Revelation 18:24

Again, as at Revelation 18:20, the change of style (here from an apostrophe to a description) and spirit (Revelation 17:6) marks an insertion by the final editor, unless the verse originally lay after Revelation 18:3. The triple rhythm corresponds to that of Revelation 18:20. Rome has now succeeded Jerusalem (Matthew 23:35, etc.) as the arch-enemy of the faithful. The climax of her iniquities is couched in terms of the primitive Semitic idea (Genesis 4:10) that exposed and discovered blood is a cry for vengeance [2Ma 8:3 f.]; blood violently shed wails till it is appeased by the punishment of the murderers. By a natural hyperbole, Rome is held responsible for the murders, judicial and otherwise, of saints and prophets and the slain of Israel in general substituted here for the “apostles” of Revelation 18:20, probably to include the Jews killed in the recent war as well as pre-Christian martyrs like the Maccabees of whom Augustine finely says: nondum quidem erat mortuus Christus, sed martyres eos fecit moriturus Christus (Hebrews 1:11 to Hebrews 12:1). Rome here is the last and worst exponent of persecution. Her collapse is attributed to their blood drawing down God's utter retribution. “My blood be on the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say” (Jeremiah 51:35, imprecating successfully the divine revenge, Jeremiah 51:36; Jeremiah 51:49). As Chrysostom called Psalms 109. a prophecy in the shape of a curse, this vehement, sensitive oracle against Rome's insolence and cruelty may be termed a curse in the form of a prophecy. A similar idea underlay the view of certain pious people who, according to Josephus (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 23. 20 21), considered the fall of Jerusalem a retribution for the foul murder of James the Just nearly ten years before.

The doom-song is followed by an outburst of celestial triumph (Revelation 19:1-8) in answer to Revelation 18:20. The conclusion as well as the commencement of the victory (Revelation 12:12 f.) is hymned in heaven. The stern, exultant anthem, which is morally superior to the delight voiced by En. xlvii. 4, forms an overture to the final movement of the Apocalypse, as well as (like Revelation 7:9 f., Revelation 14:1-5) a relief to the sombre context. 8 b is a prosaic editorial gloss, probably due to the liturgical use of the book, and the last clause of 10 (ἡ γὰρ … προφητείας) might be the same (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:56), as many editors think, were it not for the genuinely Johannine ring of the words. In any case it is an after-thought, probably (so Baljon, Barth, etc.) added by the author himself, in order to bring out here what is brought out in Revelation 22:9 by the explicit mention of the prophets, since ἐχ. τ. μ. Ἰησοῦ alone would mean Christians in general. The presence of 9b 10 here, however, is not motived as at Revelation 22:8-9, where it comes in naturally at the finalê of the revelations and after a distinct allusion (Revelation 22:1) to the revealing angel. Here the angel of the second λέγει (at least) has not been mentioned since Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:7; Revelation 17:15, and no reason at all is given for the superstitious impulse to worship. The passage is certainly Johannine, but probably misplaced (like Revelation 18:14, etc.). Can it have originally lain at the end of 17., where the hierophant angel is speaking (cf. also Revelation 17:17, words of God and Revelation 19:9 b)? Such technical dislocations and derangements are common enough in primitive literature (cf. my Historical New Testament, pp. xxxix. 676, 690). The passage must have been shifted to its present site either by accident or more probably by a scribe who saw that the similar assurance in Revelation 21:5; Revelation 22:6 related primarily to future bliss rather than to judgment; perhaps he also took the first λέγει not as a divine saying (cf. Revelation 21:5) but as angelic (Revelation 22:6, cf. Revelation 1:10-11; Revelation 1:19, and note on Revelation 22:10), and sought to harmonise the same order as in Revelation 14:13 (command to write, beatitude, asseverance). Otherwise 1 10 is a unity as it stands. The change of situation in 1 3, 4 10 does not prove any combination of sources; it is simply another of the inconsequences and transitions characteristic of the whole book. The marriage-idea of 7, 8 is a proleptic hint which is not developed till later (21), while the supper (9) is only mentioned to be dropped unless the grim vision of 17 21 (for which cf. Gressmann's Ursprung d. Isr.-jüd. Eschatologie, 136 f.) is meant to be a foil to it (so Sabatier and Schön).