Wahyu 3:2

3:2 Wake up then, and strengthen what remains that was about ¹  to die, because I have not found your deeds complete ²  in the sight ³  of my God.

Wahyu 4:3

4:3 And the one seated on it was like jasper ⁴  and carnelian ⁵  in appearance, and a rainbow looking like it was made of emerald ⁶  encircled the throne.

Wahyu 11:12

11:12 Then ⁷  they ⁸  heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them: “Come up here!” So the two prophets ⁹  went up to heaven in a cloud while ¹⁰  their enemies stared at them.

Wahyu 13:10

13:10 If anyone is meant for captivity,

into captivity he will go.

If anyone is to be killed by the sword, ¹¹ 

then by the sword he must be killed.

This ¹²  requires steadfast endurance ¹³  and faith from the saints.

Wahyu 13:18

13:18 This calls for wisdom: ¹⁴  Let the one who has insight calculate the beast’s number, for it is man’s number, ¹⁵  and his number is 666. ¹⁶ 

[3:2]  ¹ tn The verb ἔμελλον (emellon) is in the imperfect tense.

[3:2]  ² tn The perfect passive participle has been translated as an intensive (resultative) perfect here.

[3:2]  ³ tn Or “in the judgment.” BDAG 342 s.v. ἐνώπιον 3 states, “in the opinion/judgment of…As a rule…of θεός or κύριος; so after…πεπληρωμένος Rv 3:2.”

[4:3]  ⁴ tn Grk “jasper stone.”

[4:3]  sn Jasper was a semiprecious gemstone, probably green in color (L&N 2.30).

[4:3]  ⁵ sn Carnelian was a semiprecious gemstone, usually red in color (L&N 2.36).

[4:3]  ⁶ tn Or “a rainbow emerald-like in appearance.”

[11:12]  ⁷ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the vision.

[11:12]  ⁸ tn Though the nearest antecedent to the subject of ἤκουσαν (hkousan) is the people (“those who were watching them”), it could also be (based on what immediately follows) that the two prophets are the ones who heard the voice.

[11:12]  ⁹ tn Grk “they”; the referent (the two prophets) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:12]  ¹⁰ tn The conjunction καί (kai) seems to be introducing a temporal clause contemporaneous in time with the preceding clause.

[13:10]  ¹¹ tc Many mss (C 051* 2351 Ï^A pc) read “if anyone will kill with the sword, it is necessary for him to be killed with the sword” (εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτενεῖ, δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι). Other mss (א 1006 1611* 1854 al) are similar except that they read a present tense “kills” (ἀποκτείνει, apokteinei) in this sentence. Both of these variants may be regarded as essentially saying the same thing. On the other hand, codex A reads “if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he is to be killed by the sword” (εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι). Thus the first two variants convey the idea of retribution, while the last variant, supported by codex A, does not. (There are actually a dozen variants here, evidence that scribes found the original text quite difficult. Only the most important variants are discussed in this note.) The first two variants seem to be in line with Jesus’ comments in Matt 26:52: “everyone who takes up the sword will die by the sword.” The last variant, however, seems to be taking up an idea found in Jer 15:2: “Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity.” Though G. B. Caird, Revelation (HNTC), 169-70, gives four arguments in favor of the first reading (i.e., “whoever kills with the sword must with the sword be killed”), the arguments he puts forward can be read equally as well to support the latter alternative. In the end, the reading in codex A seems to be original. The fact that this sentence seems to be in parallel with 10a (which simply focuses on God’s will and suffering passively and is therefore akin to the reading in codex A), and that it most likely gave rise to the others as the most difficult reading, argues for its authenticity.

[13:10]  ¹² tn On ὧδε (Jwde) here, BDAG 1101 s.v. 2 states: “a ref. to a present event, object, or circumstance, in this case, at this point, on this occasion, under these circumstances…in this case moreover 1 Cor 4:2. ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν…Rv 13:18; cf. 17:9. ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονή…13:10; 14:12.”

[13:10]  ¹³ tn Or “perseverance.”

[13:18]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “Here is wisdom.”

[13:18]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “it is man’s number.” ExSyn 254 states “if ἀνθρώπου is generic, then the sense is, ‘It is [the] number of humankind.’ It is significant that this construction fits Apollonius’ Canon (i.e., both the head noun and the genitive are anarthrous), suggesting that if one of these nouns is definite, then the other is, too. Grammatically, those who contend that the sense is ‘it is [the] number of a man’ have the burden of proof on them (for they treat the head noun, ἀριθμός, as definite and the genitive, ἀνθρώπου, as indefinite – the rarest of all possibilities). In light of Johannine usage, we might also add Rev 16:18, where the Seer clearly uses the anarthrous ἄνθρωπος in a generic sense, meaning ‘humankind.’ The implications of this grammatical possibility, exegetically speaking, are simply that the number ‘666’ is the number that represents humankind. Of course, an individual is in view, but his number may be the number representing all of humankind. Thus the Seer might be suggesting here that the antichrist, who is the best representative of humanity without Christ (and the best counterfeit of a perfect man that his master, that old serpent, could muster), is still less than perfection (which would have been represented by the number seven).” See G. K. Beale, Revelation, [NIGTC], 723-24, who argues for the “generic” understanding of the noun; for an indefinite translation, see the ASV and ESV which both translate the clause as “it is the number of a man.”

[13:18]  sn The translation man’s number suggests that the beast’s number is symbolic of humanity in general, while the translation a man’s number suggests that it represents an individual.

[13:18]  ¹⁶ tc A few mss (̹¹⁵ C, along with a few mss known to Irenaeus {and two minuscule mss, 5 and 11, no longer extant}), read 616 here, and several other witnesses have other variations. Irenaeus’ mention of mss that have 616 is balanced by his rejection of such witnesses in this case. As intriguing as the reading 616 is (since the conversion of Nero Caesar’s name in Latin by way of gematria would come out to 616), it must remain suspect because such a reading seems motivated in that it conforms more neatly to Nero’s gematria.