He that is holy, he that is true. It is doubtful which of these two clauses should precede: authorities are somewhat evenly balanced. Christ, the Speaker, here claims to be "the Holy One" ( ἁ ἅγιος), and therefore God (Revelation 6:10; comp.
Revelation 4:8; John 17:11). In the Old Testament "the Holy One" is a frequent name of God, especially in Isaiah 1:4; Isaiah 5:19, Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 10:7, Isaiah 10:20; Isaiah 12:6, etc.; Job 6:10; Jeremiah 1:1-19 :29; Jeremiah 51:5; Ezekiel 39:7; Hosea 11:9; Habakkuk 3:3, etc.
The word does not occur in Homer or Hesiod, nor in the Greek tragedians, but is very frequent in the LXX. and the New Testament. Its radical meaning is separation. The two epithets "holy" and "true" must not be merged in one as "the truly holy."
The "True One" has a very distinct meaning of its own. Note that the adjective used is ἀληθινός, not ἀληθής. ἀληθής, verax, is "true" as opposed to "lying;" ἀληθινός, verus, is "true" as opposed to "spurious," "unreal," "imperfect."
Christ is "the True One" as opposed to the false gods of the heathen; they are spurious gods. Both adjectives, and especially ἀληθινός, are characteristic of St. John. The latter serves to bind together Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse.
It occurs nine times in the Gospel, four times in the First Epistle, and ten times in the Apocalypse; twenty-three times in all; in the rest of the New Testament only five times. It is the word used of "the true Light" (John 1:9; 1 John 2:8 ); "the true Bread" (John 6:32), and "the true Vine" (John 15:1).
Applied to God, we find it in John 7:29; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20. He that hath the key of David. Observe that none of these titles come from the opening vision in Revelation 1:1-20., although by no means all the material there found (Revelation 1:13-16) has been already used.
The source of the present appellation is obviously Isaiah 22:20-22; but it is worth noting that Isaiah 22:20 has much that is parallel to the unused material in Revelation 1:18; so that the opening vision would seem to direct us, as this passage certainly does, to Eliakim as a type of Christ.
As Trench observes, Isaiah foretells the promotion of Eliakim "with an emphasis and fulness" which would surprise us if we did not see in it not merely the description of "a revolution in the royal palace" of Judah, but "the type of something immeasurably greater."
Shebna, whose name shows him to have been a foreigner, had misused his dignity and power as steward or controller of the royal house—an office analogous to that held by Joseph under Pharaoh and by our prime minister.
For this he was degraded to the inferior office of royal scribe or secretary (Isaiah 36:3; Isaiah 37:2), while Eliakim was made "mayor of the palace" in his room. The παστοφόριον of the LXX. and praepositus templi of the Vulgate would lead us to suppose that Eliakim's office was sacerdotal; but this is certainly a mistake.
Luther's Hofmeister is much nearer the mark. A key would not be an appropriate symbol of a priestly office. In possessing "the key of the house of David," Eliakim had control over the house of David.
Therefore in this passage Christ claims the control of that of which the house of David was a type. He is Regent in the kingdom of God. He that openeth, and none shall shut, and shutteth, and none openeth.
The various readings here are numerous, but not of much moment: "shall shut" is much better attested than "shutteth" in the first half "The keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19) are not to be confounded with "the key of knowledge" (Luke 11:52).
They belong to Christ, but have been committed to his Church, but not unreservedly. "He still retains the highest administration in his own hands" (Trench): and if the Church errs in binding or loosing, he cancels the judgment.
The Church may open where Christ will shut, and shut where Christ will open. He alone openeth so that none shall strut, and shutteth so that none can open.