Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 diazakúpan ἐκκαλύψαι, ἀποκαλύψαι, δηλώσαι, etc. The verb ανακαλύπτω is of the same meaning substantially as anoxαkúnr∞, i. e. it literally signifies to uncover, to disclose, and so (secondarily) to bring to light, to reveal, etc. Avazáλvis may therefore be well translated revelation.

[blocks in formation]

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 dлozákvynę, 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 7700947ɛíα, which, by sacred usage, imports what has been stated. The same thing is manifest from a comparison of the word dzozákvựng, 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 dлozáλvyis 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 dлozákvựng 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 dлozák.vg 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 έziqúraa, 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, 'Insov Xosrov, would in itself bear either construction; and both constructions are common throughout the Scriptures; but here the sequel- dozer ó vɛós renders it quite certain that the first sense is the only one which the passage will bear.

the

Hv... ó ɛós, an important declaration in respect to its bearing on 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 dozer 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.

Arisau x. 7.2. Nothing could be more appropriate to the nature of the book before us, than the choice of the verb deia 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 dɛ 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 avrov. The latter reading

would refer the pronoun to God, while avtov refers it to Christ. The sense is not materially different in either case; for the servants of God are the servants of Christ, and vice versa. That Christ is the subject (implied) of the Infinitive deia seems to be clear from the tenor of the sentiment; for the sequel shows that Christ, or his angel, appears and makes all the disclosures of the book.-But who are the douλors? Are they prophets, apostles, teachers? Or does this word here designate the worshippers of God, the servants of Christ in general? For the former sense one might contend, so far as the usus loquendi in respect to doulos is concerned; see Rom. 1: 1. Gal. 1: 10. Phil. 1: 1. Col. 4: 12. Tit. 1: 1. James 1: 1. 2 Pet. 1: 1. Jude v. 1. Rev. 22: 9 (ourdoulos). So the well known usage in Hebrew of in, in a multitude of instances; see Ges. Lex. sub. v. But then it is equally true, that doulos (and ) is sometimes applied to the mass of the people of God, to the community of his worshippers; even in the Apocalypse itself is this the case, Rev. 2: 20. 7: 3. 11: 18 (where it is expressly used as comprehending ἅγιοι and προφῆται). 19: 2, 5. 22: 3. Still, the other sense of doulos, viz. prophet, teacher, is also common to the Apocalypse; e. g. 1: 1 (δούλφ . . . Ἰωάννη), 10: 7 where προφήτας is added as epexegetical, 15: 3. In 22: 6 it may designate either the prophets, or the pious in general; for the sense is good if taken in either way. In Hebrew, in is altogether a common appellation for a true worshipper of Jehovah, and the whole Jewish nation are often addressed as being the servants of God, because they are his professed worshippers. In such a case then as the one before us, the context must decide; and this evidently favours the sense of the word in Rev. 2: 20, viz. the mass of the Christian community or Christians. Accordingly the seven churches of Asia are immediately addressed in the sequel, and to them the book before us is dedicated (so to speak) and sent, plainly in order to be published or circulated by them. It is then to the churches that the things in the Apocalypse are shown.

A dɛi yɛvéovai, what must take place, i. e. by an arrangement of an overruling and all-controlling providence. In other words; what is predicted in the Apocalypse will certainly come to pass. Such things are not left to chance, they are not fortuitous, for dei yɛvéodau, they must needs happen. In other words still; God, who gave a revelation of future things to Christ, has ordained them and will bring them to pass.

Ev zázet, a controverted expression, on which much has been made to depend. Some commentators, recognizing the evident fact that the apocalyptic predictions cover much ground and require a long series of years for their accomplishment (see Rev. 20: 4, 7), have zealously endeavoured to show that raya designates only the maturity of things for any particular event, and, as connected with this, the certainty of the

event itself. So Eichhorn; and after him, Heinrichs and others. But the texts appealed to by them do not show this; nor is there any necessary affinity between the certainty of a thing and its speedy accomplishment. E. g. a general judgment is certain; but it is not therefore speedily to take place. The plain and obvious sense of iv raya is speedily, quickly, shortly; so ô xaigòs ¿yyús, in v. 3, plainly interprets it. See also Rev. 2: 16. 3: 11. 11: 14. 22: 7, 12, 20. If now anything clear can be made out from the Apocalypse, it is at least clear that chap. iv— xi. have special reference to Jerusalem and Judea. Equally clear is it that chap. xii-xix. have reference to persecuting and heathen Rome. In both cases persecution was urgent and raging, when the Apocalypse was written; which, as we have seen (Vol. I. § 16), was before the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, although the closing part of the Revelation relates beyond all doubt to a distant period, and some of it to a future eternity, yet the portion of the book which contains this is so small, and that part of the book which was speedily fulfilled is so large, that no reasonable difficulty can be made concerning the declaration before us. Ev rázat, i. e. speedily, did the things, on account of which the book was principally written, in fact take place. And although the Romish persecutions were afterwards repeated, yet it is enough to vindicate the expression before us, that the overthrow of the then persecuting power was very speedy, and that this overthrow was an earnest of the fate of all future persecutors.

Kai lonμaver, lit. showed or indicated by signs or symbols. The verb σημαίνω evidently comes from σήμα = σήμειον, sign, token, symbol. The word is exquisitely chosen in reference to the sequel of the book, almost all of which consists of symbolic representation. In the like way is the verb onuaívo employed in John 12: 33. 18: 32, (referring to what Jesus had said on a former occasion, see in 12: 31-33). 21: 19. In a similar sense it occurs in Acts 11: 28. 25: 27; yet less exactly according to the natural and original meaning of the word, for in Acts it signifies to indicate in a generic sense. Plutarch (De Orac. Delph. p. 104) represents Heraclitus as saying, in respect to the oracle: 'Ovre λéyat ovτε κρύπτει, ἀλλὰ σημάνει, i. e. it neither speaks out plainly, nor wholly conceals, but indicates by symbols or in an enigmatical way.'-But with what is this verb to be constructed? Who is agent, and what is object? In all instances above referred to, in John and in Acts, the verb has an object after it, although a compound one. Is it so here? Dr. Robinson, in his Lexicon, has put it down as absolute, i. e. without an object. Most critics have represented (at the beginning of the second clause and referring to ἀποκάλυψις) as the object or Acc. case after ἐσήμανεν. But this is a hard construction. My own view of the case is, as the translation above indicates, that oσa ɛide is the object, which, according to

« PreviousContinue »