Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 11:1 - 11:1

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 11:1 - 11:1


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Rev_11:1. Καὶ ἐδόθη μοι . By whom, remains just as undetermined as Rev_8:2, Rev_6:11. De Wette, Ew. ii., think of the angel of ch. 10, who, however, has fulfilled there that to which he was called; Beng.[2791] refers it to Christ, but to this, Rev_11:3 ( ΜΑΡΤ . ΜΟΥ ) does not constrain.

ΚἈΛΑΜΟς ὉΜΟΙΟς ῬΆΒΔῼ . That a reed serves as a ΜΈΤΡΟΝ ,[2792] is to a certain extent explained as to its form, by its resemblance to a rule.

λέγων , without construction, as Rev_4:1. Of course, the giver of the κάλαμος is meant; but it is incorrect, if one, as even Beng., regard the κάλαμος as the formally determined subject, and then by metonymy reaches its giver.

ἔγειρε καὶ μέτρησον . From the ἔγειρε it does not follow, that previously John was “in another posture of body,”[2793] perhaps kneeling; the ἔγειρε —otherwise than in Mar_5:41; Joh_5:8; Luk_5:23—corresponding to the Heb. ÷åÌí ,[2794] is only excitatory with respect to the closely connected ΚΑῚ ΜΕΤΡ .[2795]

It is not the purpose of the measuring, as the antithesis in Rev_11:2 undoubtedly shows, to make visible the relations of space, which, besides, is not conceivable in the measuring of the ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΟῦΝΤΕς ,—as in Eze_40:1 sqq. the temple-building beheld by the prophet in its completion was measured in all its parts, because he is to learn its dimensions accurately,[2796]—but just as in Amo_7:7[2797] that is measured which was destroyed, with respect to what is to be exempted from destruction, so John must here measure what is mentioned in Rev_11:1, because this is to be exempted from the destruction to which what is not measured (Rev_11:2) is abandoned, and is therefore to be preserved. In this formal understanding, Grot., Eichh., Ew., De Wette, Lücke, Hengstenb., etc., agree, much as they diverge from one another in its more detailed interpretation. It is, therefore, incorrect to find the intention of the new building in the measuring; whether in Bengel’s sense, who here finds a confirmation of Ezekiel 40, viz., the prophecy of the building of the temple of Ezekiel at Jerusalem actually to occur at the end of days; or in the sense of the allegorists, who understand the ναὸς τ . θ . of the true Church of Christ, and refer to its glorious new building, in connection with which the old Protestant expositors[2798] regard the destruction of that which was consecrated (Rev_11:2; Rev_11:13), as the Roman-Catholic degeneration, Jerusalem (Rev_11:8) as papal Rome; while the Catholics have in view the removal of the O. T. sanctuary, and the separation of wicked members of the Church, Rev_11:2.[2799] See in general on Rev_11:13.

ΤῸΝ ΝΑῸΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ . That part of the entire ἹΕΡΌΝ which contained the holy of holies, the holy place, and the porch; the proper temple-building,[2800] in distinction from the entire space of the outer courts, cf. Rev_11:2. Incorrectly, Weiss:[2801] “The congregation of believing Jews.”

ΤῸ ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ . Only the altar of incense can be meant; since only this, and not the altar of sacrifice,[2802] stood in the ΝΑΌς .[2803] For the argument of Hengstenb., that the ΝΑΌς itself is to be understood figuratively of the Christian Church, because here the altar of incense in the same is removed, there is no occasion. But, also, on the other side, the argument of De Wette is unsuitable, that in Rev_6:9, Rev_8:3, what is said pertains not to the altar of sacrifice, which does not occur at all in the Apoc., but to the altar of incense; for since the ΝΑῸς Τ . Θ . (Rev_11:1) is different from the ΝΑῸς Τ . Θ . Ὁ ἘΝ Τ . ΟὐΡΑΝῷ (Rev_11:19), just so little has the ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ (Rev_11:1) to do with the heavenly altar, Rev_8:3, Rev_6:9.

καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ , viz., Τῷ ΝΑῷ . Vitr. refers ΑΥΤῷ to ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤ ., and explains the ἘΝ by apud, since he interprets τ . προσκυν . by metonymy:[2804] “the place in which the people were accustomed to adore God,” and thus finally derives “the court of the Israelites.” To this view, conflicting with the idea of the ναός , and with Rev_11:2,—which, besides, appears entirely confused by the fact that Vitr.[2805] understands by the ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤ . properly Christ,—he comes in order not to be compelled to conceive of the ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΟῦΝΤΕς in the ΝΑΌς , and at the altar found therein as exclusively priests, of whom many of the older Catholics, as C. a Lap, alone think. But as certainly as also the ΝΑῸς Τ . Θ . is to be sought in Jerusalem (Rev_11:8), and the whole chapter is to be referred to the impending destruction of the city,[2806] just so certainly does the position of those ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΟῦΝΤΕς in the ΝΑΌς itself appear as one of the ideal features, which explain the whole prophecy, and extend it to the sphere of a mere foretelling of a future event. That John beholds true believers from Israel transferred to the ΝΑῸς Τ . Θ ., otherwise standing open only to priests, is interposed because of his knowledge of the priestly character of all believers, Jews and Gentiles.[2807] But as in ch. 7 he reports the sealing of believers out of Israel, as a necessary preparation for the judgment impending over Israel; so here, where the judgment breaks upon Israel those believers together with the proper dwelling of God are measured, just as he protects the ναὸς τ . Θ . before its sinking in judgment.[2808] [See Note LXVII., p. 332.]

[2791] Cf. also Ew.

[2792] Cf. Eze_40:3 : ÷ÀðÅä äÇîÌÄãÈä ; LXX.: κάλαμος μέτρον . Cf. Rev_21:15.

[2793] Beng.

[2794] Num_10:35; LXX.: ἐξεγέρθεις . Psa_3:8; LXX.: ἀνάστα . Mic_6:1; LXX.: ἀνάστηθι .

[2795] Cf. Ew., De Wette, etc.

[2796] Cf. Rev_21:15 sqq.; also Zec_2:5 sqq. is similar.

[2797] Cf. Hab_3:16.

[2798] Par., Vitr., etc.

[2799] C. a Lap., Stern.

[2800] Mat_23:35; Mat_27:51.

[2801] Stud. u. Krit., 1869, p. 30.

[2802] Grot., Vitr., Hengstenb.

[2803] Eichh., Heinr., De Wette, Stern, Ebrard.

[2804] Cf. also Grot.

[2805] Cf. Zeg., etc.

[2806] See on Rev_11:13.

[2807] Rev_1:6, Rev_5:10. Cf. also Rev_7:15.

[2808] Cf. also De Wette, Lücke (p. 354).

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

LXVII. Rev_11:1. τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ , κ . τ . λ .

Alford argues at length in criticism of Düsterdieck’s interpretation, by which the measuring is referred to the literal and earthly Jerusalem: “I would strongly recommend any one who takes that view, to read through the very unsatisfactory and shuffling comment of Düsterdieck here; the result of which is, that, finding, as he of course does, many discrepancies between this and our Lord’s prophecy of the same destruction of Jerusalem, he is driven to the refuge that while our Lord describes matters of fact, St. John idealizes the catastrophe, setting it forth, not as it really took place, but according to its inner connection with the final accomplishment of the mystery of God, and correspondently with the hope which God’s O. T. people possessed, as contrasted with the heathen power of this world which abides in ‘Babylon.’ But if ‘Babylon’ is the abode of the world, why not ‘Jerusalem’ of the Church? If our interpreter, maintaining the literal sense, is allowed so far to ‘idealize’ as to exempt the temple of God itself (Rev_11:1) from a destruction which we know overtook it, and nine-tenths of the city (Rev_11:13) from an overthrow which destroyed it all, surely there is an end to the meaning of words. If Jerusalem here is simply Jerusalem, and the prophecy regards her overthrow by the Romans, and especially if this passage is to be made such use of as to set aside the testimony of Irenæus as to the date of the Apoc. by the stronger testimony of the Apoc. itself [so Düsterdieck from Lücke], then must every particular be shown to tally with known history; or, if this cannot be done, at least it must be shown that none contradicts it. If this cannot be done, then we may fairly infer that the prophecy has no such reference, or only remotely, here and there, and not as to its principal subject. Into whatever difficulty we may be led by the remark, it is no less true that the πόλις ἡ ἁγία of Rev_11:2 cannot be the same as the πόλις ἡ μεγάλη of Rev_11:8. This has been felt by the literal interpreters, and they have devised ingenious reasons why the holy city should afterwards be called the great city.… Düsterd.: ‘Because it is impossible in one breath to call a city ‘holy,’ and ‘Sodom and Egypt.’ Most true; then must we not look for some other city than one which this very prophecy has called most holy?” He understands the ναὸς τ . θεοῦ and its θυσιαστήριον as referring to “the Church of the elect servants of God, everywhere in this book symbolized by Jews in deed and truth. The society of these, as a whole, is the νάος agreeably to Scripture symbolism elsewhere, e.g., 1Co_3:16-17, and is symbolized by the inner or holy place of the Jerusalem temple, in and among which they, as true Israelites and priests unto God, have a right to worship and minister. These are they who, properly speaking, alone are measured; estimated again and again in this book by tale and number,—partakers in the first resurrection, the Church of the first-born.” Gebhardt, however, while emphatically rejecting Düsterdieck’s literalism, restricts the measuring to Jewish Christians (p. 258): “Can we still understand ‘the holy city,’ ‘the great city,’ to be Jerusalem in a purely local sense? No; the city is Jerusalem, but, as frequently elsewhere, it is at the same time the representative of the Jewish people. The seer was to ‘measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein;’ i.e., as Christians generally were protected from the trumpet and vial plagues (Rev_7:1-4), so should Christians out of Israel be protected from the judgments which were to come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people (compare Mat_24:15-18). On the contrary, the court without the temple was to be ‘left out,’ for it was given to the Gentiles, and they should tread the holy city under foot forty and two months; i.e., the judgments already predicted by Daniel will burst in upon the non-christian, unbelieving Jewish people. Whether John, by its being given to the Gentiles, and their treading it under foot, had in mind the destruction of Jerusalem, the words do not expressly say.”