Exc. I. Angelology of the Scriptures Exc. II. Symbolical use of numbers 397 (17: 3, 10) Exc. IV. The number of the beast, 13: 18 Exc. V. Designations of time in the Apocalypse COMMENTARY. INSCRIPTION.-CHAP. I. 1—3. (1, 2) THE REVELATION of Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his servants what must speedily come to pass; and sending by his angel he signified to his servant John, who proclaimed the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatsoever he saw. This apparently simple and intelligible sentence has been regarded by many as replete, in the original, with real difficulties. It has therefore been the subject of much controversy among critics; nor, down to the present hour, has all doubt respecting its true meaning been removed. The manner in which I have translated and pointed it, will probably be called in question by some, and may be wholly rejected by others. Amidst the multitude of discrepant opinions and criticisms respecting the passage, it would be difficult to select any one which appears to my mind as deserving of unqualified approbation. After an attentive examination of most of them, I have felt compelled to choose a meaning that seems appropriate to the true grammatical construction of the text; and I must now present to the reader the grounds and reasons of my choice. A critical examination of the words, and then of the apparent meaning of each clause, comes first in order, before we can arrive at any general conclusion in respect to the meaning of the whole. Anozávis has often been said not to be a word of pure Greek idiom. "Proprie Scripturarum est," says Jerome, commenting on it as it occurs in Gal. 1: 12; and he then adds: A nullo sapientum saeculi apud Graecos usurpatur. But he is mistaken; for Plutarch uses it (see Rob. Lex. sub. v.), and Porphyry employs it, Vita Plot. c. 16. Julius Pollux also, in his Onomast., ranks together as synonymes diazahópai, ἐκκαλύψαι, ἀποκαλύψαι, δηλῶσαι, etc. The verb ἀνακαλύπτω is of the same meaning substantially as άnoxαkúnτw, i. e. it literally signifies to uncover, to disclose, and so (secondarily) to bring to light, to reveal, etc. Avaxáhvis may therefore be well translated revelation. It is here employed as the title of the book at the head of which it stands, and of course it lacks the article, which, if prefixed, might convey a wrong sense, i. e. it might mean the revelation in a monadic sense, excluding other books from the like claim; or else it might imply some previous mention of the book, or previous knowledge of it in the reader's mind; all of which would be incongruous. In English, however, there lies not the same objection against employing the definite article in this case, as our usage does not altogether accord with the Greek. Accordingly, we find the definite article the commonly employed before the word Revelation; and I have conformed to this usage in the version above. That the word anлozáhvuus, as here employed, means a revelation of an extraordinary nature, a disclosure of things to come made by special divine arrangement and aid, is plain from the context itself, which develops the extraordinary means by which it was made, and then calls it (v. 3) by the name of 7007ɛia, which, by sacred usage, imports what has been stated. The same thing is manifest from a comparison of the word dzoxúlvis, as employed in the like sense, in 2 Cor. 12: 1. Gal. 1: 12. 2: 2. Eph. 3: 3. These passages cast light on that part of the meaning which indicates special divine interposition; while the idea of developing or disclosing something secret, hidden, mysterious, or inaccessible to common minds, is at the same time specially brought to view by the use of úrozákvynę in such passages as Rom. 16: 25. 1 Cor. 14: 6, 26. Sirach 22: 22. 42: 1. The context abundantly confirms such a sense here; for it affirms two things, viz. first, that this drozávis has respect to what is to take place in future, and secondly, that God and Christ and his angel all coöperate in making the disclosure to John.There is indeed a possible sense of the word dzoxálvyng which is different from this, viz. when it means manifestation or exhibition of any thing or person; in which case it is nearly equivalent to έziqúrɛia, e. g. in 1 Cor. 1: 7. 2 Thess. 1: 7. 1 Pet. 1: 7, 13. 4: 13; and this sense Heinrichs (strangely enough) adopts here. But what then must become of the obvious sense of ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς, δεῖξαι κ. τ. λ. ? Αποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ - Is Christ subject or object? That is, is he the personage who is in possession of the revelation and discloses it according to his will; or is he the individual to whom the revelation has respect, and in regard to whom it makes disclosures? The Genitive case, 'InGov Xotorov, would in itself bear either construction; and both constructions are common throughout the Scriptures; but here the sequel- dwzɛr ó vɛós renders it quite certain that the first sense is the only one which the passage will bear. "Hv... ó ós, an important declaration in respect to its bearing on the person and office of Christ; but one, I may add, altogether in unison with other Scriptures, specially with the Gospel of John.-"Edozer, imparted, communicated, which is the appropriate shade of meaning in this case, inasmuch as information, instruction is concerned with it. See the same shade of sense in John 17: 7, 8, thrice, and also Acts 7:38. With the particular meaning of this verb there is indeed no difficulty; but the sentiment of the whole passage is a question of difficulty, if there be any; for this appears to represent the Redeemer, even in his glorified state, (for such it was when the Apocalypse was written), as dependent on the Father for revelations of such a nature. But let the reader now compare John 5: 19, 20. 7: 16. 8: 28 (where ¿didate is said of the Father in respect to the Son, which well explains doozev in our text). 12: 49. 14: 10. 17: 7, 8. Matt. 11: 27. Mark 13:32. Acts 1: 7 (in connection with Mark 13: 32). Most fully does Paul exhibit his belief in the sentiment of mediatorial dependence in 1 Cor. 15: 24-28. By this last passage it appears, that Christ remains in the state of Vicegerent merely until the consummation of all things, when his delegated dominion will be given up. The texts in Mark 13: 32 and Acts 1: 7 (comp. Luke 2: 52) show, that Christ as to his human nature was progressive in knowledge, and of course that there were some things not yet known to him in this nature before his ascension to glory; and among these things was the particular and exact time of his coming. The dozer of our text would seem however to imply, that even after his exaltation the Mediator received those disclosures from the Father, which are made in the Apocalypse. This is perfectly congruous with the view given by Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 24-28, which necessarily implies the dependent state of the Mediator until the final consummation of all things, and that his dominion as Mediator is only a delegated one. I may add, that the sentiment of our text is truly Johannean, whoever the author of it may be. Aɛīža 2.7.2. Nothing could be more appropriate to the nature of the book before us, than the choice of the verb dɛiğat here, which naturally and usually means to show or exhibit anything to the evidence of the senses, i. e. to present to view, to submit to inspection. The verb has here a palpable reference to the nature of the sequel, in which John is taught a dei perioda by sensible tokens and symbols. The metaphorical sense, teach, disclose, is very unfrequent, even in the New Testament; and of the four instances arranged under this head in Rob. Lex., two at least do not properly belong there, but refer to sensible exhibitions. The composite idea, however, of disclosing by the use of signs and symbols, belongs to do in the case before us. Τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ. The critical editions differ as to the reading avrov, which Griesbach, Knapp, Vater, and Hahn adopt; while Wetstein, Bengel, Matthäi, and Lachmann read autou. The latter reading It is here employed as the title of the book at the head of which it stands, and of course it lacks the article, which, if prefixed, might convey a wrong sense, i. e. it might mean the revelation in a monadic sense, excluding other books from the like claim; or else it might imply some previous mention of the book, or previous knowledge of it in the reader's mind; all of which would be incongruous. In English, however, there lies not the same objection against employing the definite article in this case, as our usage does not altogether accord with the Greek. Accordingly, we find the definite article the commonly employed before the word Revelation; and I have conformed to this usage in the version above. That the word &лozákvựng, as here employed, means a revelation of an extraordinary nature, a disclosure of things to come made by special divine arrangement and aid, is plain from the context itself, which develops the extraordinary means by which it was made, and then calls it (v. 3) by the name of 700917ɛia, which, by sacred usage, imports what has been stated. The same thing is manifest from a comparison of the word dzozákviris, as employed in the like sense, in 2 Cor. 12: 1. Gal. 1: 12. 2: 2. Eph. 3: 3. These passages cast light on that part of the meaning which indicates special divine interposition; while the idea of developing or disclosing something secret, hidden, mysterious, or inaccessible to common minds, is at the same time specially brought to view by the use of άnozákvæıę in such passages as Rom. 16: 25. 1 Cor. 14: 6, 26. Sirach 22: 22. 42: 1. The context abundantly confirms such a sense here; for it affirms two things, viz. first, that this dzozάiving has respect to what is to take place in future, and secondly, that God and Christ and his angel all coöperate in making the disclosure to John.There is indeed a possible sense of the word dлozákvyng which is different from this, viz. when it means manifestation or exhibition of any thing or person; in which case it is nearly equivalent to siqareta, e. g. in 1 Cor. 1: 7. 2 Thess. 1: 7. 1 Pet. 1: 7, 13. 4: 13; and this sense Heinrichs (strangely enough) adopts here. But what then must become of the obvious sense of ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς, δεῖξαι κ. τ. λ. ? Αποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ — Is Christ subject or object? That is, is he the personage who is in possession of the revelation and discloses it according to his will; or is he the individual to whom the revelation has respect, and in regard to whom it makes disclosures? The Genitive case, 'Ingov Xqtorov, would in itself bear either construction; and both constructions are common throughout the Scriptures; but here the sequelἣν ἔδωκεν ὁ Θεός renders it quite certain that the first sense is the only one which the passage will bear. Hv... ó vɛós, an important declaration in respect to its bearing on the person and office of Christ; but one, I may add, altogether in unison |