[ Rev 1:1-3]. The superscription. Ἀπ. Ἰωάννου is the ecclesiastical title (distinguishing it from the apocalypse of Peter, or of Paul, etc.) of what professes in reality to be an ἀπ. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (subjective genitive), i.e., a disclosure of the divine μυστήρια ([ Dan 2:19]; [ Dan 2:22]; [ Dan 2:28], Theod.) in the immediate future (ἃ δεῖ γ. ἐν τάχει) which has been communicated (ἔδωκεν, cf. on [ Rev 3:9]) by God to Jesus (cf. [ Rev 5:7]) and which in turn is transmitted by Jesus ([ Gal 1:12]) to John as a member of the prophetic order.
[ Rev 1:2]. ἐμαρτ. (epistol. aor., cf. [ Phm 1:19], cf. further Thuc. i. 1 ξυνέγραψε). λόγ. τ. θ., like ãáø éäåä (LXX λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, e.g., [ Jer 1:2]), a collective term for God’s disclosures to men (τοὺς λόγους, 3), or as here for some specific revelation more exactly defined in ὅσα εἶδεν, all that was seen or even heard ([Amo 1:1]) in visions being described by this generic term. The double expression the word of God and the testimony borne by Jesus Christ ([ Rev 22:16]; [ Rev 22:20]; cf. [ Rev 19:10]) is an amplified phrase for the gospel. The subject upon which Jesus assures men of truth is the revelation of God’s mind and heart, and the gospel is that utterance of God—that expression of His purpose—which Jesus unfolds and attests. The book itself is the record of John’s evidence; he testifies to Christ, and Christ testifies of the future as a divine plan. For the revelation of God, in the specific form of prophecy, requires a further medium between Jesus and the ordinary Christian; hence the role of the prophets. On the prophetic commission to write, cf. Asc. Isa. i. 4–5 and i. 2, παρέδωκεν αὐτῷ τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας οὓς αὐτὸς εἶδεν, κ.τ.λ. The primitive sense of μαρτ. (= oral confession and proclamation of Jesus by his adherents) thus expands into a literary sense (as here) and into the more sombre meaning of martyrdom ([ Rev 2:13], [ Joh 18:37-39]; [ Joh 19:19]; cf. Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. v.). It is significant that the λόγος τ. θ. of Judaism was not adequate to the Christian consciousness without the μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ.
[ Rev 1:3]. The first of the seven beatitudes in the Apocalypse ([ Rev 14:13], [ Rev 16:15], [ Rev 19:9], [ Rev 20:6], [ Rev 22:7]; [ Rev 22:14]), endorsing the book as a whole. In the worship of the Christian communities one member read aloud, originally from the O.T. as in the synagogues, and afterwards from Christian literature as well (apostolic epistles, [ Col 4:16], and sub-apostolic epistles), while the rest of the audience listened (Eus. H. E. iv. 23). In its present form the Apocalypse was composed with this object in view. Cf. Justin’s description of the Christinn assemblies on Sunday, when, as the first business, τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται (Apol. i. 67). The art of reading was not a general accomplishment in the circles from which the Christian societies were for the most part recruited, and this office of reader (ἀναγνώστης), as distinct from that of the president, soon became one of the regular minor positions in the worship of the church. Here the reader’s function resembles that of Baruch (cf. [ Jer 22:5-6]). τηροῦντες τὰ, κ.τ.λ., carefully heeding the warnings of the book, observing its injunctions, and expecting the fulfilment of its predictions, instead of losing heart and faith ([ Luk 18:8]). Cf. Hipp. De Antich. 2 and En. civ. 12, “books will be given to the righteous and the wise to become a cause of joy and uprightness and much wisdom”. The content of the Apocalypse is not merely prediction; moral counsel and religious instruction are the primary burden of its pages. The bliss of the obedient and attentive, however, is bound up with the certainty that the crisis at which the predictions of the book are to be realised is imminent; they have not to wait long for the fulfilment of their hopes. This, with the assurance of God’s interest and intervention, represented the ethical content of early Christian prediction, which would have been otherwise a mere satisfaction of curiosity; see on [ Rev 1:19].
[Note on [ Rev 1:1-3]. If this inscription (absent from no MS.) is due to the author, it must have been added (so Bruston, Jülicher, Hirscht, Holtzm., Bs.), like the προοίμιον of Thucydides, after he had finished the book as a whole. But possibly it was inserted by the later hand of an editor or redactor (Völter, Erbes, Briggs, Hilg., Forbes, Wellhausen, J. Weiss, Simcox = elders of Ephesus, [ Joh 21:24]) rather than of a copyist (Spitta, Sabatier, Schön), who reproduced the Johannine style of the Apocalypse proper. At the same time, the change from the third to the first person ([ Rev 1:9]) is not unexampled (cf. [ Jer 1:1-4] f.; [ Eze 1:1-4]; Enoch repeatedly), and forms no sure proof of an original text overlaid with editorial touches; nor is a certain sententious objectivity (cf. Herod, [ Rev 1:1], [ Rev 2:23], etc.) unnatural at the commencement of a book, when the writer has occasion to introduce himself. The real introduction begins at [ Rev 1:4] (cf. [ Rev 22:21]).]
[ Rev 1:4-8]. The prologue.
[ Rev 1:5]. ἀπὸ, κ.τ.λ., another grammatical anomaly; as usual the writer puts the second of two nouns in apposition, in the nominative.—ὁ μ. ὁ π. Jesus not merely the reliable witness to God but the loyal martyr: an aspect of his career which naturally came to the front in “the killing times”. ὁ πρωτότοκος (a Jewish messianic title by itself, Balden-sperger, 88) τ. ν., his resurrection is the pledge that death cannot separate the faithful from his company. The thought of this and of the following trait (cf. [ Mat 4:8] f.) is taken fröm Ps. 88:28, κἀγὼ πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτόν, ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν τῆς γῆς. On the two allied functions of ruling and witnessing ([ Isa 55:4]) cf. the different view of [ Joh 18:37]. At the inspiring thought of Christ’s lordship the prophet breaks into adoration—ἀγαπῶντι κ.τ.λ. The eternal love (cf. [ Rev 3:19]) which Christ bears to his people is proved by his death, as a revelation of (a) what he has done for them by his sacrifice, and (b) what he has made of them (so [ Eph 5:25-26] = [ Rev 19:7-8]). The negative deliverance from sins (cf. [ Psa 129:8]) at the cost of his own life (ἐν instrumental) is a religious emancipation which issues in (6) a positive relationship of glorious religious privilege.—βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς, a literal (cf. Charles on Jub. xvi. 18) and inaccurate rendering of îîìëú ëçðéí ([ Exo 19:6]) to emphasise the royal standing of the Christian community in connexion with their Christ as ἄρχων, κ.τ.λ., and also ([ Tit 2:3]) their individual privilege of intimate access to God as the result of Christ’s sacrificial death. καὶ ἐποίησεν, the harsh anacolouthon breaks up the participial construction, ἡμᾶς, emphatic. “We Christians are now the chosen people. In us the Danielic prophecy of a reign of the saints is fulfilled and is to be fulfilled.” This is a characteristically anti-Jewish note. Persecution (cf. [ 1Pe 2:5]) deepened the sense of continuity in the early Christians, who felt driven back on the truth of election and divine protection; they were the true successors of all noble sufferers in Israel who had gone before (cf. the argument of [ Heb 11:32] to [ Heb 12:2]). In the Apocalypse the Christian church is invariably the true Israel, including all who believe in Christ, irrespective of birth and nationality. God reigns over them, and they reign, or will reign, over the world. In fact, Christians now and here are what Israel hoped to become, viz., priest-princes of God, and this position has been won for them by a messiah whom the Jews had rejected, and whom all non-Christians will have to acknowledge as sovereign. According to rabbinic tradition, the messianic age would restore to Israel the priestly standing which it had lost by its worship of the golden calf; and by the first commandment (Mechilta on [ Exo 20:2]), “slaves became kings”. There may also be an implicit anti-Roman allusion. We Christians, harried and despised, are a community with a great history and a greater hope. Our connection with Christ makes us truly imperial. The adoration of Christ, which vibrates in this doxology (cf. Expos. ver. 302–307), is one of the most impressive features of the book. The prophet feels that the one hope for the loyalists of God in this period of trial is to be conscious that they owe everything to the redeeming love of Jesus. Faithfulness depends on faith, and faith is rallied by the grasp not of itself but of its object. Mysterious explanations of history follow, but it is passionate devotion to Jesus, and not any skill in exploring prophecy, which proves the source of moral heroism in the churches. Jesus sacrificed himself for us; αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα. From this inward trust and wonder, which leap up at the sight of Jesus and his grace, the loyalty of Christians flows.
This enthusiasm for Jesus naturally carries the prophet’s mind forward ([ Rev 1:7-8]) to the time when the Lord’s majesty will flash out on mankind. He resumes the line of thought interrupted by the doxology of 5b–6.
[ Rev 1:7]. A reminiscence and adaptation of [ Dan 7:13] (Theod.) and [ Zec 12:10-14]. The substitution of ἐξεκέντησαν (so [ Joh 19:37], Justin’s Apol. i. 52, Dial, xxxii., cf. 61., 118., adding εἰς) for κατωρχήσαντο (70 mistranslation in this passage, though not elsewhere, of ã÷øå)—shows that the original text was used (though Lcke and Ewald hold that ἐξ. was the LXX reading till Origen), and that it was interpreted in some (Johannine? Abbott, Diatessarica, 1259–1262, 2317) circles as a prophecy of the crucifixion. Only, the reference is no longer to repentance (Zech.), but, by a turn of characteristic severity, to remorse and judgment. There is a remarkable parallel in [ Mat 24:30], where patristic tradition (cf. A. C. 233–36) early recognised in τὸ σημεῖον τ. ὑ. ἀ. the cross itself, made visible on the day of judgment. The first of the three signs preceding Christ’s advent in the clouds, acc. to Did. xvi. 6 (cf. [ Zec 2:13] LXX), is σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (Christ with outstretched arms, as crucified?); and, acce. to Barn, vii. 9, “they shall see him on that day wearing about his flesh τὸν ποδήρη κόκκινον”. Note (a) that the agreement with [ Joh 19:37] is mainly verbal; the latter alludes to the crucifixion, this passage to an eschatological crisis, (b) No such visible or victorious return of Christ is fulfilled in the Apocalypse, for visions like [ Rev 14:14] f., [ Rev 19:12] f., do not adequately correspond to [ Rev 1:7], [ Rev 22:12], etc. (c) No punishment of the Jews occurs at Christ’s return, for the vengeance of [ Rev 19:13] f. falls on pagans, while [ Rev 11:13] lies on another plane. καὶ, κ.τ.λ.: the monotonous collocation of clauses (Vit. i. 9–16) throughout the Apocalypse with καί, is not necessarily a Hebraism; the syntax of Aristotle (e.g., cf. Thumb, 129), betrays a similar usage. καὶ οἵτ. κ.τ.λ., selected as a special class (καὶ τότε μετανοήσουσιν, ὅτε οὐδὲν ὠφελήσουσι, Justin). The responsibility of the Jews, as opposed to the Romans, for the judicial murder of Jesus is prominent in the Christian literature of the period (Luke–Acts, cf. von Dobschütz in Texte u. Unters. xi. 1, pp. 61, 62), though the Apoc. is superior to passages like 2 Clem. xvii. πᾶσαι κ.τ.λ.= the unbelieving pagans, who are still impenitent when surprised by the Lord’s descent (ἐπὶ = “because of,” cf. [ Rev 18:9] in diff. sense); a realistic statement of what is spiritually put in [ Joh 16:8-9].—This forms an original element in the early Christian apologetic. To the Jewish taunt, “Jesus is not messiah but a false claimant: he died,” the reply was, “He will return in visible messianic authority” ([ Mar 14:62] = [ Mat 26:64], significant change in [ Luk 22:69]). In several circles this future was conceived not as a return of Jesus, nor in connexion with his historical appearance, but as the first real manifestation of the true messianic character which he had gained at the resurrection (cf. Titius, 31, 32). See on [ Rev 12:4] f. ναὶ, ἀμήν: a double (Gk. Heb.) ratification of the previous oracle.
[ Rev 1:8]. Only here and in [ Rev 21:5] f. is God introduced as the speaker, in the Apocalypse. The advent of the Christ, which marks the end of the age, is brought about by God, who overrules (παντοκράτωρ always of God in Apocalypse, otherwise the first part of the title might have suggested Christ) even the anomalies and contradictions of history for this providential climax. By the opening of the second century πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ had become the first title of God in the Roman creed; the Apocalypse, indifferent to the former epithet, reproduces the latter owing to its Hebraic sympathies, ἐγώ εἰμι: Coleridge used to declare that one chief defect in Spinoza was that the Jewish philosopher started with It is instead of with I am. τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ: not the finality (Oesterley, Encycl. Relig. and Ethics, i. 1, 2), but the all-inclusive power of God, which comes fully into play in the new order of things inaugurated by the second advent. The symbolism which is here put in a Greek form had been developed in rabbinic speculation upon úà. With this and the following passage, cf. the papyrus of Ani (E. B. D. 12): “He leadeth in his train that which is and that which is not yet.… Homage to thee, King of kings, and Lord of lords, who from the womb of Nut hast ruled the world and Akert [the Egyptian Hades]. Thy body is of bright and shining metal, thy head is of azure blue, and the brilliance of the turquoise encircleth thee.” For the connexion of a presentiment of the end ([ Rev 1:7-8]) with an impulse to warn contemporaries (9 f.) see 4 Esd. 14:10 f., where the warning of the world’s near close is followed by an injunction to the prophet to “set thine house in order, reprove thy people, console the humble among them”; whereupon the commission to write under inspiration is given.
[ Rev 1:9] to [ Rev 3:22], an address to Asiatic Christendom (as represented by seven churches) which in high prophetic and oracular style rallies Christians to their genuine oracle of revelation in Jesus and his prophetic spirit. At a time when local oracles (for the famous one of Apollo near Miletus, see Friedlander, iii, 561 f.), besides those in Greece and Syria and Egypt, were eagerly frequented, it was of moment to lay stress on what had superseded all such media for the faithful. Cf. Minuc. Felix, Oct. 7, “pleni et mixti deo uates futura praecerpunt, dant cautelam periculis, morbis medelam, spem afflictis, operam miseris, solacium calamitatibus, laboribus leuamentum”.
[ Rev 1:9-20], introductory vision.
[ Rev 1:9]. The personality of the seer is made prominent in apocalyptic literature, to locate or guarantee any visions which are to follow. Here the authority with which this prophet is to speak is conditioned by his kinship of Christian experience with the churches and his special revelation from God. ἀδελφός (cf. [ Rev 6:11], [ Rev 12:10]): for its pagan use as = fellow-member of the same (religious) society, cf. C. B. P. i. 96 f., and Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscr. Graec. 474, 10 (ἀδελφοὶ οἶς κοινὰ τὰ πατρῷα). θλίψει, put first as the absorbing fact of their experience, and as a link of sympathy between writer and readers; καὶ βασιλείᾳ, the outcome of θλίψις in the messianic order: distress no end in itself; καὶ ὑπομονῇ, patient endurance the moral condition of participation in ἡ θλίψις and ἡ βασιλεία, by which one is nerved to endure the presence of the former without breaking down, and to bear the temporary delay of the latter without impatience. While μακροθυμία is the absence of resentment at wrong, ὑπομονή = not giving way under trials. See Barn, ii., “the aids of our faith are fear and patience, long-suffering and self-control are our allies”; also Tertullian’s famous aphorism, “ubi Deus, ibi et alumna eius, patientia scilicet”.—ἐν Ἰησοῦ (a Pauline conception, only repeated in Apocalypse at [ Rev 14:12]), either with all three substantives or merely (cf. [ 2Th 3:5]) with ὑπομονή. In any case ὑπ. is closely linked to ἐν Ἰ.; such patience, as exemplified in Jesus, and inspired by him, was the cardinal virtue of the Apocalypse and its age. In the early Christian literature of this period “we cannot name anything upon which blessedness is so frequently made to rest, as upon the exercise of patient endurance” (Titius, 142). ἐγενόμην ἐν (“I found myself in”: implying that when he wrote he was no longer there), not by flowing waters (as frequently, e.g., En. xiii. 7), but in the small, treeless, scantily populated island of Patmos, one of the Sporades, whither criminals were banished sometimes by the Roman authorities (Plin. Hist. Nat. iv. 12, 23). Relegatio to an island was not an infrequent form of punishment for better-class offenders or suspects under the black régime of Domitian, as under Diocletian for Christians (cf. Introd. § 6). No details are given, but probably it meant hard labour in the quarries, and was inflicted by the pro-consul of Asia Minor. Why John was only banished, we do not know. As “the word of God and the witness of Jesus” are not qualified by any phrase such as ὅσα εἶδεν ([ Rev 1:2], and thereby identified with the present Apocalypse), the words indicate as elsewhere (cf. διὰ, κ.τ.λ., reff.) the occasion of his presence in Patmos, i.e., his loyalty to the gospel (cf. θλίψις), rather than the object of his visit. The latter could hardly be evangelising (Spitta), for Patmos was insignificant and desolate, nor, in face of the use of διὰ, can the phrase mean “for the purpose of receiving this revelation” (Bleek, Lücke, Düsterdieck, Hausrath, B. Weiss, Baljon, etc.). Either he had voluntarily withdrawn from the mainland to escape the stress of persecution (which scarcely harmonises with the context or the general temper of the book) or for solitary communion (cf. [ Eze 1:1-3]), or, as is more likely, his removal was a punishment (cf. Abbott, 114–16). The latter view is corroborated by tradition (cf. Zahn, § 64, note 7), which, although later and neither uniform nor wholly credible, is strong enough to be taken as independent evidence. It can hardly be explained away as a mere elaboration of the present passage (so, e.g., Reuss, Bleek, Bousset); the allusion to μαρτύριον is too slight to have been suggested by the darker sense of martyrdom, and it is far-fetched to argue that the tradition was due to a desire to glorify John with a martyrdom. Unless, therefore, the reference is a piece of literary fiction (in which case it would probably have been elaborated) it must be supposed to be vague simply because the matter was perfectly familiar to the circle for whom the book was written. It is to those exercised in prudence, temperance, and virtue that (according to Philo, de incorrupt, mundi, § 1, cf. Plutarch’s discussion in defect. orac. 38 f.) God vouchsafes visions, but John introduces his personal experience in order to establish relations between himself and his readers rather than to indicate the conditions of his theophany.
[ Rev 1:10]. Ecstasy or spiritual rapture, the supreme characteristic of prophets in Did. xi. 7 (where the unpardonable sin is to criticise a prophet λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι), was not an uncommon experience in early Christianity, which was profoundly conscious of living in the long-looked for messianic age ([ Act 2:17] f., cf. [ Eph 3:5]), when such phenomena were to be a matter of course. Throughout the Apocalypse ([ Rev 21:5], etc.) John first sees, then writes; the two are not simultaneous. While the Apocaiypse is thus the record of a vision (ὅρασις, [ Rev 9:17]), the usual accompaniments of a vision—i.e., prayer and fasting—are significantly absent from the description of this inaugural scene, which is reticent and simple as compared, e.g., with a passage like Asc. Isa. iv. 10–16. It is possible, however, that the prophet was engaged in prayer when the trance or vision overtook him (like Peter, [ Act 10:9-11], cf. Ign. ad Polyc. ii. 2, τὰ δὲ ἀόρατα αἴτει, ἵνα σοι φανερωθῇ), since the day of weekly Christian worship is specially mentioned on which, though separated from the churches (was there one at Patmos?), he probably was wrapt in meditations (on the resurrection of Christ) appropriate to the hour. The Imperial or Lord’s day, first mentioned here in early Christian literature (so Did. xiv., Gosp. Peter 11, etc.) contains an implicit allusion to the ethnic custom, prevalent in Asia Minor, of designating the first day of the month (or week?) as Σεβαστή in honour of the emperor’s birthday (see Thieme’s Inschr. Maeander, 1906, 15, and Deissmann in E.Bi. 2813 f.). Christians, too, have their imperial day (cf. Introd. § 2), to celebrate the birthday of their heavenly king. With his mind absorbed in the thought of the exalted Jesus and stored with O.T. messianic conceptions from Daniel and Ezekiel, the prophet had the following ecstasy in which the thoughts of Jesus and of the church already present to his mind are fused into one vision. He recalls in spirit the usual church-service with its praises, prayers, sudden voices, and silences. (Compare Ign. Magn. ix. εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ … καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν.) John’s service of God ([ Rev 1:2]) involved suffering, instead of exempting him from the trials of ordinary Christians; the subsequent visions and utterances prove not merely that in his exile he had fallen back upon the O.T. prophets for consolation but that (cf. [ 2Co 11:28-29]) he was anxiously brooding over the condition of his churches on the mainland. Cf. Dio Chrys. Orat. xiii. 422, where the philosopher dates the consciousness of his vocation from the period of his exile. Upon the other hand, the main criterion of a false prophet (Eus. H. E. [ Rev 1:17]; [ Rev 1:2]), apart from covetousness, was speech ἐν παρεκστάσει, i.e., the arrogant, ignorant, frenzied rapture affected by pagan Cagliostros, who were destitute of any unselfish religious concern for other people. ὀπίσω μου, the regular method of spiritualistic voices and appearances: σάλπιγγος, loud and clear, not an unusual expression for voices heard in a trance (cf. Martyr. Polyc. xxii. 2, Moscow MS). The following Christophany falls into rhythmical expression. As a revelation of the Lord ([ Rev 1:1], cf. [ 2Co 12:1]), with which we may contrast Emerson’s saying (“I conceive a man as always spoken to from behind and unable to turn his head and see the speaker”), it exhibits several of the leading functions discharged by Jesus in the Apocalypse, where he appears as (a) the revealer of secrets ([ Rev 1:1] f., [ Rev 5:5]), (b) the guardian and champion of the saints ([ Rev 1:2-3], etc.), (c) the medium, through sacrifice, of their relationship to God, (d) associated with God in rewarding them, and (e) in the preliminary overthrow of evil which accompanies the triumph of righteousness. Compare the main elements of the divine nature as conceived by the popular religion of contemporary Phrygia, viz., (a) prophetic power, (b) healing and purifying power, and (c) divine authority (symbolised by the axe): C. B. P., ii. 357.
[ Rev 1:11], γράψον (cf. Herm. Vis. II. iv. 3); this emphasis put upon the commission to compose and circulate what he sees in the vision, is due to the author’s claim of canonical authority and reflects a time when a literary work of this nature still required some guarantee, although at an earlier date smaller oracles had been written and accepted (e.g., that which determined the flight of the early Christians to Pella, Eus. H. E., iii. 5, 3). John’s role, however, is passive in two senses of the term. He seldom acts or journeys in his vision, whereas Jewish apocalypses are full of the movements of their seers; nor does his vision lead to any practical course of action, for—unlike most of the O.T. prophet—he is not conscious of any commission to preach or to reform the world. The prophet is an author. His experience is to be no luxury but a diffused benefit; and as in [Tob 12:20] (“and now … write in a book all that has taken place”) and 4 Esd. 12:37 (“therefore write in a book all thou hast seen, and thou shalt teach,” etc.), the prophet is careful to explain that composition is no mere literary enterprise but due to a divine behest. The cities are enumerated from Ephesus northwards to Smyrna (forty miles) and Pergamos (fifty miles north of Smyrna), then across for forty miles S.E. to Thyatira, down to Sardis, Philadelphia (thirty miles S.E. of Sardis), and Laodicea (forty miles S.E. of Philadelphia). Cf. on [ Rev 1:4] and Introd. § 2. Except Pergamos and Laodicea, the churches lay within Lydia (though the writer employs the imperial term for the larger province) which was at that period a by-word for voluptuous civilisation.
[ Rev 1:12]. The seven golden lamp-stands are cressets representing the seven churches (20), the sevenfold lamp-stand of the Jewish temple (cf. S. C. 295–99) having been for long used as a symbol ([ Zec 4:2]; [ Zec 4:10]). The function of the churches is to embody and express the light of the divine presence upon earth, so high is the prophet’s conception of the communities (cf. on [ Rev 2:4-5]); their duty is to keep the light burning and bright, otherwise the reason for their existence disappears ([ Rev 2:5]). Consequently the primary activity of Jesus in providence and revelation bears upon the purity of those societies through which his influence is to reach mankind, just as his connexion with them on the other hand assures them of One in heaven to whom out of difficulties here they can appeal with confidence.
[ Rev 1:13]. The churches are inseparable from their head and centre Jesus, who moves among the cressets of his temple with the dignity and authority of a high priest. The anarthrous ὑ. ἀ. is the human appearance of the celestial messiah, as in En. xlvi. 1–6 (where the Son of man accompanies God, who, as the Head of Days, had a head “white as wool”) and Asc. Isa. xi. 1. The difficult ὅμοιον is to be explained (with Vit. ii. 127, 223, 227) as = ὡς ([ Rev 2:18], [ Rev 6:14], [ Rev 9:7-8]; [ Rev 9:11]) or οἶον, “something like,” a loose reproduction of the Heb. (“un être semblable à nous, un homme”). The whole passage illustrates the writer’s habit of describing an object or person by heaping up qualities without strict regard to natural or grammatical collocation. ποδήρης (sc. χιτὼν or ἐσθής), a long robe reaching to the feet, was an oriental mark of dignity (cf. on [ Rev 1:7], and [ Eze 9:2]; [ Eze 9:11], LXX), denoting high rank or office such as that of Parthian kings or of the Jewish high priest who wore a purple one. High girding (with a belt?) was another mark of lofty position, usually reserved for Jewish priests, though the Iranians frequently appealed to their deities as “high-girt” (i.e., ready for action = cf. Yasht 15:54, 57, “Vaya of the golden girdle, high-up girded, swift moving, as powerful in sovereignty as any absolute sovereign in the world”). The golden buckle or πόρπη was part of the insignia of royalty and its φίλοι ([1Ma 10:8-9]; [1Ma 11:58]). The author thus mixes royal and sacerdotal colours on his palette to heighten the majesty of Christ’s appearance. New, golden (as in Iranian eschatology), shining, white—are the usual adjectives which he employs throughout the book for the transcendent bliss of the life beyond and its heavenly tenants; “golden” had been used already in Greek as a synonym for precious, excellent, divine.
[ Rev 1:14]. ὡς χ.; another conventional simile for celestial beings. ἡ κ. κ. αἱ τ., a pleonastic expression; either = “his head, i.e. his hair,” or “his forehead and his hair”; scarcely a hendiadys for “the hair of the head” (Bengel). Jewish tradition rationalised the white hairs into a proof of God’s activity as a wise old teacher (Chag. 14, cf. [ Pro 20:27] f.), and the Daniel-vision might suggest the fine paradox between the divine energy and this apparent sign of weakness. But such traits are probably poetical, not allegorical, in John’s vision; they body forth his conception of Jesus as divine. In Egyptian theology a similar trait belongs to Ani after beatification. The whole conception of the messiah in the Apocalypse resembles that outlined in Enoch (Similitudes, xxxvii.–lxxi.), where he also possesses pre-existence as Son of man (xlviii) sits on his throne of glory (xlvii. 3) for judgment, rules all men (lxii. 6), and slays the wicked with the word of his mouth (xlii. 2); but this particular transference to the messiah ([ Rev 1:14]; [ Rev 1:17-18], [ Rev 2:8], [ Rev 22:12-13]), of what is in Daniel predicated of God as the world-judge, seems to form a specifically N.T. idea, unmediated even in Enoch (xlvi. 1), although the association of priestly and judicial attributes with those of royalty was easy for an Oriental (it is predicated of the messiah by Jonathan ben Usiel on [ Zec 4:12-13]). ὡς φλὸξ πυρός, like Slav. En. i. 5, from [ Dan 10:6]; cf. Suet. August. 79, “oculos habuit claros et nitidos, quibus etiam existimari uoluit inesse quiddam diuini uigoris; gaudebat-que si quis sibi acrius contuenti quasi ad fulgorem solis uultum submitteret”. Divine beauty was generally manifested (Verg. Aen. ver. 647 f.) in glowing eyes (insight and indignation), the countenance and the voice; here also ([ Rev 1:15]) in feet to crush all opposition. The messiah is not crowned, however (cf. later, [ Rev 19:12]). χ. = some hard (as yet unidentified) metal which gleamed after smelting. The most probable meaning of this obscure hybrid term is that suggested by Suidas: χαλκοίβανον· εἶδος ἠλέκτρου τιμιώτερου χρυσοῦ, ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἤλεκτρον ἀλλότυπον χρυσίον μεμιγμένον ὑέλῳ καὶ λιθείᾳ (ἤλ. actually occuring in LXX, [ Eze 1:27]). The reference then is to amber or to some composition like brass or (copper) bronze; only, it contains gold (cf. vulg. = aurichalcum, a valuable and gleaming metal). Abbott (201) sees a corruption of some phrase like χαλκὸν ἐν κλιβάνῳ, while others suggest χαλκός and ìáï (i.e., glowing white brass). Haussleiter would upon inadequate grounds omit ὡς ἐκ. κ. πεπ. (219–24).
[ Rev 1:16]. The care and control exercised by Christ over the churches only come forward after the suggestions of majesty and authority (13–15) which followed the initial idea of Christ’s central position (ἐν μέσῳ) among the churches. Cf. [ Rev 5:6] (ἐν μέσῳ) for another reference to Christ’s central authority—ἔχων, κ.τ.λ. For the astrological background of this figure, cf. Jeremiah 24 f. The traditional symbol, of which an interpretation is given later ([ Rev 1:20]), probably referred to the seven planets rather than to the Pleiades or any other constellation. If the description is to be visualised, the seven stars may be pictured as lying on Christ’s palm in the form of the stars in the constellation of Ursa Major—ῥομφαία, κ.τ.λ. By a vivid objectifying of the divine word (corresponding to that, e.g., in [ Isa 9:8] f., [ Rev 9:4], and suggested by the tongue-shaped appearance of the short Roman sword or dagger), the figure of the sharp sword issuing from the mouth is applied (in Ps. Sol. 17:27, 39, as here) to the messiah, as in Jewish literature to God ([ Psa 149:6], etc.) and to wisdom (Sap. 18:15), elsewhere to the λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ([ Heb 4:12], cf. [ Rev 19:13-15]): Christ’s power of reproof and punishment is to be directed against the church ([ Rev 2:12] f.) as well as against the world of heathen opposition ([ Rev 19:21], where the trait is artistically more appropriate). As a nimbus or coronata radiata sometimes crowned the emperor (“image des rayons lumineux qu’il lance sur le monde,” Beurlier), so the face of Christ (ὄψις as in [ Joh 11:44], cf. below, [ Rev 10:1]) is aptly termed, as in the usual description of angelic visitants (reff.), bright as sunshine unintercepted by mist or clouds. This is the climax of the delineation.
[ Rev 1:17]. ἔπεσα κ.τ.λ., the stereotyped behaviour (cf. [ Num 24:4]) in such apocalyptic trances (Weinel, 129, 182, R. J. 375 f.; for the terror of spiritual experience cf. Schiller’s lines: “Schrecklich ist es Deiner Wahrheit | Sterbliches Gefäss zu seyn”); Jesus, however, does here what Michael (En. lxxi. 3) or some other friendly angel does in most Jewish apocalypses. There is no dialogue between the prophet and Christ, as there is afterwards between him and the celestial beings—μὴ φ. The triple reassurance is (1) that the mysterious, overwhelming Figure reveals his character, experience and authority, instead of proving an alien unearthly visitant; (2) the vision has a practical object (“write,” 19) bearing upon human life, and (3) consequently the mysteries are not left as baffling enigmas. All the early Christian revelations which are self-contained, presuppose the risen Christ as their source; the Apocalypse of Peter, being fragmentary, is hardly an exception to the rule. The present vision presents him as superhuman, messianic, militant and divine. But the writer is characteristically indifferent to the artistic error of making Christ’s right hand at once hold seven stars and be laid on the seer ([ Rev 1:16-17]). Cf. the fine application of the following passage by Milton in his “Remonstrant’s Defence”. The whole description answers to what is termed, in modern psychology, a “photism”.
[ Rev 1:18]. Not “it is I, the first and the last” (which would require ἐγώ εἰμι before μὴ φοβοῦ), but “I am, etc.” The eternal life of the exalted Christ is a comfort both in method and result; ἐγενόμην νεκρός (not ὡς; really dead), his experience assuring men of sympathy and understanding; καὶ ἰδοὺ, κ.τ.λ., his victory and authority over death = an assurance of his power to rescue his own people from the grim prison of the underworld (Hades, cf. [3Ma 5:50], the intermediate abode of the dead, being as usual personified in connexion with death). A background for this conception lies in the primitive idea of Janus, originally an Italian sun-god, as the key-holder (cf. Ovid’s Fasti, i. 129, 130, Hor. Carm. Sec. 9, 10) who opens and closes the day (sun = deus clauiger), rather than in Mithraism which only knew keys of heaven, or in Mandæan religion (Cheyne’s Bible Problems, 102–106). The key was a natural Oriental symbol for authority and power (cf. in this book, [ Rev 3:7], [ Rev 9:1], [ Rev 20:1]). Jewish belief (see Gfrörer, i. 377–378) assigned three keys or four exclusively to God (“quos neque angelo neque seraphino committit”); these included, according to different views, “clauis sepulchorum,” “clavis uitae,” “clauis resurrectionis mortuorum”. To ascribe this divine prerogative to Jesus as the divine Hero who had mastered death is, therefore, another notable feature in the high Christology of this book. For the whole conception see E. B. D. ch. 64. (fifth century B.C.?): “I am Yesterday and To-day and To-morrow … I am the Lord of the men who are raised again; the Lord who cometh forth from out of the darkness.” It is based on the theophany of the Ancient of Days in [ Dan 7:9] f. (yet cf. [ Rev 10:5-6]), who bestows on the ideal Israel (ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθ.) dominion. John changes this into a Christophany, like the later Jewish tradition which saw in υἱὸς ἀ. a personal, divine messiah. When one remembers the actual position of affairs, the confident faith of such passages is seen to have been little short of magnificent. To this Christian prophet, spokesman of a mere ripple upon a single wave of dissent in the broad ocean of paganism, history and experience find unity and meaning nowhere but in the person of a blameless Galilean peasant who had perished as a criminal in Jerusalem. So would such early Christian expectations appear to an outsider. He would be staggered by the extraordinary claims advanced on behalf of its God by this diminutive sect, perhaps more than staggered by the prophecy that imperial authority over the visible and invisible worlds lay ultimately in the hands of this deity, whose power was not limited to his own adherents.—Christophanies were commissions either to practical service ([ Act 10:19], etc.), or, as here, so composition.
[ Rev 1:19]. οὖν, at the command of him who has authority over the other world and the future (resuming [ Rev 1:11]. now that the paralysing fear of [ Rev 1:17] has been removed). Like the author of 4th Esdras, this prophet is far more interested in history than in the chronological speculations which engrossed many of the older apocalyptists. The sense of γράψον κ.τ.λ. is not, write the vision already seen (ἃ εἶδες, [ Rev 1:10-18]), the present (ἃ εἰσὶν, [ Rev 1:20] to [ Rev 3:20], the state of the churches, mainly conceived as it exists now and here), and the future (ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, i.e., [ Rev 4:1] f.), as though the words were a rough programme of the whole book; nor, as other editors (e.g., Spitta) unconvincingly suggest, is ἃ εἰσὶν = “what they mean,” epexegetic of ἃ εἶδες, or εἶδες (cf. [ Rev 10:7], [ Rev 15:1]) in a future perfect sense (Selwyn). The following chapters cannot be regarded merely as interpretations of [ Rev 1:10-18], and the juxtaposition of μέλλει γεν. (from LXX of [ Isa 48:6]) fixes the temporal meaning of εἰσίν here, even although the other meaning occurs in a different context in [ Rev 1:20]. Besides, [ Rev 1:10-18] is out of all proportion to the other two divisions, to which indeed it forms a brief prelude. The real sense is that the contents of the vision (εἶδες, like βλέπεις in [ Rev 1:11], being proleptic) consist of what is and what is to be, these divisions of present and future underlying the whole subsequent Apocalypse. The neut. plur. with a plural verb and a singular in the same sentence, indicates forcibly the indifference of the author to the niceties of Hellenistic grammar. For the whole see [ Dan 2:29-30], also Barn. i.: “The Lord (δεσπότης) hath disclosed to us by the prophets things past and present, giving us also a taste of the firstfruits of the future”; v.: “We ought, therefore, to be exceedingly thankful to the Lord for disclosing the past to us and making us wise in the present; yea as regards the future even we are not void of understanding”. Moral stimulus and discipline were the object of such visions: as Tertullian declares of the Mortanist seers: “uidunt uisiones et ponentes faciem deorsum etiam uoces audiunt manifestas tarn salutares quam occultas” (de exhort. cast. 10).
[ Rev 1:20]. μυστ. (as in [ Dan 2:27], LXX; see below on [ Rev 10:7]) = “the secret symbol”. These two symbols, drawn from the lore of contemporary apocalyptic, are chosen for explanation, partly as an obscure and important element in the foregoing vision which had to be set in a new light, partly because they afford a clue to all that follows (especially the opening section, [ Rev 2:1]; [ Rev 2:5]). The seven-branched lamp-stand was a familiar symbol, frequently carved on the lintel of a synagogue. Along with the silver trumpets and other spoils of the temple it now lay in the temple of Peace at Rome. The fanciful symbolism, by which the cressets shining on earth are represented—in another aspect—as heavenly bodies, corresponds to Paul’s fine paradox about the Christian life of the saints lying hidden with Christ in God; even unsatisfactory churches, like those at Sardis and Laodicea, are not yet cast away. Note also that the light and presence of God now shine in the Christian churches, while the ancestral Jewish light is extinguished (4 [ Ezr 10:22]): “The light of our lamp-stand is put out”). It is curious that in Assyrian representations the candelabrum is frequently indistinguishable from the sacred seven-branched tree crowned with a star (R. S. 488); Josephus expressly declares (Ant. iii. 6. 7, 7. 7) that the seven lamps on the stand signified the seven planets, and that the twelve loaves on the shew-bread table signified the signs of the zodiac (Bell. [ Rev 1:5]; [ Rev 1:5]), while Philo had already allegorised the lamp-stand (= seven planets) in quis haeres, § 45. This current association of the λύχνοι with the planets is bound up with the astral conception of the angels of the churches (ἀγγ. = “angels” as elsewhere in Apocalypse), who are the heavenly representatives and counterparts or patron angels of the churches, each of the latter, like the elements (e.g., water [ Rev 16:5], fire [ Rev 14:18]; see further in Baldensperger, 106, and Gfrörer, i. 368 f.), the wind ([ Rev 7:1]), and the nether abyss ([ Rev 9:2]), having its presiding heavenly spirit. The conception (E. J. i. 593. 594) reaches back to post-exilic speculation, in which Greece, Persia and Judæa had each an influential and responsible angelic prince ([ Dan 10:13]; [ Dan 10:20-21]; [ Dan 12:1]), and especially to the Iranian notion of fravashis or semi-ideal prototypes of an earthly personality (here, a community), associated with reminiscences of the Babylonian idea that certain stars were assigned to certain lands, whose folk and fortunes were bound up with their heavenly representatives (cf. Rawlinson’s Cuneif. Inscript. West. Asia Minor, ii. 49, iii. 54, 59, etc.). Afterwards (cf. Tobit) individuals were assigned a guardian spirit. This belief (Gfrörer, i. 374 f.) passed into early Christianity ([ Mat 18:10], [ Act 12:15], where see note), but naturally it never flourished, owing to Christ’s direct and spiritual revelation of God’s fatherly providence. The association of stars and angels is one of the earliest developments in Semitic folklore, and its poetic possibilities lent themselves effectively as here to further religious applications; e.g., Enoch (i. 18) had long ago represented seven stars, “like spirits,” in the place of fiery punishment for disobedience to God’s commands. As Dr. Kohler points out (E. F. i. 582–97), the determining factors of Jewish angelology were the ideas of “the celestial throne with its ministering angels, and the cosmos with its evil forces to be subdued by superior angelic forces,” which corresponds to the punitive and protective rôles of angels in the Johannine Apocalypse. But in the latter they are neither described at length nor exalted. They are simply commissioned by God to execute his orders or instruct the seer. The supreme concern of God is with the earth and man; angels are but the middle term of this relationship, at most the fellow-servants of the saints whose interests they promote (see below on [ Rev 19:9-10], [ Rev 22:8-9]). Christians, unlike the Iranians (e.g. Bund. xxx. 23, etc.), offer no praises to them; they reserve their adoration for God and Christ. However graphic and weird, the delineation of demons and angels in this book is not grotesque and crude in the sense that most early Jewish and Christian descriptions may be said to deserve these epithets. Here the guardian spirit who is responsible for a church’s welfare, would, roughly speaking, be identified with itself; his oversight and its existence being correlative terms. Hence there is a sense in which the allied conception of ἀγγ. is true, namely, that the ἀγγ. is the personified spirit or genius or heavenly counterpart of the church, the church being regarded as an ideal individual (so Andr., Areth., Wetst., Bleek, Lücke, Erbes, Beyschlag, Swete, etc.) who possesses a sort of Egyptian Ka or double. By itself, however, this view lies open to the objection that it explains one symbol by another and hardly does justice to the naïve poetry of the conception. The notion of guardian angels was widespread in the early church (Hermas, Justin, Clem. Alex., Origen, etc.), independently of this passage. Statius (Silv. i. 241) says that Domitian “posuit sua sidera” (i.e., of his family) in the heaven, when he raised a temple to the Flavians—a contemporary parallel upon a lower level of feeling, but indicating a similar view of the heavenly counterpart (cf. Ramsay, Seven Letters, 68 f.) The Apocalypse, though presupposing the exercise of discipline and the practice of reading, prayer, and praise within the Christian communities, entirely ignores officials of any kind; and the following homilies are directly concerned with the churches ([ Rev 2:7], ἐκκλησίαις, not the angels), their different members (cf. [ Rev 2:24]) and their respective situations. Hence the poetic idealism of the ἄγγελοι soon fades, when the writer’s practical sense is brought to bear. As the scene of revelation is ἐν πνεύματι and its author the heavenly Christ, the writer is instructed to address not τοῖς ἁγίοις (e.g., ἐν Εφέσῳ), but their patron spirit or guardian angel. The point of the address is that the revelation of Jesus is directly conveyed through the spoken and written words of the prophets, as the latter are controlled by his Spirit.