Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 6
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After ἔρχου , neither βλέπε (Elz.) nor ἴδε ( à , Beng.) is to be read. So according to A, C, 10, 17, al., ed. Compl., Genev., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Also, in Rev_6:3; Rev_6:5; Rev_6:8, the insertion is to be deleted.
Ver 2. καὶ εἶδον is improperly omitted in most minusc. as superfluous.
Rev_6:4. αὐτῳ before λαβεῖν (Elz., Griesb., Tisch.), omitted in A as superfluous, has sufficient testimony in C, à , Vulg.; Lach. [W. and H.] has inserted it in brackets.
Instead of the unattested ἀπὸ τ . γ . (Elz.), read ἐκ τ . γ . (C, à , 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., Andr., Lach., Tisch.). Nevertheless, even the mere τῆς γῆς is a reading to be held in high esteem, in favor of which is the testimony of A, and which may have been the mater lectionis.
σφάξουσιυ Elz., σφάξωσι . ( à ). But A, C, justify here the reading of the fut. (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf. Winer, p. 271).
Rev_6:6. In the Elz. text, in accord with A, C, à , 6, 12, 17, Vulg., ὡς is to be inserted (Lach.), which was omitted even by Tisch., 1873, because it was inconvenient.
Rev_6:7. It is not improbable, that with Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.], in accord with A, à , Vulg. the reading is: φωνὴν τ . τετ . ζ . λέγοντος (incorrectly, Elz., λέγουσαν ), as the reading preferred by Tisch., etc., τοὺ τετ . ζ . λέγοντος (4, 6, 7, 8, al., Syr., Copt., Aral.; cf. C: τὸ τέταρτον ζῶον λέγοντος ), may be an adaptation to the mode of speech (Rev_6:3; Rev_6:5).
Rev_6:8. Instead of ἀκολουθεῖ (A, Elz., Beng., Tisch.), the reading is probably ἠκολούθει (B, C, à , 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., al., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]).
For μετʼ αὐτοῦ , à has the easier αὐτῳ
ἐδόθη αύτοῖς . So, correctly, Elz., Lach., Tisch., 1859 [W. and H.], after A, C, à . The reading αὐτῳ (2, 4. 6, al., Vulg., Syr., al., Griesb., Beng., Matth., Tisch., 1854) arises from Rev_6:2; Rev_6:4.
Rev_6:10. ἐκραξαν . So A, C, à , 2, 4, 6, al., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without authenticity, Elz.: ἐκραζόν .
ἐκ τῶν κατοῖκ . So, according to decisive witnesses, Matth. already. Incorrectly, Elz. (cf. Beng., Griesb.): ἀπὸ .
Rev_6:11. The μικρόν after χρόνον (Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) is very strongly attested by A, C, à , Vulg. It is lacking, it is true, in B, 2, 4, 6, al., Aeth., Ar., Compl., and is rejected by Beng. Griesb., Matth. Tisch.; but any transfer from Rev_20:3 is highly improbable, although it could readily have been omitted, because it seems difficult to make the further determination ἕως πληρ ., κ . τ . λ ., accord with the brevity of the appointed time,
πληρωθῶσιν . So Beng., Treg., Lach., according with A, C, Vulg, al., Compl. Emendations are: πληρώσονται (Elz.), πληρώσωσιν ( à , 2, 3, 4, 8. al., Matth., Tisch.), πληρώσουσιν (28). Rev_6:15.; The πᾶς before ἐλευθ . (Elz.) is, in accord with decisive witnesses, erased already by Beng.
The seals of the book of fate were opened by the Lamb (cf. Rev_5:1 sq.). Ch. 6 describes the opening of the first six of the seven seals, and reports the contents of the book thus unsealed. With Rev_6:17, the contents of the sixth seal are exhausted. Against Vitr., who finds in ch. 7 the second vision that is thought to proceed from the sixth seal, it may be noted already here, that the opening of each seal always brings with it only one vision.[1994] Concerning the seventh seal, cf. Rev_8:1 sqq.
The seals are to be regarded not as belonging to the transitions of the book, but to the book itself; what is manifested at their opening serves, therefore, not as a significant type of what is contained only in the book itself, but by the opening of the seals the contents of the book are revealed.[1995] The visions presented after the opening of the seals, also, are not, as Heinr. thinks, figures portrayed in the transitions of the book,—which is in no way conceivable in the first four, to say nothing of the last three seals; but they are significative images and events, which, proceeding from the unsealed book itself, signify future things[1996] to the gazing prophet.[1997] Ew. says, incorrectly, that the horsemen (Rev_6:2-3; Rev_6:5; Rev_6:8) “proceed from a narrow place.” They go forth from the unsealed book itself.
As the seven epistles, by a plain change in the form of composition,[1998] were classified into three and four, so the seven seals—apart from the fact that, by ch. 7, the seventh seal (Rev_8:1 sqq.) is separated from the first six—fall into four (Rev_6:1-8) and three (Rev_6:9 sqq.). But Bengel’s decision is arbitrary; viz., that the former class of four seals refer to what is visible, and the latter of three to what is invisible.[1999] Still more arbitrarily, Alcasar thought that the first four seals represented “the conversion and happiness of the Jews who would believe in Christ;”[2000] but the last three, “the unhappiness and punishment of Jews rebelling against Christ.” In the first four seals, appear allegorical figures, horsemen on horses: in the last three, there are certain occurrences not portrayed in an allegorical way. Besides, the first four seals are placed in a certain relation to the four beings which surround God’s throne (Rev_4:6 sq.); while every time, when a seal is opened, one of the four beings says to John, ἔρχου . But this must not be carried into minute details. Thus Beng. places in the east what is indicated in the first seal, as the first beast has his place to the east of God’s throne, etc.; while Grot. finds it very suitable for his conception of the four beings, that, e.g., in the third seal, which treats of famine, and that, too, of that which occurred at the time of the Emperor Claudius, the third being, viz., Paul, speaks, for Agabus had prophesied to him of this famine.[2001] But it would have been more consistent for Grot, to have regarded Agabus the third being. To the fourth seal, which threatens sicknesses, Grot. says, that the fourth being suits, viz., James, who, in his epistle, speaks of sicknesses.
Other expositors,[2002] because of the signs of victory of the first seal compared with the victorious leonine strength and courage of the first lion-like being, and because of the persecutions of Christians, have mentioned thereon that the second being is like an ox, i.e., an animal for sacrifice, and more of such arbitrary interpretations. In accord with the allegorical meaning of the four beings who represent the living creation, especially the earthly, out of which their significant forms are fashioned,[2003] and in accord with that which is reported concerning the visions themselves,[2004] is the relation between the four beings and the first four visions of the seals, which in the constant ἔρχον of the individual beings, and in the voice (Rev_6:6) sounding in the midst of the four beasts, stamps the fact that visions are revealed which pertain to the earthly world, and that, too, to the whole of it.[2005]
[1994] Against Heinrichs, who thinks that only in ch. 8 the book itself is looked into, after the seven sealed “coverings” have been removed.
[1995] ἁ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα ; cf. Rev_4:1.
[1996] ἁ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα ; cf. Rev_4:1.
[1997] Cf. Rev_5:1.
[1998] See on ch. 2.
[1999] “The blessed dead, especially the martyrs, the unblessed dead, and the holy angels with their service.”
[2000] The four horsemen are, “Faith, Courage, Want, Death, viz., as victor over the inordinate affections of still unbelieving men.”
[2001] Act_11:27 sqq.
[2002] C. a Lap., Stern, Vitr., etc.
[2003] Cf. Rev_4:7 sqq.
[2004] Rev_6:1-8.
[2005] Cf. Ew., Hengstenb., Ebrard.