[12] Quod est enim criminis genus, aut rei esse alicujus ignarum, aut ipsum, quod nescias, sine aliquâ profiteri dissimulatione nescire? aut uter magis videtur irrisione esse dignissimus vobis, qui sibi scientiam nullam tenebrosæ rei alicujus assumit, an ille, qui retur se ex se apertissimè scire id, quod humanam transiliat notionem, et quod sit cæcis obscuritatibus involutum?
Arnobius, adv. Gen. l. ii.
[13] 1 Cor. ii. 11.
[14] St. Matthew, vi. 22.
[15] Μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—the testimony of, or concerning Jesus, not—the testimony given by Jesus.
The former appears to be the sense, for the following reasons.
1. The point asserted, is, “That the Angel, who had delivered this illustrious prophecy, was the fellow-servant of John, and not of John only, but of those who have the testimony of Jesus.” The proof is—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus—i. e. the end of prophecy is to bear testimony, or, to do honour, to Jesus; therefore, I, says the Angel, who am endowed with this prophetic spirit, am but employed, as thou art; who, in thy character of Apostle or Evangelist, hast received the same general commission, namely, to bear testimony, or to do honour, to Jesus. See Acts x. 42. We are, therefore, fellow-servants, or joint labourers in the same cause. All this is clear and well-reasoned. But, now, take the words—the testimony of Jesus—in the sense of—the testimony given by Jesus—and how does the Angel’s having the spirit of prophecy, prove him to be a fellow-servant of John? for the reason assigned will then stand thus—for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony which Jesus gives of himself. The inference is, that the Angel was a true prophet. Again: how is the Angel proved, in this way, to be the fellow-servant of those who have the testimony of Jesus? Why, thus; the Angel had the spirit of prophecy, and prophecy was the gift of Christ; therefore he was the fellow-servant of those, who had the same gift, i. e. who were prophets. Without doubt. But why so strange a way of proving so plain a point? It had been enough to say—I am a prophet, as others are. Still, what was this to St. John? who, in this place, is not sustaining the character of a prophet; for the worship he was inclined to pay the Angel was on account of the Angel’s being, what himself was not, a prophet.
Turn it which way you will, the reasoning is frivolous, or inconsequent. I conclude therefore, that not this, but the other interpretation gives the true sense of—the testimony of Jesus.
2. To speak of prophecy under the idea of a testimony to, or concerning Jesus, is conforming to the true scriptural idea of that gift. Thus we are told that—to him [i. e. to Jesus] give all the prophets witness—τούτῳ πάντες προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν, Acts x. 43. Prophecy, therefore, being the thing here spoken of, is rightly called the testimony, or witness to, or concerning Jesus.
3. Lastly, the construction is fully justified, 1. by observing that the genitive case [as here Ἰησοῦ] is frequently used in scripture, not actively, but passively. See a variety of instances in Mede, p. 626, where he explains διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων: And 2. by referring the reader to the following passage of St. Paul, where the very expression of the text is so used—μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν—clearly, be not ashamed of bearing testimony to our Lord, 2 Tim. i. 8.—and to Rev. i. 9. where the Apostle tells us, he was in the isle of Patmos—διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ—on account of his having been faithful in preaching the word of God, and in bearing testimony to Jesus Christ—and still more plainly, if possible, and indubitably, by referring him to Rev. xii. 17. where, speaking of the Dragon, he says, he went in wrath to make war on those, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ—τῶν τηρούντων τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριϛοῦ: for these objects of the Dragon’s fury are properly, THE WITNESSES, those faithful servants of truth, who suffered for the courageous and persevering testimony, they gave, in evil times, to Jesus Christ, and to his pure religion.
On the whole, there cannot be the least doubt of the interpretation here given of this famous text. The expression fairly admits this interpretation; and (what the true critic will regard most) the scope of the place, or pertinence of the reasoning, addressed to St. John, admits no other.