Revelation 1:7

A reminiscence and adaptation of Daniel 7:13 (Theod.) and Zechariah 12:10-14. The substitution of ἐξεκέντησαν (so John 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 דקרו) shows that the original text was used (though Lücke 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 Matthew 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. Zechariah 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 John 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 Revelation 14:14 f., Revelation 19:12 f., do not adequately correspond to Revelation 1:7; Revelation 22:12, etc. (c) No punishment of the Jews occurs at Christ's return, for the vengeance of Revelation 19:13 f. falls on pagans, while Revelation 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. Revelation 18:9 in diff. sense); a realistic statement of what is spiritually put in John 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” (Mark 14:62 = Matthew 26:64, significant change in Luke 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 Revelation 12:4 f. ναὶ, ἀμήν : a double (Gk. Heb.) ratification of the previous oracle.