éroyov;, where the apostle would be ex- pected to use rafpnoia and yapé. Expressions like 7 olxovyévy, of xarowobvrec Ent the yic, 9 uaprypia Ine., 6 wdprug applied to Christ, 4 apy} rig xricewe rod Geod, 6 apurdroxos row vexpav, etc., the apostle does not use. [See Note XII. p. 90.]
The force of all that has thus been said concerning the indirect self- witness of the Apocalypse as to its author does not depend upon particular observations, but upon the impression of the book as a whole. If, then, to an unprejudiced mind, especially to one not biassed by any testimony of tra- dition, this impression is such that the composition of the Apocalypse by the apostle, i.e., the author of the Gospel and Epistles of John, is, at least, in the highest degree improbable, this indirect self-witness of the book is supported by just as decided direct testimony, as over against that of tradi- tion, so far as it contradicts the indirect.
SEC. V.—THE AUTHOR (DIRECT TESTIMONY).
(6) The testimony of tradition concerning the origin of the Apocalypse.
- As the most ancient witness for the authorship of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John, his pupil Polycarp dare not be cited. Hengstenb., who finds both in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, and in the encyclical letter of the church at Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of their bishop, ‘“‘numerous and, in part, very clear traces” of the Apocalypse, especially makes prominent a passage “ which justifies us in regarding it among the gentler hints;” viz., Ep. to the Phil., ch. vi.: Otdru¢ oby dovAciowpev abr yerd g6Bov xal ndone evAaBeiag abd abrdg evereidaro, cai ol evayyedodpevor Rude GxdoToAdt, xal of rmpogfrat, of mpoxnptEavrec trav EAevoty rod xupiov Huav: CnAwral sepl rd xaAdy, x.7.A. (“ Let us thus serve him with fear and all reverence, as he commanded, and as the apostles who preached the gospel to us, and the prophets who proclaimed before the coming of the Lord. Let us be zealous con- cerning what is good,” etc.). The prophets, says Hengstenb., named after the Lord himself and the apostles, and prophesying of the coming of the Lord, belong to the New Testament. But they are not personally different from
1 Cf. 1 John il. 28, fv. 17.
INTRODUCTION. | — 69
the apostles: on the contrary, prophecy reached its summit in the bearers of the apostolate, and even John himself appears in the Apocalypse as the representative of the prophets.! But since here the prophets could come into consideration only through a generally known and acknowledged repre- sentative, and, with the exception of John in the Apocalypse, such an one is not present, we must, according to the words of Polycarp, regard the Apostle and Prophet John the author of this book. But upon the basis of Hengstenb.’s conception of the expression of xpog#rat, 2 much more natural result would be a direct testimony to the contrary. If the prophets meant by Polycarp, who are mentioned after the apostles, be of the New Testa- ment, they must be distinguished from the apostles; perhaps John, the writer of the Apocalypse, also belonged to their number, — observe the plu- ral of mpog#rat, — since we know that there were several prophetic writings which referred to the coming of the Lord, circulated in very ancient times, and, as the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas, not without ecclesiastical authority. But we are rather of the opinion? that Polycarp had in mind not Christian, but Old-Testament, prophets. That they are mentioned after the apostles, is necessary, because Polycarp begins with the Lord himself, to whom his apostles are added. What the apostle has said concerning the coming of the Lord belongs to their ebayyeAicacba ; but the ancient prophets had already before proclaimed (poxnpié) that the Lord will appear for judgment. Upon this Old-Testament prophecy, Poly- carp bases his earnest admonition, like Clement of Rome.
Papias,4 Hengstenb. claims as a witness to the composition of the Apoca- lypse by the Apostle John with the greater emphasis, as he regards him an immediate pupil of the apostle. The latter point is especially to be kept in view, as well because of the testimony which Papias actually gives — even though according to the documents offered only mediately — concerning the origin of the Apocalypse, as also because of the highly characteristic way in - which that assumed relation of Papias to the Apostle John is stated by sev- eral Church Fathers to be a very important part of the ecclesiastical tradition concerning the Apocalypse. It is established by a testimony of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius,® that Papias composed only one writing; viz., five books under the title of Aoyiwy xupiaxay tEnynou. In a fragment of this work,® expressing his predilection for oral tradition to be acknowledged trust- worthy, he says: & dé mov xal mapnxodovOyxdc tic Tol¢ xpecBvrépoic EABaL, Tove Ti
1 4.1, xxii. 6, 9, 16. 4 Cf. Weilffenbach, Das Paptasfragment, 3 With Licke, p. 520 sqq.; Bleek, Stud. u. Giessen, 1874. On the other side, Leimbach, Fritt., 1855, p. 181 aq. Das Paptasfragment, Gotha, 1875.
8 Ep. to the Corinthians, 1., 0. 23, 5H. £., ii.30. © In Eusebius, as cited.
70 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
npecBurépuy cvéxpivov Aoyouc* ti Avdpéac # ri Ierpoc elmev ) ri Sidernos f ti Owpds ® "laxwBoc } ti lwdvenc 7 Marbalog 9 rue Erepog tev Tod Kupiou pabyTaov, & te Aptoriav cai 6 xpecBbrepoc lwavyne, ol rod xupiov pabyrat Aéyovow (“If then any one hav- ing attended upon the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples said; which things Aristion and the Pres- byter John, the disciple of the Lord, say”). From these words, Eusebius infers that Papias mentions two persons of the name John; viz., the apostle who is named in the rank with Andrew, Peter, Matthew, etc., and the John designated by the special title 6 xpeoBtrepoc, who of course with Aristion belonged, as well as the apostles mentioned, to the disciples of the Lord, i.e., to his immediate ear and eye witnesses, but yet in the most express manner is distinguished from the twelve. In the second place, from these words Eusebius infers, what he confirms by other passages of Papias not further quoted ; viz., that Papias was an immediate pupil, not of the Apostle, but of the Presbyter John.! Neither of the facts presented by Eusebius, from the quoted words of Papias, is recognized by Hengstenb. when he ventures to assert that those words, just as they sound, could be understood otherwise than Eusebius has interpreted, and that therefore in them no distinction is to be made between the Apostle and the Presbyter John, as two separate persons. We maintain, on the other hand, that there is no need of opposing any thing further than a reference to the text, which seems so unambiguous that we regard any reference to the exegetical discussion cited from Eusebius as superfluous. What deceives Hengstb., so that he misunderstands the correct meaning of the words of Papias, is not only the fear of losing the testimony of Papias to the composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John, but also the dread of ascribing to Irenaeus a significant error in the same respect. When, e.g., Irenaeus writes, Tatra d xa? Waniag "Iwavvov pév dxovorig, TloAvxdprou dt éraipog yeyoviec, dpxaloc avi, tyypague éxtpaprupel «.7.A, (“To these things Pa- pias, a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, bears witness in writing”),? he undoubtedly designates Papias as a hearer of the Apostle John: in the mouth of Irenaeus, the mere name ‘Iwévvou dx, can refer to no other person, especially since, in what precedes, it is expressly said of
1 Tlaw, rove pev treov awogrév\wy Adyous wapa Tay avTois mapyKoAovOnxcTwy dpodoyet WapeAn- ddvac, "Aptoriwvos 8¢ nati rou mpecBurdpov "lwdvvou avuryxoow davrov dna yerdoOa dvopacri your moAAdas avtray mynuovetoas éy Tots avrod ovyypdépace TiOnow avTrew wapado- ges (Papias affirms that he received the
sayings of the apostles from those who accom- panied them, and he further asserts that he heard in person Arietion and the Presbyter John. Therefore, frequently mentioning them by name, he gives their traditions in his writ- ings’).
2B. V., xxxill. 4.
INTRODUCTION. 71
the Apostle John, Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipu- lum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de tlis temporibus docebat Dominus et dicebat (“ As the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concern- ing those times! and say”). Then follows the well-known story of the mythical vines.?, But with the same justice with which we refuse credit to this report of Irenaeus, upon the ground of what we know of our Lord’s dis- courses through the Apostle John in his Gospel, must we also, on the ground of the testimony of Papias, charge Irenaeus with an error when he makes Papias a pupil of the Apostle John,® although he announces himself as a pupil of the Presbyter John.
The question now is, What did Papias testify concerning the Apoc. ? We have three data whereby this question may be answered. 1. Towards the end of the fifth century, Andreas writes, in the introduction to his Com- mentary on the Apoc., that there was no need to speak at length concerning the inspiration of the book,‘ since not only Gregory and Cyril, but also the more ancient writers, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, testified to its trustworthiness. Passages from these writers were also quoted in his commentary. That Papias, in express words, stated that the Apooc. was “trustworthy,” or in what way he established this, Andreas does not say. Papias scarcely could have had already occasion to defend the Apoc. against attacks ; but it is, on the contrary, highly probable that Andreas derived his testimony for the trustworthiness of the book from the circumstance that Papias and the other men mentioned quoted the Apoc. in their writings as Holy Scripture. ‘A£<émorov (trustworthy) is in Andreas the correlate for Geérvevoroc (inspired). At any rate, the important fact is established, that
1 By “those times” are meant “the times of the kingdom when the just, rising from the dead, shall reign.” ‘
3 “The days shall come in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and fm each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine,” etc.
8 Hengstenb. is io error when he regards this as also the former opinion of Eusebius. In his Chronikon, there is related with historical fidelity, first, what Irenaeus states concerning the length of the life of the Apostle John; and,
secondly, that Papias and Polycarp had been regarded as pupils of the Apostle John (ed. Aucher. ii. 60: ‘‘Joannem apost. usque ad Trajani tempora permaneiase Irenaeus tradit. Post quem ejusdem auditores agnoscebantur Papina Hieropolitanus et Polycarpus,” ete. ‘*Trenaeus teaches that the Apostle John re- mained until the time of Trajan, after whom Papias of Hieropolis and Polycarp were ac- knowledged as his hearers”’). Hence it does not follow that Polycarp was properly regarded such, and that Papine was actually a pupil of the Apostie John.
© wepi tov Geomvevorou trys BiBAov.
5 say dpxasorépoy Llarxiov — ralty spoc- maprupovyTey Td afidmieroy.
72 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Papias used the Apoc. as an inspired writing. But Hengstenb. very precipi- tately infers from this, that Papias therefore testifies to the composition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John. Andreas also has apparently presupposed this, but with the same want of foundation, and undoubtedly influenced like- wise by the (erroneous) testimony of Irenaeus, who is mentioned together with Papias. That Papias has not expressly mentioned the Apostle John as the author of the Apoc., must also be inferred from the silence of Eusebius. on this highly important subject, although the term af:émerov of the Apoc. in the sense of Papias is perfectly justified in case he understands, as the composer of the book, that John whom he calls the presbyter; for this Presbyter John also, together with Aristion, Papias regards as, in addition to the apostles, a source of the pure doctrinal tradition, since he stood on an equality with them by being an immediate disciple of the Lord. 2. From the words of Papias, which Andreas quotes on Rev. xii. 7, nothing can be inferred concerning the question as to what John, Papias regards the author of the Apoc. It is even in the highest degree doubtful, whether that cita- tion from the writing of Papias had any direct reference to Rev. xii. 7.) Andreas, in explaining what is said in Rev. xii. 7, according to the doctrine that the angels to whom God had intrusted a certain sovereignty over the world, had fallen from their estate because of pride and envy,? quotes ver- batim,® for the two points of this doctrine, two passages of Papias: éviosu de abray, dnAady Trav waAat Oeiwy GyyéAuy, xai nepi Thy yijy duaxoopjoeug Eduxev Gpyew* cal Kadis apxew mapnyytnoe. Kal bkig gnot- elc ob déov (62) ovvéBy reAeuTioa: riv rékey airav (‘‘But to some of them, i.e., the divine angels of old, God both gave to rule over the arrangement of the earth, and he commissioned them to rule well. And he says, immediately after this: But it happened that their arrangement came to nothing”). According to its original meaning,- the é#¢ must mean that the second declaration of Papias immediately fol- lows the first; but Andreas notes it by a special form of quotation, because it is to his purpose to support by the authority of Papias his own exposition of Rev. xii. 7, according to the two sides of the doctrinal view on which this rests. Of a “battle-array” of angels, as Hengstenb. translates the word ragec,* there is no mention in Papias; for, even though the reading were not ob dedv, as the older MS. of Andreas has it,5 but oidév, the rage of the angels could be regarded in no other sense than that in which Andreas shortly before has spoken of the ferrwou rig Gyyedinie rdéfews 5° and just in reference
1 Cf. Lucke, with whom also Bleek agrees, 4 Cf. Rev. xil. 7: wodenieas.
against Hengs :nb. 5 Licke, p. 358 sq. 3 wpwrn — ex. TrHTes THs ayytAscns 7h fees. ¢ Litcke has well compared with this what 8 dwi Ades. Justin M. writes in his Apology, il. c. 5: rev
INTRODUCTION. 738
to this cites Papias, because he already teacnes that the rank of angels, i.e., the high station given them by God, has changed to that which is not right, i.e., that the angels have fallen. In case now Papias had even applied Rev. xii. 7 to the doctrine of the angels, which is not clear from the quota- tion in Andreas, it is possible that he gave his judgment in connection with that passage. But, in this case, nothing further would result than what we have already heard from Andreas; viz., that Papias used the Apoc. because he acknowledged its trustworthiness. 3. Besides, from what Eusebius reports concerning the chiliastic expressions of Papias, it by no means fol- lows that the latter used the Apoc. as a writing of the Apostle John.’ Eusebius,’ after citing some fabulous narratives concerning Papias, pretend- edly taken from tradition,® says: xal dAda dé 5 atrig Sody tx napadébceuc Gyoagou elo abrov fxovra maparéBeira, Eévac ré tevacg mapaBoAd¢ rod owripoc Kal didaoxadiac atrod, wal riwa GAAa uvOiaarepa’ tv ols nal xuada Tre gyow lrdv Eceobas peta rip tx vexpdv Gvacracy, owpatiuas ti¢ Xpirov Baoweiac txi ravrnot tig yi¢ txoornoopivns (“ The same person has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition : among these, some strange parables and in- structions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Among these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the bodily reign of Christ will be established on this earth.”) And Eusebius decides: & xa? jyotpar rag amocrolixdc wapexdebapevoy Sinyzoete brodaBeiv, ra bv brodeiypact apdc abtov pvorucs elpnuéva pi) ovvewpaxdta o¢ddpa yap rot opixpds, Gy Tov voy —gaiverus (“which things I think that he imagined, as if authorized by the apostolic narratives, not seeing at the same time the things mystically spoken in addition in the types; for it is evident that he was very limited in comprehension”). Hengstenb. assumes that Papias derived his chiliasm, not from the mapddoor éypagoe (unwritten tradi- tion), as Papias himself asserts, according to the report of Eusebius, but from manuscript sources, viz., from the al dmocrod:ca? denyfoeu (thetapostolic narratives); but since, if the apostolic narratives be understood as manuv- script, “they could be regarded only especially as the Apoc.,” this would prove the Apoc. to be an apostolic book. In order to destroy the plausibility
péy tev avOpumey cal roy bx Tov ovpaydy wpd- paar dyytdois, obs éwi rovTos erate, rapéduwxer. Oi 82 dyyeAar wapaBarres rive thy TAfiv, x.7.A. <** Committed the care of men and of the things beneath tho hesven to the angels whom he ap- pointed overthem. But the angels transgrese- ing thie appointment,” ete.).
1 Cf. Llcke, p. 582 sqq., against Hengstenb., p. 385 eqq.
ae Oa
8 wapabofd riva iorope: xa: GAAa aody éx wapabdcens cis avrdy éAOdrra (“* He relates, also, some other miraculous deeds as coming to him from tradition ’’).
4 Binoe this doctrine has its source solely in the A poc., and is found nowhere independently of this book.
14 " THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
of this argument, there is scarcely need of the minuteness which Liicke does not shun; but it is sufficient simply to indicate that Papias himself, who does not mention a word of any apostolic narratives, justifies his chiliasm alone by the appeal to unwritten tradition; although Eusebius expresses his opinion (#yobua:) that Papias derived his chiliasm by a misunderstanding of the narratives which Eusebius acknowledges as apostolic. But that Euseb. has counted the Apoc. among the apostolic narratives, Hengstenb. does not assert. If thereby, as is probable, he understood all evangelical literature, he has judged concerning Papias from a sound historical basis; for Justin M.,! and still more Irenaeus,? who himself appeals to Papias, and whom Eusebius mentions after the indorsement given chiliasm by Papias, develop their chiliastic opinions in no way from the Apoc. alone, but just as assuredly from passages in the old prophets and the Gospels. Papias, therefore, the pupil of the Apostle John, did not say that the Apoc. was composed by the Apostle John; but he is the most ancient witness concerning the book, as he used that which he regarded a writing of divine authority. In the sense of Papias, the dfcémorov of the Apoc. concurs well with its composition by the Presbyter John; and Papias could not have said what must have then led Eusebius into error, under the supposition that this Presbyter John actually wrote the Apoc.
The most ancient, and, because of his age, most important witness to the origin of the Apoc. from the Apostle John, is Justin Martyr. In the Dia- logue with Trypho, written between the years 139 and 161, he says,*® after he has treated of the one thousand years reign according to an O. T. passage,4 Kai brre:ra xat wap’ hyiv dvnp tic, @ dvoua "lwavene, ela trav GroordAay rod Xptorod, ty émoxadipet yevouévy atre xitia Ern roca by ‘lepovaaddju Tove TO huetépy Xpronp moretoavrac mpoegirevoe, x. 7. 2. (“And then there was also with us a man whose tiame was John, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem”). Eusebius ® already has said of these words: péuvyrat d nat ty¢ lwivvov Groxadupeuc, cagag Tov arooréAov abr elvar Aéyev (“ He mentions also the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying that it is the Apostle’s ”). It is utterly inconceivable that Justin would have designated the Apostle to the Jew Trypho, just as the words run; it is also manifest from the nature and design of the writings of Justin, as also from the peculiar character of the Apoc., that we find in other places only a few allusions to it, and especially that in no other passage does he refer to the Apostle John as its author: there is consequently no reason for denying that the words el¢ ray droordAuw
2 Dialog. with Trypho, ch. 81. 8c. 81. 6 Ps. xc. 4 2 L. V. c. 33, 84. 8H. £., iv. 18.
— = eh aad
INTRODUCTION. 75
rod Xpiorod are Justin’s, and esteeming them a gloss that has entered the text previous to the time of Eusebius.! Besides, the very brevity of Justin’s words makes the impression that he expresses what, according to his knowledge, is the view concerning the composition of the Apoc. uni- versally held in the Church. Whether he knew of any other tradition, we are not informed: he certainly spoke according to a tradition indubitable to himself. Nevertheless, the objective certainty of this tradition repre- sented by Justin does not depend upon the fact that? the dialogue with Trypho was held at Ephesus, and that, too, scarcely.a half-century subse- quent to the composition of the Apoc.* For even if we ignore for the present the contrary testimony given by the Apoc. itself concerning its author, and ita time of composition, the tradition that it was written towards the close of Domitian’s reign rests upon no word of Justin; and, even though it should be conceded as at least highly probable that the confusion of the Apostle with the Presbyter John lies at the foundation of the tradition represented by Justin, it is in no wise inconceivable, that also in Ephesus, where the activity of the apostle for years forced the remembrance of the presbyter into the background, a tradition gained entrance which ascribed to the apostle a book whose esteem by the Church was constantly increasing.
The importance of Justin’s testimony is increased by that of Irenaeus, who follows the tradition of the former concerning the composition of the Apoca- lypse by the Apostle John, but also adds something concerning the time of composition. Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen and heard Polycarp,* not only quotes many passages of the Apocalypse as a work of the Apostle John, but also writes,® in defence of the reading xéc’ (666) of Rev. xiii. 18: & KGot Toic oxovéalou nat apxalou dvriypapots Tod dpiOuov Tobrou Ketuévov, Kal paptupobyTwy abrov bxeivey tov kar dw tdv '"lwdyvny bwpaxérav, «7.4. (“This number being found in all approved and ancient copies, and those who had seen John face to face testifying”). After he has treated of the doubtful meaning of that enigmatical number, he continues that it was not the intention of the seer that the meaning should at once be discerned: & yap éde: dvagavddv TH viv xaip anpvrrecbat tobvoua abrod, de exzivov av ebpedn rod Kai tiv drondAupy éwpaxéroc. obde yop xpd moAAod xpdvov woah, GAAA oxeddw Eni THE hpyetéipac yeveds, mpdc TH TéAeL THE Aopetiavod doxnc (“For if it were necessary that his name should be dis- tinctly revealed in the present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision; for that was seen no very long time
2 Against Rettig: Uber das erweislich Alteste 8 Hengstenb. Zeugniss far die Aechthett der Apok., Leipz. 4 Ed. ad Fiorin., in Euseb., H. Z., v. 20; 1829; ef. Liicke, p. 549 sqq. Iren., Opp., i. p. 822.
2 Cf. Eugeb., 1. c. 5 L. V.c. 30; Euseb., v. 8.
76 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign”). Ire- naeus as “a true Catholic Churchman, in whom the Oriental and Occidental dogmatical and ethical traditions are concentrated,”? is of high importance, as he establishes the existence of the traditions which we have first found in Justin, and whereof there are still other traces from the second century,? and that, too, without having the opportunity to consider a contrary tradition concerning the origin of the Apocalypse. If we add further that the Alex- andrians, Clement and Origen, and that Tertullian and Cyprian, without much reflection used the Apocalypes as a writing of the Apostle John, and that even Dionysius of Alexandria, who from the testimony of the book itself argues against its composition by the Apostle John,® does not depend upon a critical examination of the favorable tradition, Irenaeus appears as the most important witness of a very extensive and indubitably received account. Hengstb. also finds the strongest proof of the historical truth of this tradition in the testimony of those who had seen John. We concede that the paprupoiyres cited by Irenaeus, which is decisive as to the correctness of the reading in Rev. xiii. 18, in the sense of Irenaeus, must be taken as a testimony for the composition of the book by the apostle; and further, that, according to the same sense, we must decide whether the self-witness of the Apocalypse be not directly contrary to that of Irenaeus and the tra- dition which he represents. But just because of this self-witness of the Avocalypse, we deny that the men who themselves actually saw John, and who were competent witnesses concerning the true reading of the Apoca- lypse, actually testified what Irenaeus undoubtedly presupposes, and Hepg- atenb. asserts; viz., that the Apostle John composed the book. The question is as to whether we are in any way to explain the misunderstanding of Ire-
1 Licke, p. 573.
2 The fragment of Murato.1 (Wicseler, a. a. O.; cf. J. Van Gilee, Disputatio de antiquis- simo tibrorum sacrorum N. Foed. catalago, qui vulgo frag. Murat. appellatur, Amst. 1852) quotes, at any rate, the Apoc. of John, even though the text is uncertain. According to Ewald (Jahrb. 18538, v. p. 185; cf. Joh. Schriften, il. p. 349 aqq.), the fragmentist re- gards the Apoc. as a work of the Apostle John, but remarks that it is not generally ac- knowledged. But the latter statement Ewald bases upon the improbable conjecture that in the sentence, ‘‘ Apocalypses etiam Joannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam [quas?] quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt’ (‘‘ The
Apocalypses of John and Peter also, we only receive, which some of ours are unwilling should be read in the church ’”’ ), instead of the last word noluni?, it should read volunt (wish, intead of are unwilling). Like the fragmentist, undoubtedly, the rest, who ueed ‘the Apoc. of John,” thought of the Apostie John. 80 Melito, who (according to Euseb., #7. £., tv. 26) wrote Concerning the Devil, and the Apoc. af John ; Polycrates (id.); the churches of Lyons and Vienna, who in their letter (in Euseb., v. i.) employ the term Apoc., without designating the author; Theophilus, who “ uses proofs from John’s Apoc.”’ (Euseb., iv. 24), and Apol- lonius, of whom Euseb. (v. 18) makes the same
report. 3 In Euseb., Z. Z., vil. 25.
INTRODUCTION. T7
naeus, which must have occurred as certainly as the Apocalypse itself con- tradicts this chief witness, as well as whether we perhaps can find traces of another tradition deviating from Justin and Irenaeus, but not harmonizing with the declarations of this book.
That those paprupooyres gave their testimony orally to Irenaeus himself, is not only not said, but the present form paprvpévyrwy permits us, on the con- trary, to think of witnesses still at hand, as well as those otherwise considered accessible, as, e.g., such men as in their writings mention the Revelation of John, and especially xiii. 18, men like Papias, whom Irenaeus erroneously considers as “having seen John face to face,” and others who actually might have seen the apostle. In like manner, as from the superscription - of 2 and 3 John (6 xpeoBirepoc), the tradition arose that these Epistles were written by the Presbyter, and not by the Apostle John,! the tradition of the composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John was the more readily attached to the name whereby he generally calls himself, as, in the remembrance of the Church, the presbyter must naturally have become, more and more, less prominent when compared with the apostle. The cir- cumstance that both were active in the same neighborhood of Asia Minor, perhaps simultaneously, might have supported the mistake. Here lies the weak point in the otherwise so strong a bulwark of ecclesiastical tradition, advanced by such a man as Irenaeus, its leading representative. He is chargeable with two closely connected misunderstandings: he has made Papias a pupil of the Apostle John, and, without doubt chiefly upon the apparent authority of this man, who is placed by Andreas among the oldest witnesses concerning the Apocalypse, John the author of the Apocalypse is regarded the apostle; while, in doth cases, the self-witness of Papias and of the writer of the Apocalypse contradict the statement of ecclesiastical tradition.
It would be strange, if in Christian antiquity there were no trace of a correct understanding of the declarations of the Apocalypse itself concerning its author, in opposition to the prevalent tradition, which, from a misunder- standing of the name of John in the Apocalypse, designates the apostle as its author, just as. Euseb. expressly contradicts the statement (of Irenaeus) that Papias was an immediate pupil of the apostle, upon the ground of the very words of Papias. Such a trace is found not only in the rejection of the Apocalypse on the part of the Alogi, due to an antichristian mode of thought, nor only the judgment of the Roman presbyter Caius, resting upon the same grounds, that the Apocalypse was composed by Cerinthus and supposi-
1 Cf. my Commentary, vol. fi. p. 460 sqq.
78 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
titiously ascribed to the Apostle John.1_ From the fact, that, in the Shep- herd of Hermas, the Apocalypse is not used,? no conclusion dare be drawn concerning any opinion of Hermas as to the non-apostolic origin of the book,® especially as, on the other hand, it is probable that his entire writ- ing, because of its apocalyptic nature, originated from the model of the Johannean Apocalypse, so that the Shepherd itself directly confirms what even without it stands fast; viz., that the Apocalypse, which Papias already regarded inspired, at the time of Hermas and in his circle enjoyed ecclesi- astical authority. The silence of 2 Peter, emphasized by Liicke, is to be explained in the same way. For, if the Epistle be genuine, it was written before the Apocalypse; but if it were written in the beginning of the second century,‘ it is very readily conceivable that the blasphemers expressly men- tioned 5 asked their unbelieving question because they saw the prophecies of the Apocalypse concerning the Lord’s coming unfulfilled. But why is the Apocalypse, together with the four general Epistles (2 and 8 John, 2 Peter, and Jude) wanting in the Syriac translation, the Peschito, originating at the time of Irenaeus, about the year 200? The conjecture at least is at hand, viz., that, in the most ancient Syrian tradition, the apostolic origin of the Apoc. was no more received than that of 2 and 8 John: for only in later times, after the introduction of montanistic chiliasm, is the strange phe- nomenon explained, that the Apoc. is received as a work of the Apostle John and inspired, and yet classed “among the apocrypha,” év droxpi¢orr ; © i.0., regarded inappropriate for public ecclesiastical use, yea, even such as should be expressly excluded from the ecclesiastical canon,’ because of the fear of its being misunderstood and abused. More explicit in proof, are the verdicts of Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. The fact that Dionysius, the pupil and successor of Origen, reached his criticism of the book in his con- troversy against its chiliastic abuse, makes the calm, clear thoughtfulness of his criticism, based upon the nature of the Apoc., the more praiseworthy
1 In Euseb., H. Z., ili. 28 : KijpivOos 6 8" awoxa- Avwewr was Utd awogrdAoy peydAov yeypappdver Teparodroyias huiv ws 3s’ ayyéAwy aure Sederypd- vas Wevddpevos éweesaye: Adywr, meta Thy avac- Tac éwiyeoy elvas Td Bacideor Tov Xmorov, wai wadwy éwOupiacs cai Hoovats dy “IepovoeAne Thy odpxa wmodttevoundyvny SovdAevew, «.T.A. (“But Cerinthus, by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great apostle, also falsely pretended to wonderful things, as if they were shown him by angels, asserting that after the resurrection there
would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that the flesh, again inhabiting Jerusalem, would be subject to desires and pleasures”).
3 Cf. Lticke, p. 546, againet Stern, who at- tempts to find a use of it in particular pas- sages.
3 Against Liicke.
4 As Huther thinks.
8 2 Pet. il. 3.
6 Gregor. Nyss., in Liicke, p. 629.
7 Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Naz!- anz., in Lticke, pp. 680, 682.
INTRODUCTION. 79
and important, when compared with the anti-chiliastic arbitrary decision of a Caius. Dionys.! stands entirely upon the basis of inner criticism: from the testimony of the Apoc. itself, he infers that the author could not be regarded as the Apostle John; and a comparison with the indubitable writ- ings of the apostle he uses as a further proof of the view that the author of the Apoc. could not have been the well-known apostle. At the same time, Dionys. in no way denies that the author was a holy and inspired man, of the name of John.? It is manifest that Dionysius knows that his view is in conflict with the ecclesiastical tradition, which also his predecessors, Clement and Origen, follow; he also is acquainted with no tradition favorable to himself: his opposition, therefore, contains a testimony to the prevalence of the tradition concerning the composition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John. Yet hereby the importance which scientific criticism must attach to Dionys. is not diminished; for the main point is, if we otherwise may ask the eccle- siastical tradition concerning its foundation in truth, that we have in Dio- nysius a man just as churchly disposed as he is scientifically cultured, whom the ecclesiastical tradition did not hinder from-understanding correctly the testimony of the Apoc. concerning itself, and from combining with the exe- getical opposition to the chiliastic exegesis represented by Justin and Ire- naeus, @ critical opposition to the tradition concerning the composition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John, going hand in hand with that exegesis.® Important already is the fact that Dionysius, upon the ground of the Apoc. itself, protested against the tradition which misunderstood the book. He is supplemented by Eusebius the historian, since this writer also applies the testimony of Papias — only understood differently than by Irenaeus, i.e., in the sense of Papias himself — against the commonly received ecclesiastical tradition. Eusebius‘ is uncertain whether the Apoc. should be enumerated among the dpodcyoupéva or the véGa, What causes his vacillation is not the subjective criticism of Dionysius, but, as may be learned also from Book III. c. 39, especially the testimony of Papias; for in connection with his
! Cf. Euseb., H. Z., vil. 94, 25.
2 cadcioOa: wey ody avroy “ludvyny, nai elvat Thy ypadiny “ladyvov ravryy, ovx ayrepw’ ayiou may yap elvas rivos cat Ceowvevoroy cvvaiva, ov why peding av ovrbolipny rovrov elvas tiv axdc- todov, «.t.A. (“I do not deny, therefore, that he was called John, and that thie was the writing of a Jobn; and I agree that it was the work also of some holy and tnspired man. But I would not readily agree that this was the apostle,” etc.).
8 In the exegetico-critical treatment by Dio- nysius, the theological tendency ie already to be recognized, against which men of the pres- ent day, like Hengstenb. and Auberlen, make resistance. Hence a deeply rooted principle comes to the surface in a characteristic way, in that Hengstenb. disparages Dionysius just in the degree that Llicke gives him the most just recognition.
A. £., wl. 25.
80 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
contradiction of the report (of Irenaeus) that Papias himself had heard the Apostle John, — although Papias calls himself a pupil of the Presbyter John, — Eusebius expresses the conjecture that John, the writer of the Apoc., might be identical with the Presbyter John.1_ The testimony, therefore, that the Apostle John wrote the Apoc., Eusebius can find nowhere in Papias. Papias has mentioned one called John as the author of the book; but he has nowhere expressly designated him as his teacher, for otherwise Eusebius would more confidently express his conjecture that the presbyter is actually its author. Yet for us, who with Dionysius, and in accordance with the testimony of the Apoc. itself, deny that the Apostle John is its author, the conjecture of Eusebius is the only one tenable. For, on the one hand, the apocalyptic John presents himself as a personality well known and esteemed in the circle of churches in Asia Minor; and, on the other hand, Papias, in speaking of the Apocalypse of “the John,” points to an author by whose per- sonality the trustworthiness of the book was assured. Of John Mark, whom Papias designates by the uniform name Mark, we cannot think: we know also, through Papias, of only two men by the name of John. If we cannot regard the apostle the author of the Apoc., we must abide by the probable conjecture of the Presbyter John. (See Note XIII., p. 90.)
What the ecclesiastical tradition says concerning the time and place of the composition of the Apoc. is of such a nature that thereby the error which lies at the foundation of the traditional statement concerning the person of the author is only presented on another side. All statements of ecclesiastical tradition concerning the time and place of composition are inseparably connected with that concerning the banishment of the Apostle John to the Island of Patmos; i. e., they proceed from an utter misunder- standing of Rev. i. 9, in like manner as the tradition concerning the com- position of the book by the apostle is based upon the name of the author of the Apoc. The first to speak of a martyrdom of the Apostle John is Polycrates, who? writes: Eri d2 xai lwdvene 6 tnt 1d oriG0¢ Tov Kupiov dvarecéy — xal paptuc (“John also, who rested on the bosom of the Lord —and mar- tyr’’). Undoubtedly he had in view Rev. i. 9, and follows the tradition that the apostle wrote the Apoc. Irenaeus is the first to make a statement concerning the time of origin of the Apoc., and that, too, in such a way as to designate manifestly, besides, the time of the apostle’s banishment. In the passagé already cited, he says the Apoc. was beheld already at the end
1 eixds yap rdw Sevrepor, ei ps Tic €OéAoc roy _—itthe first class, the Apoc. called by the name of Zpetov, Thy én’ byéparos hepomeryny "Iwdyvoy John’). aroxdAuyi dwpaxevas ("It is proper to regard 9 In Euseb., . Z., tii. 31, v. 24. in the second, unless some one would prefer in
INTRODUCTION. 81
of Domitian’s reign. That this is the meaning of the words,! and that the view of Wetstein,? whom Béhmer ® follows, viz., that éwpé6y is to be referred to John himself,‘ is incorrect, follows partly from the clear correspondence between rv droxaAvyv éwpaxérog and éwpa6n, and partly from the fact that Irenaeus § reports that the Apostle John lived in the time of Trajan. The meaning of Irenaeus in presenting in contemporaneous connection the be- holding of the revelation and the end of Domitian’s reign, we can explain by the words of the perhaps contemporary Clement of Alexandria:® ére:d} yap rod Tupavvoy redevrioavtog and tie Tdruov rig vagcou periAdev éni tiv "Egecor, x. 7. a, (“ After the tyrant was dead, he came from the Island of Patmos to Ephesus”’).?7 There can be no doubt that the tyrant of whom Clement speaks is Domitian, the persecutor of Christians, who, according to the representation of Eusebius, is portrayed as, in hatred of God, the successor of Nero.® Like Origen, Eusebius ® also reports a tradition concerning the apostle’s banishment to Patmos. The existence of such a tradition is just as certain as that of the tradition connected with it concerning the compo- sition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John; but the unhistorical character of the former tradition is still more clearly established. The entire tradition of the banishment of the apostle is of itself in the highest degree doubt- ful, from the fact # that Hegesippus says nothing of it. He has given no report of any martyrdom of the Apostle John. For it is inconceivable that Eusebius, who" from Hegesippus gives an account of the Christian martyrs ander Domitian, should have made no mention whatever of this apostle, in case he had found in Hegesippus any notice of his banishment; besides, even the way in which Eusebius, at the close of ch. xx., mentions the banishment of the apostle, affords positive proof that Hegesippus knew nothing of it.12 In connection with this silence of Hegesipp., is the two-
1 Cf. already Euseb., H. £.., ili. 18.
3 N. T., li. 746.
3 a.a.O. 8., 30.
4 Zum sub exitum imperii Domitiant con- spectum Suisse. Joannes id, guod non scrip- serat, postea saltem dizisset, cum diu post editum librum fuerit superstes. Wetet. ** That he was ecen at the close of Domitian's reign. What he did not write, John, at least, afterwards said, since he was a survivor long after the book was published.”
8’ L. Ii. c. 22; L. Il. «. 3 (Kuseb., ZH. £., ili, 23).
6 In Euseb., iii. 23.
7 Cf. Origen on Matt. xx. 22 aqq.: 6 82 ‘Pwpa-
lov Bacirtevs, ws wapdboorg Sidarxe, xaredi- moe tov "lwdvyny paprupotyra Sia Tow Tis adnOelas Adyow cig Tldtuov Thy vncov, K.TA. (“But the Roman emperor, as tradition teaches, banished John, bearing witneas by the word of truth, to the island of Patmos’).
3 Eusebius, ili. 17: reAevrwy ris Népwvos OeoexOpias re nai Geouaxias Sdboxov éavrov xareoricato (** At length established himself as the successor of Nero's hatred and war with God’).
® i!. 20; cf. c. 18.
%” Cf. Bleek, Betir., p. 199; Vorles., p. 158 aq.
il 77, £., iti. 20.
33 ré7e 8) ov Kal Toy amdaroAOY ‘leodyyny ard
82 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
fold circumstance that the tradition itself, as definitely presented since Ire- naeus, not only betrays by its constant growth, as well as by its discordancy, the uncertainty of its historical foundation; but also by its reference to Rey. i. 9, indicates the source whence, by the misunderstanding of those words of the Apoc., it has originated. Already Irenaeus says that the Apoc. was seen “at the close of the reign of Domitian,” notwithstanding the fact that the book itself clearly states that it was composed before the fall of Jerusalem. The end of Domitian’s reign occurred in the year 96, in which Nerva followed. The tradition, of which Eusebius gives a report in his — Chronicle,! therefore puts the banishment of the Apostle, and the beholding of the revelation, in the year 95. Clement of Alexandria? reports further, that, after the death of Domitian, the apostle returned to Ephesus, — under Nerva, as the ttadition is explained in Eusebius;® for just as the banish- ment of the apostle is placed under Domitian, of whom it is known that he manifested his hatred of Christians by sentences of banishment, so also the return of the apostle is placed under Nerva, concerning whom it is known that he recalled those banished by Domitian.‘ But at the same time, with Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian mentions a martyrdom of the apostle previous to the banishment to Patmos:® “Habes Romam ubi Apos- tolus Joannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur” (“You have Rome, where, after the Apostle John suf- fered nothing when plunged into boiling oil, he is banished to an island”). He does not need, therefore, the chronological relation between the “in oleum igneum demersus,” and the “in insulam relegatur,” in order to mark this the more accurately. But how tradition received Tertullian’s intima- tion, and still further elaborated it, is to be seen in Jerome, who,® with express reference to Tertullian, nevertheless reports what the latter did not say: “Refert autem Tertullianus, quod a Nerune missus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exiverit, etc.” (“Tertullian moreover relates, that, being cast by Nero into a vessel of boiling oil, he came forth purer and more vigorous”). Like Irenaeus,’ he puts the banishment of the apostle to Pat- mos, and the composition of the Apoc., under Domitian.’ It cannot be said
Ths xatd Thy vyacow guys Thy exi Tis 'Eddcov SrarpBgy awecAnddva, d trav wap’ Hucy apxaior wapakiswcs Adéyor. Cf. alsoc. 18. ‘It was then also that the Apostie John returned from his banishment at Patmos, and took up his abode at Ephesus, as the account of the ancients de- livers it to us.”
14. p. 80.
2 Cited above.
8 H. £., ili. 20.
4 Euseb., cited above.
8 De Praesert. Haeret., c. 36.
6 Adv. Jovinian, 1. 26.
7 Cf. also Victorinus, d. 308, who, in his Commentary on the Apoc., adds: ‘ Con- demned to the mines.” Bidl. maz. Pairum, Paris, T. I. p. 569.
8 De vir. tilusir., c. 9.
INTRODUCTION. 88
that Tertullian, Victorinus, and Jerome contradict the tradition represented by Clement of Alexandria and others: they only make its growth and for- mation visible. Epiphanius, however, testifies to a manifestly contradictory tradition,! by putting the banishment to Patmos, and? the beholding of the revelation, in the time of the Emperor Claudius.* If we ask, finally, _whence the tradition of the apostle’s exile originated, we can derive the answer from the fact that Origen,‘ after stating, upon the foundation of tradition, that the Roman Emperor had banished the apostle to Pat- mos, in order to confirm this tradition appeals to Rev. i. 9, as the apos- tle’s own words: diddoxes 62 Ta rept rob paprupiow éavrod "lwavunc, 1a) Aéyur Tig abrdv xatedinnoe, gaoxuv tv TH axoxadipe raira (“John teaches the facts concerning his martyrdom, not saying who sentenced him, relating in the Apoc. as fol- lows ”) — then comes the citation — xai bouxe riv droxadinnw tv TH view TeewpnKé- vas (“and he seems to have beheld the Apoc. on the island”).
The ecclesiastical tradition, in its prevalent form, contains three insepa- rable points: that the Apostle John is the author of the Apoc.; that he be- held the revelation on the Island of Patmos; and that this occurred under Domitian. Against all three points, even against the second,® stands the decisive self-witness of the Apoc., from the misunderstanding of which this prevalent tradition has developed. But there are also traces of a different tradition, and of a more correct understanding of the expressions of the Apoc. itself. Hence it is the right and duty of criticism to assert that the Apoc. was not written by the Apostle and Evangelist John ; while, at the same time, it can express only the probable conjecture that John, the author of the Apoc., must be identical with the presbyter of that name. [See Note XIV., p. 91.]
SEC. VI.—THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY AND ECCLESIASTICAL USE OF THE APOCALYPSE.
Full canonical authority belongs to the Apoc. only if it were written by an apostle, and, if because of its origin through divine inspiration it were of the same truly normative character as the other undoubtedly genuine writings of the apostle. In both respects the Apoc. appears deficient, yet not to such extent that it must have its place outside of the ecclesiastical canon: deuero- canonical authority, but nothing less, belongs to it.
It does not profess to be the work of an apostle, either truly or falsely; but it was still written in the immediately apostolic times, before the
1 Haer., li. 12. : traces of the uncertainty of the tradition. 3c. 38. 4 Above cited. 5 Of. Lticke, p. 806 sqq., who cites still other 5 Cf. on Rev. 1. 9.
84 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
destruction of Jerusalem, and that, too, by a man who, according to the throughout credible testimonies of the most ancient tradition, himself had seen and heard the Lord, and who, when he wrote his book, filled a promi- nent place in the Church. In the degree that the ancient Church established itself in the opinion that John the author of the Apoc. was identical with John the Apostle and Evangelist, it yielded to an error which already in ancient times contradicted ecclesiastical witnesses, and even at present has almost completely suppressed a gift of critical science bestowed upon the Charch in ever-increasing fulness. But beneath the error lies the truth, necessary and sufficient for its deutero-canonical ae that it was com- posed by an apostolic man.
Yet the book would not have been received into the canon if the Church had not found that it was trustworthy and inspired. The claim which it makes in this respect, that certainly something truly prophetic and resting on a divine revelation is reported, has been acknowledged by the ancient Church as well established; and the self-witnessing Spirit, con- trolling the Church in theological science and Christian life, has constantly confirmed, in essentials, this ancient judgment, but at the same time modi- fied it with increasing clearness and confidence. The more the holy art of the exposition of Scripture has attained an insight into the structure of the Apoc., and the meaning of particular expressions, the less can the Church incur the temptation of regarding the book as a collection of predictions,} and the less will the judgment of those who pronounce the Apocalyptic prophecy the most glorious fruit of apostolic endowment, and the inspiration of the author of the Apoc. the richest and purest work of God’s Spirit, be indorsed by the Church. Christian science and life will always experience the more certainly that God’s Spirit, who spake in the Apostle John as well as in the author of the Apocalypse, found in the former a nobler vessel than in the latter; i.e., while the Apoc. is canonical, it is, nevertheless, deutero- canonical.
The proof for this lies partly in what has already been cited,? and partly in the exposition of details. There are especially three points to be empha- sized, as of the highest importance for the ecclesiastical use of the Apoc.
1. Lf the explanation given below of xiv. 4 be correct, the writer presents a view of marriage not consistent with scriptural ethics. He is, of course,
1 This is the inheritance of unchurchly and rechnung., Stuttg. 1840, p. 74. The author unscientific sects. Only a fanatic could say confidently expects, in the year 1950, the pa- that Bengel derived from an inner revelation rousia, for which Bengel had designated the the limitation of the non-chronus (x. 7) to year 1836.
1086 years. Cf. Priifung der apokalypt. Zeit- 2 Cf. especially sec. 2.
INTRODUCTION. 85
far removed from the heretical prohibition of marriage ;? but, in his Chris- tian advice, he speaks differently from the Apostle Paul.? The author of the Apoc. errs by regarding all sexual intercourse impure, and therefore in assigning those believers who abstain entirely therefrom a prominent place above the other saints.
2. His conception of the one thousand years’ reign has no sufficient support in the analogy of Scripture. The N. T. doctrine, on the one hand, mentions that the general resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment, will occur at the parousia,® but at the same time distinguishes several acts in that catastrophe; viz., first, the resurrection of the righteous,‘ and after- wards the resurrection of all others. Both resurrections, together with the final judgment, occur év 79 mapovoia abrod. But to the author of the Apoc. the distinction between the several acts in the final catastrophe appears so elabo- rated, that between the first and the second resurrection there lies a period comprised within an earthly limit (one thousand years), wherein there occurs an earthly rule of believers no more earthly, i.e., those who have arisen from the dead; and, at the end thereof, the saints, no longer earthly nor to be touched by any enemy, are attacked in the earthly Jerusalem by diabolic and human enemies, who then fall into eternal ruin. These expressions, if we deny their ideal, poetical nature, are self-contradictory, and opposed to the analogy of Scripture. But even what is at least contained in his poetical presentation as the very meaning of the author of the Apoc. — viz., the ad- mission of a diabolical activity against the kingdom of God, immediately before the second resurrection — extends beyond the limits of Christian thought given by the analogy of Scripture.
3. That the author of the Apoc. sees the antichristian power embodied in the Roman Empire, is a natural limitation: this is the occasion for the error that this embodiment will be the last before the parousia.6 But the chronological designation in xvii. 10 sq. not only has proved to be incorrect, but is with difficulty to be reconciled with the Lord’s warning.* It is essen- tially of the same nature as the expectation expressed a few years later, in 4th Esdras, that, with the last of the Flavians, the Roman Empire will perish.’ This last point, which lies in the proper centre of the Apocalyptic
11 Tim. iv. 8. 5 Cf. Tertullian, Ad Scap., c. 2: “ Cum toto 3 1 Cor. vil. 38. Romano imperio, quosque seculum astabit, $ Matt. xxv. 36 sqq. tamdiu enim stadit.” “ With the entire Roman
4 Luke xiv. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 23: oi rou Xpiorov; empire, as long as the world will stand, for it i.e., those actually belonging to Christ, and will stand so long.” acknowledged by him as his own. Meyer to 6 Acts 1. 7. . the contrary. t Cf. Ewald, Geach. d. V. Jerael., vil. 74
86 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
prophecy, alone determines already the deutero-canonical authority of the book, even though the two other points could be obviated. Yea, in itself it might be possible that the idea is that Satan, in the last moment before his final sinking into condemnation, undertakes yet once more an outward, as well as a mad, attack against the kingdom of Christ.
The ecclesiastical use of the Apoc. can only aim at communicating to congregations the sure results of the learned exegesis already existing in the Church. False, and serving a deceptive edification,! is every ecclesiastical exposition and application having. any contents that are exegetically in- correct.2 The ecclesiastical exposition should rather, on its part, be opposed to the widely spread, superstitious abuse of the book.
The question for us now is not with respect to the general foundation of N. T. doctrine upon which the Apoc. stands, but concerning what is peculiar to the book. The Apoc. is the most eloquent record of Christian hope, and of the fidelity, patience, and joy springing from hope. Since the Lord has risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, he will also return to awaken and judge the dead. Christian hope, bestowed with faith in the Lord, holds with inner necessity to his parousia. The prophecy of this parousia is, therefore, not only every prophecy concerning Christ,* but also the point towards which the preaching of Christ infallibly tends. The peculiar theme of the Apoc., therefore, grows from the living fulness of the gospel; and the Apoc. offers splendid models,‘ clearly defined, for the ecclesiastical explanation and application of every prophetical, fundamental thought. The patient hope of congregations will also be exercised and strengthened by the holy art with which the Apocalyptic prophet represents the signs and preparations for the parousia. It is incorrect to directly refer the particular visions of seals, trumpets, and vials, to particular events in secular, ecclesiastical, or governmental history; but it is correct to regard the entire course of temporal things as tending, according to God’s order, to an eternal fulfilment; and also correct are the beautiful words of Bengel,® that we should read the Apoc. “as candidates for eternity.” The long series of preparations, always beginning anew, contains in itself the corrective to the author’s chronological error that the Lord's parousia was at hand.
1 To speak with Calvin on 1 Cor. vill. 10,a (Stuttgart, 1867), is entirely useless. ruinosa edificato. 3 Rev. x. 7.
2 Hence the “ vow concerning the homiletical 4 Che. ii. and lil. treatment of the Apoc.,” by A. F. Schmidt 8 Ordo tem., p. 328.
INTRODUCTION. 87
Nores ON THE INTRODUCTION. I., p. 57.
On the other hand, Davidson (Introduction to N. T., ili. 559): ‘‘ He does not take the title apostle, because, carrying with itself an idea of official authority and dignity, it was foreign to his natural modesty. Neither in his Gospel nor in any of his Epistles does he call himself by that high appellation. He does not even take the name of John in them, but reveals himself in other ways as their author. And, that the title servant of Jesus Christ is more appro- priate here than apostle, is obvious from the nature of the communication. In the Gospel he speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, for then he stood in an intimate relation to Christ as the Son of man appearing in the form of a servant; but in the present book Christ is announced as the glorified Redeemer, who should come quickly to judgment, and John is his servant, intrusted with the secrets of his house. Well, therefore, did it become the writer to forget all the honor of his office, and be abased before the Lord of glory. The resplendent vision of the Saviour had such an effect upon the seer, that he fell at the Saviour’s feet as dead; and it was, therefore, natural for him to be clothed with humility, and to designate himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation.”
IT., p. 58.
The inference of our author {is in both cases unnecessary. Cf. Alford (Pro- leg., vol. iv. c. vili. § i. 86): ‘‘The Apocalyptic writer is simply describing the heavenly city as it was shown to him. On the foundations are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Now, we may fairly ask, what reason can be given why the beloved apostle should not have related this? Was he, who with his brother James sought for the highest place of honor in the future kingdom, - likely to have depreciated the apostolic dignity just because he himself was one of the twelve ? and, on the other hand, was he whose personal modesty was as notable as his apostolic zeal, likely, in relating such high honor done to the twelve, to insert a notice providing against the possible mistake being made of not counting himself among them ?”’
IIL, p. 68.
Diversities of subjects and experience could readily account for the diversities of style and tone. By a similar argument, it might be shown that the Luther who wrote the charming letter to his little boy Hans, concerning the children’s heaven, could not be the same who flung defiance at the Pope in the Smalcald Articles. The Homeric controversy ought to furnish a warning concerning the dangers of pressing diversities to an extreme, where learned critics, after agree-
88 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ing that those writings come from a number of distinct hands, fall at once into irreconcilable confusion, when, on the ground of internal evidence, they en- deavor to assign the various parts to their several supposed authors. All the mild- ness of John in the Gospel and Epistles does not conceal the fact that he was one of the Boanerges (Mark iii. 17; cf. Luke ix. 54, Mark ix. 38). Even the fiery disposition, so tempered with mildness, as exhibited in the Gospel, could be employed in the service of the Redeemer, when the hour came for a change of contemplation from the Saviour in his humiliation, and the very beginning of his glorified life as exhibited on earth, to the beatific vision of unspeakable things in heaven. The sympathetic nature of the apostle immediately reflects the change in his Lord, who is no longer the Man of sorrows, but the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lamb, indeed slain, but now seen worshipped by the heavenly hosts.
IV., p. 64.
Schultze (Zéckler’s Theol. Handbuch, i. 428 sq.): ‘* The distinctions that have been made conspicuous, the Hebraizing style of the Apoc., its vivacious, ardent, imaginative mode of expression, its strikingly sensitive mode of thought, its cabalistic numerical symbolism, —all this, so far as it is established, is ex- plained by the entirely different character necessarily distinguishing a prophetic- apocalyptic from an historical statement. . . . The distinction is similar to that which exists between the historical and prophetical sections in Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah.”’ ;
V., p. 65.
Gebhardt (The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, p. 402) finds ‘‘in John v. 25 the first resurrection, the resurrection of the just; and in John v. 28, 29, the general resurrection to judgment,” by regarding the resurrection from spiritual death ‘“‘now,’’ as potentially, or germinally, the first resurrection. The one “‘is the completion;’’ the other, ‘‘ the beginning, or the germ.”
VI., p. 66.
But if such inconsistency as the author here maintains could be established, it would have a result more far-reaching than the simple establishment of the diversity of writers. If there is no real antagonism between books that are equally the product of divine revelation, no failure to reconcile seeming contra- dictions is valid in this connection as an argument.
VIL, p. 66.
Davidson (Introduction, ii. 555): ‘‘ Yet, in the First Epistle of John, Christ is designated 6 Adyoc tie Gwe, which is nearly synonymous with 6 Adyoc row de08,””
INTRODUCTION. 338]
Alford (et supra, J 110): ‘‘I may leave it to any fair-judging reader to decide, whether it be not a far greater argument for identity, that the remarkable designation 6 Adyos is used, than for diversity, that, on the solemn occasion described in the Apoc., the hitherto unheard adjunct rod Geod is added.”?
VIII., p. 67.
Alford (Prolegomena, $ 114): “The word dpvlov, which designates our Lord — twenty-nine times in the Apoc., only elsewhere occurs in John xxi, 15, not with reference to him. But it is remarkable that John {. 20, 36, are the only places where he is called by the name of a lamb; the word duvéc being used, in refer- ence, doubtless, to Isa, liii. 7 (Acts vii. 832), as in one other place, where he is compared toa lamb (1 Pet. i. 19). The Apocalyptic writer, as Liicke observes, probably chooses the diminutive, and attaches to it the epithet togaypévoy, for the purpose of contrast to the majesty and power which he has to predicate of Christ; but is it not te be taken into account, that this personal name, the Lamb, whether cyvoc or dpviov, whether with or without rod éecd, is common only to the two books?” Cremer (Lexicon, on dpviov): ‘In the Apocalypse, it is the designation of Christ, and, indeed, of the exalted Christ; first, in Rev. v. 6, where the term, especially in the diminutive form, appears to have been selected, primarily, for the sake of the contrast with ver. 5. The reason why the lion, which has overcome, presents himself as a lamb, is that he gained his victory in that form.”” So Gebhardt (p. 112), who adds: ‘‘ Possibly because the writer had once introduced Christ by it, for reasons of authorship he continues its use. It may be, also, that he preferred it, because he desired continually to bring into prominence the contrast between the appearance of Christ and his real importance.’’
IX., p. 67.
Alford (f 112): ‘‘ But surely this is the very thing which we might expect. The vicgy rdv xdcpoy, rov novnpéy, abrotc, etc., — these are the details, and come under notice while the strife is proceeding, or when the object {s of more import than the bare act; but when the end is spoken of, and the final and general victory is all that remains in view, nothing can be more natural than that he, who alone spoke of wixgv rdw xéopov, Tov rovnpév, abrotc, should also be the only one to designate the victor by 6 vac.”
X., p. 67.
Yet both forms are used by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. In the Apoc. it occurs but three times, and in this form is better adapted to poetry.
90 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. XI., p. 68.
Of these expressions, the abstract 4 cA7deca of the Gospel naturally is replaced by the concrete of the Apoc., as the very change in the character of subject suggests; ouly ry dAn@ecav occurs but once in the Gospel, and once in the Epistle; eivas éx tie GAZ8. occurs but once in the Gospel, though twice in the First Epistle; and é« 620 yevvnO7va, but once in the Gospel, though frequently in the First Epistle.
XII., p. 68.
Peculiarities of diction are to be expected, yet Davidson (p. 578 sq.) notes on olxovpévy: ‘* Denoting, as it appears to do, the Roman Empire in the Apoc., it was not suited to the topics discussed in John’s acknowledged writings. It occurs in the LXX. as the representation of ban; and, in consequence of the peculiarly Hebraistic character of the Apocalyptic diction, it is found in the book before us.”? On trouov7: ‘It is not surprising to see it in the Apoc., because the leading object of the writer was to inculcate patient endurance of afflictions and persecutions, and to comfort his readers with the hope of release. The Gospel and Epistles of John are occupied with topics which did not require or admit the term,’’ etc.
XIII., p. 80.
The entire argument of Diisterdieck on the external evidence is unsatisfac- tory, and its careful study can have no other effect than to demonstrate its weakness. See the elaborate arguments on the other side in Alford, David- son, and Stuart, as also in briefer compass in Lange and Farrar (Karly Years of Christianity, p. 405). Cf. also Gebhardt, 1-4. The whole is well summed up by Schultze (Zéckler’s Handbuch): ‘‘ The most ancient historical witnesses testify that this John was the Apostle; as Polycarp, according to Irenaeus, v. 20. Papias appealed, in support of his chiliasm, to the apostolical dinyjcete ; Melito of Sardis wrote an explanation; Theophilus, Apollonius, Polycrates, — all witnesses from Asia Minor, whither the book was sent, — acknowledge it as Johannean, without specially emphasizing that the apostle was the composer, since at that time (as Diist. concedes) this was undoubted. The most important witness is Justin (c. 7r., 81), who lived long in Asia Minor. Iren. (v.) speaks of the many ancient MSS. which would not have existed if the book had not an apostolic origin. Many references occur to it also in the Epistle to the church at Lyons. Contemporaneously with this, the Can. Mur. says that the apostle wrote letters to the seven churches; in connection, indeed, with the remark, ‘Some of us are unwilling that they be read in church.’ For similar reasons, it was translated in the Peschito. But the apostolic origin was not thereby called into question; for, concerning this, Clemens Alex., Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hippolytus in Ephr. Syr., speak with one voice. Previous to Euse-
INTRODUCTION. 91
bius, the apost. origin of the Apoc. was rejected only by Marcion, the Alogi (which signifies little), and the presbyter Caius; the latter only, as an anti-chiliast, maintaining that Cerinthus had forged it as though coming from the apostle. In like manner, Dionysius of Alexandria doubted it, because much in the book is designated as unreasonable. He holds, therefore, that since also, both in contents and style, it is distinguished from the Gospel, and as there were two Johns, it might have been written by the other John; in entire opposition, therefore, to his teacher Origen. Even apart from the obscurity concerning the Presbyter John, in no way cleared up, this view of Dionysius is not tradi- tion, but only conjecture. The Tubingen critics are entirely right in maintain- ing that the apostolical origin of no book is so well attested, throughout all antiquity, as that of this.”
XIV., p. 83.
Trench (On the Epistles to the Seven Churches): ‘‘The unprejudiced reader will hardly be persuaded that St. John sets himself forth here as any other than such a constrained dweller at Patmos; one who had been banished thither ‘ for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.? Those modern interpreters who find in these words no reference to any such suffering for the truth’s sake, but only a statement on the writer’s part, that he was in the Isle of Patmos for the sake of preaching the word of God, or, as others, for the sake of receiving a communication of the word of God, refuse the obvious meaning of the words, — which, moreover, a comparison with vi. 9, xx. 4, seems to me to render imperative, — for one which, if it also may possibly lie in them, has nothing but this bare possibility in its favor. It is difficult not to think that these interpreters have been unconsciously influenced by a desire to get rid of the strong testimony for St. John’s authorship of the book, which lies, in the consent of this declaration with that which early ecclesiastical history tells about him; namely, that for his steadfastness in the faith of Christ, he was by Domitian banished to Patmos, and only released at the accession of Nerva.’’
Gebhardt (p. 10) : ‘‘I decide for the interpretation, justified by Rev. xx. 10, that the author came to Patmos as a martyr; whether as a captive, or more probably ‘as one banished, which was in accordance with the practice of Rome in Domitian’s time, —and which also agrees with one form of tradition, — or whether as a fugitive, which another tradition asserts, cannot with certainty be decided from the tribulation of i. 9, and the ‘leading into captivity’ of xiii. 10, or from the general contents of the book.”’
Schultze: ‘‘ With respect to time and place, the historical tradition is estab- lished by the book; according to Ir. v. 30, during the banishment of the apostle to Patmos, under Domitian: so also Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. fii. 23; Origen on Matt. xx.; Jerome, Cat. 9. Most involved in controversy is the time, since its determination depends upon the interpretation of the entire book... .
92 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Sure indications in the Epistles point rather to the time of Domitian. The state of the churches is one inwardly more thoroughly established; one is at the head (dyyeAoc, not = angel). The erroneous teachers (xvi. 13) are like those in the Epistle of Jude; only with the distinction that they have come forward, not only for the first time, but for a long time already have pursued their course. There were actually Nicolaitanes (not a symbolical designation and translation of Balaam), but not in the time of Paul. In Isa. xi. 8, Jerusalem is compared with Sodom, because, like the latter, it has been destroyed; and in xi. 1, it is not the temple at Jerusalem, but the sanctuary at the end of time, that is meant. .. - After the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem, the last of the apostles, as absolutely the last pillar of the church at Jerusalem, beholds, with the eyes of his spirit opened by the invisible Head of the Church, the future of the heavenly Jerusalem, and, with this, the victory of the Church of Jesus Christ, and its faith over the world and al] persecuting powers.”
So also Davidson: ‘“‘ We therefore assume A. D. 96, as the most probable date of John’s residence in Patmos.’’ Alford: ‘‘ With every desire to search and prove all things, and ground faith upon things thus proved, I own I am quite unable to come to Liicke’s conclusions, or to those of any of the main- tainers of the Neronic or any of the earlier dates. The book itself, it seems to me, refuses the assignment of such times of writing. The evident assumption which it makes of long-standing and general persecution (ch. vi. 9) forbids us to place it in the very first persecution, and that only a partial one. The un- doubted transference of Jewish temple emblems to a Christian sense (ch. i. 20), of itself, makes us suspect those interpreters who maintain the literal sense when the city and temple are mentioned. The analogy of the prophecies of Daniel forbids us to limit to individual kings the interpretation of the symbolic heads of the beast. The whole character and tone of the writing precludes our imagining that its original reference was ever intended to be to mere local mat- ters of secondary import. These things being then considered, I have no hesi- tancy in believing, with the ancient Fathers and most competent witnesses, that the Apoc. was written pd¢ r@ réAee rig Aoperiavod dpxic, i. e., about the year 96 or 97.” Lange, Stuart, and Farrar maintain the Neronian period. Harnack, in Encyclopedia Britannica, suggests that ‘‘the Apoc. was written under Galba, but afterwards underwent revisions under Vespasian, about 75-79, and perhaps in Domitian’s reign of terror, 93-06.”’
"AroxdAupis "Iwdvvov,
‘ This title is according to the evidence (C. 2, al. b. Wetst.; also ® [T., Tr., W. and H.]), and, since it is derived simply from Rev. i. 1, 4, 9, the oldest. Further statements concerning the author run: azox, ‘lwavvou rot Geoddyou (Elz.), nai evayyedoroy — nv tv Tlaruy te wjow eGedoato — f unox, tov dyivv 'lwavvou r. Geod, — anox, Tov dylov bvdogordrov droctdAov Kal ebayyeAoroy napBevou Hyannpévou ExtoTnbivw ’Iwavvou OeoAcyou (cf. Wetst., Griesb., Matthai).
CHAPTER I.
[Ver. 1, x#, W. and H., ludéver.] — Ver. 2. The te after dea (Elz., Ewald) is properly deleted already by Griesbach, after A, B,C, min. The particle does not generally occur in the Apoc., for xxi. 12 undoubtedly is found improperly in the Rec.; and even though xix. 18 after ¢Aevé. has good evidence (&), yet it is absent in A, and is not found in the parallel xiii. 16. At the close of the verse it is added: xai |Se0a jxovce] nal Griva elo Kal & pH yevéobat pera radta (min. edd., b. Mill, Wetst.; cf. ver. 19.— Ver. 8. 6 dvaywvwoxwy x. of dxobovres. Thus the pre- ponderating evidence. The singular and plural also are found in both words. — Modification of the correct lectio media (Beng.). ~— The additions of rotroue to Abyoug (C), and of raira¢ (min., Vulg.., Syr., Ar., Primas), should be here noted. — The reading rdv Adyor tr. mp. in B, x, Tisch. IX., also deserves consideration. — Ver. 4.1 The rod before 6 dy, «.7.A, (Elz.), in opposition to A, C, ®, min., is, like the deov (B, min.), an attempted interpretation. In the same way, the d¢ (Erasm. 1) before #7, instead of the correct 6, — Instead of mvevp. & éorw (Elz.), not mveu, Tov (Lach., sm. ed. according to A; so also x), but mveup. & (B, C, al., Matthai, Lach., Tisch., Liicke). The variations seem to originate with Andreas and Arethas. — Ver. 5. The é« (Elz.) is, according to A, B, C, &, min., Vulg., etc., to be deleted (Griesb., Lach., Tisch. |W. and H.], etc.; cf. Col. i. 18). — Instead of dyarjoavr: (Elz.), according to A, C, x, min., with Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch., read ¢yanavtt, The reading Aotoavr: fudo ard tov ayapriay fuwy is uncertain. Even Lach. and Tisch. have vacillated in their edd. For Aotcavre (Beng., Matth., Ew., Treg., De Wette, Tisch.) are B and Vulg.; but for Avoavre (Mill, Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) are A, C, &, 6, 7, 28, Primas. The é« which suits better Aicayr: is well supported by A, C, &, 12. No decision is afforded by the remark of Andreas: TQ 6? dyanne rév déopwy tod Gavatou Atoarri hudc Kal Tov TI¢ duaptiac KnAiduwy Acboayrt, Arethas says expressly, in repeating both conceptions:
1 In reference to vv. 4-10 of the critical text pectally F. Delitzech, Handsechriftliche Funde, of Lachmann and Tiechendorf, cf. Liicke, Heft I. Die eraemiechen Enistellungen, eto, Fini., p. 488 eqq. For criticiem of text, cf.es- Leipzig, 1861, fi. 1862.
93
94—CO _ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
dirroypageirat rovro xpos duidopov Evvorav, So also, in ii. 2, he trifles with a dittog- raphy of xono¢ and oxézoc, of which the latter has no value in a critical respect. Ewald unjustly suspects Avoavrt as the easier reading. Perhaps Actoavr: has entered the text, because probably with a reference to vii. 14 written on the margin. Andr. and Areth. place A’cavr: first, so that the Aovoavrs may appear as an interpretation. The idea following, in the context (ver. 6), suits better Abcavri, — The 7udv after duapr. is omitted in A, 12, 16, but stands in C, x, Lach. large ed., Tisch. — Ver. 6. Undoubtedly in the rec. reading, éoino. hudc Baodeic kal, x.7.A,, the Baotdeic is incorrect, against A, C, &, 2, 4, 6, etc., which offer Baovdeiav, and that, too, without the succeeding «al; cf. v.10. The more difficult reading, #uda¢ with BaotAciav (Tisch., Ew. 2) is well attested by B, & (cf., on the other hand, Liicke, p. 471), and deserves, perhaps, the preference to jyuiv (A, Syr., Ar., Lach. small ed.) and 7z6v (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. vili.— Ver. 7. For werd (A, ®, Vulg. edd.), C has ex? from Matt. xxiv. 30, etc. — Ver. 8. The discredited addition apy) xa? réAoc is an interpretation. — Instead of 6 xipic (Elz.), the reading according to all the testimonies is xipuog 6 6ed¢ (Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 9. After bxouovg, do not read ‘Inco Xpiorod (Elz.), but é ‘Ijcotd (C, &, Vulg., Copt., Orig., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cod. A has é Xpiorg; several minusc. (according to Wetst.), éy Xpiorp Ine. (Tisch., 1854).— Ver. 11. The addition after Aeyotone, "Eye ety Td A xai Td Q, 6 mpwroc nat 6 Eayaroc cat (Elz.), is without attestation. — Ver. 13. Instead of pacrofc (B, &, C, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]), it is more proper? to write paloic (A, 10, 17, 18, And., Areth., Lach.). Possibly, however, the author of the Ap. wrote aor. contrary to the general usage. — xpvody; so Lach., Tisch., ver. 12, according to A, C, &. Tisch., in 1854, had received the form xpvonyv (Elz.).— Ver. 15. serupwpévy. To this reading, the meaningless clerical error in A, C, points; viz., merupwpuévnc (originating from N, H, I), which form Lach. has received. The modified zexvpapévo: (B, Elz., Tisch.) is without suffi- cient attestation. merupwuévy, perhaps werupwpévy (Mill, Prol., 371, 507; Beng., Gnom., in loco), is supported by the in camino ardenti of the Vulg. (cf. Syr.). The Mas. (x, Tisch. IX.) would belong to the yad«od., but incorrectly; see exposition. — Ver. 20. éd¢, Elz., Tisch.: 6v; incorrect, and opposed to A, C, &, 8, and the usage of the Apoc. Bengel already, like Lach., Tisch. [X., has ods. én? tie 6. pw. Elz., Tisch., after C, x. év 79 6. 4. occurs (A, Lach.) because of ver. 16.
Vv. 1-3. Title and commendation of the book.* But it is not the words ’"AroxaA. "Inc. Xp. that declare the title; but in vv. 1, 2, the prophetic character and chief contents are given,® and in ver. 3 follows its corresponding com- mendation to Christians.
Ver. 1. ’AnoxdAvye, i.e., revelation, unveiling of things concealed as divine mysteries, which are presented to the prophetic view of John, and interpreted to him.‘ Heinrichs incorrectly: dxox. = mapovoia or bripaveia, Viz.,
1 Buidas: pagds xvptws dai dvépds —xara- who has still more authorities. Luke xxiil. 2%, xpnoriws 88 cai éwi yuvacds, pacbds cai wac- in Cod. C, has against this usage, pafoi. ros cuping éxi yuvaicds, «.7.A. ["! wages, properly 2 Calov., Beng. of a man, but by catachresis also of a woman. 8 Prov. i. 1 aqq.; Jer. 1.1; Isa. i. 1. pages and pacros, ofa woman”). Cf. Wetstein, 4 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.
CHAP. I. 1. 95
of Jesus Christ. —'Iycod Xp. in no way an objective,’ but a subjective geni- tive,? but not the possessive ® or the genitive of reception ;4 but by the coutext Jesus Christ is designated as the author and the communicating witness.5 Ry Eduxev avr. 66. To the clause which has been concluded, since féuxev has fv as its object, the next clause deifa: — réyee is connected, as the infinitive deifa marks the purpose of the fv éduxev® and the words 4 dei yev. lv rax., are com- bined as the object of deiga. On the contrary, Heinr. : jv — deiga, so that &dwxev is combined with dcifa: in the sense of permitted, and then this infini- tive is regarded as repeated with the object d'dei yev. & ray. With the con- ception fv Eduxey, cf. especially v. 7, and in general Acts i. 7; John i. 18, iii 11, xii. 49, xvii. 7 sqq.; Matt. xi. 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.” 7 The revelation described in this book, Christ received from the Father, not in the flesh, but when exalted and glorified,® the perpetual mediator between God and man,* in order to communicate it by his testimony to the prophetic seer,!° 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." [See Note XV., p. 121.] deigaz. According to the constant usage of the Apoc.,?* and the context in which the expressions dmoxéaujic and onpaivew occur,!® to which digas, «.7.2, are correlate, this word can be understood not only in general, as Matt. xvi. 21, by “ to point out, to give to know,” 14 but must have also the additional reference to the prophetic vision.15 But it does not follow hence, that by the roi¢ dovAce abrod, the prophets are specially meant, of whom John would here appear as the representative.!® The particular idea shadowed in this con- ception of the deifac is justified, inasmuch as it is immediately explained that it is through the service of the prophet beholding Christ, that future things are proclaimed. —r, dovA. atr., viz., not God’s ? but Jesus Christ’s; as we find directly afterwards, r. ayy. abrov and r. dova, avrov.1® The parallel, xxii. 6, can- not 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. xxii. 9, where the angel calls himself the fellow-servant not only of the prophets, but also of those rypoiyres 7. Aoy. r. 8x84. rovr.). So Ebrard against Hengst. Cf. besides
1 Helnr. through the Logos hypostatically united with
® As Gal. 1. 12; 2Cor. xii. 1. him.”
3 Ebrard. ; ® Cf. v. 5 aqq.; John xvii. 5.
* Kliefoth, who even compares it with Luke 9 Cf. Acts li. 33; Eph. iv. 7 aqq.; Heb. vil. i. 32. 25. 10 Cf, xix. 10.
5 Ver. 5, cf. ver. 3, xix. 10. 11 Cf. also John v. 26.
¢ John v. 26, vi. 52; Matt. xxvii. 34. Cf. 12 Cf. iv. 1, xvii. 1, xxi. 9, xxff. 1. Winer, p. 208 sqq. Passages like vi. 4, vil. 2, 13 Cf. aleo the naprup "Ine. Xp., the dca ide,
etc., should also be compared. Instead of the ver. 2, and besides the Aoy, 7. mpodnreiag, ver. construction of the inf. attached to the passive 3. 48667, that with iva, as, e.g., in ix. 5, appears. 14 De Wette, Ebrard. t Cf., besides, Stern: ‘‘ The knowledge of the % Cf. Am. vil. 1,4; Ew. future events of the Church is imparted by 16 Hengstenb. Cf. Vitringa. God the Father to the man Christ Jesus, 47 Ebrard. 18 Cf. i. 20. So also Klief.
96 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
xxii. 16, according to the more correct reading. — @ del yevéobat bv raze. The object of deta, and therefore, according to the connection with the first part of the sentence, forming the chief contents of the aroxdjvpic as written in the present book. Cf. ver. 19, where there is fuller mention made, besides the future, also of present things. — The dei} depends upon the (not fatal- istic) idea of “the divine ordination which could not be frustrated.”2 The idea of Divine Providence is the essential presupposition of all prophecy.® But when Klief. presses the dei 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 inter- pretation derived from ecclesiastical or secular history. — éy réyee designates neither figuratively the “certainty” of the future,‘ 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 Rom. xvi. 20 and Luke xviii. 8, since not only those passages, particularly Luke xviii. 8 (where the subject is not the concrete future, but a constant rule), are dissimilar to ours, but especially because by the éyyic,® ver. 8, 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,® 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,’ but that the prophet himself distinguishes the beginning of future things, as the beginning of the ultimate completion,® from that distant com- pletion itself. The evasion that the 4» raze is to be understood “ according to the divine method of computation,” as in 2 Pet. iii. 8,° is contrary to the context.°— With the words xai éojuavev, x.7.A., the construction changes. As the onpaivecv corresponds in meaning to the preceding dezéac, because of which not ryv dxoxéAvpw," but 4 dei yev. is to be regarded the object,!? so not 4 dedc,18 but the one who is to show, viz., Jesus Christ, is the subject of éojyavev. The detfac occurs in the way peculiar to onpaivey, i.e., the indication of what is meant by significative figures.!4— dmooreidag belongs to de dyyéAov, and that too without supplying “this prophecy,” 1 etc.: on the contrary, the dzocr. da is absolute,!® and to be understood according to the analogy of the Hebr. 13 19Y.11 Thus Ew. and Ebrard. Hengstenb., whom Klief. follows, tries to combine the &’ ayy. with éonu., because in the N. T. the drooreidac is regarded
as requiring the accusative of the person.!® But Matt. xi. 2, according to the more correct reading,!® is réupac da; by the parallel passage, xxii. 6, the
1 Dan. ii, 29; Matt. xxiv. 6. io Cf. in general Zini., sec. 2.
2 Nic. de Lyra. 11 Ew., Ebrard. — 8 Cf. Am. ill. 7; Acta xv. 18. 12 Hongstenb., Ew. 2, Bleek. 4 Eich. 3 Calov.
5 Cf. ii. 5, 16, iff. 11, xxfi. 7, 10, 12, 20.
6 Cf. ver. 0, xili. 10, xiv. 12.
7 De Wette. A confused conception, accord- {ng to which two unlike views remain un- adjusted with one another.
§ Hengetenb. Cf. C. a Lap., Tirin, Ew., Kiief., etc.
® Vitr., Wolf, etc. (Beck). Of. also Grot.
14 An example, Acts xxi. 11. Cf., besides, Isa. xx. 2 aqq., vill. 1 aqq.
158 C. a Lap., Tirin, Zul., Stern.
10 = Ainschend.
17 Ezek. iv. 13.
18 Matt. 1.16; Mark vi. 17; Acts vii. 14. Cf. Gen. xxxi. 4, xl. 8, ete.
19 Lachm., Tisch. [W. and H.].
CHAP. I. 2. 97
combination of droor. with d’ ayy. is maintained, while it is also to be noticed, that, according to the analogy of all the examples cited by Hengstb., arocrei- Aac must stand before éonu., and that thereby the inner connection with ony. is in no way obscured. — da rov dyyéAov abrov. 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 represent- ing 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.! Cf. xvii. 1, 7, xix, 9, xxi. 5, 9, xxii. 1, 6, and besides i. 10 sqq., iv. 1 sqq., vi. 8 sqq., vii. 13 sqq., x. 8 sqq. Hence Ewald thinks that the angel of ver. 1, and also mentioned in all the visions, even where not named, and where auother is pre- sented, is to be regarded as the attendant of the Apostle John. But where- fore this superfluous attendance if a third one undertakes the showing and interpreting? That the angel? has no more to do than to transport John into a state of ecstasy,*is an arbitrary conception directly contrary to ver. 10 8qq., because there John is already in the Spirit when he hears the voice of the angel. The explanation of De Wette,‘ that the angel is meant who shows John the chief subject of the entire revelation, the judgment upon Rome,® 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 xvii. l-xxii. 6, the same angel does not always appear as interpreter ; for it is difficult to regard the angel coming forth at xxi. 9, who continues from that time to remain with the seer, identical with the one speaking already in xxi. 5.6 Klief. refers to our position, and ascribes to the angel mentioned again in xxii. 8 the office of bringing the full revelation which is still uncertain to angels otherwise occupied. All difficulty vanishes, if, as is undoubtedly grammatical,’ the ca rod dyyéAov abrov be generically conceived * This appears at xxii. 6 doubly supported by the rdv dyyeAov abrod in the mouth of the angel speaking at that -place.° The 6 dyyeAo¢ abrod thus understood can apply to all the individual angels who in the different visions have the office of significative declaration." [See Note XVI_., p. 122.] 1G dobAy abrod "luavvy. The seer designates himself as the servant of Jesus Christ in respect to his prophetic service.11 The addition of his own name ?? contains, according to the old prophetic custom, an attesta- tion of the prophecy.
Ver. 2. What Christ showed the seer, and what the latter beheld (dca eide), that he has testified 18 as a revelation of God through Christ (r. Aoy. r. 6. x,t. pap. ’Inc, Xp.; cf. ver. 1) in this book, in order that it may be read and
1 Cf. Zech. 1. 9, 13, il. 8; Dan. vill. 16, 1x. 21, © Cf. xvii. 1, 7, 15, xix. 9. where Gabriel appears as interpreter, which + 7 Cf. Winer, p. 101. ZUll., without ground, fancies to be our poai- ® Cf. Matt. xiil. 44: rep ayp., xvill. 17. tion. Cf. also Ebrard, Stern. 9 Cf. also xxii. 16. 2 Ver. 1, xxii. 6. 10 Thus even Ewald now maintains (if. 31) 3 Hengstb. Cf. aleo Ebrard. the theory of angele relieving one another. ‘ Cf. Etch., Bleek, Stern. 1 xxii. 9/ Cf. Am. ili. 7; Isa. xlix. 5.
16. 13 In writing, ver. 3
98 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
kept.!_ According to the connection borne by the clear correspondence of the individual parts, the entire ver. 2 belongs to no other than the present book.? But not a few expositors have referred the entire ver. 2 to the Gos- | pel of John.? Others understand r. doy. r. 6. as referring to the Gospel, and T. papt.'Ina. Xp. to the Epistles of John; and, finally, the dca (re) elde to the present revelation.4 ‘Td the former, then, the eide is understood in the sense of 1 John i. 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 1, zapr. "Inc. Xp. is explained as “the testimony concerning Christ,” 5 or when the correct recognition of the subjective genitive is applied to a special testi- mony,® and r, doy. r. 6. is understood? of the hypostatic Logos. The oc- casion for referring ver. 2 not, or not exclusively, to the present book, lies in the aor. éuaprvp. and the false reading dca re elde, So formerly by Ewald: ‘‘who professed the Christian religion, and declared the visions which he saw.” He must thus regard the éuapr. repeated by a species of zeugma, in order to be able to refer the dca (re) eide, according to ver. 19, to the present revelation; while he must interpret the preceding words, as he cannot prop- erly refer to the Fourth Evangelist,® in an entirely general sense. But the connection between vv. 1, 2, 8, is decisive against Ebrard, while the aor. éuaprup. is very easily explained by the fact that John pictures his readers? to himself.1!_ Besides, that the revelation of Jesus Christ 12 belongs to the Christians who are to hear it,!8 is necessary, from the fact that John by his testimony ** brings it to them; this occurs in the present book,!® whose con- tents he therefore charges them to hear and keep. Against Ebrard and Klief, who acknowledge the correct reading, Sou eide, testimony is given especially by the indubitable significance of the expression in ver. 19, and all other passages in which John designates his reception of the vision of the revelation by eidéov. But if the doa elde belongs to the visions here de- scribed, and’ yet cannot designate the position of the writer as an apostolic eye-and-ear witness,!® and if the re is false, then these words must form a suitable apposition to r. Aoy, r. 0.x. Tt. papr.’Ino. Xp, These two expressions are, however, perfectly clear already from ver. 1. The entire revelation, as here published in writing in various Adyoe r. xpog.,!® is & Adyoo 1. dco, because it was originally given by God; it is further a paprvpia 'Inc. Xp., since Christ, the faithful witness,™ “shows” it.2 Discrepant with this is Ewald, ii.: “The
1 Ver. 3. ® “Who did not blush to publicly confess 2 Bo Andr., Areth., C.a Lap., Beza, Beng., and defend the Christian religion.”’
Zull., Bleek (Beitr., p. 192), Hofmann ( Weiss. 10 Cf. ver. 3.
u. £rf., ii. 308), De Wette, Liicke (Zini., p. 510 it ‘* Because, when the book was read in
0qq.), Stern, Ewald, fi. Asia, he already had written it’ (Beng.). 8 Ambrosiast., Beda, Nic. de Lyra, Aretius, 12 Ver. 1. Grot., Wolf., Eichh., Ebrard (who at the same 13 Ver. 3. time refers to “ the apostolic activity” of John 4 Ver. 2. Cf. ver. 11. “in other respects’), Klief. 18 Ver. 3. 4 Coccej., Vitr. Cf., besides, Hengstb. 16 Acta i. 2l1aqq. Klief. 5 N. de Lyra. : 7 Cf. xxi. 6, xxii. 10. ¢ John xvill. 37. Oeder in Wolf. 18 Ver. 3, xxii. 18. 1 Ribera, Ebrard. 19 Cf. xxii. 6.
8 Cf. xix. 18. 2 Ver. 5. Cf. xxii. 20. 1 Ver. L
CHAP. I. 3, 4-8. 99
testimony of Jesus Christ to the truth of this word.” The éuapripnse, accord- ing to its meaning, finally can be said as well of the Prophet John? as of the angel,? who in like manner interprets to the gazing prophet the revela- tion made in the visions, as the latter interprets it to Christians. Even to Christ, as the communicator of the revelation, is the zaprupeiv to be ascribed.
Ver. 8. 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. — Maxdpwo refers alone * to the participation in the kingdom of glory, which follows the conflict and tribulation of the preceding judgments, but not at the same time,® that the godly are to be preservéd amid these judgments. — 6 dvaywdoxwy xat ol dxovovtec, x.7.A. These are not, in spite of the change of singular and plural, to be regarded the same subject;® but by the 6 dvay, the public reader, and by the ol dxobovrea the hearing congregations, are designated.? This exposition is not “more tasteless,’’ but is far more natural, than that according to which daotew ® means, not simply “to hear,” but “to lend the ear of understanding.” — r. Aoy. r. xpog. By this John names this book,® because what he is to publish in the same in writing (ra yeyp. & atrj) is a divine revelation, of which he as a prophet is the interpreter.?° — By the mere hearing, of course, nothing is accomplished: hence John adds to what is said elsewhere only in xxii. 7: Kat rypotyrec, x.r.A. The rnpeiy is properly explained in conformity with its meaning by supplying mentally, ‘Cin their hearts; ” 1! only, still further, that so far as what is written in the beok contains, directly or indirectly, the commandments of fidelity, patience, etc., the additional relation which prevails in the combination rnp. rig tvroAdc ™ results.18— 6 ydp xaipde tyyic. Foundation for the commendation of the book which has just been expressed: the time which will bring blessedness to the faithful is at hand;1® blessed, therefore, he who takes to heart the instruction here offered.® Notice here how in xi. 18, xxii. 10, ef. xii. 12, 14, the expression 6 xa:péo is used, i.e., the fixed, expected point of time; while 6 xpévog, on the other hand, is time in general, according to the conception of duration, and is otherwise more external] and chronological.”
Vv. 4-8 contain the epistolary dedication of the entire book to the seven congregations of Asia,!* vv. 4-6, and its fundamental thought, vv. 7,8. Thus the reference of vv. 4-8 to the whole of the book has been correctly expressed in essentials by Beng.!® So, also, Klief, who, however, separates vv. 7,8, from vv. 4-8, and tries to refer vv. 7-20a to the fundamental vision. The opinion
1 Against Ebrard.
* xxii. 16.
3 Cf. xix. 10.
4 According to xix. 9, xx. 6, xxli. 14. Cf.
10 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.
1 Priciius, Grot., Ewald, De Wette, etc.
13 Cf. xiv. 12.
13 Cf. in general my commentary on 1 John
with il. 7, 11, 17, 26, iil. 5, 12, 21 (xiv. 15).
§ Hengatb., Ebrard.
6 Wolf, Ebrard. The comparison of ver. 7, was 6$0. and cai dcrives, is inapplicable, since in the very conception was a plurality is pre- supposed.
7 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstb., Bleek, Stern [Beck].
§ Cf. xxil. 18. 9 Idem.
ii. 3.
14 x}. 18.
18 Cf. ver. 1, év rdxet.
16 Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 7, 17; Rom. xifi, 11.
17 yl. 11, x.6, xx.3. Cf. Ltinemann on 1 Thess. vy. 1,
18 Mentioned In ver. 11.
19 Cf. Herder, Ew., Lucke, De Wette, Rinck, Ebrard.
100 - THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
of Hengstenberg,! that vv. 46 have reference only “to the group of the seven epistles,” since everywhere, from i. 4 to iii. 22, the treatment is con- cerning the wide province of the entire Church, and there is no special refer- ence 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 announce- ment of vv. 7 and 19; and that, in a formal respect, the correspondence between the introduction, i. 1 sqq., and the conclusion, xxii. 6 sqq.,? makes manifest as a whole all that intervenes.
The epistolary introductory greeting, vv. 4, 5, is similar to the Pauline form,® but, in its contents, corresponds to the book which follows, with sig- nificative references to which it is filled. — John ‘ writes to the seven churches in Asia. ’Aoia® is Proconsular Asia, consisting of the provinces of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, Lydia, Ionia, and Zolis. Ephesus® was regarded the metrop- olis. In this Asia, Paul had planted the gospel; also, the First Epistle of Peter had its first readers there.’ — In the greeting, yépic and eipivy are com- bined, as in all the Pauline Epistles except 1 and 2 Timothy, where, as in 2 John 3, FAeo¢ is inserted. ydpu¢ always stands in the foreground as the fundamental condition whence all salvation, all Christian yaipec, alone pro- ceeds; the eipi#vn, 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 al] tribula- tions. — dd 5 dv, «.7.4, Description of the divine name 7)1,° but not under the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical way, the three tenses are indicated. As to the form of the expression, neither is the manifestly intentional combination of the nom. 6 dv, «.7.4,, with dé to be impaired by the insertion of rod,!! or by supplying red Aeyouévov 6 dv, k.7.A., TOD 5¢ 6 Gy, K,T.A., TOU Oeod bc 5 Gv, x.7,4,, etc. ;1* nor is the irregularity, that, in the absence of a necessary preterite participle in the formula 6 m, the finite tense is treated as a participle, to be accounted for by the false conception that 6 stood for dc; 18 nor, finally, is 6 épyéuevoc to be taken as pre- cisely equivalent to 6 éoduzevoc 4 by an accommodation of the use of ¥3n, perhaps with an allusion to Mark x. 30, John iv. 21, v. 25, xvi. 25, 31: but,
1 Cf., againat him, Liicke, p. 420, Ebrard, and Rinck.
2 Cf. especially xxil. 16 with 1. 4.
3 Rom.!i.1s8qq.; 1 Cor.i.1sqq. Cf. Ew., De Wette, Hengstb.
4 Cf. ver. 2.
5 ¥ idtws xaAdovpévy Acia (Asia properly so called), Ptolem., v.2. Cf. Winer, Reallez., in loc.
¢ Cf. ver. 11.
71 Pet.i.1. Cf. Introduction, sec. 3.
8 Cf. ver. 9, iii. 10 sqq.; Rom. v. 1 sqq.; John xvi. 33.
9 Cf. Exod. iif. 14. LXX.: dye eiue 3 wy.
10 Cf. yet Bengel: ‘‘ Incomparable and won- derful is the composition of the name 77177" from Ws he shall be, and 717), being, and
TT, Ae was.” Cf. Jerusalem Targum on
Exod. fli. 14: ‘* Who was, ia, and will be, spake to the world.” [Etheridge’s translation, 1. p. 450: ‘“‘He who epake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be.”] Targ. Jon. on Deut. xxxil. 39. Wetat.
11 Erasmus.
12 Cf. Wolf.
138 Schdttgen.
14 Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard.
CHAP. I. £8 101
in that inflexible firmness of the divine name,! there is something mysteri- ous ;? 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 espe- cially by the 6 épxdpuevoc,* 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 6 éadzevoc, but with living reference to the fundamental thoughts of the book,‘ 6 épyépevor, as also ver. 8, iv. 8. [See Note XVIII. p. 122.] The ques- tion whether, by the formula 6 bv x. bay x. 6 tpyépevoc, 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 érra mvebyara, x.7.4,, are, at all events, to be regarded not as angels, neither § as “the entire body of angels” (universitas angelorum), who are the ministers of our salvation,® nor’ as the seven archangels ® found again in viil. 2;° against this, the expression,!° its occurrence before 'Incod Xp., and the circumstance that from the érra mvebuara, as well as from 6 é», «.1.4., and from ‘Ic. Xp., grace and peace are to proceed.” The seven spirits are, according to iv. 5, where they appear “ before the throne of God,” “spirits of God” himself; according to ver. 6, they are ‘ the sent upon the whole earth,’’ and peculiar to the Lamb, as the seven eyes thereof. Christ “hath” the seven spirits.12 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 28) virtues of God’s providence,” 44 “the seven members, as it were, of Divine Providence,” 16 “ the most perfect nature of Jehovah,” !° “ the virtues, or what is proclaimed, of the Supreme Divinity,” !” — which is neither clear in itself, nor consistent with John’s concrete mode of view; nor can the cabalistic per- sonifications of the divine glory, nor the ten Sephiroth, be here thought of.18 Essentially, by the seven spirits before the throne of God, nothing else can be understood than “ the Spirit ” who speaks to the churches,!* and the Spirit of Christ ® who makes men prophets.* Nevertheless, the sevenfoldness of this one Spirit is not to be explained, and, least of all, by an appeal to
1 awd b wy, x.r.A. Cf. ver. 5.
2 Valla. Cf. L. Cappell., Pric., Grot., C. a Lap., Beng., Stern, Hengstenb., Winer, p. 66, etc.
3 Bee below.
4 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.
5 With N. de Lyra.
¢ Cf. on ver. 4: *‘ By the number seven, the whole class is understood.”’
7 With Areth., Ribera, Viegas, C. a Lap., Bossuet, Drusius, J. Mede, etc. In the year 14@, their names (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Sealthiel, Jehudiel, and Barachiel) were said to have been revealed to a certain Ama- deus, a man eminent for holiness, miracies, and prophecies. Cf. C.a Lap., Tir.
8 Cf. Tob. xii. 15.
& Ew. il.
* Cf. vill. 2, dyyeAot.
11 Cf. already Vitr., ete.
13 ffi. 1.
13 Alcasar enumerates the seven virtues of God, or endowments of Providence, thus: ‘“< Wisdom, fortitude, beneficence, justice, pa- tience, 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,
14 Pareus.
18 Grot.
16 Kichh.
17 Heinrichs.
18 Herder.
19 {{. 7, 11, 20.
3° jii.1,v.6; cf. xix. 10.
21 Cf. aleo xiv. 13, xxii. 17.
102 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Isa. xi. 2, of the assumed “seven energies” of the Spirit;! but* John’s type is Zech. iii. 9, iv. 6,10. 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,® 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,‘ appears as seven eyes, lamps, or even as seven spirits.
This view of “the seven spirits before the throne of God” gives the answer to the question whether 6 dv x. 6 i «. 6 épy. be God the Father,® or the triune God ® 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 6 dy, «.7.4., a8 a descrip- tion of the name 17", designates the God who in ver. 1 is called 6 ed¢,7 and in like manner is represented to be distinct from Christ, as vv. 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,” ® but actually includes, in itself and in the doctrinal connection of the entire book,® the fundamental idea of the Trinity, which, if developed and dogmatically expressed, yields the result that the designation of the divine nature (6 dy, x.7r.4.) is confined to the representation of the Father. [See Note XIX., p. 122.]
Ver. 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 ; 80 also, finally (vv. 5, 6), from Jesus Christ, since he is 6 pépruc é morc, x.7.A, The con- struction with the genitive is not abandoned in order to indicate “the im- mutability of the testimony,” 2° neither is it aided by supplying d¢ éoriv: 2 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 dmondAvyuc communicated through him, but not}* in correspondence with the three themes of the ascription of praise, 7, dyarévri, Avoavti, and énoinoey Hu. Bao, «.7.4, Inconsistent with the conception and reference of the three predi- cates, 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.” 18— Christ exalted to his majesty is first 6 udprue 6 mords, 1.e., the trust- worthy 4 witness, and not because in his earthly life he testified, in general,
1 Andreas; cf. Victorin., Primas., Beda, T Cf. especially ver. 8. 8 De Wette. Revius, Zeger, Wolf, etc. ® Cf. iil. 1, v. 6, 12 aqq.
2 Cf. Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebr. 10 Grot., Stern.
® Cf. Matt. il]. 16; Acts fi. 2 eqq. 11 Er. Schmid, Schdttg.
4 Hengstenb. ; cf. with Zech. iv. 6, also John 12 According to Ebrard. xvi. 8. 13 Ebrard. Cf. alao Coccej., Vitr., Calov.
5 Alcasar, Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 14 Because true. Cf. iil. 14, xix. 11, xxi. 5,
6 Ribera, C. a Lap. xxii. 6.
CHAP. I. 8. 108 to the divine truth,] and maintained it even unto death ;* nor because what he has threatened and promised in the flesh ® he will execute: but also, not alone because of the attestation to apocalyptic truth,‘ 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,5 as at present to the writer of the Apoc.,® but also testifies to the truth? 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. — 6 mpuré- roxog tiv vexpov. This figurative expression § agrees, as to its essential mean- ing, with the figure, dxapyy rév xexotunuévwv, 1 Cor. xv. 20.° The figure is obliterated if apwréroxoc,? without any thing further, be received like dpyq, the first.1!_ Grot. already justly remarks, “ The resurrection is a birth.” 4 Yet the view according-to which the resurrection to a new life #8 appears as a birth is to be maintained in its simplicity, and not, as with Ebrard, to be further portrayed.“ But, since Christ is the mpwrér, r. vexp., he may represent himself as in ver. 18, ii. 8; and that applies to him as returning, which ver. 7 represents as the fundamental thought of the book. [See Note XX., p- 123.] xal 6 dpywv tov Bacihéwy rig yic. This, Christ —to whom, as the Messiah, and that too as one dead and risen again, the dominion over all things belongs }° — will prove himself to be, in the judgment, at his advent.}¢
If the three predicates of Christ just mentioned are presented without forinal opposition, because in this way the unconditional objectivity of the ideas is the more forcibly marked, the subjective references in the following expressions, 7, dyam. nude, Avo. quar ex T. duapt. quay, enone. hudv Baoid,, require that they be made in the form of a doxology. The new clause, ro éyarovre iut., looks from the very beginning to the close (dur) 4 déga, x.7.4.; the dura restoring the original form of the sentence after it had been interrupted, after a Hebraistic manner, by the finite tense, xa? énolgoev.!? — The present, r, dyarcvrt, is neither to be accounted for by the false reading dyanjoayti, 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
1 Cf. John fifi. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18; Andr., Areth., Par., Coccej., Vitr., Grot., Calov., Eichh., Zitll.
2 Ebrard. °
3 Ewald compares John vil. 7; Hengetenb., in addition to John fil. 11; also John xvi. 38, etc.
4 Ver. 2, De Wette; cf. Heinr., Ew. il.
5 xix. 10.
6 Ver. 2, xxii. 20, 16.
* iif. 14,
® Cf. Col. 1. 18, spwréroxos dx 1. vexp.
9 Where also the partitive genitive denotes the maas to which Christ belongs.
10 Cf. also Col. 1.15, where Christ as the first- born is distinguished from that created by him.
121 Hengstenb.
13 Cf. also Ew.
18 Cf. the é¢ncev, if. 8.
14 That the expreasion wiives, Acta il. 24, properly has not been derived by Luke from the LXX. of Ps. xviil. 5 (cf. ver. 6), but that Peter actually spake of the “‘ bands” of death, ia 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 luference of Ebrard.
18 Ps. ii.; cf. Acta xifl. 38; Ps. ox., Ixxfi. 10 eqq., Ixxxix. 28; Isa. li. 13 eqq.; Phil. li. 9; Matt. xxviii. 18.
16 Cf. vi. 15, xvil. 14, xix. 16.
iT De Wette, etc.
104 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
in the connection of the book as that of his being the faithful witness.? The bride is comforted, and rejoices in the coming of Him whom she loves.? —xal Atcavrt nude x tov duapr. hu., x.t.A, The loosing which Christ has accom- plished ® by means of his blood * [see Note XXI., p. 124] represents our sins as & power enchaining us.° For the thought, cf. the similar conception of ayopéfev, v. 9.6 The reading Actcart:” yields, according to another figure,® essentially the same idea, in both of which® the forgiveness of sins and . liberation from their power! are comprised. Yet, even in an exegetical. respect, the reading Afcavr: is preferable. As in v. 9 the allied idea of the dyopdfew, 80 also here the Atcavre fu. is followed by the declaration which, in most forcible opposition to the bondage of the sins from which we are de- livered, ascribes to us a royal dominion and holy priesthood with God.
Ver. 6. In the reading judy Baoeiav, as well as the variation fy, the Baoeia designated is undoubtedly the royal sovereignty of believers," to whom, therefore, v. 10, a BaorAetbey is directly ascribed,12 Were the reading jpuiic Bacelav, which is certainly that of v. 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 lepérevya™® is “a people of priests,” 4 or “a royal power opposed to the world.” 15 (If this idea is to be reached, we must read either #yiv, or,!° in conflict with all the testimonies, with the Rec., pude Bacidelc) ; but only that the redeemed are the “kingdom ” of God, the subjects, and, of course, also the blessed sharers in God’s kingdom." — lepei¢ r@ 069 xa? warpi abrod. These words stand in apposition to 7ucav Baoeiav. The formal inconsequence that the lepeic is in apposition with a gud supplied from the fydw Baoireiav,)® each of the two points shows with especial force and independence. — The atrof belongs not only to the xarpi,)® but to the entire conception TQ dep xa? rarpi, as also Rom. xv. 6.2 In the first case, the article must be repeated before the rarpi. But, on the other hand, John could not write as Ebrard, according to the analogy of vi. 11, ix. 21, John ii. 12, expects, 76 6c atrod cal tr. rarp? abr., because thus two different subjects would be presented; viz., first, the God of Jesus Christ, and, secondly, the Father of Jesus Christ.*1 — “ Priests unto God’’ 2 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; for, while the suffering of believers must be considered the suffering of witnesses or
1Cf.il10 ~~ - 10 Cf. the caaplgew of 1 John I. 7. 3 xxil. 17; cf. also Rom. vill. 87 qq. 11 Ver. 9, xvil.12, 17, 18; Luke i. 33, xix. 15; 3 In regard to the meaning of the aor. cf. aleo Dan. vil. 22, 27.
Avcayr: and dsoincer, cf. v.10; Heb. vil. 27; 13 See Exposition, in loco.
Gal. ff. 20. 13 Exod xix. 16; 1 Pet. if. 9. 4 Cf., concerning this meaning of the é», vi. 8; 14 Hengstenb. Winer, p. 363. 18 Kief. &® xx. 7, where also the é«, fx. 14, 15, xx. 3; 16 Keil on Exod. xix. 6. cf. Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18. 17 De Wette, Ebrard. 6 1Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iff. 13; Acts xx. 28; 18 Cf. v. 5, 1 Pet. 1.18; Eph. 1.7; Matt. xx. 18. 19 De Wette, Ebrard. T Cf. Critical Notes. * Cf. Gal.i.4; 1 Thess, ifi.7; Winer, p. 121. § Ps. li. 4; Isa. i. 16, 18; Rev. vil. 14. 31 Cf., in general, John xx. 17.
9 Cf., on the other hand, De Wette. 33 Col. 1.24; Ebrard.
CHAP. I. 7, 8. 105
martyrs, just in this is the idea of the suffering of a priest, which belongs absolutely only to one High Priest,! surrendered. But the priesthood of all the redeemed ? lies in this, that they come immediately to God, offer to him their prayers, and further give themselves peculiarly to him in holy obedi- ence and spiritual service.* A similar idea occurs, when, in xxi. 22, the new Jerusalem appears without a temple. [See Note XXII., p.124.] adra; viz., 7 ayaxavrt hyéc, x.7.4., therefore Jesus Christ. To # dd§a, x.1.4., éoriv is understood.4
Vv. 7,8. Just as Amos (i. 2), by aforcible expression, concentrates the ehief 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 ver. 7, containing the sum of his entire prophecy,® the full authority of the name of God, of whose message he is the prophet, ver. 8.6 Klief. incorrectly denies that the parousia is the proper theme of the Apocalyptic prophecy, and therefore combines vv. 7, 8, not with vv. 4-6, but with ver. 9 sqq.
Already the /doé is an indication that something important is presented.’ —tpxeraz. He (Christ) cometh;® this is the theme of the Apoc.,® 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,’ and indeed not only for hos- tile Jews (oirsveg abrdv éfexévrycav), but also for the heathen (xa? xo. macat al ¢edal rie yc). Christ cometh “with the clouds.” The pera” designates the coming one as accompanied by clouds; whether we are to regard these as beneath !2 or about him,!* is not expressed. The épy. pera raw vegedcw does not form an apposition to “arising out of the sea,” and is not simply a descend- ing from heaven,}* for the conception, xiii. 1, is too unique to correspond to the stereotyped idea in our passage ; 18 also, the pera r. ved. is too significant for “down from heaven.” But, according to the O. T. mode of representation, God coming to judgment appears surrounded by clouds.!6 [See Note XXIII, p- 124.] When he comes, absolutely all (wdc dg@aAuéc) 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,” but also—as is expressly de- clared by the words olriwec — rij¢ yc, — unbelievers. Among these, the first to be especially mentioned are xa? olrivec abrov éfexévryoay, i.e., the Jews. Volk- mar and Hilgenf.1* incorrectly think here chiefly of the heathen, since heathen
1 Heb. vil. 27, x. 14.
2 Cf. Dan. vii. 18, 27, where to the aylous rot wpierov is ascribed the BaciAcia.
3 Cf. Rom. xii. 1.
4 De Wette, Hengstenb. Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11.
11 Dan. vil. 13; Mark xiv. 63.
12 Matt. xxvi. 64.
13 Cf. Ps. xovil. 2.
16 Ebrard.
1% Among the later Jews, the Measiah is ex-
5 Cf. Joel iv. 16.
* Cf., especiaily, Am. fv. 13.
1 Cf. xvi. 15, where, in like manner, the same fandamental thought of the book suddenly
preasly called ‘‘the cloud-man’”’ (Wolken- mann) 22y, or 9) 93; ef. Ewald.
16 Pa. xevil. 2, xvill. 10 aqq.; Nah. 1.3; Grot., Hengstb.; cf. Knobel, Prophetismus d. Hebr.,
enters with surprising force. i. p. 361 sqq. * Cf. concerning the present, Winer, p. 249. 17 Cf. xix. 1 eqq., xx. 11 sqq., xxi.1 eqq.; * Introduction, sec. 2. Matt. xxv. 31 sqq; 1 Thess. iv. 16 aqq. % Matt. xvi. 27. % Introduction, p. 12.
106 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
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, x. xo.— dc al gua. 1. yie. Here, as in John xix. 87, the prophecy, Zech. xii. 10, forms the foundation, where the words PTW NR “S8 3D are rendered by the LXX., cud éneBAépovras mpde 2, dv6’ cv xarep- xfoavro. 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, repentanée 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 con- verted, and the nations of the earth shall certainly lament,? as those who have fallen away.” Bengel falls into the same error, when he remarks of the xéyovras in the second member, “ Undoubtedly with hostile, or even, on the part of some, with penitential, terror.” How John xix. 87 is in this respect related to this passage, is not manifest; since there only the fact of the etexévrnody, i.e., the thrust of the lance, is stated. The difference between John xix. 37 and this lies in the fact that there (ei¢ dv éfexévr.) the special . point of the thrust of the lance is emphasized; while here (atrdv égexévr.) the subject is-the death — ‘‘the slaying” *— in general, as the most manifest proof of hostile unbelief. As to éxxevrezy in this sense, cf. Num. xxii. 29, Judg. ix. 54, 2 Macc. xii. 6. Partly because of this difference, and also partly because Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion translate the word 1p, Zech. xii. 10, by é«xevreiv,4 we dare not infer the identity of the Evangelist and the writer of the Apoc. — xa? xépovra: én’ abrdy réoat al guAal ri hc. 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 xowovrat © obtains, by the construction with én? and the acc.,® a graphic clear- ness, such as is peculiar to the entire style of the writer of the Apoc., by representing the mourning, not according to its inner reason (ér° air), but according to its external direction, — towards the coming Judge.’ — Not only by the twofold assurance in both Greek and Hebrew,® at the close of ver. 7, but still more completely and solemnly by the entire ver. 8,° is the main sentence, ver. 7, sealed. This verse contains a significant unfolding of the old prophetic formula 711! OX). For the Eternal, who is at the same time Lord of all, will execute his prophecy, ver. 7.°— The formula rd dAga xat rd 1! is, according to its meaning,}2 correctly explained by the gloss dpx?
1 Zech. xf. 10. 2 Matt. xxiv. 30. 6 Cf. xvill. 9. 3 Cf. vv. 9, 12, ete. 7 Cf. 2 Cor. li. 3; Matt. xxvil. 42, 48. Bee, 4 But in connection with the circumstance also, De Wette.
that the LXX. at other places translate the word ® Erasmus, De Wette.
“VDT by éxxevreiv, not by xaropyetoGa:, we must ® Cf. exposition of vv. 7, 8.
™ not infer, with Ewald, that Zech. xii. 10 also 20 Observe here again, as in ver. 4, the rela- may have been originally, with the LXX., ¢fe- tion of the name 6 épxdpevos. névrycay. it xxi, 6. & Cf. Zech. xii. 10; Matt. xxiv. 30. a2 Cf. 1.17, i. 8, xxii. 18,
CHAP. I. 9. - 107
ats réAoc.1—-& mavroxparop. Cf. Am. iv. 18, where the LXX. have it for MII,
i. 9-iii. 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 (i. 9-20). This is to be done in such a way that to each one of these churches, in a special letter (ii. 1-ili. 22), the contents of the revelation are to be applied for encouragement, consolation, and warning.
Vv. 9-20. As the ancient prophets report their call,? in order to prove the divine authority of their declarations,* so John presents, in the beginning, the commission given him by Christ himself, in order that the entire book may be acknowledged as that which it directly professes itself to be in ver. 1.
Ver. 9. 'Eyd'lwavvys. The name as in ver. 8. [See Notes on Introduc- tion, pp. .] The combination of the 4 with the name‘ is after the manner of Daniel.’ In the same way, the authors of 4 Ezra ® and the Book of Enoch? conform to Daniel’s model. The formula must not be regarded as determined by the intention of the composer to distinguish himself from the speaker in ver. 8.2—John not only calls himself the brother of the readers, in the sense justified by the communicative style of vv. 5, 6,° but especially emphasizes what is supposed in the relation of a brother: xa? ovyxowuwrdc ty rp OAipe, «.7.A. The inner combination of this idea with 6 ddeApdc tucv is to be inferred from the fact of the non-repetition of the article. The é 1° designates the azyuc, etc., as the sphere in which the fellow- ship 1! occurs, in distinction from the objective conception of the customary genitive. So, too, the év stands in the 4 'Iqood, belonging to all three terms, 6up., BactA., and brou., whereby the Lord and Saviour represents himself as the personal ground of the tribulation and kingdom and patience of all those to whom vv. 5 and 6 pertain. A comparison has here been incorrectly made with the diesimilar ideas of Col. i. 24, 2 Cor. i. 15.1% Cf., on the other hand, Phil. 11. 1, wapaxAnot év XprorH. — The oAriwee (év *Inood) is the affliction,!*® which, “for the name of Christ,” 14 has been infallibly prepared for believers, on the part of the hating and persecuting world.!® But, as this suffering, so also does the royal glory possessed already by believers, and yet hoped for ** in its full manifestation, lie “in Jesus” himself. Hence, e.g., iii. 21, the promise in the mouth of Christ. — Finally John adds yet the broyovy (év ’Incov), as the item ordinarily mediating between the two preceding,!’ which, therefore, is an important subject of the prophetic exhortation.1® There is no hendiadys, either in the first or the last of the two conceptions.1®
1 Cf. Jalkut Rub., fol. 147: “Adam trans. xviii. 4; Phil. 1.7; Rom. xij. 17; 1 Oor. ix. 8; gressed the whole law, from & to f},” in also, Eph. iii. 6.
Wolf.; cf. also Wetat. 12 De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 3 Cf. Jer. i.; Isa. vi.; Ezek. i.-iil. 18 if. 9, 10, vil. 14. ® Cf. Am. vii. 14 aqq.; Exod. ili. 4 Matt. xxiv. 9; cf, xiif. 21. 4 xxii. 8. ; 18 John xvi. 88; Acts xiv. 22. ® Dan. vii. 15, vill. 1, Ix. 2, x. 2, xfl. 5. 16 Cf. 2 Tim. il. 12; Rom. viii. 17; Acts xiv. 6 if. 42. T xif. 3, xxiv. 7, xcil. 3, cv. 15. 22. 8 Ewald. °® Cf. xix. 10. 17 So that the juxtaposition of these terms is 30 Cf. Maut. xxill. 30; Gal. vi.6; Acts vill. 21, not entirely without order (De Wette). xxvi. 18. 18 Cf. ii. 2, 8, 11. 10, xiii. 10, xiv. 12.
11 Respecting the expression ovyxou., cf. 19 Against Heinr.
108 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
In connection with the self-designation of the composer as é ddeAgoc tyar, the entire expression xal ovyxow.—'Ino., whose fundamental universality is marked by the three terms 6Aiyic, Gaowdeia, and txouov?, cannot be decisive as to the words éyevounv — paprupiay "Inoov having definite reference to the 6Aiyuc just mentioned, and therefore being understood necessarily of the banishment of John, whether of the apostle! or another John.? The incorrect empha- sizing and specializing of the dip likewise leads N. de Lyra to think of the legend according to which the apostle was cast into seething oil. As most plausible for the traditional explanation, the usage of the dja, vi. 9, xx. 4, is cited: but in these passages we find the determinative expressions dogpayp., mereAcxcou.; and a comparison may also be made with Matt. xiii. 21, xxiv. 9; John xv. 21. But the exposition proposed by Bleek, Lticke, and De Wette, according to which the dia indicates that John was in Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,—i.e., to receive the same [see Notes on Introduction, p. 91], — is decided to be correct by: (1) The in any case near parallelism of vv. 1, 2. (2) The circumstance that 4 yuaprupia 'Inood, according to the usage of the composer of the Apoc., cannot in any way be ‘‘the testimony concerning Jesus:”*® for what Wolf remarks on 1, 2, is entirely wrong; viz., “ As often as the word paprupia oc- curs in the Apoc., so often does it signify the testimony concerning Christ given by others.” But the genitive with yaprupia is always subjective; so that the expression apr. 'Inood signifies regularly‘ that given by Jesus (the faithful witness, ver. 5), and the apr. atrév the testimony given by the airoi,® in which latter case the contents of the zaprvpia are synonymous. This firm rule, vi. 9° by no means invalidates. The testimony proceeding from Jesus, because of which John was in Patmos,?— according to Volkmar, only an item in the account, — is, thus, that which he was to receive® in the Spirit.® Thus, even in an exegetical way, the opinion? is incorrect, that John had gone to Patmos in order to preach, which even in itself would be highly improbable on account of the character of the small, sparsely inhabited island. Jobn himself intimates that the island is insignificant, by writing dy T9 v7ow TE KaAovpévy.1! Patmos, to-day called Patino or Palmosa, belongs to the Sporades. Tournefort}* found on it only a small town; there is pointed out, besides a sarcophagus with John’s remains, the grotto in which the apostle is said to have received the Apoc.4* By the aorist form éyevouqy,! it is clearly implied,!® that when John wrote the Revelation he was no longer on Patmos. To make the command (ver. 11) conflict with this conception,’® is
1 Hengstenb., Ebrard, Hilgenf.; Introduc- Patmos “ because, dy hia testimony, he wae re-
tlon, p. 409; Gebhardt, p. 11, etc. sponsible for God’s saving word, and the testi- * Ewald. mony concerning the same, given by Jesus.” 3 Ebrard, etc. 8 Cf. vv. 1, 2. 44.2, xfiJ. 17, xix. 10, xx. 4. ® Cf. immediately afterwards, ver. 10. § xi. 7, xil. 11. 10 Hartwig, Apol. d. Offenbd., il. 65., * Bee on passage. 11 Beng., Heinr., Hengstenb. 7 Kilief., who is compelled to understand the 13 In Wolf. apr. "Inc. in the above senee, but in other 13 Cf., also, Winer, Reallez., tn loco. respects rejects the corresponding opposition 14 Cf. ver. 10. as ‘‘ violence occasioned by critical interests,”’ 15 Ewald, etc.
advances the idea that John was conveyed to 16 Ebrard.
CHAP. I. 10. 109 only to say,! that, “as the revelation came to an end, the book also was finished.’”? Regard for the readers? cannot explain® the aor. éyeviugv, be- cause in this word there is no reference to writing.
Ver. 10. With éyevouny ty rvebpart we dare not immediately combine év rg xvpiaxg juépa, in the sense: ‘‘I saw in the Spirit the day of judgment ;”’ i.e., “TI foresaw it represented.”*4 In contradiction with this ® are, the fact that the presentation of yivecda: év rveipyars ig in itself complete, the expression xupiax?) hyépa, and the circumstance that the contents of the book are not limited to the day of judgment. The é mvetyan® designates essentially nothing else than the é» éxorace of Acts xxii. 18, xi. 5. Yet by avedua,’ the Divine Spirit, in his objectivity,® cann®t be understood,® but the zvedpa must by all means be interpreted subjectively. The antithesis is yw. év éavrp," or, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 14 sqq., é ro voi.? The lv avebipare is understood in one way, Rom. viii. 9, and in another also in Matt. xxii. 43; Mark xii. 36, where the subjective mveiua is designated as sanctified or prophetically illu- mined by the objective Spirit of God; while in the present passage, as well as in iv. 2, and especially xxi. 10, the reference to the efficacy of the Holy Ghost is in no way removed, but by mveiya is understood only the higher, spiritual nature of man,!* in virtue of which he is capable of receiving a reve- lation, having visions, and being ¢v éxordce.— The xvpiax® gyépa 4 is the first | day of the week, the Sunday, which was celebrated as the day of the Lord’s resurrection.15 On the holy day, John was especially well prepared to receive the divine revelation. [See Note XXV., p. 125.] But there is no foundation for understanding the xvpcax? fy. of an Easter Day,?* or for assigning to that Sunday 2” the fulfilment of the expectation, attested by Jerome, that Christ will return on Easter Day.1®— déxiow pov refers not to the fact that a revelation of the invisible God is presented,!® nor that John must first be prepared by hearing for the impending sight, as no one can see God without dying.” Against both these views, is the fact that John not only actually sees Christ,
1 If we receive with Hengstenb. (p. 116)
what is inconceivable and irreconcilable with
ver. 10: ¢yevopuny dv xvedpari.
2 As in énapripnce, ver. 2.
3 Hengstenb., to whom Liicke (p. 814) con- cedes too much.
4 Wetst.; cf., also, V. d. Honert, Dissert. Apocalypét , p. 77 sqq.; Winer, p. 178; Ztill.
5 Cf., also, De Wette, Hengstenb.
6 Cf. iv. 2, xxi. 10.
7 Cf., especially, xxi. 10.
® Of. LXX., Judg. xi. 29: dyévero éwi lepdde avevpa xvp. (Num. xxiv. 2).
® As Grotius, who compares Mark 1. 28, v. 5; and Ebrard, who compares Acts iv. 8 aqq.; and also Kilef.,— say more clearly than many other expositors who appear to be of the same opinion.
10 Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 14, 31.
11 Acts xiJ. 11.
13 Cf., alao, 2 Cor. xif. 2 aqq.
% Cf. Rom. viii. 16.
16 Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 20.
18 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; cf. Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., H. Z., !v. 23: riv—x«vptaxhy ayiav hudpay Scayouer (** We keep the holy Lord’s day’’). Barnabas, Zp.,c. 15: dyonev Thy nudpav Thy oyddny cig evppociyny, ev ff xai & “Incous avéorn éx vexpwy, x.T.A. (** We devote the eighth day to gladness, on which also Jesus rose from the dead ’’), etc.
1¢ EKicbh.
17 Beng. /
18 On Matt. xxv. 2, “‘ The apostolic tradition that, at the time of the Easter vigils, it will not be allowed to diemiss the people before mid- night, expecting the coming of Christ” (‘‘ Tra. ditionem apostolicum—ut in die vigiliarum paschae ante noctis dimidium populos dimittere non liceat, expectantes adventum Christi’’).
19 C. a Lap.
2 Kod. xxxiii. 20 sqq.; Isa. vi. 5; Ewald, Hengstenb.
110 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
but also experiences the complete effect thereof.! It is also not to be said that “here clearly the awakening to ecstatic consciousness is described,” as though John at first had seen nothing, “at least, nothing remarkable,” but only first heard;? for “the awakening to ecstatic consciousness,” ® which is not everywhere represented, has already occurred, since John hears or sees, viz., in the Spirit. It is only the unexpected, surprising utterance of the divine voice that is here stated.6 A comparison may, at all events, be made with Ezek. iii. 12, where, however, the presentation seems to be condi- tioned by the development of the scene itself. — The mighty, loud ® voice is like the sound of a trumpet. In connection with the use of the d¢ odAacyyor?
purely as a comparison, the remark is*not applicable that the assembling of
congregations, and the appearances or revelations of God and Christ, are announced with the sound of a trumpet.® — The voice which imparts the com- mand, ver. 11,° belongs not to “an angel speaking in the person of Christ,” nor to the angel mentioned in ver. 1,1 nor to God speaking in distinction from Christ, who speaks in ver. 15.12. It has been thought that the voice
proceeds from him whom John, ver. 12 sqq., sees, and therefore from Christ
himself ;18 but on account of iv. 1, this cannot be admitted. It is therefore, as in iv. 1, x. 4, 8, entirely undecided as to whom this voice belongs. This also agrees very well with the émisw pov.
Ver. 11. 6 BAéree. The present is neither to be changed into the future, nor to be explained by the fact, that, with the hearing (ver. 10), the seeing, in the wider sense, has already begun; !® but is without relation to time, ie., it is not formally noted that the visions upon which the presentation de- pends !° are yet to follow. There is a similar use of dzocréAAw, Matt. xxiii. 34. The book into which John, according to the command, wrote what he had seen,!’ is the entire Revelation before us.1® — The zéupov in no way necessitates the conception, conflicting with the double éyevéunv,!* that the book was written on Patmos; but rather the sending of the book is explained in accordance with the epistolary.superscription, ver. 4 sqq., even if one of the seven cities — perhaps Ephesus — must be regarded the author’s place of abode, from the preponderating consideration shown it above the other cities. It is, of course, in itself improbable that John wrote long after the reception of the revelation, but he rather wrote “while the éy rvetyar: still continued in effective operation:”*! but it would have been impossible ™ for him to
1 Aa in Iaa. vi. 5. 9 Acyovans is to be construed with caAr. by 2 EKbrard. attraction.
$ On ch. iv. (p. 215) Ebrard interprets the 10 N. de Lyra.
éxiow wov very preposterously as “standing upon earth.”” Volkmar: As the external world lies extended before man's face, so what is concealed is back of the world’s view.
4 iv. 1.
5 Cf., aleo, Stern, but who incorrectly refers to Iea. xxx. 21. See Knobel on thie passage.
6 peydAn, V. 2; cf. Matt. xxiv. 31, xxvii. 46, 50.
t Cf. v. 15.
8 Num. x. 2, 10; Joel ii, 1, 15; Exod. xix. 19; Matt. xxiv. 81; 1 Thess. iv. 16; De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
11 Ebrard; cf. on v. 1.
13 C. a Lap.
13 Alcas., Ew., Hengstenb.
14 Ew., De Wette.
18 Hengstenb.
16 Winer, p. 240 aqq.
17 Cf. v. 3.
18 Against Hengstenb.; cf. on v. 4. 19 See above.
20 Hengstenbd., Ebrard, Klief.
21 Lticke, p. 814.
a? Cf. Ebrard himself ve. Hengstenbd-
a I I I I I ET SS A TS ee
CHAP. I. 12, 13. 111
write while in the condition which he designates by éyev. fv rvebyan; for an essential element of this condition is the cessation of the activity of the vois, upon which nothing less than every thing pertaining to the literary form and character of the book throughout depends.— The seven cities named are clearly introduced according to their geographical situation. According to the adjustment of vision from the standpoint of one directing the sending of the book, — not of the one writing, — two lines moderately direct appear from Patmos, in which the cities lie. In the first line, from south to north, | are Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamos; in the second line, which extends from north to south,—since Thyatira, which is in the neighborhood of Pergamos, naturally stands first, —lie Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. (See on ver. 20.)
Ver. 12. xat éxtorpeya. John turns,!—viz., according to the connection, backwards, — in order to see. This is correctly explained according to its meaning, as “the one who uttered the voice;”*® the Piérew has its founda- tion in the liveliness and directness of the presentation, which immediately penetrates from the perception of the voice to the speaker himself, just as in iv. 1 A¢yor is written, while the subject speaking is only guv7.—Jobn now gees, after turning, seven golden candlesticks, — but in no way a candlestick 4 with seven branches,*— and, in the midst of them, Christ himself (ver. 13). (See Note XXVI., p. 125.]
Ver. 13. The entire appearance of Christ expresses essentially what has been said of him in vv. 5, 6,5 and is likewise as highly significant as that declaration, as to the entire contents of the book. Hence each of the seven epistles is introduced “by a sketch of his form,”? as the majesty of Christ here presented, who holds his people in his hand, is the real foundation and support of the apocalyptic hope.®
Christ appears in the midst of the seven candlesticks, not walking,’ but rather, if any thing dare be imagined, standing. He is not named, but is infallibly designated already by the dpoov vip dvipinov.1! The dnoov is incor- rectly urged by those who wish to infer thence that not Christ, the Son of man himself, but “an angel representing Christ,” 12 is meant. In this ex- pression the dogmatic thought is not present, that Christ is essentially more than a mere son of man;?* but John had to write duowv, which does not cor- respond to the simple 35, Dan. vii. 18 (LXX., d¢), as the type of the form of the Son of man was to be recognized in the divine majesty of the entire manifestation.!5— The Lord, who makes his people priests and kings (ver. 5), appears clad in the sublime splendor of the high priest and of kings. He wears the robe of the high priest, reaching down to his feet,!* which, accord-
1 Acts ix. 40. 9 1 Tim. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 3. 3Cf. Matt. xxiv. 18; Mark xill. 16; Luke 10 Ebrard, according to if. 1; of. on that
xvii. 31. passage. 8 N. de Lyra, Beng., etc. 11 Dan. vil. 18; cf. x. 16, 18. ¢ Cf. the interpretation, ver. 20. : 13 N. de Lyra, Bossuet, Grot., Marek. ® Grot., etc. 13 De Wette, Hengstenb. * Cf. vv. 17, 18. % EKbrard. t Herder. 8 Cf. xiii. 2.
6 Cf. ver. 20. 16 wodrpys, BC. XtTeV.
112 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ing to Wis. xviii. 24,1 was a symbol of the world; yet God himself also appears, as he is royally enthroned, in a similar long robe.* To this is added the entirely golden girdle.* The girdle of the high priest was only adorned with gold.‘ That Christ wears the girdle mpdc roi¢ pafoic,® not about the loins,* is in no way to be urged in the sense of Ebrard: “The twofold nature of the unglorified body, in the nobly endowed upper part of the body, and in the lower part of the body serving the purposes of reproduction, nour- ishment, and discharge, vanishes in that higher girding, as it is first correctly marked by the girding above the loins.” For, is Dan. x. 5 to be understood of an unglorified body? Cf., besides, Josephus, Antigg., iii. 7, 2, as to why the priests bind their girdles xara orépvov.
Ver. 14. To the general conception 4 & xegad) adrov, the part which properly pertains to the description is attached by the more accurately de- termining «xa?.?_ Thus there is a dependence on the 9 é xepadd abrod, corre- sponding to which are the special particulars, each of which is designated with the addition of abrot; viz., of 699. abrod, of sod, abrod, and 4 ¢guv. abrov, while the xa? al rp. is without the atrod.6 The order of thought is not, therefore, as De Wette proposes, first concerning the whole of the head, to which also face and beard belong, and then especially to the hair of the head. — The whiteness of the hair signifies neither the freedom from sin of Christ’s earthly life,® nor in general the holiness peculiar to him; ?° nor does it desig- nate merely the heavenly light-nature.!!_ Christ rather appears here to the Christian prophet in the same divine brilliancy in which Daniel }* beheld not the Son of man, but the Ancient of days, whose eternity is designated by the whiteness of his hair. This interpretation !* is justified not only by the type in Daniel, but also by the fact that Christ represents himself as the Eternal One, like the Father, vv. 4, 8, in his words, corresponding to his manifestation, vv. 17, 18; cf. ii. 8. The eyes, “as a flame of fire,” 14 are, as all the other features, not without significant reference to the revelation itself.15 By ii. 18, xix. 12,!° the idea is presented not of omniscience in general,!’ also not of punitive justice,!® or of holiness consuming all that is
1 Cf. Grimm on the passage.
2 Isa. vi. 1.
3 Not “ girdle-buckle,” which, according to 1 Macc. x. 89, was peculiar to kings; Hengstenb.
4 Exod. xxvill. 8, xxxix. 5.
5 Cf. xv. 6.
€ Dan. x. 6,
7 Cf., also, Bengel, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
*In Dan. vil. 9, according to the LXX., there stands, on the other hand, cai 7 Opif rijs xehaArns avtov.
® Areth., Coccej., Vieg.
10 Hengstenb., who, however, understands at the same time, ‘the majesty of glory.”
11 De Wette.
13 vil. 9.
13 Cf., alao, C. a Lap., Calov., Vitr., Storr., Diss. in Apoc., guaed. loe.; Commentatt. ed. Velthusen, etc., iv. 439; Stern, ete.
4 xix. 12; Dan. x. 6; ef. Virg., den., v. 647 aqq.: ‘Divini signa decorls ardentceque notate oculos—qui voltus vocisque sonus” (** Note the marks of divine beauty and the glowing eyes; what Js the countenance, and sound of the voice’). Hom., Ji., xix. 365 aqq.: tw 5¢ of Soave AaprécOny woei Te wupos aéAas (** The eyes shone like the brightness of fire’).
18 On the other hand, De Wette: ‘An ex- aggeration of the spirited, flery glance of human eyes, to the penetrating, consuming gaze of such eyes as belong to cclestial beings, as the Greeks also ascribe to their gods, and as the Son of God has it in an unparalleled way.”
16 Cf. Pa. xvill. 9, xcvil. 3; Deut. iv. 24, ix. 3; Heb. xii. 29.
417 Vitr., Calov., Beng., Stern.
18 Hengstenb.; cf. Ribera, C. a Lap.
CHAP. I. 15, 16. 1138
impure! without regard to omniscience, but of omniscience combined with holy wrath directed against all that is unholy.
Ver. 15. To such eyes of flame,® belong feet d5posoe xadnoriBary de tv xapivy zexvpupévy, Which tread down unholy enemies.* De Wette is wrong in find- | ing in this feature no other meaning than that of the splendor. — The word yadxoriBaver,4 which the Vulg. renders by orichalcum,® and Luther by Messing, is of doubtful derivation and meaning. Ewald follows an ancient testimony ® which says that one of the three kinds of incense is so called.” As the entire picture has to do with more than color,® and as the type of Dan. x. 6° leads to the idea of brass,!° incense can in no way be thought of. This is also, within the comparison itself, highly unnatural. The feet appear like brass, but at the same time, as the second member,!! d¢ év nay, merupwpévy, Bays, “as in a furnace glowing with fire,” and therefore like the feet of the angel, x. 2, which are d¢ ortAa xvpdc. But whether the word !2 be a hybrid term composed of yadxi¢ and 139, and therefore mean glowing white; or “ brass from Leba- non;” 4 or be taken as an intentionally mysterious designation of the ambig- nous #Aexrpov, which denotes an alloy,!® and also amber,'¢ and therefore corre- sponds in some degree to the former as well as to the second part of yadxo- 2iPavoc,17 — cannot be certainly decided. The intentional mysteriousness is improbable; even though the idea were possible, that—of course, only in the provincialism of Asia Minor—the word were popularly formed and used in the sense received by Ziillig. Wetzel,!® by recurring to the root Az, Le., running, flowing, reaches the explanation of molten metal (Erzfluss) ; perfectly adapted to the meaning, but without sufficient justification in the language. — xal 7 guv? abr., x.r.A, Cf. Dan. x. 6; Ezek. xliii. 2, 1.24. The force of the voice is represented (cf. ver. 10), but the majesty peculiar to the peaceful murmur of the sea )® is not to be thought of.
Ver. 16. «ai éxuv, x.r.A. Not for xa? elye, «.7.1.;™ but the participle occurs in violation of syntax, while John with a few strong touches of his pencil”
a ” 9 SOP wry: LXX., xarcds oridBev. v. 14, ‘ th re ; , 3 Ps. lx. 14; Isa. Ixill. 6; ef. Dan. x. 6, Ezek. i. 7, LXX., éfacrparrwy XA, Cf. where, also, arms which cast down are men- Ezek. 1. A, 27, vill. 2, ODUT: LXX., HAEKT POM. tioned. 1° De Wette.
4 ov, Suidas.
5 Cf. Cic., De Of., il1. 23, 12; Horace, Ars Poet., 202.
5 In Salmas, Ad Solin., p. 510; also in Wetat.
¥ @ AiPavos éxee tpia eidy SdvSpwv, cai d piv appuyy ovomaceras xarxcodAiBavos, HALoccdns Kai wuppds wyour far00s (** Lebanon has three kinds of trees, and one that is strong is called xaAco- AiBaros, like the sun, and that ie to say, the reddish-yellow of fire’’). Against this, is the notice iu Suidas: yadxcoAiBavoy, «l8os HAdctpov Tipustepoy xpugoy, éots 4 To HAaKTpOV GAAdru- For ypvoiow pepcymdvoy veAw cai AcOeia (“xadx. of the appearance of »Adcrpor, more valuable than gold; and #Aex. is gold of another kind mingled with glass and stone ’’).
® Against Ewald, De Wette.
41 The particle of comparison parallel with the suoroe renders the reading rervpwudvy, which is possible in a critica] respect, belong- ing to xaAxoAcf. (cf. ill. 18), inadvisable for exegetical reasons.
13 Very arbitrarily translated by Hitzig (Jo- Aannes Marc., p. 68), ‘‘ Ofenerz.”
1% Grotlus, Bochart, Hieros., ili. p. 900; ed. Lips., Vitr., Hengatb.
16 Syr., Aeth., Areth., Vatabl., Ebr.
18 Suldas, s. 0.
16 Ew. ff.
17 Zillig.
13 Zeitschr. fur die gesammte lutherieche Theol. u. Kirche, Leipzig, 1869, 1. p. 94.
29 Ebrard.
2 Kichh. #2 De Wette.
114 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
portrays the sublime manifestation.! Christ appears, having seven stars? in his right hand.* The stars are neither to be changed into precious stones which shine like stars, and to be sought in a ring, or seven rings, on Christ’s fingers,* nor is it to be said that “the stars soar so easily, freely, and steadily, on or over his right hand, that he might confidently place them ® upon John’s head.”® To ask at all where these stars in ver. 17 must be regarded, is a question both paltry and unpoetic. That Christ has the stars in his right hand, shows that they are his property. This is presented for the consola- tion of believers,’ but not in the sense as though the power of Christ over the churches, from which no one can deliver, should he wish to punish,® were portrayed. This is entirely foreign to the present passage, and even in ii. 1 sqq. is conceivable only as Christ, who graciously rules and defensively walks in the midst of the candlesticks, can cast a faithless church from its candlestick,’ or even reject a star. — xa éx rot orduaroc — éxropevopévn. Again, a new feature of the sublime pictufe is stated in an asyntactical way. “Who can portray this form? And yet it has occurred, alas! a thousand times, and the form of the God-man is represented as the most miserable cripple.” Thus Herder; while Eichh.,!° just in the present feature of the description, would find an offence against the laws of painting. The sharp two-edged sword which proceeds from the mouth of the Lord is; in a way similar to the feet like brass, a plastic representation of the divine power of Christ, in complete accordance with the image of the vision according to which he “slays the godless with the rod of his mouth.”11_ Of the power of the word of God, preached by Christ’s ministers, striking the conscience and other- wise divinely efficacious,!* there is nothing said here. The entire description is purely personal. The sword from the mouth !* of Christ is directed against his enemies both within 4 and without % the Church.1© What a consolation for those whom he holds in his hands! — xai 4 dye abrov designates not the countenance,!" as éyc is used in John xi. 44 but not in vii. 24, but }® the ap- pearance in general. The description is not concluded by a single feature, but so that the entire form appears as surrounded with the brilliancy of the sun. We are forbidden to take dy in the sense of apéowmoy by the compari- son of x. 1, where this word, frequently found in the Apoc.,’® is regularly
1 Cf. xix. 12, xxi. 12; where, as here, the turning aside from the original construction is facilitated by the preceding features of the de- ecription. 3 Cf. v. 20. * Holding them, fi. 1. 4 Hichh., Heinr. 6 Kbrard. 7 Cf. John x. 28 aq.; Herder, Ebrard. 6 Hepgstenb.; also Ew. ii. ® ff. 5. " 1 Of., also, De Wette.
11 Jaa. xi. 4; cf. xHix. 2; Wis. xvill. 15 eqq.; 2 Thess. ii. 8.
12 Heb. iv. 12; Eph. vi. 17; Tichon., Primas., Arethas, Vitr., Calov., Stern; cf., also, De ‘Wetto, eto.
8 v.17.
13 The graphic idea lying at the foundation (cf., besides, Ps. lv. 22, Ivil. 5, lix. 8, ete.) is frequently expressed in the rabbine. Pirke Elies.: ‘‘Moses removed him with the aword of his lips.—Dathan said to him, ‘Do you seek to slay me with the sword which Is in thy mouth?’”? Wetst., Schéttg., also on 2 Thess. ii. 8.
M4 iJ. 12, 16.
28 xix. 15, 21.
18 Ebrard.
11 Vuig., Luth., Calov., Herd., Hengstenb., Ebrard, De Wette.
%8 Vaila, Erasm., Eichh., Ew., Zilll. ‘“
19 Of. iv. 7, ix. 7, xxii. 4, vi. 16, xii. 14, xx. 11.
CHAP. I. 17. 115.
used; also Dan. x. 6, where zpécwroy occurs, and that, too, in the beginning of the detailed description, is throughout against Hengstenberg’s opinion. In like manner, in the description, Dan. x. 6, 1d oda abrod doe dapaic, the entire form of the Lord is to be regarded: dg 6 RAso¢ gaive: tv rp duvizer. The additional designation,! of course, is not necessarily to be referred to the noonday brilliancy? of the sun, but is correctly paraphrased by De Wette: “when its light is at the strongest.”* The sun shines in its strength when neither mist nor clouds intercept its rays.*
Ver. 17. The impression made by the appearance of the Lord § is that of mortal terror; for, since death is the wages of sin, no sinful man can stand alive before God. Yet John is supported by Him who is not only absolutely the living, but also, since he himself has passed into death,’ and has over- come it, has redeemed his people therefrom, as he has the keys of death and hell. — De Wette finds a contradiction in the fact that “the seer beholds all this in spirit, and so represents things as though he had stood opposite to these appearances in his bodily form, and with his ordinary human powers of conception and feeling: cf. v. 4, xvii. 6, xix. 10, xxii. 8; Dan. vii. 15.” But by the éy xvebyars (ver. 10), his being in the body is not removed. Just as the feeling of those who dream is also customarily expressed in a bodily way, e.g., by actual weeping, it may readily be thought that while John actually sees év mve}uar: —i.e., in prophetic ecstasy —the actual appearance of the Lord, he bodily sinks down.® — de vexpéc is not “like one dying,” ® but “like one dead.” The laying-on of the right hand is, like in Christ’s mira- cles of healing,” an accompanying friendly sign of the aid peculiarly offered through the Word. — The Lord begins his words just as heavenly beings have ordinarily to address men: ,} gofod. Cf. Luke i. 13, 30, ii 10; Mark xvi. 6 (Matt. xvii. 7). This, as also in general ver. 17 sqq., suits the opin- ion of Ebrard, that the falling-down of John was not merely an effect of terror, but “an act of love.” —éyé elut 5 xparoc, x.r.A, Incorrectly, Wetst., Grot., etc., from dogmatic prejudice: “the highest in dignity—the most despised.” Three times after eiu:,:Eichh. mis-points “I am,” —as, Matt. xiv. 27; John vi. 20, which is entirely inapplicable here; and then, 6 mp. x. 6 cox. = “the only one in his class,” xat 6 (ov =“ with respect to life, among the living’?! Christ is, as the Father (ver. 8), the First and the Last, i.e., he is personally the A and the Q;?! and in this lies that which is epexagetic- ally added, that he is absolutely the Living One,}* who, just on that account, can also give life. This reference of the conception 6 (dv,!4 which is in itself already necessary, since the personal Eternal One must have his eternity as an energetic attribute, is yet’ specially emphasized by ver. 18; and that, too, in such way that what is said in both halves of the verse, even though
1 Cf. Judg. v. 31; LXX.: as éfodes HAiov dy 7 éyev. vexpds. évvdpet avrou. 8 Cf. Acta ix. 4. 3 Kichh., Helnr. ® Kichh. 3 Against Ebrard. 10 Beng., Hengstenb. 4 Hengstenb. 1 xxii. 13. 5 Isa. vi. 4; Exod. xxxill. 20; Ezek. 1. 28; 12 cai. Dan. vili. 17 sqq., x. 7 eqq. 18 Cf. John I. 1 aqq,., v. 26.
6 Cf., especially, Isa. vi. 4. 14 Not equal to ¢woro.wr, Grot.
116 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. not according to form, yet according to meaning, is related as foundation (xal éyev.— aidvev) and consequence (xa? éyu,x.7.4.). For, just because Christ who suffered death,! after having risen,? henceforth does not die,® but is liv- ing to eternity,‘ he has the keys of death and of hell, i.e., power over them, so that he can preserve and deliver therefrom, but also can cast therein.® The figurative presentation of the keys® must not be regarded a personifi- cation of the 6avaroc and the déyc;7 but, on the other hand also, both can be regarded only as a place, when it is said that ‘‘ both designate one and the same idea.”® Yet the 6dvaroc, after which the Gdn, vi. 8, appears, is, more accurately speaking, to be distinguished from the latter.° To think of 6éve- toc as & place, is inadmissible. The gates of death !° are spoken of in oppo- sition to the gates of the daughier of Zion;*! here death is personified, and regarded as a possessor or. lord of the gates. The place of death, which appears closed in with gates, is @éyc.12 In this double and not completely symmetrical delineation of the idea, according to which “gates” are ascribed to personal death as well as to local hell, the «Aei¢ must here be understood. — The intention of this entire detailed address is so far in advance of merely freeing John from his terrors of death, as John is the prophet, who himself must experience and understand the majesty of the Lord, whose coming he is to proclaim, in order that he may bring to the churches full testimony concerning the same.’ Thus ver. 19 suitably concludes.
Ver. 19. It is impossible for the otv, without reference to vv. 17, 18, to serve only to recall the command, ver. 11.14 Hengstenb. better combines the reference to ver. 11 with that to vv. 17, 18: “ When, therefore, this fear is removed, do what I have bidden thee.” But, apart from the fact that it is very doubtful whether, ver. 11, Christ himself has spoken, this reference to vv. 17, 18, which even does not correspond to the meaning of these verses, is highly unsatisfactory. Grotius seems with greater correctness to remark, ‘«‘ Because you see that I am so powerful.” The Lord, therefore, bases upon the revelation of his own majesty (vv. 17, 18) communicated to the prophet, the command to write, i.e., to give written witness to the churches (ver. 1 sqq.); since the contents of this revelation, which is to be communicated, is essen- tially nothing else than the full unfolding of what has been beheld by the prophet (ver. 12 sqq.), and the majesty of Christ disclosed by the [Lord him- self in significant words (vv. 17, 18). For the Living One will come; who was dead (ver. 18), whom they have pierced (ver. 7), but who is alive in
1 éyev. vexp. Concerning the aor., cf. ii. 8. of rain.” Still more, the mode given in 2 Cf. the e¢ycey, li. 8. Wetst. 8 Cf. Rom. vi. 9; Acts xifi. 34. Tvi.8; xx. 11. Zl. - 4 Cwv eipe, x.7.A.. & strong emphaals of the 8 De Wette. conception gay. ® xx. 13, 14.
5 Cf. tii. 7. This bas an entirely different meaning from when Acacus, the porter of the lower world, is called xcAacdovxos. Cf. H. L. Abrens, Das Amét der Schlussel, Hannover, 1864, p. 6.
* ix. 1,xx.1. Cf. Targ. Jon. on Deut. xxvill. 12: ‘Four keys are in the hand of the Lord, — a key of life and of tombs, and of food and
a8 fale) , LXX. Odvaros.
11 Pa, iz. 14; cf. Job xxxviil. 17.
13 Sin, Isa. xxxviil. 10; cf. the nyvoy, LXX. ¢dys, Job xxxvili. 11.
13 Cf. Exod. fif.; Isa. vi.; Acta ix.
14 Against Aretius, who immediately re- marks, “‘éxotacts injures the memory;” also against De Wette.
CHAP. I. 20. 117 eternity, whom John beheld, and was commissioned by the Coming One himself to proclaim his advent. -- This is also given by the sense of the following words, which more accurately designate the subjects to be written of: & eldec, x.r.A, There can be no doubt that the elder refers to the vision above narrated. The «xa? é eicty, moreover, after its reference to d eld., or to x. d peda., «.7.A., is fixed, means either “and what it is,” i.e., signifies;1 or, “and what is,” i.e., the present relations.? The latter is far more natural, especially as the antithesis between d eioty and 4 uéAAu yev. is marked particularly by the retrospection of the pera radra to the delolv, Yet it must not be said that the é eldee in ch. i., @ eloiv in chs. it. and iil., and & yeA1., «.7.2., are com- prised; but, rather, the epistles already contain the future, and the suc ceeding chapters the present; yea, the entire book bears the true prophetic stamp in this, that what is future is also prophesied of the present.2 That in ver. 20 a point of the vision, ver. 12 sqq., is actually indicated,‘ can be decided concerning the meaning of the 4 elder the less, as by the d elder the entire vision, ver. 12 sqq , is meant.§
Ver. 20. 1d pvoripov rév érra dorépuy, x.7A, is to be regarded as dependent upon ypayov. This idea is already correctly explained by N. de Lyra: “ the sacrament of the stars, i.e., the sacred secret signified by them.” Muoripiov and doxadvgec are correlate ideas; for a pvorfpioy is all that man understands, not by himself, but only by divine publication and interpretation,® such as | immediately follows.7 Wheh, now, John has seen the mystery of the seven stars which are at the Lord’s right hand,® and is to write of the mystery of the seven golden candlesticks, this is in no way undone by the second half of ver. 20, where only the simple explanation of the mysterious symbol is given. As the words rd pvornp. — xpvode * are formally equivalent to the words d eldeg —ratra, 80, also, the mystery of the seven stars and candlesticks in substance corresponds thereto. The command to write this mystery is ful- filled by nothing else than the entire book: for the prophetic development of the hope of the victorious completion of the Church of Christ by his return depends upon the mystery of the seven stars in Christ’s hand, and the seven candlesticks in whose midst Christ walks; i.e., that Christ is the protector of his Church, vanquishing all enemies. This consolatory hope, perceptible only to believers, is the chief matter in the mystery of tlie stars and candle- sticks which the prophet beholds, and whose meaning he is to testify to the churclies.!° If now, before the mystery of the seven stars with the entire treasures of prophetic admonition, warning, and comfort, be stated in this
1 Alcas., Aret., Eichh., Heinr., Herd., Ew., Bleek, De Wette; cf. Kiief., ‘‘ what they are.”
9 Areth., N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Grot., Calov., Vitr., Beng., Wolf, Ziill., Hengetenb., Ebrard, Lucke p. 401, Volkm.
3 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.
4 Cf. xvii. 7 aqq., and elsewhere.
5 Against De Wette; aleo against Kllefoth.
6 Matt. xilil. 11; Mark iv. 11; Rom. xi. 25; Eph. v. 32, 1. 9.
7 Cf. xvii. 7.
8 «vi, i.e., resting on the same, and therefore as to substance nothing else is to be under- stood that the éy, v. 16.
® In an apposition without the «ai.
10 Inconceivable, however, is the idea ex- pressed by Kilef., that, during the entire reve- lation (until xxfi. 5), the Lord remains standing alongside of John in the aituation described in the vision, i. 10-18. Already in ch. iy. the situation changes.
118 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
sense, an express interpretation of the symbols beheld by John be given,? this is just the key to the entire mystery, — the fundamental meaning, from which the correct application of all that follows depends. The essential meaning of the two symbols is unmistakable: the candlesticks are an easily understood figure of the churches,® which have received their light from Christ, and continue to be sustained by the Lord, who walks in their midst.* An allied idea must lie, however the éyyeAos be understood, in the symbol of the stars in Christ’s right hand, whereby, at all events, the dyyeAo: of the churches are described, and that in such a way that to the churches them- selves belongs ® what is ascribed to their angels.° So far, all interpreters are. unanimous. The controversy centres upon the word dyyeAo. This must mean either “messenger”” or “angel.” To the former meaning, Ebrard holds, by understanding messengers of the churches to John: not “ordinary letter-carriers, but delegates of the churches, who report to him, and are again to. convey his apostolic prophecies to the churches ; who therefore hold @ similar position between him and the churches to that which Epaphroditus probably held between Paul and the Philippians;”*® yet these messengers are represented as existing not in reality, but “only in vision.” “ Beneath the stars, John is to regard himself the ambassador of the churches.” Against the unnaturalness of such an opinion, Vitr.,® Wolf, Schottgen, Beng., Eichh., Heinr.,!° Ewald, etc., have guarded, who understand the “ messenger” of the Christian churches, after the manner of the Jewish V3¥ mow, of an officer subordinate to the priest, who has to read, pray, and care for external matters of many kinds. But apart from the question as to whether this messenger of the synagogue existed already in apostolic times, the same can only with difficulty be regarded a type of the Christian bishop or elder; for only that officer, and not the deacon,!! dare at any rate be regarded such ‘representative of the entire church, as the dyyedoc appears in the seven epistles. The latter view is taken by those who, appealing to Mal. ii. 7, lil. 1,]? and, as to what refers to the symbol of the stars, to Dan. xii. 3, under- ‘stand the dyyejo, i.e., angels, as superintendents (Vorsteher), teachers, as ‘bishops or presbyters.1® So also R. Rothe,!¢ who, however, in the angels of the churches perceives only “a prolepsis of bishops in the idea,” i.e., regards the bishops as an ideal whose realization is still to be expected. Here finally belongs, also, Hengstenb., who nevertheless}5 regards the angels of every ‘individual church, not as an individual, but as “the entire church govern- ment,” i.e., the body of presbyters, — eventually with a bishop at the head,
1 Cha. ii.; ili., and also ch. iv. sqq. 11 Concerning whom it could formerly have
2 vy. 20d. been thought otherwise, with Ewald. Yet Ew.
8 Cf. ii. 5. il., the mediator, i.e., the Vorsteher, of the
« Cf. Matt. v. 14 aqq. eburch.
5 wy. 4, 11. 43 Exod. xxifl. 20; Isa. xlii. 19; Ps. cil. 20
® Chas. ji. and iil. sqq.; Hengstenb.
? Luke vii. 24, ix. 52; Jas. i. 25; but cer- 13 Primas, Beda, N. de Lyra, Zeger, Drus., talniy not 1 Tim. fii. 16, as Ebrard thinks. Alcas., C. a Lap., Bossuet, Beza, Grot.,
® Phil. iv. 18; ef., aleo, Col. iv. 12. Calov., Herder, Kiief., etc.
® Cf. De Synag. vet., iit. 2; 2, 8. 4 Anfadnge d. chrisil. Kirche, 1. p. 428 8qq.
20 Yet cf. Ll. p. 205. : 6 Cf. Brightman, Alsted.
CHAP. I. 20. | 119
— together -with the deacons. This manner of exposition, which in its original simplicity always commends itself more than in its elaborate modi- fications by Rothe and Hengstb., is at variance partly with the use of the word dyyeAoc otherwise in the Apoc., and partly with the decisive circum- stance, that, in the epistles which are directed to the dyyedoc of each congre- gation, the relations of the congregations themselves are so definitely and directly treated, that, for the full explanation of this appearance, the view that the bishops or the entire governing body of the church are the repre- sentatives of their churches, besides not being in itself entirely justified, is not at all sufficient. Thus the view still remains, that, as Andr. and Areth. already say, the angel of the church is the church itself. In a certain analogy with xiv. 18, xvi. 5,1 where the angel of the elements, as the nations and the individuals are called, the dyyedoc of a church can be regarded? the personified spirit of the church.* This conception is not identical with that of the dyyeyor Epopoc,* according to which, e.g., among the rabbins, the funda- mental principle obtains, “God does not punish any people below without first casting down its chief froin above,” ® but has been formed in depend- ence thereon. Against this, the objection cannot be made valid, that the article is absent before dyyeAn: for the question has to do only with what is comprised in dyyéAo: 7, éxad., which is symbolized by the figure of the stars, without its being expressly marked here that the seven stars signify at any time one angel of the seven churches ; just as, in the succeeding words, it is only expressly said that the seven candlesticks mean the seven churches, but not that the precise churches mentioned in ver. 11 are meant. But, as this: designation of the conception is self-evident from the connection, so it is clearly inferred, from the superscription of the epistles which follow, that the angels of particular churches are meant. The most plausible objection’ against our exposition is made by Rothe; viz., that it is not proper, that, by the symbol of the stars, another symbol, viz., that of the angels, should be represented, especially alongside of the real ideas of the churches, which, also represented by a special symbol, are clearly distinguished from the éyyeAo tr. exxaA, But" the dyycdos r. exxd, are to be regarded not at all as a symbol, but as—of course ideally — reality; and, according to this concep- tion, to be in fact distinguished from churches that have been observed. If the éxxAnota, which is symbolized by the candlesticks, is considered, it appears variously composed of individual elements of various kinds, each of which is especially judged and treated of by the Lord; while, on the other hand, the dyyedoc r. éxxAncias appears as the living unity of the one organism of the church, which, as it were, in mass clings to the Lord. Thus it is, that the epistles are directed, not to the angels of the churches, and besides
1 Cf. vil. 1, ix. 11; Dan. x. 18, 20; Matt. p. 30 eq., has accepted the presentation as
xvii. 10; Deut. xxxif. 8 (LXX.). above given. 7Cf. Baimas, De epiec. et pread., p. 183; 3 In Wetst.
Wetst., Zall., Bleek, ete. ¢ Cf. also Volkm., who, however, mentions ® De Wette, Lticke, p. 432. also that the ayy. édopos has ‘‘ his earthly sub-
‘ So Hilgenf., Introd., p. 412. But the con- stratum ” in the president of the congregation. tente of the episties do not harmonize with the 7 Cf. Lticke. idea of an actual guardian angel. Gebhardt,
/
120 THE REVELATION -OF ST. JOHN.
to the churches, as must be expected even according to Rothe’s meaning, but only to the angel of each church; and yet in such way that their entirety as one person, one spiritual body, is declared. [See Note XXVII., p. 125.)
In conformity with the vision, ver. 12 sqq., and the epistles which in chs. ii. and iii. are directed to the seven churches,! must be the answer to the question as to what is the significance of these churches in the sense of the writer of the Apoc. Of the two chief views that are possible, according to which they appear either in purely historical definiteness, or in a certain typical position, the latter in the nature of the case has to be presented with many modifications, which, taken together, depend more or less upon an historical view; while, according to the former view,? there is no denial of a more general significance of the seven churches, at least in the sense that the epistles directed to them share the universal ecclesiastical relation of all the apostolic writings to particular congregations.* But against this opinion of Hengstenb., — who, in accordance with his false view of the relation of the sec- tion i. 4-ili. 22 to the whole book, comprehends the seven churches collectively with the utmost limitation,5 — is, first, the number seven ; ® and, secondly, the meaning of that vision wherein Christ appears in the midst of the seven candlesticks, i.e., churches, which therefore cannot be without a typical significance, since Christ is Lord and Saviour of all the churches (with which it also harmonizes well, that Christ writes to the angels of the churches; @ conception, which, since it is of a more ideal nature, especially adapts itself to the fact that the churches, while appearing in all their historical definiteness, yet at the same time are found in a typical sense); and, thirdly and finally, the contents themselves of the letters, whose pertinence to the universal Church’ is not only expressly emphasized,® but also concurs in its essential leading features with the chief thoughts of the entire book. But the significance of the seven churches is not to be limited to the entire Church of Asia Minor,® whieh only then, through this intermediate member, attains its further reference to the Church universal: rather, in the seven churches, the entire Church of Christ is-regarded," since it is a peculiarity of the writer of the Apoc. to present the general and ideal realistically, and in a definite, plastic way.1!_ But with this it is also established, that all further determinations which have been connected, even by a play of words, with the
1 Cf. vv. 4, 11.
2 Wolf, Harenburg (who nevertheless un- derstand seven Jewish and Judaeo-Christian schools found In Jerusalem, and named after the Asiatic cities), Herder, Lticke, — cf., on the other hand, Harenb.,— De Wette, Bleek, Hengstenb., etc.
3 Hengstenb. « Cf. on ver. 4.
5 Cf. Lucke, Ebrard, and already Vitr.
® For it ls certain that in Colossd and Hier- opolis (Col. iv. 14), and probably, e.g., in Tralles and Magnesia (cf. the Letters of Igna- tlus), there were churches; so that Jobn, for the sake of the significative number seven
(‘completeness is symbolized by the number seven,’—N. de Lyra, etc.), is compelled to limit himself to those montioned.
7 Cf. already the Fragment of Muratori: ‘« For although in the Apoc., John writes to the seven churches, yet he speaks to all.” Wiese- ler’s Ausgabe in the Stud. u. Krit., 1841, p. 815 eqq.
3 ij. 11, 17, etc.; cf. 1.3, xxH. 9, 18 sqq.
® As Liicke wishes.
10 Victorin, Areth., Beda, N. de Lyra, Grot., De Wette, ete.
11 Of. the idea of the seven angels and (ver. 4) the seven spirits.
NOTES. 121 names of the individual congregations,! are entirely arbitrary. This applies especially to the strange controversy as to whether, in the seven epistles, the conditions of the Church of Christ be understood synchronistically, and that, too, eschatologically, i.e., 80 that only “at the end of Church history,” im- | mediately before Christ’s return, are we to expect the corresponding forms of Christian Church-life ;? or whether the prophetically portrayed conditions are to be understood consecutively of seven periods of Church history, suc- ceeding one after another; ® or, finally, whether they be partly consecutive and partly synchronistic.4 The sort of foundations upon which such artificial interpretation is supported is shown, e.g., by Ebrard, who explains the first four epistles consecutively, because the promises in them® are regarded as derived “from consecutive epochs of O. T. history: Paradise, Death, the Departure from Egypt, the Kingdom of David.” The context shows that John has in view particular circumstances of churches present to him, and therefore that the number seven of these churches is contemplated as a mirror of the entire Church.* In a chronological relation, the apocalyptic prophecy of these seven epistles extends just as far, and is limited in the same truly prophetic way, as the apocalyptics of the entire book, which gives the full explanation of the fundamental thought contained already in the vision, ver. 12 sqq., and the epistles belonging thereto; viz., the unfolding of the prophecy, ‘‘ The Lord cometh.”
NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. XV. Ver. 1. 9v MWuxev aud 6 Gade.
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 revela- tion 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 vii. 16, xiv. 10, xvii. 7,8 The
1 «6°Edeoos reminds them that they ought to be inflamed with the desire for eternal things, for éfecrs is desire.” Grot. Cf. even Ebrard.
3 Hofmann, Weies. u. Erfall., li. pp. 320, $24. 3 Mede, Brightm., Vitr.
§ i]. 7, 11, 17, 27.
¢ According to Kilefoth, Zahlensymbolik der H. Schr. Theolog. Zeitech., 1862, p. 53) what is consecutive Hes fust in the number _ seven. Similarly in Commentar (p. 271: ‘ The number seven shows the development allotted the entire Church’). He understands the on- tire first part (1. 205-lil. 22) as a statement of the & eigiv (1. 19), i.e., of those which are the things beheld (i. 10-18) for the present course
« Ebrard.
of time, while 1. 205 gives the meaning of vv. 10-18; and then in chs. ii. and iil. are por- trayed the developments of Christianity origi- nating In the present, before the ‘far in the future” final period beginning with iv 1. Only in the last four epistles does Kilef. find a reference to the parousia, as the circum- - stances portrayed thereln are actually to extend in close consecutive chronological sequence until the epoch of the parousia. What is con- secutive in the number seven, derived here (p. 163) from the order of the divine working, is referred, however, by Kilef. (on xvii. 9, p. 210) to the relations of the anti-Christian world-power, which (iii. p. 258) is called “the final work of the Devil.”
122 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
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 i. 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 xili. 82). 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.’’
XVI. Ver. 1. sa tod ayyéAov,
Gebhardt (p. 40) maintains that the transference into an ecstasy cannot be regarded as showing the future; and, indorsing Diist.’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, xxii. 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 ayy., according to the natural idiom, definitely presents an individual from the genus of angels, and the atrov refers to Jesus Christ who sends; cf. xxii. 16. The designation ‘ his angel’ is thoroughly consistent according to 1 Pet. iii. 22; cf. Matt. xiii. 41.”
XVII. Ver. 4. dd 6 dy,
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.”
XVIII. Ver. 4. 6 épydpevoc,
Gebhardt (p. 21): ‘‘ John does not use épyouevog as synonymous with todpevoc, but in the sense of coming to judgment for the final completion of the eternal world-plan.’”? Cremer (Lezicon): ‘‘ In Rev. 1. 4, 8, iv. 8, 6 épyéuevoe denotes God as the God of the future revelation of salvation; cf. Isa. xl. 9: and the title (viz., 6 Gv, x.7.4,), as a whole, is given to God, as the God of an eternal and unchangeable covenant.”’ Tait: “‘ The word épyopevoc is the keynote of revela- tion. 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.’ ”
KIX. Ver. 4. rév éxrad wvevparur,
Trench: ‘‘ There {is no doubt, that, by ‘the seven spirits,’ we are to under stand, 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 person- ality. It is only that he is regarded here not so much in his personal unity as in his manifold energies, 1 Cor. xii.4. The matter could not be put better than it is by Richard of St. Victor: ‘Et a septem spiritibus, id est, a septiforml
NOTES. 128
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 al] spirit- ual charisms. John, however, employs the number seven, because it is the number of perfection, and denotes multiplicity (Amos i. 6; Prov. xxiv. 15; Ps. cxix. 164; Isa. iv. 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, Le., 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 da70 is thrice repeated, and the seven spirits assigned the same degree of dignity with the Father and the Son. 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, when- ever angels are joined with God and Christ as ministers, they are subjoined (1 Tim. v. 21; Rev. iii. 5: the intention of the passage, Mark xiii. 82, 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 Isa. xi. 2, 3.
XX. Ver. 5. 6 mpwrdtoxoc.
Cf. Meyer on 1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. i. 18. Others, indeeu, 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 Rom. vi. 9; also, in this chapter, v. 1S.
XXII. Ver. 5. xa? Avcarre,
Beck, who, however, prefers the reading Aotoayr:, adds on the & 7 alyart: *‘ For it is not the material, lifeless blood of one dead, but the spiritually quick- ened blood of the risen One, i.e., of one born anew by the resurrection, of the
124 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
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 (Heb. ix. 14; ef. vil. 16, x. 19-21). Aovecv 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 accom- plished 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.”’
XXII. Ver. 6. lepeic r@ 626,
On the relation of iepei¢ 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, there- fore, 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 (Exod. xx. 6, 10, xxiv. 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.”’
XXIIL Ver. 7. pera rav veperav.
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 vegeAn gutetvy (Matt. xvii. 5), ‘the glorious privacy of light,’ into which the Lord was withdrawn, for a while, from the eyes of his disciples at the trans- figuration; but are rather the symbols or fit accompaniments of judgment (Ps. xevii. 2; cf. xviii. 11; Nah. i. 8; Isa. xix. 11).’’ Both ideas, however, are recon- cilable, according as those who contemplate Christ’s coming are believing or unbelieving.
XXIV. Ver. 7. ofrevec abrov tkexévrycay,
Alford: ‘‘ The persons intended in this expression are, beyond doubt, those to whom our Lord prophesied in like terms, Matt. xxvi. 64; viz., those who were his murderers, whether the Jews who delivered him to be crucified, or ia Romans who actually inflicted his death.”
XXV. Ver. 10. &v 79 xupaxg jyépg.
Trench: ‘‘Some have assumed, from this passage, that ?épa xupcax® was a designation of Sunday already familiar among Christians. This, however,
NOTES. 125
seems a mistake. The name had, probably, its origin here. A little later, we find #uépa xvptax} familiar to Ignatius, as Dominica solemnia to Tertullian (De Anima, c. 9; cf. Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius, H. Z£., iv. 28, 8; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., vii. 12; Origen, Con. Cels., viii. 22). But, though the name ‘the Lord’s Day’ will very probably have had here its rise (the actual form of the phrase may have been suggested by «vpiaxdy deisvor, 1 Cor. xi. 20), the thing, the celebration of the first day of the week as that on which the Lord brake the bands of death, and became the head of a new crea- tion, called therefore sometimes advacrdoipyoe fuépa, — this was as old as Christian- ity itself (John xx. 24-29; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; Epistle of Barnabas, c. 17).”? A refutation of the interpretation as ‘‘ the day of the Lord’s coming ”’ is given in Alford.
XXXVI. Ver. 12. érra Avyviag ypvotdc.
Alford notes the change from the seven-branched candlestick of the temple, as symbolizing the loss of outward unity, so that ‘‘ each local church has now its own candlestick.’”? So Trench: “ The Christian Church is at once ‘the Church’ and the ‘ churches,’’’? Plumptre: ‘“‘ What he needed was to bring out clearly the individuality of each society.’”? Tait: ‘‘ These candlesticks were of gold, to denote the preciousness of every thing connected with the Church, and, we may add, the beauty of the Church and her holy services,’’
XXVIII. Ver. 20. dyyeAos rév brad exxAnouy,
In harmony with Diist., Gebhardt (p. 89): ‘‘‘ The angel-of the church’ represents it as a unity, an organization, as a moral person, a living whole, in which one member depends upon and affects the others, in which a definite spirit reigns, and by which one church is distinguished from another.”’ Lange: ** The personified character or life-picture of the Church.”
Weiss (Bibl. Theol. of N. T., ii. 270) regards the angels of the churches as ‘their protecting angels.’’ Alford’s long argument is to the same effect.
Supporting the view that the angels are the superintendents, pastors, or bishops, are: Cremer (Leztcon): ‘‘To see in d&yyeAos here a personification of the spirit of the community in its ‘ideal reality’ (as again Diisterdieck has recently done), is not merely without any biblical analogy, — for such a view derives no support from Dan. x. 18, 20; Deut. xxxii. 8; LXX., — but must also plainly appear an abstraction decidedly unfavorable to the import and effect of the epistles. It would have been far more effective, in this case, to have written v9 &v... éxxAgoia ypayov. Assuming the 4yy. réw éxxAnc. to be those to whom the churches are intrusted, the only question is, To what sphere do they belong, the terrestrial or the super-terrestrial ? Their belonging to the earthly sphere is supported above all by the address of the epistles; secondly, by the circum- stance that the writer of the Apocalypse could not act as messenger between two super-terrestrial beings (cf. Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6); and, further, by the consid- eration that, as the candlesticks, so also the stars, must belong to one and the same sphere. But, if by this expression we are to understand men, it is natural to think of Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v.2; and that, too, so that these éxioxomo or npeoBbrepo are those whose business it is to execute the will or commission of the Lord, in genera] as well as in special cases, to the churches, as those whom the Lord has appointed representatives of the churches, and to whom he has intrusted their care: cf. Acts xx. 28; Mal. fi. 7.’ Stier: ‘‘ Persons who
126 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
stood before the Lord’s view, as the representative leaders of the church, with or without prominent office, but in prominent spiritual position, and therefore assumed to be the receivers of that which was to be said in the church. They are by no means collectively the ‘ teaching order,’ or ‘ the eldership,’ or any thing of the kind, but actual individual persons.’? Philippi (Kirchl. Glaubenlehre, v. 8, 287): ‘* The dyyeAoc here is neither to be spiritualized as the personifica- tion of the spirit of the congregation, nor also to be taken collectively as the entire official body, or presbytery, of the church. But, as the spirit of the con- gregation is represented in the presbytery, so was the spirit of the presbytery in its official body, or bishop; and therefore he also, as not merely the official, but, at the same time, the spiritual summit of the entire body, is chiefly responsible for its spirit.” Luthardt: ‘‘God’s messengers, who speak in God’s name, therefore here die Vorsteher.’? Trench argues at length (pp. 75-83) that the term can refer only to a bishop, and that, too, ‘‘not merely a ruling elder, a primus inter pares, with only such authority and jurisdiction as the others, his peers, have lent him.’? Plumptre: ‘‘ The word ‘ angels’ might well commend itself, at such a time, as fitted to indicate the office for which the received ter- minology of the Church offered no adequate expression. Over and above its ordinary use, it had been applied by the prophet whose writings had been brought into a new prominence by the ministry of the Baptist, to himself as a prophet (Mal. i. 1), to the priests of Israel (Mal. ii. 7), to the forerunner of the Lord (Mal. ili. 1). It had been used of those whom, in a lower sense, the Lord had sent to prepare his way before him (Luke ix. 52), and whose work stood on the same level as that of the seventy. Here, then, seemed to be that which met the want. So far as it reminded men of its higher sense, it testified that the servants of God, who had been called to this special office, were to ‘lead on earth an angel’s life;’ that they, both in the liturgical and the ministerial aspects of their work, were to be as those who, in both senses, were ‘ minister- ing spirits’ in heaven (Heb. i. 14). It helped also to bring the language of the Revelation into harmony with that of the great apocalyptic work of the Old Testament, the prophecy of Daniel. On the other hand, we need not wonder that it did not take a permanent place in the vocabulary of the Church. The old associations of the word were too dominant, the difficulty of distinguishing the new from the old too great, to allow of its being generally accepted.”” Tait: ‘“‘This name is not, certainly, applied elsewhere in the New Testament to a bishop, nor is it applied to a presbyter; but it is in perfect accord with the sym- bolical character of the book in which it occurs, and is admirably adapted to express the nature of the office, and the responsibilities of those to whom the spiritual charge of the several churches was committed.”’
CHAP. II. 127
CHAPTER II.
Instead of the rec. ’Egeolync, ver. 1, Griesbach already, according to prepon- derating testimonies, has written év ’Egéoy. In this way, the designation of place is to be read in the superscriptions of all seven epistles: cf., ver. 8, the variation tx«A, Zuvpvaiwv; likewise iii. 14. But it is doubtful whether, instead of ti¢ (2, 8, 6, 7, al., Verss., Griesb., Tisch., etc.), Lach. has correctly written ra (cf. already Beng.). This ro, Lach. has, besides, in ver. 1, where A, C, testify to it; also ver. 8 (where, however, C has neither ro nor r7¢). Yet the authority of A, which C once contradicts, and with which, at least once, it does not agree, seems too weak to compel the removal of the scarcely unnecessary 176, which is certain also in most MSS. # has it throughout. Bengel’s opinion (Gnomon on ver. 1) that the 7¢ (vv. 1, 12, 18), or the tic, was chosen in accord with the contents of the epistle, is refuted by the testimonies which allow it to be read only in the way proposed by Lach. — Ver. 2. The cov after xéxov (rec.) is absent in A, C, Vulg., al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}, and is defended by B, &, not against exegetical considerations. — Instead of éreipacw (Erasm., rec.) read éreipacac, according to A, B, C, &, 2, 6, 7, al., with Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Instead of the rec. gdoxovrac elva: dnocrdAovc, read Afyovrac Eavtod¢ arocrdAove, according to A, B, &, 18, 25, al. (cf. ver. 20), with Griesb., Lach. [W. and H.]; and that, too, without the addition of elva (cf. ver. 9), which Beng., Matth., Tisch., have according to 6, 7, 8, 9, al., Verss., Primas, Andr. — Ver. 3. The rec., with its two pairs of members, «a? éGacr. x. bropov, Exere and wal di 7, Svou, pt. Kexoniaxag Kai ob xéxunxac, originates from an interpreter. According to a more correct reading, the parallelism of members falls away, as it should be «al bropoviy Exerc, nal éBdoracag did 1d dvope pov (A, B, C, 2, 3, 4, al., Verss., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), xal ob xexoniaxes (A, C, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), for which latter form (cf. ver. 4, dpjxec in C), Beng. has written xexoriaxas, Mill (Prol., 1109) and Griesb. have preferred éxo- miacac (2, 8, 4, &, al., Andr., Areth.), which, however, is introduced because of the aor. éBacr. — Ver. 5. Rec., txréxruxag (Andr.), against A, C, 2,4, al., Verss., Areth., which have réxroxag (Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch.) [érroxes, W. and H.]. — The razv (Var., rayet, Erasm., Steph., 1,3, Beng.) in Complut., Steph., 2, against A, C, ®, Vulg., al., Lach., Tisch., originates from a comparison with ver. 16, fii. 11, ete. — Ver. 7. The false form »xodvr: is received by Lach. It is, of course, noteworthy that this is found also at ver. 17 in A; nay, even there, according to Lach., also in C; so that it can scarcely be a slip of the pen. — {nstead of év pécy rod napadcicov (rec.), read év 7 mapad., according to all impor- tant witnesses (Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The omis- sion of the pov after Geod (rec., Lach., Tisch.; IX. [W. and H.]) is favored by A, C, ®%; on the other hand (Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.), 2, 4, 6, 7, al., Vulg., Syr., Aeth., Orig., Cypr., al., are for its reception, as well as what is decisive, viz., the circumstance that the theological interests would be easily opposed to the pov; as, e.g., Arethas expressly remarks, with a reference to John
128 THE REVELATION OF 8T. JOHN.
xx. 17, that the expression 7. deot pov contains nothing offensive. Cod. 26 (Wetst.) has changed the not-favored yov into cov.— Ver. 9. Ta ipya nal. Ree. (%) against A, C, 19, Vulg., Copt., Aeth. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}). Also, in ver, 18, the addition has entered from ver. 2, 19, iii. 1, 8, 15. — Before the Tay Aey., an é is to be supplied in the rec. (A, B, C, &, 2, 6, 7, al., Verss., Beng., etc.). — Ver. 10. Instead of pndéy (Vulg., rec., %, Beng., Tisch.), read pf, (A, B, C, 8, Andr., Lach. [W. and H.].— The particle 4%, after idot (2, 4, 6, 8, al., Areth., Compl., Matth., Tisch.), may be regarded as a stylistic addition which does not correspond to the literary character of the Apoc. Lach. agrees with the rec. (%, Tisch. [X. [W. and H.]), which does not have the 67. — The rec. ers (Vulg., &: &feraz; Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.) can stand against the reading éx7re (A, Lach. [W. and H.]) the less, as C also, by its éyera: (accord- ing to Wetst.: &ere), testifies to this. — Ver. 18. The omission of the xa? before ty r, hu. (2, 4, 6, 7, al., in Wetst., five codd., b. Matth., x, Syr., Aeth., Ar., Compl., Beng., Matth., Pisch., against A, C, Vulg., rec., Lach.), and, afterwards, the omission of the d¢ in some few codd. in Wetst. and Beng. (so Luth.; cf., also, Ewald), should serve for a relief of the construction which essentially depends thereon, whether after the fyuépas, tv alg (Andr., rec., Beng., Griesb.), or alg (2, 4, 6, 9, al., in Wetst., four codd. in Matth.; so Matth., Tisch.), or éugjc (Erasm., Luth.), or, finally, all this fall away (A, C, Vulg., Copt., Treg., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). It is possible for the alg to fall away because of the preceding #yéputc, but the addition is more probably meant to aid the construc- tion. — Ver. 14. The dre (A, 8, rec., Tisch., LX.) comes from vv. 4, 20. — ro Bad. So Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to A, C. A correction is tov, B (rec.); through reiteration from édidacxev, arise the var. év ro, B (Luther), “through Balak.’’ COf., also, Winer, p. 218. — Ver. 15. The art. before Nexoa, (rec., &, Tisch. IX.) ts to be deleted (A, C, 6, 11, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Instead of 5 puod (rec., Beng.), read duoiwe, C, A, &, many minusce., Vulg., Syr., Andr., Areth., al., Beng. in Gnom., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. (W. and H.]. The compounds, dyoiug 6 yuo, and du. fy jus. (cf. Wetst., Beng.), are also found. — Ver. 16. After peray., the oiv (A, C, minusc., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is absent in the rec., but also in ®, Tisch. IX. — Ver. 17. The gloss ¢ayeiv ad, before rod pay. (rec. against the prevailing testi- monies), is in no way supported by Arethas (cf. Matth.). — For éyve (rec.), read oldev (A, B, C, &, 2, al., Beng., etc.). — Ver. 18. The atrov, after dgGaAy. (cf. i. 14), is to be erased (A, C, Lach.). Likewise, ver. 19, the xai before ra eox. — Ver. 20. From ver, 14, dA‘ya is introduced (rec., X: oA); against A, C, many minusc., Verss., Beng., Griesb., etc. Instead of the explanatory 颢 (rec.), read dgeic (A, O, ®, minusc., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), whence, also, the emendations, a¢inc, a¢jxac, are derived. — The rec.: yur. lecaZ. (Beng., Treg. [W. and H.]) is sufficiently supported by C, &, Vulg., and, in an exegeti- cal respect, to be decidedly preferred to the reading oov ’leo, (many minusc., in Wetst., and Matth., Griesb., Tisch.). — The rec. : rv A¢yovo. is, like the variation # Aéyes (in Wetat.), an interpretation of the correct 4 Aéyovoa (A, C, ®, Beng., Griesb., etc.). — xal diddoxet xal rAavg. So, according to A, C, *, many minusc., Syr., Copt., Compl., already Beng., Griesb. Thé rec.: deddoxe xal xAavdcba (Vulg.: docere et seducere) is an alteration which Areth. more correctly attains by his ded. x. xAavay, — Ver. 21. Instead of xa? ob OéAei (ovn HOEAnGEY, A), peTavorjoas &x tig mopy, avr. (A, C, minuse., Verss., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), the rec. has the é« 7. sop». abr. before xa? od, and then only peravd- goev, The shortest, and perhaps original, reading is that of %,: lva peray, ix 1.
CHAP. I. 129
xopy, TabrHc. — Ver. 22, The éyé before faAAw (rec.) is incorrect (A, C, 2, 4, al., Beng., Griesb., etc.). The xadé in the ® is a clerical error. — For xAivyy, A has the poor gloss ¢vAax)yv, — The modification épy. abréy (rec.) is found already in A, against B, &, 2, 8, etc.; atric is rejected already by Beng. and Griesb. — Ver. 24. Instead of xa2 Aour. (rec.), read roi Aor, (A, C, al., Beng., Griesb., etc.; cf. the variations xai toi¢ Aon.). The xal before olrcvec is incorrect (A, C, %, Vulg., al., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The fut. Bade (rec., &; cf. Vulg., Primas) is an explanation of the correct reading SaAAw (A, C, al., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 27. ovvrplBera:. So, correctly, (A, C, &), the recen- sions and later editions. The var. ovvrpiGjoera: (2, 3, 4, 6, al, Vulg., Syr., Compl.) is an inept explanation (cf. Luth., Soll er sie zerschmeissen), which Areth. wishes to justify exegetically by making the o¢ not comparative but final.
All seven epistles (chs. ii. and iii.)1 are not only like one another in their dependence upon the same fundamental thought,’ viz., the advent of the Lord, since they explain and apply it, as often as presented,® in a manifold way; but they are also skilfully planned and forcibly elaborated according to a scheme.‘ The epistles naturally fall into three chief divisions, — title, body of the epistle, and conclusion. Since what are properly the super- scriptions proceed from the command of the Lord, in whose name John is to write, the titles contain after the uniform introductory formula Tade Aéye:, ex- pressed after the manner of the ancient propheta,® such a self-designation of Christ speaking to the churches as agrees with the visionary revelation,® or with the designation of the Lord placed at the head of the book,’ and by its © consolations, warnings, and threats, is significant with reapect to the contents themselves of the epistles.* What is properly the epistle is always opened with & prominent presentation of the fact that the Lord knows all the relations of his churches (olda, «.r.4.); then, connected with this are praise and reproof, the statement of present and future perils and troubles, and an admonition to repentance, encouragement, consolation, warning, threats, in accordance with the circumstances presented.® The conclusion is always divided into two parts, and has a decidedly very general significance, so that each indi- vidual epistle calls to mind the more general meaning 2 found in the whole seven. The two members of the conclusion contain exhortations directed to every one who has ears to hear the address of the Spirit to the churches, and & promise to victors, pointing to the final completion of Christ’s kingdom; so that thus, even in these closing verses, there is an intimation of the goal before all Apoc. prophecy, — the coming of the Lord. It is, besides, to be remarked concerning both these members, that in the first three epistles the exhortation precedes and the promise follows,!* while in the last four epistles the order is reversed ;** so that the number seven seems intentionally
1 Cf. Heinrichs, ii. p. 195 sqq. Zecure. I., ® Cf. li. land 5, 8 and 10, 12 and 16, 18 and De Sept. tliis Epp. Apocalypt. 28, 27. 2 Of. i. 7. ® 11. 2-6, 9, 10, 18-16, 19-25, fil. 1-4, 811, 15- 8 if. 5, 16, iff. 3, 11, 20. 20. 4 Cf. also Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., 1° Cf. on {. 20. Ebrard. il Cf. Beng., Ew., De Wette, etc. 5 Am. 1. 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 1.1, 4,6. Cf. Ewald. 13 1.7, 11, 17.
© 1. 12 sqq. v4. 5. 13 fi. 26-20, ili. 5, 6, 12, 13, 21, 22.
180 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
resolved into three and four, as also elsewhere, although no consequence dare be inferred therefrom concerning the relation of the churches to each other.
Vv. 1-7. The epistle to the church (the angel of the church, cf. i. 20) at Ephesus. .
Ver. 1. Ephesus, vying with Smyrna (ver. 8) and Pergamos (ver. 12) for the precedence in Asia, is called mpéry pnrpénodic? (first metropolis). But neither does this political relation determine the precedency of the three churches, nor is Ephesus named at the head of them all as the proper residence of John, as Hengstenb. asserts under the presumption of the Apos- tolic-Johannean authenticity of the Apoc.: cf. on i. 11. — At Ephesus, which, in the times of the Apostle Paul, was the chief city of Ionia, lying on the Cayster and near the sea, known for its worship of Diana,’ and especially distinguished for its trade and fine Grecian culture,* and at present in ruins, alongside of which is the village of Ajosoluk,® Paul had collected a congre- gation of Jews, and especially of heathen, and had cherished it with great love.6 At his departure he spoke of the dangerous errors with which the churches would be visited,’ of which there is still no trace in the Epistle to the Ephesians, not even in Eph. iv. 14, v. 6. At the time of 1 Tim. i. 3, Timothy was superintending the church there: many expositors who regard the ‘‘angel”’ of the church as the bishop imagine, therefore, under a double error, that our Apocalyptic epistle is directed to Timothy.* Cf. also Intro- duction, sec. 3. The designation of the Lord, in whose name the prophet writes, is from i. 13, 16, only that instead of yw» we find now «paréw r. én. dor., 80 that Christ is presented as though he held the stars fast,® protecting and supporting them, so that it depends only upon him, if possibly by an - act of judgment he cast them out of his hand.! So, also, is the sepirarav, x.72., in comparison with i. 18, where Christ appears altogether in the midst of the candlesticks. Yet even in the weprarciy there does not lie so much the idea of walking to and fro, as rather that his presence is a living and actual one.1% — The entire designation of Christ, which in general expresses his essential relation to the churches, occurs on that account fittingly in the jirst of the seven epistles, which, indeed, form not a mere aggregate of accidental indi- vidualities, but, as the number seven already shows, an important unity. Even in the manifestation of Christ, what first meets the eyes of the seer is how the Lord is in the midst of the candlesticks.1% In no way, therefore, does “this item inwardly and strictly cohere with the metropolitan posi-
1 Hengstenb. 6 Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1 sqq., xx. 17 sqq. 2 Cf. Wolf. 7 Acts xx. 22 eqq. 3 Acta xix. 8 So the expoeitors whom N. de Lyra men-
In Plautus (Aft. Glor., ili. 1, 42 sqq.), a tions, but does not indorse (Viegas, Alcasar, witty fellow (cavillue lepidus, facetus) ex- C.a Lap, ete. Not so, Ribera, Stern).
cuses himself for having been born at Ephesus ; ® 41. 25, iff. 11. and not without cause does the apostle warn 20 John x. 28. the Ephesians (v. 4) of evrpaweAia. 11 Cf. ver. 5, if]. 16.
8 Cf. Th. Smith, Septem Asiae Ecclesiarum 13 Cf. Lev. xxvi. 12; Sir. xxiv. 5. Notitia, Oxon., 1672; Zlillig, Beigabe, 2; 13 1, 13. Winer, Realwérterd., 1. 389.
CHAP. II. 3. 181
tion of the Ephesian congregations as the universal type of the apostolical church.” !
Ver. 2. Ta &pya cov are not “Christian deeds of heroism against false teachers,” as Hengstenb. thinks;? who, partly because of the otherwise inex- plicable ver. 4, partly in order not to maintain a repetition with respect to the trouov#, ver. 8, and partly because of ver. 6,* understands all of vv. 2, 3, as referring to conduct towards false teachers, the «émo¢ as work against them, while the trouovf, ver. 2, signifies “active” and ver. 3 “ passive” pa- tience in suffering, which true confessors experience because of their zeal against them. All this is arbitrary. By ra épya cov, the external activity in general, whereby the Church manifests its inner life, is designated. The works (“ fruits,” Matt. vii. 16 sqq.) cannot be evil (vv. 6, 22, iii. 1, 15, xvi. 11, xviii. 6; cf. Rom. ii. 6 sqq.). It is the entire —and here praiseworthy * — conversation of the church,® including their bearing under suffering,® that is here meant. This is shown by what follows, where the works are more accurately explained in a twofold respect, nal rdw xérov x. 7. bron, cov and xat érz ob dévy Bact. xax.? Just because the cov does not stand after xérov, but only after (7. xom. xat) r. bropoviy (i. 14), these two ideas cohere the more inti- mately, but not as hendiadys;*® while as the second point the cat ob dévy, x.r.A, is rendered prominent.® Just as in 1 Cor. xv. 58, the xémoc of believers with their firm steadfastness is required for realizing the épyo» of the Lord, both are here mentioned; viz., the xézoc, i.e., the toilsome labor,!° and the éxopov;, i.e., the necessary patient perseverance, as a chief item in the épya.1 The xonoc, together with the ¢rovorg, refers to all wherein believers fulfil their peculiar holy task with divine and spiritual power and endurance, — a work which, in its most manifold forms, is always combined with hardship (xéro¢), and therefore cannot be fulfilled without ¢trounv7, as this is essentially and necessarily conditioned by the antagonism between the kingdom of Christ and the world. — The second commendation !* is, that the Lord knows the “works” of the church at Ephesus, that it “cannot bear them which are evil” (xaxotc without the article). Concerning the form dévy,!* cf. Wetstein and Winer. The faoréjew makes us think of the xaxof as a heavy burden.}4 The expression xaxois 4 designates those meant properly according to their perverted and worthless nature, which, however, in the sense of the prophet, already according to the O. T. view, cannot be estimated otherwise than by the measure of the positive divine norm. Thus “they which are evil” are in some sort of contradiction to the divine truth, whereby the inner and out- ward life of believers is determined; hence the actual intolerance towards them, or ! the necessary hatred of their godless nature.}” — xal éreipaoag r. Ary,
1 Ebrard. 2 Cf. also Helnr. 11 Cf. also, in xiv. 13, the correlation of the 3 See exposition of verse. general ¢pyor and the more definite coos. # Without saying, therefore, that I approve 12 Cf. also ver. 6. the ol8a (N. de Lyra). 13 Mark ix. 22. 5 Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. 34 2 Kings xviil. 14; Matt. xx. 12; Gal. vi. 2; © Calov. 7 Cf. Ew. Acts xvi. 10, 28. ® Grot., Heinr. 1% Not wovnpovs. See on xvi. 2. ® Against Ebrard. 1¢ Ver. 6.
% Cf. 1 Thess. 1. 3, 4H. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 5. 17 Cf. Ps. cxxxix. 21 sqq.
182 . THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
éavr. GrooréAouc, «1.2. The praiseworthy conduct of the church towards those that are evil, who are here more accurately designated as false teachers, is still further acknowledged (until pevdeic). Tepéfey, synonymous with dox:pa- ev! and correlate with ré doxijsov, doxiyov yéveodat,* is more the practical putting to the test, the trial from living experience. In 1 John iv. 1, where the ques- tion is treated solely with respect to a definite confession, domiudfecw properly occurs: in this place, on the other hand, the se:pd{ew indicates that works espe- cially * come into consideration. Hence the connection of our false apostles with the false prophets, 1 John iv.,4 is inapposite. — Those here meant call themselves apostles, and yet are not; so the result of the proof is that they are found liars. Those men must, therefore, like the false apostles af Cor- inth,® have professed themselves as sent immediately from the Lord himself.® If in so doing they should have appealed to their intercourse with Christ as long as he was on earth,’ — which, however, is not indicated, — it would of course follow that “that was the apostolic age.” But, at any rate, this declaration has sense only at the time which occurs about the Pauline pe- riod, i.e., possibly up to the destruction of Jerusalem; but not at the end of the first century, where a trace nowhere occurs of a false teacher laying claim to apostolic authority. — As to the character of the false teachers, cf. ver. 8. — [See Note XXVIII., p. 155.)
Ver. 8. As in ver. 2 (xat éreipacac, «.r.4.) that is amplified which was briefly indicated by the words xa dr: ob divy Bacracat xaxobc, 80 NOW, also, the first point of the acknowledgment (r, xow, x. r. énou. cov) is developed on a definite side, and that, too, so that not only with iroyovi txeg the above trouoviy cov is again taken up, but also the éx«Sdéoracar 6:2 r. dy, pou® is placed in a significant antithesis to the ob divy Bacraca xaxobc, and by the xa? ob xexo- xiaxee® it is indicated that the xémoc of believers furnished with the right troyvov; has resulted neither in succumbing nor weariness. Beng.: “I know thy labor; yet thou dost not labor, i.e. shalt not be broken down by labor.” 1°
Vv. 4, 5. In sharp antithesis to the praise," follows (aA4a) the declaration of what the Lord has against the church ; }? viz., that it has left, i.e , given up, ita first love.18 The xparnyv is not to be taken as comparative, nor is it to be inferred in the sense in itself correct, that the Greek superlative has a comparative force; rather, the love is regarded as actually the first, ie., that which was actually present at the beginning of the life of faith.15 This dyamy certainly is not “the sedulous care and vigilance with fervor and zeal for the purity of the divine word against false prophets,” !*.which is impoe- sible already, because of ver. 2 (dtvg pres.). Opposed to this, but just as
1 2 Cor. xiil. 5. © Cf. Vitr., Wolf., Ew., Ebrard, etc.
21 Pet. 1.6; Jas. 1. 2, 12. 21 Vv. 2, 8.
® Cf. ver. 6. 4 Hengatenb. 13 Cf. Matt. v. 23.
5 2 Cor. xi. 14, 23. 3 De Wette. Cf. Rom. i. 27; Mark vil. 8; * Not from the church at Jerusalem (Ewald). Prov. iv. 13, where is the contrary ¢vAdowes. ? Beng. 14 Eiw., Winer, p. 229.
8 Cf. Matt. x.22; Luke xxi. 17; John xv. 21.' 18 Cf. N. de Lyra, Areth., De Wette, Heng-
® Cf. Isa. xl. 31; Ps. vi. 7; John iv.6; Matt. stenb., Ebrard, Ew. il., etc. xi. 28, 1% Calov. Cf. also Vitr.
CHAP. II. 4, 5. 183 inappropriate, is the explanation of Eichhorn: “You are restraining the wicked teachers too captiously and severely.” The reference appears spe- cially to apply to the care of the poor;! it is altogether difficult to regard it alone of brotherly love,? but of that only so far as it is the manifestation of love to God and Christ, which the indefinite expression may suggest. Ziil- lig and Hengstenb. have properly recalled Jer. ii. 2. The lovely description of the fellowship of believers with God as that of a bridal or marriage rela- tion * is particularly applicable to the foundation of the grace of God appear- ing in Christ,‘ and still to be hoped for from him.’ Against this exposition an appeal cannot therefore be made ® to vv. 2, 3; since even where the /jirst love has vanished, and works springing only from the purest glow of this first love are no longer found (ver. 5), the power of faith and love to the Lord is still sufficient for the works praised in vv. 2 and 3.—To the re- proof (ver. 4) is added the call to repentance, and, in case this do not occur,’ the threatening of judgment. The remembrance® of the first better con- dition, whence as from a moral elevation the church had fallen,® should cause a penitential return and the doing of the first works, as they formerly gave testimony to that first love (ver. 4). In this line of thought, the wésev néxtoxag cannot mean “the loss of salvation you have experienced.” 2° The threat (x. r. Auyv., x.7.4.) is expressed, not only in accordance with the desig- nation of the speaking Lord, ver. 1, but also (épy. co:) in connection with the prophetic fundamental] thoughts of the entire book, as both are inwardly combined with one another, as Christ is the one who is to come, according to his relation described in ver. 1 4 to his church (and the world). But since John states the particular judgment upon an individual congregation as a coming of the Lord, which yet is not identical with his final coming, the peculiar goal of all prophecy, the prophet himself shows how he associates the individual preliminary revelations of judgment with the full conclusion in the final judgment, as well as distinguishes them from one another.!? But the distinction dare not be urged in such a way that the eschatological refer- ence of the pyoya: vanishes.** — Concerning the dat. incomm. ool,!4 cf. Winer, p. 147. — x, xevgow 1. Avyviay cov, x.7.2., designates, according to the rule under- lying the whole representation,!5 nothing else than: “I will cause thee to cease to be the church.” '® Ewald, unsatisfactorily: “I will withdraw my grace and kindness from thee.” Grotius, incorrectly: “I will cause thy people to flee another way; viz., to those places where there will be greater
1 Grot., Ewald. Cf. also Heinr. on ver. 5.
* Heinr., De Wette, Ebrard.
3 Cf. Hos. ii. 15 8qq-
4 Eph. v. 25, 32.
5 Rev. xix. 9, xxii. 17.
© Ebrard.
T ei 8 wh. Cf. Winer, p. 508: day mip per- avojons, a8 ONCe more made expressly promi- nent at the close. Cf. Winer, p. 568.
8 prypor., ill. 3.
* Cf. alzo Rom. xi. 11, 22, xiv. 4; 1 Cor. x. 12; Heb. iv. 11. WN. de Lyra, Pric., Eichh., Stern, De Wette, Hengstenb., ete.
10 Kypke, Bretachneider, Lex. on this word, by presupposing the false reading édawérr., which, according to linguistic usage, more readily offers the conception of something lost.
1 Cf. i. 12 eqq.
12 Cf. aleo De Wette, ete.
18 Against Klief.
16 11.16. Cf. iff. 8, éwi oa,
18 j. 12 sqq., 20. Cf. to «v., vi. 14.
1¢ Aretius. Of. Heinr., De Wette, Stern, Hengstenb., eto.
134 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
care for the poor.’’! Zeger, and thany others who regard the angel as the bishop of the church, incorrectly: “I will take the church from thee, that thou no longer preside over it.”
Ver. 6. Not for the purpose of alleviating the pain of the church con- cerning the reproof of ver. 4,2 but because the Lord’s love for his church gladly recognizes what is to be properly acknowledged, and once more, but in a new and more definite way, makes prominent in opposition to ver. 4 sqq.- (dda) the one point of commendation already in ver. 2. Just because the church was rejected for no longer having the jirst love to their Lord, is it once more expressly acknowledged that it is still so far of one mind with him, as to hate the wicked works which he hates. Thus ver. 6 has enough that is peculiar, as not to appear a mere repetition of ver. 2, and contains no marks whatever whereby vv. 2, 3, are to be understood in the sense of Heng- stenberg. — With rotro fy. neither cyadéy, nor the like, is used to complete the construction: the explanation of the rovro in dr: yuo., x.7.A., Shows that the com- mon possession is commendable. — The juoeic is not “a strong expression for censuring,”® but is just as earnestly meant as the jwuod.4 But it is justly remarked already by N. de Lyra,5 that the hatred is directed not against the persons, but against the works.*— Concerning the Nicolaitans,' as well con- cerning their name as also their conduct, it is possible to judge only by a comparison with ver. 14. sqq. Irenaeus,® Hippolyt.,® Tertullian,!° Clemens Alex.,! Jeroine,!? Augustine,!8 and other Church Fathers derive the sect from a founder Nicolaus, and that, too, the deacon mentioned in Acts vi. 5, of — whom they have more to relate as they are more remote from him in time. That this is derived entirely from this passage, and is of no more importance than that according to which the Ebionites are represented as springing from a certain Ebion,'‘ is shown, frst, from the fluctuation of the tradition which also knew how to defend that church officer, so highly commended in Acts, from the disgrace of having founded a troublesome sect,!® and, secondly, from the circumstance that the patristic tradition, from the very beginning, refers to Rev. ii. 6, 14 sqq. Nicolaus of Acts vi. was thought of because none other of that name was known.!® Since Chr. A. Heumann,!? and J. W. Janus,!§ the opinion has become almost universal, that the desig- nation NexoAalras (from wav and Ade) suggests the Hebrew name Balaam (from 99 and Dy, i.e., swallowing-up, or destruction, of the people), whereby
1 Cf. on ver. 4. 14 Cf. Tertullian, 1. c. 33.
2 Grot., Hengstenb. 1% Cf. Clemens Alex.
3 De Wette. 1¢ Against Ebrard and Kilef., who, as well as
4 Cf. on ver. 2. Grot., Calov., and the older and Catholic ex-
5 Cf. also Hengstenb., ete. positors in general, hold to the patristic state-
® Cf. ti.14. Incorrectly, Calov.: “‘dogmas.” ment.
T Cf. Gieseler’s Kirchengeschichte, i.1, sec. 17 Act. Erud. Ann., 1712, p. 179; Poectle, il. 29; Winer, Rcd. ; literature in Wolf. 302.
® Haer., i. B. 18 De Nicol. ex Haeret. Catalogo Expungen-
® Ref. Omn. Haer., ed. Gott., 1850, p. 408. die. Viteb., 1723. Cf. Vitr., Wetat., Elchb.,
10 Praescr. Haer., 46. Herder, Heinrichs, who, however, is inclined
11 Strom., li. 20, p. 400; ili. 4, p. 522. to affirm that there was at Ephesus a Nicolaus.
13 Adv. Lucifer, 28. Cf. also Ewald, Gesch., Jer., vii. 172 aqq., Zlil-
%3 Haer., 5. Hg, Hengstenb., etc.
CHAP. II. 7. . 135
the Balaamite nature of those Nicolaitanes is to be indicated. To this vv. 14, 15, refer.1 Yet it cannot be positively decided whether John found the word used already in this sense, or was himself the first to frame it. A com- parison may be made with the name Armillus given to antichrist,? i.e., Zonué- Aaoc.8— The Nicolaitans are of course not identical 4 with the xaxoi mentioned in ver. 2, since the latter expression is very general: yet, at all events, they belong to “them which are evil; ’’ and the idea, which in itself is highly im- probable, must not be inferred, that in vv. 2 and 6, two entirely different kinds of false teachers are meant, of whom the former may be regarded disciples of John,* or Jewish teachers,’ or strict Jewish Christians,’ while the Nicolaitans, who, according to De Wette, etc., are again distinct from Balaamites,® as those of a more heathen tendency, viz., false teachers who surrendered themselves )° to a false freedom.#!_ Tertullian and ofher Church fathers, N. de Lyra, and the older expositors, connect the Nicolaitans with the Gnostics; Hengstenb. also regards them identical with the deniers of the Son, in the Epistles of John, by referring the warning in John v. 21! to the ethnicizing ways of the false teachers there antagonized. But for all this, there is no foundation. What especially contradicts Hengstenberg’s conjec- ture is the fact that the (Gnostic) false teachers of the Epistles of John are attacked just as decidedly because of their false doctrines, as the Nicolai- tans of the Apoc. because of their evil deeds.1® That the aberrations are practical, which even Hengstenb. emphasizes, but without ground alleges also of the false teachers in 1 John, is shown already by ver. 2 (xaxots). We shall therefore have to think of the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing libertines.“ This is not contradicted by the fact that they assumed apostolic authority ; for if they possibly professed to vindicate their Christian freedom in the Pauline sense, they might likewise wish to be apostles like Paul.1® [See Note XXIX., p. 155.]
Ver. 7. & Eu ob¢ dxovodre, x.7.A, Formula for exciting attention.1® The singular ots by no means points, in distinction from the plural,!” to ‘the spiritual sense of understanding,” }* but designates with entire simplicity the organ of hearing without respect to its being double. In like manner, in Luke xi. 34. The reference made in the summons is altogether general ; ® even to those who still are outside the churches, belongs what is said to the churches, because the entire book of Revelation, no less than the seven epistles which form an entire part thereof, proclaims the coming of the Lord as something final to the whole world. John himself, as a true prophet,
' Cf., on the other hand, De Wette. 18 Cf. vv. 14, 20. 3 Cf. Commentary on 1 John ii. 18. 14 Cf. also A. Ritechl, Znitst. d. Alikath. KX. $ K. Wieseler, CAronol. d. apost. Zeitait., Bonn, 1857, p. 134 aq.
p- 263 sqq. 18 According to Volkm., the strict Judso- « Hengstenb, Christian author of the Apoc. had in mind the 5 Ewald. 6 Eichh. Apostle to the Gentiles and his adherents. Cf. + ZUlL. 8 Ewald. also Hilgenfeld, Kanon, p. 228. Cf. Introduc- ® See on vv. 14 and 15. tion, sec. 2, note. 10 Ewald. ‘ 16 Grotius. 12 Cf. ver. 14 with Acts xv. 29. 37 Cf. vv. 11, 17, 29, iil. 6, 13, 22, xili. 9.
12 Which, however, is not “‘ directed against i Hengstenb. heathenism clothed in a Christian garb.” 19 Cf. xxii. 17.
136 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
makes prominent the universal reference of his prophecy.1— 1d xvetua is neither this “divine vision,” * nor Christ who has the Spirit,? but the Holy Ghost,* who inspires John, and thus makes him a prophet.® The revela- tion of Christ ® can therefore be designated also as an address of the Spirit, because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ,’ and speaks in Christ’s name.* Yet this is conceivable only if we regard ® neither the seven epistles as merely a dictation of Christ, which John had only to write down, nor the entire book of Revelation as a mere report prepared by John of a series of pictures represented to him; but rather recognize the specific prophetic activity whereby he, as a man taught of Christ himself through his Spirit, thought and wrote not under a suppression, but a glorification, of his entire moral individuality. — The promise belongs, in its universality, to the victors; as the preceding summons to hear, to every one who has an ear. The hearer is through the prophecy to learn to be victor, and thus to be saved.!° vxd»,U2 as well as dixawc,!? is impossible. According to iii. 211% and xii. 11,4 the vudvy at the close of all seven epistles 15 designates nothing else than the faithful perseverance of believers, as maintained in the struggle with all godless and antichristian powers. So, algo, the sacred reward of blessedness is promised the “ victor,” who is represented in many forms, abiding faithful to him patiently and to the end, maintaining and adhering to the words and commands of the Lord, etc. Cf. especially the concluding promises of the epistles, with the descriptions in chs. xix., xxi., xxii. — The déow abry with the inf. gayeiv has a somewhat different meaning from when (as, e.g., vv. 17, 28) a definite object follows: it means, “I will grant him to eat;”}® not, “I will give him to eat.” — The féAov ric Guigc, x.7.4., 18 not the gospel whose fruit is blessedness,?? nor the Holy Ghost who assures of eternal life,!* nor Christ himself whose fruits are all spiritual blessings,!* and who in the holy supper gives his flesh to be eaten ;® but the antitype of the tree of life that was in the midst of the original earthly paradise,” the tree of life which is to refresh the blessed citizens of the new Jerusalem.” In accordance with Gen. ii. 3, as also this passage, the place of blessedness where the tree of life is to be found is called paradise. The addition rod 60d pov is not without meaning, since God is the Lord of paradise, the one from whom the new Jerusalem descends, who will dwell with men, from whose throne and that of the Lamb proceeds life,* upon communion with whom, therefore, the future bless-
1 Cf. i. 3. 2 Grot. 14 Where an object is mentioned, as in 1 John § EKichh. Cf. also Heinr. fi. 18, v. 4, 6; John xvi. 33.
4 Cf. i. 4. 3 Cf. xxi. 7.
5 i. 10, xix. 10. 18 Cf. iff. 21; John v. 26. De Wette.
6 vv. 1-6. Cf., likewise, cwow. 7 Rom. vill. 9,10.
8 John xvi. 13 aqq.
® Cf. Intr., sec. 2.
. 10 4, 3, xxil, 14.
17 Aret.
8 Grot.
19 Calov., Ebrard. Cf. Victorin, Beda, Lyra. % John vi. 54. Alcasar.
31 Cf. Gen. if. 9, where the LXX., as fre-
11 It should properly be explained, ‘‘ He who gains bis case in court.’’
12 Hichh. Cf. also Helnr.
18 Where it is also absolutely said of Christ as the head of believors.
quently elsewhere, render }}' by €vAopy.
*3 xxii. 2, 14,19. Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb.
28 Cf. Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Oor. xii. 4.
M Cf. xxi. 2, 3, xxii. 1.
CHAP, IL. 8, 9. 187 edness and glory of believers depend. Besides, the mediatorship of Christ is intimated by r. @. zov, since Christ who himself rewards the victor (dcou), and himself sits with God upon the throne, in whom is the source of life, nevertheless speaks of his God and the God of believers; both being in accordance with the indivisible fundamental view of the entire N. T., that Christ through his obedience is exalted, through his conflict has conquered, and through his sufferings has entered into the glory which was his own from eternity, and whereof he now makes his believers partakers, since he as Priest, King, and Victor makes them priests, kings, and victors? As to the Apocalyptic statement of the thought, ver. 76, cf. the Book of Enoch, xxxi. 1-5, xxiv. 1-11; Text. XII. Patr., p. 586; Schottgen on this passage.
Vv. 8-11. The epistle to the church at Smyrna. — Smyrna, eight geo- graphical miles north of Ephestis, on a bay of the Aegean Sea, and the river Meles, was already in ancient times, as it is to the present, an important place of business. After Old Smyrna had been destroyed by the Lydians, New Smyrna, twenty stadia from the old place, was built, according to Pau- sanias by Alexander the Great, according to Strabo by Antigonus, and after- wards by Lysimachus, — a very beautiful city.2—- Of Christian life at Smyrna we have, except in the Apoc., the earliest statement in the Epistle of Igna- tius,* at the beginning of the second century. At that time Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna,® of whose martyrdom in the year 168 the church of Smyrna itself has made the record. Many, especially the Catholic expos- itors,’ regard Polycarp the angel of the church® mentioned in this eptstle; ~ which, however, is in a chronological respect untenable, even if it should be admitted that the Apoc. was composed under Domitian, although Polycarp “had served Christ” for eighty-six years.®
Ver. 8. The self-designation of the Lord !° corresponds to the admonition and promise, vv. 10 and 11.— &yoev contains by ita combination with éyev, vexpoc the intimation that the life is a new one succeeding a victory over death.41 The aor. &yoev 2 marks the historical fact of the resurrection, as the precise fact of death is designated by éyev. vexp.; cf. the aor. i. 5, iii. 9. An analogy is furnished by Josephus, Life, 75: “Of the three crucified who were taken down, two died notwithstanding the care: 6 dé rpiroc Knoev” (the third lived).
Ver. 9. +, OAipw. Altogether general.!8 To this, affliction, imprisonment, and death (ver. 10), disgrace and need, belong. If it be possible for the
3 John xx. 17.
31. 6, 1.21. Cf. Phil. fi. 6 sqq.; John xvii. ua. 3 Cf. Wetst., Winer, Rwd.
4 Ep.ad Smyrn., ad Polycarp.
5 Cf. Irenaeus in Eueeb., H. E., iv. 14: “ NoAvc.-—vrd &roctéAwy caracraGeis cig THY ‘Asian dy ty dy Zyuvpyn dxadnaciq éxigcoros (* Polycarp — appointed bishop by the apostles fn Asta, in the church at Smyrna”). Cf. ill. 3%. Tertullian, Pracser. Haer., 832: ‘It is reported that Polycarp was placed, by John, in the church of the Smyrnzans.”
© Martyrium S. Polyc. in den Edd. der apostol. Vdier. Cf. Euseb., //. £., iv. 15.
7N. de Lyra, Ribera, Alcas., C. a Lap., Tirni., Stern, Calov., Hengstenb., etc.
§ j.e., bishop. Cf., to the contrary, on 1, 20.
® Martyr.,c. 9.
104.17 eqq. Cf. 1. 15,
11 xii. 14, x. 45. Cf. Ezek. xxxvii.8; Matt. ix. 16; Jobn v. 25.
13 Cf., on the other hand, the gc eis, «.7.A., {. 18.
3 Cf. 1. 9.
188 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. axtuxzeia to be connected with the 6Ai~u, and to originate from the fact that Christians were despoiled of their property,! yet, also,? that on account of their poverty the Christians were utterly helpless when their Jewish enemies possibly supported their calumnious charges before the heathen rulers with money ;® yet this inner connection of 6Aipu, rrozeia, and BAacgnyia is in no way indicated, and the simple admission is sufficient, that, besides the troubles occasioned by Jews and heathen, the Church was under the burden of pov- erty. To this it is immediately added parenthetically, in a consolatory an- tithesis: GAAa xAoiatos el, Viz., in spiritual goods or in God.4 To endeavor to find here an allusion to the name Polycarp § (rich in fruit), is arbitrary. In what the BAacgnuia which Christians had to suffer consisted, can only be con- jectured with any certainty if the Agyovrec ‘lovdaiove elva: favrots,® from whom they went forth,’ are regarded not as Christians ® but as actual Jews; which the wording and the historical relations, as they were still atthe time of the apologists, support. The carnal pride of the Jews, and their godless zeal for the law,® were already, at the time of Paul, the cause of their unbelief, and hostility to Christians which they published in false and calumnious charges, among which was the one brought of old,’ viz., of exciting seditions, which generally bad the greater weight with the heathen," as this occurred ata time in which the Roman rulers, because of the war in Judaea, had to be doubly watchful and suspicious in all places.12 Even the martyrdom of Polycarp occurred with the essential participation of the Jews.!4— As, to the proud claim of those who boasted of the theocratic name of Jews, the judg- ment is added that they are not,!4 so also what is positively said concerning their true nature, dAAa cvvaywy? Tod carava, contains a sharp opposition to the claim of being the ovvaywy? xupiov 1® which essentially concurs with the former boast. But they are rather the synagogue of Satan, because they do the antichristian works of Satan,!® to which also belongs the BAcognyely with its lies and hatred.!”?_ .The expression ovvaywy#, which in the N. T. only once in James !® designates the Christian congregational assembly, — yet even there is combined not with 70d éeov, etc , but with tucv, — has in itself a significative antithesis to the true éxaAncia r. Gcov OF 1. xvpiov. We can scarcely suppose that John could have changed the expression éxxAyoia rot deod, which was a fixed designation for the Christian Church, as it is used even of the O. T. people of God, into éxxAgoia rod caravd.4® There is an allusion of similar severity in Hosea,™ when he writes {}® 53 instead of OR.
Ver. 10. In reference to the @Aiyec which is to follow the present (ver. 9), an exhortation to fearless, faithful perseverance unto death, and a corre-
1 Heb. x. 34. Primas, Beda, C. a Lap., © Luke xxiii. 2.
Tirni, De Wette. 11 Cf. Acts xvii. 6 qq. 2 Hengstenb. 13 Againet Hengstenb. 8 Cf. Jas. 1i.5eqq. Hengstenb. 13 Martyr., c. 12, 13. 4 Cf. iil. 18; Matt. vi. 20; Luke xil. 21; 1 4 Cf. ii. 9. Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. vi. 10. 16 Num. xvi. 3, xx. fv., xxxi. 16, ® Hengstenb. 6 Cf. on ver. 2. 16 Cf. ver. 10. T ex. Winer, p. 344. 47 John vill. 41 sqq. ® Vitr., etc. 18 if. 2.
® Cf. Rom. if. 28; Matt. if1.9; John vill. 33; 1° Cf. Trench, Synonymes of the N. 7., § 3 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. ili. 4 sqq. 9 iv. 15.
CHAP. II. 10. 189
; e sponding promise of life, are made. Troubles of many kinds (é plural) impend; especially mentioned is imprisonment! for some of the church,?— the chief thing in all the persecutions in which the civil authorities were active,? — and a view of the same is disclosed, even unto death for Christ’s sake.4 The mention of imprisonment shows, still more than that of death, that the assault of heathen magistrates who, according to ver. 9, were incited by the Jews, is here contemplated. The Lord therefore comprises both forms of antichrist. As the proper author of the afflictions, 4 d:éPodog is therefore mentioned,5 the personal first enemy of Christ and his kingdom,® who uses Jews and heathen as his instruments. The significance of the name (slanderer) is not here to be emphasized :? otherwise we should expect in ver. 9 6 d&aZ., and in ver. 10 6 car, — iva retpaodire xal Exynre, «.t.A. Both the temptation and the oppression ® belong to the intention of the Devil. Thus the meipaopéc appeurs not as a divine trial,® but) as a temptation intended on Satan’s part for their ruin,!! in connection with which, of course, it must be firmly maintained,!2 that the Devil's power is exercised only under the Divine control.!8 Under this presumption, to the xa? Eynre oAlyv, which as the xeipacbire is entirely dependent on iva, the qpepén déxa isadded. For the Lord fixes a limit of duration to the troubles which are to come upon his believ- ers.14 Only a few expositors have understood the #uep. déxa of ten actual days, but even these in the sense that the short period of the calamity is intended as a consolation. But the number is purely of a schematic nature,!® and signifies not a long!” but a short time.1® [See Note XXX., p. 156.] The entire period of the universal tribulation is schematically represented by forty-two months.!® The chief misinterpretations are known already by N. de Lyra: that the ten days are ten years, in which are reckoned the per- secution under Domitian ™ and that under Decius;*! that the ten persecu- tions of Christians are meant; ™ that the ten days correspond to and signify the Ten Commandments, and that the persecution of the entire Church will continue as long as the Ten Commandments are in force, i.e., until the end of the world, ete. — Without any external combination, the admonition
1 Incorrectly, Hefnr.: dvA., asa part for the whole, desiguates misery of every kind.
3 df buey, Winer, p. 343.
§ Acts xii. 3, xvi. 23. Ew.
4 dxpe Gavdrov, xii. 11; Acts xxii. 4; Phil. 1i. 8; Heb. xii. 4. N.de Lyra, Calov., Heinr., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
11 In which the Lord preserves and delivers, i1.10. Of. Luke xxij. 31.
13 Cf. Beng., Hengstenb.
18 Matt. iy. 1.
14 Cf. Matt. xxix. 22,
% Grot., Herder.
16 Kiief: ‘“‘The number of systematic com-
5 Cf. ver. 0: cuvay. tr. catrava.
© Chs. xi]. and xiii,
7 Against ZUll. and Hengstenb.
§ Bee Critical Remarks on the modified var. «ere. According to this, the latter was proclaimed ae, in general, only impending.
9-** They may be tried in order, that, amidst the greatest dangers, their faith may be tested, and thue they may show their virtue to be complete’ (Ew.). Cf. also Grot., Bleek, De Wette.
10 Cf. Eichb., Hoinr.
pleteness.”
17 Beda, C.a Lap., ete., according to Job xix. 8; Num. xiv. 22; 1 Sam. f. 8.
18 Andr., Alcas., Calov., Heinr., Ew., De Wette. Cf. also Hengstenb., Stern; Gen. xxiv. 55; Dan. i. 12 sqq.; Num. xt. 19.
19 xfff. 5.
20 Cluverus, In Caloyv.
21 Vitr.
#2 As Ebrard infers by regarding the ten days as ‘‘a symbol of ten special sections or pertods in the persecution.”
140 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
yivov nioré¢ follows, which in the limitation dp: éav. reaches farther than has been thus far represented by the @Aiyc. With reference to the still future maintenance of fidelity, the yivov and not io# properly stands.1— The prom- ise, having its pledge in the Lord’s own life after death (ver. 8), has essen- tially no other meaning than that which is given the victor in ver. 11, as the victory is won only by fidelity unto death. — The xa? which introduces the promise places it in connection with the preceding requirement.® — 7, orégavov tie Gwe. Appositive genitive,® so that life itself appears as the crown.‘ The expression orégavoc does not mean here the crown of a king, neither in the sense that the coming kingdom of the faithful is indicated,® nor in this, that the king’s crown designates in general only “something exceedingly precious and glorious;”® but the figure of the victor’s crown’ is derived from the games, and in the mouth of the author of the Apocalypse, as well as of the Apostle Paul,® is open to no objection whatever.®
Ver. 11. The promise, which, in addition to the general command to hear,!° is contained in the concluding verse, is framed in accordance with what precedes.!1 The victory recalls the struggle with the afflictions of per- secution,)? through which there has been a victorious battle in their fidelity unto death.!8 The victorious warrior reaches peace before the throne of God and the Lamb,™ or, as here said in reference to ver. 10,15 “He shall not be hurt of the second death.” On ob yi, cf. Winer, p. 471. ~ ddicn09 a8 vi. 6, vii. 2, 3, and often Luke x. 19. éx, causal, as viii. 11.16— The second death desig- nates eternal damnation in hell,” eternal after temporal death. The expres- sion is derived from Jewish theology,!* but is pervaded with a meaning spe- cifically Christian, since they incur the second death, who have no part in the marriage of the Lamb, and therefore are outside of Christ.1° [See Note XXXI., p. 156.]
Vv. 12-17. The epistle to the church at Pergamos. — Pergamos or Per- gamum in Mysia, on the river Caicus, not to be confounded with ancient Troy or Pergamum considerably distant to the north,® was distinguished for the temple of Aesculapius, which was regarded as an asylum,®! and much visited not only because of its worship, but also because of incubationes 2? and dream-cures,® vying in glory with the temple of Diana at Ephesus, and the
1 Matt. x. 16; xxiv. 44; Luke rif. 40. 1B Gxpt Gavdrov. Cf. Matt. x. 28.
2 Luke xi. 9; Eph. v. 14; Jas. iv.7. Cf. De Wette, Winer, p. 406. 8 Winer, p. 494 sqq. 4 Jas. 1.12; 1 Pet. v.4. De Wette, Heng- stenb., etc. 6 ZUll. 8 Hengstenb., according to Iea. Ixii. 3, xxvill, 3. 7 Cf. ver. 11. 8 2 Tim. il. 5, iv. T aqq.; 1 Cor. ix.24; Phil. fi1. 14. 9 Against Hengstenb. 10 Cf. ver. 7. 11 Cf. vv. 10, 8, 13 Cf. Jobn xvi. 33.
43 2 Tim. iv. 7. 16 vii. 9 aqq.
46 Winer, p. 344.
17 xx. 6, 14, xxi. &
18 Targ. on Ps. xlix. 11: “The wicked who die the second death, and are consigned to Gehenna.” Targum of Jerusalem, on Deut. xxxili.6. Cf. Wetst.
19 Che. xx., xxl.
2% Against C. a Lap., Tir.
11 Tacitus, Annai., ili. 63.
33 [The spending of nights in the temple of Aesculapius as an act of gratitude for some deliverance. Smith’s Dictionary Greek and Roman Antiqutties, p. 376d.)
23 Herodian, Hist.,iv.8. Cf. K.¥. Hermann, Lehrbuch d. gottesdienstl. Alterth. d. Grie- chen, Heidelb., 18146, § 41.
CHAP. II. 12, 13. 141 sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi,! as well as for its library. By the will of the last and childless King Attalus, this rich place* tell to the Romans. Ac- cording to Pliny,* Pergamos was the seat of a Roman supreme court. The present Bergamo contains many relics of the ancient city. The earliest record of the Christian church at Pergamos is this in the Apoc. In con- formity with ver. 13, Tertullian‘ speaks of Antipas the martyr. Eusebius,® after having treated of Polycarp of Smyrna, makes mention of the martyrs in Pergamos, Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice. The “ doctores” mentioned by N. de Lyra held Carpus to be the bishop to whom John wrote. Others call the bishop of Thyatira by that name.®
Ver. 12. The designation of Christ? looks forward to the threat, ver. 16.
Ver. 13. The xod xarox. is immediately afterwards described more accu- rately: dxov 6 6p, 7. oar. This in itself does not contain a commendation, but serves as a commendation only as the church remains faithful although dwelling where Satan’s seat is, which is communicated by the more emphatic and explicit repetition at the close of drov 6 car. xarocei.2 It is a matter of importance, however, that the Lord first of all simply testifies, for its conso- lation, to his knowledge of the nature of his church's abode: dmov 6 dpévoc rob catavd. At all events, this® points to the city of Pergamos as the place of the church; and hence the explanation is incorrect, according to which the godless enemies of Christ and his believers are represented ° as Satan’s throne.!! There is nothing to support the opinion !? that Satan’s throne was in Pergamos as the chief abode of the worship of Aesculapius, whose symbol was the serpent; for if,on account of his serpent, John would have desired to designate Aesculapius directly as the Devil?® (which would have been inappropriate, as, according to 1 Cor. x. 20, that particular fdwAov can be only one damuéyvov among many), he would at least have indicated it by 6 dp. rob dpaxovroc. We must first, with Andreas,'4 think of a remarkable flourishing of idol-worship in general, if the remark of And. that Perg. was xareidwAog trip tiv ‘Aciay nécav (given to idolatry above all Asia) would have an his- torical foundation. That Perg. is called the seat of Satan as the abode of heathen and Nicolaitans,!® is partly too general, and partly contrary to the meaning of ver. 14. The only correct view is the reference, understood already by N. de Lyra, to the persecution of the church, ascribed also in ver. 10 to the Devil; ?° decidedly in favor of this explanation is the dnov 6 car. xarouei in its connection with dxexravéy zap’ iuiv. Only in Perg. had Satan
2 Cf. Wetst.
2 Hor., I., Od. 1.12; II., Od. xviii. 5.
8 H. N., v. 33: “* Pergamoa, by far the most renowned of Asia. — The jurisdiction of that district is called Pergamean. To Jt belong the inhabitants of Thyatira, and other less hon-
ored states.’’ 4 Ado. Gnoat. scorp., 12. 6 H. £., iv. 15. 6 Ver. 18. Cf. Alcas., C. a Lap. T Cf. 1. 16.
® Thus with regard to carocxeits. ® Cf. the wot xarotxeis and 6wov 6 caray. ROTOLKEL.
20 Primas, Zeger.
11 The opinion of P. Zornius (in Wolf) is a curiosity; viz., that John had in view the Per- gamean museum, and the empty speeches of the sophists.
13 Grot., Wetst., M. Rossal and Ph. Hasdue in the Bibi. Brem., ill. pp. 04, 104. Cf. also Eichh., Heinr.
13 xii. 3, 9.
4 Aret., Pric., Beng., etc.
15 C. a Lap., Calov.
1¢ Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
142
been able to proceed so far as to shed the blood of martyrs. Whether this was caused by the adherence of the heathen with special fanaticism to their Aesculapius;? or the fact that Perg., as the seat of supreme jurisdiction,? most readily offered a theatre for persecutions; ® or, finaliy, that only particu- larly hostile individuals‘ to be sought among the heathen, because not further designated,® were present in Perg.,— it is not possible to decide. — xa? xpareic, x.r.A. The holding fast® of Christ’s name, which continues still to the present (xpareic, pres.), has already approved itself on some special op- portunity (xat obx Apyacu, aor.). As the «parei¢ corresponds to the contrasted Npvijow, 80 Td Svoua you is parallel with rv zicrw pov. The former is the ob- jective, and the latter the subjective nature. Christ’s dvoua which is held fast by believers is not “the profession of doctrine delivered by Christ” 7 or the confession of his name,® but the name of Christ appears as some- thing in itself objective, so that one may have, hold, and lose, confess and deny it, yea, even, it may work,® as the name of Christ comprises the true objective person of Christ together with his riches and glory. The xoarety rd évoua occurs in the sense of this passage, of course, only by faithful, frank confession, but not simply ‘in life and faith.”2° The corresponding inner item (Rom. x. 10) ig faith in the Lord: +. xior. yov, objective genitive. !1 — xal tv raic huépa’Avrinac,x.rA The correct text, with which the Vulg. in the critical recension agrees,?? i.e., in which before "Avrimac neither ale nor év aly nor éuaic is to be read, but on the contrary before dear. there is a d¢,!8 is not explicable by the conjecture that the gen. 'Avrixa may have stood originally in the text,!4 nor by the idea that ’Avrimac is used as indeclinable, and the form here is intended as genitive ; 15 for both conjectures, in themselves hav- ing little probability, are made doubly difficult by the nominative appos. 6 papr. 6 mor., since here it is hard to accept the explanation which is in place in i. 5, where what is said, is of Christ himself. Grotius assumes an ellipsis and a transposition by thus analyzing the sentence: éy r. 9u. ’Avrixa, &¢ "Avrimag —anexravén. Ebrard, who, however, reads alc before 'Avr., explains the anacoluthon in the sentence by the supposition that the originally in- tended construction ale *Avrimas — dmexrdvéy was abandoned, because the chief verb azexr, is added as an explanation of the ‘words 6 yapr. p. 6 mor., and thus a relative sentence originated which contains the verb properly belong- ing to ’Avriwac. But even the latter explanation does not naturally appear in the simple members of which the entire sentence consists. Primas,
¢
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
1 In connection with which, we must re. member that the idol, because of ita epithet awrnp, formed a manifest opposition to the Saviour; we may aleo think of miraculous cures in the temple of Aesc., and the interests connected therewith. Cf. Acts xix. 24 2qq., xvi. 19 sqq.
3 Kiliefoth.
3 In connection with which, relations ac- knowledged in Plin., Zp. 97, and the apologists, and even indicated in Acts, may be recalled.
* Hengetenb.
5 Ewald.
6 Cf. ver. 1, i. 11.
7 Grot.
8 De Wette.
® Cf. Acts il. 21, iff. 16, ix. 14; John i. 12.
30 N. de Lyra.
11 xiv. 12; Rom. ill. 22; Eph. 1.12. Winer, p. 175. ‘
12 «* Re in diebus Antipas, testis meus fidelis, qui occieus est,” etc. Lach., Tisch.
43 See Critical Remarks.
% Ewald.
1 Bleek.
CHAP. II. 14, 15. 148
N. de Lyra, C.'a Lap., and other catholic expositors,! have correctly hit the sense by following the explanatory reading of the Vulg. “in diebus illis,” for if also the mere article cannot have directly the force of a demonstrative, yet it marks the precise days in which the church did not deny the faith: “Sand in the day Antipas”? (namely: was) “my faithful witness who,” etc. It is designedly that the commendation of the church is still further enhanced by the circumstance especially added (xai), that one witness, in the days when the whole church faithfully gave its testimony, was faithful even unto death. The reference to the ot« fpvjow tr. xictw pov is indicated also by the expression 6 papr. uov 6 microc,? as then also the sap’ iuiv and the repeated 5rov 6 oar. xatoexei in this connection are significant. — Of the martyr Antipas, nothing historical is known. Whether his martyrdom, noticed by Andreas, were related already perhaps from the account, contained in the later martyr- ologies and menologies, viz., that Antipas as bishop of Pergamos under Domitian was put to death in a glowing brazen ox, we do not know. The interpretations of the name as ’Avri-rdg, i.e., “ Against all,” therefore, child of God, and hence enemy of the whole world,® or Anti-papa,‘ are wrecked by grammar, which teaches that ’Avrimac is similar to 'Avrinarpoc.5 Coccejus, for this reason, wants to find in Antipas the confessor of Athanasianism, since *Avrinarpoc resembles lcérarpoc, and this again dpootowc. Vitringa adds, yet, that the mystical Pergamos where this mystical Antipas was slain, viz., again mystically, by banishment, or, in general, by hinderance of confession, is Alexandria, the residence of Athanasius.
Vv. 14, 15. The reproof contrasted with the commendation ® refers to a few things: dAiya. Hence the plural occurs not because the tolerance of the false teachers is conceived “as more than one want,”’ but, without noting the idea of plurality as such, designates in a certain abstract way only the general conception “a few.”® What follows shows that actually only one particular thing is meant ® The subject of the reproof, moreover, is desig- nated as small, not by litotes,!° also not with respect to atonement,! but be- cause the church itself was not so much involved in the false doctrines, as, on the contrary, only certain adherents of the same are enumerated among its members.12 The éyee¢ — not precisely equivalent to dvéyecc, “thou bearest ” 18 — contains, in accordance with the connection, the additional idea, that the unaffected part, properly the heart of the church,!4 may have been slothful in efforts to reclaim the erring; 18 at all events, the church as such '*is regarded as a whole, and hence is made responsible for containing within it the Nico- laitan false teachers, for this may always be referred to a defect of its
1 Cf. aleo Treg.
2 Beng.
8 Aretius, Hengstenb., who understand thereby Timothy. ‘
4 Ed. Schmidt.
& Winer, p. 97.
& Cf. ver. 4.
t Bengel, who therefore fixes a certain dis- tinction between Balaamites and Nicolaitans.
6 Not “a Httle.” Luther, Hengstenb.
® Cf. Winer, p. 166.
10 Heinr.: “I complain grievously of thee.” Ebrard.
11 Aret.: “Christ readily extenuates their sins, because, at the same time, he makes explation for them;'’ bat, in fact, the driya are atrocious.
12 Cf. De Wette.
13 Heinr,
14 De Wette.
38 Cf. Calov., Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb.
18 The angel of the church. Cf. 1. 20.
144 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
nature with respect to the critical life of faith. Hence the call to repentance is made to the church as a whole, even though the conflict with the Lord coming to judgment pertains only to the false teachers (ver. 16). The éxei stands in inner relation with ver. 13, as also the designation of the false teachers (xparotvrag r. dud. Bar, ver. 14, and xparowvrar 7. dd. Nux., ver. 15) forms an antithesis to the commendation of the church, xparei¢ r. dy pov, ver. 18. Even in a place where a church has held fast to the name of the Lord even unto death, is there to be room at least for such godless doctrines. — rd Baddx. Luther incorrectly according to the Var., év ra B., “through Balak.” Nor is the dative to be regarded a dat. comm., “to please B.,” “in the interest of B.,” so that it could result only from the connection that “the people of Balak ” were strictly the women of Moab! whom especially Balaam had taught to lead astray the Israelites.2 Here no appeal dare be made to the fact that in ver. 20 the acc. is construed regularly with diddoxew, for there the use of the acc. is conditioned also by the mAavg. The dat. with dddcxew is Hebraizing.* The entire construction is like that of, e.g., ver. 7, where first the dat. and then the inf. follows the déou. On the other hand, a dat: comm. in the above sense seems too refined for the writer of the Apoc. Besides, it can in no way be inferred from the construction in Num. xxxi. 16, that Balaam immediately perverted the Moabite women: he may have given the advice referred to for leading the children of Israel astray, by means of Balak, whom he immediately taught. — rv didayiv Baa. The expression diaz? is not to be explained simply from the counterpart, the dday}) Nex., since with the Nicolaitans an actual doctrine was the fundamental principle, which with Balaam was only an advice,‘ but has its justification in the suc- ceeding dc édidacxev. The doctrine communicated to Balak is first condemned according to its ungodly and corrupt nature: Pade» oxdvdadov bvdmov r. b, lop., then is stated according to its contents, so far as it refers to the pres- ent Nicolaitans : gay. eidwA. x. nopv. The instruction of Balaam contained a oxdvdadov® because the Israelites were thereby led to a sin against their God,® viz., to participation in the idol-worship of Baal Peor and to fornica- tion. In Num. xxv. 1 sqq., mention is made not only of the eating of the sacrifices made to idols, but also of the making of sacrifices. But here Christ regarded it sufficient to state what the Israelites had in common with the Nicolaitans.? oftrue éyeu xal ob, x.7.A. “Just as Balak held the pestif- erous doctrine of Balaam, so among you there are some bolding the erroneous doctrine of Nicolaus.” Thus N. de Lyra with substantial correctness ex- plains the obr. xa? of, while he errs only by ®§ combining the duoiwe at the close of ver. 15, referring back to what precedes, with yeravéqcov, ver. 16, as if the church at Perg. were called to repentance like the church at Ephesus (ver. 5). But this reference is almost still more unnatural than that proposed by De
1 Num. xrxxi. 16. in a trap, wp. Cf. Jer. vi.21; Ezek. xiv. 3; * Hengstenb., following Beng. Rom. xiv. 18. See my Commentary on 1 John * Ct. 5 39), Job xxi.22. Ew.,De Wette, ff. 10.
Ebrard. ems Oy, Num. xxx. 16. « De Wette. 7 Grot.
5 {.e., properly cxavdéAnOpor, i.e., the trendle 8 Cf. C. a Lap., Beng., Tirin., etc.
CHAP. II. 16. 146.
Wette,! according to which the xai of is used by way of comparison with Ephesus, ver. 6, and thereby a clear distinction is to be indicated between Balaamites and Nicolaitans, both of whom are considered as being in Perg. But by évrwe — dpoiue is the Nicolaitan misconduct, consisting in 9ayeiv eldwA, and sopvetoa,* compared with the type of Balaamite sins, while the xa? of in this line of thought either points back to Balak,’ or, as is more probable, refers for its meaning to the ancient church of the children of Israel. As then there were in Israel many who sinned after the doctrine of Balaam, so thou hast likewise Nicolaitan offenders. But it in no way follows, that, because the name Nicolaitan recalls symbolically the meaning of Balaam’s name,‘ therefore also the gay. eldwA. and xopv. are to be understood, in some way figuratively and improperly, of gluttons and voluptuaries whose belly is their god,* or of the visions and false teachers in general ;? but rather as in the times of Balaam, participation in idol-worship and fornication actually occurred, so with respect to the so-called Nicolaitans the eating of sacrifices to idols, and fornication, are seriously meant; and the very circumstance that both things also named elsewhere in apostolic times ® are here reproved with & passing-by of the proper idol-worship mentioned in Num. xxv. 1 sqq., indicates that these were actually the wicked works of the Nicolaitans® with respect to which they might have pleaded their Christian freedom.” [See Note XXXII., p. 156.]
Ver. 16. The summons to repentance, and the threat in case this is neg- lected, is added to the reproof, vv. 14, 15, as in ver. 5. As to the Epyouai co, see on the former passage, and with respect to the rayé, cf. i. 1. The church as a whole, to whose members the Nicolaitans belong, having shared in the reproof, so also share in the admonition to repentance and the threat; for the conflict of the coming Lord, which is of course immediately directed only against the Nicolaitans (mod. ner abtay), must cause suffering to the entire body of the church (épx. co:). It will nevertheless be a judging and visible coming to the entire church, if it continue to neglect the deliverance of its still curable members, and to cut off those actually dead already. It is against the idea of the coming of the Lord in general, and against the sig- nificance of the image of the sword in the mouth of the Lord in particular," if the moleuhou, x.7.4., be explained: “I will raise up prophets in the church to do what the bishop neglects, and to courageously oppose themselves to the Nicolaitans,” 2 or be supplemented “by another bishop;” 8 so too Grot., Wetst., Vitr., Bengel, Herd., Stern, Rinck, Hengstenb., etc., offend against the latter idea, in maintaining a remembrance of the sword of the angel against Balaam, or the sword whereby the misled Israelites were swept away,’> or both.1® Already the statement expressly added after ver. 16, pou. tod oréyaré¢ yov, renders this impossible.
1 Cf. aleo Heinr. * Cf. ver. 20. 10 Heinr., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., 3 N. de Lyra. Ebrard, etc.
4 Cf. on ver. 6. 11 Cf. 1. 16. 12 Grot.
& Herder. 18 Calov. 144 Num. xxii. 11. ¢C.aLap. Cf. Areth., Vitr., etc. 16 Num. xxxi. 8.
* Kichh., Herd., Zull., ete. 16 Cf., oo the other hand, Eicbh., Heinr.,
8 Acts xv. o Ver. 6. Ewald, De Wette.
146 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Ver. 17. déicw abré rot pavva. The partitive gen.’ has its correct meaning no less than the immediately succeeding accus.2— The general sense of the promise is not to fail because of the parallel ideas at the close of all seven epistles. The expressions are, at all events, as Areth. remarks on wo9. Aevx., a rapuipia txt rov ebdatovac — Covrwv (a Maxim concerning those living happily), a description of future eternal blessedness and glory. This is misapplied by those who understand the manna as directly referring to the Lord’s Sup- per,‘ or to the spiritual quickening and consolation imparted to believers even during their conflict in and with the world,’ or as the figure of divine grace in general which becomes manifest in justification (yng. Aevx.) and the offering of sonship (dv. xaw).° In the latter explanation, apart from the misunderstanding of the idea 6 vxdv, the groundless assertion is made, that éxi is equivalent to otv.?’ The more specific explanation of details has occa- sioned much difficulty. Utterly inapplicable to the hidden manna is the allusion ® to the Jewish opinion, that, before the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet Jeremiah or the king Josiah had rescued and concealed the ark of the covenant, together with the holy relics contained therein, and that the Messiah at his appearance will again bring them to light.° Incorrect, too, is the view that Christ himself is the hidden manna.’° Christ gives it. Incorrect is the view of Grot.: “+r. xexpvup. is equivalent to tod vonroi (the intellectual), and designates the more exact knowledge not only of God’s commands, but also of his dispensations.” But rather,” as the victor has approved himself especially in resisting the temptation to eat of what is sacrificed to idols, so he receives a corresponding reward when the Lord offers him heavenly, divine food, viz., manna, the bread of heaven,!2— such fruit as, like the fruit of the tree of life, ver. 7, will nourish the heavenly, blessed life. This manna is hidden, because it will be manifest only in future glory when it will be enjoyed; as, in a similar way, is said im- mediately afterwards of the new name.!8 — pigov Aevady, «7.4. Without any foundation is the explanation of N. de Lyra,‘ according to which the white stone signifies the body decorated with the endowment of brilliancy, and the new name written thereon; “then every one manifestly and bodily blessed with the endowments of a glorious body, will be enrolled in the city of the celestials.” In connection with the mention of the manna, the explanation ° of the white stone has been sought in the Jewish fable, that, besides the manna, precious stones and pearls were found in the wilderness; ?5 or the decoration of the high priest at the time of the giving of the manna has been recalled, as he bore upon twelve precious stones (which, however, were
1 Cf. Acts xxvil. 30. a future time, when our Messiah comes, will 4 Cf. Winer, pp. 186, 539. . be manifested.” 3 Cf. especially ver. 7. i@ Joho vi.; Primas, N. de Lyra, Vitr. See * Tichon., Beda. 5 C. a Lap., Boss. on ver. 7. 6 Wolf, after J. H. Majus. 11 Cf. Bengel, De Wette, Hengatenb., Ebrard. 7 Wolf. Cf. aleo Luther: ‘A good testi- i3 Ps. Ixxvill. 40, cv. 40.
mony, and with the testimony.” 13 Cf. also 1 Cor. ii. 7 aqq. S Wetst., Heinr., Ew. . 14 Cf. already Beda. ® Cf. 2 Macc. fl. 1 eq. Abarbanel on 1 Sam. 18 Joma viil.: ‘‘ Precious stones and pearis
iv.4: “This is the ark which Josiah hid before _—fell together with the manna upon the Iarael- the devastation of our temple; and thie ark,at ites.” In Wetst.
CHAP. II. 17. 147 not called y#¢oc) } the names of the tribes of Israel, so that here is indicated the priestly dignity of the complete victors.2 Others, likewise, in a certain connection with the mention of heavenly food, have combined the heathen . custom, according to which the conquerors in the games were led to festive banquets, and otherwise rewarded with gifts of many kinds. Thus Vitruv.® reports: “To the noble athletes who conquered in the Olympian, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games, the ancestors of the Greeks appointed honors so great that not only standing in the assembly with palm and garland they receive praise, but also when they return to their states in victory, they are in triumph drawn within the walls in a four-yoked chariot, and enjoy for their whole life, from the republic, a fixed income.” The Roman emperors‘ also established such public games, from which the victors were led (éu#Aucav) in triumph to their native city, and then received the deferred rewards. Titus was accustomed even to throw into the arena small wooden balls, on which were written orders for food, clothing, money, etc.; then the contestants received what the order proffered them stated.§ According to this, the white stone is explained as the order for the heavenly reward,® as the “ ticket ” to the heavenly banquet.? Others, leaving out of consideration any connection be- tween the manna and the white stone, recall the use of the lot among the Jews,’ as well as among the Greeks and Romans, who were accustomed to ballot with small white stones or beans, called yieoc, upon which names were written ;°® still others compare it with the classical usage of rendering a favorable judg- ment in trials by means of white stones, aud thus find in this passage a rep- resentation of Christ’s judgment preserving from condemnation, and intro- ducing to blessedness by the sentence of justification. Many expositors, again, have combined several of these references, viz., that of election (é«Aoy7) and justification. But against all such definite antiquarian references is the decisive circumstance that the presentation of our passage truly agrees with not one of them. Hengstenb. is correct in saying,!* “that the point coming here into consideration is only the fact that in antiquity many things were written on a small stone.” Besides, the twhite color of the stone given the victor, which in itself represents the glory of the victory,!® and the purity of the blessed in heaven, retains its full significance. But what properly gives the white stone its worth is the inscription which it bears: Christ gives the
1 Exod. xxvili. 17, xxxix. 10.
2 Cf. Ew., Zull., Ebrard, Kifef.
8 L.,1ix., Prae/.
* Cf., e.g.,in reference to Trajan, Plin., Z., x. Ep. 119, 120.
§ Xiphilin, Zpit. Dion., p. 228: chaspia yap fvAcva puxpa avery cig rd Odarpoy éppixre:, cupBodror éxovra, Td pdy edodipov rivds, «.7.A. —-@ apwacartds tivag ée. wpds rove Sethpas avray ameveyxety cai AaBeiy Td émiyeypaypdvoy. Cf., in general, K. F. Hermann, d. Gottes- dienstl. Alterth. d. Griechen, $50; Not. 30 8qq. Pp. 254 aqq.
6 Areth., Grot., Hammond, Ejicbhb.
7 Helor., Ew. ii.: Tessera hospitalitatis (token of hospitality).
8 Schbttgen: ‘*I believe that allusion is made to the lot which was to be cast by the prieste who wished to offer sacrifice. According to Tamid., fol. xvi. 1: ** The prefect of the temple came at the hour of cock-crowing, and the priests open. Then he says to them: ‘ Let bim who has been washed come and draw lote; he whom the lot touches is worthy of sacrifi- cing.’”’
® Elener.
10 Victorin., Erasmus, Zeger, C.a Lap., Are- tiue, Calov., Vitr., Wolf, etc.
11 De Wette, Stern. Cf. also Beng.
12 Cf. already Beng.
iB yi. 2.
36 fv. 4.
148 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
victor a new name, written upon the stone,—a name which no one knows except he who receives it. That the new name written upon the stone can in no way be the name of God,! is proved partly from the type of the ancient prophetic promise of a new name,? partly by the analogy of xix. 12, where what is said is concerning the proper name of Christ, and partly also from the rule given in the limitation 8 ovdets, «.r.A. The idea in iii. 12, xiv. 1, is of an entirely different nature. The opinion of Eichhorn also is to be rejected; viz., that the stone bore the inscription 6 dywe 7 ded nal rH apvup, which is called new in opposition to the ancient Jewish faith in God without the Lamb. But to the norms given above, corresponds the view advanced by most expositors, according to which the declaration refers to the proper name of the victor.® The name is new, because it designates the new glory of believers, i.e., that which is manifested only in the future life;4 and only he having received the same knows it, because, as is the case likewise already in this life, the knowledge of the blessedness of eternal life is disclosed only in personal experience. But .how that new name will sound, cannot be in any way answered according to this text. The answer given by most, that it is ‘‘son of God,” or “ elect,”’ is applicable only as therein the general contents of the Christian hope are expressed. [See Note XXXIII., p. 156.]
Vv. 18-29. The epistle to the church at Thyatira. — Thyatira, about nineteen hours from Pergamos, on the road thence to Sardis, not far from the river Lycus in Lydia,—now Akhissar,— was an inconsiderable city, belonging to the civil jurisdiction of Perg.* A dealer in purple, Lydia of Thyatira, is mentioned in Acts xvi. 14; but that she founded the Christian church there, —a presumption according to which Hengstenb. immediately connects “ works of love” with the “female origin of the church,” —is just as little to be asserted as there is foundation for the unfavorable supposition that Lydia may have been meant by Jezebel, ver. 20.7. The church at Thyatira was, like the others in Asia, not purely Jewish-Christian, as Grot. thinks, in order to weaken an uncritical objection of the Alogi against the worth of the Apoc. But ver. 20 rather refers explicitly to heathen Christian elements.* — That Irenaeus could not have been the bishop ® to whom John writes, is men- tioned already by N. de Lyra. C.a Lap. and others name Carpus as bishop.!°
Ver. 18. 6 bid¢ ros Geo. The Lord, who in i. 13 appears like a son of man, is, as the entire description (i. 18 sqq.) shows, the Son of God, although he does not there receive that precise name. But in the present epistle he expressly designates himself as such, because, especially in ver. 27, this glory of his is asserted in accordance with Ps. ii. The two other designations, derived from i. 14, 15, have their significance in the fact that the Lord with his eyes of flame penetrates" all, and with his feet like brass treads down every thing impure and malevolent.??
1 Ewald. : © See.on ver. 12 eqq.
3 Tea. Ixil. 2, Ixv. 15. ? Cf. Heinr.
8 Beda, Ribera, C. a Lap., L. Cappellus, 8 «What had the Jews at that time to do Grot., Coccej., Vitr., Wolf, Bengel, De Wette, with sacrifices to idole? ” Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc. ® Angel. Cf. i. 20.
# 1 John fli. 2; 1 Cor. xfii. 9 sqq. 10 Cf. on ver. 12 eqq.
5 Rom. vili. 17; 1 John iii. 2. 11 Cf. ver. 23. 12 Cf. ver. 27.
CHAP. IT. 19, 20. | 149
Ver. 19. The works of the church (oldé cov ra Epya), as the Lord knows them, are first introduced by name, —the subordination of the four items r. dydnny, tT. niory, 7. daxoviay, and 7. brouoviy, is noted by the attaching of the cov only to the last,!—and then («. ra épya cov, x.r.A.) are commended as a whole, because a progress therein is shown. Two pairs are mentioned, and that, too, in such order that their individual members correspond to one enother. The dyéxy, which already, because it precedes, is intended to refer in an altogether general way to love to God and the brethren, and not only to love to the poor,? proves itself in the daxovia, i.e., in kindness towards all needing help, especially the poor;* and the mioru, i.e., faith, — not fidelity,‘ — proves itself in the dropovg, i.e., faithful and patient perseverance founded upon the hope of faith, in the midst of attacks from the hostile world.5— nisiova tow xpotuv. Cf. Matt. xii. 45; 2 Pet. ii. 20. The church at Ephesus (ver. 5), on the contrary, but in a similar way, had been reproved for a relapse.
Ver. 20. dad’ Exu xara ood bre dgeic, x.r.A. Cf. ver. 4. Grot. incorrectly par aphrases: ‘I wish you to dismiss that wife.” The sense of the dgeic® is correctly given by the var. édc,’ “that thou let alone.” Connected with rv yuvaixa ‘lecaBfA, but in an interrupted construction, is the appositiye ® 4 Acy., x.7.A, The juncture proposed by Winer, p. 498, # Aéyovoa — xal duddoxet xal rAnvd, is too refined, while the very harshness of the former inartificial construction corresponds with John’s mode. The words xai didéoxe: xual nAavg are to be regarded neither as a so-called hysteron proteron,* nor to be combined in dddoxovea rAavG,! but the accus. 1. éu. dovAove depends upon both verbs, while the infinitives ropveiont xa? gayeiv eid., which are used with a certain looseness of construction, are nevertheless again connected with sufficient firmness by the prevailing meaning of the diddoxe, which in its combination with siavg appears to refer to a false doctrine. — The explanation of the expression t. yuvaixa ‘leoaBnA 4 is a matter of controversy, which essentially depends upon the fact, that, as in ver. 14, neither the zopveioa: nor even the ¢ayeiv eldu. is to be understood figuratively or even only in a double sense.!2_ The prece- dency of the xopvetca: does not show that at Thyatira fornication prepared the way for eating sacrifices to idols,!® which in itself, and in view of ver. 14, is improbable, as, on the contrary, the eating of sacrifices to idols gave occa- sion for unchastity; neither is it to be mentioned, that “in reference to ancient Jezebel, the history expressly intends only fornication, while in refer- ence to Balaam the temptation to eat sacrifices offered to idols is also men- tioned,” 4 for according to 1 Kings xviii. 19, xxi. 25 sqq., this is not entirely correct with respect to either Jezebel or Balaam.’® Fornication precedes for
1 Ebrard. Cf. ver. 2. * John xi. 44, 48, xil. 7. 3 Ew. Cf. ver. 4. ® Cf. 5. 5, fii. 12, xiv. 12. 8 Actes xi. 29; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 12 ® «, wAavg x. 68. Pric.
sqq. Aretius, Grot., Beng., Helnr., Ew., De 10 Grot. ; Wette, Ebrard. Calov., incorrectly: ‘‘ d:ax., 11 Cf. Critical Remarks.
the performance of the duties of the holy 3 Of proper and improper fornication. miuietry.” Hengstenb. * Beng., Ew. if. § Cf. 1.9. 13 Bengel. 16 Hengetenb.
* On this form, Winer, p. 77. 35 Bee on ver. 14.
150 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
the reasons for which (ver. 21)! it is alone named; viz., because it was the chief thing among the Nicolaitans in Thyatira. ‘The woman Jezebel” is manifestly represented as a teacher of a Balaamite or Nicolaitan character. If now “the woman Jez.” collectively is to designate a party and “ personi- fied heresy,” * the body of Jews, the synagogue,’ cannot be meant, — an ex- planation which only by the most unnatural artificialness is united with the declaration that the false doctrine of Jezebel alludes to ropveica: and gay. eldwA., — but the Nicolaitan false teachers must be represented under the figure of Jezebel.4 But partly the designation ry yueaixa, which is attached to a name sufficient for that sense, partly the further limitation 4 A¢yovoa éavr., «.t.A, which has in itself something that is individual, decides the view that & particular woman is meant; not the wife of a bishop,’ nor a woman who is actually called Jezebel,® but some woman who under the pretence of being a prophetess had approved the doctrines of the Nicolaitans, and for that reason was designated a new Jezebel, as Ahab’s wife formerly in the O. T. church, by the introduction of the worship of Baal, and fornication,’ which was combined with the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth, gave the greatest offence. That the woman in Thyatira did not actually have the name Jeze- bel, but rather that this name was understood symbolically, does not follow from the fact that in the Apoc. all names except that of the composer are of a symbolical character,® for that is not the case ; 1°-but from the fact that it is applied to the false doctrines and godlessness, which have been designated already by the name of Balaam, of entirely similar notoriety with that of the wife of Ahab.
Ver. 21. This misleader’s worthiness of punishment is increased by the fact that she had time for repentance, and yet will not repent. Thus by the xai this point is added to the guilt mentioned in ver. 20. — fduxa, «.rA, designates not the unsearchable decree of God in relation to ‘the speedy coming ” of the Lord, that a time for repentance should still be open, but in connection with which it is predicted that the same will not be utilized; 2 but a time of repentance is designated, the discerning of which, indeed, lies in an act of the Lord’s grace that is now past (édwxa),!* but which, as the pres. ) 6éAe perav, shows, is to be regarded as continuing still to the present, and that, too, fruitlessly. Thus there is no ground for the opinion “4 that John had already before published a written rebuke. But it is correctly inferred 15 that the woman Jezebel had for a long time already exercised her corrupt activity. Even the fact that she had been let go }* appears from the standpoint of Divine Providence to afford an opportunity for a time of re-
1 Cf. also ver. 22.
3 Hengstenb.
3 Alcas., Zall.
* Andr., Areth., Vitr., Eichh., Hengstenb., Ebrard.
5 Grot., Kilef., who regards the cov after yvv. as indisputable.
¢ Wolf, Beng.
72 Kings ix. 22; 1 Kings xxi. 23 aqq.; 2 Kings ili. 2, ix. 30 aqq.
8 C.a Lap., Calov., Heinr., Herd., Ew., De Wette, Stern, etc. ® Hengstenb.
10 Cf. ver. 18.
13 Ebrard.
13 Cf. Winer, p. 80. Ebrard {naccurately paraphrases the aor. after the manner of the present.
14 Ew. if.
16 Cf. ver. 20.
11 Cf. ver. 22.
4 Ew., De Wette.
CHAP. II. 22, 28. 161
pentance, although the church must on this account be censured. — The é&« after perav.! naturally stands as a designation of the movement out of sins. — The xopvela —not “inaccurately stated for immodest pursuits leading to inchastity ” ?— is meant precisely as in ver. 20 (ver. 14). Fornication in its various forms was properly the heart of the error.
Vv. 22, 28. The iéod so strongly emphasizes the succeeding threat, and makes us so to expect something new in comparison with ver. 21, that the discredited ¢ys appears in an exegetical respect entirely superfluous. — Al- ready the B4AAw abr. shows that the xAivy is a bed which the woman takes only when so compelled. Yet the xAivy does not designate the punishments in hell,? but the sick-bed,‘ in opposition to the bed of sensuality. But by this description of such judgment, the reference to Jezebel and her entirely different® punishment is abandoned,® so that even in ver. 23, in the words x. T. réxva abr., an allusion to the destruction of the sons of Ahab’ dare not be sought. The punishment of the woman and her companions, without regard to the significant designation existing in the name Jezebel, is deter- mined in accordance with the manner of their sins. It is to be observed, however, that the expression now chosen, powebev—r. poy. per’ abrijc, i.e., those who shared in her deeds,® designates the entire conduct of the woman and her party in a double sense, embracing the wopveia and the ¢ay. eldwd., since the ethnicizing disorder must be punished more than adultery in a theocratical-symbolical sense, as in fact actual fornication was what was chiefly designed. Thus the pofyebovrer per’ dvri¢ are those who perform ra Epya _abrig, i.e., the works taught and practised by the woman; or as in ver. 23 it is again said, according to another application of the symbolical idea,® ra téxva abrig,!° and therefore not actually bastards.!! Incorrectly, N. de Lyra: gehenna. It is possible to think of a pest,!* because the LX X. have rendered the Heb. 311, Ezek. xxxiii. 27, by @dvarop. Meanwhile it is sufficient to leave the matter in its universality; the entire formula émoxr. tv duvary then in its ful- ness corresponds in some measure to the Hebrew mode of combining an infin. with the finite tense of its root, as, e.g., Lev. xx. 10, where the punish- ment of adultery is stated NOY-Nid (LXX., davdr@ Gavarods Gwoav). But any allusion to this precise passage is, to say the least, doubtful. The indepen- dence of the Johannean formula, notwithstanding its adoption of Hebraic modes of statement, lies partly in the distinction between the words droxrevé and éevary, and partly in the fact that by the addition of the preposition dv the precise idea of the means ?* is marked. — cal yvooovrat, x.r.A, Every judg- ment of the Lord upon the world is a revelation of his glory, and has the intentional result to advance and strengthen believers more and more in their knowledge. Thus the idea of the yvuc. is entirely too general }4 to
1 Ver. 22. Cf. Acte villi. 22: aré. ® Cf. Isa. lvii. 3.
3 De Wette. 10 Areth., N. de Lyra, Calov., Vitr., Eichh.,
8 Beda, N. de Lyra. Cf. also C. a Lap., De Wette, Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. il. Tirin. 11 Aretius, Grot., Beng., Ew., Klief.
« Ps. xii. 4. 5 2 Kings ix. 31 sqq. 12 Grot., Vitr., Wetst., Bengel, Ewald, etc.
® Against Herder, etc. Of. vi. 8.
12 Kingex.7. Zuill., Ebrard. 13 Cf. ver. 16.
® Areth., Vitr., Ew., De Wette, etc. 14 Cf. Joel iv. 17; Isa. xxxvii. 20.
162 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
admit of any special opposition to the false gnosis! of the Nicolaitans. It. is different with ver. 24. — doa: al éxxA. Not only the Asiatic ;? but rather, as the judgment upon false teachers in Thyatira is an act which belongs to the coming of the Lord, so also this special act shares in the absolutely uni- versal significance of Christ’s final appearance. — dre tyé eluz, x.r.A, A forcible designation of the person of whom so great a thing is said as 6 efebvuy, x.17.2, Cf. Ps. vii. 10. The Son of God who executes judgment (xa? déou, «.7.A.) has also the divine attribute of searching the deepest recesses of man, and thus the condition for just judgment,® as he has both eyes as a flame of fire, and feet like brass.*— vegpod¢ xa? xapdiac. According to Grot. and Beng., the former is intended to designate the desires, and the latter the thoughts. But the expression designates rather the entire inner part without any distinc- tion of the two points. —ipiv. An animated turn to those guilty. Cf. ver. 24. — xara rd tpya buwr. Because the Lord, who recognizes the inner source of the works, sees also their worth.®
Vv. 24, 25. In opposition (é) to the Nicolaitans spoken of at the close of ver. 23, the Lord now addresses that part of the church not infected by such false doctrines; by the words olriver, x.7.2., the rest are then expressly charac- terized as such as had not received this doctrine, this not godly, but satanic, gnosis. The reference to the so-called gnosis of the Nicolaitans is here clearly indicated by the expression ra Badéa, even apart from the controverted formula o¢ Aéyovow; for to become acquainted with the depths (of divinity) was an essential pretence of the Gnostics.7’ But it is a matter of controversy, whether the expression r. Saséa r. car. should be conceived of as a self-chosen designation of Gnostic erroneous doctrine concerning the “rest,” § so that otx Eyvucary and dc Aéyovow have the same subject, or whether the Nicolaitan Gnostics are to be regarded as the subject to u¢ Aéyovav, 80 that the expres- sion rd Badéa +r. car. is used either entirely as it sounds in the sense of these Gnostics,® or according to the analogy of the designation ovvaywy? roi caravd, ver. 9, as a sarcastic transformation of the Gnostic expression concerning the depths; viz., as they say, of the Deity, but as it is rather in fact meant, of Satan.!° But if, in the former sense, the entire formula ra fadéa rod carava were to be understood as one in itself peculiar to the Gnostics (dc Acy.), it must also be shown how it was used by them; but this does not occur. Hence the view commends itself, that the expression ra Badéa r. car. is to be conceived of from the Christian standpoint. At the same time it appears far more forcible if the Gnostics themselves be regarded as the sub- ject to dc Aéyovow with respect to the chief idea ra Badéa, while the further
1 Hengstenb. the depths of the depth.” Iren., Ads. Haer., 3 Grot. ii. 38, 1. Pref.: Baéda pvoripia, “deep mys- 3 Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10. teries.” 4 Ver. 18. 8 Andr., Areth., Helnr., Ztillig, Stern, § Grotius, De Wette. Ebrard. ¢ Cf. De Wette. 9 Neander, Apoat. Zettalt., 3d ed. ii. p. 582.
¥ Tf, in good faith, you ask them a ques- tion, they answer, with etern look and con- tracted brow, that ‘itisdeep.””? Tertull., Adn. Vaient., i. —** Who say that they have come to
Hengatenb., Gebhardt, Kitef.
© So Vitr.: “ The ws Adyovow is to be re- ferred absolutely to the rd Badd.” The word ‘of Satan ’’ is added by the Lord himself.
CHAP. II. 26-28. 153
determination of rod oarava is made prominent, in that the question in fact is not concerning divine depths,’ nor divine mysteries,* but the depths of Satan, as if this judgment were put in the mouths of believers at Thyatira who remained faithful, and they therefore are regarded as the subject to the dg Aéyovory. — To the rest at Thyatira the Lord now says, ob BiAAw—féu. The expression dAdo Bipoc has been understood in two chief respects, but with very different modifications of exposition; viz., either of the burden of suffering and punishment, or of the burden of a law. The norm furnished by the context, for the explanation of an expression in itself ambiguous, lies in the words rAjyv bey. «.7.4., Which in no way contain the condition of the promise ob BudAw ép’ tu. GAAo Bip.,® but a certain limitation (wAjv) of the preceding promise, as the Af» is correlate to dito. If now in the words ver. 25, the manifestation of Christian steadfastness in faith is required, and therefore a certain incessant legal determination is made or established, the result. is that every dAdo Bapog must likewise be a burden of the law, which, just because it reaches farther than the limitation indicated in the closing words (ver. 25), should not be laid upon believers. If now it be considered that the question at issue was with respect to fornication and the eating of sacri- fices made to idols, and that just in respect to this the ancient church at the Synod of Jerusalem, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, made a definite decision, but declined all going beyond this as an intolerable burden,‘ we could not recognize hence a clear allusion to that decree; and accordingly explain the do Bapos of any sort of legal limitation of the holy freedom of believers, which proceeds beyond the commandment hitherto faithfully pre- served by them.® The 6 fyere, nevertheless, is not directly the formerly recognized and still faithfully observed prohibition to avoid fornication and the eating of what is sacrificed to idols; but the expression in its indefinite extent includes the idea that because believers have been faithful in oppo- sition to the Nicolaitans, just in their obedience they have also had their reward, viz., the blessing of eternal life, and therefore should hold fast to this treasure,® while they bear still further the burden of that commandment which was hitherto borne. If the dAdo Bdpor, therefore, be understood of the burden of suffering, it can be explained only, with De Wette: “No other sorrow than you bear or have borne already.” For we must infer from the mention of the trouov7, ver. 19, that suffering was already borne; while, in case this reference were to dAdo Bupoc, a more definite allusion to suffering previously endured would be expected. Incorrectly, Heinr. : ‘ Punishment because of another’s fault.” Incorrectly, Grot.: ‘‘ They boast of the knowl- edge of many things; this I do not exact of you,” as though the gnosis were the dAdo Bipoc. Incorrectly, Beng. (whom Klief. follows): “As they had borne the burden of Jezebel and her followers sufficiently.”
Vv. 26-28. The promise to the victor. — The combination with ver. 25, indicated by the xa,’ lies in the fact that the victory is won by the rapeiv aype
1 Cf. 1 Cor. if. 10; Rom. xi. 33. 5 Cf. Primas, N. de Lyra, O. a Lap., Stern, * Iren., Adp. Haer., i. 1, il. 80, 48. Hengstenb. Cf. also Ew. il. 3 Evrard. — © Cf. ili. 11.
4 Acts xv. 28. ' 4 Cf. Bengel, De Wette, Hengstenb.
154 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
réouc ra Epya pov, which in meaning is nothing else than the xpareiy com- manded in ver. 25. With respect to the form of the expression, the rypezy corresponds to the xpareiv, the dype réAoug to the dypt ob dv féu. The rd Epya pov find their explanation partly in opposition to the works of Jezebel,! and partly in combination with ver. 25; they are such works as the Lord requires by the commandment which he imposes. Incorrectly, Grotius: Metonymy, for épya are said to be precepts concerning works. — Concerning the broken construc- tion of the sentence, ver. 26, as the avro refers back to absolute preceding nominative 6 vxév, x.7.4., cf. Winer, pp. 170, 588. — The substantial sense of the promise déow — xarpé¢ pov is that the victor is to share in the work of es- tablishing the Baceia? at the coming of the Lord. For just as the Son has already received (e4.) from the Father power over the heathen, that he breaks them like earthen vessels with a rod of iron,® so also will they who believe in Jesus Christ be raised by him, their Mediator, through whom they have already at the present time the kingdom,‘ to participation in the glory which then becomes manifest. The coming of the Lord completely and actually effects the victory over all that is hostile; and he who remains faithful until that eoming will then receive as a reward the royal glory in its fuller develop- ment, whose possession in faith has already conditioned the victory over all temptations or persecutions on the part of the world. Incorrectly Grot., on .tEove, nt r. 20v.: “Twill raise him to the grade of presbyter, that he may judge concerning those who live not in a Christian but a heathen way;” and -ver. 27 of excommunication.* The conversion of the heathen, also, we must ‘regard neither alone,’ nor with the addition of the idea of the future royal ‘dominion.’ — nomavei® according to the LXX., Ps. ii. 9, for DYA (break), is ‘interchanged with Ny A (feed). — In the epistle to the church at Thyatira, :-this promise has its reference to the opposition to the heathen libertinism of .Jezebel and her party. —«. ddow aire rav dor. r. mp., ver. 28, cannot be like G70w abtov,x.rA” That the morning star which Christ will give to the victor is “the glorious body refulgent with the endowment of brilliancy,” 4 is an entirely arbitrary assumption of exegetical helplessness; while still others have advanced the idea, with allusion to Isa. xiv. 12, that by the morning star the Devil is to be understood,?* or the Babylonian, i.e., the most powerful king of the world.!*, According to xxii. 16, to understand Christ himself} is impossible because of the ddew, which makes us expect }® a gift of the Lord. According to the analogy of Dan. xii. 8, Matt. xiii. 48, 1 Cor. xv. 40 sqq., the expression in general designates the bright glory,!® the heavenly déga,!"
1 Ver. 22. Eichh., Heinr., Ewald, etc. ® Cf. xil. 5, xix. 15.
2 Cf. xix. 15, xii. 5. 10 Elchh. Cf. also Helnr.
3 Cf. Ps. ii. 8, 9. 11. N.de Lyra. Cf. ver. 17.
4 1. 6, 9. 13 Cf. Rom. xvi. 20. Andr., Areth.
5 iii. 21, xx. 6. 13 Zilll.
6 paps. ors. = word of God, a part of which 14 Primas, Beda, Alcas., C. a Lap., Calov., is excommunication. Vitr., Wolf, Beng., Stern, Ebrard, Klief.
* Cf. Primas, Beda, Alcas., who immedi- 1 Vv. 17, 10.
ately regard the fron rod as a designation of 16 Aretius.
. the bishop's crosier. 17 De Wette. Cf. also Hengstenb.
& Cf. Ebrard.
NOTES. | 155
with which the victor is to be endowed, without regarding dorip iteelf as used! of nothing else than “brilliancy and rays of the star.”2 Yet it is difficult for the discourse to be in reference to a domination of the star, similar to that in what precedes.* The bold poetical idea appears rather to be, that the victor beams in the brilliancy of the morning star, because he has the morning star in his possession, just as a precious stone adds its efful- gence to those who wear it. [See Note XXXIV., p. 157.]
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXVIIL_ Ver. 2.
Hengstenberg calls attention to the danger incurred, when any special duty is incumbent upon the Church, of so concentrating all energies upon it that other spheres are neglected, and to the excuse for this neglect given by conscience on the ground of its activity in the one direction. So intent was the church of Ephesus in properly withstanding errorists, and in its toilsome labors in this cause, that love was vanishing, thongh the earnestness originally prompted by love remains. A superficial legal orthodoxism, and a zeal in good works, are gradually supplanting the life-communion with Christ which is the soul and centre of a normal church life. Alford agrees with Diist., that the rdv xérov xal tiv troporiy are epexegetical of ra épya. Concerning the hardship implied in the rov xorov, cf. Matt. xxvi. 10; Luke xi. 7, xviii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 27; Gal. vi. 17. It and {ts derivative xontéw are especially applied to the service of ministering the word, John iv. 38; Rom. xvi. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 10, 58 (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 12); 2 Cor. vi. 5, x. 15, xi. 23, 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 16; Gal. iv. 11; Phil. if. 16; Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 8, ili. 5, iv. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 10, v. 17; Heb. vi. 10; and are most suitable to the interpretation of the dyyéAog, as the bishop or pastor of the church. Hence the practical point of Trench: ‘‘ How often does labor which esteems itself labor for Him stop very short of this! Perhaps, in our day, none are more tempted continually to measure out to themselves tasks too light and inadequate than those to whom an office and ministry in the church have been committed. Others, in almost every other calling, have it measured out to them. We give to it exactly the number of hours which we please. We may well keep this word xé7o¢, and all ¢hat it signifies, viz., labor unto weariness, in mind.’? The note of the same author on ot Bacraca xaxove is also pertinent: “ The infirmities, even the sins, of weak brethren, these are burdens which we may, nay, which we are commanded to bear (cf. Gal. vi. 2, where the same word Baorafew is used): it is otherwise with false brethren (Ps. cxix. 115, cix. 21, 22; 1 Cor. v. 11).”
XXIX. Ver. 6. rav Neixodairay,
The argument in the Jong and thorough discussion in Gebhardt (pp. 206-216) is to prove the distinction between the Nicolaitans and those errorists men- tioned in ver. 2, ‘‘them which say they are apostles,”’ etc., referring to Judaizing teachers, the conflict with whom is now in the background, while, with Diist., he regards the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing teachers of an Antinomian type. He traces the two classes, as prophesied already by St. Paul in his charge to the
1 Ew. ii. wishes to insert the entire prom- 2 xii.1. Heinr., Ewald.
ise of ver. 28 into iff. 6, and then to interpret 1 Cf. De Wette. asr. according to |. 20.
156 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
elders of Ephesus, Acts xxviii. 29, 80, the latter verse referring to those here mentioned. Sieffert (Herzog, R. E.): ‘‘ Gentile Christian Antinomians who abused Paul’s doctrine of freedom.’’ Schultze (in Zéckler’s Handbuch): “A Gnostic Antinomianism, against which Paul had contended in the Epistle to the Colossians, and especially Jude, and Peter in his Second Epistle; and whose adherents John means in his First Epistle, by the name of antichrists, combin- ing with false gnosis docetic error and a heathen life, as the head of whom Cerinthus appeared (Iren., 1. 26; Euseb., ili. 28).’’
XXX. Ver. 10. tpepér déxa,
So Alford: ‘* The expression is probably used to signify a short and limited time (Gen. xxiv. 55; Num. xi. 19; Dan. i. 12. See also Num. xiv. 22; 1 Sam. i. 8; Job xix. 8; Acts xxv. 6).”’ Also Trench. Luthardt: “ A human measure, so that it is endurable.”’ Stier: ‘‘ Whatever may be the fact with regard to these uncertain historical circumstances, the general meaning of this word will assure us that aj] times of tribulation are measured before the Lord, and that they will be cut short for salvation (Matt. xxiv. 22).’? Plumptre, however, fol- lowing Bahr’s Symbolik: ‘‘The number ten, the representative of complete- ness, and here, therefore, of persecution carried to its full extent, and lacking | nothing that could make it thorough and perfect.”’
XXXII. Ver. 11. &« rod Gavatov tod devrépov,
Cremer: that ‘‘ to which they are appointed whose names are not written in the book of life, and which follows the general resurrection (xx. 12-15), must be a judgment which comes as a second and fina] sentence, and which is some- thing still futare before the first resurrection, for the partakers of that resurrec- tion are not affected by it (xx. 6). Their perfect freedom from all the conse- quences of sin, and the full realization of their salvation, is also expressed in ii. 11." Gebhardt: ‘‘ The second death, the intensified death, is the coming of sins to the eternal death, from which there is no resurrection; or to perdition (comp. xvii. 8, 11), which consists, not in the ‘destruction of the wicked,’ but in the definite loss of happiness, in eternally restless pangs, and perpetual con- sciousness of consummated death.”? Trench quotes the gloss of Augustine: ‘‘ Vita damnatorum est mors,’’ and notes, ‘“‘ The devrépoe Gauvaroc of this book is the yéeva of Matt. v. 20; Mark ix. 48-49; Luke xil, 5.”
XXXII. Vv. 14, 15.
Alford: ‘* We may remark: (1) That it is most according to the sense of the passage to understand these sins in the case of the Nicolaitans, as in that of those whom Balaam tempted, literally, and not mystically; (2) That the whole sense of the passage is against the identity of the Balaamites and Nicolaitans, and would be, in fact, destroyed by it. The mere existence of the etymological relation [see Diist. on ver. 6] is extremely doubtful.”? So also Gebhardt. Trench identifies the Balaamites and Nicolaitans.
XXXIII. Ver. 17. pavva. pipov Acuayy.
Trench: ‘ The words, ‘the hidden manna,’ imply, that, however hidden now, its meaning shall not remain hidden evermore; and the best commentary on them is to be found at 1 Cor. ii. 9; 1 John fii.2, The seeing Christ as he is, of
NOTES. 157
the latter passage, and, through this beatific vision, being made like to him, is identical with this eating of the hidden manna, which shall, as it were, be then brought forth from the sanctuary, the holy of holies, of God’s immediate pres- ence, where it was withdrawn from sight so long that all may partake of it; the glory of Christ, now shrouded and concealed, being then revealed to his peo- ple.” Following Ziillig, he has an elaborate argument to prove that there is a reference in * the white stone”’’ to the Urim and Thummim, on the ground that yore, in later Greek, means “‘ a precious stone,’’ and Aevxds indicates ‘‘ the purest glistering white’ of the diamond; both the manna and the white stone ‘* representing high-priestly privileges, which the Lord should at length impart to all his people, kings and priests unto God.’’ This is refuted by Plumptre in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, article ‘‘ Urim and Thummim;” and in his com- mentary, where he adopts Ewald’s view, ‘‘ who sees in the stone or P4go¢ of the promise, the tessera hospitalis, by which, in virtue of forms or characters ‘inscribed upon it, he who possessed it could claim from the friend who gave It, at any distance of time, a frank and hearty welcome. What I would suggest as an addition to this rises out of the probability, almost certainty, that some such tessera or ticket —a stone with the name of the guest written on it — was given to those who were invited to partake, within the precincts of the temple, of the feast that consisted wholly, or in part, of the meat that had been offered as a sacrifice. On this view, the second part of the promise is brought in har- mony with the first, and is made more directly appropriate: he who had the courage to refuse that fessera to the feast that defiled should receive another that would admit him to the supper of the Great King.’’ On the last clause, Plumptre: ‘‘ The inner truth that lies below the outward imagery would seem to be, that the conqueror, when received at the heavenly feast, should find upon the stone, or tessera, that gave him the right of entrance, a ‘new name,’ the token of a character transformed and perfected, — a name, the full significance of which should be known only to him who was conscious of the transformation, just as, in the experiences of our human life, ‘the heart knoweth bis own bitter- ness, and the stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy’ (Prov. xiv. 10).”
‘XXXIV. Ver. 28. 7dv dortpa roy puny,
Luthardt, briefly: ‘‘ That the new day of Jesus Christ is to break upon him.”’ So Stier does not approve of the application of the words, in this con- nection, to Christ himself, but finds in them hrst the messenger heralding the day, and then the beginning of participation in the heavenly kingdom. Accord- ing to his scheme of interpretation, he finds the first realization of this in the Reformation. Tait: ‘‘A share in my kingdom at its first manifestation.’’ Plumptre, on the other hand: ‘The fruition of his glorious presence... . When he gives that star, he gives himself (ch. xxii. 16). The star had of old been the emblem of sovereignty; cf. Num. xxiv. 17; Matt. fi.2. It was the symbol of sovereignty on its brighter and benignant side, and was, therefore, the fitting and necessary complement of the attributes which had gone before. The king came not only to judge and punish and destroy, but also to illumine and cheer (Luke i. 78). . . . The conqueror in the great strife should receive light in its fulness, and transmit that light to others (Dan. xii. 3).’?
158 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. The art. before dvoua (rec.) is, according to A, C, %, 11, 12, al., with Beng. and the more modern critics, to be deleted. — The «af before {c, occurring instead of Sri, defended by Mill (Prol., § 1007 sqq.), received by Matth., follows ére (Beng., Griesb., etc.) in a diplomatic as well as exegetical regard. — Ver. 2. _ otipwov, according to A, C, 4, 6, 8, etc., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf. Luke
xxii, 32; Winer, p. 85. The form orypigov (rec., &, Beng.) is, like the variations orgpiGey and ripyoov, an emendation. — uéAAct drodaveiv, rec. Yet the péAde has scarcely support in Arethas. Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.] have written correctly according to A, C, ®, 12, 28, Vulg., Syr., éueAdov, to which the emendation feA- Aev (qpeAAev, 16) also points. The var. Euedec (EusAdec, #uedAec) occurs in such witnesses (2, 3, 4, 6, al., Arab., Matth.) as propose drofdAAey (drosadelv) instead of the sufficiently guaranteed drogaveiv (A, 8X, Vulg., Syr., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; besides which there is also the var. amo¢vjoxeww — rod Beov pov), A, C, &, 2, 6, 7, 9, al., Vulg., Syr., Andr., al., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}. The omis- sion of the pronoun in some witnesses (see Beng., rec.) is, perhaps, not without a theological purpose. — Ver. 8. The words xa? fxovoag xal thpe, Matth. has deleted according to his five Codd. (cf. 2, 3, 4, 6, al., in Wetst.), but against A, C, ®, Vulg., rec. edd. — tri oe before o¢ xA. (rec., ®, against A, 12, 28, Vulg., al.) is derived from the conclusion. — Ver. 4. «a? before éy Zapd. (rec.) rejected already by Mill (Prol., § 1248) and Griesb. upon the ground of A, C, 2, 4, 6, al. — Instead of @ ob« éuod, (rec. A, B, C, &, al.), Tisch. (1859) for not improbable, {nner reasons has written 6 (Vulg., al.). — Ver. 5. Instead of obro¢ (rec., Tisch.), read obrwe, according to A, C, &, 2, 8, 9, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]. — Ver. 9. The form die (Lach. [W. and H.]) is, according to A, C, to be preferred to didwus of the rec. edd.; cf. il, 20, dgelc, &: déduxa, incorrectly from ver. 8, —- Instead of féwow x. xpooxuvgowowy (rec., Griesb., Beng., Matt.), read héovorw x, mpooxurvicovew according to A, C, ®, 14, 28 (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Concerning the ind. fut. after va (xxii. 14, vi. 11, xiv. 18), cf. Winer, p. 271. — Ver. 12. % xataBaivoven, A, C, &,, 12, 15, al., Griesb., Beng., etc.; cf. il. 20. Elz.: 9 xarapaiver, — Ver. 15. elnc, rec. But, according to C, &, 2, 4, al., read eo (Mill, Prol., §1111; Beng., Lach., Tisch., Griesb.: gc); cf. 2 Cor. xi. 1.— Ver. 17. The article before tAeccvog (A, 6, 11, al., Griesb., Lach., Treg., Tisch.) is uncertain (m corr.). It is wanting in C (Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), and grammatically is not to be expected. — Ver. 19. Instead of GAwoov (rec., &), read GjAeve according to A, C, 2, 4, 9, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The emenda- tion %Aov (in Wetst.) also occurs.
Vv. 1-6. The epistle to the church at Sardis.
Sardis, the ancient capital of the kings of Lydia, of whom Creesus was the last, in a rich plain irrigated by the auriferous Pactolus, bounded on the south by Mount Tmolus, lying about thirteen hours south of Thyatira, and
CHAP. III. 1. 159
three days’ journey east of Ephesus, was distinguished for its wealth and luxury. Under Tiberius, Sardis, with twelve other cities, suffered severely from an earthquake, and was restored by the assistance of the emperor.! In the history of the Christian Church, it does not again appear until the mid- dle of the second century, and then as the residence of the Bishop Melito.? The present Sardis is a paltry village.
The church at Sardis is severely reproved ; yet it is rather intimated than expressly said as to wherein its wrong consisted. We are not to think of a proper, i.e., intentional hypocrisy,* but of a mode of life which did not agree with the confession firmly maintained externally.4 Its members had a dead faith; they faltered in their faith, and lacked the works, and the holy, pure life, which proceed from the living power of the true faith.6— The supposition of Ewald, that their heathenish life protected the Christians at Sardis from being annoyed by the heathen, and, that, for this reason, nothing is said in the epistle concerning 6Ai~e, and txouov7, is only reconciled with the text with great difficulty. At all events, the church had enough Christian appearance (ver. 1) to restrain the friendship of the heathen. But whether it had actually experienced no form of 6Adi¥uc, even not from the Jews, and how this perhaps occurred, is not perceptible.
Ver. 1. 6 Eyov ra énra rveipara rod Oeod. This designation of the Lord is new rather as to form than as to sense; for Christ would not be everywhere Lord of the Church in the sense declared by the following predicate, and the entire description recurring in the commencement of the epistles (i. 12 8qq-), if he were not the one “having the seven spirits of God.”7 Christ, as the Son of God, has® the Spirit of God, as of the Father; thus Christ
» works and speaks through the Spirit in and to the churches,® and thus both designations of the Lord, 6 Ey ra énrd wvevp, 7, 0, and (6 Eyuv) rode énta dorépac,’® appear in their inner connection.“ But, just because the Eye 7. é. xv, tr. 9, applies to Christ in his relation to his Church, not as something par- ticular, but as something general, and as expressing a principle, the declara- tion 6 éyov, «.7.4,, cannot be referred like, e.g., 5 ty. 1. dpGaApuéve, x.7.A, (ii. 18), etc., in the beginning of the epistles, to any special manifestation of the Lord; neither to his omniscience, according to which he tries the hearts and reins, and also judges aright what is hidden; }* nor to his unlimited power to punish and reward.18 The Lord designates himself, in geperal, as the one from whom the spiritual life-forces of the Church proceed,4 and who thus continually rules in his churches,!® sending forth the seven spirits as his Spirit, and speaking, reproving, warning, consoling, and promising through the same. In a like general way, the relation of Christ to the churches (ii. 1, iii. 14) is made prominent; yea, even the more special features in the
1 Tacitus, Ann., if. 47. ® Cf., e.g., i. 7, 11, 17, ete., with the intro- 3 Eusebius, 7. Z., iv. 18, 2%; v. 24. ductions to the epistles.
§ Vitr. % Cf. i. 16, 20.
4 Cf. Ebrard. 11 Cf. also Bengel, Ewald, Hengstenb., 5 Vv. 1, 2. Ebrard.
6 Cf. vv. 2, 8, 4. 12 Vitr., ZUL., De Wette.
7 Cf. 1. 4. 18 Hengetenb.
8 Cf. v. 6. % Beng. 16 Ebrard.
160 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. other titles to the epistles, with their more precise references to the special contents of the epistles, have, at the same time, an entirely general signifi- cance, and make known the specific position of the Lord with respect to his churches in general. Hence it is an arbitrary assumption, when Ebrard lays emphasis upon the fact that Christ, “in the first part of his missive, does not appeal to that point in his manifestation! which afterwards? is established with special reference to Sardis,® viz., to the white robe; but to his general relation to all the seven churches.” There is, therefore, no foundation whatever for the explanation of this “remarkable” circumstance, by the fact that the epistle to the church at Sardis has, in addition to its historical, a special “ prophetical sense ;” and, as the first of the epistles referring to the “synchronistic” condition of the church, it symbolizes that “among the ecclesiastical bodies which arose in consequence of the Reforination,’’ in which “there was a possession and boast of pure doctrine, while there was such an over-estimate of doctrine and the objective institu- tion .of the Church, that, on that account, the continual reformation of the life was neglected.” 4
Upon oida depends, first of all, the accus. cov ra Epya, then the clause dre bv. &x., «.7.4., before which a «at dare not be inserted. The inner relation of the two expressions placed alongside of one another, without an express combination, is that the Lord, just because of his knowledge of the imper- fection of the works of the church (ver. 2), knows that the same, although it has the name that it lives, is nevertheless, in truth, dead. The expression dvova Exe refers neither to the individual name of the bishop, as Zosimus, Vitalis, etc.,* nor to the name of his office;7 but designates the reputation and esteem of the church,® yet in its opposition to actual truth, which is then expressly made prominent.® The “life,” if it were actually present, and then, of necessity, would efficaciously manifest itself, would be “ to live according to Christ ;” 2° but the judgment has the force: vexpdc el; i.e., not “nigh to death,” 1 but instead of the indeed seeming, yet deficient, life, death is there. This, of course, is to be understood, not unconditionally, but as, according to what follows already in ver. 2, where the call to watch sounds forth, the being dead is represented as a sleep,!? it is to be limited according to the spiritual meaning of the expressions (jc and vexpdc 2. Cf. Jas. ii. 17. ;
Ver. 2. yivou yprzyopav, become watchful. This idea, Grot. interprets as indefinite: “ beware of all sins.” N.de Lyra, with an oblique reference: ‘ watchful for the recognition of defects in thyself and thy flock.” The Lord
1 i. 18 aqq.
3 Ver. 4 aq.
3 Thie fe not even altogether correct; the ‘‘white robes,” Hii. 4 sqq., do not have a special relation to the Lord’s garment, i. 13.
« p. 572.
® De Wette: “And that thou hast the name.” Cf. ver. 15.
6 C. a Lap., Beng.
* Hengstenb.
8 N. de Lyra, Zegar, Areth., Ewald, ete.
9 De Wette, Ebrard. Cf. Herodot., vii., p. 485: 4 orparpAacia — dvona piv alye, ws vn” "Adijvag cAatve, cariero 8 é¢ wacay Thy *BAAdéda (“The expedition had a name, as though directed against Athens, while it was really put in motion against all Greece ’’).
20 Grot.
31 KRichh.
8 Cf. Eph. v. 14.
CHAP. III. 3, 161
demands the condition of spiritual watchfulness, which is opposed to indo- lence or security, as spiritual sleep or death, and is occupied in holy works, or a holy life.1 Upon the essential identity of meaning in the two ideas of spiritual death and sleep, depends the connection of the command yivov yeryopay with the judgment vexpdc el, and, again, with the admonition com- bined with the yivov ypryopdy, viz., xa? ornp. r. A. & éu, aropaveiv. The last * member of ver. 2, in its connection with yép, and ita reference to the works,* is further explained from the proper conception of the one as well as of the other figurative designation. — xa? orfpioov rd Aouad & EueAdov dropaveiv. Grot.: “ See to it lest, by neglecting one charge, you become altogether flagitious.” Thus the 72 Accra appear as the blessings still remaining to their own souls,*® “the virtues which still have remained with thee;” as Ewald says, who, by the explanation necessary with his recension of the text (d &ueAAec drofaveiv) : “Strengthen the other things which, by dying, or keeping at leisure, thou art about to lose,” commends that interpretation of the ra Joma the very least.4 The neuter form by no means hinders us from referring the expres- sion personally, i.e., to that part of the entire church which was already on the point of dying *® This personal reference is supported as well by the idea of the drogaveiv,® as also of the orfpiwov.? Only we must not understand “the rest ” as meaning the laity,® under the presupposition that the angel of the church was the bishop, or the college of officers (Vorsteher); but the church contemplated in its unity and entirety, and, just because of the con- nection of its members, made in a mass responsible,® has, in its actual reality, on the one hand,” still vigorous living members, but also, on the other hand, and that, too, in a preponderating majority, those who could be preserved from the death already threatened only by strengthening on the part of the church again recovering, in its entirety, unto active, wakeful life. — The imp. ieAdov can be understood from the standpoint of the writer of the letter, just as the aor. éuapripyoe (1, 2); 14 but it is more probable, that, as in the immediately following eipyxa, the Lord himself, who speaks, looks back upon the investigation of the church previously undertaken by himself.}2 — ob yap eipnxa, «.t.A, The entire preceding admonition to the church, in mass, to be watchful, and to strengthen their members already dying by rising to a new, energetic life, is founded upon the reference to their defective works, in which it has become visible to the eyes of the Lord that they have been dead,!* or sleeping. By fpya, as in ver. 1,'4 the entire activity of the inner life in ita external activity and deportment is designated; it is not “good works ” 6 that are meant, as though they were blamed only because they were
1 Cf. Eph. v. 8-14, ii. 17; Bom. 1. 11, xvi. 25; Jas.v.8 Cf. Ps. 3 Cf. also ver. 4. Hi. 14, cxil. 8. § Beng. 8 Hengstenb. 4 Ew. il.: “The other things on account ® See on i. 20, if. 15. of which thou wouldst die.” 10 Ver. 4.
5 Cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 4; 1 Cor. 1. 26 sqq. So 11 Ew. Andr., Areth., Calov., Vitr., Eichh., De Wette, 12 Cf. De Wette, aleo Volkm. Ebrard, etc. 13 Ver. 1. © Cf. the vexpds eT, ver. 1. 14 Cf. Matt. vii. 20 eqq.; Hengstenb. t Luke xxii. 82; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 18; 2 Thess. 16 Ebrard.
162 - THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
not altogether perfect in their goodness. This idea, which in itself is not altogether incompatible with the tenor of the words, is much too weak for what precedes. It would first he necessary, with De Wette, to find a litotes: “Thy works are not less than perfect.” But just in the simple precision, as ‘the words proceed from the mouth of the Lord who judges his church, do they have their most forcible significance, The Lord who has tested! the works of the church according to the absolute norm? has found them not perfect, and therefore not corresponding to the measure applied to them.® Whether much or little be wanting for the required perfection of the works, is not to be asked: it is enough that the only and unconditionally prescribed measure is not reached. The express allusion to the absolute norm of all Christian morality is here the more forcible, as the church, according to human judgment, has the name that it lives.‘ Incorrect references, in Grot.: “You are inconstant; some things you do well, others ill;” and in Bengel: “ However good the beginning was.”
Ver. 3. From the reproach § follows ® the admonition to repentance. The noc dare neither be expressly changed into a zoia,7 nor be explained in a sense proceeding therefrom.® Castalio, correctly: “How thou wast in- structed.”*® But it is not made prominent as to “ how finely” the church received the doctrine, i.e., how well they began their life of faith ;2° there is also no allusion to the simplicity and purity of the apostolic mode of preaching. In accord with the text, Ebrard explains: “The ‘ what’ received by Sardis, it had maintained; but the ‘ how,’ i.e., the manner in which it formerly had received and heard the ‘what,’ it had lost. Once it had received this with holy zeal of heart, but now only with the head.” A description of the mir, as well in reference to the apostolic proclamation as the reception on the pait of the hearers, is given by Paul (1 Thess. i. 5 aqq., ii. 1 aqq.; 1 Cor. ii. 1 sqq.). The manifestation of spirit and power which occurs with the preaching belongs to the right mode of hearing and receiv- ing, as it is that mode which is efficacious ‘unto sanctification; cf. Eph. iv. 20; Col. ii. 6. Thus the quickening and refreshal of the dead Christian life must actually be begun by the remembrance (y»np.) of their original reception of the gospel whereby the new holy life was wrought. Besides, the two other points of the admonition, xai ripe: xa? yetavénooy, and that, too, in immediate sequence of this, have their justification in the fact that the received divine truth, when it is maintained, has in itself the power to work true repentance, and thus evermore to cleanse, strengthen, and perfect the new life. — Not without artificial refinement does Bengel distinguish the &Andgers (“ with the heart’) from the jxovcare (“ with the ear”), and then remarks on r7pe., “ in order that your reception may not be in vain,” and on ueravonooy, “in order that your hearing may not be in vain.” Against this
1 Cf. 1 John fv. 4. © umn. ob>., i. 6. Cf. fi. 16. 2 évwmov Tou Geov pov; i.e., God being wit- 1 Heinr.
nese and judge. Grot., Vitr., De Wette, etc. * Grot.: “Doctrine such as thou hast re- 3 Cf. Col. iv. 12; John xvi. 24, xvii. 13; ceived from the aposties.”
1 Jobn i, 8; 2 John 12. * Cf. Aret., C. a Lap., Vitr., Beng., Ew.,
‘ Ver. 1. Hengstenb. Ebrard. 5 Vy. 1, 2. 1° Beng. Of. ver. 2. 11 Vitr.
CHAP, III. 4. 163
distinction between &Andac and #xovoac in fact, while it rather lies in the mode of statement,! the order of words already declares, which we would then expect to be reversed; the relation stated between the two ideas ripe and peravénooy is, in itself, arbitrary. The change from perf. to aor., in case such fine distinction were actually intended by the writer, can be explained only with Ew. ii.: The Holy Spirit appears to be still present in the church which had-formerly received him, but the first hearing of the gospel lies simply in the past. With the perfect &Anga thus understood, the judgment on ver. 1 (vexp, el) entirely harmonizes, because the latter is not absolute.* — In the second sentence of ver. 3, just as in ii. 5, 16, the threat follows as to a case where the requirement of the Lord is unfulfilled. Yet the ov peculiar to this passage does not indicate that the fruitlessness of the warn- ing with respect to the bad condition of the church is presupposed.* Against this, the éey already declares, which sets forth the future as either thus or possibly otherwise.* But it refers either to the preceding admonition,® or to the accusation of ver. 2.6 The latter seems the more correct as the expression yoryopzonc connects with ver. 2. — fw d¢ xdérrnc. Not only is this based, as to the expression, upon Matt. xxiv. 42 sqq., but the entire mode of contemplation, according to which the special judgment upon a particular congregation appears as a proof of the Lord’s coming to final judgment,’ is previously found in the eschatological discourse of the Lord, since there the specia] judgment upon Jerusalem appears combined with the final judg- ment at the parousia. — ob uf. Cf. Winer, p. 471.— xoiav dpav. The acc. determinative of time ® is not only Hebraic,® but also Greek.”
Ver. 4. The accusation, admonition to repentance, and threat thus far made to the entire church, are contrasted (411’), by way of limitation, in regard to individual members, with the commendation that these have kept themselves free from the general sinfulness, and a corresponding promise; ef. ii. 4, 6. —éxerr. Because, as members, they belong to the entire church. Beng.: “These, even though indeed few, had not separated themselves ; otherwise the angel of the church would not have them.” — dvoyzara. “ Men designated by name; cf. xi. 18; Acts i. 15; Num. i. 2, 18, 20. Ewald. An allusion to the dvoua Eze 12 is not to be acknowledged, because there the conception is entirely different from here. — 4 oba éuddAvvay ra ivétia attuy. The figurative expression is arbitrarily pressed if the {uzirca be interpreted as something special, whether as referring to the bodies as the clothing of the soul,!* or the consciences, or the righteousness of Christ put on by faith. It is, further, without all foundation, when Ebrard, in the entire figurative expression, tries to find “a spiritual self-pollution arising from spiritual self-
1 John xvil. 8; 1 Cor. xi. 28. ® John iv. 52; Acts x. 8. 2 Bee above ou ver. 1; als cf. ver. 4 of this ® De Wette, Ebrard. chapter. Cf. A. Matthiae, <Auaffihl. Griech. 3 De Wette. : Gramm., § 424; Winer, p. 215. $ Winer, pp. 273, 275. 11 Vatabl. 5 * As thou hast been so forcibly aroused 13 Hengstenb., Ebrard. aod warned.’’ 13 Areth., Zeger.
¢ “ As thou so greatly needest repentance.” 14 Alcas., Tirin., Grot., Prie. . 1 Cf. il. 5, 16. % Calov.
164 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
concupiscence,” — “spiritual onanism.” Too much also is made of the ficure if the presupposed purity of the garment be derived from baptism by a mistaken appeal to vii. 14.1. N. de Lyra already correctly abides by the general idea whereby the “ being defiled ” occurs by means of sin,? in which sense, of course, it may be said that the ivara are the life itself, and actions of works,’ or profession and life.‘ We have not to ask throughout as to what is properly meant by the garment; the entire figure of the defiling of the clothing is a designation of the impure and unholy life and conversa- tion. To the commendatory recognition, corresponds also the promise of the reward: «a? mepimatgoovow pet’ tuod iv Aevxoic (Viz., luariow). Incorrectly, Aretius, who identifies the “ white garments ” with the undefiled garments: “ They will persevere in the pursuit of good works.” The white garments, with their bright “ hue of victory,’’ 6 are peculiar to those in heaven.? They who, in their earthly lives, have kept their garments undefiled will walk with Christ ® in white garments, since, thus adorned, they will live in “ the state of immortal glory,” ® before the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the full and blessed enjoyment of his fellowship. [See Note XXXV., p. 183.] But the more definitely the promise mepin. yer’ tu. év Aevxoic stands with respect to the testimony of acknowledgment é ot« éudAuvay +. iu, abr., — especially as marked by the addition ér: dcoi elow, — the more remote appears the side ref- erence to the heavenly priesthood of the blessed which is to be indicated by the white garments, especially if, in connection therewith, the Jewish custom be thought of, that the priests examined before the Sanhedrim were clad in black or white garments, according as any defect were or were not found in their bodies.}° — dr: déi0i elow. The foundation is entirely in the sense pre- sented in xvi. 6.1! As, there, they who have shed blood must drink blood, so here, white garments are promised the undefiled because they are worthy of this. The idea, however, lying ut the basis of the remuneration,’ leads also, in this passage, where the discourse is concerning reward, not to the Roman- Catholic idea of a merit, because, as Calov. correctly says, in substance, “Christ alone, by faith, renders them worthy.” Life itself,4* with all its powers exercised by those clad iu white robes, is a free gift of the grace of the Lord; a meritum could be spoken of only when man, by his own powers, keeps himself undefiled. Thus, however, John designates only “a congru- ency between the acts and the honor rendered to them, even though the honor exceed the act.” 4
Ver. 5. 5 vxcv. This designation recurring uniformly at the close of every epistle, and therefore not of a conception to be united by means of obrwc, results from what precedes. Tere is meant the energetic manifes- tation of the life received in faith, which cannot occur without a victorious
1 Beda, Rib., C. a Lap.; cf. Zeger, Heng- 8 per’ duov. Cf. Luke xxiii, 43; John xvil. stenb, aA
* Cf. also Ew., De Wette, Bleek, Stern. 9 N. de Lyra.
3 Aretius. 19 Schdttgen, in loc. Cf. Vitr., Zl.
* Vitr. 1 Cf. xiv. 13; Rom. fi. 6; 2 Cor. v. 10. 5 Cf. ver. 2. 12 De Wette. Cf. xvi. 5, the dccasos el. © Beng. 13 Cf. ver. 1.
t Ver. 5, vi. 11, vi. 9, xix. 8. 44 Grot. Cf. Vitr. (Cf. Luke xx. 35.)
CHAP, III. 7-13 165
conflict with the world and one’s own flesh. An express pointing backward to what precedes is made by the ofrws, which makes the promise here be- stowed upon the victor (obr. meps3. ev. lu. Acvx.) } appear to coincide with that which (ver. 4) was given to the one whose garments were not defiled.2— The second promise, xa? ob ua) féadziyu rd dv. abr, éx 7. BIBA. r. Goic, has likewise refer- ence to what precedes, because not only he who has the name that he lives, but he who besides actually lives,? can remain written in the book of life. The figure of the book of life‘ is not derived from “the genealogical rec- ords of the priests,” > but from lists such as, e.g., the magistrates kept, and from which the names of deceased citizens were stricken. A man is not written in the book of life? when he becomes participant of new spiritual — life (cf. ver. 1), when he receives the quickening truth (cf. ver. 3), or be- comes a child and heir of God through faith in Christ. This ethical accoin- modation referring to the temporal conduct of man is actually not present. In the book of life, which according to its nature is eternal, there is from the beginning of the world ® God’s attestation of the eternal salvation which thase written in the book are to experience. The rejection of what is deter- ministic, and the maintenance of what is ethical, lie in the further declara- tion whereby the of course not to be realized possibility of the erasure of the name from the book of life is stated. Yet it is in reality by the free con- duct of the believer, that his name may remain in the book. The name of the victor remaining faithful and walking worthily, will not be blotted out of the book of life; the victor, therefore, will receive hereafter the heavenly gracious reward of eternal life with the Lord, while those not written in the book of life will be rejected by the Lord.° [See Note XXXVI., p. 183.] Still, in a third way, 1s the promise given the victor expressed: xal duodoyfau, «1A, This stands, of course, as the recurrence of 7d dvoya abrov already sig- nifies, in connection with what immediately precedes, yet not as Eichh. states: “And as often as recitation is made from it, I will declare his praises.” With the idea of the book of life, that of the frequent reading of the name is not in itself consistent; and the éyod., «.7.4., can only !? have the sense that the Lord, speaking as Judge, expressly testifies that he knows the name of the victor (written in the book of life) as the name of one of his own, and, therefore, that the one named belongs to him, the Lord, and on this account shall have part in the glory of his kingdom.'®
Vv. 7-13. The epistle to the church at Philadelphia. — Philadelphia in Lydia, named after its founder, King Attalus Philadelphus of Pergamos, lay thirteen hours south-east of Sardis, likewise at the foot of Tmolus. The present Alah Schahr, a not entirely unimportant town, inhabited by Turks and Christians, contains many ruins of ancient Phil. —Of the Christian
4 Cf. on the év, Matt. x1.8. Winer, p. 361. T As was said here in the 2d ed. So also 2 Cf. aleo Ebrard, Volkm. Kilef.: cf., on the other hand, Gebbardt, p. 154. 5 Cf. ver. 1. ® ‘Tn baptism.” C. a Lap. © xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, 15, xxi. 27. Cf. ® xill. 8, and often.
Pe. Ixix. 20; Isa. tv. 8; Exod. xxxii. 32 9qq.; 10 Cf. xx. 15, xxi. 27.
Dan. xii.1; Phil. iv. 3; Luke x. 20. 11 Cf. also xx. 12 qq. 6 Vitr., Sch8ttgen. See on ver. 4. ‘ 9 Cf. Matt. x. 32; Luke xii. 8.
6 Cf. Wetet. 13 Cf. xxi. 3, xix.9; Matt. vil. 23, xxv. 12.
166 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
church at Phil., this Apoc. epistle contains the first trace. A Christian prophetess, Ammia, was mentioned at Phila.! According to the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 46, Peter installed there the first bishop, Demetrius. Many expositors* have regarded a bishop Quadratus® the receiver of the Apocalyptic message. The apologist Quadratus was bishop of Athens.‘ — The church, like that at Smyrna (ii. 9), was exposed to the hostility of the Jews; but, although by no means of imposing importance on account of its extent or other external relations, it had confessed the name of the Lord Jesus with patient fidelity (ver. 8): among the promises imparted to this charch is, accordingly, that also of true victory over the hostile Jews, who in all humility were to seek a share in the salvation discerned in the church (ver. 9). This relation to Judaism is testified also by the entire mode of conception and expression of the epistle, which with especial definiteness supports itself upon the divine foundation of the O. T., so that, in opposition to false Judaism as the synagogue of Satan, the Church of Jesus Christ appears the more distinctly as the true people of God.
Ver. 7. The designation of the Lord is derived, of course, not immedi- ately and in its particular details from i. 12 sq., but is formed with reference to the contents of the epistle that follows;® yet the essential meaning of the predicates here used is no other than that expressed in the entire description, i. 12 sq., as only the peculiar mode of statement is conditioned by the oppo- — sition to false Judaism. Christ, rejected and traduced by the “synagogue of Satan,” is nevertheless the absolutely Holy One, the true Messiah, and the Lord of the earth. —6é dye. Incorrectly Eichh., Heinr.: “ A divine ambas- sador.’’ So, too, the conception of holiness is improperly obtained by Calov.: “Christ, the Holy One, as the model of the holiness of bishops;” by Vi- tringa:® “Christ the Holy One of Israel,’ as the antitype of the high priest, the prefect of the heavenly sanctuary;” by Ewald:*® “Who, on account of his very holiness, avenges the injury inflicted upon Christians by proud Jews.”° Too indefinite is Ebrard’s reference: “To whom every thing un- godly, even what is most deceptive, is an offence.” The 4 dyioc, as well as the é dAnGeic, receives its living relation only in connection with the 6 Zyuv r. xieiv, and with respect to the epistle which follows. Incorrect are all inter- pretations of the 6 dAnévéc depending upon the presumption that dAndewdr is synonymous with dwpevdpe or dAndic,!° while dAnéwsc means “ genuine, with its idea corresponding to its name.” So the Lord calls himself (iii. 14) 6 néproe 6 msrdg Kal dAndcvde, because he is a trustworthy witness, and, just on that account, such an one as actually merits this name. Cf. vi. 10, xix. 2, 9, xvi. 7; John xvii. 8;™ 1 John v. 20 sqq.; Heb. ix. 24. Passages also like xxi. 6, xxii. 6, xv. 8, Heb. x. 22, are to be explained according to this idea. In-
1 Cf. Eusebd., 7. Z., v.17. ® A comparison may here be made with vi. * Cf. N.de Lyra. 10, where, however, this energetic expression 8 Perhaps according to Eusebius as above. of holiness in judicial righteousness is expli-
Cf. iif. 37. citly marked. : ¢ 77. £., iv. 123. 10 Cf., on the other hand, Meyer on John 5 Cf. Ebrard. 6 Cf. also ZUll. vii. 28; Trench, Synonyme of the N. T. 7 Tea. vi. Cambr., 1854, § 8.
3 Of. alao De Wette, Stern, ete. it Cf. Isa. Ixv. 16, LXX.
CHAP. III. 7. 167 correct, therefore, is the exposition of Vitr.: “Christ as the Mediator of divine truth, as the wearer of the true Urim and Thummim.” Calov.: “ Because he wishes that they who have received it of him guard the word of truth.” Ewald, Stern, etc.: “]Jis promises in reference to the reward are fulfilled to the faithful.” Ebrard: “ Who does not join in the falsehoods of those who malign Philadelphia, but on his part (ver. 10) will bring the truth to light.” The proper meaning of the expression dAgdmdc has been correctly apprehended by Alcas., C. a Lap., and Grot.,! but has been misapplied by them, as they have combined the two predicates 4 dywc, 6 dAndwog: “ Who has true and perfect holiness — the superlative of holiness.” But the 6 dayg. has in itself? an important meaning. MHengstenb. has given the correct interpretation, when in reference to ver. 9 he mentions the calumnies of the Jews, attested by Justin Martyr, who wished to see in the Lord only “the one hanged,” and therefore a false Messiah. As opposed to such calumniating Jews, Christ is designated as the absolutely holy, and connected therewith as the true, i.e., the actual and genuine Messiah, heir and Lord of the truly abiding theocracy (6 éy. r. a4. r. Aavid, «.7.4.). In a similar sense, the apostles in their discourses to the Jews have vindicated the holiness, and, accordingly, the true Messiahship and Sonship of God of the Crucified. — 6 tov riv xdziv Aavid, x.r.A. Incorrect is the conjecture r. cAeiv Tage? (Tdged), made by Wolf, in consideration of i. 18.4 Without any ground, N. de Lyra explains® the key of David, by appealing to Luke xi. 52, xxiv. 82, as “the power to open the understanding of the Scriptures,” and, accordingly, the words 6 dvolywy, x.7.4.: “No one can hinder those from understanding the Scriptures whom he wishes to instruct, nor can any one understand them unless he unlock them.” Soon ver. 9. In like manner is the explanation of Alcasar solved, concerning the cross of Christ as “the instrument of omnipotence.” ‘With entire correctness is “the key of David,” and the succeeding description of its management, interpreted by almost all expositors in general, of the Lord’s own supreme power ® in the kingdom of God. The expression contains an allusion to Isa. xxii. 22,' but also® a significant modification of that passage, since the Lord here appears as the one who has not the key of the house of David,® but the “key of David.” Consequently the Lord is represented not as asecond Eliakim, as his antitype, which is also in itself inapposite, but he appears in a series with King David himself, as heir of his royal house and kingdom.’ The key of David belongs to one who, as David himself, has a peculiar right, and is Lord” in his royal house, — not in the temple,?? —and accordingly in the entire kingdom of David. But this is applicable to Christ as the new David 18 unconditionally, because the ancient David, with
1 Cf. Ew. il. wal dvoife: cai ove fora: b awondciwy, nal KAe- * Cf. xix. 11. wee nat ove Eras 6 avoiyeur.
3 Acts Hil. 14, iv. 27, 30, vil. 62, xill. 35. Cf. John xiii. 19.
* Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 10.
5 Cf. also Primas, Vieg., Zeger.
© Cf. Matt. xxvili. 18.
* Where it is said concerning Ellakim : Sco dure yy cAcloa Kixcov Aavid éwi Ty uy alrou,
8 Hengstenb., Ebrard.
® As Grot., Calov., Ewald, De Wette, etc., here explain. 1 Cf. v. 5, xxfil. 16; Luke i. 32.
11 Cf. also Abrens,a a. O. 8. 13.
12 Cf. C. a Lap., Vitr., ZUll., ete.
13 Cf. Hos. iii.5; Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek. xxxiv. 23 sqq., xxxvii. 24 eqq.
168 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
his theocratic kingdom, was only a prophetic type of the Lord and his eternal kingdom. Just asin Acts ii. 29 sqq., xiii. 22 sqq., 38 sqq., this is here applied to unbelieving Jews. — 6 dvofyuy, «.r.4. The construction in the second men- ber is Hebraic,! as the participle makes a transition to the finite tense,* with- out on that account requiring a é¢ to be supplied before «Azie.® The entire thought of 4 dvoiywy — obdeic dvoiye: depends upon the predicate 6 tywy r. xAziv 7. A., and is an explanation thereof. But the idea is defined too narrowly, on the one hand, by those who, by a comparison of Matt. xvi. 19, regard the power of Christ here as being that to forgive sins, and thus to receive into the kingdom of heaven,‘ and, on the other, by those who derive from ver. 8 (@bpay dvewypu.) &@ limitation to ver. 7, and thence infer that Christ opens the _opportunity for entrance into his kingdom;® while, on the contrary, ver. 8 makes prominent only a special point of what in ver. 7 is said far more generally, and applied on the other side (xal xAeie, x.r.4.). Not once is the distinction of the earthly and heavenly kingdoms to be marked, but the latter is to be regarded in its indivisible completeness, as Christ the Lord and King of the realm admits therein or excludes therefrom.® The supreme power of Christ, belonging to him as the true Messiah, is declared of him entirely in connection with all preceding predicates, and the succeeding epistles.7 As an essential part thereto, there belongs especially the irrevocable and inevit- able twofold decision in the final judgment. [See Note XXXVII., p 183.] Ver. 8. With oldé oov ra Epya we are not to immediately combine the dr: puxp. éx, duv. as though the latter words ® contain-an explicit statement of the Epya;® for, in a formal respect, it is impracticable to regard the entire clause ldob — dvriv as a parenthesis; and, as to the subject, the point expressed in the assumed parenthesis belongs already also in the idea of ra épya. But 1° by the words ofdé cov ri épya, the Lord testifies chiefly, without any further determination, that every thing is known to him with which the church in its present life is engaged.1 To the church at Philadelphia this is a word of commendation and consolation. This results from the words of the Lord which immediately follow: idob, déduxa, x.r.4., in which the thought is ex- pressed that the fidelity maintained by the church, notwithstanding its external helplessness, depends not only upon a gracious gift of the Lord, but also serves the purpose, — and that, too, again through his: government, —that through the faithful church the Lord’s kingdom is increased. This sense depends chiefly upon the correct interpretation of the figurative ex- pression ded. ty. 0, Obpav dvewypévny, x.t.A, The door is opened, viz., either in order that the church itself may enter,!* or in order that by means of the church others may enter.!® According to the former idea, N. de Lyra,” etc., explain: “a door is opened for understanding the Scriptures.” Arethas: tiv elaodoy npdx anudavery (“ entrance to fruition”). Bengel: “ Entrance into
2 De Wette. 8 Cf. the dn, ver. 1.
2 Cf., e.g., Am. v. 8. ® Bengel. Cf. also Ewald, De Wette.
8 Beng. 10 Cf. Ebrard.
4 C. a Lap., Vitr., Eichh., ete. ; 11 Cf, ver. 1, ff. 2.
5 Ew.; cf. De Wette, Ebrard. 13 Cf. Acta xiv. 27.
6 Cf. Calov., Stern, Hengstenb., ete. 13 Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. fi. 12; Col. iv. 3.
7 Especially ver. 9. Cf. ver. 12. 16 Cf. ver. 7.
CHAP. III. 8 169
the joy of thy Lord, and meanwhile into unhindered progress in all good.” Eichh. : “ Entrance to me lies open to thee;” in the shallow sense: “I desire well for thee.”! Ziillig: “ Entrance into the temple.” Hengstenb.:? “ En- trance to the house of David, or the kingdom of God.” According to another mode of representation, it is explained by Andr., Rib., Alcas., C. a Lap., Stern, Grot., Calov., Vitr., Wolf, Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc., who think of the favorable and successful opportunity for the missionary activity of the church. A decision in favor of this explanation, and that, too, in reference, not to heathen,® but to Jews who are to be won by the fidelity of the believing church, is made by the connection with ver. 9. <A special intimation of the connection of déduxa, dda, and xojzou, lies even in the three- fold téob.4 A declaration concerning the entrance of the church into heavenly joy, of which alone, according to the first mode of statement, we can think, could scarcely be made at the very beginning of the epistle. The statement correctly understood stands, consequently, in close connection with the designation of the Lord, ver. 7, 6 yu» r. xAeiv A, «.7.A,, and emphasizes a specia] point, corresponding to the further contents of the epistle, of the supreme power in reference to his kingdom, to be ascribed from ver. 7, in unlimited universality, to the Lord; i.e., Christ expressly, and with visible results, attests his Davidic power of the keys in this, that he has opened a door before his faithful and steadfast church, through which a multitude of still unbelieving Jews are to enter. For the words /do6, mojo abroic, iva héovat, x.7A,, ver. 9, are in substance an exposition of édod, ded, év. o. Pipav avewy- uzvav, x.T.A., a8 they state the actual, but yet future, consequence of an oppor- tunity already given (déduxa, perf.). That Christ can say of himself deduce and woujow, depends upon the fact that it is he who has the key of David. — tvoxwv cov. To be distinguished from ca® only in mode of contemplation, but not * in substance. The Hebraic coloring of the formula’ corresponds well with the statement in this passage, and the style of the Apoc. in general.— The demonstrative airy, brought in after the relative g», is also Hebraistic.—6rz. Incorrectly, ‘Vitr.: “Even though.” Rather is that which immediately precedes based upon dst puxpay Exerc duvauw nal bripyoac, x.7.A, The “little strength,” viz., of the church, cannot be explained by the lack of miraculous gifte,® but refers to the smallness of the church,’ which must also be regarded in destitution when compared with the richer Jews. As now with the juspav dye divauev, the xal éripnoac is combined, these two members of the sentence externally united by the mere «ai show themselves to have a definite inner relation: “and (yet) hast kept,” etc.1!_ Concerning . the subject itself, cf. ver. 10, ii. 8. The church, therefore, already had had opportunity, as the aor. forms éryppoac and fpvgow indicate, to confess the
t Cf. also Heinr. 8 WN. de Lyra: “Because I have not givea 2 Bleek. thee, like many other bishops of this time, the 3 Cf. C. a Lap. gift of miracles, I have recompensed thee with « Cf. also Bengel. excellent knowledge of the Scriptures.”
5 Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. i. 12; Col. fv. 3. ® Grot., Wetst., Eichh., De Wette, Ebrard,, 8 Vitr. etc.
39 10 Hengstenb. t! De Wette, eto.
170 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Lord’s name in opposition to unbelievers,— apparently Jews and heathen. Therefore, because (ér:) the church has done this, although of insignificant outward power, the Lord has given it an “open door,” the meaning of which is stated in ver. 9. [See Note XXXVIII., p. 183.] Thus the idea is ad- vanced, that the faithful, steadfast confession of the church, indicated especially in ra Epya, is the cause whose effect and reward, through the Lord’s disposing (dédwxa, cf. ddd, mojou, ver. 9), is to be the conversion of a number of his enemies. Faithful confessing has itself opened the door, but of course only because the Lord had given believers power for testimony. Thus the clause Idot, dédwxa, x.7.A., stands upon the idea ra épya, and the whole (ver. 8) upon the designation of the Lord, ver. 7.
Ver. 9. dda, not “I will suffer,” as Wolf recommends. Hengstenb. also incorrectly: “I give thee, or the Christian Church, and therefore also thee.” The &6, to which as object the partitive gen. rav Acyévruv belongs,! is again taken up in the formally (fut.) more definitely fixed zorjow, as then the atroi¢ also recurs to the just-mentioned object rév Aeyévruv, «.r.A. The words éx ric ovvaywyi¢ Tob carava designate the persons meant, with respect to their origin. They are not false Christians,? but ® Jews who just because of their enmity to the true Messiah (ver. 7) are not true Jews, but the synagogue of Satan. Yet also in that the Lord brings some from this synagogue, and causes them to come humbly and believingly to his church, he shows that he is the one who has the key of David. — ro:jow abrode, iva REover, x.r.4 Concerning the attraction atrotc, cf. Winer, p. 282; concerning iva, also John xi. 87, after souiv, with the ind. fut., cf. vi. 11, xxii. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 1; Mark iii. 2; Winer, p. 272. — The sojow marks the still entirely future result which the Lord will work ;* the inner relation to dé and dédwxa (ver. 8) is this, that the dédwxa (perf.) extends to the present, and continues in its operation, while the dc is present in its work, and will proceed to the rowjow. The opened door still stands open, and the Lord will work that a multitude of still un- believing Jews may enter. — Both the fgever and the mpooxuvigaover Evarmov rev noday cov are explained in connection with the O. T. prophecies of the con- version of the heathen, by the fact that for unbelieving Jews, as they have just been described, the Church of Jesus Christ, viz., of him who has the key of David, ver 7, is the true Zion, in which they, no less than the heathen, must seek and will find the truth of God, and the fellowship of salvation. Thus, so far as the expressions are concerned, such prophecies as Isa. lx. 14, xlix. 23, ii. 3; Ps. Ixxii. 9; Zach. viii. 20 sqq., are in full hartinony with what is here stated. The xpocxvveiv, «.r.A. especially as an expression of homage,5 has its complete justification in the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ stands there as beloved of the Lord («. ywéow, dr hyannoé ce), and as the mediator of the divine salvation. Yet the Catholic interpretation with- out any ground has: “ The highest devotion of believers, and reverence and submission to the Church and ts prelates, are signified. For this adoration proceeds from the apprehension of an excellence of prelates thut is more than
1 Cf. 11.17. Winer, p. 400. 4 Viz., Hfove., «.7.A. 2 Vitr. 8 Cf. fi. 9. 8 Cf. Gen. xxill. 7, etc. Ew., Ebrard, etc.
CHAP. III. 10. 171 human, and less than divine.’? 1 — xal yvisow, 5rt hyaxnod oe. On the one hand, the aorist form #yar7ea,* and on the other the connection and allusion to ver. 7, furnish the reference to the definite proof of the Lord’s Jove, in that he has died for his Church. Just this must the unbelieving Jews acknowledge who now still reject and blaspheme the Lord as a crucified evil-doer.® In- correct reference of the #yaxr. in N. de Lyra: “ By advancing thee not only to the catholic faith, but also to the episcopal dignity ;” in Ew., to ver. 10, or‘ to Isa. Ixiii. 4, lxix. 27. De Wette too, indefinitely: “ That I have acknowl- edged thee as a faithful church, and furnished thee with my gifts and power.”
Ver. 10. &re éripnoac —xdyé oe typfow. The form of the antanaclasis ® corresponds with the inner relation between the performance of the church, and the reward on the Lord’s part; but even the performance of the church depends entirely upon the Lord’s grace, as the Adyoc r. drop, itself, which the church has kept, is full of divine power, nourishes and supports the faith, fidelity, patience, and hope of the church, and thus qualifies the same for victory. — rdv Aéyov ri¢ Urouovig nov. The gen. trouevae designates the Adyor according to its peculiar nature, as it depends upon its contents ;° the pro- noun pov belongs not only to ri¢ brou.,’ but® to the whole conception r. Acy. r, trou. The form of statement in i. 9 is therefore, at all events, a differ- ent one.!© Consequently 7. Avy. r. drop, pov cannot be: “the word concerning Christ’s patience, concerning the sufferings of Christ patiently endured for us,” or “the word of constancy in Christ’s faith;” 2) or “the word which makes its demands partly according to its contents and spirit,!2 and partly by virtue of the duty of confession and steadfastness in following, as it belongs to me and mine;” 18 also not: “my patience, ie., the specifically Christian, expressly required by the Lord himself, and enjoined as‘a preservative against the judgments threatened against the world.” 14 The vacillation and juncture of different ideas by all interpreters who wish to refer the pov only to r. émou, reveals the unnaturalness of the combination. The Adyor ric bropovig Of the Lord dare not, however, be explained: “the word which among other commandments contains that of patience also,” an explanation which is incorrectly ascribed to Grot., who, as many others vacillating con- cerning the relation of the pov, says at one time: “ My precept concerning patience,” and then, again, that the patience of Christ signifies “that which
1C. a Lap.
2 Cf. John xiff. 1; Eph. v. 25; Gal. if. 20; also John fil. 16; 1 John tv. 10, 11.
§ Cf. 11.9; Acts xiii. 45.
4 Ew. iil.
5 Beng., etc.
¢ Cf. Winer, p. 222.
7 Calov., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
8 Cf. xifi. 8; Col. 1.13; Heb.1.3. —
® Winer, p. 222. Obscure: Grot., Vitr., Eichh., Heiur., Ebrard.
30 Against Hengstenb., etc.
1 Calov.
13 As the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1. 18).
3% Vitr., who also paraphrases: ‘‘ They pre- served the word of the Lord’s patience; i.e., the word of the Lord, which is a word of patience, because po ono can with constancy profess the doctrine of the gospel, unless, at the same time, he fortify himself to bear with patience the afflictions accompanying the pro- feasion of Christianity.” All Christiane must bear the crose of Christ (Matt. xvi. 24), i.e., OAtyus; but OAiyis works vroxpomjy (Rom. v. 8), so that the Acy. ris vropoy. ja nothing else than the Aoy. Tov gravpov (1 Cor. 1. 18).
16 Luke xxi. 19, vill. 15; Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 138. Hengstenb.
172 fHE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Christ has enjoined.” The whole word of God as a word of patience rather appears to be the view of the Revelation in general, and of our epistle in particular, because with respect to troubles unavoidable to believers it gives and demands steadfast, faithful, and hopeful patience, i.e., the virtue which alone can lead us from all troubles to glory.1_ With respect to the already present and still future troubles, every thing to the believer turns upon the fact that he “overcomes.” This he can attain only through the érozor7, to which the word of his Lord points him. Thus the writer of the Apoc. can from his point of vision regard the whole word of Christ as a Adyov ric bropovig with the same right as, e.g., Paul, the preacher of righteousness, alone by faith in the Crucified, represents the whole gospel as the Adyor row aravpod.2 — In the words xéyé ce rnphow éx ric Spec, x«.7.4,, the church at Philadelphia is not promised that it shall be preserved from the hour of trial, i.e., that it shall not meet with sufferings full of trial,* but in accordance with the presenta- tion of the Apoc., that the troubles before the coming of the Lord will befall all believers, who of course are sealed,‘ lest by the temptation in the troubles they may fall; 5 and in accordance with the corresponding expression ryp, t,® in distinction from typ. avd,’ the church at Philadelphia, since it has already maintained victorious patience, is also to be delivered by his confirming grace from the universal distress impending before the coming of the Lord. — The dpa rod retpacuod, x.1.A., i.e., the precise period wherein the temptation is to occur,® refers to no persecution whatever proceeding from the Roman emperors, —neither that of Nero,!° nor some one after Domitian," possibly under Trajan,!2— also not, as Primas and Beda ?* arbitrarily agree, to suffer- ings occasioned by antichrist; but the idea, here not more minutely defined, is to be referred, according to the further development of the Apoc., to all the afflictions which, before the personal coming of the Lord, are to burst upon believers ;#5 the punishments impending by God’s wrath only over unbelievers before the appearing of the Lord are not meant.1°— The idea of the meipacyéc and repéoa™ has its justification because, on the one hand, to believers the danger of a fall into such suffering is present,1®—and hence there go with it the promise ot rypyow, the command xparet, «.1.4,, ver. 11, and the pledge to the victor, ver. 12,— but, on the other hand, to unbelievers such suffering must actually be a temptation,’® and that, too, of such kind as that because of their impenitent unbeljef they will ever fall by it the deeper, and
1 Cf. 1.9; Matt. xxiv. 18. 7 Jas. 1.27; Prov. vit. 6 Of. 2 Thess. iif. 3. 2 Cf. 1 Cor. i. 17 aqq., fi. 1. 8 Cf. Vitr., Hengstenb., Ew. fi., Volkm. 8 Whereby either the church at Philadel- ® Cf. xiv. 7, 15.
phia alone, as constituting a special exception 20 Grot.
(Beng., Eichh., Ebrard), or certain afflictions it N. de Lyra.
(chs. vi., vili.), in whose presence ali believers 13 Alcas., Pareus, ete.
are to remain approved (vii. 3aqq.; De Wette; 13 Cf. Andr., Areth.
ef. Ewald, Ziill.), are regarded. 14 Cf. immediately afterwards ver. 11: épxo- « The case is different in ix.3, where they ja: raxv.
who are sealed are not touched by a plague 38 Cf. ch. vi.
immediately coming jrom the abyee. 1% Cf. ch. xvi. 5 Cf. vii. 3,14; Matt, xxiv. 22, 2. 17 Cf. fi. 10. 6 John xvii. 16. Cf. Apoc. vil. 14: dpy. dx 18 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 23, 34.
T. OAip. 19 Cf. Donut. iv. 34, vil. 19, xxfx. 3.
CHAP. III. 11, 12. 178
their hostility to what is holy be always the more revealed by despair and blasphemy. — én? ric olxovpévac 5anc. The remark that hereby the Roman empire is designated * is correct only so far as in John’s historical horizon the whole world appears comprehended in the Roman empire. Yet by this (erroneous) limitation, the prophetic truth remains untouched, that the hour of temptation is to come to the actual oixoupévy 647, as certainly as the Lord himself is to appear as absolutely Judge of all. — mecpdoa: rove xatotxotvrag Ent tic yc. Those dwelling on the earth are, according to the constant mode of expression in the Apoc.,® the mass of men, in contradistinction to believers redeemed from all nations and tongues.* The repdoau refers to them in so far only as they are not kept (c2 rypjow).
Ver. 11. épyoua taxis. The message resounding throughout the entire Rev- elation,’ which proclaims judgment against enemies and the impenitent,® serves faithful believers’ as a consolation and encouragement,’ and here is made especially prominent by the more explicit admonition to receive the crown ® from the hand of the coming Lord: xpéree 8 Exec, «7.4. What the church has, must be that because of which it is to receive the crown, if it hold the same fast. Thus, e.g., the church at Ephesus “has ” this, that it hates the works of the Nicolaitans.14_ What the church at Phila. has, is to- be discerned from vv. 8-10; viz., this, that in trouble they had patiently kept the word of the Lord, and had not denied his name. Holding fast is by perseverance unto the end; }* but the victor’s crown of eternal life —the hope laid up #*— would be taken away, if the church would not hold fast to what it had, but in the impending temptation would waver and apostatize. Hence the Lord who pledges his gracious preservation (ver. 10) admonishes to faithful holding fast. Inconsistent with the context is the definition of the 8 tye by N. de Lyra as “grace given thee;”’ and by Ew.,!5 “ the orna- ment of thy virtues.” Better, C. a Lap.:?¢ “faith and patience.” — From the general mode of expression Iva undeic Ady, the idea must not be pressed that another could retain for himself the crown snatched from the church.” This possibly would have been expressed by dAdor.1® But the idea itself is impossible. 1°
Ver. 12. As in all the epistles, so here, the concluding promise to the “victor” (cf. ver. 11) proceeds to the time of eternal glory after the coming of the Lord. This is, besides, especially indicated here by the expression r. katy, “lepove., «.7.4, The incorrect reference to “the Church militant,” ™ or “the Church militant end triumphant,” 2 causes the most perverted inter.
1 iz. 20. Cf. xvi. 11, 21; Hengstenb. 12 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 18. 2 Cf. Luke fi. 1; Grot., Vitr., Stern, etc. 183 2 Tim. 1. 12, iv. 8. § vi. 10, xi. 10, xiii. 8, 14, etc. Of. Acts iv. 34 AdBy. Cf. vi. 4; De Wette. 26. 15 Cf. Vitr., Wolf, ete. ¢ Cf. v. 9. 16 Cf. Grot., ete. & xxii. 7, 12,20. Cf. 1.1, 3. 17 Grot., Zul. ® Cf., ¢.g., ti. 5, 16. % De Wette. 7 Cf. if. 25. 38 Cf. already Calov. ® Ne Wette. 20 N. de Lyra, Areth., Grot., Wetst., ® Cf. it. 10. Bchdttg., etc.
%® Cf. il. 1, 26. MH. 6. 21 Vitr., C. a Lap., Stern, ete.
174 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
pretations of individual points. Thus N. de Lyra interprets, by understand- ing év r. vad 1. 6. u. and rT. réAewe 7. 0. wp. Of the Church militant, and the rogjow abr. oriAoy, recalling Gal. ii. 9: “Brave and powerful in faith, not only for himself, but also for comforting and sustaining others;” and remarks on Ew ob pd bféAby irr, “by apostasy, not by excommunication; ” on yp, én’ avr. r. év 7.6. u., “for they [viz., bishops] represent in the Church the per- son of God;” on xura@. é 7, obp.: “For the Church militant is ruled and directed by the Holy Spirit;” and on r, 6, 4. 7d xavév: “ As the Lord him- self at the circumcision was called Jesus, and afterwards Christ, so believers are first called disciples of Jesus, and then! Christians. Similar distortions occur in Grot.,® Wetst.,4 etc. The correct reference to the future glory § is not in any way, as with Beng., to be so limited that the first promise xojow air, orvAoy tv 7. vad 7, 0. uw. is fulfilled already at the time of vii. 15, and before that of ch. xix., on the ground that there will be no temple in the new Jerusalem.® For if it be said that in the new Jerusalem there will be no special place for the worship and revelation of God, as God himself will be immediately near all the blessed, this does not prevent, that, according to an idea of an entirely different kind, but of essentially the same meaning, the entire community of perfected believers is contemplated as the temple of God, in which individuals may appear as pillars. This is only a transfer of the figure of the temporal to that of the heavenly communion of sainis;7 while the figure contains a significant feature, founded neither upon Isa. xxii. 23,8 nor 1 Kings vii. 15 sqq.,° in that »© by being compared not to foun- dation-stones, but to the pillars of the temple,!! they are represented in their immutable firmness (x. uw, «.7.4.) and glorious adornment. Incorrectly, Eichh. : 12 “The friends of the King, having more intimate access to him, who are admitted to his counsels, may be called columns.” — xat iw ob up &&Aby Ere. The subject is not 6 orvAoc,!*® but 6 vxdv.14 Therefore the remark on é£é4@y is in no wise necessary, that the verb as intransitive expresses the 16 sense of a passive.4® He who once, in the sense above indicated, is made a victor in the temple of God, henceforth shall no more go forth, either volun- tarily (viz., by a fall), or under constraint. — xa? ypiyu ta’ avrdv rd dvoya Tov e0t pov. Cf. in general Tr. Bara bathra, p. 75,2:1" “R. Samuel. . . says that R. Jochanan said that three are called by the name of God; e.g., the righteous, 4
1 Acts xi. 6 xxi, 22. 3 The Jesuit C.a Lap. (cf. the brethren of 7 Cf. 1 Cor. fii. 16 sqq.; Eph. i. 19 aqq.; 1 his order, Rid. Vieg.) thinks that, according to _— Pet. i. 5 qq.
“the new name” which the Lord received at 8 Eichb., Ew. his circumcision, the victors will be called ® Grot., Vitr., Zul. * Jesuani”’ or ** Jeoults.”’ 10 Cf. De Wette, eto. Sov uy é£4AOn: “ Will not be compelled ™ Gal. il. 9. again to flee as under Nero.’ 1. d». rT. oA. To 12 Cf. ver. 8. Gex.: ** This name ia the Catholic Charch, viz., 13 Kich., Ebr. as it was free and flourishing under the Chris- 1 Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Klief. tian emperors.” 16 Vitr., Eichh., Ew.
4 grvA., in opposition to the earthquakes 16 Possibly éxBdAdeoOa. Cf. Mark iv. 21; which were frequent at Philadelphia. Cf. Gen. xiili. 18; Matt. vill. 12, ix.38. Syr. ver. 1. 17 In Wetst.
® Calov., Beng., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., De 18 Tea. xlill. 7. Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Kilef.
CHAP. III. 14-22. 175
the Messiah,! and Jerusalem.? — éx’ abrév, viz., upon the victor,® not upon the pillar. Areth. says more accurately: éat rdv voyrdv oridov [on the mental pillar]; yet here the atré» is entirely identical with the preceding object (xojow) abréy. If the question be asked as to where the inscription is to be regarded as written, the answer is to be given otherwise than ii. 17, and according to xiv.-1, xxii. 4 (cf. xvii. 5, vil. 3): ‘*upon the forehead.” Since the vaéc is mentioned, the thought is closely connected therewith of the inscription upon the high priest's § diadem, m7" wrp;® and that, too, the more as by 1d dvoua r. 6. 2, the holy name mn! is meant.® At all events,® the holy and blessed state of belonging to God is expressed. -- So, too, the name of the city of God — which is arbitrarily traced to a breast- shield of the wearer, instead of the names of the twelve tribes !° — designates the right of citizenship in the new Jerusalem.) The name “city” need not, however, be derived from Ezek. xlviii. 35,12 — although the description (xxi. 3 sqq.) is applicable as an exposition of that significant designation, — but John himself calls the city of God 4 xa} ‘lepoveaAgu, —4 xataBaivovoa, x.t.A. The construction as i. 5. The meaning of the expression is elucidated by ch. xxi. Falsely rationalizing, not only Grot.: “It has been procured by the wonderful kindness of God,” but even Calov.:¥ “Jt has God as its author.” — «x. 7. dvoud pov 7) xanwdv. Not the name mentioned in xix. 16,!4 but that meant in xix. 12.15 But he who bears the new name of the Lord is thereby designated as eternally belonging to the Lord as though with the Lord’s own signature. If, however, the name of the Lord in this sense and significance can be placed alongside of that of God and the new Jerusalem, the Lord must verily be the one that in ver. 7 he professes to be; in that also he says of himself osjow, ypayu, he proclaims himself as one who is to be recognized as the eternal King of the kingdom of heaven.
Vv. 14-22. The epistle to the church at Laodicea. — Laod. in Phrygia, so called after Laodice, the wife of King Antiochus II. (formerly Diospolis, then Rhoas), reckoned by Tacitus !* among the “ renowned cities of Asia,” a rich manufacturing and commercial city,” lay east of Ephesus, south-east of Philadelphia, in the neighborhood of Colosse,!® on the river Lycus, — and hence called, in distinction from other places of the same name, A. 7 én? Avay, —or, more accurately, on the river Caprus, which, flowing into the Lycus, is received by the Meander. The ruins of ancient L. are found at the present unimportant town of Eski-Hissar.*® Already at the time of the Apostle Paul,” a Christian church existed at L. A bishop and martyr at L., Sagaris,
1 Jer. xxill. 6. 12 Vitr., Ewald, etc. 2 Ezek, xiviii. 35. % Of. Luke xx. 4; Jas. ili. 15. ® Vitr., Calov., Schdttg., Eichh., Heinr., 16 Grot., Calov., Vitr., Hengstenb. Ewald, Zull., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 1% Eichh., De Wette, Stern, Ebiard, etc. 4 Grot., De Wette. 1% Ann., xiv. 27. 5 Cf. i. 6.: 127 Hence Tacitus reports: ‘In the same year 6 Schéttg., Eichh., Ewald. (62) Laodicea, being overthrown by an earth- 7 Cf. 1. 8. quake, wi-hout any aid from us, but by its own § Grot., Vitr., ete. strength, recovered.” Cf. on vv. 1-6. ® Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 18 Cf. Col. fi. 1, iv. 18 sq. © Schittg. 19 Cf, Winer, Rwd.
1 Cf. xxi. 3 sqq. 9° Cf. Col. in various places.
176 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
in the year 170 A.D., is mentioned by Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26, v. 24; but even Archippus! is already named as bishop. Each of these has been regarded the “angel” of the church; and Hengstenb. immediately after- wards in the expression # doy? rt. xr., ver. 14, discovers an allusion to the name of Arch-ippus as the most influential elder at Laodicea.* — According to Col. ii., Paul had the same care for the church at Laod. as for that at Colosse,* since these neighboring churches were exposed in like manner to certain Judaizing, and at the same time theosophizing (gnosticizing), erro- neous doctrines. Of these there is no immediate trace in the Apoc. epistles.§ But, on the contrary, the lukewarmness and proud self-sufficiency and self- righteousness of the church are rejected. Perhaps the state of affairs is to be regarded in such a way, that, while the peculiar gnosticizing aberration was averted from the church by the “conflict ” of the Apostle Paul, yet that this, scarcely without the influence of its own riches, and of the entire tone of worldly culture and worldly enjoyment prevailing in a wealthy commer- cial city, had occurred in a worldly way, in which, on the one hand, the candid confession of the Lord, always opposing worldliness in warm words and zealous conduct, was missed, while, on the other hand, the trust in a certain external inoffensiveness manifested itself as an arrogant self-right- eousness, which even before ® was in another way to be dreaded.
Ver. 14. 6 Aus. This Hebraistic expression’ is, as to its meaning, entirely synonymous with the following Greek expressions: 6 paprue, 6 xurds cal dAndwac ;® but the double designation of the Lord establishes with earnest emphasis the indubitable certainty of all that the Lord, who is the abso- lutely faithful witness (i. 5), has now to say to this church of his at Laod.; viz , the accusations (ver. 15 sqq.), the advice (ver. 18), the threatening and promise.® Not inappropriate, therefore, is the admonition that in and through Christ all God’s promises are, and are to be, fulfilled ;?° from which the inference has been derived, that the epistle to the church at Laod. is to be regarded the Amen of all the seven epistles,!! or that in the designations of the Lord, ver. 14, a warrant is to be sought for the fulfilment of what is said in chs .iv. sqq.'2 The question here is not with respect to the promises or other utterances of God,!* which have their fulfilment in Christ, but with respect to the discourses of Christ himself which have in him‘ their guaranty. Hence it is not correct when N. de Lyra adds to 6 yapr., «.7.A, ‘of paternal majesty.” As a “witness,” the Lord here manifests himself, however, as entirely determined by all his testimonies in the following epistle. — cAnbiic. Not synonymous with mordé¢ (= dAnéjc: so ordinarily), but just because the Lord is a faithful, and, because of his truth, an unconditionally trustworthy
1 Col. iv. 17. , 6 Cf. Col. if. 18.
3 Conet. Apoat., vill. 46. t Cf., as to the form, 2 Cor. i. 20.
3 Concerning the Easter controversy at Lao- ® Cf. Bengel, Ewald, Hengstenb. dicea, in the time of Sagaris, cf. G. E. Steitz: ® Vitr., Hengstenb., etc.
**Die Diff. der Oec. u.d. Kieinasiaten in der 10 Grot., De Wette, eto. Paschafeler,” Stud. u. Xritik., 1856, pp. 769, 1 Ziull. 778 eqq. 13 De Wette, Stern. 4 Cf. also Col. iv. 16. 13 2 Cor. 1.20. Cf. also Tea. Ixv. 16. 5 On the contrary, Vitr., p. 161. : 44 Cf. John xiv. 6; N. de Lyra, ete.
CHAP, III. 15, 16. 177
witness, is he a true, actual, and genuine witness who deserves this name.! — # Upxy tie KTloeus rob Geov. Cf. Col. i. 15 8qq.,on which Meyer has refuted the erroneous expositions which essentially recur in reference to this passage. According to the wording, 9 dpx} r. xr. r. 9, cannot signify 6 dpyuv, the prince of God’s creation ;7 also the «rio r. 6., “the creature restored, creates new things,” the church ;* and still less can the expression signify what in i. 5 follows of course the 6 papr. 6 mor,, although there it is said in clear words: 5 xpwroroxoc tov vexpov * ‘The wording in itself allows only two conceptions: either Christ is designated “the beginning of the creation of God,” i.e., as the first creature § of God,® as Ew. and Ziill. understand it in harmony with the Arians;? or, the Lord is regarded as the active principle of the creation.® Unconditionally decisive for the latter alternative, which, however, dare not be perverted by a reference to the spiritual new creation,® is the fundamental view of Christ, which is expressed in the Apoc., as well as in every other book of the N. T. How could Christ have caused even the present epistle to be written, if he himself were a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth worship him,” if he himself were one of them?" The designatior of the Lord, that he is A and Q, need only be recalled in its neces- sary force, and it will be found that in the A lies the fact that Christ is the dpxf of the creation,!? while in the lies the fact of Christ’s coming to make an end of the visible creation. [See Note XXXIX., p. 184.]
Vv. 15, 16. Olda cov ra epya, oti, «.7.A. Cf. vv. 1,8. The works, i.e., the entire life as it comes into manifestation, show that the church is “neither cold nor hot,” but “lukewarm.” The rabbinical expression 0°3'}'3, “the intermediates,” }* has only a very indefinite resemblance to this passage. Every explanation referring to the general sphere of psychology and ethics is unsatisfactory, as the question here is with regard to the relations of the church to its Lord. It is plain that the Ceordc 18 is an actual believer, who with ardent love cleaves only to his Lord, and therefore asks for none else.}¢ Such “heat” Paul, e.g., records in Phil. iii. 8 sqq. In contrast with such a Searéc, the ywxpéc can only be one who is “beyond all influence of the Divine Spirit, as unbelievers, the heathen;” 17 but such contrast is inapplicable here, -where such persons are addressed, to whom divine things and the workings of the Holy Ghost are actually not entirely foreign. This, Hengstenb. has correctly felt, but incorrectly applied, when he first explains the “coldness”
1 Cf. ver. 7. 1 Cf. xix. 10.
3 Eichh. Cf. aleo Calov., Beng. 8 Cf. Col. 1. 15, 16; John 1. 3.
® 8, consequently reads r. éxxAnoias. But 13 «« There are three classes of men: for there it fe amended. Grot., Wetat., Eichh., Heinr. are either the perfectly righteous, or the per- Cf. C. a Lap. fectly godless, or the intermediary.” Sohar.
« Cf., beaides, Eichh. Gen., p. 88; in Schuttg.
5 Cf., on apxy}, Gen. xlix.8; Deut. xxi.17. ° Cf. Hengstenb. So Eichb., Helnr.: “Of
6 Cf. Prov. vill. 22. uncertain disposition, and altogether of doubt-
7 Castalia saya: ‘chef d’aucre,—the most ful mind;”’ “ without character.” C.a Lap..
excellent and first of all God’s works.”’ ‘Who vacillate between virtues and vices.” ® Andr., Areth., N.de Lyra, Vatabl.,Calov., Cf. N. de Lyra, Calov., etc. ‘
Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. 18 Rom. xii. 11.
also De Wette, Ew. il. is Cf. Aret., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. ® Kitef. 20 vy, 12. 17 De Wette. Cf. Grot., Beng., Ebrard.
178 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
very indefinitely as “selfishness,” but then—with reference to the wish dgedov, x.7.A,— understands such coldness “as is combined with the painful consciousness that one is cold, and with the heartfelt desire to become warm.” This is entirely against the context. Rather the “coldness” in direct and absolute opposition to “hot,” unconditional love to the Lord, is to be regarded as hostility and opposition. Thus Saul was “cold” as long as he persecuted the Lord. But since as from Saul a Paul, and from one that is cold, one that is hot can be made more readily than from one that is lukewarm,! the wish dgedov, x.7.4., is therefore justified.2— Concerning d¢eAov as a particle, and combined with the imp., cf. 2 Cor. xi. 1.2— obrug. Cf. Rom. i. 15. It is noted that the relation is not in fact of such a kind as has just been wished, but rather as is stated by the accusation, which also here in explanation of the obru¢ is expressly repeated, so that the reason for the threatening is completely established : uéAdw oe épécat, x.7.A,—xAapoc. The defi- nite, positive expression for the obre wuypdc obre feorde designates the indecision and incompleteness of the relation to the Lord, where he is neither entirely rejected nor entirely received,—a position which cannot exist‘ without inner sordidness, indolence, and self-deception.£ See, in general, Matt. vi. 24, xii. 30; 1 John ii. 15; Jas. iv. 4.— The threatened tuéoa: tx r. crop. x. is stated in accordance with the idea of the yA:apéc, because lukewarinness provokes nausea. By the uéAdw, the Lord refers to his judgment which is already approaching; he is already just about coming, and then rejecting this church opposing him, for it may be that it will yet first obey his call to repentance (ver. 20). While ii. 5, xvi. 23, iii. 3, declare the indubitable judgment in the future with respect to the case, there expressly designated, of not being converted, the péAiu ® here leaves the possibility open that the judgment may be averted, although the condition for it is expressly stated first in ver. 20.7
Vv. 17, 18. "Ore Aéyete gives the foundation for the svpzPovdebw following in the second part of the sentence, ver. 18.8 Hengstenb. incorrectly finds the reproach of lukewarmness grounded in ver. 17; this has occurred already in ver. 15.9 The construction is like that of xviii. 7, 8. —ére recitative. — maovowoc — Exo. The decision as to whether wealth in earthly money and prop- erty,?° or the fancied }! wealth in spiritual blessings,!2 be meant, — in no event both at the same time,!®— depends not upon the (doubtful) prefiguration of Hos. xii. 9,14 nor upon the fact that the speech put into the mouth of the church must refer to possessions of the same kind, as the reply of the Lord (xai ob« oldac, x.r.A.) manifestly referring to spiritual treasures,!® but upon the
1 The opinion derived from physics, that ® Cf. the connection of ver. 16 with otras. what is lukewarm becomes warm more rapidly 1% Andr., Areth., Aretius, C.a Lap., Beng., than what is cold, should never have been Ewald, Zill., etc. expressed if considerations of what isreason-: '!! Adyes. Cf. ver. 9.
able were taken Into the account. 12 Beda, N. de Lyra, Rib., Alcas., Grot., 2 Grot., Beng., De Weatte, ete. Calov., Vitr., Eichh., De Wette, Hengstenb., 8 See Meyer on the passage. Winer, p. 283. Enbrard, Ew. il., ete. 4 Cf. De Wette. 18 Stern. 5 Cf. ver. 17. Cf. ver 2. 44 Cf. Zech. xi. 5. * Cf. Beng., etc. 16 For a striking antithesis between earthly
8 Beng., De Wette, Ebrard. and heavenly riches is suggested (ii. 9).
CHAP, III. 17, 18. 179
fact that the self-witness of the church (dr: wAobotoe eli, «.7.2.) must harmonize inwardly with the reproach of lukewarmness (vv. 15, 16), and with the entire discourse of the Lord that follows. But this would not be the case, had the church fallen into the grossest mammon-worship, and entirely for- gotten any higher need beyond that of their earthly riches. A church, on the contrary, which trusts in its spiritual riches, and still has the conscious- ness of having obtained these riches, will not be entirely without them,! but is, of course, implicated in an arrogant self-deception concerning its spiritual wealth. The church is in reality not rich ;2 for, if it were, it would not say so, as in ver. 17. [See Note XL., p. 184.] The three expressions sAototr elul — xendovryxa — obdev xypeiav Exyu, designate a gradation :* the riches have so increased, that now at last there is no longer any need, but satiety has entered.* — xal obx oidag. Therefore a self-tleception of the church, for the Lord's knowledge 5 is decisive. — drz od el. The od has an emphatic position: just thou, thou who regardest thyself so rich. — 4 radaizupoc. This adjective occurs in the N. T., besides here, only in Rom. vii. 24. Because of his radar nupla,® one is teevoc, i.e., eAéoug dftoc (worthy of pity).? The article before tad, notes with similar emphasis as the ot before el, that just the one thinking himself rich and elevated above all want is he to whom the radar. applies. First of all, the raAan, and édeey. stand in sharp opposition to the final words of boasting, odd, xypeiay Fyw; then the xa? rruzé¢ to the mAovo, eipl x. rendoir. 3 while the ideas of the rugad¢ and yupvéc are combined with that of the xruyér, since spiritual poverty essentially identical with spiritual misery may be considered spiritual blindness and nakedness. Thus what the Lord judges concerning the true character of the church appears most definitely ex- pressed in the three items rrwxé¢, rugadc, and yuuvdc; hence the advice which now follows (ver. 18) revolves about the same, as the ypuciov — rAournoye ap- plies to the rrwyéc, the ivérua — yuuvdrnrog cov to the yuurdc, arid the xodAviprov — lva BAemyc to the rugdsc.—ovpsovdciu. Not without a certain irony,® provoked by the arrogant imagination of the one so miserable and poor. Beng. finds in the expression an indication of estrangement, since it is only to strangers that advice, while to those who are one’s own, & command, is given ; — inap- plicable. — dyopicaz. The Roman-Catholic idea of a meritum de congruo can be derived from the dyopécac only when by pressing the expression, and in opposition to the context (ver. 17, rrwydc), an equivalent purchase price is in some way stated ; and this is defined as “ good works,” ® or as “ prayer, tears, repentance, good works.”?° But if the spiritual good to be obtained from the Lord be once regarded as ypvoiov, the result is, — especially according to the type of Isa. lv. 1,— that the corresponding concrete idea of the, dyopéca is as readily designated as the purity of the xypvoiov by the metaphorical state- ment rexupupévoy éx mupéc; and it is just as incorrect in the latter expression
1 As “not being cold,” it will not reject the 5 Cf. ver. 15.
Lord, the soarce of riches. © Rom. iif. 16; Jas. v. 1. * As it je not *‘ hot,”’ and thereforedoes not ? Suid.
have full fellowship with the Lord. 8 Cf. Ebrard. ® Cf. N. de Lyra, Grot., Beng., De Wette. ® N. de Lyra.
# Cf. 1 Cor. iv. 8. 10 C. a Lap., ete.
180 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
to think of a confirmation of faith in trouble, etc.,2 as to treat the dyopdca in an unevangelical sense. In accord with the sense, Beng. explains: “ It costs no more than the surrender of the idea of one’s own wealth.” §— wap’ éuod. As the only Saviour. Cf. especially i. 5; in regard to the white gar- ments which are to be purchased of the Lord, cf. vii. 14. —ypuciov. Spiritual good as that which actually makes rich (iva xAovr#opc), in contradistinction to the poverty of the church. To interpret the ypvoiov as “love,”* or as “faith,”5 is too special. — rervpupévov tx mupéc. nupbe =} ¥, Zech. xiii. 9. The é represents the wip as the cause whence the rvpodoa proceeds ; ® accord- ing to the sense, it is therefore correctly rendered “ purified by fire.”? The entire expression designates not “wisdom inflamed with love,” ® or “tested faith ;”® as, on the contrary, the exposition must be made, that it is only through faith that the zpuc, remup. éx xvp. is won: but as the purified gold is completely pure and truly precious, so is the spiritual good to be obtained of the Lord unconditionally holy and true, and eternally enriching. — xa? tuatia Acuna, x.7.a. Cf. ver. 4, vii. 14, xix. 8. Only in the figurative mode of pres- entation, and not in the proper sense, are the “white garments” to be dis- tinguished from the ‘' gold,” just as nakedness is in reality nothing but poverty. The remark of Ebrard is arbitrary, that “the command is to be executed in the reverse order from that in which it is given. The ultimate end, to become rich, viz., in good fruits that have some value before God, is first named; for this, gold must be bought. But before gold can be consid- ered, garments must first be purchased in order to cover the nakedness; and as the covering of the nakedness cannot be accomplished before the eyes are open, eyesalve must first of all be applied.’? But the “gold”’ is mentioned first only because, with respect to fancied riches and actual poverty (ver. 17), this is the nearest thought; but the succession of the particular items neither in ver. 17 nor ver. 18 is to be urged, since the repAic and yuzvic are con- nected with the rruydc, in ver. 17, in a different order from the correspond- ing members in ver. 18. Only the chief idea xruydc, and the corresponding clause in ver. 18, naturally precede. — xa? 4} gavepw6p7. N. de Lyra: “ Before God and the holy angels.” Beng.: ‘‘ Before God.” But no such restriction is needed. — xoAAcbpwov. In classical writers, xoAAipwov. The word designates a substance brought to the long round form of a xoAAtpa, roll (e.g., bread- cake), which being mixed with various drugs was used for anointing the eyes..0 The Jewish designation wp (mp) agrees with the form xoaAci- prov. Here is meant, not the word of God itself," but the gift of the Holy Ghost which enlightens,!? offered indeed by means of the word, and that, too,!* already by the present word with its reproof #4 and grace.!© Cf. 1 John
1 Ae the idea is, in fact, applied, e.g., in 1 10 Wetat.
Pet. i. 7. 41 Btern. Cf. Ps. 9. xix. Hence, in 7y¥. 2 Aret., Vitr., Stern, ete. Sipkra, p. 143, 2: “The words of the law 3 Cf. Vitr., Calov., ete. are the crown of the head, — collyrium, to the 4 C. a Lap. eyes.” In SchUttgen. 5 Aret., Vitr., Hengstenb., ete. 18 N. de Lyra, Aret., Calov., Vitr., Heng- 6 Cf. viii. 11. 7 Luther. stenb., etc. 3 f.e., Ades formata. N. de Lyra. 18 Ebrard. 6 Ver. 15 0qq.
® Hengatenb. Ver. 19 eqq.
CHAP. III. 19, 20. 181
ii. 27. Even here the prefixed nap’ éuoi applies,! for the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ, sent by him.? The correct knowledge attained by such enlightening (iva BAérgc) is, however, in fact, at the same time the true treasure, spiritual riches. Upon this depends the inner harmony in the co- ordination af the three points ypvoiov, «.7.4., iuéria Aevnd, «.7.2.. and xoAAoipior, x.7.A., aS in ver. 17 mrwyéc, repdsc, and yupvdc.
Ver. 19. ’Eyé emphatically prefixed. The Lord, who alone is the true witness (ver. 14), and, at the same time, the one from whom the true gold can be obtained (ver. 18), appears as witness against those whom he loves, since through his éAéyyew and radetew he wishes to make them zealous unto repentance (7A. x. perav), and thus participant of his eternal blessings. — dcuvc tev G24. Concerning the 2a» after the relative in N. T. diction, cf. my note on 1 John iii. 20. Grot. says incorrectly: “gd, not absolutely, but relatively; i.e., those whom I have not altogether determined, because of their long-continued sins, to cast away and harden.” Upon a similar mis- understanding rests the remark of Vitringa, that the kind address is directed only to the better part of the church. On the contrary, tlie entire church is still an object of the seeking love of the Lord. — éA¢yzw xai madeiw. The dis- tinction between the two expressions does not lie in the éA¢yyew occurring by means of words, and the wadetecr by chastisemente ;* but the radevew desig- nating discipline, i.e., education in general,‘ may occur as well by éA¢yyew, as by perceptible chastisements, as yaorcyotv.6 The éaéyzeev® occurs when the wrong is so placed before the eyes of any one that he must acknowledge it. From ver. 15 on, the Lord has exercised his tA¢yyew by completely disclosing the faults of the church; yet he expressly says that this, as well as his entire madebecv, proceeds from love. It is nowhere said that in this he has already employed, or will employ, what are the proper means of chastisement (blows). On the other hand, to the radetew belongs the advice of ver. 18. Yet this advice contains the express assurance, that, with the Lord, gold, etc., shall not be lacking. Hence not only the relentless Azyxew, but also the tendering of grace, is a nadedev, which testifies to the Lord’s love. But if the Lord thus manifests himself,to the “lukewarm” church, it follows that this (ov) has to do what the command expressly says: GjAeve ovv xal peravonooy. The words contain not a hysteron proteron,’ but require of the church which is convicted of lukewarmness, an ardent zeal, enkindled by the love manifested by the Lord, and, as the proof of this zeal, a true change of mind.® on
Ver. 20. If the epistle to the church at Laodicea be regarded as having a design differing in no essential point from that of the other epistles, neither can ver. 20 be regarded the epilogue,® which rather comprises only vv. 21, 22, nor can the eschatological sense in ver. 20, which is properly made prom- inent by Ebrard, be denied, as is usually done. The 'Idod éornxa inl riv Gipav
3 Cf. 1 John, }. c. 5 Cf. Heb. xii. 6 with Prov. iii. 12. 2 Cf. Acts ii. 33; John xvi. 7, 14. 6 Cf. John xvi. 8, vill. 46, ii]. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 3 Blows, Luke xxili., xvi. 22. Aret., Grot. 2A. 7 De Wette.
4 Acts zuxii. 3, vil. 22; Tit. il. 12; 2 Tim. iL ® Cf. Grot., Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 25. 9 Vitr.
182 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
kal xpobu, «.7.2., is essentially nothing else than the épyoua: raxi, or fFu With its paracletic applications... The door before which the Lord stands, and asks entrance by his knock (xpobw) and call (cf. dx. r. guvic pov), is ordinarily under- stood as the door of the heart,? and, accordingly, the xpovew, as the preach- ing of the gospel,® the movements occasioned by the Holy Spirit,‘ while special providential dispensations, are also added.® The koedetooua, x.1.A, is not then understood in its full personal sense,® and the demrvjow limited either entirely to the blessed communion of believers with the Lord in this life,” or, as is entirely out of place, to the communion in the present and the future life.6 The latter reference Beng. obtains by understanding the dezxyv. per atrod of the earthly, and the «. abr. per. éuod of the heavenly life. In their peculiar nature the x«povew and the guwr7 of the Lord, whereby he asks en- trance, are not distinct from the lHéyyew and smaideverv, ver. 19, just as it is from the same love that he does both the former and the latter. His com- ing is near; he stands already before the door. And he wishes the church at Laodicea also to be prepared to receive him, in order that he may not come in judgment,® but to enter therein, and hold with it the feast of blessed communion.’ The sense, especially of the formula decry. per abrod «. abrdg per’ tuov, expressing the complete communion of the one with the other, is that of John xvii. 24; Col. iii. 4.1! — An immediate connection with Cant. v. 212 ig not discernible; although it is incorrectly asserted ?% that in the N. T. in general, and in the Apoc. especially, no trace whatever of the Song of Solomon can be detected. Ebrard, appropriately: “The figure (of the wedding), or this idea together with the general doctrine of the relation of Christ to his Church as bridegroom, depends upon the Song of Solomon.” But in our passage the idea, in general, of Christ as bridegroom is not definitely expressed.14 [See Note XLI., p. 184.]
Vv. 21, 22. Cf. ii. 26, 27. The xiv embraces the temptations and perils lying in the peculiar circumstances of the Church,!® but is not limited: thereto, so that it can correspond to the Lord’s conflict and victory in suffer- ing.16— The promised reward dédow air xadioa, «.rA, 1.e., participation in Christ’s royal dominion,” is here, just as at the close of all the epistles, to be expected as the victory over the world, sin, and death,!* only in eternity, and not in this life, since the éxd@rea, «.r.4., has occurred to the Lord through his ascension.!® Entirely wrong is Calov.’s distinction between the throne of God the Father, whereon Christ sits, and the throne of Christ, whereon the believer is to sit with him. The throne of God and of the I.amb is one; ™
1 if. 5, 16, iff. 8,11. Cf. also if. 10, 22 aq. 10 Cf. ch. xix.; Matt. xxv. 1 eqq. 2 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Stern, Aret., Grot., 11 Cf., on both passages, in the preceding Calov., Vitr., Ew., De Wette, Hengatenb. verses, the corresponding description of the 8 Aret, etc. earthly fellowship of faith with the Lord. 4 De Wette. 12 Hengstenb.; several ancient expositors. 5 Hengstenb. 13 Ew., De Wette. ® Grot.: ‘‘ Jesus Christ, where he sends his 14 Especially against Eichh., Heinr. Spirit.” 18 Ver. 16 aq. 16 Cf. v. 5. 1 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Grot., Hengstenb., 17 Cf. §. 9, xxii. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 12. etc. 18 Vitr. 8 Vitr., Calov., Stern, ete. 19 Cf. Heb. xii. 2; Phil. ii. 9.
9 Cf. ver. 3, fi. 5. 2 xxii. 1.
NOTES. 1838
the glory of the victor is communion with the Father and the Son.! The promise to the victor is here made so strong, not because the struggle which the Laodiceans had to maintain against their own lukewarmness is regarded the most severe,? but because it is natural and suitable, that, in the last of the seven epistles, such a promise should be expressed as would combine all the others, and designates the highest and most proper goal of all Christian hope, and the entire Apocalyptic prophecy.
Nores BY THE AMERICAN EpDITOR.
XXXV. Ver. 4. swepirarfoovow per’ duois tv Aevnole,
Trench: ‘‘ The promise of life, for only the living walk, the dead are still; of liberty, for the free walk, and not the fast-bound.’’ Gerhard (Loc. Th., xx. $28) finds, in the white garments, ‘‘ the symbol of victory, innocency, glory, and joy, yea, even royal dignity.’? Gebhardt: ‘* The bright or white garments syia- bolize positive purity, holiness, or righteousness (cf. xix. 8).”’
XXXVI. Ver. 5. ric BiBAov rie Qwijg.
If an erasure from the book of life be regarded possible, the inscription can- not refer to elecfion, as this is indefectible. But it seems to be pressing the passage too far, to derive from it such meaning; as the expression is, in fact, simply a litotes whereby to emphasize the certainty of salvation, i.e., an assumed, but not a real, possibility.
XXXVII. Ver. 7. rv xAciv Aaveld,
Trench: ‘‘ Those keys which he committed to Peter and his fellow-apostles (Matt. xvi. 19), he announces to be, in the highest sense, his own. It depends on him, the supreme «Aydotyoc in the house of God, who shall see the King’s face, and who shall be excluded from it. From the highest tribunal on earth, there lies an appeal to a tribunal of yet higher instance in heaven, —to His, who opens, and no man can shut; who shuts, and no man can open; and when, through ignorance or worse than ignorance, any wrong has been done to any of his servants here, he will redress it there, disallowing and reversing, in heaven, the erring or unrighteous decrees of earth.”
XXXVITI. Ver. 8 dre pexpay byeee dévauey,
Plumptre: ‘‘ The words point to something in the past history of the church of Philadelphia and its ruler, the nature of which we can only infer from them and from their context. Some storm of persecution had burst upon him, prob- ably at Smyrna, instigated by the Jews, or the Judaizing section of the church. They sought to shut the door which he had found open, and would have kept so. They were strong, and he was weak; numbers were against him, and one whose faith was less real and living might have yielded to the pressure. But he, though not winning, like Antipas, the martyr’s crown, had yet displayed the
¢ Cf. John xvii. 22, 24. ? Ebrard.
184 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
courage of the confessor. Like the faithful servant in the parable, he had thus been faithful in a very little (Matt. xxv. 23); and therefore, as the promise that follows shows, he was to be ‘ made ruler over many things.’ ”’
XXXIX. Ver. 14. 4 doz} ri¢ xricewc.
Philippi (Kirch. Glaub., il. 215): ‘* He is the beginning of the creation; the beginning, and, as such, the principle, the original source, and author, and therefore not himself a creature. So God himself is also called the beginning and the end (Rev. xxi. 6), and, in like manner, Christ (xxii. 13).’? Gebhardt (pp. 90-98) refutes the interpretations of Baur, Hoekstra, Késtlin, Weiss, and Ritschl; and states the true interpretation to be as follows: ‘‘ What exposition is demanded by the laws of language? Without further delay, I reply, that, had the seer written ‘the beginning of the creatures (riouara) of God,’ or had he written ‘the first, or the first-born, or the first-fruit (mparoc, mpwrdroxoc, énapx7), of the creation of God,’ then the expression might be understood to denote the first created, or that which precedes all things, the first creature in time and rank. But the'seer has written 4 dpx? ti¢ xricewc rod Oeod, which can mean nothing else than principium creationis, the principle, the év o, dt’ od, ele 5, of the creation of God. After this affirmation of the literal sense, I may say that it finds confirmation inf. 17, 18; ii. 8... . Toa church in which Christ not only discovers self-blindness, but which he threatens to spew out of his mouth, which he counsels to seek help from himself for its disease, to which he says that he rebukes and chastens those whom he loves, — in a word, to a church to which he reveals himself as to no other in his fullest and highest significance, and we must remember that we have to do with the last of the seven letters, — ‘* the first creature’ has not, in any of its possible meanings, a really satisfac- tory sense; and we find that sense only when we understand it to mean the principle of the creation of God, i.e., the personal, mediatorial, essential ground and end of the creation. Thus simply explained, according to the laws of lan- guage, the passage (tii. 14), taken in connection with those quoted before, fur- nishes us with a very remarkable result, viz., that the seer has expressed the ‘ Logos’ idea itself in its highest meaning.”
XL. Ver. 17. ob« oldag Sri, «.7.A,
Plumptre: ‘‘ As Mr. Carlyle has somewhere put it, in one of those epigrams that haunt one’s memory, ‘it is the hypocrisy which does not know itself to be ‘hypocritical.’ It may be noted, as tending to confirm the assumption that the Gospel of St. John and the Apoc. were the work of the same writer, that this is the fault which in the former, again and again, he notes for special condem- nation. Those who could not believe are less the object of his censure than those who, believing, feared to confess the Christ lest they should be put out of the synagogue (John xii. 42, 48).”
XLI. Ver. 20. idod fornxa, x.7.A,
Alford, on the contrary: ‘“‘ The reference to Cant. v. 2 is too plain to be for a moment doubted; and, if so, the interpretation must be grounded in that con- jugal relation between Christ and the Church, — Christ and the soul, — of which that mysterious book is expressive. This being granted, we may well say that
NOTES. | 185
the vivid depiction of Christ standing at the door is introduced to bring home to the lukewarm and careless church the truth of his constant presence, which she was so deeply forgetting. His knocking was taking place, partly by the utterance of these very rebukes, partly by every interference in justice and mercy.”? Trench: ‘The very language which Christ uses here, the xpovew én? THY Gbpav, the summons dvoiyey recurs. Nor is the relation between the one passage and the other merely superficial and verbal. The spiritual condition of the bride there is, in fact, precisely similar to that of the Laodicean angel here. Between sleeping and waking, she has been so slow to open the door, that, when at length she does so, the Bridegroom has withdrawn. This exactly corre- sponds to the lukewarmness of the angel here. Another proof of the connec- tion between them is, that, although there has been no mention of any thing but a knocking here, Christ goes on to say, ‘If any man hear my voice.’ What can this be but an allusion to the words in the canticle, which have just gone before: ‘It is the voice of my beloved that knocketh’ ?’’
The reference, by Bengel, of the detxvfow to the communion both in this life and the life to come, may have found, in the distinction between ser’ abrod and yer’ vod, more than is intended; nevertheless, we can see, in this passage, only the blessed communion with God begun here on earth, and consummated in heaven, — not two communions, but one, at two different stages. Gebhardt (p. 127) finds the thought of the Lord’s Supper suggested. Luthardt’s brief notes refer to Luke xii. 36; interpreting the knocking as the impending return of the Lord, the opening of the door, by suggesting the familiar hymn of Paul Gerhardt, —
«Oh, how shall I receive thee? * —
and the supping, by the Lord’s Supper in the kingdom of God (Matt. xxvi. 20; Luke xxii. 29, 30).
In connection with the éay ri¢ dxoboy rip¢ ¢uvic, Trench’s remarks are impor- tant as to the incompatibility of this passage with any doctrine of irresistible grace; as well as his warning against the Pelagian error, “‘as though men could open the door of their heart when they would, as though repentance was not itself a gift of the exalted Saviour (Acts v. 31). They can only open when Christ knocks, and they would have no desire at all to open unless he knocked. ... This is a drawing, not a dragging; a knocking at the door, not a breaking open the heart.”” So Gerhard (L. T., ii. 275): ‘‘ When God, by his word, knocks at the door of our heart, especially by the proclamation of his law, the grace of the Holy Spirit is at the same time present, who wishes to work conversion in our heart; and therefore, in his knocking, he not only stands without, but also works within.”’
186 ‘ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. dveyypuéva, Elz.; so also #, Tisch. [(W. and H.]. The form dvepyp. (A), approved by Lach., depends upon a clerical error occasioned by the a in @¢pa, as in 19, 11, where even A has the form #veyyu.; cf., besides, xi. 19, xx. 12. Winer, p. 70. —Aéywy. So, already, Griesb., instead of the correction Aéyovoa (Elz.). — Ver. 2. The «al before eb@éwe (Elz.) is, according to A, &, 2, 4, 8, al., Syr., Vulg., to be deleted (Lach., Tisch. [(W. and H.]); cf., already, Griesb.: yet the peta tadra here, as in i. 9, is to be combined with dei yevéoda:, not (Lach.) with ebiéwe, — int row Opévov xabiysevoc, So, already, Beng., according to A, RX, 2, 4, 6, 7, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: én? rod é@pévov, — In this often-recurring phrase, én? is found with the accus., iv. 4, xi. 16, xvii. 8, xix. 11; also vi. 2,4 (Elz., dat.), according to A, C, ® (Beng., Lach., Tisch.). With the gen., iv. 10, v. 1, 7; also vi. 16, Elz., Lach.—On the other hand, Tisch.: dat., according to 4, 6, 9, ®, al.). With the dat., iv. 9 (A, x, Lach. — But Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]: gen.), v. 18 (x [W. and H.]: gen.), vii. 10, xix. 4, xxi. 5, where, in the Elz., the gen. throughout stands improperly. — Ver. 8. The 4 before duoc (Elz.) is, according to the testimonies, and with Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], to be deleted; cf. i. 14, 15. — Ver. 4. Elz.: @pévoe elxoo: xa? récoaper* Kai Ent rode Opdvouc eldov rode elxoot xal rooapac mpeoB. Certainly false, in this reading, is: jirst, the (twofold) «ai before reoo.; secondly, the explanation eldov beside the art. roc. It is doubtful whether with Lach., Tisch. [X., Opévoug eixoot tocepag must be read; for, in A, this accus. may have been inserted because of what follows. Beng., Griesb., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc., have the nominative. It is, further, doubtful whether the number should be combined the second time with Opévouc or with zpeosur. The former is preferred by Lach., Tisch. IX., according to A, 17, 18, 19 («. én? r. elx. réoo. Opov, xpeoB.); the latter by Tisch. [W. and H.] (r. én? tr. 6p. rove elx, reco, mpeo.; cf. 18, 26, 27, Areth.). It is, however, very possible that the reading of 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, al., according to which the number without rode stands between fr. @povove and npeofiur., and accordingly could be taken with both nouns, is original. The reading, there- fore, which is exegetically the more suitable, is efx. reco. mpeo3. ® has only «av mpeoB., without én? r. 6p., and without the repetition of the number, — possibly the original reading. — The év before {uariow (Elz., Tisch.) is probably false; it is wanting In A, Vulg., Lach. [W. and H.]. The foxor (Elz.) before éwi 7. xeg. fs doubtless an interpretation. — Ver. 7. Instead of o¢ Gv@puroc (Elz., Beng.), orc aviporov (A, Vulg., al., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is to be read, unless possibly dv@pdrov alone (2, 4, 6, al., Aeth., Ar., Andr., Areth., Matth.) is to be regarded the original reading. : o¢ dowry dvipory.—Instead of merwptvy (Elz.), write here and in viil. 13, xiv. 6, xix. 17, rerou. (A, &, 9, 14, 16, 19, Andr., Areth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cf. the scholium in Wetst.: rérapaz otdele tov pyrépev elrev, dAAd rérouat, — Ver. 8. fv nag’ éavtd elzyov. So Elz. But Beng. and Griesb. already write correctly: & xa@’ év atrav Exov (A, B, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, al., Lach.). The ev in A, which is approved here by Tisch. [W. and H.},
CHAP. IV. 187
occurs also in ver. 7 in A, — not received there by Tisch., 1854, — in both places apparently as a clerical error. ®: & &xaorov abtrév elyov,— Ver. 11. Instead of the simple «vpee (Elz., Griesb.), read, according to A, B, 2, 3, al., Vulg.: 6 «épsoc nal 6 Ged¢ huay (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); ® has both. —joav, So A, x, 2, 8, 4, al. pl., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. A mere modification is the elec in Elz. Also, the isolated variation otx jZoav, which Ew. favors, seems to bea not inapt expedient; since, by the inner combination of the otx Zaav and éxricd, (‘““when they were not, they were created,’ Ew.), the difficulty of the joay in the correct text is avoided. — That the words xa? éxricOnoay are lacking in A, is only an oversight, as the eye of the transcriber wandered from the fav directly to the final syllable of éxric® — yoay.
In chapter iv. (and v.), the real divine foundation for the entire suc- ceeding prophetic Apoc. (up to xxii. 5) is presented in a plastic manner. For the living God himself, whose throne in eternal glory is portrayed in ch. iv., determines what is to happen (del yev., cf. i. 1,19). Thus from him pro- ceeds all revelation spoken by the mouth of a prophet, and that, too, through the mediation of Christ.2 .Beng., appropriately: “In fact, this book (of John) describes not only what occurs on earth in good and evil, but also how things originate from the kingdom of light, and partly from the king- dom of darkness, and how they again extend thither.”* But as in i. 12 aqq., the appearance of Christ was of such a nature as to stand in a living relation to the discourses of the Lord to his Church, following in chs. ii. and iii., so also the appearance of the Lord in ch. iv. already makes us know in advance that it treats of impending judgment towards enemies, and a showing of grace to believers. The holy and omnipotent majesty beheld of Him who was, and is, and is to come, and the standing of the “elders” about his throne, — already points, even apart from definite individual features, to the essen- tial contents of the revelation which is to be expected. Cf. Beng.; also Hengstenb., who, however, inaccurately and erroneously says, “ What is to occur afterwards is shown John.- Accordingly, in ver. 2 sqq., we are to expect not a description of that which always is, but only a symbolical fore- shadowing of the future.”
If now we compare with the description, ch. iv., rabbinical representa- tions, such as More Nevoch, II. 6: ‘*God does nothing unless he have con- sidered it in. his family above,” and Schir. Haschirim R., fol. 93: “God does
,nothing unless he have first consulted concerning it with his family above,’ ¢ — we dare not overlook the essential distinction that the Johannean view is nothing but a development of O. and N. T. fundamental truths, while the rabbins have only a corruption of them.’ For “the family above,” which, according to the rabbins, participates in the determining of God’s counsels, in John has only to adore and praise the decree together with-God’s works; and the visions beheld by John, in which future things are portrayed to him while in the Spirit, are in no respect the heavenly prelude of earthly events
2 Of.1.1. 4 In Wetst. 3 Cf. v. 1 sqq. 5 Against Wetst., Eichh., Heinor., ; 3 Cf. also Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. etc.
188 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
stated by the rabbins.! Ill-founded is the remark of Heinrichs: “In every chapter, the poet does nothing but testify that he has beheld the theatre whence the Messiah is to return to earth as the lofty and majestic” . . .
Ver. 1. Mera rafra eldov. The formula marks the entrance of a new vision, and that, too, a greater or more important one,? while the formula nai eldov introduces the various individual features represented in the course of a larger main picture. The formula xal eidov, xiii. 1 and xvii. 3, stands . at the beginning of an entirely new important division, and is therefore regular, because in both passages the opening of a new scene is indicated by the entire preceding verse, which in a measure prevents there the pera raira. But since by the era ratra the vision now following is distinguished from what is completed in iii. 22,— the rutra referring back to the entire vision in i. 10-iii. 22, — it is in no way indicated that between iii. 22 and iv. 1 there ig a space in which John was not “in the Spirit,” but in his ordinary consciousness, and perhaps penned the seven epistles. Thus Beng.: ‘‘ John always comprehended one part after another in sight and hearing, and im- mediately wrote it.” Cf. also Aret., Grot., Calov., Hengstenb.; and, against the latter, Ebrard’s correct protest. Even De Wette, who nevertheless cor- rectly acknowledges that John is already (iv. 1) ‘in Spirit,” viz., from i. 10, fixes the committing of the seven epistles to writing between iii. 22 and iv. 1. But nowhere in the course of the entire revelation (i. 10-xxii. 16) is any temporary return from the ecstatic condition to ordinary consciousness conceivable, and therefore a partial noting-down is nowhere possible. The eidov, iv. 1, undoubtedly indicates that the “being in Spirit” beginning with i. 10 continues unbroken ;* and from iv. 1 to the close of the entire revela- tion, an interruption of the ecstatic consciousness can nowhere be admitted, since the vision which follows always is developed from that which precedes.® There is only one “being in Spirit,”® in which John beheld the entire reve- lation with al] its changing, yet coherent, scenes. — @ipa hveyyp. év 7. obpavy. The opening of heaven’ is explained by means of a door, from the fact neither that heaven is regarded a firm arch,® nor that John is to enter heaven, nor that heaven appears as a temple;?° but that heaven is the house,! the palace of God (in which he is enthroned, Ps. xi. 4, xviii. 7, xxix. 1).13—4% gwv, «.7.A. Not the voice of Christ, who indeed had spoken (chs. ii., iii.) 14 after the first voice,® but the voice first heard, which already (i. 10) is no further defined, and here also cannot be further designated than as it is identical with the former.—Afyuy. The construction “accord-
1 Cf. Wetst.: ‘ According to the idea of the | 8 Cf. Introduction, p. 12 eqq. Jews, what is to occur on earth fs first mani- 6 {. 10, feasted and represented in heaven before the T Cf. Ezek. 1.11; Matt. ili. 16; Acts x. 11. assembly of angels.” ¢ Heinr.
2 vii. 1, 9, xv. 5, xvill. 1. 9 De Wette. Cf. Grot.
8 vy. 1, 6, 11, vi. 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, vifi. 2, 18, ix. 1, 10 Vitr., ZUll. x. 1, xiff. 11, xiv. 6, 14, xv. 1, 2, xvii. 6, xix. 11, 11 Gen. xxvill. 17. 17, 19, xx. 1, 4, 11, xxi. 1. iz Cf. Eichh. 4 Ver. 2 does not contradict this, if only we 18 Hengstenb., Kllef., ete. do not, like Hengstenb., identify the being 14 Cf. i. 17 aqq. *¢in Spirit’? and “ in heaven.” 18 1. 10.
CHAP. IV. 2. 189
ing to sense”! is especially easy with the Aeywy* introducing the direct address.*— ’AvaGd. With respect to the form, cf. Acts xii. 7; Mark xv. 30 (var.); Eph. v. xvii. Winer, p. 76. John ascending to heaven and to the things there to be seen, through the door opened on this account, which he beheld in ver. 1, is immediately present in spirit‘ at the significant represen- tation of that which is henceforth to happen.® Klief., in violation of the context, asserts that a more elevated station is meant, from which John could look as well through the opened door into heaven, as also to a greater distance upon earth. — «xa? deifé, x.7.4, Thus the heavenly voice speaks, al- though the person to whom it belongs cannot be more definitely known, — as in later visions, where, however, the same angel does not everywhere appear as interpreter, and “show,” — because the voice sounds forth in the name of the personal God himself, who, nevertheless, is efficacious beneath the one who shows (i 1), and causes also the prophet to be in the Spirit (cf. ver. 2). —a dei yev, Cf. i. 1. — perd rabra, as i. 19.
Ver. 2. ebdéuc tyevouny tv xvebuart. The asyndeton emphasizes the signifi- cance of the evééuc. After John has heard the voice, ver. 1, he is immediately —and that too because of the voice ®—“in the Spirit,” and thereby made capable of ascending into heaven, and beholding the objects there pre- sented. Although in ver. 1, John is already év rveiyari, i.e., in such a condi- tion that he beholds the opened door, and can hear the heavenly voice, yet the mode of presentation, ver. 2, which, considered in itself alone, can desig- nate the entire recent entrance of the ecstatic condition, has its justifica- tion in that an entirely new elevation of prophetic ecstasy belongs thereto, whereby John can ascend in spirit to heaven, and behold what is there shown him. Hence De Wette and Ebrard properly compare with this, Ezek. xi. 5. Even Hengstenb.’? has to acknowledge, that, while ver. 2 designates “the complete entrance into the state of ecstasy,” yet ver. 1 already is to be regarded a “preparation” to this condition. — Ziil., incor- rectly, just as i, 10: “I was there [in heaven] by ecstasy.” — In rapid suc- cession directly follows the description of that which is presented to the view of the one drawn into heaven : xa? /dod, Opdvog Exetro, x.7.A. To this entire description, there is a parallel in the Pirke, R. Elieser,® which is very instruc- tive, because it shows how differently, with many similar features, the O. T. types * appear in a N. T. prophet, and the rabbins: ° “ Four bands of minis- tering angels praise God. The first is of Michael, on the right; the second, of Gabriel, on the left; the third, of Uriel, before him; the fourth, of Raphael, behiod him. But the shekinah of God is in the centre, and he himself is seated on a lofty, elevated throne; and his seat is high, suspended in the air. The splendor of his magnificence is like Chasmal (Ezek. i. 4). Upon
1 Of. ver. 8 xi. 15, xix. 14; Eph. iv. 18; 7 Cf. on ver. 1.
Mark ix. 26. Winer, p. 489. ® c. 4in Schittgen.
= sD. 9 Isa. vi.; Ezek. i.; Dan. vii. 9qq.; 1 Kings ® Of., besides, Winer, p. 560. xxii. 29. 4 Cf. ver. 2. 10 Cf. alao R. Rocholl, Ueber Merkabah., 5 Cf. nai Seifw, x.7.A. Zettschr. f. Luther. Theolog., 1875, p. 303
¢ O. a Lap., Beng., etc. 8qq-
190 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
his head is placed a crown, and upon his brow a diadem with Schemham- phorasch. His eyes go through the whole earth; a part of them is fire, but @ part hail. On his right is life; on his left, death; and a fiery sceptre is in his hand. Before him is stretched out a veil (N37), and seven angels who were created from the beginning minister before him within the veil. But that which is called nj", and the footstool of his feet, are like fire and lightning, and shine beneath the throne of his glory like sapphire and fire. About his throne are righteousness and judgment. The place of his throne is that of the seven clouds surrounding him with glory; and the wheel of his chariot, and the cherub, and the living ones give to him glory. His throne is like sapphire, and at his feet are four living ones, each of whom has four faces, and as many wings. When God speaks from the east, this is done between the two cherubim with the face of a man; when from the south, then between the two cherubim with the face of a lion; when from the west, then between the two cherubini with the face of an ox; when from the north, then between the two cherubim with the face of an eagle. —The living ones also stand beside the throne of glory, yet they know not the place of his glory. The living ones stand also in fear and trembling, in horror and agitation, and from this agitation of their faces, a river of fire flows forth before them. Of the two seraphim, one stands at God’s right hand, another at his left. Each has six wings; with two they cover their face, lest they may see the face of the shekinah; with two they cover their feet, lest the feet may see the shekinah, and immediately be able to find his footstep; but with two they fly, dread and sanctify his great name. One cries out, and another replies, saying, etc.— And the living ones stand beside his glory, yet they know not the place of his glory, but in every place where his glory is, they cry and say, Blessed be the glory of God in its place.” —6pévoc Execro. The expression xeicfa: indicates neither an especial breadth of the throne,! nor that it rests upon the cherubim,* because the word here, as in Jer. xxiv. 1, LXX.; John ii. 6, xix. 29, and in the classics,® ex- presses the simple idea of “being placed.’’ 4 —xat én? rdv Opdvov xaGijpevoc. The mode of representation itself, according to which the reference here is to “one sitting,” and in ver. 3,5 the one mentioned in ver. 2 is described simply as “ the sitting one,” shows that John does not mention this sitting one more definitely, because he wishes here to do nothing more than with perfect fidelity to report the vision which he has had.* Ini. 12 sqq., also, he has not expressly mentioned the manifestation of Christ. Utterly pre- posterous is the declaration of Heinr.: “The name seems to have been omit- ted only by carelessness in writing, which is especially conspicuous in this entire chapter.” Just as impertinent is the allusion to the Jewish dread of uttering the name of God.” Suitable in itself to John would be the expla- nation of Herder: “To name him, the soul has no image, language no word ;’’® but even this is not here applicable, as John in general, even where
2 Beng. 5 Of. ver. 11, v. 1. ? Hengstenb. Cf. ver. 6. ® Cf. Hengstenb. 3 Cf. Meyer on John ii. 6. 1 Eichh., Ew.
* De Wette, Ebrard. ® Cf. Aret., De Wette, ete.
CHAP. IV. 3. 191
he definitely mentions the vision here described, expressly calla God the enthroned one.! ‘These passages show at the same time that the enthroned one is regarded * not as the Triune God,’ but as God the Father, in distinc- tion from the Son,‘ and the Spirit. So Alcas., Stern, Grot., Wetst., Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., ete.
Ver. 8. dpdoe. Dative of manner:® “in appearance,” cf. 4 dys, x.7.A, 1. 18, and the dc dpccr with the following gen. of the object compared in the LXX. Ezek. i. 4, 26 sqq., Vili. 2.—Aidw ldomc& nat capdiw. The capdoc™ is, as the Heb. name indicates, a red,® particularly flesh-colored gem, our carnelian. Ebrard understands by it the dazzling ruby. — More difficult is the deter- mination of the iasmc. The LXX. thus render the Heb. 19%" ;° yet in this passage, as well as also in xxi. 11, where the leon is designated as Aitor Tysuaratoc, ANd KpvoradAiGuy, it is scarcely possible to think of the not very costly and not transparent, sometimes greenish, sometimes reddish gem, which the Romans called, as we also call it, jasper. Cf. Pliny: !° “A gem, which, although surpassed by many, yet retains the glory of antiquity.” Nevertheless, the most of the expositors adhere firmly to the simple expres- sion. Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, Aretius, etc., think of the green jasper, and understand it, just as the emerald mentioned immediately afterwards, as a symbol of divine consolation, since green is agreeable to the eye. A symbolical reference has been discovered even to baptism,}* and the judgment of the flood; +4 for the red sardius denotes the final judgment in fire. Others think of the red jasper, as they either regard it, like the sardius, a symbol of the divine anger,!* or, without any such significance,!5 as only a description of the dazzling appearance of God. Beng., Stern., Hengstenb.,!© presuppose a white, crystal-clear species of jasper, and find in this color the image of the divine holiness and unclouded glory. This sense of the brightness of color is indicated partly by emblematic descriptions, as Ezek. i. 4, viii. 2; Dan. vii. 9 sq.; and partly by parallels, as Apoc. i. 14 sqq., x. 1." The brilliancy of light and fire is, in Ezekiel, the appearance of God. In Daniel, also, the bright white raiment and the dazzling white hair of the Ancient of days belong with the fire of his throne; for both the holy glory and the consuming anger of God 1* must be represented. Upon the same view de- pends the description of the Lord,” and of the angel, who in x. 1 appears invested with divine attributes, while, e.g., iv. 4, vii. 9, the heavenly beings, because they have attained to a holiness and glory like that of God, appear indeed in white garments, yet not also with the fiery signs of divine judg- ment, but with crowns and palms. If now the red appearance of the cipdio¢
1 wii. 10, 15, xii. 5, xix. 4, xxii. 1. 9 Exod. xxvili. 20, xxxix. 18; Ezek. xxvill. 3 Cf. 1.1; 2 Cor. xii. 13. 18. 3 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Calov. © N. H., xxxvil. 87. « “The Lamb,” v. 6 qq. 11 N. de Lyra, etc. 8 Cf. ver. 5. 32 Aret. ¢ Erasm. 13 Victorin, Ticon., Primas, Beda. 7 gxf. 20. Cf. Ezek. xxviil. 17, xxxix. 10; % Vitr. LXX. for De. 18 Ew., De Wette, Ebrard.
8 wupemie Te cides cai aiparoedis (“fiery in 1¢ Cf. aleo Ew. il. appearance, and blood-red’), Epiphanius in 17 Cf. Hengstenb. Vier. ; 18 Cf. aiso Deut. iv. 24, 39 1. 14 oqq.
192 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
recalls the ardor of the divine wrathful judgment, we expect the tacmc to represent the bright light, which elsewhere is displayed along with the divine glimmering of fire, in a different way. But now the very bright or crystal-clear jasper, stated by Beng.*and Hengstenb., does not actually exist. Hence we must believe, either that John imagined an ideal kind of jasper, or, a8 is more probable, because of xxi. 11, that by the laome¢ he wished to designate the diamond.* The LXX., in whose vocabulary John was in- structed, do not have the term ddéduac.* The Heb. “9%, which probably designates the diamond, is not accurately translated by the LXX. in Zech. vii. 12; Ezek. iii. 9.4 It is, besides, to be observed, that the LXX. render not only 19%, but also 1533, Isa. liv. 12,5 by taome. But if the description (ver. 8) depends upon Ezek. viii. 2 and similar passages, it yet in no way follows that here, as there,® the brilliancy of the two gems is to be regarded as different parts of the form of God, — the bright light of the jasper above, , the red appearance of the sardius beneath:’ rather, the double brilliancy of the two stones shining through one another® is to be regarded a profound designation of the essential unity of the holiness and righteousness of God. The free treatment of the ancient prophetic view expresses, as to the subject itaelf portrayed, a deepening of the thought; while the beauty of the likeness gains rather than loses, as the divine appearance to John maintains a pic- torial unity. The entire form of the enthroned one appears in the twofold, yet united, brilliancy of the jasper and the sardius, just as the entire form of the Lord was in appearance like intense light of the sun.® — cal lpsr xuxAdGev tod Opévov duutog dpaoet cpapaydim» Concerning duoc as an adjective of two ter- minations, cf. Winer, p. 66. — Against the wording (xv«A, r. 6p6v0v) is the idea of Vitr., that the lpr surrounded the head of the one enthroned like a crown ; Beng. and Hengstenb. unnaturally and unfairly regard the Jp as surround- ing the throne in breadth horizontally. — Hengstenb. infers, besides, from the formula «vxA. r, 6p. recurring from’ ver. 4, that also the thrones of the elders appear within the loc; but it is the only natural and, in a pictorial respect, conceivable way, to regard the lo as surrounding the shining form upon the throne on high.!! — Without any basis is the controversy as to whether the lpi were a “rainbow,” 1% or a “bow; ” #5 nor does it in any way correspond to the poetical character of the description, if, in order to explain the rainbow, mention is made of God’s appearing, Ps. xviii. 12, civ. 3, sur- roufnded by darkness of rain and thick clouds,‘ or that the green color here named is only the principal color,’ as the hues of the jasper and sardius are regarded as combined with the brilliancy of the emerald, attributed to the
1 Cf. xxi. 21. 2 Ebrard. ¢ Jer. xvii. 1 is lacking in the LXX. 8 Yet, at the time of John, the aéduas was § i.e., the probable ruby. not unknown. Cf. Plin., 4. M., xxxvii. 15: 6 Cf. also x. 1. *¢ Among human things, not only among gems, 7 Zill., Hengstenb. the adamae, known only to kings, and these 8 Ebrard. ® 4. 16. % Cf. x. 1.
very few, had the greatest value. — Now six 11 Ebrard, and my exp.
kinds of it are known: That of India, of a 13 So translated by most.
resemblance to crystal, since, also, it does not a3 Ebrard.
differ in translucency; the Cyprian, verging 4% De Wette.
to the color of brass.” % Grot., Eichh., Stern, Hengstenb., etc.
CHAP. IV. 4 198 loee, in order to bring out the three chief colors of one common rainbow. What John saw about the throne had the form of a rainbow, — hence he says lps, — although not the seven colors of an actual] rainbow are repre- sented, but only the emerald green. Yet this dpe in iteelf, and the emerald appearance especially,! are not without symbolical significance, possibly in a mere optical contrast with the blending brilliancy of the jasper and sardius; * but in symmetry with the symbolical significance of this twofold brilliancy, the mild emerald-green of the bow, which is already in iteelf the clear sign of divine grace,® notes the gentle and quickening nature of this grace. But it follows neither from the gen., nor from the pragmatism of this passage, that the grace recurring after the divine punishments § is described ; it would be more correctly interpreted with Grot.: “God in his judgments is always mindful of his covenant.” Yet we dare not precipitately limit the descrip- tion here presented, in its particular connections, to the judgments of God in their relation to divine grace which are to be beheld only later: it is suf- ficient that here where the eternal and personal foundation of all that fol- lows is portrayed, the holy glory and righteousness of God appear in most intimate union with his immutable and kind grace, so that thus the entire impending development of the kingdom of God and the world unto its last end, as it is determined by that wonderful, indivisible nature of the holy, just, and gracious God, as well in its course as in its goal, must correspond to this threefold glory of the living God. Consequently this fundamental vision contains every thing that serves the terror of enemies, and the conso- lation of friends, of the one enthroned.
Ver. 4. The twenty-four elders whom John sees sitting ® on the twenty- four thrones standing about the throne of God? are, in like manner, the heavenly representatives of the entire people of God; as, in Isa. xxiv. 28, the elders are regarded the earthly heads and representatives of the entire Church.* For, that these twenty-four elders are human, and not a “selection of the entire host of heaven,”® nor angels,’ is decided py their designation, that which is ascribed to them (white robes and crowns), and the entire mode of their employment.!!_ They are neither the “ bishops ” or “ prefects of the entire church,” }? nor priests,!* nor “the entire assembly of ministers
1 Cf. Plin., WY. H., xxxvii. 5: “Nay, even from another intention, the dimmed sight is refreshed by the sight of the emerald; and, to those cutting gems, there is no more grateful treat to the eyes, than thus to soothe their weariness by ite green mildness.”
? Ebrard. Cf. Ew., De Wette.
3 Gen. ix. 12 sqq.
¢ Cf. N.de Lyra, Aret., Grot., Calov., Beng., Herd., Hengstenb., etc. [On the spiritual sig- Nificance of the rainbow, see the beautiful poem of Carl Gerock, in his Die Symphonie der Farben of his Der letate Strauss, 1885.)
5 Btern, Hengstenb.
6 Cf. xi. 16, dvwwiov Tov Geo.
™ The acc. wpecBurépove depends upon a self-evident cisow (De Wette).
8 In reference to this passage, the 7un- chuma, p. 48, 1 (in Schdttg.), says: ‘In the future, God ascribes glory to the elders. — Our rabbins also have said: ‘God will make for himeelf an assembly of our elders.’’’ So, too (at p. 62 in Hengetenb.), according to Dan. vii. 9, ‘In the future, God will sit, and the angels will give seats to the magnates of Israel, and they sit. And God site with his elders, as the president of a senate, and will judge the Gen. tiles.”
® Rinck.
11 Cf. v. 6, vii. 18. 13 N. de Lyra, who, in their twenty-four
4%¢ TIofm.
* geats finds, at the eame time, all the cathedral
churches portrayed. 138 Zeger.
~-
194 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
of the word,” nor “all true rectors and faithful pastors of the N. T. Church,” ? nor Christian martyrs; * but simply the representatives of the entire congre- gation of all believers, to whom, as to these elders, belong the holiness and glory indicated by the white robes,‘ and the royal dominion by the thrones and crowns. The number twenty-four is not derived from the orders of priests, 1 Cor. xxvi.,° for the question here is in no respect concerning priests; and still less7 is it to be regarded as a type of the elders of the church at Jerusalem, for the idea that this church had just twenty-four elders is without any foundation. All those expositors are in the right way who, proceeding from the number twelve, attempt to indicate a doubling of it. As now, undoubtedly, the simple as well as the doubled twelve ® has particular reference to the twelve tribes of the O. T. Church, the twenty-four elders cannot be twelve apostles and twelve martyrs;® but also the expla- nation that from each of the twelve tribes two representatives are regarded as standing, one on the right, the other on the left of the throne of God,!® is of itself unimportant and arbitrary. It is possible 1 only to regard the two- fold twelve, either the representatives of the O. and the N. T. Church,!’ or the representatives of the Church gathered not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles.18 Against the latter, Hengstenb. and Ebrard incorrectly say that the mode of view in the Apoc. is not conformable to that of the entire N. T.; for also in vii. 9 sqq., those saved from the heathen are dis- tinguished from those from the twelve tribes (vii. 4 eqq.), and that, too, without detriment to the view according to which the heathen are added to Israel. Yet the former explanation of the twelve representatives of the churches of the O. and N. T. is to be preferred, because this in itself, and according to intimations like xv. 8 (the song of Moses and the Lamb), is more immediate, and because, by this mode of statement, the twenty-four elders appearing in personal definitiveness can the more appropriately repre- sent the O. and N. T. Churches. To wit, not “the twelve tribes,” as De Wette inconsistently explains, but the twelve personal heads of the Church of the O. T., composed of twelve tribes, i.e., the twelve patriarchs, are com- prised in thought together with the twelve apostles, the N. T. antitypes to the patriarchs.14 [See Note XLII., p. 202.] The objections made against the holiness of the twelve patriarchs 15 are in no way pertinent,—as they
1 Calov. 3 Vitr. an equal title, is very remote. Klief.: The
3 Eichh.
¢ Cf. on ver. 3.
5 xx. 4, i. 6, ili. 21. Cf. Primas, Aret., C.a Lap., Beng., Herd., De Wette, Stern, Heng- atenb., Ebrard, etc.
* © Zeger, Vitr., Eichh., Ew. i., Hilgenf.
7 Grot.
8 Or, elsewhere, the quadruple. 6qq., xiv. 8.
9 Joachim.
10 Heinr.
31 The explanation of Volkm., that the sub- ject here fe the representation of teacher and hearer as parts of the Christian Church having
Cf. vii. 4
number twelve, the sign of the people of God, is doubled ‘ because the blessed people of God assembled in heaven have increased, and daily increase, by those added to believers from all nations.” But, in connection with this, he rejects the distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, made only by modern theologians in violation of Scripture.
13 Andr., Areth., Aret., C.a Lap., Boasuet, Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
13 Bleek, De Wette. Cf. aleo Heinr.
1¢ Cf. xzJ. 12,14; Andr., Areth., Hengstenb., Ebrard.
3 De Welte, according to Joach.
a
CHAP. IV. 5. 195
could also be urged against the apostles, — because the patriarchs come into consideration not according to their own conduct or individual worth, but as the favored chiefs of the tribes of the O. T. people.
Ver. 5. The throne of God corresponds in its appearance to the majesty of the king sitting thereon. As in Ps. xxix.,! the regal * omnipotence of God is made visible in the violence of the thunder-storm, so John here uses the same image in order to describe the unlimited omnipotence of the en- throned one, particularly as exercised in judgment. The throne itself, out of which proceeded “ the lightnings, thunderings, and voices,’’ appears filled with this sign of the Divine omnipotence. The guvai which are here distin- guished from the fpovrai—so that passages as vi. 1, x. 3, xiv. 2,8 must not be here compared, — have‘ to be regarded as the roar which in a storm accompanies the thunder and lightning. The misunderstandings of the description depend upon the crudeness and arbitrariness of the exposition. So in N. de Lyra:® “The coruscation of miracles, and declaration of rewards for good and the terror of punishments for evi] deeds.” Solely on account of the éxopevovra,’ Aretius understood by the dorpar., guv., and fporr., even, the Holy Ghost. De Wette® discerns in the lightning, etc., figures of God’s manifestations of power and life in nature, which are to be distinguished, as “critical and powerful revelations of God,” from the seven lamps as “his calm and perpetual influences;” while in vv. 6-8, “nature itself, or the realm of the living,” and finally in vv. 9-11, “the harmony of creation with re- deemed humanity, and thus God in his living efficiency and reality,” are brought into consideration. But this interpretation is in more than one respect without foundation. The lightning, voices, and thunder are, accord- ing to the O. T. view, on which the present description depends,? not figures of the revelation of God in nature as distinct from another revelation, but of . the unlimited power of God, especially as judging ; 2° only we dare not, with Grot., understand the dorp. and @povr. of general threats, but the gu». of par- ticular afflictions. The throne whence the lightning, etc., proceeds, agrees with that whose form appears to be not only like jasper, but also like @ sardine stone. —xal érrd Aaunides rupdc, x.7.4. The authentic explanation immediately follows: af eloc ra éxra wveipara rod Geob. Cf., besides, i.4. The pragmatic significance of the Spirit of God in this connection is not that the Spirit of God “is the principle of the psychical ! and spiritual life, and that through him the inner influence of God on nature and the human world occurs; ” 22 for the idea of the Aaumradec rupd¢ does not suit the explanation of the closely connected first half of the verse. But Hengstenb. also, who very arbitrarily combines the “seven” of the Spirit with the “three” of the lightning, voices, and thunder, into a “ten,’”’ and herein finds indicated a connection of the Spirit with that lightning, etc., improperly thinks only of
1 Cf. Ps. xcvii. 1 sqq., xvill. § aqq. * Cf. John xv. 26.
2 Ps. xxix. 10. ® Cf. also Ebrard.
8 Hengstenb. ® Of. vili. 5, xi. 19, xvi. 18. 4 Cf. Exod. xix. 16. 20 Vitr., Hengstenb., eto.
3 Cf. Vitr., Ew., Hengstenb. 11 Gen. 1. 2; Ps. civ. 30.
€ Of. already Primas, Beda; also Zeger. 13 De Wette, Ebrard.
196 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
an operation of the Spirit, “bringing corruption, punishing, and annihilat- ing.” If also the idea of the work of the Spirit in judging! dare not be left out of consideration, partly because of what precedes, and partly because of the expression mvpég ; on the one hand, the expression Aaurdédec, and, on the other, the paralle] v. 6 (d¢6a4ot), indicate that the Spirit is to be re- garded chiefly as illuminating, seeing, searching all things,? and just on that account everywhere ® active in his holy judgments. Essentially the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne of God indicate nothing else than the eyes of the Lord “as a flame of fire” in j. 14.4
Ver. 6. de 0GAacca barivy, duola xpvoraAAy, The &¢ — which * belongs to the entire idea, and not chiefly to the dativy®—stands here just as in viii. 8. What John further beheld before the throne of God appeared as a sea of glass like crystal. This is regarded as signifying baptism,’ the Holy Scrip- tures,® repentance,’ the present transitory world,!° etc., — all purely arbitrary. Without ground, further, is the allusion to the “ brazen sea” in the temple," or to the bright inlaid floor, having, therefore, the appearance of a sea.12 It is in general a conception not justified by the text, to regard the “sea of glass” the basis of the throne, as C. a Lap., Vitr., Eichh., Heinr., Herder, De Wette, etc., presuppose, who from this same idea reach interpretations that are very different. With an appeal to Exod. xxiv. 10, Ezek. i. 26, De Wette 18 regards “the sea of glass” in our passage, as well as also in xv. 2, as a designation of “the atmosphere,” an explanation to which, in its pure naturalness, Exodus and Ezekiel do not apply, — where, however, in reality the pure ether is the natural substratum for the idea of the standing or enthronement of God in heavenly glory, — while in this passage the sea of glass is not beneath, but before, the throne of God, and the entire presentation is altogether foreign to “the atmosphere.” On the other hand, Vitr., Herder, etc., with a reference to Ps. lxxxix. 15, and similar passages, interpret the sea of glass as the basis of righteousness and grace, whereon the throne of God is founded. Following Beng., Hengstenb. has understood the sea of glass, since it appears in xv. 2 mingled with fire, as the “product of the seven lamps of fire,” since and because of the expression “sea” referring to Ps. xxxvi. 7, as a designation of “the great and wonderful works of God, of his just and holy ways, of his acts of righteousness that have become mani- feat.’’ But already the parallelism of v. 6, where these seven lamps appear as seven eyes, in itself renders this artificial interpretation impossible. — Aret., Grot., and Ebrard proceed upon the fact that the sea, viz., as stormy
1 Cf. Iea. iv. 4; John xvi. 8. 12 Alcas., Alsted.
2 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 12 Ew., with a comparison of the Koran,
8 Cf. v. 6; Pa. cxxxix. 7. Sur. 27, 44.
* Of. Dan. x. 6. 13 Cf. Eichh., ete.
3 Cf. also xv. 2. 14 Vitr.: ‘A will of God, sure and perpet-
® Beng. ual, whereby he determined to have, among
? Victorin., Tichon., Primas, Beda, N. de men, a kingdom of grace; a right sure and: Lyra, Hod, Calov. clear to erect such a kingdom of grace, in the
§ Joachim. righteousnese and obedience of the mediator;
® Alcas. this very right founded in the righteousness
10 Par., Bull., Rib. of Christ is the basis of the throne.”
CHAP. IV. & 197
and irregularly heaving (xiii. 1), represents the mass of the nations in their ungodly state; and then, that the sea of glass, clear as crystal, and therefore firm as well as pure, designates “the creature in its pure relation to the Creator.”2 But this interpretation is wrecked on xv. 2. According to that passage,* the sea, whose complete, heavenly purity is marked by the double designation, tad, and du. xpvor.,? is to be regarded identical with the stream of the water of life, which* proceeds from the throne of God. The point thus designated belongs in fact essentially to the perfection of the view of the enthroned God; and according to the living relation in which the vision, ch. iv. [and v.], stands to all that follows, it is to be expected, that, as the succeeding judgments appear as the work of the holy and just omnipotence of the heavenly King here described, so also a definite point of the present fundamental description corresponds to the final glorious and blessed com- pletion of the kingdom of God. Since in the presence of God there is ful- ness of joy,* since God is the Blessed One,’ since before him and from him issues the river of eternal life, he himself, and communion with him, is the blessed goal for the development of his kingdom, and he himself is the leader thereto. [See Note XLIII., p. 208.] xa? év phow rob Opévov xal xbxdy rod Opdvov réooapa (sa, «.t.A. The four beings ® appear not as supporting the throne, for dy péow 7. Op. is by no means “ under the throne; ”® also not as stated by Eichh., Ew. i., and Hengstenb., that the four (aa are stationed with the back under the throne, but with the upper part projecting therefrom so raised above the same that they could appear as being “round about” the throne —an idea which because of its absolute deformity ought not to have been forced upon John. In like manner impossible is Ebrard’s opinion, that !° the four ga are in the midst of the (transparent!) throne, but that at the same time they had moved themselves with the rapidity of lightning from the same, so that they appeared also around about the throne. Incorrect also is Vitr., who makes of éy péo. and xvxA. a strange hendiadys: “In the midst of the semi- circular area which was before the throne.” According to the wording of the text, the position of the four beings is not to be regarded else than as is most natural in connection with their fourfold number, viz., one on each side of the throne, and besides each in the midst of its respective side.1! They stand so free as to be able to move; }? and because they have manifestly turned with their faces towards the throne, John can see that they are “full of eyes before and behind.” 2% There is no occasion whatever for the conjecture that the words xa? é» plow trév npeoPvrépay might have belonged in the text.
1 Evrard; Aretius: ‘‘ The assembly of the 3 Id. «Id. triumphing Church.” Grot., in his way : ‘‘ The § Cf. Rinok. people of Jerusalem.” The varivy and oz. 6 Cf. Ps. xvi. 11. xpvor.: “*Because God perceives the actions ? Cf. 1 Tim. 1. 11. and thoughts of the people;"’ bat also “‘ be- 6 Cf., concerning their meaning, ver. 8. cause of the purity of the people of Jerusa- ® Hengstenb. lem.”” Kilfef.: '* The multitude of the bleseed 19 Cf. Ezek. 1. 4, 5, 14. conquerors from all times and nations on earth, 1 Zul. Cf. De Wette. preserved in heaven with God unto the end, 12 xv. 7. who are represented by the twenty-four eld- 18 See on ver. 8. ers.” And this with an appeal to xv. 2. 4 Ew. il.: “ Between the chicf seat and the 2 Cf. dleo xxii. 1. elders.”
198 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
Ver. 7. While, in Ezekiel, the forms of the four cherubim ? bear in won- derful combination the fourfold faces of the lion, the ox, the man, and the eagle, John with more distinct clearness has so seen the four beings that in each of them only a part of that fourfold form is expressed. In this, also, he is distinguished from Ezekiel, that he represents his “four beings,” not
each with four but with six wings, as the seraphim in Isa. vi.; yet, on the other hand, John agrees with Ezekiel, that in him the wings, as well as the whole body, appear full of eyes (ver. 8). — The second being is like a pécxor, i.e., not a “calf” in distinction from a grown ox, but, as is already required in an esthetic respect, the ox. The LXX. have péoyor, Ezek. i. 10, for wv;% also Ezek. xxi. 87;* Lev. xxii. 28. But they render thus also the words "8,8 aye and 13.7 By yécxoc, therefore, only some animal of that class is designated; the more precise determination is given by the context. — The third Gov has 1d mpéowrov® dvépdrov. In Ezekiel the chief form of the cherubim is human; this has been adopted also by Vitr. and Hengstenb. for the Apoc.® Qn the contrary, Beng. infers from the words @y. r. pdcwrov, x.t.4.: “So it did not have in other respects the form of a man.” Ebrard is right in being contented with not knowing more than is said in the text. In the third being, however, the human face is characteristic; just as in the eagle, to which the fourth being is like, not so much the form in itself, as the flying, is significant, and therefore marked.
Ver. 8. The four beings, having each six wings,® are all around and within full of eyes. Concerning the composition & xa@’. &, cf. Mark xiv. 19; John viii. 9; Rom. xii. 15; Winer, p. 284, Concerning the distribu- tive dvd, cf. John ii. 6; Winer, p. 872. — The xvx2déev belongs not to what precedes,’ but with Zowfev to yéuovorw. Yet the cvxadeev is not equivalent to the Eunpooder, ver. 6, 80 that the éowgev corresponds to the dmo6ev; 11 but rather the «vxAdédev properly comprises already both of those statements, while only with reference to the wings mentioned is it still expressly remarked that “within,” i e., on the inner side of the wings, under them — not only round about the entire outside of the body («vxA.) —all is full of eyes.1* It results also from this determination of xvuxd. and écuéev, that the declaration yen. 690aAu. Is repeated, because this is to be extended particularly 3* to the wings. At the same time the adding of what follows, xa? dvanavow — fpyépevoc, reveals the meaning first of the fulness of eyes, and then of the four beings in general. Ceaselessly, day and night, they exclaim, “ Holy,” ete. — The masc. Aéyovres, in the same loose way as ver. 1.—The yu. «. vvxr, can in no way
1 Ch. f. 10. . 4 LXX., xxii. 1. 6 Exod. xxix. 10. 2 Cf. E. Riehm, De Natura et Notione 6 Exod. xxxii. 4. Symbolica Cheruborum, Bas. et Ludov., 1864, T Gen. xii. 16. p. 23. Cf. also Stud. u. Krit., 1871, p. 390 9q.; 8 ws. See Critical Remarks. Limmert, D. Cherubim der H. Schrift., Jahrb. ® Cf.v.8, xix.4, where the beasts fall down, f. Deutache Theologie, Gotha, 1887, p. 5878q.. “ which cannot be thought of if two of them 609 aq.; L. Seeburg, Die Sage von den Greifen were four-footed.” bet den Alten; St. 1: Ueber d. Ureprung der 10 Luther. . Sage und ihre Verbrettung tm Oriente, GUtt- 11 “ Within, towards the throne.” inger Inaugural-Dissertat. (1867), pp. 7, 82 eq. 12 Zilll., De Wette. 3 Ezek. i. 7, as it refers to the feet of the 3% De Wette. cherubim, does not belong here. 4 Of. Ezek. x. 12.
CHAP. IV. 8. 199
suggest that at the throne of God there is no change of day and night, and still less dare the explanation be made: “Though there be on earth, here or there, day or night.”!— The uninterrupted hymn of praise of the four: beings sounds like that of the seraphim in Isa. vi. 8; but since, instead of the close found there (rAfpne mica f yc rig d6&n¢ abrod), it is said here 6 yy xa? 6 dv xal 6 Epypuevoc, there is found? in the praise of these four beings a partic- ular factor, which already in i. 8 sounds forth like a keynote in a judgment of God which is highly significant to the whole. The thrice holy Lord God, at the same time, is also the Eternal One who is to come. These words of praise from the mouth of the four beings agree perfectly with the maui- festation of the Enthroned One,® as this iteelf agrees with his own words; 4 and in all the living divine foundation of the entire Apocalyptic prophecy is indicated, because God ‘‘ comes ” —in a personal way, as the prophet says — as surely as he is the Holy, Almighty, Eternal One, endowed with com- plete living energy. — Only now can the question be answered, as to what these beings are, and what their special characteristics signify. Undoubt- edly these four (a5 are not actual beasts who serve only to support the throne of God, as in Persian and Indian sculptures massive forms of beasts are seen supporting a throne;® for (cov is not @npiov,’ and concerning the four beings as supporting the throne, the text does not say a word. — Almo
all the explanations of older times depend upon mere surmises, as, that the four beings are meant to designate: the Four Evangelists, and that, too, so that, according to Augustine,® the lion represents Matthew, the man Mark, the ox Luke, and the eagle John;°® the four cardinal virtues ;?° the four mys- teries of faith, viz., Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension ; 1? the four patriarchal churches ; }2 the four apostles or apostolic men, who were then at Jerusalem as standard-bearers of Christ’s camp; ?® all the doctors of the Church, ete. It is further a perversion to regard the four beings as angels, from whom they are expressly distinguished in v. 8, 11, vii. 11.18 According to their form, they are essentially identical with the cherubim of the O. T.; so they have also their symbolical meaning. The question is
1 Beng.
8 As it corresponds with the pragmatic rela- tion of the entire presentation, ch. iv. [and v.], to the entire contents of the Apoc.
8 Ver. 2 aqq.
4 1. 8.
' yr, Ezek. i. Cf. especially ver. 20, where all four F\i*f} are designated as ons iWH15 here the LXX., incorrectly, ¢wj.
6 Kichh., Ew.
Wis. vii. 20.
5 De Cons. Evang., 16.
* Cf. Victor, Primas, Beda, Andr. Even Ebrard attributes some truth to such forced interpretation.
10 Andr., Areth.
11 Aretius after Augustine, Ansbertus.
18 N.de Lyra: Jerusalem (where the church began, is the frst beast, Acts v. 20 furnishing
an example of ite lion-like spirit), Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The six wings are the natural law, the Mosaic law, the oracles of the prophets, the gospel of counsels, the doctrine of the apostles, the statutes of general councils. The station of the Romish Church, which is naturally already, in N. de Lyra, the head of all, C. a Lap. describes by adding ‘‘ that the throne of God is the cathe- dra Romana, on which sits the vicar of Christ.”
13 Grot., who regards them as Peter, James, Matthew, and Paul; the “eyes” are colors, and designate the multiform gifts of God.
144 The doctors of theology. Calov.;* Cf. Vitr., ete.
18 Cf. Vitr. and Hengsténb., vs. Laun., C. a Lap., Beng., etc.
200 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
whether they represent powers of God employed in the creation,! or creation itself.2. The former interpretation is carried to such extent by Ebrard, that the lion is regarded as designating the consuming and destroying, the bul- lock the nourishing, man the thinking and caring, and the eagle, which soars victoriously above all, the preserving and rejuvenating power in nature. This is indeed ingenious, but is forced. It is in itself peculiar, and entirely unbiblical, to form the powers of God into definite symbolical beings, and the idea is entirely inadmissible, to regard powers so formed as proclaiming the praise of God: but, on the other hand, it is perfectly natural for the works to proclaim the praise of the Creator,® and for these, especially the entire living creation, to be represented by definite, concrete forms. The creatures at the basis of the O. T. cherubic forms most simply offer them- selves as such representatives of the entire living creation. The correct point of view is already stated in the rabbinical sentence:4 “There are four — holding the chief place in the world, — among creatures, man; among birds, the eagle; among cattle, the ox; among beasts, the lion.” That these four are intended te represent the entire living creation, is indicated by the signifi- cant number four itself;® and to object against it, that besides the fish, etc., are not represented, is pointless.® Entirely irrelevant, however, to the proper meaning of the symbol, is the succession of lion, ox, etc., which John, after remodelling in general the Ezekiel cheruVic forms, unintentionally changed ; the idea also is arbitrary, that the four beings in John, just as in Ezekiel, must have had altogether human bodies, since man is exalted above other creatures.? This allusion is introduced here without sufficient reason, as the subject has to do simply with the entirety of the living creation as such. Incorrect, besides, is the interpretation of the eyes, wherewith the four beings are covered, by saying that the entire living creation is “spiritual- ized,” ® which follows at least from v. 6. The context itself shows, on the other hand, that the eyes are to be regarded as signs of the constant wake- fulness day and night, belonging to the ceaseless praise of God.® Finally, the six wings which John has derived for his beings from the six seraphim (Isa. vi.), we cannot well understand here otherwise than as there. They designate not the collective significance of the four beings, but serve as a figurative representation of the unconditionally dependent and ministerial relation in which the creature stands, and is recognized as standing, to its Creator. Thus Bengel: “So that with two they covered their faces, with two their feet, and with two flew: whereby then the three chief virtues were indicated, viz., reverence or respect, as they do not boldly look; humility, as they hide themselves before that brilliancy; and obedience, to execute com- mands.” — The essential idea delineated in the images of the {a (cherubim)
1 Ebrard, etc. rest must be content with the representation ? Herder, De Wette, Rinck, Hengstenb. of their faces” (Hengstenb.). ® Cf. Ps. xix. 2 oqq., cill. 22, cxiviil. © Hengstenb. ‘Schemoth, Rabba 33, fol. 122, 4, b. ® De Wette. Cf. Rinck, etc.
Séhottg. Cf. also Beng. % Rinck, who mentions that the entire num- & Beng., Hengstenb. ¢ Ebrard. ber of wings, four times six, is equal the
1 “Tho human type must preponderate In number of elders. the personification of every thing living; the i Cf. also Hengstenb.
201
may be expressed in words as Ps. ciii. 22: “ All the works of God (in all places),”” —as they, at least with respect to earthly living creatures, are represented in the beings, and that, too, four beings, — are to “praise God in all places of his dominion.” For, that he, as unconditioned Lord of his creatures, is honored with all humility and obedience, is seen in that they hide themselves, and are ready to serve his will. Yet there is also placed in the mouth of the representatives of the ereatures an express ascription of praise to the holy, almighty Lord, and that, too, as the innumerable, ever- wakeful eyes show, one that is perpetual (ver. 8). [See Note XLIV., p. 203. ]
Vv. 9-11. The ascription of praise to God by the representatives of the creation, viz., the four beasts, is joined by that of the twenty-four elders, the representatives of redeemed humanity ;? yet here the praise of the elders (ver. 11) refers not to redemption itself, — which first occurs in v. 9 sq..— but to the power and glory of God revealed in creation, so that the words of the elders stand in beautiful harmony with the praise of the four beings, as well as with the significance of the entire vision; of course not without the relation expressly indicated in ver. 8, and lying at the basis, that Almighty God, who has made the beginning of all things, will also bring them to a completion.
Ver. 9. éray déoover. The fut., instead of the regular sub.,? does not present a conception that is strictly future,® but has, like the Heb. imperfect, the force of a frequentative: “when, as often as.” 4— ddgay xal ry. Viz., the worshipful acknowledgment of the glory and honor ® belonging to the Lord ;® while by «xa? edyapcriay is designated immediately, and without metonymy, the thanksgiving’ rendered by the creature. — ry xaGnptry— aisnwv. So God calls the enthroned God very similarly as the four beasts praise him, and in the same respect. Hence, also on cemore in ver. 10, the same designation of God, comprising the reason for the praise, and the ground of all hope and prophecy. — On ver. 10, cf. v. 8, xix.4. The casting- down of the crowns is, together with the falling down and worshipping, the sign of humiliation before the King and Lord, in whose presence no creature whatever has any glory or honor of its own.®
Ver. 11. Not without significance, the elders who, as representatives of the redeemed, stand in a still closer relation to their Lord and God than the four beings, address the Enthroned One: 64 «vp. cal 5 Osd¢ pycv.® — fog el AaBeitv. Cf. v.12. That God not only when he is worshipped, but also when he exterminates his enemies, receives glory,!° does not belong here. — rv dot. «.r 2, the elders say, because in replying they look back in a certain respect to ver. 8.1! — xal rav dévauw. While the representatives
CHAP. IV. 9-11.
1 Of. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
3 Winer, p. 280 aq.
5 From now, and to all the future. Cf. vil. 15 sq. It is not so earlier, because only since the work of redemption is in progress, and the victory of Christ in development, are the twenty-four elders in this position and occupa- tion. De Wette; cf. Stern.
4 Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc.
5 Of. Ps. xxix. 1, xcvi. 7. Hengstenb., ete.
6 Cf. 1. 6.
7 Hengstenb.
8 Of. Tacit., Annal., xv. 20: “To which (statue of Nero) Tiridates, having advanced, cast before the image the diadem removed from his head.”
® See Critical Notes.
% Beng. Cf. xi. 17. 1 Beng.
202 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
of even creation are right in offering thanks (ver. 8), especially suitable in the mouth of the elders, who although naturally also belonging to crea- tion, yet with a certain objectivity regard the work of creation (67: od Exriac, «.7.A,), is the thankful acknowledgment of the power of the Creator revealed therein.! — xa2 2 1d 6éAnua cov hoav. The Vulg., correctly: “On account of thy will.” Luther, incorrectly: “Through thy will.” Concerning 4a with the accus. to designate the ground, not the means, cf. John vi. 57; Winer, p. 872. — In regard to }eav, the reference may be considered impossible: “In thy disposition from eternity, before they were created;”* and just as little dare the éxric@noav be applied to regeneration through Christ,’ if the joay be correctly referred to the creation. Bengel’s explanation of the foav: “ All things were, from the creation to the time of this ascription of praise, and still henceforth. Hereby the preservation of all created things is praised,” is also artificial; while his explanation of éxrioéyoav: “Since thou hast created all things, they remain as long as thou wilt have them,” is utterly incorrect. The }oay is taken mostly‘ as synonymous with éxricégcav; but yoay is not equivalent to éyévovro or éyev#6noav. On the contrary, after the divine work of creation is mentioned (éxricac), the idea recurs to the same point with vivid clearness: as all things were, which before were not. The xa? éxrio@yoav is, then, not synonymous with the foay, but presents expressly the precise fact upon which the feay depends: “they were created.” ‘Thus the lauded work of the Creator (cd Exrioag) is made manifest even to the creatures by the idea in its two modifications of the #oay and éxricGqcav.
‘\
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLII. Ver. 4. elxoot réocapar mpeoBurépove,
Gebhardt, however (p. 48), urges against this view advocated by Diisterdieck, “the fact, that, on the gates of the New Jerusalem, the names of the twelve tribes — the names of the patriarchs — are written; and, on its foundations, the names of the twelve apostles (xxi. 12, 14); but neither on the gates, nor on the foundation, do we find the two associated. It is entirely foreign to the thoughts of the seer, to conceive of the two side by side with each other. They are the same, but one as the type, the other the fulfilment. The song of Moses and the Lamb (xv. 3), which is quoted in favor of this interpretation, is neither a double song, nor fs it sung by O. and N. T. believers; it is one, and ascends from the lips of conquerors in the Christian life.’”? He argues that the elders are not concrete realities, ‘‘ but, as the living creatures are a symbolical repre- sentation of the animated creation of God in general, according to its ideal, so are the elders a symbolical representation of the people of God, according to their ideal, or, In other words, of redeemed humanity.’ Luthardt: ‘‘ Not pos- sibly the twelve patriarchs and the twelve aposties, or, in general, the repre- sentatives of the Church; for they are distinguished from believers, v. 10 (according to the correct reading), vii. 9 sqq., 14, xi. 16 sqq.; and the glorified
1 Cf. Rom. i. 20. 6 “ They came into being:” De Wette. Cf. 3 N. de Lyra. C. a Lap., Eichh., Herd., Hengstenb., Ebrard. ® Grot. 5 Ps. rxzxili. 9.
NOTES. 203
as yet wear no crowns, but are expecting only the time of dominion (ii. 10-vi. 9); but it is the heavenly council, composed of representatives of the people of God in heaven.”
XLIIL Ver. 6. @éAacca tadivn.
Alford objects to our author’s identification of the “‘sea of glass’? with the "Sriver of water of life;’”? for ‘‘the whole vision there [xxli. 1] is quite distinct from this, and each one has its own propriety in detail. To identify the two is to confound them, nor does ch. xv. 2 at all justify this interpretation. There, as here, it is the purity, calmness, and majesty of God’s rule which are signified by the figure.’? Luthardt, on the other hand, in substantial agreement with Diist.: ‘‘ The fulness of the divine life (cf. xxii. 1), which is nothing but peace and calm, in contrast with the stormy disquietude of the life of the world (xiii, 1; Dan. vii. 2).”
XLIV. Vv. 6-8. réosepa (a.
Cf. Cremer (Lexicon): ** Properly, a living creature, which also occurs else- where also in profane Greek, where cov, a post-Homeric word, generally signi- fies living creature, and only in special instances a beast; @ypicov = animal, as embracing all living beings, must be retained in the Revelation, where four Ga are represented as being between God’s throne and those of the elders which surround it, the description given of which (Rev. iv. 6-8) resembles that of the nv] in Ezek. i. 5 sqq.; the cherubim in Ezek. x. (cf. Ps. xviii. 1, xcix. 1, lxxx. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15). They are named living crea- tures here and in Ezek. i., on account of the Ufe which is their main feature. They are usually the signs and tokens of majesty, of the sublime majesty of God, both in his covenant relation, and in his relation to the world (for the latter, see Ps. xcix. 1); and therefore it is that they are assigned so prominent a place, though no active part in the final scenes of sacred history (Rev. vi. 1-7). The appearance of four represents the concentration of all created life in this world, the original abode of which, Paradise, when life had fallen to sin and death, was given over to the cherubim. They do not, like the angels, fulfil the purposes of God in relation to men; they are distinct from the angels (Rev. v. 11). We are thus led to conclude that they materially represent the ideal pat- tern of the true relation of creation to its God.’’ Oehler (O. 7. Theology, p. 260): ‘‘It is the cherubim, as Schultz well expresses it, ‘which at one and the same time proclaim and veil his presence.’ The lion and the bull are, as is well known, symbols of power and strength; man and the eagle ar¢ symbols of wisdom and omniscience; the latter attribute is expressed also in the later form of the symbol] by the multitude of eyes. The continual mobility of the (da (Rev. iv. 8) signifies the never-resting quickness of the Divine operations; this is probably symbolized also by the wheels in Ezek. i. The number four is the signature of all-sidedness (towards the four quarters of heaven). Thus Jehovah is acknowledged as the God who rules the world on all sides in power, wisdom, and omniscience. Instead of natural powers working unconsciously, is placed the all-embracing, conscious activity of the living God.”
204 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. dmofev. So, correctly, Elz., and the more modern edd. The toler- ably well authenticated reading fwev (2, 8, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Ar., Copt., al., Andr., Areth.), which Beng. likewise regards as justified, is an interpretation. Conversely, Origen (in Lach.), with reference to the correct dmo@ev, has said, instead of fowSev: Eunpootey (Ezek, ii. 10). So also ®. — Ver. 2. Before ¢uvg, in the Elz. text, and according to A, 8, 2, 4, 6, 7, al., together with Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], év is to be placed. — The éorw after ri¢ (Elz.), which is absent in A, ®, 10, 12, Orig., al., and, in some witnesses, stands only after défcoc, is an interpolation, and to be deleted (Beng., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc.). — Ver. 4. Instead of roAAG (Elz.), read odd, according to x, 2, 8, 4, 6, 7, al., Andr. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The addition «ai dvayvewa after dvoiga (Elz.) is, after decisive witnesses, rejected already by Beng., Griesb., etc. — Ver. 5. dé rt. guA. So A, 2, 4, 6, al., Bengel, Griesb., the more recent. Incor- rectly, Elz.: 6 év. Perhaps the art. also is to be deleted (x). — The variation 6 avoiywy (B, 2, 4, 6, 8, al., Areth.) is improperly preferred (Matth., Tisch., 1859) to the reading dGvoiga (A, ®, al., Lach.), as it is manifestly a modification. — The Atoa: before rac 2. of. (Elz.) is certainly false, notwithstanding x. — Ver. 6. After xa? eidov, the Elz. text has introduced (cf. vi. 5, 8, xiv. 1, 14) «at ldod, against A, x, 2,4,6,al. The question, however, is whether, with Beng., Tisch., etc., to delete both words, or, with Lach. (according to A: «a? eldov, nat; cf. vi. 12, v. 11, vi. 1, vitL 13), only the /dob. — ol elow ra éxra rod Geot rvebuara Ta arec- taAuéva, So Elz. The of is here correctly (Beng., Lach., Tisch., 1859 [W. and H.]) according to x, A; the 4, on the other hand (2, 3, 4, al., Areth., ed. Comp., Matth., Tisch., 1854), is, like the isolated Griwa (in Matth.), a correction. The érra before tvebuara rod Geo, for this is the right order of words (A, ®, Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch.), is wanting in A, 12, and may be an interpolation (cf. 1. 4, iv. 6); but probably it is here (#) just as, in iv. 6., Tisch. has it correctly in the text. Instead of drecratuéva (&, Beng., Tisch. IX.), before which the art. only is Inserted, Lach. reads dmecradyévos according to A, Matth.: Tisch.: aroc- reAAGueva according to B and a considerable number of minusc. Yet the latter reading appears to be a modification, while the form dmecraAyévo: is scarcely allowable in the language of the Apoc., and appears to be an error occasioned by the preceding of. — Ver. 7. The interpretation 1d AcBdiov after eiAnger (Elz., Beng. ), also placed at the close of the verse (ed. Compl., al.), is lacking in A, N, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg. (Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 8. Instead of xi@apa¢ (Elz.), read, according to A, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Copt., al., «@dcpay (Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Vv. 9, 10. Elz.: yépacac ro 000 huas tv 7 aluart cov tx rao, ova, —xal £roinoas hudc TO be hucw Bactheic xal lepeic kal Baoietvoousy Ext rg yc. Incorrect here is: First, the sydc, ver. 9 (&), which is wanting in A, Areth. (rejected already by Mill, Prol., 1111, Lach., Tisch.), which was inserted (cf. i. 6); and which Primas, Vulg., have before God (and that, too, that with him ‘‘ they shall reign over them,” ver. 10), because a more
CHAP. VY. 1. 205
accurate determination of the object is wished than is found in the words é« waco, gvd,, x.7.A, Secondly, the #yude (ver. 10), for which, according to A, 8, 2, 4, al., Syr., Vulg. (var. nos), Copt., Ar., Aeth., Andr., ed. Compl., etc., atrod¢ is to be written (Mill, l.c., Matth., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}). Probably false is, thirdly, the me Cem fuey () lacking in A (Tisch.; retained by Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). Instead of the correction faociAcic, read, according to A, ®, Vulg., al., SaccAeiavy (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); cf. 1. 6. Finally, read Baccsvovoey, according to A, 7, 8, 9, al., Syr., ed. Compl. (Mill, L ¢., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Because objection was made to the pres., BacrAgioovary was written (N, 2, 4, 5, 6, Cypr., Vulg., Beng., Griesb.), and then, corresponding to the introduced #udc: Bacweboouer, — Ver. 12. “Agiov. It is worthy of note, that A has déwr (so ed. Erasm. I., Ald.), defended by Bengel in his Gnomon, and received by Tisch., 1859, IX.— Ver. 18. The éoriv after 4 (Elz., Beng.) is without authenticity; it belongs after @cAdcone, and that, too, without the & preceding in the rec. So according to A, 2, 4, 6, al., Verss.; already Matth.; also Tisch., 1854 [W. and H.], who, however, in 1859, has received the &(B, al.). %: 1d év 7, obp. —xal ra dv Ty OaA, wal ra év avr, — Instead of the rec., 70 éy abr. xévra fxovea Atyovras, Lach. has written, in accordance with A, ra év abr, rdvra $x, Aéyovra; Matth., Beng., Tisch., in accordance with 2, 4, 7, al., ra éy abrou, mdvrac Hx. Aéyovtas. In favor of the latter reading is its greater difficulty when compared with that of Cod. A. & interprets: «. 7a dy atr, xavra, kal nx, Aéyovrac.
Amidst the songs of praise of the heavenly ones, the Lamb receives from the hand of God the book to be opened by him, in which stands writien ‘“‘ what must come to pass” (cf. iv. 1).
Ver. 1. émi ray defidv designates not that the book lies “on the right side of the Enthroned One,” and therefore on the throne, as Ebrard thinks, who lays stress upon the fact as to how this peaceful, apparently useless, lying is consistent with its being closed; for this idea, which is of course in itself, and according to the wording, possible, is in conflict with ver. 7, as there the é rij¢ degcac, ‘x.r.2., because of its express reference to the éx? tiv defiay, ver. 1, does not well admit of the intermediate supposition that the Enthroned One has first taken the book into his right hand. But of course én rv def. does not directly mean, “in the right hand,” ?! for which no appeal can be made to xvii. 8, xx. 1: on the contrary, the correct idea is derived especially from xx. 1, that the Enthroned One holds the book on his (open) hand, offering it, and likewise waiting whether any one will be found worthy to take and open it.2— The A.Pdiov thus visible (xa? eidov) according to its exterior, even to John, is to be regarded, undoubtedly, a 1192, as in Ezek. li. 9 8q., a book-roll,® which form alone is adapted to its present holy use. Like the book of Ezekiel, this was also an émo(éypagov,* viz., written not
1 Vulg., N. de Lyra, Luther, Vitr.; cf. also concerning the O. and N. T. covenant of God Hengstenb. with man. But this strange statement is elab-
2 Beng. Cf. also De Wette. orated in its details neither without great arti-
® E. Huschke (Das Buch mit steben Ategein _—ficialness nor many exegetical errors. Ewald ta d. Of., Leipz. u. Dresd., 1860) understands and others have declared themeelves against it. a document folded together, and sealed out- 4 Lucian, Vié. Auction. 9; Plin., L. Il., wardiy in the Roman way by seven witnesses, _ ep. 5.
206 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
only fewer, i.e., within, on the surface turned inwardly about the staff, but also dnsdev,) i.e., on the side turned outwards in unrolling, the ordinarily unwritten side of the parchment. Thus the exceedingly rich contents of the book are indicated, completely comprising * the Divine decrees concerning the future (4 dei yevéoda:, iv. 1); while the sevenfold sealing * shows that these Divine decrees are a deep, hidden mystery, which can be beheld only by an éxoxaavye whose mediator is only the Lamb, since it is his part to open the seals.4 — The idea of the book in which the decrees of the Divine govern- ment appear written occurs already in Ps. cxxxix. 16; ef. aleo Exod. xxxii. 82; Rev. iii. 5, xx. 12. It is only by awkward conjectures that the opinion is obtained, that the BGiiov is the O. T.5 or the entire Holy Scriptures, — possibly the N. T. within, and the O. T. without.® Incorrect also is Wet- stein: “ The book of divorce from God, written against the Jewish nation, is represented,” — a view contradicting every feature both of the more imme- diate and more remote context. Inapplicable also Schottgen, with whom Hengstenb. agrees: “The book contains the sentence designed against the enemies of the Church.” It is true that this passage, considered by itself, does not yet permit us to recognize the contents and meaning of the book in ite details;7 yet it must be explained here partially from the meaning of chs. iv. and v., partly from the organism of the entire Apocalypse from ch. vi., and partly from the meaning of viii. 1, that the book sealed with seven seals could have contained not only what is written from vi. 1 to viii. 1, called by Hengstenb. the group of seals,® because Hengstenb. incorrectly affirms that in the entire scene, chs. iv. and v., nothing else than judgments upon enemies is to be expected, as such are to be represented in the com- pletely closed group of seals in viii. 1. Rather the appearance of the en- throned God, and the entire scene, chs. iv., v., afford the guaranty that not only enemies are judged, but also friends are blessed, just as both necessa- rily belong together. To this the consideration must be added, that, accord- ing to the clear plan of the Apoc. itself, the so-called group of seals is by no means closed with viii. 1,9 nor even with xi. 19,!° since from the seventh seal a further development proceeds to the end of the Apoc.,! so that the con- tents of the seventh seal are presented completely only at the end of the book; consequently the contents of this book comprised in seven seals, which is opened by the Lamb, appear to be repeated in the succeeding Apoc. from ch. vi. on,!2 as John himself 18 has proclaimed his entire prophetic writing as a revelation communicated to him through Christ. The plain speech, i. 1 and iv. 1, clearly makes known the essential significance in ch. v. —It has been found difficult to assign a place in the book-roll to the seven seals.
1 A tergo, “on the back,” Jav., Sat. I. 6. ¥ Ebrard. Zin aversa charta, “ on the turned leaf,” Mart. 8 Alcas. considers in the same sense the vili. 22. ; section cha. vi.-xi. 2 Cf. De Wette, Stern, etc. ® Hengstenb. 8 Cf. x. 4, xxil. 10; Isa. xxix. 11; Dan. xii. 3¢ Alcas. 4,9. 11 Cf. Introduction, sec. 1. 4 Cf. i. 1. 13 Cf. N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Beng., De 8 Victorin. Wette, Klief., etc.
¢ Primas, Beaa, Zeger. Bil.
CHAP. V. 2, 4. 207
Grot. (who altogether preposterously combines the xa? dmofev with xcreog¢pay-), Vitr., Wolf,! were of the opinion that the entire book consisted of seven leaves, each with a seal; C. a Lap., De Wetite, etc., thought that attached to the book as rolled up were a number of strings, and on them the seven seals' were fastened, so that thus each seal could be opened seven times, and the part of the book that had been closed by the same could be read, but at the same time the seals outwardly attached to the volume were visible to John. But all these artificial hypotheses are unnecessary; and the most natural idea, that the seals fastened the end of the leaves rolled about the staff, and thus hindered the unrolling or opening of the book, is without difficulty, provided it be only considered that it does not belong at all to the opening of the seals that a part of the book be unrolled and read, but rather that — according to the incomparably more forcible and better view — the contents of the book come forth from the loosed seal portrayed in plastic sym- bols. The revelation concerning the future, described in the book of God, is given to the prophet, as he gazes, in significative images which represent the contents of the book; but there is no reading from the book to him. This mode of presentation, so completely harmonizing with the artistic energy of the writer of the Apoc., has been misunderstood especially by De Wette, as he attempts to explain the circumstance that none other than the Lamb, i.e., Christ, can open the book, by affirming that “with the opening of the book of fate, a sort of fulfilment is combined,” viz., the preparatory carrying- out of the Divine decrees in heavenly outlines, as held by the rabbins.? The subject at the loosing of the seals, and the opening of the ROOK) is nothing else than a revelation that is to be given John.®
Ver. 2 sqq-. loxuptv. The adjective‘ is by no means without meaning ; ® but does not, however, designate an angel of higher rank,® having reference to the anpbao. ty gurg ueydAy, a8 x. 1,3. The angel must have great power, because with his call he is to penetrate all regions of the creation.’ — déug. As John i. 27, where, however, not the inf., but iva, follows. Cf. also ixavé, Matt. viii. 8. The “ worthiness ” is the inner, ethical presupposition of the - “being able,” ver. 3. — dvoifa: rd BiBAiov nal Abcas rac ogpay. air, A hysteron proteron.® — droxérw rie yi¢, ver. 8. Incorrectly, Grot.: “In the sea.” It designates® the entire sphere of creation, according to its three great re- gions.!° By boxer ric yc is meant}! Hades,}? as the place, not of demons,'4 to think of which here is very strange, but of departed souls. — PAérew is not “by reading to understand,” 4 but designates the seeing, following the open- ing of the book, therefore the looking in, the reading, of the same.1®
Ver. 4. xat tye ExAawv xodi. This expressly emphasizes what John on his
1 Cf. also Ew. ? Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. fi. 4 Maimonid., More Nevoch., ii. 6: ‘God 3 De Wette. does nothing until he has seen it in the family ® Cf. ver. 18; Phil. il. 10. above,” in Wetst. on iv. 1. 10 Beng. 3 Cf. also Hengstenb., Ebrard. 11 Otherwise than Exod. xx. 4. # Cf. Ps. ctil. 20. 12 Ebrard. 6 «A mere ornamental epithet,” Eichh. 13 Cf. Vitr.
® C.a Lap., Zull., Stern; cf. also De Wette. ™ Bretechnelder. N. de Lyra’ Gabriel. 1% Ew., De Wette, ete.
208 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. part (2yé) did under the circumstances described in vv. 2,8. His violent? _ weeping is caused simply by the fact that it seems as though the revelation ardently expected, and, according to iv. 1, to be hoped for, would not follow. - John did not observe any one advancing at the call of the angel, to render this office for the Church.” So Vitr. correctly, who nevertheless, in viola- tion of the context, precipitately interprets? it chiefly of purely personal interests of John, which in no way are here “represented by the church.” ® —Inapplicable is the remark of Hengstenb.: “The weeping of John has his weakness of faith as its foundation. Without it, he would not have wept at the impossibility for all creatures to loose the seals, but would, on the contrary, have triumphed in Christ. Without it, also, the book of the future, according to all which the prophets of the O. T. and the Lord had said, would not have been absolutely closed to him.” John was satisfied, rather, in all humility of faith, even though weeping, that, according to what he had just heard, the book must remain closed to him. The Lamb had not as yet entered to open the book. But the reference to the predic- tions of the O. T. prophets, and of the Lord himself, is inapposite; because, if the entire scene is not to be senseless, it treats of such revelations as had not as yet been made. The only objection against the weeping of John that could be raised from the context is, that after iv. 1 sqq., he need not at all have been anxious about being compelled to be without the revelation as to the contents of the sealed book; but even this objection can be raised only from the standpoint of a reflection which is here entirely out of place.§ Ver. 5. One of the elders® stills the weeping of John, by showing him Christ as the one able to open the book. — The deictic dod intensifies the pictorial vividness of the description. Corresponding to the dod is the «xa? eldov, x.7.A., ver. 6; there John directs his look to the Lamb, to whom the elders had pointed him. — évicncev. The explanation is divided into two parts. Grot.,’ Vitr., C. a Lap., Beng., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., etc., regarded ° the évlencey in immediate combination with the dvolfa, «7.2, so that the latter appears as an object to the conception évixycev.° Others, as N. de Lyra, Calov., Boss., Ebrard, Klief.,)° have, on the other hand, referred the évixgoev to the triumphantly completed work of redemption,” so that then
1 woAv, Luke vil. 47.
3 Cf. N. de Lyra, Beng., Ebrard, ete.
3 Hengstenb.
4 Cf. Acts 1.7; Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xill. $2.
§ Against Klief., who does not hesitate to ascribe to John a harassing doubt as to whether, because of the unworthiness of creatures, the Divine ultimate purpose, at least with respect to God’s will of love, must re- main unaccomplished.
* The attempt has been made also to deter- mine who this elder fe. Matthew is suggested, because in his Gospel (xxviii. 18) there is a declaration concerning the omnipotence of Christ. WN. de Lyra prefers to understand
Peter, who, however, had already met with a martyr’s death.
1 “ He has obtained that which you thought must be despaired of.”
§ The older interpreters moetly, with a false parallel to mot (Ps. H. 6; LXX., vexcar).
® “He has attained, prevailed in a struggle, to open,’’ etc.
10 Cf. also De Wette, Hengstenb.
11 N. de Lyra. “‘ Was victor in the resurrec- tion.” Calov.; “Conquered the infernal iion.”’ Boss., Ebrard: ‘‘ Victory over sin, death, and the Devil.” Soalso Hengstenb., who, however, at the same time confusedly falls into the first mode of exposition : ‘‘ Overcoming the difficul- ties which opposed the opening of the book.”
CHAP. V. 6. 209
the infinitive statement, dvoifo:, x.r.4, appears not in an objective relation to évicyoev, but as exegetical,! and the évicyoev as absolute. The latter con- ception is correct, because the former combination of the évixycey with the inf. is not so much “a new and poetic mode,’’? as is contradicted by the mode of statement in the Apoc.,* and because not only the correlation of the designations of the victor, 6 Aéwy, 6 &x rig gud ’loida, 9 piga Aavid, but also the words, ver. 9, which may be regarded as an authentic interpretation of the mode of expression in ver. 5, are decisive for the second of the explana- tions previously mentioned. “The Lion of the tribe of Judah” is Christ,‘ because in his bodily descent from Judah, as the true Messiah promised of old, he had victoriously fought. [See Note XLV., p. 216.} In the same sense, the designation 4% fifa Aavid® represents him as a sprout growing from the root of David with fresh, triumphant power. Thus N. de Lyra, C.a Lap., Grot., Eichh., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc., correctly ex- plain, recognizing the slight metonymy; and Calov. and others, incorrectly, because against the decisive fundamental passage: “Christ, according to his divine nature, is represented as the foundation and source of David him- self.” The Christian fundamental view is presented, which not only in the same words, but also in the same tense (évixyoa, aor.), is expressed already in iii. 21, and is repeated immediately afterwards in ver. 9,’ only in another statement or explanation ; viz., that, just because Christ has strug- gled and conquered in earthly humility,® be is worthy to open the sealed book. It especially harmonizes with this view, that one of the elders, there- fore one of those who have in themselves experienced the fruit of Christ’s victory, and with complete clearness know the entire meaning of this vio- tory, directa the weeping John to the Lion of the tribe of Judah; not as though this elder had observed that Christ meanwhile had besought the enthroned God for permission to open the book, and had obtained it,® but because the elder has the blessed assurance that the exalted Christ, since he is Lord and King of his kingdom, is also the Mediator of all revelation. Ver. 6. &y stow rod bpoved — xa tv uboy rév apeoBvrépwv. Incorrectly, Ebrard : “The Lamb appears tn the midst of the throne, so as at the same time to sit in the centre of the four living beings, and in the centre of the twenty-four elders sitting around without, forming a more remote concentric circle,” —a truly monstrous idea, — the Lamb sitting ! in the midst of the throne. The double éy péoy designates, in the Heb. way,!! the two limits between which the Lamb stands, viz., in the space whose centre, the throne, is beside the four beings, and which is bounded externally by the circle #4 of the elders. Yet we must not necessarily understand that the Lamb stood on the crystal
1 Cf. Winer, p. 298 sq. 3 Ew. ® As Ew. i. takes it, falling into an error 8 4.7, 11, 17, etc.; especially iti. 21. contrary to both the word and sense of the 4 According to Gen. xlix. 9. text.
§ From Isa. xi. 10. Cf. ver. 1. 20 éornxdés; which Alcas., just as correctly, € Cf. aleo Vitr., Herd. translates by “lying.”
7 Cf. already ver. 6. ™ Cf. Lev. xxvil. 12, 14: }°39-}"2. LXX.:
5 Because as the slain Lamb he has wrought dvaynécov—xai avapicor. redemption, ver. 18. Cf. Phil. ii. 8 oq.; Iva. is Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. Hilt, 3 Cf. Iv. 4
210 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
sea, as De Wette does, who, in accordance with his explanation of iv. 6, finds a parallel in Heb. ix. 24. Of the sea of glass, and the position of the Lamb with regard to it, there is nothing at all to be said here; as for the rest, we may point to vii. 17, xxii. 1, as against De Wette. — dpviov tornxde de togaypévov. The diminutive form, which is in general peculiar to the Apoc.,? serves here to strengthen the contrast between the announced “ Lion,” and the form of “a little lamb” which is now presented. Entirely remote is the reference to the brief life of the Lord in comparison with the extreme age of the elders. Incorrect also is the remark that dpviov, from the masc. dpfy, is used with respect to the flock that is to follow; * for the diminutive, which is not at all from duvéc, is entirely without this exclusive designation of sex,® and the context itself (d¢ éogayy.) bars the reference to the leading of a flock. — Great as in other respects is the contrast between the “Lion” and “the little Lamb,” yet there is also a deep harmony of the two views; for as the struggles of the Liou presupposed in ver. 5, i.e., his patient suffering and death, concur with the slaying of the Lamb, so also the victory of the Lion gained in conflict, which becomes manifest in the resurrection, is appropri- ated by the little Lamb, since it “ stands as one slain.” The éoryxdc clearly declares that it is living,® while it at the same time (dc éogayyévov) appears as one that had (previously) been led to the shambles and slain. The word opiiety, properly “to open the throat with a knife, so that the blood flows out,” designates pre-eminently the slaying in making a sacrifice,’ but also any other slaying,’ and any form of putting to death.® By d¢ the éogaypévoy is not “especially emphasized as significantly presented,” }° as though equiv- alent to dc in passages like xvii. 12; Matt. vii. 29; John i. 14; Rom. xv. 15, where the reality of a relation in its norinative or fundamental significance is marked, — for in this way, in the present passage, the absurd and actually false idea would result, that the Lamb stood as one slain, i.e., at that time dead; but the dc! serves rather to reconcile the opposition between the tornxdcs and éagaypévov, as the Lamb standing (and therefore living) is repre- sented as “one slain,” i.e., as such an one whose still-visible scars show that it has once been slain.1® John, therefore, applies to the Lamb the very same that the Lord, in i. 18, says of himself. There is in this view no violation whatever of the laws of the plastic art.!8-— The Lamb had a twofold emblem: xépara érra, the symbol of perfect power,!* and dg@aduode érrd, which is expressly interpreted of elo: ra rvebyara Tov Geod dmecraAuéva ele nacav riv yyv. The refer-
1 Iv. 6, € Grot., ete. * Cf. Exod. xii. 6.
2 y. 8, 12, 18, vi. 1, 16, vil. 9, 14, xii. 11, xi. ® Isa. Hil. 7. 8, xvii. 14. Cf., on the other hand, John i. 29, ® Rev. xii. 3, 8; 1 John ili. 12; ef. my com- 86; 1 Pet. 1.19; Acta vill.32: ddauzxds. The mentary on the latter passage. expression ra dpvia pov, John xxi. 5, whereby w Ebrard.
Chriat designates his believers — cf. Meyer on the passage —does not belong here, because used here in an especial way, upon the basis of Iaea. lifl, 7, to designate Christ himeelf. Against Hengstenb.
§ Against Bengel and Hengstenb.
4 Beng.
§ Cf. exiv. 4,6; Jer. xi. 19; John xxi. 16.
11 N.de Lyra refers the “ ianquam occisum ” to the daily bloodless sacrifice in the mass.
13 Cf. xill. 3. Andr., C. a Lap., Grot., Vitr., Beng., Herd., Ew., De Wette, Stern, Heng- stenb.
13 De Wette.
14 Cf. xvii. 83 eqq.; Ps. exil. 9, cxlvifi. 14; 1 Sam. ii. 10; Dan. vii. 20 sqq., vill. 3 agqq.
~~
CHAP. V. 7. 211
ence of the spirits of God, symbolized by the seven eyes,! to the omniscience of the Lord,? is too limited. The correct interpretation is determined by the context itself (axecradyéiva). The (seven) spirits of God are also, here,® the potencies which in their independent reality are present with God, and by means of which he works on and in the world. That Christ has‘ these spirits (this Spirit) of God, is symbolized here by the seven eyes of the Lamb, just as before the throne of God (the Father) the same Spirit appears as seven lamps.® This, moreover, in no way compels the conception, that the vision has changed after the manner of a dream, and now where the seven eyes of the Lamb are represented, the seven lamps have vanished,® as indeed the belonging of the Spirit to the Enthroned One, as also to the Lamb, is intended to be symbolically represented. — Erroneous is the ex- planation of Beda: “The septiform spirit in Christ is because of the emi- nence of its power compared to horns, and because of the illumination of grace to eyes.”7 But if even grammatically it is not impossible for the ol, which introduces the explanatory sentence, to refer to dg@adyoic and xépara, the annexed interpretation, of elot r2 xveiy., x.7.A., applies only to the d¢Gaduotr, and not at the same time to the «épara. It would, of course, be in itself inconceivable,’ if one and the same thing were represented by two symbols, perhaps in two different connections: but here are two symbols, which throughout do not designate the same thing; for while by the “horns,” a symbol known already from the O. T., and therefore applied by John without any particular hint, the attribute of power is symbolized, the eyes, — according to the express interpretation of the text, designate in no way an attribute of the Lamb, but the Spirit really present with God and the Lamb together (the Father and the Son), and belonging in like manner to them both, who is here indeed to be regarded according to the standard of the symbol (é¢#adu.) pre-eminently as the One seeing through all things.® Be- cause Christ has the Spirit, he knows every thing, even things upon earth, whither the Spirit is sent, —the doings of bis enemies, the state of his own people, ete.
Ver. 7. Kal }AGs xat elAnge. The perf. has,!° as also elsewhere among those later,!! the sense of the aor.,— which is the.easier here because an aor. precedes. — The Lamb “took ’’ it (the book) out of the hand of God offer- ing it.12 Ebrard wishes to translate it “received,” because “ the active taking does not suit the Son’s position with respect to the Father.” But while of course it is self-evident that no one, not even the Lamb, can take the book if God do not give it, yet the idea of the active taking on the part of the Lamb lies more in the course of the entire connection, as it presents the - glory of the Lamb eminent above all creatures, and not the possible subordi-
1 Cf. 1. 4, iff. 1,iv.5. 7 Bo also Beng., De Wette, etc.; only that 3 Cf., especially, Vity., who refers the these expositors, with less error, regarded the power to the opening, and the knowledge to eyes asa symbol of knowledge.
the reading and understanding, of the book. 6 Against Ebrard. 3 Cf. 1. 4, iv. 6. ® Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 4 iii. 1. : 10 Cf. vill. 5. § iv. 5. i! Winer, p. 255.
6 Ebrard. 43 Cf. ver. 1.
212 THE REVELATION OF 8T. JOHN.
nation of the same to God. The Lamb can take the book for the reason indicated already in ver. 5,1 but in no way because of having meanwhile re- ceived from God permission which had been previously asked. To consider with Vitr. as to whether the Lamb also had hands, etc., is unnecessary and without point.
Ver. 8. dre EXaBev ("* when he had taken it).”*® The aor. is to be understood just as in vi. 1, 8, etc. Simultaneousness © would have been expressed by the impf.¢ Naturally, upon the act of the Lamb, which displays the glory belong- ing exclusively to him, there follows the song of praise, in which the glory just evinced is celebrated. — As in ch. iv., the four beings, the representa- tives of the entire living creation, and the twenty-four elders, the repre- sentatives of redeemed humanity, have worshipped the enthroned God in alternate songs of praise, so here there sounds their united song of praise to the Lamb, before whom they together fall down in adoration; for the Lamb shares in the divine glory of the Enthroned One.? This song of praise finds a response first in ver. 12, in the angelic hosts, and then, in ver. 18, is taken up by all creatures everywhere, and that, too, so that at the close a doxology, in a manner concentrated, sounds forth at the same time to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb, and finally dies away in the amens of the four beings who had begun the praise of the enthroned God (iv. 8); and, at the same time with the twenty-four elders, that of the Lamb (v. 9).— Eyovree Exacrog — dyiuv belongs only to of xpeoBir.: for this is indicated, jirst, by the masc. form (Exovreg Exacroc); secondly, the unnaturalness of ascribing to beings as fashioned in iv. 7, harps and vials; and thirdly, the incongruence which would result if the representatives of the creation had the office of offering the prayers of saints. The latter is suitable only to elders.*— The elders have each a harp, the instrument with which they accompany their song of praise,® and “ golden vials full of frankincense,” viz., as is self-evi- dent, each one a vial, so that we possibly are to think of a vial in the right hand, while the left holds the harp.” The vials filled with frankincense have & symbolical meaning corresponding to the emblem of the harp: af cic al mpocevyal trav dyiwv. The ai may, by attraction, be referred to the @vuayd- twy,!! yet the formally more simple reference to giéAac may be adopted, as the vials are just such as are filled with incense. Concerning the symbolical meaning “its,” cf. viii. 3; Ps. cxli.2; Ezek. viii.11. Arbitrarily and against the meaning of the context, Hengstenb. understands by the prayers symboli- cally offered only intercessory prayers, whose chief subject is the protection and perfection of the Church, and judgment upon enemies; while he regards the harps as referring to prayers of adoration and thanksgiving.* — ray dyiwy, i.e, of Christians.% Cf. viii. 8, 4, xiii. 7, 10, xi. 18, xviii. 20. The misunderstanding of this as referring to saints already in heaven *4 is inap-
2 Cf. ver. 9. ® In other respects the Adyorres, ver. 0, has 2 Ew. i. a different relation.
8 De Wette. ® Cf. xiv. 2aqq., xv. 2; Ps. cxlvi. 7, ol. 8.
* Cf. Matt. vil. 28, ix. 25. 20 Vitr., Ebrard. 11 Vitr.
5 4ls er nahm,” Luth. 12 Cf. De Wette, Ebrard, ete.
© 1 Cor. xifl. 11. 13 De Wette, Ew. il.
* Cf. ver. 18, xxii. L %4 Hengstenb.; cf. Beng.
CHAP. V. 9. 218
plicable for the reason that the idea that the prayers of the saints are offered to God by the elders! presupposes the fact that the saints themselves are not present with God. With this agrees the mode in which the elders, ver. 9, speak of the saints.—The remark of C. a Lap.: “Note here against Vigilantius, Luther, Calvin, and other Hagiomachoi, that the saints pray for us, and offer our prayers to God,” is, in other respects, entirely wrong: because, first, the “elders” are in no way identical with the saints who are meant; secondly, while, on the Lutheran side, it is not at all denied that the members of the Church triumphant pray for those of the Church militant {see Note XLVI., p. 217], there is.no allusion whatever to the invocation of saints contended against on the Lutheran side; and, finally, it is entirely incorrect to regard the forms of the twenty-four elders included in the plan as real personages, and without any thing further to construct a dogmatical statement upon the act symbolically ascribed to them. Erroneous also is De Wette’s conjecture that John appears to know nothing of a mediatorial office of Christ. Of this, nothing can be expressly said in the present pas- sage, although of course the entire Christology of the Apoc. essentially in- cludes that fundamental Christian thought.
Ver. 9. xal gdovor, Viz., they who have fallen down; i.e., the four beings and the twenty-four elders.?, Hengstenb. arbitrarily understands this: “ That the elders come forward as the speakers of the chorus formed of them and the four beasts.” — gdzv xan. Cf. xiv. 8. Too indefinitely, N. de Lyra: “pertaining to the N. T.;” yet he has also the correct feeling that the new song refers to a new subject. Here this is not completed redemption,® but as the succeeding song itself shows, and the express connection determines, the worthiness‘ of the Lamb to open the book,® acquired through the pain- ful work * of redemption. [See Note XLVII., p.217.] aAtyovres introduces the song announced (dove. gd. xaw.). Cf. iv. 1, 8. — dri éopayne. The Lamb himself is represented o¢ éopaypzévoy.? In the entire statement presenting the ground (ér: éog.) for the dgue ei, «.rA, the aorists éogdyne, hyopacac, éxoinoac, are to be strictly observed: they refer to the definite fact that has once occurred, of the crucifying of the Lord (éog¢dync), and this one fact ® is de- scribed according to its effect: hyépacas, «.rA, and éroinoas. Incorrectly, Beng.: “And hast purchased us to be thy possession. This refers not to the redemp- tion itself, which occurred when the Lamb was slaughtered and his blood was sprinkled, but to its fruit, and refers, therefore, to those saints who have finished their course, and who have been bought from the earth, xiv. 3.” Bengel’s error is occasioned by the false reading jydc.* — Incorrectly, Ewald: “ By his bloody death he redeemed them to God, delivering to them the doc- trine, following which they could emerge from the servitude of vices.” How
1 Cf. Tob. xii. 2. that the revelation of the mysteries therein ® De Wette, etc. contained may be communicated to the seer. § C. a Lap., Beng., ete. 5 Cf. Vitr., who, at the same time, thinks of
In violation of the context, KElief.: The the new kind of song; Stern, Ebrard, Heng- reception and sealing of the book have to do _— atenb. with “the actual final accomplishment of the © Cf. also ver. 5. divine purpose.” The subject here has to do * Cf. Ew. ® Cf. 1. 5 eqq. with the opening of the book only in order ® See Critical Notes.
214 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
completely the #ybpacag concurs with the éogdyyc, is evident especially from the fact that the blood of the slain Lamb is designated as the price of the purchase. On the subject itself, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Pet. i. 18 sqq.; Acts XxX. 28. — éx néone gvdAne Kal yAGoons xai Aact nal E@vovc. Object with the parti- tive é&k. Cf. 1 John iv. 138; Matt. xxv. 8 (Acts ii.17). In the connection of the four expressions, the progress from less to greater ? is of no significance, because unintentional; but what is of importance, and recurs uniformly in all similar passages, even though another expression 2 be chosen, is the num- ber four, which serves to mark ® the idea of universality. Every more defi- nite reference, however, which is given any one of the four expressions,* is consistent neither with the méonc, nor with the intention of the entire man- ner of expression. — xal éroincac abrove BactAciav nal bepei¢ xai Bactdevovorw tri rie yice- This passage is distinguished from what is said in i. 6, first, by the xat before lepeic, and immediately afterwards by the important addition
kal Bacetovow, «7.4, The latter would be superfluous, if either the reading
received by Hengstenb., etc., were correct,® or the Sacdeiav could have had the meaning stated by Hengstenb. on i. 6, i.e., “a people invested with regal authority.” Three things are here expressed: first, that those purchased to be God’s property have been made into a Baovteia, viz., of God, —i.e., they are gathered as God’s property into God’s kingdom; immediately after- wards (xa) that they are made priests; finally (xa2), they themselves have been invested with regal authority. So Ebrard, correctly.6 The last, ex- pressed in an independent member of the sentence, and so far distinguished from the two predicates Bao:deiav and lepeic, has its justification in the mean- ing of i. 9; and it is a perversion to change the present BacAedovow into a future,’ or to take it in the sense of a future. It is especially appropriate that the heavenly beings into whose mouths the song of praise, vv. 9, 10, is placed, should recognize in the contending and ee chureh the kings of the earth.
Vv. 11,12. Kat eléov. Without foundation, Ebrard: ‘‘John sees some- thing new, viz., he hears,” according to the arbitrary conception that eldoy designates, “in the weakened wide sense, visionary observation in general.” Correctly, Beng., De Wette, etc.: ‘‘ John sees the hosts of angels whose voice he hears.” Cf. vi. 1 sqq. — Around the throne of God, and the four beings, and the twenty-four elders, the attention of the seer is completely occupied; he sees now the heavenly host,® an innumerable multitude: «ai #v 6 dpebuds abraw p-vpiider pupuidwy cal xiduddeo yAaduv. The statement of numbers is still fuller than in Dan. vii. 10,° and indicates by its indefiniteness — for it is not said how many are the myriads of myriads — actual innumerability. Incorrectly, Bengel: “ A less number added to the greater forbids both to be taken too indefinitely.” The anti-climax?° has the meaning that even the preceding very great number is still insufficient, but not that “with the im-
1 év 7, ain.o. Of. Winer, p. 365. 8 Bee Critical Notes.
2 vil. 9, xi. 0, xili. 7, xiv.6; cf. x. 11, xvil. 16. 6 Cf. Beng. * See Critical Notes. 3 Beng., Hengstenb. ' © 1 Kings xif. 14.
4 Beng. refers the ¢dvAjs, Zl. the Aaod, to ® xiAcas xiAcdbes— ai pvpiar pvpidden —
the Jews. 30 Cf. also Ps. Ixvill. 18.
CHAP. V. 13. 215
mense number the distinction vanishes.” 1 — Aéyovrer, cf. iv. 1, 8.— garg peydAy, ef. i. 10. — Aageiv, in adoring acknowledgment.?— ry divauv. The article notes the power as peculiar to the Lamb; this, as also the dégav and ruysdp, is shared with the enthroned God.* The force of the art., placed at the begin- ning, which in iv. 11 and vii. 12 is expressly repeated before each particular conception, affects the entire connection. Beng., excellently: “These seven words of praise must be expressed as though they were a single word, be- cause they all stand with one another after a single article.” 4— ricbrov. Mentioned also in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12;°% is not to be limited to the posses- sion and distribution of spiritual goods,® but is in every respect unconditioned wealth in all blessings,’ as it belongs to the all-sufficient God, and likewise to the Lamb who shares all his glory, and, therefore, also his throne.2— ebdoyia, not “blessing,” ® but praise, honor. The seven items of the ascrip- tion of praise have, in other respects, nothing whatever to do with the seven seals,!° but are accumulated in this number," in order to express their holy completeness. Ver. 18. As John wishes to state how finally “every creature (sav xriopa) unites in the hymns of praise which have thus far been heard,—and that, too, so that now praise and honor are proclaimed alike to the enthroned God and the Lamb, and consequently, the bymns of praise from the two chs. iv. and v. are united in an overpowering harmony,!2—he expressly mentions the four great “regions of the creation,” #* the whole of which he wishes to represent, just as in Ps. cxlvi. 6, Phil. ii. 11, the entire creation is described in its three chief departments. Grot., etc., incorrectly: én? r. @addoane is syn- -onymous With troxirw ric yz¢- Entirely distorted is also the forced interpreta- tion of Alcasar, according to which Jl r. cbp, is to be regarded as referring to Christians, éx? r. yi¢ to Jews, én? r. 004, to heathen, and box. r. y. the damned and devils. Similar interpretations are to be found on Phil. ii. 10.144 Yet the question as to what is meant by the dv xrioua 5 tv rH otparp dare not be repulsed by the remark, which in itself is correct, that only one “ exhaustive enumeration ” is intended.'® “Jn heaven,” we cannot seek sun, moon, and stars,! but only the living heavenly beings to whom the godly glorified ones belong. “On the earth ” is first collective humanity, yet all other creatures are connected therewith in thought. ‘Under the earth” are not demons, “who unwillingly obey Christ,” 7 the devils, who by “ their very existence, and the gifts wherewith they are furnished, are a striking proof of the greatness and love of the Lamb also, because all things have been created by the Son,!é —this is a reference alien to the connection in general, and entirely so to the designation 1d dpviov, — but those contained in Hades, yet not in purga-
1 Hengstenb. 10 Against Beng. 3 iv.11. Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc. 11 As also vii. 12. 8 fv. 11. 12 Cf. Boss., Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc. * Cf. aleo Hengstenb. 13 Beng. § Cf. Eph. ifi. 8; John !. 16. 16 See Meyer in loc. 6 De Wette, Hengetenb., who refers to vv. 18 Ebrard. 9, 10. 14 C. a Lap. av Vitr. * Cf. Acts zvil 25; Jas. 1.17. 18 John i. 8, 10; Hengstenb.
§ Cf. Vitr., Ew. ® Beng. 19 Cf. Phil. ii. 10.
216 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
tory.! By én? ric Oaddconc, i.e. “on the sea” —not “in the sea,’’? for the change of prepositions is to be accurately noticed —refers not to ships, but to such creatures as belong to the sea itself, here represented as situated not in the same,® but on the surface.* — xa? ra év airoic. On the xa, introducing an idea whereby several preceding special points are definitively comprised, cf. Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xv. 1.5— dv aidroic, viz., in the spheres mentioned. Incorrectly, Grot.: “The things which are most deeply seated in animals and things, and escape the eyes of men.’? — xévrac fxovea Aéyovrac. If this reading is more correct than the, of course easier, xa? 1Q év abruic mévra Hx. Ab- yovra,® the masc. form is explained not by the arbitrary conception 7? that the ascription of praise proceeds not so much from creatures in the different regions of the creation (xéy xrisya, «.7.A.) ag rather from angels who, as chiefs, represent these regions; but the express form ® corresponds to the prosopo- poeia,® which here is still bolder than, e.g., Ps. ciii. 22, cxlviii. 1 sqq., xix. 1 sqq-, because here John in his vision actually hears the song of praise raised by all the works of God.— The four points of the ascription of praise correspond with the simple classification of the entire creation; 2° but it is arbitrary to limit the ebAcyia to the xricua & ty 7. ovpave, etc.
Ver. 14. The Amen, the formal confirmation and conclusion of the hymn of praise,!? is uttered by the four beings, not because they occupy in any respect “a lower position,” ?® but because the whole tenor of the hymn of praise in chs. iv. and v., after resounding in ver. 18 to the farthest extent, returns to the point whence it started,‘ and thus comes to a truly beautiful rest.46 But after the Amen has been uttered, nothing else remains for the elders than silent adoration, which, naturally,)* is directed also to the Lamb, and not alone to the One sitting on the throne.?”
NoTEs BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLV. Ver. 5. 6 Aéuv 6 &k rig guAie "lobda, x.7.A,
The expression is based upon Gen. xlix. 9. On the basis of Jacob’s prophecy, @ young lion was emblazoned on the standard of Judah, as it led the van of Israel’s march through the desert. See Palestinian Targum on Num. ii. 2: ‘‘ They who encamp eastward shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah, spreading over four miles. And his standard shall be of silk, of three colors, corresponding with the precious stones which are in the breastplate, —sardius, topaz, and carbuncle; and upon it shall be expressed and set forth the names of
1(. a Lap. ® Luther, etc. 18 Hengstenb.
8 Cf. the ra dy abr. 34 Cf. iv. 8 sqq.
* Cf. De Wette. 18 Cf, Beng., Ebrard.
8 Winer, p. 407. ie Cf. v. 18.
© Bee Critical Notes. it As Ew. 1. thought, supported by the com- 1 Ewald. pletely untenable Recepta: spooky. dawns ei¢ § Cf. iv. 8. rove aisvas THY aidywy, and corresponding to ® Of. De Wette. the view imposed upon John, that the Messiah 10 Beng. also is a creation (“ with adoration they hon. 11 Against Beng. ored God—as from him as author all things
139 Ewald. Cf. Dent. xxvil.158qq.; Neh.v. | bave proceeded, and the Messiah was created,” 13; Ps. xii. 14; 1 Cor. xiv. 16. iv. 2 8qq.)
NOTES, 217
the three tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun; and in the midst shall be written, ‘ Arise, O Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and thine adver- saries be driven away before thee;’ and upon it shall be set forth the figure of a young lion.’? Augustine, Serm. xlvi., quoted by Calov.: ‘‘As a Lamb in his passion, so a Lion in his resurrection; since by this he manifested his fortitude in conquering death, and crushing the head of the infernal serpent (Gen. fil. 15;
Hos. xili. 14; Rom. i. 4).”? Cf. Heb. ii. 14. Calov. finds the lion-like character -
of Christ displayed also in the call of the Gentiles. The 4 pifa Aaveid is analo- gous with é« oxépuarocs Aaveid in Rom. i. 3, it being, as Hengstenberg remarks, “‘in David that the lion nature of the tribe came into manifestation.’’ In Christ, the race of the hero and victor David, whose deeds of courage are cele- brated in Ps. xviii. 29 sqq., again comes forth. Calov.’s interpretation, referred to by Dist., which is that:also of Ribera and Cocceius, rests upon the assump- tion that a double designation of the humanity of Christ, in both the Lion of Judah and the Root of David, is improbable; and that, in Rev. xxii. 16, there is a similar distinction between ‘‘ root”? and “ offspring.’? Lange is right when he says, ‘“‘ The whole designation of Christ is a profound Christological saying, which refers neither alone to the human descent of the Saviour (Diisterdieck), nor to his divine nature simply (Calov.).’’ The divinely human person is desig- nated by terms derived, indeed, from his humanity; but, because of the personal union and the inseparable participation of both natures in every act, compre- hending our Lord also in his divinity.”
XLVI. Ver. 8. al rpocevya? rav dyiov.
See Apology of the Augsburg Confession (E. T., p. 286): ** We concede, that just as when alive they pray, in general, for the Church universal, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general.” This is sufficient without resorting to the expedient that representatives of the Church triumphant are not here thought of. Quenstedt (Theol. Didact.-pol., iv. 8365): ‘‘ That the saints in heaven triumphing with Christ pray, in general, for the Church, is probably inferred from this passage. But, from this, it cannot be inferred that they have a special knowledge of all things, and are to be religiously invoked. By odors, are not meant prayers of saints who are in this life, but of those blessed ones who are reigning with Christ in heaven. These prayers are not MAacn«ai, propitiatory, meritorious, and satisfactory, as though, by virtue of their merit, they intercede by them for others, but edyapiorixa? as described (vv. 9, 10).’?
XLVII. Ver. 9. dqv xcandy,
The adjective is xawdc, new in kind, not veds, recent. Luthard: “ In dis- tinction from the song of creation (ch. iv.), the new song of redemption.’? Bengel: ‘‘The word new is a thoroughly Apocalyptic word, — new name, new song, new heavens, new earth, new Jerusalem, — every thing new.’’ Calov.: “‘It is new because the singers are new, viz., the renewed in heaven; and the theme is new, viz., the incarnation, passion, and redemption of Christ.”
218 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER VI:
Ver. 1. gw). So already Beng., Griesb., Matth., after decisive testimonies. The poor variations guvi¢ (Elz.), gurdy, gurfzv (), are modifications. — After Epzov, neither BAére (Elz.) nor ide (&, Beng.) is to be read. So according to A, C, 10, 17, al., ed. Compl., Genev., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]j. Also, in vv. 3, 5, 8, the insertion is to be deleted. — Ver 2. «ai eidov is improperly omitted in most minusc. as superfluous. — Ver. 4. atry before Aaseiv (Elz., Griesb., Tisch. ), omitted in A as superfluous, has sufficient testimony in C, ®, Vulg.; Lach. [W. and H.]} has inserted it in brackets. — Instead of the unattested azd 7. y. (Elz.), read é tr, y. (C, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., Andr., Lach., Tisch.). Nevertheless, even the mere t7¢ y7¢ is a reading to be held in high esteem, in favor of which is the testimony of A, and which may have been the mater lec- tionis. —ogdfovow, Elz., ofagwot (x). But A, C, justify here the reading of the fut. (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf. Winer, p. 271). — Ver. 6. In the Elz. text, in accord with A, C, &, 6, 12, 17, Vulg., o¢ is to be inserted (Lach.), which was omitted even by Tisch., 1873, because it was inconvenient. — Ver. 7. It is not improbable, that with Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.], in accord with A, &, Vulg. the reading is: gurpy r. rer. ¢ Aéyovroe (incorrectly, Elz., Aéyoveay), as the reading preferred by Tisch., etc., row rer, ¢. Aéyovroc (4, 6, 7, 8, al., Syr., Copt., Aral.; cf. C: rd réraprov (ov Aéyovrog), may be an adaptation to the mode of speech (vv, 3, 5).— Ver. 8. Instead of dxodovfei (A, Elz., Beng., Tisch.), the reading is probably #xoAcbéee (B, C, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., al., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). — For yer’ avrod, & has the easier abre: — 86067 avroi¢, So, correctly, Elz., Lach., Tisch., 1859 IW. and H.], after A, C, ®. The reading airy (2, 4. 6, al., Vulg., Syr., al., Griesb., Beng., Matth., Tisch., 1854) arises from vv. 2, 4. Ver: 10. Expagav. ‘So A, C, &, 2, 4, 6, al. , Beng. .» Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without authenticity, Elz.: bpatsy. — be tow xaroix, So, according to decisive witnesses, Matth. already. Incorrectly, Elz. (cf. Beng., Griesb.): dd, — Ver. 11. The puxpov after xpovow (Elz., Lach., Tisch. LX. [W. and H.]) is very strongly attested by A, C,#%, Vulg. It is lack- ing, it is true, in B, 2, 4, 6, al., Aeth., Ar., Compl., and is rejected by Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.; but any transfer from xx. 3 is highly improbable, although it could readily have been omitted, because it seems difficult to make the further determination fc xAnp., «.7.4., accord with the brevity of the appointed time. ~ tAnpwidow. So Beng., Treg., Lach., according with A, C, Vulg, al., Compl. Emendations are: xAnpocovra: (Elz.), tAnpwaworw (x, 2, 3, 4, 8, al., Matth., Tisch.), tAgpaoovow (28). Ver. 15. The mic before éAcv0. (Elz.) is, in accord with decisive witnesses, erased already by Beng.
1 Cf. De Apocalypat Joannea ex rebus vatis actate gestis explicanda dieseruit. Ed. Béhmer. Fasc. 1, Hal. Sax., 1854.
CHAP. VI. 219
The seals of the book of fate were opened by the Lamb (cf. v. 1 sq.). Ch. vi. describes the opening of the first six of the seven seals, and reports the contents of the book thus unsealed. With vi. 17, the contents of the sixth seal are exhausted. Against Vitr., who finds in ch. vii. the second vision that is thought to proceed from the sixth seal, it may be noted already here, that the opening of each seal always brings with it only one vision.’ Concerning the seventh seal, cf. viii. 1 sqq.— The seals are to be regarded not as belonging to the transitions of the book, but to the book itself; what is manifested at their opening serves, therefore, not as a significant type of what is contained only in the book itself, but by the opening of the seals the contents of the book are revealed.* The visions presented after the opening of the seals, also, are not, as Heinr. thinks, figures portrayed in the transitions of the book, — which is in no way conceivable in the first four, to say nothing of the last three seals; but they are significative images and events, which, proceeding from the unsealed book itself, signify future things? to the gazing prophet.® Ew. says, incorrectly, that the horsemen (vv. 2, 3, 5, 8) “proceed from a narrow place.” They go forth from the unsealed book itself. — As the seven epistles, by a plain change in the form of com- position, were classified into three and four, so the seven seals — apart from the fact that, by ch. vii., the seventh seal (vili. 1 sqq.) is separated from the first six — fal] into four (vi. 1-8) and three (vi. 9 sqq.). But Bengel’s decis- ion is arbitrary; viz., that the former class of four seals refer to what is visible, and the latter of three to what is invisible.6 Still more arbitrarily, Aleasar thought that the first four seals represented “the conversion and happiness of the Jews who would believe in Christ; ”® but the last three, “tthe unhappiness and punishment of Jews rebelling against Christ.” In the first four seals, appear allegorical figures, horsemen on horses: in the last three, there are certain occurrences not portrayed in an allegorical way. Besides, the first four seals are placed in a certain relation to the four beings which surround God’s throne (iv. 6 sq.); while every time, when a seal is opened, one of the four beings says to John, épyov. But this must not be carried into minute details. Thus Beng. places in the east what is indi- cated in the first seal, as the first beast has his place to the east of God's throne, etc. ; while Grot. finds it very suitable for his conception of the four beings, that, e.g., in the third seal, which treats of famine, and that, too, of that which occurred at the time of the Emperor Claudius, the third being, viz., Paul, speaks, for Agabus had prophesied to him of this famine.” But it would have been more consistent for Grot. to have regarded Agabus the third being. To the fourth seal, which threatens sicknesses, Grot. says, that the fourth being suits, viz., James, who, in his epistle, speaks of sicknesses. —
1 Against Heinrichs, who thinke that only 5 ** The blessed dead, especially the martyrs, fo ch. vill. the book itself is lopked into, after the unbleseed dead, and the holy angele with the seven sealed “‘coverings”’ have been re- their service.”
moved. 4S The four horsemen are, “‘ Faith, Courage, 2 & Set yeréoOas pera Tavra; cf. iv. 1. Want, Death, viz., as victor over the inordinate & Cf. v.1. affections of still unbelieving men.’’
* See on ch. Hi. 7 Acts xi. 27 aqq.
220 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Other expositors,! because of the signs of victory of the first seal compared with the victorious leonine strength and courage of the first lion-like being, and because of the persecutions of Christians, have mentioned thereon that the second being is like an ox, i.e , an animal for sacrifice, and more of such arbitrary interpretations. In accord with the allegorical meaning of the four beings who represent the living creation, especially the earthly, out of which their significant forms are fashioned,? and in accord with that which is reported concerning the visions themselves,® is the relation between the four beings and the first four visions of the seals, which in the constant Zpyov of the individual beings, and in the voice (ver. 6) sounding in the midst of the four beasts, stamps the fact that visions are revealed which pertain to the earthly world, and that, too, to the whole of it.*
Ver. 1. Kat eldov ére, x.rA., does not mean, “J was a spectator when the Lamb opened a seal:’’® the opening of the seal is not designated as the object of the eldov.6 De Wette? and Ebrard attach such a wide significance to the eidov, that it may include the hearing mentioned directly afterwards; the meaning is that the prophetic “ beholding” properly consisted in “hear- ing.” It is more correct to say that what John sees when the seal is opened, he describes firat in ver. 2, where the repeated xa? eidow refers back to ver. 1. As in the vision itself, s0 also in its description, something heard is yet interposed. — uziay. The cardinal number does not stand here for the ordi- nal,® but here, as directly afterwards in the évdc é r. 7. ¢, it is only expressed that one of the seals (beasts) is spoken of. The order of succession is not marked until afterwards (vv. 3, 5, 7).° — d¢ uv Bpovri¢. Loose construction. The voice of thunder belongs to all four beings, because they are alike super terrestrial.!° To the one of the four beings who speaks first, this voice is expressly ascribed, only because it is the first to speak. The thunder note of the voice has nothing to do with the contents of the first seal.1! — gpyov. Even if the addition xat BAéwe were genuine,!? a parallelizing of these words with John i. 40, 47 would be inapplicable, and a critical inference as to the composition of the Apoc. by the Evangelist John would be without founda- tion.18 Not even is the note of Schéttgen 4 here applicable: “ This formula, occurring in the Holy Scriptures only in John, is the well-known 1k) #3. of the rabbins. — They employ it, however, as often as at the close of a dis- putation one approaches who makes a declaration concerning the subject.” The command (pyov 15 is very simple, and is seriously meant: “John is to come up;” viz., to see accurately what proceeds from tbe unsealed book. This is written immediately afterwards.
Ver. 2. John saw “a white horse, and he that sat on it had a bow; and
1 C. a Lap., Stern, Vitr., eto. '! Against Hengstenb.
2 Cf. iv. 7 qq. 8 yi. 1-8. 12 See Critical Notes.
¢ Cf. Ew., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 3 Against Hengstenb.
5 Hengstenb. 44 On John |. 47.
6 J.uther, incorrectly: “I saw that" — 18 Incoricelvable, and in violation of the con- 7 Otherwise than v. 11. text, because of the immediately following 8 Against Ew. fi., ete. nai eiéoy, is the reference of the épxov here, as ® Cf. aleo Winer, p. 233. in vv. 8, 5, 7, to the appearance of the ap-
10 Cf, 1.10, x. 3. proaching horseman (against Kilef.).
CHAP. VI. 2. 221 a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering and to conquer.” The entire form is that of a warrior, and that, too, of one victorious, and triumphing in the certainty of victory. All the individual features of the image harmoniously express this. The horses of the Roman triumphers ‘were white.! On white horses, therefore,? appear not only Christ himself, but also his hosts triumphing with him. — That the weapon of the horse- man is a bow, not a sword, has scarcely a symbolical significance. The sym- bol would be distorted if Wetst. were correct in saying that by the bow, with which work is done at a distance, the intention is to indicate that the reference is properly to a victory, occurring at a distance from Judaea, of the Parthian king Artabanus II.,2 who made war upon the Jews in Babylon; but if this were the meaning, the entire form of the horseman, which, in the manner proposed, is to represent that king, must have appeared at a greater distance. Arbitrary is also the explanation of Vitr.: “A bow, not a sword, in order to withdraw our thought from Roman emperors to Christ.” If, as by Vitr., importance be laid upon the fact that the bow is pre-eminently peculiar to Parthian and Asiatic warriors in general, and not to the Roman, we dare not find in the bow an emblem of Christ; in order, then, to explain not so much the bow mentioned as rather the supplied darts of the numerous apostles and evangelists through whose forcible preaching Christ won his _ victory.4 Instead of the bow, in Ps. xlv. 6, the darts are mentioned, and that, too, beside the sword (ver. 4), in a description which may have floated before John. In this passage, what is ascribed to the bow can indicate nothing further than that the warrior equipped therewith may meet his foes also at a distance. — éd007 airy orégavoe. The crown — whose meaning, in connection with what immediately follows, is indubitable*— is given the warrior, because it is to be marked in the beginning directly, by this going forth, that he already goes forth as a »axdy, and, therefore, that the goal of his going forth xai iva vuxgoy is undoubtedly reached. ® has even the inter- pretation : xal tvixgcev. — The true meaning of this passage is suggested by the statement: «. Ader vixew nal iva vagop, especially in connection with the succeeding forms of horsemen, but also still further in connection with the fundamental idea of the entire Apoc., particularly the parallel passages xix. 11 sqq., where, in perfect correspondence with the harmonious plan of the book, the form of a horseman comes forth still more gloriously, and at the same time is expressly explained. If we regard only the forms of horsemen proceeding from the three following seals, which, according to the unam-
1 Cf. in general Virg., Aen. ii. 587 eqq.: *‘Quattuor hic, primum omen, equos In gra- mine vidi— candore nivali” (‘* Here, as the first omen, 1 saw four horses on the grass — of snowy brightness"'). Beside this, Servius: ‘* This pertains to the omen of victory.”” More of the same kind in Wetst.
3 xix. 11 eqq.
3 Joseph., Ané. xvili. 2, 9.
4 Against Vitr.; aleo against Victorin., Beda, N. de Lyra, Calov., etc.
5 Tnapplicabdle is the comparison usual with the expoaltors, of the horsemen of vv. 2-8, with the horsemen and horses of Zech. 1. 8 sqq., and the chariots, Zech. vi. 1 sqq., where neither the forms beheld, in themselves, nor the at- tached signification, agrees with the vision in our passage. Even the colors of the horses are not the same, much lees their meaning (cf. Zech. vi. 6).
€ Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 25. Incorrectly Zuil., Hengstenb.: ‘‘ regal crowns.”
222 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
biguous hints in the text, are the very personifications of the shedding of blood (ver. 4), famine (ver. 6), and death (ver. 8), nothing is nearer than the opinion that even the first horseman is a personification, yet not of Chris- tianity,! — to which not a single feature of the picture leads, even apart from the fact that, except in the person of Christ, a personification of Christianity is scarcely conceivable, — but of victory, or of war on the side of victory ;? with which it would well agree, that, in vv. 3 sqq., war should be represented in its other sides and consequences. So, already, Bengel,* Herder, Eichh., Ew. ii., of whom the latter, like Wetst., limits the idea of the horseman to Judaea. According to this conception, De Wette* judges, with entire con- sistency, that the similar image of a horseman, referring to Christ,® is in- tended to be antithetical in its relation to the present; there at the end, Christ with his “spiritual victory,” in opposition to the “vain boast of vic- tory of the warrior here at the beginning. But in the text there is no trace whatever of such contrast; that the victor here represented had, and wished to win, only a vain worldly victory, has as little foundation as it is unsatisfactory for Christ’s victory to be called only a “spiritual ” one, as even the external ruin of Babylon belongs essentially thereto. With correctness, most expositors ® regard the horseman of the first, identical with that of xix. 11 sqq. The characteristic attributes are essentially synonymous. Yet in the one case we stand, of course, at the glorious end of the entire development of the kingdom of Christ, while here the Lord first goes forth to bring about that end; but just because only he can go forth to conquer, who is already @ victor (vdv),’ even here the form of the Lord is essentially the same as at the end. Since the very appearance of Christ reveals all the visions which proceed from the unsealed book of fate, it is indicated that he guides and determines the course and end of all the events portrayed in the succeeding visions; in the prophetic figures, also, which John beholds, as well as in the things portrayed, the Lord is the beginning and end, the First and Last, who will triumph over all enemies (iva vuxpop), as he is already properly victor (vcr) over them. To any special victory of Christ, as possibly the results of the preaching at Pentecost,® the vxcv, even because of the present form, cannot refer; in the sense of the Apoc., as also of the whole N. T., Christ is absolute victor over all that is hostile, just because he is Christ, i.e., the Son of God, who has suffered in the flesh, and arisen and ascended into heaven, or because he is the Lamb of God who possesses God's throne. The vxdv presupposing the évixyca, iii. 21 (v. 5), and including in itself
1 Btern.
2 De Wette.
8 Whoee opinion, as a rule tnaccurate, here is given, that he regards the first horseman as the Emperor Trajan. Beng. says exprensly: ‘But Trajan is far too small to be such an horseman.” Yet Beng. finds, even In Trajan, one and that too the first of the “‘ conquerors,” whose dominion and victory are represented by the first horseman: ‘By the horseman himeelf is represented a certain kind of worldly
career, as throughout al] time in government and the state, it is constantly attended by (1) a flourishing condition; (2), the shedding of blood.”
4 Cf., already, Beng.
5 xix. 11 aqq.
€ Victorin., Beda, N. de Lyra, Zeger, Grot., Vitr., Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Béhmer, Klief., ete.
¥ Cf. v. 5, fil. 21.
8 Grot., etc. .
CHAP. VI. 3, 4. 2238 already the iva vucjoy, designates also the true ground upon which believers in Christ are “to conquer,” and can conquer, and have to expect from the Lord a victor’s reward.1_ Thus the triumphing image of Christ at the be- ginning of all the visions, proceeding from the book of fate, is in harmony with the fundamental idea and paracletic tendency of the entire Apoc.
As little as the emblem of the bow, does the horse in itself or its white color have any special significance; any exposition that in such matters seeks any thing more than such emblems whereby the entire form of the horseman is characterized as that of a victorious warrior, and which pro- ceeds to a special interpretation of the individual characteristic features, instead of regarding the unity of significance in the entire image, must result in what is arbitrary and frivolous. This is contrary to all the expos- itors, who understand by the white horse the Church,* and that, too, the apostolic primitive Church, in its purity and peaceful condition prior to persecutions, which are found in the second seal,* as Beda, Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Calov., etc. [See Note XLVIIL., p. 284.]
Vy. 3,4. When the Lamb‘ opens the second seal, John is again com- manded, and this time by the second of the beings, to come; it is therefore presupposed, that after the vision of the first seal had ended, and the first image of a horseman had vanished, he had again withdrawn, and taken his original place.6 The form proceeding from the book of fate after the open- ing of the second seal (éé7AGev, cf. ver. 2) is that of personified shedding of blood. This is so obviously indicated by the red color of the horse,® whereby it was granted (20607, cf. iii. 21) to take peace away from the earth with the effect of a slaughtering of one another by the dwellers upon earth,’ and by the corresponding emblem of a great sword which was given (éd66n, cf. ver. 2),® that expositors are united concerning the essential significance of the vision.” The more accurate determination of the intention of the threatening manifestation is given partly from the words éx« ri¢ yi, and partly from the connection of the whole, decided already in the first sight of aseal. As éx ri¢ ype does not mean “ from the land of Judaea, and the places in which there were Jews,” !° certainly the vision as a prophecy post eventum cannot refer to the Jewish war, and the rapine and strifes of factions which occurred during its continuance, especially in Jerusalem." Since, on the other hand, because of the connection of Aa. r. elp. éx rie yig and dAAfAove ogatovow, Only the xaraxodvres int rig ypc)? can be regarded as subject to
1 fi. 7, 11, ete.; cf. xxi. 7. 3 ‘ Over the church, made white by his grace
nation with ¢36@y avrq, just as the iva after woo, fil. 9.
beyond snow, the Lord presides ’’ (Beda).
3 Cf., e.g., Vitr.: ‘‘The white color desig- nates that by his providence God will take care, that, at the time indicated by this seal, the Church shall have peace.”
$ Cf. ver. 1.
5 Cf., also, vv. 5, 7. Ebrard.
6 Cf. 2 Kings ili. 22; LXX.: ddara wuppa ws ala.
* The tva with the ind. fut., In the epexe- getical clause xai iva, «.1T.A., stands in combi-
8 It is to be noted how excollently tho signi- ficant instrument, the uaxarpa, applies to the slaying which is announced (cdafovew; cf. ver. 6).
® Apart from individual, entircly untenable, arbitrary explanations, as in Alcasar.
20 Grot.
11 * Intestine diseensions, robbers, assassins, insurrection of Theudas,” etc., Wetst.; of. Herder, Béhmer, also Eich., Heinr., ete.
42 fil. 10,
224 THE REVELATION OF 81\ JOHN.
GAARA o¢4£., who kill one another, those massacred cannot be Christians, i.e., the discourse cannot be in reference to the persecutions of Christians; for then also, in reference to the combination of the first four seal-visions, it is entirely arbitrary to assert that the last three horsemen occupy: a hostile position towards the first.! Incorrect, therefore, are all expositions which in the second seal-vision find the persecution of Christians; as well those specially expounding it,? as those holding it more or less in general. On the contrary, as in Matt. xxiv. 7, 8, wars in the world are regarded as the first presage of the parousia of Christ, the doy) ddivwr, so there appears here the personification of the shedding of blood, which is to occur on earth in consequence of the Lord’s approach for the glorious and victorious end. Even sanguinary war serves the Lord at his coming. Believers, too, are of course alarmed by the retpaoude which is thus proclaimed by the second seal- vision ;* but their Lord not only preserves them, but at the signs of his coming they are to be the more confident in their hope, since their redemp- tion approaches.
Vv. 5, 6. The meaning of the third seal-vision is to be determined according to the same norm as that of the second. The dlack color of the horse designates not the grief of those who have been afflicted by the plagues indicated by the entire image of the horseman,® especially not the grief of the Church over heresy, as it is symbolized by the horse and horseman; but the black color must correspond to the destructive character of the image of the horseman itself.?7 Yet it is not perceptible how, by this color, the particular nature of the plague announced, viz., famine, is expressed :® it is sufficient to regard the black color® as an indication that the figure appearing therein is one of a plague, a servant of divine judgment. — First, the special emblem ascribed to the horseman (éy. (vydy, «.r.4.), in addition to the unambig- uous exclamation yoiué cirov, x.r.4, makes us recognize in the third figure of a horseman the personification of famine. — @wyév. As to the expression, Cuyir means properly the beam which unites the two scales, cf. Prov. xvi. 11; as to the subject itself, since by the weighing of the grain which otherwise is measured, famine is represented, cf. Lev. xxvi. 26, Ezek. iv. 16.—d¢ before gurviv 1° corresponds with the circumstance that, to John, the person from whom the voice proceeds /! remains unknown.?? “ Audivi ut vocem,” a Latin would say; i.e, “I heard (something) like a voice.” That the cry sounds forth “in the midst of the four beings,” is, in itself, natural, since the unsealing of the book of fate occurs at the throne of God, which is in the
1“ Againet the victorious and conquering Church, a red horse goes forth, i.e., an unfa- ‘vorable populace, bloody from their rider, the Devil" (Beda).
2 e.g., N. de Lyra: ‘The red horse is the Roman people; the rider is Nero.”
8 e.g., Beda, Zeger, Calov.: ‘“* The red horse, an unfavorable people, an assembly of the godless; the rider is the Devil.” .Cf. also Andr., Areth., Laun., Vitr., who regard the rider a personification of the Roman Empire, and suggest Decius and others; Stern, who,
in the entire form of each personification, sees only the worldly power thirsting for the blood of Christians, ete.
* Cf. iff. 10.
8 Hengstend., Ebrard, also Beng., Ew., De Wette.
® De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
7 Cf. vv. 2, 4, 8.
8 Beng.
10 See Critical Notes.
11 Of. 4. 12.
a2 Cf. ix. 13, x. 4, 8, xiv. 13, xvili. 4.
® Cf. ver. 12.
CHAP. VI. 5, 6. 225 midst of the four beings ;! but as it is not without significance that the four beings, as representatives of the living creatures on earth, cry out to John, Epxov, 80 is it likewise significant that in the midst of those beings the cry sounds forth, which accompanies the figure of a plague pertaining to living creatures ? The first half of the call sounds just as when any thing is offered for sale.* The gen. dyvapiov is that of the price. The second sentence contains a command which prescribes to the horseman, not only as the per- sonification of the famine, but as the bearer of the visitation, the limit of the plague ordained by the Lord. Oil] and wine are to grow as ordinarily: ja) adexijage, i.e., “ Do them no harm, injure them not;”® although wheat and barley, and therefore the unconditionally necessary means of subsistence, are to be so dear that a day-laborer for his daily labor receives a denarius,® noth- ing more than daily food for himself, — a choiniz of wheat, which is a man’s? daily nourishment. If, therefore, the famine indicated do not reach the utmost extreme of hunger,® yet the grievousness of the plague is obvious to every one who has learned to know the life of the people, viz., of the lower classes, in the neighborhood. That oil and wine remain exempted, is, of course, a mitigation of the famine; but on the other hand, by the plentiful presence of these two means of nourishment, even though in Oriental life they are luxuries far Iess than among us, the mewpaoyudc lying in the famine which had entered is essentially strengthened, and the critical force also of these plagues in an ethical respect, which belong to the signs preceding Christ’s coming,® intensified.
The reference of vv. 5, 6, to the famine under Claudius,” or to any other particular dearth," is decidedly contrary to the sense of the text; since here, as also in vv. 3, 4, and ver. 7 sqq., no special fact is meant, especially not one predicted only after its occurrence, but rather, in accord with the fundsa- mental prophecy (Matt. xxiv. 7), a certain kind of plagues is described,}% which precede the coming of the Lord. Purely arbitrary is the allegorizing interpretation, e.g., in Beda, Vitr.,!4 C. a Lap.,!5 Stern,!® etc. N. de Lyra understands by the black horse, the Roman army; by the horseman, Titus; by the wheat and barley, Jews; by oil and wine, Christians. The acme of arbitrary interpretation is attained by those who, as even Bohmer, under- - stand the wheat and barley properly, and the wine and oil figuratively as a designation of Christians. Any such distinction would have been indicated 13 “The black horse is the band of false
1 fv. 6, v. 6. 2 Cf. also Heugstenb.
3 Winer, p. 456.
* Winer, p. 194.
§ Cf. vii. 2, 3, ix. 4, 10, 19, if. 11.
6 Matt. xx. 2.
7 Cf. Wetat.
8 Cf. Joel i. 10 aqq.
® Matt. xxiv. 7. Hengstenb. incorrectly judges, that the famine, v¥. 5, 6, does not be- long to the Acwot, Matt. xxiv. 7, but is ‘‘the prelude of that fulfilment.”
10 Grot., Wetst., Harenb., Herd., Bébm.
1 Cf. Calov., Bengel, Huechke.
13 Of. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
brethren, who have the balance of a right pro- feseion, but injure their associates by works of darkness.”
14“ Dearneas of spiritual provision, viz., in the time from Constantine until the ninth century.”
15 twros = a heretic, as Arius; 6 xadju. = the Devil, or heresiarch; ¢vyés and xoin¢ = Holy Scripture; Syvap.=the merit of sound faith and of dally holy life; ovr. = the gospel; «p.6. =the harsh old law; éA. and ol». = the medi- cine of our Samaritan Christ.
26 Personified erroneous doctrine.
226 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
by the omission of the art. with oirov and xpidév, whereas, on the other hand, it is found with Aqoyv and olvov. But although the art. in the latter case des- ignates simply the class as a whole, this is lacking in the former case just as naturally; since there not the kind of fruit as such, but a quantity, is men- tioned, which therefore allows no other desighation than that of the mass, which in simple composition is given as yoiwé cirov.
Vv. 7,8. The fourth form of horseman is recognizable not only by the entire description, but also his name is expressly mentioned: dvoua abrad 6 Odvaroc. The text is thus as contradictory as is possible to all allegorizing interpretations of mortal heresy,! of the complete falling away from Christ as spiritual death,? of the Saracens and Turks,’ of the Roman people with the Emperor Domitian, whom “Hell follows,” because immediately after his death he entered it. Incorrect, also, as in vv. 5, 6, is the limited reference of the whole to any special case, as possibly to the diseases and rapine which occurred at the time of the Jewish war in consequence of the famine (vv. 5, 6),° or to the devastations made by the flavi Germani, and other nations of the migration. As already by the ancient prophets, in addition to the sword 7 and hunger,® pestilence ® and also wild beasts }° were called grievous divine judgments, so the Lord also enumerates pestilences (Aooi) among the signs of his coming. Yet it does not follow thence that the horseman, who has the name 6 @dvarog, is the plague; }! but it corresponds with those types, that death personified, just as the shedding of blood personified, and famine personified, should enter because of the Lord’s going forth to his victorious goal, and that the means mentioned (ver. 8) should ascribe to him deadly efficacy. This horse has the color which agrees with his work. zAwpéc desig- nates not only the fresh green of the grass,)? but also the greenish pallor of fear 18 and of death.14— 4 xa@juevoc. The loose but forcible construction in which the preceding nom. is absorbed by the following dat. (dv. abrg 5 Gav.), as in ili. 12, 21. —xai 6 “Acdng pxodotbe per adrods. The pera with dxod. as Luke ix. 48. To understand Hades by metonymy for the inhabitants of Hades, the host of those swept away by death,!® is an assumption which not only gives a monstrous idea, but also especially avoids the correct reading édodq abroic¢. The incorrect explanation, as well as the incorrect reading abr, de- pends upon the failure to recognize the fact that Hades, i.e., the place belonging to death,!® because filled by the agency of death, is represented here like death itself, as a person following death. ‘The idea of locality, which especially belongs to Hades, is also in i. 18 decisive as to the idea of death ; conversely here and in xx. 13 sqq., Hades is personally considered. which suits better the idea of death. But to regard Hades only as the place
1 Beda, who mentions especially Arius; #9973. LXX.: Odvaros, Jer. xxi. 7, xiv. 12.
Zeger, etc. 10 Lev. xvi. 22; Ezek. xiv. 21. 3 Stern. 11 “< Pestis nomine mortias”’ (Eichh.). 3 Vitr., C. a Lap. 12 vill. 7, ix. 4; Mark vi. 39. « N. de Lyra. 3 Jl, vii. 479. 5 Wetst., Grot., Herd., BUhmer. 14 Pollida mors. © Huschke. 35 Eichh., Ebrard.
7 Cf. v. 8 aqq. 8 Cf. ver. 5 sqq. % Cf. i. 18, xx. 13 sqq.
CHAP. VI. 9-11. 227
of torment for the damned,? is only possible if the plagues indicated in ver. 8 are misunderstood as though pertaining to unbelievers alone. The con- trary is decided partly by the entire tendency of all four seal-visions, and partly, especially in this place, by the express extension of the dominant power granted death and hell following it, to the fourth part of the earth, and therefore of all inhabitants of the earth, believers — who have patiently endured and hoped for the coming of the Lord —as well as unbelievers.? — rd téraprov. The schematic number gives the idea of a considerably great portion of the whole; a still greater part is designated by the schematic three. — éy, as a designation of the instrument or means,‘ stands properly with poudaig, Ay, and @avard; while to 6npiwy, as the beasts themselves are active, éxé is attached,® which in other cases also is combined in classical Greek with the active. The pougaia, ver. 8, has as little to do with the wazatpa, ver. 4, a8 the Aiud concurs with the famine, vv. 5, 6; on the contrary, such means to kill are to be ascribed to Death personally portrayed with Hell, as already in the O. T. are threatened as destructive means of punishment prior to God’s judgment. Because of the juxtaposition of tv éuvéry with dv pougaig and éy Awd, the davary is readily taken specially as a designation of the plague, especially as the LXX., in similar connections, use éévarog where the Heb. text has 13;7 but if John had wished to designate this precise idea, the expression Aouéd¢® would scarcely have eacaped him. As in ii. 23, the general conception must be maintained also in this passage,® which also appears the more suitable as the éy éuvdry occurs in a certain exclusive way to the two preceding conceptions which are likewise furnished with the prep. év, while the attached é7d r. @npiav r. y.. a3 also the change of prep. shows, connects it again with a certain independence to the three preceding concep- tions. [See Note XLIX., p. 285.}
Vv. 9-11. We might expect that also the fifth seal would bring a vision of the same kind as the three preceding seals and the one succeeding; viz., a representation of such dispensations of God as proclaimed and prepared the final coming of the Lord. Those expositors who, in all the individual members of the Apoc., find only individual prophecies of definite events in the history of the world and the Church, have interpreted the contents of the fifth seal also accordingly. If, e.g., according to Vitr., the fourth sea] has introduced us to the appearance of the Saracens, the fifth seal speaks of the times of the Waldenses, and extends to the century of the Reformation. The martyrs who cry for vengeance are the Waldenses, Albigenses, etc. The white robes given them designate their vindication by the Reformation, even though, ere the final judgment come, this, too, must deliver up ita martyrs (ver. 11). Bengel knew how to find the same reference, even by a computation ; for if in the year A.D. 97 or 98, in which John received his revelation, the martyrs who were slain by heathen Rome cried for vengeance, and it was told them that they must wait yet “a chronus,” i.e., a space of
1 Hengstenb. 3 Beng., Ew. 6 Matth., Auafiihr. Griech. Gramm., § 592. 3 villi. 7. 7 Vitr., Beng., De Wette, etc. 4 Cf. i. 16. § Matt. xxiv. 7.
&§ Cf. Ew., De Wette. ® Hengstenb., Ebrard.
228 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 1,111} years, their fellow-servants who were afterwards to become martyrs (through Papal Rome) are the Waldenses of the year 1208 (i.e., 97 + 1111). The meaning of the fifth seal-vision in connection with that preceding and following, and corresponding with the idea of the-entire book, does not lie in the fact that any special future event is prophesied, whereof the pre- ceding seals treat as little as those which follow; but in that both the cry of the souls of the martyrs for vengeance on account of the shedding of their blood, and also the answer given them, stand in most definite relation to what is even in the seal-visions the invariable goal of Apocalyptic proph- ecy, viz., the prophetic announcement that the Lord cometh. Already the circumstance, that, to the gazing prophet, the martyrs whose blood has been shed show themselves, contains a sign of the coming of the Lord.’ But if the martyrs cry for vengeance, there is in this a certainty that a day of judgment is impending, which their unbelieving persecutors have called forth by their ungodly deeds. Finally, the divine answer (ver. 11) contains the certain assurance of the future final judgment; it is only added thereto, that all they who, like those already offered, are to endure the martyr’s death, must first be slain, and, consequently, the sign of the final judgment already fulfilled on those crying for vengeance be fulfilled also on these. In its more immediate relation to the preceding seal-visions, the present men- tions, that, after the fulfilment of what is announced in ver. 8, the final judg- ment wil] not immediately follow; but the meaning of the fifth seal is stated too narrowly, and regarded too unimportant, if thereby we only find some- thing expressed which is self-evident already from the preceding visions.® Eldov txoxdtw Tod @votactnpwi tag yuxds, x.7.A. The question, how John could have seen the souls, is asked only when it is forgotten that it is nota seeing of sense, but of a vision, which is here treated; the explanation that the souls had a body® is not only false, but also entirely unnecessary. — That the altar under which4 John sees the souls of those slain is to be regarded after the manner of an earthly burnt-offering,® is indicated espe- cially by the écgayzévov, — the uniform word for the slaying of animals for sacrifice, — and the alua, ver. 10, as it is accordingly also the expression of the whole, affording what is simplest, and, in every respect, most applicable. As the blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled at the foot of the altar of burnt- offerings,® so also those souls who have offered themselves to the Lord’ are under the altar, upon which they can be represented as offered in a way very similar to that in which, in viii. 3 sq., the prayers of saints on earth appear as a heavenly offering of incense. But it is incorrect, when De Wette fully explains this passage from viii. 3 sqq., by regarding the altar in this place
1 Matt. xxiv.9; cf. ver.7, whose contents we have found in the second, third, and fourth seals. 2 Against Hengstenb., Ebrard.
3 “ Tnvested with a subtle body,’’ Eich.
4‘ uwordrw. Beng. incorrectly, ‘‘ Beside the altar, and beneath its ground,” for the type of Lev. iv. 7 cannot change the meaning of the expression in this passage.
§ Grot., Vitr., Beng., Ew., Hengstenb., Ebrard.
¢ tio 59, Lev. tv. 7. LXX.: wapa rhe Badowv, éwi tr. B., V. 9.
* Cf. Phil. 11. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 6. Ignat., Zp. ad Rom., II. iv.: one who goes to meet a mar. tyr’s death will become a @vaia.
CHAP. VI. 9-11. 229
as an incense-altar, “beneath which the souls of the martyrs lie, because they are awaiting the hearing of the prayers which are offered in the in- cense.” The latter reference of the éroxtérw +r. dvo., in itself strange, is, besides, in no way based upon viii. 8. The occasion because of which the souls are regarded under the altar is given by the fact that the blood of sacrifices, to which the martyrs are regarded as belonging, was shed under the altar. But hence it does not follow, that by the expression r, puzae r. éog., nothing else properly is designated than blood, the bearer of physical life, and that the entire representation is only a dramatizing of the thought: Their blood demands vengeance, according to Gen. iv. 10;1 the souls are here, without doubt, as xx. 4, the spirits of those whose bodies have been slain upon earth.2— Without any support are the allegorizing interpretations of broxdérw 7. 6vo., as “in the communion of Christ.”® It is also utterly con- trary to the meaning of the entire vision, if any dogmatic result be derived concerning the abode of souls after death, in connection with which the trocar. t. Ovo. is, with complete arbitrariness, variously interpreted: “in the solitary place of eternal praise ;" 4 “reserved as to their bodies until the day of judgment, in the most holy place.”® What has been cited in this respect from rabbinical writings,“ corresponds not even as to the form of the concep- tion. — dia rdv Adyov rod Oeot Kal dd THv paprupiay fv elyov. Already it has been noted on i. 9, that as r. deot belongs to r. Adyov,” just 80 the 'I7ood placed there and in xii. 17, xix. 10, xx. 4, with r. paprupiay, is not an objective but a sub- jective gen. Accordingly the paprvpia in this passage is not to be under- stood as a testimony borne by the martyrs and sealed with their blood,® but as one given them.® This is required, even apart from the parallelism of the preceding +. Acy. r. @., by the addition jv elyov, whereby the idea is pre- supposed that the martyrs have first received® the paprupia “which they had.” [See Note L., p. 235.] Cf. the similar rypeiv, xii. 17; John xiv. 21. The % paprvpia (’Inood) is here identical, therefore, with that of i. 9, and throughout the entire Apoc. it remains generally unchanged; but in this passage the togayz. and the addition fy elxyov entirely change the force of the da from what the same word has in i. 9, because of an entirely different connection. — éxpagav, That it is not precisely the al ywuya? rév éog.," but, according to a very easy mode of presentation, rather of togaypévo, which is regarded as subject,!? follows not necessarily from the masc. Aéyovtec,!® but indeed from the entire mode of expression, vv. 10, 11.%— 6c xa? atroi. For this, of course, Hengstenb.’s false interpretation of 7. yvyée, ver. 9, affords no aid. — guvg peyady, cf. 1.10. —"Eug rére. “D9 W, 1 Sam. xvi. 1; cf. Hab. i. 2;
1 Zill., Hengatenb. 2 Matt. x. 2. ® Viz., of the Lord Jesus, who himecif has 3 Vitr., Calov., Boss., ete. testified tothem. Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. « Beda. 5 Zeger. 10 Ewald, incorrectly: ‘‘ which they firmly
6 Debarim, R. xi.: ‘* God sald to the soul of Moses, ‘I will place thee under the throne of my glory.’ 9
7 Cf. xii. 17: +. évrodAds.
8 = yapr. wepi ‘Incov. Cf. Acts xxii.18. So the older expositors; also Ew. 1i., De Wette, Bleek.
held.”
11 Ebrard.
18 Hengstenb.
8 Of. iv. 8.
14 gina Hu. —avrois éxdgry épp. — avrois — 06 ovvd, aur. x. 0 adeAd,. avr,
280 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Ps. xiii. 2, lxxix. 5. Every attempt to supply! breaks the immediate con- nection with od xpivetc, x.r.A,.—6 deoxérn¢. On the voc. use of the nom., see Winer, p. 172. The correlate to deororf¢ —the expression only here in the Apoc. —is doddoc.2 All belonging to the Lord are his servamts;* hence the future martyrs are called obfvdovio. Cf. also xix. 10. The one meant as “Lord” is not Christ,t but God. “The martyrs cry to God as their owner.”5 But because he is this, there can be no doubt that the punish- ment here expected® has begun; only the question éwc rére, x.r.A., proceeds from the longing of the martyrs for that judgment. And the martyrs may the more confidently expect that judgment from their Lord, as he is éytg¢ and dAnévéc. His holiness’ is the essential ground from which the dixasa: pice ® energetically proceed. But it is improper to refer the dAnéedc, which is exchanged with dAnéfrc, to God’s truthfulness or fidelity to his promises,® while, on the other hand, God is called 6 deox. 5 cAnOcréc, because he is the Lord who in truth deserves this name, the “true Lord,” ?° who, therefore, will also doubtless do in every respect as is fitting for such a Lord to do to his faithful servants. [See Note LI., p. 286.] ob xpiven nal exdixeic, «1.2. Concerning the following é«,™ cf. xviii. 20, xix. 2; Ps. xliii.1; 1 Sam. xxiv. 13.12 The dwellers “on the earth ” 18 are here, by virtue of the connection, according to the generic view, “all nations,” 25 in contrast with the servants of God.!®— Concerning the ethical estimation of the expressed longing of the martyrs, which contains neither censurable impatience nor a vindictive feeling, Beda already remarked: “These things they did not pray from hatred towards enemies for whom in this world they entreated, but from love of justice with which they agree as those placed near the Judge him- self.”17 Especially in accordance with the text, Beng. says, “ They have to do with the glory of the holiness and truth of their Lord.” What the martyrs express as their longing, is in reality pledged by the fact that their dcororng is Gywe xal dAnGevog; the xpivey and éxduxeiv are the infallible attestation of his nature, which has been just before praised. But the longing which the martyrs express in their way is, in its foundation, nothing else than that which belongs to the entire Church.1® — xa? &6667 — croAd Aevay. The singular oro A., Which even with the mere aéroic would not be irregular,!® is immedi- ately afterwards made necessary by the expressly individualized éx«déory. — The opinion that by the offering of the white robe,® something peculiar is to be communicated to the souls of martyrs, besides the blessedness which is
1 N. de Lyra: quies. 10 Cf. fii. 14. 2 Cf. Luke fl. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 1; 1 Pet. il. 18. l= }D- Cf. Ew., Gr. d. hebr. Spr., § 519. 3 Cf. 1.1. 132 Luke xvill. 8: awd, as the var. of this
* Vitr.; Grot., who, besides, with utterinap- passage. propriateness remarks, *‘ All this dispensation 13 Grot., incorrectly: ‘“‘in Judea.” of patience and severity in regard to the Jews 6 Cf. xiii. 8, 14. bas been delivered to Christ.” 18 Matt. xxiv. 9. 5 Beng.; cf. Ew., ete. 26 Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. 6 And celebrated in ite fulfilment, in xix. 2. 17 Cf. N. de Lyra, C.a Lap., Calov., Beng., 7 “ Because he cannot endure crimes,” Vitr., | Hengstenb., Ebrard. Ew. 18 Cf. xxii. 17, 20. ® Cf. xix. 2. 19 Winer, p. 164. 9 Vitr., Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. © Cf, ili. 5.
CHAP. VI. 9-11. 281
self-evident,! is not only in itself indefinite, — for, what is this special reward to be ?—— but is also contrary to the context; not because this giving of white garments, as also the entire scene vv. 9-11, is nothing more than “a poetic fiction,”’ ?— for the fifth seal-vision is this no more than are the rest, — but, because the giving occurs within the vision, it is an integrant part of the vision, and not an objective, real fact. The consideration that the souls of martyrs are already blessed, and, therefore, as all the blessed, they wear already white garments,’ is therefore entirely out of place, because dependent upon a perdBaar ele dAdo yévoc.4 — As the gift of the white robe designates the already present blessedness and glorification of those who have been offered for the sake of Christ, so also the fulfilment of their prayer is promised them in the final revelation of the Lord’s judgment which is to be awaited, but, of course, in such a way that they are to wait for it in their blessed repose until the end which is no longer distant (ver. 11). —xal éppé¢n abroi¢ tva, «.r.A. Concerning the iva, cf. Winer, p. 314 eqq. — dvaratowvra desig- nates not the mere cessation from the cry (ver. 10),5 but has the more complete sense of the blessed rest, as xiv. 19,° which, as also the white robe indicates, has been imparted to the martyrs, after having struggled in their earthly life, even unto death, and overcome.’ —ér: xpévov ppv. Bengel’s reckoning concerning the length of the “chronus” is thwarted already by the correct reading, xp. uxpév,® whose meaning corresponds with the entire view of the Apoc.®°—éuc wAnpwday, «.7.A, A definition of the “little season” from its actual contents, and at the same time in accord with the preceding question &¢ xére, «.7.A, ver. 10. The relation according to the context of xAnpw8aow comprises the words of weAA. droxr., «.7.4,: “ should be fulfilled,” viz., as to their number,!° must be only those who are still to suffer a martyr’s death, just as the number of those who in ver. 10 have called is already full. The completeness is therefore not to be understood of that sum and these martyrs, but to be limited to the future martyrs. Thus this explana- tion of rAgpw6. is simpler and more significant than that preferred by De Wette, according to whom wAxpotopar!? means either only “to finish life,” or at the same time is to have the secondary sense of a moral fulfilling.}8 Hengstenb. adopts the easier reading wAnpéowor.44—ol civdovac atrwy. Beng., incorrectly : “The first martyrs were mostly of Israel; their fellow-servants were, in following times, from the heathen, their brethren outside of Israel.” The future martyrs are rather fellow-servants of those mentioned in ver. 9 sqq., because of their identical relation to the deonérn (ver. 10), than brethren because of the fellowship of all believers with one another.!® The cai before of ovvd. marks the fate impending also over the fellow-servants; the succeeding «ai serves as @ simple connective of a still further designation.!®
? Beng. §’ Hengatenb. 10 Wolf, Ebrard.
5 Cf. vil. 18 sqq. 11 Againat De Wette’s objection.
4“ Transition to another class.” 13 Cf. Zech. iv. 18; reAcvovo@as.
5 Beng., De Wette. 33 Cf. Heb. xi. 40, xii. 28: reActovcOar. Cf. ® Cf. also Mark vi. 21, xiv. 41. also Vitr.
' Cf. Hengstenb. 16 Bc. ray Spdpov, Acta xx. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7. 8 Bee Critical Notes. 15 De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
® Cf., especially, 1. 1-3. 16 De Wette, etc.
232 THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN.
Ver. 12-17. The sixth seal-vision. As the visions portrayed, vv. 3-8, have presented the signs of his coming, announced by the Lord himself in his eschatological discourse (Matt. xxiv. 6 sqq.), and as, also, the fifth seal- vision stands in close connection with Matt. xxiv. 9, so the sixth vision brings what is found in Matt. xxiv. 7 (cesoyuol xara torovc), and especially the signs predicted in ver. 29, which ! refer to the immediate entrance of the day of judgment itself. Incorrect, therefore, because of the connection with what precedes, not only does that explanation appear to be, according to which the entire description, vv. 12-17, refers to the Jewish-Roman war, and the “ great day of wrath,” ver. 17, is regarded as nothing else than the destruc- tion of Jerusalem ;* but, also, that which seems to be directly the opposite, yet which actually depends upon a similarly arbitrary treatment, as well as also, in many particular interpretations, the harmonious exposition of allegor- izing expositors from Victorin. to Hengstenberg,‘ who in the earthquake, the darkening of the sun, etc., find jigurative prophecies of certain events per- taining to the development of the Church, etc. If the reference of the entire vision be limited to the destruction of Jerusalem, it is, of course, more natural in ver. 12 (6 9A éy. wed. «.7.4.) to think of an eclipse of the sun and moon at the time of Claudius,5 than, with Bohmer, to interpret sun and moon as prophecy and the law; but even Grot. cannot adequately represent the context, since he refers to the falling of the stars, ver. 13, as a prognos- tic of terrible events derived from the notions of the time, and on 4 obpavic amey., x.7.A., he has to remark: “ Because of thick clouds, the heavens cannot be seen.”® In arbitrariness of allegorical interpretation, Bohmer? vies with Victorin., Beda, Vitr., Hengstenb., etc. The earthquake, ver. 12, is made to signify “great revolutions in political or ecclesiastical spheres; ”*® the sun becoming black is intended to be “the blasphemed Christ,” ® “ prophecy,” 1° “worldly emperors and kings; ” 1! the blood-red moon, “ the Church reddened by the blood of martyrs,” }2 “the law,” }* “spiritual princes ;” 44 the fallen stars, “the fallen, exalted church-teachers,”’ !6 the “ Jews who desert the true Church for corrupt Judaism, which is signified by the earth; ”¢ the moun- tains and islands are “prophets and philosophical pursuits,”}* etc. The whole refers, according to Vitr., to the destruction of the papal dominion, and the fearful disturbances in the political governments of Europe which were attached to the Papacy.1® Hengstenb. is distinguished from these interpreters only by indecision. The earthquake, the eclipse of sun and moon, the falling of the stars, etc., are to him figurative of “grievous and disturbed times,” which impend by God’s judgment over his enemies. “ Heaven,” e.g., he says
1 Cf. vv. 16, 17, with Matt. xxiv. 30 sqq.; ® N. de Lyra, Aret.
Luke xxili. 30. 10 BShm. 2 Cf. Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. 1 Vitr. 3 Grot., Wetst., Alcas., Herd., Béhmer. 13 N. de Lyra, Arct. ¢ Cf. Beda, N. de Lyra, Aret., Zeger, Vitr., 13 BShm. etc. 16 Vitr. 8 Grot. 13 NW. de Lyra, Aret., Vitr. © Cf. also Eich. 16 BShm. T Cf. Alcas., eto. Iv Aret.
® Buhm., Vitr. 19 Cf. xvi. 17 0q.
CHAP. VI. 12-17. 283
on ver. 13, “is the heaven of princes, the entire magisterial and sovereign estate. The stars are individual princes and nobles.” This figurative ex- planation is regarded as necessary “because the falling from heaven of the stars, generally so called, would destroy every thing, while, in what follows, the races of the earth appear as still existing; ” to which Ebrard objects: * The shaking down is only from the standpoint of the appearance to human vision ; while the human eye sees the stars sinking as stars to earth, yet must they in reality sink, and pass far from the earth in the void expanse.”
The context itself should have been a sufficient protection from all these aberrations; for here, just as in the preceding seal-visions, the simple admo- nition is entirely valid, that every thing portrayed in vv. 12-17 is the sub- ject of a vision, and not something objectively real. In the vision, John beholds as the stars fall to the earth (ele r. yyv, not “in the expanse”). The consideration, how after such an event men can still live upon earth, is here utterly strange, and contrary to the context. For the sixth seal-vision con- cludes with the express testimony, that —as also its entire contents, in harmony with Matt. xxiv. 27 sqq., indicate — the day of final judgment has come, and is now present.! There is, therefore, actually, —i.e., if that which was shown in vv. 12-17 in vision to the gazing prophet occurred at the end of days, — no further life of the human race on this earth any longer possible, as, with the destruction of the world (vv. 12 sqq.), the day of the Lord begins. The signs are made known: ér: tyyb¢ éorey br? Gipau.? Already also the unbelieving note that the day of wrath has come (ver. 15 sqq.). It may accordingly be expected that the seventh seal is opened immediately after ver. 17; and thus to the seer is shown the judgment iteelf, with its condemning and its beatifying influence. That this does not happen now,? but that first of all ch. vii. is still placed before the seventh seal, and that then, again, the last seal itself brings an entire series of visions, can inter- fere with the clear meaning of the sixth seal-vision the less, as the further development has the correct meaning just as it has been given.4
ocopoc. As xi. 18, xvi. 18, viii. 5.6 Earthquake; ® not indefinitely, “trem- bling,”? for it is not at all said that by this cepéc the heavens shall be shaken. —d¢ odxxog rpiyevoc. Cf. Isa. 1. 8.—d¢ alya. Cf. Joel iii. 4. —r. dAivoous. Hesych: SAvvoc, rd ja) xerraupévov ovxov.® Cf. Cant. ii. 18. 0°29, Winer, Rub. B. I., 429.—6 otpavdg ameyupictn ac BiBdiov thicoopevov. Cf. Isa. xxxiv. 4. The idea that the firmament itself, from which the stars fall,® gradually vanishes,” is illustrated by the rolling-together of a book, since the heaven, the firmament, appears stretched out like tent-canvas.!! — wav Spoc, x.7.A, As in xvi. 20, a quaking is indicated, overthrowing the foun- dations of the earth, and therefore final: no mountain, no island, remains on its old place. The destruction is complete. — Also, thereby, that terror
1 RAGev, v. 17. 2 Matt. xxiv. 33. © Hengstenb. $8 Although in fact from the seventh seal, T De Wette.
the entire rest of the prophecy, even that of 8 dAvrGos, the fig not ripened.
the final jadgment corresponding to the funda- ® Cf. Gen. 1. 14 sqq.
mental plan of vy. 1 6qq., proceeds. 2% Departs: dwex. Vulg.: recesstt. Incor- 4 Cf. Introd., sec. 1, and on ch. vil. 8. rectly, Ew. ii.: “‘ was rent in a place.”
5 Cf. Isa. xii. 18. 41 lea. xi. 22; Ps. civ. 2.
284 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
now seizes (ver. 15) all, without exception, who have to fear the judgment; and by the way in which they make known their amazement (ver. 16 sqq.), especially by the express words dr: }Adev, x.r.A, it is clearly indicated that the subject from ver. 12 is the opening of the final judgment. — of Baoreic, x.1.A. The xatoccotvrec éri rie yc, in the sense of ver. 10, is here, as in xix. 18, so introduced, that they appear not only collectively,! but that the significant classification, at the same time, proves how no kind of earthly greatness or power, the previous cause of insolent assurance, can afford any protection whatever.2 Kings share the anguish with the humblest slaves.* In addi- tion to Baoileic r. y., the proper rulers,‘ of yey:oravec, are first mentioned. The expression, belonging to the later Greek,® presents here® high civil officers, especially courtiers,’ in distinction from chief commanders (yAiapyos). In addition to the Actow, distinguished by wealth, are the loyvpo,* not “the mighty of every kind,” *® but? such as excel in physical strength.12 — Expupay — dpéav. Those alarmed, even unto despair, seek in the mountains and rocks not so much ineffectual protection,!* as rather, as their own words show,'* death through which to escape the impending judgment of wrath.14— dm mpoodmov tov xa0., x.r.A. The style is of such kind as to bear without doubt in ver. 16, as well as in ver. 17, traces of John’s own peculiar feeling. The axd mpocwnov 15 ig biblical; the r. xa@ny. én? r. Op. and the opy. 1. dpviou refer back to ch. iv. 5; the expression 7 ju. 4 wey. tr. 6. abr. depends upon Joel iii. 4, i. 15, ii. 2, Isa. lxiii. 4, ete.; and the question ric duv. cradjvar, on Nah. i. 6, Mal. iii. 2.16 Yet the entire discourse, even though ver. 17 be not regarded the words of John, has its truth in the mouth of unbelievers, since, just as they must recognize the Lord himself when he will appear,!’ so also will they discern in the terrible signs (ver. 12 sqq.) the commencement of the day of judgment.
NoTEs BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLVIII. Ver. 2. lmrog Acvxdg.
Luthardt: ‘‘ That is, the Word of God, which was the first in the history of N. T. times to pass victoriously through the world, and whose words flew far like arrows, and penetrated the heart (Ps. xlv. 6).”? Alford: ‘‘ The sxc» might be said of any victorious earthly power whose victories should endure for the time then present, and afterwards pass away; but the Iva vujog can only be said of a power whose victories are to last forever. ... We must not, on the one
1 Cf. Matt. xxv. 82: wdvra ra eOvy.
* Kijef. understands from erroneous pre- suppositions (see on f. 20) “no blind heathen, but the masses of baptized nations who have fallen into Laodicean feelings.”
8 Cf. also Bengel, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
Cf. Acts iv. 26.
§ xviii. 28; Mark vi. 21; of. LXX. Jer. xiv. 8; Neh. iil. 10; Isa. xxxiv. 12; Dan. v. 1.
© Cf. Mark vi. 51; Dan. y.1.
* Ebrard, eto.
® Var.: évvara.
® Evrard; “ prevailing in influence,”’ Ewald.
10 Cf. xix. 18, v. 2, x. 1, xvill. 8, 21, also xviil. 2, 10, xix. 6.
11 Cf. Ps. xxxiil. 16 sqq., cxivii. 10; Ew. il.; warriors, according to Jos. x. 2; 1 Kings xi. 28.
13 Cf. Isa. fi. 10 sqq.
33 ver. 16; of. Hos. x. 8; Luke xxiil. 90.
4 Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard.
15 Beng.: ‘*The face against them that do evil,” Ps. xxxiv. 17.
16 Cf. Ewald, etc.
27 Cf. i. 7.
a
NOTES. 235
hand, too hastily introduce the person of our Lord himself; or, on the other, be startled at the objection that we shall be paralleling him, or one closely resem- bling him, with the far different forms which follow. Doubtless, the resemblance to the rider in xix. 11 is very close, and is intended to be very close. The differ- ence, however, is considerable. There he is set forth as present in his triumph, followed by the hosts of heaven: here he is working in bodily absence, and the rider is not himself, but only a symbo! of his victorious power, the embodiment of his advancing kingdom as regards that side of its progress where it breaks down earthly power, and makes the kingdom of the world to be the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ. Further, it would not be wise, nor, indeed, according to the analogy of these visions, to specify. In all cases but the last, these riders are left in the vagueness of their symbolic offices. If we attempt, in this case, to specify further, e.g., as Victorinus: ‘ The white horse is the word of preach- ing sent with the Holy Spirit into the world. For the Lord says, This gospel shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come,’—while we are sure that we are thus far right, we are but partially right, seeing that there are other aspects and instruments of victory of the kingdom of Christ besides the preaching of the word.’’ If the word ‘‘ preaching ’”’ be limited to public discourses, or even to the public reading and private study of the word, Alford is quite right. But just as the sacraments are only the visible word, and are efficacious because of the word of God joined with them, so every agency for the diffusion of Christ’s kingdom may be reduced to the word of God under some form. Gebhardt (p. 288) regards the rider on the white horse as a personification of victorious war. His objection to the view adopted by Diisterdieck, that the Lamb could not have opened the seals, and at the same time have been represented in what the seal portrays, is not very formidable, and, at most, would not interfere with the conception above proposed of the Word as rider.
XLIX. Vv. 2-8.
Alford regards the four seals, in their fulness, as contemporaneous, the iva wuxyoy not being accomplished until the entire earth is subjugated, although ‘‘they may receive continually recurring, or even ultimate, fulfilments, as the ages of the world go on, in distinct periods of time, and by distinctly assignable events. So far, we may derive benefit from the commentaries of those who imagine that they have discovered their fulfilment in successive periods of history, that, from the very variety and discrepancy of the periods assigned by them, we may verify the facts of the prevalence of these announced judgments hitherto, throughout the whole lifetime of the Church.”’
L. Ver. 9. iv paprupiay fy elxov.
The interpretation of our author is thus criticised by Lange: “ There is an exegetical obecureness here. The testimony is a specific term. The gospel which a man receives from Christ is not, in itself, a specific testimony or witness. It becomes testimony by faithful confession; and then, doubtless, Christ confesses himself to the man by whom he is confessed. Here, however, the holding fast of confessors to their confession is denoted.’’ So Alford: “The “testimony is one borne by them, as most commentators; not one borne to them
286 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
by the faithful Witness, as Diisterdieck and Ebrard most unnaturally; for how could the testimony borne to them before the Father, by Christ, be the cause of their being put to death on earth ?”’
\
LI. Ver. 10. GAn@ede.
Liddell and Scott give, as the ordinary meaning of this word in classical Greek, when applied to persons, ‘‘ truthful, trusty.’? So, in Cremer, the second and very frequent meaning: ‘‘ That which does not deceive, which bears test- ing.’”? ‘‘ Here it is too evidently intended of subjective truthfulness, for the other meaning even to be brought into question; and it is wonderful that Diist. should have insisted on it.’’
CHAP. VII. 237
CHAPTER VII.
Ver. 1. Mera ratra, The xa? (¥%) prefixed in the rec. is properly deleted by Lach., in accordance with A, C, Vulg., al. Tisch. has retained it here, but not in xviii. 1, xix. 1. Im the rec. also, it is lacking in ver. 9, iv. 1. Yet it is certain in xv. 5, — The form ratra (Elz. ) is attested, of course, only by the Vulg., while the rovro, approved by Lach., Tisch., has the preponderating witnesses (A, C, %, 2, 4, 6, al.) in its favor; but the plural stands in al] similar passages (De Wette). On the other hand, the dv before dévdpov (x, rec., Tisch. IX.), in spite of the analogy of ix. 4, xxi. 27 (De Wette), must yield to the unexpected, but, indeed, well-attested, re devdp. (Lach., Tisch.), to which also the emendation rive dévdpy (19, Wetst.) points. — Ver. 2. évaBalvovra, So already Beng., Griesb., Matth., according to all witnesses. Incorrectly, Elz.: évaGdavra.— Ver. 8. dyps ogpay. A, C, &, 12, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without witnesses: daype ot o¢p. — Ver. 5. togpaytopuévor, according to the preponderating witnesses, belongs only in the first member of ver. 5, and at the close of ver. 8 (Lach., Tisch.). — Ver. 9. eldov bxAov rodty. So Lach., in accord with A, Vulg., Primas, Cypr. Tisch. with Elz. has written eldov, cal [dod 5xAo¢ xoAic (2), for which C is cited, whose authority, however, with respect to this passage, is weakened by the evident emendation of the éstére¢ into éororwy (cf. the variations éorérac, éordra, in Wetst.).— Ver. 11. Instead of éorfxeoaw (Elz.), either éorjxeacav (Beng., Tisch.), or more probably, as Matt. xii. 46 (cf. Tisch., ed. vii.), elorixeway (Matt., Lach., Tisch. CX.) is to be read. The latter form occurs in 6, 14, 16, 27, 28, Compl., al. (Wetst.), and in four codd. in Matt. A has, according to Lach., tornxeioay; C; éatnxwav; &: tornxwav. Wetst. cites A, C, 2, al., for éorjxemcay (W. and H.: lorjxewav).— Ver. 14. After xbpie, a pov is inserted in the rec., in accord with the decisive witnesses, by Beng., Griesb., Matth. The reading received by Lach., amd OAipews yeyaAne, is, indeed, attested by A; but there is reason to suspect that the reading é« rij¢ 0A. tig wey. (RB, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]) has been changed, because the restriction of the OAl~u required by the art. appeared difficult. — After éAevcavay, neither oroAds abray (Elz. [W. and H.]) nor abrac (A, &, Vulg., Lach., Tisch. IX.) is to be read. Beng., Matth., Tisch., already have rejected the repeated designation of the object. — Ver. 17. wir. So, according to decided witnesses, Beng., Griesb., Matth., al., N. The dwoac (Elz.) is a modification. Instead of amd r, 090, (x, Elz., Matth.), read é« (A, C, 2, 4, al., Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
After the conclusion of the sixth seal-vision, and before the description of the final judgment itself, to be expected in the seventh seal, whose imme- diate signs are presented in the sixth seal, although already the executors of this final storm of judgment, directed against the entire earth, stand pre- pared for their work (ver. 1), “the one hundred and forty-four thousand ser- vants of God” (ver. 8) who are of Israel, are first sealed with a ‘seal of the
238 THE REVELATION OF S8T. JOHN.
living God” (vv. 1-8). Afterwards, in the second part of ch. vii. (vv. 9-17), John beholds in a new vision an innumerable company jrom all men (ver. 9), in white robes and with palms in their hands, who stand before the throne of God and of the Lamb, and unite with all the angels in songs of praise. According to the express interpretation of ver. 18 sqq., they are such as “have come out of great tribulation,” and who, as a reward for their fidelity to their faith, in which they have victoriously endured great tribulation, are refreshed with heavenly joy before God and the Lamb.
The meaning of ch. 7, as a whole, depends Jess upon the correct expo- sition of details, than in general upon the correct statement of the intention and plan of the Apoc. Hence the following chief points must be firmly maintained, which must receive their full justification by the explanation of each several verse : —
1. The view of Vitringa is incorrect, that, as vi. 12-17 describes the first part of the sixth seal-vision, so vii. 1-8 describes its second, and vii. 9-17 its third part.1 For not only is the section vi. 12-17 perfectly complete in itself, and, as to its contents, homogeneous with the preceding seal-visions, while in ch. vii. such matters are represented as, because of their entirely different nature, belong not to the seal-visions vi. 12 sqq.; but the vision vii. 1 sqq., and the succeeding ver. 9 sqq., are expressly distinguished from what precedes, by the formula pera raidra ed? Ch. vii., therefore, contains an epi- sode,® inasmuch as it enters with a certain independence between the sixth and seventh seals (viii. 1 sqq.); in both its parts, two pure visions, imme- diately presented to the prophet, occur, which do not proceed from a seal. — 2. The question now arises, whether the twofold vision has its reference to what precedes, — whether to the sixth seal,‘ or the fifth,® or all six,¢—or to what follows, and what meaning belongs to the entire ch. vii. in its order and contents. The answer to this question depends essentially upon what meaning is attached to the act of sealing, and what relation the one hun- dred and forty-four thousand sealed (vv. 1-8) are regarded as holding to the innumerable multitude (vv. 9-17). It is a constant assumption of exposi- tors, — as well of those who identify the sealed with the innumerable mualti- tude, as those also who make a distinction, — that the sealing has as its purpose, to establish the sealed before the impending visitations, so that they may not, like unbelievers, experience them.? An appeal is made for this to Exod. xii. 7, 18; Ezek. ix. 4 sqq.; Rev. ix. 4. But this traditional inter- pretation is not correct. In neither Exod. xii. nor Ezek. ix. is there any thing said of a ogpayifev, but of a sign (onueiov), which, whether it be applied to the houses (Exod. xii.), or the foreheads of men (Ezek. ix.), has as its expressly designated end to assure those thus marked of the impending judgment. Undoubtedly the seal pressed upon the foreheads (vv. 2, 8) could be a onyelov given for a like purpose; but that this is actually the case,
1 Cf. also C.a La * Hengstenb.
3 Cf. already Beng. 7 OC. a Lap., Stern, Vitr., Beng., Eichh.,
8 Kichh., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Heinr., Ew. 1., De Wette, Bleek, also his Jn-
.ete, . troduction to the N. T7., p. 610, Hengstenb., * Vitr. 5 Ewald. Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, etc.
CHAP. VII. 289
is in no way said in this passage, and also does not follow from ix. 4,— where, as a matter of course, the sealed were not to be afflicted with certain plagues, yet not because they as sealed are secure from all plagues, but be- cause, as the sealed servants of God, they could not be attacked by any plague proceeding “from the abyss,” — but rather contradicts as well the N. T. eschatology in general,! as the prophecy of the Apoc. in particular, which admonishes only to patient steadfastness unto the end, and by the promise of eternal life can incite to conflict and victory in all temptations and troubles,? because it presupposes® that the servants of God can in no way remain untouched by all the sorrows which befall the world. The im- possibility of carrying through this interpretation of the sealing is immedi- ately seen, when the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed are to be determined in themselves, and their relation to the innumerable multitude, ver. 9 sqq. One class of expositors‘ refers vv. 1-8 to the flight of Chris- tians ® from Jerusalem to Pella, whereby they avoided (= éegpayiopuévuv) the distresses occasioned by the siege and fall of Jerusalem. The innumer- able multitude of ver. 9 is, according to Alcas., Bohmer, etc., identical with the one hundred and forty-four thousand; according to Grot., the Christians in Syria® are meant; but in any case, in vv. 9-17, the peaceful life, attended with all its wants, of those secured against the dangers and sorrows of the Jewish war, is described. The unbounded arbitrariness of this exposition,’ Heinrichs already sought to avoid by maintaining that in vv. 1-8 are to be understood not only those who fled to Pella, but all Jewish Christians up to the final judgment; besides this correct reference to the final judgment, he has also obtruded upon the text the view that the innumerable multitude, vv. 9-17, appears in heavenly glory. Thus Heinr. says that here (vv. 9-17) the Jewish Christians who perished in spite of the sealing in the judgment that entered (cf. ver. 14) appear in heaven as beatified victors; so that, therefore, “the innumerable multitude of all nations and tongues” is to be understood a part of the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed out of Israel, while the sealing itself is to be regarded as partially ineffectual. But while the expositors just named, in all the defects of their mode of explana- tion, have correctly understood at least the one point, that the sealing has occurred because of a judgment to be expected after vi. 12-17, and also declared in vii. 1 as still impending, and accordingly ch. vii. with its pros- pective reference has its correct position between the sixth and seventh seals, Vitr., Hengstenb., and, in a certain respect, Ew. also, have attempted to explain the meaning of ch. vii. by making what Augustine, Tichonius, and many older expositors in general, call a recapitulatio.® Even in these inter- preters, the view concerning the meaning and reference of the two visions, ch. vii., is inseparably combined with the conception that the sealing effects an exemption from the visitations upon the world, and with the manner in
1 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 20 eqq. 5 Jewish Christians, ver. 4 qq. # Cf. only the episties, chs. ii. and fi. 5 6 “8yria was full of Christians.” 8 Cf. already ver. 14. 7 Cf., viz., the particulars in vv. 1, 9, 11, 14,
« Alcas., Grot., Wetst., Helnr., Béhmer, 16. otc. 5 Cf. Introduction, p. 18 sqq.
240 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
which the relation of the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed, to the innumerable multitude, is determined. According to Vitringa, vii. 1-8 be- longs properly before vi. 12-17, because in vii. 1-8 it is described how the one hundred and forty-four thousand of Israel, i.e., of the true Israel in the mystic sense, the true Church of the purer evangelical profession,! are to be placed in security from the judgments stated in vi. 12-17, and to be introduced by the angels mentioned in vii. 1, while in vii. 9-17 the same sealed persons appear as an innumerable multitude in heavenly glory, after the execution of the judgment, vi. 12-17 (vii. 1 sqq ). Hengstenb. also carries us back, in vii. 1, to the point where no judgment whatever has come upon the world, therefore, before the six seals, and regards the declaration made as to how the spiritual Israel (ver. 4 sqq.), with whom all believing Gentiles are “affiliated,” consequently the entire Christian communion of saints, are rendered secure against all fhe judgments that come upon the world; but yet, since the guilt of the world is not something “absolutely alien” to the children of God, as they also have sin, and consequently — notwithstanding the sealing, — must suffer with the world, it is stated in vii. 9-17, how “the best comes at the end,” i.e., the one hundred and forty-four thousand secured against the sorrows appear as a “relatively ” innumerable multitude, who gre consoled and refreshed before God’s face after their vic- torious endurance of suffering. The contradictions involved in this mode of explanation are obvious: those who by the sealing are rendered secure against the sufferings, endure the sufferings; the numbered are innumer- able; those from the twelve tribes of Israel are of all lands and languages: and upon such contradictory propositions depends the supposition that what is beheld in ch. vii. after the six seal-visions (era raira, ver. 1, and again in ver. 9), in reality should belong before all those visions,* — a supposition against which, therefore, the text in every way conflicts. Ew., in common with most interpreters,® has correctly acknowledged the prospective position of ch. vii. to the seventh seal; only as far as he maintains a retrospection of vii. 9 sqq. to vi. 11, as he regards the innumerable multitude as the com-
‘pleted band of martyrs spoken of in the fifth seal. Yet, as Ew. aptly
remarks, the section vv. 9-17, thus understood, has an identical relation with the first vision to the seventh seal, in which retributive punishment is to be expected, inasmuch as in vv. 1-8 the sealing, i.e., the securing of Israel,‘ before the beginning of the judgments is represented; while in vv. 9 sqq., it is indicated that meanwhile that has happened which was still to be expected after vi. 11, and before the entrance of the day of judgment, viz., the completion of the number of the martyrs. Thus Ewald’s view makes its claim not so much with respect to the relation which he gives in general to ch. vii., as rather because of the determination of the innumerable multi- tude in itself, and its connection with the one hundred and forty-four thou- sand sealed. The sealed also he now interprets more correctly.
That those mentioned in ver. 9 are identical with the one hundred and
1 The Evangelical are meant in distinction 8 Cf. Aleas., Beng., Eichh., De Weitte, from Roman Catholics. Rinck, Ebrard, Chriatiani, etc. 3 Hengstenb. ¢ Ew. il.: ** The elect,” Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31.
241
forty-four thousand, vv. 1-8, and that in both places Jewish and heathen Christians are meant,! De Wette especially has attempted to prove: 1. ‘Because no reason can be conceived why only Jewish, and not heathen Christians, should be kept from those plagues.” If this be in itself correct, it will show that even though in vv. 4-8 only Jewish Christians be meant, yet the heathen Christians are not inferior in that which their sealing actually signifies. 2. “The writer of the Apoc. makes no distinction between Jewish and heathen Christians, and sometimes designates Chris- tians as Israel, sometimes as the elect of all nations and tongues,? or of the earth.” 3— Only the latter assertion is correct and self-evident, and not the former, with which especially the controversy concerning vv. 4 sqq. is connected, that “Israel,” without any thing further, designates in the Apoc. the entire Israel of God ;‘ in this passage, the name Israel can the less be understood otherwise than in the most immediate sense, i.e., to the exclu- sion of heathen Christians, as the individuals belonging to the individual tribes of Israel are mentioned directly afterwards.5 8. “Just as the king- dom of God is regarded as Jerusalem,® and its gates are marked with the names of the twelve tribes,’ so Israel is to him, viz., the true Israel of God,® Christian people.* Just so the twelve tribes, Matt. xix. 28, Jas. i. 1.” — But it is something different when the kingdom of God, in its heavenly completion, is designated by the name of the ancient city of God, —and in general, where a vivid description thereof occurs, this is given with the express features of the O. T. Church of God, while, at the same time, the tenor of the description as a whole, as well as in its individual parts, shows how in individual points, to whose higher significance the typical sub- stratum of historical relations is transformed, from when the name of Israel is used, under the special representation of the twelve tribes, concern- ing those, as is undoubtedly the case in vv. 1-8, who are to be sought on earth. 4. “ Those here designated are called, ver. 3, absolutely, the servants of God; and in xiv. 1 sqq. they appear as redeemed, either from the earth or from men.”— All these designations suit Israel,!° which comprises the ser- vants of God in a pre-eminent sense; but if in vv. 1-8 only the Jewish and not also the heathen Christians appear as the servants of God, the sealing communicated with respect to this relation, in like manner as in respect to only Jewish Christians,!? must show upon what ground this occurs, and how,
CHAP, VII.
1 Cf. also Kliefoth, p. 580: ** All servants of God who are to be at the end of days.” In Comment. ii. p. 108: the one hundred and forty-four thousand are the entire body that is to be protected, the eecumenical people of God ; ‘‘and in distinction from these are the multi- tude of many individuals whom even that pro- tection could not save from death.”
3 vy. 9, vii. 9.
® xiv. 3.
* Gal. vi. 16.
5 From the fact that the tribe of Dan is lacking, the inference is not impossible, that the designation of Israel, together with the
names of the tribes mentioned, is intended figu- ratively or mystically, f.e., the entire assembly of believers is designated, even the heathen Christians added to the spiritual Israel by adoption (Hengstenb.). Why, then, should not the spiritual Dan belong to the spiritual Israel? But if Israel proper be meant, the proper Dan would not be mentioned if the tribe were as good as dead. See on vv. 4-8.
© xx. 9, xxi. 2.
T xxi. 12,
® Gal. vi. 16.
10 Cf. on xiv. 1 agqq.
il Cf. Nr. 1.
® Cf. xviil. 4.
242 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
in fact, there is in the text no trace of the seeming slight to heathen Chris- tians. 5. “Those coming forth, vii. 9, are not such as have been preserved from the calamities, but have escaped from the same, ver. 14; hence their coming forth belongs to a later period, and a parallel occurs between this passage and the former, only in the manner wherein here what is spoken of is the preservation, and there the deliverance as its consequence.” — This proposition depends upon the false presumption that the “sealing” is a pres- ervation from calamity, upon the transformation of the present épyéevor, ver. 14, into a preterite, and the confused conception of ver. 14 in general.}
The grounds upon which an attempt is made to show the identity of those mentioned in vv. 1-8 with those meant in vv. 9-17, by understanding in both passages Jewish and heathen Christians together, are, therefore, not such as stand the test:* the text leads to the opposite view, because, in vv. 1-8, what is said has reference to Israel with its tribes, but in vv. 9 sqq. to all nations and tongues, because the number of one hundred and forty-four thousand there, although not literal but schematic, furnishes the idea of numerability, while here (ver. 9) the innumerability of the great multitude is especially emphasized; and also because what is spoken of there is the sealing, which is not mentioned here. The question therefore is: Who are those mentioned in vv. 1-8, and who those in ver. 9 sqq.? The distinction is sometimes made between Jewish Christians (ver. 1 sqq.) and Gentile Christians (ver. 9 sqq.);* or Jews to be converted at the end of the world,‘ and Gentile Christians; 5 or Jewish and Gentile Christians still living at the end of the world on the judgment day, and those who have died the death of the godly before the judgment day:® but in connection with all these explanations,’ we see neither any firm foundation in the text, nor the mean- ing and relation of the visions in connection with the whole. ‘The latter is lacking also in Bengel, who, however, has correctly discerned the chief point, that vv. 1-8 treat only of believers from Israel, and ver. 9 sqq., of the glorified of al/ nations, Gentiles and Jews.
Especially as to the “sealing,” the generally received explanation of it as the protection, or guaranty as to security, from the imminent plagues that were to come upon the world, necessarily results from the symbol in itself, or from its use in the N. T., and especially the Apoc. mode of statement, as little as that received meaning is justified by the facts; for the servants of God do not remain entirely untouched by all the sufferings whereby judg- ment comes upon the world. But as the seal serves for the attestation,
2 For, on ver. 14, De Wette remarke that 5C.aLap. Cf. Hofmann.
those mentioned there are delivered, ‘‘ by their steadfastnesa,”’ from the distress which they still had to endure notwithstanding their *‘ sealing.”
3 Cf. Bleek, who in his Beitr., p. 186, has recalled his former view of the identity of those expressly mentioned (ver. 1 sqq. and ver. 9 aqq.).
8 Eichh., etc.
4 Cf. Rom. xi. 26,
€ Stern, Rinck, Ebrard.
' To be silent concerning what ie utterly ‘wonderful, as in Aretius: ‘In ver. 1 8qq., they are meant who publicly profess Christ, as Christians in almost all Europe; ver. 9 aq., they who do not publicly profese Christ's name, as innumerable Christiane in Asia and Africa, whom Christ preserves. How he does this without external preaching, he himeelf knows.” :
CHAP. VII. 2438
as, e.g., of a document,! and, in general, for confirmation, so in this passage the sealing of those who already are servants of. God designates nothing else than the immutable firmness of their éxAoy#,? which is not to be affected even by the repacudc* of the last great odiyc.4 Striking analogies to this interpretation of the ogpayiferv are 2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 13, iv. 80.5 To the servants of God, therefore, upon whose forehead the seal of the living God is impressed, the Divine warrant is thereby given that in the greatest tribu- lations they remain the servants of God, until they have been preserved in their fidelity unto the end, and are victoriously conducted to eternal glory in God’s kingdom. The seal designates, therefore, not preservation from tribulation, but preservation in tribulation froma fall.
But even with this conception of the o¢payifery, the difficulty arises, that if the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed of Israel are not also of the Gentiles, the latter seem subordinated to the former in an inexplicable way.® This difficulty is thus removed in accordance with the context: 1. While, in respect to the servants of God from Israel, the guaranty is given in advance by the special act of sealing, that the tribulation (of the seventh seal) now entering is not to turn them from their heavenly Lord (vv. 1-8), the same thing is represented in respect to the servants of God from the Gentiles, in that (vv. 9-17) an innumerable multitude of all nations, kindreds, and tongues, therefore of Jews and Gentiles, appear as those who “ have come out of great tribulation” (ver. 14), and now stand as triumphant victors before the throne of God for no other reason than because they have persevered unto the end in the same fidelity as the sealed from Israel. 2. But that this is thus said in a twofold way, first of Israel alone, and then of all true servants of God, including those of Israel, has its foundation in the fact that inasmuch as the judgment to be expected, — in the seventh seal, — although only one comprising all enemies, yet contains two chief acts: viz., first, the punishment inflicted upon the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where the Lord was crucified, i.e., Jerusalem;? then the judg- ment upon the spiritually so-called Babel, i.e., Rome, — in the tribulation with which the Lord comes in judgment upon unbelieving Israel, the one hundred and forty-four thousand servants of God are to be kept in security, even though they are to suffer; thus the vision, vv. 1-8, looks towards what the seventh seal is to bring upon unbelieving Israel. But that also the servants of God from the Gentiles, together with the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from Israel, are to come out of great tribu- lation, and to enter glory as faithful warriors of Christ, the other vision states, which thus refers to the tribulation with which the Lord shall visit Babylon.® At the critical point, therefore, between the sixth and seventh seals, before the seventh seal, which is to show the coming itself of the
1 Of. Eeth. viii. 8. © Volkm. and aimilar critics sec here the 2 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 22-24, where especially the decided Judaism of John. .
ei 3uvarér is to be observed. t Cf. xi. 8. § Of. iff. 10. 4 Cf. ver. 14. 8 Of. vill. 1-xi. 14.
5 Of. also Rom. xv. 28; John iif. 33, vi. 27; ® Ch. xii. sqq. 1 Cor. ix. 6; Rom. iv. 11.
244 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Lord, is opened, the double vision of ch. vii. enters, whereby testimony is given, in the most express way, that all the tribulation impending over the true servants of God is not to occasion their fall, but that from this tribula- tion, which brings judgment upon the world, they are to come to eternal glory. 38. That in this sense a special sealing was given the servants of God from Israel, and not the Gentile Christians, is natural, because the con- crete form of the people of Israel with its individual tribes suggests the more definite idea of a complete mass, and, therefore, of one to be com- prised in a (schematic) number; but if the look turns to the servants of God from the heathen, the limitation vanishes, the multitude appears innu- merable (ver. 9), and the idea of a special sealing imparted to all individu- als would be entirely untenable. 4. But if what is said in ver. 9 sqq. be not only of the servants of God from the heathen, but in the innumerable multitude wherein the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed are to be regarded as included, this depends upon the fact, that, even though a special reference to the Israelites has a good foundation, yet the final equality and fellowship of all believers in heavenly glory must be made prominent.
Ver. 1. récoapas dyyédoue. We must here think neither of wicked angels,} nor of angels of the wind, after the analogy of the angel of the water, xvi. 5,2 but of angels in general, to whom the office here described has been given, ver. 2,8 just as angels afterwards appear with trumpets: and vials. Without any foundation are the allegorical interpretations, as in Beda,‘ and N. de Lyra, who proposes Maximian, Severus, Maxentius, and Licinius,§ while the other angel, ver. 2, is regarded as Constantine. — éorérac — yi. The position of the angels corresponds with their occupation: «parowwrac — yice The four corners of the earth (rac réoo. yar, rode réoo, dv.) are the points from which the four winds of the earth go forth. John beholds the four angels as they still hold the winds,’ to prevent them from blowing (iva nvéy dv, «.7.4,); but according to what immediately follows, the situation is such that the angels are ready to let loose the winds as soon as the purpose of the other ange), who is already rising up (ver. 2 sqq.), is accomplished. — If also “the four winds of the earth ” be interpreted allegorically, although the expression sounds as unallegorical as possible, —of which examples have just been given, — then also the earth, the sea, and the trees must be under stood figuratively. For thus Grot. says on r. yi: “ viz., Judaea; ” on avévouc: “The winds signify any sort of calamity.” The “sea” is “a great people, such as is that of Jerusalem especially;” the trees designate “what come from trees, as cities, but especially the temple:” in general, the times of peace under King Agrippa are meant. Bchmer regards the “earth” as
1 Aret., Zeger, Laun., Calov., Beng., Rinck, ete. 3 Alcas., OC. a Lap., Stern, Heinr., Zilll., De Wette.
3 Vitr., Ewald, Hengsatenbd., Ebrard.
4 téog. ayy.™ “ the four principal kingdoms of the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Rom- ans;"’ «pat. tT. aveu. = “They allow no one to breathe according to the pleasure of his
own right; y= “diversity of provinces; "” Sév8p.: “ diverse quality of men.”
8 *¢Hindering the doctors of the Church from preaching the word of God.” Cf. simi- lar interpretations of xpar.7. revo. dvdp.; ©.g., in Aret., who regards the wicked angels as the Pope, the Turks, etc.
6 Cf. Jer. xlix. 36; Zech. vi. 1 sqq.; Dan. vil. 2, Taper. Cf. ii. 1, Hi. 11.
CHAP. VII, 2, 3. 245
Jews, the ‘‘ sea” as heathen; therefore he says that the Christians still to be mentioned are designated by the “trees.” According to Beng., the earth is Asia, the sea Europe, the trees Africa. Hengstenb. also regards “the four winds of the earth” as symbols of the Divine judgments, viz., those described in ch. vi.; the “sea” designates masses of people; the “trees” are magnates, vi. 15. — But every kind of allegorizing is without the least foundation in the text. The winds which in their proper natural- ness are, besides, expressly designated as ‘‘the four winds of the earth,” are not once personified here, as in Zech. vi. 1 sqq.,— where, however, what is said dare not be taken as an allegory in the strict sense, — but as in vi. 4 an actual shedding of blood, and in vi. 12 an actual earthquake, so here actual winds are meant, storms which are to have the mastery of the whole earth, as they are also ready to break loose from all four ends of the earth. But in the fact, that, after the dreadful signs of the sixth seal have led immedi- ately to the day of the final judgment, now — as the description of this judg- ment is to be expected in the seventh, last seal —a visitation of like character, as in the sixth seal, is again set forth, and its infliction restrained until after the sealing of the servants of God from Israel, the intimation is already given that the actual occurrence of the final catastrophe will not be until after the course of a stil] further manifestation of preliminary afflictions, as they proceed from the seventh seal in long and connected sequence.!
Vv. 2, 3. dAdov dyyedov. That an angel — not an archangel 2— is to be thought of,® not Christ,‘ to be silent concerning the Holy Spirit,5 results not only from the appellation dyyedoc, but especially from the fact that this aoc dyy. is designated in the clearest way by the contrast with the angels men- tioned in ver. 1, as of a different nature. The mode of expression also, ver. 8, 7. dova. Tr, Oeod nud, suits most simply the mouth of an angel, not of Christ.® Cf. especially viii. 8, x. 1, xiv. 6, 8, 9, 17, xviii. 1. — dvaGalvovra dnd dvarodge fiiov. John, therefore, sees how the angel comes forth,’ while the first four angels stand already in their places as he looks upon them; the angel now entering will take part in the act. The expression émd dvar. #2iov admits of no allegorical meaning; the annexed #Aiov renders impossible the interpretation of the dvaroA7, with a vague allusion to Luke i. 78, as referring to Christ,’ so as to make the sense that the other angel is sent by Christ or God. The quarter of the heavens, the east, is designated; but not because of the look towards Judaea,® or to “ Patmos, and especially the Christian lands where the light of the gospel first shone,” 1° which is here out of place; not “because the Hebrews always turned first towards the east,” }! whereby properly nothing is explained; not because the throne of God whence the angel proceeds !° is
1 Cf. Introduction, p. 12 aqq. 6 Cf. already Beng. ' % Stern. 7 Grot.
$C. a Lap., Grot., Beng., Eichh., Ew., De 8 Calov. Wette, Rinck, Ebrard. © Wetst.
‘ Beda, Aret., Zeger, Calov., Bdhmer, 10 Stern. Hengstenb. 1 De Wette.
5 Vitr., who interprets the seal used by this 12 Ew. fi.: “ As though, by the Divine com- “angel” as “the public profession of the mission, he had commanded the sun to shine purer faith’ wrought by the Spirit. no longer with such excessive heat, but to
246 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
regarded as in the east,! for that is nowhere indicated in the Apoc.; nor because, as plagues have their origin in the east, “for the earth (viii. 7) is Asia,” so also the sealing :* but because it is appropriate and significant that the angel, coming for a victorious employment which brings eternal life, should arise from that side from which life and light are brought by the earthly sun.* The angel himself, who does not descend from heaven, but rises from the horizon,‘ ig represented after the manner of the rising sun. — Eyovra, cf. i. 16. — oppuyida beod Gavrog. Without meaning is the metonymy accepted by Grot.: “ The sealed constitution of the King.” The angel has a seal (in his hand) which he will press upon the foreheads of the servants of God. The gen. decd ¢ designates simply, that the seal belongs to the living God; that it “has been delivered by God,” ® is, therefore, self-evident, but not expressed. The attempt has been made to conjecture the legend of the seal. Beda, C. a Lap., Grot., Béhmer, regard it the sign of the cross; with more probability, Eichh., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc., propose the name of God and of the Lamb.? But since the text says nothing, nothing can be inferred.® As the definite article is absent, the idea is left open that there are different seals of God for different purposes. In this passage, the mark made by the seal, upon the foreheads of the servants of God, does not mean what the ydpayya indicates, which the worshippers of the beast receive upon the forehead or the right hand,® viz., the belonging to one Lord and serving him; for they who receive the seal are already “servants of God.” The question is as little as to the fact of their being recognized and out- wardly shown to be servants of God, or “that they receive the letter and seal to their being servants of God,” !! as that they are rendered secure from the approaching sufferings, but that, notwithstanding the approaching suffer- ing, they are guaranteed their perseverance in the state of being servants of God; therefore the suffering does not come until the sealing of the servants of God has occurred. It is significant, with respect to this purpose of the sealing, that the seal belongs to the living God, whereby it is not said that he is the true and actual, and hence not that it is only his seal which is valid,!? but that he as the living also gives life.1® Yet the conception of the glory, for which the sealed are preserved, is that they attain to eternal life in the sight of the living God.14— éxpagev guvg ueyady. The call with a strong voice is in general peculiar to heavenly beings; it does not always have a special purpose.1§ Beng. refers the loud cry of the angel to the fact that he wished to restrain the four angels who desired to make a beginning of the affliction ; Hengstenb. finds therein the certainty of the command that has been given.
reserve its ardor” (ver. 16). But this supple- ¥ Cf. xiv. 1, iff. 12.
mentary fiction is in violation of the context, 8 Hengstenb. aud ver. 15 has no analogy with the aituation 9 AapBavey; xiii. 16, xiv. 9, 11, xvi. 2, xix. of ver. 1 qq. 20, xx. 4.
1 Ew. i. 10 So Ewald, ete.
3 Beng. it Hengstenb.
8 Cf.C.a Lap., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Volkm. 12 De Wette.
« Beng. 13 Bengel, Ew., Hengstenb., Kilef.
5 Cf. ver.8: oppay. —ési rT. peTeter abr. % Cf. fi. 7, 10, ill. 6, vil. 14 eqq., xxiJ. 1 9qq.
¢ Eichh. 8 Cf., e.g., vi. 1 with v. 2.
CHAP. VII. 2, 3. 247
— The most probable idea is, that the call is to penetrate to the ends of the earth where the angels stand. — olf — avroi¢, as iii. 8. — dd06n, x.7.4. Concern- ing the aor. in the sense of a plusquampf., cf. Winer, p. 258. On the con- ception of édé@n, cf. vi. 4. The ddxeiv, injuring,’ would occur if the angels would let loose the winds which they still hold; the command jy} dducqoare, «.7.A, still hinders this.? It is contrary to the context to regard the ddueiv as consisting rather in holding fast the winds, because, had the winds blown, they would have “cooled off,” * or “blown away,” the approaching plagues; according to Herder, the restraining of the winds is to be regarded an ddueiv, as thereby ‘‘ the sultriness of death ” is occasioned before the irruption of the plagues. From the fact that in what follows, the letting loose of the devas- tating winds is not reported, the view that just this restraining of the winds is destructive * follows as little as the necessity of understanding the winds as a figurative designation: of retributive visitations of all kinds. For, that it is not devastating tempests, but other plagues of many kinds, which proceed from the opening of the seventh seal, has in a formal fespect its foundation in the fact that the succeeding seal-vision cannot justly be regarded and be treated further as a matter from the simple visions occurring between the last two seals; but a difficulty actually arises only if, hindered by a mechanical literalism, it cannot be seen that the holy fantasy of the prophet sees in " vii. 1 sqq. the storm impending, which afterwards, however, is not seen in its approach, because (viii. 1 sqq.), in place of the desolating winds, hail and fire, and other plagues, come forth. — It is noticeable that in ver. 2, the trees are not especially mentioned, as in vv. 1, 8, because it is self-evident that they belong to the earth;® there lies therein, however, a manifest hint that neither the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, are to be understood figura- tively. Hengstenb. asks, indeed, how the sea, if it be meant in the proper sense, could be injured by wiuds; he does not consider that the specification in which the trees, as objects most easily injured by storms, are especially made prominent with the simplicity of nature,’ is meant only to serve ® to make visible how the entire earth, from whose four ends the winds are to rage, will be injured. — dyp: cgpayiowuev. “Until we shall have sealed.” Cf. Winer, p. 279. The plur. indicates that the angel has associates, who need not be further mentioned.® With the whole train of thought of ver. 1 sqq., Hengstenb. conflicts when he advances the opinion that the four angels are to help in the sealing. The older interpreters, as Calov., refer the plur. to the Father and the Son, from both of whom the Holy Ghost (the seal) proceeds. [See Note LII., p. 255.] rove dotdove rod beod quiw. “ This noble designation pertains especially to saints from Israel. Gen. 1. 17; Isa. 1xi. 6.” 19 Yet the reference in the connection is to Israel alone, although the expression in itself, because of the art., could include also the Gentiles. [Note LII., p. 256.] To the angel here speaking, who is to seal, belong
1 vi. 6. 6 Ebrard. 2 Cf. Alcas., C.a Lap., Vitr., Hichh., Ewald, t Cf. De Wette. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. § Cf. v. 13. 3 Bengel. Cf. vili. 7 sqq. ® Bengel, Ew., De Wette, Rinck.
4 Kinck. 5 Hengstenb. 10 Beug.
a
248 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
only the definite, more accurately designated servants of God, of ver. 4 sqq. The +, dob jus is significant; the angel himself, together with his associ- ates, is, because of his relation to the same God, a fellow-servant of those for whose service he has been sent.1—éat rav petrdnuv abrov. The mark which the servants of the beast have received is, like the brand of slaves in ordinary life, impressed upon the right hand or forehead :* the servants of God bear the seal and name of the Lord only on the forehead. That this is the most visible place,® is a reason sufficient only with respect to those servants of the beast: with respect to the servants of God, however, it is found in the fact that the noblest part of the body bears the holy mark.
Vv. 4-8. xal fovea trav dpidudv tov tadpayopévuv. The act of sealing is, therefore, to be considered as occurring between ver. 3 and ver. 4. That John does not behold this act itself, but only hears the number of the sealed, —probably from the other angel, vv. 2, 8,4—corresponds with the holy moderation which is peculiar to true prophecy; for as in the innumerable company, ver. 9 sqq., the sealing, in general, is such as cannot be represented,® so in reference to the one hundred and forty-four thousand out of Israel, it would be in a high degree unnatural if their sealing had occurred before the eyes of the prophet. In Ezek. ix. it is, likewise, not described how the mark was made upon the foreheads of the godly; but after the command for this is communicated (ver. 4), in ver. 11 it is said that it is accomplished. Yet it is not a happy fiction of John,® that he says that he has only heard the number of the sealed; but the apparently insignificant circumstance testifies to the truth of the vision, and the entirely ethical nature of divine revelation in general. Nor is it possible for that to be revealed by vision to the prophet which must conflict with his proper subjectivity. — The schematic number one hundred and forty-four thousand applies, as a product of the radical number twelve, especially to believers from the twelve tribes of Israel. — & naone guage vicw lop. “Out of every tribe.” Cf. Winer, p. 105. The pregnant mode of expression shows that one hundred and forty-four thousand in all were sealed, and that the sealed were from every tribe. What follows (vv. 5-8) makes the declaration more specific, upon which it is to be noted: 1. That the number of twelve thousand, fixed for each of the twelve tribes, from the very fact that it is every time the same shows that it is schematic by ex- pressing the idea that in the divine gifts of grace all have like share, but no one from any one right. It is just as when in Ezek. xlvii. 14, the Holy Land appears equally divided among all the tribes. 2. As to the representation of the tribes, neither the tribe of Levi dare be missing,’ nor is the fixed num- ber, twelve, exceeded. Yet it was impracticable to include Manasseh and Ephraim under the name of Joseph, because each of those two branches of the original tribe of Joseph stands by the side of the other tribes with sig-
1 Cf. xix. 10, xxii. 9. 7 Beng., correctly: ‘Since the Levitical
3 xiii. 16, xiv. 0, xx. 4. ceremonies have been abandoned, Levi again ® Aret., Beng., Stern, etc. is found on an equal footing with his brethren. 4 De Wette, Ebrard. All are priests; all have access, not one through 8 See the general note on ch. vii. the other, but one with the otber.”
® Ztill.
CHAP. VII. 4-8. 249
nificative independence of age.!_ If, also, John wanted, in general, to avoid the name of Ephraim, because of the untheocratic reminiscence connected therewith, he put instead thereof the accurately taken paternal name of Joseph, including also the fraternal tribe of Manasseh.? Yet the appear- ance of not thirteen, but only twelve tribes, is accomplished by the omission of the tribe of Dan.* Gomarus,‘ Hartwig, and Ziill. have indeed put Ady instead of Mavaco7,— an arbitrary decision, in no way justified by unim- portant codd. (ix. 18), because they offer Adv instead of T'ad,5 and this contra- dicts the express testimonies of Iren., Orig., Andr., etc. Of just as little force is the play upon the name Manasseh, according to which the root of the word (NY), “he forgot”) is regarded as indicating that here another name, viz., Dan, is regarded as forgotten, or properly not forgotten, but “embraced or incorporated in a secret way.”® The intentional omission of the tribe of Dan is explained, especially by the Church Fathers, by the fact that from this tribe the Antichrist was to come,’ which, however, John no- where intimates. Others have recalled the idolatry of the Danites;*® but the old sin of the tribe can be no foundation for excluding all its members from eternal life. The avoidance of the name of Ephraim, that had become “ offensive,” ® in no way favors this view, because the tribe named, of course, intentionally not as Ephraim, but Joseph, presents its twelve thousand like the rest. ‘The simplest reason for not naming Dan lies rather in the fact that it had died out long already before the time of John;?° even though the more definite declaration of Jewish tradition that only the family of Husim gurvived from the tribe of Dan,!! may be nothing but a reminiscence of Gen. xlvi. 23. Already in 1 Chron. iv. sqq., the tribe of Dan is omitted, although it is not passed over in 1 Chron. ii. 1 sqq. Cf. also Deut. xxxiii., where the small tribes of Simeon and Issachar are lacking. —In the succession it is only by an artificial subtilty which often passes over into pure trifling, that & consequent intention and a mystical meaning can be found. Beda, e.g., explains, because of the secret meaning of the name: “ After Judah, there- fore, Reuben; i.e., after the beginnings of divine confession and praise, the performance of an action follows.” 12 Besides, the opinion of Hengstenb.?* is possible, thet the sons of the wives and those of the bondwomen are intentionally commingled in order to indicate that in Christ no earthly dis- tinction is valid. But Grot. also can say, from his standpoint, “ No order is observed, because in Christ all are equal.”24 It is natural for Judah to have the precedence, because from that tribe the Lord comes.”15 Reuben follows afterwards, who as the firstborn could have stood before.'® The suc- ceeding names are introduced without further intention; only at the close
1 Ewald, etc. 3 Cf. Num. riif. 11. ® Hengstenb. 8 Cf. especially Heinrichs, Avcursue iil.: % Grot., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc. **Cur in recensu tribuum Israel, c. vii. 5-8, 1 Cf. Grot. nulla tribus Danitice mentio fiat” (li. 228 aqq.). 13 ‘* Reuben = videns filium; filii = opera.” * In Wetet. 5 Cf. aleo Matth. 33 Cf. Vitr., ete. 6 Beng., Eichh. 14 Cf. also C. a Lap., Calov., De Wette, etc. 7 Cf. Gen. zlix.17. Beda, Andr., C.a Lap., wy. 5; Heb. vil. 14. Beda, Beng., Rinck, Stern. Ebrard, eto.
8 Judg. xvifl. Wetst., Vitr., Hengutenb. 16 Cf. aleo 1 Chron. y. 1.
250 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. stands Benjamin as the youngest, and finally, from an allusion to the O. T.,! in connection with Joseph.*
Ver. 9. Mera raira eldov, x.7.A, The entire vision, vv. 9-17, follows, of course, upon what precedes, but it is throughout, as to its significance, inseparable from what precedes; against De Wette, who calls the vision proleptical or ideal, because here John ® “looks forward from the develop- ments which he beholds in the earthly world, to their blessed fulfilment,” — in connection with which nothing further is to be asked than how the saved enter heaven, whether through death, or otherwise. But even though the vision, as to its contents, be proleptical, nevertheless, wherever it occurs, ite meaning and force must be determined by the connection of the entire Apoc.; and this corresponds to the parallelism in which the second vision of ch. vii. stands to the first.4— dyAov woddy, «.7.4. In contrast with the Anultitude out of Israel represented by a definite number (v. 4 sqq.), the ‘great concourse from every people, and all tribes and tongues, appears here as innumerable. The contrast required by the text cannot be explained away by the fact, that, if the one hundred and forty-four thousand be identi- fied with this great multitude, the innumerability becomes relative, with which then it is regarded as harmonizing that John, ver. 4, heard the num- ' ber of the sealed, because they were innumerable by him:® this expedient, however, is not allowed by the words, ver. 9, dy dpi. abr. obdeic #d.; cf. with reference to the &»—airov, ver. 2. The remark of De Wette also, that ver. 4, by its numerical statement, presents the idea of election with the antithesis of reprobation, while ver. 9 refers only to the attaining of sal- vation without this antithesis, is inapplicable, because the idea of election lies alike in the text in both passages; since, just as the one hundred and forty-four thousand are out of Israel (é« mac. vA. vl. "lop., ex gua, "lovd, x.1.A.), so the innumerable multitude are out of all nations (é« ravr, é@v.). The essential distinction is in the fact that the horizon, which in ver. 4 com- prised only Israel, now includes absolutely all nations and races, Gentiles and Jews, humanity in its totality. This is stated by the second formula with its four categories, which also comprises all sides in its enumeration.® [See Note LIV., p. 258.] tordrec — mepeBeBAnuévove, x.r.A. There is no diffi- culty in the use of the plural with a collective;7 but also the irregularity of using the nom. eorérec, and thus throwing the clause éer.—dpviov out of the construction, while the next words, repiBe8Anpévour, «.7.A,, recur to the original structure of the sentence (eldoy dyAcv wodév), is not inadmissible in the idiom of the Apoc. The standing before the throne of God and of the Lamb ® points to the eternal communion with God and the Lamb,® whose heavenly glory and blessed joy are also expressed by white robes,!° and palm-branches
1 Gen. xxzxv. 2%, xlvi. 20, 21; Deut. xxvii. 21; Num. 1. 10, 11; 1 Chron. ii. 2.
2 It is strange that in &, not only Gad and Simeon are forgotten, but also Joseph and Benjamin are transposed.
$ Cf. xi. 16 eqq., xiv. 1 eqq., 18, xv. 2 aqq.
* Bee general remarks on ch. vii.
& Hengstenb.
¢ Cf. v. 9.
? Winer, p. 480.
8 Cf. ver. 15, xxii. 8
® Grot., who refers this, in general, to the great number of Christians in Syria, remarks on édoreres, x.7.A.: “1.6, having a mind not sunk to earth, but raised to heaven.”
2 Cf. vi. 11.
CHAP. VII. 11, 12. 251
in the hands of those who have finished their course. There is no founda- tion for the inference from the goivxer of a heavenly feast of tabernacles as the festival of the eternal harvest-home ;? but when, also, in ver. 15 (oxyvécee bn’ abrotc), a reference is found to the dwelling in tabernacles, and, in con- nection with ver. 17 (én? Gane xnydc bddruv), to the fact that * during the feast of tabernacles, a priest daily drew water from the wells of Siloah in order to sprinkle it beside the altar, something entirely foreign is introduced.* But on the other side, also, the reference to the palm-branches, which the victors in the Grecian games bore with their palm-garlands,‘ is excessively specific.® It is entirely sufficient, without any more special reference, to regard the palm-branches as a sign of festal joy. — x. xpa{ovot duvg weyadg. The strength of the cry, besides being peculiar to the heavenly beings,’ corresponds to the impulse of their joy and gratitude.* — 4 awrnpia, «.r.A. They sing praises as those who have become complete participants of salvation; and this they ascribe to their God, who sits upon the throne, as the ultimate author, and the Lamb as the mediator. The ouwrypla is not victory in general,® but the entire sum of the salvation which the blessed now perfectly possess, since they have been removed from all want, temptation, sin, and death, and have come into the presence of their God.?° Improperly, Grot. explains 4 owrnpia metonymically, viz., “thanks for the salvation received.” The thanksgiving, however, occurs from the fact that the ceowpéva ascribe the ournpia given them, to their God as curfp.
Vv. 11, 12. All the angels, in response, continue the ascription of praise, ver. 10. — elorixecoav— cal Execav, x.r.A. They stood already (“had stationed themselves”) during the scene described in vv. 9, 10; now they fall down.!2— Ausv. The angels, first of all, conclude man’s song of praise, ver. 10,8 in order then, in their own way, to carry it farther: # ebAoyia, «.7.4, This doxology is formally distinguished from that in v. 12 by the fact that in this passage every particular item appears distinctly marked by the article attached as being in complete independence. Beng. remarks, arbitrarily, that the sevenfold ascription of praise has in view the seven trumpets, and there- fore in the trumpet of the first angel, etAoyia, and in that of the second angel, é6ga, prevails, etc. With equal arbitrariness, Hengstenb.: the etAocyia, which concludes v. 12, here precedes as a sign that the present ascription of praise is connected with the former, — but what a distance between v. 12 and vii. 12! The particular explanation of Grot. on ver. 11: “ For both the apostles who were at Jerusalem, and the elders, had gone forth together,” in connection with his reference of ver. 9 sqq. to the multitude of Christians in Syria, is to be understood only when his observations on iv. 4, 6 sqq., are recalled.
1 Cf. Vitr., Etchh., Heinr., Hengstenb., 6 Cf. John xii. 18; 1 Macc. xiil. 51. ' Bohmer. 7 Cf. ver. 2.
2 Cf. Winer, Rwb., il. 9. 8 Cf. OC. a Lap.
8 Against Vitr., Hengstenb., ete. ® Eichh.
4 Pausanias, Arcad., 48: oi &@ aywves dot- © Cf. vv. 9, 15, xxi. 4. yixos €xavocy ot toAAot orddavor: cic 82 Thy 11 Of. v. 11, where, in a similar way, an Sefiay dori cai wayraxo’ Te vixens dors OGue- innumerable multitude appears. vos doin£.; in Wetst. 3 Cf. v. 14, xi. 16.
5 Against Ew., etc. 3 C.a Lap., Beng., Heinr., Ew. , Hengatenb.
252 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Vv. 13-17. The second half of the vision contains an express interpre- tation of the first half, ver. 9 sqq. — That it is one of the elders, who gives this interpretation,! corresponds with the idea of these élders as the repre- sentatives of the Church,* whose innumerable multitude appears here in glory.*— drexpién designates, like 1}}?,4 the speech uttered when an occasion is given,® which, however, cannot be limited to a definite question. Here the Groxpiveopa: may be referred ® to the (unexpressed) desire of John to learn something further concerning the multitude beheld in ver. 9; but even with- out accepting any such unexpressed question of John, the simple reference of the fact of the vision, ver. 9 sqq., as the occasion for the declaration of the elders, is sufficient. The form of a dialogue,’ with its dramatic vividness, serves to emphasize the point under consideration; for, by asking what he intends to explain,® the elder brings John to the answer which comprises the acknowledgment of his own ignorance, and the expression of the wish for an explanation. Thus, then the explanation, awaited with expectancy, follows in ver. 14 sqq. — river eloly xal x60ev HAGov. The elder presents the two points concerning which one unacquainted would naturally ask first.® Both questions also have their answer in ver. 14, of course not in an exter- nal sense as though they had to do with names, station, country, etc., but so that the inner nature of the appearance is explained. — The address xipce nov, which everywhere expresses real homage, — even where the ov, which makes the reference still more earnest, is lacking,!° — has in John’s mouth complete justification, because he stands before a heavenly being, whose superiority he acknowledges in the matter immediately under-consideration by the od oidac. By this John does not say, “I, indeed, know it too, but you know it better,” ! but, “I do not know it, yet it may be heard from you, as you know it.” 12— oi épxouevoz. Incorrectly, Ew. i.: “who have just come hither ;’ Ebrard, etc., “those having come.” The present is to be retained,!® as it alone corresponds to the idea of the entire vision ; '‘ for it is not individuals, as possibly martyrs,!5 who are introduced, but to the seer there is given in anticipation a view of all faithful believers, as they are thus shown to him as those who, after the great tribulation of the last day shall be finished, shall stand before the throne of God and of the Lamb, ver. 9 sqq. The explana- tion of the elder (in which the present épyduevor, the aor. ExAvvay, cixavay (ver. 14), again the present eictv, Aarpetovow, and, finally, the future oxyvdce — éareipec (vv. 15-17), must, in like manuer, be observed) is intelligible iu its form of expression only by regarding the reality as not yet coinciding with
1 Cf. v. 4. genus? unde domo?” More examples of the 2 Cf. iv. 4. kind in Wetat. 8 Cf. Ebrard. 20 Zech. |. 9, iv. 4, 5, 18; Gen. xxiil. 6, 11,
4 Cant. 11.10. Ew.
5 Matt. xi. 25. Cf., on this, Meyer.
¢ Beng., Hengstenb.
7 De Wette. Cf. Jer. i. 11 eqq.; Zech. iv. 1 sqq.
8 ‘‘ He aske in order to teach.” Lap., Aret., etc.
® Cf. Jon. 1.8. Virg., den., vili. 14: " Qai
Beda, C.a
xxxi. 85; Num. xii. 11; John xii. 21, xx. 15.
11 Ebrard.
12 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb.
18 Beng., Zull., De Wette, Hengstenb.; also Ew. il.
14 Cf. the preliminary remarks on ch. vil.
18 Cf. the dx r. OAiy. T. wey. and the éwAuras, KeFA.
CHAP. VII. 13-17. 253
what has been beheld. The vision displays that host as they are already before God's throne, and are serving him (elolv, Aarpebovow, ver. 15, pres.) ; they are those who (in their earthly life) have washed (rAvvav, tAebxavay, ver. 14, aor.) their robes in the blood of the Lamb. From the same standpoint, the pres. épyéuevoe yields the idea, that they come before the eyes of the gazing prophet, and assemble before the throne of God. For it appears more suit- able to one contemplating the standpoint of the vision in all the other points up to ver. lia (éy 7. v. abr.), to hold fast, also, to the pres. épyépuevor, than } to regard this épyduevoe in the sense of a future, and to find the allusion in the fact that that multitude was actually still upon earth, and is only still to come. Particularly opposed to this is the.combination with the aor. «. ExAmav. But from ver. 15 (xa? 6 xa6np., «.7.A.), the elder speaks not from the standpoint of the vision, but of reality. To that entire multitude, which is already presented to John in the vision as in final glory, there yet belongs first, since they are, in reality, still upon earth, the great hope of which the elder speaks: 6 xa0. énl 7. Op. oxnvooe tx’ abr., ob metvdcovoy, «.r.A, It is through- out sufficient that the explanatory address maintains in the beginning the standpoint of the vision, and that it is not until the close that the proper situation of affairs is opened. — éx ric OAiWweuc rite weydAnc. Not only because of the definite article, and the discriminating predicate r. ueyiAnc, but also because of the reference of the entire vision from ver. 9, it is impossible to understand “the great tribulation ” very generally “of all trouble and labor on earth:”? on the contrary, the eschatological reference is necessary whereby the 6Aiycc, announced by the Lord in Matt. xxiv. 21, and also prophesied by John, which is to be expected after vi. 17, and therefore in the seventh seal, the immediate preparatory signs of which, also, are de- scribed already in vi. 12-17, is meant.* The entire vision (ver 9 sqq.) thus places before the eyes the fact, that, like the sealed of Israel (ver. 1 sqq.), the innumerable multitude of all believers out of all nations shall neverthe- less remain faithful in that great tribulation, and therefore shall attain to heavenly glory. — xai ErAvvay — dpviov. Concerning the relation expressed by the aor., see on of tpyéuevn. On the subject itself, Beda remarks, ‘“‘ He does not speak of the martyrs alone: they are washed in their own blood.” Thus he has already‘ correctly recognized the idea at once obvious, which elsewhere is marked by the expression r. dpviov,® that the whiteness of the robes has been produced by the (atoning and redeeming) blood of Christ as the Lamb of God.* But the idea recognized, in general, by Beda, of the cleansing power of martyrdom, has been introduced into the text not only by expositors like N. de Lyra, who regards the blood of the Lamb as the blood of martyrs, “ because it is the blood of his members,” but even by Ew. i., manifestly because of his erroneous reference of ver. 9 sqq. to mar- tyrs, as he remarks, “by the blood of Christ, i.e., the death which they endured because of Christ’s doctrine, and having followed in this the exam- ple of Christ,” etc. It is, in other respects, contrary to the nature of the
1 Ztill., Hengstenb. 4 Cf. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, 2 Gen. v. 20, ill. 16 sqq. Beng. Bleek; aleo Ew. fi. 5 Cf. v. 6. ® Cf. Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. ® Of.{.5; Eph. v. 25 aqq.; 1 John I. 7.
254 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
figures, when Hengstenb. tries to distinguish the washing from the making white, and refers the former to the forgiveness of sins, and the latter to sano- tification; such a washing, however, is designated whereby the robes are made white. The delicate feature of correct ethics is also here to be noted, which lies in the fact that they who (in their earthly life) have washed their garments white in the blood of the Lamb appear in the future life attired in white clothing. What follows also ver. 15, in its connectidn with 62 rovro, depends upon the fundamental view which has been explained: those hosts could not stand before God’s throne, beneath the protection of his shadow, if, through the temptation of the great tribulation, they had not carried unsoiled the garments which had been made white in the blood of the Lamb. — Concerning the tenses, the present (eloly, Aarpebover, ver. 15a) and the future (oxqvéce:, «.7.A, ver. 165-17), see on of tpydpevan (ver. 14). To refer the entire discourse (vv. 15-17) to earthly circumstances,? is so manifestly contrary to the tenor of the words, that the entire conception of ch. vii., which introduces such absurdities, contradicts itself. — elow tvdmor tod Opévov r. 0. Already, the fact that they are there is blessedness. Cf. iv. 4, xxi. 8, xxii. 4; John xvii. 24; 1 John iii. 2; Phil. i. 23; 1 Cor. xiii. 12. xal Aarpebovorv, x.t.A, Cf. iv. 8 sqq., v. 8 sqq., xxii. 8. It is the glory of the priestly service in heaven ; hence, éy rp vay abrod.* — huépac xal vuxrdc. “ Speak- ing after our custom, eternity is nevertheless meant.” 4 — xai 6 xadjpevoc — oxnvecet én’ abrobc. In accord with Lev. xxvi. 11, Isa. iv. 5, Ezek. xxxvii. 27,5 here * the eternal, immediate, personal presence of God enthroned in his glory, and the holiness and blessedness of believers perfected therein, are described, viz., the shechinah of God over them, but no more, as in an earthly covering, by pillars of smoke and fire, but in its heavenly immediateness, 80 that the oxyvotv of the enthroned One harmonizes with the elva: tvémwoyv rod Gpévov r. 0. of the blessed. The further description also of heavenly freedom from pain (ver. 16), and eternal refreshment and consolation (ver. 17; cf. xxi. 4), is given with the old prophetic features.’ — ray cava, after the spe- cial 6 #40¢, is general; no kind of heat, whatever it may be, e.g., that of scorching wind.® — ri rd dpviov, x.7.4. Isa. lxix. 10, declares the reason: “for? he that hath mercy on them shall lead them,! even by the springs of water shal] he guide them.”™ By writing instead of this,'? rd dpviov, «7A, John designates the mediatorship of Christ, the Lamb, through whose blood especially,!% believers have come where they now stand, and who also feeds his own people there,!4 and leads them unto living fountains of waters. An allusion to the position of the Lamb as mediator lies, besides, in the desig- nation rd dva pécoy tot Opovov. This formula is impossible with the entirely
1 Cf. if. 4, xix. 8. 6 Cf. xxi. 8. 2 Grot., on ver. 15: “‘Here at Pella, God t Cf. Iea. xlix. 10, xxv. 8. kept them safe from ali the very great evils 8 De Wette. which await the contamacious Jews; on ver. ® Incorrectly, LXX.: dAAd, 16, *‘ They shall have whence they may live.” % Incorrectly, LXX.: wapaxaAdcet. 8 Cf. the iepets (i. 6, v.10), which pertains 11 Inaccurately, LXX.: aai da ryyer bbaresy already to the earthly life of believers. afe. avrovs. — ¢ Beda. 12 Cf. De Wette, Hengstend., Ebrard.
5 De Wette, Hengstenb., ete. 13 Of. v. 9. 24 Cf. xiv. 1 0qq.
NOTES. 255
synonymous éy peop rob Opévov, vv. 5, 6, as De Wette wishes, because there the position of the Lamb is not “in the midst of the throne,” but “in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders ;! but here the position of the Lamb is described entirely apart from the circle of the four beasts and the elders, and alone with reference to the throne. Only the present statement dare not stand in opposition to v.6. Ewald’s explanation: “towards the midst of the throne, i.e., near the throne, placed by the Divine throne,” is too vague, and ignores the peculiar significance of the dva pécov; although the translation, “towards the midst of the throne,” is perfectly correct.* The difficulty of the idea lies in the fact that, while in other places the dva péoov refers* to a mass,‘ or at least to two parts, in whose midst something is arranged,® here dva péoov is attached to the single conception rod épévov, 80 that the simple “ between,” which necessarily corre- sponds with the éy péoy, v. 6, is here entirely inadmissible. But the solu- tion lies in the way indicated by Ewald: the Lamb is so placed as to be turned towards the midst of the throne; it therefore stands directly before the throne,°—a statement perfectly harmonizing with the description of v. 6. If, however, the Lamb be beheld directly before the throne of God, or in the midst of the circle of representatives of believers who surround God’s throne, it always has the same position between Him who sits on the throne, and the four beings and twenty-four elders who stand around; i.e., the form of the Lamb in itself, as well as this position, designates Christ as the atoning mediator. Hence it is just as little liable to exception, that there is ascribed here to the Lamb both a zomaivew and a ddryeiv," as comprising the Lamb’s entire activity.® —ém Guije myyac tdaruv. The em- phatic prefixing of Guje is precisely like that of capxdc, 1 Pet. iii. 21.9 On the subject itself, cf. xxii. 1.—sxal ééareipet, x.r.A. Cf. xxi. 4; Isa. xxv. 8. It is not without many tears that they come out of great tribulation (ver. 14); but when they have overcome, God himself shall dry their tears, and change their weeping into joy.1° [See Note LV., p. 258.]
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LIL Ver. 8. odpayoouer,
Beck: ‘Sealing, in general, serves partly for authentication or confirmation, partly for assurance. Here it is accomplished by means of the seal of the living God, the Divine, royal seal (ver. 2). Divine sealing designates a real act, a covenant act, whereby the one who receives it is acknowledged and authen- ticated as belonging to God by an actual mark of discrimination (Rom. iv. 11). In the N. T. sense, the Holy Spirit is the Divine seal of the covenant, and the
1 See on the passage. 5 Cf. Winer, p. 872. 2 Against Hengstenb., who defends the su- © Ew. il.: ‘*an der Mitte dee Stuhies.” perficial translation ‘‘ between, in the midst.” 7 It is, nevertheless, the proper person
8 Exod. xi.7; Ezek. xxif. 16; 1 Kings v.12; Christ who is understood as the Shepherd of Judg. xv. 4; LXX.; alsol Cor. vi.5. Cf.,on his people. Cf. Ps. xxill.1; 1 Pet. ii. 12; John this, Meyer. x. 12. 8 5:7 sq.
4 Mate. xili. 25; Mark vil. 31; Isa. ivil. 5. 9 Beng. 10 Cf. Ps. cxxvi. 5 aq.
256 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
sealing occurs by the communication of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. i, 22; Eph. i. 18, iv. 80). The idea of the living God is concentrated especially in the quickening Spirit of the new covenant. By the communication of this Spirit, man is not merely assured of, or promised, something new, but something real is given him. There is then in man a new spirit entirely different from what he previously had; a spirit such as was manifested in Christ, and which thus animates him with an entirely different inner life from what he had before, a life actually rooted and nourished in Christ and God. A result of this com- munication of the spirit is that they who receive it are elect (1 Thess. i. 4 sq.; 2 Thess. ii. 18). At the same time, they are armed by the Spirit, and by his power assured against a fall and wandering astray (Rev. iii. 10; 2 Tim. i. 7, 12, 14; 1 Pet. i. 5; 1 John iv. 4, v. 18). The reference to error and a fall dare not be here excluded, as, at the crisis of the world, the wisdom, patience, and fidelity of believers will, in various ways, be expressly put to the test (xiii. 8-10, xiv. 12). But, as in ch. vii. 8, the sealing is presented in direct contrast with the harm inflicted upon the world, there is in this sealing also a security, by God’s preservation, against the plagues from God, impending over the world. Cf., as analogies, Exod. xii. 7, 18; Ezek. ix. 4. But this does not prevent those sealed against the Divine judgments and temptations, from having still to suffer many troubles from men, of whom the greater part, even during the Divine judgment, do not come to repentance, but rather are guilty of all sorts of mani- festations of godlessness. Cf. the epistles, chs. ii. and ilf.; also vi. 11, xiii. 10, 15; Matt. xxiv. 9. In the time of expectation, therefore (vi. 11), in the nearness of God’s judgments, there occurs a sealing, i.e., an especial spiritual strengthen- ing and providential assurance of those elected as belonging to the people of God. According to the character of the book, the sealing is typified before the sight of John; hence an angel appears with a golden seal in his hand, although the Divine sealing is the work of the Spirit of God, and not of an angel. The sealing further occurs by an impression on the forehead, and thus is externally imparted to the sealed. If we compare ch. xiv. 1, where the same number, one hundred and forty-four thousand, recurs, only in another connection, it is the name of the Father of Jesus Christ that is written or impressed as a mark upon the forehead. The sealing itself ig not there mentioned, since this had preceded the persecution; there the one hundred and forty-four thousand have experienced both sealing and persecution. The seal contains the name of the owner; after they have been sealed on the forehead with God’s seal, they con- tinue to carry there God’s name. Cf. also iii. 12, xxli.4. Therefore by the seal of God on the forehead is designated the Divine disposition externally express- ing itself in their personal conduct, and thereby also giving assurance exter- nally that marks them as belonging to God. The antithesis to this mark of God is the mark of the beast on the forehead (xiii. 16).’”? Gebhardt: ‘“‘ A symbol of the Divine assurance that his servants should not be smitten by the greater plagues which were yet to come.’’
LITI, Ver. 4. rod¢ dotAoue rod beod,
Gebhardt emphatically dissents from the limitation of the one hundred and forty-four thousand to converted Israelites: ‘‘ Neither the Jews in contrast with the Gentiles, nor the Christian Jews in distinction from the Christian Gentiles, but Christians, the true Israelites, whether Jews or Gentiles. The twelve tribes of the children of Israel are therefore identical with the people of God; only the
NOTES. 257
latter are described in O. T. style, or typically, and as a living great organism.”’ ‘‘ Where the purpose fs to confirm Christians in their confidence in God, or to impress on their mind their high dignity, they are represented as the true Israel, as the numbered or chosen one hundred and forty-four thousand.’’ -So Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, iv. ili, 251): ‘‘ The one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed out of all the tribes of the children of Israel are not only Christians among the Jews, upon which see Calov., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., Klief., etc.; but rather the entire congregation of believers is meant, the true spiritual Israel, who have been preserved from all the plagues to be inflicted on the world.”? Beck also argues against the view advocated by our author, but regards those sealed as elect persons among believers: ‘‘ The vio: ’lopa7A here mentioned are ancient Israel as little as Jerusalem in the Apocalypse is ancient Jerusalem, or as little as, in general, the temple, altar, candlesticks, Balaam, Jezebel, Jews, etc., above, designate the ancient historical objects and persons; but the latter are only the types of that which corresponds in the Christian con- gregation. So the name Israelites here fs likewise typical. The twelve tribes of the children of Israel, from whom the choice is made, have, in the Apocalypse, their metropolis in the New Jerusalem, which, according to xxi. 12, 14, has the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on its doors, and is built upon the foundation of the twelve apostles. The name of this new Jerusalem, as the N. T. city of God, is, according to iil. 12, stamped, together with the name of the N. T. God (my God, i.e., Jesus Christ), and, therefore, with the seal of God here mentioned with respect to the children of Israel, upon those who, by fidelity to the word of Jesus Christ, have proved conquerors in the time of trial. Thus it is also expressly said of the one hundred and forty-four thousand designated in xiv. 3, that they were ‘purchased from the earth,’ or (ver. 4) ‘from among men,’ from human- ity, and, therefore, not merely from the Jewish nation; cf. v. 9. In the Apoca- lypse, the entire development of the kingdom is stated universally. It has thus, also, nothing whatever to do with a particularistic national sphere, or with the history of a particular people, but with the universal national sphere, with the universal judgment and universal salvation, and, therefore, with a universal and not a partial, holy nation; cf. x. 11. But this conception is conformable also to the N. T. fundamental view. According to this, there is awarded to ancient Israel, indeed, the first participation in universal grace (Rom. i. 16, xi. 25-32), but no such particular preference as the sealing before the plagues, so that, therefore, all Gentile Christians must be subject thereto. The national distinction between Jew and Gentile, the distinction of the flesh, is removed in the fellowship of the new covenant (John x. 16, xi. 52). What unites them as one new people of God is the unity of faith and life on the basis of. the new, spiritual type of humanity formed in Jesus Christ. Cf. Acts xv. 7-9; Rom. fi. 28. Cf. ver. 29 with ver. 26; Eph. ii. 18-15, 18, ili. 3-6; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. ili. 26-28; Col. iif. 11. Since the Christian community, formed of both nationalities, is the true bearer of the Divine covenant, the name of Israel and its twelve tribes is, accordingly, transferred to the Christian Church. Only in its unity and organization of spirit, the typical Israel finds its full expression, its fulfilment, as it formerly presented only a union and organization of people of God which was of the flesh (Rom. ix. 6-8). Cf. Gal. tv. 28; Rom. ix. 24 sqq., x. 11-138: Gal. Lil. 7, iv. 26, vi. 158q. Cf. Phil. fii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 1, with fil. 9; Matt. xix. 28 with vili. 11 sq. and xxviii. 19; Rev. xvili. 4; and, finally, xxi. 12, 14, the climax of the entire view. . . . The number of the sealed in the Apoc. comprises, therefore, neither merely converted Jews (whether of the first or the last times),
258 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. nor all Christendom, or the entire number of believers, but (é« wdoyc gvAjc) a selection from all tribes or sections of believers without distinction of Jewish or heathen origin. They are the approved spiritual Christians, the réAcio (Phil. iii. 18 sqq.); and their sealing occurs by their receiving the new seal of the covenant, the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son in special power and fulness, so that he appears in a visible mark, characterizing their entire conduct, and secures them against the trials pertaining to the empire of the world, especially on the part of a spurious Christianity (cf. Matt. xxiv. 21-25; 1 John ii, 18, 20, 27), and against the judgments of God proceeding through the world.”’
LIV. Ver. 9. dxAog woric.
‘Where the mercy and love of God are praised, Christians are represented as an innumerable multitude’? (De Wette, Gebhardt). Beck, however, urges the dis- tinction from those mentioned in vv. 3-8: ‘‘ This appearance forms manifestly a contrast with what precedes. For: 1. The definite one hundred and forty-four thousand is opposed by the innumerable multitude. 2. é« mavrd¢ EGvouc is con- trasted with é« méone gudnc vidv’lopanA. 8. Ver. 14. The of epyopuevos tx rizg OAipeus Tie ueyGAn¢ must have passed through the great tribulation in contrast with the elect secured therefrom already before its beginning (ver. 2 sqq.). 4. Finally, there is a contrast in the placing of the great multitude in heaven (ver. 9, évamtov Tov Opévov), while the theatre in the preceding ver. 3 is the earth. Here, then, those appear who have passed through the visitation of judgment, and suffered, although they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; i.e., they have availed themselves of the cleansing efficacy offered in Christ (ver. 14), for participation in which they were not aroused until by perse- cution. Cf. 1 Cor. iii, 12-15. Of the death of martyrs, which has been conjec- tured, nothing is here said. By the side, therefore, of the sealed first-fruits, appear those who have not been purified until by the tribulation. From them proceeds an innumerable multitude of triumphing conquerors. . . . To the apos- tolic, Christian, germinal Church, to the elect from the Divine-covenant people, there is added the elect from all humanity. Since, however (ver. 3 sqq.), the people of God itself is distinguished according to tribes, and, from these tribes, the sealed are taken only as a selection, and thus, also, among the tribes (ver. 9) are comprised those who belong to the people of God, i.e., Jews and Christians, in like manner, the xév 2voc {ncludes the entire heathen world. Therefore, after the great period of tribulation (Matt. xxiv. 21-29), and through it, a collection of the saved still continues, from all humanity, without distinction of religion, whether heathen, or Jewish, or Christian (cf. Rom. ii. 7-10), as well as without distinction of political relations (Aacv) and languages (yAwoooyr). For, since there is no section of the human world that does not furnish its contingent to those saved from the great tribulation, an innumerable multitude is formed, although relatively the elect are few (Matt. xx. 16).”
LV. Vv. 14-17.
Gebhardt: ‘‘The heavenly promises add nothing new to those already available for the earthly Christian life. It is evident that the promise of deliverance from tribulation, rest from labor, cessation from suffering, as well as perpetual joy after trial overcome, belong only to heaven. But, otherwise,
NOTES. ) 259
the contents of future blessedness are distinguished from those in the promises only in particular symbolic features, and they are still, in nature, the same. The Christian has this blessedness at the moment of his becoming a Christian; but what he possesses and does and is here, in conflict and growth, amidst the discrepancy of his real nature with its manifestation in his life, and still more with the conduct of the world, he possesses and does and is there, in rest and realization.’’
260 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER VIII.
Ver. 1. Instead of re (%), which comes from vi. 1, 8, etc., read Srav (A, C, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 3. ta doce. So, properly, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], in accord with A, C,*. Emendations are’ dooy (Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth.) and do (6, 9, al., in Wetst.).— Ver. 7. The words xal rd rpirov rig jig xarexée, which are lacking in the Elz. text, are restored by Beng., Griesb., and modern editors, upon the authority of decisive witnesses. — Ver. 9. depddpyoay. So A, &, 10, 12, al., Andr., ed. Compl. Plant., Genev., Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The degéapy (Elz.) is an emendation after the analogy of ver. 7. — Ver. 11. éyévero, So A, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: yiveras,— Ver. 13. derod. So, already, Beng., Griesb. The modification dyyéAcv (Elz.) has no critical value whatever. Nevertheless, many expositors, Vitr., L. Twells in Wolf, etc., have advocated dyyéAov on the same ground, from which has proceeded not only this alteration, but also the single variation adyyéAov o¢ derov (Wetst.); viz., because the function ascribed to the eagle seems better adapted to an angel. (Cf. xiv. 6.) Heinrichs, who does not doubt the correctness of the reading évd¢ derov, would have an ¢ supplied before cerov, and then explain: ‘‘ An angel flying through the heaven with the swiftness of an eagle.”” ® has afrov without évdr.
From the seventh seal, now opened, there proceeds, not as from each of the first six, a single vision, but a series of visions, which not only stand like those seals in a progressive connection with one another, but also, even at the end, extend again into a new series of visions.1_ After the opening of the seventh seal, silence for half an hour intervenes in heaven, during which seven angels appear who receive trumpets; and since then, after a certain action performed by another angel (ver. 8 sqq.), those seven angels, one after _another, sound on their trumpets, scenes are presented to the gazing prophet, which, according to the analogy of the visions proceeding from the opened seals, describe what is to happen.* Nothing is here to be said concerning the reading of the book-roll now opened.®
Ver. 1. drav, In the sense of dre,“ as is not unusual among the Byzan- tines.5 — ory) dv rp obpavp dc fuiwpov. The silence in heaven, lasting about ® a half-hour, begins at the place where the songs of praise still resound, vii.” 10 sqq. The voice also of the elder who speaks immediately before the opening of the seventh seal is silent. When the Lamb took the book with the seven seals, the music of the harp and the song of praise resounded in
i xi. 18 aqq. 3 Cf. iv. 1. 5 Winer, p. 990. 3 Ew. i. © ws; of. John 1. 40, vi. 19, xi. 18; Mark v. ¢ Bee Critical Notes. 18; Luke vill. 43.
CHAP. VIII. 1. 261
heaven, v. 8 sqq.; also at the opening of the first six seals, it was in many ways audible ;1 but when the last seal is opened, a profound silence ensues. The reason for this is the anxious expectation of the inhabitants of heaven, who not only after the precedency of the sixth seal must now expect the final decisive catastrophe, but, also, can infer the proximity of that catas- trophe from the appearing of the seven angels, and their. being furnished with trumpets. The oy? év 76 obpar® is thus a “silent expectation and con- templation of the seven trumpets,” * and, as an expression of “the stupor of the heavenly beings,” belongs to “the adornment and fitness of the dramatic scene.”® Thus, essentially, Andr., Areth., Par., Vieg., Rib., Aret., Calov., Beng., Ew., De Wette, Stern, Ebrard, all of whom are one on the main point,‘ that the ory? does not compose the entire contents of the seventh seal, but that rather from this last seal the entire series of trumpet-visions is developed. If this is denied, as by Vitr., and recently by Hengstenb., not only is the organic connection of the visions as a whole rent, — since “the group of the seven trumpets” appears immediately beside “the group of the seven seals,”* but results follow with respect to the exposition as a whole, and in its details, that are entirely inadmissible. Hengstenb. inter- prets the cy) tyr. obp., as the silencing of the enemies of Christ and his Church, which corresponds with their mourning,® and is regarded as caused by the punishments of the preceding six seals. And, besides, the év rp obpavp, which alone is strong enough to render this mode of statement impossible, is explained away by the remark: “ Heaven here comes into consideration only as a theatre (iv. 1, xii. 1). In reality the silence belongs to the earth”! — Vitr. seeks, in a better way, to meet the demands of the text. He refutes, first, the view according to which it is thought that in vv. 1-6 the entire contents of the seventh seal are described,’ by the excellent remark that already, in ver. 2, the angels of the trumpets enter, and that vv. 2-6 contain in general a certain preparation for ver. 7 sqq. But while Vitr. thus prop- erly hesitates to sunder ver. 2 sqq. from ver. 7 sqq., he separates ver. 1 from ver. 2 sqq. by finding in ver. 1 the contents of the seventh seal, i.e., the com- plete conclusion of the series of seal-visions, according to their prophetic significance extending until the end of the world, which, in their way, comprise the entire breadth of Apocalyptic prophecy; for from this it neces- sarily follows that the prophecy begins again with the first trumpet-vision, which runs parallel to the first seal-vision, etc. The ay? év r. obp. designates, according to Vitr., “the condition of the most recent period of the Church, in which the Church in the possession of peace, tranquillity, and an abun- dance of all spiritual blessings, celebrates a triumph over its enemies.” This oty#, therefore, actually lasts a long time, although it appears to John a half-hour,*—as Lange with entire consistency says, one thousand years.®
1 vi. 1, 8, 5, 7, 9, 12. © Matt. xxiv. 30.
2 OC. a Lap. § Eichh. * Braun, Select. Sacr., il. ce. 1.
¢ Cf. aleo Grot., Wetst., Herder, etc., who 8 Cf. Aret., Bengel; the latter of whom in other respects deny the reference of the reckoned the juiuepoy as about four ordinary whole. days.
§ Hengstenb. ® Cf. also Beda, Hofm., eto.
262 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
The connection with the trumpet-visions lies in the fact that here “the Spirit explains in what way.and by what steps God led the Church into that state,” viz., a8 those trumpet-visions describe: “ Evils intended for the punishment of the Roman Empire, the enemy of the Church of Christ, to be terminated in the total destruction of the same empire.” There are two main points characteristic of this mode of conception, which is best advocated by Vitr., in which, however, the distortion is evident; viz., the explanation of the oy) ty rT. ovp., and the statement of the connection with the trumpet-visions. If it is assumed that the seventh seal brings nothing else than that oy), — although as well after the events of the first six seals, as after the interposed ch. vii , a certain fulness of significant contents is to be expected, — the question for which neither reasons are ‘assigned, nor to which an answer is in any way given in the context itself, is raised; viz., as to what that o.y7 “means,” i.e , what historical fact, what state of the world or Church, is typified by that otym whose allegorical meaning is presupposed. And this question arbitrarily raised can be answered only arbitrarily: the o:y7 means the sabbath rest of the Church after the plagues of the first six seals,1 “the beginning of the eternal rest,” * the thousand-years rest before the final end,® or perhaps, in case the sixth seal be not regarded as extending so far, the rest of the Church under Constantine.‘ As to what the oryf “means,” expositors of an entirely different class have investigated also when they even with formal correctness acknowledged that not only does the seventh seal contain that ory, but also the seven trumpets introduce it. Here belong especially the expositors who refer ch. viii. also to the events of the Romano-Judaic war. According to Grot., the ory? (év r. obp.) is the brief rest of the winds of vii. 1 (which are at the four corners of the earth '). Wetst. explains more minutely : “ Since all things now looked to a revolt of the Jews, a brief pause followed by the intervention of Agrippa and the priests.”*5 Alcas.: “The remarkable forbearance of Christians who silently endured persecution from the Jews.” Against all these arbitrary explanations, we must hold fast simply to the text, which says that at the opening of the seventh seal a profound silence occurred in heaven, where the sealed book was opened, —a silence which .“signifies” something earthly, as little as the speech and songs heard in heaven at the opening of the preceding seals. But thereby the knowledge is gained that such silence occurs just because of the peculiar contents of this seal. Thereby, besides, the exposition is preserved from the second offence against the context, with which not only Beda but also Ebrard, etc., are chargeable, viz., the idea of a recapitulation in the entire series of trum- pet-visions. For what Beda expressly says® is said essentially not only by Vitr., but also, e.g., by Ebrard, when he passes the opinion that in the trum- pets, “a retrogression, as it were, is taken,” viz., by the representation “ of classes and kinds of judicial punishments which belong only to the godless,’
1 Beda, Hofm., Christiani. ¢ «But now he recapitulates from the orl- 3 Vict., Primas. gin, in order to say the same things in another 8 Lange. way.”
¢ Laun, Brightm. t Cf., on the other hand, the general remarks
§ Josephus, Z. J., il. 15, 2 above on ch. vil.
CHAP. VIII. 2. _ 2638
and that, too, not first after or with the sixth seal, but even already before.” In exegetical principle, this exposition stands upon a line with the one of N. de Lyra, who, by the theory of recapitulation, explains that only the conflict of the Church with heretics is portrayed, after! ita conflict against tyrants, the heathen oppressors, is stated. Accordingly, the exposition in the trumpet-visions can recur again to the centuries of Church history, from which, on the other side, all sort of facts have already been gathered for ch. vi., in order to show the fulfilment of prophecy. The only apparent occasion which the context gives for the idea that the trumpet-visions recur again before the sixth seal—an idea which has led not only to the further statement that the individual trumpets in some way concur with the indi- vidual seals, but also to numberless and unlimited attempts to find the fulfil- ment of the individual trumpet-visions in historical events — lies in the fact that the final catastrophe, the extreme end, whose description is to be ex- pected after cha. vi. and vii. in the seventh seal, does not yet, at least imme- diately, appear. But the expedient adopted here by many expositors to limit the contents of the seventh seal to ver. 1, and to understand the ory? év r. obp. a8 the eternal rest of the perfected Church, or the eternal silencing of condemned enemies, has been proved to be mistaken. Yet that difficulty is solved by the view, attained already by Ew., Liicke, De Wette, Rinck,® into the skilful, carefully designed plan of the entire book, which here, just from the fact that from the last seal a new series of visions is to proceed, describes the trial of the patience of saints who are regarded as awaiting - the day of the Lord;‘ but at the same time the expectation excited by the . events of the first six seals, and increased by the entire ch. vii., as well as by the silence occurring at the opening of the seventh seal, that in this last seal the final completion is to come, in no way deceivés, since the full con- clusion is actually disclosed in the seventh seal, although only through a long series of visions in whose chain the trumpet-visions themselves form only the first members.®
Ver. 2. xa2 eléov. By the same formula, John has indicated what the seale previously opened enabled him to behold. What he describes in vv. 2-6, he has therefore beheld, not after the conclusion of the silence, ver. 1,’ but during it. The entire scene is silent, until (ver. 5) by the fire cast into the earth, thunderings and voices (from beneath, from the earth) are aroused, which then, interrupting the silence in heaven, give the signal, as it were, to the angels who are to use the trumpets received already in ver. 2. — rode éxra dyyédove of tvdmiov tod beod torfxacty. Doubly incorrect, Luther: “ Steben Engel, die da traten vor Gott’’ [“ Seven angels who appeared before God”’}. The words, as they sound, are to be understood in no way otherwise than that
1 Up to vi. 17. considerations, it may be sald: How can vi. 12 ® Other reasons, as that asserted by Ebrard: speak of the entire moon, when in villi. 12 the “How could the third part of the sun and third of it is already eclipsed?
moon be darkened (viii. 12), after they have 8 Cf. also Beng. first lost all their ight ’’ (vi. 12) ?—- from which 4 Cf. xiii. 10, xiv. 12. it would follow that vi. 12 actually belongs 8 Cf. Introduction, p. .
after vill. 12,— may be contradicted directly © Cf. vi. 1, 2, 5, 8, 12. from their own standpoint. For against such * Ebrard. § Aret., Herd., Rinck.
964 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN
John, just as Tob. xii. 15,) speaks of seven particular angels, who, with a certain precedency above all the rest, stand before God. They are not called “archangels.”2 They can be identified® with the seven spirits of God‘ only by misunderstanding that expression. But when Hengstenb. and Ebrard assert that the-number of angels who stand before God is fixed at seven only because of the seven trumpets, and do not hinder us from thinking of more than just seven to whom belongs the prerogative of “ stand- ing before God; ” and when Ebrard, in order to give another application to the definite article which conflicts with this, attempts to contrast the seven angels, ver. 2, to the four angels, vii. 1, — they are only useless pretexts, in order to avoid the unambiguously expressed idea of just seven angels stand- ing before God. The older interpreters, as Luther, Vitr., reached the same conclusion more readily by regarding the article as a Heb. redundancy; yet many also® have without prejudice recognized the thought required by the text. —xal édégqoay atrois éxra odAncyyee. The purpose becomes immediately manifest to John; cf. vv. 6,7 sqq. To the inhabitants of heaven, who, after the opening of the seal, see how to those chief angels trumpets are given, the vast significance of this matter is clear in advance: hence their silence.
Vv. 3-5. GAdog dyyeAoe. The repeated® reference here to Christ? has occasioned the greatest number of arbitrary expedients in the interpreta- tion of what follows: e.g., that by Exuwv 248. xpvc., reference is made to the self-sacrifice of Christ;* that the éyéusoev, «.7.4., ver. 5, is to be understood of the fulness of the Godhead, or Spirit, in Christ ;*° that the fire cast upon the earth is to be regarded as a gracious visitution,!° as the power of the gospel concerning Christ’s love;4! and the guvai, Spovrai, dorparal, of the words and miracles of Christ, and ceiouocs, of the movement occasioned thereby among the Hearers.12 The “other angel,” just as the one mentioned in vii. 2, is to be regarded an actual angel; * yet the text gives no more accnrate designation whatever.!4 — éord6n én? rod Ovotactrnplov. The én? does not mean juzia, “ alongside of,” and nothing more; ** but it designates with evident exactness, that the angel so presents himself at the altar, that he rises above it.6— The question started here, as on vi. 9, as to whether the altar is to be regarded an altar of incense,!” or an altar for burnt offerings,1* will be decided not only from the context in itself, but also from the seem- ing type, Lev. xvi. 12; and Ebrard thus comes to the decision that the altar, mentioned ver. 3a (én? r, 6votacr.) and ver. 5, is the altar for burnt offerings, while “the golden altar” (ver. 8b) is the altar of incense. But as the
® John iii. 34; Co). 11.9. Beda. 70 Luke xii. 49. Beda,
17 am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints,
and which go in and out before the glory of 11 Calov.
the Holy One.” 13 Beda, ete. 2 De Wette, Stern. 13 So here also Hengstenb. 3 Aret., Ew. 14 Against Grot.: ‘“‘ The angel of the prayers 4 fv. 5. of the Church.” § C. a Lap., Beng. 18 Grot., Beng. ; ef. aleo Hengstenb., Ebrard, © Cf. vil. 2. ete.
1¢ Cf. Am. ix. 1.
? Beda, Vieg., Zeger, Vitr., Calov., BUbmer. ® “Himself having become the censer” (Beda).
iT Grot., De Wette, Hengstenb. 18 Vitr., Beng., ZULI., Hofm.
CHAP. VIIL 3-5. 265
question itself is not without an arbitrary assumption, so the answers, also, are without sufficient foundation in the context, into which strange concep- tions of many kinds have entered. As to the appeal to Lev. xvi., that pas- sage is essentially different from ours, because it is there said that the high priest, on the great day of atonement, is to take coals in a censer from the altar of burnt offerings, and with it and the incense strewed thereon, shall come, not to the altar of incense in the sanctuary, but to the ark of the cove- nant within the holy of holies. Nothing, therefore, is said in Lev. xvi. 12, of the altar of incense, so that the analogy of that passage, even apart from a dissimilarity otherwise in the whole and in details, renders any proof impos- sible that “the golden altar,” ver. 3, is the altar of incense. In general, however, the entire description of heavenly locality, as it is presented in iv. 1, gives us no right whatever for conceiving of the same as after the model of the earthly temple with a holy of holies, a holy place, a veil, different altars, etc., whereby then such conceptions are rendered necessary, as that of Ziill., Hengstenb., that in ch. iv. and this passage, the veil before the holy of holies is closed, but in xi. 19 it is opened; or that of Hofm., that we must fancy the roof of the heavenly temple absent, in order to render possible the idea that ‘‘ Jehovah appears enthroned above the cherabim, yet without a sight being gained of the ark of the covenant.” Entirely arbi- trary, also, is the explanation of Ebrard: “that the entire scene, ch. iv., was plainly visible, indeed, at the beginning without the temple, and that later * a heavenly temple appeared, as it were, upon a lower terrace, below and in front of the elevation on which the throne stood.” The description of the scenery, iv. 1 sqq., is destitute throughout of any express representation of a heavenly temple. Such a representation, including the ark of the cove- nant, appears first at xi. 19,* just where the scene is changed. In the scenery which has remained unchanged from iv. 1, “the altar” becomes noticeable in vi. 9, which, according to the context, must be regarded as having a cer- tain analogy with the altar of burnt-offering, although on this account it must not be considered that the entire heavenly locality, with the throne of God, and “the sea of glass,” appears as the temple. For the article already compels us to identify the altar mentioned in ver. 8a with that of vi. 9. To infer, however, that, as in ver. 3a, only r. 6vocacr., and in ver. 30, r. dvo.aor. rd Xpvosvy is mentioned, so in two clauses of ver. 8 two different altars are desig- nated, is a precipitate inference, since it is not at all remarkable that a more definite description is not given until ver. 3b, where an employment at the altar is spoken of. On the altar, which in vi. 9 appears as in a certain re- spect having the character of an altar of burnt-offering, incense is burned, whereby a certain analogy with the altar of incense is obtained; but the interpretation is entirely inconceivable, since the altar is regarded as fully corresponding neither with the one nor the other.* — Eywyv ABavwrdv xpvooty. Without doubt AGavwrég elsewhere means incense;* but no necessity fol-
1 Ebrard. * Also against Ew. ii. 3 First in vi. 9, and, in its more definite 8 1 Chron. ix. 29, LXX. Of. the Scholiast. determination, vill. 3 sqq. on Aristophanes, Nubbd.: AiBavos—~—avrd ro
3 Cf. xv. 5. Sivdpov, AiBavwroe 8% & Kapmos TOU AcSdvon.
266 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
lows, hence, for writing in this passage, where a vessel for incense is mani- festly meant, instead of 4 A:Bavwrdc, f UBaveric, OF UBavurpic,! or Td ABavursr,? of which, besides, the latter form, in its proper sense, cannot be distinguished from 6 AiBavwroc. — nal £6607 — iva ddoe talc xpocevxaic, «.7.A. It is arbitrary to adjust® the difficult dat. ralg xpocevyaic, by erasing the words raic xpoc r. dy. navr, (ver. 8) and r. mpoc r. ay. (ver. 4), or to change it into rac xpocevyac,4 or without this emendation to explain it in the sense of Grot.® Incorrect, too, is the effort to complete it by substituting é, so as to make the meaning: “In the midst of prayers.”® The dat. in ver. 8, in its combination with dace, is without all difficulty, since it is entirely regular’ to express the remote object towards which the giving is directed: “in order that he should give (the Ou. x0AA.) to the prayers of all saints.” The significance of this act. was correctly described already by Calov.: “that he should give rai¢ ap., to the prayers of the saints, the same things, i.e., to render these prayers of good odor.”® For upon the ground of ver. 3, the expression, ver. 4, xa? dvéGn 6 xarvoc tév Ouuauéray talc xpooevyaic r. dy. is to be explained; but not in the mode of Ebrard,® who attempts to interpret it, 6 xary. trav Oup. Taw Tai¢ xpocevy. dogévruy [the smoke of the incense given to the prayers],— by regarding the dat. here as “standing for the gen. of possession,” after the manner of the Hebrew 5,—for the immediate combination of the dat. rai¢ xp. with the con- ception r. évuz., is contrary to all Greek modes of thought and expression ; !° but the dat. rai¢ xpocevy. can, in its relation to 6 cary. Tr. Gup., depend only upon the verb d»éBy, as, in accordance with the idea expressed in ver. 8, it must be regarded a dat. commodi: “The smoke of the incense for the prayers rose up,” i.e., indicating their being heard.1!_ The view of Kliefoth, that the incense serves only to carry up the prayers, appears to me not to agree well with the expression, ver. 18, Iva doo. r. tpoocevy. And the idea that the prayers are sure of being heard,— not merely rendered capable of being granted, — which Klief. tries to avoid, is nevertheless prominent. — Besides, the activity of the angel, described in vv. 3, 4, in no way establishes the inference of an angelic intercession,!? in the sense of Roman-Catholic dog- matics. In the first place, it is in general impracticable to transform the individual points of Apocalyptic visions directly into dogmatical results ; and then, in this case, the function ascribed to the angel, just as to the twenty-four elders in v. 8, is in no way properly that of a mediator, but of a servant.18 The incense, therefore, which he gives the prayers of saints, has first been given him; the angel thus in no way effects it by himself, that the
[AcBavos — the tree iteelf; but AcBarwrds, the fruit of the tree]; and Ammonius: AiBavos péy yap covwes xai Td SdySpor cai Td Ovpropervor’ AcBaverds 52 pévov 7d Ovpuspevoy [A‘Bavos, in common both the tree and the incense; A:fa- ywros, the incense only].
3 Grot.
2 Wolf. e
3 Schittg.
‘ Castalio, Grot.
5 ‘He received much incense, that he might
cast this incense, which is the prayers of all saints, upon the altar.”’
6 EKichh., Heinr.
+ Winer, p. 196.
3 Cf. Vitr., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard.
® Cf. already Castalio, also Ew. fi.
30 For even the LXX. in the passages cited by Ebrard (2 Sam. Hi. 2; Deut. 1. 8) renders the Hebrew preposition by the gen.
11 Cf. Winer, p. 203.
12 Boss. 18 Bengel, ett.
CHAP. VIII. 6, 7-12. 267
prayers brought by his hand are acceptable to God, but the prayers of the saints can be received before God, even without any service of the angel, just because they proceed from saints;! and that now they are carried before God as a heavenly incense-offering by the angel, to be heard and immediately fulfilled, lies also not in his own will, but in that of God, who in the seventh seal is just about to execute his judgment, and from whom himself comes the incense, whose perfume, indicating the hearing of the prayers of the saints, ascends from the hand of the angel as the ministering spirit,* or the fellow-servant of the saints,* who are themselves priests. — xa? diAngev, x.1.A. The angel had put down his censer after he had poured its contents (ver. 3) on the altar,® while the smoke ascended (ver. 4). Now (ver. 5) he again takes it into his hand for a service that is new, but inwardly connected with what has happened in vv. 3, 4; from the same fire of the altar which had consumed the incense, he fills his censer, and then casts these glowing coals, taken from the altar, upon the earth ;* in consequence of this, there are voices, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake, the signs of the Divine judg- ment now breaking forth, as the seven angels also, as soon as the noise break- ing the heavenly silence rises from the earth, make ready to sound their trumpets (ver. 6). The inner connection between ver. 5 and vv. 3 and 4 has been correctly described already by C. a Lap.: “Through the petitions of the saints, praying for vengeance upon the godless and their persecutors, fiery vengeance, i.e., thunderings, lightnings, and the succeeding plagues of the seven angels and trumpets, are sent down upon the godless.”? The idea has been suggested by Ebrard, that the fire of judgment is that “in which the martyrs were burned; ” this is not once said in vi. 10, although in this passage the idea is positively expressed that the fire which was cast upon the earth is from that whereby the incense was consumed, so that the judg- ment, therefore, appears to be a consequence of the heard prayers. For hereby, also, the chief contents of the prayers of all saints, and not merely those of martyrs (vi. 10), are made known. They have as their object that to which all the hopes and endurance of the saints in general are directed, viz., the coming of the Lord,® and the judgment accompanying it; the martyrs also in their way prayed for this.
Ver. 6. The half-hour silence in heaven is now at an end; after the fire, whose meaning also becomes manifest by the threatening signs immediately following (ver. 5), has been cast upon the earth, the seven angels (ver. 2) prepare to sound their trumpets. — #rnizacav tavr. This includes the grasp- ing of the trumpets in such a way that they could bring them to their mouths. °®
Vv. 7-12. The first four trumpets are expressly distinguished by ver. 13, from the last three. The instrument with which the terrible war alarm )° and signals of various other kinds are given! is employed by the seven
1 Of. v. 8, vi. 10, ® Cf. ver. 5 sqq. 8 Cf. xxii. 17, 20.
3 Heb. i. 14. @ xix. 10, ® Of. C. a Lap., Beng.
§ Cf. 1. 6, v. 10, vii. 15. % Job xxxix. 25.
© Cf. Ezek. x. 2 11 Cf. Winer, Rwbd., 11. 147: Musikal. In-
? Of. Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. strum.
268 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
angels to signalize a series of threatening signs preceding the judgment which is to enter at the coming of the Lord; but just as from the opened seals the impending visitations themselves come forth, so from the trumpets —the comparison of which, in other respects, with the sevenfold trumpet- blasts before Jericho is very remote 1 — not a mere sound, which could give the signal for the expected horrors, but in consequence of the trumpet-blast, the very things themselves to be announced are presented to the gazing prophet. This is not acknowledged by those interpreters who have ima- gined that while the good angels, whose trumpet-tones through evangelical preachers like Hus, Luther, etc., from the time of the apostles until the end of the world have not been silenced, call to Christ, a conflict is raised by Satan, who cast (ver. 7) hail and fire (i.e., erroneous doctrine) upon the earth, so that the trees (i.e., the teachers of godliness) and the grass (i.e., ordinary Christians) are injured.?— Other distorted explanations, as the opinion of Bengel, that the prayers of the saints (vv. 3 sqq.) and the trum- pets of the angels are contemporaneous, and the conjecture of Ebrard, that the first six trumpets occur before the sealing of ch. vii.,* or,—as the sub- ject also is changed, — that “the sealing in reference to the first four trum- pet-visions is intended to represent only a relation, but in reference to the last three, an event,” 4— are decided already by the general remarks on ch. vii. and on viii. 1. Arbitrary interpretations of this kind necessarily accom- pany the effort to derive the “meaning” of the trumpet-visions from alle- gorizing.
Ver. 7." When the frst angel sounded the trumpet, “there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth.” The plague is like that of Egypt, Exod. ix. 24 sqq., only that with the hail and fire, i.e., masses of fire,® there is no lightning;® nor is there any thing said of a wind, as perhaps the Prester of Plin., H. N. ii. 49,7 but blood ® is to be added, with which both the hail and fire are mingled.® The é with aluats enables us to see the original meaning still more clearly, as, e.g., vi. 8: the blood appears as the mass wherein hail and fire are found.?° The expression peutyp. év atu, does not give the idea of a “rain of blood.” Entirely distorted, however, is the explanation of Eichh.: “ While the hail was falling, a shower also poured in the midst of flashes of lightning so rapidly follow- ing one another, that the shower itself seemed to be red with the reflected flames of the lightning.” The plague in this passage differs from that described in Exod. ix. 24 sqq., also in the fact that there the devastation was wrought by the hail, but here by the fire: xarexén.—rd rperov tij¢ yi. De Wette properly thinks only of the surface of the earth, with that which is upon it. Yet neither the especially prominent trees,!! the third part of
1 Vitr., Rinck, Hengstonb., ete. interpretation, since the hail does not appear 3 Aret., Zeger, etc. mingled with fire in the blood, but only the fire 8 p. 311. # p. 581. is combined with the blood. The effect also, 5 De Wette. which is ascribed only to the fire, corresponds 8 Ebrard. well with this. But fora change of text the 7 Ew. i. authority of % is insufficient.
§ Cf. John iff. 3. 10 Cf. Matt. vil. 2. Winer, p. 368.
9 The var. peusypévoy of NR is not a bad al Cf. vil. 1, 3.
CHAP. VIII. 8, 9. 269 which are consumed, nor the green grass all of which is burned, are to be regarded upon only that third part of the earth; but besides the rpirov ric yie, also (xa?) the third part of all the trees, and besides (xa?) all the grass (upon the whole earth). — To explain what is here beheld by John as in any way allegorical, and thus to bring out the assumed “ meaning” of the whole, and of its individual features, is an undertaking, which, since it has no founda- tion in the text, can lead only to what is arbitrary. Beda, according to whom there is described in ver. 7 the destruction of the godless in general, refers the entire portrayal to “the punishment of hell.” Luther, who begins - in general with chs. vii. and viii. the prophecy of spiritual tribulations, i.e., of heresies, and then progresses to the Papacy, thinks here of Tatian and the Encratites. Groffus says, “The first trumpet explains the cause of the rest,” and explains yéAafa = “the hardening of the hearts of the Jews;” xip pen. tv aiu, = “sanguinary rage.” ‘Civil insurrections” and wars are sug- gested, not only by those who everywhere find the RomanoJudaic disturb- ances, but also by Beng.? and Hengstenb.® Vitr. refers to the plague and famine in the times of Decius and Gallus.‘ Stern explains persecutions of the Church by the heathen, erroneous doctrines,® and worldly wars in the Roman Empire. Ebrard understands the spiritual fainine as it occurs in such Catholic lands as have rejected the light of the Reformation.
Vv. 8,9. Upon the sound of the second trumpet, follows a sign which exercises its injurious effects upon the sea, together with creatures living therein and on ships. — &¢ dp0¢ — @aAaccav. Ebrard’s view, that a volcano was torn away from its station along the seacoast by the force raging within, and cast into the sea, conflicts with the dc as well as with the idea lying in the connection, that the ¢8270n (cf. ver. 7) occurred by a special, wonderful, Divine working.* The meaning of the or was given already by N. de Lyra.’ By the comparison with a great mountain all on fire, only the dreadful greatness of the fiery mass is made manifest, which, if we consider its source in general, must be regarded as coming from heaven (cf. v. 7). Hence it cannot in any way be said,® that the form of the representation is taken from that of a volcano. An allusion to Jer. li. 21% is entirely out of place.!° The effect (ver. 8, ver. 9) is described after the model of the Egyptian plague, Exod. vii. 20 aqq., only that here it is not as there all the water, but, in analogy with ver. 7,10 sqq., 12 sqq.,a third that becomes blood, and likewise a third of living creatures and ships that is destroyed. — ra Eyovra wuxac. The expression designates all living creatures. The nom. apposi- tion to rav crop, Tov dv 7, OaA. stands like iii. 12, ix. 14, xiv. 20, without con- struction. — The allegorizing commentators guess here and there without any foundation, because the text throughout contains nothing allegorical.
1 Wetst., Herd., etc.
2 Ware under Trajan and Hadrian. The ‘earth’ is Asia, as vil. 1; but the “ trees,’’ not as vil. 1, Africa, but eminent Jews. The “4 grass’ designates ordinary Jews.
§ Who interprets the “‘ trees’ and “‘ grass’ just as Beng.
4 “ Globes of fire mixed with hail prefigured
the plague enkindled among men from the su)phurous material of the atmosphere.”
58 By which the trees themeelves, f.e., bish- ops and priests, were injured.
6 Cf. Hengstenb.
7 « A vast glowing globe.” ®* Vitr., Ew.
® dccres oe ws Gpog dumerupiopndvor.
10 Against Vitr.
270 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Beda! explains the whole: “As the Christian religion grew, the Devil swollen with pride, and burning with the fire of his own fury, was cast into the sea of the world.” On r. Ey. yy. he remarks: “those alive, but spirit- ually dead.” Luther: “ Marcion, the Manichaeans, etc.” Grot. may be con- sidered the representative of the expositors who make conjectures in general concerning the distresses of the Romano-Judaic war. According to him, dpoc, x.7.4., designates the citadel of Antony, i.e. the soldiers therein who threw themselves with madness (xa:dp.) into the city (éfA. ele r. @cA.), killed men (dmefave, x.r.4.), and stole what was movable (r. rdoiwy). Also Vitr., Beng., Stern, yea, even Hengstenb., understand the whole as referring to the devastation of war, while they interpret the details with lack of judgment like Grot.,? and only differ from him in that Vitr., etc., find the inroads of the Goths into the Roman Empire, and Hengstenb., wars in general, prophe- sied. Hengstenb. has the view in general, that, in all the .trumpet-visions except the last, the same thing is represented, viz., war.® According to Ebrard, the whole means that “the vulcanic, Titanic energy of covetous or pleasure-seeking egoism poisons the intercourse of men, the intellectual as well as especially the domestic.”
Vv. 10,11. The third trumpet brings a poisoning of a third part of the rivers and fountains of waters (upon the land), and thereby the death of many men. — If, therefore, a certain connection with the second trumpet- vision be found in the fact that damage to the other waters follows that done to the sea, yet the two visions need in no way be drawn together, not even in reference to the so-called fulfilment.4 The nature of the damage of ver. 10 is entirely different from that of ver. 8; it is also, in ver. 11, intended for men. In general, however, the preparatory visitations represented by the trumpet — just as by the seal-visions— are so directed that one blow follows another until finally the Lord comes. —érecey éx 1. obp. dorhp, x.1.A, That the star “itself is abandoned to ruin, and, hence, has been torn from its place,”* is a statement entirely out of place. The text marks only the ruinous effect which the star is to have; but in connection therewith lies the idea, that, just to produce the effect intended by God, the falling of the star has been caused by the determinate Divine will.— The words xaséipusvoo o¢ Aaurdg make it manifest, that the great star which John saw fall from heaven had a luminous flame, but in no way show that “the great star” was any meteor, comet, or falling star.§— «al Emecev én 7d tpirov rév xorauaw, x7. If any one should ask how this is to happen, the answer may be given with Ebrard, that the star in its fall is to be scattered so that its “sparks and fragments may fly into the water;” but the question and answer come from a consideration not belonging to the text.—4 "Ayaéor. The maso. form, instead of the usual 7d dypivocov or 4 dwaboc, is chosen because of its congru- ence with 6 dor#p.7 The name designating ® the nature of the star declares
1 Cf. Zeg., etc. 8 Matt. xxiv. 7.
2 Tho “ ships,” e.g., are, according to Vitr., ¢ Against Ebrard. Cf. on vv. 8, 9. small states; accordiug to Hengstenb., cities § Ebrard. and villages; the “fish” are in Hengstenb., © Against C. a Lap., Wetst., Zilll., etc. just as in Grot., men siain by the raging t Ew.
warriors. § Cf. vi. 8.
s CHAP. VIII. 12. 271
its effect (érupavéncar), — 1d rpirov rév idaruv. From this combination of the previously mentioned rorayoi and mya? idaruv, the result is expressly, that already in ver. 10 the third of the my. td. is to be thought of, which is clear also from the connection with 1d tpirov +r. wor, — tyévero—tue Gywoov. The same thing is indicated by éxupavégcay. By the falling star “ Wormwood,” the waters are made wormwood-water whose poisonous bitterness brings death to many men. The consideration that wormwood! is no deadly poison, is not at all pertinent, because it is not natural wormwood that is here treated of. —é 7.06. Cf. ix. 18; Winer, p. 344. The cause appears as the source from which the effect comes.
The star falling from heaven (the Church), which makes the waters bitter and poisonous, is readily interpreted by allegorical expositors as heresy. So Beda: “Heretics falling from the summit of the Church at- tempt, with the flame of their wickedness, to taint the fountains of divine Scriptures.” More definitely still, N. de Lyra, who had referred the two preceding trumpets to Arius and Macedonius: “Pelagius, who preached contrary to the sweetness of the Holy Spirit.” Luther: “ Origen, who by philosophy and reason imbittered and corrupted the Scriptures, as the high schools with us have done until the present.” Vitr., Beng., etc., refer it to Arius. Mede understands Romulus Augustulus; Laun., Gregory the Great. But to the expositors who find everywhere in the Apoc. the particular facts of the history of the Church and the world represented, such matters are not subject to the option of an allegorizing interpretation, as they refer all to events contemporaneous with John. Thus in the star, Grot. finds the Egyp- tian mentioned in Acts xxi. 38; while Herder, whose opinion Bohmer has reproduced, finds Eleazar,? “a fiery, audacious young man, the prime origi- nator of the spirit of the zealots,” through whom the “animosity ” was first aggravated. Hengstenb. also here traces again the war. Stars he regards as signifying, in general, sovereigns; “the fire with which the great star burns is the fire of wrath, war, and conquest;” the water of the streams is “a symbol of prosperity: ” the whole designates, therefore, the calamity of war.
Ver. 12. The fourth trumpet brings damage to sun, moon, and stars, whereof the third of all is darkened, and thus the light is withdrawn from a third of the day and of the night. érAjyy. That a “ preternatural striking” is to be thought of,® which has as its consequence the intended darkening (iva oxor.), Wolf already mentions, in opposition to the leaning towards the rabbinical way, whereby the darkening itself of sun and moon is represented as a“smiting.”* The miraculous eclipse is in itself, as already according to the O. T. representation,’ a foretoken of the coming day of judgment;°® the limitation of the same, however, to a third of the sun, moon, and stars, and consequently to a third of the day and night ruled over by them,’ corresponds to similar statements in the preceding trumpet-visions. — xal 4 juépa uh pavg,
1 Cf, Winer, Rwbd., tn loc. it is a bad sign to the whole world.” Io 8 J06., B. Jud., il. YW. Wetst. 8 Of. Exod. vil. 25. 5 John fil. 4; Am. vili.9. Cf. Exod. x. 21
# Succa, p. 20,1: ' When the sun Js struck, 8q}- ® Cf. also vi. 12 sqq. T Gen. 1. 16.
272 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
viz., a8 the apposition 1d rpirov atrjg more explicitly says, the third part of the day. And likewise the night. The words cannot mean that the light proceeding from the smitten stars has lost the third of its brilliancy, the reverse of Isa. xxx. 26;! still less does the expression bear the explana- tion of Ebrard, “that the third of the stars was smitten with respect to time, so that they were darkened only for a third of the day, contrasted with night- time, while for the other two-thirds they are bright.’’ But the idea is this: Since a third of the sun is eclipsed, a third of the day (regarded in its tem- poral length) is deprived of ite sunlight, and the night likewise of the shin- ing of moon and stars. So De Wette, who judges likewise that here the sameness between the third of the stars and the third of day and night “is carried out even to what is unnatural.” The exception is correctly taken, and therefore expressed without impiety, because the present vision of John is to him as little as all the rest an absolutely objective incident, a likeness presented him by God as complete;*? of course, also, no real fiction,® but a view communicated through the prophet’s own subjectivity.
The allegorical expositors find here‘ the obscuration, confusion, and diminution of beneficial institutions, whether of a spiritual or a political kind. Beda proposes the disturbance of the Church by false brethren; N. de Lyra, the heresy of Eutyches. The injury done by Islam is understood by Stern, who mentions the fact, that instead of the full moon the Church has become a half moon (txAzyn — 1d rplroy Tr, ceA.), and many stars have van- ished, i.e., the sees of many bishops have been overthrown. Wetst.,® Herder, etc., propose political confusion; so, too, Vitr., Beng., who, how- ever, have in mind the incursions of the Goths and Vandals into the Eastern Empire, and Hengstenb., who very generally understands sad times full of the calamities of war. Bohmer combines the reference to Jewish temporal relations with his interpretation of sun and moon as applying to spiritual things, already employed on vi. 12: “That sun and moon and stars are smit- ten with darkness, we explain from the fact that sad prophecies have trans- pired, and the law has begun to be neglected. But the end of prophecy and the law has not, as yet, actually come, on which account only a third thereof is regarded as having been obscured.”
Concerning the visions coming with the first four trumpets, which are to be distinguished from the three immediately following (ver. 13), it is to be remarked in general: 1. The plagues described in them, which concern the entire sphere of the visible world (the earth, ver. 7; the sea, vv. 8, 9; the waters of the main land, vv. 10, 11; the stars, day and night, ver. 12; cf. Beng., Ew., etc.), are perceptible not only to unbelievers, but also to be- lievers.6 This necessarily lies in the very nature of the plagues; and the sealing correctly understood (vii. 2 sqq.) in no way gives any other idea.” 2. The allegorical explanation, and the reference founded thereon to events
1 Beng., Zull., Béhmer, Klief. 5 «There was pure avapxia, the magistrates
2? Against the inspiration theory of Heng- were despised, all Judaea conspired for sedi- stenb., etc. tion.”’ 3 Againet Eichh., Ew., De Wette, etc. ® Against De Wette, eto.
4 Cf. vi. 12 aqq. tT Cf., on the other hand, ix. 4.
CHAP. VIII. 13. 278
or circumstances of ecclesiastical or civil history, —-of which Ebrard empha- sizes the latter,! has no foundation whatever in the text, and, therefore, leads necessarily to arbitrary suppositions. But the context, according to which the trumpet-visions proceed from the seventh seal, shows that this vision, in its eschatological significance, has reference to the end to be expected already after the sixth * and iv the seventh seal; viz., the actual coming of the Lord, in connection with which the plagues described by the first six seals are to be regarded as premonitory signs of the impending end of the same charac- ter as those described in the fundamental prophecy of Matt. xxiv. 29. The same relation as subsists there between ver. 29 and vv. 6, 7, recurs in the signs portrayed in the four trumpet-visions and those described in the seal- visions. It is true that the sixth seal already has introduced foretokens of the nature of Matt. xxiv. 29, and this is developed in close connection until the description of the last end; but by the fact that in vii. 1, between the sixth and seventh seais, the four angels come forth who are to bring a new plague, the final development is further postponed. And if now the final catastrophe actually proceeds from the seventh seal,—as is to be expected after vi. 17,— yet this occurs only after a further development, which, as first of all in the first four trumpet-visions, brings with it new foretokens of the coming end. The introductory significance of this sign is expressed in the fact that only a third of the earth is concerned; thus a new course is designated after the points marked by the already strong signs of the sixth seal. Yet that a progress occurs, and that the trumpet-visions do not, in any way, again prevail before the sixth seal, the context indicates by the fact that the plagues befalling a third of the earth mark an advance when compared with the plagues of the fourth seal (vi. 8).
Ver. 13. An eagle flying in the zenith proclaims, by a threefold annun- ciation of woe, the three tru:npets still remaining.?— eidov nut jxovoa. Cf. v. 11, vi. 1. — dvd derodv. Concerning the indefinite meaning of the eic,‘ cf. Winer, p. 111. An eagle is mentioned, not an angel in the form of an eagle.5 That it is an eagle which appears as the harbinger of the still impending woe, has its foundation, not in the “prophecy” of Christ, Matt. xxiv. 28, —for that passage contains no prophecy at all, but a proverbial assertion of the moral law upon which the threatening prophecies of the Lord depend, — nor is it to be regarded as an antithesis to the dove, John i. 82; ° nor does the eagle come into consideration as a bird of omen,’ for, apart even from the unchristian character of the idea, the evil omen does not lie in the eagle as such. But it is in the same way appropriate that the far-sounding, menacing cry of the mighty, dreadful eagle be raised, in which the irruption of devastating enemies is compared with the flight of the eagle to ita plunder.® — nerouévou dy pecovpavayan. Cf. xiv. 6, xix. 17. Mecov-
-1 Cf. also Hengstenb. © Hengstenb.: ‘‘The eagle ts sent to those 2 vi. 12 sqq. who do not want the dove to descend upon 3 Of. ix. 12, xi. 14. them.”
4 xix. 17. : T Ewald. 5 Kich., Ew., Stern, De Wette, Bleek, etc. 3 Deut. xxviii. 20; Hos. viii. 1; Hab. i. 8
Cf. Critical Notes. Cf. Hengstenb.
274 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
paveiv designates the sun’s position in its meridian altitude; hence peoovpavnua is first of all the astronomical relation which is occasioned by the sun's standing in the zenith.1 According to this, the expression may designate the péooy obpavoy * as the place for the pecovpaveiv of the sun, but not the space between the vault of heaven and the earth. The eagle flies to the meridian altitude of heaven, because the idea is thus given, that it can be seen and heard of all to whom its message pertains. — roig xarotaovotw éni rig yi, a8 Vi. 10. —é« 7. Aur. guv. The é&, for the same reason as ver. 11.4 — rie odAxtyyor. The sing. is not distributive, but by its close connection with ray guvdv shows itself to be one conception.
Who or what the eagle properly is, cannot be properly decided here, as in Matt. xxiv. 28. Yet even here allegorical explanations are found. Beda: “ The voice of this eagle daily penetrates the Church through the mouths of eminent teachers.” C.a Lap.:® “Some prophet or other to be expected at the end of the world.” According to Joachim, the eagle is Gregory the Great; according to N. de Lyra, John himself; according to Zeger, the Apostle Paul. Herder, etc., also Béhmer and Volkm., propose the eagle of the Roman legions.
1 Eustathtus, on J7., ix. 68: aifnors qudpas 3 Ew. i. Adyerat — To awd wmpwias wdxpis HAcaxov pecou- 4 Cf. Matt. xvill. 7: awd. paynuaros. In Wetst. 5 Beng.
2 Do Wette. ® Cf. Rib.
CHAP, IX. 275
CHAPTER IX.
Ver. 2. xal qvogev 7d dptap tie GBbocov. So, correctly, Elz., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to the best witnesses. The words lacking in &, 6, 8, 9, al., Copt., al., are rejected by Mill (Prolegg., 1434) and Matth. But the omission in the codd. is easily explained by the similar conclusion of ver. 1; just as in ver. 2, because of xamvdéc occurring twice, the words «amv. ex r. ¢p. o¢ are omitted by some witnesses. Cf. Wetst. In an exegetical respect, the words «. #vogev r. gp. t. 43. are scarcely needed. — Ver. 4. abrov, Elz.: abvrov (Tisch.). Apparently interpolated; deleted by Lach. [W. and H.] (A, &, 12, 28). — Ver. 5. Bacavicijoovrac, So Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to A, *, 12. The reading Bacavicdoot (Elz.) arose, like the other variations, from the desire for conformity; cf. the preceding dmoxreinwow. — Ver. 6. Instead of etppoovoy (x, Elz.), [W. and H.] read ebpwow (A, 12, 17, 28, Beng., Lach., Tisch. ), to which also the var. ebp7owor (2, 9, 11, al., Wetst.) points. —The fut. gebéerac (Elz.) is an emendation, instead of the well-attested pres. getye: (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). ¥: ¢6yy.— Ver. 10. xal xévrpa hv év raig obpaic avrév nal % éfovoia airiw adixjoat, Thus Elz., but without attestation. In the beginning, it is undoubtedly to be read only xa? xévtpa (A, &, 17, al., Matth., Lach., Tisch.). In favor of the succeeding words, the reading of A, ®, 17, manifestly the mater lectioni’, is decisive: xat év raic obpaic atray % éfovola abréw dduxjoat, x.7.A, (Lach., Tisch.). In the other text-recensions, the emendizing hand is unmistakable, especially so in that received by Matth., and represented by a respectably large number of witnesses: «, év 7. obp, air. Exovor éfove, rob ddu. Upon the founda- tions of inner criticism, next to the correct reading, that of the edition of Beng. commends itself: «a? xévtpa év tr. ovp. abtiw 4 éfove. abrov adix., x.T.A. —~ Ver. 12. Instead of fpxovra: (Elz.), Matth. has written, in accord with preponderant testimony (X): epxera: (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 13. recoup is lacking in A, 28, Syr., Aeth., Ar., Vulg., Beda, is deleted by Lach. (W. and H.]}, and rejected also by Ebrard; Tisch. has again adopted it. Possibly it fell out because of its similarity with xcparw» (Beng.); but it was more probably interpolated in order to make an antithesis to the ¢. ziav, and a parallelism with the fr, téooapac ayy. (ver. 14). — Ver. 14. 6 &ywv, So, already, Beng. The emendation dr exe (Elz.) is destitute of all critical value. — Ver. 16, rod inzov, So Matth., Tisch., 1854, according to 2, 4, 8, al. The reading rod drmexod (%, Elz., Beng., Tisch., 1859, IX. [W. and H.]), like the var. tov imzwv, appears to be a correction. —.dsopupiides, A, 11, 12, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Also the var. c&opupiuy (18, Wetst.) points to the true reading. The dvo pvpiader (x, Elz., Beng.) is, like the mere pupiddes in Matth., a correction. — The «a? before 7xovoa (Elz.) is certainly to be deleted (Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 20. ob petevinoay, This only intelligible reading is sufficiently attested by C, 4, 6, 16, al., Copt., Andr., Areth., and is properly preferred by Griesb., Matth., Tisch. [W. and H.], to the otre (Vulg., Primas, Cypr., Elz., Beng,. Lach.). %: odd.
276 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Vv. 1-12. The trumpet of the /i/th angel brings the first woe,! viz., locusts from hell as a plague upon men not sealed (ver. 4; cf. vii. 1 8qq.).
Ver. 1. dorépa éx tr. obp. nerruxéra el¢ tr. y. Eichh. is incorrect in explain- ing the part. pf. as in form and meaning equivalent to xaraBaivew. The star had already fallen from heaven to earth, and had become just as John saw it; the falling, also, is in no way a spontaneous descent, — possibly at God's command for a definite purpose,?— but the expression presupposes that the star was thrown down.® But the “star” is neither to be regarded as changed into a human form, nor to be understood as a purely figurative designation of an angel,® but the idea of a star mingles with that of an angel, as in the O. T. view of the O°2%73 ®2¥.¢ The star fallen from heaven appears, consequently, not as a good,’ but as a bad, angel,® who must serve only to bring a plague of an infernal character upon the godless: xa? 2d60n atré, «.r.A. This id66y would, of course, have its justification if the star were a heavenly servant; but in connection with the serruxéra, the idea is significant that this infernal angel was expressly appointed a place in order to bring in the plagues inflicted by God otherwise than in xx. 1, where the angel “coming down” from heaven has in his hand the key of the abyss.® — 4 xAede rod gpéaroe Tip G8icour. The d@vocoe (viz., xpa), i.e., bottomless, the abyss, designates — like the Heb. DINA, which the LXX. often render by dSuvacoc 1° — the depths of the earth in the natural sense," then Sheol, Hades, i.e., the place of abode of the departed in those depths,!2 but in the Apoc.,}8 and Luke viii. 31, the . present 14 abode of the Devil and his angels. From this d3vcooc, a ¢péap (LXX. for ‘W3, “well,” Gen. xxi. 30, xxvi. 15; cf. John iv. 11), regarded as pro- ceeding and discharging over the surface of the earth, appears like a shaft 15 of some kind, possibly after the manner of wells or cisterns, to be closed; and hence the angel receives 2 key, in order, by descending into the deep, to open the shaft of the well, and thus to let out the smoke proceeding from the cBvacoc (ver. 2). [See Note LVI., p. 292.]
Vv. 2,3. The smoke arising from the opened well, comparable to the smoke of a great furnace,!© was so thick that thereby (é r. xazv., cf. viii. 11) the sun and moon were obscured. — 6 fac xat 6 dzp is not an hendiadys,!” but, according to the more natural view, it is apparent that both, viz., the sun and the air, are darkened by the thick mass of smoke. — «a? é& 1. xarv, eénAsov axpide ele r. y. The xamvoc, therefore, was not merely an apparent mass of smoke, yet in fact a dreadful swarm of locusta;}* but the infernal
1 Cf. vill. 18. 3 Cf. xx. 1.
8 vi. 13. Cf. Lake x. 18; Isa. xiv. 12.
« Vitr. Cf. Hengetenb.
5 ** An angel imitating a star in bright light and splendor.”
6 Cf. Ps. citi. 21; Jer. xxxili.22; Job xxxvili. 7. Ewald, who compares xvili. 16, xxi. 1-6, in
® Against Ew., ete.
10 Aleo in the plural; Ps. )xxi. 21, cvil. 26.
11 Gen. i. 2, vil. 11; Deut. viii. 7.
13 Ps. Ixxi. 21, cvii. 26; Rom. x. 7.
13 ver. 11, xx.1,3. Cf. xi. 7, xvii. 8.
14 Cf., on the other hand, Rev. xx. 10.
18 The idea is otherwise in Ps. Iv. 24, accord-
addition to Enoch, 84 aqq., Ixxxix. 32.
7 Beng., De Wette.
8 Beda, who, however, like many of the old interpreters, understands it directly of the Devil; Volkm.
ing to the Heb., aa well as the LXX.
16 Cf. Gen. xix. 28; Exod. xix. 18.
17 “The air, so far ae lilumined by the sun” (Beng.).
13 Vitr., Eichh., Ztill., Ebrard.
CHAP. IX. 4, 5. 277
smoke is the covering under which the miraculous locusts ascend, and from which they ‘‘come out,” in order to execute the plagues with which they are commissioned.! Against the force of the words, Klief. explains: “The ma- terial for the locusts already existed on earth, but the smoke ascending from hell converts it into locusts.” — xat £6607 — ol cxoprios rig ypc. The power given (cf. ver. 5) these locusts corresponds with their form and equipment (ver. 10). The rij¢ ye with of cxopmios does not refer to the distinction, which is here entirely out of place, between land- and sea-beasts,* but to the fact that the locusts are not from the earth; the infernal locusta receive a power like that of earthly scorpions. Hence no allusion should be made® to the state- ment of Jewish writings, that hell is full of scorpions.
Vv. 4,5. There is here a further description as to how this plague of the locusts, proceeding from the abyss, is entirely different from that which the ordinary earthly locusts bring. —xal éppe6y abr., «.7.A., cf. vi. 11. The ready recollection of the Egyptian plague of locusts * makes the plague here appointed appear the more wonderful and dreadful. Not the grass and all the fresh verdure of field and trees, which are elsewhere devoured by locusts, are now regarded,® but only® men, those, viz., dcrever obx Exovor ri odpayida, «.7.A, Only as those without the seal,’ are they subjected to the plague pro- ceeding from the abyss. The allegorizing interpretation of Beda and many others, according to which the rage of heretics (locusts) against the ortho- dox is regarded as here represented, miscarries —even though in its indi- vidual features it is refuted —chiefly in that, according to this exposition, the godly (the sealed) must appear as they who suffer. The explanation also which refers the entire trumpet-vision to the Jewish war, and under- stands by the locusts the Zealots, is also embarrassed on this point, so that Heinr. must remark: “ We are unwilling to inquire here whether the Zealots were really grievous and pestilential to the better or the worse part of the race. The poet certainly imagines the latter.’ —-The injury which, in ver. 4, the locusts were commanded to inflict upon men, is more precisely defined in ver. 5; viz., that they are to torment men with the scorpionic power given them, but are not to inflict death. — 46607 avr. fva, «7.4. Cf. ver. 3. That the not killing is to be strictly taken, but that it is not to be said that “only the not killed draw attention to themselves, because their number is the greater, and their lot the harder,”® is shown by the tenor of the words, the antithesis 442’ iva Bacanotjoovra, aud the further description, ver. 6. — Bacanobjoovra. It harmonizes well with the change of subject, that the indic. fut. now follows fa. Cf. a similar change of inf. and indic. fut., vi. 4. — iar wévre. The allegorizing explanations depend, as always, upon extreme arbitrariness. Beda: “That heretics ‘temporarily attack the good. For by five months it signifies the time of a generation, on account of the five senses which we use in this life.” Others reckon five mystical months, as 5 x 30, i.e., 150 mystical days; i.e., ordinary years, which time is re-
1 Cf. Ewald, De Wette, eto. 4 Exod. x. 12-16. Cf. also Joel i. 2. 8 Against Ew. {., without reference to Ew. 8 Cf. also vill. 7. fi.: ‘known to men.” ° Sei my Cf. Matt. xii. 4; Gal. 1. 10, ff. 16,
3 Ew. il. 7 Cf. vil. 1 aqq. ® Hengstenb.
278 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ferred by Vitr. to the dominion of the Goths, and by Calov. to the duration of Arianism. Bengel fixes five prophetic months as equal to 794 years, and proposes the sufferings of the Jews in Persia during the sixth century, which were of that length. Utterly out of place is the reference to Gen. vii. 24;! or that to the five sins, ver. 20 sqq.,* for even if the number of sins were marked there in any way as five, it would nevertheless be preposterous if an entirely special feature of one vision found its significance not within this itself, but only in another. Yet the five months are not to be passed by as “ mystical ” without an explanation, as if this must be actually given only by its fulfil- ment.® Besides, Hengstenb. says, arbitrarily, the number five “is absolutely the sign of the half, unfinished, as the broken number. Five months are mentioned, because only the five, in its relation to the twelve months of the year, gives the idea of relatively long duration and dreadfulness;” against which Ebrard already replies that to this sense the number six, the half of the twelve months, would most simply correspond. LEichh., Ew., De Wette,‘ have properly recognized the designation of the five months as a feature in the vision, which is derived from the popular idea that the locusts usually appeared during the five months from May.® As generally the entire descrip- tion of visionary locusts, however supernatural they appear, depends upon the basis of a natural view, so, also, that natural conception lies at the foun- dation of the period given; yet even in this point the natural relation is heightened, as the locusts remain out of the abyss for fully five months, while, naturally, it is only within this time that occasionally a swarm of locusts may come. —é Bacavopdc abriw. The abréy is the gen. subj., as in the corresponding dc Bacay. oxopriov. The subj. again is the dxplder, and faca- viouoc has an active sense, as the form corresponds.* — Srav raiog dv6p., when he shall have struck a man.? The correct Greek mode of expression regards a case naturally possible as having already occurred. Significant is the expression saiew, which in the LXX., besides zardocew,® corresponds to the Heb. 73m.° The Latins also speak forcibly of the scorpion’s stroke.”
Ver. 6. vr. nukpae lxeivac, Viz., when what has been previously seen by John in the vision actually occurs. Just upon the fact that the vision repre- sents prophetically what is to occur,” depends the express prophetic mode of expression in the fut. {yrjoovow, together with the formula éy r, fu. éxeivarc.'2 Not only is the wish described that the wounds inflicted by the locusts might be mortal,!* but, in general, the despairing desire to see an end made to life, and thus to escape 4 the dreadful tortures,45— a terrible counterpart to the iméuzia of the apostle springing from the holiest hope.?®
Vv. 7-10. Only now, after John has described how he has seen the miraculous locusts rise from the abyss, and what plagues they are to bring,
1 Zall. © Num. xxii. 28; 2 Sam. xiv. 6. 3 Hofmann. 10 Plin., H. N., vi. 28.
8 Ebrard. 11 Cf. iv. 1, v. 1 aqq.
« Cf. already Calov., Vitr., ete. 13 Cf. Ewald, De Wette.
§ Cf. Bochart, Hieros. ii. 495. 18 De Wette.
* De Wette. , 14 Cf. Jer. vill. 3.
+ Cf. Winer, p. 289. 18 Ver. 5.
§ Jon. iv. 7. 16 Phil. i. 23.
CHAP, IX. 7-10. 279
does he proceed to describe the extraordinary phenomenon more minutely and fully. An essential feature in this description, ver. 10, has express ref- erence to what is said in vv. 8-5: in other respects the individual points of the description are not to be urged, as the context itself not only does not suggest a special interpretation, which must prove allegorical, but rather excludes it; e.g., there is no question as to something special accordirfg to ver. 3 sqq., either as to the teeth of lions, or the hair of women. The infer- nal locusts are to torment men only after the manner of scorpions (ver. 10); of a biting, as with the teeth of lions, nothing whatever is said. But if individual features be pressed in violation of the context, manifest prepas- terous interpretations follow; as, e.g., the reference of the teeth of lions to the erroneous doctrines and calumniations with which heretics have lacerated the orthodox church.1 That which is aimed at is the general impression in @ description, in which the actual form of natural locusts lies, in a certain way, at the foundation. These infernal locusts, however dreadful their supernatural form, are nevertheless always to be known as locusts; only in what is described in ver. 10, they have a wonderful peculiarity of their form corresponding to the plagues committed to them (ver. 8 sqq.), which is with- out all natural analogy. — ra duouspara tév axp. Incorrectly, Hengstenb. and Ew. ii.: their likeness. dyofwua designates regularly? the product of an ouowiv, ie , the form so far as it is just like a model.* The forms of the locusts were like ltrmog froqw, el¢ x6A. This pertains to the forms as a whole. Cf. Joe] ii. 4. In books of travel, it is expressly noted, that the form of the locust has a certain resemblance to that of a horse.* The similarity is espe- cially manifest if we think of the horse as equipped (#rowaop, ele 0A.), 80 that its head rises from the breastplate like the head of the locust from its thorax (ver. 9). — én? 1, xep. ait. &¢ oTépavoe Suowe yovem. From the fact that the natural locust has nothing on its head that looks like a crown, it does not follow that the cregdvo: 5u. yp. are nothing else than the polished helmets of soldiers, who are to be understood under the allegory of locusts.5 <rég. does not mean helmets; and even if there were some ground, in general, for such allegory, yet, at all events, the individual features of the allegory as such could first be harmoniously comprehended, and afterwards be obtained in their individual points. But any mingling of (assumed) allegory and literal statement is to be rejected; and hence the exposition is entirely inad- missible which ascribes helmets, meant literally, to locusts, meant allegori- cally. The same fundamental principle applies to the other features of the description; so that, e.g., the hair, like the hair of women, ascribed to the locusts, could not be the long hair of barbarian warriors. — The supposition is readily suggested, that also the words «x. ém rdg xeg., «.7.4,, contain an allu- sion to the natural form of the locust. But even if John says that upon the heads of the locusts there was something “like gold-like crowns” (d¢ or. duo xp., cf. iv. 6), he could scarcely have thought of the two antennae about
Calov., etc. 3 Cf. Winer, p. 89. 4 Cf. Winer, Riwd., i. 575. 3 Cf. Ezek. i. 16, x. 21, where the Heb. & Eichh., Heinr. Har" stands; Rom. i. 23; Phil. il. 7. © Against Vitr., ete.
280 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN:
an inch long;? it is more probable,? that the rather strong, jagged elevation, which of course is situated, not on the head, but in the middle of the tho- rax,® but which in the popular view, not readily distinguishing the line of division between head and thorax, may appear as if upon the head of the _ insect, serves as the natural type. The yellowish-green brilliant coloring of that ‘elevation of the thorax may then have given John the natural oppor- tunity for describing that which is crown-like on the heads of the demoni- acal locusts as dy. xpvod. — ra xpdowna atr, &¢ xpdowna dvoporuv. The expressly marked comparison dare be denied here as little as the other features of the description. Hengstenb , therefore, is incorrect when, like the older alle- gorists, not only mistaking the simple comparison for an (imaginary) alle- gory, but also confounding the literal with an allegorica] interpretation, he Bays, “Their faces were like the faces of men, since a fearful look, the dreadful look of men, shines through the look of locusts. In fact, they were actually faces of men.” The text nowhere says this, but gives an idea of the faces of the demoniacal locusts by representing them as like the faces of men. This also has its natural foundation in the fact, that the head of the locust has actually a faint resemblance to the human profile.4 The more strongly this similarity is regarded, as expressed in the supernatural locusts whose entire form has in it something monstrous, the more dreadful must it appear. — xa? elyov rpizac dc rpizag yuvauev. This feature of the de- scription also is to be apprehended in the same way as the preceding. The words d¢ roly. yuv. are intended only relatively; the point of comparison, however, can lie only in the length of the hair, since long hair is peculiar to women, not to men.> In the description which is intended only to make visible the fact that the miraculous locusts have long hair like that of women, there is no special allegorica] reference, either to the long hair as it is found in barbarian warriors,® or to the fact that “the spirits of darkness,” or men serving as their instruments, “look so mildly and tenderly from be- neath the tresses of women,” while back of these locks they conceal the teeth of lions.?_ Every thing upon which such allegorical interpretation must lay importance has been improperly introduced. It may appear doubtful whether John, in representing the wonderfully long hair of the supernatu- ral locusts, thinks of it according to the analogy of the antennae of the natural locusts, — as is most simple, — or whether he understands the hair in the other parts of the body, e.g., the legs ;* but it is certain, that if the context is otherwise to be regarded as harmonious and free from perplexity, every other reference, except that indicated by the simple comparison, is to be regarded out of place. —x. of oddvreg abt. dc Aedvrwv Hoav. Joel already (i. 6) ascribes the teeth of lions to natural locusts. There, as here, nothing else is illustrated but the desolating voraciousness, but not “the rage of the enemy.”*® This feature is highly significant in order to answer to the figure
1 Ewald. © As even De Wette tries to establish, al- ® Cf. Ztill., De Wette. though properly rejecting the interpretation uf 3 Cf. Winer in loc. the locusts as warriors.
4 Cf. ZU., Ew., De Wette. 1 Ebrard.
8 Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 140q. Winer, Rwb., 1. 527. 8 Ewald. ® Hengstenb.
CHAP. IX. 11. 281
of locusts as such, but, like what is said in ver. 7, is entirely irrelevant in reference to the particular plague which is to be brought by the infernal locusts (ver. 3 sqq.).—x«. elx. Odpaxac o¢ dp. odnpois. Incorrectly, Heng- stenb.: “The iron cuirasses show how difficult it is to approach these horsemen.” Instead of the breastplate of natural locusts, to which natural . history has given the significant name thoraz,} the supernatural locusts have @ cuirass compared only with a coat of mail. —«, # guv) r. xrepiyur, x72. Like natural, these demoniacal locusts also have wings, whose rushing is very naturally® illustrated by the comparison, d¢ gu) dpuaruv Irxuv woddav rpexovruy ele wéAguov. In these words neither the dpzdrey® nor the inzuy‘ is to be regarded as interpolated, since the idea “as the sound of chariots of many horses running to war,” is as readily understood as it is throughout suitable. Yet it dare not be said, that, while the rattling of the wagons corresponds to the whizzing of the locusts, the horses are specially mentioned, “ because the mass of riders, and not of wagons, are the proper antitype of the locusts.”5 Already the expression, in which the dppydruy belongs to inruy woAi. as its subjective genitive, forbids the distinction made in the interests of a perverted (allegorizing) collective view. The entire noise, which is caused as well by the chariot-wheels, as also by the hoofs of the horses driven in the chariots, is designated, since it is designedly that not the chariots alone are mentioned. — «. Exyovot obpac duolac cxopriog xa xévrpa. The Comparatio compendiaria ® states that tails of the locusts are like the tails of scorpions; in connection with which, the particular (xa? «évrpa) is expressly marked, that is the special subject of consideration. Beng., Hengstenb.,’ are not willing, however, to acknowledge any breviloquence, but regard the locusts’ tails as the (entire) scorpions, and appeal to ver. 19. But in the lat- ter passage, where the subject refers to heads and mouths situated in the serpent-like tails of the horses, not only the context in general, but also the special determination fyovo. xepddac, forbids us finding in the words du. Sgeorv & comparatio compendiaria; while, in ver. 10, the intention and expression lead to this most simple mode of statement. — x. éy r. obpai¢ air. tovoia abr. ddicjoa, «.rA, The inf. dd. explains the power in the tails fur- nished wjth scorpion-like stings. It is worthy of observation, how this last feature again reverts to the description of the same plagues as are com- manded in ver. 3 sqq.;* and thus the whole appears to be harmoniously rounded off. Also the designation pigvac xévre is repeated from ver. 5, in order once more to emphatically mention that the infernal beasts, with their scorpion-like equipment and power, are to plague men after the manner of locusts during five full months. [See Note LVII., p. 292.]
Ver. 11. As in their form and entire nature, the demoniacal locusts are distinguished from those which are natural,’ also in that they have a king, Viz., rdv dyyeAov ri aBiocov, i.e., not “an angel from the abyss,” but the
t De Wette. © Cf. xili. 11; Matt. v. 20.
® Cf. Joel 1.5. Winer, Rwbd., in loc. * Cf. aleo Winer, p. 579; De Wette. 3 De Wette. 3 Cf. vi. 8. 4 Ew. 1. ® Ewald, Hengstenb.
5 Hengstenb. % Prov. xxx. 27. 11 Luth.
282 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
angel of the abyss, by which, however, not Satan himself is to be under- stood ;1 since this is indicated neither by the designation, r. dyy. r. 48., nor the definite appellation. Still less is the “king” to be identified with the ‘¢ star,” ver. 1, as Hengstenb.? must do, because he assumes that as often as . a star is mentioned in the Apoc. a ruler is meant, and therefore says here, “If what is said here were concerning another king, the locusta would have two kings.” The expression rdv dyy. r. 43.8 makes us think only of such an angel as is in a special way the overseer of the abyss.‘ One thing, pertain- ing to this position of his, is here mentioned, viz., that he is the king of the locusts rising from the abyss. As the overseer of the abyss, however, he is not only designated its angel, but bears also the very name which in its Heb. form expressly indicates that relation: Svoyza ary 'EGpatorl 'ABaddady xal by rg "EA quay bvoua exer ArodAiuv. Already in the O. T., JWI3¥ (LAX.: axcaas), parallel with Siw, designates the kingdom of corruption in a local respect; ® with the rabbins, Abaddon is the lowest space of hell.6 Accordingly the éBvacoc itself receives the name 'Ag.; but very appropriately the angel of the abyss here bears it, who as overseer is in a certain respect its personal representative. The Greek interpretation ‘ArodAiuy is given in this form — not as possibly dAodpeurye, etc., not to give a sound corresponding with the name Apollo,’ but because in the LXX. the personal name is naturally con- nected with the expression dmiAeda. An express contrast between Apollyon the Destroyer, and Jesus the Saviour, can be found only by those who® understand the former as Satan himself. [See Note LVIII., p. 292.]
Ver. 12. These words,® serving as well to conclude vv. 1-11 (4 obal# pia ampAgev), a8 to point to what follows (idot épyera, «.7.A.) belong to John’s report, and are not to be taken as the words of the eagle, or any other heavenly messenger. After the vision just described, John makes promi- nent that now the one woe of the. threefold cry is fulfilled, and accordingly past. — uia, cardinal number, that one of the three, as immediately after- wards ér: dio. Cf. vi. 1.— 4 otut. The striking feminine form is explained by the fact that the conception of a 64ip¢ is involuntarily substituted for this _ announced woe.!! — idod, Epyeras Ere db0 obal uw. r, “The sing. fpyera: contains an hypallage, which is inoffensive since the verb precedes.?
The allegorical mode of interpretation applies to ver. 1 sqq., as every- where, the most arbitrary expedients, and does the greatest violence to the context, and that, too, alike in the expositors who make their explanations from an overstrained conception of biblical prophecy, no less than in those who in a more or less rationalistic way consider the prophetic visions of John as vaticinia post eventum, and transform them into allegorical outlines of the events of the Romano-Judaic war. The plague of locusts is regarded as heresy only by interpreters of the first class; %* as calamities of war, and
1 Ebrard. Cf. Grot., Calov., ete. 8 Beng., Hengstenb. 2 Aleo Volkmar, 3 Cf. xvi. 5. ® Of. xi. 14. %® Cf. vill. 18. 4 Beng., Ew., De Wette. 11 Cf. Winer, p. 100. 8 Cf. Job xxvi. 6, xxviii. 22; and, besides, 32 Cf. Winer, p. 481. Hirzel-Olshaus. 13 Beda, Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, Luth.,
® Cf. Schbttg. * Grot. Calov., Boas., Stern, etc.
CHAP. IX. 13. 283
similar afflictions, by interpreters of both classes.!_ N. de Lyra, like many others proposing the Arians, interprets the individual chief features thus: the star, ver. 1, is the Emperor Valens, “who from the height of Catholic faith fell into the Arian heresy;” the key is the power of exalting this heresy; the locusts are the Vandals whom this heresy infected; the verdure,. ver. 4, represents the Christians in Africa spared by the Vandals; the five months designate the period of the five Vandal rulers. Stern understands by the locusts all imaginable hefetics, down even to the Pantheists and Ger- man Catholics of our times. The scorpion-tails indicate that “false doctrine bears its sting in its consequences;” the hair of women admonishes that “many false doctrines, occasioned by inordinate love to women, have almost all been diffused by women, to begin with Helena the associate of Simon Magus, down to the bacchantes of modern times, who, with Ronge and his followers, drank the cup of the Devil, and won admirers for the prophet of Laurahiitte.”
Many older Protestants understand by the star the Pope; by the locusts the degenerate clergy, viz., the monks of the Catholic Church.? This was, as C. a Lap. says, a retaliation for the interpretation of Bellarmin and other Catholics, that it refers to Luther, Calvin, and the Evangelical Church. — If by the locusts warriors are understood (and even Klief. forces from the passage the ideas of military power and its oppression), expositors like Grot., Wetst., Herd., Eichh., Heinr., find a more minute determination derived from the fundamental view of the entire Apoc. The locusts are the Zealots.® The star is, according to Grot., Eleasar, the son of Ananias; according to Herd., Manaim. The abyss opened by him is, according to Grot., “the seditious doctrine that obedience must not be rendered the Romans,” for (xal, ver. 8 = nam) from this the party of the Zealots arose to the injury of the Jews; according to Herd. “ the fortress Masada.” Abaddon is, according to Grot., “the spirit which animated those Zealots;” according to Herder, Simon, the son of Gorion. To Vitr. and Beng., chronology suggests a more minute determination; in the time succeeding the fourth events of the truam- pet-vision, something must be found to which the fifth trumpet-vision could be referred. Hence Vitr. conjectured the incursions of the Goths into the Western Roman Empire in the beginning of the fifth century; Beng. under- stood the persecution of the Jews in Persia in the sixth century. Volkm. understands the army of Parthians to be led by Nero against Rome.* With- out any more minute determination, Hengstenb. interprets the fifth trumpet as referring to the distresses of war, and the locusts to soldiers. ‘One of the many incarnations of Apollyon”” was Napoleon, whose name has a “note- worthy similarity ” to the name of the king of the locusts. A special indica- tion will be found in the text, that the locusts are to be understood allegorically. Beda, already, said that such locusts as, according to ver. 4, are to eat neither
2 Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., Grot., Wetst., 8 Gerken also, who, through an entire series Herd., Elchh. of trifling expedients, puts a forced construc- 3 Aret., Bull., Laun., etc. tion on the name Napoleon, thinke (p. 26) that
8 According to Wetst., the army of Cestius. §we may venture to derive it from awdéAAum, ¢ Cf. ver. 14. and therefore writes it Napolleon.
284 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
grass nor leaves, could not be actual locusts, but must be men. But ver. 4 is with more justice understood by other allegorists as a “figurative ” mode of expression; as, ¢e.g., by Bengel, who suggests “a lower, middle, and higher class of the sealed.” Otherwise N. de Lyra, Vitr., etc. If there be an alle- gory anywhere, every individual feature must be allegorically interpreted. But for this the text itself nowhere gives the least occasion. It cannot even be said, with De Wette, that what is demoniacal in the plague of locusts here portrayed is only to be conceived of as a symbol of their extreme destruc- tiveness; for however seriously and literally the demoniacal nature of these locusts be intended, it follows that they have no power,! even as demoniacal, over the sealed, who remain absolutely untouched? by all the other plagues of the trumpet-visions. The plagues of the one vision are just as literally meant as those of the other, the infernal locusts with the tails of scorpions no less than war, famine, the commotion and darkening of the heavenly bodies. For John beholds a long series of various, and, as a whole, defi- nitely shaped plagues, as foretokens and preparations of the proper parousia. Whoever, then, as Hebart,® expects the literal fulfilment of all these visions, and, consequently, e.g., the actual appearance of the locusts described in ver. 1 sqq., it is true, does more justice to the text than any allegorist; but, because of a mechanical conception of inspiration and prophecy, he ignores the distinction between the actual contents of prophecy, and the poetical form with which the same is invested in the enlightened spirit of the prophet, and not without a beautiful play of his holy fantasy.
Vv. 18-21. The sixth trumpet-vision; a wonderful army of horsemen | slew the third of men without causing repentance in those who were left. This visitation belongs to the second woe.‘
Vv. 13-15. At a divine command the trumpet-angel looses the four angels bound thus far at the Euphrates, under whose direction the immense army of horsemen is to bring its plagues.
wal $xovoa, x.7.A, What John hears§ in the vision, he represents just as what he beheld (ver. 17), in consequence of the trumpet-vision. — guviv piay éx tov (TEcoipuy) KEpadtwy Tov Ovotacrnpiov, x.7.A, In a linguistic respect it is possible that the precise number is intended indefinitely,® zo that it is left entirely undecided as to whom the voice belongs, as vi. 6,’ although it is impossible to take é« in the general sense of aro,’ and to explain that the voice came from God enthroned back of the altar.® Cf., on the other hand, also, xv1. 7. Yet a more definite reference of the uiavy would result in con- nection with the fact that the voice proceeds from the four horns of the altar. The altar from whose horns the voice proceeds is expressly desig- nated as that mentioned viii. 3 sqq.% The circumstance, accordingly, that from its horns the voice proceeds which loosens the plagues described imme-
1 Ver. 4. © A voice.” Ewald. Cf. viti. 18. Winer,
2 Cf. vii. 1 aqq. p. 111. 7 De Wette.
® Die Zweite Sichtbare -Zukunft Christi, 8 “Forth from,” like the Heb. ted which Erl., 1850. includes the meaning of both prepositions.
€ Cf. xi. 14. ® Ew. }., Stern.
8 Cf. vi. 8, &, 7, 10. 3% And vi. 9 sqq.
CHAP. IX. 13-18. 285 diately afterwards, must have a similar meaning as the circumstance in viii. 5, that the fire cast upon the earth was taken from the same altar, i.e., the command of the angels to loose appears as a consequence of the prayers presented at the altar;} but after that, it is proper to understand the one (Divine) voice making manifest this special hearing of prayer, in contrast with the many voices of those who pray, heard and referred to also in viii. $ (1. mpooevy. trav dy.). —It is a perversion, however, to consider the: one voice in any special relation to the four horns of the altar; for, even apart from the critical uncertainty of the reading recodpuv, the sense forced from it? is extremely feeble, while the allegorical ® explanation‘ is without any support. Also the relation, which is in itself arbitrary, between the four horns and the “four sins,” ver. 21, and likewise the four angels,® falls with the spurious Teoodpuv, —T@ éxtw ayy. From the fact that here the trumpet-angel not only sounds the trumpet, but is himself engaged in the act which follows, the inference dare in no wise be drawn that the same relation occurs also in other passages where it is not explicitly stated.© But if the question be asked why there is ascribed here’ to the proclaimer of the plagues a co-oper ation with them, any reference to “economy of means” ® affords no satisfac- tory answer; for why this economy just here, which nevertheless does not universally prevail? As a reason lying in the subject itself is not percep- tible, it appears to be adopted only to avoid a barren uniformity, which would occur if the same angel who (viii. 5) cast the fire from the altar to the earth, or even if a new angel, who yet would have substantially the same position with that of the trumpet-angels, received now the command to loose the four angels at the Euphrates. — Atcov—’Evgpary. The article rode téoo, ayy. has its definite reference, as viii. 2, to the following rove ded., «.1.A.,° but throughout does not indicate the identity, adopted by Beda, etc., of the angel here named with that mentioned in vii. 1 sqq. That the four angels are wicked angels,!° not good, also not “corruptible,” —as De Wette and Ebrard say, when they uncertainly remark that we must not think directly of wicked angels,—1is to be derived from their being bound,!? from their position on the Euphrates, and from the fact that they lead an army of an infernal kind, in which respect they are to be compared with the star which
abodes,” “all places to which the Jews sent into exile the worshippers of Christ.”
8 Hengstenb. Cf. also Beng., Ziill., Hofm.
© Against Beng.
7 Cf. xvii. 1.
5 De Wette. ® Ebrard.
10 Beda, Bengel, Ebrard, etc.
it Boas., Hengstenb.
13 For the explanation of Bossuet, ‘‘ What
1 Cf. Hofm., De Wette, Bleek, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Klief.
3 «¢ That these four horns gave forth simul- taneously, not a diverse, but one and the same voice ” (Vitr., Hengstenb.).
8 If it be considered that Beda, who does not have the “ four” in his text, yet explains “‘the horns, the Gospels projecting from the Church,” the conjecture fs readily made that
the number fen was inserted in the interests of this allegorizing interpretation.
4 “It indicates the harmonious preaching of the one Church, or the one faith, from the Four Gospels” (Zeger. Cf. also Calov, etc.). Or, according to Grot., who understands by the voices, ‘‘the prayers of exiles beseeching that they may return at some time to their ancestral
binds the angels is the supreme command of God,” which Hengstenb. adopts, is a spiritual- istic subtilization that, besides, has no senee at all if Hengstenb. explains away the concrete idea of angel itself by the interpretation that in the angels the truth is embodied, that the bands of warriors led by them only act when they are sent.
286 THE REVELATION OF BST. JOHN.
fell from heaven, ver. 1, as well as with the angel of the abyss, the king of the locusts, ver. 11.— The number four of the angels does not correspond to the four parts of the army led by them,! for of this the text says nothing,? but indicates* that the army is to be led on all four sides of the earth, in order to slay ‘ the third of all men.® Ebrard, in the interests of his allegor- ical explanation, emphasizes the number four of the angels leading the army, ver. 16 sqq., in contrast with the one king of the locusts, ver. 11. Thus in the one case there is a monarchical and in the other a democratical consti- tution; with which it also harmonizes, that in ver. 17 nothing is said of crowns as in ver. 7. Nevertheless, Ebrard does not expect the elucidation of the sixth as well as of the fifth trumpet-vision until its future fulfilment: the “spiritual mercenary hosts of superstition” are only foretokens of the still impending plagues. [See Note LIX., p. 293.] én? ri roraup rp peyady ’Evgpary. This local designation has been received literally ;® and the appli- cation has been made, that the Parthian armies, so perilous to the Romans, mentioned in ver. 16 sqq., came from the neighborhood of the Euphrates,? or it is said that the Roman legions indicated in ver. 16 sqq. moved from the Euphrates against Jerusalem.® The latter is without any truth ;® Grot. already was therefore compelled to explain: The armies of the Roman com- manders, i.e., the four angels, extended to the Euphrates!2° But it is a valid objection to the view of Ewald, as well as that of Herder, that the armies portrayed in ver. 16 sqq. are by no means human armies, but just as cer- tainly of a supernatural kind, as the locusts of ver. 1 sqq., in their way. If the language of ver. 16 sqq., concerning actual martial bands, were to be interpreted therefore allegorically, Vitr., Beng., and many older expositors would be justified, who understood the army (16 sqq.) of the Tartars and Turks, and likewise, in connection with this, took the mention of the Euphrates in its proper geographical sense. But, unless we charge John with great confusion, we dare not say that “the bound angels” are allegorical, — Parthian,!2 Roman commanders,!® or Turkish caliphs,'*— the “ Euphra- tes” on which they are bound literal, and the troops led by them again allegorical. Such confused inconsistency the purely allegorical explanation indeed avoids; but it also appears here so untenable and visionary, that, as it itself rests on no foundation, it offers no point whatever where it can be met by a definite counter argument. Wetst. says that the Euphrates is the Tiber, just as Babylon, ch. xiv. sqq., is Rome; 5 but in that passage it is explained, in the text itself, as to how Babylon is meant, while here nothing whatever concerning Babylon is said. With entire indefiniteness, Beda:
1 Ewald. * Ewald. Cf. aleo De Wette, Rinck, Voikm. 3 Ew. fi. refers entirely to various nations ®§ Herder. Cf. Grot., Eichh., etc. which must have rendered military service in ® Cf. Tacit., Hist., v. 1.
the Parthian army. Cf. Dan. vii.4; Epiphan. 10 *¢ Ingentes exercitus ad E. usque sesitnge: (Haer. li. 34), who mentions Assyrians, Baby- bant.”’
loniane, Medes, and Persians. 11 Cf. also Bleek. § Cf. vil. 1. 12 Ew. I. 13 Herd. ¢ Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb. 1¢ Beng. 5 Vv. 15, 18. 18 Cf. N. de Lyra: ** The Euphrates is the
8 Cf. xvi. 12. Roman Empire.”
CHAP. IX. 16-19. 287
“The power of the worldly kingdom, and the waves of persecutors.” — The context itself offers the correct conception, by recalling in the formal ex- pression 7. rorayp rH weyadd Eigp,) the O. T.;2 combining with this local designation, to be comprehended from the O. T. history, the description of an army whose dreadfulness far surpasses every thing of a human char- acter, and actual historical experience, but, besides, has an allegorical meaning as little as the locusts, ver. 1 sqq. The mention of the Euphrates is schematical ; i.e., John designates with concrete definiteness the district whence the supernatural army-plague is to traverse the world, by naming the precise region whence, in O. T. times, the divinely sent plagues of Assyrian armies came upon Israel. An entirely similar schematical sense would have occurred if John had called the place whence the locusts went forth, Egypt. That the Euphrates is the boundary of the land of Abra- ham * and David,® is to be urged here as little as that it was the boundary of the Roman Empire;® the only matter of consequence is, that from the Euphrates formerly ‘the scourges of God” proceeded.” It is also irrelevant to this schematical idea, that the subject of consideration is now a plague for all men, while previously the scourges of God were sent against Israel : the mode of view of the writer of the Apocalypse is only indicated as rooted in the O. T., in the fact that this concrete local designation appears before his gazing eyes. [See Note LX., p. 293.] #rowapevor. Cf. viii. 6, where also tva follows. They were already prepared; only, up to the present, the bands held them. In ver. 16, therefore, the description of the army break- ing forth under their command directly follows; the released angels imme- diately put themselves in motion with their armies. — el¢ rv Goay — nal énavrov, Although the gender of the nouns is different,® the art. is placed only before the first, not only because it combines in general the common concep- tion of time, but also the close inner relation and determination of the indi- vidual conceptions to one another and through one another affords the idea of essential unity. For the expression, ascending from the hour to the year,® shows that the fixed hour occurs in the fixed day, the day in the fixed month, etc.!° Incorrectly, Luther: “for an hour,” etc. Just as incorrectly, Bengel: Since the art. oocurs only once, a continuous period of time is indi- cated, — which, as a prophetic hour contains about eight ordinary days, and a prophetic day an ordinary half-year, he reckons as about two hundred and seven years, and understands it of the times of the Turk (634-840 A.D.).— 1d rplrov rav avép. Men, in reference to whose torment (ver. 1 sqq.) nothing was said of a third (cf. ver. 4), are now slain by the sixth trumpet-plague in the same proportion as previously trees, ships, etc., were destroyed.?!
Vv. 16-19. Description of the army led by the four released angels; its immense size, ver. 16; its supernatural nature, and terrible effect (vv. 17-
1 Cf. Gen. xv. 18; Deut. 1. 7; Jas. |. 4. 6 De Wette. ? Hengstenb.
2 De Wette, Ziill., Hofm., Hengstenb. ® Cf. Winer, p. 120.
3 Isa. vii. 20. Cf. villi. 7; Jer. xilvi. 10. ® Cf. Num. i. 4; Zech. 1.7; Hag. 1. 16. Hengstenb. Of. Primas, Zill. Hengstenb.
4 Hofm. 10 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
5 Ziull. i Cf. vill. 7, 9, 11, 12.
288 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
19). — rod Irxov. The explanatory variations rob immxod and rév lrmev arose from the offence taken because John did not write, in accordance with classical usage, rij¢ Immuv. — deopupuider pvpuiduv ; i.e., two hundred millions. — fxovoa, «.7.4., is added by asyndeton, since an explanation is necessary as to whence it was that John knew of the immense number.! Beda, who prefers to render the Greek expression by ‘‘ bis myriades myridaum,” than with the Vulg., “vicies millies dena millia,” finds here “a deceitful duplicity of the perverse army.” Beng. thinks that the Turkish army could readily have reached that number; viz., in the course of the entire two hundred and seven years of their dominion (cf. ver.15). Hengstenb. recognizes the unnatural- ness of the number, and concludes thence that it is meant allegorically; it is to be ascribed to no particular war, but to “ the class personified,” as in all the preceding trumpet-visions. But since the army itself, ver. 17 sqq., is not described allegorically, the number can be allegorical as little as the local designation, ver. 14: but this number is likewise schematical;! i.e., the army, which is on all occasions beheld as definite, individual, and super- natural in its entire character, appears also in a concrete but supernatural . numerical quantity. An allusion to Ps. lxviii. 18 may be regarded as the sub- stratum of the concrete number here presented to the prophet in his vision. [See Note LXI., p. 293.] That John, when he now wishes to describe the horses and riders seen by him (xa? obruc eldov, x.7.A.), adds explicitly é r9 dpioe: to the eidoy 7. txm., can occasion surprise only as this formula, ordinarily employed by the ancient prophets,? does not occur more frequently in the Apoc.; but from the fact that it is nowhere found except in this passage, although it could stand everywhere with the eidov indicating a prophetic Spacxr, nothing less follows than that the present vision has an allegorical meaning, as Beng. and Hengstenb.® affirm; the latter of whom, spiritualizing throughout, says, “In the vision every thing is seen; that which is inner must imprint itself on what is outward, the spiritual must assume a body; ” and thus in the color of the breastplate, described immediately afterwards, he sees only a “ pictorial expression ” of the murderous spirit of the soldiers, who are to be understood literally. But even granting that the idea of vision here presupposed were correct, the eidov, in itself, would here, as everywhere, point to this allegorizing. For, why should we find just here the express addition tv rj dpace? In it, no intention whafever is to be per- ceived, and least of all, that of giving an exegetical hint: it is possible, - therefore, that John here added the é rg Space to his eldov involuntarily, because, in the sixth trumpet-vision, what has thus far been advanced is what he has heard, while he now intends to describe the forms as they appeared to him in the vision. —The first part of the description, éyovra¢ Gdpaxac — beiwderc, is referred by Beng., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., Bleek, only to rode xadnuévove én’ abr., as if the description of the horses were given uninterruptedly and completely, only after that of the riders had been given more incidentally. But Ziill. and Ebrard have more correctly referred the
1 Cf. vil. 4. troops of riders identical with the “ worldly * Cf. Dan. vill. 2, Ix. 21. war-power ” described in vv. 1-12, which now 3 Klief. alao, who cxplains (p. 152) the proceeds to slay men.
CHAP. IX. 16-19. 289 Eyovrag, x.7.2., to the horses and the riders; for it is the more improbable that the first feature of the description, which is expressly stated to be a descrip- tion of the horses, should not apply to them, as the color of the breastplates has a correspondence with the things proceeding from the mouths of the horses. In general, the treatment is not concerning the riders, but the horses; 80 that the words xa? r. xadnp. én’ avr. contain only what is incidental, and in no way hinder the reference of éy. @dp., «.7.4., to r, imxovo. — Odpaxag supivouc, x.7.A. The rvpivouc and the Gedde designate, just as the taxiviiwovc, only the color ;1 and, besides, there are three colors to be regarded in their particularity, because they correspond to the three things coming from the mouths of the horses.2 The daxiGivove, which designates dark red,® corre- sponds excellently with the succeeding xanvoc. — xa? al xeg., «.7.4. The heads of the horses were like the heads of lions, possibly similar to lion heads in the size of the mouths and the length of the manes;‘ it is a definite, mon- strous appearance, that is represented, and not in general that the heads of the horses are “ fierce and terrible,” 5 which, of course, is suited better to the allegorical explanation. —x. é« 7. croudtuy, «.t.A, How seriously the descrip- tion is meant,.may be inferred from the fact, that in ver. 18 the fire, the smoke, and the sulphur, proceeding from the mouths of the horses, are expressly designated as the three plagues whereby ® these armies are to slay men, just as the locusts tormented them with their scorpion stings. Fire, smoke, and sulphur — of which the latter, according to the analogy of xxi. 8, xiv. 10, xix. 20, indicates the infernal nature of the plagues ?— are as little intended to be allegorical as, e.g., the famine or the killing in the seal-visions.* The allegorical interpretation, therefore, manifests also here the most singularly arbitrary expedients. They who understand the whole of heretics interpret the fire as “ the desire for injuring; ” the smoke, as “ the seeming zeal of faith,” because smoke is blue like the heavens; the sulphur, as “the deformity of vices.”® Similar is the interpretation in Aret., Luther, Calov., etc., who think, it is true, of the Turks, but have especially in view their erroneous doctrine. What proceeds from the mouths of the horses is, according to Calov., properly the Koran, which comprehends within itself “gsulphurous lust, the smoke of false doctrines, and the fires of wars.” To expositors who understand the armies, ver. 16 aqq., of actual soldiers, — even
1 Against Ziill., who understands a breast- plate of copper, blue steel, and brass. Cf. also Bichh., who thinks of an iron and bronze breastplate polished and shining In the sun- light. Still more inaptly, Heinr.: mvp. is truly fiery; vaxcvé. signifies polished steel; Gewé., exhaling a eulphurous odor.
2 Against Ewald: ‘Regard therefore the red, shining, and glowing colors brought to- gether in order to denote the height of bril- llancy.”’
8 See the lexicons.
5 Beng., Hengstenb.
@ awd. Cf. Winer, p. 848.
* Hengstenb.
4 Ewald.
® The classical myth, in accordance with which Ovid (et., vil. 104 eq.) writes: —
*¢ Roce, adamanteis vulcanum naribus efflant Acripedes tauri, tactaeque vaporibus herbae Ardent.”
{** So the brazen-footed oxen breathe fire from their adamantine nostrils, and the grass touched by the vapors glows”), (cf. Virg., Georg. ii. 140: “ Tauri epiravtes naribus ignem,” “‘ Oxen breathing fire from their nostrile’’), may be compared, as it expresses witb all seriousness that those oxen were actually fire-breathing. 9 N. de Lyra. Cf. also Ebrard.
290 ' THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
notwithstanding the fact that what is said in the text refers not to horsemen, the supposed “cavalryinen,” so much as to the horses,— nothing is readier than to ascribe the fire, smoke, and sulphur, to fiery missiles. Much more correctly, therefore, from the standpoint of the allegory, did, e.g., Grotius understand the firebrands cast into Jerusalem,’ than Hengstenb., who under- stands “the fierce animosity, the spirit of murder, and lust for destruction,” described by personification as soldiers; after the example of Bengel, who only is unwilling to think of cannon and powder-smoke, because the follow- ers of Mohammed did not, as yet, possess such implements of war. — 7 ydp égovoia, x.t.A, Cf. vv. 8, 10. With reference to ver. 18, it is especially emphasized, that the proper power of the horses lies in their mouths; besides this, a second point is added, xa éy raic obpaic airy. But in how far there is also in the tails an éfovoia, is explained (yap): al yap obpa? abrésv boca dgeow, x.1.2, The tails of the horses are, therefore, serpent-like,* especially because these tails have heads; so that they are such as to do injury (é atraic, 8C., obparc, ddux.). It is entirely inapplicable to explain this feature in the description of the monstrous horses, from the analogy of the ancient fic- tion *‘concerning the so-called dugicPa:va (i.e., the serpent moving forwards and backwards) with two heads;* since here nothing whatever is said of two-headed serpents, but instead of the usual horse-tail, something in ser- pent forin, viz., which has a serpent’s head, is presented. — Hengstenb.5 finds here the “ malignity ” of war symbolized. But why should Bengel be mis- taken, who explains that the horsemen (the Turks), even when they turn their backs and seem to flee, do injury? Or is it not still more consistent when Grot. mentions, with reference to this, that with the ancients infantry frequently sat back of the cavalry? Volkm., without seeming to exercise the best judgment, is satisfied with referring this to the kicking-back of the horses.
Ver. 20 sq. The plagues that have been introduced cause no repentance in the survivors.* — ol Aotrot r. avép. The contextual reference to ver. 18 is yet expressly marked: of otx dent, dv t. wAqy. ratr. As the éx is meant to limit the ot yerevéqoav, the final clause, iva yu}, «.1.4,’7 is explained: they repented not of the works of their hands, in order not (any more) to wor- ship, etc. The peravoeiv dx 1. Epy. r. xep. abr. would have as its intention the ceasing henceforth the xpoorvveiv, x.r.A. But by the words iva ud mpoox., x.t.A, not only is the pregnancy of the clause yerav. bx 7. Epyuv tr. xe. att., Which in itself is readily intelligible, explained, but an authentic interpretation is also given to the expression r+. épy. tr. xeip. atr., which it is here impossible to des- ignate as the entire course of life,*— which by no means follows from ii. 22, xvi. 11, since there the characteristic rav yepov air. is lacking, — but just as Acts vii. 41, in connection with O. T. passages like Deut. iv. 28, Ps. exxxv. 15 sqq., must designate idols made with their own hands.® It is, indeed,
1 «They seemed to proceed from the mouth § Cf. also Stern, Ebrard.
of the horses, because they flew from before ¢ Cf. xvi. 11. their mouths.” 2 See on ver. 10. * Cf. Winer, p. 428. 3 Wetst., Beng., Herd., Ew., ete. 6“ All the deeds af life’ (Ewald, De
« Plin., H. N., villi. 85: ‘‘The double head Wette, Ebrard). of the amphisbaenae, 1.e., also at the tail.” ® Beng., Hongstenb.; also Ew. il.
CHAP. IX. 20, 21. 291
to be observed, that not only the expression r. fpy. r. zep. abr. in itself, but also the allusion to the material whence human hands have fashioned the idols, and to their blindness and dumbness, refer to O. T. descriptions. But that the discourse is first in general concerning “ the works of men’s hands,” and that then a more minute presentation follows (iva 4 mpoox., «.1.A.), con- tains what is objectionable as little as the directly opposite order of Acts vii. 41.— 1a damon Cf. 1 Cor. x. 20. Bengel suffers here a peculiar embar- rassment, because he regards “the rest of men” especially as “so-called Christians,” and then must give the explanation as to how far they wor- shipped devils. But he knows bow to help himself. Notwithstanding the incursions of the Turks, he says that the Christians of that time retained the worship of images and of saints; and now there might be many among the worshipping saints who abode not in heaven, but in hell. — xaz ob perev, The repetition is necessary, because the former od erev., ver. 20, is already too remote to admit of a connection! with what follows in ver. 21 (é« r. gover, x.rA.), but is entirely irrelevant for the more detailed explanation of the whole text.? Concerning the sequence of the particles ob, otre, obre, cf. Winer, p. 457. — gapyaxewsv. Sorceries, xviii. 23.2 Ebrard under- stands it symbolically of “seductive enchantments.” He reaches this con- clusion, because in ver. 20 he finds sins against God; in ver. 21, sins against one’s neighbor, while actual sorcery, as a sin against God, does not belong in ver. 21.4 But the established linguistic usage suits no arbitrary disposi- tions. It is also to be stated against those who have regarded the gapyac. in a certain combination with the preceding ¢évw»,5 or with the succeeding nopveiac,® that the very generally expressed idea of sorcery, — the plural also should be observed, — according to its nature, does not admit of a more specific determination, as the text itself does not give such. — rij¢ ropveiag abr. The sing. designates all the particular forms of manifestation’ of the always same kind of sine. Beng. says appropriately: “Other crimes are com- mitted by men at intervals; sopveia alone is perpetual with those who are destitute of purity of heart.” — The entire description of sins, vv. 20, 21, which is to be comprehended in its unity, is manifestly directed to essen- tially heathenish godlessness, so that they of whom the third are killed, and two-thirds survive but are not converted, are to be regarded essentially as heathen.* [See Note LXII., p. 294] It is the mass of the xarosoivrec én? ric yi” in contrast with the sealed.° From the fact that the latter are not affected by the plague of the sixth trumpet, it is to be inferred, according to the standard of ver. 4, that the armies in this vision, like the locusts of the fifth trumpet, are of a demoniacal kind.
1 Ewald, etc. 5 Hengstenb. 3 Possibly as a designation of épy. tr. xeup. 6 Ewald. avr. (ver. 20), or a classification of sins. 7 Of. 1 Cor. vii. 2. 3 Cf. Meyer on Gal. v. 20. § Cf. De Wette, ete.
4‘ Cf. aleo Hengstenb., who, besides, notes ® Of. vi. 10. the ten sins against the first table (ver. 20)? 2 Cf. vil. 1 aqq. and the four sins against the second table.
292 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LVI. Ver. 1. ri¢ eBvocov,
Cf. Gebhardt: ‘‘ These expressions are based upon rabbinical representa- tions, originating from such O. T. statements as Ps. Ixxxi. 20, cvii. 26; Isa. xiv. 15 (cf. Isa, v. 14, xxx. 33), according to which there is under the earth an abyss or bottomless pit, with a lake or sea in which brimstone and fire seethe together. From this abyss goes a channel with a mouth, after the manner of a cistern, a narrow passage, as from a scarcely visible spring, to the surface of the earth. This pit, like an ordinary cistern, can be opened and closed, or sealed. . . . The abyss in its signification is a perfect antithesis to heaven. The latter is an invisible, but real, ideal world, which one day with the new heavens and the new earth, and the new Jerusalem, will become a visible reality. So also the former is the invisible, but real, world of the anti-fdeal and the ungodly, which will also become a visible (cf. ch. xiv. 10) reality in the lake of fire and brimstone, with its torment and its smoke which ascends for ever and ever; just as the new Jerusalem is now in heaven, so the lake of fire and brimstone is now in the abyss.’’? Cremer: “ It is just this antithesis to heaven that makes GBuscog a synonym for dgéy, wherein that remoteness from heaven which 18 distinctive of Hades finds full expression. In Rev. ix. 1, 2, rd ¢péap rij¢ 4Bbacou (xx. 1) appears as the receptacle and prison of destructive powers, over which reigns 6 dyyedog rig aBicoou (ix. 11); cf. the petition of the demons (Luke viii. 81). In Rev. xvil. 8, xi. 7, dvaBaivew é« rig dBiocov is said of the beast (xiii. 18).”
LVIL Vv. 7-10.
For a very full and condensed statement of the devastations caused by locusts, and their peculfarities, in which some of the features here detailed appear, see Pusey on Joel il. The significance of the individual features is thus briefly interpreted by Luthardt: ‘‘ At the basis of the description, there lies, for the most part, reality; but it is increased to what is monstrous and terrible. ‘On their heads, as it were crowns of gold;’ f.e., they are mighty powers, ‘Their faces were as the faces of men;’ i.e., they are intellectual beings, intelligences. ‘They had hair as the hair of women;’ i.e., they are seductive powers. ‘Their teeth were as the teeth of lions;’ i.e., back of their seductive appearance is inevitable destruction. Cf. Joel i. 6. ‘They had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron;’ i.e., they are unassailable. ‘The sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle;’ i.¢., they rush like military squadrons irresistibly. Cf. Joel fi. 5. ‘Tails like unto scorpions;’ i.e., malicious force inflicting injury backwards.”’
LVIO. Ver. 11. 'ABaddar,
Alford: “It is a question who this angel of the abyss is. Perhaps, for accurate distinction’s sake, we must not identify him with Satan himself (cf. ch. xii. 8, 9), but must regard him as one of the principal of the bad angels.” Weiss (Bib. Theol. of N. T., il. 270 sq.): ** He [sc., Satan] seduced a portion of the angels, who are also (i. 20) symbolized by stars, to fall away from God,
NOTES, 293
so that they are now designated as his angels. It is such a Satan-angel who is the star fallen from heaven (ix. 1), who lets loose the plague of locusts from the abyss over the inhabitants of the earth, and is expressly designated (ver. 11) as the angel of the abyss, Abaddon or Apollyon.”” Luthardt emphasizes the contrast which Diisterdieck rejects, and closely follows Hengstenberg: ‘‘ The angel of the abyss, i.e., Satan. Between him and the Saviour the choice of the world is divided. He who will not have the latter as Lord must have the former, who is hereafter to attain still greater power on earth than now; cf. 2 Thess, ii. 11, 12.’” Beck objects to the Identification of the angel and the star, on the ground that the latter was only ‘‘an astronomico-physical phenom- enon.”? But to what, then, does the atre of ver. 1 refer ?
LIX. Ver. 14. Tove réccapas dyyéAoug.
Hengstenberg accounts for the number “‘ four” as indicating the “all-sided- ness,’’ ‘“‘the cecumenical character, of the Divine judgment.’’ Alford: ‘‘ The question need not perplex us here, whether these are good or bad angels; for it does not enter in any way into consideration. They simply appear, as in other parts of this book, as ministers of the Divine purposes, and pass out of view as soon as mentioned.”’
LX. Ver. 14. 1) rorayp ro peyaAy Etgpary.
Alford remarks, on Diist.’s opinion that if we take the Euphrates literally, and the rest mystically, endless confusion would be introduced: ‘‘ This is quite a mistake, as the slightest consideration will show. It is a common feature of Scripture allegory to intermingle with its mystic language literal designations of time and place. Take, for instance, the allegory in Ps. lxxx. 8, 11: ‘Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt. ... She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river;’ where, though the vine and her boughs and branches are mystical, Egypt, the sea, and the river are all literal.’? Neverthe- less, the position of Hengstenb., concurring with that of Diisterdieck, seems correct: ‘‘ The local designation is only a seeming one. The Euphrates belongs no less to the vision, which loves to take, as the substratum of its views, events in the past agreeing in character (cf. Isa. xi. 15, 16; Zech. x. 11), ¢.g., the four angels there bound. Every historical interpretation, as, e.g., the reference to the Euphrates as the boundary of the Roman Empire, and to the dangers which threatened the Romans from the Parthians, apart from the mistake, in general, as to the meaning of the trumpets, is excluded by the immense number in ver. 16. What is said in vv. 20, 21, is not concerning the Romans, but concerning men.”’
LXI. Ver. 16. dsopvpiades pvpuidur.
Beck interprets the number literally, and explains it by colossal military expeditions and wars to occur throughout the whole world, as intimated by vv. 15, 18, 7d rpirov row dv@ponuv, and ver. 20, of Aoite trav drOporev: “a universal war involving all races of men, analogous to the migrations of nations, the first appearance of Mohammedanism, the Crusades,’’ and illus- trates its probability by referring to the now estimated one thousand millions of the earth’s inhabitants,
294 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
LXII. Ver. 21. é rdv g6vuy, «7.2,
Luthardt: ‘* These are the chief sins of heathenism. Such moral corruption will occur at the end, in spite of advanced culture; for culture of itself does not promote morality, but, as history teaches, may be employed as well in the service of ungodliness and immorality.’’ Calov., in harmony with his scheme of interpretation, refers all these crimes to the Papal antichrist.
CHAP. X. 295
CHAPTER X.
Ver. 1. d/o» before ayy. (A, C, ®, Vulg., Elz., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}) is omitted in a number of minusc., MSS., and deleted by Matth.; the transposition dyy. GAAov (16, Primas) also occurs; both upon the ground that in what precedes, either no angel, or at least no “‘ mighty ’’ angel, can be found ' to whom the one here mentioned may be compared. Cf. De Wette. #ip«. The art. lacking in Elz. is entirely certain (A, C, x, minusc., Beng., Griesb., etc. ). éxi riv xep. So A, C, Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The gen. rij¢ xed. (Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth.) is a modification supported only by ®. On the other hand, in the Elz. edition (ver. 2) the acc. rv 64/., rv y., occurs instead of the original gen. — Ver. 2. «ai &ywv. Thus, already, Griesb. in accordance with decisive witnesses, instead of the modification xai elyev (Elz.).— Ver. 4. The interpretation 5ca in ® (quae, Primas), instead of 6re, concurs in testimony against the.addition rac guvds éavrav in Elz. —atra: A, C, ®, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without witnesses: raira (Elz.). — Ver.6. The omission of the words nal 7, 0GA, x. Ta év atry in A, »®’, depends upon an easily explained oversight. They belong to the completeness of the formal discourse, and are sufficiently defended by C, Vulg., etc. Lach. has parenthesized them. obxéri fara:, So A, C, al, Griesb., etc. Incorrectly, Elz.: ob« tora: Ett. — Ver. 7. rove éaur, dotdAoue pop. A, C, ®, al. (Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) assure the acc. The dat. (Elz., Beng.) is a modification. — Ver. 8. Aadcioay —Aéyovoay. A, C, &, 7, 14, Vulg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The unauthorized nom. is a modification (Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth.). rod ayye. The art. is received already by Griesb., according to decisive witnesses in the Elz. text. — Ver. 11. xa? A¢yovoiv wo, <A, 8, 9, 18, al., Areth. (cf. also Vulg.), Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The sing. Aéye (Elz., Beng., Griesb.) is modifying. ® has, besides the plural, several interpretations.
It is manifest that in ch. x. an interlude begins, which occurs here be- tween the sixth (finished in ix. 21) and seventh (beginning in xi. 15) trum- - pet-visions, just as the scene interposed in ch. vii. between the sixth and seventh seal-visions. But in this passage the relation is the more difficult, especially from the fact that the interlude, not so definitely circumscribed as that of ch. vii., proceeds from the continuous course of the proper main visions, since, at any rate, one part of what is described from x. 1 to xi. 13 belongs to the second woe, whose conclusion is marked in xi. 14, but whose first part was contained in the sixth trumpet-vision.1 This must be firmly maintained, as a matter of course, against De Wette, etc., who find the second woe in ix. 18-21, yet without supporting further false consequences upon this error contrary to the context, but especially against Hengstenb.,
t Cf. ix. 12.
e
296 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
according to whom the entire conception of the section, x. 1-xi. 14 (and still further of xi. 15 sqq.), coincides with the view that the episode extends from x. 1 to xi. 18, and that xi. 14 immediately joins ix. 21. But if something were not contained within this episode that belongs to the second woe, xi. 14 could not stand in its place, but must immediately follow ix. 21. — Ebrard commits an error opposite to that of Hengstenb., since he! finds the second woe only within the episode,? and so conceals the entrance of the episode into the course of the trumpet-visions, that he does not reckon the sixth trumpet-plague in the second woe. Cf., besides, Vitr., who, on the other hand, identifies the sixth trumpet-vision with the second woe, and reckons it as continuing until xi. 16.4— In another form, the question recurs to the rela- tion of the interlude to the main course of the visions, if the subject con- sidered be how far the prophecy (x. 11) extends, which John is to proclaim as a consequence of having eaten the book offered him by the angel (x. 2, 8 sqq.). Prior to the exposition of the details, it may be remarked concerning the meaning of the entire section, x. 1-xi. 14: (1) The essential reference of the interlude in which an angel from heaven brings John a little book, in order that he may eat it and then prophesy anew, is determined by a formal address of the angel himself, confirmed by an oath (ver. 7), viz., that forthwith at the seventh sound of the trumpet, as also the entire course of the visions hitherto leads us to expect, the end is tocome. (2) Immediately with the sounding of the seventh trumpet, coincides the speedy approach of the third woe (xi. 14). If it were conceded that the part of the second woe described in ch. 11 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. ver. 8), it would be obvious how precisely John distinguishes the proper final catas- trophe, to which the chief course of the visions extends, fromm that act of judgment still falling in the second woe, but at the same time also preserves the inner connection between this special act of judgment and that final ful- filment,‘ i e., the eschatological character of the judgment on Jerusalem, by representing both in the one consequence of the woe.
Vv. 1,2. An angel comes down from heaven with an open little book in his hand. — eidov — xaraBaivovta éx rod otpavod. A difficulty has been found in that John, whose own standpoint from iv. 1 is in heaven, sees an angel descend from heaven. FLEichh., therefore, explains very arbitrarily: “In the heavenly theatre wherein the whole drama is being represented, he descended from that part which expressed heaven, to that which imitated the earth.” § Hengstenb. obliterates that precise presentation from a standpoint taken in the vision: “It is most natural that John, from the earth, saw the mighty angel descend from heaven.” Nevertheless he does not admit, with De Wette, that here, as in vii. 1 sqq., the seer has exchanged his standpoint in heaven ® for one on earth, — yet without understanding how the seer de- scended, — but Hengstenb. does not allow the application of any distinction between the one standpoint and the other: “That John is in heaven, is to be understood positively, and not exclusively.” As, according to John iii. 18,
1 p. $48 qq. 3 Viz., xf. 18. 4 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 3 “The calamities (ix. 13-x1. 14) pertain to 8 Cf., on the other hand, alao ver. 2. the second woe; i.e., to the sixth trumpet.” 6 iv. 1 eqq.
CHAP. X. 1, 2. 297 Christ was “at the same time in heaven and on earth,” so, in a certain respect, such twofoldness of existence is peculiar to all believers, according to Phil. iii. 20. But the question here is not concerning ethical citizenship in heaven, but concerning the locality fixed for ecstatic consciousness. Ewald properly maintains the heavenly standpoint of the seer, which is here as unobjectionable as in vi. 12 sqq., vii. 1 sqq., viii. 5, 7, 8, 10, ix. 1 sqq., xiii. sqq. Cf., concerning this, Introduction, sec. 1. — dAov dyyeAoy loxupdv. The angel distinguished from other angels by the dor is, as little as the one .- mentioned in vii. 2 or viii. 3, Christ himself.!| The very form of the oath, ver. 6, is not appropriate to Christ.2, When, on the other hand, Hengstenb. judges: “It would be presumption for a created angel to make such profes- sions,” because only God himself -“could grant the Church what is here granted it,” he mistakes the announcement by the angelic messengers for the granting, i.e., the accomplishment; and when Hengstenb. afterwards remarks that “the appearance of Christ as an angel is in the same line with his state of humiliation,” and he therefore swears by Him who had sent him, this neither agrees with the preceding judgment, nor is in itself correct, because we can in no respect think of the heavenly Christ as in the form of humiliation. More correctly, therefore, have the older expositors explained, who regarded the mighty angel as the Lord himself in so far as they found in his entire appearance, and his individual attributes, a glory which be- longed to no mere angel.2—- The more accurate determination, however, of the angel, transcends the text:4 we can inquire only concerning the relation indicated by the ddtov. De Wette, Hengatenb., etc., propose a contrast with the trumpet-angels;*® but partly because of the designation dA. dyy. loxupér, and partly because of the parallel of the book with the sealed book, ch. v., the reference to the dyy. loyvpév (v.2) appears to be nearer. [See Note LXIIT., p. 308.] repeBeBAnuévov vegéAnv— mvpéc. With correctness, Beng., Ew., etc., proceed to comprehend the four special points of the description in their unified significance. These are, however, emblematic attributes which must be understood in the concrete biblical sense. Thus the parallel of the Hora- tian Nube candentes humeros amictus augur Apollo’ appears purely accidental and inwardly remote; and as the entire description has as its intentien something more definite than to represent in general the brilliancy of the angel’s form, so the clothing him in a cloud has not only the external pur- pose to subdue to a certain extent that brilliancy.° The cloud characterizes the angel as a messenger of divine judgment.® With this agree “the feet as pillars of fire,” 1° while the rainbow, the sign of the covenant of grace,"! on
3 Against Beda, Alcas., Zeg., Aret., Par., Calov., Hengstenb., ete. Cf. also Vitr., who is unwilling to distinguish between the Second and Third Persons of the Godhead. For the correct interpretation, see Andr., Rib., Vieg., C. a Lap., Stern, Beng., De Wette, eto.
2 Cf. Beng.
3 Cf. Beda, Zeg., Calov., etc.
4 Against Rinck, who means even the trum. pet angels, xvii. 1, xxi. 9.
5 Perhaps with the eagle-angel, vill. 13 (De Wette).
* Beng., Ebrard.
7“The augur Apollo, with his shining shoulders clothed with a shining cloud” (Lib. 1., Od. 2, ver. $1).
8 Against Ewald; cf. also Helur., etc.
® Cf. 1.7; Hengstenb., Ebrard.
10 Cf. 1. 15.
1 Of. tv. 3; Gen. ix. 11 sqq.
298 _ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
the head of the angel, makes the angel appear as a messenger of peace, and the face shining like the sun? is an expression of the heavenly déga belong- ing thereto. The apparently contradictory emblems perfectly agree with the message which the angel himself formally announces, ver. 7; for if the O. T. promise confirmed by him is directed to final joy and eternal peace, the fulfilment, nevertheless, does not occur without the dreadful develop- ment of a judginent which the seventh trumpet is yet to make known. Just as, therefore, in this yvorjpiov rod Geos the terrors of the act of judgment pre- cede its blessed fulfilment, so also the appearing of the heavenly messenger proclaims both at the same time. — The wrong interpretation of the em- blematic attributes of the angel ® coincides in many expositors with the fact that they regarded the angel Christ; as Beda: “The face of the Lord shin- ing, i.e., his knowledge manifested by the glory of the resurrection, and the feet of him about to preach the gospel, and to announce peace illumined with the fire of the Holy Spirit, and strengthened like a pillar.” Zeg., Are- tius, etc., interpreted the clouds as Christ’s flesh. —xai Eyuw év 19 xetpt abrod BBAupidvor Fvewypévov. Concerning the relation of this little book to the book, ch. v., what is said in ver. 8 sqq. first affords a judgment. From a com- parison with ver. 5, the result is reached, that it was the left hand of the angel which held the book.* But this is designated here a small book, by the diminutive form, not for the reason that only an inconsiderable volume is adapted for being eaten,‘— to such reflection, even a PBAcpidiov must appear too large, — also not in comparison with the large form of the angel,® but corresponding with the contents, which constitute only one part of the BBriov, ch. v.© This book is brought to the seer opened, in contrast with the sealed book, which could be opened only by the Lamb, because John is to understand its full contents, to take the book into himself (cf. ver. 9), and then to prophesy. — «al 0yxe—ri¢ yc. By the angel’s placing his feet of fire upon the sea and the earth, he shows not only that “his intelligence belongs to the earth and the sea (the islands);”7? but more definitely accord- ing to the analogy presented in Ps. viii. 7, cviii. 10, cx. 1, and corresponding to the entire meaning of the angelic form, be thus represents the power of God in judgment, whose messenger he is, as extending over the whole earth.® The significant meaning, in this passage, of the angel in general, and of his course especially, is, however, to be understood only when the sea and the earth are interpreted no more allegorically than the angel himself. C.a Lap. . thinks, in accord with Alcas., of heathen and Jews, to whom Christ preaches, i.e., causes the gospel to be preached. Hengstenb. abides by his interpreta- tion of the sea as the sea of peoples, and the earth as the cultivated world, as Beng. by his interpretation of Europe and Asia. If the question be in general, concerning a particular sign that these allegorizing explanations do not belong to the text, it is answered in that they either do not at all®
1 Cf. i. 16, xviii. 1. 5 Beng. * Concerning the allegorical explanation of ® Ew. See on ver. 8 sqq. the whole, see the close of the chapter. 7 De Wette. 8 Beng. 8 Cf. Ew., Hengstenb., Volkm.
4 Eichh. ® Beng., Hengstenb.; aleo De Wette, ete.
CHAP. X. 3, 4. 299
explain the not indifferent course of the angel, who puts his right foot upon the sea and his left upon the earth, or that they do so with entire impro- priety.1. John, as an inhabitant of Asia Minor, could not well, unless an entirely vague idea be entertained of him, regard the sea otherwise than in the definite form of the Mediterranean; while the place on earth on which the angel sets his foot is naturally the Asiatic main land. If the question be now concerning the idea lying in the setting-up of pillars of fire, as such, it is of course a matter of indifference as to what part of the sea and earth the seer could naturally have had in mind for his concrete contemplation ; but it cannot be without more definite reference, if the region towards which the so significant form of the angel is directed be indicated by the accurately described posture. The angel stands with his right foot on the sea, with his left on the earth; and this is naturally to be concretely represented from the precise horizon of the seer, in the given way, if the angel look towards the south, towards the region of Jerusalem. But how well this agrees with his message (ver. 6 sqq ) and the contents of the book brought him, will be clear when the result is reached as to how the message of the angel refers especially to the judgment on Jerusalem. This applies also against Ew. ii., who explains: The angel put his right, i.e., his first (?), foot upon the Mediterranean, and then the left upon the land, i.e., Italy and Rome. Then only the more remote goal of the prophecy now beginning (ch. xiii. sqq.) would be indicated, while the important reference to the nearest object of the prophecy, Jerusalem (xi. 1 sqq.), would in an incom- prehensible way be lacking.
Vv. 8,4. Ata mighty call of the angel, seven voices of ihgaase sounded what John, however, was forbidden to write. — xai ixpage — puxdra. What the angel called, the text in no way indicates; at any-rate, Beng. is incorrect in saying that what is described in ver. 6 may have been expressed by this cry. Only in general, the threatening character ? of this cry is to be recognized already from the fact that the mighty voice belonging to the strong angel ® is compared expressly with the roar of the lion,‘ as in the immediately suc- ceeding and, as it were, responsive voices of thunder. — The word pvxdofae properly expresses the bellowing of the bull,5 yet in Theocritus ® there is also found pixnua Aeaivyc. [See Note LXIV., p. 308.] al érra Bpovrat. The art., which suggests some particular thunder, cannot refer to iv. 5.7 Ewald’s explanation, “All seven thunders of the heavens seem to intimate that the whole heaven must be considered as having exclaimed with an unheard-of and terrible clamor,” has no biblical foundation, and proceeds from the later Jewish conception of seven heavens, as it ascribes to each heaven a special thunder. Heinr. says, too indefinitely: “Seven mightier thunders,” but is
2 Cf., e.g., Stern: The stronger right foot indicates the emphasis with which the world
manifestation, ie directed first to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Rome.
— the sea—ie warned of the danger of Anti- christ.
8 In so far, Ew. if. decides not incorrectly (** Rome, thou fallest”’); but the threateaing of the angel in hiecry, as in his significant
§ Cf. vi. 1, vil. 2.
4 Cf. Hos. zi. 10; Am. ili. 8.
§ Phavorinus: fpvxdeGar éwi Adowroc’ pv- xaoGas éwi Bods. Cf. Wetst.
© Id. xxvi. 21. + Against Beng.
800 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
correct in making a comparison with the seven spirits of God,! and the seven angels ; 2 for here, where the question is concerning a definite manifestation by thunder, this occurs not only in the concrete number seven, — to which, besides, a certain outward occasion may have been given in the sevenfold description of the Divine voices of thunder, Ps. xxix.,8 — but their sound is regarded also by John as a significant speech (2A4Anoav), as each thunder uttered its special voice (7. éavrév guvdc) which brought an intelligible reve- Jation to the prophet.—In accordance with the command, i. 11, John wanted to write down what the thunder had said; the jueAor yp, I was on the point of writing,* which does not suit the standpoint of proper vision, since within this any writing is inconceivable,’ is explained from the stand- point of the composition of the book ; but the exchange of these two stand- points is without difficulty, when considered as referring to the prophet now writing out his vision, and as based, indeed, upon the easential identity of the Divine revelation, which guides the writing, as well as the gazing, prophet, when he receives, in respect to this revelation, another command: Kal jjxovoa, k.r.A, The «a? has neither here, nor anywhere else, an adversative meaning, but simply connects the new point, whose inner opposition to the preceding is not precisely marked.® — guriv éx rod otpavod. The expression does not compel us to regard John no longer in heaven;’ also from the standpoint which John occupies from iv. 1 (cf. ver. 1), he could designate a voice sounding from the depth of heaven as a gw». éx 7. obp. That the voice belonged to Christ, — as Beng. infers from the command, i. 11, which here suffers an exception,— remains an ingenious conjecture. Ew. ii. proposes the angel-attendant of i. 1. See in loc.— The heavenly voice demands a complete silence concerning all that the thunders had uttered: ogpdyicov — xal pa) abra ypayyc. The sealing is to occur just by the not writing; compare the reverse relation, xxii. 10. Contrary to the text, therefore, is every explana- tion that finds ® in this passage a sealing that is in any way conditional,® and entirely improper is the question as to what were the contents of the voices of the thunders. Beda regarded them identical with the seven trumpets; Zeg., as the oracles of all the prophets — before Christ ; Hengstenb.” thinks: “ what is announced later concerning the destruction of the enemies of the kingdom of God, and the final victory, must be essentially identical with what is here previously kept secret.” Others have tried to conjecture from the context, if not the contents, yet the subject and character, of the utter- ance of the thunders. Hofm. has offered what is, in every respect, the
11. 4, iv. 6.
§ ZUll., Hengstenb., Ebrard.
* Cf. xii. 4.
§ From an entirely mechanical idea of in- spiration, the writing within an ecstasy of course appears inconceivable. Thus, e.g., even Limmert (Babel, p. 27 eq.) thinks: John, who in his writing had actually proceeded aa far as the close of ch. ix., would have written even further.
6 Cf. Winer, p. 407 aqq.
4 vill. 2.
* De Wette.
8 Cf. Dan. xii. 4, 9.
® Beda: “Do not display the mysteries of the Christian faith to all everywhere, lest they grow common, neither conceal them from the good, lest they be altogether hidden.” Hengst- enb., who justifies Brightmann’s paraphrase: **Do not insert these utterances in this, but reserve them for another, more appropriate place.” Cf. also Ew. il.
30 Cf. also Stern.
, CHAP. X. 3-7. 301
strangest suggestion, when he imagines how the seven thunders had ex- pressed the blessed mystery of the new world. Beng. considered the voices of thunder as those which mightily proclaim the praise of God. The other expositors have more correctly maintained the threatening significance of the voices of thunder; but their relation to the call of the angel is arbi- trarily stated by Herd.: “The thunders declared their curses, but John was forbidden to write them, as they are not to disturb the angel's glad message ; ” and by Eichh.: “ ‘The thunders had announced the sad contents of the little book, in order that the glad message might remain for the angel.” The seven thunders are referred to definite individual facts by Vitr., who understands the seven crusades; and by, Ebrard, who thinks of the seven acts of God which will occur before the beginning of the seventh trumpet, and whereby God obtains for his people rest, and for himself glory before his enemies. Better than all the exegetes who have even attempted to _ discover something concerning the contents of the voices of thunder, did S. Brigitta esteem the text, of whom the legend says, that she wanted to know what the voices of thunder announced to John; she therefore prayed for a special revelation from God, and received it, whereby it was revealed to her that the thunder prophesied terrible judgments upon the persecutors of the Church.?-— The question has also been asked, why John did not dare write the utterance of the thunders. Incorrectly, Ziill.: “Because unbelievers would not be converted;” but it is neither certain that the thunder-voices had any such tendency, nor is the presumption in itself correct. Ew. mentions the contents of the voices of the thunder as “ex- ceeding human comprehension ;"* but John not only understood that dec- laration, but also regarded it intelligible to others, as he wanted to write it. De Wette says only, that thereby the mysteriousness is to be increased. Volkm. recognizes only a literary reasort: for writing, or rather for announ- cing, there is no longer time, as now the second part, the realization, comes.§ Yet there is still time sufficient to refer to new announcements (vv. 6, 11); for they follow as such, and not as realizations. It is well simply to acknowledge what is most obvious; viz., that the holy wisdom of God has given no account as to why this special revelation has not been made uni- versal ©
Vv. 5-7. The angel swears that immediately, viz., in the time of the seventh trumpet, which is at once to sound, the mystery of God shall be finished. — fpe r. xeipa abr. 7. deftav elc Tr. obpavdv. The angel can raise’ only his right hand, because his left holds the little book, ver. 2. The signifi- cance of the gesture is derived from the form of the oath. He raises his hand to heaven as to the high and holy place where the Eternal, and Al- mighty dwells,* who even himself, in swearing by himself, raises his own hand to heaven.®* — Concerning the é in connection with dpwoev, cf. Matt. v. 84 sqq.; Winer, p. 864. — rp Gowri eig r. alow. — d¢ Exrice 7. obpavdy, x.7.4. The
1 Cf. ver. 9 ag., wixpavei and yAv«v. 5 Bee on p. 25. ® Cf. Acts i. 7. 2 Cf. C. a Lap. ? Cf. Dan. xii. 7; Gen. xiv. 22. 8 Cf. xi. 18. 3 Cf. Isa. Iii. 15.
4 Cf. Beng., who refers to 2 Cor. xii. 4. ® Dent. xxzxif. 40.
802 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
pragmatic reference of this appeal to God, as the Eternal and Creator of all things, lies in the fact that the subject of the oath is the pvoripov rod beoi, therefore something concealed in God’s eternal decree, but which, in his time, he has not only in prophecy announced, — through the ancient prophets (ver. 7), and now through John (ver. 11, i. 1 sqq.), — but also the Almighty Lord will infallibly bring about,! and that, too, é& réye (i. 1). For the angel swears, drt xpévoc obxére Eorat, “ that there should be time nolonger.” The authentic norm for the correct explanation of this expression is given by what follows, which defines the same thing from the contrasted side, dAa”’ ty rT. fu., «.7.A,). It is accordingly not an “entrance of a modern thought,” 3 but a complete misunderstanding of the text, when many interpreters, following Beda,® have understood the words ypévoc obxért Eorat, of the absolute cessation of time, i.e., of the beginning of eternity. The opposite parallel, 442° é r. huépass, x.7.A., by virtue of its chronological nature, excludes every explana- tion which presents the formula ypévoc obxére Eorat in any other way than chronologically. Ebrard, accordingly, is also incorrect when he understands by the xpévor, a season of grace. On the other hand, however, the contrast, ver. 7, as well as also the tenor of the formula Xpov. obx. tor., forbids us to rec- ognize in this a definite, technical expression of Apocalyptic chronology, as Bengel wished, who found here a “ non-chronus,” i.e., a period of more than a thousand and less than eleven hundred years, and accordingly reckoned the closing epoch of this “ non-chronus ” (i.e., the beginning of the thousand years’ reign) as the year 18386, since the starting-point occurred, at all events, before the year 842, the concluding year of the second woe,‘ and apparently in the year 800, in which the reign was established. Grot., Calov., Vitr., C. a Lap., Eichh., Ew., De Wette., Hengstenb., etc. have correctly recog- nized the fact that the words xypéyv. obx. tora: express the immediate, and the indeed very positively defined (ver. 7), beginning of that which is called in ver. 7 the fulfilment of the mystery of God. But naturally, from this formal unanimity of the most expositors, there proceeds directly the greatest diver- sity of views, when the question is concerning the more precise reference of the formula, zpéy. obx. for. according to the standard of what is said in ver. 7. But Vitr. is inaccurate, even in a formal respect, when he says, “No delay of time is to intervene between the sound of the seventh trumpet, and the fulfilment of the prophetic oracles;”® for the affirmative determination, ver. 7, says in apposition to the words 6éri yp. ob. Zoraz, which deny a further delay, that the (immediate, ver. 6) fulfilment of the mystery of God is to occur just at the time of the seventh trumpet. The question, therefore, is not concerning a delay, perhaps still occurring between the seventh sound of the trumpet and the fulfilment of the mystery of God; but the angel swears that between the present point of time (which falls after the close of the sixth trumpet, and before the second part of the second woe, that is fin- ished ouly at xi. 14), and the fulfilment of the mystery of God, which is to be expected within the time of the seventh trumpet, there will be no more
1 Cf. the entirely similar reference of God’s 3 “ At the last trumpet, the mutable variety self-designation, i. 8. of secular ages will cease.” ®? Hengstenb. 4 Cf. on ix. 13 8qq. 5 Likewise Hengstenb.
CHAP. X. 8-7. 808 interval. [See Note LXV., p. 809.] What, therefore, might have been expected already after the close of the sixth seal-vision, but yet did not occur, because ch. vii. brought a special preparation, — and, besides, from the seventh seal itself the new series of trumpet-visions proceeded, ch. vili. sq., — is not to come immediately, and that, too, in the seventh trumpet. Yet it does not actually occur in xi. 16-19.1— dav’ tv +. qyuépate rig guvig rod éBd. ayy. These words in combination with the immediately succeeding drav péddy oaAnifay, which contain an epexegetical description of the guvi¢ r. éBd. cyy., appear to require an explanation like that of Bengel: “Thus the angel makes hiinself heard, not only at the beginning of these days, but continu- ally throughout them.” The additional remark, “at the end of the days this trumpet acquires the name of the last trump” (1 Cor. xv. 52), is, of course, entirely without foundation in the context. But even the first state- ment of Bengel conflicts with the analogy of all the trumpet-voices hitherto in their proper nature (which, nevertheless, the words drav péddy oan. themselves recall); since, by the heavenly trumpet-sounds, not future things themselves, but only such manifestations as signify what is to occur on earth, are introduced. The seeming difficulty which lies, therefore, in the fact that what is said in ver. 7 is of the “days” of the seventh trumpet, but which cannot be explained by regarding a continuance of the trumpet-voice during the whole of the still future period of that (actual) day, is very simply explained if it be acknowledged ? that in the expression éy r. #uépase +. guv. r. £35, ayy. the standpoint of the vision is not purely maintained, but the reference to the events of the sixth trumpet-vision is intermingled; only from this last standpoint can we properly speak of the “days” of the last trumpet, viz., of the period in which that which is represented to the prophet by the final sound of the trumpet actually occurs. — xa? éreAéooy. The annexing of the conclusion is Hebraistic, since the «at with the aor. corre- sponds to the Vav with the perf.*— 1rd puorfpwv rod deo. The contextual determination of this idea — whose character is indicated, in general, already by the correlate ideas of divine revelation (et7yyé4oe), and of prophecy (r. mpog.) as the human announcement of the mystery revealed on God’s part *— lies partly in the fact that its actual fulfilment 5 is placed in the time of the seventh, and consequently the last, trumpet; partly in that its revelation is conceived of by the prophets as a ebayyeAiZew, i.e., a communication of a joyful message. Besides, it needs no special proof, that the expression rov¢ éavr. dobA., rode xpopitac * can refer only to O. T. prophets,’ but neither to N. T. prophets,® nor to Christ and the apostles,® as the mystery of God revealed to these prophets, and proclaimed by them, is infinitely more than the “ divine counsel concerning freeing Christians from the oppression of the Jews.” 1°
t Against Hengstenb., etc. See on that
passage.
2 Cf. De Wette.
3 Exod. xvi. 6, xvii. 4, where the LXX. translate by «xa: with the fat. Cf. Ewald, Ebrard, Winer, p. 260.
4 Cf. Introduction, p. 82.
§ Cf. Luke xviii. 31.
* Concerning the acec., besides etyyydicce, cf. Winer, p. 209.
7 N. de Lyra, Beng., De Wette, etc.
* Grot., who seeks them altogether among the elders, v. 5, vii. 18.
® Eichh.
10 Eichh. Of. Grot.: “That indeed ia, that Ohristians were allowed by Hadrian a reai..
80+ _ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
According to the contextual indication just given, the pvorjpiov rot decd, whose contents are here declared only by the general allusion to the O. T. predic- tions, refers to nothing but the glorious completion of the divine kingdom, the final goal whereto the deepest current of O. T. prophecy, which is on that account essentially an Apocalyptic element, tends. The next authentic explanation of the proper contents of the ywor. r. 9. is contained in the heaven- ly song of praise sounding forth after the seventh sound of the trumpet, xi. 17 sqq.
Vv. 8-11. At the command of the heavenly voice (ver. 4), John eats the - little book given him by the angel, and receives the instruction that he must once again prophesy. — 4 guv?, fv #xovea —xal Aéyovoavy. The construction in this correct reading } is like that of iv. 1, but yet unsymmetrical, as here not only the Aéywy in the mind of the author is received into the relative clause by attraction, but also the wad» is placed before Aadofcay because of the con- nection of the declaration just repeated with that mentioned, ver. 4. If the sentence in which, in any case, the aor. #xovea is intended as a plusquam- perfect, were altogether symmetrical in its reference to ver. 4 (cf. iv. 1), its construction in accord with the nom. 4 gw», would run: «x. 9 gw»., 7v 9K. ex 7. obp. Aadoicay per tuod, mad sAdAnoev per’ iuod Adyovoa (Ayuv). Likewise De Wette, Ebrard.— faye. As in xvi. 1, Matt. v. 24, viii. 4, etc.,? an actual going is represented, accordingly in ver. 9 it is said danjAsa. —AaSe, cf. v. 7. John is to take this book to himself (ver. 9). —amjAsa mpi rév dyy. How John, who continues to have his standpoint in heaven (cf. ver. 1), could go to the angel who stands on the earth and sea, is not made perceptible to sober view, because in the vision the question is only concerning the act of going. But even if one, like De Wette, consider that John, even prior to ch. x., “had occupied the standpoint of Zechariah, Ezekiel, and Daniel,” the difficulty of the dxj4#a remains essentially the same; hence De Wette has properly reached no conclusion from this expression concerning the standpoint of John. —doivaz. Concerning this inf.,? dependent on the Aéyu», cf. Winer, p. 206.—xarégaye atré6. The eating of the book‘ is within the entire visionary scene not to be regarded an expression intended allegorical- ly, but as a real act of John; just as Ezekiel (ii. 9 sqq.) by eating a book receives the contents of its prophetic discourses. The meaning of the visionary fact is correctly given already by Beda: “Take into your inward parts, and contain within the space of thy heart.” What Jer. xv. 16 in figurative language calls an eating of the words of divine revelation, which must be converted by the prophet into marrow and blood,® we find here, as in Ezekiel, represented in an actual visionary transaction.® — xat muxpavei — ptm. From the fact that the angel speaks first of the bitter effect and then of the sweet taste of the little book, but John himself (ver. 10) the reverse, it does not follow that “both vigorously struggled for priority.”7 Accord-
dence at Jerusalem, and the free worship of ¢ Cf. ver. 10, where the command is fulfilled God and Christ there.” by John.
1 Bee Critical Notes. 8 Cf., besides, Ps. xl. 9.
* Cf. the }A6¢, v. 7; also the épxov, vi. 4, 5, 7. ¢ Ew., etc. Cf. Knobel, Proph., I. p. $73.
3 Acts xxi. 21. ? Hengstenb.
CHAP. X. 8-11. 805
ing to the context, the “ priority ” belongs — not only as to order, but also as to minor dignity —to the sweetness, because the book comes first into the mouth and last into the belly. According to this most simple order, John himself reports, ver. 10. The angel looks at it differently, since he speaks, —as the combination of the two expressions into one antithesis shows, — not according to the mere consequences, but with respect to the inner nature and effect. The angel intends first to prepare John for the bitter effect, but then he also says that the book will be in his mouth sweet as honey. This is also against Beng., who, by a comparison of vv. 9 and 10, immediately infers two kinds of sweetness, one before and one after the bitterness. — The relation of mtuxpavel cov riv xoiay (émuxpavdy 7 Kotd, p., ver. 10, cf. viii. 11) and yAvxd de wére is, in accordance with the context, to be determined according to both norms: that one and the same book is sweet and bitter according as it enters the mouth or the belly; then, that the distinction between the mouth and the belly is understood only with reference to the eating. Incorrect, therefore, are both the explanation which refers the sweetness and bitterness to the difference between the joyful and the sad contents of the book,!—~%in connection with which a further error is readily intruded, that, with a result contrary to the context, speaks of “bittersweet” contents, indicating that only after a sad visitation could glorious joy enter;* and also that which —in connection with a false inter- pretation of the little book itself, of the dA mpogyr., ver. 11, yea even of the angel, vv. 1, 8—regards the mouth of John not as the organ of eating (receiving), but of speaking, and then refers the bitterness to the persecu- tions and all the hinderances with which the evangelical preaching of John or the entire Church met.® With correctness, Vitr.,C. a Lap., De Wette, Stern, Hengstenb., etc., have interpreted, that, as the mouth refers to the receiving of the revelation given in the little book, so the xoAia — not xapdia, as Cod. A reads, and Andr. explains, disturbing the clearness of the idea of the text by mingling therewith a rash interpretation —is directed to the comprehension, i.e., the further scrutiny 4 and perception, of the revelation received. [See Note LXVI., p. 809.] How little the sweetness of the reception, as such, was hindered by the bitterness of the contents of revela- tion, is shown by the symbol of Ezekiel, in whose mouth the book written with mourning and woe is we péAr yAuxdgov.6 But he also went bitterly, after he had filled his belly therewith,*® in the heat of his spirit.7 — By eating the book, John is made able to proclaim its contents. Therefore ver. 11 follows: nal Aéyovoiv po, x.rA. The plur.* makes the speaking subject entirely indefi- nite; the modified var. points to the angel.—dei ce méAw mpog. The dei designates not the inner, subjective necessity, that John now cannot help prophesying, because by eating the book he has been capacitated for prophe- ‘sying,® but the objective necessity depending upon the will of God, who
1 Hefnr., Ewald. 6 Ver. 8: 4 xowrla cov sAnaOiicera.
3 Herd., Rinck. ? Ver. 14: ", which the LXX. do not at 3 Beda, Aret., Par., eto. all translate.
‘ Cf. 1 Pet. 1. 10 aq. 8 Cf, xii. 6.
5 Ezek. ili. 8; cf. fi. 10. ® Beng., Hengstenb.
806 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
accordingly gives his revelation... The dam does not contrast John’s prophecy with that of the ancient prophets,? but designates a second zpo¢gr- revoat Of John himself, yet not a preaching after a return from exile,’ but the new prophecy for which the eaten book has fitted him in its relation to the prophesying practised upon the ground of previous visions. This xd mpognretoa: occurs therefore in the succeeding part of the Apoc.* — éax? Aaoic —odAole. Incorrectly, Beng: “To nations— beyond,” in the sense that there are still many nations, etc., which are, meantime, to come before that is fulfilled which is here described prior to the transition to the second woe. "Eni has this meaning neither in Heb. ix. 17, 1 Cor. xiv. 26, nor elsewhere. Likewise incorrectly, Ebrard: “ Before nations,” i.e., 80 that “the nations have it declared to them.” The éi with the dat. designates, precisely as in John xii. 16, the object which the prophecy grasps, i.e., concerning which the prophecy is made. The grammatical relation is precisely the same as in the construction of éri with the dative accompanying verbs designating joy, astonishment, etc., concerning any thing. The occasion for the false construction of the é7? lies, in Ebrard, in the view of the contents of the book, and the range of the prophecy conditioned thereby. If the xadw xpogyreioa is completed with xi. 18, and is intended for the Church, it cannot be said here, ver. 11, that John is to prophesy concerning nations and kings; and if Hengstenb., who likewise ® finds in xi. 1-18 the prophecy announced in ver. 11, and refers it to the degenerate churches, yet explains correctly the éi? Aaoic, x.7.A., and compares therewith what is said of kings, chs. xvi., xvii., xix., this is inconsistent with his view of the little book and the a. xpog., just to the extent that it is correct according to the context. Ewald — who agrees formally with Hengstenb. and Ebrard, since he also finds in xi. 1-13 the contents of the eaten book, but interprets this new prophecy as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem —refers the éxt? Aauic, «.7.A,., to xi. 2, 7,9; but since the prophecy xi. 1-13 is actually one concerning Jerusalem, it cannot well be called at x. 11 a prophecy concerning peoples, nations, languages, and many kings.? Besides, Ew. has understood the significant position of the angel, ver. 2, with relation to Rome as capital of the world. The result, therefore, is not that the éx? is explained ungrammatically, but that we must seek the correct reference of the méJuv xpogytevoar, which must con- cur with the correct view of the contents of the little book eaten. Upon this depends the ultimate determination of the view of the entire transaction in ch. x. |
The allegorical explanations are to be rejected, as entirely in violation of the context, which betray their arbitrariness by their infinite diversity. The mighty angel, ver. 1, can as little stand for the Emperor Justin, the defender of the Church against the Arians, and the Emperor Justinian,®
1 Cf., in general, 1. 1 sqq. 2 Beng. 5 Winer, p. 368.
3 Primas, Beda, Vieg. 6 Cf. alao Klief.
# Grot., Alcas., De Wette, Hengstenb., T L.e., all the world, those caroccourres éwi Ebrard, etc., who, in the more accurate deter- ris yas. Cf. v. 9. mination, vary much in other respects from 6 Ver.8 N.de Lyra.
one another.
CHAP. X. 8-11. 807
or! the evangelical preachers, as whose representative others, like Beda already, understand John, or indeed the Pope,? as the little book eaten by John can be the Codex Justinianus,* or the N. T.4 The most important interpreters ® are unanimous in regarding the contents of this little book, which is eaten, as prophecy which is written in the Apoc. itself, and that, too, in the part which follows ch. x. But there is controversy both as to the more accurate determination of the section which is regarded as containing the prophecy proceeding from the book that is eaten, and also, which is essentially connected therewith, as to the relation between the book that is eaten, and the seal-book, ch. v. The opinion that both books are identical® is answered already by the fact that John, after having thus far prophesied upon the ground of the book of ch. v., now is to prophesy anew upon the ground of the little book that is eaten. Accordingly, the directly opposite view is readily suggested, that both books have nothing whatever to do with one another, but that the little book, ch. x., contains something entirely peculiar, viz., what is described in xi. 1-13: i.e., ac- cording to Grot., Wetst., Eichh., Ew., the fate of Jerusalem; according to Hengstenb., the fate of the degenerate Church.’ But it is neither correct that the contents of the book of fate, ch. v., are already fully settled in what has been hitherto given,® nor is it conceivable that that book of fate should contain nothing of the fate of Jerusalem, the “degenerate Church,” ® which is not to be revealed to the prophet until: by the little book, ch. x.;? neither, if the contents of the book that is eaten be limited to xi. 1-13, whether in Ewald’s or Hengstenb.’s sense, does it agree with the statement of ver. 11, according to which John is to prophesy concerning peoples and many kings. The instance deduced from ver. 111! applies also against Vitr., who, in the little book of ch. x., finds a part of the book of ch. v., limits its contents likewise to xi. 1-13, and interprets it as a prophecy concerning the calamities of the Western Church. The correct point in Vitr. is the view that the little book of ch. x. comprises a part of all that which is to happen contained in the book of fate of ch. v.; viz., all that which has no/, as yet, issued from the book of fate through the succession of seal- and trumpet- visions; in other words, all that from xi. 1 has been written by John in consequence of the dei ce rédw npogyrevoat, x.7.A.;12 therefore not in the false sense 18 that “the book of completion ” only substantially repeats, in its way, the contents already present in the preceding “book of declaration.” This follows from what in x. 11 is said concerning the prophecy of John, which proceeds from the book which was eaten ; but it admits the less a restriction to xi. 1-13 (where what is said is concerning Jerusalem), and rather re- quires the more certainly the further reference to what is written, ch. xii.
1 According to the older Protestant expos- 6 C. a Lap., Zeger, Calov. itors. 7 Cf. also Ebrard.
? Luther. 3 Against Hengstenb.
3 N. de Lyra. ® Hengstenb.
« Aret., etc. 10 Against Ewald, etc.
3 C. a Tap., Grot., Calov., Vitr., Beng., 11 Cf. ver. 6 sqq. Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 12 Beng., De Wette. 3 Volkm.
é
308 THE REVELATION OF 8T. JOHN.
2qq. a8 the discourse of the angel, x. 6 sq., extending to the full end, stands in more significant parallel with the contents of the book brought by him. For it also agrees with this, that the méaw npognrevoa, of John in no way stands out of connection with the book of fate including of itself the entire prophecy concerning what was to occur; but rather not only does xi. 1-13 belong in the series of the woes, but also all that from xi. 15 succeeds the trumpets, which by means of the seals, from the last of which they have proceeded, belongs to the sphere of the book of fate. And when the angel, who brings the little book, looks towards Jerusalem, ver. 2, it agrees with this, that the most immediate object of the new prophecy, ver. 11, is in fact Jerusalem (xi. 1 sq.); but the perspective opened, ver. 7, extends to the ultimate end; so that from the little book, in the fulness corresponding to ver. 11, there follow also the prophecies of ch. xii. sqq. Thus the little book which was brought to John opened, and was eaten by him, appears to be an inner instruction and interpretation given the seer concerning visions still impending, and which are to continue until the full end. And the. more important the subjects of the prophecy that now follow,—for we come now to the proper goal, while all that precedes is only preparatory, — the more natural appears the new special preparation of the prophet.
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXIII. Ver. 1. dAAov dyyedov loxupor.
Alford: ‘This angel is not, and cannot be, our Lord himself. Such a supposition would, it seems to me, entirely break through the consistency of apocalyptic analogy. Throughout the book, angels are the ministers of the Divine purposes, and the carriers-out of the apocalyptic course of procedure, but are everywhere distinct from the Divine Persons themselves. In order to this their ministry, they are invested with such symbols and delegated attributes as beseem in each case the particular object in view; but no apparent fitness of such symbolical investiture to the Divine character should induce us to break through the distinction, and introduce indistinctness and confusion into the book. When St. John means to indicate the Son of God, he indicates him plainly ; none more so. When these plain indications are absent, and I find the name GyyeAoc used, I must take leave to regard the agent as distinct from him, — however clothed, for the purpose of the particular vision, with his delegated power and attributes.”
LXIV. Ver. 8. pvedrat,
The application of the word to thunder is very forcibly illustrated by the Hoxnua in Aschylus, Prometheus, 1062: —
“uh dpévas bpey HrAWuicy Bpovris picnp’ ardpapvor.” * Quickly from hence depart,
Lest the relentless roar Of thunder stun your soul.’’ — PLUMPTRE’s Translation.
NOTES. 809
LXV. Ver. 6. xpédvoc obaéri Ecrat,
Stier: ‘‘ The Greek word xpévoc applies equally to a long interval, a respite, a delay, a postponement; and we have already had several instances in which it has been so used, as, for instance, in ch. fi. 21, where we find it rendered ‘space to repent;’ and ch. vi. 11, where it stands fora further period of rest and expectation. Therefore the meaning is simply this: that, whereas the angel with the seal demands an interval of time before the opening of the seventh seal, which interval is to be employed in sealing the servants of God, so this angel, on the contrary, denies any further space for repentance, any respite for the ungodly, before the sounding of the seventh trumpet. He affirms that stroke is to succeed stroke, and that, in a certain limited period, all will be finished.’? So, also, Beck, who, in illustration of this meaning of xpévor, refers to its derivative ypovicew: Matt. xxiv. 48, ‘‘ My lord delayeth his coming; ”’ xxv. 5, ‘“‘ while the bridegroom tarried ;’’ Heb. x. 37, ‘‘ He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.’’? ‘‘Space of time’’ is the uniform meaning of xpévo¢e both in the Apocalypse (ii. 21, vi. 11, x. 6, xx. 8) and the Gospel of St. John (v. 6, vii. 83, xii. 35, xiv. 9).
LXVI. Ver. 9. woxpavei riv xoAlav.
J. Gerhard (quoted by Calov.): ‘‘The pleasure of the mouth is a symbol of the pleasure which the godly derive from the revelation of divine mysteries before they fully perceive them. The dolor ventris is a symbol of the pain which they derive from the consideration of the persecution to be described in the succeeding prophecy, which antichrist will exercise against the Church at the end of the world.”’ Primasius: ‘‘When you have received it, you will be delighted by the sweetness of the Divine speech (Ps. xix. 15), the hope of promised salvation, and the charm of Divine justice. But you will experience the bitterness when this is to be preached to both devout and undevout.’”” Stier: ‘““The evangelizing to the prophets must always have been fraught with a certain degree of bitterness to human nature.’”’ Luthardt: ‘‘ Bitter poison to the belly, i.e., to man so far as he belongs to this transitory world (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 13); but so far as he {s God’s, it is sweet joy (cf. Ps. xix. 11), for it is a word of judgment to the world, but redemption to the Church, which, with its mouth, preaches God.”’ e
810 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 1. The interpolation xa? 6 dyyeAorg elorjxet before Azywv (Elz.) is without all attestation. — Zyepe. So Lach., Tisch., in accordance with A, ®, 6, 7, al. Besides the var. éyepa: (Elz.), éyetpoy also occurs (cf. Wetst.); both as an interpretation. — Ver. 4. éorares. So A, C, &1, 2, 4, 6, al., Beng., Matth, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without witnesses is the correction éordeac (Elz.). — Ver. 5. 6éAe. Only twice is the more grammatical, and therefore more suspicious, form GeAzoy (Elz., Tisch. IX. |W. and H.}) found, viz., in A, &; the first 6éAy (Elz.) is entirely unwarranted. Properly Beng. already wrote @éAc both times. — Ver. 6. The decision as to whether, after a relatively compounded form like deaxc, either av (so here Elz., Lach., Tisch. [(W. and H.], in accord- ance with A, x) or dy (as C actually has it) is to be written, does not depend upon critical testimonies concerning a particular passage; cf. my notes on 1 John tii, 20.— Ver. 8. For juov after xipwc (Elz.), Beng. already, in accordance with all the witnesses, substituted atrav,— Ver.9. agiovew. - So A, C, &, 12, 28, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], instead of the emendation d¢joovew (Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth.). — Ver. 10. etg¢palvovraz, So A, C, &, 12, 28, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Modified, Elz.: ebgpav@7covra (Vulg.). — Ver. 11. év avroic. Correctly accepted by Lach., Tisch., from A, 18 Only for the purpose of avoiding harshness of construction with elo7Adev is it written: abroic (C, 7, 17, Erasm., 1, 2, 3, Beng.), ex’ abrove (Elz.), el¢ abrove (x, 2, 4, 6, al.). The var. én’ abroig (12) indicates what Is correct. — Ver. 12. The reading jxovca (Beng., Tisch.), sup- ported by * corr., 4, 6, 8, 9, al., Syr., Copt., Andr., al., deserves the preference to the certainly well-attested jxovcay (Lach., Tisch. [X. [W. and H.]). See exposition. — Ver. 16. The art. of is lacking before elx. reco. xpeoB. in A, C, &1, Lach., and before év r, 6. «a@. in A, Lach. But, in the second place, the art. which, because of the retrospection to iv. 4, 11, especially cannot be absent in the first place, is to be recognized besides in the paraphrase of — xayvra (C, 3, 4, al., Tisch. [X.). The omission also can be accounted for because of the similarity of the preceding syllable. Tisch. is right in supporting the rec., which has the article in both places.— Ver. 18. Instead of the dat., Lach. (small ed.) has written the accus. from rove dyiovg until rode ueydAove, of course according to A. But in his larger edition he has altered the reading, because C (also &,) offers only the two accusatives rode yxp, xal rode wey. But the entirely senseless acc. can have its origin only in a slip in the MSS., which was occa- sioned possibly by the succeeding accus. — Ver. 18. The 6 before év r. ovp., which is lacking in x, Elz., Tisch. 1854, is found in A, C, 14 (Lach., Tisch. 1859 and IX. [W. and H.]).
The first part of the chapter, extending until ver. 14,— with which the chapter would more properly end, because the second part (ver. 15 sqq.) belongs throughout to ch. xii. sqq., — contains the first manifestation of the nddcy mpogntevoa, Which was committed to John at the close of ch. x. The
CHAP. XI. 1. 811
present mpogyreia, moreover, is opened with the description of a significant act which John must perform in the vision — just as the ancient prophets, by significant acts, prophesied to the people.! With a measuring reed he must measure the temple, but not its outer court; for, as the heavenly voice immediately afterwards signifies, this is given to the heathen, who are for forty-two months (vv. 1, 2) to tread down the holy city. During this time —so further sounds the heavenly voice, from whose report John afterwards passes to his own prophetic discourse, ver. 11—two witnesses of Christ shall come forth as preachers of repentance, who, only after the completion of their testimony, shall be slain by the beast out of the abyss, and that, too, in Jerusalem, where, to the joy of the godless world, their unburied corpses shall lie exposed to view in the street (vv. 3-10). But after three days and a half these witnesses shall be revived by God, to the terror of their enemies, before whose eyes they shall be raised to heaven (vv. 11,12). A mighty earthquake then destroys a tenth of the city, and kills seven thousand inhab- itants; the survivors are converted (ver. 13).— With this the second woe? is at an end; the third cometh quickly.
Ver. 1. Ka? £667 no. By whom, remains just as undetermined as viii. 2, vi.11. De Wette, Ew. ii., think of the angel of ch. x., who, however, has fulfilled there that to which he was called; Beng.® refers it to Christ, but to this, ver. 3 (uapr. pov) does not constrain. — «dAauoc duoc pa8dy. That a reed serves a8 & yérpoy,‘ is to a certain extent explained as to ita form, by its resemblance to a rule. —Aé¢yw», without construction, as iv. 1. Of course, the giver of the xiAayoc is meant; but it is incorrect, if one, as even Beng., regard the xdAayoc as the formally determined subject, and then by metonymy reaches its giver. — lyeqe xal uétpyoov. From the tyewpe it does not follow, that previously John was “in another posture of body,”*® perhaps kneeling; the tyepe — otherwise than in Mark v. 41; John v. 8; Luke v. 23 — correspond- ing to the Heb. 03p,° is only excitatory with respect to the closely connected al perp.’ — It is not the purpose of the measuring, as the antithesis in ver. 2 undoubtedly shows, to make visible the relations of space, which, besides, is not conceivable in the measuring of the xpooxuveivrec, — as in Ezek. xl. 1 sqq. the temple-building beheld by the prophet in its completion was measured in all ita parts, because he is to learn its dimensions accurately,*— but just as in Am. vii. 7° that is measured which was destroyed, with respect to what is to be exempted from destruction, so John must here measure what is mentioned in ver. 1, because this is to be exempted from the destruction to which what is not measured (ver. 2) is abandoned, and is therefore to be preserved. In this formal understanding, Grot., Eichh., Ew., De Wette, Liicke, Hengstenb., etc., agree, much as they diverge from one another in
11 Kings xxii. 11; Tes. xx. 2; Jer. xix. 1 5 Beng. eqq. Cf. also Acts xxi.11. Knobel, Proph., ® Num. x. 85; LXX.: efeydpOece. Pu. iil. 85 1, 420 sqq. LXX.: avagra. Mic. vi. 1; LXX.: avdoryhr. 3 Cf. ix. 13 eqq. t Cf. Ew., De Wette, etc. 8 Cf. aleo Ew. ® Cf. Rev. xxi. 15 sqq.; aleo Zech. fi. 5 sqq.
‘Cf. Ezek. xi. 8: MTV) Mp; LXX.: ~ fs similar. KaAapos pérpor. Cf. Rev. xxi. 15. ® Cf. Hab. iv. 6.
812 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
its more detailed interpretation. It is, therefore, incorrect to find the inten- tion of the new building in the measuring; whether in Bengel’s sense, who here finds a confirmation of Ezek. xl., viz., the prophecy of the building of the temple of Ezekiel at Jerusalem actually to occur at the end of days ; or in the sense of the allegorists, who understand the vadc r. 6. of the true Church of Christ, and refer to its glorious new building, in connection with which the old Protestant expositors! regard the destruction of that which was consecrated (vv. 2, 13), as the Roman-Catholic degeneration, Jerusalem (ver. 8) as papal Rome; while the Catholics have in view the removal of the O. T. sanctuary, and the separation of wicked members of the Church, ver. 2.2 See in general on ver. 13.—rdv vady rod Geos. That part of the entire icep6v which contained the holy of holies, the holy place, and the porch; the proper temple-building,® in distinction from the entire space of the outer courts, cf. ver. 2. Incorrectly, Weiss: * “The congregation of believing Jews.” — 1d Gvoacrnpiov. Only the altar of incense can be meant ; since only this, and not the altar of sacrifice, stood in the vadc.6 For the argument of Hengstenb., that the vadc itself is to be understood figura- tively of the Christian Church, because here the altar of incense in the same is removed, there is no occasion. But, also, on the other side, the argument of De Wette is unsuitable, that in vi. 9, viii. 3, what is said pertains not to the altar of sacrifice, which does not occur at all in the Apoc., but to the altar of incense; for since the vadr r. 9. (ver. 1) is different from the vader r. 6. 6 ev r, otpavd (ver. 19), just so little has the évotactipiov (ver. 1) to do with the heavenly altar, viii. 3, vi. 9.— «al rode mpooxvvowvrac tv abr@, ViZ., rH va. Vitr. refers avr to @voaor., and explains the é by apud, since he interprets r. xpooxuv. by metonymy:? “the place in which the people were accustomed to adore God,” and thus finally derives “the court of the Israelites.” To this view, conflicting with the idea of the vaéc, and with ver. 2, — which, besides, appears entirely confused by the fact that Vitr.* understands by the 6voraocr, properly Christ, —he comes in order not to be compelled to conceive of the mpooxuvorvrec in the vadc, and at the altar found therein as exclusively priests, of whom many of the older Catholics, as C. a Lap, alone think. But as cer- tainly as also the vadc r. 6. is to be sought in Jerusalem (ver. 8), and the whole chapter is to be referred to the impending destruction of the city,® just so certainly does the position of those mpocxuvovrrec in the vade itself appear as one of the ideal features, which explain the whole prophecy, and extend it to the sphere of a mere foretelling of a future event. That John beholds true believers from Israel transferred to the vade r. 0., otherwise standing open only to priests, is interposed because of his knowledge of the priestly character of all believers, Jews and Gentiles. But as in ch. vii. he reports the sealing of believers out of Israel, as a necessary preparation for the judgment impending over Israel ; so here, where the judgment breaks upon
1 Par., Vitr., ete. * Eichh., Heinr., De Wette, Stern, Ebrard. 2 C. a Lap., Stern. 7 Cf. aleo Grot.
8 Matt. xxiii. 35, xxvii. 51. ® Cf. Zeg., eto.
4 Stud. u. Krit., 1860, p. 30. ® See on ver. 13.
§ Grot., Vitr., Hengstenb. © 1,6, VF 10. Cf. aleo vil 168,
CHAP. XI. 2,3. 818 Israel those believers together with the proper dwelling of God are measured, just as he protects the vad r. 6, before its sinking in judgment.! [See Note LXVIL., p. 882.)
Ver. 2. Kal niw atAgy riv Eubev, «7A. Incorrectly, Luther: “The inner choir,” after a bad variation. Also Vitr., Ewald,* Ziill., object not only to the expression, but also to what was said in ver. 1, since they conceive of r, ava. rv EwOex ror vaod in the sense of 7. abd. rhv ééwrépay t. v., and distinguish ® an outer and an inner court, the latter of which, as belonging to the vad, is measured with it. But the expression 2.9. r. 6. confirms rather the idea given, ver. 1, of the vad alone to be measured, i.e., the proper temple-build- ing, outside of which the aiAy, i.e., the entire space of the court, lies.6 Arbi- trarily, the aiaf is interpreted by Weiss: “the congregation of unbelieving Jews.” —&xBare fu. The casting out, viz., beyond the reach of that which is to be measured, is determined, according to the sense as well as the form of the idea, by the parallel addition, xal ya adriv perphogc;® yet in the signifi- cant expression’ the point must not be overlooked, which Eicbh. alone, and without the textual reference to the boundaries of the space to be measured, in his unhappy paraphrase makes equivalent to “declare profane.” §— dr £660n roic EGvece, for tt is given to the Gentiles, viz., by the Divine decree; as the immediately following fut. rargoover, which describes the impending ful- filment of this decree, unambiguously declares. Entirely in violation of the context, Beng. remarks that the Gentiles, on account of whose immensity, i.e., innumerableness,® the outer court shall not be measured, shall at one day worship there. Improper also is the mingling of the idea, that the bloody sacrificial service at the altar of burnt offerings is not to be main- tained: 1 it is intended by this, only that according to the Divine decree, the Gentiles shall tread (rarjoovor, Luke xxi. 24) the court and the entire holy city. Allied with this is the determination of the xarpot é6viv by the schematic temporal specification: piva¢ recoapdxovra xal dbo, i.e., 3} years,!? according to the type of the treading down of the holy city and the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes.
Ver. 3. x. déow roic¢ duclv paprvoly pov. The object. of décw follows here, not in the form of the infin.,}* but is described, according to the Hebrew way, in the succeeding clause, xa? xpogyr, Formally and materially incorrect are the additions to déow, “ constancy and wisdom,” 4 “the holy city,” 16 which are expressly rejected already by Vitr. Unnecessarily, although in fact not unsuitably, De Wette supplies “ direction and power.’? — The art. rofc allows us to think only of two definite witnesses, otherwise known already, who, as the entire description until ver. 12 establishes, are personal individuals, but
1 Cf. also De Wette, Liicke (p. 854). § Of. Vitr.: *‘ Hxcommunicate.” 2 Cf. G&tt., Gel. Ans., 1861, p. 1013. ® vii. 4, 9. 3 Cf. Ezek. xi. 17 sqq. 10 Against De Wette, eto. 4 Cf. xiv. 20; Mark vil. 15. 1 Of. Matt. fv. 5. 5 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 13 = $4 «aspoi, Dan. vii. 25, xfl.7; Rev. xii. ® Beng., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb. 14. Ebrard. 3 As vi. 4, vil. 2.
7 Cf. Matt. vill. 12; John ix. % sqq., xil. 31; 14 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap. 8 John 10. 1% Beza,
814 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
not “allegories of potencies.”? The witnesses are meant? to be witnesses of Christ (yépr. pov),* which accordingly is understood in general of itself, because, as all true mpogyreia proceeds from Christ,‘ so also ¥s it actually directed to Christ;® but here it is especially applicable, because the witnesses come forth as preachers of repentance during an essentially Messianic visita- tion of judgment, and, besides, have to suffer from the same hostility as that by which the Lord himself is brought to the cross, ver. 8. But from this it does not follow ® that Christ himself is to be regarded as speaking ;7 but the heavenly voice ® speaks only in Christ’s name. — jyépac yiac duaxooiac éfjnovra. The specification of the forty-two months, ver. 2, after the days, shows that daily, during this whole time, the prophetio speech of the two witnesses is heard. — wepi3. caxxove. They are thus, above all things, preachers of repent- ance; for the penitential garb,® which they themselves have adopted,?° puts before the eyes of the hearers what the prophetic testimony demands.
Ver. 4. The two witnesses of Christ (ver. 3) are further characterized in their nature and calling, and that, too, from Zech. iv.; for the definite art., ai dio 2A, al dio Avxyv., points back to this, as the entire verse is based upon the sense and expression of Zech. iv. There Zech. beholds a golden candlestick with seven lamps, the symbol of the Church of God,! besides two olive-trees, to the right and left of the candlestick, which receives from thein its oil. The two #Aaia (LXX.) designate, besides the Aavyvia, “two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth; ” !* viz., the two defenders and guard- ians of the theocracy given by God,— Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua; !8 but the symbol represents that only by the Spirit of God, and not by man’s own power, the restoration of the kingdom of God can be effected, ver. 6. With this symbol of Zech., John agrees when he designates the two witnesses of Christ as ai dio éAaia:, and as évimwy rod xupiov rig yg éoTarer. The latter expression, whose harsh incorrectness (al —éorérec) is explicable by the reference to the persons represented under the symbols of éAuia: and Avyvia,"4 designates as little as the corresponding words in Zech. the two witnesses as representatives of the Church against the world,!® but as ser- vants of God,!® who is here called, accordingly, the Lord of the world,!” because he shall establish the fact that he is the Almighty, who sends his servants into their office, and protects them against all enemies, ver. 5, and to the terror of their enemies can glorify !® the xaroscotwre¢ én? ric yic, ver. 10 sqq. Deviating, however, from Zech., John designates the two witnesses, not only as two ¢Aaia, but also as two Avyvia. He, of course, derives this
1 Ebrard, who will in no way concede that 10 Cf. Matt. iil. 4. 1 Cf. Rev. i. 20. they are symbols of individuals. 13 LXX.: sapeorijxacse xupip sacns yy.
2 Ewald, De Wette, etc. 18 Cf. ili. 1 qq.
3 Cf. ver. 8: 6 xpos avrer. Cf. v.13. Whoer, p. 499.
* Cf. xix. 10. 15 Against Ebrard, who understands the
8 Cf. x. 7. YWA-TD pM as the Persian ruler of the
® Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard. world, and accordingly, in this passage, the
* Cf., on the other hand, the 6 «vp, avraw xvptos rhs yns as “the Lord of this world.” (ver. 8). 16 Rev. vill. 2. Cf. Iea. vi. 1.
8 Cf. xxii. 7. 17 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 13.
® Jer. iv. 8; Jon. ii. 6; Matt. xi. 21. 1% Cf. Beng.
CHAP. XI. 8. 815
symbolical idea from Zech., but gives it another application; for what is said here is neither concerning the kingdom of God in itself, nor its up- building through Christ’s two witnesses, but concerning a judgment upon “the holy city,” during which the two witnesses preach repentance, and that, too, in vain, ver. 7 8qq. In no respect have the two witnesses aught to do with the preservation of the temple.1_ The idea of the one Aryvia in the sense of Zech. has therefore no place here. But John comprehends the symbol of the Avyvia in essentially the same significance as that of the #Aataz, when, precisely in the sense of Zech. iv. 6, he portrays what was just before expressed in clear words (déow rolc papr. u. xal mpognredaovow); viz., that the efficiency of the two witnesses depends upon the Divine Spirit, not upon their own power, and hence becomes truly prophetic. John, therefore, describes the prophetic character of the two witnesses of Christ as like those two anointed ones in Zech. ; but that he will not express the identity of the persons, nor designate the two witnesses as Zerubbabel and Joshua, who then must be regarded as repeated, follows partly from the deviation from Zech., and partly from other specifications in the context, ver. 3, ver. 5 sqq.?
Ver. 5 sq. Description of the miraculous power with which the two witnesses are furnished in order, until their testimony is finished,® to ward off their enemies, and to attest their divine commission. The particular fea- tures of the description, viz., ver. 6, are derived from the histories of Elias and Moses. Even this retrospective allusion, acknowledged by all expositora, to the miracles of those ancieut prophets which are in no way understood allegorically, of itself renders it in the highest degree improbable that the description here is meant to be allegorical; but also the individual expres- sions of the text guard against the “spiritual ” interpretation, as it has been applied from Primas and Beda to Hengstenb. and Ebrard. — Whether in ver. 5 (wip éxropeberas éx rod oréparoc abray, «7.A.) there be an allusion to 2 Kings i. 10 sqq., where Elijah calls down fire from heaven which consumes his enemies,‘ remains uncertain; the parallel with Jer. v. 145 is more prob- . able, but in connection with this the different character of the two passages dare not be overlooked. In Jeremiah the words of God are mentioned, and how when given in the mouth of the prophet they are like fire; just as it is said in Sir. lxvili. 1: dvécrn “HAsac mpogirnc dc mip, xal & Ayor abrod dc Aapmds kxaiero.® In this passage, however, nothing is said of God's words coming like fire from the mouth of the prophet,’ but only of fire which proceedeth from his mouth. What is said in Jer. v. 14, by way of comparison, appears here, just as above, ix. 17, in dreadful reality; and that the words mip éxmop. éx 7. oTou, abt. are, nevertheless, meant figuratively, follows from their deadly * effect described immediately afterwards in the parallel clause. which, besides, is &xpressly referred by the ofruc to the fire; for this obruc®
1 Ver. 1, wherein many erroneously find the ¢ «‘Then stood up Elfas the prophet as fire,
new building of the Christian Church symbol- and his word burned lfke a lamp.”
ized. T Against Beda, N. de Lyra, Aret., Par., ® See on ver. 18. . § Cf. ver. 7 aqq. Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. Grot. : “‘ Their ¢ Ewald, De Wette, etc. prayers excite God's wrath.”
5 Beng., Hengetenb., etc. ® Cf. ix. 18. ® Cf. Bir. xlviil. 3.
816 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
says: “ By the fire proceeding out of their mouth; ”1 and designates the pun- ishment corresponding to the guilt of the @éAew d&«joat.2 But if the xip is understood figuratively, the droxravé7va must then be referred to the fact that to unbelievers the gospel is a savor of death unto death; for the ddujoa must also then be figurative no less than the entire succeeding statement. The allegorists are, also, mostly consistent in this, but they arrive at the most wonderful interpretations. In the “ power to shut heaven, that.it rain not,” ver. 6, the two witnesses are like Elijah;* even the specification of time here corresponds, as the days of their prophetic employment during which it is not to rain,‘ agree, according to ver. 3, with the three and a half years during which Elijah kept the heaven shut.5 The further “ power over the waters (é7i)® to turn them to blood,” the two witnesses have in common with Moses ;7 the last words also, xa? rarééa: riv yi by rdog nAnyg, «.7.A, COD- tain a retrospective view to the plagues with which Moses smote the Egyp- tians,® although unlimited power is given both witnesses “to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will.” These decided words once more make it manifest in the most definite way, that the issuing of fire from the mouth of the witnesses, the closing of the heaven, and the turning of water into blood,® are clearly particular plagues of the kind inflicted by Elijah and Moses. If we are not to interpret 1 Kings xvii., Jas. v. 17, Exod. vii. sqq., allegorically, we must abide also in this passage by the literal sense, yet must not deduce therefrom that “the power of the keys” is here ascribed the two witnesses, in virtue of which they close the heaven spiritually, and hold back the spiritual rain of the gospel,!! cause bloodshed to come from the gospel,1? or —if the édara which are turned into blood be understood as the waters out of which the antichristian beast (i.e., the papacy) arises — could excite the conflicts between popes and antipopes.18 This kind of consequent allegorizing was doubtful already to Grot., who, therefore, tries to escape with the vague explanation, “There is nothing so great which they do not obtain on asking from God.” 14
Ver. 7. drav redéownt. “ When they shall have finished.” 15— rd énpiov rd avaBaivoy é« ri¢ cBicow. Only the infernal nature of the beast is to be learned from his rising out of the abyss,!® and his definitely antichristian character; further, from his contending against the witnesses of Christ,” and overcoming and slaying them. The more detailed explanation of the beast, John himself does not give until chs. xiii. and xvii. The mention of the beast in this passage is undoubtedly proleptical,?® inasmuch as the concrete idea of the antichristian power under the definite form of the beast from
1 Ew., Ziill. 10 Beda. , 3 Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. 11 N. de Lyra, Vitr., Calov., Hengstenb., 8 1 Kings xvil. 1. Ebrard. ¢ Concerning the accus. ras Hudpac 1. wp. 13 Vitr. aur., cf. Winer, p. 215. 1 Cf. Calov. 5 Jas. v. 17. 14 See on ver. 13. © Cf. vi. 8, where the accus. follows. 18 Cf. Winer, p. 280. 7 Exod. vil. 19. 16 Cf. ix. 1, 11. 8 Cf. Exod. vili. 2, 16 6qq., ix. 15, xi. 1. 7 Cf. xifi. 7.
9 Cf. also viil. 8. 3 De Wette, etc.
CHAP. XI. 8-10. ; 817
the abyss, which is presupposed as known by the definite art. 1d énp., proceeds firat from chs. xiii., xvii.; meanwhile, not only is the idea of his Antichris- tian nature already to a certain extent intelligible from the entire context, but also the form of the description of the beast from the example of Dan. vii., to which the interpolation in Cod. A expressly refers.
Vv. 810. As the slaying of the two witnesses could not occur! until they had fulfilled their mission, so the Almighty Lord 2 here allows dishonor to be shown their dead bodies, only in order afterwards to glorify them the more, ver. 11. — 17d rraua abrov. The sing.® is regarded collectively ;* “that which has fallen of them,” i.e., their corpses. — émi rig xAareiag tig wiAews TIS peydAnc. On the street, in the place where in the public exercise of their paprupia they are slain, they remain lying unburied,® the most ignominious outrage even according to the feeling of the Gentiles,* who here are repre- sented as instruments of the beast of the abyss from the fact that they inflict such an outrage upon Christ’s witnesses, ver. 9, and rejoice at this, ver. 10. — That “the great city” is identical with the holy city where the vax Tod deob stands, ver. 1 sqq., and, therefore, is none other than Jerusalem, is evident already from the connection; just as unambiguously is this de- clared ia ver. 8, first in the spiritual designation of the same as Sodom and Egypt, then especially in the words éxov xa2 6 xipuoe abruv toravpddn. The spiritual designation (xaA. rvevyaruic) expresses, in distinction from the proper historical name, the spiritual nature of the city; but the juxtaposi- tion of the two names, Sodom and Egypt, shows that reference is not made here to individual relations,’ but to that wherein Sodom and Egypt are essentially alike, viz., entire enmity to the true God, his servants, and his people. As already the ancient prophets called Jerusalem, in express terms, Sodom,® or a sister of Sodom,® they wished not so much to characterize individual sins, as rather to designate them radically from the perverted position of the people to their God. So here the city wherein the witnesses of Christ are slain, and lie unburied on the street, and wherein also the Lord was crucified, is spiritually designated by both anti-theocratic names, because its antichristian hostility to the Lord is to be represented as against his witnesses.1° But the pneumatic designation of the city gives also the answer in harmony with the context to the question in hand as to why the city is called here, not, as ver. 2, the holy, but “the great.” Aret., Calov., and many ‘of the older Protestants, have concluded from a comparison with xvi. 19, xviii. 15, etc., that also in this passage the great city is nothing but Babel, i.e., Papal Rome. Ebrard and other allegorists wish from this designation to prove at least that not the actual Jerusalem, but that which is allegor- ically meant, i.e., the secularized church, is to be understood. The reply of De Wette, that John could no longer call the city holy after its “ profanation,”
1 Cf., on this idea, the €860y avr (xili. 7). ? Against Hengstenb. : “‘ "Acvyurros refers to 2 Cf. ver. 4. religious corruption, tcéoua to immoral prac- 3 Cf. ver. 9, the plural. tices.” Otherwise in Vitr., etc.
* De Wette. 8 Isa. i. 9 sqq. .
5 Cf. ver. 9. ® Ezek. xvi. 48.
* Cf. Winer, Rwb., 1. 172 aq. 0 Cf. Ewald, Bleek, De Wette.
818 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
and yet “ wanted to designate it as a chief city containing a large population, ver. 13, and at the same time many Gentiles, warriors, and others,” especially in its second part, is not properly satisfactory. The reason is more proba- ble that it is impossible in one breath to call the city holy, and Sodom and Egypt, while the 7. ueyéAj¢ points in like manner as with respect to the city, which in ch. xvi. sqq. bears the spiritual name of Babel, to the city’s great- ness and power as the vain foundation of its godless security and arrogant enmity against the Lord and his witnesses calling to repentance. — That the concluding words of ver. 8, dzov, x.r.A, dare not be conceived of as a mere notice of locality, Ebrard properly mentions; but from this the impossibility does not result that the significance of the avevyarinds with xadsiras extends also to the clause éxov — écravpwt, as Hengstenb. and Ebrard still assert, as, like the old Protestant allegorists, they refer it to the spiritual crucifixion of the Lord in the secularized church,} a conception against which already the aor. éoravpitn, pointing to the definite fact of the crucifixion, is arrayed, — but only the necessity follows for seeking the correct reference of that clause in the pragmatism of the context. Again, the text itself shows this, partly by the «ai before 6 «tp. air, partly by the expression 6 «ip. atruv. Both belong inwardly together; as the two witnesses, so also their Lord was there slain, crucified; the servants have suffered the same thing as their ® Lord.*? This is accordingly made prominent, because from this it becomes clear that the antichristian enmity of the great city remains always the same; with the same hatred as that wherewith they formerly once brought the Lord there to the cross, they now slay the two witnesses just because they are his witnesses. But still in another respect is the allusion to the crucifixion of the Lord significant, viz., with respect to the judgment an- nounced. For even in their days,‘ the city shows the same impenitent hostility, on account of which the Lord himself already had proclaimed its judgment.5 — Ver. 9. The subj. to GAézovow lies directly in the partitively formed expression é trav Aad, in connection with which a rive is not to be supplied. In like manner, the subject is partitively formed, John xvi. 17, the object, Matt. xxiii. 84; in the simple gen., without éx, the partitive obj. is found; e.g., iii. 9. — From peoples, kindreds, etc. (v. 9), Jews and Gen- tiles (cf. ver. 2), many then have assembled in Jerusalem;7 these see the indignity (ver. 8) puépac rpeic wal quiov, “three days and a half.”*® The sche- matic significance of this date can only be mistaken, and a definite chrono- logical prophecy be found here, if the specifications of time of vv. 2, 3, also be taken literally,® which then of course is ill adapted to the further view of the allegorical character, and the reference of the whole to the antichris- tian period at the end of the world. All those have felt the schematic nature of the three and a half days, who have thought in connection there-
1 Inthe Papacy. Calov., etc. 3 Cf. Matt. x. 24 8qq.; John xv. 20. 2 The reference of the avray to the inhabit- 4 Cf. ver. 2 qq.
ante of Jeruealem (Ew. ii.) is ingenious, but 5 Of. Luke xix. 41 sqq.
violates the pragmatism of the statement, ® Against Ebrard.
which also testifies to the pussive form écrav- 7 Beng., De Wette, etc.
pwn. ® Accus. of duration, aa ver.3. °° Beng.
CHAP. XI. 11. 819 with of only a short time;} but that just three and a half days are named cannot be explained by an allusion to the three days during which the Lord lay in the grave;? also not with Ewald: “Longer than it is proper for a dead person to be left unburied, especially if we consider that from the nature of the land the dead should be buried sooner, so as not to become offensive ;” but only from the analogy of the three and a half years, ver. 2 sq.* —dgiovez. The form, like the foe, Mark i. 34, xi. 16, from the stem ddiw.4— redqvar ele priya. Cf. Luke xxiii. 58, 55; Matt. xxvii. 60.— From the fact that in ver. 10 it is said, “they that dwell upon the earth” rejoice over them,® it has been inferred * that not the actual Jerusalem is to be regarded as the scene, but the allegorically so-called great city, Papal Rome, or rather the Romish Papacy, which actually extends over the whole earth. Improperly; for the strange attempt in this way to present the entire mass of all individuals dwelling on earth as spectators would thereby miscarry. In the expression of xaroux, én? 1. y.. the question is not with respect to the numerical mass, but the generic idea;" the self-evident limitation to the xaroxouvrec txi tie ypc® found in the city, as representatives of the entire class, the text itself gives by accounting for their joy, to which they testify by mutual presents as on festivals,® as follows: drs obroe of dbo mpopitat éBacavicay rove xaroxoovrac eri rig yc. The Gacanopdc * on the part of the two prophetic witnesses, which in no way can be referred to the inner pain” excited by their preaching of repentance,!? was perceptible only to the enemies in the city, who just as such represent the entire class of dwellers upon earth.
Ver. 11. sq. The resuscitation, and ascension to heaven, of the two wit- nesses. aveipa Gaic, “ A spirit of life.” Cf. Gen. vi. 17, ii. 7.18 Incorrectly, Hengstenb. : The spirit of life. — éx rov 6eod. “Immediately, miraculously.” 14 —elojAdev tv abtrog. “Came” (into them, and remained) “in them.” Cf. Luke ix. 46; Winer, p. 385. — xa? fornoav énl rove addag aitwv. The more clearly this is meant as a sign of revivification,!® and the more definitely it is said, ver. 12, dvéBneay ei¢ r. ovp. tv r. veg,, the less is it to be urged that here the expression tyeipecfa: or dvdoracig is avoided.1® — x, g6Bo¢ péyas, x.1.A. Concerning the expression, cf. Luke i. 12; concerning the thing itself, Matt. xxvii. 54. The resuscitation of the witnesses proved that the Lord, in whose name they came forth, has the power to avenge the indignity shown his servants. — «ai xovea. The reading #xoveay,— approved also by Ew. ii., —
1 Zeg., Hengstenb., ete.
2 C.a Lap., Hengstenb. -
§ De Wette. Cf. also Hengstenb. and Ebrard, of whom, however, the latter concurs thereln with Beng., etc., in that he also under- stands the time of antichrist at the end of the world, by conceiving of the one thuusand two bundred and sixty days (ver. 3), at whose close the three and one-half days (ver. 9) fall, as the period of the Church from the destraction of Jerusalem until the conversion of Israel before the end of the world.
4 Cf. Winer, p. 77.
5 éz’ avras; viz., so far as the witnesses
are slain, and Hie ignominiously upon the street.
6 Calov., Vitr., ete.
7 Cf. vi. 10, if. 10.
8 Cf. ver. 9: éx rey Aamy, «.7.A.
® Cf. Neh. viii. 10, 12; Easth. ix. 22. Cf. Winer, Rwbd., 1. 482.
10 ix. 5. 12 Hengstenb. 12 Beng., Ew., De Wette.
3 Beng., etc.
1% Beng.
18 Cf. 2 Kings xili. 21; Ezek. xxxvil. 10. 1¢ Against Ebrard, who finds in this an indication of its figurative significance.
820 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
whereby the same subject is to be understood as in d<Byoay, cannot be defended by a comparison with the entirely heterogeneous passage, John v., 28.1 A declaration directed to the witnesses would be designated after the manner of vi. 11.2. The xa? fxcvoa properly supported by Beng., Ew. i., De Wette, is incomparably more suitable; also in vi. 6, ix. 18, John hears voices directed to others, whose consequences he then beholds. The call dvafare cde ® finds its fulfilment, immediately afterwards, before the eyes of the enemies: xal dvéBnoav, x.7.A, In this final glorification, the two witnesses are less like Elijah,* than their Lord himeelf,® as also their death was expressly compared with his crucifixion, ver. 8.
Ver. 18. At the same time a great earthquake destroys the tenth part of the city, slays seven thousand inhabitants, and thus effects the conversion of the rest. — év éxelvy rp pg, viz., that in which what is reported in ver. 12 occurred. With the glorification of the witnesses coincides the vengeance upon their enemies, and those of the Lord. — cesopis uéyar. That the earth- quake is intended just as literally as in vi. 12,’ and is not some dreadful event to be discerned only from the fulfilment of the prophecy,® and that, in general, nothing allegorical is here said, follows from the further descrip- tion of the effect of the earthquake; the tenth part of the city is thrown down, and seven thousand men (dsduara dv6p., cf. iii. 4) are slain (arexravénoay, in the same sense as the other plagues).® If the numerical specifications be regarded as something else than concrete forms, which by a certain measure make perceptible the idea of a relatively small injury,® we enter the province of conjecture. Ebrard wishes to “refer the tenth part of the city to the tenth part of the fourth world-power, over which the antichrist is to extend his dominion.” 2! But, as by this arbitrary introduction of a prophecy so unlike this as that in ch. xvii., the antichristian character of the number ten is inferred, an embarrassment to the text is occasioned, since it designates the antichristian men slain by the number seven, a divine number. Yet here Ebrard aids with the conjecture, that this number may indicate “the servile imitation of divine relations of number on the part of the antichristian realm.” — xa? ol Aovrol, x.r.4. Upon this large remainder of the inhabitants of the city, the Divine visitation is, therefore, not fruitless.1* — iduxav dégav. A mark of conversion, xvi. 9; Jer. xiii. 16.18 — n) 6e5 rod obpavod. The ex- pression, derived from the later books of the O. T.,! occurs in the N. T. only here and xvi. 11.15 It is caused here by ver. 18.2° Without further reference, De Wette explains it: “the true, supreme God.” But by the very fact that God carries his two witnesses to heaven, he shows himself as God of heaven.
1 Hengstenb. § Ebrard. 2 Cf. aleo ix. 4. ; ® Cf. vi. 8, vill. 11, ix. 18. 3 Cf. iv. 1. % Cf. vi. 8, vill. 7 eqq., where the fourth or * 2 Kings ff. 11. third are affected by a plague. So Ewald, De 5 Cf. especially with the ¢y ry vedeAn (Acts Wette, Licke. 4.9). 2 Dan. vil. 24. Cf. Rev. xvii. 12 eq. ® De Wette. 13 Cf., on the other hand, ix. 20. 7 Cf. aleo Matt. xxvii. 51, xxvill. 2, where a 13 Beng. similar inner connection of the earthquake 4 Ezek. 1.2; Neh. i. 40q.; Dan. tt. 18.
with the death and resurrection of the Lord 15 De Wette. occurs. 4% Cf. Beng.
CHAP. XI. 13. 821
For the comprehension of the entire section, vv. 1-18, the text gives a completely secure standpoint by designating “the holy city” in which “the temple of God” stands, and which “the Gentiles shall tread under foot,” vv. 1,2, by the most unambiguous words as the city “where Christ was crucified,” ver. 8. Already what is said in vv. 1, 2, suggests only Jerusa- lem; but the words of ver. 8 dxov — écravpdaGn, are in themselves so simple, and have besides, by means of the historical aor., such immovable firmness in their reference to the definite fact of the crucifixion of the Lord, that no exposition can correspond with the text that conflicts with the norm given by ver. 8 and vv. 1,2. And if the difficulties of exposition from the stand- point given by the context —viz., concerning the two witnesses (ver. 8 sqq.), and the relation of ver. 13 and vv. 1, 2, to the Lord’s prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem — were still greater than they are, without doubt the solution of the difficulties can be found only in the way indicated by the text itself. Highly characteristic of the force witb which the text, espe- cially by ver. 8, defends itself against the allegorical interpretation, are the concessions of the allegorists themselves. C.a Lap allegorizes like the older Protestants; but in order to avoid altogether the results of Protestant alle- gorizing, which regards the great city as Papal Rome, he mentions that ver. 8 allows us to think only of Jerusalem, and, therefore, in no way of Rome. Hengstenb., who interprets the entire section (vv. 1-138) allegor- ically of the secularized church, opens his observations on ver. 8 with the words: “The great city is Jerusalem.” Tinius! does not know how to defend the allegorical interpretation as Rome, otherwise than by the con- jecture that the contradictory words é:ov xai 6 xbpo¢ abray toravputy were interpolated / 2
If by allegorizing, the prophecy be once withdrawn from the firm his- torical basis upon which, by ver. 8 and vv. 1, 2,8 it puts itself, every limitation whereby the context itself determines the relation of prophecy is removed, and a proper refutation of the most arbitrary interpretations is no longer possible. How will an old Protestant or a modern allegorist prove that the exposition of N. de Lyra is incorrect, when by essentially the same allegorizing he infers that vv. 1, 2, were fulfilled when Pope Felix instituted the festival of church dedications? For, why should not «dAauoc signify just as well a sprinkling-brush as the word of God? And if the vade rob deo mean the true Church, why could not the witnesses coming forth for it be as well Pope Silverius and the Patriarch Mennas,‘ as the “ testes veritatis,” possi- sibly the Waldenses, whose testimony in John Hus and Jerome of Prague was revived in Luther and Melanchthon?® Or, upon what exegetical foun- dation can it be proved that the beast from the abyss is not the imperial general Belisarius,® but the Pope?’ The modern allegorists are incon- sistent in not expressly adopting the special relations which the allegorical interpretation formerly knew how to find in a surprising way.* The modern
1 Die Of. Joh. — Alien veratdndlich ge- § Vitr., ete. 6 N. de Lyra. macht, Leipz., 1839. 7 Aret., Vitr., ete. Cf. De Wette. ® Yet these ancient interpretations are not
§ Cf. Luke xxi. 24. 4 N. de Lyra. absolutely excluded; cow and then they are
$22 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
allegorists are harmonious with the ancient in the fundamental view of all decided points of the entire prophecy: that the temple of God which was measured means the true Church which is to be preserved, while the outer court and the city given to the heathen are wicked Christians; that Christ's two witnesses, their office, their miraculous powers, their suffering, their death, their resurrection and ascension, are to be understood “ spiritually ; ” finally, that the earthquake (ver. 13) and its effect figuratively represent a visitation upon the degenerate Church. Ebrard regards the earthquake as @ special fact, whose more accurate determination is impossible before the fulfilment of the prophecy. In the “spiritual” fundamental view, the Cath- olic allegorists, as C. a Lap., Stern, etc., also agree with Par., Vitr., Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. But differences immediately arise with the more accu- rate determinations, in which, however, when once the standpoint designated by the context itself is deserted, and the way of allegorizing is entered, the ancient Protestants proceed more correctly. The entire description of the two witnesses is so thoroughly personal, that it is more in harmony with the text to think of “the doctors of the Church,”! than of the “office of witness,”? or only of the testifying “potencies,” law and gospel. The slaying, the not burying, the awakening of witnesses, refers rather to the martyrdom of Savonarola and Hus, and the resuscitation of such witnesses in Luther and the other reformers,‘ than to the fact that law and gospel are regarded dead, and then again maintained.’ Besides, if the dates, seeming to correspond so accurately, be taken in the sense of the old interpreters,® they could please at least by the naive confidence in their consequences; while the modern allegorists, by the timidity with which they announce only vague generalities, betray their own insecurity and weakness.
From this form of allegorizing lately arising from a magical idea of fore- telling the future, that form is distinguished which has been invented in the interest of a rationalistic conception of biblical prophecy, and which is, of course, very vigorous with respect to results obtained, but not at all in ex- egetical methods. This group of expositors’ has in this the great excellence,
expressly advanced. Thus Rinck (p. 47) says, ‘‘ Constance also is a part of that great city.” A coneistent return to the ancient Protestant allegorizing has been ventured upon again by Griber.
! Calov., Vitr., etc.
2 Hengstenb.
8 Ebrard.
* Par., Vitr., Calov., ete.
5 Ebrard.
® The one thousand two hundred and sixty days are taken by the older interpreters (‘‘ al- most all of our writers” [Calov.]) as equal to one thousand two hundred and sixty years. Calov. reckons them from the time of Leo the Great to about the year 1700, in which a chief event bearing upon the overthrow of the degen- erate, l.e., of the Romish, Church must occur. Coccelus reckone from the end of the third
century until the treaty of Passau, 1552. Gravius (in Calov.) maintains three and one- half years, which he reckons from the year 1625, in which the Papiste triumphed, until] the appearance of Gustavus Adolphus. Bright- man understands the three and one-half years which the Papists assembled at the Council of Trent, used in order to do away with the O. and N. T. (the two witnesses). The tenth part of the city, f.e., of the Papacy, which fs overthrown, ia, according to Cocceius, Protes- tant France; the seven thousand elain are the seven provinces which deserted from Spain. Most recently Griber again has attempted such trifling expedientse. The end of the one thou- sand two hundred and sixty days, i.e., years, he expected in 1859; then the dominion of the Turks at Jerusalem would come to an end.
1 Grot., Wetst., Herd., Eichh., Helur., etc.
; CHAP. XI. 18. 823 that they hold firmly to the textual reference to Jerusalem. Grot., who has found already in the preceding visions the destruction of the city by Titus, refers (ch. xi.) to the times of Hadrian, who built a temple of Jupiter in the city, on the place not measured, — for John, of course, must measure the already destroyed temple, “because God was to preserve that space from the heathen on account of the memory of its ancient holiness.” — The two witnesses are the two assemblies of Christians, a Hebrew and a Greek- speaking congregation at Jerusalem; the beast (ver. 7) is Barcocheba; ver. 13 describes the destruction of his party in the city, against which ver. 15 sqq. represents the suppression of the same outside of the city. According to Eichh., the vade rod decd, ver. 1, designates the worship of the one God, which is to be maintained even though the avaAz, i.e., the pomp of ceremonies, be surrendered at the impending destruction of the city by Titus, described in ver. 15 sqq. The two witnesses are the high-priests Ananus and Jesua,! murdered by the Zealots (roic t@veow, ver. 2);? the earthquake is a scene of murder introduced by the Zealots; and the words «. of Aotrol, «.7.2., he ex- plains: “The good citizens of Jerusalem bore this slaughter with a brave mind, having professed this besides, viz., that it had occurred, not without God's knowledge, but by his permission.”
The necessity of allegorical exposition, Hengstenb. has attempted to prove at length. Against the fundamental view advocated by Bleek, Ew., Liicke, and De Wette, that ch. xi. refers to the still future destruction of Jerusalem, — whereby, on the one hand, those expositors maintain the har- mony with the words of the Lord on the subject (cf. ver. 2, rarjcovaw, with Luke xxi. 24), and, on the other hand, explain the difference that in this passage the proper vaée is to remain preserved, and, in general, the judgment (cf. ver. 18) is far milder than in Luke xxi., Matt. xxiv., by the patriotic feeling of John, who was unwilling to conceive of the entire holy city, together with the proper habitation of God, as surrendered to the Gentiles, Hengstenb. remarks: “ Within the sphere of Holy Scripture, that pseudo- patriotism, that blind partiality for one’s own people, is nowhere at home.” This is so far entirely inapplicable, since patriotism and pseudo-patriotism are two very distinct things. Moses, Jeremiah, all the prophets, have, as true patriets, a holy sympathy with their people. Paul especially emphasizes (Rom. ix. 8) the patriotic point of the wish there made. Yea, the bitter- ness of the book eaten by John,‘ Hengstenb. himself has explained by a comparison with Ezek. iii. 14, from the sad contents of the prophecy to be announced. But if it were bitter to the ancient prophets to announce to their own people the Divine judgments, this not only testifies to their holy patriotic love, but, besides, makes us see how the entire prophetic character was a profoundly moral, and not a magical, overwhelming one, consuming the moral personality of the prophet. So also in John. If the prophecy, ch. xi. 1-8, according to vv. 1, 2, 8, undoubtedly refers to the actual Jeru- salem, so in the bitterness to the prophet,® with which the judgment is ful-
1 Cf. Joseph., B. J., iv. 2 9qq- besides, Bleek, Stud. u. Krit., 1855, p. 215 2 So also Herder. 8qq. 8 Cf., againet him, Llicke, p. 825 sqq., and, 4 x. 9 agq. 5 x. 9 aq.
$24 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
filled, vv. 1, 2, we must not fail to see genuine patriotism. But it is of course unsatisfactory when the difference between the prediction (xi. 1-13) and the corresponding fundamental prophecy of the Lord ! is to be explained alone by John’s patriotism ;* while, more preposterously yet, Hengstenb. goes too far on the opposite side in attempting to defend John from pseudo-pat- riotism by imputing to him the view that the actual Jerusalem is the congre- gation of Satan. Hengstenb. is led to this misunderstanding ® by the zeal with which he opposes not so much the view of Liicke, etc., as rather the opinion of Baur concerning the gross Judaism of the Apoc. But it is ex- tremely incorrect to decide the views of Liicke and of Baur‘ as the same. Just by the false anti-Judaism which Hengstenb. ascribes to John, he breaks away the point from his apparently most important arguments for the alle- gorical exposition. He says, “John everywhere uses the Jewish only as a symbol and form of representation of the Christian; thus, also (ver. 1), he designates by the temple the Christian Church, and (ver. 8) by Jerusalem the degenerate Christian Church as a whole.” This exegetical canon is just as incorrect as that stated in viii. 10, etc., that a star everywhere signifies a ruler. Yet, as a matter of course, it must appear already impossible for John, if he regards actual Judaism, the temple, the holy city, etc., without any thing further, as a congregation of Satan, to use these congregations of Satan, with their institutions, as a symbol of the true Church of Christ. But Hengstenb. does John the most flagrant injustice. Those who are Jews only as they call themselves such, but are the synagogue of Satan, he thor- oughly distinguishes—in the sense of Rom. ix. 6—from those who are such actually. To the latter belong the sealed out of Is«rael,® in distinction from those out of the Gentiles. Is the name of Israel (vii. 4 sqq.) a symbol of the Christian Church? and are the names of the tribes there symbols of Christian churches? Hengstenb., especially on xiv. 1 sqq., thinks that the constant Jewish symbolism cannot be mistaken, as there Mount Zion can be understood only symbolically. Thatis decidedly incorrect; but, on the other hand, the visionary locality where Christ is seen with his hosts is the actual Mount Zion, which, as a visionary locality, is as little understood allegorically as iv. 1, Heaven; iv. 6, the throne of God; xi. 15, xii. 1, Heaven; xiii. 1, the seashore, etc. But when Hengstenb. appeals to xx. 9 in order to prove that the “holy city,” xi. 1, 2, is to be understood allegorically, he does something awkward, because the entire statement of ch. xx., which extends over the historical horizon, dare in no way be made parallel with the prophecy, xi. 1-13, which expressly (ver. 8, vv. 1,2) indicates its historical relation. — Against the not allegorical explanation, Hengstenb. says further, that “we cannot understand how an announcement of the future fate of Jewish Jeru- salem .. . should occur just at this place, hemmed in between the sixth and seventh trumpets, the second and third woes, which have to do only with
1 Matt. xxiv.; Luke xxi. Luke xxi. 24, as a prediction of Christ, be
2 Against Liicke, etc. 3 Cf. ii. 9. suggested in connection with the expression
* Cf. also Volkm.: “The Jewish seer has in the Apoc., notwithstanding the entire de- completely deceived himself in his hope for struction of the city entering therein.” Jerusalem and the Jewish people. But let § Ch. vii.
CHAP. XI. 18. 825
worldly power.” The answer is immediately given, and that, too, not only from the methodical progress in itself of the Apoc. vision, — which Heng- stenb. confuses by his view, in violation of the context, that xi. 1-13 occurs between the second and third woe, while what is here said belongs rather to the second woe, ver. 14,!— but also, as is equally decisive, in fullest harmony with the fundamental prediction of the Lord. When Hengstenb. judges further that the account of the two witnesses is comprehensible only by an allegorical exposition, it is, on the one hand, to be answered, that the allegor- izing obliteration of the definite features referring to personalities * ill bar- monizes with the text, and, on the other hand, the non-allegorizing exposition must accept the difficulties, just as the text offers them, and attempt their explanation. — Finally Hengstenb. mentions the testimony of Irenaeus, which places the composition of the Apoc. in the time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and must consequently prevent the expositor from accepting, in ver. 1 sqq., the existence of the temple and city, and regarding the destruc- tion as future. Liicke, who, with the fullest right, places the self-witness of the Apoc. above the testimony of Irenaeus, and vindicates for the exegete the freedom required above all things by the text, acknowledges the possi- bility that, in case John wrote after the fall of the city, by a kind of fiction he might have represented this fact as future. Therefore the statement (xarfoovew, ver. 2) would at all events be future, and refer to the destruction of the city. But Bleek correctly denies even the possibility of conceiving of this passage according to the rule of such a fiction, to say nothing of its being entirely aimless.
The most immediate norm for the correct exposition resulting from the wording of the text itself, has already been asserted in opposition to the alle- gorists; viz., the reference to Jerusalem, ver. 8, vv. 1, 2, and to the judgment impending over this city (ver. 2, xarjoovery). Another no less important norm, to whivh also the phraseology, ver. 2 (éd, roig &@veoty — narjoover), points by its similarity with Luke xxi. 24, shows the essential agreement of our pre- diction with the fundamental prediction of the Lord.‘ For, just as the Lord himeelf places the final judgment in inner connection with the end of the world, — to such an extent, that apparently even an external chronological connection is expressed, — so John predicts the ultimate fulfilment (which is here represented in the seventh trumpet-vision, xi. 15 sqq.) in such a way that he begins with the judgment upon Jerusalem, xi. 1-13. After x.7 sqq., he is now to announce the completion of the mystery of God. The comple- tion itself does not occur, as in x. 7 also it is expressly said, until the time of the seventh trumpet (xi. 15 sqq.), in which also the third woe falls (cf.
xi. 14); but the announcement committed to John begins, nevertheless, not
1 Cf. the introductory observations onch.x. tends to as, carry with them their own answer. 2 See on ver. 13 sqq. The beast does something antichristian in slay- § The other observations of Hengstenb., ing the witnesses of Christ, and every thing that the beast (ver. 7) has, according to xiii. 7, biblical concerns us. Are we to interpret 8, nothing to do with the Jewish, but withthe Luke xix. 41 sqq. allegorically, because what holy, Jerusalem, and that the allegorical inter- is there written pertains to us? pretation shows only that the prediction ex- « Luke xxi.; Matt. xxiv.
826 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
first with xi. 15, but already at xi. 1. And what is here (vv. 1-13) pre- dicted belongs to the second woe, and therefore stands in the connection of the series with the third, soon-coming woe.
No one would have thought of denying, in ver. 1-13, the reference afforded from the wording, and the analogy with the eschatological discourses of the Lord to the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and in order to do this, would have had to resort to allegorical explanation, if, on the other hand, the prediction of John did not deviate from that fundamental prediction, and the fact of the destruction had not in reality occurred, as the Lord, but not as John, had predicted. But just the latter difficulty brings with itself the solution; for it follows, from the peculiar deviations from Matt. xxiv., Luke xxi., that John, in his prophecy concerning Jerusalem, had an entirely dif- ferent purpose from the Lord himself, and accordingly he puts his prophetic description of the impending act of judgment in a peculiar light, and paints it in other colors.1 The Lord announces simply the definite fact of the de- struction of the city; * he mentions Judah and Jerusalem, and describes how the Gentile enemies will build a rampart against it, plunder it, and not leave one stone upon another, a destruction which affected the dishonored temple no less than the holy city. According to the description of John, there would be only a period during the 34 years of oppression known already from Daniel, in which the city and the court are trodden under foot by the Gentiles; the temple proper is preserved from all indignity and devastation. During this time, the two witnesses of Christ come forth as preachers of repentance, who, according to their nature and office,—not according to their individual personality, — are the two olive-trees and candlesticks (anointed ones) of whom Zech. spake, ver. 4; they are Moses and Elijah,® —not Enoch and Elijah,* who, as prophetic preachers of repentance, are thought of as having returned to the same desert, just as Elijah returned in the manifestation of John the Baptist. But these were killed, and that, too, by the beast from the abyss, whose mention in this place —as it prop- erly belongs only to the seventh trumpet — gives an indication for the con- ception of the ideal standpoint from which John regards the impending judgment upon Jerusalem in connection with its full and final development. No less significant is the hatred which the Gentiles present in the city — of
1 Without foundation in the context, Weiss, a.a.0., p. 20, designates the meaning of the whole: “It is to be represented how, notwith. standing the impending destruction of Jerusa- lem, yet the final deliverance of a last remnant of the holy people, promised by all the proph- ets, is to occur”’ (in distinction from Rom. xi. 26: was ‘Iop.). This theologumenon as such is entirely remote.
* Cf. aleo Luke xix. 41 aqq.
§ Ver. 5 sqq. Cf. Matt. xvii. 1 sqq., De Wette, Liicke, Ew. ii., Hilgenf., ete.
* Stern, Ew. i. Beda already rejects this view disseminated in the Church fathers. An interesting reference to this passage te found
in the Gospel of Nicodemus, P. il. (Deec. Chr. ad Inf., c. 9), where Enoch says of himself and Elijah: pédAdcnev Ghoar pdxpe ris ouvreAcias Tov aimvos® rére 5¢ wdAAoner amog- Tadnvas wapa Geo éwi ry avriornva Ty drw- XpioT~ Kat awoxtay@jvat wap’ avrov, cat meTa Tpetg Hudpas avacrHvas Kai dy veddAas apwrey- §vac wpd¢ Thy Trou xupiov Umdyryocy ( We are to live until the completion of the world; then we are to be sent by God to withstand Anti. christ, and to be slain by him, and after three days to be raised and snatched up In the cloads to meet the Lord") (Ze. Apoer., ed. Tisch. Lips., 1858, p. 300). 8 Cf. Matt. xvii. 12; Luke {. 17.
CHAP. XI. 13. 827
whom we are to think so preponderatingly in the expression of xaromoivres én tie yhc, that the reference to the unbelieving Jews retires altogether into the background — show to the dead bodies of Christ’s witnesses. Finally, in comparison with the fundamental prophecy of the Lord, it is significant for the distinct mode of contemplation by John, that here an earthquake, after the manner of the preliminary plagues described in the seal- and trumpet-visions, visita the city, destroys a part of it, and brings the survivors to repentance, in contrast with the plagues remaining fruitless to those in the Gentile world ;} on which account, then, the seventh trumpet brings the complete destruction of the antichristian world. While, therefore, the Lord himself predicts the rea] fact of the destruction of Jerusalem, the same im- pending fact, of course, forms also for John the real goal of his prophecy; besides, he also agrees with the Lord in the fundamental prediction, in this, that he likewise maintains the inner connection between the individual acts of judgment upon Jerusalem, and the full final judgment; but in other re- spects the prediction of John is of an ideal character, so that we are neither to seek for the real fulfilment of individual expressions, nor, in order to con- ceal the incongruity between the words of prophecy and the facts of the destruction, to resort to the allegorical mode of exposition. In John, a judgment impends over the city, which is brought about no more by the heathen treading under foot (ver. 2) than by the earthquake (ver. 13), in the development of the mystery of God until its final completion, as a chief link in the chain of preliminary plagues, since it also forms a part of the second woe. But from this standpoint, the holy city cannot appear in the same light as the Gentile city, from the ground of antichristian secular power; but just as the sealed of God, as such, could not be touched by cer- tain plagues,? the temple proper, as God’s place of revelation, is preserved from the feet of the Gentiles, while the city wherein the witnesses of Christ like their Lord are slain is condemned to judgment. But this is distin- guished also from the complete judgment upon Babylon, by the fact that the plague (the earthquake) is wrought as a salutary purification, since only the antichristian part are obliterated, while the rest of Israel are converted, and remain in safety. We must therefore decide, not that in vv. 1-18 John allegorizes by representing the future destinies of the Christian Church under Jewish symbols, but that he idealizes,4 by endeavoring to announce beforehand the impending destruction of Jerusalem, not according to the actual circumstances, but according to their inner connection with the ulti- mate fulfilment of the mystery of God,® and correspondingly to state the hope which the O. T. people of God still retained, in contrast with the hea- then secular power, i.e., with “Babylon.” In this ideal representation of prophecy, there belongs also the similar feature (ver. 4 sqq.). John does not think that Moses and Elijah will actually return,® accordingly he does
1 Cf. ix. 20, xvi. 9. 2 Of. ix. 4. from ver. 8 to Jerusalem, and also rejecting 9 Cf. Isa. xxxvii. 31 sq.; Rom. ix. 27 sqq., allegorizing, reaches the result that “ the xi. 7. Christianity of the last times appears as Jeru-
* Kief., who decidedly controverts this, salem.” nevertheless, by referring the closing words 6 Cf. x. 7. 8 Against Hiigenf., etc.
328 THE REVELATION OF 8ST. JOHN.
not mention them; but with colors derived from the words of Zechariah, as also from the history of Moses and Elijah, he paints the ideal picture of the two prophetic preachers of repentance, who are to work in the manner, the spirit, and the power of Moses and Elijah. Hence we are not to inquire for a particular “meaning,” or a particular “fulfilment” of what is here said.
Vv. 15-19. At the blast of the seventh trumpet, which* will bring the glorious end, songs of praise resound in heaven which proclaim the fulfil- ment as having already occurred (vv. 15-18). At the opening of the heavenly temple of God, the ark of the covenant therein is visible, and light- nings, and other signs, indicating the judgments belonging to the actual fulfilment of the mystery of God, occur.
Ver. 15. éyévovro guvail pey., «.t.A. To whom these voices belonged, is neither to be asked nor to be answered. Ewald wants to ascribe them to the four beasts;* De Wette, to the angels; Beng., to various dwellers in heaven, angels and men. MHengstenb. tries to show that the innumerable hosts, vii. 9 sq., ¢re to be understood. This is incorrect, because the hosts which John there sees proleptically in heaven do not as yet correspond in xi. 15, with the progressive course of the visions, but are not actually in heaven until xv. 2 sqq.4 Also in vv. 15-19 Hengstenb. mistakes the pro- leptical reference correctly understood by C. a Lap., Beng., Ew., De Wette, etc., by regarding all the contents of the seventh trumpet (the third woe) exhausted already with ver. 19. Still more preposterously, Ebrard limits the seventh trumpet to vv. 15-18.5— & 1 obpavp, where John is not as yet,® but whither the look of the seer is directed.’ —Atyovrer. Cf. iv. 8, v. 18. 7 BactAcia rod xoouov. The regal dominion over the world.® Instead of the obj. gen., in xvii. 18, éri follows. Cf. also i. 6, xii. 10. The immediately following xat SaciAeices presupposes not only the active idea of 4 Baouzia, but also this reading. Incorrectly, Luther, according to the var. supported by Ew. ii., éyévovro al Bacideiaz: the kingdonis of this world. — The prolepti- cal® in the songs of the heavenly voices lies in this, that immediately after the sound of the trumpet, and yet before any thing elge has actually occurred of what is afterwards celebrated with similar songs of praise, they say, byévero f Bac., x.7.A.1 In reality the dominion over the world does not become God’s and that of his Anointed until the wrathful judgment described, viz., until ch. xviii., yea, in another respect until xx. 10, has actually dislodged from its assumed dominion all ungodly and antichristian power, which, by its rebellion 1% against the only King and Lord, had usurped, to an extent, a part of his Bao:deia. The inner justification of the prolepsis — which Hengstenb. acknowledges only at vv. 15-18 in the relation to ver. 19, where he finds the final judgment —lies in the fact that the seventh trumpet has already actually sounded; that one, therefore, from which the real fulfilment of the
1 See Intr., p. 42. ® Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
2 Cf. x. 7. 3 iv. & ® Also Kilef.
¢ Cf. xix. 1 8qq. 16 Cf. xix. 1 eqq.
8 See on ver, 19. 11 Cf. ver. 17 8q.: ciAndas — éBagidcveas — * Cf. x. 1. HAGcy.
T De Wette. 12 Beng,
CHAP. XI. 16-18, 829
mystery of God will infallibly proceed.1_ But even if only a special series of further visions leads to that final consummation, yet the prospective cele- bration of that glorious result, especially in the mouth of the dwellers in heaven, has, after the sounding of the seventh trumpet, its full justification and beautiful significance; the allusion, however, in connection with this, to redemption, as the proper root of the fact here celebrated,” is entirely out of place. — rob xvpiov qucy nat rod xpcorod abrov. Not only the expression,® but also the idea, points back to Ps. ii. 2, for the Lord’s Anointed is the Son of God because of the Bacueia, which is taken in genera, indeed, from the nations,‘ yet only for their destruction. — The gudv with +. xvpiov does not ' give here a statement strange in itself concerning the co-regency of the saints,® but corresponds, as also xii. 10, xix. 1, v. 8, to the joy of those who now behold their Lord and God, whom they themselves serve, in his victori- ous dominion over the judged world. —«. BacAeboee elg trove aldvag 7. alov. For, after his overthrow of all powers opposed to God, no new enemy could arise. The subj. to SacAchoe is 6 xdpiog hucv;® but his Christ is manifestly understood as partner of this BaorAzia.”
Vv. 16-18. Similar ascriptions of praise on the part of the twenty-four elders. lmecav ént rd rpdowra attwy, like all angels. For the deepest humilia- tion of adoring creatures is becoming when the highest revelation of the glory of God, as here the subduing of all enemies, stands before the eyes.§ — ebyaptoroipév cot. They give thanks, not because they consider themselves partakers of the great power and government of God,® which is as remote as in ver. 15, but because (6rs elAngac, x.7.A.) the assumption of dominion on God’s part has brought to the oppressors of the Church, whose representa- tives the elders are, retributory vengeance, but to the servants of God the complete reward.!° The ascription of adoration, xipie 6 bed¢ 6 xnavruxpatwp, K.T.A., in which the guaranty for the glorious result of God's ways was previously indicated, appears now when that glorious end is beheld as already attained to be actually realized.12 But from the former significant designation of God, 6 dv nat 6 fv xai 6 epxopevoc,1® this last point necessarily is omitted; for the ascription of praise, even though proleptical, applies even to that which has now come, and thus the fulfilment of his mystery has been attained.’4 Luther improperly follows the bad revision of the text, in which the xa? 6 épy. is interpolated from i. 8, iv. 8. — ér: elAngag r. divapiv cov r. pry. cal éBaolAevoag. The assumption of great power5 is the means for entrance upon the king- dom ;** but as the exclamation xépie 5 bed 6 xavroxpdrup properly conditions the mode of representation in the éBaoiAevaas, the cov with the r. dévau, marks
1 Beng., De Wette, etc. 10 Ver. 18. Cf. also vi. 9 aqq., vil. 14 aqq., ® Hengstenb. xix. 1 sqq.- § Cf. xl. 10; Acts tv. 26. 11 4, 8, Iv. 8. Of. also x. 6. « Cf. ver. 18. 42 Cf. xv. 3, xvi. 7, 14, xix. 6, 15, xxi. 22. 5 Hengstenb. 1S j, 8, iv. 8. ® According to ver. 17: xvpsos 4 Oeds 5 14 Cf. xvi. 5. Beng., Hengatenb. wayToxp. 18 Cf. Zech. vi. 13; Ps. xcili. 1. 7 Beng., De Wette. 1¢ Cf., on this application of the idea of 8 Cf. iv. 10, v. 8, 14, xix. 4. Beng. Bacirevay, Ps. xciil.1; 28am. xv. 10, xvi. 8,
® Hengestenb. etc.
830 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
also the presupposition that it was only, apparently, that the unconditioned power which he has now seized was not possessed by the eternal Ruler of all, while he allowed the antichristian powers to be exercised against himself and his Christ. — Ver. 18. According to the fundamental thought of ver. 2,} although the expression comes from Ps. xcix. 1,3 there is a description of how the wrath of God has risen against the wrath of his enemies, to the destruction of the destroyers, in the final judgment which brings its reward to the servants of God. — The more minute description in the words ra lovg @pyicénoav, x.7.A,, Of the elAntac r. duv., x.7.A., ver. 17,8 which occurs in the final judgment described here in all its parts, is subjoined by the simple xal. But the entire ascription of adoration proves itself to be so clearly a prolepsis of that which is not represented in details until in the visions fol- lowing that extend up to xxii. 5, and comprise the actual end, that even the expressions mostly agree with those of the succeeding chapter. The expla- nation of the tenor of the subject is to be derived from what follows. How the enraged Gentiles, impelled by the anger of the devil,‘ come forth against the Lord and his servants, is, of course, to be seen already from xi. 9 sqq.;® but the complete representation of the Gentile antichrist is given first in what follows,® and it properly pertains to this, that 7A6ev 7 dpy# oov is de- scribed as actually entering, first in chs. xvi—xviii., and then xix. 1 sqq., is celebrated as actually occurring, just as in this passage proleptically. The expression rove dcagGeiporrar tr. yizv 18 to be understood first from the entire description of Babylon, the antichristian secular power.? The xampdc rav vexpav xpiivat, Which is celebrated in this passage proleptically as having already occurred (#Adev), occurs actually not until in xx. 11 sqq.; so also the time for giving the servants of God their reward occurs actually not until the Divine completion of the mystery of God (xxi. 1-xxii. 5). — rol¢ dotAcur cov —peyados. This circumstantial formula is intended to designate the entire number of all those who receive God’s reward in contrast with those condemned to judgment.® The classification is not to be pressed, — against Beng. and Hengstenb., who refer the r. dovd. o. to r. mpog, and x. r. dyior, and oppose to these servants of God, in an eminent sense, the entire mass of those who fear the name of the Lord (x. 7. ¢0f., «.7.4.), in connection with which Hengstenb. wants a special emphasis recognized as resting not only upon 7. dyiow, but immediately afterwards also upon rol¢ puxpoic, as he under- stands sinall and great not in the simplest sense.® But r. do6A. cov belongs 1° only to +r. xpogirar, whereby all those are designated who have served God by proclaiming the Divine mysteries. Beside them stand the dy, as be- lievers in general are called.1! The final designation x. r. goSovp. 7. dv. cou roic ptxpols xal T, wey., comprehends finally and summarily the entire mass of the
2 Cf. already ver. 15. with reference to the actually fulfilled judg- § LXX.: 6 nipsos éBacirevocy, dpyilécbecay ment, to the dcapGeipac in this passage.
Aaot. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. ® Cf. xxi. 1 9qq., ili. 5, 12, 21. 8 Cf. De Wette. ® xili. 16, xix. 18, xx. 12; Acts vill. 10, xxvi. 4 xii.17. Cf. xi. 7. 22. Cf. Ps. cxv. 18, where, of course, Heng- § Cf. vi. 10. atenb. interprets “‘ the great” as priests. 6 Cf. xill. 10 sqq., xvi. 6, xvii. 6, xviii. 24. 10 Cf. x. 7.
7 Cf. xix. 2, where the éxpive corresponds, 11 ziti, 7, 10, xiv. 12, xvil. 6, xx. 0, xvill. 20.
831
godly, no matter whether prophets or saints absolutely,! whether small or at.
Ver. 19. Corresponding, on God’s part, to the songs of adoration with which the inhabitants of heaven, immediately after the sounding of the seventh trumpet, celebrate the fulfilment of the mystery of God (prolepti- cally), is the opening of the heavenly temple, whereby the ark of the cove- nant in the holiest of all, up to this time hidden, becomes visible no less to John and to the entire host of heaven. What this, together with the accom- panying lightning, etc., signifies, must be misunderstood if we either‘ find the entire contents of what belongs in the seventh trumpet actually ex- hausted with ver. 19, and consequently regard ver. 19 itself as the descrip- tion of the final judgment, —so that then with ch. xii. we begin anew “by recapitulating,”— or entirely separate ver. 19 from vv. 15-18, and with ver. 18 stand already at the actual end,® so that with ver. 19 the recapitu- lation begins. According to the former view, in ver. 19 blessedness is pre- pared for the godly, as well as condemnation announced against the godless. But if in ver. 19 the actual fulfilment of the mystery of God is to be ren- dered conspicuous, this conclusion would be highly unsatisfactory; yet it is never said what is the effect of the lightning, etc. In the correct feeling of ‘“‘ mysterious brevity,” ® which the entire section (vv. 15-19) has, if the same is to bring the conclusion actually announced in x. 7, Vitr., Hengstenb., etc., refer to ch. xvi. sqq., as the further development of what is here briefly said. In this there lies an uncertain acknowledgment of that which De Wette, etc., have said with distinctness concerning the proleptical nature of the entire section, vv. 15-19; for in the same way as the ascriptions of adora- tion, upon the basis of the fact that the seventh trumpet has sounded, antici- pate the fulfilment still to be actually expected, the signs also described in both parts of ver. 19 are not the real execution of the final judgment, but the immediate preparations and adumbrations thereof. The temple of God in heaven is the place where God’s final judgments of wrath upon the world issue ;7 the ark of the covenant, present therein, is the heavenly symbol and pledge of the immutable grace of God, because of which the blessed mys- tery ® promised through the prophets to believers whom he has received into his covenant, shall undoubtedly be fulfilled. If, therefore, after the blast of the seventh trumpet, the temple of God is opened so that the ark of the covenant beconies visible, the door is opened, as it were, for the final judg- ment proceeding from® the most secret sanctuary of God concerning the
CHAP. XI. 19.
1 Cf. xxii. 9.
§ Cf. fii. 12, vil. 15, xiv. 15, ete.
® In order to explain the conception of this entire view, we need not recali the Jewish statement: “ Quodcunque in terra est, id etiam in coelo eat” (Sohar, Genes., p. 91 in Schdts- gen; De Hieros. Coelesti, sec. 2; Hor. Hebr., p. 1206). Jobn speaks of a heavenly temple, altar, ark of the covenant, with the same right as of a heavenly throne, seats of the elders, etc. But the introduction of the Jewish fabie, that
in the last Messianic times, the real lost ark of the covenant, which, meanwhile, has been con- cealed in heaven, will again be brought to sight (against Ewald),—of this there is no trace in the text.
¢ Hengstenb. Cf. already Beda, Aret.,
Calov., ete. § Ebrard. 6 Hengstenb. 1 Cf. xiv. 15, 17, xv. § eqq., xvi. 1, 17. 8 x.T. ® Cf. xix. 2.
882 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. :
godless world, and the sight of the ark indicates that the fulfilment of the hope of sharers in the covenant, pledged by it, is now to be realized. For on this account, also, there are threatening foretokens! of that which at the execution of the judgment actually comes upon the antichristian world.* So also Klief.
The older allegorists, from whose mode of exposition Hengstenb. and Ebrard deviate in ver. 15 sqq., advance here also the most wonderful propo- sitions. N. de Lyra refers the whole to the victory of the Goths, and other Arians under Narses. The seventh trumpet-angel is the Emperor Justin II. —In Calov. and other older Protestants, who, however, recognize the pro- leptical character of vv. 15-19 less distinctly, the reference to the Papacy coheres with their view of the succeeding chapters. The ark of the cove- nant (ver. 19) is applied by many to Christ, while C. a Lap. and the Cath. want to refer it especially to the Virgin Mary, yet without denying the refer- ence to the humanity of Christ. — Eichh., Heinr., etc., find here the literal destruction of Jerusalem, and, accordingly, tlte complete victory of Christi- anity over Judaism —2in connection with which +. évy dpyicd., ver. 18, is explained: “Judaism offered difficulties to Christian discipline,” ® and the BaoiAcboer, x.7.A., ver. 15, is interpreted: “It shall come to pass that the Chris- tian religion shall be oppressed by no other;” the Gpovrai, x.1.A., ver. 19, indicate the ruin of the city. Grot. maintained his reference to the times of Barcocheba‘ by such interpretations as that of Baodeboe, «.7.A., ver. 15: “The Christian religion will always be in Judaea;” or on ver. 18: “ By this, Christians who were in Judaea were commanded always to elevate their minds to the highest heaven where God dwells, where the ark of the cove- nant, i.e., the good things of the new covenant, are kept in store.”
Nores BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXVIL Ver. 1. rdv vadv rod Oecd, «7.1,
Alford argues at length in criticism of Diisterdieck’s interpretation, by which the measuring is referred to the literal and earthly Jerusalem: “I would strongly recommend any one who takes that view, to read through the very unsatisfactory and shuffling comment of Diisterdieck here; the result of which is, that, finding, as he of course does, many discrepancies between this and our Lord’s prophecy of the same destruction of Jerusalem, he is driven to the refuge that while our Lord describes matters of fact, St. John idealizes the catastrophe, setting it forth, not as it really took place, but according to its inner connection with the final accomplishment of the mystery of God, and correspondently with the hope which God’s O. T. people possessed, as contrasted with the heathen power of this world which abides in ‘Babylon.’ But if ‘ Babylon’ is the abode of the world, why not ‘ Jerusalem’ of the Church? If our interpreter, maintaining the literal sense, is allowed so far to ‘idealize’ as to exempt the
1 Cf. vill. 5. 8 According to Calov.’s interpretation of ra * Cf. xvi. 18 sqq., where hail also is again @vy as referring to Catholics. mentioned. 4 Cf. xi. 13.
NOTES. 833
temple of God itself (ver. 1) from a destruction which we know overtook it, and nine-tenths of the city (ver. 18) from an overthrow which destroyed it all, surely there is an end to the meaning of words. If Jerusalem here is simply Jerusalem, and the prophecy regards her overthrow by the Romans, and espe- cially if this passage is to be made such use of as to set aside the testimony of Irenseus as to the date of the Apoc. by the stronger testimony of the Apoc. itself [so Diisterdieck from Liicke], then must every particular be shown to tally with known history; or, if this cannot be done, at least it must be shown that none contradicts it. If this cannot be done, then we may fairly infer that the prophecy has no such reference, or only remotely, here and there, and not as to its principal subject. Into whatever difficulty we may be led by the remark, it is no less true that the 26d 9 ayia of ver. 2 cannot be the same as the dA § peydAn of ver. 8. This has been felt by the literal interpreters, and they have devised ingenious reasons why the holy city should afterwards be called the great city. . . . Diisterd.: ‘Because it is impossible in one breath to call a city ‘holy,’ and ‘Sodom and Egypt.’ Most true; then must we not look for some other city than one which this very prophecy has called most holy?’? He understands the vadc r. @eod and its @vowacripiov as referring to “‘ the Church of the elect servants of God, everywhere in this book symbolized by Jews in deed and truth. The society of these, as a whole, is the vdoc agreeably to Scripture symbolism elsewhere, ¢.g., 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, and is symbolized by the inner or holy place of the Jerusalem temple, in and among which they, as true Israelites and priests unto God, have aright to worship and minister. These are they who, properly speaking, alone are measured ; estimated again and again in this book by tale and number, —partakers in the first resurrection, the Church of the first-born.”’ Gebhardt, however, while emphatically rejecting Dister- dieck’s literalism, restricts the measuring to Jewish Christians (p. 258): ‘Can we still understand ‘the holy city,’ ‘the great city,’ to be Jerusalem in a purely local sense? No; the city is Jerusalem, but, as frequently elsewhere, it is at the same time the representative of the Jewish people. The seer was to ‘measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein;’ i.e., as Christians generally were protected from the trumpet and vial plagues (vii. 1-4), so should Christians out of Israel be protected from the judgments which were to come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people (compare Matt. xxiv. 15-18). On the contrary, the court without the temple was to be ‘left out,’ for it was given to the Gentiles, and they should tread the holy city under foot forty aud two months; i.e., the judgments already predicted by Daniel will barst in upon the non-christian, unbelieving Jewish people. Whether John, by its being given to the Gentiles, and their treading it under foot, had in mind the destruction of Jerusalem, the words do not expressly say.”’
834 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER XII.
Ver. 2. xpdge, So A, Elz., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. %: xa? xpavec [W. and HL]. The well-attested reading «al Expafew (C, 2, 3, al., Primas, Andr., Vulg., Syr., Matth. — but without «a?,— Lach.) is apparently, like the ill-attested Expater, a modification. Also in ver. 4, Primas, Vulg., substitute the imperf. for ofpe, — Ver. 5. Instead of the most generally supported dppeva (x, Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch. 1854), Lach., whom Tisch. 1859 and LX. follows, has written, in accord with A, C, dpcey. The incorrectness (De Wette) of this so strongly attested reading is not greater than, €.g., xi. 4; besides, the preceding and suc- ceeding 7d réxvov may, to an extent, explain the incorrect combination vldy dpoev, in which the one conception appears to be in a certain apposition with the other. — Ver. 6. The Hebraizing (cf. fii. 8, vii. 2) éxez after érov Eye: (A, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Compl., Plant., Genev., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch. [W. and H.}) is alto- gether absent in C (Elz., Lach.); but even if one wished to admit of no intentional avoidance of the Hebraism, the accidental omission alongside of éyet appears easy. — Ver. 7. Tod moAeuijoa: wera. So Beng. already, according to decided witnesses. The modification érodéugcay xard (Elz.) has no critical authority whatever. In ® the tov is lacking, but only by an oversight. In-_ dorsed by Tisch. IX.— Ver. 10. ¢BAjén. So A, C, &, 2,4, al., Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: xareBA, — xa:vyopoy atrovs, A, 28, Erasm., 1, 2, 8, al., Beng., Lach.. Tisch. The well-attested airay (C, x, Elz., Griesb., Matth.) is suspicious because of its regularity; cf. Winer, p. 191.— Ver. 12. riv yiv xal ri Oadaccav, Unattested is the manifest gloss: roi¢ Karocxotat Ti y. xal riv Oud, (Elz.). But even the reading, indorsed by Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach. (small ed.), Tisch., 1854, rj yj «. r9 Oadaooy (B, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Aeth., edd. Compl., Plant., Genev.) appears to be a modification (cf. viil. 18), while the accus., proposed by A (especially tyv dyanyy x, Tv GaA,) and C, commends itself just by its difficulty, and has been received besides into the Elz. recension. Treg., Lach. (large ed.), and Tisch. 1859 and IX. [W. and H.], have the accus., which is by no means inexplicable (against De Wette). x interprets: el¢ r. y.— Ver. 17. The éxi before rg yur. (A, &, Elz., Tisch.) is lacking in C (Lach.), and is at least suspicious. — Ver. 18. éorady. See on ch. xiii.
The fulfilment of the mystery of God impending, x. 7, in the days of the seventh trumpet is celebrated by the inhabitants of the earth as having already occurred } after the seventh angel, xi. 15, has sounded his trumpet, but is not actually shown as yet to the seer; nevertheless, he has already (xi. 19) beheld such signs as cause the expectation of that end. That this, together with his eternal glory and blessedness, cannot come without pre- ceding divine judgments, is self-evident,? and is indicated also at the close of
1 In a proleptical way. 3 Cf. vi. 10.
CHAP, XII. 1, 835
xi. 19, by threatening signs. xi. 17 also refers to the infernal nature that is operative in human hatred to Christ and his believers, and with respect to which, no less than to human antichristianism, the Lord comes to judg- ment; but if that judgment for which the Lord comes is to be otherwise stated with correct fulness and proof, not only must the most profound satanic basis of all antichristianism incurring the judgment be first dis- covered, but also the most essential forms in which this enters the world from the ultimate foundation of satanic antichristianism must also be stated. The former occurs in ch. xii.: Satan, who had in vain persecuted Christ himself, turns with his antichristian fury against Christ’s believers.! Ver. 1 sq. onueiov. An appearance whereby something is described, and thus revealed to the seer, onpaivera:.2 In the most general sense, any appear- ance beheld by John might be called a onyeiov (nix) ; but although such vis- ious as vi. 3 sqq., viii. 7-ix. 21, are, therefore, in no way of an allegorical nature, because in themselves they describe things just as the prophet regards them as real (real shedding of blood, vi. 3; real famine, vi. 5 sqq.; real quak- ing of the earth, and falling of heavenly bodies, and other real plagues), the onueiov in this passage (cf. ver. 8, xv. 1) has in it something allegorical, — since the context in itself manifests this, and marks it by the particular expression onyeiov, — inasmuch as, by the form of the woman that is beheld, it is not the person of an actual woman which is to be represented. — yéya, “‘ great,” i.e., of large appearance, and, accordingly, of important signifi-
| cance. — doom. Cf. xi. 19. —éyv 7H oipars. Heaven is the locality where 4
signs bringing a revelation manifest themselves to the seer. So, correctly, De Wette and Hengstenb., only that the former ® ascribes to John a repeated inconsistency in reference to the standpoint, — which is regarded as being, from xi. 15, again in heaven, but afterwards (xi. 18) is imperceptibly trans- ferred to the earth, — while Hengstenb. repeats the error:7 “To be in the Spirit, and to be in heaven, is the same,” with which the explanation, “ What the seer sees belongs not to sensuous, but supersensuous, spheres,” by no means properly harmonizes. The latter remark is allied to the false interpretation of the év ra obpavp, attempted in a twofold way, according to which the é r, ovp. is understood with reference to the yvv7,* or the dpixwy, ver. 38 °— yf —rexeiv. Whether and in what way the Church is to be understood by the woman, cannot be inferred until the close of the entire vision,!° since the partic- ular pointe of the text condition the meaning of the whole. The emblematic description (epiBeBAnuévy — dddexa) represents the woman who is just about bearing, ver. 2, in a heavenly brilliancy reminding us of the manifestation
1 Cf. ver. 17. 2 Cf.i.1. ® Eichh.: “In the alr, or, as commonly said,
§ Cf. xv. 1, 3; Matt. xxiv. 24; Acts vi. 8, vili. 13; John i. 61, v. 20, xiv. 12.
4 Cf. iv. 1.
& Cf. v. 1 aqq., vi. 1 eqq., vill. 1 aqq., ix. 1 aqq., x. 1, xi. 15 eqq.
6 Cf. x. 1. 1 Cf. iv. 1 aqq.
3 Calov.: “What is signified by the things which John saw in heavenly majesty is fulfilled in the ecclesiastical heaven.” Ct. Vitr., Beng., Auberlen, p. 282.
the extreme region of the air; for that same place is to be assigned by the poet to the ‘woman, as was believed to be that of the demons, good and bad, whom he wanted to produce upon the scene.” Cf. Grot.: “In the centre, between heaven and earth. In the matter signified, this means that heavenly and earthly causes mutually concur.”’ 10 See on ver. 17.
886 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. -
of Christ? and of God. 2— repsseBanuévy rdv fasov. Clothed with the sun. The idea resembles that of Ps. civ. 2,8 only that in this passage the description is more concrete, since it is not light in general, but the more definite and perceptible sun, the heavenly body radiating all light, that appears as the dress of the woman, — not “as breastplate, and, accordingly, as an integrant part of the clothing.” The zepiZ. r. fasov allows a definite allegorical inter- pretation as little as the two other features of the description, «at 4 ceAzvy droxatw tov rodcw atrig and xal emt rig xegadnc abrig orépavac datépwy dddexa, Only that the definite number twelve of the stars is conditioned ® in a similar way by the number of the tribes of Israel ;* as in i. 16, 20, the number seven of stars by the number of particular churches. The reference to the twelve apostles 7 is incorrect, because the woman appears at all events as mother of Christ, ver. 5, and accordingly cannot admit of emblems whose meaning presupposes not only the birth, but also the entire life and work, of the church. For the same reason, the allegorical interpretations of the Arc, as referring to Christ himself as “the sun of righteousness,” ® and the ceAgvy as referring to “the teachers who borrow their light from Christ,” ® or to “the light of the law and. prophets far inferior to the light of Christ,” 1° are to be rejected. Hengstenb. regards the sun and moon as emblems of the uncreated and the created light, which has in itself as little foundation as it stands in harmony with the (correct) reference of the twelve stars to the tribes of Israel; this applies against, Beng., who understands by the sun the Christian empire and government, and by the moon the Mohammedan power whose insignia is the crescent. The allegorical interpretation also of the moon, which is “under the feet of the woman,” attempted with various modification,! show their arbitrariness already by the fact that, in one way or another, they disturb the symmetrical relation to the other fea- tures of the description, which, as a whole, has only the intention of display- ing the holy and glorious nature of the woman from her heavenly form, whereby the individual features of the poetic description are as eminently beautiful as they are naturally striking. For the form of the woman itself appears clothed with the sun, and in the clearest radiancy; she stands also on a body of light, the moon; while a crown of stars—and that twelve— encircle her head also with a peculiar brilliancy. — The woman is with child (tv yaorpt Exovoa), and, besides, as the further description immediately after- wards says more explicitly, just about to be delivered (cf. ver. 4 8q.): “She cried travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered ” (xpdges ddivoves, x.7.4.)-12 [See Note LXVIII., p. 857.]
1 1.13-16. Cf. especially ver. 16: 4 dys avr. 11 Beda: “‘The Church of Christ, girdled
ws 0 HALOS, «TA, with light, treads under foot temporal glory.” 2 iv. 3. Vitr.: ‘Because, mutable things in religion 8 avaBadrAdmevos hus ws iuariov. being abolished, an immovable kingdom has 4 Ebrard. followed.” Of. C.a Lap., Herd., ete. Ebrard: 5 De Wette, Ebrard, Hengstenbd., ete. **The moon is the night vanquished by her; 6 Cf. vil. 4 aqq. the stars are the lights enkindjed by her in the
7 Beda, C. a Lap., Stern, Aret., Vitr., etc. night, which vanquish it.”
8 Andr., Beda, N. de Lyra, C.a Lap., Stern, 12 Concerning the loose connection of the Aret., Grot., Calov., etc. inf. rexety with Bacaycfoudra, of. Winer, p. 306
® Calov. 20 Grot. 8qq.
CHAP. XII. 3, 4. 887
Vv. 8,4. By another sign now becoming visible, the mortal enemy of the woman and her child, i.e., the devil, is described to the seer. The idea of the devil (cf. ver. 9) as a dpdcwy1is based upon Gen. iii.,8 to which the connection of 6 dpaxuw 6 péyac With 6 dpi 6 apy., ver. 9, and the interchange of the expressions 6 dpéxwy and 6 dg, vv. 13, 15, clearly refers. The great size of the dragon may be inferred from his dreadful power ;® he appears to be fiery red, either “ because fire *is the symbol of destruction and corruption,” 5 or “ because he is the dvépwroxrévoc ax’ dpyie,’’ © and also “is intent upon the murder of the child of the woman, as well as the murder of all believers; "7 in favor of the last is especially the circumstance that the representation of the devil is given with concrete distinctness, viz., with respect to the Romish seo- ular power which is drunken with the blood of the martyrs. The objection that muppoc is not blood-red ® is not pertinent.?° — tywv xegadds — érra duadqpara. . The two questions as to in what manner the ten horns on the seven diademed heads should be regarded as distributed, and what is the proper meaning and reference of these heads, horns, and diadems, inseparably cohere, but are not to be answered from the context of ch. xii. alone, but only from ch. xiii. compared with ch. xvii. Upon a mere conjecture depend the views of Vitr., that the middle head (i.e., Diocletian) bore all the ten horns (i.e., governed ten provinces); and of De Wette, that three heads had double horns. The opinion also of Bengel, received by Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc., that one of the heads, viz., the seventh, bore all ten horns, cannot be derived from xvii. 12. — With respect to the meaning of the heads, etc., only a few among the older allegorists have misjudged that since the seven heads, ten horns, and ten diadems are common to the dragon and the beast furnished with power from the same, ch. xiii., the interpretation there given by John himself must regulate the explanation also of ch. xii. The devil manifestly appears as the proper author, working in the deepest foundation of every antichristian being, in such form as corresponds to the form of the beast, i.e., of the anti- christian power actually entering this earthly world, and serving the dragon as an instrument. Without any support, therefore, are all such expositions as that of Tirinus, who understands the seven heads of the dragon as the seven deadly sins.1!_ But De Wette’s proposition also to explain the heads as an emblem of sagacity, and the horns of power, and the numbers seven and ten as the well-known mystical numbers without precise significance, in no way satisfies the analogy of ch. xiii.; the numbers also maintain their definite application in ch. xiii. (and ch. xi), and, therefore, cannot be taken in similar indefiniteness as that of the rd rpirov r. dor, directly afterwards in ver. 4. It is 13 the antichristian secular power of the Roman Empire which is beheld in
1 Cf Kidduschim, p. 20, 2 b.; Wetst.: “A demon appeared to him in the form of a dragon having seven heads.”
3 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3.
8 Cf. ver. 4: «x. } ovpa, x.T.A.
* Cf. ix. 17 sqq. 5 Ebrard.
6 John viil. 44.
7 Vict., N.de Lyra, C.a Lap., Aret., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
8 Cf. xvii. 4, 6. ® Ebrard.
10 Cf. on vi. 4.
11 “ The pride of the lion, the greed of the tiger, the luxury of the bear, the gluttony of the wolf, the evmity of the serpent, the wrath of the viper, the indolence of the ass.’
12 Cf. already Vict.
838 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ch. xiii. under the form of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast;? and, be- sides, the precise number of heads, horns, and diadems was based upon the historical relations of that empire ;* according to this is to be understood the analogous and, as it were, archetypal appearance of the dragon working by means of that secular power.* Erroneous, therefore, are all the explanations which, instead of the concrete reference to the Roman Empire, either intro- duce extraneous specialties,‘ or keep to indefinite generality. The latter applies especially also against Hofm.,® Hengstenb., and Ebrard, who by a false explanation of properly adduced passages, xvii. 9 and ch. xiii., and by an incorrect comparison of the ten horns of the dragon with the ten (still future) kings, xvii. 12, understand the seven dragon-heads of the seven phases of the godless secular power; but the ten horns, which (improperly) are regarded as on the seven heads, of the tenfold division of that ultimate seo- ular power. Among the older allegorists, Calov. has correctly received the reference as made to Rome, but perverted it by not explaining the seven crowned dragon-heads from the relations of the imperial succession,’ but by regarding thei as designations of the seven forms of government received in the entire history of Rome.* The corresponding original form of the dragon must also be understood according to the standard, derived from chs. xiii. and xvii., of the beast in the service of the dragon, through which the Roman secular government with its emperors is symbolized. The ten horns correspond to ten personal rulers, who as emperors stand within the horizon of the prophet as possessors of the Roman Empire: (1) Augustus, (2) Tibe- rius, (3) Caligula, (4) Claudius, (5) Nero, (6) Galba, (7) Otho, (8) Vitellius, (9) Vespasian, (10) Titus. Thus also in xiii. 1 the ten horns of the beast, each of which bears a diadem, are meant; but in other respects the same fundamental view in chs. xiii. and xvii. is not applied and carried out with entire uniformity. The idea that one of the seven heads is mortally wounded, but again healed, applies indeed to the beast of ch. xiii., but not to the dragon; and both descriptions, chs. xii. and xiii., are distinguished from the statement of ch. xvii. especially by the fact that in the former a genuine emperor, the last possessor of the Roman Empire, and ten kings still to come, who are distinguished throughout from those indicated by the ten horns of chs. xii. and xiii., come within the sphere of the prophecy ; while, on the other hand, ch. xvii. makes no further reference to that which is designated in ch. xiii. by the mortal wound of the one head, than by the inequality, common to all three chapters, between the number fen of the
1 Cf. Dan. vil. 7.
3 Cf. xili. 1, xvil. 9 qq.
3 Cf. Grot., Wetst., Ew.
4 N. de Lyra: “ Khosroo, the Persian king, hostile to Christianity, Is the seventh head; the six others are vassal kings; the ten horns, divisions of the army.” Cf. also Coccej., Beng., etc.
5 Beda: “‘ The devil armed with the power of the earthly kingdom. The seven heads = all bis kings; the ten horns «= the whole king- dom.”
¢**The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes; the dragon has seven heads as a sign that his power {s not indivisible; but the num- ber of the powers into which his kingdom is dispersed is that of divine possibility. But his horns, I.e.. the instruments of his strength, are ten, according to the number of human posai- bility.” Weiss: U. Er/., i. p. 349.
? Cf. xvii. 10, xill. 3.
$1. Kings. 2. Consuls. 8. Decemvirt. 4. Military tribunes. 5. Dictators. 6. Caesars. 7. Odoacer, or even the Roman pontiffs.
CHAP. XII. 8, 4. 889 horns and seven of the heads. The seven heads are expressly designated as seven kings, i.e., emperors; John also says that the sixth is present.! This peculiar relation between the number “ten” of the emperors and “seven” of the emperors, can only have the meaning which is indicated in another way also by the healed mortal wound, viz., that only with seven wearers of the diadem is the actual and true possession of the government found, — according to which a horn is to be regarded as on each of the seven heads of the dragon (and of the beast, xiii. 1),2— while three among the ten wearers of the diadem, viz., the three chiefs, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, by their rebellion possessed only an ‘‘uncertain and, as it were, unsettled im- perial power.”® The three horns, which recall these three usurpers, are on one of the seven heads neither in the dragon nor the beast. Where they are to be regarded, is not to be inferred in the same way from the idea of the forms of the dragon and the beast as the position of the seven (crowned, xiii. 1) horns on the seven (crowned, xii. 3) heads; if John himself had had @ precise view of the position of those three horns, he might have regarded them — corresponding to the historical condition — as between the fifth and the sixth crowned heads. —xai 4 otpa,x.r.A. By a highly dramatic stroke John portrays she track of the dragon, as by moving his dreadful tail hither and thither, he tore away a large (the third, viii. 7 sq.) part of the stars of heaven, and cast them down to earth. An undoubted adumbration of this description is Dan. viii. 10, where a horn that grew up to heaven cast down the stars. But in John the dragon appears ¢v ré obpavp, like the woman, ver. 1; the more readily suggested, therefore, is the conception, that while in an eager rage he lashes about his tail, it casts down from heaven the stars which it strikes. An attempt at false allegorizing lies in this feature of the description, in the fact that the seven heads, etc., have certainly a precise figurative reference; but the circumstance already that the numerical state- ment 7d rpirov, ver. 4, is to be taken only schematically, while the numbers ver. 8 are to be taken with literal accuracy, gives the description another character. The allegorical explanations offered® could be only arbitrary and fluctuating, because they depend entirely upon the error that they seek for a definitely ascribed prophetic thought, where the text gives only the expressive feature of a poetical description; a feature, however, which is im- portant and characteristic in the entire presentation of the dragon, because thereby, in a way corresponding to the nature of dragons ® and the visionary
1 xvii. 10.
The diadems are found, with the dragon, on the heads; with the beast, on the horns; corresponding in the one place to the number seven of actual emperors, and in the other to the number ten of all possessors of the govern- ment.
8 Cf. Bueton., Veep., i.
¢ Cf. Eichh., Ew.
5 Cf., e.g., Beda: “It indicates the strength and malice of the enemy, who by deceitful arts, as though with hie tail, cast down an innumerable part of angels or men.” Aret.: “The tail is the end of time—the Papacy, for
to this the Roman Empire at length degener- ated.” Vitr.: ‘“‘ The devil, through the emper- ors of Rome, persecutors of the faith, caused the teachers of the goepel to be disturbed.” To like manner, Grot., who refers the ovpa to Simon Magus, who led astray the third part, not only of Christian people, but also of the people. Calov., Beng., Stern, etc.: “‘ The vic- tory of earthly rulers.” Ebrard, etc.: ‘“‘ The seduction of the angels.” The best still, De Wette: “‘ Violence perpetrated in the kingdom of light.”
6 «‘ Dragons have their power, not in their teeth, but in their tails”? (Solin, 30, in Wetat.).
840 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
locality (é 1. obpavp), the rage and eagerness of the devil appearing as a dragon are made visible. — The dragon has in view, above all things, the child who is about to be born of the woman; he puts himself! before the travailing woman, in order that, when she have given pare, he may devour the child.
Vv. 5,6. The child is born, but rescued; the woman also flees. —viav dpcev. The expression, without regard to its peculiar incorrectness,? reminds us of the 13! 13, Jer. xx. 15,® but is still more emphatic in the prominence given the male sex of the child, since the grammatical reason, rendering possible the harsh agreement of the masc. viéy and the neut. dpcev, lies in the fact that the dpoev appears as a sort of apposition: “a son,a male.” The intention of this emphasis, which De Wette improperly denies, is not that of designating the child as victor over the dragon,‘ but ® points to what is added concerning the child immediately afterwards; 8¢ péArec wow, x.r.A. These words taken from Ps. ii. 9 (LXX.), which are referred also to Christ in xix. 15, make it indubitable that the child born of the woman is the Messiah ; * but the designation of Christ by these words of the Messianic Psalm is in this passage? the most appropriate and significant, since the fact is made prominent that this child just born is the one who with irresistible power will visit in judgment the antichristian heathen. By the words of the Psalm, John, therefore, designates the Lord as the épyéuevoy, who, as is especially kept in view by ch. xii., will also come with his iron rod upon the Gentile- Roman antichrist. As, therefore, John by the words of the Psalm desig- nates the child in a way completely corresponding to the fundamental idea of the entire Apoc., and points to the ultimate end in the Messianic judg- ment, he at the same time discloses the reason why Satan lays snares chiefly for the child, and then also for the woman and believers; and why especially the Gentile-Roman empire — whose insignia the dragon wears, and which is the means of his wrath — persecutes believers in Christ in the manner de- picted further in what follows. Thus the designation of the child shows the significance of the entire vision, ch. xii., in its relation to.what follows. The result, however, is also that all the expositors who regard the child born of the woman as any thing else than the Messiah, and that, too, in his con- crete personality, miss the surest standpoint for the exposition of the entire ch. xii., and with this the correct standpoint for the comprehension of ch. xiii. sqq. This applies especially in opposition to all those who, however much they diverge in details, yet agree in the fundamental error that they regard the child as Christ, only in a certain metonymical sense, by under- standing it properly, speaking of Christ living in believers, and thus of believers themselves. Thus Beda: “The Church is always, though the
1 Concerning the natural presupposition ly- 4 “6 Victor over the devil who had conquered ing in the éorneey, cf. Plin., H. ¥., viti.3: “It the woman” (Beda). propels its body, not by manifold bending, as § Cf. Beng., Hengetenb., etc. do other serpents, but by walking high and ® De Wette, Rinck, Hengstenb., Ebrard, erect, in the midst’? (Wetst.). etc.
* See Critical Notes. 7 As also xix. 15.
3 LXX.: dpeny, without vids. ® xii. 17, xiil. 1 agg.
CHAP. XII. 8, 6. 841 dragon opposes, bringing forth Christ.” — “The Church daily gives birth to @ church, ruling in Christ the world.” Cf. C. a Lap., Aret., Calov., who gives the more specific definition: “The bearing of the woman” refers to the “ profession of the Nicene faith, and the sons born to God by the Church in the midst of the persecutions of the Gentiles,” Beng., Stern., ete. Grot. also: “The dispersed from Judaea, among whom were Aquila and Apollos, instruments of the catholic Church, brought forth many of the Roman people unto Christ.” Eichh., Heinr., Herd., etc., who regard the child as a sym- bol of the Christian Church, proceeding from the Jewish, belong here. — xa? ipracén. The expression makes clear how, by a sudden withdrawal,! the child is delivered from the immediately threatening danger.2— mpoc rdv Gedy xal rpdc, Tov Opévoy abrot. It is made emphatic not only that the child is drawn up to God for preservation, but also that this is the surest, and at the same time most exalted, place of refuge. The allegorical interpretation of the second half of ver. 5, by those who do not acknowledge in the child the Messiah himself, must have an entirely reverse result. N.de Lyra ® contents himself with the idea of the “deliverance of the Church;" even to him Beda’s interpretation * may have been too perplexing. The rationalistic expositors also, who share with these churchly expositors the fundamental error concerning the réxvov, uselessly amend one another. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, ete., have referred the 7prxdcdn, x.r.A., to the Lord’s ascension, and, according to this, understand by the persecution on the part of the dragon ® “all that was done on the part of the Jews against Christ ‘until his death,” the entire state of humiliation, to which the state of exal- tation even to God’s throne has succeeded.? But the feeling concerning this, that this conception does not correspond with the character of the statement in the text, has asserted itself in Hengstenb. Before the xa? hpraoén, he says, it is to be remembered that the dragon continues his perse- cution, as, according to the gospel history, it has occurred from the tempta- tion until the death on the cross.* “This addition is urged by ver. 4: for how was the one, who, already before the birth, stood before the woman, in order to devour her child as soon as it was born, not to incessantly continue his persecution ? and it is required by the ‘and it was caught up.’” But neither this addition, nor the exposition based thereon, is allowable in accordance with the text; for the textual idea is that the child immediately after birth is caught up to God’s throne. This ideal representation is related to the actual history of Christ, just as the ideal allusion to the judgment impending upon Jerusalem, xi. 1 sqq., to the actually future fact; the fact
1 Acts xxili. 10; Jude 28.
$ Vitr., Hengstenb.
8 Cf. Aret., C. a Lap., ete.
¢ “Godleasness cannot apprehend Christ spiritually born in the mind of hearers, for the reason that the same one reigns with the Father in heaven, who aleo has raised us, and made ug ait in heavenly places with Christ.”
6 Cf. Eichh.: “‘ The Christian Church hav- ing proceeded from Judaism received, under
~
God's protection, ite growth and increase;” with Grot.: ‘Simon seduced so many at Rome that a Christian people no longer appeared there. They who do not appear with men are said to be with God.”
€ Cf. John xiv. 30.
T De Wette.
8 Hengstenb., Ebrard.
® Cf. Luke iv. 18: dxpc xa:pod, and John xiv. 30.
842 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
as such is as little prophesied there, as in this passage the proper history of Christ and its precise epochs are mentioned,! but in both cases the histeri- cal reality serves only for the firm concrete basis of the idea, which is the main point of consideration. No historical fact corresponds to the propheti- cal-ideal representation of the dragon, which watches for the birth of the Messiah, in order to immediately devour the child; but the snares on the part of Herod, and the murder of the infants at Bethlehem, may have given an occasion for the conception of the view, whereby John figuratively repre- sents the mortal enmity of Satan to the Messiah. No fact in the history of Christ corresponds to the gpxdoGy 7d réxvoy, x.7.A.; but the fact of the Lord’s ascension offers, as it were, the colors with which to paint the ideas as to how inexpressibly glorious is the preservation of the child from Satan, and how completely the latter, with his persecutions, is confounded. Both sub- jects under consideration here, Satan’s mortal hatred to the Lord (and, there- fore to his saints, xii. 17, xiii. 1 sqq.), and, in connection with this, Satan’s inability to touch the Lord (and, accordingly, the final judgment on every thing antichristian, and the glorification of believers), are here placed in view.
What, after the withdrawal of the child, is further attempted on the part of the dragon, or what now possibly occurs with it itself (cf. ver. 7. sqq.), cannot be properly stated (ver. 7 sqq.) without giving an account first of the fate of the woman. This occurs in ver. 6, which briefly anticipates ? what is described more minutely in ver. 14, and that too on the basis of ver. 7 sqq.;8 for not until the dragon, with his wrath directed above all things against the child itself, is completely confounded, does he turn against the woman, ver. 18 eqq., and when she flees, then against the rest of her seed, ver. 17, in order to vent against them, as believers in Christ, that rage with which he could not reach the Lord himself and the woman. But what instruments the dragon employs, in order to attack believers with the hatred which is, in fact, directed against the Lord himself, is shown immediately afterwards in xiii. 1 sqq.
bzov—éxei?. Cf. ver. 14, iii. 8, vii. 2. — hrocuacpévoy Gro 1, 0. “on the part of God,” divinely. Cf Winer, p. 847 sqq.— iva txel rpéguow airiy, x.7.2. The final clause depends upon the #rou. dnd r. 6.3; the éxe? refers, therefore, to the place in the wilderness; cf. the parallel words, ver. 14 (ei¢ r, réxov abryc, Sov rpégerat éxel, x.7.4.), where also the personally fixed rpégera: (sc. 9 yuv7) explains the meaning of the rpégworw airy taken without a definite subject.‘ See, in general, also in reference to the schematic determination of time, on ver. 14.
Vv. 7-12. Not only is it in vain that the dragon lays snares for the child (ver. 5), but he is now cast down to earth by Michael and his angels, who begin a battle with him and his angels, —a crisis which, in its salutary sig nificance for believers, is celebrated by a loud voice in heaven giving praise, but which also, as the cry of woe indicates, makes the whole earth the scene
1 Against Auberlen, p. 277, etc. 8 Against Ebrard. See on ver. 14. 2 Vitr., Ewald, De Wette, Hofm., Heng- 4 Cf. x.11; Luke xii. 20. stenb., Auberlen.
CHAP. XII. 7-12. 843
for the rage of the dragon cast upon it. — xa éyévero réAepoc by tr. obp, The conception that the dragon pursued the child even to the throne of God (ver. 5), and that this is the cause of the struggle which arose, not only has no foundation in the context, but is also inconsistent with what is said in ver. 5, because the x. #pmic6y declares that the child, by its being caught up to God and God’s throne, is completely secured from any further pursuit on the part of the dragon. The idea, also, that the dragon also made only the attempt to seize the child from God's own hand, is in itself not possible. But in the struggle which now arises, it is not Satan, but Michael, who appears as taking the offensive. After the dragon did what is described in vv. 8, 4,—and after the child was in complete security,—not only the dragon who had attempted the attack on the child, but also his angels, are driven out of heaven. The very circumstance that in ver. 7 the discourse is not only concerning the dragon, but also concerning his adherents, points to the fact, that the bold undertaking of the dragon (ver. 3 sq.), the most extreme to which his antichristian nature brings him, furnishes Michael and his army of angels the immediate occasion, on their part, for laying hold upon the dragon and all his angels, and casting them out of heaven. —é rp otpav@. For at this place the dragon is; cf. ver. 8. Every allegorical] inter- pretation*® brings with it a confusion of the context in details, and as a whole. Cf. also ver. 8.—6 Mcya#A. The opinion of Vitringa, urgently advocated by Hengstenb., that Michael is not an angel (according to Dan. x. 18, xii. 1, the guardian angel of the O. T. people of God, according to Jude 9 an archangel), but Christ himself, or, as Hengstenb. prefers to say, the Logos, miscarries — even apart from Jude 9, where the express designa- tion, 6 dpxydyyeAoc, according to Hengstenb., is as little a proof against the divinity of Michael, as the declaration of the Lord (John xiv. 28) testifies against the homoousia of the Son—by its being altogether impossible to regard Michael (ver. 7) and the child (ver. 6) as one and the same person. In this passage, also, Michael the archangel ® appears as the leader of the angelic army (xa? olf dyy. atrov), with which he contends for the Messiah and his kingdom. — rod woAeujoa: werd r. dpax., «.7.A. Just as undoubted as is this reading according to the MSS. at hand, is its obscurity in a grammatical respect; since the gen. infinitive rod roAeujoat, in connection with the words 6 Mey. xa of dyy. abrov, is without all analogy in the Greek of the LXX. and the N. T. The seeming parallel, Acts x. 25, is distinguished from this pas- sage by the very fact that there a proper grammatical reason is present,‘ while in this passage the connection of the gen. infinitive rod moAeujoa: with the subj. 6 Miy., «.r.A,, admits of no grammatical explanation whatever; for neither the analogy of passages like Isa. xliv. 14, Jos. ii. 5, is applicable where the inf., introduced by 7, stands in definite dependence upon a pre-
1 Eichh., Herd., De Wette, Stern. , . 8 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hofm., Ebrard, 9 Beda: “In the Church, in which he says Auberien, ete. that Michael with his angele fights against the 4 Ae the genitive infinitive clause, in which devil, because, by praying and ministering his the subject enters gs an acous. (rou eiceAOeiy aid, he contends, according to God’e will, for rd» [lérpev), depends upon the expressly im- the wandering Church.” personal ¢ydvero.
$44 THE REVELATION OF S8T. JOHN.
ceding idea, and where the LXX. also place a finite tense, nor is the supply- ing of the words “had war,” upon which, then, the rod wodev. is regarded as dependent,’ allowable. If it were possible from the éyévero xéAcuoc to supply an éyévovro before 6 Mey. xai of cyy. air.,* or if the éyévero dare be regarded as extending to 6 Mrz.,* the rod noAcujoa: would then be correctly added. But that twofold conception is so doubtful as to constrain us to the opinion that our text is defective or corrupt. As a sensible conjecture; the Elz. read- ing, éroAéuncav, commends itself, since the ros before the infin. may be re- peated from the preceding atroi, and the change of the sodeujou into the form of a finite tense is without difficulty; but if the rod oAeujoa of the MSS. be correct, —and its difficulty favors it,—a finite tense immediately before, upon which this rod wodeu. depends, may have fallen out, possibly évéornoay or #Agay, or the like, since the essential meaning is manifestly that which the versions express.’ The conjecture is most probable, that the words mdAeuoc tv rp obpav are nothing but a marginal note that has entered into the text, made in order to mark the noteworthy contents of the pas- sage;® if these words be regarded as absent, the connection of the rov rod. with the xat tyévero 6 Muy. x. of dyy. abrov does not seem difficult, since the geni- tive of the telic infinitive ® correctly depends upon the idea of the movement lying in the éyevero.1°8 This conjecture has in its favor, that the reception into the text of the doubtful words méAeuor év 7H obpavp is incomparably more probable than the falling-out of a finite tense before rod wod.; it is also to be considered, that, as in what follows, the éroAéunce is formed only according to the chief subject 4 dp., the same phraseology is probable also in the first clause. Moreover, while it would have been difficult for John to have writ- ten 6 Muy. xat of Gyy. abrot éroAéunae, — for the siug., after xat ol dyyeAo abrot had preceded, would have been unallowable in the style of the Apoc., and be- sides, in connection with the following, éroAgunce appears to be still more monotonous than the éxndéunoav even of the Rec.,—the éyévero, on the other hand, in immediate connection with 6 Mr. xa? oi dyy. meets all requirements, and commends itself especially by the fact that it gives the meaning that the attack proceeded from Michael and his angels.
Ver. 8. Properly, after the full contents of the subject 4 dp. xal ol ayy. abrod have preceded, the plur. form Zcyveav ! is now introduced, although the sing. érodéunoe (ver. 7) stood in express relation only to the chief subject 6 dpaxwv. The sense of the xa? ot« Eoxvoay is like the Heb. phrase veh n>, Gen. xxxii. 26; 1%
6 1 Against Ew.: “It must be fought by |§ How very ueual were brief declarations in the
them.”’ Bleek, Zul. MBS. concerning the contents, is extraordina- 2 Hengatenb. ' rily manifest if the long series of lists of con- 8 Cf. Meyer on Acta x. 25. tents be read which occur In cod. & in the Book « Cf. Liicke, p. 454. of Acts. Cf. Nov. Text. Gr. ex Sin. Cod., ed. § Cf. Winer, p. 804. Tischendorf, Lips., 1865; P., lxxxii. A similar ¢ Liicke, De Wette, Winer, p. 807. annotation is, ¢.g., Isa. xxx. 6. * Vulg.: Praellabantur. ® Cf. Acta fll. 2, 12. 8 Nevertheless, e.g., Andreas — who, more- %© Cf. Acts xx. 16, xxi. 17, xxv. 15; Luke x.
over, has the suspicious words in the text— 82; John vi. 25, 19.
gives the section (vv. 7-12), the title: wepi rod 11 Of., directly afterwards, réwo¢ — avrev.
woAdyou rey ayydAey cai rwv Saudmwv, «.1.A, is LXX.: ob duvaras wpds avrév.
CHAP. XII. 9. 845
Ps. xiii. 5;1 Gen. xxx. 8:3 “They could not prevail.” — odd rémoc ebpeon atriv tr: dy rQ obpav@. The otdé® puts a second negative expression by the side of and opposite to the first, so that the meaning of the connection can be explained: Not only the dragon and his angels could not prevail, but he could no longer maintain his place in heaven: he is conquered in heaven and cast out of heaven. This idea Hengstenb. himself indicates in an entirely rationalistic way, by explaining, according to the accepted funda- mental statement: “Every thing mighty is placed in heaven,” ‘ as follows: “That Satan could not maintain himself in heaven, simply means that his power is broken, — broken, according to ver. 11, by the blood of Christ, whereby the forgiveness of sins is obtained, and thus his most dangerous weapon is wrested from Satan.” On the other hand, a preposterous dog- matizing on this verse appears in Hofm., Ebrard, and Auberlen, who here find the presupposition, that until then,® Satan with his angels have actually had their place in heaven, make a comparison with the coming-forth of Satan in Job i., as though it were an historical fact, and, at the same time, explain from Zech. iii., that the business of Satan in heaven is that of accus- ing. But this idea, impossible in itself ® to considerate Christian feeling, is gathered from the text only by the ascription of objective reality to that which is indeed improperly regarded a pure fiction,’ yet to which only the reality of the vision belongs. The real truth on which the visionary con- templation of the discomfiture of the dragon, after the withdrawal of the . Messianic child, depends, is—as may be explained from ver. 10, but in no way from ver. 11*— the Christian fundamental doctrine of the conquest of Satan and his kingdom by Christ, the Redeemer and Lord of the kingdom of heaven; but the subject treated in this passage (as also in vv. 8-6) is no doctrinal definition, but only the illustration, extending to the deepest foun- dation, of the rage of the arch-fiend against believers. Against them he turns (ver. 17 sqq.), after he has pursued in vain the Lord himeelf (ver. 4 sqq.) and the woman; the earth becomes the theatre of his wrath, after he has been cast thither from heaven, and that, too, as one vanquished, so that even believers can overcome the already overcome enemy, let him rage as he may. The description, vv. 7,8 (and 9), portrays an actual, historical or superhistorical, fact, past or entirely future, which was revealed to John by his vision, no more than vv. 8-6 describe actual facts as such; but also in this passage the form of the vision in the mind of the seer seems to be morally conditioned by his remembrance of the fact, firmly established in biblical revelation, of the overthrow of the fallen angels. In itself, and as such, this fact has nothing to do with the present connection; but in the mind of the seer, the particular conception which he here expresses clothes itself in the form of that fact. [See Note LXVIII. (6), p. 859.]
Ver. 9. xa? é8a%6q. After the circumstantial designation of the subject
1 LXX.: icxvoca wpde abréy, Auberien: During “ the entire world-period.” $ LXX.: xai aburdcOny, Ebrard. ¢ Which, especially in Ebrard, 8 So Winer also (pp. 457, 572) writes. appears utterly inconceivabie.
4 Cf. Isa. xiv. 12. ? Against Heinr. and other rationalists.
5 Until the ascension of Christ (ver. 5). 8 Against Hengstenb.
846 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
has been given, the verb is repeated, and then receives also the more accu- rate determination, éfA, ele riv yzv. The aggregation of designations describe the nature and activity of the enemy as completely as possible; which is appropriate for the reason that thereby it is,on the one hand, indicated what believers have to expect from this enemy now working against them on earth,! and, on the other hand, it is said that this enemy, even though his hostile activity be so various, yet is already a thoroughly conquered adver- sary.? Firat stands the designation 4 dpdxuy 6 uéyac, as that of the subject given by ver. 8 sqq., with which the other designations are connected as appositives: 6 b¢c 6 dpyaior, with an allusion to Gen. iii.,2 whence also the rabbinical expressions *3i01P9 WN and we wWrIN)4 are derived. —64 nadovpevoc duiBoroc, x.r.A. The dG Bodor stands here with the 6 «adotpevor in a like manner as an appellative, just as in xx. 8 with dS, dor; while, on the other hand, the 6 caraydc, because of the art.,5 appears in both places as a proper noun, like 4 déBoAor also in, e.g., xx. 10. The definition added to 6 oar., ViZ., 6 rAaviy r. olx. 64., which is not altogether intelligible from what is said in ver. 1, but refers to the antichristic activity of Satan ® described in ch. xiii., shows us on its part that the entire present account has its peculiar intention and meaning, not so much in itself, as rather in its connection with what follows.”
Vv. 10-12. A loud voice in heaven ® celebrates the victory which has just occurred before the eye of the seer, over the adversary of Christ and his kingdom (vv. 10-12a), as one in which believers also are to participate, ver. 10; but this voice proclaims, also, woe to the whole earth, because the dragon cast out upon it will make use of the short time given him for his wrath (ver. 125). — dpri, “ now,” since the victory over the dragon, ver. 8 aq., as also the conclusion from ver. 10, dr: éGA., «.7.A. once again expressly emphasizes. —éytvero 4 curnpia, «tA. Incorrectly, Hofm.: “God and his Anginted have established their salvation and their power.” Also De Wette, who properly refers to xi. 15, is incorrect in his remark: There is with respect to the ouwrnpia a sort of zeugma or mingling of thoughts; the sen- tence, “ Salvation is God,” vii. 10, xix. 1, becomes in this connection: “ Now it is shown that the salvation is God’s.” De Wette, as also those who have wished to change the meaning of 4 owrgpia, has correctly felt that it is just the idea of the owrnpia whereby the mode of statement in this passage appears more difficult than in the entirely similar passage, xi. 15. But pre- cisely as the divas and the BaoiAzia, 80 also the curnpia, i.e., salvation in the specific Christian sense, — not “ victory,” ® which owrgpia does not mean, — is beheld with complete objectivity. The salvation, like the kingdom, the strength, and the power, has now become our God’s, since the dragon in heaven has been overcome; now his salvation, his power, his kingdom, are no: longer attacked and injured by the violence of the dragon up to this time unbroken, and his power not yet overcome. This is the precise mode of the
1 Of. ver. 12 sqq. 3 Cf. ver. 10 aqq. © Cf. especially xill. 14, xx. 8, 10, 3 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8. ¥ Ver. 17 aqq. ‘ Cf. Schdttgen. ® Cf. xi. 15, 12.
§ Which Ew. lnoorrectly wants to remove. ® Eichh., Ew. i.
CHAP. XII. 10-12. 847
presentation, along with which the other view also co-exists, that it is essen- tially and alone God’s salvation, power, and kingdom which God seizes,’ or which becomes God's. The individual ideas are very significant; 4 owrypia is the salvation, not only inasmuch as saints are thereby delivered,* — this reference is necessary, nevertheless is too narrow, — but ® the sum total of all righteousness, blessedness, and holiness, as they have been prepared for the creature by God through his Christ, the owr#o, but have been prevented from reaching the same by the dragon, the antichrist. The divaus, the power of God, has been manifested in his victory over the dragon;‘ the @aozAeia, ““where God’s majesty shows itself,”* is the royal glory of God,® which is peculiar to him as the possessor of unconditioned power, and which he dis- plays especially in creation and the imparting of salvation.’ The éfovoia is ascribed to God's Christ, because it is the definite, supreme power ® peculiar to God’s Christ as such.® The reason for the ascription of praise, dor: éyévero, x.7.4., lies in what is reported in vv. 8,9; for the entire undertaking of the dragon !° was nothing else than the truly antichristian attempt to frus- trate the owrnpia, to bid defiance to the divas of God, to oppose his BaorAeia, and to bring to naught the éfoveia of Christ, ay, Christ himself. From a new side, not at all touched in ver. 8 sqq., and also very remote from that presentation, is the overcome adversary designated by the appellation 6 xarf#yup r. ddeAg. hu, «7.4, The form of the word is Hebraistic: Wrup. Precisely analogous is the rabbinical designation of Michael as the N1°30, the ovvizyup, i.e., ovrvizyopoc, advocate, of the godly.24_ In the later Greek there is also the analogous form d:éauv for didxovoc.18— riv adeApor fyov. The brethren of those by whom, in a loud voice, the song of praise is raised, are undoubtedly believers in the earthly life, for only they could be exposed to the accusation on the part of Satan; but an inference as to the designation of the heavenly persons who speak of believing men as their brethren is not to be made: it can in no way be decided as to whether the adoring voice proceeds froin the angels,!* or from the twenty-four elders, or perhaps from the already per- fected saints,15— who, however, would not be regarded as saints only of the O. T.16 The idea of a perpetual? accusation of the godly on the part of Satan,!® which occurs neither in the N. nor the O. T. as an express doctrinal article, is derived and formulated by Jewish theology from Zech. iii. and Job i., 11.19 The N. T. contains an allusion to that conception only so far as the names ordinarily used in the N. T., 6 duioroe and 6 caravdc, also 6 dvrixel-
1 Cf. (xi. 17) the +. dvv. cov in connection éf. is used with respect to definite supreme
with the eiAndas. authority lying in a commission, office, etc. * Beng. Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. 10 Ver. 8 aqq. 8 Cf. the similar passages vii. 10, xix. 1. 11 Cf. Bchotteg. « Of. Beng. 12 Of. Wetst. 1% Beda, etc. - 5 Beng. 14 Ew. (., ete. 7 © xi. 15, 17. 13 Ew. ii., according to vi. 4 #qq., vil. 9 aqq 7 Cf. 1. 6, v. 10. 16 Beng.
§ Of. xill. 2, where é¢. stands for the definite 17 Hudpas cai wuards. Of. iv. 8. supreme power existent in a commission, office, 18 Sohar Levit., p. 48: “He alwaye stands otc, as accuser before the king of Israel” (in ® Cf. xiii. 2, where ¢f. is with Svvayis; vi. Schittg.). 8, ix. 8, xi. 6, xiv. 18, xvil. 19, xx. 6, where i Cf. examples in Schdttg.
848 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. uevoc, according to their original significance, point back to the same. In the latter circumstance, sufficient scriptural ground for receiving the accusing activity of Satan in dogmatical seriousness can be acknowledged only if the Scriptures were elsewhere to show expressly that they advocate such definite sense for that name already firmly fixed. But this occurs neither in Jobi., ii., nor in Zech. iii. ; for the former mythically fashioned passage does not treat at all of a peculiar accusation, while, according to the nature of the subject, objective reality does not pertain to the vision of the prophet. Scripture, therefore, does not give us a doctrinal article, which would be just as incomprehensible to Christian thought, as the idea of an actual abode of the devil and his angels in heaven.! But as there, so also here, every allegorizing interpretation of the text is to be rejected,? and it is to be decided, according to the analogy of Scripture, that the idea of a perpetual accusation of believers by Satan, derived in its concrete formation from Jewish theology, makes no claim of objective truth, but is to be regarded as a point of the prophetic conception founded in the individuality of John. Ver. 11. Kai abrot évixnoay abrov. That the atro: refers to r, adcAgav fu. and, therefore, those accused by the dragon (6 xarny. adroic, ver. 10), but not the angel Michael (ver. 7), are here represented as those who have con- quered § the dragon, results not only from the words in themselves, which do not allow an immediate reference of the atro? to a subject in ver. 7, but also from the manner of the conflict and the victory indicated, which does not at all agree with what is described in ver. 7.4 From the identity of those accused in ver. 10, and contending in ver. 11, it does not follow, however, that the idea of évixgoay abrov is: “ They have won the case against him,” as Beng.® wishes; but the idea of the »xav here is the same as everywhere in the Apoc., which regards every kind of temptation which Satan has pre- pared for believers as a mighty conflict,‘ and therefore every confirmation of faith as a victory over the arch-enemy.’ On the fundamental conception, 1 John ii. 18, 14, is to be compared, although, as the form, so also the refer- ence there is different. The perf. vevujxare rov xovnpov describes the life of faith then existing in Christian young men, as having for its foundation the victory obtained over the wicked one by faith itself; the aor. évixycay avrdyv, however, by placing the victory ovet Satan as a definite fact entirely in the past, is said by a prolepsis similar to that whereby, in vii. 9 sqq., believers are beheld in a proleptical vision after the victory has been won.® In fact, the évicgoay is applicable not until the conflict lasting unto death, requiring the surrender of life in fidelity to the cause,® is actually fought
1 Cf. ver. 7 sqq.
2 Against Beda: “He suggests both that they abuse prosperity, and in adversity do not have patience.” De Wette: ‘Satan is at the same time wicked lust and the bad conscience.”
* Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
* Cf. the closing words of ver. 11.
5 Cf. Rom. iff. 4. © Cf. ver. 17.
* xv.2. Cf., in general, the m«ay in the epietie, chs. ii., iil.
8 When Kilef. here opposes a prolepais, this must be taken together with the fact, that, understanding the woman (ver. 1) as Ohris- tianity of tho last times, i.e., of believers men- tioned in ver. 11, purified by suffering, he finds in the entire vision a representation of actual circumstances and events of the end. In this sense, he considers, e.g., the victory of Michael (ver. 7) as the execution of the moral victory previously gained by believers (ver. 11).
® Cf. close of ver. 11.
CHAP. XII. 11. 849
through, and the garment washed in the blood of the Lamb! has been kept pure in spite of all the temptations and persecutions on the part of Satan. But although the worshippers know that the conflict against the dragon still in reality impends over their brethren on earth,? yet they can celebrate the victory of believers as one already gained, because the victory won over Satan in heaven * has rendered him an overcome enemy also to believers on earth. Since thus the victory still in fact to be won by believers — to which properly all the consolatory language of the Apoc. refers —is celebrated by these heavenly voices as already obtained, the strongest encouragement is given believers. Hence ver. 11 appears not as a “digression,” * but is in every respect appropriate. — dia rd alua rod dpviov, x.r.A, On account of the &a With the accus., the blood of the Lamb and the word of testimony of believers appears not as the means (dé with gen.), but as the reason or cause on account of which the victory is won. This form of the presenta- tion is no less suitable than the former;® but in the first member da 1d-aiua 7, dpv., the latter corresponds much more accurately with the inner connec- tion, sustained by ver. 11, to what precedes. Entirely analogous is the relation in iii. 21 between the 6 wadv, « 7.A,, and the d¢ xayd évixnoa, «.rA, The victory of believers on earth is based upon the victory won over Satan in heaven; the peculiar truth, however, in what is reported from ver. 7 on, and in the closest connection with ver. 5, — that, viz., which, beneath the shell of the occurrences beheld, must be properly understood as the actual cause of the victory for believers on earth, —is Christ’s victory over Satan. This victory the Lamb has won over the dragon by shedding his blood. The blood of the Lamb is therefore the cause of the victory of believers.¢ In the same way the statement is added: xa? da rdv Adyov ri¢ uaprupiac abruv. Here we would expect the gen., because the testimony given by believers presents itself most simply as the means whereby they conquer. De Wette is inclined to assume this mode of representation by “a sort of zeugma,” which he tries to maintain in the dd. But the da with the accus. has its complete justification, because the word of the testimony of believers, like the blood of the Lamb, can appear as the objective ground of their victory, since it is the word of the testimony given by believers with all fidelity even unto death,’ yet, also, at the same time, the word of such testimony as be- lievers have previously received, which they now have as the condition of their victory beyond and above themselves. Thus the word of testimony has also an objective side, according to which it appears, like the blood of the Lamb, as the ground, not as the means, of their victory; while, on the other hand, the blood of the Lamb can be considered the actual ground of the victory only when the subjective side, viz., the believing participation in this blood, or the being washed thereby,® is kept in mind. — cat ox hyé-
1 Of. vil. 4. dpy.: “*By Christianity established by Christ’s * Cf. ver. 12, and, besides, ver. 17. death, which was aleo an example to them.”
3 Ver. 7 eqq. 4 De Wette. " This is the meaning of the ara» with 5 Against De Wette. 7. A. Te LAPT.
6 Utterly preposterously Ew. rationalizes by 8 Of. ver. 17. remarking on the dvinycay avr. ba tT. alua Te ® Cf. vil. 14, i. 5; Var. Lect.
850 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
nnoev, x.rA. The not loving their souls, i.e., readiness to surrender life replacing dyp: Gavarov.1 As faithful witnesses, therefore, they suffered death, and just by this, like the Lord himself, won the victory.®
Ver. 12. Aci rosro. We cannot regard the ground of joy for the heavens, and those dwelling therein (of &y atroic canvoivrec are only those whose actual place of abode is the heavens, and who there, as the expression oxnvoty indi- cates, have glorious rest disturbed by no woe or conflict,® but not also believers on earth, as Hengstenb., by a false comparison with Phil. iii. 20, Eph. ii. 6, explains), to be both the casting of the dragon out of heaven (ver. 9), and the victory of believers (ver. 11), but only the former ;® for although ver. 11, in connection with ver. 10, proleptically celebrates the victory of earthly believers over the dragon, based ‘upon the heavenly victory over the same, the affair is displayed here as it is in reality; to the heavenly beings alone belongs the pure joy, while woe is proclaimed to the whole earth and all its inhabitants, even to believers on earth; for just these have now to struggle even unto blood with the enraged dragon. — ota? riv yi, x.1.A. The accus., which in Greek® as well as in Latin occurs regularly in exclamations, is unusual here only so far as it stands with otai, which is otherwise usually combined with the dat. — riv yhv nal rv 024. In opposition to the heavenly world,’ the entirety of the earthly world is designated, in connection with which there is no reference to the relation of the two particular parts as such; much less is any allegorical interpretation admissible.* — dr: xaréin, x.r.A, Reason for the cry of woe: the earth and sea are to be the theatre for the activity of the devil, now allotted to this sphere, who will give vent to his great wrath the more as he knows that he has only a brief time. Instead of the 43467; a xaréBy naturally occurs here, because, as a dreadful activity of the enraged enemy is portrayed, it is more appropriate that it should not be expressly marked that the descent of the enemy is involuntary. — Exyuv bvydv uéyav. The great wrath belonging to the dragon because of his antichristic nature, he has shown already (ver. 4). By the overthrow de- ascribed in ver. 7 sqq., this wrath can only be inflamed anew. To this is ’ added the fact, that the dragon knows that only a short time is allowed him. To identify this dAzyov xapév with the 3} days mentioned in xvii. 11 “as the time of antichrist,”® is as arbitrary as the reckoning of Bengel, who takes “the short time,” as somewhat longer than the 8} times (ver. 14), i.e., equal to four times, or four times 2224 years, and regards the period from the year 947 to the year 1886. But in the meaning of the Apoc., the shortness of the time given Satan for his antichristian work on earth, depends simply upon the fact that “the time is at hand,” or that the Lord is soon mine to judge Satan together with his instruments.’°
Vy. 18-17. The dragon, cast down to the earth, pursues first the woman
2 Cf. 1.10; Phil. . 8. 8 Against Beng., who understands here ey
* Cf. iff. 21, i. 18, v. 5, vi. 9. “ earth and sea,” Asia and Europe. Cf. Heng-
® Cf. xifi. 6, vil. 15, xxi.8. Beng.,Ew., De stenb., who regards the sea as the sea of Wette. nations.
* Beng. 5 De Wette. ® Ebrard.
* Cf. Matth., Aua/Girl. Gramm., sec. 427. 10 Cf., in general, 1. 8, xxii. 20; especially
T Cf. vil. 2 8q., v. 18. xvii. 11, xx. 1 eqq.
CHAP. XII. 14. 851 fleeing into the wilderness; but as she also, like the child (ver. 5), is deliv- ered from his snares, he turns to the conflict against the rest of her seed.
Ka? ére eldev. The dragon, finding himself cast upon the earth, must first perceive that thereby all his persecution of the child itself would become impossible; so he employs himself with pursuing (édiwée, aor.) the woman, just because she was the mother of that man-child.}
Ver. 14. Already in the édiuke rpv yur. (ver. 18), lies the presupposition afforded by the preceding account (ver. 6), concerning the flight of the woman; but now as the subject is properly concerning the fate of the woman, that which in ver. 6 is touched upon only in the main point, and by antici- pation, is expressly described. For ver. 14 does not speak of something entirely different from ver. 6,—as Ebrard thinks, who finds in ver. 6 the flight of the woman to heaven, i.e., the emblem of the dispersion of Israel on earth, but in ver. 14 the flight into the desert on earth, i.e., a miraculous deliverance of converted Israel on the actual earth; an interpretation which already fails, in that, in ver. 6, it takes heaven together with the wilder- ness misplaced therein by Ebrard figuratively, but in ver. 14, on the other hand, the earth (cf. ver. 13), in the proper sense, while the wilderness found in the same must again be understood figuratively, although it is manifest that all these local designations must, at all events, be understood in the same way, — but that ver. 14 gives the proper execution, and that, too, in the natural place of the connection, of that which was shortly before in ver. 6 removed not without reason,? results from a comparison of the two verses. Precisely the same is the goal of the flight; the réro¢ air#¢ in the wilderness is the place prepared there for the woman on God’s part;* the same in meaning are the schematic dates —for the determination of 8} times, i.e., years (derived also, according to the expression,‘ from the figurative passages, Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7), agrees with the 1,260 days (ver. 6);5 the same, also, as to what is meant with the brief fguyev eig 7. &p., «.7.4., ver. 8, is the detailed description, ver. 14: xa? éd6@nc0av— iva wétnrat el¢ tr. Ep., «1.4, The certainty of the flight arranged by God depends upon the fact, that to the woman two wings of a great eagle are given, in order that — for such is the inten- tion of God in his deliverance, by causing wings to be given the woman — she might fly to the place prepared for her on God’s part in the wilderness. The idea itself has grown by the plastic art of the writer of the Apoc. from the figure given in Exod. xix. 4:° As God. formerly bore his people, when they fled from the Egyptians, on eagles’ wings, so, for her sure escape, a pair of eagle’s wings is given the woman fleeing from thedragon. Yet it dare not be said that the art. rod 4., rod pey., makes the eagle named here appear identical with that mentioned (Exod. xix. 4),° for in that figurative passage a par-
1 yrs. Cf. the accurate use of this relative place in the wilderness; there she remains
also, ix. 4, ili. 24, xix. 2, xx. 4.
2 Beng., Ewald, De Wette, Hofm., Heng- stenb., Auberlen.
3 The pres. rpéperat, whose definite relation Ewald, Hofm., etc., try to invalidate, is just as intelligible as the pres. ¢xe:; ver. 6. In the meaning of John, the woman ie present in her
concealed during the entire time of trouble for believers (cf. ver. 17), which continues for just three and one-half times.
« Cf. Winer, p. 167.
8 Cf. also xi. 2, 3.
® Cf. also Deut. xxxif. 11; Ps. xxxvi. 8.
7 Zall., Ew. i.
852 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
ticular eagle is not designated. Ewald’s former opinion, also, that the art. in the Hebrew way? designates superlatively a very great eagle, is not admissible, because the analogy —even though it corresponded better than is actually the case — would give only a purely superlative idea.* Ebrard has developed from his view, that the art. designates the very eagle men- tioned already in viii. 18, the thought that “the rescue of the woman would follow in the moment when the final extraordinary developments of the fifth and sixth trumpets are to begin;” or, us he also says, that the woman “shall be sustained by the strength of the eagle which is to bring judgment upon the godless world.” But even apart from the two interpretations, lying at the basis of the false presumption that the soaring of the woman away into the wilderness is, according to fact and time, to be entirely distin- guished from the escape into the wilderness, neither the one nor the other interpretation is possible, because in this passage that eagle cannot be meant, which in viii. 138 appears for a very special end, and one entirely foreign to what is stated in this passage. What is said can be concerning no particular eagle; the art is intended generically,* as i. 1.4 Two wings, like those of the great eagle, were given the woman, for rapid and sure escape. On this account, also, we are not to think of the eagle mentioned in Ezek. xvii. 8, 7, where, in a parable, the kings of Babylon and Egypt are represented as eagles; the thought accordingly developed by Auberlen ® from this passage, that the secular power itself— more specifically, “the two parts of the Roman Empire in the East and West, especially since Constantine ” — must afford the woman, i.e., the Christian Church, a secure place by means of Roman civil and legal order, is consequently with as little foundation in the phraseology of the text, as the point of vision in general, which this form of exposition assumes, corresponds with the intention and contents ef the entire ch. xii. —iva réryra: ele rv Epnuov, x.r.A. As the nature of the escape, viz., by flying on eagle's wings, so is also the place of refuge described ' according to the model of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt in the wil- - derness. To the privations incident to the abode in the wilderness, the éxov _ tpégerat, «.7.A., does not refer;® the only point made, is that the place pre- pared by God in the wilderness, for the fleeing woman, is a sure place of refuge against the persecution of the dragon, and that—as God formerly nourished his people in the wilderness —the woman would be nourished in this place of refuge, during the time determined on the part of God. — dnd mpoownoy tov dgews. This determination is not to be combined with the remote érqra:’ but with the immediately preceding émov rpég-ras, x.7.A.,® and, therefore, to be explained like the Heb. °J50, Judg. ix. 21:° “out of the sight of the serpent,” i.e., far and concealed from it. No addition is to be made,
1 Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. xvii. 14.
2 ** The absolutely great, f.0., the greatest.”
8 De Wette.
4 3a rod ayy. avr, 5 Cf. Aret., Beng.
© Against Hengstenb., etc., who, like Auber- len, wante to find it indicated that the “time of the Church’s desolation,” 1.e., the “ entire
heathen-Christian, or Church-historical pe- riod,” is only a time of ptigrimage to the glory of the heavenly Canaan.
t Vitr., Zul).
® Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb.
© LXX.: épvyey—xai gaeycer txei amd wpo- curov ‘AS.
CHAP. XII. 18, 16. 853 at least as Hengstenb. does: “at its flight or in its fear;” the concise mode of statement presupposes the flight as already accomplished, and states how the escaped woman now tarries in security.
Ver. 15, 16. The dragon cannot reach the woman flying on eagle’s wings; and, therefore, casts a stream of water out of his mouth after her, in order to destroy her. But also by this danger the woman remains unharmed, because the earth absorbs the stream. — d¢ xorayév. This description of the great amount of water cast forth by the serpent serves to explain and illus- trate the purpose: iva rairyy rorapyogépyrov nosjoy, “to sink her carried away by the waters of the river,” as Vitr. appropriately explains the word,! not occurring elsewhere in biblical Greek, but otherwise regularly formed. Hesych.? explains the Homeric dxéepoey® by xorayopgipyrov troigoey. — The help afforded the woman imperilled on the part of the earth is described in @ way, ver. 16, which is conformable with the nature of the danger, as well also with the nature of the earth; the earth opens its mouth, and drinks up the stream of water. The idea recalls not so much Gen. iv. 11,‘ as rather Num. xvi. 80, 82,5 since it is thought the mighty flood of water van- ishes suddenly and ineflicaciously in the widely gaping earth. — The ques- tion concerning the genesis of this entire description, vv. 15, 16, is essentially a preliminary question, if it be as to whether a prophecy actually to be fulfilled be found here. The allegorists make the matter too easy by com- paring the water cast forth from the mouth of the serpent directly with the many waters, xvii. 1, on which the great harlot sits, and which are there (ver. 15) expressly explained as a figure of many nations, and who thus reach the opinion that in this passage also the stream of water signifies a stream of people which will roll against the Church, whether they be satis- fied with this general sense,° or more definite references be introduced.” —
1 Cf. the analogous dvenopdpyros.
8 Ed. Alberti, 1. 461.
3 7., iv. 348.
« Zall.
5 dvoifaca 4 yh 7) oTéua abrie xarawiera GQvrous, K.7.A.— Hv0ixOn F yy nai kardmey avr,
© Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. Beda: “The force of persecutions.” Andreas: adéwr ay- Spiey } wornpay Saspovey } wosxiAcry weipacpiy wAqO0¢ [‘‘ the abundance of godless men, or wicked demons, or various trials’’}) coming out of the mouth of the serpent,”’ f.¢., d« mpo- ordynaros avrov [‘‘ by its command ’’], as Vict. already indicates. C.a Lap.: ‘The army of Antichrist.” Stern: “ The flood of godless nations and infernal spirits.”
* Calov.: “(The Arian beretica.”” Vitr.: “The Saracens, who (ver. 16) were defeated by Charles Martel.” Oocoejus: ‘The armice of Maxentius and Licinius, which were de- feated by Constantine the Great, and, indeed (ver. 16: 4 y#), with the forces of the lands in which (ver. 14) the Church had already found a refuge, viz., Gaul and Spain.” Bengel : *‘ The Turks from the year 1058 on.” Wetat.:
“The armies of Cestius and Vespasian.” Hammond: ‘Recent persecutions after the Neronian (ver. 8) on the part of the Romans, who, however (ver. 16), were withdrawn from the Christians by the Jewish war.” Ew. ii.: “The flight of the mother congregation from Jerusalem to Pella.” Cf. Euseb., Z. Z., iti. 5. In connection with this, ver. 16 ie referred to some great danger on the Jordan, possibly an attack by a faction of desperate Jews. Ew. iuterprets the delivering earth, but not more definitely. Auberien: ‘‘ The migration of na- tions, whoee flood, however, is not destructive to the Church, because the earth, j.e., the cul- tured Roman world, received those wild Ger. manic masses within iteelf, subdued their hostility, mellowed them, and won them to Christianity.” But even granting that the allegorical mode of exposition is justified, and that in vv. 15 and 16 definite events of secular history are foretold, is it possible that the writer of the Apoc. could have conceived of the thought that the masses of nations which Satan caste forth against the Church are “ won to Christianity”? This glaring contradiction
804 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. By any allegorical interpretation whatever, we are of course prevented from making of the description in ver. 15 sqq. a prophecy actually to be fulfilled, because of the similar descriptions which precede in vv. 1-6, vv. 7-12, vv. 18, 14, not allowing such interpretation. The stream of water from the mouth of the serpent designates as little something actually occurring in the present or in the future of John as the two wings of the eagle which, in ver. 14, were given the woman; but, as there the escape of the woman is represented with a plastic art, which is developed from the allusion to the QO. T. testimony concerning God's preservation of his people, so John here describes the danger which Satan, in his rage, prepares for the woman still fleeing, in such a way as to form living images from the symbolical mode of speech of the O. T. Entirely remote is any allusion to the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea;? but in passages like Ps. xviii. 5-17, xxxii. 6, xlii. 8, cxxiv. 4, where pressing dangers are illustrated under the figure of great floods of water, lies the origin of the peculiar conception of the Apoc. idea; even its concrete form has a certain analogy in Ps. xvili. 5, where what is said of “the cords of death” and “the floods of ungodliness” is in the same figurative sense as “the cords of hell,” and “the snares of death.” In such views we may recognize the foundation given the fantasy of the prophet, upon which his actual vision is ordinarily based.?
Ver. 17. The dragon, inflamed only to greater rage (xai épyio6n 79 yuva:e?) against the fleeing woman (ver. 16), because of the frustration of his last attack, applies himself to a conflict with “the rest of her seed which keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus.” — For the correct explanation of the expression r. Ao:nayv rob oxépparos airnc, «.r.A, — ahd also for the determination thence, according to the context, of the idea of the yuv7, — we must first of all maintain, against Ebrard, that the onépya abric is not a seed from which also the woman springs, but only the seed spring- ing from the woman, i.e., born of her, can be designated; so that the Avro tov onepu. aurnc could in no way be those “ who belong to the same seed with the woman.” In violation of the context, Auberlen® further judges the Ao. t, ar, avr, to be “the disciples of the Lord who have survived the earlier persecutions” (vv. 13-16); for if the hostility described in vv. 13-16 is directed against the woman herself, not her seed, that hostility remains entirely unsuccessful,‘ so that the subject here cannot be “survivors” in gen- eral. This also against Hengstenb., who concedes two different references: “ The rest are they who survive the hostile inundation in ver. 15, or are not touched by it.” —— A guide to the more specific determination of the Accroi r, orépu. avr. is contained in the words rav rypotvrw» — 'Iyooi, if the sense be cor- rectly stated by Ewald, whom Ziill. follows: “Of those uniting with the
is not removed by the fact that Christianity is to come into consideration “ chiefly, not on its heavenly, but on its earthly side, as a force of civilization *? (Auberlen, p. 207). And with respect to actual history dare it be sald that the Germanic nations were cast forth like a stream of water out of the jaws of Satan, and were swallowed up by the earth? Does it
agree with this, that from this Satanic stream of water the German Reformation emerged? It is a supposition more worthy of being enter. tained, when Aub., p. 800, recurs to the Turks. 1 Against Ew., De Wette, eto. 2 Cf. Introduction, p. 47 aq. . 8 p. 208. 4 Cf. ver. 17.
CHAP. XII. 17. 855
more eager and wholesome study of Mosaic laws firm faith in Jesus the Mes- siah;” but the expression is entirely too general,! than that thereby merely
. Jewish Christians be designated. — The relation, especially presented by
the context, of the statement r. Aonéy rot orépyatos abr., viz., to the man-child which, according to ver. 5, belongs to the seed of the woman as the first- born, has been acknowledged with complete definiteness only by Zull. ;? yet while he has correctly explained only the form, but not, at the same time,» the subject, he enables us to recognize the occasion because of which this most simple contrast of “the rest” of the seed of the woman, and that first- born brother, the Messiah himself,* has not been obvious to expositors, viz., the difficulty of correctly conceiving of the woman in the relation as well to the man-child (ver. 5) as also to “the rest of her seed.” The yurf herself, her vids, and the Aovro? rob orépparoc abric, are three ideas so essentially eon- nected that the misunderstanding of one necessarily hinders the correct explanation of the rest. In general, there is no doubt possible as to the fact that the son of the woman is the Messiah; but, nevertheless, that the Virgin Mary is not on this account to be understood by the woman, — even though the ideal contemplation of the writer of the Apoc. always gives the historical person of the Virgin a certain support, — Andr., in agreement with Metho- dius, has already noted. Any such reference to the person of Mary is ren- dered impossible, on the one hand, by the ideal description of the yvv7 herself, and the events pertaining to her; on the other, by her relation to “the rest of her seed.” By the latter statement —as the Acrrol r. on. abr. is desig- nated not only by the final clause of ver. 17, but also by what succeeds in ch. xiii., as, at all évents, believers in Christ — the expositors are led with essential unanimity to recognition of the fact that the yuv7 desig- nates the “Church,” in analogy with the mode of contemplation, accord- ing to which, in the O. T., the congregation of God’s people appears as the wife of Jehovah, and in the Apoc. itself‘ as the bride of the Lord. If now the question be as to the more specific comprehension of this, in general, obvious idea of the yvv7, as well according to the measure of sig- nificant features in the description of the yvv7 herself,® as also in relation to her man-child, and the rest of her seed; in the first place, all the expositors. err who, in the yuv#, wish to recognize the Christian Church, whether they expressly distinguish it from the Jewish or O. T. Church,® and limit the description to the antichristic period at the end of the world,’ or regard the N. T. Church in essential connection with that of the O. T., the latter not without its N. T. continuation, and both as one inseparable compre- hensive Church.® A characteristic sign that these two modifications of the
1 Cf. xiv. 12, xxii. 14. Concerning the cor- rect meaning of ¢x. 7. papr. Inc., cf., against Ewald especially, vi. 9, xix. 10.
2 “The rest of her seed, the Zionites on earth, In contrast with the child above re- moved.”
8 Cf. Matt. xxviii. 10; Heb. fi. 11, 12.
© xxii. 17.
5 Cf. ver. 1.
© Beda, N.de Lyra, Aret., Hammond, Calov., Vitr., Beng., ete. .
7 C. a Lap., Stern.
8 Victorin., Andr., De Wette, Hengstenb., Aubderlen, Christiani: ‘‘The Church of the last time.” Cf. also the inconsistencies of Coccejus, who, in ver. 14, suddenly speaks of the N. T. Church, although he had referred what preceded to the O. T.; of Eichh., who
856 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
exposition essentially cohere, lies in the fact that men like Vitringa and Auberlen share the error that the twelve stars (ver. 1) refer to the twelve apostles.! But the view that the woman is the N. T. Church, inevitably miscarries in ver. 5; for it is impossible ® to refer the birth of the Messiah to Christ’s attaining life and form in believers.* For this reason,‘ the refer- ence to the O. T. Church has been received; but, on the one hand, the @ difficulty concerning the original exposition arising from ver. 5° is not properly removed, and, on the other, a new difficulty is developed. For, if the yuri be the O. and N. T. Church universal, who are then the Aon. r. on. abr., ver. 17? The opinion of Bleek, De Wette, and Hengstenb., also of Klief.,— according to which an actual distinction could not be made between the woman and the rest of her seed, since the woman herself is nothing but the sum of her children, and by 4 yu-7 the whole, while by of 2otx. r. on. abr. the particular members of the whole, are designated,®— Auberlen’ defends upon the ground that only in this way can it be explained why the dragon who was enraged with the woman turns against her seed. But the text does directly the opposite in offering a distinction between the woman and her seed. The woman (ver. 16) is hidden from injury on the part of the dragon; just because he sees that he cannot reach the woman herself, he inflicts his wrath, which undoubtedly is directed against the woman, upon another sub- ject still within reach, viz., the rest of the woman’s children. Is it not very readily to be understood, if the dragon wishes now to distress the mother by injuring her children? — The yw) who bore the Messiah (ver. 5), aud has- still other seed (ver. 17), can be only the O. T. Church of God, the true Israel.2 John was taught already by the ancient prophetic representation, to ascribe seed to this Church, and to regard her as mother of her children, the believing and godly;® the description, also, in vv. 2, 5, has originated not without an allusion to Mic. v. 1 sqq. But nevertheless, in the writer of the Apocalypse, the view, with all its analogy to the ancient prophetic types, appears peculiarly defined, viz., because he represents heathen Christians (the Ao. r. or. air, Hofm., Ebrard), as belonging to the seed of the woman, and in so far the brethren of the Messiah.° Here John would have a very
already, in ver. 5, inserts ‘‘ the Christian Church
which proceeded from Judaism,” etc.
1 “ The apostolic Church” (Vitr., p. 566).
2 To say nothing as to the propositiun that the “ birth” of Christ may be his return to judgment, as the result of the course of the Christian Church through time, as Kilef. (Zetéschr., a. a. O. §., 647) indicates by under- standing by the yur} the people of God in Christendom. Cf. on ver, 11. e 3 Against Beda, Stern, ete.
¢Cf., e.g., Auberlen, p. 277: “By the woman who bore Jesus, we are naturally to understand the Church of God itn its O. T. form;”’ on the other hand, p. 280: ‘ The Church also in ite N. T. form.”
8 For, the more earnestly the essential unity of the O. and N. T. Church of God is asserted,
the less proper is it to ascribe that exclusively to the first part of this Church which cannot be ascribed to the second part.
© Cf:, ou the other hand, Ewald.
7 p. 289.
8 Cf. Herder, Heinr., Ewald, Ztill., Hofm., Ebrard; also Bleek, Vorles., Volkm., Hilgenf. : “¢ The original Church in Palestine.’’
® Cf. Iea. liv. 1, 18, Ixvi. 8.
20 Volkm., who indorses this explanation, attempts, however, to barmonize this passage with the assumed Judaism of the Apoc. by requiring ns to regard heathen Christians as metics subordinate to the citizens of the king- dom of God. Hilgenf. prefers to keep clear of this distinction here, and te think only of the daughter-congregation in general contrast with that of the Palestinian mother-church. —
-
NOTES. 857
suitable model in Mic. v. 8, as the }‘F}® ‘1 designates the growth of the Church from the heathen, who are added to the mother Church as though born of her seed. For the evangelical-prophetical fundamental view, cf. Isa. ii. 2 sqq.; Zech. viii. 20 sqq.; John iv. 22, ete. Against this conception, it dare not be said, that nevertheless not only believers from the heathen are
. brethren of the Messiah, that consequently beneath the acknowledgment
of the reference of of Aowrol r. oxépy. abr., to the child of the woman mentioned in ver. 5—the Acexof are, in any case, to be regarded Jewish and heathen Christians; for the ordinary view, according to which all believers are brethren of the Lord, is not presented here as certainly as is the ideal person of the yur7, the mother of the Messiah, the O. T. Church of God, in whose complete unity Jewish Christians are regarded as the genuine Israel- ites. [See Note LXIX., p. 359.]
Only now? is the purpose of what is described in vv. 1-17, with respect to what follows, to be clearly recognized. In ver. 17 (ampAoe, x.7.4.), this distinctly comes to light. By the vision of ch. xii., Satan himself is desig- nated as the proper exciter of the wéAeuoc (ver. 17) of the GAiyxc, which be- lievers have yet to expect before the coming of their Lord. And, besides, a specific determination of the wéAeuoc, whose description is here introduced, lies in the fact, that, on the one hand, Satan appears in the form which he had attained in the Roman Empire (ver. 8), as, then, on the other hand, those Christians are designated as the goal of the dragon’s rage who came from the Gentiles to the sonship of Israel (ver. 17), and are to be found within the bounds of that empire. But how Satan now excites war, and what
’ instruments he puts in motion, is made manifest directly afterwards, viz., in
ch. xiii., which begins with the words that in the later editions form the close of ch. xii. (ver. 18).
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXVIIL (a.) Ver. 18q. yuva wepiBeBanptyy, x.7.A,
See the full discussion by Diisterdieck at the close of the chapter, who re- stricts the yur? to the O. T. Church. So Luthardt. Alford marks a transition to another view there stated: ‘‘The whole symbolism points to the Church, the bride of God; and of course, from the circumstances afterwards related, the O. T. Church, at least at the beginning of the viston.’’? Lange very tersely puts the argument for the O. and N. T. Church in undivided unity: ‘“‘ The fact that the woman cannot be referred to the New Testament Church alone, results clearly from ver. 5: the Christian Church did not bear Christ. Holding fast the iden- tity of her in the heaven and her in the wilderness, neither can the woman be significant of the O. T. Church by itself, since the same woman lives on in the wilderness throughout the N. T. period of the cross. The unity of the O. and N. T. Church of God lay, doubtless, much nearer to the contemplation of John than to that of an exegesis whose view is, in many respects, too exclusively
Both are unsuitable to this passage, since bere 1 «The rest of his [the Messiah's] brethren.” the opposition to the recelved anti-Pauline LXX., incorrectly: of dwidowros raw dbeApey Judaism of the Apoc. ise presented. evrer. 3 Of. on vv. 5, 6.
358 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
fixed upon externalities. Though it is impossible that John could have appre- hended the woman as Mary herself, yet the fact was most closely present to his consciousness that this Mary, whose bodily offspring Christ was, was the final concentration of the O. T. theocracy.’’? Gebhardt: ‘‘The Church of God is represented by the figure of a woman in the O. T. (Isa. liv. 1, 13, lxvi. 8; Mic. v. 1-3). The question now arises, whether we are here to understand the Church of the O. T. or of the N. T. From the first verse of the chapter to the last, the woman, without doubt, represents the same personality, and the seer cannot have understood, by the woman, the N. T. Church, in distinction from that of the O. T.: the general statements of vv. 1-6 are against it, nor is this interpretation helped by limiting the meaning of the Jewish Christian Church. On the other hand, it is utterly impossible to understand by the woman, the O. T. Church in distinction from that of the New; for then not only vv. 13-17, but even ver. 6, would be without meaning. What, then, are we to understand by the woman? Simply, the Church of God which already existed in the pro- phetic fact of the old covenant, and which now exists in the time of its fulfil- ment in Christendom, and will exist in its eternal completion in the new heaven and the new earth.”? Beck: ‘‘The woman clothed with the sun designates the heavenly kingdom of God, as it unites in itself as the true Church the O. and the N. T. Church of God as a divine Church-kingdom, in contrast with the adulterous church of the flesh. Already in the O. T. covenant of promise and its believers, this divine Church-kingdom had found its external type and exter- nal preparation; but in the N. T. spiritual institution, with its spiritual gifte and spiritual men, it had found its inner type and inner preparation: finally, in the future new Church of the new earth, it has both its external and inner com- pletion.’”? On the particular features, Gerhard (Z. 7., xi. 34): ‘‘ Clothed with the sun’’ = the righteousness assumed by faith, Mal. iv. 2, and the heavenly glory in which it shall shine hereafter, Matt. xiii. 48. ‘‘The moon under her feet’’ = treading upon all the mutations of earth, and especially heresies which, like the moon, are ever changing. ‘‘Crown of twelve stars” = brilliancy of prophetic and apostolic doctrine. ‘‘ Being in travail’? = pains of spiritual birth (Gal. iv. 19, etc.). Beck regards the sun, as signifying not only the benign in- fluence of the Church in diffusing light and life, but also the glory of the new Jerusalem; while in treading upon the moon, which derives its light from the sun, and is the earthly measure of time and the variable light of the earthly night, he finds portrayed the superiority of the Church above all earthly times and changes, and its eternal lustre uninterrupted by night (xxii. 5; Isa. Ix. 20). So Luthardt: ‘‘She triumphs over night, which for her has passed away.”” On ‘Sin travail,’ see Victorinus: ‘‘ The ancient Church of the fathers and prophets and saints and apostles, which had the groans of its torments and longings, until it saw that Christ had taken flesh.”’ Luther, in 1585, expressed the con- ception of this passage as referring to the Church in ite entire chronological compass, in his hymn, Sie ist mir lieb, der werthe Magd. The two last stanzas have been thus rendered by Massie: — *¢ She wears a crown of purest gold, Twelve shining stars attend her; Her raiment, glorious to behold, Surpasses far in splendor The sun at noon; Upon the moon
She stands, the Bride Of Him who died:
. NOTES. | 859
Sore travail is upon her; She bringeth forth a noble Son, Whom ali the world doth honor; She bows before His throne.
*¢ Thereat the dragon raged, and stood ‘With open mouth before her; Bat vain was his attempt, for God His buckler broad threw o’er her. Up to his throne He caught his Son, But left the foe To rage below. The mother, sore afflicted, Alone Into the desert fled; There by her God protected, By her true Father fed.”
[See also below, Note LXIX.]
LXVILI. (b.) Ver. 7. wédeuog év obpavi
Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, III. 321 sq.): ‘‘In the N. T. there seem to be contradictory expressions. For while, according to Rev. xii. 7 sqq., Satan still dwells in heaven, according to Luke x, 18 he has already fallen from heaven like lightning; and while, according to Eph. ii. 2, the power of the prince of darkness prevails in the air, according to 2 Pet. fi. 4 God has cast the fallen angels into the abyss, and delivered them unto chains of darkness as those who are to be kept for judgment, ahd in Jude, ver. 6, they are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day. On the other hand, they pray (Luke viii. 31; cf. Matt. viii. 20, 31) not to be cast into the abyss before the time, as also, according to Matt. xxv. 41, Rev. xx. 10, only at the final judgment shall they be handed over to eternal fire with its pain. The seeming contradiction of these different forms of statement is explained only by the distinction between the literal and the figurative modes of expression. The dwelling in heaven as the superterrestrial region is a figure, partly of quali- fication for superterrestrial exercise of power, partly of participation in super- terrestrial, blessed life. Since Satan employs the former, even until the day of judgment, he is still up to that time in heaven; but when Christ, as the stronger, came upon him, and despoiled him of his power (Matt. xii. 29), he saw him, like lightning, fall from heaven. ... As long as the kingdom of Satan continues among unbelievers on earth, and his power to tempt believers remains, so also does he still continue to be in heaven; and not until the parousia of the Lord shall he be cast out, and divested of his own power. But, on the other hand, in so far as Satan, with his angels, is excluded from the communion of the superterrestrial blessed life of God, is he from the very beginning at the moment of his fall, no longer in heaven, but in the abyss.’’
LXIX. Ver. 17. pera rév Aocxdy,
Alford: ‘‘ Note, as important elements for the interpretation: 1. That the woman has seed besides the man-child who was caught up to God’s throne, those who are not only distinct from herself, but who do not accompany her in her flight into the wilderness. 2. That those persons are described as being they who
860 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus. 3. That during the woman’s time of her being fed in the wilderness, the dragon is mak- ing war, not against her, but against this remnant of her seed. 4. That by the form of expression here, —these present participles, descriptive of habit, and occurring at the breaking-off of the vision, as regards the general description of the dragon’s agency, —it is almost necessarily implied that the woman, while hidden in the wilderness from the dragon’s wrath, goes on bringing forth sons and daughters thus described.’’ These facts he regards fatal to the view of the flight as the withdrawal of God’s true servants from open recognition. So Beck, who also finds its solution in the doctrine of the invisible Church, and refers to the parallel in Gal. iv. 27. In fact, the entire passage (Gal. iv. 22 sqq.) affords an answer to an objection which Diisterdieck derives from the of Acexo’; for here, as there, the Church, as an Institution regenerating and perpetuating through the word and sacraments a spiritual seed, is a mother; while the indi- viduals belonging to the Church, as the congregation of believers, are the chil- dren. Our author ignores the well-known principle, Omne simile claudicat.
CHAP, XIII. 861
CHAPTER XIII.
Ch. xii. ver. 18. éora67. So Treg., Lach. [W. and H.], also Hofm. (Weiss. wu. Erf. II. 354), after the best witnesses (A, C, x, 92, Vulg., Syr., Ar., Aeth., Ed., Ald.), indorsed already by Mill (Proleg., 1249). The Recepta éora6qv (B., Copt., al., Griesb., Matth., Tisch., Ewald, De Wette, etc.) is, most probably, an accommodation to the succeeding xa? eidov, Cf. the exposition.
Ch. xili. ver. 1. «épara déxa xal xegaddc éxrd, So, properly already, Griesb. The reverse order (Elz.), as xii. 8, appears more natural, —dvoya BAacgnpiac. The singular (Elz., Wetst., Beng.) sufficiently supported by C, &, and other witnesses, which, besides, Andreas has in his text and commentary, is properly maintained by Ziill. and De Wette. The strongly indorsed plural dvdyara (A, B, Verss., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), received already by Griesb., is suspicious as an interpretation. — Ver. 5. Whether xal BAacdnpiac (C, 8, Elz., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), or «. BAacgnuiay (B, al., Beng., Tisch.), or, finally, «. BAacgnme - (A, Lach. ), is to be written, is not to be decided from the witnesses contradicting one another. The reading BAdccenza does not commend itself, because of its conformity with the preceding zeyada. The sing. might merit preference to the plur. (cf. ver. 6, where el¢ BAaognpiac is correctly read, Lach., Tisch.), as a less easy reading. — Ver. 7. The first member of the verse, xat &d60y abt moAcpov rowjoa (E)z., Beng., Griesb.; motjoat xoAeuov, *, Tisch.) werd tov dyiev «al vixzoa avtovc, is lacking in important witnesses (A, C, 12, 14, 92), and is erased by Lach. But the words which occur in B, x, Verss., and whose erroneous omission is easily explained, because the second half of the verse also begins with xal £6607 atr@, are retained with greater propriety by Tisch. — Ver. 8. In- stead of the Rec. ow ot yéyparra: rd dvopuara tu rp BiBAyt.¢., it is undoubtedly more correct to read: 1d dvoua (A, B, C, al.) and év ro PidAip r. ¢ (Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). But the rest of the words also are, with Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], to be changed to ov ob yéyp. rd dvoua abrov tv 7.8.7.0 The - ov occurs in C, Iren.; the atrovin A, C. Also the particularly erroneous read- ing oval, which A has written before yéyp., appears to point back to the reading ov ob yéyp. % appears uncertain, — The rob before to¢ayyu., which is lacking in the Rec., is properly (A, B, C, &) restored by Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.).— Ver. 10. The Rec., ef rue alypadwoiav ovvaeyet, ele dsxpadwoiay briye, which in this form is almost without support, expresses most readily, and, for this reason, in a suspicious way, the meaning which numerous variations in many ways describe (‘‘If any one shall have led captivity, he shall go into captivity’? (Iren.). I reg alypadwrifer, ele alypadwoiav braye, 7. alypadutul, alypa- AwrtoGqcera, 18), and which A gives thus: ef ru ele alyyaduciay, el¢ alypadwoiayv traye (Lach., large ed., Tisch. [W. and H.]). To this last reading the defective form of the text also points, which occurs in B, C, ®, 28, 88: ef reg el¢ alzpaAwciay brayet, for this is manifestly only a mistake which has once omitted the twice- written words ele alyyadwoiav, The corrupt reading in Andr., el reg Eve: alxypade- olay, txayet, is manifestly only the remnant of an interpretation. According to
862 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
the witnesses, therefore, the text given by Lach. and Tisch. is the best. But it is not improbable (cf. De Wette) that the draye also is an interpretation; for the entire sentence, elliptical also in the second clause, would read: ef ru els
- alypadwoiayr, elo alyzadwoiav. — Ver. 12. xal novi tr. y. The pres. (A, C, &, Elz.,
Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), which is certain in ver. 12a and ver. 18, would be unchanged not only in the imperf. (B, Tisch.), but also in the fut. (cf. Griesb., Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of the neuter 5 £y. (&), the extremely remarkable masc. 6¢ occurs not only in A, 28, 33 (Griesb.), but also (cf. Tisch.) in B, C. Lach. and Tisch. [W. and H.] have, therefore, written 8. But since the writer of the Apoc. could have written the masc. neither by a grammatical error (cf. vv. 2, 11), nor possibly because of the reference to a masc. subject, which would be represented by the @yplov (against Hofm., Schriftbew. Il. 2, p. 635; Volkmar. See exposition), the grammatically correct form is to be maintained, although the appearance of the 6¢ in the most important MSS. is inexplicable. Perhaps the masc. (cf. xvii. 16; also xiv. 1, var. lect.) is an attempt at interpretation in the sense of Volkmar. But the interpretation thus indicated is refuted by the context. The reference also to 6 dpaxwy (cf. ver. 8) is here impossible. The neut. necessary for correct exegesis has in its favor also the critical authority of &.— Ver. 15. The iva, which must be expected with éroxtavécow after the oigcy, occurs in A (Lach.) before dco, in minusc. directly before amoxr. (Elz.). That the particle is missing in B, ® (so also Tisch.), is occasioned indeed by the uncertainty of the passage.—Ver. 17. A, B, %, Vulg., al., favor the «a? at the beginning of the verse. The omission (C, Lach., Tisch. IX.) is easily explained, since, as the catena (in Tisch.) expressly says, it is regarded as superfluous.
After the dragon, in order to inflict his wrath upon believers (xii. 17), has come to the seashore (ver. 18), John sees a beast rise out of the sea, which, like the dragon himself (xii. 3), is furnished with ten horns, seven heads, and ten diadems, and already by these insignia immediately makes known that it is an instrument to be employed by him in his war (xii. 17). To this beast the dragon also gives great power and dominion (xiii. 2), and it is permitted to make war against the saints (ver. 7); yet the description of this mighty instrument in the hand of Satan does pot remain without the
. definite encouragement of sure consolation (ver. 10).— Besides the first
beast, still another, which rises from the earth, is presented to the eye of the seer (ver. 11 sqq.). This second beast appears, not as co-ordinate with the first, which is absolutely the beast (vv. 14, 15, 17, 18), but! subordinate to it, an accomplice by means of seductive speeches, and other means of deception, to promote the activity of the first beast, and thus, likewise, to serve the wrath of the dragon. j
Ch. xii. ver. 18. xa: oré6y7. The reading of the Rec. x. éoraény, in a docu- mentary respect decidedly inferior to x. éora6n, is not utterly impossible in an exegetical respect, as De Wette says ;* for there is no contradiction between the orien and the dr7AGe modeuqoa (xii. 17), but in ver. 18 it is directly de- scribed how the dragon, who (ver. 17) turns from the fruitless persecution
1 Cf. Hengstenb. Hengstenb., and Auberlen, all of whom ox- 2 Cf. also Vitr., Beng., ZUJl., Ewald, Bleek, §pressly speak in favor of the Rec.
CHAP. XIII. 1. 868
of the woman to begin a conflict with believers, now stations himself on the seashore, viz., by no means as & spectator,! but with the purpose to call forth the beast from the sea, and to equip him with his power (ver. 2), which he will use as his instrument in the conflict he has now undertaken against be- lievers.2 Against Ebrard, who objects: “Is John to have the dragon stand- ing by the sea, and, besides, see his incarnation rise from the sea? What the dragon commits to the é@npiov are not possessions which he could have transmitted to him visibly. The dragon also no longer comes before us; it is not known whither be has gone,” —#it is especially to be considered, that in ver. 2 the dragon appears on the scene actually and visibly to John, communicates his power, etc., to’ the @ypicov, and that this is in no way an “incarnation ” of Satan, in the sense that he himself could not appear with the beast. Hence, between the djAge rotepjoat, x.7A., xii. 17, and the Eduxev, x.7.A,, xiii. 2, something must interpose, which explains that the anjAge does not declare a complete retirement from the scene of the vision. This interposition is given with exquisite appropriateness by the xa? éordéy, x.r.A., ver. 18. — én riv cupov ric 6aA., because the beast is to come lx rig Oaddoons (xiii. 1).
Ch. xiii. ver. 1. The following hints may serve for the preliminary fixing of points amidst the complication of expositions of the details and of the whole, that cross one another : —
1. The :nterpretation of the beast upon the sea, vv. 1-10, — which appears also in ver. 11-18 as the chief beast, and whose correct interpretation is, therefore, the chief question,— is attempted in a twofold way, as in the beast there is, or is not, found a symbol of the Roman character (worldly dominion and power, the worship of idols, and superstition, etc.). The two chief species of exposition have each, again, two particular forms, which are very distinct. While many expositors in their reference to Rome refer only to pagan Rome,* others have in mind Christian, i.e., papal, antichris- tian Rome * On the other hand, however, many expositors also, who inter- preted neither the entire form of the beast, nor all his individual features, as referring to Rome,‘yet have assumed a reference to papal Rome by re- garding the beast,5 as a whole, as pertaining to the description of the secular power, and have found the appearance of the secular power in the papacy symbolized, at least, by one part of the form of the beast, viz., by one of the seven heads;° while, especially by Catholic interpreters,’ a mode of explana- tion is recommended, which regards the reference to Rome as distant as possible.
2. The exposition is regulated, on the one hand, by the symbol of Daniel; on the other, by the parallel descriptions in the Apoc. itself (ch. xii. 8 sqq. ; ch. xvii.). But with what freedom and independence John both has, in ch.
1 “Was the dragon the spectator, or was 5 A. Ch. LXmmert (Babei, das Tater u. der John?” Vitr. 2 Cf. Hofm.; also Volkm. Sualeche Prophet, Gotha, 1863), depending on
$ Victorin., Beda, Alcas, Bossuet, Ham- Auberlen, has wandered into arbitrary gener- mond, Grot., Wetst., Eichh., Herd., Ewald, alities. De Wette, Lticke, Bleek. ® Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen.
* Cocce]j., Vitr., Luther, Calov, Bengel., and * C. a Lap., Stern; of. also already Andr. many others.
864 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. xiii., fashioned the features derived from the Danielian symbol into a new picture, and also in ch. xvii. again presented them differently from ch. xiii., must be. shown by the explanation of the details, which has thus to seek a decision of the controversy of expositors.
éx rig Oadaconc. The ordinary exposition makes its work too easy by immediately allegorizing the rising of the beast from the sea: “The beast rose from the disordered life of this world which surges in an ungodly way, viz., from the sea of nations.”! The proper representation of the visionary locality is so little respected by this, that even in the statement éa? 1. auyov t. 0aA., xii. 18, a symbolical designation of numberless * masses of people has been found. But as, e.g., xii. 1, 3, the oipavéc, in which the woman and the dragon appear to the seer, signifies nothing else in a symbolical way than the expression declares, so in this passage, especially, nothing further is represented than that the first beast rises out of the sea, on whose visible shore the dragon had just placed himself, while the second beast is beheld in the vision coming from the actual earth (ver. 11). But it is a further question as to whether a particular reference lies in this statement of place, which? follows not so much from the symbol of Dan. vii., and from Rev. xvii. 1, 5, as rather from the parallelism of ver. 11, where the éx rij¢ y#¢ has in fact an inner relation (ver. 12). It results also, in general, from the mutual connection of the two beasts, and especially from the analogy of the éx ric yie, that the éx ri¢ Oaddcone must have a similar relation. De Wette, therefore, is already in error, when he conjoins the rising out of the sea, and the coming out of the abyss (xi. 7, xvii. 8), as though the beast were desig- nated by the é 7. Gadacane as “a birth from the kingdom of darkness,” or even as one (Nero) returning from the realm of death.* Ewald’s opinion, also, that the éx 7. 6ad. designates the insular government of the Roman beast,® is remote, and makes too much of an irrelevant point. — As the other beast rises from the earth, as from its own element and province, in order to corrupt the earth and those who dwel! thereon, and to seduce to the wor- ship of the first beast, so the first beast rises ® out of the sea, which surrounds the whole earth, in order to rule over all who dwell within the boundaries of its sphere, — over the whole earth (ver. 4), and all that dwell on the earth (ver. 8), over all tribes and peoples (ver. 7). The sea, whereby the earth itself is surrounded, appears in like manner as a more remote province of the first beast rising from the same, as this beast himself properly rules, and the second beast only serves him. The two beasts appear throughout,
1 Victorin., Beda, Andr., C. a Lap., Coccej., Boas., Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Klief., etc. ; cf. also Grot.: ‘* From the power of the em- pire,” so that ‘‘ the public origin” of this beast in indicated in contrast with “the private ort- gin” of the other. Beng.: ‘From Europe.”
* Cf. xx.8. Hengetenb.
8 Against Hammond and Eichh., who find only some sort of visionary locality designated.
¢ Against De Wette (cf. alao Volkm., Ew. i].), it ia asserted only that the expression éx
TRS Garacons does not give the idea of é« rijs afvocov. Independent of this is the opinion also defended by De Wette, that the beast from the abyss (xi. 7) is essentially identical with the beast from the sea (xiii. 7); for that the different turns In the representation rest upon essentially the same foundation, is shown in ch. xvil.
5 “‘Transmarine Rome, or that situated on the island of Italy.’
© avaBaivoy, pres., as vil. 2.
CHAP. XIII. 1. 865
not as two rulers by the side of one another, as if possibly to the first be- longed only the sea without the earth, and to the second, on the other hand, the earth; but the power and dominion over the whole earth are given the first beast; while the second beast works on the earth aud upon its inhab- itants, only in the service of the first. This relation expresses itself also in the fact that the first beast comes forth from the sea itself surrounding the earth. The analogy of the contrasted éx r. y#¢ (ver. 11) forbids us to regard the ix r. @addaons as the sea of nations;! but this mode of exposition cannot be justified by an appeal to xvii. 1, 15, since there is no contrast in that passage between sea and earth; and, also, the sea is not once mentioned, but the édara woAda, on which the harlot sits. The entire view there is thus different.
Onpiov — txov xépata déxa, x.7.A. Hengsteub. properly emphasizes against Beng. the fact that the expression @ypiov has already in itself a bad secondary signification. The gia? could not be called é@ypia. Already, in Daniel,® the godless secular kingdoms appear in the forms of éypia, and especially is the significant feature to be there‘ observed, that just as the self-sufficient scorn of the Chaldaean king is punished by his brutalization, so, on the other hand, because of his repentance there were given to the beast, representing the Chaldaean empire, human feet and a human heart. — The more definite explanation of the @qpiov is afforded by what follows.6— That John men- tions first * the ten horns, then the seven heads of the beast, — otherwise than in the paralle] xii. 3,— could have its foundation in the fact,’ that at the rising of the beast the horns first became visible; but according to this con- sideration, it must be expected that then the further description, xaz ézi r. xepdtuy abr. déxa dwud., immediately counects with the «épata déxa, and it would be written xa? xegaddc Extra wal éml tr. xeg. avr. dvoua BAacg. As not only the order in which the ten horns and seven heads of the beast are mentioned, is different from that in the description of the dragon, who, nevertheless, in other respects bears essentially the same insignia, but the present description has in it something peculiar, in that here the ten diadems appear on the ten horns, while there (xii. 8) the seven diadems appear on the seven heads of the dragon; the entire order in the particular points of the description, which also expresses something particular with respect to the heads of the beast, depends upon a deeper foundation, lying especially in the significance of the form of the beast. If it is denied that the énpiov designates the precise form of the antichristian secular power which this has attained in the Roman Empire,® the explanation of itself indicates arbitrary guessing: the ten horus and seven heads— which are generally interpreted in reverse order — may then be understood as representations of the seven periods of the world, and of a tenfold division of the government of the world;® of the seven kings before the appearance of antichrist; © of the seven secular powers, viz., the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldaean, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman, and the final
1 Hengstenbd., Hofm., etc. ® See Critical Notes. 2 iv. 6 sqq. 8 vil. 1 aqq. 7 Beng., Hengstenb. 4 vii. 4; cf. iv. 28 eqq. 8 See what follows, especially ver. 18.
5 See, in general, on rer. 18. ® Andr. 10 C. a Lap.
866 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
still future power with its ten divisions;! of the seven persecutions of Christians; of the seven powers hostile to Christianity, corresponding to the seven periods of N. T. history, and of the seven small powers * combined with antichrist. But even the expositors who have referred the énpiov to Rome have not always been able to give a definite and intelligible meaning to the particular features of the Apocalyptic image. This applies not only to those to whom the essential tendency of ch. xiii.‘ appears to pertain to the Papacy,® but also to those who properly abide by heathen Rome, as the form of the antichristian secular power contained within the horizon of the prophet. If, by a superficial comparison with xvii. 9, the seven heads of the beast are interpreted of the seven hills of Rome,® the explanation of the ten horns by “the ten servant kings”? is manifestly utterly out of place; Ewald also, who refers the seven to the Roman emperors, and the ten to the prefects of the provinces, ignores the inner connection and essential rela- tionship which exists already, according to xii. 8, between the seven heads and the ten horns. — The é@npiov, i.e., the antichristian, Roman secular power, in the service of the dragon, at the same time bears both the ten horns and seven heads; after this is first declared, a further description (xa? én? 1. xep., «.7.A.) follows, which, on the one hand, is assigned to the ten horns as that mark of royal dominion which in xii. 3 appears on the seven heads of the dragon himself, and, on the other, so designates the heads that the blas- phemous nature of the entire beast ® is illustrated. Yet, while in the descrip- tion of the dragon, xii. 3, not only are the seven heads mentioned before the ten horns, but diadems also ascribed to the heads, but not to the horns, we find in this passage the opposite in both respects; for the subject here treated has respect to a signification of the concrete form of the Roman Empire, as this is proved by facts. Thus there appear, first of all, ten actual rulers; ten persohs who, as the a€tual possessors of the goverument, are symbolized by the ten horns, each furnished with a diadem: (1) Augustus, (2) Tiberius, (3) Caligula, (4) Claudius, (5) Nero, (6) Galba, (7) Otho, (8) Vitellius, (9) Vespasian, (10) Titus.®° Yet the beast, like the dragon (xii. 3), has only seven heads, not as though one of these heads bore all ten horns, or the horns were distributed inequally among the various heads,’° but seven heads bore each a coroneted horn, because, in seven of the persons of rulers mentioned, the actual full possession of the empire was found, while the three other coroneted horns are to be regarded rather between the two heads, -—— and that, too, corresponding with the actual state
1 xvil. 12. Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen. France, Spain, Germany, England, Scotland, ¥ Alcan. 3 Stern. Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Bohemia, Polaud. 4 Cf. ch. xvii. ¢ Victorin., Hammond, Grot., ete.
5 Cf. Vitr., who designates as ‘ the ordinary exposition of our writers” the view that the seven heads are seven rulers at Rome of di- verse kinds, viz., kings, consuls, decemvirl, military tribunes, dictators, emperors, popes; while the ten horns designate the ten king- doms, which, according to xvii. 12, are still future to John, and are to serve the Pope, of
? Hammond, Grot., etc.
8 Cf. ver. 4. .
®° That the tenth, who corresponds to the seventh head, is still future, and that this one will have a successor who will actually be the jast Roman ruler of the world, does not come here into discussion.
20 See on xii. 3.
CHAP, XIII. 2. 367
of affairs between the fifth and sixth head,— because these three horns represent those persons whose usurped power was not so much the true pos- session of the government, as rather a rebellion through which the govern- ment itself was in the highest degree endangered. — xa? éxi rag xepadag abrod 5voua BAacgnuiac. The sing. dvoua* is not to be understood as though there were upon each of the seven heads a letter of the blasphemous name, and accordingly the entire name was found upon the seven heads taken together, as Ziill. thinks, since he ascribes golden frontlets to the heads, and, as the beast is the antithesis to the High-Priest, the Messiah, conjectures such an inscription as there was on the frontlet of the high-priest, viz., the designa- tion ioe Yip, consisting of seven letters. But there is no need of such superficial determinations; the sing. is meant distributively,? i.e., a name is to be regarded as on each of the seven heads, and that is always the same name of blasphemy, so that thus all the concrete embodiments of the Roman Empire, signified by the heads of the beast, appear as of the same blasphemous nature, as in xvii. 3, also, the entire beast, symbolizing the Roman world- dominion, appears full of the names of blasphemy. But how the name of blasphemy stands on the seven heads, is neither to be asked nor to be answered. Bengel, in the sense of many expositors, calls the name “The Pope.” Hengstenb. improperly combines the names of blasphemy with the horns and crowns, as though one included the other, and thinks that the name belonging only to Christ (xix. 16) is usurped by the beast as a blas- phemous designation of his world-dominion. But the context‘ affords only in general the idea that divine honor is ascribed in a blasphemous way to the beast, while a more definite name referring to this is not further ex- pressed. Serving for the explanation of the subject, in this sense, is the remark already of Beda, although he does not mention Rome: “ For they call their kings gods, as well those that have died and been transferred, as it were, to heaven and the gods, as those also still on earth, by the name Augusti, which is, as they wish, the name of deity.”5 See Introduction, p. 00.6 [Note LXX., p. 886.]
Ver. 2. That the description of the form of the beast has been devel- oped from Dan. vii. 4 sqq., is at once manifest; but it must not be over- looked, that the Apocalyptic portrayal of it has an essentially distinct conception and purpose. Daniel portrays four worldly kingdoms succeed- ing one another (the Chaldaean, Medan, Persian, and Greek), and that, too, iu such a way that the forms of beasts which symbolize the first three king- doms are not only like a lion, a bear, and a leopard, but also bear within themselves other significative marks, while the fourth worldly kingdom is represented under the form of a monster, not specifically determined, as, on the one hand, by the great iron teeth, the power of this kingdom, devouring and crushing all, and on the other, however, by the ten horns, beneath which again a small horn comes forth corruptibly, it is symbolized how Antiochus
' Cf. ver. 3. Introduction, p. 48. 6 Cf. also Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., etc. 3 See Critical Notes. © Details of various kinds also in Wiedor- 3 De Wette; cf. Ewald, Hengatenb., ¢tc. meister, Der Cdsarenwahasinn, Hannover,
# Cf. ver. 4. 1875, p. 106, etc.
Epiphanes finally rises as the blasphemous usurper of the Greek Empire ruled by the ten kings successively. John, however, describes not four or more, but in any case one kingdom; whether he have in mind the undivided idea of the world-power in general, which has attained form in many con- crete empires, — from the Egyptian to the Roman of that time,! — or, with- out definite reference to the earlier empires, refer only to the present Roman. At all events, it is incorrect to mangle the undivided form of the beast, and to explain perhaps with Wetst., who inverts the order: ‘“‘ The mouth of the lion designates the greed and avarice of Galba; the form of the leopard, the inconsiderate rashness and inchastity of Otho; the feet of the bear, the ferocity and torpor of Vitellius.” But it is no less incorrect when Andreas so interprets the combined form of the beast that he refers the leopard, etc., to that definite kingdom which he understands by the beast in Dan. vii., but in connection therewith attempts to preserve the unity of the idea by considering the antichrist, the coming ruler of the Roman Em- pire, as possessor at the same time of those three kingdoms ;* as it depends in general only upon an inaccurate combination with ch. xvii., when in this passage the beast from the sea is regarded the antichrist himself, or his kingdom, in the sense that not the present Roman empire, but one not to be expected until the end of days, is to be understood ;® for the tendency of the entire statement of ch. xiii.‘ pertains not to the pure future, as though ano autichristian efficacy of Satan and the worldly power in his service, as it will have place only at the end of days, were to be described, but the world- power already present, ruling over all in blasphemous pride and oppressing
believers,’ appears here in a way that undoubtedly makes us recognize its antichristian nature as to how it stands in the service of Satan himeelf. This antichristian world-power,— and that, too, in the definite appearance of the present Roman Empire, — John beholds in a form of a beast, whose threefold compositiaqn of the leopard, bear, and lion is to be explained as little in the sense of Dan. vii., as the ten horns of ver. 1 are to be com- bined with the fourth beast, which in Daniel bears this number of horns.® Just as the ten coroneted horns (and the seven heads) serve only to designate a particular individuality of the Roman Empire symbolized by the entire form of beast, entirely apart from the fact that in Daniel a fourth empire is symbolized by a monstrous beast with ten horns, so also the combination of the Apocalyptic beast does not have the sense that, in the empire signified by this beast, either the definite empire’ of Daniel, or all empires in general, inclusive of the present Roman and the still future,® i.e., the Germano- Slavic,® appear combined, and accordingly the beast out of the sea signifies the world-power only abstractly ;!° but, on the contrary, the form of a beast which is compared as a whole to the leopard, which is as rapid in its move-
1 Hengstenb., etc. & Which John, of course, considers to be 2 wapd. designates the Greek, dpx.the Per- such as is immediately judged and brought to sian, Ad. the Babylonian empire: &» «cparjoes naught by the coming of the Lord.
6 ‘Avrixpirros ws "Papaiey Bactrtevs cAcucoue- © Against Zlill., De Wette. vos. 7 Andr., ete. 8 Hengstenb. § Against C. a Lap., Hofm., eto. ® Auberien.
# Cf. already ch. xii. 30 “The ungodly world-power as a whole.”
CHAP. XIII. 3.
ments as it is strong, is furnished with feet like the paw | its mouth is like the jaws of a lion, so that thus the entir which unites in itself the most dreadful weapons of thi informs us of the rapacity and power of the Roman Empi | same. ‘The special interpretation of particular features r | is, therefore, arbitrary, as in Beda: mdpd., “on account » nations ;”® dpx., “on account of spite and madness;” 7%. bravery of body and pride of tongue.”
xal &dwxev, x.7.A4. Here is shown the reason why the dra, ' has entered into a conflict against believers, has come upc | sea (xii. 18): he has called the beast from the sea in order his own power, and thus to make him an instrument | what way the dragon accomplished this impartation, due: ask, since John does not declare it, for properly he does nc’ what is not made visible. — Worthy of notice is the ini three points, rv déivauy abr., r. Oodvov abr., and éfovolay pey imparted to the beast, which is expressly marked as diabc: shown in his power over freedom and life (ver. 10), and | of men (ver. 17). But the dragon also, by giving his th: invests it with a Bao%eia, so that now a throne can b: beast himself (xvi. 10): hence the more definite view of | ion of the beast is here presented. Finally, the éfovoia peya' great, yet always definite and limited, plenitude of px the medium of that divawc to work within the entire sph to serve the purpose of the dragon.
Ver. 3. xai wiav én tr. xed. With the accus., an express e' placed,> but its idea results® from the connection, sinc: which is repeated besides in ver. 2, continues to be efi The «d¢ stands just as in v. 6, only that in this passage which explains how that one head bore the marks of wound, and yet could be represented like the rest in all is expressly designated: xa? 4 74. r dav. abt. éepanebon.— Th that is, which is said in ver. 3a., and the more this spec! entire image of the beast from the sea is adapted thereto, and test the correct interpretation of the whole, the mo other hand, to become helpless here, is every exposition thi the image of the beast as a whole. Hengstenb., Ebrar who regard the @ypiov an image of the world-power in gi xvii. 10, with entire impropriety, that the head wounded again healed, is the sizth, i.e., that whereby the Roman fc power is symbolized. But although Hengstenb. furthe
1 Cf. Jer. v.6; Hos. xiii. 7; Sir. xxviii. 23, gods, males, females, th where, in order to illustrate dreadful strength, ete. Coccejus: “ Of vari the leopard is compared with the lion and the _ beast belong Christians
wolf. yet constituting anothe) 2 ws dapx. Cf. iv. 6,8. Var. Lect. ix. 7-9. Arians, Museulmans, et 8 Cf. Grot.: ‘‘ The leopard jis an animal of * Cf. vi. 8, ix. 3, x. 19
various color; thus Roman idolatry bad as its 5 Against the false Ra
870 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
“by Christ’s atonement” a mortal wound is inflicted upon Roman worldly affairs and heathenism, — a wound which, therefore, could appear as again healed, because the outward condition of the Roman Empire still continued, as John himself must have felt this ungodly power in his banishment to Patmos, — Ebrard and Auberlen prefer an interpretation expressly rejected by Hengstenb. They observe, that by the migration of nations the mortal wound was given the Roman Empire; but that this wound was healed, because a new “ Roman Empire” had arisen, whose chief strength rests just in the Germanic nations. This Holy Roman Empire, however, appears as the sixth head of the beast, healed of its mortal wound, because its Christi- anity is secularized, ay, in all Christian appearance, often of a directly anti- christian activity; viz.. in the Papacy. But the Christian aspect of this form of the world-power is positively expressed in the fact that the head of the beast (dc éogayz.) bears in itself a certain resemblance to the Lamb (dc Esgayu., v. 6). The mode of exposition thus reverts in essentials to the old Protestant; only that this was the more correct, so far as it did not acknowledge the vague significance of the énpiov of the world-power in the abstract, but understood it as a definite reference to Rome. Thus Calov., in dependence on Luther, explains “‘the beast wounded,’ most correctly, of the Roman Empire, harassed by the invasions of the barbarians, who for more than three centuries wounded, devastated, and held Rome, so that, during that whole time, there was no Western emperor. It was also healed by the medical aid of Charlemagne and Leo III.” Coccejus understood the head as the Grecian part of the Roman Empire: “In this part the beast re- ceived a fatal wound when Julian restored the worship of the gods.” The édeparebOn is interpreted: “Julian was removed, and Jovian, the Catholic, ' succeeded him.” Phil. Nicolai referred the wounding to the dominion of seven hundred years by the Moors in Spain; the healing, to the expulsion of the enemy by King Ferdinand. Most consistently Vitringa explains that the mortal wound is the humiliation of Pope Alexander III. by the Emperor Frederick in the year 1160, and that the healfmg is the humili- ation of the Emperor by the Pope in the year 1177:1 on the other hand, Bengel, with his far-reaching interpretation,? stands already nearer the moderns, as Ebrard and Auberlen. But the former, as well as the latter, interpretation is rejected both by the connection of ch. xii.* and by the particular points in xiii. 1, 2. The @ypiov is just as certainly not the abstract world-power, as: the seven heads are not particular “ phases of the world-power,” but kings, and that, too, Roman kings. Besides this, the quid pro quo which is ascribed to the writer of the Apocalypse, by representing him as describing the Holy Roman Empire as the empire of
1 As a new interpretation, Vitr. proposes. 2 ‘+ You may see the paroxysms both of “The first five fallen (xvii. 10) heads are five wounding and healing in the history of Gregory distinguished popes before the Reformation: VII., Paschal IJ., Calist II., Alexander III., Gregory VII., Alexander III., Innocent III., and others. Whatever adversity then hap. Boniface VIII., John XXII.; after the Refor- pened is wounding; and whatever prosperity, mation follow Paul ID., Paul VIII., and healing.” finally the eighth, still future Pope, who shall 3 Auberlen has, indeed, found the migration put to death Christ's witnesses ’’ (xi. 7). of nations in xii. 15 sqq.
ee tits
‘ CHAP. XIII. 3. 871 heathen Rome which has been again revived, is compatible neither with historical truth nor with a sound conception of biblical prophecy. In both respects, it is impossible to regard an historical development, which is dependent upon the Christian element, and which—in all its un- christian and antichristian deterioration — yet remains in its entire course Christian, and has produced truly holy fruit, as a head of this beast of the dragon. The only indication iu the text, which apparently supports such a misconception, Auberlen, etc., have found in the expression o¢ éogayyz., as, from the comparison of y. 6, they have inferred that thereby there is ascribed to the healed head a Christian, i.e., an apparently Christian, life and nature. But supposing, what does not necessarily lie in the expression, that a significant contrast were intended between the Lamb standiug there as slain, and the head of the beast wounded, as it were, to death: is it, then, not much more correct to explain, as Victorin. already has done,! viz., that the person represented by the head wounded and again healed is to be regarded as a pretended Christ in whom the sufferings and resurrection of the Lord appear to be imitated ?
If we turn from such explanations as do not need a special refutation, that of Victorin. is first presented, which, being brought aguin to notice by Corrodi® and Eichhorn, has been of late resolutely defended by Liicke, De Wette, Bleek, Baur, Volkmar, Hilgenf., E. Renan, etc. The Roman historians of the report bruited shortly after Nero’s death, that he was still living, and would again appear,® are quoted. This opinion, which was cur- rent especially in Asia,® is recognized by the writer of the Apoc.; and two circumstances concur, which seem to greatly arge the explanation from that fancy of the enigmatical discourse concerning the head of the beast wounded to death, and again healed. On the one hand, it has penetrated Christian literature, viz., the Apocalyptic:? on the other hand, it appears to give a
1 “This one, therefore, viz., Nero, being raised, God will send as a king wortby of the worthy, and a Measiah such as the Jews have merited.” Cf. Beda: “ Antichrist, pertaining to the heads of the earthly kingdom, tn ém- tation of our true Head, professes to have risen again, as though huoing been slain, and presents himself for men’s reception, instead of Christ, who truly did this.” Io like man- ner, Zeger, C. a Lap., ete.
2 Grot. on ws éod.: “The Capitol was barned while the Vitellians and Flavians warred with one another.” — ¢é@epaxw.: ‘‘ For the same Vespasian restored the Capitol, who aleo restored the Roman Empire, and, indeed, with great pomp of idolatry.” Zilllig, who in ver. 18 finds the name of Balaam: “ Balaam, slain as anti-Moses, now has returned to iffe, with seven heads, as the anti-Meesiah, as the one for whom he will now be regarded re- turned from death to life.”
3 Krtt. Geach. des Chiliaemus, Zilr., vol. il., p- 308 aqq.
* Der Antichrist, Germ. ed., Leipz. and Paris, 1873, p. 278.
5 Tacit., Hiet., 11.8: ** About the same time, Achaia and Asia were terrified by a false ru- mor, as though Nero were approaching, and a fluctuating rumor concerning his death, the ma- jority, on this account, thinking and believing that he was alive.” Cf. Sueton., Nero, c. 57; Dio Chrys., Or., xxi., ed. Reiske., T. I., p. 504.
® So that a falee Nero, who availed himself of this in a remarkable way, found a following among the Parthians. Sueton., I. c.; Tacit., #ist., i. 2: “ War also with the Parthians, near at hand, wae stirred up by the farce of the pretended Nero."
7 Sibyll. Orac., ed. Serv. Gall., L. VITI., p. 688: Gray y' dwavdAGn ix wepdrey yaiys O dvyas
‘pntpoxrévos éAGwy [“* When the matricide fugi-
tive returns from the opposite part of the earth"). Cf. p.716; L. V., p. 547; Sulp. Sev., Hist., s., L. If., Opp. ed.; G@. Hom., Lugd. But., 1647, p. 873: “Certainly bie body, viz., that of Nero, was slain; whence it is believod,
872 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
definite explanation of xvii. 8, and the one best harmonizing with ver. 8, viz., that Nero, slain by his own hand, appears returning from the abyss of hell, and working again as the living antichrist. — But against this mode of exposition it is to be remarked: (1) The writer of the Apocalypse in no way betrays such impurity and limitation of faith and Christian culture, that without injustice a superstition dare be ascribed to him which the Roman authors already had derided.1 In any case, if John subscribed to that illusion, nothing more could any longer be said concerning a truly pro- phetical character of the Apoc., dependent upoy inspiration, and concerning its canonical authority.?2 (2) In reference to xvii. 8,° it must be mentioned already here, how difficult it is by the ¢ypiov which is there described, to understand Nero alove, who is symbolized, just as in ch. xiii., by one of the seven heads of the beast. (3) But it is also in the highest degree doubtful whether the Nero-myth were current already at the close of the first century, as they try to find it in John: on the contrary, unmistakable traces indicate that the original Nero-myth received the form in which it is now by an anachronism, regarded as utilized in the Apoe. only by combining with it misunderstood passages like Rev. xiii. 3, xvii. 8, and 2 Thess. ii. 8 sqq. Sueton., Tacit., and Dio Chryst. by no means say that it was their opinion that the actually dead Nero had returned from the lower regions to life; but they report‘ that it was not properly known in what way Nero had died, and that, therefore,® the report originated that he was not at all dead, but had escaped to the Parthians, and would return to take ven- geance on his enemies. So it stands in the sibylline books, where Nero appears as a fugitive,® who is'to return from the ends of the earth, his tem- porary place of refuge.?’ That this Nero-myth was diffused among Chris- tians by the authority of the sibylline books, is attested by Lactantius, who
that, although he pierced himself with the sword, yet that he waa restored by the healing of his wound, as it is written of him: And the stroke of his death was healed, in order that he might be sent at the ead of the world to exer- cisc the mystery of iniquity.”
1 Dio Chryst., |. c.: rpomroy tivd ovx awat avrov reOvnxéros, aAAd woAAdas pera Tey oddéipa oindevrwy avroy Cv.
2 This statement ia not based on a narrow- minded conception of the canon (Volkm.), but asserts the demands which justice and cau- tious plety make of exegetes. The Apoc., with respect to its other contents, stands so high that it ia utterly impoesible that it should ad- vance any superstitious statement directly con- tradictory to the simplest Christian faith and thought (also against Weiss., p. 34). But if it be exegetically proved that this is nevertheless the case, It appears necessary to surrender the deutero-canonical aathority of the book. But, in spite of all its dazzling appearance, the exe- gesis of Volkm., as well as of Ewald, etc., is on this point Incorrect.
$ Bee on the passage.
4 Cf. especially Dio Chryst., |.c.: «ai ovrws axéoTHTaAY ax’ avTOU Kai YvayKacay GTy wore Tpowy arodAdcbat avrér ovddrw yap Kai vuy TOUTS ye 8nAdv éorew [“‘ And thus they stood aloof from him, and urged the question in what way he had died; for this even now was not as yet manifest '’}.
8 Cf. Tacit., }. ¢.
® dvyas, L. VIII., ver. 71; ed. Ffiedlieb, devywr, L. V., ver. 364.
1 In tho same senee also is the passage, L. V., ver. 33, to be understood . dora xai dicros dAotiog, eir’ avaxdupe, where Gallaeus (*‘ will utterly be destroyed"’) and Friedifeb (‘the pernicious vanishes away") milstranslate the aiotos. Itiseaid only that the pernicious one, i.e., Nero, will become invisible, viz., by flight, but will return. It isa altogether a perversion when the sibylline expressions concerning the return of Nero are compared with the Apoc., in order to make a Nero redivivus acceptable here; for in the sibylilne books the chief muat- ter is Incking, as, e.g., Hilgenf. himself ac- knowledges (Zeitechr. f. Wier. Th., 1871, p. 89. Cf. also, 1869, p. 421 sqq.).
. CHAP. XIII. 3. 878 explains it not only as madness, but also indicates its natural origin :! “Cast down, therefore, from the head of the government, and fallen from its sum- mit, the impotent tyrant suddenly was nowhere present, so that a place not even of burial might appear on earth for so wicked a beast. Whence some madmen believe that he has been translated and reserved alive, the sibyl saying that the fugitive matricide shall come from the ends of the earth,” etc. Therefore Lactantius also knows nothing, as yet, of a resurrection and return of the dead Nero, but he has in view the faith of some madmen, sup- ported by the sibylline books, that the still living Nero had found a refuge somewhere at the ends of the earth, whence he will return as a precursor of the antichrist. But this superstition, still diffused at his time, Lact. regards — so senseless, because thereby a life a century long must be presupposed to Nero; while the entire fable could be explained without difficulty, from the fact that the grave of Nero was unknown, — an explanation which is proved to be right, inasmuch as Nero was actually buried with the greatest silence.® In Lactantius, therefore, the Nero-myth, designated as senseless, does not have the form in which they want to find it presented by the writer of the Apoc. — Augustine is the first to testify to the existence of the expectation that Nero would arise from the dead, and return as antichrist, since he ex- pressly remarks that this form of the myth, by the side of the older, has resulted from an interpretation of 2 Thess. ii. 8 sqq. that is as bold as it is perverted ; * “ Some think that this® was said of the Roman Empire, — as his declaration, ‘The mystery of iniquity doth already work,’ he wanted to be understood of Nero, whose deeds seemed as though of antichrist. Whence some suspect that he will rise again, and be the antichrist. But others think that he was not slain, but rather had withdrawn so as to be regarded slain, and was concealed alive in the vigor of the age, in which he was when he was believed to have died, until he would be revealed at his own time, and be restored to the government. But to me such presumption of those think- ing these things is very wonderful.” In this connection, also, Augustine does not mention the Apoc.® This is done by Sulp. Severus,’ who, however, does not combine the myth of the revivification of the dead Nero with Apoc. xiii. 8, but under the presumption that Nero had actually committed suicide ® records the entirely peculiar turn to the matter: It is believed that the wound which Nero inflicted upon himself was healed, and that he still lives, and at the end of the world will return as antichrist. The complete form of the myth is given first by Victorin., who expressly says that the actually de- ceased Nero would be again raised by God, and be sent as the pseudo-Mes- siah for judgment upon the ungodly; but Victorin.’s own words® betray the
1 De Mort. Persec., c. 3. the antichrist of Daniel, because of his perse-
3“ A precursor of the devil, and going be- _—cution of the Christians (Jerome on Dan. xi. fore him as he comes to devastate the earth, 238: ‘‘ Whenoe many of our writers think that and overthrow the human race.” because of the greatness of his cruelty and
§ Eutrop., Hist. Rom. vii. 18: ‘* Tho remains baseness, the Domitian Nero would be anti- of Nero, which were buried ina hamble way."" = christ’’), does not belong here.
* De Civ. D., L. XX., 6. 19, § 3. Tle
§ }. o., ver. T. 8 Etiamat ne gladia tranaftrtt.
* That Nero had sometimes been regarded ® Nunc ergo cuetera.
874 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
origin of the myth thus fashioned, in the same way as Augustine! testifies to the origin of another application of the myth from 2 Thess. ii. It cannot, therefore, in any way be asserted upon an historical basis, that the writer of the Apocalypse, when he represents one of the heads of the beast as wounded to death and again healed, depends upon an idea current at his tire, con- cerning the return of Nero raised from the dead,—for such an idea does not belong as yet to his time, — but it must be asserted that the writer of the Apoc. has himself fashioned this manner of expressing the Nero-myth. No one, however, has ventured this.
Any other explanation of ver. 3 is therefore hardly possible, than that indicated already in the Introduction.? By a combination with xvii. 8-11, the result is attained that the mortal wound cannot be referred to the sixth,® but must be referred to the fifth, head of the beast. This is correctly ac- knowledged by Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, etc., as they are further right in | accounting Nero as the last of the fallen kings. But to proceed from this to the interpretation of xiii. 8, advocated by Ewald, Liicke, etc.,— which is proved to be just as untenable, —is not only not demanded by xvii. 8-11, but is prohibited, because it is not said there that the fifth fallen king, i.e., Nero, would return as the eighth, but that the future eighth would be the personi- fied beast himself. But of this nothing whatever is said in ch. xiii.; it is not once to be perceived from ch. xiii. that an eighth king is at all to be expected, so that this point (xvii. 11) is not in any way to be introduced into xiii. 8. The healing of the mortal wound certainly cannot, therefore, refer to one of the heads of the beast (the fifth), as it is neither said in ch. xvii., nor agrees with the statement in xiii. 8, that the fifth fallen (deceased) king will return as the eighth. On the contrary, the healing of the mortal wound on the fifth head of the beast must correspond to that which is stated in ch. xvii., so that the beast is not, and yet is; viz., it is in so far as the sixth king is. The existence of the sixth king is the healing of the mortal wound on the fifth head, whose infliction caused the beast not to be, and whose healing again caused the beast, nevertheless, to be. Thus ch. xvii. gives the riddle, and ch. xiii. 8 the clew whereby the riddle is solved. The mortal wound is inflicted upon the (fifth) head of the beast, and the interregnum immediately succeeding. It is to be observed, that it is not at all said that the coroneted horn on the (fifth)"head was stricken off, and grew again, —thig would attach the idea expressly to the person of Nero, and correspond with the opinion of Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, and Volkm.,—but that, in accordance with the distinction between the heads and the horns (cf. ver. 1), the idea of the Roman Empire, so far as it was under the Emperor Nero, is expressed.4 This empire, designated by the fifth head of the beast, received a mortal wound when Nero, the bearer of the empire, and the last of the race of the Caesars which had founded the empire, committed suicide, and that, too, under the compulsion of the rebel- liou of a usurper (Galba), who, as little as his two successors (Otho, Vitel-
Ihe. 2 p. 47 aq. that the beast was wounded on its head, etc. * Hengstenb., Auberlen. But what in ver. 83 he is wrong in omitting, Is * Volkm. urges that in xiii. 3, it is not said correctly said in ver. 12.
CHAP, XIII. 8-7. 875 lius), could in any way be regarded the restorer of the empire which was destroyed with Nero. The healing of that mortal wound did not ensue until Vespasian, the founder of a new dynasty, restored the empire, as its actual possessor, to its ancient strength and vitality. Thus, at the founda- tion of the prophetical enigmatical discourse of the writer of the Apoc. con- cerning the beast wounded to death and again restored, concerning the three coroneted horns which, nevertheless, do not stand upon particular heads (ver. 1), and concerning the beast which is not and yet is, there lies the same historical view which is declared by the Roman historians, in their representation of the threefold regency between the death of Nero and the accession of Vespasian, only as a sad interregnum.!
Ver. 3), ver. 4. xal é6aipaceyv —dniow rod Onpiov. The pregn. construction gives the view as to how the astonishment at the succession is occasioned.? Beng. also shows how this expression is supported bistorically: in the cruci- fixion, e.g., this prophecy is fulfilled.— The amazement of the whole earth — for thus far the dominion of the beast extends (ver. 2) — may be referred especially to what is said in ver. 8a; for the worship of the dragon, as also of the beast equipped by him, that which results from ver. 2) is expressly attached as the reason. But not only is the mpooxuveiy on the part of the inhabitants of the earth ® a robbery, which, in the service of the dragon and his beast, they perpetrate on the one true God, but even the phraseology in which they express their worship* seems like a blasphemous parody of the praise with which the O. T. Church celebrated the incomparable glory of the living God. [See Note LXXI., p. 887.] And if the inhabitants of the earth declare further xa? rig dtvara, «7.4, back of this challenging and triumphing question lies concealed the desire that, in compliance with the purpose of the dragon,® they might begin the conflict with those who do not worship the beast (cf. ver. 7).
Vv. 5-7. As the conception of the form of the beast in general (vv. 1, 2) is conditioned by the Danielian prototype, so also the individual chief features which describe the activity of the beast are in conformity with what Daniel says of antichrist. Not only the schematical determination of time for the antichristian activity of the beast, forty-two months,’ is derived from Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7; but also the characteristic representation of the presumptuous, blasphemous speech,® and of his conflict with the sainta,® makes the beast appear in the same way as the concretion of the antichristian world-power withstanding the N. T. communion of saints, as in Daniel’s view Antiochus Epiphanes arrayed himself against the O. T. Church. But Ziill.
1 Sueton., 1. c.; Dio Cass., Hist. Rom., ed. J. Leuncl., Hannov., 1606, p. 7388,
3 Cf. Acts. v. 87, xx. 80. Grot., ZUll., De Wette, etc.
§ Cf. ver. 8, If. 10...
* Coccejus feels the difficulty of carrying out here hia interpretation of the @npiov; for, if the @npioy is the papacy, it appears objection- able to represent its adherents as worshippers of the dragon. But he saye: “In word, it is true, they praised God and Christ, who had
given such power to the Charch; but in fact, becaueo it was not the Church, but a beast, and the worldly power which he claimed for him. self was power conceded by the dragon trans- forming himself into an angel of light, he whom they adored was the dragon.”
§ Of. Isa. x]. 25, xliv. 7, xivi. 6; Pe. xxxv. 10, cliJ. 5; Mic. vil. 8; Coccej., Ewald.
@ xii. 17. ? Cf. xi. 2, xii, 14.
8 oréua AaAovy meydda x. Bracd. Cf. Dan. vil. 8, 20, 25. ® Cf. Dan. vil. 21.
376 THE REVELATION OF 8T. JOHN.
finds incorrectly also in 76 an analogy with Dan. vii. 14, in that the sense that what is there ascribed to Christ, is here declared concerning the anti- christian universal monarchy of the beast, as the contrary of the Messiah; for the igovaia of the beast, i.e., the definite supreme power thereof, adapted to its position and task, corresponds neither to the kingly glory over all nations granted to the Son of man,! nor to his peculiar égovoia, which, as the Baovteia itaelf, is marked as one that is eternal.? The éd6@7, vv. 5, 7,8 which refers to the ultimate ground of divine authority, contains for believers a consolatory determination which belongs to the &duxev, ver. 2; for only in accordance with God’s order can the dragon equip his beast, and only within the limits fixed by God can the beast work in virtue of the éfovcia ascribed to him. — oropa Aadoby peydda xal SAaognpuiac. The supercilious speaking of great things is already in itself the testimony of an egotistic boasting of one de- spising the living God, and then becomes openly blasphemous when the pre- sumptuous speeches have such definite reference to God as is expressed, e.g., in ver. 6; cf. also the declaration put, in ver. 4, into the mouth of the adher- ents of the beast. The historical foundation for the description, ver. 5a, is formed by the declarations repeated in various ways, in which Roman insolence not only ascribed to itself absolute dominion over the world, but also expressly gave divine names and divine honor to the city, the empire, and the emperor.*— rooa. In the following accus., the express object to notyoat may be found,® and with Luther, Ewald, etc., the explanation may be rendered: Power was given him éo bring in forty-two months besides; viz., in the manner described in ver. 5a. But this mere determination of time appears too circumstantial for the Apoc.; hence it is explained better by Vitr., Ziill., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc., after the analogy of Dan. viii. 24, xi. 28, 30, 32; Ps. xxxvii. 5, where the rouiv likewise occurs without any express designation of the odject: power was given him fo work, to ply his business, for forty-two months. In connection with this it is to be observed,® that thus the two parts of ver. 5 briefly designate what is more fully de- scribed in ver. 6 (cf. ver. 5a) and ver. 7 (cf. ver. 5b).— The prefixed BAaconuiac npdc rdv Gedy (ver. 6) is more definitely specialized in a threefold way, to which already the plural BAacgnulac xp. r. 6., which is here certain, points, viz., first, BAacgnuhoa rd bvoua atbrov, whereby is designated the calumni- ation directed immediately against God himself, which is especially fulfilled by the beast usurping for himself the divine names and honor; secondly, xal Tiv oxnviv abrod, i.e., as it is also made manifest from the following words,’ heaven, which, as God’s tabernacle, is an object of the blasphemous speeches of the beast; and, finally, xa? rove tv rd obpav oanvoivrac, because it is God’s gracious work, that he has opened heaven as his tabernacle for those who now dwell with him therein. The two last kinds of blasphemy are mediate, but they have place just as certainly as the world-power, repre-
"4 cai d860n abrg & dpyy Kai } rim eal § 2 Cf. vi. 4, 8, vil. 3, ix. 5.
Bacirera, xai wayres ot Aact gvAai cai yAncoa ¢ Cf. Introduction, p. 51.
avre SovAevcourry, § Cf. Acts xv. 83; 2 Cor. xl. 25; Jas. iv. 18. 3» ef. avro’ dfovcia aiwptos, Aris OV mape- 6 Vitr., Hengstenb.
Aevoerat, K.T.A, 7 Cf. xxi. 3.
CHAP. XIII. 8. 877
sented by the beast, speaks only with mockery of that which was to believers the home towards which their entire hope was directed; and accordingly the world-power stood in opposition to the inexhaustible source of their consola- tion and patience. — wéAeuov woujoa pera tr. dy. To the instrument of the dragon it is given —on God’s part —to fulfil what the dragon had in mind when he prepared the beast.! — xa? vixjoa: abrote ; viz., in so far as the saints must succumb to the power of the beast, and suffer imprisonment, banish- ment, death, and all kinds of 6Alyr.2_ Besides, it is just in this that the true victory of saints consists.* —«. 2d. abr. é&ovcia ent xacay guvAjv xal — tOvos. Ewald, by determining the igoveia according to the measure of what immedi- ately precedes,‘ reaches the erroneous conception that the éni mao. guAjy, «7.2, is to be referred to Christians § But the expression designates, by its four specifications,® the entire number of the inhabitants of the earth who easily appear in opposition to the saints; hence the égovoia én? xac. guAjy, x.7.., is the great and sovereign power’ which is granted to the beast with his empire. Because of this éfovoia he is in a position to war victoriously against the saints. But as in ver. 5a, so also here, where there is a definitive designa- tion of the égovsia on which the entire dreadful activity of the beast depends, the consolatory thought lies in the background, that even though the supreme power, which the dragon has given (ver. 2) to the beast, is so great that it extends over the whole world, yet it is at last only by the Divine bestow- ment, and therefore beneath the Divine order and limitation, that the beast possesses, and can exercise, his égovoia.
Ver. 8. nai xpooxvvijcovow airoy, «7A, Notwithstanding & (abr), undoubt- edly the correct reading, atrov, cannot be explained by the reference to the king, of the masc. in which the beast itself, xvii. 11, appears personified ; ® for that entirely special idea must be definitely indicated within ch. xiii. if without any thing further it is thus to be diverted. The atréy pertains, how- ever, to the chief subject 6 dpixuv. The worship of the dragon is here men- tioned immediately after the description of the beast, for the same reason as ver. 4 in connection with ver. 3; the more mightily the instrument of the dragon is presented to the inhabitants of the earth, the more naturally they come to the adoration of that which itself only serves the beast. Cor- responding with this is also the future form mpooxuvgoovew.® As the activity of the beast, according to its decisive part, still impends,’° so also the ado- ration of the dragon occasioned thereby. — od ob yéyparra: r. dv. abrod. The sing. of the relative,!! to which, according to the Hebraic way, the demonstr. is added,!? is explained 1* by the presentation of the details which are com- prised in the entire xcarou. éxl tr. y.— tv 1d BGAiy, x.7.A. Without doubt,” the
1 Cf. xif. 17, xii. 2. © Cf. v. 0, xi. 9, xiv. 6, xvii. 15. 2 Cf. xi. 7. ; * Aleo Ew. il. 3 Cf. xii. 11, ff. 10 aq. ® Hengstenbd. 4 “Jt is allowed to perpetrate this slaughter ® Cf., on the other hand, ver. 4. throughout all lands and nations.” % Cf. ver. 7, where it is firet given the beast,
5“ From the nature of the topic and on God's part, what it is to do. thought, it fe apparent that only Christians 11 Bee Critical Notes. dwelling every where throughout the world are 3 (#1. 8, xii. 6, 14. to be here understood.” 3 De Wette. 14 Cf. xvii. 8.
378 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. ; concluding clause éxd xaraPoAje xéopuov belongs to yéyperra:) not to the éo¢gay- pévov, as neither the explanation of the eternal predestination of the death of Christ,? nor that of the sufferings of Christ in his people from Abel on,® agrees with the expression and the connection of this passage. The charac- teristic of the inhabitants of the earth, in contrast with the saints refusing to worship the dragon, contains already, in the most pregnant manner, all the points upon which the patience of the saints expressly emphasized immediately afterwards, ver. 10, depends. Those who worship the Lamb slain, of course, must suffer persecution; but just to the Lamb slain belongs the book of life,‘ in which from eternity the names of believers are written: they, therefore, like the Lamb, conquer by their victory,§ and through all GAiyeg pass to the glory of eternal life,‘ while the enemy, in spite of his temporary victory,’ incurs sure judgment. [See Note LXXII., p. 387.]
Vv. 9,10. This consolatory assurance is expressly urged as one ex- tremely important.® — el ruc eig alyyadwoiay, ei¢ alyuadwoiav. The jus talionis is exercised by the righteous judgment of God.® The brevity of the ellip- tical expression corresponds very well with the immutability of the strict sentence, in case the second els aizzadwoiay stands without further definition. —On the two kinds of persecution, cf. ii. 10, 18, vi. 10, xi. 7. Volkm. regards the threat of the sword as directed against Nero. But how is it conceivable if ver. 8 refers, according to Volkmar’s interpretation, to Nero? — dde tort 7 bropovi, «.7.A. The formula dde éorw is in itself so indefinite that it can express both gradations of the idea: “Here must the patience, the wisdom, of believers be displayed,” 12 and “ Here patience is present, here lies its foundation and source.” In this passage, and xiv. 12, the latter idea results from the connection; by the dde, x.r.4., an allusion is made to what has just been said, ver. 10, yea already in ver. 8; viz., to that in which the patience of the saints consists, who by their faith lay hold of that divine consolation. Otherwise, ver. 18 and xvii. 9.
Vv. 11-17. The second beast, which John sees rising from the earth, is described as an accomplice of the first beast; by deceitful speeches and miraculous signs, he leads astray the inhabitants on earth to the worship of the beast from the sea.— That this second ézpioy — which appears in this form from the beginning as essentially related to the first beast '*— 1s a per- sonification of false prophecy, is correctly recognized already by Irenaeus. John himself gives this interpretation, xvi. 18, xix. 20, xx. 10. But from the connection with vv. 1-10, the more restricted determination results, that- the subject treated is that furm of heathen-Roman prophecy which was just as magica] as mantic; and this peculiarity, with all its auguries, inter- pretations of omens, etc., formed an important support of the Roman secular
1 Hammond, Beng., Heinr., Ewald, Ziill., 8 Ver. 9. Cf. fi. 7, 11. De Wette, Hengstenb. ® Cf. xviil. 6, xix. 2. 3 1 Pet. 1.20; Beda, Eichh. 10 bwdye, xvii. 8. See Critical Notes. 8 Cf. C. a Lap. 31 Ver. 18, xvif. 9. 4 iil. 6. iz De Wette, Hengetenb. 8 Cf. iil. 21. 18 See on ver. 1.
© Cf. vil. 14. ? Ver. 7. “ ZL, V., ¢c. 28, 2, ed. Stieren, I., p. 794.
CHAP. XIII. 11-17. 879 power.! The various references to papa] Rome ® are precluded by the expla- nation of ver. 1 sqq. [Note LXXIII., p. 887.]
éx tie yics. Incorrectly, Grot.: “private origin.” Ewald’s explanation that the continent of Asia® is to be regarded the theatre for those who had prophesied the return of Nero—even apart from the difficult limitation of the idea +r. yi¢ —has no support in ver. 3.4 The explanation also of Heng- stenb., that by é r. yc in contrast with éx raw dw, or éx rod ovpavoi,® the earthly, worldly nature ® is indicated, does not lie at all-in the context. The éx tig yae™ has respect, on the contrary, to the idea of the xarocxowvrec énl rig ye. The beast rises from the earth, because he is to work upon the whole earth, and all the inhabitants of the earth ®°§—xépara dto duota dpvip. The “compendious comparison ”® is not acknowledged by Ebrard when he com- mends the explanation as probable: “ The beast has two horns, like (dpocoy instead of Suora) a lamb (so that, then, the horns also were like the horns of the lamb).” Concerning the form of this beast, nothing further is expressed than that it had two horns like the horns of a lamb. The interpretation of this figure must be mistaken, if, notwithstanding the omission of the art. before dpviw, a contrast is immediately found to the Lamb with seven horns,?° and it is then declared that the beast which has only two horns is far infe- rior in fulness of strength to that of the Lamb, although the similarity to Christ consists in that the wisdom also of this world is hidden, or that the beast especially resembles the Lamb of God in the manner in which he exer- cises its dominion over the Church.'? But while it is very difficult to regard the beast with his two horns of a lamb as in contrast with the Lamb with seven horns, a comparison with the beast out of the sea is readily made. This had ten horns, which must be further described in another respect; but the beast out of the earth has two horns, whose meaning lies in what is further said concerning them: they resemble the horns of a lamb, —even in their number they were no more than those of a lamb. The number has, there- fore, in itself no special reference, — possibly in the same way as the ten horns (ver. 1),}8— but only expresses, like the entire form of the horns, the resemblance to a lamb in the appearance of‘the beast, and designates the pe- culiarity of pseudo-prophetism, which, in Matt. vii. 15,)4 is symbolized in a somewhat different way. — xai tAdAe oc dpdxuv. The precise reference to the dragon, in whose service also this second beast stands,!® forbids the omission
1 Cf. Victorin., Andr., Hammond, Grot., Eichh., Ewald, De Wette; aleo Hengstenb.
* Coceej., Calov., Vitr., ate.
8 Bengel, in his way, remarks: The earth is here also Asia, "to which already for a long time a greater part of the papal views... referred.”
¢ See on that passage.
5 Cf. Jobn vill. 32.
© é« Tov K6GMOV TOUTOV.
1 Cf. ver. 1, dx. r. OaA,
® Cf., immediately afterwards, ver. 12.
® As ix. 10.
w y. 6.
11 Hongstenb.
12 Ebrard; who, after the manner of Vitr., ete., finds a fulfilment of the prophecy con. cerning the ecoond beast, ‘‘In the papacy, with respect to its spiritual power.” Vitr. inter. preta the two horus as referring more defi- nitely to the two monastic orders.
3 Against Wetst., who refers to Titus and Domitian; against Hammond, who erplains: The twofold power of priests, viz., that of miracies and of prophecy.
14 Cf. Beda, Andr., Ewald.
18 Victorin.: ‘‘He spoke, full of the malice of the devil.” <Andr., etc. Cf. aleo Hengst-
380 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
of the art.; besides, no speaking of the dragon is at all mentioned by xii. 1. The dg dpdxuv! designates the crafty speech of the tempter.? An allusion, however, to the relation to the dragon — which also is not denied by Ewald, Ziill., etc. —lies in the fact that he is described not as cdc dour, but as d¢ dp ®
Ver. 12. The second beast is expressly designated as standing in the relation of servitude to the first: the entire éfovoia given, he puts iu opera- tion, and that, too, évuriov atrod, i.e., beneath the eyes of the first beast, as its lord.4— roei —iva pooxvvgoovcr. Cf. iii. 9.—od eéepan.,x.r.A, This was indicated already (ver. 4) as the cause of the astonishing adoration.
Vv. 13, 14. onucia peyada. As, according to Matt. xxiv. 24, they belong to the seductive activity (ver. 14) of the false prophet.§ — iva xa? xip xoj xara- Baivew éx r. ovp. With Beng., Hengstenb. recognizes here a significant ex- ample of the use of the iva® in the sense of dare peculiar to the Apostle John. But, improperly: the use of iva, which in this passage, in fact, explains the conception of the yeyéda,’ is very strongly distinguished from the style of the Apostle John, because in the latter® the ideal statement of the purpose is actually included, while here the writer of the Apoc., in a mode widely different from the elegance of the apostle, describes something that is simply a matter of fact. In such case, the apostle infallibly writes dore® or dre. — The words iva xai rip, «.r.A., should not be regarded as proving that the false prophet intends to mimic Pentecost, or wishes to represent himself as a second Solomon. We are much more apt to think of an allusion to the miracles of Elijah,!? and thus to regard this false prophet as a forerunner of antichrist, in a way similar to that according to which the true Christ had an Elias }® as a forerunner. But the analogy dare not be determined more specifically than the context itself suggests. It is not the antichrist in the sense of the Apostle John,‘ but the dragon that in the Apoc. stands opposed to Christ,!5 and it is not the forerunner, but the accomplice, of the dragon, that is the other beast whose ungodly and antichristian nature expresses itself in the fact that in virtue of his demoniacal power he can perform miracles, which appear to be counterparts of the miracles of the true prophets. —xal avg. The miracles are an important auxiliary )° of the seduction.!?— Aéywr, without construction, as xi. 1.— mojou elxova ro Onpiv,«.t.A, The historical foundation of this description is indicated already in the Introduction.1® All images of deified ernperors must have appeared to the Christian conscience as images of the beast, the more certainly as all
enb.: “As a dragon,” in fact, as well as ‘‘as t Cf. Winer, p. 430. the dragon.” ® Cf., e.g., 1 Joho ili. 1, with my note, vol. 1 Cf. Gen. fli. 1 eqq.; Ewald, De Wette. ii., p. 49. 3 Cf. ver. 14, wAavj, with Gen. iil. 13. ® John iii. 16. 3 Cf. xii. 9. 1 1 Jubn iv. 9. 1! Beda. 4 Cf. ver. 14, villi. 2; 1 Kings x. 8; Num. 12 2 Chron. vil. 1. C.a Lap. iil.6. De Wette, Hengstenb. 13 Cf. xi. 3 qq. . § Victorin.: ‘‘ These things the Magi do also 16 Cf. Introduction, p. 65, to-day through fallen angels.” 1B xii. 3 aqq., xiii. 1 sqq. * The variation «cai rip iva ex 7, ovp, eara- 16 &a 1. o., because of the miracles. Cf. xii. Baivy (Griesb., De Wette) would contain a ii. ' tarn similar to that of ver. 12, viz., xa (ec. iT Matt. xxiv. 24: wore tAavicai.
Woe) WP, K.TA, 18 p. 51 aq.
CHAP. XIII. 15-17. 881 those individual emperors were poasessors of the same antichristian secular power. Hence the addition 6 tye r. x1, «1.4. is also again in place here; the statues of Augustus and Caligula, erected to them as gods, were also represented by the beast which received its wound only with Nero’s death. Ver. 15. To the second beast, it was further given (éds0n, cf. ver. 7): dotva: xveipa Tp elxdu Tov @npiov, i.e., to give that image of the beast a demoni- acal rveipa Gic,? and that, too, with the intention (iva xa? Aad.) that this might thereby speak, and also by this sign of life manifest his usurped divine glory— which must be adored (ver. 155). Ver. 15a must not be understood of a speaking of the spirit of heathen idols;* but this feature of the description contains a suggestion of what has deen reported concern- ing divine images actually speaking ;* and John appears ® to presuppose the reality of such demoniacal miracles. — Significant, besides, is the statement that the idol of the first beast had not the power to speak of itself, nor with the rough force with which the beast ruled the world, but that the intel- lectual power of the lying wisdom of the world must give that beast living speech. The false prophet with his xAavay belongs thereto, if that beast is to find worship. — Incorrect is the special reference in Victorin.: “He will cause a golden image fo antichrist to be placed in the temple at Jerusalem, and the vanishing angel to enter, and to give thence voices and decisions.” — x, motoy iva—droxravdoot. On the construction, cf. ver. 12. On the his- torical illustration of this testimony, as in the letter of Pliny to Trajan.® Vv. 16,17. xat wowt ravrag—itva ddotv abroic yap. — xal Iva ph ty, «.7.A, The first iva, just as ver. 12; the second iva (ver. 17) has a different relation to the moi, which is to be regarded as repeated before it, in so far as here an immediate determination of the object is lacking. — John describes how the entire number of worshippers of the beast,? who recognize one another by a mark which certifies that they belong to the beast, hinder the intercourse, required even in business with respect to their daily life, of saints who have not received that mark of the beast. — dio abroi¢ xapayua. Deceived by the second beast unto the worship of the first beast (ver. 14), the dwellers on the earth put a mark upon themselves; they receive it willingly.* — én? The xeipds abray rig dekuic 9 int 1d uéruxov abrov. Ziill. and Hengstenb. unjustly resist the acknowledgment ® that the idea contains an allusion to the heathen custom of branding slaves and soldiers, and thus of designating that they
1 Cf. ver. 12. On the «. é{ncer, of. 11.8. On the neut. o ¢x., see Critical Notes.
3 Cf. xi. 11.
’ Against Hengstenb., who remarks how the heathen in bis idol objectified hie own viewe, and that, too, with a vividness which was attested by the assertions of actual epecoh on the part of those images.
4 Cf. Grot., Ew. ii., who also recalls the popular deception of epenking statues of Mary.
5 Cf. also ver. 18,
¢L. X., ep. 97: “* When they invoked the gods, and with wine and frankincense made supplication to your image, which, for that
purpose, I had commanded to be brought to- gether with the statues of the deities, none of which things, as is sald, those who are really Christians can be forced to do.”” Those who remain faithful must die: ‘‘ Threatening alao to punish them with death. Nuch as persisted, I ordered them to be led away.” Cf., concern- ing the Neronian persecution, Tacit., Aas., xv 4.
t The specifications 7. pixpevs «. T. pry., «.7A., exhaust in a perceptible way the idea of the wevrac. Cf. vi. 15, xi. 18, xix. 18.
8 Cf. xiv. 9, 11, xvi. 2, xiz. 20, xx. 4.
® Grot., Ebrard, etc.
882 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
belong to the same master. It is just concerning this that the treatment refers, and not with respect to a counterpart of Deut. vi. 8; for the ydpayya of the worshippers of the beast is to mark them as such, and to render them distinguishable as of the same nature, but in itself by no means contains an adinonition of a service of the beast to which they are bound. The remi- niscence of the Gentile custom is the more natura] here, as the worshippers of the beast are partners in the Gentile-Roman Empire. The ydpayya, how- ever, is not the bringing together by a “confession,”! but it is the definite external mark indicated in both its forms in ver. 17, which is attached either to the forehead or the right hand, and thus in places most readily presented to the eyes; for, since it is intended only for visibility, whether it be attached to the one or the other place is a matter of indifference.* Inappropriately, Hengstenb. says: “The forehead is the most suitable place for the confes- sion” (? Rom. x. 10), and the right hand comes into consideration “as the instrument for action.” But just because the parallel assertion én? r. uérwrov avr. does not allow any other reference than to the convenient visibility of the mark, the ézi r. yeip. abr. r. def. also cannot have any deeper reference. The right hand is mentioned because this must manifest itself especially in daily use. — The nature of the signature contained by the ydpayua is definitely expressed in ver. 17: 1d dvoua Tov Onpiov, 9 riv dpdpdy rod bvoparoe abroi, i.e., either the express name by which the beast'is known, and therefore written in letters, or the number which gives the numerical value of the letters con- tained in the name.® In every respect perversely, Coccejus says that the xapayza is the law, the dvoua the Catholic Church, and the dpdp. unwritten tradition.
Ver. 18. As John wants to designate the zdpayya definitely, and that, too, in the form of the dpdude rod dvéuaroc of the beast (ver. 17), he mentions first of all, that wisdom and understanding are required for the comprehen- sion of this mysterious mark. The formula cde 7 oo9. torw receives its pe- culiar meaning * through the context, especially through the express demand 6 Exyuv vuby wngiodta, x.tA A reckoning (yWngicdtw) is properly required, because the subject has reference to a number, and the value of its letters; yet the invitation to solve the puzzle intelligibly is supported by the explicit remark that the solution can actually be found,’ because the number is meant in the ordinary way: dpeudc yap cvOpdrov toriv. ‘These words do not declare that the number describes the name of any particular human person,® — in order to express which, John would have had to attach a ride, or, after his way,’ a évdc, to dv6p., — but, as also the yap, and the omission of the art. before dprdu. indicate, that the dp:dud¢ rod Gnpiov express the dvoua rod Gnpiov in a human. way, and therefore according to the value of the letters current with
1 Against Hengstenb., who yet himeelf re- p. 75. Andr.: 4 xpdévos dwoxcadvwa. Hofmann, marks that the confession has an impulse for | who even assumes that Joho himeelf did not
an external sign. know the name signified by the number; § Cf., on the other hand, vil. 8. Luthardt, etc. Cf. Intro., p. 42. § Cf. De Wette, etc. ®@ Boda, Grot., Ew.i., Zull., Hofm. (Schrift- 4 Cf. ver. 10. dew., ii. 637), Volkm., Kifef., etc.
8 Against Irensus, Z. V., ¢c. 30. Cf. Intro., T vill. 13.
CHAP. XIII. 18. 883
every one. The key to the mystery of the numerical name is, therefore, readily found; but wisdom and understanding are necessary in order to use this key properly. That this is not so easy, the history of the exposition shows, as it! gives the report of hundreds of attempts to solve the puzzle, which failed just because it was not understood, on the part of the large number of men which may contain the names of thousands, how to decipher. the only correct name. — With the statement of this riddle John concludes the description of the beast, which thus reaches the most significant climax: nal dapidudc abrod xés’. The airov belongs to the conception rob éxpiov,? just as yn¢. 7. dpdudy 7. Ono. Was expressed, yet in the sense that the dpcéu. rod Onpiov is meant as the dpidu. rod dvéparog rod Onp., ver. 17.— Without all doubt the number to be indicated means yxf¢’, i.e., 666; for what Irenaeus ® reports of those who received the number x¢’, 616, is the less applicable for causing any doubt with respect to the certainty of the received reading és’, as Irenaeus himself decidedly advocates the latter reading by asserting for it the authority of all good and ancient MSS., and an express tradition which he derived from the author of the Apoc. himself.—In order to find the interpretation of the enigmatical number commended by John to Christian understanding, the indications afforded by the nearer and more remote con- text are certainly to be observed, which show the entire class of attempts at interpretation to be impossible, and urge the correct interpretation : —
(1) All expositors enter into an erroneous course who, in spite of the declaration of the text, understand the number not as rdv dpidudv rob dvduarog rob Onpiov; i.e., who have held it as any thing else than a definite name ex- pressed in numbers. Therefore, not only is such play-work to be rejected of itself, as that of Zeger 4 and of Coccejus,® but also all Apocalyptic chro- nology based upon the number 666. With what confidence this was formerly held, is to be seen from the fact that in the Wittenberg Bible of the year 1661, the note (Luther's gloss) is given: “It is 666 years: so long does the worldly papacy stand.” The master in the sphere of Apocalyptic arithmetic — in which men even like Isaac Newton have erred ®— was Bengel, whose piety remains worthy of respect because it believed that even in the spaces
1 Cf. Wolf, Curae, on this passage; Hein- richs, Zrcureue iv., De antichristo, ef impri- mia monogrammate illo, cap ziti. 78, nume- rum exprimente, Vol. li. p. 235. Zlillig, Zecure. il., 232.
2 This reference is not, as Klief. says, ‘an evasion,” buat a philological necessity, which, of course, cannot be acknowledged, if, upon the basia of ver. 18 (ap. y. dv@p.), it be asserted (Klief.) that the beast is a man, aince the number of the beast designates a man. But in truth, the av@p. is only a qualitative designation of the apc6ud¢, 0 that it ie directly imposalble to refer the avrov in the closing words to av@p. It can refer only to the chief conception which is designated by repetition in ver. 17 (r. ap. r. dy. abrov) and ver. 18 (r. dp. rou Onpiov).
$L. V., 6. 30: “I do not know how it is that some have erred, following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting fifty numbers, wishing that only one be instead of six dec- ades. This 1 think was the fault of the copy- ista,’’ etc.
4 Viz., that the name Legion, Luke vili. 30, is meant, vis., six thousand six hundred and sixty-six, but after a withdrawal of six thou- sand caused by Christ’s victory.
5 Viz., that the Catholic additions to apoe- tolic doctrine are meant, the jus canonicum, eepedially the liber sexiue, since the number six remains if six hundred and sixty-six be divided by twelve.
® Cf. Llicke, p. 1086.
od
884
of time which are regarded as revealed in the Apoc., the holy ways of God are to be discerned, although not only is the excessive curiosity which muddled that piety reproved by the wording and spirit of Acts i. 7, Matt. xxiv. 36,! but also the entire theory, as it is built by Bengel upon this text, is deprived of a foundation and basis by making the text itself speak of nothing /ess than of 666 years. Bengel’s system of Apocalyptic chronology depends essentially upon the fact, that, in order to gain first an arithmetical proportion upon which to work, he combines the 666 years, as ordinary years, with the 3} times or 42 “ prophetical months,” ? that thereby he may attain the various chronological determinations,® which he then applies to the history of the popes.
(2) Against the method, given in the text, for finding the name of the beast from the number 666, in such a way that the numerical value of the letters forming the concealed name gives that sum, Vitringa and Heng- stenb. object, with their peculiar interpretation, rejected already by Vitr. and Coccejus. Because, in Ezra ii. 13, a head of a family, Adonikam, with 666 sons, is mentioned, the Apoc. number is therefore regarded as referring to this name, 0)°) 1% (the Lord sets up), and thus, in the sense of ver. 4,* the antichristian arrogance of the beast deifying itself is indicated. Besides, Hengstenb. finds even in the number 666 itself the sign of that which is contrary to God, because, “as the swollen six,” it always remains a world- number, and can never be reduced to the godly number seven.® But even apart from this last mode of trifling, and without considering that it yields a Hebrew name, — while only a Greek name is to be expected,—-a mere play-work would be found therein, entirely spiritless, and not in harmony with the holy earnestness of John, if, without all inner reference to the sup- posed name, it would be referred to the number of children of Adonikam. Yet the name Adonikam could be meant in the assumed sense if that head of a family had had 777 sons.
(3) We have not only in the wording of vv. 17, 18, the clear direction for seeking a name in the enigmatical number; but the Apoc. as a whole, and the context of ch. xiii. especially, compel us to reckon that name from no other than the Greek alphabet. A scientific expositor at the present day no longer attempts to introduce the Latin alphabet® or those of modern languages.’ It is only either the Greek or the Hebrew alphabet that can
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
1In a remarkable way, Bengel (Zrki. Offend., p. 1090) attempts to prove that Acts i. 7 does not testify against his method of ‘* Apoo- alyptic chronology.” The Lord, he says, gave his aposties ‘no pure repulse,” but only in- formed them that the knowledge of the day and hour did not belong to the apostolic office.
2 xii. 6, 14.
3 666¢/,, 7771/, years.
¢ 2 Thess. fl. 4.
8 Cf. C. a Lap. and Lothardt, who refer the antichristlan number 666 as in antithesis to the number 888 with which in the Sibyil. Orac., L. I., p. 176, ed. Serv. Gall., the name ‘lycovs is described; Herd., ete., mention that
the serpentine form ¢ occurs between the let- ters xs, f.e., the monogram of the name of Christ. ¢ Cf. Bossuet’s interpretation: DIoCLes aVgVatVs = Diocles or Diocletian Augustus, by reckoning only one part of the letters. Similar artificial expedients in Vieg. and the Catholics, who derived the names Martin Luther, John Calvin, Beza antitheos, and the like, reckoning sometimes in German, and eometimes in Greek and Hebrew; while, on the contrary, the old Protestants conjectured the names of Popes, Jesuits, etc. t Cf. Gerken, with his numerous faterpre- tations with respect to the history of Napoleon. a
!
CHAP. XIII. 18. 885
enter into consideration. The application of the latter is apparently urged by the O. T. character of the Apoc.! Ziillig thus finds the name Balaam in the designation of Josh. xiii. 83, which,? however, has nothing to do with the @npiov of whose name it treats. Such interpretations would suit better, as that invented by Ewald for the (false) number 616, (O'p On, i.e., Ceesar at Rome, or that received by Hilgenf., Renan, etc. ,? 0p 2,4 if the presump- tion that Nero were to be identified with the beast were correct, and if the introduction of the Hebrew alphabet were not arbitrary. Irenaeus, Primas, Victorin., Beda, Andr., Areth., Wetst., Grot., Calov., Eichh., Ew. i., De Wette, Stern, Rinck, Liicke, Bleek, etc., are correct in their attempt to find the number indicated by the name in the Greek alphabet; for although the Apoc., in its entire mode of presentation and in its style, shows a strongly impressed O. T. type, yet it is intended for the Greek-speaking reader, and, therefore, takes the formula A and 9° from the Greek alphabet, as also, in its references to O. T. passages, it is not altogether independent of the ver- sion of the LXX.’ But of the Greek interpretations that have been at- tempted, most miscarry, because they are either in form intolerable, or without meaning and definite reference. Here belong the solutions ebivéac, dvrepoc,® dpvoiue,® reirav,) 5 vianryc,)) avridoxoc,)® Oba,’ Aaunérnc, xaxdc dényor, duvog ddixoc, etc.'4 Ingenious is the solution commended by Miarcker.?® He reckons, according to the Greek alphabet, the numerical value of the initials of the names of the emperors, from Octavianus to the tenth following, Ves- pasian, inclusive of the three emperors of the interregnum, — Galba, Otho, and Vitellius,—-by reckoning the numerical sign i as the tenth, and so obtaining the letters o’, r, y, «, v, y', 0, 0, 0, é, which, according to their numerical value, give correctly 666, and besides can be combined in the name of the beast, éyxdroytov, 80 that the result is an indication of the vast- ness and pride (éyxoc), and of the peculiar garment (toga) in the Roman Empire. This solution is a flagrant act of trifling, to which, besides, a counterpart is offered. It is false, therefore, already, because nothing justi- fies us in taking the names of the ten emperors as a basis, among which the last is figured only as a numerical sign. The combined name of the beast expresses little. — Kienlen, resorting to the Hebrew alphabet, derives the name of Domitian. — Kliefoth says that no name whatever is mentioned, but only the antichristian character of the beast, which, in every gradation of the world-power indicated by the number six, does not, nevertheless, reach the number seven which symbolizes the divine. —Irenaeus already was acquainted with that solution of the puzzle, which alone corresponds
1 Cf. Intro., p. 63.
2 Only that Zlll., in order to conform to the number 666, must put OD) instead of the Op1pi.
* Cf. De Wette.
4 It ought to be O*p" 3, L.e., Nero Cesar.
8 Cf., on the other hand, on ver. 8.
¢ 1, 8, xxii. 18,
+ Cf. xil. 5.
¢ Interpreted as “ contrary to honor.”
® Interpreted “denying.” Both these in- terpretations rejected already by Beda.
10 Irenaeus, Beda, Wetet., found therein an allusion to the Emperor Titus. 11 Stern,
13 Rinck, who has to reckon the emooth breathing as 1, in order to avoid the result 665.
18 Interpreted “‘Ulpiue Trajan,” which must reckon as instead of aS.
4 Cf., already, Andr.
Stud. u. Krit., 1868, p. 609.
886 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
to all demands, — Aareivoc, i.e., according to the value of the letters: 30 + 1 + 300 + 5 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 200 = 666. So Calov., Eichh., Ew. i., De Wette, Ebrard, etc. Irenaeus, indeed, preferred the mame Teiray, yet said: “ But the name Aareivoc also has the number 666, and it is very prob- able, since the last kingdom has this name. For the Latins are they who now rule.” Against this interpretation it dare not be objected, that the usual form of the name is Aarivoc; for although this is never found in analogous forms, like Eapeivoc, Nazeipoc, etc., the very nature of the case has determined such a departure from what is usual, for the sake of the riddle. Yet, e.g., in the sibylline books, the name yzpicros is changed into ypeicros, because in the acrostic description of the words 'Inoot¢ xpicrog, Beod vioc, x.7.A.5 not 4 but only an «, can be introduced. But if the name of the beast be Aareivoc, there is conveyed by this numerical name the most definite designa- tion of the beast as the Roman Empire, not of any individual emperor, and the exposition of ch. xiii. 1 sqq., is expressly confirmed. [See Note LXXIV., p. 388.]
NorTes BY THE AMERICAN EpITOR.
LXX. Ver. 1 qq. Onpiov dvaBalvov, x,7.A,
On this cruz interpretum, we will attempt only to summarize the results of the thoughtful and sober discussion of Gebhardt (‘‘ The Doctrine of the Apoca- lypse,’’ E. T., pp. 219-230), who constantly refers to, and often dissents from, Diisterdieck: There can be no doubt that the beast stands in the closest rela- tion of nature to the dragon (cf. xlii. 1, xvii. 8, 7, with xii. 3), and that the lat- ter is, in the eye of the seer, the antigod, and the former the antichrist. But this antichrist is not a single person; for xiil. 1, 2, shows that the seer had in mind Dan. vii. 2-7. The beast is accordingly not a person, but an empire, and that, too, the latest and most extreme, reproducing in itself all earlier phases of the world’s enmity to God. Yet as the individual forms of world-power appear to the seer to culminate in an empire which he calls “‘the beast,’ so he sees again the particular stages of the development of this empire, the individual rulers of the same culminate in one prince, whom he also describes as ‘‘the beast’? (xvii. 10, 11); as the leopard, the bear, and the lion are contained in the beast, so are the seven heads of the beast contained in the one head. As he sees in an individual] king the nature of a definite empire, uniting in itself all earlier empires, personified, so also he sees unfolded in this empire the nature of that individual king. This empire could not have been any other than the one of John’s own times, the Roman Empire. ([Farrar: ‘‘ The Roman emperor could say with truth, ‘ L’ état c’est moi.’’’] The king must be Nero, and not Domitian, as Diisterdieck argues; ‘‘ the one who Is’’ of xvii. 10 being Galba, and not, as Diisterdieck holds, Vespasian. Diisterdieck’s historical application of the rebellio trium principum, the incertum et quasi vagum, and the founda- tion of a new dynasty by Vespasian, is also charged as being seriously at fault. On the details of the description, the sea is regarded as ‘“‘the department of earthly movement and earthly occurrences, in distinction from the earth, as the
2 L. VIUILI., p. 723, ed. Serv. Gall.
NOTES. ‘ 887
department of earthly being and feeling,’ i.e., the Roman Empire, “arises out of secular history;’’ ‘‘the names of blasphemy,” the titles by which Roman emperors appropriated to themselves divine honors, etc. The Nero-legend is rejected in the form that refers to his withdrawal and abode among the Parthi- ans, ‘‘ but in the eye of the seer, Nero lived, if we may call that a life, in the abyss; he went alive down to hell, and from hell would one day return.’”’ Al- ford grgues against any reference to an emperor, and conceives of the whole representation as signifying the Roman Empire personified; ‘‘ the wounding of the head to death ’’ (ver. 3) being interpreted of the downfall of the pagan, and ‘the healing of the wound,”’ of the establishment of the Christian Empire.
LXXI. Ver. 4. Tic duoc rp Onply.
Gebhardt: ‘‘ The seer observes what an imposing, overpowering, transport- ting impression the Roman Empire exercises upon men; how the world is aston- ished at it; that it is amazed by its greatness, power, and glory, and does homage to it; how the world worships the dragon, because he has given power to the beast, — that is, not consclously worshipping the devil, but perceiving, in imperial power, and in its individual possessors, supposed manifestations of the divine, it really gives divine honors to the devil.’? Carpenter: ‘‘ The spirit of the wild beast is adored wherever worldliness prevails. There is nothing so successful as success, and the homage of men is more often pald to power than to principle. ‘Can you not hear the words coming across the -centuries from the lips of two Roman youths, talking with each other as they lounge about the Forum ?’ (Maurice.) Can we not hear the echo of the words in the Champs Elysées, in Piccadilly, in the Broadway, or Unter den Linden, from the lips of young men who have taken fashion, rank, wealth, world-power in any shape, as their god ?”’
LXXII. Ver. 8. amd xarBaodig xocpov,
In favor of the translation in our A. V., is the distance of this clause from the péyparra:. 1 Pet. i. 19, 20, John xvii. 24, are sometimes cited as supporting ‘‘slain from the foundation;”’ but the shade of meaning there expressed is dif- ferent. Rev. xvil. 8 seems to be decisive in favor of the construction advocated by Diisterdieck; and it has, on the basis of this passage, been adopted by the American section of the committee on the R. V.
LXXIII. Ver. 11 sqq. GAAo Onpiov.
In harmony with Diisterdieck, Gebhardt: ‘‘ Heathen witchcraft and sooth- saying; the heathen religion as divination and magic according to its demoniacal origin and background, and its demoniacal influence on the mind.’”’ Ver. 12: ‘** The idolatrous homage by which the empire was consecrated and strengthened, it owed to the demoniacal influence of its religion upon the mind.”’ Ver. 13: ‘In its approaching climax of development, it will work wonders which will compare in appearance with the greatest miracles of the true prophets; for example, with those of an Elias.’”? Ver. 14: ‘If the heathen religion, with its demoniacal power, had already deluded the world, much more will it be so in the expected completion of that power; and as already it consecrated images to
888 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
the Caesars for divine homage, as to gods, so with the appearance of the per- sonal antichrist, it will fully bring the world to set him up as God, and to render him divine honors.’’ Ver. 15: ‘‘ The seer knew, and did not doubt, what was said among the heathen about speaking images; and he expected, therefore, that heathen sorcery would succeed in giving life, the spirit of life (cf. xi. 11), to the image of the beast, so that it would speak, and thus be fully manifested to the world in its usurped divinity. And, indeed, in his time it had already happened that Christians were put to death because they refused to pay divine honors to the emperor; so, naturally, would it be in the future, as John foresaw, that refusal to worship the speaking image, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ii. 6), would end in death.” Vv. 16, 17: ‘‘ The Christians were already vari- ously and seriously hindered in business, because in the Roman Empire the heathen religion penetrated and governed all civil relations. Indeed, in this re- spect, they were under a ban. There needed only one step more. The worship- pers of the beast would willingly place the name, or number of the name, of the beast upon their right hands, or upon their foreheads, or in the most conspicu- ous places; and those who would not consent to this, Christians included, would be able neither to buy nor sell; they would be shut out from intercourse, banned, inarked, and robbed of the vital air in civil and social life.’’
LXXIV. Ver. 18. é&andow: tijxovra éé.
Luthardt: ‘‘ This number was transmitted also orally from the fathers, but not its meaning; this is 4 matter of the future, and all interpretations attempted are arbitrary. The best is still the ancient one: ‘The Latin,’ i.e., the antichrist, is the ruler of the Roman Empire. But the number is intended to designate the name of a person.”’ Alford {Prolegomena): ‘‘ Even while I print my note in favor of the Aarecvoc of Irenaeus, I feel almost disposed to withdraw it. It is, beyond question, the best solution that has been given; but that it is not the solution, I have a persuasion amounting to certainty. It must be considered merely as worthy to emerge from the thousand and one failures strewed up and down in our books, and to be kept In sight till the challenge ode 7 cupia écriv is satisfactorily redeemed.”” Gebhardt suggests that both Aaremwoc and Cesar Nero in Hebrew letters are correct. Farrar (Zarly Days of Christianity, pp. 468-474) argues with much learning and great ingenuity for the latter interpretation.
CHAPTER XIV.
Ver. 1. éords. So A, C, &, al., Erasm., 1, 3,4, 5. Ald., al., Lach., Tisch. 1859 and IX. [W. and H.]. Elz.: éorqxoc, emendation. The éorde (B., Beng., Tisch. 1854) testifies in favor of the correct reading, since only the masc. form expresses the reference to Christ. —dvoyza abrov xai rd before Svoua tr, warp. is omitted in the Rec., in opposition to almost all the witnesses. — Ver. 3. Before gid xaw., A, C, Vulg., Lach. [W. and H.], have a o¢, which is lacking in B, X, al., Verss., Elz., Tisch., and may have been carried over from ver. 2. — Ver. 5. After the duwpo, the yép (B, x, Copt., Syr., Orig., Elz., Tisch.) is possibly tc be deleted (A, C, 12, Vulg., Lach. (W. and H.]); cf. ver. 4: map0. yép ele. In- correct is the addition at the close in the Rec., évamiv tod Opévov tod Aeod, — Ver. 6. éxi rode xadnuévove, So Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], because the ézi, which stands also directly before dv édvo¢, is supported by A, C, &, al. (it is lacking in B, Elz., Beng.), while the Rec. t. xatocxobvrag (A, Lach., small ed.) gives only the more usual expression (xiii. 8, 12, 14) against B, C, 8, al. — Ver. 8. Instead of d5rz (Elz.), read #7 with A, C, Lach., Tisch. Both are lacking in Beng. — Ver. 13. dvarancovra. So A, C, ®, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The form dvaratowv- rat (Elz., B: dvaraioovrat) is a modification. — ra dé épya. So Elz., Beng., Tisch., according to B, al., Andr., Areth. The well-attested reading td ydp Epya (A, C, ®, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) is liable to suspicion as an attempt at interpretation.— Ver. 15. The oo after 7A0ev (Elz.) is incorrect (A, B, C, 8, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 18. 6 éyov, Soa Lach., Tisch., according to A, C. The article causing a difficulty is omitted already in B, & (Elz., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. IX.) [bracketed in W. and H.]. — The plural j#xuacav ai orapvdal (Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.}]), is of course, easier than the sing. (Tisch., according to B), but is defended as ade- quate by A, C, &, al. — A, C, &, advocate atric (Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), while B offers tig yc. — Ver. 19. rdv péyav, So A, B, C, Tisch., Lach. [W. and H.]. The Rec., ry yeydAnv (x), is purely an emendation.
After the description of the secular power threatening believers (ch. xiii., ef. also xii. 12, 17) has shown how the proper originator of all the calamity, which has been prepared for believers, is no less than Satan himself, there now follows —in consolatory contrast to that terrible picture — an account which, with its two parts (vv. 1-5, vv. 6-20), serves essentially to give em- phatic force to the thoughts that obtruded themselves already in xiii. 9, 10, in the midst of the description of the antichristian enemies. This contrast between chs. xiv. and xiii. lies not only in the contents in itself, but is also expressly marked by the definite retrospective allusions to ch. xiii. (cf. especially ver. 8 sqq.).—In like manner, just as in ch. vii. 9 sqq., an in- spiriting prospect of the heavenly glory of believers abiding faithful in the great tribulation still impending, is afforded before this trouble itself is
890 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
stated, so also in the first part of ch. xiv. (vv. 1-5), a scene is represented which in a multitude of departed believers (ver. 1, one hundred and forty- four thousand, ver. 4, drapy7), who appear with the Lamb on Mount Zion, and are described as such as have kept their earthly life free from all de- filement of the world, manifests the glorious rewards of the victors.! — In another way the second vision (ver. 6 sqq.) brings the incentive to patience ;® viz., by the declaration of the Divine judgment infallibly per- taining to the antichristian secular power. The latter account is presented with such elegance that the outline of the entire Apoc., at least seemingly forgotten, is stated again more definitely. The nearer we come to the final catastrophe, the more clearly is the analogy in the appearance of the vision to be known, as the end is organically developed from the beginning: the seven vials of wrath (xv. 1 sqq.) appear in the same relation to the trumpets (viii. 2-xi. 19) as the latter do to the seven seals (v. 1-viii. 1), so that from the standpoint to which xiv. 6-20 already leads, and which is again expressly adopted in xv. 1, the apparent chasm between ch. xi. and ch. xii. com- pletely vanishes.
Ver. 1. xa? eldov, cat dob. The formula® marks the unexpected, forcible contrast to the preceding vision.4— 7d dpviov, Since the Lamb appears as the leader of the glorified,® not only does the contrast between Christ and Satan, with his dragon-form, stand forth in startling relief; but the form of the Lamb also reminds us that the Lord himself has by his sufferings and death attained the victory,® therefore his people must follow him; and that the redemption of believers (ver. 4), and their glorification, depend upon the blood of the Lamb.? —éoréc. With the abbreviated form of the part.,® cf. the inf. éordva:, 1 Cor. x. 12.°—ém 1d dpoc Xecw. The failure to acknowledge the proper significance of the entire vision is connected no less with the arbitrary presumption that Mount Zion is to be regarded in heaven, than with the allegorizing interpretation, according to which Mount Zion is regarded as the Christian Church." Vitringa unites the reference of the whole to the true Church,!? with the correct acknowledg- ment 8 that the locality represented in the vision is meant properly. Cf. similar local designations within the vision, which are to be understood with absolute literalness, vv. 6, 14, xiii. 1, 11, xii. 1, vii. 1. The holy place named, the home of the O. T.—and, therefore, also of the N. T.4— Church, is adapted like no other place for that which is displayed to the gazing John. With the Lamb there appear one hundred and forty-four thousand who have the name of the Lamb, and the name of his Father,
2 Cf. i. 11, ili. 12, 21. 10 Grot., Eichh., Stern., Ztill., Ew., Hengst-
3 Cf. ver. 12, where the admonition is ex- | enb., Ebrard, etc. Especially does Zullig ex- pressly made prominent. plain: “The highest mountain-like vault of § Cf. ver. 14, vi. 2, 5, 8 the firmament, which corresponded to Mount
« Hengstenb. Zion, inasmuch as, according to the Ieraelitic
5 Cf. vii. 17. idea, it lay directly beneath the same.”
® Cf. v. 6 eqq., ifi. 21. 11 Beda, ©. a Lap., Calov., etc.
7 Cf. v. 9, vii, 14, xil. 11. 12 In vv. 1-5 it is stated: ‘That in a false,
8 Matt. xxiv. 15. there is a true Church” (cf. Laun.).
® Winer, p. 75. = De Wette. % Cf. xii. 1, 17.
CHAP. XIV. 2, 3. 891
written on their foreheads. These dne hundred and forty-four thousand are, according to the usual conception,! identical with those mentioned in ch. vii. 4. The number is the same; the seal there mentioned on the fore- heads may be combined with the names of God which the followers of the Lamb have written on their foreheads; also the place, Mount Zion, appears to apply especially to glorified believers from Israel. But there are weighty reasons for the distinction of the one hundred and forty-four thousand in our text from those named in vii. 4.2. [See, for the contrary, Note LIII., p 2656, on ch. vii. 4.} 1. If John had wished here to designate those already mentioned in vii. 4, he would have expressed this definitely by the article. Cf. similar retrospective allusions in ver. 1 (rd dpy.), ver. 8 (év rob 6p., Tov teoo, ¢., raw npeoB.). This was the more necessary, because here a particular description of the one hundred and forty-four yAdder follows (éxovoat, «.7.4,), which could lead to an identity with the sealed only in case it be conceived that the seal had as an inscription the twofold names here designated; a conception which in itself has no difficulty, but is remote therefrom, because the sign of the seal has a designation and significance different from this sign of the name: there the fidelity, not to be affected by the impending trouble, is sealed, while here the name of God expresses the eternal and blessed belonging of believers to their heavenly Lord,* in con- trast with those who have made themselves bondsmen of the beast. (Vv. 9, 11, xiii. 16 sq.) 2. To this must be added the fact, which may be deci- sive, that the one hundred and forty-four thousand in our passage, which, according to ver. 8 sqq., do not appear at all as from Israel, can be identi- fied with those mentioned in vii. 4, only in case one of the two false concep- tions, with respect to ch. vii.,4 be sanctioned; viz., either that the one hundred and forty-four thousand (vii. 4) be regarded identical with the innumerable multitude (vii. 9 sqq.), or this multitude be regarded as a part of the one hundred and forty-four thousand. But it is rather to be said that in this passage only the schematic number, which as a designation of a mass suits mainly believers out of Israel (cf. vii 4-8), is transferred to such as have completed their course, and designates not only the definite description, ver. 3 sqq., but especially also the antithesis lying in the entire context to the heathen worshippers of .the beast, as those springing from the heathen.® .This select band (cf. ver. 4) appears as such in the holy numer- ical sign of believers out of Israel; it is contained in the innumerable com- pany, Viz., a8 an drapxf.
Vv. 2, 3. éx rod obpavod. Cf. x. 4,8. Many of the expositors who have transferred Mount Zion, ver. 1, to heaven, have® ascribed the voice from heaven to the one hundred and forty-four thousand themselves. Ew. ii.,
2 Grot., Vitr., Beng., Elchh., Heinr., Ew., Zull., De Wette, Rinck, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Gebhardt, Hilgenf., Kliefoth.
3 Areth., Laun., C.a Lap., Marck., Bleek, Belir., p. 184 eqq.; Neander, History af the Planting and Tratning, 8d ed., IT., p. 543; Volkm. Vitr., already, ts vaciliating: ‘“‘ The eame, or at least those of the same kind.”
3 Cf. ii. 12.
4 Bee on that veree.
5 It is worthy of note, how decidedly thie paseage contradicts aleo the pretended anti- Pauline Jewish Christianity of the author of the Apocalypee.
© As C.a Lap., Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb.
392 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
as in xii. 10 sqq., xix. 1 sqq., understands the voices as those of the martyrs, Vii. 9 sqq. — dc dwy. idaruv woAA. Cf. i 15.—d¢ guv. Bporrig wey. Cf. vi. 1. The strength of the heavenly voice does not prevent its sounding at the same time charmingly, like the melody of players on the harp: o¢ «:dapyddy, «.7.A.) The é, which designates the instrument, is here still easier than in vi. 8. — gdéqv xawviv. Cf. v. 9. The conception xaw7 has nothing to do with the drapxy,? ver. 4; for the one hundred.and forty-four thousand do not sing this song. In this passage, also, the relation of the «ami, as to how this song is to be called because of its contents, is to be understood from the connection. The general reference to the work of redemption is not suf- ficient ;* but the subject has reference to that which is displayed to the gazing prophet, through the vision presented to him, and therefore to the faithfulness of God and the Lamb, whereby believers, upon the ground of the redemption accomplished by Christ, are preserved amid all the entice- ments or persecutions, on the part of the antichristian secular power, and brought to victory and eternal glory.4— évdmov roo Opévov, x.rA. There the song, according to its most inner relation, belongs, because it describes the blessed goal of God’s ways, whose attainment was of itself pledged by the significant glory of the heavenly scene, ch. iv., upon which the entire arrangement of God’s ways rests. — nai obdele édévaro uabeiv . ¢d., «.7.A. The one hundred and forty-four thousand, however, could learn this new song, i.e., not merely understand,® but also appropriate it so as to afterwards sing it,° because they alone have the experience of that which is celebrated in the song.? — ol pyopacpévos dxd ric yc. On the thought, cf. 4, v. 9. The con- struction of the masc., with al zAcddec, is according to the sense, as v. 13.
_ Vv. 4, 5. John describes the one hundred and forty-four thousand as a select number surpassing al] other believers in moral perfection. The under- standing of this description depends principally upon the proper arrange- ment and framing of the individual expressions. At the beginning and at the close two specia] points stand (ver. 4: obra: elow of werd yuvanaw obx buo- Aivonoav; ver. 5: xal tv rH ordpare airaév oty eipéOn weidoc); here, where the subject pertains to the past earthly life of those who have died, the aor. necessarily stands. In both cases the conclusion is by formule framed precisely in like manner (ver. 4: sapéévor yup elow; ver. 5: duwpor yup elow) ; but here, where an advance is made from the definite actual preservation of the deceased, to their proper nature and permanent condition, the present necessarily occurs. Between the two double-membered sentences, in the beginning and at the close, there are besides two sentences, which are there- by exhibited as independent of one another and the beginning and closing sentences, in that they both commence with the special designation of the subject (otra), and that the first expresses something present (otr. cow of dxod.), but the second something past, completed in the earthly life (avr. #yo-
1 Cf. v. 8. 5 Grot., who besides evades: “‘ No one could "3 Againet Beng.: ‘(A new song suits well § understand the cause of such joy.”
theee first fruits.” 6 Ew., De Wette. 3 De Wette. 7 Cf. ti. 17, aleo xix. 12,
* Cf. Hengstenb.
CHAP. XIV. 4, 5. 893 paobnoay, cf. ver. 8). Hofmann? is the first expositor who keeps in view the disposition of vv. 4, 5; but he misjudges it by regarding the wapdtvo: ydp eiaw as immediately attracted to the succeeding words. The disposition attempted now also by Ew. ii., whereby three members appear (1. ovroi elo., «.7.A.; 2. ovr. eic., x.7.A.3 8. xal dv 7. ordu., x.7.A.), 18 in violation of the context. —ol pera yuovaundy obk ivodivéncav. According to Lev. xv. 18, the sexual union in itself, even that in wedlock, was regarded as defiling.?— rap$éva. This predicate was not seldom ascribed also to men.® In order to avoid the thoughts forced from the word, and not seldom made the beat of by Catholic interpreters in the sense of monastic asceticism,‘ it is regarded either directly as figurative,® and referring to spiritual purity, especially to abstaining from the worship of idols,* or, if we abide by the proper sense of the words, to sexual purity, as an example of all virtues.’ Hofm. attempts to remove the difficulty by saying that the declaration is concerning believers of the last time,® to whom celibacy will become a moral necessity, because of the special circum- stances of those times. But nothing is said here concerning Christians of that time. The expedient of Bleek® and De Wette, who regard it as refer- ring to abstinence from all lewdness, as it was ordinarily combined with the worship of idols, is forbidden by the expression perd r. yuvaudy, which is altogether general. — Nothing else seems to remain than with Augustine,’ Jerome,!! Beda, Andr., to explain it in the proper sense, and to acknowledge the idea, to which also other points in the text lead,!® that entire abstinence from all sexual intercourse belongs to the distinguished holiness of that one hundred and forty-four thousand,!* because of which they enjoy also distin- guished blessedness. [See Note LXXV., p. 404.] This is declared by the words immediately following: otros elo of dxodovbowwrer rp dpviy Srov Gv brayet. There is generally found here a description of the obedience of believers who follow the Lamb even to the cross and to death; but because of the
1 Schri/tbew., II. 2, p. 802.
2 On the expression ézoAvy#., of. Ien. ix. 3; 1 Cor. villi. 7; 2 Cor. vil. 1.
8 Cf. Fabricius, Cod. apocr. Vet. Test., II., pp. 92,98 (where Juseph ie called an avynp rap6é- vos); Kypke, Obeerv. sacr.ad A. lL. (wapOévor via from Nonnus, on John xix. 26); Suidas, eee on “Afed.
4 N. de Lyra, Stern.
8 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 2.
© Victorin., Zeger, Coocejus, Grot., Vitr., Wolf; cf. also ZUlh
t Eichh., Beng., Hengstenb., who says that sexual intercourse, as legally defiling, ie a fig- urative designation of sinful defilement in general.
® Cf. also C. a Lap.
® Beitr., p. 185.
169 De «. virg., 0. 37. Opp. Antwo., 1701, T.
VI., p. 258. 11 Adv. Jovin., 1.6.40. Opp. Franeo/, 1684, T.II., p. 34. 13 See above.
18 So also Neander, p. 543, who, from this
mode of contemplation, properly recognizes a mark that the writer of the Apoc. is not identi- cal with the Evangelist John. —If the expoel- tion above given be acknowledged, it must also be maintained (against Ew. il.) that the view, which, to the writer of the Apoc., is funda- mental, of the impurity of aii sexual inter- course, fe significantly distinguished from what je said in Matt. xix. 11 eqq., 1 Cor. vil. 32, 34, since here, uuder the exprese presump- tion that sexual intercourse in marriage ie an ordinance which ia divine, and by no meana ia iteelf impure, it is asserted that certain cir- cumstances can make a complete abstinence from marriage possible and necessary. Possi- bly the too far-reaching statement of tho writer of the Apocalypse ie occasioned by the fact that he wishes to emphasize In the highest de- gree the contrast with the worshippers of the beaat, j.e., the Gentiles, with thelr sexual abominations.
14 Cf. Matt. x. 88. Coccej., Grot., Vitr., Wolf, who recall the fact that the soldiers were
894 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
present tense, which here expresses the present condition, — while the holy manifestation in the earthly life is designated by the aor.,— there can be meant only a description of the blessed reward which those who have died are enjoying! with the Lamb.? It is meant that everywhere whither the Lamb goes, there that chosen one hundred and forty-four thousand accom- pany him; whether it be that a certain space in heaven remain inaccessible to other saints, or that the latter do not form the constant retinue of the Lamb, at least not in the same way as the former. — otro hyopac0noay ard riv dvOporuy atapx? Ty 6., x.7.4, What applies to all the redeemed, viz., that they ~ have been bought unto God by the blood of the Lamb, from among men, of the earth (ver. 3), or from all nations and kindreds (v. 9), applies in an eminent sense to the one hundred and forty-four thousand: they are bought as an dmapy7. They appear, therefore, not as the select first fruits from the entire world,® but from believers, or, at any rate, from the blessed. The correlate to the drapyf is afforded by the context: rév fyopacpévwv. As such select first fruits the one hundred and forty-four thousand appear, with respect both to their peculiar holiness (apéévu), and also their peculiar blessedness (dxoA, r. dpv., «.7.A.).— Besides distinguished virginity, in ver. 5 another peculiar perfection is mentioned, which that multitude had mani- fested in their earthly life (etpéén, aor.); viz., perfect truthfulness never clouded by a lie. The expression weidoc 4 is to be taken in its general sense, and not to'be limited to the lies of idolatry,® heresy, or denial of Christ.¢ A contrast is easily conceivable to the sphere of falsehood in which the sedu- cing false prophet? moves, with the worshippers of the beast accepting his lies. Cf. also, in ix. 22, in an enumeration of the characteristic sins of the inhabitants of the earth, the juxtaposition of mopveia and xAépzpara.® — duupor yap elaw. The conclusion which stands especially in analogous relation to the immediately preceding special point, as the mapé. y. eio., ver. 4, to the immediately preceding clause,’ is, nevertheless, because of the comprehensive meaning of the predicate duwyo,™ especially suitable for rounding the entire description (vv. 4, 5).
The purpose of the entire vision (vv. 1-5), in connection with ch. xiii., j.e., in contrast with what is there reported, is, as the exposition of the details proves, not that of showing how the Church abides in invincible glory opposed to the dragon,?? or how in the midst of the corrupt Church (ch. xiii.)
© Cf. Hengstenb.
T xill. 14. :
8 Cf. Ewald, Ebrard.
® Cf., besides, 1 Thees. iv. 48q., and ver. 6.
accustomed to swear: axoAov@eiy trois orparn- yois Gwoe wor’ a» aywour [* to follow the gener- als whithersoever they would go’’]. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. il.
1 Cf. vii. 17. 10 See above. * Augustine, |. c., but he is not consistent; 11 Cf, Eph. {. 4, v. 27; Col. 1. 22. Andr., Zlill., Stern. 13 Primas, Beda’ “‘The Church, rejoicing
3 Against De Wette, Hangstenb., who im- properly appeal to Jas. 1. 18, where the ex- press designation awapy. rey avrov xTriguarwy fa given; cf. also Jer. ii. 3.
* Cf. xxi. 27.
§ Grot.: “They did not invoke the gods, which are not gods;"’ Beng.
in her usual glory and number, encouraged for the conquest of the burdens of her op- presaion, with eublime joy of contemplation, celebratea at once, both with joy and invita- tlon the conflicts of her King.”” Cf. Calov., C. a Lap., ete.
CHAP. XIV. 6. 395
the true Church still continues,! or how the Lamb with his hosts stands ready to help by the side of the oppressed Church; ? but*® the manifestation of the blessed with the Lamb in eternal glory is intended to give believers who are on earth, and exposed to persecution on the part of the dragon, a pledge inspiring courage and patience (cf. ver. 11), that if they remain faith- ful they shall also attain to that glory.
In every respect preposterous are the historical explanations in Coccejus,* Vitr.,* ete., according to which, especially, the one hundred and forty-four thousand are regarded as the Waldenses. — Christiani has interpreted the one hundred and forty-four thousand even as the woman preserved in the wilderness,® and thus as the Church of the last times. The final Israelitic church is also understood’? by Luthardt.
Vv. 6-20. Two visions, whose beginning in each case is marked by the formula xai eldov (vv. 6, 14), bringing the declarations of the judgment upon the world paying homage to the beast (ch. xiii.), stand therefore in inner connection with the vision (vv. 1-5), because they serve in their way for the encouragement of believers oppressed by the beast and his worshippers. The first vision (vv. 6-13). The first vision is concluded with an express reference to the foundation of the patience for believers lying here (ver. 12), since a heavenly voice proclaims a glorious promise for those who are faith- ful, and expressly enjoins that John should write down this assurance that is so important (ver. 13).
Ver. 6 8q. dAdov dyy., a8 x. 1, in distinction from those that appeared in former scenes. Against the idea and phraseology of the Apoc., Hilgenf.® refers the dAdov cyy. to the Messiah, designated in ver. 1, whom he regards the first with respect to the angel here mentioned (vv. 6, 8, 9). — meréuevoy dy pecovpaviyan. - Like the eagle which (viii. 18) flies in the zenith, this angel is to reach the whole earth with its cry. —éyovra. Cf. x. 2, i. 16. — ebayyéAcov alovov. As the article is lacking, the gospel of God’s eternal counsel] of salvation cannot be meant.* Too generally, and missing the idea alévov, C. a Lap. also explains: A message which promises eternal blessings in heaven. This reference De Wette combines, without proper clearness, with that which is alone correct, to the decree of God from eternity with respect to the things proclaimed in the gospel which the angel has. It is not, however, the summons to repentance sounded forth in ver. 7, that forms the contents of the message, which is a gospel because of a term being afforded even enemies for repentance; but the authentic explanation is to be derived from x. 7,1 where by the same expression (ebnyyé/ice) reference is
1 Vitr. eeemingly new contents, viz., the evangelical 3 Ewald: “The Meesiah with his select confession of the Bohemian brethren. saints prepared for war.” @ xii. 14. 5 vil. 9 aqq. 7 Cf. vil. 4 aqq. 4 Ver. 4: Voices against the worship of 8 p. 438. images, as the Council of Frankfort in the ® This is the same as the opinion of the old year 800, and other proteste against papal er- Protestant expositors, who understand, by the rors. angel, Luther. See also Ebrard.
® The players on the barp are Wiclif, Hue, 10 Hengstenb.; cf. against him, Ebrard. etc. The 5. xau., ver. 3, ja a confession of 1 Cf. ZOlL,
896 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
made directly to the eternal counsel of God, with respect to the glorious end at the coming of the Lord. As all patience and victorious fidelity of be- lievers depend upon this message, it also contains the ground for the suc- ceeding call to repentance in ver. 7. — ebayyeAiogs éxi rove xanpévove, x.7.A, The infin., which explains the idea ebayyéjuov, is in its formal dependence upon éyovra to be explained indeed from expressions like Luke xii. 50, vii. 40, John xvi. 12:1 yet the distinction is to be observed, that in this pas- sage the eiayy. aicv. appears chiefly as the visible object which the angel has (éy., see above) in his hand — possibly in the form of a little book.* The éxt with the acc. following evayyeAica:, which does not occur elsewhere in such combination, has a meaning analogous to that of the éxi with the dative occurring with apogyrevca. Not without violence is Ewald’s explanation : ‘“ Above — because the angel flies above all lands.” — To the dwellers on earth goes forth the evangelical message of the angel in the same sense as in x. 11, the xpogyredoa: of John, which has indeed also an evangelical import (x. 7). [See Note LXXVI., p. 000.] To the ungodly dwellers on earth, there pro- ceeds from the message which is to all believers, a true ebayyédov, but threatens the Lord’s enemies with his coming to judgment, the strongest adinonition to repentance. In ver. 7, therefore, there follows: goi7@nTe rdv Gedy xa dére air ddgay,® with the express emphasis of the reason just indicated: bre hAGev, x.7.A4— nal xpooxvvaaare te womoavri, «.7.A, They are to worship, not the beast, but Him who has manifested himself by his work of creation as the sole true God and Lord of the world, who also will punish his despisers.®
Ver. 8. It is a characteristic of the dramatic vividness of the scene, that every new point, which is to be proclaimed, is committed to a special angel.® The angel now coming forward is distinguished by the compound formula GAdoc detrepoc from the dAdoc dyy. mentioned in ver. 6.7 — Erenev, Execev BaBvacy 4 peyaAn. The cry,® in a prophetical way, represents the sure and near impending judgment as already fulfilled.® The name of the O. T. secular power is transferred to that of the N. T.,!° i.e., to Rome,” by not only indi- cating by means of this name its ungodly nature,}* but also by the adjective 4) pzydAn, especially emphasizing how extent and fulness of power * are power- less for the protection of the vain foundation of self-assertion 4 from com- plete overthrow.}5 — 4 éx rob olvov, «.7.4. As in the ancient prophets, alongside of the threatenings of punishment, the precise charges on which those threats rest are generally presented, so also here the guilt of great Babylon is estab- lished. The view portrayed in xvii. 2, 4, xviii. 3, lies here already at the foundation. Babylon-Rome appears as a harlot who has seduced all the dwellers on earth to commit fornication with her: “She made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” The expression in xviii. 8
1 De Wette. 23.2. ® Cf. xi. 18. 3 Cf. xi. 13. 10 xiii. 1 aqq., xviii. 10. 4 Cf. xi. 18, vi. 7. 11 Bo remarks on ch. xiit. 17. 5 Cf. iv. 11; Ien. xl. 12 sqq., xii. 1 eqq. is Cf. xi. 8. ® *Quot res nunciands, totidem nuneli”’ 13 Cf. xiil. 2, 4. (Grot.). 16 Dan. iv. 27. * Of. examples in Wetat. 18 Kliof, understands “ the metropolis of the
8 xvili. 2; Isa. xxi. 9; cf. Jer. 1. 2, li. 8. last heathen secular power.”
- CHAP, XIV. 10. 897 is incorrectly explained, if the @vyod be regarded otherwise than in the firmly established sense of “ wrath,’ ver. 10.1. According to the linguistic usage of the Apoc., it is the glow and rage of wrath,? and not any other passion, which is designated by @vuds. But it is impossible to seek this wrath in the harlot Babylon herself, and then to understand the zopveia of cunning arts, dissembling love, with which wrathful Babylon destroys the nations.* With perfect correctness, De Wette says that the entire expres- sion depends upon a combination of two ideas: the wine of fornication,‘ wherewith Babylon has intoxicated the nations, is at the same time char- acterized as a olvoc rod Ovuoi (viz., of the Divine wrath), and it is, conse- quently, represented ® how the wine offered by the harlot Babylon to the nations, with which she has intoxicated them and led them to fornication with her, is also a wine which, because of the Divine wrath, has caused that drunkenness in the nations. It is analogous to what is instructively said in Rom. i. 21. The sopveia is the idolatry practised with great Babylon, the all-ruling secular power.®
Vv. 9-11. That the wine of fornication is at the same time a wine of Divine wrath (ver. 8), follows from the message of the third angel, inasmuch as this expressly announces to the worshippers of the beast the impending Divine retribution: xa? abrdc rierat tx Tob olvov Tod Gvuod rod Oecd, x.7.4., for the words ef ru xpooxuvei, x.r.A,, describe, according to the measure of ch. xiii.,’ the meaning of the figurative expression sopreia, ver. 8.
Ver. 10. The xa? abrég® represents the details, as well as likewise the harlot herself, incurring the judgment.®— xiera: (fut.). Winer, p. 84.— The olvog rob Gupod r. 6. is represented in the rorfpwy ric épyic abrov; but the dreadful power of this wine of wrath is rendered conspicuous, since it is itself designated: rod xexepacyévou dxparov. It is meant that in the cup of indignation there is found unmixed wine (dxparor, Ps. lxxiv. 9, LXX.), i.e., not te:npered with water, and hence that the wine of wrath, thus set forth, works with its entire force. The contradiction in the words occurring in the connection of xexepacy. and dxpér. is without difficulty, because» the custom of adapting the wine for ordinary use, by mixing it with water, has brought with it a usage of words in which the xepdv, without giving promi- nence to its special signification, attains the further sense of éyyéecw ele xépag, dedévat mueiv, ete.14 So Ewald: “I have drunken wine so prepared (mixed) as to be pure;” De Wette, Ebrard, ete. According to Ziill., the dxparov is regarded not as undiluted wine, but as designating the “compounded,” i.e.,
1 Against Wetet., Grot., who make @vu., *‘ poison ;” cf. also Eichhb.; and against Ewald, ZUll.: * Burning wine, intoxicating wine.”
3 xvi. 19, xix. 15. Cf. xv. 7, xvi. 1; also xill. 2.
3 Hengstenb.
« Cf. xvil. 2,4; Jer. H. 7.
5 Cf. Jer. xxv. 15 aqq., xxvil. eqq.
® Ver. 9, xiii. 4,12. Grot., Ew., De Wette, ete.
7 It really makes no difference that in xifi. 16 the dm: 7. xewp. precedes, and in this pas
aage the édwi r. perée. But with respect to change of caee (cf. Winer, p. 882), it cannot be disregarded that in both places (cf. also xili. 1) the genitive precedes. Cf. vii. 1, where, how- ever, a modification of the idea is recognizable in dwi ris y., THs @. (on the earth, the sea) and éw: te Ser8por (on any tree, againet any tree). The accus. occurs twice, xx. 4.
® Cf. ver. 17.
® Cf. Ewald.
10 Cf. Wetat.
1 gvill, 6.
their wine still stronger; and thus it is indicated that the Divine cup of indignation contains no wine but a pure mixture, “pure essence of mix- tures.” Hengstenb. interprets artificially, in a still different way. — xa Bacavtoéjoovra. Cf. ix. 5. The punishment of hell here described (év vp? x. Oeiy, ix. 17, xx. 10) is not, with Grotius, to be resolved into pangs of con- science. — évémov rav dyiuv ayy. x. év tr, apviov, Incorrectly, De Wette: Accord- ing to the judgment. Rather, they suffer this their pain before the eyes of the holy angels, and of the Lamb despised and persecuted by the worship- pers of the beast, which appears just on this account to render it the more bitter.1— xal 6 xamvog rod Bacaviopod abrav, x.7.A., according to Isa. xxxiv. 10. Cf. xix. 3. It is to be observed, that in this passage Bacaviopér is passive, in the sense of Bacavos. Cf., on the other hand, ix. 5. — obx Exyovow dvéravor, k.T.A, Viz, In their Bacavopoc.2 The expression as iv. 8.—xa? ef ree Aaup. With grave emphasis this expression, individualizing the general conception, ol mpooxvvovvrec, affirms that every one who in any way resigns himself to the beast ® incurs that eternal] torment.
Ver. 12. Here where the declaration of the judgment impending the worshippers of the beast occurs so definitely and solemnly (vv. 6-11), the encouraging reference to the sources opened thereby to believers for the patience required of them (¥% vou.) is still easier than in a similar con- nection, xiii. 10.— ol rypowvres. The construction is formless, as i. 5, ii. 20. On the thought, cf. xii. 17, iii. 10. rH xiorw 'Inood. “The faith in Jesus.” This, in fact, is parallel with the paprupia ’Inoov, xii. 17, because faith on him (‘Ino., gen. obj.) depends upon the testimony proceeding from Jesus (’Iye., gen. subj.).
Ver. 13. A heavenly voice,‘ concerning which it is in no way said to what person it belongs,> commands John to write down what was itself just proclaimed as a word of revelation of his spirit (viz., Maxép.— per’ avrar), because * this word of revelation contains the most effectual consolation for believers who are oppressed by the secular power, and even threatened with death.’? Ziill. is wrong in considering that there are two voices, for the voice of the Spirit (vai, Aey. r. rv., iva, x.7.2-) is distinguished here as little from the “voice from heaven,” as in the epistles, chs. ii. and ili., what the Spirit says is to be distinguished from what the Lord commands to be written. The voice from heaven belongs to a heavenly person, who, as interpreter of the Spirit, communicates his fevelation to the prophet in intelligible words. The first sentence, which concludes with dm dpm, con- tains what is properly the main point of the consolatory declaration, and, as it were, the theme, whose meaning (yaxdpuc) is more fully explained in the following sentence. Not only by the formal plan, but also in a still more inward way, is this latter part of the heavenly discourse to be distin- guished from the former; the vai already shows us the beginning of a new
1 Cf. xi. 12; Luke xvi. 23 eqq. 5 Against Hengstenb., who wante to refer Hengsteob. it to a departed saint, or one of the elders. 3 xx. 10. © Cf. xix. 9, xxi. 5.
3 De Wette. 4x4, 7 Cf. xii. 7, x. 16.
CHAP. XIV. 13. 899 declaration, and a new declaration is also actually presented, since — as the parenthetical words A¢ye rd xvetya affirm — this confirmation and exposition (val — lva dvarxajoovra, x.7.A.), added to the first words Maxépu:—dz’ dor, appear in a definite way as a revelation of the Spirit. It is, therefore, incor- rect to refer the da’ dor: to the latter sentence, whether in the sense of Vitr., who combines the é2’ dor: with dvanxage., or in that of Lamb., Bos., who! writes dxapri (1.e., dxnpriopévuc), and tries to explain the wonderfully oomposed for- mula of assurance dxapri vai by the absolute plane profecto.2 The reference of the dx’ dpr* to the emphatically prefixed conception of paxépsx is shown by the relation of the thought.‘ By a combination with dmodvjex., Ziill. reaches the incorrect interpretation: “ Better on this account than those who experience the impending time of distress, are the martyrs dying just at the beginning of this time;”*® but the conception paxépio means much more and differently from what Ziill. expresses, and to refer it alone to martyrs is as certainly incorrect as droGvioxew év xvpiy is not “to die for the sake of the Lord.” ° — The dead “ who die? in the Lord,” i.e., bound with him by faith, and kept in fellowship with him ® by fidelity to the faith even unto death,® are “blessed from henceforth,” because, viz., now the glorious end, which will bring condemnation to enemies !° and complete blessedness to all believ- ers,!! immediately impends. This is the eschatological reference of the dx’ dort? presented in the connection, in its combination with the idea paxtpio, Which in itself points already to the goal of the Christian hope. — Incorrect is the explanation of Stern, who, in uncertainty, refers the az’ dort to the entire sentence yaxdp.—éxo@v., and incorrectly tries to apply what is said only of the end of time in such sense that then they who die in Christ immediately enter paradise — with intermission of purgatory, which is, therefore, indirectly fixed for the dying prior to that final time; while just as incorrectly, in order to escape the doctrine of purgatory, Calov., etc., explain the dz’ dpr: by “from the death of every one.” [See Note LXXVII., p- 405.] iva dvanagoovra: tx rav xéxwv abrov. The future is formed from dvaraiw, just as xataxafcouu from xaraxaiv.18 The tva here can depend as little upon the parenthetical Azye r. xv.)4 as the fva in 2 Cor. viii. 7 upon the succeeding Afyw. But this passage is not, with Ewald and De Wette, to be explained from 2 Cor. (above cited) and Eph. ¥. 33, as an idea lying at the foundation of a purposive command; but the close analogy of xxii. 14 shows that the clause Iva, «.rA., is to be elucidated after the manner of the restric- tive idea of paxdpio,!® that it is expressed at the saine time how the goal of
1 Reerctt. phil. Francg., 1718, p. 209 aq.
2 1.e., with unconditional certainty.
3 Matt. xxvi. 64; John {. 52.
4 Beda, C. a Lap., Calov., Wort Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
5 Isa. lvil. 1. Cf. Coocejus: “ The time is impending, in which it will be better to die than to live.”” Hammond.
© Also against Grot., Laun., Vitr., etc.
* The part. pres. marks the words oi ép «vp. dwody. in relation to the idea oi rexpoi (Ztill., inoorrectly : ‘‘ Those exposed to death"), as a
designation given more accurately than in a mode having no regard to time.
® 1 Cor. xv. 18; 1 Thees. iv. 16.
® . 10.
10 vi. 10, vill. 8 aqq.
23 vii. 9 aqq., xi. 16 aqq., xiv. 1 eqq., xxi. 1 #Qq.
13 Cf. Mats. xxvi. 64.
33 Wloer, p. 88. 4 Ebrard.
1% (Hengstenb.) Not awroér., as Winer, p. 207, attempta, who by the partic. understands the temp. fin. awo0viccover.
400 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
bleasedness (yaxép.), held forth by the promise, includes that heavenly évé- xavoy, and is to be afforded those dying in the Lord.1_ The solemn expres- sion ? which designates the blessed rest from all troubles of the earthly life of conflict ® is the more significant, because it sets forth a peculiar opposition to the lot of the damned, ver. 11. — ra dé Epya abrav dxodovée! per atrov. The d? marks excellently the contrast between the just-mentioned dvdravot dx rév xéruv and the Epya, to which the xéro: themselves belong.‘ This significant contrast becomes unceftain if the idea of the “ works” ® be resolved into that of the reward itself.6 The thought, which occurs in like manner both in the classics and in the rabbins,’ is the profound view that the works wrought by believers in the Lord (1 Cor. xv. 58) are themselves an eternal good.
The entire section, vv. 6-13, Hammond refers to the times from Domi- tian to Constantine. The old Lutheran exposition® understood by the angel with the eternal gospel, Luther. Such an interpretation was made already by Michael Stifel, in the year 1522. Bugenhagen took ver. 6 sqq. as the text for his funeral sermon on Luther.® A Catholic compositor, who was engaged in setting up the Lutheran Bible, Wittenberg, 1628, committed great offence by substituting “neu” (new) for “ewig” (everlasting).!° Calov. understood by the angel (ver. 8), the second Martin, viz., Chemnitz with his Examen Trid. Conc. (&recev Ba.) ; by the angel (ver. 9), the antagonists of the Calixtines, among whom he reckons also himself. — Benge] preferred to refer the angel (ver. 6) to John Arnd; the pzcovpévyna is— Germany. The angel (ver. 8) is probably Spener.
Vv. 14-20. After the paracletic episode (ver. 12 sq.), there follow again, in a new vision (ver. 14: «al eldov xa? idod, cf. ver. 1), symbolical declarations of the judgment now impending over the earth. Cf. ver. 6 sqq.
Vv. 14-16. In the first picture of the ripeness of the earth for judgment,!” it is the coming Judge himself who appears on a white cloud, with a sharp sickle in his hand. It is of like significance, when, from the first of the seals,!8 the victorious form of the Lord himself proceeds. — The description (ver. 14) allows us to think only of Christ himself,* but could not mean an angel,!5 who possibly represented Christ,!® or “the heroes and chiefs who, armed with zeal for the truth, plead the cause of the Church, and executed the judgments of God.” 1” ‘Decisive is the solemn designation éyo.ov vids dvopa- nov; 8 also the appearance on the cloud,* and the golden crown indicating a
2 Cf. ix. 20.
2 Cf. Heb. iv. 9: xcxardravots.
3 xow., 11.3. Cf. xxi. 4.
5 Cf. li. 6, 19, iff. 8.
© De Wette; cf. Grot.: ‘‘The memory of deeds."
¥ Sophael., PAtlact., 1420: a@dvaroy dperyy (‘immortal virtue '"]; v. 1448: ob ydp 9 evod- Bea cuvOvijoces Bporois [** Piety does not die with mortals’’]. Aboth., vi. 9: “ At the hour of man’s departure, gold and silver do not ac- company him, but the law and good works.”
8 ** Almoat all of our writers”? (Wolf). Cf. also Vitr.
4 ii. 2,
® Cf. Bengel, Zrki. Of., p. 758.
10 Of. Wolf on vor. 6.
11 Doing homage to the beast, ch. xiii.
18 Joel iv. 18. Cf. Knobel, ProphA., I. 360 8qq.-
13 yi, 2.
14 Beda, Andr., Eichb., Calov., Ew. i., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Volkm.
18 Grot., Vitr., Beng., Ztill., De Wette.
18 Grot., De Wette, Ew. if.
17 Vitr.
38 Cf. 1.18; Dan. vil. 13.
19 Cf. 1.7; Dan., l. c
CHAP. XIV. 17-20. 401
special glory as victor,! make the reference to Christ himself still more certain. The expression dAdoc dyy. (ver. 15), besides, does not compel us here? to understand an angel also in ver. 14, because the dAdo alludes to the angels mentioned in ver. 6 sqq,* and the objection that Christ himself could not have received a command‘ from an angel, is settled by the fact that the angel is only the bearer of the command coming from God.5 See, also, on ver. 17 —xaéjpevov. The accus., as iv. 4.—fyuv. Cf. ver. 12, ver. 7, x 2.—dpén. 6. Therefore serviceable for use in such a way that this sickle allows nothing to stand which is ripe for cutting. — é« row vaod, ver. 15, cf. xi. 19. The angel appears as one immediately sent from God. -é:ypov, cf. Joel iv. 13; Mark iv. 29. The expression is here especially significant, because the idea is presented that the sickle thrust forth on the earth (ver. 16) is to cut down there. — 4 dpa depioa: construed as ix. 10, xi. 16. — éEnpavon. The sign of the ripeness, since the figure of a field of corn is here® presented. — 6 Gepinpds rig yzc. The authentic explanation follows (ver. 16): tGepicOn # yz. The whole earth is the harvest-field; the ripe stalks are those KaGjueva ene Tt. y-, Ver. 6.
Vv. 17-20. Another angel,’ likewise coming from the heavenly temple, and therefore from God himself, intrusted with a work symbolizing the final judgment, has, as one like the Son of man (ver. 14), a sharp sickle, by which the ripened clusters in the vineyard of the earth are to be harvested. Not only does this occur at the command brought again by another angel, but the clusters are also pressed.
nal avrg. The formula® marks only that the same thing is said by this person as by the person designated in ver. 14; but in other respects the per- sons are by no means “put on the same level,”® so that it does not follow from ver. 17 that the one like the Son of man is an angel. Still less, however, can it be inferred to the contrary, from ver. 14, that the dyyedo¢ (ver. 17) is not an angel, but the Lord himself.1°— The other angel (ver. 18), who brings to the one mentioned in ver. 17 the command for harvesting the vineyard of the earth, is in a twofold respect significantly characterized, according to his place of starting: éé7Agev éx rod @vowornpiov, and according to his peculiar power: 6 Eyuv Hovoiav én rod xvupoc. He came forth “out of the altar.” 12 This idea is derived from the é«, which is to be rendered here “from,” 1% as little as the aré in ix. 18. Its meaning is to be derived from the descrip- tion (viii. 3 sqq.),!® in connection with the designation of the égovcia which the angel has over fire.44 The same altar beneath which the souls of the’ martyrs lie, crying for vengeance, and from which not only the fire is taken which, cast upon the earth, gives the signal in general for the trumpet- visions announcing the beginning of the vengeance, but whence, also, in the sixth trumpet-vision especially, the voice sounds that,calls forth a de-
1 Cf. vi. 2, xix. 12. 1 Cf. ver. 15. ® Cf. ver. 10. 2 Cf., on the contrary, x. 1, vii. 2. ® De Wette. 8 In ver. 6. aleo, the aAAos does not have its 10 Against Hengstenb. reference in what immediately precedes. 11 Mentioned in vill. 3 eqq., xvi. 7. 4 Ver. 15: Ileuwov, «.T.A. 18 Ew. 1i., De Wette, Ebrard. 5 Cf. Mark xiii. 32. 18 Cf. vi. 9, ix. 18, xvi. 7.
¢ Cf., on the other hand, ver. 18 sqq. 16 ¢wi tr. wvp., as xi. 6; cf. vi. 8.
402 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
structive army upon the earth, appears significantly in this passage as the proper place of an angel who transmits the command for the execution of judgment, and who, since he has power over fire, manifests himself as one whose sending brings an answer to the prayers of the martyrs, and thus, by his entire manner and appearance, recalls the blood-guilt of the enemies whose blood is now to cover the earth (ver. 20). — rpéyyoov. Luke vi. 44. — nal EBadev, «.r.A., ver. 19. Cf. ver. 16. Here, however, the figure is not limited to the mere cutting-off of the clusters, but the pressing also follows: nai &Badev ei¢ tAv Anvdy 7. Guu. 7. 0. tov wéyav. In reference to the remarkable combination of the masc. rdv wey. with the fem. rv Anv,? cf. Winer, p. 490, who explains the masce. by the fact that 6 ayy. also occurs. But a reason why this change of the gen. has happened is.scarcely to be found. At all events, Prov. xviii. 14 should be recalled, where the word m5 occurs first as masc. because the spirit appears in more forcible activity, and afterwards as fem., because, since it suffers from disease, it is represented in feminine weakness. So, too, thd masc. rév péy. could be attached to the ordinary feminine form rav Anv., because this form appears appropriate to the representation of the wrath of God as active in the pressing. —xal énar#6q 7 Any. The standing expres- sion: cf. Joel iv. 13; Isa. xiii, 2 aq. — twhev rie nodewe. “The city,” without further designation, cannot be Rome,*? but only Jerusalem; yet not the heavenly Jerusalem,‘ also not Jerusalem so far as the holy city represents the Church,® but the real, earthly Jerusalem, against which, as is stated in xx. 9, the hosts of the world rush, but will be annihilated there before the holy city.° Incorrectly, Grotius: “This did not occur in the city, because there were no Jews there.”?—alua. In Isa. Ixiii. 8, LXX., the blood is also expressly mentioned, which is properly meant by the figure of the juice of grapes. —dype tov yahwiw tov imma, x.7.A. How fearful the bloodshed is, is illustrated by designating it as a stream of blood which is so deep as to reach to the reins of the horses wading therein, while its extent is given as sixteen hundred furlongs.* In this sense, the first expression, dype r. yaA. 7. trx., is understood by almost all expositors;® but the reference to the extent of the stream of blood is not without difficulty. Passing by purely arbitrary explanations,!® only two possibilities are offered: either the designation of
1 Viz., of that altar; cf. Grot., Vitr., Ewald; but not over fire in general (cf. xvi. 5), for this general reference is here entirely out of place.
2 The MSS. allow neither ror Any. — roy nédy., nor thy Anv.—tThy wey. » Any. Occurs also in ver. 20, xix. 15. Liticke (Zini., II., p. 464) re. gards it possible, even though very harsh, for the voy péyay, by a construction according to the senee, to refer to rov @vuov 7. 6., and to have the meaning of rov peydAov. Yet he also recurs to Winer’s explanation.
8 Hammond, Wetst., Calov., Hilgenf., Kien- Jen, ete.
* Beda, Marlorat., who recall that the lost shall suffer pain outeide of heaven, viz., in hell.
5 Hengstenb.: “It is declared that not the members of the Church, but the world outside the Church, shal] be judged.’’
¢ Cf. Eichh., Zilll., Ew., De Wette, eto.
7 Cf. the close of the verse.
® On the awd before cra’., cf. Meyer on John xi. 18.
® Nevertheless, many of the older commen. tators have allegorized also here. Thus Vic- torin. found it indicated that aleo “the princes,” Beda that even the devil, would not be exempt. Hengstenb., incorrectly, brings in the horsemen of xix. 14. Cf. Ebrard.
10 ¢.g., Wetst., who referred it to the vast- ness of Otho’s camp on the Po.
adoption of an hyperbole not to be urged with respect to details,! or the num- ber four? be considered as a root, and then the number 1,600 reduced to 4x 4x 100,® or 40 x 40,4 or 4 x 400,5 be taken in the sense which Vic- torin.® and Beda already have; or the sixteen hundred furlongs must be understood accurately and properly, so that the length of Palestine is desig- nated, — according to the statement of Jerome, who” says: “From Dan to Beersheba, which is extended scarcely to the distance of clx. miles.” In accordance with this are the explanations not only of Eichh., Heinr., Ziill., Ewald, etc., who® maintained that the scene of ver. 20 is in the Holy Land, but also of C. a Lap, etc., who understand by the Holy Land the Church; and of Grot. and Beng., who, in a different respect, wanted to reach the meaning that the bloodshed occurred even beyond the boundgdries of Pales- tine.* But the entire explanation, based upon the statement of Jerome, is hardly tenable, because, if John had wished, by means of a geographical desig- nation of length, to refer to the Holy Land, the number must have been accurate. But this is not the case; for, as a Roman mile contained eight fur- longs,!® the one hundred and sixty Roman miles of Jerome would correspond to twelve hundred and eighty, but not to sixteen hundred stadia." It is highly probable, therefore, that the schematic number, which is intended to represent the vast extent of the stream of blood proceeding from the horns of the altar, has grown in a similar way from the number four, which refers to all four ends of the earth,!? to that in which, in vii, 4, xiv. 1, the number one hundred and forty-four thousand has been developed from the holy radical twelve.
In the systematic connection of the entire Apocalyptic development, the vision (vv. 14-20) has the same relation to the express description of the actual final judgment (ch. xvii. sqq.), as the sixth seal-vision (vi. 12 sqq.) has already to the fulfilment of the mystery of God,!8 which does not occur until in the seventh seal. Both the sense and the expression 4 show that the judgment portrayed in ver. 14 sqq. is the final judgment itself; this is indicated also by the appearance on the cloud of one like the Son of man
Zeger. Cf. vii. 1. Hengstenb.
1 large round number, by mentioning at the 2
$
4 Ebrard.
S
6
same time, that clusters of grapes appear, e.g., on coins, as a symbol of the Holy Land. But he errs in finding a devastation of the Holy Land here set forth, — while the subject has really to do with the inhabitants of the earth, whose
Marlorat., Vitr., etc. ‘“‘Throughout all the four parts of the
world.”
1 Ep. ad Dard. Opp., T. ILL., p. 46.
8 Of. the ef r. wodews.
® Grot. refers to the fact that Trajan put to death Jews in Syria, Egypt, etc.
10 Cf. Winer, Awd., I. 588. Stadium.
11 Another circumstance is, that the length of the Holy Land is not sixteen hundred stadia, i.e., forty German miles, but, as Jerome cor- rectly says, scarcely one hundred and sixty Roman miles, i.e., thirty-two German miles, — Ew. il., indeed, tries to find in the text only a
place of execution, as in xx. 9, is outside the city, and, therefore, in the Holy Land, —and in urging the special reference of the “ cluster of grapes” to the Holy Land; and thereby in- jures the parallelism between the “ harvest,” ver. 15 aqq., and the *‘ wine harvest,” ver. 18 8qq., Which then affords only a more general significance.
2 Cf. iv. 6.
13 Cf. x. T.
4 Ver. 16: é0epicOn; éBadev; ver. 20: érarnOn.
ver. 19: érpvynce,
point in ver. 20 (é€. r. xoA.) comprised in the account of xx. 9. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed that a complete account of the catastrophe is not yet given; in what way the various enemies (the secular power, the false prophet, even the dragon himself) are judged, is not at all described here; add to this, that the manifestation of the Judge (vv. 14-17) does not at all correspond with what is to be expected according to i. 7,! and that immediately afterwards, in ver. 19 sqq., it is an angel, and not the Lord himself, who appears as executor of the vengeance. From all this, it is to be inferred that the vision (vv. 14-20)? brings, it is true, a preliminary representation of the final judgment, but, nevertheless, that the systematic introduction of the complete account is not disturbed; because of its pro- leptical character, the scheme of the prophetical development does not be- come apparent, and especially the actual end is not set before us in ver. 20, in the sense, as though by “ recapitulating ” in some way with xv. 1,° it were again retraced. ‘— Vitr. interprets vv. 14-20 of the judgment of the false (i.e., the Papal) Church.
NoTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXXV. Ver. 4. of perd yuvacay, x.7.2,
Any interpretation of this passage that teaches a superior holiness and blessedness as belonging to the unmarried estate, or attaches any defilement to marriage, is inconsistent with Heb. xiii.4. See this passage defended from such view at some length by Chemnitz already (Examen Concilii Tridentini, Schlawitz ed., 1861, p. 535). Hence all such attempts at mediation between maintaining the sanctity of marriage and the peculiar sanctity of celibacy, like those of Alford and Luthardt, are ineffectual. The former says: “In them that fountain of carnal desire has never been opened, which is so apt to bea channel for unholy thoughts, and an access for the tempter.”? [Cf., however, 1 Cor. vii. 2.] ‘‘ The virgins may thus have missed the victory over the lusts of the flesh; but they have also, in great part, escaped the conflict. We are, perhaps, more like that which the Lord intended us to be; but they are more like the Lord himself.’’ Luthardt proposes another mode of mediation, by affirming that no special holiness of celibacy is taught, but that under the peculiar circumstances of the last times it would be the duty of Christians to remain unmarried, and marriage intercourse would then be only a yielding to sinful lusts. Gebhardt, on the contrary: ‘‘ They have, in the most marked contrast to the world, with its fornications, or idolatrous worship and service of sin, not defiled themselves with women; that is, in the strongest and fullest sense, they have not committed fornication, have not been unfaithful to God; they have not allowed themselves to be tempted by the world, and have not sinned, ‘ for they are virgins;’ that is, what they are according to their nature as Christians, pure, holy, chaste, has, in their lives, simply perfected itself in gradual development, or, in the particular case, maintained itself. Certainly
1 Cf. vi. 2, 12 eqq., xi. 15 oqq. 8 Cf. Introduction, p. 18 aq. 2 Cf. also vv. 1-6. 4 Against Beda, etc.
NOTES, 405
many expositors take the words just explained in a peculiar sense, and deter- mine the representation of the seer to be that perfect abstinence from sexual intercourse belongs to the distinguished sanctity of the one hundred and forty- four thousand, and that, on this account, they enjoy peculiar blessedness; which, as Késtlin observes, is not merely in the spirit of the O. T., but is Esseno-Ebionitish. The one hundred and forty-four thousand are neither distinguished Christians, nor do they enjoy peculiar happiness; even on this supposition, it would be wholly inconceivable that the seer should have imagined one hundred and forty-four thousand unmarried Christians, and, according to the literal sense, Christians of the male sex; still less would he have regarded as Christians only those who had not been married. . . . I find that John has spoken of the idolatry and the sin of the world as fornication with sufficient frequency, and strength, and clearness, to enable us to see in it the true interpretation of this imagery. The true sense more decidedly presents itself if we begin, not with the first, but with the second member of the sen- tence, — ‘they are virgins,’ — which is evidently symbolical.”
LXXVI. Ver. 7. ebayyédov aldvov,
Alford says briefly on Diisterdieck’s interpretation: ‘I should have thought that such a rendering only needed mentioning to be repudiated. Ch. x. 7, which is adduced to justify it, is quite beside the purpose.’’ Enbrard really anticipates every objection to the older interpretation here urged: ‘‘ The older exegetes, together with Liieke, are probably right when they understand the contents of the message in general as the message of the salvation in Christ. ‘An eternal message of joy’ that is, indeed, which the angel here brings; he brings a message which is eternal as to its contents, and, therefore, is eternal also, according to its announcement, as since the foundation of the world there has been no other message of joy and salvation, and in eternity there will be no other. That the definite article does not stand here, is owing to the fact that the message is to be described, as it appears to the @@veot, x.7.4., viz., as one new tothem. The angel has ‘an eternal message of salvation to bring them.’’’ So also Gebhardt, who refers, besides, to the error of our author in conceiving of something being intended by this proclamation for the ungodly inhabitants of the earth, that is different from the real contents of the message. Gebhardt regards the angel only ‘‘an Apocalyptic art-device’’ to describe vividly ‘‘ the publication of Christianity in ever-widening circles,’’ which ‘‘is in reality accomplished by the apostles and other preachers,”’ and coinciding in meaning with Matt. xxiv. 14.
LXXVII. Ver. 13. én’ dort.
The interpretation referred to {s not peculiar to Calov. and the school of exegetes which he represents; e.g., Ebrard: ‘‘ am’ apt: paxapioe eict says rather simply this (De Wette, etc.), that they who die in Christ need not wait for blessedness and compensation until, by the return of Christ to earth, an end is made to the power of the beast hostile to Christ, but, that, immediately after their deaths, they shall find the most glorious compensation by resting from their labors, and not losing the fruit of their works accompanying them. Nothing whatever is said concerning any merit of their works before God as Judge; for they are the regenerate ‘who die in the Lord,’ because they have
406 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
6
lived in Him, and He in them.’’ Hengstenberg: ‘‘The dead who die in the Lord are blessed from now on. This is not contrasted with any former time in which the dead who died in the Lord were not blessed. The blessedness is as old as the dying in the Lord, and this dates from the time of Christ’s death, who also already, for the Intermediate state, has brought life to light (2 Tim. i. 10), but with a remote future with respect to the completion of the kingdom of God; not first in the new Jerusalem that is hereafter to be established on the renewed earth, but already from the moment of their departure into heaven. This is explained by the conversation between Christ and the penitent thief. The latter prayed the Lord to remember him when he came into his kingdom at the establishment of the kingdom of glory on earth. But the Lord assured him of more than that for which he prayed (Luke xxili. 48). By saying, ‘ Lord, remember me,’ the thief shows that he is one who is dying in the Lord. For to die in the Lord, is when one, in the face of death, with complete confidence confesses Him to be Lord.’’ Luthardt: ‘‘ It was expressly revealed to John, in order that Christians of all times may know that from now on, i.e., now already, blessed are they who die in the Lord, i.e., in fellowship with him, for with their death they enter into a blessed state; in order, also, that they may be consoled in that they die before the second coming of Christ. . . . This toilsome life is | now at an end, and a blessed peaceful rest in the bosom of Christ follows, while the unblessed have no rest day or night (ver. 11).”’
Observe the force of the éx rcv xonév, as in note on ch. fi. 2. The promise évarajoovra: belongs here only where there have been previously «émo, viz., toilsome exhaustive labors, not for self, but for the Lord.
CHAP. XV. 407
CHAPTER XV.
Ver. 2. rove vxdvrac. So here (cf., on the other hand, ff. 7) Lach., Tisch. 1854 and IX. [W. and H.], in accordance with A, C, &, Elz. Tisch. 1859 has vixouvr, adopted from C. The addition derived from xiii. 17, é« rod yapayparoc abrov before év 7. do:6u. (Elz.), is certainly false. — Ver. 8. twv 26vav. So A, B, 2, 4, 6, al., Compl., Plant., Genev., Beng., Lach., Tisch. The variation r, aiovwy (cf. 1 Tim. {. 17) occurs in C, ®,, 18, Vulg. (var.: caelorum) [adopted by W. and H.]. The rec. 7. dyivy is almost without any testimony. — Ver. 4. The ce after 908, (Elz., Beng.) is to be erased according to A, B, C (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). ® has it after ric. The same testimonies require dogcoe:, instead of dofaoy (x, Elz.).— Ver. 6. A:dov. So A, C, Vulg., Ambrose, Beda, Andr., al., Lach. [W. and H.] The rec. A:vov (Tisch.) seems to be a modification which occurs already in B (&: «a0. Acvouc). — Ver. 8. xazvov. B indeed has éx row x, (Tisch.), ° and the omission of é« rov was readily suggested; yet the mere «xarvov by itself (Elz., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is attested by A, C, ®, al.
In a new vision (ver. 1: xa? eld, GAA onz.) 1 seven angels are represented, who are to bring the last plagues determined by the wrath of God. After they who stand, as victors over the beast,? at God’s throne, have celebrated the wonderful and righteous works and judgments of God, whose end is now to be introduced by the seven angels (vv. 2-4), these angels, coming into — heaven from the opened temple, receive from one of the four beings (iv. 6 8qq.) seven vials full of the wrath of God, whose pouring-forth is then described in ch. xvi.
Ver. 1. dAdo onu. The manifestations in ch. xiv., with which the present angelic manifestation is contrasted as an dAdo onu., were also apocalyptic signs. —péya nai Gavpacrov. The greatness (xii. 1) and marvellousness lies not only in the fact that seven angels — not archangels *— appear at once, but also in their peculiar equipage: Eyovrag wAnydc éxra. Manifestly John wishes, by this expression,‘ to say more than that they had a sign (“‘signatur”) of the plagues to be brought by them, as that possibly their eyes shone like flames of fire;® the idea is, that they who have the éfovaa to bring the plagues described in ch. xvi.® have and hold these plagues themselves. In what way this is to be understood, is not said ; it belongs to the gavzacréy of this vision. But it is worthy of notice with what beautiful, artistic trans- parency the declaration of the actual ordination of these plagues is com- municated, in that (ver. 5 sqq.) the seven angels, who are described again
1 Cf. xii. 1. * Cf. xvil. 6, vi. 6, x. 2. 2 Ch. xiii. 5 Tiengetenb. § ZUll., Stern; cf. also De Wette. @ Cf. xvi. 9, 21: 9 wAwyy.
pouring-out of which the plagues can first be brought to plastic represen- _ tation. — From ver. 5, where the vad¢ in heaven is opened, and then the seven angels proceed therefrom, Ziill., De Wette, Ebrard, etc., correctly infer that in ver. 1 a point cannot be designated lying within the vision actually before ver. 5, as though John in ver. 1 had only first beheld the seven angels themselves, but in ver. 5 their coming forth from the veds, etc.; rather in ver. 1, the chief subject of the entire vision extending to xvi. 21, yea in a certain way embracing the entire final development,! is first given preliminarily, while the more detailed account as to how the seven angels actually come forth follows then (ver. 5) after the heavenly hymn, vv. 2-4, —during which the angels are to be regarded as in the still closed vad, — has praised beforehand the righteousness of the judgment to be executed by them; and then they themselves are certainly equipped for (ver. 7) their work, and directed (xvi. 1) to fulfil their calling. Cf. xii. 6 in its relation to xil. 13 sqq.—rd¢ toyarac. Not “the last in this way,”? nor the last which a certain portion of the enemies has to endure,® but for the reason: dre tv airaic éreAéoby 6 Gvpde rod Oeot.4 This is misunderstood, however, by Hengstenb., who concludes that with vi. 21, where the seven plagues are at an end, the entire final judgment has been recounted, — as should have been the case also in xi. 19 and several times before, — and that then, with xvii. 1, a repetition of that fina] judgment occurs which renders: prominent new sides. Yet not only the very number indicates a meaning analogous to that of the seven last plagues, as the plagues described in the seal- and trumpet- visions, which do not contain the final judgment itself, but have only intro- duced that immediately before which belongs in the seventh trumpet,® and consequently in the seventh seal;® but, in the sense of the Apoc., the judg- ment cannot occur at all under the conception of a plague, since, according to the description in ch. xvii. sqq., the judgment extends infinitely far over what is contained up to xvi. 21. The plagues described also in ch. xvi.,? not without a reference to those of Egypt,® have in themselves something preparatory to which the final action corresponds. As by the trumpet- plague the dwellers on earth are not brought to repentance,® so also neither are they by the vial-plagues.!° The more certain and immediate, therefore, is the actual final judgment, whose description then also immediately fol- lows that of the last plagues,!1 and to which, therefore, we are directed in the midst of the plagues as to something immediately impending.!2 The result of this is that the fulfilment of the wrath of God (éreAéody)#* is to be understood only relatively; viz., in so far as it is manifested in the “plagues.” No more plagues will come after the vial-plagues; but then the Lord himself will come to administer his final judgment.
3 Cf. xvii. 1, xxi. 9. 6 vi. 17, vii. 1, vill. 1. 2 C.a Lap. ¥ Cf. chs. vi., viil., ix. 3 Beng.: ‘ After the fulfilment of the seven ® Cf. aleo ver. 2 9qq. plagues, the holy wrath of God, therefore, ® ix. 20 aqq. against other enemies does not cease.” 10 xvi. 21. ‘ So too, with formal correctness, Beng. 11 xvii. 1 9qq.
8 x. 7. 2 xvi. 15. 3 Cf. x. 7.
CHAP. XV. 2-4. 409
Vv. 2-4. Before the beginning of the last plagues, immediately preceding the end itself, yea before the opening of the heavenly vdor (ver. 5), and accordingly even before the actual coming-forth of the seven angels,! a song is heard in heaven which proclaims the righteousness of the ways of God, now near their ultimate goal as worthy of adoration,* and whose sense declares that they who, standing by the sea of glass, raise this song of praise, are the victors over the beast. — wr @déAaocay tadivyy peuypévyy mupi. Ebrard is wrong in understanding here a different sea of glass from that in iv. 6; for the article missed by Ebrard must be lacking, because by the expression é¢ Gad. bad., just as in iv. 6, it is chiefly to be indicated that not'an actual sea of glass, but only something like a sea of glass, is designated. It is not until at the close of ver. 2, that, since by the first accurate expression recall- ing iv. 6, dc 644. $04, an end is placed to all misunderstanding, it is expressly said, with a certain want of precision, én? rjv 044, rv taA. That the addition ueptyufvyy mvpi cannot be referred here to any thing else than in iv. 6, follows likewise from the close of ver. 2, which shows that the essential designation of what is meant lies in the words 6aA, éadw., while the peusyp. rvpi expresses a more special, although in this place a significant, side-reference. Because of the addition peyyp. rvpi, the false interpretations of d¢ @dA, tadiv., iv. 8, appear here in new applications. Grot. understands here “the mass of Gen- | tile Christians inflamed with love to God;” Coccejus, “the peace of the world, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the world;” Calov., who refers the @d4. to baptism, and the mip to God’s wrath, interprets: “That grace will not be denied to penitents in the midst of the flames of Divine wrath;” Vitr. explains that the victors stand upon the firm ground of the truth illumined by the fire of Divine righteousness; the allusion to the lightning, iv. 5, Eichh. and De Wette interpret as meaning the atmos- phere; Zill. and Ewald, the floor of heaven; while De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Stern,? maintain a reference to the Red Sea, at which the children of Israel sang their song of praise. But it is just this passage ‘4 which, because of its other contents, is adapted for furnishing the correct interpre- tation also for iv. 6. That which is like “a sea of glass,” by which ® the victors stand, designates, like the river of life,® the eternal fulness of joy in God’s presence, with which the victors will be rewarded. But if, in this passage, the sea appears also as “mingled with fire,” thereby the unity of God’s saving grace and judging righteousness is designated in like manner; as already in the fundamental description of the glory of God, iv. 3 sqq.,’ both points are harmoniously ® presented, and, as in general in prophecy con- cerning the end, both parts of the subject belong together. — rove vacvrag.
{ Cf. ver. 1.
2 Cf. xi. 15 aqq.; also tv. 8, v. 8 sqq.
8 Who recognizes tn the @aA. vad. peu. wup. a symbol! of the antichristian persecution.
* Cf. xxii. 1.
with the scenery of iv. 6, coheres with the false allegorizing in Vitr., eto.
® xxii. 1 sqq.
7 Cf. especially iv. 6.
® Out of harmony, and in violation of taste,
5 Beng., De Wette, etc. Cf. Hii. 20, vill. 8. The explanation of the éwi by super, which ie in iteelf unnatural, and does not harmonize
Ew. thinks that by the mingling of sea and fire “‘an indescribable boiling foam, a fire- broth,” originated.
410 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
The pres. part. designates the idea without regard to time.*— é r. Onp. Winer, p. 345. On the subject, cf. xiii. 7, 15 sqq , xiv. 18. — éy. asddpac roo Geos. Cf. v. 8, xiv. 2,1 Chron. xvi. 42. The “harps of God” are such as serve only for the praise of God.?— The song is characterized as: rpv jv Muiicéwe rod dotAov rot Geod xai riyv qdRv rod dpviov. It is not two songs that are designated ;4 also no allusion whatever is made to the connection between prophecy and the gospel ;* altogether false is every explanation that does not acknowledge that the song immediately following, introduced by the Atyovrec, is at the same time both the song of Moses® and the song of the Lamb. But this does not mean the song wherein these former idol- worshippers declare their conversion to Moses and Jesus, or rather to “the God of these,” nor the song of Moses ® applied to Christ and the things of Christ ;® but the song which is composed alike by Moses and the Lamb, and is taught to the victors.!° By this the same view is significantly expressed, which appears in another way also in x. 7, vii. 9 sqq., in combination with vii. 4 sqq. and xiv. 1; viz.,!! that the essential unity of the O. and the N. T. Church, which collects its victorious members from Jews and Gentiles, is attested and represented in the most definite manner, —a view which is absolutely incompatible with the Judaism charged against the Apoc. by Baur, Volkm., etc. [See Note LXXVIII., p. 413.] The song has the O. T. psalm tone, as what is in clear accord with the O. T. manifests itself everywhere in the details.19 In a more definite form the character of a song of the Lamb is not distinctly expressed; but in fact it is also such, because the dicamuara of God serve for the glory of the Lamb. — Meyda xa? davyacra, «r.A, Cf. Ps. exi. 2, exxxix. 14; 1 Chron. xvi. 9. — xipsee— ravroxpérup, iv. 8, xi. 17. Cf. i. 8. —dixasa: xal dAndival ai 6d.0. Ps. exlv. 17; Deut. xxxii. 4.18 § Baoilede tov Lover. Jer. x. 7. From this passage originate also the following words,!‘ and just in this way is the ascription of praise especially appropriate, because treating of the judgments on the Gentile world, which gives divine honor to the beast.!5— 67, «.r.A, Of the three clauses introduced by the dr, the first two are co-ordinated with each other, since the former in its way gives the basis for the interrogatory ri¢— 1d dvoué cov, and the last words ért rd dixauy. o. égav. that for the immediately preceding clause ér: mavra, mT.A.— wovoc dowc. The variation &yioc arises from the classical lin- guistic prejudice, according to which the predicate éeuc, which in the N. T. is said only (xvi. 5) of God, is applied to godly men.1®— Although the words
10 Cf. xiv.3. Ew.
11 Cf. also xii. 1, 17.
13 Cf. Ztill., De Wette.
33 LXX.: adnOwa for DNA. Of., on the
1 Incorrectly, Eichh.: verucnxdras.
2 Cf. xiv. 18, ii. 7, 11, 17.
3 Beng., etc.
4 Against Andr., who refers the one to the
O. T. sainta, and other to the N. T. believers.
5 Coccejus.
6 Concerning whose formal designation as t. 8ovA, 7, 6., cf. Exod. xiv. 31; Num. xil. 7; Jos. xiv. 7, xxii. 5. The LXX. do not have here the word SodAos.
7 ZU,
® Grot.: cf. Calov., Hengatenb., Ebrard.
§ Exod. xv. Vitr.. De Wette,
other hand, Rev. ill. 14.
14 Only that ce after G08. does not belong to the correct text.
18 Cf. xill. 4.
16 Cf. Schol. on Eurlp., Hecud. 788: rd wpde Ccovg ef avOpwrey yevduevor Sixatoy Soroy xadovyer (** We call one among men who is just with respect to the gods, ds.0r "].
CHAP. XV. 5-8. 411
Sri névac Scwog present the alone holiness of God simply as the ground because of which every one must fear him, and the name of God be praised by every one, the fundamental reference to the succeeding words is not so readily afforded. The interposition of the first clause ér: péy. dc. modifies in a cer- tain degree the inner connection, in the sense that the words 6n xévra ra l6vn, x.7.A,, Which express the sum of the O. T. prophecies concerning the conver- sion of the Gentiles — and that, too, in its universality, so that the question is not that in fact only a certain number of the heathen are converted — give the foundation for the thought of the question, ric ob uj ¢0f8., x.7.A.: “Thee, who art the King of the nations, every one must and certainly shall fear, for all the nations shall adore Thee as their King.” — ér: ra dexatduarda cov tpavepe- @yoav. For, from the works and judgments which the righteousness of God has executed, and in which he has been revealed as the BaoAeds rév dover, the nations shall learn to know his adorable name.!
Vv. 5-8. After the introductory song xa? werd radra (ver. 5),? the seven angels which hold the seven plagues come out of the heavenly temple, and receive seven vials full of the wrath of God. — 6 vadc rig oxnvig row paprupion iy r. op. Cf. xi.19. It is not the holy of holies * that is designated by the entire expression, but the proper temple‘ in heaven, which is more accurately described by the addition of the gen. rig ox. 7. uapr.,5 as the rade belonging to the tabernacle of the testimony, i.e., including it,6-— not as existing in the oxnv. r. papr.7— The heavenly duga of the seven angels is to be seen from their adornment; one attribute, the golden girdle, they have in common even with the Lord himself. The first expression évded. Aidov xaSapdy Aaurpdy, in which, considering the manuscript authority for it, the Aigov can scarcely be a clerical error,® is by no ineans to be so explained as to refer to Christ him- self, the corner-stone ”° or the “ various adornments of virtues,” 2! as the cloth- | ing of the angel; if, however, only a comparison with Ezek. xxviii. 13 (nav | Aidov xpzorow évdédeca:) give an explanation that is at all events satisfactory, a plural, nevertheless, would possibly be expected, as xav 2.9, stands in Ezekiel. The idea must, then, be that each angel wears a garinent set with a pure, brilliant gem. The later expositors all follow the reading Aivov, according to which the angels appear in sacerdotal garments.!2 Hengstenb. compares this with xix. 8, where, however, the expression Aivxw does not occur. Ew. ii. refers properly to the fact that the xaéapéy does not appear to require the idea of a garment. But the weight of the witnesses who advocate the read- ing which is more difficult, and yet not to be derived from Ezekiel,!* is too great. » also appears by its peculiarities to betray with what difficulty the attempt was made to explain away the difficult-to-be-understood Aiéov.'4 — That one of the four beings (iv. 6) gives }§ to the angels the vials of wrath,
1 Exod. ix. 16, xiv. 17 q.; Ps. cxxvi. 2; T De Wette. 8 Cf. i. 18. Mic. vil. 16 8qq. ® Grot.
3 See on ver. 1. 10 1 Pet. ii. 26.
® Grot., ete. 11 Andr., Beda.
4 Cf. xi. 1. 13 De Wette.
8 Cf., on this designation, Acts vill. 44; % Volkm. Exod. xxix. 10, 11, LXX. 14 See Critical Notes.
¢ Ewald. 18 Cf. vi. 1, 3, 5, 7.
a OL SS Basen Uy BPUVERUERY £2U 540890 FS UY TWA UES res VV 66 4784 res voeens Ws Ges creatures whose representatives those beings are.! As in their praise in iv. 7, they looked towards the end, 80 also the end does : without their participation.* — rod Gavrog ele rode aldwac trav aléver. 7 ing eternity conspicuous has the same relation as already in i. 8.—xa x.7.A., ver. 8. The smoke with which the temple is filled,® is not tl the incomprehensibility of the Divine judgments,‘ nor directly of - of God;® but, as the text itself explains, that the smoke is repre. proceeding from the glory and power of God (te 4d. r. 0. xa? ex 7. duv. :: sign of the majesty, actually present in the vadc, of God revealin;, - immediately in his power. In the cloud of smoke there the “T° enthroned, which now, as the addition «. &« r. duvayewg abr, especial sizes, will be manifested on the side of its omnipotence. The sul true, refers to a revelation of judgment upon enemies, that is full ¢ | believers; but the interpretation of the smoke fails to be in accord | the text, if this be regarded as, on that account, either a sign of Div | or even of God’s grace working for the good of the godly.7' Beng. | rectly, concerning the xany,: “ The covering of Divine Majesty.” °- | édévaro eiceAgeiv, x.r.A. The description depends upon types like Ex: : 1 Kings viii. 10 sq.® Incorrect are all the allegorical explanati depend upon the presumption that the heavenly vadc represents t! on earth.!° Just as incorrect, and entirely remote, Grot.: “Go willing to give any other oracles but these.” Nothing whatev also, to the purport that no one could go into the temple, in order | to avert the threatening judgments.!! The correct explanation | from the words dyps reAcod., x.7.A., which, upon the foundation of t idea of the inaccessibility of God as present in his personal doéa, that not until satisfaction shall be rendered his holy wrath, by the tion of all the plagues impending from God's justice, shall access | possible. Until then, the immediate presence of his glory and pov — must consume all creatures.1*
1 Hengstenb. But cf. also Riehm, |. c., | preachers.”” Coccejus: “Papal —
p- 24. pances hinder the faith of the: | 3 Cf. also xix. 4. 8 Cf, Iea. vi. 4. ‘Tn the dme of the plagues... | ‘C. a Lap., etc. such a demonstration of the glo | 5 Andr., Grot., Heinr., Hengstenb., Ebrard. cious presence of God in the Chi 6 Exod. xl. 34. LXX.: 86fa xvpiov. compared with the symbolical | 7 ZUllig, Hengstenb. of the Divine presence in the ta ® Cf. aleo De Wette. the old covenant.” ® De Wette, Hengstenb. 11 Ewald, Stern.
10 Beda: ‘‘ No one can be incorporated among 2 Cf. Exod. xix. 21; Tea. vi. | the members of the Church unleas one who 13 Cf. Hengstenb.; likewise: | listening learns the mysteries of faith from Wette.
/ NOTES. 413
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EpITor.
LXXVIIL Ver. 3. ry dv Muvotus, «.7.A,
So Alford: ‘It betokens the unity of the O. and N. T. Churches. Their songs of triumph have become ours; the song of Moses is the song of the Lamb. In this great victory all the triumphs of God’s people are included, and find their fulfilment.’? Gebhardt (p. 255): ‘‘ That is, Christians above, after they have overcome all the temptations of antichrist, look upon the holy and righteous judgments of God, or his works and ways with the world, as once Israel looked upon the plagues of Egypt and the Red Sea, — indeed, in these visions, the Egyptian plagues frequently furnish the type, — they sing the song of the deliverance of their persons, the song of salvation, as the children of Israel once sung it (Exod. xv.), in its Christian fulfilment. Christian salvation is essentially that of the O. T., the completion once prepared, but now begun.’’ J. Gerhard (L. 7., xviii. 17): ‘‘Because the Church triumphant consists of saints of the O. and the N. T.; and just as the Israelites, after their deliverance from Pharaonic bondage, praised God in the song of Moses (Exod. xv.), so the blessed, after their deliverance from the tyranny of persecutors, and all the adversities of this life, praise God in the song of the Lamb, or Christ.’’
414 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER XVI.
Ver. 1. é« rod vaod. Although omitted, possibly because of its seeming contradiction to xv. 8, in many documents and editions (even by Tisch. 1854 and IX.), it is guaranteed by A, C, ®, al., and is entirely suitable. — Ver. 2. Instead of éni tr. y. (Elz., Beng.), read el¢ 7. y. in accordance with A, B, C (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf., already, Griesb.). But, according to the same witnesses and &, read éz? r. avép. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), instead of elg 7, &, (Elz.).— Ver. 8. yux) Gung anté,, rd év rt, 6aa. So also A, C, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The rec. pux. Qooa anéo, év 7. Gad. (wR: éxl Tr. 0.) makes the text easier. — Ver. 5. doro¢. So A, B, C, Lach., Tisch. The rec. has interpo- lated xa? 6. ® has the art. without the «a? (Tisch. 1X.).— Ver. 7. The inter- pretation dAAov éx before rot @voior. (Elz.) is rejected already by Beng., Griesb., in accordance with decisive testimonies. — Ver. 14. The & before éxmopeteras (Elz., Tisch.) is satisfactorily maintained by A, B. Lach. has deleted it upon the anthority of the Vulg. %, has the inf. indorsed by Ew. fi.; it is corrected: éxrropeterat, without &.— Ver. 17. The dd before rod vaov (B, Elz., Tisch.) is to be preferred to the é« (A, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [X. [W. and H.]), because the latter appears to be written in order to mark the é rod yvaov in distinction from the éxd rod Gpdvov. & has only éx t, vaod rod Geod. — Ver. 18. dvipwroe tyévero, So A, 38, Lach., Tisch. Elz. (Beng., Griesb. [W. and H.]), with B, verss., inter-
pret: of dvOpwiros éyévovro,
At the command of a voice sounding forth from the heavenly temple, the seven angels pour forth their vials upon the earth; yet the plagues caused thereby not only work no repentance in the inhabitants of the earth worshipping the beast, but have rather the effect of leading them to the open blasphemy of God who has sent these plagues.1_ The more certainly, therefore, must these hardened men incur the now immediately impending final judgment, to which ver. 15 also expressly alludes.
All seven vials are poured forth successively, without interruption; for such does not occur either at vv. 5-7, or at ver. 7. This, as well as the circumstance also that the number seven of the vials appears to be resolved neither into three and four, as the epistles,? nor into four and three, as the seals and trumpets,® nor even into five and two,‘—for the separation so prominent in the former series of visions, which could be found here with equal right in ver. 5 sqq., vv., 9,11, 15, nevertheless dare be exclusively sought in none of these passages, —corresponds to the haste with which now the end itself, before which these last plagues (xv. 1) still lie, draws on.
1 Vv. 9, 11, 21. 9 Cf. p. 145. 8 Cf. pp. 256, 815 eq. So in this passage, Beng., Eichh., Ewald, ZUllig.
# Of. De Wette.
CHAP, XVI. 1, 2. 416
That the vials have their place so directly before the actual end, is expressed also by the fact that the plagues proceeding therefrom are limited no longer to the third of the earth and its inhabitants, — as was the case in the trum- pet-plagues, which, however, were already still more violent than the seal- plagues pertaining only to a fourth, — but they are inflicted upon the entire number of the inhabitants of the earth worshipping the beast (vv. 2, 8 sqq.), and all the sea, together with all that lives therein. The special parallel- izing of the vials with the trumpets, which occurs in the sense of the recapitulation theory,! divides the progress, so clearly occurring and always accelerated, of the development which presses with great intensity to the catastrophe. Already the first vial has in its effect no analogy whatever with the first trumpet, so that the text of itself presents an obstacle to arbitrary parallelizing. The analogies which occur between vials 2, 3, and trumpets 2, 3, vial 6 and trumpet 6, vial 7 and seal 6, give no basis whatever for the recapitulation-parallelism, partly because the other numbers of the vials, trumpets (and seals) do not agree, partly because the seeming parallels are essentially distinguished from one another also in individual points; * partly, also, because a certain repetition of particular means of plague, which, however, forms also a gradation of the same, was indeed unavoid- able, since, for a thrice-repeated sevenfold series of visions, the sphere whence the prophetic contemplation of the plagues must be developed could not always offer new forms,— aud such plagues particularly must appear to be repeated, as presented themselves after the type of the Egyptian plagues to the contemplating mind of John.
Ver. 1. peydAne guvig éx rob vaod. According to xv. 8, the voice sounding from the heavenly temple can belong only to God himself.* This is not expressed, because John with all fidelity limits himself to that which he recognized, and as he actually recognizes it.—‘Yriyere. Cf. the dxfAdev, ver. 2, which is understood of itself in ver. 3, ete. The angels have possibly held themselves in readiness, standing at the gate of the temple (xv. 5 3qq.); now they come to a place in heaven, whence they can pour forth the destruc- tive contents of their vials. —+r, érra gidAac rob Ovucd v.06. Cf. xv.7. Tar- gum, Isa. Ixi. 22: “The vials of the cup of my wrath.” 4— cic rav yi. AB viii. 5.
Ver. 2. The frst vial poured forth upon the earth (e¢ ray y#, in relation to ver. 1, as viii. 7 to viii. 5) produces a severe ulcer. — tAxoc xaxdy xal xovnpév. Cf. Exod. ix. 10 sqq.; Deut. xxviii. 85.6 The xovnpdv * designates, besides the xaxov, Which expresses only the evil nature, the virulence, malignity, and affliction of the ulcer.? — én? rove avép., «.rA. The accus. after éxi results *® from the idea that the plague extends to the men.® —r, éy. 7d ydpayya, «.7.A. Cf. xiii. 15 sqq., xiv. 9 sqq. Of such a pestilence as there was at Rome” in Nero’s time, nothing is said.
? Cf. Introduction, p. 13 aq. ® Buidas: és: rover.
9 Cf., e.g., vial 6 with trumpet 6. 1 Cf. my commentary on 1 Jobn fii. 12. 3 Beng., ZUll., Hengstenb. 8 Cf. Luke i. 65, fi. 2. De Wette. ‘In Wetst. | ® Cf. Winer, p. 380.
8 LXX.: eAxog wovgpdéy. 8o also Job il. 7. % Volkm.
416 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Ver. 8. The second vial changes the great sea into blood, as that of a dead man, so that every thing living therein dies. — xa? éyévero alua we vexpod. According to the analogy of viii. 8, 11, 7 @aAacoa is to be regarded as the subject to éyévero.1 The advance of the present plague, in comparison with viii. 8, lies not only in that now the entire sea is changed into blood, and that every thing living therein dies, but also in that the sea becomes “as the blood of a dead man,” i.e., not a great pool of blood, as of many slain,? but the horribleness of the fact is augmented in that the sea seems like the clotted and already putrefying blood of a dead man. — wy Gwic. The var. correctly give the meaning: y. gsca.* The expression originates from Gen. i. 30: 6 bye ev éuury Woydy Gute. Cf. on the gen. limitation jc, Winer, p. 177 sq. — The ra before é r. 6aA.§ refers, as to meaning, to the individual xriovara comprised in the collective xiéca wy.*
Vv. 4-7. The third vial changes all other streams into blood. The angel of the waters and the heavenly altar praises the righteousness of God’s judgments. — xa éyévero alua. ‘And it became blood,” i.e., blood came forth. It is true, indeed, that, as to the form of the expression, it is not said that the streams became blood; the reading is not éyévovro. But the analogy with viii. 117 suggests that the blood entered into the streams into which the vials were poured.* — Since the streams are thus affected by the plague, the angel who presides over the waters is the first to recognize adoringly the righteousness of this Divine manifestation of wrath. — roo dyyéAov tov bddruv. Incorrectly, Grotius: “Because he emptied the vial into the waters.” <A definite angel is meant, who is placed over the streams as a special sphere.® There is an analogy not so much in what is presented in vii. 1 and xiv. 18, — for what is said there of the angels of wind and fire ?° is not meant in the same sense, — as rather in the idea of the four beings who appear in iv. 6 sqq. as representatives of earthly creatures.11_ Precisely similar 1* is Daniel's rep- resentation of angelic princes who belong to particular nations.!* Cf. also Schottgen, Hor. Hebr., on this passage; and Eisenmenger, Enid. Judenth., ii. 877 sq., where a large number of rabbinical expressions concerning earth-, sea-, fire-, and other angels, and their special names, are collected. In Bava Bathra, p. 72, 2,44 the prince of the sea is called ar, after Job xxvi. 12; in another book, he is called Michael, and seven less important angels stand beneath him. — dour. Cf. xv. 4. As the solemn formula 6 dy xa? 6 #v 1* does
1 Beng., etc. Against De Wette: es estand Blut.
9 pexpod as vexpay. O. a Lap., Eichh., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
§ Beng., Ztill., etc.
# Cf. vill. 0: «ricpata ra Exovra puxds.
5 Bee Critical Notes.
® Cf. v. 13.
7 Cf. alao ver. 3.
® Against De Wette.
® Andr., C. a Lap., Ewald, Zull., De Wette, Hengstenh. «
1¢@ De Wette.
il Cf. also viii. 2, where seven angels of spe- cla] rank are mentioned.
12 Hengstenb. compares John v. 4. Although he considers the water in this passage, as also viii. 10, as an allegorical designation of pros- perity; although, further, the passage Jobn v. 41s spurious, and nothing whatever is said of an angel placed over the water in general, but only of one sent for a particular service to a single pool, — yet he would have us find here *‘a delicate and inner bond” between the Apoc. and the Gospel.
13 Dan. x. 13, 21, xii. 1.
15 Hisenmenger, p. 379.
16 The cai & dpxdpevos is abeent here, as in xi. 17, because the coming to judgment ifs al- ready in process of execution.
% SebUttg.
CHAP. XVI. 8, 9. 417 not allow an immediate combination with écioc,1 and as before dcwr, neither 6, nor «al, nor xa? 6, dare be read,* and consequently the translation of Heng- stenb. (“the godly” ) is false, we can only, in the sense adopted by Luther, : who, however, interpolates an “and,” regard the Sec as placed with dixaioe by asyndeton, as a predicate belonging to el: “ Righteous art thou, which art, and which wast, holy” [art thou], “because thou hast ordained such judgments:” ér: ratvra éxp. The raira refers to ver. 4, not to ver. 8; for that which is the subject of treatment (ver. 6) is drinking-water that is changed into blood, so that the inhabitants of the earth who have shed the blood of saints and prophets® must drink blood.‘ The closing words of the angelic discourse, dw elocv, whose force is not destroyed by the absence of a connective, expressly designate that the enemies have merited this judgment. — Upon the angel’s ascription of praise, there follows yet, in ver. 7, another from the side of the altar, which, respondiug to the former and confirming it (Nai, x.1.4.), makes a further reference in general to the judgments of God, and thus brings the entire ascription of praise from ver. 5 to a conclusion. — Toy Gvotaornpiov Aéyovros. An attempt has been made to evade the idea of the text that the words of praise proceed from the altar itself, by the inter- polation of dAAov (sc. ayyéAov), éx before éve.,® or by allegorizing,’ or by the supply of a personality. But De Wette correctly acknowledges ® the signifi- cant personification of the altar itself. -This is in some measure prepared for already by ix. 13; but the idea embodied therein is to be recognized from vi. 10 sqq., viii. 3, ix. 13, xiv. 18. From the same place whence the prayers for vengeance had arisen, and already special manifestations of God’s wrath had proceeded, the righteousness of all the judgments of God, whereby the longing of the saints is fully satisfied, is proclaimed.
Vv. 8,9. The fourth vial, poured out upon the sun, produces ?° terrific heat. Men, however, are not brought by all these plagues to repentance, but only to blasphemy of God. — d66y aire; viz., to the sun," not to the angel ;12 the meaning is that by the pouring-forth of the vials upon the sun, this is in like manner made a means of plague, as in ver. 8 the sea, and in ver. 4 other streams. The sun receives éfovoia adapted to its nature for these special plagues.!* It concurs with the false reference of the éd. avrm, that—- Hengstenb. excepted, who wants to understand the sun, as well as also the fire, allegorically — Bengel refers the é nvpi to still another fire than that proceeding from the glowing sun. —xadpa péya. On the accus. with éxavpariofyoav, cf. Winer, p. 214.—xal éBAacgiunoay, x.1.2.
1 Against De Wette: “Thou who art and wast holy.”’
2 Bee Critical Notes, p. 414,
3 Cf. xill. 7, 10, vi. 10, xl. 7, xvii. 6, xix. 2.
4 weiv. On this form, see Winer, p. 84.
5 Cf. v. 8, 11.13, 14.
6 Luther, Ziill., eto.
1 Beda: “* The inner affection of saints, an- gels, or men, who by teaching rule the people.” Andr.: ‘‘ The angelic powers as bearers of our prayers.”
8 Grot.: “viz., the angel who guards the spirita of the martyrs.” Cf. vi. 10. Ewald: **A voice proceeding from an inhabitant of heaven standing by the divine altar.” Of. also Zuil., Ebrard, ete.
® Cf. aleo Beng. and Hengatenb., who nevertheless speak indefinitely of an angel of the altar. 1° Cf., on the other hand, vili. 12.
11 De Wette, Bleok.
12 Beng., Hengstenb., Ew. ii.
13 Cf. the é866n, vi. 4, 8, vil. 2, ix. 8, 5.
418 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
Just because men perceive that the plagues come from God, before whoni they, nevertheless, will not bow,! they become the more hardened.
Vv. 10,11. The f/fthk vial, poured upon the throne of the beast, brings an eclipse over his entire realm. This increase of sorrows also works upon the impenitent inhabitants of the earth in such a way that they blaspheme God. — én? rdv Gpévov rod Onpiov. The throne of the beast beheld in definite reality (xiii. 2), the actual centre of his entire kingdom, is here meant; in- correct are all interpretations * which explain away the concrete clearness of the presentation.?— xai Lyévero 4 Baotdcia abrov Loxorwpévn, cf. Exod. x. 21 sqq.; Ps. cv. 28. Even in this special circumstance is the plague like the Egyp- tian, in that this darkness is produced not by an injury to the sun,‘ but by an immediate miraculous act.6 By the expression éoxorwyz. an external eclipse must be considered, so that the plague is homogeneous with those of the preceding vials. The false interpretation of the éoxorwz. in Grot.,® Calov., Vitr., Hengstenb., etc., coincides with the allegorical view of the whole.’ For the correct understanding of the éoxoruuz., it follows of itself that 7 Baocdeia air, can designate not the rulership,® but only the kingdom of the beast considered according to its geographical extent. — xa? inzasiwro rag yAdooac, x.7.A. “And they gnawed their tongues.” Andr., very properly: “The gnawing of the tongues shows the excess of the pain.” The text itself gives the explanation: é« roi rovév.® The darkness causes a peculiar pain, because of its character as a plague. This particular xévoc, however, is, according to ver. 11, to be thought of in connection with the plagues produced by the preceding vials (rév xévuv atr.), among which the first is still expressly emphasized : xai éx riv éAxev abr. The horrible darkness makes the other sufferings — identified by Hengstenb. with the darkness which he understands figuratively — still more oppressive and comfortless; for the last plagues also © are, in comparison with the seal- and trumpet-plagues, so dreadfully increased, because, while the former plagues came successively, these vial-plagues occur in such a way that the one is combined with the other. During the fifth vial-plague, at all events the first, and without doubt the second and third, are still continuing. The fourth (ver. 8) is naturally not to be regarded in connection with the fifth; but under the fourth, we are expressly referred to all the preceding plagues (ver. 9: ra¢ nAny. tabr.). — rdv Gedy rod oipavod, Cf. xi. 18. The designation has here a reference as in ver. 9 the rob by. éfove., «.rA.—perev. ex 1. py. abr, Cf. ix. 20 sq.
Vv. 12-16. The sixth vial is poured upon the Euphrates, and causes it to dry up, in order that the kings of the East might pass through. Three unclean spirits, which in the form of frogs issue from the mouths of the dragon, and the two beasts serving the dragon, gather the inhabitants of
1 ix. 20; of. xf. 13. 6 The Roman dominion lost much of its 2 In violation also of the analogy of vv. 2,3, pristine splendor.
4, 8. 7 Cf. on ver. 21. 3 Against O. a Lap.: ‘Upon the kingdom ® Hengstenb. Cf. Grot.
and subjects of antichrist,” etc. ® Cf., on the éx, vv. 11,21. Whiner, p. 347.
# Cf. ver. 8 aqq. 5 De Wette. 10 xy. 1.
CHAP. XVI. 12-16. °" 419
the earth at Armagedon. — rdv woraydy rdv utyav riv Etgpdryy. In the sense of ix. 14 the starting-point is indicated, in a schematic way, for the kings coming from the East, for whom God himself makes the way by drying up the Euphrates. The correct estimate of this point is gained only by consider- ing it in connection with the correct conception of “the kings” coming from “the East.” The problem in general is so to understand all the par- ticular features of the representation (vv. 12-16), especially also the signifi- cant local designation (ver. 16), that this vial-vision correspond with the essential meaning of the other vials. Accordingly, as a whole, nothing else can be represented than a revelation of judgment pertaining to the inhabit- ants of the earth, according to the analogy of the plagues proceeding from the other vials. By a comparison with ix. 14 sqq., the suggestion is readily made, that the Eastern kings themselves may be regarded the executors of the plagues. So Ewald, who refers to the Parthian allies with whom the returning Nero! would go up against Rome.* But the kings of the East belong rather to the Baotrei¢ rig¢ oixoupévne bane (ver. 14), and appear as leaders of the inhabitants of the whole earth, and, accordingly, as instruments of the dragon and the beast (cf. ver. 13), who go up to war, not against Babylon, but rather against believers. The kings of the East are identical with the ten kings (xvii. 12 sqq.) who give their power to the beast.‘ Just as in xi. 7 the beast from the abyss was mentioned proleptically, which nevertheless does not enter definitely into the development before ch. xiii., so here a statement is made concerning definite kings (ray Bac: row dnd dv., «.7.A.), whose more spe- cific relation to the beast® does not become clear until from xvii. 12 sqq., but whose fate is indicated first only in this passage (ver. 16), yet is not expressly stated until the actual end.* For the plague of the sixth vial does not lie in the fact that those kings come,—this is rather a proof of the apparently victorious defiance of the secular power,— but that they assemble at Armagedon; i.e., a place where they shall be brought to naught with their insolent power.? Bengel® has already correctly acknowledged this by saying very appropriately, even though he very preposterously thinks of the inroads of the Turks: “It is these very kings who blindly incur the plagues.” While in ver. 12 the coming of the kings was so stated, that thereby the purpose of God leading those enemies to destructive judgment might be marked; ° on the other hand, in ver. 13 sq., it is emphasized as to how these Eastern and all kings of the earth in general are gathered together by the dragon to the conflict against believers. [See Note LXXIX., p. 425.] Im- mediately from the mouth of the dragon himself (é« 1, crou.),!° and mediately from the dragon, from the mouths of the two beasts equipped by the same
t Cf. xili. 3. 3 Cf. xii. 17, xifl. 7, xvil. 12 aqq., xix. 19. 2 “In order to sustain Nero, attending ant!- 4 De Wette.
‘christ, they come to destroy the city.” Cf. aleo 5 Cf. ver. 13.
Eichh., Heinr., Volkm., Hilgenf.; Ebrard also 6 Cf. xix. 10.
belongs here, in so far as he identifies the 1 Bee on ver. 16.
kings of the East with the four angels (ix. 15), & Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb.
and regards thelr expedition directed first, at ® Cf. Mic. iv. 12 .4q.
least, against Babylon, and then, of course, 10 Cf. ix. 17, xi. 5. Incorrectly, C. a Lap., also against believers. etc.: “At the command.”
those which serve the dragon, in order to bring together the kings of the earth. — dxd@apra. This formal attribute also? designates the demoniacal nature of these spirits. — dc Barpayo. This addition is not to be referred to the mere dxadapra, but designates, in the sense of the var. duoa Barpdyou, the form in which those spirits appear. It is possible that this form of illustra- tion depends upon an allusion to Exod. viii. 1 sqq.,* although the batrachian form of the spirits bears no reference whatever to any peculiar pestilential nature of frogs, as the spirits are to be regarded only as such as, according to the wish of the dragon and of the two beasts, by their deceptive persua- sion, move the kings to the expedition against Babylon. But what or who be meant by these three spirits, is a question originating from the same mis- understanding as that which, e.g., attempts in ix. 14 sqq. to find a supposed fulfilment of prophecy within the sphere of ecclesiastical or secular-historical facts. .To the false question, necessarily, the most arbitrary answers are given. The three spirits are, according to Grot.: “Divination by inspection of entrails, by the flight of birds, and the sibylline books, in which Maxen- tius trusted” (for vv. 12-16 refer, according to Grot., Hammond, etc., to the rout of Maxentius by Constantine); according to Vitr., who explains the drying-up of the Euphrates by the circumstance that the kingdom of France, drained by its kings, could send no more money to the Pope, the spirits are to be understood as referring to the Jesuits; according to Calov.: “The Jesuits, Capuchins, and Calvinists;” according to others, “The Jesuits, Macchiavellians, and Spinozists.” Even Luther explains: “The frogs are the sophists, like Faber, Eck, Emser, etc., who banter much against the gospel, and yet effect nothing, and remain frogs.” But to the contempla- tion of the seer, the three spirits have the same reality as the dragon and his two beasts, from whose mouths the spirits actually proceeded.* — ect yap xvebpata datuoviay nowivra onueia. The parenthesis which designates the unclean spirits expressly as spirits of demons explains their efficacy by the remembrance that they are spirits of demons which could perform miracu- lous signs. Just as the dwellers upon the earth are brought by the false prophet to the adoration of the beast,’ not without the working of miracles, so these three spirits also use their miraculous signs as a means whereby they attempt to bring together the kings of the earth. —d éxmopeteras én r. Baca, rig olxovp, bAnc, cvvayayeivy abrods, x.rA, As the words 4 éxmop. referring back to what precedes the parenthesis, relatively carry still further the clause x. eidov éx r. crou., k.7.A., they supply in this way the partic. éxmopedoueva not written in ver. 138.— nl rode Boo. Cf. xiv. 6; Matt. iii. 7.8 The kings of the whole earth, the rulers of all the inhabitants of the earth worshipping the beast,® are those to whom the spirits here take their course. They be- take themselves to the kings, “to gather them together” (ovvayayei», inf., as xii. 17) “to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” That this day
1 xifi. 1, 11. 6 Cf., besides, ix. 17 8q.; also ix. l-11. 3 Matt. x.1; Mark i. 26. F 7 xiil. 12 eqq. 8 Ver. 14: wvevp. Sacpovier. Cf. xvill. 2. * Winer, p. 880.
4 Ew. ii. § Cf. Wolf. ® xiv. 6, 11, xiii. 8 8q., 12.
CHAP. XVI. 12-16. | 421
is often not understood! in its eschatological definitiveness, i.e.,? as the future day of final judgment,® is owing td the fact that the relation ‘of the sixth (and seventh) vial to the actual end‘ is not properly appreciated. As by the mention of definite kings, ver. 12 was comprehended already in the development of the proper final catastrophe, so ver. 14 also, by the refer- ence to the conflict against the saints to be undertaken by all the kings of the world combined on the day of final judgment, alludes to a point which does not actually occur until in the last time of xix. 19.5 But it is just this which corresponds with the character of the penultimate plagues among those that are “last,” * that here the demoniacal spirits come forth, who unite those kings together with their hosts of people in an attack to be completed at the actual end, which will then result, on that great day, by the judgment of Almighty God (r. decd 1. ravr.)," in the complete ruin of the enemies.® But as thus reference is made from the sphere of the vials to the actual end, the artistic plan of the Apoc. again stands forth, involving with it that the nearer the proper final judgment with its distinct acts occurs, the more definitely appears the connection between it and its various forms of prepa- rations, which have come into view in series of visions that, although they are distinct, yet interpenetrate one another. —In this also the feeling is expressed, that the day of judgment is impending so closely, that the com- fort which is introduced with such emphasis in ver. 15 is occasioned by the definite allusion to the same in ver. 14.°—‘Idw) Epyouas, x.r.A. The prophet speaks immediately as in the name of the Lord himself. With formal incorrectness, Hengstenberg says that Christ himself actually speaks. — dc xdérryc, cf. iii. 3. On any day, at any hour, therefore, the Lord may come, and thus that great day of the Lord open. Upon this is based the admo- nition succeeding without express connection, which, first of all by proffer- ing the blessed reward,!! encourages to watchfulness,™ and to the faithful keeping, by believers, of their garments,!* but then, also, on the other hand, does not refrain from threatening disgrace and punishment against the faith- leas.14 After the parenetic interlude, there follows in ver. 16 the conclusion belonging to ver. 14: xa? ovviyayev abrobe. As the subject we can regard nei- ther the sixth-vial angel,!5 nor God,!* nor the dragon,!’ but only the rvedpara roia dxaé. (ver. 18),!* since the ovviyayev, with the corresponding expression, designates that which was named in ver. 14, as the purpose of those spirits.!°
1 Bo Beng., De Wette; cf. also Ew.1., who, t Cf. 1. 8, xi. 17, xvi. 7. however, like Eichh., refers only to the devas. 8 Cf. ver. 16. tation of Rome. ® Cf. xill. 9 oqq., xiv. 12 eqq.
3 Cf. ver. 15. 10 Of. xxii. 7, 12,20; De Wette.
8 Matt. vil. 22; Luke xvil. 24, 81; Heb. x. 1 Cf. xiv. 3, xix. 9, xxii. 7, 14. 25; Jude, 6. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 21. 13 fil. 2 aq.
* Cf. Beda: *‘ The nucpa ts the entire time a3 Cf. ili. 18, vil. 14, from the Lord’s passion.” Hengstenb.: ‘ The 1¢ Cf. fil. 18, also vii. 9, 14. day of God has a comprehensive character, 1 Beng. which unites Into one picture all the phases %* Hengstenb., Ebrard. in it of the judgment of God against ungodly 1t Ver. 18; Ew. il.; Volkm.: “The beast.” wickedness.” 18 Ewald, Bleek, De Wette. § Cf. also Ew. if. and Volkm. 19 & dewop. cvvayayeiy. Observe here also ® gv. 1. the elng. with the a. ;
422 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. The peculiar point of the entire section (vv. 12-16) lies in the significant ndming of the place of assembling of the antichristian kings of the world: In Hebrew the place is called ‘Apuayeddv. The name is to be explained either etymologically, i.e., from the meaning of the Hebrew words contained therein, or historically, i.e., so that the Hebrew proper name, by its reference to some fact of the O. T. history, appears characferistically for the present case, which is accordingly transferred to that Armagedon. The etymo- logical explanation is attempted by many of the older writers without a proper foundation in a linguistic respect.1. The most admissible is the inter- pretation of Drusius, who understands the words mo°7N “destruction,” and 1771 “army,” so that the entire name means “the slaughter of their army.” This is more correct in a linguistic respect, and as a matter of fact, than when Rinck makes of it a compound of }%)1* (which he regards as meaning “castle”) and 3) “fortress,” and thus finds the capital designated ; just as Grot., who in other respects follows, in etymological explanation, the foot- steps of Drusius, solves it as “Mons Janiculus.” But if John had bad in mind the obscure verbal interpretation of the name Arm., he would scarcely have refrained from giving the Greek explanation to his readers in Asia Minor;? on which account we are the rather directed to the historical inter- pretation by a significant prototype. This has been attempted in various ways by Tichon., Ribera, Coccejus, Vitr., Bengel, Eichhorn, Ewald, Ziillig, Hofm., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Bleek, Volkm.,® in combination with the ety- mological interpretation. The place at which, in the times of the judges, the Canaanite kings were slaughtered by the Israelites,5 and where King Josiah was defeated by the Egyptians,® the LXX. call Mayeds (Mayeddd). The allusion to one of the two events would be liable to no doubt whatever, if John had not named the locality meant by him as ‘Apyayedov (11D “W), i.e., Mount Megiddo, while the more express determinations in the O. T. read either év ro mdud May.” or ént tdart May.® But this additional circumstance, which also admits at least of a probable explanation,® can in no way lead us astray as to the chief reference of the name Megiddo in the O. T. Yet the defeat of the people of God, and of his King Josiah, cannot be the prototype for this passage,!° as the subject here has respect to a defeat of antichristian
8 Cf. also De Wette, who, however, vacil-
1 According to Beda, ‘Apuay. is meant to be ‘a holy city, j.c., the Church.” He compares then xx. 9. Yet he regards also possible: ** fn- surrection againet what precedes,” ‘‘a spheri- cal mountain,” eo as to designate ‘“‘a place of the godicas.” Andr. futerprets, Svaxoxy. It fudicates the extermination (éc«céwrec@a:) of enemies. C. a Lap. explains: “ Tho artifice of the congregation, because God, as it were, by an artifice will unite those kings with auti- christ, so as to destroy all in one day.” More to the same effect in the Crit. Sacr. Luther has the gloss: ‘‘ In German, doomed warriors, accursed equipment, or unsuccessful warriors, from Herem and Gad.”
* Cf. ix. 11; Beng., Hengstenb.
lates.
* Vitr., Eichh., Zullig.
8 Judg. v. 19.
© 2 Kings xxili. 29 eqq.; 2 Chron. xxxv. 22. Cf. Zech. xii. 11.
t 2 Chron., I. c.
8 Jadg., |. c.
® See above.
46 It is said incorrectly (Hengstenb., Hofm., eto.), that the reference to the defeat of Jostah ia rendered the more probable by the example of Zech. xil. 11; forif on the one hand the con. tentsof Zech. |. o. are completely dietinct from those of this passage, ft ie aleo to be observed that the LXX., of whom John is by no means
CHAP, XVI. 17-21. 428 enemies;} but only the victory of Israel,? as it is described in Judg. v. 19, won by God’s miraculous aid over the Sacisig Xavacv at Megiddo. By desig- nating the place, therefore, where the antichristian kings assemble for battle against Christ and his Church, by that name, it is indicated that the fate of the antichristian kings shall be the same as that of the Canaanites formerly at Megiddo. With this thought, the designation Mount Megiddo appears also to correspond. For as the subject has to do not with an actual, but only with an ideal, geographical specification, in the designation Afount Meg., there can lie an intimation of the immovableness and victory of the Church of God.* [See Note LXXX., p. 425.] This ideal character of the geo- graphical designation prevents, however, the explanation that Armagedon is Rome,‘ or the mountains of Judah, where the enemies are to gather until they are annihilated in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Without any support whatever in the text is the view of Ew. ii., that since the numerical value of yD" is the same as that of nortan 1019 (viz., 804), by hieroglyphic art “Rome the great” is expressly designated. Concerning the number of a name,® nothing whatever is said in this passage.’
Vv. 17-21. The seventh vial poured into the air brings — after a voice proceeding from the throne of God has proclaimed the end — unprecedented plagues upon the chief city of the beast and the entire empire. Yet men continue their blasphemy of God. — imi rdv dépa, Cf. ver. 8. —quvd wey. ard rov vaod. According to this, the voice of God himself is to be understood just as in ver. 1; the further designation azd rod épévov shows this with still greater certainty. As the command to pour forth the vials was imparted by God himself, so there also comes forth from God's own mouth the final exclamation comprised in one word: Téyovev. This yéyovev, “ factum eat,” ® refers to ver. 1 ; now that is done which is there commanded.® Cf. xxi. 6, where, likewise, a definite determination of the subject results from the con- nection. Thus the explanation of Eichh., Ewald,’ is far out of the way, while that of Grot.,!! which recalls the Virgilian: Fuimus Troes, is inapposite. —xal éyévovto Gorparal, x.t.A. The same signs, only extremely heightened, which also, xi. 19, signalize the immediately impending entrance of the actual end; yet the misunderstanding —as though in vv. 28-21 the end itself were described—is removed by the text itself, because it treats
independent, do not have there the name Ma- yeée at all. They explain it as év wedign dxxon- toudvov. With this the above-cited interpreta- tlon of Andreas is in remarkable agreement. — Possible, and of interesting facility, ie the ex- planation of Hitsig (cf. Hilgenf., p. 440): “Apmay. a) “Vy, 1.e., the city M. Cf. aleo Kienlen. But it is not perceptible why John would not have abode by the mere name May., if he had not wished to give the idea of the mountain.
1 Against Ewald, Hengstenb.; aleo againat Hofm., Schrt/tbevo., II. 2, p. 639, who, however, makes the alteration, that in the beginning of the war the experience of the saluts shali be
that of the Ieraelites at Megiddo, but that finally the enemies shall be trodden down in the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
* Beng., Ebrard, Klief.
® Cf. Ps, oxxi. 1, cxxv. 2.
¢ Ewald.
& Zullig.
® Cf. xill. 18,
? Bleek already has declared againet Ew.
8 Vulg.
® Luke xiv. 22; Beng., De Wette, Hengst- enb.
10 Actum eet, j.¢., the end and sure destruc- tion of Rome fs at hand.
33 Fult Roma, Cf. aleo Vitr.
424 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. of a particular vial-plague, which, like the preceding, expressly makes known, also in ver. 21 («. é@Aac9., «.7.4.), its only preparatory significance with respect to the actual final judgment. —x«. bév. % wédic # peyddAn ele tpia péon, «.7.A. From the connection of ch. xiii., as well as from the context, ch. xvi., it undoubtedly follows that “the great city,’’ which was rent into three parts, is identical with “great Babylon,”?! i.e., the metropolis of the world, which appeared in ch. xiii. in the form of the beast from the sea.? In addition to the great city divided into three parts,® the other “cities of the nations” which fall down are also mentioned. The great city, or great Babylon, is, therefore, heathen Rome,* not Jerusalem.* The heathen metrop- olis is affected in the same way by the mighty earthquake which the last vial brings, — but in a heightened degree, — as in xi. 13, the city of Jerusalem is by the final visitation in the second woe. But there the last plague, which comes upon Jerusalem before the final judgment,* works repentance in the rest; while in the heathen metropolis, and in the entire realm of the beast, all the plagues, even those which are most dreadful, effect nothing but per- severing blasphemy of God.’ — éuvfaby évomov r, 6., x.7.A, On the expression, cf. Acts x. 31; on the thing designated, Ps. x. 138. — rd rorfpuov'r. oly, 7. Oupod tie épyn¢ abrov. The expression ® is just as full as possible, because it is intended to state how the wrath (épy7) existing in God operates in its entire force. Vitr. explains @updc rig dpyi¢ excellently by excandescentia irae.® [See Note LXXXI., p. 426.] On ver. 20, cf. vi. 14.—6de radavriaia. The mon- strous size of the hail, whereby the plague is rendered so dreadful.!° Hail- stones of the weight of a mina (yvaai a), Diodor. Sicul., xix. 45, already calls incredibly great; but in this passage hailstones of the weight of a talent, which contains sixty minae, therefore, designates them as so heavy as though thrown, like sling-stones, from catapults.23— x. eBAac¢iunoav, x.7.A. It dare not be urged #? that-here also the impenitence is not expressly men- tioned, and it is not here stated that this immediately fatal hail left no time for repentance, that the men thus struck by the same could, only when dying, still blaspheme;1* for it is scarcely the meaning, that those indi- viduals, who have been struck by the dreadful hail, utter their blasphemies in the very moment of death; but rather, while the hail falls, the men blas- pheme, i.e., those not immediately struck by it, who, nevertheless, have before their eyes the plague threatening them every moment. Some fall, struck dead; others blaspheme.
The vial-visions have received an allegorical interpretation in the same way as the seal- and trumpet-visions. As an example the following may be
1 Cf. xiv. 8,
® Cf also ch. xvil.
8 The number fAree (cf. villi. 7, 8, 11, 18) has possibly a reference to the three chief enemies, ver. 18 (Ebrard).
4 Alcas., Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., Bleek, Hengstenb.
5 Andreas, C.a Lap., Beng., Zitill., Stern., Ebrard, ete., who increase the confusion by explaining the great city, partly, like Ebrard,
in the sense of xi. 8; and great Babylon, on the other hand, according to xiv. 8.
6 Cf. xi. 15 sqq.
7 Ver. 21. Cf. vv. 8, 11.
9 “ Trascibility of anger.”
10 Ver. 21d.
11 Cf. Joseph., B. J., v. 6, 8: raAavraio. — ot BadAAdpevos wérpot.
12 Beng., Hengstenb.
18 Hengstenb.
8 Cf. xiv. 10.
NOTES. 425
noticed :} Wetst., who in it all saw a representation of the Vitellian war, explained ver. 2 of diseases in the army of Vitellius, ver. 8 of the treachery of the fleet, ver. 19 the rpia pépy (the three parties), as the Vitellian, the Flavian, and that of the Roman people. The last, Grot. refers to the fact that Totila had demolished the third of the walls of Rome. Nevertheless, the explanation of three classes of men has found most approval.? Vitr. interprets ver. 2 as referring to the exposure of the corruption of the Church by the Waldenses; ver. 3, to wars between the Popes and the Emperors (1056-1211); ver. 4, to the Church’s thirst for blood, manifested in Cast- nitz; ver. 10 sq., to the obscuring of the Papacy by the Reformation.® Beng. and Hengstenb. repeat their explanations, known already from the former visions, that the earth, ver. 2, is Asia; the sea, ver. 8, is Europe; * that ver. 8 refers to the shedding of blood in war, and ver. 4 to the infringe- ment of prosperity.6 The islands and mountains, ver. 20, are, according to Andr., churches and church-teachers ; according to Hengstenb., kingdoms.
Nores BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXXIX. Ver. 12. réav Baoéw row axd dvarodg:.
In entire harmony with Diisterdieck, Alford: ‘‘ In order to understand what we here read, we must carefully bear in mind the whole context. From what follows under this same vial, we learn that the kings of the whole earth are about to be gathered to the great battle against God, in which he shall be victorious, and they shall utterly perish. The time is now come for this gathering; and, by the drying-up of the Euphrates, the way of those kings . who are to come from the East is made ready. To suppose the conversion of Eastern nations, or the gathering-together of Christian princes, to be meant, or to regard the words as relating to any auspicious event, is to introduce a totally incongruous feature into the series of vials which confessedly represent ‘the seven last plagues.’ ”’
LXXX. Ver. 16. ‘Appaysddy,
So also Gebhardt (p. 274): ‘‘It is clear that by this name we are to understand Megiddo, which Judg. v. 19, 2 Kings xxili. 20, 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24 (cf. Zech. xfi. 10, 11), mention as the great battlefield of the O. T. But a mere statement of locality cannot be intended, for then it would not be called . Armageddon, but Megiddo or Magedon; nor would it be said that the locality was 80 called in the Hebrew. This addition, as well as the compound name, compels us to notice the verbal meaning, and yet not the etymological meaning of Magedon, which John, on account of its difficulty, would certainly have added in Greek (cf. {x. 11), but only that Armageddon in Hebrew means Hill
1 Cf. on ver. 12 aqq. lem. Alcas.: Christians, heathen, and neu- * Beda: “ The leas state brings war in trails in Rome during the time of Constantine. three ways upon the Church; viz., through the 8 Cf. Calov., ete. heathen, the Jews, and the heretics.””, Andr.: « Beng. Christians, Jews, and Samaritans in Jerusa- - 5 Hengstenb.
seer refers to Zech. xii. 11: ‘in the Valley of Megiddo,’—valley, symbol of defeat; hill, of victory, —and wishes us to understand that what the heathen once did against Josiah and his people at Megiddo would now find its counter- part in what they did against Jesus and his followers; but that as once, in the Valley of Megiddo, the theocracy was borne to the grave with Josiah, so, in Armageddon, the Hiil of Megiddo, the Lord would avenge the crime of the heathen.’’? The point of comparison here is rather with the battle of Judg. v. 19, as Ebrard shows, and Diisterdieck seems to intimate, than with that of 2 Kings xxifli. 29, as Gebbardt states. Thomson (Central Palestine and Phenicia, p. 218) explains the adoption of the local name for that of the great prophetic conflict, by the fact that the Apostle John was a native of Galilee, well acquainted with the natural features and ancient history of the great plain of Esdraelon to which it belonged. So, too, Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, p. 380): ‘‘If that mysterious book proceeded from the hands of a Galilean fisherman, it is the more easy to understand why, with the scene of those many battles constantly before him, he should have drawn the figurative name of the final conflict between the hosts of good and evil from ‘the place which is called, in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon,’ i.e., the city or moun- tain of Megiddo.”’ See also Alford.
LXXXI. Ver. 19. 70d Gvyod rig dpyie.
Cremer: ‘‘@vud¢ denotes the inward excitement, and épy7 the outward manifestation of it; cf. Deut. xxix. 20; Num. xxxii. 14; Isa. ix. 19; Josh. vii. 26; 1 Sam. xxviii. 18." Trench: ‘‘ The general result is, that in @vud¢ is more of turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of the feelings, either presently to subside and disappear, or else to settle down into épy”, wherein is more of an abiding and settled habit of the mind, with the purpose of revenge.’? Thayer (Lextcon) : @vpoc, “anger forthwith boiling up, and soon subsiding; épy#, on the contrary, denotes indignation which has arisen gradually and become more settled.’’
CHAP. XVII. 427
CHAPTER XVII.
Ver. 8 The rec. yéuov dvozéruv Bracg, is certainly false. It is more probable and intelligible to read, with Tisch., according to A, 7, 8, al., yéuov rd évépuara Baacg. (14, 18, al., also have évduara, but without the art.), than, with Lach., Tisch. LX. [W. and H.], yéuovra dvéuara BA. In the &, the ra has been deleted by the corrector. But the immediately succeeding defective éyovra has con- tinued so to stand. W.and H.: fyw».— Ver. 4. The «a? before xexpvo, (A, ®, Vulg., Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), which is lacking in B (Tisch.), may be interpolated. 1a dxd@apra. So A, B, X, 2, 4, 6, al., Compl., Genev., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The rec. dxa@dpryroc is an inter- pretation, as the rév dxaSdpruv in Areth. — Ver. 8 Instead of ircyey (B, &, Elz., Tisch. LX.), read éwéyes (A, 12, Andr., Areth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}). — al xdpecta, So A, B, 2, 8, 4, al., Compl., Plant., Genev., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: xaixep éoriv. ®, has xal nad mupeors (corr.: kat napecriy), The addy is an effort at interpretation; the wapeore, however, points to the correct reading. — Ver. 11. «at atrog dyd. So A, al., edd., interpretations are: «. ovrog dyd, (B), obrog 6 Syd. (x), etc.
After the last plagues! have been inflicted, the final judgment iteelf follows, and that, too, in various chief acts whereby the individual chief enemies are judged successively. From ch. xii. on, as such, there are represented, first, the dragon himself, as the proper old enemy; then the beast out of the sea, i.e., the heathen-Roman secular power; finally, the beast out of the earth, serving this beast, or the false prophet. But while the description of the enemies of the Lord and his believers properly took this course, which proceeds from the original author of all antichristian hostility, from Satan himself, to the hostile powers manifesting themselves in the reality of experience by the shedding of blood and other persecutions of believers,* by the seduction of the inhabitants of the earth, and by blas- phemy of God; ® the reverse order follows for the description of the judg- ment. Satan himself —even apart from that which lies beyond xx. 3— is at last judged,‘ and, before him, his instruments, who serve him unto the end; viz., the beast and the false prophet.6— But the description of the judgment is not limited to this chief feature; but just that part of the Apoca- lyptic picture is portrayed in a more detailed way, which refers to the anti- christian secular power as in manifest reality arrayed against believers. This is now brought to view under the two forms (xvii. 8) belonging together, as they stand there in their entire opposition to God, and incur the Divine
1 Cf. xv. 1. 3 Cf. xill. 4 eqq., xii. eqq., xiv. 8, xvi. 21. 3 Of. xiil. 7, 10, 15, xvi. 6. « xx. 1 agq. § xix. 19 eqq.
there is a particular description of the metropolis of the world (Weltstad¢), the harlot who sits upon the beast, the concrete focus of the power of the world with all its abominations. This harlot upon the beast is now shown to the prophet! as the immediate object of the final judgment that now enters; and, indeed, not only what John himself beholds (xvii. 1-6), but also that which the angel says to him in interpretation of what is beheld (vv. 7-14, vv. 15-18), serves besides to represent the harlot as the completely worthy object of the judgment. To the judgment itself, then, the section XvViii. 1 sqq. refers.
Vv. 1-6. One of the vial-angels allows John to see the harlot. — xa? 7AGev, The angel had thus far occupied a standpoint adapted for the business described in ch. xvi., the pouring-out of his vials; now he comes to John in order not only to speak with him (ver. 1 sqq.), but also to carry him in spirit to another place (ver. 3). — ele éx 1, éxt. dyy., «.7.A. One of the seven vial-angels. Incorrectly, Eichh.: e/¢ is equivalent to mpédroc.* It is in no way to be conjectured which of the vial-angels it was; but that just by one of these he will be afforded a view of the judgment, is especially appropriate, because these angels have brought the last plagues immediately preceding the judgment, and that, too, without impelling the worldly kingdom to repentance.§ — Aeipo. Cf. xxi. 9, also vi. 3, 5, 7. — delfw oot rd xpipa, x.7.A, The fulfilment of the promise is not immediately presented in ver. 3, nor even at all in ch. xvii.; for even though in ver. 3 (&qyov), in the description of the ostentatious woman, there is an allusion to the judgment now impend- ing, a8 also the interpreting angel, ver. 16, expressly proclaims the /wlure devastation of the city symbolized by the harlot, yet neither the appearance of the woman herself, nor the interpreting speech of the angel, gives the idea of a judgment already actually present. But the angel first of all shows the harlot in her antichristian form,— which is necessary, because the special view of the city, in distinction from that of the empire as a whole, is, at least in this definite form, new, — and not until afterwards does the judg- ment occur (cf. xviii. 1 sqq.). —ri¢ wépvne Tig meydAne, «.7.A. From the entire presentation, especially from ver. 18, it follows that “the great harlot” is the personification of “the great city,” i.e., of heathen Rome as the metropolis of the entire heathen-Roman Empire ;® therefore the harlot is designated in like manner as previously the beast, which symbolizes the entire realm. The special description of the city is prepared already by such passages as xiv. 8, xvi. 19; but the city appears as a harlot, because to this applies what has previously been said concerning it as Babylon the great (cf, ver. 2). —éni vdéruv xoiAcv. In this also like Babylon.? But this sitting on masses of water, which is regarded as presenting itself to the eye of the seer, has & symbolical meaning which the angel explains in ver. 15. — ped" H¢ éxépvevoav ol Baowteis tie ypc. Of all nations this was said in xiv. 8; for the masses of the inhabitants of the earth have allowed themselves to be seduced ® in the
1 xvii. 1 sqq. ® Cf. vi. 1. § See on ver. 18. © Cf. also xvi. 10. § xvi. 9, 11, 21. * Cf. ver. 2. « Against Hengstenb. 8 Cf. xviil. 3.
CHAP. XVII. 3-6. 429
same way as the kings of the earth by the beast, and especially by the city wherein is the throne of the beast.1. Accordingly it is said immediately afterwards: xat éueQiodnoay of xarocxotvres tiv yiv, x.7.A. On the suppression of the relative constr., cf. Winer, p. 141.
Vv. 3-6. The view of the harlot promised John, ver. 1 sq., is afforded after the angel has carried him away in ‘the spirit into the wilderness. — Gnipveyne pee xxi. 10. De Wette explains the idea from Luke xvi. 22; but the éy rvedyar: in this passage does not mention so much an actual abandon- ment of the body,? as rather that this change of standpoint has been wrought to the ecstatic consciousness of the seer by an angel.®—eic Epnuov. The identification of this wilderness with that mentioned in xii. 6, 14, impos- sible in a formal respect, because of the omission of the art., coincides in Auberlen with the view that the harlot, ch. xvii., is identical with the woman, ch. xii.4 Why the harlot, with all her ostentation, is beheld in a wilderness, the text itself indicates, ver. 16:5 for complete desolation is impending over her. Incorrect, therefore, are the explanations of the wilderness by Beda: “The absence of divinity ;” Coccej.: “ That part of the world wherein, at John’s time, idolatry and persecution prevailed ; ” Bengel: « Europe, especially Italy.” Incorrect also Vitr.: “Deserted of nations ;” yet Vitr. has felt that the seeming contradiction between ver. 1 (xa@y. tw tdéruv wold.) and ver. 8, in the sense of the passage already compared by him, Isa. xxi. 1, with which he improperly combines Ezek. xx. 85 (fonyoe rv daw), is explained, of course, not by the allegorical exposition that the wilderness, like the waters, designates many nations, but so that the sitting on the waters, i.e., the dominion over the nations (ver. 15) does not exclude the impending devastation. — @npiov xéxxcvov. That now, since the form of the harlot, i.e., of the metropolis, is so expressly distinguished from that of the beast, i e., of the empire, this beast appears in some features different from in ch. xiii., in no way destroys the identity of both beasts, clearly designated by the similarity of the chief features.’ This identity is not definitely marked; it was just the partial change in form of manifestation that did not permit John to write éxi rd 6np., but he reports his vision which revealed to him figures in a form such as in fact they had not yet appeared : He saw a woman seated upon a scariet-colored beast. The xédaamov desig- nates not the color of a covering which is to be ascribed to the beast,® but the color of the beast iteelf. It is, like the fiery-red color of the dragon whom the beast serves,® a sign of the blood shed by it.” The difference from the representation, xiii. 2, is, therefore, not a proof of an actual differ- ence of beasts, because in both forms the same thing is brought to sight; only this passage points more definitely to the blood actually shed, while in xiii. 2, in the form of the O. T. types, the dreadful power of the fierce beast,
1 Of. xvi. 10. ¢ Andr.,C.aLap., Ewald, De Wette, Hofm., ® Cf. 2 Cor. xif. 2. Hengstenb., ete. 8 Of. iv. 1 aqq., x. 8 oqq., xi. 1, xii. 18; var. t Against Zill., Ebrard. lect. 8 ZUll., De Wette. 4 Bee on ver. 18. ® xii. 3; of. vi. 4.
8 Cf. xviil. 2, 16, 10. 20 Cf. xvi. 6, xi. 7.
\
480 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
as that of a monstrous beast of prey, was first symbolized. — yéuov ra dvéuara Baacg. This also, as well as the succeeding description fyov xegaddc éxra, x.7.1., agrees in essentials with xiii. 1; not all of the heads of the beast, however, bear a name of blasphemy; but that the whole beast is covered with that. name of blasphemy is what is now stated. The art. ra dv., which has been omitted through a misunderstanding, refers back to xiii. 1. The accus. évouara stands here with yéyov, for the same reason as possibly with mexAnpe- pévov;? yet this construction remains remarkable, since elsewhere in the Apoc. the gen. stands with yéuov.*—The woman herself (ver. 4) appears “ arrayed " (xep:Be3A. xii. 1) “in purple and scarlet-colored” garments.‘ The first garment 5 indicates royal sovereignty. Even the xoxxcvov could in itself ® have this meaning; but it is, on the one hand, superfluous by two emblems to designate the same thing; on the other hand, from the reference to ver. 3 (6np. xoxx.), another significant interpretation of the scarlet, i.e., blood- colored, garment of the woman, excellently agreeing with ver. 6, results: both are indicated; viz., the royal dominion,’ and the being stained with the blood of the saints. Beda errs in a twofold way: “The purple of feigned dominion.” — xeypucwpévy —popyapirax. Further description of royal and most rich display.® The xeypuc. stands zeugmatically to ‘6. rou. and papy. — Fyovea norgpiov xpvoorv, «1.4. The precipitate allegoristics, which could find indicated in the words xexpvo., x.7.4., “the enticements of feigned truth,” ?° results here in arbitrary explanations: The golden cup, with its abominable contents,!! is regarded as hypocrisy,!2 “worldly happiness, the majesty of government,” 18 “the body of words which are read in Scrip- ture, but distorted by wicked interpretations,” 14 “the system of papal doo- trine,” “the cup of the mass.”15 The text allows us to think only that the harlot who renders all kings and nations drunk with the wine of her forni- cation 1¢ has a cup in her hand which is golden, just as she herself is adorned with gold and precious jewellery, but is full “of abominations,” because the wine of her fornication is therein. With yéuov the accusat. «, rd axaSapra is construed !7 in the same sense 2* as the genitive AdeA,; but this harshness, which is the more remarkable as the genitive limitation is given in a single word, can scarcely be explained by the fact 1 that the threefold genit. Trav Gxddaptuy Tie wopy. abr. was to be avoided. It appears, accordingly, more correct ® to regard the accusat. xai rd éx. parallel with the accusat. rorjpiov, x.7.4., and to make it depend upon the Eyovea in such a way that the words xa? rd dx., «.7.4., themselves bring later an interpretation of the sorip. ypve. yéu. B6eA, — More expressly still than the corresponding appearance does the
2 See Critical Notes. 10 Beda. 2 Phil. i. 11; Col.i.9. Winer, p. 215. 11 BdeAvyu. Cf. Lev. xviil. 27. 8 Ver. 4, fv. 8, xv. 7. 13 Beda. # Cf. xviii. 16. ' 13 C.a Lap. 8 Cf. John xix. 2. 16 Cocce}. 1% Calov. © Cf. Matt. xxvii. 28. 16 Ver. 2, xiv. 8. 7 Cf. ver. 18. 17 Ewald, De Wette, Bleek, Hengstenb., etc. ® Against Andr., Erasm., De Wette, 18 Cf. ver. 3. Hengstenb., etc. 1® Hengstenb.
® Cf. Ezek. xxvilf. 13. © Cf. xviii. 12.
CHAP, XVII. 3-f. 481
name, which stands written on the forehead of the woman,! designate her lewd, abominable nature. The name runs: fafvddv # peyddy, uGTND, K.TA, The name pvorppoy is not the first constituent of the proper name,* but designates with a certain parenthetical independence, like a premised * Nota bene,” that the name now to be mentioned is meant spiritually,® or in & manner accordant with revelation, not without the covering; that beneath the external brilliancy the secret nature, and, in spite of the secular dominion presented to the eyes, the unmistakable corruption of the woman, are asserted.4 Nevertheless, the word pzvor#pwy dare not be regarded precisely as an adjective attribute to dvoua.£— The mysterious proper name af. 4 wey. is expressly the same as has already designated in xiv. 8, xvi. 9, the chief city as the concrete representative of the entire empire. The further designation expresses appellatively, by another change of figure, essentially what was delineated in the manifestation itself (ver. 4, éy, xor. xpuc.), to which the significant name also is to correspond. As “the mother of har- lota,” etc., this great Babylon has shown herself by the circumstance that she has made her daughters, i.e., the cities of the Gentiles,® harlots, given them to drink of her own cup of abominations, and filled the whole world with her own abominations.?— Finally, John beholds, ver. 6, the woman in a condition to which the scarlet color of her garment, and of the beast whereon she sits, corresponds: “ Drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Qn the expression, cf. Plin., H. N., . xiv. 28: “Dranken with the blood of citizens, and thirsting the more for it;”® on the subject itself, cf. xvi. 6, xviii. 24.—é« r. aly. Cf. xvi. 10, viii. 11. —r. paprépur Igo. Cf. ii. 18. The martyrs of Jesus are not in kind dis- tinguished from the saints; but the former designation brings into promi- nence the fact as to how this testimony of Jesus, which the saints have given, becomes the cause of their death.® — xat é@avipaca, «.r.A. The accus. Gadua peya With é6aiu., as xvi. 9. The ground of John’s great astonishment is in general the just-described sight of the woman (iddv atrqv) ; but in how far must this sight have occasioned such great astonishment? The most forcible reason would be that named by Auberlen, if he had the right to recognize again in the harlot the degenerate woman of xii. 1. This would, in fact, be something completely incomprehensible; but neither the angel (ver. 7 8qq.) attempts to explain this impossibility, neither does there exist anywhere else in the text an occasion for the egregious mistake of such a egnception. Arbitrary, because not based upon ver. 7 sqq., are the expla- nations of Bengel: “John wondered, because so mighty a beast has to serve the woman in carrying her;’’ of Hengstenberg, who describes the astonishment of the seer as “unreasonable, foolish,” *° because the harlot, in spite of her dreadful guilt, still! maintains her greatness; of Ebrard: because the beast appears to be entirely different from in ch. xiii. The
1 Cf. xiil. 16. ® Vitr., ete. 6 xvi. 19; Ew. 3 Cf. zi. 8. ¥ Cf. xill. 3 aqq., 14 0qq., xiv. 8 oqq., 11. * Cf. C.a Lap., Beng., De Wette, Ewald, ® More illustrations in Wetst.
etc. ® Cf. xt. 3, 8.
5 Cf. Hofm., 0. 8., 644. 1 Cf. aleo on v. 4 agq.
4382 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
angel designates in ver. 7, entirely in agreement with the (div airy, ver. 6, the mystery of the woman, and the beast carrying her, as the cause, to be explained by interpretation, of the astonishment of John, who himself did not understand ! the onyelov davyacrév? thus beheld by him.
Vv. 7-18. The interpretation of the angel (ver. 1) as to how the vision (vv. 1,6) has manifested two chief figures, follows in two paragraphs (vv. 7-14 and vv. 15-18), which are separated by the formula «al Aéyer pos,* repeated in ver. 15.
Vv. 7-14. The question of the angel, da ri éabpacer, introduces the in- tended interpretation just as the question of the elders (vii. 13), only that here the angel expects no answer whatever of John, but immediately him- self promises: éyd épe oot rd pworfpiv, «.t.2. This announcement marks that the two chief forms, the woman and the beast, which of course are explained each by themselves, — as they symbolize subjects that are actually different, the world-city and the world-kingdom, — nevertheless belong together essen- tially; there is but one mystery, the mystery “of the woman and of the beast.” Although the Woman and the beast are distinguished, the present description remains, therefore, in essential agreement with that of ch. xiii. Nevertheless, the innef connection between the woman and the beast is expressed by the fact that the woman is seated upon the beast. (+r. Baoral. air., cf. ver. 8.) In perfect harmony with this is the circumstance that the beast is first (ver. 8) explained, and only then, that which is more special, which is first received from that further conception, the form of the woman. — Of the beast which John saw (ver. 8 sqq.), it is said: fv cal obx gorw xal pédAes dvaBaive éx rig ddbeoov, x.7.A.. and this is again expressed as a founda- tion for the astonishment of the inhabitants of the earth :* jy nai ove Lory xal napeora. This summary zaépeora:— which simply means “shall be,” but in which an intimation of a parousia of the beast, to be opposed to the parousia of the Lord,® dare be sought the lesa as the expression mapovoia is lacking in the Apoc. — briefly comprehends what was previously described in such a way that also the last end of the beast again coming forth might be desig- nated therewith (xal péAde dvaB.—tnaye). Finally, the important point of the interpretation — which, of course, is not itself without mystery, but is given after the manner of xiii. 18, because of which, also, just as there, the allusion (ver. 9) is justified, in that it here pertains to an understanding endowed with wisdom — recurs for the third time in ver. 11, where, notwith- standing the more minute determination that the beast is to return in the person of a true king, yet the identity of the subject is unmistakably desig- nated by the formulas 3 fv «al ob« forw and «al elg anddcav traye. That explanation, therefore, is utterly mistaken, which understands the beast (ver. 11) differently from in ver. 8 (and ver. 3); in no way is the distinction possible that 7rd @npiov is at one time Satan himself, and directly afterwards antichrist. For the more accurate explanation of the subject, see on vv. 10 and 18. In phraseology, the genitive BAeréyrwy in ver. 8 is remarkable.
1 Cf. De Wette. $ Cf. xill. 8, 8, 12. 2 Cf. xv. 1. 5 Beng. 8 Cf. the xa: eivey wos 0 ayy., ver. 7. © Against Beda, Andr., etc.
CHAP. XVII. 7-14. — 488
Entirely similar is the construction neither of Luke viii. 20,— where the absolute gen. Aeyévrwy is in meaning construed with the impersonal amryyéAn, — nor of Matt. i. 18,1 where the absolute genitive construction pyvqorevdeians ti untpéc precedes, and then, by a variation of construction, the subject is derived entirely from the first member (ectpén tv yaorp? Exovoa), which is not modified by the parenthetical limitation xpiv 7 ovveAdeiv abrovg, In this pas- sage, however, the definite subject of xaroxotvres precedes, and the clause Bier, r. @np. explains what is predicated of those xarocobyrec (Gavyacbjoovrat), 80 that, according to the symmetry of the construction, only the nom. BAérovrec can be expected; but the gen. is occasioned by the gen. parenthetical clause ov, «.7.2., even though it dare not also be said that the PAenévruv, x7, i8 expressly construed into the relative clause.* The nearest indication given within ch. xvii.,— which is also in harmony with ch. xiii.,—for the under- standing of what is said concerning the beast in ver. 8 (and ver. 11), lies in ver. 9 8q., where the seven heads of the beast are interpreted: “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth, and there are seven kings.”® The seven heads, therefore, which iu xii. 3, xiii. 1 sqq.,— where they appeared adorned with crowns,— indicated royal sovereigns, receive here a twofold reference:* thereby both seven mountains and seven kings are to be understood. In connection with the heads appearing here without crowns, the first reference is without difficulty; while the other to the seven kings, which indeed is not indicated here by crowns, nevertheless finds an essentially identical foundation with xiii. 1 sqq. in the description of the regal magnificence of the woman who sits upon the beast with seven heads. But at the same time, the reference to the seven mountains on which the woman sits serves to interpret the mystery of the woman and of the beast; for if, by the woman, the city mistress of the world (ver. 8), of the Gentile empire forcing all inhabitants of the earth beneath her, be meant, and this city is designated as lying on seven hills, this significant point of the inter- pretation can be referred only to “the seven-hilled city,” to Rome, just as what is said (vv. 8, 10, 11) concerning the relations of the Bao:Azic, in com- plete harmony with xii. 8, xiii. 1 sqq., applies only to the Roman rulers of the world. Mysteriously, therefore, as this interpretation sounds, yet the first reference of the seven heads to the seven well-known mountains has been made prominent with the manifest intent to actually attest the interpretation promised in ver. 7.— Accordingly the seven hills are not themselves taken into further consideration; the interpretation stops (ver. 10 sq.) with the seven kings. The transferal, already mentioned on xii. 8 and xiii. 1 sqq., of the textual idea of seven aotdzic, i.e., of seven persons who possess a kingdom, and that, too, the dominion of the world, to that of seven kingdoms or phases of the dominion of the world, depends, in Andr.
1 Cf. Winer, p. 195. § Cf. De Wette. symbolically, as a designation of kingdoms or
3 On the Hebraistic combination of the rela- reigns; so that consequently, by the one sym- tive swou with the demonstrative én’ avrwy, cf. bol, that of the heads, only another symbol, xii. 6, 14. that of the mountains, is symbolized, and so
‘ Incorrectly, Hengstenb.: ‘‘The mountains that what is properly meant, viz., BagcAcis éwrd, are here, as everywhere in the Apoc., meant should be designated.
434 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
and Beda, as well as in Hofmann, Ebrard, Hengstenb., and Auberlen,! upon the presumption that the “‘temporal-historical " explanation of Hammond, Grot., Wetstein, Eichhorn, Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, Bleek, etc., removes the biblical conception of Apocalyptic prophecy.2 That this opposition is justified in one chief point, has been already referred to on xiii. 3; but exegetically incorrect, and without foundation in a further theological respect to the idea of prophetical inspiration, is the opposition to the ac- knowledgment of the fact that the entire force of the context allows the Baovreic to be regarded only as concrete personalities, and then, that the form in general of the antichristian world-power hovering before the prophetic gaze is that of the heathen-Roman Empire. The first has been correctly under- stood, e.g., by Coccejus, whoin Auberlen certainly will not accuse of the “ temporal-historical” exposition of the Apoc., and has turned it to the ad- vantage of his “ ecclesiastical-historical ” exposition : “The seven kings,” says Coccejus, “are the primates of the churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, An- tioch, Constantinople, Rome, France, and Spain.” On the other hand, how- ever, many “temporal-historical” expositors cross over into the sphere of the “ eocleaiastical historical,” by finding, especially in vv. 12, 16, predictions concerning the incursions of the Goths, etc.* That the Saodcsi¢ éxra are actually, as the expression declares,‘ seven persons invested with the Baoddeia, results especially from the description, ver. 10 (oi révre —6 elg —6 GAAoc), and most of all from ver. 11, since here the entire sense depends upon the fact that the still future eight kings are contemplated as the human-personal manifestation of the whole beast.— Five of the seven kings “are fallen,” i.e., dead; “the one,” therefore the sixth in the series, “is,” i.e., he at present possesses the PaoAzia; “the other,” therefore the last of the seven, “js not yet come,” he is not yet in possession of the 3aoeia, he has not yet made his appearance as Gaowetc: but he shall come as the seventh, “and when he cometh,® he must continue a short space;” i.e., his dominion shall soon come to an end. But the seventh is followed by yet another, the eighth (ver. 11), who cannot be symbolized by a particular head on the beast,’ because, although connected with the seven (tx rév érra dorw), yet he has a different position from all those; he is not as one in their series, but
1 Hofm. and Ebrard enumerate Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Antiochus Epiph., as the five fallen, the Roman as the present sixth kingdom. Hengstenb. and Auberlen enumerate as fallen, Egypt, Aseyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece; they also regard the present sixth kingdom as the Roman. Atal! events, in order to correspond somewhat better with the text (Luthardt), besides the first five king- doms, their representative sovereigns may also be named (Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Cy- ras, Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiph- anes). But already in the sixth place, Luth. does not mention a definite person, but only “the Roman emperor,” and then in the sev- enth period necessarily inde prefigured “ the present period of the European system of gov-
ernments.” — Klief. explains upon the basis of Auberlen and Hengstenb., interpreting accord- ing to Daniel, the seven reigns as the kingdom of ten, with antichrist arising therefrom. Thies is the Germano-Chrietian kingdom of ten, by which the Roman Empire, wounded to death, is dissolved, from whose dismemberment then antichrist develops.
2 Cf. Introduction, p. 32 sqq.
8 Cf. Grot., ete.
* Cf. aleo ver. 12 aqq.: Sdxa Bacrcis.
5 évav; cf. xii. 4.
8 On the det, cf. 1. 1.
7 Against Vitr., who maintains that there is a true head of a beast, and against Hengstenb., who (as also Kilef., p. 218) in the seventh head finds at the same time the eighth.
CHAP, XVII. 7-14. 435
in his person is the embodiment of the beast himself; he himself is the one in whom the beast rising out of the abyss,! which now “is not,” shall again appear, of which also it shall then be said, just as ver. 8 of the beast as such: ig dxwAav trayer, i.e., by the judgment at the Lord’s coming, he shall be delivered to everlasting destruction, and thus with him, then, the beast himself shall perish. — Before the expressions made in vv. 8-11 concerning the beast and the seven (eight) kings are explained by their combination with one another, and with what is contained in xiii. 1 sqq., the meaning of the phrase xal t« rév éxra gor must be established. Hengstenb.’s explana- tion is incorrect: “ His fate is that of the seven, viz., he must fall, he goes to ruin.” Too general is the explanation that the eighth — the eighth king- dom, as it is said —is to be of the same nature as the seven.* But, on the other hand, the explanation which forms a decisive point in Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., Hilgenf., and the other expositors, who in the eighth king recog- nize the returned Nero,® is not compatible with the words of the text. The formula éx rov érrd éorw is supposed to declare: “He is one of the seven.” He has thus, and that, too, as one of the five fallen, already once existed, and shall return as a true king. But the more peculiar the idea, the more neces- sary would its unambiguous expression have been; and this would have been very easy to John; he would have written, according to the linguistic usage altogether customary with him, xa? el¢ éx roy éxra tor. The fable of the return of Nero, which, in its actual foundations, must be regarded as far removed from xiii. 3, is also here unjustified in a simply exegetical respect. Grot. has shown the correct way,® by explaining the é rév érré torw with a comparison of Rom. ix. 10; Matt. i. 3, 5,6; Luke i. 27: “The son of one of them.” It is noticeable also that Andr. was led by his cultivated Greek taste to what is at least in a formal respect a similar explanation: de éx mac abrow BAacrivev. Yet both explanations attempt too much by presupposing a text which must read: ig évd¢e ray érra tore. <All that is correct is the acknowl- edgment that the formula éx réw érré tor expresses “descent from the seven.” John does not lay emphasis upon the circumstance that the eighth arose from one of the seven, — although this is in fact correct, — but that he who to a certain extent, as the personification of the entire beast, corresponds to all seven, has himself his human-personal origin from these seven. The seven in their entirety are therefore contrasted with the eighth, which is the embodiment of the entire beast.?
The historical illustration of vv. 8-11 depends upon the presumption undoubtedly given by the context from ch. xiii., ay, already from ch. xii., that the beast is a symbol of the heathen-Roman secular power, and that the Baareic symbolized by the heads of the beast are not kingdoms, but royal persons, viz., Roman emperors. How these are to be reckoned, is shown
1 Cf. xi. 7. press personality, substitute the restoration of ® Primas: ‘‘ Lest you regard him of another the dynasty of the Seleucidac.
class, it has been added, ‘ He is of the seven.’”’ 4 Cf. xiii. 8.
Beng. Cf. aleo Vitr., ete. 5 Cf. v. 5, vi. 1, vii. 18, xiff. 3, xvii. 1, xxi. 9. 8 Cf. Hofm., who refers it to the return Cf. also John xi. 40, xifi. 21.
of Antiochus Epiphanes; aleo Luthardt and 6 Cf. aloo Hammond.
Ebrard, who, abandoning the idea of any ex- * Also against Hilgenf.
also recalls the significant distinction between the numbers seven of the heads and ten of the horns, even though a new application be made here of the ten horns. Ch. xvii., however, perfectly harmonizes with ch. xiii. in the description of the seven heads in themselves, and their relation to the beast. That the beast “that was,” at present “is not,”! and yet is, in so far as at present one of his heads, i.e., the sixth Bacuetc, “is,” after the five Baciteic “are fallen,” harmonizes with what is said in xiii. 8, that one of the heads was wounded to death, but was again healed. But hereby we reach the standpoint from which, looking backward, we enumerate the five fallen rulers with certainty, and at the same time, looking forward, can recognize the seventh and eighth rulers. The enumerations of Ham- mond and Grotius,? of Wefst.,* and of Rinck,* are, apart from other reasons, incorrect, partly because the subject considered is, in no way, under what individual emperor the Roman secular power shall for the first time be hos- tilely opposed to the Christians,5 and partly because among the seven heads, the three usurpers, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, indicated by horns,® dare not be reckoned. — The enumeration of Roman secular rulers, intended by the writer of the Apocalypse, is not to be determined from the first, — so that it could be doubtful whether the series is to be begun with Caesar’ or with Augustus,® — but from the fifth and sixth, i.e., from the point of time desig- nated as present, in which the mortal wound of one head (viz., the fifth) appears healed, or in which, after five sovereigns have fallen, the sixth is now there. But this description® corresponds with the situation in which the Roman Empire was when Vespasian undertook its control, although he was not yet in indisputable possession of it. Vespasian is therefore the sixth sovereign; before him five have fallen, — Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; Titus follows as the seventh; the eighth, in whom the beast himself is embodied, is Domitian.
There is presented, therefore, in ver. 10 sqq. a prediction, which definitely announces beforehand certain historical circumstances. For its understand-
1 Incorrect are all interpretations whereby the concrete historical references to the rela- tions of the Roman Empire are avoided; as, e.g-, Andr., who by the @npiov (ver. 8) under- stands Satan, and explains: by the manifesta- tion, especially by the death, of Christ, the beast is annthilaied. Cf. Beda, C.a Lap., Zeger, etc. — Marlorat. and other Protestants inter- pret: “‘Heathen Rome is gone; Papal Rome is here, but its secular dominion isin itself noth- ing” (ovn éorv). Cf. Luther’s gloss: ‘* The Roman Empire is, and yet is not; for it is not the whole, but, since its fall, has been repro- duced by the Pope.” He interprets the “‘ one” (ver. 10) as referring to Germany ; the “‘ short space," to Spain; the beast (ver. 11), to Rome; and the ten kings (ver. 12), to Hangary, etc. In violation of the context, Weiss, p. 44, ex- plains the idea of the being, with respect to the
not being, by the designation of the antichris- tian nature and power, whence then what is erroneous is inferred.”
21. Claudius. 2. Nero. 3. Galba. 4. Otho. 6. Vitellius. 6. Vespasian. 7. Titus. 8. Do- mitian.
81. Caesar. 2. Augustus. 8. Tiberius. 4. Caligula. 5. Claudius. 6. Nero. 7. Galba. 8. Otho.
41, Caligula. 2. Claudius. 8. Nero. 4 Vespasian. 5. Titus. 6. Domitian. 7. Nero. ** And this applies likewise as a prophetic in- definite ‘one’ to the succeeding emperors until the downfali of the Roman Empire.”
5 Against Hamm., Grot., Rinck.
© Cf. xii. 3, xifi. 1.
? Cf. Bueton., Vitae XII. Cacearum.
8 Cf. Tacit., Ann., I. 1.; Hist. 1.1. Lileke, p- 839. ® Cf. on xiii. 3.
CHAP. XVII. 12-17. 487
ing,! it is to be remarked: 1. The chief points of the prediction — viz., that Vespasian should be succeeded by his two sons, Titus as the seventh, Domitian as the eighth ruler; that Titus will remain for a short time; and that Domitian will come forth as a personification of the entire beast — have developed upon the basis of temporal' relations present in the prophet in such a way that the prophecy directed to special facts has yet nothing magical or mantic, but remains of an ethical nature. The natural presup- position and accommodation for the ethical genesis of the prophecy was in John the same as in Josephus, as the latter promised the government to Vespasian and his son Tiberius, even before Vespasian had decided to assume the empire. How extraordinarily Vespasian, and the sons of such. men like Otho and Vitellius, were esteemed in every respect, was manifest already ever since the expedition to Britain:® the Syrian expedition had still further increased the reputation and authority of the Flavians. But for the points of the prophecy that Titus, as successor of his father, would reign but for a short time, and that Domitian, proceeding from the seven, — a son of Vespasian, — would come forth from the abyss as an incarnation of the beast, the natural foundation was already present. Domitian’s insolent, barbarous, and imperious disposition manifested itself already during the Vitellian war :‘ it was naturally to be expected that be would be just such a sovereign as he actually afterwards showed himself to be. John, in proph- esying a short reign for Titus, possibly expected what was always impending during his reign;® viz., that Domitian would soon dethrone his brother Titus, and assume the government himself. —2. John erred in the expecta- tion, that, with Domitian, the Roman Empire would perish. The singular error proves, of course, a certain imperfection of prophetic character in the writer of the Apocalypse, yet by no means entirely annihilates it. [See Note LXX., p. 386, on ch. xiii. 2.]
Vv. 12-17. The interpretation of the ten horns, also (ver. 15) of the waters, on which the harlot sits. In conclusion, the interpretation of the harlot herself, ver. 18, follows the interpretation of the special points. — déxa Bacdeic. Hengstenb. errs in two ways by regarding the number ten, which is analogous to the number seven, ver. 9 sqq., as inaccurate, and the Bac:Azic, again, as reigns. See, besides, on ver. 18. — ofriwwes—Onpiov. The lim- itation of obzw FAafov in Grot., viz., “in the parts of the Roman Empire,” is more explicit than the closing words of ver. 12. The text says that the ten kings in general have received no dominion at all; but they obtained authority as kings, and that, too, as associates and aids of the beast (era r.
1 Cf. Introduction, p. 83 aqq., 39 sqq.
2 Josephus, Jewish War, ill. 8.
$ Cf. Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., ed. Jo. Leun- clav., p. 736.
* Cf. Sueton., Donit., I.: “ But he exercised the entire power of his dominion s0 licentiously, as then already to show what he was to be.”
5 * A pernicious tyrant,” Eutrop., 7. Rom., VITI. 1; “*A portion of Nero as to cruelty,” Tertullian, Apolog., 5.
¢ Bueton., 7¥., 0: “‘ His brother, !.e., Do- noitian, not ceasing to lay plote for him, but almost avowedly inciting the army, he did venture meditating flight, elther to elay or to banish, or to have even in less honor, but, as from the first day of his reign, continued to attest that he was his associate and successor, sometimes beseeching him secretly with tears and prayers, that he at length wished to live in mutual affection with him."
doned by the Lord. The very brief duration (uiav dp. accus., as ix. 5) of their rule, designated in a schematic way, appears to correspond with the circumstance that of one of these kings it is said: égwvo. o¢ Baowd. The Baovizia of these Baoeig would then appear, not as a complete sovereignty, but as a quickly evanescent power, which, however, because of its temporary greatness, is represented as one that is royal.2— piav yrdpny txovav. The words immediately following give® the statement that the unanimity of these kings is intended to act in concert with the beast, and that, too, first of all, against the Lord (ver. 14), but then also against the harlot (ver. 16). — peta Tob dpviov aoAexfoover, Here, however, there immediately follows — as the reverse of xi. 7, xiii. 7— the statement that not only the Lamb, because he is the Lord of all lords and King of kings,‘ but even believers, shall conquer those kings. The vafoe avr, suggests for the further designa- tion of subject, xa? of per’ abrod, x.7r.A,,5 the idea of a vxzoovor.® The three- fold designation, according to which the saints’ appear as those who have been called and chosen on the part of their Lord, and have, on their part, maintained their fidelity,® emphasizes the inner foundation of the victory, confirming the promise, and likewise calling to mind the condition of the victory.
Vv. 15-18. By a continuation of his discourse (xal Acy. u.), the angel interprets first of all the waters where John beheld the harlot, and an- nounces then the judgment impending over the harlot, which, according to God's decree, is to be executed by the ten kings in confederacy with the beast. ‘Then, finally, the chief figure in the vision, ch. xvii., the harlot her- self, is expressly explained. — ra Odara, «.r.A. The waters form the sum total of inhabitants of the earth, for they all belong to the dominion of the harlot,® to which also corresponds the accumulation of the four expressions, Aaoi, bxAa, 86vn, yAdooat,?° — But in spite of her wide dominion ? and all her glory, the harlot is ruined in a manner the least to be expected, but which only the more clearly manifests the judgment of God: the ten kings, together with the beast, shall hate the harlot and annihilate all her glory. The obra juo., 28 to its meaning, belongs to the kings to be understood among the horns (vv. 18, 14); these are the decisive chief subject, so that the deter- mination of subject, besides presented in the xal rd énpiov, does not come further into consideration with respect to the form of the expression. — honpwpévny oho. abr. xal yuuvav. A striking antithesis to ver. 4.!2—x«. rag capxac abri¢ gtyovra. Here the idea of the form of woman is still main- tained,!® while in the following expression, xa? abriv xaraxaicovow ev rvpi, the fundamental idea of the city is asserted. — Ver. 17 explains what is an- nounced in ver. 16, by the reference to God who in this way will destroy
1 Cf. xviii. 10. 7 Cf. xill. 7.
2 Cf. ix. 3. 8 Cf. if. 10.
8 Cf. also ver. 17 ® Ver. 18. Cf. xifi. 8, 8, 12, 16.
4 Cf. xix. 16. t¢ Cf. v. 9, vil. 9.
8 The crparevpara of the Lord, xix. 14, 19. 13 Cf. ver. 1: 7. peydAne. xiv. 8, xvi. 19.
© Unnaturally, Beng. : ‘‘ Those who are with 13 Cf. xvii. 16. him are the elect,” who are only to look on. 3 Cf. Ps. xxvii. 2; Mic. iii. 2 sqq.
CHAP. XVII. 15-18. 489
the harlot: 6 yap ded Eduxev, x.rA. The view here presented is very similar to that of xvi. 14, 16: there the spirits from hell bring the kings of the earth together — for the day of judgment —-at Armagedon; in this passage, the purpose and work, on God's part, are definitely expressed. He it is who has put it into their hearts to execute the will of, to make an alliance with, and to serve the beast. The thought is blunted when the atros with zesjo, r. yvop. is referred to God,! instead of to the beast.? In the connection this determination of subject is not absolutely too remote.*— To the 6 ydp dede Eduxey, «.7.2,, corresponds at the conclusion the dype reAecOjoovra: of Adyos row @eov; the work intended bv God, for the kings confederated with the beast, has in the fulfilment (cf. x. 7) of the words, i.e., of the prophecies of God, not only its goal, but also its limits. When those kings have done what they are to do, they are done away with.‘
Now (ver. 18), upon the basis of all preceding individual statements, the precise meaning of the harlot, which is treated of especially in ver. 1, is given: the woman is “the great city,” which has royal dominion over the kings of the earth, i.e., Rome, the metropolis, lying on seven bills, of the heathen-Roman Empire symbolized by the beast.
This exegetical result so undoubtedly forces itself upon us,® that neither the misunderstanding of Auberlen, who regards the harlot as the woman of ch. xii. degenerated, nor the old Protestant explanation, which, in a more direct way, found here a reference to the Pope and Papal Rome,‘ nor the singular opinion of Ziillig, who regards the city, ver. 18, as Jerusalem,’ needs any further refutation than that furnished by the exposition of ch. - xvii. in connection with ch. xii. sqq. Especially, also, that ver. 12 qq. cannot refer to the pressure of the Goths or other Germano-Sclavic nations, as Auberlen, in agreement this time with Grot., interprets, resulta already from the connection with ver. 11. The ten kings, — whom Ebrard regards as identified with the seven heads,—-even if our exposition of ver. 10 sqq. and xiii. 3 be correct, can be understood neither of “the ten leaders of the Flavians,”*® nor of the Parthian confederates of Nero.® But after, in vv. 8, 7, he has mentioned the ten horns, as in chs. xii. and xiii., besides the seven heads of the beast, and has also designated thereby the identity of the beast, ch. xvii., with that previously described, John now follows Dan. vii. 24 in his interpretation of the ten horns as ten “future” kings (xa? rd déxa xépata abrod, déxa Backsic dvactioovra). But thereby every concrete his- torical relation is surrendered ; just because the reference in ch. xiii. to the tenfold number of the horns is actually historical, no other can enter, and, least of all, that which actually occurs in Daniel. What is said, therefore (ver. 12 sqq.), concerning the ten kings, forms a feature in the Apocalyptic picture, derived from the Danielian model, which divests the number ten of
1 Vulg., Hengstenb., etc. 1 In ch. xvii., Jerusalem is regarded as
® Beng., De Wette, Ew. ii., Volkm, Lu- Babylon; while falee Judalem, under the sym- thardt. bol of the beast, is stated to be Edom.
3? Against Hengstenb. &® Wetst.
4 Cf. ver. 12. ® Eichh., Bleek, De Wette. Cf. Ewald,
5 Cf. also Hengstenb. on ver. 18. who understands the Roman provincial pre-
® Coccejun, Calov., Vitr., Beng. fects as in alliance with the returned Nero.
440 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
definite historical relation, as it makes it appear purely schematical, while the general historical presumption of John’s prophetic view — with respect, on the other side, to the relative fulfilment of his prophecy — lies in the fact that the emperors, usurping authority against and after one another, could gain possession of the government only through conflicts which turned to the ruin of the city: they were with the beast, and yet desolated the licen- tious city. — But * the rulers of the last time”! are not so certainly the ten kings as the heathen-Roman world-empire and world-city are symbolized in the beast and the harlot; and it is impossible for sound exegesis to put under inspection a fulfilment of the prophecies in ch. xvii. still to occur at the end of the world. — If the ten kings be regarded more definitely and in combination with the eight rulers, we may, with Weiss,? refer them to the ten “regents” of the sovereign obtaining the government by the revolution of prefects (vv. 18, 17).
1 Luthardt. 2 p. 62.
CHAP, XVIII. 441
CHAPTER XVIII.
Ver. 1. The xa? before era ratra (Elz.) is, according to A, B, &, al. (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), to be deleted; cf. vil. 1.— Ver. 2, Instead of év loxél, guvg peyaday (Elz., Ew. ii.), read év loyupg guvy, according to decisive witnesses (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 4. In favor of ééAéare, A testifies (Lach. 1846, Tisch.; m: é&éAQera:; Elz.: é&éAdere); but the plural may have been written because of what follows. According to B, C, &eAge (Lach. 1850) has at least equal authority, although even this sing. may be an emendation because of the address, 6 A, wu. — Ver. 5. Instead of the interpretation #xoAcbiyoay (Elz.), Beng. already wrote, according to A, B, C: éxoAAnénoay (x). — Ver. 6. The dply after Gréduxev (Elz.) is, in accordance with A, B, C, ®, to be deleted (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Likewise the avrg after d:xiio, — Ver. 7. Before «aqua, there is lacking, in the Rec., an drs (A, B, C, ®, Lach., Tisch.). — Ver. 8. xpivac. So A, B, C, ®,, al., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [(W. and H.]. The xpivwy (Elz. ) is a poor effort at interpretation. — Ver. 18. xai duwpyov. So A, C, ®, Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Already, in B, there is the error of an omission (Elz.).— Ver. 14. The cov belongs probably after dmupa (A, C, &, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), and not after yuy#e (B, al., Elz.), The aira must stand between obxér: and of u (B, C, Lach., Tisch.), not at the close (Elz.). * has it before edpyo. (Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). Instead of the modification ebpjone (Elz.), read, not ebpy¢ (B, Tisch.), but etpoovow (A, C, ®, al., Lach. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 17. éni rérov wAéwv, So A, B, C, Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. %: & rdv rdx. The Rec. éni trav tAoinn 6 Suidoc is an unauthorized interpretation.
After, in ch. xvii., the great city has been brought to view under the anueiov of the great harlot, as the immediate object of God’s judgment, whose execution is now impending,! there follows a description of this judgment. But this is shown? to John, not in the way, as, e.g., xxi. 9 sqq., the bride of the Lamb was shown him, —i.e., the judicial act itself whereby the city is effaced, is not presented to the gazing prophet,—but the description of the judgment is communicated in another form. In xix. 1 sqq., this is cele- brated as actually completed. On the other hand, at the close of ch. xviii., there impends the actual] execution (vv. 21-24);® also in the centre (vv. 4-20), the keynote of the description is future,‘ which is directed also here to the actually still-impending judgment. Accordingly, vv. 1-3 dare not be so understood as though the completion of the judgment were presup- posed, as a matter of fact, and accordingly, that the same reference must be made also between xvii. 18 and xviii. 1; but after a mighty angel has
t Cf. xvil.1, xv. 1, xvi. 21. : 8 Notice the fature SAy@ycera:, ver. 21. ® gvii, 1. * Cf. vv. 4, 6, 8, 9.
Pi
the city, as has already been done, another voice sounds from heaven (vv. 4-20), which first of all commands believers to flee out of the city, whose destruction is now to be accomplished (ver. 5 sqq.), and then describes how the fall of the city will be lamented by the inhabitants of the earth.
- Finally, another angel (vv. 21-24) shows, by a significant act, how quickly
and completely the fall of the city shall be. The proper act of judgment upon the city, which is to be regarded as afterwards between xviii. 24 sq. and xix. 1, John therefore does not see; but the more complete and mani- fest the statement in ch. xViii., the more certainly is the promise of the angel in xvii. 1 fulfilled. —It is to be observed in all three parts of the de- scription (ch. xviii.), how not only the whole is penetrated by an agreement with O. T. models, but also, especially, how, after the manner of the ancient prophets, the threat of judgment is not expressed without repeated allusion to the guilt of sin, whereby the just wrath of God is called forth.?
Vv. 1-3. Gov dyy. xataBaivovra, x.r.A, The dddov distinguishes this angel — which can be neither Christ,* nor the Holy Ghost,‘ nor Luther '— from the one mentioned last. Beng. improperly refers the diov also to «are- Baivovra, as though this angel, coming from heaven, were contrasted with the one mentioned in x. 1; but there, as here, the xara@. is an attributive determination to the idea of the subject daa. dyy.—Exovra Efovolay peyaany. The visible sign of this great plenitude of power is described immediately afterwards: x. y7) égwrioty éx rie d6€n¢ abrov, Without any more specific state- ment as to in what way this dég2 has come to manifestation.?7 But for the exceedingly important proclamation which is announced in ver. 2 sqq., an exalted angel is prepared,.who, with the brilliancy of his heavenly glory, shines forth over the whole earth (ver. 2: éxp. év loyupé guvg),® and cries with ‘such a mighty voice that his message resounds throughout the whole earth,® as far as the dominion of the city that has incurred the judgment extends. — txecev, cf. xiv. 8. — éyévero xataxorrfpioy datuévuv — peptonpivov. In the sense of Isa. xiii. 22, xxxiv. 14 sqq., and Bar. iv. 35, it is rendered clear, that the stately city shall be entirely desolated. On the gua. avr. dpvécv, «.7A., cf. Jer. 1. 39; Zeph. ii. 14; Ps. cii. 7. Even in respect to the description (ver. 2), the allegorical exposition has been attempted; even Ebrard under- stands the “birds” spiritually. — The expression gvdax} signifies that the desolated xarourypwv is one received involuntarily, a prison.!°— dn, «.r.A Declaration of the guilt of sin as the foundation of the judgment.!1 — xa? of Europot, x.7.4. Not only is the sin of godless, gluttonous, and arrogant wan- tonness punished,?? but at the same time the contrast-is marked between the complete desolation and the former wantonness which had within reach such means that the merchants of the whole earth were thereby enriched.1® The
1 Cf. xi. 15-19, xiv. 8. 7 Cf. x. 1, 1. 14 aqq. ® Cf. v. 2. 2 Cf., already, xiv. 8, 15 aqq., xvi. 5, 19. 9 Ver. 2: exp. év ioxupg duvy;. Cf. v. 2. § Calov., Hengstenb. 19 §j. 10, xx. 7; Beng., Hengstenb.
* Coccejus, Vitr. 11 Cf. xiv. 8, xvii. 2.
5 Nicolai, etc. Cf. Calov. 13 Cf, vv. 7,9.
® xvii. 1, 7, 15. 13 Cf. vv. 11, 2
CHAP. XVIII. 6-8. 448
éx rie duvdusuc T. orpiv. does not mean “because of the abundance of luxury,” } also not “because of their great wantonness,”? but refers to the wantonness exercised with respect to the vast resources of the state.®
Vv. 4-20. Another voice from heaven — scarcely that of God or Christ,‘ because the discourse extending until ver. 20, and even presenting from ver. 9 the grievance of another, is not appropriate to the mouth of Godor - Christ, but of an angel, who § speaks in the name of God — first of all com- mands those who belong to the people of 'God to leave the city given over to destruction: tva u) ovyxowwryjoare, x.7.A.6 The ayapria airig™ is not to be taken by metonymy for the punishments of sin;* but the idea is,® that fellow- ship in the sins of the city, which indeed is not a fellowship of guilt, yet will be a fellowship of punishments (x, é +. xAnyor, x.7r.4.). [See Note LXXXII., p. 449.] For the idea that God’s believers, whether under com- pulsion,?° or in consequence of an increased temptation,!! could actually share in the sins of the great city, is here scarcely justified, since the judgment unmistakably befalls them. Believers would share in the destruction occur- ring because of the sins of the city, which now (ver. 5) have reached the highest limit: Sr: éxoAA#@noar, «.7.A., i.e., the sins —not the cry thereof — have accumulated to so monstrous a degree that they reach even to heaven.!2 On the expression xoAAdcda: — dyp: r. obp., literally belong even to heaven, cf. Bar. i. 20,!* Ps. lxiii. 9,4 and similar examples in Biel, Thes. — tuvnysvevoer, ef. xvi. 9.
Vv. 6-8. Now the one speaking in God’s name? turns to those who are to execute his judgment of wrath upon the great city: dwodore airy, x.7.A, She is to be rewarded,1* and that, too, doubly; 1” i.e., she is to suffer for her sins, now the corresponding, entirely complete punishment; and just as she had glorified herself, and lived in arrogant wantonness, so is there now much pain and sorrow to be given her.}® The determination of the degree (ver. 7), 50a — rooovrov,!® which expresses the idea of strict justice, throws the true light upon the more rhetorical presentation in dirAdoare, dinAd, dtrAobv. Even at the beginning (dzédore, x.7.4.), the equality of guilt and punishment was designated ;™ the very expression déduxev is explained by the fact that it is to correspond to the damédore atr9. — The transformation of proud security into the deepest sorrow represented in striking antithesis (ver. 7a) is further intensified by what succeeds in ver. 7) and ver. 8. As the foundation of the 5a édéfacev, the arrogant speech which the woman carries in her heart, is stated: she boasts, because of her sovereignty over the world,” that “she
1 Ewald. ; 12 Cf. Ex. ix.6. Beng.
2 De Wette, Hengstenb. 1B éxodAHOy cig Hwas Ta cand.
3 Cf. also Andr., Grot., Vitr. 18 goAA. % WuXy pov émiow cov.
4 Beng., Hengstenb. 18 Cf. the final fonnula, ver. 8.
§ xi. 3. 16 Cf. xvi. 5 sqq., xiv. 8 eqq., xi. 18.
¢ Cf. Jer. Hi. 6, 9, 45. 17 Cf. Ina. x). 2.
T Cf. ver. 5, at anapr. and 7. dbsnqyu. avr. 18 Cf. Am. viii. 10,
8 Beng., De Wette. 1° On the form of the expression, cf. Rom. ® Cf. Gen. zlx. 15. Hengstenb. vi. 10; Gal. fi. 20.
0 Ew. il. 9 ws cai avry awed. Cf. xiv. 10.
1 Luthardt. 3 Cf. xvii. 18,
444 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
is enthroned as a queen,! not as a widow,” but, as a prolific mother, she is the mistress of many cities * and nations,® and is confident that she “ shall never see sorrow,” i.e., learn to know it by experience, especially by the death of her children.’ But in sharp contrast with this confident pride is opposed the threatening occasioned by it:* on “one day”? shall her plagues come, and that, too, not only “death,” which makes her a widow, but also “mourning,” which she thought that she would never experience, and hunger, instead of her inordinate luxury. —xal éy wup? xarax. Cf. xvii. 16.— dn ioxupds, x.7.A, The pledge for the infallible execution of the threat; cf. i. 8.8 —6 xpivac atriv. Incorrectly interpreted by the poor var., xpivwv. For the judgment is already fulfilled to such an extent that in the threat just expressed, the punishment on the part of the judge is already determined.
Vv. 9-20. Now the kings and other inhabitants of the earth lament for the rash pride of the great city, whereby they also are painfully affected.® Yet in vv. 11 and 17, a similar change in form of statement occurs, as in xi. 11 compared with xi. 7.
Ver. 9 sq. The lament of the kings of the earth. Cf. xiv.11. The Bacaviouoc of the city, through which they are affected by the judgment, is its actual mvpdor.11 Accordingly the lamenting kings stand at a distance: they dread the conflagration in which the city perishes.!2 — Otai, ovai. With the d&xAdcare, ver. 6, the repetition of the cry of woe, which corresponds only to the extremity of the pain,!® has nothing to do.44— 4% médug 4 ueyadn, x.1.A. The allusion to the greatness and power of the city #5 makes still more forcible the impression of its destruction, which is expressly designated as the reason for the lamentation (rt, x.r..).
Vv. 11-16. The lament of the merchants. — xAalovoty xal revoodotr, — By the present, John passes over to the tone of narration ; !* but does not choose here as yet the preterite,!? so that he still does not express the idea that he himself had observed the destruction of the city, or the accompanying lamen- tations. The easier afterwards is the return to the original course (ver. 15); but the recent transition to the narrative brings finally with it also the pre- terites (ver. 17 sq.). — dv youov. The cargo.1® — The entire description of the many precious things, for which the merchants can no more find purchasers, gives a view of the previous necessities of the luxurious ?° city. The mass of different things are mentioned with suitable grouping —onpuov. Silk.» — nal av EdAov Obivov, x.r.A. The alternation of accusatives and genitives depend- ent upon the rdv youov until the close of ver. 13, which is here presented very
1 Cf. Isa. xivil. 7.
2 Cf. xvii. 6.
8 Cf. Isa. xvii. 8.
4 John vili. 51 aqq.
5 wév@o¢, lamentation for the dead. Cf. Gen. xxvii. 41, 1.10 sqq.; Am. vill. 10. Ew. li.
® 5:4 rouro, like the ancient prophetical 127
6.g., Mic. fi. 2, fii. 61; Am. ffi. 11, v. 13, 16. 7 Cf. Isa. xlvii. 9. $ Am. iv. 18, v. 27. 9 Cf. Ezek. xxvii. 20 Cf. xvil. 2.
1 Cf, {. 15.
13 Cf. ver. 15.
13 Cf. vv. 16, 19.
4 Against Hengstonb.
18 Cf. ver. 11 aqq., xix. 21 aq.
16 De Wette.
17 Of. xi. 11.
18 Acts xxi.3. Cf. Eustath. in Wetst.: ¢ép-
Tos ryds, 6 Kai ydpor.
19 Ver. 3: +. orpivovg avr.; vv. 7, 9. Cf.
avii. 4.
% Cf. Winer, Rwd., on this word.
CHAP. XVIII. 11-16. 445 definitely, may serve as an explanation of the ambiguous construction, xvii. 4.— The precious, sweet-scented thyine wood,! the “ciireum” of the Romans, comes from the tree called vo», dba, Gia, which is possibly identical with the white cedar (cupressus thyioues).2— The expression mév gi, 66. designates, first of all, the collected precious material;* upon this follows the enumeration of the vessels made from the precious material, under which is ox. éx fbAov ty.—xcvéxwpov. Cinnamon.4— duwyov. The precious hair- ojntment procured from an Asiatic shrub.5— ceyidaky. Finest wheat-flour, “simila”® or “ similago.” " — arjvy. The general expression, which includes also horned cattle,? precedes. — pediv. A kind of four-wheeled vehicle.® Alexander Sev. furnished the Roman senators with such vehicles, decorated with silver,.— “thinking that it pertained to the Roman dignity, that sena- tors of so great a city should be carried therein.” — cupéruy, i.e., slaves, ocparta dovAa 11 See examples from the LXX. in Biel.1* The following ex- pression wvuzdc dvépdrwy 1* also points to the slaves, and because of the differ- ence in the construction — the yéyov being understood with the genitive — it seems that a distinction is intended to be made.“ The most probable 4 explanation is that which understands the cup. as referring to such slaves as belong to the horses and chariots, and the latter expression, yvy. avép., a8 referring to slaves in general. So, too, in ver. 17, Ew. ii. understands, in the last place, female slaves. Volkm., who gives a false emphasis to the xa? before yy. dv6p.,!° finds here the judgment given by the Christian spirit, that transactions in the slave-trade are not concerning the “bodies,” but the “souls,” of men. But it is nevertheless correct, that, according to the heathen view, the slaves are considered only as cdpara; the yy. avép. also receives a certain importance from the fact that it concludes a short para- graph. Yet the explanation of Volkmar, with respect to the change of con- struction, seems to me impossible. — The lamentation in ver. 14" turns to
1 Luther.
3 Cf. Wetst. and Winer, Rwd., on the word.
8 Against De Wette: ** All sorts of veasels made therefrom.” Cf. Hengstenb.
« Luth. Cf. Winer, 2wd., on this word, and Zimmt.
8 Plin., A. M., xii. 28. Cf. Martial, vill. 77: *¢ Assyrio semper tibl crinis amomo splendeat” {May thy bair always shine with the Assyrian amomue)]. See Wetst.
® Vulg.
1 Cf. Piin., H. N., xvilt. 20: “ Similago ex tritico fit laudatissima.” -
8 Bee lexicons.
9 Isidor., xx. 17.
10 Lamprid. in Wetst.
" Pollux, III. 71. .
13 Cf. Wetst., Wolf, etc.
18 Ezek. xxvil. 13. Cf. 1 Chron. v. 21.
14 Cf. Wetst., who refers the vx. ar@p. to gladiators; ZUll., who refers cwu. to proper slaves, yvx. avOp. to such as are hired also for lust.
Cf. Beng., Ewald, Hengstenl.
16 ** Aye, souls of men.”
17 Vitr. has thought, with Beza and Laun., that ver. 14 belongs not to this piace, but be- tween vv. 23 and 2%. Ew. i. regards the verse asa marginal note of John, who did not imme- diately find a suitable place for the thought. Ew. li. concedes it to be possible, that the verse is here derived from an entirely different book ; but if it belong to the Apoc., he would intro- dyce it in the midst of ver. 23. Cf. also Volkm. But even though the form of the address giving offence could not be under- stood as the lament of the merchants, — this does not follow until ver. 15 eqq., in a manner corresponding to ver. 10, — it must be decided, nevertheless, that the interpreting angel (Bleek), or the voices interposed in ver. 4, directly addresa the city now lamented and threatened. A similar alternation in the form of description occurs aleo in ver. 22 sqq., in comparison with vv. 21 and 24. Cf. also Hos, il. 8.
446 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
the objects that have served another chief class of the orpivoc of the great city, daintiness and gluttony; this part of the description, by its description of the punishment, calls to mind the corresponding guilt of sin. — 7 éxdpa cov tig EmiBuuiac TH WuxRe. Excellently, Luther, who also describes, with cor- rect meaning, the genitive limitation to 4 éxdpa: das Obst, da Deine Seele Lust dran hatte.1— dnjAsev axd ood. In the same sense as the parallel axdAezo ad cod. Cf. Ps. exlii.5. LXX.—7a aape. Properly “the fat,” but its combination with ra Aayxpé points to the fact that the expression is to be taken? in the ordinary improper sense. Every thing preeminent and glorious, in its class, is finally grouped together.— The two last verses, which refer to the lamentation of the merchants, establish the conformity with ver. 9 sqq., which could not as yet be attained because of vv. 11-14; also in the two points that the merchants appear standing at a distance and raising the express cry of lamentation. The rovruy, ver. 15, corresponding to this, refers not only to those of ver. 14,4 but to all things mentioned by ver. 11,5 so that there is no reason to censure the discourse for inconcinnity.® —xéxuvov. That the scarlet raiment here,’ like the purple, indicates the royal glory of the city, is self-evident in the impression of the merchants. By those who neither see nor understand the scarlet beast, only such an idea of the woman is presupposed, as she corresponds in harmonious con- nection with the view of the luxurious glory of the city granted the prophet in ch. xvii.
Vv. 17-19. The lament of the shipmasters, which likewise contains the three points of ver. 9 sq. and vv. 11-16: the standing afar off of those lamenting, the remembrance of the city’s former glory, and the cry of woe over its destruction. — On the preterite forms of statement (forzoav, ver. 17, &xpafov, vv. 18, 19), from which, however, according to the plan of the entire description, ch. xviii., it is not to be inferred that John actually beheld the fall of the city, cf. on ver. 11, and the preliminary note on ch. xviii.
All classes of mariners are mentioned, just as, ver. 11 sqq., all classes of merchants were indicated : “ pilots,” and dg 6 éxi rérov mAéur, i.e., Dot exactly the “coasters,” ® but those who regularly sailed to a definite harbor;® and vavrai, i.e., “mariners” in general; and, as it is finally said, “as many as work the sea,” i.e., all those for whom the sea is the sphere of their calling and the source of livelihood; fishermen also belong to this category. On the expression common in the classics, riv oud, épydfecba, “ to work the sea,’’ cf. many examples in Wetst. —xaxvov r. rup. Cf. ver. 9. — The question of lamentation, ri¢ duoia rg mode TH peyady; is likewise a sarcastic allusion to the former self-deification of the metropolis of the empire.!° — &adov yoov, x.7.A, Cf. Ezek. xxvii. 80. Concerning this sign of grief, cf. Winer, Rwb., on the word. — éy 7 érdovrycay, x.r.A. The city was the place where all mariners
2 (“ The fruit in which thy soul had pleas- * De Wette. & Beng. ure.”’] 6 Against De Wette. ® Luther, Bengel, Hengatenb. ? Cf., on the other hand, xvii. 4. 3 Isa. xxx. 23. Cf. Hesych., who explains ® De Wette. Auw.3 xaAdy, EAahpoy, «7A. [beautiful, easy, % Beng., Hengstenb., etc. Cf. Acts xxvii. 2.
eta. }. 10 Cf. xili. 4.
q
CHAP. XVIII. 20-24. 447
with their manifold wares had found a rich and productive market; for, because of its precious treasures,! the city was able to become the source of wealth te all dealers. (éxAovr. —éx rig rysdtytos abr, Cf. ver. 3. — hpnucdn.) Cf. xvii. 3. [See Note LXXXIII., p. 449.]
Ver. 20. The heavenly voice — not John,? to whom this demand is not well adapted ®— exhorts not only heaven (together with all who dwell therein, xii. 12), but also all who on earth belong to the Lord, to joy over the city thus perishing. Earthly believers— who are exhaustively enumer- ated by the three categories of cya, of dnécroAo, and of mpogzra:,* in which the most general conception precedes, and then two particular classes are men- tioned, because they, being first attacked by the hatred of the secular power,® have an especial reason to rejoice over the vengeance inflicted by God's judgment— are mentioned besides “heaven,” because it is intended to express that to the entire number of those who belong to the Lord,® the destruction of the city is a joyful proof of the righteousness and glory of their God. — 6re Expivev, x.r.A, This fact, upon which the lamentation of the inhabitants of the earth is based,’ is the foundation of the joy of all the saints. But also in the phraseology, this diversity of relation is marked; the judgment of God, which the city has incurred,® has brought about a xpiua, i.e., an act fulfilled by the «pivew, which® is called a judgment of believers (xp. iucav), since this judgment executed in the city, taken upon her (é abric¢),!° is the justification and satisfaction of those believers perse- cuted by the worldly city, but now avenged on it.
Vv. 21-24. Finally, a mighty angel in representing the impending sud- den destruction of the great city, by casting a great stone into the sea, not only in his speech explaining this symbolical act, describes, by individual vivid features, the transformation into desolate silence of the pleasure and magnificence that have hitherto prevailed, but also points definitely to the guilt of the city as the ground of the judgment.
ele dyyeAog loxvods. On ele in the indefinite sense, cf. viii. 18. The might of the angel is especially emphasized, because this is demanded for his action.!! — Aidov oc piduvov péyav. By the comparison Os wid, uty., the greatness of the stone is illustrated.2 The meaning of the act !* is described well by Andr., since he holds to the literal interpretation of the angel: xaddmep, ggaty, 6 widog xaradve: Opynyar: ele tiv OdAaccay, obtw xal h tig BaBvAcvog tabTAC abpdoy Borat xaGaipeotc, Gore ware tyvoc abrig guAaxdhvas cig rd werinecra..4 Here it is like- wise remarkable that Andr. does not see that he is led to substitute for the
2 Cf. ver. 16. 3 Zulli.
8 Ver.8: xpivag avryv; the aor., as in this passage, éxpvey. Ver. 10: 9 «pious cov.
3 Cf. xii. 12. ® Cf., on the other hand, xvii. 1, where the 4 Cf. xi. 18, harlot was designated as the direct object. 5 Cf. ver. 24. 10 Cf, vi. 10,
6 For critical inferences this passage is not adapted. With the same justice with which It would be inferred that John does not belong to the aposties, we may also conclude that he does not belong to the prophets. — The state of the case is different, however, in xxi. 14.
1 Vv. 10, 16, 19.
" Cf. v. 2, xvitl.
13 Cf. xi. 1, vill. 8
3 Cf. Jer. Hi. 63 aqq.
™ (** Just as, he says, the milistone sinks by its impulse into the sea, so also the destruction of this Babylon shall be all at once, so that not a trace of it shail be preserved for posterity.’’}
448 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN..
expression 6 nidoc, which is unusual as a designation of a millstone, that which is ordinarily employed, and how he correctly paraphrases the opyfyari? by d6péov. — Concerning od j4) with aor. subj., ver. 21 sqq.,2 see Winer, p. 471. — The description, ver. 22 sqq., which refers not only to objecta of pleasure and luxury, but also to daily wants and natural relations of life, has the model of Ezek. xxvi. 18, Jer. xxv. 10,® as its foundation; the épqwor of the city (vv. 16, 19, xvii. 16) 4 is illustrated in a concrete way. — wag reyvirne nao. tréxvyc. The exhaustive conclusion of the category, of which several individual examples are mentioned.® — dr: of Eumopo cov, x.rA. Very suitably, the discourse of the angel concludes with a definite presentation of the guilt of the city. This, however, is stated in a threefold way from ver. 1 on:¢ first, the unprecedented luxury in which the city had indulged, because of its wealth;’ then the licentiousness into which she had led astray all nations and kings, as she brought all the world thither to her service and to acknowl- edge her as the divine queen; ® finally, her bloody hostility to the saints.® All three points ! the angel emphasizes, sealing, as it were, his announcement of judgment with this establishment of guilt ; the first, in the words ér: of Europol cov hoav oi peyioravec rig yc, “ because thy merchants were the great men of the earth,” i.e., because they who brought thee the objects of thy luxurious life found in thy wealth and extravagance a source of their own wealth, which made them the great men of the earth; !* the second, in the words dr: ty r9 gappaxeig cov, x.t.4. which cannot be understood as a founda- tion of what immediately precedes,!* but are co-ordinate with the first expres- sion dri oi Zumopd., x.r.A., since here the same object is described as in xvii. 2, 4, and the seductive sorcery }4 is in fact nothing else than the intoxicating wine of the harlot. The most important third point of the guilt is finally emphasized with especial force, ver. 24, by the change in the form of the discourse. Not in an apostrophe to the city, but in a judgment of firm objectivity, it is here finally established that in the city the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all those slain upon earth (for Christ’s sake), “was found.” In an exquisite manner the eipééy indicates how the blood, which has been shed “upon the earth,” was reckoned “to the city.” The city is the capital of the eytire empire, hating and murdering believers; as a matter of fact also, in the Neronian universal persecution, it took the lead of its empire. —In violation of the context, Ew. ii. understands the mdvr, r. éo9., x.7.4., of those not Christians.
1 Cf. Matt. viii. 82 with ite parallels. 12 Cf. Iea. xrill. 8.
3 Also ver. 7. 12 Cf. vi. 156, So Ewald, De Wette, Hengst- 3 Cf. vil. 34, xiv. 9, xxxili. 11. enb., etc. Eichh. improperly regards the oi « Cf. Jer. vii. 34. éuw. cov as the predicate, as he besides regards 5 Cf. vv. 14, 17. * the merchandise ” as a figurative designation © Cf. ch. xvii. for “‘ fornication.”
1 Vv. 8, 7, 11 eqq. 13 Against Hengstenb.
® Cf. vv. 3, 6 aq., 9, xvii. 2. 16 dappaxeia refers to the love-potions of the ® Cf. xvii. 6. hariot. Cf. Isa. xivil. 9, 11 saqq. Ewald, De
10 Cf. Ewald. Wette.
NOTES. 449
Notes BY THE AMERICAN Epriror.
LXXXII. Ver. 4. ovveotvevjoare raic duapriat,
Participation both in the sins, i.e., in the guilt, and in the punishment, is, however, expressly mentioned. As Ebrard and Hengstenberg note, there is an explicit antithesis between raic duapriar and tév xrAyyov. Besides, where there is no guilt, there is no real punishment, except in that one case of the vicarious suffering of Him who assumed our guilt. The chastisements of the believer are not punishments, but blessings. Lange is therefore right .when he takes exception to our author’s interpretation, and adds: ‘‘ A guiltless participation in punishment would certainly be akin to propitiatory suffering. Fellowship with the sinner, however, on an equal moral footing, without the re-action of discipline, chastisement, excommunication, is fellowship in his guilt. Hence the xAyyai are not simply strokes: they are deserved strokes. See Josh. vil.; Num. xvi. 21-24.
LXXXIII. Vv. 11-16.
Alford suggests a difficulty which he confesses himself unable to answer, that Rome never has been, nor can be, a great commercial city; and that this description, based on the lament over Tyre in Ezek. xxvii., would be better adapted to London than to Rome. Contrast Rome, however, with Jerusalem, and its relative pertinency becomes manifest. In addition, the metropolis may be here regarded as the impersonation of all the luxury of the whole empire. The reading of chapter i. of Farrar’s Early Days of Christianity will throw light upon this point.
450 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. 1. d¢ goviv peyddAny bxA0v moAAod. So already Beng., Griesb., according to decisive witnesses. So also Acyovruy (Elz.: A¢yovroc), The reading rod Geod qucv (Elz.: xvpiy to be fu.) is also indisputable (Griesb., Lach., Tisch.). — Ver. 5. 79 6ep. So A, B, C, ®, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The accus. (Rec.) is a modification. — Ver. 6. The Rec. Acyovrwy (Lach., Tisch. IX.) [brack- eted by W. and H.] has, indeed A and other witnesses in its favor, but is subject to suspicion as a modification (": Aeyovowy), More probable is the reading Aéyovrac (2, 12, 16, al., Beng.); but what commends itself to most, just because of its incorrectness, is the nom. Aéyorrec (B, 4, 7, 8, Tich., Tisch.); cf. the doowuev in 11 (Wetst.).— Ver. 9. The art. of before dAyiivot (A, Beng., Lach., Tisch.) is probable; certainly the elow belongs to the close. ®&, has ovr. of Ady. pov aAand, elo. r. 6., but corr. Ady. rT. 0. GA, elo; so Tisch. [X.— Ver. 12. The o¢ before gAof (Elz., Lach.) is indorsed by A, al., Vulg., but may have been interpolated as a modification; cf. i. 14. It is wanting in B, &, al. (Beng., Tisch. (W. and H.]). — The addition between éxwv and dvoua of évouara yeypappéva xai, adopted by Tisch. 1859, and not by IX., has too little authorization from B, min., Syr. (against A, min., Vulg., Orig., al.). The plural alone also occurs (m corr.; cf. also Wetst.). Why it has sometimes been regarded more suitable, is to be seen in Andr., who presupposes the sing. (70 dyyworoy rov dvouaroc), and remarks: Christ has many names if the subject be with respect to his various revelations; but, as to his nature, he is ineffable (rai¢ yap olxovoyuiare Ov moAvavupor, Oc dyafdc, Oe mousy, O¢ Hhioc, K.7.A.; TH ovoig toriy avevupos xal avéguctos, [For . being in his administrations many-named, as Good, Shepherd, Sun, etc., but in essence without name and beyond reach]). — Ver. 13. Instead of xadeira: (Elz., Beng.), read xéxAyra: (A, B, &, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 19. Before rxéAeuov, the art. Tov is to be inserted in the Rec. (A, B, ®, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
The judgment over the great harlot, i.e., the great city, is now actually fulfilled.1 But just as the casting of the arch-enemy from heaven, the first proof of the Divine victory over antichrist, was celebrated with a loud song of praise,* so now also heavenly hallelujahs resound, since the first act of the final judgment over the antichristian powers in the service of Satan has been accomplished (vv. 1-8). A direct reference to the blessed fulfilment of the mystery of God,® the glory prepared for believers, is immediately connected with this (ver. 9 sq., cf. ver. 7); for the pre-requisite for the entrance of that glory, the conquest of the antichristian enemies, is com- prised already in the fulfilment. — The development of a catastrophe so long prepared, once begun, now, however, proceeds quickly to a still greater
1 Cf. the preliminary remarks on ch. xvill. 3 xii. 10. 3 Cf. x. 7.
empire, besides all kings and nations belonging thereto; the beast from the sea, and the false prophet, are cast alive into the lake of fire, and the inhabitants of the earth are slain with the sword which proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord, and serve as food for fowls.
Vv. 1-8. The ascription of praise to God on the part of those who dwell in heaven is made in songs, which properly now change to a far richer ful- ness (ver. 1 sq., ver. 3, ver. 4, ver. 5, ver. 6 sq.) than previously.?
Vv. 1,2. jxovoa o¢ guvdv peyaAny dxdou noddov. “I heard” (something) “like a great voice of a large multitude.” The dr, «,1.A.,2 states, by way of comparison, that the sound perceived by John became as loud as though a great multitude of men had made their voice sound powerfully (cf. ver. 6). Incorrectly, Beng., Hengstenb., etc., who by the éz4. xoaA. wish those named in xviii. 20 to be recognized. Ew. ii. refers it, just as xii. 10-12, to the glorified martyrs. —'adAndovia. The leading tone of this song, resounding repeatedly (vv. 3, 4, 6), is marked from the very beginning as that of an exalted ascription of praise. It is certainly not unintentional, that just here, after the complete judgment upon the enemies of God and of his believers has already begun, the express hallelujah is found, which does not occur elsewhere in the Apoc.* The fourfold repetition, however, is not to be pressed, at least in the sense of Hengstenb.,* because it is not the victory over the earth, but that over the harlot, that is celebrated. — 4 owrnpia, x.1.A, Cf. vii. 10, xii. 10. — dre dAné., «7.4. Foundation of the praise in the righteousness of the Divine judgments in general ;° there follows ® the con- crete foundation in the judgment just fulfilled, whose justice is expressly emphasized."
Ver. 8. Further raising of the song of praise on the part of those who have sung in ver. 1 sqq., a sort of antistrophe to the preceding strophe.* — xal 6 xanvos, x.r.2. The point in the ascription of praise, referring to xviii. 8 (xaraxav., cf. xviii 9,18), may accordingly enter in the form of the con- nective (xa?), because the song, ver. 3, is an amplification of the ascription of praise, ver. 1 sq.
Ver. 4. The twenty-four elders and the four beings, responding first of all by the ’Au#y, confirming the ascription of praise just proclaimed, then also, on their part, expressly continue the same: dAAyA.°
Ver. 5. ad rob Opévov. “Out of the throne.” It does not follow that the voice is that of Christ who sits upon the throne.!° Beng. writes that it belongs to the four beasts; Ziill. and De Wette, to one of them. It may be referred also to the elders, because of the form of the summons (r. 0. #udv).">
1 Cf. iv. 8 aqq., v. 9 aqq., xi. 15 aqq., xv. 3, T yres, «tA. Cf. xfi. 18. On the subject, xvi. 6 aqq. 2 Cf. iv. 6. ef. xvill. 23 aq., also xi. 18, vi. 10.
3 Nor does It occur in the rest of the N. T. ® De Wette, who is right in rejecting the
# With reference to the victory of God over arbitrary assumption of Ewald, to connect vor. the earth, whose sign js four. 3 to ver. 2.
5 Cf. xvi. 7. ® Cf. v. 8, 14, fv. 11.
® Cf. xviii. 23, where there are also two oo- 10 Against Ewald, Hengstenb.
ordinated clauses with oz. 11 Cf. also v. 9.
452 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN.
—19 009. The dat. with aiveiv, which is regarded as though it were didéva aivov,1 occurs also in the LXX.? Comparison with the Hebrew text shows not only that the expression alveire r® Gep says precisely the same as the GAAnAovia retained in the Hebrew form,® but also that the construction of alveiy with the dat. has occurred where the 991 was combined with 2. In Jer. xx. 18, a clause so construed at any rate precedes. — xayvrec ol dovAoz atrod. Cf. Ps. cxxxv. 1. — of goBoipevor, «.t.A, Cf. Pa. exv. 18.
Vv. 6-8. The final chorus, which is likewise opened with hallelujah, passing by the judgment in which already the adorable glory of God has been occupied, points forward especially to the marriage of the Lamb, and, therefore, to the revelation of the glory of God, whereby — after all enemies have been judged — believers are to be beatified. Thus, therefore, the point carried to the full end appears in the pause in the Apocalyptic development marked by the ascriptions of praise (ver. 1 sqq.).— o¢ gw), «7.4. The explanation given at ver. 1 is here established by the fact that the com- parison is satisfied not with the yA, roAa., but introduces still other things in the same sense.*— Aéyovree, The nom. stands still more out of construc- tion than the ace. See Critical Notes, and cf. iv. 1, v. 18. — dre éBacidevoer. The Sr specifying the reason as in ver. 2. On the conception éfacia., cf. xi. 17. — drt hAGev 6 yauoc rov apviov. As the foundation of the present joy, this is likewise to be understood proleptically, like the £Adev, xi. 18.5 So, cor- rectly, De Wette.® Vitr. is mistaken in his opinion of the state of affairs described, as he even states that the expression 6 yduoc rob dpviov is synony- mous With rd deimvoy tov yipov 7. dpv., in order that both may in the same way’ refer to the glorious state of the Church still to be expected within this temporal life. In the directly opposite interest, Ziill. reaches the statement that 6 yayor rob dpviov is like rd deixy. r, pau. 7. dpv., and that both expressions designate, not the future marriage itself,* but “the preliminary festival of the Messiah’s marriage,” i.e., the one thousand years’ reign.® But the mar- riage of the Lamb with his bride, i.e., the entire assembly of believers,” is, in fact, nothing else than the distribution of the eternal reward of grace on the part of the coming Lord to his believers, who then enter with Him into the full glory of the heavenly life! What the final promises of the epistles, chs. ii. and iii. proclaim under various figures with respect to individuals,!* is represented as pertaining to the entire Church as the bride of the coming Lord, under the figure of the marriage of the Lamb, and, therefore, as the most intimate and eternally uninterrupted fellowship with Him who has redeemed the Church with his own blood.'!* An application to individuals follows also in ver. 9. The proleptical (}Adev, groiuacey, td06y)
1 Luke xviii. 48. © Cf. also Hengstenb. 21 Chron. xvi. 3, xxili. 5; 2 Chron. xx. + Cf. xxi. 9 sqq.
19; Jer. xx. 13. 8 xxi. 9 sqq. 8 Cf. Hesych., who very accurately explains ® xx. 4 eqq.
GAAnA.: alvos Ty cyte Oey, aiveire Toy xuproy 10 xxi. 9, xxil.17. Cf. xii. 1; Isa. liv. 1 9qq.; [‘* Praise to him that is God, praise ye the Hos. ff. 10 sq.; Ezek. xvi. 7 0qq.; Eph. v. 25. Lord}. 1 Cf. xi. 18, xxil. 12.
¢ Cf. 4. 15. 13 Cf. especially iif. 28.
& Cf. xiv. 7. . 3 Cf. v. 6, 9, vii. 17, xiv. 1.
CHAP. XIX. 9, 10. 458
allusion to the blessed fulfilment of the mystery of God,! that has now not yet, in fact, occurred, is here the more suitable in the mouths of the heavenly beings, since, in fact, an act already of the final judgment — viz., the destruc- tion of the great harlot —has been executed, and, consequently, the actual beginning of that fulfilment has been made. —% y# air. The expression is entirely appropriate to the bride,? so that the alteration 9 vixugy atr.® appears groundless. — froizacev tavrzv. As becomes the bride who with joy awaits the coming of her bridegroom.‘ An important part of her is expressly emphasized in ver. 8, in conformity with the figure xai 2dd0n avrj, «.7.2,, and then interpreted by John, rd yap Bicotwer, x.r.A.— On 26609 abri Ivo, cf. vi. 4. — Bioo. Aaumpdv xaBapoy. Excellently, Grot.: You see here the dignified garb, as that of a matron, not ostentatious, like that of the harlot previously described.” That really distinct references are intended by Aaunpov and xebapov,® is not to be inferred at all events from the interpretation that fol- lows. Cf. also vii. 14. Meanwhile, it is in itself correct to distinguish the negative innocency of the life from the positive practice of virtue. —ra duaspara ray dyiwv toriv, Cf. a similar interpretation, v. 8. The form of the expression,® and the real parallel,’ suggest only just deeds in which the saints have maintained their fidelity. On the contrary, Ew. ii.: decla- ration of righteousness; also Meyer, on Rom. v. 16: the divine sentence of justification which the saints have received. But the plural form resists this mode of exposition, which, so far as the subject itself is concerned, refers to the writer of the Apocalypse a thought of so peculiarly a Pauline stamp as does not occur elsewhere in the Apoc. Of course, an allusion to the grace bestowed by God, as the ground and source of the duanmpara belonging to the saints, is contained in a delicate way in the d60y airg tva, x.7.A,; but just this reference to the Divine giving prevents us, on the other hand, from defining the dxadpara as a Divine activity, but allows us to think only of the just deeds of saints. In this result Gebhardt® and Klief. also harmonize. [See Note LXXXIV., p. 461.]
Vv. 9, 10. The significance of the short interlude lies in what the angel says to John (ver. 9), by applying in express exhortation,” the reference contained already in the ascription of praise of the heavenly beings, to the goal of all the hopes of believers, and emphatically confirming the consola- tory certainty of the hope thus set before believers, by the assurance that this word of God is true. Also to the prophetical declaration of this glo- rious hope by John, an attestation is given in ver. 10, which must confirm believers ™ receiving the testimony of the prophet in the hope and patience upon which their victory depends. —Aéyer wo. The one speaking is, at all events, according to ver. 10, an angel; but not “an interpreting angel,” such as Ewald and Ebrard think was the constant attendant of John,* but the
1 Cf. x. 7. * Cf. xv. 4. 2 Gen. xxix. 20; Deut. xxii. 24; Matt. 1. 20. t Cf. xiv. 4 0q. Se. Cf. xxi. 9. 8 Cf. the aéixijuara, xviii. 5. ¢ Cf. xxii. 17, xxi. 2; Matt. xxv. 10: ai ® p. 176. ET04j008. 10 Cf. xiv. 18.
8 Hengstenb.: ‘The brillant glory of a 1t Cf. i. 8, xxii. 18 sqq. virtuous life, and spotless purity from sins.” 12 Cf. 1.1.
bedanal ~ Dede WSF SEMEL MV ESe 2B WEE DVT UO GUESSES CRD VERS WUVELE EEE UU, VR VEU SU Ue tion.! To this points also the immediately succeeding declaration of the same angel (ovra ol Adyou, x.t.A.). —Tpipov waxdpws, «.7.A.). Cf. xiv. 18. —1n deirrvoy Tov yau, t. dpv. In a still more concrete way than ver. 7 (6 yayog r. dpv.) is the final blessed communion with the Lord illustrated. Moreover the paracletic pertinence of the discourse brings with it also the fact that it is not the idea of the Church as the bride of the Lamb, but that of individual believers as wedding guests, which enters here.? By the repetition of the formula xa? Aéyes wor, the succeeding speech of the angel is especially sepa- rated from his preceding words, and thus receives a peculiar importance. If we suppose that the art. is to be read before dAn6:v0l,8 — which certainly does not serve to facilitate the construction,*—we must translate with Beng., Ebrard, Bleek, and Ew. ii.: “These are the. true words of God.” The ingenious explanation of Hengstenb. (“These words are true, they are words of God”), even apart from the art. before dan@., is refuted by the fact that the eloiv, in any case, belongs not before, but after, the rvd geod. De Wette, who translates : “ These words are the true (words) of God,”5 appeals, in oppo- sition to Beng., to the parallel, xxi. 5. But there the construction of the sen- tence is extremely simple, since to the subj. obror of Adyo: the definition of the predicate is added, moro? xal dAn@tvoi elow; but here not only the rod Geos, but especially the art. before dAn9., effects another relation in the entire statement. By means of this art., it becomes far simpler to bring together of Asyo: of dAn@wol, and to understand these words combined with rnd deot as a predicate to the subject ofro:.® But the sense is by no means that which Bengel’s explanation suggests to De Wette,’ but after the angel has afforded John the revelation of the judgment upon the harlot, and, from this beginning of the final judgment, has given an intimation concerning the blessed mystery of God, which lies back of the entire judgment, he reviews all the words of revelation, of which he had served as the interpreter to the prophet from xvii. 1 on. These, he says, are the true, i.e., the genuine and right, words of God. The dintvoi here mentions not the truth or the correctness of the contents, but the reality of the correlated statement: rod 00. This explana- tion is afforded, on the one hand, by the plural of Aéyo alone, — which Hengstenb., as well as Klief., refers to 5-8, Ebrard to 6-8 and 9, but the most do not take into further consideration, — and, on the other hand, also by what is reported in ver. 10. Ebrard was on the right track when he alluded to the expression of Adyoe rod Oeov, xvil. 17; but he wanders from it again, when, just as he understands those Adyo: rod O20) as promises concern- ing the final redemption of the Church, so, in this passage, he limits the Aoyot of dAnd. r. 6. to vv. 6-8 and 9. The latter is not entirely correct; for there is no reason for excluding the songs of vv. 1-5, which also refer to the goal presented in ver. 9, in a manner precisely identical with vv. 6-8.
1 Beng., Ztill., De Wette, Hengstenbd. 5 Cf. Ztill.: ‘‘ These true words are God's * Cf. ili. 20; Matt. xxii. 1 sqq., xxv.1eqq. words.”
‘ Beng., Hengstenb. © Cf. xx. 5; Luke xxiv. 44. 2 See Critical Notes. t Now the truth of God's word manifests
4 Against Hengstenb. itself, viz., in ite immediate results.
; CHAP. XIX. 9, 10. ~ 455
But what is said from ver. 1 on, concerning the now-impending glorification’ of the Church, has to do with but one side of the subject, with only one part of the Adyo: row Geo (xvii. 17), or of the mystery of God, announced by the ancient prophets.1_ This one point is made prominent also in the songs from ver. 1 on, only upon the ground of the judgment lying before the same, which is now already fulfilled in an act. As now (xvii. 17) the Adyo r. Geow contain both, viz., the proclamation of the Divine judgment against every thing antichristian,—the kings of the world, with the beast of the world, are to rule only until the words of God, which proclaim the destruction of these same powers, shall find their fulfilment, i.e., until the dominion of those antichristian powers shall be annihilated According to God’s declara- tion, — and the promise; the Adyoz of dAné. r. @., in this passage, refer to all the revelations which the prophet has received, as the fulfilment of the promise (xvii. 1) of the angel even now also speaking with him (deigw oos rd xpipa Tie wOpyne T. uty.), i.e., they refer to xviii. l-xix. 9. By the expression ovro: of Aoyot of dAn., & review is made of that entire section — in which the expres- sions referring to the glorification of believers, xix. 1-9, are represented in most immediate combination with judgment upon the antichristian powers already fulfilled in one act —in a way precisely analogous to that of xxii. 6, where, at the conclusion of the entire revelation, a confirmatory reference is made to all that was disclosed to the gazing prophet, from iv. 1 on, as about to happen. But in this passage, also, such a conclusion is entirely justified, because here an important part of what was to happen had already happened, viz., the judgment upon the great harlot; and therewith the fulfilment of the words,? or of the mystery,® of God, had already begun. Now also there is given to the prophet the direct pledge of the certainty of what he has be- held; that these words which he has received are the actual and true words of God himself. From this the explanation follows as to why it is that John (ver. 10)* falls down before the angel in order “to worship” him. Ebrard is wrong in his attempt to attach a prophetic significance to this occurrence; viz., that the children of God are to be warned against the temptation of worshipping angels, “who have brought about the victory over antichrist.” The last is here entirely foreign. Grot., Vitr., Beng., etc., recognize in the adoring prostration an excessive token of gratitude, and therefore forbidden also by the angel. De Wette, in accordance with his exposition of 96, finds here an expression of joyful astonishment at prophecies so confirmed (?). But partly from what precedes (Ady. of dAné. tov deod), and partly from the manner in which the angel rejects the adora- tion as not due him, as a fellow-servant of John, it may be first of all inferred that John regarded the angel thus addressing him, not as a fellow- servant, but as the Lord himself.* At first,? John had a proper estimate of the angel; but just by what was said (ver. 9b), John could attain the suppo- - sition that the Lord himself spoke to him. — pa zy. The aposiopesis® is
1 x. 7. § xvii. 17. * Cf. Laun. § x.7. * As aleo xxii. 8. * xvil. 1, xv. 6, xvi. 1 sqq. 5 Cf. aleo Hengstenb., who, however, praises ® Cf. Winer, p. 558.
the humility of Johu as well as of the angel.
eo
|
not !— civdovdos. Because the angel serves the same Lord! as John and all his brethren, “who have the testimony of Jesus,” i.e., all believers.2 The Lord is God ;® to him, therefore, belongs the adoration which John intended to offer to the angel (r& Ge mpooxtyncov). The entire repulse by the angel does not therefore sound “as tender as possible, almost having the tone of intercession,” * but is throughout decided. — The closing words of ver. 10 belong not to the address of the angel, but are a remark of John, whereby he establishes and explains (yép) what has just been said by the angel. It is incorrect to explain the gen. rod ‘Ijcov as subjective, “the testimony pro- ceeding from Jesus;”® for if, on the one hand, reference to‘ the expression éyovrwy tiv papt. Tod "Incod require this explanation,® on the other hand the declaration is intelligible only by defining the yaproepia rod ‘Ino, a8 10 xvevpa THE npoonteiac. This cannot mean: “ He who confesses Christ as thou dost has also the spirit of prophecy,”? but designates, in the sense of 1 Pet. i. 11, and in thorough agreement with what is indicated in i. 1 and xxii. 6, 16, concerning the nature and the origin of prophecy, that Christ, by himself imparting his testimony of revelation to a man, fills him ® with the spirit of prophecy, — who now speaks from and through the prophets.® As Christ, the coming One, is the goal of all Christian prophecy,!° so is He also its author. From the closing words of the verse, it might be inferred," that “they who have the testimony of Jesus” are not believers in. general, but only the prophets, so that the angel would call himself a fellow-servant only of the prophets; as Hengstenb. also (xxii. 6) understands by the dotdcu atros only prophets. But as (xxii. 6), on the contrary, the servants of God !* are distinguished from the prophets, and considered as the believers for whose instruction the prophets receive their revelations,!* so also in this passage.14 Believers do not have the testimony proceeding from Jesus without the ser- vice of the prophets, as John himself is one; but they are prophets because of the testimony communicated to them by the Lord, which testimony in them is the spirit of prophecy. Thus there is in ver. 103 an attestation to the prophetical book of John, similar to that which was emphatically maintained in the beginning 4 and at the close.1* [Note LKXXV., p. 461.]
Vv. 11-21. Christ himself, as the already triumphant victor, goes forth
1 Cf. vi. 11. 2 Cf, vi. 9. we are accordingly called, as fellow-servants, 8 xxii. 6, to offices of not unequal honor.” Bat it would 4 Zul. be impossible for the concluding words of ver.
5 Against Ewald: “If any one with con- stancy maintain faith in Christ; ’? De Wetto; Hengstenb., Ebrard, not clear.
© Cf. vi. 9, xif. 17.
tT De Wette, Ewald.
8 Vitr. paraphrases: ‘‘ The same Spirit who speaks and acts through those who proclaim the testimony of Christ (which the apostles did), is the very one who spi aks through me, who am sent by the Lord to declare to thee the things of the time to come. Thy affairs, therefore, are as important as my dignity, and
10 to bélong to the angel (cf. ver. 8, v. 8); and the explanation of 1. éxévrway rh» paprvpiar Ff. ‘Ino., which forms {ts basis, is false.
® Cf. ii. 7, 11, 17, iti. 22, with i. 1, 8, 12, iff. 14. 10 Also of that of O. T., x. 7. 11 Hengstenb.; cf. Vitr. 12 Cf. i. 1. 13 Cf, xxif. 16. 4 Cf., besides, xxii. 9. 18 i. 1 sqq. 16 xxii. 6 egg.
CHAP. XIX. 11-16. 457
with his heavenly hosts to destroy the secular powers still remaining; viz., that of the beast and false prophet (ver. 19 sq.), and the inhabitants of the earth rendering allegiance to the beast (ver. 21).
Vv. 11-16. The going forth of Christ and his followers from heaven to the judgment. — rdv otpavdv fvevypévor, cf. iv. 1. The seer, at xvii. 3, in spirit was carried to the earth.1— xa? ldov lrmog Acuxdc, cf. vi. 2. — xudobpevos moras xal dAnGiwds. The construction of the individual expressions is also entirely similar to that of vi. 2. The xadoipevoc placed without éoriy in a kind of apposition to 6 xaéjy. tx’ abroy effects a transition to the description in the finite tense (cat éy duc. xpivec, x.rA.). Concerning the idea of mtorég and of dAnéwéc, cf. iti. 7,14. There is a significant prominence given to the circumstance that the one now going forth to most complete final victory is called not only “faithful,” with respect to his promises to his believers now to be fulfilled by himself, but also “true;” for it is just by his present triumphal march against his enemies, that he proves himself to be the Mes- siah announced from olden time. Hence the entire description is filled with tones harmonizing with the O. T. prophecies; the Lord now manifests him- self as the One who was truly meant in all those prophecies. — xai év dexcasootvy xpive. Cf. Isa. xi. 8 sqq. The xai wodepet added in this passage expresses the meaning of the «pive: in a way corresponding to the nature of the descrip- tion here presented.? — ol 62 op@adpo? abr. x.rA Cf. i. 14.— deadqpara rodid. If the many diadems upon his head are to be regarded trophies of victories already won,® the kings, possibly the ten kings of ch. xvii.,* must at all events be regarded as vanquished. But the judgment upon these is not yet fulfilled. It might also be said that the Lord, going forth as triumphant victor, who also (vi. 2) receives from the very beginning a victor’s garland, appears here already adorned with the crowns of the kings to be judged by him. But the reference to ver. 16, where Christ is called the BacwAeve Baotuy, is more probable.£ The explanation of Andr., that the dominion of Christ over all who are in heaven and on earth is indicated, is too indefinite. — éyuv dvoua—aitéc. Either the name mentioned in ver. 13 is meant,® or although it was “written,” — possibly on the Lord’s forehead,’ but not, indeed, upon his vesture,® or on the many diadems,?—and therefore was visible to John, the name remained, nevertheless, unknown to him, because it was inscrutable.’° To think of any definite name besides that designated (ver. 13), and to attempt to conjecture it, is an undertaking in violation of the context.1! The second of the two possible views is the more probable; for even if the 8 obdetc eldev, x.rA., be explained by the mystery lying in the name 6 Adyor rod Geov,** yet the context makes the impression, particularly as the assertion xal xéxAyra: rd Svoua abrod, «.7.A., is separated from ver. 12 by a
1 De Wette. Cf. xxit. 10. 7 Ewald, Bleek, Hengstenb. 2 Ver. 11: orparetpara; ver. 19: +, wéAcnev. 8 Calov. 8 Cf. 2 Bam. xtff. 13; 1 Mace. xi. 13. Grot., ® Hiehh. Wetat., Beng.; cf. also Vitr. % Grot., Beng., De Wette, Hengvtend., 4 ZUllig. Ebrard. 8 Ewald, De Wette, Hengstend., Bleek, 11 Against Ewald, Volkmar, cte., who un- Volkm., Luthardt. derstand the name 7TiiT'.
6 Calov., Vitr., ete. as Vitr.
SUVs SOUTER VL VEG UCOUESVULUEL LA, HOME. Rei see fy ULERY OH LIGEN 1S AUC WW be indicated, which is known only to the Lord himself, since He alone has and knows what is designated in the name.!_ But in accordance with iii. 12, it may be thought that the complete blessedness of believers in immediate communion with the Lord (ver. 9) will disclose also the mystery of this name.?— «al mepepesAnuévoc ludriuv Bepaupévor aizatt. After the manner of the victor, Isa. lxiii. 1 sqq.,8 whose prophetic description finds its true fulfil- ment in the Lord.4— xa? xéxAnra: rd Svopa abrov 4 Aéyor rod Oevi. The form of the expression xéxAyra r. dv, avr. shows that here § the definite name, familiar to believers, which the Lord has received as a significant proper name,® and continues to bear, is intended to be designated. The name corresponds to the position of the Lord ag Mediator, as described i. 1 sqq.7 Cf. also Intro- duction, p. 66. — ra orpareipara, x.r.2, The armies of the Lord ® are not only the hosts of angels who appear elsewhere as attendants of the Lord coming to judgment,® but departed believers are also to be regarded as referred to.1° This is indicated not only by the comprehensive expression ra orpar. ra év ro ovp.,, but also‘by the vesture (Bicc. Aeux. xad.; cf. ver. 8). — foupaia dfeia. The sharp sword proceeding from the mouth of the Lord designates here, where, besides, it is attached to statements recalling ancient prophetical descriptions (iva év abr. raréép ra &6v7)," still more clearly than i. 16, the Lord thus appearing as the true and real One who is to come (ver. 11).— xa? abrac watel, x.r.A. Cf. also, on this definitive and, therefore, so full-toned descrip- tion, which gives assurance !? of the certainty of the threat by r. @cov r. avroxp., Isa. lxiii. 2 sq. with xiv. 10,19. The expression rv Aqvdy rot o:vov, Hengst- enb. explains, not, indeed, accurately, by saying that the wine-press is the wrath of God, and the wine flowing from it is the blood of enemies. The form of the idea in which the two figures of the wine-press 18 and the cup of wrath 14 are combined,?* affirms, however, that from the wine-press trodden by the Lord, the wine of God’s anger flows, with which his enemies are to be made drunk.— The name, which (ver. 16) is written on the vesture and on the thigh, BaaAeds Bacidévv nal xiptoc xvpiav, gives —-as is made prominent at the conclusion of this entire description, ver. 11 sqq.—the express pledge of that which is distinctly marked already in the entire appearance of the Lord; viz., that the Lord who now goes forth to the conflict with the kings of the earth, will show himself to be the King of all kings. — xat éxi rdv unpow air, The meaning cannot be that the name stood not only on the vesture, but also on the actual thigh, so that, after laying aside the bloody garment,
1 Cf. if. 17. 7 Cf. aleo xix. 10, ili. 14. ® The several names indicated in the at 8 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 19. least uncertain reading (see Critical Notes) _ © Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; 2 Thess. i. 7. De
give no clear idea. Perhaps also the plural Wette, Hengstenb., Bleek, Luthardt. 8.8. woAA. has had much to do with the origin 20 Cf. alao Ew. ii. Incorrectly, Volkm.:
of the reading. The earthly. 3 Beng., ZUll., De Wette, Hengstenb., ete. 11 Cf. Iea. xi. 4. x. abr. wowmapet, x.rA. CE 4 Cf. ver. 11. ij. 27, xii. 5. 5 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 12. 13 Cf. 1. 8, xi. 17, xv. 3. * Cf., on the other hand, the several appel- 13 xiv. 10.
lative designations of vv. 11, 16. 1¢ xiv. 10. 8 De Wette
CHAP. XIX. 17-21. 459 the name could appear in the same place.!_ But the explanation of Wetst., Eichh., De Wette, Bleek, etc., who allude to the fact that, e.g., sculptors are accustomed to fix the stamp of their name on the body of the statue in the region of the thighs, is opposed by the preceding én? rd fuarwv, in connection with which the xai éni rdv yenpdv abr. has the force, that the name, at all events, must be regarded as on the vesture, and that, too, where the thigh is. The name is, therefore, not to be sought upon an imaginary * sword-handle,® but we must regard it as being upon the girdle, although this, however, does not come into consideration as the sword-belt,* but as a girdle which holds the tucked-up vesture of one advancing to battle. In violation of the context, Ew. ii.: “From the shoulders to the thighs.”
Vv. 17, 18. An angel standing in the sun summons all fowls to eat the bodies of kings, and of all the inhabitante of the earth, who are to be slain by the Lord.® éa dyy. Cf. viii. 18, xviii. 21.—é rp hus, “in the sun,” because from this standpoint, and at the same time with the glory suitable to an angel, he can best call to the fowls flying & pecouvpavjpare.* — Acire ovvaxonre, x.7.A, Cf. Ezek. xxxix. 17 sqq. The punishment is, as it corre- sponds to the idea of the final judgment, one that is absolutely relentless; since on the slaying, the consumption of the corpses by all the fowls under the heaven follows. — cdpxac BaciAéuv, x.t.A. The exhaustive specification * expressly declares, what is ‘self-evident also from the connection, that the slain Aomnoi (ver. 21) are the entire mass of inhabitants of the earth.®
Vv. 19-21. The Lord’s judgment and war are accomplished. This act of judgment John beholds, as it proceeds not only from the xa? edoy (ver. 19), but also from the mode of representation itself (éxeéoty, ver. 20; txoprécbycay, ver. 21). Cf., on the other hand, ch. xviii. — 1d @npiov xat rode Baotdeic, x.7.A. With the beast, representing the secular power,” his confederates appear, the kings of the earth," and their armies, consisting of the entire number of the dwellers on earth,? who now carry into effect the conflict proclaimed already in xvi. 14; 38 its result, however, is described in ver. 20 sq., in such a way as to correspond to the significant name of xvi. 16. For the conflict which is to be described is not one that is painful, or as to its issue possibly doubtful, but the result of an unconditional victory over enemies, won by the justice and omnipotence of the Lord. —«. pera roi otpateiuaroc abrov. The sing. is chosen here,!4 in order to mark the holy unity of the entire army of Christ, in contrast with the rent body of his enemies." xa? 6 yer’ abrot pevdo- xpogatnc. The position of the false prophet as the auxiliary of the beast is designated in barmony with the description (xiii. 11 sqq.). The allusion
1 Against Beng. Votkm. Incorrectly, Ew. i1., p. 384: “‘ by the *’ And that, too, against ver. 15. sun.” 3 Grot. § Cf. vi. 15. ® Cf. xifi. 4, 8, 14, 16. ¢ Against Vitr., aleo against Hengstenb., 3® xilf. 1 sqq-
who, on account of ver. 15, explains that the 11 xvi. 12 sqq., xvii. 13 aqq.
name appears here in the place of the engirded 13 xili, 4, 8, 16,
sword; cf. Ps. zlv. 4 aq. 13 Notlee the art. rdw wéAcp.; aloo the ovrqy- 8 Zuill., Volkm. wéve here repeated. © Cf. ver. 21. % Of., on the other hand, ver. 14.
1 Ew. 1., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard,
18 Beng., Hengstenb.
OOS ONE OU Ser NOOO re ee ee tere eae eee eS NSE SOS SE EN a ke we —- OP Fee © or .° banal Le
to xilil. 13 sqq. — The manner in which the judgment is fulfilled is in con- formity with the nature of the enemies:! the beast, together with the false prophet, “was taken, and both were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.” Who does this, is not said; but the act dare not be re- ferred to Christ, for the reason that he does not execute his various acts of judgment by his own hand.* It is evident that the victorious result of the war of judgment ® is determined by Christ’s power; but according to the analogy of xii. 7 sqq., we must regard the orparetyara of the Lord, as the executors of the judgment.4— (ivrer. For only human enemies could suffer bodily death (ver. 21) before the eternally condemning judgment of the world.5— ryv Aiuvm, «7.4. Cf. xx. 10, 14 8q., xxi. 8.—ol Aurot. See on ver. 17 sq. — amrxrdav@noav tv rg poupaig, x.r.A. To seize the enemies, and thus to cast them into hell (ver. 20), is not befitting the Lord himself; but it is something else, when the sword which proceeds from his mouth slays the enemies. This gives the idea of the victory entirely without laborious effort, and presupposing no proper conflict of Him who, according to the prediction of the ancient prophets, destroys his enemies with the breath of his lips. — x. mavra ra dpvea, x.t.A, Cf. ver. 17 aq.
The allegorical exposition, when applied with ‘consistency to ch. xix., must be regarded untenable in the degree that it arrays itself against the context. The fowls (ver. 17 sq., 21) are, according to Hammond, the Goths and Vandals, who desolated the Roman Empire; according to Coccejus, the Turks, who, after the capture of Constantinople, afflicted the Catholic West; according to Hengstenb., the Huns, who prepared grievous calamities for the Germanic nations, the destroyers of the Roman Empire. Wetst. found the prophecy fulfilled in the assassination of Domitian, the last of the Flavians,’ and in the conquest of his soldiers (ver. 21). Grot. understands by the Gaoiteic (ver. 19), “Julian with his nobles,” and remarks on ver. 20: ‘“‘ Theodosius the Great abolished the public sacrifices of the heathen,” and on ver. 21: “ By the decree of Christ, who used Justinian for this purpose, to punish idolaters with death.” Others, as C.a Lap., have thought that the fulfiment of the prophecy could be shown by the horrible death and burial of many heretics. So C.a Lap. cites authors who report of Luther that he committed suicide, and that at his burial not only a multitude of ravens, but also the Devil, who had come from Holland, appeared. — Luther, gloss on ver. 11: “The word of God is opposed to the defenders of the Pope, and none of their defence is of any avail.”
1 Cf. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. ¢ Cf. xx. 9 8qq., xiv. aq. 8 xx. 14 9qq. 8 Cf. xx. 2. © Cf. Iea. xi. 4. 8 Cf. ver. 11. 7 vy, 20.
NOTES. 461
NoTEs BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXXXIV. Ver. 8. 10 dtxatauara tov dyiwr,
Some of the older Protestant interpreters explain the plural dicadpara, as determined by the fact- that it comprises the two righteousnesses of the believer, the imputed righteousness of Christ and his own inherent righteousness. So Forbes in Poole’s Synopsis. Calov. also, upon the ground that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer will never cease. Others, like Cluverus, maintain that each saint has a dixaiwua; and, therefore, there are dicamyara, because there are many saints. So Alford: ‘‘The plural is probably distribu- tive, implying not many dicamyara to each one, as if they were merely good deeds, but one dixaiwya to each of the saints, enveloping him as in a pure white robe of righteousness.”” John Gerhard (L. C., viii. 167) also adopts the distrib- utive use of the plural, although referring it to imputed righteousness. Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, v. 1, 252), however, concurs with Disterdieck: ‘‘ The right deeds of the saints are the robe of fine linen, to be clothed in which is granted them (xix. 8).’’
LXXXV. Ver. 10. % yap paprupia "Igood.
Luthardt paraphrases this clause: ‘‘He who has this testimony of Jesus participates also in the Spirit who works prophecy, and teaches how it is to be understood, because all prophecy has Jesus Christ as its contents; and, there- fore, the knowledge and confession of Jesus Christ is the key of the future.” Cremer accordingly infers that fyew ri papr. "Inood (xii. 17, xix. 10, vi. 9) is synonymous with yew 7rd xv. rig mpog. Gebhard also insists on the subjective meaning of "Ijcod here, and says that wherever ‘‘the testimony of Jesus” occurs, it is synonymous with ‘‘the word of God.” Alford, dissenting from Diisterdieck’s construction of ‘Ijcot as subjective, says: ‘‘ What the angel says is this: ‘Thou, and I, and our brethren are all Exovrec riv uaptupiav ‘Igoob; and the way in which we bear this witness, the substance and essence of this testi- mony, is the spirit of prophecy; & xvebua éxorioOyyev. This spirit, given to me in that I show thee these things, given to thee in that thou seest and art to write them, is the token that we are fellow-servants and brethren.’ ”’
462 THE REVELATION OF S8T. JOHN.
CHAPTER XX.
Ver. 2. 6 566 6 dpyaioe. So A, Lach., Tisch. The accus. (B, ®, Elz.) appears to be a modification. — According to A, B, min., the art., which is wanting in the Rec. before 4:48., and before car., but occurs in ® in both these places (so Tisch. IX.), belongs only in the latter place (Lach., Tisch.). — Ver. 8. The avrdv after éxAciwev (Elz.) is spurious (A, B, ®, al., Verss., Beng., Lach., Tisch. (W. and H.]). The present wAavg (Griesb., Tisch.) is not sufficiently attested by B, and, besides, appears suspicious as an interpretation. Lach., also Tisch. IX. [and W. and H.] have properly maintained the Rec. rAavjoy according to A (&: wAavioe).— Ver. 4, The art. rd before xiA, érq (Elz.) is properly (A, %, min.) deleted already by Beng. — Ver. 8. rev 764. So A, B, &, 7, 8, 9, al., Lach., Tisch.; cf. xix. 19.— Ver. 9. ad rot 6eov, which occurs also in &,, al., before éx rov otpavet (Elz.), but in other witnesses stands last (Beng.), while still others transpose the positions of the prepositions dm and éx, belongs probably (cf. xxi. 2) in no way to the text (A, 12, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 14. Read obrog 6 Gav, 6 detrepig toriw, } Aipva rov mupdc (A, B, al., Verss., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). The last words are lacking in the Rec. MR modifies: our. 6 devr. Oc, éor., 7 A., «.7.A,
Already has judgment been executed upor the harlot,! upon the beast and his accomplice the false prophet,? and upon the dwellers on earth who worshipped the beast; now follows the judgment upon the proper first enemy, Satan himself, who® has used all those antichristian powers only as his instruments. The judgment upon Satan, decreed from all eternity, is executed in ver. 10. But previous to this, there is the binding of Satan for one thousand years (vv. 1-3), during which time they who are to partake of the first resurrection are to reign with Christ (vv. 4-6), and an attack upon the camp of the saints on the part of Gog and Magog, excited by Satan, who is let loose again for a short time, which is terminated by fire falling from heaven and consuming those nations (vv. 7-9); but, on the other hand, there is, after the final casting of Satan into the lake of fire, the proper judg- ment of the world (ver. 11 sqq.) at which all men appear, and they who are not written in the book of life are cast into the same lake of fire as that wherein are the beast and the false prophet already since xix. 20, into which Satan also has been eternally cast (ver. 10) before the final judgment of the world, and wherein now also at that final judgment death and hell are cast (ver. 14). — It is, therefore, to be noted: (1) with respect to the succession of the individual judgments, that this is the reverse o. the succession in which the antichristian forms are presented ; for the description of the latter begins (ch. xii.) with the original enemy, then proceeds to the beast and his accom-
i Cf. cbs. xvil.-xix. a xix. 2. : 8 Cf. on ch. xii.
CdAP. XX. 1-3 463
plice, viz., the second beast or the false prophet (ch. xiii.),! and finally shows the woman carried by the beast, i.e., the definite city of the world (ch. xvii.), ay, the individual sovereigns in whom the beast is embodied (xvii. 11); while, on the contrary, the judgment descends first upon the city (xviii. 1, xix. 10), then upon the beast, together with the false prophet, and the mass of dwellers on earth worshipping the beast (xix. 11-21), and, finally, upon Satan (xx. 10, cf. xx. 4.8qq.). (2) Nor is the kind of judg- ment without natural distinctions: the city perishes in a terrible conflagra- tion, and the beast and false prophet, as well as Satan, are cast alive into the lake of fire of hell; while the dwellers on earth, after having suffered bodily death (xix. 21, cf. xx. 9), are again awakened at the final judgment (xx. 11 sqq.), and not until then cast into the lake of fire for eternal torment. Vv. 1-8. An angel, descending from heaven, binds Satan with a great chain, and casts him into the abyss for one thousand years. — dyyedov. The comparison of i. 18 cannot prove that the angel? is Christ.§ — rpv adeiv ric dftccov. The key of the abyss— which, according to the analogy of the in other respects not entirely conformable presentation, i. 18, is to be regarded as being in the hands of Christ — was “ given,” ix. 1, under par- ticular circumstances, for a definite purpose to another; in this passage the angel, who likewise needed the key for a,definite purpose (ver. 2 8q.), brought it from heaven, where he, therefore, had received it when he was sent. Ew. ii. is accordingly incorrect in identifying the angel in this pas- sage with the one who is represented as being active in ix. 1-11. dAvow, Cf. Mark v. 8 sq.*— én? rv xelpa abros. Cf. v.1. “Jn” the hand,§ the chain could not be held because of its great weight; it lies “on” the hand, and hangs down on both sides. — éxparncev. Vivid representation of the event. Cf. xix. 20. — 6 dgec, «.r.A. The nominative of apposition, without construc- tion, is like i. 5. On the designation, cf. xii. 9; the complete harmony in this passage shows that now that original enemy was bound, who, after he had been cast from heaven to earth, became the proper originator of every thing antichristian in the world. [See Note LXXXVI., p. 472.] yidsa bry, The accus.* designates the length of the time during which Satan is to be bound. Cf. in other respects on ver. 10.— el¢ riv dBvocov. Cf. ver. 1, ix. 1, xi. 7, xvii. 8. The abyss of hell is the place where Satan properly belongs, and whence he himself, like the demoniacal powers, has proceeded in order to work upon earth. But since for a thousand years he will be confined against his will to one place,’ so long is his agency on earth interrupted (iva yd) wAay., «.7.A.).—Kal ExAecev nal togpaywoev brave atrod. With kxAdory the abject rv dBvecoy is understood; but just because this is not expressly added, the limitation éwévw atros can the more readily qualify the éogpdyiwev: “upon him,” i.e., Satan, who has been cast into the bottomless pit, the angel
1 Where also the relation of the dwellers on * Etym., M.: dAvere, § dx yadzouw § obigov
earth to the beast Is shown. ; § dpyupioy ) xpueoy wendyyudrn ceips [SAvers 2 Beng., De Wette, ete. is a chain forged either from brass, or tron, or 5 Against Hengstenb., Alcas., Calov., Vitr. silver, or gold].
Cf. also Coccej., who again understands the 5 Ew. il. & reads even éy +. x.
Holy Ghost. © Cf. ix. 5. ? Cf. ver. 7: @vaact.
464 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
“set a seal,” in order to give the greater assurance of the secure guarding of the one imprisoned.! — tva pi) mAavioy Ett ra E6vn. As he had previously done,? as long as unbound, he could exercise his wrath on earth. The subj. aor., with a future meaning,‘ presupposes that during the one thousand years, and, therefore, after the act of judgment, xix. 21, there would still be nations who also, at the end of the one thousand years, would be actually led astray.5 This seeming difficulty would be avoided by the reading rAavg, which depends upon the view customary in the Church fathers, but abso- lutely in violation of the context, that the worldly period of one thousand years began with the birth or death of Christ, and, therefore, is the present.® — pera Tavta; VizZ., rd xidsa Erg. The definite numerical specification immedi- ately precedes, and to it corresponds also the temporal statement: puxpdy zpovov. —dei. Cf. 1.1, iv. 1.
Vv. 4-6. The one thousand years reign which begins with the first resurrection. The allusion to thé glory to be expected in the same, which is at the same time the pledge of participation in the blessedness of the eternity to be opened with the second resurrection, is made not without an express emphasis of the paracletic point which lies in this goal of Christian hope.’ — xai eidov Opévovc. The prototype of Dan. vii. 9, 22, and the xpiua, expressly mentioned in this passage, show that the @¢povor come into consider- ation not as thrones of kings,® but only as seats of judges. The interchange of the definite idea of a judicial session with that of further dominion — possibly also manifested in judging —coheres with the decided misunderstand- ings that the wemeAextouévor and oftivec ob npooexivnoav are to be regarded as the subjects of éxa@cay én’ atrove, that the BaciAcioa: uerd rov xptorod ascribed to these must be esteemed synonymous with the assumed sitting of the same on thrones, and thus belongs to a conception of the whole, vv. 4-6, that is in violation of the context. Thus, especially, Augustine and his successors.!° Who they are that sit upon thrones, and to whom judgment is given, is not said, and hence scarcely any thing except a negative determination is pos- sible. According to what follows, they are not the martyrs and the other faithful believers who rather, by the judgment, become partakers of the one thousand years reign.4! The ide@7 airoy forbids us to refer it to God himself and Christ.2 Ew. i. refers it to the apostles,!® but at the same time to martyrs and Christians in other respects distinguished; and Beng. to the Gyr, Dan. vii. 22. The most plausible explanation, if the idea is at all to be made more definite than is presented in the text, is to refer it to the twenty-four elders; }* for it is especially appropriate to ascribe the reward of victors to these representatives of the Church, who offer the prayers of the saints to God,” and repeatedly testify to their blessed hope.1* [See Note
1 Cf. Matt. xxvii. 66. 11 Against Augustine, Zlil., ete.
3 Cf. xiii. 14, xvi. 13. : 8 xif. 12. 12 Against Grot., who, however, comprises * Cf. Whuer, p. 472. the angels.
§ Cf. ver. 8 aq. * See on ver. 10. 13 Cf. Matt. xix. 28.
7 Ver.6. Cf, xiv. 13, xvi. 15. 14 De Wette, Ew. fi.; cf. Hengstenb., who, ® Kichh., Zull. besides the twelve aposties; understands the
® Heior., Ewald, De Wette, Hengetenb., twelve patriarchs. Ebrard, Bleek, Volkm. + See on ver. 10. 8 y. 8 16 v. 9, vil. 13 aqq., xi. 16 aqq.
CHAP. XX. 7-10. 465
LXXXVII., p. 473.] xal rag yuxyae —éa? rv xelpa abrav. They, to whom the xpiza refers, are represented in two classes: the martyrs, viz., not only those whose souls already cry for vengeance, vi. 9, but also those additional ones? who have been slain throughout the whole earth by the beast, and with whose blood the harlot was drunken; ? and all other believers who, notwith- standing the persecution and threatening death, have not rendered homage to the beast ® The last class of believers also (olrmweg ob mpocexiv, x.1.A.) is to be regarded, at the point of time fixed in ver. 4, as dead; ‘ partly because of the explicit &{joav;* partly because of the contrast of dz Aocmol rov vexpov, and the expression obx &{joav, applied to this death, from which a clear light falls upon the first Kncav; partly also because of the definite and in uo way alle- gorical designation % avdcracy 9 xpty. The meaning of the text which is expressed regularly in all these points is, therefore, manifestly this, that while “the rest of the dead” are not revived until the second resurrection (ver. 12 sqq.), in the first resurrection only the two classes of dead believers take part, viz., in order to reign with Christ during the one thousand years. It is just by the xpiva (ver. 4a) that this first especial reward of victors is promised them.* (See Note LXXXVIII., p. 473.] But the description of this glory, of this first part of the blessed mystery of God, which is fulfilled now for believers’? after the judgment already executed upon their enemies, John cannot give without repeating with especial emphasis the consolation (ver. 6) which was united previously already,* with the references to the future reward of fidelity: paxdproc xal Gywoc, «.7.A- The item of holiness here especially emphasized has a reference to the priestly dignity («. Eoovra: iepeic, x.7.A.) Of those who participate in the one thousand years reign;® then the priestly, as well as the royal, character of believers comes forth in complete glory.!° — pépoc év. xxi. 8. Cf. John xiii. 8 (pera). — 6 debrepoc Oavaroe, Cf. ver. 14, xxi. 8. They who—after they have suffered bodily death, viz., the first—are revived at the first resurrection, intended only for believers, are thereby withdrawn from the power of the second death; for them the judgment of the world impending at the end of the one thousand years (ver. 11 sqq.) brings only the eternally valid confirmation of the priestly and kingly glory which, during the former period, had formed for believers the beginning of the blessedness to be bestowed upon them eternally.
Vv. 7-10. After the completion of the one thousand years, Satan is let loose; then he leads the heathen nations, Gog and Magog, to an attack upon the saints. But fire from heaven consumes those nations, and Satan is cast eternally into the lake of fire. —Avéjoera. Here and in ver. 8 (tgeAeboera) the statement has the express form of prophecy, which also is repeated in ver. 105 (Gacavchjoovra); in ver. 9 and ver. 10a, however, the prophet speaks so as to report the revelation imparted to him concerning the events impending at the end.!!—ra é@vy. The difficulty that here the heathen
1 vi. 1. 5 Cf. ii. 8. © Cf. ti. 11.
2 xili. 7, 10, 15, xvi. 5 q., xvii. 6, xvill. 24. t Cf. x. 7. § Cf. xix. 9, xiv. 13. 8 Cf., especially, xifi. 15 sqq. ® Beng., etc. 10 Cf. 1. 6, v. 10.
¢ Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard; against Heng- tt Cf. xix. 9 sq., 17 aq.
stenb., etc.
466 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
nations once again enter into conflicts against the saints, after, xix. 21, ail nations and kings (rendering allegiance to the beast) have been annihilated, —to which also the other difficulty is added, that enemies to be found in the earthly life contend against believers who are partakers in the first resurrection,! — is not explained fully by emphasizing * the fact that these tavn, Gog and Magog, dwell at the extreme ends of the earth. Vitr., Ewald, De Wette, etc., are indeed right when in harmony with the prototype, Ezek. xxxviii. 39,8 and the idea of ver. 9 (dvé3noav ént rd xAdros ric yin), they regard the farthest ends of the earth as the abode of these nations;‘ but in the entire description of ch. xiii. it was presupposed that all unbelieving inhab- itants of the earth without exception, all kings and nations, had served the beast, and with him had perished. Itis also to be acknowledged that the introduction of fry in this passage is a similar inconsistency as was previ- ously shown in that the winds prepared at vii. 1 for destruction do not afterwards come into activity; but this inconsistency — which is in general a material, and that, too, an inexplicable difficulty, only when the entire description, vv. 1-10, is regarded in all its individual parts as a prophecy to be thus actually fulfilled, instead of distinguishing the ideal character of the Apocalyptic mode of representation, and the actual contents of the prophecy to be determnined from the analogy of the Holy Scriptures — is modified by the fact that the nations here presented, Gog and Magog, stand in no relation whatever to the beast, and dwell at such a distance that also, in this respect, they may appear with the dwellers on earth formerly found in the empire of the beast. For it is also in harmony with this, that these heathen nations are led to the conflict against the saints immediately by Satan himself.§— rav [dy nal rov Mayoy. Even in Jewish theology these two names occur, of which the first in Ezekiel, ]. c., designates the king of the land and people of Magog ® as names of nations belonging together.” \l- ready, in Ezek.. Magog appears, whose ethnographical determination,® of course, nevertheless, lies in the background of the description ® as the repre- sentative and leader of the heathen nations in general, who rage against the
1 Bee on ver. 10, 3 Vitr. ® Cf. Joseph., Ant. Jud., 1. 6: Maywyys 62
§ Cf. especially xxxvili. 15. ax’ doxdrov Poppa.
4 Against Hengstenbd.: ‘‘ The corners qom- prise whatever lies within the corners,” eo that the four corners of the earth designate, in fact, the same as ro wAdros ris yis.
5 Cf., on the other hand, xvi. 13 sq.
© Gen. x.2. Cf. Winer, Ricd., on this word.
1 “ At the end of the extremity of the days shall Gog and Magog, and their army, come up against Jerusalem; but by the hand of King Neseiah shall they fall, and seven years of days shall the children of Israel kindle their fire with their weapons of war” (7arg. of Jerusalem on Num. xi. 27). Avoda Sara I.: ““When Gog and Magog shall see war, the Measiah will eay to them, Why hast thou come hither? They will reply, Against the Lord and his Christ.” Cf. Wetst.
Tous ag’ avrov Maywyas dvonac@évras gaioe, ZavOas 68 ve’ avray (sc. ‘EAAjmer) wpoc- ayepevondvove [Magog colonized those named from him Maywyat, but called by them (sc. the Greeks) Scythians]. M. Uhiemann (ZeifscAr. Sar Wissenschaftl. Theol. herausg. von Hil- genfeld, 1862, p. 205 fl.) has In an exceedingly instructive way shown that Magog originally meant nothing but ‘‘dwelling-place, the land of Gog.” But the name of the people, Gog, means ‘‘mountain.” All etymological and geographical marke show that we are to recog- nize the actual people of Gog in the inhabit- ante of the Caucasus, as alao the Greek Kav- xdavoy ovpos in Herodotus really says nothing elee than “the Asiatic Kauk (Gog), or the Asiatic high mountain’’ (p. 283). ® Cf. xxxvili. 165.
467
people of God ruled by the Messiah, and are then destroyed by God. This prediction of Ezekiel was made use of already at xix. 17 sqq. ;1 but only in this passage is it expressly interwoven in the description of the final catas- trophe. Therefore the art. of the rdv xéAcuov refers to the final attack to be made on the part of those heathen nations, as a conflict which is confessedly to be expected.? [See Note LXXXIX., p. 473.] dvéBnoay elg rd wAacrog TI¢ yi. From the ends of the earth (ver. 8) those nations come up to the broad plain of the earth,® in order thus to reach the city in which the saints are en- camped. The dva@aivew, which is a common expression for military expe- ditions,* because the position of the attacked is naturally regarded as one that is to be found at an elevation,® is here the more appropriate, because the going up of the nations is properly regarded against Jerusalem.* — xa éxbxAevoay Tiy wapeusoAyy tay cyiuy xal Tivy wody Ti hyannutvav. The expression first of all distinguishes between the camp of the saints and the beloved city, i.e., Jerusalem, of course not in the sense wherein, e.g., Grot. understands by the camp, the seven churches, chs. i.-iii., and by the beloved city, Con- stantinople; but the saints are to be regarded as gathered in the camp, in order to defend the holy city against the attacks of the heathen.’ The camp possibly surrounds the city, so that enemies at the same time enclose both.* That the beloved city is the earthly Jerusalem, — not the new Jeru- salem*® coming from heaven only at xxi. 1 sqq., after the judgment of the world (ver. 15),—is acknowledged with substantial unanimity ; but it is an ordinary eluding of the context when Jerusalem is regarded as having the force only of a symbolical designation of the Church. — cal xaréBy nip, «7A, Already, even in Ezekiel (xxxix. 6), this means of*destruction alone is men- tioned,!! because it is represented in the most terrible manner as an immedi- ate instrument of the Divine judgment of wrath.!2— 6 xdaviv atrode. Here, where, with the final judgment upon the Devil, there is an allusion to his
CHAP. XX. 7-10.
' peculiar guilt, the pres.1® marks in a general way his seductive influence. —
Bacaviwbpoovra, x.rA, Eternal torture; cf. xiv. 11.
With respect to what is said vv. 1-10, we must distinguish between the unprejudiced establishment of the exegetical results, and the theological judgment of what is found based upon the analogy of Scripture; and only from the former can we arrive at the latter. The exegetical comprehension of vv. 1-10, as a whole and in its details, has its most essential condition in the recognition of the fact that what is here described lies immediately before the proper judgment of the world (ver. 11 sqq.) and after those judicial acts of the entire final catastrophe which are described in xix. 19-
2 Cf. xvi. 13 eqq.
2 Cf. xvi. 14: row wod. THs Hudpas dxdiy, x.T.A.
® Cf. Hab. i. 6.
4 1 Kings xxii. 4; Judg. i. 1.
5 Hengstenb.
6 Cf. Luke xvill. 31.
8 ecvadrd Cf. Luke xix. 48.
® Cf. Andr., who, indeed, if the text fe cor- rect, says expresely rv vday lepove., but in his other remarks presupposes the earthly Jeru- salem.
7 De Wette.
1® Augustine, Beda, Andr., Vitr., Hongstenb. Likewise Klief.: ‘The eseential meaning is ** that finally also the peripheral nations shail ina mass arise somewhere against the Lord and bie people, and that thereby, at some place, the Divine judgment of destruction shall oecur’’ (p. 280).
41 Cf., on the other hand, xxxviil. 22.
13 Cf. Gen. xix. %; Lev. x. 2; Num. xvi. 38; Luke ix. 54.
8 Cf. xiv. 18.
maintains a recapilulatio,| which can occur only if the interpretation here be also allegorical. . This false mode of exposition is expressly applied by Augustine,? and that, too, from polemical interests against the Chiliasts.® But the exegetical principle determining it is followed also by all those who‘ have found in vv. 1-10 predictions whose fulfilment could be recog- nized in certain historical events and states of the Church or the world, i.e., such as still occur within the present development of time. That mode of exposition must be comprehended as allegorizing, which necessarily is most arbitrary in points of the text that most clearly demand another mode of explanation. Augustine, e.g., in order to be able to recognize the one thousand years reign in the present state of the Church,® must find its begin- ning, viz., the binding of Satan, in the earthly life of Christ, and interpret the &Badev atrdv eic tiv GBvoov: “The innumerable multitude of the godless is sig- nified, whose hearts are very deep in malignity towards the Church of God.” The resurrection, ver. 5, he interprets in the sense of Col. iii. 1; and on ver. 4 remarks: “It must not be thought that he speaks concerning the final judg- ment, but the thrones of rulers and the rulers themselves, by whom the Church is now governed, are to be understood.” He accordingly explains ver. 8 sq., since Gog means “ roof,” and Magog “from a roof:” “ They are, therefore, nations in which we understand the Devil enclosed, as it were, from above, and he himself proceeding in some way from them, as they are the roof and he, from, the roof.” As to the declaration also: “ They went up on the breadth of the earth,” they are indicated not at all as having come, or about to come, to one place, as though the camp of the saints and the beloved city were in one place, although this is nothing but the Church of Christ spread abroad throughout the whole world. Similar misconceptions occur in Victorin.,® Beda,’ Luther,’ Hammond, Grot., etc.,® Wetst.,!° Hengstenb ,4 and others.
! Introduction, p. 13 aq.
2 De Cie. D., XX. c. 9,2: “ Afterwards by recapitulating what the Church is doing in those thousand years.” Cf. Beda: ‘‘ Recapitu- lating from the origin, he explains more fully as he said above: The beast,’ etc. Cf. xvii. 8.
3 Id., XX. c. 7, 1: * They call them ,iAc- acrdas from a Greek word, whom we, by a lit- eral rendering, may call millenarians. It is tedious, however, to give a refutation in de- tails, but we ought rather to show how this scripture Is to be received.”
* As especially also Hengstenb.
Sl. c., c 7, 2: “The thousand years, moreover, may be understood in two ways, either because in those last years, thie is done: i.e., in the sixth millennium of years, as on the sixth day, whose later spaces are now passing, and finally on the sabbath that shall follow, which has no evening, viz., during the repose of the sainte which has no end; or he certainly represented the one thousand years as all the years of this age.”
© Who, regarding the number 1000 as com-
posed of 10 which is to be interpreted as indi. cating the Decalogue, and 100 as intended for “the crown of virginity,” explains: “ He who has maintained with Integrity his purpose of virginity, and has faithfully fulfilled the com- mandments of the Decalogue, is a true priest of Christ, and, perfecting with integrity the mille- narian number, is believed to relgn with Christ, and for him the Devil Is bound aright.”
7? Who, e.g., refers the firat resurrection, to baptism.
8 Who reckons from the time of John to the Turks.
® Who put the binding of Satan in the time of Constantine, and by Gog and Magog under- stand, like Luther, the Tarks.
10 Who understands the thousand years as “the times of the Messiah,’’ whose duration also ie epecified as forty years, occurring in the forty years from the death of Domitian, and, by Gog and Magog, underatands Barecocheba.
11 Who finds the beginning of the thousand years’ reign in the coronation of Charlemagne in the year 800,
CHAP. XX. 7-10. 469
@
More correct than the interpretations of all these allegorists is that of the chiliasts, inasmuch as they do not maintain the recapitulation, so greatly cherished by the former, but rather leave the thousand-years’ reign in the place in which it occurs in the Apocalyptic description of the entire end. Nor have all who upon the basis of the Apoc. seriously believed in the future entrance of the thousand-years’ reign,’ indulged in such sensuous por- trayals of the Apocalyptic picture, as were peculiar to Cerinthus? and Papias,* and in general to heretics regarded as chiliasts. In accordance with the text, Justin and Irenaeus especially maintain the points, that the thousand-years’ reign follows the first resurrection, that of the righteous, and that it occurs upon earth, as they properly regard the beloved city as Jerusalem. The thousand years, both these Fathers take literally.‘ Their interpretation of the former reference is more correct than that of Auberlen, who upon the presumption that “the earth, as yet not glorified, could not be the place for the glorified Church,” 5 infers that believers com- ing forth with Christ from the invisibility of heaven shall be invested with glorified bodies (7 avaor. 7 xp., ver. 5), and then are to return with Christ to heaven, in order thence to rule over the earth *— in connection with which the contradictory ver. 9 is not at all taken into consideration. In regard to the second, viz., the chronological reference, the ancients have seen more correctly than Bengel, who even traced two periods of one thousand years each, of which the former was to begin in the year 1836, with the destruc- tion of the beast (xix. 20) and the binding of Satan, and the second was to begin with the loosing of the Devil, and to cease immediately before the end of the world (xx. 11).
The biblical-theological discussion of Rev. xx. 6, which John Gerhard? directa against the chiliasts,® he opens by recalling the fact that the expres- sions of the Apoc. must be explained the more certainly from the analogy of Holy Scripture, for the reason that it is a deutero-canonical book. More- over, from this analogy it is maintained,® first, that the kingdom of Christ on earth never, even not at the end of days, is to be one that is to prevail externally ; then that all the dead are to arise on one day; that there will be only one general resurrection of the dead at the coming of the Lord; therefore —so Gerhard evades by incorrectly interpreting what stands writ- ten, vv. 1-10—the beginning of the thousand-years’ reign is probably to be discerned in the time of Constantine, Gog and Magog are to be taken as Turks, etc. It is, however, rather to be decided, that neither the distinction made by the writer of the Apoc. between a first and a second resurrection, nor the insertion of a thousand-years’ reign in the space of time thus ob- tained, nor the binding and loosing of Satan, and the attack of the heathen,
1 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho,c.81. Bee 6 Cf. Ps. ze. 4; Gen. 8.17, v. & Adem is Introduction, p.740q. Cf. Iren., Ade. Haer., regarded as dying “ on the day” of his eating, V.e 36: “Joho, therefore, with delight fore- because he wae not fully a thoveand years old.
saw the first resurrection of the just, and their § p. 361. 5 p. 378 agq. inheritance in the kingdom of the earth.” Cf. 4 Loct Theol., T. XX., p. 134. Hd. Cotta, V. o. 34 0g. TUb., 1781.
3 Eused., Z. £., Ill. 2. ® Cf. aleo Aug. Conf., Art. XVIL.
® Iren., V. 33. ® L.e., p. 121.
470 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
coincide with the eschatological statements of the Holy Scriptures in such a way that this Apocalyptic description could be understood in dogmatical seriousness; but the text itself makes us acquainted with an ideal descrip- tion, whose particular features appear in harmonious connection only when the ideal character of the entire poetical picture is correctly estimated. What according to the real doctrinal prophecy of Scripture fall upon one day of the coming of the Lord, —viz., the resurrection of all the dead (among whom believers have indeed the priority,? but in no way in the sense as though a special period of time, as the thousand-years’ reign, intervened between the resurrection of believers and that of other men) and the judg- ment of the world, — appears in the Apocalyptic description distributed into a long series of special, but coherent, acts. Upon this depends the vivid beauty of the Apocalyptic drama; but this poetical beauty is not only destroyed, but also perverted to a chiliastic want of judgment, if the ideal representation be taken as a theological statement of doctrine. The ideal character of the entire description is unambiguously presented, especially in that the risen saints have their camp in the earthly Jerusalem, and are attacked by earthly heathen nations; and yet the presence of heathen ene- mies, after all the dwellers on earth have been slain (xix. 21), is an inoffen- sive inconsistency, only if the treatment be neither in the one case nor the other of actual things. Klief. also approximates this view by avoiding the extension of time, and finding in the symbolioal number only the idea indicated that the Lord’s victory is one that is absolute. — A vain attempt to put in a favorable light chiliasm, supposed to be based upon the analogy of the Holy Scriptures, has recently been made by L. Kraussold.* He denies that in vy. 4 and 5’a resurrection of dead believers is indicated, and says:* “The souls of the righteous live before God and with God, — that is their first resurrection.” But by thus ascribing to the righteous a twofold “resurrection,” he emphatically asserts that the souls of the righteous, after the first resurrection, are still without glorified bodies, and at the same time understands the thousand-years’ reign — of which these righteous souls are participants — as referring to a finally impending, actually historical time of the peaceful development of the kingdom of God on earth.‘
At all events, Luthardt is in better agreement with the text, when cor- rectly estimating vv. 4, 5, he finds the hope pledged of the future dominion - of Christ and his glorified Church, over the rest of mankind, but is content with not being able to determine that which lies beyond the present order of things. [See Note XC., p. 474.] If the ideal character of the entire description be acknowledged, the numerical designation of a thousand years can be stated only in a schematical sense,® and can give no occasion, as even in Hengstenb., for an Apocalyptic reckoning. For there is no reason for ascribing to John the play-work by which the Talmudists and the Church Fathers, combining such passages as Isa. lxiii. 4, Zech. xiv. 7, Gen. 1., with
11 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16; cf. Intro- 3 p. 72. duction, p. 85. @ p. 75. 2? Das Tausend-jdhrige Retch u. die Offend. 3 Cf. Ps. xc. 4,
Joh. Erl., 1863.
CHAP. XX. 11-18. 471
Ps. xc. 4, have inferred that the Messianic reign will last a thousand years,! or that the world will stand for six millenniums, and in the seventh millen- nium the eternal sabbath will follow.2 [See Note XCI., p. 474.]
Vv. 11-15. The judgment of the world. All the dead appear before the enthroned God as Judge. They who are not written in the book of life are cast — together with Death and Hades — into the lake of fire.
Kai cidov. Designation of a new vision.* — dpévov uéyav Aevadv. The great- ness, a8 well as the whiteness, corresponding to the glory and holiness of the Judge sitting thereon, distinguishes this throne from that beheld previously (ver. 4). — rdv xabjpevov én’ abrod. The one meant is not the Messiah,‘ but God speaking (xxi. 5, 6),5 and designated at iv. 3.° Ew. ii. understands God and Christ.’ — tovyev, cf. xvi. 20. Beng. explains the visible represen- tation excellently: “Not from one place to another, but so that it has no longer a place.” Cf. xxi. 1. démhAdav, 2 Pet. iii. 10.— A new part of the vision proceeding still further (xa? eidov, ver. 12), attests the view thereof, as all the dead® stand before the throne, and receive their sentence. — The lorisrag tvomwov tov Opévov (ver. 12), in the connection of the whole, has a pre- cisely similar relation to the description ver. 18 (x. édwxev, «.7.A.), a8 in‘ch. xv. ver. 1 has to ver. 6, since it is not reported more definitely (ver. 18) whence the dead who stand before the judgment-seat have come.® Bengel im- properly regards the vexpote (yer. 12) as those who live to see the day of the parousia,’° by understanding the vexpotc figuratively," and distinguishing this from the resurrection of those actually dead (ver. 18). — xai BiBAia hvolxzencay. Cf. Dan. vii. 10. In these books the épya are to be regarded as written, in accordance with which men are judged.!2 — «a? dAdo BiBriov. This book, “the book of life,” is only one; it contains the names of all those who? will be partakers of the eternal blessed life in the new Jerusalem.’* According to the ethical fundamental view, which is supported especially by the promises, ch. ii., iii., both kinds of books are to be received in their inner relation to one another, that always according to the works which stand indicated in the 8.3Aio«, the names of men are, or are not, found in the Brio» rig Gwine. [See Note XCII., p. 474.] As in ver. 12 the entire number of the dead was designated by a natural specification referring to their personality, so in ver. 13 this idea is presented by a specification of another sort; every place where there are any dead, gives them back. The more manifest this is as an exhaustive designation of all places of concealment of the dead, the more perverted appears the assertion of Hengstenberg and Ebrard,® that the 6dAacca means not the actual sea, but only “ the sea of nations;"}° but
1 Cf. De Wette. vexp. Tove peydAous nal rode purpovs, cf. x1. 18,
3 Barnab., Episti. c. 15. xii. 16.
8 Vv. 1, 4, xix. 11, xvil. 19. ® Zull., De Wette.
¢ Matt. xxvi. 31. Beng, Eichh., Ew. j., etc. 10 Cf. alao Hengstenb.
§ Cf. 1. 8. {1 Matt. vill. 22.
© Cf. also Dan. vil. 9. Zill., De Wette, 13 Ver. 125, 18. Cf. ii. 1, 5, 19, ill. 1, 8, 15. Hengstenb. 18 Ver. 15. Cf. iti. 5.
t «One of two in complete undividedness ” 16 xxi. 1 sqq. (?) 16 Cf. Augustine, etc.
® Concerning the exhaustive epecification r. 16 Hengstenb.
follow that John seriously advocated the view according to which those contained in the sea had not reached Hades.! John does not indeed refer to a wandering of souls in a watery grave, but simply represents those lying dead in the sea as coming forth from the same. Thus, in ver. 13, that is described which, according to the analogy of ver. 5, may be termed the second resurrection. Since ver. 5 is understood as applying to all believers, this is only the resurrection of those who are to be delivered (ver. 15) to the second death, i.e., to eternal torture in the lake of fire. But from this it does not follow that ver. 12, in its clearly designated entirety of all the (risen, vv. 5 and 13) dead, does not comprise those saints;? but in the general judgment of the world, that is expressly affirmed of those saints which was already guaranteed to them by the first resurrection and their thousand-years’ reign,® because their names were found written in the book of life. But that the statement (ver. 15) expressly describes the fate only of the unbelieving, is natural for the reason that in this passage the entire judgment of condemnation is concluded, in connection with which, then, the description of the eternal glory of believers, to which the entire Apocalypse is directed,® may be given the more fully for their consolation and encour- agement.— «al 4 @avaroc xal 6 ddne &8AnOnoav, x.r.A. Death and Hades, which (ver. 13)® are locally represented here,’ appear personified as demoniacal powers, whose eternal removal ° is a presupposition to the eternal life of the glorified ® [See Note XCIIL., p. 474.] obrog 6 Oavaroc 6 deirepog gor. “This death is the second” (death). Thus the correct reading is to be translated.?° The apposition # Aipzvy rei rupdc, construed according to sense, declares that the second death — which is followed by no resurrection — consists in the BAndiva: ele rt. Ainv, tr. wvp. (xxi. 8). The first death is | easily understood as the end of the earthly life.
Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
LXXXVI. Ver. 2. 6 S¢e¢ 5 dpyaiog, x.7.A,
Luthardt calls attention to the accumulation here of names of Satan as being for the purpose of showing how necessary it is that he should be bound, the various names expressing different aspects of his character. He interprets the one thousand years as ‘‘a long period of the world, a day of God, with whom a thousand years are as one day.’”? The binding is referred to his com- plete banishment from earth, so, that, while sin is still to exist in individuals, it is no longer to be a power forming a fellowship, and thus making a kingdom of sin and Satan.
1 Cf. Achilles, Tat., V. 813: Adyoves 82 rae 3 Cf. ver. 6 with ver. 14 aq.
dy Gdace arypypevas pdt cis gdov xaraBaivew ¢ Cf. xxi. 21.
GAws, GAA’ avrov wepi Td bdwp Exery Thy wAdyny 5 xxi. 1 sqq. 6 Cf. 1. 18.
{‘‘ They say that those swallowed up in the 7 Cf. vi. 8.
waters do not entirely descend to Hades, but ® Cf. Isa. xxv. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 26.
wander there about the water”]. Wetst., De ® Cf. xxi. 4.
Wette. 10 Cf. the Critical Notes. The & gives: Thie
2 Against Hengstenb., etc. is the second death.
MOBAAVYIL, VOI. & Aptea coou7y |
Gebhardt suggests, that, by atroic, either no defin so that it was simply intended to express the idea, ‘ or, as he thinks more probable, believers alive at the «
LXXXVII. Ver. 4. rac puyds rov xene:
Gebhardt: ‘‘ The seer had, in his eye, two classe: who have, for the gospel, surrendered their lives, —1{ special sense (xvil. 6); not only those whose souls (: but those also who come after (vi. 11; cf. xiii. 7, x. 24); the full number of those who, according to the until the completion of which, those already killed 9-11); then, all other believers who, notwithstanding death, remain faithful, and have died in the Lord (
‘word, all real Christians who have died either a vio
The second resurrection he regards as including not also the godly of the O. T. The emphasis here is sc as though this were sufficient to prove that the first ri is spiritual. But, in this sense, had the souls of How could they be said to live again, for that is the c if nothing more than a continuance of their spiri Alford: ‘‘ If in a passage where two resurrections are yuzxal Enoav at the first, and the rest of the vexpoi & specified period after that first,—if, in such a pass may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Chri literal rising from the grave, then there is an end of a and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony t resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, whic hardy enough to maintain; but, if the second is liter other hand, the difficulty must not be ignored, whic ‘““There will be faithless people during the millenn deceived (ver. 8). Are we then to picture saints wit the earth, which, at the same time, is tenanted by m natural body ?”’
LXXXIX. Ver. & rdv Poy xa?
Gebhardt: ‘‘ Christianity has a period before It, : unimpeded, powerful, and blissful extension and world; but this period must one day come to an end sin-ruined form, or rather state, cannot become the or manifestation of the Christian ideal world. Ev extensively kept in abeyance, wil] once more arouse the kingdom of God. After the course of a thoi principle of all ungodliness will be loosed from his p1 purpose of God, will again become active on earth; | there; evil yet exists, and must show its activity in | kingdom. Christianity has spread and triumphed ev but there are yet heathens who are not subject to it, by the Devil, seek to destroy it.’’
tee ¥V¥e SB AVE
Luthardt’s very words, in the passage here alluded to by Disterdieck, are important: ‘‘ Not a carnal dominion (cf. Augsburg Con/f., xvii.), but a spiritual heavenly dominion of peace, and state of blessedness on earth, whereof, since it does not belong to the present order of things, we neither have nor can frame any idea, but should be content in that we shall always be with Christ, and this his Church shall be glorified before the world.”’
A condensed summary of the modern historical relations of this doctrine is found in Cremer and Zockler’s Dogmatik (in Zéckler’s Handbuch, vol. fi. p. 762 sq.}: ‘‘ Neither Roman.nor Greek Catholicism acknowledges a thousand-years’ reign as still impending. In the grosser Judaizing sense in which the Anabap- tists (Denk, Hetzer, Miinzer, etc., recurring to the sensuous, voluptuous ideas of a Cerinthus, etc.) comprehended the chiliastic idea, it is rejected by the fundamental confession of the Reformation (see Augsburg Confession, art. xvil.; also the Helvetic Confession, ti. 11). The orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, — as well as, in modern times, Hengstenberg (who makes the spiritually inter- preted millennium coincide with the period 800-1806), Althaus, H. O. Kohler, Thomastius, Diedrich, Philippi, Kahnis, the ‘‘ Missourians,’ consider each and every form of chiliasm incompatible with Scripture and Church doctrine. To them, all such doctrines are to be condemned: the chiliasmua crasaus of the Anabaptists, as well as.the moderate and refined types of doctrine of the two last centuries, viz., the chiliasmus subtilissimus of a Spener (‘‘ the hope of better times’’), Vitringa, A. Hahn, Rothe, Lohe, Vilmar, v. Hofmann, Fiércke, Schoeberlein, Volek, Auberlen, Beck, Franck, Dorner, etc. [post-millennarians] ; and the chiliasmus subtilior of a Petersen, pee? Crusius, Oetinger [pre-mil- lennarians}.’’
XCII. Ver. 12. BiBdia— GAro BuiAiov.
As Hengstenberg notes, there is a contrast. No name can be both in the B¢8Aia and the dAdo sisiiov, When erased from the one, by the blood of the Lamb (1 John i. 9; Rev. xiii. 8), it is Inserted in the other. Luthardt: “‘ He whom God finds standing in life enters into eternal life.’? Thus the idea of the (wie is not restricted to future life, but comprehends that also which then Is both present and past.
XOIILL Ver. 14. xal 6 Gévaror xa? 6 ddyc, x.7.4,
Luthardt: ‘“‘ Death and the state of death that have hitherto prevailed have now an end, — not judged, but annihilated (1 Cor. xv. 26), — first for the Church, then for humanity; but for unbelieving humanity, to give place to eternal fire.’’ Gebhardt: ‘‘ Death is not simply destroyed; but as a diabolical power, the auxiliary or instrument of the evil one (cf. Heb. fi. 14, 15), it is abolished forever, made innocuous, condemned, and annihilated (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 26).’’
CHAPTER XXI.
Ver. 1. Instead of wapiAde (Elz.), read anjAday (A, B, &, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 2. The addition éy0 ’lwavvne to xa? eldov (Elz.) is here incorrect. — Ver. 3. The sing. Aadc (Beng., Tisch.) is sufficiently supported by B, 2, 4, 7, al., Verss. The plur. Aaot (A, ®, Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), which does not belong in the O. T. tone of description, may, indeed, have been occa- sioned by the preceding atrot. — Ver. 6. Téyovay, So A, Iren., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. To this also leads the erroneous text-recension yéyova éyO 13 A xal r, Q in B, 8.3 while the yéyove éyw elut, «.t.A. (Rec.), originate in xvi. 17. —~ Ver. 9. Read, with A, ®, Verss., Beng., Lach., Tisch., rv vipgny, r2v yuvaixa rod apviov, The various transpositions (Rec.: 7. viug. r. apy. r. yuv.) depend upon the pur- pose of combining the r. viug. with r. apy.; cf. xix. 7.— Ver. 16. Undoubtedly false is the effort at interpretation, rocovroy éorcy before dcov (Elz., rejected already by Beng.). — Ver. 28. The év before airy (Rec.) is, according to A, B, &,, al., to be deleted (Beng., d. N.).— Ver. 24. The Rec. xai rd E6vn trav owlopevun ev To gut airing neptxaryoovct is an interpretation. Beng. already has the correct text. — Ver. 27. Instead of xovoty (Elz.), read xowdv (A, B, ®, al., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). The neuter xowoiv (B, Elz.) has been written because of the immediately preceding xa» xow. Before the correct sow (A, %,, Beng., Lach., Tisch.), however, the article (7, 8, 18, al., Tisch. ) is probably not justified (A, *,, Beng., Lach.).
Now, finally, after all the enemies of the Lamb, and his believers, have been eternally removed, there appears (xxi. 1-xxii. 5) the final and supreme goal of all Apocalyptic prophecy, the eternal completion of the promised mystery of God, that wherein all the promises which the Lord had caused to be declared to his Church are fulfilled, and to which he had directed all the hopes of his people in the midst of the afflictions of the world, and towards which, accordingly, also the deepest longing of believers extends.® Augustine already ® remarks correctly: “When the judgment is finished, whereby he announced beforehand that the wicked are to be judged, i remains for him to speak also concerning the good.” The result of ver. 4, with complete clearness to him, is that the subject of treatment here is the eternal blecsedness of the godly.4— Nevertheless, individual expositors have ruined also the description of ch. xxi. by allegorizing.§
tx. 7.
3 Cf. xxii. 17, 20.
3 jcc, ce. 17.
‘le. ¢. 14: “ Things are sald with such clearness concerning the future world and immortality, and the eternity of the saints, that we ought to seek for nothing manifest in the
Holy Scriptures, if we suppose these to be obecure.”’
5 Cf., e.g., Grot., who again stops with the times after Constantine, when the first earth no longer existed, because the earth no longer drank the blood of the martyrs, etc. Even Vitr. understands ‘a state of the Church to be
Jerusalem when it descends from heaven. At this a mighty voice from heaven proclaims that this is the place where God will dwell with glorified men (vv. 1-4). The enthroned God himself testifies to this, by declaring at the same time the eternal ruin awarded to the godless; and, meanwhile, an angel commissions John to write down the present words of Divine revelation (vv. 5-8).
Ovpavdy xawdv nal yiv xan, «7.2. Cf. Isa. lxv. 17, xvi. 22. The theo- logical question as to whether the old world will pass away in such a man- ner, that from it, as a seed, the new will arise, or whether an absolutely new creation, after the entire annihilation of the old world, be referred to, is indeed to be decided least of all from the Apocalyptic description; yet this description! is not opposed to the former view, which, according to Scripture,? is more probable than the latter. — xa? 7 @dAaoca otx Lorw ir. Tf
_ the question be raised, why in the new world there will be no sea, such
suswers result —even though no allusion to the sea of nations be made here *— as that by Andreas, that the cessation of earthly separations ren- ders also navigation, together with the sea, unnecessary; by Beda, that by the conflagration of the world the sea may be dried up; by De Wette and Luthardt, that the new world will be formed by fire, as the old world issued from the water; by Ewald: “This opinion seems to have been derived peculiarly from the horror of the deep sea which the Israelites, Egyptians, and ancient Indians had derived from love of the land, confined within which they lived;” by Zull., that also in paradise there would be no sea, in connection with which Ew. ii. and Volkm. besides remark that the sea and the abyss of hell belong together, and that, therefore, in the new world, the one can no more have a place than the other. But every combination of sea and hell is incorrect,’ and according to xx. 10, 15, the writer of the Apoca- lypse actually refers to an abyss of hell eternally existing with the new heaven and the new earth. —The form of these answers of iteelf shows that the question is only put improperly. The text has the words referring to the sea in the place where the passing away of the entire old world is recalled; here that is expressly said which, xx. 11, was not expressly ren- dered prominent, that the sea also is no more, just as also the old earth and the old heaven. The tenor of the text, accordingly, does not forbid us thinking also of a new sea with the new earth. [See Note XCIV., p. 485.] ‘lepovoaAju xangv. Also in Gal. iv. 26, there is a statement concerning the évw 'lepove., but so that this idea, proceeding from the contrast to the vir ‘Iepove., only gives concretely the ideal view of the heavenly, spiritual, and free character of the Church of believers. But in John the matter is different in a twofold respect ; since, in the first place, he regards the new Jerusalem
presented on earth at the last times,” which rie xricess, GAA° avaxaimopéy emi Td BéATion he expecta even before the judgment of the _[‘‘ And here he does not reveal a non-existenco
world. of the creation, but a renewal to what ie bet- 1 Cf. also 2 Pet. ifi. 10 aqq. ter]. 31 Cor. xv. 42 sqq.; Rom. vill. 21; Matt. * Augustine, Hengstenb.
xix. 28. 5 Cf. xii. 1 with xiff. 11, xi. 7 with ix. 2.
8 Cf. Andr.: xqvravOa ove avumapgiay SyAot * Cf. also Beda.
bestictades? | WMWavwse Vesw —e ee ee ee ee ee ae Oe ee ee ee ee eS ee ee a
new, and then regards the new Jerusalem as descending from heaven to earth.! — xara. é r. olp. amd r.6. The several prepositions, as iii. 12, mark, first of all, what is purely local, then (é7a) the idea resulting to the personal r. 6., that the holy city descends “from God,” as God has prepared it and sent it down. The variation is different, e. g.,in John xi. 1. In the expres- sion xxi. 10, the local idea appears to prevail even in the éx r. 6. —#rotpaopév nv. “ Prepared ? as a bride adorned for her husband.” Here already (cf. ver. 9) the idea, according to which the new Jerusalem is regarded as the dwelling- place (cf. ver. 8) of the Lamb’s bride, i.e., of the Church of glorified believers,’ passes over to that according to whica the new Jerusalem itself — together with those dwelling therein —is regarded as the bride. While John sees the new Jerusalem descending from heaven, he hears a strong voice from heaven,‘ which immediately interprets this introductory vision (cf. ver. 9 sqq.) to the effect that this city descending from heaven is “the tabernacle of God with men,” in which God himself shall dwell with men, and refresh them after all the sorrow they have experienced on earth, as this is henceforth no longer possible. From the very beginning, therefore, the blessed mystery of the new Jerusalem is so interpreted that here the fulfil- ment is manifest (x. 7) of all that God had previously promised to his people through the prophets,® as it is, in truth, the complete realization of the communion between God and his people existing already in time (cf. ver. 7). — 6 O@dvaroc, x.r.A. Cf. xx. 14. — révOoc. As in xviii. 8, the special particular of lamentation for the dead is here presented, in connection with 6 Oavaroc. — xpavy7. The vehement cry, possibly, at the experience of such acts of violence as are indicated at xiii. 10, 17, ii. 10.7— woévoe. As in the earthly life was endured with every form of @Anpu. — dre npura arjAdav. The reason conditioning all (cf. vv. 1, 5). — What the heavenly voice interpret- ing the vision of John has announced, is now confirmed by the One himself who sits upon the throne,® and that, too, in a double declaration (x. eizev, vy. 5, 8), since he proclaims as his work (’Idot, xa:va rou ravra, ver. 5), what John beheld in ver. 1,° and had understood in ver. 4 (57 r. xpora ampAgav) from the heavenly voice to be the presupposition of the blessedness of believers indicated in vv. 8, 4, but then — after the angel, meanwhile,!° had expressly commanded John (x. Aéye, ver. 5b) to write down these trustworthy words of God himself, which contain the highest pledge of the future hope 12 — the promise mentioned already in ver. 3 sq. is expressed in the most definite manner (‘Eyd rd dapdvts «.7.A., ver. 6 sqq.) The latter, however, occurs in such a way that, in this declaration of God himself, there is found,
1 Of. iif. 12. Cf. Sohar, Gen., p. 60: ‘God 4 Cf. xiv. 18. will renew his world, and build up Jerusalem, 5 Cf, vii. 14-17. 20 as to make It descend into his midst, that it 6 Cf. Ezek. xxxvil. 27; Isa. xxv. 8, Ixv. 19. may never be destroyed.” See Wetst. on Gal., T Bleek, Ew. Cf. Exod. li.7,9; Easth. iv. 2. ].c.; Schdttgen, Diss. de Hieroa. coelest.; Hor. 8 Cf. xx. 11, Hebr., 1. 1205 sqq. ® Cf, xx. 11.
2 Cf. xix. 7. 10 yfx.9, xxii. 6. Beng., ZUll., Hengatenb.
® xix. 7 sq. 11 Cf. also xiv. 18.
478 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
besides the promise to the victor,! also the corresponding threatening of the unbelieving (ver. 8); and that this announcement, looking towards both sides, is introduced with an allusion to the majesty of the eternal God, because just upon this does the eternal end of all temporal development depend.? The yéyovay, however,® which opens this entire declaration, puts it in immediate connection with the vision; for that which John had beheld, viz., the perishing of the old and the existence of the new world, is here proclaimed as having happened. — deAsic. By this such Christians are meant as, in contrast with 6 xe», shun the sorrowful struggle with the world by denying the truth of the faith.* — dmioro, x.rA. The unbelieving are not Christians who have fallen from faith,§ but the dwellers on earth hostilely disposed to the Christian faith,® to whom also’ all the succeeding designa- tions pertain. — é8deAvypévour, who have in themselves the BdrAvyuara, xvii. 4 aq. —r. pevdéor. Cf. ver. 27, xxii. 15. — 1d pépoc airév, x.r.A. With the dat., possibly 4 Aiuvy, «.7.2., is to be expected; from this construction, however, there is a departure by the interposition * of the formula 12 pépog (sc. Eoraz), which then brings with it the genitive abriv.®
Ver. 9-xxii. 5. One of the seven vial-angels, another of whom had shown John the judgment of the great harlot,!° now carries the seer to a high mountain, in order to afford him a close view of the new Jerusalem. Then there follows the special’ description which portrays in brightest colors the final goal of Christian hope, and thus puts the glorious end of what is to happen ! at the close of the peculiarly revealed visions.
Vv. 9,10. Aeipo, x.r.A. The uniformity of the description makes promi- nent the contrast with the judgment presented to view (xvii. 1).12— rp vipenv, tiv yuvalxa rou dpviov. It belongs to the contrast with the woman representing the worldly city, that here the holy city, wherein the holy Church of God dwells, appears as the bride, the wife belonging to the Lamb.!8 — amiveyxéy pe. Cf. xvii. 3; Ezek. xl. 2. — péya nal tynddv. “ Great” in circumference must the mountain be in proportion to its height; but the height assures the seer of the complete view of the city spread out before him, which at all events does not lie upon the mountain.!4— xaraBaivoveay, «.7.A. Hengstenb.!® finds that described here for the first time in proper terms which previously designated, by way of introduction, ver. 2; but ver. 10 cannot have the same relation to ver. 2 as, e.g., ch. xv. ver. 5 has to ver. 1, for, in this connection, already at ver. 2 reference was made to the descending Jerusalem. The scene is thus to be regarded in the way that the descending of the city (ver. 2), which gives occasion for the speeches of vv. 8-8, has already begun, but ver. 10 proceeds further, so that, while the city is sinking down from heaven to earth, and here finds its place,
1 The expression in itself marks already the 8 Cf. xx. 6.
parenetic intention. ® Matt. xxiv. 51. De Wette. 3 Cf. 1. 8. 10 xvii. 1. ® Cf. xvi. 17. 1 Cf. iv. 1. ¢ Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. 13 Cf. Ewald. 5 Ewald; cf. also Beng. 18 Cf. ver. 2 and rix. /. © Cf. xili. 8, xvi. 2, 21, %6 Against Hengstenb. and Luthardt.
t Cf. ix. 21, 45 On ver. 1.
city now found upon earth.
Ver. 11 begins the description itself! which first of all states its gleam- ing appearance. — Eyovoav riv ddgav rov deou. What is most important, most peculiar, and what at the same time captivates the eye of the seer above all things, is the brilliancy which irradiates the whole city: “it has” in itself, it comprehends as dwelling and abiding within it,? the present glory of God himself.* The concrete character of this presentation is effaced by the read- ing of the &: amd 7. 0.—+r. gworhp, x.7.4, The description now proceeds further independently of the édegev; only the first item of the description (oveey r. 66g. r. 6.) had been given in the formal connection of the original construc- tion.4 From ver. 28,5 it follows, that 4 gworip atric ® is not distinct from the é0fa rod Geov;7 the source of light for the city is the déga of God himself present therein.® — duows Aidy, «.7.2. The appearance of God was illustrated similarly. — «puoraAdigorr. Cf. Psellus in Wetst.: 4% iaom gboe: xpvoraAdoedis.®
Vv. 12-21. The wall and the gates of the city. The harmonious pro- portions are given,” according to the holy number twelve of the O. T. people of God. — dyyédouc diedexa. Correctly, Bengel: “They keep watch, and serve as an ornament. More definite references dare not be sought; as soon as we reflect that the new Jerusalem is no longer threatened by enemies, and therefore needs no watchmen of ite gates, explanations result like that of Hengstenb., viz., that these angels symbolize the Divine protection against ‘ enemies “which could be conceived of only by an imagination filled with terrors, proceeding from the Church militant.” — dvdyara éncyeypappéva, x.7A, It does not follow that John wanted this idea, based upon Ezek. xlviii. 31 8qq., to be understood as it occurs in Jewish theology," viz., that members of one tribe could make use of only one door. — As the walls on all four sides have each three gates (ver. 13), it follows (ver. 14) that there are twelve sections of the wall, each of which is supported by a @euétuoc; four of these are to be regarded as massive corner-stones, since these support the corner- pieces which extend from the third gate of the one side to the first gate of the following side. The twelve corner-stones lie open to view, at least so far that their splendor can be perceived,!* and the inscriptions found thereon, viz., the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, can be read. In explana- tion of the latter idea, Calov., etc., have properly appealed to Eph. ii. 20. [See Note XCV., p. 485.]
Vv. 15-17. The angel who shows John the city }* gives him a clear view of its dimensions by ™ actually measuring them before the eyes of the seer.15 — pétpov xadapuov xpvoodv, Cf. xi. 1, where, however, the «éAayor is not expressly designated as pérpov.6 The measuring-reed is “golden” because of the
1 Cf. Ezek. x}. eqq. 3 Cf. ver. 3. 9 (* The jasper, in nature cryetalline.’’} 3 Ver. 23, xv. 8. 10 Cf. Ezek. xviii. 30 aqq. ¢ Cf. Winer, p. 499. 11 Cf. De Wette. 6 Cf. also Ezek. xllil. 2. iz Cf. ver. 19 sq. 6 Cf. Gen. i. 14. 33 Cf. ver. 9. ? Against ZUll., according to whom the 16 Cf. Ezek. xl. 5 eqq. Messiah je irradiated in the ¢ucrio. Bengel, Ewald, De Wette.
8 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 16 Ezek. xiii. 16 9qq-
(ver. 18). These are presented in the series designated in ver. 15; viz., the city (ver. 16), the walls (vv. 17-20), the gates (ver. 21). That the city lies : (xeirat, cf. iv. 2) four-cornered, and, indeed, with right angles and equal length and breadth, and, therefore, that its outline forms a perfect square,? John recognizes already (ver. 16a) even before the angel begins to measure. But the angel also establishes the length of the particular sides: xai éuérpyoev Thy nid, x.7.A, (ver. 166). The words by themselves might signify that the entire circuit of the city § amounted to twelve thousand stadia (imi cradiouc),4 so that each of the four equal sides would measure three thousand stadia; but as the equality of the length and the breadth has been designated from the very beginning, it is more probable that the twelve thousand stadia which were actually measured are meant as the mass lying at the founda- tion of the entire building, which, according to ver. 16c, applies also to the height of the city; for that by the closing words (xai rd pijxoc—ioa éoriv), dimensions actually identical are given for the length, breadth, and height of the city, is to be denied neither on account of ver. 17, nor on account of xxii. 2,5 for the reason that the idea of the city thus resulting is a mon- strosity.° The city appears, therefore, as an enormous cube, which measures in length, breadth, and height, each, twelve thousand stadia.? [See Note XCVI., p. 000.] The height “of the city” (ver. 16c) is not the height of the walls (ver. 17), as Bengel also admits, who affirms, on this account, that the one hundred and forty-four cubits (ver. 17) are equal to the twelve hun- dred stadia (ver. 16); but the idea of the height of the city as a whole, i.e., of the mass of houses contained in it, is given, ver. 16c.6— In ver. 17 there follows the measuring of the walls, viz., of their height, since the length of the walls is identical with the length and breadth of the city ® (ver. 16). The specification of one hundred and forty-four cubits !° is to be understood ac- cording to the common “measure of @ man” (érpov dv6paruv),!! “ which is the measure of the angel.” The words 5 fore dyyéAov cannot say that, in the present case, the.angel has made use of the ordinary human measure,!* but the measurements of the angel and of man are made equal,!® without ven- turing, against the expression pérpov dvépdinov, to declare 4 that the measure of glorified men is here regarded.44—In comparison with the height of the city (ver. 16), the wall appears very low, even though this is extraordinarily
1 Hengstenb.
2 Cf. Ezek. xlvill. 16.
8 Vitr., Eichh., Ew. 1., Volkm.
¢ Cf. Winer, p. 381.
5 Where the streets are spoken of.
© Against De Wette, who explains the ica in reference to the height, viz., of the walls, according to his misconception of ver. 16c, as ‘‘uniform,’’ because the walls are every where 144, f.e., 12 x 12 cubits high.
1 {.e., 300 German miles {a German mile being equal to 4.611 English and American stat- ute miles, the measure would be, according to our computation, nearly 1,400 miles}. Andr.,
Beng., ZUll., Hengstenb., Rinck; also Ew. ii., who at the samc time alludes to the fact that this uniformity was found In the ancient Mo- saic sanctuary only in the holy of holies. Cf. also Luthardt.
8 Hengstenb.
® If the thickness of the walle were meant (Luther, gloss), it would necessarily be ex-
pressed. 10 Not 144,000, Ew. fi., p. 349. 11 Cf. xill. 18. 12 De Wette. , 33 Hengstenb. % Ebrard.
15 Matt. xxii. 80.
walls are to form only a bulwark put about the city like a temple,? and, besides, that the light proceeding from the city is not to be obstructed by a high wall;® but it may be indicated that for keeping off every thing rela- tively unclean (cf. ver. 27) the relatively low walls are sufficient, because, indeed, a violent attack is perfectly inconceivable.
The splendor of the wall of the city itself (ver. 18), of the twelve foun- dation stones (ver. 19), and of the twelve gates (ver. 21), is described with the greatest glory whereof human fantasy is capable. — 4 évdéunze 7. recy. abt. In Josephus,‘ a stone mole built in the sea, which is intended to break the force of the waves, is thus named.’ Here the proper wall is designated, so far as it stands upon the foundation stones;* but the technical expression compounded with év” has its justification here, because the higher masonry is rooted, as it were, in the ground. — Beside the wall, in ver. 18d, the city as a whole, i.e., the mass of houses,* whose height was given, ver. 16c, is mentioned, because this enormous mass, projecting above the walls, must now first be described before the individual parts (vv. 19-21) can come more accurately into consideration. The city consists of “pure. gold, like unto clear glass.” Already Andreas has correctly remarked that the addi- tion, dyotov baAy xabap.,® represents the gold as “transparent,” which had been already sufficiently designated by xa@apév as free from every mixture, so that in this respect it did not require any special comparison with the purity of glass,!° although Andreas makes a mistake in referring this to the davytc¢ xal Aaunpdy of the inhabitants of the city." But it is incon- ceivable that John, in order to illustrate the inexpressible glory of the city descending from heaven, transgresses the natural limits of the earthly, and therefore here, e.g., represents a transparent gold as the material whereof the houses of the new Jerusalem consist, as it is unjustifiable to pervert the beautiful pictures which spring from the sanctified fantasy of the seer into theological propositions, and, accordingly, to expect that gold now opaque shall actually, in the world to come, receive “the nature of a precious stone, transparency.’’ !2— The description, ver. 19, turns to par- ticular details, and that, too, to the foundations of the walls. With all precious stones are they “adorned,” 28 but not in such a way as possibly only to be set with precious stones, but !4 every individual #euéAioc consists of an enormous precious stone. —As the twelve @euéAux have nothing to do with the number of the Israelitish tribes,!® so that artificial expedient whereby the stones mentioned in ver. 19 sq. are brought into an assumed relation
1 Cf. ver. 12. ® Cf. also ver. 21.
2 Cf. Ezek. xl. 5. 10 Against Beng., Hengstenb. 8 Zull. 31 Cf. aleo Vitr., eto.
4 Ant., xv. 9. 12 Ebrard.
5» 8 dvééunou, Sony dveBdAero ata THIS 1% wayri. Cf. xvill. 12. Oadacons, x.7.A. [The building, as much as 14 Cf. Isa. liv. 11 sq.
he cast into the sea”’}. 18 Andr., Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., 6 Wetst., De Wette, Hengstenb., Bleek. Ebrard. T Instead of this, another, possibly ¢m.d6- 16 Cf. ver. 14.
yors, ie not afforded. 17 Cf. especially Ztill., Hxcure. I1., p. 456
® Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. il. 6qq.; also Ew. i-, Luthardt, Volkm.
482 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
to those which the high priest wore in his breastplate, is to be discarded as decidedly as the vain attempt to assign individual jewels to the individual apostles... De Wette and Hengstenb. also, with propriety, deny that an intentional order is to be sought in the precious stones here mentioned, which, according to Ebrard, will not become clear until in eternity. — laone. Like the entire évdounote of the walls. Cf. iv. 3. — cimgepoc, 18D, Exod. xxiv. 10, xxviii. 18. The descriptions of the ancients,? especially of Pliny,® apply not so much to our azure, transparent sapphire, as rather to our dark-blue opaque lazuli, lapis lazuli.t— zadxndiv. Possibly corre- sponding to the 130, Exod. xxviii. 19, where, however, the LX X., with whom the name xadxndéy does not occur, have ayaryc. Even Pliny is not acquainted with the name chalcedony. On the agate occurring in various forms and compositions, cf. Pliny, H. N., xxxvii. 54.— opuapaydoc. Cf. iv. 3. In the | LXX. ,® onép. stands for the Hebr. NPI3. Cf. Plin., ].c., c. xvi.: “ The third rank ig ascribed to emeralds for reason. The appearance of no color is more pleasing, since there is nothing whatever greener than they.” * — capdévg&. DY, Exod. xxxix. 11; Ezek. xxviii. 13. Plin., 1. c., c. 28: “Formerly by sardonyx, as appears from the name, was understood the brilliancy in the sard, ie, that in the flesh beneath man’s finger-nail, and translucent on both sides.” — cdpdiov. Cf. iv. 3. —xpvodaoc. Exod. xxviii. 20, LXX., for #10. The chrys. of the ancients, which Plin., 1]. c., c. 42, describes as golden-yellow,’ is probably identical with our topaz. — AypuAdoc. LXX., Exod. xxviii. 20; Ezek. xxviii. 13 (Gypia%ov) for 090, which Gen. ii. 12 renders by 6 Aidoc 6 xpdowoc. The stone is in color yAavaiwwy,® or, as Pliny, 1. c., c. 20, says, most appropriately: “They imitate the greenness of the pure sea.” — roxaZov. Exod. xxviii. 17; Ezek. xxviii. 18; Job xxviii. 19, LXX., for 1303. Our topaz is yellow and transparent, so as to corre- spond with the description of Strabo ;*® while the declarations of Pliny, 1. c., c. 32, refer to our chrysolite. — ypvodmpacoc, This does not occur in the LXX. Pliny, 1. ¢., c. 20, presents the chrysoprasus with the chrysoberyl, but ascribes to it a paler golden color than to the latter. — tdxGoc. In the LXX. the Cod. Alex. has this name, where Cod. Vat. gives Ayvpuv !° for DYY. Pliny, 1. c., c. 41, compares it with the amethyst, and remarks: “ This is the difference, viz., that the violet shining in the amethyst is diluted in the jacinth.” — duésvorop. Exod. xxviii. 19, LXX., for M9. Pliny, 1. c., c. 40, reckons the amethyst as a purple gem; he says especially of the Indian amethysts, the most distinguished: “They have the absolute color purpurae felicis;” but, even to the inferior kinds, he ascribes a similar color and transparency.!!— The twelve gates consist each (dva ec éxacroc)? of one
1 Andr., Beng., etc. © See also Wetst.
3 Cf. Wetat. 1 “Shining with golden brilliancy.”
3H. N., xxxvil. 3: ‘‘ For in sapphires the ® Bluish-green, Epiphan. in Wetst. gold shines with azure points. Of sapphires, © Badavins, xpucoedés awoddurey déyyos white with purple, yet among the Medes the _[“‘ diaphanous, emitting a radiance like gold '’}. best are nowhere transparent.” © Exod. xxviii. 19; Ezek. xxviii. 13.
4 Cf., in general, Winer, Ricd., li. 850 sqq. ui «* A violet color shines through all.”
§ Exod. xxviii. 17; Ezek. xxviii. 13. 13 Cf. Winer, p. 24.
ape Mie\~, MEBs gee foe a
cubits long and just as broad, and will hollow them to the depth of twenty cubits and the breadth of ten, and place them in the gates of Jerusalem,” etc.! — The streets of the city —% xAareia 1. rd, designates in general all the streets of the city,? not the market-place,® also not the chief street leading into the city,* because, in the entire description of the city, nothing is said of what lies outside the walls — consist, like the houses which rise from the streets (ver. 18), of pure gold, which is as transparent “as transparent glass.”
Ver. 22 sq. The proper glory of the city is further described. It has no
temple, because there is no need of one; for its temple is God himself and the Lamb. Nor does God, together with the Lamb, have a special dwelling- place in the city, but it is filled with the déga of God, everywhere present in it,6 and the city itself is indeed the bride of the Lamb ® who is immediately present to all the inhabitants of the city.’ — They, therefore, need not the light of sun and moon; for ® the éga of God and the Lamb itself fill them with light. Here where, indeed, the description implies that the déga rod 6eos corresponds to the sun, and that of the Lamb to the moon,?® it does not follow that the same distinction is made also in ver. 11,1) because there it is only a gworfzp that is mentioned, viz., the déga r. @. appears as gworyp, because it gwriges (ver. 28).
Vv. 24-27. The men who enter into the city. —The description is based throughout upon O. T. prophecies,!® so that it definitely marks how the mystery of God, which He had long since promised through the prophets, finds then its fulfilment.48% Hereby the future expression, now employed by John, is explained, while the aor., written besides in ver. 23), reports what has been beheld.** In the tone and language of the ancient prophets, John describes the people who are to find entrance into the future city. In general, as has been said, ver. 27, in a decisive way, they are only such as are written in the book of life; 1® but in vv. 24-26, the Gentiles are expressly designated as those who, according to the ancient prophecies, are to find
_ admission into the city. Thus by this statement, derived from the ancient.
prophetical declarations, the ideas of those expositors are not justified who conceive of the “ heathen” and “kings,” as dwelling outside of the city,!® or who even attempt to determine what had been the moral condition, during their earthly life, of the heathen admitted now into the new Jerusalem." The essentially parallel description, vii. 9 sqq., leads to the fact that believers from the heathen are to be regarded as entitled to an abode in
2 Bee Wetat. 13 Cf. x. 7.
3 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 14 Cf. xxii. 3 eqq. with ver. 1 aq.; also xviil. ® Beng. « ZU. 9, 15, with xviii. 17.
§ Cf. vv. 8, 11. 18 Cf. xx. 15.
€ Ver.9. Cf. xix. 9. i¢ Ewald, De Wette, Bleek, eto.
7 Cf. xxfi. 3 aq., til. 20. 37 Storr., Dies. Il. in Apoc. quaedam loca, 8 Cf. ver. 11. p. 356: ** Provided, according to the measure ® Cf. Isa. Ix. 19 sq. of their ability and knowledge, they were de- 10 Grot., Ewald, De Wette. voted to godliness, truth, and right.” See M Zill. Comment. theolog. edtt. a Velthue., Kuin. ef
13 Tea. Ix. 3, 11; Pa. Ixxii. 10. Rup., vol. vy. Likewise Ebrard.
ditioned by the O. T. prototypes, upon which John depends, although in its perspective, that which occurs in the earthly period of the Messianic time—as the conversion of the heathen, which is represented by the heathen coming to the earthly Jerusalem, and bringing presents — does not appear definitely separated’ from that which, to N. T. prophecy, having the first appearance of the Lord back of it, lies only on the other side of the second coming of the Lord. Altogether inapplicable is the remark made in critical interests! that the writer of the Apocalypse announces his anti- Pauline-Judaizing view, by making the distinction between heathen and Jews continue, even at the completion of the kingdom of God, in oppo- sition to Gal. iii. 28,1 Cor. xv. 28. It is, indeed, directly stated how the natural distinction is no longer applicable, since the heathen, just as the Jews, receive full citizenship in the new Jerusalem, and, in like manner, participate in the blessed glory of the holy city. Cf. xxii.2. Emphasis on works also in the Apoc.? is not intensified to a bold opposition to Paul.® Cf. Rom. ii. 9 sqq.; 2 Cor. v. 10. — da rod gurds abric. With correct mean- ing, Andr. explains év ro guri; but the expression gives rather the pictorial view as to how the heathen pursue their way through the light that radiates from the city shining in the dé&c of God (cf. ver. 23).4— rv dégav abrav, Viz, tiv Backeov.© Not until ver. 26 is any thing said of the défa x. riz, rav dOvev.® — xai of muAdves, x.7.A, The constant standing-open of the gates is admissible, for the reason that there-is no night, and therefore the bringing-in of glori- ous gifts (ver. 26) need not be interrupted.”? To olcove:,® an impersonal sub- ject is to be supplied,® and not of BaoiAeic.!° — wav xowdv. Cf. Acts x. 14. — notovv BdeAvyya Kai peidoc. Cf. xvii. 48q., xxi. 8, xxii. 15. The more defi- nitely the sins of the heathen are mentioned as the reason for their exclusion from the holy city, the more significant it is to reckon the heathen nations and kings of the earth designated, ver. 24 sqq., among those who are written in the book of life. For they also enter into the city, bringing gifts, and that, too, as citizens who are to remain therein. Thus the innate universal- ism of the genuine ancient-prophetic Apocalyptics which lies at the founda- tion also of passages like v. 9, vii. 9, is expressed the more pregnantly, because the heathen, received into the new Jerusalem, are designated in the same words (ra fv, of Bactleig tie yao) as were employed by ch. xiii. in the expression standing for the heathen world worshipping the beast.
? Hilgenfeld, Introduction, p. 449. © Of. Isa. ixvi. 12.
2 xx. 12, ete. 7 Cf. Iea. Ix. 11.
® Hilgenfeld uf supra. ® Cf. xii. 6, x. 11.
« Hengstenb. Cf., on the other hand, De ® Luther, Bengel, De Wette, penesenb: “ Wette: “By means of its ight.” Ew. il., ete.
6 De Wette, Bleek. 10 Ew. i., ZI.
NOTES. 485
NoTres BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XCIV. Ver.1. 9% OéAacca ob« iotw Ett,
Carpenter: ‘‘ The sea has played an important part in the symbolism of the book. Out of the sea, rose the wild beast (xiii. 1); the purple-clad Babylon sat enthroned upon many waters (xvii. 1); the restless, tumultuous ocean, now dis- cordant with its clamorous waves, now flooding the earth in confederate force, —the troubled sea of evil, which cannot rest, and which casts up but mire and dirt (Isa. lvii. 21), is nevermore to be found on the face of that earth, or near that city, whose peace is as a river, and whose righteousness as the waves of the sea (Isa. xlvili. 18), and whose inhabitants are delivered from ‘the waves of this troublesome world.’’? Gebhardt: ‘‘ Most probably, by leaving out the sea, he simply wishes to express the new in the fuller sense of the word, the ideal or the perfection of the new world; inasmuch as, on account of its dangers, and the many deaths in it (cf. xx. 13), but chiefly because of its being repugnant to all the ancients, he regarded the sea an unpleasant feature, and a prominent imperfection of the present state.’’ Diisterdieck’s idea of a new sea with the new earth has been poetically expressed by Bonar: —
*¢ Only all of gloom and horror, Idle wastes of endless brine, Haunts of darkness, storm, and danger, — These shall be no longer thine. Backward ebbing, wave and ripple, Wondrous scenes shall then disclose; e And, like earth's, the wastes of ocean Then shall bloesom as the rose.”’
XCV. Ver. 14. évéuara riv dddexa GrocridAuy,
Calov.: ‘‘The apostles, who, by their living voice and literary records, founded the Church, and upon whose doctrine and writings it rests as on an immovable foundation.’’ Hengstenberg: ‘‘The twelve apostles are the most noble bulwark of the Church, the chief channel through which the preserving grace of God flows forth to it. If, even in the new Jerusalem, they are the foundation on which the security of the Church against all conceivable dangers depends, they must also be the bulwark through all periods of the Church militant. But this passage, and that of Matt. xix. 28, where the twelve apostles appear in the ‘ regeneration,’ — the new Jerusalem, — as the heads of the Church, are a sufficient answer to those who maintain that the apostolate is a continuous institution, and expect salvation for the Church by subjection to pretended new apostles. The Lord himself, and the disciple whom he loved, knew only of twelve apostles. The twelve apostles are forever. That in the corner-stone, besides the apostles, there are also prophets, is only a seeming variation. For that the prophets are not those of the O. T., but of the N. T., and personally identical with the apostles, is clear from the parallel passages iii. 5, iv. 11.”
XCVL Ver. 16. lea éoriv,
Alford: ‘‘ Diisterdieck’s idea that the houses were three thousand stadii in height, while the wall was only one hundred and forty-four cubits, is too absurd
486 THE REVELATION OF 8T. JOHN.
, to come at all into question. The words are open, this last consideration being taken into account, to two interpretations: (1), That the city, including the hill or rock on which it was placed, and which may be imagined as descending with it, formed such a cube as seems here described; or (2), That there is some loose- ness of use in the word Joa, and that we must understand that the length and breadth were equal to each other, and the height equal all round. Of these two, I prefer the former, as doing no violence to the words, and, at the same time, recalling somewhat the form of the earthly Jerusaiem on its escarpment above the valley of the Kedron.’”’ On the other hand, Gebhardt: ‘‘ According to Diisterdieck, the relative lowness of the wall is indicative of the security of the city (comp. Isa. liv. 74); and very justly do we see in the size of the city, and the height of the walls, so prominently expressed, a symbol of its safety from every danger.’’ Hengstenberg: ‘‘ Manifestly the height, and the length, and the breadth are equal; and nothing is sald concerning the relation of the houses to one another. For, according to this conception, the height of the city would be altogether undetermined.’’
CHAPTER XXII.
Ver. 1, worapdy td. ¢ Aaunpdv oc xp. So A, B, &, al., Verss., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The «a@apov, which the Rec. has before xoray., is without attestation. — Ver. 2. Instead of évrev0ev xai évreivfev (Elz., Beng.; cf. John xix. 18), read évr. x, éxeidev (A, B, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.}). The &va before éxacrov (Elz., Beng.) is rightly deleted by Griesb. — Ver. 3. xardGepa. So A, B, &,, al., Beng., Grlesb., the moderns. Incorrectly, Elz.: xaravadeua; cf. Matt. xxvi. 74. — Ver. 5. The éxei after tora: (Elz., Beng.) is without attesta- tion. According to A, &, al., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. 1X. [W. and H.] have written ér:; Tisch. has written this also after B. «az ob xypeia Abzvou Kai guroc. So Tisch., according to B. This appears to be the mater lectionis ; yet Lach., who writes xa? oby Efovoww (x: obx Exovorw) ypeiav guTdc Abyvou Kal gwTd¢ FAiov, has in his favor the testimony of A and 8; while the rec. «. xpeiav obx Exovat Adyvou xal gurd¢ fAiov ig unattested. Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]: «. obm Ex. xpeiay guric Abxv. x.—gurtice, The fut. is certain, although the discrimination as to the form ¢wrice (A, al., Beng., Lach.), or gwree, is difficult. The pres. (Elz.) has only unimportant witnesses. é7°’ airovs. So A, ®, Beng., Griesb., the moderns. The én? is lacking in B, Elz. — Ver. 6. trav vevuctuv tov xpogytov. So, correctly (A, B, &, al.) already, Beng., Griesb. The modification 7. dyiuy xpog. (Elz.) is without critical value. — Ver. 8 After «. re jxovea, Tisch. has «a? dre idov (B, al.). This is, at all events, more correct than the Rec. «az EBAe~a (so &), which Lach., Tisch. IX., have indorsed, although A has «. &3Aerov. But even this form is liable to suspicion because of its correspondence with the preceding BAéruv, — Ver. 10. The 57 before 6 xaipdc (Rec., Beng.) is certainly a proposed interpre- tation; as such, the ydp also, after 6 xa., appears suspicious, although its omission (Griesb., Tisch.) is forbidden by A, B, %, al., Verss. (Lach., Tisch. IX.).— Ver. 11. 5 puwapds Jurapevd7te. So A, al., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. The form, supported by Orig. and &, puravé7rw (Lach., Tisch. LX. [W. and H.]) is the more usual, and may accordingly indeed have the force of an explanation. The Rec, 6 purav purwodty is feebly attested. Instead of dexaw67rw (Elz.), Beng. already wrote dtcatosivyy rocjouru (A, B, 8, al.).— Ver. 12, éoriv atrov. So A, ®, 21, Syr., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Whether B thus read, or have airov €orat (Elz., Beng.), is not established; cf. Tisch. — Ver. 14. The Rec. towotvrec tac évtoAd¢ airod is therefore to be preferred (cf. De Wette) because the reading nAbvovrec rag aroAd¢ atroyv (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), advocated by A, x, 7, 38, Verss., appears to have the purpose which is clearly expressed in the text of Andr. (r. évr, éuot); viz., not to allow the speech of Christ (vv. 18, 16) to be interrupted by an intervening speech of John. — Ver. 16. taig éxxAnoias. It is certain that this reading, supported by Beng., Tisch. (cf. also De Wette, etc.), depends only upon the witnesses 4, 11, 12, 47, 48, Arm., al.; while the é (A, al., Verss., Lach.), as well as the én? (B, &, al., Syr., Elz., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.}), was apparently interpolated because the address of Christ to the churches was not understood. So the exposition. — Ver. 21. The additions tpoy and rév dyiuv
488 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
(B, al.) to rdvruv, and the 'Ayuyy at the close (Elz.), were properly rejected already by Beng. The subscription, which in A runs droxdAvyic ‘ludvvov, is entirely lacking in B, al.
Vv. 1-5. The continuation (xa? idegéiv yo, cf. xxi. 9 sq.) and completion of the description of the glory prepared for believers in the new Jerusalem. Here, also,! in connection with the statement of what John beheld, the express admonition occurs corresponding to the paracletic purpose of the entire reve-
can attain that bleased cae:
natanov idarocg (wit, x.7.A. In this paradise of God,* there is a stream ® whose water is “ water of life,” so that they who drink thereof‘ receive life through this water. The description depends, as already Ezek. xlvii. 1 sqq., Zech. xiv. 8, upon the prototype, Gen. ii. 10. — éemopevopevov, «.r.A, Cf. iv. 6. The throne which belongs to God and the Lamb ® is the source of this stream, for only through the mediation of Christ as the Lamb, is the participation of believers in the eternal life of God inferred. [See Note XCVII., p. 494.] — by pioy tie wAateiag, x.7.A, It is, in a formal respect, very harsh if the dv péow be referred only to r. xAar. air.,® while the «, r, ror. depends upon the succeed- ing tvredoev xal Exeidev ; it is more natural’ to refer the év pzéo to both r. wAer. abr, and «x. r. ror., 80 that the additional designation évr, x. txei#. more accu- rately declares that the trees, on both sides of the river, stand on the space lying between the street and the river, i.e., on the right and the left banks.§ — rig maareias. John has in view a particular street, the main street through which flows the one particular river. — giAov Gwic. Cf. ii. 7. The expression designates the entire mass of trees in general.® — rowiy xaprovc dodexa, «x.7.A. Cf. Ezek. xlvii. 12. The meaning is correctly de- scribed already by Andr.: dduiAecrrov riy row napnav —éxgvow. In eternity, the continually growing fruits of the tree of life serve the blessed for food. See similar descriptions of the rabbins in Wetst.— xa? ra giAda, «.t.A, This is to be referred to the heathen '! dwelling outside of the city, as little as xxi. 23 sqq. But against the context also is the explanation of Hengstenb., that, in the present period, the life-forces arising from the Jerusalem, even now in heaven, are to heal the sickness of the heathen, i.e., to effect their conversion; for what is expressed concerning the leaves of the tree of life refers to the same time as that which is said of the fruits. This has been correctly acknowledged by those who have thought of the conversion, in the future world, of heathen to whom in this life the gospel has not been preached,!* or of the full development of the weak faith of the heathen.'® But both are contrary to the purpose of the context, which, just because of their faith, makes the heathen ™ share in the glory of the city.
1 Cf. xxi. 27. ’ Cf. v.6. Ewald.
3 Cf. ii. 7. & Cf. Ezek. xivil. 7, 12.
3 Cf. iv. 6, vil. 17. ® Beng., De Wette, Ew., etc.
* Cf. ver. 17. 10 [** The perpetual growth of frults.”] 8 Cf. vil. 17, v. 18. 41 Ewald, Zull.; cf. aleo De Wette.
© Andr., Vitr., Beng., ZUll. De Wette, 19 Beng. Hengstenb., Ebrard, Bleek. 4% Ebrard, 44 xxi. 28 sqq.
vy CS WULUS AGE TG PUAN, AAT My 445 GU Gssusswiy c~ PPS TEES Y Wey VES UCU l bss 2044 005” ment and glorification of believing heathen are especially emphasized, as the preceding words {iAov Zwi¢—r. xapndv abr, indicate in general the blessed satiety of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem, of whoin no special class whatever is mentioned. In connection with this, the expression ei¢ depareiav 7. ¢v. is as little to be pressed, in the sense that a still present sickness of the heathen were presupposed, since it might possibly be inferred from xxi. 4, that the tears which God will wipe away from the blessed are the sign of pains still endured; but as the tears which are wept because of earthly sorrow are wiped away in eternal life, 80 the healing leaves of the tree of life serve for the healing of the sickness from which the heathen have suffered in their earthly life, but shall suffer no longer in the new Jerusalem. If they were previously hungry and thirsty, now they are also to be satisfied; if they were previously blind, miserable, and without the power of life,? now they are to share in the enjoyment of all glory, holiness, and blessedness. —xai nav xaraQeua obx Eora ér. Cf. Zech. xiv. 11. After all upon which God’s curse‘rests has reached its own place, and been eternally separated from the blessed communion of saints,? nothing of the kind can any longer be found in the city, wherein, now, also,‘ are the throne of God and of the Lamb, and that, too, immediately near, so that all servants of God, all inhabitants of the city, who, as belonging to God, bear his name upon their foreheads,® see his face.* — abrot belongs to the chief subject 6 6éo¢ —aal vif, x.r.A. Only by an artificial expedient does Ziill. find here “some- thing entirely new,” in comparison with what is said at xxi. 23, 25. —xal Baotevoovary, x.7.A, With the richest and, at least, a figurative expression, John concludes his announcement of the future glory of believers, by at the same time emphasizing the eternal duration of that happy state as sd as in the description of the judgment upon enemies.’
Vv. 6-21. The Epilogue, which naturally contains two parts, since it first (vv. 6-17) comprises the revelations which John had received, and then also (vv. 18-21) the prophetical book in which John had written the reve- lations received for the service of the churches, comes to a close. In both respects this conclusion corresponds to the introduction of the whole (chs. i.-ili.), in which likewise the double purpose enters, viz., that of communi- eating the prophetical scriptures to the churches, and that of designating the contents of revelation as such from the very beginning.
xal elrév uot, Viz., the angel, who spoke at xxi. 9. This is acknowledged also by Ebrard, who, however, finds here not an angelic declaration inter- posed anew, but a repetition of the account of John, who now once more ‘recalls the angelic declaration previously received. Ebrard decides, logic- ally, that in ver. 8 sqq. there is presented not a repetition of the event actually occurring, xix. 10, but only a repetition of the account of the same.
1 Cf. ver. 17, vii. 16. ® Of. iff. 17. 5 xiv. 1, ili. 12.
3 xx. 10, 15, xxi. 27. ® Cf. xxi. 3, vil. 15.
4 This is (cf. Jos. vii. 12; Beng.) the inner 7 x. 10; cf. xx. 14 8q. connection with what follows, which, however, & De Wette, Bleek, Volkm.
appears to be formally annexed by the «ai.
490 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
This conception, however, is not only in conflict with the mode of statement in the text, but is also improper for the reason that thereby the return, indis- pensable to the harmony of the entire Apoc., from the series of visions, iv. 1-xxii. 5, revealing the future! to the standpoint of the introductory vision,? is cut off. Cf. also ver. 16. — obras of Adyoa.r.A, Cf. xxi. 5. The angel looks back to the entire revelation communicated to John. Cf. vv. 7, 18 (7. Ady. 7. xp. 1. BiBA. robr.). So also Klief. — rév rvevparuy rév npognrav. “The spirits’ of the prophets are here no more than in 1 Cor. xiv. 32, the effects of the Spirit present in the prophets,® but are the spirits belonging to the different prophets, which God subjects to himself, and inspires and instructs by his own Spirit. Thus the Lord, who is the God of the spirits of all the prophets, has especially manifested himself now in the spirit of John; this God has communicated to John‘ his true words of revelation by signifying to him, through the ministry of the angel, the things which are to come, in order that he may proclaim them to his servants.— roi¢ dovAotg atroi, i.e., believers in general, rui¢ éxaAnoias, ver. 16.5—xal idod, Epyoua: trax. As the Divine authority, so also especially the chief contents of the now completed revelation are again made prominent,—this occurs by the angel speaking directly in the name of the coming Lord himself,* — and then the parenetic inference which this affords (yaxdpwe, «.7.A.)' is added by the angel. —On ver. 8 sqq., cf. xix. 10. — 6 dxotuy nai BAéxwy taira. The part. pres.* marks, without regard to time, the idea of (ecstatic) hearing and seeing of these things, and accordingly the prophetic dignity of John, who just by hearing and seeing all that has been “shown” him for eye and ear, has become the Divinely-appointed interpreter of the Divine mysteries. Thus the pres. particularly shows that the ravra® refers not only to what bas been reported, ver. 6 sq., but also to the entire revelation of God. On the other hand, the aor. occurs (x. dre #xovoa) where that which is special, ver. 6 sq., is treated. The variations, consequently, which by additions to the mere jxovea recur to the first clause of ver. 8,!° yield an absolutely false interpretation; for John falls down before the angel, because he thinks that in the speech heard (Sre Hxovea), vv. 6, 7 (consider especially ver. 7), he recognizes the Lord him- self. —xai rav adeAgiv cov trav xpogyrav. That the prophets are here especially emphasized as the brethren of John, distinguished from the rest of believers," is natural, because it is now the intention to assert the prophetical authority of John and his book, which the rest of believers are to receive and keep as a testimony of the Lord. Corresponding also with this, is the fact that the angel immediately imparts the command ?? not to seal’® the revelations written in this book, but to communicate them to believers. —é xaipd¢ yap kyyic tor. Cf. i. 3. The nearer the time is, the more the churches need warning and consolation with respect to what is contained in this revelation.
1 & bet yerdoOas év Tax., ver. 6. Cf. iv. 1. ® Cf. xx. 10.
24. 9-fli. 22. ® Notice the plural, which recurs aleo in the 3 De Wette. correl., 7. deux», oe ravra, ver. 8.
* Cf. i. 1 aqq. 10 Bee Critical Notes.
§ Cf. 1.1. 11 Cf., on the other hand, ziz. 10.
* Cf. ver. 12, xi. 3. 3 Cf. i. 11, 19.
t Cf. xiv. 13, xix. 9. 8 Cf. x. 4; Dan. vill. 26, xii. 4, 9.
CHAP. XXII. 6-21. 491
— 64 atixiv, «7.4. The practical result afforded by this revelation is expressed, ver. 11, by the angel himself in a parenetic address ! which, recurring to what the former visions proclaimed, as well concerning the eternal ruin of the godless as also the eternal glory of the righteous, applies it to both classes of men. In connection with this, the summons to those doing wrong, and the filthy (6 puzapéc) ? to continue in their godless course, and thus to hasten to sure ruin, is not without a certain irony. [See Note XCVIII., p. 494.] The purpose of ver. 11 is the less to be mistaken, as the allusion to the re- tributive advent of the Lord not only immediately precedes (6 xaup. y. éyyi¢ orev, ver. 10), but also is added directly afterwards (ver. 12 sq.), and here the impending righteous retribution is expressly emphasized: 6 juo6d¢ pov, x.7.A. Cf. xi. 18; Isa. xl. 10, lxii. 11. — dg 7d Epyov éorly atros. Cf. xx. 12.— The words, ver. 12, read like a speech out of Christ’s own mouth, those of ver. 184 like one of God himself; but, just because of this alternation, it is unnatural to ascribe both declarations to the angel, speaking in the name of Christ and God. On the other hand, the alternation of speakers appears too confused, if Christ himself and God be regarded as actually speaking, particularly since ver. 14 sq. (r. évr. avrod) is most easily regarded a parenetic digression of John. Hence the speeches of vv. 12 and 13, at the close of the book, must be conceived of here in the same way as the keynote of the entire speech of God given from the very beginning in the introduction, i. 8. In the ancient prophetic way, John, who shows himself to be a true interpreter of Divine revelation, in two compendious Divine declarations, fixes the fundamental thoughts of this entire prophecy (cf. ver. 20); the very abruptness of these expressions is an indication that Christ and God do not actually enter into the scene as themselves speaking. The speech, ver. 12 sq., thus understood, forms then the transition from the speech of the angel actually present to the parenetic words of Joho, ver. 14 sq. — t. tvroA. abrod. Of God, not of Christ.6 On the reading advocated by Ew. ii., mAtvovrec, x,7.A., see Critical Notes. This reading is deprived of its plausi- bility by the correct estimate of vv. 12, 18. —iva fora. Cf. Winer, p. 271. — téovoia abréw tr? rd fidov r.¢ The purpose of the godly who endeavor, according to the promised reward, to eat of the fruits of the tree of life,’ shall certainly be attained ; hence the beatitude. — xa? roig rvAwow, «.1.A, Cf. xxi. 27. — &&w of xbvec, x.r.A. The ordinary idea in the declarative sense, ex- pressed by the annexed é2, appears too feeble; the inner opposition to the beatitude, ver. 14, more readily suggests the conceiving of the words, ver. 13, as a command, so that éu, etc., does not mean “ /foris sc. sunt” [“ without are dogs” ], but “foras sc. sunto” [“let dogs be without” ], etc.8— of xtver. General designation of moral impurity; cf. purapéc, ver. 11.° A special refer- ence to Sodomites © does not lie in the context. —«. of gappaxol, «ra, Cf.
2 According to Kiief., an exhortation, added 5 Cf. xii. 17, xiv. 12. Ziillig, De Wotte,
by John, is contained in vv. 11-15. Hengstenb. 3 Cf. xxi. 27: p&dAvypa; Jas.1.21: pywaoia. * Grot., Beng., etc. * Ver. 2, i. 7. 8Cf. Ezek. ii. 27. Andr., De Wétte, 8 Cf. Matt. v. 13, xill. 48.
Ebrard, Kienlen. ® Phil. 11.2; Matt. vil. 6.
‘ Cf. xxi. 5, 6, £. 8 % Eiohh., who compares Deut. xrifl. 18.
Geaaeernrn “(rr ee ee eee ee eS ee ae eS eee De ee ee ee Se nant ee tem Pa Tee ek eet @ wee 8 ON 8 Oe ewer SS eelU SS
the prophet, which in a double respect ; comprehends the introduction of the whole, since Christ, as the One revealing his own coming, not only maintains that he himself has given this revelation through the angel sent by him,} but also expressly emphasizes the determination of the same for the churches. The latter occurs in an address to the churches themselves, iyi» —Tai¢ éxxAnoiag, which is then the more applicable if the words, ver. 16, be regarded not as an actual speech coming from the Lord’s mouth, but® as spoken in the name of Christ. The reading énir. éaxA.,—i.e., “over,” in ‘ reference to the churches,‘ not “to” the churches,® nor “in ® the churches,” nor with the gen., as Beng. explains,’ since he refers the iyiv as dative to ‘the angels of the churches, but regards the éxxAyoiar, which ‘he also reads without a preposition, as an ablative — avoids indeed the seeming difficulty that the speech of the Lord is directly applied to the churches, but creates a far greater difficulty with respect to the relation of the iziv, which then can refer only to the prophets in general. But the idea that the Lord had the mystery of his advent proclaimed by all the Christian prophets is here not only impertinent, but is expressly rejected by the words émempa tr. cyyeAdv pov, which definitely marks the present revelation to the prophet John; but the application of this to the churches is throughout appropriate. Cf. also the answer of the churches, ver. 17. [See Note XCIX., p. 494.] # pita nai 7d yévog Aavid. What the first expression means figuratively, and accord- ing to the O. T. prototype,® the second says more properly: the Son.’° In this passage the interpretation is also to be rejected, according to which the sense is that “in Christ alone the family of David stands and is preserved.” 1! [See Note XLV., p. 216.] 6 dorip 6 Aaunpis 6 mpwivdc. Here Christ himself is called the bright morning-star; 1? for from him issues the light of eternal day.}8
To the message announced several times from ver. 6, as from the Lord’s own mouth, about which the entire revelation revolves, there now follows the answer: "Epyov. Thus speak “the Spirit,” who, on the one hand, qualifies the prophets for announcing the future to the churches, and, on the other hand, also works faith in the churches, and thus inspires them also with hopeful longing for the coming of the Lord,' “and the Bride,” i.e., the assem- , bly of believers who are moved by the Spirit 15 [see Note C., p. 494]; and thus also every individual is to speak who hears the joyful promise of the coming of the Lord (xa? 6 dx. «.7.A. In connection with the latter summons, John expressly adds (xat 6 dipov) 1® that the eternal blessings of life, which the coming Lord will distribute, are to be had gratuitously by every one who
1 Cf. i. 1. 10 Andr., Ewald, etc. Cf. Virg., den., IV. 2 Cf. 1. 3 qq. . 12: Credo equidem — genus esse deorum.
3 Cf. ver. 12 aq. 11 Vitr., etc.
* Ziill., Hengstenb. Cf. x. 11. 32 Cf., on the other hand, li. 28.
5 Luth. 13 Cf. xxi. 28.
€ Vulg. 16 Cf. xix. 10, il. 7, 11.
7 Cf. also Wolf. 18 Cf. xxi. 9.
8 Cf. ver. 9. sengmeoP % Cf. xxi. 6; Isa. lv. 1.
® Cf. v. 5.
RAW bs YUU AUT UES EEC @ 6440 res UGee 6589 watay WF bse UVES VEE 320 GUULIV IS YS” cated by the fidelity of obedience. The dwpedy placed with great emphasis at the close, is truly of an evangelical character, and energetically defends the book against the charge of anti-Pauline Judaism.?
Vv. 18-21. The close of the book iu which the prophet has communi- cated to the churches the revelation given to him. Instead of the commen- dation, accompanied by rich promises, of the prophetical book, which stood in the beginning,® there appears here likewise a threatening corresponding to its Divine authority against all who corrupt it (ver. 18 sq.). The prophet then once more declares, as a word of the Lord himself, the chief: sum of the entire revelation, by, on his part, meeting this promise of the Lord with the believing prayer for its fulfilment (ver. 20), and then concludes with the Christian farewell greeting, corresponding to the address to the churches (i. 4). — The threatening (ver. 18 sq.) has developed from the allusion in Deut. iv. 2,4 but has been shaped (ériéjoet 6 0. tn’ abr. rag tAnydc, «.7.2., Ver. 18; agersi & 0. 7d pépoc abr. axd 1. bAov, «.7.A., Ver. 19), according to the standard of the preceding descriptions, —the threatened “plagues” being not only those described in ch. xvi., which indeed in xv. 1, 8, are co-ordinated as the last described in the former visions,5>— and is marked in its righteousness by the paronomastic mode of expression (ééy rug énid9 — émubjoer 6 Bede agéAy — dgedci).© The threatening is presented in the most formal way, avr? rq cxodovre rove Aéyous, «.7.A., 1.e., to every one who, through the reading in the church, hears the prophetic discourses written in the present book.? From this per- sonal designation it results, at all events, that the threatening with the curse is not directed against inconsiderate transcribers;* but on the other hand, Ew. i. and De Wette improperly press the expression r. dxotevr:, when they refer the threat to the danger that what is received only with the ear in oral communication is easily falsified, and thus a distraction of Christian hope could be produced. Then the threatening must by its injustice create offence.® But the dxotovrec come into consideration, not as mediators of the literary tradition, but as those who are to appropriate “the contents” of the prophetical book, revealed to them by God, — notice that éav reg nut bn’ avrd, is first said,—for their own warning and encouragement, and are to maintain it in its purity, and to act accordingly. These fall under the curse when they arbitrarily falsify the revelation of God that has been given, because they will not approve the righteous ways of God, which are here described,!° and consequently call down upon themselves the wrathful judg- ments of God, which impend over unbelievers. —6 paprepéw rata, Christ. Cf. i. 2, xix. 10. With a word of the coming Lord himself, which contains the very marrow of the entire revealed testimony given to the prophet,!! he
1 Cf. 1. 8. * Cf. Rom. iii. 24. 3 4.3. ® De Wette. Cf. also Luther, /ntroduction
4 LXX.: ob wpocOyjcere—xai ove adedcire, Of 1522: *‘ Besides, I think that it is entirely KeT.A, too much that he severely commends and
5 On 7. udpos avr., «.7.A., cf. xxi.8. Ewald: threatens with respect to such a book of his “ Shall withdraw fellowship.” own, more than other holy books, as though it
© Cf. xi. 18. were of much more importance.”
+ Cf.i.8. Ew., Dc Wette. 10 Cf. xv. $ 9q., xi. 17 sqq.
® Vitr., Ztill., Bleek, ete. 411 Cf. Introduction, p. 28.
conciudes hls DOOK, not, nowever, without sealing With his "Aye his believ- ing acceptance of the Lord’s promise,! and expressing his own longing for the Lord’s coming, in the sense of ver. 17.
The epistolary closing wish (ver. 21) corresponds to the dedication (i. 4 sqq.) whence also the zivruy obtains its limitation. This is expressed incorrectly in the addition rav dyiuyv, but correctly in the dyusw.®
Notres BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XCVII. Ver. 1. rorapdv tdaroc Gaic.
This has often been interpreted as referring to the Holy Spirit (Gerhard, Lightfoot, Calov., Philippi, etc.). Thus Calov.: ‘‘ By the river of water of life éxxupevoyevoy from the throne of God and of the Lamb, we understand the Holy Spirit, whose ‘ personal characteristic,’ as they say, is éxwopevow (John xv. 26), from the Son, no less than from the Father, the throne of majesty.’’
XCVITI. Ver. 11. 6 purapas puravé7rw, «.7.A,
Alford finds a parallel in our Lord’s saying, Matt. xxvi. 45: ‘“‘ ‘Sleep on now, and take your rest;’ also Ezek. xx. 39;’’ and interprets the irony: ‘‘‘ The time is so short that there is hardly room for change;’ the lesson conveyed in its depth being, ‘Change while there is time.’ ’’
XCIX. Ver. 16. ani raic éxxAnoiaie.
Luthardt: “A congregational book; not a book merely for a few, and fora small circle, is this book of prophecy. And Jesus himself expressly confirms the fact that it is from Him. Who will venture to contradict Him?”
C. Ver. 17. 1d rvetpa nal } vopdn.
Luthardt: ‘‘ The Spirit, who lives in the Church, and the Bride, the Church, that lives in the Spirit, say ‘Come!’ This is all her sighing and longing.”’ Hengstenberg, however, qualifies this: ‘‘Not the Spirit who dwells in all believers (Rom. viii. 26), but the Spirit of prophecy (xix. 10); the Spirit of the prophets (xxii. 6), in which John was on the Lord’s Day (i. 10, iv. 2), who also speaks through John in ch. xiv. 18, who proclaims the promises in the seven epistles. The Spirit, and John his organ, as the representative of the Bride, proclaim ‘Come.’ This ‘Come,’ spoken in her name by the organ of the Church, is a fact; they speak, and hence there follows the summuns to all the individual members of the Church to join in this ‘ Come.’ ”’
1 Cf. v. 14, xix. 4. 3 Rec., Luth.
ee eR a
: ®
ae me: a? bof
Digitized by Google