Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 11:13 - 11:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_11:13. At the same time a great earthquake destroys the tenth part of the city, slays seven thousand inhabitants, and thus effects the conversion of the rest.
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ , viz., that in which what is reported in Rev_11:12 occurred.[2908] With the glorification of the witnesses coincides the vengeance upon their enemies, and those of the Lord.
ΣΕΙΣΜῸς ΜΈΓΑς . That the earthquake is intended just as literally as in Rev_6:12,[2909] and is not some dreadful event to be discerned only from the fulfilment of the prophecy,[2910] and that, in general, nothing allegorical is here said, follows from the further description of the effect of the earthquake; the tenth part of the city is thrown down, and seven thousand men ( ὀνόματα ἀνθρ ., cf. Rev_3:4) are slain ( ἈΠΕΚΤΆΝΘΗΣΑΝ , in the same sense as the other plagues).[2911] If the numerical specifications be regarded as something else than concrete forms, which by a certain measure make perceptible the idea of a relatively small injury,[2912] we enter the province of conjecture. Ebrard wishes to “refer the tenth part of the city to the tenth part of the fourth world-power, over which the antichrist is to extend his dominion.”[2913] But, as by this arbitrary introduction of a prophecy so unlike this as that in ch. 17, the antichristian character of the number ten is inferred, an embarrassment to the text is occasioned, since it designates the antichristian men slain by the number seven, a divine number. Yet here Ebrard aids with the conjecture, that this number may indicate “the servile imitation of divine relations of number on the part of the antichristian realm.”
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ , κ . τ . λ . Upon this large remainder of the inhabitants of the city, the Divine visitation is, therefore, not fruitless.[2914]
ἜΔΩΚΑΝ ΔΌΞΑΝ . A mark of conversion, Rev_16:9; Jer_13:16.[2915]
Τῷ ΘΕῷ ΤΟῦ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ . The expression, derived from the later books of the O. T.,[2916] occurs in the N. T. only here and Rev_16:11.[2917] It is caused here by Rev_11:13.[2918] Without further reference, De Wette explains it: “the true, supreme God.” But by the very fact that God carries his two witnesses to heaven, he shows himself as God of heaven.
[2908] De Wette.
[2909] Cf. also Mat_27:51; Mat_28:2, where a similar inner connection of the earthquake with the death and resurrection of the Lord occurs.
[2910] Ebrard.
[2911] Cf. Rev_6:8, Rev_8:11, Rev_9:18.
[2912] Cf. Rev_6:8, Rev_8:7 sqq., where the fourth or third are affected by a plague. So Ewald, De Wette, Lücke.
[2913] Dan_7:24. Cf. Rev_17:12 sq.
[2914] Cf., on the other hand, Rev_9:20.
[2915] Beng.
[2916] Eze_1:2; Neh_1:4 sq.; Dan_2:18.
[2917] De Wette.
[2918] Cf. Beng.
For the comprehension of the entire section, Rev_11:1-13, the text gives a completely secure standpoint by designating “the holy city” in which “the temple of God” stands, and which “the Gentiles shall tread under foot,” Rev_11:1-2, by the most unambiguous words as the city “where Christ was crucified,” Rev_11:8. Already what is said in Rev_11:1-2, suggests only Jerusalem; but the words of Rev_11:8 ὅπου
ἐσταυρώθη , are in themselves so simple, and have besides, by means of the historical aor., such immovable firmness in their reference to the definite fact of the crucifixion of the Lord, that no exposition can correspond with the text that conflicts with the norm given by Rev_11:8 and Rev_11:1-2. And if the difficulties of exposition from the standpoint given by the context—viz., concerning the two witnesses (Rev_11:3 sqq.), and the relation of Rev_11:13 and Rev_11:1-2, to the Lord’s prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem—were still greater than they are, without doubt the solution of the difficulties can be found only in the way indicated by the text itself. Highly characteristic of the force with which the text, especially by Rev_11:8, defends itself against the allegorical interpretation, are the concessions of the allegorists themselves. C. a Lap allegorizes like the older Protestants; but in order to avoid altogether the results of Protestant allegorizing, which regards the great city as Papal Rome, he mentions that Rev_11:8 allows us to think only of Jerusalem, and, therefore, in no way of Rome. Hengstenb., who interprets the entire section (Rev_11:1-13) allegorically of the secularized church, opens his observations on Rev_11:8 with the words: “The great city is Jerusalem.” Tinius[2919] does not know how to defend the allegorical interpretation as Rome, otherwise than by the conjecture that the contradictory words ὅπου καὶ ὁ κύριος αὐτων ἐσταυρώθη were interpolated![2920]
[2919] Die Off. Joh.—Allen verständlich gemacht, Leipz., 1839.
[2920] Cf. De Wette.
If by allegorizing, the prophecy be once withdrawn from the firm historical basis upon which, by Rev_11:8 and Rev_11:1-2,[2921] it puts itself, every limitation whereby the context itself determines the relation of prophecy is removed, and a proper refutation of the most arbitrary interpretations is no longer possible. How will an old Protestant or a modern allegorist prove that the exposition of N. de Lyra is incorrect, when by essentially the same allegorizing he infers that Rev_11:1-2, were fulfilled when Pope Felix instituted the festival of church dedications? For, why should not ΚΆΛΑΜΟς signify just as well a sprinkling-brush as the word of God? And if the ΝΑῸς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ mean the true Church, why could not the witnesses coming forth for it be as well Pope Silverius and the Patriarch Mennas,[2922] as the “testes veritatis,” possisibly the Waldenses, whose testimony in John Hus and Jerome of Prague was revived in Luther and Melanchthon?[2923] Or, upon what exegetical foundation can it be proved that the beast from the abyss is not the imperial general Belisarius,[2924] but the Pope?[2925] The modern allegorists are inconsistent in not expressly adopting the special relations which the allegorical interpretation formerly knew how to find in a surprising way.[2926] The modern allegorists are harmonious with the ancient in the fundamental view of all decided points of the entire prophecy: that the temple of God which was measured means the true Church which is to be preserved, while the outer court and the city given to the heathen are wicked Christians; that Christ’s two witnesses, their office, their miraculous powers, their suffering, their death, their resurrection and ascension, are to be understood “spiritually;” finally, that the earthquake (Rev_11:13) and its effect figuratively represent a visitation upon the degenerate Church. Ebrard regards the earthquake as a special fact, whose more accurate determination is impossible before the fulfilment of the prophecy. In the “spiritual” fundamental view, the Catholic allegorists, as C. a Lap., Stern, etc., also agree with Par., Vitr., Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. But differences immediately arise with the more accurate determinations, in which, however, when once the standpoint designated by the context itself is deserted, and the way of allegorizing is entered, the ancient Protestants proceed more correctly. The entire description of the two witnesses is so thoroughly personal, that it is more in harmony with the text to think of “the doctors of the Church,”[2927] than of the “office of witness,”[2928] or only of the testifying “potencies,” law and gospel.[2929] The slaying, the not burying, the awakening of witnesses, refers rather to the martyrdom of Savonarola and Hus, and the resuscitation of such witnesses in Luther and the other reformers,[2930] than to the fact that law and gospel are regarded dead, and then again maintained.[2931] Besides, if the dates, seeming to correspond so accurately, be taken in the sense of the old interpreters,[2932] they could please at least by the naïve confidence in their consequences; while the modern allegorists, by the timidity with which they announce only vague generalities, betray their own insecurity and weakness.
[2921] Cf. Luk_21:24.
[2922] N. de Lyra.
[2923] Vitr., etc.
[2924] N. de Lyra.
[2925] Aret., Vitr., etc.
[2926] Yet these ancient interpretations are not absolutely excluded; now and then they are expressly advanced. Thus Rinck (p. 47) says, “Constance also is a part of that great city.” A consistent return to the ancient Protestant allegorizing has been ventured upon again by Gräber.
[2927] Calov., Vitr., etc.
[2928] Hengstenb.
[2929] Ebrard.
[2930] Par., Vitr., Calov., etc.
[2931] Ebrard.
[2932] The one thousand two hundred and sixty days are taken by the older interpreters (“almost all of our writers” [Calov.]) as equal to one thousand two hundred and sixty years. Calov. reckons them from the time of Leo the Great to about the year 1700, in which a chief event bearing upon the overthrow of the degenerate, i.e., of the Romish, Church must occur. Cocceius reckons from the end of the third century until the treaty of Passau, 1552. Gravius (in Calov.) maintains three and one-half years, which he reckons from the year 1625, in which the Papists triumphed, until the appearance of Gustavus Adolphus. Brightman understands the three and one-half years which the Papists assembled at the Council of Trent, used in order to do away with the O. and N. T. (the two witnesses). The tenth part of the city, i.e., of the Papacy, which is overthrown, is, according to Cocceius, Protestant France; the seven thousand slain are the seven provinces which deserted from Spain. Most recently Gräber again has attempted such trifling expedients. The end of the one thousand two hundred and sixty days, i.e., years, he expected in 1859; then the dominion of the Turks at Jerusalem would come to an end.
From this form of allegorizing lately arising from a magical idea of foretelling the future, that form is distinguished which has been invented in the interest of a rationalistic conception of biblical prophecy, and which is, of course, very vigorous with respect to results obtained, but not at all in exegetical methods. This group of expositors[2933] has in this the great excellence, that they hold firmly to the textual reference to Jerusalem. Grot., who has found already in the preceding visions the destruction of the city by Titus, refers (ch. 11) to the times of Hadrian, who built a temple of Jupiter in the city, on the place not measured,—for John, of course, must measure the already destroyed temple, “because God was to preserve that space from the heathen on account of the memory of its ancient holiness.”
The two witnesses are the two assemblies of Christians, a Hebrew and a Greek-speaking congregation at Jerusalem; the beast (Rev_11:7) is Barcocheba; Rev_11:13 describes the destruction of his party in the city, against which Rev_11:15 sqq. represents the suppression of the same outside of the city. According to Eichh., the ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ , Rev_11:1, designates the worship of the one God, which is to be maintained even though the ΑὐΛῆ , i.e., the pomp of ceremonies, be surrendered at the impending destruction of the city by Titus, described in Rev_11:15 sqq. The two witnesses are the high-priests Ananus and Jesus,[2934] murdered by the Zealots ( τοῖς ἔθνεσιν , Rev_11:2);[2935] the earthquake is a scene of murder introduced by the Zealots; and the words Κ . ΟἹ ΛΟΙΠΟῚ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., he explains: “The good citizens of Jerusalem bore this slaughter with a brave mind, having professed this besides, viz., that it had occurred, not without God’s knowledge, but by his permission.”
[2933] Grot., Wetst., Herd., Eichh., Heinr., etc.
[2934] Cf. Joseph., B. J., iv. 2 sqq.
[2935] So also Herder.
The necessity of allegorical exposition, Hengstenb. has attempted to prove at length.[2936] Against the fundamental view advocated by Bleek, Ew., Lücke, and De Wette, that ch. 11 refers to the still future destruction of Jerusalem,—whereby, on the one hand, those expositors maintain the harmony with the words of the Lord on the subject (cf. Rev_11:2, πατήσουσιν , with Luk_21:24), and, on the other hand, explain the difference that in this passage the proper ΝΑΌς is to remain preserved, and, in general, the judgment (cf. Rev_11:13) is far milder than in Luke 21, Matthew 24, by the patriotic feeling of John, who was unwilling to conceive of the entire holy city, together with the proper habitation of God, as surrendered to the Gentiles, Hengstenb. remarks: “Within the sphere of Holy Scripture, that pseudo-patriotism, that blind partiality for one’s own people, is nowhere at home.” This is so far entirely inapplicable, since patriotism and pseudo-patriotism are two very distinct things. Moses, Jeremiah, all the prophets, have, as true patriots, a holy sympathy with their people. Paul especially emphasizes (Rom_9:3) the patriotic point of the wish there made. Yea, the bitterness of the book eaten by John,[2937] Hengstenb. himself has explained by a comparison with Eze_3:14, from the sad contents of the prophecy to be announced. But if it were bitter to the ancient prophets to announce to their own people the Divine judgments, this not only testifies to their holy patriotic love, but, besides, makes us see how the entire prophetic character was a profoundly moral, and not a magical, overwhelming one, consuming the moral personality of the prophet. So also in John. If the prophecy, ch. Rev_11:1-3, according to Rev_11:1-2; Rev_11:8, undoubtedly refers to the actual Jerusalem, so in the bitterness to the prophet,[2938] with which the judgment is fulfilled, Rev_11:1-2, we must not fail to see genuine patriotism. But it is of course unsatisfactory when the difference between the prediction (Rev_11:1-13) and the corresponding fundamental prophecy of the Lord[2939] is to be explained alone by John’s patriotism;[2940] while, more preposterously yet, Hengstenb. goes too far on the opposite side in attempting to defend John from pseudo-patriotism by imputing to him the view that the actual Jerusalem is the congregation of Satan. Hengstenb. is led to this misunderstanding[2941] by the zeal with which he opposes not so much the view of Lücke, etc., as rather the opinion of Baur concerning the gross Judaism of the Apoc. But it is extremely incorrect to decide the views of Lücke and of Baur[2942] as the same. Just by the false anti-Judaism which Hengstenb. ascribes to John, he breaks away the point from his apparently most important arguments for the allegorical exposition. He says, “John everywhere uses the Jewish only as a symbol and form of representation of the Christian; thus, also (Rev_11:1), he designates by the temple the Christian Church, and (Rev_11:8) by Jerusalem the degenerate Christian Church as a whole.” This exegetical canon is just as incorrect as that stated in Rev_8:10, etc., that a star everywhere signifies a ruler. Yet, as a matter of course, it must appear already impossible for John, if he regards actual Judaism, the temple, the holy city, etc., without any thing further, as a congregation of Satan, to use these congregations of Satan, with their institutions, as a symbol of the true Church of Christ. But Hengstenb. does John the most flagrant injustice. Those who are Jews only as they call themselves such, but are the synagogue of Satan, he thoroughly distinguishes—in the sense of Rom_9:6—from those who are such actually. To the latter belong the sealed out of Israel,[2943] in distinction from those out of the Gentiles. Is the name of Israel (Rev_7:4 sqq.) a symbol of the Christian Church? and are the names of the tribes there symbols of Christian churches? Hengstenb., especially on Rev_14:1 sqq., thinks that the constant Jewish symbolism cannot be mistaken, as there Mount Zion can be understood only symbolically. That is decidedly incorrect; but, on the other hand, the visionary locality where Christ is seen with his hosts is the actual Mount Zion, which, as a visionary locality, is as little understood allegorically as Rev_4:1, Heaven; Rev_4:6, the throne of God; Rev_11:15, Rev_12:1, Heaven; Rev_13:1, the seashore, etc. But when Hengstenb. appeals to Rev_20:9 in order to prove that the “holy city,” Rev_11:1-2, is to be understood allegorically, he does something awkward, because the entire statement of ch. 20, which extends over the historical horizon, dare in no way be made parallel with the prophecy, Rev_11:1-13, which expressly (Rev_11:8, Rev_11:1-2) indicates its historical relation.
Against the not allegorical explanation, Hengstenb. says further, that “we cannot understand how an announcement of the future fate of Jewish Jerusalem … should occur just at this place, hemmed in between the sixth and seventh trumpets, the second and third woes, which have to do only with worldly power.” The answer is immediately given, and that, too, not only from the methodical progress in itself of the Apoc. vision,—which Hengstenb. confuses by his view, in violation of the context, that Rev_11:1-13 occurs between the second and third woe, while what is here said belongs rather to the second woe, Rev_11:14,[2944]—but also, as is equally decisive, in fullest harmony with the fundamental prediction of the Lord.
When Hengstenb. judges further that the account of the two witnesses is comprehensible only by an allegorical exposition, it is, on the one hand, to be answered, that the allegorizing obliteration of the definite features referring to personalities[2945] ill harmonizes with the text, and, on the other hand, the non-allegorizing exposition must accept the difficulties, just as the text offers them, and attempt their explanation.
Finally[2946] Hengstenb. mentions the testimony of Irenaeus, which places the composition of the Apoc. in the time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and must consequently prevent the expositor from accepting, in Rev_11:1 sqq., the existence of the temple and city, and regarding the destruction as future. Lücke, who, with the fullest right, places the self-witness of the Apoc. above the testimony of Irenaeus, and vindicates for the exegete the freedom required above all things by the text, acknowledges the possibility that, in case John wrote after the fall of the city, by a kind of fiction he might have represented this fact as future. Therefore the statement ( ΠΑΤΉΣΟΥΣΙΝ , Rev_11:2) would at all events be future, and refer to the destruction of the city. But Bleek correctly denies even the possibility of conceiving of this passage according to the rule of such a fiction, to say nothing of its being entirely aimless.
[2936] Cf., against him, Lücke, p. 825 sqq., and, besides, Bleek, Stud. u. Krit., 1855, p. 215 sqq.
[2937] Rev_10:9 sqq.
[2938] Rev_10:9 sq.
[2939] Matthew 24; Luke 21.
[2940] Against Lücke, etc.
[2941] Cf. Rev_2:9.
[2942] Cf. also Volkm.: “The Jewish seer has completely deceived himself in his hope for Jerusalem and the Jewish people. But let Luk_21:24, as a prediction of Christ, be suggested in connection with the expression in the Apoc., notwithstanding the entire destruction of the city entering therein.”
[2943] Ch. 7.
[2944] Cf. the introductory observations on ch. 10.
[2945] See on Rev_11:13 sqq.
[2946] The other observations of Hengstenb., that the beast (Rev_11:7) has, according to Rev_13:7-8, nothing to do with the Jewish, but with the holy, Jerusalem, and that the allegorical interpretation shows only that the prediction extends to us, carry with them their own answer. The beast does something antichristian in slaying the witnesses of Christ, and every thing biblical concerns us. Are we to interpret Luk_19:41 sqq. allegorically, because what is there written pertains to us?
The most immediate norm for the correct exposition resulting from the wording of the text itself, has already been asserted in opposition to the allegorists; viz., the reference to Jerusalem, Rev_11:8, Rev_11:1-2, and to the judgment impending over this city (Rev_11:2, πατήσουσιν ). Another no less important norm, to which also the phraseology, Rev_11:2 ( ἐδ . τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
πατήσουσιν ), points by its similarity with Luk_21:24, shows the essential agreement of our prediction with the fundamental prediction of the Lord.[2947] For, just as the Lord himself places the final judgment in inner connection with the end of the world,—to such an extent, that apparently even an external chronological connection is expressed,—so John predicts the ultimate fulfilment (which is here represented in the seventh trumpet-vision, Rev_11:15 sqq.) in such a way that he begins with the judgment upon Jerusalem, Rev_11:1-13. After Rev_10:7 sqq., he is now to announce the completion of the mystery of God. The completion itself does not occur, as in Rev_10:7 also it is expressly said, until the time of the seventh trumpet (Rev_11:15 sqq.), in which also the third woe falls (cf. Rev_11:14); but the announcement committed to John begins, nevertheless, not first with Rev_11:15, but already at Rev_11:1. And what is here (Rev_11:1-13) predicted belongs to the second woe, and therefore stands in the connection of the series with the third, soon-coming woe.
[2947] Luke 21; Matthew 24.
No one would have thought of denying, in Rev_11:1-13, the reference afforded from the wording, and the analogy with the eschatological discourses of the Lord to the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and in order to do this, would have had to resort to allegorical explanation, if, on the other hand, the prediction of John did not deviate from that fundamental prediction, and the fact of the destruction had not in reality occurred, as the Lord, but not as John, had predicted. But just the latter difficulty brings with itself the solution; for it follows, from the peculiar deviations from Matthew 24, Luke 21, that John, in his prophecy concerning Jerusalem, had an entirely different purpose from the Lord himself, and accordingly he puts his prophetic description of the impending act of judgment in a peculiar light, and paints it in other colors.[2948] The Lord announces simply the definite fact of the destruction of the city;[2949] he mentions Judah and Jerusalem, and describes how the Gentile enemies will build a rampart against it, plunder it, and not leave one stone upon another, a destruction which affected the dishonored temple no less than the holy city. According to the description of John, there would be only a period during the 3½ years of oppression known already from Daniel, in which the city and the court are trodden under foot by the Gentiles; the temple proper is preserved from all indignity and devastation. During this time, the two witnesses of Christ come forth as preachers of repentance, who, according to their nature and office,—not according to their individual personality,—are the two olive-trees and candlesticks (anointed ones) of whom Zech. spake, Rev_11:4; they are Moses and Elijah,[2950]—not Enoch and Elijah,[2951] who, as prophetic preachers of repentance, are thought of as having returned to the same desert, just as Elijah returned in the manifestation of John the Baptist.[2952] But these were killed, and that, too, by the beast from the abyss, whose mention in this place—as it properly belongs only to the seventh trumpet—gives an indication for the conception of the ideal standpoint from which John regards the impending judgment upon Jerusalem in connection with its full and final development. No less significant is the hatred which the Gentiles present in the city—of whom we are to think so preponderatingly in the expression ΟἹ ΚΑΤΟΙΚΟῦΝΤΕς ἘΠῚ Τῆς Γῆς , that the reference to the unbelieving Jews retires altogether into the background—show to the dead bodies of Christ’s witnesses. Finally, in comparison with the fundamental prophecy of the Lord, it is significant for the distinct mode of contemplation by John, that here an earthquake, after the manner of the preliminary plagues described in the seal- and trumpet-visions, visits the city, destroys a part of it, and brings the survivors to repentance, in contrast with the plagues remaining fruitless to those in the Gentile world;[2953] on which account, then, the seventh trumpet brings the complete destruction of the antichristian world. While, therefore, the Lord himself predicts the real fact of the destruction of Jerusalem, the same impending fact, of course, forms also for John the real goal of his prophecy; besides, he also agrees with the Lord in the fundamental prediction, in this, that he likewise maintains the inner connection between the individual acts of judgment upon Jerusalem, and the full final judgment; but in other respects the prediction of John is of an ideal character, so that we are neither to seek for the real fulfilment of individual expressions, nor, in order to conceal the incongruity between the words of prophecy and the facts of the destruction, to resort to the allegorical mode of exposition. In John, a judgment impends over the city, which is brought about no more by the heathen treading under foot (Rev_11:2) than by the earthquake (Rev_11:13), in the development of the mystery of God until its final completion, as a chief link in the chain of preliminary plagues, since it also forms a part of the second woe. But from this standpoint, the holy city cannot appear in the same light as the Gentile city, from the ground of antichristian secular power; but just as the sealed of God, as such, could not be touched by certain plagues,[2954] the temple proper, as God’s place of revelation, is preserved from the feet of the Gentiles, while the city wherein the witnesses of Christ like their Lord are slain is condemned to judgment. But this is distinguished also from the complete judgment upon Babylon, by the fact that the plague (the earthquake) is wrought as a salutary purification, since only the antichristian part are obliterated, while the rest of Israel are converted, and remain in safety.[2955] We must therefore decide, not that in Rev_11:1-13 John allegorizes by representing the future destinies of the Christian Church under Jewish symbols, but that he idealizes,[2956] by endeavoring to announce beforehand the impending destruction of Jerusalem, not according to the actual circumstances, but according to their inner connection with the ultimate fulfilment of the mystery of God,[2957] and correspondingly to state the hope which the O. T. people of God still retained, in contrast with the heathen secular power, i.e., with “Babylon.” In this ideal representation of prophecy, there belongs also the similar feature (Rev_11:4 sqq.). John does not think that Moses and Elijah will actually return,[2958] accordingly he does not mention them; but with colors derived from the words of Zechariah, as also from the history of Moses and Elijah, he paints the ideal picture of the two prophetic preachers of repentance, who are to work in the manner, the spirit, and the power of Moses and Elijah. Hence we are not to inquire for a particular “meaning,” or a particular “fulfilment” of what is here said.[2959]
[2948] Without foundation in the context, Weiss, a. a. O., p. 29, designates the meaning of the whole: “It is to be represented how, notwithstanding the impending destruction of Jerusalem, yet the final deliverance of a last remnant of the holy people, promised by all the prophets, is to occur” (in distinction from Rom_11:26 : πᾶς Ἰσρ .). This theologumenon as such is entirely remote.
[2949] Cf. also Luk_19:41 sqq.
[2950] Rev_11:5 sqq. Cf. Mat_17:1 sqq., De Wette, Lücke, Ew. ii., Hilgenf., etc.
[2951] Stern, Ew. i. Beda already rejects this view disseminated in the Church fathers. An interesting reference to this passage is found in the Gospel of Nicodemus, P. ii. (Desc. Chr. ad Inf., c. 9), where Enoch says of himself and Elijah: μέλλομεν ζῆσαι μέχρι τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος · τότε δὲ μέλλομεν ἀποσταλῆναι παρὰ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ χρίστῳ καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι παρʼ αὐτοῦ , καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι καὶ ἐν νεφέλαις ἁρπαγῆναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ὑπάντησιν (“We are to live until the completion of the world; then we are to be sent by God to withstand Antichrist, and to be slain by him, and after three days to be raised and snatched up in the clouds to meet the Lord”) (Ev. Apocr., ed. Tisch., Lips., 1853, p. 309).
[2952] Cf. Mat_17:12; Luk_1:17.
[2953] Cf. Rev_9:20, Rev_16:9.
[2954] Cf. Rev_9:4.
[2955] Cf. Isa_37:31 sq.; Rom_9:27 sqq., Rev_11:7.
[2956] Klief., who decidedly controverts this, nevertheless, by referring the closing words from Rev_11:8 to Jerusalem, and also rejecting allegorizing, reaches the result that “the Christianity of the last times appears as Jerusalem.”
[2957] Cf. Rev_10:7.
[2958] Against Hilgenf., etc.
[2959] See Intr., p. 42.