Verse 4:[1] John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him (Ex. 3:14; Rev. 1:8) which is, and (John 1:1) which was, and which is to come; (Zech. 3:9; 4:10; Rev. 3:1; 4:5; 5:6) and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne…
[John to the seven Churches (the names of which are related in verse 11 [Piscator]) which are in Asia] Namely, Asia Minor (Ribera, Zegers, Cluverus, Menochius), in which these seven cities were (Ribera): or, in Asia, properly so called, where the Kingdom of Gog had been[2] (Grotius): in Asia, Lydian or Proconsular, as the Most Reverend Ussher demonstrates in great detail in a tractate concerning this matter:[3] thus Asia is taken in Acts 19:26 and 20:18 (Hammond). To the seven, that is, either, 1. to all the Churches (Bede and Arethas[4] in Ribera, thus a great many in Pererius): for the whole is wont to be designated by number seven (Ribera), which is the number of perfection (Pareus). Or, 2. to seven properly (Pererius, Ribera, Pareus), since they are διακριτικῶς/separately named (Pareus, similarly Pererius). Now, unto those he writes in particular (Grotius); either, 1. because they were more excellent than the others (Cluverus, Durham), and were the principal cities (Grotius), and the metropolitan cities (Apocalyptic Harmony, Hammond); as the seat of the Roman Proconsuls, as testify Ulpianus,[5] Ptolemy[6] in his Geography 1, 2, and Pliny[7] in his Natural History 6:29, 30 (Hammond): or, 2. because, as long as he was able, he, being present, had governed those (Grotius); because they had fallen to him in the division of the lands, and he had taught in them for a long time (Ribera); because they had been founded either by himself (Jerome in Apocalyptic Harmony), or rather were founded by Peter and Paul, but were taken up and cared for by John after the martyrdom of those: or, 3. because these were having a need for correction more than others: or, 4. because here the propagation of the Gospel first flourished (Apocalyptic Harmony): or, 5. because heresies were springing forth there, and the Christians were disquieted, and there was a danger that they might fall away from the sincerity of the faith (Pererius): and upon these Churches he had foreseen that the fury of Satan was first going to lie (Apocalyptic Harmony, similarly Durham). But under the name of them he tacitly comprehends also other Churches, for their states and qualities are able to be applied unto seven classes, as it were, an example of which classes those Asiatic Churches provide (Grotius). What he writes to these seven churches he writes to all others; just as Paul, what things he wrote to the Romans or Corinthians, wrote for the use of all the faithful also (Menochius, similarly Durham). And John wished this Prophecy to be transmitted from these Churches to the others (Durham). John made those Churches repositories of this book, so that by them it might be kept and carried to all Christians. But also those seven Churches, distinct with respect to locations, were enigmatically signifying the universal Church in distinct times all the way unto the end of the world. What? Does Christ walk only among the seven Churchs? or hold only the seven stars in His hand? or is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of these only? And what morning star arose to the Church of Thyatira according to promise? And what notable preservation of the Philadelphian Church? Neither is it proven that the remaining things written here happened in those Churches. Therefore, by their names he understands the Church of all times (Cocceius).
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: John, the apostle and evangelist, writes either to all the churches of Asia under the notion of seven, (which is the number of perfection,) or to those seven churches mentioned Revelation 1:11, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, seven famous places in Asia the Less, where the gospel was planted; which being the most famous churches in that part of the world, John is commanded to deposit this prophecy in their hands, by them to be communicated unto other churches. These churches were in the most famous cities of the Lesser Asia: some think John was the apostle that preached most in Asia, and founded these churches; others, that though they were founded by Peter and Paul, yet after their death John took upon him the charge of them. It is the opinion of some learned men, that the apostle did not, in the epistles to the churches in Asia, design only to tell them of their error, and prescribe to their cure; but that in writing to them, he assigns both a prophetical instruction of us all concerning the state of the church in all periods from that time to the day of judgment, and also to reprove and counsel all present and succeeding churches; but of this we may possibly speak more afterward.
[Grace (understand, be [Beza, Piscator]) unto you, and peace] It is the Apostolic Salutation (Lapide, Menochius, thus Ribera, Grotius, Cotterius), received from Christ (Lapide): as in 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; and elsewhere (Grotius). He prays for them the favor of God (Lapide, Menochius), or the friendship of God, and the remission of sins (Ribera), and every good thing (Lapide, Menochius, Ribera).
Grace be unto you, and peace: grace and peace is the common apostolical salutation, as to the sense of which we have often spoken: the apostle wisheth them the free love of God, that is, grace, and the seal of it, Romans 5:1, peace with God and their own consciences, and each with other.
[From Him, etc., ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος] It is a solecism[8] (Revius). Erasmus denies that these words have sense, and Gagnæus after him: which saying is as impolite and audacious as it is false (Ribera). Therefore, they construe that in Exodus 3:14, I will be has sent me.[9] Evidently nothing will be allowed to the Holy Spirit that is not pleasing to Priscianus.[10] So that they do not allow that God pronounces His names as ἄκλιτα/indeclinable, who is Himself ἄκλιτος/unchangeable (Pareus). They ineptly reprehend this here as a barbarism, while no greater emphasis is able to be added for describing the essence of God (Apocalyptic Harmony). The construction is able to be freed from difficulty in a variety of ways (Gomar). 1. John wished to express the name יְהוָֹה/Jehovah, and its interpretation, Exodus 3:14 (Cluverus out of Beza, thus Apocalyptic Harmony, Schmidt), by which is signified He who is the fountain of being, unaltered in the eternal flux or present continuum (Apocalyptic Harmony): for אֶהְיֶה is used three times, Present, Past, and Future,[11] and by this he signifies the most perfect stability of God (Beza out of the Hebrews). Therefore, he wished ὢν/being, ἦν, He was, and ἐρχόμενος/ coming to be taken, not as Participles, but as proper Names, that is to say, from the One who is, and He was, and the One who is Coming, and therefore the masculine article is set before. But, since proper Names also are inflected, why did he not say τοῦ ὄντος, etc?[12] Response: Because the name יְהוָֹה/Jehovah is always uniform; therefore John does not wish even the article to be inflected, as if even that is a part of the proper name (Beza). He is unwilling to decline these articles and participles, so that he might show forth all the more the immutability of God; as Proclus says τοῦ ἕν, of the one,[13] on Timæus,[14] as we said on Mark 6:40.[15] Indeed, because εἰμὶ , I am, does not have a past Participle, for the signification of the Past he was constrained to use a word in the Indicative mood.[16] Thus also Revelation 4:8 and 11:17. Now, ἐρχόμενος signifies the same thing as futurus, going to be, in Latin, as in Revelation 4:8; John 16:13;[17] Acts 18:21;[18] and elsewhere. Thus the Hebrews use הבא, the coming one. Thus also 1 Thessalonians 1:10;[19] τῆς ἐρχομένης is the same as τῆς μελλούσης in Matthew 3:7 and Luke 3:7.[20] See also Hebrews 10:37[21] (Grotius). These three, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , who is, who was, who is to come, are here after the likeness of indeclinable names. For thus the ὁ ὢν is to be declined: ὁ ὁ ὢν, τοῦ ὁ ὢν, τῷ ὁ ὢν[22] (Cotterius). He uses Greek Participles as ἄπτωτα, not involving different cases, and he declines, or makes them to be of a certain case, by means of the article set before. Thus in verse 5, ὁ μάρτυς, the Witness, is joined with the Genitive:[23] and in Luke 22:20,[24] τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον agrees with αἵματί (Cocceius). 2. There is here an ellipsis of the word ὄντος[25] (Gomar out of Camerarius, similarly Glassius), as in Matthew 22:21, τὰ Καίσαρος, the of Cæsar, understanding ὄντα/things:[26] in Luke 2:49, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, in the of my Father, that is, οὖσι/things:[27] 1 Corinthians 13:5;[28] etc. (Glassius’ “Grammar” 3:2:1:170). 3. The article τοῦ could be put in the place of τούτου [as τῆς is put in the place of ταύτης in verse 3,[29] according to Grotius], and the article set before, that is, ὁ, is in the place of ὃς/who:[30] Neither is unusual in good authors, and [both] are found in Scripture (Gomar). [They render the words in this way:] Verbatim: Ab Ens,[31] ab Id quod erat,[32] et ab Is qui venturus est[33] (Schmidt). From Who (or, from He who [Erasmus, Montanus]) is, and Who was, and Who is going to come (Beza, Piscator, Montanus, Erasmus, etc.). Thus also Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol,[34] etc., treating of the Eternality of God, thus says, He was, and He is, and He will be gloriously. And certainly by this periphrasis Eternity is aptly expressed, which is soon signified by those phrases, τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, the Alpha and the Omega, ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, the beginning and the ending,[35] ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, the first and the last[36] (Louis Cappel). It denotes not only eternity, or immutability, but rather a manifestation of Himself as the Sanctifier of men by grace: which manifestation has especially three occasions, 1. of promise: 2. of the exhibition of Christ: 3. of the kingdom consummated. He is said, therefore, to be, because at that time He was manifesting Himself by the preaching of the Gospel: to have been, because He had previously manifested Himself by the word of promise, and by deeds agreeable to that: to come, because He was going to manifest Himself afterwards, both on the day of judgment, and in those things which are described in this book; all which are forerunners of that day (Cocceius). He is God, that is, our Savior, as He promised from the beginning; and He was such even before the ages; and He is going to be certainly and invariably, or, He comes, about to reveal the riches of His beneficence in the next age (Cluverus). Now, this description is referred, either, 1. to the entire Trinity (certain interpreters in Cluverus, thus Pererius, Ribera), but indistinctly (Pererius), so that all parts pertain unto the individual persons (Ribera). Or, 2. unto the Father (Cotterius, Cluverus, Apocalyptic Harmony, Durham, Cocceius), as it is proven from the distinction from the other two persons (Cocceius), as the fount of Deity (Durham, Cluverus); yet in such a way that the Son and Holy Spirit are not excluded (Durham). Now, he makes use of this description, either, 1. so that the essence of God might be better expressed; so that tyrants might see with whom they have to do: or, 2. because of idolaters, adoring Creatures, not the Creator (Apocalyptic Harmony).
From him which is, and which was, and which is to come: these words are a description of God, particularly of Jesus Christ in his eternity and immutability: he was from eternity; he is now; and he shall be for ever. Or, (as some,) he was in his promises before his incarnation; he is now God manifested in the flesh; and he is to come as a Judge, to judge the quick and the dead. This was an ancient name of God, Exodus 3:14, I am that I am…. I AM hath sent me unto you. These words interpret the name Jehovah.
[And from the seven spirits which are before His throne (thus Beza, etc.)] The seven spirits here are, either, 1. Angels (certain interpreters in Grotius, Pererius, Ribera, Lapide, Menochius, Beza, Drusius,[37] Hammond, Mede, Rheims[38]), as also in Revelation 5:6 and 8:2. So many thought, because it was received among the Hebrews that there are seven chief Angels who stand near to God, that is, just as seven Princes were standing near to the King of the Persians;[39] because this palace was the most magnificent of all, the Hebrews imagine the palace of God in accordance with it. See Tobit 12:15;[40] Matthew 18:10; and what things were said by us in both places. Add The Shepherd of Hermas[41] 2:9 and Clement’s Stromata 6 (Grotius). Now, here are understood, either, the entire body of the Angels, which is designated by the number seven (certain interpreters in Ribera), to which it is objected that not one or two times, but often and always, seven is used, which indicates a certain and definite number (Ribera): or, the Angels of these seven Churches (certain interpreters in Pererius), or rather, the seven principal Angels (Pererius, thus Ribera, Lapide, Hammond), the primary administrators of divine providence concerning the government of the Church, and indeed even of the world (Pererius, similarly Ribera): whom others call Archangels (Drusius). Now, it is apparent that Angels are to be understood, from a comparison with Revelation 5:6 (Mede’s Works 1111 out of Beza), where those seven spirits are called the horns and eyes of the lamb, that is, ministers (Beza): and with Revelation 8:2, where they are expressly called the seven Angels which stand before God (Mede’s Works 1111): and with Revelation 15:6, 7 (Ribera), and Zechariah 4:10, those are the seven eyes of the Lord, etc. Consult Tobit 12:15 (Mede’s Works 1111). [To others this opinion does not satisfy, and they oppose it in this way:] 1. It is absurd that Angels should be placed in the same order and society with Divine persons (certain interpreters in Pererius), and placed before Christ (certain interpreters in Ribera, thus Gomar, Estius). Response: They are reckoned in this place, not as equals, but as ministers (Pererius): but they are set before Christ because He is here treated according to His human nature, with respect to which He was inferior to the Angels (Ribera). On the contrary, Christ according to the glory of His humanity is above the Angels and is their head, Ephesians 1:21 (Estius). 2. There is another weightier argument, that what is given by God alone is not to be attributed to Angels (Gomar). It is absurd that grace and peace would be sought from Angels (certain interpreters in Pererius, thus Gomar, Pareus), who are neither the authors, nor givers, of it (certain interpreters in Pererius). There is in Sacred Scripture no promise or example of the grace and peace of God sought and given by Angels or any creature (Gomar). Good Theology does not bear that these things were sought from Angels (Pareus). Response: 1. These things are sought from them, not as the authors, but as the instruments of God in the dispensing of them (Mede’s Diatribes 10:55,[42] thus Pererius). See Hebrews 1:14. 2. The prayer here is directed to God (Mede), not to the seven spirits (Hammond, thus Mede), whether immediately or ultimately (Hammond). This is not a prayer, but a wish, which is directed to God as the giver (certain interpreters in Gomar); but He makes mention of the Angels as instruments through whom He gives these things in His own way, in the manner of keeping, etc. Therefore, there is nothing here in support of the invocation of Angels (Gomar). Now, why is it not lawful to seek from God grace and peace from the Ministry, whether external of the word, or invisible of Angels? It is certainly lawful to seek from God blessing by an instrument, which blessing He is wont to give by that instrument (Mede’s Diatribes 10:55). But no equivocation ought to be contrived here. This particle ἀπὸ/from, here thrice repeated, relates συνωνύμως, or univocally, that it is sought from God and from the seven spirits and from Christ, as from operating causes, or rather from one cause, the Triune God. Therefore, a religious supplication is treated here. Now, all worship of angels is condemned, Colossians 2:18; Revelation 19:10; 22:9 (Pareus). God alone is to be worshipped, Matthew 4:10; neither does God bestow His own glory upon another, Isaiah 42:8 (Gomar). This is not a prayer, but only a salutation (Mede, Hammond); and grace and peace are here able to be taken, not strictly, but broadly, so that he might express the favor and blessing of God in general, and all prosperity, which things God is certainly wont to give by the ministry of Angels (Mede). [These things concerning the first opinion.] 2. He that will judge all things rightly, and will bring in Revelation 5:6 for comparison, where the Spirits are called the eyes of God, by which eyes we said on Zechariah 4:10 to be signified the manifold providence of God, will rather proceed to the point that he might here esteem those seven members of divine providence, named in Revelation 5:12 and 7:12, to be denoted. And thus it will be ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, an hendiadys. For peace is desired from God and the seven spirits, that is, from God operating by these seven modes. He confirms this interpretation, insofar as in Revelation 5 the Spirits and Angels are distinguished (Grotius). 3. By the seven spirits the Holy Spirit is understood (Cotterius, Cluverus, Pareus, Brightman, Gomar, Durham, Apocalyptic Harmony, Gagnæus). This is the common interpretation. Thus Ambrose, Andreas Cæsarius, Primasius,[43] Rupertus,[44] and a great many other great men, take it (Pererius, similarly Ribera). This is evident, 1. from a comparison with Revelation 4:5, where the seven spirits are said to be seven burning lamps. Now, the Holy Spirit is often compared to a fire, as in Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:3. 2. And especially from a comparison with Revelation 5:6, where the seven spirits are clearly distinguished from the four beasts, which are Angels. Where also those spirits are said both to be in the midst of the throne, and to have been sent into all the earth, while Angels are not able at the same time to be in heaven and on earth (Cartwright[45]). 3. Because in that very place these seven spirits are defined to be the seven horns and seven eyes of the Lamb (Cartwright, Cluverus, Durham). The eyes denote His omniscience; the horns, His omnipotence (Durham). Now, Christ sees not with the eyes of Angels and others, but with His own; and Christ is mighty with horns, or power, not of Angels and others, but with His own (Gomar, Cartwright). Now, the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit is the power and wisdom of the Son, inasmuch as the Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son (Cartwright). Consult Zechariah 3:9, where upon that singular stone, which beyond controversy is the Messiah, seven eyes are said to be, that is, the most perfect wisdom of the Spirit, etc. Add Revelation 3:1, These things saith He that hath the seven spirits of God. But Christ (according to the flesh, let us suppose) is not anointed with the power, nor does He see by the wisdom, of Angels, but of the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; John 3:34; Acts 10:38. Neither is the throne of God illuminated by Angels, but by the Spirit. Neither are Angels able to see the secrets of the book of God, except they be revealed by the Spirit of Christ, Revelation 5:2, 3 (Cluverus). 4. Because, while in Revelation 4 and 5 the living creatures and the elders worship God, the seven spirits are never read to worship God: by which it is indicated that, not a creature, but the creator is understood (Gomar, Apocalyptic Harmony). [To others this opinion does not satisfy, which they thus assail:] 1. These spirits are seven; therefore, these are not the Holy Spirit, who is one (certain interpreters in Gomar). Response: A multiplicity of persons is not here denoted, but an infinite variety of gifts (Cartwright, similarly Gomar), 1 Corinthians 12:4 (Gomar), whence the sevenfold spirit is given to Christ, Isaiah 11:2, 3 (Gomar, similarly the Apocalyptic Harmony). Neither is it alien to the prophetic and figurative style that the Spirit would be called by seven gifts, by a Metonymy of Effect in the place of the cause, just as contrariwise the gifts of the Spirit are called the Spirit, John 7:39, by a Metonymy of Cause in the place of the effect. Thus the one providence of God is indicated by innumerable eyes in Ezekiel,[46] and the one person of Christ is signified by various shadows in the Old Testament (Gomar). By a similar mode of speaking God is said to place of the Spirit, or a portion of the Spirit, upon someone; likewise the spirits of the prophets, 1 Corinthians 14:32 (Cocceius). Now, the Spirit of God is called the seven spirits (Cotterius), either, 1. because this number is sacred in this book (Durham): or, 2. so that every sort of perfection might be attributed to Him (Cotterius), the seven spirits, that is, the sevenfold Spirit (Pererius, Ribera, Cotterius), that is, the omnifold Spirit. Now, I have preferred to say the seven spirits, so that it might signify that the perfections of that Spirit are not accidents, as in us, but His essence, and that all those subsist οὐσιωδῶς/ essentially in the Divine essence (Cotterius). Or, 3. because He was flowing into these seven Churches (Apocalyptic Harmony, thus Cocceius), as if the spirit of the individual Churches was His own (Cocceius). [These things concerning the first argument.] 2. The Holy Spirit is on the throne, as Lord and God (Ribera), not, as here, before the throne; which is of subordinates and ministers, who stand prepared to carry out and execute commands (Pererius, similarly Ribera), as it is evident out of Zechariah 3:7; 6:5; Tobit 12:15 (Ribera). Response: The expression, to be, or to stand, before the throne does not always and necessarily denote inequality and separation. For as the Holy Spirit, although equal with respect to essence to the Father, with respect to voluntary office and by dispensation is said to be sent by the Father and the Son (Gomar); thus in this place to be before the throne is used, that is, to be prompt to fulfill one’s duty (Gomar, similarly Durham), to be present with the Father and the Son, who by the Spirit exhibit grace and consolation to the people of God (Durham). By this, to be before the throne, it is denoted that the Holy Spirit both was given to us by Christ, and that He is to us παράκλητον, a Helper: consult Romans 8:26, 27 (Cocceius). [This is the second argument.] 3. The order is incompatible, because this is set before the Son (certain interpreters in Gomar). Response 1: Among the persons of the Trinity the order is often confounded, as in Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 5:5; etc., neither is this absurd, on account of the equality and unity of all. Response 2: Wisely and opportunely is He here set before, either, lest the proper order of speech be interrupted (Gomar); because concerning the Son he was going to say more things (Cocceius, thus the Apocalyptic Harmony, Gomar, Cluverus), and was going finish the salutation in δοξολογίᾳ, a doxology, of Him: or, lest an inequality be thought in the Trinity; or, lest someone understand the seven spirits, if they be subjoined in the last place, of angels: or, so that he might insinuate the proper character of the Holy Spirit, who is, as it were, the love and bond of the Father and the Son (Cluverus).
And from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; it is very difficult to determine what is meant by the seven Spirits here before the throne: we read of them also, Revelation 3:1; 4:5; 5:6. Christ is described, Revelation 3:1, as having the seven Spirits of God. It is said, Revelation 4:5, that the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, are the seven Spirits of God; and Revelation 5:6, that the Lamb’s seven eyes were the seven Spirits of God. This is all the light we have from Scripture. Some think they are seven angels that are here meant. We read, Revelation 8:2, of seven angels that stood before God; and in Revelation 15:6-8, there is a like mention of seven angels; and Zechariah 4:2, 10, Zechariah had a vision of seven lamps, and seven pipes, which, Zechariah 4:10, are said to be the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth. But John saluting the churches with grace and peace from these seven Spirits, and joining them with Christ, they do not seem to be creatures, angels, that are here meant, but such a Being from whom grace and peace cometh. Others therefore understand by them, the seven workings of Divine Providence in his management of the affairs of the world, with relation to the church, of which we shall read after; but this also seems hard. The sense seems to be, and from the Holy Ghost, who, though but one spiritual Being, yet exerteth his influence many ways, and by various manifestations, called here seven Spirits, because all flow from the same Spirit. They are therefore called, Revelation 4:5, burning lamps; the Holy Ghost descending in the appearance of fire, Acts 2:3, 4, and being compared to fire, Matthew 3:11. They are called the Lamb’s seven eyes and seven horns, Revelation 5:6. Christ had the Spirit without measure;[47] and the Holy Spirit is oft called the Spirit of Christ.[48] This seemeth the best sense; the reader may find the objections to it answered in Mr. Pool’s Synopsis Criticorum upon this verse.
[1] Greek: Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ.
[2] It is thought that Gog was located in the region between and around the Black and Caspian seas. See Genesis 10:2.
[3] A Geographical and Historical Disquisition, Touching the Asia properly so Called, the Lydian Asia (Which Is the Asia so often Mentioned in the New Testament), the Proconsular Asia, and the Asian Diocese.
[4] Arethas of Cæsarea (ninth century) was a Greek Orthodox bishop and scholar. He compiled a scholia on the Apocalypse, the oldest extant.
[5] Domitius Ulpianus (d. 228 AD) was a Roman jurist.
[6] Claudius Ptolemæus (c. 90-c. 168), of Roman Alexandria, was a scientist and thinker of great profundity; and his contribution to the fields of geography and astronomy in the Western world has been enormous.
[7] Gaius Plinius Secundus, or Pliny the Elder (23-79), distinguished himself as a learned author, a distinguished Roman Procurator, and a courageous soldier.
[8] A solecism is a violation of normal grammar rules. Note here the shift from the Genitive case (τοῦ, from Him) to the Nominative case (ὁ/who).
[9] Exodus 3:14b: “…Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי) unto you.”
[10] Priscianus Cæsariensis (late fifth, early sixth century) wrote a Latin grammar, Institutiones Grammaticæ. Priscianus’ illustrations of grammatical principles preserve portions of works which are otherwise lost.
[11] Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I am that I am (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am (אֶהְיֶה) hath sent me unto you.”
[12] Observe here that the participle is brought here to match the case of the Genitive article.
[13] Here, ἕν/one, in the Nominative or Accusative case, takes the Genitive article.
[14] Proclus was a fifth century bishop of Constantinople, and a friend of Chrysostom. He wrote a commentary on Plato’s Timæus.
[15] Mark 6:40: “And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties (καὶ ἀνέπεσον πρασιαὶ πρασιαί, ἀνὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα).”
[16] Ὤν and ἐρχόμενος are participles; ἦν is in the indicative mood.
[17] John 16:13b: “…but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (τὰ ἐρχόμενα).”
[18] Acts 18:21a: “But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh (τὴν ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐρχομένην) in Jerusalem…”
[19] 1 Thessalonians 1:10: “And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come (ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης).”
[20] Luke 3:7b: “…O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come (ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς)?” The same expression is found in Matthew 3:7.
[21] Hebrews 10:37: “For yet a little while, and he that shall come ( 9O e0rxo/menoj) will come, and will not tarry.”
[22] Since the ὁ ὢν is not declined, the case is indicated by the article.
[23] Revelation 1:5a: “And from Jesus Christ (Ἰησοῦ Χριστου, in the Genitive case), who is the faithful witness (ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, in the Nominative case)…”
[24] Luke 22:20: “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup (τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, Nominative, neuter) is the new testament in the blood (ἐν τῷ αἵματί, Dative, neuter) of me, which is shed (τὸ—ἐκχυνόμενον, Nominative, neuter) for you.”
[25] Revelation 1:4b: “…Grace be unto you, and peace, from (ἀπὸ, supply ὄντος, the one, in the Genitive case, expected after ἀπὸ) who is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne…”
[26] Matthew 22:21b: “…Render therefore unto Caesar the of Caesar (τὰ Καίσαρος, supplying things)…”
[27] Luke 2:49b: “…wist ye not that I must be about the of my Father (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, supplying things)?”
[28] 1 Corinthians 13:5a: “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not the of herself (τὰ ἑαυτῆς, understanding ὄντα/things)…”
[29] Revelation 1:3a: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy (τῆς προφητείας, with the article τῆς having the force of the demonstrative ταύτης/this)…”
[30] The relative pronoun in the Nominative case.
[31] Ab/from takes the Ablative Case; here, it takes the Nominative Ens, the being One.
[32] Ab/from takes the Ablative Case; here, it takes the Nominative Id/it. Literally: From It which was.
[33] Ab/from takes the Ablative Case; here, it takes the Nominative Is/He. Literally: From He who is going to come.
[34] Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol (c. 1021-c. 1058) was a Spanish poet and Neoplatonic philosopher.
[35] Verse 8.
[36] Verse 11.
[37] John Drusius (1550-1616) was a Protestant, who excelled in Oriental studies, Biblical exegesis, and critical interpretation, as is evident from his Annotationes in Pentateuchum, Josuam, Judices, Ruth, Samuelem, Estheram, Jobum, Coheleth, seu Ecclesiasten, Prophetas Minores, Ecclesiasticum, Tobit, 1 Librum Machabæorum; Notæ Majores in Genesin, Exodum, Leviticum, et Priora 18 Capita Numerorum; Annotata in Novum Testamentum. He served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Oxford (1572), at Louvain (1577), and at Franeker (1585).
[38] This is a reference to notes attached to the Douay-Rheims translation. The Douay Old Testament (1609) and the Rheims New Testament (1587) constitute the Douay-Rheims Bible. It is a Roman Catholic English Version of the Latin Vulgate.
[39] See Ezra 7:14.
[40] Tobit 12:15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.”
[41] The Shepherd of Hermas was written in either the late first century, or mid-second century. The work consists of five visions, twelve mandates, and ten parables, in which the Church is called to repentance; the method of instruction is allegorical. It was considered canonical by some early Christians.
[42] On Zechariah 4:10.
[43] Primasius (sixth century) was Bishop of Adrumentum in Africa, and a disciple of Augustine. He wrote Commentarium in Apocalypsim.
[44] Rupertus (1091-1135) was a learned Benedictine, Abbot of Tuits on the Rhine. The citation is likely taken from his commentary In Apocalypsim.
[45] Thomas Cartwright (c. 1535-1603) was an English Presbyterian and Puritan leader. He wrote A Plaine Explanation of the Whole Revelation of Saint John.
[46] See Ezekiel 1:18, for example.
[47] John 3:34.
[48] For example, Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11.