Showing posts with label Revelation 11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Revelation 11. Show all posts

Sunday, February 23, 2025

Jerome's Vulgate at Revelation 16:5

Jerome (c.345 to 420) was one of the most influential Bible translators of history.  His translation of the Old and New Testaments (as well as the apocrypha) became the dominant Latin translation, despite the existence of several Latin translations before him.  Thus, particular attention has been paid to reconstructing the text of Jerome's translation.

The German Bible Society has published Robert Weber's recension prepared by Roger Gryson.

For reference, at Revelation 11:17 they have: "dicentes gratias agimus tibi Domine Deus omnipotens que es et qui eras quia acceptisti virtutem tuam magnam et regnasti".  They note that the Clementine Vulgate adds "et qui uenturus es"

At Revelation 15:4 they have: "quis non timebit Domine et magnificabit nomen tuum quia solus pius quoniam omnes gentes venient et adorabunt in conspectu tuo quoniam iudicia tua manifestata sunt"

At Revelation 16:5 they have: "et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti".  They note that the Clementine Vulgate adds "domine" after "iustus es".

For comparison's sake, the New Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) has:
Revelation 11:17 
dicentes:
“ Gratias agimus tibi,
Domine, Deus omnipotens,
qui es et qui eras,
quia accepisti virtutem tuam magnam et regnasti.

Revelation 15:4

Quis non timebit, Domine,
et glorificabit nomen tuum?
Quia solus Sanctus,
quoniam omnes gentes venient
et adorabunt in conspectu tuo,
quoniam iudicia tua manifestata sunt ”.

Revelation 16:5

Et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem: “ Iustus es, qui es et qui eras, Sanctus, quia haec iudicasti;


Sunday, January 26, 2025

Joseph Exell on Revelation 16:5

The Pulpit Commentary is a series of commentaries, variously edited.  The editor for the Revelation volume is Joseph Exell (1849-1910), evidently a pastor in addition to being an editor.  I'm crediting him in the title of this post, though I am not sure whether he provided the thoughts quoted below.

TPC, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus; righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge (Revised Version). There is scarcely any authority for inserting "O Lord," or "and shalt be" (cf. Revelation 11:17).

Exell is right about both textual critical points, and is almost certainly understating them.  He does not seem to recognize that "shall be" was a substitute for "Holy One." 

TPC, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; the Almighty. Omit "and art to come" (Revised Version), with א, A, B, C, P, Andreas, Arethas, Primasius, Syriac, Armenian, etc. (cf. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 4:8). Perhaps the future is purposely omitted, since God's "coming" is now an accomplished fact (cf. also Revelation 16:5).

Again, Exell is right about the textual critical point.  His explanation for why "coming" is not present also makes sense.

TPC, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

From him which is. Why should not we be as bold as St. John, and disregard grammar for the sake of keeping the Divine Name intact? St. John writes, ἀπὸ δ ὧν, κ.τ.λ. not ἀπὸ τοῦ ὅντος, κ.τ.λ. "If in Exodus 3:14 the words may run, 'I AM hath sent me unto you,' may we not also be allowed to read here, 'from HE THAT IS, AND THAT WAS, AND THAT IS TO COME'?". Note the ὁ ἧν to represent the nominative of the past participle of εἶναι, which does not exist, and with the whole expression compare "The same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Here every clause applies to the Father, not one to each Person; the three Persons are marked by the three prepositions, "from … and from … and from." It is a mistake to interpret ὁ ἐρχόμενος either of the mission of the Comforter or of the second advent. 

I agree with Exell that in verse 4, we should not make "the coming one" refer specifically to the works of the Son and Spirit.  However, the Triune God is coming in Judgment, which is a central theme of the book.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown on Revelation 16:5

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?

John Gill on Revelation 16:5

 John Gill is simply a legendary scholar of the Bible.  His knowledge of the Jewish sources and his willingness to discuss them in relation to the Bible sometimes yields a very different take on a particular text from his contemporaries.

Gill, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shall be: which may be understood either of God the Father, who had power over these plagues, Revelation 16:9 and sent them; or of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all, and is righteous in all his ways and works, in all his judgments on antichrist, and is the eternal "I AM", which is, and was, and shall be; see Revelation 1:8. The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be"; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise, as follows:

Gill makes an understatement about the manuscript evidence.  However, when Gill seeks to connect hosios, his assumption that it refers to purity (it does not) shows through.

Gill, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

which art, and wast, and art to come: the everlasting, "I am", the unchangeable Jehovah: the phrase is expressive of the eternity and immutability, :-; and it may be observed, whereas in this description of him it is said, "and art to come", this therefore does not belong to his personal, but to his spiritual reign; he will not be as yet come in person, to raise the dead, and judge the world, when these voices shall be in heaven, and these congratulations of the elders be made: the reason of their praise and thanksgiving follows,

Gill does not seem to be aware of the manuscript evidence being so strongly against "to come," but his argument anticipates the discovery and supports the idea that "to come" is an erroneous interpolation.

Gill, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; which some understand of the whole Trinity; the Father by him "which is", being the I am that I am; the Son by him "which was", which was with God the Father, and was God; and the Spirit by him "which is to come", who was promised to come from the Father and the Son, as a Comforter, and the Spirit of truth: others think Christ is here only intended, as he is in Revelation 1:8 by the same expressions; and is he "which is", since before Abraham he was the "I am"; and he "which was", the eternal Logos or Word; and "is to come", as the Judge of quick and dead. But rather this is to be understood of the first Person, of God the Father; and the phrases are expressive both of his eternity, he being God from everlasting to everlasting; and of his immutability, he being now what he always was, and will be what he now is, and ever was, without any variableness, or shadow of turning: they are a periphrasis, and an explanation of the word "Jehovah", which includes all tenses, past, present, and to come. So the Jews explain this name in Exodus 3:14;

"Says R. Isaac k, the holy blessed God said to Moses, Say unto them, I am he that was, and I am he that now is, and I am he that is to come, wherefore אהיה is written three times.''

And such a periphrasis of God is frequent in their writings l.

It's certainly understandable that Gill, with his Jewish-focused research as background, would go in this direction.  However, treating "to come" as a periphrastic future is an error - a common one, but an error nonetheless.

Gill, at Revelation 1:8, writes:

which is, and which was, and which is to come; who is God over all, "was" God from all eternity, and is to come as such; which he will show by: his omniscience and omnipotence, displayed in the judgment of the world: who "is" now a Saviour of all that come to God by him; "was" so under the Old Testament dispensation, being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and "is to come", as such, and shall appear a second time unto salvation to them that look for him: particularly this phrase is expressive of the eternity of Christ, who is, was, and ever will be; and of his immutability, who is the same he was, and will be for ever the same he is, and was, unchangeable in his person, in his love, and in the virtue of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; he is the same today, yesterday, and for ever. This same phrase is used of God the Father in Revelation 1:4; and is a further proof of the deity of Christ; and which is still more confirmed by the following character,

Here, interestingly, Gill seems at least momentarily to focus on Christ's actual future coming as the basis for being called "the Coming one."  

Ethelbert William Bullinger on Revelation 16:5

Ethelbert William Bullinger (1837-1913) is best known for his "Companion Bible," or perhaps for his role in the development of dispensationalism, as such.  Bullinger made my "most significant" list, because it dealt directly with the issue at hand, but not because it deals deeply with it.

Bullinger's "Companion Bible Notes" are the source of the following.

Bullinger, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

O Lord. The texts omit.

and Shalt be. The texts read "Thou Holy One".

Bullinger, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

and . . . come. The texts omit. Now, here, He h as come. See Revelation 1:4 .

Bullinger, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

Him. . . come. Greek paraphrase of "Jehovah". See App-4 .

I did not find appendix 4 at the Studylight website, but I found it elsewhere (link).

Setting aside the comment about Revelation 1:4, Bullinger seems to be basically correct, but without any supportive reasoning, it's merely a vote, and not much more.

Marvin Richardson Vincent on Revelation 16:5

Marvin Richardson Vincent (1834-1922) became Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Criticism at Union Theological Seminary in New York.  His "Word Studies," continues to be a valuable resource today.

Vincent, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

O Lord. Omit.

And shalt be. Following the reading oJ ejsomenov. Read oJ osiov Thou Holy One.

Not much meat here, though I naturally agree with his comments.

Vincent, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

And art to come. Omit.

Again, not much meat here, though I naturally agree with his comments.

Vincent, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

From Him which is, and which was, and which is to come [απο του ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος] . The whole salutation is given in the name of the Holy Trinity : the Father (Him which is, and was, and is to come), the Spirit (the seven spirits), the Son (Jesus Christ). See further below. This portion of the salutation has no parallel in Paul, and is distinctively characteristic of the author of Revelation. It is one of the solecisms in grammatical construction which distinguishes this book from the other writings of John. The Greek student will note that the pronoun which [ο] is not construed with the preposition from [απο] , which would require the genitive case, but stands in the nominative case.

Each of these three appellations is treated as a proper name. The Father is Him which is, and which was, and which is to come. This is a paraphrase of the unspeakable name of God (Exodus 3:14), the absolute and unchangeable. JO wn, the One who is, is the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14, "I am the oJ wn (I am) :" " oJ wn (I am), hath sent me unto you. "The One who was [ο ην] . The Greek has no imperfect participle, so that the finite verb is used. Which is and which was form one clause, to be balanced against which is to come. Compare Revelation 11:17; Revelation 16:5; and" was [ην] in the beginning with God " (John 1:2). Which is to come [ο ερχομενος] . Lit., the One who is coming. This is not equivalent to who shall be; i e., the author is not intending to describe the abstract existence of God as covering the future no less than the past and the present. If this had been his meaning, he would have written oJ ejsomenov, which shall be. The phrase which is to come would not express the future eternity of the Divine Being. The dominant conception in the title is rather that of immutability.

Further, the name does not emphasize so much God 's abstract existence, as it does His permanent covenant relation to His people. Hence the phrase which is to come, is to be explained in accordance with the key - note of the book, which is the second coming of the Son (chapter Revelation 1:7; Revelation 22:20). The phrase which is to come, is often applied to the Son (see on 1 John 3:5), and so throughout this book. Here it is predicated of the Father, apart from whom the Son does nothing. "The Son is never alone, even as Redeemer" (Milligan). Compare "We will come unto him," John 14:23. Origen quotes our passage with the words : "But that you may perceive that the omnipotence of the Father and of the Son is one and the same, hear John speaking after this manner in Revelation, 'Who is, etc. '" Dean Plumptre cornpares the inscription over the temple of Isis at Sais in Egypt : "I am all that has come into being, and that which is, and that which shall be, and no man hath lifted my veil."

Vincent again seems to have strong points: the names are proper names, and erchomenos is not equivalent to esomenos. His reason is strong as well: the phrase which is to come does not express the future eternity of the Divine Being.


Johann Albrecht Bengel on Revelation 16:5

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) is probably more famous today for his work in textual criticism.  However, Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament (published in 1742, and the source of the following quotations) was what he was best known for during his lifetime.

Bengel, at Revelation 16:5, writes: 

Revelation 16:5 . [178] Ὁ ὢ καὶ ὁ ἦν , which art and which wast ) See on ch. Revelation 11:17 , and comp. D. Lang. Comm. Apoc. f. 188. ὁ ὅσιος ) Others put καὶ before ὁ , or for ὁ , or omit καὶ ὁ . [179] Sound exegesis often distinguishes the pearls of a genuine reading from the filth of various readings: and Wolf excellently compares with this the passage, ch. Revelation 1:8 , ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς , Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ . It will also be profitable to have brought forward another, ch. Revelation 4:8 : ἍΓΙΟς , ἍΓΙΟς , ἍΓΙΟς , ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ , Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς . There is a very great resemblance between those two passages and this passage, which is thus: ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ΕἾ , Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ , Ὁ ὍΣΙΟς . The subject there is, ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς · here, in the vocative case, Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ . The epithet belonging to the subject is there, Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ · here, in the same case, Ὁ ὍΣΙΟς · in both places without the particle ΚΑῚ . The predicate there, ch. Revelation 4:8 , is ἍΓΙΟς · here ΔΊΚΑΙΟς . For the sentence is not to be thus construed, ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ΚΑῚ ὍΣΙΟς since there are many intervening words in the text. At the commencement and at the close of the Apocalypse the Lord is called Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ , the Almighty; here, where judgments show themselves, He is called ὁ ὅσιος , the Holy. First of all He is praised on account of His Might , lest in the time of His patience He should appear to have no strength, whereas in the end He is about to display enough of Might; afterwards He is praised for His Grace , when retribution commences. Might and Grace are alike assigned to the Lord in Psalms 62:11-12 . The epithet ὅσιος answers to the Hebrew חסיד , and signifies gracious , in an active or a passive sense. God exhibits His own grace in all His works, and He receives gratitude [the attribution of grace ] from all saints.

[178] τοῦ θηρίου , of the beast ) Therefore the vial of the first angel will be the first mark [“character,” characterism] of the beast. V. g.

[179] Engl. Vers, has “which art, and wast, and shalt be ” (omitting ὅσιος , and substituting καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος or ἐρχόμενος ). ABC Vulg. support ὅσιος . h has et qui es pius . Rec. Text has καὶ ὁ ὅσιος . E.

Bengel makes the Hesed/Hosios connection that is key to understanding the text.  It is interesting how Stephanus' text is viewed as the "Received Text" here, rather than Beza's text.  We see this a bit farther below, where he bemoans some people seemingly locked-in over Stephanus' edition(s?). 

Bengel, at Revelation 11:17, writes:

Revelation 11:17 . Ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν , who is, and who was ) Some have added, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος . [121] The shorter reading here also is the true one; the fuller one is derived from a parallel passage. See App. Crit. Ed. ii. on this passage. Such varieties of reading are not to be decided in a cursory manner, on common grounds, but by careful investigation, according to the strong arguments which peculiarly and naturally belong to each passage. By which method we shall find, in the present instance, that this passage, ch. Revelation 11:17 , is not so much to be compared with the three preceding, as with the one which follows, ch. Revelation 16:5 . What is the aspect of the three preceding passages, we have before shown, on the passages themselves, and especially on ch. Revelation 1:8 : but now both these passages, ch. Rev 11:17 and Revelation 16:5 , coincide with the trumpet of the seventh angel, and therefore with the consummation of the mystery of God, in which, that which had previously been foretold by the expression, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , now is exhibited in actual operation, and indeed is exhibited first in heaven, ch. Revelation 11:17 , and then on earth, ch. Revelation 16:5 . Interpreters on this passage have long ago seen this. Ansbert says, They do not here subjoin, as they were accustomed , and who art to come; they speak of Him as already present . Haymo, who usually treads in the footsteps of Ansbert: It must be observed that he does not add, as before , who art to come. For they show Him already present in the judgment, by which all these things will be accomplished, and therefore they by no means speak of Him as (still) to come . John Purvey, in his Comm. published with the preface of Luther, says; He does not add the third clause, which he has usually added, namely , and who is to come, for this reason, because the prophet, with his intellectual vision, then saw God as it were already sitting in judgment . Zeltner published a dissertation, A. 1712, which is inscribed, Evangelium Tetragrammaton e Novo Testamento Exulans . The subject, as it is comprised in the title, derives something from the truth. When the Son of God was engaged in the world, of the promises given in the Old Testament, and comprehended in the name of Jehovah , as many as were to be fulfilled at that time, were fulfilled: and then, that which had been future, was advancing to the present. But, however, in the prophecy of the New Testament, that is, in the Apocalypse, that phrase, ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , by which the tetragrammaton, יהוה , is usually expressed, is, as it were, set forth afresh; and the future itself, as though reviving in the second coming of Christ, respecting which see Hebrews 10:37 , is placed before us, until at the entrance of the most important trumpet of the seventh angel, first the words, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , which, at the beginning, were alone contained in אהיה , and afterwards also the words καὶ ὁ ἦν , which was denoted by the termination of the noun יהוה , are most magnificently absorbed, and pass into the single expression, ὁ ὤν . Hence it comes to pass, that even great things, from this very passage, are not said to come , as lately they were said to come , Revelation 11:14 , and ch. Revelation 9:12 , but to have come , shortly afterwards, Revelation 11:18 , and ch. Revelation 14:7 ; Revelation 14:15 , Revelation 19:7 . Those persons do not sufficiently hold fast the normal force of Scripture, which ought to be retained even in addresses, who even still in prayers, and in hymns, from time to time, say, Jehovah , instead of Lord , or Jah . For under the trumpet of the seventh angel this Tetragrammaton ceases to be used, and the Diagrammaton , יָהּ , is the only expression which the saints utter, together with applause; ch. Revelation 19:1 .

[121] Added by Rec. Text, in opposition to ABC h Vulg. Cypr. E.

Note that Bengel references Purvey, who had already found the reason for the shorter description in Revelation 11:17: "John Purvey, in his Comm. published with the preface of Luther, says; He does not add the third clause, which he has usually added, namely, and who is to come, for this reason, because the prophet, with his intellectual vision, then saw God as it were already sitting in judgment."  

Indeed, Bengel goes back even farther: "Interpreters on this passage have long ago seen this. Ansbert says, They do not here subjoin, as they were accustomed , and who art to come; they speak of Him as already present. Haymo, who usually treads in the footsteps of Ansbert: It must be observed that he does not add, as before , who art to come. For they show Him already present in the judgment, by which all these things will be accomplished, and therefore they by no means speak of Him as (still) to come."

Bengel, at Revelation 1:4, writes:

Revelation 1:4 . Ἀπὸ ὁ ) Erasmus introduced ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ . [5] This is the first of those passages in which the reviewer says, that I cannot at all be defended. And yet the reading approved of by me, ἀπὸ ὁ , is an early one. See App. Crit. Ed. ii. on the passage: When I pray, will they be moved, who, in their ignorance, esteem the press of Stephens of more value than all the traces of John in Patmos? ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , from Him, who is, and who was, and who cometh ) In this salutation, James Rhenferd, in his Dissertation respecting the cabalistic [6] style of the Apocalypse, seeks for a description of the Ten Sephiroth, [7] three superior, and seven inferior: and he has proved that there is some resemblance; but he has brought forward from the Cabalistic writers nothing which does not exist in a purer form in the writings of John. Comp. Lamp. Comm. on the Apoc., p. 253. The Hebrew noun יהוה is undeclined; and of that noun this is a periphrasis, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , as we shall see presently at Revelation 1:8 . And therefore the periphrasis also is used without inflexion of case. The article ὁ , three times expressed, gives to the Greek paraphrase of a Hebrew noun the form of a noun. ἑπτὰ , seven ) The Jews, from Isaiah 11:2 , speak many and great things respecting the Seven Spirits of the Messiah. Lightfoot .

[5] AC read ἀπὸ ὁ : Rec. Text, with inferior MSB., ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ .

[6] The Cabalists were teachers of the Cabala, a tradition of hidden things. They professed to discover great mysteries in the letters of the sacred text. They invented the Ten Sephiroth or Cabalistic tree. See Jennings’ Jewish Antiquities, and Lewis’ Origines Judææ, vol. 3. T.

[7] A magnificent delineation of these, a hundred years ago (1673) prepared at the command and expense of the Princess Antonia, of happy memory, is to be seen in the Deinacensian temple, which, not many years previously , Eberhard Third, Duke of Würtemburgh, the brother of that most illustrious virgin , had caused to be erected for the benefit of the strangers who make use of the mineral waters. A full description of this monument, which is called Turris Antonia, with the addition of an engraving, has been given by S. R. F. C. Ætinger, now Abbot of the Murrhardensian Monastery, s. t. Œffentliches Denkmal der Lehrtafel einer weyl. Würtembergischen Princessin Antonia, etc., Tub. 1763. There are some who superciliously laugh at all such things as Rabbinical trifles; there are some, perhaps, who value them too highly, almost stopping at the rind (instead of penetrating within). Any one may see what true σωφροσύνη advises, or what the measure of faith permits, and the proportion of knowledge derived from the Word of GOD. E. B.

My heart goes out to Bengel when he writes: "When I pray, will they be moved, who, in their ignorance, esteem the press of Stephens of more value than all the traces of John in Patmos?"  For us dealing with those who excessively elevate the King James Version, it is the "press of Cambridge" instead of Stephens, but the sentiment is the same!

Bengel, at Revelation 1:8, writes:

§ 7. Since these things are so, the Third part, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , cannot but answer to the Hebrew יהוה : for the epithet, ὁ παντοκράτωρ , is never used, unless either Θεὸς or יהוה immediately precede. The former precedes, with an interval between, in the present: therefore יהוה is immediately preceding. Moreover either the three clauses taken together, ὁ ὢν , καὶ ὁ ἦν , καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , answer to the name יהוה , or the third, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , undoubtedly does so.

§ 8. He who יהוה , shall be, is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος ; and yet He is not called ὁ ἐσόμενος , but with great skill, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , lest there should appear to be any detraction from His present being, and that His coming may be more clearly expressed. About to be, in Hebrew הבא , coming; comp. John 16:13 ; and so other languages.

§ 9. There is great dispute as to the manner in which the name יהוה is to be read, and how widely its signification extends. Some, because the points of the name אלהים frequently, and of the name אדני very frequently, are added to it, introduce other vowels, and, for instance, read it as יִהְוֶה Iihvaeh.

§ 10. But even if the name יהוה always had vowels belonging to the other names of God, and never its own, attributed to it in our copies, yet it might be read Jehovah, equally with Iihvaeh. But many things prove that Jehovah even must be the reading.

§ 11. The Hebrews were careful never to pronounce the name יהוה , except with the greatest purity; wherefore, where the prefixes introduced a change of vowels, they very frequently substituted the name אדני , having vowels approaching very closely to יהוה . But wherever יְהֹוָה is written, it is evidently to be read Jehovah. On this one account alone they retained Scheva under Jod: as also the Chaldean paraphrasers do, in that very contraction in their writing, which represents the name Jehovah and Adonai. As יֱהֹוָה is written by means of the points of the name אלהים , so by means of the points of the name אדני it might be written יֲהֹוָה , unless it were of itself to be pronounced יְהֹוָה . Proper names, as Jehojakim, and many others, which are formed from the name יְהֹוָה , and Greek forms of writing this name, being spread abroad among those of foreign lands, have been long ago collected by the learned.

§ 12. There is an incomparable and admirable compounding of the name יהוה from יְהִי Shall be, and הִוֶֹה Being, and הָוָה Was. This paraphrase of the Divine Name by three tenses flowed on to the most ancient Greek poets and to the Talmudical writers. Passages are given in Wolf, T. iv. Curar. in N. T. p. 436. But the Apocalypse has the greatest strength.

...

§ 20. Thus far have we considered this passage separately: it now comes to be compared with the parallel passages. For here the expression employed is ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , and ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , ch. Revelation 4:8 ; and afterwards, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ; and finally, ὁ ὤν . See below on ch. Revelation 11:17 , Revelation 19:1 .

§ 21. When God appeared to Moses in the bush, He called Himself אהיה , I will be. In Exo 3:14 He supplies this reason for His name: I will be what I will be, as He had said to Moses at the 12th verse of the same chapter, I will be with thee. Afterwards He Himself expresses the name, commanding Moses to say, אהיה I WILL BE hath sent me. The Verb אהיה becomes a Noun, as ὁ ἦν , the Article being prefixed: and ὁ ἦν itself is a befitting phrase, as in Aristotle, εὐθὺς τὸ ἔσται καὶ τὸ μέλλεα , ἕτερον , l. ii. de gener. et corrupt, c. 11.

§ 22. This Name having been proclaimed to Moses, throughout the same vision, and afterwards throughout the whole writing of the Old Testament, the name יהוה is mentioned. אהיה of the first person might have appeared suitable there, where the Lord is speaking of Himself, and יהוה of the third person, where angels and men are the speakers. And yet Moses was commanded to say, אהיה I WILL BE hath sent me; and the Lord also calls Himself יהוה Jehovah: and the name אהיה is not afterwards repeated, whereas the name יהוה is of constant occurrence. It is plain therefore that the name יהוה adds to the meaning of the name אהיה something beyond the mere difference between the first and third person; since first of all the Lord called Himself I shall be, and presently afterwards He began to call Himself by the habitual title, He shall be Being He was.

§ 23. The name יהוה is read of old, before the times of Moses, and mentioned in such a manner that we may be assured that Moses did not, from an idiom arising not until his own time, introduce the expression into the times of Enoch, Abraham, etc.: Genesis 4:26 ; Genesis 13:4 ; Genesis 14:22 ; Genesis 15:2 ; Genesis 15:7 , etc.

§ 24. Again, it is plain that this revelation was made to Moses, and by the instrumentality of Moses to the Israelites, by which revelation the name Jehovah became known to them in a new way. We lately quoted the passage, Exodus 3:15 . A second is to be added, Exodus 6:3 : I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob , באל שדי , as a God abounding in all good things: but under My name Jehovah I was not made known to them. In which passage ב is prefixed to the word אל , and, as denoting the aspect under which one is regarded, may be befittingly rendered by the French en, as, for instance, they say, Vivre en Chrétien. When God appeared to Abraham, He called Himself אל שדי , Genesis 17:1 : and from this Isaac and Jacob often so called Him. At that time also He was called Jehovah, but by a less solemn use. It was not until the time of Moses that He Himself ordered that this should be His name for ever, and that this should be the memorial of Him from generation to generation: Exodus 3:15 . Then He made for Himself an eternal name, by the transaction itself: Isaiah 63:12 . Let the passage he looked to, Exodus 15:3 , and the whole of that song.

§ 25. יהוה is used from הוה , to be: and this name of Himself may be regarded either absolutely, as He who is from eternity to eternity is in Himself; or relatively, as He becomes known to His people in His character as He who is, by accomplishing His promise by the work itself.

§ 26. In the former sense, the name יהוה was celebrated, even in the days of the Patriarchs; but under the other sense, which was added not until the time of Moses, the Lord made Himself known to the Israelites, by that great work of leading them forth from Egypt.

§ 27. By such means He admirably, as it were, contracted the meaning of His name יהוה , so that, just as God, although being the God of all, yet was no other, and was called no other, and wished to be called no other, than the God of Israel, so יהוה , He who is, was no other than He who is to Israel, or, in other words, who affords and exhibits Himself to Israel. He truly said, I will be to you, as He afterwards said, I will not be to you: Hosea 1:9 . In a similar manner, as often as God performed some remarkable work, we read that He or His name was known: Psalms 76:1 ; Psalms 83:18 ; Isaiah 52:6 ; Ezekiel 39:7 .

§ 28. Therefore in the time of Moses He called Himself as it were afresh, אהיה , I will be. He does not say, I will be what I was, I will be what I am; but אהיה אשר אהיה , I will be what I will be: where there is implied the declaration of a benefit to be almost immediately bestowed. That is, I will be to the Israelites the character which, by the very fact, I will be in regard to their fathers, both what I said to them I would be, and what it behoves Me to be to them, namely, by now at length fulfilling the promise which I formerly gave. And thus the meaning of the future prevailed in אהיה , including both a recapitulation of the revelations and promises of God, which had been given to the fathers, and a declaration of the event now to be exhibited, by the bringing the people out of Egypt.

§ 29. The name אהיה , afterwards swelling out into the name יהוה , transmitted at the same time the same meaning of the future to the name יהוה , so that in the very form of the name the future might be conspicuous, and from thence there might be an advance to the present with the past.

§ 30. יהוה is the same precisely as ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν . So suitable was the language of the Old Testament. But in the Apocalypse the order is inverted by an elegance of construction not to be despised, except by the supercilious; and in ch. Rev 4:8 He is said to be ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος , where, in the natural order of the times, the four beasts celebrate the praises of the Lord in a summary form of expression, as He has exhibited Himself, and does, and will exhibit Himself. But here, ch. Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 1:8 , both by the pen of John, and by His own mouth, He is styled ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ; and so by a fresh idiom, but one which is founded on the Divine nature itself, the ὢν , as the principal and radical word, is placed first, with a remarkable prelude and token of that change, by which subsequently both the ἐρχόμενος and the ἦν , as we have noticed, § 20, betake themselves to [pass into] the ὢν .

It is interesting to note Bengel argue: "He who יהוה , shall be, is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος; and yet He is not called ὁ ἐσόμενος, but with great skill, ὁ ἐρχόμενος , lest there should appear to be any detraction from His present being, and that His coming may be more clearly expressed."  In other words, Bengel's argument is that ὁ ἐρχόμενος is used rather than ὁ ἐσόμενος to avoid any detraction from God's present being.

It is also interesting to see Bengel claims: "יהוה is the same precisely as ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν".  While I cannot accept this conclusion, Bengel's argument for why the order is then changed by John is at least cogent and consequently not to be simply dismissed out of hand.

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer on Revelation 16:5

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (1800-73) is most famous for his 16 volume critical commentary on the New Testament.

Meyer, at Revelation 16:5, wrote: 

Revelation 16:5 . ὅσιος . So A, B, C, Lach., Tisch. The rec. has interpolated καὶ ὁ . א has the art. without the καὶ (Tisch. IX.).

ὍΣΙΟς . Cf. Revelation 15:4 . As the solemn formula Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἩΝ [3691] does not allow an immediate combination with ὅσιος , [3692] and as before ὅσιος , neither ὁ , nor καὶ , nor καὶ ὁ , dare be read, [3693] and consequently the translation of Hengstenb. (“the godly”) is false, we can only, in the sense adopted by Luther, who, however, interpolates an “ and ,” regard the ὅσιος as placed with δίκαιος by asyndeton, as a predicate belonging to εἰ : “Righteous art thou, which art, and which wast, holy” [art thou], “because thou hast ordained such judgments:” ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρ . The ταῦτα refers to Revelation 16:4 , not to Revelation 16:3 ; for that which is the subject of treatment (Revelation 16:6 ) is drinking-water that is changed into blood, so that the inhabitants of the earth who have shed the blood of saints and prophets [3694] must drink blood. [3695] 

[3691] The καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is absent here, as in Revelation 11:17 , because the coming to judgment is already in process of execution.

[3692] Against De Wette: “Thou who art and wast holy.”

[3693] See Critical Notes, p. 414.

[3694] Cf. Revelation 13:7 ; Revelation 13:10 , Revelation 6:10 , Revelation 11:7 , Revelation 17:6 , Revelation 19:2 .

[3695] πεῖν . On this form, see Winer, p. 84.

The reference to Hengstenberg we have discussed elsewhere (link to discussion).  This idea of the implied extra εἰ is certainly an interesting way to explain the text, although I don't find it particularly persuasive. 

Meyer seems exactly right, however, to tie the ταῦτα back to Revelation 16:4.

Meyer, at Revelation 11:17, wrote:

The ascription of adoration, ΚΎΡΙΕ Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΆΤΩΡ , Κ . Τ . Λ . , in which the guaranty for the glorious result of God’s ways was previously indicated, [2981] appears now when that glorious end is beheld as already attained to be actually realized. [2982] But from the former significant designation of God, Ὁ ὪΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἮΝ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , [2983] this last point necessarily is omitted; for the ascription of praise, even though proleptical, applies even to that which has now come, and thus the fulfilment of his mystery has been attained. [2984] Luther improperly follows the bad revision of the text, in which the ΚΑῚ Ὁ ἘΡΧ . is interpolated from Revelation 1:8 , Revelation 4:8 .

[2981] Revelation 1:8 , Revelation 4:8 . Cf. also Revelation 10:6 .

[2982] Cf. Revelation 15:3 , Revelation 16:7 ; Revelation 16:14 , Revelation 19:6 ; Revelation 19:15 , Revelation 21:22 .

[2983] Revelation 1:8 , Revelation 4:8 .

[2984] Cf. Revelation 16:5 . Beng., Hengstenb.

It is interesting to note how the Germans have Luther's text as their target, rather than the KJV.  That's totally expected, of course, but it provides a pleasant break from the very Anglo-centric approach of British and American theologians.

Meyer, at Revelation 1:4, wrote (together with a note from the American editor):

ἈΠῸ Ὁ ὬΝ , Κ . Τ . Λ . Description of the divine name יהוה , [553] but not under the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical way, the three tenses are indicated. [554] As to the form of the expression, neither is the manifestly intentional combination of the nom. ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., with ἀπό to be impaired by the insertion of τοῦ , [555] or by supplying τοῦ λεγομένου ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., τοῦ ὅς ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., τοῦ θεοῦ ὅς ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ ., etc.; [556] nor is the irregularity, that, in the absence of a necessary preterite participle in the formula ὁ ην , the finite tense is treated as a participle, to be accounted for by the false conception that ὁ stood for ὅς ; [557] nor, finally, is ὁ ἐρχόμενος to be taken as precisely equivalent to ὁ ἐσόμενος [558] by an accommodation of the use of הכָּא , perhaps with an allusion to Mark 10:30 , John 4:21 ; John 5:25 ; John 16:25 ; John 16:31 : but, in that inflexible firmness of the divine name, [559] there is something mysterious; [560] viz., an intimation of the immutability of the eternal God [see Note XVII., p. 122], who, as is shown also by the idea itself of eternity, and especially by the Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , [561] rules the destinies of his people, as well as of the hostile world, brings his prophecy to fulfilment, and especially holds in his firm hand the entire development of the judgment. Accordingly, John writes not Ὁ ἘΣΌΜΕΝΟς , but with living reference to the fundamental thoughts of the book, [562] Ὁ ἘΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς , as also Revelation 1:8 ; Revelation 4:8 . [See Note XVIII., p. 122.] 

[553] Cf. Exodus 3:14 . LXX.: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν .

[554] Cf. yet Bengel: “Incomparable and wonderful is the composition of the name יהוה from יְהִי , he shall be, and הוֶה , being, and הָוָהָ , he was.” Cf. Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 3:14 : “Who was, is, and will be, spake to the world.” [Etheridge’s translation, 1. p. 450: “He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be.”] Targ. Jon. on Deuteronomy 32:39 . Wetst.

[555] Erasmus.

[556] Cf. Wolf.

[557] Schöttgen.

[558] Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard.

[559] ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ . Cf. Revelation 1:5 .

[560] Valla. Cf. L. Cappell., Pric., Grot., C. a Lap., Beng., Stern, Hengstenb., Winer, p. 66, etc.

[561] See below.

[562] Cf. Introduction, sec. 2.

NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR

XVIII. Revelation 1:4 . ὁ ἐρχόμενος

Gebhardt (p. 21): “John does not use ἐρχόμενος as synonymous with ἐσόμενος , but in the sense of coming to judgment for the final completion of the eternal world-plan.” Cremer ( Lexicon ): “In Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 1:8 ; Revelation 4:8 , ὁ ἐρχόμενος denotes God as the God of the future revelation of salvation; cf. Isaiah 40:9 : and the title (viz., ὁ ὤν , κ . τ . λ .), as a whole, is given to God, as the God of an eternal and unchangeable covenant.” Tait: “The word ἐρχόμενος is the keynote of revelation. It runs like a silver thread throughout the entire book. It enters into it at the beginning, and it is summed up at the end by ‘Surely I come quickly.’ ”

It definitely caught my eye that Meyer says (emphasis mine), "the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical way, the three tenses are indicated."  I had not made the connection to kabbalah, but it is fascinating to see that connection made.  On the other hand, Bengel (link to my discussion of Bengel) does make the argument that Meyer is criticizing.

Meyer also forcefully states: "nor, finally, is ὁ ἐρχόμενος to be taken as precisely equivalent to ὁ ἐσόμενος by an accommodation of the use of הכָּא, perhaps with an allusion to Mark 10:30 , John 4:21 ; John 5:25 ; John 16:25 ; John 16:31" (footnote omitted).  I certainly agree that it is not to be taken as an equivalent.  The connection with the coming time is probably right, and the tenuous assertion of allusion seems appropriate, because it is hard to prove.

Cambridge Greek Testament for schools and colleges on Revelation 16:5

I had trouble identifying the specific author for this work.  A webpage of the University of Pennsylvania, offers this:

Title: Cambridge Greek Testament for schools and colleges.

Author: Parry, R. St. John (Reginald St. John), 1858-1935

Author: Chase, F. H. (Frederic Henry), 1853-1925

Author: Robinson, J. Armitage (Joseph Armitage), 1858-1933

Author: Perowne, J. J. Stewart (John James Stewart), 1823-1904

Note: University Press, 1881

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, at Revelation 16:5, writes:

O Lord ] Should be omitted.

which art, and wast, and shalt be ] Read, which art and wast, the Holy One : the word for “holy” being the same as in 15:4. As the phrase for “which art and wast” is ungrammatical (see on 1:4), it is perhaps better to render “which is and which was.” For the omission of “which is to come,” cf. 11:17. Its virtual insertion here in the A. V. seems to be an oversight in translation, not a mistaken reading.

While the conclusion as to the correct reading is basically right, the path to get there is a mess!  "which art and wast" is not ungrammatical here, because the angel is speaking to the Lord.  We could well criticize this translation, however, as translating participles as verbs rather than as the names they are.

Note well: "Its virtual insertion here in the A. V. seems to be an oversight in translation, not a mistaken reading."  Considering that Scrivener had not yet (by the time this commentary was written) published his reconstruction of the text presumably used by the KJV translators, it is understandable that the commentators probably compared the AV text to Stephanus and saw hosios rather than esomenos.  However, it seems to me to be incredibly unlikely that this was an oversight in translation, but instead it was a mistaken reading, namely a mis-correction by Beza.

At Revelation 11:17, the CGTSC writes:

which art, and wast ] Omit and art to come , as in 16:5. It is not, however, likely that any importance is to be attached to the omission of the full expression we had in 1:4, 8, 4:8.

Again, the reading conclusion may be right, but to attach no importance to the difference is an error. 

There is nothing of interest at Revelation 4:8, but at Revelation 1:4, the CGTSC writes:

which is, and which was, and which is to come ] A paraphrase of the “Ineffable name” revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14 sq.), which we, after Jewish usage, write “Jehovah” and pronounce “the Lord.” Or, rather perhaps, a paraphrase of the explanation of the Name given to him l. c., “I am That I am” which is rendered by the LXX. “I am He Which Is;” by the Targum of Palestine on Exod. “I am He who is and who will be.” The same Targum on Deuteronomy 32:39 has “Behold now, I am He who Am and Was, and Will Be.”

which was ] is again ungrammatical in Greek: the only word that could be used grammatically, would mean “which was made” or “which began to be,” and is therefore avoided. Compare the opposition of the “being” of God or Christ, and the “becoming” or “being made” of creatures, in St John’s Gospel, 1:6, 8, 9, 8:58.

is to come ] Probably only used to express future time not referring to the “ Coming ” of Christ; for thus far we have a threefold name for the Father the Son is separately mentioned afterwards. Else, “He that is to come” is often used as a familiar and distinctive title of Christ: see Matthew 11:3 , Matthew 11:21 :9; John 6:14 , John 6:11 :27; Hebrews 10:37 ; John Ep. 11:7: cf. Ep. I. 2:18, where the same word is pointedly used of Antichrist . But with this more general sense we may compare “the wrath to come,” 1 Thessalonians 1:10 , “the world to come,” Mark 10:30 , and “things to come,” John 16:13 , John 18:4 .

At least at "which was," the CGTSC wisely provides a reason for not using "made" or "began to be."  This, however, backfires at the explanation for "is to come," where there is a Greek future participle to use, if that were the intent.  I like the point that "He that is to come" is elsewhere sometimes used of Christ, but it is not clear that such a sense is intended here. 

Walter Biggar Scott on Revelation 16:5

Walter Biggar Scott (1838-1933), apparently a significant member of the Plymouth brethren, wrote a commentary on Revelation.

At Revelation 16:5, Scott writes:

The angel of the waters acquiesces in the divine judgment. It might be naturally supposed that he would deprecate judicial and retributive dealing in the sphere over which he presides. On the contrary, he justifies God, saying, “Thou art righteous.” The plague does not overstep by a hairbreadth the just measure of strict righteousness. Then the eternity of God’s Being, “Who art ,” and His past relation to men and angels, “and wast ,” are next affirmed. *See remarks in our Exposition on Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 1:8 ; Revelation 4:8 ; Revelation 11:17 . “The holy One.” This peculiar word occurs but twice in the New Testament in relation to Christ: the other instance is in Revelation 15:4 .

In the Authorised Version of verse 5 the words “O Lord” and “shalt be” are unnecessary interpolations, and are rejected by most critics, while the title the “holy One” is omitted (see R.V.).

Scott takes note of the textual differences, and nearly nails the differences.  He seems to be unaware that "shalt be" is actually a mis-correction of "holy."  Scott's observation that "who art" refers to God's eternal being, that "and wast" refers to God's past dealings with angels and men.  When you understand this, and stop trying to make the is/was/coming a triplet, the meaning of "the coming one" more naturally falls out in Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5.

At Revelation 11:17, Scott writes:

Thanks are given to Jehovah (Lord) God Almighty, a strong combination of divine titles. Jehovah the self existing One; God (Elohim), Who as such is the Creator;Almighty too in power, in resources. Then the eternity of His Being is declared, “Who is ” ( eternal existence ), and “Who was ” in relation to the past. “And art to come” is in the text of the Authorised Version, but should be omitted, as in the Revised Version and other translations. “To come” would be out of place in the doxology before us, as the kingdom in its time and eternal features is regarded as present. The deleted sentence is correct in Revelation 4:8 .

Notice that Scott explains the internal reasons for rejecting the "art to come" here.  Thankfully, we are not reliant only on the internal evidence.

At Revelation 1:4, Scott writes:

4. The dread and sacred Name Jehovah signifies underived existence, the Self-Existing One . To Israel the Name was explained as “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14 ); to Gentiles as “ Him which is, and which was, and which is to come ” (Revelation 1:4 ; Revelation 4:8 ). *The heathen borrowed from the Jews. The truths of the Old Testament really lie at the root of anything good in the ancient faiths and mythology of the heathen. Thus, “Jupiter was, Jupiter is, Jupiter will be,” is evidently taken from the Biblical explanation of the national Names of the God of Israel, Jehovah. It is a Name of ineffable grandeur, and one which Israel was made fully acquainted with from the commencement of her history (Exodus 6:3 ). It is God’s memorial Name, even to generations yet unborn. “Which is ” implies independent, unchangeable existence. “Which was ” intimates Jehovah’s relation to the past. “Which is to come ” shows His connection with the future. God’s relation to the universe in its vastness and greatness, as also in its minuteness, is a grand and invigorating truth.

In Revelation 4:8 the order of the sentences is reversed; “which was ” precedes “which is .” Chapter 4 contemplates the government of the whole earth, and not that of Israel only, hence the living creatures first say “which was.” It is a question of time; whereas in Revelation 1:1-20 the eternity of Jehovah’s Being is first presented in the words “which is.” Thus, too, it is intimated in the change of the sentence “which was ” that Jehovah’s past deeds of power are an earnest and pledge that eternal existence and omnipotent might are not quiescent attributes in the divine Being, but are exercised through all ages and under all circumstances.

It is interesting to see the claim that the pagans took this concept from Israel.  Some have viewed Beza's change and others' interpretation as coming from pagan philosophy, rather than coming from the Scripture itself.

While I reject Scott's take on the significance of "which is to come," I do find it interesting that Scott has offered a rationale for the different order at Revelation 4:8.

Saturday, January 25, 2025

Robert Utley on Revelation 16:5

In "You Can Understand the Bible," Dr. Robert Utley writes:

"Righteous are You" This is an allusion to Moses' song in Deuteronomy 32:0 (especially Revelation 16:5) or possibly Psalms 119:137.

"who are and who were" Notice that there is no future element as in Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8, because there is no future time (cf. Revelation 11:17). This is the end! This is purposeful; note the threefold designation of Revelation 1:4. Time is no more! The end (i.e., Parousia) is revealed several times in Revelation, not just Revelation 19:0. Each of the seals, trumpets, and bowls ends with the Second Coming and culmination of history. This is why I Think the recapitulation theory for the interpretation of Revelation is best!

Utley received Doctor of Ministry (Major project in Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutics) Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL (according to this page)  I should point out that some of the typos are probably due to the webpage from which I'm quoting Utley's material, as there obviously is not a "Deuteronomy 32:0," and one ought not cite Psalm 119 as "Psalms 119."

Utley offers a slightly different take on why there is "no future element" here, namely "because there is no future time ... This is the end! ... Time is no more!"

At Revelation 11:17, Utley writes: 

Notice that the future aspect of this common description of God (except for some sixteenth century late minuscule Greek manuscripts) is left out because God has begun to reign. The last of these three chronological aspects will never be mentioned again in the book of the Revelation. The Kingdom has come (cf. Revelation 11:15-16)! This gives evidence that the recapitulation theory of the parallel relationship between the seals, trumpets, and bowls is true!

Notice his explanation here says that the kingdom has come.  He could add that the King has come.

At Revelation 1:4, Utley writes:

"from Him who is and who was and who is to come" This is obviously a title for the unchanging Covenant God (cf. Psalms 102:7; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). Its grammatical form is awkward in Greek but may reflect an Aramaic background. The literal phrase is "from the One who is, from the One who was, and the One coming" (cf. Revelation 4:8). This phrase reflects the OT covenant title "I Am" (YHWH, cf. Exodus 3:14, see SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY at Revelation 1:8). This phrase is used for God the Father in Revelation 1:4 and 8, and of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:17 and 18 (cf. Hebrews 13:8). The purposeful transfer of titles from YHWH to Jesus was one way the NT authors asserted the Deity of Jesus.

This threefold phrase of God as past, present, and future is modified in Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5, which is the Second Coming at the end of the trumpets, to just the present and past because the future (end-time) has dawned.

The linked "Special topic" contains additional discussion of YHWH among other names of God.

Here Utley again suggests that it is the second coming that serves as the reason that "the coming one" is not included at Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5.

Thursday, December 14, 2023

How Dare I Appeal to the Majority of Greek Manuscripts!

In some places where the King James Version follows the wrong Greek text, it is fairly straightforward to demonstrate this from an appeal to the fact that the majority of texts disagree.  When this happens we tend to get the following kind of pushback:

Nick mistakenly assumes that "critical text guys" have such a strong partisanship with the main text reading of the NA28 (or other current critical text of the New Testament) that they will just defend its readings at all cost.  Maybe there are some folks like that, but that's more the mentality of many Textus Receptus advocates: they are examining the evidence to try to defend their initial views, as opposed to examining the evidence to try to form a conclusion from the evidence. 

I would like to believe that some folks hold to the Textus Receptus because they think that the manuscript evidence actually supports the Textus Receptus.  However, that's not the case with folks Drs. Peter van Kleek or Dr. Riddle who have abandoned the Reformation era Protestant understanding of textual criticism in favor of the Reformation era Roman Catholic understanding of textual criticism.  For them, the manuscript evidence may be interesting, but the manuscripts are not to be used to edit the text before us.

Sometimes the same error Nick is illustrating is done the other way: there is an assumption that due to partisanship for the NA28, "critical text guys" just want to attack the readings of the TR, even when such an attack is unwarranted.  From this point, the error seems even more unreasonable.  How does such a person think that the battleground texts are selected? The reason that "critical text guys" have a problem with specific TR readings is because they think that the original text is not what the TR has.

Nick's main argument is an appeal to consistency.  If we think the TR is wrong because of a majority text principle at Revelation 16:5 or Revelation 11:17 or anywhere else, then we must acknowledge on the same majority text principle that the NA28 is wrong at 1 Timothy 3:16.

The problem with Nick's argument is that it is an oversimplification of the process.

According to Bart Ehrman a low estimate for the total number of textual variants in the New Testament is around 200k.  D. A. Waite claims that there are 5,604 differences between the TR and the CT.  Thus, even if the KJV were always following the majority, that would mean the CT would be following the majority text at least 97% of the time.  

This then is an example of the saying, "the exception proves the rule."  In the 2% (or whatever the real number) of cases where TR does not follow the majority of manuscripts, there must be some good reason for doing so. I don't mean just that there must be some good reason, and maybe some day we will find the reason.  I mean instead that the editors of the text have to justify their decision. 

So does Beza.  We don't have to accept Beza's departure from the majority because he's Beza or because he was followed by the KJV translators.    

Thus, we are right to challenge Beza's adoption of a minority reading at Revelation 11:17.  What's the good reason to follow the minority of manuscripts, particularly when the minority reading is later than the majority reading?  The short answer is that there isn't a good reason to do so, which is why we don't follow Beza on this point, even though the KJV translators did.

As for 1 Timothy 3:16, if someone is going to follow the main text reading of the NA28, they should have a good reason for doing so, not simply because the NA28 editors have said so.  This isn't the post to debate that particular point, but simply to acknowledge that the scales do need to be even.  We shouldn't automatically accept the NA28 readings because they are NA28, just as the TR folks shouldn't automatically accept the TR readings because they are TR.

By default, the reading found in the majority of Greek manuscripts is right.  That method works (at least) 97% of the time or so, and is especially the cases when the contrary Greek manuscripts are alone in their reading against all the other Greek manuscripts.  As the size of the minority grows, the need for justification of the reading grows.  As the age of the minority grows (i.e. becomes older), the need for justification of the reading grows.  These are not rigid rules like "the oldest manuscript is always right" or "the reading with the most manuscripts is always right," and I understand how that can make some people feel uncomfortable.  Nevertheless, that is why we do (as our spiritual forefathers have done since at least the 2nd century) collation.

Monday, November 06, 2023

Theodore Beza's Annotations at Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, and 16:5

The following is a very lightly edited transcription of Beza's annotations at Revelation 1:4 as found in his 1598 edition (link)(compare the separate annotations from 1594).

4 A Qui est, &c. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν &c. Nequisquam miretur non respondere constructionem, sciendum est Apostolum ita voluisse exprimere quod scriptum est Exodi 3.14, ubi loquens Dominus Mosi nomen ipsius percontati: Dic, inquit, Israelilitis, אהיה שלחני אליכם [eheieh schelachani alechem,] id est, Sum, fui & ero, misit me ad vos. Tradunt enim doctissimi Hebraeorum, ipsique adeo Thalmudistae, verbum EHEIE tria tempora complecti, praesens, praeteritum & futurum: eoque perfectam & omnibus numeris absolutam Dei stabilitatem significari. Hoc vero quî tandem potuit unico vocabulo exprimi? Sed nondum videtur expeditus nodus. Cur enim non dixit τοῦ ὄντος; Respondeo: voluisse Ioannem sacrum illud nomen יהוה [iehovah] explicare, cuius etymologia est in illo exodi loco tradita: quod si ὢν & ἐρχόμενος usus esset tanquam participiis & verbo ἦν, tanquam verbo, nomen illud certe non expressisset sed eius notationem duntaxat: nempe si dixisset τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου. Itaque ὢν, ἦν &  ἐρχόμενος, non ut participia sed ut propria nomina accipienda sunt: quasi dicas ad verbum Gratia vobis & pax ab Eris, & Erat, & Venturus:  Quod ut in Graeco sermone intelligeretur, necesse fuit addi articulum praepositiuum & quidem masculinum, ipsi etiam verbo ἦν, quasi ἦν sit nomen proprium: ex quo etiam intelligitur quod ante dixi, nempe articulum ὁ in ὁ ὢν & ὁ ἐρχόμενος, non tanquam participiis, neque tanquam nominibus τεχνικως sive materialiter acceptis, sed tanquam propriis nominibus esse adiunctum. Superest adhuc unus scrupulus. Nam quum propria etiam nomina inflectantur, cur non dixit τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου; Nempe, huc quoq; respexit Ioannes quod apud Hebraeos nomen illud יהוה [iehovah] semper est uniforme, quanuis subjecta puncta mutentur, quae nimirum non sunt ipsius nominis propria, sed aliunde ascita: ideoque ne articulum quidem voluit Ioannes inflectere, quasi & ipse sit proprii nominis pars. Nam si τοῦ ὄντος vel τοῦ ἐρχόμενου dixisset, visa essent participia, non nomina: quod si τοῦ ἦν scripsisset, visus esset articulus neutrius generis, quasi τό ἦν materialiter (quod aiunt) acciperetur. Superest ut ὅ ἦν annotemus melius converteri Erat quam Fuit, ut perpetuitas declaretur cum aeternitate coniuncta, id est, quae principium non habuerit & sit aliena ab omni intermissione, sicut diximus Ioan. 1.1. 

¶ Et Qui venturus est, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Cur non potius ὁ ἒςομ sicut ὁ ἦν;  Nempe duas ob causas: primum quia videretur quodammodo novum aliquod principium essentiae introducere: deinde quia Deum ut iudicem ubique statuit nobis proponere. Scimus autem fore ut Pater in Filio mundum iudicet. Vide infra, 15.5.

One assumes that 15.5 is a typo for 16.5, as there are no notes at 15.5.

The following is a translation of the Latin in the above.

4 From the One who is, &c. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν &c. Let no one be surprised that the construction is irregular (lit. does not answer), it must be understood that the Apostle wished to express what is written in Exodus 3:14, where the Lord speaking to Moses, asked for His name: Say, He says, to the Israelites, אהיה שלחני אליכם [eheieh schelachani alechem,] that is, I am, I was & I will be, has sent me to you. For the most learned of the Hebrews report, and indeed the Talmudists themselves, that the word EHEIE encompasses three times, present, past & future: and by it the perfect & complete stability of God in all respects is signified. But who could have expressed this with a single word? But the knot does not yet seem to be untied. For why did he not say τοῦ ὄντος? I answer: John wished to explain that sacred name יהוה [iehovah], whose etymology is given in that place in Exodus: for if he had used ὢν & ἐρχόμενος as participles and ἦν as a verb, he certainly would not have expressed that name but only its meaning: namely, if he had said τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου. Therefore ὢν, ἦν & ἐρχόμενος, must be taken not as participles but as proper names: as if you were to say word for word Grace to you & peace from He Who Is, & Who Was, & Who Is Coming. In order that this could be understood in the Greek language, it was necessary to add the prepositive article and indeed the masculine one, even to the verb ἦν, as if ἦν were a proper name: from which is also understood what I said before, namely that the article ὁ in ὁ ὢν & ὁ ἐρχόμενος, is joined not as participles, nor as names technically or materially accepted, but as proper names. There still remains one scruple. For when proper names also are inflected, why did he not say τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου? Surely, John also had in mind that among the Hebrews that name יהוה [iehovah] is always uniform, although the subjacent points change, which are indeed not proper to the name itself, but are derived from elsewhere: and therefore John did not even wish to inflect the article, as if it too were part of the proper name. For if he had said τοῦ ὄντος or τοῦ ἐρχόμενου, they would have seemed like participles, not names: and if he had written τοῦ ἦν, the article would have seemed of neuter gender, as if τό ἦν were materially (as they say) understood. It remains for us to note that ὅ ἦν is better translated as Was rather than Has Been, so that perpetuity may be declared united with eternity, that is, which has not had a beginning and is foreign to all interruption, as we said in John 1:1.

¶ And the One who is to come, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Why not rather ὁ ἒςομ as ὁ ἦν? Certainly for two reasons: first because it would seem in some way to introduce some new principle of essence: then because it sets God up everywhere to be proposed to us as a judge. However, we know that it will happen that the Father will judge the world in the Son. See below, 15:5.

I have not provided a transcription of the notes at Revelation 1:8, as they do not address the relevant phrase. 

At Revelation 4:8 Beza provided additional notes (p. 1134):


8 Erat, Est, & Venturus est, Ό ἦν, &c. Vide supra, I.4. Vulgata & Erasmus, Qui erat, Qui est, & Qui venturus est. quam interpretationem coactus sum alicubi amplecti, ut novitatem fugerem. Alioqui satis liquet ἦν, ὢν, & ἐρχόμενος poni proprii Dei nominis loco. neque sumenda, ut in vulgari, ermone dicuntur de quopiam qui fuerit, sit, & venturus sit. Est autem insignis etiam hic locus adstruendae Christi coessentiali Deitati, quum de eo qui venturus est hîc agatur, id est, de Christo ipso. 

8 Was, Is, & Will Come, Ό ἦν, &c. See above, I.4. The Vulgate & Erasmus, Who was, Who is, & Who will come. An interpretation that I am compelled to embrace somewhat, so that I may avoid novelty. Otherwise, it is quite clear that ἦν, ὢν, & ἐρχόμενος are placed in the position of God's proper name. nor should they be understood, as in the common language, as being said about someone who was, is, & will come. Moreover, this passage is also remarkable for establishing the coessential Deity of Christ, when it is here discussed about the one who is to come, that is, about Christ himself.

The comments at Revelation 11:17 are even more terse:


17. Qui es, &c. ὁ ὢν &c. Vide supra, I.4, & 4.8.

17. Which are, &c. ὁ ὢν &c.  See above, 1.4 & 4.8.

I note that despite Beza's comments about God's name being a proper and indeclinable name at 1.8, here he conjugates the Latin to second person (rather than third person as in 1.4, 1.8, and 4.8) in accordance with his predecessors.

Finally, at Revelation 16:5 (p. 1152)


5 Et qui eris, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. Legitur vulgo, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, ostendente articulo, praeter omnem loquendi morem, depravatam esse scripturam. Vulgata vero sive articulum legit sive non legit, nihilo rectius vertit ὅσιος, Sanctus, male extrita particula καὶ, prorsus necessaria ut δίκαιος & ὅσιος connectantur. Sed quum Ioannes reliquis omnibus locis ubi Iehouae nomen explicat, sicuti diximus supra, I.4. addere consueuerit tertium, nempe καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, cur istud hoc loco praeteriisset? Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui nempe Ό ἐσόμενος. Causa vero cur hîc non scribatur Ό ἐρχόμενος, ut supra quatuor locis, nempe I.4&8. item 4.8:& 11.17, haec est, quoniam ibi de Christo ut iudice venturo agitur: in hac vero visione proponitur ut iam in tribunali sedens, & decreta iudicia, & ea quidem aeterna exercens.

5 And who [you] will be, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. It is commonly read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, the article indicating, against all manner of speaking, that the scripture has been corrupted. But whether the Vulgate reads the article or not, it translates ὅσιος no more correctly as "Sanctus" (Holy), wrongly omitting the particle καὶ, which is absolutely necessary to connect δίκαιος (righteous) & ὅσιος. But when John, in all the other places where he explains the name of Jehovah, as we said above, I.4, usually adds the third, namely καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, why would he have omitted that here? Therefore, I cannot doubt that the genuine scripture is what I have restored from an old bona fide manuscript (lit. old manuscript of good faith), namely Ό ἐσόμενος. The reason why Ό ἐρχόμενος is not written here, as in the four places above, namely I.4 & 8, likewise 4.8 & 11.17, is this: because there it deals with Christ as the judge who is to come; but in this vision, He is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and exercising the decreed judgments, and indeed eternal ones.

Recall that Beza's handwritten annotation to a printed 1565 text had merely proposed the substitution of ὁ ἐσόμενος for ὁ ὅσιος.


.  

Thursday, August 31, 2023

Beatus of Liebana (d. 798) the Ark of Revelation 11 and the Woman of Revelation 12

 M.S. O'Brien has provided an impressive translation of the "Commentary on the Apocalypse," by Beatus of Liebana (d. 798).  O'Brien's work is available in two sections as a Kindle book.  Maureen (if I understand her post here correctly) has also helpfully posted the translation in snippets to a blog.  

For the purpose of discussing the Woman of Revelation 12, the relevant posts are these:

Beatus identifies the Temple of God in heaven as the Church, the Ark of the Testament as the preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, etc.  Beatus has an interesting textual variant in which the Beast comes out of the Abyss at Revelation 11:19 before Revelation 12:1, apparently. 

Beatus says that "heaven" corresponds to the Church.  The woman is likewise the church.  Even the moon is part of the Church.  As O'Brien acknowledges in the post referenced above, Beatus seems to adopt much of the same interpretation as Apringius. 

Beatus also says that the Church is the man child, made in the image and likeness of Christ.

Autpurt Ambrose (d. 784) on the Ark of Revelation 11:19 and the Woman of Revelation 12:1 and On the Bodily Assumption

Ambrosius Autpertus, in Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediavalis (CCCM) vol. XXVII (Ambrosius Autpertus, part 1), Expositions in Apocalypse, Books I-V

From the preface:

Again, John tells of having seen a woman clothed with the sun in the sky, and there she gave birth. But the dragon stood before her, to devour her child; however, the child was snatched to God and to his throne. After this, the woman fled into the wilderness, and immediately there was a great battle in heaven; and the dragon was thrown down from heaven to earth and pursued the woman. For what could be found more mad or more foolish than to say that in that heavenly dwelling there are childbirths of women? Moreover, if the dragon was thrown from heaven to earth, how did he pursue the woman, who is not said to have fallen from heaven to earth? If, I say, the dragon was thrown to the earth, what necessity drove the woman to flee from heaven into the wilderness? Or perhaps when the devil fell from that heavenly dwelling, was the woman, still bearing a child in heaven, already crying out, though she had not yet been established on earth? Or truly, was the son of the woman certainly born in heaven and not thrown from heaven, to escape the dragon's bite, taken from somewhere else in heaven to find God and his throne? Thus, in all things such confrontations confuse the literal surface: to the extent that they teach us to avoid the exterior letter in figurative expressions, and to follow the inner spirit in understanding the mysteries. Rursum idem Iohannes narrat mulierem se amictam sole in caelo uidisse, ibique peperisse. Draconem autem ante eam, ut filium eius deuoraret, stetisse ; sed ad Deum et ad thronum eius, eundem filium raptum fuisse. Mulierem uero post haec in solitudinem fugisse, statimque proelium magnum in caelo factum fuisse ; et draconem de caelo in terram proiectum, mulierem insectasse. Quid enim dementius, quid stultius repperiri potest, quam ut in superna illa caelestique habitatione, partus mulierum esse dicantur ? Sed et si draco deiectus est de caelo in terram, quomodo persecutus est mulierem, quae non dicitur de caelo ruisse in terram ? Si, inquam, draco proiectus est in terram, quae necessitas conpulit mulierem de caelo in solitudinem fugere ? An forte quando diabolus de illa superna habitatione ruit, iam mulier in caelo parturiens clamabat, quae necdum in terra condita fuerat ? An uero filius mulieris in caelo utique natus, nec de caelo deiectus, ut morsum draconis euaderet, alibi de caelo fuit raptus, quo Deum et thronum eius inueniret ? Sic itaque in omnibus superficiem litterae confundunt tales obluctationes : quatenus cauere nos doceant in figuratis locutionibus litteram exterius, et ad mystica intellegenda spiritum interius sequi.

For Ambrose Autpurt, taking Revelation 12 literally is an example of obvious folly. 

Book V, at Revelation 11:19a to 12:2

AND THE TEMPLE OF GOD WAS OPENED IN HEAVEN, AND THE ARK OF HIS COVENANT WAS SEEN IN HIS TEMPLE.

This expression returns to the beginning of faith, and intertwined with the corporeal birth of the Redeemer, the actions of His body which is the Church, and the conflicts it undergoes against the ancient enemy, it interweaves with other diverse figures. For what else in this place do we understand by the temple of God, if not the Lord Jesus Christ? The temple is rightly seen as opened and not closed, because indeed the Son of God was manifestly born in the flesh, truly suffered in the flesh, wonderfully raised in the flesh, and powerfully said to be lifted in the flesh to the heavens. Although all the saints are truly called the temple of God, that body which was assumed for human salvation is uniquely and chiefly called the temple of God, in which the fullness of divinity dwells bodily. About this very temple, the same [Jesus] spoke to the Jews, saying: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' Which temple he meant, the Evangelist subsequently explained, saying: 'He spoke of the temple of His body.' However, this temple is opened in heaven because our Redeemer is proclaimed and retained to have accomplished the dispensation of human salvation in the Church.

Where it is properly added: 'And the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple.' It is designated by the ark of the covenant, which is seen in the temple, and by the sky in which the temple opens, that is, the Church of the elect. It is called the ark of the covenant because the power of the two Testaments is inscribed in it by the finger of God, that is, by the Holy Spirit, no longer on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart. According to the account in Exodus, it is also said to have four golden rings, in which it is carried by four poles, because it is armed with the four Gospels, by which it is guided by holy preachers; in it is also said to be a golden urn containing manna, that is, the wisdom of the divine Word, providing sustenance for life, as well as Aaron's rod that budded, that is, the validation of the royal priesthood, to whose members the Apostle Peter says: 'You are a royal race, a royal priesthood.'

With the temple therefore opened, the ark of the covenant appears, because, once the dispensation of our salvation is completed, the Church is gathered in Christ. Moreover, the opened temple can be understood as that by which we read that our Mediator [Christ] was pierced on the cross with a lance, and 'the ark of the covenant was seen in his temple,' by which we understand the sacraments of blood and water, by which the Church is built. Just as the woman [Eve] was formed from the side of the sleeping Adam, so from the side of Christ hanging on the cross was the Church fashioned. Hence, not without reason, when his side was opened by the lance and blood and water came out, John is known to have said: 'And he who saw it has borne witness.' As if he was saying in other words: 'He who saw the ark of God in the opened temple, because what he saw was true, bore witness.' But to say 'in heaven', he meant to be understood as 'in his sight'. For he was among those of whom it had been written: 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands.' What follows is:

AND THERE WERE LIGHTNINGS, AND VOICES, AND THUNDERS, AND AN EARTHQUAKE, AND GREAT HAIL.

What are meant by lightnings if not, as we have often said, the signs of miracles? For lightning indeed strikes terror, and by its sudden flash weakens human strength. This aligns well with miracles, by which the minds of the unbelievers, struck down and soon breaking the force of their pride, submitted to humility. Hence, it is said to the Lord by the Psalmist: "You will multiply lightnings and confuse them." He multiplied the lightnings, indeed, because He displayed countless signs of miracles through the Apostles and apostolic men around the world. And He confused them, meaning, He brought down His resisting adversaries from their strength. Hence, another Psalm says: "Your lightning illuminated the world, the earth saw and was moved." But what else is meant by voices if not the preachings of the Church? Hence, rightly, it is remembered that seven thunders spoke their voices. It is fitting that lightnings occur first and then voices follow, because the holy preachers, in order to lead the hearts of the unbelievers to new beliefs through speech, first showed new miracles. Hence, Peter, in order to shape the minds of the Jews to faith through words, first healed the paralytic at the temple gate. Hence, Paul, to convert the people of Malta through preaching, healed the father of Publius from dysentery. After the voices, thunders occur, so that those who perhaps despise miracles and scorn words may be shaken by the terror of judgment. After the thunders, there are earthquakes, meaning the great persecution of the pagans. Rightly also those who stir up persecution are symbolized by hail. For hail, although it shatters crops on the ground, also shatters itself in the process, so that the hail disappears entirely and the earth bears fruit again. Thus, the raging crowd of gentiles, while trying to completely erase the name of Christ from the earth, was reduced to nothing, either in strength or certainly by a change for the better. Many of those who persecuted the Church of God returned to the faith of the Mediator, and began to suffer what they had previously inflicted on others. What follows is:

AND A GREAT SIGN APPEARED IN HEAVEN: A WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN, AND THE MOON UNDER HER FEET

In order to seek this sign, we know Achaz was admonished by the Lord, saying: "Ask for a sign from your Lord God in the depth of hell or in the height above." When that faithless king responded, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord," the word was immediately directed to the house of David, saying, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." This sign is certainly seen in heaven, that is, in the Church of the saints, even now. Let's speak more plainly about this sign. It is then added: "A woman clothed with the sun." As if it were said: the blessed and ever-virgin Mary, overshadowed by the power of the Most High, to whom, as we know, the Angel said: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" – that very power, about which Paul says: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." And because often the general is found in the specific, the blessed and devout Virgin here represents the Church, which gives birth daily to new peoples from whom the general body of the Mediator is formed. It is not surprising if she prefigures the Church, in whose blessed womb the Church was worthy to be united with its head. For in the following reading, some things are recounted that cannot specifically fit the Blessed Virgin according to the literal sense, but generally fit the Church of the elect according to the mystical narration. Therefore, we should follow the general in the specific throughout, and understand that everything we see as fitting to one is said of all. Therefore, the woman is said to be clothed with the sun, which is very fitting for the souls of the faithful. Are they not clothed with the robe of the sun, to whom it is said through Paul: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ"? For Christ is the sun of righteousness and the brightness of eternal light. Of this sun, the wicked will certainly say in hell: "The sun did not rise for us." In contrast, the elect hear: "For you who fear the Lord, the sun of righteousness will rise.

But what is signified in this place by the moon, if not the changeability of temporal things? For just as the moon wanes with the progression of time, it rightly signifies the decline of mutability through it. Therefore, whoever despises all fleeting corporeal things, as if he suppresses the moon under his feet. However, by the moon, which is under the feet of the woman, heretics might be designated. Not because, during their manifestation, the Church has always been superior to them in worldly power, especially when it has often been oppressed by them, but because they, obscured and diminished by the truth of light in which the whole body is clothed, so deservedly fell from the state of the same body by the merit of their rejection, that they were deemed unworthy even to pertain to its utmost members, which are symbolized by the feet. Instead, they delight in those things and with full mental effort dwell in those matters which the saints wholeheartedly seek to crush, that is, false teachings and the vain honors of this world. They are thus under the feet of the elect because they seek lowly things and yearn for earthly ones. But it's no surprise if from where some find stability's progress, others incur the decline of changeability, and where some shine like the sun, others wane like the moon. For Simeon says to the Lord: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel." Solomon aptly indicates their changeability and decline, saying, "A fool changes like the moon." For what is more foolish and more contradictory to oneself than what heretics believe about Christ? Valentinus thinks differently about Him than does Bardesanes, differently than Apollinaris, differently than Arius, differently than Sabellius, differently than Photinus, and seldom are found those who seem to agree in their opinions. And what do we understand in these but foolishness, what but the waning of the moon and changeability? The integrity of Christ is certainly persecuted by these, who, enduring the decline of changeability and faith, seem to lie at the very feet. What we have understood about heretics can also be applied to false Christians, who yearn for earthly desires and torment the life of the elect with corrupt morals. Those who seem to manage the cares of ecclesiastical matters in such a way that spiritual men need not deal with external things can also aptly be expressed by the term "moon", resulting in the Church not touching the earth in spiritual men. What follows is:

AND ON HER HEAD, A CROWN OF TWELVE STARS

As we have often said, and all true faith commentators have mentioned, the Lord and the Church are one entity, the head and the body are one whole. Therefore, the Church is crowned in its head, that is, in Christ Jesus, of whom Paul says: "He is the head of all Churches." But by the twelve stars with which the king's crown is adorned, what else should we understand but the Apostles, who were the first to cling to our head, and who were the first to become an adornment of that head? And rightly they are designated by stars because they have been proven to illuminate the darkness of ignorance with the rays of truth. Hence the Angel generally speaks about all true faith preachers to Daniel, saying: "Those who are wise will shine like the stars of the heavens: and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for everlasting eternities." Hence Paul says: "Among a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life." Although all preachers of faith can be seen as a kind in the species in the number of Apostles, they specifically and primarily became the crown of the head because the head first achieved victory over the whole world through them. It follows:

AND IN HER WOMB SHE CRIES, LABORING IN PAIN, AND ANGUISHED TO GIVE BIRTH

These words cannot be applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the literal sense, for she could not have pain in childbirth, who contracted no sin of lust in conception. But in a mystical sense, it undoubtedly refers to the Church, of which the Blessed Virgin is known to be the most excellent member. The Church of the elect is called a woman, not because she is weak in faith or action, but because she gives birth daily to the body of her Redeemer in the believing people. For unless the Church gave birth to Christ, her Son would not say to her: "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." Nor would the Psalmist say: "Of Zion it will be said, 'This one and that one were born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her.'" Does not Paul generate Christ in believers when he said: "For even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel?" But as long as the Church gives birth, she cries in labor, and is tormented to give birth, because unless the time comes when she perfectly gives birth to her son, when nothing of the body remains, she suffers some difficulty of childbirth here, especially when she gives birth again to some whom she had already delivered. To such, Paul said, lamenting like a mother in labor: "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you." Until then, as the same Apostle says, "we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." The Mother Church, laboring, cries out and is tormented to give birth, but when the time or hour comes when the last members of the body proceed to the light of faith by being born, then the torment and cry of childbirth will cease, then the sigh of hardships will be forgotten, and the indescribable joy of future goods will follow. Hence, the Lord in the Gospel says: "A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world." But what he meant, he himself explained, saying: "So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy." What follows is:

ET APERTUM EST TEMPLUM DEI IN CAELO, ET VISA EST ARCA TESTAMENTI EIUS IN TEMPLO EIUS

Haec locutio ad initium fidei recurrit, et recapitulata Redemptoris corporea natiuitate, actus corporis eius quod est Ecclesia, conflictusque quos aduersus antiquum hostem agit, aliis diuersisque figuris intexit. Quid enim hoc loco aliud per Dei templum, nisi Dominum intellegimus Iesum Christum ? Bene apertum, et non clausum, cernitur templum, quia uidelicet Dei Filius manifeste in carne natus, ueraciter in carne passus, mirabiliter in carne suscitatus, potenter in carne ad caelos eleuatus perhibetur. Quamquam enim omnes sancti templum Dei ueraciter appellentur, illud tamen corpus pro humana salute susceptum, singulariter ac principaliter templum Dei uocatur, in quo omnis plenitudo diuinitatis inhabitat corporaliter. De quo nimirum templo idem ad Iudaeos loquitur, dicens : Soluite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Quod uero esset templum de quo diceret, Euangelista subsecutus exposuit, dicens : Hoc autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. In caelo autem hoc templum aperitur, quia uidelicet Redemptor noster dispensationem humanae salutis peregisse in Ecclesia praedicatur ac retinetur.

Vbi adhuc recte subiungitur : Et uisa est arca testamenti eius in templo eius. Ipsa designatur per arcam testamenti, quae uidetur in templo, ipsa et per caelum in quo aperitur templum, id est, electorum Ecclesia. Quae propterea arca testamenti uocatur, quia duorum in ea Testamentorum uirtus digito Dei, hoc est. Spiritu Sancto inscribitur, non iam in tabulis lapideis, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus. Quae etiam iuxta fidem Exodi quattuor circulos aureos habere perhibetur, in quibus quattuor uectibus portetur, quia uidelicet quattuor Euangeliis armatur, per quae a sanctis praedicatoribus gubernatur ; in qua urna quoque aurea, manna continens, inesse dicitur, id est, diuini Verbi sapientia, pabulum continens uitae, necnon et uirga Aaron quae fronduerat, hoc est, ad probatio regalis sacerdotii, ad cuius membra Petrus Apostolus dicit : Vos genus regium, regale sacerdotium.

Aperto itaque templo, arca testamenti apparet, quia peracta nostrae salutis dispensatione, in Christo adgregatur Ecclesia. Potest autem in eo templum intellegi apertum, quo Mediatorem nostrum legimus in cruce lancea perforatum, et uisa in templo arca testamenti, subaudis, sanguinis et aquae sacramenta, quibus aedificatur Ecclesia. Sicut enim ex costa Adae dormientis formata est mulier, sic ex latere Christi pendentis in cruce fabricata est Ecclesia. Vnde nec inmerito aperto lancea latere, cum exisset sanguis et aqua, Iohannes dixisse cognoscitur : Et qui uidit, testimonium perhibuit. Ac si aliis uerbis diceret : Qui arcam Dei in templo aperto uidit, quod uerum esset quia uideret, testimonium perhibuit. In caelo autem ut diceret, in conspectu suo intellegi uoluit. De illorum enim numero erat, de quibus scriptum meminerat : Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei, et opera manuum eius adnuntiat firmamentum. Sequitur:

ET FACTA SUNT FULGORA, ET VOCES, ET TONITRUA ET TERRAMOTUS, ET GRANDO MAGNA.

Quid per fulgora, nisi, ut saepe iam diximus, miraculorum signa figurantur ? Fulgur quippe terrorem incutit, ac subita coruscatione humanam uirtutem debilitat. Quod omnino recte miraculis congruit, quibus incredulorum mentes perculsae, fractis mox superbiae uiribus, humilitati se subdiderunt. Hinc per Psalmistam Domino dicitur : Fulgora multiplicabis, et conturbabis eos. Fulgora etenim multiplicauit, quia uidelicet innumera miraculorum signa per Apostolos atque apostolicos uiros per orbem ostendit. Conturbauit uero eos, subaudis resistentes sibi aduersarios, a propria fortitudine deiecit. Hinc rursum alius Psalmus dicit : Inluxerunt coruscationes tuae orbi terrae, uidit et commota est terra. Quid autem aliud uocibus, quam praedicationes Ecclesiae designantur ? Vnde et merito septem tonitrua uoces suas locuta fuisse memorantur. Bene autem prius fiunt fulgora ac deinde subsequuntur uoces, quia nimirum praedicatores sancti ut corda infidelium ad noua credenda loquendo perducerent, prius noua miracula exhibuerunt. Hinc est quod Petrus, ut Iudaeorum mentes ad fidem uerbis informaret, prius ad portam templi paralyticum curauit. Hinc Paulus, ut populum Militenen praedicando conuertat, a dysenteria patrem Publii sanat. Post noces uero tonitrua fiunt, ut hi qui forte miracula contemnunt, uerba despiciunt, terrore iudicii quatiantur. Post tonitrua quoque fiunt terraemotus, id est, persecutio ingens paganorum. Recte etiam hi qui persecutionem commouent, per grandinem designantur. Grando quippe, etsi fruges terrae inlisa comminuit, comminuendo tamen et ipsa comminuitur, fitque ut et grando funditus deficiat, et terra denuo fructificet. Sic nimirum, sic certe furens gentilium turba, dum nomen Christi funditus de terra auferre conata est, ipsa ad nihilum redacta est, aut uiribus scilicet, aut certe commutatione in melius. Plures etenim de his qui Ecclesiam Dei persecuti sunt, ad fidem Mediatoris redierunt, et coeperunt pati quod ipsi prius aliis inferebant. Sequitur :

ET SIGNUM MAGNUM PARUIT IN CAELO: MULIER AMICTA SOLE, ET LUNA SUB PEDIBUS EIUS

Vt hoc signum peteret, Achaz a Domino admonitum nouimus, dicentis : Pete tibi signum a Domino Deo tuo in profundum inferni, siue in excelsum supra. Vbi cum idem perfidus rex responderet : Non petam, et non temptabo Dominum, protinus ad domum Dauid sermo dirigitur, quo dicatur : Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse uobis signum. Ecce uirgo concipiet et pariet filium, et uocabunt nomen eius Emmanuhel. Hoc certe signum nunc usque uidetur in caelo, id est, in Ecclesia sanctorum. Dicatur itaque apertius quod sit hoc signum. Denique subditur : Mulier amicta sole. Ac si diceretur, beata semperque uirgo Maria, obumbrata Altissimi uirtute, cui uidelicet dictum ab Angelo scimus : Spiritus Sanctus superueniet in te, et uirtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi, illa scilicet uirtus, de qua Paulus dicit : Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam. Et quia plerumque genus inuenitur in specie, ipsa beata ac pia Virgo hoc in loco personam gerit Ecclesiae, quae nouos cotidie populos parit, ex quibus generale Mediatoris corpus formatur. Non autem mirum, si illa typum Ecclesiae praetendat, in cuius beato utero capiti suo eadem Ecclesia uniri meruit. Nam et in sequenti lectione aliqua narrantur, quae iuxta litteram beatae Virgini specialiter congruere non possunt, sed electorum Ecclesiae secundum mysticam narrationem generaliter conueniunt. Sequamur ergo per omnia genus in specie, et totum etiam quod uni aptari posse uidemus, de omnibus dictum intellegamus. Dicatur igitur mulier amicta sole, quod omnino aptissime fidelium animabus conuenit. An non solis amictu uestiuntur, quibus per Paulum dicitur : Quotquot baptizati estis, Christum industis ? Christus enim sol iustitiae et candor lucis aeternae. De hoc nimirum sole impii in inferno dicturi sunt : Sol non ortus est nobis. Quo contra electi audiunt : Vobis qui timetis Dominum orietur sol iustitiae.

Quid autem hoc loco designatur per lunam, nisi mutabilitas rerum temporalium, Quia enim per incrementa temporum luna deficit, recte per eam defectus mutabilitis signatur. Qui igitur corporalium rerum cuncta labentia despicit, quasi lunam sub pedibus premit. Possunt autem per lunam, quae sub pedibus mulieris consistit, heretici designari, non quo semper tempore manifestationis eorum, superior illis saeculari potentia extiterit Ecclesia, praesertim cum saepius ab illis fuerit obpressa, sed quo ueritate luminis qua totum corpus uestitur, obtenebrati atque defecti, ita ab statu eiusdem corporis merito reprobationis ceciderunt, ut saltem ne ad ultima eius membra, quae designantur in pedibus, pertinere meruerint, sed in his potius delectari, in his toto mentis adnisu uersari, quae sancti totis uiribus appetunt conculcare, id est, prauis dogmatibus ac mundi istius uanis honoribus. Sub pedibus ergo electorum sunt, quia ima quaerunt, quia terrenis inhiant. Non autem mirum, si unde alii prouectum stabilitatis, inde alii defectum incurrant mutabilitatis, et unde alii tamquam sol lucent, inde alii tamquam luna deficiant, cum Symeon Domino dicat : Ecce positus est hic in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum in Israhel. Quorum mutabilitatis defectum bene Salomon indicat, dicens : Stultus ut luna mutabitur. Quid enim stultius, sibique magis contrarium, quam quod heretici de Christo opinantur ? Aliter itaque de illo sentit Valentinus, aliter Bardesanes, aliter Apollenarius, aliter Arrius, aliter Sabellius, aliter Fotinus, et paene rari inueniuntur, qui sibi in suis sententiis concordari uideantur. Et quid in his nisi stultitiam, quid in his nisi defectum lunae ac mutabilitatem intellegimus ? Et ab his pro certo integritas Christi persequitur, qui mutabilitatis ac fidei defectum patientes, in imis sub pedibus iacere uidentur. Haec autem quae de hereticis intelleximus, falsis possunt Christianis aptari, qui et terrenis cupiditatibus inhiant, et prauis moribus electorum uitam excruciant. Possunt etiam uocabulo lunae illi non inconuenienter exprimi, qui ita rerum curas ecclesiasticarum agere uidentur, ut nil de exterioribus spiritales uiri tractare cogantur, fit que ut dum hi terrenis inherent, Ecclesia in spiritalibus uiris terram minime tangat. Sequitur :

ET IN CAPITE EIUS CORONA STELLARUM DUODECIM

Sicut saepe iam diximus, et omnes uerae fidei tractatores dixerunt, Dominus et Ecclesia una persona est, caput et membra unum sunt corpus. In capite ergo suo coronatur Ecclesia, id est, in Christo Iesu, de quo per Paulum dicitur : Ipse est caput omnium Ecclesiarum. In duodecim autem stellis, quibus aptatur regis corona, quid aliud quam Apostolos intellegere debemus, qui primi capiti nostro inheserunt, qui primi ornamentum eiusdem capitis extiterunt ? Et recte per stellas designantur, quia tenebras ignorantiae radio ueritatis inlustrare probantur. Vnde et Angelus generaliter de cunctis uerae fidei praedicatoribus Daniheli loquitur, dicens : Qui docti fuerint, fulgebunt quasi stellae firmamenti : et qui ad iustitiam erudiunt multos, quasi stellae in perpetuas aeternitates. Hinc Paulus dicit : In medio nationis prauae et peruersae, inter quos lucetis sicut luminaria in mundo, uerbum uitae continentes. Quamquam autem in Apostolorum numero omnes fidei praedicatores tamquam genus in specie possint uideri, ideo tamen illi specialiter ac principaliter corona capitis extiterunt, quia primum per eos ipsum caput de toto mundo uictoriam reportauit. Sequitur :

ET IN UTERO HABENS, CLAMAT PARTURIENS, ET CRUCIATUR UT PARIAT

Haec beatae Virgini Mariae secundum litteram aptari nequeunt, quia cruciatum in partu habere non potuit, quae nullum peccatum libidinis in conceptu contraxit. Sed iuxta mysticum intellectum ad Ecclesiam certissime refertur, cuius excellentissimum membrum ipsa beata Virgo esse cognoscitur. Idcirco autem electorum Ecclesia mulier uocatur, non quo mollis in fide uel actu, sed quo Redemptoris sui corpus in credentibus populis cotidie pariat. Nisi enim Ecclesia Christum pareret, nequaquam eidem eius Filius diceret : Quicumque fecerit uoluntatem Patris mei qui in caelis est, hic meus frater et soror et mater est. Nequaquam et Psalmista diceret : Mater Sion dicet homo, et factus est in ea, et ipse fundauit eam Altissimus. An non in credentibus Christum Paulus generat, qui dicebat : Etsi multa milia pedagogorum habeatis in Christo Iesu, sed non multos patres. Nam in Christo per Euangelium ego uos genui ? Sed usquequo Ecclesia pariat, parturiens clamat, et cruciatur ut pariat, quia nisi ad tempus ultimum peruenerit, quo perfecte filium enixat, quando iam nil de corpore supersit, quandam partus difficultatem hic patitur, dum in quibusdam quos iam pepererat, denuo parturit. Talibus namque quasi mater parturiens et gemens dicebat Paulus : Filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in uobis. Vsquequo ergo, sicut idem Apostolus dicit, occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionis Filii Dei, in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi. Mater Ecclesia parturiens clamat, et cruciatur ut pariat, sed cum ad tempus uel horam illam peruenerit, qua ultima corporis membra ad lucem fidei nascendo procedant, tunc cessabit cruciatus ac parturitionis clamor, tunc in obliuionem ueniet gemitus pressurarum, et succedet inenarrabilis laetitia futurorum bonorum. Vnde et Dominus in Euangelio dicit : Mulier cum parit, tristitiam habet, quia uenit hora eius ; cum autem pepererit masculum, iam non meminit pressurae propter gaudium, quia natus est homo in mundo. Quid autem esset quod dicebat, ipse exposuit, dicens : Ita et uos nunc quidem tristitiam habetis, ueniam autem ad uos iterum et gaudebit cor uestrum, et gaudium uestrum nemo tollet a uobis. Sequitur :

In vol. XXVII B, Ambrosius Autpertus, Part 3, there is a “Sermo de Adsumptione Sanctae Mariae”, of which the following are the first three sections (pp. 1027-8):

1. Behold, beloved brothers, the day is greatly revered, the day surpassing the solemnities of all saints. Here, I say, is the glorious day, the illustrious day on which the Virgin Mary is believed to have departed from this world. And so with utmost exultation, the whole earth, illuminated by such a Virgin's departure, raises its praises. For it is truly unworthy that the solemnity of her memory among us should be without great honor, through whom we merited to receive the Author of life. And it is deemed quite preposterous that while we celebrate the victories of the saints and martyrs, we do not prefer her solemnity above theirs, oh she who brought forth the Prince of Martyrs to this world. On this day, fittingly, the Virgin Mary proclaims to her heavenly bridegroom: "You have taken hold of my right hand, and in your will, you have led me, and with glory, you have taken me up." Today, I say, she also fittingly hears from the bridegroom and the Lord: "Behold, winter has passed, the rain has gone and departed, rise my closest one, my bride, my dove, and come."

2. We say this, brothers, because as the Church in the custom of Christ has already accepted, the Virgin Mary is traditionally said to have been taken to the heavens on this day. But in what order she moved from here to the heavenly realms, no catholic history tells. Not only does the Church of God say to reject the apocryphal but also to be ignorant of them. Indeed, some things have been written about her assumption without the author's name, which, as I said, are treated so cautiously that they are hardly allowed to be read to confirm the truth of the matter. Some are indeed perplexed because her body is not found on earth, nor is her assumption with flesh, as read in the apocryphal, found in catholic history. To them, it must be said that if the body of Moses is not found on earth, with whom God spoke face to face, it is foolish to seek that of her through whom God of majesty was incarnated on earth. For it is not fitting for anyone to be anxious about knowledge of her body, whom they do not doubt reigns with Christ, elevated above the angels. It should suffice human knowledge to truly confess her as the queen of heaven, for she bore the king of angels.

3. Nor is there found among the Latins any writer who has spoken openly about her death. For when Ambrose of blessed memory was interpreting that verse from the Gospel in which Simeon says to the Mother of the Lord: "And a sword will pierce your own soul too", he says: "Neither history nor scripture teaches that Mary ended her life with a sword." Hence also Isidore says: "It is uncertain," he says, "whether by this word he meant the sword of the spirit or the sword of persecution." But what should I say about these things of which I speak when even John the Evangelist, who took her into his own before the Lord's cross, has not left anything in writing for posterity about this? For no one could narrate this more faithfully, if God had wished it to be revealed, than he who took her in to care for her and, against custom, did not leave his mother. It remains then, that man should not falsely fabricate openly what God wished to remain hidden. However, the true sentiment about her assumption is proven to be this, that according to the Apostle, whether in body or out of the body, not knowing, we believe she was taken up above the angels.

1. Adest, dilectissimi fratres, dies ualde uenerabilis, dies omnium sanctorum sollemnitates praecellens. Adest, inquam, dies praeclara, dies inclita, dies in qua e mundo migrasse creditur Virgo Maria. Et ideo cum summa exultatione laudes intonet uniuersa terra tantae Virginis inlustrata excessu, quia et indignum ualde est, ut illius recordationis sollemnitas sit apud nos sine maximo honore, per quam meruimus suscipere uitae auctorem, satisque praeposterum iudicandum est, ut cum sanctorum celebremus uictorias Martyrum, illius sollemnitatem illis non praeferamus, o quae huic mundo edidit Principem Martyrum. In hac siquidem die conpetenter sponso illi caelesti proclamat Virgo Maria: Tenuisti manum dexteram meam, et in uoluntate tua deduxisti me, et cum gloria adsumpsisti me. Hodie, inquam, et ipsa ab sponso et Domino congrue audit : Iam hiemps transiit, imber abiit et recessit, surge proxima mea, sponsa mea, columba mea et ueni.

2. Hoc idcirco dicimus, fratres, quia sicut iam in consuetudinem Christi suscepit Ecclesia, hodierna die ad caelos adsumpta fuisse traditur Virgo Maria. Sed quo ordine hinc ad superna transierit regna, nulla catholica narrat historia. Non solum autem respuere apocryfa, uerum etiam ignorare dicitur haec eadem Dei Ecclesia. Et quidem sunt nonnulla sine auctoris nomine de eius adsumptione conscripta, quae, ut dixi, ita cauentur, ut ad confirmandam rei ueritatem legi minime permittantur. Hinc sane pulsantur nonnulli, quia nec corpus eius in terra inuenitur, nec adsumptio eius cum carne, ut in apocrypha legitur, in catholica historia reperitur. Quibus dicendum est, quia si Moysi corpus ab homine non inuenitur in terris, cum quo locutus est Deus facie ad faciem, illius quaerere dementiae est, per quam idem maiestatis Deus incarnatus effulsit in terris. Neque enim dignum est de corporis eius notitia sollicitum quempiam esse, quam non dubitat super angelos eleuatam cum Christo regnare. Sufficere debet tantum notitiae humanae hanc uere fateri reginam caelorum, pro eo quod regem peperit angelorum.

3. Sed nec inuenitur apud Latinos aliquis tractatorum de eius morte quippiam aperte dixisse. Nam cum illud Euangelii uersiculum quo Symeon dicit ad Domini Matrem : Et tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, beatae recordationis tractaret Ambrosius, ait : Nec historia nec littera docet, Mariam gladio uitam finisse. Hinc et Isidorus : Incertum est, inquit , per hoc dictum, utrum gladium spiritus an gladium, dixerit persecutionis. Sed quid de his de quibus loquor dicam, cum nec ipse qui hanc ante crucem Domini accepit in sua, id est Iohannes euangelista, de hoc posteris aliquid retinendum scriptis mandauit ? Nullus enim hoc fidelius narrare potuit, si illud Deus manifestari uoluisset, quam ille utique qui hanc nutriendam suscepit, nec contra morem filius matrem reliquit. Restat ergo, ut homo mendaciter non fingat apertum, quod Deus uoluit manere occultum. Vera autem de eius adsumptione sententia haec esse probatur, ut secundum Apostolum, siue in corpore, siue extra corpus ignorantes, adsumptam super angelos credamus.

You will note that in his discussion of Revelation 12, he makes no reference to Mary's Bodily Assumption. Moreover, when actually preaching on the occasion of the Feast of the Assumption, he declines to adopt a Bodily Assumption view.