Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 1:9 - 1:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_1:9. Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . The name as in Rev_1:3. [See Notes on Introduction, pp. .] The combination of the ἐγώ with the name[667] is after the manner of Daniel.[668] In the same way, the authors of 4 Ezra[669] and the Book of Enoch[670] conform to Daniel’s model. The formula must not be regarded as determined by the intention of the composer to distinguish himself from the speaker in Rev_1:8.[671]
John not only calls himself the brother of the readers, in the sense justified by the communicative style of Rev_1:5-6,[672] but especially emphasizes what is supposed in the relation of a brother: ΚΑῚ ΣΥΓΚΟΙΝΩΝῸς ἘΝ Τῇ ΘΛΊΨΕΙ , Κ . Τ . Λ . The inner combination of this idea with Ὁ ἈΔΕΛΡῸς ὙΜῶΝ is to be inferred from the fact of the non-repetition of the article. The ΈΝ [673] designates the ΘΛῖΨΙς , etc., as the sphere in which the fellowship[674] occurs, in distinction from the objective conception of the customary genitive. So, too, the ἐν stands in the ἐν Ἰησοῦ , belonging to all three terms, θλιψ ., βασιλ ., and ὑπομ ., whereby the Lord and Saviour represents himself as the personal ground of the tribulation and kingdom and patience of all those to whom Rev_1:5-6 pertain. A comparison has here been incorrectly made with the dissimilar ideas of Col_1:24, 2Co_1:15.[675] Cf., on the other hand, Php_2:1, παράκλησις ἑν Χριστῷ .
The θλῖψις ( ἐν Ἰησοῦ ) is the affliction,[676] which, “for the name of Christ,”[677] has been infallibly prepared for believers, on the part of the hating and persecuting world.[678] But, as this suffering, so also does the royal glory possessed already by believers, and yet hoped for[679] in its full manifestation, lie “in Jesus” himself. Hence, e.g., Rev_3:21, the promise in the mouth of Christ.
Finally John adds yet the ὑπομονή ( ἐν Ἰησοῦ ), as the item ordinarily mediating between the two preceding,[680] which, therefore, is an important subject of the prophetic exhortation.[681] There is no hendiadys, either in the first or the last of the two conceptions.[682]
[667] Rev_22:8.
[668] Dan_7:15; Dan_8:1; Dan_9:2; Dan_10:2; Dan_12:5.
[669] 4 Ezr_2:42.
[670] Enoch 12:3, 24:7, 92:3, 105:15.
[671] Ewald.
[672] Cf. Rev_19:10.
[673] Cf. Mat_23:30; Gal_6:6; Act_8:21; Act_26:18.
[674] Respecting the expression συγκοιν ., cf. Rev_18:4; Php_1:7; Rom_11:17; 1Co_9:23; also, Eph_3:6.
[675] De Wette, Hengstenb., etc.
[676] Rev_2:9-10, Rev_3:14.
[677] Mat_24:9; cf. Mat_13:21.
[678] Joh_16:33; Act_14:22.
[679] Cf. 2Ti_2:12; Rom_8:17; Act_14:22.
[680] So that the juxtaposition of these terms is not entirely without order (De Wette).
[681] Cf. Rev_2:2-3, Rev_3:10, Rev_13:10, Rev_14:12.
[682] Against Heinr.
In connection with the self-designation of the composer as ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν , the entire expression καὶ συγκοιν .
Ἰησ ., whose fundamental universality is marked by the three terms θλῖψις , βασιλεία , and ὑπομονὴ , cannot be decisive as to the words ἐγενόμην
μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ having definite reference to the θλῖψις just mentioned, and therefore being understood necessarily of the banishment of John, whether of the apostle[683] or another John.[684] The incorrect emphasizing and specializing of the θλῖψις likewise leads N. de Lyra to think of the legend according to which the apostle was cast into seething oil. As most plausible for the traditional explanation, the usage of the δία , Rev_6:9, Rev_20:4, is cited: but in these passages we find the determinative expressions ἐσφραγμ ., πεπελεκισμ .; and a comparison may also be made with Mat_13:21; Mat_24:9; Joh_15:21. But the exposition proposed by Bleek, Lücke, and De Wette, according to which the δία indicates that John was in Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,—i.e., to receive the same [see Notes on Introduction, p. 91],—is decided to be correct by: (1) The in any case near parallelism of Rev_1:1-2. (2) The circumstance that ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ , according to the usage of the composer of the Apoc., cannot in any way be “the testimony concerning Jesus:”[685] for what Wolf remarks on 1, 2, is entirely wrong; viz., “As often as the word μαρτυρία occurs in the Apoc., so often does it signify the testimony concerning Christ given by others.” But the genitive with μαρτυρία is always subjective; so that the expression μαρτ . Ἰησοῦ signifies regularly[686] that given by Jesus (the faithful witness, Rev_1:5), and the μαρτ . αὐτῶν the testimony given by the αὐτοί ,[687] in which latter case the contents of the μαρτυρία are synonymous. This firm rule, Rev_6:9[688] by no means invalidates. The testimony proceeding from Jesus, because of which John was in Patmos,[689]—according to Volkmar, only an item in the account,—is, thus, that which he was to receive[690] in the Spirit.[691] Thus, even in an exegetical way, the opinion[692] is incorrect, that John had gone to Patmos in order to preach, which even in itself would be highly improbable on account of the character of the small, sparsely inhabited island. John himself intimates that the island is insignificant, by writing ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ .[693] Patmos, to-day called Patino or Palmosa, belongs to the Sporades. Tournefort[694] found on it only a small town; there is pointed out, besides a sarcophagus with John’s remains, the grotto in which the apostle is said to have received the Apoc.[695] By the aorist form ἐγενόμην ,[696] it is clearly implied,[697] that when John wrote the Revelation he was no longer on Patmos. To make the command (Rev_1:11) conflict with this conception,[698] is only to say,[699] that, “as the revelation came to an end, the book also was finished.” Regard for the readers[700] cannot explain[701] the aor. ἘΓΕΝΌΜΗΝ , because in this word there is no reference to writing.
[683] Hengstenb., Ebrard, Hilgenf.; Introduction, p. 409; Gebhardt, p. 11, etc.
[684] Ewald.
[685] Ebrard, etc.
[686] Rev_1:2, Rev_12:17, Rev_19:10, Rev_20:4.
[687] Rev_11:7, Rev_12:11.
[688] See on passage.
[689] Klief., who is compelled to understand the μαρτ . Ἰησ . in the above sense, but in other respects rejects the corresponding opposition as “violence occasioned by critical interests,” advances the idea that John was conveyed to Patmos “because, by his testimony, he was responsible for God’s saving word, and the testimony concerning the same, given by Jesus.”
[690] Cf. Rev_1:1-2.
[691] Cf. immediately afterwards, Rev_1:10.
[692] Hartwig, Apol. d. Offenb., ii. 55.
[693] Beng., Heinr., Hengstenb.
[694] In Wolf.
[695] Cf., also, Winer, Reallex., in loco.
[696] Cf. Rev_1:10.
[697] Ewald, etc.
[698] Ebrard.
[699] If we receive with Hengstenb. (p. 116) what is inconceivable and irreconcilable with Rev_1:10 : ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι .
[700] As in ἐμαρτύρησε , Rev_1:2.
[701] Hengstenb., to whom Lücke (p. 814) concedes too much.