the usual law of brachylogy in the Greek language, stands for ¿xeira ooa eide. In this case all is plain and easy, specially when we regard ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε ... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as a parenthetic and epexegetical clause; which it plainly is. Then, moreover, we have this simple sentiment: Christ, employing an angel as his messenger, by symbols disclosed to his servant John whatsoever things he saw in prophetic vision.' At all events, this interpretation accords well with the state of facts. It should be remarked, also, that although the word deia is finely chosen, sonave is evidently a still more exquisitely select designation of what was done in order to make a revelation to John.

But who is the agent for ouave? Most interpreters say that it is Jesus Christ; and they appeal to Rev. 22: 16, "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify to you these things respecting the churches." This would be conclusive, were it not that there is another passage which seems, with equal or greater force, to plead for another construction; i. e. Rev. 22: 6, "The Lord God of the spirits of the prophets hath sent his angel δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει.” Can this be anything less than a direct appeal to the very words of Rev. 1: 1, which have already been considered? Moreover as ɛós is the undoubted agent to the verb edozer, and soýuarev stands connected with that verb by xuí, without any intimation of a change of agent, so this would seem to be sufficient to settle the question upon fair grounds. Had Lücke noted the passage in Rev. 22: 6, he might have saved himself the trouble he has taken (Stud. und Kritiken, IX. p. 655) to account for a change of agent in the case of ἐσήμανε. 'Such changes,' he says, 'are not a matter of doubt in the Apocalypse; and here dɛîşαi tois dovλois z. z. 2. which precedes, shows beyond a question that Christ is the agent, and therefore he is to be regarded as the agent to ouare. But as nothing important is gained for the sense of the passage by such a change of agents, and as such changes (I venture to say) are not so frequent in the Apocalypse as Lücke seems to intimate, so we may construe the whole in the regular grammatical order, making o ós the agent. Still, I do not think any violence is done, if Christ be made the agent.

Anoorenas makes a difficulty, not as to subject or agent, for this must be the same which is connected with ouare, but as to object. Sending what, by the angel? Αποκάλυψιν is the common answer. But this, as a book, he did not send; nor as a communication did he send it by an angel, for John saw the symbols with his own prophetic eye, and the angel was merely his companion, helper, or interpreter. In this strait, if we turn now to Rev. 22: 6, we shall find the matter thus stated: ἀπέστειλε τὸν ἄγγελον αὑτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ. In the passage before us, then, azoorɛíhas x. 7. 2. stands connected with

da z. z. 2. implied, and the thought in the writer's mind, if filled out, would seem to be, καὶ, ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὑτοῦ [εἰς τὸ δεῖξαι κ. τ. λ.], ἐσήμανε τῷ δούλῳ κ. τ. λ. Instead of this, Ewald takes anoorellas in the absolute sense, like in Ex. 4: 13. The whole clause might indeed be understood in a kind of absolute way, as being equivalent to the following expression — making use of his angel as an agent, he signified, etc. But the mode of solving it suggested by 22: 6, is more grammatical and more facile. The present form of the clause is plainly brachylogical.

Movio, as designating prophets, apostles, and special messengers of God, has already been explained above.-Avtov is the right reading here, and not avrov as some editions have it, and even Lachmann; for whether God or Christ be the agent to ἐσήμανε and ἀποστείλας, αὑτοῦ would be the more regular reading; see N. Test. Gramm. § 110. 5. Note 2.

'Twarry is in apposition with doule, and is designed as an explanatory adjunct. But as there were doubtless many Johns at that time, this proper name itself would seem to need some further explanation. Accordingly we have it in the sequel.

ɛov), the Epistles of John Apocalypse itself ὅσα εἶδε, Others find in the first two

Ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε . . . I. Χριστοῦ, also an epexegetical clause which has been itself more discussed and controverted, than almost anything in the whole Apocalypse. The reason of this is, that the sentiment of the clause stands connected with the great critical inquiry: Who was the author of the Revelation? A large class of critics find here described the Gospel of John (ròv λóyov rov (τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ι. Χριστοῦ), and finally the (or as they generally read oca 78 &ide). expressions only the Gospel and Epistles taken as a whole, and in the latter expression they find a declaration that John was an eye-witness of all which he had written; and they appeal to 1 John 1: 1-3 for a declaration of similar import. But in this last passage John declares, that he discloses not only what he had seen, but also what he had heard ; and this very appropriately, for the greater part of his Gospel and of his first Epistle, consists of doctrines which he had heard, or which had been taught him by Jesus Christ. Ooa ε188 would seem, then, to be altogether too limited to express the subject matter of the Gospel and Epistles; while it is entirely appropriate when referred to the visions of the Apocalypse. Lücke, in order to avoid a reference to the Gospel and Epistles here, represents λόγον θεοῦ and μαρτυρίαν Χριστοῦ as merely descriptive of the Apocalypse itself, and then regards ooa eide as only an adjunct explanatory clause, intended to designate the manner in which the Apocalypse was made known to its author. Which of these two parties is in the right? Or is either of them? These ques

tions must be answered by resorting, first of all, to the meaning of each subordinate part of the clause before us.

'Euagrvonoe has oftentimes, in the New Testament, its usual sense of testifying, i. e. of bearing witness, of giving testimony respecting anything. This is plainly the natural and usual import of the word. But the corresponding Hebrew verb with its correlative noun, and μaorvoέo with its correlative noun, not unfrequently convey a meaning specifically diverse from this. Thus the Hebrew 7 (from 7) signifies he affirmed, he solemnly affirmed or declared, he solemnly enjoined, etc; and its correlate noun means not only testimony, but also precept, solemn declaration, etc. The word pagrvoέw is a favorite one in the writings of John ; e. g. John 3: 11, “ ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὁ ἑωράκαμεν μαρ Tvoouuer, i. e. what we know we speak of, and what we have seen we declare" for so the parallelism obliges us to interpret uaorvoovμer. So 3: 32, "What he has seen and heard, zouvo pagrvoei, this he declares or publishes to the world." So in 1 John 1: 2. 1 Cor. 15: 15. Acts 23: 11. John 21: 24, where o pagrvoor designates the evangelist as a historian, declaring to the world the words and deeds of Jesus. So in Rev. 22: 16, “I, Jesus, have sent mine angel uagτvoñoa, to declare these things respecting the churches." So also in the verse before us μαρτυρίαν is plainly a parallelism of λόγον, which means declaration, or what is spoken or declared; also in Rev. 1: 9. 6: 9. 12: 11 where we have λόγον μαρτυρίας αὑτῶν, i. e. the word or doctrine which they published or declared; 12: 17, where pagrvoíar parallelizes with έvtolás; 20: 4.-The plain result is, that suagrúgnae means declared, published, openly and solemnly affirmed or proclaimed. If any one chooses still, in conformity to the Greek mode of expression here, to translate the word by testified, there is no objection to this; for one of our best English lexicographers has defined testify as sometimes meaning to declare or publish freely. Usage sanctions such an explanation of the English word.

But what is it which John published or declared? Τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Is Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ here subject or object? That is, does the author speak of the word which has respect to God, and the testimony which has respect to Christ? Or does he mean the word of which God is the author and communicator, and the testimony which Christ discloses? Beyond all reasonable doubt the latter; for so a comparison with the former part of v. 1 would plainly imply, and so the nature of the case seems plainly to demand. John testified whatever God and Christ had communicated to him for this purpose. So in v. 5, Jesus Christ is accordingly called ó μágrvs ó nozós, not the faithful martyr, but the witness whose declarations are worthy of all credit. Lücke (Stud. and Krit. IX. p. 654 seq.) has

strenuously contended that λόγον and μαρτυρίαν here are = ἀποκά Avyr, i. e. the Apocalypse. It is certainly a possible sense; for 2óyos Deo, may be predicated of any oracle, prediction, declaraΘεοῦ = tion, disclosure of any kind whatever, whether by visions, symbols, or otherwise; as the lexicons abundantly show, and as every attentive reader of the Scriptures must have observed. And the same may be said of the Johannean usage of pagrvoíav. So in Is. 8: 16, 20, nisa parallelizes with i, precept, instruction, something taught. So, in the passages cited above, paozvoía is for substance parallel with óyos and with ivro. But it is manifest, at the same time, that 2óyov ɛov and μαρτυρία Χριστοῦ are equally well fitted to designate what John had done, or was doing, as a preacher of the Gospel, or as a writer of evangelical narrative. It is not then the nature of the phraesology here which can determine the question before us; for this would apply equally well to christian preaching, to a christian writing, or to the composition of the Apocalypse itself. An appeal for decision must therefore be made to other circumstances than the nature of the phraseology.

Such an appeal, I think, may be made with confidence to Rev. 1: 9, where John says, in addressing the churches: "I... your brother, and companion in the affliction and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle called Patmos, διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ.” Now he could not be there because of having written and published the Apocalypse; for this was written after he went there, possibly, even after he had left there. Lücke, in order to avoid the difficulty which this throws in his way, suggests that diά does not mark here, as usual, a preceding cause or ground of being sent to Patmos, but a subsequent and ultimate end to be obtained by going thither. But Winer, in the latest edition of his New Testament Grammar (§ 53. c), strenuously denies that such a meaning can be given to die before the Accusative case; yet Lücke appeals to its use in Rom. 4: 25 and Phil. 2: 30, not only as deciding the possibility of such a meaning, but rather as decisive of such an one in point of fact. But these examples may be solved on a different ground. At any rate, since they are the only ones in the New Testament to which Lücke ventures to make an appeal, and as they are against the usual tenor of Greek usage, one cannot feel entire confidence in the appeal; see Vol. I. p. 259 seq. A is a word which occurs too often not to be well-known as to its usual meanings; and in the Apocalypse itself the instances of it, as construed with the Accusative case, are somewhat numerous, e. g. 2: 3. 4: 11. 7: 15. 12: 12. 13: 14. 18: 8, 10, 15; all with the usual meaning. In addition to these are several cases exactly correspondent with the one in chap. 1: 9, which admit of no reasonable controversy. In Rev. 6: 9, John speaks of souls seen by him under the altar slain, διά τον λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ

VOL. II.

2

διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον, by which clause the antecedent and moving cause or ground of their sufferings and death is designated, viz. their perseverance in professing and declaring the Christian faith and doctrine. In Rev. 12: 11, of the victorious host of the redeemed in heaven it is said: These have come off conquerors διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν, i. e. through, or by means of, the blood of the Lamb, and through the influence of that word which they have testified.' So again in Rev. 20: 4, the Apocalyptist sees, on thrones in heaven, "the souls of those who had been beheaded dià từv μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ; where the meaning, on account of the testimony, etc., cannot possibly be mistaken. These instances, and the relation of them all to one and the same subject, render dia in Rev. 1: 9 so clear, that doubt seems to be out of place. And this further objection may be made to Lücke's exegesis, viz. that it represents John as going to Patmos either for the sake of publishing the gospel there, or for the sake of writing the Apocalypse; both of which designs are wholly improbable. That bleak and desolate spot, which is scarcely noticed by any geographer of antiquity, and never could have had anything but a few fishermen's huts upon it, was not a very attractive place to go for the sake of preaching, compared with Asia Minor and the adjacent islands swarming with a population which could hardly be numbered. And to go there for the sake of writing the Apocalypse! It is surely one of the last places which an author could think of, at least on the score of comfort or convenience. Besides this, John states in the beginning of the same verse (v. 9), that he was a companion of other Christians ἐν θλίψει . . . καὶ ὑπομονῇ, which stands so connected with his being in Patmos, as to show that he was there v hist, or as an exile, on account of the gospel. This, it cannot well be denied, is the plain and natural implication of the passage.

From these considerations taken together we naturally come to the conclusion, that the clause ös pagrúgnser. . . I. XQuorov is epexegetical, descriptive of the particular John just mentioned, and intended to distinguish him from others of the same name. We may also note, that inasmuch as λóyor Otov is in itself only a kind of generic declaration, so μαρτυρίαν Ι. Χριστοῦ is here added, in order to show that Christian doctrine is what the writer particularly intends to designate.

That John, then, who had been a preacher of the Gospel, that John who had declared and openly published the Gospel, was the servant of Christ to whom the symbols of the revelation that follows were disclosed. Nothing more can be drawn with certainty from the text, than this generic sense; for if we refer to Rev. 20: 4, "The souls of those, who had been beheaded διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ,” surely we cannot say that none had been beheaded except such as had