Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Revelation 7:4 - 7:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev_7:4-8. καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων . The act of sealing is, therefore, to be considered as occurring between Rev_7:3 and Rev_7:4. That John does not behold this act itself, but only hears the number of the sealed,—probably from the other angel, Rev_7:2-3,[2295]—corresponds with the holy moderation which is peculiar to true prophecy; for as in the innumerable company, Rev_7:9 sqq., the sealing, in general, is such as cannot be represented,[2296] so in reference to the one hundred and forty-four thousand out of Israel, it would be in a high degree unnatural if their sealing had occurred before the eyes of the prophet. In Ezekiel 9 it is, likewise, not described how the mark was made upon the foreheads of the godly; but after the command for this is communicated (Rev_7:4), in Rev_7:11 it is said that it is accomplished. Yet it is not a happy fiction of John,[2297] that he says that he has only heard the number of the sealed; but the apparently insignificant circumstance testifies to the truth of the vision, and the entirely ethical nature of divine revelation in general. Nor is it possible for that to be revealed by vision to the prophet which must conflict with his proper subjectivity.
The schematic number one hundred and forty-four thousand applies, as a product of the radical number twelve, especially to believers from the twelve tribes of Israel.
ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσρ . “Out of every tribe.” Cf. Winer, p. 105. The pregnant mode of expression shows that one hundred and forty-four thousand in all were sealed, and that the sealed were from every tribe. What follows (Rev_7:5-8) makes the declaration more specific, upon which it is to be noted: 1. That the number of twelve thousand, fixed for each of the twelve tribes, from the very fact that it is every time the same shows that it is schematic by expressing the idea that in the divine gifts of grace all have like share, but no one from any one right. It is just as when in Eze_47:14, the Holy Land appears equally divided among all the tribes. 2. As to the representation of the tribes, neither the tribe of Levi dare be missing,[2298] nor is the fixed number, twelve, exceeded. Yet it was impracticable to include Manasseh and Ephraim under the name of Joseph, because each of those two branches of the original tribe of Joseph stands by the side of the other tribes with significative independence of age.[2299] If, also, John wanted, in general, to avoid the name of Ephraim, because of the untheocratic reminiscence connected therewith, he put instead thereof the accurately taken paternal name of Joseph, including also the fraternal tribe of Manasseh.[2300] Yet the appearance of not thirteen, but only twelve tribes, is accomplished by the omission of the tribe of Dan.[2301] Gomarus,[2302] Hartwig, and Züll. have indeed put ΔΆΝ instead of ΜΑΝΑΣΣῆ ,—an arbitrary decision, in no way justified by unimportant codd. (Rev_9:13), because they offer ΔΆΝ instead of ΓΆΔ ,[2303] and this contradicts the express testimonies of Iren., Orig., Andr., etc. Of just as little force is the play upon the name Manasseh, according to which the root of the word ( ðÈùÒÈç , “he forgot”) is regarded as indicating that here another name, viz., Dan, is regarded as forgotten, or properly not forgotten, but “embraced or incorporated in a secret way.”[2304] The intentional omission of the tribe of Dan is explained, especially by the Church Fathers, by the fact that from this tribe the Antichrist was to come,[2305] which, however, John nowhere intimates. Others have recalled the idolatry of the Danites;[2306] but the old sin of the tribe can be no foundation for excluding all its members from eternal life. The avoidance of the name of Ephraim, that had become “offensive,”[2307] in no way favors this view, because the tribe named, of course, intentionally not as Ephraim, but Joseph, presents its twelve thousand like the rest. The simplest reason for not naming Dan lies rather in the fact that it had died out long already before the time of John;[2308] even though the more definite declaration of Jewish tradition that only the family of Husim survived from the tribe of Dan,[2309] may be nothing but a reminiscence of Gen_46:23. Already in 1 Chronicles 4 sqq., the tribe of Dan is omitted, although it is not passed over in 1Ch_2:1 sqq. Cf. also Deuteronomy 33, where the small tribes of Simeon and Issachar are lacking.
In the succession it is only by an artificial subtilty which often passes over into pure trifling, that a consequent intention and a mystical meaning can be found. Beda, e.g., explains, because of the secret meaning of the name: “After Judah, therefore, Reuben; i.e., after the beginnings of divine confession and praise, the performance of an action follows.”[2310] Besides, the opinion of Hengstenb.[2311] is possible, that the sons of the wives and those of the bondwomen are intentionally commingled in order to indicate that in Christ no earthly distinction is valid. But Grot. also can say, from his standpoint, “No order is observed, because in Christ all are equal.”[2312] It is natural for Judah to have the precedence, because from that tribe the Lord comes.”[2313] Reuben follows afterwards, who as the firstborn could have stood before.[2314] The succeeding names are introduced without further intention; only at the close stands Benjamin as the youngest, and finally, from an allusion to the O. T.,[2315] in connection with Joseph.[2316]
[2295] De Wette, Ebrard.
[2296] See the general note on ch. 7.
[2297] Züll.
[2298] Beng., correctly: “Since the Levitical ceremonies have been abandoned, Levi again is found on an equal footing with his brethren. All are priests; all have access, not one through the other, but one with the other.”
[2299] Ewald, etc.
[2300] Cf. Num_13:11.
[2301] Cf. especially Heinrichs, Excursus iii.: “Cur in recensu tribuum Israel, c. vii. 5–8, nulla tribus Daniticæ mentio fiat” (ii. 228 sqq.).
[2302] In Wetst.
[2303] Cf. also Matth.
[2304] Beng., Eichh.
[2305] Cf. Gen_49:17. Beda, Andr., C. a Lap., Stern.
[2306] Judges 18. Wetst., Vitr., Hengstenb.
[2307] Hengstenb.
[2308] Grot., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc.
[2309] Cf. Grot.
[2310] “Reuben = videns filium; filii = opera.”
[2311] Cf. Vitr., etc.
[2312] Cf. also C. a Lap., Calov., De Wette, etc.
[2313] Rev_5:5; Heb_7:14. Beda, Beng., Rinck, Ebrard, etc.
[2314] Cf. also 1Ch_5:1.
[2315] Gen_35:24; Gen_46:20-21; Deu_27:21; Num_1:10-11; 1Ch_2:2.
[2316] It is strange that in à , not only Gad and Simeon are forgotten, but also Joseph and Benjamin are transposed.
LIII. Rev_7:4. τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ