Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 3:7 - 3:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_3:7. The designation of the Lord is derived, of course, not immediately and in its particular details from Rev_1:12 sq., but is formed with reference to the contents of the epistle that follows;[1399] yet the essential meaning of the predicates here used is no other than that expressed in the entire description, Rev_1:12 sq., as only the peculiar mode of statement is conditioned by the opposition to false Judaism. Christ, rejected and traduced by the “synagogue of Satan,” is nevertheless the absolutely Holy One, the true Messiah, and the Lord of the earth.
ὁ ἅγιος . Incorrectly Eichh., Heinr.: “A divine ambassador.” So, too, the conception of holiness is improperly obtained by Calov.: “Christ, the Holy One, as the model of the holiness of bishops;” by Vitringa:[1400] “Christ the Holy One of Israel,[1401] as the antitype of the high priest, the prefect of the heavenly sanctuary; “by Ewald:[1402] “Who, on account of his very holiness, avenges the injury inflicted upon Christians by proud Jews.”[1403] “Too indefinite is Ebrard’s reference: “To whom every thing ungodly, even what is most deceptive, is an offence.” The ὁ ἅγιος , as well as the ὁ ἀληθινός , receives its living relation only in connection with the ὁ ἕχων τ . κλεῖν , and with respect to the epistle which follows. Incorrect are all interpretations of the ὁ ἀληθινός depending upon the presumption that ἀληθινός is synonymous with ἀψευδής or ἀληθής ,[1404] while ἀληθινός means “genuine, with its idea corresponding to its name.” So the Lord calls himself (Rev_3:14) ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός , because he is a trustworthy witness, and, just on that account, such an one as actually merits this name. Cf. Rev_6:10, Rev_19:2; Rev_19:9, Rev_16:7; Joh_17:3;[1405] 1Jn_5:20 sqq.; Heb_9:24. Passages also like Rev_21:5, Rev_22:6, Rev_15:3, Heb_10:22, are to be explained according to this idea. Incorrect, therefore, is the exposition of Vitr.: “Christ as the Mediator of divine truth, as the wearer of the true Urim and Thuminim.” Calov.: “Because he wishes that they who have received it of him guard the word of truth.” Ewald, Stern, etc.: “His promises in reference to the reward are fulfilled to the faithful.” Ebrard: “Who does not join in the falsehoods of those who malign Philadelphia, but on his part (Rev_3:10) will bring the truth to light.” The proper meaning of the expression ἀληθινός has been correctly apprehended by Alcas., C. a Lap., and Grot.,[1406] but has been misapplied by them, as they have combined the two predicates ὁ ἅγιος , ὁ ἀληθιονός : “Who has true and perfect holiness—the superlative of holiness.” But the ὁ ἀληθ . has in itself[1407] an important meaning. Hengstenb. has given the correct interpretation, when in reference to Rev_3:9 he mentions the calumnies of the Jews, attested by Justin Martyr, who wished to see in the Lord only “the one hanged,” and therefore a false Messiah. As opposed to such calumniating Jews, Christ is designated as the absolutely holy, and connected therewith as the true, i.e., the actual and genuine Messiah, heir and Lord of the truly abiding theocracy ( ὁ ἐχ . τ . κλ . τ . Δαυΐδ , κ . τ . λ .). In a similar sense, the apostles in their discourses to the Jews have vindicated the holiness, and, accordingly, the true Messiahship and Sonship of God of the Crucified.[1408]
ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν Δαυἱδ , κ . τ . λ . Incorrect is the conjecture τ . κλεῖν Τάφεθ ( Τώφεθ ), made by Wolf, in consideration of Rev_1:18.[1409] Without any ground, N. de Lyra explains[1410] the key of David, by appealing to Luk_11:52; Luk_24:32, as “the power to open the understanding of the Scriptures,” and, accordingly, the words ὁ ἀνοίγων , κ . τ . λ .: “No one can hinder those from understanding the Scriptures whom he wishes to instruct, nor can any one understand them unless he unlock them.” So on Rev_3:9. In like manner is the explanation of Alcasar solved, concerning the cross of Christ as “the instrument of omnipotence.” With entire correctness is “the key of David,” and the succeeding description of its management, interpreted by almost all expositors in general, of the Lord’s own supreme power[1411] in the kingdom of God. The expression contains an allusion to Isa_22:22,[1412] but also[1413] a significant modification of that passage, since the Lord here appears as the one who has not the key of the house of David,[1414] but the “key of David.” Consequently the Lord is represented not as a second Eliakim, as his antitype, which is also in itself inapposite, but he appears in a series with King David himself, as heir of his royal house and kingdom.[1415] The key of David belongs to one who, as David himself, has a peculiar right, and is Lord[1416] in his royal house,—not in the temple,[1417]—and accordingly in the entire kingdom of David. But this is applicable to Christ as the new David[1418] unconditionally, because the ancient David, with his theocratic kingdom, was only a prophetic type of the Lord and his eternal kingdom. Just as in Act_2:29 sqq., Act_13:22 sqq., Act_13:33 sqq., this is here applied to unbelieving Jews.
Ὁ ἈΝΑΊΓΩΝ , Κ . Τ . Λ . The construction in the second member is Hebraic,[1419] as the participle makes a transition to the finite tense,[1420] without on that account requiring a Ὃς to be supplied before ΚΛΕΊΕΙ .[1421] The entire thought of Ὁ ἈΝΟΊΓΩΝ
ΟὐΔΕῚς ἈΝΟΊΓΕΙ depends upon the predicate Ὁ ἜΧΩΝ Τ . ΚΛΕῖΝ Τ . Δ ., and is an explanation thereof. But the idea is defined too narrowly, on the one hand, by those who, by a comparison of Mat_16:19, regard the power of Christ here as being that to forgive sins, and thus to receive into the kingdom of heaven,[1422] and, on the other, by those who derive from Rev_3:8 ( ΘΎΡΑΥ ἈΝΕῼΓΜ .) a limitation to Rev_3:7, and thence infer that Christ opens the opportunity for entrance into his kingdom;[1423] while, on the contrary, Rev_3:8 makes prominent only a special point of what in Rev_3:7 is said far more generally, and applied on the other side ( ΚΑῚ ΚΛΕΊΕΙ , Κ . Τ . Λ .). Not once is the distinction of the earthly and heavenly kingdoms to be marked, but the latter is to be regarded in its indivisible completeness, as Christ the Lord and King of the realm admits therein or excludes therefrom.[1424] The supreme power of Christ, belonging to him as the true Messiah, is declared of him entirely in connection with all preceding predicates, and the succeeding epistles.[1425] As an essential part thereto, there belongs especially the irrevocable and inevitable twofold decision in the final judgment. [See Note XXXVII., p 183.]
[1399] Cf. Ebrard.
[1400] Cf. also Züll.
[1401] Isaiah 6.
[1402] Cf. also De Wette, Stern, etc.
[1403] A comparison may here be made with Rev_6:10, where, however, this energetic expression of holiness in judicial righteousness is explicitly marked.
[1404] Cf., on the other hand, Meyer on Joh_7:28; Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., Cambr., 1854, § 8.
[1405] Cf. Isa_65:16, LXX.
[1406] Cf. Ew. ii.
[1407] Cf. Rev_19:11.
[1408] Act_3:14; Act_4:27; Act_4:30; Act_7:52; Act_13:35. Cf. Joh_13:19.
[1409] Cf. 2Ki_23:10.
[1410] Cf. also Primas, Vieg., Zeger.
[1411] Cf. Mat_28:18.
[1412] Where it is said concerning Eliakim: δώσω ἀυτῷ τῂν κλεἶδα ὀίκου Δαυίδ ἐπὶ τῷ ὤμῳ αὐτοῦ , καὶ ἀνοίξει καὶ οὐκ ἕσται ὁ ἀποκλείων , καὶ κλεἱσει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀνοίγων .
[1413] Hengstenb., Ebrard.
[1414] As Grot., Calov., Ewald, De Wette, etc., here explain.
[1415] Cf. Rev_5:5, Rev_22:16; Luk_1:32.
[1416] Cf. also Ahrens, a a. O. S. 13.
[1417] Cf. C. a Lap., Vitr., Züll., etc.
[1418] Cf. Hos_3:5; Jer_30:9; Eze_34:23 sqq., Eze_37:24 sqq.
[1419] De Wette.
[1420] Cf., e.g., Amo_5:8.
[1421] Beng.
[1422] C. a Lap., Vitr., Eichh., etc.
[1423] Ew.; cf. De Wette, Ebrard.
[1424] Cf. Calov., Stern, Hengstenb., etc.
[1425] Especially Rev_3:9. Cf. Rev_3:12.
XXXVII. Rev_3:7. τὴν ελεῖν Δαυείδ