Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The figure ‘like a son of man’ in John's initial vision on Patmos, after identifying himself as ‘the first and the last and the living one’ who ‘died and behold I am alive for ever and ever’, (Rev 1.17– 18), directs the prophet in v. 19 to ‘Write therefore the things you have seen [ἃ ε
δες] and the things that are [ἃ εἰσίν] and the things that are going to happen afterward [ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι μετà τα
τα].’ This pronouncement is commonly regarded as a clue of some kind to the structure or message of the Book of Revelation, yet it is seldom discussed in detail by the commentators.
1 Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.) is similarly cautious, adopting the division but calling it ‘rough and superficial’ (21).Google Scholar
2 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 1.33Google Scholar; Ernst Lohmeyer puts it even more succinctly: ‘Die drei Relativsätze skizzieren flüchtig Inhalt und Ordnung des Buches; der 1. = 1.9–20, der 2. = c. 2, 3, der 3. (in 4.1 wieder aufgenommen) = c. 4–21’ (Die Offenbarung des Johannes [HNT 16; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953] 19Google Scholar).
3 See especially Beckwith, I. T., The Apocalypse of John (New York: Macmillan, 1922)Google Scholar: ‘The two clauses then define what has been seen in the visions; and καί, before ἃ είσίν, is not and; it is epexegetical, even, that is, a use occurring in numberless cases in the book’ (443); cf. also Mounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 82Google Scholar; Caird, G. B., A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 26Google Scholar; Beasley-Murray, G. R., The Book of Revelation (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1974) 68.Google Scholar
4 Caird, 26.
5 The principle involved in this interpretation is carried a step further in the suggestion of G. K. Beale in a paper at the SBL Meeting in Anaheim, California in November 1989. Beale proposes that all three expressions may refer to the whole book, first as what John sees, second as what is present to him, third as what Daniel said would take place ‘after this’ or ‘in the latter days’ (cf. Dan 2.28–29, 45).
6 A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Andover: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1845) 2. 54.Google Scholar
7 Stuart, 2. 54; cf. Stuart's German contemporary, de Wette, W. M. L., Kurze Erklärung der Offenbarung Johannis (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1848)Google Scholar, who translated, ‘was du gesehen … und was es ist oder bedeutet’ – in contrast to ‘was (gegenwärtig) ist’- concluding with ‘was nach diesem geschehen wird’ (40). It should be noticed that this interpretation seems to take the pronoun in the phrase ἃ είσίν as predicate rather than subject (not ‘the things that are’, but ‘the things they are’). This issue can no more be settled grammatically than can the question of whether the pronouncement γώ είμι standing by itself should be translated ‘I am’ or ‘It is I.’ Nor is the context much help: the pronoun in the preceding ἃ εδες is predicate, while the pronoun in the phrase that follows, ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι, is subject. The translation ‘what they are’ does not necessarily rest on a specific grammatical judgement, but is simply an effort to convey in English what the Greek may imply in light of certain uses of εἰσίν elsewhere in the book.
8 See, e.g., Düsterdieck, F., Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch über die Offenbarung Johannis, 4e Aufl. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1887) 133Google Scholar; Bousset, W., Die Offenbarung Johannis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896) 231.Google Scholar
9 The appeal to v. 20 is evident in the comment of J. A. Seiss that the command of Jesus to John ‘was not only to write what he had seen, but also “what they are”. Nor was John unfaithful to the charge. He has written “what they are” and we have the explanation in Christ's own words …' [he then cites v. 20] (The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.] 50).
10 Some manuscripts read ‘seven spirits of God’, as in 4.5. It is unclear whether the ‘spirits of God’ are meant to interpret only the eyes of the Lamb or the horns as well. The masculine relative οἴ suggests the former, but both textual variation and John's imprecise grammar make certainty impossible.
11 Cf. especially the prophecies of Zechariah, e.g., 1.9,19; 4.4–6,10b-14; 5.6; and 6.4–8.
12 God speaks explicitly in the Book of Revelation only twice, in 1.8 and 21.5.
13 Cf., perhaps, the uses of οὐκ εἰσίν, ‘are not’, in the seven messages of chapters 2–3 to refer to people who falsely claim to be something they are not, whether ‘apostles’ (2.2), or ‘Jews’ (2.9, 3.9).
14 Expressions with ‘I am’ are used by Christ (Rev 1.17–18; 2.23; 22.16), God (1.8; 21.6), and the angel (19.10; 22.9).
15 There is no reason to believe it is the only way. We can probably assume that all the beatitudes in the Book of Revelation (e.g., 16.15; 20.6; 22.7,14) and all affirmations of the truth of the prophecy (e.g., 22.6) could appropriately have been prefixed with the command to ‘Write’.
16 Not surprisingly, a number of ancient manuscripts read, ‘sent me, his angel’, at this point – in all probability a scribal insertion to alleviate the reader's difficulty.
