VINCENT'S NEW TESTAMENT Revelation 21 - ROBERTSON'S STUDY - HELP - FB - TWITTER - GR VIDEOS - GR FORUMS - GR YOUTUBE
1. Pure. Omit.
2. In the midst of the street thereof. Some connect these words with the preceding. So Rev. On either side (enteuqen kai enteuqen). For the latter ejnteuqen read ejkeiqen, as render, as Rev., on this side and on that.
3. Shall serve (latreusousin). See on Luke i. 74. Rev., do Him service. The word originally means to serve for hire. In the New Testament, of the worship or service of God in the use of the rites intended for His worship. It came to be used by the Jews in a very special sense, to denote the service rendered to Jehovah by the Israelites as His peculiar people. See Rom. ix. 4; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 1, 6. Hence the significant application of the term to Christian service by Paul in Philip. iii. 3.
6. The Lord God (Kuriov o Qeov). Rather, as Rev., the Lord, the God. Of the holy prophets (twn agiwn profhtwn). For aJgiwn holy substitute pneumatwn spirits, and render, as Rev., the God of the spirits of the prophets.
Be done (gegesqai). Better, as Rev., come to pass.
8. I John saw (egw Iwannhv o blepwn). The A.V. overlooks the article with the participle - the one seeing. Hence Rev., correctly, I John am he that heard and saw.
Had heard and seen (hkousa kai ebleya). Aorist tense. There is no need of rendering it as a pluperfect. Rev., rightly, I heard and saw. The appeal to hearing and seeing is common to all John's writings. See John i. 14; xix. 35; xxi. 14; I John i. 1, 2; iv. 14.
9. See thou do it not (ora mh). Lit., see not.
Thy brethren the prophets. The spiritual brotherhood of John with the prophets is exhibited in Revelation.
10. Seal (sfragishv). Rev., seal up. This word occurs eighteen times in Revelation and twice in the Gospel, and only five times elsewhere in the New Testament. It means to confirm or attest (John iii. 33); to close up for security (Matt. xxvii. 66; Apoc. xx. 3); to hide or keep secret (Apoc. x. 4; xxii. 10); to mark a person or thing (Apoc. vii. 3; Eph. i. 13; iv. 30) Time (kairov). See on Matt. xii. 1.
11. Unjust (adikwn). Rev., better, unrighteous.
Let him be unjust (adikhsatw). The verb means to do wickedly. Hence Rev., correctly, let him do unrighteousness.
He which is filthy (o rupwn). Only here in the New Testament. On the kindred noun rJupov filth, see on 1 Pet. iii. 21. Ruparia filthiness occurs only in Jas. i. 21; and the adjective rJuparov filthy only in Jas. ii. 2. Let him be filthy (rupwsatw). The best texts read rJupanqhtw let him be made filthy. So Rev. Let him be righteous (dikaiwqhtw). Read dikaiosunhn poihsatw let him do righteousness. So Rev. Let him be holy (agiasqhtw). Rev., giving literally the force of the passive voice, let him be made holy.
12. My reward is with me (o misqov mou met emou). Misqov reward is strictly wages. Compare Isa. xl. 10; lxii. 11. See on 2 Pet. ii. 13. To give (apodounai). Lit., to give back or in return for, thus appropriate to misqov reward. Hence Rev., better, render. See on give an account, Luke xvi. 2; and gave, Acts iv. 33.
Shall be (estai). Read ejstin is.
That they may have right to the tree of life (ina estai h exousia autwn epi to xulon thv zwhv). Lit., in order that theirs shall be authority over the tree of life. For ejxousia right, authority, see on John i. 12. Epi may be the preposition of direction: "may have right to come to" (so Rev.) or may be rendered over.
15. Dogs ( oi kunev). The A.V. omits the article "the dogs." Compare Philip. iii. 2. This was the term of reproach with which the Judaizers stigmatized the Gentiles as impure. In the Mosaic law the word is used to denounce the moral profligacies of heathen worship (Deut. xxiii. 18). Compare Matt. xv. 26. Here the word is used of those whose moral impurity excludes them from the New Jerusalem. "As a term of reproach, the word on the lips of a Jew, signified chiefly impurity; of a Greek, impudence. The herds of dogs which prowl about Eastern cities, without a home and without an owner, feeding on the refuse and filth of the streets, quarreling among themselves, and attacking the passer-by, explain both applications of the image" (Lightfoot, on Philip. iii. 2). Sorcerers. See on ch. ix. 21, and compare ch. xxi. 8.
Whoremongers (pornoi). Rev., better, fornicators.
17. The Spirit. In the Church.
The Bride. The Church.
Heareth. The voice of the Spirit and the Bride.
21. Our Lord (hmwn). Omit.
With you all (meta pantwn umwn). The readings differ. Some read meta pantwn with all, omitting you. Others, meta twn aJgiwn with the saints.
1. That he names himself in the Apocalypse, and not in the Gospel, is sufficiently explained by the fact that the Gospel is historical, intended to bring Christ into prominence and to keep the writer out of view. The Apocalypse, on the other hand, is prophetic, and the name of the author is required as a voucher for the revelations granted him. Compare Dan. vii. 15; viii. 27.
4. Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by another and remote power which is over the universe. Jesus was not born of the Virgin by miraculous conception, but was the Son of Joseph and Mary by natural generation, though specially endowed with justice and wisdom. After the baptism of Jesus the Christ descended upon Him in the form of a dove, from that sovereign power which is over all things. He then announced the unknown Father and wrought miracles; but toward the end of His ministry the Christ departed from Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose from the dead, while the Christ remained impassable as a spiritual being.
6. It is, of course, foreign to the scope of this work to discuss this, with other Johannine questions, critically. Such a discussion must assume the reader's acquaintance with Greek. The discussion concerning the differences in language will be found in Professor Milligan's excellent Lectures on the Revelation of St. John, Appendix ii.
7. I give the arrangement of the Prologue according to Godet.
8. Of course not anticipating the criticism which has eliminated this passage from text.
9. Austin used the Latin vox, and of course has in mind the secondary meaning as a word or saying.
10. The word hypostasis is equivalent to substance. In theological language it used in the sense of person as distinguished from essence. Hence the adverb hypostatically signifies personally in the theological sense, which recognized three persons in the Godhead with one essence.
11. So the Rev., but not consistently throughout. A.V. by. See my article on the Revised New Testament. Presbyterian Review, October, 1881.
12. This reading is very earnestly defended by Canon Westcott, and is adopted in Westcott and Hort's text, and supported by Milligan and Moulton. It is rejected by Tischendorf and by the Revisers; also by Alford, DeWette, Meyer, and Godet. Grammatical considerations seem to be against it (see Alford on the passage), but Canon Westcott's defense is most ingenious and plausible.
14. I follow Meyer and Godet. De Wette, Alford, Milligan and Moulton adopt the other interpretation, referring emprosqen, to rank or dignity. So Westcott, who, however, does not state the issue between the two explanations with his usual sharpness.
15. It is hardly necessary to refer the critical student to the admirable note of Bishop Lightfoot, in his Commentary on Colossians, p. 323 sq.
16. Dr. Scrivener, "Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament." remarks: "Those who will resort to ancient evidence exclusively for the recension of the text, may well be perplexed in dealing with this passage. The oldest manuscripts, versions, and writers are hopelessly divided." He decides, however, for the reading uiJov. So Tischendorf's text, and of commentators, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Godet, Schaff (in Lange). Westcott and Hort's text gives Qeov, with oJ monogenhv uiJov in margin. So Westcott (Commentary), Milligan and Moulton, and Tregelles. See Schaff's note on the passage in Lange; Scrivener, p. 525; and "Two Dissertations," by F. J. A. Hort, Cambridge, 1877.
17. I take this division from Westcott.
19. It is not easy to adjust all the references to the hour of the day in John's Gospel to either of the two methods. Thus xix. 14 places the crucifixion at the sixth hour, or noon, reckoning by the Jewish mode, while Mark (xv. 25. names the third hour, or between 8 and 9 A. M. The two passages in chapter 4, 6, 52, afford little help, especially the latter. Perhaps, after all, the passage most nearly decisive is xi. 9. There are strong authorities on both sides. For the Roman method, Tholuck, Ebrard, Ewald, Wescott; for the Jewish, Lucke, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Godet.
21. I do not raise the question whether the narratives of John and of the Synoptists refer to the same event.
22. Or, according to some high authorities, "ye all know."
23. This view, however, is opposed by Meyer, Lange, De Wette, Alford, and Godet.
24. Condensed from Dr. Thomson's "Central Palestine and Phoenicia," in "The Land and the Book." An interesting description of the excavations made on the summit of Gerizim, by Lieutenant Anderson, will be found in the same volume, pp. 126-128.
26. I have given what seems, on the whole, the most simple and natural explanation, though against a host of high authorities. The various interpretations form a bewildering jungle. All of them are open to objection. One of the most clear and simple discussions of the passage may be found in Schaff's Popular Commentary on the Gospel of John, edited by Professors Milligan and Moulton, where this explanation is adopted, though Professor Schaff in Lange calls it "far-fetched." This is also the view of Canon Westcott. Other explanations are: Galilee generally; Nazareth; Lower Galilee, in which Nazareth was situated, as distinguished from Upper Galilee, in which was Capernaum.
27. Bishop Lightfoot (Commentary on Gal. iii. 22. urges with much force that this is invariably its meaning. The passage cited in opposition to this view by Professor Thayer (Lexicon of the New Testament), John vii. 38; x. 35; Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 22; iv. 30; Jas. ii. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 20, do not appear to me to be conclusive; on the contrary, several of them seem to make rather for Bishop Lightfoot's view.
29. Edersheim ("Life of Jesus") says that the Talmud names certain kinds of fish, specially designated as small fishes, which might be eaten without cooking: that small fishes were recommended for health, and that the lake of Galilee was particularly rich in these, the salting and pickling of which was a special industry among the fishermen.
30. For a full description see the article "Feast of Tabernacles," in McClintock and Crooks' Cyclopaedia, vol. 10, and Edersheim, "The Temple," ch. 14.
31. I am inclined, however, to think that the distinction between these two, and also between these and poreuomai, which Canon Westcott claims is observed by John, will not bear too strict pressing. See his commentary on John 7, 33.
32. I am aware of the objection to this rendering based on the canon that thn ajrchn has this meaning only in negative sentences, an objection which is certainly not parried by Godet's attempt to explain this passage as essentially negative. But this rule is not absolutely universal (see Thayer's Lexicon, ajrch, 1, b.), and this explanation seems to me, on the whole, to fall in better than any other with the general sense of the passage as I understand it. I always differ from Canon Westcott with reluctance; but without going so far as to say, with Alford, that his interpretation is ungrammatical, I must confess that it seems to me artificial and forced, as also does Meyer's rendering, which is open besides to serious criticism on grammatical grounds. The student will find the different interpretations well summed up and classified in Schaff's Lange, and also more briefly in Westcott's additional note to ch. 8. See also Meyer.
33. I adopt this rendering, though with some hesitation, as best representing what seems to me the line of thought in the whole passage, and as avoiding most of the grammatical difficulties. 1, though grammatically defensible, necessitates the awkwardness of rendering aujtou as neuter, by inference or derivation from the masculine yeusthv. It is much more natural to take it as masculine.
Both 1 and 2 require oJ pathr to be taken as the predicate, whereas, having the article, it would naturally be expected to be the subject. The main objection to 3, is the omission of the subject with lalh, which is harsh. Professor Kendrick (American edition of Meyer) cites as a parallel fhsi in 2 Cor. x. 10, and very justly observes that "if any objection may lie against this construction, it does not approach in harshness to that which makes pathr aujtou a predicate in the sense ordinarily assigned to it. It is adopted by Westcott, and Milligan and Moulton.
35. Rev., God, with the judges in margin.
36. Trench (Synonyms) appears to overlook the exception in 2 Corinthians, though he cites the passage. He says that criein is absolutely restricted to the anointing of the Son by the Father, p. 131.
37. Perhaps the nearest approach to such a sentiment in Homer is the case of Thetis, weeping for and with her son Achilles ("Iliad," i. 360; 51, 66).
38. As by Fra Angelico (Florence), Bonifazio (Louvre), and the superb picture by Sebastian del Piombo in the National Gallery, London.
39. The meaning to take or bear away is claimed by some for Matthew viii. 17 and John xx. 25 (so Thayer, N. T. Lexicon). The former I think more than doubtful. Meyer declares it "contrary to the sense;" De Wette and Lange both render bore. Canon Cook says. "The words chosen by St. Matthew preclude the supposition that he refers the prophet's words, contrary to the sense of the original, to the mere removal of diseases by healing them." The words in Matthew are a citation from Isa. liii. 4, which Cheyne ("Prophecies of Isaiah") renders, "surely our sicknesses he bore, and our pains he carried them." Septuagint: "This man carries our sins and is pained for us." Symmachus: "Surely he took up our sins and endured our labors." Edersheim remarks that "the words as given by St. Matthew are most truly a New Testament targum of the original." Delitzsch, who thinks that the meaning took away is included in the sense of the Hebrew nasa, admits that its primary meaning is, He took up, bore. The meaning in John xx. 25 may be explained as in John xii. 6, as determined by the context, though it may be rendered if thou hast taken him up. Field ("Otium Norvicense") cites a passage from Diogenes Laertius, iv. 59, where it is said that Lacydes, whenever he took anything out of his store-room, was accustomed, after sealing it up, to throw the seal or ring through the hole, so that it might never be taken from his finger, and any of the stores be stolen (bastacqeih).
40. Field ("Otium Norvicense"), who holds by tethrhken, observes that "the conjecture that the ointment may have been reserved from that used at the burying of Lazarus, is not fanciful, but an excellent example of undesigned coincidence, since we should never have perceived the propriety of the might have been sold of the first two Gospels, if John had not helped us out with his tethrhken, she hath kept."
42. Godet, with his well-known aversion to departures from the Rec., holds by the reading genomenou, and explains ginomenou by when the repast as a repast began; adding that the correction was made in order to place the foot-washing at the beginning of the repast, the customary time for it. But the performance of the act during the course of the meal, is indicated by the words in ver. 4, He riseth from (ek) the supper.
43. I am surprised to find it adopted by Milligan and Moulton.
44. Godet's affection for the "received reading" carries him rather beyond bounds, when it leads him to say that ajnapeswn" seems absurd."
45. Directed to an end (telov), and therefore marking a purpose.
46. The explanation given by Milligan and Moulton is, that the Father's house includes earth as well as heaven that it is, in short, the universe, over which the Father rules, having many apartments, some on this side, others beyond the grave. When, therefore, Jesus goes away, it is only to another chamber of the one house of the Father. The main thought is that wherever Jesus is wherever we are, we are all in the Father's house, and therefore there can be no real separation between Jesus and His disciples. This is very beautiful, and, in itself, true, but, as an explanation of this passage, is not warranted by anything in it, but is rather read into it.
47. W. Aldis Wright ("Bible Word-Book") is wrong in calling this "the primary meaning" of the word. No authorities for the use of mansio in this sense are quoted earlier than Pliny and Suetonius, and none for this use of monh earlier than Pausanias (A.D. 180). Canon Westcott's interpretation is effectively demolished (usually no easy thing to do) by J. Sterling Berry, in The Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iii., p. 397.
48. The student will find the whole question discussed by Bishop Lightfoot ("On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament," p. 58 sqq.); Julius Charles Hare ("Mission of the Comforter," p. 348); and Canon Westcott (Introduction to the Commentary on John's Gospel, Speaker's Commentary, p. 211). See also his note on 1 John ii. 1, in his Commentary on the Epistles of John.
50. The technical terms are telikwv (telicos), of the design and end, and ejkbatikwV (ekbatikos), of the result.
52. Mr. Field's remark ("Otium Norvicense") that it is improbable that the word would continue to be used in the older sense (rod) after it had acquired the later meaning (hand), can hardly be called conclusive.
53. Mr. Field ("Otium Norvicense") claims that nussw, is the milder word, and cites a curious illustration from Plutarch ("Life of Cleomenes"). Cleomenes and his party escape from prison, and endeavor to raise the town and to get possession of the citadel. Failing in this, they resolve upon suicide. It is arranged that one of the number is not to kill himself until he shall be assured that all the rest are dead. When all are stretched on the ground, the survivor goes round and tries each with his dagger (tw xifidiw paraptomenov). When he comes to Cleomenes, he pricks (nuxav) him on the ankle (para to sfuron), and goes him contract his face.
54. See William Stroud, "Physical Theory of the Death of Christ."
57. This is the view of Alford and Westcott. Ebrard and Huther maintain the personal sense.
58. So Alford, Huther, Ebrard.
60. Let the student by all means consult Canon Westcott's "additional note" on p. 27, of his "Commentary on the Epistles of John."
62. The student may profitably consult on Plato's view of sin, Ackermann, "The Christian Element in Plato," p. 57, sq.
63. The story may be found at length in Godet's "Commentary on John," vol. 1, p. 58.
65. Because the verb separates not from all. In such cases, according to New Testament usage, the negation is universal. The A.V. not all makes it partial. See, for instance, 1 John iii. 15; Matt. xxiv. 22.
66. I am indebted for the substance of this note to Canon Westcott.
67. So Alford and Huther, agt. Westcott. Westcott rightly observes that the preposition ejn in, is constantly used in the context to express the presence of God in the Christian body; but it is most commonly joined there menei abideth, vv. 12, 13, 15, 16, and the objective statement, God sent, etc., defining the manifestation of God's love, does not adjust itself naturally to the subjective sense implied in in us.
69. The student will do well to study Canon Westcott's "Additional Note" on this phrase, "Commentary on the Epistles of John," p. 204 sqq.
70. Lightfoot renders cairete farewell in Philip. iii. 1; and describes it as a parting benediction in iv. 4; but, in both cases, says that it includes an exhortation to rejoice. The farewell is needless in both instances.
71. For fuller details, see article Papyrus in "Encyclopaedia Britannica," 9th edition, vol. xviii.
72. See Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," 2, 270.
73. Canon Westcott says "no parallel is quoted for" the Rev. rendering, but Apoc. xxi. 5, can hardly be esteemed a parallel to his rendering "thou makest sure."
74. The ordinary usage of sunergov with the genitive of the person co-operated with (Rom. xvi. 21; 1 Cor. iii. 9. seems against the second explanation; but against the former is the fact that the thing for which, or on behalf of which, one is a fellow-worker, is also used in the genitive (2 Cor. i. 24.or with eijv unto (Colossians iv. 11; 2 Cor. viii. 23). There is no instance of the davious commodi (so Alford, Huther), dative of reference. On the other hand the kindred verb sunergew occurs with the dative of the thing co-operated with in Jas. ii. 22: hJ pistiv sunhrgei toiv ergoiv, faith wrought with his works (see Huther's note). I agree with Canon Westcott that this construction is sufficient to support the Rev. rendering. Huther, Alford, and Ebrard all adopt the other explanation.
75. "Die Heimlich Offenbarung Johanis:" published in 1498
77. This is the explanation of Trench, Plumptre, Düsterdieck, and Alford, and seems on the whole, to be the preferable one. Professor Milligan argues at length for the second explanation, which is Bengel's.
78. The literature of hymnology is very rich in hymns depicting the glory of the heavenly city. In Latin there are Jerusalem luminosa which reappears in Jerusalem my happy home, and O Mother dear Jerusalem: Urbs beata Jerusalem, which reappears in Blessed city, heavenly Salem: Urbs Sion Aurea, in Jerusalem the golden and Jerusalem the glorious. Of this O bona patria, translated in To thee, O dear, dear Country, is a portion. Also Bernard's Me receptet Sion, Illa. In English may be noted, besides the translations just referred to, Sweet place, sweet place alone; Hear what God the Lord hath spoken; Jerusalem, my happy home, when shall I come to thee? In German, Meyfart's Jerusalem du hochgebaute stadt, and Hiller's O Jerusalem du Schone. Of Meyfart's hymn there are two English translations, one by Miss Winkworth, Jerusalem, thou city fair and high, and the other by Bishop Whittingham of Maryland, Jerusalem, high tower thy glorious walls.
79. So Professor Milligan, who thinks that the whole scene is founded on Isaiah 6., which, he remarks, is always justly regarded as one of the greatest adumbratious of the Trinity contained in the Old Testament.
80. I.e., the halo round the moon.
83. This cubical plan, applied not only to the Tabernacle, but to the Ark of the Flood, the Temple of Solomon and the "Kings House," is minutely worked out in "The Holy Houses" by Dr. Timothy Otis Paine; a book full of curious erudition. in which the Tabernacle, the Ark of Noah, the Temple, and the Capitol or King's House, are treated as developments from a common type; but which proceeds on the utterly untenable hypothesis that the temple of Ezekiel's vision was Solomon's; and that, accordingly, from the two books of Kings and the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel all the data are furnished for a complete restoration of the Temple; the prophetic vision of Ezekiel supplying the details omitted in the historic record of Kings.