¹ Mark 4.9, 23; Matt 11.15, 13.9, 43; Luke 8.8, 14.35.Google Scholar

² The Gospel of Thomas Logion 8.21, 24, 63, 65, 96; the Gospel of Mary 7.10, 8.16. Pistis Sophia 1.17, 19, 33, 42, 43; II.68, 86, 87; III. 124, 125; the Sophia of Jesus Christ 98, 105, 107.Google Scholar

³ Dibelius, M., ‘Wer Ohren hat zu hören, der höre’, ThStKr 83 (1910) 471.Google ScholarHahn, F., Die Sendschreiben der Johannesapokalypse. Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung prophetische Redeformen. In: Tradition und Glaube. Festgabe für Kuhn, K. G. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 378.Google Scholar

⁴ Hahn, , Sendschreiben, 378.Google Scholar

⁵ Dibelius, Ohren, 468–71.Google ScholarRäisänen, H., Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 26: Helsinki, 1973) 85–6.Google ScholarFusco, V., Parola e Regno. La sezione delle Parabole (Me 4. 1–34) nella prospettiva marciana (Aloisiana 13: Brescia, 1980) 156.Google Scholar

⁶ Dibelius, Ohren, 461–71 and Kraft, H., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16a: Tübingen, 1974) 58.Google Scholar

⁷ Fusco, , Parola, 156–7 assumes that the function of the HF Mark 4.9 or the formulae in the Gospel of Thomas Logion 24, 96 are noetic and that of Matt 13.43 or that of the Gospel of Thomas Logion 63 are parenetic.Google Scholar

⁸ Do the letters in the 2nd and 3rd chapters, the first part of the book, belong originally together to the second, apocalyptic, part of the book? This article is based on the consensus according to which the Book of Revelation is totally one author's theological work. In this way e.g. Kümmel and Vielhauer, differently e.g. Charles and Kraft. See an illustrative tradition historical summary by Fiorenza, E. Schüssler. In: E. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation, Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 12–32.Google Scholar

⁹ Aune, David has stated in his paper (10.8.1988 SNTS-meeting) ‘The Form and the Function of Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Rev 2–3)’ that the form of the letters resembles an ancient royal and imperial edict. John uses the form of an edict in his strategy, when he speaks about God and Jesus against the Roman Emperor.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Detailed analyses of the context of the HF have been given in the commentaries on the Book of Revelation e.g. Kraft, Müller, Roloff, Ritt and Prigent.Google Scholar

¹¹ Aune, D., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1983) 275.Google ScholarMüller, U. B., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (ÖTK 19: Würzburg, 1984) 93.Google ScholarDifferently Hahn, Sendschreiben, 380. According to Hahn the christological predicates and the Spirit formally belong together. But they cannot be identified, because in the Book of Revelation there is a difference between the Lord and the Spirit (e.g. 14.17, 22.17).Google Scholar

¹² Aune, , Prophecy, 277. Hahn, Sendschreiben, 370–7 has suggested an analysis of six sections in terms of six elements: 1. a description of the situation of the community, 2. a section introduced by ‘I have (something) against you’, 3. a demand for repentance, 4. a ‘behold’ clause, 5. a mention of the basic theme ‘I am coming quickly’, 6. a statement of what the church has and what it should hold fast to.Google Scholar

¹³ Hahn, , Sendschreiben, 390.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hahn, , Sendschreiben, 387.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hahn, , Sendschreiben, 390. The images which include the exhortation to be victorious, are repeated at the end of the Book of Revelation: the promise of eating from the tree of life (22.2, 14), the promise that he who is victorious cannot be harmed by the second death (22.14; 21.8), the promise of receiving a new name (19.12), the promise of ruling with an iron rod (19.15), the promise of being dressed all in white (19.8, 20), the promise that the name of the one who is victorious will not be removed from the book of life (22.12; 21. 27), and the promise of a new Jerusalem (21.2, 10).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Aune, , Prophecy, 275–6. Müller, Offenbarung, 93.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 154 n. 31. The prophetic spirit is also mentioned in verses Rev 22.17; Acts 21.11, 23.2; 1 Tim 4.1; Heb 3.7, 10.15.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 104–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 103–5.Google ScholarPopkes, W., ‘Die Funktion der Sendschreiben in der Johannes-Apokalypse. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Spätgeschichte der neutestamentlichen Gleichnisse’, ZNW 74 (1983) 93, 107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarDifferently Schmithals, W., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1985) 117–18.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hahn, , Sendschreiben, 390 presupposes that the formula has an esoteric function. Räisänen, Parabeltheorie, 85 considers it a parenetic one.Google Scholar

²¹ Popkes, , Funktion, 93, 107.Google Scholar

²² Roloff, J., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (ZBK 18: Zürich, 1984) 50 assumes that the HF in the first three cases refers to the exhortation, on the last four occasions, however, it refers to the main part of the Apocalypse (beginning at verse 4.1). According to Roloff the use of the HF in the Book of Revelation is wider than in the gospels. The accent moves away from an understanding of a secret. The Risen Lord does not speak only for the elect, but can be heard by anyone.Google ScholarRitt, H., Offenbarung des Johannes (Die Neue Echter Bibel Kommentar zum Neuen Testament: Würzburg, 1986) 36 says that all the other formulae except 3.22 refer to the exhortation to be victorious. But the last one refers forwards to the vision in verse 4.1.Google Scholar

²³ Räisänen, Parabeltheorie, 85–6.Google Scholar

²⁴ Aune, , Prophecy, 277.Google Scholar

²⁵ Hahn, , Sendschreiben, 387–90.Google Scholar

²⁶ The supporters of the esoteric interpretation e.g. Dibelius, Hahn, Kraft, Popkes and Prigent.Google Scholar

²⁷ Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St. John (Vol. 1; ICC, Edinburgh, 1920) 53. Roloff, Offenbarung, 50. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 52, 165.Google ScholarPrigent, P., L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean (CNT 14, Geneve, 1988 ²) 43.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannes-apokalypse (WMANT 21, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1966) 151–5.Google Scholar

²⁹ Müller, Offenbarung, 101 says that the ‘angel’ is a pseudonym for the leader of a community. Kraft, Offenbarung, 50–2 supposes that the ‘angel’ of a community means a person who brings the letters from Patmos to the congregation. But there is no textual support for this interpretation.Google Scholar

³⁰ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 145.Google Scholar

³¹ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation,145–6.Google Scholar

³² The question about the Nicolaitans is a debated and a very problematic one among scholars. See e.g. the commentaries on Rev and the analysis of Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 114–32.Google Scholar

³³ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 107, 115–17 assumes that John is rooted in the early Christian prophetic-apocalyptic school, but he also has access to Johannine as well as Pauline traditions.Google Scholar

³⁴ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 107, 117–18, 146.Google Scholar Roloff, Offenbarung, 54–5. A different interpretation is that of e.g. Koester, H., Introduction to the New Testament (2 Vol.: Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 253, who supposes that the Jews and the Nicolaitans form the same group.Google Scholar

³⁵ Aune, , Prophecy, 282.Google Scholar

³⁶ Roloff, Offenbarung, 138.Google Scholar

³⁷ Roloff, Offenbarung, 138.Google Scholar

³⁸ Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament(London:SCM, 1975) 467, 469.Google Scholar

³⁹ Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Räisänen, Parabeltheorie, 86.Google Scholar