Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 12:7 - 12:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_12:7-12. Not only is it in vain that the dragon lays snares for the child (Rev_12:5), but he is now cast down to earth by Michael and his angels, who begin a battle with him and his angels,—a crisis which, in its salutary significance for believers, is celebrated by a loud voice in heaven giving praise, but which also, as the cry of woe indicates, makes the whole earth the scene for the rage of the dragon cast upon it.
καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τ . οὐρ . The conception that the dragon pursued the child even to the throne of God (Rev_12:5), and that this is the cause of the struggle which arose,[3082] not only has no foundation in the context, but is also inconsistent with what is said in Rev_12:5, because the κ . ἡρπάσθη declares that the child, by its being caught up to God and God’s throne, is completely secured from any further pursuit on the part of the dragon. The idea, also, that the dragon also made only the attempt to seize the child from God’s own hand, is in itself not possible. But in the struggle which now arises, it is not Satan, but Michael, who appears as taking the offensive. After the dragon did what is described in Rev_12:3-4,—and after the child was in complete security,—not only the dragon who had attempted the attack on the child, but also his angels, are driven out of heaven. The very circumstance that in Rev_12:7 the discourse is not only concerning the dragon, but also concerning his adherents, points to the fact, that the bold undertaking of the dragon (Rev_12:3 sq.), the most extreme to which his antichristian nature brings him, furnishes Michael and his army of angels the immediate occasion, on their part, for laying hold upon the dragon and all his angels, and casting them out of heaven.
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ . For at this place the dragon is; cf. Rev_12:3. Every allegorical interpretation[3083] brings with it a confusion of the context in details, and as a whole. Cf. also Rev_12:8.
ὁ Μιχαὴλ . The opinion of Vitringa, urgently advocated by Hengstenb., that Michael is not an angel (according to Dan_10:13; Dan_12:1, the guardian angel of the O. T. people of God, according to Jud_1:9 an archangel), but Christ himself, or, as Hengstenb. prefers to say, the Logos, miscarries—even apart from Jud_1:9, where the express designation, ὁ ἀρχάγγελος , according to Hengstenb., is as little a proof against the divinity of Michael, as the declaration of the Lord (Joh_14:28) testifies against the homoousia of the Son—by its being altogether impossible to regard Michael (Rev_12:7) and the child (Rev_12:5) as one and the same person. In this passage, also, Michael the archangel[3084] appears as the leader of the angelic army ( καὶ οἱ ἄγγ . αὐτου ), with which he contends for the Messiah and his kingdom.
τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τ . δράκ ., κ . τ . λ . Just as undoubted as is this reading according to the MSS. at hand, is its obscurity in a grammatical respect; since the gen. infinitive τοῦ πολεμῆσαι , in connection with the words ὁ Μιχ . καὶ οἱ ἄγγ . αὐτου , is without all analogy in the Greek of the LXX. and the N. T. The seeming parallel, Act_10:25, is distinguished from this passage by the very fact that there a proper grammatical reason is present,[3085] while in this passage the connection of the gen. infinitive τοῦ πολεμῆσαι with the subj. ὁ Μιχ ., κ . τ . λ ., admits of no grammatical explanation whatever; for neither the analogy of passages like Isa_44:14, Jos_2:5, is applicable where the inf., introduced by ìÆ , stands in definite dependence upon a preceding idea, and where the LXX. also place a finite tense,[3086] nor is the supplying of the words “had war,” upon which, then, the τοῦ πολεμ . is regarded as dependent,[3087] allowable. If it were possible from the ἐγένετο πόλεμος to supply an ἐγένοντο before ὁ Μιχ . καί οἱ ἀγγ . αὐτ .,[3088] or if the ἐγένετο dare be regarded as extending to ὁ Μιχ .,[3089] the τοῦ πολεμῆσαι would then be correctly added.[3090] But that twofold conception is so doubtful as to constrain us to the opinion that our text is defective or corrupt.[3091] As a sensible conjecture, the Elz. reading, ἐπολέμησαν , commends itself, since the τοῦ before the infin. may be repeated from the preceding αὐτοῦ , and the change of the πολεμῆσαι into the form of a finite tense is without difficulty; but if the τοῦ πολεμῆσαι of the MSS. be correct,—and its difficulty favors it,—a finite tense immediately before, upon which this τοῦ πολεμ . depends, may have fallen out, possibly ἀνέστησαν or ἦλθαν , or the like, since the essential meaning is manifestly that which the versions express.[3092] The conjecture is most probable, that the words πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ are nothing but a marginal note that has entered into the text, made in order to mark the noteworthy contents of the passage;[3093] if these words be regarded as absent, the connection of the ΤΟΎ ΠΟΛ . with the ΚΑῚ ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ Ὁ ΜΙΧ . Κ . ΟἹ ἌΓΓ . ΑὐΤΟῦ does not seem difficult, since the genitive of the telic infinitive[3094] correctly depends upon the idea of the movement lying in the ἘΓΕΝΕΤΟ .[3095] This conjecture has in its favor, that the reception into the text of the doubtful words ΠΌΛΕΜΟς ἘΝ Τῷ ΟὐΡΑΝῷ is incomparably more probable than the falling-out of a finite tense before ΤΟῪ ΠΟΛ .; it is also to be considered, that, as in what follows, the ἘΠΟΛΈΜΗΣΕ is formed only according to the chief subject Ὁ ΔΡ ., the same phraseology is probable also in the first clause. Moreover, while it would have been difficult for John to have written Ὁ ΜΙΧ . ΚΑῚ ΟἹ ἌΓΓ . ΑὐΤΟῦ ἘΠΟΛΈΜΗΣΕ ,—for the sing., after ΚΑῚ ΟἹ ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ ΑὐΤΟῦ had preceded, would have been unallowable in the style of the Apoc., and besides, in connection with the following, ἘΠΟΛΈΜΗΣΕ appears to be still more monotonous than the ἘΠΟΛΈΜΗΣΑΝ even of the Rec.,—the ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ , on the other hand, in immediate connection with Ὁ ΜΙΧ . ΚΑῚ ΟἹ ἌΓΓ . meets all requirements, and commends itself especially by the fact that it gives the meaning that the attack proceeded from Michael and his angels.
[3082] Eichh., Herd., De Wette, Stern.
[3083] Beda: “In the Church, in which he says that Michael with his angels fights against the devil, because, by praying and ministering his aid, he contends, according to God’s will, for the wandering Church.”
[3084] Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hofm., Ebrard, Auberlen, etc.
[3085] As the genitive infinitive clause, in which the subject enters as an accus. ( τοῦ åé ̇ σελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον ), depends upon the expressly impersonal ἐγένετο .
[3086] Against Ew.: “It must be fought by them.” Bleek, Züll.
[3087] Hengstenb.
[3088] Cf. Meyer on Act_10:25.
[3089] Cf. Lücke, p. 454.
[3090] Cf. Winer, p. 304.
[3091] Lücke, De Wette, Winer, p. 307.
[3092] Vulg.: Praeliabantur.
[3093] Nevertheless, e.g., Andreas—who, moreover, has the suspicious words in the text—gives the section (Rev_12:7-12), the title: περὶ τοῦ πολἑμου πῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ τών δαιμόνων , κ . τ . λ . How very usual were brief declarations in the MSS. concerning the contents, is extraordinarily manifest if the long series of lists of contents be read which occur in cod. à in the Book of Acts. Cf. Nov. Text. Gr. ex Sin. Cod., ed. Tischendorf, Lips., 1865; P., lxxxii. A similar annotation is, e.g., Isa_30:6.
[3094] Cf. Act_3:2; Act_3:12.
[3095] Cf. Act_20:16; Act_21:17; Act_25:15; Luk_10:32; Joh_6:25; Joh_6:19.
LXVIII. (b.) Rev_12:7. πόλεμος ἐν οὐρανῷ