Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 2:13 - 2:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_2:13. The ποῦ κατοικ . is immediately afterwards described more accurately: ὅπου ὁ θρ . τ . σατ . This in itself does not contain a commendation, but serves as a commendation only as the church remains faithful although dwelling where Satan’s seat is, which is communicated by the more emphatic and explicit repetition at the close of ὅπου ὁ σατ . κατοικεῖ .[1113] It is a matter of importance, however, that the Lord first of all simply testifies, for its consolation, to his knowledge of the nature of his church’s abode: ὍΠΟΥ Ὁ ΘΡΌΝΟς ΤΟῦ ΣΑΤΑΝᾶ . At all events, this[1114] points to the city of Pergamos as the place of the church; and hence the explanation is incorrect, according to which the godless enemies of Christ and his believers are represented[1115] as Satan’s throne.[1116] There is nothing to support the opinion[1117] that Satan’s throne was in Pergamos as the chief abode of the worship of Aesculapius, whose symbol was the serpent; for if, on account of his serpent, John would have desired to designate Aesculapius directly as the Devil[1118] (which would have been inappropriate, as, according to 1Co_10:20, that particular ἜΙΔΩΛΟΝ can be only one ΔΑΙΜΌΝΙΟΝ among many), he would at least have indicated it by Ὁ ΘΡ . ΤΟῦ ΔΡΆΚΟΝΤΟς . We must first, with Andreas,[1119] think of a remarkable flourishing of idol-worship in general, if the remark of And. that Perg. was ΚΑΤΕΊΔΩΛΟς ὙΠῈΡ ΤῊΝ ʼΑΣΊΑΝ ΠᾶΣΑΝ (given to idolatry above all Asia) would have an historical foundation. That Perg. is called the seat of Satan as the abode of heathen and Nicolaitans,[1120] is partly too general, and partly contrary to the meaning of Rev_2:14. The only correct view is the reference, understood already by N. de Lyra, to the persecution of the church, ascribed also in Rev_2:10 to the Devil;[1121] decidedly in favor of this explanation is the ὍΠΟΥ Ὁ ΣΑΤ . ΚΑΤΟΙΚΕῖ in its connection with ἈΠΕΚΤΆΝΘΗ ΠΑΡʼ ὙΜῖΝ . Only in Perg. had Satan been able to proceed so far as to shed the blood of martyrs. Whether this was caused by the adherence of the heathen with special fanaticism to their Aesculapius;[1122] or the fact that Perg., as the seat of supreme jurisdiction,[1123] most readily offered a theatre for persecutions;[1124] or, finally, that only particularly hostile individuals[1125] to be sought among the heathen, because not further designated,[1126] were present in Perg.,—it is not possible to decide.
καὶ κρατεῖς , κ . τ . λ . The holding fast[1127] of Christ’s name, which continues still to the present ( κρατεῖς , pres.), has already approved itself on some special opportunity ( καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω , aor.). As the κρατεῖς corresponds to the contrasted ἠρνῆσω , so τὸ ὄνομα μου is parallel with τὴν πίστιν μου . The former is the objective, and the latter the subjective nature. Christ’s ὄνομα which is held fast by believers is not “the profession of doctrine delivered by Christ”[1128] or the confession of his name,[1129] but the name of Christ appears as something in itself objective, so that one may have, hold, and lose, confess and deny it, yea, even, it may work,[1130] as the name of Christ comprises the true objective person of Christ together with his riches and glory. The κρατεῖν τὸ ὄνομα occurs in the sense of this passage, of course, only by faithful, frank confession, but not simply “in life and faith.”[1131] The corresponding inner item (Rom_10:10) is faith in the Lord: τ . πίστ . μου , objective genitive.[1132]
καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ʼΑντίπας , κ . τ . λ . The correct text, with which the Vulg. in the critical recension agrees,[1133] i.e., in which before ʼΑντίπας neither αἱς nor ἐν αἰς nor ἐμαῖς is to be read, but on the contrary before ἀπεκτ . there is a ὃς ,[1134] is not explicable by the conjecture that the gen. ʼΑντίπα may have stood originally in the text,[1135] nor by the idea that ʼΑντίπας is used as indeclinable, and the form here is intended as genitive;[1136] for both conjectures, in themselves having little probability, are made doubly difficult by the nominative appos. ὁ μαρτ . ό πιστ ., since here it is hard to accept the explanation which is in place in Rev_1:5, where what is said, is of Christ himself. Grotius assumes an ellipsis and a transposition by thus analyzing the sentence: ἐν τ . ἡμ . ʼΑντίπα , ὃς ʼΑντίπας
ἀπεκτάνθη . Ebrard, who, however, reads αἰς before ʼΑντ ., explains the anacoluthon in the sentence by the supposition that the originally intended construction αἰς ʼΑντίπας
ἀπεκτάνθη was abandoned, because the chief verb ἀπεκτ . is added as an explanation of the words ό μαρτ . μ . ό πιστ ., and thus a relative sentence originated which contains the verb properly belonging to ʼΑντίπας . But even the latter explanation does not naturally appear in the simple members of which the entire sentence consists. Primas, N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., and other catholic expositors,[1137] have correctly hit the sense by following the explanatory reading of the Vulg. “in diebus illis,” for if also the mere article cannot have directly the force of a demonstrative, yet it marks the precise days in which the church did not deny the faith: “and in the day Antipas” (namely: was) “my faithful witness who,” etc. It is designedly that the commendation of the church is still further enhanced by the circumstance especially added ( καί ), that one witness, in the days when the whole church faithfully gave its testimony, was faithful even unto death. The reference to the οὐκ ἠρνήσω . τ . πίστιν μου is indicated also by the expression ὁ μαρτ . μου ὁ πίστος ,[1138] as then also the παρʼ ὑμῖν and the repeated ὅπου ὁ σατ . κατοικεῖ in this connection are significant.
Of the martyr Antipas, nothing historical is known. Whether his martyrdom, noticed by Andreas, were related already perhaps from the account, contained in the later martyrologies and menologies, viz., that Antipas as bishop of Pergamos under Domitian was put to death in a glowing brazen ox, we do not know. The interpretations of the name as Ἀντι - πᾶς , i.e., “Against all,” therefore, child of God, and hence enemy of the whole world,[1139] or Anti-papa,[1140] are wrecked by grammar, which teaches that Ἀντίπας is similar to Ἀντίπατρος .[1141] Coccejus, for this reason, wants to find in Antipas the confessor of Athanasianism, since Ἀντίπατρος resembles ἰσόπατρος , and this again ὁμοούσιος . Vitringa adds, yet, that the mystical Pergamos where this mystical Antipas was slain, viz., again mystically, by banishment, or, in general, by hinderance of confession, is Alexandria, the residence of Athanasius.
[1113] Thus with regard to κατοικεῖς .
[1114] Cf. the ποῦ κατοικεῖς and ὅπου ὁ σαταν . κατοικεῖ .
[1115] Primas, Zeger.
[1116] The opinion of P. Zornius (in Wolf) is a curiosity; viz., that John had in view the Pergamean museum, and the empty speeches of the sophists.
[1117] Grot., Wetst., M. Rossal and Ph. Hasäus in the Bibl. Brem., iii. pp. 94, 104. Cf. also Eichh., Heinr.
[1118] Rev_12:3; Rev_12:9.
[1119] Aret., Pric., Beng., etc.
[1120] C. a Lap., Calov.
[1121] Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard.
[1122] In connection with which, we must remember that the idol, because of its epithet σωτήρ , formed a manifest opposition to the Saviour; we may also think of miraculous cures in the temple of Aesc., and the interests connected therewith. Cf. Act_19:24 sqq., Rev_16:19 sqq.
[1123] Kliefoth.
[1124] In connection with which, relations acknowledged in Plin., Ep. 97, and the apologists, and even indicated in Acts, may be recalled.
[1125] Hengstenb.
[1126] Ewald.
[1127] Cf. Rev_2:1; Rev_3:11.
[1128] Grot.
[1129] De Wette.
[1130] Cf. Act_2:21; Act_3:16; Act_9:14; Joh_1:12.
[1131] N. de Lyra.
[1132] Rev_14:12; Rom_3:22; Eph_3:12. Winer, p. 175.
[1133] “Et in diebus Antipas, testis meus fidelis, qui occisus est,” etc. Lach., Tisch.
[1134] See Critical Remarks.
[1135] Ewald.
[1136] Bleek.
[1137] Cf. also Treg.
[1138] Beng.
[1139] Aretius, Hengstenb., who understand thereby Timothy.
[1140] Ed. Schmidt.
[1141] Winer, p. 97.