Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 4
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
λέγων . So, already, Griesb., instead of the correction λέγουσα (Elz.).
Rev_4:2. The καὶ before εὐθέως . (Elz.) is, according to A, à , 2, 4, 8, al., Syr., Vulg., to be deleted (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); cf., already, Griesb.: yet the μετὰ ταῦτα here, as in Rev_1:9, is to be combined with δεῖ γενέσθαι , not (Lach.) with εὐθέως .
ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος . So, already, Beng., according to A, à , 2, 4, 6, 7, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου .
In this often-recurring phrase, ἐπὶ is found with the accus., Rev_4:4, Rev_11:16, Rev_17:3, Rev_19:11; also Rev_6:2; Rev_6:4 (Elz., dat.), according to A, C, à (Beng., Lach., Tisch.). With the Gen_4:10; Gen_5:1; Gen_5:7; also Rev_6:16, Elz., Lach.
On the other hand, Tisch.: dat., according to 4, 6, 9, à , al.). With the dat., Rev_4:9 (A, à , Lach.
But Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]: gen.), Rev_5:13 ( à [W. and H.]: gen.), Rev_7:10, Rev_19:4, Rev_21:5, where, in the Elz., the gen. throughout stands improperly.
Rev_4:3. The ἦν before ὅμοιος (Elz.) is, according to the testimonies, and with Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], to be deleted; cf. Rev_1:14-15.
Rev_4:4. Elz.: θρόνοι εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρες · καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἱδον τοὺς εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρας πρεσβ . Certainly false, in this reading, is: first, the (twofold) καί before τεσσ .; secondly, the explanation εἴδον beside the art. τούς . It is doubtful whether with Lach., Tisch. IX., θρόνους εἴκοσι τέσσερας must be read; for, in A, this accus. may have been inserted because of what follows. Beng., Griesb., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc., have the nominative. It is, further, doubtful whether the number should be combined the second time with θρόνους or with πρεσβυτ . The former is preferred by Lach., Tisch. IX., according to A, 17, 18, 19 ( κ . ἐπὶ τ . εἴκ . τέσσ . θρον . πρεσβ .); the latter by Tisch. [W. and H.] ( τ . ἐπὶ τ . θρ . τοὺς εἴκ . τεσσ . πρεσβ .; cf. 13, 26, 27, Areth.). It is, however, very possible that the reading of 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, al., according to which the number without τοὺς stands between τ . θρόνους and πρεσβυτ ., and accordingly could be taken with both nouns, is original. The reading, therefore, which is exegetically the more suitable, is εἴκ . τεσσ . πρεσβ . à has only καὶ πρεσβ ., without ἐπὶ τ . θρ ., and without the repetition of the number,—possibly the original reading.
The ἐν before ἱματίοις (Elz., Tisch.) is probably false; it is wanting in A, Vulg., Lach. [W. and H.]. The ἔσχον (Elz.) before ἐπὶ τ . κεφ . is doubtless an interpretation.
Rev_4:7. Instead of ὡς ἅνθρωπος (Elz., Beng.), ὡς ἀνθρώπου (A, Vulg., al., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is to be read, unless possibly ἀνθρώπου alone (2, 4, 6, al., Aeth., Ar., Andr., Areth., Matth.) is to be regarded the original reading. à : ὡς ὅμοιον ἀνθρώπῳ .
Instead of πετωμένῳ (Elz.), write here and in Rev_8:13, Rev_14:6, Rev_19:17, πετομ . (A, à , 9, 14, 16, 19, Andr., Areth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cf. the scholium in Wetst.: πέταμαι οὐδεὶς τῶν ῥητόρων εἰπεν , ἀλλὰ πέτομαι .
Rev_4:8. ἓν καθʼ ἑαυτὸ εἷχον . So Elz. But Beng. and Griesb. already write correctly: ἓν καθʼ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχον (A, B, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, al., Lach.). The ἔχων in A, which is approved here by Tisch. [W. and H.], occurs also in Rev_4:7 in A,—not received there by Tisch., 1854,—in both places apparently as a clerical error. à : ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν εἰχον .
Rev_4:11. Instead of the simple κὐριε (Elz., Griesb.), read, according to A, B, 2, 3, al., Vulg.: ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); à has both.
ἧσαν . So A, à , 2, 3, 4, al. pl., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. A mere modification is the εἰσι in Elz. Also, the isolated variation οὐκ ἦσαν , which Ew. favors, seems to be a not inapt expedient; since, by the inner combination of the οὐκ ἦσαν and ἐκτίσθ . (“when they were not, they were created,” Ew.), the difficulty of the ἦσαν in the correct text is avoided.
That the words καὶ ἐκτίσθησαυ are lacking in A, is only an oversight, as the eye of the transcriber wandered from the ἡσαν directly to the final syllable of ἐκτίσθ
ησαν .
In chapter 4 (and 5), the real divine foundation for the entire succeeding prophetic Apoc. (up to Rev_22:5) is presented in a plastic manner. For the living God himself, whose throne in eternal glory is portrayed in ch. 4, determines what is to happen ( δεῖ γεν ., cf. Rev_1:1; Rev_1:19). Thus from him proceeds all revelation spoken by the mouth of a prophet,[1643] and that, too, through the mediation of Christ.[1644] Beng., appropriately: “In fact, this book (of John) describes not only what occurs on earth in good and evil, but also how things originate from the kingdom of light, and partly from the kingdom of darkness, and how they again extend thither.”[1645] But as in Rev_1:12 sqq., the appearance of Christ was of such a nature as to stand in a living relation to the discourses of the Lord to his Church, following in chs. 2 and 3, so also the appearance of the Lord in ch. 4 already makes us know in advance that it treats of impending judgment towards enemies, and a showing of grace to believers. The holy and omnipotent majesty beheld of Him who was, and is, and is to come, and the standing of the “elders” about his throne,—already points, even apart from definite individual features, to the essential contents of the revelation which is to be expected. Cf. Beng.; also Hengstenb., who, however, inaccurately and erroneously says, “What is to occur afterwards is shown John. Accordingly, in Rev_4:2 sqq., we are to expect not a description of that which always is, but only a symbolical foreshadowing of the future.”
[1643] Cf. Rev_1:1.
[1644] Cf. Rev_5:1 sqq.
[1645] Cf. also Ew., De Wette, Ebrard.
If now we compare with the description, ch. 4, rabbinical representations, such as More Nevoch, II. Revelation 6 : “God does nothing unless he have considered it in his family above,” and Schir. Haschirim R., fol. 93: “God does nothing unless he have first consulted concerning it with his family above,”[1646]—we dare not overlook the essential distinction that the Johannean view is nothing but a development of O. and N. T. fundamental truths, while the rabbins have only a corruption of them.[1647] For “the family above,” which, according to the rabbins, participates in the determining of God’s counsels, in John has only to adore and praise the decree together with God’s works; and the visions beheld by John, in which future things are portrayed to him while in the Spirit, are in no respect the heavenly prelude of earthly events stated by the rabbins.[1648] Ill-founded is the remark of Heinrichs: “In every chapter, the poet does nothing but testify that he has beheld the theatre whence the Messiah is to return to earth as the lofty and majestic” …
[1646] In Wetst.
[1647] Against Wetst., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., etc.
[1648] Cf. Wetst.: “According to the idea of the Jews, what is to occur on earth is first manifested and represented in heaven before the assembly of angels.”