Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 3:14 - 3:14

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 3:14 - 3:14


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Rev_3:14. ὁ Ἀμήν . This Hebraistic expression[1547] is, as to its meaning, entirely synonymous with the following Greek expressions: Ὁ ΜΆΡΤΥς , Ὁ ΠΙΣΤῸς ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘΙΝῸς ;[1548] but the double designation of the Lord establishes with earnest emphasis the indubitable certainty of all that the Lord, who is the absolutely faithful witness (Rev_1:5), has now to say to this church of his at Laod.; viz, the accusations (Rev_3:15 sqq.), the advice (Rev_3:18), the threatening and promise.[1549] Not inappropriate, therefore, is the admonition that in and through Christ all God’s promises are, and are to be, fulfilled;[1550] from which the inference has been derived, that the epistle to the church at Laod. is to be regarded the Amen of all the seven epistles,[1551] or that in the designations of the Lord, Rev_3:14, a warrant is to be sought for the fulfilment of what is said in chs 4 sqq.[1552] The question here is not with respect to the promises or other utterances of God,[1553] which have their fulfilment in Christ, but with respect to the discourses of Christ himself which have in him[1554] their guaranty. Hence it is not correct when N. de Lyra adds to Ὁ ΜΑΡΤ ., Κ . Τ . Λ ., “of paternal majesty.” As a “witness,” the Lord here manifests himself, however, as entirely determined by all his testimonies in the following epistle.

ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς . Not synonymous with ΠΙΣΤΌς (= ἈΛΗΘΉς : so ordinarily), but just because the Lord is a faithful, and, because of his truth, an unconditionally trustworthy witness, is he a true, actual, and genuine witness who deserves this name.[1555]

Ἡ ἈΡΧῊ Τῆς ΚΤΊΣΕΩς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ . Cf. Col_1:15 sqq., on which Meyer has refuted the erroneous expositions which essentially recur in reference to this passage. According to the wording, Ή ἈΡΧῆ Τ . ΚΤ . Τ . Θ . cannot signify Ὁ ἌΡΧΩΝ , the prince of God’s creation;[1556] also the ΚΤΊΣΙς Τ . Θ ., “the creature restored, creates new things,” the church;[1557] and still less can the expression signify what in Rev_1:5 follows of course the ὁ μαρτ . ὁ πιστ ., although there it is said in clear words: ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν [1558] The wording in itself allows only two conceptions: either Christ is designated “the beginning of the creation of God,” i.e., as the first creature[1559] of God,[1560] as Ew. and Züll. understand it in harmony with the Arians;[1561] or, the Lord is regarded as the active principle of the creation.[1562] Unconditionally decisive for the latter alternative, which, however, dare not be perverted by a reference to the spiritual new creation,[1563] is the fundamental view of Christ, which is expressed in the Apoc., as well as in every other book of the N. T. How could Christ have caused even the present epistle to be written, if he himself were a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth worship him,[1564] if he himself were one of them?[1565] The designation of the Lord, that he is Α and Ω , need only be recalled in its necessary force, and it will be found that in the Α lies the fact that Christ is the ἈΡΧΉ of the creation,[1566] while in the Ω lies the fact of Christ’s coming to make an end of the visible creation. [See Note XXXIX., p. 184.]

[1547] Cf., as to the form, 2Co_1:20.

[1548] Cf. Bengel, Ewald, Hengstenb.

[1549] Vitr., Hengstenb., etc.

[1550] Grot., De Wette, etc.

[1551] Züll.

[1552] De Wette, Stern.

[1553] 2Co_1:20. Cf. also Isa_65:16.

[1554] Cf. Joh_14:6; N. de Lyra, etc.

[1555] Cf. Rev_3:7.

[1556] Eichh. Cf. also Calov., Beng.

[1557] à 1 consequently reads τ . ἐκκλησίας . But it is amended. Grot., Wetst., Eichh., Heinr. Cf. C. a Lap.

[1558] Cf., besides, Eichh.

[1559] Cf., on ἀρχή , Gen_49:3; Deu_21:17.

[1560] Cf. Pro_8:22.

[1561] Castalis says: “chef d’œuvre,—the most excellent and first of all God’s works.”

[1562] Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, Vatabl., Calov., Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. also De Wette, Ew. ii.

[1563] Klief.

[1564] Rev_5:13.

[1565] Cf. Rev_19:10.

[1566] Cf. Col_1:15-16; Joh_1:3.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XXXIX. Rev_3:14. ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως

Philippi (Kirch. Glaub., ii. 215): “He is the beginning of the creation; the beginning, and, as such, the principle, the original source, and author, and therefore not himself a creature. So God himself is also called the beginning and the end (Rev_21:6), and, in like manner, Christ (Rev_22:13).” Gebhardt (pp. 90–98) refutes the interpretations of Baur, Hoekstra, Köstlin, Weiss, and Ritschl; and states the true interpretation to be as follows: “What exposition is demanded by the laws of language? Without further delay, I reply, that, had the seer written ‘the beginning of the creatures ( κτίσματα ) of God,’ or had he written ‘the first, or the first-born, or the first-fruit ( πρῶτος , πρωτότοκος , ἀπαρχή ), of the creation of God,’ then the expression might be understood to denote the first created, or that which precedes all things, the first creature in time and rank. But the seer has written ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ , which can mean nothing else than principium creationis, the principle, the ἐν ῷ , διʼ οὗ , εἰς ὅ , of the creation of God. After this affirmation of the literal sense, I may say that it finds confirmation in Rev_1:17-18; Rev_2:8.… To a church in which Christ not only discovers self-blindness, but which he threatens to spew out of his mouth, which he counsels to seek help from himself for its disease, to which he says that he rebukes and chastens those whom he loves,—in a word, to a church to which he reveals himself as to no other in his fullest and highest significance, and we must remember that we have to do with the last of the seven letters,—“the first creature” has not, in any of its possible meanings, a really satisfactory sense; and we find that sense only when we understand it to mean the principle of the creation of God, i.e., the personal, mediatorial, essential ground and end of the creation. Thus simply explained, according to the laws of language, the passage (Rev_3:14), taken in connection with those quoted before, furnishes us with a very remarkable result, viz., that the seer has expressed the ‘Logos’ idea itself in its highest meaning.”