Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 22
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Rev_22:2. Instead of ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν (Elz., Beng.; cf. Joh_19:18), read ἐντ . κ . ἐκεῖθεν (A, B, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). The ἕνα before ἕκαστον (Elz., Beng.) is rightly deleted by Griesb.
Rev_22:3. κατάθεμα . So A, B, à 1, al., Beng., Griesb., the moderns. Incorrectly, Elz.: κατανάθεμα ; cf. Mat_26:74.
Rev_22:5. The ἐκεῖ after ἔσται (Elz., Beng.) is without attestation. According to A, à , al., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.] have written ἔτι ; Tisch. has written this also after B. καὶ οὐ χρεία λύχνου καὶ φωτός . So Tisch., according to B. This appears to be the mater lectionis; yet Lach., who writes καὶ οὐχ ἕξουσιν ( à : οὐκ ἔχουσιν ) χρείαν φωτὸς λύχνου καὶ φωτὸς ἡλίου , has in his favor the testimony of A and à ; while the rec. κ . χρείαν οὐκ ἕχουσι λύχνου καὶ φωτὸς ἡλίου is unattested. Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]: κ . οὐκ . ἔχ . χρείαν φωτὸς λύχν . κ .
φωτίσει . The fut. is certain, although the discrimination as to the form φωτίσει (A, al., Beng., Lach.), or φωτιεῖ , is difficult. The pres. (Elz.) has only unimportant witnesses. ἐπʼ αὐτούς . So A, à , Beng., Griesb., the moderns. The ἐπὶ is lacking in B, Elz.
Rev_22:6. τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν . So, correctly (A, B, à , al.) already, Beng., Griesb. The modification τ . ἁγίων προφ . (Elz.) is without critical value.
Rev_22:8. After κ . ὅτε ἤκουσυ , Tisch. has καὶ ὀτε ἵδον (B, al.). This is, at all events, more correct than the Rec. καὶ ἔβλεψα (so à ), which Lach., Tisch. IX., have indorsed, although A has κ . ἔβλεπον . But even this form is liable to suspicion because of its correspondence with the preceding βλέπων .
Rev_22:10. The ὄτι before ὁ καιρὸς (Rec., Beng.) is certainly a proposed interpretation; as such, the γὰρ also, after ὁ καιρ ., appears suspicious, although its omission (Griesb., Tisch.) is forbidden by A, B, à , al., Verss. (Lach., Tisch. IX.).
Rev_22:11. ὁ ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπαρευθήτω . So A, al., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. The form, supported by Orig. and à , ῥυπανθήτω (Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) is the more usual, and may accordingly indeed have the force of an explanation. The Rec. ὁ ῥυπῶν ῥυπωσάτω is feebly attested. Instead of δικαιωθήτω (Elz.), Beng. already wrote δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω (A, B, à , al.).
Rev_22:12. ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ . So A, à , 21, Syr., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Whether B thus read, or have αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν (Elz., Beng.), is not established; cf. Tisch.
Rev_22:14. The Rec. ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὺτοῦ is therefore to be preferred (cf. De Wette) because the reading πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), advocated by A, à , 7, 38, Verss., appears to have the purpose which is clearly expressed in the text of Andr. ( τ . ἐντ . ἐμοῦ ); viz., not to allow the speech of Christ (Rev_22:13; Rev_22:16) to be interrupted by an intervening speech of John.
Rev_22:16. ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις . It is certain that this reading, supported by Beng., Tisch. (cf. also De Wette, etc.), depends only upon the witnesses 4, 11, 12, 47, 48, Arm., al.; while the ἐν (A, al., Verss., Lach.), as well as the ἐπὶ (B, à , al., Syr., Elz., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), was apparently interpolated because the address of Christ to the churches was not understood. So the exposition.
Rev_22:21. The additions ὖμῶν and τῶν ἁγίων (B, al.) to πάντων , and the Ἀμήν at the close (Elz.), were properly rejected already by Beng. The subscription, which in A runs ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου , is entirely lacking in B, al.