Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 2
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rev_2:2. The σου after κόπον (rec.) is absent in A, C, Vulg., al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], and is defended by B, à , not against exegetical considerations.
Instead of ἐπειράσω (Erasm., rec.) read ἐπείρασας , according to A, B, C, à , 2, 6, 7, al., with Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Instead of the rec. φάσκοντας εἷναι ἀποστόλους , read λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους , according to A, B, à , 18, 25, al. (cf. Rev_2:20), with Griesb., Lach. [W. and H.]; and that, too, without the addition of εἷναι (cf. Rev_2:9), which Beng., Matth., Tisch., have according to 6, 7, 8, 9, al., Verss., Primas, Andr.
Rev_2:3. The rec., with its two pairs of members, καὶ ἐβαστ . κ . ὑπομον . ἔχεις and καὶ διὰ τ . ὄνομ . μ . κεκοπίακας καὶ οὐ κέκμηκας , originates from an interpreter. According to a more correct reading, the parallelism of members falls away, as it should be καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις , καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὀνομά μον (A, B, C, 2, 3, 4, al., Verss., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες (A, C, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), for which latter form (cf. Rev_2:4, ἀφῆκες in C), Beng. has written κεκοπίακας , Mill (Prol., 1109) and Griesb. have preferred ἐκοπίασας (2, 3, 4, à , al., Andr., Areth.), which, however, is introduced because of the aor. ἐβαστ .
Rev_2:5. Rec., ἐκπέπτωκας (Andr.), against A, C, 2, 4, al., Verss., Areth., which have πέπτωκας (Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch.) [ πέπτωκες , W. and H.].
The ταχύ (Var., τάχει , Erasm., Steph., 1, 3, Beng.) in Complut., Steph., 2, against A, C, à , Vulg., al., Lach., Tisch., originates from a comparison with Rev_2:16; Rev_3:11, etc.
Rev_2:7. The false form νικοῦντι is received by Lach. It is, of course, noteworthy that this is found also at Rev_2:17 in A; nay, even there, according to Lach., also in C; so that it can scarcely be a slip of the pen.
Instead of ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου (rec.), read ἐν τῳ παραδ ., according to all important witnesses (Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
The omission of the μου after θεοῦ (rec., Lach., Tisch., IX. [W. and H.]) is favored by A, C, à ; on the other hand (Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.), 2, 4, 6, 7, al., Vulg., Syr., Aeth., Orig., Cypr., al., are for its reception, as well as what is decisive, viz., the circumstance that the theological interests would be easily opposed to the μου ; as, e.g., Arethas expressly remarks, with a reference to Joh_20:17, that the expression τ . θεοῦ μου contains nothing offensive. Cod. 26 (Wetst.) has changed the not-favored μου into σου .
Rev_2:9. τὰ ἔργα καὶ . Rec. ( à ) against A, C, 19, Vulg., Copt, Aeth. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Also, in Rev_2:13, the addition has entered from Rev_2:2; Rev_2:19; Rev_3:1; Rev_3:8; Rev_3:15.
Before the τῶν λεγ ., an ἐκ is to be supplied in the rec. (A, B, C, à , 2, 6, 7, al., Verss., Beng., etc.).
Rev_2:10. Instead of μηδὲν (Vulg., rec., à , Beng., Tisch.), read μή , (A, B, C, 8, Andr., Lach. [W. and H.].
The particle δή , after ἰδού (2, 4, 6, 8, al., Areth., Compl., Matth., Tisch.), may be regarded as a stylistic addition which does not correspond to the literary character of the Apoc. Lach. agrees with the rec. ( à , Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), which does not have the δή .
The rec. ἕξετε (Vulg., à : ἕξεται ; Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.) can stand against the reading ἔχητε (A, Lach. [W. and H.]) the less, as C also, by its ἔχεται (according to Wetst.: ἔχετε ), testifies to this.
Rev_2:13. The omission of the καὶ before ἐν τ . ἡμ . (2, 4, 6, 7, al., in Wetst., five codd., b. Matth., à , Syr., Aeth., Ar., Compl., Beng., Matth., Tisch., against A, C, Vulg., rec., Lach.), and, afterwards, the omission of the ὅς in some few codd. in Wetst. and Beng. (so Luth.; cf., also, Ewald), should serve for a relief of the construction which essentially depends thereon, whether after the ἡμέραις , ἐν αἰς (Andr., rec., Beng., Griesb.), or αίς (2, 4, 6, 9, al., in Wetst., four codd. in Matth.; so Matth., Tisch.), or ἐμαῖς (Erasm., Luth.), or, finally, all this fall away (A, C, Vulg., Copt., Treg., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). It is possible for the αίς to fall away because of the preceding ἡμέραις , but the addition is more probably meant to aid the construction.
Rev_2:14. The ὅτι (A, à , rec., Tisch., IX.) comes from Rev_2:4; Rev_2:20.
τῷΒαλ . So Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to A, C. A correction is τὸν , B (rec.); through reiteration from ἐδίδασκεν , arise the var. ἐν τῷ , B (Luther), “through Balak.” Cf., also, Winer, p. 213.
Rev_2:15. The art. before Νικολ . (rec., à , Tisch. IX.) is to be deleted (A, C, 6, 11, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
Instead of ὃ μισῶ (rec, Beng.), read ὁμοίως , C, A, à , many minusc., Vulg., Syr., Andr., Areth., al., Beng. in Gnom., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The compounds, ὁμοίως ὁ μισ . and ὁμ . ἣν μισ . (cf. Wetst., Beng.), are also found.
Rev_2:16. After ( μεταν ., the οὗν (A, C, minusc., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is absent in the rec., but also in à , Tisch. IX.
Rev_2:17. The gloss φαγεῖν ἀπὸ , before τοῦ μαν . (rec. against the prevailing testimonies), is in no way supported by Arethas (cf. Matth.).
For ἔγνω (rec.), read οἱδεν (A, B, C, à , 2, al., Beng., etc.).
Rev_2:18. The αὐτου , after ὀφθαλμ . (cf. Rev_1:14), is to be erased (A, C, Lach.). Likewise, Rev_2:19, the καἱ before τὰ εσχ .
Rev_2:20. From Rev_2:14, ὀλίγα is introduced (rec, à : πολύ ); against A, C, many minusc., Verss., Beng., Griesb., etc. Instead of the explanatory ἐᾷς (rec.), read ἀφεῖς (A, C, à , minusc., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), whence, also, the emendations, ἀφίης , ἀφῆκας , are derived.
The rec.: γυν . Ἰεσαβ . (Beng., Treg. [W. and H.]) is sufficiently supported by C, à , Vulg., and, in an exegetical respect, to be decidedly preferred to the reading σου Ἰεσ . (many minusc, in Wetst., and Matth., Griesb., Tisch.).
The rec.: τὴν λέγουσ . is, like the variation ἣ λέγει (in Wetst.), an interpretation of the correct ἡ λέγουσα (A, C, à , Beng., Griesb., etc.).
ἡ -g0- λέγουσα -g0-. So, according to A, C, à , many minusc, Syr., Copt., Compl., already Beng., Griesb. The rec: διδάσκειν καὶ πλανᾶσθαι (Vulg.: docere et seducere) is an alteration which Areth. more correctly attains by his διδ . κ . πλανᾶν .
Rev_2:21. Instead of καὶ οὐ θέλει ( οὐκ ἠθέλησεν , A), μετανοῆσαι ἐκ τῆς πορν . αυτ . (A, C, minusc, Verss., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), the rec. has the ἐκ τ . πορν . αὐτ . before καὶ οὐ , and then only μετανόησεν . The shortest, and perhaps original, reading is that of à 1: ἵνα μεταν . ἐκ τ . πορν . ταύτης .
Rev_2:22. The ἐγώ before βάλλω (rec.) is incorrect (A, C, 2, 4, al., Beng., Griesb., etc.). The καλῶ in the à is a clerical error.
For κλίνην , A has the poor gloss φυλακὴν .
The modification ἑργ . αὐτῶν (rec.) is found already in A, against B, à , 2, 3, etc.; αὐτῆς is rejected already by Beng. and Griesb.
Rev_2:24. Instead of καὶ λοιπ . (rec), read τοῖς λοιπ . (A, C, al., Beng., Griesb., etc.; cf. the variations καὶ τοῖς λοιπ .). The καὶ before οἵτινες is incorrect (A, C, à , Vulg., al., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
The fut. βαλῶ (rec., à ; cf. Vulg., Primas) is an explanation of the correct reading βάλλω (A, C, al., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).
Rev_2:27. συντρίβεται . So, correctly, (A, C, à ), the recensions and later editions. The var. συντριβήσεται (2, 3, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., Compl.) is an inept explanation (cf. Luth., Soll er sie zerschmeissen), which Areth. wishes to justify exegetically by making the ὡς not comparative but final.
All seven epistles (chs. 2 and 3)[892] not only like one another in their dependence upon the same fundamental thought,[893] viz., the advent of the Lord, since they explain and apply it, as often as presented,[894] in a manifold way; but they are also skilfully planned and forcibly elaborated according to a scheme.[895] The epistles naturally fall into three chief divisions,—title, body of the epistle, and conclusion. Since what are properly the superscriptions proceed from the command of the Lord, in whose name John is to write, the titles contain after the uniform introductory formula Τάδε λέγει , expressed after the manner of the ancient prophets,[896] such a self-designation of Christ speaking to the churches as agrees with the visionary revelation,[897] or with the designation of the Lord placed at the head of the book,[898] and by its consolations, warnings, and threats, is significant with respect to the contents themselves of the epistles.[899] What is properly the epistle is always opened with a prominent presentation of the fact that the Lord knows all the relations of his churches ( οἱδα , κ . τ . λ .); then, connected with this are praise and reproof, the statement of present and future perils and troubles, and an admonition to repentance, encouragement, consolation, warning, threats, in accordance with the circumstances presented.[900] The conclusion is always divided into two parts, and has a decidedly very general significance, so that each individual epistle calls to mind the more general meaning[901] found in the whole seven. The two members of the conclusion contain exhortations directed to every one who has ears to hear the address of the Spirit to the churches, and a promise to victors, pointing to the final completion of Christ’s kingdom; so that thus, even in these closing verses, there is an intimation of the goal before all Apoc. prophecy,—the coming of the Lord. It is, besides, to be remarked concerning both these members,[902] that in the first three epistles the exhortation precedes and the promise follows,[903] while in the last four epistles the order is reversed;[904] so that the number seven seems intentionally resolved into three and four, as also elsewhere, although no consequence dare be inferred therefrom concerning the relation of the churches to each other.[905]
[892] Cf. Heinrichs, ii. p. 195 sqq. Excurs. I., De Sept. illis Epp. Apocalypt.
[893] Cf. Rev_1:7.
[894] Rev_2:5; Rev_2:16, Rev_3:3; Rev_3:11; Rev_3:20.
[895] Cf. also Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
[896] Amo_1:3; Amo_1:6; Amo_1:9-10; Amo_1:13; Amo_2:1; Amo_2:4; Amo_2:6. Cf. Ewald.
[897] Rev_1:12 sqq.
[898] Rev_1:5.
[899] Cf. Rev_2:1; Rev_2:5; Rev_2:8; Rev_2:10; Rev_2:12; Rev_2:16; Rev_2:18; Rev_2:23; Rev_2:27.
[900] Rev_2:2-6; Rev_2:9-10; Rev_2:13-16; Rev_2:19-25, Rev_3:1-4; Rev_3:8-11; Rev_3:15-20
[901] Cf. on Rev_1:20.
[902] Cf. Beng., Ew., De “Wette, etc.
[903] Rev_2:7; Rev_2:11; Rev_2:17.
[904] Rev_2:26-29, Rev_3:5-6; Rev_3:12-13; Rev_3:21-22.
[905] Hengstenb.