Richard Chenevix Trench · 2 of 13

Introduction, Rev. i. 4-20 · Part 1

Ver. 4. “John to the seven Churchesin Asia.”—So far as the Apocalypse is allowed to witness for its own authorship, it is difficult to refuse to find in these words a strong internal argument that we have here an authentic work of St. John. The writer avouches himself as “John;” but, though there may have been Johns many in the Church at this time, John the Presbyter and others, still it is well-nigh impossible to conceive any other but John the Apostle who would have named himself by this name alone, with no further style or addition. We instinctively feel that for any one else there would have been. an affectation of simplicity, concealing a most real arrogance, in the very plainness of this title, in the assumption that thus to mention himself was sufficient to ensure his recognition, or that he had a right to appropriate this name in so absolute a manner to himself. The unique position in the Church of St. John, the beloved Apostle, and now the sole surviving Apostle, the one remaining link between the faithful of this time and the earthly life of their Lord, abundantly justified in him that which would have ill become any other; just as a king or queen, as representative persons in a nation, will sign by their Christian names only, but not any other besides. Despite all which has been urged to avoid this conclusion, it is assuredly either John the Apostle and Evangelist who writes the Apocalypse; or one who, assuming his style and title, desires to pass himself off as John—in other words a falsarius. Are the opposers of St. John’s authorship of this Book prepared for the alternative?

Of the seven Churches which St. John addresses here I reserve to speak in particular when we reach the nominal enumeration of them (ver. 11); but as this is the only place where they are described as Churches “in Asia,” it may be needful to say a few words concerning the “Asia” which is intended. We may trace two opposite movements going on in the names of countries, analogous to like movements which are continually finding place in other words. Sometimes they grow more and more inclusive, are applied in their later use to far wider tracts of the earth than they were in their earlier. It is thus with the name “Italy.” Designating at one time only the extreme southern point of the central peninsula of Europe, the name crept up and up, till in the time of Augustus it obtained the meaning which it has ever since retained, including all within the Alps. “Holland” is another example in the same kind. Some names, on the other hand, of the widest reach at the beginning, gradually contract their meaning, till in the end they designate no more than a minute fraction of that which they designated at the beginning. “Asia” furnishes a good example of this. In the New Testament, as generally in the language of men when the New Testament was written, Asia meant not what it now means for us, and had once meant for the Greeks, one namely of the three great continents of the old world (Æschylus, Prom. 412; Pindar, Olymp. 7. 18; Herodotus, iv. 38), nor yet even that region which geographers about the fourth century of our era began to call “Asia Minor;” but a strip of the western seaboard containing hardly a third portion of this: cf. 1 Pet. i. 1; Acts ii. 9; vi. 9. “Asia vestra,” says Cicero (Pro Flacc. 27), addressing some Asiatics, “constat ex Phrygiâ, Mysiâ, Cariâ, Lydiâ;” its limits being nearly identical with those of the kingdom which Attalus III. bequeathed to the Roman people. Take “Asia” in this sense, and there will be little or no exaggeration in the words of the Ephesian silversmith, that “almost throughout all Asia” Paul had turned away much people from the service of idols (Acts xix. 26); words which must seem to exceed even the limits of an angry hyperbole to those not acquainted with this restricted use of the term.

“Grace be unto you and peace.”—This opening salutation may fitly remind us (for in reading the Apocalypse we are often in danger of forgetting it), that the Book is an Epistle, that, besides containing within its bosom those seven briefer Epistles addressed severally to the seven Churches in particular, it is itself an Epistle addressed to them as a whole, and as representing in their mystic unity all the Churches, or the Church (ii. 7, 11, 23, &c.). Of this larger Epistle, namely the Apocalypse itself, these seven Churches are the original receivers; not as having a nearer or greater interest in it than any other portion of the Universal Church; though as members of that Church they have an interest in it as near and great as can be conceived (i. 3; xxii. 18, 19); but on account of this their representative character, of which there will be occasion presently to speak. And being such an Epistle, it opens with the most frequently recurring apostolic salutation: “Grace and peace.” This is the constant salutation of St. Paul (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3, &c.), with only the exception of the two Epistles to Timothy, where “mercy” finds place between “grace and peace;” cf. 2 John 3; the salutation also of St. Peter in both his Epistles; while St. James employs the less distinctively Christian “greeting” (χαίρειν, i. 1; cf. Acts xxiii. 26).

“From Him which is and which was, and which is to come.”—On the departure from the ordinary rules of grammar, and apparent violation of them in these words, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, there will be something more to say when we reach the first clause of the next verse. Doubtless the immutability of God, “the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever” (Heb. xiii. 8), is intended to be expressed in this immutability of the name of God, in this absolute resistance to change or even modification which that name here presents. “I am the Lord; I change not” (Mal. iii. 6), this is what is here declared; and there could be no stronger consolation for the faithful than thus to be reminded that He who is from everlasting to everlasting, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (Jam. i. 17), was on their side; how then should they “be afraid of a man that shall die, and the son of man which shall be made as grass” (Isai. li. 12, 13)?

And yet we must not understand the words, “and which is to come,” as though they declared the “æternitas a parte post” in the same way as “which was” expresses the “æternitas a parte ante.” It is difficult to understand how so many should assume without further question that ὁ ἐρχόμενος here is = ὁ ἐσόμενος, and that thus we have the eternity of God expressed here, so far as it can be expressed, in forms of time: “He who was, and is, and shall be.” But how ὁ ἐρχόμενος should ever have this significance it is hard to perceive. There is a certain ambiguity about our translation; it cannot be accused of incorrectness; yet, on the other hand, one does not feel sure that when our Translators rendered, “which is to come,” they did not mean “which is to be.” The Rheims, which is here kept right by the Vulgate (“et qui venturus est”), so renders the words as to exclude ambiguity, “and which shall come.” If any urge that “which is, and which was,” present and past, require to be completed with a future, “and which shall be,” to this it may be replied, that plainly they do not require to be so completed, seeing that at xi. 17, no such complement finds place; for the words καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, have no right to a place there in the text. And then, on the other hand, there is every thing to recommend the grammatical interpretation. What is the key-note to this whole Book? Surely it is, “I come quickly. The world seems to have all things its own way, to kill my servants; but I come quickly.” With this announcement the Book begins, i. 7; with this it ends, xxii. 7, 12, 20; and this is a constantly recurring note through it all, ii. 5, 16; iii. 11; vi. 17; xi. 18; xiv. 7; xvi. 15; xviii. 20. It is Christ’s word of comfort, or, where they need it, of warning, to his friends; of terror to his foes. Origen further notes the evidence which this language, rightly interpreted, yields for the equal divinity of the Son with the Father (De Princ. § 10): “Ut autem unam et eandem omnipotentiam Patris ac Filii esse cognoscas, audi hoc modo Joannem in Apocalypsi dicentem, Haec dicit Dominus Deus, qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est, omnipotens. Qui enim venturus est, quis est alius nisi Christus?”—There should be no comma dividing “which is” from the clause following, “and which was.” These rather form one sentence, which is to be balanced with the other, “and which is to come.”

“And from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.”—Some have understood by “the seven Spirits,” the seven principal Angels, the heavenly realities of which “the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king’s face, and which sat the first in the kingdom” (Esth. i. 14), the “seven counsellors” (Ezra vii. 14), were a kind of earthly copy; room for whom had been found in the later Jewish angelology (Tob. xii. 15), and the seal of allowance set on the number seven in this very Book (Rev. viii. 2). And these have not been merely Roman Catholic expositors, such as Bossuet and Ribera, tempted to this interpretation by their zeal for the worshipping of Angels; but others with no such temptations, as Beza, Hammond, Mede (in a sermon on Zech. iv. 10, Works, 1672, p. 40; cf. pp. 833, 908). They claim some of the Fathers for predecessors in the same line of interpretation; Hilary, for example, Tract. in Ps. 118, Lit. 21, § 5. Clement of Alexandria is also claimed by Hammond; but neither in the passage cited nor in the context (Strom. vi. 16) can I find that he affirms anything of the kind. But this interpretation, which after all is that only of a small minority either of ancients or moderns, must be rejected without hesitation. Angels, often as they are mentioned in this Book, are never called “Spirits.” So too, in testimony of their ministering condition, their creaturely state, they always stand (Rev. viii. 2; Luke i. 19; 1 Kings xxii. 19, 21), but these Spirits “are” (ἐστιν) before the throne. Again, how is it possible to conceive the Apostle desiring grace and peace to the Church from the Angels, let them be the chiefest Angels which are, and not from God alone? or how can we imagine Angels, created beings, interposed here between the Father and the Son, and thus set as upon an equal level with Them; the Holy Ghost meanwhile being omitted, as according to this interpretation He must be, in this solemn salutation of the Churches Where again would be the singular glory claimed for Himself by the Son in those words, “He that hath the seven Spirits of God” (iii. 1)? what transcendant prerogative in the fact that these Angels, no less than all created things, were within his dominion?

There is no doubt that by “the seven Spirits” we are to understand, not indeed the sevenfold operations of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost sevenfold in his operations. Neither need there be any difficulty in reconciling this interpretation, as Mede urges, with the doctrine of his personality. It is only that He is regarded here not so much in his personal unity, as in his manifold energies; for “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. xii. 4). The matter could not be put better than it is by Richard of St. Victor: “Et a septem Spiritibus, id est, a septiformi Spiritu, qui simplex quidem est per naturam, septiformis per gratiam;” and compare Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, pp. 34, 147. The manifold gifts, operations, energies of the Holy Ghost are here represented under the number seven, being, as it is, the number of completeness in the Church. We have anticipations of this in the Old Testament. When the prophet Isaiah would describe how the Spirit should be given not by measure to Him whose name is The Branch, the enumeration of the gifts is sevenfold (xi. 2); and the seven eyes which rest upon the stone which the Lord has laid can mean nothing else but this (Zech. iii. 9; cf. iv. 10; Rev. v. 6). On the number “seven,” and its significance in Scripture and elsewhere, but above all in this Book, there will be something presently to be said.

Ver. 5. “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.”—In the last of these seven Epistles He calls Himself “the faithful and true witness” (iii. 14); as, therefore, we shall meet these words again, and they will be there more conveniently dealt with, I will not now do more than quote Richard of St. Victor’s noble comment upon them: “Testis fidelis, quia de omnibus quæ per Eum testificanda erant in mundo testimonium fidele perhibuit. Testis fidelis, quia quæcunque audivit a Patre fideliter discipulis suis nota fecit. Testis fidelis, quia viam Dei in veritate docuit, nec Ei cura de aliquo fuit, nec personas hominum respexit. Testis fidelis, quia reprobis damnationem, et electis salvationem nunciavit. Testis fidelis, quia veritatem quam verbis docuit, miraculis confirmavit. Testis fidelis, quia testimonium Sibi a Patre nec in morte negavit. Testis fidelis, quia de operibus malorum et bonorum in die judicii testimonium verum dabit.”—A reference to the original, where the nominative ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός is in apposition to the genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, will show that we have here one of the many departures from the ordinary grammatical construction, with which this Book abounds. The officious emendations of transcribers have caused a large number of these, though not this-one, to disappear from our received text; but in any critical edition of the Greek original we are struck by their immense multitude. To regard these, which some have done, as evidences of St. John’s helplessness in the management of Greek, is to regard them altogether fromn a wrong point of view. Rather, we should say, to take the case immediately before us, the doctrinal interest here overbears the grammatical. Düsterdieck very well: “Das Gewicht der Vorstellungen selbst durchbricht die Schranken der regelrechten Form; die abrupte Redeweise hebt die gewaltige Selbstindigkeit aller drei Prädicate.” At all costs that all-important ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, with the other two titles of the Lord which follow, shall be maintained in the dignity and emphasis of the casus rectus. Cf. xx. 2, where ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος (changed in the received text into τὸν ὄφιν τὸν ἀρχαῖον) is in like manner in apposition to τὸν δράκοντα, and compare further xiv. 12; but above all, and as making quite clear that St. John adopted these constructions with his eyes open, and for a distinct purpose, the remarkable ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν κ. τ. λ.. of the verse preceding that now under consideration.

“The first begotten of the dead.”—Cf. Col. i. 18, where very nearly the same language occurs, and the same title is given to the Lord: ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν here, πρωτ. ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν there. The phrases are not precisely identical in meaning; and even were they so, the suggestion of Hengstenberg, that St. John here builds upon St. Paul, setting his seal to the prior Apostle’s word, seems to me highly unnatural. Glorious as this language is, who does not feel how easily two Apostles, quite independent of one another, might have arrived at it to express the same blessed truth? Christ is indeed “the first begotten of the dead,” notwithstanding that such raisings from the grave as that of the widow’s son and Lazarus went before. There was for them no repeal of the sentence of death, but a respite only; not to say that even during their period of respite they carried about with them a body of death. Christ first so rose from the dead, that He did not, and could not, die any more (Rom. vi. 9); in this respect was “the first-fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23), the Prince of life (Acts iii. 15). Alcuin: “Primogenitus ideo dicitur quia nullus ante Ipsum non moriturus surrexit.” In this “first begotten” (or “first born from the dead,” as it is Col. i. 18), I do not see the image of the grave as the womb that bare him (λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου, Acts ii. 24); but remembering how often τίκτειν = γεννᾶν, I should rather put this passage in connection with Ps. ii. 7, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee.” It will doubtless be remembered that St. Paul (Acts xiii. 33; cf. Heb. i. 5) claims the fulfilment of these words not in the eternal generation before all time of the Son; still less in his human conception in the Blessed Virgin’s womb; but rather in his resurrection from the dead; “declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. i. 4). On that verse in Ps. ii., and with reference to Acts xiii. 32, Hilary, the depth and distinctly theological value of whose exposition seems to me at this day very imperfectly recognised, has these words: “Filius meus es Tu, Ego hodie genui Te; non ad Virginis partum, neque ad eam quæ ante tempora est generationem, sed ad primogenitum ex mortuis pertinere apostolica auctoritas est.” To Him first, to Him above all others, God said on that day when He raised Him from the dead, and gave Him glory, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.”

“And the Prince of the kings of the earth.”—A manifest reference to Ps. ii. 2, where the “kings of the earth” (compare Rev. vi. 15, for the same phrase used in the same sense), appear in open rebellion against the Christ of God; cf. Acts iv. 26; Ps. cx. 5; lxxxix. 27; Isai. lii. 15; Matt. xxviii. 18. Such a “Prince of the kings of the earth” He becomes in the exaltation which follows on and is most closely connected with his humiliation (Phil. ii. 9; Ps. lxxxix. 27); and shows Himself such at his glorious coming, as set forth in the later parts of this Book, “Lord of lords, and King of kings” (xvii. 14; xix, 16), breaking in pieces all of those “kings of the earth” who set themselves in battle array against Him, receiving the homage of all who are wise in time (Ps. ii. 10-12), and bring their glory and honour to lay them at his feet, and to receive them back at his hands (Rev. xxi. 24).

“Unto Him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”—The words are richer still in comfort, when we read, as we ought, ἀγαπῶντι, and not ἀγαπήσαντι: “Unto Him that loves us,” whose love rests evermore on his redeemed. There is in the Greek theology an old and often-recurring play on the words λύτρον and λουτρόν, words so nearly allied in sound, and both expressing so well, though under images entirely diverse, the central benefits which redound to us through the sacrifice of the death of Christ. It is indeed older than this, and is implicitly involved in the etymology of Apollo, which Plato, whether in jest or in earnest, puts into the mouth of Socrates’ Cratylus, 405 B.): ὁ ἀπολούων τε καὶ ἀπολύων τῶν κακῶν, these κακά being impurities of the body and of the soul. This near resemblance between λύειν and λούειν has given rise to a very interesting variety of readings here. Whichever reading we adopt, λύσαντι or λούσαντι, “who released us,” or “who washed us,” the words yield a beautiful meaning, as in either case they link themselves on to a whole circle of imagery already hallowed and consecrated by Scripture use. If we adopt λύσαντι, the passage then connects itself with all those which speak of Christ having given Himself as a λύτρον (Matt. xx. 28), as an ἀντίλυτρον for us (1 Tim. ii. 6; cf. 1 Pet. i. 18; Heb. ix. 12); as redeeming or purchasing us (Gal. iii. 13; iv. 5; Rev. v. 9; xiv. 3, 4); and somewhat more remotely withas many as describe the condition of sin as a condition of bondage, and Christ as having obtained freedom for us. If on the other hand we read λούσαντι, then the passage connects itself with such others as Ps. li. 4; Isai. i. 16, 18; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Rev. vii. 14; as Acts xxii. 16; Ephes. v. 26; Tit. iii. 5; so, too, with all those which describe the καθαρισμός, the καθαρίζειν, as the end of Christ’s death (1 John i. 7); and somewhat more remotely with as many as under types of the Levitical law set forth the benefits of this heavenly washing (Num. xix. 17-21). The weight of external evidence is so nearly balanced that it is very difficult to say on which side it predominates. For λούσαντι, the reading of the received text, adopted by our Translators, there is B, the Vulgate (“et lavit nos”), Bengel, Tischendorf, Tregelles; for λύσαντι, A, C, and among critical editions, Mill and Lachmann. But the internal evidence I confess appears to ime very much in favour of retaining the reading of the received text, the poetic λούσαντι so agreeable to the poetic character of this Book, rather than the somewhat flat λύσαντι. Then it is quite true that redemption may be contemplated as a λούειν ἐν τῷ αἵματι, but by how much better right, and with how much livelier imagery as a λούειν ἐν τῷ αἵματι, and certainly Rev. vii. 14 points strongly this way.

Ver. 6. “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”—Or rather, and according to the reading which must be preferred, “And hath made us a kingdom [ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν], priests unto God and his Father” (“Et fecit nos regnum, et sacerdotes Deo,” Vulgate). There is a certain apparent inconcinnity in the abstract βασιλείαν joined with the concrete ἱερεῖς, but there can be no question about the reading, and the meaning remains exactly the same; except, indeed, that instead of the emphasis being equally distributed between the two words, the larger portion of it now falls on the first; and this agrees with the prominence given to the reigning of the saints in this Book (v. 10; xx. 4, 6; xxii. 5: cf. Dan. vii. 18, 22).—The royal priesthood of the redeemed (see Exod. xix. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 9) flows out of the royal priesthood of the Redeemer, a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. cx. 4; Zech. vi. 13). That the whole number of the redeemed shall in the world of glory have been made “priests unto God” is the analogon as regards persons to the new Jerusalem being without temple, in other words, being all temple, which is declared further on (xxi. 22); it is the abolition of the distinction between holy and profane (Zech. xiv. 20, 21) nearer and more remote from God, through all being henceforth holy, all being brought to the nearest whereof it is capable, to Him.

“To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”—Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11. A fuller doxology, being threefold, occurs iv. 9, 11; and a fuller yet, being fourfold, at v. 13; cf. Jude 25; and the fullest of all, the sevenfold doxology, at vii. 12; cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 11. A study of these, and a comparison of them with one another, would amply repay the pains bestowed upon it; above all, if it served to remind us of the prominence which the doxological element assumes in the highest worship of the Church, the very subordinate place which it oftentimes takes in ours. We can perhaps make our requests known unto God; and this is well, for it is prayer; but to give glory to God, quite apart from anything to be directly gotten by ourselves in return, this is better, for it is adoration; but it is rarer also, no less than better.

Ver. 7. “Behold, He cometh with clouds.”—The constant recurrence of this language in all descriptions of our Lord’s second advent is very remarkable (Dan. vii. 13; Matt. xxiv. 30; xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62), and all the meaning of it will scarcely be attained till that great day of the Lord shall have itself arrived. This much seems certain, namely, that this accompaniment of clouds (it is μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν) belongs not to the glory and gladness, but to the terror and anguish, of that day; as indeed the context of the present passage would indicate. The clouds have nothing in common with the light-cloud, the νεφέλη φωτεινή (Matt. xvii. 5), “the glorious privacy of light” into which the Lord was withdrawn for a while from the eyes of his disciples at the Transfiguration, but are rather the symbols of wrath, fit accompaniments of judgment: “Clouds and darkness are round about Him; righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne” (Ps. xcvii. 2; cf. xviii. 11; Nah. i. 3; Isai. xix. 1).

“And every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.”—It will sometimes happen that a prophecy, severe in the Old Testament, by some gracious turn will be transformed from a threat to a promise in the New; thus, the “day of visitation” of St. Peter (1 Ep. ii. 12) is another from the “day of visitation” of the prophets,—that to be hoped for, this to be feared. But it is not so here. There is indeed a turn, yet not from the severe to the gracious, but the contrary. The words of the prophet Zechariah (xii. 10), on which this passage and John xix. 37 in common rest, are words of grace: “They shall look upon Me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him.” They express the profound repentance of the Jews, when the veil shall be at length taken from their hearts, and they shall behold in Jesus of Nazareth, whom they crucified, the Son of God, the King of Israel. But it cannot be denied that in their adaptation here they speak quite another language. They set forth the despair of the sinful world, of all the tribes of the earth (cf. Matt. xxiv. 30), when Christ the Judge shall come to execute judgment on all that obeyed not his gospel, who pierced Him with their sins; their remorse and despair, but give no hint of their repentance. The closing words, “Even so, Amen,” are not to be taken as the prophet’s devout acquiescence in the terribleness of that judgment-day,—a comparison with xxii. 20 might easily lead an English reader into this misunderstanding of them,—but as God’s own seal and ratification of his own word.

Ver. 8. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord.”—Cf. xxi. 6, where the words “the beginning and the ending” have a right to a place in the text; but not here; having been transferred from thence, without any authority at all. He who is “Alpha and Omega” (or better, “Alpha and Ω”), and thus indeed “the beginning and the ending,” and “the first and the last” (i. 17; ii. 8), leaves no room for any other; is indeed the only I AM; and beside Him there is no God. Thus Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 25): κύκλος γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων εἰς ἓν εἰλουμένων καὶ ἑνουμένων· διὰ τοῦτο Ἄλφα καὶ Ω εἄρηται· and Tertullian, bringing out the unity of the Old and New Testaments, and the manner in which the glorious consummations of the latter attach themselves to the glorious commencements of the former (De Monog. v.): “Sic et duas Græciæ litteras summam et ultimam sibi induit Dominus, initii et finis concurrentium in se figuras; uti quemadmodum α ad ω usque volvitur, et rursus ω ad α explicatur, ita ostenderet in se esse et initii decursum ad finem, et finis recursum ad initium; ut omnis dispositio in Eum desinens, per quem cœ pta est, per Sermonem scilicet Dei qui caro factus est, proinde desit quemadmodum et cœ pit.”

“Which is and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”—Cf. ver. 4. Παντοκράτωρ, which only occurs once in the New Testament (2 Cor. vi. 18) except in this Book, is a constant word in the Septuagint. “The Lord of Hosts” of the Hebrew is there sometimes κύριος δυνάμεων, or στρατιῶν, or σαβαώθ but oftener, I think, κύριος παντοκράτωρ, as at Jer. iii. 19; Amos iii. 13; Hab. ii. 13. It is clear that the Old Testament uses of παντοκράτωρ, so very distinctly fixed as they are, must quite overrule and determine the New Testament employment of it; and thus the ingenious speculations of Gregory of Nyssa, and other Greek Fathers (see Suicer, s. v.), in which they seek a special meaning for it, and find it to express of God, that He holds all creation in his grasp, preserving it from that ruin and collapse which would at once overtake it, if not evermore sustained by his creative Word, prove nothing worth. This, grand an attribute as it is of the Godhead (Heb. i. 3), is assuredly not that which specially lies in παντοκράτωρ, for it is not that which it brought from the earlier Covenant.

Ver. 9. “I John, who also am your brother.”—The only other writer either in the Old Testament or the New who uses this style is Daniel—“I Daniel” (vii. 28; ix. 2; x. 2). It is one of the many points of resemblance, small and great, between this Book and that of Daniel. The καὶ, represented by “also” in our Version, and modifying this whole clause, should have no place in the text. It may have been suggested by 1 Pet. v. 1; and was probably inserted by some who esteemed ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν too humble a title for one of the great pillars of the Church; and by that καὶ would make him to say, “who, being an Apostle, am also a brother.”