Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 1:20 - 1:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_1:20. τὸ μυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων , κ . τ . λ ., is to be regarded as dependent upon γράψον . This idea is already correctly explained by N. de Lyra: “the sacrament of the stars, i.e., the sacred secret signified by them.” Μυστήριον and ἀποκάλυφις are correlate ideas; for a μυστήριον is all that man understands, not by himself, but only by divine publication and interpretation,[848] such as immediately follows.[849] When, now, John has seen the mystery of the seven stars which are at the Lord’s right hand,[850] and is to write of the mystery of the seven golden candlesticks, this is in no way undone by the second half of Rev_1:20, where only the simple explanation of the mysterious symbol is given. As the words τὸ μυστηρ .
χρυσᾶς [851] are formally equivalent to the words Ἃ ΕἾΔΕς
ΤΑῦΤΑ , so, also, the mystery of the seven stars and candlesticks in substance corresponds thereto. The command to write this mystery is fulfilled 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 the stars and candlesticks which the prophet beholds, and whose meaning he is to testify to the churches.[852] If now, before the mystery of the seven stars with the entire treasures of prophetic admonition, warning, and comfort, be stated in this sense,[853] an express interpretation of the symbols beheld by John be given,[854] 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,[855] which have received their light from Christ, and continue to be sustained by the Lord, who walks in their midst.[856] An allied idea must lie, however the ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ be understood, in the symbol of the stars in Christ’s right hand, whereby, at all events, the ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ of the churches are described, and that in such a way that to the churches themselves belongs[857] what is ascribed to their angels.[858] So far, all interpreters are unanimous. The controversy centres upon the word ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ . This must mean either “messenger”[859] 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 a similar position between him and the churches to that which Epaphroditus probably held between Paul and the Philippians;”[860] 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.,[861] Wolf, Schöttgen, Beng., Eichh., Heinr.,[862] Ewald, etc., have guarded, who understand the “messenger” of the Christian churches, after the manner of the Jewish ùÑÀìÄéçÅ öÄáÌåÌø , 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,[863] dare at any rate be regarded such representative of the entire church, as the ἄγγελος appears in the seven epistles. The latter view is taken by those who, appealing to Mal_2:7; Mal_3:1,[864] and, as to what refers to the symbol of the stars, to Dan_12:3, understand the ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ , i.e., angels, as superintendents (Vorsteher), teachers, as bishops or presbyters.[865] So also R. Rothe,[866] 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[867] regards the angels of every individual church, not as an individual, but as “the entire church government,” i.e., the body of presbyters,—eventually with a bishop at the head,—together with the deacons. This manner of exposition, which in its original simplicity always commends itself more than in its elaborate modifications by Rothe and Hengstb., is at variance partly with the use of the word ἌΓΓΕΛΟς otherwise in the Apoc., and partly with the decisive circumstance, that, in the epistles which are directed to the ἌΓΓΕΛΟς of each congregation, 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 representatives 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 Rev_14:18, Rev_16:5,[868] where the angel of the elements, as the nations and the individuals are called, the ἌΓΓΕΛΟς of a church can be regarded[869] the personified spirit of the church.[870] This conception is not identical with that of the ἌΓΓΕΓΟς ἜΦΟΡΟς ,[871] according to which, e.g., among the rabbins, the fundamental principle obtains, “God does not punish any people below without first casting down its chief from above,”[872] but has been formed in dependence thereon.[873] Against this, the objection cannot be made valid, that the article is absent before ἄγγελοι : for the question has to do only with what is comprised in ἄγγελοι τ . ἐκκλ ., 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 Rev_1:11 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 ἄγγελοι τ . εκκλ . But[874] the ἄγγελοι τ . εκκλ . are to be regarded not at all as a symbol, but as—of course ideally—reality; and, according to this conception, to be in fact distinguished from churches that have been observed. If the ἐκκλησία , 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 ἄγγελος τ . ἐκκλησίας 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 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.]
[848] Mat_13:11; Mar_4:11; Rom_11:25; Eph_5:32; Eph_1:9.
[849] Cf. Rev_17:7.
[850] ἐπί , i.e., resting on the same, and therefore as to substance nothing else is to be understood that the ἐν , v. 16.
[851] In an apposition without the καὶ .
[852] Inconceivable, however, is the idea expressed by Klief., that, during the entire revelation (until Rev_22:5), the Lord remains standing alongside of John in the situation described in the vision, Rev_1:10-18. Already in ch. 4 the situation changes.
[853] Chs. 2, 3, and also ch. 4 sqq.
[854] v. 20b.
[855] Cf. Rev_2:5.
[856] Cf. Mat_5:14 sqq.
[857] Rev_1:4; Rev_1:11.
[858] Chs. 2 and 3.
[859] Luk_7:24; Luk_9:52; Jam_2:25; but certainly not 1Ti_3:16, as Ebrard thinks.
[860] Php_4:18; cf., also, Col_4:12.
[861] Cf. De Synag. vet., iii. 2; 2, 3.
[862] Yet cf. II. p. 205.
[863] Concerning whom it could formerly have been thought otherwise, with Ewald. Yet Ew. 2., the mediator, i.e., the Vorsteher, of the church.
[864] Exo_23:20; Isa_42:19; Psa_103:20 sqq.; Hengstenb.
[865] Primas, Beda, N. de Lyra, Zeger, Drus., Alcas., C. a Lap., Bossuet, Beza, Grot., Calov., Herder, Klief., etc.
[866] Anfänge d. christl. Kirche, i. p. 423 sqq.
[867] Cf. Brightman, Alsted.
[868] Cf. Rev_7:1, Rev_9:11; Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20; Mat_18:10; Deu_32:8 (LXX.).
[869] Cf. Salmas, De episc. et presb., p. 183; Wetst., Züll., Bleek, etc.
[870] De Wette, Lücke, p. 432.
[871] So Hilgenf., Introd., p. 412. But the contents of the epistles do not harmonize with the idea of an actual guardian angel. Gebhardt, p. 39 sq., has accepted the presentation as above given.
[872] In Wetst.
[873] Cf. also Volkm., who, however, mentions also that the ἀγγ . ἔφορος has “his earthly substratum” in the president of the congregation.
[874] Cf. Lücke.
In conformity with the vision, Rev_1:12 sqq., and the epistles which in chs. 2 and 3 are directed to the seven churches,[875] 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,[876] 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.[877] But against this opinion of Hengstenb.,—who, in accordance with his false view of the relation of the section Rev_1:4 to Rev_3:22 to the whole book,[878] comprehends the seven churches collectively with the utmost limitation,[879]—is, first, the number seven;[880] 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; a 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[881] is not only expressly emphasized,[882] 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,[883] which 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,[884] since it is a peculiarity of the writer of the Apoc. to present the general and ideal realistically, and in a definite, plastic way.[885] But with this it is also established, that all further determinations which have been connected, even by a play of words, with the names of the individual congregations,[886] 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., so that only “at the end of Church history,” immediately before Christ’s return, are we to expect the corresponding forms of Christian Church-life;[887] or whether the prophetically portrayed conditions are to be understood consecutively of seven periods of Church history, succeeding one after another;[888] or, finally, whether they be partly consecutive and partly synchronistic.[889] 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[890] 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.[891] 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, Rev_1:12 sqq., and the epistles belonging thereto; viz., the unfolding of the prophecy, “The Lord cometh.”
[875] Cf. Rev_1:4; Rev_1:11.
[876] Wolf, Harenburg (who nevertheless understand seven Jewish and Judaeo-Christian schools found in Jerusalem, and named after the Asiatic cities), Herder, Lücke,—cf., on the other hand, Harenb.,—De Wette, Bleek, Hengstenb., etc.
[877] Hengstenb.
[878] Cf. on Rev_1:4.
[879] Cf. Lücke, Ebrard, and already Vitr.
[880] For it is certain that in Colossä and Hieropolis (Col_4:14), and probably, e.g., in Tralles and Magnesia (cf. the Letters of Ignatius), there were churches; so that John, 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 mentioned.
[881] Cf. already the Fragment of Muratori: “For although in the Apoc., John writes to the seven churches, yet he speaks to all.” Wieseler’s Ausgabe in the Stud. u. Krit., 1847, p. 815 sqq.
[882] Rev_2:11; Rev_2:17, etc.; cf. Rev_1:3, Rev_22:9; Rev_22:18 sqq.
[883] As Lücke wishes.
[884] Victorin, Areth., Beda, N. de Lyra, Grot., De Wette, etc.
[885] Cf. the idea of the seven angels and (Rev_1:4) the seven spirits.
[886] “ Ἔφεσος reminds them that they ought to be inflamed with the desire for eternal things, for ἔφεσις is desire.” Grot. Cf. even Ebrard.
[887] Hofmann, Weiss, u. Erfüll., ii. pp. 320, 324.
[888] Mede, Brightm., Vitr.
[889] Ebrard.
[890] Rev_2:7; Rev_2:11; Rev_2:17; Rev_2:27.
[891] According to Kliefolh, Zahlensymbolik der. H. Schr. Theolog. Zeitsch., 1862, p. 53) what is consecutive lies just in the number seven. Similarly in Commentar (p. 271: “The number seven shows the development allotted the entire Church”). He understands the entire first part (Rev_1:20 b–3:22) as a statement of the ἃ εἰσὶν (Rev_1:19), i.e., of those which are the things beheld (Rev_1:10-18) for the present course of time, while Rev_1:20 b gives the meaning of Rev_1:10-18; and then in chs. 2 and 3 are portrayed the developments of Christianity originating in the present, before the “far in the future” final period beginning with Rev_4:1. Only in the last four epistles does Klief. find a reference to the parousia, as the circumstances portrayed therein are actually to extend in close consecutive chronological sequence until the epoch of the parousia. What is consecutive in the number seven, derived here (p. 163) from the order of the divine working, is referred, however, by Klief. (on Rev_17:9, p. 210) to the relations of the anti-Christian world-power, which (iii. p. 258) is called “the final work of the Devil.”
XXVII. Rev_1:20. ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ εκκλησιῶν
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 (Lexicon): “To see in ἄγγελοι here a personification of the spirit of the community in its ‘ideal reality’ (as again Düsterdieck has recently done), is not merely without any biblical analogy,—for such a view derives no support from Dan_10:13; Dan_10:20; Deu_32:8; 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 τῇ ἐν … ἐκκλησία γράψον . Assuming the ἄγγ . τῶν ἐκκλησ . 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 circumstance that the writer of the Apocalypse could not act as messenger between two super-terrestrial beings (cf. Rev_1:1; Rev_22:6); and, further, by the consideration 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 Act_20:28; 1Pe_5:2; and that, too, so that these ἐπίσκοποι or πρεσβύτεροι are those whose business it is to execute the will or commission of the Lord, in general 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. Act_20:28; Mal_2:7.” Stier: “Persons who 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. 3, 287): “The ἄγγελος here is neither to be spiritualized as the personification 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 congregation 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 terminology 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_1:1), to the priests of Israel (Mal_2:7), to the forerunner of the Lord (Mal_3:1). It had been used of those whom, in a lower sense, the Lord had sent to prepare his way before him (Luk_9:52), 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 ‘ministering spirits’ in heaven (Heb_1:14). 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 symbolical 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.”