Exc. II. Symbolical use of numbers Exc. III. The wounded head of the beast (13: 3), and the sixth king CALIFORMA COMMENTARY. INSCRIPTION.-CHAP. I. 1—3. (1, 2) THE REVELATION of Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his servants what must speedily come to pass; and sending by his angel he signified to his servant John, who proclaimed the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatsoever he saw. This apparently simple and intelligible sentence has been regarded by many as replete, in the original, with real difficulties. It has therefore been the subject of much controversy among critics; nor, down to the present hour, has all doubt respecting its true meaning been removed. The manner in which I have translated and pointed it, will probably be called in question by some, and may be wholly rejected by others. Amidst the multitude of discrepant opinions and criticisms respecting the passage, it would be difficult to select any one which appears to my mind as deserving of unqualified approbation. After an attentive examination of most of them, I have felt compelled to choose a meaning. that seems appropriate to the true grammatical construction of the text; and I must now present to the reader the grounds and reasons of my choice. A critical examination of the words, and then of the apparent meaning of each clause, comes first in order, before we can arrive at any general conclusion in respect to the meaning of the whole. Anoxálvis has often been said not to be a word of pure Greek idiom. "Proprie Scripturarum est," says Jerome, commenting on it as it occurs in Gal. 1: 12; and he then adds: A nullo sapientum saeculi apud Graecos usurpatur. But he is mistaken; for Plutarch uses it (see Rob. Lex. sub. v.), and Porphyry employs it, Vita Plot. c. 16. Julius Pollux also, in his Onomast., ranks together as synonymes diazakúpa ἐκκαλύψαι, ἀποκαλύψαι, δηλῶσαι, etc. The verb ἀνακαλύπτω is of the same meaning substantially as dлoxakúлro, i. e. it literally signifies to uncover, to disclose, and so (secondarily) to bring to light, to reveal, etc. Avaxáhvis may therefore be well translated revelation. It is here employed as the title of the book at the head of which it stands, and of course it lacks the article, which, if prefixed, might convey a wrong sense, i. e. it might mean the revelation in a monadic sense, excluding other books from the like claim; or else it might imply some previous mention of the book, or previous knowledge of it in the reader's mind; all of which would be incongruous. In English, however, there lies not the same objection against employing the definite article in this case, as our usage does not altogether accord with the Greek. Accordingly, we find the definite article the commonly employed before the word Revelation; and I have conformed to this usage in the version above. That the word &лnozákvæis, as here employed, means a revelation of an extraordinary nature, a disclosure of things to come made by special divine arrangement and aid, is plain from the context itself, which develops the extraordinary means by which it was made, and then calls it (v. 3) by the name of 70097ɛía, which, by sacred usage, imports what has been stated. The same thing is manifest from a comparison of the word dzozákvyus, as employed in the like sense, in 2 Cor. 12: 1. Gal. 1: 12. 2: 2. Eph. 3: 3. These passages cast light on that part of the meaning which indicates special divine interposition; while the idea of developing or disclosing something secret, hidden, mysterious, or inaccessible to common minds, is at the same time specially brought to view by the use of aлozákvynę in such passages as Rom. 16: 25. 1 Cor. 14: 6, 26. Sirach 22: 22. 42: 1. The context abundantly confirms such a sense here; for it affirms two things, viz. first, that this άzozávis has respect to what is to take place in future, and secondly, that God and Christ and his angel all cooperate in making the disclosure to John.— There is indeed a possible sense of the word άnozákvynę which is different from this, viz. when it means manifestation or exhibition of any thing or person; in which case it is nearly equivalent to iziqárea, e. g. in 1 Cor. 1: 7. 2 Thess. 1: 7. 1 Pet. 1: 7, 13. 4: 13; and this sense Heinrichs (strangely enough) adopts here. But what then must become of the obvious sense of ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς, δεῖξαι κ. τ. λ. ? Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ — Is Christ subject or object? That is, is he the personage who is in possession of the revelation and discloses it according to his will; or is he the individual to whom the revelation has respect, and in regard to whom it makes disclosures? The Genitive case, 'Gov Xotorov, would in itself bear either construction; and both constructions are common throughout the Scriptures; but here the sequel-dwzev ó Oɛós renders it quite certain that the first sense is the only one which the passage will bear. "Hv... ó ɛós, an important declaration in respect to its bearing on the person and office of Christ; but one, I may add, altogether in unison with other Scriptures, specially with the Gospel of John.-"Edoxer, imparted, communicated, which is the appropriate shade of meaning in this case, inasmuch as information, instruction is concerned with it. See the same shade of sense in John 17: 7, 8, thrice, and also Acts 7:38. With the particular meaning of this verb there is indeed no difficulty; but the sentiment of the whole passage is a question of difficulty, if there be any; for this appears to represent the Redeemer, even in his glorified state, (for such it was when the Apocalypse was written), as dependent on the Father for revelations of such a nature. But let the reader now compare John 5: 19, 20. 7: 16. 8: 28 (where ¿didate is said of the Father in respect to the Son, which well explains dozer in our text). 12: 49. 14: 10. 17: 7, 8. Matt. 11: 27. Mark 13:32. Acts 1:7 (in connection with Mark 13: 32). Most fully does Paul exhibit his belief in the sentiment of mediatorial dependence in 1 Cor. 15: 24-28. By this last passage it appears, that Christ remains in the state of Vicegerent merely until the consummation of all things, when his delegated dominion will be given up. The texts in Mark 13: 32 and Acts 1: 7 (comp. Luke 2: 52) show, that Christ as to his human nature was progressive in knowledge, and of course that there were some things not yet known to him in this nature before his ascension to glory; and among these things was the particular and exact time of his coming. The dozer of our text would seem however to imply, that even after his exaltation the Mediator received those disclosures from the Father, which are made in the Apocalypse. This is perfectly congruous with the view given by Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 24-28, which necessarily implies the dependent state of the Mediator until the final consummation of all things, and that his dominion as Mediator is only a delegated one. I may add, that the sentiment of our text is truly Johannean, whoever the author of it may be. Arîşa z. 7. 2. Nothing could be more appropriate to the nature of the book before us, than the choice of the verb deiga here, which naturally and usually means to show or exhibit anything to the evidence of the senses, i. e. to present to view, to submit to inspection. The verb has here a palpable reference to the nature of the sequel, in which John is taught a dei periodu by sensible tokens and symbols. The metaphorical sense, teach, disclose, is very unfrequent, even in the New Testament; and of the four instances arranged under this head in Rob. Lex., two at least do not properly belong there, but refer to sensible exhibitions. The composite idea, however, of disclosing by the use of signs and symbols, belongs to deîğu in the case before us. Τοῖς δούλοις αὑτοῦ. The critical editions differ as to the reading avtou, which Griesbach, Knapp, Vater, and Hahn adopt; while Wetstein, Bengel, Matthäi, and Lachmann read avrov. The latter reading would refer the pronoun to God, while avrov refers it to Christ. The sense is not materially different in either case; for the servants of God are the servants of Christ, and vice versâ. That Christ is the subject (implied) of the Infinitive deîşa seems to be clear from the tenor of the sentiment; for the sequel shows that Christ, or his angel, appears and makes all the disclosures of the book.-But who are the dovλois? Are they prophets, apostles, teachers? Or does this word here designate the worshippers of God, the servants of Christ in general? For the former sense one might contend, so far as the usus loquendi in respect to doulos is concerned; see Rom. 1: 1. Gal. 1: 10. Phil. 1: 1. Col. 4: 12. Tit. 1: 1. James 1: 1. 2 Pet. 1: 1. Jude v. 1. Rev. 22: 9 (σύνδουλος). So the well known usage in Hebrew of, in a multitude of instances; see Ges. Lex. sub. v. But then it is equally true, that dovlos (and ) is sometimes applied to the mass of the people of God, to the community of his worshippers; even in the Apocalypse itself is this the case, Rev. 2: 20. 7: 3. 11: 18 (where it is expressly used as comprehending ἅγιοι and προφῆται). 19: 2, 5. 22: 3. Still, the other sense of doulos, viz. prophet, teacher, is also common to the Apocalypse; e. g. 1: 1 (dovλop... 'Iwárry), 10: 7 where zooqhras is added as epexegetical, 15: 3. In 22: 6 it may designate either the prophets, or the pious in general; for the sense is good if taken in either way. In Hebrew, is altogether a common appellation for a true worshipper of Jehovah, and the whole Jewish nation are often addressed as being the servants of God, because they are his professed worshippers.-In such a case then as the one before us, the context must decide; and this evidently favours the sense of the word in Rev. 2: 20, viz. the mass of the Christian community or Christians. Accordingly the seven churches of Asia are immediately addressed in the sequel, and to them the book before us is dedicated (so to speak) and sent, plainly in order to be published or circulated by them. It is then to the churches that the things in the Apocalypse are shown. A dei pɛvéodai, what must take place, i. e. by an arrangement of an overruling and all-controlling providence. In other words; what is predicted in the Apocalypse will certainly come to pass. Such things are not left to chance, they are not fortuitous, for dei revέodai, they must needs happen. In other words still; God, who gave a revelation of future things to Christ, has ordained them and will bring them to pass. 'Ev zázet, a controverted expression, on which much has been made to depend. Some commentators, recognizing the evident fact that the apocalyptic predictions cover much ground and require a long series of years for their accomplishment (see Rev. 20: 4, 7), have zealously endeavoured to show that raya designates only the maturity of things for any particular event, and, as connected with this, the certainty of the |