Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_1:1. Ἀποκάλυψις , i.e., revelation, unveiling of things concealed as divine mysteries, which are presented to the prophetic view of John, and interpreted to him.[454] Heinrichs incorrectly: ἀποκ . = παροισία or ἐπιφάνεια , viz., of Jesus Christ.
Ἰησοῦ Χρ . in no way an objective,[455] but a subjective genitive,[456] but not the possessive[457] or the genitive of reception;[458] but by the context Jesus Christ is designated as the author and the communicating witness.[459] ἣν ἕδωκεν αὐτ . ὁ θ . To the clause which has been concluded, since ἕδωκεν has ἣν as its object, the next clause δεῖξαι
τάχει is connected, as the infinitive δεῖξαι marks the purpose of the ἣν ἕδωκεν [460] and the words ἃ δεῖ γεν . ἐν ταχ ., are combined as the object of δεῖξαι . On the contrary, Heinr.: ἣν
δεῖξαι , so that ἕδωκεν is combined with δεῖξαι in the sense of permitted, and then this infinitive is regarded as repeated with the object ἅ δεῖ γεν . ἐν ταχ . With the conception ἣν ἔδωκεν , cf. especially Rev_5:7, and in general Act_1:7; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:11; Joh_12:49; Joh_17:7 sqq.; Mat_11:27. In conflict with the text, and in itself incorrect, is the remark of Calov.: “It was given to Christ according to his human nature;” still more, that of C. a Lap. and Tirin: “Christ received the revelation from the Father in his conception and incarnation.”[461] The revelation described in this book, Christ received from the Father, not in the flesh, but when exalted and glorified,[462] the perpetual mediator between God and man,[463] in order to communicate it by his testimony to the prophetic seer,[464] and thus besides to all his servants. Not so far as he is man, but so far as he is the Son, does the Father give to him.[465] [See Note XV., p. 121.] δεῖξαι . According to the constant usage of the Apoc.,[466] and the context in which the expressions ἀποκάλυψις and σημαίνειν occur,[467] to which ΔΕῚΞΑΙ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., are correlate, this word can be understood not only in general, as Mat_16:21, by “to point out, to give to know,”[468] but must have also the additional reference to the prophetic vision.[469] But it does not follow hence, that by the ΤΟῖς ΔΟΎΛΟΙς ΑὐΤΟῦ , the prophets are specially meant, of whom John would here appear as the representative.[470] The particular idea shadowed in this conception of the ΔΕῖΞΑΙ is justified, inasmuch as it is immediately explained that it is through the service of the prophet beholding Christ, that future things are proclaimed.
Τ . ΔΟΥΛ . ΑὐΤ ., viz., not God’s[471] but Jesus Christ’s; as we find directly afterwards, Τ . ἈΓΓ . ΑὐΤΟΥ and Τ . ΔΟΥΛ . ΑὐΤΟΥ .[472] The parallel, Rev_22:6, cannot be decisive as to the reference of the pronoun to us, as Jesus Christ is not mentioned there as the one who communicates. By the “servants of Jesus Christ,” believers in general are to be understood (cf. Rev_22:9, where the angel calls himself the fellow-servant not only of the prophets, but also of those ΤΗΡΟῦΝΤΕς Τ . ΛΟΓ . Τ . ΒΙΒΛ . ΤΟΥΤ .). So Ebrard against Hengst. Cf. besides Rev_22:16, according to the more correct reading.
Ἃ ΔΕῖ ΓΕΝΈΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ . The object of ΔΕῖΞΑΙ , and therefore, according to the connection with the first part of the sentence, forming the chief contents of the ΑΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙς as written in the present book. Cf. Rev_1:19, where there is fuller mention made, besides the future, also of present things.
The ΔΕῖ [473] depends upon the (not fatalistic) idea of “the divine ordination which could not be frustrated.”[474] The idea of Divine Providence is the essential presupposition of all prophecy.[475] But when Klief. presses the ΔΕῖ in such a way as though thereby the facts of prophecy belonging to the sphere of human freedom were excluded, the reason is entirely unbiblical, and inapplicable for interposing a false interpretation derived from ecclesiastical or secular history.
ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ designates neither figuratively the “certainty” of the future,[476] nor the swiftness of the course of things, without reference to the proximity or remoteness of time in which they were to occur. So Ebrard, who appeals in vain to Rom_16:20 and Luk_18:8, since not only those passages, particularly Luk_18:8 (where the subject is not the concrete future, but a constant rule), are dissimilar to ours, but especially because by the ἘΓΓΎς ,[477] Rev_1:3, it is decided that the speedy coming of what is to happen is meant. When in addition to this idea reference is made on the one hand explicitly,[478] and on the other by the very organism and contents of the book, to the patient waiting, it does not follow that we dare not understand the “quickly” in its strict sense,[479] but that the prophet himself distinguishes the beginning of future things, as the beginning of the ultimate completion,[480] from that distant completion itself. The evasion that the ἘΝ ΤΆΧΕΙ is to be understood “according to the divine method of computation,” as in 2Pe_3:8,[481] is contrary to the context.[482]
With the words καὶ ἐσήμανεν , κ . τ . λ ., the construction changes. As the ΣΗΜΑΊΝΕΙΝ corresponds in meaning to the preceding ΔΕῖΞΑΙ , because of which not ΤῊΝ ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙΝ ,[483] but Ἁ ΔΕῖ ΓΕΝ . is to be regarded the object,[484] so not Ὁ ΘΕΌς ,[485] but the one who is to show, viz., Jesus Christ, is the subject of ἘΣΉΜΑΝΕΝ . The ΔΕῖΞΑΙ occurs in the way peculiar to ΣΗΜΑΊΝΕΙΝ , i.e., the indication of what is meant by significative figures.[486]
ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΑς belongs to ΔΙʼ ἈΛΛΈΛΟΥ , and that too without supplying “this prophecy,”[487] etc.: on the contrary, the ἈΠΟΣΤ . ΔΙᾺ is absolute,[488] and to be understood according to the analogy of the Hebr. ùÑÈÉìç áÌÄéã .[489] Thus Ew. and Ebrard. Hengstenb., whom Klief. follows, tries to combine the ΔΙʼ ἈΓΓ . with ἙΣΗΜ ., because in the N. T. the ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΑς is regarded as requiring the accusative of the person.[490] But Mat_11:2, according to the more correct reading,[491] is ΠΈΜΨΑς ΔΙΆ ; by the parallel passage, Rev_22:6, the combination of ἈΠΟΣΤ . with ΔΙʼ ΑΓΓ . is maintained, while it is also to be noticed, that, according to the analogy of all the examples cited by Hengstb., ἈΠΟΣΤΕΊΛΑς must stand before ἐσημ and that thereby the inner connection with ἘΣΗΜ . is in no way obscured.
ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΥ ΑὐΤΟῦ . Grot. incorrectly: “Learn hence that even when God or Christ is said to have appeared, it ought to be understood of the angel of God or Christ, acting in his name, and representing his attributes.” But God and Christ appear everywhere separated from all angels.
A difficulty lies in the fact that it is not everywhere the same angel who is the interpreter, as might be expected from our position.[492] Cf. Rev_17:1; Rev_17:7, Rev_19:9, Rev_21:5; Rev_21:9, Rev_22:1; Rev_22:6, and besides Rev_1:10 sqq., Rev_4:1 sqq., Rev_6:8 sqq., Rev_7:13 sqq., Rev_10:8 sqq. Hence Ewald thinks that the angel of Rev_1:1, and also mentioned in all the visions, even where not named, and where another is presented, is to be regarded as the attendant of the Apostle John. But wherefore this superfluous attendance if a third one undertakes the showing and interpreting? That the angel[493] has no more to do than to transport John into a state of ecstasy,[494] is an arbitrary conception directly contrary to Rev_1:10 sqq., because there John is already in the Spirit when he hears the voice of the angel. The explanation of De Wette,[495] that the angel is meant who shows John the chief subject of the entire revelation, the judgment upon Rome,[496] as all that precedes is only preparatory thereto, has against it, first, that also the important preparations are shown and interpreted to the prophet, and, secondly, that even in Rev_17:1 to Rev_22:6, the same angel does not always appear as interpreter; for it is difficult to regard the angel coming forth at Rev_21:9, who continues from that time to remain with the seer, identical with the one speaking already in Rev_21:5.[497] Klief. refers to our position, and ascribes to the angel mentioned again in Rev_22:8 the office of bringing the full revelation which is still uncertain to angels otherwise occupied. All difficulty vanishes, if, as is undoubtedly grammatical,[498] the ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΥ ΑὐΤΟῦ be generically conceived[499] This appears at Rev_22:6 doubly supported by the τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ in the mouth of the angel speaking at that place.[500] The ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ thus understood can apply to all the individual angels who in the different visions have the office of significative declaration.[501] [See Note XVI., p. 122.] τῷ δούλῳ αὑτοῦ Ἰωαννῃ . The seer designates himself as the servant of Jesus Christ in respect to his prophetic service.[502] The addition of his own name[503] contains, according to the old prophetic custom, an attestation of the prophecy.
[454] Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.
[455] Heinr.
[456] As Gal_1:12; 2Co_12:1.
[457] Ebrard.
[458] Kliefoth, who even compares it with Luk_2:32.
[459] Rev_1:5, cf. Rev_1:3; Rev_19:10.
[460] Joh_5:26; Joh_6:52; Mat_27:34. Cf. Winer, p. 298 sqq. Passages like Rev_6:4, Rev_7:2, etc., should also be compared. Instead of the construction of the inf. attached to the passive ἐδόθη , that with ἳνα , as, e.g., in Rev_9:5, appears.
[461] Cf., besides, Stern: “The knowledge of the future events of the Church is imparted by God the Father to the man Christ Jesus, through the Logos hypostatically united with him.”
[462] Cf. Rev_5:5 sqq.; Joh_17:5.
[463] Cf. Act_2:33; Eph_4:7 sqq.; Heb_7:25.
[464] Cf. Rev_19:10.
[465] Cf. also Joh_5:26.
[466] Cf. Rev_4:1, Rev_17:1, Rev_21:9, Rev_22:1.
[467] Cf. also the μαρτυρ Ἰησ . Χρ ., the ὅσα εἷδε , Rev_1:2, and besides the λογ . τ . προφητείας , Rev_1:3.
[468] De Wette, Ebrard.
[469] Cf. Amo_7:1; Amo_7:4; Ew.
[470] Hengstenb. Cf. Vitringa.
[471] Ebrard.
[472] Cf. Rev_2:20. So also Klief.
[473] Dan_2:29; Mat_24:6.
[474] Nic. de Lyra.
[475] Cf. Amo_3:7; Act_15:18.
[476] Eich.
[477] Cf. Rev_2:5; Rev_2:16, Rev_3:11, Rev_22:7; Rev_22:10; Rev_22:12; Rev_22:20.
[478] Cf. Rev_1:9; Rev_13:10; Rev_14:12.
[479] De Wette. A confused conception, according to which two unlike views remain unadjusted with one another.
[480] Hengstenb. Cf. C. a Lap., Tirin, Ew., Klief., etc.
[481] Vitr., Wolf, etc. (Beck). Cf. also Grot.
[482] Cf. in general Einl., sec. 2.
[483] Ew., Ebrard.
[484] Hengstenb., Ew. 2, Bleek.
[485] Calov.
[486] An example, Act_21:11. Cf., besides, Isa_20:2 sqq., Rev_8:1 sqq.
[487] C. a Lap., Tirin, Züll., Stern.
[488] = hinsehend.
[489] Eze_4:13.
[490] Mat_2:16; Mar_6:17; Act_7:14. Cf. Gen_31:4; Gen_41:8, etc.
[491] Lachm., Tisch. [W. and H.].
[492] Cf. Zec_1:9; Zec_1:13; Zec_2:3; Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21, where Gabriel appears as interpreter, which Züll., without ground, fancies to be our position. Cf. also Ebrard, Stern.
[493] Rev_1:1; Rev_22:6.
[494] Hengstb. Cf. also Ebrard.
[495] Cf. Eich., Bleek, Stern.
[496] Rev_17:1; Rev_17:7; Rev_17:15. Cf. Rev_19:9, Rev_21:9, Rev_22:1; Rev_22:6; Rev_22:16.
[497] Cf. Rev_17:1; Rev_17:7; Rev_17:15, Rev_19:9.
[498] Cf. Winer, p. 101.
[499] Cf. Mat_13:44 : τῷ ἀγρ ., Rev_18:17.
[500] Cf. also Rev_22:16.
[501] Thus even Ewald now maintains (Rev_2:1) the theory of angels relieving one another.
[502] Rev_22:9. Cf. Amo_3:7; Isa_49:5.
[503] Cf. Rev_1:4; Rev_1:9.
XV. Rev_1:1. ἥν ἔδωκεν αυτῷ ὁ θεὸς
XVI. Rev_1:1. διὰ τοῦ αγγέλου
Beck, however, says, “The article before ἀγγ ., according to the natural idiom, definitely presents an individual from the genus of angels, and the αὐτοῦ refers to Jesus Christ who sends; cf. Rev_22:16. The designation ‘his angel’ is thoroughly consistent according to 1Pe_3:22; cf. Mat_13:41.”