Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 12:17 - 12:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_12:17. The dragon, inflamed only to greater rage ( καὶ ὠργίσθη τῇ γυναικὶ ) against the fleeing woman (Rev_12:16), because of the frustration of his last attack, applies himself to a conflict with “the rest of her seed which keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus.”
For the correct explanation of the expression τ . λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτης , κ . τ . λ .,—and also for the determination thence, according to the context, of the idea of the γυνή ,—we must first of all maintain, against Ebrard, that the σπέρμα αὐτῆς is not a seed from which also the woman springs, but only the seed springing from the woman, i.e., born of her, can be designated; so that the λοιποὶ τοῦ σπερμ . αὐτης could in no way be those “who belong to the same seed with the woman.” In violation of the context, Auberlen[3187] further judges the λοιπ . τ . σπ . αὐτ . to be “the disciples of the Lord who have survived the earlier persecutions” (Rev_12:13-16); for if the hostility described in Rev_12:13-16 is directed against the woman herself, not her seed, that hostility remains entirely unsuccessful,[3188] so that the subject here cannot be “survivors” in general. This also against Hengstenb., who concedes two different references: “The rest are they who survive the hostile inundation in Rev_12:15, or are not touched by it.”
A guide to the more specific determination of the λοιποὶ τ . σπέρμ . αὐτ . is contained in the words τῶν τηροῦντων
Ἰησοῦ , if the sense be correctly stated by Ewald, whom Züll. follows: “Of those uniting with the more eager and wholesome study of Mosaic laws firm faith in Jesus the Messiah;” but the expression is entirely too general,[3189] than that thereby merely Jewish Christians be designated.
The relation, especially presented by the context, of the statement Τ . ΛΟΙΠῶΝ ΤΟὐ ΣΠΈΡΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤ ., viz., to the man-child which, according to Rev_12:5, belongs to the seed of the woman as the firstborn, has been acknowledged with complete definiteness only by Zull.;[3190] yet while he has correctly explained only the form, but not, at the same time, the subject, he enables us to recognize the occasion because of which this most simple contrast of “the rest” of the seed of the woman, and that firstborn brother, the Messiah himself,[3191] has not been obvious to expositors, viz., the difficulty of correctly conceiving of the woman in the relation as well to the man-child (Rev_12:5) as also to “the rest of her seed.” The ΓΥΝΉ herself, her ΥἹΌς , and the ΛΟΙΠΟῚ ΤΟῦ ΣΠΈΡΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤῆς , are three ideas so essentially connected that the misunderstanding of one necessarily hinders the correct explanation of the rest. In general, there is no doubt possible as to the fact that the son of the woman is the Messiah; but, nevertheless, that the Virgin Mary is not on this account to be understood by the woman,—even though the ideal contemplation of the writer of the Apoc. always gives the historical person of the Virgin a certain support,
Andr., in agreement with Methodius, has already noted. Any such reference to the person of Mary is rendered impossible, on the one hand, by the ideal description of the γυνή herself, and the events pertaining to her; on the other, by her relation to “the rest of her seed.” By the latter statement—as the ΛΟΙΠΟῚ Τ . ΣΠ . ΑὐΤ . is designated not only by the final clause of Rev_12:17, but also by what succeeds in ch. 13, as, at all events, believers in Christ—the expositors are led with essential unanimity to recognition of the fact that the ΓΥΝΉ designates the “Church,” in analogy with the mode of contemplation, according to which, in the O. T., the congregation of God’s people appears as the wife of Jehovah, and in the Apoc. itself[3192] as the bride of the Lord. If now the question be as to the more specific comprehension of this, in general, obvious idea of the ΓΥΝΉ , as well according to the measure of significant features in the description of the ΓΥΝΉ herself,[3193] as also in relation to her man-child, and the rest of her seed; in the first place, all the expositors err who, in the ΓΥΝΉ , wish to recognize the Christian Church, whether they expressly distinguish it from the Jewish or O. T. Church,[3194] and limit the description to the antichristic period at the end of the world,[3195] or regard the N. T. Church in essential connection with that of the O. T., the latter not without its N. T. continuation, and both as one inseparable comprehensive Church.[3196] A characteristic sign that these two modifications of the exposition essentially cohere, lies in the fact that men like Vitringa and Auberlen share the error that the twelve stars (Rev_12:1) refer to the twelve apostles.[3197] But the view that the woman is the N. T. Church, inevitably miscarries in Rev_12:5; for it is impossible[3198] to refer the birth of the Messiah to Christ’s attaining life and form in believers.[3199] For this reason,[3200] the reference to the O. T. Church has been received; but, on the one hand, the difficulty concerning the original exposition arising from Rev_12:5[3201] is not properly removed, and, on the other, a new difficulty is developed. For, if the γυνή be the O. and N. T. Church universal, who are then the λοιπ . τ . σπ . αὐτ ., Rev_12:17? The opinion of Bleek, De Wette, and Hengstenb., also of Klief.,—according to which an actual distinction could not be made between the woman and the rest of her seed, since the woman herself is nothing but the sum of her children, and by ἡ γυνή the whole, while by οἱ λοιπ . τ . σπ . αὐτ . the particular members of the whole, are designated,[3202]
Auberlen[3203] defends upon the ground that only in this way can it be explained why the dragon who was enraged with the woman turns against her seed. But the text does directly the opposite in offering a distinction between the woman and her seed. The woman (Rev_12:16) is hidden from injury on the part of the dragon; just because he sees that he cannot reach the woman herself, he inflicts his wrath, which undoubtedly is directed against the woman, upon another subject still within reach, viz., the rest of the woman’s children. Is it not very readily to be understood, if the dragon wishes now to distress the mother by injuring her children?
The γυνὴ who bore the Messiah (Rev_12:5), and has still other seed (Rev_12:17), can be only the O. T. Church of God, the true Israel.[3204] John was taught already by the ancient prophetic representation, to ascribe seed to this Church, and to regard her as mother of her children, the believing and godly;[3205] the description, also, in Rev_12:2; Rev_12:5, has originated not without an allusion to Mic_5:1 sqq. But nevertheless, in the writer of the Apocalypse, the view, with all its analogy to the ancient prophetic types, appears peculiarly defined, viz., because he represents heathen Christians (the λοιπ . τ . σπ . αὐτ ., Hofm., Ebrard), as belonging to the seed of the woman, and in so far the brethren of the Messiah.[3206] Here John would have a very suitable model in Mic_5:3, as the éÆçÆø àÆçÈéê [3207] designates the growth of the Church from the heathen, who are added to the mother Church as though born of her seed. For the evangelical-prophetical fundamental view, cf. Isa_2:2 sqq.; Zec_8:20 sqq.; Joh_4:22, etc. Against this conception, it dare not be said, that nevertheless not only believers from the heathen are brethren of the Messiah, that consequently—beneath the acknowledgment of the reference of ΟἹ ΛΟΙΠΟῚ Τ . ΣΠΈΡΜ . ΑὐΤ ., to the child of the woman mentioned in Rev_12:5—the ΛΟΙΠΟΊ are, in any case, to be regarded Jewish and heathen Christians; for the ordinary view, according to which all believers are brethren of the Lord, is not presented here as certainly as is the ideal person of the γυνή , the mother of the Messiah, the O. T. Church of God, in whose complete unity Jewish Christians are regarded as the genuine Israelites. [See Note LXIX., p. 359.]
[3187] p. 298.
[3188] Cf. Rev_12:17.
[3189] Cf. Rev_14:12, Rev_22:14. Concerning the correct meaning of ἕχ . τ . μαρτ . Ἰησ ., cf., against Ewald especially, Rev_6:9, Rev_19:10.
[3190] “The rest of her seed, the Zionites on earth, in contrast with the child above removed.”
[3191] Cf. Mat_28:10; Heb_2:11-12.
[3192] Rev_22:17.
[3193] Cf. Rev_12:1.
[3194] Beda, N. de Lyra, Aret., Hammond, Calov., Vitr., Beng., etc.
[3195] C. a Lap., Stern.
[3196] Victorin., Andr., De Wette, Hengstenb., Auberien, Christiani: “The Church of the last time.” Cf. also the inconsistencies of Coccejus, who, in Rev_12:14, suddenly speaks of the N. T. Church, although he had referred what preceded to the O. T.; of Eichh., who already, in Rev_12:5, inserts “the Christian Church which proceeded from Judaism,” etc.
[3197] “The apostolic Church” (Vitr., p. 566).
[3198] To say nothing as to the proposition that the “birth” of Christ may be his return to judgment, as the result of the course of the Christian Church through time, as Klief. (Zeitschr., a. a. O. S., 547) indicates by understanding by the γυνή the people of God in Christendom. Cf. on Rev_12:11.
[3199] Against Beda, Stern, etc.
[3200] Cf., e.g., Auberlen, p. 277: “By the woman who bore Jesus, we are naturally to understand the Church of God in its O. T. form;” on the other hand, p. 280: “The Church also in its N. T. form.”
[3201] For, the more earnestly the essential unity of the O. and N. T. Church of God is asserted, the less proper is it to ascribe that exclusively to the first part of this Church which cannot be ascribed to the second part.
[3202] Cf., on the other hand, Ewald.
[3203] p. 289.
[3204] Cf. Herder, Heinr., Ewald, Züll., Hofm., Ebrard; also Bleek, Vorles., Volkm., Hilgenf.: “The original Church in Palestine.”
[3205] Cf. Isa_54:1; Isa_54:13; Isa_66:8.
[3206] Volkm., who indorses this explanation, attempts, however, to harmonize this passage with the assumed Judaism of the Apoc. by requiring us to regard heathen Christians as metics subordinate to the citizens of the kingdom of God. Hilgenf. prefers to keep clear of this distinction here, and to think only of the daughter-congregation in general contrast with that of the Palestinian mother-church.—Both are unsuitable to this passage, since here the opposition to the received anti-Pauline Judaism of the Apoc. is presented.
[3207] “ The rest of his [the Messiah’s] brethren.” LXX., incorrectly: οἱ ἐπίλοιποι τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτων .
Only now[3208] is the purpose of what is described in Rev_12:1-17, with respect to what follows, to be clearly recognized. In Rev_12:17 ( ἈΠῆΛΘΕ , Κ . Τ . Λ .), this distinctly comes to light. By the vision of ch. 12, Satan himself is designated as the proper exciter of the ΠΌΛΕΜΟς (Rev_12:17) of the ΘΛῚΨΙς , which believers have yet to expect before the coming of their Lord. And, besides, a specific determination of the ΠΌΛΕΜΟς , whose description is here introduced, lies in the fact, that, on the one hand, Satan appears in the form which he had attained in the Roman Empire (Rev_12:3), as, then, on the other hand, those Christians are designated as the goal of the dragon’s rage who came from the Gentiles to the sonship of Israel (Rev_12:17), and are to be found within the bounds of that empire. But how Satan now excites war, and what instruments he puts in motion, is made manifest directly afterwards, viz., in ch. 13, which begins with the words that in the later editions form the close of ch. 12 (Rev 12:18).
[3208] Cf. on Rev_12:5-6.
LXIX. Rev_12:17. μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν