Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
11. Thou art worthy, &c.] Here we have the praise of God the Creator by His Creatures as such: in the next ch. we have the praise of the Redeemer.
for thy pleasure ] Better, because of Thy will.
they are ] Read they were: not exactly “they came into being,” but “they had their being,” as the simple verb substantive is very well translated in Act 17:28.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Thou art worthy, O Lord – In thy character, perfections, and government, there is what makes it proper that universal praise should be rendered. The feeling of all true worshippers is, that (God is worthy of the praise that is ascribed to him. No man worships him aright who does not feel that there is that in his nature and his doings which makes it proper that he should receive universal adoration.
To receive glory – To have praise or glory ascribed to thee.
And honour – To be honored; that is, to be approached and adored as worthy of honor.
And power – To have power ascribed to thee, or to be regarded as having infinite power. Man can confer no power on God, but he may acknowledge what he has, and adore him for its exertion in his behalf and in the government of the world.
For thou hast created all things – Thus, laying the foundation for praise. No one can contemplate this vast and wonderful universe without seeing that He who has made it is worthy to receive glory, and honor, and power. Compare the notes on Job 38:7.
And for thy pleasure they are – They exist by thy will – dia to thelema. The meaning is, that they owe their existence to the will of God, and therefore their creation lays the foundation for praise. He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. He said, Let there be light; and there was light. There is no other reason why the universe exists at all than that such was the will of God; there is nothing else that is to be adduced as explaining the fact that anything has now a being. The putting forth of that will explains all; and, consequently, whatever wisdom, power, goodness, is manifested in the universe, is to be traced to God, and is the expression of what was in him from eternity. It is proper, then, to look up through nature to natures God, and wherever we see greatness or goodness in the works of creation, to regard them as the faint expression of what exists essentially in the Creator.
And were created – Bringing more distinctly into notice the fact that they owe their existence to his will. They are not eternal; they are not self-existent; they were formed from nothing. This concludes the magnificent introduction to the principal visions in this book. It is beautifully appropriate to the solemn disclosures which are to be made in the following portions of the book, and, as in the case of Isaiah and Ezekiel, was eminently adapted to impress the mind of the holy seer with awe. Heaven is opened to his view; the throne of God is seen; there is a vision of Him who sits upon that throne; thunders and voices are heard around the throne; the lightnings play; and a rainbow, symbol of peace, encircles all; the representatives of the redeemed church, occupying subordinate thrones, and in robes of victory, and with crowns on their heads, are there; a vast smooth expanse like the sea is spread out before the throne; and the emblems of the wisdom, the power, the vigilance, the energy, the strength of the divine administration are there, represented as in the act of bringing honor to God, and proclaiming his praise. The mind of John was doubtless prepared by these august visions for the disclosures which follow; and the mind of the reader should in like manner be deeply and solemnly impressed when he contemplates them, as if he looked into heaven, and saw the impressive grandeur of the worship there. Let us fancy ourselves, therefore, with the holy seer looking into heaven, and listen with reverence to what the great God discloses respecting the various changes that are to occur until every foe of the church shall be subdued, and the earth shall acknowledge his sway, and the whole scene shall close in the triumphs and joys of heaven.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive] Thus all creation acknowledges the supremacy of God; and we learn from this song that he made all things for his pleasure; and through the same motive he preserves. Hence it is most evident, that he hateth nothing that he has made, and could have made no intelligent creature with the design to make it eternally miserable. It is strange that a contrary supposition has ever entered into the heart of man; and it is high time that the benevolent nature of the Supreme God should be fully vindicated from aspersions of this kind.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All the praises, homages, and acknowledgments of all the creatures is thy due; as then art he who gavest the first being to all creatures, and therefore gavest it them, that they might praise, honour, serve, and obey thee.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. O LordThe two oldestmanuscripts, A, B, Vulgate, and Syriac add, “andour God.” “Our” by virtue of creation, and especiallyredemption. One oldest manuscript, B, and Syriac insert “theHoly One.” But another, A, Vulgate, and Copticomit this, as English Version does.
glory, c.”theglory . . . the honour . . . the power.”
thouemphatic in theGreek: “It is THOUwho didst create.”
all thingsGreek,“the all things”: the universe.
for, &c.Greek,“on account of” “for the sake of Thy pleasure,”or “will.” English Version is good Greek.Though the context better suits, it was because of Thy will,that “they were” (so one oldest manuscript, A, Vulgate,Syriac, and Coptic read, instead of English Version“are”: another oldest manuscript, B, reads, “They werenot, and were created,” were created out of nothing),that is, were existing, as contrasted with their previousnon-existence. With God to will is to effect: to determine isto perform. So in Ge 1:3, “Letthere be light, and there was light”: in Hebrew anexpressive tautology, the same word and tense and letters being usedfor “let there be,” and “there was,” marking thesimultaneity and identity of the will and the effect. D. LONGINUS[On the Sublime, 9], a heathen, praises this description ofGod’s power by “the lawgiver of the Jews, no ordinary man,”as one worthy of the theme.
were createdby Thydefinite act of creation at a definite time.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory honour, and power,…. The Alexandrian copy, and some others, the Complutensian edition, the Vulgate Latin version, and all the Oriental ones, read, “thou art worthy, O Lord, and our God, to receive”; that is, to receive the acknowledgment and ascription of glory, honour, and power; for otherwise God cannot be said to receive these from his creatures, than by their confessing and declaring that they belong unto him: and that for the reasons following,
for thou hast created all things; the whole universe, the heavens, the earth, and sea, and all that in them are:
and for thy pleasure they are and were created; God is the first cause, and the last end of all things; by his power they are made, and according to his will, and for his own glory, and therefore is worthy of such a doxology; see Pr 16:4. What is here said is contrary to a notion imbibed by the Jews z, that the world was not created but for the sake of the Israelites: and elsewhere a they say,
“the world was not created but for David; and one says for Moses; and Rabbi Jochanan says for the Messiah;”
which last is truest.
z Zohar in Exod. fol. 6. 3. & Tzeror Hammor, fol. 109. 1. & 161. 3. a T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Our Lord and our God ( ). The nominative form here used as vocative as in Joh 20:28 and often.
To receive (). Epexegetic second aorist active infinitive of with (worthy).
The glory ( ). The article referring to in verse 9 and so with (the honour), though (the power) is not in verse 9, but is the power due to be ascribed to God.
Thou didst create ( ). Emphasis on (thou), first aorist active indicative of , the verb used about the act of creation by Paul in Col 1:16 (, ), constative aorist giving a summary picture of the whole (not as a process).
Because of thy will ( ). Reason for creation of the universe as in Heb 2:10 (‘ ).
They were (). Imperfect tense with a cursory glance at the universe as a fact, possibly a potential existence in God’s purpose in the eternal past before the actual creation in time.
And were created ( ). First aorist passive indicative of the same verb, , just used and in the plural, while Paul (Col 1:16) uses the singular . See 1Co 8:6. God’s will wrought through the Logos (Christ).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
O Lord [] . Read oJ kuriov kai oJ Qeov hJmwn our Lord and our God. So Rev. See on Mt 21:3.
To receive [] . Or perhaps, better, to take, since the glory, honor, and power are the absolute possession of the Almighty. See on Joh 3:32. Power. Instead of the thanks in the ascription of the living creatures. In the excess of gratitude, self is forgotten. Their thanksgiving is a tribute to the creative power which called them into being. Note the articles, “the glory,” etc. (so Rev.), expressing the absoluteness and universality of these attributes. See on chapter Rev 1:6.
All things [ ] . With the article signifying the universe. For thy pleasure [ ] . Lit., because of thy will. So Rev. Alford justly remarks : “For thy pleasure of the A. V. introduces An element entirely strange to the context, and, however true in fact, most inappropriate here, where the oti for renders a reason for the worthiness to take honor and glory and power.”
They are [] . Read hsan they were. One of the great MSS., B, reads oujk hsan they were not; i e., they were created out of nothing. The were is not came into being, but simply they existed. See on Joh 1:3; Joh 7:34; Joh 8:58. Some explain, they existed in contrast with their previous non – existence; in which case it would seem that the order of the two clauses should have been reversed; besides which it is not John’s habit to apply this verb to temporary and passing objects. Professor Milligan refers it to the eternal type existing in the divine mind before anything was created, and in conformity with which it was made when the moment of creation arrived. Compare Heb 8:5. “Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or any other more acceptable name – assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of every inquiry – was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning, or created and having a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things which are apprehended by opinion and sense are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must of necessity be created by a cause. But how can we find out the father and maker of all this universe? And when we have found him, to speak of his nature to all men is impossible. Yet one more question has to be asked about him, which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world ? – the pattern which is unchangeable, or that which is created ? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, then, as is plain, he must have looked to that which is eternal. But if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then he looked to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to the eternal, for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes” (Plato, “Timaeus,” 28, 29).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Thou art worthy, 0 Lord,” (aksios ei ho kurios kai ho theos hemon) “Worthy art thou, 0 Lord, our God,” the God of good angels, Israel, The Church, and even the redeemed from among the Gentiles, represented by the four living creatures in their midst, round about the throne, 1Co 10:32.
2) “To receive glory and honor and power,” (labein ten doksan kai ten timen kai ten dunamin) “To receive the glory and honor and the dynamic power,” Jud 1:25, ascribes such interminable honor, glory, majesty, power, and admiration to the only wise God and our Savior without cessation or end of continuity.
3) “For thou hast created all things,” (hoti su ektisas ta panta) “Because thou (didst) create all things; All things had their creation, origin of being or existence in and have been sustained by this majestic, worthy, eminent God, Gen 1:1; Joh 1:1-3; Act 17:24; Act 17:28; 2Co 8:6; Col 1:16-17.
4) “And for thy pleasure they are and were created,” (kai dia to thelema sou esan kai ektisthesan) “And on account of thy will they existed and they were created,” Pro 16:4; 1Ti 6:14-16; for his pleasure -and it pleased Him, to redeem all men, even me, hallelujah, Joh 3:16; 2Pe 3:9; 1Co 15:24-28; Psa 19:1. While praise of this chapter has creation as its central theme, chapter five, next, concerns praise for redemption of all things.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(11) The doxology is three-fold. (See Note on Rev. 1:6.) It should run
Worthy art Thou, O Lord, and our God,
To receive the glory, and the honour, and the power,
Because Thou didst create all things,
And through (or, owing toi.e., because of) Thy will they were (not are) and were created.
The existence of all things was owing to the will of God, as also was the creation of all things, which was the realisation or manifestation of that will.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. Hast created As response to the creational representatives; it is the creation that the elders now celebrate.
For thy pleasure A decidedly incorrect translation. The Greek signifies, on account of thy will. The creation is the consequence of the divine volition.
They are They now exist.
Were created Were brought into existence at first. This verse is quoted in Dr. Hodge’s Theology to prove that God’s end in creation was solely his own good pleasure and glory. But, whether that doctrine is true or not, it is not contained in these words. The text only traces the creation to the divine volition, without explicitly declaring what was the end or motive of the volition. But the thanks rendered certainly imply that a moving influence was the divine goodness, and a moving end was the happiness of the created.
SCENERY AND SCOPE OF THE APOCALYPTIC VISION. For a clear understanding of the movements of the book, it is all important to keep in mind the following view of the visional world into which John now enters.
The door in heaven admits John into the symbolic heaven, or region and scene of Apocalyptic evolutions. The divine throne and state were on an ideal plain of vision from which a wide range on all sides can be seen.
Above is the firmament, or firmamental heaven, in which the dragon is first seen, Rev 12:2; and from which the angel of chap. 10, and Christ in Rev 19:11, descend; and a midheaven where the birds fly. See note Rev 19:17; Rev 8:13; Rev 14:6. Above the firmament is the highest heaven, whence the New Jerusalem comes down, Rev 21:2. Below, in more or less distant view, are the earth and sea, and even the crater of the bottomless pit, (Rev 9:1; Rev 20:3,) and lake of fire, Rev 20:10. Near at hand are Mount Zion, Rev 9:1, and the temple, Rev 9:10, with its court, sanctuary, and altar, 11. This divine throne in regal state maintains its permanent position through the whole Apocalypse. Even when the old heaven and earth disappear, and the great white throne of judgment (Rev 20:11) and the new earth appear, (Rev 21:1,) this throne of Revelation remains in its moveless, ideal position. And St. John is supposed to stand permanently in its front, at due distance to command, with his observant eye, the whole scene. We imagine the throne to be in the Holy of Holies, yet so as to be usually unconcealed by curtain or wall from the seer’s eye. But once does our seer leave the presence of the Apocalyptic throne; namely, when he visits the wilderness of the harlot, 17. Perhaps, also, a second time, when he scales the top of a high mountain to survey the New Jerusalem, Rev 21:10.
In the following passages John’s symbolic or scenic heaven is meant: Rev 4:1-2; Rev 8:1; Rev 14:17; Rev 15:5; Rev 16:17.
In the following, the astronomic, firmamental, or atmospheric heaven: Rev 5:3; Rev 5:13; Rev 6:13-14; Rev 8:10; Rev 9:1; Rev 10:1; Rev 10:4-6; Rev 10:8; Rev 11:6; Rev 11:12-13; Rev 11:15; Rev 11:19; Rev 12:1; Rev 12:3-4; Rev 12:7-8; Rev 12:10; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 13:13; Rev 15:1; Rev 16:11; Rev 16:21; Rev 18:1; Rev 18:4-5; Rev 18:20; Rev 19:1; Rev 19:11; Rev 19:14; Rev 19:17; Rev 20:1; Rev 20:9; Rev 20:11; Rev 21:1. On this heaven, as a place of superhuman beings, see Eph 2:2; Eph 4:9-10. Highest heavens, God’s residence, Rev 21:2-3; Rev 21:10. God’s throne, Rev 12:5.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Rev 4:11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, &c. Some read and point the verse thus: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive the glory, and the honour, and the power: For thou hast created all things; and for thy pleasure they are, and were created. The last might be rendered, For thou hast created all things, and through thy will they were,[that is, “were brought into existence,”] and were formed; 1:e. had their several shapes and qualities assigned to them. And thus God is declared to be the author of the existence of matter, as well as of the form, or outward appearance, of all things in the world. See Isa 66:2.
Inferences.And should not we likewise fall down with the glorified spirits, and pay some homage to the Sovereign Majesty of heaven, though we may not equal theirs? For ever adored be the divine grace, that a door is opened in heaven, in consequence of which, even before we enter, we are allowed to look in; and thus to confirm our faith and to animate our devotion, which, alas! after all, is too ready to decline and languish. That it may be greatly invigorated, let us look up to the throne, and to him that sitteth thereupon; and rejoice to see that peaceful emblem with which the seat of his glory is surrounded, the rainbow of vivid and pleasant green; signifying, that the majestic Being who fills it, is the covenant-God of all his believing and obedient people.
Let us contemplate the blessed angels, the ministers of God, who do his pleasure, represented here under hieroglyphical characters, as possessed of amazing strength and courage, resolution and patience; of the sublimest reason, and the most deep and penetrating sagacity, active and pure as flames of fire; and with these lofty ideas in our minds, let us ardently pray that the will of God may be so done on earth, as it is done in heaven. Let us also remember the elders here mentioned, the representatives of the church, seated on glorious thrones, clothed in that white raiment which is the righteousness of the saints, and adorned with crowns of glory. And let us especially consider, how the angels and the saints are employed; they rest not day nor night from breathing out the most ardent devotions; they feel nothing of that weariness and languor with which we are too frequently invaded in this state of mortality; but they cry continually, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who art, and wast, and art to come; they give glory, and honour, and thanksgiving to him that sitteth on the throne. And infinitely worthy is he to receive it: he who is the Almighty Creator, he who is the ever-present, and ever-gracious Supporter of all! Thou art worthy, O Lord, thou alone art worthy; and though thou withholdest from us the face of thy throne, while we dwell in these tabernacles of clay, yet as we are thy creatures, thy rational creatures, we partake of thy protection and bounty; and, feeble as our faculties are, and dark as the world is in which we dwell, we are able to discover thee as our almighty Creator, our constant Preserver, our never-failing Benefactor. And, as such, may we daily worship and adore thee with our feeble voices in this state of mortality; that when we are duly prepared, we may begin a nobler song, and join in the sublimer anthems and hallelujahs above. Amen.
REFLECTIONS.1st, St. John being prepared for further discoveries by what he had already seen, a door is opened to him in heaven; and the voice of Jesus, which he had heard before, solemn as the trumpet which was heard of old from Sinai’s top, calls him to come up thither, that he might be informed of the great events of Providence relative to the church. Instantly the sacred rapture seized his spirit, and the glorious vision presents itself to his view.
1. He saw a throne of majesty and judgment, compassed with a rainbow beautiful as the emerald, an emblem of that propitiousness and kindness, and of that covenant-relation to his believing people, which the blessed God is pleased to acknowledge in the midst of his transcendent glory.
2. Upon the throne sat the eternal Jehovah, the Antient of days, the Creator, Governor, and Judge of all; shining like the jasper and sardine stone, with brightness infinitely surpassing those precious stones which glittered on the high-priest’s breast-plate, inexpressibly glorious in holiness, and every divine perfection.
3. Around the throne were four-and-twenty elders seated, clothed with white raiment, and on their heads they had crowns of gold; the representatives of the whole body of the faithful saints, now consummately perfected in holiness, admitted to their eternal rest, brought into God’s immediate presence, enjoying that beatific vision, and crowned with glory, honour, and immortality.
4. Out of the throne proceeded lightnings, and thunderings, and voices, signifying the mighty and powerful energy of the gospel-word, which spread like lightning through the world, or of those tremendous judgments which he executes on the earth.
5. There were seven lamps burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God, the emblem of the variety and perfection of the gifts and graces which the Holy Ghost bestows.
6. Before the throne was a sea of glass, like unto crystal, in allusion, as is supposed, to the molten sea, where the priests washed (Exo 30:18-21.); the figure of Christ’s blood, which cleanseth from all sin.
7. In the midst of the throne, and round about it, were four living creatures, full of eyes before and behind; the first like a lion, the second like an ox, the third with the face of a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle; and these seem to represent the angelic hosts. See the Annotations. However, others consider them as representing all the ministers of the gospel; but the reader must be left to judge for himself.
2nd, The four living creatures, like the seraphim, (Isa 6:2.) had six wings, and they were full of eyes within, deep read in the knowledge of God and of themselves, and quick to penetrate, discern, and judge: and with ceaseless adorations they worship the eternal, unchangeable, holy, and triune Jehovah.
When these angelic hosts or ministers led the song of heaven, the elders who represented the church triumphant, joined in their adorations, casting their crowns before the throne, and, humbly prostrate, ascribed eternal glory, honour, and power to the ever-living Jehovah, the Creator and Ruler of all, by whose sovereign pleasure every creature exists, and is designed to shew forth his praise. Note; (1.) All things are of God, and for God: his own glory is the end of all his works, and should be the design of ours. (2.) God’s saints on earth are called upon to join the services of heaven, and to unite in the same sacred ascriptions of praise to him that liveth for ever and ever. (3.) The highest are the humblest beings: they who approach nearer to the throne, are most deeply sensible, that to grace alone they owe their unutterable bliss, and therefore cast down their golden crowns before their Lord, and say, Thou, and thou alone, art worthy to receive the glory.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rev 4:11 . Not without significance, the elders who, as representatives of the redeemed, stand in a still closer relation to their Lord and God than the four beings, address the Enthroned One: . . [1832]
. Cf. Rev 5:12 . That God not only when he is worshipped, but also when he exterminates his enemies, receives glory, [1833] does not belong here.
., . . . , the elders say, because in replying they look back in a certain respect to Rev 4:8 . [1834]
. While the representatives of even creation are right in offering thanks (Rev 4:8 ), especially suitable in the mouth of the elders, who although naturally also belonging to creation, yet with a certain objectivity regard the work of creation ( , . . .), is the thankful acknowledgment of the power of the Creator revealed therein. [1835]
. The Vulg., correctly: “On account of thy will.” Luther, incorrectly: “Through thy will.” Concerning with the accus. to designate the ground, not the means, cf. Joh 6:57 ; Winer, p. 372.
In regard to , the reference may be considered impossible: “In thy disposition from eternity, before they were created;” [1836] and just as little dare the be applied to regeneration through Christ, [1837] if the be correctly referred to the creation. Bengel’s explanation of the : “All things were , from the creation to the time of this ascription of praise, and still henceforth. Hereby the preservation of all created things is praised,” is also artificial; while his explanation of : “Since thou hast created all things, they remain as long as thou wilt have them,” is utterly incorrect. The is taken mostly [1838] as synonymous with ; but is not equivalent to or . [1839] On the contrary, after the divine work of creation is mentioned ( ), the idea recurs to the same point with vivid clearness: as all things were , which before were not. The is, then, not synonymous with the , but presents expressly the precise fact upon which the depends: “they were created.” Thus the lauded work of the Creator ( ) is made manifest even to the creatures by the idea in its two modifications of the and .
[1832] See Critical Notes.
[1833] Beng. Cf. Rev 11:17 .
[1834] Beng.
[1835] Cf. Rom 1:20 .
[1836] N. de Lyra.
[1837] Grot.
[1838] “They came into being:” De Wette. Cf. C. a Lap., Eichh., Herd., Hengstenb., Ebrard.
[1839] Psa 33:9 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
REFLECTIONS
READER! Let us seek grace, that, like the beloved Apostle, we may by faith hear the sweet voice, saying, Come up hither, and like him, may be immediately in the Spirit, when we come to visions and revelations of the Lord!
Oh! Lord the Holy Ghost! as it is thy blessed office to glorify the Lord Jesus; do thou forever glorify him to the view of thy people, that as oft as thou liftest the eye, and the soul to look to the throne; oh! to see the Lord Jesus, as the Rainbow encircling the throne, and, as God the Father’s bow, the everlasting token of God’s good will to man. Yea, Almighty Father, behold thy Church in Him, through Him, and by Him, as our everlasting security and portion. And let thy Church begin the Hymn, and all thy redeemed Elders and Men, follow in one vast song in the same, to celebrate the wonders of thy grace. And what a song will that be finally in heaven, when all the redeemed from every nation, country, and clime, shall be assembled before thee, to sing to the Lord’s glory forevermore?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Ver. 11. Thou art worthy ] If we would have our souls set as a pearl in that fair ring of heavenly courtiers that compass the Lamb’s throne, let us praise God as they do.
For thou hast created ] Our service must not be rash but reasonable, Rom 12:1 , such as whereof we can render a reason. God hates a blind sacrifice, a Samaritan’s service, when men worship they know not what nor why, Joh 4:22 .
And were created ] God’s power put forth in the creation and administration of the world is twice here mentioned; as that which can never be sufficiently admired and adored. See Trapp on “ Gen 1:1 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rev 4:11 . An implicit refutation of the dualistic idea, developed by Cerinthus, the traditional opponent of John in Asia Minor, that creation was the work of some angel or power separate from God (Iren. i. 26, iv. 32, Hippol. Haer. vii. 33, x. 1). The enthusiastic assent of the to the adoration of the Creator is expressed in word as well as in action. emphatic = the usual apocalyptic (R.J., 295, 296) emphasis on creation as a proof of God’s power in providence and claims on mankind ( e.g. 4 Ezr 3:4 , “thou didst fashion the earth, and that thyself alone”). That God the redeemer is God the creator, forms one of the O.T. ideas which acquire special weight in the Apocalypse. Despite the contradictions of experience and the apparent triumph of Satan, the apocalypses of the age never gave way to dualism. Their firm hope was that the world, ideally God’s, would become actually his when messiah’s work was done; hence, as here, the assertion of his complete power over nature and nations. “Because thou didst will it ( , , emphatic) they existed and were created” (act and process of creation). As an answer to polytheism this cardinal belief in God the creator came presently to the front in the second century creeds and apologies. But the idea here is different alike from contemporary Jewish and from subsequent Christian speculation, the former holding that creation was for the sake of Israel ( cf. 4 Esd. 6:55, 7:11, 9:13, Apoc. Bar. xiv. 18, 19, xv. 7, Ass. Mos. i. 12, etc., a favourite rabbinic belief), the latter convinced that it was for the sake of the Christian church ( cf. Herm. Vis. ii. 4). Nor is there any evident trace of the finer idea (En. iii v., Clem. Rom. xx., etc.) which contrasted the irregularities and impiety of men with the order and obedience of the universe. The conception of the holy ones rendering ceaseless praise in heaven would be familiar to early Christians in touch with Hellenic ideas and associations; e.g. , Hekataeus of Abdera, in his sketch of the ideal pious folk, compares them to the priests of Apollo, (Dieterich 36 f., cf. Apoc. Pet. 19 20). Test. Lev 3Lev 3 . .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
O LORD. The texts read “our LORD and our God” (App-98.)
glory, honour, power. The texts place article “the” before each.
glory, as Rev 4:9.
power. App-172.1; Rev 176:1.
hast created = didst create. Greek. ktizo. In Rev. only here and Rev 10:6.
pleasure. App-102.
are. The texts read “were”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Rev 4:11. , pleasure [will]) , a free and gracious will.-) They are created, that is, they remain in existence. There are other expressions very similar: he shall be blessed, that is, he shall continue blessed, Gen 27:33; I have written, that is, I do not change it, Joh 19:22; is tamed, that is, permits itself to be tamed, Jam 3:7; shall be changed, i.e. shall undergo a change, and continue changed, Heb 1:12. [Creation is the foundation of all the other works of GOD, and therefore it is the ground also of all the thanksgiving which arises from His creatures.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
art: Rev 5:2, Rev 5:9, Rev 5:12, 2Sa 22:4, Psa 18:3
to receive: Rev 14:7, Deu 32:4, 1Ch 16:28, 1Ch 16:29, Neh 9:5, Job 36:3, Psa 29:1, Psa 29:2, Psa 68:34, Psa 96:7, Psa 96:8
for thou: Rev 10:6, Gen 1:1, Exo 20:11, Isa 40:26, Isa 40:28, Jer 10:11, Jer 32:17, Joh 1:1-3, Act 17:24, Eph 3:9, Col 1:16, Col 1:17, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10
and for: Pro 16:4, Rom 11:36
Reciprocal: 1Ch 29:11 – is the greatness 2Ch 2:12 – that made heaven Neh 9:6 – thou hast Est 1:4 – the riches Psa 24:7 – King Psa 33:9 – and it stood Psa 115:1 – unto us Psa 138:5 – for great Psa 148:5 – for he Jer 27:5 – made Jer 51:15 – hath made Dan 2:37 – power Mat 6:9 – Hallowed Joh 1:3 – General Act 7:2 – The God 1Co 12:18 – as it 1Th 2:19 – crown 1Ti 6:16 – to whom Heb 1:3 – upholding Heb 2:10 – for Heb 11:3 – faith 1Pe 4:19 – a faithful Rev 1:6 – to him Rev 7:17 – God Rev 10:5 – lifted Rev 19:1 – Salvation
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE REASON OF CREATION
Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.
Rev 4:11
Beyond this the highest reason of man cannot go. As proof of this, observe that all the manifold speculations of ancient and modern philosophy are compelled to acknowledge the mystery at the root of things. The most advanced modern science, when it has said its last word, goes no farther, and tells but little more than the gropings in the dark of some ancient Grecian sage. Christian faith finds God where fathomless mystery begins.
I. The productive cause of creation is God.Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God. Take the telescope and sweep the worlds above; take the microscope and explore the unseen world around us. Man is His work. He has made us, and not we ourselves.
II. The ultimate reason of creation is Gods will.Because of Thy will they were [i.e. come into being], and were created (R.V.). Cf. Col 1:16.
(a) The earth as a theatre of His redeeming plans.
(b) The visible universe to impress us with His majesty.
(c) Man as the object of His love and redeeming grace.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
The Apologists Bible Commentary
Revelation 4
11″ Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”
C O M M E N T A R YThe phrase “our Lord and our God” in this verse has long been cited by Greek grammarians and scholars as a parallel to John 20:28 . Some who deny that Thomas is addressing Jesus as “my Lord and my God” have argued that had Thomas been addressing Jesus, he would have used the grammatical case known as the ‘vocative.’ However, in NT Greek, the nominative case is often used in place of the vocative, as it does here. This verse demonstrates that Jewish believers in the NT era were comfortable addressing their Lord and their God in the nominative, just as Thomas does. This verse is also significant for the student of Christology because it serves as a parallel to Revelation 5:13 . As Richard Bauckham notes, “The the circle [of worship] expands and the myriad of angels join the living creatures and the elders in a form of worship (5:12) clearly parallel to that offered to God (4:11)” (Revelation , p. 60). Rev 4:11 – Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory honour, and power,…. The Alexandrian copy, and some others, the Complutensian edition, the Vulgate Latin version, and all the Oriental ones, read, “thou art worthy, O Lord, and our God, to receive”; that is, to receive the acknowledgment and ascription of glory, honour, and power; for otherwise God cannot be said to receive these from his creatures, than by their confessing and declaring that they belong unto him: and that for the reasons following…(Gill ).
G R A M M A T I C A L A N A L Y S I S kurios kai qeos `hmwn hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS hMN the Lord and the God of us The nominative form here used as vocative as in John 20:28 and often (RWP ). Nominative for vocative Even where the nominative is still formally distinguished from the vocative, there is still a tendency for the nominative to usurp the place of the vocative (a tendency observable already in Homer)….Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors…The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ho theos, ho patr, etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article….Jn 20:28 (cf., Rev 4:11) (BDF , pp. 81-82). About sixty times in the New Testament a nominative case noun is used to designate the person being addressed. The nominative functions like a vocative….The nominative of address is usually preceded by an article (Young , p. 12). A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case. It is used (as is the voc.) in direct address to designate the addressee….The articular use also involves two nuances: address to an inferior and simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of whether the addressee is inferior or superior (Wallace , pp. 56 – 57). In Hebrew typically the noun of address will have the article….In the LXX, God [Elohim] is customarily addressed with an articular nom. (Wallace , p. 57 n. 71). The nominative for vocative has exactly the same force and meaning as the vocative. This can be seen in numerous parallel passages in the Gospels, in which the vocative appears in one and the nominative in another (see, for example, Matt 27:46 [thee mou, thee mou] and Mark 15:34 [ho theos mou, ho theos mou]).
O T H E R V I E W S C O N S I D E R E DJehovah’s Witnesses objection: Some Jehovah’s Witnesses have argued that the text of this verse as it appears in the two authoritative Greek New Testaments (UBS4 and NA27) is not supported by the “earliest and best” manuscript evidence. One Witness website puts it this way: In attempting to refute what is stated here, many point to Rev 4:11, where, going from the NA27 text, we find hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS hHMWN (our Lord and God). This is an expression of God, taken as a direct address and thus the nominative KURIOS for a vocative. There is significant evidence to consider in examining this topic though, and here we will make a textual analysis on the matter. The NA27 reading comes from Codex Alexandrinus, from the 5th century. Yet, going back to Codex Sinaticus, which predates Alexandrinus by a century, we find the reading KURIE hO KURIOS KAI QEOS. Thus, KURIE is in the vocative case, while hO KURIOS is in apposition to this, and thus would be expected to be in the nominative case with the article. This would directly conform to the expected use of the vocative case with KURIE. There are a number of texts dating from the 4th century that render this verse with KURIE, which is also the rendering found in the Textus Receptus. Additionally, we find this to be the normal usage in Revelation. This can be seen at Rev 7:14; 11:17; 15:3, 4; 16:7; 22:20. Without question this is the normal usage and also the most likely within this book. Other Witnesses have stated that Herman Hoskier lists over 60 manuscripts with the KURIE reading “dating from the 4th Century (Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together With the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers, A complete Conspectus of All Authorities, Vol 2, p. 139). The Witnesses thus argue on the basis of external evidence (best manuscript attestation) and internal evidence (parallels within Revelation itself) that the vocative reading was most likely the original, and thus cannot be used as a legitimate parallel to John 20:28. Response: I will address each line of evidence in turn: External (Textual) Evidence Both NA27 and UBS4 have ho kurios kai ho theos. Thus, the editorial committees of both authoritative Greek New Testaments selected this text over the vocatival variants. While claims can be made by online apologists, the fact remains that those scholars who have spent their professional lives evaluating various NT manuscripts with the goal of producing the most accurate text possible believed the nominative variant to be the one most likely representing what John actually wrote. One of the members of the UBS committee was Bruce Metzger. His Textual Commentary on the UBS3 text doesn’t even comment on the kurie variants, so they clearly were of little significance in the minds of the UBS translators. The website quoted above states: “There are a number of texts dating from the 4th Century that render this verse with KURIE” (emphasis added). This is false. There are not “a number” of texts dating from the 4th Century. There is one. The textual apparatus in NA27 list the variants of this verse as follows: Codex Aleph: “KURIE hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS” – 4th Century. Here’s what Kurt Aland, a member of both the UBS and NA committees has to say about this Codex: “The text with numerous singular readings (and careless errors) was highly overrated by Tischendorf, and is distinctly inferior to B” (Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 107). The fact that Aland (and the other members of the NA and UBS committees) selected the nominative variant over the vocative/nominative combination in Aleph makes it clear that Aland regarded the general statements he made about Aleph to apply specifically to this verse. 1854: KURIE – 11th Century. Revelation = Category II (“Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences” – Aland). While it is true that Aland regards Category II manuscripts valuable for determining the original reading, again it is clear that he did not regard this variant significant in establishing the original text of Revelation 4:11. Majority Text MSS (tradition A): KURIE – post 6th-7th Centuries. Aland says that the A tradition (supporting KURIE) and the K tradition (supporting hO KURIOS) are about equal in number (op cit, p. 247). He says that a reading attested by Codex A (not Aleph, but Codex 02) and C, plus miniscules 2053, 2062, and 2344 “possess a textual value far superior to Aleph and P47)” (ibid). None of these manuscripts support the KURIE reading. Therefore, the 60-odd manuscripts listed in Hoskier’s text are not at all decisive, as there as just as many Majority manuscripts that support the nominative as do the vocative, and the “far superior” tradition supports the nominative. Syraic (Harklensis): KURIE – 7th Century. A generally slavish translation of the Majority K tradition, with some variations, such as Rev 4:11. Only Codex Aleph dates from the 4th Century. It’s early date does not guarantee textual accuracy, as Aland and other textual critics point out. The earliest manuscripts with the nominative reading date from the 5th Century (A and C). The remaining 60 manuscripts referred to by the website are from the Majority Text tradition, dating from the 6th Centuries and later. The same is true of Hoskier (who, by the way, lists over twice as many manuscripts supporting the nominative variant [op cit, p. 138]). Thus, the claim that there is “significant” evidence to support an original vocative is simply not true. The external evidence supports the nominative reading, as found in both NA27 and UBS4. Internal Evidence The website quoted above states: “Additionally, we find this to be the normal usage in Revelation. This can be seen at Rev 7:14; 11:17; 15:3, 4; 16:7; 22:20. Without question this is the normal usage and also the most likely within this book.” This argument betrays a lack of understanding about how textual critics assess internal evidence. Let’s consider some of the Kurt Aland’s “Twelve Basic Rules for Textual Criticism” (from Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 280-281): 2. Only the reading that best satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be original. 3. Criticism of the text must always begin from the evidence of the manuscript tradition and only afterward turn to a consideration of internal criteria. Thus, if the Witnesses have not established that the external evidence is so great as to overturn the two critical Greek New Testaments (which they have not), they cannot legitimately claim internal evidence should be decisive. More importantly, textual critics consider readings that harmonize with other texts as suspect. Why? Because copyists were not in the habit of creating unique readings. When they corrected a text, they did so in the direction of making it read more smoothly or bringing it into conformity with other, similar texts. As Aland puts it: 10. There is truth in the maxim: lectio diffilicior lectio potior (“the more difficult reading is the more probable reading”). But this principle must not be taken too mechanically. 11. The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior (“the shorter reading is the more probable reading”) is certainly right in many instances. But here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically….Neither should the commonly accepted rule of thumb that variants agreeing with parallel passages or with the Septuagint in Old Testament quotations are secondary be applied in a purely mechanical way. A blind consistency can be just as dangerous here as in Rule 10. Keeping Aland’s caveats in mind, we may safely conclude that simply because the vocative kurie is the more usual form of address in Revelation does not demand that it be so in Revelation 4:11. In fact, its uniqueness is actually an argument in favor of it being original. The variant in Aleph is also a longer variant, and therefore less likely to be original. Textual critics also consider how a variant may have arisen (conscious correction or error) and try logically to deduce which version was more likely the original. The compilers of NA27 and UBS obviously took these criteria into consideration when they chose the nominative over the vocative in Rev 4:11. Let’s see if we can reconstruct their reasoning: 1. Simple error would seem almost impossible. In the case of Aleph, the word kurie is added to the nominative ho kurios kai ho theos. It is difficult to see this being an accident. In the other variants, two words (ho and kurios) are juxtaposed with one (kurie). A simple scribal error would not account for both changes. 2. If a copyist removed kurie from Aleph (or in other manuscriptes, changed kurie to ho kurios), he was changing a text that was smoother and more in harmony with other verses to one that was more distinctive and unusual. 3. If a copyist added kurie to Aleph (or in other manuscripts changed ho kurios to kurie), he was changing a text that was rougher and more distinctive into one that was smoother and more in harmony with other verses. Number 3 is by far the most logical. Again, copyists were not in the habit of creating distinctive readings – instead, they corrected in the direction of conformity. The nominative is, thus, the most likely original, even on the basis of internal evidence. Finally, we may note that regardless of whether the copyist changed from the nominative to the vocative or vice verse, the fact that one may be substituted for the other without changing the meaning of the text simply strengthens the case that it doesn’t matter in which case the nouns occur, the direct address to God is obvious – just as it is in John 20:28. objection: A Jehovah’s Witness apologist who frequents a number of discussion boards raised the following objection to Revelation 4:11 as a parallel to John 20:28: In his article Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1, page 98, footnote 6, Wallace states Eliminated from this list are the numerous examples in Revelation because it is hardly representative of the literary level and style found in the rest of the NT. Wallace acknowledges that nominative for vocative is used of an address to an inferior unless it is a Semitism. (GGBB 57-58) While scholarship is mixed as to the severity of the solecisms found in the Greek of Revelation even Wallace categorizes Revelation as the most Semitic of the books in the NT. He even lists Mark ahead of John. (GGBB 30). Therefore it would be improper to appeal to a Semitic construction in Revelation and export that into the book of John. Wallace only gives one test, or as he says, the key to determining whether the nominative for vocative is standard Koine usage or the Hebrew noun of address — that it is from a Semitic source. He then states that an example of this would be a translation from Hebrew into Greek like the LXX. I do not believe Wallace considers that the book of John, even in this phrase, was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek. He criticizes those who consider that this is the case for the book of Revelation because there is no manuscript evidence to support this. However he never exactly explains how John 20:28 could be from a Semitic source otherwise. Wallace appears to be taking some of his arguments from BDF 147 which says Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd person. (Attic citation deleted) The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations. This is the only test BDF gives as well, but as you can see, they do not allow for this construction in Greek unless there is a translation from a Semitic language into Greek. Therefore if Wallace does not believe that either John or Revelation is translation Greek then he bears the burden of proof to show that this phenomena can result from some sort of ambiguous and undefined Semitic influence. Merely listing Ephesians 5:22 with one assertion about 5:25 is not sufficient. I will comment more on this later. There is something else that Wallace does not mention here. He cites GKC 126f and gives 2Sam 14:4 (GGBB 57, footnote 71) to show that the Hebrew noun of address does not need to be a superior to an inferior but never tells us that even in Hebrew this is a very unusual form. Seow’s A grammar for Biblical Hebrew on page 55 says the definite article may also rarely be used to indicate a vocative. Wallace is constructing an exegesis based upon exceptions. First he must explain why the Koine articular nominative should not be understood in it normative usage and then he appeals to a very rare form of Hebrew to justify it! He also dilutes what BDF says about this requiring a translation from a Semitic source and tries to justify this with a brief comment on a questionable example (Eph. 5:22). Furthermore, in the example in his footnote on page 57, footnote 71, his example of 2Sam 14:4 introduces another problem. Basics of Biblical Hebrew section 5.11 says that this construction is to be translated ‘O King,’ ‘O Man,’ ‘O Lord,’ etc. Looking at the example in the footnote and we do indeed find 2Sam 14:4 is translated ‘O King.’ A survey of the English versions will show that most if not all major versions render it this way. Even if one were to concede that the Hebrew noun of address is used frequently enough to account for an occurrence in the NT, this should only happen if there is a translation from a Semitic language into Greek. However, even if this is the case, the example he cites does not fit John 20:28. 2Sam 14:4 is an example of a simple noun of address, not a noun modified in any way such as the possessive pronoun. There is no English version that renders John 20:28 as a Hebrew noun of address. No version puts the words O My Lord and O My God into the mouth of Thomas. As you can see I have been quoting Wallace as a hostile witness. Perhaps you are as well. He provides valuable insights as to some of the issues on these verses but in my opinion he is frequently overcome by his theology. This is one example. The category of nominative of exclamation better fits normal Koine and does not require an exegesis that is based upon exceptions. Wallace argues for a particular exegesis that is based upon exceptions, but he does not fully explain how precarious his position is. Let’s list the exceptions. Wallace: 1) Acknowledges a violation of normative usage in Koine. 2) Appeals to an exceptional usage in Hebrew. 3) Dilutes the necessity of translation Greek to validate the example. 4) Appeals to a questionable parallel (e.g Eph 5:22) 5) Ignores the common rendering of the Hebrew noun of address (e.g. O King) This is an argument riddled by cumulative exceptions. Response: This Witness apologist argues that because Wallace says Revelation is “hardly representative of the literary level and style found in the rest of the NT,” we should reject Rev 4:11 as a parallel to John 20:28. He is arguing from the general (“The style of Revelation is not representative”) to the particular (“The style of Revelation is not representative of NT use of nominative for vocative”). The particularized conclusion is not logically warranted by the general premise. Simply because Revelation may not be representative NT style in general, does not mean that a grammatically correct sentence in Revelation may not be used as a valid parallel to another NT verse. Wallace is dealing with a particular kind of grammatical anomaly – the “apparent violation of the rules of gender” when a verb or predicate follows natural gender rather than grammatical gender. The location of the quoted footnote is following a list of examples from the NT in which grammatical gender has not been followed. Wallace excludes Revelation from his sample, because in that book there are numerous examples of verbs and predicates not following grammatical number or gender. For example, when the Father and the Lamb are referenced together, they are often accompanied by a verb in the singular. Thus, Wallace is simply being fair in excluding Revelation, because it does not follow ‘normal’ NT usage in gender agreement. But Wallace himself has written several articles on Revelation in which he argues various points on the basis of grammar, and on the basis of how words or phrases are used in other NT books: Clearly, he does not view the grammar of Revelation so appalling that we cannot draw conclusions from it. In the article referenced by the Witness apologist, Wallace is talking about examples in Revelation in which we find exceptions to ‘normal’ grammatical rules. Rev 4:11 is not such an example. The nominative for vocative is a common NT form of address. There is nothing unusual or ungrammatical about it. Wallace says it actually outnumbers the simple vocative in the NT. Rev 4:11 is grammatically sound Koine Greek. There is nothing about it that would lead us to conclude it differs from standard NT usage. The Witness writes: “Therefore the test for a Semitic source would be if the passage in the NT was translated from a Semitic language or a quote from the LXX.” But he is reading too much into what Wallace says. An example (as in one example) of determining a “Semitic source” is a translation from Hebrew or a quote from the LXX. But an example does not logically equate to the only example. It doesn’t really matter whether Wallace explains how John 20:28 could be from a Semitic source – the fact is that he so regards it, and therefore the Witness’s argument is mute. Wallace obviously has other criteria for making this determination – and it appears to be one held by a number of other scholars. The Witness apologist writes: “This is the only “test” BDF gives as well, but as you can see, they do not allow for this construction in Greek unless there is a translation from a Semitic language into Greek. Therefore if Wallace does not believe that either John or Revelation is translation Greek then he bears the burden of proof to show that this phenomena can result from some sort of ambiguous and undefined “Semitic” influence.” The Witness apologist is stacking the deck. BDF 147 also has this to say specifically about Jn 20:28 and Rev 4:11: “With attributive: ‘ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou’ Jn 20:28 (cf. Rev 4:11), ho laos mou Rev 18:4…Lk 12:32; Mk 9:25.” The restrictive “test” the Witness argues for in BDF simply isn’t there, when we review their list of examples. Wallace felt comfortable that BDF agreed with him that sufficient evidence exists apart from direct translation to account for the Semitic influence in this idiom. The Witness apologist writes: “There is something else that Wallace does not mention here. He cites GKC 126f and gives 2Sam 14:4 (GGBB 57, footnote 71) to show that the Hebrew noun of address does not need to be a superior to an inferior but never tells us that even in Hebrew this is a very unusual form. Seow’s “A grammar for Biblical Hebrew” on page 55 says ‘the definite article may also rarely be used to indicate a vocative.'” Wallace says that Hebrew nouns of address “typically will have the article,” and he cites GKC 126f as his support. Instead of going to GKC, however, the Witness quotes Seow – a source that nowhere appears in Wallace’s text. When we examine Wallace’s source, we find the following: The article is used “very often with the vocative.” So, Wallace and GKC agree: the article is typically – or “very often” – used with the vocative. What of other Hebrew scholars? Let’s see: “The article is usually found when the reference is made to persons who are present” (Jouon, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 137.g). “The article is used to mark a definite addressee, pointing out a particular individual who is present to the speaker and who is addressed in the vocative” (Waltke & O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 13.5.2). “Vocative, regularly with the article” (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 34). “The so-called vocative often has the Art.” (Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, 21.f). “Vocative…It generally takes the article” (Green, A Handbook of Old Testament Hebrew, 292). “The addressee is usually designated by the ordinary form of the noun with the article” (Merwe, Naude, Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 34.4). These examples can be multiplied, but as these are generally regarded as the most authoritative by other scholars, there’s really no need to do so. These scholars agree with Wallace: The Hebrew ‘noun of address’ typically has the article. So, what of Seow? The quote provided by the Witness apologist is all that Seow says on the matter. It occurs in a short section in which he discusses the various uses of the article. His statement is ambiguous. It could be taken – as the Witness does – that when we’re considering the vocative, the articular use is rare. That would place Seow in opposition to the scholars quoted above. Or, his statement may be taken to mean that when we’re considering the use of the article in general the vocatival use is rare. On this view Seow is not dealing with the percentage of vocatives with the article as opposed to without, but rather the percentage of times the article is used in a vocative as opposed to all other uses. This view would remove the contradiction between what he says and the other scholars. I take the latter to be by far the most likely, as Seow is unlikely to contradict what appears to be a scholarly consensus. However, even if Seow is a minority voice on this point, Wallace can hardly be faulted for following the majority. The Witness apologist writes: “Furthermore, in the example in his footnote on page 57, footnote 71, his example of 2Sam 14:4 introduces another problem. Basics of Biblical Hebrew section 5.11 says that this construction is to be translated ‘O King,’ ‘O Man,’ ‘O Lord,’ etc. Looking at the example in the footnote and we do indeed find 2Sam 14:4 is translated ‘O King.’ A survey of the English versions will show that most if not all major versions render it this way.” And he continues: “Even if one were to concede that the Hebrew noun of address is used frequently enough to account for an occurrence in the NT, this should only happen if there is a translation from a Semitic language into Greek. However, even if this is the case, the example he cites does not fit John 20:28. 2Sam 14:4 is an example of a simple noun of address, not a noun modified in any way such as the possessive pronoun. There is no English version that renders John 20:28 as a Hebrew noun of address. No version puts the words O My Lord and O My God into the mouth of Thomas.” There’s not a Hebrew Grammar in the world that would suggest that all vocatives should be woodenly rendered with a preceding “O.” A survey of English versions will show that few, if any, render the Hebrew noun of address in 1 Sam 17:58 as: O, young man.” The Witness apologist concludes with these comments about Dan Wallace: “He provides valuable insights as to some of the issues on these verses but in my opinion he is frequently overcome by his theology. This is one example.” Our apologist friend has been quoting Wallace and other scholars in a less than accurate fashion. In my opinion, he (the apologist) is frequently overcome by his theology. This reply reveals several examples.
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary
Rev 4:11. Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to take the glory, and the honour, and the power, for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and they were created. In the response thus proceeding from the Church, we mark a higher tone than in the song of the four living creatures to which the response is given (Rev 4:9). The word our is introduced, marking the more intimate relationship in which these redeemed ones stand to God. The word power is substituted for thanks, not that they fail in gratitude, but that, in the very excess of gratitude, they completely forget themselves. The article is introduced before each substantive, not to carry us back to the glory, etc., of Rev 4:9, but to show that what is present to their minds is the glory, the honour, and the power, which are the absolute possession of the Almighty. Hence also it seems better to translate the verb by take than by receive (comp. chaps. Rev 5:7; Rev 5:9, Rev 11:17). Lastly, the verb to take is in the aorist not the present tense, an indication that those who use it are contemplating in thought the completion of Gods great plan, and His victory over all His enemies, as an accomplished fact. The particulars embraced under the word because refer primarily to creation; and so far, therefore, the majority of commentators are right in saying that the Almighty is here celebrated as creations God. Yet it is not enough to say this. The Church cannot view God first as Creator simply, and then as Redeemer. Her view of Him is one, and in the works of His hands, as well as in the provisions of His grace, she beholds her redeeming God. Redemption is the final issue of all the works of God. But, feeling thus, we may pause at the thought of creation, and may praise Him who called it into being for this end. Thus looked at also, there is no tautology in the last two clauses of the verse. Thou didst create all things, that is the simple fact. Because of Thy will, etc., is more than the fact; it is the ground upon which their creation rested, that they might be the expression of the will of Him who creates that He may have a creation in His Eternal Son.The combination of were and were created is undoubtedly very difficult to understand. The first verb does not mean came into being; nor can it mean that, having had no existence before, they existed after God created them; for, in that case, the order of the two clauses ought to have been reversed. Besides which, it is not the manner of St. John to apply the verb to be to temporary and passing objects. No explanation seems possible but that which leads us to think of an eternal type existing in the Divine mind before anything was called into existence, and in conformity with which it was created when the moment of creation came. The idea thus expressed is very similar to that of Heb 8:5, See that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the Mount.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
4:11 {10} Thou art worthy, O Lord, {11} to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
(10) The sum of their speech: that all glory must be given to God: the reason, because he is the eternal beginning of all things, from whose only will they have their being, and are governed: and finally in all respects are that which they are.
(11) That is, that you should challenge the same to yourself alone. But as for us, we are unworthy, that even by your goodness we should share in this glory. So far has been discussed the principal cause unapproachable, which is God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The elders’ song is similar to that of the four living beings, but it focuses more on the wonders of God’s creation as the evidence of his glory and power. [Note: William Milligan, The Book of Revelation, vol. 25 of The Expositor’s Bible, pp. 74-75.] It is also directed to God directly. [Note: Mounce, p. 140.] "Worthy art thou" and "our Lord and God" were phrases that pagans used to worship the emperor in John’s day. [Note: Hanns Lilje, The Last Book of the Bible, p. 108.] "Because of Thy will" directs praise to God for the ultimate cause of creation. [Note: Stott, p. 167.] Probably "they existed, and were created" simply credits God for the existence of all things and then stresses the fact that He brought them into existence. [Note: Thomas, Revelation 1-7, p. 368.]
The total impression that this highly symbolic vision presents seems clear even though the interpretation of some of the symbols may not be as obvious. The angelic creatures closest to God will bow before God and give Him the honor He so rightly deserves. [Note: See Mazie Nakhro, "The Manner of Worship according to the Book of Revelation," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):165-80, which identifies the reasons for worship and the manner of worship in Revelation.] We need to see all that follows in this revelation (chs. 5-22) in the light of the character of God manifested in this vision. God is perfectly holy, just, gracious, righteous, pure, omnipotent, eternal, and sovereign. This should help us accept the coming revelation of all that He will do, including judging huge segments of humanity in the future.