Robert Jamieson (1802-1880), was a Church of Scotland pastor, Andrew Fausset (1821-1910) was in Irish Anglican pastor, and David Brown (1803-1897) was a Free Church of Scotland Pastor. The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, by Robert Jamieson, Andrew Fausset, and David Brown, also known as the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary is their work and the result of their interdenominational effort.
In the following, I've provided two versions of each statement as Studylight offers to versions, one of them allegedly from an "unabridged" edition.
JFB, at Revelation 16:5, writes:
O Lord—omitted by A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and ANDREAS.
and shalt be—A, B, C, Vulgate, and ANDREAS for this clause read, "(which art and wast) holy." The Lord is now no longer He that shall come, for He is come in vengeance and therefore the third of the three clauses found in Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8 is here and in Revelation 4:8- : omitted.
(allegedly "unabridged" version)
O Lord. Omitted by 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Andreas.
And shalt be. 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Andreas, for this clause, read, '(which art and wast) holy' [ hosios (G3741) for ho (G3588) esomenos]. The Lord is no longer He that shall be, for He is come in vengeance; therefore the third of the three clauses, Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, is here, and in Revelation 11:17, omitted.
JFB's explanation, while it leans too heavily on "future being," is right in saying that the coming in vengeance is what is meant by the earlier references to the coming one, and that vengeance has now arrived in the narrative of Revelation.
JFB, at Revelation 11:17, writes:
and art to come—omitted in A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, CYPRIAN, and ANDREAS. The consummation having actually come, they do not address Him as they did when it was still future, "Thou that art to come." Compare Revelation 11:18, "is come." From the sounding of the seventh trumpet He is to His people JAH, the ever present Lord, WHO IS, more peculiarly than JEHOVAH "who is, was, and is to come."
(allegedly "unabridged" version)
And art to come. Omitted in 'Aleph (') A B C, Vulgate, Syriac, Cyprian, Andreas. The consummation having come, they do not address him as when it was still future. Compare Revelation 11:18, "is come." From the seventh trumpet He is to His people Yaah (H3050), the ever-present Lord WHO is, rather than Yahweh (H3068), 'who is was, and is to come.'
The explanation is similar here, but I do find it curious how they seem to suggest that we should take "Yah" as a shortening of "Yahweh" by removing the futurity that it partly represents. It seems creative, but I do not yet feel myself persuaded by it.
JFB, at Revelation 1:4, writes:
him which is . . . was . . . is to come—a periphrasis for the incommunicable name JEHOVAH, the self-existing One, unchangeable. In Greek the indeclinability of the designation here implies His unchangeableness. Perhaps the reason why "He which is to come" is used, instead of "He that shall be," is because the grand theme of Revelation is the Lord's coming (2 John 1:3- :). Still it is THE FATHER as distinguished from "Jesus Christ" (2 John 1:3- :) who is here meant. But so one are the Father and Son that the designation, "which is to come," more immediately applicable to Christ, is used here of the Father.
(allegedly "unabridged" version)
Him which is ... was ... is to come - a periphrasis for the incommunicable name Yahweh (H3068), the self-existing, unchangeable. [apo ho oon kai ho een kai ho erchomenos (G2064).] The indeclinability implies His unchangeableness. Perhaps 'He which is to come' is used instead of 'He that shall be,' because Revelation's grand theme is the Lord's coming (Revelation 1:7). Still, THE FATHER (Revelation 1:5) is here meant. But so one are the Father and Son, that the designation, "which is to come," special to Christ, is used here of the Father.
This explanation raises the question, at least to me, as to how the Greek should be translated, if this is the correct understanding. If John intended to indicate God's unchangeableness by his solecism here, then ought we not use a similar grammatical irregularity in English to indicate the same thing? On the other hand, if the intent is to indicate that the word is a name, we have English conventions for doing that - shouldn't we use them?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.